Overblog
Editer l'article Suivre ce blog Administration + Créer mon blog
25 septembre 2008 4 25 /09 /septembre /2008 00:54
Encore quelques semaines et le plus grand président que les USA aient connus depuis Reagan , voire Roosevelt va céder la place, soit à McCain, soit à Obama.

Totalement incompris par son époque, comme le fut Truman , comme le fut Reagan, W a cependant marqué l'histoire et quoiqu'en disent ses myopes détracteurs, il aura changé le monde plus profondément que quiconque depuis bien longtemps.

En attendant une analyse et un hommage qui fera hurler de terreur les bobos abrutis par le politiquement correct, je vous propose le dernier discours de W à l'ONU.

Attention , il y prononce des gros mots comme liberté , libre choix, démocratie ou même Irak !!

 






Partager cet article
Repost0

commentaires

P
National Hard Money Conference hosted April 30th call 858-736-7788 for info or view 3hardmoneylenders . com
Répondre
S
http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373390
GERMAN VESTED INTERESTS RANKLED BY U.S. VIEW ON EUROPEAN ENERGY SECURITY
By Vladimir Socor, September 24, 2008
 






The Nord Stream pipeline will provide natural gas [stolen by the] Russian [government Mafia] to consumers in Germany


According to German media reports,  the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) in Berlin  has protested to the U.S. Embassy  over an op-ed article by the U.S. Ambassador in Sweden,  who criticized the Russo-German Nord Stream gas pipeline project on the Baltic seabed  and other aspects of Russian energy policy in Europe.  Some German politicians and interested business parties  backed up the MFA's unprecedented move  against an American diplomat's latitude  to address German and European public policy concerns. The most detailed report of the incident  appears in the current issue  of the German news magazine  Der Spiegel (reportedly Europe's top-circulation weekly),  after the story had broken in other German media  (Der Spiegel, September 22;  Handelsblatt, Deutsche Welle, September 12).  According to these accounts,  the German MFA's economic affairs division chief Rüdiger von Fritsch  delivered a protest to U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission  John Koenig in Berlin  over the article published by U.S. Ambassador to Sweden Michael Wood,  in the Stockholm daily Svenska Dagbladet. The German MFA expressed displeasure,   asked for explanations, and wanted assurances that U.S. diplomats would refrain from such public expressions of their views on these issues. German business figures such as Eggert Voscherau of BASF (the world's largest chemical concern and a partner in the Gazprom-led Nord Stream consortium) and left-leaning politicians such as Martin Schulz (the Social Democrats' leader in the European Parliament) in turn complained that the United States was now publicly opposing Nord Stream and in doing so was "destabilizing Europe." Former chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, the figurehead chairman of the Nord Stream consortium, portrayed Russia as a fully reliable energy supplier (despite ample evidence to the contrary in recent years) and dismissed the need for a diversification of Europe's supplies. In the same breath, however, Schroeder echoed the Kremlin's blackmail message: Russia does have the option to diversify energy exports to Asia, to Europe's detriment, he told a large audience of German and Russian businessmen in Dresden on September 16. Two days later, Schroeder and Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller visited Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in Sochi to confer on the North Stream project and its public promotion. Even the Christian Democrats' foreign policy spokesman in the Bundestag, Eckart von Klaeden (an Atlanticist uneasily toeing the party line on the Russian energy business) claimed that the Baltic seabed pipeline to Germany would not lead to one-sided dependence on Russia. Apparently, even the Christian Democrats do not consider a dependence level of more than 50 percent and projected to rise to be one-sided (International Herald Tribune, September 17; Bloomberg, September 18; Russian Television, Interfax, September 18; Der Spiegel, September 22). U.S. Ambassador Wood's op-ed article in Stockholm (Svenska Dagbladet, September 10), which triggered these German chain reactions, actually expresses views shared by many European analysts and editorialists, including German ones. Indeed, the prevailing editorial opinion in Germany  is at odds with the coalition government's industry-driven policy  to increase energy dependence on Russia.  That op-ed should even have been music to the ears of ecologically-minded Germans  (mainly but not only on the left),  thanks to its strong endorsement of renewable clean energy sources,  its emphasis on combating global warming, and its call on American investors to join Swedish and European ones in alternative energy projects. German vested interests were, however, rankled by the article's recommendations to Sweden and other countries to "take a hard look" at the Gazprom-led Nord Stream project's adverse implications for energy security  and to reduce Europe's heavy dependence on Russian supplies of oil and gas. Noting (in tune with other U.S. and some European officials)  that Moscow uses the energy trade  as a political instrument,  Wood cautioned against easy acceptance  of the Nord Stream,  South Stream, and other Russian energy transport projects  that are designed  to bypass and isolate Western-friendly countries  in the Baltic and Black Sea regions. In line with those countries' aspirations and indeed with the declared U.S. policy, Wood urged Europeans to work with the energy producing and transit countries in Central Asia,   the South Caucasus, Turkey,  and the Black Sea region  to develop direct transit routes,  such as the Nabucco pipeline project,  to European Union territory  bypassing Russia.  Wood cited Russia's recent invasion of Georgia  as a momentous event that underscores the need for reducing dependence on Russian energy supplies. Given that Wood's article is fully within the mainstream of European debates, as well as reflecting the known U.S. policy,  the German MFA's and other German reactions  seem wholly disproportionate. The attempted overkill may seem designed to inhibit debate at the official level in Europe and apparently restrict a U.S. voice in that debate of all-European interest. The target, apparently, is not Wood but U.S. policy as such, which many Central and East European governments support within the EU. According to Der Spiegel's account, the U.S. embassy in Berlin responded by
"underscor[ing] that Washington does not comment on the private pipeline projects"
and that Wood's article "may have been insufficiently screened in Washington." Proponents of this argument, however, ignore the intergovernmental political nature of the Nord Stream and South Stream, as well as their function as part of Russia's strategic policy in Europe.



http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dc2m8p62_337crw7g2fxhttp://pasta.cantbedone.org/pages/BdnfhL.htm http://lnk.nu/209.85.135.104/p8h United States Embassy Stockholm Seeking Energy Alternatives Svenska Dagbladet op-ed by Ambassador Michael Wood Wednesday, 10 September 2008









I have made alternative energy  the focus on my tenure  as U.S. Ambassador to Sweden.
For the past two years I have travelled  to all 21 län  visiting Swedish alternative energy companies.
I compiled information  about these companies into a list,  sometimes simply called the Ambassador's List,  which I have shared with American investors.  At the end of September, I will unveil the latest version of the list, with more than 50 companies on it,  at a meeting in New York City.  My hope is that these great Swedish ideas  can grow and spread through partnership with American investors, researchers and alternative energy companies.
 
I have emphasized alternative energy cooperation for two reasons. Like most Swedes and most Americans, I am concerned about global warming. We all recognize the danger posed by climate change and want to do something about it [Don't be ridiculous]. Alternative energy is key to any realistic solution to the climate challenge.
Russia's invasion of Georgia brought into stark relief the other major reason why we need alternative energy: energy security. About 58 percent of the petroleum that we use in the U.S. is imported from foreign countries. We are dependent on other nations for more than half of our oil needs. Dependence on foreign sources is not a great problem if the sources are diversified. The U.S. gets its oil from North America (Canada, Mexico), the Middle East (Saudi Arabia), Africa (Nigeria) and South America (Venezuela). Europe, however, is at risk because it relies too much on one unreliable energy supplier: Russia.
 
Five European Union members are wholly dependent on Russia for their natural gas, and four more receive more than 50 percent of their natural gas from Russia.  One third of all EU oil imports come from Russia.  And we know that Russia will not hesitate to use energy as a weapon. On New Year's Day 2006, Russia cut off natural gas supplies to and through Ukraine because of a contract dispute. About 80 percent of the natural gas Europe imports from Russia passes across Ukraine, so the effects were felt not just in Ukraine, but as far away as Italy. In May 2007, Russia cut off delivery of oil products and coal to Estonia because the Estonian government decided to move a monument to the Red Army to a less prominent location.
 
Sweden is less vulnerable to energy threats than many European countries. Hydropower and nuclear energy provide for almost all of Sweden's electricity needs. Oil is imported for transportation, but as ethanol vehicles and electric hybrids become more common, oil imports should become relatively less important. Overall, 36 percent of Sweden's energy needs are met from foreign sources, compared to about 50 percent for the EU 27 as a whole.
 
Starting from this position of relative energy independence, Sweden can be a leader in efforts to reduce dependence on Russian energy supplies.
Europe needs to unite and speak with one voice on energy, not allowing Russia to sow differences between European states  as it has often done in the energy arena.  In the EU Summit Declaration on Georgia on September 1 there was a brief statement  that indicates that European leaders  understand their difficult situation:
 


"Recent events illustrate the need for Europe to intensify its efforts with regard to the security of energy supplies."


 
There two primary ways to do this:
 
First, keep developing alternative fuels. Ethanol instead of gasoline,  biogas instead of natural gas,  solar and wind power instead of coal;  all of these steps will reduce dependence on imported oil and natural gas while also cutting carbon emissions. Sweden leads the world in alternative energy technology. I will continue my efforts to create lasting linkages between energy innovators in the U.S. and Sweden. [Pure pandering for pure waste]
 
Second, develop alternative fuel routes.  Europe needs to work with the energy producing and transit countries in Central Asia,  Azerbaijan,  Georgia and Turkey  to develop an energy infrastructure  outside the Kremlin's control. Russia's invasion of Georgia  shattered one of Europe's fastest-growing economies.  It was also a significant setback to the Nabucco pipeline project.
The European Parliament and the Council of Europe initiated Nabucco in 2003. This pipeline and another new project,  the Turkey-Greece-Italy pipeline,  will when completed bring natural gas from the Caspian Sea through Georgia to Turkey  and then into the heart of Europe.  It represents a non-Russian supply of natural gas passing from the exporting countries  directly to Europe without crossing Russian territory.  Needless to say, this would reduce Russia's ability to cut off natural gas to Europe as it did in 2006 and 2007.
 
On the other hand, one energy pipeline  that should be reexamined  is the South Stream project,  which may not be in Europe's overall interests.  South Stream, a natural gas pipeline  that will be firmly in Russian control,  will not do much  to provide new energy supplies to Europe. The principal goal  is simply to cut Ukraine out of a portion of the natural gas distribution system.  This is a time for Europe  to bolster Ukraine,  not undermine it.
Closer to home, Sweden should also take a hard look at Nord Stream, the proposed natural gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea to bring more Russian natural gas to Germany.  Nord Stream  bypasses the Baltic States and Poland,  potential consumers,  and represents a special arrangement  between Germany and Russia. The EU should be speaking with a single voice to counteract the power of Russia's energy weapon.
 
The economies of the United States and Europe are going to depend on imported oil and natural gas for many years to come. We need to recognize the threat posed by this dependence and take steps to counter it. On September 11 and 12, top energy experts from the United States, Sweden and the rest of Europe will meet in Stockholm for an extraordinary Transatlantic Energy Security Dialogue. This gathering underscores the heightened concern about European energy supplies following Russia's aggression against Georgia. We must create alternative forms of energy, and we must establish new ways to get the imports that we can't, for the moment, do without.





Embassy of the United States of America Dag Hammarskjölds Väg 31, SE-115 89 Stockholm
Home Public Affairs Section | US Mission | Commercial Service | Agricultural Service Consular Information | Fulbright | U.S. State Department | Defense Department webmaster@usemb.se
Répondre