GEOPOLÍTICA

[czarccc]

Gen. Sverker Goranson
Sweden's Chief of Defense Staff

Published: 2 November 2009
Print Print | Print Email

For decades, Sweden's military was essentially two forces: one, a conscript homeland defense force, and the other, a professional force able to deploy worldwide on peacekeeping operations.


Gen. Sverker Goranson is Swedish Chief of Defense Staff. (COLIN KELLY / STAFF)

In the most sweeping change in decades, Sweden's parliament - the Riksdag - ended conscription in favor of a smaller, all-volunteer military capable of sustained global operations.

Implementing this change will be Gen. Sverker Göranson, who in March assumed his six-year tenure as Sweden's chief of staff. Given Sweden holds the European Union's presidency through the end of the year, Göranson, who started his career as a tank officer and served operational tours in Bosnia, ranks as one of Europe's senior-most military leaders.

Q. You're the latest high-ranking Swedish official to visit Washington since the Obama administration took office. Why?

A. Since we are running a number of operations together, and have done so over time, it's crucial to discuss how we are running operations in northern Afghanistan, share information and get information from the U.S. side as well.

We are very focused on our operations in Afghanistan, but the other side of the coin is where we will be in the future when it comes to training, equipment and so forth.

Q. Have you discussed your transformation process as well?

A. On the military side, most are aware of it because we talked about it when I was here a year ago, but now it's been confirmed with the bill to parliament in June, which is why my minister of defense was here as well.

The transformation we are conducting is a huge turnaround, and as I told Adm. [Michael] Mullen [U.S. Joint Chiefs chairman], we know where we are going, but it will not be finished when I leave my tenure as chief of defense in six years. It will take longer than that, but the important piece is that we know what we want to achieve and have started moving toward it.

Q. What's driving your transformation?

A. The major shift is globalization and the fact that most of the things we are dealing with aren't necessarily about national boundaries.

What turned Sweden around is not focusing on national defense, but being a part of this globalized world and solving issues together, because wherever conflicts are, whether in the Balkans or Afghanistan, over the long run, they will have an impact on the world and life in Sweden as well. So we need to do things together to prepare and prevent, but also to conduct operations to solve the issues that come up.

Dealing with piracy off Somalia is our way to have an impact on the free flow of goods over the oceans. So instead of just looking on, we are taking part.

To do that, you need an armed force comprised differently and much more easily available and deployable. We have had during the last 50 years a parallel organization, units for home use and specific units to deploy, and now we are making one organization.

We do not foresee at the moment anybody around us will mount a unique armed attack on Sweden. But we do see potential tensions. A number of countries are interested in what we are moving on the seas, where we are moving, climate change and looking at finding new energy resources.

That is where the High North comes in and why we would prefer to solve issues through communication among the nations involved. But there will also be competition. That is basically the foundation, and there is a big discussion regarding the High North. Climate change is one of the bigger things we people on the globe have to deal with.

Q. Are there tensions in the Arctic? Russia has claimed the region as its own.

A. There are no tensions up there, but there are energy resources that will be available, and we need to discuss who are the owners of those and what impact that will have on our and others' behavior. There is an intention by our close neighbors, Norway and Denmark, to have a dialogue to find and solve issues that are currently up there, as you are doing between the United States and Canada.

My sense on Russia is that they are thinking and doing stuff with a much more long-term view. In Sweden, we look a year at a time when it comes to our budgets. Their view is much further out, and what we need to recognize is that they are an important player in the region and we need to allow them to be on the scene and not push them into the bleachers. They ultimately want to sit at the table. So in the relationship, you have to have a working conversation between NATO and Russia. Where that leads, that too is up to the politicians.

Q. Could the Arctic become a flashpoint?

A. Yes, but that is why, for example, my counterparts in Norway and Denmark are already pushing the idea of dialogue before it becomes a problem. If we start discussions between the United States, Norway, Denmark and Canada about what are the borders and how we deal with energy resources, and let all the players sit at the same table at the same time, we might defuse some of the tensions that might be created.

