Archive for the ‘Thierry Meyssan’ Category

Nato working for USA against the interests of Europe

March 9, 2013

The NATO Economy, the solution to the U.S. crisis

 
New Secretary of State John Kerry’s first contacts were not devoted to the Asia pivot (transfer of U.S. forces to the Far East) or the partition plan for the Middle East, but to the creation of a NATO economy, without arousing the slightest concern in Europe. However, should it be implemented quickly, this project would solve the economic crisis in the United States at the expense of Europeans

JPEG - 22.5 kb

Press Conference of John Kerry and Guido Westerwelle in Berlin, February 26.
During his annual State of the Union address, President Barack Obama unilaterally announced the opening of negotiations for a Transatlantic Global Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union (12 February). A few hours later, the scoop was confirmed by a joint statement from the U.S. President and the Presidents of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy and European Commission, José Manuel Barroso.
 

The transatlantic free trade area project was officially launched on the sidelines of negotiations for the North America Free Trade Zone (NAFTA) in 1992. Following a process of growth, Washington wanted to expand this area to the European Union. However, at the time, voices were raised in the United States to postpone this same absorption until the World Trade Organization was established and stabilized. There was fear that the two projects might collide rather than reenforce one another.
The creation of a transatlantic market is only part of a larger project, including the creation of a real government with a supra-institutional transatlantic economic council, a transatlantic policy council and transatlantic parliamentary assembly. These three bodies have been created in embryo without any publicity.

Their architecture harkens back to a very old project of creating a vast capitalist bloc uniting all States under Anglo-American influence. We can find traces of this in the secret clauses of the Marshall Plan and especially in the North Atlantic Treaty (Article 2). That is why no differentiation is made between the transatlantic union and the NATO economy.

From this point of view, it is significant to note that, on the U.S. side, this project is not monitored by the Commerce Department but by the National Security Council.

We have a glimpse of the transatlantic union’s mode of operation by observing how conflicts were resolved concerning the sharing of personal data. Europeans have very demanding standards for the protection of privacy, while American officialdom can do anything it wants using the fight against terrorism as a justification. After shuttling back and forth, Europeans are laying down as the Americans have imposed their one-way model: the Americans copy European data, while the Europeans have no access to US data.

In economic matters, the idea is to repeal tariffs and non-tariff barriers, that is to say local standards that render certain imports impossible. Washington wants to quietly sell its GMOs in Europe, its chickens treated with chlorine, and its hormone-laced beef. It wants to mine data from Facebook and Google etc. without being hampered by privacy protections.

To this long-term strategy are added medium term tactics. In 2009-2010, Barack Obama had set up a Committee of economic advisers chaired by Christina Romer, historian. This specialist of the Great Depression of 1929, had developed the idea that the only solution to the current crisis in the United States would be to cause a shift of European capital to Wall Street. To this end, Washington has barred most non-Anglo-Saxon tax havens, then played with the euro. Capitalists in search of stability encountered difficulties in transferring their money to the United States, however. The NATO economy will make it easier. The USA will save their economy by attracting European capital, thus to the detriment of Europeans.

Beyond the uneven nature of this project and the trap it represents in the immediate future, the most important thing is that the interests of the United States and those of the European Union are in reality divergent. The United States and the United Kingdom are maritime powers who have a historical interest in transatlantic trade. It was even their goal expressed in the Atlantic Charter during the Second World War. In contrast, continental Europeans have common interests with Russia, especially in energy. By continuing to obey Washington as during the Cold War, Brussels does a disservice to Europeans.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

POPULAR MILITIAS COURAGEOUSLY HOLD BACK WESTERN AND GULF-FUNDED CONTRAS

February 26, 2013

Posted on February 25, 2013 by

In guerrilla warfare, the victory belongs to those who have the support of the population. This is why Syria has recently formed popular militias to hold back the Contras supported by the West and the Gulf monarchies. In three months, the result is spectacular: the areas where local militias are already operating have been stabilized.

JPEG - 22.1 kb
 

After two years of fighting, it is clear that the Syrian Arab Army, designed to defend the country in case of conventional war, is not able to stabilize the country while pursuing its primary task. It defeated the jihadists without difficulty every time they regrouped, but it does not have the capacity to fight a moving guerrilla force that compensates for its low domestic popularity with powerful foreign logistical support.

Ultimately, Syria has decided to adopt a new strategy that has been proven throughout the world when such a situation arose: the creation of popular militias allowing people to defend their villages or their own familiar neighborhoods. This Army of National Defense“, whose members are drawn from the Popular Committees, is of course linked to the Syrian Arab Army, and one must have done one’s military service in order to join.

Mao explained that to triumph, a guerrilla force must evolve “through the population like a fish through water.” However, the Free Syrian Army has been unable to do this. As soon as it controls an area, it commits abuses and the local people rebel against it.

To achieve victory, the Syrian Arab Army must succeed where jihadists failed: it must move “in the population as a fish moves in water.” Although originating from the national population, since it is a conscript army, it cannot achieve this alone because its national organization cuts it off from local realities. It must thus rely on intermediate forces which serve as an interface with the local population, in every village and neighborhood.

