The Emerging Multipolar World with The Saker: Cold Wars, Hot Wars

CatherineThe Solari Report on September 7, 2017 at 9:09 am · 

https://player.vimeo.com/video/232087154?color=ffe400&title=0&byline=0&portrait=0

Read the Transcript

Read the transcript of The Emerging Multipolar World with The Saker: Cold Wars, Hot Wars here (PDF)

Listen to the Interview MP3 audio file

Download the Interview audio file

sr20170907_InterviewHQ.mp3 (auto-download)
sr20170907_InterviewHQ.mp3 (Right click to download in Safari)
When you get billions in aid and your weapons resupplied and your ammunition stock resupplied, you don’t learn the lesson that war is bad and nobody wins.”  ~King Abdullah II 

By Catherine Austin Fitts

This week on the Solari Report, Saker joins me for our quarterly review of the geopolitical landscape.  Items on our list to cover:

 

In Let’s Go to the Movies, I will review Oliver Stone’s Putin Interviews – four hours of interviews with Vladimir Putin conducted by Stone between 2015 and 2017.

In Money & Markets this week I will discuss the latest in financial and geopolitical news. Please make sure to e-mail or post your questions for Ask Catherine.

Talk to you Thursday!

Related Reading

Statista.com – Military Expenditures

Advertisements

Sixty Mimutes: Nasser Kandil on the Emerging Multipolar World and the 5 Seas Region

 

Related Videos

Al-Assad after the war الأسد بعد الحرب

Al-Assad after the war

سبتمبر 7, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

While the war was at its peak and some were deluded by the ability to overthrow the Syrian President or to put the opportunities of overthrowing him among the possibilities from position of neutrality it was not possible to call to consider the concepts and the visions represented by the President Bashar Al-Assad and which form his own vision for the main issues which he was distinguished at them, whether about the camp of his opponents or inside the camp of allies, moreover, the successive recognition of every follower is that the war on Syria is no longer an international issue or a regional force that has what is enough to keep it igniting for the same goals, and that the way became open in front of the recovery of the Syrian state and the status of the President Al-Assad in the heart of new Syria became resolved. Therefore knowing the future requires from the friend, the opponent, and the neutral researcher to return to what is proposed and adopted by this president who will return victorious after a war which is considered by many people a third world war or the war of the century or the war of the birth of new global system and new Middle East, as long as a crucial player in the events will be this victorious president. The intention here is the vision of the President Al-Assad about Syria and the region, these two arenas which the imagination of serious formulation about them is difficult apart from checking the vision of Al-Assad and examining carefully its appropriateness to absorb the complicated and the tangled facts on one hand or their ability to adapt with the variables which oppose them on the other hand.

Any researcher or serious politician will be surprised when he returns to read two specific texts, one is related to the vision of the President Al-Assad of how Syria will get out of war, the relation of the war with the political solution and his program for Syria after the war, it is the content of what was stated in his speech in the beginning of 2013, and the other is related to his vision of the region and the form of the regional system which he aspires to, putting the capacities of Syria and its relations to promote it, it is the project of the region of the five seas which he talked about in the year 2009.

In the first text, the reader will discover upon reading that the text of 2013 which launched by the President as an initiative for the political solution depends on three pillars which were not noticeable even in the approaches of the closest allies to Syria and the most powerful and the following-up of the political initiatives namely Russia and Iran. All the proposals have a mechanism that based on in order to employ the balances of the political and military forces to develop the international and regional consensus that would lead to political dialogue, and which will be culminated with a unified government that will halt the war among its components and put a plan for new constitution and elections. All the proposals at that period considered that the terrorism and its combating a mission of the unified government because it is the widest war which is revolving between the supporters of the opposition and the Syrian army, while the initiative of the President Al-Assad based on giving the priority to the war on terrorism and making reconciliations and temporal settlements in every region according to its own conditions with the armed groups, towards a relative resolving with the terrorism that paves the way for the international and regional consensus and for a political dialogue with political figures that do not have real forces in the field, this is a necessity for a settlement behind which the international and the regional players will hide to justify the exit from a war which they were behind it to overthrow Syria. What is remarkable is the magnitude of the minute details which mentioned by the President in his initiative and its accordance with the what is going on today whether in the form of calm areas or what will happen tomorrow when the time of reconciliations, the pre- elections government and the post –elections government comes, and how to form a new constitution and holding elections.

In the second text which is actually the first in timing, the President Al-Assad launched a unique call for his own theory entitled forming a system of economic-security cooperation between the countries of the area of the five seas; the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea, the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, and the Gulf despite the political differences to ensure the stability, and the legitimate interest of the major countries as a guarantee for a smooth flow of the energy resources and to ensure raising the level of the economic integration between the participants, but most importantly it fills the strategic vacancy which stems from the defeat of the US project which based on wars and which failed to impose the hegemony, as well as to prevent the fall in traps of chaos and terrorism and confronting the threats of the civil war , strife, and the projects of division. This was mentioned in the vision of the President Al-Assad two years before the Arab Spring and what has followed it of the emergence of the threats which he warned of and called to anticipate them with a regional system of transversal- political alliances headed by Moocow and Washington.  According to the proposal of the President Al-Assad this system contains Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Algeria that are able to cooperate with the European Union and with BRICS group and which can ensure the stability of the wide, sensitive, and dangerous geographic area. It is not hidden that Turkey and Saudi Arabia were the main teams which were tempted by the project of the US-Israeli chaos to overthrow Syria, so they positioned on the banks of the war against it. Now according to what we hear and see they move quickly contrary to their policies during the past six years. Turkey which aspired to rule the Islamic world with new Ottoman and Sultanate has become satisfied with the prevention of a Kurdish entity on its borders, now it is reaping the fruit of its deeds and the curse is pursuing it. Saudi Arabia which wanted to establish an Arab system under its leadership by getting rid of the Syria President, now it is mortgaging its assets politically, economically, and militarily to get rid of Qatar and to get out of the war on Yemen with least losses, after they ignored together the value of geography and demography and played the Russian roulette game which affected them badly despite all the claims of capacity, planning, and considerations.

The coming years will have sufficient opportunities to scrutinize the political formula which will be adopted for the end of the war on Syria and the essence of the new regional system. Many will discover the size of the conformity with the early vision of the Syrian President and the size of the intellectual and the strategic depth which is represented by this President.  Perhaps this explains some of the secrets of the victory of Syria and its steadfastness.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

Bashar al-Assad on the Utter Corruption of the West and Syria’s Eastern Future

الأسد بعد الحرب

ناصر قنديل

أغسطس 26, 2017

– لم يكن ممكناً والحرب في ذروتها والبعض موهومٌ بالقدرة على إسقاط الرئيس السوري، أو يضع من موقع الحياد فرص إسقاطه ضمن الاحتمالات، الدعوة للتوقف أمام مفاهيم ورؤى يمثّلها الرئيس بشار الأسد وتشكّل رؤيته الخاصة لملفات وقضايا رئيسية، تميّز بها وتفرّد بها، سواء عن معكسر خصومه حكماً، أو حتى داخل معسكر الحلفاء. أما وأن التسليم المتتابع لدى كل متابع بأن الحرب على سورية لم تعُد قضية دولية، ولا قوة إقليمية تملك ما يكفي لو أرادت لإبقائها مشتعلة وبالأهداف ذاتها، وأن الأفق بات مفتوحاً أمام تعافي الدولة السورية وقيامتها، وأن مكانة الرئيس الأسد في قلب سورية الجديدة محسوم، فصار التعرف إلى المستقبل يستدعي من الصديق والخصم والباحث المحايد العودة للبحث بما يمن به ويطرحه ويتبناه ويفكر فيه، هذا الرئيس الذي سيعود منتصراً بعد حرب تُعتبر بنظر الكثيرين، حرباً عالمية ثالثة، أو حرب القرن، أو حرب استيلاد نظام عالمي جديد، وشرق أوسط جديد، طالما أن لاعباً حاسماً على مسرح الأحداث سيكون هذا الرئيس المنتصر. والمقصود هنا نظرة الرئيس الأسد لسورية وللمنطقة، وهما الساحتان اللتان سيصعب تخيّل صياغة جدية لهما بمعزل عن تفحّص رؤية الأسد والتمعُّن في مدى ملاءمتها لاستيعاب الوقائع المعقدة والمتشابكة، من جهة، أو مدى قدرتها على التأقلم مع المتغيّرات التي تعاكسها وتشتغل ضدها.

– سيندهش أي باحث أو سياسي جدي عندما يعود لقراءة نصين تحديداً، واحد يخص رؤية الرئيس الأسد لكيفية خروج سورية من الحرب، وعلاقة الحرب بالحل السياسي، وبرنامجه لسورية بعد الحرب، وهو مضمون ما ورد في خطابه مطلع عام 2013 تحت هذه العناوين.

والثاني يخصّ رؤيته للمنطقة وشكل النظام الإقليمي الذي يسعى إليه ويضع مقدرات سورية وعلاقاتها لتسويقه، وهو ما قاله عن مشروع منطقة البحار الخمسة في العام 2009.

– في النص الأول سيكتشف القارئ عندما يعيد القراءة الآن أن نصّ عام 2013 الذي أطلقه الرئيس الأسد كمبادرة للحل السياسي يقوم على ثلاث ركائز لم تكن ملحوظة حتى في مقاربات الحلفاء الأشدّ قرباً من سورية والأكثر قوة والأعلى متابعة للمبادرات السياسية وهما روسيا أولاً وإيران ثانياً، وقد كانت كل الطروحات تتخيّل آلية تقوم على توظيف موازين القوى السياسية والعسكرية لبلورة توافق دولي وإقليمي ينتج حواراً سياسياً، يتوّج بحكومة موحّدة توقف الحرب بين مكوناتها، وتضع خطة لدستور جديد وانتخابات على أساسه.

وكذلك كانت كل الطروحات في تلك الفترة تعتبر الإرهاب ومكافحته مهمة من مهام الحكومة الموحّدة لاعتبارها الحرب الأوسع والأكبر تدور بين مناصري المعارضة والجيش السوري، بينما تقوم مبادرة الرئيس الأسد على منح الأولوية للحرب على الإرهاب، والسير جنباً إلى جنب بالمصالحات والتسويات الموضعية في كل منطقة بشروطها وظروفها الخاصة مع الجماعات المسلحة، وصولاً لحسم نسبي مع الإرهاب يفتح الباب بالتوازي للتوافق الدولي والإقليمي، ولحوار سياسي مع واجهات سياسية لا تملك قوى حقيقية في الميدان، لكنها ضرورات لتسوية يتلطى وراءها اللاعبون الدوليون والإقليميون لتبرير الخروج من الحرب التي كانوا وراءها لإسقاط سورية. واللافت حجم التفاصيل الدقيقة التي أوردها الرئيس الأسد في مبادرته ومدى تطابقها اليوم مع ما يجري، سواء بصيغة مناطق التهدئة، أو ما سيجري غداً عندما يأتي وقت المصالحات وحكومة ما قبل الانتخابات، وحكومة ما بعد الانتخابات، وكيفية استيلاد دستور جديد، وإجراء الانتخابات.

– في النص الثاني، وهو الأول من حيث الأسبقية، أطلق الرئيس الأسد دعوة فريدة لنظرية تخصّه وحده، عنوانها تشكيل منظومة تعاون اقتصادي أمني، بين دول منطقة البحار الخمسة، المتوسط والأحمر والأسود وقزوين والخليج، بالرغم من الخلافات السياسية، لضمان الاستقرار، بما في ذلك المصالح المشروعة للدول الكبرى كضمان تدفق سلس لموارد الطاقة، وتضمن رفع مستوى التكامل الاقتصادي بين المشاركين فيها. والأهم أنها تملأ الفراغ الاستراتيجي الناشئ عن هزيمة المشروع الأميركي الذي قام على الحروب، وفشل في فرض الهيمنة، ومنعاً لوقوع المنطقة في فخاخ الفوضى والإرهاب، ومواجهة لمخاطر الحروب الأهلية والفتن ومشاريع التقسيم. وهذا كله وارد في رؤية الرئيس الأسد، التي جاءت قبل عامين على الربيع العربي وما تلاه من ظهور للمخاطر التي حذّر منها ودعا لاستباقها بمنظومة إقليمية عابرة للأحلاف السياسية المتقابلة التي تقف على رأسها كل من موسكو واشنطن. والمنظومة التي تضم وفقاً لطرح الرئيس الأسد تركيا وإيران والسعودية ومصر وسورية والعراق والجزائر، قادرة على التعاون مع الاتحاد الأوروبي، ومع مجموعة البريكس، وتأمين استقرار حوض جغرافي واسع وحساس وخطير. وليس خافياً أن تركيا والسعودية كانتا الفريقين الرئيسيين اللذين أغراهما مشروع الفوضى الأميركي «الإسرائيلي» لإسقاط سورية، فتموضعا على ضفاف الحرب عليها.

وها هما في ضوء ما نراه ونسمعه، تسيران بسرعة بعكس الاتجاه الذي طبع سياستهما خلال السنوات الماضية. فتركيا التي طمعت بحكم العالم الإسلامي بعثمانية جديدة وسلطنة صارت ترتضي كفّ شر ولادة كيان كردي على حدودها، بعدما عبثت بالمكوّنات وها هي تنال العقاب وتلاحقها للعنة. والسعودية التي أرادت تأسيس نظام عربي تحت زعامتها بالتخلّص من الرئيس السوري ها هي ترهن ممتلكاتها ومكانتها، سياسياً واقتصادياً وعسكرياً، للتخلّص من جار صغير بحجم قطر، والخروج بأقلّ الخسائر من حرب مع جار هزيل كحال اليمن، بعدما تجاهلتا معاً قيمة الجغرافيا والديمغرافيا وعبثتا معهما، ولعبتا لعبة الروليت الروسية باختبار الطلقة الواحدة والرأس لتكتشفا أن الطلقة في المسدس تنفجر برأسيهما، رغم كل ادعاءات القدرة والتخطيط والحسابات.

– ستحمل السنوات المقبلة فرصاً وافية للتدقيق في ماهية الصيغة السياسية التي ستعتمد لطي صفحة الحرب في سورية، وماهية النظام الإقليمي الجديد، وسيكتشف الكثيرون حجم التطابق مع الرؤى الاستشرافية المبكرة للرئيس السوري، وحجم العمق الفكري والاستراتيجي الذي يختزنه هذا الرئيس. عسى هذا أن يفسّر للبعض بعض أسرار نصر سورية وصمودها.

Related Videos

Related Articles

Europe, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and Turkey’s future

Europe, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and Turkey’s future

by Thomas Bargatzky

August 30, 2017

An opinion article published on 14 June 2017 in Turkish online newspaper Hürriyet Daily News, makes a strong case for a rapprochement between Turkey and the EU. According to the author, political problems with the EU notwithstanding, bilateral economic and commercial relations are on the rise. In addition, not only the economy plays an important role. A rapprochement should be also in Turkey‘s interests with regard to the quality of democracy in Turkey. The author leaves no doubt that for him, „Turkey’s future is in Europe – nowhere else“[1].

This opinion is amazing, and this not just against the backdrop of the recent rapid deterioration of relationships between Turkey and the EU. Relations between Turkey and Germany in particular deteriorate almost hourly. Westen elites, and especially German ones, fail to understand, however, that this is partly a result of their attitude toward Turkey. In 1987, Turkey made her application to accede to the European Economic Community. Status as a candidate for full membership of the European Community (EU) was granted in 1999. As a result of President Erdogan’s victory in the constitutional referendum in April 2017, accession negotiations have stopped. Hence, Turkey has now been kept waiting for thirty years.

Turkey may not accept to be stalled for more years to come. If so, the world may be at the threshold of a revolutionary realignment of the relations between the major state actors – a realignment which will shake the foundations of the power structure which has been in place since the end of the Cold War. Turkey may well play a major part in this process, since she holds the keys to the realignment in her hands.

The focus of the article presented lies on the role of Turkey in a possible – and necessary – shift in the power structure of the Near and Middle East and its impact upon EU and NATO. Current internal political problems of Turkey, which can only be solved by the Turkish people, are not dealt with.

Europe – A „Christian Club“?

Turkey should become aware that she will be never become a full member of the EU. The reason for the refusal, however, is not due to the EU being a „Christian Club“, as some Turkish journalists and politicians would maintain. It is true that religion and European integration have been inextricably linked in the beginning of this process, and it is true, too, that there are still Christians in Europe who take their religion seriously. As a political force, however, Christianity in Europe is dead, at least in Northern and Western Europe, owing to a rapid radical secularization and the waning power of the Christian Churches to reach out to the people. It has become fashionable in elite circles, internet platforms and the mainstream media in the West, to make fun of Christianity. It is considered to be an indicator of an enlightened state of mind to pile rubbish on Christian symbols and holy names.

In Germany, for example, the Lutherstadt Wittenberg made a proposal in 2012 to bestow her Luther Award on the obscure Russian punk rock group „Pussy Riot“ for their „courage“ to speak out against President-elect Vladimir Putin. The group, as is well known, had offended believers by obscene words and acts,[2] desecrating the symbol of Russia’s post-communist turning to Orthodoxy, Moscow’s rebuilt Cathedral of Christ the Saviour. The original Cathedral was dynamited by the communists in 1931, and it is hard to believe that it should be a coincidence that this Cathedral was the target for the degenerate acts hailed by western „democracy“ advocates.[3] Western mainstream media would express concern, not about the disgraceful acts of the group, but about the „suppression of the freedom of expression“ in Russia. Als long as it goes against Russia and Putin, all stops are removed.

The proposal of the Lutherstadt Wittenberg met with protests, though, and the award was not conferred, but the whole process testifies to the pathetic cluelessness of parts of the Lutheran Church in Germany. The Roman Catholic Church in Germany does not yet indulge in celebrating offensive and sacrilegious acts as manifestations of free speech, this Church, however, is no less clueless than the Lutheran Church concerning essentials, as became evident in October 2016. Visiting the Temple Mount, Cardinal Reinhard Marx and Bishop Heinrich Bedford-Strohm, the preeminent Catholic and Protestant representatives of the two major Churches in Germany, removed their crosses in a show of overeagerness to comply with the presumptive wishes of their Muslim hosts.[4] With pastors like these, German Christians may as well consider turning to the Orthodox Churches which might better serve their spiritual needs. Furthermore, Pope Franciscus‘ posture to become a politician pleading for unlimited Muslim immigration into Europe will accelerate the estrangement from their Church which has befallen many Catholics in Germany, and elsewhere in Europe.[5]

Developments in the USA during the past two decades also testify to a confusion concerning the Christian roots of Western society. „Temples“ and monuments are devoted to the worship of Satan. Obscenity accompanies blasphemy: The Los Angeles-based Tom of Finland Foundation awarded its grand prize for artistic expression in 1996 to a drawing by an artist named Garilyn Brune. It shows a priest performing fellatio on the crucified Jesus.[6] This goes on till today, with the movie industry contributing its fair share.[7] All of this is tolerated and even celebrated in the West as demonstration of religious freedom and the freedom of the arts and expression.[8]

Family and Nation under attack by radical secularism

These are no single events. Moreover, public acceptance and elite celebration of such artistic and social swamp flowers in the Western World indicate a general loss of religious and cultural roots.[9] Europe, too, is no longer a „Christian Club“.

Furthermore, the axe is laid unto the roots of family and society in the West. In Germany, for example, the youth organization of the Green Party – the political party which has portrayed itself as a main sponsor of Turkish interests in Germany – demands the abolishment of traditional marriage and its replacement by multi-person groups.[10] The USA, however, is one step ahead: The American organization „Marry Your Pet“ offers advice to persons who want to enter matrimony with their pet.[11] Not a hoax, I am afraid, as some would maintain, And sooner or later, any fad which is invented in the USA will become popular in Europe, too.

What is more, the the principle of state sovereignty in the Western World is under attack by the Empire.[12] Peter Sutherland, former Chairman of Goldman Sachs and UN Special Representative for International Migration, said in an Interview that the EU should undermine the national homogeneity of its member states.[13]

It is hard to imagine that the Turkish people would feel at home in such a moral and mental environment. Turkey would never submit to such agendas. The same applies to Russia, by the way: Western lifestyle-elites hate Russia and President Putin for the same reasons they would never allow Turkey to become a member of the EU.

And as far as the “quality of democracy” in Europe is concerned, a veiled one-party system has evolved in Germany. With the exception of the left-wing party “Die Linke”, all the political parties in the German Parliament – the Bundestag – are in general agreement with the politics of Chancellor Angelika Merkel. While being strictly against military adventurism and the deployment of German troops to fight abroad, however, the “Linke” is wavering as far as the refugee crisis is concerned. Parts of them also cave in the political correctness of the day. To disagree in public with her course in the refugee crisis, for example, may be branded as “right-wing” in the mainstream media. It may invite censorship, intimidation, even loss of job. People are afraid to speak out. This has been confirmed recently by a comprehensive study of the treatment of the refugee crisis by German mainstream media.[14] Freedom of speech, a pre-requisite for democracy, is in jeopardy.

The new Western “World Order”

Undermining the nation state and traditional moral and social values in the West goes way back into the 60s of the past century, but the recent new boost results from the transformation of the multi-polar Cold War-era into the unipolar world dominated by Washington and the transnational “corporatocracy”[15]. After the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West was seized by fits of an unrelenting triumphalism. US-President George H.W. Bush announced a „new world order“ guided by the „American Way of Life“, underwritten by world-wide American power projection.[16] Military power should be supported by American soft power through culture, to make the re-modelling of the rest of the world more palatable. According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, American culture is a tool for the promotion of American economic and political interests:

“Cultural domination has been an underappreciated facet of American global power. Whatever one may think of its aesthetic values, America’s mass culture exercises a magnetic appeal, especially on the world’s youth. Its attraction may be derived from the hedonistic quality of the lifestyle it projects, but its global appeal is undeniable. American television programs and films account for about three-fourths of the global market. American popular music is equally dominant, while American fads, eating habits, and even clothing are increasingly imitated worldwide. The language of the Internet is English, and an overwhelming proportion of the global computer chatter also originates from America, influencing the content of global conversation. Lastly, America has become a Mecca for those seeking advanced education, with approximately half a million foreign students flocking to the United States, with many of the ablest never returning home. Graduates from American universities are to be found in almost every Cabinet on every continent”[17].

Culture as a weapon to secure American global power has been a very efficient tool in the building of the “new world order”, its impact is hard to beat. Western hard power and soft power notwithstanding, there is a growing resistance in the non-Western world against political and cultural domination, which has found in Islam a way to express itself. Re-Islamization in Turkey and the waning influence of secular Kemalism are Turkish expressions of this universal trend. European political elites are nonplussed and irritated by the rise to power of President RecepTayyip Erdogan and the AKP.

Changing the course of history?

Not only EU-Turkey relations have reached a crossroads. Relations between Turkey and the West in general have unfolded in a way which may urge Turkey to reconsider and readjust her military, economic, and foreign policy alliance with the West. The USA supports the outlawed Kurdish Worker’s Party (PKK) through its Syrian wing, the People’s Protection Unit (YPG), with heavy weapons and ammunition and military training. Turkey’s concerns that Syrian militants might establish terrorist enclaves on the Turkish side of the border are ignored. Germany depicts Turkey as an unsafe country for its tourists and investors. Germany’s imperious behaviour, in particular, is rankling Turkey’s sensitivity. Turkish politicians and commentators would agree that Germany owes Turkey and President Erdogan gratitude, because in 2015 Turkey took drastic steps to stem the flow of refugees from Syria across the Aegaen Sea to the Greek islands.[18]

Israel and Germany serve as America’s foot-soldiers and watchdogs. Israel’s task is to keep Muslims in the Middle East in their place. In the same vein, Germany’s task is to keep European states in their place inside the EU, and Turkey in its place outside Europe. Turkey, while being useful as a member of NATO, is just too big, powerful and conservative to be of use in converting Europe into a platform from which to project power and cultural revolution into the Eurasian land mass.

Russia and Turkey emerge as natural allies against the backdrop of ever-increasing and more and more desperate Western attempts to maintain hegemony in a unipolar world. Increasing cooperation with Russia such as in the deal with Moscow for the S-400 defense systems by the end of 2017, marks a step forward toward diversifying Turkey’s options. Turkish accession to the Eurasian Customs Union would also mark a decisive step in the direction of an enlargement of Turkey’s options.[19] And as far as bilateral economic and commercial relations with Europe and the West in general are concerned, the West’s habit to “freeze” (that is, to steal) economic and financial assets of disobedient countries and its key representatives for the sake of the promotion of “freedom”, “human rights” etc. has become all too obvious in recent years.

Yet it is not only cooperation with Russia which would increase Turkey’s room for manoeuvre vi-à-vis the Western powers. The entry of India and Pakistan into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in June 2017 is tantamount to re-shuffling the cards for the new “Great Game” over influence and resources in Eurasia. If Turkey decides to exit NATO and to join an expanded SCO, it will be part of an alliance that now represents roughly half of humanity and probably more than 25% of global GDP.[20] Such a step by Turkey would mark a watershed in the course of post-Cold War history. Others might follow, and this would seriously weaken the West’s capability to wage endless wars for “democracy” and “Western values”, to foster “regime change” and support “color revolutions”. Turkey may have it in her hands to dramatically change the course of history. All things considered, the country may well come to the conclusion that her future is in Eurasia and the SCO – nowhere else.

  1. Murat Yetkin: Turkey’s future is in Europe – nowhere else. Hurriyet Daily News, June 14, 2017. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkeys-future-is-in-europe–nowhere-else.aspx?PageID=238&NID=114299&NewsCatID=409 
  2. Bernd Lähne: Lutherpreis für Pussy Riot? Vorschlag der Stadt Wittenberg stößt auf Empörung. Leipziger Volkszeitung (Online)., October 7, 2012. https://www.change.org/p/vergabe-des-lutherpreis-das-unerschrockene-wort-an-polit-kritische-punk-band-pussy-riot 
  3. James George Jatras: Death of a Nation. Strategic Culture Foundation August 17, 2017. 
  4. Jan Fleischhauer: Die Unterwerfung. Spiegel Online, November 7, 2016. http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/christentum-und-islam-die-unterwerfung-kolumne-a-1120073.html 
  5. Corrado Ocone: „Bergoglio vuole fare politica, il Vangelo non c’entra nulla“. Il Mattino, July 9, 2017; Niccolò Magnani: Marcello Pera vs Papa Francesco / „Bergoglio fa politica, è in atto uno schisma nella Chiesa“. Ilsussidiario,net, July 10, 2017; http://www.ilsussidiario.net/News/Cronaca/2017/7/10/Marcello-Pera-vs-Papa-Francesco-Bergoglio-fa-politica-e-in-atto-uno-scisma-nella-Chiesa-/773071/
  6. https://tomoffinlandfoundation.org/foundation/Dispatch/PDF/dispSU96.pdf 
  7. Lindsay Kornick: AMC’s „Preacher“ Opens With Graphic Jesus Sex Scene, Closes With Inbred Messiah. mrcNewsBuster, August 21, 2017. https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/lindsay-kornick/2017/08/21/preacher-opens-jesus-sex-scene-closes-inbred-messiah 
  8. Thomas Bargatzky: Die Konservativen und der Islam. Geolitico, July 27, 2017. http://www.geolitico.de/2017/07/27/die-konservativen-und-der-islam/ 
  9. Joseph Ratzinger, Marcello Pera: Without Roots. The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam. – New York: Casic Books, 2007. 
  10. http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/kisslers-konter/kisslers-konter-die-verstoerenden-sex-fantasien-der-gruenen-jugend_aid_1096777.html 
  11. www.marryyourpet.com
  12. David Chandler: From Kosovo to Kabul. Human Rights and International Intervention. – London: Pluto Press, 2006. 
  13. „EU should ‚undermine national homogeneity‘ says UN migration chief. BBC News, June 21, 2017. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18519395 
  14. Jochen Bittner: Flüchtlinge in den Medien. Mit dem Strom. Zeit Online, July 19, 2017. http://www.zeit.de/2017/30/fluechtlinge-medien-berichterstattung-studie 
  15. John Perkins: The Secret History of the American Empire. – New York: Penguin/Plume, 2007. 
  16. Andrew J. Bacevich: Washington Rules. America’s Path to Permanent War. – New York: Metropolitan Books, 2010. 
  17. Zbigniew Brzezinski: The Grand Chessboard. Amarican Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. – New York: Basic Books, 1997, p. 25. 
  18. Ilnur Cevik: Germany owes Turkey, Erdogan deep gratitude. Daily Sabah, July 25, 2017. https://www.dailysabah.com/columns/ilnur-cevik/2017/07/26/germany-owes-turkey-erdogan-deep-gratitude 
  19. „Economy Minister: Turkey eyes Eurasian Customs Union“. Daily Sabah, August 18, 2917. https://www.dailysabah.com/economy/2017/08/19/economy-minister-turkey-eyes-eurasian-customs-union 
  20. Seema Sengupta: Bigger Shanghai Cooperation Orgabnization may be game-changer. Asia Times,June 5, 2017. http://www.atimes.com/article/bigger-shanghai-cooperation-organization-may-game-changer/ Dr. Thomas Bargatzky is professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of Bayreuth, Germany. He is an observer of international power politics and has published on topics of security politics in journals and the internet. He recently finished a book (in German) on the NATO-war against Libya in 2011. He can be reached by his website www.thomas-bargatzky.jimdo.com 

Venezuela: West’s Battle Against Multipolarism Reaches Far

August 22, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci – LD) – The battle between the established unipolar “international order” dominated by Wall Street, Washington, and London and an emerging multipolar order appears fixated on Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and across the entirety of Asia. However, it extends to virtually every corner of the globe, from competition in the Arctic to politically-motivated controversies in Earth orbit.

The South American nation of Venezuela also seems far-removed from this ongoing competition engulfing the world’s hot spots in the Middle East, Central and Asia, but the fate of this besieged nation is directly linked to the that of the rest of the world, either contributing to an emerging multipolar world order, or providing sanctuary and legitimacy to the established unipolar order currently dominated by Wall Street, Washington, and London.

The nation has been the target of US-backed subversion for decades. The latest iteration of American interference began with the rise of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and a failed US-backed coup in 2002 organized to oust him and place a US-controlled client regime in power.

Venezuela’s “Opposition” are US-Backed Agitators  

Many of those involved in the failed 2002 coup are now leading US-backed protesters in the streets in a bid to overthrow the government of President Nicolás Maduro, who succeeded Chavez after his death in 2013.

The opposition includes former presidential contender, Henrique Capriles Radonski, who heads Primero Justicia (Justice First) which was co-founded by Leopoldo Lopez and Julio Borges, who like Radonski, have been backed for nearly a decade by the US State Department.

Primero Justicia and the network of foreign-funded NGOs that support it have been recipients of both direct and indirect foreign support for at least just as long.

All three co-founders are US educated – Radonski having attended New York’s Columbia University (Spanish), Julio Borges attending Boston College and Oxford, and Leopoldo Lopez who attended the Harvard Kennedy School of Government (KSG), of which he is considered an alumni of.

The Harvard Kennedy School, which hosts the notorious Belfer Center, includes the following faculty and alumni of Lopez, co-founder of the current US-backed opposition in Venezuela:

John P. Holdren, Samantha Power, Lawrence Summers, Robert Zoellick, (all as faculty), as well as Ban Ki-Moon (’84), Paul Volcker (’51), Robert Kagan (’91), Bill O’Reilly (’96), Klaus Schwab (’67), and literally hundreds of senators, ambassadors, and administrators of Wall Street and London’s current global spanning international order. 

Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government (KSG) is one of several universities that form the foundation of both creating corporate-financier driven international policy, as well as cultivating legions of administrators to execute it. This includes creating cadres of individuals to constitute Wall Street and Washington’s client regimes around the world.
Venezuela’s Problem, Like Other Targeted States, is US Sedition, not “Socialism” 
It is true that Venezuela is deemed a “socialist” nation, and its policy of heavily centralizing the economy has not only failed to alleviate the many longstanding socioeconomic conflicts inflicting Venezuelan society, but has also created an ample vector for Wall Street and Washington’s meddling.
By placing all of Venezuela’s proverbial “eggs” in one centralized “basket,” the United States – through the use of various well-honed geopolitical and socioeconomic tools – has managed to knock that “basket” from the government in Caracas’ hands and is now using its well-funded and organized opposition to crush whatever “eggs” survived the fall.
Unfortunately for Venezuela, the Western political landscape is so deeply rooted in blind, poorly developed political ideology, practical geopolitical and geostrategic analysis has been overlooked across both traditional and alternative media platforms, and instead, many – including opponents of US-backed regime change worldwide – have found themselves cheering on what they believe is the self-inflicted collapse of the socialist Venezuelan government at the hands of “free market” protesters.
In reality, they are cheering on yet another episode of US-backed regime change, wrapped in a protective layer of ideological, political, and economic rhetoric to justify otherwise unjustifiable, extraterritorial meddling, interference, chaos, division, and destruction.
Venezuela’s Place Within the Unipolar-Mulipolar World 

Depending on the ultimate fate of the Venezuelan government, the success of US-backed proxies, and the ability of Venezuela to reconstruct itself after decades of foreign-backed subversion, Venezuela can either enhance or set back the emerging multipolar world order.

Regardless of Venezuela’s fate if and when the government in Caracas is toppled, the US-led unipolar international order will benefit. The elimination of competition, even at the cost of creating a center of regional destabilization is considered favorable versus allowing a bastion of alternative socioeconomic and geopolitical power to persist. And in many ways, the creation of a regional center of destabilization may help the US create “synergies” between the chaos it is fostering in Venezuela and in neighboring South and Central American nations the US has likewise targeted for geopolitical coercion and/or regime change.

For Russia, China, other nations of BRICS, and even emerging economies across Southeast Asia and Central Asia, the loss of Venezuela as a means of counterbalance to US hegemony both in the region of the Americas and globally will allow the US to concentrate more resources toward remaining alternative centers of geopolitical and economic power it seeks to target.

This – not the nature of Venezuela’s “socialist” government – is the focus of US efforts and is what defines the consequences of either US success or failure regarding regime change in Caracas.

Any government, socialist or otherwise, operating outside of Wall Street, Washington, and London’s sphere of influence is a target. Competition, not ideology defines and drives Western foreign policy – and for those who oppose this policy – it must be practical geopolitical and geostrategic analysis that defines conclusions and courses of action – not the ideological debates the US itself is using as a pretext and as rhetorical cover to justify its latest regime-change project.

Venezuela may be geographically far removed from the focal point of the great unipolar-multipolar struggle, but understanding how it fits into conflicts raging in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and across Asia illustrates just how encompassing the “international order’s” reach and ambitions really are – and how deadly dangerous they are to global peace, security, and stability.

الحشد الشعبي قوات الفيتكونغ العراقية

الحشد الشعبي قوات الفيتكونغ العراقية

أغسطس 7, 2017

محمد صادق الحسيني

لا خيار أمام العراقيين إلا التوسّل بدرّة التاج العراقي المتمثلة بالحشد الشعبي، بعد أن أصبح حبل النجاة الوحيد المتبقي لصناعة عراق ما بعد القهر والحرمان والتبعية والنفوذ الأجنبي…!

لا شك، ولا ريب، ولا ترديد أنه من المهمّ جداً أن نعطي المرجعية الدينية العليا في العراق بشخص آية الله العظمى السيستاني حقها، ونشير إلى فضلها الممتاز في إطلاق مشروع الحشد الشعبي العراقي في لحظة تاريخية فاصلة من تاريخ العراق لم يكن بالإمكان عبورها، إلا من خلال مثل هذه الفتوى المرجعية الرشيدة…

لكن ما لا يقلّ عنه أهمية أيضاً بتقديري هو التوقف طويلاً عند المخزون الشعبي الهائل من الذاكرة العراقية المتأجّجة تديّناً ووطنيةً وهمّةً، والتي كانت تبحث عن لحظتها أو فرصتها التاريخية لتعبّر عن نفسها بطريقة مختلفة ومتميّزة، فجاءت الفتوى بمثابة الشرارة التي أشعلت حقولاً وليس فقط حقلاً واحداً من الطاقات الكامنة في أجيال من عمر الإنسان العراقي الذي شكّل عملياً البيئة الحاضنة التي لولاها ما كان لأيّ كان ولا لأيّ تعليماتٍ مهما بلغت في قدسيتها أن تحرّك هذا الطوفان الهادر وباتجاه الأهداف العليا المنشودة بهذه السرعة وبهذا الزخم الذي رأيناه يشتعل على أرض الرافدين الطاهرة والمطهّرة كالنار في الهشيم…

لرسم بعض ملامح صورة ما حصل ومستمرّ في الحصول في العراق، يمكننا الاستعانة بقول إحدى أمّهات الشهداء، وهي تخاطب أهل الموصل بعد التحرير مباشرة بالقول:

«ترسناكم.. فرح، والحزن بينا يطوف..!».

أيّ لقد قدّمنا لكم كلّ هذا الفرح الكبير يا أهلنا الموصليين بكلّ فخر واعتزاز، بفعل عملية التحرير والتطهير التي أنجزها أبناء العراق لكم، لكن ذلك ينبغي أن لا يجعل أحداً ينسى أو يتناسى، بأنّ ذلك يحصل وحزام الحزن الكبير والواسع الذي يلفّ حولنا – نحن جمهور الناس – طولاً وعرضاً على امتداد جغرافيا العراق وتاريخه وأعماقه كان حاضراً على امتداد فعل التحرير والتطهير وما بعده…!

إنها خلطة وعجينة عجيبة وفريدة من نوعها قد تلخص ليس سيكولوجية فلسفة «طواف» الحزن العراقي فحسب، بل وربما يمكنها أن تشكل فلسفة القهر العام الذي تعيشه الجماهير العربية والإسلامية على امتداد وطننا الكبير وعلى امتداد قرون التاريخ الطويلة…

وإلا كيف ينام العراق والأمة معه على ضيم، في لحظة غفلة من الزمان، بفعل داعش وأخواته في العام 2014 على خلفية جيش متقهقر ودولة تائهة وعراق حزين، ليستفيق في العام 2017 على حشد يُضاهي أكبر جيوش المنطقة ويصبح واحداً من أعمدة النور التي ستغيّر وجه العالمين العربي والإسلامي إنْ لم يكن العالم، وليس العراق وحده…!؟

إنه ليس مجرد كمّ من البشر حملوا البنادق وتدرّبوا للدفاع عن وطنهم وخاضوا معارك الدفاع المقدّس عن دينهم وعرضهم وأرضهم، وهو ما حصل بالفعل أيضاً، وفي أكثر ميدان والموصل ليس آخرها وتلعفر وما بقي من أرض العراق الطاهر بالانتظار…!

إنه ليس تضافر جهود المخلصين من أبناء العراق لتعبئة الناس باتجاه القيام بالواجب الديني والوطني فحسب…!

إنه ليس فقط انصهار فصائل وكتل وتيارات وأحزاب وقوى وطوائف أو مذاهب من أجل الدفاع عن العراق واستعادة أرضه وقيمه وروحه النقية من الخصم المتوحّش المغمس بأشكال الرذيلة كافة..!

إنه بات حتى بمعنى من المعاني، كما أسلفنا أبعد وأعمق وأكثر تعبيراً وتجسيداً من مجرد تطبيق فتوى دينية خطيرة رغم أهميتها الكبرى ودورها المتميّز…!

إنّها صيرورة فعل وانفعال وجدان شعب بجمهوره ورجاله الممتازين وتراكم وتبلور عقل قيادة دينية ووطنية تاريخية، أثمرت ما بات يُعرَف عنه اليوم الحشد الشعبي العراقي…!

وعليه، فالحشد اليوم ليس جسماً عسكرياً تابعاً للقيادة العسكرية العراقية فحسب… ولا تشكيلاً أو مكوّناً مجتمعياً يضمّ ألوية وسرايا وكتائب وفصائل وتيارات شعبية عراقية فحسب… ولا هو مشروع إعادة صياغة الجسم الوطني العراقي بعد كلّ ما أصابه من كسور ورضوض وأمراض أو وعكات أو تعثر فحسب…!

