MSM wants the spotlight on Iran

Europe in the crossfire of words and aggressive gestures

Article published in Katoikos

Russia and NATO: who is threatening whom? Wikimedia Commons

NATO and Russia

In her recent article “Russia – A Threat to European Security? A View from Germany”, Gabriele Schöler argues that NATO’s recent “counteraction” against Russia amounts to “provocative behaviour”, since it could be seen as a threat to Russian security. Since 1989 and the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has seen the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the loss of much of its territorial control and global influence. Not only has Russia lost its status as a major world power, it has given that very power up to its arch-enemy from the Cold War: the United States or rather NATO, when the latter integrated all the former Eastern European Warsaw Pact states and three former USRR republics to boot.

After this historical and political reasoning, Schöler openly asks: “Who is perceived to pose a threat to whom?” claiming that this is a more critical and logical question than “who started the conflict?”

As NATO troops are currently deployed in Poland and the Baltics, Schöler goes on by saying that deploying “NATO troops in Central and Eastern Europe on a permanent basis would be a clear violation of the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation signed in Paris in 1997”. The act was initiated to ease Moscow’s concerns about NATO’s eastern enlargement and its original mission was to “build together a lasting and inclusive peace in the Euro-Atlantic area on the principles of democracy and cooperative security”.

However, as Russia started to regain political, economic and military strength, its leadership took a more confrontational stance which was not aligned with Western values. Published early in 2017 by the Royal United Services for Defence and Security Studies, the book “NATO and the North Atlantic: Revitalising Collective Defence” supports the argument that Russia is trying to meddle in Western affairs, claiming as its starting point that “Russia is blatantly attempting to change the rules and principles that serve as the foundation of European law and order.” The greater part of this work’s thesis puts Russia at the centre of the West’s military and defence concerns, giving NATO a palpable reason for its comeback as an essential international organisation.

 NATO’s revamped role

During the US presidential campaign, Donald Trump, then the Republican candidate, frequently contested NATO’s existence, calling it “obsolete”, while accusing its members of not upholding their commitment of paying 2% of their GDP to the Brussels-based organisation.

In April this year, after a meeting with NATO’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg in Washington DC, President Trump backtracked one of his most controversial campaign promises, saying NATO was “no longer obsolete”. According to the analyst Michael Chossudovsky, pro-NATO advisers influenced Trump to change his stance, showing that the US President is not exerting any presidential authority but caving in to the dominant interests of the US elites.

In Europe, NATO is widely perceived as an indispensable institution for the security of the continent, based on the argument of a resurgent Russia and a “vulnerable Europe” following the terror attacks in several European cities.

On the same note, Andrew A. Michta wrote for Carnegie Europe: “A Common Threat Assessment for NATO?” pointing out “two issues” that are rapidly rising to the top of the organisation’s agenda: “regionally, a resurgent and geo-strategically assertive Russia and globally, the accelerating threat of Islamic terrorism”. Michta goes on, saying that this is “a unique opportunity for NATO to align the security outlooks of key European members with that of the US”.

Nevertheless, in May, on the occasion of the first NATO summit attended by Trump, in Brussels, the US president kept his accusations towards 23 of the 28 NATO members of being freeloaders for not paying their fair share towards military protection. The US’ current defence budget of $824.6 billion is the second largest item of federal government expenditure after social security at $1 trillion.

Russia: Declining power or imminent threat?

Now, let’s take a look at how the Western media has been portraying Russia’s conduct. The Economist published in October 2016 “The threat from Russia”, where it highlighted the seemingly endless episode of “Russia hacking the American election” and touched on the “mass slaughter in Syria”, the annexation of Crimea and accusations of Russia talking casually about using nuclear weapons.

While the idea of a fragmented Europe is likely to be in the Kremlin’s interests, the Russian intervention in the Syrian conflict is evidently not in the West’s interests.

Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad said during an interview with a Chinese news broadcaster that “the only serious force effectively fighting the Islamic State together with Syria is Russia”. Assad went further, saying that the US deployment of military in Syrian territory was illegal since they were not invited. Interestingly, Reuters published a similar news piece – “Assad calls US forces ‘invaders’ but still hopeful on Trump” – yet it opted to leave out Assad’s declarations on Russia.

On the occasion of the forthcoming celebration of the 1917 October Revolution, Foreign Policy (FP) magazine wrote, last December, “The Soviet Union is Gone, But It’s Still Collapsing”, in which a number of FP’s contributors outlined the reasons behind the Russian Federation’s stagnation over time, mainly from the 2000’s. The authors pointed out that Russia should not base its foreign policy on ideology and claimed that the former Empire can’t lead through imperialism. Moreover, they claim that the advent of globalisation has only empowered autocrats.

Lenin and The House of Soviets in the background. (Photo: Marta Pacheco)

In March 2017, James Kirchick wrote for FP the article “The Plot Against Europe”, in which he envisages a gloomy future where Putin will roll into Estonia, triggering the first in a series of assaults.

