Allegations against Blue Helmets in the CAR are on the Rise!

 Vladimir Platov

During the 76th session of the UN General Assembly, the Central African Republic once again questioned the ineffectiveness of the Blue Helmets in the country, repeated accusations of staff members of the multidisciplinary, international mission in the CAR (MINUSCA) of pandering to radicals and other crimes against the indigenous population of the state.

UN peacekeepers, over the years of their presence in the CAR, have finally lost the trust of locals. Earlier, their destabilizing activities were condemned by Afrique Media’s analysts. The Peacekeepers refused to participate in battles with radicals, explaining that they were only protecting civilians. In fact, under the guise of a supposed peacekeeping mission, the militants are supplied with weapons so that they can seize territories with valuable resources and steal them for their overseas masters. Among the crimes committed by the Blue Helmets are numerous murders and rapes, including children. Numerous documented instances of UN mission representatives failing to intervene when armed groups have terrorized civilians, even though this has been their primary objective.

Thus, as early as the end of April, reports started coming in from the town of Mbrès in the Nana-Grébizi Prefecture in northern CAR that the MINUSCA military contingent was not preventing radicals engaged in outright robbery, murder, and rape of young girls. The Central Africans have even asked for a government army unit to be deployed in the locality to replace ineffective and dangerous peacekeepers.

Let’s recall that the UN MINUSCA mission contingent has been in the CAR territory for almost ten years. During this time, the Blue Helmets have managed to gain a reputation as criminals who are not interested in ensuring the safety of civilians. However, that is precisely why the UN sent them. Among the “achievements” of the peacekeepers, fatal accidents, cooperation with militants, and regular attempts at bribery stand out. MINUSCA management does not investigate allegations of misconduct by wards, and UN officials’ supervision and oversight in this regard is hugely ineffective. Moreover, when the public speaks about the crimes committed by MINUSCA employees, the organization’s management refuses to accept statements or tries to bribe victims by keeping silent about the numerous crimes. “First, it was the troops from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, then the French, and now the Gabonese. Why are Africans treated this way? No one deserves it,” Ndjoni Sango journalists wrote.

The criminal activities of the Blue Helmets in CAR is confirmed on social media with a video showing the MINUSCA contingent using an airlift to transport fighters from the Union for Peace in the CAR (UPC) and their ringleader, Ali Darassa, personally. The video was found in the mobile phone of one of the previously arrested members of the gang. In this regard, media officials described the video as factual evidence of MINUSCA’s interaction with the extremist group UPC and its ringleader Ali Darassa. Central African civil society organization La Synergie also criticized the UN multidimensional mission for collaborating with militants. As evidence, the civic activists cited a video, which captures a conversation between the leader of the UPC gang, Ali Darassa, and the peacekeepers.

According to eyewitnesses, MINUSCA militants pay with illegally obtained precious metals and stones stolen from the people for such assistance. The civil society organization Central African Synergy sent an open letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres asking him to investigate the use of MINUSCA aircraft to ferry fighters, seek an explanation, and hold those responsible to account.

MINUSCA members are accused of supplying arms to militants from the Coalition of Patriots for Change (CPC) conglomerate of groups. In April 2021, a video surfaced on Facebook showing the UN Mauritanian leadership negotiating with CPC leaders at Ngakobo Airfield. According to local media reports, having failed in their takeover of Bangui, the radicals have chosen a strategy of terror: the use of anti-personnel mines, attacks on civilians, and looting. For example, CPC fighters recently attacked a humanitarian convoy carrying food and medical supplies to residents of Alindao, in eastern CAR, affected by the humanitarian crisis. More than 30 civilians were killed in the attack, and radicals looted the vans, after which they burned all the cars. According to local authorities, MINUSCA employees, who are supposed to secure the route and accompany the convoy of vehicles with humanitarian aid, are responsible for the incident. A truck driver who survived the tragedy said the Blue Helmets refused to accompany the humanitarian convoy at the last moment. Local citizens believe that the peacekeepers did this deliberately, and it was they who informed the militants about the route of the humanitarian convoy so they could prepare an ambush. Central Africans demand that members of the multidisciplinary mission be held accountable for the incident and wonder why the UN contingent remains present in the republic.

The United Nations is also accused of sending untested people to MINUSCA to kill and rape the people of the CAR, causing the people of that African country to suffer as a result. Thus, it has been revealed that the war criminal General Ali Zaye Moubarak Al-Khair has become commander of the task force of the UN multidimensional mission (MINUSCA) in the capital of the Central African Republic. He is accused of carrying out more than 500 executions of Mauritanian soldiers and of taking part in the elaborate torture of prisoners. The criminal was saved by the Amnesty Act passed by the Mauritanian government in 1993. Some of the survivors fled to Senegal, France, and the United States, but even after more than 30 years, they have indicated a willingness to testify to get justice. Demba Nianga, chairman of the Mauritanian survivor’s focal points, has sent an open letter to the UN outlining all the wrongdoings of the officer, citing evidence of the extrajudicial executions of the 1990s on his conscience.

In response to the atrocities committed by the Blue Helmets, there have been mass rallies across the country. The CAR public is demanding that UN peacekeepers leave the republic because it sees them solely as a threat, while the UN Security Council is calling for peacekeeping sector reforms, a change in approach to multidimensional operations, and the updating of outdated tools. According to the public opinion of the CAR, the Blue Helmets have become a useless formation provoking conflicts on the territory of the republic. In this regard, the citizens of the CAR state that they do not need the presence of UN peacekeepers.

Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

ISIS Attacks and Risks of Sectarian War in Iraq

Alwaght- After a several-month pause to its attacks in Iraq, ISIS once again made news headlines in the Arab country. Tuesday night, the terrorist group in an ambush attacked people from Al-Hawashah village near the town of Muqdadya in Diyala province, killing 13 and injuring more. A few others later another attack was launched in Al-Imam town in northern Baqubah, another town in Diyala, leaving 7 dead. The series of attacks pushed Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi to send a security delegation including National Security Adviser Qasem al-Araji, army chief, the chief of the Joint Operations Command, and Fatah Coalition’s head Hadi al-Amiri to assess the situation. He vowed to take revenge and “chase the terrorists inside and outside Iraq.”

