19/out/2007
Desgosto em Washington com Nobel para Gore. Segundo Paul Krugman, provocou raiva nos círculos conservadores dos EUA a concessão do Prêmio Nobel a Al Gore, em virtude das posições políticas do ex-candidato a presidente do país. Quem preferir o texto em português, pode ver a tradução de Deborah Weinberg.
Cisão entre católicos. A passagem dos 70 anos da guerra civil na Espanha dá lugar a comoção na Espanha e no Vaticano. Em Roma, o papado promove uma beatificação maciça de padres mortos na guerra, a fim de marcar solidariedade com o golpe de Estado e a ditadura de Franco. Na Espanha, os partidários da República programam grandes manifestações populares no sentido oposto. Agora, a pendência ganha cores novas, com a divulgação em El País de um manifesto de personalidades católicas contrário à posição da hierarquia da Igreja e cobrando desta o reconhecimento de sua culpa na tragédia que se abateu sobre o povo espanhol no final dos anos 1930.
Aliança Rússia-China? Em The Sino-Russian Alliance, o site Global Research publica um estudo em profundidade das relações entre Rússia e China com vistas a gerar um pólo econômico, político e militar que possa fazer contrapeso ao poder estadunidense.
Renato Guimarães
New York Times, 15/10/07
By PAUL KRUGMAN
On the day after Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize, The Wall Street Journal’s editors couldn’t even bring themselves to mention Mr. Gore’s name. Instead, they devoted their editorial to a long list of people they thought deserved the prize more.
And at National Review Online, Iain Murray suggested that the prize should have been shared with "that well-known peace campaigner Osama bin Laden, who implicitly endorsed Gore’s stance." You see, bin Laden once said something about climate change — therefore, anyone who talks about climate change is a friend of the terrorists.
What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?
Partly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration.
And now that Mr. Bush has proved himself utterly the wrong man for the job — to be, in fact, the best president Al Qaeda’s recruiters could have hoped for — the symptoms of Gore derangement syndrome have grown even more extreme.
The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right. In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the "ozone man," but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, "the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam." And so it has proved.
But Gore hatred is more than personal. When National Review decided to name its anti-environmental blog Planet Gore, it was trying to discredit the message as well as the messenger. For the truth Mr. Gore has been telling about how human activities are changing the climate isn’t just inconvenient. For conservatives, it’s deeply threatening.
Consider the policy implications of taking climate change seriously.
"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals," said F.D.R. "We know now that it is bad economics." These words apply perfectly to climate change. It’s in the interest of most people (and especially their descendants) that somebody do something to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but each individual would like that somebody to be somebody else. Leave it up to the free market, and in a few generations Florida will be underwater.
The solution to such conflicts between self-interest and the common good is to provide individuals with an incentive to do the right thing. In this case, people have to be given a reason to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, either by requiring that they pay a tax on emissions or by requiring that they buy emission permits, which has pretty much the same effects as an emissions tax. We know that such policies work: the U.S. "cap and trade" system of emission permits on sulfur dioxide has been highly successful at reducing acid rain.
Climate change is, however, harder to deal with than acid rain, because the causes are global. The sulfuric acid in America’s lakes mainly comes from coal burned in U.S. power plants, but the carbon dioxide in America’s air comes from coal and oil burned around the planet — and a ton of coal burned in China has the same effect on the future climate as a ton of coal burned here. So dealing with climate change not only requires new taxes or their equivalent; it also requires international negotiations in which the United States will have to give as well as get.
Everything I’ve just said should be uncontroversial — but imagine the reception a Republican candidate for president would receive if he acknowledged these truths at the next debate. Today, being a good Republican means believing that taxes should always be cut, never raised. It also means believing that we should bomb and bully foreigners, not negotiate with them.
So if science says that we have a big problem that can’t be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed. For example, Investor’s Business Daily recently declared that the prominence of James Hansen, the NASA researcher who first made climate change a national issue two decades ago, is actually due to the nefarious schemes of — who else? — George Soros.
Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He’s taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy.
Tradução de Deborah Weinberg
Paul Krugman, colunista do "The New York Times",
é professor da Universidade de Princeton, EUA.
Artigo publicado no "The New York Times" em 15.10.07:
Um dia depois de Al Gore receber o Prêmio Nobel da Paz, os editores do "The Wall Street Journal" não conseguiram nem mencionar seu nome. Em vez disso, dedicaram seu editorial a uma longa lista de pessoas que achavam que mereciam mais o prêmio.
E na "National Review Online", Iain Murray sugeriu que o prêmio deveria ter sido compartilhado com "aquele famoso ativista da paz, Osama Bin Laden, que implicitamente endossou a postura de Gore". Você vê, Bin Laden certa vez disse algo sobre a mudança climática -portanto, qualquer um que fala sobre mudança climática é amigo de terroristas.
O que tem Gore que deixa a direita maluca?
Parcialmente é uma reação ao que aconteceu em 2000, quando o povo americano escolheu Gore, mas seu oponente, de alguma forma, terminou na Casa Branca.