FP magazine has also been publishing differing views on the so-called “Russian threat”. In his article entitled “Vladimir Putin Isn’t a Supervillain”, Mark Lawrence Shred argues that “Russia is neither the global menace, nor dying superpower, of America’s increasingly hysterical fantasies.” For the author, reality lies between the extremes – a declining power and an imminent threat. Russia is not nearly the global menace that many fear, nor is it doomed to collapse. Russia’s geopolitical strength is indeed constrained by its demographic, economic, social, and political weaknesses, but those aren’t as catastrophic as they’re often made to be.

On the other hand, in March 2017, EUobserver published an article “Russian missiles pose new threat to Europe”, in which critics from the US and Germany expressed concerns about the Russian missiles deployed in Kaliningrad, the Russian enclave between Poland and Lithuania. On 10 March, after the EU summit in Brussels, EUobserver delivered another alarming title: “EU alarmed by Russian meddling in Balkans”. At stake are growing fears of nationalist and ethnic tensions in the region that EU leaders believe to be the ideal opportunity for Russian interference in the form of disinformation campaigns.

Who is threatening whom?

Since the Russian annexation of Crimea in February 2014, tensions have grown between Moscow and the West. Endless warnings were delivered by EU leaders until economic sanctions were imposed on Russia. While Russia claims Crimea as its rightful territory, the West, backed by NATO, started moving forward with military deployments in the Baltics, Poland and Romania. The Kremlin did not take long to react to the military deployed in Poland and the Baltics, branding it a threat to Russia’s national security.

The Cold War feeling has been growing more intense. At least, that’s what the media are conveying on both East and West. Will Putin make an attempt on European soil through the Baltic? What should NATO do to make it more difficult to present its largely defensive acts as aggressive moves against Russia?

Comparing the pictures one sees through the lenses of Western media on the one hand, and the RT and Sputnik, often rightly branded as the Kremlin’s propaganda outlets, on the other, one cannot help but see yet another war of words and (dis)information.

Chemical attacks and other motivations behind Trump’s recent raids

Article published in Katoikos

                                           U.S. Navy Destroyers Launch Strikes on Syria on April 7, 2017 © Google

International finger-pointing will not bring justice for the chemical attack in Syria. With tensions running high, only a thorough investigation can reveal the truth and diffuse the critical situation.

The recent US airstrikes on the Al-Sha’ayrat airbase were the first time in six years that Washington has directly interfered in the Syrian conflict, and they bring to the surface memories of the US invasion of Iraq, in March 2003.

These warlike actions have triggered a diplomatic row throughout the international community. The question of who is responsible for the chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoum, in the district of Idlib, which killed dozens of civilians, remains open. It also seems clear that US President Donald Trump’s order for the raid was not only a knee-jerk reaction to the use of chemical weapons but should be seen in a wider geopolitical context. The blame game has started once again and the international community is deeply divided and apprehensive as to what will follow.

 United States

At the United Nations, on 7 April, US Ambassador Nikki Hailey delivered an accusatory speech blaming the use of chemical weapons on the Syrian regime. Hailey claimed: “Assad did this [chemical attack] because he thought he could get away with it as he knew Russia would have his back.” A different opinion was expressed by Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who affirmed during a CNN interview that “what matters here is the evidence and the facts”, after having characterised Trump’s military airstrikes as “reckless”. In addition, Gabbard acknowledged being “sceptical” of Assad’s involvement in the chemical attack.

Moreover, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Gabbard whether she believed the Pentagon’s claims of having evidence to prove Assad’s culpability. She replied that “they did not bring up that evidence before Congress, to the American people”, further adding that “they have not sought authorisation from Congress to launch this military action on another country”. The Congresswoman accused the US of for years “waging this war covertly through the CIA” in order to overthrow the Syrian government.

Meanwhile, on 11 April, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson went on his first official visit to Russia with the arduous quest of trying to convince Moscow to choose sides. Tillerson posed a “friendly ultimatum” to  Moscow, requesting that the Russians join the US and “their like-minded people” or remain on the side of Assad and Iran.

Syria and Russia

Syria’s Deputy Prime Minister Walid al-Moallem stated on Thursday, 6 April, that the Syrian Army did not use chemical weapons “even against the terrorists” who threaten their own people. As for Russian President Vladimir Putin, he considers the US strikes on Syria to represent “an act of aggression against a sovereign country violating the norms of international law”. Furthermore, the Russian leader requested theUS to provide the evidence they claim to have: “Show it to UN observers and at the Security Council,” said Putin.

The recent veto from Russia at the Security Council on the draft US-UK resolution to punish Assad for the chemical attack thus came as no surprise.

Europe’s reactions

The US attack hailed a low-point for trust between Russia and the US, prompting international reactions that reveal very different positions. Overall in the West, the main chorus of voices can be heard clinging to the premise that “Assad must go”.

Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande have attributed responsibility for the attacks to Assad alone. Merkel characterised the US airstrikes as “understandable”, given the critical situation in Syria.

The UK has also stood beside the US, with Prime Minister Theresa May demanding an investigation into the attack, while defending the view that Assad cannot stay in power. Yet, British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon stated that Britain would not be joining airstrikes in Syria. A different position was adopted by Peter Ford, an ex-UK Ambassador who gave an interview defending that it is “highly unlikely” that Assad or Russia were behind the chemical attacks. Ford claims that the Assad regime was aware that it would never have benefited from such an assault.

If this form of atrocity seems like an act of desperation, why would the Syrian regime jeopardise its reputation in a war in which it is has lately gained the upper hand? Equally odd is the immediate response by the US, just two days after the incident. A fact that gave the Russian Foreign Ministry a good opportunity to accuse Washington of “preparing the airstrikes” long before the attack in Idlib.

At EU level, Foreign Affairs chief Federica Mogherini was quick to respond to the chemical attack, saying that “there was a primary responsibility” from the Syrian government. However, on behalf of the EU, she has condemned the US airstrikes of 6 April. At the same time, following her recent official visit to Moscow, Mogherini reaffirmed the EU’s stance on extending Russian sanctions.

NATO’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said in an official statement that “the Syrian regime bears the full responsibility for this development”. The organisation’s chief further stated that “NATO has consistently condemned Syria’s continued use of chemical weapons as a clear breach of international norms and agreements”, even though, so far, no real proof of such accusations has been made public.

Turkey and the Israeli Connection

Turkey belittled the US attack as a “cosmetic intervention” that will not serve to oust Assad. Israel and its security officials, meanwhile, said it was only “highly probable” that the chemical attack was carried out by the Syrian regime.

There is another surprising thing about Trump’s swift military response: the policy that he promptly followed was very much aligned with Hillary Clinton’s conviction, as revealed by Wikileaks, that “the best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad”, an ally of would-be nuclear power Iran.

According to the Syrian analyst Afraa Dagher, it was no coincidence that the US chose Al-sha’ayrat airbase as a target: “The Al-Sha’ayrat airbase was the place from which Syria fired anti-missile Sam rockets at attacking Israeli warplanes, two weeks ago. Syria downed one of the four warplanes, hit another and forced the remaining two fighter jets to quickly fly out of Syrian airspace.” Dagher believes Trump’s actions have sent a strong message of support to Israel, which continues its illegal occupation of the Syrian territory of Golan Heights.

Further research from the Canada-based organisation Global Research has brought to light information stating that the “Pentagon trained Syria’s Al-Qaeda “rebels” in the use of chemical weapons”. This piece of news was originally published in the British Daily Mail in January 2013, but it has vanished from the website after the controversy around the “mysterious” chemical attack followed by the US airstrikes on Syria. Furthermore, before these airstrikes, Assad gave an interview to a Cypriot paper, in which he pointedly stated that “to protect Europe from terrorists, (the West) should stop backing them in Syria”.

Wikileaks revelations with Geopolitical Implications

To add fuel to this diplomatic conflict, Wikileaks revealed US State Department plans to destabilise Syria and overthrow the Syrian government as early as 2006. Additional cables revealed the existence of CIA involvement on the ground in Syria, fomenting mass demonstrations as early as March 2011.

The leaks suggest direct involvement by the Israeli government in the plans to provoke civil conflict and sectarianism through partnership with nations like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt, aimed at demolishing the power structure in Syria in order to weaken Iran and Hezbollah.

According to Mint PressNews, “It became then evident that the US, UK, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey would be jumping on to organise, arm and finance rebels from the Free Syrian Army.” In 2012, “The Group of Friends of the Syrian People” was created by these very nations with an agenda to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. “The plan was to use a number of different factors to create paranoia within the Syrian government; to push it to overreact, to make it fear a coup,” said Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

As always, global energy supply may shed some light on possible geopolitical motivations. According to one view by Dmitry Minin, published in May 2013 by the Strategic Cultural Foundation, based in Moscow, “a battle is raging over whether pipelines will go toward Europe from east to west, from Iran and Iraq to the Mediterranean coast of Syria, or take a more northbound route from Qatar and Saudi Arabia via Syria and Turkey. Having realised that the stalled Nabucco pipeline, and indeed the entire Southern Corridor, are backed up only by Azerbaijan’s reserves and can never equal Russian supplies to Europe or thwart the construction of the South Stream, the West is in a hurry to replace them with resources from the Persian Gulf. Syria ends up being a key link in this chain, and it leans in favour of Iran and Russia; thus, it was decided in the Western capitals that its regime needs to change.”

What’s next?

Russia and Iran, the alliance behind Assad, have warned that they will retaliate should red lines be crossed again. While the drums of war are being banged with increasing intensity and the investigations at a standstill, with Russia and the West unable or unwilling to agree even on basic facts, it is crucial to conduct an independent, in-depth investigation in order to bring to justice those who are responsible for the chemical attacks in Syria.

Aleppo and the war on the right to know

Article published in Katoikos

Reporting in times of war reveals both the magnitude and the weakness of journalism. © Khalid Albaih

The ravaged battleground that replaced the once cosmopolitan city of Aleppo is at the centre of a major war of information and disinformation.

Biased journalism: a look at the media coverage of Aleppo

Over the past weeks Aleppo has been worldwide news after the Syrian Army regained control of the city, home to thousands of besieged civilians. The media coverage of this case has been quite diverse, so it deserves particular attention, avoiding excessive reliance on the mainstream Western media.

A quick anthology of Western reporting from Aleppo: The Guardian reported atrocities perpetrated by Assad forces within “moments” of retaking the city. CNN reported that “the regime and Russia — its most powerful ally — decimated neighbourhoods with airstrikes, leaving scorched earth where a bustling metropolis once stood”. The American news channel further stated that “those who remain in the city fear reprisals from Assad forces”.

While the West’s big hitters seem to be flooding the news with atrocities committed in Aleppo, the media outlet RT, formerly called Russia Today, has been sharing videos and images of Syrians celebrating on the streets after reporting that the Syrian army had retaken Eastern Aleppo.

Admittedly, I have not found any international news channel outside Russia reporting that civilians were returning to their normal lives in liberated and ruined Eastern Aleppo. It is, of course, unsurprising that RT should broadcast expressions of support by the Syrian people for Bashar al-Assad; the question here is why the Western mainstream media, which claim to provide objective reporting, chose to sweep out such politically significant social behaviour, even if it characterises only part of the Syrian population.

How can the two sides of the international media broadcast such different images from one reality on the ground?

Through “enemy” eyes

Ilya Yabolok authored the academic article Conspiracy Theories as a Russian Public Diplomacy Tool: The Case of Russia Today (RT) where he defends the claim that RT’s news agenda is aimed at counterbalancing the “information monopoly” of Western media. He explains that the main goal of its journalists is to “find the news that would be ignored by the so-called ‘mainstream media’ and bring it to viewers’ attention”.

Yabolok further claims that the Russian channel challenges “an elitist aspect of American politics through populist ideas”, vocalised by experts and show hosts; real people with real ideas that are often overlooked in the search for a balanced analysis of certain subjects.

Founded in 2013 by Jason Bassler and Matt Agorist, the Free Thought Project, a hub for “conversations about the promotion of liberty and the daunting task of government accountability”, delivered a compilation of reportedly fake news about the liberation of Aleppo. Patrick Henningsen and Shawn Helton characterised the Western media’s reporting of the Syrian government retake of Eastern Aleppo as “inverted coverage”.

Examining the terrain where journalism faces its biggest challenges will be crucial to determining the veracity of the reporting.

Vanessa Beeley, a British independent journalist based in Syria, who has been actively contesting the mainstream media, is reporting from the ground in the war-torn city of Aleppo. She denounced “the lies of the Western media”, particularly with regard to the White Helmets. This volunteer rescue NGO supposedly acts “neutrally, impartially and for all Syrians”. It was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and was awarded the Right Livelihood Award, also known as the ‘Alternative Nobel Prize’.

Independent journalists have been speaking out against the Western's media coverage of the war in Aleppo, Syria. © Honest Reporting

Beeley has accused the NGO of being “no more than a support network for Al Nusra Front and associated extremist terrorist groups […] carrying out criminal acts alongside the recognised US coalition armed and funded terrorist factions”.

Further research on this topic has revealed that the White Helmets have been funded “to the tune of over $100 million [by] the UK and the US alone” and that these resources are channelled through a Dutch NGO registered as Mayday Rescue.

The 21st Century Wire media outlet – “news for the waking generation” – has denounced the work of the White Helmets, claiming they have “rescued the same girl three times in three months” and that “none of [the White Helmet] claims can be independently verified”.

Eva Bartlett, a Canadian independent journalist, delivered an interesting and rather marginalised speech during a press conference at the United Nations in December 2016. Having visited Syria several times during the war herself, she condemned the non-existence of Western broadcast news reporting from the ground in Aleppo and found it astonishing that the mainstream media in the West had created a deceptive image of the liberation of Eastern Aleppo.

Diplomatic accusations and geopolitics in Syria

Speaking at the United Nations Security Council on 14 December 2016, the US Ambassador Samantha Power accused the Assad government of “conquest and carnage” in Aleppo, rhetorically asking the Syrian government whether they were ashamed of their actions.

Her Russian counterpart Vitaly Churkin retorted by reproaching the power of cynicism, indirectly alluding to the wars waged by the US. “The speech by the US representative is particularly strange to me; she gave her speech as if she was Mother Teresa herself. Please, remember the track record of your country,” Churkin said.

Since Russia’s decision to intervene militarily in Syria in support of Assad’s forces, the US has vehemently condemned its presence in the country and the blame-game of “who bombed who” has become routine. Yet, it seems difficult for the American government to accept the fact that Russia and Iran are effectively combating the rebels in Syria, many of whom belong to terrorist organisations that the West too wants to bring to heel.

Mainstream media: a weapon of disinformation?

In his book The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, Daniel Estulin points out that “the world media are part of the global elite”. Estulin further states, “A free press is a myth because it is property of the powerful. Only when ownership is shared by many private citizens will a truly free press come about, based on our ‘right to know’.”

According to Estulin, the media act as a powerful tool to shape public opinion, while representing primarily the interests of the rich and influential. Here too, the problem is the concentration of ownership in a few powerful hands.

The mainstream media in the US are “very” dishonest, said Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, in a recent interview to Fox News.

© robinhoodrevival

The documentary film The War You Don’t See by the Australian journalist John Pilger denounces the ghastly circumstances in which the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and even Vietnam were carried out by the US and British governments and largely ignored by the Western media. The film is based on documented statements, which reveal the indisputable relationship between the media and the political sphere, particularly in periods marked by war.

