Quo vadis?

Presumimos que el siguiente artículo, aparecido en estos días en el semanario suizo Current Concerns, va a ser estrictamente censurado por la prensa corporativa occidental. Su autor es Hans Christoph von Sponeck. No se lo pierdan.

Título: Quo vadis NATO?

Texto: "Human rights, military operations, geopolitical interests are three NATO slogans raising three important  questions: 1. Human rights for whom? 2. Military operations by whom and on whose behalf? 3. Is it a matter of geopolitical interests or global political decisions?

NATO 1949

The Washington Agreement of 1949 (NATO treaty) had required the “peaceful” resolution of conflicts  and declared that the geopolitical interests of the transatlantic alliance would not reach beyond the borders of NATO member states!

The NATO treaty pointed to the fact that NATO states accepted United Nations law (the Charter of the United Nations) as binding and that they accepted subsidiarity. This means that human rights apply to everyone, that the NATO countries’ geopolitical interests are limited to their territory, and that military operations are only allowed when it is about the defense of the NATO area. Nevertheless, there was already then a caveat for NATO: The NATO states were to decide whether the UN Security Council had taken the “right” steps. If, in their opinion, this was not the case, they would act within the meaning of Article 5 of the NATO treaty – without reference to Article 51 of the UN Charter.

This shows that from the very beginning NATO leadership thought in the same way as they act today! This means that today as well as in the past they have always questioned the monopoly right of the UN Security Council, since the Council is the only body that has the right to decide whether to intervene either with military or else with other means.

NATO 2013

In the 64 years since NATO’s founding international relations have considerably changed. The NATO of 12 states in 1949 has turned into the NATO of 28 states in 2013. NATO has installed itself increasingly as a global security policy establishment in these years of hyper-linking. “We are prepared to develop political dialogue and practical cooperation with any nations and relevant organisations across the globe that share our interest in peaceful international relations,” reads the NATO strategy of 2010.

Furthermore, NATO insists that it is their job to deal with all the major national issues of military and human (!) security. Energy security is a first priority in this sense. US Senator Lugar went a step further when he emphasized that NATO could intervene militarily according to Article5 of its Statute, if some NATO states’ access to energy sources was threatened somewhere in the world. However, it would mean a serious violation of international law, if this actually happened.

There is not much left of a NATO subsidiarity within the United Nations in the year 2013! The result is a network of 28 nations that are linked by “Partnerships for Peace” (PfP) worldwide. A variety of former USSR states is involved. There is a dialogue agreement with Mediterranean states. By means of the so-called “Istanbul Initiative” the countries of North Africa and the Middle East are included in the NATO agenda. Particular connections exist between NATO and the Gulf States plus Yemen. Furthermore there is a lose cooperation between the Israeli navy and the naval forces of NATO. Special agreements were settled between NATO and Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, New Zealand and Australia. The world’s two largest drug producers, Colombia and Afghanistan, cooperate with NATO. Britain, which still owns the San-Diego islands in the Indian Ocean, has leased them to the United States. The local military bases are used by NATO for deployments.

On behalf of NATO the US is currently trying to intensify its military relations with Vietnam, Myanmar and East Timor. Similar attempts are made in the area of the five Central Asian states. In Liberia the “US Africom” was recently deployed in Monrovia after having been withdrawn from Stuttgart. In most  regions where there are no land bases, NATO is represented by ships of the US Navy. Strategic presence and a visible embrace of China and Russia continue to be perfected. It should not come as a surprise that this brings along serious consequences for international relations!

The NATO enlargement is associated with the non-declared goal of weakening others, especially of alliances such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). “Gladio”, the mysterious underground organization of western states, which already existed in the times of the Cold War, is an indication for the means that are used, even if they are not legal. Developments in recent years have shown an ever more expanding, but also increasingly weaker NATO. Defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq, a war against Yugoslavia in violation of international law and an invasion of Iraq that had not been approved by the UN Security Council have become milestones of NATO’s weakening. 

The serious violation of the four GenevaConventions and the Hague Conventions by the mistreatment of prisoners at Bagram, Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo as well as US flights transporting prisoners to secret prisons in order to torture them in other countries, are additional causes of this weakening. The abuse of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) – handed over to NATO in 2011 by the UN Security Council for the welfare of the civilian population in Libya – and the actions of individual NATO states in the Syria crisis have significantly added to resistance against NATO.

New provocations such as the establishment of a network of missile defense systems in Spain, Poland, Romania, Turkey and Germany met with Russia’s legitimate resistance and withdrew the NATO-Russia Council’s confidence base.

What is the explanation for NATO’s development between 1949 and 2013?

The dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, the resulting independence of the 12 Soviet republics and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact – along with the signing of the Charter of Paris for a New Europe following in November 1990 – bore the great opportunity of replacing the Cold War by a warm peace. In many places, there was talk of the expected “peace dividend”. It turned out differently. 

NATO did not dismiss itself to history; it was rather looking for a new raison d’être. The administration of George W. Bush and the other neoconservative circles in the US, inspired by the belief in an  “American Century” (Project for a new American Century – PNAC) lying before them, wanted to maintain NATO under US leadership. The 11th September 2001 encouraged the political circles in Washington to justify the American claim to hegemony. This “PNAC psyche”, i.e. the belief in the leadership of the United States, existed across all parties before and after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York. The European NATO member states and Canada were prepared to act as
willing stooges.

In parallel, under American leadership NATO has developed continuously from a defensive alliance, protecting those who lived within the community, into an alliance with a global order. The NATO strategies from 1991, 1999 and 2010 prove this in clear language, according to the motto: new threats justify new approaches. “NATO is the most capable and effective political-military alliance in the world” was said in November 2010, when the latest NATO strategy was presented in Lisbon. It was no secret that it was aboutthe “security” and the “freedom” of NATO now amounting to 28 member states; it was hardly about the welfare of the other 165 UN member states. How else are we to explain NATO’s anti-satellite systems in Europe and Asia or the NATO inspections of merchant vessels in international waters?  

Further examples are NATO military exercises at crisis points of intersection such as on the Korean peninsula and elsewhere. It is all about selfishness and hubris. It is for these reasons that a large part of the remaining world repeatedly draws the existence of this transatlantic community into question.

Closest and excessive connections (“hyper-connectivity”) and networks at many levels have led to a significantly stronger polarization in international relations, which has its origin in the aggressive appearance of NATO. NATO, continually thinking in a unipolar way, is facing a growing multi-polar opposition. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) are two examples of security alliances that respond to NATO’s development. “We are experiencing an almost unrestricted use of military force, which plunges the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts!” These are the words of the Russian president Vladimir Putin spoken in 2007. Since then, the level of confrontation between NATO and an increasing number of countries in Asia, Latin America and also in Africa and the Middle East has continued to rise. The conflicts with Libya (2011) and Syria (since 2011), the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan (since 2001) as well as the US-led invasion violating international law and the eight years’ occupation of Iraq (2003–2011) have significantly contributed to the polarization of international relations.

The obvious double standards of NATO, the egotism of the Alliance, the political corruption of individual NATO states and the repeated offense against international law have played an important role in this case. The deliberate spread of misinformation by government institutions aiming at influencing the national and international public adds up to all that. Just to mention only one of the many political examples: the performance of US Secretary of Defense Colin Powell on 5 February 2003 in the UN Security Council. In the presence of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, Director General of theIAEA Mohamed ElBaradei and the Commissioner for Iraq’s disarmament and head of UNMOVIC Hans Blix, Powell obeyed his government’s order to forward the evidence that Iraq under President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. This was a serious misdirection, because not only professionals knew that Iraq was highly disarmed in 2003 and could no longer pose a threat. There was no protest from NATO circles! The present High Representative of the UN indirectly supported the subsequent US-led invasion of Iraq by their silence and thus were complicit.

Basic theses on the question: Quo vadis NATO?

NATO “defense” 
The approach of NATO under the pretext that the community must defend itself against an enemy often has to do with provocations generated by NATO itself. That is, it is not uncommon to look at NATO itself as the cause of a crisis. An important example is the anti-satellite initiative of the United States connected with NATO’s eastern expansion. The response, the symptom, is made the cause here. Once the NATO finished with such a provocation, the “defense” would become unnecessary!

Global Change
Signs are increasing that the world is rapidly turning away from unipolar politics and considers a much more nuanced paradigm for international relations. This process brings new obstacles to international cooperation, but also new opportunities. In the interest of international security, a peaceful development, human rights for all, and especially developing international trust would mean that alliances such as NATO and the SCO give up their narrow security approaches and agree to a world-wide cooperation. Such a development does not need to remain a utopia when it is recognized that the common features of the 193 member states of the UN are the better alternative. 

Chapter VIII: “Regional arrangements”of the UN Charter
The integration of the alliances’ tasks in the responsibility of the United Nations is accepted by all UN Member States. It is, therefore, an international legal obligation and should not be dismissed as utopian, but be supported as an objective by persistent negotiations and UN reform discussions. The existing – and recognized– NATO capacity could supply valuable contributions to crisis management and peace as a result of integration (subsidiarity). Wars in space, terrorism, piracy, drug and human trafficking could be overcome by means of cooperation in the spirit of Chapter VIII. 

UN reform
The security-political responsibilities for the global, regional and local development lie with the Security Council of the United Nations, not with NATO. Structural weaknesses of the UN have increasingly meant that the Security Council has become unable to perform this function. The crisis in Syria is another serious example of incompetence and thus a dangerous reality threatening world peace. Proposals for fundamental reforms have not been lacking. For over twenty years report on report has been published on this subject.

The international community has so far lacked the political will to reconsider these proposals, adopt them  according to plan and implement them. This includes primarily the reform of the UN Security Council. Valuable considerations for the customized composition of the Security Council, for the status of  membership, for the right to veto or the majority voting rights, subsidiarity issues of alliances such as NATO, etc. have already been made.

