Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Thu

11

Sep

2008

Back to the future: “Chaos and instability Washington’s officlal policy line”
Thursday, 11 September 2008 23:49
by William Bowles
“In the operation the West conducted on Georgian soil against Russia - South Ossetians were the victims or hostages of it - we can see a rehearsal for an attack on Iran. There is a great deal of “new features” that today are being fine tuned in the theater of military operations.

“…[T]he likelihood of a war against Iran was growing with each passing day, “As a result, the situation in the region will become destabilized…causing chaos and instability" was becoming Washington's official policy line. — ‘Russian analyst points to link between Georgian attack and Iran’.

All the talk by the major Western powers of a return to the days of the Cold War must surely be a wake up call to us all as to what is in reality the ultimate expression of a resurgent and I might add, desperate, imperialism, the recreation of its historical enemy for the better part of the 20th century, Russia, but is Russia the object of desire here? I think not, at least not directly, Georgia is yet another piece on the chessboard, the question is, do the Russians want to play and if they do, by whose rules? War has been for the better part of five centuries the ‘solution’ to capitalism’s woes, indeed wars of aggression over resources and competitors is the norm for the major powers of the West. But for a brief period, less than fifty years following the end of WWII, the existence of a nuclear-armed Soviet Union curbed the inevitable drive toward a major conflagration over markets and the imperative for the accumulation of capital, without which capitalism is a dead duck.

So with the former Soviet Union out of the way all the signs pointed to a 21st century dominated by the leading imperialist power, the US; after all, where is the opposition?

But reality has a way upsetting the plans of even the most powerful nation on the planet. I am reminded (again) of a major article that appeared in the Economist following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 which amazingly lamented the passing of the Soviet Union, arguing quite forcefully that without an enemy to drive the economies of the West things could only go from bad to worse and how right they were in spite of the invention of the ‘war on terror’ as a cheap replacement for the war on communism (though an ‘enemy’ which is essentially invisible does have advantages over one which can give as good as it gets).

It’s obvious that the Georgian provocation instigated by the US, is part of a larger and even more ominous scheme of destabilization, but the issue here is more complex than ‘grand schemes of world domination’ because I contend that the real world of the collapsing capitalist economies is now dictating events (which makes the situation even more dangerous for all of us).

First of all, Russia is in the way of the US move Eastward, which is where Georgia plays a vital role, hence the need to get Georgia into NATO. However, as with many of the US’s previous ‘allies’, Saakashvili has proved to be totally unreliable (if not mentally unbalanced), and if as seems more than likely, the US ‘advised’ him to invade Ossetia, it has proved to be yet another strategic blunder, or did the US assume that the Russians would roll over and play dead?

Either way, under the circumstances the ‘Cold War’ card was all that was left to the West, but bluffing is all well and good when playing poker but not when the game is chess.

But the Western ‘allies’ are in a bit of a bind, especially the EU members who are divided over what action, if any, to take, especially France and Germany whose economic ties to Russia are at risk. The UK predictably, has been banging the war drums, under the guise of defending ‘new democracies’,

“There was a strong element of what Miliband does best: preaching democracy to new democracies – which are more than converted to the principle – while asking for little in return for his praise that would be awkward for them to give.” — ‘David Miliband at last delivers the right words in the right haircut’, The Times, August 27, 2008.
And in another Times piece, we read,
“David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, also flew to Ukraine to assemble the “widest possible coalition against Russian aggression” — ‘Cold War tension rises as Putin talks of Black Sea confrontation’, The Times, August 28, 2008.
But in actuality, short of going to war, what can the US and its allies actually do? The situation is perhaps revealed by the following quote,
“A former British ambassador to Tbilisi said that Nato might have to send troops to the region. Donald McLaren, who was Ambassador to Georgia from 2004 to July last year and is now retired, told the Today programme on [BBC] Radio 4: “I think we shouldn’t be too complacent or too scared in a situation like this.” “He suggested that a peacekeeping force made up of troops from the US, Britain, France, Germany and Russia should be sent to Georgia to replace the Russian units. If Moscow rejected such a proposal, he said, Nato had only two choices: “To give up and surrender and say to the Russians, ‘It’s your backyard, you’ve won’, or to put men on the ground to protect Georgia’s sovereignty and the east-west oil and gas pipeline from the Caspian and Central Asia.” [ibid]

The problem for the West is that has no mandate to send troops, so short of an illegal invasion there’s very little it can do,
“Nato diplomatic sources said that no one within the alliance was speaking about sending troops. “We have no mandate to act in the Caucasus” [ibid]
A mini 9/11 in a far-off land?