In addition, the Army of National defence is subject to strict discipline. Weapons and uniforms are provided only to young men and women, cherry-picked among volunteers. It follows that strong men recruited here and there by local officials to ensure safety as best they could must join the militia or go home. Thus, when the Army of National Defense is organized in a village or neighborhood, potential abuses committed by strong-armers stop. The phenomenon of Shabihas disappears.

In the Middle East, the example that immediately comes to mind is the Iranian Basij-e mostaz’afin, which has already served as a model for the Lebanese Hezbollah. Tehran, refusing to involve its Revolutionary Guards on Syrian territory, agreed to train National Defence Army recruits. This was not easy because the Iranians have had to adapt to new recruits who are rarely Shiites and do not intend to convert.

This is an event that profoundly changes the geopolitical facts on the ground in the region. On the one hand because this paramilitary force has quickly stabilized villages in areas where it is already established, especially because now the Basij and Hezbollah find themselves with a little brother, with the same training as them, but being mixed and multi-faith, educated in the secular spirit of the Baath movement and not in that of the Islamic Revolution.

While one of the main goals of the war triggered by the West against Syria was to install a government that would break with Hezbollah and Iran, as admitted by Burhan Ghalioun in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, western action has had the opposite effect. Common resistance has led to a tightening of the ranks despite religious and political differences.


Eight months ago, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah revealed that during the 33-day war, the Syrian defense minister at the time, General Hassan Tourekmani, personally supervised in Lebanon the deployment of the weapons of the Resistance. Then he said that Hezbollah would not let down its brothers in arms of the Syrian Arab Army in case of trouble. The creation of the National Defence Force will surely strengthen this alliance by close human contact beyond political choices.

This will certainly create impetus for the military wing of Hezbollah to include women and to open up to the many faiths represented in Lebanon.


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Thierry Meyssan: Syrian Conflict Threatens to Degenerate into World War

January 14, 2013

Russian Warning Shots
Thierry Meyssan: Syrian Conflict Threatens to Degenerate into World War
The nature of the Syrian crisis has changed. The process of destabilization that was to open the path for legal military intervention by the Atlantic Alliance has failed. Removing its mask, the United States has publicly announced the possibility of attacking Syria without the approval of the Security Council, as it also did in Kosovo. Washington must be pretending not to have noticed that the Russia of Vladimir Putin is not that of Boris Yeltsin. After being assured of Chinese support, Moscow literally fired two warning shots in the direction of Washington. The continuing violations of international law by NATO and the GCC threaten to unleash a global conflict.

President Vladimir Putin began his third mandate under the sign of sovereignty in the face of direct threats launched against the Russian Federation by the United States and NATO. Moscow has repeatedly denounced the expansion of NATO, the installation of military bases, the deployment of a missile shield on its borders, and the destruction of Libya and the destabilization of Syria.

In the days following his inauguration, Mr. Putin reviewed the Russian military industrial sector, his armed forces and his treaty alliance system. He pursued this course of action while choosing to draw in Syria a line in the sand that must not be crossed. For Putin, NATO’s invasion of Libya was equivalent to the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Third Reich and that of Syria, should it occur, would be comparable to the invasion of Poland that started WWII.

Any interpretation that what is currently happening in the Levant is the result of an internal dynamic of revolution/repression within Syria is not only false but a distortion of the real stakes involved, and simply amounts to more political maneuvering. The Syrian crisis is first and foremost a further stage in the project of “remodeling of the greater Middle East”; a further attempt to destroy the “Axis of Resistance” and the first “war for gas” being played out.

What is actually at stake in Syria is not whether Bashar al-Assad will be able to democratize the institutions he has “inherited” or whether the Wahhabist monarchies of the Gulf will succeed in destroying the last secular regime in the region and impose their sectarianism, but to determine the lines of separation between the emerging power blocs of NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization).

Some of our readers will be startled to read the preceding phrase. Indeed, the Western and Gulf media have been hammering the point day after day that President El-Assad is a “sectarian dictator” working to the advantage of the Alawite minority, while the armed opposition to his authority is portrayed as the incarnation of democratic pluralism. Just a glance at recent events is enough to belie this version.

Bashar al-Assad has successively convened municipal elections, a referendum, as well as legislative elections. All observers unanimously agreed that the elections unfolded in a transparent manner. The degree of popular participation was more than 60% even while the West was denouncing the electoral process as “a farce” and while the Western-backed armed opposition was preventing citizens from getting to the polls in the four districts under its control. At the same time, the armed opposition stepped up its attacks not only against security forces but also against civilians and all the symbols of national culture and of Syria’s multi-confessional character.

They assassinated progressive Sunnis, then randomly killed Alawites and Christians in order to force their families to flee. They burned more than fifteen hundred schools and churches. They proclaimed an ephemeral Independent Islamic Emirate in Baba Amr where they instituted a Revolutionary Tribunal which condemned more than 150 felons, who were then beheaded in public one by one by an executioner. It is certainly not the woeful spectacle of some vagrant politicians, meeting up at the “Syrian National Council” and erecting a facade of democracy having no relation to the reality of the crimes being committed by the so-called Free “Syrian” Army, that will prevent the truth from coming out much longer. In the circumstances, who can believe that the secular Syrian regime, whose exemplary character was celebrated not so long ago, would have turned into a confessional dictatorship, while the Free “Syrian” Army, supported by the Wahhabist dictatorships of the Gulf and obeying the injunctions of Takfirist preachers would conversely be advanced as a paragon of democratic pluralism?

The announcement by U.S. leaders of a possible international intervention outside a U.N. mandate in the same fashion as NATO dismembered Yugoslavia elicted both apprehension and anger in Moscow. The Russian Federation, which until now held itself in a defensive position, has moved to take the initiative. This strategic shift flows from the urgency of the situation from Russia’s point of view and favorable shifts on the ground in Syria.

Moscow proposes to create a Contact Group on Syria that would bring together the ensemble of concerned states, meaning Syria’s neighbors as well as both regional and international powers. Its purpose is to put in place a forum for dialogue to substitute for the current bellicose approach imposed by the West under the Orwellian rubric, the “Friends of Syria Conference.”

Russia continues to support the Annan Plan—which is in fact the scarcely modified plan submitted earlier by Sergei Lavrov to the Arab League. Russia deplores that the plan was not implemented, assigning responsibility for that failure to the opposition faction which took up arms. According to A.K. Lukashevich, spokesperson at the Foreign Ministry, the Free “Syrian” Army is an illegal organization according to international law. It is assassinating twenty to thirty Syrian soldiers each day yet is publicly supported by NATO states and the GCC in violation of the Annan Plan.

Positioning himself as a peacemaker confronting NATO warmongering, Vladimir Putin has demanded that the CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) ready itself to deploy its “blue chapkas” in Syria, to both separate the belligerents and combat foreign forces. Nicolai Bordyuzha, secretary-general of the CSTO, has confirmed that he is ready to deploy 20,000 men trained for this type of mission and immediately available.

This would be the first time that the CSTO deploys a peace force outside of former Soviet territory. Cut to the quick, Ban Ki-Moon attempted to sabotage the initiative, countering with his own sudden effort to organize a Contact Group. Convening in Washington the Sanctions Working Group of the “Friends Of Syria Conference”, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton defied the Russian proposal and raised the ante in favor of regime change.

In Turkey, opposition legislators have visited the Syrian refugee camps. They have confirmed the absence of more than one thousand refugees registered by the United Nations in the main camp and noted, by contrast, the presence of an arsenal in the camp. They have also demanded in Parliament that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan reveal the rising amount of humanitarian aid being given to phantom refugees. The deputies maintain that the refugee camp is a cover for a secret military operation, sheltering in reality combatants, principally Libyans who are using it as a rear base. The deputies are asserting that the combatants are those who were introduced in the district of Houla when the massacre was being perpetrated.

These revelations confirm the accusations of the Russian ambassador to the Security Council, Vitaly Churkin, according to which the Special Representative of Ban Ki-Moon in Libya, Ian Martin, had used U.N. funds destined for refugees to bring al Qaeda combatants into Turkey.

In Saudi Arabia, the fracture between King Abdullah and the Sudairi clan has reappeared. At the invitation of the monarch, the Supreme Council of the Oulema issued a fatwa stipulating that Syria is not a land of jihad. At the same time, however, Prince Faisal, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been calling to arm the opposition against the “Alawites.”

Thursday, June 7 was a day of many significant events. While Ban Ki-Moon and Navi Pillay, respectively Secretary General and High Commissioner of Human Rights, were pleading their case against Syria before the U.N. General Assembly, Moscow proceeded with two test-launches of its intercontinental ballistic missiles.

The Bulava missile draws its name from an ancient Slavic mace used as a baton by the Marshall of the Cossack Armies.Colonel Vadim Koval, spokesman of the Strategic Missile Troops of the Russian Federation (RSVN) confirmed the test of a Topol—launched from a silo near the Caspian Sea, but has not confirmed that of the Bulava from a submarine in the Mediterranean. But the firing was observed from all over the Near East, Israel and Armenia and there is no other known armament that leaves similar tracings in the sky.

The message is clear : Moscow is ready for world war if NATO and the GCC do not comply with the international obligations as defined in the Annan Plan and persist in aiding terrorism.

According to our sources, this shot across the bow was coordinated with the Syrian authorities. Moscow equally had encouraged Damascus to liquidate the “Islamic” Emirate of Baba Amr once the Syrian authority was confirmed by constitutional referendum, as it also encouraged the goverment to wipe out mercenary groups present in the country as soon as the new Parliament and new Prime Minister were installed. The order was given to move from a defensive strategy to offensive action to protect the population from terrorism. The national army moved to attack the strongholds of armed groups. The combat in the coming days is going to be difficult, all the more so in that the mercenaries possess mortars, anti-tank missiles and, as from now, surface to air missiles.

To lessen the rapidly-increasing tension, France immediately accepted the Russian proposal to participate in an ad hoc Contact Group. Washington hurried Frederic C. Hof to Moscow. Contradicting the statements made the day before by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Mr. Hof also accepted the Russian invitation.

The time is past to lament the expansion of combat into Lebanon, or to conjecture about the possible regionalization of conflict. Over the past sixteen months of the destabilization of Syria, NATO and the GCC have created a situation without exit that might well degenerate into global war.

Voltaire Network

Monday 11-06-2012

Al Mayadeen Interviews Thierry Meyssan

January 9, 2013

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Obama II – the purge and the pact

November 29, 2012

by Thierry Meyssan

 
JPEG - 27.9 kb
Translation
Pete Kimberley

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

NATO packs it in; Turkey on the verge of a nervous breakdown

October 18, 2012



By Thierry Meyssan

October 16, 2012 “Information Clearing House” – On October 8, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CTSO) began maneuvers dubbed “Inviolable Fraternity” (“НЕРУШИМОЕ БРАТСТВО”). The scenario focuses on the deployment of a peace force in an imaginary country where international jihadists and terrorist organizations operate against a backdrop of ethnic and confessional divisions. The accredited diplomatic corps, which was invited to attend the exercises, listened attentively to the opening address of the deputy secretary general of the organization. He clearly indicated that the CTSO is preparing for an eventual intervention in the Greater Middle East. And for those feigning deafness, Nikolai Bordyuzha specified that his deputy was not speaking of Afghanistan.

The Geneva Declaration negotiated by Kofi Annan on June 30 foresaw the deployment of a peace force if the Syrian government and the opposition jointly made the demand. The Free Syrian Army rejected the accord. The term “opposition” refers only to the political parties who have been meeting since in Damascus, under the aupices of the Russian and Chinese ambassadors. As the Geneva Accord was validated by the Security Council, the deployment of the “blue chapkas” can be set in motion without requiring an ad hoc resolution. Valery Semerikov stated that 4,000 men had already been enlisted in the Peace Force with 46,000 others in the wings available for the rapid mobilization.

With this as background, the signs of Western retreat from Syria are multiplying. The influx of Western arms and combatants is drying up except for the ongoing transfers funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Even more surprising: on six successive occasions, the NATO Command at Incirlik gave jihadists instructions to regroup within specified zones to prepare for huge offensives. While the Syrian Arab Army, which was formed to confront the Israeli Army, may be ill-adapted for guerilla warfare, it is highly effective in conventional combat. In each of these engagements, it easily encircled and wiped out the assembled units of the Free Syrian Army. Though the initial defeats suffered by the jihadists could have been attributed to a tactical error or to an incompetent commander, after the sixth debacle another hypothesis must be considered: that NATO is willingly sending these combatants to their deaths.

In contrast to popular perceptions, the motivation of the jihadists is not, properly speaking, ideological or religious but rather, aesthetic. They are not looking to die for a cause and are not focused on the future of Jerusalem. They strike a romantic posture and seek to intensify their sensations whether through drugs or through death. Their behavior makes them easy to manipulate; they seek extreme situations which they are then placed in, and their movements are totally steered. Over the last years, Prince Bandar bin Sultan became the leading architect of these assemblages, including those of al-Qaeda. He supplied them with preachers promising a paradise where seventy virgins would provide them with ecstatic pleasures not if they accomplished a particular military or political feat but only if they died as martyrs wherever Bandar had need for them.

It seems Prince Bandar has disappeared from the scene since the attack on him on July 26. He may well be dead. From Morroco to Xinjiang, the jihadists have been left to their own devices, without any real coordination. They could be recruited by any number of actors, as the recent assassination of the U.S. Ambassador in Libya confirms. As a result, Washington wants to unload this risky and burdensome rabble or at the very least reduce their number. The orders that NATO gives to the jihadists are designed to expose them to fire by the Syrian Arab Army which is eliminating them en masse.
Recently, the French police killed a French Salafist who attacked a Jewish business establishment. The investigation that followed revealed that he belonged to a network including individuals that had gone to do jihad in Syria. The British police made a similar discovery four days later.

The message from Paris and London is that the French and British killed in Syria were not agents on a secret mission but fanatics who acted on their own initiative. This is obviously false because certain of these jihadists were carrying communication instruments of NATO specification, supplied by France and the United Kingdom. Whatever the case, these events are marking the end of the Franco-British involvement alongside the Free Syrian Army, while Damascus discretely exchanges its prisoners. A page has been turned.

Under the circumstances, one can understand the frustration of Turkey and the Wahhabist monarchies who at the request of the Alliance invested in the secret war unreservedly, but who now must assume alone the failure of the operation. Going for broke, Ankara threw itself into a series of provocations designed to prevent NATO from pulling out. Anything goes, from the firing of Turkish artillery into Syrian territory to the pirating of a civil airline. But these gestures are counterproductive.

Specifically, the Syrian air plane coming from Moscow which was turned around by Turkish fighters contained no weapons but rather high-explosive detection equipment to be used for the protection of civilians. Turkey, actually, did not seek to prevent Russia from delivering material aimed at protecting Syrian civilians from terrorism but aimed instead to increase tension by mistreating the Russian passangers and refusing to allow their ambassador to render assistance. Wasted effort: NATO did not react to the imaginary accusations put forward by Recep Tayip Erdogan. The only consequence is that President Putin has postponed sine die his visit to Ankara originally scheduled for the first half of December.

There is a long way still to go on the path to peace. But even if Turkey now or the Wahhabist monarchies later attempt to prolong the war, a process has been set in motion. NATO is packing up and the media are turning their gaze to other horizons.

Thierry Meyssan, founder and chairman of Voltaire Network and the Axis for Peace Conference. Professor of International Relations at the Centre for Strategic Studies in Damascus. His columns specializing in international relations feature in daily newspapers and weekly magazines in Arabic, Spanish and Russian.

Translated from French by Michele Stoddard

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

The Powerplays behind "The Innocence of Muslims"

September 29, 2012

 

by Thierry Meyssan

Israel’s big ploy moves ahead in the shadow of the demonstrations and reactions to the film “The Innocence of Muslims.” However, the appearance of Hezbollah on the scene has reversed the situation, which could prompt Tel Aviv to call off the operation.

JPEG - 22.7 kbThe international reactions to the film by “Sam Bacile” are more and more incomprehensible if taken at face value, ignoring who is behind it and what their objectives are.
 

This provocation designed to instigate a clash of civilizations is very different from previous ones. It’s goal is not to stigmatize Islam vis-à-vis Western populations to elicit hatred toward the Muslims but is rather directed at Muslims to insult them and thereby incite hatred toward Westerners. This is not “Islamophobia”; it is “Islam-bashing” and its objective is to arouse anger among Muslims and direct that anger toward specific targets: those who in the U.S. or among their allies wish to interrupt the cycles of wars begun on September 11, 2001.

No one knows if the film, “The Innocence of Muslims,” really exists in full-length form. So far, only a thirteen-minute clip has emerged, the most offensive parts of which were dubbed over the soundtrack at a later date. First placed on YouTube, the video had no impact until it was diffused in Arabic by the Salafist television station, Al-Nas. Salafist groups then reacted violently but instead of attacking the station or its Saudi sponsors, they turned their ire on American diplomatic representatives.

The State Department was warned on September 9—two days before the release of the film by the Salafist television station—that several of its embassies would be attacked on the 11th. Yet this alert was not taken seriously and diplomatic personnel were not informed of the threat. The State Department had been expecting anti-American demonstrations to take place to mark the anniversary of the September 11th attacks.

It has since been established that behind the Benghazi mob, a commando was already prepared to attack the Consulate and then the fortified villa which was to be used as a safehouse in the case of a serious crisis.

The target of the operation was the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens. This specialist in Near-Eastern Affairs was known both for his American imperialist views but also his anti-Zionist ones. This was confirmed by the special Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat as he deplored the death of a diplomat who had done much to comprehend the point of view of the Palestinian people and in turn make that viewpoint understood in Washington.

A second target was to be designated to punish France for having aligned herself with U.S. positions. Paris, in fact, refuses to let itself be dragged into a war against Iran and also refuses to get itself more deeply enmeshed in the Syrian quagmire. Consequently, a whole new provocation was launched, employing a satirical magazine that has for years relayed the Neo-conservative viewpoint within the French Left. Anticipating the consequences, France immediately suspended activity at twenty of its embassies and deployed heavy security around them.

At home, the French government presented itself as the guarantor of the freedom of expression. Accordingly, it defends the right of the enemies of Islam to indulge in blasphemous caricatures. But then, openly contradicting itself, the same government announced a prohibition of any demonstration hostile to the film or the magazine, thus denying freedom of expression to the defenders of Islam.

In the French tradition, freedom of expression is considered a foundational condition of democracy. It therefore is accompanied with prohibitions against libel and defamation seen as threatening to democratic debate. The main characteristic of “Innocence” is that it has no connection to historical reality and presents no critique of Islam. It is entirely composed of defamatory scenes. However, libel is not a human right.

Returning to the realm of geopolitics, “The Innocence of Muslims” is reminiscent of the operation which unfolded around the publication of The Satanic Verses. It was 1988 and Iran had just triumphed over Iraq thanks to massive support from the West. In few years, the Imam Khomeini had transformed a colonized population into a nation of warriors. He drew from his religion the strength that allowed him to transform the country and to defeat the enemy. In order to fracture this dangerous Islamic Republic, MI6 commissioned a work from the British writer, Salman Rushdie. Rouhoullah Khomeini immediately issued a religious decree condemning him to death. The campaign halted immediately and the fatwa though maintained, was not carried out.

On this occasion, Teheran should have reacted just as promptly. But Iran was in a corner; in condemning the film it would be playing the game of those pressuring Washington to go to war against Iran. The tactical solution emerged from the intervention by new protagonists. At the outset, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei condemned the film by affirming that the enemy was Zionism. Then, at a later stage, Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah positioned himself at the head of the movement. In Beirut, during an impassioned speech and facing a galvanized audience, he forced those spreading the insults to face up to their responsibilities. Hezbollah’s eruption onto the scene modifies the equation dramatically. 

We are witnessing a shift from the atrocies committed by small-scale disorganized Salafist groups, easily manipulated by Israel, to a warning issued by an extensive, highly-structured organization, operating with combat-ready cells within numerous countries. This time, it is Tel-Aviv who’s in a trap; it has lost control of a protest movement that could at any moment turn against Israel.

For its part, the Obama Administration to extricate itself from the situation issued multiple soothing declarations for the benefit of Muslims but displayed a total lack or solidarity with France. Instead, it condemned the contradictions of French policy, hoping to push in the direction of Paris the smoking powder keg before it explodes in its own face.

Whatever the case, Benjamin Netanyahu is not letting up on the pressure, demanding that Barack Obama trace “a red line” at the militarized nuclear ambitions he attributes to Iran and demanding that the U.S. president go to war when he deems the Iranians will have crossed it.