Accountability
The framework for international cooperation is largely defined by the UN Charter and the two International Covenants on political, civil, economic, social and cultural rights. Compliance with this recorded international law is mandatory for all states that are members of the United Nations, and thus also for NATO states. In reality, however, there is a culture of impunity. Decisions in the UN Security Council or in other forums, which have led to serious violations of human rights, remain without consequences for the decision-makers. The consequences of an inhumane sanctions policy, enforced by NATO member states in the UN Security Council in the case of Iraq, the NATO war against Yugoslavia, the illegal invasion of Iraq or the NATO mission in Libya are all empirically verifiable. Accountability is a prerequisite for a new beginning of international relations. The road to peace, which NATO should take, is known. Once the NATO recognizes this path itself, a healing process will begin."

Dignidad

¿Querían saber qué cosa es la dignidad? Acá va el discurso completito del Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de Siria, Salid al-Moallem, en ocasión de la participación de ese país en las reuniones de Ginebra 2 en Montruex, Suiza. Lo sacamos de la Agencia Arabe Siria de Noticias (sana.sy). Sí, ya sé, está en inglés; suele ocurrir.  Sí, son siete páginas, no aptas para twitteros. Pero no se lo pierdan; es uno de esos documentos que huelen a Historia. Entre tanta basura desinformativa, entre tanta pavada embrutecedora, alguien habla.

Título: Geneva2 begins with paticipation of Syria's offical delegation, headed by al-Moallem 

Texto: “Montruex, (SANA) - The international conference on Syria, Geneva2, kicked off on Wednesday morning with the participation of Syria's official delegation, headed by Deputy Premier, Foreign and Expatriates Minister, Walid al-Moallem. Minister al-Moallem said at the opening session of the conference:   

Ladies and Gentlemen, On behalf of the Syrian Arab Republic –steeped in history for seven thousand years– proud of its steadfast pan-Arab heritage despite the deliberate acts of aggression of supposed brotherly Arabs –a civil state that some, sitting in this room, have tried to return to medieval times. Never have I been in a more difficult position; my delegation and I carry the weight of three years of hardship endured by my fellow countrymen - the blood of our martyrs, the tears of our bereaved, the anguish of families waiting for news of a loved one -kidnapped or missing, the cries of our children whose tender fingers were the targets of mortar shelling into their classrooms, the hopes of an entire generation destroyed before their very eyes, the courage of mothers and fathers who have sent all their sons to defend our country, the heartbreak of families whose homes have been destroyed and are now displaced or refugees.

My delegation and I carry the hope of a nation for the years to come

My delegation and I also carry the hope of a nation for the years to come – the right of every child to safely go to school again, the right of women to leave their homes without fear of being kidnapped, killed or raped; the dream of our youth to fulfill their vast potential; the return of security so that every man can leave his family safe in the knowledge that he will return.

Finally, today, the moment of truth; the truth that many have systematically tried to bury in a series of campaigns of misinformation, deception and fabrication leading to killing and terror.  A truth that refused to be buried, a truth clear for all to see – the delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic representing the Syrian people, the government, the state, the Army and the President - Bashar al-Assad.

It is regrettable that seated amongst us are representatives of countries that have the blood of Syrians on their hands

It is regrettable, Ladies and Gentlemen, that seated amongst us today in this room, are representatives of countries that have the blood of Syrians on their hands, countries that have exported terrorism along with clemency for the perpetrators, as if it was their God given right to determine who will go to heaven and who will go to hell.  Countries that have prevented believers from visiting holy places of worship whilst abetting, financing and supporting terrorists.  Countries that gave themselves the authority to grant and deny legitimacy to others as they saw fit, never looking at their own archaic glasshouses before throwing stones at acclaimed fortified towers. Countries that shamelessly lecture us in democracy, in development and in progress whilst drowning in their own ignorance and medieval norms.  Countries that have become accustomed to being entirely owned by kings and princes who have the sole right to distribute their national wealth granting their associates whilst denying those who fall out of favor. 

They lectured Syria – a distinguished, virtuous, sovereign state, they lectured her on honour whilst they themselves were immersed in the mud of enslavement, infanticide and other medieval practices.  After all their efforts and subsequent failures, their masks fell from their quivering faces, to reveal their perverse ambitions.  A desire to destabilize and destroy Syria by exporting their national product: terrorism.  They used their petrodollars to buy weapons, recruit mercenaries and saturate airtime covering up their mindless brutality with lies under the guise of the so-called “Syrian revolution that will fulfill the aspirations of the Syrian people.” 

Ladies and Gentlemen, how is what has happened and continues to plague Syria, meeting these aspirations?  How can a Chechen, Afghani, Saudi, Turkish or even French and English terrorists deliver on the aspirations of the Syrian people, and with what? An Islamic state that knows nothing of Islam except perverse Wahhabism? Who declared anyway that the Syrian people aspire to live thousands of years in the past?

In Syria, the wombs of pregnant women are butchered and their foetuses killed

In Syria, Ladies and Gentlemen, the wombs of pregnant women are butchered and their foetuses killed; women are raped, dead or alive, in practices so heinous, so vile and repulsive that they can only be attributed to their perverse doctrine.  In Syria, Ladies and Gentlemen, men are slaughtered in front of their children in the name of this revolution; worse still, this is done whilst the children of these foreign perpetrators sing and dance.  In Syria, how can so-called revolutionaries cannibalize a man’s heart and claim to promote freedom, democracy and a better life?

Under the pretext of the “Great Syrian Revolution,” civilians, clergymen, women and children are killed, victims are indiscriminately blown up in streets and buildings regardless of their political views or ideologies; books and libraries are burned, graves are dug up and artifacts stolen.  In the name of the revolution, children are killed in their schools and students in their universities, women are extorted in the name of jihad al-nikah and other forms, mosques are shelled whilst worshipers kneel at prayer, heads are severed and hung in the streets, people are burned alive in a true holocaust that history and many countries will deny without being accused of anti-Semitism. 

In the name of a revolution, “to free the oppressed Syrian people from the regime and to spread democracy,” does a father blow himself up with his wife and children to prevent foreign intruders from entering his home?  Most of us in this room are fathers - I ask you then, what would compel a man to kill his own family to protect them from freedom fighting monsters.  This is what happened in Adra, a place that most of you have not heard of but where the same alien monsters attacked: killing, looting, beheading, slaughtering, raping and burning people alive.  

You have heard nothing of this brutality for sure, yet you have heard of other places where the same heinous crimes were committed and where the same blood soaked finger was pointed at the Syrian Army and government.  And when these flagrant lies were no longer credible, they stopped spinning their web of deceit.

This is what their masters ordered them to do, these countries that spearheaded the war against Syria, trying to increase their influence in the region with bribes and money, exporting human monsters fully soaked in abhorrent Wahabi ideology, all at the expense of Syrian blood.  From this stage, loud and clear, you know as well as I do that they will not stop in Syria, even if some sitting in this room refuse to acknowledge or consider themselves immune.

Ladies and Gentlemen, everything you have heard would not have been possible, had our border sharing countries been good neighbours during these challenging years.  Unfortunately they were far from it; with backstabbers to the North, silent bystanders to the truth in the West, a weak South accustomed to doing the bidding of others, or the tired and exhausted East still reeling from the plots to destroy it along with Syria. 

Misery and destruction, wich has engulfed Syria, has been made possible by the decision of Erdogan’s government

Indeed, this misery and destruction, wich has engulfed Syria, has been made possible by the decision of Erdogan’s government to invite and host these criminal terrorists before they entered into Syria.  Clearly, oblivious to the fact that magic eventually turns on the magician, it is now beginning to taste the sour seed it has sown.  For terrorism knows no religion, and is loyal only unto itself.   Erdogan’s government has recklessly morphed from a zero problems with its neighbours policy to zero foreign policy and international diplomacy altogether, crucially leaving it with zero credibility.

Nevertheless, it continued on the same atrocious path falsely believing that the dream of Sayyid Qutb and Mohammad Abdel Wahab before him was finally being realized.  They wreaked havoc from Tunisia, to Libya, to Egypt and then to Syria, determined to achieve an illusion that only exists in their sick minds.  Despite the fact that it has proven to be a failure, they nevertheless are still determined to pursue it.  Logically speaking, this can only be described as stupidity, because if you don’t learn from history, you will lose sight of the present; and history tells us: if your neighbor's house is on fire, it is impossible for you to remain safe.

Some neighbours started fires within Syria whilst others recruited terrorists from around the globe – and here we are confronted with shockingly farcical double standards: 83 nationalities are fighting in Syria - nobody denounces this, nobody condemns it, nobody reconsiders their position - and they impertinently continue to call it a glorious SYRIAN Revolution!  While when a few scores of young resistant fighters supported the Syrian Army in a few places, all hell broke loose and it suddenly became foreign intervention!  Demands were made for the departure of foreign troops and the protection of Syrian sovereignty and for it not to be violated.  Here I affirm, Syria - the sovereign and independent state, will continue to do whatever it takes to defend herself with whatever means it deems necessary, without paying the least bit of attention to any uproar, denunciations, statements or positions expressed by others.  These have been and always will be Syria’s sovereign decisions.

They imposed sanctions on our food, our bread and our children’s milk

Despite all of this, the Syrian people remained steadfast; and the response was to impose sanctions on our food, our bread and our children’s milk.  To starve the population, pushing them into sickness and death under the injustice of these sanctions.  At the same time, factories were looted and burned, crippling our food and pharmaceutical industries; hospitals and healthcare centers were destroyed; our railroads and electricity lines sabotaged, and even our places of worship - Christian and Muslim – were not spared their terrorism. 

