27 juillet 2009 1 27 /07 /juillet /2009 18:33
Prison Planet.com
July 27, 2009

By Paul Joseph Watson

 

Profiting from the overhyped pandemic, the pigs feed at the trough while millions will be exposed to an untested vaccine which contains an ingredient linked to debilitating diseases


Government Swine Flu Advisor On Vaccine Maker Payroll 270709top

 

Many people seem genuinely baffled that western governments are hyping the arrival of a swine flu pandemic as if it’s the greatest threat to humanity since the bubonic plague, despite the relatively low number of deaths from the virus, unaware that the pharmaceutical industry has been intimately joined at the hip with the state for decades.


Another illustration of that fact is the revelation that one of the UK government’s top advisors on swine flu also happens to be a sitting board member of GlaxoSmithKline, the company selling dangerous and untested swine flu vaccines, as well as anti-viral drugs Tamiflu and Relenza, to the NHS.


“Professor Sir Roy Anderson sits on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), a 20-strong task force drawing up the action plan for the virus. Yet he also holds a £116,000-a-year post on the board of GlaxoSmithKline,” reports the Daily Mail.


We also learn that Anderson was “one of the first UK experts to call the outbreak a pandemic,” and has been busy on radio and TV pushing the effectiveness of anti-virals to fight swine flu, without telling listeners that he was on the GSK payroll.


Anderson was also a key government advisor during the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak in Britain which led to the slaughter of over 6 million animals and the complete decimation of the farming industry.


Batches of swine flu vaccine destined for Europe are being fast-tracked through safety procedures and there will be no testing on humans whatsoever before millions of people, starting with children and pregnant women, are inoculated as part of mass vaccination programs.


Despite warnings from World Health Organization flu chief Dr Keiji Fukuda about the dangers of untested vaccines, GlaxoSmithKline and other pharmaceutical companies like Baxter, will begin shipping the vaccine to governments in Europe within two months.


Officials claim that the swine flu vaccine has similar ingredients to the avian flu vaccine and is therefore safe. In that case, we better hope that the vaccine does not have the same ingredients as batches of Baxter’s bird flu vaccine, which were actually contaminated with the live avian flu virus and shipped out to numerous European countries.


In addition, the swine flu vaccine will contain an ingredient known to cause debilitating diseases.


As we reported last week, the shots will include the ingredient squalene, which has been directly linked with cases of Gulf War Syndrome.


According to award-winning investigative journalist Gary Matsumoto, there’s a “close match between the squalene-induced diseases in animals and those observed in humans injected with this oil: rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus erythematosus.”


“There are now data in more than two dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers, from ten different laboratories in the US, Europe, Asia and Australia, documenting that squalene-based adjuvants can induce autoimmune diseases in animals…observed in mice, rats, guinea pigs and rabbits. Sweden’s Karolinska Institute has demonstrated that squalene alone can induce the animal version of rheumatoid arthritis. The Polish Academy of Sciences has shown that in animals, squalene alone can produce catastrophic injury to the nervous system and the brain. The University of Florida Medical School has shown that in animals, squalene alone can induce production of antibodies specifically associated with systemic lupus erythematosus,” writes Matsumoto.


Micropaleontologist Dr. Viera Scheibner, who conducted research into the adverse effects of adjuvants in vaccines, wrote the following about squalene.


Squalene “contributed to the cascade of reactions called “Gulf War syndrome. (GIs developed) arthritis, fibromyalgia, lymphadenopathy, rashes, photosensitive rashes, malar rashes, chronic fatigue, chronic headaches, abnormal body hair loss, non-healing skin lesions, aphthous ulcers, dizziness, weakness, memory loss, seizures, mood changes, neuropsychiatric problems, anti-thyroid effects, anaemia, elevated ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate), systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, ALS, Raynaud’s phenomenon, Sjorgren’s syndrome, chronic diarrhea, night sweats and low-grade fever."

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/government-swine-flu-advisor-on-vaccine-maker-payroll.html

 

Grippe A, dite "porcine" ou H1N1/"Swine Flue" Articles - Videos IN

 

Partager cet article
Repost0
21 juillet 2009 2 21 /07 /juillet /2009 09:12
Global Research
July 20, 2009


With a view to restoring financial stability, World leaders have called upon the Group of 20 countries (G-20) to instigate a new global currency based on the IMF's  Special Drawing Rights (SDRs).

The media has presented the global currency initiative as a consensus building process, in which BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) would participate in the revamping of the international monetary system.


Russia and China have put forth "proposals" which have been highlighted as possible alternatives to the dollar.  China has proposed the formation of a new global currency based on a reform of SDR system: 


"It is a feasible plan to reform the present SDR and make it into a real settlement currency, a universally accepted 'currency basket' that would replace the dollar at the heart of the monetary system,"  (Li Ruogu, chairman of the Export-Import Bank of China, Reuters, 6  July 2009)

China's proposal does not imply a major shift in global banking arrangements, nor does it open up a window of debate regarding monetary reform.