Thierry Meyssan
Source
Information Clearing House (USA)

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Blasphemy as a tactic

September 18, 2012

Thierry MeyssanThe dissemination of a video clip from the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” depicting an offensive image of Islam, has sparked a wave of anger in the Arab world. For Thierry Meyssan, things are more complex than they might seem because the clip was first released ​​in Arabic on YouTube and broadcast by the Salafist Egyptian Al Nasr TV channel. The film targets neither the U.S. nor the Muslim public, but only the Arab world. Its distribution was organized by the same people who also called for its prohibition. What lies behind this provocation?
The circulation on the Internet of the trailer for a film, The Innocence of Muslims, sparked demonstrations across the world and resulted in the killing in Benghazi of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and members of his entourage.
JPEG - 15.8 kbAt first glance, these events can be located in the long line leading from Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses to the burnings of the Koran by Pastor Terry Jones. Nevertheless, this new attack differs from other incidents in that the film was not directed at a Western audience but instead was uniquely conceived as an instrument of provocation directed at Muslims.

In political terms, the affair can be analyzed from two angles: from the tactical perspective as an anti-U.S. manipulation; or from a strategic one, as an anti-Muslim psychological attack.

The film was produced by a Zionist group composed of Jews of double Israeli-American nationality and by an Egyptian Copt. It was completed several months ago but was released at a calculated moment to provoke riots targeting the United States. Israeli agents were deployed in several large cities with a mission to channel the rage of the crowd against American or Coptic targets (though not Israeli ones). Not suprisingly, their maximum effect was attained in Benghazi, the capital of Libya’s Cyrenaica region.

The population of Benghazi is known to harbor particularly reactionary and racist groups. It is useful to recall that at the time the cartoons of Mohammed appeared in September, 2005, Salafists attacked the Danish Consulate. In keeping with the Vienna Convention on diplomacy, the Libyan government of Muammar al-Gaddafi deployed troops to protect the diplomatic service then under attack. The repression of the riot resulted in numerous deaths. Subsequently, the West, seeking to overthrow the Libyan regime, financed Salafist publications which accused Gaddafi of protecting the Danish Consulate because he had allegedly been behind the cartoon operation.

On February 15, 2011, Salafists organized in Benghazi a demonstration commemorating the massacre during which shooting erupted, an incident that marked the beginning of the Benghazi insurrection that opened the way to the NATO intervention. The Libyan police arrested three members of the Italian Special Forces who confessed to having fired from the rooftops on both demonstrators and the police to sew chaos and confusion. Held prisoner throughout the war that followed, they were released when NATO seized the capital and smuggled them out of the country to Malta in a small fishing boat on which I was also a passenger.

This time, the manipulation of the Benghazi crowd by Israeli agents had as its goal the assassination of the U.S. Ambassador, an act of war not seen since the Israeli bombardment of the USS Liberty by the Israeli Air Force and Navy in 1967. This constitutes the first assassination of an ambassador in the line of duty since 1979. The act is all the more grevious considering that in a country where the current central government is a purely legal fiction, the U.S. Ambassador was not merely a diplomat but was functioning as Governor, as the de facto head of state.

It should be emphasized that in the past few weeks, the highest-ranking U.S. military officers have entered into open conflict with the Israeli government. They have issued declarations signifying their intention to halt the cycle of wars begun after September 11 (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria) and which, in light of the informal agreements of 2001, will expand further (Sudan, Somalia and Iran). The first warning shot occurred in Afghanistan, in August 2012, when two missiles were fired at the parked plane of General Martin Dempsey, head of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. This second warning turned out to be even more brutal.

If, on the other hand, we examine this affair from the viewpoint of social psychology, the release of the film and its aftermath appear to be a frontal attack on the beliefs of Muslims. In this regard, it is similar in nature to the Pussy Riot episode trampling on the freedom of religious practice inside the Orthodox Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow and the mulitple performances of conceptual pornography the group engaged in afterwards. These are operations geared to violate societies that resist the project of global domination.

In democratic and multicultural societies, the sacred is seen as belonging to and being expressed within the private sphere. But a new collective space of the sacred has been in the process of elaboration. Western European states have passed “historical memory” laws which have transformed a historical event—the Nazi destruction of European Jews—into a religious occurrence: the “Shoa” in Jewish terminology, or the “Holocaust” as expressed in Christian evangelical parlance. Nazi crimes are thereby elevated to the level of a unique event at the expense of the victims of other massacres, including other victims of the Nazis. Questioning the dogma, i.e. this religious interpretation of historical facts, subjects one to criminal penalties, just as blasphemy was punished in the past.

Similarly, in 2001, the U.S., the European Union member states and a number of their allies imposed by decree that entire national populations must observe a minute of silence in memory of the victims of the September 11 attacks. This ruling was underpinned by an ideological interpretation of the causes of the massacre. In both cases, having been killed because one was Jewish or because one was American confers a particular status on these victims before whom the rest of humanity must genuflect.

During the Olympic Games in London, both the Israeli and the American delegations attempted to enlarge their sacred space still further by imposing a minute of silence during the opening ceremony of the most-watched televised event in the world, this time on behalf of the hostages seized during the Munich Games of 1972. In the end, the proposal was rejected, with the Olympic Committee holding instead a separate ceremony. This is just a further indication of the effort to create a collective liturgy legitimating the global empire.

The Innocence of Muslims serves both as a device to bring Washington back into line at a moment when it may be stepping back from the Zionist agenda and as a means to further advance it by attacking the religious beliefs of still others who may resist it.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

France’s foreign policy breakdown

September 5, 2012

by Thierry Meyssan

A change in the foreign policy of France is not on the menu today and will not be for the next five years. President François Hollande is a continuation of his predecessor, Nicolas Sarkozy, in total alignment with the United States. As a reward for his obedience, Paris has been authorized to start soon a war in Mali. The announcement of this new colonial expedition was made without ruffling any feathers in Parliament.

JPEG - 34.5 kbThe new French president, François Hollande, outlined his vision of international relations and foreign policy for his country on the occasion of the twentieth conference of French ambassadors. His speech was highly anticipated because he had never expressed himself on these issues, his experience being limited to the Socialist Party leadership and internal affairs.
Unexpectedly, he presented a synthesis of two currents within his party: on the one hand, the pro-US opportunists surrounding the former Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine and, on the other, the totally Atlantist and Zionist ideologues around the current finance minister, Pierre Moscovici.
Since the two groups do not share the same analysis, synthesis is reduced to a few points of consensus: the logic of blocs has vanished with the Soviet Union: the world has become unstable and needs to be regulated by international institutions; the Arab springs (with an “s”) confirm that the momentum of history is oriented toward the spread of the Western political model. Therefore, French influence can develop in two ways. First, by playing in all circumstances the role of mediator, Paris can use its flexibility to host international institutions despite the refusal of the Russians and Chinese to play the game according to the rules laid down by the United States. Then Paris can count on the Francophonie [1] to enjoy a natural sphere of influence.
The foreign policy of François Hollande is already obsolete even though his mandate is only beginning. It does not take into account the decline of the United States, the rise of Russia and China or the reorganization of international relations. It only contemplates adjustments with China, Japan and Turkey. It assumes that international institutions emerging from the balance of power at the end of the Second World War will survive and adapt spontaneously to the new paradigm. Finally, France hopes to exercize influence without a significant military force thanks to the Francophonie and intends, for reasons of economy, to share its defense budget with the United Kingdom.

In the same vein, the President reorganized the embassies so that economic goals could be assigned to them. In this way, he shared responsibilities between the two currents of the Socialist Party, respectively installed at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of the Economy. This is not a guarantee of consistency.
At his inauguration, François Hollande situated his five-year term under the auspices of Jules Ferry (1832-1893), a historical figure of French socialism. Ferry’s work can only be understood as an attempt by the bourgeoisie to escape its historical responsibilities (the liberation of Alsace-Moselle occupied and annexed by the Germans) by engaging in colonial expansion adorned with good sentiment. Not surprisingly, President Holland conforms to Ferry’s model. [2] After justifying his intention to do nothing to free his country from US tutelage, he unveiled his ambitions for Mali and Syria.

While specifying that the old days of French imperialism in Africa are over, he announced that Paris had sought a mandate from ECOWAS [3] to intervene militarily in Mali. This legal screen is hardly convincing: the organization is headed by Alassane Ouattara, whom the French army elevated to power in Ivory Coast last year. However, it does not appear that this expedition was prepared seriously, or that François Hollande has assessed its impact knowing that there are some 80 thousand Malians living in France.

Pressed by his opposition to show initiative with regard to Syria, François Hollande announced that Paris will recognize a provisional government once it is formed, that he is striving to bring Bashar al-Assad to the International Criminal Court and that France is preparing to rebuild the country. The military option was finally discarded, Syria having twice as many combat aircraft as France with better trained pilots, as noted by the former Air Force Chief of Staff, General Jean Fleury.

François Hollande’s initiative was not coordinated with his overlord. The same day, the spokesperson for the Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, swept these proposals aside. The United States has no intention of allowing Paris to concoct on its own a provisional government chosen from the Syrian National Council (puppet of France and Qatar). The U.S. therefore required the participation of the National Coordination Board (independent), the Council for the Syrian Revolution (created by Saudi Arabia), and the Free Syrian Army (organized by Turkey on behalf of NATO) .

Nor does Washington intend to entrust the French with the administration of Syria “the day after Bashar“. Especially since François Hollande spoke of the Syrian territories (with an “s” in reference to the three religious states (Alawite, Druze and Christian) that France had once created inside Syria. They were represented by three stars on the flag of the French mandate … recently become that of the “revolution.” The chiefs of staff of the U.S. have in mind a different breakdown of the country, within the framework of a “remodeling of the Greater Middle East.”

Ultimately, as in Libya, French dreams will not weigh heavily in the longstanding plans prepared by U.S. strategists. There is still no real French diplomatic strategy.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

The Brahimi Plan

September 4, 2012

 

JPEG - 29.9 kbThe Western press is saluting the audacity of Lakhdar Brahimi for having picked up the gauntlet by accepting to replace Kofi Annan as Special Representative of the Secretary Generals of both the United Nations and the Arab League in Syria. However, according to Thierry Meyssan, the truth of the matter is starkly different. Given the current failure of outright regime change in Damascus, this NATO confidence man has been entrusted with the task of unleashing all-out civil war in Syria.
 