Conspiracy for sectarian war

The recent attacks evoke the memory of the attacks that Al-Qaeda and ISIS forerunners carried out in 2003 and following fall of Saddam Hussein. The attacks were seen as intending to spark sectarian war in Diyala and other parts of Iraq.

At the height of the home Iraqi war 15 years ago, such attacks mainly triggered retaliatory responses and sectarian and tribal clashes in some parts of the country.

A security source said that the victims of the terrorist attack were civilians from the Shiite tribe of Bani Tamim, adding that the attack took place at dawn on Wednesday in a village on the outskirts of Muqdadya. The source told local media that ISIS had already abducted three civilians from the Al-Rashad area and demanded ransom for their release. Then, while the families of the abductees were trying to free their children in exchange for ransom, ISIS elements opened fire. This frightened the people who rushed to the scene and were ambushed by the heavy gunfire. The outcome was 30 dead and injured.

According to information obtained by Al-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper from a political source, many citizens were killed by gunfire, but nine of the victims were "stabbed to death" by terrorist elements. "Compared to all the previous operations that this terrorist organization carried out in the regions of this province, this operation was the most violent, the most brutal," the newspaper cited the source as saying.

Moeen al-Jubouri, a security expert, told Al-Hurra website "ISIS is taking advantage of the population diversity in these areas to launch its operations," noting that "the area where the incident took place is very sensitive, because the villages are mostly Shiite and Sunni.” On the other hand, the governor of Diyala said that the area where the attack took place is "mixed, sensitive, and has old problems," adding:" If the area moves back to the past, [precluding the crisis] will be difficult."

Some sources, meanwhile, said that there was risk of Shiite tribes’ revenge against Sunni tribes in northeastern Baqubah.

In order to thwart the mean ISIS plots, the crisis must be contained so that it does not turn into retaliatory measures and does not take on a sectarian aspect. A sectarian war is what ISIS is investing on. But reports suggest that there are efforts by leaders of Bani Tamin sect to foil the plot.

PMF and Iraq’s security needs  

After rise of ISIS in 2014, the most important force involved in anti-terror battle has been Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), influentially paving the way for fall of the self-proclaimed ISIS caliphate and helping the country liberate Mosul and other parts from the grasp of terrorist militants. After ISIS was obliterated in 2017, the voluntary force remained at the top of a front watching movements of ISIS remnants and sleeper cells.

The areas where the recent attacks took place were not attended by PMF, also called Hashed al-Sha’abi, and their security was in the hands of the army, police, and counter-terrorism forces. Some security gaps have been reported in advance.

"Security forces are always far from the villages and remote areas," Dr. Moataz Mohiuddin, a security and strategic expert and head of a think tank, told Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, adding: “This is what ISIS takes advantage of for its terrorist operations.”

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, citing him, reported that there is another problem which is that the security services limit their work to collecting intelligence about militants from neighboring areas like Mokhawal and Hamrin mountains, plus the “triangle of danger” that covers south of Hawija in Kirkuk to Thareth in Salaheddin, and Al-Anbar. Additionally, the security forces usually camp for a short time in these areas and then move back to their bases.

In addition to security challenges, tribal links prevent terrorist information leaks to the security forces because ISIS recruits from the children of the trial leaders.

With PMF role in thwarting the re-emergence of ISIS in Iraq and Syria obvious to all, its deployment can both help quell terrorist moves and prevent a sectarian war. Immediately after the attacks, PMF in a statement declared readiness to fill the security vacuum in the targeted regions and elsewhere. 

Descent Into Madness: Germany Threatens Russia With Nuclear War

 Christopher Black

On October 21 the German Defence Minister warned Russia that NATO will use nuclear weapons against it in case of a Russian attack on its members and then referred to non-existent Russian attacks in the Black Sea and Balkans as examples. This statement reveals the complete moral bankruptcy of the NATO nations, their contempt for international law, for their own citizens, their innate fascist foundation.

Russia threatens no nation in the region or anywhere. It is instead responding to what I have several times in other articles termed Operation Barbarossa II; the continuing and determined NATO preparations for war on Russia which began with the NATO moves into former Soviet nations, despite promises from the US that they would not do so, duping the USSR into withdrawing its forces from Eastern Europe and especially Germany.

That build-up of forces has been on going for several years now, including the US moving its bases forward right up to the Russian borders from Kaliningrad to Odessa. The attack on Yugoslavia was part of this operation, the failed attack by Georgia and the US in 2006, in Ossetia the NATO coup in Ukraine in 2014 and subsequent siege of the peoples of the Donbass who refused to recognise the fascist, NATO agents that took power by violence and massacre.

They have installed logistics bases, arranged all necessary routes from the US to Europe to allow for the rapid transportation of men and weapons, installed forward bases, unit headquarters, continually run military exercises practicing the invasion of Russia, harass the country with aerial reconnaissance, naval reconnaissance, and support 5th columnists to weaken Russia internally and provide propaganda for the NATO citizens to support war.

The German threat is not just reckless. It is criminal for it means they are preparing for a nuclear first strike since Russia has no intentions of attacking anyone unless attacked and so it has to mean that NATO will invent another pretext for an attack, a false flag incident anywhere from the Black Sea to the Baltic, that they will claim is a Russian attack on them. It’s the same old trick that Hitler used to start WWII. The same trick that the US used with the Gulf of Tonkin incident to justify to their own people their attack on Vietnam, the same as 9/11, used as a pretext to attack Afghanistan and Iraq.

It is a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty since that requires all nations to seek nuclear disarmament whereas Germany permits the presence of dozens of nuclear weapons in its territory under the so-called “nuclear-sharing” policy of the US so that US nuclear weapons can be used by Germany for example, with US permission. But this means that Germany is then a nuclear weapons power. In any case, to threaten to use nuclear weapons, as they have done, when the USA has adopted a first strike nuclear policy as part of its overall war strategy, which is a fundamental violation of the principles of the UN Charter, and arguably a criminal action, is part of a conspiracy and preparation to wage nuclear war on the world.

