The greatest obstacle to the transformation of the Arab world to American-Turkish ideas is likely that the CSTO / SCO / BRICS axis, in terms of politics, also SCO membership aspirants like Iran can be counted among them, is as a geopolitical rival of NATO / EU / G7 much stronger than it was the Eastern bloc in 1989.
In 1989 and in subsequent years, the NATO/EU/G7-Axis has fully dominated the world in virtually every regard, for example economically, media, technological, and also militarily it was hardly more than the strategic nuclear weapons of the Soviet bloc belonging competitors of the NATO/EU/G7-Axis, which has the NATO/EU/G7-Axis deterred from the attempt of a complete military conquest of their power centres of Moscow and Beijing.
In 2011, the situation was quite different. Although the NATO/EU/G7-Axis still has wide over 50% of global military spending as well as over 50% of global GDP, but the trend has been declining for years. Meanwhile, the states of the CSTO / SCO / BRICS axis are technological in almost every area on the amount of time and even have more than 50% of the global economic growth. The by far largest share of this has China.
Instead of a one-sided dominance of NATO/EU/G7-Axis, which had still around 90% of global economic output in 1989 and in the 90’s, there are now mutual dependences. Should China, for example, decide to refuse the market access to U.S. car companies, or hamper it significantly by using subtle methods, so the U.S. auto industry would lose access to the largest and fastest-growing market in the world, and the U.S. car industry has to expect, due to the effects of the economies of scale, to lose their global competitiveness, which in turn could lead to a recession and a depression in the United States.
The U.S. could indeed decide about retaliatory measures, and this would also be unpleasant for China, but they would not solve the issues of the United States due to the refusal of access to the Chinese market. Due to the emergence of mutual dependencies, the NATO/EU/G7-Axis has lost their dominance.
With respect to the republics Tunisia and Egypt, the U.S. and its allies such as Turkey had only little problems to be successful with their desired “transformation”, so that the transformation looked similar to the transformation of Eastern Europe in 1989. US-led media and activists have organized popular protests against the respective US-backed government and US-led military persons could then use this as a cover for a coup with the goal of democratization.
Since the U.S. was the crucial stabilizing leading force in these countries, there were not enough sufficient countervailing forces anymore, that could have been able to stand up against this kind of a transformation, after the United States has used its power in these countries then for a transformation – thereby a regime change – instead for stabilization.
A very large part of the population of these republics wanted to get rid of their rulers, the CSTO / SCO / BRICS axis had no interested to protect the system of the government in these republics, and Israel and the Saudis had only a limited interest and due to the rapid settlement of coups and just few options to counteract the American-Turkish-Qatari-led regime change in the Republics of Tunisia and Egypt. So, these regime changes went ahead with relatively little violence, just a little more than a few hundred to thousand dead.
In the monarchy of Bahrain, the attempted coup passed off quite different. Although there was at least a very large part of the population that wanted to get rid of the despotic rulers and has also protested vigorously, but the Saudi ruling family, the protector of the ruler of Bahrain turned against this regime change with all its power.
Saudi Arabia did not want that a monarchy in the region will be overthrown, and Saudi Arabia certainly did not wanted to risk that in the adjoining state Bahrain, which is mostly populated by Shiites, a liberal democratic government will be established, supported by the masses in Bahrain, that could finally connect Bahrain in the terms of foreign policy with the, equally majority populated by Shiites, Iran and Iraq
Saudi Arabia has enforced the military assistance pact of GCC monarchs, stamped down the protests of the masses in Bahrain with militarily force, and issued an economic ultimatum to the foreign powers, especially to the U.S. administration, Turkey and Qatar, which are the propulsive force behind the upheaval in the Arab world.
Either these countries refrain from all the media support for the subversive masses in the Arab monarchies and instead just support the monarchy, or Saudi Arabia would, in conjunction with allied Arab monarchies, counter the upheavals in the Arab monarchies by force, and with an economic war against the states which support the upheavals in the Arab monarchies – this would include dramatic oil output reduction and investment deductions.
