عن الجزائر… حتى ينتهي المخاض بسلام

مارس 13, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– يحتاج أي تحليل أو موقف مما تشهده الجزائر إلى إدراك خطورة الوقوع في قياسات التشبيه بتجارب أخرى، تتجاهل فرادة الحالة الجزائرية. فالحديث عن أن دور الجزائر قد حان في تجارب الربيع العربي المقيت، يتجاهل أن التجربة الاختبارية لكل ما شهدناه من مسمّيات الربيع كان في الجزائر في ما عرفته في تسعينيات القرن الماضي من انتخابات أوصلت الجماعات الإسلامية إلى الأغلبية البرلمانية، وما تلاها من حرب ضروس نزفت خلالها الجزائر لعشر سنوات عرفت بالعشرية السوداء. والقول بأن الحال في الجزائر تكرار لما شهدته سورية أو مصر مجاف للحقيقة. فالجزائر رغم كل التشوش الذي أصاب موقفها في محطات عربية مفصلية، لم تغادر ثوابت رئيسية في الاستقلال ولا تزال دولتها على كل ما فيها من علل وفساد دولة رعاية اجتماعية، في بلد كثير الثروات، وهي في هذا نصف سورية ونصف ليبيا، لكنها من حيث الموضوع الراهن الذي فجّر الشارع وفتح ملف الأحداث، تشكل نصف مصر، فالرئيس عبد العزيز بوتفيلقة الذي يملك تاريخاً وطنياً يستحق التقدير، بات عاجزاً عن ممارسة الحكم، وترشيحه لولاية خامسة شكل استفزازاً قاسياً للشارع والنخب، خصوصاً الذين لا مخططات مسيئة لبلدهم تسيِّر تحركاتهم أو تتحكم بمواقفهم.

– الدعوات لدعم غير مشروط لحراك الشارع ليحسم الموقف ويرسم المستقبل، تتجاهل ما توفره السيولة التي يقدمها حراك الشارع مهما بلغ نبل المقاصد، ومهما كانت درجة الانضباط. وهذه السيولة تشكل هدفاً بحد ذاتها، يراد له أن يطول في ظل استعصاء مطلوب يحول دون اي حل سياسي يضمن خروجاً سلمياً من الأزمة، حتى تتكسر هيبة الدولة ومؤسساتها ويتم تحييدها من المشهد، وخصوصاً مؤسسة الجيش الوطني الجزائري، وتذبل هياكل السلطة وتتآكل، بينما يتعب الشارع المتدفق بحيوية، فيصير المجال متاحاً للتشكيلات المنظمة أن تنزل إلى الساحة بمخططاتها السياسية والأمنية، وهي تملك طول النفس وحسن التنظيم والمقدرات والدعم الخارجي وتفرض أجندتها على الجميع، وفي ظل الأهمية الاستثنائية للجزائر في أسواق النفط والغاز ومشاريع الخصخصة، قد يكون التحرر من الجغرافيا والديمغرافيا الجزائرية كأعباء، لحساب منظومة خفيفة الأثقال تمسك ملفات النفط والغاز، بعدما قالت التجربة الليبية الكثير عن القدرة على التحكم بهذه الثروات مهما اشتدّت وتسعّرت الحرب والفوضى، مقابل ترك الداخل الفقير والريفي للجماعات الإسلامية بمتشدديها ومعتدليها يتنافسون ويتحاربون.

– الخطوات التي أقدم عليها الرئيس الجزائري شكلت خطوة في اتجاه فتح الطريق لمسار سلمي للخروج من الأزمة، لكنها كما يقول الشارع الجزائري ونخبه النظيفة غير كافية، بحيث لا يقبل استبدال التجديد بالتمديد، والمطلوب خريطة طريق واضحة للانتقال إلى دستور جديد وانتخابات في ظل حكومة انتقالية موثوقة، في ظل غياب قيادات سياسية موثوقة وازنة في الشارع وقادرة على قيادته، مقابل هامشية تشكيلات المعارضة التقليدية بإسلامييها وعلمانييها في لحظات التأجج الشعبي الذي يصعب الرهان على دوامه، كما تقول التجارب، وهو ما لا يجب أن يُحرجنا بالقول إن الجيش لا يزال يشكل الجهة الأشد موثوقية لتحقيق هذا الغرض الانتقالي، برعاية الحكومة التي تتولّى صلاحيات الرئاسة لزمن محدود، مع تحويل الندوة الوطنية إلى جمعية تأسيسية تحلّ مكان البرلمان وتضمّ أبرز قواه، بالإضافة إلى رموز الحراك وقادة الأحزاب، لتخرج بدستور يتناسب مع غياب القيادات التاريخية، وبالتالي ينتقل من النظام الرئاسي إلى النظام البرلماني الذي يتيح قراراً جماعياً للدولة، عبر حكومات وحدة وطنية تتمثل فيها التكتلات بحجم وزنها النيابي، وتمنع التسلط على الحكم عبر شخصيات مموّهة، تضيع معها ثوابت الجزائر والتزاماتها في مجال الأمن القومي، وهكذا تحفظ للجيش مكانته ودوره، وهذا ما يحول دون وقوع الجزائر في النتيجتين المصرية والتونسية بوجههما الأخواني أو بالعودة للنظام القديم بحلة جديدة، أو ذهابها للمسار الليبي. وفي كل الأحوال الجزائر لن تكون سورية، ليس لأنها ليست بأهميتها، بل لأن الكتلة الشعبية الوازنة والغالبة في سورية بقيت وراء مشروع الدولة ورئيسها ولأن ليس في الجزائر قائد تاريخي صاعد يمثل وجدانها الوطني والقومي قادر على قيادتها كالرئيس بشار الأسد.