When I said we need to do things together, the idea behind Nordic cooperation is that we as small nations cannot afford in the long run to keep the quality and quantity of armed forces that we have because everything becomes more expensive, equipmentwise and personnelwise.

We have to find ways to build capabilities, and that also in the long run means to find ways of sharing information and helping each other, whatever mission that needs to be solved, and that will include the High North as well.

As part of the Nordic Battle Group, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark are already sharing the operational picture in the air and on the sea, and that can be extended to the High North. If that is something that is politically decided, we can stretch that out north and northwest, and first provide sensors and then do things in the area like combined patrols with different kinds of vessels.

Q. As you become more deployable, will you draw off U.S., British, French and other more extensive logistics systems?

A. I can always try to do what I want, but a logistician will always tell me what I can do. The more we deploy, the farther away we deploy, the trickier the question becomes.

That is important for us and why we have formed the organization with the C-17 transports in Hungary with 12 NATO nations, Sweden and Finland to have the equipment necessary to move fast and big.

On the other hand, we are conducting international operations now and overlooking the entire process of work regarding logistics. What do we need at home, and how do we organize and make it a working flow to deployed units? That will be a challenge.

It's easy for a big nation like the United States, with many aircraft and other stuff, while we have much less, so we have to find different ways of doing this. We are talking to the Danes and the Norwegians, who have signed contracts with shipping companies to support them when they move. We've already set up a depot where we have the equipment we would need in one central place to move it out quickly.

Q. How do you do this on a flat budget?

A. As a result of the last defense resolution in 2004, the budget was lowered to $5.5 billion annually and will stay on the same level until 2014. We also conducted a study on how we acquire equipment, how we support the force, deploy it and train it, with the aim of moving 20 to 30 percent of the funding there to the operational side, which needs to happen for me to be able to fulfill the task I have. Unless we deal with those issues and solve them, I will have challenges and problems achieving my goals.

Q. Historically, you have bought from Sweden's defense industry. But you recently bought armored vehicles from Finland's Patria instead of Hägglunds on price grounds. How do you maintain Swedish industrial capabilities if you don't buy from your companies?

A. We are lucky that we have a very strong industrial base that has been self-sustaining for the armed forces for a number of years. The quality of the equipment in air, on sea and ground is very high.

What we now have said is that it's a smaller and smaller armed force, and for a small nation, those industries have to be competitive on the international market. We will define the demands that we have, but if we talk vehicles, airplanes and ships, I'll never again be in a position that it has to be Swedish and Swedish-specific.

Q. Won't that hurt your industry and undermine its competitiveness?

A. That's a political question. That is a change in our decision and strategy that we should buy whatever is out there, Swedish or international, so long as it fulfills our requirements.

Q. Even if it hurts your industry?

A. Yes, but if you look back in the last 10 years, that is what you have seen around the world. They have formed coalitions, and how much of the industry in Sweden today are actually Swedish-owned? They are part of a bigger picture. It has always been self-sustaining, but that is their way of being competitive on the international market.

When it comes to funding of the armed forces in Sweden, it's always been one slice defense policy and one slice industrial policy. I think it will continue to be that way but will not necessarily look the same.

Q. Will Sweden become part of NATO?

A. That's something our politicians need to decide after listening to and having a conversation with the Swedish people. The challenge is that we do not have very much of a discussion concerning the issue, and you need that first before you can come to some sort of decision.

We had a defense resolution in 1996 that said the Swedish armed forces should be completely NATO-interoperable, which is the standard we have worked to accordingly, to make sure that wherever we go, as we did to Afghanistan, we can plug in and work with the different nations conducting operations and do it well.

-- By Vago Muradian in Washington

Military Profile

Defense budget: $5.5 billion annually since 2004

Total manpower: 50,000, including Standing Units, Contracted Units and Home Guard

Deployments: Afghanistan, Kosovo,

Ongoing procurements: Include the New-Generation Gripen fighters, NH90 helicopters, Visby corvettes, new submarines.