When all of this failed, America threatened to strike Syria, fabricating with her allies, Western and Arab, the story about the use of chemical weapons, which failed to convince even their own public, let alone ours.  Countries that celebrate democracy, freedom and human rights regrettably only choose to speak the language of blood, war, colonialism and hegemony.  Democracy is imposed with fire, freedom with warplanes and human rights by human killing, because they have become accustomed to the world doing their bidding: if they want something, it will happen; if they don’t, it won’t.  They have heedlessly forgotten that the perpetrators who blew themselves up in New York follow the same doctrine and come from the same source as those blowing themselves up in Syria.  They have heedlessly forgotten that the terrorist that was in America yesterday is in Syria today, and who knows where he will be tomorrow.  What is certain, however, is that he will not stop here.  Afghanistan is an ideal lesson for anyone who wants to learn – anyone!  Unfortunately, most do not want to learn; neither America nor some of the ‘civilized’ western countries that follow its lead, starting from the city of lights to the kingdom over which “the sun never set,” in the past; despite the fact that they have all felt the bitter taste of terrorism in the past.

And then suddenly they became “Friends of Syria.”  Four of these ‘friends’ are autocratic, oppressive monarchies that know nothing of a civil state or democracy, whilst others are the same colonial powers which occupied, pillaged and partitioned Syria less than one hundred years ago.  These so called ‘friends’ are now convening conferences to publicly declare their friendship with the Syrian people, whilst covertly facilitating their hardship and destroying their livelihoods.  They openly express their outrage over the humanitarian plight of Syrians whilst deceiving the international community of their complicity.  If you were truly concerned about the humanitarian situation in Syria, you would remove your strangle hold on her economy by lifting the sanctions and the embargo, and by partnering with her government in tightening security by fighting the influx of weapons and terrorists. Only then can we assure you that we will be well as we once were, without your deep concern for our wellbeing.

Some of you may be asking yourselves: Are foreigners the sole manufacturers of the happenings in Syria?  No Ladies and Gentlemen, Syrians amongst us here, having been legitimized by foreign agendas, have played a contributing role as facilitators and implementers.  They did this at the expense of Syrian blood and the people whose aspirations they claim to represent, whilst they themselves were divided hundreds of times and their leaders on the ground were fleeing far and wide.  They sold themselves to Israel becoming her eyes on the ground, and her fingers on the trigger for Syria’s destruction; and when they failed, Israel intervened directly to reduce the capabilities of the Syrian Army and thus ensuring the continued implementation of her decades old plan for Syria.

Our people were being slaughtered while opposition figures legitimized by foreign agendas were living in five star hotels

Our people were being slaughtered while they were living in five star hotels; they opposed from abroad, met abroad betraying Syria and selling themselves to the highest foreign bidder.  And yet, they still claim to speak in the name of the Syrian people! No, Ladies and Gentlemen, anyone wishing to speak on behalf of the Syrian people cannot be a traitor to their cause and an agent for their enemies.  Those wishing to speak on behalf of the people of Syria should do so from within her borders: living in her destroyed houses, sending their children to her schools in the morning not knowing if they will return safe from mortar shelling, tolerating the freezing cold winters because of the shortage in heating oil and queuing for hours to buy bread for their families because sanctions have prevented us from importing wheat when we were once exporters.  Anyone wanting to speak in the name of the Syrian people should first endure three years of terrorism, confronting it head on, and then come here and speak on behalf of the Syrian people.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Syrian Arab Republic – people and state, has fulfilled its duties.  It has welcomed hundreds of international journalists and facilitated their mobility, security and access; and they in turn have reflected the stark and horrific realities they witnessed to their audiences, realities that have perplexed many Western media organisations who couldn’t bear their propaganda and narrative being exposed and contradicted.  The examples are too many to count.  We allowed international aid and relief organizations into the country, but the clandestine agents of certain parties sitting here, obstructed them from reaching those in dire need of aid.  They came under terrorist attack several times, whilst we, as a state, did our duty in protecting them and facilitating their work.  We issued numerous amnesties and released thousands of prisoners, some even members of armed groups, at the anger and dismay of their victim’s families; these families though, like the rest of us, ultimately accepted that Syria’s interests come before anything else, and hence we must conceal our wounds and rise above hatred and rancor.

What have you done, you who claim to speak on behalf of the Syrian people. Where is your vision for this great country? Where are your ideas or your political manifesto?  Who are your agents of change on the ground other than your armed criminal gangs?  I am certain that you have nothing and this is only too apparent in the areas that your mercenaries have occupied or to use your words “liberated.” 

In these areas, have you freed the population or have you hijacked their moderate culture to enforce your radical and oppressive practices?  Have you implemented your development agenda by building schools and health centres?  No, you have destroyed them and allowed polio to return after it had previously been eradicated in Syria.  Have you protected Syria’s artifacts and museums?  No, you have looted our national sites for your personal profit.  Have you demonstrated your commitment to justice and human rights?  No, you have enforced public executions and beheadings.  In short, you have done nothing at all except muster the disgrace and shame of begging America to strike Syria.  Even the opposition, over which you are the self-appointed masters and guardians, do not acknowledge you or the methods in which you manage your own affairs, let alone the affairs of a country. 

A country they want to homogenize; not in the sectarian, ethnic or religious sense, but rather in a warped ideological sense.  Anyone against them, whether Christian or Muslim, is an infidel; they killed Muslims of all sects and targeted Syrian Christians with severity.  Even nuns and bishops were targeted, kidnapping them after they attacked Ma’loula, the last community that still speaks the language of Jesus Christ.  They did all this to force Syrian Christians to flee their country.  But little did they know, that in Syria we are one.  When Christianity is attacked all Syrians are Christians, when mosques are targeted all Syrians are Muslims.  Every Syrian is from Raqqa, Lattakia, Sweida, Homs or the bleeding Aleppo when any one of these places is targeted.  Their abhorrent attempts to sow sectarian and religious sedition will never be embraced by any levelheaded Syrian.  In short, Ladies and Gentlemen, your “glorious Syrian revolution” has left no mortal sin uncommitted.

There is another side to this dark gloomy picture.  A light at the end of the tunnel shinning through the Syrian people’s determination and steadfastness, the Syrian Army’s courage in protecting our citizens and the Syrian state’s resilience and perseverance.  During everything that has happened, there are states that have shown us true friendship, honest states that stood on the side of right against wrong, even when the wrong was clear for all to see.  On behalf of the Syrian people and state, I would like to thank Russia and China for respecting Syria’s sovereignty and independence.  Russia has been a true champion on the international stage strongly defending, not only with words but also with deeds, the founding principles of the United Nations of respecting the sovereignty of states.  Similarly China, the BRICS countries, Iran, Iraq and other Arab and Muslim countries, in addition to African and Latin American countries, have also genuinely safeguarded the aspirations of the Syrian people and not the ambitions of other governments for Syria.

The Syrian people, like other people of the region, aspire to more freedom, justice and human rights

Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, the Syrian people, like other people of the region, aspire to more freedom, justice and human rights; they aspire to more plurality and democracy, to a better Syria, a safe, prosperous and healthy Syria.  They aspire to building strong institutions not destroying them, to safeguarding our national artifacts and heritage sites not looting and demolishing them.  They aspire to a strong national army, which protects our honour, our people and our national wealth, an army that defends Syria’s borders, her sovereignty and independence.  They do not, Ladies and Gentlemen, aspire to a mercenary army ‘Free’ to kidnap civilians for ransom or to use them as human shields, ‘Free’ to steal humanitarian aid, extort the poor and illegally trade in the organs of living women and children, ‘Free’ to canibalise human hearts and livers, barbequing heads, recruiting child soldiers and raping women.  All of this is done with the might of arms; arms provided by countries, represented here, who claim to be championing “moderate groups”.  Tell us, for God’s sake, where is the moderation in everything I have described? 

Where are these vague moderate groups that you are hiding behind?  Are they the same old groups that continue to be supported militarily and publicly by the West, that have undergone an even uglier face-lift in the hope of convincing us that they are fighting terrorism?  We all know that no matter how hard their propaganda machine tries to polish their image under the name of moderation, their extremism and terrorism is one and the same.  They know, as we all do, that under the pretext of supporting these groups, al-Qaeda and its affiliates are being armed in Syria, Iraq and other countries in the region. 

This is the reality, Ladies and Gentlemen, so wake up to the undeniable reality that the West is supporting some Arab countries to supply lethal weapons to al-Qaeda.  The West publically claims to be fighting terrorism, whilst in fact it is covertly nourishing it.  Anyone who cannot see this truth is either ignorantly blind or willfully so in order to finish what they have begun.

Is this the Syria that you want? The loss of thousands of martyrs and our once cherished safety and national security replaced with apocalyptic devastation. Are these the aspirations of the Syrian people that you wanted to fulfill?  No, Ladies and Gentlemen, Syria will not remain so, and that is why we are here.  Despite all that has been done by some, we have come to save Syria: to stop the beheadings, to stop the cannibalizing and the butchering.  We have come to help mothers and children return to the homes they were driven out of by terrorists.  We have come to protect the civil and open-minded nature of the state, to stop the march of the Tatars and the Mongols across our region.  We have come to prevent the collapse of the entire Middle East, to protect civilization, culture and diversity, and to preserve the dialogue of civilizations in the birthplace of religions.  We have come to protect tolerant Islam that has been distorted, and to protect the Christians of the Levant.  We are here to tell our Syrian expatriates, to return to their home country because they will always be foreigners anywhere else, and regardless of our differences we are all still brothers and sisters. 

We have come to stop terrorism as other countries that have experienced its bitter taste have done, whilst affirming loudly and consistently that a dialogue between Syrians is the only solution; but as with other countries that have been struck by terrorism, we have a constitutional duty to defend our citizens and we shall continue to strike terrorism that attacks Syrians regardless of their political affiliations.  We have come to hold those accountable, for as long as particular countries continue to support terrorism, this conference will bear no fruit.  Political pluralism and terrorism cannot coexist in the same landscape.  Politics can only prosper by fighting terrorism; it cannot grow in its shadow.