– لأننا نحبّ الجزائر لا نستطيع أن نقف بلا شروط وراء الحكم أو الشارع، بل نقف بقوة مع مسار سياسي سلمي ينهي الأزمة بسلاسة ويحفظ ثوابتها، لأننا ضنينون ببلد الثورة العظيمة، ونريد أن نشهد ضماناً يحول دون أن تضيع منا الجزائر.

Related Videos

Related Articles

Advertisements

نصرُ وسلامةُ الجزائر … قرارٌ للأوفياء

غالبيتهم ولدوا وترعرعوا في ظله وتحت مظلته، ولم يعرفوا رئيسا ًغيره، واليوم يتظاهرون ويفقدون حماستهم لترشيحه! … هل هو حقا ً من كان يحكمهم في السنوات الأخيرة،

 أم نال منه المرض، وحوله إلى صورة رئيس , هل هو التغيير أم الإصلاح أم بابٌ للفوضى وطريقٌ نحو المجهول ؟… من يتربص بالجزائر، أهو بعض الداخل، أم طقس “الربيع” وأجوائه التي لا تزال تعصف بالدول العربية؟ أم برودة جبال الألب الفرنسية؟ أم شغف أمريكي لإفتتاح سوقٍ جديدة لنقل الإرهاب والإرهابيين من سوق الهزائم في سوريا والعراق إلى سوق إستثمارٍ جديد، هل هو حصارٌ تركي لمصر، أم صراعٌ تركي – مصري، وعلى أمل تفادي الطوفان …

وسط تظاهراتٍ عارمة عمت مختلف المدن الجزائرية، أربعة عشر مرشحا ً قدموا أوراق ترشحهم باليد، ووحده الرئيس بوتفليقة من أرسل أوراقه بطريقةٍ أغضبت البعض، فالرئيس في جنيف لإجراء بعض الفحوصات الطبية، وسط شكوكٍ حول حالته الصحية، وإمكانية صموده وتعافيه وعودته، بملء إرادته أو ببقائه هناك للأبد، فصحيفة “لوموند الفرنسية” عنونت نسختها اليوم “بوتفليقة ,,, انتهى”، فهل تكون بذلك قد كشفت السر …؟

فما نُقل عن الرئيس وعوده بإجراء إنتخاباتٍ مبكرة وبدستورٍ جديد وبإنشاء هيئة تضمن النزاهة والشفافية في الإنتخابات، وبكل ما يحمل تغييرا ً جذريا ً في النظام الجزائري، وكل ذلك في حال فوزه بالولاية الخامسة.

وهنا نطرح السؤال، لماذا تأخرت الجزائر كما تتأخر الإصلاحات في العالم العربي عموما ً، ولماذا لا تأتي قبل إنقسام المجتمع وتحوله إلى صراع داخلي يسمح للأطراف الداخلية والخارجية وأصحاب النوايا والمشاريع الخبيثة، بالحصول على الفرصة “الذهبية” للنيل من الأوطان.

أي حالٍ إنتظره الرئيس بوتفليقة وجعله يتمسك بالحكم، فالجزائريون يعلمون أنه خلال السنوات الماضية لم يكن هو الحاكم الفعلي مع تدهور حالته الصحية، في حين بقيت البلاد متروكة لمن يديرها من وراء الستار، وسط رضا البعض وإمتعاض البعض الاّخر؟

هل وجد بعض الجزائريون في الانتخابات الحالية الفرصة للتغيير والإصلاح , أم هناك صيدٍ في ماءٍ عكر , وهناك من يسعى لتصفية الحسابات مع الدولة والشعب باّنٍ واحد , فالجزائر ورغم عواصف “الربيع” والإرهاب و”التطبيع” و”صفقة القرن” التي ضربت المنطقة العربية , لم تجعل الجزائريون يتخلون عن البوصلة العربية وقضية فلسطين المركزية, ولم تتحول بنادقهم من كتف المقاومة إلى كتف التطبيع مع العدو الإسرائيلي, ولم تتوقف حكومات الرئيس بوتفليقة المتعاقبة – قدر إمكانها – عن دعم المقاومة والدول والشعوب المقاومة, ولم يتخل الجزائريون عن مجدٍ وإرثٍ صنعوه بدماء مليون ونصف المليون شهيد , دفاعا ًعن كرامتهم وسيادتهم وإستقلالهم, ولا يمكن استبعاد مخططا ً خارجيا ً يسعى للنيل من الجزائر وشعبها من بوابة التطرف الداخلي المغلف بثوب “المعارضة”, ومن تدخلٍ إقليمي ودولي, يبدأ من تركيا ولا ينتهي بمصر مرورا ً ب ليبيا.

حتى الاّن يتسم الوضع الجزائري بالغموض والترقب والخطورة, على وقع التظاهرات التي تعم عديد المدن, على وقع خطابات رؤساء الأحزاب المؤيدة أو المعارضة لترشح الرئيس عبد العزيز بوتفليقة لولايةٍ رئاسية خامسة … فقد ألهب عبد العزيز بلعيد رئيس “جبهة المستقبل الجزائري” الشارع الجزائري بحديثه عن عدم تكرار “السيناريو السوري”, فيما اعتبر المرشح ورئيس الحكومة الأسبق علي بن فليس أن ترشيح بوتفليقة ” إهانة للشعب الجزائري”, أما السيدة زبيدة عسول “رئيسة حزب الإتحاد من أجل التغيير” اعتبرت أن وعود بوتفليقة ليست سوى “مناورة” ودعت لإستمرار التظاهر, في الوقت الذي أعلن فيه أكبر الأحزاب الإسلامية “حزب مجتمع السلم” مقاطعته للإنتخابات في خطوة خطيرة وتضع إشارة الإستفاهم حول موقفهم ما بعد المقاطعة …؟

نعتقد أنه في الجزائر الكثير من العقلاء والحريصون على وحدة البلاد وأمنها وسلمها الأهلي والداخلي، بوجود مؤسسةٍ عسكرية تحترم الشعب الجزائري وتقف على مسافة واحدة من الجميع، ونتمنى السلامة والهدوء والإحتكام إلى صوت العقل قبل صناديق الإقتراع، وأن تسعى كل الأطراف لتعزيز الثقة بالجزائر – الوطن للجميع أولا ً، وبكل جزائري حر صادق محب لوطنه، وأن نصر الوطن هو مسؤولية جميع الجزائريين.