Tanto o culto à personalidade que a direita tentou construir em torno do presidente Bush quanto a difamação histérica freqüente contra Gore foram em grande parte motivadas pelo desejo de apagar a mancha de ilegitimidade do governo Bush, acredito.
E agora que Bush se provou claramente o homem errado para o cargo -e sim, de fato, o melhor presidente que os recrutadores da Al Qaeda poderiam esperar- os sintomas da síndrome de transtorno contra Gore ficaram ainda mais extremos.
A pior coisa sobre Gore, do ponto de vista conservador, é que ele continua certo. Em 1992, George H.W. Bush zombou dele como o "homem do ozônio". Três anos depois, entretanto, os cientistas que descobriram a ameaça à camada de ozônio receberam o Prêmio Nobel de química.
Em 2002, ele advertiu que, se invadíssemos o Iraque, "o caos resultante poderia facilmente impor um perigo muito maior aos EUA do que enfrentamos atualmente de Saddam". E assim foi provado.
O ódio contra Gore, porém, é mais pessoal. Quando a "National Review" decidiu chamar seu blog antiambiental de "Planet Gore", estava tentando desacreditar tanto a mensagem quanto o mensageiro.
Pois a verdade sobre a qual Gore estava falando, de como as atividades humanas estão mudando o clima, não é apenas inconveniente; para os conservadores, é profundamente ameaçadora.
Considere as implicações políticas de levar a mudança climática a sério.
"Sempre soubemos que o interesse próprio desmedido era moralmente ruim", disse FDR [Franklin Delano Roosevelt]. "Agora sabemos que é economicamente ruim." Essas palavras se
aplicam perfeitamente à mudança climática.
É do interesse da maior parte das pessoas (e especialmente de seus descendentes) que alguém faça alguma coisa para reduzir as emissões de dióxido de carbono e de outros gases de efeito estufa, mas cada indivíduo gostaria que esse alguém fosse outra pessoa. Deixe ao mercado livre e, em poucas gerações, a Flórida estará submersa.
A solução para tais conflitos entre o interesse próprio e o bem comum é prover aos indivíduos um incentivo para fazerem a coisa certa. Neste caso, as pessoas têm de receber uma razão para cortar as emissões de gás de efeito estufa, seja requerendo que paguem imposto sobre emissões ou exigindo que comprem licenças de emissão, que têm basicamente o mesmo efeito que um imposto sobre emissões.
Sabemos que tais políticas funcionam: o sistema americano de "limites e trocas" de licenças de emissão de dióxido de enxofre foi altamente bem sucedido para diminuir a chuva ácida.
A mudança climática é, entretanto, mais difícil de lidar do que a chuva ácida, porque as causas são globais. O acido sulfúrico nos lagos americanos vem principalmente do carvão queimado nas usinas americanas, mas o dióxido de carbono no ar dos EUA vem de carvão e petróleo queimado em torno do planeta -e uma tonelada de carvão queimada na China tem o mesmo efeito no
clima futuro que uma tonelada de carvão queimada aqui.
Então, lidar com a mudança climática não só exige novos impostos ou seu equivalente, mas também negociações internacionais nas quais os EUA terão dar assim como receber.
Tudo que acabei de dizer não deveria ser controverso - mas imagine a recepção que teriam um candidato republicano à presidência se admitisse essas verdades no próximo debate. Hoje, ser um bom republicano significa acreditar que os impostos devem sempre ser cortados, nunca aumentados. Também significa que devemos bombardear e provocar os estrangeiros, não negociar com eles.
Então, se a ciência diz que temos um grande problema que não pode ser resolvido com cortes de impostos ou bombas -bem, a ciência deve ser rejeitada e os cientistas, enlameados.
Por exemplo, o "Investor's Business Daily" recentemente declarou que a proeminência do pesquisador da Nasa James Hansen, o primeiro a fazer da mudança climática uma questão nacional, há duas décadas, deve-se de fato a esquemas nefandos de - quem mais - George Soros.
O que nos traz à maior razão por que a direita odeia Gore: neste caso, a campanha de difamação fracassou. Ele recebeu tudo que jogaram nele, e emergiu mais respeitado, mais crível do que nunca. E isso os deixa loucos.
El País, 17.10.07
Redes Cristianas califica de "inoportunas" las beatificaciones de 498 nuevos mártires
JUAN G. BEDOYA - Madrid - 17/10/2007
Inoportunas y discriminatorias. Ésta es la opinión de los católicos españoles agrupados en Redes Cristianas sobre la próxima beatificación de 498 personas asesinadas en el sector republicano, la práctica totalidad durante los primeros meses de la Guerra Civil de 1936.
Monjas y frailes, contra la "mezquina" politización
"Dado que la Iglesia [católica] no ha pedido perdón por lo ocurrido, esta beatificación es inoportuna y manifiesta la incapacidad de la jerarquía por superar las posiciones de hace 70 años", opina este colectivo en un manifiesto titulado Solidaridad con todas las víctimas de la Guerra Civil y acerca de próxima beatificación.
La asamblea de Redes Cristianas reúne a 147 grupos, comunidades y movimientos católicos de base repartidos por todas las diócesis, algunos con gran predicamento nacional como las Comunidades Cristianas Populares, la Corriente Somos Iglesia, varias Hermandades Obreras provinciales de Acción Católica (HOAC), la Federación de Mujeres y Teología o Justicia y Paz.
El manifiesto de Redes Cristianas empieza con una referencia "a las víctimas de la Guerra Civil española (1936-1939) y a las que siguieron durante los años de la dictadura franquista (1939-1975)". Añade: "Para construir un futuro en paz será siempre necesario que las partes reconozcan los errores que les condujeron a la guerra y pedir perdón por ellos. Hoy ya no se trata de buscar culpables, pero tampoco de un ambiguo relativismo histórico. Se trata de que todas las partes reconozcan su parte de culpa, y, en primer lugar, nosotros, los cristianos, reconocer y pedir perdón por la posición beligerante que la mayor parte de la jerarquía eclesiástica tuvo".
Redes Cristianas sostiene más tarde que "la purificación de la memoria histórica no ha de consistir en juzgar el pasado común repartiendo culpabilidades". "Todos somos corresponsables de los hechos colectivos: ganamos con los que ganan y perdemos con los que pierden. Debemos reconocer que en nuestra Guerra Civil perdimos todos", dice este grupo de católicos de base, antes de advertir sobre la inoportunidad de las beatificaciones masivas gestionadas por los obispos desde hace décadas.
"Desde la más profunda admiración por las vidas y sobre todo por las circunstancias de sus muertes, creemos que, dado que la Iglesia no ha pedido perdón por lo ocurrido, esta beatificación es inoportuna. Por otra parte, se presta a una obvia instrumentalización política", sostiene Redes.
Las otras víctimas
El manifiesto no olvida el proceso en marcha para recuperar la memoria histórica de todas las víctimas del golpe militar de 1936 y de la larga guerra civil que provocó aquel desnucamiento del Estado (que los obispos de la época bendijeron como cruzada), y en recuerdo también de los asesinados durante la represiva dictadura posterior.
Lo jerarquía actual del catolicismo español se opone a la llamada Ley de la Memoria Histórica que promueve el Gobierno socialista porque, dice, reabre "viejas heridas" de la Guerra Civil. Los obispos también execran sin matices de la Segunda República, a cuya gestión atribuyen la mayor persecución religiosa de la historia. Consecuencia de esa opinión es su aportación al catálogo de mártires del siglo XX, reunido por el Vaticano en la década pasada. Del total de 12.692 posibles mártires de la fe registrados en todo el mundo, 10.000 son españoles.
Redes Cristianas rechaza la visión sobre la Segunda República de una jerarquía que empezó a combatir al nuevo régimen nada más ser proclamado. Dice el colectivo de católicos de base: "Es necesario honrar también y sin ninguna ambigüedad la entrega generosa de tantos que murieron por la causa de la justicia, del reconocimiento de los derechos de todos, de la paz. Olvidar a los miles de maestros, sacerdotes, obreros, dirigentes, políticos, etcétera, que murieron víctimas de la represión franquista no sólo es una injusticia, sino que hace imposible la reconciliación y la paz".
El manifiesto estima también "muy satisfactorios algunos de los esfuerzos del Gobierno legítimo de la República", como la extensión de la enseñanza para todos, el reconocimiento de los derechos de la mujer o la separación Iglesia-Estado. "Será profundizando en estas propuestas como, implícitamente, honraremos a los que trabajaron en estas direcciones", concluye.
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, September 23, 2007
"But if the middle space [Russia and the former Soviet Union] rebuffs the West [the European Union and America], becomes an assertive single entity, and either gains control over the South [Middle East] or forms an alliance with the major Eastern actor [China], then America’s primacy in Eurasia shrinks dramatically. The same would be the case if the two major Eastern players were somehow to unite. Finally, any ejection of America by its Western partners [the Franco-German entente] from its perch on the western periphery [Europe] would automatically spell the end of America’s participation in the game on the Eurasian chessboard, even though that would probably also mean the eventual subordination of the western extremity to a revived player occupying the middle space [e.g. Russia]."
-Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)
Sir Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion states that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." These precepts of physics can also be used in the social sciences, specifically with reference to social relations and geo-politics.
America and Britain, the Anglo-American alliance, have engaged in an ambitious project to control global energy resources. Their actions have resulted in a series of complicated reactions, which have established a Eurasian-based coalition which is preparing to challenge the Anglo-American axis.
Encircling Russia and China: Anglo-American Global Ambitions Backfire
"Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible. We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way."
-Vladimir Putin at the Munich Conference on Security Policy in Germany (February 11, 2007)
What American leaders and officials called the "New World Order" is what the Chinese and Russians consider a "Unipolar World." This is the vision or hallucination, depending on perspective, that has bridged the Sino-Russian divide between Beijing and Moscow.
China and Russia are well aware of the fact that they are targets of the Anglo-American alliance. Their mutual fears of encirclement have brought them together. It is no accident that in the same year that NATO bombarded Yugoslavia, President Jiang Zemin of China and President Boris Yeltsin of Russia made an anticipated joint declaration at a historic summit in December of 1999 that revealed that China and the Russian Federation would join hands to resist the "New World Order." The seeds for this Sino-Russian declaration were in fact laid in 1996 when both sides declared that they opposed the global imposition of single-state hegemony.
