WikiLeaks: Oil Motivates U.S. Policy More than Fighting Terrorists - Nafeez Ahmed

ꕤ Article SOURCE alternet | here Wikileaks' Cables Suggests that Oil Motivates U.S. Policy More than Fighting Terrorists Cables released by Wikileaks demonstrate that control of the world's strategic energy reserves has always been a key factor in the direction of the "War on Terror". By Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed / Foreign Policy in Focus December 16, 2010 Among the batch of classified diplomatic cables recently released by the controversial whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, several have highlighted the vast extent of the financial infrastructure of Islamist terrorism sponsored by key U.S. allies in the ongoing "War on Terror." One cable by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in December 2009 notes that “donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” Despite this, “Riyadh has taken only limited action to disrupt fundraising for the UN 1267-listed Taliban and LeT [Lashkar e-Tayyiba] groups that are also aligned with al-Qaeda.” Clinton raises similar concerns about other states in the Gulf and Central Asia. Kuwait remains reluctant “to take action against Kuwait-based financiers and facilitators plotting attacks outside of Kuwait.” The United Arab Emirates is “vulnerable to abuse by terrorist financiers and facilitation networks” due to lack of regulatory oversight. Qatar’s cooperation with U.S. counter-terrorism is the “worst in the region,” and authorities are “hesitant to act against known terrorists.” Pakistani military intelligence officials “continue to maintain ties with a wide array of extremist organizations, in particular the Taliban [and the] LeT.” Despite such extensive knowledge of these terrorism financing activities, successive U.S. administrations have not only failed to exert military or economic pressure on these countries, but in fact have actively protected them, funneling billions of dollars of military and economic assistance. The reason is oil. It's the Hydrocarbons, Stupid Oil has always been an overwhelming Western interest in the region, beginning with Britain’s discovery of it in Persia in 1908. Britain controlled most Middle East oil until the end of World War II, after which the United States secured its sphere of influence in Saudi Arabia. After some pushback, Britain eventually accepted the United States as the lead player in the region. “US-UK agreement upon the broad, forward-looking pattern for the development and utilization of petroleum resources under the control of nationals of the two countries is of the highest strategic and commercial importance”, reads a 1945 memo from the chief of the State Department’s Petroleum Division. Anglo-U.S. geo-strategy exerted this control through alliances with the region’s most authoritarian regimes to ensure a cheap and stable supply of petroleum to Western markets. Recently declassified secret British Foreign Office files from the 1940s and 1950s confirm that the Gulf sheikhdoms were largely created to retain British influence in the Middle East. Britain pledged to protect them from external attack and to “counter hostile influence and propaganda within the countries themselves.” Police and military training would help in “maintaining internal security.” Similarly, in 1958 a U.S. State Department official noted that the Gulf sheikhdoms should be modernized without undermining “the fundamental authority of the ruling groups.” The protection of some of the world’s most virulent authoritarian regimes thus became integral to maintaining Anglo-U.S. geopolitical control of the world’s strategic hydrocarbon energy reserves. Our governments have willingly paid a high price for this access – the price of national security. Still Funding Radicalism One of al-Qaeda’s chief grievances against the West is what Osama bin Laden dubs the “Crusader-Jewish” presence in the lands of Islam, including support for repressive Arab regimes. Under U.S. direction and sponsorship, many of these allies played a central role in financing and supporting bin Laden’s mujahideen networks in Afghanistan to counter Soviet influence. It is perhaps less well understood that elements of the same regimes continued to support bin Laden’s networks long after the Cold War – and that they have frequently done so in collusion with U.S. intelligence services for short-sighted geopolitical interests. In fact, Afghanistan provides a rather revealing example. From 1994 to 2001, assisted by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the Clinton and Bush II administrations covertly sponsored, flirted and negotiated with the Taliban as a vehicle of regional influence. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, former White House Special Assistant to Ronald Reagan, also testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on South Asia about the “covert policy that has empowered the Taliban,” in the hopes of bringing sufficient stability to “permit the building of oil pipelines from Central Asia through Afghanistan to Pakistan.” The Great Game is still in full swing. “Since the U.S.-led offensive that ousted the Taliban from power, the project has been revived and drawn strong U.S. support” reported the Associated Press in 2005. “The pipeline would allow formerly Soviet Central Asian nations to export rich energy resources without relying on Russian routes. The project’s main sponsor is the Asian Development Bank” – in which the United States is the largest shareholder alongside Japan. It so happens that the southern section of the proposed pipeline runs through territory still under de facto Taliban control, where NATO war efforts are focused. Other evidence demonstrates that control of the world’s strategic energy reserves has always been a key factor in the direction of the "War on Terror". For instance, the April 2001 study commissioned by then-Vice President Dick Cheney confirmed official fears of an impending global oil supply crunch, energy shortages, and “the need for military intervention” in the Middle East to maintain stability. Energy and Iran Other diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks show clearly that oil now remains central to U.S. policy toward Iran, depicting an administration desperate to “wean the world” off Iran’s oil supply, according to the London Telegraph. With world conventional oil production most likely having peaked around 2006, Iran is one of few major suppliers that can potentially boost oil output by another 3 million barrels, and natural gas output by even more.  