Nobody has the authority to grant or withdraw legitimacy from a president, a government, a constitution, a law or anything else in Syria except Syrians themselves

We are here as representatives of the Syrian people and the state; but let it be clear to all, – and experience is the best proof – that nobody has the authority to grant or withdraw legitimacy from a president, a government, a constitution, a law or anything else in Syria except Syrians themselves; this is their constitutional right and duty.  Therefore, whatever agreement is reached here will be subject to a national referendum.  We are tasked with conveying our people’s desires, not with determining their destiny; those who want to listen to the will of the Syrian people should not appoint themselves as their spokesperson.  Syrians alone have the right to choose their government, their parliament and their constitution; everything else is just talk and has no significance.

Finally, to all those here and everyone watching around the world: in Syria we are fighting terrorism, terrorism which has destroyed and continues to destroy; terrorism which since the 1980’s Syria has been calling, on deaf ears, for a unified front to defeat it.  Terrorism has struck in America, France, Britain, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan; the list goes on and it continues to spread.  Let us all cooperate to fight it, let’s work hand in hand to stop its black, horrifying and obscurantist ideology.  Then, let us as Syrians stand united to focus on Syria and start rebuilding its social fabric and material structures.  As I said, dialogue is the foundation to this process, and despite our gratitude to the host country, we affirm that the real dialogue between Syrians should in fact be on Syrian soil and under Syrian skies.  Exactly one year ago, the Syrian government put forward its vision for a political solution; think of how much innocent blood we would have saved had some countries resorted to reason instead of terrorism and destruction.  For a whole year, we have been calling for dialogue, but terrorism continued to strike at the Syrian state, her people and institutions.

Today, in this gathering of Arab and Western powers, we are presented with a simple choice: we can choose to fight terrorism and extremism together and to start a new political process, or you can continue to support terrorism in Syria.  Let us reject and isolate the black hands and the false faces, which publicly smile but covertly feed terrorist ideology, striking Syria today, but ultimately spreading to infect us all.  This is the moment of truth and destiny; let us rise to the challenge.

Thank you."

Later, Minister al-Moallem said, "The orchestra that we have heard from some sides today and the content of some hostile speeches from some states, to the extent that in some minutes we seemed to have heard old rhetoric with no difference except for the place of delivering them, do not deserve to be answered."

Concluding the second session of the conference, al-Moallem added, "Because we want to stop bloodshed in Syria, to protect the lives of citizens, to build Syria again and because, as a state, we play our constitutional, political, security and social role to save Syria from what is going on, we are here and we hope the Geneva conference will be a first step on the way to start Syrian-Syrian dialogue on the Syrian territories."

"I thank those who have stood by us from the friendly countries for three years so far and we say to all that we will continue hitting terrorism wherever it was with one hand and we will build Syria democratically, politically and socially with the other," al-Moallem said.

Minister al-Moallem added, "I say to those who are interfering in the Syrian affairs through any sort of interference: three years and you are still trying; have you not become desperate yet? …  Enough! … Put your hands off Syria so that we can indeed achieve the people's aspirations of a secure and developed life."

Ginebra Dos

Una nota de Thierry Meyssan para Red Voltaire (sección «Ante Nuestros Ojos») comenta los preparativos de la próxima conferencia de paz para Siria. Como siempre, el tipo habla claro. Veámosla. 

Título: Preparando Ginebra 2

Epígrafe: Los últimos días de una guerra son siempre los más sangrientos. Los ejércitos derrotados suelen vengarse cometiendo atrocidades inútiles, como acabamos de verlo en Adra, donde las torturas infligidas a los trabajadores leales al gobierno nada tienen que envidiar a las atrocidades cometidas durante la retirada del III Reich. Pero la situación es muy complicada por causa de la desbandada de los restos de la coalición internacional antisiria, en la que cada componente trata de salvarse a expensas de sus antiguos aliados.

Texto: "En vísperas de la conferencia Ginebra 2, lo que quedaba de la coalición internacional antisiria está volando en pedazos mientras que los Estados seguidores de Rusia o de Estados Unidos comienzan a posicionarse con vista a la reconstrucción.

La primera cuestión es la de la representatividad de la delegación de la «oposición siria». Hasta hace poco el problema era saber si esa delegación saldría del seno de la Coalición Nacional de Estambul y/o de la oposición nacionalista interna y externa que se pronunció contra la injerencia extranjera. Pero ahora hay que determinar también si la Coalición Nacional representa los intereses de Arabia Saudita, de Qatar o de Turquía.

En el terreno, los tres financistas de la guerra se han separado y están librando una batalla campal entre sí, al extremo de que ya ni siquiera se ocupan de tratar de derrocar el gobierno que querían destruir. Aunque aún se habla un poco del Ejército Sirio Libre, lo cierto es que este ha desaparecido del terreno. Así que los que quedan son el Frente Islámico (recientemente creado por el príncipe Bandar Ben Sultán), el Frente al-Nusra (que sigue vinculado a Qatar) y el Emirato Islámico de Irak y el Levante (EIIL o «Daesh» en árabe), que por cierto recibía financiamiento ilegal de Recep Tayyip Erdo?an, como lo acaban de demostrar la policía y la justicia turcas.

En un primer momento, el EIIL (o sea Turquía y por ende la OTAN) atacó el cuartel general del Ejército Sirio Libre (ESL) y lo saqueó. Los comandantes del ESL huyeron a Qatar y Europa pero el príncipe Bandar Ben Sultán logró recuperar unos cuantos, los puso al frente de nuevos mercenarios y creó con ellos el Frente Islámico. Después, el EIIL recibió órdenes de mover el grueso de sus fuerzas hacia Irak, donde tomó Ramadi y Faluya. Mientras tanto, las demás fuerzas, empezando por el Ejército Árabe Sirio, ocupan el espacio así abandonado en Siria.

Según la prensa atlantista y los medios de los países del Golfo, los «rebeldes» se aliaron a los «leales» en contra de los «yihadistas» y lo que estamos viendo ahora es una «segunda revolución siria». La ventaja de esa romántica descripción es que permite cerrar el capítulo de la «primera revolución» sin que el público se pregunte cuál fue su resultado. La realidad es que no hubo primera revolución y que ahora tampoco la habrá.

La prensa occidental tampoco parece interesada en saber por qué al-Qaeda, eterno auxiliar de la OTAN, ha recibido ahora instrucciones de abandonar el campo de batalla sirio y de irse a Irak. Ese movimiento presenta 3 ventajas para Washington: primeramente, debe concluir con un triunfo para el presidente Nuri al-Maliki y con la estabilización provisional de Irak, reducirá la cantidad de yihadistas –llamados a sufrir grandes pérdidas ante un ejército fresco y armado hasta los dientes– y de paso elimina un actor que resultaba impresentable en la conferencia Ginebra 2.

Al mismo tiempo, la OTAN proporcionó al Ejército Libanés la información necesaria para proceder a la captura del jefe de las Brigadas Abdallah Azzam, Majed al-Majed. Arrestado cuando una ambulancia lo trasladaba del hospital hacia su cuartel general, al-Majed murió oficialmente 10 días después como resultado de sus heridas. Lo más probable es que lo hayan liquidado los sauditas, temerosos por las revelaciones que hubiese podido hacer.

Si todo hubiese funcionado según lo previsto, hoy sólo quedaría en el terreno el Frente al-Nusra, lo cual habría reducido definitivamente las pretensiones de la Coalición Nacional. Pero el empecinamiento de Arabia Saudita ha dado lugar a la aparición del Frente Islámico, que pretende influir en el resultado de Ginebra 2.

Si no aparece Israel en la explosión de la coalición antisiria es porque, ateniéndose a la estrategia que ha venido siguiendo desde hace 10 años, Tel Aviv se esconde detrás de sus aliados –en este caso, Francia y Arabia Saudita. La administración Netanyahu se manifiesta únicamente cuando hace falta socorrer a los Contras con su aviación o facilitándoles una posición de repliegue en el Golán, región que Israel sigue ocupando ilegalmente. Por desgracia para él, Netanyahu no ha podido intervenir en las últimas semanas porque los principales combates se han desarrollado en el norte de Siria.

Mientras tanto, las delegaciones de los Estados que tuvieron la prudencia de retirarse del conflicto o que han respaldado a Siria esperan que Ginebra 2 les traiga algo de agradecimiento. Una veintena de esos Estados esperan obtener contratos de reconstrucción financiados por las organizaciones intergubernamentales.

Ya es evidente que Arabia Saudita y Francia serán los grandes perdedores de Ginebra 2, con más posibilidades de tener que pagar que de recibir algo. El presidente francés Francois Hollande no parece preocupado por eso en la medida en que ha cumplido su misión al servicio de Israel y ve las consecuencias para su propio país sólo como algo secundario.

Por su parte, el rey Abdallah de Arabia Saudita se empeña en obtener un premio de consolación en Líbano. En ese contexto, la mayoría libanesa aceptaría la nominación de un gobierno minoritario cuya única función será aprobar la donación saudita de 3 000 millones de dólares en armamento francés. Después de eso, el nuevo gobierno libanés sería derrocado por el parlamento y el país volvería a la actual situación de inestabilidad y estancamiento.

La delegación gubernamental siria aborda la conferencia con optimismo. Las fuerzas de la oposición están a la desbandada a raíz de la desaparición del ESL y de la retirada masiva del EIIL. La principal preocupación de Damasco parece consistir en este momento en preparar las bagatelas que presentará a sus interlocutores para que puedan disimular la derrota que acaban de sufrir y celebrar la victoria del consenso y del interés general. Damasco planea para ello crear ministerios temporales que se encargarían de manejar las relaciones con los ex enemigos –ya convertidos en generosos donantes–, ministerios que pondría en manos de los ex empleados de esos mismos ex enemigos. La Coalición Nacional tendría así aunque sea una utilidad, adquirida gracias a su pasada traición.”

Los eternos auxiliares

Yasin al-Qadi, el banquero de al-Qaeda

Notable nota de Thierry Meyssan para Red Voltaire. Vamos derecho a la misma. 

