الدليل الغربي عن طريقة صنع ثورة قذرة ولكن جميلة
Gene Sharp, The 83 Year Old Who Toppled Egypt
Pamphlet Guide to Revolution in Egypt How to Protest Intelligently
Western Guide on How to make a Dirty but pretty Revolution
الدليل الغربي عن طريقة صنع ثورة قذرة ولكن جميلة
Gene Sharp, The 83 Year Old Who Toppled Egypt
Pamphlet Guide to Revolution in Egypt How to Protest Intelligently
Western Guide on How to make a Dirty but pretty Revolution
Samuel P. Jacobs wrote on Feb 14, 2011 at The Daily Beast.com :
[The young lions of Tahrir Square found inspiration in the writings of an 83-year-old American. Samuel P. Jacobs talks to Gene Sharp about why his calls for nonviolent revolt are catching fire.
There are many roots of the Egyptian revolution. But one of the most unlikely goes back to an East Boston rowhouse, where an 83-year-old named Gene Sharp runs a shoestring operation called the Albert Einstein Institute—and arguably just changed the course of history.
For the last half century, Sharp has been writing about nonviolent protest, and trying to make his ideas accessible to dissidents the world over. No mean feat, given that his signature work, The Politics of Non-Violent Action, weighs in at 900 pages and was published in 1973. But it’s working. Thanks in part to a distillation of his ideas entitled From Dictatorships to Democracy, which can be downloaded from Sharp’s website in dozens of languages, his gospel of upheaval has apparently become essential reading for budding revolutionaries in Cairo and parts beyond.
Ahmed Maher, a 28-year-old construction engineer, was one of the young Web-savvy upstarts who helped set in motion the protests that last week ended Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year rule. Maher, of the April 6 Movement, looked to Serbia’s democratic movements for inspiration. There, he found Otpor, a protest group which helped take down strongman Slobodan Milosevic. From Otpor, the young Egyptians discovered the teachings of Sharp, who urges nonviolent resistance as the most efficient way to topple dictatorships.
Sharp says he hasn’t been directly in touch with anyone in Egypt since the uprising began late last month. But he says he is happy to know that his ideas may have had some influence.
“I’m very pleased,” he says. “I’ve been studying this question of dictatorships for many decades. It is a lonely struggle. To get this kind of recognition is very important.”
Among his less-conventional suggestions for protest, Sharp has advocated the “Lysistratic nonaction,” in which women use sex as political leverage. He’s also called for disrobing and skywriting as political statements.
• Full coverage of the Egypt revolutionThe pro-democracy advocates aren’t the only ones who’ve noticed. In 2007, Hugo Chavez accused Sharp of being part of a CIA-led conspiracy to overthrow his government. The following year, Iranian officials made a similar charge, alleging that the former Harvard researcher was working hand-in-hand with the likes of John McCain and George Soros to foment rebellion in the country. (The paranoia is perhaps understandable; thousands of copies of From Dictatorships to Democracy had been downloaded in Farsi in advance of protests that flooded Iran’s streets in 2009.) The Burmese felt similarly hoodwinked by the solitary scholar. Sharp first published his manual to resistance, which teaches 198 methods of nonviolent action, in Myanmar.
His advice is particularly granular, giving instructions from how “rude gestures” can function as “symbolic public acts” to using “guerrilla theater” as a form of “social intervention.” According to one take, Sharp’s Albert Einstein Institution is “a U.S. intelligence asset used to spark ‘nonviolent’ regime change around the world on behalf of the U.S. strategic agenda.”
In most interviews, Sharp holds up the shabby state of his institute as a sign that he’s not in the cahoots with George Soros or anyone at the CIA. Lately, he had to let go of most of his staff.
“We are very small and very poor,” he says.
Not that Sharp isn’t without his benefactors. One former student, the financier Peter Ackerman, once told The Wall Street Journal that he’s given his mentor’s institution more than $10 million over the years. In 2004, the pair had a falling out.
These days, Sharp says, resistance leaders usually find him.
“We get news from all over the world. We never know where the next phone call will come from, what part of the world,” Sharp says.
Among his less-conventional suggestions for protest, Sharp has advocated the “Lysistratic nonaction,” in which women use sex as political leverage (a ploy adopted in Kenya in 2009, in an activist-led drive to stop government infighting). He’s also called for disrobing and skywriting as political statements.
Sharp argues that dictatorships share certain traits throughout the world—making it easier to tailor a one-size-fits-all approach. But he’s not blasé about what happened in Cairo last week; he ranks the fall of Mubarak as “at the top” of democratic revolutions he’s witnessed. And he’s confident that the spirit shown in Tahrir Square won’t end there.
“People are learning that they don’t have to be afraid,” Sharp says. “The fear is gone. People can see the example. The Egyptian example will be imitated elsewhere. We don’t know where, but it will happen.”
Samuel P. Jacobs is a staff reporter at The Daily Beast. He has also written for The Boston Globe, The New York Observer, and The New Republic Online.
Samuel P. Jacobs, former Associate Editor for NewsBeast, Newsweek’s front-of-the-book section, is Campaign Correspondent for Reuters. He has written about politics for Newsweek and The Daily Beast. His writing has also appeared in The Boston Globe, The New York Observer, and The New Republic Online.]
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at firstname.lastname@example.org.
by Susanne Posel
July 20, 2012
The global Elite’s puppets are beginning to show their true alliances and rat out each other in an obvious move to find some sort of false sense of security.
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann recently accused Huma Abedin, aide to Hillary Clinton US Secretary of State, as being an infiltrated spy for the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). Bachmann says that the US government has been compromised by the MB and Abedin is working for “America’s demise”.
Bachmann pointed out that Abedin has “routine access to [Clinton] and policymaking.”
While her peers have been denouncing her claims, Bachmann asserts that her investigations into federal agencies has turned up conclusions that there is an obvious influence over intelligence operations with regard to foreign policy by the MB within the US government.
Abedin, who is of Pakistani decent, is married to House Representative Anthony Weiner who is Jewish. Weiner is a self-proclaimed Zionist , as he proudly stated: “Support for Israel was always a very big focus in my household growing up. I am a Zionist.”
Weiner has aligned himself with Morton Klien, president of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and has continuously pushed pro-Israeli agendas on Capitol Hill while demanding that the US military assist Israel in fighting against any other Middle Eastern nation that is named as an enemy.
Both The US State Department and Senator John McCain are outraged by Bachmann’s comments; McCain calling the Congresswoman “specious and degrading” while the USSD stated the remarks were “vicious and disgusting lies.”
McCain is a member of the board of directors of the Soros funded International Republican Institute (IRI) which uses coercion of foreign governments to promote “US interests”. They strategically intercede with political agendas to ensure that other nations preform as the globalists would want them to and aid civil society in those nations to guarantee “good governance”.
McCain defended Adebin on a personal level, stating she is “hardworking and loyal servant of our country and our government. These attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis and no merit. They need to stop now.”
