dimanche 20 septembre 2015

Les recruteurs

Jamet le dimanche !
Les recruteurs





Un sondage… Pour la première fois un sondage donne Marine Le Pen victorieuse au second tour des élections régionales de décembre dans le Nord-Pas-de Calais. A l’autre bout de la France, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen est placée par d’autres enquêtes d’opinion en tête des intentions de vote pour Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur. Groupusculaire, puis marginal, puis outsider, le Front national fait aujourd’hui figure de favori dans deux régions. Pour commencer.

Un sondage… Il n’en a pas fallu plus pour que la peur se répande comme une traînée de poudre sur les navires en perdition que sont désormais les deux grands partis du système. Panique à bord des pédalos, panique à bord des paquebots. Galère et naufrage en vue. Et tous, à leur habitude, de se lancer dans la recherche des boucs émissaires. La chasse aux sorcières est ouverte et elle a été tout de suite fructueuse, Les responsables ont été trouvés, les suspects identifiés, les présumés coupables dénoncés et traqués. Il n’est bruit, ces derniers jours, dans les colonnes des médias comme il faut que des éditorialistes, des écrivains, des philosophes, des économistes qui se seraient faits les alliés objectifs ou conscients de l’extrême-droite : Eric Zemmour, naturellement, mais aussi Alain Finkielkraut, Régis Debray, Michel Houellebecq et, derniers en date, Jacques Sapir ou Michel Onfray.
C’est confondre commodément le symptôme et la maladie. Si les intellectuels désertent en masse les rangs des partis qui se disent de gouvernement, ce ne sont pas eux qui trahissent, c’est qu’ils ont été trahis, comme nous tous.

Qui d’autre que Nicolas Sarkozy et que François Hollande, qui d’autre que l’UMP, désormais affublée de son faux nez « républicain », qui d’autre que ce P.S. mi-chèvre mi-chou mais intégralement boboïsé ont successivement étalé au pouvoir leur incapacité triomphante ? Qui a discrédité la démocratie en contournant puis en niant la volonté du peuple telle qu’elle s’était exprimée en 2005 ? Qui a dégoûté les électeurs de la politique en la réduisant à des jeux d’appareil, à des querelles de personnes, à des ambitions médiocres, à des conflits d’intérêt ? Qui a creusé le fossé entre le peuple et ses soi-disant représentants, si éloignés des difficultés, des problèmes et des angoisses de la vie quotidienne des citoyens ordinaires ? Qui a mis la France à la remorque des institutions internationales et des puissances étrangères ? Qui a mis la France à la ramasse ? Qui est resté sans réaction et qui nous a laissés sans défense face aux crises économique, sociale, monétaire, sécuritaire, identitaire qui se sont abattues sur nous ? Qui, fort de ses erreurs, de ses échecs, de ses reniements, prétend s’en faire un tremplin pour rester ou revenir aux affaires ? Qui a baissé les bras face à l’invasion pacifique des migrants et à la montée sanglante de la barbarie ? Qui, objectivement, a été depuis des années l’allié le plus précieux et le recruteur le plus efficace du Front national ? Qui est le plus mal placé pour se présenter comme un recours ou comme une alternance ?

A Debout la France, nous n’avons été  et nous ne serons ni les fauteurs ni les complices de la démission, du déclin, de l’abandon érigé en principe, de la corruption généralisée. Nous n’avons pas avili la République, nous n’avons pas rabaissé la France. Dans la tempête qui menace, nous avons hissé haut le drapeau de la droiture et de l’honneur. C’est ce qui nous distingue des partis du système. Nous voulons la rupture, sans l’aventure. C’est ce qui fait de nous le véritable rempart contre la tentation des extrêmes.


 
Dominique Jamet
Vice-Président de Debout la France
20 septembre 2015

Dominique Jamet, vice-président de Debout la France depuis 2012 mais également journaliste depuis... toujours tient chaque semaine sur le site de Debout la France une chronique où il commente très librement l'actualité politique.

jeudi 17 septembre 2015

UN to Commemorate Victims of All Genocides

United Nations to Commemorate
Victims of All Genocides on Dec. 9
By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier


On Sept. 11, after years of persistent diplomatic efforts, the Republic of Armenia succeeded in having the United Nations General Assembly adopt by consensus a generic resolution on all genocides.
Introduced by Armenia and co-sponsored by 83 other nations, the resolution establishes December 9 as the “International Day of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the Crime of Genocide and of the Prevention of this Crime.” Dec. 9 was chosen since the UN Genocide Convention was adopted on that day in 1948.
Henceforth, on every December 9, the UN will commemorate and honor the victims of all genocides. Even though the resolution does not mention any particular genocide, it is up to Armenians to ensure that their genocide is included in official UN commemorations on that date. No one will be surprised should the Turkish government attempt to block such Armenian efforts!
 