إنه مشروع إعادة بناء العراق من جديد على أسس ومعايير وفلسفة بناء مشروع دولة مدنية دينية معاصرة أصلها ثابت وفرعها في السماء…!

بل قد يكون حتى أوسع وأبعد مدى من ذلك كله، إنّه يرقى إلى أن يكون مشروع حركة تحرّر وطني للعراق كما يمكن له أن يتحوّل مستقبلاً نموذجاً يُحتذى به من سائر بلدان العالم…!

تماماً كما لعب مثل هذا الدور مشروع حزب الله لبنان وأنصار الله اليمن وكلّ أشكال التعبئة والنهضة الحديثة في أمصارنا العربية والإسلامية، واذا ما تجاوزنا الفكر السياسي المحدود، قد نستطيع القول إنه حتى أهمّ من مشروع الحرس الثوري الإيراني وقوات الفيتكونغ الفيتنامية…!

إنه عين العراق التي بها سيتمّ الحفاظ على وحدته وانسجامه وقوامه الوطني والعقيدي، كما هو عين العراق على الأمة، بما يسير في لحظة مصيرية تاريخية، كما هي الآن حيث تتبلور وحدة الدم ووحدة الساحات لكلّ أشكال رجال الله الأمر الذي بات يشكل الواقع الأقوى الذي يفرض نفسه في ظلّ حراك حثيث دولي باتجاه إعادة صياغة نظام عالمي جديد وفرضه كبديل لمعادلة المنتصرين في الحرب العالمية الثانية…

نظام يفترض أن يكون لنا فيه نحن المسلمين والعرب ومحور المقاومة والعراقيين بشكل خاص، دور متميزّ وأساسيّ في العهود المقبلة..!

وعليه نستطيع القول إنّ فلسفة الحشد الشعبي استطاعت خلال الأشهر القليلة الماضية أن تسير بسرعة فائقة وهائلة نحو السمو والرفعة، ما جعل هذا الكيان الوليد الطري العود يبرز وسط تزاحم الأضداد بمثابة الرقم الصعب الذي سيلعب دوراً مركزياً مهماً ليس فقط في إعادة صناعة عراق مختلف ومتميّز يتجاوز فيه عثرات وعورات ما بعد ثورة العشرين العراقية العظيمة، بل سيرقى قريباً إلى مصاف القوى التي ستلعب دوراً في إعادة صياغة المجتمع الدولي الجديد على المستويين الإقليمي والدولي، مجتمع ما بعد سقوط معادلتي سايكس بيكو ومعادلة عالم ما بعد الدولار الأميركي قولاً واحداً…!

الحشد الشعبي ليس فقط لا يمكن لأحد، أيّ أحد حلّه، بل إنّ من يفكر بحلّه سيرحل مع الأميركيين وغيرهم ممن دخلوا العراق خلسة وتسلّلاً في لحظة غفلة من الزمن..!

العراق بالحشد الشعبي خرج من القمقم ولا يستطيع أحد، أيّ أحد، إعادته إليه من جديد…!

إنه قوات الفيتكونغ العراقية التي ليس فقط ستنجز مهمة إنهاء الدواعش التكفيريين، بل وستطهّر العراق من رجس المحتلين الأميركيين وكلّ أذنابهم المباشرين وغير المباشرين، ومنهم المرجفين في المدينة..!

القدر المتيقن من كلّ ما ذكرناه أعلاه، هو أنّ الحشد بات ركناً أساسياً من أركان مستقبل العراق، ومستقبل العراق لا يمكن لأحد بيعه أو المساومة عليه لا في سوق العرب ولا في بازار العجم، نقطة أول السطر…!

بحول الله وقوّته اليد العليا لنا.

بعدنا طيّبين، قولوا الله…

مقالات مشابهة

The Neoconservatives and the “Coming World”: A response to the questions of a virtual friend

July 31, 2017

by Amir Nour (1)

« In the emerging world of ethnic conflict and civilizational clash, Western belief in the universalityof Western culture suffers three problems: it is false; it is immoral; and it is dangerous »

Samuel Phillips Huntington

« The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order »

Dear friend, I have just read the The Neoconservatives and the “Coming World”: A response to the questions of a virtual friendgreat question you have asked me about the world’s future according to the American Neo-conservative’s vision. This question came quite naturally to your mind when reading the interview (2) given by one of the most impassioned advocates of this school of thought – Thomas Barnett – author of the controversial book “The Pentagon’s New map: War and Peace in the twenty-first century”.

Assuredly, we’re dealing here with a major issue whose understanding is a sine qua non condition for deciphering both the contingencies and the dominant trends characterizing the evolution of international relations, particularly since the end of the Cold War.

Indeed, the turmoil and convulsions the world is experiencing since the turn of the third millennium, more particularly in the region that should be of a paramount interest to you – i.e. the Arab-Muslim world – are one of the most significant manifestations of the process of multidimensional change underway. Most probably, they are harbingers of the “coming world”- in the words of Malek Bennabi- one radically different from that which we have known since the end of the Second World War to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet empire in 1992.

The ensuing new international reality -the emergence of the United States of America as the sole global superpower- has also been a long shot since it has in turn faded as a result of both the financial and economic crisis that erupted in 2007-2008 and continues to this day, and the rise of new assertive international actors, including the BRICS members (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa).

In all likelihood, this new “coming world” will be multipolar. This is a frightening prospect for the proponents of the perpetuation of the Old Order established by and for the West several centuries ago. And it is quite naturally therefore that the West, under the aegis of its American hegemon leader, is fiercely trying to hinder the realization of this inexorable prospect.

In the first chapter of my aforementioned book (3), I tried to analyze the reasons for this “fear”. At the core of those is undoubtedly the persistence of the imperial ideology that took over American policy after World War II: Neo-conservatism.

As explained in a related Wikipedia article, neoconservatism is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s of the twentieth century, among conservative-leaning Democrats who became disenchanted with the party’s foreign policy and the “New Left” culture. The first writings of the neo-conservative current appeared in the Jewish monthly New York Monthly Review Magazine Commentary, published by the American Jewish Committee. And the first neo-conservative theorist to have adopted this word and is considered therefore as the founder of this ideology is Irving Kristol (who was militant Trotskyist in his early days!). He is the founder of the famous neo-conservative think tank: Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Neo-conservatism peaked in influence during the Republican presidential administration of Ronald Reagan whose doctrine was guided by anticommunism and opposition to the global influence of the USSR. It reached its climax at the turn of the last century with the Bush Doctrine of exporting democracy, including by means of military force if necessary. The prominent neo-conservative newspapers are Commentary and the Weekly Standard. There are also neo-conservative think tanks on foreign policy, including American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Heritage Foundation, JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) and, of course, the PNAC (4).

In foreign policy, the Neocons defend “the military power of Democratic States in international relations in order to establish a new international order”. In a PNAC manifesto published in 1996, they laid out their quintessential thought and principles as follows:

-Moral clarity and benevolent hegemony;
-Preventing the emergence of a rival power;
-End of “complacency” towards dictatorships;
-Refusal of the decline of the American power because it is the first democratic power of the world;
-Upgrading of the military tool to respond to aggression.

The Neo-conservatives say they want a new international order based on freedom, according to the designs that are not those of Kant and Wilson, to which they reproach the impotence, but which take their source in the writings of Moses Maimonides and Saint Augustine. They criticize the United Nations and international law in the name of morality. At major international conferences, they prefer smaller coalitions according to the “mission-defines-the-coalition” principle. They support Israel. Their creed is interventionism. Therefore, the United States “must be recognized as the flagship nation of human rights and export democracy and freedom all over the world if need be by force”.

Among the emblematic ideas of the Neo-conservatives, features prominently the theory of “creative chaos” -developed mainly by Michael Ledeen, a former correspondent in Rome of the New Republic. It is a project aiming to “establish a state of war and permanent instability in the Middle East that would enable the Americans and Israelis to preserve their geostrategic objectives in the region, even by re-redrawing it’s map”. Neo-conservatives do not consider the stability of the world a good to maintain but instead advocate the virtues of destabilisation.

Such was the opinion of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol of the PNAC. He was the originator of the letter of 26 January 1998 sent to Bill Clinton asking him to conduct another policy in Iraq, one with a view to toppling Saddam Hussein to preserve American interests in the Gulf. The same can be said about Robert Cooper, a British partisan of neoconservatism who advocated a doctrine of “imperialist liberalism” granting the “right” to “civilized countries” to use force against their “foreign ennemies” (5).

It was, however, President G. W. Bush who is notoriously known for having endorsed and put in practice these neo-conservative principles. He did so by invading Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 through an extreme instrumentalization of the unfortunate though “miraculous” events of 11 September 2001. In his 31 December 2005 State of the Union Address, he explained that there is no question of satisfying the “false comfort of isolationism”, which ends in “danger and decline”. America must “lead” the world. It’s a security imperative. “The alternative to American leadership is a much more dangerous and anxious world.” In his view, America must therefore continue to “act boldly in favour of freedom”. And as in 1945 “when she liberated the camps of death, she must accept the call of history to deliver the oppressed”, Half the world lives in a democracy, he said. “We do not forget the other half, in countries like Syria, Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Iran because the demands of justice and the Peace of the world also require their freedom” (6).

To do so, the Security Council of a United Nations, although until then so decried by the neo-conservatives, becomes the privileged instrument for conducting hazardous military expeditions with chaotic consequences for some “recalcitrant” States and their peoples, particularly in the MENA region (7). George W. Bush named as his Ambassador to this important UN body John Bolton, a neo-conservative “hawk” who recounts his UN experience in a book with a very significant title (8).

Almost a decade later, and notwithstanding the debacles of unilateralism and military interventionism he has been preaching ceaselessly, Robert Kagan continues to exert a strong influence on the American establishment. In his book (9) published in 2012, he strived to refute the thesis of the “Decline of America”. This book is said to have become the bedside book of President Barack Obama, who stated in his State of the Union Address in January 2012: “America is back. Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned doesn’t know what they’re talking about”.

This vision is shared by Steve Bannon, the mastermind of the new administration (before being excluded from it) of President Donald Trump. As explained in the excellent article by Pepe Escobar (10), Steve Bannon “a man who eats history and political theory essays for breakfast (…) a post-truth Machiavelli behind the most powerful of Princes”, sees our current geopolitical juncture as “the ultimate battle between Good and Evil (no, Nietzsche’s verdict, for him, does not apply) ‘Good’ in our case is Christian civilization and its history of two millennia – with a possible place of honor for the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. Its opposite, ‘evil’ is conveyed by a whole series of ‘existential threats’ – from the post-modern, technocratic/secular elites (the inner enemy) to Islam (the enemy in general)”.

For more insight into the roots of this neo-conservative ideology and its impact on the policy that characterizes the United States today, I recommend reading the analysis written by Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould (11). Armed with a razor-sharp writing style and remarkably documented references, they dissect the history of the Neocon take over of the United States, through a four-step-process presented as follows:

– American Imperialism Leads the World into Dante’s Vision of Hell
– How Neocons Push for War by Cooking the Books
– How the CIA Created a Fake Western Reality for ‘Unconventional Warfare’
– The Final Stage of the Machiavellian Elites’ Takeover of America

The Neocons, the Arab World and Israel

Dear friend, after outlining this long but indispensable historic and geostrategic overview, I come to the other major question underlying the issue you raised: Why is the Arab-Muslim world the main victim of this American neo-conservative ideology, one that is supposedly the bedrock of the New World Order and the ultimate culmination of a long process of a history coming to an end – according to another neo-conservative theorist: Francis Fukuyama? We now know that History did not end; on the contrary, it is witnessing an unprecedented acceleration, and the American Empire, far from bringing peace and prosperity to the world, has led all mankind on the road to the great disorder in the world and destructive chaos in the Arab-Muslim world, especially through the ill-named “Arab Springs”.

Aided by a formidable “media compressor roller” in its enterprise of global domination on behalf of a so-called messianic “manifest destiny”, the American empire undertook to redesign the world map in order to be able to establish, in the long term, a kind of « World State » or a « World Government ». This presupposes the destruction of nations by dissolving them into regions and continental poles. This is probably what Herbert Marshall McLuhan, the Canadian sociologist and Vatican adviser – notably known for coining the expression « the medium is the message » – had in mind when he wrote in 1968 “War and Peace in the Global village” (12) his revolutionary book in which he depicted a planet made ever smaller by new technologies, and used the concept of “glocal”, a mixture of global and local, foreshadowing the fundamental architecture of the New World Order.

As is well explained in an article (13) published in 2012, after the fall of communism, the epicenter of this policy was set in the Middle East “where not only the great reserves of hydrocarbons are located, but also the State of Israel, the real mother house of Globalism, which has been impeding all attempts of peace in this region of the world since its creation”. The map of this part of the planet has long been redesigned within Judeo-American think tanks as well as by military commands whose ultimate goals are the fragmentation of nations on ethnic and religious bases (leaving Israel as the only regional superpower), but also by pushing Islam to operate its “Vatican II” so as to be integrated tomorrow into the vast global market in gestation. Because Europe « is being in Dormition, whether we like it or not, Islam is the only bulwark against the total stranglehold of the Tel-Aviv and Washington traders on the world”. This desire to subdue Islam also aims to “create a single religion” (which should bring together all religious currents). This will only be achieved through the division of Muslims, Sunnis and Shiites. In view of this, one can easily understand why the sacred Islamic State (14) is also planned, including Mecca and Medina, to better control Islam and integrate it into a new world order, which is not possible today. Indeed this religion does not have an identified hierarchy (15).

In his excellent book “Black Terror White Soldiers: Islam, Fascism & the New Age”, David Livingstone states that because they are far too ignorant of the histories of the rest of the world, and being aware of only the accomplishments of Greece, Rome and Europe, Westerners have been made to believe that their societies represent the most superior examples of civilization. This idea, he continues, derives from the hidden influence of those who believe in and teach that history would attain its fulfillment when man would become God, and make his own laws. Livingstone concludes that this is the basis of the propaganda which has been used to foster a Clash of Civilizations, whereby the Islamic world is presented as stubbornly adhering to the anachronistic idea of “theocracy”. Where once the spread of Christianity and civilizing the world were used as pretexts for colonization, today a new White Man’s Burden makes use of human rights and democracy to justify imperial aggression. And because, after centuries of decline, the Islamic world is incapable of mobilizing a defense, the Western powers, as part of their age-old strategy of Divide and Conquer, have fostered the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, to both serve as agent-provocateurs and to malign the image of Islam.

Few weeks after the Amercian invasion of Iraq, Ari Shavit wrote a thought-provoking piece in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz under the significant title « White Man’s Burden » (16). He stated that the war against Iraq was based on an « ardent faith disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neo-conservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Elliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history. They believe that the right political idea entails a fusion of morality and force, human rights and grit. The philosophical underpinnings of the Washington neo-conservatives are the writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Edmund Burke. They also admire Winston Churchill and the policy pursued by Ronald Reagan ».

Quoting William Kristol, he added that this war was also based on « the new American understanding that if the United States does not shape the world in its image, the world will shape the United States in its own image ». At a deeper level, according to Kristol, it is « a greater war, for the shaping of a new Middle East. It is a war that is intended to change the political culture of the entire region. Because what happened on September 11, 2001, Kristol says, is that the Americans looked around and saw that the world is not what they thought it was. The world is a dangerous place. Therefore the Americans looked for a doctrine that would enable them to cope with this dangerous world. And the only doctrine they found was the neo-conservative one ».

This opinion is obviously shared by Charles Krauthammer for whom « the war in Iraq is being fought to replace the demonic deal America cut with the Arab world decades ago. That deal said: you will send us oil and we will not intervene in your internal affairs ». That deal effectively expired on September 11, 2001, Krauthammer says. Since that day, the Americans have understood that “if they allow the Arab world to proceed in its evil ways – suppression, economic ruin, sowing despair – it will continue to produce more and more bin Ladens”. America thus reached the conclusion that it has no choice: it has to take on itself the project of rebuilding the Arab world. Therefore, the Iraq war « is really the beginning of a gigantic historical experiment whose purpose is to do in the Arab world what was done in Germany and Japan after World War II ».