Source: Defense News research

Fonte: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =FEA&s=INT

[czarccc]

Integra do Acordo Colômbia-EUA:

http://www.defesanet.com.br/docs1/acuer ... ia_eua.pdf

[czarccc]

Major Shipment of Iranian Arms Seized: Israel

By DAVID BUIMOVITCH, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Published: 4 Nov 2009 14:54

ASHDOD, Israel - Israeli naval commandos intercepted a ship carrying "hundreds of tons" of arms from Iran to the Lebanese Hezbollah militia in a raid dozens of miles off its coast, officials said Nov. 4.


The Israeli military displayed arms Nov. 4 they say were going from Iran to the Lebanese Hezbollah militia aboard a ship that commandos seized around 100 miles from the Israeli coast. (DAVID BUIMOVITCH / AFP)

"We found dozens of containers, with hundreds of tons of arms bound for Hezbollah from Iran," deputy naval commander Rani Ben Yehuda told reporters.

The shipment was among the largest ever seized by Israel, dwarfing the 50 tons of weapons found aboard the Karine A seized in 2002 on its way to Gaza, which dealt a major blow to relations between the Palestinians and Washington.

At Ashdod port, soldiers pulled hundreds of olive-green ammunition crates from the shipping containers, many of them surrounded by sacks of cement meant to disguise the contents.

They were then divided into huge stacks of rockets of various sizes, mortar shells, hand grenades and ammunition for AK47 rifles. Many of the weapons crates had inscriptions in Spanish, Chinese and English.

No anti-aircraft or anti-tank missiles have been found on the ship, Ben-Yehuda said, but he added that soldiers were still unpacking containers.

The military had earlier announced that it had seized the 137-meter (450-foot) Antigua-flagged vessel "Francop" before dawn around 100 nautical miles from the Israeli coast.

Ben Yehuda said the captain of the ship was unaware of the contents of his cargo and had agreed to allow Israeli forces to board and inspect his ship.

He said the cargo manifest for the seized crates indicated they were headed from Iran to Syria, but Israel offered no direct proof to implicate Iran or Hezbollah, and the Lebanese group declined to comment on the incident.

Israel views Iran as its main strategic threat because of Tehran's support for regional militant groups, its nuclear enrichment program and its leaders' repeated predictions of the demise of the Jewish state.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak hailed the operation, calling it a "new success in our struggle against weapons smuggling aimed at reinforcing terrorist organizations that are threatening the security of Israel."

His remarks were carried in a defense ministry statement that said the ship was captured "near Cyprus," without elaborating on whether it was in Cypriot or international waters at the time.

Israel's Haaretz newspaper reported that the ship set out from Iran and later docked in Yemen and Sudan before passing through the Suez Canal en route to either Syria or Lebanon.

Israel has long accused arch-foes Syria and Iran of supplying weapons to Hezbollah and to Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip, which has been ruled by the Islamist Hamas movement since June 2007.

On Nov. 3, a senior Israeli general warned that Hamas had successfully test-fired out to sea a rocket that was capable of reaching Tel Aviv from Gaza.

The rocket, believed to be Iranian-made, has a range of about 60 kilometers (40 miles), putting Israel's major population centers in range, said Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, head of military intelligence.

Hamas called the claim a "fabrication" designed to mobilize world opinion against the Islamist group before the UN General Assembly, which was on Nov. 4 due to discuss a report on the Gaza war that was deeply critical of both Israel and Hamas.

Israel has in the past seized shipments of weapons allegedly bound for Gaza, and on January 3, 2002, at the height of a Palestinian uprising, Israel intercepted the Karine A in the Red Sea where it was bound for Gaza.

The late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat admitted responsibility for the smuggling attempt, and the affair eroded his standing with Washington.

Fonte: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =MID&s=TOP

[thicogo]

Major Shipment of Iranian Arms Seized: Israel

By DAVID BUIMOVITCH, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Published: 4 Nov 2009 14:54

ASHDOD, Israel - Israeli naval commandos intercepted a ship carrying "hundreds of tons" of arms from Iran to the Lebanese Hezbollah militia in a raid dozens of miles off its coast, officials said Nov. 4.