There’s also no doubt that the inflammatory rhetoric coming out of Washington is directly connected to the November presidential elections and what better way of boosting McCain’s chances of winning than by invoking the ‘Russian menace’ given the almost total ignorance the US public has over what really happened on August 7 and after. And this allegation is now borne out by prime minister Putin’s latest statement.

“Mr Putin told CNN US citizens were “in the area” during the conflict over South Ossetia and were "taking direct orders from their leaders". “He said his defence officials had told him the provocation was to benefit one of the US presidential candidates.

/…/ “The suspicion arises that someone in the United States especially created this conflict with the aim of making the situation more tense and creating a competitive advantage for one of the candidates fighting for the post of US president.” — ‘Putin blames US for Georgia role’, BBC Website, 28 August, 2008

And Putin’s allegations are not without substance. Only days before Georgia attacked Southern Ossetia individuals from the Republican Party were in Georgia.
“And so it was that a team from the vice president's office, U.S. security officials and others were in Georgia several days before the war began.” — ‘Why was Cheney's Guy in Georgia Before the War?’ By James Gerstenzang.
And given that the Georgian armed forces have been armed by the US and Israel, drawing such conclusions is not surprising. Clearly though, provoking the Russians into taking military actions was not unexpected, even the desired outcome, as it provided the US and its capos, with the perfect propaganda weapon, one which was promoted in a very specific way from the onset of the war, namely it was Russian, not Georgian aggression that was the cause. Georgia has been consistently presented as the ‘David’, conveniently ignoring the fact that it is directly (and openly) a US/Israeli client state. As I have indicated elsewhere, from the hour Georgia launched its blitzkreig on the capital, the Western media and the states downplayed or ignored the Georgian attack and focused instead on Russsian ‘aggression’, a theme which they have maintained to this day.

Then there is the ceasefire document drawn up by Sarkozy of France, which when the US read it objected quite strongly to some of its provisions, especially the issue of Russian troop withdrawal.

“U.S. Deputy State Department spokesman Robert Wood said the Russians ‘without a doubt have failed to live up to their obligations under the ceasefire agreement.’ “An immediate concern expressed by all sides involved buffer zones outside of two Georgian breakaway provinces, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia insists it has the right to create these zones under the cease-fire deal, but Wood said, ‘Establishing check-points and buffer zones are definitely not part of the agreement.’

“Wood is of course wrong. Point 5 of the signed ceasefire agreement says:

“Russian forces must go back to positions they held prior to the outbreak of hostilities. Pending an international peace monitoring mechanism, Russian peacekeepers will take additional security measures.” — See also ‘The Mysterious ‘Sarkozy Letter’' for a complete rundown on the events leading up to the ceasefire and after it had been signed and implemented on August 17.
The devil, as far as the US was concerned lay in the phrase “Russian peacekeepers will take additional security measures”, which can mean anything you want it to and under the circumstances, with the US promising to re-arm Georgia, the Russians would be fools not to take whatever “additional security measures” they felt were needed. And in any case, what right do the US or the EU have to dictate to the Russians how they should respond to an unprovoked attack on its citizens? Wood, by the way is one of the State Department officials who was in Georgia only days before Georgia invaded.

But it is perhaps Point Six of the Ceasefire Agreement that the West has done its best to destroy:

‘Launch of international discussions on security and stability arrangements for Abkhazia and South Ossetia.’
Instead the West, led by the US and the UK have inflamed the situation by sending an armada into the Black Sea, promised to re-arm Georgia, broken off any meaningful dialog with Russia, and re-invented the Cold War. And in so doing, backed Russia into a corner by refusing to recognize its legitimate rights.
More from this author:
NATO’s Inferno (8001 Hits)
Civilised (adjective): cultured, educated, refined, enlightened, polite, elegant, sophisticated, urbane Civilise (verb): to enlighten, educate,...
Leaving the Scene of the Crime? (7803 Hits)
by William Bowles “ The Armed Forces Press Service recently quoted Army Chief of Staff General Peter J. Schoomaker as saying that the current...
Crisis Management (7388 Hits)
by William Bowles Perhaps the most difficult thing to do when dealing with current events is to establish the link between economics and politics....
Capitalism – past its sell-by date? (8773 Hits)
by William Bowles Review: The Chávez Code – Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela by Eva Golinger Perhaps the greatest triumph of...
Capitalism first – climate last (8524 Hits)
by William Bowles I think it should be pretty clear to all by now that regardless that the ruling elites of the planet know what’s in store...
Related Articles:
Privacy Policy (11386 Hits)
Privacy Policy for V.O.F. Expathos (Atlantic Free Press) V.O.F. EXPATHOS (ATLANTIC FREE PRESS) PRIVACY POLICY Welcome to V.O.F....
Civil War in Iraq: The Salvador Option and US/UK Policy (9479 Hits)
by Craig Murray, As the catastrophe in Iraq continues to unfold, an unresolved question remains on the role of Bush, Blair, and the US/UK...
The Battle in Seattle (Looking Back Seven Years) (6688 Hits)
by Mickey Z. When activists made global headlines by essentially shutting down the meetings of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle in...
Texas Versus Tel Aviv: US Policy in the Middle East (8721 Hits)
By James Petras The struggle within the US power structure between the economic empire builders (EEB) and the civilian ...
Family Feud: Little Bush Hits Back at Daddy (10232 Hits)
by Chris Floyd Bush Initiates Iraq Policy Review Separate From Baker Group's (Washington Post) Excerpt: President Bush formally...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (5)add comment

Brian said:

0
...
Great article.

While Russia is perfectly with in it's rights so far from start to present we will now have to wait and see who blinks first.

I hope fully Russia will stand firm in its posistion.
 
September 11, 2008
Votes: +0

Dav said:

0
Piece of mouth of KGB Putin
Ossets are Iranians, came as refugees to Georgia fleeng from Mongols. Let`s give to every immigrants,more than 40 000,an indepentent state, to every chinatowns in the world, an autonomy. In 1993 Russia provoced 3 civil warsin Georgia which couldn`t even dream at this time about becoming in the future US ally or makind a bid to join NATO. Stalin was half Osset, that`s why he gave Ossets autonomy in Georgia as a reward in helping to Bolsheviks to occupy Independent Georgia in 1921 and also exiled Chechens (because even in North Ossetia, Ossets live in the territory of Chechen-Ingushs`. Ossets northern Iranians, originaly come from the nearby territory of Don river, in Central-South Russia). With the lack of those details your article is very partial and looks like dictated by FSB.
 
September 11, 2008
Votes: +0

Shamil said:

0
Vive independent Chechenya!
...
The world will be better without Russian empire. I hope they will die out.
Why Tchetchnia have no right to be independant?
I wish to Bowles to be Chechen or Georgian and live in the Russian Federation to begin understanding what a hell Russian bully is!
 
September 11, 2008
Votes: +0

Carl said:

0
Excellent article, keep up the good work
It is refreshing to see a truthful and honest view of these events. There is too much bias and propaganda already in the way that London and Washington try to "spin" things. Georgia started this war by attacking peaceful civilians in South Ossetia while they were sleeping. Russian peacekeepers also did in this event. Only then did Russia respond.
 
September 11, 2008
Votes: +0

St. Michael Traveler said:

0
Just Compensation for war aggressions

UN Demands $1-Billion for Israeli Damage During Lebanon War

Richard Silverstein in his article (September 8th, 200smilies/cool.gif:
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2008/09/08/un-demands-1-billion-for-israeli-damage-during-lebanon-war/

“After a failed war that ended up killing 1,000 Lebanese and 150 Israelis and caused billions in damage to both Israel and especially Lebanon, a partial bill has been presented to Israel by the UN:
“UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will demand that Israel pay Lebanon $1 billion in compensation over damages caused during the Jewish state’s 2006 war against Hizbullah, Lebanese media reported Saturday.
According to the report the sum, based on World Bank appraisals, is aimed at covering the environmental and material damages caused by the Second Lebanon War to neighboring countries as well.
The fundamental part of the compensation demanded is for the damage caused to the Lebanese coast due to an oil spill following an Israeli bombing of a southern Beirut power plant, which the Lebanese said had caused “an ecological disaster.”
According to the report, Ban plans to submit a report to the United Nations General Assembly at the end of the month, stating that damage Israel caused to the oil reservoir polluted Lebanon’s coast, and that the pollution spread to neighboring countries, especially Syria.
…The oil spill, which was defined the greatest natural disaster in Lebanon’s history, took place after Israel Air Force planes hit a power plant and caused some 110,000 oil barrels to leak into the Mediterranean Sea.
The report said that the UN wants Israel to compensate the countries harmed by the oil spill and restore the environmental situation along the Lebanon coast.”
Should Iraqi people demand compensation from USA for our attack on their country, killing their people and destroying their nation?

Kuwait and Iran both have demanded compensation from Iraq for the damages and death imposed on their countries. Are they receiving compensation? Have not Jewish people been receiving compensation from Germany for Hitler's period of slaughter and economic damages?

World should use the World Court and the United Nations to resolve grievances and conflicts among nations. War is just too uncivilized!
 
September 12, 2008
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top