Nowa polityka zimnowojenna by Prof. Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski,
Berliner Zeitung 18 kwietnia twierdzi, że Niemcy i pięć innych państw nie popierają „tarczy” i że sprawą sporną jest czy „tarcza” jest w stanie chronić całej Europy, czy też pogarsza jej zagrożenie. Amerykański specjalista kiedyś przy rządzie prezydenta Bill’a Clinton’a, Philip Coyle, powiedział, że gdyby Rosja instalowała swoją „tarczę” w Kanadzie lub na Kubie, Waszyngton by reagował tak jak Moskwa to czyni w sprawie „tarczy” w Polsce.
Polska zgadza się oddać pod basy amerykańskie około 3000 hektarów z załogą ponad 2000 żołnierzy amerykańskich-specjalistów od wyrzutni pocisków. Polska ponosi potencjalne ryzyko użycia przeciwko tym dziesięciu wyrzutniom, rozrzuconym po całej Polsce, rosyjskich i chińskich broni nuklearnych. Większość Polaków nie zgadza się na to zagrożenie, ale rząd w Warszawie jest posłuszny Waszyngtonowi. Niemcy, Austryjacy jak i inni Europejczycy nie chcą takiego ryzyka poniosić.
W czasie pogrzebu Borysa Jelcyna, Moskwę odwiedził były szef CIA. a dziś minister obrony USA, Robert Gates, z wiadomością, że USA planuje instalację systemu tarczy antyrakietowej wzdłuż granic Rosji. Presja ta ma miejsce, ponieważ rosyjska gospodarka, a zwłaszcza energetyka, nie jest sprywatyzowana w ręce międzynarodowych korporacji. Program rozbrojenia nuklearnego jest pod znakiem zapytania na tle Wielkiej Gry o paliwo i o dominację świata przez USA, szczególnie dominację Eurazji.
W dniu 16 kwetnia 2007, departament stanu opublikował szczegóły instalacji USA w Polsce dziesięciu wyrzutni dalekosiężnych pocisków antyrakietowej tarczy w silosach i stacje radarowe w Czechach, dla kontroli pocisków stacjonowanych w Polsce niby przeciwko zagrożeniu przez Iran i Koreję Północną co jest oczywistym fałszem.
Amerykanie twierdzą, że instalacje, w Polsce nie będą wystarczające przeciwko pociskom ofenzywnym Rosji i Chin. USA jest jakoby gotowe udowodnić to Rosjanom.
Moskwa zwraca uwagę, że od kiedy 13go grudnia, 2001 rząd Bush’a odstępił od traktatu z 1972 roku Anty-Ballistic Missle (ABM), USA rozbudowuje na granicach Rosji stacje radarowe (w Norwegji) badające loty rakiet rosyjskich i możliwości ich strącania pociskami-interceptorami czyli rakietami przechwytującymi.
Według Rosjan ani Korea Północna ani Iran nie mają naukowych i technicznejnych możliwośći zagrażać nikomu międzykontynentalnymi pociskami przez nastepne 20 do 30 lat. Moskwa uważa, że USA instalacjami w Polsce chce kontrolować terytorium Rosji do Uralu i wobec tego jest to pogwałceniem układu NATO i Paktu Warszawskiego z końca Zimnej Wojny. Putin określił plan „tarczy” jako zagrożenie dla Rosji i posługiwanie się Europą w celu dominacji świata. Instalacje planowane w Polsce są tylko początkiem instalowania przez USA coraz bardziej ulepszanych systemów.
Asymetryczne posunięcia Rosji, takie jak przyśpieszenie wznosenia się ich rakiet i stosowanie paliwa w stanie stałym, a nie wolniejszym do odpalenia stanie płynnym, jak też szybsze zmiany w locie poziomo i pionowo, jak i stosowanie lotów poniżej stratosfery gdzie powietrze jest gęstsze.
Rosyjski szef sztabu generał Jury Balujewski powiedział, że celem USA jest obrona przeciwko pociskom nuklearnym z Rosji i z Chin, w celu osiągnięcia wyjątkowej przewagi obronności USA nad Rosją i Chinami. Rosja do tego nie dopuści nawet za cenę użycia broni nuklearnych, jeżeli sytuacja będzie tego wymagać. W każdym razie Putin obiecuje reakcję astymetryczną. ale bardzo skuteczną.
Obecnie Rosji głównie potrzeba rozwoju gospodarczego i poprawy problemów społecznych spowodowanym komunizmem i prywatyzacją, oraz sprawą wyborów w marcu 2008, przy końcu kadencji Putina. Rosja chce dalszej poprawy w stosunkach z USA, a nie powrotu do Zimnej Wojny, czego może chcieć Izrael. W Rosji panuje przekonanie, że USA oszukało Moskwę i nie dotrzymało obietnic od upadku Sowietów, a teraz chce narzucić państwom NATO poparcie dla „tarczy.”
Nicolas Sarkozy i Angela Merkel chcą zbliżenia z USA i nowego zacieśnienia się stosunków trans-atlanftyckich, jak tego chcą neokonserwatyści, żeby hamować wzrost Chin, jako dominującej potęgi w Azji. Unia Europejska i USA nadal stanowią tylko 13% ludzi na świecie, a jednocześnie mają 60% sił ekonomicznych i są gotowi walczyć o swoją pozycję w gospodarce światowej, podczas gdy stosunki ich z Rosją i Chinami pogarszają się, zwłaszcza w Azji Środkowej, gdzie UE chce omijać zasięg rurociągów rosyjskich.
W roku 2011 ma być powiększony o 3,400 km. kosztem sześciu miliardów dolarów amerykański rurociąg na gaz ziemnny z Baku, przez Morze Kaspijskie do Kazakstanu. Jest to konkurencja z rurociągiem Gasprom’u „Niebieskiego Strumienia-2,” który ma być uruchomiony w 2012 roku. Moskwa opiera się dostawom gazu ziemnego z Azji Średniej do Europy, które to dostawy omijałyby rurociągi rosyjeskie.
W Europie mało kto wierzy, że system „tarczy” ma sens militarny, a jeszcze mniej ludzi podziela zdanie osi USA-Izrael, o apokaliptycznym zagrożeniu Europy przez Iran. W Paryżu i w Berlinie nie podobają się układy Waszyngtonu z Warszawą i Pragą, zwłaszcza jeżeli mają one prowadzić do odnowienia Zimnej Wojny z Rosją i Chinami. Gorbaczow powiedział, że w całym sporze o „tarczę” chodzi tylko „o wpływy i dominację.” USA zniechęciło się pod rządami neokonserwatystów, do integracji Europy, która nie popierała ataku na Irak. Europejczykom nie podoba się dyktat USA jako tak zwany unilateralizm.
Układ rozbrojeniowy o współpracy UE z Rosją z 1999 roku prawadopodobnie nie będzie przedłużony, z końcem bieżącego roku. Rosja i Chiny nie pogodzą się z wyrzutniami „tarczy” ani w Polsce ani na Taiwanie. Rosyjscy eksperci uważają, że wyrzutnie „tarczy” mają na celu dać przewagę USA nad Rosją, jakiej nie było czasie stabilizacji w cieniu obopólnego zniszczenia, jaka istniala w podczas Zimnej Wojny.
Zapowiedzią takich dążeń USA jest nie przedłużenie układu ABM z 1972 roku i obecny kolosalny amerykański program zbrojeniowy, nie tylko nuklearny, ale również program ataków z wielką oprecyzją, tak że z chwilą kiedy USA kogoś zobaczy, to z tą chwilą moze go zabić. Dlatego w opozycji strategia asymetryczna buduje sposoby oślepiania satelitów USA. Rosjanie uważają, że strategia neokonserwatystów w rządzie USA, chce zastąpić dotychczasową „równowagę terroru” za pomocą totalnej wojskowej wyższości USA nad rosyjskim arsenałem nuklearnym.
W obecnym wyścigu zbrojeń Rosja będzie modernizować swoje ruchome wyrzutnie typu Topol-M-ICBM za pomocą sterowanych pocisów w fazie ostatniej, przed uderzeniem w cel, jak też precyzji systemów do niszczenia pocisków typu systemu „tarczy,” rakietami z wyrzutni na pokładzie samolotów, takich jak TU-160, co będzie kosztować bez porównania mniej, niż ameykańskie systemy podobne do „tarczy,” według Sergieja Rogowa z rosyjskiej akademii nauk.
Rogow zaleca przeprowadzenie gruntownego sprawdzianu, w jakim stopniu układy rozbrojeniowe zawarte przez Sowiety, odpowiadają w dzisiejszej sytuacji obopólnego wazjemnego nuklearnego zastraszaniu się USA i Rosji. Rogow uważa, że USA i Rosja stoją na progu nowej Zimnej Wojny i że niedługo będzie moda w USA na nową politykę „wstrzymywania Rosji” tak jak to było za czasów Zimnej Wojny.
Julia Timoszenko odwiedziła niedawno panią Coldoleezze Rice w Wszyngtononie. Według profesora Stephen’a Cohen’a USA stosuje politykę Zimnej Wojny przeciwko Rosji i chce żeby Gruzja i Ukraina weszły do NATO.
Ludowy Dziennik w Pekinie opisuje, że zanosi się na to, że konflikt między interesami USA i Rosji, będzie długo trwał i będzie wahal się między cooperacją a starciem. Tymczasem ma być powołana przez Bush’a i Putina nowa komisja do studiowania stosunków USA-Rosja, którą to grupą ma kierować dwu Żydów, Henry Kissinger i Jewgeny Primakow.
W latach 1970tych zniewolona Polska miała być obrócona w teren zapory skażonej radioaktywnie bombami amerykańskimi. Wówczas pułkownik Rydszard Kukliński ratował ojczyznę z narażenierm życia, żeby utrudnić Sowietom dokonania zaskoczenia sił USA, nad którymi sowieckie wojska pancerne miały duża liczebną przewagę.
Obecnie Polska zgadza się ponieść ryzyko bombardowania nuklearnego przez Rosję i skażnia radioaktywnego, pozwalając na instalacje w Polsce wyrzutni amerykańskich.
W obydwu wypadkach bombardowanie terenu nie należącego do USA ani do Rosji, daje możliwość tym mocarstwom do porozumienia się w ostatniej chwili i nie dopuszczenia do wymiany bombardowań, w których USA i Rosja zniszczyłyby się wzajemnie w pół godziny.
Tymczasem w Kyrgyzystanie ma odbyć się spotkanie u szczytu Shanghai Coopreation Organization, postrzeganej jako wschodnie NATO. W organizacji tej oficjalnymi językami są chiński i rosyjski, krajów które opierają się dominacji USA. W tej sytuacji z bezpośredniego powodu budowy amerykańskiego systemu „tarczy,” niestety zanosi się na odnowę Zimnej Wojny.
Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski
Born Sept. 3, 1921
Lwów, Poland
in Dec 1939 left Warsaw. Dec 30, 1939 arrested by Ukrainians serving the Gestapo in Dukla, then transferred to Barwinek, Krosno, Jaslo, Tarnów, Oswiecim, arrived in Oranienburg-Sachsenhausen on Aug. 10, 1940.
April 19, 1945 started on the Death March of Brandenburg from Sachsenhausen; escaped gunfire of SS-guards and arrived to Schwerin and freedom on May 2, 1945.
September 1945 arrived in Brussels, Belgium; obtained admission as a regular student at the Catholic University: Institute Superieur de Commerce, St. Ignace in Antwerp.
in 1954 graduated in Civil Engineering at the top of his class. Was invited to join honorary societies: Tau Beta Pi (general engineering honorary society), Phi Kappa Phi (academic honorary society equivalent to Phi Beta Kappa), Pi Mu (mechanical engineering honorary society), and Chi Epsilon (civil engineering honorary society). Taught descriptive geometry at the University of Tennessee;
in 1955 graduated with M.S. degree in Industrial Engineering.
in 1955 started working for Shell Oil Company in New Orleans. After one year of managerial training was assigned to design of marine structures for drilling and production of petroleum.
in 1960 started working for Texaco Research and Development in Houston, Texas as a Project Engineer. Authored total of 50 American and foreign patents on marine structures for the petroleum industry;
wrote an article: The Rise and Fall of the Polish Commonwealth - A Quest for a Representative Government in Central and Eastern Europe in the 14th to 18th Centuries. Started to work on a Tabular History of Poland.
in 1972 moved to Blacksburg, Virginia. During the following years worked as Consulting Engineer for Texaco, also taught in Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University as Adjunct Professor in the College of Civil Engineering teaching courses on marine structures of the petroleum industry. Designed and supervised the construction of a hill top home for his family, also bought 500 acre ranch (near Thomas Jefferson National Forest) where he restored 200 years old mill house on a mountain stream.
in 1978 prepared Polish-English, English-Polish Dictionary with complete phonetics, published by Hippocrene Books Inc. The dictionary included a Tabular History of Poland, Polish Language, People, and Culture as well as Pogonowski's phonetic symbols for phonetic transcriptions in English and Polish at each dictionary entry; the phonetic explanations were illustrated with cross-sections of speech (organs used to pronounce the sounds unfamiliar to the users). It was the first dictionary with phonetic transcription at each Polish entry for use by English speakers
in 1981 prepared Practical Polish-English Dictionary with complete phonetics, published by Hippocrene Books Inc.
in 1983 prepared Concise Polish-English Dictionary with complete phonetics, published by Hippocrene Books Inc. Wrote an analysis of Michael Ch ci ski's Poland, Communism, Nationalism, Anti-Semitism. Also selected crucial quotations from Norman Davies' God's Playground - A History of Poland on the subject of the Polish indigenous democratic process.
in 1985 prepared Polish-English Standard Dictionary with complete phonetics, published by Hippocrene Books Inc. Also prepared a revised and expanded edition of the Concise Polish-English Dictionary with complete phonetics, also published by Hippocrene Books Inc.
in 1987 prepared Poland: A Historical Atlas on Polish History and Prehistory including 200 maps and graphs as well as Chronology of Poland's Constitutional and Political Development, and the Evolution of Polish Identity - The Milestones. An introductory chapter was entitled Poland the Middle Ground. Aloysius A. Mazewski President of Polish-American Congress wrote an introduction. The Atlas was published by Hippocrene Books Inc. and later by Dorset Press of the Barnes and Noble Co. Inc. which sends some 30 million catalogues to American homes including color reproduction of book covers. Thus, many Americans were exposed to the cover of Pogonowski's Atlas showing the range of borders of Poland during the history - many found out for the firsttime that Poland was an important power in the past. Total of about 30,000 atlases were printed so far.
In 1988 the publication of Poland: A Historical Atlas resulted in a number of invitations extended by several Polonian organizations to Iwo Pogonowski to present Television Programs on Polish History. Pogonowski responded and produced over two year period 220 half-hour video programs in his studio at home (and at his own expense.) These programs formed a serial entitled: Poland, A History of One Thousand Years. Total of over 1000 broadcasts of these programs were transmitted by cable television in Chicago, Detroit-Hamtramck, Cleveland, and Blacksburg.
in 1990-1991 translated from the Russian the Catechism of a Revolutionary of 1869 in which crime has been treated as a normal part of the revolutionary program. Started preparation of the Killing the Best and the Brightest: A Chronology of the USSR-German Attempt to Behead the Polish Nation showing how the USSR became a prototype of modern totalitarian state, how this prototype was adapted in Germany by the Nazis.
in 1991 prepared Polish Phrasebook, Polish Conversations for Americans including picture code for gender and familiarity, published by Hippocrene Books Inc.
in 1991 prepared English Conversations for Poles with Concise Dictionary published by Hippocrene Books Inc. By then a total of over 100,000 Polish-English, English-Polish Dictionaries written by Pogonowski were sold in the United States and abroad.
in 1992 prepared a Dictionary of Polish, Latin, Hebrew, and Yiddish Terms used in Contacts between Poles and Jews. It was prepared for the history of Jews in Poland as well as 115 maps and graphs and 172 illustrations, paintings, drawings, and documents, etc. of Jewish life in Poland. This material was accompanied by proper annotations.
in 1993 prepared Jews in Poland, Rise of the Jews as a Nation from Congressus Judaicus in Poland to the Knesset in Israel, published by Hippocrene Books Inc. in 3000 copies. Foreword was written by Richard Pipes, professor of history at Harvard University, and Pogonowski's school mate in the Keczmar school in Warsaw. Part I included: a Synopsis of 1000 Year History of Jews in Poland; the 1264 Statute of Jewish Liberties in Poland in Latin and English translation; Jewish Autonomy in Poland 1264-1795; German Annihilation of the Jews. In appendixes are documents and illustrations. An Atlas is in the Part III. It is divided as follows: Early Jewish Settlements 966-1264; The Crucial 500 Years, 1264-1795; Competition (between Poles and Jews) Under Foreign Rule, 1795-1918; The Last Blossoming of Jewish Culture in Poland, 1918-1939; German Genocide of the Jews, 1940-1944; Jewish Escape from Europe 1945-1947 - The End of European (Polish) Phase of Jewish History (when most of world's Jewry lived in Europe). Pogonowski began to write a new book starting with the Chronology of the Martyrdom of Polish Intelligentsia during World War II and the Stalinist Terror; the book in preparation was entitled Killing the Best and the Brightest.
in 1995 prepared Dictionary of Polish Business, Legal and Associated Terms for use with the new edition of the Practical Polish-English, English-Polish Dictionary and later to be published as a separate book.
in 1996 Pogonowski's Poland: A Historical Atlas; was translated into Polish; some 130 of the original 200 maps printed in color; the Chronology of Poland was also translated into Polish. The Atlas was published by Wydawnictwo Suszczy ski I Baran in Kraków in 3000 copies; additional publications are expected. Prepared Polish-English, Eglish-Polish Compact Dictionary with complete phonetics, published by Hippocrene Books Inc.
in 1997 finished preparation of the Unabridged Polish-English Dictionary with complete phonetics including over 200,000 entries, in three volumes on total of 4000 pages; it is published by Hippocrene Books Inc; the Polish title is: Uniwesalny S ownik Polsko-Angielski. Besides years of work Pogonowski spent over $50,000 on computers, computer services, typing, and proof reading in order to make the 4000 page dictionary camera ready; assisted in the preparation of second edition of Jews in Poland, Rise of the Jews from Congressus Judaicus in Poland to the Knesset in Israel published in fall of 1997. Prepared computer programs for English-Polish Dictionary to serve as a companion to the Unabridged Polish-English Dictionary printed by the end of May 1997.
in 1998 Pogonowski organized preparation of CD ROM for the Unabridged Polish-English Dictionary, Practical English-Polish Dictionary, Polish Phrasebook for Tourists and Travelers to Poland, all published earlier by Iwo C. Pogonowski. The Phrasebook includes 280 minutes of bilingual audio read by actors. Started preparation for a new edition of Poland: A Historical Atlas. New Appendices are being prepared on such subjects as: Polish contribution to Allied's wartime intelligence: the breaking of the Enigma Codes, Pune Munde rocket production; Poland's contribution to the international law since 1415; Poland's early development of rocket technology such as Polish Rocketry Handbook published in 1650 in which Poles introduced for the first time into the world's literature concepts of multiple warheads, multistage rockets, new controls in rocket flight, etc. Poland's Chronology is being enlarged to reflect the mechanisms of subjugation of Polish people by the Soviet terror apparatus. Continued preparation of the Killing the Best and the Brightest: A Chronology of the USSR-German Attempt to Behead the Polish Nation, including the 1992 revelations from Soviet archives as well as the current research in Poland. Continued preparation of two-volume English Polish Dictionary, a companion to the Unabridged Polish-English Dictionary published in 1997. Reviewed Upiorna Dekada by J. T. Gross.
in 1999 Pogonowski continued writing Poland - An Illustrated History and preparing for it 21 maps and diagrams and 89 illustrations.
in 2000 Pogonowski prepared, in a camera ready form, Poland - An Illustrated History; it was published by Hippocrene Books Inc. NY 2000 and recommended by Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor under President Carter, as "An important contribution to the better understanding of Polish history, which demonstrates in a vivid fashion the historical vicissitudes of that major European nation."
