Pipelineistan Geopolitics at Work: Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Qatar.

 

Region: Asia, Middle East & North Africa

Theme: Oil and Energy

 

Construction is nearing completion on a natural gas pipeline linking Iran and Pakistan, a project that portends a huge geopolitical shift. As regional powers strengthen ties in this key energy market, they’re looking to China, and away from the West.

Since the early 2000s, analysts and diplomats across Asia have been dreaming of a future Asian Energy Security Grid.

This – among other developments – is what it’s all about, the conclusion of the final stretch of the $7.5 billion, 1,100-mile natural gas Iran-Pakistan (IP) pipeline, starting from Iran’s giant South Pars field in the Persian Gulf, and expected to be online by the end of 2014.

Nobody lost money betting on Washington’s reaction; IP would put Islamabad in “violation of United Nations sanctions over [Iran’s] nuclear program.” Yet this has nothing to do with the UN, but with US sanctions made up by Congress and the Treasury Department.

Sanctions? What sanctions? Islamabad badly needs energy. China badly needs energy. And India will be extremely tempted to follow, especially when IP reaches Lahore, which is only 100 km from the Indian border. India, by the way, already imports Iranian oil and is not sanctioned for it.

All aboard the win-win train

When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Pakistani President Asif Zardari met at the Iranian port of Chabahar in early March, that was a long way after IP was first considered in 1994 – then as Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI), also known as the ‘peace pipeline.’  Subsequent pressure by both Bush administrations was so overwhelming that India abandoned the idea in 2009.

IP is what the Chinese call a win-win deal. The Iranian stretch is already finished. Aware of Islamabad’s immense cash flow problems, Tehran is loaning it $500 million, and Islamabad will come up with $1 billion to finish the Pakistani section. It’s enlightening to note that Tehran only agreed to the loan after Islamabad certified it won’t back out (unlike India) under Washington pressure.

IP, as a key umbilical (steel) cord, makes a mockery of the artificial – US-encouraged – Sunni-Shia divide. Tehran needs the windfall, and the enhanced influence in South Asia. Ahmadinejad even cracked that “with natural gas, you cannot make atomic bombs.”

Zardari, for his part, boosted his profile ahead of Pakistan’s elections on May 11. With IP pumping 750 million cubic feet of natural gas into the Pakistani economy everyday, power cuts will fade, and factories won’t close. Pakistan has no oil. It may have huge potential for solar and wind energy, but no investment capital and knowhow to develop them.

Politically, snubbing Washington is a certified hit all across Pakistan, especially after the territorial invasion linked to the 2011 targeted assassination of Bin Laden, plus Obama and the CIA’s non-stop drone wars in the tribal areas.

Moreover, Islamabad will need close cooperation with Tehran to assert a measure of control of Afghanistan after 2014. Otherwise an India-Iran alliance will be in the driver’s seat.

Washington’s suggestion of a Plan B amounted to vague promises to help building hydroelectric dams; and yet another push for that ultimate ‘Pipelineistan’ desert mirage – the which has existed only on paper since the Bill Clinton era.

The Foreign Office in Islamabad argued for Washington to at least try to show some understanding. As for the lively Pakistani press, it is having none of it.

This photograph taken on February 12, 2013 shows the construction site at Gwadar port in the Arabian Sea. (AFP Photo / Behram Baloch)

The big winner is… China

IP is already a star protagonist of the New Silk Road(s) – the real thing, not a figment of Hillary Clinton’s imagination. And then there’s the ultra-juicy, strategic Gwadar question.

Islamabad decided not only to hand over operational control of the Arabian Sea port of Gwadar, in ultra-sensitive southwest Balochistan, to China; crucially, Islamabad and Beijing also signed a deal to build a $4 billion, 400,000 barrels-a-day oil refinery, the largest in Pakistan.
Gwadar, a deepwater port, was built by China, but until recently, the port’s administration was Singaporean.

The long-term Chinese master plan is a beauty. The next step after the oil refinery would be to lay out an oil pipeline from Gwadar to Xinjiang, parallel to the Karakoram highway, thus configuring Gwadar as a key Pipelineistan node distributing Persian Gulf oil and gas to Western China – and finally escaping Beijing’s Hormuz dilemma.

Gwadar, strategically located at the confluence of Southwest and South Asia, with Central Asia not that far, is bound to finally emerge as an oil and gas hub and petrochemical center – with Pakistan as a crucial energy corridor linking Iran with China. All that, of course, assuming that the CIA does not set Balochistan on fire.

The inevitable short-term result anyway is that Washington’s sanctions obsession is about to be put to rest at the bottom of the Arabian Sea, not far from Osama bin Laden’s corpse. And with IP probably becoming IPC – with the addition of China – India may even wake up, smell the gas, and try to revive the initial IPI idea.

The Syrian Pipelineistan angle

This graphic Iranian success in South Asia contrasts with its predicament in Southwest Asia.
The South Pars gas fields –  the largest in the world – are shared by Iran and Qatar. Tehran and Doha have developed an extremely tricky relationship, mixing cooperation and hardcore competition.

The key (unstated) reason for Qatar to be so obsessed by regime change in Syria is to kill the $10 billion Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline, which was agreed upon in July 2011. The same applies to Turkey, because this pipeline would bypass Ankara, which always bills itself as the key energy crossroads between East and West.

(AFP Photo / Atta Kenare)

It’s crucial to remember that the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline is as anathema to Washington as IP. The difference is that Washington in this case can count on its allies Qatar and Turkey to sabotage the whole deal.

This means sabotaging not only Iran but also the ‘Four Seas’ strategy announced by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in 2009, according to which Damascus should become a Pipelineistan hub connected to the Caspian Sea, the Black Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.

The strategy spells out a Syria intimately connected with Iranian – and not Qatari – energy flows. Iran-Iraq-Syria is known in the region as the ‘friendship pipeline.’ Typically, Western corporate media derides it as an ‘Islamic’ pipeline. (So Saudi pipelines are what, Catholic?) What makes it even more ridiculous is that gas in this pipeline would flow to Syria and then Lebanon –  and from there to energy-starved European markets close by.

The Pipelineistan games get even more complicated when we add the messy Iraqi Kurdistan/Turkey energy love affair – detailed here by Erimtan Can – and the recent gas discoveries in the Eastern Mediterranean involving territorial waters of Israel, Palestine, Cyprus, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria; some, or perhaps all of these actors could turn from energy importers to energy exporters.

Israel will have a clear option to send its gas via a pipeline to Turkey, and then export it to Europe; that goes a long way to explain the recent phone call schmoozing between Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan and Israel’s Netanyahu, brokered by Obama.

