Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Russia Wins In Central Asia When the Dictators Fear Revolution More Than They Fear A US Attack On Iran...


Russia Wins In Central Asia When the Dictators Fear Revolution More Than They Fear A US Attack On Iran....

If political climate in Central Asia begins to resemble Kazakhistan's color revolution..., Putin will see his Eurasian Union become a reality....

28 12 2011

[Berdimuhamedov is flying blind, trying to navigate the treacherous currents, that are ebbing and flowing around and in his country, between two bitter "frenemies," Russia and the US/NATO. Keeping with the theme recently sounded on the same website, Gundogar, "Predetermined range of Turkmenistan," that Berdimuhamedov operates under the conviction that the US and Israel will soon bomb Iran. He therefore feels compelled to follow American dictates. This belief apparently causes him to accept Western plans to harvest Turkmen gas, as the first stage in dominating all Central Asian gas and oil. The author of that piece apparently agrees with my contention, that the Turkmen President, like all the Central Asian dictators, will turn to Russia, if Arab Spring revolutions rise-up in their neighborhood. They will fear being overthrown by very real masses of protesters, more than they will fear a hypothetical American/Israeli strike on Iran. In which case, if the political climate in Central Asia begins to resemble that seen recently in Kazakhistan, Putin might see his Eurasian Union become a reality.]

Ghost of the “Arab Spring” reached the borders of Turkmenistan.....

Events in Libya and the color revolutions in the Middle East


Political analyst Andrei Grozin about the background of the unexpected visit of Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov to Russia …

December 23, visited Moscow, Turkmen President Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov, where he met with top officials of the Russian state. According to the site of the Russian President , Dmitry Medvedev and Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov discussed current issues of cooperation between Russia and Turkmenistan. In the official records of the negotiations of Heads of State displayed a dry-officially, without any details that point to the theme of the visit Berdimuhamedov signed the agreement.
According to the website of the Russian government , the president of Turkmenistan met earlier with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. ”You have yet to negotiate with President Medvedev, I know, but I am very pleased that you took the time, stopped to talk on the current trade and economic relations – welcome guest, Vladimir Putin. - In this regard, I note that Turkmenistan – our old traditional partner in many areas of cooperation, of course, primarily in the gas sector. And it is pleasant to note that the volume of our trade grows: we have over the past year was a growth of 33%.This is a very good indicator. We are very pleased this positive dynamics, but fully understand and see with you, how difficult is the situation on world markets. I mean, that we have common interests as suppliers. It’s very good that you and I are in constant contact and coordinating our joint efforts in this direction. “

“Let me thank you for inviting me to visit your beautiful country with a working visit, – Putin said Berdymukhamedov. - I think we will have today is a good opportunity to discuss our cooperation in many aspects, that is for the current period that was done in the future, for the future. And this occasion, I would like to congratulate you. You – a candidate for President of Russia. I wish that you won the election. “

On the question of why Moscow was visited by the President of Turkmenistan and the situation in this country, in an interview with the “Russian people’s lines,” said the head of the Central Asia and Kazakhstan, the CIS Countries Institute Andrei Grozin .

Andrei Grozin

In the media there is almost no information about what they were talking in Moscow the leaders of Russia and Turkmenistan. One gets the feeling that it was just a “friendly trip.” In fact, it is certainly not the case.Berdymukhamedov, of course, younger and more mobile Niyazov, but just try not to go in vain, as opposed to, for example, from the Tajikistan counterparts Emomali Rakhmonov, who goes wherever he can, if only to ask anyone for money. In Berdimuhamedov with the money more or less in order, and the basis for relations between Russia and Turkmenistan, of course, is a gas.
Obviously, during a visit Berdymukhamedov discussed namely “gas issue”. As far as the discussion was conducted “in private”, and hence – the absence of a leak, a variety of interpretations, etc. I believe that the Russian side is not so much worried about the construction of “Nabucco” (which was built in the foreseeable future will not be), but the construction of the Trans-Caspian pipeline as a first step towards the implementation of major projects out of Central Asian hydrocarbons to Russian territory. Turkmenistan, in addition to what has serious resource base (which in itself is interesting for the European and U.S. corporations), is a bridge actor, cycling who can uncork the whole of Central Asia and try to expand trade and energy flows from the north and east to west.
The position of Ashgabat depends very much, and in Moscow understand that. Therefore, in my opinion, Berdymukhamedov tries until recently did not give anyone any solid guarantees. Something he said, and the EU are talking about the notorious 10 billion cubic meters, of which argue for three years, but it is so vague that even European bureaucrats who support the idea of ​​”Nabucco”, few believe in the marketability of these promises. Another thing is that, unlike Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan does not have the physical and geographical features to really turn around and refuse to supply gas to the north. So they have to conduct a more cautious, more balanced policy. The same Berdimuhamedov will do next – do nothing, just promise to further extend the pipe the Chinese.
Berdymukhamedov mass care and other issues, not only the possibility of pressure from Europe to Ashgabat in connection with the “theme of the gas.” In February, there are presidential elections, when the easiest way to organize unconstitutional change of power or polukonstitutsionnuyu in any state. In addition, in Ashgabat, as well as throughout Central Asia, many excited bloated reports of some “Russian winter” and everything connected with it. It is clear that Berdymukhamedov came to personally clarify the situation for people that really depends on the political development of Russia as opposed to counter-elite that is trying to ride a strange vague ferment inside individual heads, and sectors of society of the capital.
Of course, Berdimuhamedov is worried about the results of the elections. Now nobody in no way certain. Probably Berdimuhamedov to Moscow to seek confirmation of the fortress of Russian power.Turkmenistan is located in a information vacuum – not only in relation to it, little is known, but little is seen from there. In Turkmenistan, very seriously concerned about the ongoing in various expert groups, talk about the fact that Russia is not highly interested in any attempt to build an alternative pipeline from Turkmenistan to the West and will resist such attempts. Against the backdrop of Russia 2006-2007, such arguments by some Russian experts could skip past the ears, but after August 8, 2008, all, including the Central Asian regimes, began to treat the Russian rhetoric is much more closely. Therefore Berdimuhamedov needed to hear the Russian position, as well as hints on how Russia will act if Turkmenistan is still dare to join the Trans-Caspian, where it is actively being dragged and because of which, if it is in this matter will be actively resisted, can emerge serious trouble in the February elections.
In Central Asia, are also seriously concerned as the “Arab spring” (and reaction to it in Russia) as well as what is happening and will happen in Afghanistan. Technologies that are used in the Arab world, perfectly fit the Central Asian soil. Of course, there is its own specifics, but as the experience of the year, clean technology to implement this kind of scenario is not difficult, especially when it comes to such vertically oriented political systems of Central Asia, which differ in the degree of Russian weakness. Our “vertical of power” still a hybrid, and, by the territorial and other factors, more adapted to the external challenges. However, any Central vertical weak in the first place, sharpened by one person when there is no alternative centers of decision-making and crisis response, and secondly – the limited capacity of a single leader (especially since two of the four Central Asian authoritarian already over 70 years, and there discussed the question of who will replace them), that does not add strength to these political structures that undermine the same way just as the Mubarak regime, it is much easier than, for example, in Libya.
Therefore, all the Central Asian rulers gradually catching up to Moscow, because they understand that moving away from Russia, they find themselves in a situation depending on the mood of the West, in other words, the Anglo-Saxon elite. Nobody does not want such a relationship, especially against the background of how the fate of even such a pro-American policy, as Hosni Mubarak.
Now they are nothing more than not believe and try to get some form of compensatory mechanisms in support of Russia. If the situation will be shaken in any of the Central, frankly, despotisms, in parallel with the worsening situation in Afghanistan, they will become more and more pro-Russian – will sign documents of a close partnership, to pursue a Eurasian Union, etc.
It should be noted another important point. The following year, Turkmenistan – Chairman of the CIS.Given the special position of Turkmenistan (Turkmenistan is not transferred to the CIS championship following in alphabetical order the applicant, taking it to yourself), it is quite revealing. It is quite possible that next year, the Turkmen foreign policy will be less neutral and more attempts to integrate into obscheevraziysky mechanism....

By JOSHUA KUCERA

There is perhaps no country on earth surrounded by more difficult neighbors than Afghanistan. When the U.S. wants to ship matériel to its troops there, it can’t go through Tajikistan because the roads are so poor; it can’t go through Turkmenistan because that country maintains an isolationist neutrality; and, for obvious reasons, it can’t go through Iran.

Until Nov. 26, the U.S. military shipped about a third of its supplies through Pakistan, but after an American attack killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, the country cut off NATO’s access to the border, and there is little indication that officials in Islamabad intend to change their minds. The U.S. military ships another third of its cargo to Afghanistan by air, but that costs so much more than shipping by land that to expand those operations would be prohibitively expensive. That leaves Uzbekistan.

Anticipating problems with Pakistan, Pentagon planners began putting together the Northern Distribution Network, a series of transit routes from Europe through the former Soviet Union. Nearly all of those routes converge at Termez, Uzbekistan, whose sleepy, dusty streets belie its strategic location: 75 percent of the network’s traffic passes through the town and across the Soviet-built “Friendship Bridge” into Afghanistan. Now, the U.S. will have to ship even more military cargo through Uzbekistan, one of Washington’s least likeable allies.