The nuclear question is not the real issue, but provides ample pretext for isolating Iran. But the U.S. anti-Iran stance has been highly counterproductive. In a series of dispatches for the New Yorker, Seymour Hersh cited U.S. government and intelligence officials confirming that the CIA and the Pentagon have funneled millions of dollars via Saudi Arabia to al-Qaeda-affiliated Sunni extremist groups across the Middle East and Central Asia. The policy – officially confirmed by a U.S. Presidential Finding in early 2008 – began in 2003 and has spilled over into regions like Iraq and Lebanon, fuelling Sunni-Shi’ite sectarian conflict. Not only did no Democratic members of the House ever contest the policy but President Obama reappointed the architect of the policy – Robert Gates – as his defence secretary. As former National Security Council staffers Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett observe, Obama’s decision earlier this year to step up covert military operations in North Africa and the Middle East marked an “intensification of America’s covert war against Iran.” This anti-Iran directive, which extends covert U.S. support for anti-Shi’ite Islamist militant networks linked to al-Qaeda, hardly fits neatly into the stated objectives of the "War on Terror." Unless we recognize that controlling access to energy, not fighting terror, is the primary motive. Beyond Dependency While classified covert operations continue to bolster terrorist activity, the Obama administration struggles vainly to deal with the geopolitical fall-out. Getting out of this impasse requires, first, recognition of our over-dependence on hydrocarbon energy sources to the detriment of real national security. Beholden to the industry lobbyists and the geopolitical dominance that control of oil provides, Western governments have supported dictatorial regimes that fuel widespread resentment in the Muslim world. Worse, the West has tolerated and until recently colluded in the sponsorship of al-Qaeda terrorist activity by these regimes precisely to maintain the existing global energy system. Given the convergence of peak oil and climate change, it is imperative to transition to a new, renewable energy system.  Such a transition will mitigate the impact of hydrocarbon energy depletion, help prevent the worst effects of anthropogenic global warming, and contribute to economic stability through infrastructure development and job creation. By weaning us off our reliance on dubious foreign regimes, a shift to renewables and away from supporting oil dictatorships will also make us safer. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development in London and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus. His latest book is A User’s Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It (2010). He blogs at The Cutting Edge. SOURCE alternet | here ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- COMMENT Another great article. I'm hopeless at taking everything in at once.  Will have to do some really brief notes for myself. So when the West isn't actively sponsoring Middle Eastern terrorism, the West overlooks sponsorship of terrorism by British-installed sheikdoms, favourably disposed to US and allied interests that keep them propped up in power? The US has muscled in on Britain's Middle Eastern turf post-WWII, and Britain plays second banana to the US in the region, while the US is BFF with Saudi Arabia, until the oil runs out. The key regional Western-propped dictator (Western-puppet ... or is that partner?) regimes, sponsoring terrorism and sectarian kill-fests (to maintain their self-serving and exploitative power grip on the region), are: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Pakistan. Surprised that Pakistan is there, although I know Pakistan's terrorist central.  Why?  Pakistan seems like odd man out. The Brits made a deal that should be void:  ie protecting the puppet monarchs from *internal* challenges ... which effectively means taking part in enslaving these populations under the control of these Western propped monarchies or other dictatorships, because it precludes the rise of anything remotely close to 'proper democracy' (if that's actually possible ... anywhere), I would think. British pledges to protect don't mean much, unless there's something in it for the British (I think it was Persia that they slimed out of protecting some time around the turn of last century or perhaps just before that): "... when Britain failed to defend Persia in the Russo-Persian War of 1826-28-a course of inaction which Britain was fully justified in taking because Persia had started the war and the 1814 mutual defense agreement obligated Britain to defend Persia only against aggression-the Shah concluded that Britain was an unreliable ally, and in effect he went over to the Russian side." [here] Wow, that was way earlier than I thought.  It was the early 1800s.  The Shah concluded correctly, in my opinion. lol  Stick with the Russians, Persia. Bin Laden wasn't happy about the Western support for repressive regimes in the region; but it also sounds like there's maybe a religious and cultural element to OBL's objection, judging by the terminology used:  'Crusader-Jewish'?  Or maybe I'm reading too much into that? Looks like OBL had forgotten that Islam itself was spread in the region through conquest of people and territories.  Not that the West is planning on spreading any ideology ... it's only profits for the wealthy that matter. Asian Development Bank, Japan and USA have a stake in a pipeline project that is intended to run through Taliban controlled territory and this is where NATO concentrated its aggression.  So, wherever NATO is, profit is?  With Obama's blessing, Robert Gates was the mastermind of a policy backing Sunni extremist vs the Shia side in the region (against Iran's interests),  while US GOVERNMENT, US INTELLIGENCE, the PENTAGON and CIA funnelled dollars for this project, via Saudi Arabia, who, in turn, flicked the dollars to al-Qaeda.  It's thanks to Gates' policy that there's a spread of sectarian violence in the Middle East, including Iraq and Lebanon.  The funnelling of money that reached al-Qaeda is confirmed (presidential finding, 2008).  So this isn't speculation. So, I take it there's no organised Islamic 'war on terror' 'death cult' about to attack anyone in here in the West, and there's only the random crazy head-chopping incident associated with the consequences of mass displacement and mass immigration, to sidestep when out and about, say, doing a spot of furniture shopping? That Robert Gates struck me as shifty and creepy looking when I saw him in this video, filmed on the day of Julian Assange's arrest in Britain, almost 5 years ago: ROBERT GATES US Defence Secretary in Afghanistan 7 Dec 2010 Associated Press https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g9g9F6_TC4 If I hadn't got interested in Ukraine and then curious about Assange and WikiLeaks, I'd probably never have paid this creepy old man any attention.  And look what fun I'd have missed out on.  lol Imagine this guy knows where all the bodies are buried. So, Gates, the architect of Hell (ie the policy of funnelling American money to Sunni al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists, in the Middle East) has been free the last 5 years, while Australian journalist, Julian Assange, has been a political prisoner in Britain (Britain, which is America's Middle Eastern second banana partner in oil and crime) -- held without charge, for exposing US and allied war crimes, those same 5 years that Architect of Hell, Robert Gates, has been free. Ehem.  Western values?  Where's those Western values plate-face, Dave Cameron's been preaching, then?  Eh? How can this be permitted to happen in democracies, among free men? Can somebody please help Assange: Julian Assange Australian Journalist FAQ & Support https://justice4assange.com/ Assange Transnational Security Elite, Carving Up the World Using Your Tax Money London  OCT8 Antiwar Mass Assembly (2011) Link  |  here ----------- PS I'm hoping I'll remember some of this.  Terrible recall of facts.  lol But I've discovered that information has a mysterious way of seeping in without being aware that it has.  A couple of times I've written things I thought were original ideas ... until I remembered where I'd read whatever it was that I'd laboured over ... for ages. It was rather upsetting to find out I'm not at all an original thinker.  lol ꕤ

The Great Game - Part II

PART 2 The Great Game - Part II EXTRACTS | SUMMARY SOURCE https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-asia/1980-03-01/great-game-asia ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Lord Curzon Viceroy of India show of strength =  naval tour of the Persian Gulf coast 1903 Lord Lansdowne, then Foreign Secretary warned off Britain's adversaries: "... we should regard the establishment of a naval base or of a fortified post on the Persian Gulf by any other power as a very grave menace to our interests and we should certainly resist it with all the means at our disposal." President Jimmy Carter recently (1980)  made a remarkably similar pronouncement about the Persian Gulf Britain naval power base far from Asia where & how could bring strength to bear upon adversary that is moving from interior of the great Eurasian land mass (ie Russia) Need to bring political objectives in line with RESOURCES + STRATEGIES Post Napoleonic Wars = beginning of British & Russian rivalry = Britain & Russia - two remaining Great Powers in world, it appeared = different kinds of power = Britain: new kid on the block: greatest maritime & commercial power world has ever seen = Russia: giant empire of TRADITIONAL type - LAND ARMY overshadowed all other land armies in world Not clear how they could go to war Scale of strategic objectives of Britain did not match its power Had Russia been as militarily as effective as thought, no way for wealth + fleet to have stopped Russia in interior Eurasia BRITISH WEALTH - SUBSIDISES CONTINENTAL ALLIES Wealthy British subsidise continental allies to do much of their land fighting for them in the Napoleonic & other European wars but could not apply same slippery strategy in Asia: "rotting Islamic empires that were their allies in Asia lacked the fighting power to do the job" BRITISH UPSETTING ALLIES: "London to incite them into fighting losing campaigns from which Britain had no ground forces to extricate them would weaken rather than strengthen the British cause" [ Depends on how you look at it?  If your allies are battered fighting lost cause you have set them up to fight (while you remain unscathed on the sidelines), the allies might be upset ... but they're also surely weakened while you are strengthened?  ] Russo-Persian War of 1826-28 Britain failed to defend Persia PERSIA - BRITAIN DOES NOT DEFEND UNRELIABLE ALLY British inaction reportedly fully justified' = Persia had started war = 1814 mutual defence agreement obligated Britain to defend Persia ONLY against aggression Shah concluded that Britain was an unreliable ally = in effect Persia went over to the Russian side BRITISH ECONOMIC STRENGTH - COMPETITORS Britain's economic strength was great *but competitors existed by second half 1800s France Italy Germany able in large part to supplant Britain in the financial & commercial life of Islamic world BRITISH STRENGTH WAS NETWORK OF SPIES ALL ACROSS ASIA Britain maintained a network of representatives and intelligence agents all across Asia reportedly: "network was able to play a role in helping to deter or stop the Russian advance" CONSTANTINOPLE - MAX. PRESSURE POINT Constantinople was Britain’s strong point From Constantinople British warships could enter the Black Sea & with impunity bombard coast of the Crimea, as was done in Crimean War BUT: if the Russian forces then withdrew from the coast into the interior, there was little that Britain could do Britain: could land troops on shore as an invasion force = but small expeditionary force of this sort could not conquer vast land mass of Russia (Napoleon & his forces failed) CRIMEAN WAR - RUSSIAN STRATEGIC BLUNDER BRITISH & FRENCH ALLIED Russians failed to retreat when the Crimean War invasion took place. Bad move. allowed the allied powers, despite their own abysmal military performance, to inflict a shattering defeat on Russian Army Russia's strategic blundering that had made victory in the Crimean War possible Back to Asia: "unless against all odds such blunders were repeated, it would be difficult if not impossible to project Britain's power into the areas where Britain proposed to contain Russian expansionism" Salisbury = brilliant diplomacy success = averted Britsh (navy power) taking on Russia (land powewer) in Asia 1878 War fever Britons whipped up martial