De mensheid leeft op een gevaarlijk breukvlak. De meeste westerlingen voelen intuïtief de op handen zijnde ingrijpende verandering aan, maar betrekkelijk weinigen zijn in staat dit helder onder woorden te brengen. De Britse historicus Peter Frankopan, Director of the Oxford Centre for Byzantine Research and Senior Research Fellow at Worcester College, is één van hen. In zijn 636 pagina's tellende studie The Silk Roads. A New History of the World (2015) komt hij tot de conclusie dat
In many ways, the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries have represented something of a disaster for the United States and Europe as they have played out their doomed struggle to retain their position in the vital territories that link east with west. What has been striking throughout the events of recent decades is the west’s lack of perspective about global history – about the bigger picture, the wider themes and the larger patterns playing out in the region. In the minds of policy planners, politicians, diplomats and generals, the problems of Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq seemed distinct, separate and only loosely linked to each other.
And yet taking a step back provides valuable perspective as well as remarkable insight, enabling us to see a broad region that is in turmoil. In Turkey, a battle is raging for the soul of the country, with internet providers and social media being shut down on a whim by a government divided about where the future lies. The dilemma is replicated in Ukraine, where different national visions have torn the country apart. Syria too is going through a traumatic experience of profound change, as forces of conservatism and liberalism battle each other at huge cost. The Caucasus has been through a period of transition too, with multiple issues of identity and nationalism bubbling up, most notably in Chechnya and Georgia. Then of course, there is the region further east, where the ‘Tulip Revolution’ in Kyrgyzstan in 2005 was the prelude to a long period of political instability, and Xinjiang in western China where the Uighur population have become increasingly unsettled and hostile, with terrorist attacks now such a threat that the authorities have decreed that growing a long beard is a mark of suspicious intentions, and have begun a formal programme, known as Project Beauty, to prevent women from wearing the veil.
There is more going on, then, than the clumsy interventions of the west in Iraq and Afghanistan and the use of pressure in Ukraine, Iran and elsewhere. From east to west, the Silk Roads are rising up once more. It is easy to feel confused and disturbed by dislocation and violence in the Islamic world, by religious fundamentalism, by clashes between Russia and its neighbors or by China’s struggle with extremism in its western provinces. What we are witnessing, however, are the birthing pains of a region that once dominated the intellectual, cultural and economic landscape and which is now re- emerging. We are seeing the signs of the world’s centre of gravity shifting – back to where it lay for millennia.
There are obvious reasons why this is happening. Most important, of course, are the natural resources of this region. Monopolizing the resources of Persia, Mesopotamia and the Gulf was a priority during the First World War, and efforts to secure the greatest prize in history have dominated the attitudes of the western world to this region ever since. If anything, there is now even more to play for than there was when the scale of Knox D’Arcy’s finds first became apparent: the combined proved crude reserves under the Caspian Sea alone are nearly twice those of the entire United States. From Kurdistan, where newly discovered oil reservoirs such as the Taq Taq field, whose production has risen from 2,000 to 250,000 barrels per day since 2007 – worth hundreds of millions of dollars per month – to the huge Karachaganak reserve on the border between Kazakhstan and Russia which contains an estimated 42 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as well as liquefied gas and crude oil, the countries of this region are groaning under its natural resources.
Then there is the Donbas basin that straddles Ukraine’s eastern frontier with Russia, which has long been famed for coal deposits estimated to have extractable reserves of around 10 billion tons. This too is an area of rising significance because of further mineral wealth. Recent geology-based assessments by the US Geological Service have suggested the presence of 1.4 billion barrels of oil and 2.4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as well as considerable estimated volumes of natural gas liquids. Alongside this sit the natural gas supplies of Turkmenistan. With no less than 700 trillion cubic feet of natural gas estimated to be below the ground, the country controls the fourth largest supplies in the world. And then there are the mines of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan that form part of the Tian Shan belt, second only to the Witwatersrand basin in South Africa for the size of its gold deposits. Or there are beryllium, dysprosium and other ‘rare earths’ found in Kazakhstan that are vital for the manufacture of mobile phones, laptops and rechargeable batteries, as well as the uranium and plutonium that are essential for nuclear energy – and nuclear warheads.
Even the earth itself is rich and valuable. Once, it was the horses of Central Asia that were a highly prized commodity, coveted in the imperial court in China and in the markets of Delhi, as famous to the chroniclers of Kiev as those of Constantinople and Beijing. Today, large parts of the grazing land of the steppes have been transformed to become the astonishingly productive grainfields of southern Russia and Ukraine: indeed, so fertile and sought after is the trademark chernozem (literally ‘dark earth’) that one NGO has found that close to a billion dollars’ worth of this soil is dug up and sold annually in Ukraine alone.
The impact of instability, unrest or war in this region is not just felt in the price of oil at petrol pumps across the world; it affects the price of the technology we use and even that of the bread we eat. In the summer of 2010, for example, weather conditions produced a poor harvest in Russia, with yields well below domestic demand. As soon as the likely deficit became clear, an immediate ban was placed on the international export of cereals, effective with ten days’ warning. The impact on global cereal prices was instant: they rose 15 per cent in just two days. Turmoil in Ukraine at the start of 2014 had a similar impact, forcing the price of wheat sharply upwards because of fears about its effect on agricultural production in the world’s third largest wheat exporter.
The cultivation of other crops in this part of the world follows similar principles. Once, Central Asia was famous for Babur’s orange trees and, later, for the tulips that were so highly prized in capital cities across western Europe in the seventeenth century that canal houses in Amsterdam were exchanged for single bulbs. Today it is the poppy that is fought over: its cultivation, above all in Afghanistan, underpins worldwide consumption patterns for heroin, and determines its price — and of course impacts the costs that result from treatment for drug addiction and rehabilitation care as well as the price for trying to police organized crime.
Hoewel de westerse massamedia elke dag weer talloze gebeurtenissen melden, blijft hun berichtgeving ééndimensionaal. De processen waarvan de mens getuige is, worden nauwelijks toegelicht, terwijl de context waarin de chaos van feiten zich voltrekt, door de 'vrije pers' wordt verzwegen. Er vindt momenteel een geopolitieke omslag plaats van historisch belang. Toch doen mijn collega's in de polder het voorkomen alsof het Westen met nog meer geweld de status quo zal kunnen handhaven. Hun voorstellingsvermogen reikt niet verder dan een infantiel manicheïsme, waarbij 'wij' altijd de goeden zijn. Ondertussen waarschuwen westerse geopolitieke denkers voor de op handen zijnde ingrijpende veranderingen, en adviseren de elite hoe zij zich daartegen zou kunnen beschermen. Peter Frankopan's beschrijving sluit dan ook aan bij het betoog van Zbigniew Brzezinski in zijn boek The Grand Chessboard. American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997). Brzezinki was Nationaal Veiligheidsadviseur van president Jimmy Carter (1977-1981). 'Naast Henry Kissinger en Samuel Huntington wordt hij (Brzezinski.svh) gerekend tot de grijze eminentie onder de Amerikaanse geostrategen,' en is één van de belangrijkste adviseurs van president Obama. Voordat ik enkele fragmenten uit deze geopolitieke studie citeer geef ik allereerste de beschrijving van The Grand Chessboard door de Amerikaanse statisticus Chris Ernesto, 'co-founder of St. Pete for Peace, an antiwar organization in St. Petersburg, Florida. Mr. Ernesto also created and manages OccupyArrests.com and USinAfrica.com.' Ernesto schreef het volgende:
The Eurasian Chessboard: Brzezinski Mapped Out 'The Battle for Ukraine' in 1997
It’s all about maintaining the US position as the world’s sole superpower. Why would the United States run the risk of siding with anti-Semitic, neo-Nazis in Ukraine?
One of the keys may be found by looking back at Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard in which he wrote, 'Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.'
'However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.'
The former national security advisor to Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981 and top foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama, Brzezinski wrote that US policy should be 'unapologetic' in perpetuating 'America’s own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still.'
Brzezinski delved into the importance of little known Ukraine by explaining in his 1997 book, 'Geopolitical pivots are the states whose importance is derived not from their power and motivation but rather from their sensitive location… which in some cases gives them a special role in either defining access to important areas or in denying resources to a significant player.'
'Ukraine, Azerbaijan, South Korea, Turkey and Iran play the role of critically important geopolitical pivots,' he wrote in The Grand Chessboard, a book viewed by many as a blueprint for US world domination.
Brzezinski wrote that Eurasia is 'the chessboard on which the struggle for global primacy continues to be played,' and that 'it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America.'