Terrestrial and maritime borders between Israel and Lebanon remain dependent on a hazy UN Blue Line, set up way back in 2000. Damascus – as well as Tehran –  supports Beirut, once again against Washington’s will. And Damascus also supports Baghdad’s strategy of diversifying its means of distribution, once again trying to escape the Strait of Hormuz. Thus, the importance of the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline.

No wonder Syria is a red line for Tehran. Now the whole of Pipelineistan will be watching how far Qatar is willing to go following Washington’s obsession.
 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

China: US Destabilizing Asia Pacific by Boosting Military Presence in Region

Local Editor

China accused the United States on Tuesday of destabilizing the Asia-Pacific region by strengthening its military alliances and sending more ships, planes, and troops to the area. The U.S. policy known as the “pivot” to Asia runs counter to regional trends and “frequently makes the situation tenser,” the Defense Ministry said in its report on the state of China’s defense posture and armed forces. “Certain efforts made to highlight the military agenda, enhance military deployment and also strengthen alliances are not in line with the calling of the times and are not conducive to the upholding of peace and stability in the region,” spokesman Yang Yujun told reporters at a news conference marking the report’s release. “We hope that the relevant parties would do more to enhance the mutual trust between countries in the region and contribute to peace and stability,” Yang said. China has consistently criticized Washington’s deployment of additional ships and personnel to Asia, along with increasing cooperation both with treaty partners, including Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines, as well other countries such as Vietnam that aren’t traditional allies. Beijing, however, sees it as specifically designed to contain China’s diplomatic, military, and economic rise, and has sought to reassure Asian nations that China poses no threat to them.

Source: Agencies 16-04-2013 – 11:07 Last updated 16-04-2013 – 11:07

Related Articles

• China´s Support for North Korea Avoids a War in East Asia
• US Chopper Crashes near North Korea Border
• N. Korea Threatens South over Burning Effigies
• US, S. Korea Wary of North’s Military Threats
• N. Korea Rejects South’s Calls for Dialogue on Kaesong
• Lavrov: Russia Backs Swiss to Host Korea Talks
• World Alarmed over N.Korea Missile Launch, Pyongyang Slams Seoul Policies

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Kerry in China: N. Korea, Iran and Syria Main Concerns

Local Editor

US Secretary of State John Kerry told Chinese President Xi Jinping on Saturday that “the world is facing a critical time”, citing tensions on the Korean peninsula, Iran’s nuclear program and the conflict in Syria. “Mr. President, this is obviously a critical time with some very challenging issues,” Kerry told Xi in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. “Issues on the Korean peninsula, the challenge of Iran and nuclear weapons, Syria and the Middle East, and economies around the world that are in need of a Boost,” Kerry said. The US secretary of State had arrived from South Korea earlier to press Beijing, North Korea’s major ally, to help defuse nuclear tensions on the Korean peninsula ahead of an expected missile launch by the North. In contrast, the Chinese president did not refer to the issued raised by Kerry, but rather stated that US-China relationship was “at a new historical stage and has got off to a good start”.

Source: AFP 13-04-2013 – 14:51 Last updated 13-04-2013 – 14:51

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

China will keep supporting North Korea against US

 

 

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un uses binoculars to inspect a live-fire drill using self-propelled drones at an undisclosed location in North Korea, March 20, 2013.

Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:40AM GMT

 

By Yusuf Fernandez

Although there have been some claims in Western media that China could be having second thoughts on maintaining its support for North Korea, the truth is that the latter remains a key Chinese ally. Most Chinese think that the links with North Korea, despite all the difficulties and disagreements, remain useful for China. The Chinese leadership is probably conscious that Washington, in order to advance its own strategy, would like to see a rift between both traditional allies.”

On April 3, Chinese officials called for calm in Korea as Washington announced that it would deploy missiles and more troops to East Asia, the island of Guam, Australia and the West coast of the US territory amid a crisis over North Korea’s nuclear program.

Shortly before, Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister Zhang Yesui expressed his country’s “serious concern” over the Korean stand-off in two meetings with the US and South Korean ambassadors. He also appealed to both sides to exercise restraint and avoid provocations which might lead to an unwanted conflict.

For its part, the US has been deploying nuclear-capable bombers, warships and other military systems. The Pentagon has sent two F-22 Stealth fighters to the Osan Air Base and a B-2 stealth bomber on a round-trip training mission over South Korea. It has also positioned two guided-missile destroyers in the waters near the Korean Peninsula.

According to USA Today, the American B-1 bomber pilots at the Dyess Air Force Base in Texas have changed their training programs to focus on flights towards East Asia, instead of missions to the Middle East and Afghanistan.

US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced that the number of antimissile interceptors in Alaska and California will increase to 44 – 14 more than the current number. Although he claimed that this move was a response to Pyongyang’s “irresponsible and reckless provocations”, the plan to boost these systems had been in consideration for months.

At the same time, Washington has stepped up its threats against Pyongyang. US Secretary of State John Kerry said the US “will not accept North Korea as a nuclear state.” US Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, who recently visited Beijing, asked Chinese leaders to use their economic and political influence over Pyongyang to persuade the North Korean government to renounce its nuclear and missile programs. Given that Pyongyang has no intention to destroy its small nuclear arsenal, the statements by both American top officials sounded certainly threatening.

The US is also selling more military systems to South Korea and Japan, two main rivals of China in the region having two right-wing and nationalist governments headed by Japanese Premier Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Park Geun-hye respectively. The US Defense Department approved on April 3 the sale of 60 fighters – F-15 or F-35 – to South Korea.

The US Administration wants to use the Korea crisis to show South Korea and Japan that they can rely on the US nuclear umbrella. In Seoul and Tokyo, some media and political circles have been calling on their governments to develop nuclear weapons. The US rejects this idea alleging that it would lead to wider proliferation of nuclear weapons. However, the real reason of this opposition is that Washington wants to perpetuate these countries’ military dependency on the US.

A strategy against China

However, Washington is not only deploying these forces as a result of the tensions in the Korean Peninsula but as a part of its strategy to maintain its predominance in East Asia. China is becoming the most powerful country in the world and is blocking, alongside with Russia, US global plans to achieve global hegemony. It is also holding massive US debt and blocking US actions seeking to justify wars against Syria and Iran. It has also been one of the founders of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS group, which challenge US and Western hegemony and promote a multipolar world.

Washington has been enhancing its military ties and alliances throughout the region to contain and encircle China. In this sense, the target of the US deployments is not only North Korea but mainly China. In fact, USA Today already mentioned the training shift towards the Asia-Pacific region at Dyess in an article published in August 2012. The article added that the new strategy, which was announced in January 2012 by President Barack Obama, sought to “counter the rising power of China”.

Moreover, during a recent meeting of Obama with Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in Washington, the US president announced the sending of more US warships to the area of the Malacca Strait, a waterway that connects the Indian and Pacific Oceans and is critical to Chinese energy imports and trade.