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
The Polish-Bolshevik War 1919-1921 Bitwa Warszawska 1920
The Polish-Bolshevik War 1919-1921 Bitwa Warszawska 1920
from Rogvist of Youtube Poland
Until 1989, while communists held power in a People's Republic of Poland, the Polish-Soviet War was omitted or minimized in Polish and other Soviet bloc countries' history books, or was presented as foreign intervention during the Russian Civil War to fit in with communist ideology.
One of the most easily overlooked, yet momentous short wars of the 20th century was the swift-moving clash between the post-World War I Polish Republic and Russias brand-new Bolshevik regime of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. Reaching a climax during the summer of 1920, the Russo-Polish War is often regarded as the final episode of the Russian Civil War. In fact, it was much more — at once a reflection of the age-old enmity between two Slavic neighbors and a Marxist crusade bent on varying the torch of revolution into the heart of Europe. The campaign featured a remarkable cast of characters on both sides and mixed ferocious cavalry charges with early blitzkrieg tactics in quest of exceptional objectives.Bolshevik commanders in the Red Army's coming offensive would include Leon Trotsky, Mikhail Tukhachevsky (new commander of the Western Front), the future Soviet ruler Joseph Stalin and the founder of the Cheka (secret police)Feliks Dzierżyński.
Germany and France were war weary and were experiencing problems such as unemployment and general economic disruption. Lenin already had political agitators in those countries, but in order for his Revolution to succeed he would need the presence of a military force, the Red Army. It became apparent that Lenin was begining to win the Civil War in Russia and would soon be able to free up the Red Army for use in Europe.
The nature of this war and the significance of its outcome were not understood in the West at the time, and are still little known today. The war was both national and ideological. Its roots went back to the old Polish-Russian struggle over the borderlands, i.e. Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine, which now took on a new significance. The war led to the Red Army's only real defeat, which meant that not only Poland and the Baltic states, but perhaps also Hungary and Czechoslovakia, were saved from Soviet domination at this time.
J.Piłsudskis federalist concept was based on the assumption that the major threat to Eastern Europe was Soviet Russia and secondly Germany. Thus an association of countries had to be formed to prevent aggression. The union between Poland and Lithuania, including Belarus was supposed to be its basis. The next country included was to be independent Ukraine. Latvia and Estonia were to come later. The project was not completed as the countries in question were either too weak (Ukraine, Belarus) or did not want the federation (Lithuania). The later one preferred an independent national country. Piłsudskis initiative, taken up many times within 4 years (1918/19191922) was the only alternative to the Moscow idea of considering the area between Russia and Germany as the territory of its influence.
At the very least Lenin wanted to recapture Poland and other lands(Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus and Ukraine)lost as a result of Czarist Russia's defeat by Germany in WW I. It is widely believed that Lenin wanted to expand his Bolshevik empire beyond the former Russian boundries, using the Red Army as a tool to accomplish a wider Revolution. In a pre-emptive strike intended to stop the Bolsheviks, Jozef Pilsudski, the commander of Polish Forces, attacked the Bolsheviks in force in February 1919.
Western Europe, where revolutionary fever was boiling over on the streets, was spared a bloody fight for survival. Unfortunately, political and military significance of this victory was never fully appreciated by Europeans.
Polish allies were few. Hungary offered to send a 30,000 cavalry corps to Poland's aid, but the Czechoslovakian government refused to allow them through; some trains with weapon supplies from Hungary did, however, arrive in Poland.
In addition, shipments of military supplies, materials and armament sent as a form of military assistance by the Allies (most of it by France) were sabotaged by some countries (Germany, Czechoslovakia) under the pretence of neutrality, and by British and German workers converted to communism and manipulated by Soviet infiltrators.
W filmie wykorzystano fragmenty:
- "Przedwiośnia"
- "Sensacji XX wieku" B. Wołoszańskiego
- "Cudu nad Wisłą" K. Tyszowieckiego (podziękowania dla Pathe39)
from Rogvist of Youtube Poland
Until 1989, while communists held power in a People's Republic of Poland, the Polish-Soviet War was omitted or minimized in Polish and other Soviet bloc countries' history books, or was presented as foreign intervention during the Russian Civil War to fit in with communist ideology.
One of the most easily overlooked, yet momentous short wars of the 20th century was the swift-moving clash between the post-World War I Polish Republic and Russias brand-new Bolshevik regime of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. Reaching a climax during the summer of 1920, the Russo-Polish War is often regarded as the final episode of the Russian Civil War. In fact, it was much more — at once a reflection of the age-old enmity between two Slavic neighbors and a Marxist crusade bent on varying the torch of revolution into the heart of Europe. The campaign featured a remarkable cast of characters on both sides and mixed ferocious cavalry charges with early blitzkrieg tactics in quest of exceptional objectives.Bolshevik commanders in the Red Army's coming offensive would include Leon Trotsky, Mikhail Tukhachevsky (new commander of the Western Front), the future Soviet ruler Joseph Stalin and the founder of the Cheka (secret police)Feliks Dzierżyński.
Germany and France were war weary and were experiencing problems such as unemployment and general economic disruption. Lenin already had political agitators in those countries, but in order for his Revolution to succeed he would need the presence of a military force, the Red Army. It became apparent that Lenin was begining to win the Civil War in Russia and would soon be able to free up the Red Army for use in Europe.
The nature of this war and the significance of its outcome were not understood in the West at the time, and are still little known today. The war was both national and ideological. Its roots went back to the old Polish-Russian struggle over the borderlands, i.e. Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine, which now took on a new significance. The war led to the Red Army's only real defeat, which meant that not only Poland and the Baltic states, but perhaps also Hungary and Czechoslovakia, were saved from Soviet domination at this time.
J.Piłsudskis federalist concept was based on the assumption that the major threat to Eastern Europe was Soviet Russia and secondly Germany. Thus an association of countries had to be formed to prevent aggression. The union between Poland and Lithuania, including Belarus was supposed to be its basis. The next country included was to be independent Ukraine. Latvia and Estonia were to come later. The project was not completed as the countries in question were either too weak (Ukraine, Belarus) or did not want the federation (Lithuania). The later one preferred an independent national country. Piłsudskis initiative, taken up many times within 4 years (1918/19191922) was the only alternative to the Moscow idea of considering the area between Russia and Germany as the territory of its influence.
At the very least Lenin wanted to recapture Poland and other lands(Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus and Ukraine)lost as a result of Czarist Russia's defeat by Germany in WW I. It is widely believed that Lenin wanted to expand his Bolshevik empire beyond the former Russian boundries, using the Red Army as a tool to accomplish a wider Revolution. In a pre-emptive strike intended to stop the Bolsheviks, Jozef Pilsudski, the commander of Polish Forces, attacked the Bolsheviks in force in February 1919.
Western Europe, where revolutionary fever was boiling over on the streets, was spared a bloody fight for survival. Unfortunately, political and military significance of this victory was never fully appreciated by Europeans.
Polish allies were few. Hungary offered to send a 30,000 cavalry corps to Poland's aid, but the Czechoslovakian government refused to allow them through; some trains with weapon supplies from Hungary did, however, arrive in Poland.
In addition, shipments of military supplies, materials and armament sent as a form of military assistance by the Allies (most of it by France) were sabotaged by some countries (Germany, Czechoslovakia) under the pretence of neutrality, and by British and German workers converted to communism and manipulated by Soviet infiltrators.
W filmie wykorzystano fragmenty:
- "Przedwiośnia"
- "Sensacji XX wieku" B. Wołoszańskiego
- "Cudu nad Wisłą" K. Tyszowieckiego (podziękowania dla Pathe39)
Soros – Real Father of Reforms in Poland
Soros – Real Father of Reforms in Poland
With the change of Poland from a communist dictatorship to a free market system, much credit has been given to Leszek Balcerowicz, who supposedly is the father of the “miraculous” economic reform. However according to the special report published by the Executive Intelligence Review of Washington, D.C., the real brains behind the reforms that have impoverished and enslaved Poles for generations is a Hungarian Jew, mega speculator George Soros, who also carries American passport.
Born in Budapest, Hungary in 1930 and educated in England, George Soros and his Curacao based Quantum Fund have quickly become a silent partner of Rothschild’s, Reichman’s, US expelled Marc Rich, Israeli arms merchant Saul Isenberg and many other wealthy and influential Jews, such as Henry Kissinger. The main objectives of their activities are speculative investments to take advantage of political and economic weaknesses of various countries.
Soros' Quantum Fund makes money by anticipating economic shifts around the world. In 1992 Soros thought the British pound would lose value because of political and economic pressures. He borrowed billions of pounds and converted them to German marks. When the pound collapsed Sept. 16, Soros repaid the pounds at the lower rate and pocketed the difference. His profit: $1 billion.
To understand how George Soros is different from other financial speculators, just ponder this: Enron's whiz kids, once considered the acme of high-finance innovation, named one of their infamous off-balance sheet partnerships "Chewco" -- after the "Star Wars" character Chewbacca. Soros chose to name his primary vehicle for earning billions of dollars "the Quantum Fund."
He was alluding, says his biographer, Michael Kaufman, to Werner Heisenberg's theory of "indeterminacy": the impossibility of knowing simultaneously both the position and velocity of any atomic particle. As applied to markets, the implication was that you can't invest in something (especially on a Soros-ian scale) without affecting its prospects, for good or ill.
"Soros's choice," writes Kaufman, "was both an ironic wink and a gesture of homage to notions of fallibility, reflexivity, and his own convention of incomplete determinism."
OK, so Soros is like, really smart, and those Enron guys, despite the Harvard MBAs, now look kind of dumb. But the two did have some things in common.
Soros is credited with being the chief developer of the hedge fund -- a strategy for investing that, at its simplest, maximizes an investor's ability to pick winners (and losers) and yet at the same time insures against larger market trends that could be completely unpredictable. So, for example, at the same time you are buying one company's stock because you think its stock price will rise, you are selling another's short, because you think it will fall. By balancing your long and short positions, if something unexpected happens, like a terrorist attack, that drives all stock prices up, or down, across the board, you are insured against losing your shirt. Some of your bets will win, no matter what. And if nothing unexpected happens, all of your bets might win.
As Enron mutated away from being a natural gas trader into a financial derivatives player, it advanced the concept of hedging beyond the sublime and the ridiculous straight to the land of pure idiocy. Enron, the biggest bankruptcy of all time, even bet on bankruptcy protection! In this, Enron's derivatives traders were descendants of Soros; as financial speculators intent on beating the system by being really, really smart, they attempted to hedge against every possible eventuality.
Soros and the latter-stage Enron both strove to make money chiefly by manipulating money. The difference is that Soros rarely lost a bet, while Enron's executives, blinded by greed and hubris, took themselves to the cleaners.
Are financial speculators parasites profiting off the people and companies who do the real work, or do they in any way produce value themselves? Michael Kaufman's intriguing biography of Soros never fully addresses this question -- one of the few flaws in an otherwise eminently readable book on the enigmatically fascinating Soros. And Soros himself neatly sidesteps the conundrum, by virtue of what he has done with his winnings.
Soros, a "revolutionary plutocrat," would-be philosopher king and one-man Marshall Plan, set out to change the world -- to use his billions to fund the spread of "open societies." He became a one-man conduit of funds from West to East, from affluent to non-affluent.
Which raises another question that Kaufman's bio never delves into too deeply. When an ordinary individual donates money to charity, it's easy to respect that as a personal choice. But when the individual involved can spend billions -- when he's the kind of person who can casually say, "Tell me about the health of the king of Thailand ... I happen to own 5 percent of the Thai stock market this week" -- then you start to wonder, is this really kosher? Who is this man accountable to?
One of Soros' nicknames is "The Man Who Broke the Bank of England," in reference to a famous multibillion dollar bet his fund made that John Major's Conservative government would not be able to prop up the value of the British pound. The phrase is usually used admiringly -- what a paragon of financial expertise this Soros guy is!
But what if, say, Osama bin Laden was doing the betting? What if such manipulation was pursued on behalf of "the closed society" as opposed to the open?
Liberals love to shower Soros with respect, ignoring his Wall Street background, because his motives are so obviously honorable, and the money he is spending so clearly is going to "good" causes. But his life raises some troubling questions about the autonomy of capital in the era of globalization. Make enough money, and you don't have to obey anyone's rules.
As one might expect from the first "authorized" biography of Soros, "Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire" is flattering to its subject. But it's never fawning, and the psychological portrait it draws is convincing and illuminating.
Soros' life, no matter how you slice it, has been extraordinary. The first several chapters of the biography -- which deal with the teenage Soros' efforts to avoid the depredations of first the Nazis and then the Soviets in his native Hungary -- read like a thriller. As Kaufman notes, this background makes it easy to understand how Soros was able to cope with the pressures involved with high-stakes investing: When your formative experiences include watching friends and colleagues get rounded up and shipped off to Auschwitz in the waning days of World War II, it's likely that little else will ever be able to frighten you.
Soros' early experiences with fascism and totalitarianism also illuminate his motives, later on, in helping Eastern European and Soviet dissidents. Kaufman excels at dissecting and explaining Soros' psychological makeup. As just one data point -- can you imagine a Rockefeller or Carnegie or Gates frankly talking about insights gained from psychoanalysis, if they ever even admitted to seeing a therapist at all?
Kaufman gets Soros to open up -- about his analysis, about his family, about his dreams. A picture emerges of a man who was not only intensely self-critical but also sought out criticism from others. And his obsession with being an actual philosopher, along with his grandiose visions of single-handedly changing the world, make him come off as more than slightly neurotic.
Few neurotics, of course, are able to dispense about a half a billion dollars a year to whomever they choose. Is that really a good thing?
During the Asian financial crisis of 1997, the prime minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohammad, accused Soros of destabilizing his country through currency speculation. According to Kaufman, Soros was not involved in currency trading in Malaysia at the time, but his response, at a conference held in Hong Kong that year, is instructive.
"Dr. Mahathir's suggestion yesterday to ban currency trading is so inappropriate that it does not deserve serious consideration. Interfering with the convertibility of capital at a moment like this is a recipe for disaster. Dr. Mahathir is a menace to his own country."
Never mind that the stringent restrictions on currency flow that Malaysia did impose are now widely considered to have worked spectacularly well. What's important isn't whether Soros was wrong or right, but the arrogance implicit in Soros' categorization of Mahathir as a "menace."
If you or I were to think that Mahathir is a neo-authoritarian despot who is fundamentally anti-democratic, that's one thing. But Soros can get peeved at a leader and decide to bankroll a popular movement aimed at destabilizing a government. He's done it before! If I were a Malaysian citizen aware of what Soros had done in Poland and Czechoslovakia and the former Soviet Union, I'd be a little worried when he started calling my leader bad names. Who could stop him? Who could censure him?
No one.
Soros has stated that he doesn't do philanthropy in countries where he is involved as a trader, and vice versa. He has also noted that he considers his philanthropy moral and his money-management business "amoral." But is it really possible to make such distinctions? If the consequences of a billion-dollar bet on a currency change "anomaly" destabilizes a given country's economy, boosting unemployment and inflation, does that balance out the good karma that accrues from connecting all of Russia's universities to the Internet?
We should all be grateful that deep down, George Soros appears to be a good guy, at least as judged according to liberal Western values. His commitment to "openness" is sincere; his dedication to improving people's lives is unquestionable. He is the ultimate meddling, bleeding-heart liberal do-gooder, and for that, let's give him a cheer.
But at the same time, a guy like George Soros can't be voted out of office if you disagree with him. And when his billions of dollars can affect public policy, not just in his own country but in any country of his choosing, there is good reason to be a little bit nervous. Maybe Prime Minister Mahathir is indeed a menace to his own country. But on a bad day, a grumpy George Soros could be a menace to any country.
In order to gain valuable inside knowledge of the speculative possibilities, George Soros has set up a huge organization of inter-related “open society” institutes staffed mainly by Jews. Although his “institutes” have been expelled from China, Russia, Indonesia and the Czech Republic, they exist in Albania, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, France, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the USA. There is no doubt that this organization allows for great economic intelligence gathering possibilities to detect weaknesses subject to financial speculation. But to go one step further, George Soros has also been known to manipulate the outcome of the political process by funding his own candidates in presidential elections, as recently documented in the Ukraine and Peru. In today’s information age, it is much more profitable for speculators to have their own people (insiders) in the government they are planning to raid. His favorite agenda is to convince the government of a particular country that neo-liberal reform is the best way out of financial crisis, so he can take advantage and speculate with their currency and privatization. Soros justifies his methods with a statement that what he is doing may not be moral but it is not against the law.
According to Lyndon LaRouche, Soros has gained a new position in the course of the 1997-98 period. The big thing that is occurring in Southeast Asia and in East Asia, is that the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir bin Mohamad, has become a hero of economics. He defied Al Gore, he defied Madeleine Albright--personally, nose-to-nose in Asia--on the issue of George Soros. And Madeleine Albright and Al Gore came to the enraged defense of George Soros.
In the period between October 1998 and the Brazil crisis of February 1999, George Soros was used as a key adviser on how to generate an avalanche of fraudulent money, which was used in particular to try to deal with the Brazil debt crisis. So, George Soros has gone from being a figure of what he was earlier, to using his experience and connections for a somewhat different operation. He's a key part of what is actually being generated, a global hyperinflation like that of Weimar 1923.
The thing that must always be remembered is that the United States, as a national economy, is presently hopelessly bankrupt. For example, the United States, at the current rate, has a national current account deficit rate of approximately a half-trillion dollars a year. Well, that's the mark of a bankrupt business. It has no hope of ever earning the income to pay that deficit. We don't know how much money is being put in to try to keep the United States from collapsing. Official figures from central bankers and others show at least $1 trillion a year. LaRouche estimates is that, in addition to that, there is an additional trillion dollars a year or more, which is now going into over-the-counter derivatives.
In other words, the United States, as an economy, is presently like a hopelessly bankrupt firm, which is borrowing ever vaster amounts of credit by the day, to keep from closing the door. By every objective standard, the U.S. economy and the U.S. dollar are the most bankrupt nation in the world. And, it's a time bomb that can set off the biggest financial collapse in all history, a collapse that will sink the entire world economy.