Bachmann, believing that there is an influential Islamic element in the US government, has written requests for information in the MB. This “deep penetration” into the US government was addressed in Bachmann’s speech at the Washington summit of Christians United for Israel , a pro-Zionist group masquerading as an evangelical support for Israel. Bachmann spoke to the audience about the ties between Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood.
In April of this year, after Obama announced that the “war on terror is over” he inserted that his administration is working in tandem with the MB , who has been integral in the recent Middle Eastern uprisings. Placing Morsi into power in Egypt was a strategic move that the US has been known for; helping dictators like Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, and others get into positions where their actions can support the US/Israeli agenda to control the Middle Easter region.
In celebration of the elections, Obama gave the MB $1.5 billion in foreign aid to the MB. Having a terrorist group in control of this prominent Arab nation is a big coup for the Obama administration. This bribe is obviously a clear indicator that the MB will do the bidding of the US covertly, while appearing to be against the US government on the surface.
The Center for Security Policy (CSP) comes into play as a Washington, DC globalist think-tank that promotes “peace through strength”. CSP believes that “military might and a belief in America’s national power must be preserved and properly used . . . [as] a unique global role in maintaining peace and stability.”
In translation: America is the ultimate military might, policing the world for the sake of supporting peace. How this oxymoron became a credo is suspect.
The CSP strategically works with the USSD, although they claim to be a non-profit and non-specifically affiliated with a political agenda. They force governments to:
Clinton, who stated publicly that she perceives Israel to be the 51st American state is focusing her talks with the Israeli government on the MB Morsi presidency in Egypt and the Palestinian “problem” that Israel faces.
Previously both Ari Fleischer, President George W. Bush’s former spokesman, and Matthew Brooks, the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), were involved in recent pro-Israeli events to gain American support for the Zionist movement. Fleischer asserts about presidential candidate Romney: “I don’t want to have a president where we have to wonder does he or does he not have Israel’s back. The choice is between pushing Israel around as President Obama has done, and Governor Romney, who will stand strong by Israel’s side.”
Obama has made his stance on Israel known well with his push for HR 4133 where he gives the Israeli government:
Within the Israeli government, there have been drastic changes to the internal laws of the nation to provide for a concerted Zionist approach. This fact was causational in the decision of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition partner, Kadima, to leave the allied partnership.
The marriage of Israeli agendas in the Middle East to the military might of the US government is playing out as plans are being enacted against Syria and ultimately Iran in a move toward WW III.
In November, Israel and the US plan to hold a joint military training session in October of this year. Included will be military drills of thousands of soldiers and advanced anti-missile defense systems exercises. It appears to be coincidental that these “war games” will take place just prior to presidential elections in the US.
The two nations, who have become closer over the recent months, are planning to deal with Iran and Syria with as much aggression as they see fit.
A few military analysts have dubbed the drills a “dress rehearsal”, mocking the severity of Obama and Netanyahu’s campaign. Amidst the UN and US sanctions against the two Middle Eastern nations, there is a clear threat of military strike that would serve both the US and Israeli interests.
The preparations for an attack on Iran is being downplayed by the UN while the international community is escalating their claims that Iran’s supposed nuclear endeavors are a violation of treaties; as well as the Iranian government’s failure to properly cooperate with UN inspectors.
Bachmann, who is a supporter of CUFI and the Zionist movement, is preforming a part in the theater of psychological operations. The MB, who are poised to replace al-Qaeda as the next Islamic extremist group and Boogeyman for the American public to fear, are controlled by the Obama administration as part of their adherence to the Israeli/Zionist agenda. This fact validates Bachmann’s assertions that the US government has been infiltrated by a foreign entity. Yet the infiltration was purposefully enacted to the benefit of the global Elite in their march toward global governance by way of elimination of all sovereign nations.
[This article is also posted on Global Research, on July 20, 2012]
By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, July 15, 2012, GLOBAL RESEARCH ONLINE INTERACTIVE READER SERIES
GR I-BOOK No. 3
“In order to facilitate the action of liberative (sic) forces, …a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals. …[to] be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention, …
Once a political decision has been reached to proceed with internal disturbances in Syria, CIA is prepared, and SIS (MI6) will attempt to mount minor sabotage and coup de main (sic) incidents within Syria, working through contacts with individuals. …Incidents should not be concentrated in Damascus …
Further : a “necessary degree of fear .. frontier incidents and (staged) border clashes”, would “provide a pretext for intervention… the CIA and SIS [MI6] should use … capabilities in both psychological and action fields to augment tension.”(Joint US-UK leaked Intelligence Document, London and Washington, 1957)
In this online interactive I-book, we bring to the attention of our readers a selection of feature articles on the Syrian crisis.
Our objective is to dispel the tide of media lies and government propaganda, which presents the events in Syria as a “peaceful protest movement”.
The “protests” did not emanate from internal political cleavages as described by the mainstream media. From the very outset, they were the result of a covert US-NATO intelligence operation geared towards triggering social chaos, with a view to eventually discrediting the Syrian government of Bashar Al Assad and destabilizing Syria as a Nation State.
Since the middle of March 2011, Islamist armed groups –covertly supported by Western and Israeli intelligence– have conducted terrorist attacks directed against government buildings including acts of arson. Amply documented, trained gunmen and snipers including mercenaries have targeted the police, armed forces as well as innocent civilians. There is ample evidence, as outlined in the Arab League Observer Mission report, that these armed groups of mercenaries are responsible for killing civilians.
While the Syrian government and military bear a heavy burden of responsibility. it is important to underscore the fact that these terrorist acts –including the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children– are part of a US-NATO-Israeli initiative, which consists is supporting, training and financing “an armed entity” operating inside Syria.
The evidence confirms that foreign intelligence operatives, according to reports, have integrated rebel ranks:
“As the unrest and killings escalate in the troubled Arab state, agents from MI6 and the CIA are already in Syria assessing the situation, a security official has revealed. Special forces are also talking to Syrian dissident soldiers. They want to know about weapons and communications kit rebel forces will need if the Government decides to help.
“MI6 and the CIA are in Syria to infiltrate and get at the truth,” said the well-placed source. “We have SAS and SBS not far away who want to know what is happening and are finding out what kit dissident soldiers need.” ” Syria will be bloodiest yet, Daily Star). (emphasis added)
The Free Syrian Army (FSA) is a creation of the US and NATO. The objective of this armed insurrection is to trigger the response of the police and armed forces, including the deployment of tanks and armored vehicles with a view to eventually justifying a military intervention, under NATO’s “responsibility to protect” mandate.
A NATO-led intervention is on the drawing board. It was drafted prior to the onset of the protest movement in March 2011. According to military and intelligence sources, NATO, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have been discussing “the form this intervention would take”.
US, British and Turkish operatives are supplying the rebels with weapons. Britain’s Ministry of Defence confirms that it “is drawing up secret plans for a NATO-sponsored no-fly zone [in coordination with its allies] “but first it needs backing from the United Nations Security Council.” (Syria will be bloodiest yet, Daily Star). According to these secret plans: “fighting in Syria could be bigger and bloodier than the battle against Gaddafi”.(Ibid ).
A “humanitarian” military intervention modeled on Libya is contemplated. NATO Special Forces from Britain, France, Qatar and Turkey are already on the ground inside Syria in blatant violation of international law. Reports from British military sources (November 2011) confirm that:
“British Special forces have met up with members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA)… The apparent goal of this initial contact was to establish the rebel forces’ strength and to pave the way for any future training operations. … More recent reports have stated that British and French Special Forces have been actively training members of the FSA, from a base in Turkey. Some reports indicate that training is also taking place in locations in Libya and Northern Lebanon. British MI6 operatives and UKSF (SAS/SBS) personnel have reportedly been training the rebels in urban warfare as well as supplying them with arms and equipment. US CIA operatives and special forces are believed to be providing communications assistance to the rebels.” Elite Forces UK, January 5, 2012 (emphasis added)
The Social and Political Context in Syria
There is certainly cause for social unrest and mass protest in Syria: unemployment has increased in recent years, social conditions have deteriorated, particularly since the adoption in 2006 of sweeping economic reforms under IMF guidance. The later include austerity measures, a freeze on wages, the deregulation of the financial system, trade reform and privatization. (See IMF Syrian Arab Republic — IMF Article IV Consultation Mission’s Concluding Statement, 2006).
Moreover, there are serious divisions within the government and the military. The populist policy framework of the Baath party has largely been eroded. A faction within the ruling political establishment has embraced the neoliberal agenda. In turn, the adoption of IMF “economic medicine” has served to enrich the ruling economic elite. Pro-US factions have also developed within the upper echelons of the Syrian military and intelligence.
But the “pro-democracy” movement integrated by Islamists and supported by NATO and the “international community” did not emanate from the mainstay of Syrian civil society.
The wave of violent protests represents a very small fraction of Syrian public opinion. They are terrorist acts of a sectarian nature. They do not in any way address the broader issues of social inequality, civil rights and unemployment.
The majority of Syria’s population (including the opponents of the Al Assad government) do not support the “protest movement” which is characterised by an armed insurgency. In fact quite the opposite.
Ironically, despite its authoritarian nature, there is considerable popular support for the government of President Bashar Al Assad, which is confirmed by the large pro-government rallies.
Syria constitutes the only (remaining) independent secular state in the Arab world. Its populist, anti-Imperialist and secular base is inherited from the dominant Baath party, which integrates Muslims, Christians and Druze. It supports the struggle of the Palestinian people.
The objective of the US-NATO alliance is to ultimately displace and destroy the Syrian secular State, displace or co-opt the national economic elites and eventually replace the Syrian government of Bashar Al Assad with an Arab sheikdom, a pro-US Islamic republic or a compliant pro-US “democracy”.
The Insurgency: The Libya Model
The insurgency in Syria has similar features to that of Libya: it is integrated by paramilitary brigades affiliated to Al Qaeda, which are directly supported by NATO and Turkey.
Reports confirm that NATO and Turkey’s High Command are providing the rebels with weapons and training: “NATO strategists are thinking more in terms of pouring large quantities of anti-tank and anti-air rockets, mortars and heavy machine guns into the protest centers for beating back the government armored forces.” (DEBKAfile, NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011)
Military sources also confirm that Syrian rebels “have been training in the use of the new weapons with Turkish military officers at makeshift installations in Turkish bases near the Syrian border.” (DEBKAfile, Ibid). Recent reports confirm that British and Qatari Special forces are on the ground in the city of Homs, involved in training rebel forces as well as organizing the supply of weapons in liaison with the Turkish military.
As in the case of Libya, financial support is being channelled to the Syrian rebel forces by Saudi Arabia: “Ankara and Riyadh will provide the anti-Assad movements with large quantities of weapons and funds to be smuggled in from outside Syria” (Ibid). The deployment of Saudi and GCC troops is also contemplated in Southern Syria in coordination with Turkey (Ibid).
NATO’s activities are not limited to training and the delivery of weapons systems, the recruitment of thousands of “freedom fighters”` is also envisaged, reminiscent of the enlistment of Mujahideen to wage the CIA’s jihad (holy war) in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war:
This recruitment of Mujahideen was part of NATO`s strategy in Libya, where mercenary forces were dispatched to fight under the helm of “former” Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) Commander Abdel Hakim Belhadj.
The Libyan model of rebel forces integrated by “Islamic brigades” together with NATO special forces has been applied to Syria, where “Islamist fighters” supported by Western and Israeli intelligence are deployed. In this regard, Abdel Hakim`s LIFG brigade has now been dispatched to Syria, where it is involved in terrorist acts under the supervision of NATO Special Forces.
The Central Role of US Ambassador Robert S. Ford
US Ambassador Robert S. Ford was dispatched to Damascus in late January 2011 at the height of the protest movement in Egypt. (The author was in Damascus on January 27, 2011 when Washington’s Envoy presented his credentials to the Al Assad government).
At the outset of my visit to Syria in January 2011, I reflected on the significance of this diplomatic appointment and the role it might play in a covert process of political destabilization. I did not, however, foresee that this destabilization agenda would be implemented within less than two months following the instatement of Robert S. Ford as US Ambassador to Syria.
The reinstatement of a US ambassador in Damascus, but more specifically the choice of Robert S. Ford as US ambassador, bears a direct relationship to the onset of the protest movement in mid-March against the government of Bashar al Assad.
Robert S. Ford was the man for the job. As “Number Two” at the US embassy in Baghdad (2004-2005) under the helm of Ambassador John D. Negroponte, he played a key role in implementing the Pentagon’s “Iraq Salvador Option”. The latter consisted in supporting Iraqi death squadrons and paramilitary forces modelled on the experience of Central America.
It is worth noting that Obama’s newly appointed CIA head, General David Petraeus played a key role the organization of covert support to rebel forces and “freedom fighters”, the infiltration of Syrian intelligence and armed forces, etc. Petraeus led the Multi-National Security Transition Command (MNSTC) “Counterinsurgency” program in Baghdad in 2004 in coordination with John Negroponte and Robert S Ford at the US Embassy in Baghdad.
The Insidious Role of the Western media
The role of the US-NATO-Israel military alliance in triggering an armed insurrection is not addressed by the Western media. Moreover, several “progressive voices” have accepted the “NATO consensus” at face value. The role of CIA-MI6 covert intelligence operations in support of armed groups is simply not mentioned. Salafist paramilitary groups involved in terrorist acts, are, according to reports, supported covertly by Israeli intelligence (Mossad). The Muslim Brotherhood has been supported by Turkey, as well as by MI6, Britain’s Secret Service (SIS) since the 1950s
More generally, the Western media has misled public opinion on the nature of the Arab protest movement by failing to address the support provided by the US State Department as well as US foundations (including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)) to selected pro-US opposition groups.
