SPECULUM VERUM
Syria's return to the Arab League and the presence of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad at the Arab League summit in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, despite fierce protests from the US and European powers, marks a new stage in power relations in the Middle East. A turning point is not the beginning of the end, but only the end of the beginning of the end of the evil that devastated the Arab world and caused millions of human victims of the famous so-called revolutions. Arab Spring.
In fact, they were never pro-democratic revolutions, as they called them, but only the morbid and naked abuse of the most extreme parts of Islamist extremism in favor of the interests of the USA and the leading European powers in the MENA region (Middle East and North Africa), in the same way that this same Islamist extremism was once used against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
But the Arab world, where new forces of emancipation and anti-colonialism have grown, this time led by the conservative forces of Islam instead of the secular leaders of the past, with the rising power of Saudi Arabia trying to close the narrative of evil served by the West to the Arab and Muslim world at the beginning of the last decade.
A warm welcome
The fact that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which can hardly be attributed any democratic attributes, warmly welcomed at the meeting in Jeddah testifies to the birth of a new wave of pan-Arabism and the consolidation of the Muslim world. Once under the decisive influence of the United States, In the past year, oil-rich Saudi Arabia has assumed a leading diplomatic role among Arab countries. Riyadh renewed relations with Iran, talks with Syria again and is a mediator in the conflict in Sudan. Besides that, the Saudi refusal to impose sanctions on Moscow did not suit American policy either, nor the refusal to increase oil production in order to bring down prices on the market. The previous decade was marked by bloody and cannibalistic wars between extremist groups and the last secular rulers of the Arab states born from the era of Nasser and the collapse of the British colonial empire.. No, when rampant Islamist extremism led by Al-Qaeda and ISIL threatened Saudi Arabia itself, the guardian of the holy places of Islam, they have come to an end.
And it started so innocently. American geopoliticians and think-tanks orchestrated at the beginning of this century began, apparently with good intentions, to point out the unsustainability of the then Middle Eastern geopolitical structure, stressing that it is necessary to start the processes of democratization of society and pull the region out of the shadow of world economic and political currents. Of course, no one even remotely mentioned any redrawing of borders and dissolution of states, but only the introduction of democracy to the Middle East and its activation in the globalized world order.
And everything will end as beautifully as the demolition of the Berlin Wall in Europe ended, they explained. Nothing will hurt and everyone will end up living happily ever after. Only a few years later, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke about the pain and suffering during her visit to Israel in the midst of the last Lebanon war in 2006, describing that war., connects it with the "birth pangs in which a new Middle East is born".
Labor pains
Soon, other representatives of the American administration began to publicly express their views on the democratic transition of the Middle East, followed by the leading countries of the European Union. It was actually a barrage of political preparation for everything that will happen in the Middle East.
But things started to boil much earlier. So in his article for the Washington Post from 7. August 2003. under the title "Transforming the Middle East" the then national security adviser in the administration of George W. Bush and later US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice present a vision of a democratic Middle East as the US administration would like to see.
In the text, he clearly expresses the American and European will related to the massive transformation of the Middle East region. Rice identifies the problem in the opening section: "Shortly after the end of World War 2, America committed itself to the long-term transformation of Europe after the suffering and destruction experienced during the war, including the loss of hundreds of thousands of American lives. Our policymakers have decided to work on creating a Europe where a new war would be unthinkable. We and the people of Europe have committed ourselves to a vision of democracy and prosperity and together we have succeeded.
Today, pak, America and our friends and allies must commit to long-term transformation in another part of the world- Middle East. The area of 22 states with a population of 300 million people have a combined GDP smaller than Spain, which has 40 million inhabitants. This very fact reflects what leading Arab intellectuals call the political and economic deficit of freedom. Feelings of helplessness provide fertile ground for hateful ideologies that encourage people to drop out of college., career and family, instead they try to blow themselves up with explosives, taking as many innocent lives as possible."