Understanding Brzezinski’s long-term view of Ukraine makes it easier to comprehend why the US has given $5 billion to Ukraine since 1991, and why today it is hyper-concerned about having Ukraine remain in its sphere of influence.
It may also help explain why in the past year the US and many of its media outlets have feverishly demonized Vladimir Putin.
By prominently highlighting the mistreatment of activist group Pussy Riot, incessantly condemning Russia’s regressive position on gay rights, and excessively focusing on substandard accommodations at the Sochi Olympic Games, the Obama administration has cleverly distracted the public from delving into US support of the ultra-nationalist, neo-Nazi factions of the Ukrainian opposition, and has made it palatable for Americans to accept the US narrative on Ukraine.
Interestingly enough, it was Brzezinski who first compared Putin to Hitler in a March 3 Washington Post Editorial. Hillary Clinton followed-up the next day with her comments comparing the two, followed by John McCain and Marco Rubio who on March 5 agreed with Clinton’s comments comparing Putin and Hitler. Apparently Brzezinski still continues to influence US political speak.
In his book, Brzezinski contends that 'America stands supreme in the four decisive domains of global power: militarily… economically… technologically… and culturally.'
While this may have been accurate in 1997, it can be argued that today, other than militarily, the US no longer reigns supreme in these domains.
So late last year when Ukraine’s now-ousted president Viktor Yanukovych surprisingly canceled plans for Ukrainian integration into the European Union in favor of stronger ties with Russia, the US may have viewed Ukraine as slipping even further out of its reach.
At that point, with the pieces already in place, the US moved to support the ousting of Yanukovych, as evidenced by the leaked phone conversation between US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. When peaceful protests were not effective in unseating Yanukovych, the violence of the ultra-nationalist Svoboda party and Right Sector was embraced, if not supported by the west.
In today’s Ukraine, the US runs the risk of being affiliated with anti-Semitic neo-Nazis, a prospect it probably feels can be controlled via a friendly western media. But even if the risk is high, the US likely views it as necessary given the geopolitical importance of Ukraine, as Brzezinski mapped out in 1997.
Over het 'Oppergezag' van de VS stelde Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard met betrekking tot Rusland en China:
Lacking the ability to project forces over long distances inn order to impose their political will ands being technologically much more backward than America, they do not have the means to exercise — nor soon attain — sustained political clout (macht. svh) worldwide.
In brief, America stands supreme in the four decisive domains of global power: militarily, it has an unmatched global reach; economically, it remains the main locomotive of global growth, even if challenged in some aspects by Japan and Germany (neither of which enjoys the other attributes of global might); technologically, it retains the overall lead in the cutting-edge areas of innovation; and culturally, despite some crassness (grofheid. svh), it enjoys an appeal that is unrivaled, especially among the world's youth — all of which gives the United States a political clout that no other state comes close to matching. It is the combination of all four that makes America the only comprehensive global superpower.
Om te voorkomen dat aan 'de macht' van de 'global superpower' getwijfeld zal worden, heeft de elite in Washington en op Wall Street haar militair-industrieel complex achter de hand, en beschikt wereldwijd over meer dan 700 militaire bases. September 2000 concludeerde de door Cheney, Rumsfeld en Wolfowitz opgerichte denktank 'Project voor de Nieuwe Amerikaanse Eeuw' (PNAC)dat 'hoewel het onopgeloste conflict met Irak een onmiddellijke rechtvaardiging verschaft, overstijgt de noodzaak van een aanzienlijke Amerikaanse militaire aanwezigheid in de Golf het vraagstuk van het regime van Saddam Hoessein.' Zoals uit deze woorden blijkt ging het niet in de eerste plaats om Irak. In feite draaide het om Saoedi Arabië, de grootste producent binnen OPEC, die de olieprijs bepaalt. In 2003 schreef Michael Renner, olie-expert van het in Washington gevestigde World Watch Institute:
De heerschappij over de Iraakse olie zal de Verenigde Staten in staat stellen de Saoedische invloed op de oliepolitiek te verminderen en Washington een enorme macht over de wereld oliemarkt geven.
Zodra de Iraakse olie-industrie op volle toeren draaide zou 'Saoedi Arabië niet langer meer de dominante producent zijn, die eigenhandig de oliemarkt kan beïnvloeden… Het openen van de Iraakse oliekraan zal de wereld overspoelen en prijzen aanzienlijk omlaag drijven.'
Het PNAC formuleerde de Amerikaanse doeleinden even openhartig als vier jaar eerder Brzezinski had gedaan, de auteurs stelden dat hun rapport een 'blauwdruk' was
voor het behoud van de Amerikaanse wereldwijde superioriteit, om de opkomst van een grote machtsrivaal uit te sluiten, en om de internationale veiligheidsorde te laten sporen met Amerikaanse principes en belangen.
De Amerikaanse strijdkrachten in het buitenland worden beschreven als 'de cavalerie van het nieuwe Amerikaanse grensgebied.' Het rapport bekrachtigde een eerder beleidsdocument waarin gesteld werd dat de Verenigde Staten
moderne industriële naties moet ontmoedigen om onze leiderschap op de proef te stellen of om zelfs ook maar te streven naar een grotere regionale of wereldwijde rol.
Bovendien werd verwezen naar
nieuwe aanvalsmethoden — elektronisch… biologisch — zullen steeds meer beschikbaar zijn, de strijd zal zich naar alle waarschijnlijkheid in een nieuwe dimensie plaatsvinden, in de ruimte, cyberspace, en misschien in de wereld van de microben… geavanceerde vormen van biologische oorlogsvoering.
Het rapport was geschreven voor Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz en Lewis Libby, die drie maanden later sleutelposities in de nieuwe Amerikaanse regering bekleedden. Cheney werd vice-president, Rumsfeld minister van Defensie, Wolfowitz plaatsvervangend minister van Defensie en Libby de chef-staf van Cheney. Om deze wereldwijde militaire strategie bij het grote publiek acceptabel te maken zou
een of andere catastrofale en als katalysator werkende gebeurtenis - zoals een nieuwe Pearl Harbor'
nodig zijn, aldus de opstellers van 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century,' exact een jaar vóór de aanslagen van 11 september 2001. Na als het ware op hun wenken te zijn bediend, en terwijl de Twin Towers nog nabrandden vroeg, volgens de New Yorker van april 2002, Condoleezza Rice, de Nationale Veiligheidsadviseur van president Bush, tijdens een spoedvergadering van de Nationale Veiligheidsraad aan de aanwezigen om na te denken over 'hoe men deze mogelijkheden kan uitbuiten,' daarbij verwijzend naar de situatie van '1945 tot 1947,' het begin van de koude oorlog. Intussen had een dag na de aanslagen minister Rumsfeld, zonder zelfs ook maar één enkel bewijs van wie de daders waren, tijdens een kabinetsvergadering al geëist dat Irak 'een hoofddoel van de eerste ronde in de oorlog tegen terrorisme' zou zijn, aldus de journalist Bob Woodward van de Washington Post die een boek schreef over de eerste 100 dagen na 11 september, vol vertrouwelijke informatie die hij van hoog geplaatste autoriteiten had gekregen. Zes dagen na de terroristische aanslagen, op 17 september 2001, ondertekende president Bush een tweeëneenhalf pagina's tellend document, voorzien van de stempel 'TOP SECRET,' waarbij het Pentagon opdracht kreeg om militaire operaties voor te bereiden voor een invasie van Irak. Voor het eerst in het nieuwe millennium waren de schaakstukken in stelling gebracht. Het grote spel 'met als inzet de heerschappij over de wereld' kon beginnen. Het spreekt voor zich dat de commerciële massamedia daarbij moesten worden gemobiliseerd om dit in het geheim ontwikkelde draaiboek bij het grote publiek acceptabel te maken, dit alles geheel volgens de richtlijnen die de Amerikaanse media-adviseur van de elite, Walter Lippmann, in 1922 had opgesteld:
public opinions must be organized for the press if they are to be sound, not by the press... Without some form of censorship, propaganda in the strict sense of the word is impossible. In order to conduct propaganda there must be some barrier between the public and the event. Access to the real environment must be limited, before anyone can create a pseudo-environment that he thinks is wise or desirable…
Om ervoor te zorgen dat na de ineenstorting van de Sovjet Unie de VS 'the only comprehensive global superpower' zou worden, werd de NAVO niet ontbonden, maar juist oostwaarts uitgebreid. Brzezinski gebruikt daarvoor in The Grand Chessboard de volgende logica:
It follows that a wider Europe and an enlarged NATO will serve well both the short-term and the longer-term goals of U.S. policy. A larger Europe will expand the range of American influence — and, through the admission of new Central European members, also increase in the European councils the number of states with a pro-American proclivity (voorkeur. svh) — without simultaneously creating a Europe politically so integrated that it could soon challenge the United States on geopolitical matters of hight importance to America elsewhere, particularly in the Middle East. A politically defined Europe is also essential to the progressive assimilation of Russia into a system of global cooperation.
Dit uitgangspunt van de Amerikaanse buitenlandse politiek is belangrijk te weten op het moment dat men leest dat Geert Mak tevreden vaststelt dat de VS als 'ordewaker en politieagent' nog steeds 'de agenda van de wereldpolitiek' weet te 'bepalen,' of wanneer Henk Hofland (De Groene Amsterdammer) stelt dat 'het Westen zich [zal] moeten aanpassen' maar dan 'nog altijd bij voorkeur onder Amerikaanse leiding, als het een Democraat is,' in dit geval 'Hillary' die hij portretteert als de 'ideale kandidaat' voor het Amerikaanse presidentschap, of wanneer ander gecorrumpeerde journalisten als Hubert Smeets (NRC) en Paul Brill (Volkskrant) na terugkeer van een 'studiereis,' georganiseerd door de Atlantische Commissie, de propaganda arm van de NAVO, weer eens 'Poetin' afschilderen als de grote bedreiging van Europa. Maar in werkelijkheid schuilt er een veel groter gevaar in de pro-NAVO koers die Europa voert, zoals men kan opmaken uit de woorden van Brzezinski:
Admittedly, America cannot on its own generate a more united Europe — that is up to the Europeans, especially the French and the Germans — but America can obstruct the emergence of a more united Europe. And that could prove calamitous for the stability in Eurasia and thus also for America's own interests. Indeed, unless Europe becomes more united, it is likely to become more disunited again. Accordingly, as stated earlier, it is vital that America work closely with both France and Germany in seeking a Europe that is politically viable, a Europe that remains linked to the United States, and a Europe that widens the scope of the cooperative democratic international system. Making a choice between France and Germany is not the issue. With our either France or Germany, there will be no Europe, and without Europe there will be no trans-Eurasian system.
Kortom, de Europese Unie, het Europa van Geert Mak's 'Geen Jorwert zonder Brussel,' mag alleen zolang het 'remains linked to the United States,' en zolang het deelneemt aan het met of zonder geweld verspreiden van het neoliberale 'international system,' dat doorgaat voor 'democratic,' maar in werkelijkheid weinig tot niets met democratie heeft te maken, aangezien de vitale besluiten door een kleine elite worden genomen. Oftewel 'It follows that a wider Europe and an enlarged NATO will serve well both the short-term and the longer-term goals of U.S. policy,' en op die manier slaat de elite in Washington en op Wall Street twee vliegen in één klap, te weten:
- A larger Europe will expand the range of American influence — and, through the admission of new Central European members, also increase in the European councils the number of states with a pro-American proclivity (voorkeur. svh)
- without simultaneously creating a Europe politically so integrated that it could soon challenge the United States on geopolitical matters of hight importance to America elsewhere, particularly in the Middle East.
Wil Europa daarentegen een eigen politieke koers volgen dan wordt dit door de VS gesaboteerd. Zo verklaarde Victoria Nuland, door president Obama benoemd tot 'Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the United States Department of State,' in een afgeluisterd telefoongesprek over de door de VS verordonneerde koers van Kiev: 'Fuck the European Union.' Mevrouw Nuland is degene die achter de schermen de gewelddadige 'regime change' in Oekraïne orchestreerde. Interessant in dit verband is dat mevrouw Nuland getrouwd is met de
historian Robert Kagan, with whom she has two children.
Robert Kagan is een door president Obama bewonderde neoconservatieve ideoloog, die één van de oprichters is geweest van het beruchte PNAC, en zo is de cirkel weer rond. Deze feiten werpen tevens een onthullend licht op de opmerking van Geert Mak, voorafgaand aan de herverkiezing van Obama, dat
het beter is voor Nederland en de internationale gemeenschap dat Obama de verkiezingen wint.
In verband met de lengte volgende keer meer over 'onze' propagandisten van de 'vrije pers.'
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten