Letter to a Russian Diplomat: Repeat not the Mistakes of Two German Empires
Number Eighty-Six | 17 September 2011
Editor's note: A genuine memo to a diplomat, among a number along similar lines to members of the diplomatic community. Politicians are highly compartmentalized and often overworked, preventing them from seeing the big picture.
For the past fifty years the West has been supporting authoritarian Middle Eastern regimes in the name of fighting ‘Soviet Aggression’ which graduated into ‘Islamic Extremism’ in the 1990s. There is no doubt that the anger on the ‘Arab Street’ is genuine. It is a product of being oppressed by the same Arab regimes which were installed and supported by US ‘aid’ in the form of military technology and repression training by military ‘advisors’ and intelligence officers. However, just like the Color ‘Revolutions’ of Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan had the fingerprints of USAID, the Ford Foundation, the Soros Foundation, NED and Freedom House imprinted on their blood-stained flags, the ‘Arab Spring’ is the sophisticated play written by the same masters of playwright.
It is true that most of these ‘revolutions’ toppled regimes which had been US surrogates, but as with past regimes which had served their purpose for these interests and outlived their usefulness, they were left to fend for themselves. The list of such regimes is too long to provide in this article, but it would suffice to name the Shah of Iran, Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, Suharto of Indonesia, and Saddam Hussein of Iraq, among others. In fact in such cases, Washington’s taunting of them, as with the case of Mubarak, or even Qaddafi, leaves their reactions open to be exploited according to what the situation presents. In the end the goal is clear to those who listen to the propaganda organs of the system and read their white papers. The goals of the Anglo-American establishment and their lesser allies is to turn the middle east into a ‘Shatterbelt’region or ‘arc of instability’ which would require the partitioning of the region even more in order to lessen the probability of any future cohesion through strong national unities.
Eurasian Balkans & the "Black Hole" of Power
To be sure, the foundation for such upheavals does exist in the Central Asian republics. To say nothing more, the parallels of their ruling elites to those of the Middle East are chilling to say the least. With the exception of Kyrgyzstan, all the other republics have followed the example of Arab ‘Presidents’ in finding ways to manipulate republican political tools, such as constitutions and parliaments, to take their terms into perpetuity and even pass it on to their blood relations or those within their close inner circle.
Likewise, the people of Central Asia do have major grievances against their current regimes which find roots in nepotistic monopolies that deprive society of smooth functioning in the economic, social and political spheres. Furthermore, events in Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Libya have shown that petrodollar rich states such as Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan who placate their populations through subsidies are not beyond the reach of such ‘Revolutions.’ Yet the question of whether the events of the ‘Arab Spring’ could spread to Central Asia has already been answered ‘Yes’ before they ever sprang from the Arab streets. The Color ‘Revolutions’ of ex-Soviet sphere which also affected Iran came well before the Arab revolts and were hatched by the same colored interests. To fully answer the question we have to surmise if the current wave which hit the ex-Soviet sphere and bounced into the realm of the Iranian World and found itself agitating on the streets of Tunis, Cairo, Sana’a, Benghazi, Damascus, Manama, Muscat, Riyadh, Kuwait and Amman, would bounce back to Central Asia in its next deflection.
For various reasons the author of this article deduces that the Central Asian republics should be in the safe zone for the current period. It is true that Mr. Brzezinski refers to the Central Asian republics as the ‘black hole’ of power, coining them ‘the Eurasian Balkans,’ implying a major risk of ethnic conflict and great-power regional rivalry, but for the time being, there are a few elements which work in the Central Asian republics’ favor. First off, having been the original victims of the Western interest inspired, funded, organized and triggered coups of the first wave of Colored ‘Revolutions,’ these States have built up antidote policies from the experiences they were subjected to. Secondly, their populations are at present sufficiently isolated from the humdrums of today’s Western propaganda in championing the ‘great ideals’ of ‘human rights,’ as the governments of these republics diminished the influence, or at least the prominence, of supposed Western ‘NGOs’ which have been shown admittedly to play the part of the ‘coaches’ of such ‘revolutions.’