So, states LaRouche, the significance of Soros, is that these fellows are trying to keep alive, keep the bankruptcy from the door, long enough to establish their kind of world government, or one-world government, system.
As if this was not enough, George Soros has also been actively promoting the free use of narcotics, which leads to greater liberalization of the particular countries and greater possibilities of speculative gains.
According to the EIR Report, Soros has been personally responsible for introducing “shock therapy” economic chaos into the emerging economies of Eastern Europe since 1989. He has foisted on fragile new governments in the East, the most draconian economic madness, policies that have allowed Soros and his financial friends to loot the resources of large parts of Eastern Europe at less than dirt-cheap prices.
In Poland, in late 1989, Soros personally organized a secret meeting between the communist government of Mieczyslaw Rakowski (also Stanislaw Gomulka and Wojciech Jaruzelski), and the leaders of the then-illegal opposition, the Solidarnosc trade-union umbrella organization. According to well-informed Polish sources, at that 1989 meeting between the communist regime and the Solidarnosc, Soros unveiled his “plan” for Poland: The communists must let the opposition Solidarnosc take over government so as to gain the confidence of the population.
Then, said Soros, the state must act deliberately to bankrupt its own industrial and agricultural enterprises using astronomical interest rates, withholding needed state credits, thus burdening firms with unpayable debt. Once that was done, said Soros, he would encourage his wealthy international business friends to come to Poland as prospective buyers of privatized state enterprises. A good example of this Soros privatization plan is the case of the large steel facility, Huta Warszawa. According to steel experts the complex, a modern one, would cost $3-4 billion for a Western company to build new. The Polish government agreed to assume the “debts” of Huta Warszawa, and sell the debt-free, steel making complex to Milan Company, Lucehini, for a price of $30 million!
To further the Soros plan, Soros personally recruited his friend (Belorussian Jew with American passport), 35-year old Harvard economist, Jeffrey Sachs, whose only prior claim to experience was that of advising the Bolivian government on the advantages of the disastrous neo-liberal reform. Next, Soros set up one of his numerous foundations, the Stefan Batory Foundation, staffed by Polish Jews related to the Mazowiecki government. The Stefan Batory Foundation became the official sponsor of Sach’s work in Poland in 1989-90. Before his recent move on Peru to advise Soros-sponsored President Alejandro Toledo and his Belgian-Jewish-Polish wife Eliane Karp, Sachs visited Poland over 40 times. In 1996, although officially never employed by the Polish government (as argued by Janine Wedel) , Sachs neverless was decorated with the Order of White Eagle by post-communist President Alexander Kwasniewski.
Soros boasted that he had “established close personal contact with Walesa’s chief advisor, Bronislaw Geremek. I was also received by Gen. Jaruzelski, the Head of State, to obtain his blessing for my foundation.” He also worked closely with the “eminence grise” of Polish “shock therapy”, Prof. Trzeciakowski , a behind-the-scene adviser to Finance and Economics Minister Leszek Balcerowicz. Soros also cultivated relations with the man who would first impose Sach’s “shock” therapy on Poland: Balcerowicz himself. When Lech Walesa was elected President of Poland, Soros said: “largely because of Western (Washington) pressure Walesa retained Balcerowicz as Minister”. Balcerowicz imposed a freeze on wages while industry was to be bankrupted by cutoff of state credits. Industrial output fell by more than 30% over two years.
Since, during early “shock therapy”, Balcerowicz maintained a fixed rate of dollar exchange with interest rates in Polish zloty reaching 80% a year, for many years Poland was a dream country for currency speculators like George Soros. Unfortunately, during those years there was no tax on the interest earned in Polish banks and therefore there are no records as to how much money was siphoned out of the country. Tax on the interest earned was applied in the year 2001 and only since then has interest income been recorded. Although there are no verifiable records, I estimate Poland lost up to $30 billion dollars due to speculation with its currency exchange. Prof. Kazimierz Poznanski, of the University of Washington, documents that Poland has lost over $80 billion dollars through manipulation of currency exchange and dishonest privatization.
Soros admits he knew in advance that his “shock therapy” would cause huge unemployement (approx. 20% in 2002), closing of factories, and social unrest. For this reason he insisted that Solidarnosc be brought into the government. Through his Batory Foundation, Soros also co-opted key media opinion-makers such as Adam Michnik (Gazeta Wyborcza), and with cooperation from the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw, imposed a media censorship favorable only to Soros’s “shock therapy” and hostile to all critics – a censorship which rivaled that of the communists, according to some Polish reports.
Not a shabby achievement for a Hungarian Jew, who survived the “holocaust” and started with nothing else but a name. His personal net worth is estimated at 15 billion dollars. “Time” magazine has characterized George Soros as a “modern-day Robin Hood”, who robs from the rich to give to the poor countries of Eastern Europe and Russia. “Time” claimed that Soros made huge financial gains by speculating against Western central banks, in order to use his profits to help the emerging post-communist economies of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, to assist them to create what he calls an “Open Society”. “Time’s” statement is entirely accurate in the first part, and entirely inaccurate in the second. He robs from rich Western countries, all right – then he uses his profits to create the basis to rob even more savagely from the East, under the cloak of “philanthropy”. His goal is to loot wherever he can. Soros has been called the master manipulator of the “hit-and-run capitalism” and Poland with cooperation from the postcommunist rulers, has been one of his easy prey. However, officially, there are no records that George Soros himself or his Quantum Fund has taken out a single dollar out of Poland. The real looting was done by others, who were fully protected by the privacy laws of the post-communist banking system.
What Soros means by “open”, is to open up, for him and his financial predator friends, the economies of the former Warsaw Pact countries, so they can loot their resources and assets. By bringing people like Jeffrey Sachs and their economic “shock therapy” into emerging economies, Soros has laid the foundation for buying invaluable assets of whole regions of the world at dirt-cheap prices, for himself and his selected rich friends, who share a dream forming world government one day.
It must be stated that George Soros would never be able to create crisis in Poland without the full cooperation of the perpetual oligarchy of the Polish-Jewish and meddling of the American-Jewish politicians, but their treason is a subject for discussion some other time.
Stanislaw Tyminski
Encl.
EIR Special Report: “The true story of Soros the Golem”, April 1997
Interview with Lyndon LaRouche, Executive Intelligence Review, , July 7, 2000.
George Soros “Underwriting Democracy”, 1991
With the change of Poland from a communist dictatorship to a free market system, much credit has been given to Leszek Balcerowicz, who supposedly is the father of the “miraculous” economic reform. However according to the special report published by the Executive Intelligence Review of Washington, D.C., the real brains behind the reforms that have impoverished and enslaved Poles for generations is a Hungarian Jew, mega speculator George Soros, who also carries American passport.
Born in Budapest, Hungary in 1930 and educated in England, George Soros and his Curacao based Quantum Fund have quickly become a silent partner of Rothschild’s, Reichman’s, US expelled Marc Rich, Israeli arms merchant Saul Isenberg and many other wealthy and influential Jews, such as Henry Kissinger. The main objectives of their activities are speculative investments to take advantage of political and economic weaknesses of various countries.
Soros' Quantum Fund makes money by anticipating economic shifts around the world. In 1992 Soros thought the British pound would lose value because of political and economic pressures. He borrowed billions of pounds and converted them to German marks. When the pound collapsed Sept. 16, Soros repaid the pounds at the lower rate and pocketed the difference. His profit: $1 billion.
To understand how George Soros is different from other financial speculators, just ponder this: Enron's whiz kids, once considered the acme of high-finance innovation, named one of their infamous off-balance sheet partnerships "Chewco" -- after the "Star Wars" character Chewbacca. Soros chose to name his primary vehicle for earning billions of dollars "the Quantum Fund."
He was alluding, says his biographer, Michael Kaufman, to Werner Heisenberg's theory of "indeterminacy": the impossibility of knowing simultaneously both the position and velocity of any atomic particle. As applied to markets, the implication was that you can't invest in something (especially on a Soros-ian scale) without affecting its prospects, for good or ill.
"Soros's choice," writes Kaufman, "was both an ironic wink and a gesture of homage to notions of fallibility, reflexivity, and his own convention of incomplete determinism."
OK, so Soros is like, really smart, and those Enron guys, despite the Harvard MBAs, now look kind of dumb. But the two did have some things in common.
Soros is credited with being the chief developer of the hedge fund -- a strategy for investing that, at its simplest, maximizes an investor's ability to pick winners (and losers) and yet at the same time insures against larger market trends that could be completely unpredictable. So, for example, at the same time you are buying one company's stock because you think its stock price will rise, you are selling another's short, because you think it will fall. By balancing your long and short positions, if something unexpected happens, like a terrorist attack, that drives all stock prices up, or down, across the board, you are insured against losing your shirt. Some of your bets will win, no matter what. And if nothing unexpected happens, all of your bets might win.
As Enron mutated away from being a natural gas trader into a financial derivatives player, it advanced the concept of hedging beyond the sublime and the ridiculous straight to the land of pure idiocy. Enron, the biggest bankruptcy of all time, even bet on bankruptcy protection! In this, Enron's derivatives traders were descendants of Soros; as financial speculators intent on beating the system by being really, really smart, they attempted to hedge against every possible eventuality.
Soros and the latter-stage Enron both strove to make money chiefly by manipulating money. The difference is that Soros rarely lost a bet, while Enron's executives, blinded by greed and hubris, took themselves to the cleaners.
Are financial speculators parasites profiting off the people and companies who do the real work, or do they in any way produce value themselves? Michael Kaufman's intriguing biography of Soros never fully addresses this question -- one of the few flaws in an otherwise eminently readable book on the enigmatically fascinating Soros. And Soros himself neatly sidesteps the conundrum, by virtue of what he has done with his winnings.
Soros, a "revolutionary plutocrat," would-be philosopher king and one-man Marshall Plan, set out to change the world -- to use his billions to fund the spread of "open societies." He became a one-man conduit of funds from West to East, from affluent to non-affluent.
Which raises another question that Kaufman's bio never delves into too deeply. When an ordinary individual donates money to charity, it's easy to respect that as a personal choice. But when the individual involved can spend billions -- when he's the kind of person who can casually say, "Tell me about the health of the king of Thailand ... I happen to own 5 percent of the Thai stock market this week" -- then you start to wonder, is this really kosher? Who is this man accountable to?
One of Soros' nicknames is "The Man Who Broke the Bank of England," in reference to a famous multibillion dollar bet his fund made that John Major's Conservative government would not be able to prop up the value of the British pound. The phrase is usually used admiringly -- what a paragon of financial expertise this Soros guy is!
But what if, say, Osama bin Laden was doing the betting? What if such manipulation was pursued on behalf of "the closed society" as opposed to the open?
Liberals love to shower Soros with respect, ignoring his Wall Street background, because his motives are so obviously honorable, and the money he is spending so clearly is going to "good" causes. But his life raises some troubling questions about the autonomy of capital in the era of globalization. Make enough money, and you don't have to obey anyone's rules.
As one might expect from the first "authorized" biography of Soros, "Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire" is flattering to its subject. But it's never fawning, and the psychological portrait it draws is convincing and illuminating.
Soros' life, no matter how you slice it, has been extraordinary. The first several chapters of the biography -- which deal with the teenage Soros' efforts to avoid the depredations of first the Nazis and then the Soviets in his native Hungary -- read like a thriller. As Kaufman notes, this background makes it easy to understand how Soros was able to cope with the pressures involved with high-stakes investing: When your formative experiences include watching friends and colleagues get rounded up and shipped off to Auschwitz in the waning days of World War II, it's likely that little else will ever be able to frighten you.
Soros' early experiences with fascism and totalitarianism also illuminate his motives, later on, in helping Eastern European and Soviet dissidents. Kaufman excels at dissecting and explaining Soros' psychological makeup. As just one data point -- can you imagine a Rockefeller or Carnegie or Gates frankly talking about insights gained from psychoanalysis, if they ever even admitted to seeing a therapist at all?
Kaufman gets Soros to open up -- about his analysis, about his family, about his dreams. A picture emerges of a man who was not only intensely self-critical but also sought out criticism from others. And his obsession with being an actual philosopher, along with his grandiose visions of single-handedly changing the world, make him come off as more than slightly neurotic.
Few neurotics, of course, are able to dispense about a half a billion dollars a year to whomever they choose. Is that really a good thing?
During the Asian financial crisis of 1997, the prime minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohammad, accused Soros of destabilizing his country through currency speculation. According to Kaufman, Soros was not involved in currency trading in Malaysia at the time, but his response, at a conference held in Hong Kong that year, is instructive.
"Dr. Mahathir's suggestion yesterday to ban currency trading is so inappropriate that it does not deserve serious consideration. Interfering with the convertibility of capital at a moment like this is a recipe for disaster. Dr. Mahathir is a menace to his own country."
Never mind that the stringent restrictions on currency flow that Malaysia did impose are now widely considered to have worked spectacularly well. What's important isn't whether Soros was wrong or right, but the arrogance implicit in Soros' categorization of Mahathir as a "menace."
If you or I were to think that Mahathir is a neo-authoritarian despot who is fundamentally anti-democratic, that's one thing. But Soros can get peeved at a leader and decide to bankroll a popular movement aimed at destabilizing a government. He's done it before! If I were a Malaysian citizen aware of what Soros had done in Poland and Czechoslovakia and the former Soviet Union, I'd be a little worried when he started calling my leader bad names. Who could stop him? Who could censure him?
No one.
Soros has stated that he doesn't do philanthropy in countries where he is involved as a trader, and vice versa. He has also noted that he considers his philanthropy moral and his money-management business "amoral." But is it really possible to make such distinctions? If the consequences of a billion-dollar bet on a currency change "anomaly" destabilizes a given country's economy, boosting unemployment and inflation, does that balance out the good karma that accrues from connecting all of Russia's universities to the Internet?
We should all be grateful that deep down, George Soros appears to be a good guy, at least as judged according to liberal Western values. His commitment to "openness" is sincere; his dedication to improving people's lives is unquestionable. He is the ultimate meddling, bleeding-heart liberal do-gooder, and for that, let's give him a cheer.
But at the same time, a guy like George Soros can't be voted out of office if you disagree with him. And when his billions of dollars can affect public policy, not just in his own country but in any country of his choosing, there is good reason to be a little bit nervous. Maybe Prime Minister Mahathir is indeed a menace to his own country. But on a bad day, a grumpy George Soros could be a menace to any country.
In order to gain valuable inside knowledge of the speculative possibilities, George Soros has set up a huge organization of inter-related “open society” institutes staffed mainly by Jews. Although his “institutes” have been expelled from China, Russia, Indonesia and the Czech Republic, they exist in Albania, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, France, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the USA. There is no doubt that this organization allows for great economic intelligence gathering possibilities to detect weaknesses subject to financial speculation. But to go one step further, George Soros has also been known to manipulate the outcome of the political process by funding his own candidates in presidential elections, as recently documented in the Ukraine and Peru. In today’s information age, it is much more profitable for speculators to have their own people (insiders) in the government they are planning to raid. His favorite agenda is to convince the government of a particular country that neo-liberal reform is the best way out of financial crisis, so he can take advantage and speculate with their currency and privatization. Soros justifies his methods with a statement that what he is doing may not be moral but it is not against the law.
According to Lyndon LaRouche, Soros has gained a new position in the course of the 1997-98 period. The big thing that is occurring in Southeast Asia and in East Asia, is that the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir bin Mohamad, has become a hero of economics. He defied Al Gore, he defied Madeleine Albright--personally, nose-to-nose in Asia--on the issue of George Soros. And Madeleine Albright and Al Gore came to the enraged defense of George Soros.
In the period between October 1998 and the Brazil crisis of February 1999, George Soros was used as a key adviser on how to generate an avalanche of fraudulent money, which was used in particular to try to deal with the Brazil debt crisis. So, George Soros has gone from being a figure of what he was earlier, to using his experience and connections for a somewhat different operation. He's a key part of what is actually being generated, a global hyperinflation like that of Weimar 1923.
The thing that must always be remembered is that the United States, as a national economy, is presently hopelessly bankrupt. For example, the United States, at the current rate, has a national current account deficit rate of approximately a half-trillion dollars a year. Well, that's the mark of a bankrupt business. It has no hope of ever earning the income to pay that deficit. We don't know how much money is being put in to try to keep the United States from collapsing. Official figures from central bankers and others show at least $1 trillion a year. LaRouche estimates is that, in addition to that, there is an additional trillion dollars a year or more, which is now going into over-the-counter derivatives.
In other words, the United States, as an economy, is presently like a hopelessly bankrupt firm, which is borrowing ever vaster amounts of credit by the day, to keep from closing the door. By every objective standard, the U.S. economy and the U.S. dollar are the most bankrupt nation in the world. And, it's a time bomb that can set off the biggest financial collapse in all history, a collapse that will sink the entire world economy.
So, states LaRouche, the significance of Soros, is that these fellows are trying to keep alive, keep the bankruptcy from the door, long enough to establish their kind of world government, or one-world government, system.
As if this was not enough, George Soros has also been actively promoting the free use of narcotics, which leads to greater liberalization of the particular countries and greater possibilities of speculative gains.
According to the EIR Report, Soros has been personally responsible for introducing “shock therapy” economic chaos into the emerging economies of Eastern Europe since 1989. He has foisted on fragile new governments in the East, the most draconian economic madness, policies that have allowed Soros and his financial friends to loot the resources of large parts of Eastern Europe at less than dirt-cheap prices.
In Poland, in late 1989, Soros personally organized a secret meeting between the communist government of Mieczyslaw Rakowski (also Stanislaw Gomulka and Wojciech Jaruzelski), and the leaders of the then-illegal opposition, the Solidarnosc trade-union umbrella organization. According to well-informed Polish sources, at that 1989 meeting between the communist regime and the Solidarnosc, Soros unveiled his “plan” for Poland: The communists must let the opposition Solidarnosc take over government so as to gain the confidence of the population.
Then, said Soros, the state must act deliberately to bankrupt its own industrial and agricultural enterprises using astronomical interest rates, withholding needed state credits, thus burdening firms with unpayable debt. Once that was done, said Soros, he would encourage his wealthy international business friends to come to Poland as prospective buyers of privatized state enterprises. A good example of this Soros privatization plan is the case of the large steel facility, Huta Warszawa. According to steel experts the complex, a modern one, would cost $3-4 billion for a Western company to build new. The Polish government agreed to assume the “debts” of Huta Warszawa, and sell the debt-free, steel making complex to Milan Company, Lucehini, for a price of $30 million!
To further the Soros plan, Soros personally recruited his friend (Belorussian Jew with American passport), 35-year old Harvard economist, Jeffrey Sachs, whose only prior claim to experience was that of advising the Bolivian government on the advantages of the disastrous neo-liberal reform. Next, Soros set up one of his numerous foundations, the Stefan Batory Foundation, staffed by Polish Jews related to the Mazowiecki government. The Stefan Batory Foundation became the official sponsor of Sach’s work in Poland in 1989-90. Before his recent move on Peru to advise Soros-sponsored President Alejandro Toledo and his Belgian-Jewish-Polish wife Eliane Karp, Sachs visited Poland over 40 times. In 1996, although officially never employed by the Polish government (as argued by Janine Wedel) , Sachs neverless was decorated with the Order of White Eagle by post-communist President Alexander Kwasniewski.