وربما تكون هذه مناسبة للتعبير عن خشية العقلاء في الشارع العربي، من جنون وعمالة بعض الأنظمة العربية، التي تخلت وتاّمرت على سوريا والعراق واليمن وليبيا، ولن تتوان عن متابعة مهامها، في استهداف الجزائر ومصر على طرفي ليبيا المسكينة… فالقطار المسموم يسير ويقترب من نهاية محطته في سوريا والعراق، وسط عراقيل تضعها تلك الأنظمة بأوامر أسيادها لتأخير الإنتصار السوري ويترددون في إعادة فتح سفاراتهم، وإعلان هزيمتهم وتعقلهم , فنصر سوريا هو نصرٌ للجزائر, ولكل الدول العربية, بتأكيد السيد حمودة الصباغ رئيس مجلس الشعب السوري في اجتماع البرلمانيين العرب في الأردن بالأمس.

   ( الثلاثاء 2019/03/05 SyriaNow) 

Related Videos

Related Articles

Can Maduro Emulate Cuba and Syria to Keep NATO’s Imperialist Hands Off Venezuela?

Global Research, February 18, 2019
Nicolas Maduro Moros

Imperial logic I: External crises distract from internal ones

Empires with internal problems tend to create external crises to distract the public opinion and unite their political and economical ruling class in a fictitious nationalistic fervor. The current United States policy of overt regime change in Venezuela, backed entirely by its NATO vassals, follows an evergreen imperial playbook of creating new crises to obscure failures and divisions.

In addition to the administration’s overall incompetence, the legal investigations through the Mueller inquiry, and the failure to deliver to its MAGA sycophants their big wall, it has passed unnoticed, and it will never be admitted by US officials or media that the US imperial wars in Afghanistan and Syria are in fact lost. Assad will remain in power, and the US administration has publicly admitted that it was negotiating with the Taliban. The temptation for the empire’s ideologues is too strong not to follow the precept: when you have lost a war, you declare victory and you leave. And next time around, you try to pick a weaker target.

Imperial logic II: A state of war must be permanent

A prime example of this in recent history was the way the events of September 11, 2001 were used internally to justify the emergence of a police state, using far-reaching legislation like the Patriot Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.

Externally, 911 was successfully used by the US to trigger, almost immediately, an invasion of Afghanistan with the entire NATO membership under the hospice of the military alliance’s Article 5, which stipulates that an attack on one member is an attack on all. This was the very first time, since the creation of NATO in 1949, that Article 5 was put into force.

With the US public opinion still largely revengeful, misinformed by media manipulations, and eager to wage war, two years later, in 2003, it was fairly simple for the Bush administration and its neocons to sell the invasion of Iraq as a war of necessity, and not for what it truly was: a war of choice, for oil and greater control of the Middle East. Cynically, the aftermath of 9/11/2001 gave the empire and its powerful military-industrial complex two wars for the price of one.

Imperial logic III: People are collateral damage of “Realpolitik”

Great moral principles of altruistic universal humanitarian concerns are almost never at stake in these instances. They are mainly smoke screens to hide the board of a cold, Machiavellian, and complex chess game where innocent bystanders often perish by the millions. They are the acceptable collateral damage of realpolitik’s grand strategists. Until the collapse of the Soviet Union, the true guiding principle of US imperial realpolitik, and all US foreign policy decisions that derived from it, was to stop the so-called communist domino effect.

Communist domino effect: three simple words for a game that killed millions of innocent people worldwide, first in Korea in the early 1950s, then in Vietnam in the 60s and 70s, and later, under the tutelage of some of the very same criminal architects, in Central and South American countries like Chile. Now in their golden years, most of these murderous policymakers, like Henry Kissinger, enjoy an active retirement with honors, respect and, unlike their colleague Robert McNamara, not a hint of remorse.

One of these policymakers, a veteran of US imperialism in Central America and also one of the staunchest advocates of Iraq’s invasion in 2003, has made a come back. He is neocon extraordinaire Elliot Abrams. Abrams has been rewarded for his actions in the Iran-Contra affair, El Salvador, and Nicaragua with a nomination as Special Envoy of the Trump administration for Venezuela. In other words, Abrams is in charge of the US-sponsored coup task force against Venezuela’s legitimately elected President Nicolas Maduro.

Defeating imperial logic: The Cuban and Syrian lessons

There are many others examples in history where in a David versus Goliath fight, the little guy who, on paper, did not stand a chance eventually through sheer determination, organization and vast popular support, won on the battlefield. Vietnam is obviously a special case in this regard, as the Vietcong of Ho Chi Minh managed to defeat, almost back to back, the old colonial masters of the French empire in the 1950s, and of course soon thereafter, the US empire.

In the early 1960s, during the Cuban missile crisis, Castro’s days seemed to be numbered. More recently, in Syria, all the lips of the NATO coalition, Israel and Gulf State allies were chanting in unison that as a precondition for resolving the Syrian crisis, “Assad must go!” By 2017, however, some coalition members such as Qatar, France and Germany were not so adamant about the “Assad must go” mantra. Not only did Bashar al-Assad not go, but also, as matter of fact, he is regaining control of his entire country, on his own terms.

