Anyone who followed the three US Presidential debates (Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney) and the VP Debate (Ryan Paul Vs Joe Biden) may have noticed something I noticed in the last Presidential debate. While it was meant to be a debate on Foreign Policy, both Presidential Candidates seemed more comfortable with ‘taking’ the debate back home to domestic discussions. This may seem unusual to those who expected to hear the candidates thrill viewers and the electorate with their policies for the next four years, but the reality is that it is far from being unusual given the recent state of US foreign policy. Two things could be deduced from the debate
First, some of the US electorate are not interested in what the foreign policy of their presidents are, hence to convince the undecided voters, attention had to be drawn constantly to domestic policy.
Secondly, the candidates really had nothing to sell in terms of foreign policy.
In fact for the most part, both Obama and Romney were in agreement on almost every aspect of US Foreign policy – from Iraq, to Libya, to Afghanistan, Pakistan, China and Iran. The only notable difference was that while Obama thought he was doing enough and needed to sustain that (something which Republican Former Secretary of State Colin Powell agrees with), Romney thought there was need to go much further. They differed therefore only on the intensity of sanctions, the time frame for troop-withdrawals and the manner of interventions. However, whether Romney is a ‘whopper’ or not, is really of no consequence but I daresay that for him to have tagged Obama’s Middle East visit an ‘Apology tour’ means he may not be realising the changing tide of US Foreign Policy. This should not be surprising since the current policy is largely due to lessons learned from the mistakes created by people who thought like Romney.
The lessons from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and even Syria are enough to make any US president think twice before talking as if declaring war on the first provocation, or carrying out an outright intervention, or even challenging China is fashionable. The laid-back attitude of the USA is one that therefore makes one wonder if they will soon be reconsidering isolationism or if they are simply adopting a new strategy.
Lessons From Afghanistan…
Upon the ousting of the USSR from Afghanistan in 1979, the USA thought they had scored a major victory and surely there would have been pats on backs when the USSR finally collapsed 10 years later. But just about 11 years after the collapse of the USSR, the biggest attack on American soil in recent memory took place and is largely acclaimed to have been hatched in Afghanistan. Some may therefore wonder if it would have been better if the USSR had stayed on in Afghanistan. Without thinking, Bush went on to declare war against the Taliban – a war that has not only consumed great numbers of US and NATO troops but one that has decimated large civilian populations in both Afghanistan and Pakistan and keeps terrorising people through incessant drone attacks. Most significant to this is the fact that the 2014 deadline for withdrawal does not signal victory for the USA and her allies. A lesson must surely have been learned.
Iraq: Anything to Learn?
Iran is considered today to be a serious threat to the USA and Israel especially if they succeed in getting a nuclear weapon. In the 1980’s this same Iran was caught in a long-drawn war with Iraq, a war that ended in what can be termed an ‘uneasy understanding’ between the two countries. In 1990/91, Operation Desert Storm against Iraq weakened the country considerably, and in 2003, the invasion by George W. Bush, which led to the killing of Saddam Hussein threw the country in to complete chaos and created a power vacuum, one that is quickly being filled by Iran, especially given the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. The US withdrew without achieving anything positive both for them and the Iraqis by the intervention. A lesson was surely learned.
Paying a New Price in Libya – Lesson for Syria?
The above two cases may have sent a warning note to the US about interfering too much, hence, when it got to Libya, they took a passive position initially and left France and the UK to take the lead. When it became very tough for NATO and the war was dragging on more than anticipated, the US had to come in, or fallout with her European allies. They did and killed Gaddafi and a puppet regime was installed. Less than a year later, on the anniversary of 9/11, the US again paid a big price. While the UK ambassador was earlier targeted, he was luckier than his US counterpart. Unfortunately, there is no one in Libya for the USA to go after directly, so the withdrawal attitude this time was to divert the cause of the attack to religious fundamentalism.
In the light of this, it is not surprising therefore that the USA has been taking a different attitude towards Syria. Though out-rightly seeking the overthrow of Al Assad, supporting rebel factions and admitting it will be a blow if Al Assad does not fall eventually, they have been reluctant to push enough to get full scale Libya-style ‘humanitarian’ intervention. No matter how Syria plays out in the end therefore, the US will not be able to claim any direct role in its outcome. Hence, if it turns out sour, they will not be responsible, though that will mean Iran’s influence will extend to the Mediterranean. But if it turns out the way the US wants, their objective of isolating Iran will have been realised. The long and short of all this is that the USA is gradually slowing down on its role as the self-acclaimed policeman of the world.
Isolationism – Maybe Not
From George Washington’s farewell speech, to the First World War, the USA showed great reluctance to becoming involved in European alliances and wars. Their policy of Isolationism is based on the view that America’s perspective on the world was different from that of European societies and that America could advance the cause of freedom and democracy by means other than war. This worked well until their brief involvement in WW I against the Central Powers. Their later rejection of the Treaty of Versailles and consequently never becoming a member of the League of Nations, meant that the interwar years was a quick return to isolationism. However, it is worthy of mention that US isolationism did not mean complete disengagement from the world stage. The United States continued to be a world player and to further its territorial, ideological and economic interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere.
Coming into WW II in 1940 against Germany and Japan in 1941, seemed to have been the final blow to Isolationism, especially with the USA actively participating in the formation of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The post war Marshal Plan and the onslaught of the Cold War meant the USA had reached the point of no return – at least until events of the last decade and most importantly, the last few years.
But is the USA again going to isolationism? I really think not. The reason is simple – while the US Presidential candidates discussed different aspects of Foreign Policy, there was no direct mention of their active role in Africa, (except the moments when Romney mentioned Mali and Libya as parts of happenings in the Middle East).
Africa – Integral Part of a New Strategy?
The non-mention of Africa is no ordinary omission given that just last year President Obama deployed 100 U.S. troops to Uganda to conduct a search for Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army in what I questioned whether it was a mission of Liberation or Reconolisation. If that question seemed out of place then, it may not anymore given that the Army Times news service recently stated that the U.S. plans to deploy more than 3,000 soldiers to Africa in 2013.
It is therefore obvious that the US is not really thinking of Isolationism in the pre-1940 style, because, while they may have been taking a back seat attitude following recent losses and setbacks especially in the Middle East, their attitude in Africa has been one of active colonisation. This is especially when one thinks of operations such as “Cutlass Express”, the naval exercise that focused on fighting piracy in the Somali Basin region; “Africa Endeavor 2012” in Cameroon aimed at coordinating and training military communications and the Battalion Intervention Rapide in the same Cameroon (initially said to be aimed at fighting armed terrorism along the northern borders, but which has effectively become a force stationed in the Naval base of Limbe and was used to help Biya crackdown on protests in 2008 and change the constitution that helped him hold on to power)
Others such as the “Southern Accord 12” in Botswana aimed at establishing a military working relationship between southern African military forces and the U.S, and the “Western Accord 2012” in Senegal that involved every type of military operation from fire exercises, intelligence gathering to combat marksmanship inter alia, really puts to rest any speculations that the USA is adopting any form of isolationism soon.
Since Africa was obviously the ‘elephant in the room’ during the debate, it therefore, makes one wonder what the new strategy is. Whatever it is, it is one that has this attitude of staying in the shadows and masquerading under the pretext of alliances. But if they are real strategic alliances that stand to benefit both the US and Africa, then would it have been so conspicuously absent from a debate on Foreign Policy? Or was it – maybe not really, especially when one considers that statements like ‘I will go after China’ could only mean making Africa the battleground.
As the saying goes – ‘When two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers’ hence AFRICOM if anything, signals danger for Africa because one cannot help but beg the question as to whose interest such a force stands to serve.
After more than 18 months of belligerent action against the government de jure of the Syrian Arab Republic it is still maintaining relative stability and security. A peaceful resolution however, becomes increasingly illusive while the potentially catastrophic regional and global consequences of the failure to broker a peaceful resolution seem to be a harbinger of a return to global barbarism, anarchy and unspeakable human suffering.
NATOS´s Victory and Teachable Moments i Libya.
In an article, published in Foreign Affairs March/April 2012 edition which was published prior to NATO´s 25th Summit in Chicago, Ivo H. Daalder, the U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO, and James G. Stavridis, Supreme Allied Commander and Commander of the U.S. European Command, gave a a clear indication of what NATO has in mind for Syria.
Daalder and Stavridis described NATO´s Operation Unified Protector in Libya as ” NATO´s Victory in Libya. The Right Way to Run and Intervention” and as “A Teachable Moment“. (1) What was so “teachable” about Libya, and what is “The Right Way to Run an Intervention” ? An analysis of NATO´s post 25th Summit doctrine and the consequences for security and stability in the Middle East points to a two tiered NATO strategy which combines low cost, low intensity, illegitimate warfare with an aggressive nuclear posture. (2)
There are in fact numerous teachable moments in the phenomena that is euphemized under the name “The Arab Spring”: The successful political manipulation of Turkey; The successful implementation of plans developed by the RAND Corporation which already in 1996 advised that Turkey should be governed by Gül in the office of President and R. Tayyip Erdogan in the office of Prime Minister, as a precondition for a successful implementation of a comprehensive solution for the Middle East; The successful transformation of the Turkish High Command from a bastion of secularism into a High Command that would cooperate with Muslim Brothers and Al-Qaeda mercenaries in preparation of the division of both Syria and Turkey along ethnic lines; The successful manufacturing of a crisis as precondition for the successful abuse of a UN Security Council resolution, as a precondition for the successful implementation of regime change.
A UN Security Council resolution is adopted when it has the concurrent vote of all permanent members. However, since resolution #4 (1948) on Spain it has become practice that abstentions are interpreted as a passive or quasi-concurrent vote. This practice implied that the members who propose the resolution are not overstepping the resolutions authorizations to a significant degree.
When Russia and China abstained on UNSC resolution # 1973 (2011) on Libya it was implicitly understood that Russia and China expected that NATO would adhere to the letter of the resolution and not overstep it in any significant degree. It should be added here, that the fact that the UNSC has adopted a resolution does not necessarily make it legitimate.
What Daalder and Stavridis also found “teachable” was that NATO or its allies could disregard the Convention against the Use of Mercenaries and use the Al Qaeda associated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group as infantry, while abusing resolution 1973 to wage an aerial war against the Libyan military.
Special Forces on the ground would function as liaison within a joint command while NATO could enjoy “plausible deniability”. The Libyan government de jure was ousted, the head of state murdered in cold blood, an independent investigation into his death could be prevented, a proxy government could be installed.
It is not surprising that Daalder and Stavridis proclaim a NATO Victory in Libya. From a NATO perspective it was in deed a victory and a teachable moment. It was also a moment that has taught both Russia and China that NATO will abuse an abstention at the Security Council to implement wars of aggression.
The UN Security Council has since been frozen in a deadlock between NATO members on one hand and China and Russia on the other. The deadlock has brought the necessity of structural changes within the United Nations into focus. The United Nations is rapidly loosing its residual credibility and functionality as an instrument for conflict resolution while security and stability in the Middle East are deteriorating. Negotiating a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Syria, for the brewing conflict between NATO, Israel, the GCC member states on one hand, and Iran, Russia, China on the other at the UN seems increasingly implausible, if not impossible.
NATO´s victory in Libya has not only brought about regime change, it has also devastated the countries infrastructure, divided the country along tribal and ethnic lines, resulted in a weak and split national government that is unable to maintain internal as well as external stability and security. What is most worrying about Daalder´s and Stavridis interpretations of Libya as victory and teachable moment is, that it implies that the achievement of the destabilization of Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and subsequently Turkey are likely to be perceived as victories and teachable moments too.
The cost of further NATO victories in terms of regional and global stability and security, in terms of the economies of Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Turkey and the global economy, the cost in terms of a deterioration of international law and a return to barbarism and anarchy in conflict and conflict resolution, and the cost in terms of human suffering are staggering.
Peaceful Resolution of Syria Crisis only Possible with Good Faith.
The primary precondition for a peaceful resolution to the crisis in Syria is that all parties are negotiating and acting in good faith.
An immediate withdrawal of all NATO and GCC member states special forces and other military personnel from Syria is a minimum precondition for showing good faith.
An immediate adherence to the Convention against the Use of Mercenary Forces and other international bodies of law by NATO and GCC member states, Jordan, Lebanon or major political players in Lebanon such as Saad Hariri and Walid Jumblatt, Israel, Libya and any other nation that is currently involved in financing, training, arming or other support of insurgents and the armed opposition.
An immediate establishment of strict controls of refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Particularly the refugee camps in Turkey are being systematically abused to recruit, train, arm and deploy insurgents into Syria. Strict controls would include that entrance into and exit from the camps is strictly monitored by Turkish police or military personnel, eventually with the participation of military observers from one or several non NATO or GCC member states.
The close monitoring of all Syrian borders by neighboring countries military forces to stop the illegal flow of weapons, troops and the deployment of military observers from non NATO, GCC member states.
The blatant violations of international law in particular by Turkey and Jordan, who not only offer their territory for infiltration by foreign fighters, but who actively take part in organizing the subversion, and all logistical and other support of insurgents must halt immediately.
The new joint UN – Arab League envoy Ladhkah Brahmini should be given the full support of all UN member states. His role is, however not likely to be perceived as that of a neutral or fair broker, as long as the Arab League upholds the dispensation of Syria´s membership. Ladhkah Brahmini will be facing an insurmountable challenge as long as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, who together with Iran and Egypt form the Contact Group, are violating international law and sponsoring the insurgency and subversion.
Initiatives by the Arab League to politically, diplomatically, economically and otherwise isolate Syria which are inherently opposed to the Charter of the Arab League and its purported function do not create preconditions for negotiations in good faith. Illegitimate initiatives, such as the one to pressure Arabsat and Nilesat to stop broadcasting Syrian Radio and TV satellite signals in order to facilitate absolute image and media control by nations who are taking part in the attempted subversion must cease. A dialog in good faith is not facilitated by one-sided, strongly biased propaganda. The Organization of the Islamic Conference must recall the dispensation of Syria. The abuse of this organization is dangerous and risks to aggravate a religious dimension of the conflict and to further aggravate the abuse of Sunni – Shia conflicts world wide.
Organizations such as the “Friends of Syria” group, which is a de facto subversive alliance must be abandoned as instruments for finding a resolution to the conflict. The Friends of Syria group is a de-facto cartel of nations who meet to organize systematic violations of international law in an attempt to bring about regime change in Syria.
Iran is to host a conference of 120 nations to work towards a peaceful resolution of the crisis. It is a positive initiative that should be supported, but it is not likely to bring about a peaceful resolution unless Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the U.A.E. will take part in good faith.It is a positive initiative that should be supported, but it risks to further aggravate the conflict unless Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are taking part and are willing to play a constructive role, which is unlikely.
In the absence of NATO and GCC member states, Jordan´s, Israel´s, Libya´s and others good faith in negotiating a peaceful resolution, the Iranian initiative may in fact be part of the only viable alternative. If it is supported by Russia and China it may have a chance to succeed.
The second best solution to an all inclusive solution that embraces the armed political opposition and the nations who are supporting it would be the establishment of a multilateral group that protects Syria from the consequences of a continued aggression.
Such an alternative solution could include the following initiatives:
Countering the consequences of attempts to diplomatically, politically, economically and otherwise isolate the government de jure of Syria by reinforcing diplomatic and political relations, by trade agreements that help alleviate the devastating consequences of sanctions, and to diversify the one sided international discourse about Syria.
Even though political parties in Syria are legitimate, and even though one opposition party is holding a ministerial post in the unity government, there is a lack of party infrastructure that makes opposition parties equal competitors to the Arab Socialist Baath Party. Selective support of the one or the other political party at building a party infrastructure can be problematic and invites unwarranted foreign interference.
A model for developing a democratic culture and multi-party infrastructure projects could facilitate a pluralistic political process which could to remedy the consequences of decades of government under emergency laws.
When organizing those projects, it must be taken into consideration that Syria, because of its de-facto state of war with Israel has had heightened security needs which have not decreased since the onset of the attempted subversion. As a long term strategy of delegating political influence and responsibilities to multiple political parties is the best strategy to discourage from attempts to use violence and for strengthening national coherence.
In the case that the UN fails as an instrument to safeguard the national sovereignty and security of Syria while the subversive alliance continues the illegitimate support of armed insurgents, it must be considered to add a military dimension to finding a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
The government de jure of the Syrian Arab Republic has the right to sign treaties with friendly, non hostile nations and deploy foreign military troops on Syrian territory. Failure by Turkey and Jordan to secure that insurgents are not using their territories as bases of operations for transgressions in Syria could be countered by the deployment of international troops along the borders to help repel insurgents. Further failure of Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, as well as NATO member states to halt the illegitimate support could warrant diplomatic and other sanctions.
Sadly, in the light of sustained aggression, the most viable way to secure peace and stability is to aid Syria by establishing diplomatic, political, economical and military credibility against a foreign aggression.
At closing this article, I would like to reiterate that war crimes will be committed as long as they can be committed with utter impunity. The current state of affairs, where NATO and allied nations instrumentalize the ICC and special tribunals for political show trials and victors justice, with an ICC that in and on itself has no legitimacy in international law on one hand, and a Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal that has no other than moral authority, it is unlikely that the international regression into barbarism can be halted.
Those nations who wish to facilitate a peaceful resolution of the crisis in Syria and who want to prevent future aggressions, would be well advised to establish international jurisdiction for the most serious crimes to limit war criminals ability to act with impunity.
The systematic Manufacturing of War, challenging Russia and China in Race for either Global Full Spectrum Dominance or Global Full Spectrum Devastation. A Comprehensive Analysis.
One cannot emphasize it often enough. Both the crisis in Syria, the crisis between West and East over Syria, and the explosive Iran nuclear debates are symptoms of a long-planned, cynically and systematically implemented US/NATO war plan against Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Russia, and ultimately China. In the light of the tense and confrontational atmosphere between NATO/GCC, Syria, Iran, Russia and China, and before analyzing the latest evolutions of the crisis over Syria, it is incumbent to take a few steps step back. Without an understanding of the genesis of what is rapidly developing towards a serious threat of a global war it is unlikely that the warranted diplomatic as well as popular actions are taken.
Genesis – Pax Americana – The Race for Global Full Spectrum Dominance.
When Russia´s Chief of Staff states that Russia will reserve itself the right to a first strike against the recently activated NATO missile defense shield it is not a prop from the requisites of the Russian diplomatic box of tricks, used with the purpose to achieve the one or the other trade benefit, the relief of sanctions against an allied Iran or any other demand. It is a clear and unequivocal demand for guaranties for the safety of Russia and it´s allies. (1) It is a demand from a Russia that has been under threat ever since the discontinuation of the USSR, and the subsequent US and NATO demand for a Pax Americana and Global Full Spectrum Dominance. The reason why many Westerners have not perceived the fact that Russia has been threatened is, because the transgressions against Russian security have largely been marketed as initiatives for peace and cooperation, or defense against terrorism and rogue states, and who could be against terrorism and rogue states. One can not emphasize the importance of Vladimir Putin´s speech at the International Security Conference in Munich in 2007 enough, as a basis for understanding that NATO systematically, cynically and willfully has committed the one foreign affairs, domestic affairs, economic, as well as geo-political, security and military transgression against Russia after the other. Often under the guise of free trade, of a supposed “Partnership for Peace”, war on terrorism, human rights, and democracy.(2)
That the expansionism and threatening posture was not only designed to impress Russia, but that it would be scrupulously used by both the US and NATO, including Germany, that the alliance would not be shying away from manufacturing covert, and initiating over military aggressions in nations that are allied to Russia or that provide geo-political advantages for Russia or China has become evident since the war on Yugoslavia. A war that has been sold to the Western Public as a war for human rights, freedom and democracy.
Yugoslavia: A Missile for China and a Finger for Russia – China, one may recall, has gotten a warning shot straight into it´s Belgrade Embassy. The signal was clear. “Do not harbor the President of a Sovereign Nation who is on our death list and do not dare to interfere when we wage war“. The Chinese Embassy in Belgrade was hit by a cruise missile in an attempt to “decapitate” the Yugoslavian “regime“. (3)
The fact that NATO warfare doctrine for establishing the Pax Americana would be based on using the guise of human rights, of constructing false reports of massacres, or even committing massacres that are blamed on the targeted nations government and of political show trials at the ICC became obvious with the charade of a trial against former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic. Since his trial threatened to turn into a public relations disaster for NATO, of course, President Milosevic conveniently died while in captivity in The Hague, and after vain Russian protests against his treatment and trial.
Subsequently to the successful “Balkanization” of Yugoslavia, NATO is now occupying Kosovo, where it facilitated the establishment of a de-facto, according to international law highly questionable new state. Regular Russian protests but even more regular human rights abuses and violence against the civilian Serb population in Kosovo, like the issuing of shoot-to-kill orders against civilian protesters, (4 ) or the harassment of humanitarian aid convoys (5 ) are falling on deaf ears in NATO member states. Complicit or should we say co-opted Western Main Stream Media cover it up. After all, when the Pentagon invests millions in the BBC and other strategic media, one must expect results for the money. All is neatly following the D.o.D´s Information Operations Road-map from 2003. (6). The fact that absolute image and media control is part of NATO doctrine will be clarified more detailed below.
A War of Terror – Afghanistan, US/NATO Presence at all Russian and Chinese Borders in the Greater Middle East.
A classical NATO strategy is to use mercenary armies ad hoc as respectively allied, as enemy or both. The then Bin Laden led Al-Qaeda was the ally in the war on the USSR in Afghanistan, in fact, so he claims, it was a creation of Zbigniev Brzezinski. The same Al-Qaeda was a useful ally in the war on Yugoslavia, later on Serbia and Serbians in Bosnia as well as Kosovo. 2001 and post the attacks on US targets on 11 September 2001, Al Qaeda became the enemy. The enemy that facilitated a US/NATO invasion of Afghanistan. While the US and NATO already were present in most of the former Soviet Republics along the Chinese and Russian borders in the Wider Middle East, it´s presence in Afghanistan and de facto in Pakistan literally encircled one of Russia´s and China´s most important regional allies, Iran. The encirclement became almost complete after the war on Iraq.
A decade-long diplomatic war of attrition against Iran, accompanied by sanctions and Israeli threats of Mad Max Military Intervention has culminated in what can only be described as diplomatic stalemate. After the recent nuclear talks, the next round is due to be held in Moscow soon. The talks will be held within a climate where all present will know that all that so far has prevented a NATO attack on Iran is that the NATO equation about the prior destabilization of Syria and Lebanon has become one year delayed. A decision to wage the war on Syria, Lebanon and Iran has long been made, and is being systematically implemented. (7 )
Why the War on Iraq matters today.
Rather than analyzing the situation pertaining Syria isolated, it should by now have become evident that it is necessary to analyze the post-soviet geo-political developments as one constantly evolving crisis with its current epicenter being Syria. The relevance of Iraq today is not so much the fact that NATO and allies are capable of committing war-crimes with impunity, murdering millions of Iraqi citizens. Creating a radiation public health disaster of unprecedented scale that can be described as genocidal. The most important factors to be taken into account with the current or acute status of the developing crisis are:
US perception of Arab States as not being covered by the provisions of the Treaty of Westphalia. Arab states, argues Henry Kissinger in an article (8) that was deconstructed by an article of this author (9 ), that Muslim Middle Eastern nations do not enjoy the protection under the principles of the Treaty of Westphalia which prohibits the interference into other nations internal affairs. This, Kissinger argues, is valid because only three of the Middle Eastern Muslim nations, Iran, Egypt and Turkey, have a historical existence. The others, so Kissinger argues, are more or less arbitrary creations of colonial powers. Kissinger´s argument is historically invalid, it also contradicts his stance with respect to Israel, but more importantly, it is symptomatic for and illustrates the arrogance, disrespect and masters modo-colonialist attitude and outlook of the United States and NATO on foreign affairs. ( Modo-Colonialism, Contemporary Colonialism. Edt.)
US Negotiation Strategy and Sanctions, A Precursor for Disaster.
Prior to the onset of the “kinetic” war on Iraq it has been made subject to devastating and murderous sanctions based on purported “Weapons of Mass Destruction” which of course were never found. Standard US-negotiation strategy is that purported negotiations are consequently accompanied by UN-fulfillable demands such as the demand to provide evidence that one does not have these or those weapons or other demands to provide “negative evidence” without clearly stating under what precise conditions sanctions will be lifted. These negotiations are usually a precursor for military action being taken. The fact that the USA and NATO today are making use of precisely the same strategy on Iran is most likely a precursor of military action against Iran. The details are described in the article “Iran Nuclear talks: Explosive Issues Amidst Burning Middle East”. ( 10)
Overt Murder of Heads of State. Iraq also matters today because even though it was not the first incident, it was this centuries and the post-cold-war era´s first overt murder of a sovereign nations head of state, and as we will see, it has created precedence for further murders of heads of state. A show trial and an execution by hanging that was made into a public execution because of a video that “accidentally was taken and released”, was televised world wide. The message was “ either you are with us, or we become the terrorists that kill you“. A head of state is murdered with utter and absolute impunity. This practice would later, in 2011, be used against Muammar Ghadafi, although in a slightly different variant. Today Pentagon and NATO war planners speak of the possible decapitation of the Syrian government. The difference today is that Syria has the support of Russia, so a decapitation or military action would have potentially catastrophic consequences, which will be looked at below.
Weapons of Mass Destruction. Iraq also matters today because it provides precedence for a war that is based on lies pertaining weapons of mass destruction. The same strategy has been attempted with respect to Syria. So far it has not been successful but the attempt was made. The campaign about purported human rights violations, war crimes, and other purported outrages by the Syrian government however, has been extremely successful. The success of this strategy, which is designed for creating a pretext for invasion on the grounds of “the responsibility to protect” is mainly based on the complicity of mass media as well as systematic war crimes and massacres committed by NATO/GCC and allied forces, being blamed on the Syrian Government.
Libya and The 25th NATO Summit in Chicago – The New NATO Doctrine and the Threat to Global Security. During Putin´s visit to Copenhagen, the outrage of the then Russian P.M. Putin over the NATO/GCC alliance´s criminal abuse of UNSC Resolution 1973-2011 on Libya (11) was palpable, when Putin met former Danish P.M. Lars Løkke Rasmussen in Copenhagen.
The fact that Putin has a KGB background and that he must have been aware of the fact that Lars Løkke Rasmussen during the 80s strongly supported the Taliban and most likely Al Qaeda in Afghanistan has probably contributed to that outrage. (12 ) As detailed in an article by the author about the 25Th NATO Summit in Chicago ( 13 ) , however, NATO did not only declare that it´s missile shield was brought on-line. What NATO declared during the Chicago Summit, and which was further manifested in an article by Daalder and Stavridis, (14 ) was that Libya-Style interventions now had officially become part of NATO´s new doctrine.
In their article Foreign Affairs, Daalder and Stavridis are calling the intervention in Libya a model intervention for future interventions.(ibid.) In other words, the use of terrorists and mercenary forces, the murder of a head of state are a teachable moment. They are calling the bombing of civilian infrastructure, the destruction of the man made river project, the use of cluster bombs in densely populated areas in Brega (15 ) and the use of fuel air bombs against civilians in Bani Walid, the bombing of civilians in Sirte including the bombing of the hospital, which according to an eyewitness known to the author caused over one thousand casualties in two days for “ a successful air-campaign of unprecedented precision“.
NATO, including Daalder and Stavridis have the audacity of calling the massacres on tens of thousands of Black African Migrant Workers, and tens of thousands of Black Libyans, (16) the slaughter of over 10.000 Tawergha, the utter wiping out of the city from existence and the internal displacement of the survivors,(17) as “teachable moment and model for future interventions”.
What NATO´s “Teachable Moment” teaches the World. The “teachable” part of NATO´s audacity is that Russia, China, Syria, Iran, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the DPR Korea, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and every other nation worldwide who oppose NATO´s ambition for Global Full Spectrum Dominance is, that NATO´s Operation Unified Protector in Libya has taught the world that NATO stops at nothing. NATO revealed that it creates the humanitarian crisis it needs to plead at the UNSC for intervention under the pretext of the “responsibility to protect“. It abuses the UNSC when it can get away with it. It cooperates with mercenaries including Al Qaeda, Muslim Brothers, CIA Imported Taliban Fighters, like the 1.500 fighters from Mazar e-Sharif which the CIA flow in to Libya after the Libyan military had inflicted heavy losses on NATO´s rak tag rebels. (18).
NATO shies no massacres, no genocide, respects no law, provides itself and its political and military leadership impunity while conducting fraudulent show trials at the ICC, like the trial against the purported murderers of Rafiq Hariri, and that even though a secretly recorded audiotape, published on nsnbc clearly proves that Saad Hariri is buying witnesses. But then, Saad Hariri also sponsors the “Free Syrian Army, so such slight mistakes are covered up at the ICC. (19) That´s what friends are for.
NATO does not shy from provoking a thermo-nuclear war on Iran and Russia. A thermo-nuclear war in which NATO assumes, that its missile defense against Iran, which is directed against Russia, provides them a first strike capability. A capability that they assume, will prevent an organized, full scale retaliation from Russia. In other words, NATO also does not shy from making the sacrifice of millions of NATO member states citizens whom they are claiming to protect. (20) The fact that the USA is fully capable at murdering millions of innocent civilians in unprotected cities in a nuclear holocaust has been demonstrated sufficiently in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Finally, when analyzing Libya, it is necessary to understand that the war on Libya was ultimately directed against Russia and China (21), that Russia and China already on 24 October 2011 saw it incumbent to put their armed forces on highest alert, (22 ) and that Russia has clearly drawn a line in the Syrian Sand already in September 2011, when it became evident that the Syrian unrests were products of a blatant and relentless NATO Unconventional War. An attempted subversion whose managers would not want to achieve less than the absolute destabilization of Syria for decades and regime change in a country that is one of the most long standing Russian allies and the sole Russian ally that provides Russia a base in the Mediterranean.(23 )
It became evident that Russia neither would allow, nor could afford another Yugoslavia-Style loss of a long standing and close ally and strategic partner. Considerations about Russia´s security forced Russia to draw a sharp line. Clearly, Russia can not rely on further promises and assurances by NATO. NATO has been trying to make the best possible use of this Russian position. It is a position where Russia is is under extreme political and strategic pressure and cornered. The question is, when will the peaceful bear have to lash out, not to be munched up by the terriers. After the disaster of the Jeltsin and the ambivalence and placidity of the Medvedjev Presidency, it has only just begun being able to reassert it´s geo-political position. (24)
Down to the Dirty Details before Analyzing the Latest Evolution of the Crisis and Proposing Realistic and Peaceful Solutions.
In fact, the world has not been as close to the onset of a high intensity stage of the ongoing World War III, including the risk of the use of thermo-nuclear weapons since the Cuban Missile Crisis. It is therefore, that it is absolutely necessary to have a critical look at the details. It is the “Dirty Details” that facilitate a comprehensive understanding of scope of the audacity and severity of the situation. It is also by acquiring a detailed and comprehensive understanding of the “Dirty Details” that it is possible to develop realistic proposals of solutions that could defuse the situation and hopefully create the basis for realistic, peaceful solutions.
UN – Co-Opted by NATO. UN-FAIR-UN-JUST-UN-SPEAKABLE-UN-DENIABLE-UN-FORGIVABLE-UN-DONE.
With the ratification of the UN/NATO Joint Declaration from 2008 (25), which was kept secret and from public scrutiny as long as possible, the United Nations became a de facto instrument of US-Foreign Policy. Simultaneously NATO became the de facto leading military force of the United Nations. Based on the argument that NATO is uniquely able to rapidly deploy forces, globally, within a joint command structure and joint weapons systems down to the caliber and so forth, NATO has been declared as the World Police Force. No other major power of global reach, like China or Russia, so NATO states, have the same unique capabilities to rapidly establish international forces at “trouble spots“. The reality behind this euphemistic sales pitch is, that NATO creates a humanitarian crisis in Syria, pushes for intervention on the grounds of the United Nations responsibility to protect, and naturally NATO is the sole power that has the unique capability to conquer the world in precisely that manner. NATO´s problem today is, that Russia and China are not buying the sales pitch any more. Latest since Libya that Little Dirty Trick has become too obvious.The result is that the UN-Security Council has utterly lost it´s functionality.Moreover, the United Nations has utterly lost it´s credibility as honest broker and international guardian of peace.
NATO Special Forces / Al Qaeda / Muslim Brotherhood – Joint Command Structure and Logistics.
Late August 2011 a high-ranking officer with the U.S. Special Forces at Ft.Bragg, North Carolina turned whistle-blower. The officer reported to the author, that US Special forces have been actively preparing for and actively begun implementing a war on Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and ultimately Russia.(26) The officer also reported and provided indisputable evidence for the author that US Special Forces were training mercenaries that belong to Al Qaeda associated forces, Muslim Brotherhood, and others. Special Forces took active part in combat in Syria, had a joint command and logistics structure with the terrorists, and were based in NATO bases in Turkey. Furthermore the officer provided a copy of a Special Forces Training Circular, TC 18-01, which is being used to train foreign fighters in systematically bringing about the subversion of Syria (or any other targeted nation) in a structured and coordinated manner, together with, supported and supervised by, and with the active participation of US Special Forces, agents of the D.I.A., NATO Intelligence, as well as non-military organizations such as the National Council of Syria, Human Rights Organizations and so forth.
The Training Circular TC 18-01 is published in its entirety on nsnbc. Reading it reveals the military logic behind what, which otherwise may seem like a chaotic situation in Syria. (27) Only months after the author published the statement of the S.F. whistle-blower, a senior Whitehall official made it public, that British, Turkish, and as he said “probably also US” special forces were operating in Syria. (28) At that time however, the “revelation” was already part of a careful preparation of Western populations to accept that the illegal deployment of Special Forces, a war crime, had to be committed in the name of human rights and democracy.
Al Qaeda – State Sponsored Terrorism NATO´s and the GCC´s Weapon of Choice.The Director of the Canadian Center for Research on Globalization (29), professor Michel Chossudovsky, compares the NATO/GCC-Strategy that is being used against Iraq, and which is now used against Syria with the Reagan Administrations El-Salvador Death Squads strategy. (30) In an earlier article the author of this article compared the strategy used against Syria with a “Modified Chechnyan Model“. (31)As it transpired, both comparisons are quite correct and should once and for all have discredited the narrative about a genuine political opposition that took up arms in Syria, had it not be for a criminally complicit and co-opted Western Media. Media complicity will be looked upon below.
Saudi Arabia´s Omar Brigade. In September 2011 Russian and Syrian Intelligence Services reported that they had analyzed what they called “Internet Chatter” that strongly indicated that the Saudi Arabia based Al Qaeda unit Omar Brigade (32) which is under the command of the Saudi Arabian Minister of the Interior and widely recognized as Al Qaeda´s assassination and bomb expert brigade, had been deployed from Saudi Arabia to Syria. (ibid.) Saudi Arabia is, together with Qatar, consequently channeling vast amounts of money as well a weapons to it´s Al Qaeda brigades in Syria. (33) Al Qaeda brigades which of course are fighting under the euphemistic name “Free Syrian Army” . At other times, when opportune with respect to the Media and Diplomatic War they are off course called Al Qaeda. More precisely that is, when it is opportune to argue that the security of the population of Syria is so endangered by “terrorism” that a “UN/NATO” intervention is warranted for.
The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, (LIFG). The Al Qaeda brigade “The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, LIFG” under the command of Abdelhakim Belhadj is fighting with at least 18.000 fighters in Syria under the name of “Free Syrian Army“. The 18.000 Al Qaeda fighters under the command of Belhadj are mainly deployed in the Jordanian – Syrian border region. (34)
The LIFG has been a major asset in the war on Libya and has since changed its name to “Tripoli Military Council“. Its commander, Abdelhakim Belhadj is a veteran NATO and MI6 double agent. His register of crimes published in an article by the author from 2011 (35) could today be vastly extended. The former Spanish P.M. Aznar and Spanish intelligence services accuse him of having masterminded the Madrid Train Bombings that killed numerous commuters, and which resulted in Spain´s military contribution to NATO´s “war on terror” in Afghanistan. The homicidal variant of the Hegelian Dialectics of Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. Create a Problem, that elicits a predictable Reaction, and offer a predesignated Solution.
Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood – The Turkey/NATO/Al-Qaeda/Hamas/Mossad Joint Venture.
Already August 2011 it was evident that Turkey was harboring, training, arming and financing armed brigades of the Muslim Brotherhood. Special Facilities were established at Turkish NATO bases. US Special Forces participated, supervised, took part in armed transgressions against Syria. (36) According to the US Special Forces Officer referred to earlier in this article, the kidnapping of the Attorney General of Hama, Adnan Bakkur, where helicopter gunships were used by the kidnappers, was supported by US Special Forces. (37) A complicit or co-opted Al Jazeera propagandized Arab and Western populations with a false defection story and a video of Adnan Bakkur that visibly was recorded under duress. (ibid.)
According to a well placed Palestinian Intelligence Source in Turkey, the war on Syria and the co-operation between NATO, Turkey in particular, Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and the Israeli Intelligence Service Mossad have been operational as far back as 2010. According to the intelligence source, the killing of nine Turkish citizens on board the Turkish registered Gaza Freedom Flotilla vessel Mavi Marmara was such a joint operation.The information was published in an article written by Martin Iqbal. (38) Both the Commander of the LIFG, a.k.a. Tripoli Military Council, a.k.a. Free Syrian Army, Abdelhakim Belhadj and his second in command Harati were on board the Mavi Marmara to point out the targeted Turkish Muslim Brothers to the Israeli Forces assassins.
The operation had several utilities. To assassinate influential members of the Turkish Muslim Brotherhood who were opposed to a war on Syria. To boost the waining public support for Turkish P.M. R. Tayyip Erdogan due to the fact that he could publicly blast Israel. The increased public support enabled him to fire some of the most secular Generals of the Turkish High Command.(ibid.)
Hamas, which has it´s historical roots in prominent Muslim Brotherhood families has secretly re-aligned itself with the International, Qatari led, MI6 and BND infiltrated Muslim Brotherhood and away from it´s alliance with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah. The price for Hamas U-Turn and betrayal ? The promise of a “leading role in a Palestinian Springafter the expected fall of the Syrian Government.” One day after the author of this article published this information, Hamas urgently, and opposite to previous promises of solidarity with the Syrian Government, vacated it´s Damascus office.(39)
The Planned War on Lebanon. The Lebanese Jamaa Al Islamiya has made a U-Turn comparable to that of Hamas too. Their U-Turn is one of the reasons for, why the Syrian Conflict could so easily spill over into Lebanon as planned by NATO. Jamaa Al Islamiya realigned itself with the International, Qatar based, NATO allied wing of the Muslim Brotherhood and away from it´s alliance with Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah.(40) The Qatari, Saudi and NATO plan is most likely to isolate Hezbollah politically and militarily and prepare a new 70th-80th style Lebanese Civil War that is meant to last decades. Other main Lebanese facilitators of the war on Syria and the planned Lebanese civil war are the Saudi – Lebanese Saad Hariri and his Future Movement, as well as the Leader of the Lebanese Druze community and Chairman of the Lebanese Progressive Socialist Party Walid Jumblatt. Their involvement in financing and arming the Syrian Insurgency has been documented in a previous article. That includes Jumblatt´s delivery of Israeli weapons via Raphael Industries to the “Free Syrian Army“.(41)
Functions of a Long Planned Regional War and War on Russia and China. It would be possible to continue for hours, listing various different factors that document, that the “Arab Spring” is a long planned, meticulously and relentlessly executed war plan with the following objectives:
To destabilize Syria and Lebanon and to bring about long lasting civil wars that significantly weaken Iran in preparation of an attack on Iran.
To engage Russia in a Middle Eastern Conflict, counting on one of three possibly attainable objectives. These objectives are strategically interchangeable and may be achieved simultaneously. All of them however, aim at engaging Russia directly or indirectly in a regional conflict with global geo-political consequences.
To contain Russian involvement in the Middle Eastern theater due to the threat of NATO´s plausible first strike capability against Russia, thus forcing Russia to surrender it´s strategic allies to NATO and the GCC. Preventing Russia from direct engagement while the NATO,GCC, Israel Coalition destabilizes and brings about regime change in Syria, Lebanon and Iran.
Weakening Russia, and preparing a long, protracted, Chechnya style war of attrition against Russia via a destabilized Iran and Syria. A continued and intensified attempt to destabilize Russia by proxy in Georgia and other former Soviet Republics like Moldavia. Color revolutions in Belarus and other allied nations with the aim to bring about “regime change” in Russia. Denying Russia access to the Mediterranean by destabilizing Syria.
Alternatively to draw Russia into a long, protracted proxy war in Syria, Iran and Lebanon with an Afghanistan like defeat of Russian forces, in preparation of a direct engagement of Russia via Georgia, Azerbaijan, and the region in general.
All of the objectives are pursued with the possibility of initiating what NATO perceives as a plausible nuclear first strike capability against Russia to contain Russian interference into NATO´s Middle Eastern Conquest. The risk of a thermo-nuclear war on Russia is perceived as a calculable risk and plausible, viable possibility, if not as a goal in an on itself.
Considering the recent decades geo-political developments, the coagulation of loose alliances like the BRICS, SCC and ALBA into more solid blocks that counter Western Ambitions of Global Full Spectrum Dominance, a final war against China becomes plausible only, after a military and political defeat of Russia.
Back to the Present. The Importance of Proper Parliamentary Briefings. Based on this background information it becomes possible to begin to comprehend the scope of what otherwise could be perceived as isolated and easily manageable incidents, namely a plausible civil war in Syria and Lebanon, and a plausible protracted war of sanctions and attrition against Iran on nuclear issues, with the perspective of a plausible, limited military strike against Iran by either Israel and/or the NATO/GCC alliance.
Having spoken to numerous European members of parliaments in different European Countries over the course of the last week, it is generally this perception of the situation, as isolated, manageable affairs that is most prevalent.
This mis-perception and mis-evaluation of the crisis is mainly based on the fact that most members of parliaments, in many cases even those who are members of foreign policy committees, either receive their information via co-opted and complicit Main Stream Media, or that they are receiving their information and briefings from national Intelligence Agencies who often use and analyze the same media as source of information. Another aspect is, that many Western Intelligence Services are deeply involved in the ongoing war, and that the information that is passed on to members of parliament is highly filtered.
Turning-Point Al-Houla. Since the appalling massacre in Al-Houla that would have created nation-wide cries of outrage in most Western countries had the truth been truthfully reported in Western Media, the situation in Syria and the evolution of the crisis overall has changed significantly. Sadly the BBC, to mention just one example, refused to take the results of the preliminary investigation into the massacre into account, blamed the Syrian Military, and to add outrage to audacity, published old images from Iraq, claiming the bodies in the images were victims of the Syrian Army. (42)
The Al-Houla Massacre prompted the author to write the article From Sabra and Shatila to Homs and Damascus (43) which is recommended for understanding the scope of the inhumane audacity and appalling nature of the humanitarian situation in Syria.
After having failed to pressure Russia and China into accepting a Libya-Style NATO led military intervention in Syria, it is transpiring clearly, that NATO will no longer hesitate to intervene militarily in Syria and Iran, regardless of a Russian or Chinese veto at the UNSC. A recent article by the author explains the situation. (44)
As previously detailed, however, Russia can not allow itself another Yugoslavia, Serbia Style defeat in Syria or Iran, without seriously and in fact terminally endangering its own security. Emphasis should be put on understanding the fact that a defeat in Syria and Iran “terminally” endangers Russian security. That said and understood, it must transpire with all clarity and in its fullest consequence that Russia has no other option than applying the least possible necessary “forward defense“, preemptive military strikes included if necessary or perceived necessary.
The signals from Russia are not ambivalent and it can not be taken lightly when Vladimir Putin states that a continued violation of international law by NATO and the GCC threatens to unleash a global conflict. The situation has changed too much since his speech at the International Security Conference in Munich 2007 (ibid.) to expect that Russia will continue behave like a hedgehog, tugging in and making itself as small as possible to protect itself for another five or ten years.
Russian Demands for Peace and Stability backed by Military Preparedness. While Russia is forced into a position where it has to assert that it can and will defend itself and its allies when it has to, its demands are as a matter of fact that of moderation and peace, as well as human rights and a continuation of reforms. Before analyzing the Russian proposals however, it is absolutely necessary to understand that a NATO/GCC led war with catastrophic consequences is in the final stages of preparation, and that Russia is preparing to counter such moves. In fact, it is not alarmist to state that the evolving dynamics of the crisis do not render much time before the dynamics in and on themselves make a peaceful resolution impossible. This must be understood with all possible clarity.
Recent Evolution of the Crisis Towards NATO/GCC Intervention in Spite of VETO at UNSC. The aggravation of the crisis is recognizable on the fact that the massacre in Al Houla has been followed by new massacres that the massacres and violence is predominantly initiated and conducted by the “Free Syrian Army” with the intention to create a civil war based on ethnic, religious, and political grounds. The tactic of scourged earth and massacres is used where ever the “Free Syrian Army” has to retreat.
A massive media war has been carefully planned. It´s final stages are expected to be implemented any time of NATO´s convenience. The objective is to bring about a civil war based on political, ethnic and religious grounds, to create confusion, convince the people of Syria that the Government has fled, that massive massacres are being committed by the Syrian Military. NATO pland a massive disinformation campaign to aggravate the crisis in order to chieve the objective to justify NATO military intervention among NATO and GCC member states populations. (45) The genesis of the campaign was the Arab League´s initiative to make Nilesat and Arabsat cease to carry Syrian TV and Radio signals. (46)
For the first time since the onset of the post-cold war era, Russia has demanded that the Collective Security Treaty Organization, CSTO, (47) is preparing it´s forces for a deployment of Blue Barret Troops. It is a sign that Russia is ready and capable of taking on international responsibilities. The posture is also a sign of Russian opposition to NATO´s self-proclaimed special status at the UN, and it is a sign that Russia is ready to oppose a Western military intervention. Russia´s readiness to protect the line it has drawn, and the fact that Russia meant it seriously when it stated that NATO is driving the world towards a nuclear war was underlined by the recent firing of a Bulava missile from a submarine in the Mediterranean. (ibid.)
A 24 hours manned operations room of the Russian Military forces at the Caspian Sea is established to closely monitor the military situation at the Caspian Sea and the Gulf. Navy, Air Force, Infantry and Armored Forces are battle ready. The Russian Mediterranean Navy base in Tartus, Syria is is on heightened alert. Three Russian brigades, including Speznaz, Special Forces and Airborne Divisions are on alert and ready for rapid deployment. The Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Lavrov stated that an unauthorized military intervention against Syria will warrant a Russian response. Iran made it clear that a military intervention in Syria will warrant an Iranian response. Hezbollah is somewhat and surprisingly silent but will have to respond too.
Syrian Reforms and Russian Initiatives towards Peace. First of al it is necessary to emphasize that the Syrian Government has, in spite of the relentless war that is waged against Syria, managed to implement reforms that by far exceed any of the reforms it´s Arab neighbors would badly need.It is by far the most democratic Arab nation.
In spite of the crisis, the emergency laws were lifted. The emergency laws were implemented subsequent to the 1973 war with Israel, and which among other had been maintained because Syria de facto is still in a state of war with Israel, because Israel still occupies the Golan Highs, illegally, and because Syria has been under a constant threat of Israeli insurgencies for decades.
Syria has held a referendum about a new constitution. In spite of the ongoing violence, over 54 % of took part in a referendum, and 89% voted in favor of the new constitution. (48) The constitution is by far the most democratic among all Middle Eastern nations.(49)
Four new political parties have been registered. Parliamentary elections have been held. The message of the people of Syria and the message of the true Syrian opposition parties is clear. Foreign terrorists, foreign Special Forces, foreign mercenaries, get out of Syria and let us continue our reforms. Syria is by far the most democratic, the most liberal of all Arab nations, the one that gives the greatest protection to minorities, secures gender equality, and participatory democracy – much in contrast to the GCC states who are preaching democracy and human rights while beheading their women for sorcery.(and this is not a joke)
Russian Suggestions are Suggestions Towards a Peaceful Settlement of the Dispute. Russian suggestions include that NATO and GCC member states immediately halt their illegal deployment of Special Forces, and an immediate cessation of the arming, financing and other support of foreign and domestic terrorist organizations in Syria. In other words, that NATO and the GCC adheres to international law.As clearly demonstrated above, the violence in Syria will cease when the ongoing and illegal foreign intervention is discontinued. A peaceful solution is not possible while waging war.
Russia suggests that the fraudulent “Friends of Syria” group is discontinued. The group is demonstratively a creation designed with the intent to support the illegal insurgency with political, military and other material support. A peaceful solution is not possible while waging war. Russia suggests that all parties adhere to the Six Point Plan negotiated by Kofi Annan, and that the foreign insurgency ceases to systematically disrupt any attempts of the Syrian Government and Military to adhere to the plan.Russia suggests that the “Friends of Syria” group is substituted by an international ad hoc Contact Group.
In so many words – It Is Either Peace or War. In so many words, what both President Vladimir Putin, Foreign Minister Lavrov, as well as the Syrian Government and all genuine Syrian Political Parties suggest is, that NATO/GCC Coalition withdraws its bloodhounds and weasels, its Belhadj and any other of their professional terrorists and mercenaries. Based on a de-escalation of the conflict it would become evident that the “crisis” is not endemic to Syria but that it has been created by foreign elements and influence. A de-escalation could be monitored by an international Contact Group. Syria could in fact legitimately appeal to Russia for the deployment of Blue Helmets deployed by Russia and/or the CSTO.
A de-escalation, requires nothing but a NATO and a GCC that adheres to international law. The alternative is an escalation of the conflict, which is all to obviously planned, but which consequences should make any Western member of Parliament, every citizen, every military officer stand up and say “enough already“.
The World does not need a World war Three, and it is time to stop it´s evolution.
Briefings. The article is written within the context of parliamentary briefings. Parliamentary Groups, Members of Parliament, Peace Movements, Initiatives world wide are welcome to contact the authos for individual or group briefings on the situation in the Middle East by writing to: email@example.com
After the Arab Leagues discontinuation of it´s mission in Syria, the closure of European and Arab Embassies in Damascus, and the non binding resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, all signals are set “Go” for the War on Syria and Iran. The remaining questions are, what will be the pretext to trigger the transition from the months long covert to an overt war, when will it be initiated, how is it likely to develop, and what will the outcome be.
Diplomacy: The discontinuation of the Arab leagues mission in Syria and the closure of European and Arab Embassies prompted the Russian UN Envoy Vitaly Churkin to interpret them as possible precursors of war. (1) The adoption of a non binding resolution by the United Nations General Assembly on Syria on Thursday came after intense US-American and Western European diplomatic pressure on politically and economically dependent nations, and following the Russian and Chinese rejection of a draft resolution at the UN Security Council on 4 February.
On Sunday Syria rejected the Arab League´s resolution that was calling for a UN-Arab Peacekeeping force in Syria, combined with the tightening of economic sanctions on Syria. The resolution was perceived as blatant interference into Syrian internal affairs. More over, the fact that several of the nations that sponsored the Arab Leagues resolution, and who would be the most likely candidates to volunteer “UN Peace Keepers”, are the very nations that are waging an illegal covert war against Syria; namely, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, with the aid of Turkey, USA, UK, and other NATO Member States. Both Syria, Russia, and China opposed the Arab League Resolution to prevent what they called a new Libya like scenario.
Vitaly Churkin stated, that the draft resolution was unbalanced and that it reflected the tendencies that cause Russia concerns. Namely, the attempt to isolate the Syrian political leadership, the rejection of any contacts with it, and the attempt to impose a political settlement formula from the outside. According to Churkin, Russia also rejected the draft resolution because non of the Russian amendments had been adopted. Churkin elicited, that Russia was especially critical of the failure to include a call on all armed groups to cease attacking residential neighborhoods and government institutions, as well as a call on government troops to leave cities and towns. Churkin also concluded that failure to adopt these points did not leave Russia with any other choice than to vote against the draft.(2)
On Thursday, the European Union adopted a resolution, urging the Russian Government to immediately halt the sales of arms to Syria. The E.U. resolution was widely perceived by analysts as meant for domestic consumption in the attempt to cognitively and emotionally prepare populations of E.U. Member States for a significant “freeze” in E.U.-Russian relations and a possible indirect or direct military conflict with Russia. Syria is the largest Arab importer of Russian arms. (3) However, seen from an objective perspective, the relatively modest Russian arms sales to Syria dwarf the heavy US and E.U. arms sales to Saudi Arabia, Israel and other regional countries.
On 2 January, nsnbc reported that the US will deliver 84 new F-15 Boeing Fighter Jets to Saudi Arabia and significantly upgrade it´s existing fleet. (4) It is an arms deal, supporting a regional US ally, that is waging a covert war on Syria and is arming what is euphemistically called the “Syrian Opposition” (5), a country that is cracking down on protesters in Bahrain, and a country that only recently has beheaded a woman for “sorcery” (6). The traditional European or Prussian warfare doctrine of Carl von Clausewitz (7), that warfare should be the continuation of diplomacy by other means seems to have developed into diplomacy being warfare by other means. The fact that Clausewitz was inspired by Hegel seemingly makes this permutation easy. Create a problem, foster a popular demand for a solution which suits your strategic interests, and deliver the solution. The fostering and abuse of what is euphemistically sold as “The Arab Spring” with capital letters, like “The Holocaust” and the offering of military intervention as solution is a perfect example of Hegelian Dialectics; An Arab Spring, that is cynically, manufactured along the guidelines of the US Special Forces Training Circular for Unconventional Warfare, TC 18-01, which has bee published on nsnbc this week. (8)
War. After failed initiatives to lend apparent legitimacy to the war on Syria and Iran, the questions that call for being answered are; what will be the “event” that is used as pretext for entering an overt military stage of the war, when is it most likely to occur, how will it most likely develop and what is a plausible outcome. All signals are on “go”, the fuse is lit.
The Russian Military is bracing itself for the outbreak of a regional, and potentially wider Middle Eastern or Global War and is on a high state of alert. According to “The Hindu” the Head of the Russian General Staff, General Mikael Markov, informed at a Moscow Press Conference, that Iran is a sore spot for Russia, and that it is likely that a decision to attack Iran will be made within months, a little closer to the summer. Markov added, that Iran was capable of giving a sharp repulse to the attack. Also Russian Admiral Vladimir Komovedov reportedly said, that given the current military build-up in the Persian Gulf, any spark could set off the fire of a regional conflict. Komovedov, who is heading the Russian State Duma´s Defense Committee told foreign military attaches in Moscow that the US could attack Iran any time now with a simultaneous launch of 450 Tomahawk cruise missiles from warships deployed in the region. The Russian general Staff has established a “situation center” and is monitoring the situation around the clock in real time. (9)
Over the recent months Russia has significantly reinforced it´s Southern regions and borders with air, ground and maritime forces. An attack on Iran would most likely incite Iran to attack US Oil Installations in the Caspian Sea, and a developing conflict would involve Georgia, Azerbaijan, Ossetia, Chechnya and destabilize the entire Caspian Region. With an attack on Syria being the most likely “initiator”, and Iran bound to respond, it is most likely only a question of time before the powder keg ignites.
It is unlikely that the USA and NATO will be able to take on Iran directly and with massive ground forces, before it has either significantly reduced the Syrian governments military capabilities, or succeeded in ousting the Syrian Government. It is also most likely, that the US, NATO, Qatar and Saudi Arabia will be counting on “plausible deniability” as long as possible while waging war on Syria, in an attempt to position Iran and Russia as villains who intervene militarily. The ongoing development on the ground is strongly indicating that this is the most probable strategy.
Jordan. According to a report from 13 December 2011, an unspecified number of US troops that were withdrawn from Iraq had been re-deployed to Jordanian Air Force Bases as well as in Jordanian villages near Al-Mafraq, along the Jordanian-Syrian border.(10)
Since then, the NATO Alliance has established a buffer zone along the Jordanian-Syrian border, which according to sources around former Jordanian Prime Minister Marouf Bakhit is currently housing 43.000 “rebels” from Libya who are waiting for a signal to attack Syria. The so called buffer zone is established around the cities of Mafraq and Ramtha, and is approximately 30 km long and 10 km deep. The zone has reportedly been closed for civilian and non authorized persons. Three large camps, housing about 20.000 mercenaries of the “Tripoli Brigades” led by Abdelhakim Belhadj have reportedly been established. The sources around former Jordanian P.M. Marouf Bakhit, which have good ties to Jordanian Intelligence Services, state, that the total number of foreign fighters in Jordan, poised for an attack on Syria is 43.000. The transport of the NATO mercenaries has largely been conducted under the cover of medical evacuations from Libya, and that some of Jordan´s Royal Medical Services Hospitals as well as Hotels are filled beyond capacity with foreign fighters poised for war on Syria.
According to the same sources, a contingent of dozens of Turkish Intelligence Officers have been the Rabia district and established an operations room in Mecca Street. The Turkish operation also functions as recruitment office for Jihadi´s and mercenaries who wish to enlist in the planned attack on Syria.
Lebanon and Turkey. According to sources with ties to Jordanian Intelligence a shipment of over 50 T of Israeli Military Equipment, worth over USD 650 million has arrived at Erbil Airport in Kurdistan. The weapons have reportedly been paid by “Rafael Industries”.Lebanese M.P. and Chairman of the Lebanese Progressive Socialist Party, Walid Jumblatt´s recent shuttling to Qatar, Iraqi Kurdistan and Turkey have specifically been tied to the arms delivery. The weapons are planned to go on route to Homs. Jumblatt is well known for his anti Syrian meddling. During the protracted Lebanese civil war Jumblatt was a significant agent for division within the progressive alliance and known to have repeatedly sabotaged Syrian attempts to unite progressive forces around a pan-arabic solution that also embraced the Palestinian problem.
Syria First. But When.
Libya was not the easy push-over as many may have expected. The profound and still ongoing resistance of the legitimate Libyan governments forces and the Libyan people has most likely contributed to a delay of the war plans against Syria and Iran. Syria will be even harder to destabilize. The Syrian people are standing in a surprisingly strong solidarity behind their government and against the foreign led insurgency. NATO´s lack of ability to push for another Libya Style UN Resolution has significantly delayed the window for overt military intervention by NATO and allied countries.NATO´s problem with respect to Iran is, that it can not afford to attack Iran directly as long as Syria is not significantly destabilized, and the window of opportunity for a war on Iran in 2012 is already closing and is to be expected by middle of April if it is to be realized this year.
The rapidly closing window for an attack on Iran is adding to NATO´s urgency to initiate a Syrian campaign. Other contributing factors to the urgency are the problems that are arising with maintaining a force of largely uncontrolled and undisciplined foreign fighters in Turkey and Jordan. Another factor which is adding urgency to initiating an assault on Syria is the political nightmare that would arise for NATO if millions of Syrians turned out voting for the new Syrian Constitution, and protesting for President Bashar Al-Assad and against foreign intervention and aggression. What is needed is a plausible excuse for an intervention, and before the results of the referendum for the new Syrian Constitution can be proclaimed.
On 26 February the people of Syria will hold a referendum about the new Syrian Constitution. A referendum that will most likely be the point where the masses of NATO mercenaries in Jordan and Turkey will be given the “go” for an assault on Syria. Massive unrests and violence on the 26th may be the excuse NATO is creating.
Neither Iran nor Russia are particularly interested in becoming engaged in a direct confrontation with the NATO led aggression. The responses to an assault on Syria via Jordan, Turkey and eventually Lebanon will largely depend on the Syrian military´s capability to cope with the situation, and if NATO dares to raise the stakes, risking a confrontation with Russia. Would Iran stay passive when NATO mercenaries launch an attack via Jordan? If so, a Russian response would be strongly depending on the Syrian military capability to handle an assault by 40.000 fighters from Jordan, and if the West insists on intervening with regular forces. If Iran is getting involved the situation may be better for Syria. Can Iran muster a limited response that could not serve as pretext for a war against it ? Will Russia assert it´s influence over Iran and keep it from attacking US Oil refineries in the Caspian ? I don´t know, and most probably nobody really does. What is certain however, is that the Russian, Iranian and Syrian military forces are on alert and in anticipation of developments that can turn the region a thunder within the hour. What ever the outcome, the victim is humanity.
When then Russian President, and presidential candidate Vladimir Putin stated at the International Security Conference in Munich, 2007, that the world had never been as close to a global war the international media barely took notice. With US and NATO troops amassing in the Middle East, from the Strait of Hormuz via Israel and Jordan, and Turkey, with Special Operations Teams deployed inside Syria and Iran, sanctions on Iran designed to provoke a naval confrontation as a pretext for full scale war, the words of Putin have become more imminent than ever.
The article on the ISC website on the speech of Vladimir Putin at the International Security Conference, 2007, in Munich called Putin´s speech inflammatory, a breeze of cold war, and rhetoric. (1) Before his speech the atmosphere was cheerful, business as usual, but the atmosphere changed when Putin instructed the Chairman of the Munich Security Conference Mr. Telschick not to close for his microphone during his speech, announcing that he was going to make clear his real position on international security challenges without any “diplomatic inhibitions”. Putin condemned the US ambitions for global supremacy and global predominance through a system that had nothing to do with democracy, continuing that while everybody in the West seemed keen to teach Russia about democracy, Westerners did not seem to want to learn themselves.
Putin stated that the post-cold war period had produced far more casualties and armed conflicts than the cold war period, stating that the attempt to solve problems by unilateral actions caused human tragedies. “We are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper-use of military force in international relations”. “The US had overstepped it´s national borders in almost all spheres “, adding that nobody could feel secure within this political landscape. Likewise, Putin warned against the now deployed deployment of the “anti-missile defense shield in Eastern Europe” comparing it to an arms race that was not beneficial for Europe, and stating “we have weapons at hand that can neutralize this shield”, adding, that the Charter of the United Nations would ultimately also give Russia the inherent right to defend itself in the case of an escalation of the situation. Putin continued by a massive critique of NATO´s expansion to the east, and reminded about NATO´s promise not to deploy troops to East Germany.(ibid)
Today NATO has troops in Eastern Germany, Poland, the Baltic Republics Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, the Ukraine, Georgia, supports Chechnyan armed insurgents, and wages covert wars in Syria and Iran.
Putin asked what had become of NATO´s guaranties not to deploy troops to any of the former Warsaw Treaty member states, calling the NATO expansion a provocation of Russia, warning against new dividing lines that will again cut through the European continent. Also warning about a unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo, and proclaiming a Russian comeback. (ibid.) What the official Munich Conference website and article fail to mention however, are the prolific words by Putin, that the world had never before been as close to a global conflict, but called it the harbinger of a serious crisis in Russio-transatlantic relations. (ibid.)
Besides the obvious violations of Russian-NATO contracts that created the preconditions for the so-called re-unification of Germany, the Neo-Conservative school of US-Politics began a systematic encirclement of geo-politically and strategically significant positions directed against an expanding Chinese economy and a Russia that was re-asserting it´s national interests with respect to economy, and more significantly with respect to defense against NATO aggressions and hegemony. The policy towards global, full spectrum dominance of the USA was developed by the Neo-Conservative think tank ” The Project for a New American Century, short PNAC, (3) and described in many of their policy papers. Most prominently in ” Rebuilding Americas Defences “. (4) Even though the USA currently has a “democratic” administration, the policy guidelines of PNAC are followed, with variations in the details of implementing it only.
To elicit a few examples of the systematic encirclement of and NATO aggression against Russia, one could take notice of a few examples. Al-Qaeda, a creature of the CIA, was established by among other Zbigniev Brzezinski, to fight against Soviet troops in the former Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda has been, and still is one of NATO´s secret mercenary armies that depending on utility, can be used as respectively friend or foe. Both German the German Intelligence Service BND and the US American CIA massively supported Al-Qaeda mercenaries in former Yugoslavia. (5) CIA sponsored Al-Qaeda mercenaries and the so called war on terror were used as a pretext for a full scale invasion of Afghanistan, and besides the purported weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which failed to manifest, as a pretext for the invasion of Iraq. NATO troops came into direct confrontation with Russian troops when the new NATO partner, the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, attacked Southern Ossetia, which is allied to Russia.(6) Not to mention the deployment of missiles that led Vladimir Putin in 2007 state that the world was as close to a third world war as it has ever been.
US and NATO troops are stationed on military bases in the former Soviet Republics along the Russian and Chinese borders, importing religious fanaticism, ethnic conflicts, Al-Qaeda brand terrorism, destabilizing the entire region, and creating considerable security risks for Russia and China. The US and NATO support of insurgents in Tibet in cooperation with “a” Dalai Lama, the Bodhisattva of Compassion, whose contributions to world peace are his former co-operation with Nazi-Germany and Imperial Japan, and in latter years with the CIA and NATO, are an attempt to destabilize Southern China, and an attempt to blackmail Chinese governments into accepting human rights organizations that are known to be Trojan Horses of NATO. Most importantly, the USA and NATO are systematically destabilizing vital Russian and Chinese energy supply routes, on a world wide scale, and systematically wage aggressions against a peaceful expansion of Chinese trade and commerce in Africa and Asia. The war on Libya is but one of the symptoms of NATO´s push for full spectrum global dominance. (7)(8)
Russian and Chinese Signal that NATO needs to back down.
The policy of both Russia and China was extremely cautious towards NATO with respect to the war on Libya. Well informed nsnbc contacts could inform that both Russia and China considered the US as a mad man with bombs, able to do anything. Russian outrage over NATO´s blatant abuse of UNSC Resolution 1973 – 2011 (9) however, became visible when then P.M. Putin met Danish P.M. Lars Løkke Rasmussen in Copenhagen, where he openly stated that NATO had overstepped it´s boundaries with respect to Libya. (10)
It is worth noticing that Vladimir Putin, who after all has his background in the KGB, most certainly must have been briefed of the fact that the Danish Prime Minister with whom he met, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, has a long history of supporting the Afghani Taliban and demonstrating in front of the Russian Embassy in Copenhagen.(11) Russian and Chinese policy changed too late with regards to Libya, but it became obvious that a repetition of a Libya Style abuse of a UNSC – Resolution on Syria would not be tolerated, (12) and that both Russia and China would have to assert their positions with regards to Syria and Iran. Both because of strategic alliances, interests of trade and commerce, and because a destabilization of Syria and Iran would have severe security implications for both Russia and China that are intolerable.
In November 2011 a unanimous Russian State Duma, or House of Parliament, demanded that Russian foreign and security policy demands that NATO significantly reduces it´s military footprint in the Caucasus. A demand that was very well in line with Putin´s 2007 speech at the ISC. The affirmation of Russia´s late but new found confidence can be perceived as a direct threat to what is euphemistically called “The New World Order”. (13)
All the while, NATO stepped up it´s covert war on Syria, a long standing ally of Russia,(14) and increased pressure against Iran, (15) threatening crippling sanctions and military action based on the report of the IAEA on Iran (16) that was criticized by Iran as fictitious. (17) With a United Nations that has long lost credibility as impartial forum of sovereign nations, the IAEA report is in deed criticized by most other than NATO countries for being everything between false to fabricated to create a pretext for an aggression against Iran. (18) It is worth noticing that Iran had changed it´s oil sales from the US-Dollar to trading it´s oil in Euro in 2009. (19) Something Iran has in common with Iraq, before it was attacked by NATO.
Deconstruction of the Popular Protests in Syria.
Russia has relentlessly attempted to facilitate diplomatic solutions to the crisis in Syria, knowing that the word crisis is a euphemism for covert war waged by the USA and NATO. As relentless as Russia has attempted diplomacy, as relentless is the NATO onslaught against the people of Syria and it´s government. More precisely the so called protests can be deconstructed into the following basic elements:
A National Counsel of Syria, that was formally formed in Turkey, that demands recognition as the sole representative of the people of Syria, but whose central members are either heavily involved in subversive US-Networks radiating around Zbigniev Brzezinski, henry Kissinger and Associates, The National Endowment for Democracy, and other institutes, funds, fellowships and more that are notorious for armed subversion of nations that are not playing along with US- and NATO geopolitical ambitions. Other members belong to the armed wind of the MI6 creation called The Muslim Brotherhood. (20)
A Free Syrian Army, that has been operating from NATO bases in Turkey for months, and that is under supervision of NATO Special Forces, (21) From the onset it mainly consists of members of the armed wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, (22) and a substantial amount of foreign fighters, or NATO mercenaries who are trained and under the command of the leadership of the Tripoli Military Counsel. (23) The Tripoli Military Counsel is commanded by Abdelhakim Belhadj, and has formerly been known as the Al Qaeda associated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, (24) that according to a West Point Study was responsible for a significant amount of US casualties in Iraq. (25) Like it was the case in Libya, where the CIA imported Afghan fighters from Mazar e-Sharif, (26) it is very likely that a significant amount of the mercenaries, most likely between 1000 and 2000 are Afghani fighters, and the numbers are likely to increase as the US is striking prisoners release deals involving the Afghan government and the Taliban. This euphemistically called Free Syrian Army is a NATO Mercenary Army, under NATO General Command, and a joint command structure that includes an insignificant amount of so called defectors from the Syrian Armed Forces, needed to provide an apparent legitimacy.
A Saudi and Qatari backed Al Qaeda Assassination Experts Brigade. In October 2011nsnbc could report that the Russian and Syrian intelligence services attained information via inter-net chatter that confirmed that the Al-Qaeda assassination expert brigade called Omar Brigade had deployed to Syria. (27) The Omar Brigade is stationed in Saudi Arabia. It is financed by the Saudi Ministry of Internal Affairs, and it is likely that the Omar Brigade is responsible for the numerous assassination of key Syrian politicians, military officers, high profile reform activists who oppose the foreign intervention and war on Syria, and not least the recent high profile bomb blasts that shook Damascus. (28)
A Pro-Saudi Pro-US Anti-Pan Arab and Anti-Syrian Movement in Lebanon. The Lebanese “Movement for the Future”, is a political party led by Saad Hariri. Saad Hariri is a Saudi-Lebanese multi billionaire and the son of the late Lebanese P.M. Rafiq Hariri. The Hariri Family and associated political parties are traditional pro-NATO, pro-Saudi, and not least pro-Israeli agents in Lebanon. Saad Hariri has by virtue of a covertly recorded audio tape published on nsnbc been implicated in attempting to create false testimony at the ICC´s special prosecutor for Lebanon, and has been implicated in financing and arming terrorist gangs that take part in the armed insurgency and subversion of the Syrian government. (29)
Other elements of the euphemistically called Syrian Opposition include the London Based Syrian Human Rights Observatory and numerous other fringe organizations that are difficult to evaluate since very little is known about them and their members. nsnbc has send a letter and e-mail to the Syrian Human Rights Observatory asking for information about it´s goals, it´s policies, it´s funding, eventual contacts to foreign intelligence services, but has until today not received any reply. Finally, it should be recognized that Israel still occupies the Golan Highs, and that Israel has been waging an intelligence war against Syria for decades. It is unlikely that Mossad and IDF Special forces are not involved, but very little information is available.
A War Turning Hot.
On 24 October nsnbc published the article “NATO Prepares Global War – Russian and Chinese Military on Highest Alert“. (30) The message was alarming but in no way alarmist. On 3 October, few days before a meeting between Russian P.M. Vladimir Putin and Chinese president Huan Jintao, Putin announced Russian plans towards the establishment of a Eurasian Union. (31) On 12 October Putin and Jintao met in China discussing among other security and strengthened ties between the two countries, and off the official agenda gravest security concerns. Before Putin left China, the Russian Intelligence Service FSB (32) had received sobering reports from China´s Ministry of Security. (33) The reports were among other, not disclosed intelligence sources based on information from the former Blackwater Operative Brian Underwood who is currently held on charges for having passed on information to a foreign nation in the USA. (34) Though there are no details publicly available as to the details of the intelligence exchanged between Russia and China, the reaction was that both Chinese and Russian military forces were put on highest alert.
The situations that have aggravated concerns of US and NATO ambitions towards a global confrontation with Russia and China have since deteriorated significantly and rapidly. The comparison between the current developments and situation in the wider Middle East with a powder keg is not alarmist, but deeply disturbing and a situation that urgently needs to be confronted by international diplomacy and law.
Tartus Naval Base
The sole Russian Naval Base with access to the Mediterranean is situated in Tartus, Syria. November 2011 Russia has deployed reenforcement to Tartus, countering the deployment of NATO´s US-6th Carrier Group off the coast of Syria. (35) Though Russia has the capacity to counter the deployment of the 6th Carrier group, the fact that the Russian deployment was relatively modest in the light of the NATO threat against Syria was evidence of three factors. The first, that Russia is giving diplomacy all possible chances. The second is most likely that high ranking officials inside the Russian Ministry of Defence and Foreign Ministry perceive NATO, and particularly members in the highest echelons of the current US-Administration as virtually insane and able to cause a war that would be devastating for humanity.The third, and most disturbing, is that an analysis of the geo-strategic, regional and global developments have a strong propensity towards the development of a conflict with nuclear weapons.
The Rubicon of the developing situation may be Syria, but it is as likely to be Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. On 4 January the E.U. agreed to ban import of Iranian oil. (36) China criticized the USA for it´s sanctions against Iran, criticizing the USA for not using diplomacy and for it´s primacy of domestic legislation above international legislation in international affairs. (37) Syria and Iran are systematically encircled by US and NATO forces, in a systematic, step by step preparation of a wider Middle-East and global conflict. Neither Russia nor China can strategically, economically, or based on the security related to resources tolerate the destabilization of Syria and Iran without suffering the most serious long term consequences.
The recent Iranian naval and land military exercise provided ample evidence for the fact that an aggression against Iran won´t be a push over and that it has strong defense capabilities. The slow but massive NATO build up of military forces in the region alone should be sufficient to know that Iran is a force to be recogned with, and Syria is not the same easy push over as Libya, whose government had bought into the NATO deception that letting your defenses down and behave nicely will protect you from aggression. NATO troops are deployed in Turkey, many of them transfered from Iraq, in Jordan, along the Syrian border, in the eastern Mediterranean, the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and encircle both Russia and China with anti ballistic missiles.
The situation that can bring the powder keg to explode is any incident that indicates, that NATO is attempting to deter Iran from safely exporting it´s oil through the Persian Gulf. In such case, it both promises, (38) and is perfectly capable of (39) to close the Strait of Hormuz for any maritime traffic, in that case, Russia and China will have the choice to stand with Iran and Syria, or to fall. What ever the outcome of such conflict, there will be millions of losers, and it it doubtful there will be a winner to enjoy a victory built on the carcass of civilization.
Given the possibility that the crisis will pass, the most urgent question for humanity, and for every single person is which action must be taken to once and for all outlaw and prosecute those who wage wars behind the veil of plausible deniability, the protection of diplomatic immunity, and the encouragement of brute force to co-opt, threaten, plunder and murder with immunity and impunity. The United Nations has utterly failed and is today a part of the problem, more than a possible path towards a solution.
2011 has been a year with so far unprecedented aggression against sovereign nations, in which the United Nations Security Counsel has been utilized to instigate aggressions that are the antithesis of the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.
The appalling abuse of UNSC-Resolution 1973-2011 to conquer the sovereign nation of Libya is another.
If you ask me for advise pertaining 2012, that is, if you wish to make a new years “resolution” my advise is this:
” It´s time to move from resolutions and intentions to action”
” It´s time to not only to criminalize war by “resolutions” but to establish a permanent office where war crimes can be reported, and that assists independent and sovereign nations world wide to prosecute war crimes”.
“It´s time to make war unprofitable by consequently boycotting any corporation that is delivering arms to a waring party that is the aggressor in a given conflict, any corporation who has stocks in such companies, and any corporation whose major share holders have invested in such companies. Let´s establish a Blacklist of Companies, their merchandise, their services, and let´s begin to make war the least profitable business possible. As long as our corporate leaders are educated according to the principles of the Chicago School and similar, this is the one and only language that is understood by them ”
“It´s time to act upon the “resolution” that such boycott is a good idea. I suggest editors of independent media contact one another and discuss how we best could facilitate such a Blacklist and the Boycott by means of our media. . This is a standing invitation to get in touch. ”
I wish you a hopefully more peaceful 2012, so let´s DO IT!
In the early hours of the 2nd May 2011, US President Obama greeted the world with the news of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the world’s most notorious terrorist leader. One thing that was not lost in the drama that ensued through and after the announcement, ranging from the widespread jubilation; assurance that the war on terrorism was not a war on Islam to the hasty burial that was attributed to be in ‘line with the dictates of Islam’, (Whitaker, 2011) was the undertone that the international political scene in the last ten years has had this shadow of a war cast on it. This is a war that from all intents and purposes began as a form of religious extremism and will not simply go away with the killing of Bin Laden. This therefore is not simply about one man but about religion – either interpreted wrongly or misunderstood. Whatever the reasons, religion is making headlines so much in recent years to go unnoticed. For on New Year’s Day of 2011 there was the case of Egypt where a suicide bombing at a church killed 21 people and wounded 79. The Daily Times quotes Time magazine as having written that “for months, al Qaeda militants in Iraq have called repeatedly for attacks on Christians — in retaliation, they say, for the alleged kidnapping and detention by Egypt’s Coptic church of two Christian women who are believed to have converted to Islam” (Daily Times Editorial, 03/01/2011). Meanwhile, in April, the declaration of Goodluck Jonathan, a Christian from the South of Nigeria as winner of the 16 April presidential elections, against his main opponent Mohammadu Buhari from the Muslim-dominated North, was the only signal that the Northerners needed to go out on the rampage and cause the death of over 500 people (The Guardian, 2011).
But the questions that need answering ab initio is whether when a thing looses its essence it can still be rightly called the same thing. If we are in agreement that it is the essence of a thing that gives it being, we are apt to agree that when that essence is lost, that thing should cease to exist. Hence this question could be extrapolated to ask whether when a group becomes extreme and commits heinous crimes and terrorist activities like the recent bombings on Christmas Day in Nigeria, it is logical to keep labeling them ‘Islamist’? How logical is it to label Boko Haram as bad because they are asking for an ‘Islāmic’ State according to Sharia Laws when NATO powers effectively installed a government in Libya that declared it was going to be governed according to strict Sharia Laws? If Boko Haram which claims to be adherents of Sharia are extremist, does it follow that the new government of Libya is extremist? Does this have any bearing on the facts being peddled that arms are leaving Libya to Nigeria? Is the problem really a religious one or religion is simply being used as a pawn in a broader political game to create chaos and division, which could be the prelude to another imperialist intervention in Africa?
Before answering these question, I will like to take a look at how religion has been playing out with politics and development, especially in Africa.
Religion, Politics and Development:
Marx, in the Communist Manifesto, suggests that religion, like morality, should be eliminated if the world were to achieve a new political and economic existence. According to him, “Communism abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on new basis” (1968:52) hence, it would seem therefore that Marx did not simply seek to criticise the logic of religion as a set of beliefs but rather, his criticism sprang from the fact that he saw religion as a hindrance to the realisation of an egalitarian society. His argument was therefore that religion reflects society hence any criticism of religion must of necessity be a criticism of society itself.
These sentiments of Marx were also expressed by different writers in different forms but who all arrived at the conclusion that religion was going to wither away (Bruce, (Ed.) 1992; Aldridge, 2000). The prevailing rationale of such discourse has been underpinned by the four major assumptions of the Westphalian synthesis (Philpott, 2002) that: Political sovereignty lay with the state and the states were the key actors in the International Relations system; states would not interfere in the religious affairs of other states; states increasingly refrained from promoting the welfare of the church; as the functions of the modern state increased, the temporal functions of religious bodies also declined.
It is therefore not surprising that one of the foundations of modern sociological theory is the assumption that the modern world is becoming ever more secular and that religion is dying out or becoming irrelevant to modern life. (Berger, 1969) But it is now apparent that the facts do not bear this out. Even in China, as in the rest of the world, especially in the developing world, religion is evolving dynamically and having a great influence on public life and “…refusing to be condemned to the realm of privatize belief, …is once again reappearing in the public sphere, thrusting itself into issues of moral and political contestation” (Haynes, 1998).
Conventionally, development studies and international political economy focused on the causes of poverty, income distribution, disparity in wealth, and some baseless dichotomies between politics and economics while, religion was viewed as detrimental to progress. More recently, however, far from fading from political relevance, religion has assumed a new and more important, mobilising role in many cultures, including those considered fully ‘modernised'(Haynes, 1998). This has led to a breakdown of the negative view about religion, partly due to the widespread failure of secular development programmes to achieve poverty reduction and end inequality and injustice. Religion is now seen as a potentially crucial to the achievement of developmental aims (Haynes, 1998; 2007).
Setting the Records Straight…
While it may not be difficult to see that religion became divided from politics in the Western world with the increasing rise of secularism, this has not been the case with most third world countries (Haynes, 1998). A case in point is that of Nkrumah who, despite his adoption of Marxist materialism, makes it clear that “strictly speaking …Philosophical Consciencism even though deeply rooted in materialism, is not necessarily atheistic.”(1964, p.84) Nkrumah’s intention was to make his ideology an option for the African to rise up from their slumber and assert the dignity of the African personality. It was his conviction that the African personality is not an exclusive personality but must take cognisance of its historical experiences. This is because;
…with true independence gained… A new harmony needs to be forged, a harmony that will allow the combined presence of traditional Africa, Islamic Africa and Euro-Christian African, so that this presence is in tune with the original humanist principle underlying African society. …A new emergent ideology is therefore required, an ideology which can solidify in a philosophical statement, but at the same time and ideology which will not abandon the original humanist principles in Africa. (Nkrumah, 1964, p.70)
Unfortunately, the level of progress anticipated by Nkrumah did not materialise and this can be said to be partly due to the great divide between theories of development and the practical realities in Africa. It is in the light of this that Haynes (1998) analyses the effects associated with modernisation – socio-economic and political change, involving urbanisation, industrialisation, centralisation of government, and the insertion of national economies of Third World countries into a world political economic system, and comes to the conclusion that the nature of religion is accountable to structural and systematic traits and developments.
It is therefore obvious that the failure of most African nations to be able to forge that harmony that Nkrumah advocated, could be at the base of what is today termed Religious extremism or inter-religious conflict. Let us get back to the case of Nigeria then.
First: Is the Boko Haram a religious group and if so are they Islamic?
The name Boko Haram in Hausa translates to ‘Western education is sacrilege’ while the Arabic interpretation of the Sects’ name is ‘People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet’s Teachings and Jihad’. There is therefore no denying that Boko Haram is a religious group. What however is debatable is whether they are Islamic. The natural tendency for most mainstream media has been to take the easy way out – create news that will be popular no matter how cheap. Yes! Cheap because I have rarely seen a media house questioning how a group can be called ‘Islamic’ simply because they claim they are. At the beginning of this discourse, I made the point that if a thing looses its essence, it ceases to be that thing. If a group comes up claiming to be Muslim or Christian but has a unique interpretation of these religions, all what one has to do is go to the foundations of these religions and verify if their claims tie with the essential creeds of the religion – if they do not, the it is logical to look for another name for them rather than simply qualifying them as ‘extremist’ or ‘fundamentalist’. The fact that a person or group of persons claim to be Muslim or Christian does not make them that. A Muslim is one who lives according to the dictates of the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet (and not their personal interpretation of it) while a Christian will be a person who lives according to Biblical principles and inline with the teachings of Christ Jesus. Anything outside of these as St. Paul rightly captures “Comes from the evil one”.
Does Boko Haram bear any similarities with the New Government of Libya?
The answer is yes. First they both claim they want the institution of Sharia. Secondly, they are all rebel movements. The new government of Libya was a rebel movement that was given legitimacy by NATO and her allies. It therefore means that if Boko Haram is only illegal and bad today because it has not received the blessings of a UN Security Council Resolution and the backing of NATO forces – or have they not, perhaps not yet!
Which brings me to the issue of the recent unprecedented sophistication of Boko Haram, a group which can effectively be traced back only to 2002. Where were they all the years following Nigeria’s independence? Why did they not surface during the periods Nigeria was going through one military regime to the other? How did they come to realise they had an ideology to propagate only during the so-called period of Nigerian ‘democracy’? How come Obasanjo, a ‘christian’ president could not stop them but Yar ‘Adua a Muslim was able to get them and get their leader killed only for them to wax stronger during Jonathan another ‘Christian’s’ regime? The answer to these are obvious. During military regimes, it was difficult to simply play a political game hiding under the cloak of religion because religious leaders such as the Emirs somehow had a voice then, and could easily rally the people to denounce such aberrations to their religion. Meanwhile, while Yar ‘Adua as a Muslim was able to forge the harmony needed for Nigeria to move forward, most of the so-called ‘christian’ leaders are not able to do so.
Malam Garba Sani, a senior official at the Nigerian Muslim Forum on Al Jazeera’s Inside Story points out that “Boko Haram is not only expanding in terms of its area of operation, but also in terms of targets, in terms of strength, in terms of overall ability to strike. However it is only indicative of the level of strength and ability that Boko Haram has. It hasn’t yet elaborated or disclosed the strength of this organisation yet.” Has anyone paused to question why Goodluck Jonathan was quick to support a no-fly-zone against Libya and one of the first to recognise the National Transition Council? Has anyone questioned why it is that shortly after this recognition, there was a bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Abuja? Has anyone questioned why it is only after the Libyan conflict that Boko Haram has become this sophisticated only in 2011, effectively extending to the capital only in August? Has anyone questioned why it is that Boko Haram until the July 10, 2011, bombing of the All Christian Fellowship Church in Suleja, Niger State and the recent December, 25th bombings been attacking mainly Muslims and government Institutions?
Patrick Wilmot, a Nigerian writer also on Al Jazeera’s Inside Story provides an insight but when he states that “Boko Haram is trying to create the maximum effect in terms of killing large numbers of people. The political effect is to create tensions within the ruling party itself, the PDP, which is a coalition of people from the north, the south, the east and the west and also Christians and Muslims. In the larger society itself, it aims to create more tension between Muslims and Christians, leading to a greater degree of segregation between the populations“.
This viewpoint shows that the original intention was to create antagonism within the political sphere, effectively destabilising the ability of the ruling party to take effective action as Yar ‘Adua did and crushed the group. When this has been somehow achieved given the willingness of the government to play ball in the Libyan case, with President Jonathan consciously or unconsciously providing the backing by supporting the no-fly-zone and recognising the NTC, the next phase is now in operation. Religious antagonism is therefore the trump card.
Gaddafi in one of the messages accredited to him, while denouncing all forms of religious extremism hiding under the cloak of Islam, issued a warning “Do not let them use you. Be united. Build your defences for they are coming if they manage to pass Libya.” This warning was not hearkened to and the result is what we witness in Nigeria today – a very sophisticated Boko Haram which is now capable of creating a religious war in Nigeria. Does that ring a bell? Yes it should. Libya was just the first phase of a bigger game and having passed the litmus test, it seems it is time for Africa to await its recolonization – this time it will be under the guise of humanitarian interventions. The arms crossing from Libya into Nigeria is therefore not a coincidence. It is also not coincidental that arms that leave Libya should be able to find Boko Haram when the group has been and still is seemingly faceless with no known central leadership.
This write-up does not claim absolute knowledge of Boko Haram and neither are the assumptions made here considered dogma. What however I can say with certainty is that whatever the political game being played using Boko Haram, it is yielding dividends. The Nigerian government is gradually loosing the monopoly of violence over its territory and Nigerians are gradually getting to the stage where any tiny spark will ignite a horrible clash between Muslims and Christians. Unfortunately, neither the Muslims nor the Christians will be able to find the source of the problem because the ideology called Boko Haram will become faceless as the country disintegrates into a failed state.
THERE IS CLEARLY A MOVEMENT FROM LIBYA TO NIGERIA – A SHARIA STATE OF REBELS NOW RULE LIBYA AND A GROUP OF REBELS HAVE GAINED PROMINENCE IN NIGERIA WITH THE SAME INTENTION OF INSTITUTING SHARIA. THE ARMS THAT CREATED THE LIBYAN ‘STATE’ IS NOW IN NIGERIA WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF CREATING A BOKO HARAM STATE.
The difference however is that while Libya was small and her case could easily be manipulated using the so-called Arab Spring, Nigeria is so large that unless there is sufficient internal chaos it will be difficult for any external intervention to make headway. Note should be taken then that Boko Haram far from being anything Muslim or Christian is simply a political cancerworm that is being used under the guise of religion.
NIGERIANS BE WISE!
Berger, P.L. (1969). The social reality of religion; London: Faber
Bruce, S. (Ed.) 1992. Religion and Modernisation; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 170-94;
Aldridge, A. (2000). Religion in the Contemporary World. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Haynes, J. (1998). “Religion in Global Politics: Explaining Deprivatization”; A paper For the ‘Religion and Politics’ panel, PSA Conference, Keele University, (April)
Haynes, J. (2007) Religion and Development Conflict or Cooperation? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Marx, K. and Engels, F. 1975. On Religion Moscow: Progress Publishers, Marx, K. and Engels, F. 1968  , “Manifesto of the Communist Party” in Selected Works Moscow: Progress Publishers, 35-71
Nkrumah, K. (1964) Consciencism, Philosophy and Ideology for Decolonisation with Particular Reference to the African Revolution. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd
Petito F. & Hatzopoulos, P. (eds.) (2003) Religion in International Relations: The Return from Exile, New York: Palgrave,
Philpott, D. (2002) The Challenge Of September 11 To Secularism In International Relations World Politics, Volume 55, (1), (October) pp. 66-95
It´s a long time ago that mankind has been hurling sticks and stones at one another. The sticks got pointed ends and became spears and lances. The stones were put into slings so they could be hurled even farther. Sticks were hurled even farther when the bow and arrows were developed. The first historically known European disarmament conference was held between Britain and France because the crossbow was considered as an inhumane weapon. It could penetrate a knights heavy armor at what was then considered long distances.Never mind about the mass killings of foot soldiers, but when a knight, into whom one had invested expensive armor and countless hours of exercise in the perfection of killing were killed at the cost of a single bolt, something had to be done.
The industrial revolution really brought progress to humanity. Mass murder could now become mechanized by means of machine guns. One could say that the first machine guns were the Ford T Model of inhumanity and mechanized killing, but we did not stop there.
We would develop missiles that could be hurled even farther, all the way around the globe. Rockets can now be hurled at wedding parties in Pakistan while sitting at the comfort of a CIA center in Langley, Virginia, on the other side of the globe. Killing has become mechanized, even automated.
Darwinism and social Darwinism has undoubtedly contributed to humanities ever increasing devaluation of human life and suffering. With the pen strokes of science humanity was deprived of it´s soul, of it´s divine origin, and life of it´s sanctity. After all, we are nothing but over developed chimps. The science of medicine contributed with such noble inventions as water boarding. The noble science of psychology contributed with social engineering or propaganda that lets the masses accept that the killing has now been mechanized, and humanity deprived of it´s humanity and the sanctity of life. When human beings are nothing but chimps with an over sized brain, developed out of the slime of the oceans, then why should one any longer care about such outdated philosophy like that of Kant and his extended categorical imperative, that it is unethical and immoral to perceive another human being as simply a means to an end. Wondering why more US soldiers murder them selves than are killed in combat ?
But this are details. Lets rather get back to the wonderful missiles that can be hurled around the globe. That´s for most people a far more palatable issue than the sanctity of human life. Just within the most recent period a cargo of Patriot Missiles that were sent en route to South Korea from Germany were busted in Finland. Not for illegally shipping weapons to a conflict area but for not being safely transported. Don´t worry, they will soon be en route again to make the Korean peninsula a safer place .
The US “promises” Russia that it won´t use it´s European Missile Shield against Russia. Well that sounds very credible, taking into account that the US has financed Chechnyan terrorists for years, that the US is faring an illegal and increasingly arrogantly overt war against Syria, where Russia has it´s sole Maritime Military Base with access to the Mediterranean. The promise makes especially much sense because missiles are placed in such defensive positions as in Poland, approximately as close to Moscow as they can get. It also makes much sense to believe US “promises” when the chairman of the US Senates Armed Services Committee McCain calls for “A Russian Spring”, and when a recent US paper suggests to station NATO jets along the Russian border.
The trouble is that we are not any longer hurling sticks and stones but weapons which effect on the environment, on infrastructure, and on the human body is so violent that nobody who has not experienced the grotesque scenes of war at first hand can comprehend it. Now let´s see; when was the last time that you have heard of a Zbigniev Brzezinski, a Henry Kissinger, a Clinton, Bush or Obama serve at a front line. Our understanding of the technology to kill in large numbers has exceeded our understanding of weapons effect on ourselves and the consequences of war. And my colleague psychologists who prostitute them selves for unadulterated evil help developing strategies that keep humanity a slumber while it´s violent end is approaching ever faster. Think Hiroshima and Nagasaki a hundred of times in a single bomb of which we have tens of thousands. We have developed arsenals of state sanctioned mass homicide that is even beyond the scale of the mechanized killing in world war one and two.
Being a psychologist I have often asked myself why it is that young students are indoctrinated with politically twisted science, to say the least. A pseudo science that leads young, brilliant minds to accepting that the killing of other human beings in war is human nature. That we can not resist our urge to murder for co-opting resources, to assert our dominance and position, to protect our territory and to procreate our own genes, because we have inherited the behavior from the chimps. Ever since Irenaeus Eibl-Eiblsfeldt discovered that a group of chimps committed an apparently premeditated act of murder on a chimp from another family group, the perfect excuse for teaching that homicide and mass homicide are a natural and unavoidable facts of human life was found. The social engineers of modern civilization had found the perfect foundation for the indoctrination of countless of new generations of scholars. Scholars who are being indoctrinated into accepting the deterministic perception of warfare. Try to question it and apply for stipends for a Ph.D, and you will see how deep rooted this dogma is. It is a crime of unspeakable proportions, because it lays the foundation for the continuation of state sanctioned mass homicide rather than studying the possibilities for developing peaceful solutions to settling disputes. The reasoning here is this.
“Chimps do it. We share a common ancestor with the chimps. Ergo, homicide and state sanctioned mass homicide called war it is part of our human nature. We should accept it and live with it. Don´t waste your time on peace. If you want to be on the top of the academic and political food chain you must accept that we are predetermined to wage war.”
Does anyone else hear evil speaking ? It´s far beyond the scope of this article to go into the depths of the insanity of these arguments, but for those scholars, politicians and warmongers or generals who base their philosophy and science, their politics or strategy on Eibl-Eiblsfeldt and colleagues, I would suggest the following questions:
“Do you still live in trees ? If not, is it because the very theory that you base your causal reasoning about the deterministic nature of warfare in human behavior on, that of evolution, is your model for explaining why we don´t live in the trees any longer while chimps still do ?“
See, there are some ladies and gentlemen who would like to have it both ways. To shout of progress from the fullest of their lungs and hurling ever more murderous projectiles, while keeping the dust of antiquity within the cavity of their all to big mouth. If you suggest that we can not do anything than to continue waging war, I suggest you move back to the trees and hurl sticks and stones at each other, and let those who are scientists rather than prostitutes of warmongers and profiteers teach the new generations.
Humanity has reached a stage of technological development where we must criminalize war, where we must learn to settle our disputes in a civilized and peaceful manner, where we must transform war economies to peace economies, chimp based war science to human peace science, or where we must perish from the delusional madness of the few who claim to murder all of us because they were democratically elected to do so. We are no longer hurling sticks and stones; and missiles “will” break our bones unless we begin to base our actions on true science and humanity rather than on politicized pseudo science and unadulterated evil.
By Dr. Christof Lehmann (originally published on nsnbc)
Libya elicits the current state of affairs in global geopolitical trends. It can´t be described as anarchy because it is too well organized. The NGO that should safeguard humanity against the purges of wars of aggression and conquest is instrumentalized by warmongers and aggressors. The ICC serves as show trial court for imperial ambitions while neither the less powerful states and their governments, nor the individual citizens who are at the receiving end of the plain good old murder and ma ham in the new disguise of humanitarian initiative, freedom and democracy are without legal remedy of any kind. That is, unless they have another big brother to sponsor them. Anarchy would be far more civilized.
Saif Islam al-Ghadafi.
While it is reported that Saif Islam al-Ghadafi was released from court in Zintan, cleared for all charges, the fact remains that the world has very little confirmation. As long as he is not able to speak for himself his life must be considered in danger. Whom would one want to trust ? The International Red Cross whom nsnbc busted by providing video evidence for the fact that Red Cross trucks were used to transport RPG´s and ammunitions to the front line in Sirte ? A video that showed one of the white, wooden Red Cross crates fall and break open, displaying the instruments of murder ? Or should one trust the Zintan brigades who not so long ago would rather have seen Saif dead than alive, and who now are claiming to “protect” him from Belhadj ? Or should one trust the corporate media who sold the worlds dazed public a dream of freedom while covering for the greatest war crime of the 21st century ? As long as we can not see Saif Islam al-Ghadafi speak on his own behalf while free and at a location of his choice, or as long we can not see a freely chosen legal counsel representing him and speaking on his behalf, he should be considered a prisoner of war, a hostage that has been paraded around as a trophy, and the worlds legal systems are utterly inept to deal with his case.
The ICC very much would like to get a hold on Saif Islam al-Ghadafi, while the case for an investigation into the purported murder of Muammar Ghadafi is stalled. One should make one simple comparison, ask one simple question, to understand the problems with the ICC.
Is the ICC an institution of the United Nations ? Was the United Nations by virtue of UNSC Resolution 1973 instrumental in facilitating NATO´s aggression against Libya ? Then ask yourself the following question.
If you were to go to family court because you had been charged for paying alimony for a child whose DNA does not match yours, and the judge and prosecutor both repeatedly had raped the mother of the child in question, would you ask for having the judge and prosecutor impeached ? Or would you submit to the court and pay alimony for the child of rapists ?
The establishment of the Rome Treaty, granting nation states international jurisdiction in cases of the most serious crimes known to mankind must be considered as progress. Insufficient progress. One should argue for many more nations to implement international jurisdiction, but. If there are no safeguards that guaranty that the state, the prosecutor and judge are impartial and have no involvement in the case what so ever, the Rome Treaty is prone to the same abuse as that of the ICC and the family court mentioned above.
Further more, as long as there are no binding bilateral and multilateral security assurances that safeguard small nations from political, economical as well as covert and overt military aggression, should a purported war criminal from a powerful nation like the USA be charged, arrested or tried and imprisoned, what small nation would dare to make use of the Rome Treaty and international jurisdiction. What is needed is a dramatic increase in the number of nations who implement international jurisdiction, and bilateral as well as multilateral solidarity assurances in case of repercussions that are to be expected from a nation that is used to be the undisputed bully on the block.
The people in the streets.
The most tragic factor of it all is that the ordinary citizen, the politically innocent who makes up over 90 % of the victims of modern warfare have no legal remedy, not any, unless a government of a member state of the United Nations will sponsor them.
The world needs legal remedy for the family that lost their home and income, the children who lost their mother and father, the newly wed man or woman who had a life full of hopes and dreams, together, and whose future was blown to atoms by one of those precision guided smart bombs, by fuel air explosions and cluster bombs in Bani Walid and where ever the Empire strikes out. The survivors of countless ethnic cleansings and genocides throughout the world, as that in Tawergha. They have no legal remedy unless some nation finds it opportune to abuse their suffering for their own political agenda by sponsoring a war crimes tribunal. Or until they find a small nation that dares to be next on the political, economic, and military hit list of the powerful. This must not stand.
Justice for all, independent on state sponsorship.
We are no longer hurling stones and sticks at one another, and neither are we bound by mechanized mass murder. Humanity has reached a point where a few madmen are able to incinerate humanity and all habitats of other creatures, the flora and the fauna in them. It can not stand and we can not let it stand, that our international legal systems do not follow suit in this awesome development so that we once and for all criminalize the state sanctioned, premeditated mass murder that we call war. It has become too dangerous to be continued. Many social scientists argue that aggression and warfare is part of human etiology, that we inherited it from the chimps. This may be so, but chimps don´t have access to the red button that triggers a nuclear war, all though, but let that be a explained by the cartoonists. Most importantly, chimps still live in the bush, we don´t. Chimps don´t develop medicines like antibiotics. Evolution is not determinism but change. We can either change our aggressive behavior because it has become to dangerous, or perish.
The world needs a legal system with as many nations as possible implementing international jurisdiction for the most serious crimes known to mankind. Trials can no longer take place in nations, with prosecutors and judges who are a party to the conflict. Most prominently and urgently, the demand that a state sponsors a trial for war crimes must be abandoned. If your loved one was murdered by the powerful, if your children were atomized by the powerful, if your existence, your hopes and dreams and your future were destroyed by the powerful, you must be able to demand justice, to attain justice, without begging another bully that he please may help you because it may be of political advantage to himself. This is pornography and not justice, and we can not let it stand.
What I find a bit difficult to get over is the renewed ‘concern’ being shown towards victims of racial abuse. The woman on the video titled ‘My Tram Experience‘ that went viral within a few days simply said what so many people in the world want to say but lack the courage. Watching her, I felt nothing for her but pity – not only for her but also for the innocent child she was carrying on her laps. While views differ so much on the woman’s attitude, I have not ceased to ask this question as I watched the video several times over – Is she really RACIST; IGNORANT, SIMPLY STUPID or A NATIONALIST?
I want to dispel the thinking that this woman is as bad as she has been made to look especially after she got arrested. Do not get me wrong… I am no supporter of discrimination of any form but we need to get the facts straight.
From the 18th and 19th Centuries, most European views of Africans for example had been one of a distinct category of humanity, a view based on the supposedly irreconcilable foreignness of African mental processes. For example one of the most celebrated scholars in Western thought argued that that Africa falls outside the boundaries of world history. He boldly argued that “We [Europeans] cannot feel ourselves into [the African’s] nature .…Only by means of thought can we achieve this understanding of his nature; for we can only feel that which is akin to our own feelings.” (1)Hegel‘s argument was based on the original distinction between normative existence and the African being. He did not mix words then when he came to the conclusion that “Africans have not achieve full self-awareness, as “their consciousness has not yet reached an awareness of any substantial objectivity.” According to this view, Europeans, with their exclusive access to objective rationality, were the only ones capable of interpreting and understanding the African’s essential character. Was Hegel RACIST? MAYBE! IGNORANT? PERHAPS! STUPID? MAYBE NOT!
BY A PSYCHOPATH…
When Hitler, decided to incarcerate millions of Jews because of their race, the world did not react – about 6 million died in concentration camps. It was only when he started his re-militarisation and re-occupation campaigns, that war was declared on him – in fact the world went to war against Hitler because he invaded Poland (the same Poland whose people are insulted by the woman in the video). Was Hitler RACIST, IGNORANT, STUPID or A NATIONALIST? All will say he was none of the above as all of them fall short of describing him – HE WAS SIMPLY A MONSTER OR A PSYCHOPATH! I concur.
At the end of the war the Universal Declaration of Human Rights came up as part of peace processes in the world just three years after the United Nations was formed to curb any such Hitler-type aggression. It begins with the WONDERFUL WORDS “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”,
Wonderful! Is the simple word for such giant strides taken to stop a repeat of what Hitler had done. But under the watchful eyes of the UN with the declaration of human rights very much intact, it was a fierce battle before African States could gain political independence from their erstwhile colonial masters. It was with the existence of the UN and paradoxically in the same 1948 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights that South Africa’s governance was built on a system of racial segregation called ‘apartheid’. Was apartheid Racism! YES! Were its perpetrators Ignorant? MAYBE! Were they stupid? I doubt it!
That same fateful year, a new State called Israel was born and they have denied Palestinians all that is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, effectively doing to them the same things that Hitler had done. Strangely enough, all those who demonize Hitler welcomed Apartheid and will die to support what is happening in the Gaza. Are Israelis and their supporters RACIST, IGNORANT, STUPID OR NATIONALISTS?
It would seem that the problem is not really who is abused or whose rights are denied in the world today but rather who does it. Or perhaps I just happen to have a nuanced view of what these terms mean.
RACISM, IGNORANCE, STUPIDITY OR NATIONALISM…
Racism is usually considered to be a belief that there exist inherent differences among the various human races that can be said to account for cultural or individual achievements.This believe in a way usually involves the notion that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others. The first aspect could have been fueled by views such as that of Hegel, Levy Bruhl and others who used it to justify the slave trade. The myopia in such a doctrine does not lie only the fact that it is something that has no empirical basis but also because in reality there is no homogeneous race – one in which all are either achievers or all are failures. Some societies have made more technological or industrial or infrastructural advancements than others, but given the cyclic nature of history, this is not a given that the presently more advance society translates into a superiority of race. It is only a matter of priority in time. Also within each of the societies is a mix of greater and lesser persons. My point here is that going by the first view of racism, it amounts to nothing more than myopic egocentricism which is tantamount to STUPIDITY.
Closely linked to the second aspect about having the right to rule others, racism is seen as a case where a policy or system of government is based upon fostering such a doctrine. I can recall vividly a great speech on immigration made by the British PM David Cameron in April, 2011, in which he argued that “When there have been significant numbers of new people arriving in neighbourhoods, perhaps not able to speak the same language as those living there, on occasions not really wanting or even willing to integrate, that has created a kind of discomfort and disjointedness in some neighbourhoods… This has been the experience for many people in our country and I believe it is untruthful and unfair not to speak about it and address it.” Cameron was simply observing an issue of national policy that is aimed at protecting the UK.
The question then is: HOW DIFFERENT IS CAMERON’S VIEW OF IMMIGRANTS AND THE WOMAN’S ON THE TRAM? While the woman has been branded racist for saying that immigrants had destroyed ‘her’ country, Cameron is right when he says the same thing. I am not insinuating here that Cameron is or was racist. What I am highlighting is that National policies will always ‘discriminate’ against foreigners but it is not simply in a bid to protect the country. IT IS CALLED NATIONALISM – the general attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity.
A third aspect of racism is that which is expressed in form of hatred or intolerance of another race. This is the one that calls for serious concern as it usually amounts to actual physical violence against the discriminated race. What I do not seem to understand is that footballers are banned or fined and a woman is arrested for making comments that are similar to those made every day in policies about immigration in a country that is supporting the ethnic cleansing and extermination of a town because of their race… AND NO ONE SEEMS TO SEE ANYTHING WRONG with it.
I personally do not think calling me any name makes me that – because in most cases those calling the names are usually suffering from an inferiority complex. If people like Nelson Mandela were called Kaffir and they rose up to get over a hundred awards within a decade, then I daresay that he has ‘glorified’ the name, and only an idiot should think using it makes someone inferior.
If the President of the United States of America is called ‘Boy’ and ‘Tar Baby’ within a week, then I daresay that it is an honourable thing to be a White House ‘Boy’. The names did not qualify Obama, rather I think Obama has qualified those names. The people who called those names far from dishonoring their revered Presidency made me understand that another name for the US President could be ‘Boy’ or ‘Tar Baby’. If it is honourable to be the US President then it follows that it is an honourable thing to be a ‘Boy’ or ‘Tar Baby’.
In conclusion then, one can rightly argue that most of what is happening today in the international scene is a re-enactment of the acts committed by Hitler – when governments trade in arms, support rebels to topple governments, deny people the right to self-determination – all in the name of foreign policies, they sponsor genocides, support racism and perpetrate the highest levels of Human rights violations which they so much claim to want to protect.
NO PLAYER DIES FROM BEING CALLED NAMES BY ANOTHER IN A FOOTBALL FIELD; NO ONE DIES WHEN A WOMAN EXPRESSES HER FRUSTRATION ON A TRAM BY CALLING HER FELLOW CITIZENS NAMES… BUT MILLIONS DIE WHEN GOVERNMENTS ARM DICTATORS IN THE NAME OF FOREIGN AID; MAKE THEIR FOREIGN POLICY THE DEGRADATION OF OTHERS IN A BID TO PROTECT THEIR COUNTRIES; DENY OTHERS THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION FOR SELFISH REASONS AND SUPPORT ILLEGAL TAKE-OVER OF GOVERNMENTS WHILE EMPOWERING OTHERS TO KILL.