Saturday, 26 March 2016

The unravelling of neo-conservatism?

Today I watched a clip of a left wing, Flemish, Belgian MP telling the Belgian Parliament the game was up over Belgium's continuing neo-colonial activities in Mali in cahoots with the French. In a well argued diatribe, his speech came down to, "The only reason Belgium are getting militarily involved in Mali was to prop up the French controlled regime to enable AREVA, a Franco-Belgian conglomerate, to make a lot of money mining for Uranium in Mali and had nothing to do with the claimed 'reduction of the threat of Islamic terrorism in Mali'.

The proof, he said, would be seen in the rising share price of Areva on Europe's Stock Exchanges, over the next few months. In his speech he highlighted the reasons behind the US / European removal of the likes of Saddam and Gadhafi who had once been the West's key players among the Islamic states of North Africa and the Middle East. These dictators had served their purpose and the USA's new major partners in the region (Israel and Saudi) wanted them removed. Israel putatively for their 'security' and Saudi because they were in the way of the dominance of the House of Saud across the Middle East and the expansion of their fundamentalist, Wahhabist Shi'ite beliefs.

The House of Saud's current attempts to dominate the Middle East has its origins in place after a promise made by T.E Lawrence to Prince Faud, after Damascus was taken, was ignored by the UK Government and the subsequent 1919 Balfour Declaration which blocked the Saudi's taking full control of a unified, Shi'ite dominated 'Arabia' while carving the area up with total disregard to tribal or nomadic regions, sensitivities and allegiances. The border lines had more to do with the West's agreed 'spheres of influence' and wish to control the area's oil and gas resources, as a result of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, and the USA's insistence on Jewish immigration to Palestine. As a result, leadership's under the West's direct or indirect control became the normal situation which only changed in the latter decades of the 20th Century, starting with the expulsion of the Shah of Iran in the 1970's and the creation of a 'fundamentalist', theistic, Shi'ite, Iranian Republic which rejected the USA and the West's control of its natural resources. Worse the new regime started using the West's usual destabilising arts against the West's Arabian clients, a process which lead pro-Iranian 'freedom fighters' to be badged as 'Shi'ite terrorists' in Sunni territories across the Middle East, especially any Palestinian group which was deemed a danger to Israel and Saudi, by reason of their Shi'ite links to Iran and the direct threat to the Saudi religious and political hegemony in the region.

Having got rid of Saddam and with Iran as a Western pariah state, the Saudi Government looked to their next target, the annoyingly secular and relatively, economically successful Assad Government in Syria. A target which the Israeli's were also happy to see removed from their Golan Height's border. The USA's two major client states were in agreement that Assad had to go and the USA could see benefit in removing Russia's last client state in the region. In 2008 the Saudi Ambassador warned the Russians they would not be able to save Assad next time around and if they tried the Saudi's would export 'Jihad' into Russia's remaining Muslim territories. The result of this tacit agreement to shift Assad resulted in the creation of ISIS / Daesh with Saudi money, US weapons and Israeli / UK special forces training. Syria's ethnic minority Christians were never given a thought nor were the actual anti-Assad forces already in Syria because they were Shi'ite / Hezbollah in the main. The Sunni power of USA backed ISIS would simply steam roller over the lot of them, job done, ISIS would be disappeared and a Sunni, pro Saudi President would be 'elected' to rule Syria.

It seems the current Western neo-conservative government's in the US and Europe have failed to recognise the disaster and instability this type of policy has already created and continues to create in both Libya or Iraq. Apparently this time it would be different. Daesh would be kept on a tight chain, this was not going to be Taliban mark 2 and the West's control over the oil and gas fields and their related infrastructure would return, safe and secure under the control of an Exxon, BP or Saudi Arabia. We now know how well this cunning plan has worked out. Baldrick could not have planned it any better.

The current UK Government's arrant hypocrisy is clear while billions of pounds are being found to prop up Ratheon and BAE shares through arms purchases at a time of 'so called' austerity, their response to the human 'co-lateral damage' of their policies is less than generous. As the Belgian MP pointed out the European media has become the political and industrial complex of Europe's propaganda machine. 25 people may have died in Belgium as a result of the airport 'suicide' bombing but on the same day in the Yemen, 137 civilians died as a result of Saudi bombs of UK origin, in just one air raid, and another 145 died in air raids on Syrian civilians.

The bottom line is this whole mess in Mali or the Middle East has little to do with the freedom of the individual, liberty or democracy (a word which the Saudi's have no understanding of or any wish to understand) and is, as usual about the control of natural resources, their infrastructure, their income and the profit margins of Western global corporates while keeping out Russia and China.

It seems the cost in millions of Syrian, Yemeni, Kurdish, Palestinian and other ethnic refugees in the Middle East Region is a price worth paying by Western Government's to secure oil and gas supply but as a UK taxpayer, I can not or ever agree - people are always far more important than share price or profit margins. Until we remind ourselves of the importance of human beings and act on this fundamentally human reality, we will continued to be screwed over by the West's neo-conservative governments and their oligarch friends in the global multi-nationals.


  1. I think you've reversed Sunni and Shi'ite, Iran is Shia, Wahhabism Sunni.

    Otherwise, spot on.

  2. Very insightful article. Saddam and the Assad regime had/have many faults but they were/are more enlightened than many Middle East regimes. Women had more rights and there was freedom of worship, especially Christians. This is non existent in Iraq now.

    Why would two supposedly Christian countries, especially the bible bashing USA, remove such regimes? As you say - money. Pity that Putin keeps sticking his oar in. How will they get rid of Assad now?