The US-NATO March to War and the 21st Century “Great Game”
Part II The Conquest of Eurasia: The Multiple Fronts of the 21st
Century `Great Game’
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, December 5, 2010
The Caucasus, the Balkans, the Middle East, East Africa, Central Asia
The following text is PART II of The “Great Game” and the Conquest of
Eurasia. The first text gave an overview of the global
counter-alliance forming against the U.S. and NATO. In this second
portion, the various fronts of the global rivalry between these two
sides will be examined.
The Multiple Fronts of the 21st Century `Great Game’
The globe is gripped with a series of arenas where the struggle
between the U.S. and its allies against the triple entente of Eurasia
‘ Russia, China, and Iran ‘ and their other allies are taking place.
The struggles in these fronts vary in shape and dimension, but are all
inter-linked and aimed against incorporation into a central entity
controlled by the U.S. and its allies. These fronts are the Caucasus,
the Balkans, East Africa, the Middle East (including the Eastern
Mediterranean), the Indian Ocean, Central Asia, South Asia or the
Indian sub-continent, Southeast Asia, East Asia, Latin America and the
Caribbean, and the Arctic Circle.
Eastern Europe, the South China Sea, Korea, Central Asia, and the
Middle East have been abuzz with military operations and war games by
all sides. China, Russia, and Iran are all developing new weapons and
asymmetrical war tactics, including expanded space projects and
aircraft carriers. In occupied Iraq, NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, and
Israeli-occupied Palestine the non-state resistance movements continue
their battles for national liberation with the support of the
governments of Eurasia in some cases.
Russia’s strategic bombers have resumed their Cold War practice of
flying long-distance missions to territories patrolled by the U.S. and
NATO. [6] Russia and Belarus have armed their joint air defence
systems in Eastern Europe in response to the missile threat from the
U.S. and NATO in Europe. Both Belarus and Russia have also been making
preparations, through military drills called `West 2009,’ for a naval,
land, and air assault against them by NATO that simulates a NATO
invasion from Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. [7]
Myanmar (Burma), China’s ally, is also constructing a port and naval
facilities to allow Beijing to secure its energy lifeline in the
Indian Ocean by circumventing the Straits of Malacca and the Straits
of Taiwan, which are guarded by the naval forces of the U.S. and its
allies. To further secure the Indian Ocean for the Eurasians, Sri
Lanka (Ceylon) has also become an associate member of the SCO through
becoming a dialogue partner. [8] It is in this framework that Russia,
China, and Iran supported the Sri Lankan government against the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), or simply Tamil Tigers,
during the Sri Lankan Civil War
North Korea has been priming itself for a possible war with the U.S.,
South Korea, and Japan. Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and
Cuba have prepared themselves for what they call wars of resistance
through political, economic, and armed preparations. Likewise, Syria
and Lebanon with the support of Iran have prepared themselves for an
anticipated conflict with Israel. Oil-rich Sudan has also been bracing
itself for internal strife and for the possibility of a future
conflict, led by the U.S. and based on the pretext of `humanitarian
intervention.’
The Caucasus Front: Russo-Georgian Tensions and War Preparations
Caucasia or the Caucasus is the region between the Black Sea and the
Caspian Sea that straddles the Caucasus Mountains. Like the Ural
Mountains, the Caucasus forms the dividing borders of the politically
defined continents of Europe and Asia. The Caucasus region itself,
which can also be considered an extension of the Middle East, is
divided into two sub-regions. These two sub-regions are the North
Caucasus, which exclusively includes the Caucasian constituent
republics of the Russian Federation, and the South Caucasus, which
includes Georgia, Armenia, and the Republic of Azerbaijan
(Azarbaijan). Northern Iran and the eastern portions of Turkey, which
were annexed from Georgia and Armenia under the 1921 Treaty of Kars,
can also be considered as being part of the South Caucasus and by
extension the entire Caucasus region.
Caucasia has been the scene of an intensive struggle between the local
republics, internal actors, and external forces. These conflicts are
as follows;
(1) The conflict between the Republic of Azerbaijan and the breakaway
state of Nagorno-Karabakh;
(2) The conflict between Georgia and the breakaway state of South Ossetia;
(3) The conflict between Georgia and the breakaway state of Abkhazia;
(4) The conflicts between the Russian Federation and the separatist
movements of the North Caucasus, specifically in Chechnya and
Dagestan;
(5) The conflict between Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan over
Nagorno-Karabakh;
(6) And the conflict between Georgia and Russia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
For decades tensions have existed in this ethnically diverse region.
Although steps have been taken by the Turks for strategic cooperation
with Moscow and Tehran, a regional axis between Russia, Armenia, and
Iran in the Caucasus has existed against Georgia, the Republic of
Azerbaijan, and Turkey. The aim of the Moscow-Yerevan-Tehran Axis in
the Caucasus is to prevent external forces, specifically the U.S. and
its NATO allies, from moving into the Caucasus and the energy-rich
Caspian Sea Basin.
The primal conflict in the region has turned out to be the one between
Georgia and Russia, replacing the one between Russia and Chechnya.
This conflict has seen both sides supporting one another’s separatist
movements and covert operations. Tensions between Tbilisi and the
Kremlin have resulted in a war that, unlike most the previous
Caucasian wars, was of wide concern to outside powers. The conflict
has also been played out in Ukraine, where both sides also supported
rival political fractions.
Behind Georgia lies the support of the U.S. and NATO. This is part of
a strategy that has seen indigenous players ally themselves with U.S.
geo-strategic interests in Eurasia. In fact, the entire war between
Russia and Georgia was premeditated and both sides were preparing for
it well in advance. The Times (U.K.) inadvertently reported about this
on September 5, 2008: `In the months leading up to the doomed
[Georgian] military operation to seize control of the breakaway region
of South Ossetia, Russian fighter jets had flown into Georgian
airspace on several occasions.’ [9] The Russian violation of Georgian
airspace was conducted, because the Russians were aware that a war was
coming and their forces were conducting reconnaissance missions.
