Center for Research on Globalization, Canada
September 23, 2007
The Sino-Russian Alliance: Challenging America’s
Ambitions in Eurasia
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, September 23, 2007
– 2007-08-26
`But if the middle space [Russia and the former Soviet
Union] rebuffs the West [the European Union and
America], becomes an assertive single entity, and
either gains control over the South [Middle East] or
forms an alliance with the major Eastern actor
[China], then America’s primacy in Eurasia shrinks
dramatically. The same would be the case if the two
major Eastern players were somehow to unite. Finally,
any ejection of America by its Western partners [the
Franco-German entente] from its perch on the western
periphery [Europe] would automatically spell the end
of America’s participation in the game on the Eurasian
chessboard, even though that would probably also mean
the eventual subordination of the western extremity to
a revived player occupying the middle space [e.g.
Russia].’
-Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American
Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)
Sir Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion states that
`for every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction.’ These precepts of physics can also be used
in the social sciences, specifically with reference to
social relations and geopolitics.
America and Britain, the Anglo-American alliance, have
engaged in an ambitious project to control global
energy resources. Their actions have resulted in a
series of complicated reactions, which have
established a Eurasian-based coalition which is
preparing to challenge the Anglo-American axis.
Encircling Russia and China: Anglo-American Global
Ambitions Backfire
`Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper
use of force – military force – in international
relations, force that is plunging the world into an
abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not
have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive
solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a
political settlement also becomes impossible. We are
seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic
principles of international law. And independent legal
norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly
closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of
course, first and foremost the United States, has
overstepped its national borders in every way.’
-Vladimir Putin at the Munich Conference on Security
Policy in Germany (February 11, 2007)
What American leaders and officials called the `New
World Order’ is what the Chinese and Russians consider
a `Unipolar World.’ This is the vision or
hallucination, depending on perspective, that has
bridged the Sino-Russian divide between Beijing and
Moscow.
China and Russia are well aware of the fact that they
are targets of the Anglo-American alliance. Their
mutual fears of encirclement have brought them
together. It is no accident that in the same year that
NATO bombarded Yugoslavia, President Jiang Zemin of
China and President Boris Yeltsin of Russia made an
anticipated joint declaration at a historic summit in
December of 1999 that revealed that China and the
Russian Federation would join hands to resist the `New
World Order.’ The seeds for this Sino-Russian
declaration were in fact laid in 1996 when both sides
declared that they opposed the global imposition of
single-state hegemony.
Both Jiang Zemin and Boris Yeltsin stated that all
nation-states should be treated equally, enjoy
security, respect each other’s sovereignty, and most
importantly not interfere in the internal affairs of
other nation-states. These statements were directed at
the U.S. government and its partners.
The Chinese and Russians also called for the
establishment of a more equitable economic and
political global order. Both nations also indicated
that America was behind separatist movements in their
respective countries. They also underscored
American-led amibitions to balkanize and finlandize
the nation-states of Eurasia. Influential Americans
such as Zbigniew Brzezinski had already advocated for
de-centralizing and eventually dividing up the Russian
Federation.
Both the Chinese and Russians issued a statement
warning that the creation of an international missile
shield and the contravention of the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) would destabilize the
international environment and polarize the globe. In
1999, the Chinese and Russians were aware of what was
to come and the direction that America was headed
towards. In June 2002, less than a year before the
onslaught of the `Global War on Terror,’ George W.
Bush Jr. announced that the U.S. was withdrawing from
the ABM Treaty.
On July 24, 2001, less than two months before
September 11, 2001, China and Russia signed the Treaty
of Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation. The
latter is a softly worded mutual defence pact against
the U.S., NATO, and the U.S. sponsored Asian military
network which was surrounding China. [1]
The military pact of the Shanghai Treaty Organization
(SCO) also follows the same softly worded format. It
is also worth noting that Article 12 of the 2001
Sino-Russian bilateral treaty stipulates that China
and Russia will work together to maintain the global
strategic balance, `observation of the basic
agreements relevant to the safeguard and maintenance
of strategic stability,’ and `promote the process of
nuclear disarmament.’ [2] This seems to be an
insinuation about a nuclear threat posed from the
United States.