Cold War Redux
As much as the ultimate goal of these maneuvers is to isolate China and Russia into forcing them to accept a New World Order in which they would never have the opportunity to play a prominent role, China and Russia have been forced into diminishing such threats from the Central Asian regimes under the rubric of the SCO’s security policies. Having learned from the dangers of the Color ‘Revolutions’ and the black hands that direct them, the ex-Soviet sphere, or at least its regimes, have awakened to the dangers of being too submissive to Western demands. Clearly all the countries in which Colored Revolutions succeeded in were those in which their governments had come to accept Western advances in the name of peace and defense – NATO expansion in case of Ukraine and Georgia; peace in the Middle East in case of Egypt or Jordan – or democracy, as with Kyrgyzstan’s 1990s experience or the near fatal experience of Karimov playing too close to the fire until his timely about face in 2005. Also, as the cultural affinity of these republics gravitates more towards Turkey and Iran, the events on the Arab Street would not be as tangible. Now the success of such upheavals in these two kin states would be more detrimental to the peace and security of Central Asia as they both border this region, by sea or land, and have a more concrete link to these States’ past and present.
Looking at the roots of these current events in the Middle East would take us to the days preceding the fall of the Soviet Union and the New World Order whose dawn was declared for the world to hear by the prophetic words of President George H.W. Bush (I) on September 11th 1990. In that speech, President Bush the elder prophesized a new world, the world of the 21st Century and beyond, in which nations will not be allowed to ‘resolve their differences by force’ and the ‘rule of law’ would decide their actions. However to reach that world required the destruction of the old world in which any nation could be strong enough to challenge any other. The demise of the USSR in the first years of the last decade of the millennium removed the biggest challenge to the dream of a world where no nation would be able to challenge the will of the Anglo-American establishment. In their present size, many states in the world of the 1990s had the resources – population, sources of energy, raw material, geopolitical advantages – to stand in the way of this New World Order. The former Yugoslavia was a perfect example of this. As a united entity, with the backing of Mother Russia, she would have been a formidable adversary to the dominance of the Anglo-American hegemony in Europe proper.
The idea put into action in those days has found many great strategists through the decades, such as Dr. Henry Kissinger or Zbigniew Brzezinski. This policy was dictated in Mr. Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard, adopted by the US military’s Full Spectrum Dominanceand found further life in the Wolfowitz Doctrine implemented by the Neo-Conservative agenda of the Bush and now Obama Administrations.
In fact, the present ‘Arab Spring’ is just another chapter in the advancement of this long drawn out dream embodied in the actions of Cecil Rhodes and Lord Milner and their Roundtable tentacles. Many greater foes such as the Austro-Hungarian, the German, Japanese, Persian, and Ottoman Empires were partitioned in the preceding two centuries. Yugoslavia was also the first prototype of how the last stage of this partitioning is to come about: with foreign backing, segments of the population, or even sub-sections of the government (i.e. state or regional governments), challenge the authority of the central government in a very scientific (i.e. calculated) way with a near expected result.
In every case, there are some legitimate and sometimes longstanding popular grievances that have been suppressed by society or the government which are brought to the fore and concentrated on to rile the population onto the streets in a pre-arranged plan through the agitation and organization of agents, sometimes unwitting ones. The rest is left to the wiles of organs of propaganda (i.e. major media corporations in line with intelligence services) who are experts at doctoring up stories and photographic ‘evidence’ to go along in order to show ‘global’ outrage against the government and support by the world ‘community’ for the people.
George Soros is the father of such pincer movements in numerous countries so far; movements which rise out of funds from such organizations as USAID, Ford or Soros Foundations, targeting such groups in society which already possess legal justification for organization. These groups would include student organizations, environmental groups, labor unions, entertainment guilds or religious factions. Through these organizations ideas would be spread and actions would be organized. Here I would refer you to the great work done by the likes of Dr. Webster Griffin Tarpley, F.W. Engdahl or Professor Oskar Baffi in tracing the roots of such subversions in detail.