Soros boasted that he had “established close personal contact with Walesa’s chief advisor, Bronislaw Geremek. I was also received by Gen. Jaruzelski, the Head of State, to obtain his blessing for my foundation.” He also worked closely with the “eminence grise” of Polish “shock therapy”, Prof. Trzeciakowski , a behind-the-scene adviser to Finance and Economics Minister Leszek Balcerowicz. Soros also cultivated relations with the man who would first impose Sach’s “shock” therapy on Poland: Balcerowicz himself. When Lech Walesa was elected President of Poland, Soros said: “largely because of Western (Washington) pressure Walesa retained Balcerowicz as Minister”. Balcerowicz imposed a freeze on wages while industry was to be bankrupted by cutoff of state credits. Industrial output fell by more than 30% over two years.
Since, during early “shock therapy”, Balcerowicz maintained a fixed rate of dollar exchange with interest rates in Polish zloty reaching 80% a year, for many years Poland was a dream country for currency speculators like George Soros. Unfortunately, during those years there was no tax on the interest earned in Polish banks and therefore there are no records as to how much money was siphoned out of the country. Tax on the interest earned was applied in the year 2001 and only since then has interest income been recorded. Although there are no verifiable records, I estimate Poland lost up to $30 billion dollars due to speculation with its currency exchange. Prof. Kazimierz Poznanski, of the University of Washington, documents that Poland has lost over $80 billion dollars through manipulation of currency exchange and dishonest privatization.
Soros admits he knew in advance that his “shock therapy” would cause huge unemployement (approx. 20% in 2002), closing of factories, and social unrest. For this reason he insisted that Solidarnosc be brought into the government. Through his Batory Foundation, Soros also co-opted key media opinion-makers such as Adam Michnik (Gazeta Wyborcza), and with cooperation from the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw, imposed a media censorship favorable only to Soros’s “shock therapy” and hostile to all critics – a censorship which rivaled that of the communists, according to some Polish reports.
Not a shabby achievement for a Hungarian Jew, who survived the “holocaust” and started with nothing else but a name. His personal net worth is estimated at 15 billion dollars. “Time” magazine has characterized George Soros as a “modern-day Robin Hood”, who robs from the rich to give to the poor countries of Eastern Europe and Russia. “Time” claimed that Soros made huge financial gains by speculating against Western central banks, in order to use his profits to help the emerging post-communist economies of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, to assist them to create what he calls an “Open Society”. “Time’s” statement is entirely accurate in the first part, and entirely inaccurate in the second. He robs from rich Western countries, all right – then he uses his profits to create the basis to rob even more savagely from the East, under the cloak of “philanthropy”. His goal is to loot wherever he can. Soros has been called the master manipulator of the “hit-and-run capitalism” and Poland with cooperation from the postcommunist rulers, has been one of his easy prey. However, officially, there are no records that George Soros himself or his Quantum Fund has taken out a single dollar out of Poland. The real looting was done by others, who were fully protected by the privacy laws of the post-communist banking system.
What Soros means by “open”, is to open up, for him and his financial predator friends, the economies of the former Warsaw Pact countries, so they can loot their resources and assets. By bringing people like Jeffrey Sachs and their economic “shock therapy” into emerging economies, Soros has laid the foundation for buying invaluable assets of whole regions of the world at dirt-cheap prices, for himself and his selected rich friends, who share a dream forming world government one day.
It must be stated that George Soros would never be able to create crisis in Poland without the full cooperation of the perpetual oligarchy of the Polish-Jewish and meddling of the American-Jewish politicians, but their treason is a subject for discussion some other time.
Stanislaw Tyminski
Encl.
EIR Special Report: “The true story of Soros the Golem”, April 1997
Interview with Lyndon LaRouche, Executive Intelligence Review, , July 7, 2000.
George Soros “Underwriting Democracy”, 1991
Soros – Real Father of Reforms in Poland
Soros – Real Father of Reforms in Poland
With the change of Poland from a communist dictatorship to a free market system, much credit has been given to Leszek Balcerowicz, who supposedly is the father of the “miraculous” economic reform. However according to the special report published by the Executive Intelligence Review of Washington, D.C., the real brains behind the reforms that have impoverished and enslaved Poles for generations is a Hungarian Jew, mega speculator George Soros, who also carries American passport.
Born in Budapest, Hungary in 1930 and educated in England, George Soros and his Curacao based Quantum Fund have quickly become a silent partner of Rothschild’s, Reichman’s, US expelled Marc Rich, Israeli arms merchant Saul Isenberg and many other wealthy and influential Jews, such as Henry Kissinger. The main objectives of their activities are speculative investments to take advantage of political and economic weaknesses of various countries.
Soros' Quantum Fund makes money by anticipating economic shifts around the world. In 1992 Soros thought the British pound would lose value because of political and economic pressures. He borrowed billions of pounds and converted them to German marks. When the pound collapsed Sept. 16, Soros repaid the pounds at the lower rate and pocketed the difference. His profit: $1 billion.
To understand how George Soros is different from other financial speculators, just ponder this: Enron's whiz kids, once considered the acme of high-finance innovation, named one of their infamous off-balance sheet partnerships "Chewco" -- after the "Star Wars" character Chewbacca. Soros chose to name his primary vehicle for earning billions of dollars "the Quantum Fund."
He was alluding, says his biographer, Michael Kaufman, to Werner Heisenberg's theory of "indeterminacy": the impossibility of knowing simultaneously both the position and velocity of any atomic particle. As applied to markets, the implication was that you can't invest in something (especially on a Soros-ian scale) without affecting its prospects, for good or ill.
"Soros's choice," writes Kaufman, "was both an ironic wink and a gesture of homage to notions of fallibility, reflexivity, and his own convention of incomplete determinism."
OK, so Soros is like, really smart, and those Enron guys, despite the Harvard MBAs, now look kind of dumb. But the two did have some things in common.
Soros is credited with being the chief developer of the hedge fund -- a strategy for investing that, at its simplest, maximizes an investor's ability to pick winners (and losers) and yet at the same time insures against larger market trends that could be completely unpredictable. So, for example, at the same time you are buying one company's stock because you think its stock price will rise, you are selling another's short, because you think it will fall. By balancing your long and short positions, if something unexpected happens, like a terrorist attack, that drives all stock prices up, or down, across the board, you are insured against losing your shirt. Some of your bets will win, no matter what. And if nothing unexpected happens, all of your bets might win.
As Enron mutated away from being a natural gas trader into a financial derivatives player, it advanced the concept of hedging beyond the sublime and the ridiculous straight to the land of pure idiocy. Enron, the biggest bankruptcy of all time, even bet on bankruptcy protection! In this, Enron's derivatives traders were descendants of Soros; as financial speculators intent on beating the system by being really, really smart, they attempted to hedge against every possible eventuality.
Soros and the latter-stage Enron both strove to make money chiefly by manipulating money. The difference is that Soros rarely lost a bet, while Enron's executives, blinded by greed and hubris, took themselves to the cleaners.
Are financial speculators parasites profiting off the people and companies who do the real work, or do they in any way produce value themselves? Michael Kaufman's intriguing biography of Soros never fully addresses this question -- one of the few flaws in an otherwise eminently readable book on the enigmatically fascinating Soros. And Soros himself neatly sidesteps the conundrum, by virtue of what he has done with his winnings.
Soros, a "revolutionary plutocrat," would-be philosopher king and one-man Marshall Plan, set out to change the world -- to use his billions to fund the spread of "open societies." He became a one-man conduit of funds from West to East, from affluent to non-affluent.
Which raises another question that Kaufman's bio never delves into too deeply. When an ordinary individual donates money to charity, it's easy to respect that as a personal choice. But when the individual involved can spend billions -- when he's the kind of person who can casually say, "Tell me about the health of the king of Thailand ... I happen to own 5 percent of the Thai stock market this week" -- then you start to wonder, is this really kosher? Who is this man accountable to?
One of Soros' nicknames is "The Man Who Broke the Bank of England," in reference to a famous multibillion dollar bet his fund made that John Major's Conservative government would not be able to prop up the value of the British pound. The phrase is usually used admiringly -- what a paragon of financial expertise this Soros guy is!
But what if, say, Osama bin Laden was doing the betting? What if such manipulation was pursued on behalf of "the closed society" as opposed to the open?
Liberals love to shower Soros with respect, ignoring his Wall Street background, because his motives are so obviously honorable, and the money he is spending so clearly is going to "good" causes. But his life raises some troubling questions about the autonomy of capital in the era of globalization. Make enough money, and you don't have to obey anyone's rules.
As one might expect from the first "authorized" biography of Soros, "Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire" is flattering to its subject. But it's never fawning, and the psychological portrait it draws is convincing and illuminating.
Soros' life, no matter how you slice it, has been extraordinary. The first several chapters of the biography -- which deal with the teenage Soros' efforts to avoid the depredations of first the Nazis and then the Soviets in his native Hungary -- read like a thriller. As Kaufman notes, this background makes it easy to understand how Soros was able to cope with the pressures involved with high-stakes investing: When your formative experiences include watching friends and colleagues get rounded up and shipped off to Auschwitz in the waning days of World War II, it's likely that little else will ever be able to frighten you.
Soros' early experiences with fascism and totalitarianism also illuminate his motives, later on, in helping Eastern European and Soviet dissidents. Kaufman excels at dissecting and explaining Soros' psychological makeup. As just one data point -- can you imagine a Rockefeller or Carnegie or Gates frankly talking about insights gained from psychoanalysis, if they ever even admitted to seeing a therapist at all?
Kaufman gets Soros to open up -- about his analysis, about his family, about his dreams. A picture emerges of a man who was not only intensely self-critical but also sought out criticism from others. And his obsession with being an actual philosopher, along with his grandiose visions of single-handedly changing the world, make him come off as more than slightly neurotic.
Few neurotics, of course, are able to dispense about a half a billion dollars a year to whomever they choose. Is that really a good thing?
During the Asian financial crisis of 1997, the prime minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohammad, accused Soros of destabilizing his country through currency speculation. According to Kaufman, Soros was not involved in currency trading in Malaysia at the time, but his response, at a conference held in Hong Kong that year, is instructive.
"Dr. Mahathir's suggestion yesterday to ban currency trading is so inappropriate that it does not deserve serious consideration. Interfering with the convertibility of capital at a moment like this is a recipe for disaster. Dr. Mahathir is a menace to his own country."
Never mind that the stringent restrictions on currency flow that Malaysia did impose are now widely considered to have worked spectacularly well. What's important isn't whether Soros was wrong or right, but the arrogance implicit in Soros' categorization of Mahathir as a "menace."
If you or I were to think that Mahathir is a neo-authoritarian despot who is fundamentally anti-democratic, that's one thing. But Soros can get peeved at a leader and decide to bankroll a popular movement aimed at destabilizing a government. He's done it before! If I were a Malaysian citizen aware of what Soros had done in Poland and Czechoslovakia and the former Soviet Union, I'd be a little worried when he started calling my leader bad names. Who could stop him? Who could censure him?
No one.
Soros has stated that he doesn't do philanthropy in countries where he is involved as a trader, and vice versa. He has also noted that he considers his philanthropy moral and his money-management business "amoral." But is it really possible to make such distinctions? If the consequences of a billion-dollar bet on a currency change "anomaly" destabilizes a given country's economy, boosting unemployment and inflation, does that balance out the good karma that accrues from connecting all of Russia's universities to the Internet?
We should all be grateful that deep down, George Soros appears to be a good guy, at least as judged according to liberal Western values. His commitment to "openness" is sincere; his dedication to improving people's lives is unquestionable. He is the ultimate meddling, bleeding-heart liberal do-gooder, and for that, let's give him a cheer.
But at the same time, a guy like George Soros can't be voted out of office if you disagree with him. And when his billions of dollars can affect public policy, not just in his own country but in any country of his choosing, there is good reason to be a little bit nervous. Maybe Prime Minister Mahathir is indeed a menace to his own country. But on a bad day, a grumpy George Soros could be a menace to any country.
In order to gain valuable inside knowledge of the speculative possibilities, George Soros has set up a huge organization of inter-related “open society” institutes staffed mainly by Jews. Although his “institutes” have been expelled from China, Russia, Indonesia and the Czech Republic, they exist in Albania, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, France, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the USA. There is no doubt that this organization allows for great economic intelligence gathering possibilities to detect weaknesses subject to financial speculation. But to go one step further, George Soros has also been known to manipulate the outcome of the political process by funding his own candidates in presidential elections, as recently documented in the Ukraine and Peru. In today’s information age, it is much more profitable for speculators to have their own people (insiders) in the government they are planning to raid. His favorite agenda is to convince the government of a particular country that neo-liberal reform is the best way out of financial crisis, so he can take advantage and speculate with their currency and privatization. Soros justifies his methods with a statement that what he is doing may not be moral but it is not against the law.
According to Lyndon LaRouche, Soros has gained a new position in the course of the 1997-98 period. The big thing that is occurring in Southeast Asia and in East Asia, is that the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir bin Mohamad, has become a hero of economics. He defied Al Gore, he defied Madeleine Albright--personally, nose-to-nose in Asia--on the issue of George Soros. And Madeleine Albright and Al Gore came to the enraged defense of George Soros.
In the period between October 1998 and the Brazil crisis of February 1999, George Soros was used as a key adviser on how to generate an avalanche of fraudulent money, which was used in particular to try to deal with the Brazil debt crisis. So, George Soros has gone from being a figure of what he was earlier, to using his experience and connections for a somewhat different operation. He's a key part of what is actually being generated, a global hyperinflation like that of Weimar 1923.
The thing that must always be remembered is that the United States, as a national economy, is presently hopelessly bankrupt. For example, the United States, at the current rate, has a national current account deficit rate of approximately a half-trillion dollars a year. Well, that's the mark of a bankrupt business. It has no hope of ever earning the income to pay that deficit. We don't know how much money is being put in to try to keep the United States from collapsing. Official figures from central bankers and others show at least $1 trillion a year. LaRouche estimates is that, in addition to that, there is an additional trillion dollars a year or more, which is now going into over-the-counter derivatives.
In other words, the United States, as an economy, is presently like a hopelessly bankrupt firm, which is borrowing ever vaster amounts of credit by the day, to keep from closing the door. By every objective standard, the U.S. economy and the U.S. dollar are the most bankrupt nation in the world. And, it's a time bomb that can set off the biggest financial collapse in all history, a collapse that will sink the entire world economy.
So, states LaRouche, the significance of Soros, is that these fellows are trying to keep alive, keep the bankruptcy from the door, long enough to establish their kind of world government, or one-world government, system.
As if this was not enough, George Soros has also been actively promoting the free use of narcotics, which leads to greater liberalization of the particular countries and greater possibilities of speculative gains.
According to the EIR Report, Soros has been personally responsible for introducing “shock therapy” economic chaos into the emerging economies of Eastern Europe since 1989. He has foisted on fragile new governments in the East, the most draconian economic madness, policies that have allowed Soros and his financial friends to loot the resources of large parts of Eastern Europe at less than dirt-cheap prices.
In Poland, in late 1989, Soros personally organized a secret meeting between the communist government of Mieczyslaw Rakowski (also Stanislaw Gomulka and Wojciech Jaruzelski), and the leaders of the then-illegal opposition, the Solidarnosc trade-union umbrella organization. According to well-informed Polish sources, at that 1989 meeting between the communist regime and the Solidarnosc, Soros unveiled his “plan” for Poland: The communists must let the opposition Solidarnosc take over government so as to gain the confidence of the population.
Then, said Soros, the state must act deliberately to bankrupt its own industrial and agricultural enterprises using astronomical interest rates, withholding needed state credits, thus burdening firms with unpayable debt. Once that was done, said Soros, he would encourage his wealthy international business friends to come to Poland as prospective buyers of privatized state enterprises. A good example of this Soros privatization plan is the case of the large steel facility, Huta Warszawa. According to steel experts the complex, a modern one, would cost $3-4 billion for a Western company to build new. The Polish government agreed to assume the “debts” of Huta Warszawa, and sell the debt-free, steel making complex to Milan Company, Lucehini, for a price of $30 million!
To further the Soros plan, Soros personally recruited his friend (Belorussian Jew with American passport), 35-year old Harvard economist, Jeffrey Sachs, whose only prior claim to experience was that of advising the Bolivian government on the advantages of the disastrous neo-liberal reform. Next, Soros set up one of his numerous foundations, the Stefan Batory Foundation, staffed by Polish Jews related to the Mazowiecki government. The Stefan Batory Foundation became the official sponsor of Sach’s work in Poland in 1989-90. Before his recent move on Peru to advise Soros-sponsored President Alejandro Toledo and his Belgian-Jewish-Polish wife Eliane Karp, Sachs visited Poland over 40 times. In 1996, although officially never employed by the Polish government (as argued by Janine Wedel) , Sachs neverless was decorated with the Order of White Eagle by post-communist President Alexander Kwasniewski.
Soros boasted that he had “established close personal contact with Walesa’s chief advisor, Bronislaw Geremek. I was also received by Gen. Jaruzelski, the Head of State, to obtain his blessing for my foundation.” He also worked closely with the “eminence grise” of Polish “shock therapy”, Prof. Trzeciakowski , a behind-the-scene adviser to Finance and Economics Minister Leszek Balcerowicz. Soros also cultivated relations with the man who would first impose Sach’s “shock” therapy on Poland: Balcerowicz himself. When Lech Walesa was elected President of Poland, Soros said: “largely because of Western (Washington) pressure Walesa retained Balcerowicz as Minister”. Balcerowicz imposed a freeze on wages while industry was to be bankrupted by cutoff of state credits. Industrial output fell by more than 30% over two years.
Since, during early “shock therapy”, Balcerowicz maintained a fixed rate of dollar exchange with interest rates in Polish zloty reaching 80% a year, for many years Poland was a dream country for currency speculators like George Soros. Unfortunately, during those years there was no tax on the interest earned in Polish banks and therefore there are no records as to how much money was siphoned out of the country. Tax on the interest earned was applied in the year 2001 and only since then has interest income been recorded. Although there are no verifiable records, I estimate Poland lost up to $30 billion dollars due to speculation with its currency exchange. Prof. Kazimierz Poznanski, of the University of Washington, documents that Poland has lost over $80 billion dollars through manipulation of currency exchange and dishonest privatization.
Soros admits he knew in advance that his “shock therapy” would cause huge unemployement (approx. 20% in 2002), closing of factories, and social unrest. For this reason he insisted that Solidarnosc be brought into the government. Through his Batory Foundation, Soros also co-opted key media opinion-makers such as Adam Michnik (Gazeta Wyborcza), and with cooperation from the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw, imposed a media censorship favorable only to Soros’s “shock therapy” and hostile to all critics – a censorship which rivaled that of the communists, according to some Polish reports.