In the months leading up to the Russian-Georgian War over South
Ossetia the Georgian press was continuously talking about a coming
war. [10] Rezonansi, one of Georgia’s top newspapers, had front-page
headlines about the imminent dangers of a war: `Will war in Abkhazia
begin tomorrow?’ [11] In May 2008, only a month before the
Russo-Georgian War, Moscow without notification deployed 500 Russian
troops into the southern Tkvarchel region of Abkhazia under a
peacekeeping mandate from the Commonwealth of Independent States
(C.I.S.), which raised its troop contingent to 2,542. [12] Before the
deployment of additional Russian troops, on April 20, 2008, the
Russians had shot down a Georgian unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) spying
over Abkhazia. [13]
In a move that was one step short of official recognition, Moscow also
ended its agreement to sanction Abkhazia and in a move towards
bolstering the Abkhazian government began open communication with it
at official levels. [14] These Russian and Georgian moves were made in
preparation for the coming Caucasian war. The Kremlin even openly
accused Georgia of mobilizing troops to attack Abkhazia, whereas the
Georgians accused Russia of planning to annex Abkhazia and South
Ossetia. [15]
On May 8, 2008 Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia’s president, publicly
stated: `I think that a few days ago, we were very close [to war] and
this threat is still real.’ [16] On May 7, 2010, a day before
President Saakashvili’s statement, the U.S. House of Representatives
passed a resolution that condemned Russia for its `provocative and
dangerous statements and actions’ in Georgia, and the E.U. followed
suit. [17] A day after the U.S. House of Representatives passed their
resolution against Russia and on the same day as Saakashvili’s
statements about war, the foreign minister of Abkhazia, Sergei Shamba,
went on the record saying that Abkhazia wanted a military pact with
Moscow. [18]
The Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWRP) clearly documented
the Russian preparations for the coming war with Tbilisi. The IWPR
report depicted the tense environment:
The situation on the ground in the conflict zone remains tense. The
head of the de facto administration in Gali region in southern
Abkhazia, Ruslan Kishmaria, said Tbilisi had resumed unmanned
reconnaissance flights over Abkhazia. He added that the Abkhaz
authorities had decided not to shoot the planes down. The Abkhaz say
they have shot down several Georgian drones on previous occasions,
while Tbilisi denied that most of the alleged incidents took place. In
late May, a United Nations report concluded that a drone shot down
over Abkhazia on April 20 was hit by a Russian fighter plane. [19]
What is very revealing about the IWPR report are the clear steps that
Russia took in preparation for a Georgian attack. The report
highlighted the secret deployment of Russian anti-tank missiles into
Abkhazia:
Georgian security forces have again had a confrontation with Russian
peacekeepers on the border with Abkhazia, leading to a tense telephone
conversation between the two presidents [of Georgia and Russia]. The
detention of a Russian army truck by Georgian police appears to be
part of a war of nerves over the disputed territory of Abkhazia.
Tbilisi claims the Russians are engaged in annexing Abkhazia and
insists their peacekeeping forces must be disbanded, while Moscow says
the troops are operating under an international mandate and are
providing vital security for the Abkhaz. Georgian television channels
showed pictures of local police stopping a truck carrying Russian
peacekeepers near the village of Rukhi on June 17. They reported that
it was carrying weapons illegally through the conflict zone, close to
the administrative border with Abkhazia. The four soldiers on board
the vehicle were released after seven hours in detention. On June 19,
the truck was handed back but the Georgians said they were holding
onto 20 anti-tank missiles pending an investigation. The Georgians
said that the Russians had not asked permission to transport the
missiles as they were required to do under the terms that govern the
peacekeeping presence. Colonel Vladimir Rogozin, commander of the
southern zone of the peacekeeping operation ` which comes under the
mandate of the Commonwealth of Independent States, CIS, but is
entirely manned by Russian troops ` said he had simply failed to
inform the Georgians about the arms shipment in time. `They were
normal weapons permitted by our mandate, and I don’t understand why
the Georgians detained our soldiers,’ said Rogozin. [20]
The Russian military breached its peacekeeping mandate in Georgia. The
anti-tank missiles were intended for use against Georgian tanks. The
deployment of the anti-tank missiles were (deliberately) not
announced as part of Moscow’s war preparations. In part, the Russian
position in Abkhazia and South Ossetia has been intended to prevent
Georgia from joining NATO, because NATO cannot accept new members
unless all their internal disputes are settled and their boundaries
fixed. In effect, Russian support of Abkhazia and South Ossetia has
protected Russia from further NATO encroachment.
The war in 2008 has been described as a proxy war in which Georgia
acted on behalf of the U.S. against Russia by Sergey A. Markov, a
co-chair of the National Strategic Council of Russia. In this context,
Russia was attacked by the U.S. and NATO. The Georgians could not have
known about the deployment of Russian anti-tank missiles without
intelligence reports from the U.S. and NATO. In 2008, NATO even made a
revealing move about its intentions in the Caucasus. Despite the fact
that Georgia was not a NATO member, NATO began to quickly integrate
the Georgian air defences with NATO air defences. [21]
After the 2008 war, the U.S. and Tbilisi even revealed that they were
making preparations to construct military bases in Georgia. [22] The
U.S. military presence would not only have been used to aid the
Georgian military against Russian interests, but could have sent a
threatening message to Moscow about war with the U.S. if Russia
confronted Georgia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The U.S. bases
could also have been used to launch attacks against Russia’s strategic
ally Iran. It was revealed that during the Russo-Georgian War the
Russian military had attacked Georgian bases that were planned for use
in future U.S. and NATO operations against Iran. [23]
Georgia is one of the fastest militarizing states. To counter Georgian
militarization and NATO’s agenda for the Caucasus, the Kremlin has
beefed up Russian units in the North Caucasus and expanded its
military presence in Armenia. In August 2010, Russia and Armenia
signed a bilateral military agreement that committed Russia to
protecting Armenia and insuring Armenian security. [24] The new
Russo-Armenian military agreement has formally allowed Russia to
project its military power from Armenia towards Georgia and the
Republic of Azerbaijan, whereas the old mandate of Russian troops in
Armenia was to provide border security for the Armenian-Turkish and
Armenian-Iranian borders. These strategic steps taken by Moscow and
Yerevan are in preparation for further crises in the Caucasus.
The Balkans Front: Treachery against Yugoslavia and Moldova
The Balkans has been galvanized by two different forces, those aligned
with the Eurasia Heartland and those aligned with the Periphery. This
animosity is similar to those that are dividing Lebanon, the
Palestinian Territories, Georgia, Latin America, and the Ukraine. The
largest camp of opposition to the U.S. and NATO is in Serbia. This
Serbian camp, along with its allies in Bosnia-Herzegovina and
Montenegro, wants either entry into the orbit of Russia and the
Eurasians or cooperation with them. The opposing and dominate
political camp wants Serbia and the Balkans to enter the orbit of the
U.S., the E.U., and NATO. The Serbian Radical Party was formed
originally as a member of the first group, while Boris TadiÄ? and his
Democratic Party represent the later group in Serbia and the Balkans.
The Balkans is a hub for military operations in Eastern Europe and the
Middle East. The position of the former Yugoslavia was very important
in this context. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was an
independent geo-political player. Like the present role of Iran in the
Middle East, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia could have
prevented the U.S. and NATO from consolidating their control of the
Balkans, which would have been a major setback to the implementation
of the U.S. and NATO roadmap for control of Eurasia. This is why the
U.S. and its Western European allies helped spark ethnic tension,
specifically between the Serbs and Croats, in Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavia has fallen, but in the Balkans there is still a pending
geo-strategic game. This `game of chess’ is over the fate of the
Serbian province of Kosovo, which is a self-declared republic
supported by the E.U. and America, and for the fate of the Serbian
Republic itself, as a whole. The people of Serbia have not forgotten
the NATO bombardment of their country, whereas most the corrupt
political elites in Belgrade have been cooperating with the U.S. and
NATO.
The so-called Twitter Revolution in Moldova was also an extension of
this struggle in the Balkans and tied to the events in the former
Yugoslavia and the issue of Kosovo. Moldova could be used by Russia to
reinforce the Russian position, and by extension the Eurasian
position, in Serbia and Eastern Europe. Serbia has been flirting with
both the E.U. and the U.S. on one side and Russia on another. Both
sides want to bring Serbia fully into their orbits.
Serbia is a landlocked nation in terms of not having direct access to
the open seas. Serbia, however, does have guaranteed access to the
Black Sea through the Danube River. The Danube River is actually an
international body of water that large merchant ships can sail. By
international treaty right, Serbian ships can freely sail the Danube.
Belgrade could always turn to the Danube if Serbia were to be
embargoed through the denial of land or airspace usage by its
neighbours under orders from the U.S. and the European Union. If
international laws were followed the Danube River would give the Serbs
a form of lifeline access to the Black Sea and Russia. To prevent this
all the states that the Danube River flows through need to be
controlled.
The only other nations that the Danube River goes through that are not
within the orbit of the E.U. and the U.S. are Moldova, which itself is
landlocked too in the same sense as Serbia, and Ukraine. Ukraine is a
case in question, but the control of both Moldova and Ukraine could
effectively cut off Russian aid to Serbia through the Black Sea and
the Danube River in the future if Russia was denied the usage of the
airspace around Serbia. It is both in this context and the context of
forced integration into the E.U. that Moldova’s neutrality has been
ostracized by the U.S. and NATO through Romania.
Yet, there is more to the efforts to isolate Serbia. The Autonomous
Province of Vojvodina is where the Serbian coast on the Danube River
is located and is home to Serbia’s ports. About one-third of the
population in Vojvodina are non-Serbs with Hungarians (Magyars) being
the largest of these non-Serb minorities. Tacitly efforts to divide
Vojvodina from Serbia have also been underway. The Balkans is a front
that has become quiet for now, but Kosovo and Vojvodina could easily
light it up.
The Middle East Front: The Resistance Bloc versus the Coalition of the Moderate
The Middle East is the energy centre of the global economy. Along
with Central Asia, it is one of the two most strategically important
areas on the world map. It is through control of the Middle East that
the U.S. and its NATO partners hope to contain China, the anchor of
the global counter-alliance to the U.S. and NATO.
In terms of regional power, Iran is the Yugoslavia of the Middle East.
Tehran has worked with its regional allies to resist U.S., NATO, and
Israeli control over the entire region. Thus, the Iranians and their
regional allies have provided a layer of insulation for the Russians
and the Chinese against U.S. and NATO encroachment into Eurasia
through resistance in the Middle East. In other words, Iran and the
Middle East are vital pillars of Russian and Chinese resistance to
trans-continental encirclement.
William Arkin, one of America’s top security correspondents, stated in
2007 that the White House and Pentagon had started the process of
creating a NATO-like military alliance in the Middle East against Iran
and Syria. [25] According to Arkin this alliance was to be comprised
of the member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council or GCC (Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates) and
both Egypt and Jordan. [26] Following the 2006 Israeli blunder in
Lebanon, the U.S. and its main NATO partners started sending, either
directly or indirectly, massive arms shipments to their clients in the
Middle East: Egypt, Jordon, Israel, the Palestinian collaborators
Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank and Mohammed Dahlan in the Gaza Strip,
Saudi Arabia, and the Arab petro-sheikhdoms.
The Lebanese militias belonging to the leaders of the March 14
Alliance in Lebanon also received secret weapons shipments to combat
Hezbollah and the Lebanese National Opposition. [27] Despite their
arms and U.S. support, the Arab collaborators in both the Gaza Strip
and Lebanon lost in internal fighting that broke out respectively in
June 2007 and May 2008. In Lebanon this resulted in the formation of a
national unity government after the Doha Accord. It also caused Walid
Jumblatt and the Progressive Socialist Party to realign themselves
with Hezbollah and to leave the March 14 Alliance.
It was by the end of 2006 that Mahmoud Abbas, the March 14 Alliance,
Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Bahrain, Egypt, Jordon, and Kuwait began to
be called the `Coalition of the Moderate’ by U.S. and British
officials. These countries have helped the U.S., NATO, and Israel in
intelligence operations against fellow Arabs, against the Lebanese
Resistance, and against the Palestinians.
The regime of Mohammed Husni (Hosni) Mubarak in Cairo has helped
enforce the Israeli siege against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
Cairo has also been in several vocal rows against the Palestinians,
Hezbollah, members of the Iraqi Resistance, Syria, and Iran. Mubarak
has tried to justify working against the Palestinians in Gaza by
demonizing Hamas as an Iranian client and as a threat to Egypt. There
is even talk about some form of Egyptian and Jordanian military
intervention in Lebanon after the Special Tribunal for Lebanon
releases its findings about the Hariri Assassination.
During the 2008 Israeli siege of Gaza, Secretary-General Hassan
Nasrallah of Hezbollah made a direct plea to the Egyptian people,
asking them to demand that their government open the borders for
relief to the Palestinian people. Nasrallah’s plea, which made it a
point to say that it was not asking for a coup in Cairo, was met by
anger from Egyptian officials who had tried every means to publicly
justify Israeli actions against the Palestinians. Ahmed Abul Gheit,
the foreign minister of Egypt, responded by telling reporters in
Turkey that Nasrallah wanted chaos in Egypt like in Lebanon and that
the Egyptian military could be used against Nasrallah and people like
him.
Mustafa Al-Faqi, the head of the Egyptian parliamentary foreign
relations committee, has been quoted as saying that Cairo will not
accept an Islamic emirate on its border. [28] This language is part of
the campaign to portray Hamas as a Taliban-like organization, when the
leadership of Cario and the Arab World know fully that Hamas is
nothing like the Taliban government of pre-invasion Afghanistan. In
2010, a high-ranking Egyptian intelligence officer was caught spying
and collecting information in the Gaza Strip by the Hamas-led
Palestinian government there. [29] The regime in Egypt has also
allowed Israel to send its German-built submarines with nuclear cruise
missiles across the Suez Canal to head into the Persian Gulf towards
Iranian waters in an effort to militarily threaten Tehran through a
permanent deployment. [30]
The extent of Egyptian ties with Tel Aviv is best described by a news
report quoting Amos Gilad, an Israeli military official:
Egypt-Israel relations are `a cornerstone in Israel’s national
security,’ said Amos Gilad, head of the Defense [sic.] Ministry’s
Security-Diplomatic Bureau, at a ceremony marking 30 years to Israel’s
peace agreement with Egypt on Thursday. `We have very profound
dialogue with them. It’s important for Israel to know how to preserve
these relations and deepen them,’ he said, while mentioning Egypt’s
`tolerant stance during [Israel’s] recent [2008] military offensive in
Gaza.’ [31]
Saudi Arabia too has been very actively involved in assisting the
U.S., Britain, and Israel in their operations in the Middle East. The
mega-sized weapons sales the U.S. has made to Saudi Arabia, without
any objections from Tel Aviv and its lobbyists, is directed against
Iran, Syria, and any revolts and democracy movements in the Arabian
Peninsula, such as the Houthis in Yemen. The Saudi arms deals that the
U.S. has made are a vital part of its strategic aims to control the
energy resources of the Middle East. [32]
Saudi-owned media consistently spews sectarian hatred and propaganda
against any forces resisting the U.S., Israel, NATO, and their local
clients and allies in the Middle East and the Arab World. This has
reached a point where most rational adults do not take Saudi-owned
media, like Asharq Al-Aswat and its editor-in-chief, seriously. For
example Asharq Al-Aswat has systematically and falsely accused
Hezbollah of torturing Sunni Muslims in Lebanon and of occupying
Beirut and has continuously targeted Iran at every chance, claiming
that the Iranians are an imminent danger to the Arab World, while
downplaying the actions of the U.S. and Israel against Arab countries.
In opposition, the Coalition of the Moderate is commonly described and
thought of as nothing more than as Arab collaborators or traitors. Its
leaders, from the U.A.E. to Egypt, say one thing in public and decide
something entirely different behind closed doors. The Coalition of the
Moderate is a catch phrase designed by those who coined the terms
`Shia Crescent’ and `Sunni Triangle’ to demonize the forces of
resistance in the Middle East. [33] These terms serve the war,
balkanization, and finlandization agendas in the Middle East.
On the other side of the chasm stand Iran and all the forces opposed
to foreign intervention in the Middle East; these forces have been
called the `Radicals’ by the White House. In reality, Iran and these
independent and indigenous forces form the `Resistance Bloc’ in the
Middle East. The Resistance Bloc is not a formal alliance nor is it
organized as a genuine bloc, but its members all share a common
interest against foreign control of their societies. The members of
the Resistance Bloc are as follows;
(1) The democratically-elected Hamas-led Palestinian government in the
Gaza Strip and all the Palestinians groups, including Hamas, the
Popular Palestinian Struggle Front, the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine-General Command, and Palestinian Islamic
Jihad, the Marxist Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine,
and the Marxist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, that
are opposed to Israel, the U.S., and Mahmoud Abbas;
(2) Lebanon, more or less as a state, as well as Hezbollah, the Free
Patriotic Movement, the Amal Movement, the El Marada Movement, the
Lebanese Communist Party, the Lebanese Democratic Party, the Lebanese
Islamic Front, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Tashnaq), the
Syrian Social Nationalist Party of Lebanon, and their political allies
in Lebanon;
(3) The multitude of various political and combative Iraqi groups that
form the Iraqi Resistance;
(4) Sudan;
(5) Syria;
(6) The rebel groups in Yemen, which are Shiite Muslims in the north
and west and include Sunni Muslims in the south and east;
(7) And Iran.
Qatar and Oman closely coordinate with the Resistance Bloc. Oman is
also considered an Iranian ally in Tehran. Both Qatari and Omani
leaders exercise flexible foreign policies and realize that it would
be against their national interests to contain themselves in any
regional alliance against Iran and the Resistance Bloc or, by the same
token, even against the U.S. and its regional clients. This is why
Qatar and Oman are used as intermediaries between Iran and the
Resistance Bloc on one side and the U.S. and the Coalition of the
Moderate on the other side.
Since 2009 and 2010, the position of Turkey is not clear. Ankara has
begun to publicly criticize its Israeli ally and is beginning to be
touted by Iran and Syria as a member of their Resistance Bloc. Turkey
has also entered into agreements with Syria, Iran, Lebanon, and Russia
that look like the seeds for the creation of a common market and
political bloc in the Middle East that would mirror the European
Union.
U.S. influence in the Middle East is said to be ending. It appears
that many American allies and clients in the Middle East are also
looking at switching camps to protect their interests. This could be
the case within the March 14 Alliance in Lebanon and in regards to
Ankara.
In the Middle East, the frontlines for Eurasia are the Palestinian
Territories, Lebanon, occupied Iraq, and Yemen. Yemen, situated on the
southernmost tip of the Arabian Peninsula, is the newest of these
frontlines in the Middle East and is geo-strategically located on an
important point on the map. The maritime corridor running past Yemen
is internationally the most important in terms of shipping. The Red
Sea connects to the Indian Ocean through the Gate of Tears (Bab
al-Mandeb) that runs through the Gulf of Aden.
The danger of a catastrophic global war igniting from the Middle East
exists. The front in the Middle East is central to the U.S. strategy
in Eurasia. Since 2001, this front has been fluctuating between cold
and hot wars that are now aimed at containing Iran and its allies. The
region is both a powder keg and geo-political volcano.
The Central Asian Front: A War for Control of the Heartland of Eurasia
Central Asia is the heart of Eurasia and at the centre of the Eurasian
Heartland. The U.S. and NATO push into Eurasia is aimed at control of
this region in its entirety. The region is a major geo-strategic hub
that conveniently flanks Iran, China, Russia, the Caspian Sea, and the
Indian sub-continent. From a military and spatial standpoint, Central
Asia is an ideal place to create a wedge between the major Eurasian
powers and to establish a military presence for future operations in
Eurasia.
Central Asia, as the bulk of an area called the `Eurasian Balkans’
(the other portions include Georgia, Armenia, the Republic of
Azerbaijan, the Caucasian constituent republics of the South Federal
District and the North Caucasian Federal District of the Russian
Federation, Iran, and Turkey to a limited extent), can also be used to
destabilize the areas it flanks and Eurasia. The NATO occupation of
Afghanistan is tied to this objective. Atollah Loudin, an Afghan
official who is the chair of the Justice and Judiciary Committee of
Afghanistan, has gone on the record to say that the U.S. is using
Afghanistan as a military and intelligence base to infiltrate and
pursue its strategic objectives in Pakistan, Central Asia, Russia,
Iran, and China. [34]
Central Asia also has vast oil, natural gas, and mineral resources.
The energy resources of the region rival those of the Middle East. In
the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski: `As an overlay to all this, Central
Asia now witnesses a very complicated inter-play among the regional
states and Russia, the United States (especially since September 11,
2001), and China.’ [35] The 2001 invasion of Taliban-controlled
Afghanistan was initiated with the objective of establishing a
foothold in Central Asia and a base of operations to isolate Iran,
divide the Eurasians from one another, to prevent the construction of
pipelines going through Iran, to distance the Central Asian countries
from Moscow, to take control of the flow of Central Asian energy, and
to strategically strangle the Chinese.
Most importantly, control over Central Asia would disrupt the `New
Silk Road’ being formed from East Asia to the Middle East and Eastern
Europe. It is this `New Silk Road’ that will make China the next
global superpower. Thus, the U.S. strategy in Central Asia is meant to
ultimately prevent the emergence of China as a global superpower by
preventing the Chinese from having access to the vital energy
resources they need. The U.S. and E.U. rivalry with Russia over energy
transit routes has to be judged alongside preventing the construction
of a trans-Eurasian energy corridor from reaching China from the
Caspian Sea Basin and from the Persian Gulf.
Central Asia has been the scene of war and colour revolutions. An
active war still rages in Afghanistan, which has spread into Pakistan.
The instability in Kyrgyzstan could spill over into becoming a civil
war. Any future conflict against Iran, Syria, and Lebanon also
threatens to engulf Central Asia.
The South Asia and Indian Ocean Fronts: Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka,
and the Waves
South Asia or the Indian sub-continent is comprised of Pakistan,
India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and the island states of Sri Lanka
and the Maldives. Afghanistan is sometimes considered a part of South
Asia. Similar to Central Asia, the northern portion of South Asia,
which is Pakistan and the northern states of the Republic of India,
serves as a transit land route between the Middle East and East Asia.
This northern area also straddles Central Asia. The southern portions
of South Asia is also centrally located in regards to the Indian Ocean
and both the southern portion of South Asia, which is the southern tip
of India, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives, and the Indian Ocean littoral
serve as a transit maritime route from the Middle East and Africa to
East Asia
In South Asia, the aims of the U.S and NATO are to prevent the
creation of a secure energy route to China and to control the flow of
energy resources and the territories they would go through. India also
shares an interest in this. Indian cooperation with the U.S. and NATO,
however, comes at the expense of Indian national security. The
instability in Kashmir is an example.
The instability in Pakistan is a direct result of the goal of
preventing the creation of a secure energy route to China. The U.S.
and NATO do not want a strong, stable, and independent Pakistan. They
would rather see a divided and feeble Pakistan that can easily be
controlled and would not take orders from Beijing or ally itself
within the Eurasian camp. The instability in Pakistan and the
terrorist attacks against Iran that have been originating from the
Pakistani border are meant to prevent the establishment of a secure
energy route to China.
Moreover, U.S and NATO objectives in South Asia also include using
India as a counter-weight against China. This is the same strategy
that Britain applied on the European continent between various
European powers and the same strategy the U.S. used in the Middle East
in regards to Iran and Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War. In this context,
after the 2010 NATO Summit in Lisbon, NATO has asked for military ands
security dialogue with New Delhi. [36]
The rivalries between the U.S., China, and India have had a direct
bearing on the militarization of the Indian Ocean. A naval arms race
has been underway in the Indian Ocean. Both India and China are racing
to procure and build as many naval ports as possible while they expand
their navies.
The maritime shipping route that passes the territorial waters of Sri
Lanka is vital to Chinese energy security. In this context,
geo-politics also has had a direct impact on the nature of the Sri
Lankan Civil War. In 2009, the Chinese and their allies supported the
Sri Lankan government in the hope of seeing a stable political
environment on the island state so as to secure the Chinese naval
presence and the cooperation of Sri Lanka. After the end of the Sri
Lankan Civil War, Colombo joined the SCO as a `dialogue partner’ like
Belarus.
The militarization of the Indian Ocean has not stopped and is merely
underway. Internal tensions in Pakistan and India, the regional
tensions in South Asia between its states, and the tensions between
New Delhi and Beijing all are threats to Eurasian cohesion and
security.
The East Africa Front: Somalia, Ethiopia, and Sudan
In East Africa the U.S. and NATO strategy is to block China from
access to regional energy resources and to setup a choke point to
control international shipping. Like Central Asia, U.S. aims in East
Africa, as well as the entire African continent, are to hinder China
from superpower status. Military control over East Africa and its
geo-strategically important waters has been intensifying since the
1990s. A large NATO naval armada permanently sails in the waves off
the Horn of Africa and off the coast of East Africa ready to cordon
the seas. The involvement of the U.S. military in Yemen is directly
tied to the U.S. geo-strategy in East Africa and plans to control the
maritime waterways there, as well as East African energy and the
movement of international shipping. The piracy problem off the coast
of Somalia and the demonization of Sudan are consequences of these
strategic objectives.
Looking at Somalia, the conditions that have led to the piracy problem
were nurtured to give the U.S. and NATO a pretext for militarizing the
strategic waterways of the region. The U.S. and NATO have wanted
anything except for stability in the Horn of Africa. In December 2006
the Ethiopian military invaded Somalia and overthrew the Islamic
Courts Union (I.C.U.) government of Somalia. The Ethiopian invasion
took place at a point in Somalia when the I.C.U. government had
relatively stabilized Somalia and was close to bringing a state of
lasting peace and order to the entire African country.
U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) coordinated the 2006 invasion of
Somalia. The Ethiopian land invasion was synchronized with the U.S.
military and saw the joint intervention of the U.S. military alongside
the Ethiopians through U.S. Special Forces and U.S. aerial attacks.
[37] General John Abizaid, the commander of CENTCOM, went to Ethiopia
and held a low-profile meeting with Prime Minister Meles Zenawi on
December 4, 2006 to plan the attack on Somalia. Approximately three
weeks later the U.S. and Ethiopia both attacked and invaded Somalia.
[38]
The Somali I.C.U. government was defeated and removed from power and
in its place the Somalian Transitional Government (STG), an unpopular
government subservient to U.S. and E.U. edicts, was brought to power
under the Ethiopian and U.S. military intervention. Marshall law was
also imposed in Somalia by the Ethiopian military. At the
international level, the I.C.U. government was demonized and the
invasion was justified by the U.S., Britain, Ethiopia, NATO, and the
Somalian Transitional Government as a part of the `Global War on
Terror’ and a war against sympathisers and allies of Al-Qaeda.
The Somalian Transitional Government and its leaders were immediately
accused of collaborating in the dismantling of Somalia and being
clients of the U.S. and other foreign powers by Somali
parliamentarians and citizens. [39] The Speaker of the Transitional
Somali Parliament, Sharif Hassan Sheikh Adan, accused Ethiopia of
deliberately sabotaging `any chance of peace in Somalia.’ [40] The
Somali Speaker and other Somali parliamentarians who were taking
refuge in Kenya were immediately ordered to leave Kenya by the Kenyan
government for opposing the Ethiopian invasion of their country. [41]
Their expulsion was ordered at the behest of the U.S. government.
The extent of U.S. influence over Ethiopia and Kenya and of the U.S.
role in directing the invasion of Somalia can also be understood by
the testimony of Saifa Benaouda:
At the Kenyan border, she was detained by soldiers, including three
Americans, who had American flag patches on their uniforms, she said.
She was then, by turns, imprisoned in Kenya, secretly deported back to
Mogadishu, then spirited to Ethiopia, where she was fingerprinted and
had her DNA taken by a man who said he was American. She was
interrogated by a group of men and women, who she determined by their
accents to be Americans and Europeans, she said. [42]
Ethiopia deliberately sabotaged the peace talks in next-door Somalia
under American orders. The country is now divided and in the north,
Puntland and Somaliland are virtually independent states. Instead of
the stability and peace that the I.C.U. government was bringing, bands
of pirates, militias, and a group called Harakat Al-Shabaab
al-Mujahideen or simply Al-Shabaab have been allowed to take control
of Somalia. Al-Shabaab is the equivalent of the pre-2001 Taliban in
Afghanistan. [43]
The instability brought about by Ethiopia and the U.S. has helped
justify the militarization of East Africa by the military forces of
the U.S. and NATO. The Russian, Chinese, and Iranian navies have also
deployed their warships into the region on anti-piracy and maritime
security missions. [44] These naval deployments, however, are also
strategically symmetric counter-moves to the U.S. and NATO naval
build-up in the waters of East Africa, from the Red Sea to the Gulf of
Aden.
Sudanese oil goes to China and the trade relations of Khartoum are
tied to Beijing. This is why Russia and China oppose U.S., British,
and French efforts to internationalize the domestic problems of Sudan
at the U.N. Security Council. Moreover, it is due to Sudan’s business
ties to China that Sudanese leaders have been targeted by the U.S. and
E.U. as human rights violators, while the human right records of the
dictators that are their clients and allies are ignored.
Although the Republic of Sudan is not traditionally considered to be
in the Middle East, Khartoum has been engaged as a member of the
Resistance Bloc. Iran, Syria, and Sudan have been strengthening their
ties and cooperation since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Israeli
war against the Lebanese and the subsequent deployment of
international military forces, predominately from NATO countries, onto
Lebanese soil and water did not go unnoticed in Sudan either. In is in
context of this resistance that Sudan has also been deepening its
military ties with Tehran and Damascus.
Sudanese leaders have sworn to resist the entrance of NATO or any
international forces into their country. Sudan has made it clear that
they will see these forces as invaders who want to plunder the
national resources of Sudan. Second Vice-President Ali Osman Taha of
Sudan has vowed that the Sudanese government would maintain its
opposition to any foreign intervention under the pretext of
peacekeeping forces for Darfur (Darfour) and has hailed Hezbollah as a
model of resistance for Sudan. [45] In a show of solidarity for
Sudanese resistance, Dr. Ali Larijani on behalf of Iran has also led
an international parliamentary delegation to Khartoum, in March 2009,
when a politically-motivated arrest warrant was issued by the
International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) for Omar Hassan Ahmed Al-Basher,
the Sudanese president.
Khartoum has been under intense U.S. and E.U. pressure. While there is
a humanitarian crisis in Darfur, the underlying causes of the conflict
have been manipulated and distorted. The underlying causes are
intimately related to economic and strategic interests and not ethnic
cleansing. Both America and its E.U. partners are the main authors
behind the fighting and instability in Darfur and Southern Sudan. The
U.S., the E.U., and Israel have assisted in the training, financing,
and arming of the militias and forces opposed to the Sudanese
government in these regions. They lay blame squarely on Khartoum’s
shoulders for any violence while they themselves fuel conflict in
order to move in and control the energy resources of Sudan.
Tel Aviv has boasted about militarily intervening in Sudan to upset
weapons transactions between Hamas and Iran going through Sudan and
Egypt, but Israeli activities have really been limited to sending
weapons to opposition groups and separatist movements in Sudan.
Israeli arms have entered Sudan from Ethiopia for years until Eritrea
became independent from Ethiopia, which made Ethiopia lose its Red Sea
coast, and bad relations developed between the Ethiopians and
Eritreans. Since then Israeli weapons have been entering Southern
Sudan from Kenya. The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) in
Southern Sudan has also been helping arm the militias in Darfur. The
Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF), a U.S. client, has also been
sending arms to both the militias in Darfur and the SPLM.
The extent of Israeli influence with Sudanese opposition groups is
significant. The Sudan Tribune reported on March 5, 2008 that
separatist groups in Darfur and Southern Sudan had offices in Israel:
[Sudan People’s Liberation Movement] supporters in Israel announced
establishment of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement office in
Israel, a press release said today.
`After consultation with the leadership of SPLM in Juba, the
supporters of SPLM in Israel have decided to establish the office of
SPLM in Israel.’ Said [sic.] a statement received by email from Tel
Aviv signed by the SLMP secretariat in Israel.
The statement said that SPLM office would promote the policies and the
vision of the SPLM in the region. It further added that in accordance
with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement the SPLM has the right to open
in any country including Israel. It also indicated that there are
around 400 SPLM supporters in Israel. Darfur rebel leader Abdel Wahid
al-Nur said last week he opened an office in Tel Aviv. [46]
There is a power sharing arrangement between Omar Al-Basher and the
SPLM, which has a strong grip over Southern Sudan. The leader of the
SPLM, Salva Kiir Mayardit, is the First Vice-President of Sudan and
the President of Southern Sudan. The SPLM has strong ties with Israel
and its members and supporters regularly visit Israel and Sudan’s
other enemies. It is due to this that Khartoum removed the Sudanese
passport restriction on visiting Israel in late-2009 to satisfy the
SPLM. [47] Salva Kiir Mayardit has also said that Southern Sudan will
recognize Israel when it separates from Sudan.
The events in Sudan and Somalia are linked to the international thirst
and rivalry for oil and energy, but are also part of the aligning of a
geo-strategic chessboard revolving around control for Eurasia. The
militarization of East Africa is part of the preparations for a
confrontation with China and its allies. East Africa is an important
front that will heat up in the coming years.
The East Asia Front: The Shadow War against China
In this current century, all roads lead to East Asia and China. This
will become more and more so as this century progresses. In East Asia
a shadow war is being waged against the Chinese. If the globe were a
chessboard and the rivals and opponents of the U.S. and NATO were
chess pieces, China would be the king piece, while Russia would be the
queen piece. The U.S. and NATO march to war will ultimately lead to
East Asia and the borders of the Chinese. From the eyes of America, in
the words of Brzezinski, `China is unfinished business.’ [48]
In East Asia, the U.S. and its allies support the breakaway republic
of Taiwan, officially the Republic of China, and use it as a strategic
base against mainland China. Taiwan also administers some of the small
islands in the South China Sea, which along with Taiwan Island or
Formosa, overlook the strategic shipping lanes to China. A missile
shield project, similar to the one in Europe directed against Russia
and its CSTO allies, has also been in the works in East Asia for years
that includes the use of Taiwan.
The U.S. and its allies are also interested in North Korea and Myanmar
as a means of encircling the Chinese. Both North Korea, in Northeast
Asia, and Myanmar, in Southeast Asia, are close Chinese allies. The
pretext of a threat from North Korea is being used to justify the
elements of the missile shield project being built in Northeast Asia.
Of special importance in Southeast Asia is the port and naval
facilities that Myanmar is constructing to give the Chinese a far more
secure energy lifeline in the Indian Ocean that circumvents Malacca
and Taiwan.
There have also been internal operations underway against Beijing. In
Chinese Turkistan, where Xinjiang Autonomous Region is located, the
U.S. and its allies have been supporting Uyghur separatism based on a
matrix of Uyghur ethnic nationalism, pan-Turkism, and Islam to weaken
China. In Tibet the aims are the same as in Xinjiang, but the U.S. and
its allies have been involved in far more intensified intelligence
operations there.
Breaking Xinjiang and Tibet from China would heavily obstruct its rise
as a superpower. The estrangement of both Xinijang and Tibet would
take vast resources in these territories away from China and the
Chinese economy. It would also deny China direct access to the
ex-Soviet Republics of Central Asia. This would effectively disrupt
the land route in Eurasia and complicate the creation of an energy
corridor to China.
Any future governments in an independent Xinjiang or an independent
Tibet could act like Ukraine under the Orangists in regards to
disrupting Russian gas supplies to the European Union over political
differences and transit prices. Beijing as an energy consumer could be
held hostage like European countries were during the Ukrainian-Russian
gas disputes. This is precisely one of the objectives of the U.S. in
regards to stunting the Chinese.
The Latin America and Caribbean Fronts: America versus the Bolivarian Bloc
The struggle in Latin America has spanned from South America to the
Caribbean and Central America or Mesoamerica. It has been a struggle
between the local or regional countries allied under the Bolivarian
Alternative for the Americas or ALBA (Alternativa Bolivariana para las
Américas). ALBA has pushed for political and economic
self-determination in an area that the leaders of the U.S. have seen
as their own `backyard’ since 1823 under the Monroe Doctrine. In their
struggle for independence, these regional countries in Latin America
and the Carribean have become allied with the Eurasians against
America and its allies.
With the election of Hugo Chávez in 1998 and the start of his
presidency in 1999, Venezuela became the force that would establish
the seeds of the Bolivarian Bloc, which is named after Simón José
Bolà – var, the man who led Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru, Columbia, Ecuador,
and Panama to independence in their struggle against Spain. The
Bolivarian government in Caracas would go to the aid of Cuba and end
the American attempts to isolate Havana by openly declaring solidarity
with Cuba and expanding ties. The bilateral agreements signed by Cuba
and Venezuela would form the nucleus of the Bolivarian Bloc and the
model of the expanded format of the alliance under ALBA.
In 2006, the alliance between Havana and Caracas began to take in new
members. In 2006, Evo Morales would become the new president of
Bolivia and Bolivia would become allied with both Venezuela and Cuba.
In 2007, one year later, Rafael Correa would become the president of
Ecuador and Daniel Ortega, the Sandinista leader, would become the
president of Nicaragua. Both Ecuador and Nicaragua instantly joined
the alliance between Bolivia, Cuba, and Venezuela. In 2008, Honduras
under President Manuel Zelaya, who was elected in 2006, would also
enter ALBA. In all these countries the Bolivarian leaders would work
for economic and constitutional reform to remove the local oligarchies
allied with U.S. interests in Latin America.
To reduce their dependency on the U.S., the Bolivarian Bloc has also
introduced its own unified regional monetary compensation framework,
called the SUCRE (Sistema �nico de Compensación Regional). [49] The
implementation of the SUCRE follows the same steps as the euro, being
used initially on a virtual basis for trade and eventually as a hard
currency. This is part of a joint move away from the U.S. dollar by
the Bolivarians and the Eurasians.
The White House, the Pentagon, the U.S. State Department, and the U.S.
Congress have viciously attacked the Bolivarian Bloc and its leaders
in language that exposes so-called U.S. democratic values as being
false pretexts for invasions and international aggression. This U.S.
rhetoric has also been in tune with a U.S. program for regime change
and covert operations in Latin America. During the course of all these
events the U.S. embassies and American diplomats in these Latin
American countries would be implicated in supporting violence against
the Bolivarian governments.
In 2002, the U.S. supported a failed coup against Chávez by elements
of the Venezuelan military. In Bolivia, since 2006, the leadership of
the energy-rich eastern departments of Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando, and
Tarija started pushing for autonomy with the help of U.S. funding from
the Office of Transition Initiatives of the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID). In 2008, civil strife began when
the leaders of the eastern departments started to seize local
government buildings, energy facilities, and infrastructure as part of
an attempt to separate from Bolivia. The American-supported failed
attempts to divide Bolivia were part of the attempt by the U.S.
government to retain control over Bolivian natural gas.
In Honduras, the weakest link in the Bolivarian Bloc, a military coup
d’état supported by the U.S., under the cloud of a constitutional
crisis, would replace Manuel Zelaya in 2008. The outcry and clamour
against the military coup in Honduras would be so strong that the U.S.
government would publicly act as if it were opposed to the
American-engineered coup in Honduras. A United Nations General
Assembly meeting under the presidency of Father Miguel d’Escoto
Brockmann, a Christian priest of the Roman Catholic Church, would
unanimously condemn the coup in Honduras. In 2010, the U.S. would
also support an attempted coup in Ecuador by police units against
Rafael Correa and his government.
The U.S. has been militarizing the Caribbean and Latin America to
regain its control of the Americas. The Pentagon has been arming
Columbia and deepening its military ties with Columbia to counter
Venezuela and its allies. On October 30, 2009 the Columbian and U.S.
governments would also sign an agreement that would allow the U.S to
use Columbian military bases.
American-garrisoned Haiti also serves the broader hemispheric agenda
of the U.S. to challenge the Bolivarian Bloc using the westernmost
ridge of the island of Hispaniola. Haiti is located just south of
Cuba. Geographically it is situated in the best position to
simultaneously assault Cuba, Venezuela, and the states of Central
America, like Nicaragua. The catastrophic 2010 earthquakes and the
instability that the U.S. has created in Haiti through multiple
invasions of Haiti make the project to subvert the Caribbean and Latin
America far less conspicuous. Looking at the map and the
militarization of Haiti it is unambiguous that the U.S. plans to use
Haiti, like Columbia and Curaçao, as a hub for military and
intelligence operations. Haiti would also prove as an invaluable base
in the scenario of a broader conflict waged by the U.S. and its
proxies against Caracas and its regional allies.
It is clear that U.S. is loosing its grip in the Americas. Not only
does the U.S. government want to prevent this, but it also wants to
ensure that it does not lose the energy reserves of countries like
Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia to the energy-hungry Chinese. Under
fair global competition there is no way that the U.S. will be able to
match what Beijing is willing to offer the nations of Latin American
and the Caribbean for their energy exports and resources. Ultimately,
the U.S. is still planning on resorting to aggression in order to
control Latin America and the Caribbean. This is why the Bolivarians
have allied themselves with Russia, Iran, China, and their Eurasian
entente.
The Arctic Front: Controlling Future Energy Reserves
Tense rivalry involving the U.S., Canada, Denmark, Norway, and the
Russian Federation has emerged in the Arctic Circle for the North
Pole’s vast resources. Aside from Russia, all the nations involved are
members of NATO. Russia has the greatest claim to the area due to its
territorial expanse in the region.
Under the backdrop of this rivalry for natural resources, the Arctic
Circle is being militarized by NATO and Russia. In Orwellian terms,
these NATO countries claim that they are working for peace and
stability through military means and the improvement of their combat
capabilities in an area of the globe that does not need a large
military presence. Logically this is nothing other than double-speak.
Why the need for better combat readiness and capabilities in the
Arctic? In this context, the U.S., Canada, Denmark, and Norway have
been working together against the Russian Federation.
Canada and the U.S. have also been streamlining their Arctic policies,
because Canada is the strongest challenger in terms of territorial
size to Russia. The U.S. is working through Canada to tap the energy
resources of the Arctic. Both Ottawa and Moscow have claimed the
Lomonosov Ridge as an extension of their continental shelves.
Prime Minister Steven Harper and the Canadian government have demanded
that the underwater boundaries of the region be settled and have
diplomatically warned Moscow to stand-down in regards to the Russian
claim to the Arctic: `Canada will maintain control of our Arctic lands
and waters and will respond when others take actions that affect our
national interests.’ [50] Ottawa’s three Arctic priorities are:
(1) Demarcating the Arctic;
(2) Receiving international recognition of Canadian control over the
Lomonosov Ridge as an extension of the continental shelf extending
from Canadian territory;
(3) An Arctic security regime under the platform of Arctic governance
and emergency measures. [51]
The NATO agenda in the Arctic starts as early as 2006, when Norway
invited all NATO and its associates for its Cold Response drills.
Canada too has continuously held Arctic exercises to demonstrate its
sovereignty in the Arctic, but starting in 2010 U.S. and Danish troops
were involved in Operation Nanook 10. [52] This is a sign of NATO
cooperation against Russia. According to a Canadian military press
release the military drills were intended `to strengthen preparedness,
increase interoperability and exercise a collective response to
emerging challenges in the Arctic.’ [53] Aside from a Russian claim to
the Lomonosov Ridge, there is no other situation that could be seen as
an emerging challenge that warrants a collective military response by
Canada, the U.S., and Denmark.
The battle over the Arctic is well underway. By virtue of its
territory, Russia has the largest territorial claim. Yet, the U.S.,
Canada, and Denmark refuse to recognized this. A crisis between NATO
and Russia, which will be supported by China, over claims about Arctic
resources will emerge at a future point.
Part III of this Text
The third and final part of this text will discuss the risk of a new
global war.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Research Associate at the Centre for
Research on Globalization (CRG).
NOTES
[6] Anne Penketh, `Russian bombers play war games with US’, The
Independent (U.K.), August 10, 2007.
[7] Lucian Kim, `Russian Paratroopers Stage War Games Simulating NATO
Attack’, Bloomberg, September 27, 2009; Yuras Karmanau, `Russia,
Belarus hold joint military exercise’, Associated Press (AP),
September 29, 2009.
[8] D. Muralidhar Reddy, `SCO dialogue status for Sri Lanka’, The
Hindu, June 18, 2009.
[9] Michael Evans, `Georgia linked to Nato early warning system’, The
Times (U.K.), September 5, 2008.
[10] Dmitry Avaliani, `Georgia: Fears of War with Russia’, Institute
for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR), May 16, 2008.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.; Inal Khasing, `Abkhazia Cleaves Closer to Russia’,
Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR), Caucasus Reporting
Service (CRS) Issue 443, May 8, 2008.
[13] Avaliani, `Georgia: Fears of War’, Op. cit.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Khasing, `Abkhazia’, Op. cit.; The article also clarified that
Izvestia, the Russian newspaper, had misquoted Sergei Shamba over
asking Moscow for a Russian military administration to be established
in Abkhazia.
[19] `Georgia, Russia in New Abkhazia Standoff’, Institute for War and
Peace Reporting (IWPR), July 2, 2010.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Michael Evans, `Georgia linked to Nato early warning system’, The
Times (U.K.), September 5, 2008.
[22] `USA to Deploy Army Bases in Georgia To Rearm Nation’s Army’,
Pravda, September 24, 2009.
[23] Arnaud de Borchgrave, `Commentary: Israel of the Caucasus’,
United Press International (UPI), September 2, 2008.
[24] Mariam Harutunian, `Russia extends military presence in Armenia’,
Agence France-Presse (AFP), August 20, 2010.
[25] William M. Arkin, `A New Mideast Military Alliance?’ The
Washington Post, July 31, 2007; William M. Arkin, `Middle East
Alliance 2.0.’, The Washington Post, August 1, 2007
[26] Ibid.
[27] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, `Pro-US Lebanese Government getting
ready to use force to stay in power’, Centre for Research on
Globalization (CRG), December 7, 2006.
[28] Zvi Bar’el, `Looking out for number one’, Haaretz, December 21, 2008.
[29] Hisham Abu Taha, `Hamas security forces arrest high-ranking
Egyptian officer’, Arab News, May 25, 2010.
[30] Uzi Mahnaimi, `Israel stations nuclear missile subs off Iran’,
The Sunday Times, May 30, 2010.
[31] Yael Levy, `Amos Gilad: Egypt our ally against Iran, Hamas’,
Yedioth Ahronoth, March 26, 2009.
[32] Anthony H. Cordesman, The Saudi Arms Sale: Reinforcing a
Strategic Partnership in the Gulf (Washington, D.C.: Center for
Strategic and International Studies Press, November 3, 2010):
.
[33] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, `America’s `Divide and Rule’ Strategies
in the Middle East’, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG),
January 17, 2008.
[34] `MP: US Base in Afghanistan Established to Collect Intelligence
on Iran’, Fars News Agency (FNA), November 4, 2009.
[35] Zbigniew Brzezinski, Forward to China’s New Journey to the West:
China’s Emergence in Central Asia and Implications for U.S. Interests,
Bates Gill and Matthew Oresman (Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic
and International Studies Press, August 2003) , p.v.
[36] Pallavi Aiyar, `Nato asks for dialogue with India’, Business
Standard, November 24, 2010.
[37] Suzanne Goldenberg and Xan Rice, `How the US forged an alliance
with Ethiopia over invasion’, The Guardian (U.K), January 13, 2007.
[38] Ibid.
[39] `Ethiopia destroyed Somalia Peace Talks: Speaker’, Garowe News,
January 13, 2007.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Ibid.
[42] Raymond Bonner, `Lark to Africa descends into Somali nightmare’,
The New York Times, April 15, 2007.
[43] The reason that this Somali group is being likened to the
pre-2001 Taliban is because most the groups in post-invasion
Afghanistan are not the same as the Taliban or even really Taliban.
The objectives of the post-2001 Taliban are also different from the
pre-2001 Taliban, which was brought to power through U.S., Pakistani,
and Saudi support.
[44] Atul Aneja, `Iran, China will begin counter-piracy patrols’, The
Hindu, December 22, 2008; `Russia, China conduct anti-piracy exercises
in the Gulf of Aden’, Russian News and Information Agency (RIA
Novosti), September 18, 2009.
[45] Mohammed Ali Saeed, `Sudan VP vows resistance to UN
peacekeepers’, Agence France-Presse (AFP), September 1, 2006.
[46] `Sudan’s SPLM reportedly opens an office in Israel ` statement’,
Sudan Tribune, March 5, 2008:
.
[47] `Sudan removes Israel travel ban from new passport, Sudan
Tribune, October 3, 2009:
.
[48] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Geostrategic Triad: Living with China,
Europe, and Russia (Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and
International Studies Press, November 3, 2000), p.5.
[49] `ALBA Countries To Establish Common Currency Named Sucre’, Cuban
News Agency/ Agencia Cubana de Noticas (ACN), November 29, 2008;
Michael Fox, `ALBA Summit Ratifies Regional Currency, Prepares for
Trinidad’, Venezuela Analysis, April 17, 2009; Steven Matter,
`Venezuela Pays for First ALBA Trade with Ecuador in New Regional
Currency’, Venezuela Analysis, July 7, 2010.
[50] Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT),
Statement on Canada’s Arctic Foreign Policy (Ottawa: Government of
Canada, 2010), p.2.
[51] Ibid., p.3.
[52] `Minister of National Defence visits Operation Nanook’,
Department of National Defence (DND), August 23, 2010:
.
[53] Ibid.
[54] Vladimir Radyuhin, `India is top priority for Belarus’, The
Hindu, April 16, 2007.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Global Research
From: A. Papazian