PT — LARRY ROMANOFF — Nações Construídas sobre Mentiras — Como os EUA se Tornaram Ricos — Volume 1 — Parte 3 -- TRABALHO E ROUBO SALARIAL

 Nações Construídas sobre Mentiras

Volume 1 – Como os EUA se Tornaram Ricos

 

CHINESE ENGLISH POLSKI PORTUGUESE SPANISH

 

© Larry Romanoff, October, 2021

Parte 3 – Trabalho e Roubo Salarial

Parte 1 de 6
Part 2 of 6
Part 3 of 6

 

 

Conteúdo da Parte 3

Uma Breve História do Trabalho nos EUA

O trabalho infantil na América

Roubo Salarial

Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, Apple, Nike, Amazon, Starbucks

A Educação Americana

 

Uma Breve História do Trabalho nos EUA

 

Ao contrário da maioria das outras nações industrializadas, os EUA nunca aceitaram o conceito de sindicatos de trabalhadores, que foram sempre descritos e denegridos nos meios de comunicação social norteamericanos como uma espécie de socialismo perigoso que exploraria os trabalhadores. Mas foi sempre verdade que foi o capitalismo que explorou os trabalhadores e o socialismo que os tentou proteger. Graças aos meios de comunicação social, a maioria dos americanos ainda hoje tem esta compreensão errada da realidade. De facto, ao examinar o registo histórico, é perfeitamente visível que nem o governo dos EUA, nem o seu tecido empresarial, alguma vez tiveram os trabalhadores ou os empregados em grande consideração. Houve um breve período após a Segunda Guerra Mundial, durante o qual o auto interesse empresarial causado pelo medo produziu uma paisagem laboral bastante benigna, mas isso foi apenas uma espécie de ilusão que se desvaneceu durante os anos 80 quando, tanto o governo como o capital, voltaram às suas cores originais. A partir da década de 1980, o número de trabalhadores do sector privado industrial filiados em qualquer tipo de sindicato caiu cerca de 70%, em grande parte devido ao duro clima capitalista e legislativo. A maioria dos trabalhadores americanos ainda queria sindicatos de trabalhadores, mas a conspiração anti-sindical era demasiado poderosa.

 

ERIC ZUESSE -- Why a U.S.-v.-Russia War Would Inevitably Be a Globe-Annihilating Nuclear War, Over Within An Hour or Two

 

 

Why a U.S.-v.-Russia War Would Inevitably Be a Globe-Annihilating Nuclear War, Over Within An Hour or Two

 

Eric Zuesse, December 29, 2021

 

Even Russia acknowledges that any conventional war between the U.S. and Russia would destroy Russia but not destroy the U.S. Consequently, for Russia, any such war will not be waged. Only idiots would choose to engage in a war that they are certain to lose, and which would utterly destroy themselves. This means that if the U.S. strikes Russia by a conventional (i.e., non-nuclear) invasion, then Russia has only two options: (1) to respond with conventional weapons and assuredly be destroyed while achieving nothing; or, else (2) promptly release at least enough of its 6,255 nuclear warheads so as to maximally weaken the U.S.A.-and-allied retaliatory capability so as to be able then to go into a “Round Two” nuclear attack against the U.S.-and-allied side by having a much stronger military position than all of its many enemies (America and its allies) do.

 

That second option would leave BOTH SIDES, and (because of the then-inevitable nuclear winter) actually the entire planet, either doomed or else being close to being so. However, the U.S. and its many allies would be in far worse condition than Russia would be (because they’d have been greatly weakened by Russia’s nuclear first-strike); and then, MAYBE, Russians could survive that war by having lives that might be worth living.

 

The second option, for Russia, would be enormously less horrible than the first option; and here is why:

 

ERIC ZUESSE -- Why India will likely ally with China, not with U.S.

 

Why India will likely ally with China, not with U.S.

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at The Duran

 

India — like the USA that used-to-be — was born out of a revolution (in 1776 in U.S.; in 1947 in India) against imperialism (in fact, against British imperialism, the very same master; i.e., enemy; as the American public had and — ever since 1945 — still has, though this time in the form of a united UK-&-U.S. Deep-State aristocracy, who control the U.S. Government, behind the scenes). The world is now splitting-up, into two. One side is the pro-imperialist (or “neocon”) side (the conquerors of Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Guatemala, and many other countries), which includes all of the Axis Powers during WW II (Germany, Italy, and Japan), plus almost all of the other EU nations, plus Israel, plus almost all of the Western-Hemisphere countries. It’s headed (behind the scenes) by the U.S.-and-UK billionaires. On the opposite side are the nations that the imperialist nations (the united fascist billionaires). They are against and trying to conquer: China, Russia, Iran, and their allies, all of which targeted nations are ideologically committed anti-imperialist nations. 

 

Therefore, virtually all wars and coups after WW II have been wars and coups by the U.S. and its allies, to conquer (take control over) additional nations (nations that hadn’t yet buckled to them). That (the aggressiveness of the imperialist nations) is just a historical fact, about the world during the years after 1944, and it is now driving the remaining targeted nations (principally China, Russia, and Iran) toward closer-and-closer cooperation amongst themselves, so that if  WW III happens, then it will be between the imperialist nations on the one side, versus the anti-imperialist nations on the other. It would be a nuclear-war-updated version of the WW II Axis (pro-imperialist) nations versus the Allied (anti-imperialist) ones. (Churchill was imperialist, but he was forced by FDR to suppress his imperialism during WW II. Truman instead adopted Churchill’s imperialism.) All of the former Axis powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) would then be led by the Rhodesist UK-U.S.-Israel team.

 

ERIC ZUESSE -- China’s success against covid dwarfs The West’s. Here’s how & why:

 

China’s success against covid dwarfs The West’s. Here’s how & why:

 

Eric Zuesse, December 23, 2021

 

Libertarians/neoliberals in The West can’t believe the enormous extent of China’s success at keeping down the rates of disease, and of death, and of unemployment, from covid-19, because China’s policies on covid are, and have been, the exact opposite of libertarian/neoliberal. (What’s called “libertarian” in America is called “neoliberal” throughout the rest of the world.) The success of China in this matter dwarfs The West’s, by hundreds-fold to thousands-fold: it’s that awesome. And The West doesn’t want to learn from this, because The West’s ideology — libertarianism/neoliberalism — is being extremely disproven by it.

 

A libertarian friend wrote to me recently:

 

You WANT to believe the govt, you want to hold it as the bringer of all things good. The tide is heavily turning on this idea. I would fight to the death, pretty much literally, to not live in this kind of society, to be treated as sovereign and responsible. A lot on the left are waking up to this now.

 

You should look at John O'Looney on my site. He has hooked up with people like Dolores Cahill - he's a FUNERAL UNDERTAKER. These guys can tell us when deaths ramped up, and they've done so for each age group as the 'vaccines' have rolled out for different age groups. When pregnant women were being vaccinated at the start, guess what? spontaneous abortions up 10 fold. …

 

I don't ignore the death rates. I didn't ignore any of the stats. I looked into what people - doctors who weren't afraid to stick their necks out - were saying about them. And because of the FAKE PCR test being used everywhere and because of the 'every death is a Covid death' type of attitude, it quickly became apparent that the stats were being deliberately twisted to make it seem bad.

 

I don’t know whether China is using “the fake PCR tests” but CERTAINLY China has been spectacularly successful at having the best of all covid numbers (lowest disease-rates and lowest death-rates from the virus) and has consistently been applying the least-libertarian policies against transmission of the infection, and their covid-testing program is an essential part of these anti-covid policies (those astoundingly successful policies). If they were using any FAKE tests, then those numbers would be hundreds or thousands of times higher than they are — like they are in Western countries, all of which are vastly more libertarian in their anti-covid policies than is China, and all of which have hundreds-to-thousands-of-times-higher disease-rates and death-rates from this disease than does China.

 

And ALL of the countries that have had the largest rates of disease and of death from covid-19 have had libertarian policies on it (though in a few of those, such as Peru, the nation’s leader had wanted to pursue, and did try, to institute more-socialistic policies on the matter, but the public didn’t trust him and massively disobeyed the restrictions, thus producing the bad covid-numbers there).

 

Initially, I had been skeptical about China’s extremely low covid numbers, but, as time went by and I learned more and more about how low those numbers have actually been and how strictly China has enforced its “zero-tolerance policy” on covid, I by now no longer am skeptical of them, at all. China’s terrific performance on covid is shaming all of the U.S.-and-allied countries. And, as China has been doing this, their unemployment-rates have been kept below those in the U.S.-and-allied countries. So: the libertarians’ allegations of there being a ‘trade-off’ between low covid numbers versus low unemployment-rates, has likewise been PROVEN to have been GARBAGE.

 

But this is being kept a secret in The West — the U.S.-and-allied countries. Just go to https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries, which is the most comprehensive of all websites on the covid-19 numbers in all countries, and which has terrific breakdowns by rates-per-million inhabitants and other factors, and you will see this reality clearly, for yourself. It is the reality, but libertarians/neoliberals (and almost all news-people and executives in the major media in The West are that ideology) don’t want to know it, and don’t want to report it. (And, when they DO report on China’s covid-response, it is presented in as negative a light as possible, and without mentioning China’s world-beating numbers on covid-rates, death-rates, and unemployment-rates.) So, too, Western publics are not informed of these realities. So, I am trying to do that here — but more than just this: also, the ideological reason behind those stellar (but hidden-from-the-public) numbers.

 

Right now, from covid-19’s start, up till the present, China (under the column headed “Tot Cases/1M pop”) has had 70 covid-19 cases, and 3 deaths from covid-19 cases, per million residents. America has had 158,061 cases, and 2,499 deaths. The ratios there, are, on cases, 158,061/70=2,258/1; and, on deaths, 2,499/3=833/1. As-of November 2021, China’s unemployment-rate was 5.0%; America’s was 4.2% — 16% better. However, throughout the period from January 2020 to November 2021, China’s unemployment-rate has averaged around 4.9%, considerably lower than America’s around 8%. Consequently, China not only has done phenomenally better than America on keeping down the numbers of illnesses and deaths from covid, but has also done considerably better than America on keeping unemployment down during the covid pandemic.

ERIC ZUESSE -- How Red Are the EU’s ‘Greens’?

 

How Red Are the EU’s ‘Greens’?

 

Eric Zuesse, December 22, 2021

 

Blood-red. But that’s a banned fact. (It will be documented in what follows.)

 

Here are the announced values (the “Guiding Principles”) of the European Green Party:

 

“Environmental Responsibility”

“Freedom through Self-Determination”

“Extending Justice”

“Diversity, an Indispensable Condition”

“Non-Violence”

“To sum it up, Sustainable Development”

 

This “Charter of the European Greens” fills-in those blanks by stringing together clichés, which 90% of the pubic will like, because they’re written so as to avoid (as much as possible) saying anything that’s broadly controversial. For example, “Our answer is sustainable development, which integrates environmental, social and economic objectives for the benefit of all.” (Oh? And how is that pap to be realized in actual policies? What are the measures, and the precise priority-rankings, when any of those values conflict with one-another, which is often?) The Green Party is simply conning liberals, but what is their reality? What are they actually doing, when in power? Inside their own country, and in the EU? Let’s take a very concrete (but broadly representative) case:

 

ERIC ZUESSE -- Russia Warns NATO Membership for Ukraine Would Mean WW III

 

Russia Warns NATO Membership for Ukraine Would Mean WW III

 

Eric Zuesse, December 20, 2021

 

Just like when U.S. President John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s American Government, during the 1962 Cuban Crisis, warned that Soviet missiles in Cuba would mean World War 3, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin’s Russian Government warned, on 20 December 2021, that if its adjoining nation of Ukraine becomes a NATO member (which would present the danger of U.S. missiles only a 7-minute flight-time away from Moscow) would mean WW3. 

 

Soviet communism is gone, the Soviet dictatorship is gone, the Soviet response to NATO, the Warsaw Pact, is gone; but America and its allies have continued the Cold War against Russia; and, now, finally (after decades of NATO expansion right up to Russia’s borders), Russia has laid down the gauntlet to them, just as America had laid down the gauntlet to the Soviet Union and its allies, in 1962, regarding Cuba.

 

Russia’s RT News bannered on December 20th, “Russia promises ‘military response’ to any further NATO expansion”. Of course, any “military response” would be against NATO — all of it — and probably within less than an hour, most people on both sides of that nuclear war would be either dead or doomed soon to die — and even throughout the world there would be billions of deaths. No military conflict between Russia and America (and its ‘allies’ or vassal-nations) would be able to remain non-nuclear, because whichever side would be losing any non-nuclear war would promptly release all of its nuclear stockpile against the other, and so the nuclear exchanges would become a part of any U.S.-v.-Russia war.

 

The reader-comments at that news-report were informative, especially if a reader there clicks onto “Best” so as to be reading first the most “like”ed of the reader-comments (and this means that the most representative of all of the comments are being posted at the top). Here they are:

 

COMMENTS — “BEST” (the top-listed ones)

 

TheFishhv2

About time. NATO expansion must stop, because NATO's intentions are not good. This organization has done a lot of damage in the last 25 years, and it must be reigned in.

Sun Tzu  TheFishhv2

NATO is a defense organization pal, they never attacked anyone!

1Beak1  Sun Tzu

How true as they were in Libya, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Colombia - What a wretched Liar.

LaCarreta  Sun Tzu

NATO in its 72 years of existence never defended a single member state only attacked, bombed, invaded a number of foreign nations.

On May 7, 1999, during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (Operation Allied Force), five U.S. Joint Direct Attack Munition guided bombs hit the People's Republic of China embassy in the Belgrade district of New Belgrade, killing three Chinese journalists and outraging the Chinese public.

NWOD  Sun Tzu

LOL, NATO is an aggressive imperialist enterprise. It has NEVER acted defensively - name a time it has - and every single war, battle, sabotage, and threat it has engaged in has been aggressive, unlawful and evil.

TheCruXx  Sun Tzu

And how can you explain it to the world, that NATO was in several wars, when NO ONE ATTACKED THEM, OR ANYONE OF THEM. Kinda odd for a defense club...

LeftForward  Sun Tzu

The best defense?

Libertarian4Eva  TheFishhv2

When Russia is done with eastern Europe, think they'd mind coming to our US southern border? It's not like it is defended at all, anyone can get through, and frankly the Russian troops would be good business for Texas. Considering our true enemy is in Washington DC, I think it would be a good breath of fresh air to have the visitors.

ELPuerco

One should keep in mind that during the 1990 negotiations between the Soviet Union and the US-led Western “bloc” over the issue of German reunification (the so-called fall of the German wall), the Western side promised that NATO would not expand itself into Eastern Europe. And yet, expand it did – and it has been expanding, and getting very close to Russia. To this day, Washington maintains a policy of “encircling” and “containing” Moscow. In fact, declassified documents that became public in 2017 show us that between 1990 and 1991, security assurances against any such NATO enlargement were given to Soviet authorities by western leaders of the highest level. This 1990 promise was broken, which makes Russia the aggrieved party – and not the other way around, as US narratives would have it. Basically, the so-called Iron Curtain fell, while its western counterpart (NATO) has grown larger and stronger – even though the Cold War supposedly ended. And that brings us to the current crisis.