Not a shabby achievement for a Hungarian Jew, who survived the “holocaust” and started with nothing else but a name. His personal net worth is estimated at 15 billion dollars. “Time” magazine has characterized George Soros as a “modern-day Robin Hood”, who robs from the rich to give to the poor countries of Eastern Europe and Russia. “Time” claimed that Soros made huge financial gains by speculating against Western central banks, in order to use his profits to help the emerging post-communist economies of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, to assist them to create what he calls an “Open Society”. “Time’s” statement is entirely accurate in the first part, and entirely inaccurate in the second. He robs from rich Western countries, all right – then he uses his profits to create the basis to rob even more savagely from the East, under the cloak of “philanthropy”. His goal is to loot wherever he can. Soros has been called the master manipulator of the “hit-and-run capitalism” and Poland with cooperation from the postcommunist rulers, has been one of his easy prey. However, officially, there are no records that George Soros himself or his Quantum Fund has taken out a single dollar out of Poland. The real looting was done by others, who were fully protected by the privacy laws of the post-communist banking system.
What Soros means by “open”, is to open up, for him and his financial predator friends, the economies of the former Warsaw Pact countries, so they can loot their resources and assets. By bringing people like Jeffrey Sachs and their economic “shock therapy” into emerging economies, Soros has laid the foundation for buying invaluable assets of whole regions of the world at dirt-cheap prices, for himself and his selected rich friends, who share a dream forming world government one day.
It must be stated that George Soros would never be able to create crisis in Poland without the full cooperation of the perpetual oligarchy of the Polish-Jewish and meddling of the American-Jewish politicians, but their treason is a subject for discussion some other time.
Stanislaw Tyminski
Encl.
EIR Special Report: “The true story of Soros the Golem”, April 1997
Interview with Lyndon LaRouche, Executive Intelligence Review, , July 7, 2000.
George Soros “Underwriting Democracy”, 1991
With the change of Poland from a communist dictatorship to a free market system, much credit has been given to Leszek Balcerowicz, who supposedly is the father of the “miraculous” economic reform. However according to the special report published by the Executive Intelligence Review of Washington, D.C., the real brains behind the reforms that have impoverished and enslaved Poles for generations is a Hungarian Jew, mega speculator George Soros, who also carries American passport.
Born in Budapest, Hungary in 1930 and educated in England, George Soros and his Curacao based Quantum Fund have quickly become a silent partner of Rothschild’s, Reichman’s, US expelled Marc Rich, Israeli arms merchant Saul Isenberg and many other wealthy and influential Jews, such as Henry Kissinger. The main objectives of their activities are speculative investments to take advantage of political and economic weaknesses of various countries.
Soros' Quantum Fund makes money by anticipating economic shifts around the world. In 1992 Soros thought the British pound would lose value because of political and economic pressures. He borrowed billions of pounds and converted them to German marks. When the pound collapsed Sept. 16, Soros repaid the pounds at the lower rate and pocketed the difference. His profit: $1 billion.
To understand how George Soros is different from other financial speculators, just ponder this: Enron's whiz kids, once considered the acme of high-finance innovation, named one of their infamous off-balance sheet partnerships "Chewco" -- after the "Star Wars" character Chewbacca. Soros chose to name his primary vehicle for earning billions of dollars "the Quantum Fund."
He was alluding, says his biographer, Michael Kaufman, to Werner Heisenberg's theory of "indeterminacy": the impossibility of knowing simultaneously both the position and velocity of any atomic particle. As applied to markets, the implication was that you can't invest in something (especially on a Soros-ian scale) without affecting its prospects, for good or ill.
"Soros's choice," writes Kaufman, "was both an ironic wink and a gesture of homage to notions of fallibility, reflexivity, and his own convention of incomplete determinism."
OK, so Soros is like, really smart, and those Enron guys, despite the Harvard MBAs, now look kind of dumb. But the two did have some things in common.
Soros is credited with being the chief developer of the hedge fund -- a strategy for investing that, at its simplest, maximizes an investor's ability to pick winners (and losers) and yet at the same time insures against larger market trends that could be completely unpredictable. So, for example, at the same time you are buying one company's stock because you think its stock price will rise, you are selling another's short, because you think it will fall. By balancing your long and short positions, if something unexpected happens, like a terrorist attack, that drives all stock prices up, or down, across the board, you are insured against losing your shirt. Some of your bets will win, no matter what. And if nothing unexpected happens, all of your bets might win.
As Enron mutated away from being a natural gas trader into a financial derivatives player, it advanced the concept of hedging beyond the sublime and the ridiculous straight to the land of pure idiocy. Enron, the biggest bankruptcy of all time, even bet on bankruptcy protection! In this, Enron's derivatives traders were descendants of Soros; as financial speculators intent on beating the system by being really, really smart, they attempted to hedge against every possible eventuality.
Soros and the latter-stage Enron both strove to make money chiefly by manipulating money. The difference is that Soros rarely lost a bet, while Enron's executives, blinded by greed and hubris, took themselves to the cleaners.
Are financial speculators parasites profiting off the people and companies who do the real work, or do they in any way produce value themselves? Michael Kaufman's intriguing biography of Soros never fully addresses this question -- one of the few flaws in an otherwise eminently readable book on the enigmatically fascinating Soros. And Soros himself neatly sidesteps the conundrum, by virtue of what he has done with his winnings.
Soros, a "revolutionary plutocrat," would-be philosopher king and one-man Marshall Plan, set out to change the world -- to use his billions to fund the spread of "open societies." He became a one-man conduit of funds from West to East, from affluent to non-affluent.
Which raises another question that Kaufman's bio never delves into too deeply. When an ordinary individual donates money to charity, it's easy to respect that as a personal choice. But when the individual involved can spend billions -- when he's the kind of person who can casually say, "Tell me about the health of the king of Thailand ... I happen to own 5 percent of the Thai stock market this week" -- then you start to wonder, is this really kosher? Who is this man accountable to?
One of Soros' nicknames is "The Man Who Broke the Bank of England," in reference to a famous multibillion dollar bet his fund made that John Major's Conservative government would not be able to prop up the value of the British pound. The phrase is usually used admiringly -- what a paragon of financial expertise this Soros guy is!
But what if, say, Osama bin Laden was doing the betting? What if such manipulation was pursued on behalf of "the closed society" as opposed to the open?
Liberals love to shower Soros with respect, ignoring his Wall Street background, because his motives are so obviously honorable, and the money he is spending so clearly is going to "good" causes. But his life raises some troubling questions about the autonomy of capital in the era of globalization. Make enough money, and you don't have to obey anyone's rules.
As one might expect from the first "authorized" biography of Soros, "Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire" is flattering to its subject. But it's never fawning, and the psychological portrait it draws is convincing and illuminating.
Soros' life, no matter how you slice it, has been extraordinary. The first several chapters of the biography -- which deal with the teenage Soros' efforts to avoid the depredations of first the Nazis and then the Soviets in his native Hungary -- read like a thriller. As Kaufman notes, this background makes it easy to understand how Soros was able to cope with the pressures involved with high-stakes investing: When your formative experiences include watching friends and colleagues get rounded up and shipped off to Auschwitz in the waning days of World War II, it's likely that little else will ever be able to frighten you.
Soros' early experiences with fascism and totalitarianism also illuminate his motives, later on, in helping Eastern European and Soviet dissidents. Kaufman excels at dissecting and explaining Soros' psychological makeup. As just one data point -- can you imagine a Rockefeller or Carnegie or Gates frankly talking about insights gained from psychoanalysis, if they ever even admitted to seeing a therapist at all?
Kaufman gets Soros to open up -- about his analysis, about his family, about his dreams. A picture emerges of a man who was not only intensely self-critical but also sought out criticism from others. And his obsession with being an actual philosopher, along with his grandiose visions of single-handedly changing the world, make him come off as more than slightly neurotic.
Few neurotics, of course, are able to dispense about a half a billion dollars a year to whomever they choose. Is that really a good thing?
During the Asian financial crisis of 1997, the prime minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohammad, accused Soros of destabilizing his country through currency speculation. According to Kaufman, Soros was not involved in currency trading in Malaysia at the time, but his response, at a conference held in Hong Kong that year, is instructive.
"Dr. Mahathir's suggestion yesterday to ban currency trading is so inappropriate that it does not deserve serious consideration. Interfering with the convertibility of capital at a moment like this is a recipe for disaster. Dr. Mahathir is a menace to his own country."
Never mind that the stringent restrictions on currency flow that Malaysia did impose are now widely considered to have worked spectacularly well. What's important isn't whether Soros was wrong or right, but the arrogance implicit in Soros' categorization of Mahathir as a "menace."
If you or I were to think that Mahathir is a neo-authoritarian despot who is fundamentally anti-democratic, that's one thing. But Soros can get peeved at a leader and decide to bankroll a popular movement aimed at destabilizing a government. He's done it before! If I were a Malaysian citizen aware of what Soros had done in Poland and Czechoslovakia and the former Soviet Union, I'd be a little worried when he started calling my leader bad names. Who could stop him? Who could censure him?
No one.
Soros has stated that he doesn't do philanthropy in countries where he is involved as a trader, and vice versa. He has also noted that he considers his philanthropy moral and his money-management business "amoral." But is it really possible to make such distinctions? If the consequences of a billion-dollar bet on a currency change "anomaly" destabilizes a given country's economy, boosting unemployment and inflation, does that balance out the good karma that accrues from connecting all of Russia's universities to the Internet?
We should all be grateful that deep down, George Soros appears to be a good guy, at least as judged according to liberal Western values. His commitment to "openness" is sincere; his dedication to improving people's lives is unquestionable. He is the ultimate meddling, bleeding-heart liberal do-gooder, and for that, let's give him a cheer.
But at the same time, a guy like George Soros can't be voted out of office if you disagree with him. And when his billions of dollars can affect public policy, not just in his own country but in any country of his choosing, there is good reason to be a little bit nervous. Maybe Prime Minister Mahathir is indeed a menace to his own country. But on a bad day, a grumpy George Soros could be a menace to any country.
In order to gain valuable inside knowledge of the speculative possibilities, George Soros has set up a huge organization of inter-related “open society” institutes staffed mainly by Jews. Although his “institutes” have been expelled from China, Russia, Indonesia and the Czech Republic, they exist in Albania, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, France, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the USA. There is no doubt that this organization allows for great economic intelligence gathering possibilities to detect weaknesses subject to financial speculation. But to go one step further, George Soros has also been known to manipulate the outcome of the political process by funding his own candidates in presidential elections, as recently documented in the Ukraine and Peru. In today’s information age, it is much more profitable for speculators to have their own people (insiders) in the government they are planning to raid. His favorite agenda is to convince the government of a particular country that neo-liberal reform is the best way out of financial crisis, so he can take advantage and speculate with their currency and privatization. Soros justifies his methods with a statement that what he is doing may not be moral but it is not against the law.
According to Lyndon LaRouche, Soros has gained a new position in the course of the 1997-98 period. The big thing that is occurring in Southeast Asia and in East Asia, is that the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir bin Mohamad, has become a hero of economics. He defied Al Gore, he defied Madeleine Albright--personally, nose-to-nose in Asia--on the issue of George Soros. And Madeleine Albright and Al Gore came to the enraged defense of George Soros.
In the period between October 1998 and the Brazil crisis of February 1999, George Soros was used as a key adviser on how to generate an avalanche of fraudulent money, which was used in particular to try to deal with the Brazil debt crisis. So, George Soros has gone from being a figure of what he was earlier, to using his experience and connections for a somewhat different operation. He's a key part of what is actually being generated, a global hyperinflation like that of Weimar 1923.
The thing that must always be remembered is that the United States, as a national economy, is presently hopelessly bankrupt. For example, the United States, at the current rate, has a national current account deficit rate of approximately a half-trillion dollars a year. Well, that's the mark of a bankrupt business. It has no hope of ever earning the income to pay that deficit. We don't know how much money is being put in to try to keep the United States from collapsing. Official figures from central bankers and others show at least $1 trillion a year. LaRouche estimates is that, in addition to that, there is an additional trillion dollars a year or more, which is now going into over-the-counter derivatives.
In other words, the United States, as an economy, is presently like a hopelessly bankrupt firm, which is borrowing ever vaster amounts of credit by the day, to keep from closing the door. By every objective standard, the U.S. economy and the U.S. dollar are the most bankrupt nation in the world. And, it's a time bomb that can set off the biggest financial collapse in all history, a collapse that will sink the entire world economy.
So, states LaRouche, the significance of Soros, is that these fellows are trying to keep alive, keep the bankruptcy from the door, long enough to establish their kind of world government, or one-world government, system.
As if this was not enough, George Soros has also been actively promoting the free use of narcotics, which leads to greater liberalization of the particular countries and greater possibilities of speculative gains.
According to the EIR Report, Soros has been personally responsible for introducing “shock therapy” economic chaos into the emerging economies of Eastern Europe since 1989. He has foisted on fragile new governments in the East, the most draconian economic madness, policies that have allowed Soros and his financial friends to loot the resources of large parts of Eastern Europe at less than dirt-cheap prices.
In Poland, in late 1989, Soros personally organized a secret meeting between the communist government of Mieczyslaw Rakowski (also Stanislaw Gomulka and Wojciech Jaruzelski), and the leaders of the then-illegal opposition, the Solidarnosc trade-union umbrella organization. According to well-informed Polish sources, at that 1989 meeting between the communist regime and the Solidarnosc, Soros unveiled his “plan” for Poland: The communists must let the opposition Solidarnosc take over government so as to gain the confidence of the population.
Then, said Soros, the state must act deliberately to bankrupt its own industrial and agricultural enterprises using astronomical interest rates, withholding needed state credits, thus burdening firms with unpayable debt. Once that was done, said Soros, he would encourage his wealthy international business friends to come to Poland as prospective buyers of privatized state enterprises. A good example of this Soros privatization plan is the case of the large steel facility, Huta Warszawa. According to steel experts the complex, a modern one, would cost $3-4 billion for a Western company to build new. The Polish government agreed to assume the “debts” of Huta Warszawa, and sell the debt-free, steel making complex to Milan Company, Lucehini, for a price of $30 million!
To further the Soros plan, Soros personally recruited his friend (Belorussian Jew with American passport), 35-year old Harvard economist, Jeffrey Sachs, whose only prior claim to experience was that of advising the Bolivian government on the advantages of the disastrous neo-liberal reform. Next, Soros set up one of his numerous foundations, the Stefan Batory Foundation, staffed by Polish Jews related to the Mazowiecki government. The Stefan Batory Foundation became the official sponsor of Sach’s work in Poland in 1989-90. Before his recent move on Peru to advise Soros-sponsored President Alejandro Toledo and his Belgian-Jewish-Polish wife Eliane Karp, Sachs visited Poland over 40 times. In 1996, although officially never employed by the Polish government (as argued by Janine Wedel) , Sachs neverless was decorated with the Order of White Eagle by post-communist President Alexander Kwasniewski.
Soros boasted that he had “established close personal contact with Walesa’s chief advisor, Bronislaw Geremek. I was also received by Gen. Jaruzelski, the Head of State, to obtain his blessing for my foundation.” He also worked closely with the “eminence grise” of Polish “shock therapy”, Prof. Trzeciakowski , a behind-the-scene adviser to Finance and Economics Minister Leszek Balcerowicz. Soros also cultivated relations with the man who would first impose Sach’s “shock” therapy on Poland: Balcerowicz himself. When Lech Walesa was elected President of Poland, Soros said: “largely because of Western (Washington) pressure Walesa retained Balcerowicz as Minister”. Balcerowicz imposed a freeze on wages while industry was to be bankrupted by cutoff of state credits. Industrial output fell by more than 30% over two years.
Since, during early “shock therapy”, Balcerowicz maintained a fixed rate of dollar exchange with interest rates in Polish zloty reaching 80% a year, for many years Poland was a dream country for currency speculators like George Soros. Unfortunately, during those years there was no tax on the interest earned in Polish banks and therefore there are no records as to how much money was siphoned out of the country. Tax on the interest earned was applied in the year 2001 and only since then has interest income been recorded. Although there are no verifiable records, I estimate Poland lost up to $30 billion dollars due to speculation with its currency exchange. Prof. Kazimierz Poznanski, of the University of Washington, documents that Poland has lost over $80 billion dollars through manipulation of currency exchange and dishonest privatization.
Soros admits he knew in advance that his “shock therapy” would cause huge unemployement (approx. 20% in 2002), closing of factories, and social unrest. For this reason he insisted that Solidarnosc be brought into the government. Through his Batory Foundation, Soros also co-opted key media opinion-makers such as Adam Michnik (Gazeta Wyborcza), and with cooperation from the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw, imposed a media censorship favorable only to Soros’s “shock therapy” and hostile to all critics – a censorship which rivaled that of the communists, according to some Polish reports.
Not a shabby achievement for a Hungarian Jew, who survived the “holocaust” and started with nothing else but a name. His personal net worth is estimated at 15 billion dollars. “Time” magazine has characterized George Soros as a “modern-day Robin Hood”, who robs from the rich to give to the poor countries of Eastern Europe and Russia. “Time” claimed that Soros made huge financial gains by speculating against Western central banks, in order to use his profits to help the emerging post-communist economies of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, to assist them to create what he calls an “Open Society”. “Time’s” statement is entirely accurate in the first part, and entirely inaccurate in the second. He robs from rich Western countries, all right – then he uses his profits to create the basis to rob even more savagely from the East, under the cloak of “philanthropy”. His goal is to loot wherever he can. Soros has been called the master manipulator of the “hit-and-run capitalism” and Poland with cooperation from the postcommunist rulers, has been one of his easy prey. However, officially, there are no records that George Soros himself or his Quantum Fund has taken out a single dollar out of Poland. The real looting was done by others, who were fully protected by the privacy laws of the post-communist banking system.
What Soros means by “open”, is to open up, for him and his financial predator friends, the economies of the former Warsaw Pact countries, so they can loot their resources and assets. By bringing people like Jeffrey Sachs and their economic “shock therapy” into emerging economies, Soros has laid the foundation for buying invaluable assets of whole regions of the world at dirt-cheap prices, for himself and his selected rich friends, who share a dream forming world government one day.
It must be stated that George Soros would never be able to create crisis in Poland without the full cooperation of the perpetual oligarchy of the Polish-Jewish and meddling of the American-Jewish politicians, but their treason is a subject for discussion some other time.
Stanislaw Tyminski
Encl.
EIR Special Report: “The true story of Soros the Golem”, April 1997
Interview with Lyndon LaRouche, Executive Intelligence Review, , July 7, 2000.
George Soros “Underwriting Democracy”, 1991
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Dobroczyńca i beneficjent. Amerykańskie wsparcie finansowe dla Izraela.
Dobroczyńca i beneficjent. Amerykańskie wsparcie finansowe dla Izraela.
"Stany Zjednoczone zapewniły Izraelowi, oprócz politycznego i militarnego wsparcia, także hojną i szczodrą pomoc w sferze gospodarczej. Z pomocą Ameryki Izrael stał się silnym i nowoczesnym państwem. Wiem, że mówię w imieniu każdego mieszkańca Izraela i każdego Żyda na świecie, kiedy mówię 'Dziękuję wam Amerykanie'", "Jesteśmy więcej niż wdzięczni" - mówili w połowie lat 90. izraelscy premierzy Beniamin Netanyahu i Ichak Rabin, występujący na połączonej sesji Kongresu.
Kontynuując recenzowanie książki Stephena Walta i Johna Mearsheimera "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy", zajmę się dzisiaj kwestią wsparcia gospodarczego i wojskowego, udzielanego Izraelowi przez Stany Zjednoczone. A jest to wsparcie na niespotykaną skalę w sytuacji, gdy mamy do czynienia z państwem zamożnym i nowoczesnym. Izraelskie PKB wyniosło w 2007 roku 162 miliardy dolarów, a sąsiedniego Egiptu 128 miliardów. Pamiętajmy jednak o stosunku ludnościowym, który przedstawia się następująco: Izrael zamieszkuje nieco ponad 7 milionów osób, a populacja Egiptu sięga prawie 82 milionów
Różnica w PKB per capita (wg parytetu siły nabywczej - PPP) jest przygniatająca: 26,600 dolarów do 5000 dolarów na korzyść Izraela. Dochody budżetu Izraela to ponad 53 miliardy dolarów, Egiptu zaś ledwie 35 miliardów. Porównania z Syrią, Libanem czy Jordanią nie mają sensu. Ewentualnie w grę wchodziłby Iran, z PKB wynoszącym 294 miliardy dolarów i dochodami budżetowymi rzędu 104 miliardów, ale Iran to jeden z największych eksporterów ropy naftowej (zyski z jej eksportu stanowią do 85 procent budżetu państwa), zamieszkany przez ponad 65 milionów osób. Warto też pamiętać, że w Iranie panuje ok. 30-procentowe bezrobocie a także mniej więcej taka sama inflacja. Teheran musi poradzić sobie z 900 tysiącami młodych ludzi wkraczających co roku na rynek pracy. Nie pomagają w tym dotkliwe sankcje ekonomiczne.
Spójrzmy więc, jakiej wysokości wsparcie finansowe Izrael otrzymuje od Stanów Zjednoczonych:
W latach 1962-2008 Izrael otrzymał ponad 100 miliardów dolarów bezpośredniej pomocy od Stanów Zjednoczonych. Z tego ok. 67 miliardów to pomoc wojskowa, a 34 miliardy stanowiło wsparcie gospodarcze. W ostatnich kilku latach wysokość pomocy finansowej dla Izraela spadała i wynosi obecnie ok. 2,5 miliarda dolarów rocznie, z czego 2,2 miliarda stanowi pomoc wojskowa. Dla porównania, Egipt - drugi bliski sojusznik Ameryki w regionie - w tym samym okresie otrzymał ok. 67 miliardów dolarów, ale blisko 30 miliardów stanowiła pomoc gospodarcza. Oczywiście, można powiedzieć, że Egipt do momentu podpisania traktatu pokojowego z Izraelem był klientem ZSRR i znaczącą pomoc finansową od Ameryki otrzymywał dwie dekady krócej, ale byłaby to tylko półprawda.
Dane rządowej U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) zawierają wyłącznie pomoc bezpośrednią. Pomijają pozostałe rodzaje wsparcia finansowego, które Izrael (i inne państwa, choć w dużo mniejszym zakresie) otrzymuje. W statystykach USAID nie ma m.in. preferencyjnych kredytów, które Stany Zjednoczone Ameryki udzielają Izraelowi. Bardzo korzystne oprocentowanie sprawia, że Izrael może zaoszczędzić setki milionów dolarów na odsetkach. Co więcej, Stany Zjednoczone, aby pożyczyć Izraelowi, same muszą pożyczyć - oczywiście na warunkach normalnych. Oznacza to, że amerykański podatnik traci dwa razy: najpierw musi pożyczyć na warunkach rynkowych, a następnie przekazuje pożyczone pieniądze dalej, na gorszy procent.
Jak podają w swojej książce Walt i Mearsheimer, bezpośrednia pomoc dla Izraela stanowi 1/6 ogółu takiej pomocy udzielanej przez Stany Zjednoczone. Amerykańskie wsparcie to także 2 procent izraelskiego produktu krajowego brutto (PKB). W przeliczeniu na osobę, pomoc dla Izraela wynosi ponad 500 dolarów na głowę - w przypadku Egiptu jest to raptem 20 dolarów, a w przypadku Haiti 27 dolarów. Izrael otrzymuje także dodatkowe fundusze przyznawane okazjonalnie przez Kongres. W ten sposób Izrael wzbogacił się o 1,2 miliarda dolarów, które miało wesprzeć implementację porozumienia z Wye z 1998 roku (w myśl którego Izrael wycofałby się z niewielkiej części Zachodniego Brzegu Jordanu) oraz o 1 miliard dolarów z "okazji" ataku USA na Irak (przygotowania do wojny z Irakiem) w 2003 roku. Nie mówiąc o 10 miliardach otrzymanych na początku lat 90. ubiegłego stulecia na sfinansowanie przesiedlenia tysięcy Żydów z obszaru byłego ZSRR.
Pomijając możliwość otrzymywania najnowocześniejszego amerykańskiego uzbrojenia po dobrej cenie, należy zwrócić uwagę na ciekawy wyjątek od reguły, dzięki któremu Izrael może wydawać co czwartego dolara otrzymanego od Waszyngtonu na wspieranie własnego przemysłu zbrojeniowego. Amerykanie wspierają finansowo także konkretne projekty, m.in. rozwój systemu antyrakietowego Arrow. W efekcie amerykańskiego wsparcia, relatywnie niewielki Izrael posiada prężny i nowoczesny przemysł zbrojeniowy. W roku 2004 Izrael był ósmym eksporterem broni na świecie, sprzedając więcej niż Szwecja i Włochy razem wzięte. Rok 2004 był wyjątkowy w tym zakresie, a eksport Izraela rekordowy. W żadnym z kilku wcześniejszych i następnych lat nie zbliżył się on do poziomu pół miliarda dolarów.
Kolejną ciekawostką jest fakt, iż Izrael jako jedyne państwo otrzymujące wsparcie z USAID nie musi rozliczać się z tego, na co przeznaczył pieniądze. Pozostałe kraje otrzymują fundusze na konkretne projekty, a Izrael dostaje pieniądze bezpośrednio do budżetu. W związku z tym nie wiadomo, na co przeznaczane są dolary amerykańskiego podatnika i czy nie wydaje się ich na projekty, które stoją w otwartej sprzeczności z amerykańskimi interesami - jak zauważają Walt i Mearsheimer, np. na rozbudowę osiedli i osadnictwo na Terytoriach Okupowanych na Zachodnim Brzegu.
Wracając na koniec do uzbrojenia i pomocy wojskowej, Stany Zjednoczone składują ogromne ilości uzbrojenia w Izraelu, które mogłoby zostać wykorzystane w sytuacji kryzysowej. W 2006 roku Kongres zagłosował za zwiększeniem ilości składowanej broni z 100 do 400 milionów dolarów w roku 2008. Umowy dotyczące składów pozwalają na korzystanie z zapasów także przez wojsko izraelskie, gdyby zaszła taka konieczność. Oznacza to, że Amerykanie w sytuacji kryzysu mogliby mieć problem z wykorzystaniem własnego uzbrojenia. Taka sytuacja najpewniej miała miejsce w lipcu 2006 roku, kiedy Izrael prowadził wojnę z Hezbollahem polegającą na niszczeniu infrastruktury Libanu i karaniu cywilnej populacji za istnienie Partii Boga.
Izrael ma także dostęp do wielu materiałów wywiadowczych zdobywanych i przetwarzanych przez rozmaite amerykańskie służby. Bez wątpienia Izrael ma dostęp większy od chociażby Wielkiej Brytanii, najbliższego sojusznika Waszyngtonu w wojnie z terrorem. Stany Zjednoczone nie pisnęły nawet słowem, kiedy Izrael pracował nad własną bombą jądrową i nie naciska na Państwo Żydowskie ani w tej kwestii, ani w kwestii broni biologicznej i chemicznej, którą Izrael posiada. Nie trzeba wspominać, że hipokryzja Ameryki w tej materii ma ogromny negatywny wpływ na wysiłki Stanów Zjednoczonych w staraniach o ograniczenie proliferacji broni masowej zagłady (WMD).
Finansowe wsparcie Izraela jest w dużej mierze niezależne od działań podejmowanych przez rząd tego państwa. Nawet jeśli są one sprzeczne z interesami Waszyngtonu, groźby wstrzymania (nie mówiąc o redukcji czy odcięciu) strumienia pieniędzy jest niewielka i do gróźb amerykańscy prezydenci uciekali się nader rzadko. W ostatniej dekadzie XX w. i obecnie pomoc amerykańska jest w zasadzie bezwarunkowa.
Czy zamożne państwo, jakim Izrael bez wątpienia jest, powinien otrzymywać tak dużą pomoc finansową? Czy jest po temu jakiekolwiek uzasadnienie ekonomiczne bądź militarne? Ekonomicznego znaczenia nie ma, gdyż Izrael posiada prężną gospodarkę, opartą w dużej mierze na nowoczesnych technologiach. Wojskowego znaczenia również nie ma, ponieważ przewaga sił zbrojnych Izraela nad sąsiadami, nawet gdyby połączyli siły (co jest dziś praktycznie niemożliwe) jest przygniatająca. Izrael posiada zarówno świetnie wyszkolonych żołnierzy, jak i bardzo nowoczesny i sprawdzony w boju sprzęt. Wielokrotnie udowadniał w przeszłości, że potrafi zetrzeć w proch przeciwnika. Dziś Izrael jest bezpieczniejszy niż w latach 50. czy 70. i nikt przy zdrowych zmysłach nie próbowałby pokonać go na polu bitwy.
Co innego walka z partyzantami czy grupami paramilitarnymi pokroju Hezbollahu czy Hamasu. Jednak po co wspierać ponad 4 miliardami dolarów pomocy wojskowej rocznie jedną z najlepiej wyszkolonych i uzbrojonych armii na świecie, jeśli jej przeciwnikiem jest grupa brodaczy z kałasznikowami, granatnikami oraz rakietami (m.in. katiuszami)? Każdy chciałby mieć takiego Świętego Mikołaja, który rok w rok przynosiłby worek pieniędzy (w większości bonów na zakupy u amerykańskich producentów) na nowe zabawki (helikoptery, inteligentne bomby etc.). Izrael mógłby bez większego problemu kupować uzbrojenie za własne pieniądze, zapewne na bardzo preferencyjnych warunkach (jako bliski sojusznik Ameryki).
Wsparcie finansowe (militarne i gospodarcze) to jednak nie wszystko. Ameryka zapewnia Izraelowi potężne wsparcie polityczno-dyplomatyczne. Nie wszędzie jest to zgodne z interesami Ameryki. Następny wpis poświęcę w głównej mierze właśnie tej kwestii.
Piotr Wołejko
Izraelskie lobby a polityka zagraniczna Stanów Zjednoczonych - wstęp
"Zasadniczo nowocześniejsza wersja Protokołów Mędrców Syjonu", "Czytanie wersji wydarzeń [Walta i Mearsheimera] jest jak wkraczanie w inny świat", "Podobnie jak wielu pro-arabskich propagandzistów dzisiaj, Walt i Mearsheimer często odwołują się do moich książek, często cytując bezpośrednio z nich, szukając potwierdzenia swoich argumentów. Jednak ich praca to parodia historii, którą studiowałem i o której pisałem przez ostatnie dwie dekady. Ich praca jest podziurawioną tandetą i hańbiącym fałszem".
Trzy komentarze, autorstwa Daniela Pragera, Jamesa Woolseya oraz Benny'ego Morrisa, odnoszące się do książki "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" (Izraelskie lobby a polityka zagraniczna Stanów Zjednoczonych) wybrałem, aby pokazać stosunek członków niniejszego lobby do tej wybitnej książki oraz jej autorów. Przeciwko Stephenowi Waltowi oraz Johnowi Mearsheimerowi wytaczano najcięższe działa, mieszając z błotem ich oraz ich dzieło. Lawina oskarżeń o antysemityzm a także porównania do neonazistów, stały się dla autorów "The Israel Lobby" codziennością.
Nie było to dla Walta i Mearsheimera zaskoczeniem, gdyż opisali oni mechanizm stosowany przez lobby, gdy ktoś próbuje zmącić pieczołowicie pielęgnowany obraz Izraela oraz związków Izraela ze Stanami Zjednoczonymi, zwłaszcza wspólnoty dotyczącej polityki zagranicznej. Gromienie podważających bądź pytających o tą wspólnotę interesów oskarżeniami o antysemityzm nie jest niczym nowym, a także nie ma żadnych granic. Całkiem niedawno antysemitą stał się ex-prezydent Ameryki Jimmy Carter, kiedy "nieopatrznie" wydał książkę pod tytułem "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" (Palestyna: Pokój, nie apartheid).
Książki Cartera jeszcze nie czytałem (wkrótce nadrobię zaległości), ale już po tytule można domyślić się, jaka jest jej wymowa. Porównanie działań rządu izraelskiego do polityki apartheidu jest wymowne i musiało rozsierdzić lobby niemiłosiernie. Jakże to, Izrael stosuje apartheid? Skandal, hańba, wariactwo, antysemici itd. Tymczasem wystarczy spojrzeć na codzienne życie mieszkańców Strefy Gazy czy Zachodniego Brzegu Jordanu, aby dostrzec apartheid w czystej w postaci (a może nawet apartheid 2.0, czyli unowocześniony i skuteczniejszy). Pomijając kwestię blokady Strefy Gazy, która oznacza dla ponad miliona mieszkańców tego niewielkiego skrawka ziemi ubóstwo i nędzę, spójrzmy na (wydawałoby się banalną) kwestię swobody przemieszczenia się na Zachodnim Brzegu. Dla Palestyńczyków to prawie niemożliwe, gdyż Izrael rozstawił setki posterunków i blokad drogowych, które uniemożliwiają bądź utrudniają komunikację. [Pomijam także kwestię współpracy izraelskich służb ze służbami południowoafrykańskimi w okresie apartheidu.]
Izrael buduje także tzw. barierę bezpieczeństwa, która jest jawnym pogwałceniem prawa międzynarodowego, co stwierdził w 2003 roku Międzynarodowy Trybunał Sprawiedliwości w swojej opinii doradczej, na żądanie Zgromadzenia Ogólnego ONZ. Trybunał wezwał Izrael do zaprzestania budowy bariery bezpieczeństwa na Terytoriach Okupowanych, w tym w i wokół Wschodniej Jerozolimy. Jak dobrze wiemy, budowa nie tylko nie została przerwana, ale była i jest kontynuowana.
Wracając do książki, autorzy stworzyli ją na bazie artykułu o izraelskim lobby, który mieli napisać dla uznanego pisma Atlantic Monthly. Tworzenie tekstu pochłonęło sporo czasu, gdyż prace zaczęły się jeszcze w 2002 roku, a dopiero w styczniu 2005 roku Walt i Mearsheimer oddali (po korektach i uwzględnieniu uwag redakcji) go do druku. Po kilku tygodniach dowiedzieli się, że Atlantic Monthly nie jest już zainteresowane publikacją tekstu. Znając jego wymowę oraz biorąc pod uwagę długość, zrezygnowali z ubiegania się o możliwość druku w innych pismach bądź periodykach, zajmując się innymi tematami i projektami.
Dopiero w październiku 2005 roku pojawiła się szansa na publikację tekstu. Po rewizji i uaktualnieniu pojawił się on w marcu 2006 roku na łamach London Review of Books. Esej wywołał prawdziwy sztorm, coś więcej niż "10 w skali Beauforta", którego próbkę można znaleźć w pierwszym akapicie niniejszego wpisu. Walt i Mearsheimer rozbudowali swój tekst i w roku 2007 wydali książkę, którą postaram się zrecenzować, a także przedstawić szerzej na łamach bloga.
Odpowiemy sobie na wiele pytań, m.in.: Jak duża jest pomoc finansowa Stanów Zjednoczonych dla Izraela? Czy Izrael jest strategicznym atutem czy obciążeniem dla USA? Jakie przyczyny są podawane jako uzasadnienie dla wspierania Izraela? Czym właściwie jest "izraelskie lobby" i z czego się składa? Jak lobby wpływa na proces decyzyjny i jak zapewnia sobie dominację w dyskursie publicznym? Jaki wpływ ma lobby na amerykańską politykę wobec Palestyńczyków, wojny w Iraku, Syrii oraz Iranu? Na końcu pojawi się odpowiedź na pytanie, jak Stany Zjednoczone powinny traktować Izrael oraz jaką politykę wobec Bliskiego Wschodu powinien prowadzić Waszyngton?
Temat gorący, a kolejne wpisy poświęcone książce The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy będą niczym iskry spadające na beczkę prochu. Z góry proszę o merytoryczną dyskusję i używanie argumentów na poziomie. Komentarze obraźliwe będą usuwane, a wpisy w stylu "W Pańskim tekście jest co najmniej 10 merytorycznych błędów, ale najśmieszniejszy jest ten powyżej" autorstwa Eliego Barbura będą spotykały się z oczywistą reakcją - to proszę wykazać te błędy i dyskutujmy. Barbur zamiast dyskusji wybrał ucieczkę i wycinanie moich komentarzy wzywających go (na jego blogu) do wymiany argumentów. Stąd, jeśli ktoś nie ma zamiaru dyskusji, niech nie fatyguje się i nie komentuje. Szkoda czasu.
Zapraszam na interesującą podróż w świat amerykańskiej polityki. Takiej prawdziwej, w której wykuwają się kierunki oraz ustawy, które pozwalają iść w określoną stronę. Jak to bowiem jest, że przedarty na pół Kongres, spierający się o niemal każdą sprawę, w kwestiach dla Izraela istotnych zachowuje szokującą wręcz jedność? Dlaczego kandydaci na prezydenta potrafią wylewać na siebie kubły pomyj i czepiać najdrobniejszych słówek, ale wszyscy jednomyślnie stają po stronie Izraela, prześcigając się w wyrażaniu solidarności z Izraelem? Na te i wiele innych pytań będę odpowiadać, posiłkując się książką Walta i Mearsheimera, w najbliższych wpisach.
Piotr Wołejko
Znowu plotki o ataku na Iran
Izrael pręży muskuły. Samoloty są wypolerowane, uzbrojone i gotowe do ataku na cele położone na terytorium Islamskiej Republiki Iranu. Na celowniku znajdują się oczywiście obiekty wykorzystywane w irańskim programie atomowym. Jak donoszą The Times of London oraz Jerusalem Post, opcja ataku bez udziału Stanów Zjednoczonych, a zapewne także i wbrew nim, jest rozważana.
Portal Debka, uważany za powiązany z izraelskim wywiadem, donosi, iż Ameryka gromadzi wokół Iranu oraz w regionie coraz większą potęgę militarną. W pobliżu Iranu znajdują się już trzy lotniskowce wraz z grupami bojowymi, grupa niszczycieli, cztery atomowe łodzie podwodne oraz ściągnięty z Morza Śródziemnego okręt USS Mount Whitney, który ma koordynować działania tak olbrzymiej armady. W tym samym czasie, o czym również informuje Debka, Irańczycy przeprowadzają potężne manewry swojej floty oraz lotnictwa. Sześciodniowe ćwiczenia mają pokazać, że Iran nie da się zastraszyć Stanom Zjednoczonym i Izraelowi.
Prezydent Bush opierał się (i nadal opiera) przed uderzeniem na Iran, mimo wielokrotnych wezwań płynących ze strony neokonserwatystów oraz izraelskiego lobby. Teraz, kiedy przejęcie władzy przez Obamę wydaje się bliskie, mogłoby się wydawać, że jest idealny moment na atak. Obama mówił w kampanii o dialogu, także z Iranem, na horyzoncie pojawiło się widmo nowego kursu. Kiedy jednak spojrzeć na najbliższych doradców Obamy ds. Bliskiego Wschodu, ze zdumieniem dochodzi się do wniosku, że są to ludzie bliźniaczo podobni do doradców Busha juniora.
Pisałem o tym w tekście pt. "Zmiana, Restauracja, Kontynuacja. Ameryka Obamy a Izrael". Pisze o tym także Robert Dreyfuss na internetowych łamach Asia Times. Zamiast zmiany stylu i treści polityk wobec Iranu, grozi nam kontynuacja nieskutecznej i przynoszącej skutki odwrotne od zamierzonych polityki grożenia Iranowi nalotami oraz zmianą reżimu. Wokół Obamy zgromadzili się neokoni i przyjaciele Izraela, których nie powstydziłby się George W. Bush.
Jeden z doradców, Dennis Ross, popełnił ostatnio tekst dla Newsweeka, w którym pisze: "Gdziekolwiek dziś nie spojrzymy na Bliskim Wschodzie, Iran zagraża interesom Stanów Zjednoczonych" oraz "Jeśli Iran teraz wszędzie pokazuje swą siłę, wyobraźmy sobie co się stanie, gdy zostanie potęgą atomową". Ross wzywa do zaostrzenia sankcji gospodarczych, zwłaszcza dotyczących sektora naftowego, głównego źródła dochodów. Oprócz kija Ross wzywa do zaoferowania atrakcyjnych marchewek politycznych i gospodarczych. Nie wskazuje jednak żadnych konkretów.
Ross jest konsultantem w Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), jednym z najbardziej wojowniczych i radykalnych think-tanków. Z WINEP współpracują takie osoby jak: Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Daniel Pipes, Joshua Muravchik. Łączy ich gorące popieranie inwazji Ameryki na Irak. WINEP zachęcał później administrację Busha do uderzenia na Syrię i wspiera militarne rozwiązanie kwestii irańskiej.
Kolega Rossa z WINEP, Patrick Clawson, przypomina o zagrożeniu Izraela ze strony Iranu w artykule w gazecie Forward. Mieszanka faktów, wyolbrzymień i interpretacji ma jednoznaczną wymowę - Iran stanowi dla Izraela śmiertelne zagrożenie. Zagraża także Stanom Zjednoczonym i ich interesom, m.in. poprzez przejęcie kontroli nad Cieśniną Ormuz i transportem ropy w tym akwenie. O ile krótkotrwale Iran mógłby skorzystać na ewentualnej blokadzie, windując ceny ropy, wyrządziłby większe szkody sobie, niż Ameryce. Iran zależy od eksportu ropy, a amerykańska rezerwa strategiczna zapewniłaby zaopatrzenie w niezbędny surowiec.
Trudno także spodziewać się pierwszego uderzenia ze strony Iranu. Jedna, dwie, pięć czy dziesięć irańskich głowic kontra ok. 200 głowic izraelskich oraz kilka tysięcy amerykańskich. Kto zaryzykuje atak, który ze 100-procentową pewnością zakończy się o wiele potężniejszą ripostą, która z Iranu zrobiłaby radioaktywną pustynię? Iran potrzebuje atomu do obrony, a może czuć się zagrożony, skoro z Waszyngtonu od lat płyną ostrzeżenia i pogróżki w stylu "zmiany reżimu" itp.
Z jednej strony Clawson słusznie zauważa, że nuklearny Iran może oznaczać efekt domina w postaci nuklearyzacji pozostałych państw regioniu, w szczególności Arabii Saudyjskiej, Egiptu i Turcji. Z drugiej strony zaś przejaskrawia w sposób skrajny, kiedy pisze o możliwym transferze technologii do Wenezueli Chaveza. Nawet jeśli taki transfer nastąpi, to w jaki sposób zagraża to Stanom Zjednoczonym? Mimo swej retoryki, Chavez sprzedaje ropę do Ameryki i zarabia na tym miliardy dolarów. Z wpływami Wenezueli Waszyngton może poradzić sobie, nawet gdyby Caracas weszło w posiadanie broni A.
Tytuł tekstu Clawsona jest wymowny: "Nie róbcie z Iranu sprawy Izraela". Jest to sprawa także Stanów Zjednoczonych i świata (z naciskiem na Amerykę). Słyszeliśmy to już wcześniej, kiedy neokoni i pro-izraelskie lobby demonizowało Irak Saddama Husajna, a następnie wzywało do zajęcia się reżimem Asada w Syrii.
Niedawno powstała także organizacja United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), którą tworzą prominentni neokoni i pro-izraelscy lobbyści, w tym wielu bliskich współpracowników Obamy, jak Dennis Ross czy Richard Holbrooke, a także "bushowscy" neokoni, tacy jak były szef CIA James Woolsey. UANI grupuje zwolenników twardego kursu wobec Iranu i nie ma raczej wątpliwości, że jej wpływ na decyzje nowej administracji będzie duży.
Atak na Iran wymagałby od Izraela przelotu przez terytorium irackie, które kontrolują Amerykanie. Bez ich zgody na przelot nie ma raczej mowy o bombardowaniu irańskich obiektów nuklearnych. Trzeba jednak zwrócić uwagę, że kiedy było trzeba, Izrael działał bez zgody albo wbrew stanowisku Ameryki czy jej interesom. Prężenie muskułów trwa.
Piotr Wołejko
USA: wenezuelskie referendum zgodne z demokratycznymi zasadamiAutor: czerwoneiczarne.Data: 18 luty, 2009
Ponieważ wśród społeczeństwa mnożą się wątpliwości, czy referendum w Wenezueli było demokratyczne, czy też nie, postanowiłem się rozejrzeć za jakimś autorytetem, który mógłby te wątpliwości rozwiać.
Za kimś, kto do tej pory był znany jako nieprzejednany wróg Chaveza, za kimś, kto wspierał zamach stanu przeciwko niemu w 2002 roku, za kimś kto marzy (a przynajmniej marzył), by Chavez zniknął z polityki na zawsze. Szukałem kogoś, kogo nie sposób byłoby posądzić o “te straszne lewackie sympatie”.
I co? No i nie musiałem szukać długo, bo, machając radośnie ręką na powitanie, na spotkanie wyszedł mi Departament Stanu USA w osobie rzecznika prasowego Gordona Duguida. I Gordon rzekł:
“Choć pojawiały się pewne niepokojące raporty dotyczące zastraszania przeciwników politycznych, to jednak w przeważającej części przebieg referendum był w pełni zgodny z demokratycznymi regułami”
Kolega Duguid stwierdził również, że referendum to “sprawa społeczeństwa Wenezuelskiego”, a także wyraził nadzieję, że:
"Stany Zjednoczone zapewniły Izraelowi, oprócz politycznego i militarnego wsparcia, także hojną i szczodrą pomoc w sferze gospodarczej. Z pomocą Ameryki Izrael stał się silnym i nowoczesnym państwem. Wiem, że mówię w imieniu każdego mieszkańca Izraela i każdego Żyda na świecie, kiedy mówię 'Dziękuję wam Amerykanie'", "Jesteśmy więcej niż wdzięczni" - mówili w połowie lat 90. izraelscy premierzy Beniamin Netanyahu i Ichak Rabin, występujący na połączonej sesji Kongresu.
Kontynuując recenzowanie książki Stephena Walta i Johna Mearsheimera "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy", zajmę się dzisiaj kwestią wsparcia gospodarczego i wojskowego, udzielanego Izraelowi przez Stany Zjednoczone. A jest to wsparcie na niespotykaną skalę w sytuacji, gdy mamy do czynienia z państwem zamożnym i nowoczesnym. Izraelskie PKB wyniosło w 2007 roku 162 miliardy dolarów, a sąsiedniego Egiptu 128 miliardów. Pamiętajmy jednak o stosunku ludnościowym, który przedstawia się następująco: Izrael zamieszkuje nieco ponad 7 milionów osób, a populacja Egiptu sięga prawie 82 milionów
Różnica w PKB per capita (wg parytetu siły nabywczej - PPP) jest przygniatająca: 26,600 dolarów do 5000 dolarów na korzyść Izraela. Dochody budżetu Izraela to ponad 53 miliardy dolarów, Egiptu zaś ledwie 35 miliardów. Porównania z Syrią, Libanem czy Jordanią nie mają sensu. Ewentualnie w grę wchodziłby Iran, z PKB wynoszącym 294 miliardy dolarów i dochodami budżetowymi rzędu 104 miliardów, ale Iran to jeden z największych eksporterów ropy naftowej (zyski z jej eksportu stanowią do 85 procent budżetu państwa), zamieszkany przez ponad 65 milionów osób. Warto też pamiętać, że w Iranie panuje ok. 30-procentowe bezrobocie a także mniej więcej taka sama inflacja. Teheran musi poradzić sobie z 900 tysiącami młodych ludzi wkraczających co roku na rynek pracy. Nie pomagają w tym dotkliwe sankcje ekonomiczne.
Spójrzmy więc, jakiej wysokości wsparcie finansowe Izrael otrzymuje od Stanów Zjednoczonych:
W latach 1962-2008 Izrael otrzymał ponad 100 miliardów dolarów bezpośredniej pomocy od Stanów Zjednoczonych. Z tego ok. 67 miliardów to pomoc wojskowa, a 34 miliardy stanowiło wsparcie gospodarcze. W ostatnich kilku latach wysokość pomocy finansowej dla Izraela spadała i wynosi obecnie ok. 2,5 miliarda dolarów rocznie, z czego 2,2 miliarda stanowi pomoc wojskowa. Dla porównania, Egipt - drugi bliski sojusznik Ameryki w regionie - w tym samym okresie otrzymał ok. 67 miliardów dolarów, ale blisko 30 miliardów stanowiła pomoc gospodarcza. Oczywiście, można powiedzieć, że Egipt do momentu podpisania traktatu pokojowego z Izraelem był klientem ZSRR i znaczącą pomoc finansową od Ameryki otrzymywał dwie dekady krócej, ale byłaby to tylko półprawda.
Dane rządowej U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) zawierają wyłącznie pomoc bezpośrednią. Pomijają pozostałe rodzaje wsparcia finansowego, które Izrael (i inne państwa, choć w dużo mniejszym zakresie) otrzymuje. W statystykach USAID nie ma m.in. preferencyjnych kredytów, które Stany Zjednoczone Ameryki udzielają Izraelowi. Bardzo korzystne oprocentowanie sprawia, że Izrael może zaoszczędzić setki milionów dolarów na odsetkach. Co więcej, Stany Zjednoczone, aby pożyczyć Izraelowi, same muszą pożyczyć - oczywiście na warunkach normalnych. Oznacza to, że amerykański podatnik traci dwa razy: najpierw musi pożyczyć na warunkach rynkowych, a następnie przekazuje pożyczone pieniądze dalej, na gorszy procent.
Jak podają w swojej książce Walt i Mearsheimer, bezpośrednia pomoc dla Izraela stanowi 1/6 ogółu takiej pomocy udzielanej przez Stany Zjednoczone. Amerykańskie wsparcie to także 2 procent izraelskiego produktu krajowego brutto (PKB). W przeliczeniu na osobę, pomoc dla Izraela wynosi ponad 500 dolarów na głowę - w przypadku Egiptu jest to raptem 20 dolarów, a w przypadku Haiti 27 dolarów. Izrael otrzymuje także dodatkowe fundusze przyznawane okazjonalnie przez Kongres. W ten sposób Izrael wzbogacił się o 1,2 miliarda dolarów, które miało wesprzeć implementację porozumienia z Wye z 1998 roku (w myśl którego Izrael wycofałby się z niewielkiej części Zachodniego Brzegu Jordanu) oraz o 1 miliard dolarów z "okazji" ataku USA na Irak (przygotowania do wojny z Irakiem) w 2003 roku. Nie mówiąc o 10 miliardach otrzymanych na początku lat 90. ubiegłego stulecia na sfinansowanie przesiedlenia tysięcy Żydów z obszaru byłego ZSRR.
Pomijając możliwość otrzymywania najnowocześniejszego amerykańskiego uzbrojenia po dobrej cenie, należy zwrócić uwagę na ciekawy wyjątek od reguły, dzięki któremu Izrael może wydawać co czwartego dolara otrzymanego od Waszyngtonu na wspieranie własnego przemysłu zbrojeniowego. Amerykanie wspierają finansowo także konkretne projekty, m.in. rozwój systemu antyrakietowego Arrow. W efekcie amerykańskiego wsparcia, relatywnie niewielki Izrael posiada prężny i nowoczesny przemysł zbrojeniowy. W roku 2004 Izrael był ósmym eksporterem broni na świecie, sprzedając więcej niż Szwecja i Włochy razem wzięte. Rok 2004 był wyjątkowy w tym zakresie, a eksport Izraela rekordowy. W żadnym z kilku wcześniejszych i następnych lat nie zbliżył się on do poziomu pół miliarda dolarów.
Kolejną ciekawostką jest fakt, iż Izrael jako jedyne państwo otrzymujące wsparcie z USAID nie musi rozliczać się z tego, na co przeznaczył pieniądze. Pozostałe kraje otrzymują fundusze na konkretne projekty, a Izrael dostaje pieniądze bezpośrednio do budżetu. W związku z tym nie wiadomo, na co przeznaczane są dolary amerykańskiego podatnika i czy nie wydaje się ich na projekty, które stoją w otwartej sprzeczności z amerykańskimi interesami - jak zauważają Walt i Mearsheimer, np. na rozbudowę osiedli i osadnictwo na Terytoriach Okupowanych na Zachodnim Brzegu.
Wracając na koniec do uzbrojenia i pomocy wojskowej, Stany Zjednoczone składują ogromne ilości uzbrojenia w Izraelu, które mogłoby zostać wykorzystane w sytuacji kryzysowej. W 2006 roku Kongres zagłosował za zwiększeniem ilości składowanej broni z 100 do 400 milionów dolarów w roku 2008. Umowy dotyczące składów pozwalają na korzystanie z zapasów także przez wojsko izraelskie, gdyby zaszła taka konieczność. Oznacza to, że Amerykanie w sytuacji kryzysu mogliby mieć problem z wykorzystaniem własnego uzbrojenia. Taka sytuacja najpewniej miała miejsce w lipcu 2006 roku, kiedy Izrael prowadził wojnę z Hezbollahem polegającą na niszczeniu infrastruktury Libanu i karaniu cywilnej populacji za istnienie Partii Boga.
Izrael ma także dostęp do wielu materiałów wywiadowczych zdobywanych i przetwarzanych przez rozmaite amerykańskie służby. Bez wątpienia Izrael ma dostęp większy od chociażby Wielkiej Brytanii, najbliższego sojusznika Waszyngtonu w wojnie z terrorem. Stany Zjednoczone nie pisnęły nawet słowem, kiedy Izrael pracował nad własną bombą jądrową i nie naciska na Państwo Żydowskie ani w tej kwestii, ani w kwestii broni biologicznej i chemicznej, którą Izrael posiada. Nie trzeba wspominać, że hipokryzja Ameryki w tej materii ma ogromny negatywny wpływ na wysiłki Stanów Zjednoczonych w staraniach o ograniczenie proliferacji broni masowej zagłady (WMD).
Finansowe wsparcie Izraela jest w dużej mierze niezależne od działań podejmowanych przez rząd tego państwa. Nawet jeśli są one sprzeczne z interesami Waszyngtonu, groźby wstrzymania (nie mówiąc o redukcji czy odcięciu) strumienia pieniędzy jest niewielka i do gróźb amerykańscy prezydenci uciekali się nader rzadko. W ostatniej dekadzie XX w. i obecnie pomoc amerykańska jest w zasadzie bezwarunkowa.
Czy zamożne państwo, jakim Izrael bez wątpienia jest, powinien otrzymywać tak dużą pomoc finansową? Czy jest po temu jakiekolwiek uzasadnienie ekonomiczne bądź militarne? Ekonomicznego znaczenia nie ma, gdyż Izrael posiada prężną gospodarkę, opartą w dużej mierze na nowoczesnych technologiach. Wojskowego znaczenia również nie ma, ponieważ przewaga sił zbrojnych Izraela nad sąsiadami, nawet gdyby połączyli siły (co jest dziś praktycznie niemożliwe) jest przygniatająca. Izrael posiada zarówno świetnie wyszkolonych żołnierzy, jak i bardzo nowoczesny i sprawdzony w boju sprzęt. Wielokrotnie udowadniał w przeszłości, że potrafi zetrzeć w proch przeciwnika. Dziś Izrael jest bezpieczniejszy niż w latach 50. czy 70. i nikt przy zdrowych zmysłach nie próbowałby pokonać go na polu bitwy.
Co innego walka z partyzantami czy grupami paramilitarnymi pokroju Hezbollahu czy Hamasu. Jednak po co wspierać ponad 4 miliardami dolarów pomocy wojskowej rocznie jedną z najlepiej wyszkolonych i uzbrojonych armii na świecie, jeśli jej przeciwnikiem jest grupa brodaczy z kałasznikowami, granatnikami oraz rakietami (m.in. katiuszami)? Każdy chciałby mieć takiego Świętego Mikołaja, który rok w rok przynosiłby worek pieniędzy (w większości bonów na zakupy u amerykańskich producentów) na nowe zabawki (helikoptery, inteligentne bomby etc.). Izrael mógłby bez większego problemu kupować uzbrojenie za własne pieniądze, zapewne na bardzo preferencyjnych warunkach (jako bliski sojusznik Ameryki).
Wsparcie finansowe (militarne i gospodarcze) to jednak nie wszystko. Ameryka zapewnia Izraelowi potężne wsparcie polityczno-dyplomatyczne. Nie wszędzie jest to zgodne z interesami Ameryki. Następny wpis poświęcę w głównej mierze właśnie tej kwestii.
Piotr Wołejko
Izraelskie lobby a polityka zagraniczna Stanów Zjednoczonych - wstęp
"Zasadniczo nowocześniejsza wersja Protokołów Mędrców Syjonu", "Czytanie wersji wydarzeń [Walta i Mearsheimera] jest jak wkraczanie w inny świat", "Podobnie jak wielu pro-arabskich propagandzistów dzisiaj, Walt i Mearsheimer często odwołują się do moich książek, często cytując bezpośrednio z nich, szukając potwierdzenia swoich argumentów. Jednak ich praca to parodia historii, którą studiowałem i o której pisałem przez ostatnie dwie dekady. Ich praca jest podziurawioną tandetą i hańbiącym fałszem".
Trzy komentarze, autorstwa Daniela Pragera, Jamesa Woolseya oraz Benny'ego Morrisa, odnoszące się do książki "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" (Izraelskie lobby a polityka zagraniczna Stanów Zjednoczonych) wybrałem, aby pokazać stosunek członków niniejszego lobby do tej wybitnej książki oraz jej autorów. Przeciwko Stephenowi Waltowi oraz Johnowi Mearsheimerowi wytaczano najcięższe działa, mieszając z błotem ich oraz ich dzieło. Lawina oskarżeń o antysemityzm a także porównania do neonazistów, stały się dla autorów "The Israel Lobby" codziennością.
Nie było to dla Walta i Mearsheimera zaskoczeniem, gdyż opisali oni mechanizm stosowany przez lobby, gdy ktoś próbuje zmącić pieczołowicie pielęgnowany obraz Izraela oraz związków Izraela ze Stanami Zjednoczonymi, zwłaszcza wspólnoty dotyczącej polityki zagranicznej. Gromienie podważających bądź pytających o tą wspólnotę interesów oskarżeniami o antysemityzm nie jest niczym nowym, a także nie ma żadnych granic. Całkiem niedawno antysemitą stał się ex-prezydent Ameryki Jimmy Carter, kiedy "nieopatrznie" wydał książkę pod tytułem "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" (Palestyna: Pokój, nie apartheid).
Książki Cartera jeszcze nie czytałem (wkrótce nadrobię zaległości), ale już po tytule można domyślić się, jaka jest jej wymowa. Porównanie działań rządu izraelskiego do polityki apartheidu jest wymowne i musiało rozsierdzić lobby niemiłosiernie. Jakże to, Izrael stosuje apartheid? Skandal, hańba, wariactwo, antysemici itd. Tymczasem wystarczy spojrzeć na codzienne życie mieszkańców Strefy Gazy czy Zachodniego Brzegu Jordanu, aby dostrzec apartheid w czystej w postaci (a może nawet apartheid 2.0, czyli unowocześniony i skuteczniejszy). Pomijając kwestię blokady Strefy Gazy, która oznacza dla ponad miliona mieszkańców tego niewielkiego skrawka ziemi ubóstwo i nędzę, spójrzmy na (wydawałoby się banalną) kwestię swobody przemieszczenia się na Zachodnim Brzegu. Dla Palestyńczyków to prawie niemożliwe, gdyż Izrael rozstawił setki posterunków i blokad drogowych, które uniemożliwiają bądź utrudniają komunikację. [Pomijam także kwestię współpracy izraelskich służb ze służbami południowoafrykańskimi w okresie apartheidu.]
Izrael buduje także tzw. barierę bezpieczeństwa, która jest jawnym pogwałceniem prawa międzynarodowego, co stwierdził w 2003 roku Międzynarodowy Trybunał Sprawiedliwości w swojej opinii doradczej, na żądanie Zgromadzenia Ogólnego ONZ. Trybunał wezwał Izrael do zaprzestania budowy bariery bezpieczeństwa na Terytoriach Okupowanych, w tym w i wokół Wschodniej Jerozolimy. Jak dobrze wiemy, budowa nie tylko nie została przerwana, ale była i jest kontynuowana.
Wracając do książki, autorzy stworzyli ją na bazie artykułu o izraelskim lobby, który mieli napisać dla uznanego pisma Atlantic Monthly. Tworzenie tekstu pochłonęło sporo czasu, gdyż prace zaczęły się jeszcze w 2002 roku, a dopiero w styczniu 2005 roku Walt i Mearsheimer oddali (po korektach i uwzględnieniu uwag redakcji) go do druku. Po kilku tygodniach dowiedzieli się, że Atlantic Monthly nie jest już zainteresowane publikacją tekstu. Znając jego wymowę oraz biorąc pod uwagę długość, zrezygnowali z ubiegania się o możliwość druku w innych pismach bądź periodykach, zajmując się innymi tematami i projektami.
Dopiero w październiku 2005 roku pojawiła się szansa na publikację tekstu. Po rewizji i uaktualnieniu pojawił się on w marcu 2006 roku na łamach London Review of Books. Esej wywołał prawdziwy sztorm, coś więcej niż "10 w skali Beauforta", którego próbkę można znaleźć w pierwszym akapicie niniejszego wpisu. Walt i Mearsheimer rozbudowali swój tekst i w roku 2007 wydali książkę, którą postaram się zrecenzować, a także przedstawić szerzej na łamach bloga.
Odpowiemy sobie na wiele pytań, m.in.: Jak duża jest pomoc finansowa Stanów Zjednoczonych dla Izraela? Czy Izrael jest strategicznym atutem czy obciążeniem dla USA? Jakie przyczyny są podawane jako uzasadnienie dla wspierania Izraela? Czym właściwie jest "izraelskie lobby" i z czego się składa? Jak lobby wpływa na proces decyzyjny i jak zapewnia sobie dominację w dyskursie publicznym? Jaki wpływ ma lobby na amerykańską politykę wobec Palestyńczyków, wojny w Iraku, Syrii oraz Iranu? Na końcu pojawi się odpowiedź na pytanie, jak Stany Zjednoczone powinny traktować Izrael oraz jaką politykę wobec Bliskiego Wschodu powinien prowadzić Waszyngton?
Temat gorący, a kolejne wpisy poświęcone książce The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy będą niczym iskry spadające na beczkę prochu. Z góry proszę o merytoryczną dyskusję i używanie argumentów na poziomie. Komentarze obraźliwe będą usuwane, a wpisy w stylu "W Pańskim tekście jest co najmniej 10 merytorycznych błędów, ale najśmieszniejszy jest ten powyżej" autorstwa Eliego Barbura będą spotykały się z oczywistą reakcją - to proszę wykazać te błędy i dyskutujmy. Barbur zamiast dyskusji wybrał ucieczkę i wycinanie moich komentarzy wzywających go (na jego blogu) do wymiany argumentów. Stąd, jeśli ktoś nie ma zamiaru dyskusji, niech nie fatyguje się i nie komentuje. Szkoda czasu.
Zapraszam na interesującą podróż w świat amerykańskiej polityki. Takiej prawdziwej, w której wykuwają się kierunki oraz ustawy, które pozwalają iść w określoną stronę. Jak to bowiem jest, że przedarty na pół Kongres, spierający się o niemal każdą sprawę, w kwestiach dla Izraela istotnych zachowuje szokującą wręcz jedność? Dlaczego kandydaci na prezydenta potrafią wylewać na siebie kubły pomyj i czepiać najdrobniejszych słówek, ale wszyscy jednomyślnie stają po stronie Izraela, prześcigając się w wyrażaniu solidarności z Izraelem? Na te i wiele innych pytań będę odpowiadać, posiłkując się książką Walta i Mearsheimera, w najbliższych wpisach.
Piotr Wołejko
Znowu plotki o ataku na Iran
Izrael pręży muskuły. Samoloty są wypolerowane, uzbrojone i gotowe do ataku na cele położone na terytorium Islamskiej Republiki Iranu. Na celowniku znajdują się oczywiście obiekty wykorzystywane w irańskim programie atomowym. Jak donoszą The Times of London oraz Jerusalem Post, opcja ataku bez udziału Stanów Zjednoczonych, a zapewne także i wbrew nim, jest rozważana.
Portal Debka, uważany za powiązany z izraelskim wywiadem, donosi, iż Ameryka gromadzi wokół Iranu oraz w regionie coraz większą potęgę militarną. W pobliżu Iranu znajdują się już trzy lotniskowce wraz z grupami bojowymi, grupa niszczycieli, cztery atomowe łodzie podwodne oraz ściągnięty z Morza Śródziemnego okręt USS Mount Whitney, który ma koordynować działania tak olbrzymiej armady. W tym samym czasie, o czym również informuje Debka, Irańczycy przeprowadzają potężne manewry swojej floty oraz lotnictwa. Sześciodniowe ćwiczenia mają pokazać, że Iran nie da się zastraszyć Stanom Zjednoczonym i Izraelowi.
Prezydent Bush opierał się (i nadal opiera) przed uderzeniem na Iran, mimo wielokrotnych wezwań płynących ze strony neokonserwatystów oraz izraelskiego lobby. Teraz, kiedy przejęcie władzy przez Obamę wydaje się bliskie, mogłoby się wydawać, że jest idealny moment na atak. Obama mówił w kampanii o dialogu, także z Iranem, na horyzoncie pojawiło się widmo nowego kursu. Kiedy jednak spojrzeć na najbliższych doradców Obamy ds. Bliskiego Wschodu, ze zdumieniem dochodzi się do wniosku, że są to ludzie bliźniaczo podobni do doradców Busha juniora.
Pisałem o tym w tekście pt. "Zmiana, Restauracja, Kontynuacja. Ameryka Obamy a Izrael". Pisze o tym także Robert Dreyfuss na internetowych łamach Asia Times. Zamiast zmiany stylu i treści polityk wobec Iranu, grozi nam kontynuacja nieskutecznej i przynoszącej skutki odwrotne od zamierzonych polityki grożenia Iranowi nalotami oraz zmianą reżimu. Wokół Obamy zgromadzili się neokoni i przyjaciele Izraela, których nie powstydziłby się George W. Bush.
Jeden z doradców, Dennis Ross, popełnił ostatnio tekst dla Newsweeka, w którym pisze: "Gdziekolwiek dziś nie spojrzymy na Bliskim Wschodzie, Iran zagraża interesom Stanów Zjednoczonych" oraz "Jeśli Iran teraz wszędzie pokazuje swą siłę, wyobraźmy sobie co się stanie, gdy zostanie potęgą atomową". Ross wzywa do zaostrzenia sankcji gospodarczych, zwłaszcza dotyczących sektora naftowego, głównego źródła dochodów. Oprócz kija Ross wzywa do zaoferowania atrakcyjnych marchewek politycznych i gospodarczych. Nie wskazuje jednak żadnych konkretów.
Ross jest konsultantem w Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), jednym z najbardziej wojowniczych i radykalnych think-tanków. Z WINEP współpracują takie osoby jak: Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Daniel Pipes, Joshua Muravchik. Łączy ich gorące popieranie inwazji Ameryki na Irak. WINEP zachęcał później administrację Busha do uderzenia na Syrię i wspiera militarne rozwiązanie kwestii irańskiej.
Kolega Rossa z WINEP, Patrick Clawson, przypomina o zagrożeniu Izraela ze strony Iranu w artykule w gazecie Forward. Mieszanka faktów, wyolbrzymień i interpretacji ma jednoznaczną wymowę - Iran stanowi dla Izraela śmiertelne zagrożenie. Zagraża także Stanom Zjednoczonym i ich interesom, m.in. poprzez przejęcie kontroli nad Cieśniną Ormuz i transportem ropy w tym akwenie. O ile krótkotrwale Iran mógłby skorzystać na ewentualnej blokadzie, windując ceny ropy, wyrządziłby większe szkody sobie, niż Ameryce. Iran zależy od eksportu ropy, a amerykańska rezerwa strategiczna zapewniłaby zaopatrzenie w niezbędny surowiec.
Trudno także spodziewać się pierwszego uderzenia ze strony Iranu. Jedna, dwie, pięć czy dziesięć irańskich głowic kontra ok. 200 głowic izraelskich oraz kilka tysięcy amerykańskich. Kto zaryzykuje atak, który ze 100-procentową pewnością zakończy się o wiele potężniejszą ripostą, która z Iranu zrobiłaby radioaktywną pustynię? Iran potrzebuje atomu do obrony, a może czuć się zagrożony, skoro z Waszyngtonu od lat płyną ostrzeżenia i pogróżki w stylu "zmiany reżimu" itp.
Z jednej strony Clawson słusznie zauważa, że nuklearny Iran może oznaczać efekt domina w postaci nuklearyzacji pozostałych państw regioniu, w szczególności Arabii Saudyjskiej, Egiptu i Turcji. Z drugiej strony zaś przejaskrawia w sposób skrajny, kiedy pisze o możliwym transferze technologii do Wenezueli Chaveza. Nawet jeśli taki transfer nastąpi, to w jaki sposób zagraża to Stanom Zjednoczonym? Mimo swej retoryki, Chavez sprzedaje ropę do Ameryki i zarabia na tym miliardy dolarów. Z wpływami Wenezueli Waszyngton może poradzić sobie, nawet gdyby Caracas weszło w posiadanie broni A.
Tytuł tekstu Clawsona jest wymowny: "Nie róbcie z Iranu sprawy Izraela". Jest to sprawa także Stanów Zjednoczonych i świata (z naciskiem na Amerykę). Słyszeliśmy to już wcześniej, kiedy neokoni i pro-izraelskie lobby demonizowało Irak Saddama Husajna, a następnie wzywało do zajęcia się reżimem Asada w Syrii.
Niedawno powstała także organizacja United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), którą tworzą prominentni neokoni i pro-izraelscy lobbyści, w tym wielu bliskich współpracowników Obamy, jak Dennis Ross czy Richard Holbrooke, a także "bushowscy" neokoni, tacy jak były szef CIA James Woolsey. UANI grupuje zwolenników twardego kursu wobec Iranu i nie ma raczej wątpliwości, że jej wpływ na decyzje nowej administracji będzie duży.
Atak na Iran wymagałby od Izraela przelotu przez terytorium irackie, które kontrolują Amerykanie. Bez ich zgody na przelot nie ma raczej mowy o bombardowaniu irańskich obiektów nuklearnych. Trzeba jednak zwrócić uwagę, że kiedy było trzeba, Izrael działał bez zgody albo wbrew stanowisku Ameryki czy jej interesom. Prężenie muskułów trwa.
Piotr Wołejko
USA: wenezuelskie referendum zgodne z demokratycznymi zasadamiAutor: czerwoneiczarne.Data: 18 luty, 2009
Ponieważ wśród społeczeństwa mnożą się wątpliwości, czy referendum w Wenezueli było demokratyczne, czy też nie, postanowiłem się rozejrzeć za jakimś autorytetem, który mógłby te wątpliwości rozwiać.
Za kimś, kto do tej pory był znany jako nieprzejednany wróg Chaveza, za kimś, kto wspierał zamach stanu przeciwko niemu w 2002 roku, za kimś kto marzy (a przynajmniej marzył), by Chavez zniknął z polityki na zawsze. Szukałem kogoś, kogo nie sposób byłoby posądzić o “te straszne lewackie sympatie”.
I co? No i nie musiałem szukać długo, bo, machając radośnie ręką na powitanie, na spotkanie wyszedł mi Departament Stanu USA w osobie rzecznika prasowego Gordona Duguida. I Gordon rzekł:
“Choć pojawiały się pewne niepokojące raporty dotyczące zastraszania przeciwników politycznych, to jednak w przeważającej części przebieg referendum był w pełni zgodny z demokratycznymi regułami”
Kolega Duguid stwierdził również, że referendum to “sprawa społeczeństwa Wenezuelskiego”, a także wyraził nadzieję, że:
Sunday, February 15, 2009
This is my Professor From China for Poland China Trade 2009 must see
This is my Professor From China for Poland China Trade 2009 must see
Alex Lech Bajan
RAQport Inc.
2004 North Monroe Street
Arlington Virginia 22207
Washington DC Area
USA
TEL: 703-528-0114
TEL2: 703-652-0993
sms: 703-485-6619
EMAIL: polonia@raqport.com
WEB SITE: http://raqport.com
New Centos BluQuartz Virtualization and Cluster Web Servers
Alex Lech Bajan
RAQport Inc.
2004 North Monroe Street
Arlington Virginia 22207
Washington DC Area
USA
TEL: 703-528-0114
TEL2: 703-652-0993
sms: 703-485-6619
EMAIL: polonia@raqport.com
WEB SITE: http://raqport.com
New Centos BluQuartz Virtualization and Cluster Web Servers
Masonerka żydowska Bn Br usuwa nasz krzyż ze Żwirowiska
Masonerka żydowska Bn Br usuwa nasz krzyż ze Żwirowiska
cz1/part1
Masonerka żydowska usuwa nasz krzyż ze Żwirowiska cz.2 [kazanie
O możliwości przeniesienia papieskiego krzyża, stojącego na Żwirowisku, nieopodal byłego obozu koncentracyjnego Auschwitz w Oświęcimiu donosi belgijski dziennik "La Libre Belgique".
żródło KAI (rk /a.)
http://ekai.pl/serwis/?MID=16854
-----------------------
Dziś po 10 latach organizacje żydowskie znowu atakują Polaków w imię tzw. "dialogu"
Nakazy jak poprzednio tak i tym razem przyszły z Belgii od organizacji "Sauvegarde d`Auschwitz"
i szefa organizacji żydowskich Lazarda Pereza.
Judajczykowie znowu atakują chrześcijan, chcą usunąć nasz krzyż,
a ofiarami masowych mordów w Oświęcimiu uczynić tylko Żydów.
Do takich celów powołanych zostało wiele organizacji,
stawiających sobie za cel wynarodowienie Polaków, zniszczenie tradycji chrześcijańskich,
zapłatę gigantycznego i nienależnego haraczu oraz budowę "Judeopolonii" na terenie Polski.
Warto wiedzieć, że 9 września 2007 w Polsce reaktywowaną masońską lożę B'nai B'rith
czyli Zakon Synów Przymierza.
Siedziba B'nai B'rith mieści się w Warszawie.
cz1/part1
Masonerka żydowska usuwa nasz krzyż ze Żwirowiska cz.2 [kazanie
O możliwości przeniesienia papieskiego krzyża, stojącego na Żwirowisku, nieopodal byłego obozu koncentracyjnego Auschwitz w Oświęcimiu donosi belgijski dziennik "La Libre Belgique".
żródło KAI (rk /a.)
http://ekai.pl/serwis/?MID=16854
-----------------------
Dziś po 10 latach organizacje żydowskie znowu atakują Polaków w imię tzw. "dialogu"
Nakazy jak poprzednio tak i tym razem przyszły z Belgii od organizacji "Sauvegarde d`Auschwitz"
i szefa organizacji żydowskich Lazarda Pereza.
Judajczykowie znowu atakują chrześcijan, chcą usunąć nasz krzyż,
a ofiarami masowych mordów w Oświęcimiu uczynić tylko Żydów.
Do takich celów powołanych zostało wiele organizacji,
stawiających sobie za cel wynarodowienie Polaków, zniszczenie tradycji chrześcijańskich,
zapłatę gigantycznego i nienależnego haraczu oraz budowę "Judeopolonii" na terenie Polski.
Warto wiedzieć, że 9 września 2007 w Polsce reaktywowaną masońską lożę B'nai B'rith
czyli Zakon Synów Przymierza.
Siedziba B'nai B'rith mieści się w Warszawie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)