Castro outsmarted the empire’s CIA hitmen 600 times

Nicolas Maduro’s predecessor and mentor, Hugo Chavez, had in Fidel Castro a source of inspiration and the guidance of a father figure. Chavez, like other neo-Marxists, looked up to Fidel for leading a successful revolution, through military action, which had toppled the corrupt regime of Fulgencio Batista. This regime was not only a docile servant of the US government but was also directly associated with the Mafia’s criminal activities in Cuba in the era of Lucky Luciano and Meyer Lansky. With Batista’s complicity, American gangsters had turned Cuba into a gambling and prostitution paradise where the US’ unscrupulous rich went to play. Castro shut down the bordello that had become Cuba and proudly rebuilt his island, and he consciously set out to transform Cuba slowly and steadily into a socialist country.

Needless to say, the shutdown of their depraved and lucrative tropical paradise was unacceptable for the US empire’s ruling elites. Against all odds, the Cuban communist leader managed to defy one US administration after another, and without compromise remained at the helm of the Cuban revolution. It was not for a lack of trying either to invade Cuba, as in the Bay of Pigs botched invasion episode, or to cook up countless assassination attempts on Castro’s person. Starting almost immediately after he took power in 1959, Castro was the target of CIA assassination attempts. From the Kennedy era all the way to the Clinton administrations, Fidel Castro survived more than 600 plots to kill him. Some of the attempts involved collaborations of the Mafia with the CIA. Castro once said, “if surviving assassination attempts were an Olympic event, I would win the gold medal!” It has to be added that, at least so far, Fidel Castro has also won a posthumous gold medal for ensuring the legacy of the Cuban revolution.

Assad: military might and striking the right alliances

Almost eight years ago, some people in quiet mansions, regal palaces or discrete offices in Washington, Riyadh, Doha, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv or undisclosed locations came up with what appeared to be an excellent plan. They would hijack some of the genuine energy of the Arab Spring then quickly sponsor it with a huge arsenal, while hiring some supposed good Djihadists soldiers-of-fortune as the main muscle to get rid of the uncooperative Bashar al-Assad. In what I called in May 2013, an “unholy alliance to wreck and exploit,” the Western and Gulf States coalition to topple Assad was born. In the US, the late Senator John McCain was one of the cheerleaders of the so-called Free Syrian Army.

Eight years later, with Syria in ruins, 350,000 people dead, around 4.5 million refugees still scattered principally in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon, Assad has prevailed in a bittersweet victory, considering that his country has been wrecked as a battleground for proxy wars. Bashar al-Assad did not win on his own. He managed to retain complete loyalty from the Syrian army during the past eight gruesome years. Assad also could count on the military involvement of dependable allies Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran and, of course, a critical impact of Russia once Putin’s administration decided to commit military assets and troops.

Maduro can keep Uncle Sam’s hands off Venezuela

One can only hope that Venezuela’s US-sponsored coup attempt using the subterfuge of a phony revolution does not follow the track of Syria in terms of the mayhem. However, the analogies are numerous between Maduro’s situation today and that of Assad in 2011. First, Maduro has at his disposal a reasonably well-equipped military as well as the Chavista militia. To defeat the unfolding coup attempt, the loyalty of the armed forces has to be ironclad. Second, just as Assad has done, Maduro must work to cultivate, in pragmatic ways, both regional and worldwide alliances.

Cuba will do a lot to help. But will Mexico, Bolivia, and Uruguay go beyond diplomatic posturing in their solidarity with Maduro against NATO’s imperialism? How involved and how far, either economically or, in a worse-case scenario, militarily are Russia, China, Turkey, and Iran willing to go? In geopolitics, unlike diplomacy, only actions talk. Venezuela has a massive bargaining chip in the form of the mostly untapped biggest oil reserve in the world. This is Maduro’s ultimate ace in this game, and it should be used shrewdly. In realpolitiks, friends might be temporary, and they always want something. This is not an altruistic environment.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: News Junkie Post.

Gilbert Mercier is the author of The Orwellian Empire.

حماية «آل سلمان» إعلانٌ لوفاة الدور السعودي الاقليمي

فبراير 18, 2019

د.وفيق إبراهيم

يواصل الدور السعودي الاقليمي تراجعه السريع مقدماً الراية لتحالف اسرائيلي ـ خليجي برعاية اميركية جعلته يبدو في مؤتمر وارسو الأخير مجرد «كومبارس»، يتساوى في الهزالة مع حجم البحرين. وتسبقه الامارات.

اسباب هذا الانهيار، مرتبطة بالرهانات السعودية الخاسرة في الاستثمار بالارهاب التكفيري في ميادين سورية والعراق واليمن ومعظم البلاد العربية والعالم الاسلامي. وبتمويل بالاف المليارات.

لكن استفادته الوحيدة، تجلت في نجاح آل سلمان بتغيير قاعدة الوراثة الملكية التي كانت تقوم على انتقال الملك من شقيق الى شقيق.

وحده الأمير محمد بن سلمان ضرب هذه القاعدة بتأييد مباشر من الرئيس الاميركي دونالد ترامب الذي دعمه ليصبح ولياً لعهد ابيه سلمان، مقابل تورطه في حروب المنطقة وفق الخطة الأميركية وبحرفيتها مع تسديد اتاوة قدرها 500 مليار دولار للاميركيين!

بالمقابل فإن خسائره كانت كارثية، وتظهر في انكفاء الدور السعودي من مدى اقليمي ودولي كبير إلى داخل المملكة مع محاولة اضفاء صورة معاصرة، لدولة القرون الوسطى. فتبدو مجريات الاوضاع على شكل وضع مساحيق ومعدات زينة لتجميل عجوز بلغت من العمر اصعبه. والدليل ان السعودية تستحضر مطربين ومطربات وراقصات في حفلات فنية للمرة الاولى منذ تأسيسها في ثلاثينيات القرن الماضي، وسط استياء من علماء الوهابية.

حتى وافق كبيرهم على احياء حفلات انما بعد صلاة العصر وشرط ان لا تنقلها محطات التلفزة.

كيف كان الدور السعودي سابقاً؟

استفادت مملكة آل سعودة من ثلاثة عناصر قوة اقتصادية كبيرة من النفط ومكانة كبيرة في العالم الاسلامي لامساكها بالحرمين الشريفين وموسم الحج. مع التغطية الاميركية الكاملة لها. ما أدى إلى حيازتها دوراً أقليمياً محورياً تقاطع مع سعي الغرب بكامله الى كسب رضاها، هذا إلى جانب اهتمام روسي وصيني وهندي.

كما تضخم دورها بعد انهيار اقليمية مصر لتوقيعها على معاهدة صلح مع اسرائيل في كمب دايفيد 1979 وسقوط العراق في 2003 وانهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي.

لم يبق احد ينافسها في مداها الديني والعربي فاصبحت مرجعية معتمدة، تستخدم كل شيء في السياسة الاقليمية بما فيه موسم الحج ولخدمة الوصاية الاميركية.

ما الذي حدث إذا حتى وصلت الى هذا المستوى من التراجع؟

تورط آل سعود بدعم المشروع الاميركي الجديد منذ 1990 وحتى تاريخه، بلعبة تفتيتية مكشوفة استعملوا فيها سلاح التمويل والفتنة السنية الشيعية والعربية ـ الفارسية. وشاركوا الى جانب قطر والامارات في تمويل أكبر حملة ارهاب في التاريخ، بعناوين وهابية تكفيرية، فاسهموا في تدمير ليبيا وتونس ومصر وسورية والعراق، وقادوا عدواناً كبيراً مستمراً على اليمن ادى الى عشرات الاف القتلى. حتى ان الاضطرابات في الصومال ونيجيريا والسودان، مساهمون في اجزاء اساسية منها.

بالنتائج، خسر المحور الاميركي السعودي حروبه في العراق وسورية وغزة واليمن، عاجزاً عن الامساك بليبيا وتونس وسط خلاف مع تركيا وتوتر كبير مع ايران الى احتمال اندلاع حرب اقليمية.

لم تعد السياسة السعودية، بعد هذا التقهقر ناجحة خصوصاً وانها تواكبت مع ارتفاع انتاج النفط الصخري الاميركي الى مستوى اعلى من الانتاج السعودي، وبدء عصر الغاز الذي تسيطر عليه روسيا وايران وقطر والساحل السوري ومصر، فرحلت واشنطن الى فنزويلا الاميركية التي تمتلك بمفردها 18 في المئة من احتياط النفط العالمي مقابل 13 في المئة للسعودية.

يتبين ان خسائر المراهنات السعودية على حروب التفتيت الاميركية بمواكبة الغزارة في انتاج النفط في معظم بقاع الارض وبدءعصر الغاز انما هي اسباب اساسية لانكماش الدور السعودي، هذا الى جانب ارتفاع اصوات اسلامية تعترض على التسييس السعودي لموسم الحج.. بما هو شعيرة الهية ليست من ابداعات آل سعود ولا يجوز دينياً استخدامها لاغراض دعم سياسات المملكة والتفرقة المذهبية.

ويشمل هذا الاعتراض المتصاعد اتجاه الدولة السعودية لتحويل آثار الانبياء والائمة مشاريع تستقطب السياحة لغايات اقتصادية صرفة.

الى جانب هذا الانهيار السياسي، اغتال الفريق الامني التابع مباشرة لولي العهد محمد بن سلمان وبأمر منه، الاعلامي جمال الخاشقجي في قنصلية المملكة في اسطمبول التركية.

فاستفاد من انكشاف هذه العملية ثلاثة اطراف: الاميركيون الذين نجحوا بالغاء آخر خصوصيات النظام السعودي متمكنين من تحويله دائرة امنية اميركية تتلقى ولا تسأل عن الاسباب.

أما الطرف الثاني فهم الاتراك الذين وجدوا فيها فرصة لارغام السعودية على الاعتراف بقيادتهم للعالم الاسلامي والا فباستثمارها لالحاق الهزيمة بالدور السعودي الاقليمي والخليجي.

لجهة الطرف الثالث فهم الاوروبيون والحزب الديموقراطي الاميركي الذين يستثمرون فيها للنيل من سياسات ترامب.

لجهة الخاسر فهو الخاشقجي الذي تحول نجماً عالمياً تفتقده «الديموقراطية» علماً أن الفقيد من الاخوانالمسلمين الملتزمين بمفهوم «الحاكمية» المتحدرة من «الله فقط» هذا ما جعل وزير الخارجية السعودية الجبير يبدو في مؤتمر وارسو الاخير مثل قط مذعور يخفي رأسه داخل عباءته وقليل الكلام على غير مألوفه.

بالمقابل يجهد محمد بن سلمان في جولاته السابقة والحالية لتوزيع مساعدات اشبه بالرشى على دول آسيا الوسطى والاردن ومصر لتأمين تغطية شخصية له، لاجهاض المحاولات التركية والاوروبية التي تنال من مكانته. فما يهمه هو التملص من الاتهامات باغتياله الخاشقجي وحماية مشروع تنصيبه ملكاً على السعودية.

وبذلك يتحول الدور السعودي العالمي الحامي لآل سعود الى مجرد وسيلة لحماية امير سعودي اقترف عشرات الاف الجرائم في العالم العربي الى جانب قضية الخاشقجي.

هذا التحول هو مثابة اعلان بانهيار الدور السعودي وموافقة اميركية على دفنه، مع الاكتفاء، بادارة داخلية تنصاع لواشنطن كجاري العادة.

فهل لدى الاميركيين، بديل عن السعودية في قيادة العالم الاسلامي؟ تسعى واشنطن لايلاء هذا الدور الى التحالف الاسرائيلي ـ الخليجي بقيادتها، وهذه هي الاهداف الحقيقية لمؤتمر وارسو، فانتظروا العجائب.

Is Democracy Consistent with Islam?

