“Greater Middle East” and the colonial wars

“Greater Middle East” and the colonial wars

Yu Gavrilechko:

Unfolded from the beginning of 2011 events in North Africa and the Middle East led to the idea that after nearly seven years, the U.S. still officially began actively to put forward in the days of George W. Bush in 2003, the project “Greater Middle East” (the Greater Middle East). That this plan was the basis for a new American Middle East policy. . In the academic literature for the first time the project was described in detail in 1997 in the monograph by J. Kemp and R. Harkavi “Strategic geography and the changing Middle East” (Geoffrey Kemp and Robert E. Harkavy. Strategic Geography and the Changing Middle East). It is assumed that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and NATO (2001) and Iraq (2003) were directly connected with the desire to reshape the geopolitical eastern part of the “Greater Middle East ‘(GME). It then went to Afghanistan, Pakistan, the states of Central Asia and Caucasus, the Persian Gulf. However, because the Americans have conceived a great deal did not happen. By 2011, they decided to back up their actions to change the political map of the eastern part of the Greater Middle East intensified in the western part of the macro, making the replacement of existing regimes there.

Most often, the “Greater Middle East” American geo-strategy today includes, in addition to “traditional” Middle Eastern and Arab North Africa from Libya to Mauritania, and even Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia and Ethiopia. In addition, the map of J. Kemp and R. Harkavi in ​​the “Greater Middle East” includes Turkey, the Caucasus states, the former Soviet Central Asia and Kazakhstan. The aim is to spread in these Western democracies.

To achieve this goal, the United States intended to assist countries who cooperate with them, financial aid, but was positive that proposal only by Turkey, the others were in favor quite cold. Until recently, except in the activity of the Somali pirates, who somehow “mysteriously” managed to capture the court and to paralyze the water highways leading from Asia to Europe, you could see the manifestation of this plan. However, with the “Arab Spring” and the era of “tvitternyh revolutions,” it became clear that the “random” these events will not name. The only thing that can explain them – is resuscitation of the project “Greater Middle East”.

Seven years ago, in June 2004, an attempt to legalize the G8 summit in Bush’s plan to impose democracy, “the Greater Middle East” has failed. Point of view of those who did not support the plan if the United States, expressed by French President Jacques Chirac, saying that the Middle Eastern countries themselves to decide whether they need “missionaries of democracy.” By the way, and Egypt, and Saudi Arabia at that time also rejected Bush’s plan, not accepting invitations to participate in the summit. None of the leaders of other Arab countries, except, perhaps, only a new president of Iraq (puppet U.S.), not spoke in favor of “democratic mission”.

Since then, however, much has changed in the world, and Sarkozy – not Chirac. As one of the instigators of the NATO aggression against Libya, French President deliberately chose a pro-American policy and this in no small measure determined the course of the war in Libya.

According to Primakov, pushing a plan GME, Washington had several objectives. First, the support a number of state leaders in hindsight to justify their intervention in Iraq, if the project was supported by the “Big Middle East”, the operation in Iraq would be presented as one of its episodes. Second, try to rally all allies and partners, who parted ways with the United States to evaluate their actions against Iraq. And, thirdly, to reassert America’s leadership in its relations with the Muslim world.

Now, in an economic crisis, the U.S. once again returned to the Bush plan, but not limited to “aid” money, and focusing on the export crisis in the form of wars and revolutions.

End of the Libyan Jamahiriya and the new war for colonies

After the successful start of the destabilization of North Africa, the victory of “tvitternyh” revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan, the successful dismemberment into two parts, as well as the expense of their opposition protests in Bahrain and Yemen (with the help of Saudi Arabia), the U.S. began to fail Libya. Attempts to overthrow Gaddafi gathering, inspiriruya performances of the “democratic opposition”, have failed, including the absence of the opposition itself. Rate as the bandits and Qaddafi’s foreign enemies for some participation of tribal chiefs who are dissatisfied with the policy the colonel was not justified.

The war against Libya has shown that, while NATO and carpet-bombing in a position to completely destroy the infrastructure of not having nuclear weapons and modern air-defense, to solve strategic tasks of the Alliance can not. The murder of one of the chiefs Obeid Abbdel Fatah Yunis another part of the opposition, with the connivance of NATO immediately led to a split among the rebels and militias sharply reduce combat efficiency of marauders, who, with the support of NATO air is the sixth month engaged in looting and killing civilians Libya.

After the capture of Tripoli mercenaries with the support of the NATO Special Forces and the French Foreign Legion and the retreat of Gaddafi in Sirte home (which aircraft Alliance for the second week to land in dub silence UN), Libya expects a new life – or rather, death. Death, for a country torn apart. After the announcement of a “new government” of Libya Algeria war at stake – the resources of the whole of North Africa, for which now begins another colonial war …

Turkey’s role – lobbyist or a new U.S. hegemon?

Unrest in Syria, and a lot of fairly mysterious circumstances demonstrators clashes with security forces have long attracted the attention of the world. Particularly disturbing reaction neighbor to the north of Syria – Turkey. In early August the media reported that Turkey has mobilized reservists and stores troops on the border with Syria.

Azerbaijani politician Tofig Abbasov, said that Turkey is “running ahead”, as Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is already no secret that he was acting in accordance with the requirements of Washington. This is confirmed by the fact that the contact group had previously met in Libya in Istanbul, then again, Hillary Clinton recently met with Recep Tayyip Erdogan to discuss the issue of Syria. “Approaches Ankara, coinciding with the Eastern Washington course, cause in the Arab and Muslim world, not only anger but also fear. In recent years, many are asking, and that it Erdogan, who recently defended a subject the rights of Palestinians, strongly defended the” flotilla peace, “sent to the Gaza Strip,” – says the analyst.

Let me remind you that Turkey is not only supported the project of “Greater Middle East”, but also actively participates in its implementation. According to former Director General of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Turkey, the author of “flooding the West,” Bulent Esinogly (Bülent Esinoğlu), Erdogan is a “co-chair of the” project “Greater Middle East” and is ready to do everything possible to ensure the required Washington split into three parts of Syria. This position of Ankara can not only lead to war against Turkey, Syria, and to establish an independent Kurdistan. While Syria and Turkey will be occupied by the war, the Kurds will try, with the support of Washington, to unite the territory in which they live (and this is part of the territories of four countries – Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran) into a single new state.

At the same time Turkey has pursued a policy of rapprochement with Russia, to have just in case “fallback” or just to be Moscow’s consent to action against Syria. In fact, only now Russia (and indirectly – China) constrain the beginning of the active military phase of conflict.

“Surrender” by Israel. Palestine – a member of the UN? U.S. demarche

In spring 2011, the U.S. committed treachery of his chief ally in the Middle East – Israel: May 19, the U.S. president has publicly proposed the idea of ​​reviewing the outcome of the Six Day War and Israel’s return to 1967 borders. With the support of Obama’s proposals were made by officials from France, Germany and Poland, EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy Ashton. In turn, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu categorically rejected the possibility of returning to the old boundaries.

August 13, Foreign Minister Riad al-Palestinian al-Maliki announced that the September 20, 2011 (in half-yearly anniversary of the start of NATO’s war against Libya), he intends to file a formal UN request to intervene in Palestinian ranks of the organization as a full member. Earlier, on August 9, a representative of the Palestinian Authority in the United Riad Mansour said that if the independence of Palestine will not be recognized in the UN, the Palestinian Authority would seek status, similar to that today has the Vatican. According to him, the maximum program for the Palestinians – to receive recognition and membership in the UN, as happened recently in southern Sudan, but they are prepared if necessary to change the status “of an observer” status at “State not a member of the UN,” as Recommend Resolution N181 of 1947.

The partition of Sudan into two states, initiated by the United States and approved by the United Nations – a continuation of the policy of double standards, which became the American norm of international behavior even during the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia and the secession of Kosovo from Serbia. If Palestine is recognized as a member of the UN, there will be no obstacles to the UN Member of Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. However, at some point, the U.S. suddenly went back on their word and sent more than 70 UN member states not to recognize the offer Palestine as a full member of this organization. What prompted such a move – it is not clear. Perhaps the fear that control all the wars in the Middle East, the U.S. has no power, and the loss of Israel finally deprive them of opportunities to continue to exercise strong control over the forces of the Islamists.

All herald the beginning of a new war. More precisely, the active phase of the long-reaching colonial war for resources. And perhaps a preparation for the Third World.For the crisis in developed economies deepens, the economic measures do not give effect, so – on the agenda of this war. There are no other ways to deal with financial crises of capitalism did not develop.

Yuri GAVRILECHKO (Ukraine) | 03.09.2011 |

Source – Strategic Culture Foundation