In the aftermath of the second Russian-Chinese veto which formally prohibited foreign intervention in Syria on February 4, the West feigned seeking peace while actively organizing a vast secret war. On the diplomatic front, they appeared to accept the Lavrov-Annan Plan, even as these same countries were facilitating the movement into Syria of tens of thousands of mercenaries and while UN Observers were escorting the leaders of the Free Syrian Army to get them through the roadblocks.
 

The July 18th attack that decapitated the Syrian military command was intended to open the gates of Damascus for these Contras as part of the West’s pursuit of “regime change.” This did not happen. Given the failure of these forces on the ground, and in open contempt of the third Russian-Chinese veto, the Western allies took things to the next level. Not being able to accomplish “regime change“, the strategic choice is to sew chaos. They therefore sabotaged the Lavrov-Annan Plan and proclaimed their intention to assassinate President Bashar al-Assad. The speeches of Obama and Hollande, both of which delivered sharp ultimatums on Assad’s hypothetical first-use of chemical weapons (in ways flagrantly reminiscent of the Bush Administration’s lies about Iraq) confirm that all forms of war are in play.

The latest operation commenced with organized leaks by the press. Reuters [1], NBC [2], Le Parisien [3], Le Canard Enchaîné [4], The Sunday Times [5], and Bild am Sonntag [6] revealed that Barack Obama had authorized covert military intervention months before and that the U.S., Turkey, France, Britain and Germany were acting in concert. The press announced that the secret war had been coordinated from headquarters established at the NATO base in Incirlik, Turkey.

When the U.S. presidential order was revealed, Kofi Annan resigned from his mission. By his account, it would be futile to demand a ceasefire at the Security Council when the leading Council members were openly identifying themselves as belligerants. The Special Envoy of the U.N. and the Arab League clearly stated that it would be impossible for anyone henceforth to proceed with a peace mission given that the mission itself was illusory because of what he euphemistically termed the “disunity” within the Security Council. [7]

Despite his statement, the Western nations turned again to the Secretary Generals of both the U.N. and the Arab League to provide a veneer of pacific intentions and legality to their imperial ambitions. They designated a new Special Joint Envoy in the person of Lakhdar Brahimi. In the communiqué announcing the nomination, Ban Ki-Moon did not define the new mission as intended to fulfill the Lavrov-Annan plan previously approved by the Security Council. Instead, he signalled that the nominee would employ “his talent and extraordinary experience” to lead Syria toward a “political transition in accordance with the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people.” [8]

To comprehend what is currently underway requires a closer look at the “the talents and experience” of Mr. Brahimi. Son of a collaborator during the WWII occupation of France and not of a hero of the Algerian Independence with the same name as he would have people believe, Lahkdar Brahimi is one of the leading sycophant acolytes of the doctrine “humanitarian intervention“, the new scarcely-veiled substitute for neocolonialism. His name is still attached to the report of the Commission for U.N. Peacekeeping Operations, which he had chaired. He never questioned the legal aberration that allowed the U.N. to create so-called peacekeeping forces in order to impose political solutions against the will of the warring parties rather than overseeing the implementation of peace accords concluded equitably by them. Instead, he has been an active advocate for further consolidating the world governance role of the United Nations on the basis of a doctrine of intervention and the creation of a supranational intelligence service. [9] This was the origin of the “decision support service.” Not long after, and without informing the Security Council, Ban Ki-moon signed on September 23, 2008 a protocol with his NATO counterpart linking this newly-created service to the Atlantic Alliance. [10] So much for Brahimi’s “talents“.

As for Mr. Brahimi’s “experience“, in the late 1980’s he masterminded the Lebanese Confessional System (the Taif Accord ) and, following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the Bonn Agreement with put in place the present-day Afghan narco-regime. He also participated in the machinations to “remodel” after the Western invasion of 2003 which sought to partition the country into three districts, one of which a Sunni section where the Hashemite monarchy would be restored. Mixing business with pleasure, he married off his daughter Rym, a CNN journalist, to Prince Ali. Had Ali become king, she would have become the nominal queen of Iraq.

And this is not all. His official biographies neglect to mention that Lakhdar Brahimi, as a “paragon of democracy“, was one of the ten members of the High Security Council who perpetrated the coup d’etat in Algiers in January 11, 1992, nullifying the legislative election results, forcing President Chadli Bendjedid to resign and installing the putchist generals [11] in power. [12] What followed was a civil war—precisely along the model that Washington now hopes to engender in Syria—where both sides are simultaneously manipulated by the U.S. In Algeria, the Islamist leader, Abbassi Madani, now a refugee in Qatar, took as his political advisor the pseudo-secularist Burhan Ghalioun, none other than the future president of the Syrian National Council. The armed Islamist faction, the GSPC [13], renamed in 2007 Al Qaeda in the Islamic Mahghreb (AQIM), was engaged in arms training with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, rebranded in 1997 as Al Qaeda in Libya. The majority of the combatants in the two groups have now integrated into the Free Syrian Army.
In these circumstances French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius travelled to inspect the rear-area support bases proliferating in the states bordering Syria. Passing through Jordan, he asserted, “I am conscious of the weight of what I am about to say; Bashar Al-Assad does not deserve to be on Earth.” [14] Without having to give a thumbs down, Emperor Fabius has clearly moved from “Bashar must go” to “Bashar must die!”

The Western nation-states have just one message for Moscow and Bejing. They will not fall back; rather they are determined to press on by any and all means.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!