Ironically, Turkey was one of the co-sponsors of the genocide resolution, probably out of a concern that opposing it would have revealed its deep-seated anxiety on the subject of genocide. Consequently, Turkish officials acted as if this resolution was unrelated to their country’s past and present genocidal crimes against Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks and Kurds!
Among the 84 countries co-sponsoring the resolution were the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, Germany, India, Japan, and Iran. Interestingly, Azerbaijan and Rwanda did not co-sponsor it. Azerbaijan was reluctant to support any resolution proposed by Armenia. Rwanda, on the other hand, felt the resolution was unnecessary, since the UN had designated April 7 as International Day of Reflection on the Genocide in Rwanda. In contrast, Israel co-sponsored the resolution, even though the UN had already set January 27 as International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust.
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect issued a statement last Friday commending the adoption of the UN resolution, and listing the “significant anniversaries of the most atrocious crimes of the last century,” including “the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, 40th anniversary of the Khmer Rouge’s atrocities in Cambodia, and the 20th anniversaries of the genocide in Rwanda and at Srebrenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
 
Amb. Zohrab Mnatsakanyan, Armenia’s Representative to the UN, spoke of his “sense of duty,” while presenting the proposed resolution to the General Assembly on Sept. 11. Paying tribute to Raphael Lemkin who had coined the term genocide, the Ambassador stated: “For the victims of our past inaction, the International Day will render dignity. The denial to millions of the sanctity of life is ultimate injustice. Justice denied haunts generations of survivors. We speak from experience.”
Another genocide milestone forgotten by the international community and Armenians is the 30th anniversary of the adoption of a report by the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. The historic document titled, “Revised and updated report on the question of the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide,” was drafted by British Rapporteur Benjamin Whitaker. It is noteworthy that Amb. Mnatsakanyan referred to this report twice in his speech, while introducing the genocide resolution to the UN.
 
In paragraph 24 of his report, Whitaker cited several cases of genocide in the 20th century, specifically mentioning the Armenian Genocide. Moreover, in footnote 13, Whitaker added: “At least 1 million, and possibly well over half of the Armenian population, are reliably estimated to have been killed or death marched by independent authorities and eye-witnesses. This is corroborated by reports in United States, German and British archives and of contemporary diplomats in the Ottoman Empire, including those of its ally Germany. The German Ambassador, Wangenheim, for example, on 7 July 1915 wrote, ‘the [Turkish] government is indeed pursuing its goal of exterminating the Armenian race in the Ottoman Empire’ (Wilhelmstrasse archives).”
 
Regrettably, Whitaker passed away last year. But, there are three other former members of the UN Sub-Commission -- Erica Daes (Greek), Leandro Despouys (Argentinian), and Louis Joinet (French) -- who staunchly supported the reference to the Armenian Genocide in the Whitaker report which the Sub-Commission adopted on August 29, 1985, by a 14-1 vote. All three human rights experts should be invited to the United Nations on Dec. 9, 2015, to mark the 30th anniversary of the Whitaker Report, and recognize his unique contributions to the cause of prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide!
 
Amb. Mnatsakanyan, Armenia's Foreign Ministry, and the Armenian government should be commended for their effective leadership at the UN on genocide prevention!

lundi 7 septembre 2015

The Security of the Parliamentary Republic




The Security of the Parliamentary Republic:
the Model of Israel




Tracing the debate over the constitutional reforms in Armenia, we deemed it useful, based upon the results of three academic trips, to interview Major General Hayk Kotanjian — Head of the Institute for National Strategic Studies, Ministry of Defense, Republic of Armenia; Doctor of Political Science; Professor — about the Israeli model of the parliamentary republic in terms of effectiveness of the security policy.


E&O: Dear General, in your opinion, what is the similarity of the lessons learned by the Armenian and Jewish peoples from the national catastrophes they went through in the 20th century?

H.K.:Notwithstanding the remarkable unique identity of these two ancient players in shaping civilization systems in West Asia and the Middle East, to my mind, they share political lessons learned from national catastrophes having experienced during the two World Wars of the 20th century — the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire and the Genocide-Holocaust of the Jews of Europe. Both peoples responded to the national catastrophes following the World Wars having driven them to the verge of total annihilation, with the revival of the culture of their ancient millennia-old statehood and creation of independent nation states – the Republic of Armenia and the State of Israel. Another important feature of similarities of these two re-established nation states is that the Republic of Armenia in 1918 and the State of Israel in 1948 were proclaimed parliamentary republics.

Dear Professor, how would you assess the current threats to the national security of Israel and the effectiveness of the parliamentary model of government in terms of guaranteed political security and sustainable development of the State of Israel?

Security threats to the State of Israel are not inferior to the level of security threats to the Republic of Armenia: the majority of Islamic countries consider the existence of Israel to be illegal (only Egypt and Jordan recognized Israel) and overtly express the need to eliminate it. Their policy and the activities of non-state actors of radical Islam manipulated by them pose external and internal threats to the existence of the State of Israel. The legitimacy of the State of Israel is called into question by the radicals of Orthodox Judaism as well (the Lord is the only Leader, and no one else can exercise power over the Jewish people).

Political and security analysts of Israel single out three components of strategic vulnerability causing existential threat to Israel, which are taken as a given in the National Security Strategy of the state: 1. Huge demographic advantage of the Arab (Islamic) countries; 2. Vulnerability of borders for lack of strategic depth (width of the territory of Israel in certain areas does not exceed fifteen kilometers); 3. Necessity to deter the enemy in a hard protracted conflict that requires investments of huge resources for defense needs (1947-1949 — Israel’s War of Independence, 1956 — Suez Crisis; 1967 — Six-Day War, 1967-1970 — War of Attrition, 1973 — Yom Kippur War, 1982-2000 — First Lebanon War, 1991 — Israel's participation in the Gulf War, 2006 — Second Lebanon War, 2008-2009 — Operation Cast Lead (Gaza War)).

The toolkit for resolving internal political conflicts, as well as successfully countering external threats in the Israeli model of parliamentarism has proved to be effective over 67 years: with the duration of the cadence of the Knesset for 4 years, the average length of activity of the convocation of the Parliament over the years of Israel's existence is quite high and is 3.5 years. In this case, the reason of productivity of political crises management lies in the consistency of Israeli parliamentary model reflecting the strategic interests of national security and sustainable development of the Jewish people both in Israel and in the system of World Jewry as a whole.

Dear Professor, as a political scientist and researcher in the field of political institutes and processes of national security, could you briefly present the essence of the parliamentary model of governance in Israel regarding the effectiveness of key actors and processes of making and implementing decisions of national scale?

First of all, it should be noted that, in response to the Genocide-Holocaust, the Founding Fathers of the State of Israel, resting upon the resolution of the UN Security Council, shared the conviction that in order for the Jewish state to become a safe heaven and beacon for the progressive and sustainable development both for the Jews living on the land of the Zion, and the World Jewry as a whole, the State of Israel ought to be created as an effective democracy. And now the State of Israel in practice is the only effective democracy in the Greater Middle East, as well as a beacon of sustainable democratic development for the entire World Jewry.

The political role of a nonpartisan President, who is elected by the Parliament—the Knesset, and takes the ceremonial and protocol role as the Head of the state, and is also endowed with strategically important political powers, is of exceptional importance in this parliamentary model. From the elected members of the Parliament he nominates the candidate for the Prime Minister mandated to negotiate with parliamentary parties for the formation of the government.
 
The Prime Minister of Israel—after the Parliament approves his Government—becomes the state center of guaranteeing the national security and sustainable development of the State of Israel. Receiving the proposal by the President, before the approval of the Cabinet he holds consultations with the parties which may support his Government, and clarifies their requirements both on political matters, and concerning the appointments in the ministries and other agencies. After the consultations with the parties, the Coalition structure and its program, as a range of coordinated guidelines making up the political strategy of the Coalition, are developed.

Based upon the negotiations between the Prime Minister and the Coalition parties, the decision on distributing the ministerial posts in the Government is made. The tool for distributing the ministerial posts serves the “ministerial key”, i.e., the co-relation of the overall number of members of the parliament factions supporting the Prime Minister, to the number of ministers in the Government. The number of ministerial portfolios which every faction is to receive is decided by a number of members of that faction in the Knesset, divided by the “key”. The problem of “remainders” is solved via the appointment of deputy ministers and other officials. It is noteworthy that, given the fact that the majority of ministers and all deputy ministers are members of the Parliament, provides the Prime Minister with an additional resource in support of his policy and influence of the Cabinet upon passing the parliamentary decisions, especially in furthering the legislative initiatives by the Government. In the Israeli Government the post of the Vice-Premier is also available, and holding of more than one office is also possible.

Dear Professor, what are the specifics of Israel in terms of ensuring the legitimacy of the Government and the activity of its members in the Knesset at the parliamentary model of governance?

The election of the Prime Minister and the ministers from among the members of the Parliament asserts the legitimacy of not only the Premier, but also the Government at large. After being approved by the Knesset the ministers receive the vote of confidence both from “below” — the mass support, and from “above” — the Parliament, the elite support.  After consultations—on adequate grounds—the candidate for minister’s post if necessary may be nominated also a non-member of the Parliament (usually an influential specialist). The minister from among the Knesset members has limitations in his parliamentary activity: he may not make parliamentary inquiries, introduce his bills as an MP, cast a vote of no confidence in the government, be a member of Knesset committees. Sometimes a minister upon taking office renounces his parliamentary mandate; while his party (the Coalition) does not lose his seat—it is taken by the next person in the party list.

Unlike the practice in other states, the Deputy Minister in Israel is a political figure. In particular, according to the law, he must be a member of the Knesset (we would remind you that such a strict requirement doesn’t apply to the Minister), and he is also responsible for ensuring the liaison between the Ministry and the Knesset. The appointment and the dismissal of the Deputy Minister is not the Minister’s but the Premier’s prerogative (however, the Minister’s consent in this case is also obligatory). The Government reports on this to the Knesset, nevertheless the Parliament’s permission is not required. It should be noted that the above-mentioned parliamentary restrictions concerning the ministers, also apply to the deputy ministers.

Dear General, please briefly present the place and role of the National Security Council (NSC) in the system of parliamentary governance of the State of Israel.

The NSC of the State of Israel is a special tool of the Government’s power carrying out the development and coordination of interagency policy aimed at ensuring the national security and sustainable development of
Israel. The coordinator of the activities of this special body, chaired by the Prime Minister, is the Secretary of NSC, who is appointed from among nonpartisan highly qualified specialists, and whose activities shall not be made public.
The interagency policy of national security, developed by the NSC chaired by the Israeli Prime Minister on strategic issues of foreign policy and security, is promptly carried out by the Prime Minister through the Security Cabinet (Narrow/Kitchen Cabinet) endowed with the necessary powers and resources.

Dr. Kotanjian, how do you view the use of the Israeli model and experience in the preparation and discussion of the draft of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia as the basis of the constitutional reform with the transition to a parliamentary model of state governance?

Indeed, the uncritical copying of Israel’s experience would be wrong, and the State Commission on the drafting of the Constitution did not allow it. As an example of the specificity of the Israeli experience we can note that the parliamentary model of governance in Israel successfully operates without any Constitution in the State of Israel. The legal regulation of the system of the government and the political activity of public institutions is carried out according to the system of Basic Laws.
Using the lessons of the guaranteed provision of the national security in the parliamentary model of Israel under the concentration of power (powers of the government-administration and resources) in the hands of the Prime Minister—the head of the ruling inter-party Coalition - (with a restricted role of the nonpartisan President with ceremonial and protocol functions) requires a pragmatic calculation — with a sober view of specificity of the political culture of the Republic of Armenia.

Dear Professor Kotanjian, what would you like to note as a conclusion?

In conclusion, I would like to mention the real democratic character of the parliamentary model of governance in Israel, at the origins of the State of Israel aimed at the development of political party system in the proportional elections to the Parliament with a low threshold for parties to the supreme representative body of power. Israeli politicians and experts themselves do not consider the experience ideal. Skillfully using the tools of public and confidential criticism, they work to identify shortcomings and overcome them. The democracy of the parliamentary model of the government in Israel is characterized by high political culture of pluralism and party competitiveness with continuous criticism, identification of flaws, and lessons learned from them for the improvement of the democratic Jewish state.
And of course, it should be emphasized that the people of Israel, being aware of its responsibility as a main source of power and using the tools of effective democracy, have the opportunity to do whatever is necessary within the limits of the guaranteed rights and freedoms, as well as civil liabilities to the State of Israel, that in its Parliament—the Knesset and then in the Government the most worthy representatives were elected.

dimanche 6 septembre 2015

Les "fautes" de Fabius devant la justice



Des Syriens demandent réparation en appel pour des "fautes" de Fabius




Paris, 6 sept 2015 (AFP) -

Des Syriens proches de victimes de rebelles jihadistes demandent lundi lors d'un procès en appel réparation pour des violences subies en Syrie la responsabilité du chef de la diplomatie française est selon eux engagée.