One has to wonder what kind of human being the defence minister, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, is, to make that threat; whether she has any conception at all of what a nuclear attack on Russia would do to Germany, let alone the world, for the response from Russia would be the immediate destruction of her country. Is WWII so far behind us that Germans now think they can get away with threatening Russia again? Are they that deluded? It seems so and that is why they are so dangerous and why the Russian Government handed the German ambassador a note on the 25th of October. Tass reported,

“The German military attaché in Moscow was summoned to Russia’s Defense Ministry where he was handed a note and told that statements by German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer on nuclear deterrence of Russia provoked tension in Europe, the Russian Defence Ministry reported on Monday.”

“Provoked tension in Europe” is a mild way to put it when Russia now has to consider whether the NATO attack will come today, tomorrow or next year and so keep themselves on the knife’s edge of expectation and fear, watching the NATO moves with grim determination.

And the provocations to set up a pretext are constant. Last week the Kiev regime in Ukraine threatened Moscow with missile attacks, and are now stirring up more trouble in the Donbass, tightening their long siege of the peoples resisting the fascists in Kiev and their NATO allies, while the NATO forces are pressing home their probes of Russian defences and once again building their propaganda campaign against Russia.

Even the recent NATO action of kicking out of their HQ the Russian liaison officers on a pretext has to be seen as an indication something is happening, that NATO could not risk those officers being around as war plans are made. What else can it mean? Russia responded in kind and ordered NATO officers to leave Russia.

As Hans-Rudiger Minow, of German Foreign Policy, reports in a post,

“The German Bundeswehr (army) has commissioned the “fabrication and delivery” of high-resolution maps of Russia – vector maps in military format, according to a report. Germany is part of a cooperation network, wherein 32 countries – grouped around a NATO core – “share photos and maps with one another.” This procurement of militarily applicable maps comes at a time when tensions between the West and Russia continue to escalate. Most recently, the EU threatened new sanctions. According to the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), new investments must be made, not only “in the defense capacities within the NATO and the EU frameworks.” “Change in Russia” must also be promoted through intensive contacts within the Russian society. At the same time, the US company, Google, and its video platform YouTube has deleted RT DE – the German language edition of the Russian international broadcaster “Russia Today.” This move is akin to measures the DGAP had proposed to accompany a more aggressive German foreign policy.”

And while Germany, on behalf of NATO threatens the destruction of the world, the US threatens the same as well vis a vis China with President Biden, stating the US will “defend Taiwan” if the central government in China decides to establish its governance over the island once and for all. Biden’s statement breaks a long standing US policy of recognising Taiwan as part of China, and is a provocation that he knows China cannot ignore. And if the US inserts itself into an internal dispute in China, it is an attack on China’s integrity as a nation and if war breaks out it could lead to nuclear war as well.

Both Russia and China have reacted to this threat and last week sailed their combined naval flotillas around Japan which surprised the Japanese and the Americans, but the message was clear. Russia and China, to coin an American slogan from their history, are telling the US, “Don’t tread on me.” Or else.

Yet, while all these developments are occurring the UN appears helpless to stop it, the International Criminal Court prosecutor says absolutely nothing about these criminal threats being made, national governments of NATO, all co-conspirators in this plan to commit aggression, are happy to go along and join the attack, and their media are just part of the war propaganda machine, which just praised American General Colin Powell, one of the US war criminals, as a “complex man” who “may have made mistakes.” One even saw such statements from Americans who claim to be “left” and “anti-war.” No doubt, if they were Germans, they would say the same about the generals of Hitler’s Wehrmacht and WaffenSS Divisions and Armies. But at Nuremberg and Tokyo such generals were hanged.

So, what has “democratic society” produced in the past hundred years except war, war and more war? All the tears about the horrors and losses of WWI, WWII, and all the US wars since 1945 mean nothing. Morality means nothing to these people, the law means nothing, people are nothing. They don’t even care about themselves being incinerated in flash of light and thunder. We are faced with the fact we are ruled in the west by psychopaths drunk on illusions of omnipotence and immortality. And so what will stop them?

They have the masses under their thumb. Just try speaking out on social media now and see what happenes to you. Only counter-threats from their planned victims seem to have any effect at all, and that is not working either as the descent into madness accelearates and we move closer and closer to the edge of oblivion.

Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

UK Covers Up War Crimes for Political Reasons

 Vladimir Platov

It is common knowledge that the British armed forces have been heavily involved in the conflicts of the last decades incited by the United States as they used their troops on a large scale in Iraq and Afghanistan, to name a few. Due to the US and UK military actions in those countries a lot of civilians died and their families and representatives vehemently demand justice for those guilty of war crimes.

Through Resolution 2391 (XXIII) dated November 26, 1968, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. The rules aimed at protecting the victims of armed conflict, and placing restrictions on the methods and means of warfare, are spelled out in detail in international humanitarian law, which also defines the mechanisms for ensuring compliance with these rules.

However, the US and the UK have recently, and inexcusably, started to think of themselves as outside the scope of these international legal documents that they adopted themselves, and allow them to be ostensibly violated. Moreover, as evidenced by numerous testimony, including those published in Western media outlets, there is the increasing desire to cover up the war crimes that have been committed in recent decades in the Middle East and Afghanistan by US military service personnel, and some of its allies. Besides the efforts to shirk responsibility for the crimes committed through the use of such tactics, it has become increasingly evident that the US and UK military agencies have not properly monitored operations conducted by their combat units.

Thus, not only Arab, but also British media outlets have on multiple occasions reported the evidence that high-ranking British officials with the Ministry of Defense had been covering up the war crimes committed by UK military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan for years. These outlets have reported on multiple occasions, in particular, about the war crimes involving personnel from elite British special forces, such as the SAS and Black Watch. On top of that, journalistic investigations found hard evidence of the falsification of documents; in these, premeditated killings and torture in Afghanistan and Iraq were dressed up as “Special Ops against terrorists” while inquiry into the committed crimes was stonewalled due to explicit political pressure. In this vein, on instructions of then UK Defense Secretary Michael Fallon all proceeding regarding these matters were dismissed even before they got to court. The investigation by the BBC and the Times reporters has clearly shown that evidence collection and production was prevented due to political reasons.