Ruled since the Soviet era by President Islam Karimov, it is the fifth-most corrupt country in the world, according to Transparency International, and in Freedom House’s rankings of political and civil freedoms it is tied for last.

“The challenge for the United States is to strike a balance between its short-term, war-fighting needs and long-term interests in promoting a stable, prosperous and democratic Central Asia,” John Kerry wrote in the introduction to a report released on Dec. 19 by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations entitled “Central Asia and the Transition in Afghanistan.”

This is a difficult needle to thread, but Washington has so far largely succeeded. The U.S. has kept the supply lines running while compromising little on its principles. The yearly State Department human rights reports have remained consistently critical, even as military cooperation has blossomed. Human rights advocates in Uzbekistan — a small, beleaguered community — still say that, for the most part, they feel like the U.S. Embassy is an ally.

But this balance is difficult to maintain, and lately there have been signs that America may be wavering. The defense budget authorization act passed on Dec. 15 by Congress removed restrictions on military aid to Uzbekistan that had been in place since 2004 because of the country’s odious human rights record. Asked about that decision, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said there had been “progress” on human rights and political freedoms, which, while not a realistic assessment of the situation, technically speaking is true.

The Kerry report makes the same claim and as evidence reaches back nearly four years to note only one such bit of progress: that the government began allowing the Red Cross to visit prisoners in 2008. But the overall picture is grim, and, if anything, getting worse.

When Clinton visited Tashkent in October, a State Department official told the reporters accompanying her that “President Karimov commented that he wants to make progress on liberalization and democratization, and he said that he wants to leave a legacy of that for his — both his kids and his grandchildren.” Pressed by an incredulous reporter, the official added, “Yeah. I do believe him.”

This new, more accommodating rhetoric is embarrassing. If Clinton were to say: “No, we don’t agree with how Uzbekistan’s government runs its country. But we need their help in Afghanistan, and so we’re temporarily putting our differences aside,” would anyone object? That is obviously the bargain being struck, and one that few in the U.S. or Uzbekistan would take issue with.

Wikileaked cables reporting on U.S. negotiations with Karimov over the past few years reveal a president who doesn’t seem to care much about how the U.S. sees his government, but just doesn’t want what he calls American “pressure and diktats” to reform.

Though the U.S. has consistently hectored Uzbekistan on human rights over the past two decades, the country has become more oppressive. The U.S.-Uzbekistan military relationship has had its ups and downs — the U.S. operated an air base there from 2001 to 2005 — and through it all, Karimov hasn’t changed.

There is no question that as long as the U.S. is in Afghanistan, it will need to engage with Uzbekistan. But how it chooses to engage can make all the difference. “Achieving our security goals and promoting good governance and human rights are not mutually exclusive,” the Kerry report says. “In fact, security and political engagement are complementary strategies that are more likely to be effective when pursued together.”

The report doesn’t back up that assertion, and in the case of Uzbekistan it plainly isn’t true. No sort of political engagement will work, and the irony is that the more U.S. officials believe it, the more likely they are to compromise their principles. In this case, saying nothing may be the best way for the U.S. to stay true to what it believes.


The West tries out old tricks in Russia....


The West tries out old tricks in Russia....

By Mikhail L. Titarenko

Long before the State Duma elections of Dec 4, the ultra-rightist and liberal mass media, collaborating with anti-Russian elements in the West, forecast that the ruling United Russia party would suffer a serious defeat.

They organized all sorts of sociological surveys to support this thoroughly planned campaign and to push their “predictions” on the “crisis” facing Russian leaders and “sharply declining rating” of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev. The anti-Putin campaign became really vociferous when the United Russia congress officially and unanimously approved Putin as its nominee for the presidential election in March 2012.

It is true that the election results showed the correlation of political forces and sentiments in Russia, which is experiencing the difficult strategic consequences of the disintegration of the erstwhile Soviet Union and the impact of the global economic crisis.

The Russian authorities should learn the lessons from the protests, which shows the global crisis has had a serious impact on Russia’s economy. For example, it has increased the cost of housing and utilities substantially, and led to proliferation of corruption, lack of discipline among bureaucrats, strong bureaucratic stranglehold, and chaos in army and military reforms. Quite naturally, these factors have influenced people’s attitude toward the United Russia party and the bureaucracy, which has won the “top prize” in terms of public repulsion.

However, the “go ahead” for the nasty campaign came from politicians in the United States, who made it clear that they would not welcome Putin back as president of Russia. The opposition in Russia took the signal immediately and went on the “offensive”.

Voters manifested good understanding of the fact that in the past decade as well as during the current difficult times Putin, the non-partisan leader of United Russia, and Medvedev have made substantial efforts to consolidate the country and solve its political and social problems. As for Putin, he has won wide public recognition as a Russian patriot who cares and works for the consolidation and prosperity of the country and to improve the lives and livelihoods of the working people, especially the less-protected section of society.

The West assumes that the disintegration of the Soviet Union was the result of its victory in the Cold War. It hopes that with Western support, separatists and criminals will take the next step to cause the collapse of Russia. In their writings, American politicians such as political scientist and former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski and former secretary of state Madeleine Albright have described scenarios of an expected collapse of Russia and even redrawn its national borders.

Putin, who posed the main geopolitical obstacle to the realization of such goals, outlined the strategy for Russia’s revival and consolidation of its status as an important independent country that would cooperate with other countries, including the US, on the principle of equal rights.

As shown by the Dec 4 election results, the United Russia party, notwithstanding the weakening of some of its authority, retained a very considerable percentage of voters’ confidence and won 50 percent of the popular votes. The results also reflect that the Russian people still have the undoubted confidence in Putin and Medvedev.

The Western media try to fan the liberal opposition’s passions in every which way they can. But the Russian authorities, manifesting maximum tolerance, have allowed such anti-government demonstrations to take place.

Some media outlets are engaged in unbridled propaganda, aimed specifically against Putin. But the Russian people know that it is a preplanned political provocation, designed by anti-Russia elements to destabilize the situation in the run-up to the presidential election.

When the liberal media in Russia and in the West loudly advertise their concern over “democratic development” in Russia, they expose their involvement in efforts to silence true public sentiments, as evident in the protests in the US, Britain, Italy, Germany and France. The demonstrations in the West are aimed against the ruling oligarchs in those countries who have fattened their wallets during the economic crisis and distributed multi-million-dollar bonuses among themselves, thereby aggravating the financial and economic chaos.

The Western media should reflect on their double standard on democracy and protests for justice. As the Holy Bible says, before pointing out a mote in another’s eye, they should remove a beam from their own eyes....

Moscow Protests and Occupy Wall St. Are Twin Instruments of Destabilization...


[Putin complains that the new opposition is leaderless, without the ability to formulate one coherent complaint against him and the system. With this description, he could have been talking about the American "Occupy Wall St." movement. The Occupy movement and the anti-Putin movement are twins, fake grass roots movements, generated by the same American sponsors. Occupy and its twin may be nearly identical in composition, but they have diametrically opposed goals--Occupy is intended as an American pressure relief valve, to confuse any real grass roots "praire fire" from sweeping Obama and friends from power; the leaderless Moscow protests are attempting the impossible, to organize around all issues, hoping that one of them will truly light the fuse and destroy Putin in the process....

The CIA has, over the years, perfected its formula for social agitation and behavioral control. Real control of activist populations is a powerful instrument for change, sowing destabilized populations wherever this weaponized political process is deployed. This weaponized form of democratic-revolution is being used in Moscow to destroy the one man who can pull Russia through the time of testing that we have been forced into. Both Eastern and Western movements are also identical to the "Arab Spring" movements, only in the case of the Middle East and North Africa, Washington's "Islamists" are the pawns, the agitators deployed by the State Dept. to stir the boiling broth.
If the world manages to survive the forces that the CIA has unleashed, the end result will be an entire world organized against the perpetrator of all the trouble and chaos. Only God knows what will happen after that.]

Russian protesters seeking to sow chaos: Putin

MOSCOW: Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday that mass protests against his 12-year rule were being stoked by a hollow collection of leaderless opposition groups who wanted to sow chaos in Russia.
In his first comments since Saturday’s protest, Russia’s prime minister said it was impossible to annul the December 4 parliamentary election – the opposition’s key demand – but promised the March presidential vote, in which he is running, would be transparent.
Comparing protesters to Russian revolutionaryLeon Trotsky, Putin said they were more interested in sowing chaos than implementing a concrete set of ideas on how the world’s biggest energy producer should develop.

“The problem is that they have no single program,” the 59-year-old leader told top members of his All Russia People’s Front, an umbrella movement of supporters, at his presidential election campaign headquarters in Moscow.
“They have many individual programs, but no unified one and no clear way to reach their goals, which are also not clear, and there are no people who would be able to do anything concrete,” Putin said.

Facing the biggest protests since he rose to power in 1999, Russia’s most powerful politician has looked out of touch in recent weeks, dismissing thousands of protesters as chattering monkeys while offering gradual political reforms.
With supporters, Putin took the protests more seriously, saying his opponents deserved respect despite their hunger for what he termed “Brownian motion,” the apparently random movement of particles observed by Scottish scientist Robert Brown.

Paramount leader
Putin presented himself as a leader able to ensure stability and protesters as spoilers bend on chaos, a potentially appealing strategy in a country which has been racked by crises and political chaos since the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union.
Putin, who polls show is Russia’s most popular politician, said that he had a solid agenda which included modernization of the $1.9 trillion economy and strengthening of defense.
He said protesters were trying to undermine the legitimacy of the parliamentary vote and called for a transparent presidential election.
“When this kind of situation emerges, there is always an attempt to devalue and undermine the legitimacy of everything that happened in the public sphere, including and, most of all, the electoral process,” he said.

“Therefore, everything must be done in order to ensure that elections are understandable, transparent and objective.”
Putin said his government would spend $500 million to install web cameras at all polling stations, an idea he first aired on December 15, although some of his supporters argued it would do little to boost transparency.

The gulf between Putin and tens of thousands of people who came out onto the streets of Russia’s biggest cities has stoked speculation that Putin may seek to ditch some senior aides.
The Kremlin’s powerful first deputy chief of staff, Vladislav Surkov, did not attend Putin’s meeting, the first such absence for months at a meeting of such importance. Surkov did not return calls.
Other Putin’s allies, including trade union activists, industry workers and war veterans, complained to their boss about the methods used by the opposition, with some calling for tighter Internet regulation....


The author is president of Russia-China Friendship Association and director of Institute of Far Eastern Studies, affiliated to the Russian Academy of Sciences....

Monday, December 26, 2011

World War III Has Begun – It`s the First Asymmetric War Long Awaited by Pentagon Think Tanks....


World War III Has Begun – It`s the First Asymmetric War Long Awaited by Pentagon Think Tanks....

Wayne MADSEN (USA) | 26.12.2011


This war, declared by the United States unconstitutionally, is fought covertly and via proxies....

The Pentagon has already declared World War III and President Barack Obama and the Congress never even carried out their constitutional duties to approve the use of American military power for war.

One might reasonably conclude that the United States has outsourced war. Presently, World War III is being conducted on two continents – Asia and Africa – with two others – Europe and South America – looming on the horizon. Today, wars are crafted by the upper one percent of wealthy elitists who, using non-governmental organizations, television networks, non — profit “think tanks,” and public relations firms, can declare war on nations without a whimper from elected public officials.

Symmetric warfare is no longer an option for the global elites. World Wars I and II severely affected the investments of many of the global elite families as a result of the destruction of cities, factories, railways, seaports, and other infrastructures. The Korean, Vietnam, the Arab-Israeli, and Iraq wars were messy affairs that also adversely affected markets and destroyed valuable infrastructures. The Cold War never developed into a hot nuclear war because of the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which ensured that a nuclear first strike by either the West or the East would result in total annihilation of both sides, along with the rest of the world. Even a western military attack on China would have had disastrous results for the attackers, especially since China could retaliate with a nuclear counter-attack and wipe out the U.S. Seventh Fleet and its East Asian naval bases, including Okinawa and Guam. A new type of warfare was required by the elites: asymmetric warfare – the use of unconventional warfare tactics, including information warfare, by proxies, non-state actors, agents provocateur, and fifth columns.

Largely financed by hedge fund mega-tycoon George Soros and his Central Intelligence Agency interlocutors, our present asymmetric World War III was field tested just like any new product. The “themed” revolutions were market-tested first in Serbia, and then in Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan, to oust problematic governments that did not want to get on board with the dictates of the unelected and unaccountable real controllers of the financial and political destiny of the world.

Pro-western and pro-European Union governments, comprised of a number of individuals who were funded by Soros and other non-state operations established by the global elites, for example, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, Freedom House, U.S. Institute of Peace, and others funded and supported by the Houses of Rothschild, Rockefeller, Mellon, and others saw to it that new governments took root in Belgrade, Kiev, Tbilisi, and Bishkek. These new governments were not elected but took power as a result of themed street rebellions, a new manifestation of unconventional warfare.

No longer did armies, navies, and air forces have to face each other across battlefields and battle zones and theaters of warfare. One merely had to embed fifth columnists and provocateurs inside a targeted nation's capital city, media, political party apparatus, and "civil society" infrastructure to bring about the defeat of the government outside the normal political process and replace it with a new government beholden to the desires of the central banks and global oligarchs.

The beginnings of the asymmetric world war began in Belgrade, Serbia when Otpor – a Serbian resistance movement dedicated to overthrowing the Slobodon Milosevic regime – launched the first “themed revolution.” Otpor’s symbol was a clenched fist, an emblem that would reappear in the future in other capital cities from Kiev to Cairo. Otpor received massive funding from a network of western contrivances, including George Soros’s Open Society Institute, the neo-conservative-infiltrated U.S. National Endowment for Democracy, and various European Union-funded NGOs that were intimately linked to Soros’s “democracy engineering” operations.

The playbook used for Otpor in Serbia and by similar organizations in toppling the governments of Georgia in the Rose Revolution, Ukraine in the Orange Revolution, Lebanon in 2005, and Kyrgyzstan in the Tulip Revolution, was developed by University of Massachusetts professor Gene Sharp, the founder of the Boston-based NGO, the Albert Einstein Institute, which helped train Otpor activists in civil disobedience and popular resistance campaigns designed to overthrow governments, those democratically-elected and those not. Albert Einstein Institute-trained provocateurs launched popular resistance campaigns around the world aimed at replacing governments unwilling to acquiesce to the dictates of Western elites. Internal opposition forces, all acolytes of Sharp, for instance Kmara, which helped install the pro-Western and pro-Israeli Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia; Pora in Ukraine that propelled pro-NATO Viktor Yushchenko into the presidency; and KelKel in Kyrgyzstan that replaced Askar Akayev with the corrupt Kurmanbek Bakiyev.

The domino effect of the themed revolutions saw Serbs helping to overthrow the Georgian government, then Serbs and Georgians flocking to Kiev to oust the Ukrainian government, and Georgians and Ukrainians being directly involved in the insurrection in Bishkek. The neo-conservatives and Sharp had borrowed a page from the Communists and the international proletarian movement that saw Communist cadres fight against capitalists and fascists in foreign civil wars, for example, the Spanish Civil War and conflicts in Africa and Southeast Asia.

Sharp was an alumnus of Harvard University’s CIA-linked Center for International Affairs, also abbreviated “CIA,” which is not coincidental. Harvard and the CIA of Langley, Virginia have long maintained a close relationship. In fact, Sharp was never interested in ensuring the will of the people to map out their own future but was putting into practice the theory of asymmetric warfare – the vanquishing of enemies through the use of proxy internal forces without the requirement for invading foreign armies and the massive death and destruction associated with such action.

Many of Sharp’s tactics have been seen in practice in many asymmetric warfare targets. These include the creation of a perception of a successful movement, even if there is not one. The use of western-controlled news networks like Fox News that showed a video clip of anti-austerity Greek rioters in Athens falsely depicted as anti-government protesters in Moscow and Al Jazeera’s use of a video erroneously showing a U.S.- and Saudi-backed bloody crackdown of pro-democracy protesters by Bahrain’s security forces as the bloody repression of protesters by Syria’s government are examples of Sharp’s propaganda and disinformation tactics.

Cultivating foreign support is another key element of Sharp’s asymmetric warfare tactics. The virtual control exercised by Soros over Human Rights Watch after the multi-billionaire hedge fund kingpin donated $100 million to the group is a case in point. The human rights NGO was at the forefront of hyping “atrocities” committed by the Qaddafi regime in Libya but remained largely silent on Libyan rebel atrocities committed against Libyan and African blacks, as well as Qaddafi loyalists. In so doing, Human Rights Watch had a powerful accomplice in the International Criminal Court, which tended to look the other way when CIA- and Saudi- and Qatari’ supported Libyan rebels were committing the massacres.

Another Sharp tactic is to seek change outside the electoral system. This tactic was evident in the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine, where election results were rejected, and in the recent Russian parliamentary election, where Soros- and U.S. neocon-financed election monitoring groups like Golos rejected the outcome of the election and used shills like former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev to call for the nullification of the election. Interference following the Sharp and Soros methodology can also be seen in the presidential candidacies of Russian oligarch and New Jersey Nets basketball owner Mikhail Prokhorov and the backing by western propaganda outlets like the Christian Science Monitor (now derided as the “Christian Zionist Monitor” after its takeover by interests who favor a neo-imperialist U.S. foreign policy) of Moscow street protest veteran Alexei Navalny.

Sharp and Soros are on the same page in calling for the internal opposition forces’ use of the Internet, fax, and social networks like Facebook and Twitter to advance their agendas.

In the next phases of World War III, the asymmetric warriors of the Pentagon and their adjunct non-state actors will continue to turn up the heat in the Arab World, with the revolutions in Libya, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen, and Egypt, after a somewhat shaky start that saw the advancement of Islamist groups, being brought under more western and NATO control. Russia’s presidential election and a turndown in the Chinese economy, with growing village-based dissent among China’s growing middle class, will present further opportunities for the promoters of World War III. The sudden death of North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Il has also resulted in a call for an expansion of social networking operations, most notably by the CIA- and Soros-infested Washington Post, inside Asia’s hermit kingdom.

Myanmar, China’s restive provinces of Tibet and East Turkestan, Lebanon, Iran, Algeria, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Nepal, Belarus, Ecuador, Bolivia, Pakistan, Laos, and the two Congos also present opportunities for the World War III architects. Those who seek to extend American and global elitist control over the entire planet will not rest until every acre of land comes under the firm control of the oligarchs of Wall Street, the spymasters of the CIA, and the globalist business cartels and families....

Central Asia to be hugged to death by the Great Satan, USA....?







[The US is counting on its ability to slowly sneak into key positions in all of these countries, where it can provide some kind of service which will come to be seen as indispensable, i.e., border control, counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics, crowd control (SEE: Washington’s New Foxy Plan To Sneak Into the Central Asian Hen House).]

Russia’s Central Asian neighbors Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan have become strategically important for the US as Washington seeks to diversify cargo routes to Afghanistan following a split with Islamabad.

The US Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee has published a report on the transit of cargoes via Central Asia to Afghanistan. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan are described as being of exceptional political and strategic importance for the international operation in Afghanistan. According to statistical data, 40% of cargoes entered Afghanistan via Uzbekistan this year. The remaining 60% were delivered via Pakistan. However, Islamabad has blocked cargo traffic twice over the past few months. It did so last after a NATO air strike against Pakistani border guards in November. Even though the report says that the US-Pakistan relations might still normalize, the Senate has chosen not to depend on Islamabad and look for other options.

As long as this cooperation serves humanitarian needs, Moscow has no objections. Daniil Kislov, chief editor of the Fergana International Agency, comments:

“Russia was the first to grant its overland routes and airspace for the US and NATO to transport cargoes to Afghanistan and back when the withdrawal of troops begins. There are no grounds for conflict, not until the US or NATO announces the opening of new military facilities in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan or Kyrgyzstan.”

A step of this kind is fairly possible. In September this year US Congress resolved to abolish the 2004 restrictions on granting military aid to Uzbekistan and offered to supply Tashkent with weapons no longer needed in the Afghan campaign. A military base would be logical to come next, and then the region will be declared a US interest zone. What will follow becomes clear too if we recall the developments in the Middle East and North Africa, says Andrei Grozin of the Institute of CIS Countries.

“As a rule, this is followed by a variety of problems in this so-called “interest zone” as the US has its own vision of what course the “interest zone” countries should follow and won’t heed local opinions. The secular regimes of the five Central Asian countries are weak compared to countries of the Middle East. An outside intervention threatens to shake the unsteady situation in these countries and may lead to numerous conflicts, both internal and external.”

The Senate’s report recommends rendering economic assistance to the Central Asian countries as a measure to counteract the influence of Russia and China, two major players in the region. Russia, China and other countries of Asia and Pacific which have direct economic and political interests in Central Asia are unlikely to put up with this. Andrei Grozin has this to say:

“None of the states with interests in Central Asia will welcome a US presence in the region. All countries concerned will resist such a step. And they will resort to various methods in doing this.”

Given that Russia shares its past with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, it can’t turn a blind eye on what’s happening in close proximity to its borders....



Sunday, December 25, 2011

Downed U.S. Drone by Iran will find its way to China....


Downed U.S. Drone by Iran will find its way to China....


Access to a downed U.S. stealth drone would offer plenty of scope for China to reverse engineer key technologies. Will Iran give it the chance?

The loss of a U.S. RQ-170 stealth drone over eastern Iran has led to speculation that the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) will eventually find its way into Chinese hands. Access to the drone could allow China to use reverse engineering to incorporate key technologies into its own indigenous aerospace systems and to develop countermeasures that would make it harder for U.S. stealth UAVs and aircraft to operate near China. Iran has significant political, military, and financial incentives to provide such access, reversing the usual flow of technology from China to Iran.

Despite the claims of some Iranian officials, Iran lacks the technical capacity to exploit and duplicate the advanced technologies in the RQ-170 on its own. Providing access to China could therefore generate benefits in terms of expanded Iranian access to Chinese military technologies, potential future access to UAV countermeasures, and Chinese diplomatic support in Iran’s confrontation with the West over its nuclear program.

A robust arms sales relationship has existed between China and Iran since the early 1980s. China has supplied Iran with military hardware including fighter aircraft (F-7), fast-attack patrol vessels, anti-ship cruise missiles, and guidance technologies for use in Iran’s ballistic missile program. The dollar amount of official arms transfers in the decade 2000-2010 decreased from previous decades, but China continues to help Iran develop critical weapons programs. According to Iran’s semiofficial Mehr News agency, both Chinese and Russian officials have already made requests to inspect the RQ-170.

A recent National Defense University study by Phillip Saunders and myself looked at the history of China’s military aviation industry and gave numerous examples of how access to foreign aircraft designs and reverse engineering of components has helped China expand its aerospace technology capacity. In the wake of the Sino-Soviet split in 1960, China used reverse engineering to fill technical gaps and improve upon older Soviet designs. Access to restricted U.S. aircraft and aerospace technologies gained through third parties has also provided opportunities to apply reverse engineering. One commonly cited example is Chinese access to the F-16 gained through its close relationship with Pakistan. It’s difficult to determine the exact level of access China enjoyed, but open source references claim that Chinese technical personnel visiting Pakistan in the early 1980s were given the opportunity to examine the F-16 in detail (I recommend Wei Chen Lee’s excellent article “The Birth of a Salesman: China as an Arms Supplier”). Islamabad may have also transferred completed subsystems to China and provided access to the design and maintenance blueprints necessary to service the aircraft.

The Chinese military aviation industry’s technology base and ability to produce sophisticated aerospace systems has expanded rapidly over the past two decades, greatly improving its ability to exploit and potentially replicate technologies used in the RQ-170 drone. For example, China’s J-10 multi-role fighter incorporates metal alloys and composite materials for high strength and low weight. China developed the fourth generation J-11B fighter through a combination of coproduction and reverse engineering the Russian Su-27, with a particular focus on indigenizing subsystems. The unveiling of the J-20 stealth fighter prototype, which made its first test flight in January, demonstrates China’s ability to incorporate stealth technology in new aircraft designs.

China is also making significant efforts to develop and deploy its own UAV capabilities. In 2010, China displayed 25 different models of UAV at its biennial Zhuhai airshow. Officials representing China’s ASN Technology Group – one of several major UAV producers – claimed that the People’s Liberation Army is already operating two drones. The Institute for International Strategic Studies reported in its Military Balance 2010 that China has deployed several types of UAV for both “combat and reconnaissance” purposes, though it makes no specific mention of armed drones.

Even if China hasn’t yet fielded an armed UAV, the number of models in advanced stages of development makes it clear that this capability will be part of its air power arsenal in the near future. The deployment of UAV systems supports the Chinese military’s doctrinal imperative of increasing “informationization” to improve situational awareness and adds another layer of remote targeting and strike capability which can enhance China’s ability to deny military access on its periphery.

Access to the RQ-170 would give Chinese engineers the opportunity to study the drone’s sensor systems, control and communication systems, and the materials and design elements that make it stealthy. Access to the drone might further allow engineers to understand how its subsystems are fused together and how it operates as an integrated whole. Even if the Chinese aerospace industry can’t use reverse engineering to produce an indigenous equivalent of the RQ-170, Chinese engineers could probably learn enough from the RQ-170 to develop improved countermeasures and defenses against it and similar systems. China is already devoting considerable attention to improving its air defenses and developing means to defeat U.S. stealth technology, and so access to the RQ-170 would facilitate Chinese efforts to understand how advanced U.S. UAVs operate and to devise new ways to exploit their operational weaknesses.

It’s unclear whether Iranian air defenses or countermeasures played a role in downing the RQ-170. A senior Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Washington Post that there was a “95 percent chance” that the drone crashed due to technical malfunction.In later statements, U.S. officials flatly denied Iranian claims that a sophisticated cyber attack brought down the RQ-170, but have been less definitive about whether Iran might have used other means like GPS jamming to interfere with the drone’s flight.

But even if the loss of the RQ-170 over Iran was due to a technical malfunction, Chinese access to the drone may eventually help produce countermeasures and improved air defenses that make it harder for the United States to operate stealthy UAVs over hostile territory. Iran would be a prime customer for such systems; a Chinese commitment to sell UAVs and countermeasures might be part of Iran’s price tag for access to the RQ-170....

The March to War: Iran and the Strategic Encirclement of Syria and Lebanon...


The March to War: Iran and the Strategic Encirclement of Syria and Lebanon...


by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

The encirclement of Syria and Lebanon has long been in the works. Since 2001, Washington and NATO have started the process of cordoning off Lebanon and Syria. The permanent NATO presence in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Syrian Accountability Act are part of this initiative. It appears that this roadmap is based on a 1996 Israeli document aimed at controlling Syria. The document’s name is A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.