Título: Al-Qaeda, eterno auxiliar de la OTAN

Epígrafe: La revelación de los lazos del primer ministro Recep Tayyip Erdogan con al-Qaeda está provocando un verdadero terremoto político en Turquía. No sólo Ankara respaldaba muy activamente el terrorismo en Siria sino que además lo hacía en el marco de una estrategia de la OTAN. Para Thierry Meyssan, el escándalo muestra también el carácter completamente ficticio de los grupos armados que agreden al Estado y el pueblo sirios.

Texto: Hasta este momento, las autoridades de los Estados miembros de la OTAN afirman que la corriente yihadista internacional que ellas mismas respaldaron desde el inicio de su formación –durante la guerra contra los soviéticos en Afganistán (en 1979)– se volvió contra ellas en el momento de la liberación de Kuwait (en 1991). Los miembros de la alianza atlántica acusan a al-Qaeda de haber atacado las embajadas de Estados Unidos en Kenya y Tanzania (en 1998) y de haber orquestado los atentados del 11 de septiembre (en 2001), pero reconocen que después de la muerte oficial de Osama ben Laden (en 2011) algunos elementos yihadistas colaboraron nuevamente con ellos en Libia y en Siria. Sin embargo, sostienen que Washington puso fin a ese acercamiento en diciembre de 2012.

Los hechos desmienten esa versión. Al-Qaeda luchó siempre contra los mismos enemigos que la OTAN. Así lo revela nuevamente el escándalo que hoy sacude Turquía.

Ahora nos enteramos de que Yasin al-Qadi –el hombre abiertamente señalado como el banquero de al-Qaeda y por lo tanto buscado por Estados Unidos desde los atentados contra las embajadas estadounidenses en Kenya y Tanzania (en 1998)– era amigo personal tanto del ex vicepresidente de Estados Unidos Dick Cheney como del actual primer ministro de Turquía Recep Tayyib Erdogan. Ahora se descubre también que ese «terrorista» vivía a todo lujo y que incluso viajaba en un jet privado, mofándose así de las sanciones que la ONU había adoptado contra él. Así visitó a Erdogan en Turquía, al menos 4 veces en 2012, llegando a ese país a través del segundo aeropuerto de Estambul, donde –luego de haberse desconectado previamente las cámaras de seguridad de la instalación– este personaje era recibido por el jefe de la guardia personal del primer ministro turco, quien lo introducía en el territorio nacional sin pasar por la aduana.

Según los policías y magistrados turcos que dieron a conocer esos hechos y que detuvieron a los hijos de varios ministros implicados en el escándalo el 17 de diciembre de 2013 antes de verse separados de la investigación e incluso de sus funciones por orden del primer ministro, Yasin al-Qadi y Recep Tayyip Erdogan habían montado un amplio sistema de malversación de fondos para financiar a al-Qaeda en Siria.

En el momento mismo en que salía a la luz este increíble doble juego, la gendarmería turca interceptó cerca de la frontera siria un camión cargado de armas destinadas a al-Qaeda. Una de las tres personas detenidas declaró que transportaba un cargamento de la IHH, la asociación «humanitaria» de la Hermandad Musulmana turca y otra dijo ser un agente secreto en pleno cumplimiento de su misión. En definitiva, el gobernador acabó prohibiendo a la policía que hiciera su trabajo, confirmó que el envío del cargamento de armas era una operación secreta del MIT (los servicios secretos de Turquía) y ordenó que el camión siguiera su camino… con su cargamento de armas.

La investigación muestra también que el financiamiento turco para al-Qaeda transitaba a través de una vía iraní, tanto para disponer así de una excelente cobertura en Siria como para realizar operaciones terroristas en Irán. La OTAN ya tenía cómplices en Teherán en tiempos de la operación «Irán-Contras» [también conocida como «Irángate»], y esos cómplices se movían entre las personas cercanas al ex presidente Rafsandjani, como el actual presidente Hassan Rohani.

Esos hechos se producen en momentos en que la oposición política siria en el exilio trata de probar suerte con una nueva teoría en vísperas de la conferencia Ginebra 2. Según esa teoría, el Frente al-Nusra y el Emirato Islámico en Irak y el Levante (EIIL) no serían otra cosa que agentes de los servicios secretos sirios encargados de asustar a la población para que esta se incline a favor del régimen. Así que la única oposición armada válida sería entonces la del Ejército Sirio Libre (ESL), que a su vez reconoce la autoridad de la oposición externa, lo cual resolvería el problema de representatividad que se plantea con vista a la conferencia de paz,

Así que nos van a pedir que nos olvidemos de todos los elogios que la misma oposición siria en el exterior había venido prodigando a al-Qaeda desde hace 3 años. Y también del escandaloso silencio de los Estados miembros de la OTAN sobre la generalización del terrorismo en Siria.

Sin embargo, si es posible admitir que la mayoría de los dirigentes de la alianza atlántica nada sabían del apoyo que esa organización aportaba al terrorismo internacional, habrá que admitir también que la OTAN es el principal responsable mundial del terrorismo."

Campañas

 

Una nota del periodista alemán Karl Müller, aparecida ayer en Red Voltaire, pone énfasis en la cada vez más grotesca campaña antirusa emprendida hace años ya por la prensa corporativa occidental. Es que empieza a notarse demasiado, chicos.  En otro orden de cosas, ¡Feliz Año Nuevo para todos!

Título: ¿Por qué se mantiene la hostilidad contra Rusia?

Epígrafe: Basta con mantenerse un poco al tanto de lo que nos dicen los grandes medios de prensa para enterarse rápidamente de que, aunque ya no es soviético ni proclama la dictadura del proletariado, el oso ruso sigue siendo casi tan malévolo y peligroso como en tiempos de la Unión Soviética. ¿Es esto una realidad o es más bien una imagen que alguien quiere inculcar en nuestras mentes? En el artículo que hoy reproducimos, Karl Muller se interroga sobre el por qué de esta campaña.

Texto: Hay quien afirma que la situación internacional se ha hecho menos tensa en los últimos meses. Se evitó la guerra entre Estados Unidos, sus aliados y Siria. También se produjo un acuerdo con Irán. Estados Unidos, que durante los 20 últimos años emprendió junto a «Occidente» una serie de guerras contrarias a las normas del derecho internacional, se ve hoy tan debilitado que ya no parece hallarse en condiciones de embarcarse en nuevas guerras de gran envergadura. Por otro lado, los aliados de Estados Unidos, en primer lugar los demás Estados miembros de la OTAN, que en su mayoría son también miembros de la Unión Europea, tampoco estarían en condiciones de emprender guerras sin Estados Unidos.

Pero se pierde de vista fácilmente que Washington ha desplazado sus objetivos agresivos hacia la región del Pacífico y que los Estados miembros de la Unión Europea (¿bajo la dirección de Alemania?) –con el pretexto del asunto de la NSA– van a tener que hacer el papel de peones de Washington en el Medio Oriente y en África.

Los numerosos informes sobre la «tensión» en Asia, ahora entre China y Japón, persiguen dos objetivos diferentes. Por un lado, pueden servir de propaganda contra China. Y van a constituir al mismo tiempo una llamada de alerta para «demostrar» a los europeos la importancia de la presencia estadounidense en el Pacífico así como, y es este el objetivo fundamental, de la preparación de una guerra contra China.

No se habla, al menos no se hace públicamente, de la política de la Unión Europea, fundamentalmente de Alemania, hacia Europa oriental y Rusia. No se menciona ese tema porque los Estados miembros de la OTAN y la Unión Europea se fijaron como meta –desde 1990-1991, o sea a partir de la desaparición del Pacto de Varsovia y de la Unión Soviética y a pesar de lo prometido al gobierno soviético de entonces– «apropiarse» del este incorporando cada vez más Estados de Europa oriental a la alianza atlántica para debilitar a Rusia y someterla poco a poco. Las pruebas de todas esas maniobras están a nuestra disposición en el libro “El gran tablero de ajedrez. América y el resto del mundo”, publicado en 1997 y cuyo autor es Zbigniev Brzezinski, consejero personal de varios presidentes de estadounidenses.

Durante los años 1990 pareció que todo iba sucediendo conforme a lo previsto con el presidente ruso Boris Yeltsin. Rusia se hundía cada vez más en un caos que abarcaba todos los aspectos de la vida del país y se hallaba al borde de la bancarrota, tanto en el plano político y económico como en el plano social. En su libro La doctrina del shock. El auge del capitalismo del desastre, publicado en 2007, Naomi Klein demuestra con lujo de detalles cómo se trató de poner de rodillas la economía rusa para sojuzgar el país, principalmente para apoderarse de sus materias primas, a través de «consejos» estadounidenses y de la falsa teoría de las bondades de un capitalismo sin freno, pero bajo control de los intereses financieros de Estados Unidos.

En 1999, la guerra de la OTAN contra Yugoslavia marcó un viraje. Se hizo entonces completamente imposible no percibir el hecho que la definición estadounidense de «un nuevo orden mundial» presentaba todas las características del imperialismo tendiente a someter el mundo a la «única potencia mundial». En el 2000, y con la llegada de un nuevo presidente, el nuevo gobierno ruso se esforzó en cambiar de rumbo contrarrestando progresivamente el control estadounidense sobre la economía y las riquezas de Rusia, y también sobre la sociedad y la política del país –proyecto altamente delicado y complejo debido a las grandes dificultades existentes.

Si se comparan con la situación que existía en el 2000, son notables los progresos alcanzados por Rusia hasta el año 2010: el producto social se multiplicó por 2, el comercio exterior se multiplicó por 4, las deudas con el extranjero se redujeron a la sexta parte de su valor inicial, los salarios se multiplicaron por 2,5 (descontando la inflación), las rentas se multiplicaron por 3, la tasa de pobreza se redujo a la mitad, el desempleo pasó del 10 al 7%, el número de nacimientos aumentó en un 40%, los decesos disminuyeron en un 10%, los decesos de bebés descendieron en un 30%, la esperanza de vida aumentó en 5 años, los crímenes disminuyeron en un 10%, el número de asesinatos bajó en un 50% y el de suicidios en un 40%, las intoxicaciones por consumo de bebidas alcohólicas cayeron en más del 60%.