The Israeli military displayed arms Nov. 4 they say were going from Iran to the Lebanese Hezbollah militia aboard a ship that commandos seized around 100 miles from the Israeli coast. (DAVID BUIMOVITCH / AFP)

"We found dozens of containers, with hundreds of tons of arms bound for Hezbollah from Iran," deputy naval commander Rani Ben Yehuda told reporters.

The shipment was among the largest ever seized by Israel, dwarfing the 50 tons of weapons found aboard the Karine A seized in 2002 on its way to Gaza, which dealt a major blow to relations between the Palestinians and Washington.

At Ashdod port, soldiers pulled hundreds of olive-green ammunition crates from the shipping containers, many of them surrounded by sacks of cement meant to disguise the contents.

They were then divided into huge stacks of rockets of various sizes, mortar shells, hand grenades and ammunition for AK47 rifles. Many of the weapons crates had inscriptions in Spanish, Chinese and English.

No anti-aircraft or anti-tank missiles have been found on the ship, Ben-Yehuda said, but he added that soldiers were still unpacking containers.

The military had earlier announced that it had seized the 137-meter (450-foot) Antigua-flagged vessel "Francop" before dawn around 100 nautical miles from the Israeli coast.

Ben Yehuda said the captain of the ship was unaware of the contents of his cargo and had agreed to allow Israeli forces to board and inspect his ship.

He said the cargo manifest for the seized crates indicated they were headed from Iran to Syria, but Israel offered no direct proof to implicate Iran or Hezbollah, and the Lebanese group declined to comment on the incident.

Israel views Iran as its main strategic threat because of Tehran's support for regional militant groups, its nuclear enrichment program and its leaders' repeated predictions of the demise of the Jewish state.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak hailed the operation, calling it a "new success in our struggle against weapons smuggling aimed at reinforcing terrorist organizations that are threatening the security of Israel."

His remarks were carried in a defense ministry statement that said the ship was captured "near Cyprus," without elaborating on whether it was in Cypriot or international waters at the time.

Israel's Haaretz newspaper reported that the ship set out from Iran and later docked in Yemen and Sudan before passing through the Suez Canal en route to either Syria or Lebanon.

Israel has long accused arch-foes Syria and Iran of supplying weapons to Hezbollah and to Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip, which has been ruled by the Islamist Hamas movement since June 2007.

On Nov. 3, a senior Israeli general warned that Hamas had successfully test-fired out to sea a rocket that was capable of reaching Tel Aviv from Gaza.

The rocket, believed to be Iranian-made, has a range of about 60 kilometers (40 miles), putting Israel's major population centers in range, said Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, head of military intelligence.

Hamas called the claim a "fabrication" designed to mobilize world opinion against the Islamist group before the UN General Assembly, which was on Nov. 4 due to discuss a report on the Gaza war that was deeply critical of both Israel and Hamas.

Israel has in the past seized shipments of weapons allegedly bound for Gaza, and on January 3, 2002, at the height of a Palestinian uprising, Israel intercepted the Karine A in the Red Sea where it was bound for Gaza.

The late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat admitted responsibility for the smuggling attempt, and the affair eroded his standing with Washington.

Observar aos 43 segundos.
Fonte: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =MID&s=TOP

[czarccc]

Sabe quem fabrica isso que aparece aos 43 segundos?

[Tupi]

Sabe quem fabrica isso que aparece aos 43 segundos?

Não reconheço o produto, mas as inscrições estavam em português.

[Junker]

Pelas marcações da caixa, são munições 106mm (105 na realidade) do Canhão sem recuo M40A1. Espoletas Point Initiating/Base Detonating M509.

Os iranianos usavam/usam esses canhões sem recuo em cima dos Cascavéis capturados do Iraque.

[guilhermecn]

Pelas marcações da caixa, são munições 106mm (105 na realidade) do Canhão sem recuo M40A1. Espoletas Point Initiating/Base Detonating M509.

Os iranianos usavam/usam esses canhões sem recuo em cima dos Cascavéis capturados do Iraque.

Perai

O que que o Hezbolah iria fazer com munições 106mm ?
Eles tem algum cascavel ou canhão que suporte esse tipo de munição?

[Junker]

Pelo filme da IDF, eram Fajr-2 122mm, dentro dessas caixas. São foguetes usadas no BM-21 Grad iraniano, o HM20.

[Bolovo]

Perai

O que que o Hezbolah iria fazer com munições 106mm ?
Eles tem algum cascavel ou canhão que suporte esse tipo de munição?

Você não entendeu. Não é usado no Cascavel. O canhão é que está no Cascavel, na lateral dele. Os iranianos usavam assim.

O M40A1 é um canhão sem-recuo, utilizado inclusive pelo Exército Brasileiro.




E sim, o Hezbollah tem isso, alias, essa arma é bem antiga e simples, eles têm coisas mais modernas como Kornets e etc.

São usados contra os tanques israelenses normalmente.

[Enlil]

Sábado, 7 de novembro de 2009, 14:06

China aumentará ajuda à África apesar de crise financeira

MARIAM KAROUNY - REUTERS

SHARM EL-SHEIKH, EGITO - A China vai aumentar seu investimento e apoio a países africanos apesar dos efeitos da crise econômica global, concordando em elaborar acordos para serem assinados durante uma cúpula no Egito, no domingo.

O evento acontecerá em um momento em que o apetite chinês por matérias primas, especialmente petróleo e minérios, ajuda a estimular o crescimento na África.

O premiê chinês, Wen Jiabao, se reunirá com líderes africanos em um resort em Sharm El-Sheikh, Egito, chegando ao maior nível de contato entre ambos os lados desde quando o presidente chinês, Hu Jintao, prometeu em 2006 cerca de 5 bilhões de dólares em empréstimos para a África.

"Apesar de nossas próprias dificuldades devido ao impacto da crise financeira global, a China expressa comprometimento com uma assistência à Africa em escala maior", segundo esboço do plano de ação que deve ser acordado entre os dois lados, cuja cópia foi obtida pela Reuters.

"Nos próximos três anos, o lado chinês continuará a fornecer empréstimos para países africanos, que serão usados principalmente para apoiar projetos de infra-estrutura e de desenvolvimento social."

O comércio entre a China e a África saltou na última década, puxado pelas necessidades de recursos naturais da China e crescente demanda africana por produtos chineses baratos.

Em 2008, o comércio total somou 106,8 bilhões de dólares, alta de 45,1 por cento em relação a 2007. Em 2000, o fluxo foi de apenas 10,5 bilhões de dólares.

http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/inte ... 2753,0.htm

[guilhermecn]

Perai

O que que o Hezbolah iria fazer com munições 106mm ?
Eles tem algum cascavel ou canhão que suporte esse tipo de munição?

Você não entendeu. Não é usado no Cascavel. O canhão é que está no Cascavel, na lateral dele. Os iranianos usavam assim.

O M40A1 é um canhão sem-recuo, utilizado inclusive pelo Exército Brasileiro.




E sim, o Hezbollah tem isso, alias, essa arma é bem antiga e simples, eles têm coisas mais modernas como Kornets e etc.

São usados contra os tanques israelenses normalmente.

Ah

Me confundi então

Valeu pelo esclarecimento

P.S: http://www.army-technology.com/projects ... rnet3.html

E que belezinha , não?
E o Irá fica negando que não repassa armas para o Hezbollah. Tá bom.

[Bolovo]

O Irã (de onde veio o C-802 anti-navio que acertou a corveta Saad), a Síria (de onde veio os Kornets) e etc. Tudo por debaixo dos panos.

[Penguin]

Le Monde
05/11/2009
A relação "infantil e fetichista" dos europeus com os Estados Unidos

Cécile Chambraud

À sombra da visita de Angela Merkel, solenemente recebida pelo Congresso norte-americano nesta terça-feira, uma delegação da União Europeia (UE) foi até Washington para participar da cúpula que reuniu membros do bloco e dos Estados Unidos. A pompa concedida a uma e a discrição reservada aos outros ilustravam oportunamente algumas das teses, pouco lisonjeiras para a UE, desenvolvidas para um novo estudo sobre as relações transatlânticas publicado pelo European Council on Foreign Relations, um centro de pesquisa europeu ligado à fundação Soros.

Seus dois autores, o norte-americano Jeremy Shapiro, pesquisador da Brookings Institution, e o britânico Nick Witney, ex-diretor da Agência Europeia de Defesa, avaliam que os europeus, por suas divisões e por sua avidez em promover junto a Washington seus interesses particulares, são hoje incapazes de construir uma relação equilibrada com Washington. A redistribuição de poderes em benefício de países emergentes acentuaria ainda mais sua defasagem.

Aliviadas de verem-no suceder Bush, nações europeias não viram "pragmatismo" de Obama
Veja outros jornais e revistas internacionais


Eles escolheram palavras cáusticas para descrever a relação que as nações europeias mantêm com os Estados Unidos; uma relação, segundo eles, "infantil e fetichista", alimentada por "ilusões". Entre as mais danosas, há aquela segundo a qual os interesses dos norte-americanos e dos europeus são fundamentalmente os mesmos; ou ainda, que a segurança da Europa ainda depende da proteção dos EUA. Enfim, igualmente danosa, figura a convicção de vários Estados europeus de que eles têm uma "relação especial" com os Estados Unidos. "Relação especial" que tornaria contra-produtiva a ideia de se unir, frente aos Estados Unidos, com as outras nações europeias. "Visto de Washington", eles escrevem, "há algo quase infantil na maneira como os governos europeus se comportam em relação a eles - uma mistura de busca de atenção com evasão de responsabilidades".

"Deferência europeia"
Essa aproximação não se manifesta de maneira evidente sobre o terreno econômico e comercial, onde a Europa aprendeu, através de instituições comunitárias, a abordar de maneira mais pragmática suas relações com Washington. Mas, em compensação, é o que acontece com as questões de segurança. Por exemplo, nem sobre o Afeganistão, nem sobre a Rússia, nem sobre o conflito entre israelenses e palestinos os europeus até agora tiveram a capacidade de definir interesses e uma estratégia em comum frente àqueles de Washington, observam os autores do estudo.

Ora, "o problema da deferência europeia em relação aos Estados Unidos é que ela simplesmente não funciona", garantem Jeremy Shapiro e Nick Witney. E ela funcionará cada vez menos em um mundo "pós-americano", onde os poderes se redistribuem em favor de países emergentes do Sul. Os Estados Unidos, pragmaticamente, adaptaram sua diplomacia para a emergência dessas novas potências. Os europeus não. Presos em reflexos antigos, os governos europeus se apegam, segundo eles, às supostas virtudes de uma relação transatlântica sem nem mesmo questionar os benefícios que podem esperar dela na nova divisão de poderes.

A eleição de Barack Obama agravaria ainda mais a diferença entre os dois parceiros. Aliviados de verem-no sucedendo George Bush, e certos de reconhecerem nele um "pró-europeu", os governos do Velho Continente não teriam se dado conta das implicações do "pragmatismo" fundamental do novo presidente norte-americano, que o leva a "trabalhar com quem lhe permite atingir com mais eficácia os objetivos que fixou para si". No momento, a UE, como ator político, está frágil e dividida demais para exercer plenamente esse papel.

Tradução: Lana Lim

[kurgan]

08/11/2009 - 09h14
EUA completam 20 anos como única patrulha planetária

Paco G. Paz.

Washington, 8 nov (EFE).- A queda do Muro de Berlim em 1989 levou os Estados Unidos, até então líder do bloco ocidental, a se coroar como a maior potência do planeta e a impor para si a missão de vigiar a democracia, a estabilidade e a liberdade no mundo.

Nos EUA, a derrubada de um dos maiores símbolos do comunismo foi acompanhada como uma vitória própria, pois ainda era recente na memória dos americanos o emblemático discurso que o então presidente do país, Ronald Reagan (1981-1989), tinha feito em Berlim dois anos antes.