Long-term transformation
Rice especially emphasizes that "these ingredients are a recipe for regional instability and a constant threat to US security", thereby justifying in advance the interest of US policy in changing the described situation and the intention of direct political and military engagement in the region.
In the continuation of the author's article, Rice defines the goals of American policy aimed at the desired transformation of the Middle East: "Our task is to work with those in the Middle East who seek progress towards greater democracy and tolerance, prosperity and freedom. As President Bush said in February- the world has a clear interest in spreading economic values because stable and free nations do not produce ideologies of murder, rather, they encourage a peaceful search for a better life."
At the same time, Rice explains the previous American political and military activities in the region and strikes the ideological foundations of the new actions: "Let's be clear, America and the coalition went to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussein's regime posed a security threat to the US and the entire world. It was a regime that used and possessed weapons of mass destruction, maintained ties with terrorist organizations, invaded other nations twice and refused all demands of the international community and in total 17 UN resolution during 12 year, by which he clearly pointed out that he will never disarm and comply with the just demands of the world."
Today, the fact that no weapons of mass destruction after the US military intervention in Iraq 2003. in 2008, the existence of ties between Saddam's regime and Islamist terrorists was not found nor was it established, exactly the opposite, haunted like the devils themselves, it doesn't mean anything anymore though. The lie served its purpose and justified the direct military intervention without the consent of the UN hypocritically invoked by Condoleezza Rice with the ultimate effect of trying to break up Iraq as a state.
Wrong foundations
Rice continues in his article: "Today, that threat has disappeared and the liberation of Iraq has created an exceptional opportunity to advance a positive agenda for the Middle East that will strengthen security in the region and the entire world... Regional leaders are already talking about a new Arab political direction that supports internal reforms, greater political participation, economic openness and free trade. From Morocco to the Persian Gulf, nations are taking the first steps toward political and economic openness. The USA supports these steps and we will continue to work on this plan with our friends and allies... In such a sequence of events, the way democratic Germany became a component of the new Europe, which is complete today, free and peaceful, so a transformed Iraq can become a key element of a completely new Middle East in which ideologies of hatred will not succeed. I evo, almost a hundred days since the end of the main combat operations in Iraq, the Iraqi people began to create the future they had hoped for."
After a performance like this one really has to wonder what the hell went wrong. The Middle East managed to survive her agenda of democratic transformation, but it is, contrary to what she stated in her program text, now Europe is on fire.
If Rice wrote the article with a healthy mind and honestly, today she would have to be ashamed of her stupidity and naivety. None of that, because everything that has happened to date in the Middle East was foreseen and in accordance with the goals of American policy, and at her hypocritical article Mrs. Rice would surely have a sweet laugh today, proud of her job well done.
In the concluding part of the article, which prepared the ground for geopolitical agendas whose consequences were millions of destroyed lives, Rice did not fail to warn that American military and political power was behind the plan..
A call to arms
"The transformation of the Middle East will not be easy and it will take time. It will require broad American involvement, of Europe and all free nations, working in full partnership with those from the region who share our belief in the power of human freedom. This is not primarily a military obligation, but will require the involvement of all aspects of our national power- diplomatic, economic and cultural."
Therefore, Behind the beautiful words Mrs. Rice quite openly and precisely places the American military power,political and economic power.
In this sense, the Washington think-tank Brookings Institution in its analysis of 10. May 2004. immediately before the adoption of the American initiative "Greater Middle East" at the G8 summit in Sea Island, Georgia, USA, is even more direct: "Therefore, if the West is truly serious about the need for reform, may have to push some Arab governments far beyond their comfort level.” At the same time, he points out that the draft initiative is flawed because it "proposes small incentives for Arab governments that accept G8 reforms, and they do not address the clear need for the G8 countries individually or collectively to develop a systematic menu of positive and negative incentives for those Arab governments that will not take sufficient account of the imperative of Western security and the benefits of Arab reforms". At the same time, the Brookings Institution warns in particular about Syria "which expresses its rejection and rejection of the initiative, claiming that it does not have any problems so far and that it will turn to the G8 group if it wants any help.".