Global Research, February 16, 2019

Most people are under the impression that democracy and Islam are somehow incompatible. However, I don’t see any contradiction between democracy and Islam, as such. Although, I admit, there is some friction between Islam and liberalism.

When we say there is a contradiction between Islam and democracy, we make a category mistake which is a serious logical fallacy. There is a fundamental difference between democracy and liberalism. Democracy falls in the category of politics and governance, whereas liberalism falls in the category of culture. We must be precise about the definitions of terms that we employ in political science.

Democracy is simply a representative political system that ensures representation, accountability and the right of electorate to vote governments in and to vote governments out. In this sense, when we use the term democracy, we mean a multi-party, representative political system that confers legitimacy upon a government which comes to power through an election process which is a contest between more than one political parties in order to ensure that it is voluntary. Thus, democracy is nothing more than a multi-party, representative political system.

Some normative scientists, however, get carried away in their enthusiasm and ascribe meanings to technical terminology which are quite subjective and fallacious. Some will use the adjective liberal to describe the essence of democracy as liberal democracy while others will arbitrarily call it informed or enlightened democracy. In my opinion, the only correct adjective that can be used to describe the essence of democracy is representative democracy.

After settling on theoretical aspect, let us now apply these concepts to the reality of practical world, and particularly to the phenomena of nascent democratic movements of the Arab Spring. It’s a fact that the ground realities of the Arab and Islamic worlds fall well short of the ideal liberal democratic model of the developed Western world.

However, there is a lot to be optimistic about. When the Arab Spring revolutions occurred in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen, and before the Arab Spring turned into an abysmal winter in Libya and Syria, some utopian dreamers were not too hopeful about the outcome of those movements.

Unlike the socialist revolutions of 1960s and 1970s, when the visionaries of yore used to have a magic wand of bringing about a fundamental structural change that would culminate into equitable distribution of wealth overnight, the neoliberal democratic movements of the present times are merely a step in the right direction that will usher the Arab and Islamic worlds into an era of relative peace and progress.

The Arab Spring movements are not led by the likes of Gamal Abdel Nasser, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Jawahar Lal Nehru and other such charismatic messiahs that socialist thinkers are so fond of. But these revolutions are the grassroots movements of a society in transition from an abject stagnant state toward a dynamic and representative future.

Let us be clear about one thing first and foremost: any government – whether democratic or autocratic – would follow the same economic model under the contemporary global political and economic dispensation. It’s a growth-based neoliberal model as opposed to an equality-based socialist model. It’s a fact that the developing, Third World economies with large populations and meager resources cannot be compared with the social democracies of Scandinavian countries where per capita incomes are more than $40,000.

A question would naturally arise that what would the Arab Spring movements accomplish if the resultant democratic governments would follow the same old neoliberal and growth-centered economic policies? It should be kept in mind here that democracy is not the best of systems because it is the most efficient system of governance. Top-down autocracies are more efficient than democracies.

But democracy is a representative political system. It brings about a grassroots social change. Enfranchisement, representation, transparency, accountability, checks and balances, rule of law and consequent institution-building, nation-building and consistent long term policies; political stability and social prosperity are the rewards of representative democracy.

Immanuel Kant sagaciously posited that moral autonomy produces moral responsibility and social maturity. This social axiom can also be applied to politics and governance. Political autonomy and self-governance engender political responsibility and social maturity.

A top-down political system is dependent on the artificial external force that keeps it going. The moment that external force is removed, the society reverts back to its previous state and the system collapses. But a grassroots and bottom-up political system evolves naturally and intrinsically. We must not expect from the Arab Spring movements to produce results immediately. Bear in mind that the evolution of the Western culture and politics happened over a course of many centuries.

More to the point, the superficially “socialist” Arab revolutions of 1960s and 1970s only mobilized the elite classes. Some working classes might have been involved, but the tone and tenor of those revolutions was elitist and that’s the reason why those revolutions failed to produce desirable long-term results. The Arab Spring movements, by contrast, have mobilized the urban middle class of the Arab societies in the age of electronic media and information technology.

In the nutshell, if the Arab Spring movements are not about radical redistribution of wealth, or about creating a liberal utopia in the Middle East overnight, what is the goal of these movements then? Let me try to explain the objectives of the Arab Spring movements by way of an allegory.

Democracy is like a school and people are like children. We only have two choices: one, to keep people under paternalistic dictatorships; two, to admit them in the school of representative democracy and let them experience democracy as a lived reality rather than some stale and sterile theory. The first option will only breed stunted bigots, but the second option will engender an educated human resource that doesn’t just consume resources but also creates new resources.

Finally, I would like to clarify that the militant phenomena in Libya and Syria has been distinct and separate from the political and democratic phenomena of the Arab Spring movements as in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen.

A question arises that when political movements for enfranchisement turn violent, do their objectives cease to be legitimate? No, the objectives remain the same, but from a pacifist standpoint, we ought to make a distinction between political movements for democratic reforms, to which we should lend our moral support; and the militant phenomena, which must be avoided at any cost due to immense human suffering that proxy wars and military interventions anywhere in the world inevitably entail.

In legal jurisprudence, a distinction is generally drawn between lawful and unlawful assembly. It is the inalienable right of the people to peacefully assemble to press their demands for political reform. But the moment such protests become militarized and violent, they cease to be lawful.

Expecting from heavily armed militants, as in Libya and Syria, who have been described by the Western mainstream media as “moderate rebels,” to bring about political reform and positive social change is not only naïve but is bordering on insanity.*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Kodak Agfa

Yemen: US “Accidentally” Arming Al Qaeda (Again)

February 15, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci – NEO) – US weapons are once again falling into the hands of militants fighting in one of Washington’s many proxy wars – this time in Yemen – the militants being fighters of local Al Qaeda affiliates.

CNN in its article, “Sold to an ally, lost to an enemy,” would admit:

Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners have transferred American-made weapons to al Qaeda-linked fighters, hardline Salafi militias, and other factions waging war in Yemen, in violation of their agreements with the United States, a CNN investigation has found.

The article also claims:

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, its main partner in the war, have used the US-manufactured weapons as a form of currency to buy the loyalties of militias or tribes, bolster chosen armed actors, and influence the complex political landscape, according to local commanders on the ground and analysts who spoke to CNN.

Weapon transfer included everything from small arms to armored vehicles, CNN would report.

The article would include a response from Pentagon spokesman Johnny Michael, who claimed:

The United States has not authorized the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates to re-transfer any equipment to parties inside Yemen.

The US government cannot comment on any pending investigations of claims of end-use violations of defense articles and services transferred to our allies and partners.

Despite obvious evidence that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are both violating whatever agreements the Pentagon claims to have with both nations, the US continues fighting their joint war in Yemen for them in all but name.

The US role in Yemen includes not only arming Saudi Arabia and the UAE, but also training their pilots, selecting targets, sharing intelligence, repairing weapon systems, refuelling Saudi warplanes, and even through the deployment of US special forces along The Saudi-Yemeni border.

Because of this continued and unconditional support – Pentagon complaints over weapon transfers it claims were unauthorized ring particularly hollow. More so when considering in other theaters of war, US weapons also “accidentally” ended up in the hands of extremists that just so happened to be fighting against forces the US opposed.

(Repeated) Actions Speak Louder than Pentagon Excuses 

An entire army of Al Qaeda-linked forces was raised in Syria against the government in Damascus through the “accidental” transfer of US weapons from alleged moderate militants to designated terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda’s Al Nusra affiliate and the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS).

And while this was presented to the public as “accidental” –  years before the war in Syria even erupted, there were already warning signs that the US planned to deliberately use extremists in a proxy war against both Syria and Iran.

As early as 2007 – a full 4 years before the 2011 “Arab Spring” would begin – an article by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh published in the New Yorker titled, “”The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” would warn (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

From 2011 onward, admissions throughout prominent Western newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post would admit to US weapon deliveries to “moderate rebels” in Syria.

Articles like the New York Times’, “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With C.I.A. Aid,” and “Kerry Says U.S. Will Double Aid to Rebels in Syria,” the Telegraph’s,  “US and Europe in ‘major airlift of arms to Syrian rebels through Zagreb’,” and the Washington Post’s article, “U.S. weapons reaching Syrian rebels,” would detail hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons, vehicles, equipment, and training funneled into Syria to so-called “moderate rebels.”

Yet even as early as the first year of the conflict, Al Qaeda affiliate Al Nusra – a US State Department-designated foreign terrorist organization – would dominate the battlefield opposite Syrian forces.

The US State Department in its own official press statement titled, “Terrorist Designations of the al-Nusrah Front as an Alias for al-Qa’ida in Iraq,” explicitly stated that:

Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks – ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations – in major city centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. During these attacks numerous innocent Syrians have been killed.

If the US and its allies were admittedly transferring hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons, equipment, and other support to “moderate rebels,” who was funding and arming Al Nusra even more, enabling them to displace Western-backed militants from the Syrian battlefield?

The Western media had proposed several unconvincing excuses including claims that large numbers of defectors to Al Qaeda and its affiliates brought with them their Western-provided arms and equipment.

The obvious answer – however –  is that just as Seymour Hersh warned in 2007 – the US and its allies from the very beginning armed and backed Al Qaeda, intentionally created its ISIS offshoot, and used both in a deadly proxy war they had hoped would quickly conclude before the public realized what had happened.

It had worked in Libya in 2011, and the quick overthrow of the Syrian government was likewise anticipated. When the war dragged on and the nature of Washington’s “moderate rebels” was revealed, implausible excuses as to how Al Qaeda and ISIS became so well armed and funded began appearing across the Western media.

Accident or Not – US Military Intervention is the Biggest Threat to Global Security 

As the alternative media now attempts to shed light on the ongoing US proxy war in Yemen, a similar attempt to explain how Al Qaeda has once again found itself flooded with US support is being mounted. Just as in Syria – the obvious explanation for Al Qaeda forces in Yemen turning up with US weapons is because the use of Al Qaeda and other extremists was always a part of the US-Saudi-Emarati strategy from the very beginning.

CNN’s revelations were not the first.

An Associated Press investigation concluded in August 2018 in an article titled, “AP Investigation: US allies, al-Qaida battle rebels in Yemen,” that (emphasis added):

Again and again over the past two years, a military coalition led by Saudi Arabia and backed by the United States has claimed it won decisive victories that drove al-Qaida militants from their strongholds across Yemen and shattered their ability to attack the West. 

Here’s what the victors did not disclose: many of their conquests came without firing a shot.

That’s because the coalition cut secret deals with al-Qaida fighters, paying some to leave key cities and towns and letting others retreat with weapons, equipment and wads of looted cash, an investigation by The Associated Press has found. Hundreds more were recruited to join the coalition itself.

While the US pleads innocent and attempts to blame the arming of Al Qaeda in yet another of Washington’s proxy wars on “accidental” or “unauthorized” weapon transfers, it is clear that Al Qaeda has and still does serve as a vital auxiliary force the US uses both as a pretext to invade and occupy other nations – and when it cannot – to fight by proxy where US forces cannot go.

The US – which claims its involvement in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen is predicated on containing Iran who the US accuses of jeopardizing global security and of sponsoring terrorism – has aligned itself with actual, verified state sponsors of terrorism – Saudi Arabia and the UAE – and is itself knowingly playing a role in the state sponsorship of terrorism including the arming of terrorist groups across the region.

Iran and the militant groups it has backed – accused of being “terrorists” – are ironically the most effective forces fighting groups like Al Nusra and ISIS across the region – illustrating Washington and its allies of being guilty in reality of what it has accused Syria, Russia, and Iran of in fiction.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”.

In Libya, ‘We Came. We Saw. He Died.’ Will There Be a Repeat in Venezuela?

In Libya, ‘We Came. We Saw. He Died.’ Will There Be a Repeat in Venezuela?

In Libya, ‘We Came. We Saw. He Died.’ Will There Be a Repeat in Venezuela?

Libya is in a state of anarchic turmoil, with various groups fighting each other for control of the country, and as the Wall Street Journal reported last September, “Islamic State is staging a resurgence in chaotic Libya, claiming more than a dozen attacks in the North African country this year and threatening to disrupt the flow of oil from one of the world’s most significant suppliers.” To such mainstream media outlets as the Wall Street Journalthe fact that oil supplies are being disrupted is much more important than the savage IS attacks that result in slaughter of so many innocent people who are only foreigners, anyway.

The UN Security Council said it deplored the Islamic State’s “heinous and cowardly terrorist attack… in Tripoli on 25 December 2018” and expressed “deepest sympathy and condolences to the families of the victims, as well as to the Libyan people and Government of National Accord, and wished a speedy and full recovery to those who were injured.”

It is laudable that the Security Council should express such sentiments, but if Libya was not “fractured by a six-year civil war”, there would be no need for sympathy from anyone.

The cause of the catastrophe in Libya in Libya was the seven month US-NATO blitzkrieg from March to October 2011 in which thousands of bombs and rockets rained down on that unfortunate land which was governed by President Muammar Ghaddafi whom the West was determined to overthrow by assisting a rebel movement. In Ghaddafi’s Libya, as detailed by the World Health Organisation the government provided “comprehensive health care including promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative services to all citizens free of charge through primary health care units, health centres and district hospitals.” Life expectancy was 75 years (as against 66 in India; 71 in Egypt; 59 in South Africa), and the CIA World Factbook noted that there was a literacy rate of 94.2% which was higher than in Malaysia, Mexico and Saudi Arabia.

Ghaddafi was far from being a saint. He dealt with his enemies in the most brutal fashion and was guilty of numerous offences against humanity. But so were (and are) many others like that around the world whose countries are not subject to US sanctions or seven months of strikes by US-NATO planes and missiles.

The US-NATO blitz was successful, and Gaddafi was overthrown and captured by rebel forces, whereupon, as reported, “the increasingly desperate and terrified 69-year-old Gaddafi was thrown on to the front of a white car bonnet, his blood-soaked head locked between the knees of a militiaman… He slipped off the bonnet, his ravaged body unable to cope with the constant battering.” Then, as can be seen in a particularly horrible video, he was beaten mercilessly, sodomised with a bayonet, and murdered.

When she was informed of this, the news caused the United States Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, to giggle and announce with a laugh that “We came. We saw. He died.”

Trump is the worst president in US history, but at least we have been spared the global ascendancy of a person who cackles with mirth when being told that someone had been murdered.

In any event, Libya was reduced to chaos amid the Clinton cackles, just as is happening in Venezuela at the moment. Its leader, Maduro, is not unlike Gaddafi in many ways, being ruthless and arrogant, and there is no doubt the country has suffered under his regime — but it has suffered a great deal more because of vicious sanctions imposed by Washington, just as happened in Libya.

The United Nations Human Rights Council is not regarded favourably by Washington’s sanctioneers, simply because it points out the negative side of sanctions, in that it is always ordinary people who suffer — and especially the poor, the deprived, the sick, the lame, all those whom Trump says he loves. At a Prayer Breakfast in the White House on 7 February he declared that “America is a nation that believes in redemption” and that religious faith “transforms lives, heals communities and lifts up the forgotten,” which, as with almost everything he says, was a load of hypocritical garbage.

These US sanctions have caused untold suffering. As Al Jazeera reported on 8 February, “a hospital… has said 14 children have died this week following an outbreak of amoebiasis, a form of dysentery transmitted by contaminated food or water. Dozens of other children infected by the disease cannot receive adequate treatment due to a lack of medical supplies.” And on it goes, just as it did in Libya and pre-invasion Iraq which had suffered similarly evil sanctions for so many years.

The UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, has urged everyone involved in the Venezuela crisis to “lower tensions” and begin speaking to each other, but there was no possibility that anyone would listen to him, least of all those intent on the overthrow of Maduro. The UN Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures as affecting human rights, Idriss Jazairy (an admirable and highly intelligent person), stated on 31 January that “coercion” by the US (without naming it) is a “violation of all norms of international law.” He said flatly that “Sanctions which can lead to starvation and medical shortages are not the answer to the crisis in Venezuela… precipitating an economic and humanitarian crisis . . . is not a foundation for the peaceful settlement of disputes.”

But Washington doesn’t want a peaceful settlement of disputes, least of all, at the moment, in Venezuela. It wants to ensure that there is suffering, in order that Maduro can be overthrown by those whom it has deprived of the basic necessities of life. Further, it wants its own man to be at the Top.

So — enter Mr Juan Guaidó, a minor politician in Venezuela’s parliament.

According to the Wall Street Journal on 25 January, “The night before Juan Guaidó declared himself interim president of Venezuela, the opposition leader received a phone call from Vice President Mike Pence. Mr Pence pledged that the US would back Mr. Guaidó if he seized the reins of government from Nicolás Maduro by invoking a clause in the South American country’s constitution, a senior administration official said.”

As the New York Times noted on 8 February, “Mr. Trump said the oil sanctions were meant to punish Mr. Maduro for human rights violations and force him to cede power to Juan Guaidó, the opposition leader whom the United States has recognized as the rightful Venezuelan president.”

The entire “revolution” has been engineered from Washington, but at least, this time, they haven’t gone in with rockets and bombs. There is no doubt that Washington will win, and that Maduro will leave in one way or another.

And my advice to him is : don’t wait too long before you give up and get out. Otherwise, Maduro, baby, They’ll Come. They’ll See. And You’ll Die.

%d bloggers like this: