Of Alain de Benoist

Source: Barbadillo
Alain de Benoist, as soon as a country poses a problem, we are now talking about "international sanctions", which are increasingly similar to American sanctions. But what exactly is the meaning and legitimacy of this sanctions policy?
“The policy of sanctions is not a policy. It is a form of warfare that uses only “peaceful” means to blur the line between war and peace. Just like the block, whose sanctions constitute the modern form, this war is similar to maritime warfare, still favored by the thalassocratic powers – England once, the United States today – which is also a trade or economic war: the “war on trade”, formerly known as the “race war”. It's a "total" war, not only because it rejects the classic distinction between combatants and non-combatants, but also because it is more often based on a “right” theory of war, which equates the enemy to a criminal or delinquent.
To naval strategy, as we know, it differs profoundly from the terrestrial strategy. On earth, war is traditionally opposed to state armies without affecting civilians, who are not considered enemies until they participate in hostilities. The maritime war, it is not reduced to a clash between enemy marines or even between soldiers. It doesn't just affect fighters, but also civilians. It doesn't even distinguish between the front and the "back". The notions of blocking, right of capture, loot, capture, which allow you to seize the enemy's private property, they are specific notions of naval warfare, which strikes the entire enemy population indiscriminately, all citizens of the belligerent state without distinction of age or sex, but also any private company or neutral state that could be related to the enemy or help him transform sanctions.
Donald Trump's sanctions against Tehran, for example, they also turn to the European powers that continue to trade with Iran, as they have no reason to adhere to the US decision to exit the nuclear agreement that had been concluded with that country. This is one of the most peculiar characteristics of sanctions: they do not recognize neutrality; anyone who refuses to support the sanctions imposed by the sanctioner is equally punished in turn".
We also note that “sanctions” generally lead to a strengthening of local powers rather than their weakening. He wouldn't be wiser, if not more effective, return to more traditional diplomacy?
“The politics of sanctions, once again, it is not a form of diplomacy, but a form of war. It arrives when diplomacy has abdicated. Sanctions aim to cause physical effects (scarcity of genres of all kinds, impoverishment, economic disorganization, inability to export or import) and psychological effects (increase discontent among the population of so that it puts pressure on its government). This strategy is based on the dual premise that people are vulnerable because they depend on the outside for their supplies and outlets and are able to influence their leaders. The first postulate is correct, the second is not. In most cases, the population blames the difficulties on those who established the sanctions, and tends to bond with his government instead of causing a rift between the governors and the governed. Sanctions tend to bring citizens closer to the government. We are only witnessing a hardening of the situation".
The case of European sanctions against Russia, due to “annexation” of Crimea is interesting, knowing that Russia then took other sanctions against the first punishers. Infernal logic?
“The United States is the sanctions specialist: against Iran, against Russia, against China, against North Korea, against Venezuela and so on. These sanctions often take the form of embargoes, which is also a modern equivalent of blocking. They can be of various types (commercial, financial, economic, military, administrative, technological or purely symbolic) and they have the most diverse motivations. They do not necessarily imply an ideological clash, but they are, Obviously, consistent with United States foreign policy: Russia is punished for uniting Crimea with Russia itself, conforming to the wishes of its inhabitants, while Israel is free to occupy the Golan Heights for over thirty years for the sole purpose of guaranteeing its security.
The Americans are committed today, with China and Russia in particular, in an absurd spiral of sanctions and countermeasures that become the main way of relating between former partners who become rivals. The sanctions show no solution to the security problems of the European continent, because they are by definition deterritorialized measures. “The history of commercial powers offers typical cases of non-territorial politics”, wrote Friedrich Ratzel, precursor of geopolitics. Globalization is itself a “maritimization”.
Il 25 November 2016, Jacques Attali stated to Marianne: “I prophesied, almost fourteen years ago, the advent of a nomadic world, and I think it will finally take shape. The thalassocratic powers take revenge on the continental powers and this will be the stakes for France as it moves into this new universe. Commercial nomadism or continental rooting: this is what is at stake.