And behold miracles, Syria will soon have many, really a lot of problems, and all other countries that expressed doubt about the peace-making and democratic incentives of the USA and European allies ended up similarly. They all ended in the chaos of war, powerless and in complete disarray.
After the introductory propaganda, the initiative of the American strategic vision of democratization and transformation of the Middle East formulated in the "Greater Middle East" agenda, later renamed the "Wider Middle East" initiative, The Americans succeeded in June 2008. push through as the conclusion of the summit of the G8 countries in Sea Island.
Creation of chaos
By resolution of the most powerful countries in the world, including Russia, the "Partnership for Progress and Common Future of the Greater Middle East and North Africa" process was established and the violent process of the alleged democratization of the Middle Eastern areas and its adaptation to future integration with the European Union and the entire transatlantic complex began, which is former French President Jacques Chirac 9. June 2008. assessed as a failed agenda and "provoking changes that will feed the risk of extremism and falling into the fatal trap of the clash of civilizations". But the creators of grand strategies driven by bare economic and financial interests and the projection of the geopolitical power of the most powerful countries in the world were not interested in such voices of reason, nor do they want to hear them today..
The Americans also renounced their loyal ally Mubarak
It is even a staunch American ally, Egyptian President Mubarak, who, after the adoption of the GMEI initiative at the G8 summit, dared to declare that "the introduction of democracy in the Arab world in such a way is a pure delusion that will lead to anarchy in the Middle East" was heard and spent some years in a cage, and his country was programmed by the so-called revolutions. the Arab Spring and the violent bringing to power of the extreme Muslim Brotherhood, under the guise of democratic elections held in the shadow of axes and machetes, brought to the brink of civil war, chaos and the initial stage of the genocide of 8 million Egyptian Christians. It was only with the coup of General Al-Sisi with the support of Saudi Arabia, when it became clear to American politics that the Egyptian army would no longer be able to guarantee the security of the strategically important Suez Canal and the Red Sea, somewhat stabilized situation in the country. But the fact remains that Egypt has been pushed back politically and economically for at least three decades and that tourism, which brought a significant part of the income in the next few decades, can be freely forgotten.
Putin got actively involved in the Arab wars out of profit
It should be emphasized that Russia has actively participated in the plans for the supposed democratization and factual geopolitical redistribution of the Middle East and North Africa region and is a signatory to the conclusion of the summit of the G8 countries in Sea Island., who started the Middle East war by violently redrawing borders and overthrowing ruling regimes under the pretext of democratizing the geopolitical space. If it wasn't clear to anyone why Moscow and Russian President Putin agreed to such a violent diplomatic agenda, intelligence, and military interventionism, today, after his invasion of Ukraine, there should be no doubt. American military interventions in the Middle East, which was supported by the European powers, they served him in an attempt to create any coherent justification for what he does. Of course, what was happening in the Middle East cannot in any way be a cover or justification for Russian aggression against Ukraine. But the fact is that Putin uses it and has at least the tacit support of part of the world. Above all, the Arab world, as far as can be observed, after the devastating American and European interventionism in its territory, and does not see any big problem in Russian interventionism somewhere in Europe. Moreover, just as European peace brokers once visited the Middle East in their previously failed peacekeeping missions, so now African and Middle Eastern leaders are almost cynically offering themselves as peace brokers in Europe.
American, and then the European agenda for the democratic transformation of MENA, which turned into a violent redrawing of state borders and bloody civil wars led by various factions of the most extreme parts of Islamist extremism, caused a lot of harm and damage not only to the Arab and Muslim world, but also to the interests of the West itself, which, as a reflex of what was happening in the Middle East, is now reflected in the inadequate cooperation of the West and the MENA region in response to Russian aggression against Ukraine. And that is the price of failed revolutions of evil, the revolution of the so-called Arab Spring, which American and European politics are now forced to pay for.