 

—————

 

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

IT -- Manlio Dinucci -- L'Arte della guerra -- «Mossa aggressiva» russa: Mosca propone la pace

 

L’Arte della guerra

 «Mossa aggressiva» russa: Mosca propone la pace 

Manlio Dinucci

 FRANÇAIS  ITALIANO  PORTUGUÊS

 

La Federazione Russa ha consegnato agli Stati Uniti d’America, il 15 dicembre, il progetto di un Trattato e di un Accordo per disinnescare la crescente tensione tra le due parti. I due documenti sono stati resi pubblici, il 17 dicembre, dal Ministero degli Esteri russo. La bozza di trattato prevede, all’Art. 1, che ciascuna delle due parti «non intraprenda azioni che incidono sulla sicurezza dell'altra parte» e, all’Art.2, che «si adoperi per garantire che tutte le organizzazioni internazionali e alleanze militari a cui partecipa aderiscano ai principi della Carta delle Nazioni Unite».

All’Art. 3 le due parti si impegnano a «non utilizzare i territori di altri Stati allo scopo di preparare o effettuare un attacco armato contro l'altra parte». L’Art. 4 prevede, quindi, che «gli Stati Uniti non stabiliranno basi militari nel territorio degli Stati dell'ex Urss che non sono membri della Nato», ed «eviteranno l’adesione di Stati dell’ex Urss alla Nato, impedendo una sua ulteriore espansione ad Est». Nell’Art. 5 «le parti si astengono dal dispiegare le loro forze armate e i loro armamenti, anche nell’ambito di alleanze militari, nelle aree in cui tale dispiegamento può essere percepito dall'altra parte come una minaccia alla propria sicurezza nazionale». Quindi «si astengono dal far volare bombardieri equipaggiati con armamenti nucleari o non nucleari e dallo schierare navi da guerra nelle aree, al di fuori dello spazio aereo e delle acque territoriali nazionali, da cui possano attaccare obiettivi nel territorio dell'altra parte».

All’Art. 6 le due parti si impegnano a «non usare missili terrestri a gittata intermedia o corta al di fuori dei loro territori nazionali, nonché nelle zone dei loro territori da cui tali armi possano attaccare obiettivi sul territorio dell'altra parte». L’Art.7, infine, prevede che «le due parti si asterranno dallo schierare armi nucleari al di fuori dei loro territori nazionali e riporteranno nei loro territori le armi già schierate al di fuori» e che «non addestreranno personale militare e civile di paesi non nucleari all'uso di armi nucleari, né condurranno esercitazioni che prevedano l'uso di armi nucleari».

Il progetto di Accordo stabilisce le procedure di funzionamento del Trattato, basate sull’impegno che le due parti «risolveranno tutte le controversie nelle loro relazioni con mezzi pacifici» e «utilizzeranno i meccanismi delle consultazioni e informazioni bilaterali, comprese linee telefoniche dirette per contatti di emergenza». Il Ministero degli Esteri russo comunica che la parte statunitense ha ricevuto spiegazioni dettagliate sulla logica dell'approccio russo e di sperare che, nel prossimo futuro, gli Stati Uniti avviino seri colloqui con la Russia su tale questione critica.

Tace per ora la parte statunitense. Si fa sentire però la Voce dell’America, megafono multimediale di Washington che parla in oltre 40 lingue a centinata di milioni di persone in tutto il mondo: dice che «molti esperti sono preoccupati per questa mossa della Russia, che vuole sfruttare il fallimento del negoziato come pretesto per invadere l’Ucraina». Tace per ora la Nato, in attesa degli ordini da Washington. Tace l’Italia che, pur non essendo destinataria diretta della proposta russa, è parte in causa: tra le armi nucleari che gli Usa schierano al di fuori del proprio territorio vi sono le bombe B-61 installate a Ghedi e Aviano, tra poco sostituite dalle più micidiali B61-12, al cui uso viene addestrato il nostro personale militare nonostante l’Italia sia ufficialmente paese non nucleare. E gli Usa si preparano a installare in Italia anche nuovi missili nucleari a gittata intermedia.

Mentre i media calano una quasi totale cappa di silenzio sulla proposta russa, i gruppi parlamentari la ignorano come se non avesse niente a che fare con l’Italia, esposta a crescenti pericoli quale base avanzata delle forze nucleari Usa contro la Russia. Trovino almeno il tempo di leggere in pochi minuti la bozza che la Russia ha consegnato agli Usa per aprire la trattativa, e abbiano il coraggio politico di esprimere pubblicamente il loro giudizio. Se è negativo, spieghino perché è in contrasto con la nostra Costituzione e la nostra sicurezza.  

Manlio Dinucci

 

(il manifesto, 21 dicembre 2021)

PT -- Manlio Dinucci -- A Arte da guerra -- "Proposta agressiva" russa: Moscovo propõe a paz

 

 

A Arte da Guerra

 "Proposta agressiva" russa: Moscovo propõe a paz 

Manlio Dinucci

  FRANÇAIS  ITALIANO  PORTUGUÊS

A Federação Russa entregou aos Estados Unidos da América, em 15 de Dezembro, o projecto de um Tratado e de um  Acordo para aliviar a tensão crescente entre as duas partes. Os dois documentos foram tornados públicos, em 17 de Dezembro, pelo Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros russo. O rascunho do Tratado estipula, no Artº 1, que cada uma das partes "não  empreenda qualquer acção que afecte a segurança da outra parte" e, no Artº 2º, que "procurará assegurar que todas as organizações internacionais e alianças militares em que participe, adiram aos princípios da Carta das Nações Unidas".

No Artº 3, as duas partes comprometem-se "a não utilizar os territórios de outros Estados com o objectivo de preparar ou realizar um ataque armado contra a outra parte". O Artº 4 prevê, também, que "os Estados Unidos não estabelecerão bases militares no território dos Estados da antiga URSS, que não são membros da NATO" e "evitarão a adesão de Estados da antiga URSS à NATO e impedirão a sua expansão para o Leste". No Artº 5 "as partes irão abster-se de destacar as suas forças armadas e armamentos, inclusive no âmbito das alianças militares, em áreas onde tal destacamento possa ser compreendido pela outra parte como uma ameaça à sua segurança nacional". Assim, "devem abster-se de fazer voar bombardeiros equipados com armas nucleares ou não nucleares e de posicionar navios de guerra em áreas, fora do espaço aéreo nacional e das águas territoriais, a partir das quais possam atacar alvos no território da outra Parte".

 No Artº 6, as duas partes comprometem-se "a não utilizar mísseis terrestres de médio ou curto alcance fora dos seus territórios nacionais, ou em áreas dos seus territórios a partir das quais tais armas possam atacar alvos no território da outra parte". Finalmente, o artigo 7º prevê que "as duas partes abster-se-ão de utilizar armas nucleares fora dos seus territórios nacionais e devolverão aos seus territórios as armas já instaladas no exterior" e que "não formarão pessoal militar e civil de países não nucleares na utilização de armas nucleares, nem efectuarão exercícios que envolvam a utilização de armas nucleares".

O projecto de Acordo estabelece os procedimentos para o funcionamento do Tratado, com base no compromisso de que as duas partes "resolverão todos os litígios nas suas relações por meios pacíficos" e "utilizarão os mecanismos de consultas bilaterais e de informações bilaterais, incluindo as linhas directas para contactos de emergência". O Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros russo comunica que os EUA receberam explicações detalhadas sobre a lógica da abordagem russa e espera que, num futuro próximo, os EUA tenham conversações sérias com a Rússia sobre esta questão crítica.

Cala-se, por agora, a parte americana. No entanto, faz-se ouvir a Voz da América, o megafone multimédia de Washington que transmite em mais de 40 línguas para centenas de milhões de pessoas em todo o mundo, diz que "muitos peritos estão preocupados com esta jogada da Rússia, que quer explorar o fracasso das negociações como pretexto para invadir a Ucrânia". Cala-se, por agora, a NATO, à espera de ordens de Washington. Cala-se a Itália, por não ser a destinatária directa da proposta russa, mas é parte na discussão: entre as armas nucleares que os Estados Unidos da América expediram para fora do seu território encontram-se as bombas B-61 instaladas em Ghedi e Aviano que, em breve, serão substituídas pelas bombas B61-12, mais mortíferas, em cuja utilização os nossos militares estão a ser treinados, apesar do facto da Itália ser oficialmente, um país não nuclear. Os EUA estão também a preparar-se para instalar em Itália, novos mísseis nucleares de alcance intermédio.

Enquanto os meios de comunicação social fazem descer uma quase total capa de silênco sobre a proposta russa, os grupos parlamentares ignoram-na como se nada tivesse a ver com a Itália, que está exposta a perigos crescentes como base avançada das forças nucleares dos EUA contra a Rússia. Pelo menos, reservem tempo para ler em poucos minutos, o projecto que a Rússia entregou aos EUA para abrir as negociações e tenham a coragem política de expremir publicamente o vosso juízo. Se for negativo, expliquem porque razão é contrário à nossa Constituição e à nossa segurança. 

Manlio Dinucci

 

il manifesto, 21 de Dezembro de 2021)

FR -- Manlio Dinucci -- L'Arte de la guerre -- “Gambit agressif” russe : Moscou propose la paix

 

L’art de la guerre

 “Gambit agressif” russe : Moscou propose la paix 

Manlio Dinucci

 FRANÇAIS  ITALIANO  PORTUGUÊS

 

  La Fédération Russe a remis aux États-Unis d’Amérique, le 15 décembre, le projet d’un Traité et d’un Accord pour désamorcer la croissante tension entre les deux parties. Les deux documents ont été rendus publics, le 17 décembre, par le Ministère des Affaires étrangères russe. Le projet de traité prévoit, à l’Article 1, que chacune des deux parties “n’entreprenne pas d’actions qui aient une incidence sur la sécurité de l’autre partie”, et, à l’Article 2, que “l’on adopte pour garantir que toutes les organisations internationales et alliances militaires auxquelles elle participe adhérent aux principes de la Charte des Nations Unies”.

   À l’Article 3 les deux parties s’engagent à “ne pas utiliser les territoires d’autres États dans le but de préparer ou effectuer une attaque armée contre l’autre partie”. L’Article 4 prévoit, donc, que “les États-Unis n’établiront pas de bases militaires dans le territoire des États de l’ex-URSS qui ne sont pas membres de l’OTAN”, et “éviteront l’adhésion d’États de l’ex-URSS à l’OTAN, en empêchant une ultérieure expansion à l’Est”. Dans l’Article 5 “les parties s’abstiennent de déployer leurs forces armées et leurs armements, y compris dans le cadre d’alliances militaires, dans les aires où ce déploiement peut être perçu par l’autre partie comme une menace à sa propre sécurité nationale”. Ainsi “elles s’abstiennent de faire voler des bombardiers équipés avec des armements nucléaires ou non nucléaires et de déployer des navires de guerre dans les aires, hors de l’espace aérien et des eaux territoriales nationaux, d’où ils puissent attaquer des objectifs dans le territoire de l’autre partie”.

 

   À l’Article 6 les deux parties s’engagent à “ne pas utiliser de missiles terrestres à portée intermédiaire ou courte en dehors de leurs territoires nationaux, ni dans les zones de leurs territoires d’où de telles armes puissent attaquer des objectifs sur le territoire de l’autre partie”. L’Article 7, enfin, prévoit que “les deux parties s’abstiendront de déployer des armes nucléaires hors de leurs territoires nationaux et ramèneront dans leurs territoires les armes déjà déployées en dehors” et qu’ “elles n’entraîneront pas de personnel militaire et civil de pays non nucléaires à l’utilisation d’armes nucléaires, ni ne conduiront de manoeuvres qui prévoit l’usage d’armes nucléaires”.