Both Jiang Zemin and Boris Yeltsin stated that all nation-states should be treated equally, enjoy security, respect each other’s sovereignty, and most importantly not interfere in the internal affairs of other nation-states. These statements were directed at the U.S. government and its partners.
The Chinese and Russians also called for the establishment of a more equitable economic and political global order. Both nations also indicated that America was behind separatist movements in their respective countries. They also underscored American-led amibitions to balkanize and finlandize the nation-states of Eurasia. Influential Americans such as Zbigniew Brzezinski had already advocated for de-centralizing and eventually dividing up the Russian Federation.
Both the Chinese and Russians issued a statement warning that the creation of an international missile shield and the contravention of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) would destabilize the international environment and polarize the globe. In 1999, the Chinese and Russians were aware of what was to come and the direction that America was headed towards. In June 2002, less than a year before the onslaught of the "Global War on Terror," George W. Bush Jr. announced that the U.S. was withdrawing from the ABM Treaty.
On July 24, 2001, less than two months before September 11, 2001, China and Russia signed the Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation. The latter is a softly worded mutual defence pact against the U.S., NATO, and the U.S. sponsored Asian military network which was surrounding China. [1]
The military pact of the Shanghai Treaty Organization (SCO) also follows the same softly worded format. It is also worth noting that Article 12 of the 2001 Sino-Russian bilateral treaty stipulates that China and Russia will work together to maintain the global strategic balance, "observation of the basic agreements relevant to the safeguard and maintenance of strategic stability," and "promote the process of nuclear disarmament." [2] This seems to be an insinuation about a nuclear threat posed from the United States.
Standing in the Way of America and Britain: A "Chinese-Russian-Iranian Coalition"
As a result of the Anglo-American drive to encircle and ultimately dismantle China and Russia, Moscow and Beijing have joined ranks and the SCO has slowly evolved and emerged in the heart of Eurasia as a powerful international body.
The main objectives of the SCO are defensive in nature. The economic objectives of the SCO are to integrate and unite Eurasian economies against the economic and financial onslaught and manipulation from the "Trilateral" of North America, Western Europe, and Japan, which controls significant portions of the global economy.
The SCO charter was also created, using Western national security jargon, to combat "terrorism, separatism, and extremism." Terrorist activities, separatist movements, and extremist movements in Russia, China, and Central Asia are all forces traditionally nurtured, funded, armed, and covertly supported by the British and the U.S. governments. Several separatist and extremist groups that have destabilized SCO members even have offices in London.
Iran, India, Pakistan, and Mongolia are all SCO observer members. The observer status of Iran in the SCO is misleading. Iran is a de facto member. The observer status is intended to hide the nature of trilateral cooperation between Iran, Russia, and China so that the SCO cannot be labeled and demonized as an anti-American or anti-Western military grouping.
The stated interests of China and Russia are to ensure the continuity of a "Multi-Polar World." Zbigniew Brzezinski prefigured in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives and warned against the creation or "emergence of a hostile [Eurasian-based] coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America’s primacy." [3] He also called this potential Eurasian coalition an "‘antihegemonic’ alliance" that would be formed from a "Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition" with China as its linchpin. [4] This is the SCO and several Eurasian groups that are connected to the SCO.
In 1993, Brzezinski wrote "In assessing China’s future options, one has to consider also the possibility that an economically successful and politically self-confident China — but one which feels excluded from the global system and which decides to become both the advocate and the leader of the deprived states of the world — may decide to pose not only an articulate doctrinal but also a powerful geopolitical challenge to the dominant trilateral world [a reference to the economic front formed by North America, Western Europe, and Japan]." [5]
Brzezinski warns that Beijing’s answer to challenging the global status quo would be the creation of a Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition: "For Chinese strategists, confronting the trilateral coalition of America and Europe and Japan, the most effective geopolitical counter might well be to try and fashion a triple alliance of its own, linking China with Iran in the Persian Gulf/Middle East region and with Russia in the area of the former Soviet Union [and Eastern Europe]." [6] Brzezinski goes on to say that the Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition, which he moreover calls an "antiestablishmentarian [anti-establishmentarian] coalition," could be a potent magnet for other states [e.g., Venezuela] dissatisfied with the [global] status quo." [7]
Furthermore, Brzezinski warned in 1997 that "The most immediate task [for the U.S.] is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." [8] It may be that his warnings were forgotten, because the U.S. has been repealed from Central Asia and U.S. forces have been evicted from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
"Velvet Revolutions" Backfire in Central Asia
Central Asia was the scene of several British-sponsored and American-sponsored attempts at regime change. The latter were characterised by velvet revolutions similar to the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and the Rose Revolution in Georgia.
These velvet revolutions financed by the U.S. failed in Central Asia, aside from Kyrgyzstan where there had been partial success with the so-called Tulip Revolution.
As a result the U.S. government has suffered major geo-strategic setbacks in Central Asia. All of Central Asia’s leaders have distanced themselves from America.