Quatorze civils syriens, déboutés en première instance, demandent devant la cour administrative d'appel de Paris "la réparation du dommage dont elles souffrent à cause des fautes graves commises par (le ministre des Affaires étrangères) Laurent Fabius".

Les plaignants affirment que plusieurs déclarations publiques du ministre ont contribué à aggraver la situation dans leur pays en encourageant notamment une faction rebelle au régime du président syrien Bachar al-Assad, le Front al-Nosra.

Le chef de la diplomatie avait ainsi estimé, en août 2012, que "Bachar al-Assad ne mériterait pas d'être sur terre". Dans des propos rapportés par Le Monde en décembre 2012, il aurait affirmé que "le Front al-Nosra fait du bon boulot", alors même que cette branche syrienne d'Al-Qaïda venait d'être classée parmi les organisations terroristes par les États-Unis.

Les plaignants poursuivent l'État français "pour des fautes personnelles commises par Laurent Fabius", dont la "provocation à commettre des crimes de masse" à travers ces déclarations, a précisé à l'AFP leur avocat Me Damien Viguier.

Le 19 décembre 2014, le tribunal administratif de Paris avait rejeté ces requêtes, estimant que les déclarations de M. Fabius étaient des actes de gouvernement relevant de la politique extérieure de la France et qu'il était incompétent à en juger.

"Nous estimons au contraire qu'il s'agit bien d'une faute personnelle de Laurent Fabius. Une faute individuelle d'une gravité suffisante pour que l'Etat répare, au nom de son agent et contre lequel il pourra se retourner ultérieurement", a expliqué Me Viguier.

L'un des plaignants, Nawar Darwich, affirme que le village situé près de Lattaquié (ville côtière du Nord-Ouest de la Syrie), dans lequel il s'était réfugié avec sa famille pour fuir des attentats ayant visé son quartier à Damas, avait été envahi à l'aube du 4 août 2013 par des bandes armées du groupe al-Nosra et de l'Armée syrienne libre qui ont massacré une quinzaine de membres de sa famille, dont ses parents et quatre de ses frères et soeurs.

Les plaignants avaient déjà porté plainte contre Laurent Fabius devant la Cour de justice de la République, habilitée à juger les infractions des membres du gouvernement pendant leurs fonctions, mais la justice avait classé la procédure en janvier 2014.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lecture complémentaire :
Le livre de François Belliot à paraître le 21 sep. 2015
Le mensonge organisé des médias et des politiques français




PCF : " Libérez les médias "

"Libérez les médias" : 
le PCF lance une campagne pour le pluralisme
 


Paris, 3 sept 2015 (AFP)-

Le PCF a annoncé jeudi le lancement d'une campagne nationale intitulée "Libérez les
médias" pour le pluralisme et l'indépendance et contre la concentration.


"C'est un été meurtrier pour nos libertés. Les grands patrons du CAC40, de
Drahi à Bolloré, de Lagardère à Arnault, du trio Bergé-Niel-Pigasse à Dassault,
Lagardère ou Bouygues, tous ont mis la main sur les industries des médias et de la
culture de ce pays au détriment de la liberté de l'information, du savoir,du
divertissement et des industries créatives", écrit le PCF dans un communiqué
annonçant une table-ronde lors de la Fête de l'Humanité le 12 septembre.


"Les larmes de crocodiles versées sur la liberté de la presse lors de
l'attentat contre Charlie Hebdo par les bien-pensants ne sauraient masquer la
réalité d'un pluralisme mis à mal par la pensée unique libérale. La triste aventure
des Guignols de l'info en est une illustration", ajoute le PCF.


"Les promesses du candidat Hollande ont fait pschitt, tant sur les aides à la
presse,que sur les droits des journalistes (secret des sources), sur le budget de
la culture", lancent les communistes, pour qui "il n'existe quasiment plus de
quotidiens indépendants hormis des titres comme L'Humanité, La Croix ou Politis".




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

La revue "Europe & Orient" soutient cette initiative.