Warmongering Senator John McCain of Arizona has also used the Korea crisis to attack China. “Chinese behavior has been very disappointing, whether it be on cyber security, whether it be on confrontation in the South China Sea, or whether it be their failure to rein in North Korea,” he said.

For his part, James Hardy, the Asia-Pacific editor for Jane’s Defense Weekly – also thinks that Washington “is using the existence of this crisis as an excuse to ramp up its missile defenses in Asia.” He pointed out that this move is related to Washington’s plans for hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region.

For its part, China is logically concerned by the deployment of these military systems near its borders. Chinese leaders have also seen the deployment of missile defense systems as a threat for their country. They have openly criticized the US for announcing a large increase in its anti-missile interceptors based in Alaska. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei warned that “strengthening anti-missile systems will intensify antagonism”.

Both China and Russia oppose the US deployment of these systems in Asia and Europe, which are not mainly aimed at Iran and North Korea, as Washington claims, but at undermining Chinese and Russian nuclear capacity. The ability to destroy missiles would allow the US to launch a “first nuclear strike” against China or Russia while avoiding a retaliation attack against its territory. As a response, Moscow and Beijing have already started to develop their military capacities, including the manufacture of new state-of-the-art nuclear missiles being capable of overcoming any anti-missile defense system.

No second thoughts on North Korea

Although there have been some claims in Western media that China could be having second thoughts on maintaining its support for North Korea, the truth is that the latter remains a key Chinese ally. Most Chinese think that the links with North Korea, despite all the difficulties and disagreements, remain useful for China. The Chinese leadership is probably conscious that Washington, in order to advance its own strategy, would like to see a rift between both traditional allies.

According to the Chinese publication Global Times, the economic importance of China-North Korea ties has grown in recent years. In terms of China’s total economic activity, it is still small, but in terms of Northeast China, it has gained importance.

On the other hand, “the strategic considerations that have kept China involved in the Korean Peninsula for hundreds of years have not suddenly disappeared”, wrote the Global Times. In this sense, North Korea is China’s sole ally in East Asia and a buffer state facing hostile powers as the US, Japan or South Korea. It is worth recalling that the Chinese army intervened in the Korean War in 1950 to prevent the occupation of North Korea by US and South Korean forces. Thus, it prevented the creation of a pro-US state directly on China’s border and a future US invasion of China itself.

Unlike Western countries, China has not blamed only North Korea for the current crisis but it has also criticized the US, Japan and South Korea’s hard-line positions and confrontational policies towards Pyongyang. Chinese media dismiss the idea that North Korea should eliminate its nuclear weapons, as the US demands. Actually, with examples such as Libya (denuclearized completely in accordance with US demands but subjected to US-backed regime change anyway), the North is not going to abandon its program because it is its best guarantee of survival.

Moreover, North Korea has already gone through a bitter experience over its negotiations with the US. In the 1990s and 2000s, Pyongyang sought to normalize its relations with Washington in exchange for putting an end to its nuclear program. In 2007, it shuttered the Yongbyon reactor, its sole one producing plutonium as a result of a nuclear disarmament agreement with the US. However, shortly after the deal collapsed and North Korea has just announced that the reactor will be restarted and used to produce more nuclear weapons from now on.

Therefore, China understands that it cannot abandon North Korea from a strategic perspective especially at a time when it has become the target of a policy of containment and strangulation by the US and its allies. Beijing can only go so far as to do “soft criticism” but not “hard criticism” of North Korean actions. Both countries have a common objective: opposing US-sponsored military alliances and deployments in the region, which are not just aimed at North Korea, but at China as well. Therefore, China’s policy of support for North Korea will continue.

YF/HSN

 

<!–

–>

Yusuf Fernandez is a journalist and the secretary of the Muslim Federation of Spain. He started to work for Radio Prague. He has been editor of several Islamic sites in Spanish and English and is currently editor of the Spanish site of Al Manar. He has also published articles in leading Spanish newspapers. More articles by Yusuf Fernandez

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Obama’s bitter options

كؤوس أوباما المرة

غالب قنديل

تستهلك الإمبراطورية الأميركية مزيدا من الوقت في محاولات يائسة لدفع الكؤوس المرة التي تنتظرها مع التسليم المستحق بهزيمتها في سورية بانهيار هيمنتها الأحادية على العالم و برضوخها لقدر الشراكة السياسية القهرية مع روسيا و الصين اللتين انتقلتا إلى الهجوم الاستراتيجي انطلاقا من صخرة الصمود السوري الثابتة في مجابهة الحرب العالمية التي تستهدف الدولة العربية السورية الحرة و المقاومة فما هي تلك الكؤوس المرة التي سيجبر الأميركيون على تجرعها.

أولا كشف الخبير العالمي في قضايا الطاقة البروفسور مايكل كلير الكثير عن خفايا الاهتمام الأميركي الاستراتيجي المتصاعد بمنطقة الباسفيك في دراسة كشف فيها عن وجود كميات هائلة من الغاز و النفط تحت الجزر المتنازع عليها بين الصين و اليابان و في هذا المجال الآسيوي الهام توجد دولة عملاقة هي الصين و دولة “عاصية ” متحالفة معها و تحظى بدعمها و هي مقيمة على لوائح الإرهاب الأميركية منذ زمن الحرب الباردة و لم تفلح جميع ادوات الحصارو التحريم في تركيعها و هي تغالب المشيئة الاستعمارية منذ انهيار الاتحاد السوفيتي و قد نجحت في سلسلة من المناورات الذكية بشأن ملفها النووي فقاومت الضغوط الأميركية والتفت عليها و بعد تفكيك مفاعلاتها النووية و ختمها بالاسمنت أعادت إنهاض مشروعها بعد حرب تموز 2006 و مع ظهور ملامح التبدل في التوازن العالمي و كوريا الديمقراطية هي دولة زوتشيه التي تعني بالكورية الاعتماد على الذات ، كناية عن شعب واسع العلم و الثقافة و معبء بقوة بفكرة الاستقلال و التطلع لتوحيد الوطن الكوري الذي مزقته الإمبريالية الأميركية في الخمسينات من القرن الماضي .

ثانيا مع تراكم مظاهر الفشل و الغطرسة الأميركيين في التصميم على مواصلة الحرب العدوانية التي تقودها الولايات المتحدة ضد الدولة الوطنية السورية قررت روسيا و الصين تسديد لكمة موجعة ترغم الإمبراطورية العجوز على استعادة شيء من العقلانية في سلوكها السياسي الأحمق الذي تبدى بانقلاب أوباما على التسوية المتفاهم عليها مع الروس بشأن وقف العدوان على سورية و الكف عن إرسال الإرهابيين و تزويدهم بالمال و السلاح و هو عرض تضمن دفع اوباما للاعتراف بالهزيمة مع حفظ ماء الوجه الأميركي تجاوبت معه سورية لتوفير التضحيات و الالام على شعبها لكن الولايات المتحدة التي انقلبت سوف تضطر لدفع كلفة أعلى من مجرد الإقرار بالفشل كما تشير الوقائع المتحولة .

بدعم روسي صيني و بمؤازرة سياسية واضحة من هذين الجبارين ترفع بيونغ يانغ التحدي في وجه الإمبراطورية العجوز الفاشلة بقيادة حفيد الزعيم التاريخي كيم إيل سونغ الذي أقام قلعة صناعية ضخمة أجبرت صواريخها الجاهزة باراك أوباما لطلب معونة بكين و موسكو في احتواء حدث أشد خطورة من ازمة الصواريخ الكوبية في الخمسينات من القرن الماضي .

ثالثا سوف يتوسع جدول الأعمال على طاولة المباحثات الصينية مع الإدارة الأميركية حول الأزمة الكورية بعدما اضطرت الولايات المتحدة للاعتراف بجدية التهديد الكوري بعد إنكار و اتخذت قرارها المعلن بنشر بطاريات الصواريخ المضادة للصواريخ تحسبا من تنفيذ الأمر القيادي المصادق عليه الذي تبلغته القيادة العليا للجيش و القوات المسلحة الكورية التي أعطت سلاحها الصاروخي إحداثيات عسكرية في قلب الولايات المتحدة و حملت القواعد الأميركية في آسيا كأهداف جاهزة للقصف .

مستقبل العالم سيكون في صلب التفاوض الدولي الذي يوشك ان ينطلق و بنود التفاوض تتركز من وجهة النظر الروسية الصينية على تصفية الهيمنة الأحادية الأميركية ووقف العدوان على سورية و الاعتراف الصريح بالهزيمة امامها و تفكيك منصات العدوان و هو ما سيؤذن بولادة مارد عربي هو سورية المقاومة بقيادة الرئيس الأسد و السير في طريق الاعتراف بقوتين نوويتين جديدتين هما كوريا و إيران و الرضوخ لشراكة مالية و اقتصادية جديدة مع مجموعة البريكس التي أطلقت استعدادها لتحرير علاقاتها الاقتصادية من آليات التحكم المالي و المصرفي الأميركي بعد قمتها الأخيرة فإما منظومة عالمية مستقلة و منافسة قابلة للتوسع او تغييرات هيكلية متفاهم عليها تنهي سيطرة نيويورك على شرايين العالم .

• ديبمسي : لم أرى في حياتي صراعا أكثر خطورة و تعقيدا من الصراع
• من سوريا إلى كوريا الأسد… حسابات الحرب في دفتر التسوية
• موسكو تبرز مخالبها

Syrian Korean Iranian alliance, reforming the map of the world

جديد السيد نون .. خارطة العالم تتشكل من جديد .. بتحالف سوري كوري ايراني

 Russia: Group of Our Warships Sent to Mediterranean   دام برس – اياد الجاجة : امريكا حاولت ان توجد لها بديلا في المنطقة يحافظ على مصالحها وتتفرغ هي لمواجهة الصين وذكرنا وقتها ان الامريكيين قد اسسوا لقيام حلفين حلف بقيادة فرنسا ومشاركة تركيا لتقسيم بلاد الشام وإدخاله في الحلف وهذا هو من يقود الحرب على سوريا ،وحلف آخر بقيادة اسرائيل ويضم عرب البعير لمواجهة ايران على ان يجتمع الحلفان اولا بالحرب على سوريا ثم بعد الانتصار على سوريا كما حلموا يتوزع الحلفان كل حسب مهامه ،وبناء على قناعة امريكا بتحقيق الانتصار على سوريا وان مخططها سينجح بدأت التخلي عن المنطقة لتعزز تواجدها في بحر الصين لخوض معارك جديدة في كوريا . ولكن ما الذي حدث؟ ان فشل امريكا وحلفائها في سوريا جعلها توحد الحلفين وتلغي الحلف الفرنسي التركي لتضم مهام الحلف الاخر وهو الاسرائيلي ودول البعير وتكون فرنسا وتركيا داعم لهذا الحلف على ان يتم استدراج مصر لاحقا . كان الامريكي متيقنا بأنه سيحقق مخططاته لما هو مرصودا لها من قوى ومسلحين واموال ،ولكن صمود سوريا قاده الى التهلكة. المخطط الامريكي كان يهدف لإنشاء حلف نووي تقوده اسرائيل ويستطيع هذا الحلف الوقوف بوجه ايران وروسيا وبالتالي تنفرد امريكا بالمواجهة مع الصين . التصرف الروسي الصيني بمواجهة المخطط الامريكي. في عام 2007 كان هناك اجتماعا مغلقا بين الجانب الروسي والصيني والسوري واتفق المجتمعون على اهم استراتيجية في هذا القرن وهي سحب التجارة الخارجية من اليد الامريكية. وكانت خطة البحار الخمسة …التي طرحها الرئيس السوري وتتضمن اقامة نقاط استراتيجية في العالم تقوم باستقطاب الدول الناشئة لمنع السيطرة الامريكية عليها وتقرر ان تكون مركز هذه النقاط سوريا . كان الجانب الروسي والصين على يقين بان الامريكي لن يترك الامر يمر بالسهولة وكان معروفا انه سينتقم من سوريا. كانت النقاط الاستراتيجية لخطة تجارة البحار الخمس هي “سوريا ،واوكرانيا،وروسيا البيضاء، وفنزويلا ،وجنوب افريقيا” وهذه الدول اعتبرت هي مراكز تجمع المنتجات في العالم حيث يتم تشكيل اساطيل بحرية تجارية تعمل عمل سرفيس دائم وبذلك يتم ربط التجارة العالمية بشكل استراتيجي. طرح الجانب الروسي والصيني مشروع معاهدة دفاع مشترك مع الحلف الاستراتيجي ولكن الجانب السوري طلب الابقاء على المعاهدة سرا كي لا تنشأ احلاف جديدة بقيادة امريكية وتم الالتزام بذلك والاكتفاء بإعلان المعاهدة الايرانية السورية التي دعمتها الصين وروسيا . ماذا فعلت روسيا والصين في المواجهة مع الغرب؟ بدأت روسيا بتطوير انتاجها من الغاز وأيضا تجارتها واشترت حقول الغاز في دول رابطة الدول المستقلة مما حرم الامريكي من امكانية النفوذ الى الحدود الروسية طرح الايراني على اذربيجان مشروعا مشتركا هو نقل الغاز عبر اراضي ايران ثم نقله الى سوريا عبر العراق ، كانت تلك المشاريع تشكل صدمة للأوربيين الذين عرفوا ان مصيرهم اصبح محتوما بيد الروس ،وأما الجانب الصيني فقد دعم التوجه الكوري بضرورة رفع العقوبات عن كوريا واعتراف امريكا بحدود كوريا وإلغاء حالة الحرب . كان الجانب الصيني يراقب بحذر ردود الفعل الامريكي الذي كان يحاول المستحيل كي يعيق التقدم الاقتصادي الصيني .وفعلا تبين بعد محادثات 1992 وحتى 2007 بان الامريكي هو يراوغ فقط لكسب الوقت . استغل الجانب الكوري اهتمام الصين بأمنها القومي وزاد من تطويره لقواه وفعلا استطاعت كوريا ان تفجر القنبلة النووية وحاولت امريكا التغطية على ذلك لكن الكوريين اعادوا التجربة ثانية وأيضا طوروا مقدرتهم على نقل هذه الاسلحة. سوريا وتغيير العالم: اثناء الحرب على سوريا كان الامريكي يحاول جاهدا عدم خلق نقاط توتر جديدة كي يبقى مكرسا كل جهوده لأسقاط سوريا وكان ذلك من صالح الايرانيين والكوريين ، الذين استطاعوا العمل بحرية اكبر ودون معوقات تذكر . طور الكوريون اسلحتهم وكذلك الايرانيون واما الروس فقد اعطوا السوريون كل مايحتاجون للانتصار من عتاد ومعلومات . استطاعت سوريا الصمود ثم الانتصار وبات من المستحيل تحقيق النصر على السوريين وانتقلت القيادة في سوريا من الصمود الى التصدي والهجوم على معاقل العدو من عصابات ومرتزقة . هنا جاء الايعاز الصيني للكوريين بان الوقت قد حان لحرب كسر العظم مع امريكا .اعلنت كوريا حالة الحرب مع اعلان خطة امريكا عبر “القمة العربية” بإنشاء حكومة منفى تطلب التدخل العسكري لاحقا. كان اعلان الحرب من كوريا بمثابة الضربة القاضية للامريكي وقد فهم اللعبة . الحليف البديل اسرائيل ..في الشرق الاوسط يقابله حليف نووي في شرق اسيا يهدد امريكا بكل مدنها ومصانعها. ما هو الحل الروسي الصيني وفق هذه المعطيات؟ • ترى الصين بان من حق الكوريين ان يتوحدوا عبر استفتاء تشرف عليه وكالات محايدة تشارك فيها روسيا والصين . • ترى الصين ان التوتر في المنطقة منشأه دول مارقة كقطر وإسرائيل . • تعتبر روسيا ان حل الدولتين وعودة الجولان الى سوريا وإعادة الفلسطينيين الى بلادهم كفيل بنزع التوتر. • تعتبر الصين ان دولة تايوان هي اراضي صينية يجب ان تعود الى الصين . • تعتبر روسيا ان ايران دولة اقليمية كبرى ولها نفوذها الذي لا يستطيع احد انكاره وان من حقها تخصيب اليورانيوم للصناعة السلمية. • ترى الصين ان دولا كدول الخليج تملك مخزون نفطي هائل يجب ان لا تبقى بيد افراد ويجب ان تحكم هذه الدول انظمة ديموقراطية وليس اسر حاكمة مرتبطة بامريكا. هذه بعض الطروحات وهي ان تحققت تعنى ان مرحلة امريكا العالمية الى زوال فخروج امريكا من منطقة الشرق الاوسط هو بكل بساطة وقوع هذه المنطقة وأوروبا تحت النفوذ الروسي وأيضا خروج امريكا من كوريا الجنوبية وتايوان هو سيطرة الصين على شرق وجنوب اسيا . ماذا يعني عدم القبول . ان كوريا الشمالية تهدد امريكا وهذا التهديد سيزداد يوما بعد يوم ويصبح مشابها لتهديد حزب الله لإسرائيل الذي حولها من دولة تبحث عن السيطرة الى دولة تبحث عن القبة الحديدية لتحمي سكانها. في الشرق الاوسط هزمت امريكا بكل وضوح ففي سوريا بدأت الامكانيات لإسقاط النظام مستحيلة وأموال امريكا وحلفاؤها لا يمكنها ان تسقطه وبالتالي بدأت الاموال تنفذ وبدأ الجيش العربي السوري يزداد قوة وكل يوم يمر يضعف حلفاء امريكا ويزداد الشعب والجيش السوري قوة ،وأما الحليف الروسي فهو يزداد تشددا ولم يعد يكتفي بالطلب من امريكا بالضغط على حلفائها بل قرر هو اخذ زمام المبادرة والإعلان انه سيمنع بالقوة توريد السلاح والمسلحين وسيفرض عقوبات على الدول التي تتدخل بالشأن السوري ،وهذا ما جعل الاوروبي ينسحب بسرعة ويعلن عدم موافقته على دعم الائتلاف وأيضا على توريد السلاح. ا علان الحرب الامريكية على سوريا قد يكون خيارا امريكا للتخلص من التصعيد الكوري ولكن ما خبأه حلفاء سوريا كان مخيفا ، فقد سربت بعض الصحف الامريكية ان هناك اتفاق سري سوري كوري ايراني على عدم السماح لأمريكا بالتفرد بأي من الفرقاء وإعلان الحرب على احدهم يعني الحرب على الجميع وهذا يعني ان امريكا اذا تدخلت في سوريا تكون قد اشعلت ثلاث حروب دفعة واحدة منها حرب مباشرة عليها من قبل كوريا وحرب على قواعدها وأذنابها في الخليج وإسرائيل وحرب على القوات التي ستحارب سوريا. هذه هي الخارطة العالمية الان وشيئا فشيئا يتضح الانتصار العالمي على الارهاب والظلم ورأس الحربه التي تكسرت عليها احقاد وكراهية الاستعمار هي سوريا الشامخة العزيزة .

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

BRICS Summit draws clear red lines on Syria, Iran

April 3rd, 2013

(TheBricsPost) – The BRICS just became impossible to ignore. At the close of the Fifth annual BRICS Summit in Durban, South Africa last week, there was little question that this group of five fast-growing economies was underwriting an overhaul of the global economic and political order.
The eThekwini Declaration issued at summit’s end was couched in non-confrontational language, but it was manifestly clear that western hegemony and unipolarity were being targeted at this meeting.
The BRICS hit some major western sore spots by announcing the formation of a $50 billion jointly-funded development bank to rival the IMF and World Bank. Deals were signed to increase inter-BRICS trade in their own currencies, further eroding the US dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency.

A series of unmistakable challenges were dealt to old world leaders: reform your institutions and economies – or we’ll do it ourselves.

Intent on filling a leadership void in global economic and financial affairs, the BRICS also began to draw some firm political lines in the sand.

For starters, the summit was focused on development in Africa – a resource-rich continent where competing economic interests have drawn increasingly polarized geopolitical battle lines in the past few years. The BRICS were invited to the African table via their newest member state, South Africa, and have used this opportunity to fully back the African Union (AU).

The AU has been Africa’s attempt to integrate and unify the continent economically – via the establishment of a single currency and development fund that could bypass the very punishing IMF – and militarily – via the establishment of security/defense organizations and joint military forces, among other things.

AU success would necessarily mean less old-style western imperialism in the region, reducing exploitative foreign economic activities and excluding foreign forces like the US military’s African Command (AFRICOM) from engaging in the African military theater.

At the heart of the Summit’s agenda lies the BRICS’ determination to anchor any emerging global order in “multilateralism” – whether by demanding permanent seats within the UN Security Council, forging alternative economic constructs that will shift the balance of power their way, or proactively influencing outcomes in global conflict zones.

Syria and Iran

The Durban summit therefore was not going to ignore the two most prominent issues on UN Security Council’s docket – Syria and Iran.

Last week, the BRICS collectively rejected any further militarization of these problems, advocated political solutions negotiated through diplomatic initiatives, expressed concern over unilateral sanctions and warned against infringement on the “territorial integrity and sovereignty” of these nations.

The eThekwini Declaration says about Iran:
“We believe there is no alternative to a negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. We recognize Iran’s right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy consistent with its international obligations, and support resolution of the issues involved through political and diplomatic means and dialogue.”
And on Syria, the BRICS fully backed the Geneva principles as the framework for resolving the two-year conflict:

“We believe that the Joint Communiqué of the Geneva Action Group provides a basis for resolution of the Syrian crisis and reaffirm our opposition to any further militarization of the conflict. A Syrian-led political process leading to a transition can be achieved only through broad national dialogue that meets the legitimate aspirations of all sections of Syrian society and respect for Syrian independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty as expressed by the Geneva Joint Communiqué and appropriate UNSC resolutions.”

The BRICS positions on Iran and Syria cannot, however, be viewed solely within the parameters of the summit’s declaration. For starters, the statement is nothing new – the BRICS have been advocating these points in some form or another since they issued their first foreign policy communiqué in November 2011.

To understand the depth and breadth of commitment behind these Mideast stances, one needs to look beyond the sanitized, diplomat-speak of the summit environment. India, Brazil and South Africa, for instance, don’t offer up much commentary on Syria and Iran – they leave that to their UNSC permanent-member colleagues in Russia and China, who are the BRICS’ front-men on these issues.
Earlier in March, Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Moscow on his first foreign trip as head of state, and told audiences there: “We must respect the right of each country in the world to independently choose its path of development and oppose interference in the internal affairs of other countries.”
A clear warning against aggressive western interventionism, Xi’s visit with Russia’s Vladimir Putin emphasized the importance of their “strategic partnership” in geopolitical affairs.

On Syria, in particular, Russia has taken the BRICS lead with the blessing of its fellow members – including China – so Moscow’s view of the situation is a critical one to analyze.

The Russians have recently released a concept paper on the importance of their participation in the BRICS – a view that is likely to reflect similar priorities at the highest levels of fellow member states.

BRICS drawing red lines

Putin and Xi say the one way to end the Syrian crisis is through dialogue [Xinhua]

For all the BRICS, financial and economic considerations are the driving momentum behind the formalization of this strategic coalition. There is, say the Russians, “a common desire of BRICS partners to reform the obsolete international financial and economic architecture which does not take into account the increased economic power of emerging market economies and developing countries.”

But for fundamental economic shifts to take place, a simultaneous rebalancing of political power worldwide must also occur.

Moscow believes that the BRICS “can potentially become a key element of a new system of global governance primarily in the financial and economic areas. At the same time, the Russian Federation stands in favor of positioning BRICS in the world system as a new model of global relations, overarching the old dividing lines between East and West, and North and South.”

It’s a bold new world, but there’s real value in some of the old ways. For one, the BRICS are big proponents of the Rule of Law in global affairs, concepts the West often tosses around, but rarely adheres to in pursuit of its own strategic interests, i.e. interventionism, regime-change, militarization of conflict.

For the Russians, an absolute BRICS priority is “building on the commitment by the participating states to the rule of law in international relations, to progressively expand the foreign policy cooperation with BRICS partners in the interests of peace and security with due respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of other states and non-interference in their internal affairs.”
The BRICS are backing the UN model to help achieve these basic principles. For them, the vehicle is not what is broken – the problem lies with its drivers. And in particular, the notion that regime change, sanctions and military intervention are acceptable tools in international affairs.

The BRICS, according to Moscow, can “enhance in every possible way interaction within the UN as well as to preserve and strengthen the UN Security Council’s role as a body bearing the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security; to prevent the use of the UN, first of all the Security Council, to cover up the course towards removing undesirable regimes and imposing unilateral solutions to conflict situations, including those based on the use of force.”

As an aside, it’s hardly a coincidence that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad sent a widely-reported letter to the BRICS during the Summit. Here, after all, was the head of state of a sovereign nation requesting the help of the newly-ascendant BRICS in protecting the territorial integrity of Syria by rebuffing ”blatant foreign interference” in contradiction of the ”UN Charter.”

That letter hit all the BRICS soft spots: Rule of Law in international relations, preservation of global peace and security, peaceful resolution of conflict, de-militarization … and recognition of the importance of the BRICS in the new world order.

Assad’s letter came one day after the Arab League gave Syria’s seat away to an external-based opposition coalition backed by Syrian foes – a move the Russians called “unlawful and invalid” and a hindrance to the peaceful resolution of the conflict.

It may be that BRICS intended to set an example here. Receiving this letter at the summit clearly bestows legitimacy on Assad and his claims – and it is hard to imagine that this was not an event coordinated in advance.

Moscow’s positions on the Syria issue cannot be seen out of the context of these shared BRICS principles. The Russians may have more at stake in what is going on in Syria – as others do in Iran – but these are consistent red lines in what the BRICS hope to achieve globally.

And they are willing to bet on it too. Part of the wager is that faltering western economies are so far gone on their current trajectories, that only “time” is required for these global shifts to materialize.
In any regard, shortly after the Summit concluded Russia vowed to prevent any measure in the UN Security Council to give Syria’s seat to the opposition.

The potential for chaos looms large though as a new political order emerges, and as a collective the BRICS will not be shy about pushing their agendas hard – a task made easier by the considerable clout they now share.

On his flight back from Durban to Moscow last Thursday, Putin ordered surprise large-scale military maneuvers in the Black Sea, which borders Syrian-foe Turkey – a move most observers took as a warning for foreign interventionists in Syria.

It is unlikely that BRICS nations would go to such lengths to draw red lines and not defend those positions. How this would transpire in the cases of Syria or Iran is uncertain – it is unlikely we are going to see a BRICS army fighting battles anytime soon. On the other hand, these strategic relationships are likely to give way to coordinated military positions and some special forces planning for exactly these kinds of scenarios.

This is not hard to fathom. BRIC was just an acronym created by Goldman Sachs to describe some fast-growing emerging economies a few years ago. Today, they are engaged in bilateral military exercises, funding banks, building institutions, and remapping global priorities for the 21st century.

Source: The Brics Post

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

‘America’s looming hangover in the Middle East’

 

“… Obama’s support for Syrian oppositionists reflects the same sort of hubristic thinking. His administration started backing opposition elements in 2011, not to help Syrians but to weaken Iran’s regional position and perhaps even spark the Islamic Republic’s overthrow. This proved unrealistic, for Assad’s government even today represents sizable constituencies. As time passed and Assad didn’t fall, concern that jihadi extremists gaining ever greater prominence in opposition ranks would target U.S. interests (as happened in Libya) prompted the administration to temper its stance in advance of the 2012 U.S. presidential election. Now it is returning to the imperial game, disregarding risks to both U.S. security interests and regional stability. That’s why, in contrast to his charade on the Palestinian issue, Obama put real effort during his Middle East trip into brokering a renewal of Israeli-Turkish relations — for, in Washington’s view, Israeli-Turkish cooperation could facilitate a renewed push for Assad’s removal. 

Just three days after Obama’s Jerusalem speech, Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters in Baghdad, with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki beside him, that Kerry’s predecessor, Hillary Clinton, assured him Maliki “is going to do whatever I say.” (Maliki immediately replied, “We won’t do it.”) Though played it off as a “joke,” Kerry’s talking points for what he later described as “spirited” private talks with Maliki reflected a conviction that Washington can in fact leverage Baghdad’s compliance with U.S. demands on Syria. Kerry told Maliki that barring Syria-bound Iranian aircraft from Iraqi airspace is a condition for Iraq’s inclusion in discussions of Syria’s post-Assad future. Kerry also warned that failing to cooperate in ending the Syrian conflict on Washington’s preferred lines — through Assad’s removal — raises the danger that fighting will “spillover” and destabilize Iraq.This ignores that Maliki’s interests are profoundly threatened by Assad’s prospective displacement by U.S./Saudi/Turkish-backed opposition forces. (That’s why Maliki said that, while wanting good relations with Saudi Arabia, he will conclude a formal alliance with Iran if Assad falls.)  

The most likely result of rebel “success” is not the Assad government’s replacement by a coherent, nationwide alternative. It’s Syria’s devolution into warring fiefdoms, with forces loyal to what’s left of the government battling increasingly fractious opposition militias that fight each other as much as they fight the Assad camp. Under these circumstances, Washington has no plausible claim it can stop extremist jihadis now fighting in Syria from taking their campaign for a new salafi ascendancy into Iraq. Maliki has a clear interest in seeing the Syrian conflict stop. But the only credible way this can happen is if America and others backing Syrian rebels get behind a new political compact for Syria, based on power-sharing between government and opposition. Until then, Iraq’s interests — like those of Iran, Russia, and China — lie in thwarting efforts by Washington and its partners to remake the regional balance by targeting the Assad government. That’s a recipe for prolonged carnage, in Syria and perhaps elsewhere, that smarter — and less imperial — U.S. policy could avert.”

Posted by G, M, Z, or B at 1:07 PM

 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

It’s the oil, stupid

Syria’s oil wealth: The  Global and Regional Conflict on Oil and Gas  

 

 



Discovery of 14 oil basins in Syrian territorial waters, .. Information revealed by Dr. Imad Fawzi Shuaibi

اكتشاف 14 حوضاً نفطياً في المياه الإقليمية السورية، .. معلومات يكشفها الدكتور عماد فوزي الشعيبي

دام برس – اياد الجاجة : يكشف الدكتور عماد فوزي الشعيبي رئيس مركز الدراسات والمعطيات الإستراتيجية في دمشق عن اكتشاف 14 حوضاً نفطياً في المياه الإقليمية السورية، في ظل تعتيم على نتائج المسح الذي أجرته شركة نرويجية. وضمن حلقة من برنامج “حوار الساعة” على قناة “الميادين” قال الشعيبي “إن مسحاً تأشيرياً لمنطقة الساحل السوري لما يقارب 5000 كيلو متر مربع قامت به شركة نرويجية تدعى “انسيس” توصل إلى اكتشاف 14 حقلاً نفطياً”. الشعيبي كشف أن من بين الحقول الـ 14 “هناك أربعة حقول من المنطقة الممتدة من الحدود اللبنانية إلى منطقة بانياس تضم إنتاجاً نفطياً يعادل إنتاج دولة الكويت من النفط، ومجموعه يتخطى ما هو موجود في لبنان وقبرص وإسرائيل مجتمعين”. واعتبر الشعيبي أن هذا المخزون النفطي هو “نقمة”، متابعاً “السؤال هو هل من المسموح أن تمتلك دولة واحدة كل هذا؟”. كلام الشعيبي يطرح تساؤلات حول دور المخزون النفطي والغازي الموجود في سورية والغير مستثمر في الأزمة التي تشهدها البلاد، حيث تم اكتشاف آبار غاز في منطقة ريفي حمص ودمشق باحتياطيات كبيرة، بالإضافة إلى ما يحكى عن حرب انابيب الغاز وموقع سورية الاستراتيجي لمد هذه الخطوط. سورية تتهم المجموعات المسلحة المعارضة بمهاجمة آبار النفط وسرقتها في سياق ميداني، أضرمت مجموعات مسلحة النار في ثلاثة آبار نفطية في منطقة دير الزور، حيث أعلن مصدر مسؤول في وزارة النفط السورية أن “ذلك يتسبب بخسارة يومية، تقدر بأكثر من أربعة آلاف برميل من النفط و52 ألف متر مكعب من الغاز” موضحاً أن “هذا التعدي يأتي بهدف سرقة النفط وبيعه”. أما الإحراق بحسب المصادر السورية الرسمية فكان نتيجة فتح المسلحين بعض الآبار عشوائياً، ما أدى إلى نشوب خلاف بينهم على تقاسم النفط المسروق منها فقاموا بإشعال النيران فيها. أضرار الإعتداء بحسب المصدر الرسمي يتعدى الخسائر الاقتصادية، فالبلد الذي يعيش أزمة دموية تجاوز عمرها العامين، قد يكون أمام آثار بيئية سلبية على الرغم من مسارعة شركة الفرات للنفط على معالجة الأمر، حيث قالت إنها نجحت منذ بداية الأزمة في إطفاء ستة من أصل تسعة آبار تم إحراقها. المصدر : الميادين full vedio

 

 

ألغاز اللّغز الذي لم يعد لُغزًا …د. حياة الحويك عطية

.related { background-color:#F5F5F5; padding-top: 10px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 5px; } .related ul { margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-right: 10px; padding-right: 10px; } .related li { list-style-image: url(images/themes/default/bullet.jpg); color:#000000; } .related a { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } .related a:hover { color:#666666; }

لم يعد الغاز،كونه، جوهر الصراع القائم في سورية موضع نقاش، وذلك ضمن السياق الدولي الذي أعادنا منذ التسعينيات الى مقولة كيسنجر: انه النفط يا غبي،

مستبدلة النفط بالغاز. غير أن ما تتوقعه الأوساط الأوروبية حاليا من أزمة بدأت مراحلها الأولى بين تركيا واليونان حول مخزون الغاز المرشح للتأزيم في بحر ايجه و المتوسط، بعد الأزمة الأخرى بين تركيا وقبرص حول المشكلة نفسها.

سياقات تطرح سؤالا يصوغه المنطق الاستراتيجي الذي يحلو لهواة التضليل أن يسموه نظرية المؤامرة: هل كان من باب الحظ أن يقع الانهيار الاقتصادي في اليونان والآن في قبرص؟ وهل تكون الشركات المتعددة الجنسيات التي لن يتم استخراج الغاز خارج سيادتها ببعيدة أو بعاجزة عن تفعيل هذه الأزمات؟

 

وبالانتقال الى سورية، وهي ما يهمنا بالدرجة الأولى، فان الأمر يعيدني الى عبارة سمعتها من أحد المعارضين السوريين الوطنيين في باريس قبل عامين: لا تخافوا لن يدمروا سورية، لأن هدف التدمير هو مناقصات اعادة البناء ونحن لسنا ليبيا – الغاز، ولا عراق – النفط، كي يطمعوا بثرواتنا عبر الهيمنة واعادة البناء.

وها نحن اليوم نسمع عن مؤتمرات اعادة الاعمار الأول منها عقد في الامارات والثاني يهيأ له حاليا، لاعداد توزيع الكعكة قبل نضجها بفترة لا تزال طويلة. الشركات تفرك أكفها وتتهيأ كلها لاعادة الاعمار، إما مقابل الثروات الموجودة، وإما مقابل ديون تسدد لاحقا من دخل الغاز المقبل.

منذ البداية كان تمرير خط الغاز القطري عبر سورية الى المتوسط الى أوروبا لتحرير القارة العجوز من التبعية للغاز الروسي، هو المطلب الرئيسي لعدم تفجير بركان الدمار المسمى ربيعا.

ففي آخر زيارة قام بها الرئيس السوري الى فرنسا، استقبل ظاهريا بحفاوة كبيرة، وأعطي فرصة الحديث لمدة ساعة ونصف الساعة على شاشة التلفزيون الفرنسي، واستقبلت زوجته في لقاء ثقافي حول حوار الحضارات والثقافات نادرا ما يخصص لزوجة ضيف. غير أن اللقاء الأهم الذي كان قد رتبه ساركوزي من الباب الخلفي لقصر الاليزيه- كي يظل سريا عن الاعلام – هو لقاء يجمع الرئيسين وحمد بن جاسم لطرح مطلب تمرير انبوب الغاز القطري، وعندما رفض الأسد ذلك خرج الجميع متجهمين وقال الذين سربوا الخبر من الاليزيه بأن الحبل قد انقطع، وأن على سورية أن تتوقع بداية تفجير قريب.

وعندما كان جون كيري يتحدث مؤخرا عن محاولته اقناع الرئيس الاسد بتغيير مواقفه، لتليين الوضع والاقتراب من الحل، كان ذلك الاعلان يتعلق بعدة شروط منها تمرير أنبوب الغاز القطري. ” اضافة الى تمرير انبوب الماء التركي الى اسرائيل وتقليص الجيش وفك الارتباط بمحور المقاومة – ايران – روسيا”.

لم يقتنع الاسد وعاد الخطاب الى التشدد. وواقع هذه المطالب لا تعني فقط الآني المتعلق باسرائيل، قطر، اوروبا وتركيا، بل تعني أيضا الاحتمال المقبل مع وصول سورية الى مرحلة استخراج الغاز المخزون عند شواطئها. فهل كان من الممكن لتركيا واسرائيل وأوروبا أن تتحمل نهضة اقتصادية في سورية التي كانت تملك أكبر جيش عربي متبق ولا تزال عقيدته العسكرية العداء لاسرائيل، وتملك نهضة اقتصادية تنموية قائمة على الانتاج لا على الريعية وعلى الاستهلاك ، ولا تخضع بالمقابل لاية ديون فيما يشكل حالة عربية وربما عالمثالثية فريدة ؟

بالتوازي ، بل بالتقاطع، هل يمكن للشركات المتعددة الجنسيات التي يصفها هيربرت تشيلر بانها مروية بصلصة أميركية أن تترك الثروة الغازية المقبلة خارج هيمنتها؟ والأسوأ أن تذهب الى محور غازٍ لبناني – ايراني – روسي، لا يعيد التوازن السياسي الى الساحة الدولية فحسب، بل يعيد ايضا التوازن الاقتصادي وذاك هو الأخطر.

وأخيرا ، لا آخرا ماذا سيكون وضع اسرائيل وحلفائها العرب في هذه المعادلة كلها؟

تلك خلفيات معركة سورية . معركة الحرب العالمية الثالثة. التي لا نقول أبدا أن الادارة السورية لم تخطئ عندما لم تعالج مسبقا نزع فتيلها داخليا، او على الاقل تجفيف كم النفط الذي كان يغرق قشها اليابس، ورص الصف اكثر لمواجهتها .
سورية الان – العرب اليوم 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Al-Nosra Urges Chinese for Jihad against Assad, Threatens Beijing

Local Editor

The militant rebels operating in Syria posted a video online that showed a mysterious scene of a man looking as a jihadist Chinese. In the footage, the gunman fired three shots in the air before stating that he “read books of the Muslim Brothers after which he decided to go to Libya and Syria to topple Assad.” ‘Youssef’ spoke Mandarin and the video subtitles recalled his Chinese name which helped determining his origin; he might be from the very conservative tribe of Hun He called on China to stop supporting Assad otherwise it will incur the wrath of Muslims. Al-Nosra Front terrorists said the video was” a message dedicated for one-billion people of China,” the state which effectively rejected any military intervention in Syria and urged dialogue incessantly. In remarks he made in this regard, Bruce Hoffmain, a terrorism expert at the University of Georgetown, said he was surprised by a man of this tribe converting to Islam. The video (www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmJGAg8pekQ) hasn’t been verified but it seems staging the landscapes of northern Syria. The Chinese was shown under Al-Qaeda banner.

Source: Websites 01-04-2013 – 19:56 Last updated 01-04-2013 – 19:56

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!