Known and documented, the U.S. State Department “has been been funding opponents of Syrian President Bashar Assad, since 2006. (U.S. admits funding Syrian opposition – World – CBC News April 18, 2011).
The protest movement in Syria was upheld by the media as part of the “Arab Spring”, presented to public opinion as a pro-democracy protest movement which spread spontaneously from Egypt and the Maghreb to the Mashriq. There is reason to believe, however, that events in Syria, however, were planned well in advance in coordination with the process of regime change in other Arab countries including Egypt and Tunisia.
The outbreak of the protest movement in the southern border city of Daraa was carefully timed to follow the events in Tunisia and Egypt.
In chorus they have described recent events in Syria as a “peaceful protest movement” directed against the government of Bashar Al Assad, when the evidence amply confirms that Islamic paramilitary groups are involved in terrorist acts. These same Islamic groups have infiltrated the protest rallies.
Western media distortions abound. Large “pro-government” rallies (including photographs) are casually presented as “evidence” of a mass anti-government protest movement. The reports on casualties are based on unconfirmed “eye-witness reports” or on Syrian opposition sources in exile. The London based Syria Observatory for Human Rights are profusely quoted by the Western media as a “reliable source” with the usual disclaimers. Israeli news sources, while avoiding the issue of an armed insurgency, tacitly acknowledge that Syrian forces are being confronted by an organized professional paramilitary.
The absence of verifiable data, has not prevented the Western media from putting forth “authoritative figures” on the number of casualties. What are the sources of this data? Who is responsible for the casualties?
Dangerous Crossroads: Towards a Broader Middle East Central Asian War
Escalation is an integral part of the military agenda. Destabilization of sovereign states through “regime change” is closely coordinated with military planning. There is a military roadmap characterised by a sequence of US-NATO war theaters.
War preparations to attack Syria and Iran have been in “an advanced state of readiness” for several years.
US, NATO and Israeli military planners have outlined the contours of a “humanitarian” military campaign, in which Turkey (the second largest military force inside NATO) would play a central role.
We are at dangerous crossroads. Were a US-NATO military operation to be launched against Syria, the broader Middle East Central Asian region extending from North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with China would be engulfed in the turmoil of an extended regional war.
There are at present four distinct war theaters: Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine and Libya.
An attack on Syria would lead to the integration of these separate war theaters, eventually leading towards a broader Middle East-Central Asian war.
In Part I of the online interactive I-Book, an introductory essay is presented.
Part II examines the nature of the US-NATO-Israel sponsored insurgency, including the recruitment of terrorists and mercenaries. It also includes an examination of a 1957 Anglo-American covert intelligence plan to destabilize Syria and implement “regime change”. The 1957 plan envisaged the triggering of “internal disturbances as well as the mounting of “sabotage and coup de main (sic) incidents” by the CIA and MI6. What this essay suggests is continuity, i.e. today’s Intel. Ops, while more sophisticated than those of the Cold War era, belong to realm of DÉJÀ VU.
Part III examines the complicity of the “international community” focussing respectively on the role of non-governmental organizations, the dynamics within the United Nations Security Council and role of the Arab League, acting on behalf of Washington.
Part IV centers on the insidious role of the corporate media, which has carefully distorted the facts, providing systematically a biased understanding of the causes and consequences of the Syrian crisis.
Part V focusses on the broader military agenda and the process of military escalation in the Middle East.
The road to Tehran goes through Damascus. A US-NATO sponsored war on Iran would involve, as a first step, a destabilization campaign (“regime change”) including covert intelligence operations in support of rebel forces directed against the Syrian government.
A war on Syria could evolve towards a US-NATO military campaign directed against Iran, in which Turkey and Israel would be directly involved. It would also contribute to the ongoing destabilization of Lebanon.
It is crucial to spread the word and break the channels of media disinformation.
A critical and unbiased understanding of what is happening in Syria is of crucial importance in reversing the tide of military escalation towards a broader regional war.
Michel Chossudovsky, Montreal, February 11, 2012
[Spread the word. forward this online interactive reader far and wide. Post it on Facebook]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A “Humanitarian War” on Syria? Military Escalation. Towards a Broader Middle East-Central Asian War?
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-08-09
The road to Tehran goes through Damascus. A US-NATO war on Iran would involve, as a first step, a destabilization campaign (“regime change”) directed against Syria.
VIDEO: US-NATO “Humanitarian Intervention” in Syria: Towards a Regional War?
Latest report now available on GRTV
– by Michel Chossudovsky, Nile Bowie – 2012-06-08 [*]
Covert Operations: US-NATO-Israel Support to an Armed Insurgency
SYRIA: CIA-MI6 Intel Ops and Sabotage
– by Felicity Arbuthnot – 2012-02-07
DÉJÀ VU? “The CIA is prepared, and MI6 will attempt to mount minor sabotage and coup de main (sic) incidents within Syria,… [using] capabilitites in both psychological and action fields to augment tension.” (Joint US-UK leaked Intelligence Document, London and Washington, 1957)
The Al Qaeda Insurgency in Syria: Recruiting Jihadists to Wage NATO’s “Humanitarian Wars”
– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-09-02
The objective of this armed insurrection is to trigger the response of the police and armed forces, with a view to justifying a “humanitarian” military intervention by NATO
VIDEO: Death Squads in Syria Part of Intelligence Operation
New interview now on GRTV
– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-08-18
The Pentagon’s “Salvador Option”: The Deployment of Death Squads in Iraq and Syria
– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-08-16
Recent developments in Syria point to a full-fledged armed insurgency, integrated by Islamist “freedom fighters” covertly supported, trained and equipped by foreign powers.
NATO and Turkey Support Armed Rebels in Syria. Campaign to Recruit Muslim “Freedom Fighters”
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-08-15
VIDEO: NATO Recruiting Jihadists to Syria
New interview now on GRTV
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-09-19
Building a Justification to Wage War. NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect”
The Roles of the United Nations, The Arab League and the NGOs
Libya Déjà Vu in Syria: Using Human Rights Organizations to Launch Wars – by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2011-11-20
Syria and the Russia-China Veto: Towards a Break Point at the UN Security Council? – by Carla Stea – 2012-02-08
How the Arab League Has Become a Tool of Western Imperialism – by Finian Cunningham – 2012-02-09
VIDEO: Arab League Gives Green Light to US-NATO to Intervene in Syria
– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-11-13
SYRIA. TEXT OF LEAKED ARAB LEAGUE MISSION REPORT Report Reveals Media Lies Regarding Syria
Commentary by Michel Chossudovsky – 2012-02-01
VIDEO: SYRIA: Armed Opposition Groups Supported by “Foreign Powers”
– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2012-02-03
The Media Disinformation Campaign
VIDEO: Skeptical on Syria: ‘Media reports framed & manipulated’
Watch now on GRTV – by James Corbett – 2011-08-31
Syria Regime Change PR in High Gear: More ‘Newborn Baby Slaughter’ Propaganda – by Patrick Henningsen – 2012-02-09
Media Lies Used to Provide a Pretext for Another “Humanitarian War”: Protest in Syria: Who Counts the Dead?
– by Julie Lévesque – 2011-11-25
The reliance of the mainstream media on information emanating from anonymous groups provides a biased understanding of the Syrian protests
Media Lies: Syria’s President Bashar Al Assad Sets ABC News Senior Propagandist Barbra Walters Straight.
– by Tony Cartalucci – 2011-12-12
Most Syrians back President Assad, but you’d never know from western media
Assad’s popularity, Arab League observers, US military involvement: all distorted in the west’s propaganda war
– by Jonathan Steele – 2012-01-18
Media Manipulation and the Drums of War: How Media is used to Whip the Nation into Wartime Frenzy
Faking It: How the Media Manipulates the World into War – by James Corbett – 2012-01-03
Syria and the Broader War
The Destabilization of Syria and the Broader Middle East War – by Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-06-17
If a military operation were to be launched against Syria, Israel would in all likelihood also be involved, leading to a process of escalation
Syria: The West’s Strategic Gateway For Global Military Supremacy – by Rick Rozoff – 2011-11-15
The March to War: Iran and the Strategic Encirclement of Syria and Lebanon – by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2011-12-24
Obama’s Secret Letter to Tehran: Is the War against Iran On Hold? “The Road to Tehran Goes through Damascus” – by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2012-01-20
VIDEO: A NATO Intervention in Syria would Engulf the Entire Middle East Central Asian Region
– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2011-09-04
Beating the Drums of a Broader Middle East War
Israel, Syria, and Lebanon Prepare the “Home Fronts” – by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2008-05-07
Israel, Syria, and Lebanon Prepare the “Home Fronts”. The Levant could be the starting point of a major international conflict, with global ramifications, which could quickly spin out of control.
War Propaganda and The Massacre of Innocent Civilians [*]
SYRIA: Killing Innocent Civilians as part of a US Covert Op. Mobilizing Public Support for a R2P War against Syria
– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2012-05-30
US military doctrine envisages the central role of “massive casualty producing events” in which innocent civilians are killed. The killings are carried out as part of a covert operation. The enemy is blamed for the resulting atrocities.
Report: Rebels Responsible for Houla Massacre. Armed rebels murdered “entire Alawi families” in village of Taldo in Houla – by John Rosenthal – 2012-06-10
Propaganda War: Houla Massacre Committed by US-NATO Sponsored “Free Syrian Army”. But They Accuse Syrian Government – by Thierry Meyssan – 2012-06-09
“Humanitarian War Criminals” in High Office: Was the Houla Massacre Ordered by the Western Military Alliance?
– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2012-06-11
Who is behind these rebel groups? What is the precise nature of the relationship between the FSA and the Western military alliance? What is the command structure? What is the nature of this diabolical covert operation? Who ordered these atrocities against the Syrian people?
VATICAN NEWS: Foreign Fighters, Mercenaries, Terrorists, behind Syria Massacre
“The desolation of Homs and the war of information “: the Words of a Greek-Catholic Bishop
– by Vatican News (Agenzia Fides) – 2012-06-04
THE HOULA MASSACRE: Opposition Terrorists “Killed Families Loyal to the Government”
Detailed Investigation – by Marat Musin – 2012-06-01
The terrorists were not pro-government shabbiha militia as conveyed, in chorus, by the mainstream media, they were in large part mercenaries and professional killers operating under the auspices of the self-proclaimed Free Syrian Army (FSA).
VIDEO: US-NATO “Humanitarian Intervention” in Syria: Towards a Regional War?
Latest report now available on GRTV
– by Michel Chossudovsky, Nile Bowie – 2012-06-08
Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa. He is the Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal and Editor of the globalresearch.ca website. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America’s “War on Terrorism”(2005). His most recent book is entitled Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011).
He has taught as Visiting Professor at universities in Western Europe, South East Asia, Latin America and the Pacific, acted as an adviser to governments of developing countries and as a consultant for several international organizations.
Prof. Chossudovsky is a signatory of the Kuala Lumpur declaration to criminalize war and recipient of the Human Rights Prize of the Society for the Protection of Civil Rights and Human Dignity (GBM), Berlin. He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages.
This Online Interactive I-Reader is made available to Global Research readers with a view to curbing the flow of media disinformation and war propaganda.
Our ultimate objective is to reverse the tide of war and restore World peace.
THE GLOBAL RESEARCH ONLINE INTERACTIVE I-BOOKS SERIES
The War on Iraq
ONLINE INTERACTIVE I-READER 4
Please read the original article as published by the author (Prof. Michel Chossudovsky) on: GLOBAL RESEARCH ONLINE INTERACTIVE READER SERIES
The Financial Times, one of the most respected and widely read newspapers on the planet, features an editorial today that openly admits the agenda to create a world government based on anti-democratic principles and concedes that the term “global governance” is merely a euphemism for the move towards a centralized global government.
For years we were called paranoid nutcases for warning about the elite’s plans to centralize global power and destroy American sovereignty. Throughout the 1990’s people who talked about the alarming move towards global government were smeared as right-wing lunatics by popular culture and the media.
Now the agenda is out in the open and in our faces, the debunkers have no more ammunition with which to deride us.
A jaw-dropping editorial written by the Financial Times’ chief foreign affairs commentator Gideon Rachman entitled ‘And now for a world government’ lays out the plan for global government and how it is being pushed with deceptive language and euphemisms in order to prevent people from becoming alarmed.
“For the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible,” writes Rachman, citing the financial crisis, “global warming” and the “global war on terror” as three major pretexts through which it is being introduced.
Rachman writes that “global governance” could be introduced much sooner than many expect and that President elect Barack Obama has already expressed his desire to achieve that goal, making reference to Obama’s circle of advisors which includes Strobe Talbott, who in 1992 stated, “In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”
Rachman then concedes that the more abstract term “global governance,” which is often used by top globalists like David Rockefeller as a veil to offset accusations that a centralized global government is the real agenda, is merely a trick of “soothing language” that is used to prevent “people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland”.
“But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on,” says Rachman. “Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.
Rachman proceeds to outline what the first steps to an official world government would look like, including the creation of “A legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force”.
“A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations,” writes Rachman. “It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.”
“So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government,” concludes Rachman, before acknowledging that the path to global government will be “slow and painful”.
Tellingly, Rachman concedes that “International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic,” citing the continual rejection of EU expansion when the question is put to a vote. “In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters,” writes Rachman.
So there you have it – one of the world’s top newspapers, editorially led by chief economics commentator Martin Wolf, a top Bilderberg luminary, openly proclaiming that not only is world government the agenda, but that world government will only be achieved through dictatorial measures because the majority of the people are dead against it.
Will we still be called paranoid conspiracy theorists for warning that a system of dictatorial world government is being set up, even as one of the world’s most influential newspapers admits to the fact?
Or will people finally wake up and accept that there is a globalist agenda to destroy sovereignty, any form of real democracy, and freedom itself in the pursuit of an all-powerful, self-interested, centralized, unrepresentative and dictatorial world government?
The Muslim Brotherhood is a Western Trojan Horse that has come to power in Egypt thanks to the indispensable support of the CIA-MI6-Mossad brotherhood.
The 4th Media News | Friday, June 29, 2012, 14:48 Beijing
“The West’s ability to install a Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, with it’s substantial regional standing and influence would be a serious blow not only to Syria, but to Iran as well. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is already echoing calls by the US and Israel for “intervention” in Syria.” – Tony Cartalucci,“US Struggles to Install Proxy “Brotherhood” in Egypt.”
“The USA has got its candidate into power in Egypt.” – Aangirfan, “USA Takes Over Egypt.”
Stuxnet and Flame are not the only viruses that have been created by the U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies. The Muslim Brotherhood is perhaps Washington’s most successful and dangerous virus that it has injected into the veins of the Middle East. It is an intellectual virus that destroys critical thinking among Muslims, excites their animal passions, and makes them act against their own interests.
With this virus firmly embedded in Egypt’s social and political life, Washington has guaranteed its position in the region for years to come. But by no means does the Muslim Brotherhood have anything close to a majority of popular support in Egypt. Since half the country didn’t vote in the election, the new president Mohammed Morsi only has the backing of “26% of the full electorate.”
Whatever course Morsi decides to take Egypt in the coming months, it is already clear that his government will resemble a gang even more than the one currently in power. The only difference is that Washington wanted the Muslim Brotherhood on top in Egypt, so it won.
What does Morsi’s win in Egypt mean for relations between the Western world and the Islamic world? I don’t know. But say goodbye to the Arab Spring, and say hello to the Islamist Summer. Washington’s Muslim Brotherhood is the new face of Egypt. In the past year, similar radical Islamist groups have taken over in Libya and Tunisia as the result of illegal Western interventions.
Well played, Washington, London, and Tel Aviv. Now you have your war against Islam. Now you can point at the bad guys, the rising Islamists, and tell your populations to hate and fear.
The Muslim Brotherhood is a Western Trojan Horse that has come to power in Egypt thanks to the indispensable support of the CIA-MI6-Mossad brotherhood.
9/11 didn’t do enough to stir the passions and subdue the Western mind under a dark cloud of terror. The rise of Islamists in the wake of the CIA’s Arab Spring might do the trick. The West has the jitters now. The Muslim Brotherhood is in power. Oooooh, so scary. “Oh my God, not the Muslim Brotherhood. O’ Government Master, please keep me safe from those bad guys. I’ll do anything you want.”
The success of the Muslim Brotherhood at the polls is a big win for the Israeli government, which was secretly supporting Morsi all along.
How does Israel win? It can identify the Muslim Brotherhood as a powerful enemy of Israel that’s been democratically elected by Egyptian voters, and continue to portray Arabs as anti-Jewish extremists. Israel’s PR machine was spinning into gear even before the votes were counted. Israel was like, “Let’s go Muslim Brothers. Win, baby, win. Win so we can have war.”
After helping Washington to put Islamic extremists in power across North Africa, Israel can say to the world, “Look, we’re surrounded by our enemies, the rising Islamic extremists. Help! Help! I’m drowning! I’m drowning! Help!” And Washington will respond, “Oh, my dear Israel, you poor thing, here are more weapons for your new acts of aggression. Start new wars, as much as you like. We’re right here behind you, and we’re not going to let you drown.”
Washington’s new Islamist pawns in power in the Arab world could become very unpopular and an anti-Islamist coalition may rise and defeat them. Or not. The victory of the Muslim Brotherhood shows that America’s last days in the heartland of Arabia are still very far away.
5 Facts That Prove Radical Islam Is A Child of American-British-Israeli Intelligence
Whose Spring? The CIA’s Hand In The Rise of Islamists And International Terrorist Groups
Giving Americans And Muslims Reasons To Fight: 9/11, Al-Qaeda, Drones, And Counterinsurgency
The electoral victory of the Muslim Brotherhood and of the Salafists in Egypt (January 2012) is hardly surprising. The decline brought about by the current globalization of capitalism has produced an extraordinary increase in the so-called “informal” activities that provide the livelihoods of more than half of the Egyptian population (statistics give a figure of 60%).
And the Muslim Brotherhood is very well placed to take advantage of this decline and perpetuate its reproduction. Their simplistic ideology confers legitimacy on a miserable market/bazaar economy that is completely antithetical to the requirements of any development worthy of the name. The fabulous financial means provided to the Muslim Brotherhood (by the Gulf states) allows them to translate this ideology into efficient action: financial aid to the informal economy, charitable services (medical dispensaries etc.).
In this way the Brotherhood establishes itself at the heart of society and induces its dependency. It has never been the intention of the Gulf countries to support the development of Arab countries, for example through industrial investment. They support a form of “lumpen development” – to use the term originally coined by André Gunder Frank – that imprisons the societies concerned in a spiral of pauperization and exclusion, which in turn reinforces the stranglehold of reactionary political Islam on society.
This would not have succeeded so easily if it had not been in perfect accord with the objectives of the Gulf states, Washington and Israel. The three close allies share the same concern: to foil the recovery of Egypt. A strong, upright Egypt would mean the end of the triple hegemony of the Gulf (submission to the discourse of Islamization of society), the United States (a vassalized and pauperized Egypt remains under its direct influence), and Israel (a powerless Egypt does not intervene in Palestine).
The rallying of regimes to neo-liberalism and to submission to Washington was sudden and total in Egypt under Sadat, and more gradual and moderate in Algeria and Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood – which is part of the power system – should not be considered merely as an “Islamic party”, but first and foremost as an ultra reactionary party that is, moreover, Islamist. Reactionary not only concerning what are known as “social issues” (the veil, sharia, anti-Coptic discrimination), but also, and to the same degree, reactionary in the fundamental areas of economic and social life: the Brotherhood is against strikes, workers’ demands, independent workers’ unions, the movement of resistance against the expropriation of farmers, etc.
The planned failure of the “Egyptian revolution” would thus guarantee the continuation of the system that has been in place since Sadat, founded on the alliance of the army high command and political Islam. Admittedly, on the strength of its electoral victory the Brotherhood is now able to demand more power than it has thus far been granted by the military. However, revising the distribution of the benefits of this alliance in favour of the Brotherhood may prove difficult.
The first round of the presidential election on 24 May was organised in such a way as to achieve the objective pursued by the system in power and by Washington: to reinforce the alliance of the two pillars of the system – the army high command and the Muslim Brotherhood – and settle their disagreement (which of the two will be in the forefront). The two candidates “acceptable” in this sense were the only ones to receive adequate means to run their campaigns. Morsi (MB: 24%) and Chafiq (Army: 23%). The movement’s real candidate – H.Sabbahi – who did not receive the means normally granted to candidates, allegedly only got 21% of the vote (the figure is questionable).
At the end of protracted negotiations it was agreed that Morsi was the “winner” of the second round. The assembly, like the president, was elected thanks to a massive distribution of parcels (of meat, oil and sugar) to those who voted for the Islamists. And yet, the “foreign observers” failed to observe a situation that is openly ridiculed in Egypt. The assembly’s dissolution was delayed by the army, which wanted to give the Brotherhood time to bring discredit upon itself by refusing to address social issues (employment, salaries, schools and health!).
The system in place, “presided” over by Morsi, is the best guarantee that lumpen-development and the destruction of the institutions of the state, which are the objectives pursued by Washington, will continue. We will see how the revolutionary movement, which is still firmly committed to the fight for democracy, social progress and national independence, will carry on after this electoral charade.
* BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS
* This article was translated from French for Pambazuka News by Julia Monod.
A strange coalition between the USA-EU; Gulf Arab sheikhdoms and ambitious Turkey is arming violence in Syria. The whole acts in Syria are definitely not about democracy. They are aimed at destroying Russia; Iran and nationalism in the region.
It is part of the wider plan of corrupt western so-called “Arab Spring”. The claimed “Spring” should start in the globalist USA; in Gulf Arab Sheikhdoms and in the secret-societies-controlled Turkey.
Now it is more obvious that terrorism has become public government foreign policy in the USA-EU; Gulf Arab sheikhdoms and Turkey.
The Express Tribune News Network published on April 28, 2012:
[SELAATA, LEBANON: The Lebanese navy intercepted three containers of weapons destined for Syrian rebel forces on board a ship originating from Libya, a security official told AFP on Saturday.
The cargo contained heavy machine guns, artillery shells, rockets, rocket launchers and other explosives, the official said. A second security official said the Sierra Leone-flagged Lutfallah II had previously obtained a permit to enter the port of Tripoli in northern Lebanon before being stopped by the navy on Thursday night.
The vessel was towed to Selaata, a small port some 50 kilometers (30 miles) north of Beirut. News reports said the ship had called at the Egyptian port of Alexandria en route from Libya.
An AFP reporter saw three army trucks leave Selaata for Beirut with the seized containers, escorted by eight jeeps and a helicopter. A resident told AFP that the ship weighed anchor in the morning, escorted by the navy to an unknown destination.
The security source said that the captain and crew were handed over to military intelligence officers in Tripoli for further questioning.
Syrian authorities have repeatedly charged that weapons are being smuggled from Lebanon to rebels fighting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad.]
Special Report: UPI.com
Published: April 10, 2012 at 2:52 PM
[DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, April 10 (UPI) — The United States has indicated it won’t block Persian Gulf monarchies seeking to arm Syrian insurgents fighting the Iranian-backed Damascus regime, although Washington says it won’t do so itself — for now, anyway.
U.S. President Barack Obama, seeking to win re-election in November amid a weak economy, doesn’t want to become entangled in a conflict in Syria.
But, some analysts say, letting the Saudis and their neighbors funnel arms to the disparate forces arrayed against embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gives the administration a fair bit of wiggle room.
The Americans say they fear that arming the Syrian opposition, particularly the Free Syrian Army slowly taking shape, will accelerate a long-dreaded civil war that would then be harder to stop.
At the recent Friends of Syria conference in Istanbul, the Americans and their allies warned that unless Assad called off the regime’s attacks on Syria’s people and implemented a U.N.-backed peace plan, rebel forces will be provided with weapons from outside, sharply ratcheting up the intensity of the insurrection.
“That in effect gives Washington’s blessing to a Saudi Arabian bid to arm the opposition,” the Financial Times observed.
At the very least, it marked a shift in the U.S. administration’s position of seeking to avoid a sectarian civil war in Syria, primarily between the Sunni Muslim majority and the Alawite minority regime, that could spill over to Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan.
Memories of Afghanistan and Iraq are never far away.
Britain and Turkey have indicated they wouldn’t stand in the way of the Saudis and the gulf states.
Western officials say they haven’t detected large-scale weapons transfers to the FSA, which is seeking to forge a cohesive alliance among the fragmented Syrian opposition groups.
But they said the Saudis, who have long been firmly opposed to the Syrian regime founded by Assad’s father in 1970, are turning a blind eye to arms purchases for the FSA by opposition Syrian businessmen in the Persian Gulf.
Syrian opposition figures have been reportedly meeting Saudi intelligence chiefs in Turkey and Europe to determine what arms the FSA needs.
Anti-tank missiles to counter the regime’s crippling armor reportedly have top priority.
“The decision to arm the rebels has been taken in principle but it has not yet been implemented,” said Mustafa Alani of the Gulf Institute of Strategic Studies, a Saudi-funded think tank in Dubai.
Russia and China, Assad’s main diplomatic friends after his Iranian allies, have stymied U.N. and Arab League efforts led by former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and backed by the West. The breakaway move by the gulf powers may have short-circuited those.
But, at its core, the Saudis’ strategy has more to do with the Sunni-Shiite split in Islam, Syria’s Alawites being a Shiite offshoot, and countering Iran than anything else. And in the long run, that religious fissure is probably more deep-rooted and enduring than any other factor concerning Syria.
There are wider considerations for the Americans. They’ve found that on the geo-strategic level the conflict tearing apart a longtime opponent who has frequently stymied U.S. policy in the Middle East has other benefits.
The Saudis and their partners are increasingly at odds with Moscow and Beijing, who have blocked international initiatives Damascus didn’t like.
That suits the Americans just fine. They’ve been alarmed at the diplomatic gains Russia and China, eyes on the gulf’s oil, have been making in the Middle East of late, mostly at the United States’ expense.
“Taking advantage of the profound sense of insecurity and alienation sweeping the Saudi regime, the United States is about to realize the dream project of shepherding the GCC states into its global missile defense architecture,” observed veteran regional analyst M. K. Bhadrakumar.
The gulf states, long-riven by historical dynastic rivalries, had balked at working together on missile defense until the Iranian threat began to loom large in recent years.
Now, Bhadrakumar noted, “geopolitical the arc of the United States’ global missile defense system extending from Central Europe through Turkey is … poised to take a leap across the Middle East to graze the waters of the Indian Ocean.
“In sum, Washington ties in the oil-rich Persian Gulf and can always revisit the crisis in Syria in due course.”]
İstanbul : Turkey | Apr 02, 2012 at 9:29 AM PDT By Guryea Janu posted on Allvoices.com
[The Syrian National Council has announced that the Syrian President Bashar fighting against the government will be given salaries for the rebels. In Istanbul, Turkey city friends of Syria Syria after a meeting of the opposition in the Syrian National Council has announced that the Syrian government leave with the soldiers will be given money.
70 Western and Arab countries in the meeting of foreign ministers of the government of Syria to increase pressure on the procedures. Syria named friends of the organization of the meeting was the second. To participate in the conference of the foreign ministers rich gulf countries according to the Syrian National Council tens of million dollars will be provided monthly.
During the meeting, the Syrian National Council, Burhan galyun said the Syrian National Council, all the free Syrian army officials and soldiers and other members to pay the salaries will take the responsibility.However, this is that the Syrian National Council on the Syrian people spokesman. During a news conference of Turkey to the Syrian foreign minister Ahmad grandfather warned that the United Nations and the Arab League’s joint ambassador by Kofi Annan peace plan proposed by final.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also have the same stand, said that the president Bashar al-Assad have more time for delay and causes. Although before the meeting on behalf of the Syrian National Council was demanded that rebel soldiers or free Syrian army weapons should be made available during the conference, but many countries including the United States and Turkey opposed it. He said that free Syrian army weapons war prepared to increase the possibility. However, Russia, China and important countries, including Iran not participate in the meeting.
On the other hand, the Syrian government on anti-government rebel combatants announced to win. It should be noted that the United Nations According to the president al-Assad against the last one year in protest issued till now more than nine thousand people have been killed.]
If it were about bringing democracy into the Arab region then the West shouldn’t use Gulf Arab states and Islamists for this purpose. But the objectives of the West are becoming clearer everyday. The real targets are attacking: Nationalism; Russia and Iran.
According to a French businessman who knows the Gulf well and who spoke under cover of anonymity: “Of course, the Qataris would not have dashed into such a project without a green light from the Elysee.” Although the most high profile of Gulf principalities — backed by its huge natural gas revenues — invests wholesale in major European nations, the United States and in Asia (in real estate, banks, industry), the closeness between the emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, and the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has no equivalent.
Sheikh Hamad, who was the first Arab head of state to come visit the newly elected president at the Elysee in May 2007, paradoxically found and ideal partner in this assailant of the French “Arab policy” inherited from Gaullism. The Francophilia that has always been attributed to the emir, which he inherited from his father (today, Qatar`s military equipment is still 80% French), a monarch who was deposed without any snags in 1995, partly explains this special relationship. However its main driving force is the complementarity between the ambitious president of a still influential power that has a veto right in the United Nations and the sovereign of a micro state who wishes to play a leading role by relying on almost unlimited financial resources. Sheikh Hamad could not have hoped for similar overtures from the United States, which has the region`s main land base on its territory. Resolve
The two men, brought together by the same activism and the same taste for top-down power that avoids all sorts of intermediaries, teamed up back in 2007, with the release of the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor who had been unfairly imprisoned in Libya, and then again in 2008 with the reconciliation between France and Syria in the wake of the agreement that the Lebanese factions reached in Doha. The Franco-Qatari pair gained fame once again in Libya with the political and military support provided to the rebels against Colonel Mu`ammar al-Qadhafi, even though Qatar`s propensity to massively arm certain Libyan militias ended up arousing the concern and annoyance of French diplomats. However, this is far from a systematic partnership in the Middle East, as shown in the case of the financial aid for the Palestinian Authority, which Mr. Sarkozy took up in 2007 without ever managing to convince Sheikh Hamad.
The string of uprisings in the Arab world boils down to Saudi Arabia and Qatar using money and influence to hijack public dissent and bring Sunni Islamists to power, says John R. Bradley, British author and expert on the Middle East.
He argues that the turbulence that saw several governments overthrown in 2011 came from sectarian divide among Muslims, which the West played on, to support its own allies.
“What we’re seeing is a Sunni-Shiite divide reemerge in the Middle East with Washington clearly backing the Sunni powerhouse Saudi Arabia, a close American ally. And Saudi Arabia in turn along with Qatar has taken control of the revolutions elsewhere.
“For example it’s funding the Ennahda, the main Islamist party in Tunisia. The Muslim Brotherhood and more extremist Salafi groups in Egypt on the record were saying they received substantial funds from Saudi Arabia. The Yemeni government has openly criticized Qatar for interfering in its internal affairs and funding radical Islamists. And of course in Syria the main civilian opposition is dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the so-called Free Syrian Army is dominated by not only radical jihadists from within Syria, but also by jihadists from throughout the region,” the expert told RT.
Bradley has little doubt that citizens of the countries hit by the Arab Spring had reason to criticize their authorities, but contrary to western audiences’ beliefs, the lack of political rights was far from being the most important factor.
“The motivation for these revolutions was economic. In Tunisia for example it started with the impoverished and neglected deep south. In Syria it started in Daraa, a city near Jordan, which has been experiencing drought for three years. And in Egypt an extensive opinion poll carried out among those who went to Tahrir just after Mubarak fell showed that only 19 per cent of them put free and fair election and free expression and so on, on top of their agenda. The main priority for 65 percent was the economy,” he said.
This is the very definition of Erdogan’s, and Davutoglu’s, ambitions.
In the recent batch of State Department cables disclosed by WikiLeaks, one scholar was quoted as anointing the Turkish foreign minister “Turkey’s Kissinger,” while in 2004 a secondhand source was quoted as calling him “exceptionally dangerous.” But his abilities, and his worldview, matter because of the country whose diplomacy he drives: an Islamic democracy, a developing nation with a booming economy, a member of NATO with one foot in Europe and the other in Asia. Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is a canny, forward-thinking populist who has drastically altered Turkish politics. Erdogan and Davutoglu share a grand vision: a renascent Turkey, expanding to fill a bygone Ottoman imperial space.
Davutoglu is seen as a champion of Turkish greatness.
Henri Barkey, a Turkey scholar at Lehigh University, pronounces his book “Strategic Depth” as“mumbo jumbo,” adding that Davutoglu “thinks of himself as God”.
Foreign Policy magazine ranked him No. 7 in its recent list of “100 Global Thinkers,” writing that under his leadership, “Turkey has assumed an international role not matched since a sultan sat in Istanbul’s Topkapi Palace.”
Davutoğlu is generally linked to the notion of Turkish neo-Ottomanism, which favours a commonwealth with its neighbours and old Ottoman connections. Although his foreign policies have been regarded as neo-Ottomanist by Western and especially U.S. media, Davutoğlu does not accept such a characterization.
One of Davutoglu’s greatest diplomatic achievements was the creation of a visa-free zone linking Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, thus reconstituting part of the old Ottoman space.
The victory of the moderate Islamist AK party in the 2002 parliamentary elections was a seismic event in Turkey, culturally as well as politically. Turkey had been an aggressively secular republic since its establishment in 1923; Turkey’s Westernized intellectuals, living in the coastal cities, especially Istanbul, looked upon the Islamists as bumpkins from the Anatolian hinterland. “These people came out of nowhere,” as Candar puts it.
On the flight home from Brussels, where he conferred privately with Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and met with his European counterparts, Davutoglu was in an ebullient mood. He feels the wind of history filling his sails. Turkey, the crossroads of civilizations, the land where East and West, North and South, converge, is pointing the way to the world’s future. “Turkey is the litmus test of globalization,” he told me. “Success for Turkey will mean the success of globalization.” The world, as Davutoglu likes to say, expects great things from Turkey.