Russia and Iran have also secured energy deals in the region. America’s efforts, over several decades, to exert a hegemonic role in Central Asia seem to have been reversed overnight. The U.S. sponsored velvet revolutions have backfired. Relations between Uzbekistan and the U.S. were especially hard hit.
Uzbekistan is under the authoritarian rule of President Islam Karamov. Starting in the second half of the 1990s President Karamov was enticed into bringing Uzbekistan into the fold of the Anglo-American alliance and NATO. When there was an attempt on President Karamov’s life, he suspected the Kremlin because of his independent policy stance. This is what led Uzbekistan to leave CSTO. But Islam Karamov, years later, changed his mind as to who was attempting to get rid of him.
According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, Uzbekistan represented a major obstacle to any renewed Russian control of Central Asia and was virtually invulnerable to Russian pressure; this is why it was important to secure Uzbekistan as an American protectorate in Central Asia.
Uzbekistan also has the largest military force in Central Asia. In 1998, Uzbekistan held war games with NATO troops in Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan was becoming heavily militarized in the same manner as Georgia was in the Caucasus. The U.S. gave Uzbekistan huge amounts of financial aid to challenge the Kremlin in Central Asia and also provided training to Uzbek forces.
With the launching of the "Global War on Terror," in 2001, Uzbekistan, an Anglo-American ally, immediately offered bases and military facilities to the U.S. in Karshi-Khanabad.
The leadership of Uzbekistan already knew the direction the "Global War on Terror" would take. To the irritation of the Bush Jr. Administration, the Uzbek President formulated a policy of self-reliance. The honeymoon between Uzbekistan and the Anglo-American alliance ended when Washington, D.C. and London contemplated removing Islam Karamov from power. He was a little too independent for their comfort and taste. Their attempts at removing the Uzbek President failed, leading eventually to a shift in geo-political alliances.
The tragic events of Andijan on May 13, 2005 were the breaking point between Uzbekistan and the Anglo-American alliance. The people of Andijan were incited into confronting the Uzbek authorities, which resulted in a heavy security clampdown on the protesters and a loss of lives.
Armed groups were reported to have been involved. In the U.S., Britain, and the E.U., the media reports focused narrowly on human rights violations without mentioning the covert role of the Anglo-American alliance. Uzbekistan held Britain and the U.S. responsible accusing them of inciting rebellion.
M. K. Bhadrakumar, the former Indian ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998), revealed that the Hezbut Tahrir (HT) was one of the parties blamed for stirring the crowd in Andijan by the Uzbek government. [9] The group was already destabilizing Uzbekistan and using violent tactics. The headquarters of this group happens to be in London and they enjoy the support of the British government. London is a hub for many similar organizations that further Anglo-American interests in various countries, including Iran and Sudan, through destabilization campaigns. Uzbekistan even started clamping down on foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) because of the tragic events of Andijan.
The Anglo-American alliance had played its cards wrong in Central Asia. Uzbekistan officially left the GUUAM Group, a NATO-U.S. sponsored anti-Russian body. GUUAM once again became the GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldava) Group on May 24, 2005.
On July 29, 2005 the U.S. military was ordered to leave Uzbekistan within a six-month period. [10] Literally, the Americans were told they were no longer welcome in Uzbekistan and Central Asia.
Russia, China, and the SCO added their voices to the demands. The U.S. cleared its airbase in Uzbekistan by November, 2005.
Uzbekistan rejoined the CSTO alliance on June 26, 2006 and realigned itself, once again, with Moscow. The Uzbek President also became a vocal advocate, along with Iran, for pushing the U.S. totally out of Central Asia. [11] Unlike Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan continued to allow the U.S. to use Manas Air Base, but with restrictions and in an uncertain atmosphere. The Kyrgyz government also would make it clear that no U.S. operations could target Iran from Kyrgyzstan.
Major Geo-Strategic Error
It appears that a strategic rapprochement between Iran and America was in the works from 2001 to 2002. At the outset of the global war on terrorism, Hezbollah and Hamas, two Arab organizations supported by Iran and Syria, were kept off the U.S. State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. Iran and Syria were also loosely portrayed as potential partners in the "Global War on Terror."
Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Iran expressed its support for the post-Saddam Hussein Iraqi government. During the invasion of Iraq, the American military even attacked the Iraqi-based Iranian opposition militia, the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK/MOK/MKO). Iranian jets also attacked the Iraqi bases of the MEK in approximately the same window of time.
Iran, Britain, and the U.S. also worked together against the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is worth mentioning that the Taliban were never allies of Iran. Up until 2000, the Taliban had been supported by the U.S. and Britain, working hand in glove with the Pakistani military and intelligence.
The Taliban were shocked and bewildered at what they saw as an American and British betrayal in 2001 — this is in light of the fact that in October, 2001 they had stated that they would hand over Osama bin Laden to the U.S. upon the presentation of evidence of his alleged involvement in the 9/11 attacks.
Zbigniew Brzezinski warned years before 2001 that "a coalition allying Russia with both China and Iran can develop only if the United States is shortsighted enough to antagonize China and Iran simultaneously." [12] The arrogance of the Bush Jr. Administration has resulted in this shortsighted policy.