The 1996 Israeli document, which included prominent U.S. policy figures as authors, calls for “rolling back Syria” in 2000 or afterward. The roadmap outlines pushing the Syrians out of Lebanon, diverting the attention of Damascus by using an anti-Syrian opposition in Lebanon, and then destabilizing Syria with the help of both Jordan and Turkey. This has all respectively occurred from 2005 to 2011. This is also why the anti-Syrian March 14 Alliance and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) were created in Lebanon.

As a first step towards all this the 1996 document even calls for the removal of President Saddam Hussein from power in Baghdad and even alludes to the balkanization of Iraq and forging a strategic regional alliance against Damascus that includes a Sunni Muslim Arab “Central Iraq.” The sectarian nature of this project is very obvious as are its ties to opposing a so-called “Shiite Crescent.” The roadmap seeks to foment sectarian divisions as a means of conquering Syria and creating a Shiite-Sunni rift that will oppose Iran and keep the Arab monarchs in power.

The U.S. has now initiated a naval build-up off the Syrian and Lebanese coasts. This is part of Washington’s standard scare tactics that it has used as a form of intimidation and psychological warfare against Iran, Syria, and the Resistance Bloc. While Washington is engaged in its naval build-up, the mainstream media networks controlled by the Saudis and Arab clients of the U.S. are focusing on the deployment of Russian naval vessels to Syria, which can be seen as a counter-move to NATO.

Al-Ramtha in Jordan is being used to launch attacks into Daraa and Syrian territory. The Jordanian Minister of State for Media Affairs and Communications, Rakan Al-Majali, has even publicly admitted this and dismissed it as weapons smuggling. For years, Jordanian forces have successfully prevented weapons from reaching the Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank from Jordanian territory. In reality, Amman is sending weapons into Syria and working to destabilize Syria. Jordanian forces work as a frontline to protect Israel and the Jordanian intelligence services are an extension of the C.I.A. and Mossad.

According to the Turkish media, France has sent its military trainers into Turkey and Lebanon to prepare conscripts against Syria. The Lebanese media also suggests the same. The so-called Free Syrian Army and other NATO-GCC front organizations are also using Turkish and Jordanian territory to stage raids into Syria. Lebanon is also being used to smuggle weapon shipments into Syria. Many of these weapons were actually arms that the Pentagon had secretly re-directed into Lebanon from Anglo-American occupied Iraq during the George W. Bush Jr. presidency.

The French Foreign Minister, Alain Juppé, has promised the Syrian National Council, that a so-called “humanitarian corridor” will be imposed on Syria. Once again, the Syrian National Council is not an independent entity and therefore Juppé did not really make a promise; he really made a declaration.

While foreign companies like Suncor Energy were forced to leave Libya, they have not left Syria. The reason that these companies have stayed has been presented as being humanitarian, because they provide domestic local services in Syria. For example, Suncor Energy helped produce oil for export from Libya, but in Syria produces energy for local consumption. In reality, hostile governments are letting these companies stay, because they siphon money out of Syria. They want to prevent any money from going in, while they want to also drain the local economy as a catalyst to internal implosion in Syria.

Along with the U.S. and its NATO allies, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is imposing sanctions that include an end to all flights to Syria. The GCC states and Turkey have joined the foreign ministries of NATO states in asking their citizens to leave Syria. Since the U.N. Security Council is no longer a viable route against Syria, the GCC may also try to impose a no-fly zone over Syria through the Arab League.

Turkey: NATO’s Trojan Horse and Gateway into the Middle East

Turkey was present at the Arab League meeting in Morocco, which demanded regime change in Damascus. Ankara has been playing a dirty game. Initially, during the start of NATO’s war against Libya, Ankara pretended to be neutral while it was helping the Transitional Council in Benghazi. The Turkish government does not care about the Syrian population. On the contrary, the demands that Turkish officials have made to the Syrians spell out that realpolitik is at play. In tune with the GCC, Turkey has demanded that Damascus re-orient its foreign policy and submit to Washington’s demands as a new satellite. Through a NATO initiative, the Turks have also been responsible for recruiting fighters against the Libyan and Syrian governments.

For several years Ankara has been silently trying to de-link Syria from Iran and to displace Iranian influence in the Middle East. Turkey has been working to promote itself and its image amongst the Arabs, but all along it has been a key component of the plans of Washington and NATO. At the same time, it has been upgrading its military capabilities in the Black Sea and on its borders with Iran and Syria. Its military research and development body, TUBITAK-SAGE, has also announced that Ankara will also start mass-production of cruise-missiles in 2012 that will be fitted for its navy and forthcoming deliveries of U.S. military jets that could be used in future regional wars. Turkey and NATO have also agreed to upgrade Turkish bases for NATO troops.

In September 2011, Ankara joined Washington’s missile shield project, which upset both Moscow and Tehran. The Kremlin has reserved the right to attack NATO’s missile shield facilities in Eastern Europe, while Tehran has reserved the right to attack NATO’s missile shield facilities in Turkey or in the case of a regional war. There have also been discussions about the Kremlin deploying Iskander missiles to Syria.

Since June 2011, Ankara has been talking about invading Syria. It has presented the invasion plans as a humanitarian mission to establish a “buffer zone” and “humanitarian corridor” under R2P, while it has also claimed that the protests in Syria are a regional issue and not a domestic issue. In July 2011, despite the close Irano-Turkish economic ties, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard made it clear that Tehran would support the Syrians and choose Damascus over Ankara. In August 2011, Ankara started deploying retired soldiers and its military reserve units to the Turkish-Syrian border. It is in this context, that the Russian military presence has also been beefing up in the port of Tartus.

From Damascus to Tehran

It is also no mere coincidence that Senator Joseph Lieberman started demanding at the start of 2011 that the Pentagon and NATO attack Syria and Iran. Nor is it a coincidence that Tehran has been included in the recent Obama Administration sanctions imposed against Damascus. Damascus is being targeted as a means of targeting Iran and, in broader terms, weakening Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing in the struggle for control over the Eurasian landmass. The U.S. and its remaining allies are about to reduce their forces in Iraq, but they do not want to leave the region or allow Iran to create a bridge between itself and the Eastern Mediterranean using Iraq.

Once the U.S. leaves Iraq, there will be a direct corridor between Lebanon and Syria with Iran. This will be a nightmare for Washington and Tel Aviv. It will entrench Iranian regional dominance and cement the Resistance Bloc, which will pin Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinians together. Israel and the U.S. will both be struck with major strategic blows.

The pressure on Syria is directly tied to this American withdrawal from Iraq and Washington’s efforts to block Tehran from making any further geo-political gains. By removing Damascus from the equation, Washington and its allies are hoping to create a geo-strategic setback for Iran.

Everything that Washington is doing is in preparation for the new geo-political reality and an attempt to preserve its regional standing. U.S. military forces from Iraq will actually be redeployed to the GCC countries in the Persian Gulf. Kuwait will host new combat units that have been designated to re-enter Iraq should security collapse, such as in the case of a regional war, or to confront Iran and its allies in a future conflict. The U.S. is now activating the so-called “Coalition of the Moderate” that it created under George W. Bush Jr. and directing it against Iran, Syria, and their regional allies.

On November 23, 2011 the Turks signed a military agreement with Britain to establish a strategic partnership and closer Anglo-Turkish military ties. During an important state visit by Abdullah Gül to London, the agreement was signed by Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond and the Deputy Chief of the Turkish General Staff, Hulusi Akar. The Anglo-Turkish agreement comes into play within the framework of the meetings that the British Chief of Defence Staff, General David Richards, and Liam Fox, the former scandal-ridden British defence minister, had with Israeli officials in Tel Aviv. After the visit of General Richards to Israel, Ehud Barak would visit Britain and later Canada for talks concerning Syria and its strategic ally Iran. Within this timeframe the British and Canadian governments would declare that they were prepared for war with both Syria and Iran.

London has announced that military plans were also drawn for war with Syria and Iran. On the other side of the Atlantic, Canada’s Defence Minister, Peter MacKay, created shockwaves in Canada when he made belligerent announcements about war with Syria and Iran. He also announced that Canada was buying a new series of military jets through a major arms purchase. Days later, both Canada and Britain would also cut their banking and financial ties with Iran. In reality, these steps have largely been symbolic, because Tehran was deliberately curbing it ties with Britain and Canada. For months the Iranians have also openly been evaluating cutting their ties with Britain and several other E.U. members.

The events surrounding Syria have much more to do with the geo-politics of the Middle East than just Syria alone. In the Israeli Knesset, the events in Syria were naturally tied to reducing Iranian power in the Middle East. Tel Aviv has been preparing itself for a major conflict for several years. This includes its long distance military flights to Greece that simulated an attack on Iran and its deployment of nuclear-armed submarines to the Persian Gulf. It has also conducted the “Turning Point” exercises, which seek to insure the continuation of the Israeli government through the evacuation and relocation of the Israeli cabinet and officials, including the Israeli finance ministry, to secret bunkers in the case of a war.

For half a decade Washington has been directing a military arms build-up in the Middle East aimed at Iran and the Resistance Bloc. It has sent massive arms shipments to Saudi Arabia. It has sent deliveries of bunker busters to the U.A.E. and Israel, amongst others, while it has upgraded its own deadly arsenal. U.S. officials have also started to openly discuss murdering Iranian leaders and military officials through covert operations. What the world is facing is a pathway towards possible military escalation that could go far beyond the boundaries of the Middle East and suck in Russia, China, and their allies. The Revolutionary Guard have also made it clear that if conflict is ignited with Iran that Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinians would all be drawn in as Iranian allies.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and award-winning author based in Ottawa.

Saturday, December 24, 2011

Obomba’s Byzantine Style in the ‘Greater Middle East’....

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/12004/1201173-82-0.stm?cmpid=nationworld.xml

By ORIENTAL REVIEW
Obama’s Byzantine Style in the ‘Greater Middle East’

For the last few years the incumbent US administration was getting adhered to a new, more sophisticated principle in foreign policy: to act overseas by means of its allies and to promote American initiatives as multilateral through the international organizations.

Thus, the war against Libya was unleashed by France, and the US was carrying out merely ‘supportive’ functions. The Modern Silk Road project is initiated by Turkey while the United States is a “neutral but enthusiastic supporter” [1]. The Arab League is churning out petitions to overthrow legitimate, but undesired leaders. In October 2011 the UN resolution against Syria was proposed by France, UK, Germany and Portugal, and the US was just ‘seconding’ it together with Colombia, Nigeria, Gabon and Bosnia. This is indeed a smarter and subtle tactics if compared with the cowboy pounces of the previous administration: now the wastes and risks lay on the others. A comprehensive theoretical backing for such approach was made by Joseph Parent from the University of Miami and Paul MacDonald from the Wellesley College in their latest article in the Foreign Affairs [2].

The United Nations Organization, the major mechanism for conflict management, is being turned into multilateral extension of the State Department aimed to legitimize its one-side initiatives internationally. Washington is also trying to get use of separate UN bodies in American interests. The IAEA for example serves to pressure Iran. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime is an instrument to interfere into post-Soviet Central Asia. The Hague-based International Criminal Court, another UN institution created in 2002 to fight crimes against humanity, serves to prosecute the leaders of the states who have refused to enter global matrix designed by the US strategists. Ironically, the 1998 Rome Statute establishing the ICC was never ratified and was ‘unsigned’ by the US in 2002. Most recently UNESCO, another UN body located in Geneva, was financially ‘punished’ by the United States and several allies for admittance of Palestine into this organization.

Another favorite American maneuver is to facilitate ‘regional’ organizations thousands of miles away from its borders being joined by the US as a member or observer. The Washington curators used to repeat to local authorities: ‘It is your idea, your structure, we are just assisting you…’, but at the same time obtain efficient mechanisms and abundant opportunities to influence remote domains.

As a pretext to create such mechanisms the United States prefers raising the flag of ‘cooperation in the name of common interests’. Now, when the standard bugaboo of international terrorism turns politically unsuitable (since quite recently the global elites decided to use the blind Islamist underground as an agent of regression for the third world), they have returned to play off a card of ‘anti-narcotic cooperation’, this time in post-Soviet Central Asia. The paradox of argumentation applied to justify the deeper US penetration into this region still under strong Russian influence is that it should be done ‘to dispel Russian concerns over the consequences of withdrawal of the US troops from Afghanistan’. If the United States is so much concerned about the drug trafficking in Central Asia, why did they refuse to fight it inside Afghanistan where they had 140 thousand-strong contingent? They still maintain clandestine contacts with a number of ‘field commanders’ who are ‘securing’ US/NATO convoys and drug-trafficking routes at the same time. Nevertheless they prefer to wait until the stuff is spread throughout thousands of locations in Central Asia and then to establish operational, training and intelligence-sharing cooperation with the states subject to heroin attack. One of such mechanisms is the Central Asian Regional Information and Coordination Centre for Combating Illicit Trafficking of Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Substances and their Precursors (CARICC) launched in 2009 under the aegis of UNODC. The institution uniting several anti-narcotics agencies of post-Soviet Central Asian states, is funded by a number of NATO countries (US, UK, Italy, Canada, Turkey, France, Czech Republic), Finland and Luxemburg, all investing $15,4 million into the project. These states plus Afghanistan and Pakistan have acquired the status of observers and have access to all data bases of the Centre. According to the documents revealed by Wikileaks, CARICC mandate might be ‘broadened to encompass all transnational crime rather than just counter-narcotics’.

Interestingly, after the failure of US attempts to channel several CARICC training programs through NATO-Russia Council or OSCE (Washington tried not to publicize the fact that US CENTCOM was among the key sponsors of these programs), Assistant Secretary William Brownfield, the head of the US Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs has announced a new Central Asian Counternarcotics Initiative, (CACI) in June 2011. This initiative would apparently lead to the creation of elite special units similar to notorious CIA-backed death squads that committed a number of resonant extrajudicial killings in Latin America and other countries during the Cold war. Mr. Brownfield’s background and his Central Asian agenda were perfectly analyzed by Nil Nikandrov quite recently [3].

The Canadian political analyst Peter Dale Scott has concluded in his famous book ‘American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection, and the Road to Afghanistan’ that the increase of drug trafficking occurs because of, and not despite of, American efforts. He is seconded by another well-known researcher of the CIA involvement into drug trade, Alfred McCoy, who stated that where and when the United States conduct ‘a war against narcotics’, the production of stuff usually increases [4].

Those in Central Asia who are ready to play American game should be aware of their destiny. It is equal to one of several Central American countries in 1980s: the role of cannon-fodder on service of American interests, years of bloody civil wars, and backwardness for decades. Do their leaders understand the rules of the game they are being involved? Do they want the same future as it is the present in Afghanistan, where the nation is torn by both internal extremism and foreign occupation? The point of non-turn is still not crossed. The sequence of coup-d’états carried out by narco cartels supervised by the US intelligence agencies, widespread massacres and foreign occupation are a likely, but not imperative future for Central Asia.

Notes:

1. Andrew Kuchins, Thomas Sanderson, David Gordon: The Northern Distribution Network and the Modern Silk Road – Planning for Afghanistan’s Future // Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). December 2009. P.3. http://csis.org/files/publication/091217_Kuchins_NorthernDistNet_Web.pdf

2. Joseph M. Parent, Paul K. MacDonald: The Wisdom of Retrenchment – America Must Cut Back to Move Forward // Foreign Affairs. November/December 2011.

3. Nil Nikandrov: US Drug War Against Russia Waged From the Asian Foothold, Strategic Culture Foundation, December 10, 2011.

4. Alfred W. McCoy The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade. Lawrence Hill Books, Second revised edition. 2003. P. 449.

Oil and geopolitics: a turbulent year, and no end in sight for Kazakhstan....


Oil and geopolitics: a turbulent year, and no end in sight for Kazakhstan....
By Steve LeVine

Kazakhstan is moving fast to pacify its restive west as a new video circulates in which police shoot and beat retreating oil workers protesting labor conditions. Two reasons: With parliamentary elections three weeks away, President Nursultan Nazarbayev (pictured above) wants to stamp out any political narrative conflicting with his long-time assertion of keeping Kazakhstan stable. Abroad, the jittery global oil market is already starting to factor in a possible disruption of Kazakhstan's 1.5 million barrels a day of oil exports, half of which is an extremely high-quality light variety.

The Kazakhstan unrest -- violence in the western city of Zhanaozen in which some 14 workers were killed -- caps an extraordinarily turbulent year in the world's oil patch. The distribution of power has been shaken up in the Magreb countries of Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, and violence continues to threaten the rulers of Syria and Yemen. Saudi Arabia is spending some $130 billion to stave off its own public dissatisfaction. In Russia, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's seemingly unassailable hold on power has been challenged by a botched decision to return to the Kremlin, and a rigged parliamentary election. All in all, the uprisings have helped to push annual average oil prices to their highest level in history, exceeding $100 a barrel.

The trouble on the eastern Caspian Sea is the climax of a six-month-long labor strike by some 1,500 oil workers over wages and other grievances. These workers appear to have mounted their strike against two oil companies -- the state oil company, which goes by the acronym KMG, and a Chinese-Kazakh oil company called Karazhanbasmunai (here is a good explanation by Alisher Khamidov at eurasianet.org.). Last weekend, as the country prepared to celebrate the 20th anniversary of its independence, workers protested city plans to turn their strike camp -- the Zhanaozen public square -- into a festive place for dancing and public dining. It turned into a riot, with vehicles and buildings set aflame.

The new 1-minute-and-50-second video, posted just two days ago, is shot by an unidentified Kazakh-speaking woman from a balcony overlooking the city of Zhanaozen. It shows rock-throwing protesters running in retreat on Dec. 16, and the smoke of a burning building. Gunshots are fired, and at least two men fall to the ground. A policeman bludgeons one of them repeatedly with a baton....

In Washington, Erlan Idrissov, Kazakhstan's ambassador to the U.S., said senior officials in the government are aware of the video. In a news conference, he said the images are shocking and that the incident is under investigation.

Meanwhile, the government said it had arranged jobs for all 1,500 of the strikers, initially in public jobs and later in industry.

There were no further reports of protests apart from in the nearby city of Aktau.

Any major disruption of oil production seemed highly unlikely. Workers at the main fields -- Tengiz and Karachaganak, which together produce more than 830,000 barrels a day of oil and natural gas liquids -- receive relatively high pay and benefits. In terms of the theoretical landscape, Tengiz would appear to be more vulnerable since it is situated in the general region of the protests, while Karachaganak is in the north next to the Russian border.

Still, oil analysts are using stark language to describe the potential risk, reports Bloomberg, analogizing it to the surge in oil prices that accompanied the uprising against Libyan strongman Muamar Qadhafi. David Wech of Vienna-based JBC Energy told the agency that, should Kazakh exports fall away entirely, "the impact will be quite similar to Libya also in terms of regional market. It will mainly hit European markets and strengthen Brent sentiment." In plain English, Wech means that prices would rise for the main European-traded crude variety. The agency also quotes Michael Poulsen of Denmark-based Global Risk Management: "With tighter sanctions openly being discussed on Iran, unrest in other major oil-producing countries is, debt crisis or not, a potential powder keg for oil prices."

Look for the global turbulence to continue well into next year. Among the clues: Iraq is chaotic with U.S. forces now out of the country, and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki fighting for primacy. Russia's middle and upper-middle classes appear to be in a fighting mood with presidential elections scheduled in March. And now we have authorities unapologetically shooting into crowds in Kazakhstan, whose parliamentary elections are Jan. 15.

Update: Nazarbayev today fired the head of Mangistau oblast, in which Zhanaozen is located, as well as the local KMG oil boss.

Fresh update: Nazarbayev went further in terms of attempting to get ahead of events, firing his powerful billionaire son-in-law, Timur Kulibayev, as head of the national wealth fund. The fund -- known as Samruk-Kazyna -- controls KMG. The dismissal appears to be symbolic, an effort to show that he is willing even to reach into his own family to show he is serious. But it is not more than a symbolic gesture, as it is only the latest time that he has fired Kulibayev from a senior job; each time, Kulibayev has been able to retain his potent influence over the country's main industries, especially oil....

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization: Assessing China...


The Shanghai Cooperation Organization: Assessing China...

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) was created in 2001 with the objective to strengthen regional cooperation between China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. With Central Asian states and Russia among the world’s largest gas and oil producers, it was only a matter of time before China, as the world’s fastest growing energy market, would turn to the SCO as a platform for augmenting its own hydrocarbon oil imports from this region. Nevertheless, international policies and politics have often differed between SCO member-states and until recently hydrocarbons’ transportation networks linking Central Asia and China remained weak necessitating the bulk of China’s imports from distant providers in the Middle East and East Africa.

The SCO is primarily an organization promoted by China in order to fulfill its energy objectives which illustrate China’s (PRC’s) geostrategic dilemmas. If Beijing has been the main benefactor of the SCO, its partners have not been marginalized, and have also benefited from the relationships the organization engenders. Further the SCO could develop and expand even further would all its members recognize that energy-related projects are perhaps the most important raison-d’être of the organization.

Background: the international context

If economic reforms have transformed China from a second-rate communist economy into the world’s most important industrial actor, they have also made this new economic power extremely dependent on two specific variables: energy and political stability. It is a fact that China’s gigantic economy absorbs a nearly incomprehensible quantity of hydrocarbons which will only accelerate in the future.

Total energy consumption: US and China (Million tons of oil equivalents)

YEAR

UNITED STATES CHINA
2000 2270 1107
2001 2228 1104
2002 2254 1193
2003 2260 1356
2004 2306 1576
2005 2317 1707
2006 2295 1865
2007 2333 1977
2008 2281 2131
2009 2169 2265

Source: International Energy Agency

Chinese policy makers anticipate that the country’s economy will continue to grow spectacularly over the next 20 years. A recent study has pointed out that in 2011 the country consumed 12.9% more crude oil, 18.2% more natural gas and 13.1% more electricity than in 2009. Not surprisingly, China’s recent foreign policy has placed the need to secure greater access to foreign oil and gas sources at the center of its international strategy. The PRC’s problems mainly originate from the fact that contrary to its main Western geopolitical rivals, China does not benefit from either a historic or military presence in the regions from which it imports most of its oil and gas. This makes China’s energy security highly dependent on a favorable international geopolitical order that it does not master. Its relations with the US remain conflict-ridden and China still generates mistrust and frustration among other world powers. The absence of civil liberties, political accountability and an open political system, as they exist in liberal democracies, have often triggered public opposition to the PRC’s policies. Its reiterated defense of the North Korean regime perfectly illustrates an international situation in which China’s interests directly clash with those of the US and its allies while its “national unification agenda” with Taiwan is thwarted by US support for the island’s independence. Paradoxically, while accepting Taiwan’s de facto independence, acting more forcefully against North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, and granting liberal democratic rights or self-determination to minority groups would certainly ease China’s relationship with the West, these ideas remain non-starters for China’s senior leadership. Recognizing Taiwan’s independence or granting democratic rights might, as lawmakers fear, may lead to an intensification of political separatism and disrupt the Communist party’s ability to maintain economic growth and thereby threaten its political legitimacy both within and without the country.

In other words, China appears to be caught between a rock and a hard place. It can presently only rely on the world’s other powers to guarantee the stability of energy producing regions and the hydrocarbons’ trade routes on which its entire economy – and thus its political strength – depends. Nevertheless, Beijing simultaneously takes the risk of provoking the anger of these stability guarantors by pursuing policies that it perceives as vital to its own internal stability. Realistic or not, Chinese policy makers readily fear the ability of the US and its allies to block its access to the Taiwan, Malacca and Hormuz straits - China’s energy supply routes– as a means to influence its policies. With half of its oil imported from the Middle East, and almost another third from East Africa, an energy embargo would simply shut down the country’s economy. An ambitious, diversified and successful energy strategy is therefore vital for Beijing to keep growing its world power status and defend its international and national policies without fear of direct consequences over its development path.

The strategy

Not surprisingly, the PRC’s leadership has over this last decade, used its significant economic resources to increase its diplomatic presence in energy exporting countries. China's relationship with OPEC producers had been historically weak and it only became a net oil importer for the first time in 1993. But this relationship has changed dramatically. Its willingness to replace the US as the world’s first development partner now appears very clearly as the core of the country’s foreign energy strategy and seems logical considering its incapacity to compete militarily. In fact Chinese policy makers have privileged the less onerous and faster option to strengthen their bilateral ties with energy exporting countries through direct funding and development aid – a strategy especially well adopted now that Beijing’s main Western competitors are facing budgetary constraints.

With Western troops present on its Eastern and Southern frontiers China has, over the last two decades, also started to examine more closely the energy potential offered by its Northern neighbors. Not only does Russia and Central Asia represent a region with a weak American military presence, it also hosts the planet’s most important gas resources and some of the world’s remaining major oil fields outside of the Middle East. Encouraging greater cooperation with Central Asian states and Russia appears as an extremely promising strategy for the country, considering the dilemmas it faces. The need for China to adopt a more concrete strategy in the region has been furthermore exacerbated by recent geopolitical events. The post-9/11 conflicts in Afghanistan and Pakistan have favored the development of Islamist fundamentalism in Central Asia and raised concerns about the ability to protect pipelines and infrastructure across this region. The war against al-Qaeda and its allies has also dramatically increased the US military presence in a region which Washington had historically been excluded. Fearing both the spread of radical Islamism in its own Central Asian province of Xinjiang and being outflanked by the US elsewhere, an ambitious Central Asian policy has logically come to constitute the core of China’s new energy strategy.

The SCO: China's Central Asian tool

China’s growing need for hydrocarbons and its huge financial capacity have not yet fully blossomed into greater cooperation between Beijing and its Central Asian and Russian partners. China has become the region’s largest energy buyer and local states’ leaders have come to see the PRC as a more stable source of income than Western economies (and Russia itself in the case of Central Asian Republics).

Chinese Bilateral Trade: Central Asia

Country Value of Imports from China (2008 USD) Value of Exports to China (2008 USD)
Kazakhstan 9,825 million 7,727 million
Kyrgyzstan 9,212 million 121 million
Tajikistan 1,479 million 30 million
Uzbekistan 1,278 million 328 million

Source: China Statistical Yearbook

After decades of isolation in the middle of the Eurasian landmass, these young post-Soviet states have finally found a way to break away from Moscow’s almost hegemonic control over the region’s economy and its hydrocarbons. With its economy constantly growing, Chinese expansion in the region has been welcomed as a veritable alternative to traditional powers. Following the collapse of the USSR, China understood that the loss of Soviet subsidies and a waning lack of interest in the region by the West had made the internal situation of many Central Asian Republics extremely uncomfortable.

Beijing has thus played its development/investment cards by funding, not only refineries and pipelines, but also highways, railroads, improving electrical power plants, and exploiting other natural resources such as minerals and boosting trade relations. China also became the region's largest foreign investor and has capitalized on Central Asia’s weak banking sector. By way of example, the Bank of China and the Chinese Industrial and Commercial Bank have opened branches in Kazakhstan. In 2009 China’s banks agreed to make $10 billion in loans available to Kazakhstan, with half the sum used for the sale of MangistauMunayGas to the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) and for the construction of the giant Beineu-Bozoi-Akbulak gas pipeline. The other half of the loan was used to fund the Development Bank of Kazakhstan. As a consequence, commercial relations with China in the region have increased spectacularly – often at the expense of Russia – since cooperation started increasing in the early 2000s, the balance of trade already being clearly to the advantage of China in bordering Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.

Furthermore, within a context of growing global financial difficulties, China’s increasing need for energy, and Russian and Central Asian companies’ abilities to deliver important quantities of Central-Asian hydrocarbons, have set the basis for profitable partnerships between the two geopolitical giants despite Russia’s dislike of China expanding into its own backyard. Both actors have recognized that their cooperation, in the fields of security and counter-terrorism, is vital to maintain the necessary security conditions for regional energy trade to develop. The spread of Islamism and democratic activism could put at risk future investments such as pipelines or refineries. Islamic movements – such as the Hizb-ut-Tahir and Jund al-Khilafah that call for the establishment of an Islamic Central-Asian caliphate – are well spread over the region; these groups have already carried out attacks against the region’s energy infrastructure. If Central Asia, mostly populated by Muslims, was to fall in the midst of the War on Terror that currently devastates neighboring regions, the consequences could be detrimental to the region’s stability and any form of trade. How could pipelines be built or transport be organized if roads and infrastructure became the targets of repeated terrorist attacks, as it is the case in Iraq or in Afghanistan?

Pipelines are a path to greater and more stable sources of revenue but cannot be built in a region where they would constantly be under terrorist threat. This situation explains why China has sought a multilateral strategy in the region, through the SCO, rather than favoring bilateral exchanges as it usually does. By stressing the need to cooperate on other regional energy-linked issues, such as security – a need that all regional actors have recognized – and while concurrently strictly respecting the sovereignty of all nations across the region, China has projected its energy agenda on a regional basis and has enhanced its partners’ status in doing so as well. As a result, the SCO has managed, since its creation, to solve most border disputes between its members, reduced risks of regional conflicts and initiated successful economic partnerships.

The limits of Beijing's Central Asian Strategy

Despite its obvious financial attractiveness, Chinese expansion has not, however, only raised hopes among its SCO partners. As a matter of fact, the region’s leaders have also expressed a common fear that China’s financial aid might be a poisonous gift, that with this soft power, Chinese investments might lead to economic dependency and political vassalage. As a matter of fact, the region’s leaders have often criticized the lack of diversification in China’s investments and imports. The key accusation being that despite its developmental political rhetoric Beijing’s involvement in the region’s economic affairs has been disproportionately energy-related. As an example, more than a quarter of Kazakhstan’s trade with China consists of oil while another third consists of natural resources such as gas and metals. In less than a decade China has already seized control of approximately a quarter of Kazakh energy fields. Similarly, Beijing has also shown interest in Uzbek gas deposits and has even convinced Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan to build a common pipeline, together with non-SCO Turkmenistan, in order to jointly sell their gas to its oil companies. The gigantic Sino-Kazakh pipeline, which will connect the shores of the Caspian Sea to the border town of Dushanzi in Chinese Xinjiang, remains the country’s largest investment in Central Asia.

With China’s manufactured goods accounting for 92% of its exports to Central Asia and Beijing investing reluctantly in local industries, many in the region believe that China’s investments simply go against Central Asian developmental interests across other industrial sectors. Despite some advantages such as a reduction in consumer prices, all seem nevertheless to fear the disappearance of their last national companies, incapable of competing with Chinese manufacturing, as Beijing refuses to invest in fields other than energy extraction, or more broadly infrastructure linked to raw materials extraction.


Exports of Central Asian Countries in 2007

Country Export Value USD Chief Commodity Exports
Kazakhstan $66.6 billion oil, gas, coal, metals, food products, wool chemicals, machinery
Kyrgyzstan $1.7 billion gas, hydropower, metals, textiles, food products, fertilizer, shoes, machinery
Tajikistan $1.4 billion oil, electricity, aluminum, textiles, food products
Uzbekistan $9.9 billion oil, gas, metals, food products, textiles, machinery

Source: CIA World Fact Book

As a result, distrust and apprehension often characterize Sino-Central Asian relations and the SCO’s development consequently slowed over the last few years. China’s effort to ally Russia to its proposal to expand the economic reach of the SCO illustrates this situation. Russia, as other world powers, distrusts Chinese expansionism despite the fact that the SCO was officially meant to be an organization to facilitate the exchange of security-related information and technologies in the region. Yet as a political observer recently noted, according to US estimates, Russia supplies China with 95% of its military hardware, including Kilo-class submarines and Sovremenny-class destroyers. Thus far, Russian officials have not viewed the build up of the Chinese navy as a direct threat to Russia; instead, they have seen it as a potential problem for the US. Nevertheless, with an agenda for the departure of US troops from Afghanistan set, Moscow now fears that China might take advantage of the situation to expand its influence in the region as an alternative to its own presence. Consequently, weapon sales have stagnated and technologies exchanges dropped.

Similarly, the SCO has also appeared less unified than China originally expected. Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, for example, granted the US and NATO, military bases - officially to support them in their fight against terror. They hoped that it would set the tone for new trade relations, helping them to develop sectors that neither China nor Russia had invested in. Uzbekistan’s move was well perceived by the Bush administration, which sought to make Tashkent America’s ally in the region. Promises to allocate greater development funds were consequently offered by Washington.


The SCO: a success?

Despite some setbacks since the SCO’s creation, China has realized many of its objectives in the region. Uzbekistan's and Kyrgyzstan's moves to increase the West’s presence in the region have been successfully countered by joint Russian-Chinese efforts. These two countries, concerned with similar security issues, succeeded in convincing their SCO partners to set an agenda for the departure of US and NATO troops. By demonstrating its common position on political independence and hydrocarbon transport and trade, China has effectively established the premise of an ambitious Central Asian, Western-free, energy partnership that has been often praised by the organization’s leaders. As an example, Prime Minister Putin declared in his last visit to Beijing that Russia’s new energy strategy would be redirected toward China and the building of an ambitious Eurasian energy partnership, involving SCO members.

As much as Central Asian nations and Russia distrust China they still welcome it as an ideal trading partner. Contrary to the West, Beijing does not embrace nor tie ethical issues to its pursuit of energy and trade. For example, in 2005 following a period of anti-government civil unrest in Uzbekistan, the Uzbek government asked its troops to fire on a crowd that was assembling in the city of Andijan. The army killed at least a hundred protesters, according to international media reports, and was roundly condemned by Western countries. Consequently, the EU and US decided to suspend their development aid and impose a weapons’ embargo on the country. China, reacted by offering the country another investment package.

Under Chinese leadership the region has thus experienced relative political stability and has witnessed a spectacular economic boom. Russia, for its part, has benefited from Chinese investment in an expensive pipeline system from Eastern Siberia to the Chinese border city of Daqing, which will connect its hydrocarbon fields to the world’s fastest growing energy market. Simultaneously, Beijing has also benefited from Moscow’s allegiance to the SCO in countering Western, Japanese and South Korean proposals for the same project despite the fact that South Korea and Japan were willing to pay proportionally more for greater access to the same product.

Conclusion: perspectives for Chinese expansion in the region

As the SCO’s most active promoter, China has been its main benefactor considering the success it has had in fulfilling some of its main geostrategic objectives. Concurrently, thanks to the SCO, an impoverished Russia and developing Central Asian states have also secured investment financing to extend their pipelines to the world’s fastest growing energy market while avoiding partners that tie ethical considerations to the way of doing business.

While China calls for greater economic integration, its growing political presence has however also troubled these same partners. Prospects for the evolution of the SCO into a broader security or economic organization appear therefore limited. Nevertheless, prospects for greater Western economic and military involvement in the region seem to appear just as limited.

However, is the West the sole alternative to Beijing’s partnership in the region? SCO members could also look to other regional actors such as Pakistan and Iran. Both of these developing countries share a similar aversion towards American interference in their internal affairs, and are situated along Beijing’s energy highway. Iran’s proximity to Central Asia would potentially allow China to connect, via Central Asia, access to Middle Eastern energy resources lessening its vulnerabilities associated with maritime energy transport. This would, without doubt, be unwelcome in Washington and the EU which have worked hard to isolate Iran due to its nuclear program. One may however wonder how far the US and its European allies would be willing to go to oppose such initiatives.

Through China, SCO members could in fact connect their gigantic energy reserves to other South Asian and South East Asian booming economies, even access the Indian market as Moscow seeks to do, while keeping Beijing first in the line and avoiding a Western stronghold over the region.

By extending its membership to other Eurasian, Middle Eastern and other Asian developing states, the SCO could be transformed into a Trans-Asian partnership and in doing so transform itself into a veritable Eurasian Energy Community free from Western influence.

Contributor David Lamoureux is a graduate student at Oxford.