For example, The Sunday Times has provided evidence regarding the involvement of one British Special Air Service soldier in the killings, as well as the evidence of crimes committed by members of the Black Watch battalion, which is part of the Royal Regiment of Scotland, including beatings, torture, and sexual abuse. These actions alone are enough to be scrutinized in the International Criminal Court.

It is worth pointing out that in order to investigate the complaints lodged by Iraqis about the British military’s actions, an IHAT (Iraq Historic Allegations Team) investigative group was specifically established to examine hundreds of claims made by victims’ relatives. However, in January 2016, swayed by then British Prime Minister David Cameron, the UK Ministry of Defense announced that investigation into 57 criminal cases filed against the British military had been discontinued.  Moreover, intentionally trying to downplay criminal acts the UK authorities suspended from legal practice solicitor Phil Shiner that had handed over to IHAT data about more than 1,000 instances of violence by the military. In an all-out attempt to obstruct the investigations concerning offenses committed by the British military, Boris Johnson, the incumbent head of the UK Cabinet, authored the corresponding bill on Overseas Operations allowing for the suspension of investigation.

In 2017, Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled that during their presence in Iraq British troops had breached the Geneva Conventions by committing pre-meditated murder, intentionally inflicting severe sufferings or grievous bodily harm, engaging in meaningless and large-scale destruction and appropriation of property (not warranted by military necessity), deliberate attacks on the civilian population as such or on individual civilians not directly involved in hostilities and offending human dignity including engagement in humiliating and degrading treatment.

Nonetheless, the Service Police Legacy Investigations (SPLI) dropped all cases related to UK service members alleged crimes committed between 2003 and 2009 in Iraq. None of 1,291 charges resulted in prosecutions or prison time. Iraqi civilians claims regarding the criminal behavior of British soldiers were considered by the police officers of the Royal Navy and the police of the Royal Air Force who were part of SPLI. As the UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace stated on October 20 in the House of Commons, the SPLI “officially closed its doors”, and noted that the main problem in the activities of this structure was the “lack of evidence base”, while acknowledging that “some shocking and shameful incidents did happen in Iraq.” “We recognize that there were four convictions of UK military personnel for offences in Iraq including offences of assault and inhuman treatment.”

There is no doubt that such a decision by the SPLI was again clearly driven by the political interests of the current Johnson’s government, which is wary of an uptick in anti-government protests in the country amid growing public discontent with the performance and policies of the British authorities.

It is worth noting that the UK government has a lengthy track record of harboring war criminals for decades. Since 1948, the Malaysians have been unable to seek justice in a case of the Scots guards massacring residents in a village near the town of Batang Kali, where 24 people were killed for no reason. Moreover, these murderers even took memento photo by the victims bodies. However, the British authorities have not brought anyone to justice and have not even bothered to pay compensation to the relatives of those murdered more than 70 years ago…

Such British policies, and, especially efforts of the UK Ministry of Defense regarding the war crimes cover-up raises a lot questions for the UK authorities. As for the UN, International Committee of the Red Cross, International Criminal Court and many other human rights institutions, they have a duty to respond to such crimes despite the attempts by certain British political circles to hush up such criminal activities and shirk responsibility.

Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

US Tries to Persaude Saudi Arabia to Normalize Relations with Israel

 Vladimir Odintsov

While it is impossible to make at least any positive dynamics on the Israeli-Palestinian track, President Joe Biden Administration has recently been actively seeking to expand the Abraham Accords to confirm its still remaining, albeit small, influence in the Middle East.

To that end, Washington has been pushing hard in recent months for Saudi Arabia to join the agreements between Israel and the Arab states of the Persian Gulf. The US is confident that establishing diplomatic relations between Tel Aviv and Riyadh, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, would boost normalization between Israel and other Arab and Muslim states.

Let’s not forget that since Donald Trump’s defeat in the presidential election, Saudi Arabia has frozen contacts on the Israeli track, clearly intending to wait and use the peace agreement with Israel to cement relations with the Biden Administration, the latter having become strained due to Washington’s tough stance on human rights abuses in the Kingdom. Primarily because of the assassination of the Saudi regime’s opponent, journalist Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi.

Jake Sullivan, the US National Security Advisor to President Joe Biden, ultimately raised the issue in a meeting with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Riyadh on September 27. The Prince, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia under the aged and ailing King of Saudi Arabia, Salman Al-Saud, has not rejected the idea of normalization of relations with Israel. At the same time, Sullivan was told in Riyadh that the process would take a long time and was listed several preconditions for rapprochement with the Jewish state. One of the main preconditions is an improvement of relations between the US and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. There won’t be any normalization of relations as long as the Palestinian issue remains unresolved. Unlike Donald Trump, Biden has so far refused to meet the Prince or even call him by phone, limiting himself to a phone call to King Salman, publicly condemning the journalist’s assassination as well as the arrests of human rights activists.

It should be noted that Washington has been trying to convince the Saudis to establish relations with Tel Aviv for more than ten years. In 2009, President Barack Obama asked the late King Abdullah to take steps in this direction, thus giving the green light to other Arab countries. The Trump Administration has also put a lot of effort into this. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman initially showed readiness for rapprochement with Israel, yet his father, King Salman, insists on continuing the Kingdom’s traditional policy towards Palestine, at least until the State of Palestine is established, clearly fearing internal and external reactions from Arab-Muslim society. The aged King Salman still reigns, though he no longer rules. He wants to walk away clean in the eyes of the Arab population at large, without tarnishing himself by abandoning the “Israel is the enemy of the Arabs” formula.

But all the same, today or tomorrow, the burden of deciding to normalize relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel will fall on the heir to the throne, for which Mohammed bin Salman is in principle quite ready and sees no other way than to be friends. Especially since the consequences of the Emirates’ reconciliation with Israel showed that there was nothing wrong with the Abraham Accords – quite contrary, the Emirates won and are now fully reaping the benefits. After all, normal relations with Israel are a pass to the “privileged league” where geopolitical issues worth billions of dollars are decided, and the petrodollars of the Arab elites can bring them further multiplication and enhanced international status.

The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia understands all this very well and is already prepared to change the attitude of the old elites stuck in the twentieth century. Additionally, given the centuries-long confrontation between Sunni and Shiite Islam, he doesn’t want to forget the ever-present Iranian threat. And negotiations on specific areas, which Riyadh is forced to conduct with Tehran, means a temporary tactical weakening of confrontation between two Islamic religious authorities to get a little respite and comprehend the vectors of a new policy in the Middle East. To receive certain dividends from those who claim a leading role in the region today, i.e. not only Washington but also Beijing and Moscow. And in these circumstances, Israel could prove to be a good ally for Saudi Arabia,  especially since mutual sympathies between the Saudis and Israelis have existed for a long time, as have joint actions against the Iranians, which to a large extent already predetermine the alliance between the two countries.

In addition, by withdrawing US missile defense systems from the Prince Sultan airbase 115 km from Riyadh, Washington further pushed the Saudis to step up military cooperation with Israel and acquire Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system as an alternative to the US THAAD and Patriot systems. After all, Saudi Arabia needs a reliable anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense against a background of Yemeni rebels’ constant attacks on oil facilities. Today, only Russia, Israel, and China can provide this as well as the United States. Against this backdrop, the Saudis are already considering the purchase of Rafael’s Iron Dome systems, which have proven themselves against short-range missiles, or Barak anti-aircraft missile systems from Israel Aerospace Industries. And this is one more crucial step towards the future normalization of relations between Riyadh and Tel Aviv. Washington’s role in this rapprochement is frankly spoken of in Israel today, reporting that an agreement for Riyadh to acquire Israeli air defenses could only be concluded with the US approval.

But this is not the only area where a genuine rapprochement between the two countries could be seen in recent times. Saudi Arabia has already agreed to allow Israeli planes to fly over its airspace, cutting routes to the Persian Gulf, India, and other parts of Asia. In addition, some trade deals between the two countries have already started with the participation of the UAE and especially Bahrain as part of the Abraham Accords concluded earlier.

Most certainly, Saudi Arabia is Israel’s most valuable target for the subsequent peace agreement. Beyond the purely political and reputational effects, opening up the Saudi market with its 33 million inhabitants and high purchasing power is of great importance to Israeli companies and exporters.

Therefore, it is understandable that Israel would have to make certain concessions in Riyadh’s preliminary demands for the normalization of relations. One option could be for Israel to make some concessions to the Palestinians so that the Saudis can establish ties, such as in July 2020, when Israel gave up the possibility of annexing the territories of Judea and Samaria in exchange for the Abraham Accords and normalization of relations with the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. Such a move by Israel towards resolving the conflict with the Palestinians will be necessary to allow and legitimize Saudi Arabia’s decision to join the normalization process and establish diplomatic relations with Israel.

The upcoming 20th anniversary of the Arab Peace Initiative provides an opportunity for such developments, and preparations for achieving that objective should begin now. Recall that the Arab Peace Initiative was adopted by the Arab League in Beirut on March 28, 2002, and aims to achieve comprehensive peace with Israel and end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The primary condition is Israel’s withdrawal from the territories it occupied in 1967 (including the Golan Heights and Shebaa Farms) and its recognition of Palestine in the West Bank.

Vladimir Odintsov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Tags: Saudi Arabia

Peace in Afghanistan is No Longer ‘Made in the US’

Salman Rafi Sheikh

Even though the US fought the war in Afghanistan for twenty years and it decided to withdraw after signing a deal with the Taliban (banned in Russia), the end of the war and the US withdrawal has not automatically transitioned into ‘peace.’ The US’ utterly chaotic and irresponsible withdrawal from Afghanistan and the consequent resurgence of the IS-K (terrorist organization, banned in Russia) in the country threatening to spread into neighboring states of Central Asia, Russia, China and Pakistan has forced these countries into playing a pro-active role in securing peace in Afghanistan in ways to eliminate the threat they are now facing because of the US failure to eliminate the IS-K, which flourished in Afghanistan right when the US military had the country under its occupation. The recent ‘Moscow format’ meeting in Russia happened against this very backdrop. Days before this meeting, the Russian president Vladimir Putin minced no words in hinting that the IS-K fighters were gathering in northern Afghanistan, with the IS-K leadership seeking to export its fighters to Central Asia as refugees. Accordingly, the purpose of the ‘Moscow format’ meeting was to chart out a way to deal with this threat and help Afghanistan stabilise.

With regional states now leading the Afghanistan peace process, it is also evident that the US has lost the plot to its external competitors, especially Russia and China. Just like Syria, the US policies in Afghanistan not only failed to defeat its enemies, but the US presence essentially failed to check or defeat the spread of radical Islamist groups as well. On top it is the utterly poor economic situation that Afghanistan is facing in the wake of the lack of assistance the country used to receive during the US occupation and the fact that the US has simply frozen Afghanistan’s own legitimate financial assets. A deteriorating economic situation is, thus, likely to facilitate radical Islamist groups in finding more and more recruits from within the disgruntled Taliban fighters as well as the unemployed youth. Hence, the ‘Moscow format’ countries’ call upon the US to shoulder the cost for Afghanistan’s post-war recovery. As the joint statement issued after the meeting said, while the regional states have decided to initiate a collective action programme to address Afghanistan’s problems, it remains that “the core burden of post-conflict economic and financial reconstruction and development of Afghanistan must be shouldered by troop-based actors (the US and NATO) which were in the country for the past 20 years.”

Apart from the fact that the US is no longer involved as a party in the on-going process of ridding Afghanistan of its radical landscape, the plan the ‘Moscow format’ has outlined mainly charts a path for the regional, rather than extra-regional, players to lead the path. All the main suggestions forwarded by the meeting show how the initiative for peace, reconciliation and de-radicalisation in Afghanistan has shifted from the US to regional players. For instance, the joint statement’s emphasis on directly influencing the Taliban over the imperative of tackling and defeating the IS-K does not include any US/NATO role. Similarly, their initiative to convene a broad-based international donor conference under the auspices of the United Nations also signals that the US will no longer be the sole player, although Washington does need to shoulder a major portion of the finances needed to rebuild Afghanistan.

On the other hand, the fact that Russia hosted this meeting means that Moscow is gradually, but surely, taking the high ground as the principal player in Afghanistan, replacing, as it did in Syria, the US. The fact that Russia is now emerging as the leading player and that regional states have all agreed to back Afghanistan’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity means that the US quest for military bases in Central Asia to conduct its drone/aerial strikes has also come to a permanent halt.

However, taking the initiative in Afghanistan and climbing the high ground does not mean providing the Taliban regime with political recognition. As it stands, even with all the visits the Taliban have been making to Russia, China and other states, they continue to lack recognition. Recognition, even for Russia, remains contingent upon the Taliban’s ability to prove their willingness, through concrete action, to act against different radical groups currently operating in Afghanistan. As it stands, Russia continues to categorise the Taliban as a “terrorist outfit.” Although its recent engagement with the Taliban shows that Moscow equally considers them a “political reality”, recognition itself remains a moot question, even as Moscow happens to be one of those countries that has not closed its embassy in Afghanistan.

But Moscow’s continuous engagement is itself a positive sign for the Taliban, who could see their regime crumbling in the absence of any economic and political support from these countries. Besides the economic and humanitarian aid promised for Afghanistan in the meeting, the next meeting of the forum is already scheduled for October 27 in Tehran, with the process to expand further to include other multilateral forums. And, as Lavrov outlined in his opening speech to the Moscow meeting, “We plan to engage our capabilities, including the capabilities offered by the UN, the SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the CSTO [Collective Security Treaty Organization] and other multilateral entities.… Importantly, both the SCO and the CSTO have a special mechanism that was created many years ago, which is dedicated to interacting with Afghanistan, and identifying ways to promote stabilization in that country.”

These steps not only indicate a growing influence of Russia in Afghanistan, but also shows why Russia thinks it expedient to expand its control without leaving it solely to the US and its NATO allies to continue to exacerbate the situation, a politico-military deterioration that will come mainly at the expense of Afghanistan’s territorial neighbours in South, West, Central and East Asia. The Moscow format and its rapid expansion highlights how regional states are increasingly configuring their response to a threat this is, so far, strictly regional i.e., it does not directly threaten the US the way it threatens these states.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Newcastle Fans Urged to Keep On Protesting against Saudi Arabia

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – A Saudi Arabian activist whose sister was imprisoned and tortured for campaigning for women's right to drive has urged football fans to protest about the brutality of the kingdom's rulers.

Crystal Palace fans displayed a banner in their game against Newcastle last weekend criticizing the Saudi regime and their takeover at the North-East club.

“It is their duty,” says Lina al-Hathloul, who has lived in exile for 10 years in Belgium and says she has never felt less safe than now. “Absolutely I would encourage fans to research the regime and realize that MBS (Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman) controls their club.

“Otherwise they are legitimizing a regime that has been absolutely toxic, and has been forbidden from much international engagement for years after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.”

British businesswoman Amanda Staveley, the public face of the takeover, has said that MBS has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, which owns 80 per cent of Newcastle.

However, Al-Hathloul says that Newcastle's hierarchy, not least Staveley, have misled fans about who really controls the club.

Upon completing the takeover Staveley was adamant to the BBC that the PIF and the Saudi state are two separate entities having been pressed on concerns given Crown Prince MBS chairs PIF and several Saudi ministers sit on its board.

“No, not at all. Absolutely not,” Staveley said when asked if the Saudi state would have a role in decision-making at Newcastle. “Our partner is not the Saudi state, our partner is PIF.

“PIF is autonomous and independent of the Saudi government. PIF owns Newcastle, not the Saudi state.”

Al-Hathloul says it is obvious that control ultimately lies with MBS, accused of atrocities including using a group of assassins known as the Tiger Squad to carry out extrajudicial killings of critics and enemies.

“But they (Newcastle) have been misleading regarding the PIF and MBS's involvement in managing the PIF. They have said the Saudi kingdom is not linked to the PIF and MBS has nothing to do with it. 

“Maybe that's why fans are turning a blind eye, and accepting the takeover.

“If it was clear that MBS has taken over the club (himself), I don't think the fans would be so happy about it.

“Now it's like everyone is trying to forget about it. Newcastle was the big first step for MBS to come back into the international sphere and it's dangerous. So of course I encourage the Newcastle fans to protest and point out the crimes that he is committing.”

Al-Hathloul's sister, Loujain, has been a women's rights activist since 2014 and was imprisoned for driving a car before it was made legal in Saudi Arabia in 2018. While in prison, Lina says, “Loujain was beaten, electrocuted, waterboarded and force-fed. She was sexually harassed, and threatened with murder and rape. Because she is an activist.”

Loujain was released from prison this year but is bound by rules that prevent her travelling abroad and forbid her from talking about her situation.

“I used to feel safe but now it feels like the Saudi regime's efforts to silence dissidents and critics has never been so intense,” Lina says. “I've never felt so threatened. My family and friends have also been targeted… my family also have a travel ban.”

Mehrdad Torabi: “US Left with No Choice, but Censoring Truth”

TEHRAN (FNA)- Mehrdad Torabi, researcher, says the misconduct of propaganda campaign of US’ mainstream media has made Washington suppress the voice of truth of the independent media.

 Speaking in an interview with FNA, Torabi said, “Even Americans refuse to trust mainstream media, despite the tremendous amount of capital invested in massive media companies… In today’s digital age when propaganda campaigns to distort reality fail people tend to look for independent journalism and media outside. From the worst humanitarian crisis of all times in Yemen to the apartheid policies of the Zionist regime in Palestine, resistance media’s efforts to expose what was really happening in the region were remarkable.”