According to The Washington Post, "Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago [in 2003], an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table — including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups." [13]
The White House impressed by what they believe were "grand victories" in Iraq and Afghanistan merely ignored the letter sent through diplomatic channels by the Swiss government on behalf of Tehran.
However, it was not because of what was wrongly perceived as a quick victory in Iraq that the Bush Jr. Administration pushed Iran aside. On January 29, 2002, in a major address, President Bush Jr. confirmed that the U.S. would also target Iran, which had been added to the so-called "Axis of Evil" together with Iraq and North Korea. The U.S. and Britain intended to attack Iran, Syria, and Lebanon after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In fact immediately following the invasion, in July 2003, the Pentagon formulated an initial war scenario entitled "Theater Iran Near Term (TIRANNT)."
Starting in 2002, the Bush Jr. Administration had deviated from their original geo-strategic script. France and Germany were also excluded from sharing the spoils of war in Iraq.
The intention was to act against Iran and Syria just as America and Britain had used and betrayed their Taliban allies in Afghanistan. The U.S. was also set on targeting Hezbollah and Hamas. In January of 2001, according to Daniel Sobelman, a correspondent for Haaretz, the U.S. government warned Lebanon that the U.S. would go after Hezbollah. These threats directed at Lebanon were made at the start of the presidential term of George W. Bush Jr., eight months before the events of September 11, 2001.
The conflict at the United Nations Security Council between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente, supported by Russia and China, was a pictogram of this deviation.
American geo-strategists for years after the Cold War had scheduled the Franco-German entente to be partners in their plans for global primacy. In this regard, Zbigniew Brzezinski had acknowledged that the Franco-German entente would eventually have to be elevated in status and that the spoils of war would have to be divided with Washington’s European allies.
By the end of 2004, the Anglo-American alliance had started to correct its posture towards France and Germany. Washington had returned to its original geo-strategic script with NATO playing an expanded role in the Eastern Mediterranean. In turn, France was granted oil concessions in Iraq.
The 2006 war plans for Lebanon and the Eastern Mediterranean also point to a major shift in direction, a partnership role for the Franco-German entente, with France and Germany playing a major military role in the region.
It is worth noting that a major shift occurred in early 2007 with regard to Iran. Following U.S. setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as in Lebanon, Palestine, Somalia, and former Soviet Central Asia), the White House entered into secret negotiatiations with Iran and Syria. However, the dye has been cast and it would appear that America will be unable to break an evolving military alliance which includes Russia, Iran, and China as its nucleus.
The Baker-Hamilton Commission: Covert Anglo-American Cooperation with Iran and Syria?
"America should also strongly support Turkish aspirations to have a pipeline from Baku in [the Republic of] Azerbaijan to Ceyhan on the Turkish Mediterranean cost serve as [a] major outlet for the Caspian Sea basin energy sources. In addition, it is not in America’s interest to perpetuate American-Iranian hostility. Any eventual reconciliation should be based on the recognition of a mutual strategic interest in stabilizing what currently is a very volatile regional environment for Iran [e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan]. Admittedly, any such reconciliation must be pursued by both sides and is not a favor granted by one to the other. A strong, even religiously motivated but not fanatically anti-Western Iran is in the U.S. interest, and ultimately even the Iranian political elite may recognize that reality. In the meantime, American long-range interests in Eurasia would be better served by abandoning existing U.S. objections to closer Turkish-Iranian economic cooperation, especially in the construction of new pipelines..."
-Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)
The recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Commission or the Iraq Study Group (ISG) are not a redirection in regards to engaging Iran, but a return to the track that the Bush Jr. Administration had deviated from as a result of the delusions of its hasty victories in Afghanistan and Iraq. In other words, the Baker-Hamilton Commission was about damage control and re-steering America to the geo-strategic path originally intended by military planners that the Bush Jr. Administration seems to have deviated from.
The ISG Report also subtly indicated that adoption of so-called "free market" economic reforms be pressed on Iran (and by extension Syria) instead of regime change. The ISG also favoured the accession of both Syria and Iran to the World Trade Organization (WTO). [14] It should also be noted, in this regard, that Iran has already started a mass privatization program that involves all sectors from banking to energy and agriculture.
The ISG Report also recommends an end to the Arab-Israeli Conflict and the establishment of peace between Israel and Syria. [15]
The joint interests of Iran and the U.S. were also analysed by the Baker-Hamilton Commission. The ISG recommended that the U.S. should not empower the Taliban again in Afghanistan (against Iran). [16] It should also be noted that Imad Moustapha, the Syrian ambassador to the U.S., the Syrian Foreign Minister, and Javad Zarif, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, were all consulted by the Baker-Hamilton Commission. [17] The Iranian Ambassodor to the U.N., Javad Zarif, has also been a middle man between the U.S. and Iranian governments for years.
It is worth mentioning that the Clinton Administration was involved in the track of rapprochement with Iran, while also attempting to keep Iran in check under the "dual-containment" policy directed against Iraq and Iran. This policy was also linked to the 1992 Draft Defence Guidance paper written by people within the Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. Administrations.
It is worth noting that Zbigniew Brzezinski had stated as far back as 1979 and again in 1997 that Iran under its post-revolutionary political system could be co-opted by America. [18] Britain also ensured Syria and Iran in 2002 and 2003 that they would not be targeted and encouraged their cooperation with the White House.
It should be noted that Turkey has recently signed a pipeline deal with Iran that will take gas to Western Europe. This project includes the participation of Turkmenistan. [19] It would appear that this cooperation agreement between Tehran and Ankara points to reconciliation rather than confrontation with Iran and Syria. This is in line with what Brzezinski in 1997 claimed was in America’s interest.
Also, the Anglo-American sponsored Iraqi government has recently signed pipeline deals with Iran.
Once again, America’s interests in this deal should be questioned, as should the high opinions being given about Iran by the puppet leaders of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Something’s Amiss...
The media attention given in North America and Britain to the positive comments made about Tehran by Anglo-American clients in Baghdad and Kabul is sinister.
Although these comments from Baghdad and Kabul about the positive role Iran plays in Iraq and Afghanistan are not new, the media attention is. President George W. Bush Jr. and the White House criticized the Iraqi Prime Minister for saying Iran plays a constructive role in Iraq in early-August of 2007. The White House and North American or British press would usually just ignore or refuse to acknowledge these comments. However, this was not the case in August, 2007.
The Afghani President, Hamid Karzai, during a joint press conference with George W. Bush Jr. stated that Iran was a positive force in his country. It is not odd to hear that Iran is a positive force inside Afghanistan because the stability of Afghanistan is in Iran’s best interests. What comes across as odd are "when" and "where" the comments were made. White House press conferences are choreographed and the place and time of the Afghani President’s comments should be questioned. It also so happens that shortly after the Afghani President’s comments, the Iranian President arrived in Kabul in an unprecedented visit that must have been approved by the White House.
Iran’s Political Leverage
In regards to Iran and the U.S., the picture is blurry and the lines between cooperation and rivalry are less clear. Reuters and the Iranian Student’s News Agency (ISNA) have both reported that the Iranian President may visit Baghdad after August 2007. These reports surfaced just before the U.S. government started threatening to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a special international terrorist organization. Without insinuating anything, it should also be noted that the Revolutionary Guard and the U.S. military have also had a low-key history of cooperation from Bosnia-Herzegovina to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
The Iranian President has also invited the presidents of the other four Caspian states for a Caspian Sea summit in Tehran. [20] He invited the Turkmen president while in Turkmenistan and later the Russian and Kazakh presidents at the August of 2007 SCO summit in Kyrgyzstan. President Aliyev, the leader of the Republic of Azerbaijan (Azarbaijan) was also personally invited during a trip by the Iranian President to Baku. The anticipated Caspian Sea summit may be similar to the one in Port Turkmenbashi, Turkmenistan between the Kazakh, Russian, and Turkmen presidents where it was announced that Russia would not be cut out of the pipeline deals in Central Asia.
Iranian leverage is clearly getting stronger. Officials in Baku also stated that they will expand energy cooperation with Iran and enter the gas pipeline deal between Iran, Turkey, and Turkmenistan that will supply European markets with gas. [21] This agreement to supply Europe is similar to a Russian energy transport deal signed between Greece, Bulgaria, and the Russian Federation. [22]
In the Levant, Syria is involved in energy-related negotiations with Ankara and Baku and important talks have started between American officials and both Tehran and Damascus. [23]
Iran has also been involved in diplomatic exchanges with Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, and the Republic of Azerbaijan. Additionally, starting in August 2007, Syria has agreed to reopen Iraqi oil pipelines to the Eastern Mediterranean, through Syrian territory. [24] The recent official visit of Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki to Syria has also been described as historical by news sources like the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Also, Syria and Iraq have agreed to build a gas pipeline from Iraq into Syria, where Iraqi gas will be treated in Syrian plants. [25] These agreements are being passed as the sources of tensions between Baghdad and the White House, but they are doubtful. [26]
Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are also planning on starting the process for creating an Iranian-GCC free trade zone in the Persian Gulf. In the bazaars of Tehran and amongst the political circle of Rafsanjani there are also discussion about the eventual creation of a single market between Iran, Tajikistan, Armenia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. The American role in these processes in regards to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the GCC should be explored.
Under President Nicholas Sarkozy, France has indicated that it is willing to engage the Syrians fully if they gave specific guarantees in regards to Lebanon. These guarantees are linked to French economic and geo-strategic interests.
In the same period of time as the French statements about Syria, Gordon Brown indicated that Britain was also willing to engage in diplomatic exchanges with both Syria and Iran. Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, the German Minister of Economic Cooperation and Development, has also been involved in talks with Damascus on mutual projects, economic reform and bringing Syria closer to the European Union. These talks, however tend to be camouflaged by the discussion between Syria and Germany in regard to the mass exodus of Iraqi refugees, resulting from the Anglo-American occupation of their country. The French Foreign Minister is also expected in Tehran to talk about Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq. Despite the war-mongering by the U.S. and more recently by France, this has all led to speculation of a potential about-turn in regards to Iran and Syria. [27]
Then again, this is part of the two-pronged U.S. approach of preparing for the worst (war), while suing for the diplomatic capitulation of Syria and Iran as client states or partners. When large oil and weapons deals were signed between Libya and Britain, London said that Iran should follow the Libyan example, as has the Baker-Hamilton Commission.