Lo que se ha dado en llamar «Occidente» no se apresuró a contribuir a nada de lo anterior. Fue más bien todo lo contrario, los medios utilizados para desgastar a Rusia se hicieron cada vez menos visibles pero mucho más pérfidos. Y quien se atrevía a enfrentar abiertamente esos intentos aconsejando la adopción de contramedidas, como las que el gobierno ruso ha venido aplicando desde hace años, era muy mal visto en Occidente.

Los principales medios de difusión occidentales han desempeñado y siguen desempeñando actualmente un papel cada vez más equívoco en la campaña contra Rusia. Mientras que la política de la Unión Europea, sobre todo la de Alemania, sigue dos cursos paralelos, debido a las necesidades económicas, y trata de conjugar la retórica antirrusa con el mantenimiento de relaciones económicas ventajosas, no sucede lo mismo con los medios de prensa, a los que se deja «rienda suelta».

Contrariamente a lo que hacen en el caso de China, país cortejado debido a sus resultados económicos (y a la importancia de su mercado), los medios occidentales divulgan –únicamente y de forma permanente– cuanto elemento negativo se les ocurre sobre Rusia. Y esa campaña es tan intensa que el lector-espectador que se informa únicamente a través de esos medios tiene que acabar pensando mal de ese país. Los aspectos negativos que difunden cubren todos los sectores de la vida con la evidente intención de hacer resurgir la mayoría de los viejos prejuicios sobre Rusia.

Todo eso sucede a pesar de la constante acción del gobierno ruso que, a lo largo de los 13 últimos años y hasta este momento, ha venido proponiendo una amplia cooperación con todos los países y en beneficio de todas las partes.

No es por amor al pueblo ucraniano sino en el marco de un proyecto geoestratégico que la Unión Europea trata desde hace años de alejar a Ucrania de Rusia para atraerla hacia la propia UE. Hoy sabemos que la «revolución naranja» de 2004 en realidad fue una operación de lo que hoy se ha dado en llamar «smart power», operación realizada en coordinación con la Unión Europea y en contra de Rusia. Aquel intento de golpe de Estado no tuvo éxito y aún hoy en día los proyectos de la Unión Europea siguen sin arrojar el resultado esperado. Era de esperar, por lo tanto, que la Unión Europea se apresurara ahora ha tratar de esconder su nuevo fracaso acusando a Moscú de amenazar y chantajear al gobierno ucraniano. Lo que ponen especial cuidado en no decirnos es que el gobierno ruso había propuesto un acuerdo que habría beneficiado tanto a Ucrania como a la Unión Europea y la propia Rusia, proposición que fue rechazada por la Unión Europea.

Por otro lado, el presidente ruso Vladimir Putin se entrevistó recientemente en Roma con el papa Francisco durante 35 minutos. Contrariamente a lo que afirmaron los grandes medios de prensa, los órganos del Vaticano estimaron que el encuentro se desarrolló en una atmósfera «cordial». El presidente ruso no visitó al papa como dirigente religioso de la iglesia ortodoxa rusa sino en su calidad de jefe de Estado. Y lo cierto es que, como jefe de Estado, Putin siempre ha subrayado la importancia de los valores en la promoción del progreso y en el desarrollo de su país, al igual que en el campo de la política internacional.

Contrariamente a lo que sucede en Occidente, donde se promociona un modelo de política utilitarista y materialista, el gobierno ruso parece apoyarse en una concepción basada en los fundamentos de la iglesia cristiana, o sea que considera al hombre y el mundo como centro de su acción.

¿En qué país de Occidente podemos encontrar eso todavía? ¿Qué gobierno occidental proclama todavía ese concepto en provecho de la familia, de la religión y de la Nación y para el mayor beneficio de los pueblos y del progreso? ¿Quién se preocupa en Occidente por el hecho que, a falta de vínculos estables con «el otro», el florecimiento de la personalidad se disuelve en la superficialidad y en la indiferencia si hay falta de respaldo y pérdida de identidad? Es por lo tanto de suponer que el papa y el presidente ruso se entendieron a la perfección en cuanto al diagnóstico sobre el estado de Occidente y sus falsas teorías y también en lo tocante al camino a seguir para remediar esos errores.

No pretendemos afirmar que en Rusia la familia está intacta, que todo el mundo vive según los preceptos de la religión y que la nación rusa ofrece a la población todo el respaldo necesario. Pero en la medida en que se reconoce que queda aún mucho camino por recorrer, es posible mantenerse a la expectativa e incluso tender una mano amiga y dispuesta a ayudar, en la medida en que dicha ayuda pueda ser deseada. Quienes buscan destruir la familia, la religión y la Nación harán precisamente lo contrario.

Pero tenemos que tener conciencia de que esta última manera de actuar no será la que aporte más paz al mundo sino más bien todo lo contrario: la política de “disolvencia” es causa de conflictos. ¿Estamos dispuestos a pagar ese precio? ¿Eso es lo que quieren los pueblos?

Tuvimos recientemente la oportunidad de comprobar hasta qué punto llegaron a caldearse los ánimos en Alemania en ocasión de una reunión, celebrada en Leipzig el 23 de noviembre [de 2013], sobre el tema «Por el futuro de la familia. ¿Hacia la supresión de los pueblos de europeos?» Un grupo de manifestantes violentos arremetió brutalmente contra aquella conferencia, principalmente contra los participantes miembros del Parlamento ruso. Las fuerzas de policía presentes en el lugar permitieron los desmanes por un buen rato. Hubo un tiempo en que solíamos ser gente acogedora y respetábamos a los demás, así como también respetábamos las opiniones divergentes. ¿Seguimos siendo así hoy en día?

Irán 2014

Reproducimos dos notas recientes relativas a la posible consolidación de Irán como potencia estabilizadora de Medio Oriente en el mediano plazo. El mapa que encabeza este post corresponde a la segunda de las notas. La primera fue escrita por Pepe Pepe Escobar para Asia Times Online. Acá va:

Título: All in play in the New Great Game

Texto: “The big story of 2014 will be Iran. Of course, the big story of the early 21st century will never stop being US-China, but it's in 2014 that we will know whether a comprehensive accord transcending the Iranian nuclear program is attainable; and in this case the myriad ramifications will affect all that's in play in the New Great Game in Eurasia, including US-China.

As it stands, we have an interim deal of the P5+1 (the UN Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany) with Iran, and no deal between the US and Afghanistan. So, once again, we have Afghanistan configured as a battleground between Iran and the House of Saud, part of a geopolitical game played out in overdrive since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 along the northern rim of the Middle East all the way to Khorasan and South Asia.

Then there's the element of Saudi paranoia, extrapolating from the future of Afghanistan to the prospect of a fully "rehabilitated" Iran becoming accepted by Western political/financial elites. This, by the way, has nothing to do with that fiction, the "international community"; after all, Iran was never banished by the BRICS, (ie Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), the Non-Aligned Movement and the bulk of the developing world.

Those damned jihadis

Every major player in the Barack Obama administration has warned Afghan President Hamid Karzai that either he signs a bilateral "security agreement" authorizing some ersatz of the US occupation or Washington will withdraw all of its troops by the end of 2014.

Wily puppet Karzai will milk this for all it's worth - as in extracting hardcore concessions. Yet, whatever happens, Iran will maintain if not enlarge its sphere of influence in Afghanistan. This intersection of Central and South Asia is geopolitically crucial for Iranian to project power, second only to Southwest Asia (what we call the "Middle East").

We should certainly expect the House of Saud to keep using every nasty trick available to the imagination of Saudi Arabia's Bandar bin Sultan, aka Bandar Bush, to manipulate Sunnis all across AfPak with a target of, essentially, preventing Iran from projecting power.

But Iran can count on a key ally, India. As Delhi accelerates its security cooperation with Kabul, we reach the icing on the Hindu Kush; India, Iran and Afghanistan developing their southern branch of the New Silk Road, with a special niche for the highway connecting Afghanistan to the Iranian port of Chabahar (Afghanistan meets the Indian Ocean).

So watch out for all sorts of interpolations of an Iran-India alliance pitted against a Saudi-Pakistani axis. This axis has been supporting assorted Islamists in Syria - with nefarious results; but because Pakistan has also been engulfed in appalling violence against Shi'ites, Islamabad won't be too keen to be too closely aligned with the House of Saud in AfPak.

Washington and Tehran for their part happen to be once more aligned (remember 2001?) in Afghanistan; neither one wants hardcore jihadis roaming around. Even Islamabad - which for all practical purposes has lost all its leverage with the Taliban in AfPak - would like jihadis to go up in smoke.

All these players know that any number of remaining US forces and swarms of contractors will not fill the power vacuum in Kabul. The whole thing is bound to remain murky, but essentially the scenario points to the Central-South Asia crossroads as the second-largest geopolitical - and sectarian - battleground in Eurasia after the Levantine-Mesopotamian combo.

Zero energy from our neighbor?

As much as India, Iraq is also in favor of a comprehensive deal with Iran. And to think that Iran and Iraq might have been engaged in a silent nuclear arms race with one another at the end of the last century, just for Baghdad now to fiercely defend Tehran's right to enrich uranium. Not to mention that Baghdad depends on Iran for trade, electricity and material help in that no-holds-barred war against Islamists/Salafi-jihadis.

Turkey also welcomes a comprehensive agreement with Iran. Turkey's trade with Iran has nowhere to go but up. The target is US$30 billion by 2015. More than 2,500 Iranian companies have invested in Turkey. Ankara cannot possibly support Western sanctions; it makes no business sense. Sanctions go against its policy of expanding trade. Moreover, Turkey depends on inexpensive natural gas imported from Iran.

After deviating wildly from its previous policy of "zero problems with our neighbors", Ankara is now waking up to the business prospect of Syrian reconstruction. Iraq may help, drawing from its oil wealth. Energy-deprived Turkey can't afford to be marginalized. A re-stabilized Syria will mean the go-ahead for the $10 billion Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline. If Ankara plays the game, an extension could be in the cards - fitting its self-proclaimed positioning as a privileged Pipelineistan crossroads from East to West.

The bottom line is that the Turkish-Iranian conflict over the future of Syria pales when compared with the energy game and booming trade. This points to Ankara and Tehran increasingly converging into finding a peaceful solution in Syria.

But there's a huge problem. The Geneva II conference on January 22 may represent the nail in the coffin of the House of Saud's push to inflict regime change on Bashar al-Assad. Once again, this implies that Bandar Bush is ready to go absolutely medieval - plowing the whole spectrum of summary executions, beheadings, suicide and car bombings and all-out sectarianism all along the Iraqi-Syrian-Lebanese front.

At least there will be a serious counterpunch; as Sharmine Narwani outlines here (http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/sandbox/security-arc-forms-amidst-mideast-terror-0), the former "Shi'ite crescent" - or "axis of resistance" - is now reconstituting itself as a "security arc" against Salafi-jihadis. Pentagon conceptualizers of the "arc of instability" kind never thought about that.

Missile nonsense, anyone?

Adults in Washington - not exactly a majority - may have already visualized the fabulous derivatives of a Western deal with Iran by examining China's approval and the possibility of future Iranian help to stabilize Afghanistan.

For China, Iran is a matter of national security - as a top source of energy (plus all those myriad cultural affinities between Persians and Chinese since Silk Road times). Threatening a country to which the US owes over $1 trillion with third-party, Department of the Treasury sanctions for buying Iranian oil seems to be off the cards, at least for now.

As for Moscow, by coming with a diplomatic resolution to the chemical weapons crisis in Syria, Vladimir Putin no less than saved the Obama administration from itself, as it was about to plunge into a new Middle Eastern war of potentially cataclysmic consequences. Immediately afterwards, the door was opened for the first breach since 1979 of the US-Iran Wall of Mistrust.

Crucially, after the Iranian nuclear interim deal was signed, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov went for the jugular; the deal cancels the need for NATO's ballistic missile defense in Central Europe - with interceptor bases in Romania and Poland set to become operational in 2015 and 2018, respectively. Washington has always insisted on the fiction that this was designed to counter missile "threats" from Iran.

Without the Iranian pretext, the justification for ballistic missile defense is unsustainable.

The real negotiation starts more-or-less now, in early 2014. Logically the endgame by mid-2014 would be no more sanctions in exchange for close supervision of Iran's nuclear program. Yet this is a game of superimposed obfuscations. Washington sells itself the myth that this is about somewhat controlling the Iranian nuclear program, an alternative plan to an ultra high-risk Shock and Awe strike to annihilate vast swathes of Iranian infrastructure.

No one is talking, but it's easy to picture BRICS heavyweights Russia and China casually informing Washington what kind of weaponry and material support they would offer Iran in case of an American attack.

Tehran, for its part, would like to interpret the tentative rapprochement as the US renouncing regime change, with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei paying the price of trading elements of a nuclear program for the end of sanctions.

Assuming Tehran and Washington are able to isolate their respective confrontational lobbies - a titanic task - the benefits are self-evident. Tehran wants - and badly needs - investment in its energy industry (at least $200 billion) and other sectors of the economy. Western Big Oil is dying to invest in Iran. The economic opening will inevitably be part of the final agreement - and for Western turbo-capitalism this is a must; a market of 80 million largely well-educated people, with fabulous location, and swimming in oil and gas. [1] What's not to like?

Peacemaker or just a trickster?

Tehran supports Assad in large part to combat the jihadi virus - incubated by wealthy sponsors in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. So whatever the spin in Washington, there's no possibility of a serious solution for Syria without involving Iran. The Obama administration now seems to realize that Assad is the least bad among unanimously bad options. Who would have bet on it only three months ago?

The interim deal with Iran is the first tangible evidence that Barack Obama is actually considering leaving his foreign policy mark in Southwest Asia/Middle East. It helps that the 0.00001% who run the show may have realized that a US president globally perceived as a dancing fool engenders massive instability in the Empire and all its satrapies.

The bottom line is that Obama needs to respect his partner Hassan Rouhani - who has made clear to the Americans he must secure non-stop political backing by Khamenei; that's the only way to sideline the very powerful religious/ideological lobby in Tehran/Qom against any deal with the former "Great Satan". So "Great Satan" needs to negotiate in good faith.

A realpolitik old hand (with a soft heart) would say that the Obama administration is aiming at a balance of power between Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

A more Machiavellian realpolitik old hand would say this is about pitting Sunni versus Shi'ite, Arabs versus Persians, to keep them paralyzed.

Perhaps a more prosaic reading is that the US as a mob protector is no more. As much as everyone is aware of a powerful Israel lobby and an almost as powerful Wahhabi petrodollar lobby in Washington, it's never discussed that neither Israel nor the House of Saud have a "protector" other than the US.

So from now on, if the House of Saud sees Iran as a threat, it will have to come up with its own strategy. And if Israel insists on seeing Iran as an "existential threat" - which is a joke - it will have to deal with it as a strategic problem. If a real consequence of the current shift is that Washington will not fight wars for Saudi or Israeli sake anymore, that's already a monumental game changer.

Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin see it is in their interest to "protect" peacemaker Obama. And yet everyone remains on slippery territory; Obama as peacemaker - this time really honoring his Nobel Prize - may be just a mirror image. And Washington could always march towards regime change in Tehran led by the next White House tenant after 2016.

For 2014 though, plenty of signs point to a tectonic shift in the geopolitical map of Eurasia, with Iran finally emerging as the real superpower in Southwest Asia over the designs of both Israel and the House of Saud. Now that's (geopolitical) entertainment. Happy New Year.

***

La segunda nota fue escrita por Sharmine Narwani para el sitio Alhakbar en inglés. Tampoco tiene desperdicio.

Título: "Security Arc" forms amidst Mideast terror

Texto: “Many observers are correct in noting that the Middle East is undergoing yet another seismic shift - that the Russian-brokered destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal, a US-Iranian rapprochement, the diminished strategic value of Saudi Arabia and Israel, and a US withdrawal from Afghanistan will all contribute to changing regional dynamics considerably.

But what is this new direction? Where will it come from, who will lead it, what will define it?

It has now become clear that the new Mideast "direction" is guided primarily by the “security threat" posed by the proliferation of extremist, sectarian, Islamist fighters in numbers unseen even in Afghanistan or Iraq. This shared danger has been the impetus behind a flurry of global diplomatic deals that has spawned unexpected cooperation between a diverse mix of nations, many of them adversaries.

These developments come with a unique, post-imperialist twist, though. For the first time in decades, this direction will be led from inside the region, by those Mideast states, groups, sects and parties most threatened by the extremism.

Because nobody else is coming to “save” the Middle East today.

As Salafist militants swarm various borders – from the Levant to the Persian Gulf to North Africa and beyond – states are disintegrating, their territorial integrity and sovereignty under threat, their institutions and economies in shambles, and their armed forces impotent against the irregular warfare practiced by these invaders.

But from within this chaos, a group of countries on the frontline of the battle has decided to give shape to a solution.

Their answer is to fight the militancy directly, to weed it out of their areas and cut off its roots. Already, they are sharing intelligence, cooperating in the battlefield with their collective resources and working to secure support from the international community.

And so while states are weakening elsewhere in the region, a security alliance is emerging out of a stretch of countries from the Levant to the Persian Gulf: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran.

According to a number of informed sources in the Levant, interviewed over the course of several months, this “Security Arc” will seek to achieve several objectives: First, to maintain the territorial integrity and sovereignty of participating countries. Second, to establish rigorous military and security cooperation against immediate and future threats from extremists. Third, to forge a common political worldview that enhances the alliance and can lead to further collaboration in other arenas.

Jordan’s Sunni King Abdullah once dubbed these four nations the "Shia Crescent,” taking an unusually sectarian jab at the rise in influence of Shia governments and political parties in all four nations. But the security alliances now forming between the four states has little to do with common “sect.” Instead, Abdullah and his allies have a direct hand in the development of this grouping:

It was, after all, the region’s western-backed Arab monarchies that launched the “counter-revolution” to thwart popular Arab uprisings and re-direct them at their regional adversaries, via Syria. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, the UAE and their Western allies threw money, weapons, training and resources at unseating Syrian President Bashar al-Assad - in a bid to weaken Iran, isolate Hezbollah and take care of that "Shia threat” once and for all.

But in their single-minded haste to cripple foes, Arab monarchies (supported by western allies) backed any co-religionist prepared to enter the fight and ignored the sectarian, extremist ideologies that these fighters embraced. They quite illogically calculated that the militancy could be controlled once the mission was accomplished.

To quote Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Ed Husain in August 2012: "The unspoken political calculation among (US) policymakers is to get rid of Assad first—weakening Iran's position in the region—and then deal with al-Qaeda later."

In the end, Assad didn’t fall, Iran didn’t waver, Hezbollah dug in, and the Russians and Chinese stepped into the fray. As the Syrian conflict developed into a regional geopolitical battle, heavy weapons, porous borders and increasingly sectarian rhetoric created a unique opportunity – from Lebanon to Iraq - for Salafist militants, including Al Qaeda, to gain influence and create a highly desirable corridor from the Levant to the Persian Gulf.

Former CIA Director Michael Hayden says: "The dominant story going on in Syria is a Sunni fundamentalist takeover of a significant part of the Middle East geography, the explosion of the Syrian state and of the Levant as we know it."

Today, this ideological brand of political violence marked by summary executions, suicide bombings, beheadings and sectarianism threatens to unravel the entire area and turn it into a stomping ground for “emirs” and their fiefdoms governed by Shariah law. For some, this is a price worth paying – the Saudis continue unabashedly to fund and weaponize these conflicts. Other supporters, particularly in the West, have become fearful that the jihadi march will not stop at any border.

But few have taken any concrete steps to inhibit – financially or militarily - the proliferation of this extremism.
And so it is left for the targeted countries to tackle the problem. The same Western-Arab axis that sought to cripple “Shia” ascendency in the Middle East by fueling sectarianism and encouraging an armed "Sunni" reaction, has now created urgent common cause among Iranians, Syrians, Lebanese and Iraqis, based almost entirely on the “security” threat.

A self-fulfilling prophecy, if you will.

Not a Uniform Union

In Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, there exists significant - mainly Sunni - populations that currently do not back a security union between the four states. Decades of sectarian propaganda from the GCC and west has made this demographic highly suspicious of the intentions of Shia Iran and its allies.
Although these populations are just as likely to be targeted by Salafist militants who have now killed Sunni moderates (along with Christians, Kurds and Shia) in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, their reluctance to see political foes gain influence has often meant they have provided “cover” for militant co-religionists and allowed them to proliferate locally. The choice is painful for this demographic: let your adversaries rise or let extremists run amok.

But earlier this year, when Hezbollah took the decision to fight openly in Qusayr, Syria alongside the Syrian army, it became clear that the parties supporting this security alliance would no longer humor the dissenters.
This Security Arc would be forged with or without the approval of naysayers. And buy-in for the security imperative is coming from an unlikely source: the United States.

In the past few months, Washington has suddenly gone from backing a mostly Sunni ‘rebellion’ in Syria to reaching out to Iran. This about-turn stems from the realization that the US has dangerously overplayed its geopolitical game and allowed religious militancy to swell past the point of no return. Neither Washington nor its NATO partners can reverse this trend unaided. Both failed miserably in the decade-long, superficial “war on terror,” which, if anything, helped sow further seeds of extremism. The US now understands that it needs the assistance of vested regional partners and rising powers that face a more imminent threat from militants – Iran, Russia, China, India, Syria, Iraq, - not just to fight extremism, but to cut off its source…in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan and other places.

The Americans are in an extremely difficult position: to tackle the spread of extremists, they will have to support military and security solutions from old foes in the region – Iran, Syria, Hezbollah. For starters, this means that 30-plus years of “policy” will literally be flushed away and Washington risks alienating longtime regional allies. Moreover, a successful outcome, i.e. eliminating extremism, will almost certainly mean the ascendency of Iran and the downfall of US-ally Saudi Arabia – among the many other reverberations throughout the Mideast that this will entail.

Washington's conflicting signals on the Middle East are a result of this tortured decision. Actions, however, speak louder than words: the US just struck a nuclear deal with Iran in Geneva in record time, having secretly opened direct channels of communications first. Last month, US President Barack Obama asked to meet his Iraqi counterpart Nuri al-Maliki – soon after, the US began sharing intelligence for the first time since American troops withdrew from Iraq. That first piece of intel, according to Az-Zaman, was on the movement of militants in the Anbar desert. Today, the US-Saudi relationship has soured to the point that even officials question any real convergence of interests; European ambassadors are starting to trek back to Damascus, their intelligence officials lining up to meet with their Syrian counterparts to share information on jihadists; the formidable Israelis have been shunted aside on some major Mideast decisions; NATO-member Turkey is working overtime to ease relations with Iran and Iraq. The list goes on.

These extraordinary developments would not have been feasible a mere six months ago when the blinkers were still on. The speed at which we have been ushered into a new "era of compromise" between adversaries is a testament to the extreme urgency of the jihadist/Salafist problem - and the lengths to which countries will go to address it.

Even if this means bulldozing through entrenched policy and turning it on its head.

As a senior Hezbollah source tells me: "The US is focused more on making arrangements directly with their opponents instead of relying on their allies." There's good reason for that. Many of Washington's regional allies are a source of the instability and are having to be muzzled, coerced and cajoled into accepting the new realities.

Some of these allies are political parties within the Security Arc. They're being brought into line more quickly now, partly because the threat of terrorism hovers in their own backyards. In Lebanon, for instance, a national army thus far restrained by pro-Saudi political interests looks set to finally tackle Salafist militants in key towns, cities and refugee camps where their numbers have swelled. That's a tremendous breakthrough after almost three years of sitting on the fence, waiting for "spillover" from Syria and taking virtually no security precautions to prevent it.

Security Arc: Plan of Action

Things are moving rapidly on every front. The convergence of extremist sectarian militias into the 50,000-strong "Islamic Front" has created further common cause on the other side. The US and UK last week withdrew support for rebels, belatedly fearing radicalization of the 'rebellion.' And Iran launched diplomatic efforts in neighboring Gulf states to divide their ranks against toeing the old adversarial line, succeeding when Oman refused to support a Saudi initiative for a GCC union.

But to stamp out jihadism in Syria and beyond, three main objectives need to be achieved - and it will take a collective effort to get there:

First, is to weed out extremists from inside the areas where they are growing in number and influence and where political will exists: inside the Security Arc, from within Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran. This is primarily a military solution – though some fighters may surrender/exit through negotiated political outreach, or when a mentoring state/individual calls it quits.

Second, is the establishment of a global sanctions regime to financially cripple jihadist/Salafist networks by targeting their sources of funding. This is already being done in small measure, but the West’s relationship with many of the violating states and individuals has prevented any genuine progress in the past. As Patrick Cockburn’s recent column in The Independent “Mass Murder in The Middle East is Funded By Our Friends The Saudis” points out: “Everyone knows where Al Qaeda gets its money, but while the violence is sectarian, the West does nothing.” The new US-Iranian rapprochement - fast-tracked to tackle terror - could change this, given the dramatic realignment of priorities and alliances created in its wake.

Third, is for neighboring states - and even those well beyond the region - to shut down their borders and enforce air-tight immigration security. On Syria’s borders we are already seeing both Turkey and Jordan taking some drastic measures, but the Iraqi border still remains porous and dangerous. Hence, Washington’s recent intel upgrade with Iraq.

Gravitating Toward The “Security” Priority

You can see the calculations changing in nations beyond the Security Arc already. Many keenly understand the vital role these four countries will have to play to stem militancy. All eyes right now are on Syria where the security situation is most precarious for the region – particularly in Egypt, Jordan and Turkey.
The latter three are the regional states most likely to support the Security Arc’s security objectives, albeit with reservations that accompany some fairly stark political differences.

Jordan, for example, has played “host” to an array of foreign special forces, troops, intelligence agencies and contractors, all focused on the task of bringing down the current Syrian government. But even its longtime financial dependency on Saudi Arabia is not worth the thousands of jihadis stationed on Jordanian territory, waiting to enter conflict zones. Arab media puts the number of Jordanian-origin jihadists inside the country at a horrifying 1,000. By contrast, the Europeans are terrified of even a handful of their own Islamist militants coming home.

According to a well-connected Lebanese source, around four months ago, Jordan, Syria and Iraq began quiet discussions (on separate bilateral tracks) about economic and security cooperation. The Jordanians initially balked at the security upgrade, but came around eventually. They’re not just worried about extremism, but about economic collapse too – either can set the other off. Worst of all would be complete irrelevance in a region undergoing rapid change. The Jordanians are not mavericks, and sandwiched as they are between Syria and Iraq, it is not hard to see their new direction.

Already, state security courts in Amman are imprisoning prominent Salafists and Jordanian fighters intent on crossing over into Syria. Jordan has shut down its border, enforced tight security around the Zaatari camp for Syrian refugees, and is likely to take further measures as relations with the Syrian government continue to improve.

The Turks have also taken measures to tighten up their borders – in practice. An internal battle still rages within its Islamist establishment where a hot-headed Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan cast his lot almost three years ago with the Syrian opposition. His intransigence on this issue has cost Turkey: armed militants have found refuge inside Turkey’s border with Syria, political violence has seeped into the country, Turkey’s popularity has plummeted in the Arab world across all sects, Erdogan’s own suppression of protest has marked him a hypocrite, and Kurdish “autonomy” in Syria raises ambitions for Kurds in neighboring Turkey.

The Turks will understand the security imperative, but the clincher will be the economic ones. Syria needs a lot of reconstruction and Iraq has oil wealth to spend once calm returns. Furthermore, a gas pipeline initiative stretching from Iran to the Mediterranean will altogether bypass Turkey - if it doesn’t play ball.

Egypt is likely to fall in line with the Security Arc for the simple reason that it now faces the same problems. Indebted as the interim military government may be to the petrodollars of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf state sponsors, Egypt will be entirely bankrupt if religious militancy takes hold, as it now threatens to do. Attacks against security forces in the Sinai surged during Egypt’s popular uprising in early 2011, and have gained momentum again since last summer when the military establishment returned to power. Today, non-Bedouin militants from outside the area are flocking to the Sinai, stocked with advanced weaponry from conflicts in Libya and Sudan. During the short reign of the Muslim Brotherhood which endorsed Syrian rebels, thousands of Egyptians flocked to the fight in Syria. It is likely that a state governed or dominated by a secular military establishment will follow the Syrian example and implement heavy security solutions to break the back of extremists.

Whatever one's political inclinations, there is little doubt that inaction against Salafist militants at this juncture will lead to the disintegration of states throughout the Mideast.

The most dangerous hubs today are Syria, followed by Iraq, because of their political and geographical centrality in the region, and the likelihood of smaller or weaker neighbors being swept into the chaos.
The fight against extremism will therefore start inside the Security Arc, and will receive immediate support from the BRICS states and non-aligned nations. The West may choose to play key roles behind the scenes instead of unsettling their regional allies - at least for a while. But as confrontation escalates, countries will have to "take clear sides" in this pivotal battle, both in the Mideast and outside. Expect opportunism to play a hand - there may be a point at which a "stalemate" may be desirable for some. Few will dare to support the extremists, however, so also anticipate some serious narrative shifts on 'good-guys' and 'bad-guys' in the Mideast.

This, now, is the real War on Terror. But this time it will be led from inside the Middle East, gain universal support and change the regional political balance of power for generations to come.”