In the “Strategic Review of Defense and National Security” which reported in 2017 on France's policy in this matter, E. Macron put it this way: “We have entered an era of great turbulence. For the most part, the risks and threats we face were not unknown to us, but their manifestations have accelerated, their effects have amplified and come closer. "
The least that can be said is that this appreciation could only be reinforced by the events that have occurred since 2017 which reflect a significant rise in global tensions with a more frequent use of force, while all the major and regional powers are increasing their military budgets. At the same time, the disengagement of the United States from a number of important treaties on the regulation and mutual surveillance of weapons, particularly nuclear weapons, has accelerated and materialized. This finding is not just a figment of our imagination. In a June 26 interview with the newspaper "Le Monde", German Chancellor A. Merkel put it this way: “We believe that NATO is of great value to each of the member states. We in Germany know that we have to spend more on defense; we have achieved considerable increases in recent years, and we will continue on that path to enhance our military capabilities. American troops in Germany help to protect not only Germany and the European part of NATO but also the interests of the United States of America. Look at the world; look at China or India: there are compelling reasons to remain committed to a transatlantic defense community and our shared nuclear umbrella. But of course Europe needs to carry more of the burden than during the cold war. We grew up in the certain knowledge that the United States wanted to be the leading world power. Should the US now wish to withdraw from that role of its own free will, we would have to reflect on that very deeply."
The convergence between the two biggest powers of the European Union is clear: integration into NATO under US supervision and significant increase in their own defense effort. It is on this basis that France and the Federal Republic of Germany advocate a relative integration of their means of defense at European level. For France, nuclear deterrence is an asset of its power strategy and its place on the UN Security Council where it is one of the five permanent members (China, United States, Russian Federation, France and United Kingdom) gives it significant international weight since it has a right of veto. Until now, the disposition and the organization of the French forces have been designed for interventions on territories of foreign countries and especially in what is called "asymmetric" wars. Terrorism is often the pretext for these interventions. Thus, within NATO or UN operations France has participated in the wars against Serbia, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Libya... and maintains it operational troops in the African Sahel. Its presence in the territories where it maintains a colonial presence, ensures it a capacity of intervention in practically all the maritime zones of the world. French imperialism always acts in the interests of the predominantly French capitalist monopolies and especially in Africa (see the article on Mali in Weekly No. 670). But the situation, when imperialism was largely dominated by the USA in the "cold" war against the socialist countries and in the first place the USSR, is changing. The emergence of countries and especially in Asia with China which take their place in the imperialist system and aspire to a redistribution of the world, leads to even stronger competition from capitalist monopolies and therefore to even more violent clashes of interests within the imperialist system, for the domination of weak nations, the control of natural mineral and agro-food resources, the communication channels, the workforce...This observation leads to a shift in the defense strategy.
Thus, on June 17, General Burkhard, Army Chief of Staff (CEMAT) clarified the guidelines for the Army during a hearing by the Defense Committee of the National Assembly. Previously in the "letter from CEMAT", he had outlined the strategic evolution which can be summarized as follows:“Hard conflicts between States remain […] possible even probable. More than ever, the Army must be ready to produce military power from the outset to face an unexpected danger, knowing how to withstand shocks with resilience." These “hard conflicts” between States take place in a context “above all marked by uncertainty, reinforced by many recent geopolitical upheavals” and “accentuated by the fact that Europeans find it difficult to conceive and organize by themselves the conditions of a collective defense of their continent”. Thus, what is now envisaged is wars between States, that is, direct confrontations between imperialist powers. This is a major shift in France’s military strategy. The tensions and confrontations within the imperialist system have therefore reached a point where open war between States is conceived as a means of prevailing in the fierce competition between capitalist monopolies. The only way to stop moving down that road which leads to disaster is to fight for the independence of nations, disarmament and peace and that is to put an end to the capitalist system, to fight it and bring it down because as Jean Jaurès said in his time:"Capitalism carries war like the cloud carries a storm". Let’s recall that after this declaration there were two world wars killing tens of millions!
At first glance the policy of the Turkish state seems quite contradictory if not incomprehensible.
Thus, Turkey is an important pillar of NATO in the Mediterranean and according to the newspaper "The times of Israel" the American army stores there around 50 tactical nuclear bombs in Incirlik in the south of Turkey, 110 km from the border with Syria.
At the same time, Turkey is equipping itself with Russian anti-aircraft missiles. In Syria, it plays an active military role by occupying part of Syrian territory and by supporting armed groups which wage war for its benefit against the central Syrian power allied with the Russians. We find Turkey in Libya, very committed to the government of Tripoli against that of Marshal Haftar in the South supported by Russia, the Arab quartet and... France. These commitments have nothing ideological but are all about the will of the Turkish power to impose itself as a regional power by taking part for its capitalist groups in the plundering of the mineral wealth of the region and especially in Syria and Libya and by bargaining with the highest bidder its strategic location in the Mediterranean. Second-tier power compared to those clashing in the Near and Middle East, according to the Communist Party of Turkey (TKP), it tries to secure a place into the mesh of the imperialist system:“The pragmatic policy of the AKP, based on daily maneuvers in the meshes of the imperialist system and its oscillations between the imperialist powers, is losing ground. "because adds the TKP: “The country is experiencing an economic crisis, with unprecedented levels of domestic and external debt. Erdoğan tries to restore his political negotiating power by intimidating other countries, such as actions against France in Libya, military actions on Syrian territory or nationalist conflicts against Greece; but it is obvious that this power is far too limited to frighten the great powers or imperialist alliances, the United States, the EU, NATO and others.”
We find the same analysis grid for the president of Geopragma: Caroline Galactéros, who indicates:"Turkey's unique role is akin to that of a true 'American proxy in the region'.While she does not dispute that Ankara enjoys a certain independence from Washington, Turkey's rise in power remains, according to her, " allowed by his American ally in order to counter the Russian influence, a great enemy of NATO. However, Turkish positions and interests too often diverge with those of other alliance partners. This is currently the case with France and the European Union.
In the Eastern Mediterranean, not far from the Libyan coast, France and Turkey, two prominent members of the alliance, opposed each other while claiming to have acted under the NATO banner."
All this brings us back to the basic question: those of the interests of Turkish capitalism. The Turkish big bourgeoisie and its allies need a strong state muzzling the opposition and especially the working class. To do so there is nothing better than the use of religion to cement national unity. Erdoğan’s AKP, which has ruled Turkey for many years and is the expression of Turkish employers, intends to rally the people on this ground. The AKP is not the only one, all the parties representing the factions of the Turkish bourgeoisie are united around this issue. This is what the Communist Party of Turkey recalls about the transformation of Hagia Sophia into a mosque: “The current debate on the transformation of Hagia Sophia into a mosque was reintroduced by İYİP through a proposal to parliament (The Good Party is a fascist type formation), partner of the social-democratic CHP member of the Socialist International and associate member of the European Socialist Party in the parliamentary opposition alliance,...This proposal has received the support of many members of the opposition parties, such as former CHP presidential candidate Muharrem İnce and the current mayors of major cities, who are affiliated with the opposition. It has not been criticized at all by the opposition from the start. On the contrary, some representatives of the opposition, including members of the pro-Kurdish HDP, expressed their enthusiasm to pray under the roof of Hagia Sophia. "
The capitalist class of Turkey uses religion to maintain and consolidate its class domination. Given the deep economic crisis in the country, poverty, unemployment, desperation and the enormous discontent of the workers, the capitalist class is trying to prevent the politicization of the workers from gaining momentum. The Saint Sophia affair is therefore essentially political; it is an affirmation of the will of the Turkish bourgeoisie to impose its dictatorship under the guise of religion, including by calling into question the progressive values of the bourgeois revolution of 1923, namely republicanism, secularism and modernity.
The annexation to Israel of much of the West Bank and the Jordan Valley, currently Palestinian territory controlled by the Israeli military, was a mainstay of the election campaign of Likud, B. Netanyahu's party. With his mate Gantz of the White Blue party, they sealed a government agreement mentioning this annexation.
This annexation plan is sponsored by the United States. It was touted as a "peace plan" but outside of the US and Israel it has not convinced many people.
The Palestinians are against it and they are right; the Arab countries, most of whom have established relations with Israel, although without commitment, do not defend it. The European Union sees in it more disadvantages than advantages and halfheartedly rejects it, by refusing sanctions it keeps to a minimum; China, India and Russia have already expressed their opposition to the plan; finally, the UN recalls that annexation is contrary to international law.
In Israel itself, and well beyond the Communists and the Joint List, voices are being raised, including in the military and security hierarchy, to advise caution and to ensure that the risks involved in such an annexation are understood. Indeed, if "technically" the annexation is relatively easy to settle due to the Israeli military control of these territories, it poses, among other things, the political question of the future of the population concerned. As the Israeli authorities do not intend to grant Israeli nationality to annexed non-Jewish populations, this would openly result in a state of apartheid, a source of exacerbated conflict and the outcome of which would be unpredictable.
While the Israeli government hesitates, has it changed course? The answer is no. The plan to annex all of Palestine is in the founding act of Israel as conceived by the right and left Zionists.
This orientation has resulted in a territorial expansion at the expense of the Palestinian territory in defiance of international agreements and with the unwavering support of the Western imperialist powers, USA in the lead.
This perceptible hesitation simply means that Israeli imperialism is sensitive to pressure and this pressure needs to be increased if the national rights of the Palestinian people are to be finally recognized.
This is so true that Israel’s powerful supporters in France are losing their composure and doing everything they can to turn the Palestinian people's just struggle and support into an act of terrorism. The last translation of this behavior into action comes from Toulouse where responding to a demonstration of the Palestine collective that he could not bear, the president of Midi Pyrénées of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France (CRIF) calls on authorities to demand a ban on demonstrations, even threatening the demonstrators with the use of force against them. The CRIF, which claims to represent the Jews of France, is in reality on marked reactionary positions and cannot claim to represent all the Jews of France, many of whom identify with progressive organizations that fight for a just peace in Palestine.
Tens of thousands of protesters gathered on June 19 at Independence Square in Bamako to demand the removal of Ibrahim Boubacar Keita (IBK). President of the Republic since 2013 he has behind him a long political career. He was Prime Minister from 1994 to 2000 and President of the National Assembly from 2002 to 2007.