In yet another documentary, entitled Orwell Rolls in his Grave, the American Robert Kane Pappas presents additional evidence that portrays the media as an “antidemocratic force in the United States”.

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, the classic by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, provides a strong theoretical basis to the idea that the media, by their very nature, serve the ruling power. Applying the “Propaganda Model”, which is essentially a conceptual theoretical model explaining how propaganda and systemic biases function in mass media, the authors claim that the North American media are at the service of large corporations and the state.

In times of war there is a wide range of contradictions and they all have the same goal: to become part of the “reality of the media” by entering people’s houses and hence becoming part of their realities, shaping their opinions. The interests of the warring factions, the moral value of the reporters and the different strategies of media companies play a very important role in establishing different versions of the truth.

The media do not only report on military conflicts, they play a crucial and increasingly active role in them. The reporting on the military conflict in Syria reveals both the magnitude of the task for journalism in wartime and its structural weaknesses, if not its complete inability to get to grips with events in a fair and balanced manner.

Doit-on s’inquiéter de l’agitation turque?

                     Président Turque Recep Tayyip Erdogan serre la main à son homologue Russe, Vladimir Poutine. © Google

La position diplomatique de la Turquie dans le monde fait couler beaucoup d’encre. Pour rappel, la Turquie a abattu un avion russe en novembre 2015 à la suite d’accusations de violation de l’espace souverain. La Russie a répondu avec des sanctions économiques vers Ankara. À son tour, la Turquie a déployé des troupes en Irak. Tout ça, tandis qu’une sanglante guerre civile se déroule en Syrie. Les relations diplomatiques sont devenues froides et rigides entre les acteurs internationaux.

Russie vs. Turquie

La tension  entre la Russie et la Turquie ne cesse decroître lorsque des sévères condamnations ont été échangées entre les deux pays. Depuis le 24 novembre, lors de l’accrochage entre un bombardier russe et deux avions turcs, le président russe Vladimir Poutine a décrété des sanctions économiques à l’encontre de la Turquie, surtout dans le tourisme et l’agriculture : l’interdiction de vols charters entre les deux pays et de recrutement  des travailleurs d’origine turque et aussi l’importation de certains produits provenant de la Turquie. Poutine a décidé de ne pas couper le gaz.

Néanmoins, le leader russe est allé plus loin dans le champ de la diplomatie internationale. Il a publiquement accusé le gouvernement du président turc Tayyip Erdogan d’alliance avec le groupe terroriste État Islamique (Daech) afin de profiter du pétrole provenant de la contrebande de ce groupe barbare. La Russie a annoncé que l’attaque de son avion était la conséquence immédiate de la protection du pétrole de Daech par la Turquie. En effet, Erdogan ne s’est jamais excusé pour cet incident. À la place il a demandé à la Russie de prouver les accusations qu’elle a faites, en ajoutant que, si elles étaient réelles, il quitterait le pouvoir.

Lors du Sommet du G20, à Antalaya. Poutine a créé la surprise en annonçant que Daech était financé par 40 pays, dont des pays-membres du G20. Cette déclaration a été quand même pertinente lorsque Poutine a profité de l’état de révolte et d’agitation en Europe, lors des attaques à Paris revendiqués par Daech, pour semer le doute et, par conséquent, l’interrogation parmi les citoyens en Europe et ailleurs.

Et la Syrie dans tout ça ?

En fait, le président Russe essuyé de vives critiques par les gouvernements occidentaux quand il a décidé d’intervenir militairement en Syrie pour combattre Daech, mais tout en soutenant toujours officiellement le gouvernement de Bashar al-Assad. Une chose semble être certaine: depuis que la Russie est intervenue en Syrie contre Daech, les dégâts causés sur ses bases principales et les camps d'entraînement sont connus. Par comparaison, l’alliance menée par les États-Unis et d’autres États (la France, la Turquie, l’Italie, les Pays-Bas, etc.) dès septembre 2014, n’avait pas vraiment freiné l’expansion de Daech.

N’oublions pas l’Irak!

Comme si l’ingérence turque n’était pas suffisante, plus tard la Turquie a déployé ses troupes  proches de la ville de Mosul, en Irak. La diplomatie irakienne  a répondu par un avertissement: "L'Irak a le droit d'utiliser toutes les options à sa disposition, y compris recourir au Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU, si la Turquie ne retire pas ses forces armées sous 48 heures," a prévenu le premier ministre irakien Haïder al-Abadi. La Turquie a enfin retiré une partie de ses troupes à la suite d’une tempête de protestations. Cependant, le malaise continue. Du côté russe, le chef de la diplomatie Sergueï Lavrov s’interroge sur les intentions d’Erdogan: "nous avons de plus en plus de questions sur la volonté réelle d’Ankara d’éradiquer le terrorisme," a-t-il lancé. "Il ne s’agit pas de vengeance. La menace est réelle. Un flux de combattants s’est mis en place via la Turquie dans différentes directions."

"Erdogan joue un coup de maître"

Pour le moment, la Turquie pique la Russie en même temps qu’elle fait, discrètement, du chantage par rapport à l’UE en ce qui concerne les réfugiés qui y entrent chaque jour. Lors du Sommet UE-Turquie, les exigences particulières de l’ancien pays byzantin agitent l’UE. D’abord il y a l’argent pour gérer la crise, la garantie de reprise des négociations d’adhésion à l’UE et aussi la libéralisation de la livraison des visas européens pour les Turcs.

Sur cette pression, le controversé président du parti séparatiste flamand N-VA, a lancé: "Je dois dire que je tire mon chapeau à Erdogan. Sur le plan géopolitique, il a joué un coup de maître. Si la Turquie ouvre le robinet, le flux se met en mouvement. Si la Turquie ferme le robinet, le flux s'arrête. Il a la mainmise sur l’Union européenne et il peut nous faire danser au rythme du flux de réfugiés", a indiqué Bart de Wever au journal néerlandais NRC Handelsblad. Pour le président de la République tchèque Milos Zeman, "la Turquie agit comme l’amie du Daech" et par conséquent "ne doit pas être membre de l’UE. "

A Geopolitical View of the World on the 70th Anniversary of the United Nations

World leaders gathered on the 70th anniversary of the United Nations. © Google

After the scourge of the World War II, in 1945, a new global organisation for international cooperation and diplomacy was created. The United Nations were negotiated and established amongst the delegations from the Soviet Union, the UK, the US and China, and settled in the Dumbarton Oaks Conference. 

In 1946, Churchill’s speech in Zurich touched Europe with its sense of hope and solidarity for a prosperous future. Europe was to reborn from the ashes of war. The transition was difficult, with the big winners from the war, US and URSS, turning out enemies and dividing the world in two blocs. Boosted by the Marshall Plan, Western Europe and Japan were rebuilt while Eastern Europe was trapped into Soviet influence. 

The Cold War was then installed, marked by a nuclear arms race and a climate of tension. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of Soviet Communism, Europe seemed to be in the right path towards social evolution. Seventy years after its beginning, the United Nations General Assembly still represents the major geopolitical scene throughout the world, convening leaders from 193 Nations, discussing topics such as climate change, public health, foreign policy amongst many others. In the highest point of the political scene, leaders have the opportunity to openly address each other, and citizens can put the jigsaw pieces together and reach their own conclusions on what is really going on in the world.

Russia

Russian president Vladimir Putin. © Google

This year, the spotlight was focused on Putin. For the first time in a decade, the President of the Russian Federation has addressed the UNGA, the forum for decision-making where all 193 Member States each have a single vote, in a rather critical time. The annexation of Crimea hasn’t been forgotten and his recent bold move -  stating Russia as the first Nation intervening for Damascus - made him the man of the day. By doing so, the Russian President has set up an air base in Latakia and secured the naval base in Tartus. Briefly, Putin declared Russia was organising an anti-terrorism coalition to defeat ISIL and affirmed the necessity of strengthen Syrian state’s structure. Putin has confirmed to the world his support towards his old friend Bashar al-Assad. Moreover, he added that ISIL grew in strength after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq and is now aggressively spreading to other territories. He said Moscow has consistently fought against terrorism in all its forms, and is supporting the Syrian government with military equipment. “We should acknowledge that no-one except for Assad and his militia is truly fighting ISIL in Syria,” said Putin. 

According to Julia Ioffe from Foreign Policy, Putin’s move is connected to the authoritarian image he maintains in Russia, and since Russia is supporting Syria since the beginning, he believes it is time to intervene whilst the Islamic State is gradually taking Syrian territory. “Bashar al-Assad is losing; he’s losing one town after another,” said Georgy Mirsky, a vintage Russian Arabist who teaches Middle Eastern conflicts at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics. 

An opposing opinion has Ely Karmon, who wrote in Haaretz Putin’s intervention in Syria aims to establish a solid base in the Middle East as well as building up a mini Alawite state for Assad. Karmon claims Israel interests will be at risk with the Russian alliance with the neighbors Iran and Iraq.

As for Ukraine, Putin claims the civil war and consequent dramatic events were the result of a “military coup” from outside – a metaphor for the US and the CIA. He hasn’t made any comments on the annexation of Crimea. Interviewed by CBS’s Charlie Rose during the ’60 Minutes’ program, Putin declared, “We have no obsession that Russia must be a superpower. The only thing we do is protecting our vital interests.” “Nuclear weapons and other weapons are the means to protect our sovereignty and legitimate interests, not the means to behave aggressively or to fulfill some non-existent imperial ambitions,” he added.

In his statement to the United Nations, Putin said after the cold war “a single center of domination emerged in the world” – the US - and it has not been complying with the UN basic principles, probably recalling the led-American intervention in Iraq, bypassing the Security Council. He said, however, Russia is willing to collaborate with its partners on the basis of consensus, but endeavors to enfeeble the UN are “extremely dangerous”. He criticised the dissemination of “so-called democratic revolutions” which have led to violence, poverty and social disaster – probably evoking the “Arab Spring” and the overthrown and consequent elimination of Saddam Hussein and Muhammad Gadhafi. Was Putin denouncing the New World Order?

According to RT, the US has accused Russia of overusing its veto power and risking the legitimacy the Security Council. However, noticeable American linguist Noam Chomsky told RT the US has been “the veto champion” in the past, and has used its veto just as often. “In the last couples of years Russia has caught up to the United States. They are roughly equal in the number of vetoes they have cast. But that is quite a recent development,” told Chomskyto RT.

United States

Obama says the US is willing to work with any nation – including Russia and Iran – to solve the conflict. On Russia and Ukraine, the US president says the international community can’t stand still while Russia is invading Ukraine’s territory, undermining its integrity and sovereignty. He claims if there are no consequences for Russia’s annexation of Crimea, it could happen to any other country within the UN. On Syria, Obama insists the only way of ending the civil war implies the withdrawal of president Assad – which Putin vehemently refuses to cooperate with. As for international cooperation, Obama pointed out the UN remains incomplete after seven decades of its foundation. According to news analyst Lisa Haven, the president of the US wants more globalisation, reflected on his blessing of the TTIP, which Haven considers just evil to the core. When Obama says “capabilities must be given to strengthen the UN in order to accomplish global governance”, meaning the New World Order, according to Lisa, she raises the question on how big will the UN be in the future, claiming that globalisation and climate change dialogues are only equipping and building up the control of the UN.  Lisa accuses Obama of so vigorously applauding the increase of capabilities (infantries, helicopters, intelligence) to strengthen UN’s Peacekeepers whilst denouncing the President’s drive of disarming the masses in the US.

Iran and Israel

The Iranian president spent a considerable part of his speech focusing on the recent nuclear deal achieved in Vienna.  Rouhani criticised Israel, saying “the zionist regime” was the only hurdle towards securing the nuclear agreement. Later on, he criticised the US for extending a steady support for Tel Aviv and ignoring the condition of what he described as “oppressed Palestinians”.  With a defensive discourse, Netanyahu slammed support over the nuclear deal’s outcome, alleging that Iranian threats to destroy Israel have been met in the world body by “utter silence, deafening silence.” 

The nuclear agreement led Netanyahu to lose influence in Washington, reason why has recently urged the US administration to set forth talks. The Iran president said the US were pursuing “baseless accusations and pursuing other dangerous policies” in a strategic defence mechanism towards its regional allies, nurturing extremism, presumably referring to Saudi Arabia and Israel. Rouhani called on the world to form a “united front” to tackle extremism and violence and said the major threat facing the world is for the terrorist organisations to become a terrorist state, referring to the Islamic State. “We are prepared to assist in eradication of terrorism. We are prepared to help bring democracy to Syria and Yemen,” he said. Consequently, Lebanesesources reported hundreds of Iranian troops have arrived in Syria and will soon join government forces and their Lebanese Hezbollah allies in a key ground offensive backed by Russian air strikes.

France

French president François Hollande focused more on climate change and the ongoing conflict in Syria that is resulting in the biggest humanitarian crisis since the II World War.  Denoting the coming CO21 which will take place in the French capital, Hollande said “in Paris, we are asking one question: is humanity capable of taking the decision to preserve life on the planet? If it’s not agreed in Paris, which is already late, it will be too late for the world.” On Syria, Hollande blames Assad for the catastrophic consequences of the war saying in the beginning of the conflict “there weren’t terrorists, no fundamentalists, there was just a dictator, a dictator who was massacring his people.” He reiterated France’s insistence that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad has to be replaced by a “transitional government’. Sort of answering back to Putin’s words on Assad, Hollande reformulated the sentence by saying “I see people are using their efforts to include Bashar al-Assad. He is part of the problem, he cannot be part of the solution”.  From a European viewpoint, France urged Europe to help refugees and Syria’s neighbors – including Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey. He then vowed an additional €100 million aid to Syria’s neighbors. Before finalising his speech, Hollande called on a reform of the UN, an enlargement and reorganisation of the Security as well as a limit to the use of veto in cases of mass atrocities. “I promise you here, France will never use its veto when there are mass atrocities,” said the President of France.

Wikileaks Revelations with Geopolitical Implications

Recent Wikileaks revelations of US State Department leaks  reported plans to destabilize Syria and overthrow the Syrian government as early as 2006. Additional Wikileaks cables reveal CIA involvement on the ground in Syria to instigate these very demonstrations as early as March 2011. The leaks expose that these plans were given to the US straight from the Israeli government and would be shaped through instigating civil conflict and sectarianism through partnership with nations like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and even Egypt, to demolish the power structure in Syria in order to weaken Iran and Hezbollah. According to MintPressNews, “it became then evident that the US, UK, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey would be jumping on to organise, arm and finance rebels from the Free Syrian Army as outlined in the State Department plans to destabilize Syria.” Later on, in 2012, the ironic “The Group of Friends of the Syrian People” was created by these meddling nations. Their agenda was to divide and conquer in order to inflict disorder across Syria in view of dethroning Syrian President Bashar Assad. “That plan was to use a number of different factors to create paranoia within the Syrian government; to push it to overreact, to make it fear there’s a coup,” said the Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange.

But why? This partnership and meddlesome in Syria was followed by a discussion of an Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline, supposedly to be built between 2014-2016 from Iran’s South Pars field passing Iraq and Syria. But Qatar and Turkey proposed Assad to join an agreement that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, touching Iran’s South Pars field via Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria into Turkey, with the aim to supply European markets, critically bypassing Russia.  Protecting the interests of his friend Putin, Assad rejected the proposal from Qatar and Turkey. The latter didn’t like it, as it acknowledged the strategic piece Syria represents geographically. In return, Turkey along its allies became the major engineer of the so-called Syria’s civil war.  To better understand the oil and gas pipelines conflicts across the Middle East, Dmitry Minin wrote in May 2013 for the Strategic Cultural Foundation:

“A battle is raging over whether pipelines will go toward Europe from east to west, from Iran and Iraq to the Mediterranean coast of Syria, or take a more northbound route from Qatar and Saudi Arabia via Syria and Turkey. Having realized that the stalled Nabucco pipeline, and indeed the entire Southern Corridor, are backed up only by Azerbaijan’s reserves and can never equal Russian supplies to Europe or thwart the construction of the South Stream, the West is in a hurry to replace them with resources from the Persian Gulf. Syria ends up being a key link in this chain, and it leans in favor of Iran and Russia; thus it was decided in the Western capitals that its regime needs to change.”

Conclusions

Churchill’s speech in 1946 called on a federalist Europe and urged to the creation of the United Nations. “Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure (…) The salvation of the common people of every race and every land from war and servitude must be established on solid foundations, and must be created by the readiness of all men and women to die rather than to submit to tyranny. “ The UN origins aimed at preventing future generations from the scourge of war and to endorse faith in the Human Rights, defending international justice and fostering social progress. 

Hostilities like the invasion of Vietnam, the genocide in Rwanda and the bloody civil war in Angola undermined the credibility in which the UN pillars were created. Nevertheless, during the way, some significant triumphs were accomplished, the eradication of some diseases of public concern, the rights of women and the assistance to children in need rose across the world. But the new century brought new wars, refugees and humanitarian crisis. Seventy years later, the UN has grown bigger and yet the suffering in the world remains out of scale – Darfur, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Georgia, Libya, Syria, to name but a few – they will be part of History, stamping the failure of action of the UN.

The United Nations, home for 193 Member States in the world, is the place to debate all the challenges the future may bring and to make a balance of what has been achieved throughout time. Commonly, the UN General Assembly is the “public” arena, where leaders have the opportunity to openly point fingers at each other.  Due to tense relations between the West and the East, the climax of the UN speeches was clearly Russia and the US. Russia assumed no imperialist ambitions, defending an arm race due to the logical reasons, meaning the recent increase in NATO’s military spending, as Polish president Andrezj Duda requested a permanent military presence in Poland. Former soviet states claim anticipated defence from possible Russian aggression as Russia claims investment in national security. But the recent arrival of Russian troops in Syrian soil is raising suspicions over Moscow’s ultimate intentions. Meanwhile, Iran is organising its ground armies in Syria, in preparation for an attack to rescue rebel occupied land under the cover of Russian air strikes. Lastly, to make the alliance even more powerful, suspicions that China might step in to support Assad are on the horizon. 

Unsurprisingly, Putin has omitted Russia undercover military take-over of Crimea and the shipment of weapons by Moscow to pro-Russian separatists fighting in the east of Ukraine.  The West appears to stick to a common position of complete rejection of Bashar al-Assad’s government. Both France and US repeatedly insist the only possible progress in Syria’s future implies Assad to withdraw from power. On this matter, Putin believes that only Assad has the legitimacy to decide on the future of his country and claims external interference is not the way of Russia’s conduct. Thus, the recent introduction of more actors in this ghastly equation – the announced military support from Iran and possibly China – is a complete game change for the Western partnership. This was one of the biggest outcomes of the UN’ s General Assembly – a joint statement from two superpowers demanding the withdrawal of Syria’s administration, which resulted in the official support of Assad’s government from two other Nations.

The UN secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon, said to The Guardian, the big security powers must “look beyond their national interest” and stop blocking action in Syria. Ban Ki-Moon added that “we are living in an era of transformation, politically, economically and technologically” and the UN has to adapt to this development.

                                              UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon. © makeroadssafe

The certainty of a monopolised media has been progressively accepted as public knowledge, but there is still much to do in order to break all the misinformation that so often taint our newspapers and TV screens. We need to be able to think for ourselves. Now, to be true what we know via leaked evidence – the Western instigation of the Syrian war -  we see ourselves confronted with a huge hash. So, the United States and France, the major supporters of the so-wanted Assad’s resignation, were instigating the revolution in Syria, then sending weapons to the opposition, that has degenerated in the Islamic State, to further on form a coalition to eliminate it? 

Some claim that geopolitics relations have always been like that, and we have the proof of our endless conflictual history since the period of Prussia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, followed by the calamitous World Wars. I guess the big difference back then is that we didn’t have any Julian Assange or Edward Snowden to expose such detailed evidence hence enlarging our horizons. Therefore the big question is, what is the UN role after all? Seventy years after its creation, the United Nations counts with 193 Nations and a budget of $41 billion and hasn’t been capable of effectively reduce poverty, infectious diseases and war throughout the world. Are we pawns in a chess game?