Em um pronunciamento visionário, feito do Portão de Brandeburgo, Reagan fez um pedido um tanto atrevido às autoridades alemãs, dadas as tensões entre os blocos capitalista e comunista. "Gorbachov, abra o portão. Gorbachov, derrube o muro", disse o chefe de Estado americano em junho de 1987.

Em 9 de novembro de 1989, o Muro de Berlim veio abaixo e, posteriormente, a União Soviética se dividiu, alterando a estrutura geopolítica que imperava no mundo desde a Segunda Guerra Mundial.

Com a derrubada do muro ainda ecoando em todo o planeta, o recém-eleito George H.W.Bush, que assumiu a Presidência americana no começo de 1990, comentou o fato histórico em seu diário pessoal.

"Como posso capitalizar estas mudanças? Os burocratas me diriam para não fazer nada, mas eu não quero perder esta oportunidade", escreveu Bush pai, segundo os professores Dereck Chollet e James Goldgeier.

Em seu livro intitulado "A América entre Duas Guerras: Do 9/11 ao 11/9", os dois especialistas explicam como os EUA, de uma hora para outra, se viram sozinhos diante dos grandes conflitos internacionais, como ocorreu cerca de nove meses, quando o Iraque invadiu o Kuwait, dando início à Guerra do Golfo.

Longe de aumentar o fosso entre Oriente e Ocidente, este conflito provocou uma inusitada sinergia entre EUA e Rússia. Bush e Mikhail Gorbachov chegaram a aparecer juntos algumas vezes, mas foi o líder americano que acabou assumindo a ofensiva militar.

Além do conflito no Iraque (1991), intervenções no Panamá (1989), na Somália (1992), no Haiti (1994), na Bósnia (1995), no Kosovo (1999) e no Afeganistão (2001) ajudaram a consolidar os EUA, nas duas décadas seguintes, como a maior potência militar do planeta desde o fim da Guerra Fria.

A força dos EUA não vinha só de sua capacidade militar. Com a queda da União Soviética, o país virou referência em dinamismo econômico, progresso tecnológico, avanços científicos e educação.

Com este "poder incomparável", sobre o qual ninguém fazia sombra, os EUA passaram a se considerar capazes tanto de "assegurar uma vitória militar em qualquer parte" como "de garantir a exportação da democracia até nos ambientes mais hostis, tudo para atender a seus interesses", afirma o professor Thomas H. Henriksen no livro "O Poder dos EUA pós-Muro de Berlim".

"Após a desmembramento da União Soviética, os EUA se tornaram a única superpotência. Muitas nações acabaram batendo à porta deles para resolver seus problemas", disse à Agência EFE este professor do Centro Hoover, que pertence à Universidade de Standford, na Califórnia.

"Em alguns casos, eram os países que pediam ajuda. Em outros, era os EUA que intervinham para difundir a democracia, já que um país democrático é mais estável e não ameaça a estabilidade no mundo", acrescentou.

"É bom ter no mundo uma grande potência que amorteça os efeitos desestabilizadores em outros pontos do planeta, ainda que por meio de seu poderio militar. O Império Romano, com toda sua brutalidade, conseguiu manter a ordem estabelecida enquanto esteve em seu auge. Quando desabou, a anarquia se espalhou", destacou Henriksen.

De seu pedestal de grande potência, os EUA puderam aplaudir o rompimento dos países do Leste da Europa com o comunismo e sua caminhada em direção ao Estado democrático. Ao mesmo tempo, porém, observavam a China reprimir com dureza as manifestações pró-democráticas na Praça da Paz Celestial, em 1989.

A hegemonia americana, no entanto, não demorou muito a ser abalada. Ela se viu seriamente ameaçada após os atentados de 11 de setembro de 2001, ano em que o Governo americano se viu obrigado a lançar uma cruzada contra um novo inimigo: o terrorismo.

http://noticias.uol.com.br/ultnot/efe/2 ... 48965.jhtm