Has the March to War been Interrupted?
Despite talks behind closed doors with Damascus and Tehran, Washington is nonetheless arming its clients in the Middle East. Israel is in an advanced state of military preparedness for a war on Syria.
Unlike France and Germany, Anglo-American ambitions pertaining to Iran and Syria are not one of cooperation. The ultimate objective is political and economic subordination.
Moreover, either as a friend or foe, America cannot tolerate Iran within its present borders. The balkanization of Iran, like that of Iraq and Russia, is a major long-term Anglo-American goal.
What lies ahead is never known. While there is smoke in the horizon, the U.S.-NATO-Israeli military agenda will not necessarily result in the implementation of war as planned.
A "Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition" — which forms the basis of a global counter-alliance — is emerging. America and Britain rather than opting for outright war, may choose to reel in Iran and Syria through macro-economic manipulation and velvet revolutions.
War directed against Iran and Syria, however, cannot be ruled out. There are real war preparations on the ground in the Middle East and Central Asia. A war against Iran and Syria would have far-reaching worldwide implications.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an independent writer based in Ottawa specialising on the Middle East and Central Asia. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
NOTES
[1] Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation, signed and entered into force July 16, 2001, P.R. of China-Russian Federation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China.
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjdt/2649/t15771.htm
The following are treaty articles that are relevant to the mutual defence of China and Russia against American-led encirclement and efforts to dismantle both nations;
ARTICLE 4
The Chinese side supports the Russian side in its policies on the issue of defending the national unity and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.
The Russian side supports the Chinese side in its policies on the issue of defending the national unity and territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of China.
ARTICLE 5
The Russian side reaffirms that the principled stand on the Taiwan issue as expounded in the political documents signed and adopted by the heads of states of the two countries from 1992 to 2000 remain unchanged. The Russian side acknowledges that there is only one China in the world, that the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China and that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. The Russian side opposes any form of Taiwan’s independence.
ARTICLE 8
The contracting parties shall not enter into any alliance or be a party to any bloc nor shall they embark on any such action, including the conclusion of such treaty with a third country which compromises the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other contracting party. Neither side of the contracting parties shall allow its territory to be used by a third country to jeopardize the national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other contracting party.
Neither side of the contracting parties shall allow the setting up of organizations or gangs on its own soil which shall impair the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other contrasting party and their activities should be prohibited.
ARTICLE 9
When a situation arises in which one of the contracting parties deems that peace is being threatened and undermined or its security interests are involved or when it is confronted with the threat of aggression, the contracting parties shall immediately hold contacts and consultations in order to eliminate such threats.
ARTILCE 12
The contracting parties shall work together for the maintenance of global strategic balance and stability and make great efforts in promoting the observation of the basic agreements relevant to the safeguard and maintenance of strategic stability.
The contracting parties shall actively promote the process of nuclear disarmament and the reduction of chemical weapons, promote and strengthen the regimes on the prohibition of biological weapons and take measures to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery and their related technology.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (NYC, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997), p.198.
[4] Ibid., pp. 115-116, 170, 205-206.
Note: Brzezinski also refers to a Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition as a "counteralliance" (p.116).
[5] Zbigniew Brzezinski, Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the 21st Century (NYC, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993), p.198.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.198.
[9] M. K. Bhadrakumar, The lessons from Ferghana, Asia Times, May 18, 2005.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GE18Ag01.html
[10] Nick Paton Walsh, Uzbekistan kicks US out of military base, The Guardian (U.K.), August 1, 2005.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1540185,00.html
[11] Vladimir Radyuhin, Uzbekistan rejoins defence pact, The Hindu, June 26, 2006.
http://www.thehindu.com/2006/06/26/stories/2006062604491400.htm
[12] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.116.
[13] Glenn Kessler, In 2003, U.S. Spurned Iran’s Offer of Dialogue, The Washington Post, June 18, 2006, p.A16.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html
[14] James A. Baker III et al., The Iraq Study Group Report: The Way Forward — A New Approach Authroized ed. (NYC, New York: Random House Inc., 2006), p.51.
[15] Ibid., pp.51, 54-57.
[16] Ibid., pp.50-53, 58.
[17] Ibid., p.114.
[18] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.204.
[19] Iran, Turkey sign energy cooperation deal, agree to develop Iran’s gas fields, Associated Press, July 14, 2007.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/14/business/ME-FIN-Iran-Turkey-Energy-deal.php
[20] Tehran to host summit of Caspian nations Oct.18, Russian Information Agency (RIA Novosti), August 22, 2007.
[21] Azerbaijan, Iran reinforce energy deals, United Press International (UPI), August 22, 2007.
[22] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The March to War: Détente in the Middle East or "Calm before the Storm?," Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), July 10, 2007.
[24] Syria and Iraq to reopen oil pipeline link, Agence France-Presse (AFP), August 22, 2007.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Roger Hardy, Why the US is unhappy with Maliki, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), August 22, 2007.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a frequent contributor to Global Research.