The article ends with a slightly divergent opinion expressed by Thomas Friedman, The New York Times columnist, who is not part of the group, although he didn’t oppose the war and was convinced that « the status quo in the Middle East is no longer acceptable. The status quo is terminal. And therefore it is urgent to foment a reform in the Arab world ». Friedman thought « it’s the war the neo-conservatives wanted. It’s the war the neo-conservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite (…) I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened ». Still, he was of the opinion that « it’s not some fantasy the neo-conservatives invented. It’s not that 25 people hijacked America. You don’t take such a great nation into such a great adventure with Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard and another five or six influential columnists. In the final analysis, what fomented the war is America’s over-reaction to September 11; the genuine sense of anxiety that spread in America after September 11. It is not only the neo-conservatives who led us to the outskirts of Baghdad. What led us to the outskirts of Baghdad is a very American combination of anxiety and hubris ».

Echoeing Ari Shavit, Stephen Green affirms (17) that since 9-11, a small group of neo-conservatives –many of whom are senior officials in the Defense Department, National Security Council and Office of the Vice President– have effectively gutted–they would say reformed–traditional American foreign and security policy. After reviewing the internal security backgrounds of some of the best known among them, he concludes that they had dual agendas, while professing to work for the internal security of the United States against its terrorist enemies.

Bill Christison (18) and Kathleen Christison reach the same conclusion (19). They say that since the long-forgotten days when the State Department’s Middle East policy was run by a group of so-called Arabists, U.S. policy on Israel and the Arab world “has increasingly become the purview of officials well known for tilting toward Israel”. These people, “who can fairly be called Israeli loyalists, are now at all levels of government, from desk officers at the Defense Department to the deputy secretary level at both State and Defense, as well as on the National Security Council staff and in the vice president’s office”.

An examination of the cast of characters in Bush administration policymaking circles, they say, reveals a “startlingly pervasive network of pro-Israel activists, and an examination of the neo-cons’ voluminous written record shows that Israel comes up constantly as a neo-con reference point, always mentioned with the United States as the beneficiary of a recommended policy, always linked with the United States when national interests are at issue”.

The two authors point out to a telling example of the drafting by Feith, Perle, and both David and Meyrav Wurmser of a policy paper issued, in 1996, by an Israeli think tank and written for newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Through this document, they urged Israel “to make a ‘clean break’ from pursuit of the peace process, particularly its land-for-peace aspects, which the authors regarded as a prescription for Israel’s annihilation”.

The document’s authors saw the principal threat to Israel coming, we should not be surprised to discover now, from Iraq and Syria and advised that focusing on the removal of Saddam Hussein would kill two birds with one stone by also thwarting Syria’s regional ambitions.

According to the Christisons, Elliott Abrams is “another unabashed supporter of the Israeli right, now bringing his links with Israel into the service of U.S”, after his appointment as Middle East director on the NSC staff.

Interestingly enough, the Christisons were of the view that the dual loyalists in the Bush administration “have given added impetus to the growth of a messianic strain of Christian fundamentalism that has allied itself with Israel in preparation for the so-called End of Days”. These crazed fundamentalists, they say, see Israel’s domination over all of Palestine as a “necessary step toward fulfillment of the biblical Millennium, consider any Israeli relinquishment of territory in Palestine as a sacrilege, and view warfare between Jews and Arabs as a divinely ordained prelude to Armageddon”, which raises the horrifying but very real prospect of an apocalyptic Christian-Islamic war”.

Writing a commentary in a recent issue of Foreign Policy magazine (20), Elliott Abrams –in his capacity as a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relation-, predicts that “even in the best-case scenario, with the Islamic State defeated and losing its control over a “state,” it may continue to exist as a terrorist group — and in any event al Qaeda and other jihadi groups will not disappear”. This, he concludes, “will not end our involvement in Middle East conflicts and may in fact lead it to increase. There will be no repeat of the Iraq wars, with vast American armies on the ground, but there will need to be a long continuation of the sort of commitment we see today”.

As is explained by Alison Weir in her book (21), « Few Americans today are aware that US support enabled the creation of modern Israel. Even fewer know that US politicians pushed

this policy over the forceful objections of top diplomatic and military experts ». Prodigiously documented, this book brings together « meticulously sourced evidence to illuminate a reality that differs starkly from the prevailing narrative. It provides a clear view of the history that is key to understanding one of the most critically important political issues of our day ».

All of the above fits perfectly with the thesis of the “New Sykes-Picot” that I develop in my book.

In conclusion, I believe I can assert that if Men are the main driving force of the events that make world history, they are certainly not the movers and shakers of its destiny. This -as the great Algerian thinker Malek Bennabi wrote in the past century in his flagship book “l’Afro-asiatisme” (22) – is realized “in spite of the will of men (for) human reason would be futile if it did not coincide with the processes of facts that impose God’s will on History. And it would be sacrilegious if it wanted to deflect the course of history as if it wanted to oppose God’s will and purposes”.

* *
*

Notes:

[1] Algerian researcher in international relations, author of the book « L’Orient et l’Occident à l’heure d’un nouveau Sykes-Picot » (“The Orient and the Occident in time of a new Sykes-Picot”), Editions Alem El Afkar, Algiers, 2014.  He is a fervent advocate of the henceforth vital “dialogue of civilizations”, the alternative option of which in today’s increasingly globalized and polarized world, is a catastrophic “clash of civilizations.
[2] “A future worth creating: Interview with Dr. Thomas Barnett“:
Http://www.checkpoint-online.ch/CheckPoint/Forum/For0078-InterviewBarnett.html
[3] Downloadable free of charge, in French and Arabic languages, by clicking on the following links: Http://www.mezghana.net/amir-nour.pdf  and
Http://www.mezghana.net/Sykes-Picot.jadeed-REAL.LAST.pdf
[4] Read the presentation made by l’Observatoire européen des think tanks:
Http://www.oftt.eu/think-tanks/monographs/article/pnac-project-for-the-new-american-century
[5] Robert Cooper “The Breaking of Nations: Order and chaos in the twenty-first century“, Atlantic Monthly Press, New York, 2003.
[6] Read the article in the French newspaper Le Monde of 01/02/2006 entitled ” L’Amérique doit conduire le monde, selon Bush» (America must lead the world, according to Bush).
[7] This episode is superbly analyzed by Hardeep Singh Puri, Permanent Representative of India in Geneva and New York (between 2002 and 2013) in his book “Perilous Interventions: the Security Council and the Politics of chaos“, Harper Collins, 2016.
[8] John Bolton, “Surrender is not an option: Defending America at the United Nations and abroad“, Threshold Editions, 2008.
[9] Robert Kagan, “The World America made“, Alfred A. Knopf, 2012.
[10] Pepe Ecsobar, “Will Andrew Jackson Trump Embody the Benno doctrine” Entelekheia, March 21, 2017.
[11] A four part analysis titled “The history of the Neocon takeover of America “, the Francophone Saker, 10 May 2017.
[12] “War and Peace in the global Village“, Bantam Books, New York, 1967.
[13] Read “Les coups tordus de l’Empire“, in the French magazine “Réfléchir et agir”, No. 40, Winter 2012.
[14] According to a readjustment of the boundaries of the Islamic geographical area imagined by Ralph Peters, member of the PNAC, in an article in the military journal Armed Forces newspaper of June 2006 entitled “How a better Middle East would look“.
[15] In “L’Iran, un pays en sursis “, French magazine ‘Nexus 66’, January-February 2010.
[16] See article « White Man’s Burden », Haaretz newspaper, April 3, 2003.
[17] See Stephen Green, « Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush Administration », Counterpunch, February 28, 2004.
[18] Bill Christison was a senior official of the CIA. He served as a National Intelligence Officer and as Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis.
[19] See « The Bush Neocons and Israel », Counterpunch, September 6, 2004.
[20] See « The United States Can’t Retreat From the Middle East », Foreign Policy magazine, July 10, 2017.
[21] Alison Weir, « Against Our Better Judgment: The hidden history of how the United States was used to create Israel », CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, February 2014.
[22] Malek Bennabi, «L’Afro-Asiatisme, conclusions sur la Conférence de Bandoeng », Cairo, Imprimerie Misr S.A.E, 1956.

%d bloggers like this: