English

Google translator


10/01/2017

NEWS . The health services of Catalonia reported late on Sunday 10/01/2017 , that 761 people had been treated in hospitals with two seriously injured, after police tried to prevent the self-determination referendum.

Commentary

The second Spanish transition

The conflictive October 1, 2017 of the referendum on self-determination called by the Catalan government and parliament on the basis of the question: Do you want Catalonia to be an independent state in the form of a republic ? 20:20 hours after the election commission announces the closure of polling stations. The day was resolved with 761 voters injured by the repression of the Spanish state security forces, of which two were serious.
In his appearance before the media the Catalan Government, through its Presidency Adviser and Government Spokesperson Jordi Turull i Negre, offered the referendum data: " the 'yes' to independence has won in Sunday's referendum with 90% of the 2,262,424 votes cast, the 'no' has collected 176,565 votes, a 7.8%, 400 schools of 770,000 voters had to be sealed because of violence . The Vice-President of the Government of Catalonia, Oriol Junqueras, would express that Catalonia " has won the right to be a new republic if the Parlament so decides ." 
President of the Spanish government, Mariano Rajoy, said that the October 1 vote had been a farce, and that the Spanish state acted under the law by requisition of ballot boxes and ballot papers and ordered the state police to prevent the vote.Police repression was widely criticized by EU politicians, although the leaders of the European Commission were in an incomprehensible silence.
The Spanish government, critical of the Catalan autonomous police (Mossos d'Esquadra) for not collaborating with the police forces of the State, and continued entrenched in the defense of the current legality , an argument loaded with hypocrisy, as the political forces majority (PP) and the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) have not expressed any interest in modifying it to adapt it to the Catalan claim of the right to decide , when it is perfectly modifiable with the agreement of these two major parties in the Spanish parliament, as they did in 2011, at the request of the EU authorities, to change Article 135 of the Spanish Constitution within a week, establishing in the text the concept of budgetary stability and that the payment of the public debt was the first to be paid against any other State expenditure in the general budgets.
Apparently for these parties, the current constitutional legality is sacred when it comes to meeting the claims of the majority of the Catalan people, but it is quickly changeable when the complaints made by the European Commission.
After the conflictive 1 of October, the Spanish government tries to give an image of normality to the international political opinion and to the population of the Spanish State, in the belief that after a time the political situation in Catalonia will return to be that of before the referendum of 1 October, without seeing or not wanting to see that the determination of the main Catalan political forces and the massive support of the citizenship to their right to decide has opened an irreversible fracture in the constitution of 1978 arisen as a result of which was denominated the transition from the Francoist totalitarian regime to a regime of political parties, and from a centralist state to an autonomous political organization.

In order to provide a historical perspective of the current Catalan litigation, this article presents a recapitulation of the most important territorial conflicts in Spain.

Most important historical conflicts between the Spanish central power and the historical communities of Navarre, Vascongadas and Catalonia

The disagreements between the Spanish central power and the aspirations of self-government of the historical communities of Navarre, Vascongadas and Catalonia have been a constant since the kings of Castile and Aragon in the late fifteenth century (known as The Catholic Kings) decided to unite in one kingdom; under his reign the Muslim presence in the Iberian peninsula was ended after the conquest of the Kingdom of Granada (1492), a year that by patronage of these kings would discover the first route from Europe to the continent that would later be called America, allowed the new Castilian-Aragonese kingdom to extend its area of ​​influence, which was formally established by the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) that divided the lands known overseas between the kingdom of Spain and Portugal, beginning the formation of the Spanish empire that would last until the independence of American nations throughout the nineteenth century.
At the beginning of the 17th century, with the arrival of the Germanic dynasty of the Austrias to the Spanish crown, its first King, Charles I of Spain and V of the Holy Roman Empire, would adopt the title of emperor; the dominions under its regency would comprise great part of Europe and the Americas except Brazil that continued to belong to the Kingdom of Portugal according to those stipulated in the Treaty of Tordesillas.
The house of the Austrias ruled the Spanish Empire for almost two centuries until the beginning of the eighteenth century. In that period, in the sphere of the Iberian peninsula, after several wars the Kingdom of Navarre would be united to Castile(1512-1521); Portugal would be part of Spain during the period from 1580 to 1640, and between 1640 and 1652 Catalonia would remain disconnected from the power of the Austrians.
In the year 1700, after the death of Charles II without leaving descendants, the dynasty of the Bourbons regent in France under Louis XIV aspired to govern also the destinies of the Spanish empire with the imposition of its candidate Felipe V, which would unleash a war for the succession of the throne between the house of the Austrias and the Bourbons (1701 -1713).
The confrontation between both dynasties would become a European war and in the interior of Spain in an authentic civil war between the Crown of Aragon, partisan of Austrias, who had offered guarantees to maintain the "foral" system in Aragon, and the Crown of Castile, who had accepted Philip V, whose mentality was to impose a centralist state comparable to the French model. After the war, with the defeat of the Austrias, the laws and institutions of the Crown of Aragon were replaced by the "laws of Castile," in the New Plant Decree of 1707 that ended the kingdoms of Aragon and Valencia ; only the Basque Provinces and Navarre maintained their laws and institutions foral by remaining faithful to the Bourbon cause.
In the nineteenth century, the first wave of the liberal revolutions of 1830 would reach Spain. After the death of the retrograde Fernando VII, its daughter Isabel would be named heiress to the throne of Spain supported by the liberal bourgeois political class partisan of the confiscation of the land in the power of the Church and nobles so that the same could be bought and sold under arrangement to market laws. The liberal program would in turn entail a centralization of the state that implied the repeal of the historical rights of Navarre and the Basques as a historical right for its aid to the establishment of the Bourbon dynasty in Spain in the war of succession of the beginning of the century XVIII.
This claim of liberal central power would clash with the interests of the political class and landowner in Navarre and Vascongadas in favor of maintaining its status, with the support of Carlos María Isidro de Borbón, brother of the late Ferdinand VII. his turn represented the continuation of the absolutist regime restored by his brother Fernando VII after the Napoleonic defeat in 1815.
The confrontation between the supporters of Isabel (Elizabethans) and Carlos (Carlistas) would lead to an armed confrontation. The first civil war between the carlistas and the defenders of Isabel II and of the regent Maria Cristina de Borbón, would take place between 1833 and 1840, in what is known like the first Carlist war, which happened the second (1846- 1849) and the third Carlist War (1872-1876).
After the First Carlista War the liberal government could not suppress the fueros of the Vascongadas and Navarra, since the agreement of Vergara (1839) forced the liberal state to respect them. After the Third Carlist War, in 1878 the Basque-Navarre provinces defined their autonomy through the so-called Economic Concert , which is based on a party agreement for which taxes are collected by the administrations (governments or deputations) of each of the historical territories: Navarre; Guipuzkoa; Bizkaia, and Araba, with the latter agreeing with the State which party should receive as a contribution from the services that the State provides to the foral territories. However, in this protracted nineteenth-century conflict, Catalonia would continue to have no right to manage its regional economy.
At the end of the nineteenth century, with the emergence of the industrial bourgeois classes in Vascongadas and Catalonia, which were the first regions in Spain that emerged in the industrialization process, the aspirations of territorial self-government were gaining ground. In the Basque Country, Carlism was relegated by the nationalist ideology led by the Basque Nationalist Party (PNV), based on a conception of nineteenth-century romantic nationalism then prevalent in Europe. However, Navarre would remain anchored in a rural economy of self-consumption that would keep the Carlist tradition immobilized until the mid-twentieth century when Navarra would begin its industrialization.
In Catalonia at the rate of industrialization the flourishing bourgeoisie would embrace the autonomic demands and, in consonance also with the nineteenth-century European cultural current of searching in history the roots of the national identity, made of the taking of Barcelona the September 11, 17 14 by the Bourbon troops, the day of their national holiday (Diada), because in the commemoration of that defeat lies the vindication of a nation that was oppressed and aspired to be free from the State that deprived them of their rights as a nation .
With the advent of the Second Spanish Republic (1931), the nationalist claims both Basque and Catalan would receive a new impulse. The republic would recognize the uniqueness of the Basque and Catalan territories by giving them an autonomous political status. Nevertheless, the military uprising in 1936 against the republic led by General Franco with the support of the two fascist powers in Europe: Germany and Italy, would give rise to a civil war that would culminate with the fascist triumph in 1939, opening a period of military dictatorship presided over by General Franco.
After the victory of the Franco forces, the Basque Country and Catalonia would lose all trace of autonomy as punishment for their position in favor of the republic. In the case of Navarra, the question would be different. This territory in 1936 remained anchored in a way of life almost totally rural and ideologically the population remained mostly attached to the Carlist tradition. The promise by the Francoist command that Navarre would be respected his charters and Economic Agreement , and the fear of a large part of the population that the republic could attack their cultural and religious traditions, would lead him to lean for the pro-Franco side . At the end of the civil war Navarre would maintain its historical rights and the Economic Agreement , while Basque for the first time in centuries would lose them.
The Franco dictatorship would survive the historical changes for forty years.During the period of World War II (1939-1945), Francoism, despite its lineage with the fascist powers of the "axis" did not directly participate in the contest, but supported in various ways to Nazi Germany. In 1945 with the triumph of the allied forces against the fascism the regime Franco seemed to have the days counted.Following the founding of the UN, this body imposed an embargo of goods and services to Spain, while maintaining the threat of an invasion of Allied forces to overthrow the last and only fascist government existing after the Allied victory in World War II World. Fears by the Francoist authorities of an invasion would lead them to lift defenses along the border with France and an increase in internal repression with mass executions of Republican prisoners. The dark decade of the forties was the most sinister and still very little known period lived in contemporary Spain.
In the 1950s, world politics changed. The beginning of the Cold War between the US and the USSR, would lead the US to establish a close association with the Franco dictatorship. The Francoist authorities allowed the installation of US military bases in Spanish territory, while the international pressures of Western liberal democracies against the Franco regime were softened. Economic advances in the 1960s allowed Spain to move from an autarchic and rural economy to a progressive industrialization. In that context the opposition to Francoism both internally and externally was very weak.

The transition from Franco to the constitution of 1978

However, the economic crisis of 1973 would unleash a radical change in the political situation. The stagflationary nature of the crisis would bring a brake to economic growth and galloping inflation that would reach even above 20% annually. The labor movement seemed to awaken from its lethargy. Striking demands for economic issues soon translated into political strikes in favor of civil liberties of association, strike and demonstration, with a major impact in Madrid, Catalonia, Basque Country and paradoxically Navarra whose social base had undergone a profound change due to industrialization .
The nationalist forces of Catalonia and the Basque Country would join the anti-Franco struggle under the banner of regaining their historical territorial rights. In 1975 the Frankish dictator died. From that year until 1977 the neofranquistas politicians opted for a reform of the dictatorship, but the political and popular movement would abort such reform. In 1977 the main political forces of the Francoist opposition would reach a consensus to draft a new constitution that would be approved in 1978.
The consensus was based on: 1. the enactment of an amnesty law that freed the anti-Franco political prisoners but in turn established an end point so that the crimes of the dictatorship were not investigated nor tried; 2. the restoration of the dynasty of the Bourbons in the head of the State being limited its functions by the constitution; 3. The promulgation of a new territorial model based on the autonomy of the regions, in which the Basque Country regained its foral rights of Economic Agreement with the State, and 4. legalization of political parties. The constitution of 1978 despite some discrepancies between the historical communities and the Spanish state has been the framework of coexistence between the different Spanish communities for almost four decades.

The Consensus Crisis of the 1978 Constitution

The economic crisis of 2008 would open fissures in the relationship of the Spanish State with the two nationalities with the greatest historical roots: Catalonia and the Basque Country, but particularly with Catalonia because, unlike the Basque Country and Navarre that have fiscal powers, Catalonia it still depends on the general budgets of the State. The need to have fiscal competence tools would lead a part of the Catalan business class to claim them, proposing through the Catalan government a change in the Catalan statute that would return to Catalonia its historical economic rights captured by the Bourbon dynasty in the War of Succession , but the Spanish state far from opening a negotiation has been raising a frontal fight against the pretensions of the Catalan political parties.
The immobility of the right-wing popular party in the central government and the indifference of the Bourbon monarchy to nationalist demands would in recent years lead to the government and the majority of the Catalan parliament formed by nationalist parties on a drift towards sovereignism.
The massive mobilization on the day of the Dyad of the year 2012 would mark a before and after in the future of Catalonia. The economic crisis and the political and social frustration before an immovable government refused to negotiate Catalan status, would unveil once again the profound Catalan thought of people subjected for centuries that, unlike the people of Spanish Castilian origin who has forged their idiosyncrasy based on the imperial past of Spain and the centralist vision of its rulers, that of the Catalan and Basque people maintains a perception of peoples under a central power that historically has mistreated them. In a different way, the Spanish Castilian people, with the exception of the period of the Napoleonic occupation, have never had the perception that territorial sovereignty was in question.
This different mentality forged throughout history has manifested itself more sharply in the form of confrontation in historical moments in which economic crises have sharpened the contradictions of interests with the central power. The crisis of 1929 would create the conditions for the Second Republic to emerge and Catalonia was the last region to surrender to the fascist forces of General Franco.In 1973, the economic crisis would accentuate the crisis of the Franco regime and would result in the current constitution of 1978, in the same the Basque Country would maintain a greater radicality than Catalonia in the claim of its historical rights in fiscal matter through the figure of the Economic Agreement . Catalonia acceded to autonomy but its historical economic rights were relegated.
However, now it is Catalonia that, in the face of the refusal of the central power and the Bourbon monarchy to return its historical rights, is determined to forge a destiny as a sovereign nation within the framework of relations of the European Union.

Towards the second constitutional transition

In this conflict between Catalonia and the Spanish Central Government what is already evident that the depth of it has delegitimized the constitution of 1978. The attempts of the PP government to surrender to the Catalan nationalist forces through systematic political and media harassment to which return to the constitutional framework, are hardly going to make this happen, for many appeals to the application of the current legislation .
The current legality of de facto 10/01/2017 outside the law to the majority of a people of more than seven million people for the fact of pretending to manifest itself democratically and, in this situation persisting in the solution of the Catalan political controversy raising the current legality as a weapon of war, can only achieve that the majority of the Catalan people persists with greater determination in their sovereign aspirations and, on the contrary, in the Spanish Castilian people the most anachronistic feelings of their imperialist and centralist past, as happened at the end of the nineteenth century when Cuba proclaimed independent, and now suffers for the aspirations of self-determination of the Catalan people.
The deactivation of this growing polarization would only be possible through a new constitutional pact different from that achieved in 1978 between the Central State and historical communities .
The new constitutional pact can no longer be based on the liberal tradition based on a center that grants rights or privileges to certain communities but would have to be based on a pact of associates in the same nation according to the laws agreed between the historical communities and the State Central. The UK model could be an inspiring example. In 2014 Scotland held a referendum on self-determination without its exercise necessarily signifying independence, as was the case with the majority triumph of those who wanted to remain within the framework of the United Kingdom.
He 10/01/2017 , Spain has entered a second transition in which negotiation should prevail in order to reach a consensus between the most important political forces of the State and of the historical nationalities that of passage to a new constitution, in which the unity of Spain is based on the recognition of the right to decide on historical nationalities .
In the event that Catalan political forces take the path of a continued political struggle based on political mobilization against the repression of the PP government, the new political transition towards a new constitutional framework will become irreversible.
At the moment, the EU institutions are clearly on the side of the Spanish government, but in all likelihood, if the political mobilization of the majority of the Catalan people persists over a long period of time, opinions in favor of a negotiated solution to the conflict Catalan-Spanish could thrive, as the EU will not allow a prolonged political conflict within its borders.
In the Spanish context, political forces are embedded in a short-term vision of the Catalan litigation, which is confined to daily events, but has not yet incorporated as the main axis of its political action to establish a new constitutional pact that allows a new institutional historical fit of the Basque Country and Catalonia, but this could also change if the popular political mobilization in Catalonia persists. In the event that the constitutional refoundation is addressed, the procedural question of how this process is carried out is a fundamental question. The procedure of the transition from the Franco regime initiated with the elections of June 1977 to the constituent assembly that would give rise to the constitution of 1978, is a reference of the way forward.

And, as long as no political initiatives in that direction arise, the centrifugal tendency of peripheral political forces will grow.


September 2017


05/09/2017

NEWS . On 05/09/2017, in the city of Xiamen, China, concluded the IX Summit of the BRICS countries

Commentary

The direction of the BRICS

In every course the final destination marks the main course, and the pace of the march determines the degree of progress towards the destination .

The BRICS, since its constitution as a meeting of the main emerging economies: Brazil in Latin America; Russia, India and China in the Eurasian space, and South Africa in Africa, have been transformed from being a meeting place for these nations to the formation of a bloc with important economic and political connections.
The BRIC acronym was first used in 2003 by the Godman Sachs Group to define the four emerging economic powers: Brazil, Russia, India, China. In 2009, the top political representatives of the BRIC nations met for the first time in Yekaterinburg, Russia, and since then they have met at an annual meeting: in 2010 in Brasilia, Brazil; in 2011 in Sanya, China, in which South Africa is incorporated, to be denominated BRICS; 2012 in New Delhi, India; 2013 in Durban, South Africa; 2014 in Fortaleza, Brazil; 2015 in Ufa, Russia; 2016 in Goa, India, and the latest just concluded in Xiamen China.
At all summits, cooperation mechanisms would be established that would have its most notable result in 2014 at the Fortaleza summit in Brazil, in which it was agreed to establish a Development Bank with an initial disbursement of 50,000 million dollars, of which each country contributes a fifth, and a reserve fund with 100,000 million, of which China contributes 41,000 million; Russia, Brazil and India 18 billion each and South Africa the remaining 5 billion, with the entity being used to finance infrastructure projects of the founding countries, but also to provide capital to other developing countries.
BRICS accounts for 44 per cent of the world's population, 23 per cent of the world's GDP and has contributed to more than half of world growth over the last decade, mainly due to the good performance of India and China, becoming the main driver of the world economy. According to a report by Alibaba, one of China's largest e-commerce companies, BRICS added 1,146 million Internet users and 720 million online buyers in 2016. Retail sales exceeded $ 876 billion, representing 47 percent of the global total, a figure that is expected to climb to 59 percent by 2022, given the great potential of these five countries in e-commerce-related cooperation.
However, the march of the global and particular economy of each nation continues to depend on two global projects that govern the world, the strongest based on the hegemony and exceptionality of the nations that compose the G7 led by the US to govern economic affairs and international finance, and currently another project initiated with the BRICS group, which progressively opens the way based on the political and economic collaboration of the emerging powers and developing countries under the premises of equality in international relations, not interference in the internal affairs of the other, mutual benefit and shared economic development.
This duality of projects, which did not exist a decade ago, due to the global preponderance of the G7 and the poor articulation of the main emerging economies, are now clearly defined. The financial crisis of 2008, which has slowed the growth of developed economies, and the boom of China in recent years in the middle of a global scenario of low economic growth, have created the conditions for the progressive consolidation of the BRICS group.
The Xiamen summit has been held with the intention of giving impetus to this global stream of nations with the opening towards a BRICS plus with the participation of new nations. An advance in this direction has been the meeting on05/09/2017 the leaders of Egypt, Mexico, Tajikistan, Guinea and Thailand, on Emerging Markets and Developing Countries , and the meeting of more than 1,200 entrepreneurs representing 600 companies with international projections.

The formation of an economic and political current under the postulates of the BRICS is a new civilizational project in the history of mankind since the beginning of the sixteenth century the overseas maritime trade on a global scale by the European powers. From then until World War II international relations were motivated by the struggle of these powers for global hegemony and the colonization of overseas territories.
Spain, Great Britain, France, and Portugal, would dispute the dominion of commerce and the subjugation of territories and populations on a global scale.Spain would dominate current Spanish-speaking America and the Philippines;Portugal would have under his administration Brazil and territories in Africa and Asia; Great Britain and France would incorporate large territories in Asia and North America.
The imperial rivalries on European soil for control of the center of the world system would have its first major confrontation in the first fifteen years of the nineteenth century with Napoleon's French imperial project of dominating Europe.The Napoleonic invasion of Spain would leave without regency its dominions in Latin America which would impel the later independence of these territories inspired by the independence of the United States of Great Britain (1776), and would suppose the end of the Spanish empire of more than three centuries.Napoleon's final defeat in 1815 would leave Great Britain as the almost absolute dominator of global maritime trade, coupled with his leadership in the first industrial revolution, would make him the most powerful empire for the next hundred years.
The colonial dominion, with the exception of the new American countries that were left under US tutelage, would spread over Asia and Africa. European nations would divide the world during the nineteenth century, with Britain and France occupying more territories. However, the struggle between European powers on European soil to dominate each other continued, as the change of power in Europe meant that colonial rule de facto changed ownership.
This struggle grew with the emergence of Germany in the second half of the nineteenth century as a new European power, but with very few territories under colonial rule limited to some regions of southern Africa. World War I (1914-1918) would mean the greatest confrontation of the different European empires by absolute control of the world economic and administrative center , in which Germany would be defeated. However, the imperial resurgence of Germany under the Nazis would lead him to once again claim absolute domination of Europe by betting on the military defeat of France, Britain and the USSR.
The defeat of Germany in World War II (1939-1945) would change the world. The two victorious powers: the United States and the USSR, would establish a new world order in which the old European colonial empires French and British were relegated. And, as with the collapse of the Spanish empire after the vacuum of power in the American territories by the Napoleonic invasion of Spain, the imperial eclipse of Britain and France after World War II would create a vacuum of power in the colonies under his rule that would favor the decolonization process throughout the second half of the twentieth century and would give rise to the current set of nations.
With the new world order the colonial imperial model disappeared, but this would be replaced by a neocolonial model with two global centers: the US and the USSR.Neocolonial rule, unlike colonial rule, does not maintain direct administration in the occupied territories, but is exercised under the tutelage of the central powers for the benefit of the dominant country. The USSR would do so with the countries of Eastern Europe and the United States with the Latin American countries. The attempts of some countries to break with their respective metropolis would lead them to submit more strongly, as did the USSR in the revolt of Czechoslovakia in 1968, and the United States with the support of bloody military coups in Latin America, as in Chile in 1973.
After the demise of the USSR in 1991, the United States would have the expeditious path to establish itself as the only global power. In the last decade of the twentieth century the US saw the opportunity to subject the countries of the former USSR to their tutelage. The mistrust of the population of Eastern European countries towards Moscow set during the Cold War has allowed them to include these countries under their patronage, but in the case of Russia the issue has been different. The last years of the twentieth century were for devastating Russia, the economic crack came with real risks of dismembering the country by elites of former officials enriched under the USSR who aspired to create their own republics, to perpetuate themselves in power.
This situation would begin to change in the first decade of the 21st century. The union of the popular classes and the patriotic business class around United Russiaand its charismatic leader Vladimir Putin has allowed Russia to regain its full sovereignty and to re-establish itself as a world power. The recovery of Russia after the post-tsunami after the dissolution of the USSR has been the greatest geostrategic political defeat the United States has had in the present century after having had almost all the world power in its hands at the end of the 20th century , an issue that the United States does not finish assuming having turned Russia into its main global adversary.
Historical facts have shown that in the strategy of global domination the strength of the dominators is relative to the weakness of the dominated. The colonization of the European powers for more than 400 years was due not only to the fact that they had more sophisticated weapons than the peoples they submitted to, but mainly because they lacked the ideological and political strength to become strong peoples and nations . The ease with which Spain, France, or Great Britain subjected whole continents contrasts with the impossibility of maintaining their empires when the peoples endowed with the ideology and political determination to become free peoples and nations. The political force of decolonization made the weak strong, and with it the strong lost much of their power.
In the neocolonial period of the last half century, the strength of the G7 hegemonic current has been based not only on its economic and financial preponderance, but on the economic weakness of the nations subjected to neocolonialism, which the G7 has perpetuated for leaving them anchored economically as mere suppliers of raw materials and cheap labor.
Projects to offer an alternative to neocolonialism by international organizations such as the Non-Aligned Movement have had little relevance due to their low weight and economic interconnection, but the BRICS-led project has a solid economic base, accounting for 23% of world GDP, compared to 12% in 2007, and have contributed to more than 50% of world growth since that date, a question that will increase with the passage of time, and in that route the weak, are gaining in strength.
The future prospects of the BRICS can only be that of their own economic growth and that of contributing to the prosperity of all developing countries. As we move forward, the hegemonic current that has strengthened its power over the weakness of developing countries will lose its power and force, and the change in the composition of global GDP will in turn determine a change in the financial architecture and world monetary system currently under the almost exclusive control of the G7, which would mean, at that moment, the irreversible decline of the hegemonic current.
Following the Xiamen summit, the aspiration of emerging powers and developing countries for shared prosperity has gained momentum. As with decolonization, an unstoppable process of civilizing change has begun, this time towards an equitable relationship between nations, of which the BRICS will have to be a good example and a precedent for such an alternative to the hegemonic model to thrive.


August 2017


8/18/2017

NEWS . The civilized world is shocked by the attack of the Islamic State in Barcelona.

Commentary
08/17/2017. With Barcelona always in the Memory

Solidarity and compassion, makes us more human, suffering is to suffer with the other, to suffer, to make their pain as their own, to feel their suffering and to know that we can only be morally satisfied when we do our best to end it the pain of all humanity . ( JC )
----------------------------------------

The necessary international unity against the Islamic State

The Islamic State took up the ruthless attack on the Paseo de las Ramblas in Barcelona that left more than a dozen dead and more than a hundred wounded by peaceful pedestrians, including several children.
The Islamic State inspired by its inhuman Wahhabi ideology of death and destruction has been spreading the frustration of its progressive defeats with blood and fire by expanding the barbarity of its acts beyond its self-proclaimed Caliphate in Iraq and Syria.
The lack of unity of international anti-terrorist forces in Syria is allowing it to perpetuate control of territories mainly in Al Raqa and Deir Ezzor on the Euphrates River. The victory over the Islamic State will not be a police officer, as in its laxity to combat it in its fiefdoms, the Western heads of state present it. Their inability to forge a solid alliance with the Syrian Government, Russia and Iran, for their neocolonial ambitions against the legitimate Syrian government, allows the encouragement in its last rattles in Syria to the Islamic State.
Wahhabi ideology in the interpretation by the Islamic State is as despicable as in the day was fascism. The genocide of people who do not share their Wahhabi confession, as Christians have been in Syria, and submission to the slavery of civilians in the territories it occupies, is a challenge that human civilization can not tolerate. It is necessary, above differences, of international unity, as in the past was done with fascism, to eradicate this ideology that recruits supporters in dozens of countries of the world, and end politically and militarily with their followers.
Until that path of unity is taken to definitively end the Islamic state, terror will continue to hang like a sword of Damocles on the civilian population of the world.

Related article:
The defeat of the Islamic State a police or political and military issue

-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------
08/14/2017

NEWS . Global market research and consulting firm Ipsos, in its July 2017 monthly report, provided a perception survey in 26 countries on What worries the world?

Commentary

A perceptive vision about what worries the world

Ipsos Group SA is the third largest global market research and consulting firm based in Paris, with offices in 88 countries employing 16,530 people. The July report recently published on the perception of "What worries the world" covers 26 countries that concentrate 82.5% of world GDP and 57.7% of the world's population, the countries in question are:
Sources: Ipsos and Wikipedia. Own elaboration

The survey is divided into two major sections: the first one is done on 17 variables to know the degree to which the population is concerned about each of the issues raised, these are:
The second section reflects the opinion of the citizens on the progress of their country, based on the following question:
In general terms, would you say that things in your country are heading in the right direction, or are they on the wrong track ?
The general report can be seen at the following link:
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/2017-08/What_worries_the_world-July-2017.pdf
Unlike the report that is mainly statistical, the purpose of this article is to make a critical political assessment based on the data provided by the report.
-------------

The results of the 17 issues raised in the 26 countries of the survey and averaged globally offer the most perceptive concerns to the world.
Source: Ipsos. Own elaboration
Unemployment , political and financial corruption and social inequality are the three problems that the world society has as main concerns, they all have the same common pattern, and it is the global economic crisis due to the political and financial corruption that has concentrated the wealth of nations in a few hands and, with it, has increased unemployment and poverty and social inequality .
The concentration of wealth prevents the social majorities from having the resources to increase the effective global demand , which slows down the global economic recovery. This concentration of money is held by mainly Western financial elites, who control the mainstream media and political parties that are in line with their interests, which has given rise to a corrupt global political and financial system, which prevents an international financial regulation to allocate by fiscal means the accumulated wealth in the respective nations, to increase the aggregate effective demand .
The following eight problems: Increased crime and violence ; Access to health care; Terrorism ; Precariousness in education ; The increase of taxes ; The moral decline ; The concern for immigration control and the rise of extremism are a consequence of the social disintegration that the economic crisis itself has aggravated as a result of a global economic system that perpetuates the concentration of wealth in very few hands.
Regarding the variables: Concern for the environment and Climate change , it is significant that both have a low perception among the global concerns, perhaps, because the economic and social problems that afflict the global society, relegate to the background problems less noticeable in everyday life.
However, concerns about the problems raised have their particularities depending on the country.
Source: Ipsos. Own elaboration
The valuation of the variables are ordered from major to minor importance according to the global average. In red, the one considered by the population of each country as its main problem, in orange color, is considered the most serious problems for more than 50% of the population; in light brown, for those considered important by 25% to 50% of the population; in yellow those considered by 10% to 25%, and below 10% who consider the problem raised to be irrelevant.

The main problem perceived by the population of each country varies according to the political and economic situation of the same.
Source: Ipsos. Own elaboration
Unemployment , in different magnitude of population, is considered the most important problem in Spain (65%); Italy (63%); South Korea (63%); Serbia (58%);Argentina (47%); France (45%); Saudi Arabia (43%), and Australia (37%).
Political and financial corruption in South Africa (65%); Brazil (62%); India (45%); Poland (42%) and Belgium (37%).
Social inequality , in Russia (57%); Germany (46%), and Japan (37%).
Crime and violence in Mexico (67%); Peru (66%), and Sweden (44%).
Precariousness in access to health care in Hungary (67%); USA (39%), and Canada (36%).
Terrorism in Turkey (60%), Israel (44%), and Britain (43%).
Moral decline appears as the main problem in China (47%). In this country, the Ipsos report does not present data on Political corruption and Inequality , although it is known that both problems because of their importance are two of the priorities of the Chinese government for its eradication.

Considering that the first six problems are the ones that most concern the citizens of the countries surveyed, the following graphs show the order of concern of each of them, in the ten countries with the highest percentage of concern for them.

Source: Ipsos. Own elaboration
Among the ten countries on the list with serious concern about unemployment , the countries of the developed world include Spain, South Korea, Italy and France, and in developing countries: Argentina, Brazil and India.
In political and financial corruption , the developed countries also include Spain and South Korea.
Social inequality in developed countries is a matter of concern in Germany, South Korea and Japan, and in middle and advanced developing countries, in Russia, Mexico, and Argentina.
Crime and violence in developed countries are of concern in Sweden, Germany and Australia; while in developing countries alarmingly worries in Mexico, Peru, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina.
Health care in developed countries is the biggest concern in Hungary, Poland, Britain and the US, while in the middle and advanced developing countries, Russia and China, it is a concern for a smaller sector of the population.
Terrorism , concerned in developed countries in Britain, France; Israel, Germany and the US, and in developing countries significantly in Turkey.
----------------
The second part of the Ipsos report is formulated through the question: In general terms, would you say that things in your country are headed in the right direction, or are they on the wrong path? .

In the following graph you can see the result obtained in the survey.
Source: Ipsos. Own elaboration
In the answer to this question, we obtain the result of a general perception of the citizenship of the march of the nation as a whole , because in its answer, the respondent takes into account not only the problems that concern him in the present but in addition, he has in mind how they have evolved from the past and the perception of how they will evolve in the future.
This explains, for example, why a developing country, if it perceives an improvement of the present with respect to the past and has a positive vision of the future, can make a more optimistic assessment of the progress of its country than that of a country developed, which, in spite of having a per capita income far superior to the developing country, if the citizenship perceives that it is experiencing a retreat of its conditions of life without there being in the future solutions to the same, it is inclined by a pessimistic vision on the country course.
In the answer to the question about the country's progress , there are also factors of greater or lesser patriotic identity that condition that the response of the citizenship is based not only on their interests as an individual but on the basis of values ​​as a nation. In that sense, in countries with a strong degree of attachment to their sovereignty, this factor has a significant weight in the citizen response to the question raised about the progress of the nation .
At present, of the world powers, the nations with the highest degree of national identity and with deep patriotic values ​​would be: Russia; China and the USA. In the rest of globally important nations, either because of the volume of their GDP or their population, for different reasons they lack the national identity strength of the previous ones.
In the nations arisen after the decolonization after the Second World War due to its little historical route; in Europe because national identity sentiment has been diluted within the framework of the EU supranational project. In the case of Germany and Japan because of US historical opposition to the emergence of nationalist projects in those two nations following their defeat in World War II, as well as their strong military dependence on the USA, which continues to maintain strong contingents of troops in both nations. In Europe, only Great Britain and to a lesser extent France due to its imperial past maintain a national spirit which in the case of Great Britain was a key factor in the Brexit.

Citizen perception of the march of the nation has the most negative value in Mexico with 92% of the population that considers the country's course wrong and the most positive in China with 87% who consider that the way of the nation is the correct one .
The developing countries, in which more than 50% of the citizens consider the nation to be negative, are: Mexico (92%); South Africa (91%); Brazil (88%); Peru (74%); Turkey (64%), and Argentina (56%). In the developed countries they are: Italy (86%); Hungary (79%); Spain (73%); Great Britain (72%); Sweden (68%);Belgium (66%); Poland (65%); France (65%); Japan (63%); Israel (59%); Germany (58%); United States (57%), and Australia (56%).
The middle and high developing countries that more than 50% of their citizenship maintains a positive perception of the march of the nation are: Russia with a (57%); Saudi Arabia (71%); India (74%), and China (87%), and of the countries within the developed world are: Serbia (51%); Canada (58%), and South Korea (66%).
Overall, the general average gives a perception of 60% of the population that believes that the world is going wrong, 40% think that it does it right.
The following world map has grouped the positive and negative ratings into four groups. In the negative perception countries that are above 75% (red) and those that are between 50% and 75% (orange). In the positive perception countries that are between 50% and 75% (yellow) and countries that are above 75% (green).

Source: Ipsos. Own elaboration
In the geographical distribution shows how in the developing countries of Latin America and Africa there is a marked degree of dissatisfaction with the progress of the nation. In developed countries, despite concentrating most of the world GDP, there is a pessimism of citizenship that symbolizes the perception of the decline of a past that was better.
In a different way, in the Eurasian space formed mainly by Russia, India and China, is reflected an optimism that symbolizes a rebirth as nations.
In short, it can be considered that the world is in a process of change. The Eurasian space has faith in its future, while the West joins in despair. In the countries of Africa and Latin America pessimism predominates and this feeds emigration, and if national and continental regeneration movements arise, they run the risk of losing faith in their future as nations.
The efforts of Western financial elites for a Western revival are based on perpetuating their neocolonial hegemony, mainly in Latin America; North Africa, and the Middle East. However, the pessimism in Western societies augurs the decline of the exceptionalism of a few US-led nations to rule the world, and the emergence of another international order based on respect between nations on an equal footing and mutual benefit.

The Latin American, African and Middle Eastern inclination towards collaboration with the Eurasian pole, or the perpetuation of its current neocolonial dependence on the West, will definitely decide the global paradigm shift.


July 2017


7/31/2017

NEWS . He 7/30/2017 , with a participation of 41.53% of the electoral census ended the voting to the Constituent Assembly in Venezuela

Commentary

Revolution and counterrevolution in Venezuela

Venezuela with the election of the Constituent Assembly has lived a historic day since the formation of the first Constituent Assembly in 1999 at the initiative of then-President Hugo Chávez, winner of the presidential elections in 1998. The Constituent Assembly of 1999 promoted the constitution that gave name to Venezuela as Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela , which was approved by referendum in December of that year. In the approval of the constitution of 1999 participated 4,819,056 electors that represented then 44,38% of the electoral census; in the current election to the formation of the new Constituent Assembly have participated 8,089,320 voters who according to the electoral commission has assumed a 41.53% of the total number of voters with voting rights.
Venezuela since the proclamation of the Bolivarian Constitution in 1999 has experienced a hectic political period. He April 11, 2002 a faction of the Venezuelan army arrested Hugo Chavez and legitimized Pedro Carmona, a leader of Fedecámaras, as President, with the support of several right-wing political parties.The US and Spain quickly recognized the new coup government, however, the release of Hugo Chávez from his arrest by the military itself, made the coup fail in 24 hours. The mainstream media of the time, mainly Latin American and Spanish, prepared to legitimize the coup d'état as a necessary exercise to return Venezuela "freedom."
The charismatic figure of Hugo Chavez kept the Bolivarian revolution alive and winning all the electoral challenges. In 2004, the right-wing opposition, relying on the prerogative of the Bolivarian Constitution that allows a half-term to promote revocation via a referendum of the President of the Republic, promoted the recall referendum in which Hugo Chávez was victorious. In 2006 and 2012, Hugo Chávez won the presidential elections again, dying of cancer in 2013. That same year presidential elections were again held for the period 2013 - 2019 that were won by the current president Nicolás Maduro.
In December 2015 elections were held to the assembly of the nation, obtaining the absolute majority the rightist parties grouped in the Table of the Democratic Unit (MUD).
However, the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ) ordered the disembodiment of three deputies from the state of Amazonas, whose election put under protective custody for alleged electoral irregularities until the call for new elections in that state. The MUD, ignored the ruling of the (TSJ) and continued to legislate in opposition to the opinion of the judicial power. The Supreme Court of Justice declared in contempt of the National Assembly and null and void all legislative initiatives involving the deputies suspended, in accordance with the Venezuelan constitution, in the face of repeated contempt, assumed several powers of the National Assembly, such as the approval and extension of the state of emergency.
The rupture of the constitutional order by the National Assembly of Venezuela reached its peak when it approved not to recognize as legitimate (TSJ), the Central Electoral Commission and the presidential executive power. This rupture of the constitutional order would be aggravated by the support of the MUD to violent street protests that have left in the last months more than one hundred dead.
The calls of the Venezuelan government to establish a dialogue have met with the systematic opposition of the MUD, refusing to recognize the constitutional powers, proposing as an alternative that the Venezuelan National Assembly, where it has a majority with the three irregular deputies of the State of Amazonas, to assume the legislative, executive and judicial powers, and which recently led him to choose his own judicial power with the proclamation of a magistracy parallel to the High Court of Justice. Throughout this process the army has remained attached to the constitutional order supporting the decisions of the Superior Court of Justice.
The failure of the constitutional order is what would lead President Nicolás Maduro in accordance with his constitutional prerogatives to call elections to a new Constituent Assembly, which, after his election, 7/30/2017 , will have to elaborate a new constitution. The new Constituent Assembly takes over all political and legislative power, and therefore, the previous legislative and executive institutions have a provisional character until the approval of the new Constitution and the holding of elections after a new National Assembly and the presidency of the Republic under the new constitution, as it was in 1999.
However, the new stage that opens in Venezuela will continue to be turbulent due to the irreconcilable position of the opposing sides and US support to traditional oligarchic powers throughout Latin America. This is an old struggle of more than a hundred years in which all the popular political options apart from the powers vested in the United States have been the object of constant persecution for their annihilation.
Throughout the 20th century, the United States intervened militarily in Panama (1918, 1920, 1925, 1958, 1989); Cuba (1917-1933, 1961); Honduras (1919, 1924-1925); El Salvador (1932); (Nicaragua 1934); Dominican Republic (1965-1966);Guatemala (1920, 1954, 1966-1967); Grenada (1983-1984); to this must be added the support to the bloody dictatorships in the seventies in most of the continent, and the counterinsurgency in Nicaragua in the eighties against the Sandinista Front.
Perhaps, the situation that now lives in Venezuela has its greatest similarities with what happened in Chile in 1973; a narrow electoral victory of progressive President Salvador Allende was economically sabotaged by the bosses' forces, creating the conditions for the military to carry out a military coup. The difference with Venezuela is that the army is a constitutional army, which infuriates the American imperial powers because it does not have the support of the military that could give all the power to the oligarchic powers faithful to the dictates of Washington.
The Latin American political and economic model for more than a century has been based on the power of land-owning oligarchies and raw materials with a principal US recipient. This economic model has left the basic economic needs of the population always in oblivion.
At the beginning of this century, after the end of military dictatorships in Latin America, democratic movements that displaced these classes from political power emerged in several countries of the region, and adopted political programs to extend education and health to the majority of the population. population, but the production model based on dependence on raw materials exports did not change, although the emergence of China as a commodity demander contributed to an alternative to the almost exclusive US market. China in a few years has become a top-ranking partner in Latin America, and even though right-wing governments have returned to power in Argentina and Brazil, they can no longer ignore this new economic reality and maintain close trade cooperation with China.
The crisis of 2008 affected the Latin American economies due to the fall in demand for raw materials and the price of raw materials, and although the political change that began at the beginning of the century with the emergence of progressive governments seemed irreversible, a question that would lead him to affirm the former president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, that Latin America was facing a change of epoch, the economic crisis has staggered in several countries.
Economic difficulties have revived the Latin American right politically, with the exception of Bolivia and Nicaragua. Due to their strong economic growth, their left-leaning Christian governments remain solidly in power, Bolivia's president Evo Morales recently came to power. affirm that Bolivia in the last ten years has advanced economically more than in the last century and a half .
In the case of Venezuela, the virulence of the attacks of the right and of the countries governed by right-wing parties closely linked to the US, such as in Latin America, Colombia and Mexico, and in the EU, Spain and Germany, have become the spearhead against the Bolivarian revolution. The major Western media have become an active part in the fight against the Venezuelan government, advocating street violence carried out by right-wing extremists following the same plan designed by the NATO intelligence services in countries that have been subject of political destabilization.
In Venezuela the street fighting follows patterns very similar to those of the Maidan in Ukraine in the year 2014, with indiscriminate murders of demonstrators carried out by assassins, who are presented by the means of western propaganda as democratic fighters, and whose crimes in the case of Ukraine, as the fateful event of the 02/20/2014 in which snipers left dozens of demonstrators and police killed, or the fire caused by ultranationalists in May 2014 of the house of trade unions in Odessa that caused the death of 36 civilians, facts that the subsequent coup government in Kiev has never had interest in lightening.
The Venezuelan government has repeatedly urged the opposition to create a Truth Commission to find out the source of the deadly shots against demonstrators, but the right-wing opposition has always refused to cooperate by accusing the forces of the Order without evidence.
The US policy with the countries to which it prefers to extend its hegemony basically is: but you can submit them destroy them economically . This is an extended norm both in the Middle East and in Latin America, and in the case of Cuba has been practicing with an inhuman economic blockade of more than half a century. In this script, the US has the power to be the first economy in the world with a strong capacity to impose economic sanctions; to have the largest army in the world, and as an element of justification before the Western citizens of their actions against other nations, has the largest world propaganda apparatus that has ever existed formed by important media corporations, who decide what the citizenship.
These means, when it comes to vilifying a nation, act in droves responding to the same pattern of action, and their campaigns for their similarity seem designed by one and the same intelligence entity. The lie and the distortion of the facts are part of the propaganda. In the case of Venezuela these means have been presented for years to the Venezuelan constitutional system as a dictatorship, however, before the convening of the Constituent Assembly, these same media presents it as a coup to end the democratic regime that until now had been cataloged as dictatorship.
Such a contradiction of arguments should lead the reader to wonder that for years past the media have been deceived by presenting Venezuela as a dictatorial regime, but this does not happen because today's media noise stifles the media noise of the past. Moreover, the majority of the Western population, whether right-wing or left-wing, has a neocolonial political formation which leads it to think that the West is entitled not to respect the sovereignty of other nations under the supposed right to bring "freedom" to the world , and that mentality serves as a basis for justifying the unreason of the right to interfere in the internal politics of other nations.
The Venezuelan political struggle is not the same as the great media in the West, between dictatorship and democracy, but between revolution and counterrevolution , and it has a profound reason: Venezuela is home to the largest oil reserves in the world .
Oil is a fossil fuel that in a little more than two decades will begin its decline by the beginning of the depletion of reserves, and although new deposits are discovered, they are increasingly in inaccessible places or require very expensive extraction techniques. In twenty years Venezuela's oil reserves will play an essential role in the continuity of the current technological civilization based on the internal combustion engine to convert energy into productive work.
It is this reality that prompts the US to seek political change in Venezuela to re-issue the counterrevolutionary model that ruled Venezuela during the second half of the twentieth century in which oil profits fell on American oil corporations and an oligarchy stateless local that kept the people in backwardness, and which Hugo Chavez ended in 1999 with the Bolivarian revolution.
Now, with the election of the Constituent Assembly, again, the crossroads between revolution and counterrevolution is entering a new political phase. After the election of the Constituent Assembly the opposition has been left without a political alternative because the army and the judiciary support the Constituent Assembly.
The political forces of the Constituent Assembly have the challenge of drafting a new inclusive constitution for the vast majority of Venezuelan citizens, but the success of it will be resolved in an important way in the solution of the economic problems that Venezuela currently suffers , among which are prominently set to stop the rampant inflation and ensure the supply of basic goods to all citizens.
The counterrevolutionary political opposition has its roots among the population mainly because of the economic uncertainty generated by the high inflation that keeps the country permanently vile. The economic successes of the Venezuelan government would be the best remedy to avoid popular support for the opposition and, on the contrary, its failures will be the ones that will allow the opposition to broaden its base of followers.
The possibilities of a US military intervention is not viable due to the degree of preparation of the Bolivarian army, and the instrumentalization of Colombia by the United States to involve it in a war against Venezuela, as it came to raise in 2010 the then president of Colombia Álvaro Uribe, now after the Colombian government's peace accords with the FARC is an unrealizable project.

In any case, since the US intelligence services are moving the threads of instability in Venezuela, Western governments and media will continue to feed it, and before it, the only way to ensure the continuity of the Bolivarian democratic revolutionand peace social will be from the firmness in the application of law that arises from the Constituent Assembly.
ANNEXED

-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------

08/07/2017

NEWS . The 7th and July 8, 2017 , the German city of Hamburg hosted the 12th G20 summit

Commentary

The G20 crossroads

He   G-20 , constituted in 1999 by the most developed economies grouped in the G7 and the most important developing nations, would become important as of the financial crisis of 2008, holding its first meeting in the form of Presidents and Heads of State in November of 2008, replacing de facto the G7, overwhelmed by the financial crisis and which had hitherto marked the agenda in world economic affairs.
The flight and concealment of the huge capital accumulated in the upward cycle of the first years of the present century that ended in 2008, contributed dramatically to decapitalize the financial sector in the most industrialized countries.
Faced with the impossibility of implementing an international financial regulation, which would have expropriated and returned the hidden capital to their countries of origin, the G20 legitimized the financial rescue of the entities in bankruptcy using the money of the taxpayers. Since 2008, the main function of the G20 has been to establish an international financial regulation , a matter in which very little progress has been made, and to date the escaped capital remains well-haven in tax havens and is monetized in the form of loans to the states that have had to significantly increase their sovereign debt as a result of the prolonged crisis that the decapitalization itself produced in 2008.
Over time, the G20's functions appear to have changed, so that at the recent summit in Hamburg, financial issues have not even figured on the agenda, giving priority to the free trade debate, the Paris agreement 2015 to prevent climate change and current hot political issues such as North Korea's nuclear program and the war in Syria.
The importance of the G20 is that it continues to bring together the main political leaders of the planet, but the enthusiasm of the early years born of the interest of the G7 countries to play a leading role in pushing forward the rescue plans has been waning and, again , the priorities of each nation or group of nations have once again prevailed over what was supposed to be the main function of the G20, that of a world government aimed at achieving the peace and well-being of all humanity and the prevention of climate change.
To do this, it would be necessary to open up ways to: 1. agree on a road map to end the wars, which would eliminate the exodus of refugees; 2. to promote the relaxation of the nuclear-armed powers in order to create the conditions for a progressive disarmament; 3. the elimination of the policy of economic sanctions as an instrument to erode the economy of third countries; 4. Technological exchange between developed and developing countries so that all mankind will benefit from scientific and technological advances; and 5. combat speculators and corrupt people with strict international financial regulation.
The G20 should represent an opportunity to inaugurate a path of global governance, under previous postulates, but the neoliberal financial and media forces that govern the Western world are far from assuming such a political line, as this would mean losing their status dominated world since the first industrial revolution began.
The difficulties in forging a common agenda for the benefit of all mankind will make the G20 a forum increasingly alienated from society, and with it, the G20 can end in irrelevance . Perhaps the Hamburg summit has marked this turning point towards its decline.
The changes towards a global governance for peace development and the fight against climate change will have to come from the strengthening of the union of the nations and of the peaceful movements firm in those convictions, that progressively relegates to the current of nations led by the US that make the hegemony and the political, economic, media and military dominion the world its top priority.


June2017


6/29/2017

NEWS . He 6/29/2017 , the Iraqi Defense Ministry announced the end of the Islamic State (Daesh, in Arabic) in Iraq.

Commentary

Mosul. The end of terror

The existence of Daesh in Iraq is over forever "; His fictitious status has fallen," with these phrases, military spokesman of the Iraqi Defense Ministry, Brigadier General Yahya Rasul, announced on Iraqi state television the release of the last strongholds that the Islamic state held in the old part of Al-Nuri, in the old quarter of Mosul, where the leader of the terrorist group (Daesh) Ibrahim al-Samarrai, aka Abu Bakr al -Bagdadi, announced in 2014 the creation of the so-called caliphate under the name 'Islamic State'.
The operations to free Mosul began October 17, 2016 ; its eastern part was completely liberated on January 18, and then the fighting began to reconquer the western part, which took longer because it was intended to minimize civilian casualties as a densely populated area and narrow streets.
06/27/2017. Iraqi forces entering Al-Faruq district (west of Mosul)

Now the struggle against the Islamic State enters a new phase. The Iraqi army and popular militias will have to continue to fight against the small, resilient groups of jihadists and those who fled from Mosul, and in all likelihood will strengthen the fronts they have open in neighboring Syria.
The Islamic State has been characterized by the introduction of a barbaric and genocidal regime based on the Wahabite ideology that justifies the submission of the civilian population through terror with ruthless mass murders of members of other denominations and different types of opponents, these acts in order to magnify and make more effective their terrorist methods.
The proclamation of the Caliphate by the leader of the Islamic State Ibrahim al-Samarrai was the proclamation of a war without borders because the claim of the implementation of the "Caliphate" supposed to erase all the borders of the Muslim nations. Indeed, while the Islamic State has dominated territories in Iraq and Syria, there has been a new state in the Middle East region based on the territories of these two countries; now with the significant setback in Iraq, the territorial control of the Islamic State is reduced to almost areas of Syria, but they have not renounced their claim to end the Syria-Iraq borders.
This is a consideration that the Iraqi government can not ignore as long as the Islamic state continues to occupy territories in Syria, the territorial integrity of Iraq will not be certain. The fight against the Islamic state must be an extraterritorial struggle, the victories of the Syrian Arab Army over the jihadist groups are the best guarantee for Iraq that the Islamic State will not again represent a threat to Iraq.
In this new phase of the struggle against the Islamic State, the liberation of the border crossings between Syria and Iraq should become a priority for the Iraqi army and popular militias in order to facilitate the mutual support logistics of both nations in their struggle against the Islamic State.
A question that the United States does not like, since it has openly changed its priority to fight against the Islamic State for containing Iran in the region, and fears that the opening of border crossings between Iraq and Syria will allow the transit of equipment of support from Iran and Iraq to the Syrian government army.This is evident from the control the United States has established at the border crossing between Iraq and Syria, in the south of the city of Al-Rutba in the province of Al-Anbar in western Iraq, which passes the road linking Baghdad with Damascus.


The end of the territorial domination of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq will assume that those who have exploited the different jihadist groups against the legitimate governments of Syria and Iraq will be left without combatants to confront them.
The decline of the Islamic State reinforces the governments of Syria and Iraq and their main allies: Russia and Iran. And paradoxically, it is in turn the decline of the influence of the Arab monarchies, Israel and the United States in the region.

-------------------------------------------------- ------------------


6/14/2017

NEWS . He 6/13/2017 , US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson urged to counter Iran's influence in the Persian Gulf region.

Commentary

The war in Syria and the political changes in the Near and Middle East

He 6/13/2017 , US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he accused Iran of destabilizing the Middle East for its support of the Syrian government, popular forces in Iraq and Yemen, and the Movement of Islamic Resistance of Lebanon (Hezbollah), with the aim of achieving hegemony in the regional sphere. We and our allies have to counter Iran's dream of regional hegemony ."
With this political approach Rex Tillerson, unlike earlier statements in which he presented the Islamic State as the main threat, made it clear that the US's concern is to fight Iran, ignoring that Iran's logistical support to its allies in the region are aimed at the struggle against the Islamic State. A political stance that has changed nothing compared to the previous US administration of Barack Obama, but with the coming to power of Donald Trump, who had focused his election campaign on the defeat of the Islamic state, it seemed that could change.
The objective reality in the relationship of forces in the Middle East is that the advances made by Iran as an axis of resistance composed by Iran itself, the Syrian government, the popular armed forces in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Ansarolá in Yemen weaken to the Islamic State in the region and, conversely, the successes of this terrorist organization weaken the axis of resistance .
In the past years, the Arab monarchies of the region and Israel have been practicing a cynical policy regarding their political priorities, on the one hand in their propaganda claiming to be concerned about the advance of the Islamic State, and on the other the land its main objective was to defeat the Syrian government who has been and is the one who most supports the war against (EI).
The question of why the US and its allies have never considered joining forces with the Syrian government to defeat (EI) has been because the EI and other terrorist groups like the Nusra Front were and are the most effectively did the work on the ground against the Syrian government. The view that the United States and its allies aspired to simultaneously defeat the (EI) and the Syrian government, has not ceased to be a propaganda position, since in practice that possibility has never existed.
The intervention of Russia in the war of Syria at the request of the unique and legitimate Syrian government chaired by Al Asad has changed the course of events.If the Syrian government army on the defensive has gone on the offensive; the liberation of Aleppo from armed insurgent groups, the reconquest of the city of Palmyra, the successes in Deir Ezzor, the advance to the border with Iraq and the siege of Al Raqa capital of the (Calif.) Caliphate, predict not only the impossibility of defeating the Syrian government forces, but of the already inevitable decline of (EI) territorial domination in both Syria and Iraq following the progressive liberation of Mosul by the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi people's militias.
The policy of the United States and its allies towards their struggle against the Islamic State has reached a situation that in the eyes of an observer can be considered political and military schizophrenia in the case of the struggle for the capture of Al Raqa while the US in its support for the Kurdish forces of the Syrian Democratic Council (SDS), its main ally on the ground in the siege by the East of Al Raqa, punishes without incident with hard bombardments to the (EI), without taking into account civilian casualties using even Prohibited weapons such as white phosphorus , in turn, favor the reorganization of (EI) to curb the offensive of Syrian government forces by the West in its siege of Al Raqa, even facilitating (EI) the reinforcement of a front close to the city of Palmyra.
This situation is similar to that experienced in the last year of World War II. The leadership of the Soviet army had been demanding to the US from its entrance in the war in 1941 the opening of a Western front against the Nazi army to compel to him to fight in two fronts at the same time, but would not be until the disembarkation of Normandy in June of In 1944, when it would happen, the strategy of the United States and its allies was to let the Nazi and Soviet forces annihilate each other, defined in Churchill's phrase: "Let them kill each other."However, the unstoppable advance of the Soviet army despite the fact that the Nazi army had concentrated more than two-thirds of its forces on the eastern front, made the US and its allies fear that, as with Napoleon, the Russian army could reach Paris, which led to the opening of the western front.
Now in the making of Al Raqa USA and its allies want to gain the best positions before the defeat of the (EI), in later negotiations to have a greater weight in its objective of dividing Syria and Iraq facilitating the creation of a State or Kurdish autonomies on territories of Iraq and Syria.
From the outset, the war in Syria has had regional and foreign sponsors for different reasons. In Saudi Arabia and Israel the aim was to end the Al Asad government as a way to weaken an Iranian ally in the region, and in the US, France and Britain there has been an interest in redistributing Syria to areas of influence in regime colonial. This redistribution of the Middle East under Western influence has an ambitious project: to unite the Persian Gulf with the Mediterranean for the transfer under its tutelage to Europe of the large natural resources of Qatar that account for 14% of the world total, and this way limit the influence that the European countries have of this matter of Russia.
Qatar has been involved in the past years in the strategy of the United States and its regional and international allies to end the Al Asad government and, as well as the rest of the Arab monarchies in the region, is suspected of its support for jihadist groups, but after the visit the 05/20/2017 from Donald Trump to Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia's announcement of the breakdown of relations with Qatar would reveal the deep contradictions that have been brewing between Qatar and Saudi Arabia as a result of developments in the region, mainly in Syria.
He 06/05/2017 , Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, the eastern government of Libya and the Maldives severed diplomatic relations with Qatar accusing it of financing terrorism, a startling accusation by the financier, such as Saudi Arabia, of spreading extremist ideology Wahhabist faith that nourishes the Islamic State. US President Donald Trump aligned himself with this position, criticizing Qatar in a series of tweets, stating that his visit to Saudi Arabia " was already paying off ."
Qatar has denied the accusations and expressed its desire to restore relations with all countries that have cut off or limited their relations, however, this has not changed the position of Saudi Arabia and its allies, in contrast, both Iran and Turkey have expressed their solidarity with Qatar.
The differences between Saudi Arabia and Qatar have a confessional but also an economic root. The confessional is that Qatar is aligned with the brotherhood of the Muslim brothers , who aspires to lead the Sunni Muslim world, an organization extended at the base of Arab society and that in 2012 would contribute decisively to one of its members Mohamed Morsi, reached the presidency in Egypt. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia's main sponsor of Wahhabi ideology also aspires to lead the Sunni current of Islam. So that following the coup d'état in Egypt in July 2013 led by the current Egyptian President Abdelfatah Al-Sisi, Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that the overthrow of Morsi meant a return to secularism by the Egyptian authorities, to recognize the government that had emerged from the coup d'état, and granted Egypt a loan worth $ 10 billion, a debt now thanked by the Egyptian government, aligning itself with Saudi Arabia against Qatar.
However, substantial differences are in all likelihood of economic origin. Qatar is one of the most important exporters of liquefied natural gas, but its objective is to export its natural gas production to Europe with the project of uniting the Persian Gulf with the Mediterranean through a gas pipeline. Qatar has oil reserves that in a few years will be reduced and its main future resource is the expansion of the exploitation of its reserves of natural gas whose deposits it shares with Iran, on the other hand this project fits in the connectivity of the Eurasian space promoted mainly by China and Russia through the so-called New Silk Road.
Syria and Iraq are essential in this project, and Qatar after betting for years on the overthrow of the Syrian regime, faced with the impossibility of achieving this, has probably chosen to approach the future victors in Syria and Iraq, which in turn is an approximation to Iran that the Muslim brotherhood had already started it in October 2012 with the former Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi .
This approach to Iran is what would have infuriated the Saudi monarchy because it involves the breaking of the union of the branch of Sunni Islam in front of the Shiite branch led by Iran. US support for Saudi Arabia in this dispute has moderated recently because it does not intend to move away from Qatar, where it has its main military base in the Middle East. Located south-west of Doha, Al Udeid Air Force Base houses about 10,000 US troops and also hosts the United States Combined Air Operations Center, which coordinates air operations over Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, and now in the battle for Al Raqa in Syria has gained special relevance.
The other major player in the region is Turkey with its president Erdogan, who has also been changing positions throughout the Syrian conflict. From the rupture of relations with Russia to the reestablishment of the same. From active participation in attempting to overthrow the Syrian government to focus its concern on the possible emergence of a Kurdish state or autonomy in northern Syria with the support of the United States who also aspires to dominate the land corridor from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean , through the Kurdish territories.
The conflict of interests between the US and Turkey despite being both NATO partners is not going to remit because Turkey distrusts the US alliance with the Kurdish FDS fighters and still maintains the differences with the US because of its refusal to extradite of Fethullah Gülen, a resident of the United States and accused of being the mastermind of the failed coup in July 2016.
In the conflict between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Turkey has not hesitated to position itself with Qatar even promising military aid. Political and economic interests seem to be prevailing in the Middle East to the turbulence of sectarian struggles between religious denominations, and although it must be thought that perhaps it was always so, and the sectarian confrontation was only the cover of economic interests, now with the rupture of Saudi Arabia and Qatar seems more evident than ever.
At the moment, Qatar has no definite position on what its future policy will be, but if the confrontation with Saudi Arabia persists, there is only the way of the claudication of the Saudi tutelage, which would put its reserves of natural gas in the hands of the Saudi Monarchy, or on the contrary, should choose to align itself with Turkey and Iran.

F uente : British Petroleum (BP) 2015 . Own elaboration.

In the new scenario that seems to open in the Middle East, the nations that compose it should think that sectarian fighting only entails an eternal intestinal struggle that does not benefit its people at all and that they are used by regional elites and foreign countries to his submission.
The state model based on religious tolerance and focused on economic development is the best option for the region, a perspective that is strongly opposed by both the Israeli regime and that of Saudi Arabia, but if after the victory over the Islamic State arrives Peace to Syria and Iraq these nations must bet clearly by this model of State as an overcoming of the mournful past of wars.

The future of the region of the Near and Middle East is still to be written, but it will be under a new balance of forces in the region. Now, the most important immediate step will be settled in the release of Al Raqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq.

Distribution of the contenders in Syria in the middle of the year 2016
-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
Distribution of US military forces in the Middle East
-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
Project of a possible pipeline from the Persian Gulf to theMediterranean
Persian Gulf Region