Western analysts and experts are evaluating processes ongoing in global geopolitics and admit that the situation is complex and risky. As a main reason they point to the substance of America’s foreign policy that has been pursued for a long time. For the sake of self-interests Washington is capable of interfering into virtually every corner of the world. Its actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now in Ukraine, can serve as telling evidence. According to N. Chomsky and F. Zakaria, America now attempts to ensure its interests within every nation. Where does this dangerous trend take the world?
Ethnic And Religious Division: Washington’s ”Gift” To Muslims
Has the world’s geopolitical rhythm been disturbed? For the Western experts it is one of the urgent questions. They are trying to interpret America’s ambitions. Apparently Washington’s skillfully conducted political course rests in the core of the problems that agitate the humanity. Therefore, it may prove to be productive to refer to opinions of such renowned individuals in the expert and analyst circles as N. Chomsky and F. Zakaria. The former draws attention to a key element of the U.S. policy in the example of the Syria issue (see: Fareed Zakaria. Obama caves to conventional wisdom on Syria / “The Washington Post”, 10 July 2014). Some of the perennial features of Washington’s Middle East policy have had a direct impact upon the substance of the developments in Syria.
In this context, allocation by the U.S. of some $500 million for the needs of the Syrian opposition seems like “adding fuel to the fire”. Zakaria also focuses on the establishment of the political environment in Syria starting from the 1960s-1970s. Fascinatingly, even then, there were radical groups that opted to leverage the political processes in the country through armed means. As a result, thousands lost their lives in Syria to sectarian violence. Hafez Assad and opposing Sunni groups (predominantly Muslim Brotherhood) were equally responsible for that.
Sunni uprisings were ceaseless in the 1970-1981. During that period hundreds of people were killed for their sectarian affiliation, with the most appalling of which being the massacre of 10-20 thousand innocent people by the Assad forces in 1982. Zakaria notes that, “Syria had been unstable since its birth. Between its independence in 1946 and Assad’s coup there were around 10 other coups and attempted coups” (see: previous reference). According to him, by the late 1970s the country was already divided into two camps, defined by religion and sect. They were financed by Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran.
Ultimately, all this contradictions imploded in 2011. There are now 1500 separate insurgent groups in Syria (see: previous reference). All of them have a radical political agenda and choose to achieve their objectives by force. Worse yet, there is little influence over these groups outside of religious environment. In this context, F. Zakaria emphasizes Turkey’s failed attempt to nurture moderate opposition in Syria. Thus, situation in Syria appears to be very risky.
So, to whom America allocates funds? This is the point. If the Syrian opposition is comprised largely of armed groups, then Washington is strengthening some of them. This, on one hand, amplifies the animosity against the regime and on the other hand, fragments the very opposition in a non-civilized manner. Is not it Washington’s behind the scenes motive to exacerbate sectarian dimension of the strife in the Middle East? What is the objective?
Answers to these questions can be found in the opinion of another prominent American philosopher, linguist and political scientist N. Chomsky (Noam Chomsky: America Is the World Leader at Committing “Supreme International Crimes” / “AlterNet”, 7 July 2014 and Chomsky: U.S. Leader’s Panic Over Crimea Is About Fear of Losing Global Dominance / “AlterNet”, 3 May 2014). He puts the issue in the context of disasters provoked by the America’s leadership ambitions. According to him, U.S. is leader in terms of “supreme international crimes” and these things happen when the “red line” is compromised.
New World Order Or Return To The Past?
This philosopher cites concrete examples. Iraq and Ukraine are just a few of those. Both events generated from the thesis that “Washington’s national interests start at the borders of other nations”. According to American guidelines, enforced throughout the XX century, its interests start at the front door of any nation that aspires to become a regional leader. This has been the reason for any nation to be attacked once it tried to rise to prominence. This was the very claim that underpinned aggression against Iraq.
As a result, the U.S. has divided Iraq based on religious and ethnic features. Journalist A.B. Atwan and expert on Iraq R. Jarrar believe that strife and discrimination in the country began after the invasion by the American troops. There was no form of governance in Iraq based on sectarianism until then. Washington-imposed Governing Council was the start of it all (see: Noam Chomsky: America Is the World Leader at Committing “Supreme International Crimes” / “AlterNet”, 7 July 2014).
Evidently, Washington is merciless and adamant when it comes to preserving the “red line”. And establishment of Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish political groups in Iraq is part of the plan. Now, in deploys troops there, supposedly, to prevent the fragmentation of the country. Terrorism has already claimed thousands of lives. Iraq is divided into three parts. What integrity of the country can the U.S. guarantee after that? Is there a genuine wish to that end? It is highly doubtful.
Reaction to Crimea event is of the same substance. N. Chomsky emphasizes that the core of the problem is that U.S. views the “red line” at the Russia’s border. In one of Obama’s recent speeches he described Russia as a regional power. This was a signal that American interests start at Russia’s doorstep. This is why Washington saw the invasion of Crimea as a strike against its interests (see: Chomsky: U.S. Leaders’ Panic Over Crimea Is About Fear of Losing Global Dominance / “AlterNet”, 3 May 2014).
Moscow, however, resented and had even declared an ambition to spread its clout over greater region. This provoked “Americans’ panic”. They fear a loss of their hegemony. This is the factor that drives the military hostilities in Ukraine. There is no guarantee that it would not spillover because the U.S. now views its “red lines” at the borders of every nation. This creates fascinating perceptions in the geopolitical sense.
First and foremost, it has become obvious that U.S. hegemonic ambitions are not something of the past. It is just the behavior that has changed. Sowing religious and ethnic strife in the Muslim countries is a special part of the plan. By doing so, they can inflame protracted intrigues, conflict and frictions in the Islamic world and indeed, this is a dangerous move.
On the other hand, America is taking significant actions against the rapidly developing nations. Discord and subversive actions there, including within the likes of Russia, Turkey and China cannot be ruled out. It leaves little room for discourse regarding the international law. In the meantime, it exacerbates the environment for resolution of conflicts in different parts of the world. This is where America’s ”red line” needs to become visible. Furthermore, those nations aspiring towards regional prominence ought to take into account hostilities. Objectives pursued by different parties are also vague.
One may conclude that source of global-scale chaos ravaging the world is not some terrorist groups but big geopolitical powers that nurture them. Radical groups merely obey the orders they receive. They are “fire irons of the big powers” in a way – something that obstructs verification of justice. Conducting of accurate foreign policy also becomes aggravated. The mankind has had enough of injustice and bogus claims.