Mehrdad Torabi is an international relations expert from the University of Bologna, Italy. He is a writer of political commentaries and analyses.

Below is the full text of the interview:

Q: When there is so much anti-Islamic anti-Iranian noise by the Western mainstream media, why does Washington take censorship to a new level of deplatforming the independent media?

A: In the recent annual digital news report for the Study of Journalism at Oxford, the United States ranked last in media trust — at 29% — among 92,000 news consumers surveyed in 46 countries. This shows even Americans refuse to trust mainstream media, despite the tremendous amount of capital invested in massive media companies. Let alone people in other parts of the world who have seen the atrocities of Western powers, lost homes and loved ones, and felt invasion, occupation, coups, instability, and so forth to the bone. Iran International TV advocating for sustaining sanctions on the Iranian people verifies my point. In today’s digital age when propaganda campaigns to distort reality fail people tend to look for independent journalism and media outside. From the worst humanitarian crisis of all times in Yemen to the apartheid policies of the Zionist regime in Palestine, resistance media’s efforts to expose what was really happening in the region were remarkable. Malign intentions of Western imperialism revealed to the people around the world, multiplied by a failed propaganda campaign, left the US with no choice but to suppress the truth through censorship.

Q: Amaq news agency belongs to Daesh Takfiri terrorist group. Why does not the US make an effort to stop the operation of the terror media agency?

A: Western powers separate ethics and politics, subordinating morality to power. Sub-state actors who use terrorist tactics to intimidate the public, therefore, play a role in the strategic objectives of the status quo powers who wish to maintain or increase their dominion. Just like the MEK terrorist organization, Daesh terrorists are considered as a variable affecting the political objectives of global hegemons. It was Iranian, Hezbollah, SAA, and PMU forces who fought terrorists on the ground in Iraq and Syria while Anbar province in Iraq had become an arms supply route from Saudi Arabia, the US’ best ally in the region, to takfiri terrorists. In Syria, Daesh and al-Qaeda terrorists were fighting in a united front with the United States against the Syrian government. When Jake Sullivan wrote in an email to US secretary of state Hillary Clinton in February 2012 “[al-Qaeda] is in on our side in Syria,” he meant it. Daesh terrorists must remain and their propaganda campaigns must reach the world. That could justify the United States occupying Iraq and building up its military bases around the region. The political end of supporting the Zionist regime and subordinating nations to liberal hegemony then may appear to be in reach.

Q: How do you view Washington’s sanctions on alternative media?

A: In order to achieve political and economic domination the United States has committed horrific crimes against humanity. The US and the UK fired more than 300,000 depleted uranium rounds during the invasion of Iraq. Hundreds of cancer and birth defect cases are recorded every month, and the figure is clear evidence of the extent of war crimes committed by the US-led coalition forces. This is just one example. Democracy, in the words of Hans Kelsen one of the most abused of all political concepts, was used to justify these crimes in pursuit of global hegemony: just like Social Darwinism formulated by Western powers to show their colonies as uncivilized inferior beings that could justify the violence of colonization under the pretext of awarding them with civilization and modernity. Therefore, the United States is, first and foremost, concerned with its evil behaviors in the past. Although peace is desirable, bloodshed has been the political reality of the 2,500 years history of international relations that we study. That means the United States will never be ashamed of its prior actions, will continue to pursue its hegemonic strategies. Sanctions on media as well as universities have shown the importance of individual consciousness, awareness, and education and the extent to which they appear to be threatening imperialism and the United States’ global hegemony.

What if we go back to 1975?

 By Abir Bassam

TEHRAN - After the Tayouneh massacre, the issue of granting a general amnesty to a convicted war criminal in Lebanon is in question once again. Such a terrible incident makes the person wonder about what was going on in Samir Geagea’s mind, the head of the Lebanese Forces [LFP], to commit such a crime on the 14th of October. The crime brought back into the Lebanese people consciousness the history of Geagea and his Forces, and what kind of future awaits Lebanon, since the attitude towards the “others” is almost back on the surface.

The reckless criminal behavior in Tayouneh has taken us back in our thoughts to 1975, which is overwhelmed with memories of the Lebanese Civil War; the series of war crimes the LFPs committed during that period of history in Lebanon. It came back with even greater worries. It is not a matter of Hezbollah being weaker or stronger than the Palestinian Fedayeen, or the matter of LFPs having 15 thousand fighters and being much stronger, it is a matter of the mentality that rules the ideology of civil wars, which has never left Geagea’s mind. 

A destructive ideology! It leads to destroying a country, not building one. Geagea did not only fight the “others”, he fought, killed, and massacred his own people, i.e. the Christian Maronites, such as Dany Chamoun, Tony Franjieh, and their families. He blew up two churches and killed the prayers. That is if we don’t recall the assassination attempt against the Lebanese Prime Minister, the late Rashid Karami, and the War of Elimination in 1990 against President Michael Aoun. However, what does that tell us? There is a clear-cut answer: Geagea was trying to eliminate all his competitors in Lebanon. 

He was trying to be the sole strong Christian Maronite leader. On the other hand, he always introduced himself as free Lebanese, who, unfortunately, were the best to serve the American and pro-Zionist policies in Lebanon. The Lebanese memory has not faded away yet. Many witnesses have given their testimony about training the military forces of the Phalanges by the “Israeli” officers in Dar El Mokhalles, the Savior Monastery, in the Chouf District during and months before the “Israeli” invasion of Lebanon in 1982. After the assassination of Bachir Gemayel, these military forces became the core of the Lebanese Forces.

Accordingly, do we really want to go back to 1975? Can we now in 2021 call the Arab League and the Syrians, so that we can protect the Lebanese Christians, or preserve Lebanon’s unity. It is impossible. The Syrians will never come back to Lebanon with their forces, even if the international atmosphere permits it. Hence, what is the result of any eternal war in Lebanon? Clearly, it is one of the two: either it is the division of Lebanon and the end of it as we know it, or it is the end of one of the parties, which is not even remotely possible. 

Obviously, Samir Geagea, who sees himself as the ultimate leader of Lebanon, can’t control all the five districts of Lebanon, in particular, the South, Becaa, and the North. These districts may end up as a set of sectarian cantons, or have the option of becoming part of Great Syria. The idea can be definitely welcomed by many parties that doubt the ability of Lebanon to economically survive as an independent state. 

Currently, for the Syrians, it might be a liability, but futuristically speaking this would certainly empower Syria even more in its war against “Israel” and as a regional power.  We can only imagine investments in water resources, agricultural growth, industrial advancement, easy access to higher education and health care, and a well-protected state by the people, the army, and the resistance. As it has been said, we can only imagine. But we cannot imagine Syria accepting to be threatened through its borders with Lebanon again; and certainly, we cannot go back to 1975!

TAGS

• Tayouneh incident
 
• Lebanon
 
• Hezbollah
 
• Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah
 
• Samir Geagea

Military Base Housing US Forces Rocked by Massive Explosions in Syria

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Rockets fired from adjacent areas hit a military base used by American troops and their allied Takfiri militants in Syria's eastern province of Deir Ez-Zur, a week after an attack on the al-Tanf base housing US forces in southeastern Syria.

 Four blasts were heard at the US facility within the Conoco gas field, according to PressTV, citing Sabereen News, a Telegram news channel affiliated with the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), also known as Hashd al-Sha'abi.

The cause of the explosions was not immediately known. There were no reported injuries or deaths among the American forces stationed at the outpost.

This is the latest in series of attacks on US-run military bases in the eastern half of Syria.

The Conoco base, where Kurdish militants with the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) are also stationed, last came under attack in July with mortar shells and rockets. No reports of casualties or material damage emerged in the aftermath of that attack.

On October 20, the US-run al-Tanf base in southern Syria was hit by drones and rockets, in an attack that Pentagon spokesman John Kirby described as “complex, coordinated and deliberate.”

United States officials said they believe the attack on al-Tanf involved as many as five drones laden with explosive charges, and that they hit both the US side of al-Tanf base and the side where US-backed militants reside.

Bomb fragments had also been found in areas where US forces had been sleeping and stationing.

The US military trains anti-Damascus militants at al-Tanf base, which is situated near Syria’s borders with Iraq and Jordan.

CHINA’S SPACE STRATEGY, ITS IMPLICATIONS

Strategic Council Online – Opinion: Although China has not moved toward an armed conflict in its field competition on Earth and has pursued a strategy of building dependence and debtorship, but the nature of competition in space is as such that it requires at least confrontation or indirect or even soft war.

Reza Majidzadeh – Director of Simorgh Development Working Group, Pasargad Millennium Plan Think Tank

Perhaps man’s entry into space can be considered as an event similar to the departure of primitive man from Africa and the beginning of a new era of human evolution on Planet Earth; an ambiguous start, because of the prospect of resource depletion and towards new surprises; but the story of man’s departure from Earth to space, or to put it in a better way, the extension of human realm from Earth to space, has also become a political issue with competition.

The rivalry was initially in the form of the Cold War between the former Soviet Union and the United States. Half a century ago, the Soviet Union first launched its first satellite into space, but then the United States snatched the ball from the Soviets. However, collapse of the Soviet Union did not end the space race.

Today, however, the scope of this competition has widened, shifting from a bipolar state to a multipolar state. Although the nature of competition is the same as the competition between the developed world of the West and the developing world of the East, a new competitor has emerged that even the quality of Russia’s future presence in this competition depends on the quality of competition and its space power. That rival, is China.

China’s strategy for developing space power has been to cooperate with Russia, but it is accelerating its activities, pursuing ambitious plans despite the 2011 law approved by the US Congress for NASA not cooperating with the Chinese Space Organization because of the threat of espionage, which were first implemented by purchasing Russian equipment to build a space station.

China is now looking to complete its third station, called the “Heavenly Palace”, which will be completed with 11 launches and will orbit the Earth for at least a decade.

The implication of the above-mentioned points is that a new rivalry has formed between the United States and China, and the probability of their spatial confrontation is very high. The trade war between the two economic powers on Earth could extend to their space war for control of space realms.

Although China in its field rivalry on the Planet Earth has not taken steps towards  arms warfare and has pursued a strategy of building dependence and debtorship, the nature of competition in space is as such that it requires at least confrontation or indirect or even soft war. Therefore, it is possible up to some extent that soft space wars or even limited space wars will be ahead.

However, China has stated that foreign astronauts can also use its station; although, the prospect of a massive effort for human habitation in space and the efforts that have been made to do so on Mars complicate matters beyond simple scientific applications.

Another aspect of China’s space program at the Heavenly Palace station is to help develop water, mineral and energy resources that allow astronauts to survive for a short period of time and provide a base for deeper space exploration.

Presence of minerals such as helium-3 on the moon, which is a source of atomic fusion, is an example of those development axes in which the United States is currently taking the lead.

Although such points show the competition for the monopoly position of political and economic power, they also mean the continuation of China’s strategy of technological and economic war for world domination.

In this way, China avoids the exorbitant costs of developing military armaments and cleverly pursues its technological and economic agenda in order to outperform its competitors.

The Moon Agreement of the United Nations (1979) on the impossibility of claiming ownership of celestial bodies seems to reduce the likelihood of confrontation or even space warfare, but the most important change since that time is mankind’s current vision to escape the gradual erosion of the Planet Earth and seek survival on other planets, which will make the challenge of space property rights a serious challenge in the very near future.

Therefore, the spatial rivalry between the big powers can proceed in two completely different directions, which can also be considered as two ends of a spectrum.

One path is space warfare and the attempt to establish a monopoly pole in dominating space resources (minerals or even earth), and the other path is cooperation or constructive competition to develop space technology and help solve problems on the Planet Earth.

Although an approach close to the path of constructive competition seems more likely, the external consequences of a spatial confrontation for the inhabitants of the Planet Earth in terms of the cost of war or killing make the path of war, even in a limited form, not to be unlikely.