The Saudi defence has worked. Unlike the countries of Eastern Europe in 1989, the Arab monarchies such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Emirates, have a formidable economic power with their oil production, which they can use to enforce their political ideas. Should the Obama administration of the United States and Turkey have ever intended to seriously take the side of the subversive masses who are striving for dignity, freedom and democracy in the states of the Arab monarchies, so this was afterwards in respect to the eight absolutistic Arab monarchies not to be seen anymore.
Turkey has, in contrary to the assertion of Davutoglu that Turkey would be on the side of the degraded rebellious masses of the Arab states, again supported the Arab absolutist monarchies at the latest from March 2011.
The entire operation, that is run by the U.S. government and Turkey, in order to reshape the Arab world, ostensibly towards “democracy and freedom”, was henceforth directed exclusively against republics, mainly against the regimes of Libya, Yemen, Syria, Algeria, Iraq and the Palestinian territories.
In Algeria, Iraq and the Palestinian territories, the Turkish-US efforts for a regime change in 2011, driven by the masses, are already stuck in the approach, because they have failed to establish huge demonstrations, which could have served as basis for the claim, that the people there wanted a regime change, despite their intensive propaganda efforts.
In Yemen, however, there was a large part of the population, which wanted to get rid of the government and was dependent of U.S. military aid. And the United States and its friends have succeeded in organizing large mass demonstrations against the government there.
The military in Yemen was not willing to be completely persuaded for a coup, like in Egypt and Tunisia, and Saudi Arabia feared that at an emergence of a government that is supported by the masses in Yemen, forces could come to power which are hostile to Saudi Arabia, and thus, Saudi Arabia has blocked the emergence of a democratically elected government in Yemen.
And because Saudi Arabia is a powerful state, the forces that are working in the name of freedom and democracy on a regime change in Yemen agreed on the plan to carry out a change of the leadership within the regime in order to calm down the agitated masses in Yemen, in which the same forces have been in power for the last 30 years, and the foreign-led changeover of power should be confirmed by the people of Yemen through the farce of a 1-candidate election. Instead of bringing freedom and democracy to Yemen, the American-Turkish attempt at a regime change in Yemen has only led to hundreds or thousands of deaths in Yemen.
Even in Libya, there was a significant proportion of the population who wanted to get rid of the Libyan ruling system for various reasons. In early 2011, this portion of the Libyan population was also willingly ready to be organized by US-led protests against the Libyan leadership. Beside Turkey, more powerful NATO countries like the rulers of Israel and the Arab absolutist monarchs, also wanted to get rid of the Libyan governance due to the Libyan biting criticism of their own regimes – which was a thorn in the side for them.
Also other regional and global powers such as Russia, China, India, South Africa and Iran have withheld the support for the Libyan governance. The Libyan governance only received support to counter the regime-change efforts by relatively weak and moreover by some far-off countries, such as Venezuela, Nicaragua, Chad, Serbia and Zimbabwe.
The Libyan state leadership has acknowledged the problem, and starting February 2011, it has repeatedly offered to introduce a liberal democratic constitution and democratic elections in order to distribute the power, wherewith the alleged political demands of the protesters and the NATO-led regime change alliance for “democratization” of this Arab state would be met.
The US-led alliance for the political transformation of Libya was not looking to introduce democracy and freedom in Libya, but was solely interested in a regime change for inserting a government that is acceptable by them in Libya. The alliance was aware of the situation: the elections for their project would fail to reach a majority of the Libyan people for their intention.
The huge demonstration in Libya in support of the Libyan government spoke a very clear language. Nevertheless, and to achieve their goal of “regime change” and political transformation of Libya, the US-led alliance, has rejected all mediation attempts that aimed on the introduction of a democratic constitution and elections, whether they came from Venezuela or from the African Union.
Instead, they set on a strategy of massive violence, the physical destruction of Libyan governance and the Libyan army, the ethnic cleansing of Libya of the Libyan governance supportive demographic groups, and on a principle of a ban of political activity on all supporters of the Libyan leadership, clearly against the principle of a liberal democracy.
Economically, the oil production loss, as the result of the conflict in Libya, has caused a temporary increase in oil prices and also damaged a bit some of the NATO states, including Turkey. The seizure of foreign assets and the conquest of the oil resources of the state Libya has made the cheap partisan and bomber war against Libya a totally profitable venture for the NATO states, and for the GCC states, which benefit from a high oil price: the war against Libya was already profitable.
The destruction of Libya by the massive violence of the attack by the regime-change forces under NATO command has cost thousands of lives. Furthermore, thousands of defenceless people were tortured and executed by the forces in Libya which worked under the pretext of the implementation of democracy, freedom, human rights, and like Davutoglu has called it, for “dignity”.
The Turkish government, of which the Foreign Minister Davutoglu has claimed at Goldman Sachs in November 2011, that they reject violence in the endorsed upheavals in the Arab world, had been among others an active part in the mass murder in Libya.
For example: Turkish warships participated in the blockade of the Libyan coast and prevented weapon deliveries to the government, while they let pass arms supplies to the regime-change forces, which were fighting against the Libyan government.
The allegation that Turkey would oppose the use of violence in the upheaval in the Arab world, is so much a blatant lie as it was already debunked as a false assertion regarding Bahrain, that Turkey would support the democratic liberal-minded masses of the Arab world.
And in order to prove these lies of the NATO country Turkey, one has not to elaborate it further, that the NATO states Britain and France had already planed the war against Libya by a major exercise for the bombing of an unnamed “Southland” for an alleged protection of civilians at least since November 2010, Libya has accurately met the characteristics of this “Southland” and the French bombing of Libya has just started at the time where it was planned within the major exercise against the unnamed “Southland”; long before the beginning of the mass protests in the Arab world.
In the regime change in Libya in order, how Davutoglu called it, to help the masses, which feel humiliated by Israel, that they finally achieve democracy and freedom, Turkey and other NATO countries were also supported by the autocratic Arab monarchies of the GCC and Israel.
The conclusion is clear: Turkey pursues the regime changes in the Arab world not in order to enforce democracy and freedom or to help the Arab masses, that feel humiliated by Israel, to achieve dignity, but rather, as Davutoglu has explained it at Goldman Sachs, in order to gain Turkish-dominated “hinterland” for the rapid rise of Turkey into a world power.
Regarding the success of their hostile policy toward Syria, however, the Turkish government has fiercely miscalculated. Inside Turkey, there is still a large part of the population on the side of the Syrian leadership, despite the intense propaganda efforts by the NATO / GCC countries. A substantial part of the Syrian population is considering the secular Syrian governance as an essential guarantor against a terror regime of religious extremists, such as it prevails in Saudi Arabia, which is directly involved in the efforts of a regime-change in Syria.
Not even the lying propaganda of NATO / GCC states, that is daily accusing the Syrian government for crimes which were committed by the armed anti-government groups, could change this. Even the Syrian Arab army stood and stand by and large united and with one accord behind the leadership, even if there a lot of desertions by individuals.
Although the Syrian army was not prepared for this kind of guerrilla war that is led by Turkey and the March 14-ruled northern Lebanon, including a noteworthy portion of the Syrian population, but in comparison to the Libyan army, the Syrian army has two key advantages: on the one hand it has a modern air defence, which was supplied by Russia after the Israeli invasion 2007, and on the other hand it has a significant potential of chemical deterrent weapons.
An open war of aggression of NATO, such as against Libya, contains hardly calculated risks for the attackers, even if it is about the NATO and thereby the by far the strongest military power in the world.
Unlike Libya, and even more in contrast to the historical model of states of Eastern Europe in 1989 that were stated by Davutoglu, Syria also enjoys excellent relations with strong regional and global powers, namely, before all with the regional power Iran, its neighbours Iraq and Lebanon, and with the power of veto Russia as well as some other BRICS countries.
Understanding the Disastrous Foreign Policy of Turkey – Part 1
Understanding the Disastrous Foreign Policy of Turkey – Part 2
Understanding the Disastrous Foreign Policy of Turkey – Part 3
Understanding the Disastrous Foreign Policy of Turkey – Part 4
Understanding the Disastrous Foreign Policy of Turkey – Part 5
Understanding the Disastrous Foreign Policy of Turkey – Part 6
Understanding the Disastrous Foreign Policy of Turkey – Part 8