  Le projet d’Accord stipule les procédures de fonctionnement du Traité, fondées sur l’engagement que les deux parties “résoudront toutes les controverses dans leurs relations par des moyens pacifiques” et “utiliseront les mécanismes des consultations et informations bilatérales, y compris des lignes téléphoniques directes pour des contacts d’urgence”. Le ministère des Affaires étrangères russe communique que la partie étasunienne a reçu des explications détaillées sur la logique de l’approche russe et espère que, dans un avenir proche, les États-Unis lancent de serieux entretiens avec la Russie sur cette question critique.

 

  Pour le moment la partie étasunienne se tait. Mais se fait entendre la Voix de l’Amérique, mégaphone multimédia de Washington qui parle en plus de 40 langues à des centaines de millions de personnes dans le monde entier : elle dit que “de nombreux experts sont préoccupé par ce gambit de la Russie, qui veut exploiter l’échec de la négociation comme prétexte pour envahir l’Ukraine”. Se tait pour le moment l’OTAN, dans l’attente des ordres de Washington. Se tait l’Italie qui, bien que n’étant pas destinataire directe de la proposition russe, est en cause : parmi les armes nucléaires que les USA déploient hors de leur propre territoire il y a les bombes B-61 installées à Ghedi et Aviano, sous peu remplacées par les plus mortelles B61-12, à l’usage desquelles est entraîné notre personnel militaire bien que l’Italie soit officiellement un pays non nucléaire. Et les USA se préparent à installer en Italie même des nouveaux missiles nucléaires à portée intermédiaire. 

  

  Pendant que les médias se couchent sous une quasi totale chape de silence sur  la proposition russe, les groupes parlementaires l’ignorent comme si elle n’avait rien à voir avec l’Italie, exposée à des dangers croissants en tant que base avancée des forces nucléaires USA contre la Russie. Qu’ils trouvent au moins le temps de lire en quelques minutes le projet que la Russie a remis aux USA pour ouvrir les tractations, et qu’ils aient le courage politique d’exprimer publiquement leur jugement. S’il est négatif, qu’ils expliquent pourquoi il est en opposition avec notre Constitution et notre sécurité.

 

Édition de mardi 21 décembre 2021 d’il manifesto

Traduit de l’italien par Marie-Ange Patrizio

Press release on Russian draft documents on legal security guarantees from the United States and NATO

 

17 December 2021 13:30

 

TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ON SECURITY GUARANTEES

 

Unofficial translation

 

Draft

 

The United States of America and the Russian Federation, hereinafter referred to as the "Parties",

guided by the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations, the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, as well as the provisions of the 1982 Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, the 1999 Charter for European Security, and the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Russian Federation,

recalling the inadmissibility of the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations both in their mutual and international relations in general,

supporting the role of the United Nations Security Council that has the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security,

recognizing the need for united efforts to effectively respond to modern security challenges and threats in a globalized and interdependent world,

considering the need for strict compliance with the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs, including refraining from supporting organizations, groups or individuals calling for an unconstitutional change of power, as well as from undertaking any actions aimed at changing the political or social system of one of the Contracting Parties,

bearing in mind the need to create additional effective and quick-to-launch cooperation mechanisms or improve the existing ones to settle emerging issues and disputes through a constructive dialogue on the basis of mutual respect for and recognition of each other’s security interests and concerns, as well as to elaborate adequate responses to security challenges and threats,

seeking to avoid any military confrontation and armed conflict between the Parties and realizing that direct military clash between them could result in the use of nuclear weapons that would have far-reaching consequences,

reaffirming that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, and recognizing the need to make every effort to prevent the risk of outbreak of such war among States that possess nuclear weapons,

reaffirming their commitments under the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Measures to Reduce the Risk of Outbreak of Nuclear War of 30 September 1971, the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Incidents On and Over the High Seas of 25 May 1972, the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Establishment of Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers of 15 September 1987, as well as the Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Dangerous Military Activities of 12 June 1989,

have agreed as follows: