Archive | December 22nd, 2016

The election of Donald Trump and the implosion of liberalism

NOVANEWS
Image result for Donald Trump CARTOON

Trump’s victory signals the inevitable implosion of the liberal order. This will pave the way for construction of the alternative, which comprises: at the national level, the abandonment of liberal economic management for the benefit of sovereign projects, giving rise to social progress; and at the international level, the construction of a system of polycentric globalization.

1. The recent election of Donald Trump after Brexit, the rise of fascist parties in Europe, but also and much better, Syriza’s electoral victory and the rise of Podemos, are all manifestations of the depth of the crisis of the system of globalized neoliberalism. This system, which I have always considered unsustainable, implodes before our eyes in its very heart. All attempts to save the system – to avoid the worst – by minor adjustments are doomed to failure.

The implosion of the system is not synonymous with advances on the road to building a truly better alternative for people: the autumn of capitalism does not coincide automatically with the spring of the people. A separation separates them, which gives our epoch a dramatic tone bearing the gravest dangers. Nonetheless, implosion – because it is inevitable – should be grasped as precisely the historical opportunity offered to the people. It paves the way for possible advances towards the construction of the alternative, which comprises two indissociable components: (i) at the national level, the abandonment of the fundamental rules of liberal economic management for the benefit of sovereign projects giving rise to social progress; and (ii) at the international level, the construction of a system of polycentric globalization can be negotiated. Parallel advances on these two levels will become possible only if the political forces of the radical left conceive the strategy and succeed in mobilizing the popular classes to advance the attainment of the objectives. This is not the case, as demonstrated by Syriza’s setbacks, the ambiguities and confusions of the British and US votes, the extreme timidity of the heirs of Euro-communism.

2. The system in place in the countries of the historic imperialist triad (the United States, Western Europe, Japan) is based on the exercise of the absolute power of the national financial oligarchies concerned. The latter alone manage all national productive systems, having succeeded in reducing almost all small and medium-sized enterprises in agriculture, industry and services to the status of subcontractors for the exclusive benefit of financial capital. These oligarchies manage also the political systems inherited from bourgeois electoral and representative democracy, having succeeded in domesticating the right and left electoral political parties, at the expense of eroding the legitimacy of the democratic practice concerned. These oligarchies also control the propaganda apparatuses, having succeeded in reducing the patrons of information to the status of media clergy in its exclusive service. None of these aspects of the dictatorship of the oligarchy is challenged by the social and political movements at work in the triad, especially not in the United States.
The oligarchies of the triad also claim to extend their exclusive power to the entire Planet by imposing a particular form of globalization, that of globalized liberalism. But here they face more resistances than they are in the societies of the triad, heirs and beneficiaries of the “advantages” of imperialist domination. For if the social ravages of liberalism are visible in the West, they are of a magnitude tenfold in the peripheries of the system. To the point that few existing political regimes may still seem legitimate in the eyes of their peoples. Fragile in the extreme, the comprador classes and states which constitute the conveyor belts of the domination of the collective imperialism of the triad are, therefore, rightly regarded by the oligarchies of the centers as uncertain allies. The logic of the system then imposes the militarization and the right of imperialism to intervene – including by war – in the countries of the South and the East. The oligarchies of the triad are all “hawks”; NATO, the instrument of their permanent aggression, has thus become the most important institution of contemporary imperialism.

Proof of this aggressive option was given in the tone of President Obama’s remarks during his last European tour (November 2016): to reassure European vassals about US involvement in NATO. Obviously the organization is not presented as an instrument of aggression – which it is – but as the means of ensuring the “defense” of Europe. Threatened by whom?
First of all by Russia, as we are told by the media clergy in place. The reality is different; Putin is criticized for not accepting the Euro-Nazi coup of Kiev, the power of the mafia of brigands in place in Georgia. He is compelled to do so by, beyond the economic sanctions, the threats of war uttered by Hillary Clinton.

Then, we are told, the terrorist threat of Islamic jihadism. Again, opinion is perfectly manipulated on the subject. Jihadism is only the inevitable product of the triad’s continued support of reactionary political Islam inspired and financed by Gulf wahabism. The exercise of this so-called Islamic power is the best guarantee of the total destruction of the ability of societies in the region to resist the dictates of liberal globalization. At the same time, it offers the best pretext for giving the appearance of legitimacy to NATO’s interventions. In this regard the press in the United States acknowledged that Donald Trump’s accusation – that Hillary had actively supported the establishment of Daesh – was well founded.

Let us add that the accompanying speeches associating the interventions of the NATO and the defense of democracy are a farce, confronted with the reality.

3. The defeat of Hillary Clinton – more than the triumph of Donald Trump – is therefore good news. It may be the defeat of the most aggressive falcon clan led by Obama and Hillary Clinton.
I say “may be” because it is not stated whether Donald Trump will engage his country on a different path.

In the first place, neither the opinion of the majority which supported it, nor that of the minority which manifests against it, do so. The debate concerns only some of the problems of society in the United States (anti-feminism and racism in particular). It does not call into question the economic underpinnings of the system, which has led to the deterioration of social conditions in important segments of society. The sacredness of private property, including that of monopolies, remains intact; the fact that Donald Trump is himself a billionaire has been an asset and not an obstacle to his election. But the debate was never concerned with Washington’s aggressive foreign policy. We would have liked to see today’s protesters against Donald Trump calling yesterday to protest against Hillary Clinton’s aggressive remarks. This obviously did not happen; the citizens of the United States have never condemned military interventions abroad and the genuine crimes against humanity associated with them.

Sanders’ election campaign had given rise to much hope. By daring to introduce a socialist perspective into the debate, Sanders initiated the sound politicization of public opinion, which is no more impossible in the United States than elsewhere. We can only deplore, under these conditions, the capitulation of Sanders and his rallying to the support of Clinton.
Much more important than “public opinion” is the fact that the ruling class of the United States conceives no other international policy than that which has been in place since the creation of NATO 70 years ago – the guarantee of its domination of the entire Planet.

In the two Republican and Democrat camps dominating the Congress and the Senate, we would be told are “doves” and “hawks”. The first of these qualifiers is certainly forced; these are falcons that only think a little more before embarking on a new aggressive adventure. Donald Trump and some of his entourage may be among them. Not much better. You must know it; avoid making too many illusions against her; but also to exploit this small flaw in the American edifice to reinforce the possible advances towards the construction of another globalization, a little more respectful of the right of peoples and the demands of peace. The European vassals of Washington fear this more than anything else.

Moreover, the remarks made by Donald Trump concerning the international policy of the United States are contradictory. On the one hand, he seems to be willing to understand the legitimacy of Russia’s fears of NATO’s aggressive projects in Ukraine and Georgia, and that Moscow is supporting Syria in a fight against jihadist terrorism. But on the other hand he said he wanted to denounce the agreement concerning the Iranian nuclear project. Moreover, it is not yet known whether he is determined to pursue Obama’s policy of unconditional support for Israel or whether he intends to qualify this support.

4. We must therefore place the electoral victory of Donald Trump within the wider framework of the manifestations of the implosion of the system. All these manifestations remain ambiguous to this day, carrying at best possible but also detestable drifts.
Some of the evolutions associated with these events do not in any way call into question the power of the oligarchical ruling class in place. This is the case of the Brexit, the election of Trump, the projects of the European fascists.

Certainly the campaign in favor of the Brexit appealed to nauseous arguments. Moreover, this project does not call into question the fundamental capitalist / imperialist option of Great Britain. It only suggests that, in the conduct of its foreign policy, London should have a margin of maneuver allowing it to deal directly with its partners, the United States in the front line. But behind this option is also drawn what should have been known: that Great Britain does not accept German Europe. This dimension of Brexit is certainly positive.

The fascists of Europe, who have the wind in their sails, are on the extreme right; that is to say, they do not question the power of the oligarchies in their respective countries. They wish only to be chosen by them for the exercise of power in their service. At the same time, of course, they use nauseous racist and other arguments, which prevents them from responding to the real challenges faced by their peoples.

The power of Donald Trump falls into this category of false criticism of liberal globalization. The “nationalist” tone aims to strengthen Washington’s control of its subordinate allies, not to grant them an independence that they do not even claim. Donald Trump could, from this point of view, take some modest measures of protectionism; which, moreover, the American administrations have always, without saying so, imposed on their subaltern allies, to whom it is forbidden to retaliate. Here is drawn the analogy with what Britain of Brexit might want to do.

Donald Trump suggested that the protectionist measures he is thinking of are primarily aimed at China. Before him, Obama and Hillary had already, by their decision to transfer the center of gravity of their armed forces from the Middle East to East Asia, designated China as a major adversary. This aggressive, economic and military strategy, in flagrant contradiction with the principles of liberalism of which Washington is the champion, could be defeated by inviting China to move forward in a salutary evolution towards strengthening its internal popular market and the search for other partners in the countries of the South.

Will Trump go so far as to repeal NAFTA? If he did so he would render a great service to the people of Mexico and Canada by freeing them from their status as impotent vassals and encouraging them to engage in new directions based on the autonomy of their popular sovereign projects. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the vast majority of Republican and Democratic representatives in Congress and the Senate, all of whom have won unconditional support of the interests of the American oligarchies, will allow Trump to go that far.
The consequences of Donald Trump’s hostility towards COP 21 are less serious than his European protagonists suggest, since it is unfortunately – or should be known – that in any event the treaty will remain dead letter as the rich countries do not intend to keep their financial promises in this area.

On the other hand, certain other manifestations of the implosion of liberal globalization are associated with social, vague or better advances.
In Europe, the electoral victory of Syriza and the rise of Podemos are part of this framework. But the projects carried out by these new forces remained contradictory: the refusal of austerity imposed on the one hand, and the illusion of the possibility of European reform. History is already demonstrating the error of appreciation regarding this reform, in fact impossible.
In Latin America, the advances made during the first decade of the century are now being questioned. The movements which have led to these advances have undoubtedly underestimated the reactionary character of the middle classes of the countries concerned, in particular Brazil and Venezuela, who refuse to share with the working classes the benefits of development worthy of the name.

Emerging projects – especially those of China and Russia – remain equally ambiguous: Is their objective to “catch up” by capitalist means and in the context of globalization, which is also capitalist, but to be forced to accept it? Or, aware that the realization of this project is impossible, will the powers in the emerging countries concerned be oriented more in the direction of popular sovereign projects?

The exposition of these reflections on the future of the system Donald Trump draws the reader’s attention to the complementary aspects of the analysis of the implosion of contemporary capitalism, which will be found in particular under the following headings:

 

  The implosion of contemporary capitalism; Monthly Review (MR) 2014
  Russia and the long transition from capitalism to socialism; MR 2016, chap 6 (Ukraine)
 Brexit and the implosion of the EU; Sites Tlaxcala, MR Zine July 2016.
 From Bandung to 2015; International Critical Thought, No. 4, dec 2015.
 The return of fascism in contemporary capitalism; MR, Sept. 2014.
 Popular Movements towards socialism; MR, N ° 3 2014.
 Contemporary Imperialism; MR N ° 3, 2015.
 China 2013; MR No. 10, 2013
 Autumn of capitalism, the spring of the peoples? Blog SA August 2016.
 What can we expect from the North? ; Blog SA, March 2016.
 Sovereign projects for Africa; Blog SA, March 2016
 Facing the European crisis, a glory to the lucid courage of the Greek people; Blog SA, July 2015.

Posted in USAComments Off on The election of Donald Trump and the implosion of liberalism

Five Years Ago: Regime Change at the IMF: Christine Lagarde and The Frame-Up of Dominique Strauss-Kahn

Regime Change at the IMF: The Frame-Up of Dominique Strauss-Kahn?

This article was first published on May 19, 2011.

Author’s Note

On December 20, 2016, A French court found IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde guilty of “negligence” in relation to a multimillion dollar Euro fraud while she was France’s finance minister in 2008. She is said to have approved “an award of €404m ($429m; £340m) transfer to businessman Bernard Tapie, [a crony of president Sarkozy] for the disputed sale of a firm.”

“Ms Lagarde, who always denied wrongdoing, was not present in court, having left Paris for Washington DC.”

The IMF board said it retained “full confidence” in her leadership. (BBC, December 20, 2016)

No questions asked: Despite her involvement in financial fraud at tax payers’ expense,  the French government has confirmed that they have full confidence in Ms. Lagarde.

Her leadership as head of the IMF has not been questioned. Christine Lagarde was reappointed in February 2016 to a second five-year term at the IMF.

Five years ago: Flashback to May-June 2011. The DSK Honey Trap Scandal was instrumental in Lagarde’s accession to the IMF. And her role in the Euro 400 million financial transfer was casually ignored.

Regime Change: Dominque Strauss Khan (DSK), managing director of the IMF was framed and Christine Lagarde was appointed to replace him.

Media focus at the time centered on the story of  the alleged victim, the hotel housemaid, rather than on who was pulling the strings behind the scenes in what visibly was a political frame-up.

There was no firm evidence against Strauss-Kahn.  This was known to prosecutors at an early stage of the investigation. Had they released it, Lagarde would not have been chosen to replace DSK.

France’s Finance Minister Christine Lagarde was confirmed as Managing Director of the IMF on June 26th. The report from the prosecutor was released to the media three days later, on  June 29.  

Lagarde was chosen to succeed Strauss Khan at the IMF, a few days prior to a New York Court ruling which completely exonerated Dominique Strauss Khan on the basis of lack of evidence.

If this informaiton had been revealed a few days earlier, Lagarde’s candidacy would no doubt have been questioned.

Regime change was implemented at the IMF, not to mention preparations for the French presidential elections.

While Strauss Khan was dismissed following the 2011 scandal (despite the ruling of the New York court case which abandoned all charges again him) the 2008 financial scam involving Christine Lagarde was known to the French government. This however did not prevent her 2011 June appointment to the IMF.

Needless to say, not only did she retain her position at the IMF despite having been involved in a financial scam, she was appointed for a second term.

The appointment of Christine Lagarde in 2011 marks a major political turning point. Since the DSK affair, Europe’s political landscape has become increasingly pro-American.

The Washington consensus prevails. The application of IMF economic medicine had already been applied in several EU countries including Greece and Portugal during DSK’s mandate.  But in the course of the last few years, it has reached new heights. Drastic austerity measures have triggered unprecedented levels of unemployment. The entire European social  landscape is in crisis.

In many regards the DSK scandal was a watershed in the evolution of EU-US relations, with European governments becoming increasingly subservient to Washington’s demands.

Regime Change at the IMF. The Obama administration had demanded DSK’s replacement by a more compliant individual.

In retrospect, the framing of Strauss Kahn and the appointment of Lagarde had an impact not only on EU economic restructuring including the crisis in Greece, but also on the State structures of the French Republic.

The “Honey Trap” is a powerful instrument. Had DSK not been framed, Francois Hollande — who largely serves US interests– would no doubt not have been elected president of the French Republic and Christine Lagarde would not have acceded to the positon of Managing Director if the IMF.

Michel Chossudovsky, February 27, 2o15, December 21, 2016

*     *     *

Regime Change at the IMF: The Frame-Up of Dominique Strauss-Kahn

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, 19 May 2011

The arrest of IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn has all the appearances of a frame-up ordered by powerful members of the financial establishment, in liaison with France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, whose presidency has served the interests of the US at the expense of those of France and the European Union. While there is for the moment no proof of a plot, the unusual circumstances of his arrest and imprisonment require careful examination.

Immediately following Strauss Kahn’s arrest, pressures were exerted by Washington to speed up his replacement as Managing Director of the IMF preferably by a non-European, an American or a handpicked candidate from an “emerging market economy” or a developing country.

Since the founding of the Bretton Woods institutions in 1945, the World Bank has been headed by an American whereas the IMF has been under the helm of a (Western) European.

Strauss-Kahn is a member of elite groups who meet behind closed doors. He belongs to the Bildeberger. Categorized as one of the world’s most influential persons, he is an academic and politician rather than a banker. In contrast to his predecessors at the IMF, he has no direct affiliation to a banking or financial institution.

But at the same time he is the fall guy. His “gaffe” was to confront the Washington-Wall Street Consensus and push for reforms within the IMF, which challenged America’s overriding role within the organization.

The demise of Strauss-Kahn potentially serves to strengthen the hegemony of the US and its control over the IMF at the expense of what former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called “Old Europe”.

Blocking Strauss-Kahn, the Presidential Candidate

In recent years, a major shift has occurred in Europe’s political landscape. Pro-American governments have been elected in both France and Germany. Social Democracy has been weakened.

Franco-American relations have been redefined, with Washington playing a significant role in grooming a new generation of European politicians.

The presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy has, in many regards, become a de facto US “client regime”, broadly supportive of US corporate interests in the EU and closely aligned with US foreign policy.

There are two overlapping and interrelated issues in the DSK frame-up hypothesis.

The first pertains to regime change at the IMF, the second to Strauss-Kahn as a candidate in France’s forthcoming presidential elections.

Both these processes are tied into the clash between competing US and European economic interests including control over the euro-currency system.

Strauss-Khan as a favorite of the Socialist Party, would have won the presidential elections leading to the demise of “Our Man in Paris” Nicolas Sarkozy. As documented by Thierry Meyssan, the CIA played a central undercover role in destabilizing the Gaullist party and supporting the election of Nicolas Sarkozy (See Operation Sarkozy: How the CIA placed one of its agents at the presidency of the French Republic, Reseau Voltaire, September 4, 2008)

A Strauss-Kahn presidency and a “Socialist” government would have been a serious setback for Washington, contributing to a major shift in Franco-American relations.

It would have contributed to weakening Washington’s role on the European political chessboard, leading to a shift in the balance of power between America and “Old Europe” (namely the Franco-German alliance).

It would have had repercussions on the internal structure of the Atlantic Alliance and the hegemonic role of the US within NATO.

The Eurozone monetary system as well as Wall Street’s resolve to exert a decisive influence on the European monetary architecture are also at stake.

The Frame-Up?

Fifty-seven percent of France’s population, according to a May 17 poll, believe that Strauss-Kahn was framed, victim of a set-up. He was detained on alleged sexual assault and rape charges based on scanty evidence. He was detained based on a complaint filed by the Sofitel hotel where he was staying, on behalf of the alleged victim, an unnamed hotel chamber-maid:

The 32-year-old maid told authorities that she entered his suite early Saturday afternoon and he attacked her, New York Police Department spokesman Paul J. Browne. She said she had been told to clean the spacious $3,000-a-night suite, which she thought was empty.

According to an account the woman provided to police, Strauss-Kahn emerged from the bathroom naked, chased her down a hallway and pulled her into a bedroom, where he began to sexually assault her. She said she fought him off, then he dragged her into the bathroom, where he forced her to perform oral sex on him and tried to remove her underwear. The woman was able to break free again and escaped the room and told hotel staff what had happened, authorities said. They called police.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7565485.html#ixzz1MfFWFlnY

Wednesday CFR.org Roundup: U.S. pressures Strauss-Kahn to resign

Challenging the Washington Consensus 

What is at stake in the immediate wake of Strauss Kahn’s demise is “regime change” at the IMF.

The Obama administration has demanded his replacement by a more compliant individual. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, former CEO of the New York Federal Reserve Bank is pushing for the replacement of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, “suggesting he can no longer perform his duties” as IMF Managing director.

“Geithner called for greater formal recognition by the IMF board that John Lipsky, the fund’s second-in-command, will continue serving as temporary managing director for an interim period. Although Strauss-Kahn has yet to resign, sources say the IMF is in touch with his legal counsel to discuss his future at the organization.”

What lies behind the frame-up scenario? What powerful interests are involved? Geithner had a close personal relationship with Strauss-Kahn.

On the floor of the US Senate (May 18), Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois, called for the resignation of DSK while calling upon the IMF’s deputy managing director John Lipsky to “assume full responsibility of the IMF” as interim managing director. The process of “permanent replacement should “commence at once,” he said. John Lipsky is a well connected Wall Street banker, a former Vice Chairman at JPMorgan Investment Bank.

While the IMF is in theory an intergovernmental organization, it has historically been controlled by Wall Street and the US Treasury. The IMF’s “bitter economic medicine”, the so-called Structural Adjustment Program (SAP), imposed on countless developing countries, essentially serves the interests of creditor banks and multinational corporations.

The IMF is not the main architect of these devastating economic reforms which have served to impoverish millions of people, while creating a “favorable environment” for foreign investors in Third World  low wage economies.

The creditor banks call the shots. The IMF is a bureaucratic entity. Its role is to implement and enforce those economic policies on behalf of dominant economic interests.

Strauss Kahn’s proposed reforms while providing a “human face” to the IMF did not constitute a shift in direction. They were formulated within the realm of neoliberalism. They modified but they did not undermine the central role of IMF “economic medicine”. The socially devastating impacts of IMF “shock treatment” under Strauss-Kahn’s leadership have largely prevailed.

Dominique Strauss Kahn arrived at the helm of the IMF in November 2007, less than a year prior to September-October 2008 financial meltdown on Wall Street. The structural adjustment program (SAP) was not modified. Under DSK, IMF “shock treatment” which historically had been limited to developing countries was  imposed on Greece, Ireland and Portugal.

Under the helm of DSK as Managing Director, the IMF demanded that developing countries remove food and fuel subsidies at a time of rising commodity prices on the New York and Chicago Mercantile exchanges.

The hikes in food and fuel prices, which preceded the September-October 2008 Wall Street crash, were in large part the result of market manipulation. Grain prices were boosted artificially by large scale speculative operations. Instead of taming the speculators and containing the rise in food and fuel prices, the IMF’s role was to ensure that the governments of indebted developing countries would not in any way interfere in the “free market”, by preventing these prices from going up.

These hikes in food prices, which are the result of outright manipulation (rather than scarcity) have served to impoverish people Worldwide. The surge in food prices constitutes a new phase of the process of global impoverishment.

DSK was complicit in this process of market manipulation. The removal of food and fuel subsidies in Tunisia and Egypt had been demanded by the IMF. Food and fuel prices skyrocketed, people were impoverished, paving the way towards the January 2011 social protest movement:

Fiscal prudence remains an overarching priority for the [Tunisian] authorities, who also see the need for maintaining a supportive fiscal policy in 2010 in the current international environment. Efforts in the last decade to bring down the public debt ratio significantly should not be jeopardized by a too lax fiscal policy. The authorities are committed to firmly control current expenditure, including subsidies,… (IMF Tunisia: 2010 Article IV Consultation – Staff Report; Public Information Notice on the Executive Board Discussion; and Statement by the Executive Director for Tunisia)

“[The IMF] encouraged the [Egyptian] authorities to press further with food and fuel subsidy reforms, and welcomed their intention to improve the efficiency and targeting of food subsidy programs. [meaning the selective elimination of food subsidies].

“Consideration should be given to introducing automatic adjustment mechanisms for domestic fuel prices to minimize distortions [meaning dramatic increases in fuel prices without State interference], while strengthening cash-based social programs to protect vulnerable groups. (IMF Executive Board Concludes 2008 Article IV Consultation with the Arab Republic of Egypt Public Information Notice, PIN  No. 09/04, January 15, 2009)

Under the helm of DSK, the IMF also imposed sweeping austerity measures on Egypt in 2008, while supporting Hosni Mubarak’s ”efforts to broaden the privatization program”.(Ibid)

The Frank G. Wisner Nicolas Sarkozy Connection 

Strauss-Kahn was refused bail by Judge Melissa Jackson, an appointee and protégé of Michael Bloomberg, who in addition to his role as Mayor is a powerful figure on Wall Street.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. charged (using scanty evidence) Strauss-Kahn “with seven crimes, including attempted rape, sexual abuse, forcible touching and unlawful imprisonment”.

Who is Cyrus Vance Jr.?

He is the son of the late Cyrus Vance who served as Secretary of State (1977-1980) in the Carter administration.

But there is more than meets the eye. Nicolas Sarkozy’s step father Frank G. Wisner II, a prominent CIA official who married his step mother Christine de Ganay in 1977 served as Deputy Executive Secretary of State under the helm of Cyrus Vance Senior, father of District Attorney Cyrus Vance Junior.

Is it relevant?

In this courtroom drawing, Dominique Strauss-Khan, centre, stands next to his lawyer Benjamin Brafman, in front of Criminal Court Judge Melissa Jackson during his arraignment at the Manhattan Criminal Court for the alleged attack on a maid at his penthouse suite of a hotel in New York. Photo: AP

In this courtroom drawing, Dominique Strauss-Khan, next to his lawyer

The Vance and Wisner families had close personal ties. In turn Nicolas Sarkozy had close family ties with his step father Frank Wisner (and his half brothers and sisters in the US and one member of the Wisner family was involved in Sarkozy’s election campaign).

It is also worth noting that Frank G. Wisner II was the son of one of America’s most notorious spies, the late Frank Gardiner Wisner (1909- 1965), the mastermind behind the CIA sponsored coup which toppled the government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran in 1953. Wisner Jr. is also trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Trust.

While these various personal ties do not prove that Strauss-Kahn was the object of a set-up, the matter of Sarkozy’s ties to the CIA via his step father, not to mention the ties of Frank G. Wisner II to the Cyrus Vance family are certainly worth investigating. Frank G, Wisner also played a key role as Obama’s special intelligence envoy to Egypt at the height of the January 2011 protest movement.

Did the CIA play a role?

Was Strauss-Kahn framed by people in his immediate political entourage including President Obama and Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner?

What was the role of Sarkozy’s Step-father:

  • Sarkozy’s Step Father Frank G Wisner II, Deputy Executive Secretary of State (1976-79)
    under Cyrus Vance Senior during the Carter administration
  • District Attorney Cyrus Vance Junior, son of the late Cyrus Vance, Secretary of State in the Carter administration

File:Strauss-Kahn, Geithner (IMF 2009).jpg

DSK and Timothy Geithner

DSK and Timothy Geithner

Fair Trial?

Innocent before proven guilty? The US media has already cast its verdict. Will the court procedures be manipulated?

One would expect that Strauss-Kahn be granted a fair trial, namely the same treatment as that granted to thousands of arrests on alleged sexual aggression charges in New York City.

How many similar or comparable alleged sexual aggressions occur on a monthly basis in New York City?  What is the underlying pattern? How many of these are reported to the police?  How many are the object of police follow-up once a complaint has been filed?

What is the percent of complaints submitted to police which are the object of police arrest? How many of these arrests lead to a judicial procedure? What are the delays in court procedures?

How many of these arrests lead to release without a judicial procedure?

How many of the cases submitted to a judicial procedure are dismissed by the presiding judge?

How many of the cases which are not dismissed are refused bail outright by the presiding judge? What is the basis for refusing bail?

How many are granted bail?  What is the average amount of bail?

How many are imprisoned without bail based on scanty and incomplete evidence?

How many of those who are refused bail are sent to an infamous maximum security prison on Rikers Island on the orders of  Michael Bloomberg.

Diplomatic Immunity

Press reports state that full diplomatic immunity does not apply to officials of the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions, namely that the US did not ratify the protocol.

“U.N. convention on privileges and immunities for international agencies that most countries have ratified. It gives the heads of U.N. agencies broad immunity in the countries where they are based. But the U.S. government never became a party to that treaty. Employees of international agencies are covered by a U.S. statute that gives only limited immunity.”

The relevant question is how has this limited immunity provision been applied in practice?  Namely how many people with limited immunity (UN officials, officials of the Bretton Woods institutions) have been arrested and sent to a high security prison?

Has Strauss Kahn been given the same treatment as those arrested under the provisions of “limited immunity”?

Does the Strauss Kahn arrest fit the pattern? Or is Strauss Kahn being treated in a way which does not correspond to the normal (average) pattern of police and judicial procedures applied in the numerous cases of persons arrested on alleged sexual assault charges?

Without a frame-up instrumented by very powerful people acting in the background, the head of the IMF would have been treated in an entirely different way. The mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg and Timothy Geithner would have come to his rescue.  The matter would have been hushed up with a view to protecting the reputation of a powerful public figure. But that did not happen.


The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Order Online Here

original

In this new and expanded edition of Chossudovsky’s international best-seller, the author outlines the contours of a New World Order which feeds on human poverty and the destruction of the environment, generates social apartheid, encourages racism and ethnic strife and undermines the rights of women. The result as his detailed examples from all parts of the world show so convincingly, is a globalization of poverty.

This book is a skilful combination of lucid explanation and cogently argued critique of the fundamental directions in which our world is moving financially and economically.

In this new enlarged edition –which includes ten new chapters and a new introduction– the author reviews the causes and consequences of famine in Sub-Saharan Africa, the dramatic meltdown of financial markets, the demise of State social programs and the devastation resulting from corporate downsizing and trade liberalisation.

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.


Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order

Michel Chossudovsky

Published in 14 languages. More than 140,000 copies sold Worldwide.

In these unprecedented economic times, the world is experiencing as a whole what most of the non-Industrialized world has experienced over the past several decades. Michel Chossudovsky takes the reader through a nuanced examination of the intricacies of the global political-economic landscape and the power players within it; specifically, looking at how the World Bank and IMF have been the greatest purveyors of poverty around the world, despite their rhetorical claims to the opposite. These institutions, representing the powerful Western nations and the financial interests that dominate them, spread social apartheid around the world, exploiting both the people and the resources of the vast majority of the world’s population. As Chossudovsky examines in this updated edition, often the programs of these International Financial Instittutions go hand-in-hand with covert military and intelligence operations undertaken by powerful Western nations with an objective to destabilize, control, destroy and dominate nations and people, such as in the cases of Rwanda and Yugoslavia.

To understand what role these international organizations play today, being pushed to the front lines and given unprecedented power and scope as ever before to manage the Global Economic Crisis, one must understand from whence they came. This book provides a detailed, exploratory, readable and multi-faceted examination of these institutions and actors as agents of the ‘New World Order,’ for which they advance the ‘Globalization of Poverty.’

Posted in Middle East, USA, Europe, LiteratureComments Off on Five Years Ago: Regime Change at the IMF: Christine Lagarde and The Frame-Up of Dominique Strauss-Kahn

Syrian War Report: Turkish Forces Storming Al-Bab, ISIS-Daesh Counterattack

NOVANEWS
 
syrianarmy

In the morning on December 21, intense clashes between ISIS and Turkey-led forces resumed in the area of al-Bab. Pro-Turkey militant groups and the Turkish army, supported by the Turkish Air Force, attacked the town hospital and seized the Aqeel Mountain area and set a control over the Aleppo-al-Bab road. 3 Turkish soldiers were killed and 11 more wounded these clashes, according to the Turkish military.

Seizure of the al-Bab hospital, located at the top of a strategic hill in western al-Bab, allowed Turkish forces to claim that they had a fire or a direct control of about 30% of the town. Furthermore available photos showed a high number of Turkish military personnel among militants involved in the operation.

Later that day, ISIS launched a counter-attack with usage of two suicide bombers, on the hospital and took this strategic site back from Turkish forces. The terrorist group claimed that the attack caused major casualties among its enemies: about 50 Turkish soldiers and militants were reported killed, 1 battle tank and 4 vehicles destroyed.

On December 22, clashes continued in western al-Bab with pro-Turkey forces were attempting to advance against ISIS units.

On December 21, government forces attacked militant positions in the area of the Daraa provincial capital after the so-called “moderate opposition” shelled a number of residential areas of the city. As result of counter-battery fire and firefights some 10 militants were reported killed and at least 1 artillery piece destroyed. Pro-militant sources report that the “regime” suffered some losses, but don’t specify the number.

In northern Hama, militant groups intensified artillery shelling of government forces deployed near Souran and Maardas. Local sources say that this could be pre-emtive actions before the attack in the area. However, this looks not likely because Jabhat Fatah al-Sham and its allies need some time to regroup after the defeat in Aleppo.

In the province of Homs, over 30 ISIS terrorists were killed as result of air raids by Russian attack helicopters and warplanes. The Russian Aerospace Forces supported government forces clashing with ISIS near the Tyas Airbase. No significant changes of the frontline have been observed by now.

Posted in Syria, TurkeyComments Off on Syrian War Report: Turkish Forces Storming Al-Bab, ISIS-Daesh Counterattack

The Unfolding of Yinon’s “Zionist Plan for the Middle East”

NOVANEWS

The Unfolding of Yinon’s “Zionist Plan for the Middle East”: The Crisis in Iraq and the Centrality of the National Interest of Israel.

“The Unfolding of Yinon’s ‘Zionist Plan for the Middle East’: The Crisis in Iraq and the Centrality of the National Interest of Israel,” illustrates how the ethno-sectarian fragmentation and internecine warfare between Shiites and Sunnis is in line with the Yinon plan to enhance Israel’s security and was ignited by the neocon-inspired US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Netanyahu and the neocons currently view Iran as a greater threat in the Middle East than ISIS, and while they advocate US military intervention, they emphasize that such intervention should not empower Iran, notes Stephen Sniegoski.

Greater Israel Plan MCS

Mainstream liberal David Ignatius observes in the ultra-establishment Washington Post:

“LET’S LOOK AT THE REALITY ON THE GROUND IN THE MIDDLE EAST: IRAQ AND SYRIA ARE EFFECTIVELY PARTITIONED ALONG SECTARIAN LINES; LEBANON AND YEMEN ARE CLOSE TO FRACTURING; TURKEY, EGYPT AND SAUDI ARABIA SURVIVE INTACT BUT AS INCREASINGLY AUTHORITARIAN STATES.

“IN THE CURRENT, CHAOTIC MOMENT, WE SEE TWO POST-IMPERIAL SYSTEMS COLLAPSING AT ONCE: THE STATE BOUNDARIES DRAWN BY THE VERSAILLES TREATY IN 1919 TO REPLACE THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE CAN’T HOLD THE FRACTIOUS PEOPLES TOGETHER. AND A U.S.-LED SYSTEM THAT KEPT THE REGION IN A ROUGH BALANCE HAS BEEN SHATTERED BY AMERICA’S FAILED INTERVENTION IN IRAQ.”[1]

The Washington Post expresses views that all respectable people are allowed, or even expected, to hold, so it is quite significant that this view now has emerged on center stage. Of course, it was not given any attention during the run-up to the US 2003 invasion of Iraq, when it could have served to prevent the chaos that has ensued, though it was mentioned by various Middle East experts, as was discussed in my book, The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel.

Israel Shahak
Israel Shahak

As I brought out in The Transparent Cabal, ignored by the more respectable antiwar crowd as well as the mainstream, a fundamental purpose of the war on Iraq was to ignite the destabilization and fragmentation of Israel’s enemies throughout the Middle East, which has consequently taken place in tandem with a region-wide Sunni—Shiite war.

Moreover, I pointed out that this idea was best articulated, though did not originate, in a lengthy article in Hebrew by Likudnik Oded Yinon in 1982, which Israel Shahak, the perspicacious Israeli dissident,[2] translated in a booklet titled “The Zionist Plan for the Middle East.”[3]

And as the title of Shahak’s booklet clearly indicated, the fragmentation of Israel’s enemies was a goal of the Israeli right (and to some extent transcended the political right), and was not just some quirk of Yinon’s. Intertwined with this strategy was an effort to keep Israel’s larger enemies fighting among themselves.

As Victor Ostrovsky put it in his insider book on the Mossad, Israel actively worked to keep the war between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s “hot,” stating that “if they were busy fighting each other, they couldn’t fight us.”[4]

Victor Ostrovsky The Other Side of Deception  420 x 282

While neocons have not openly stated that this Likudnik aim is their goal, though some have alluded to something like this, they have openly stated their support for Israeli policy, which they maintain has the same interests as the US. For example, a letter of April 3, 2002 from the Project for the New American Century to President George W. Bush–signed by such neocon stalwarts as William Kristol, Ken Adelman, Richard Perle, Midge Decter, Robert Kagan, Joshua Muravchik, Daniel Pipes, Norman Podhoretz, and R. James Woolsey–urging the President to attack Iraq, included the following references to Israel:

“FURTHERMORE, MR. PRESIDENT, WE URGE YOU TO ACCELERATE PLANS FOR REMOVING SADDAM HUSSEIN FROM POWER IN IRAQ. . . . IT IS NOW COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT SADDAM, ALONG WITH IRAN, IS A FUNDER AND SUPPORTER OF TERRORISM AGAINST ISRAEL. . . . IF WE DO NOT MOVE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN AND HIS REGIME, THE DAMAGE OUR ISRAELI FRIENDS AND WE HAVE SUFFERED UNTIL NOW MAY SOMEDAY APPEAR BUT A PRELUDE TO MUCH GREATER HORRORS.”[5]

The letter continued with the assertion:

“ISRAEL’S FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM IS OUR FIGHT. ISRAEL’S VICTORY IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR VICTORY. FOR REASONS BOTH MORAL AND STRATEGIC, WE NEED TO STAND WITH ISRAEL IN ITS FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM.”[6]

Who to blame for Iraq War

It would be hard to believe that the neocons, who were closely tied to the thinking of the Israeli right, have not been aware of this Likudnik strategic destabilization goal. Moreover, an individual who has been referred to as their leading academic guru, Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis, has written on the fragility of the dictatorial regimes of the Middle East.
Bernard Lewis
Bernard Lewis

Lewis echoed Yinon’s analysis of the fragility of the Middle Eastern countries with an article in the September 1992 issue of   Foreign Affairs titled “Rethinking the Middle East.” In it, he wrote of a development he referred to as “Lebanonization,” stating that a “possibility, which could even be precipitated by [Islamic] fundamentalism, is what has of late been fashionable to call ‘Lebanonization.’ Most of the states of the Middle East—Egypt is an obvious exception—are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common identity or overriding allegiance to the nation state. The state then disintegrates—as happened in Lebanon—into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions, and parties.”[7]

Since Lewis— credited with coining the phrase “clash of civilizations”—has been a major advocate of a belligerent stance for the West against the Islamic states, it would appear that he realized that such fragmentation would be the result of his belligerent policy. Lewis was a major proponent of the US attack on Iraq and was an advisor to Dick Cheney, who for years has maintained close connections with the neocon nexus.[8]

Neocon David Wurmser, who was one of the authors of the notorious “A Clean Break” study (1996) wrote a much longer follow-up document for the same Israeli think tank, entitled “Coping with Crumbling States: A Western and Israeli Balance of Power Strategy for the Levant,” where he emphasized the fragile nature of the Middle Eastern Baathist dictatorships in Iraq and Syria, which, if the dictatorships faltered, could easily fragment into separate ethno-sectarian segments that would enhance the security of Israel and the West.[9]

Neocon Daniel Pipes, the founder and director of the Middle East Forum, a neocon organization focusing on the Middle East and the danger posed to the United States by Islamic radicalism, also openly presents this line of thinking. In regard to the Syrian civil war in 2013 he wrote: “Evil forces pose less danger to us when they make war on each other. This (1) keeps them focused locally and (2) prevents either one from emerging victorious (and thereby posing a yet-greater danger). Western powers should guide enemies to stalemate by helping whichever side is losing, so as to prolong the conflict.” [10]

As an aside, the chance of the removal of Saddam’s regime leading to the ethno-sectarian splintering of Iraq was not unknown to American Middle East experts. As I discussed in my book The Transparent Cabal, this was hardly unknown in the US. President George H. W. Bush and his Secretary of State James Baker refrained from having American troops invade the heartland of Iraq in the Gulf War of 1991 because of that very fear. The neocons, it should be emphasized, were demanding such an invasion at that time and would later chastise the Bush administration for its failure to do this. Similarly, my book makes reference to a number of US government studies that came out just prior to the 2003 invasion which forecast the likelihood that ethnic-sectarian fragmentation and violence would be a result.[11]

“We must weaken both [Sunni and Shia Muslims],” -- Netanyahu
“We must weaken both [Sunni and Shia Muslims],” — Netanyahu

In regard to the ISIS invasion of Iraq today, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, still viewing Iran as Israel’s greatest external threat, maintained that the United States should act to weaken both ISIS and Iran, saying “When your enemies are fighting each other, don’t strengthen either one of them. Weaken both.” [12] Although ISIS is in its rhetoric threatening not simply the Middle East but also the United States with terrorist attacks, Netanyahu emphasizes that the focus of United States policy should be on Iran. Holding that Iran’s achievement of nuclear weapons capability was the greater danger to the region, he warned against the US cooperating with Iran to defeat ISIS, which he fears might lead to a broader rapprochement between the two countries that would include a softening of the US anti-nuclear policy toward Iran.ISIS conquests have actually improved Israel’s security by gaining control of both sides of the Iraq-Syria border and thus inhibiting Iran’s ability to supply its Hezbollah ally in Lebanon as well as Hamas in Palestine. Hezbollah has provided a major way by which Iran could militarily harm Israel, which means that the new situation has severely weakened Iran’s ability to retaliate against, or even deter, any possible Israeli attack. Consequently, Iran would find it necessary to be more wary about taking any steps that Israel would deem hostile, including expanding its nuclear program. This being the case, it is certainly in Israel’s interest that this Sunni region not be returned to any Iraqi government, local or national, that is not hostile to Iran.

Neocons are advocating strategies for the United States in line with Netanyahu’s position that a fundamental objective is to keep Iran out of the picture, and instead have the United States serve as the major adversary of ISIS. For instance, Frederick Kagan and Bill Kristol wrote in The Weekly Standard Blog on June 16 that it is essential to “act boldly and decisively to help stop the advance of the forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)—without empowering Iran. This would mean pursuing a strategy in Iraq (and in Syria) that works to empower moderate Sunni and Shi’a without taking sectarian sides. This would mean aiming at the expulsion of foreign fighters, both al Qaeda terrorists and Iranian and Lebanese Hezbollah regular and special forces, from Iraq.

“This would require a willingness to send American forces back to Iraq. It would mean not merely conducting U.S. air strikes, but also accompanying those strikes with special operators, and perhaps regular U.S. military units, on the ground. This is the only chance we have to persuade Iraq’s Sunni Arabs that they have an alternative to joining up with al Qaeda or being at the mercy of government-backed and Iranian-backed death squads, and that we have not thrown in with the Iranians. It is also the only way to regain influence with the Iraqi government and to stabilize the Iraqi Security Forces on terms that would allow us to demand the demobilization of Shi’a militias and to move to limit Iranian influence and to create bargaining chips with Iran to insist on the withdrawal of their forces if and when the situation stabilizes.”[13]

Max Boot in his article in Commentary Magazine entitled “Getting Fooled by Iran in Iraq,” maintains that “Absent a much more active American role to oppose Iranian designs, the mullahs will be able to live out their dreams of regional hegemony at relatively small cost.” And even if the Sunnis could prevent Iranian regional domination, that would not benefit the United States, either.

“While some may take satisfaction from Sunni and Shiite extremists clashing,” Boot opines, “the problem is that they could both win–i.e., both sides could gain control of significant territory which will then become terrorist states.”[14]

“Put bluntly,” Boot continues, “the U.S. interest is in creating democratic, stable, and pro-Western regimes; the Iranian interest is in creating fundamentalist, terrorist-supporting, Shiite-extremist regimes. There is no overlap of interest except when we make the mistake of backing Iranian-aligned leaders such as Nouri al-Maliki.”

Eliott Abrams, former Deputy National Security Adviser with Dick Cheney former Vice President.
Eliot Abrams, former Deputy National Security Adviser with Dick Cheney former Vice President.

Elliot Abrams expresses a similar view:

“THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS SOUGHT A GRAND RAPPROCHEMENT WITH IRAN, ONCE UPON A TIME CALLED ‘ENGAGEMENT,’ SINCE JANUARY 2009. APPARENTLY IT STILL DOES. BUT THE CURRENT PATH LEADS ONLY TO ENHANCING IRAN’S REGIONAL POWER, AND TO ALIENATING AND ENDANGERING OUR OWN ALLIES IN THE REGION. IRAN IS AN ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF OUR ALLIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST, AS ITS OWN LEADERS REPEAT REGULARLY IN SPEECHES. TO WORK WITH IRAN TO ENLARGE ITS INFLUENCE IN LEBANON, SYRIA, AND IRAQ WILL FURTHER UNDERMINE AMERICAN INFLUENCE–AND NOT ONLY IN THE MIDDLE EAST. AROUND THE WORLD NATIONS DEPENDENT ON OUR WILLINGNESS TO RECOGNIZE AND RESIST RUSSIAN AND CHINESE EFFORTS AT HEGEMONY WILL ALSO BE CHILLED TO SEE SUCH A POLICY DEVELOP.”[15]

Eighty-four-year-old Norman Podhoretz, a neocon godfather, returned to the fray to offer his pessimistic version of the current dominant neocon view of the situation in Iraq.

“OBAMA,” HE OPINED, “EVIDENTLY NOW THINKS THAT A DE FACTO ALLIANCE WITH IRAN—IRAN!—IS THE WAY TO CLOSE THOSE DOORS, BUT SUCH AN ALLIANCE WOULD ONLY GUARANTEE THAT THEY WOULD OPEN EVEN WIDER THAN THEY ARE NOW. IT WOULD ALSO SOLIDIFY IRAN’S INFLUENCE OVER IRAQ WHILE GIVING A GREEN LIGHT TO AN IRANIAN NUCLEAR BOMB.

“ALAS, NONE OF THE OTHER PROPOSALS FOR GETTING US OUT OF THIS FIX SEEMS FULLY PERSUASIVE. WHICH MEANS THAT IT MAY BE TOO LATE TO PREVENT IRAQ FROM JOINING SYRIA AS PART OF A NEW IRANIAN EMPIRE.”[16]

It should be pointed out that prior to the 2003 invasion, the neocons did not ignore the likely need for the United States to maintain long-term political control of Iraq.  In reality, the neocons generally argued that it was necessary for the United States to “educate” the Iraqis in the principles of democracy during a long period of American occupation.   For instance, in September 2002, Norman Podhoretz acknowledged that the people of the Middle East might, if given a free democratic choice, pick anti-American, anti-Israeli leaders and policies. But he proclaimed that “there is a policy that can head it off,” provided “that we then have the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated parties. This is what we did directly and unapologetically in Germany and Japan after winning World War II.”[17]

Max Boot, The CFR neocon, a signatory to a screed calling for an invasion that ultimately killed more than a million Iraqis.
Max Boot, The CFR neocon, a signatory to a screed calling for an invasion that ultimately killed more than a million Iraqis.

Max Boot, in the neoconservative Weekly Standard in October 2001, argued “The Case for Empire.” “Afghanistan and other troubled lands today,” Boot intoned, “cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets.”[18]  But any goal of controlling and “educating” the Iraqi people took a back seat as the neocons’ emphasis during the run-up to the invasion was placed on mobilizing governmental and overall public support for a war that would destroy Saddam’s regime, which was their primary goal.

To mobilize public and Congressional support for that endeavor, it was necessary to sugar coat its likely violent ramifications by claiming that few American troops would be needed and that they would be welcomed in with open arms by the Iraqi populace.

After the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, neocons and Bush administration officials held that the continued Iraq resistance to the American occupation represented only the activities of a few extremists—diehard Baathists and Al Qaeda terrorists from outside Iraq—adamantly denying that the insurgency was drawing significant support from the Iraqi people. On June 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld dismissed the Iraqi resistance as a few “pockets of dead-enders.”[19] In June 2003, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz denied that those fighting American troops in Iraq were “insurgents.” “An insurgency implies something that rose up afterwards,” Wolfowitz staunchly asserted. “This is the same enemy that butchered Iraqis for 35 years, that fought us up until the fall of Baghdad and continues to fight afterwards.”[20]

Norman Podhoretz would reflect this state of denial in an article that came out in September 1, 2004, stating: “Most supporters of the invasion – myself included – had predicted that we would be greeted there with flowers and cheers; yet our troops encountered car bombs and hatred. Nevertheless, and contrary to the impression created by the media, survey after survey demonstrated the vast majority of Iraqis did welcome us, and were happy to be liberated from the murderous tyranny under which they had lived for long under Saddam Hussein. The hatred and the car bombs came from the same breed of jihadists who had attacked us on 9/11, and who, unlike the skeptics in our own country, were afraid that we were actually succeeding in democratizing Iraq.”[21]

However, as it became apparent that the US invasion had spawned large scale internecine violence in Iraq, the neocons began to emphasize that the US military forces were not being sufficiently tough enough in suppressing the rebellion. “Crush the Insurgents in Iraq,” bellowed an article in the May 23, 2004 issue of the Washington Post, co-authored by prominent New York politician-banker Lewis Lehrman and Bill Kristol. “The immediate task,” they proclaimed, “is . . . the destruction of the armies and militias of the insurgency – not taking and holding territory, not winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis, not conciliating opponents and critics, not gaining the approval of other nations.”[22]

Jim Lobe
Jim Lobe

Journalist Jim Lobe pointed out in May 2004 that the failure of the American military to be sufficiently ruthless “infuriates the neocons who, despite their constant rhetoric about democracy and the importance of the ‘war of ideas,’ have always considered military force to be the only language their enemies can ever really understand.” Lobe observed: “Precisely how Fallujah or other towns and cities are to be ‘conquered’ without piling up horrendous civilian casualties that alienate people far beyond Iraq’s borders is unclear.”[23] Of course, inflaming all the Muslim peoples of the Middle East would serve to put the US in the same enemy category as Israel and advance the neoconservatives’ goal of a US war against all of Israel’s enemies.

In tandem with the neocons’ advocacy of a tougher policy toward the Iraqi insurgents was their allegation that it was being instigated and supported by outside forces, especially Iran, which was Israel’s major enemy. In the immediate aftermath of the US invasion, Israeli officials were pushing for a US attack on Iran. Israeli officials clearly saw the United States attack on Iraq as the first step in a broader effort that would change the Middle East for the interests of Israel. In April 2003, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Daniel Ayalon, called for a “regime change” in both Syria and Iran at a conference of the Anti-Defamation League. He argued that, while the American invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam helped create great opportunities for Israel, it was “not enough.” “It has to follow through,” Ayalon told the audience. “We still have great threats of that magnitude coming from Syria, coming from Iran . . . . The important thing is to show [international] political unity and this is the key element to pressure the Iranians into a regime change, and the same case is with the Syrians.” [24]

The question seemed to be whether to go after Iran directly or hit at it through its ally Syria, which was closer to Israel and served as a conduit for Iranian weapons going to Israel’s enemies, Hezbollah and Hamas. In December 2004, a lead editorial in the Weekly Standard by Bill Kristol emphasized that the United States had an urgent and dire “Syria problem.” “Of course we also have—the world also has—an Iran problem, and a Saudi problem, and lots of other problems,” Kristol explained. “The Iran and Saudi problems may ultimately be more serious than the Syria problem. But the Syria problem is urgent: It is Bashar Assad’s regime that seems to be doing more than any other, right now, to help Baathists and terrorists kill Americans in the central front of the war on terror.” It was thus essential for the United States “to get serious about dealing with Syria as part of winning in Iraq, and in the broader Middle East.” [25]

But while Syria was a danger because of its connection to Iran and proximity to Israel, Iran was seen as the major danger. In May 2005, Richard Perle was the major attraction of AIPAC’s (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) annual conference in Washington with his call for an attack on Iran. The danger of Iran also was featured in an AIPAC multimedia show, “Iran’s Path to the Bomb.” The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank described the Disneyesque multimedia show: “The exhibit, worthy of a theme park, begins with a narrator condemning the International Atomic Energy Agency for being ‘unwilling to conclude that Iran is developing nuclear weapons’ (it had similar reservations about Iraq) and the Security Council because it ‘has yet to take up the issue.’ In a succession of rooms, visitors see flashing lights and hear rumbling sounds as Dr. Seuss-like contraptions make yellowcake uranium, reprocess plutonium, and pop out nuclear warheads like so many gallons of hummus for an AIPAC conference.”[26]

Ken Timmerman -- Osama in Iran ?Ken Timmerman — Osama in Iran ?

One way to weaken Iran would be to fragment it into various groups—in line with Oded Yinon’s plan for the Middle East. This seems to have been the underlying theme of the October 26, 2005 AEI conference entitled “The Unknown Iran: Another Case for Federalism?,” moderated by AEI resident scholar Michael A. Ledeen. The announcement for the conference stated that “few realize that Persians likely constitute a minority of the Iranian population. The majority is composed of Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Baluchis, Turkmen, and the Arabs of Khuzistan / al-ahwaz. In the event the current regime falls, these groups will undoubtedly play an important role in their country’s future.” Individuals speaking at the conference included ethnic separatists.[30]

As time went by and violence against the American occupation of Iraq continued, the American people were becoming opposed to the military endeavor and in early 2006 the US Congress established a special, independent, bipartisan commission, the Iraq Study Group, which would not only provide a solution for Iraq but also deal with the broader Middle East.   Since the study group was headed by James Baker (a close confidant of the elder Bush) and comprised other establishment luminaries, neocons realized, and various leaks confirmed, that it would propose to extract US forces from Iraq (though in a gradual fashion), which would militate against American efforts to induce regime change in additional Middle Eastern countries, especially Iran. Moreover, it was revealed that the Iraq Study Group sought to establish US engagement with Iran in order to bring about stability to Iraq and the entire Middle East by diplomatic means—stability being the foreign policy establishment’s fundamental goal.

Frederick Kagan and General Jack Keane AEITo prevent the Iraq Study Group’s ideas from reaching fruition, a counter proposal was developed at the neocon American Enterprise Institute (AEI) , its principal developers being Frederick Kagan and General Jack Keane, former vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army, which called for a drastic increase in American forces, and thus became commonly known as the “surge.”

Although the “surge” was opposed by most members of Congress, military leaders, the foreign policy establishment and a majority of the American people, President Bush nonetheless adopted it in early 2007.

After a rocky start, the surge strategy would bring about a significant reduction in the violent resistance in Iraq by the end of 2007, and thus proved to be a significant political victory for President Bush and the neocons, being touted as having been a great success even today. However, the original rationale for the surge was to reduce the intense ethno-sectarian fissiparous divisions in Iraq, thus unifying the country under the national government. This clearly did not take place.

The surge, in fact, militated against national unity because a fundamental US tactic was to strengthen local Sunni tribal leaders to fight the Al Qaeda insurgents, which included providing them training and arms. The tribal leaders effectively fought Al Qaeda but, in the process, set up their own little fiefdoms independent of central government control. Marc Lynch, a Middle East specialist at George Washington University, observed in the fall of 2007 that this approach was leading to a “warlord state” in Iraq with “power devolved to local militias, gangs, tribes and power-brokers, with a purely nominal central state.”[31] And it is just those organized and armed Sunni groups who have now joined with ISIS in the effort to overthrow the pro-Shiite Maliki government of Iraq, which had tried to bring them under its control.   In fact, it now seems apparent that the ease by which ISIS swept through predominantly Sunni northwest Iraq was largely due to the fact that the Iraqi army there was primarily composed of Sunnis, who were unwilling to fight on behalf of a pro-Shiite regime, and that the local inhabitants saw ISIS as a force that would liberate them from any existing or attempted domination by the Shiite-run central government in Baghdad.

President Obama sends John Kerry to Middle East, to Handle Iraq Crisis
President Obama sends John Kerry to Middle East, to Handle Iraq Crisis

Despite President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry’s call for an inclusive, non-sectarian national government, it is not apparent if this could be established without antagonizing one or the other of the major ethno-sectarian groups. The idea that the United States would send in enough troops to suppress the Sunni insurrection and compel the central government to accept significant representation and input from the Sunnis– in short, a government that did not represent majoritarian rule–would be unacceptable to many Shiites.

Efforts to establish some type of balanced government representing both the interests of Shiites and Sunnis (even leaving aside existing Kurdish autonomy) would be apt to lead to insurrections by groups, and likely require the forceful imposition of a US controlled puppet government. This would seem to be in line with much of the neocons’ thinking, but would not be acceptable to the American people, and also probably unacceptable to the American foreign policy establishment, considering the difficulty involved in achieving such a Herculean task and the regional hostility, with its concomitant negative effects on American regional interests, it would inflame.

From the American standpoint, the simplest and least expensive way, in both blood and treasure, to establish stability would be to allow for Iranian and Syrian intervention on behalf of the Maliki government–or another government that reflected the will of the Shiite majority.  As pointed out earlier in this essay, this is one result that the Israeli government and the neocons seek to prevent, perceiving ,as they do, Iran as Israel’s major enemy.

The Muslim population of Iraq is approximately 60-65 percent Arab Shi'a, 15-20 percent Arab Sunni and 17 percent Kurdish. Iraqi Kurds are mostly Sunni, with about 10% being Shi'a Faili Kurds.
The Muslim population of Iraq is approximately 60-65 percent Arab Shi’a, 15-20 percent Arab Sunni and 17 percent Kurdish. Iraqi Kurds are mostly Sunni, with about 10% being Shi’a Faili Kurds.

A

nd this approach would not be guaranteed of success since it would likely lead to greater support for the Sunni insurgents from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates. So far, the Saudis and the Gulf sheikhdoms have provided intermittent support for radical Islamist groups such as ISIS, which they perceive as a very effective weapon against their Shiite and other non-Sunni foes (e.g. Assad’s regime in Syria) in the region, but which they also fear because of the latter’s threat to their own regimes, which the radical Islamists consider to be pro-Western, corrupt, and insufficiently Islamic. Thus the Saudis and the Gulf states try to make sure that radical Islamist groups such as ISIS do not become too powerful.

This restraint would likely be much lessened if the Syrian and Iranian involvement intensified. It is likely that such a development would lead to a stalemate in Iraq, with the ISIS-led coalition of Sunni forces retaining control of the Sunni heartland in northern and western Iraq while the Shiite-dominated central government would remain in control of the predominately Shiite areas in the eastern and southern parts of the country, including Baghdad. This would likely be an unstable situation with undefined borders where continuous military skirmishing would be the norm, which would also involve the Kurds in some areas. Moreover, it is quite likely that internecine fighting would take place within these areas themselves, as different groups would contend for power among themselves.

The result of almost all these aforementioned scenarios–consisting of continued Sunni-Shiite regional warfare, along with Iraq’s fragmentation–certainly is in line with Yinon’s view of Israel’s security. And the neocons who have been pushing for greater American intervention can always maintain that any chaos and violence in the region is due to the fact that their advice to retain large numbers of American troops in Iraq and “educate” (control) the Iraqi leaders was not followed.

A number of commentators have compared the situation in Iraq to the well-known old English nursery rhyme for children, “Humpty Dumpty ” (usually portrayed as a squat, egg-like being), who falls, breaking into pieces, and can’t be put back together. However, to be a more accurate analogy, the “Humpty Dumpty” nursery rhyme would need a revision so as to read something like the following:

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,

Humpty Dumpty was pushed and made to fall,

And all the king’s horses and all the king’s men,

Couldn’t put Humpty back together again.

(And those who pushed him seem to prefer him as he is now.)


Transparent Cabal maidhcStephen J. Sniegoski, Ph.D. earned his doctorate in American history,with a focus on American foreign policy, at the University of Maryland. His focus on the neoconservative involvement in American foreign policy antedates September 11,and his first major work on the subject, “The War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel” was published February 10, 2003, more than a month before the American attack. He is the author of “The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel”.  He can be contacted at: hectorpv@comcast.net.

STEPHEN SNIEGOSKI SPEAKS AT: NATIONAL SUMMIT TO REASSESS THE U.S.-ISRAEL “SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP”

NEOCONSERVATIVES AND THE IRAQ WAR

 

NOTES:

[1] David Ignatius, “Piecing together the shattering Middle East,” Washington Post, June 17, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-piecing-together-the-shattering-middle-east/2014/06/17/e73812f8-f63a-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop

[2] The Washington Report on the Middle East provided the following description of Israel Shahak’s writing: “Shahak gained a wide international audience through his regular “Translations from the Hebrew Press”, which gave the non-Hebrew speaking world a unique glimpse into the extreme and racist rhetoric about Arabs, Palestinians and Jewish supremacy that characterizes much of ‘mainstream’ discourse in Israel. The translations also clarified Israeli strategic thinking and policy goals in a manner that directly contradicted official ‘hasbara‘ (propaganda), which presented Israel as a besieged state struggling only for peace and survival. Shahak´s writings continuously exposed and denounced Israel as an expansionist, chauvinist and racist state bent on the domination of the surrounding Arab peoples, especially the Palestinians.” http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/shahak2.html

[3] The Zionist Plan for the Middle East, translated and edited by Israel Shahak, Belmont, Mass.: Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc., 1982.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.pdf

[4] Victor Ostrovsky and Claire Hoy, By Way of Deception: The Making and Unmaking of a Mossad Agent, New York: St. Martin’s Press, p. 124.

[5] William Kristol, et al., Project for a New American Century, Letter to President George W. Bush, April 3, 2002, in Washington Times, April 4, 2002, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/apr/4/20020404-041706-1659r/

[6] William Kristol, et al., Project for a New American Century, Letter to President George W. Bush, April 3, 2002, in Washington Times, April 4, 2002, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/apr/4/20020404-041706-1659r/

[7] Bernhard Lewis, “Rethinking the Middle East,” Foreign Affairs, Fall 1992,                              http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/48213/bernard-lewis/rethinking-the-middle-east

[8] Michael Hirsh, “Bernard Lewis Revisited,” Washington Monthly, November 2004, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0411.hirsh.html

[9] David Wurmser, Coping with Crumbling States a Western and Israeli Balance of Power Strategy for the Levant, Washington, DC: Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), 1996.

[10] Daniel Pipes, The Case for Supporting Assad,” National Review, April 12, 2013, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/345338/case-supporting-assad-daniel-pipes; Also reflecting this line of thinking, see: Daniel Pipes, “Civil War in Iraq?,” New York Sun, February 28, 2006, http://www.danielpipes.org/3423/civil-war-in-iraq

[11] Stephen J. Sniegoski, The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel, (Norfolk, Va., Enigma, 2008), pp. 73-75, 337-38.

[12] Marcy Kreiter, “Netanyahu Warns U.S. Against Working With Iran To Halt ISIS Advance In Iraq,” International Business Times, June 22, 2014, http://www.ibtimes.com/netanyahu-warns-us-against-working-iran-halt-isis-advance-iraq-1608454; Michael Wilner, “Netanyahu suggests pinning ISIS against Iran,” Jerusalem Post, June 24, 2014, http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Netanyahu-suggests-pinning-ISIS-against-Iran-360183

[13] Frederick W. Kagan and William Kristol, “What to Do in Iraq,” The Weekly Standard Blog, Jun 16, 2014, http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/what-do-iraq_795057.html

[14] Max Boot, “Getting Fooled by Iran in Iraq,” Commentary, June 15, 2014, http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/06/15/getting-fooled-by-iran-in-iraq/

[15] Elliot Abrams, “Our New Ally Iran?,” “Pressure Points,” Council of Foreign Relations, June 16,2014, http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2014/06/16/our-new-ally-iran/

[16] Norman Podhoretz, “Iraq: What We Know Now and What We Knew Then,” Commentary, July/August 2014, http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/06/18/iraq-what-we-know-now-and-what-we-knew-then/

[17] Norman Podhoretz, “In Praise of the Bush Doctrine,” Commentary, September 2002, p. 28

[18] Max Boot, “The Case for American Empire,” The Weekly Standard, October 15, 2001, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/318qpvmc.asp

[19] “Secretary Rumsfeld Media Availability with Jay Garner,” Department of Defense, News Transcript, June 18, 2003, http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030618-secdef0282.html , Accessed November 20, 2007.

[20] “Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz on MSNBC Hardball,” June 23, 2004, http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040623-depsecdef0922.html , Accessed November 20, 2007, quoted in Sniegoski, Transparent Cabal, p. 232.

[21] Norman Podhoretz, “World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win,” Commentary, September 1, 2004, http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/world-war-iv-how-it-started-what-it-means-and-why-we-have-to-win/ quoted in Sniegoski, Transparent Cabal, p. 232.

[22] William Kristol and Lewis E. Lehrman, “Crush the Insurgents in Iraq,” Washington Post, May 23, 2004, p. B-7, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46730-2004May21.html

[23] Jim Lobe, “Neocons Go Macho on Iraq,”, Antiwar.com, May 25, 2004, http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=2655

[24] Jonathan Wright, “Israeli Ambassador to US Calls for ‘Regime Change’ in Iran, Syria,” Reuters, April 28, 2003, CommonDreams.org, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0428-07.htm

[25] William Kristol, “Getting Serious About Syria,” Weekly Standard,

December 20, 2004 , http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/020udbsz.asp#

[26] Dana Milbank, “AIPAC’s Big, Bigger, Biggest Moment,” Washington Post, May 24, 2005, p. A-13.

[27] “Books add to rightwing campaign to demonise Iran,” Financial Times, July 8, 2005, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/929d2c9e-ef44-11d9-8b10-00000e2511c8.html#axzz36be88f6g

[28] Michael Rubin, et al., Launch Regional Initiatives, American Enterprise Institute, posted November 30, 2005, http://www.aei.org/papers/foreign-and-defense-policy/regional/middle-east-and-north-africa/launch-regional-initiatives/

[29] Ibid.

[30] AEI, “The Unknown Iran,” October 26, 2005, http://www.aei.org/events/2005/10/26/the-unknown-iran-event/ ; “Iran Minorities Participate in AEI Debate,” Ahwaz News Agency, October 27, 2005, http://www.ahwaziarabs.info/2005/10/iran-minorities-participate-in-aei.html

[31] Jim Lobe, “Fears grow of post-‘surge’ woes,” Asia Times, November 22, 2007, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK22Ak07.html

Posted in Middle East, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on The Unfolding of Yinon’s “Zionist Plan for the Middle East”

How Zio-Nazi Censorship Covers Up Its Role in Genocide in Bosnia

NOVANEWS

How Israel’s Censorship Covers Up Its Role in Genocide & the Idiocy of Chakrabarti

Posted by: John Phoenix

Yair Auron – Professor of Holocaust Studies at Israel’s Open University

Throughout Central and South America, from the 1970’s onwards, Israeli democracy ensure that the death squad regimes of El Salvador, Guatemala and other countries received the training and armaments that they required.According to the Chakrabarti Inquiry Report on Racism and Anti-Semitism comparisons between the actions of Israel and Zionism with those of Hitler, the Nazis or the Holocaust.  can only be intended to be incendiary rather than persuasive.’
In fact Chakrabarti uses the term ‘Jewish people or institutions anywhere in the world’ when referring to Zionism and Israel.  The Chakrabarti Report, which sections of the liberal left have abandoned all sense of critical judgement over, conflates Jewish’ with Zionist, itself an example of its political and terminological confusion over this subject.  It is one of my major disagreements with the group Free Speech on Israel, where I held a minority position.  See A marred report.

What therefore would the liberal apostles of Chakrabarti, FSOI and other well meaning people have to say to Yair Auron, Professor of Holocaust Studies at Israel’s Open University, who has just brought a failed action at Israel’s Supreme Court to try and have the files at Israel’s state archives opened in respect of the arms trade conducted with the perpetrators of the genocide in Bosnia?

Do they think Auron is an anti-Semite for comparing Israel’s actions to those who supplied help and weapons to the Nazis during WW2?  Or is he just being ‘incendiary’?  Certainly in the Labour Party comparisons between Israel and the Nazis is considered a prime example of ‘anti-Semitism’.  This is why Ken Livingstone has been suspended.

Perhaps because he lives in Israel, a state which is moving so far to the Right that many people identify with the actions of the Nazis even whilst wishing that they had targeted someone else other than the Jews, it is permissible to make such comments.  Auron was quite clear about why he and fellow petitioner Itay Mack had brought the action:

“We betrayed the legacy of the Holocaust when we’re committing acts like this,” Professor Yair Auron said. “To sell weapons to Serbia or to Rwanda during the genocide is similar to selling weapons to Nazi Germany during the Second World War. No country has the right to do it and especially not Israel.” 

No one should think just because the Palestinians are the primary victims of the most moral army in the world and the large Israeli arms industry, that they are the only victims.

Jan Pieterse in State Terrorism on a Global Scale:  The Role of Israel in 1984 described how Israel was ‘the largest supplier of arms to Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. But Israel’s activities in Third World countries are in fact far more wide-ranging than just military sales. Israel has become active in all the dimensions of the global counterinsurgency business. Thus, for example, in Guatemala, “Hit lists used by the death squads have been computerized. Technologically sophisticated murder is coordinated by a Regional Telecommunications Center built and managed by Israeli Army experts.”

Israel’s multifaceted relations with Guatemala include the following items:  Since 1976, Israel has been the main provider of arms, aircraft, and military training to Guatemala.  It has trained 800 Guatemalan air force pilots to fly Israeli-supplied Kfir fighters and Arava transport planes.  It has supplied radar systems throughout the country.  It has trained the military and G-2 police units in the use of interrogation techniques, modern intelligence methods, psychological warfare, and terror.

Israel sponsored an Army Electronics and Transmission School in Guatemala which opened in November 1981.  The 300 Israeli advisers present in Guatemala assisted in the coup of March 1982 that brought General Rios Montt to power, and trained officers backing him.  These Israeli advisers assisted in the design of the Program of Assistance to Conflict Areas (PAAC), put into effect from August 1982; developed jointly with advisers from South Africa and Taiwan, the program involves the creation of “model villages” that combine features of the “strategic hamlets” implanted in Vietnam and Israeli kibbutzim.

Israeli experts train contras, and also serve El Salvador, Honduras, Haiti, Chile, and Bolivia and Argentina (at least before their return to civilian government) at a training camp in Guatemala.  In the northern province of Alta Verapaz, Israel constructed a factory which produces 5.56 caliber munitions and Uzi machine guns that is to supply all of Central America.  Israel is in the special position of having recent combat experience as well as current counterinsurgency experience (in the West Bank and Gaza). The lessons of the Middle East, as a testing ground for Western military equipment against Soviet-supplied armies, are disseminated through the world via Israel.  Especially during the past decade, Israel has come to specialize as a strong arm of the Pax Americana, and it has been performing this role not simply regionally but also on a global scale.

Virtually anywhere in the world, where atrocities and mass murder is being committed, you can be sure to find the Israeli state providing state-of-the art weaponry.  This was also true in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia.  Here is an article from Israel’s +972 magazine we see how Israel’s Supreme Court helps in covering up the details of what Israel during the time when concentration camps renewed their acquaintance with Europe.

Supreme Court rules against exposing Israel’s role in Bosnian genocide

Citing potential damage to Israel’s foreign relations, the Supreme Court rejects a petition calling to reveal details of the government’s arms exports to the Serbian army during the Bosnian genocide.

By John Brown* (Translated by Tal Haran)

A mass grave in Bosnia. (ICTY)

The petitioners, Attorney Itay Mack and Professor Yair Oron, presented the court with concrete evidence of Israeli defense exports to Serbian forces at the time, including training as well as ammunition and rifles. Among other things, they presented the personal journal of General Ratko Mladić, currently on trial at the International Court of Justice for committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Mladić’s journal explicitly mentions Serbia’s ample arms ties with Israel at the time.Israel’s Supreme Court last month rejected a petition to reveal details of Israeli defense exports to the former Yugoslavia during the genocide in Bosnia in the 1990s. The court ruled that exposing Israeli involvement in genocide would damage the country’s foreign relations to such an extent that it would outweigh the public interest in knowing that information, and the possible prosecution of those involved.

The exports took place long after the UN Security Council placed an arms embargo on various parts of the former Yugoslavia, and after the publication of a series of testimonies exposing genocide and the creation of concentration camps.

The Israeli State Attorney’s reply and the court’s rejection of the petition are a de facto admission by Israel that it cooperated with the Bosnian genocide: if the government had nothing to hide, the documents under discussion would not pose any threat to foreign relations.

The most horrific acts of cruelty since the Holocaust

Between 1991 and 1995 the former Yugoslavia shattered, going from a multi-national republic to an assemblage of nations fighting each other in a bloody civil war that included massacres and ultimately genocide.

The Serbs waged war against Croatia from 1991-1992, and against Bosnia from 1992-1995. In both wars the Serbs committed genocide and ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the areas they occupied, leading to the deaths of 250,000 people. Tens of thousands of others were wounded and starved, a multitude of women were raped, and many people were incarcerated in concentration camps. Other parties to the conflict also committed war crimes, but the petition focuses on Israel’s collaboration with the Serbian forces. The horrendously cruel acts in Yugoslavia were the worst Europe had seen since the Holocaust.

Ratko Mladić. Evidence of Israeli arms deals was found in his journal. (Mikhail Estefayev)

At the time, prominent Jewish organizations were calling for an immediate end to the genocide and shutting down the death camps. Not so the State of Israel. Outwardly it condemned the massacre, but behind the scenes was supplying weapons to the perpetrators and training their troops.One of the most notorious massacres was perpetrated by soldiers serving under Serbian General Ratko Mladić around the city of Srebrenica in July 1995. Serbian forces commanded by the general murdered about 8,000 Bosnians and buried them in mass graves in the course of a campaign of ethnic cleansing they were waging against Muslims in the area. Although the city was supposed to be under UN protection, when the massacre began UN troops did not intervene. Mladić was extradited to the International Court of Justice at The Hague in 2012, and is still on trial.

Attorney Mack and Professor Oron have gathered numerous testimonies about the Israeli arms supply to Serbia, which they presented in their petition. They provided evidence of such exports taking place long after the UN Security Council embargo went into effect in September 1991. The testimonies have been crossed-checked and are brought here as they were presented in the petition, with necessary abbreviations.

In 1992 a former senior official of the Serb Ministry of Defense published a book, The Serbian Army, in which she wrote about the arms deal between Israel and Serbia, signed about a month after the embargo: “One of the largest deals was made in October 1991. For obvious reasons, the deal with the Jews was not made public at the time.”

An Israeli who volunteered in a humanitarian organization in Bosnia at the time testified that in 1994 a UN officer asked him to look at the remains of 120 mm shell — with Hebrew writing on it — that exploded on the landing strip of the Sarajevo airfield. He also testified that he saw Serbs moving around in Bosnia carrying Uzi guns made in Israel.

A concentration camp in Bosnia. (ITN)

The same General Mladić who is now being prosecuted for war crimes and genocide, wrote in his journal that “from Israel — they proposed joint struggle against Islamist extremists. They offered to train our men in Greece and a free supply of sniper rifles.” A report prepared at the request of the Dutch government on the investigation of the Srebrenica events contains the following: “Belgrade considered Israel, Russia and Greece its best friends. In autumn 1991 Serbia closed a secret arms deal with Israel.”In 1995 it was reported that Israeli arms dealers in collaboration with the French closed a deal to supply Serbia with LAW missiles. According to reports from 1992, a delegation of the Israeli Ministry of Defense came to Belgrade and signed an agreement to supply shells.

In 1995 it was reported that Israeli arms dealers supplied weapons to VRS — the army of Republika Srpska, the Bosnian Serb Army. This supply must have been made with the knowledge of the Israeli government.

The Serbs were not the only party in this war to which the Israeli arms dealers tried to sell weapons. According to reports, there was also an attempt to make a deal with the anti-Semitic Croatian regime, which eventually fell through. The petition also presented reports by human rights activists about Israelis training the Serb army, and that the arms deal with the Serbs enabled Jews to leave Sarajevo, which was under siege.

While all of this was taking place in relative secrecy, at the public level the government of Israel lamely expressed its misgivings about the situation, as if this were some force majeure and not a manmade slaughter. In July 1994, then-Chairman of the Israeli Knesset’s Foreign Relations and Defense Committee MK Ori Or visited Belgrade and said: “Our memory is alive. We know what it means to live with boycotts. Every UN resolution against us has been taken with a two-thirds majority.” That year, Vice President of the US at the time, Al Gore, summoned the Israeli ambassador and warned Israel to desist from this cooperation.

Incidentally, in 2013 Israel had no problem extraditing to Bosnia-Herzegovina a citizen who immigrated to Israel seven years earlier and was wanted for suspicion of involvement in a massacre in Bosnia in 1995. In other words, at some point the state itself recognized the severity of the issue.

The Supreme Court in the service of war crimes

The Supreme Court session on the state’s reply to the petition was held ex parte, i.e. the petitioners weren’t allowed to hear it. Justices Danziger, Mazouz and Fogelman rejected the petition and accepted the state’s position that revealing the details of Israeli defense exports to Serbia during the genocide would damage Israel’s foreign relations and security, and that this potential damage exceeds the public’s interest in exposing what happened.

A mass grave at Srebrenica, where Serbian forces massacred around 8,000 Bosnian Muslims in 1995. (Adam Jones).

Secondly, it is very much in the public’s interest to expose the state’s involvement in genocide, including through arms dealers, particularly as a state that was founded upon the devastation of its people following the Holocaust. It was for this reason that Israel was, for example, willing to disregard Argentina’s sovereignty when it kidnapped Eichmann and brought him to trial on its own soil. It is in the interest not only of Israelis, but also of those who were victims of the Holocaust. When the court considers war crimes, it is only proper for it to consider their interest as well.This ruling is dangerous for several reasons. Firstly, the court’s acceptance of the state’s certainty in how much damage would be caused to Israel’s foreign relations is perplexing. Earlier this year, the same Supreme Court rejected a similar claim regarding defense exports during the Rwandan genocide, yet a month later the state itself declared that the exports were halted six days after the killing started. If even the state does not see any harm in revealing — at least partially — this information regarding Rwanda, why was a sweeping gag imposed on the subject a month prior? Why did the Supreme Court justices overlook this deception, even refusing to accept it as evidence as the petitioners requested? After all, the state has obviously exaggerated in its claim that this information would be damaging to foreign relations.

When the court rules in cases of genocide that damage to state security — which remains entirely unproven — overrides the pursuit of justice for the victims of such crimes, it is sending a clear message: that the state’s right to security, whether real or imaginary, is absolute, and takes precedence over the rights of its citizens and others.

The Supreme Court’s ruling might lead one to conclude that the greater the crime, the easier it is to conceal. The more arms sold and the more genocide perpetrators trained, the greater the damage to the state’s foreign relations and security should such crimes be exposed, and the weight of such supposed damage will necessarily override the public interest. This is unacceptable. It turns the judges — as the petitioners have put it — into accomplices. The justices thus also make an unwitting Israeli public complicit in war crimes, and deny them the democratic right to conduct the relevant discussion.

The state faces a series of similar requests regarding its collaboration with the murderers of the Argentinian Junta, Pinochet’s regime in Chile, and Sri Lanka. Attorney Mack intends to present additional cases by the end of this year. Even if it is in the state’s interest to reject these petitions, the Supreme Court must stop helping to conceal these crimes — if not for the sake of prosecuting perpetrators of past atrocities, at least in order to put a stop to them in our time.

Posted in Europe, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on How Zio-Nazi Censorship Covers Up Its Role in Genocide in Bosnia

Indigenous Rights: Justin Trudeau’s Elephant in the Room

NOVANEWS

Image result for CANADA Indigenous PEOPLE PHOTO

As Liberal Party leader and Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau has charmed the Western world. His ability to take a good selfie and add gender balance to his cabinet combine to present him as a modern man with a progressive plan of action.

But as Canada’s indigenous sovereignty movement, Idle No More, have argued, ‘the Trudeau government has made a portfolio of photo opportunities and handshakes, and that is all that is happening for our people.’

Clinching the election thanks to a rise in indigenous Canadian voters, Trudeau promised the Native community ‘Nation to Nation’ pledges of reform, equality and respect in federal Canadian politics. Yet, a year into his presidency, Trudeau is proving to have as dire a track record on indigenous policy as his Conservative predecessor, Stephen Harper.

As his government has failed to back the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and to keep the greed of big business at bay to hold sacred tribal land safe from the threat of oil spillages, the work of Trudeau’s government has been thrown into disregard by a score of failed promises to the recorded 1,400,685 aboriginal people frustratingly early into his administration.

It all began to unravel when Trudeau promised the parliamentary adoption of the UNDRIP. He approved it in May 2016, only to promptly discard it two months later in July. The declaration advocates indigenous providence and rights in 143 countries, with Canada being one of just four countries to, initially, not accept it. Although indigenous and Northern Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett announced that Canada would be adopting UNDRIP ‘without qualification,’ to unanimous applause, the honeymoon period with the Trudeau government was frustratingly short lived.

The frustrations of communities that had been destroyed and marginalised by Harper found a new home in Trudeau’s administration. The former Conservative leader apologised for the systemic level of abuse in the Reserve school system that educated indigenous Canadians, but then refused to take on UNDRIP. That, coupled with his avid denial of land treaties and the plight of Canada’s missing and murdered indigenous women, gave momentum to hopes that Trudeau would be the man to take UNDRIP forward.

Although promises of a more progressive and flexible declaration have been made by Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, in rebuttal to the ‘simplistic’ document, the trust of indigenous communities has been destroyed by Trudeau’s first betrayal.

As thousands gathered last month to protest the Trans-Mountain pipeline through sacred tribal lands in Vancouver, Trudeau has selectively forgotten the environmental and cultural catastrophe of a pipeline extension at the cost of the Native peoples. Although Trudeau believes that there can be an ‘indigenous’ stake in the $8.6 billion dollar pipeline expansion, the controversial plan has been taken forward in his first term of power, to the protests of thousands of British Columbia residents. Some of these proposals, like the Trans Pipeline (plans to extend the longest gas pipe line in Canada with the threat of a devastating oil spill in Native territory) and the Pacific NorthWest LNG plant on Lelu Island (installation of the new plant that is set to destroy sacred land and the second-largest salmon run in the country) were approved under Harper’s administration, but Trudeau’s Liberals are happily riding under the guise that the plans were out of their control.

Conversely, these proposals have also seen the concept of free, prior informed consent rapidly abandoned. Not only have the rights of indigenous communities that inhabit these lands continued to be ignored – the Liberal administration has not informed these communities of their plans in the first place. Chief Yahaan of the Gitwilgyoots, who will see his tribal lands affected by the Pacific NorthWest LNG plant, recently described the announcement as akin to ‘slapped in the face.’ ‘He could have had the common courtesy out of his office to give us an indication that this was coming,’ said the Chief. ‘But there was nothing.’

Trudeau’s administration has stayed true to one important promise. In the cases of Canada’s missing and murdered indigenous women, the way Trudeau’s government handle the national inquiry is a matter of life or death. Although Harper’s government refused to call the disproportionate level of missing and murdered indigenous women in Canada a sociological phenomenon, the high level of indigenous female homicides fall into a disturbingly clear pattern. These women have tended to be the most vulnerable in Canadian society, and indigenous families are desperate to bring their relatives to justice. Royal Canadian Mounted Police figures indicate that over the last three decades, 1,200 indigenous women have been murdered or are still missing, and as indigenous and Northern Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett suggests, the true, unrecorded figure is ‘way, way worse.’ As Trudeau’s government launch the inquiry with trepidation, indigenous communities have expressed their concern that the investigation may be worth nothing more than the paper it is written on.

Unfortunately, none of this is new. For Metis, First Nation and Inuit communities, every single government in Canadian history has offered false promises, and Trudeau’s administration needed to make records, not discords, in its prioritization and care in implementing progressive indigenous policy.

When Trudeau made such ardent promises to the Canadian Native community in order to return to ’24 Sussex Drive,’ the Prime Minister’s residence, he needs to ensure that he is not another false friend to a group that have suffered one hundred and fifty years of betrayal.

Even though the Liberals have taken power, little has changed for indigenous Canada.

Posted in CanadaComments Off on Indigenous Rights: Justin Trudeau’s Elephant in the Room

A Deadly Day: Russian Ambassador Assassinated; 12 Dead in Berlin Truck Crash; Zürich Mosque Attacked

NOVANEWS

Image result for PHYLLIS BENNIS PHOTO

In Germany, 12 people were killed and 48 more wounded in Berlin after a truck drove into a Christmas market around 8 p.m. local time, plowing into the stalls packed with shoppers and tourists at about 40 miles an hour. German police have detained a 23-year-old Pakistani asylum seeker as a possible suspect, but Berlin’s police chief has acknowledged they may have picked up the wrong man. Meanwhile, in Turkey, the Russian ambassador to Turkey, Andrey Karlov, was assassinated Monday at an art exhibition in Ankara. Turkish authorities say the lone gunman was a 22-year-old off-duty Turkish police officer. He shot Karlov dead in a dramatic scene in the middle of the art gallery as he yelled “Don’t forget Aleppo, don’t forget Syria!” Meanwhile, in Zürich, Switzerland, three people were injured when a gunman opened fire at a mosque frequented by Somali refugees. The gunman was later found dead, apparently after committing suicide. To talk more about these events, we are joined by Phyllis Bennis, fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. She’s written several books, including, most recently, Understanding ISIS and the New Global War on Terror.

TRANSCRIPT:

AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show looking at a series of shocking attacks that shook Germany, Turkey and Switzerland Monday. In Germany, 12 people were killed and 48 more wounded in Berlin after a truck drove into a Christmas market around 8:00 p.m. local time, plowing into the stalls, packed with shoppers and tourists, at about 40 miles an hour. German police have detained a 23-year-old Pakistani asylum seeker as a possible suspect, but Berlin’s police chief has acknowledged they may have picked up the wrong man.

Meanwhile, in Turkey, the Russian ambassador to Turkey, Andrey Karlov, was assassinated Monday at an art exhibition in Ankara. Turkish authorities say the lone gunman was a 22-year-old off-duty Turkish police officer. He shot Karlov dead in a dramatic scene in the middle of the art gallery, as the gunman yelled “Don’t forget Aleppo, don’t forget Syria!”

Meanwhile, in Zürich, Switzerland, three people were injured when a gunman opened fire at a mosque frequented by Somali refugees. The gunman was later found dead, apparently after committing suicide.

To talk more about these attacks, we’re joined by Phyllis Bennis, fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C. She’s written a number of books, including, recently, Understanding ISIS and the New Global War on Terror

Phyllis, if you could respond to this latest series of attacks, each one different with its own circumstances?

PHYLLIS BENNIS: They are all different, Amy, and I think it’s important that we consistently keep in mind that we don’t have much information yet. There is most clear information about the assassination of the Russian ambassador in Turkey. There’s very little information about the horrific truck scenario in Berlin. It’s not even certain at this point that it was deliberate. It appears to have been, but we don’t know who was responsible. As you said, the police chief of Berlin has said they don’t think they have the right man in custody. So we don’t have any idea who it was.

It would not, however — I think it would be a mistake to sort of say, “Well, it might be an accident, so we don’t have to think about it in a political context.” This is happening, of course, in the context of the continuation of the war in Syria, the reality that while the horrific attacks on Aleppo have mostly come to an end at the moment, and most people, most civilians, have gotten out — there are some left who are hopefully going to be evacuated today — that war is far from over, and the consequences of that war have spread across its borders. That’s part of the reason for the tensions, and then reconciliation, new tensions, more reconciliation, underway between Russia and Turkey, which may or may not have something to do with the assassination of the Russian ambassador.

And then, of course, the attack on the mosque in Zürich is a reminder that Islamophobia, attacks on refugees and immigrants are continuing and, indeed, are on the rise, certainly here in the United States since the period of rising Islamophobia during the election campaign over this year, and particularly since the election of Donald Trump as president here in the United States.

So, the broad question remains. We are facing a very, very difficult political reality, one that requires a great deal of new thinking about how to — how to take on these questions. What we’re looking at is a situation where I think the only thing we can be sure of is that refugees across Europe — in particular, those in Turkey, those in Germany — are going to face very serious consequences of this range of attacks that we’ve seen over the last 24 hours.

AMY GOODMAN: On Monday, Phyllis, Donald Trump issued a statement after the Berlin attack. He said, quote, “Our hearts and prayers are with the loved ones of the victims of today’s horrifying terror attack in Berlin. Innocent civilians were murdered in the streets as they prepared to celebrate the Christmas holiday. ISIS and other Islamist terrorists continually slaughter Christians in their communities and places of worship as part of their global jihad. These terrorists and the regional and worldwide networks must be eradicated from the face of the earth, a mission we will carry out with all freedom-loving partners.” If you could talk about his focus on Christians, where, when you look at the last few days, well, in the Zürich attack, of course, Muslims; in Aden, in Yemen, 48 people killed on Sunday in a suicide bombing?

PHYLLIS BENNIS: The reality is that statement by Donald Trump is filled with false claims. One is, as you say, this notion that somehow Islamic jihad or other Islamic extremist organizations have particularly targeted Christians is simply not true. Far more Muslims all around the world have died in these horrific attacks than Christians have.

The notion that the Christmas markets across Germany are somehow a religious expression is also simply not true. It’s very much a cultural reality in very much a culture of capitalism. These are small markets across German cities in the run-up to Christmas. They’re very secular. They’re all about drinking hot mulled wine and buying little gifts, stocking stuffer sort of things, and they’re very popular. They had very little to do with religion. So, this part is simply not the case.

The notion that Donald Trump is saying, at a time when the German police are saying, “We don’t know who did this. We don’t know for sure it was an act of terrorism at all,” that he gets out in front of that and says, “This was an act of terror. It was committed by radical Islamic terrorists,” it’s simply based on nothing. It’s simply based on his assumptions, based presumably on his own kind of Islamophobia.

So, I think that we have to be very, very cautious in consistently challenging those false claims, whether they’re made by Donald Trump or anybody else, that simply make the situation worse and don’t help us to either understand the motivations of people who might have carried these acts out — if indeed the one in Germany was a deliberate act — and, most importantly, how to stop it, how to prevent it. That’s what’s important. Making false accusations without any basis in reality is simply going to make the situation worse and not better.

AMY GOODMAN: Phyllis, let’s talk about what’s happening in Syria right now and what you think needs to happen. What is the latest on the situation of thousands of people in eastern Aleppo and the attempted evacuations of them?

PHYLLIS BENNIS: I haven’t heard the news for the last several hours. What we were hearing from yesterday is that the majority of civilians had made it out of Aleppo. Some are left. There’s different assessments between the U.N., the ICRC, other agencies on the ground, about who might be left, how many people, how many may be civilians, how many may be fighters. Some of the fighters have been refusing to leave. There had been an attack by rebel forces against a set of buses that were en route to take civilians out of two towns adjoining Aleppo that had been besieged for months by rebel forces, and the government had wanted those civilians allowed out. That was the kind of quid pro quo that was underway in the evacuations of the last few days. That evacuation seems to be underway again, but I don’t think it’s complete yet.

So, the question of Aleppo is not a settled question. It’s on the verge of being definitively taken by the government, which would be a very significant victory for the government forces, made possible a lot by the role of Russia, particularly Russian airstrikes, many of which attacked civilian targets — medical facilities and others. So the cost to civilians in East Aleppo has been enormous. The cost in — to civilians in western Aleppo and other parts of Syria continue, as well. And, of course, right now we’re also hearing about the massive civilian destruction that’s underway in Mosul in Iraq, where the U.S. is carrying out airstrikes again, in an effort, supposedly, to rid the city of its control by ISIS, but at the enormous human and civilian cost to the city and to the people who live there.

So, the militarization of the global war on terror, both in Syria and in Iraq is taking a huge toll on civilians. And it’s certainly, as we’re seeing now, potentially — we, again, don’t know this — but the notion that ending the control by ISIS of the territory and populations that they have had under their control in both Syria and Iraq, imagining that somehow that’s going to end the problem of ISIS as a terrorist force is simply not the case. We’ve known for a long time — terrorism experts, even U.S. government officials, although they haven’t operated off of this, but have acknowledged — that the likelihood is that as ISIS loses control of territory, it will return to its origins as a more, if you will, old-fashioned terrorist organization, carrying out attacks on civilians in the region, probably, most of all, somewhat further afield, perhaps in Europe, perhaps elsewhere. But what we’re seeing right now is the reality that this global war on terror is indeed having global ramifications. And the militarization is increasing the threat to civilians around Europe and elsewhere, but most particularly in the Middle East region.

AMY GOODMAN: Phyllis Bennis, I want to thank you for being with us, fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Thanks so much for joining us.

PHYLLIS BENNIS: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! When we come back, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich on Donald Trump. Stay with us.

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

Posted in Russia, TurkeyComments Off on A Deadly Day: Russian Ambassador Assassinated; 12 Dead in Berlin Truck Crash; Zürich Mosque Attacked

Berlin Terror Attack: The Only Option for Israel?

NOVANEWS

Image result for Berlin Terror Attack PHOTO

By Sajjad Shaukat

At least 12 people were killed and about 50 injured when a truck ploughed into a Christmas

market at Breitscheidplatz in the German city of Berlin on December 19, this year (Monday

evening). The Islamic State group (Also known as Daesh, ISIS, ISIL) claimed responsibility for

the attack via its Amaq news agency.

Berlin police said on the next day, that investigators assume the driver of the truck did so

intentionally in a suspected terrorist attack.

A man found in the truck was ruled out by police as the driver at the time of the attack. He died

as a result of the crash and was later identified as a Polish citizen. Police also stated that the

nationality of the suspected driver, who fled the crash scene and was later arrested, was unclear.

He was also indentified as Pakistani.

The German interior minister Thomas de Maizière stated in the hours after the attack that the

evidence had not yet made it clear that it was deliberate, though it was likely to have been one.

According to the latest reports, German police said that they may have arrested the wrong man

over the Berlin terror attack, and the real culprit could still be at large and armed and dangerous.

In the world of Zionist-controlled media, quite contrarily to the statements of Police and the

interior minister, some German, British and American newspapers wrote that the driver of the

vehicle which barreled into a crowded Christmas market was from Afghanistan or Pakistan who

had entered Germany as refugee earlier this year.

However, terror attack in Berlin cannot be seen in isolation. Like the previous terror assaults in

Europe and the US, including some other countries, this new one in Berlin is also a false flag

operation, arranged by some state actors and their intelligence agencies in order to achieve secret

aims.

In this respect, some state actors like the US and particularly, Israel are still acting upon the

secret strategies of the old political thinkers like Hobbes, Machiavelli, Morgenthau and Kissinger

to achieve their selfish aims in wake of the modern world trends such as renunciation of war,

peaceful settlement of disputes and economic development, while social media or internet has

not only accelerated the peoples’ interaction of various countries for the development of their

mutual related-fields, but also exposed the hidden game of some state actors.

In this regard, there is a co-relationship of the double game, secret strategy and false flag

operations which continue unabated.

Like the terror attacks in Paris, Brussels, Orlando, San Bernardino, Nice, Munich and latest one

in Berlin is also a false flag operation and is part of the secret strategy of American CIA and

especially Israeli Mossad which are in collaboration with each other in order to obtain the covert

aims of their countries. Mossad might be alone involved in the terror assault of Berlin.

Various acts of terrorism show that without taking cognizance of the related-developments in the

world, the general masses of a country and even some educated persons start blaming all the

Muslims and the ISIS in this respect. Therefore, we need to go in-depth analysis to know who is

behind the carnage in Berlin. In these terms, as part of the secret strategy of some states, double

game and false flag operations are interrelated.

As regards terrorism, Machiavelli advises the rulers to have a lion-like image outwardly, and act

upon the traits of goat inwardly. He also suggests them foreign adventures and the use of terror

to obtain their goals. In his sense, a good ruler should be a good opportunist and hypocrite. While

echoing Machiavelli, Morgenthau points out that sometimes, rulers act upon immoral activities

like deceit, fraud, falsehood and even murder to fulfill their selfish aims.

Indicating double game, Morgenthau, and Palmer and Perkins opine, “Just as power became the

instrument of ambitious nationalism and state’s leaders, it has now become the tool of ideologies.

The true nature of the policy is concealed by ideological justifications and rationalization.”

After the false flag operations of Paris and Brussels, the shooting at San Bernardino, California

etc., Israel achieved its several sinister designs. Like the drastic aftermath of 9/11 tragedy, rulers

and politicians of the US-led Western countries, especially of Europe, including their media have

been misguiding their general public by creating chauvinism against the Muslims. They are

propagating the so-called threat of Islamophobia. In one way or the other, the Muslims are being

persecuted in the US and other Western countries, particularly in Europe which has been put on

high alert, as these subversive acts were being taken as attacks on the whole continent.

Mossad also funded the election-campaign of the Israeli-supported the US President-elect

Donald Trump who won the presidential race of the Republican Party, as he had started

exaggerating the threat of Islamophobia by manipulating various terror attacks in the US and

Europe.

Trump manipulated the terror attacks which occurred in Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino,

Orlando, Nice and Munich which were, in fact, false flag operations, conducted by Israeli

Mossad in connivance with some CIA operatives who were playing the double game by using

the terrorists of the ISIS in this respect, while, some incidents were not linked to ISIS, but were

the result of self-radicalization of the individuals.

Donald Trump used each terror assault in fueling anti-Muslim racialism in America and to get

the sympathies of a majority of the ordinary Americans and those of Europe, who did not have

much time to go into depth-analysis and have been misguided by his emotional speeches,

statements and false hopes. The more he exploited the threat of Islamic militants, the more

popularity he got among general masses of America, who have been impressed by his

stereotypes. After the incident at San Bernardino, which resulted in the deaths of 14 persons by a

Muslim couple, Trump had called for a ban on Muslims, entering the United States.

The Washington Post in an article, under the caption, “Trump’s reckless, dangerous

Islamophobia helps the Islamic State”, wrote on June 13, 2016, “Trump’s standards, his

comments about the Orlando shooting have been reckless and self-serving. They are also

dangerous for the country…the strongest remaining force that propels the Islamic State is the

Islamophobia of Trump and his European counterparts, argue senior intelligence strategists for

the U.S.-led coalition. Inflammatory, xenophobic statements about Muslims reinforce the

jihadists’ claims that they are Muslim knights fighting against an intolerant West. Trump

unwittingly gives them precisely the role they dream about.”

In this regard, Khaled A. Beydoun pointed out on the Aljazeera multimedia network on March

13, 2016, “The world brand Trump is becoming synonymous with expansion of racism and

incitement of Islamophobia…I think Islam hate us, said Donald Trump, 24 hours before the

Republican presidential debate in Miami…is a call to his voting base, to further galvanise them

around a disdain for Islam that not only heightens hateful fervour at his rallies, but incites

violence on American blocks and pushes bigots to the ballot box…the statement is rooted in the

very ignorance and hate which made him the darling of bigots and surged him up the

polls…Islamophobia¬-the suspicion and fear of Islam and its 1.7 billion adherent-is political

ideology for Trump.”

Anti-Muslim rhetoric of Trump could be judged from his several other statements. Trump’s

opposition to Muslim refugees, especially from Syria is very well known. During his appearance

with the National Border Patrol Council’s Green Line radio show on May 15, 2016, Donald

Trump predicted that refugees with ISIS-funded cell phones will conduct another 9/11-like

terrorist attack in the US. During a GOP debate in December, 2016, he had already expressed

similar thoughts by giving “Americans wake-up call about border security and to take it

seriously,” elaborating that he had “no doubt, the attackers were already entering the country.”

On February 14, 2016, CIA Director John Brennan warned that ISIS attacks on “U.S. soil is

inevitable.” However, these warnings were exploited by the Mossad and its affiliated CIA

operatives to target the night club of Orlando, (Florida) so as to provide Donald Trump with an

opportunity to accelerate his campaign against the Muslims.

After the shooting at the gay night club in Orlando, he also criticized the US President Barack

Obama to resign, slamming him for having “disgracefully refused to even say the words

“Radical Islam.” Calling on his opponent-candidate Clinton to get out of the general election

race for the same reason, Trump said, “Because our leaders are weak, I said this was going to

happen…we cannot afford.” Trump again remarked that he would decrease immigration from

the Middle East because “since 9/11, hundreds of migrants and their children have been

implicated in terrorism in the United States.” He, once again, asked for the ban of any Muslims,

entering the US. On June 19, 2016, during his interview with the CBC News, he called for racial

“profiling of Muslims inside the United States to combat terrorism.”He reiterated his call for

more surveillance of mosques and warned that radical Muslims were trying to take over our

children.

Trump continued move against Muslims. In this context, toughening immigration checks for the

French and Germans in the US, questioning NATO obligations and hinting at an exit from the

World Trade Organization, Donald Trump said on July 24, this year, “We have problems in

Germany and we have problems in France…they have totally been compromised by deadly

Islamist attacks in Nice and last year in Paris…you know why? It’s their own fault…because

they allowed people to come into their countries.”

Nevertheless, the incident of shooting at the gay club in Orlando not only exposed this false flag

operation, but also endorsed other false flag terror-attacks in the US and Europe. In this regard,

in an interview with Brazilian TV on June 14, 2016, the ex-wife of the Orlando shooter Omar

Mateen Sitora Yusufiy revealed that American FBI pressurized her to keep quiet about his

homosexuality. While, Mateen had been dubbed as an Islamic terrorist by the American

politicians, senior officials and commentators, following reports that he had pledged allegiance

to the ISIS, but FBI wanted to downplay the personal and self-hating nature of the assault. Even,

President Obama stated on June 12, 2016, “Federal authorities had made no definitive judgment

on the killer’s motivation, and whether he was inspired by or directed by Islamic State or other

terrorist groups. Obama clarified by explaining “Orlando shooting was the result of Mateen’s

personal resentment in relation to the gay club.”

Similarly, the teenager Ali David Sonboly who killed 9 people in Munich had no connection

with the ISIS. Police investigation of France revealed that he was “a mentally troubled person”

and police also discovered extremist material, linked to the attack by Andres Behring Brevik, the

white supremacist who murdered 77 persons in Norway in 2011. And the shooting in the French

city of Nice was also a false flag terror-act, as CIA-Mossad arranged it with help of ISIS which

used homegrown terrorists of France.

Nonetheless, owing to the irresponsible approach of western leaders, far right-wing parties and

“Stop Islam” movement in the West, especially in Europe are becoming popular by largely

attracting their people. Amid a migrant crisis, sluggish economic growth and growing

disillusionment with the European Union, right-wing parties in a growing number of European

countries have made electoral gains. The right-wing parties range across a wide policy spectrum,

from populist and nationalist to far-right neofascist.

In September 2016, German Chancellor Angela Merkel accepted responsibility for her Christian

Democratic party's “bitter defeat” in Berlin state elections, voicing regret over mistakes that

contributed to migrant crisis in Germany. More than a million migrants reached Germany. She

has been widely criticized in Germany for the policy, which was a humanitarian gesture faced

with the desperate plight of migrants, many of them refugees from the war in Syria. The right-

wing, anti-migrant party Alternative for Germany (AfD) entered the Berlin state parliament for

the first time with 14% of the vote.

With political norms and expectations shattered, attention is turning to the heart of western

Europe—to France, Germany and Italy, each of which holds national polls in the coming

months.

Recently, France voted to choose the rightwing candidate likely to face the far-right Marine Le

Pen, head of the far-right Front National in next spring’s presidential election—just as Donald

Trump’s US win has thrown the spotlight on France as the scene of the next possible shakeup of

the political system.

What really draws down the darkening for Europe’s leaders, however, is the realization that there

are plenty of other European politicians ready to remake their own image in that of Trump.

Besides revival of the fake global war on terror, Israeli-led America also got the support of its

Western allies (NATO) against Russia in relation to Syrian civil war, and as part of the double

game and secret strategy, American jet fighters and those of its Western coalition started

targeting the ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria.

Meanwhile, despite criticism of the Democrats and other circles in wake of widespread protests,

with 304 votes, Electoral College seals Donald Trump’s election as president on December 19,

2016.

In order to divert the attention towards Moscow, Israel was behind election-victory of Donald

Trump, while American President Obama ordered the CIA to review evidence that Russia was

behind a series of cyber-attacks that compromised Hillary Clinton’s campaign and may have

helped Donald Trump win the presidency. But, Russian President Vladimir Putin has denied the

false allegations and demanded evidence in this regard.

In his recent statement, the US President-elect Donald Trump who has always backed Tel Aviv

at the cost of the Palestinians, pledged to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem

without bothering for monumental challenges in one of the world’s most tense

environments. David Friedman, Trump’s pick for ambassador to Israel, reinforced this

commitment on December15, this year by saying that he looks forward to serving “from the

U.S. Embassy in Israel’s eternal capital, Jerusalem.”

Although the presidential nominee of the Democrats Hillary Clinton is also Israeli agent, yet her

criticism about contributions of election-campaign from Wall Street backers, email-scandal,

drone-scandal etc. have weakened her position. Hence, Trump best suited the interests of Tel

Aviv. Notably, in an interview with the Daily Mail on May 2, 2016, Trump stated that Israel

should continue construction of illegal settlements across the occupied West Bank.

Trump also intends to favour India, while opposing the nuclear weapons of Pakistan, as he stated

in the recent past. He has brushed aside the ground realities that Indian Prime Minister Narindra

Modi led by the ruling fundamentalist party BJP has been implementing anti-Muslim and anti-

Pakistan agenda, while encouraging Hindutva (Hindu nationalism). Besides Muslims, BJP and

other extremist outfits have also been targeting the Christians and their places of worship.

Donald Trump has further encouraged Hindu terrorism inside India where other religious

minorities are living under perennial fear.

But, some developments have frustrated the Israelis and the Zionist Jews.

Russian-led Syrian forces retook the Aleppo on December 13, this year by defeating the rebel

groups and other militant outfits.

Retaking Aleppo, which has been split between rebel and government control since 2012, is

biggest victory of the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the civil war. Aleppo is strategically

important and is industrial capital of Syria; therefore, analysts were already opining that the city

will decide the Syrian war led by Russia and the US. America and Israel had thought that before

Syrian forces-backed by Russia occupy more territories and cities; especially Aleppo, rebel

groups and the ISIS should be given a free hand to continue fighting and to violate the ceasefire-

agreements in relation to Syrian war, particularly Aleppo.

Russian-led coalition of Iran, Iraq, the Syrian army-the National Defense Forces (NDF) and

Lebanon-based Hezbollah, which have broken the backbone of the Mossad-CIA- assisted ISIS

terrorists, Al-Qaeda’s Al-Nusra Front and the rebels who have been fighting to oust the Syrian

President Assad’s government and against the current Iraqi regime as part of America’s double

game to obtain Israeli interests.

In case of Iraq on June 26, 2016, Russian-assisted Iraqi forces recaptured the city of Fallujah.

They are likely to retake Mosul.

Although by taking advantage of the Russian-Syrian troops engaged in fighting in Aleppo, the

ISIL re-occupied Syrian ancient town of Palmyra on December 11, 2016 after it was retaken by

Syrian government and Russian forces nine months ago, yet the town will again retaken by the

government forces in the near future. Next day, Moscow, deplored the lack of cooperation with

the United States in Palmyra after ISIS re-entered the ancient Syrian city.

In this connection, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that the movement of IS

fighters fleeing an Iraqi assault on Mosul to Syria and the offensive on Palmyra might be part of

an orchestrated plan to ease pressure on rebel groups in the second city of Aleppo.

Meanwhile, Russia and China on December 5, this year vetoed a United Nations Security

Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in the Syrian city of Aleppo to allow desperately

needed aid into the war-ravaged zone. In fact, US-led some western countries wanted a

temporary truce to rearm the rebel groups, under the cover of evacuation of the non-combatant

civilians by propagating humanitarian crisis in Syria. It was the sixth Russian veto since 2011 on

a Syria-themed resolution. China joined for the fifth time. Both Moscow and Beijing have same

stand in relation to Syria’s war, rebel groups and terrorist outfits like ISIS.

However, victory of Aleppo has proved the Russian ground and air supremacy over the US-led

entities. Undoubtedly, it is due to excellent leadership qualities and skillful diplomacy of the

Russian President Putin that analysts have started saying that after victory in Aleppo, very soon,

Syria will be liberated from the hold of the US-Israeli- led some western powers who have,

covertly, been supporting the rebel groups and the ISIS. Defeat of these entities in Aleppo has

also exposed helplessness of the US President Obama and its western allies who were fighting to

oust the Syrian President Assad’s regime and the failure of the CIA-prepared plan-B of Syria’s

partition. With the defeat in Syria’s civil war, the US-backed pipeline project would also prove

fruitless.

After the defeat in Aleppo, Mossad arranged terror assaults in Turkey, Cairo (Church) and

military base of Yemen.

Similarly, the US which is acting upon a secret strategy, wants to make India the superpower of

Asia so as to counterbalance China.

During American President Obama’s visit to India, on January 25, 2010, the US and India

announced a breakthrough on a pact which would allow American companies to supply New

Delhi with civilian nuclear technology. On November 2, 2010, US agreed to sell India the most

expensive—the new F-35 fighter jets including US F-16 and F-18 fighters, C-17 and C-130

aircraft, radar systems, Harpoon weapons etc. Besides acquisition of arms and weapons from

other western countries—especially Israel, America is a potential military supplier to India.

During President Obama’s second visit to India, on January 25, 2016, the US ensured India to

permit American companies to supply India with civilian nuclear technology, as agreed upon in

2008. US President Obama also announced $4 billion of new initiatives aimed at boosting trade

and investment ties as well as jobs in India.

Nevertheless, setting aside the Indian irresponsible record of non-proliferation, and safety of

nuclear arms, Washington also pressurized the International Atomic Agency (IAEA) to sign an

accord of specific safeguards with India. America had already contacted the Nuclear Suppliers

Group (NSG) to grant a waiver to New Delhi for starting civil nuclear trade on larger scale.

As part of the double game, based in Afghanistan, operatives of American CIA, Indian RAW and

Israeli Mossad which have well-established their secret network there, and are well-penetrated in

the terrorist outfits like ISIS, Tehreek-e- Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and their affiliated Taliban

groups are using their terrorists to destabilize Tibetan regions of China, Iranian Sistan-

Baluchistan and Pakistan’s Balochistan by arranging the subversive activities. In this context, the

China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is their special target. Recent acts of terrorism in

Pakistan’s Balochistan are part of the same scheme.

In case of Balochistan, these militant outfits and separatist groups like the Balochistan Liberation

Army (BLA) and their affiliated groups, including Jundollah (God’s soldiers) and Lashkar-i-

Janghvi which have been creating unrest in the Balochistan get logistic support from RAW and

Mossad with the tactical assistance of America. In the recent years, these terrorist outfits

massacred many persons through suicide attacks, bomb blasts, targeted killings and sectarian

violence. These externally-supported insurgent groups had kidnapped and killed many Chinese

and Iranian nationals in Pakistan, including Iranian diplomats. They have claimed responsibility

for a number of terror assaults, including those on Shias in Balochsitan and Iranian Sistan-

Baluchistan.

Notably, located on the southwestern coast of Pakistan, Balochistan’s Gwadar deep seaport

which is the main part of the CPEC is close to the Strait of Hormuz from where more than 17

million barrels of oil passes every day. Its location among South Asia, the oil-rich Middle East,

and oil and gas-resourced Central Asia has further increased its strategic significance. Besides,

Balochistan’s abundant mineral resources irritate the eyes of the US, India and Israel which

intend to weaken Pakistan for their collective aims.

It is noteworthy that during the sixth Heart of Asia Conference which was held in the Indian city

of Amritsar on December 3 and 4, this year, addressing the conference, Russian envoy Zamir

Kabulov rejected the Indian and Afghan allegations against Pakistan. He stated that Afghanistan

is the pivot of the conference and the agenda of the conference should not be hijacked. He added

that being friends and supporters, we should avoid the blame game and work together. He also

said that Pakistan’s Adviser to the Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Azizj Aziz’s speech

at the conference was friendly and constructive.

Downplaying Russia’s military exercise with Pakistan held two months ago, Zamir Kabulov,

who oversees Russia’s engagement in Afghanistan also referred to India’s increasing cooperation

with the US by saying, “India has close cooperation with the US, does Moscow complain?”

Reliable sources of Pakistan and media of the country revealed in the end of November, this year

that Islamabad has approved Russia’s request to use Gwadar Port, which means Moscow could

also join the CPEC project.

In response to the Pak-China project of CPEC, Washington broadly supported New Delhi and

Kabul in signing a deal with Iran for a transport corridor, opening up a new route to Afghanistan

via the Iranian port of Chabahar. In this context, during his visit to Tehran, on May 23, 2016, the

Indian Prime Minister Modi signed 12 agreements with Tehran, including a deal to develop

Iran’s Chabahar port. India will spend $500 million on the project, with a plan to invest an

additional $ 16 billion in the Chabahar free trade zone. Chabahar—located about 1,800

kilometres south of Tehran—is more than just a port with an adjoining free trade zone. But,

CPEC is much bigger and viable project than Chahbahar.

In accordance with the Israeli policy, the US pro-Israeli and pro-Indian President-elect Donald

Trump has stated that he would abandon the Iran nuclear deal. Therefore, it is expected that

Tehran which is very close friend of Russia will also use the Gwadar Port or join the CPEC

project.

Russians and Iranians know that Gwadar seaport would connect the landlocked Central Asian

states with rest of the world. Being the commercial hub, the port is likely to increase volume of

trade, bringing multiple economic and financial benefits to Pakistan, Iran, Russia and China. It

will enable high-volume cargo vessels to move in the major oceans.

While, the new Cold War has started between the US and Russia in wake of Syrian war which

Moscow is winning, and America and its allies are also likely to be defeated in the Asia-Pacific

region where Russia-China alliance with Pakistan would also castigate the US-led Indo-Israeli

secret strategy.

Russia and China on December 5, this year vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution

calling for a ceasefire in the Syrian city of Aleppo to allow desperately needed aid into the war-

ravaged zone. In fact, US-led some western countries wanted a temporary truce to rearm the

rebel groups, under the cover of evacuation of the non-combatant civilians by propagating

humanitarian crisis in Syria. It was the sixth Russian veto since 2011 on a Syria-themed

resolution. China joined for the fifth time. Both Moscow and Beijing have same stand in relation

to Syria’s war, rebel groups and terrorist outfits like ISIS.

Some other developments such as criticism of the controversial Turkish-EU refugee deal by a

number of human rights groups, especially Amnesty International, success of first Muslim

Pakistan’s origin Sadiq Khan as mayor of London by defeating the Conservative rival Zac

Goldsmith-a wealthy Jew who was supported by the former British Prime Minister David

Cameron, Britain’s decision to leave the European Union (EU), after the referendum (Brexit) on

June 24, 2016, despite President Obama’s instance on London to keep aligned with the EU,

prospects of Scotland and some other countries for separation from the EU, and the divide

between the elite class which run multinational companies with the direct or indirect control of

the Jews and the general masses who are suffering from multiple problems in wake of

differences on the refugee crisis, Syrian war, Greece’s weak economy, recent violent protests

against the labour laws in France etc.—the chances of European Union’s disintegration which

will giving a greater blow to the US-Europe alliance against Russia, a rift between the NATO

countries, as noted in the recent past by the “Stop NATO protests” in Europe are quite opposite

to the Israeli secret interests.

While, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s rebuke of European nations, accusing them of

dictatorship and cruelty for keeping their frontiers closed to the refugees, fleeing the Syrian

conflict created a rift between the West and Turkey, the close ally of NATO. On February 10,

2016, President Erdogan lashed out at the US over its support for Syria’s main Kurdish group,

saying, “The failure to recognize the Democratic Union Party (PYD) as a terrorist group is

creating a “sea of blood”. He explained, “The PYD, on which the US relies to battle so-called

Islamic State in Syria, is an offshoot of the banned Kurdistan Workers’ Party.”

As regards the failed rebellion-attempt of July 15, 2016, Turkey’s president Erdogan and top

officials of his government have held the US and CIA for the failed coup to topple his regime by

backing and replacing Erdogan with the CIA’s “designated figurehead”, cleric Fethullah Gülen,

currently living in Pennsylvania in the US.

By neglecting American pressure, President Erdogan who has taken steps in the end of June, this

year to improve relations with Russia to strengthen its hand in fighting against militants, stated

that the attack at the Istanbul airport should serve as a turning point in the global battle against

terrorism. Reports suggest that Ankara is also considering a military agreement with Moscow.

However, these developments have also disappointed Tel Aviv.

Besides, a prolonged war of history in Afghanistan by the US-led NATO countries, continued

ambush attacks on their military installations and personnel by the freedom fighters (Taliban)

have demoralized, particularly American military personnel who think that they have been sent

abroad—Afghanistan, Syria and elsewhere in the world to maintain the supremacy of Israel,

instead of protecting American national interests or their citizens. The cost of the endless war in

Afghanistan is rapidly increasing, adding to the plight of ordinary citizens of the US and its

Western allies. In order to divert the attention of Americans and its Western public, Mossad-CIA

are acting upon the secret strategy of the US and Israel.

And the long-awaited 28 secret pages from the Congressional Joint Inquiry into the 9/11

Commission report were released on July 15, 2016, indicating that the alleged hijackers may

have been in contact and supported by individuals connected to the Saudi Arabian government.

On May 1, 2016, in connection with the Congressional investigation, CIA Director Brennan said

that documents which could link Saudi Arabia to 9/11 terrorists should be kept classified, as like

CIA and Mossad, Saudi Arabia has also been funding the ISIL (The Sunni group) against the

Syrian government and Yemen.

Even, CIA-Mossad scheme to promote sectarian violence in the Islamic World on larger scale,

after creating a rift between Saudi Arabia and Iran could not succeed, as after the recent

bombings in Saudi Arabia, Saudi people have started thinking about the double game of America

and Israel.

Here, connections of the Israeli secret agency Mossad are also noteworthy. In March 2015, Iraqi

Special Forces pointed out that they had arrested several ISIL’s foreign military advisors,

including American, Israeli and Arab nationals and four foreign passports in an operation in

Mosul. Last year, a senior aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin also stated that Mossad is

training ISIL terrorists, operating in Iraq and Syria. Meanwhile, arrest of Israeli Col. Shahak in

Iraq, his admission, proving links of Al-Qaeda and ISIS with America and Mossad and medical

treatment of the ISIS warriors in the Israeli hospitals might also be cited as instance. Mossad

links with the ISIS terrorists can also be judged from the fact that this terrorist outfit conducted

several suicide assaults and bomb blasts in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan. But, it did not

target Israel.

Experience of the recent acts of terrorism show that general masses start pointing fingers at the

ISIS, without going into depth to know the role of some state actors like America and Israel who

are behind this outfit and as to what the covert aims, these countries want to achieve through

their double game. General masses also forgot that as part of the double game, if President Bush

(The Senior) and George W. Bush franchised Al-Qaeda on global level, President Obama’s dual

policy franchised both Al-Qaeda and ISIS to obtain the unfinished agenda of the Zionist Jews

and for a greater Israel at the cost of the Muslim countries and the patriot Americans. By

following Israeli-led US flawed policies, consciously or unconsciously, European politicians are

also providing Mossad with golden chance to exploit the ant-Muslim phenomena of Europe and

to use ISI militants and their home-grown terrorists to conduct terror attacks in the continent.

When Iraq-based ISIS which itself broke away from Al-Qaeda, proclaimed a worldwide

caliphate by its leader Abu Baker al-Baghdadi, on 29 June 2014, ISIS’s criminal actions had

widely been criticized in the world, with many Islamic communities judging the group to be

unrepresentative of Islam. One of ISIS’s goals has been to establish a radical Sunni Islamic state

in Iraq and Syria Jordan, Palestine etc. (Levant region). It has been used by the CIA and Mossad

for distorting the image of Islam and for inciting the feelings of Western Christians and Kurds

against Muslims. Besides some Islamic countries, a majority of the religious extremists

(Muslims) from the western world joined the ISIS. In this context, oblivion on the part of

America and Europe about ISIS recruits from their countries is questionable.

Notably, Israel and Zionist lobbies which were clandestinely assisting America’s anti-Muslim,

pro-Israeli Donald Trump wanted to see him as the president of the United States have succeed

in their sinister designs.

Without citing any evidence and prior to any investigation regarding the terror attack in Berlin,

the US president-elect Donald Trump said that it was a terror attack and blamed Islamist

terrorists. He elaborated: “Our hearts and prayers are with the loved ones of the victims of

today’s horrifying terror attack in Berlin. Innocent civilians were murdered in the streets as they

prepared to celebrate the Christmas holiday…Isis and other Islamist terrorists continually

slaughter Christians in their communities and places of worship as part of their global jihad.

These terrorists and their regional and worldwide networks must be eradicated from the face of

the Earth, a mission we will carry out with all freedom-loving partners.” In fact, it was what

especially Tel Aviv expected from Trump.

Scholars of international affairs agree that “foreign affairs are too foreign” to the citizens of a

country. Renowned scholar Prof. Hoslti opines that “issues and situations” have “influence on

public opinion” which in turn “influences the objectives and actions.” In fact, fault cannot be laid

on the general masses, a majority of whom are swayed by emotions, stereotypes and prejudices

created by the political leaders who keep on manipulating any crisis for their own self-interests

with the sole aim of getting their sympathies to increase their vote bank. There are equal strong

pressures from religious and nationalist forces in wake of global war on terror which is dividing

the world on religious lines.

It is worth-mentioning that owing to its confused policies, Obama Administration was pressing

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to agree for the two-state solution of the Israeli-

Palestinian dispute. A majority of the intellectuals and analysts of the West have also been

emphasizing upon the settlement of this dispute.

Even, a debate has started between the Zionists and non-Zionist Jews for the two-state solution

of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

On the other side, some Western leaders and their media are also emphasizing upon the Indian

Prime Minister Modi to stop massacre of the innocent Kashmiris in the Indian-Occupied

Kashmir and to seek solution of this issue with Pakistan.

We can conclude that like previous terror attacks in the US and Europe, America and Israel are

also behind the terror attack in Berlin. And responsibility is also fixed on Germany whose

intelligence and law-enforcing agencies failed in this respect, despite warnings and previous

terror attacks in Europe. Particularly, Tel Aviv is not accepting the two-state solution of the

Israeli-Palestinian issue. Therefore, the only option for Israeli is to turn the world to clash of

civilizations, especially between the Muslim and the Christian worlds or to cause a major war

between Russia and the US-led European major powers.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants,

Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Posted in GermanyComments Off on Berlin Terror Attack: The Only Option for Israel?

Aleppo: From Syrian War to the Asia-Pacific Region

NOVANEWS

Image result for Aleppo PHOTO

By Sajjad Shaukat

Russian-led Syrian forces retook the Aleppo on December 13, this year by defeating the rebel

groups and other militant outfits.

Retaking Aleppo, which has been split between rebel and government control since 2012, is

biggest victory of the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the civil war. Aleppo is strategically

important and is industrial capital of Syria; therefore, analysts were already opining that the city

will decide the Syrian war led by Russia and the US. America and Israel had thought that before

Syrian forces-backed by Russia occupy more territories and cities; especially Aleppo, rebel

groups and the Islamic State group (Also known as ISIS, ISIL) should be given a free hand to

continue fighting and to violate the ceasefire-agreements in relation to Syrian war, particularly

Aleppo.

Russian-led coalition of Iran, Iraq, the Syrian army-the National Defense Forces (NDF) and

Lebanon-based Hezbollah, which have broken the backbone of the US-CIA- assisted ISIS

terrorists, Al-Qaeda’s Al-Nusra Front and the rebels who have been fighting to oust the Syrian

President Assad’s government and against the current Iraqi regime as part of America’s double

game to obtain Israeli interests.

In case of Iraq on June 26, 2016, Russian-assisted Iraqi forces recaptured the city of Fallujah.

They are likely to retake Mosul.

Although by taking advantage of the Russian-Syrian troops engaged in fighting in Aleppo, the

ISIL re-occupied Syrian ancient town of Palmyra on December 11, 2016 after it was retaken by

Syrian government and Russian forces nine months ago, yet the town will again retaken by the

government forces in the near future. Next day, Moscow, deplored the lack of cooperation with

the United States in Palmyra after ISIS re-entered the ancient Syrian city.

In this regard, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that the movement of IS fighters

fleeing an Iraqi assault on Mosul to Syria and the offensive on Palmyra might be part of an

orchestrated plan to ease pressure on rebel groups in the second city of Aleppo.

Meanwhile Russia and China on December 5, this year vetoed a United Nations Security Council

resolution calling for a ceasefire in the Syrian city of Aleppo to allow desperately needed aid into

the war-ravaged zone. In fact, US-led some western countries wanted a temporary truce to rearm

the rebel groups, under the cover of evacuation of the non-combatant civilians by propagating

humanitarian crisis in Syria. It was the sixth Russian veto since 2011 on a Syria-themed

resolution. China joined for the fifth time. Both Moscow and Beijing have same stand in relation

to Syria’s war, rebel groups and terrorist outfits like ISIS.

The World Beast Com had also pointed out that occupation of the Aleppo would decide the

future course of Syria’s war.

However, victory of Aleppo has proved the Russian ground and air supremacy over the US-led

entities. Undoubtedly, it is due to excellent leadership qualities and skillful diplomacy of the

Russian President Vladimir Putin that analysts have started saying that after victory in Aleppo,

very soon, Syria will be liberated from the hold of the US-Israeli- led some western powers who

have, covertly, been supporting the rebel groups and the ISIS. Defeat of these entities in Aleppo

has also exposed helplessness of the US President Barack Obama and its western allies who were

fighting to oust the Syrian President Assad’s regime and the failure of the CIA-prepared plan-B

of Syria’s partition.

With the defeat in Syria’s civil war, the US-backed pipeline project would also prove fruitless.

In this context, F. William Engdahl writes, “Today the US-backed wars in Ukraine and in Syria

are but two fronts in the same strategic war to cripple Russia and China and to rupture any

Eurasian counter-pole to a US-controlled New World Order. In each, control of energy pipelines,

this time primarily of natural gas pipelines—from Russia to the EU via Ukraine and from Iran

and Syria to the EU via Syria—is the strategic goal. The true aim of the US and Israel backed

ISIS is to give the pretext for bombing Assad’s vital grain silos and oil refineries to cripple the

economy in preparation for a “Ghaddafi-”style elimination of Russia and China and Iran-ally

Bashar al-Assad. In a narrow sense, as Washington neo-conservatives see it, who controls Syria

could control the Middle East. And from Syria, gateway to Asia, he will hold the key to Russia

House, as well as that of China via the Silk Road. Religious wars have historically been the most

savage of all wars and this one is no exception, especially when trillions of dollars in oil and gas

revenues are at stake. Why is the secret Kerry-Abdullah deal on Syria reached on September 11

stupid? Because the brilliant tacticians in Washington and Riyadh and Doha and to an extent in

Ankara are unable to look at the interconnectedness of all the dis-order and destruction they

foment, to look beyond their visions of control of the oil and gas flows as the basis of their

illegitimate power. They are planting the seeds of their own destruction in the end.”

It is of particular attention that according to the retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a

memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans

to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years, starting with Iraq and moving

on to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. In an interview, Clark said that this

strategy is fundamentally about control of the region’s vast oil and gas resources.

During the last two decades, political analysts have been opining that the US which is acting

upon a secret strategy, wants to make India the superpower of Asia in order to counterbalance

China, while this game was, openly, disclosed by the then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

who was on three-day trip to India in 2011.

In this respect, on July 20, 2011, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged India to be

more assertive in Asia, saying that the country should play more of a leadership role. She

explained, “India has the potential to positively shape the future of the Asia-Pacific.” Clinton

further stated, “India should play a role as a US ally in regional forums such as the Association

of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).” On the other hand, while concealing American double

game, She remarked, “New Delhi could also help promote trade links in violence-wracked South

Asia, which would bring prosperity and peace to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan…Pakistan

must do more to tackle terror groups operating from its territory being used for attacks that

destabilize Afghanistan or India.”

During his trip to Australia, on November 17, 2011, President Barrack Obama, while sending an

unmistakable message to Beijing said, “The United States is a Pacific power, and we are here to

stay.” The then US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta also made statements in this connection

during his Asia visit. He revealed during his visit to Singapore that the US will shift a majority of

its warships to the Asia-Pacific region by 2020 as part of a new US military strategy in Asia.

Panetta’s Asia visit came at a time of renewed tension between China and Philippines, the latter

being a major US ally.

With regards to strengthening its position in the Pacific, America has also cultivated security

relations with New Zealand. It is also working with several Gulf countries to solidify its

entrenchment in the region. American strategic thinkers take China’s military modernization as a

great threat to its military bases in the continent.

As a matter of fact, US backs Indian hegemony in Asia to counterbalance China. During

American President Obama’s visit to India, on January 25, 2010, the US and India announced a

breakthrough on a pact which would allow American companies to supply New Delhi with

civilian nuclear technology. On November 2, 2010, US agreed to sell India the most

expensive—the new F-35 fighter jets including US F-16 and F-18 fighters, C-17 and C-130

aircraft, radar systems, Harpoon weapons etc. Besides acquisition of arms and weapons from

other western countries—especially Israel, America is a potential military supplier to India.

During President Obama’s second visit to India, on January 25, 2016, the US ensured India to

permit American companies to supply India with civilian nuclear technology, as agreed upon in

2008. US President Obama also announced $4 billion of new initiatives aimed at boosting trade

and investment ties as well as jobs in India.

Nevertheless, setting aside the Indian irresponsible record of non-proliferation, and safety of

nuclear arms, Washington also pressurized the International Atomic Agency (IAEA) to sign an

accord of specific safeguards with India. America had already contacted the Nuclear Suppliers

Group (NSG) to grant a waiver to New Delhi for starting civil nuclear trade on larger scale.

As part of the double game, based in Afghanistan, operatives of American CIA, Indian RAW and

Israeli Mossad which have well-established their secret network there, and are well-penetrated in

the terrorist outfits like ISIS, Tehreek-e- Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and their affiliated Taliban

groups are using their terrorists to destabilize Tibetan regions of China, Iranian Sistan-

Baluchistan and Pakistan’s Balochistan by arranging the subversive activities. In this context, the

China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is their special target. Recent acts of terrorism in

Pakistan’s Balochistan are part of the same scheme.

In case of Balochistan, these militant outfits and separatist groups like the Balochistan Liberation

Army (BLA) and their affiliated groups, including Jundollah (God’s soldiers) and Lashkar-i-

Janghvi which have been creating unrest in the Balochistan get logistic support from RAW and

Mossad with the tactical assistance of America. In the recent years, these terrorist outfits

massacred many persons through suicide attacks, bomb blasts, targeted killings and sectarian

violence. These externally-supported insurgent groups had kidnapped and killed many Chinese

and Iranian nationals in Pakistan, including Iranian diplomats. They have claimed responsibility

for a number of terror assaults, including those on Shias in Balochsitan and Iranian Sistan-

Baluchistan.

Notably, located on the southwestern coast of Pakistan, Balochistan’s Gwadar deep seaport

which is the main part of the CPEC is close to the Strait of Hormuz from where more than 17

million barrels of oil passes every day. Its location among South Asia, the oil-rich Middle East,

and oil and gas-resourced Central Asia has further increased its strategic significance. Besides,

Balochistan’s abundant mineral resources irritate the eyes of the US, India and Israel which

intend to weaken Pakistan for their collective aims.

In this respect, in his book, titled “The Pivot: Future of American Statecraft in Asia,” published

in June 7, 2016, America’s former assistant secretary of state Kurt M. Campbell has confirmed a

new major shift in American foreign policy and its interests in Asia, while the US-led entities

have already been playing out American foreign policy drama far from the upheaval in the

Middle East and South Asia and the hovering drone attacks under the cover of the so-called the

war on terror.

After destabilizing the region of the Middle East, the US is making giant strides in Asia-Pacific

region in term of political, economic and military engagement. The main aim of Pivot to Asia-

Pacific region is to counter a rising China, as the Campbell has analyzed.

The book holds significance for China, Russia and Pakistan, because it is, in fact, premised on

the idea to contain Chinese hegemony in the region. The book offers a deep insight into US Asia

Pivot policy. But, by closely analyzing the US policy, the author has recommended for America

to implement Asia Pivot in the Pacific region.

Plan for the Pivot is composed of ten core elements including: clarifying the Pivot and

mobilizing the public by Presidential speeches and statements as well as an annual strategy

documents, articulating a whole-of- government approach to Asia.

While, bolstering and integrating alliances to the American Asia allies, including Japan, South

Korea, Australia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Singapore (a quasi ally)—setting the contours of

China’s rise by embedding China policy fully within a larger Asia policy framework, building

partnership with Taiwan and New Zealand as well as new partners including India, Vietnam,

Indonesia—Malaysia and the Pacific island states, embracing economic statecraft through the

expansion of free trade agreements and economic interaction, including through the passage of

the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), engaging regional institutions, diversifying military forces,

promoting democratic values, strengthening people to people ties involving European partners,

the heart of author’s argument is a 10-point American strategy for Asia, in which he sets out in

considerable details—his recommendations for intensified political, economic and military

engagement with the various nations of the continent. But, he ignored the fact that the real game

changer in the region will be CPEC which will result in dependence America and its allies on

Pak-China Gwadar port for sea routes to Asia-Pacific region.

Given his diplomatic experience, the author is well-informed and deeply thoughtful. He is

considered as pioneer of “Asia Pivot Policy”. Campbell’s main emphasis has been on greater

boots and greater engagement in the Asia Pacific region without realizing the US role in Middle

East and Afghanistan.

In fact, US in the garb of controversial nuclear deal is enticing New Delhi to assume anti-China

role and would have footprints in India to eavesdrop Chinese activities. China is apprehensive

about the emerging threat, as the intent of President Obama and Indian Prime Minister Narendra

Modi is quite clear, while mentioning about free sea lanes and air passages in the South China

Sea.

The warming up of Indo-US relations, especially in the nuclear domain poses a direct threat to

Chinese national interests, and both China and Russia feel uneasy over Indian overtures towards

US and Israel.

It is noteworthy that during the the sixth Heart of Asia Conference which was held in the Indian

city of Amritsar on December 3 and 4, this year, addressing the conference, Russian envoy

Zamir Kabulov rejected the Indian and Afghan allegations against Pakistan. He stated that

Afghanistan is the pivot of the conference and the agenda of the conference should not be

hijacked. He added that being friends and supporters, we should avoid the blame game and work

together. He also said that Pakistan’s Adviser to the Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs Sartaj

Azizj Aziz’s speech at the conference was friendly and constructive.

Downplaying Russia’s military exercise with Pakistan held two months ago, Zamir Kabulov,

who oversees Russia’s engagement in Afghanistan also referred to India’s increasing cooperation

with the US by saying, “India has close cooperation with the US, does Moscow complain?”

Nonetheless, almost all the terrorists or terrorist groups and insurgency in Pakistan, especially

Balochistan have their connections in Afghanistan. The porous border between Pakistan and

Afghanistan is frequently used by human and drug traffickers, criminals and terrorists. Their

easy access through unguarded porous border provides opportunity to miscreants to cause havoc

inside Pakistan and Afghanistan. For effective counter terrorism measures, strong border-control

management is vital at Pak-Afghan border. But, Afghan rulers are using delaying tactics in this

respect by rejecting Islamabad’s positive proposals.

There is no doubt that escalation of tension at Pak- Afghan border is deliberately engineered by

the elements opposed to peace talks and improvement of bilateral relations between Islamabad

and Kabul.

Moreover, Afghan peace and reconciliation process is a reality despite of its slow pace and

continual interruptions. The positive trajectory of constructive relations between Islamabad and

Kabul raised alarm-bells amongst the US-led adversaries who are attempting to affect the

progressive Pak-Afghan relations through smear and sinister scheming.

It is noteworthy that the armed forces of Pakistan have broken the backbone of the foreign-

backed terrorists by the successful military operation Zarb-e- Azb, which has also been extended

to other parts of the country, including Balochistan. And Pakistan’s intelligence agency, ISI has

broken the network of these terrorist groups by capturing several militants, while thwarting a

number of terror attempts.

Since the government of the Balochistan province announced general pardon and protection to

the Baloch militants as part of reconciliation process, many insurgents and their leaders have

surrendered their arms and decided to work for the development of Pakistan and the province,

peace has been restored in Balochistan.

But, recent blasts in Balochistan show that the US-led India and Israel have again started acts of

sabotage in the province to weaken Pakistan and to sabotage the CPEC.

Reliable sources of Pakistan and media of the country revealed in the end of November, this year

that Islamabad has approved Russia’s request to use Gwadar Port, which means Moscow could

also join the CPEC project.

In response to the Pak-China project of CPEC, Washington broadly supported New Delhi and

Kabul in signing a deal with Iran for a transport corridor, opening up a new route to Afghanistan

via the Iranian port of Chabahar. In this context, during his visit to Tehran, on May 23, 2016, the

Indian Prime Minister Modi signed 12 agreements with Tehran, including a deal to develop

Iran’s Chabahar port. India will spend $500 million on the project, with a plan to invest an

additional $ 16 billion in the Chabahar free trade zone. Chabahar—located about 1,800

kilometres south of Tehran—is more than just a port with an adjoining free trade zone. But,

CPEC is much bigger and viable project than Chahbahar.

Meanwhile, the US pro-Israeli and pro-Indian President-elect Donald Trump has stated that he

would abandon the Iran nuclear deal. Therefore, it is expected that Tehran which is very close

friend of Russia will also use the Gwadar Port or join the CPEC project.

Russians and Iranians know that Gwadar seaport would connect the landlocked Central Asian

states with rest of the world. Being the commercial hub, the port is likely to increase volume of

trade, bringing multiple economic and financial benefits to Pakistan, Iran, Russia and China. It

will enable high-volume cargo vessels to move in the major oceans.

While, the new Cold War has started between the US and Russia in wake of Syrian war which

Moscow is winning, and America and its allies are also likely to be defeated in the Asia-Pacific

region where Russia-China alliance with Pakistan would also castigate the US-led Indo-Israeli

secret strategy.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants,
Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Aleppo: From Syrian War to the Asia-Pacific Region

Rethinking the Arab Spring: Uprisings, Counterrevolution, Chaos, and Global Reverberations

NOVANEWS

Image result for Arab Spring CARTOON

[Prefatory Note: the post below was previously published in the Third World Quarterly 37 (No. 12): 2322-2334 (2016). At this point, following the election of Donald Trump as the next American president, there are likely to be significant geopolitical adjustments with related regional impacts. It is possible that cooperation between Russia and the United States will be forthcoming for the purpose of ending civil strife in Syria and Yemen, defeating religious extremism in the region, and maintaining the Iran nuclear agreement. If Trump carried out his campaign pledges to avoid regime change, democracy promotion, and violent conflicts in distant countries, there could be a gradual lessening of turmoil throughout the Middle East. Yet such a hopeful course is not by any means assured, given Trump’s impulsive tendencies and the kind of ultra-militarists he will be relying upon to shape national security policy. The coming years are likely to be a rough ride for various reasons, including the swing in parts of Asia and Europe, as well as the United States, toward an embrace of right-wing populism that includes the rise of the popular autocrat. The most relevant reflection relating to my essay is ‘What became of the Arab Uprisings? Why did their promise dissipate so quickly? What can we expect in the next five years?’]

Rethinking the Arab Spring: Uprisings, Counterrevolution, Chaos, and Global Reverberations

Attaching the label ‘Arab Spring’ to the remarkable events of 2011 already seems quaint, if not a complete misnomer. Looking back five years later, rather than a pathway to a better future, what is unfolding is a darkening of an already quite dismal regional political canvas. Yet whether this darkening is the final outcome rather than a midway point in a process whose outcome cannot now be foreseen lies at the core of interpretative uncertainty.

This article attempts an overview of salient developments during this turbulent period, as well as an extremely selective mention of antecedent occurrences that deepen our understanding of what I continue to call the Arab Spring, partly for convenience, but also to acknowledge the excitement that was brought about by a series of dramatic popular uprisings against entrenched authoritarian regimes that occurred throughout the Middle East during the year of 2011.

One significant observation centers on the much weaker resonance of the Arab Spring experience and counterrevolutionary aftermath in relation to the various monarchies in the Arab world as compared to the states with secular governing processes. Explaining more adequately this apparent structural difference requires consideration of the situation prevailing in each monarchy, but the monarchies as a whole seemed to possess greater legitimacy than their secular neighbors. This was reinforced by some transnational connections among royal families, various ties with the Islamic religious establishment and as a result of their relative wealth that enabled the population to be pacified through state subsidies and other material benefits.

 

Antecedents

The Arab uprisings of 2011 were preceded by a variety of developments that set the stage for what happened additional to the obvious conditions pertaining throughout the region: a governing process that was corrupt and repressive producing deep discontent and sharp class divisions; massive poverty and joblessness accentuating growing gaps between the privileged wealthy elite and the rest of society. Of course, these overall regional conditions produced different political configurations depending on distinct national circumstances that prevailed in each country, including the character of political leadership and the quality of the governmental machinery.

There were four developments in the Middle East that gave religion a particular relevance to these political events. First of all, the widespread sense that secular nationalism had not performed effectively during the period of independence, a view that was intensified by the disappointed post-colonial expectations of the population and the unfulfilled promises of the early post-independence leaders. This disillusionment among the citizenry also extended to the failure of these recently independent states to uphold the sovereign integrity of the country in response to Western intrusive designs.

These perceptions in the Arab World were strengthened by a decade of success enjoyed by the Justice and Development Party in Turkey, which was perceived as partly a beneficial result of the Islamic orientation of the political leadership. Secondly, the resilience of the Iranian Revolution that had assumed power in 1979, imposed theocratic rule on the Iranian people, and yet managed to withstand a variety of hostile pressures mounted from outside its borders. Thirdly, the deployment of major resources by Saudi Arabia to spread Islamic militancy throughout the region, and beyond. Fourthly, the unlawful 2003 military intervention in Iraq and its subsequent occupation as a result of the joint efforts of the United States and the United Kingdom. One feature of this occupation was to deepen the Sunni/Shi’a rivalry in ways that contributed to the rise of jihadism throughout the Middle East and to foster sectarian alignments that magnified the scale of violence in Syria and Yemen.

Further in the historical background, but exerting a significant influence in the shaping of events and helping to explain the varied national experiences of order and chaos that afflicted Middle East countries, were two other impositions by extra-regional forces of the West.[1] Above all, the diplomacy that ended World War I created conditions that generated internal conflict and regional instability in forms that persist a century later. Perhaps, the most notorious of the results of the aftermath of World War I was the implementation of the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, which exhibited the colonial ambitions of the UK and France with respect to the allocation of the territorial spoils associated with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.[2] Such a development not only represented a European betrayal of promises made to Arab nationalist leaders during World War I, but it inflicted arbitrary borders and artificial political communities on the region.[3] Under such conditions, only coercive and authoritarian rule could hope to achieve stability. The ‘Democracy Promotion’ ideas implemented during the George W. Bush presidency as a legitimating goal of military intervention in Iraq was a spectacular and discrediting failure. Tragically, Iraq since 2003 has vacillated between severe domestic violent chaos and restored and abusive authoritarianism that reflected the Shi’a sectarian bias of the American governing process imposed upon the country to carry out its project of neoliberal state-building, a dynamic that is significantly responsible for the emergence of ISIS.[4]

The Balfour Declaration of 1917, promising the world Zionist movement British support for the establishment a Jewish homeland in Palestine, has also been a major contributor to the troubles of the region.[5] emergence of the state of Israel reflected contradictory European motivations. It was at once a consequence of colonialist interference with the rights of self-determination enjoyed by the Palestinian people and much later a humanitarian/political response to the horrifying Jewish experience of the Holocaust. Whatever its origins, the rise of Israel as a regional military power in defiance of Palestinian rights and the views of Arab majorities has injected a permanently destabilizing element that is both a cruel legacy of the colonial era and a periodic source of political tension and confrontation that has given rise to a series of wars in the region and a constant atmosphere of tension.

It is against this background that the Arab Spring erupted in 2011 as a shock to the widely shared perception that regardless of these deficiencies of the regional order, the established political order was ultra-stable for better or worse. It was believed that the Arab publics were disposed to be submissive and passive, making prospects of populist challenges to the political status quo out of the question.[6] Intelligence agencies and academic experts completely overlooked the political relevance of these antecedents to the Arab Spring, and thus failed to take note of forces at work that were below the surface, becoming dramatically active as agents of challenge, even if not in the end successful as agents of change.

The Arab Spring can be interpreted from various angles. It seems sensible to distinguish developments in Egypt and Tunisia from those in Libya, Syria, and Yemen. And further to distinguish between the secular states in the region that experienced sustained uprisings and strong countervailing forces from the monarchies that remained stable although despite signs of widespread discontent.

 

The Arab Uprisings: Tunisia and Egypt

As is now widely known, the series of uprisings in the Arab world started with a typical incident illustrative of the suffering of the poor, but rarely giving rise to political repercussions of national, and even regional and global proportions. The chain reaction of political escalating political developments that produced widespread turbulence in Tunisia started on 17 December 2010. A small vegetable street vendor, Mohammed Bouazizi in the interior Tunisian town of Sidi Bouzed set himself on fire after being humiliated and his plea rejected by a minor municipal official, dying a few days later amid a growing furor. Apparently, the underlying situation was so unstable that this single act of self-immolation provided the spark that produced a massive uprising challenging the dictatorial and repressive leadership of the country on the basis of a series of grievance associated with joblessness, massive poverty, corruption, food inflation, and the denial of elementary freedoms. The protest activity continued for many days, concentrating its anger and demands on the person of Zine Abidine Ben Ali, a Tunisian strongman who had ruled the country since 1987. By 14 January Ben Ali abdicated to Saudi Arabia where he was given asylum, and a struggle for a new governing process ensued.

What was notable in Tunisia, and the pattern elsewhere, was the mismatch between wildly ambitious expectations of those on the streets for a new social, economic, and political order and the relatively limited demands for change set forth by the militants. The only specific demand was for Ben Ali to give up his leadership role, and for a reformist constitutional process to be put in place. As elsewhere in the Middle East, the Islamic forces were best organized among the opposition groups, and quickly assumed control of the political process under the leadership of Mohamed Ghannouchi of the Ennahda Movement. The process was not smoothe, and two sets of forces created trouble for this effort to reform the Tunisian governing process. One was militant Islam that rejected the pluralist and inclusive approach favored by Ghannouchi and the other was the secularists who were opposed to the slightest taint of Islamic influence in the governing process. There were political assassinations, turbulent elections, terrorist incidents, but also a willingness to allow a process of compromise take hold that ended up maintaining continuity with the past and ensuring moderation in the present. In this regard, for all its trials and tribulations, Tunisia not only initiated the Arab Spring but has alone among the states affected, achieved so far achieved a steady forward democratizing momentum.[7]

Egypt, in many ways the most important of Arab states, followed a much different path than Tunisia after its own spectacular movement succeeding Hosni Mubarak who had ruled the country for three decades. Its uprising centered in Tahrir Square, and was initially notable for its relative nonviolence and for the use of social media to mobilize support, succeeded in getting Mubarak to give up power, and accept internal exile in summer home. It appeared in early 2011 to be a great victory for democratic forces that inspired activists in many parts of the world, a major stimulant of the Occupy Movement in the U.S. and Britain.[8]

The formidable Islamic presence in Egypt was centered in the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), whose leadership has long been kept in prison and was confined to largely underground political activities and the dispensing of social services in communities throughout the country. At first, the MB calmed secular concerns by pledging not to compete in many of Egypt’s political provinces during a series of legislative elections and also not to field a candidate of its own in the all important presidential elections. When it turned out that the MB won dominating support in the legislative elections, results augmented by electoral successes of new Salafi parties, it prompted both the MB and its rivals to reconsider the future of the country. It was this show of strength that undoubtedly led the MB to withdraw their pledge, and compete everywhere in the country and to put forward a MB leader when it came time to elect a president. And there is no doubt that the prospect of Islamic control of the political destiny of the country caused worry and a shift in outlook on the part of many urban Egyptians who had originally supported the uprising.

These developments cast a cloud over the victories of Tahrir Square. Although there was an initial consensus that the MB should be allowed to compete politically as part of a move toward inclusive democracy, this mood among the secular elites of Egypt quickly dissipated. The secular elites had originally supposed that MB strength would be no more than 30% in terms of legislative participation, and this could be accepted, but when it turned out to be double that level, a dire prospect confronted secularists: Either Egypt will become dominated by the secretive, hierarchical MB and sharia law or it must revert to an authoritarian form of governance. The seeming unanimity of the Tahrir period disappeared, with the liberal supporters of the anti-Mubarak movement now either withdrawing or joining forces with falool, or remnant of the Mubarak Era. It became clear that the old regime had substantially survived the downfall of the leader, and that the Egyptian armed forces held the key to the future of the country.

It seemed that the Egyptian armed forces remained passive in the early stages of the uprising and its aftermath. In an important respect, the uprising achieved an outcome to the liking of the armed forces, namely, disqualifying Mubarak’s two sons from succeeding their father in the governance of the country. There were even indications that the MB and the armed forces had made a deal exchanging political support for assurances that the privileges of the military with respect to budget and a large stake in the private sector would not be challenged. But then things started to go wrong. The MB candidate, Mohamed Morsi, narrowly won the national elections, and secular forces in the government and society refused to accept this outcome, doing their best to create a crisis of legitimacy that would destabilize the elected government. At the same time, Morsi once sworn in as the Egyptian president displayed no skill or tact in managing the governing process, and quickly alienated and frightened minorities, especially the Copts, and handled the economy in a manner that gave few hopes of either equity or growth. Tourism and commercial life declined sharply, and within a few months there were many whispers from former supporters of the uprising that things had been better under Mubarak. At least tourists came then, and small businesses flourished.

A second popular movement took hold, actually larger than the one that captured the world imagination in 2011, culminating in huge street demonstrations and a widely supported coup led by General Abdel Fattah el- Sisi, the current president. The coup has been followed by a bloody repression of the MB, and more recently, anyone who criticized the regime faced torture and prison. Unlike Tunisia, Egypt is now more authoritarian than under Mubarak, and although enjoying vast economic support from the Gulf countries and strong backing of the Egyptian armed forces, it has not found a way to revive the economy or to satisfy the grievances of the poor and unemployed.

We note then that Tunisia and Egypt as of 2016 have seemingly reached very different outcomes, but perhaps examined more closely, the present phase of governance is not that dissimilar. To be sure, Tunisia has managed a transition to a democratic process, although it is beset by unresolved problems and faces serious threats of disruption. Yet as of now, it has navigated the turbulent waters, partly by not threatening the Ben Ali bureaucracy or class structure, and partly by working out some viable accommodation with Islamic forces and their flexible and realistic leadership.

Egypt, in contrast, has achieved comparable continuity with the past, but by

jumps and starts, accompanied by harsh and bloody crackdowns. Neither country has found a way to overcome the fundamental economic difficulties arising from mass poverty, accompanying unemployment, corruption, and gross forms of inequality, and both are vulnerable to spikes in food prices or renewed global economic recession, and possibly to renewed political agitation.

 

The Arab Uprisings: Syria, Libya, and Yemen

The same societal longing for change evident in Tunisia and Egypt was experienced elsewhere in the region. This anti-regime political mood led quickly to a further series of popular uprisings in Syria, Libya, and Yemen. Unlike the Tunisian achievement of an incremental transition to a more democratic form of governance and in contrast with the Egyptian moves toward democracy generating a counterrevolutionary reaction that restored authoritarian governance, Syria, Yemen, and Libya have each in its own way experienced sustained civil strife that has caused major suffering for the civilian population and led to the collapse of orderly governance. Although the regional dimensions of state/society relations helps explain the similarity of the challenges mounted against the status quo, the specific situation in each country, especially the contrasting national reactions of the governmental leadership account for the great differences from country to country. One further similarity is the presence of a resolve by the ruler and his immediate entourage to use state police and military power to override the societal demands for drastic reforms.

A significant point of contrast with Tunisia and Egypt concerns the presence and degree of foreign intervention in the conflict arising subsequent to the uprising. It is notable that the events in Tunisia and Egypt unfolded primarily in response to the play of internal political forces, although especially in Egypt outside hidden influences, especially on the armed forces and via foreign economic assistance, were exerted to uncertain degrees by both the United States and Saudi Arabia.

In the cases of Syria, Yemen, and Libya, all currently beset by severe disorder the magnitude of the political violence following upon a challenge to the established national governing process was greatly increased by direct and indirect forms of foreign intervention emanating from the region and beyond. The unfortunate effects of these interventions, although very different in the three instances, adds to the strong arguments against military intervention, even when it is authorized by the UN as was the case with Libya.[9]

Syria. In Syria, the leadership from the initial expressions of protest in the southern city of Daraa, responded violently and the movement of opposition seemed to grow and spread rapidly, assuming the form of an armed insurgency. The United States and Turkey after a short interval were open in their support of the Syrian rebel forces, as was Saudi Arabia and Qatar, although it soon became evident that the opposition to the Damascus regime headed by Bashar al-Assad was very fragmented. At the same time for the first year or so of the insurgency it was widely believed that Assad regime would be quickly overthrown.

Such an expectation turned out to be misguided. The armed forces of the Syrian government were well equipped and trained, possessing advanced anti-aircraft defense systems and other modern weaponry. Furthermore, the Alawite leadership in Damascus had the backing of the Christian and Druze minorities in the country, except for the Kurds, and were largely supported by the urban business community. Beyond this, Russia and Iran were engaged allies, and rendered material and diplomatic assistance, as was Hezbollah, which supplied significant number of combat troops. The Syrian struggle was bloody from the outset, and casualty totals are now put at over 250,000 killed, and at least half of the total population of an estimated 23 million either internally displaced or refugees.

There have been many international initiatives seeking both ceasefire and a more vigorous Western intervention.[10] The situation has grown ever more complicated with the rise of ISIS as a leading anti-Assad force and the efforts of Syrian Kurds both to fight on the ground against ISIS and to establish a de facto state of their own on the ground. These developments have greatly confused the alignments of intervening state and non-state political actors. Priorities for the United States and Europe have shifted to emphasize the struggle against ISIS, minimizing the goal of replacing the Assad leadership, while those of Turkey alternate back and forth between anti-Kurdish and anti-Assad objectives.

What has given the Syrian aftermath of the Arab Spring a particular historical relevance is its character, which seems to epitomize the new shape of warfare in 21st century.[11] The originality of this terrible civil strife is the extent of extra-national spillover from the struggle in the form of massive flows of refugees and transnational terrorism extending the battlefield beyond Syria to include the foreign sources of intervention including Turkey, Europe, and even the United States; the multi-layered and contradictory mix of state and non-state actors involved pursuing shifting and sometimes inconsistent goals, and the intermixture of regional and global intervening governments and political movements. The Syrian struggle exhibits also a distinctive form of hybridity, mixing a conflict between the state and a mobilized domestic opposition with both a struggle to contain a terrorist actor that controls substantial territory, sectarian alignments, and involving an armed effort by the Syrian Kurdish minority to achieve de facto statehood. As well, the intervening actors have their own diverse goals that are often at cross-purposes and confused by shifting and contradictory priorities: anti-Assad at first, then anti-Russian and anti-Iranian, then pro- and anti-ISIS as well as pro- and anti-Kurdish, and not to be overlooked, pro- and anti- Islamist, pro- and anti-Sunni. It is hardly an exaggeration to contend that there has never been such a multi-dimensional and hybrid war in all of history. It is also evident that geopolitical standoffs and the limits of interventionary leverage make it dangerous and imprudent to act coercively to shape the political outcome of the conflict.

Libya. Libya, at first, seemed to follow closely the pattern established by Tunisia and Egypt. A popular uprising against an abusive dictatorial leadership under Muammar Qaddafi who ruled the country for decades, managing to suppress the ethnic and tribal tensions that defied national cohesion and sustained by abundant energy resources. The uprising quickly turned violent, abetted by the involvement of European foreign advisors, and Qaddafi responded violently, refusing to give ground, and raising global concerns by condemning opposition forces with hysterical rhetoric that had a genocidal edge. Several Western countries expressed humanitarian concern, convened the UN Security Council, and despite skepticism achieved a mandate to establish a No Fly Zone to protect the imminently threatened civilian population of Benghazi. The limits embedded in the Security Council mandate, which was a weak endorsement of military force in view of abstentions from five important countries, were ignored from the outset of the military operation carried out under NATO auspices.[12] Instead of protecting the beleaguered Benghazi population from advancing government troops, Tripoli was bombed, and a regime-changing undertaking was implemented, ending with a grisly execution of Qaddafi by rebel forces.

What ensued in Libya has been a series of failed state-building undertakings that have left the society in chaotic turmoil, dominated by local militias and

tribal rivalries, lacking an effective central government. The political disorder has also created a situation in which ISIS has been able to establish a strong presence, posing a threat to local and Western security interests that had not existed during the Qaddafi period. Libya’s instability seems likely to persist, and contrasts with the kind of repressive stability (except in the Sinai) achieved in Sisi’s Egypt and the sort of fragile constitutionalism that has so far survived in Tunisia.

The Libyan aftermath is distinctive in several respects. Above all, as with Iraq, it suggests that from a Western perspective and in terms of domestic public order, military intervention does not deliver on its promise to produce a more humane form of governance even when it succeeds in toppling the authoritarian regime and encouraging the emergence of a constitutional order. In Libya as in Iraq the abuses of the old political order seem far less destructive than the violence, devastation, and displacement caused by a heavy handed foreign intervention. Instead of ‘democracy promotion’ what took place in Libya, as earlier in Iraq, is best described as ‘chaos promotion,’ and as the region is now constituted, this also opens the door to political extremism that can flourish in ways that were never possible in the old order.

The Libyan intervention was costly in other ways, as well. The manipulation of the Security Council by understating the goals and nature of the contemplated intervention completely undermined the trust that had led the five skeptical members to abstain rather than cast negative votes, which in the case of Russia and China would have nullified any UN authorization due to their right of veto. As it turned out, these memories of institutional manipulation from Libya, impeded a possibly more constructive role for the UN in response to the strife in Syria.

Of course, there are relevant questions raised about why intervention in one country but not in others. Is the oil dimension part of the explanation of large-scale interventions in Iraq, and then later after the Arab Spring, in Libya, but not to anything like to the same degree in Syria or Yemen, which lacked oil and did not offer lucrative prospects for construction arrangements to repair the damage wrought by the ‘shock and awe’ tactics relied upon by foreign interventions from the air.

Yemen. As elsewhere, the popular uprising in Yemen was at first directed at the hated, corrupt, and abusive ruler, Ali Abdellah Salah, producing a raging state/society struggle that remains inconclusive. The challenge to the established order also revived geographic and ethnic tensions involving the Houthi minority in the north, and introduced a regional proxy dimension to the internal conflict. The Houthi were Shi’a and perceived by the Gulf monarchies as an extension of Iran’s influence, which induced Saudi Arabia to side with the challenged regime, eventually producing a large-scale intervention taking the form of punishing air attacks, causing widespread devastation and considerable civilian loss of life, and yet not managing so far to control the political destiny of the country. The outcome in Yemen hangs in the balance, remains in doubt, but once more reinforces the impression that external intervention to control the political dynamics of a country in the wake of the Arab Spring is likely to produce negative results, and make the old order, as objectionable as it was, seem less damaging to the society than the counterrevolutionary effort to defeat the societal forces seeking change.

Several conclusions emerge: (1) the original uprising in Yemen was a further regional indication that the authoritarian political order was deeply resented by significant portions of the citizenry; (2) unlike Egypt and Tunisia, but in manner resembling Syria and Libya, the challenged regime fought back rather than gave way to the popular movement; (3) as with Syria, the internal balance led to a prolonged struggle that remains unresolved, with no transition to a new normalcy in the offing; (4) Yemen’s difficulties were compounded to the extent that the internal struggle was also perceived as containing sectarian implications, prompting a ferocious Saudi intervention, but unlike the anti-regime intervention in Libya, the intervention in Yemen was pro-regime.

The Monarchies. The Arab Spring phenomenon had clear reverberations in the main monarchies in the MENA region, especially Bahrain, Jordan, and Morocco. Protest demonstrations occurred in these countries but were quickly contained, often accompanied by royal pledges of economic and political reforms that promised the citizenry greater economic equity and more meaningful participation in the governing process.

As with secular governments, the monarchies had their own distinctive national characteristics that explain some differences in the response of governments and regional actors. For instance, Bahrain, partly because of its Shi’a majority and the presence of a major American naval base was perceived as the most vulnerable to a credible internal insurrectionary challenge. To forestall such an eventuality, Saudi Arabia intervened with ground forces and helped the kingdom restore stability by suppressing the opposition, and imprisoning civil society leaders, including advocates of human rights. Jordan and Morocco, both having strong internal security forces, met opposition activity with police discipline and some royal gestures of accommodation. In Morocco and especially Saudi Arabia the relationship between Islam and the state contributed to the stability and legitimacy of the prevailing political order, although in Saudi Arabia these conditions were reinforced by a pervasive set of oppressive constraints, which included human rights outrages that rivaled the behavior of ISIS in their disregard of standards of civilized law enforcement, especially with respect to women and the Shi’a minority.

The case of Saudi Arabia is particularly illustrative of the interplay between the Arab Spring and geopolitics. Because of the special relationship with the United States, Saudi Arabia like Israel, enjoys unconditional support from Washington. This included turning a blind eye to beheadings and public displays of severed heads of dissidents and more incredibly, overlooking Saudi support for jihadi terrorism throughout the region, including evidence of startup funding of ISIS.[13] This special relationship was initially based on the importance of positive relations for the West with Gulf oil production and reserves, seen as a vital strategic interest ever since the end of World War II, but it has persisted in recent years despite the falling price of oil and the diminished dependence on Gulf reserves due to the development of other energy sources.

There are other developments in the five years since the Arab Spring that help

explain the relationship with Saudi Arabia, and to a lesser degree, the other monarchies. Principal among these are the combined search for regional stability, positive connectivity to the neoliberal world economy, and the encouragement of convergent interests between Saudi Arabia and Israel. This latter development became especially evident in Saudi tacit support for Israel’s attack on Gaza in 2014. The rationale for convergence was the supposed links between Hamas and Iran, as well as the perception of Hamas as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. As is evident both Hamas and the MB are Sunni in orientation, making it clear that the overriding Saudi priority is the insulation of its royalist regime from hostile forces regardless of whether Sunni or Shi’a. In this regard, the sectarian card is played pragmatically to oppose the regional ambitions of Iran in several national settings, but sectarianism does not explain Saudi hostility to MB grassroots Islamic movements, which are seen as possibly encouraging to anti-royalist social movements throughout the region and hence treated as threatening.

 

Concluding Observations

The most striking conclusion is to appreciate that from the perspective of 2016, the counterrevolutionary reaction to the Arab Spring seems far more durable than the challenges posed by the 2011 uprisings, none of which created an enduring discontinuity with the authoritarian antecedents. Tunisia came closest, but it preserved relative stability after the uprising, despite being punctuated by Islamic extremist challenges and secularist anxieties. The political leadership maintained continuity in both the governmental bureaucracy and among the privileged elite. It did permanently rid the country of the authoritarian leader, as did Egypt, but with the latter, authoritarianism returned to govern in an even more oppressive form.

In many ways, the Egyptian and Syrian stories are the most influential and pronounced legacies of the Arab Spring. Egypt is the keystone state of the Arab World with the secretariat of the Arab League located in Cairo. The Egyptian uprising seemed to expressed the highest hopes of the Arab Spring through the remarkable upsurge of peaceful oppositional gatherings in Tahrir Square. Yet two years later the uprising and its reformist hopes were completely erased, and replaced by the restoration of the old order, astonishingly with the blessings of the overwhelming majority of Egyptian people. Mass disillusionment with the post-Tahrir political process had resulted from the failure of electoral democracy to bring either improvements in material circumstances or respect for the new political leadership.

In contrast to Egypt, Syria is emblematic of what can ensue when the inspirational encouragement of the Arab Spring challenges a regime that is determined to prevail even at the cost of unleashing virtually unlimited warfare against its own people and destroy its own cities. The Syrian experience is illustrative of the tragedies that befall an insurrectionary challenge that cannot shift the balance of forces against the status quo. Syria also illustrates the regional stakes of such a national struggle, as well as sectarian rivalry that produced a regional proxy war, with Iran and Hezbollah supporting the Assad government and Saudi Arabia siding with the rebel forces. Additionally, Russia with its only warm water naval base in Syria, a circumstance similar to that of the United States in Bahrain, not surprisingly allied with Damascus, while an opposing geopolitics led the United States to support anti-Assad so-called moderate forces.

What seems evident in retrospect is that none of the movements that followed the Tunisian uprising were sufficiently revolutionary to create the intended discontinuity in terms of freedoms, constitutional governance, and economic growth and equity. Again the Egyptian case is most illustrative. The very qualities of mounting a nonviolent challenge against Mubarak based on stirring displays of religious and societal unity, with an avoidance of program or leadership, produced a political vacuum filled on the one side by the Muslim Brotherhood and on the opposite side by adherents of the established order. When a showdown came, as might be expected the armed forces, relied upon to manage the political transition, mounted a counterrevolutionary coup and suppressed the MB. It completed a dynamic featuring a triumphant and popular counterrevolution following upon a fractured series of failures to create societal progress in post-Mubarak Egypt.

Finally, what we learn from these developments in the Middle East that have occurred during the past five years is the close links between national, regional, and global confrontations and differential priorities. Such strong interconnectedness gives alignments and military interventions of varying degrees of overtness, with the Libyan experience being at one end of the spectrum and Egypt at the other end due to its apparent relative national autonomy. Syria, above all, has been grossly victimized during the past five years by seeming to invite struggles for ascendancy by an array of external state and non-state political actors compounding the state/society strife occasioned by the Arab Spring.

As this time, the only future that can be discerned is seen through a glass darkly, meaning persisting chaos or oppressive authoritarian governance. [14]There are no trustworthy bright spots, although the fragile polities of Tunisia and Lebanon seem at least for the present to have avoided the worst of the counterrevolutionary storm, but neither has much assurance that future developments could bring chaos and internal strife.

 

[1] For perceptive overview see Mohammed Ayoob, Will the Middle East Implode?

[2] See Eugene Rogan, The Fall of the Ottomans

[3] For assessment of World War I peace diplomacy on contemporary Middle East see Richard Falk, Power Shift: On the New Global Order, Chapter 9.

[4] See Daniel Byman, Al Qaeda, The Islamic State, and the Global Jihadist Movement; also helpful, Phyllis Bennis, Understanding ISIS and the New Global War on Terror.

[5] Jonathan Schneer, The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict;

see also Victor Kattan, From Coexistence to Conquest: International Law and the Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1891-1949.

[6] See Farhad Khosrokhavar, The New Arab Revolutions that Shook the World; also, Richard Falk, Chaos and Counterrevolution: After the Arab Spring

[7] See Khosrokhavar, Chapter 2.

[8] An insider account is Wael Ghonim, Revolution 2.0; see also Khosrokhavar, Chapter 3.

[9] On humanitarian intervention see Fabian Klose, ed., The Emergence of Humanitarian Intervention; Rajan Menon, The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention;

Richard Falk, Chaos and Counterrevolution

[10] For a range of views see Nader Hashemi & Danny Postel, eds., The Syria Dilemma

[11] What has ensued in Syria goes far beyond Mary Kaldor’s innovative analysis of new wars in Mary Kaldor, New and Old Wars, 3rd ed..

[12] For text see Security Council Res. 1973 (2011), including its provocatively ambiguous phrase authorizing ‘all necessary measures’ to enforce the No Fly Zone.

[13] See citations Note 4.

[14] For varied assessments see Marc Lynch, The Arab Uprising: The Unfinished Revolutions of the New Middle East; Richard Javad Heydarian, How Capitalism Failed the Arab World: The Economic Roots and Precarious Future of the Middle East Uprisings; Falk, Chaos and Counterrevolution.

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on Rethinking the Arab Spring: Uprisings, Counterrevolution, Chaos, and Global Reverberations

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

December 2016
M T W T F S S
« Nov   Jan »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031