On the other hand, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has explicitly questioned the composition of the SDR basket and has called upon the IMF "to expand the currency basket of SDRs to include the Chinese yuan, commodity currencies and gold in order that it matures into  a reserve currency."


Geopolitics


Global Geopolitics bears a relationship to the international monetary system. Control over money creation is an instrument of economic conquest. 

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was to exclude rival Russian and Chinese interests from the Middle-East and Central Asian oil fields. 

The reform of the international monetary system is a project of the dominant financial elites, which is discussed behind closed doors. It is unlikely that Russia and China, which in large part remain subordinate to Western banking interests, will perform a significant role in central banking functions at a global level.

Moreover, this initiative occurs at a time of East West confrontation, amidst veiled US-NATO threats directed against Russia as well China.  The establishment of a new global currency and central banking system is an instrument of global economic domination which is intimately related to the broader US-NATO military agenda.


While the SDR basket composition could be modified or revised, it is unlikely that the Yuan and the Ruble would be allowed to perform a role as major reserve currencies. What is more likely to occur is the formation of a global proxy currency predicated largely on the Euro and the US dollar. In response to the Dollar-Euro hegemony, Russia, China and the member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) may decide to develop bilateral trading arrangements in Rubles or Yuan (renminbi).


Special Drawing Rights


SDRs are a composite accounting unit used by the IMF and the World Bank in loan agreements with member countries. The SDR is a basket of essentially four major currencies: the US dollar, the Euro, the British pound and the Japanese Yen.


Composition of basket (value of 1 XDR)

Period Flag of the United StatesUSD Flag of GermanyDEM Flag of FranceFRF Flag of JapanJPY Flag of the United KingdomGBP
1981–1985 0.540 (42%) 0.460 (19%) 0.740 (13%) 34.0 (13%) 0.0710 (13%)
1986–1990 0.452 (42%) 0.527 (19%) 1.020 (12%) 33.4 (15%) 0.0893 (12%)
1991–1995 0.572 (40%) 0.453 (21%) 0.800 (11%) 31.8 (17%) 0.0812 (11%)
1996–1998 0.582 (39%) 0.446 (21%) 0.813 (11%) 27.2 (18%) 0.1050 (11%)
Period Flag of the United StatesUSD Flag of EuropeEUR Flag of JapanJPY Flag of the United KingdomGBP
1999–2000 0.5820 (39%) 0.3519 (32%) 27.2 (18%) 0.1050 (11%)
2001–2005 0.5770 (45%) 0.4260 (29%) 21.0 (15%) 0.0984 (11%)
2006–2010 0.6320 (44%) 0.4100 (34%) 18.4 (11%) 0.0903 (11%)

Source Wikipedia

The IMF has recently presented a plan for issuing debt denominated in SDRs rather than US dollars. The media has heralded this decision as a major innovation, when in fact the Bretton Woods institutions have, for many years, been issuing debt denominated in SDRs. 


"Today, the SDR has only limited use as a reserve asset, and its main function is to serve as the unit of account of the IMF and some other international organizations. The SDR is neither a currency, nor a claim on the IMF. Rather, it is a potential claim on the freely usable currencies of IMF members." (IMF Fact Sheet on SDRs


What would happen if a new global currency were to be devised using the existing SDR framework? 

SDRs would no longer be an accounting unit but a unit of currency in a basket. Actual central banking functions, however, would not necessarily be transferred to the IMF, they would remain in the hands of four constituent central banks:  The US Federal  Reserve, the European Central Bank based in Frankfurt, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan. I


The IMF is a bureaucracy which serves the interests of major private financial institutions.

 

While the IMF would formally be responsible for overseeing a global currency, the IMF would not actually be responsible for monetary policy. Under the existing SDR composition, the central banking functions would be divided between four central banks. These central banks are in turn controlled by a handful of private banking interests.


A global currency based on the existing SDR arrangement would not fundamentally change the global monetary order.


The SDR would be a proxy currency. Under the present composition of the SDR, what we would be dealing with is an alliance between US, British, European and Japanese banking institutions, ultimately with the US dollar and the Euro predominating. 


Euro-Dollar Rivalry


From the outset in 1999, there has been a clash between the Euro and the dollar. In Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, the Balkans extending into Central Asia, the dollar and the Euro are competing with one another. Ultimately, control over national currency systems is the basis upon which countries are colonized. While the U.S. dollar prevails throughout the Western Hemisphere, the Euro and the U.S. dollar are clashing in the former Soviet Union, Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, there was a political confrontation between the Franco-German alliance and the dominant Anglo-American military axis.

With the election of pro-US governments in both France and Germany, a political consensus seems to have emerged with regard to the Middle East war. In turn, this consensus regarding the US-NATO military agenda favors greater cooperation and integration between the US and the EU in global financial and monetary affairs. 

Would this potential "alliance" between powerful overlapping American, British, European and Japanese banking interests lead to the integration of the Euro and the dollar into a single global currency?

This integration would lead to reinforcing the hegemonic control of a small number of global banking and financial institutions over the process of money creation. This, in turn, would overshadow the functions of national central banks, encroach on the sovereignty of the Nation State and eventually lead to a new phase of the global debt crisis.  


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14461
Partager cet article
Repost0
29 juin 2009 1 29 /06 /juin /2009 16:38
CounterPunch
29 June 2009

By NIKOLAS KOZLOFF


Could the diplomatic thaw between Venezuela and the United States be coming to an abrupt end?  At the recent Summit of the Americas held in Port of Spain, Barack Obama shook Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez’s hand and declared that he would pursue a less arrogant foreign policy towards Latin America.  Building on that good will, Venezuela and the United States agreed to restore their ambassadors late last week. Such diplomatic overtures provided a stark contrast to the miserable state of relations during the Bush years: just nine months ago Venezuela expelled the U.S. envoy in a diplomatic tussle.  At the time, Chávez said he kicked the U.S. ambassador out to demonstrate solidarity with left ally Bolivia, which had also expelled a top American diplomat after accusing him of blatant political interference in the Andean nation’s internal affairs.


Whatever goodwill existed last week however could now be undone by turbulent political events in Honduras.  Following the military coup d’etat there on Sunday, Chávez accused the U.S. of helping to orchestrate the overthrow of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya.  “Behind these soldiers are the Honduran bourgeois, the rich who converted Honduras into a Banana Republic, into a political and military base for North American imperialism,” Chávez thundered.  The Venezuelan leader urged the Honduran military to return Zelaya to power and even threatened military action against the coup regime if Venezuela’s ambassador was killed or local troops entered the Venezuelan Embassy.  Reportedly, Honduran soldiers beat the ambassador and left him on the side of a road in the course of the military coup. Tensions have ratcheted up to such an extent that Chávez has now placed his armed forces on alert.


On the surface at least it seems unlikely that Obama would endorse an interventionist U.S. foreign policy in Central America.  Over the past few months he has gone to great lengths to “re-brand” America in the eyes of the world as a reasonable power engaged in respectful diplomacy as opposed to reckless unilateralism.  If it were ever proven that Obama sanctioned the overthrow of a democratically elected government this could completely undermine the U.S. President’s carefully crafted image.


Officially, the military removed Zelaya from power on the grounds that the Honduran President had abused his authority.  On Sunday Zelaya hoped to hold a constitutional referendum which could have allowed him to run for reelection for another four year term, a move which Honduras’ Supreme Court and Congress declared illegal. But while the controversy over Zelaya’s constitutional referendum certainly provided the excuse for military intervention, it’s no secret that the President was at odds politically with the Honduran elite for the past few years and had become one of Washington’s fiercest critics in the region.


The Rise of Zelaya


Zelaya, who sports a thick black mustache, cowboy boots and large white Stetson hat, was elected in late 2005.  At first blush he hardly seemed the type of politician to rock the boat.  A landowner from a wealthy landowning family engaged in the lumber industry, Zelaya headed the Liberal Party, one of the two dominant political parties in Honduras.  The President supported the Central American Free Trade Agreement which eliminated trade barriers with the United States.

 

Despite these initial conservative leanings, Zelaya began to criticize powerful, vested interests in the country such as the media and owners of maquiladora sweatshops which produced goods for export in industrial free zones.  Gradually he started to adopt some socially progressive policies.  For example, Zelaya instituted a 60 per cent minimum wage increase which angered the wealthy business community.  The hike in the minimum wage, Zelaya declared, would “force the business oligarchy to start paying what is fair.”  “This is a government of great social transformations, committed to the poor,” he added.  Trade unions celebrated the decision, not surprising given that Honduras is the third poorest country in the hemisphere and 70 per cent of its people live in poverty.  When private business associations announced that they would challenge the government’s wage decree in Honduras’ Supreme Court, Zelaya’s Labor Minister called the critics “greedy exploiters.”


In another move that must have raised eyebrows in Washington, Zelaya declared during a meeting of Latin American and Caribbean anti-drug officials that drug consumption should be legalized to halt violence related to smuggling.  In recent years Honduras has been plagued by drug trafficking and so-called maras or street gangs which carry out gruesome beheadings, rapes and eye gouging.  “Instead of pursuing drug traffickers, societies should invest resources in educating drug addicts and curbing their demand,” Zelaya said.  Rodolfo Zelaya, the head of a Honduran congressional commission on drug trafficking, rejected Zelaya’s comments. He told participants at the meeting that he was “confused and stunned by what the Honduran leader said.”


Zelaya and ALBA


Not content to stop there, Zelaya started to conduct an increasingly more independent foreign policy.  In late 2007 he traveled to Cuba, the first official trip by a Honduran president to the Communist island in 46 years.  There, Zelaya met with Raul Castro to discuss bilateral relations and other topics of mutual interest.


But what really led Zelaya towards a political collision course with the Honduran elite was his decision to join the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (known by its Spanish acronym ALBA), an alliance of leftist Latin American and Caribbean nations headed by Chávez.  The regional trade group including Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Dominica seeks to counteract corporate-friendly U.S-backed free trade schemes.  Since its founding in 2004, ALBA countries have promoted joint factories and banks, an emergency food fund, and exchanges of cheap Venezuelan oil for food, housing, and educational investment.


In an emphatic departure from previous Honduran leaders who had been compliant vassals of the U.S., Zelaya stated “Honduras and the Honduran people do not have to ask permission of any imperialism to join the ALBA.”  Speaking in the Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa before a crowd of 50,000 unionists, women’s groups, farmers and indigenous peoples, Chávez remarked that Venezuela would guarantee cheap oil to Honduras for “at least 100 years.”  By signing onto ALBA, Zelaya was able to secure access to credit lines, energy and food benefits.  As an act of good faith, Chávez agreed to forgive Honduran debt to Venezuela amounting to $30 million.


Infuriating the local elite, Chávez declared that Hondurans who opposed ALBA were “sellouts.”  “I did not come here to meddle in internal affairs,” he continued, “but…I cannot explain how a Honduran could be against Honduras joining the ALBA, the path of development, the path of integration.” Chávez lambasted the Honduran press which he labeled pitiyanquis (little Yanqui imitators) and “abject hand-lickers of the Yanquis.”  For his part, Zelaya said “we need no one’s permission to sign this commitment. Today we are taking a step towards becoming a government of the center-left, and if anyone dislikes this, well just remove the word ‘center’ and keep the second one.”


It wasn’t long before private business started to attack Zelaya bitterly for moving Honduras into Chávez’s orbit.  By joining ALBA, business representatives argued, the President was endangering free enterprise and the Central American Free Trade Agreement with the United States.  Former President Ricardo Maduro even claimed that the United States might retaliate against Honduras by deporting Honduran migrants from the United States.  “Don't bite the hand that feeds you,” Maduro warned, alluding to Washington.  Zelaya was piqued by the criticisms.  “When I met with (U.S. President) George W. Bush,” he said, “no one called me an anti-imperialist and the business community applauded me. Now that I am meeting with the impoverished peoples of the world, they criticize me.”


Zelaya’s Letter to Obama


In September, 2008 Zelaya further strained U.S. relations by delaying accreditation of the new U.S. ambassador out of solidarity with Bolivia and Venezuela which had just gone through diplomatic dust ups with Washington.  “We are not breaking relations with the United States,” Zelaya said. “We only are (doing this) in solidarity with [Bolivian President] Morales, who has denounced the meddling of the United States in Bolivia's internal affairs.”  Defending his decision, Zelaya said small nations needed to stick together.  “The world powers must treat us fairly and with respect,” he stated.

In November, Zelaya hailed Obama’s election in the U.S. as “a hope for the world,” but just two months later tensions began to emerge.  In an audacious letter sent personally to Obama, Zelaya accused the U.S. of “interventionism” and called on the new administration in Washington to respect the principle of non-interference in the political affairs of other nations.  According to Spanish news agency EFE which saw a copy of the note, Zelaya told Obama that it wasn’t his intention to tell the U.S. President what he should or should not do. 

He then however went on to do precisely that.  First of all, Zelaya brought up the issue of U.S. visas and urged Obama to “revise the procedure by which visas are cancelled or denied to citizens of different parts of the world as a means of pressure against those people who hold different beliefs or ideologies which pose no threat to the U.S.”

As if that was not impudent enough, Zelaya then moved on to drug trafficking: “The legitimate struggle against drug trafficking…should not be used as an excuse to carry out interventionist policies in other countries.”  The struggle against drug smuggling, Zelaya wrote, “should not be divorced from a vigorous policy of controlling distribution and consumer demand in all countries, as well as money laundering which operates through financial circuits and which involve networks within developed countries.”


Zelaya also argued “for the urgent necessity” of revising and transforming the structure of the United Nations and “to solve the Venezuela and Bolivia problems” through dialogue which “yields better fruit than confrontation.”  The Cuban embargo, meanwhile, “was a useless instrument” and “a means of unjust pressure and violation of human rights.”


Run Up to June Coup


It’s unclear what Obama might have made of the audacious letter sent from the leader of a small Central American nation.  It does seem however that Zelaya became somewhat disenchanted with the new administration in Washington.  Just three months ago, the Honduran leader declined to attend a meeting of the System for Central American Integration (known by its Spanish acronym SICA) which would bring Central American Presidents together with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden in San José, Costa Rica.


Both Zelaya and President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua boycotted the meeting, viewing it as a diplomatic affront.  Nicaragua currently holds the presidency of SICA, and so the proper course of action should have been for Biden to have Ortega hold the meeting.  Sandinista economist and former Nicaraguan Minister of Foreign Trade Alejandro Martínez Cuenca declared that the United States had missed a vital opportunity to encourage a new era of relations with Central America by “prioritizing personal relations with [Costa Rican President] Arias over respect for Central America's institutional order.”


Could all of the contentious diplomatic back and forth between Tegucigalpa and Washington have turned the Obama administration against Zelaya?  In the days ahead there will surely be a lot of attention and scrutiny paid to the role of Romeo Vasquez, a General who led the military coup against Zelaya.  Vasquez is a graduate of the notorious U.S. School of the Americas, an institution which trained the Latin American military in torture.


Are we to believe that the United States had no role in coordinating with Vasquez and the coup plotters?  The U.S. has had longstanding military ties to the Honduran armed forces, particularly during the Contra War in Nicaragua during the 1980s.  The White House, needless to say, has rejected claims that the U.S. played a role.  The New York Times has reported claims that the Obama administration knew that a coup was imminent and tried to persuade the military to back down.  The paper writes that it was the Honduran military which broke off discussions with American officials.


Obama himself has taken the high road, remarking “I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms [and] the rule of law…Any existing tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully through dialogue free from any outside interference.”

Even if the Obama administration did not play an underhanded role in this affair, the Honduran coup highlights growing geo-political tensions in the region.  In recent years, Chávez has sought to extend his influence to smaller Central American and Caribbean nations.  The Venezuelan leader shows no intention of backing down over the Honduran coup, remarking that ALBA nations “will not recognize any [Honduran] government that isn't Zelaya’s.”


Chávez then derided Honduras’ interim president, Roberto Micheletti.  “Mr. Roberto Micheletti will either wind up in prison or he'll need to go into exile… If they swear him in we'll overthrow him, mark my words.  Thugetti--as I'm going to refer to him from now on--you better pack your bags, because you're either going to jail or you're going into exile.  We're not going to forgive your error, you're going to get swept out of there.  We're not going to let it happen, we're going to make life impossible for you.  President Manuel Zelaya needs to retake his position as president.”


With tensions running high, heads of ALBA nations have vowed to meet in Managua to discuss the coup in Honduras.  Zelaya, who was exiled to Costa Rica from Honduras, plans to fly to Nicaragua to speak with his colleagues.  With such political unity amongst ALBA nations, Obama will have to decide what the public U.S. posture ought to be.


Nikolas Kozloff is the author of Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2008) Follow his blog at senorchichero.blogspot.com

http://www.counterpunch.org/

Partager cet article
Repost0
27 juin 2009 6 27 /06 /juin /2009 01:51

vendredi 26 juin 2009



Quel est le point commun entre la démocratie participative et l’acceptabilité sociale ? "Faire participer, c’est faire accepter", disent les sociologues du laboratoire France Telecom.







L’acceptabilité, c’est l’ensemble des techniques - entre marketing et propagande - développées par les sociologues des "usages" pour nous faire accepter les nouvelles technologies. Puisque celles-ci changent nos vies, il importe aux chercheurs et aux industriels qui exploitent les innovations, de s’assurer que le public ne rechignera pas à voir sa vie bouleversée par l’invasion de chimères génétiques, de gadgets électroniques ou d’objets communicants.


Il était bien normal que la capitale des high tech françaises, "le laboratoire grenoblois" développe, en même temps que la Recherche & Développement, les méthodes d’acceptabilité des nécrotechnologies.


On retrouve dans l’excellente enquête publiée par la revue Z, que nous reproduisons ici, les figures connues de l’IDEAS Lab de Minatec : Philippe Mallein, le sociologue jaune, et Michel Ida, son patron, qui veut nous vendre des lunettes et des stylos communicants (cf Aujourd’hui le Nanomonde - Nanotechnologies, un projet de société totalitaire, par Pièces et Main d’Oeuvre. Editions L’Echappée, 2008).


Tout savoir sur Z : www.zite.f

Texte intégral en PDF:
http://www.piecesetmaindoeuvre.com/IMG/pdf/Acceptabilite_Z.pdf


Photo: http://www.acbm.com/inedits/rfid.html

Les emphases sont d'IN


http://internationalnews.over-blog.com/article-33183255.html

Partager cet article
Repost0
8 juin 2009 1 08 /06 /juin /2009 02:44
Major telecommunications companies are spending millions lobbing the U.S. congress to make the Internet into a private network. In political lingo this means abandoning what is called “Net Neutrality”. In common sense terms it’s about the government withdrawing our right to Internet Freedom, it’s about the Death of The Internet. This V-Doc. (viral documentary) is about the current threat to Internet Freedom and how we can hold on to the open Internet and our right to communicate.

The Death of The Internet?
envoyé par COAnews. - L'info video en direct.
Partager cet article
Repost0
2 juin 2009 2 02 /06 /juin /2009 03:56

Le Monde Diplomatique


Par Olivier Boiral

Professeur à l’université Laval (Canada)

Trente ans d'une institution secrète


Dirigeants des multinationales, gouvernants des pays riches et partisans du libéralisme économique ont vite compris qu’ils devaient se concerter s’ils voulaient imposer leur vision du monde. Dès juillet 1973, dans un monde alors bipolaire, David Rockefeller lance la Commission trilatérale, qui va marquer le point de départ de la guerre idéologique moderne. Moins médiatisée que le forum de Davos, elle demeure très active, au travers d’un réseau d’influences aux multiples ramifications.


Il y a trente ans, en juillet 1973, à l’initiative de M. David Rockefeller, figure de proue du capitalisme américain, naissait la Commission trilatérale. Cénacle de l’élite politique et économique internationale, ce club très fermé et toujours actif de hauts dirigeants a suscité nombre de controverses, surtout à ses débuts (1). La Commission entend alors devenir un organe privé de concertation et d’orientation de la politique internationale des pays de la triade (Etats-Unis, Europe, Japon). Sa charte fondatrice résume : « Centrée sur l’analyse des enjeux majeurs auxquels font face l’Amérique du Nord, l’Europe de l’Ouest et le Japon, la Commission s’attache à développer des propositions pratiques pour une action conjointe. Les membres de la Commission regroupent plus de 200 distingués citoyens provenant des trois régions et engagés dans différents domaines  (2). »


La création de cette organisation opaque, où se côtoient à huis clos et à l’abri de toute compromission médiatique des dirigeants de multinationales, des banquiers, des hommes politiques, des experts de la politique internationale, ou encore des universitaires, coïncide à ce moment avec une période d’incertitude et de turbulence dans la politique mondiale. La gouvernance de l’économie internationale semble échapper aux élites des pays riches, les forces de gauche paraissent de plus en plus actives, en particulier en Europe, et l’interconnexion croissante des enjeux économiques appelle une coopération plus étroite entre les grandes puissances. La Trilatérale va rapidement s’imposer comme un des principaux instruments de cette concertation, soucieuse à la fois de protéger les intérêts des multinationales et d’« éclairer » par ses analyses les décisions des dirigeants politiques (
3).


A l’image des rois philosophes de la cité platonicienne contemplant le monde des idées pour insuffler leur sagesse transcendante dans la gestion des affaires terrestres, l’élite rassemblée au sein de cette institution fort peu démocratique ­ et que la démocratie inquiète dès lors que des groupes autrefois silencieux s’en mêlent ­ va s’employer à définir les critères d’une « bonne gouvernance » internationale. Elle véhicule un idéal platonicien d’ordre et de supervision, assuré par une classe privilégiée de technocrates qui place son expertise et son expérience au-dessus des revendications profanes des simples citoyens : « Un lieu protégé, la Cité trilatérale, où la technè est loi, commente Gilbert Larochelle. Et, postées en surplomb, des sentinelles veillent, surveillent. Le recours à l’expertise ne relève point d’un luxe, il offre la possibilité de mettre la société face à elle-même. Le mieux-être ne vient que par les meilleurs qui, en leur hauteur inspirée, produisent des critères pour les relayer vers le bas  (
4). »


Les thèmes débattus au sein de cette oligarchie de la politique internationale, dont les réunions annuelles se déroulent en différentes villes de la Triade, le sont dans une discrétion qu’aucun média ne semble plus vouloir troubler. Chaque sujet fait l’objet de rapports annuels (The Trialogue) et de travaux thématiques (Triangle Papers) réalisés par des équipes d’experts américains, européens et japonais triés sur le volet. Edités régulièrement depuis une trentaine d’années, ces documents publics traduisent l’attention de la Trilatérale à des problèmes globaux censés transcender les souverainetés nationales et appeler l’intervention des pays riches : réforme des institutions internationales, mondialisation des marchés, environnement, finance internationale, libéralisation des économies, régionalisation des échanges, rapports Est-Ouest (surtout au début), endettement des pays pauvres, etc.


Ces interventions s’articulent autour de quelques idées fondatrices qui ont été largement relayées par le politique. La première est la nécessité d’un « nouvel ordre international ». Le cadre national serait trop étroit pour traiter des grands enjeux mondiaux dont la « complexité » et l’« interdépendance » sont sans cesse réaffirmées. Une telle analyse justifie et légitime les activités de la Commission, à la fois observatoire privilégié et contremaître de cette nouvelle architecture internationale.


Les attentats du 11 septembre 2001 ont fourni une nouvelle occasion de rappeler, lors de la rencontre de Washington en avril 2002, la nécessité d’un « ordre international » et d’« une réponse globale » auxquels les principaux dirigeants de la planète sont enjoints de collaborer sous la houlette américaine. Lors de cette réunion annuelle de la Trilatérale, MM. Colin Powell (secrétaire d’Etat américain), Donald Rumsfeld (secrétaire à la défense), Richard Cheney (vice-président) et Alan Greenspan (président de la Réserve fédérale) étaient présents  (
5).


La seconde idée fondatrice, qui découle de la première, est le rôle tutélaire des pays de la triade, en particulier des Etats-Unis, dans la réforme du système international. Les pays riches sont invités à s’exprimer d’une seule voix et à unir leurs efforts dans une mission destinée à promouvoir la « stabilité » de la planète grâce à la généralisation du modèle économique dominant. Les démocraties libérales sont le « centre vital » de l’économie, de la finance et de la technologie. Ce centre, les autres pays devront l’intégrer en acceptant le commandement qu’il s’est donné. L’unilatéralisme américain paraît cependant avoir mis à épreuve la cohésion des pays de la triade. Leurs dissensions s’expriment dans les débats de la Commission. Ainsi, dans son discours du 6 avril 2002, lors de la réunion évoquée plus haut, M. Colin Powell a défendu la position américaine sur les principaux points de discorde avec le reste du monde : refus de signer les accords de Kyoto, opposition à la création d’une cour pénale internationale, analyse de « l’axe du Mal », intervention américaine en Irak, appui à la politique israélienne, etc.


L’hégémonie des démocraties libérales conforte la foi dans les vertus de la mondialisation et de la libéralisation des économies qui s’exprime dans le discours de la trilatérale. La mondialisation financière et le développement des échanges internationaux seraient au service du progrès et de l’amélioration des conditions de vie du plus grand nombre. Or elles supposent la remise en cause des souverainetés nationales et la suppression des mesures protectionnistes. Ce credo néolibéral est souvent au centre des débats.


Lors de la rencontre annuelle d’avril 2003, à Séoul, il a été notamment question de l’intégration économique des pays d’Asie du Sud-Est et de la participation de la Chine à la dynamique de mondialisation. Les réunions des deux années précédentes avaient été l’occasion pour le directeur général de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC), M. Mike Moore, de professer dévotement les vertus du libre-échange. Après avoir vilipendé le mouvement antimondialisation, M. Moore avait même déclaré qu’il était « impératif de rappeler encore et toujours les preuves accablantes qui démontrent que le commerce international renforce la croissance économique (
6) ».


La tirade du directeur de l’OMC contre les groupes réclamant une autre mondialisation ­ qualifiés de « e-hippies » ­ souligne la troisième caractéristique fondatrice de la Trilatérale : son aversion pour les mouvements populaires. Elle s’était exprimée dans le célèbre rapport de la Commission sur la gouvernance des démocraties rédigé par Michel Crozier, Samuel Huntington et Joji Watanuki  (
7). Dès 1975, ce texte dénonçait les « excès de la démocratie » qu’exprimaient aux yeux des auteurs les manifestations contestataires de l’époque. Celles qui, un peu comme aujourd’hui, mettaient en cause la politique étrangère des Etats-Unis (rôle de la CIA dans le putsch chilien, guerre du Vietnam, etc.) et réclamaient la reconnaissance de nouveaux droits sociaux. Ce rapport provoqua à l’époque nombre de commentaires indignés, qui dirigèrent leurs feux contre l’administration démocrate du président James Carter, qui fut membre de la Trilatérale (comme, plus tard, le président Clinton)  (8).


Depuis le début des années 1980, l’attention de la presse pour ce genre d’institution semble s’être plutôt portée sur des rencontres moins fermées et surtout plus médiatisées, comme le forum de Davos. L’importance des enjeux débattus au sein de la Trilatérale et le niveau de ceux qui ont participé à ses réunions ces dernières années soulignent néanmoins son influence persistante  (
9).


Loin d’être un « vieux serpent de mer » qui referait surface au ravissement de quelques adeptes d’ésotérisme et de « théorie du complot », la Commission trilatérale est une institution bien établie, dont la discrétion facilite la collusion entre responsables politiques et grandes entreprises. « J’espère bien que les points de vue qui sont formulés par ces gens d’expérience ont une influence réelle sur la politique internationale ! », nous a répliqué un ancien ministre canadien qui a participé à plusieurs des travaux de la Commission trilatérale. Il faisait ainsi écho aux propos du fondateur, M. David Rockefeller : « Quelquefois, les idées mises en avant par les rapports de la Commission trilatérale sont devenues des politiques officielles. Ses recommandations ont toujours été sérieusement débattues à l’extérieur de notre cercle, et elles ont joué un rôle dans les réflexions des gouvernements et dans la formulation de leurs décisions  (
10). »


Ainsi se dessine la trame d’un pouvoir diffus, opaque, presque insaisissable, qui tisse ses liens à travers des clubs fermés et des rencontres internationales dont le forum de Davos représente l’expression la plus ostentatoire. Dans ces lieux de rencontres, d’échanges, de tractations gravitent les mêmes protagonistes, s’élaborent les analyses et les compromis qui précèdent souvent les grandes décisions. La Commission trilatérale est une des pièces de cet échiquier polymorphe. Elle consolide l’alliance entre le pouvoir des multinationales, de la finance et de la politique, grâce à un réseau d’influences dont les ramifications s’étendent aux principaux secteurs de la société.



(1) Le Monde diplomatique a consacré plusieurs articles au sujet dans les années 1970. Lire en particulier Claude Julien, « Les sociétés libérales victimes d’elles-mêmes », et Diana Johnstone, « Une stratégie trilatérale », respectivement mars 1976 et novembre 1976. Lire aussi l’article de Georges-Albert Astre, « Le nouveau capitalisme », in Manière de voir, n° 72, en vente le 15 novembre.

(2) Le nombre des « distingués citoyens » admis au sein de la Commission a été par la suite élargi et comprend aujourd’hui plus de 300 membres. MM. Raymond Barre, Thierry de Montbrial, Denis Kessler ont participé à ses travaux. M. de Montbrial est également membre du « Groupe Bilderberg ».

(3) Lire sur les réseaux de « décideurs » de ce genre, Geoffrey Guens, Tous pouvoirs confondus, EPO, Bruxelles, 2003.

(4) Gilbert Larochelle, L’Imaginaire technocratique, Boréal, Montréal, 1990, p. 279.

(5) Leurs discours, ainsi que de nombreuses autres informations, sont accessibles par le site de la Commission : http://www.trilateral.org/

(6) Mike Moore, The Multilateral Trading Regime Is a Force for Good : Defend It, Improve It, Réunion de la Commission trilatérale du 11 mars 2001.

(7) Michel Crozier, Samuel Huntington et Joji Watanuki, The Crisis of Democracy : Report on the Governability of Democracies to the Trilateral Commission, New York University Press, 1975.

(8) Zbigniew Brzezinski avait été l’un des grands architectes de cette organisation avant de devenir le principal conseiller du président Carter pour les questions de sécurité.

(9) On citera, par exemple, MM. William Clinton, George H. Bush, Henry Kissinger, George Soros, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, Ernesto Zedillo, Mme Madeleine Albright. Mais, à ces responsables politiques, il convient d’ajouter de nombreux dirigeants en exercice des multinationales Exxon-Mobil, General Electric, Daimler-Chrysler, Levi Strauss, Kodak, Xerox, ABB, Johnson & Johnson, Alcan, Power Corporation, etc.

(10) David Rockefeller, Georges Berthoin et Takeshi Watanabe, préface aux Task Force Reports : 9-14, New York University Press, 1978, p. IX.


http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2003/11/BOIRAL/10677 - novembre 2003

En complément : http://www.mecanopolis.org/?p=7024

Partager cet article
Repost0
23 mai 2009 6 23 /05 /mai /2009 18:16
Partager cet article
Repost0
17 mai 2009 7 17 /05 /mai /2009 20:22

Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell was released 60 years ago, in 1949.

BBC Television's live production of George Orwell's "1984". Produced in 1954. Creative Commons license: Public Domain.
More: http://www.pleasence.com/television/1984/1984.html

 


rosaryfilms

Partager cet article
Repost0
17 mai 2009 7 17 /05 /mai /2009 06:21

Total Contrôle d'Etienne LABROUE (53 min)

Demain, nous serons tous fichés, tracés, voire "pucés". Déjà la cybersurveillance est en marche et les milices du Net prolifèrent. Illusion sécuritaire ? Ce documentaire mesure les risques et paradoxes d'une fuite en avant technologique.


Des experts en nouvelles technologies dressent un panorama inquiétant des dispositifs de surveillance mis en oeuvre de Pékin à Paris, en passant par Tunis ou Berlin, avec des outils de traçage et d'identification sans cesse plus perfectionnés et plus nombreux. La mode est aux virus et aux logiciels intrusifs qui prennent le contrôle des ordinateurs ou des webcam pour épier l'usager jusque dans son intimité, chez lui ou sur son lieu de travail.

Si le "contrôle total" existe déjà en matière d'informatique, la biométrie gagne aussi de plus en plus d'entreprises et de collectivités comme les hôpitaux, les écoles, les mairies. Les syndicats dénoncent un "flicage" généralisé et relèvent l'apparition de nouvelles pathologies liées au stress et à la surveillance permanente.

De son côté, la révolution RFID (identification par radiofréquences) est en marche : en Europe et en Amérique, les implants de puce dans le corps humain se multiplient. À Mexico, un millier de personnes ont sauté le pas, essentiellement pour des raisons médicales. Un spécialiste de la géolocalisation évoque les applications prochaines où l'on combinera la puce avec un émetteur GPS pour localis

er en temps réel un objet ou une personne... Ce documentaire met efficacement en perspective le prix que nous risquons de payer pour une sécurité  illusoire.

Total contrôle 2
envoyé par dictys. -

http://www.arte.tv/fr/Tous-fiches/1586186.html

Retrouvez notre dossier Internet
Partager cet article
Repost0
7 mai 2009 4 07 /05 /mai /2009 19:32

Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell was released 60 years ago, in 1949.

Nineteen Eighty-Four
is also a British film directed by Michael Radford
, released in 1984, based upon the novel . It stars John Hurt, Richard Burton (in his last film role) and Suzanna Hamilton. 


1984 George Orwell Movie Trailer (1984)


nineteen eighty-four 1984 - 1:50:29 - 8 mai 2007

Partager cet article
Repost0

Présentation

  • : internationalnews
  • : Un site d'information et de réflexion sur l'actualité internationale, le nouvel ordre mondial, la géostratégie, la propagande, l'impérialisme, le nucléaire, l'économie, l'environnement et la culture, illustré de documentaires. Site géré par des journalistes bénévoles, sans aucune obédience politique, religieuse ou autre.
  • Contact

STOP TAFTA !

Rechercher

Dossiers les plus consultés