The problem of the anti-missile shield

In reality worriers forget always on the subject that to the same moment where the ex-USSR didn't have means to follow " the race to arming " anymore, Gorbachev tempted to reform, with success that one knows...

If China wants to follow the same path, who would be able to pity itself of it, to start with the Chinese people enslaved by his one saying "liberating"?... And then it is necessary to be naive to believe that gangs holding China or Russia take themselves of it today to this project of anti-missile shield because the world peace would their unique worry be!

Rather their subject consists in preserving their means to blackmail the international Community so that it continues to water them in credits. Whereas it would have must be used especially in Africa. To finance some projects urgent of health there already...

Then more, how to compare China, Russia, to the democracy (almost) non-existent, with USA ? Even though their behavior of superpower can irritate, -but it is there the historic share of all country surpassing the other -, and it is always good to criticize excesses or insufficiencies of it, it only prevents USA were always the free strength side. In spite of their mistakes that made them confound authentic movements of liberation with former Leninist Communism.

The false analysis of a Tony Negri comparing America for example to " the Empire " (of the famous movie " Stars war "?) depictes the degree zero well besides reaches by the thought post Leninist: incapable to understand why the East collapsed, it tempts to subordinate the troops of the urbanization and socialization failed to their bloodless reflection vainly now.

Also yet is not sufficient to treat Revel of paranoiac when he criticizes the idealistic erranceses of certain adventurers anti-internationalization toughly to make the economy of an analysis a little more objective...

And it has something else then.

Have us really the right to prevent a country to defend itself ? That I know a shield is not a sword, and even though a sword always finds the break, it is not sure that has a hand to be able to handle it if the sword is too heavy (financièrement,technologiquement) to to raise...

Here is why the European union doesn't have to mingle herself of the debate American-russo - chinese. But must refuse however that the American shield (and lately Russian!) is also reserved to her. Because the union must have her in clean.

By that way she will reassure countries of the South anxious to see that Europe remains an again too timorous power to become a real alternative to the American attraction that, her, spread out like all other power would make it to room. Except maybe and precisely the Union.

This last one here indeed, experienced by her past, can probably explain better in worried countries that the existence to term of her own shield consists to warn dangers to come. Would not be that that the basculement of the Middle East, while leaving from Afghanistan, in an anti- democratic unification of the style of the Axis.

It is better therefore to protect itself of certain hostile powers of which no one knows otherwise if to term they will persist again under the shape of states and are not going to turn in an irreversible way into multiform mafias certainly acting behind the even legal settings but makes some become definitely rumps as he is golds and already many States in the world.

It is then regrettable that some European leaders, and no spread their blindness of the least, already visible yet when one observes the result of their domestic policy, to their foreign policy: while criticizing USA in tune of the Russian and Chinese leaders. What is at the very least astonishing coming from democratic country leaders.

But the best means to contain gangs, that only swear by strength and don't bend, spellbound, chill, that before and consist by her to not only to speak of prevention.

The idea that it " would throw back the race to arming " sends back to the confutation of the beginning, to know would put rather in danger non democratic country finances. Except if these succeed the tour de force to pull credits to be armed better against those that yet want only to protect itself/themselves since the commercial and cultural challenge replaced the war challenge.

Somehow to control the flux of credits about this kind of "state" would be another shape of shield...

In the same way, but it is another topic, it is vain to believe that to eliminate the poor country debt would be sufficient, permanently, so that their peoples can know the lasting development automatically and can use internationalization to their profit. It is that that we will see in a next article.


February 2001.