enthusiasm with Jingo song in their music halls Salisbury = won Britain's greatest victory at the Congress of Berlin by sheer force of intellect "Great Britain won a bloodless victory with a music-hall song, a navy of museum pieces, and no land forces at all ... without a reliable continental ally" BRITISH OVER-CONFIDENCE 1878 victory weakened the effectiveness of British policy in the long run. Led British public to believe that they could play a great role without: expense or exertion reform of navy creating an army finding an ally Early 1900s showed Britain, not possible to run sucessful foreign policy (ie agressive foreign policy?) on the cheap BOER WAR = exposed the weakness of Britain's military resources + lack of preparedness RUSSIA - RAILWAY NEARS INDIA Russian railroad construction in Asia = close enough to India so that threat of invasion finally plausible Sir Halford Mackinder = the prophet of geopolitics outlined implications of some of the changes that had occurred in the world 1. development of the railroad / other means of rapid land transportation = transformed the relationship between sea power and land power = formerly navy made a country's armed forces mobile = speed of railroads gave the advantage to land powers operating on interior lines, for they were able to concentrate their forces by sending them rapidly along the straight line which constitutes the shortest distance between two points = seagoing adversary must sail all around the circumference and arrive at the field of combat too late Mackinder noted: = Russia occupied pivot area controlling the Eurasian continent ("where most of mankind lives") = this pivot area was INACCESSIBLE to Britain's kind of power = Mackinder message: Britain had placed her bet on yesterday while Russia had placed hers on tomorrow. RUSSIAN-BRITISH BIPOLAR ORDER - CHALLENGED BY RISE JAPAN, GERMANY + UNITED STATES switch of direction from 1800s objectives for Britain: = Rise Japan, Germany & USA, transformed structure of world politics, making what had been a bipolar world into a multipolar one In this new world, Britain weakness exposed in: Boer War Russia Russo-Japanese War 1905 Revolution fear of Russia was an idea that belonged to "the pre-Germanic age. [ Walter Bagehot ] 1907 Britain & Russia TREATY = composed their differences in Asia = Tibet was neutralized = Afghanistan - Russia not interested (left control of its external policy to Britain) = Persia was divided into three zones Russia taking over the substance of Persia Britain taking over Persia sea-coast Historians mostly say, effect = "Game was over" [ So the key is: Iran / Afghanistan? ] 'Game over' not entirely true, according to David Fromkin / article: Brits claim: Russians went beyond what was allowed under the Persian terms of the treaty not reporting all violations, b/c fear of affect re Anglo-Russian alliance against Germany RUSSIAN WITHDRAWAL Following Russian Revolution, Russia disappeared from the areas in contention for about 4 decades [ ... so we're talking until late 1950s ] Russia willingness to abide by 1907 agreement, therefore not put to the test By time Soviets arrived on scene, Brits leaving = again, not put to the test USA has taken over British position re INFLUENCE + INTEREST in Middle East & South Asia Russian intentions unresolved HISTORIANS on Russia latter half of 1900s: = Russian policy in Asia essentially defensive = Russia put pressure on Britain re Afghanistan, the Pamirs and Tibet was to keep British from attacking the Russians once again in the Black Sea ***** BLACK SEA WAS (IS?) KEY ***** Asia - diversion strategy, also (according to Curzon - and agreed on by historians): keep Britain quiet in Europe = by keeping her employed in Asia British fear of Russia invasion of India was baseless >> occasional Russia distraction in region to prevent British attack on them in Europe Furthermore, Russia of the time, lacked tools for successful India invasion, ie: financial resources transportation facilities capabilities to develop supply routes maps (re hitherto uncharted sections of Central Asia) Even after Russians developed capabilites, India invasion by Russia rationale = unclear, except as "counterbalance a British move against Russia in some other part of the world British fears = irrational [Or just the usual propaganda and no fear, really?] Historian's take: "... lasting hostility between Britain and Russia was based on a quite unreal fear in each of the other's supposed aggressive intentions" USEFUL REMINDER ** how often Russian strength has been exaggerated and Russian intentions misunderstood ** how much of the time Russia acts out of mistaken fear of our intentions rather than out of aggressive intentions Russia may not have intended to engage in expansionism as against British interest but, author argues: " ... czarist empire engaged in expansionism as against the Islamic Asian regimes on the Russian frontier, and intended to do so" "By definition this is expansionism." " ... in the context of nineteenth century opinion this was not a policy for which the Russians necessarily had to apologize." BRITISH EXPANSIONISM "New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United States were frequently cited as examples of successful expansionism that served the cause of civilization." [Served the cause of civilisation? Try: imperialist expansion. lol] Expansionist mindset  - Theodore Roosevelt "The most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with savages, though it is apt to be also the most terrible and inhuman. The rude, fierce settler who drove the savage from the land has all civilized mankind under a debt to him. American and Indian, Boer and Zulu, Cossack and Tartar, New Zealander and Maori-in each case the victor, horrible though many of his deeds are, has laid deep the foundations for the future greatness of a mighty people. . . . it is of incalculable importance that America, Australia and Siberia should pass out of the hands of their red, black and yellow aboriginal owners, and become the heritage of the dominant world races." [Theodore Roosevelt |  The Winning of the West (1889–1896), Roosevelt's frontier thesis ] "For the United States to conquer or occupy everything in its way, until it had filled out a continent and created a commonwealth that stretched from one ocean to the other, was a national destiny that seemed manifest. There was no reason for the Russians to think that their destiny was any less clear." RUSSIA Russian Imperial Chancellor, Prince Gorchakov, 1864 " ... need for secure frontiers obliged the Russians to go on devouring the rotting regimes to their south. He pointed out that "the United States in America, France in Algiers, Holland in her colonies-all have been drawn into a course where ambition plays a smaller role than imperious necessity, and the greatest difficulty is knowing where to stop." [ to be continued ... ] SOURCE https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-asia/1980-03-01/great-game-asia ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Still enjoying the article. Almost finished. Must break. Kitchen calls. lol ꕤ