Those who drive such geopolitical agendas have the tendency to announce their actions years in advance and make a record of it as well. There are many theories as to why they do this; too many for the scope of this article. However, the evidence abounds in these cases and one only has to read white papers and studies of organizations such as the CFR, Royal Institute, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, or the Club of Rome, while glance at the events of the past century, to see that most major catastrophic events have first been forewarned by these bards of the new age’s promise of doom. After all, once one glances over Hitler’s Mein Kampf it becomes chillingly clear that that ‘prophet’ of doom also announced his dirty deeds before they ever saw the light of day.
Needless to say the funding of organizations such as USAID or Ford Foundation have been traced to the same groups which have ignited these ‘revolutions,’ but it would be surprising to many to hear that even New York Times has written about this fact. In an article titled “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings” the role of the Anglo-American establishment can be seen in the funding and organizations of these groups which sparked and directed many of these ‘uprisings.’
A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6  Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington, according to interviews in recent weeks and American diplomatic cables. The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department. 
It is true that the US government claims that these groups are made to promote democracy, but we all know what the US’s idea of democracy building looks like, especially when it comes to the Middle East and the Moslem lands. All we have to do is look at the history of democracy building and human rights in Iraq and Afghanistan to see that it is littered with the charred bodies of innocent civilians and the deformed figures of hundreds of thousands of D.U. babies,not mentioning the rubble wasteland left of what were once cities with infrastructure and culture. All the countries which are not under the yolk of the establishment have at one point or another shown their displeasure of meddling in their internal affairs and even fomenting of internal rebellions by Western governments and interests. This list includes Libya, Syria, Iran, Serbia, Belarus, and even China and Russia. According to President Lukashenko actions by the West against her country from the outside and manipulation within are “all links of one chain aimed to plant mistrust for the authorities and to strangle the country with a slipknot. They want to force us to be just like everybody else, like they are eventually. We are like a bone in their throat.”
A Struggle for True Middle Eastern Independence
Evidence has also come to surface that the governments of the ‘Arab Spring’ nations had for years protested meddling in their internal affairs by these interests through the US government. The government of Egypt had made the loudest of all protests from the ‘Arab Spring’ victims since the early part of the millennium. Apparently such pleas were not without reason as an article by the Washington Post from March of 2011 tells how US funds tech firms that help Mideast dissidents evade government censors. The history of this ‘democracy’ building has always started with the involvement of so called NGOs directing the people’s desires for more freedoms and opportunities but ended in wars and partition funded by the same interests. The Iraq War was branded as the first brick in the road to the Greater Middle East where the US was to bring a ‘utopia’ to all the Moslem countries from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean.
THE Bush administration justified the invasion of Iraq on three pretexts. The first was the war on terror declared after 11 September 2001; against all the evidence, Saddam Hussein was presented in the United States as an accomplice, if not a sponsor, of Osama bin Laden. The second argument was the threat of weapons of mass destruction. We now know that the information the US and the United Kingdom provided about this subject was untruthful. As the first two faded, a third grew in importance: Washington promised to make Iraq so attractive a democratic model that it would set an example to the entire Middle East. 
However this ‘utopia’ was nothing new as the US claimed but an idea with its roots in the annals of the birth of geopolitics as a field of study. What US offered was more candidly leaked in one of its own military magazines and by today it has been slowly implemented in Iraq and Sudan while being promoted in Libya and for Saudi Arabia and Iran. This map released during the Bush Administration’s euphoric period in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq War shows a Middle East which has been partitioned into smaller, some newly-founded, nation states. The most glaring result of this plan is the realization of the emasculation of the main regional and historic powers such as Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia, incidentally the largest states in the region, in line with the age old policy of divide and rule. The US has been busy in the past decade arming and funding separatist elements in Iran which have been responsible for terrorist attacks inside that country.
Any country which has the ability to be self-sufficient and challenge the total domination of the old colonial powers in any region of the world, especially the Middle East, is the target of this attack. Libya for example owns its own Central Bank, like Iran, and is not under direct manipulation by the multinational banking interests. On top of that with its low population, large territory, strategic geographic layout and high energy resources the leadership of the country is famous for endorsing independent economic and political ideas for the region and Africa in particular (i.e. an independent foreign policy with dreams of a Pan-Africa free of Western financial and military industrial complex).
It was by no accident that in the midst of the civil war in Libya the rebels stopped to create a new Central Bank for their planned country. The same rebels whose military leader is no other than an Al Qaeda member previously in US custody under the pretext of the ‘War on Terrorism’. It is interesting that although the (CIA created) Al Qaeda has been declared public enemy by the US since the mid-1990s, yet whenever necessary this group has also been an ally for the US and the Western interests it represents.
In Afghanistan, Serbia, Chechnya, Iran, and Uzbekistan, Al Qaeda has been a good ally. Even in such recent places as the present conflict in Libya, the group for which world airports have been turned into military compounds is allied to the West. Al Qaeda after all is showing its true color as the Jack of All Trades for the Anglo-American establishment’s agenda of Full Spectrum Dominance as outlined in the Project for a New American Century (PNAC).
US Military Released Map of a Partitioned Middle East (2004)
In fact this last war pushed on Libya is a perfect example of this strategy, just as Iraq was. It was sold to the UN and the world as nothing more than guaranteeing of a ‘no fly zone,’ instead of what it turned out to be: another carnage filled uranium wasteland. Just like the Iraq War, this conflict was also based on lies and at best half-truths. At the same time that Western governments were claiming that Colonel Qaddafi was firing at his own people from the air and this required intervention and a UN mandate for a No Fly-Zone, those highest in the US defense establishment were admitting that there was no proof of such a thing.
In a DOD News Briefing with Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen at the Pentagon in March of 2011, in question to the veracity of the claims of Libyan military air attack on civilians the defense secretary replied that, “we’ve seen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that,” to which Admiral Mullen adds, “that’s correct. We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever.”  In fact in the past few weeks it has come to light and confirmed by congresswoman Cynthia McKinney that the anti-Qaddafi forces are not an indigenous movement but rather a hodgepodge of CIA trained multi-national mercenary force also known as Al-Qaida. These CIA secret Al Queda brigades have in the past served well against the Soviet Union in the 1980s and in the Balkans in the nineties. These forces are from a Diaspora of Asian and African countries who do not always know who their puppet masters are. For example, these same forces contributed vastly to the destruction of Russia’s geopolitical sphere in the Balkans, thereby in reality weakening the defenses of the Middle East in the process and the Moslem World by extension while believing that they were serving in a great Jihad against ‘Infidels’ and serving Islam. This uneducated mercenary group led by Pentagon controlled leaders like Al-Awlaki had obviously never studied the added value Yugoslavia provided to the Third World during the Cold War.
The Anglo-American Cartel wants the canals and infrastructure built by Qaddafi because “Libya is the beachhead for taking over all of Africa.” Perhaps Qaddafi’s mistake was to so fully abdicate to the Cartel in 2006, bringing down his defenses and letting the proverbial Trojan Horse in to Tripoli’s ancient gates. The Cartel has shown that no amount of booty would satisfy its hunger which can only be satisfied when all the resources, including the human ones, of every nation are subjected to their system and by extension, interests. Otherwise those populations are only deserving of the cornucopia of ways to die until a way can be found to bring them into the collective. It would have been better for Qaddafi to have learned the lessons Saddam and the Shah of Iran were taught to the cost of their lives; although it is not too late for him to ‘be learned’ in the same manner.
Human Rights Hypocrisy
The argument about interest in human rights falls short of the truth when looking at Western reaction to crack downs in places where it was geopolitically detrimental to react negatively. Bahrain is one of these examples. In the case of Bahrain, a small island nation in the Persian Gulf, the West allowed the most repressive acts to occur without a wink. Bahrain, being 70% Shiite and ethnically and historically tied to Iran is also a place where the US Navy’s 5th Fleet is already stationed and the US does not need further penetration. It is also not a large state which could challenge the hegemony of Western interests in any way. As it sits so close to the Saudi coastline – it is separated from Saudi mainland by a bridge – and by extension its vast Anglo-American controlled oil fields, Bahrain did not fall within the same category as Libya or Iraq and its population were not deserving of Western ‘sympathy’ for their rights. Therefore instead of sending forces to ‘help’ the local population it was decided to send Saudi and Emirati forces to further abuse their human rights. It would be accurate to say, as the iconic Amy Goodman claims in her article entitled “Violent Repression in Bahrain Backed by the U.S.,”that US backed repression stains Bahrain’s ‘Arab Spring.’
Therefore, despite the rhetoric coming out of Washington, London and Paris, it is clear that human rights and democracy are not the driving force behind such ‘revolutions’ but rather partition and domination are. Present events in the region had been planned by these powers years in advance and gradually implemented ever since. Retired US Army General Wesley Clark told “Democracy Now” back in 2007 that ten days after September 11, 2001 another general had told him that the Bush government was planning to invade: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. Foreign Policy magazine went as far as putting out an article entitled, “Who’s Next?” in which it named candidate countries for regime change just a few days after Mubarak’s demise and days before the Libyan events. Among these were the usual suspects – North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Belarus, and most interestingly Libya (only a few days before actions against her) – whom did not toe the line the West draws out for the world. Just like Sudan, Libya had opened up Africa to Chinese influence and would not join AFRICOM, a tool for US hegemony over Africa.
It might come as a surprise to most, but ‘according to right-wing Italian journalist Franco Bechis, plans to spark the Benghazi rebellion were initiated by French intelligence services in November 2010.” The true nature of these campaigns becomes clear only as the agenda finds excuses to legitimize its march. It was not long after the military campaigns in Libya started that the Anglo-American neo-imperialists offered justifications for partitioning Libya. This ‘solution’ to the ‘humanitarian problem’ was offered by various organs of their propaganda war such as Fareed Zakaria whom argued that a partitioned Libya was better than one wholly ruled by Qaddafi. Just two days before, on March 22nd, the British minister for the Armed Forces, Nick Harvey, told the BBC that partition was "one possible outcome". He added: "A stable outcome where they weren't killing each other would in a sense be one way of achieving the humanitarian objective." These realities had also not escaped the watchful eyes of regional leaders themselves when in January of 2011 after the partition success in Sudan, both Libya and Egypt “expressed concern that separation in Sudan could be contagious, and can spread across the African continent.”
Egypt as Key, Rewriting the Constitution
However, where partition is not an option, there’s no need to fear, manipulation of the genesis of the new political structures budding out of such ‘Springs,’ be it in the Arab World, Turco-Persian realm or Eastern Europe – the desired ‘Shatter-Belt’ regions – will do the trick for these not-so-shadowy shadowy interests. In fact the next phase of the ‘Arab Spring’ has also started in Egypt, perhaps the most important piece on the Grand Chessboard of the Arab World for the taking. As Egypt is the largest Arab country by population and the most historically cultured – thereby a direct influence on the rest of the Arab World (most prolific of Arab countries in terms of creating literature, art, theatre and films) – and geopolitically well situated (in the center of the Arab World, at the crossroads of Africa, Asia and Europe), it is the biggest prize admittedly by most Western observers.
Richard Haas, the President of Council on Foreign Relations (one of the think-tanks which set the Anglo-American agenda for Full Spectrum Dominance) and ex-US diplomat, has insisted that the US should leave Libya in a stalemate (i.e. partition) and concentrate its efforts on the more geopolitically important countries of ‘Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Yemen, Bahrain and Iran.’ Hass insists that “American policymakers would be wiser to focus on what they can do to see that Egypt's transition proceeds smoothly, that Saudi Arabia remains stable, and that Iran does not.” What he means in case of Egypt’s “smooth transition” is already being implemented by another one of his colleagues on the same front, George Soros. The next phase of this ‘transition’ is the shaping of the new orders which are to come out of this chaos and no better way exists than having input in the direction and contents of the constitutions of these re-emerging societies. Just like in Iraq, the Americans are writing the Egyptian constitution through the use of their well funded NGOs. 
In the article entitled, U.S. preparing aid package for Egypt opposition, TIME magazine details that just two weeks after the ‘spontaneous’ Egyptian revolution of 25 January 2011, Washington publicly “called for a transition to democracy, which Egypt has never known. To avoid a continuation of dictatorial rule under a new strong man or a dangerous power vacuum as weaker players try to seize control, Egypt will need to see the lightning-fast development of long-suppressed political parties. So the US is preparing a new package of assistance to Egyptian opposition groups designed to help with constitutional reform, democratic development and election organizing, State Department officials tell TIME.” In fact in light of how the Egyptian uprising had been sparked through organization by such prominent ‘Google’ figures as Wael Ghonim, it is fitting that the U.S. pay for the new constitution which itself is directing in form and content. As these imperialist policies advance in the Arab World, the question which Foreign Policy magazine asks finds more relevance: Who is Next?
With knowledge of Western geopolitical designs for Eurasia and by extension Russia and China, the question arises as to why these two states continue on their path of ‘indifference’ to these events. Some like George Freeman of Stratfor claim that the reason for this is purely out of self-interest. In view of Russia’s abstainment from a veto against the UN resolution authorizing military action in Libya in 2011, while Prime Minister Putin criticized it as a medieval campaign, Freeman claims that the ‘abstention was a calculated move to facilitate intervention. The subsequent instability could eliminate Libya as an oil & gas alternative, thus giving Moscow greater market share - and greater control - in Europe.’ Yet this view seems rather naïve and it would be hard to believe that Russia would sacrifice its global leadership position in exchange for higher natural resource revenues despite Mr. Putin’s thesis on the importance of development of natural resource basins some years ago.
Many take fault with Russia for not taking on the challenge of pursuingf a multipolar world, in line with President Putin’s February 2007 speech in Munich, whereby such excesses of the West can be curbed. The 1990s saw an immediate post Cold War era where Russia in pursuit of better relations with the West abrogated its global responsibilities as a great balancing power, which led to this unabashed Anglo-American illegal, immoral and mortal move towards hegemony through force and deceit. Yet in this view one must not be so harsh on Russia or China, for while dealing with the West, they are playing with fire.
For some time now it has become clear that the Anglo-Americans intend to achieve their hegemony through force and even welcome the next global war of any proportions to achieve it. Russia and China must also be rather alert to not be fooled into a great war – as Germany was in two wars – where the endgame will only assist the unilateralists in achievement of their hegemonic goals. The issue then is one of balance, perhaps in line with Prime Minister Putin’s latest campaign against the deceitful actions over Libya. The rest of the free world (those not already forced under Anglo-American hegemony) also has much responsibility in support of any Russian or Chinese moves to block this unilateralist imperialism.
Therefore in the end we are left with this one important question if we are to seriously deal with this issue and save the world from the next great global conflict and ultimate tragedy: will the countries which still hold the possibility for an independent direction from the Anglo-American hegemony band together in a united front and not fall by the wayside one after another, one decade after another? Benjamin Franklin had once said to the other founding fathers of the United States, that gentlemen, “we must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
Perhaps Russia, China, Iran, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Indonesia should take heed. The fate of the free world could depend on it.
blog comments powered by Disqus