Standing in the Way of America and Britain: A
`Chinese-Russian-Iranian Coalition’
As a result of the Anglo-American drive to encircle
and ultimately dismantle China and Russia, Moscow and
Beijing have joined ranks and the SCO has slowly
evolved and emerged in the heart of Eurasia as a
powerful international body.
The main objectives of the SCO are defensive in
nature. The economic objectives of the SCO are to
integrate and unite Eurasian economies against the
economic and financial onslaught and manipulation from
the `Trilateral’ of North America, Western Europe, and
Japan, which controls significant portions of the
global economy.
The SCO charter was also created, using Western
national security jargon, to combat `terrorism,
separatism, and extremism.’ Terrorist activities,
separatist movements, and extremist movements in
Russia, China, and Central Asia are all forces
traditionally nurtured, funded, armed, and covertly
supported by the British and the U.S. governments.
Several separatist and extremist groups that have
destabilized SCO members even have offices in London.
Iran, India, Pakistan, and Mongolia are all SCO
observer members. The observer status of Iran in the
SCO is misleading. Iran is a de facto member. The
observer status is intended to hide the nature of
trilateral cooperation between Iran, Russia, and China
so that the SCO cannot be labeled and demonized as an
anti-American or anti-Western military grouping.
The stated interests of China and Russia are to ensure
the continuity of a `Multi-Polar World.’ Zbigniew
Brzezinski prefigured in his 1997 book The Grand
Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic
Imperatives and warned against the creation or
`emergence of a hostile [Eurasian-based] coalition
that could eventually seek to challenge America’s
primacy.’ [3] He also called this potential Eurasian
coalition an “antihegemonic’ alliance’ that would be
formed from a `Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition’ with
China as its linchpin. [4] This is the SCO and several
Eurasian groups that are connected to the SCO.
In 1993, Brzezinski wrote `In assessing China’s future
options, one has to consider also the possibility that
an economically successful and politically
self-confident China – but one which feels excluded
from the global system and which decides to become
both the advocate and the leader of the deprived
states of the world – may decide to pose not only an
articulate doctrinal but also a powerful geopolitical
challenge to the dominant trilateral world [a
reference to the economic front formed by North
America, Western Europe, and Japan].’ [5]
Brzezinski warns that Beijing’s answer to challenging
the global status quo would be the creation of a
Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition: `For Chinese
strategists, confronting the trilateral coalition of
America and Europe and Japan, the most effective
geopolitical counter might well be to try and fashion
a triple alliance of its own, linking China with Iran
in the Persian Gulf/Middle East region and with Russia
in the area of the former Soviet Union [and Eastern
Europe].’ [6] Brzezinski goes on to say that the
Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition, which he moreover
calls an `antiestablishmentarian
[anti-establishmentarian] coalition,’ could be a
potent magnet for other states [e.g., Venezuela]
dissatisfied with the [global] status quo.’ [7]
Furthermore, Brzezinski warned in 1997 that `The most
immediate task [for the U.S.] is to make certain that
no state or combination of states gains the capacity
to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to
diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role.’
[8] It may be that his warnings were forgotten,
because the U.S. has been repealed from Central Asia
and U.S. forces have been evicted from Uzbekistan and
Tajikistan.
`Velvet Revolutions’ Backfire in Central Asia
Central Asia was the scene of several
British-sponsored and American-sponsored attempts at
regime change. The latter were characterised by velvet
revolutions similar to the Orange Revolution in
Ukraine and the Rose Revolution in Georgia.
These velvet revolutions financed by the U.S. failed
in Central Asia, aside from Kyrgyzstan where there had
been partial success with the so-called Tulip
Revolution.
As a result the U.S. government has suffered major
geo-strategic setbacks in Central Asia. All of Central
Asia’s leaders have distanced themselves from America.
Russia and Iran have also secured energy deals in the
region. America’s efforts, over several decades, to
exert a hegemonic role in Central Asia seem to have
been reversed overnight. The U.S. sponsored velvet
revolutions have backfired. Relations between
Uzbekistan and the U.S. were especially hard hit.
Uzbekistan is under the authoritarian rule of
President Islam Karamov. Starting in the second half
of the 1990s President Karamov was enticed into
bringing Uzbekistan into the fold of the
Anglo-American alliance and NATO. When there was an
attempt on President Karamov’s life, he suspected the
Kremlin because of his independent policy stance. This
is what led Uzbekistan to leave CSTO. But Islam
Karamov, years later, changed his mind as to who was
attempting to get rid of him.
According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, Uzbekistan
represented a major obstacle to any renewed Russian
control of Central Asia and was virtually invulnerable
to Russian pressure; this is why it was important to
secure Uzbekistan as an American protectorate in
Central Asia.
Uzbekistan also has the largest military force in
Central Asia. In 1998, Uzbekistan held war games with
NATO troops in Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan was becoming
heavily militarized in the same manner as Georgia was
in the Caucasus. The U.S. gave Uzbekistan huge amounts
of financial aid to challenge the Kremlin in Central
Asia and also provided training to Uzbek forces.
With the launching of the `Global War on Terror,’ in
2001, Uzbekistan, an Anglo-American ally, immediately
offered bases and military facilities to the U.S. in
Karshi-Khanabad.
The leadership of Uzbekistan already knew the
direction the `Global War on Terror’ would take. To
the irritation of the Bush Jr. Administration, the
Uzbek President formulated a policy of self-reliance.
The honeymoon between Uzbekistan and the
Anglo-American alliance ended when Washington D.C. and
London contemplated removing Islam Karamov from power.
He was a little too independent for their comfort and
taste. Their attempts at removing the Uzbek President
failed, leading eventually to a shift in geo-political
alliances.
The tragic events of Andijan on May 13, 2005 were the
breaking point between Uzbekistan and the
Anglo-American alliance. The people of Andijan were
incited into confronting the Uzbek authorities, which
resulted in a heavy security clampdown on the
protesters and a loss of lives.
Armed groups were reported to have been involved. In
the U.S., Britain, and the E.U., the media reports
focused narrowly on human rights violations without
mentioning the covert role of the Anglo-American
alliance. Uzbekistan held Britain and the U.S.
responsible accusing them of inciting rebellion.
M. K. Bhadrakumar, the former Indian ambassador to
Uzbekistan (1995-1998), revealed that the Hezbut
Tahrir (HT) was one of the parties blamed for stirring
the crowd in Andijan by the Uzbek government. [9] The
group was already destabilizing Uzbekistan and using
violent tactics. The headquarters of this group
happens to be in London and they enjoy the support of
the British government. London is a hub for many
similar organizations that further Anglo-American
interests in various countries, including Iran and
Sudan, through destabilization campaigns. Uzbekistan
even started clamping down on foreign non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) because of the tragic events of
Andijan.
The Anglo-American alliance had played its cards wrong
in Central Asia. Uzbekistan officially left the GUUAM
Group, a NATO-U.S. sponsored anti-Russian body. GUUAM
became the GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and
Moldava) on May 24, 2005.
On July 29, 2005 the U.S. military was ordered to
leave Uzbekistan within a six-month period. [10]
Literally, the Americans were told they were no longer
welcome in Uzbekistan and Central Asia.
Russia, China, and the SCO added their voices to the
demands. The U.S. cleared its airbase in Uzbekistan by
November, 2005.
Uzbekistan rejoined the CSTO on June 26, 2006 and
realigned itself, once again, with Moscow. The Uzbek
President also became a vocal advocate, along with
Iran, for pushing the U.S. totally out of Central
Asia. [11] Unlike Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan continued to
allow the U.S. to use Manas Air Base, but with
restrictions and in an uncertain atmosphere. The
Kyrgyz government also would make it clear that no
U.S. operations could target Iran from Kyrgyzstan.
Major Geo-Strategic Error
It appears that a strategic rapprochement between Iran
and America was in the works from 2001 to 2002. At the
outset of the global War on terrorism, Hezbollah and
Hamas, two Arab organizations supported by Iran and
Syria, were kept off the U.S. State Department’s list
of terrorist organizations. Iran and Syria were also
loosely portrayed as potential partners in the `Global
War on Terror.’
Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Iran expressed
its support for the post-Saddam Iraqi government.
During the invasion of Iraq, the American military
even attacked the Iraqi-based Iranian opposition
militia, the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization
(MEK/MOK/MKO). Iranian jets also attacked the Iraqi
bases of the MEK in approximately the same window of
time.
Iran, Britain, and the U.S. also worked together
against the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is worth
mentioning that the Taliban were never allies of Iran.
Up until 2000, the Taliban had been supported by the
U.S. and Britain, working hand in glove with the
Pakistani military and intelligence.
The Taliban were shocked and bewildered at what they
saw as an American and British betrayal in 2001 – this
is in light of the fact that in October, 2001 they had
stated that they would hand over Osama bin Laden to
the U.S. upon the presentation of evidence of his
alleged involvement in the 9/11 attacks.
Zbigniew Brzezinski warned years before 2001 that `a
coalition allying Russia with both China and Iran can
develop only if the United States is shortsighted
enough to antagonize China and Iran simultaneously.’
[12] The arrogance of the Bush Jr. Administration has
resulted in this shortsighted policy.
According to The Washington Post, `Just after the
lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three
years ago [in 2003], an unusual two-page document
spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of
the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for
a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax
suggested everything was on the table – including full
cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel
and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian
militant groups.’ [13]
The White House impressed by what they believe were
`grand victories’ in Iraq and Afghanistan merely
ignored the letter sent through diplomatic channels by
the Swiss government on behalf of Tehran.
However, it was not because of what was wrongly
perceived as a quick victory in Iraq that the Bush Jr.
Administration pushed Iran aside. On January 29, 2002,
in a major address, President Bush Jr. confirmed that
the U.S. would also target Iran, which had been added
to the so-called `Axis of Evil’ together with Iraq and
North Korea. The U.S. and Britain intended to attack
Iran, Syria, and Lebanon after the 2003 invasion of
Iraq. In fact immediately following the invasion, in
July 2003, the Pentagon formulated an initial war
scenario entitled `Theater Iran Near Term (TIRANNT).’
Starting in 2002, the Bush Jr. Administration had
deviated from their original geo-strategic script.
France and Germany were also excluded from sharing the
spoils of war in Iraq.
The intention was to act against Iran and Syria just
as American and Britain had used and betrayed their
Taliban allies in Afghanistan. The U.S. was also set
on targeting Hezbollah and Hamas. In January of 2001,
according to Daniel Sobelman, a correspondent for
Haaretz, the U.S. government warned Lebanon that the
U.S. would go after Hezbollah. These threats directed
at Lebanon were made at the start of the presidential
term of George W. Bush Jr., eight months before the
events of September 11, 2001.
The conflict at the United Nations Security Council
between the Anglo-American alliance and the
Franco-German entente, supported by Russia and China,
was a pictogram of this deviation.
American geo-strategists for years after the Cold War
had scheduled the Franco-German entente to be partners
in their plans for global primacy. In this regard,
Zbigniew Brzezinski had acknowledged that the
Franco-German entente would eventually have to be
elevated in status and that the spoils of war would
have to be divided with Washington’s European allies.
By the end of 2004, the Anglo-American alliance had
started to correct its posture towards France and
Germany. Washington had returned to its original
geo-strategic script with NATO playing an expanded
role in the Eastern Mediterranean. In turn, France was
granted oil concessions in Iraq.
The 2006 war plans for Lebanon and the Eastern
Mediterranean also point to a major shift in
direction, a partnership role for the Franco-German
entente, with France and Germany playing a major
military role in the region.
It is worth noting that a major shift occurred in
early 2007 with regard to Iran. With the start of
2007. Following U.S. setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan
(as well as in Lebanon, Palestine, Somalia, and former
Soviet Central Asia), the White House entered into
secret negotiatiations with Iran and Syria. However,
the dye has been cast and it would appear that America
will be unable to break an evolving military alliance
which includes Russia, Iran, and China as its nucleus.
The Baker-Hamilton Commission: Covert Anglo-American
Cooperation with Iran and Syria?
`America should also strongly support Turkish
aspirations to have a pipeline from Baku in [the
Republic of] Azerbaijan to Ceyhan on the Turkish
Mediterranean cost serve as [a] major outlet for the
Caspian Sea basin energy sources. In addition, it is
not in America’s interest to perpetuate
American-Iranian hostility. Any eventual
reconciliation should be based on the recognition of a
mutual strategic interest in stabilizing what
currently is a very volatile regional environment for
Iran [e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan]. Admittedly, any
such reconciliation must be pursued by both sides and
is not a favor granted by one to the other. A strong,
even religiously motivated but not fanatically
anti-Western Iran is in the U.S. interest, and
ultimately even the Iranian political elite may
recognize that reality. In the meantime, American
long-range interests in Eurasia would be better served
by abandoning existing U.S. objections to closer
Turkish-Iranian economic cooperation, especially in
the construction of new pipelines…’
-Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American
Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)
The recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Commission
or the Iraq Study Group (ISG) are not a redirection in
regards to engaging Iran, but a return to the track
that the Bush Jr. Administration had deviated from as
a result of the delusions of its hasty victories in
Afghanistan and Iraq. In other words, the
Baker-Hamilton Commission was about damage control and
re-steering America to the geo-strategic path
originally intended by military planners that the Bush
Jr. Administration seems to have deviated from.
The ISG Report also subtly indicated that adoption of
so-called `free market’ economic reforms be pressed on
Iran (and by extension Syria) instead of regime
change. The ISG also favoured the accession of both
Syria and Iran to the World Trade Organization (WTO).
[14] It should also noted, in this regard, that Iran
has already started a mass privatization program that
involves all sectors from banking to energy and
agriculture.
The ISG Report also recommends an end to the
Arab-Israeli Conflict and the establishment of peace
between Israel and Syria. [15]
The joint interests of Iran and the U.S. were also
analysed by the Baker-Hamilton Commission. The ISG
recommended that the U.S. will not empower the
Taliban again in Afghanistan (against Iran). [16] It
should also be noted that Imad Moustapha, the Syrian
ambassador to the U.S., the Syrian Foreign Minister,
and Javad Zarif, the Iranian representative to the
United Nations, were all consulted by the
Baker-Hamilton Commission. [17] The Iranian Ambassodor
to the U.N., Javad Zarif, has also been a middle man
between the U.S. and Iranian governments for years.
It is worth mentioning that the Clinton Administration
was involved in the track of rapprochement with Iran,
while also attempting to keep Iran in check under the
`dual-containment’ policy directed against Iraq and
Iran. This policy was also linked to the 1992 Draft
Defence Guidance paper written by people within the
Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. Administrations.
It is worth noting that Zbigniew Brzezinski had stated
as far back as 1997 and again in 1979 that Iran under
its post-revolutionary political system could be
co-opted by America. [18] Britain also ensured Syria
and Iran in 2002 and 2003 that they would not be
targeted and encouraged their cooperation with the
White House.
It should be noted that Turkey has recently signed a
pipeline deal with Iran that will take gas to Western
Europe. This project includes the participation of
Turkmenistan. [19] It would appear that this
cooperation agreement between Tehran and Ankara points
to reconciliation rather than confrontation with Iran
and Syria. This is in line with what Brzezinski in
1997 claimed was in America’s interest.
Also, the Anglo-American sponsored Iraqi government
has recently signed pipeline deals with Iran.
Once again, America’s interests in this deal should be
questioned, as should the high opinions being given
about Iran by the puppet leaders of Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Something’s Amiss…
The media attention given in North America and Britain
to the positive comments made about Tehran by
Anglo-American clients in Baghdad and Kabul is
sinister.
Although these comments from Baghdad and Kabul about
the positive role Iran plays in Iraq and Afghanistan
are not new, the media attention is. President George
W. Bush Jr. and the White House criticized the Iraqi
Prime Minister for saying Iran plays a constructive
role in Iraq in early-August of 2007. The White House
and North American or British press would usually just
ignore or refuse to acknowledge these comments.
However, this was not the case in August, 2007.
The Afghani President, Hamid Karzai, during a joint
press conference with George W. Bush Jr. stated that
Iran was a positive force in his country. It is not
odd to hear that Iran is a positive force inside
Afghanistan because the stability of Afghanistan is in
Iran’s best interests. What comes across as odd are
`when’ and `where’ the comments were made. White House
press conferences are choreographed and the place and
time of the Afghani President’s comments should be
questioned. It also so happens that shortly after the
Afghani President’s comments, the Iranian President
arrived in Kabul in an unprecedented visit that must
have been approved by the White House.
Iran’s Political Leverage
In regards to Iran and the U.S., the picture is blurry
and the lines between cooperation and rivalry are less
clear. Reuters and the Iranian Student’s News Agency
(ISNA) have both reported that the Iranian President
may visit Baghdad after August 2007. These reports
surfaced just before the U.S. government started
threatening to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard
Corp as a special international terrorist
organization. Without insinuating anything, it should
also be noted that the Revolutionary Guard and the
U.S. military have also had a low-key history of
cooperation from Bosnia-Herzegovina to
Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
The Iranian President has also invited the presidents
of the other four Caspian states for a Caspian Sea
summit in Tehran. [20] He invited the Turkmen
president while in Turkmenistan and later the Russian
and Kazakh presidents at the August of 2007 SCO summit
in Kyrgyzstan. President Aliyev, the leader of the
Republic of Azerbaijan (Azarbaijan) was also
personally invited during a trip by the Iranian
President to Baku. The anticipated Caspian Sea summit
may be similar to the one in Port Turkmenbashi,
Turkmenistan between the Kazakh, Russian, and Turkmen
presidents where it was announced that Russia would
not be cut out of the pipeline deals in Central Asia.
Iranian leverage is clearly getting stronger.
Officials in Baku also stated that they will expand
energy cooperation with Iran and enter the gas
pipeline deal between Iran, Turkey, and Turkmenistan
that will supply European markets with gas. [21] This
agreement to supply Europe is similar to a Russian
energy transport deal signed between Greece, Bulgaria,
and the Russian Federation. [22]
In the Levant, Syria is involved in energy-related
negotiations with Ankara and Baku and important talks
have started between American officials and both
Tehran and Damascus. [23]
Iran has also been involved in diplomatic exchanges
with Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, and the Republic of
Azerbaijan. Additionally, starting in August 2007,
Syria has agreed to reopen Iraqi oil pipelines to the
Eastern Mediterranean, through Syrian territory. [24]
The recent official visit of Iraqi Prime Minister
Al-Maliki to Syria has also been described as
historical by news sources like the British
Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Also, Syria and Iraq
have agreed to build a gas pipeline from Iraq into
Syria, where Iraqi gas will be treated in Syrian
plants. [25] These agreements are being passed as the
sources of tensions between Baghdad and the White
House, but they are doubtful. [26]
Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are also
planning on starting the process for creating an
Iranian-GCC free trade zone in the Persian Gulf. In
the bazaars of Tehran and amongst the political circle
of Rafsanjani there are also discussion about the
eventual creation of a single market between Iran,
Tajikistan, Armenia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. The
American role in these processes in regards to
Afghanistan, Iraq, and the GCC should be explored.
Under President Nicholas Sarkozy, France has indicated
that it is willing to engage the Syrians fully if they
gave specific guarantees in regards to Lebanon. These
guarantees are linked to French economic and
geo-strategic interests.
In the same period of time as the French statements
about Syria, Gordon Brown indicated that Britain was
also willing to engage in diplomatic exchanges with
both Syria and Iran. Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, the
German Minister of Economic Cooperation and
Development, has also been involved in talks with
Damascus on mutual projects, economic reform and
bringing Syria closer to the European Union. These
talks, however tend to be camouflaged by the
discussion between Syria and Germany in regard to the
mass exodus of Iraqi refugees, resulting from the
Anglo-American occupation of their country. The French
Foreign Minister is also expected in Tehran to talk
about Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq. Despite the
war-mongering by the U.S. and more recently by France,
this has all led to speculation of a potential
about-turn in regards to Iran and Syria. [27]
Then again, this is part of the two-pronged U.S.
approach of preparing for the worst (war), while suing
for the diplomatic capitulation of Syria and Iran as
client states or partners. When large oil and weapons
deals were signed between Libya and Britain, London
said that Iran should follow the Libyan example, as
has the Baker-Hamilton Commission.
Has the March to War been Interrupted?
Despite talks behind closed doors with Damascus and
Tehran, Washinton is nonetheless arming its clients in
the Middle East. Israeli is in an advanced state of
military preparedness for a war on Syria.
Unlike France and Germany, Anglo-American ambitions
pertaining to Iran and Syria are not one of
cooperation. The ultimate objective is political and
economic subordination.
Moreover, either as a friend or foe, America cannot
tolerate Iran within its present borders. The
balkanization of Iran, like that of Iraq and Russia,
is a major long-term Anglo-American goal.
What lies ahead is never known. While there is smoke
on the horizon, the US-NATO-Israeli military agenda
will not necessarily result in the implementation of
war as planned.
A `Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition’ – which forms
the basis of a global counter-alliance – is emerging.
America and Britain rather than opting for outright
war, may choose to reel in Iran and Syria through
macro-economic manipulation and velvet revolutions.
War directed against Iran and Syria, however, cannot
be ruled out. There are real war preparations on the
ground in the Middle East and Central Asia. A war
against Iran and Syria would have far-reaching
worldwide implications.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an independent writer based
in Ottawa specialising on the Middle East and Central
Asia. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for
Research on Globalization (CRG).
NOTES
[1] Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly
Cooperation Between the People’s Republic of China and
the Russian Federation, signed and entered into force
July 16, 2001, P.R. of China-Russian Federation,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic
of China.
71.htm
The following are treaty articles that are relevant to
the mutual defence of China and Russia against
American-led encirclement and efforts to dismantle
both nations;
ARTICLE 4
The Chinese side supports the Russian side in its
policies on the issue of defending the national unity
and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.
The Russian side supports the Chinese side in its
policies on the issue of defending the national unity
and territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of
China.
ARTICLE 5
The Russian side reaffirms that the principled stand
on the Taiwan issue as expounded in the political
documents signed and adopted by the heads of states of
the two countries from 1992 to 2000 remain unchanged.
The Russian side acknowledges that there is only one
China in the world, that the People’s Republic of
China is the sole legal government representing the
whole of China and that Taiwan is an inalienable part
of China. The Russian side opposes any form of
Taiwan’s independence.
ARTICLE 8
The contracting parties shall not enter into any
alliance or be a party to any bloc nor shall they
embark on any such action, including the conclusion of
such treaty with a third country which compromises the
sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the
other contracting party. Neither side of the
contracting parties shall allow its territory to be
used by a third country to jeopardize the national
sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the
other contracting party.
Neither side of the contracting parties shall allow
the setting up of organizations or gangs on its own
soil which shall impair the sovereignty, security and
territorial integrity of the other contrasting party
and their activities should be prohibited.
ARTICLE 9
When a situation arises in which one of the
contracting parties deems that peace is being
threatened and undermined or its security interests
are involved or when it is confronted with the threat
of aggression, the contracting parties shall
immediately hold contacts and consultations in order
to eliminate such threats.
ARTILCE 12
The contracting parties shall work together for the
maintenance of global strategic balance and stability
and make great efforts in promoting the observation of
the basic agreements relevant to the safeguard and
maintenance of strategic stability.
The contracting parties shall actively promote the
process of nuclear disarmament and the reduction of
chemical weapons, promote and strengthen the regimes
on the prohibition of biological weapons and take
measures to prevent the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction, their means of delivery and their
related technology.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard:
American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives
(NYC, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997),
p.198.
[4] Ibid., pp. 115-116, 170, 205-206.
Note: Brzezinski also refers to a
Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition as a
`counteralliance’ (p.116).
[5] Zbigniew Brzezinski, Out of Control: Global
Turmoil on the Eve of the 21st Century (NYC, New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons Macmillan Publishing Company,
1993), p.198.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.198.
[9] M. K. Bhadrakumar, The lessons from Ferghana, Asia
Times, May 18, 2005.
E18Ag01.html
[10] Nick Paton Walsh, Uzbekistan kicks US out of
military base, The Guardian (U.K.), August 1, 2005.
,12271 ,1540185,00.html
[11] Vladimir Radyuhin, Uzbekistan rejoins defence
pact, The Hindu, June 26, 2006.
2006062604491400.htm
[12] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit.,
p.116.
[13] Glenn Kessler, In 2003, U.S. Spurned Iran’s Offer
of Dialogue, The Washington Post, June 18, 2006,
p.A16.
/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html
[14] James A. Baker III et al., The Iraq Study Group
Report: The Way Forward – A New Approach, Authroized
ed. (NYC, New York: Random House Inc., 2006), p.51.
[15] Ibid., pp.51, 54-57.
[16] Ibid., pp.50-53, 58.
[17] Ibid., p.114.
[18] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit.,
p.204.
[19] Iran, Turkey sign energy cooperation deal, agree
to develop Iran’s gas fields, Associated Press, July
14, 2007.
usiness/ME-FIN-Iran-Turkey-Energy-deal.php
[20] Tehran to host summit of Caspian nations Oct.18,
Russian Information Agency (RIA Novosti), August 22,
2007.
4.html
[21] Azerbaijan, Iran reinforce energy deals, United
Press International (UPI), August 22, 2007.
[22] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The March to War:
Détente in the Middle East or `Calm before the
Storm?,’ Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG),
July 10, 2007.
ext=va&aid=6281
[23] Ibid.
It is worth noting that Iran has been involved in
pipeline deals with Turkey and in negotiation between
Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, and the Republic of Azerbaijan
in the possible creation of an energy corridor in the
Eastern Mediterranean. These deals occurred in the
same time frame that both Syria and Iran started talks
with the U.S. after the Baker-Hamilton Commissions
report.
[24] Syria and Iraq to reopen oil pipeline link,
Agence France-Presse (AFP), August 22, 2007.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Roger Hardy, Why the US is unhappy with Maliki,
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), August 22,
2007.
958440.stm
[27] Hassan Nafaa, About-face on Iran coming?,
Al-Ahram (Egypt), no. 859, August 23-29, 2007.
m
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a frequent contributor to
Global Research. Global Research Articles by Mahdi
Darius Nazemroaya