EXTRACTS |  SUMMARY The Great Game in Asia Foreign Affairs - 1980 issue SOURCE https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-asia/1980-03-01/great-game-asia Nineteenth century | 1800s Britain obsessed by the fear other European powers to take advantage of political decay of Islamic Asia *scramble for the easy pickings First: France Then: Russia (concern re southward march of Russian empire) Early 1800s - Constantinople of strategic concern to British Focus shifted to Persia, Afghanistan & Himalayas b/c Czarist armies overran Central Asia Last quarter 1800s assumption: great war / final showdown b/w Britain & Russia inevitable Alleged history of Russia attempt to move into Afghanistan, Iran & other neighbouring countries Alleged British agenda to stop Russia from doing so without war between the two the above claim likened to supposed US rationale to 'contest Russian expansion in much the same battlefield" The phrase "the Great Game" found in papers & quoted by a historian of First Afghan War Writers re 'Great Game' refer to either: activities of rival intelligence services; or in the broader sense, to describe: Anglo-Russian quarrel about the fate of Asia (as used in article) Great Game arose from a complex of disagreements b/w Britain & Russia 1791 British PM William Pitt opposed czarist annexation of Ochakov, a strategic port town (of Ottoman Empire) Rivalry forgotten: Napoleon Britain & Russia both fought 1815 aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, British 'fears' of Russia began to revive RUSSIA - LAND Then: Russia appeared to be the strongest land power in the world RUSSIA - SEA since the reign of Peter the Great Russia: planned to also be great maritime power Foreign observers: see Russia military strength through magnifying glass: exaggeration of Russian strength gave rise to exaggerated fears Most unrealistic: fear that Russians would march across Asia to attack the British position in India [  Playing on unrealistic fears & exaggeration of Russian strength also  = CIA tactic 1980s (I think it was  - Reagan era ) ...  and the current claims of Russian aggression etc ... same ploy  ] *Originally this had been Napoleon's idea *Napoleon noted: British power established in distant region = British vulnerability: *lines of communication *lines of transportation long & especially subject to disruption Napoleon persuaded Czar Paul of Russia to swoop on lines British communication & transportation to attack British in India *British in India Russian armies pulled back when Czar Paul died Road to India was not attacked. Russia unable to exploit Britain's vulnerability Previously Russia southward expansion into Asia = no relation / threat to British imperialist interests = grand dukes of Moscow campaigns of expansion into Asia CENTURIES before Britain arrived in India = late 1800s frontiers Russia marched upon, were very distant from Indian border British fear was Russian expansion would takeover of Constantinople & the Ottoman Empire / but no concern End of 1820s Russia 'abusing prerogatives' arising from military strength by annexing additional territories from Ottoman & Persian Empires British alarmed begin to see this as threat to British interests in India [ The 'abusing prerogatives'   angle sounds like another pretext for Western aggression, to me  |  See current claims of 'Russian aggression in eastern Europe for same rhetoric  ] 1800s propaganda campaign: Books appeared in England discussing the Russian threat to India. 1829 British PM, Wellington corresponded with President of the India Board about re invasion route Russians might follow (to attack India) if Russians move into Afghanistan From then, propaganda chorus: body of opinion in Britain that saw in every Russian move in Asia a threat to Britain's interest in India - no matter how far-fetched British Imperialism | India Indian Mutiny = British develop fear that mere threat of a Russian attack would encourage Indians to rise up & expel the British 1830 Lord Palmerston = bcm British Foreign Secretary = long career, shaper of British foreign policy = advice: Britain should have neither perpetual friends nor perpetual enemies Palmserston strategy = traditional British policy of upholding territorial integrity of Ottoman & other Islamic rulers in Asia against encroachment by any European powers *practice = from encroachment by Russia Islamic Asia = used by British as a vast buffer against 'Russian expansion' Purported rationale: fear if Asian regimes collapsed struggle b/w outside powers for valuable pieces to lead to general European war LAUGHABLE WESTERN PROPAGANDA 1832 Great Britain moved further in direction of democracy, by enactment of a Reform Bill that somewhat enlarged the franchise Russia - 1830s and 1840s brutal repression of popular revolts in Poland, Hungary and elsewhere "moved further in the direction of establishing herself as the world's chief enemy of freedom" PRETEXT for BRITISH AGGRESSION "ideological differences" between Russia & Britain = an increasing cause of friction [ One's 'superior' ideology or moral stance is always a good pretext for aggression.  lol ] RESULT OF 1800s propaganda: "Britons in ever greater numbers came to object to Russia not merely for what she did but for what she was." Russophobia soon outgrew particular political differences b/w two countries = cause in its own right of Britain's pretext | public agenda: "Britain's determination to stop Russian expansion in Asia" Undeniable factor determining British policy thru much of 1800s = "an antipathy toward Russia which soon became the most pronounced and enduring element in the national outlook" *economic factor assumed genuine significance LOL ... check out this propaganda: "British presence was established in Islamic Asia for strategic national security reasons" TRADE patterns of trade began to develop trade patterns gain significance over time Following: 1838 - Anglo-Turkish Trade Treat 1846 - repeal of the Corn Laws Ottoman Empire trade Ottoman Empire Turkish market = Britain’s 3rd best export in world Russia designs on Ottoman Empire threat to British ECONOMIC + POLITICAL interests Turkey an open market for British manufacturers Russia = high tariff barrier, excluding British goods = Russia 'enemy' on FREE-TRADE GROUNDS BRITISH TRADE - SEA POWER southern sea-coast of Asia configuration = narrow stretches of land & water = can choke off traffic to British @ number of points = Britain (as sea power) - vital to hold ENTIRE COASTLINE in FRIENDLY hands Russia effort to take Persia @ sea-coast threat to British commerce & powerful position Mid-1800s - x9 Claimed Reasons for British opposition to Russian Expansion into Asia 1. Upset of 'balance of power' - Russian European ascendency 2. Russian invasion of British India 3. Russian 'threat' = threat of India revolt against Britain 4. Russian expansion = to cause Islamic regimes to collapse 5. strengthen "chief enemies of popular political freedom" [ LMAO ... pure propaganda ] 6. strengthen a people whom Britons hated 7. threatened to disrupt big British trade with Asia & PROFITS 8. strengthen sort of protectionist, closed economic society ... "which free-trading Britain morally disapproved of" [LMAO ... more propaganda ... British want freedom to pillage | no question of morals in this | it is all about profit of powerful - profit for elites] 9. threaten the line of naval communications upon which Britain's commercial and political position [ie threat to British elite imperialism] Further reason (10) added toward end 1800s by: Lord Salisbury British Foreign Secretary & Prime Minister REPUTATION PRETEXT Lord Salisbury "observed that England would have to stop Russia from acquiring Constantinople because, having made such an issue of it for so long, England would lose her reputation as a formidable power if she finally yielded the point" FURTHER (11) reason - early 1900s: * discovered that there was OIL in the areas that Russia threatened oil possession = military and economic importance Britain vs Russia struggle raged from one end of Asia to other for almost 100 years Principal battlefields: Ottoman Empire Persian Empire khanates of Turkestan in Central Asia mountainous areas - eg Afghanistan (that stretch around the frontier of India) BRITISH IMPERIALISM SCREWED RUSSIA Crimean War (1853-56) Congress of Berlin (1878) Britain secured Constantinople and the Straits Britain undid results of Russian wartime successes against Turkey Britain - defending the Persian Empire PERSIAN GULF COAST * Russia did not exploit Persian hegemony to establish Persian Gulf coast position b/c fear of British reaction MORE PROPAGANDA "Britain salvaged at least her minimum security needs" First half 1800s - decades of fighting, Russia: = conquered Transcaucasus frontier = made final annexations of Georgia: Circassia and parts of Armenia and Azerbaijan By turn of century (ie 1900s ?): Russian hegemony in Persia was almost complete Last half 1800s - Russia conquest of Central Asia: khanates of Khiva, Bokhara and Kokand in western Turkestan Turkoman tribal region (then called Transcaspia) *no British protest British violent reaction = any hint of Russian interference on 'areas of frontier' India BRITISH INVASION x2 - Afghanistan: pretext: presence of Russian agents (in area adjoining India) 1838-42 - First Afghan War 1878-80 - Second Afghan War of 1878-80 Russia encouraged Persia to move against Afghanistan result: 1838 - First Afghan War (above) 1856-57 - Anglo-Persian War 1885 - Penjdeh crisis = Russia border patrols reach Afghan frontier = Britain & Russia almost go to war Pamirs Pamirs: "roof of the world" mountain pass invasion of India vulnerability point Russians get there first turn back the British expedition 1895 to compromise Russians kept the line of the frontier but British were given the mountain passes [ I do not understand who got what ] HIMALAYAS - FOREIGN AID Tibet 'Russian intrigues' Dalai Lama sought to throw off last vestiges of Chinese authority reported contacts b/w Russians + Dalai Lama in 1900 and 1901 Russian aid and establishing Russian influence 1903-04 Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon dispatched a British mission = mission fought its way to Lhasa, Tibetan capital = Dalai Lama fled = British control established [ so a 'mission' must be armed forces ] "What was so especially frightening about the Russian expansion in Central Asia was its persistence and seeming inevitability." [lol ... more propaganda ... it is the British who are imperialists in region] ** "Russians were constantly fighting on their frontiers, against mountain and desert tribesmen if not against regular armies." KEYS WORD HERE: ON RUSSIAN FRONTIERS "to secure the frontier against attack" gradual encroachment over the course of many decades must have seemed to contemporaries to be a series of separate conquests Russians seemed constantly to be pushing outward 1840 a Russian campaign to conquer Khiva met with disaster because Khiva was too far away and the logistical support 1873, Khiva fell to Russians {improved strategy} RUSSIAN REGIONAL GAINS Russians brought in logistical support, built roads and railroads, and organized themselves in such a way as to facilitate their going on to conquer the next adjoining territory. NOTE: "this was not done in pursuance of some overall master plan for the conquest of Asia" BUT: "to the outside world it bore the aspect of the carrying out of such a program" [Probably due to anti Russia propaganda] 1830s - British PM Lord Melbourne brings out the map showing Russian expansion & urging alarm LETTER 1933 Jawaharlal Nehru, future PM of India {to daughter Indira, future PM also} re traditional rivalry between Russia vs Britain in Asia Nehru wrote that " ... the possession of India especially brought the British right up to the Russian frontier, and they were continually having nightmares as to what Tsarist Russia might do to India." AMERICANS ARE REPEATING THIS 'TO RUSSIAN FRONTIER' GAME in UKRAINE (in particular) 1800s - Britain rounded out her position in India by the conquest of = Sindh and other frontier areas = "forward policy" of conquering Afghanistan = maintenance of a network of representatives and intelligence agents all across Asia THUS British India-related activities as taking place on, in Nehru's words, "the Russian frontier" = Russians bound to see them as a dangerous series of acts of aggression. British did not see them that way [or did not acknowledge ... lol] ------- "What the British government did see-and the British public did not-was how Britain, in its struggle against Russia, could support the independence and territorial integrity of regimes such as the Ottoman and Persian Empires, which were cruel and unjust, denying their subjects even the most elementary of human rights. It was natural to wonder why Britain would risk war to keep in power rulers of whom all civilized persons must disapprove." ------ Palmerston PRETEXT * reform the regimes that Britain supported More traditional attitude: Tory Party & Foreign Office = consider the question of which foreign governments to support in the light of British INTERESTS rather than in the light of moral principles choice b/w deplorable allies and a deplorable adversary choice b/w evils, between a sultan who committed atrocities against Armenians & a czar who committed atrocities against Jews "Moral considerations were inapplicable in such a situation, and to introduce them into the discussion of foreign policy therefore was to mislead." Reportedly, many in Britain at time (as in USA today) = not happy supporting a foreign policy not grounded in moral principle = introduction of moral considerations into foreign policy issues worked against Great Britain 1907 - British Yield Inhabited Persia to Russia = Britain settled her differences in the area = Persians attacked Britain but not Russia, for "tyranny was accepted from the Russians as natural to them, whereas Great Britain was expected to behave in accordance with her liberal traditions." [lol ... or, the Persians simply had a relationship with the Russians ... . because they have regional (and long-standing other associations)  with Russians -   their neighbours.  Thus there is a pre-existing  RELATIONSHIP, which is missing from the British incursions in what is a DISTANT and entirely unrelated region] Russia =  introduction of the moral issue into foreign policy was a source of strength =  rhetoric of liberation to justify her incursions  [hey, that's exactly like the West today ... lol] BRITAIN’S ISSUE real issue = whether Britain could afford to preserve the Islamic regimes of Asia = not in the moral sense but in the political and economic sense REAL PURPOSE = Britain to create buffer zone of these decaying empires = ideal buffer zone because they were too feeble to threaten or to hurt the Great Powers BUT = also too feeble to defend themselves against Russian encroachments = Britain the usurper, becomes Britain the regional the enforcer = drained British resources rather than adding to them By last half 1800s Ottoman and Persian Empire internal challenges govt not viable financial administration fell apart British cabinets failed to supply solution " " failed to persuade Ottoman & Persion govts to take action * British propping up exploited by Ottomans ie know the region key to British - therefore Ottoman exploit for financial gain avoided making reforms resisted demands of foreign creditors & foreign powers felt Britain would be obliged to defend them against enforcement attempt = Britain blackmailed by weak client state = US has same problem in 20th Century (1900s) [and I would say, presently ... lol] BRITISH ARE PISSED that Persia (at Russian instigation) >> moved against British interests in exploiting Afghanistan 'Britain thus was obliged to take military action against Persia' ... 'while at the same time trying to preserve the strength and integrity of Persia as against the Russians' PARADOX - USA above paradox not unfamiliar to USA today as it attempts to decide how to deal with an Iran (ie Persia) ( see: Iran held Americans as hostages )    [ hostages is just a pretext  | |  nations that do not intend war, do not go to war over a few hostages  | USA - look to: rivalry of countries Britain undertook to 'protect' against Russia = how USA should deal with: Greek-Turkish and Arab-Israeli conflicts, while simultaneously shielding against 'Soviet Union' = similar to Britain vs Persia against Afghanistan (both of whom it wanted to 'protect' from Russia) "Attempts by Palmerston and other British leaders to persuade Persia that Russia was her real enemy fell on deaf ears. " [LMAO ... I think I like the Persians] Asian regimes too weak to form a banding against Russia response, says the article. Also a problem of mentality? Or a consequence of weakness? = "In their world the weaker bowed to, instead of combining against, the stronger" Other issue of strengthening client states or would-be client states: = country was willing to stand up for its independence against Russia, it also was likely to stand up against Britain = Afghanistan is such an example ( First Afghan War ) Young Disraeli after the First Afghan War = pointed out that Afghanistan could provide the finest possible barrier against Russian invasion ... if only Britain would stop interfering in its affairs. TIP for imperialist empires: " ... best to leave to a local power the responsibility for defending both its interests and one's own." Defect in this policy = President Nixon and Henry Kissinger in the 1969-73 regional surrogates policy = power strong enough to act in such a capacity is likely to have ambitions of its own [  not sure I understand this  ... So, the down side is anyone powerful enough to act on one's behalf in a region, is also likely to wish to act in their own interests?   ] 1902 - Anglo-Japanese alliance = British alliance "finally contracted in order to defeat Russia in Asia" = freed the Japanese to fight the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 = short run success for Britain = Japan destroyed Russian power in the Pacific BUT = decades later, Japan went on to destroy British power & presence in Pacific Lord Salisbury  | British Foreign Policy Independence Strategy = most reliable policy for Britain / one that she could carry out INDEPENDENTLY without having to rely on others *requires strategic facts in place Britain had those available already & worked towards manifesting remainder of strategic goals to enable independent foreign policy: 1798 = Nelson control of Eastern Mediterranean for British navy = first of series of agreements b/w Britain & local rulers along PERSIAN GULF coast (assumed importance 1800s) Persian Gulf Coat = virtual British protectorate of the entire coastal route to India SUEZ CANAL - EGYPT partly accident / partly design = British occupying Egypt and the Suez Canal = Salisbury also obtained Cyprus from Turkey sold as: it being in TURKEY's interest that British forces should have the use of a location of such strategic importance BUT - Salisbury hopes dashed: = proved impossible to have British officials take charge of the administration AND obtain protectorate over the Ottoman Empire 1880 elections = Gladstone back in power = Salisbury program destroyed = Gladstone - on record as believing that Turks antihuman / washed his hands of the Ottoman involvement = Turks, unable to stand on their own, turned to the new power of Bismarck's Germany as their protector 1885 Salisbury resumed tenure of the Foreign Office = lamented that change (re Turkey) could not be undone = Gladstone's government had given away British influence at Constantinople = Gladstone "They have just thrown it away into the sea ... without getting anything whatever in exchange." while British interests still required that Russian expansion be stopped on the Ottoman and Persian frontiers, London unable to guide Ottoman and Persian rulers, in the interests of Britain BRITISH EMPIRE IN DECLINE By the end of the 1800s = Britain had lost control of elements upon which her destiny as a power in Asia depended eg. were Russia to (then) descend from the interior of Asia upon Persian coast, unclear how Britain (with only her fleet) could counterattack LORD CURZON - VICEROY INDIA [ to be continued ... ] SOURCE https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-asia/1980-03-01/great-game-asia ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Extracts / Summary to help me understand article. Article is written from the Anglo-US perspective. Very interesting. Get a feeling that if you understand history, you can understand the present. Pretty much the same kind of stuff goes on today, as it did at the turn of the 1900s and even earlier than that. It's the same game, same aims, same tricks etc.  lol Article seems to go on forever. I can only take in so much in one hit, because I'm not too bright.  lol Need a break from it. Excuse any typos.  In a rush.  Need to switch task. ꕤ

Afghanistan | Not the Success US Claims

EXTRACTS  |  SUMMARY Afghanistan 2015, Jan. - US military handover efffected REMAINING abt 12,000-13,500 foreign troops incl 9,800 U.S. soldiers throughout Afghanistan under post-2014 NATO-led mission 'Operation Resolute Support' NATO new role activities defined: Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) / military cooperation treaty sovereignty and independence constitute little more than a facade Afghanistan remains a country under occupation [political analyst, Yemen] "Afghanistan is no closer to controlling its institutions than Washington is to defeating terror." "inherited a disbanded mercenary army which the state cannot possibly maintain on its own." "NATO has locked Kabul into a financial trap to better assert control and defend its interests in the region." Afghanistan = pawn in The Great Game see (other): http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/33619/david-fromkin/the-great-game-in-asia "war in Afghanistan is to the benefit of foreigners" former Pres Karzai Afghan: strong resentment toward Western powers Afghans ... have come to understand USA as yet another imperialistic power [prior powers: British & Russian] civilian casualties in targeted attacks justified by US as: collateral damage USA footprint of neo-imperial power operates unchallenged March 2012 - US Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales found guilty of killing 16 Afghan civilians rampage No US handover to Afghan authorities “One prime prerogative of all empires is that it is subject to no laws or accountability other than its own, even when it comes to crimes committed on other nations’ soil and against its people,” Greenwald wrote. “One prime prerogative of all empires is that it is subject to no laws or accountability other than its own, even when it comes to crimes committed on other nations’ soil and against its people,” Greenwald wrote. Washington plays Big Brother to impoverished Afghanistan Afghanistan has hand in own demise by developing codependency Afghanistan severely diminished — empty shell no institutional substance very limited economic resources abject poverty plagued by hunger home to billions of dollars  untapped natural resources >> energy + precious minerals economy continues to rely heavily on foreign aid "United States and its allies have instead thrown billions of dollars at the military, prioritizing the development of a mercenary army via private U.S. contractors rather than bank on Afghans to rebuild their state" Afghanistan cannot pay troops’ salaries without help does not own its army foreign powers pay the bills security has deteriorated Afghanistan cannot even feed itself hunger is rampant / yet it is expected to provide for upkeep of mercenary army Despite military handover vulnerable to outside control due to financial destitution corruption, nepotism and political wrangling = issues vicious circle of political dependency belief that solutions lie outside of own borders Afghanistan toss up: Taliban or neo-colonial servitude Afghanistan must revive economy / provide sustainable source of income SOURCE The War Is Over, But Afghanistan Remains Shackled By Neo-Imperialism http://www.mintpressnews.com/war-afghanistan-remains-shackled-neo-imperialism/200553/ ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- COMMENT Mercenaries and other US federal contractors always come out on top.   I'm assuming they're US mercenaries.  *** Greenwald arguing against the US refusal to hand over the soldier (that probably lost the plot), isn't something I'd support.  I wouldn't hand over anybody, for even worse treatment than they'd get in the US.  Imagine the barbaric treatment he'd be subjected to if the Americans handed him over. That was a good article. Resources is probably why the West is there ... that, and whatever the strategic rewards of 'The Great Game' offers ... (I've forgotten ... might have to brush up again on that). *** Checking again they're talking 'inherited' and 'disbanded mercenary army,' that's Afghan militants / mercenaries; but they're also talking:"development of a mercenary army via private US contractors" So they're paying US contractors to train and supervise a mercenary army? US mercenaries win/win. ꕤ