by Andrew Korybko
The Southeast Asian state of Myanmar is beleaguered by creeping threats that risk returning the country to the dark days of full-scale civil war. Neighboring powers India and China have no interest in seeing this scenario, as such an event would spoil the role that they expect a stable Myanmar to fill vis-à-vis their strategic vision for the country. In what makes for tragic irony, however, their latest actions in attempting to stabilize Myanmar have inadvertently had the opposite effect, and if New Delhi and Beijing don’t coordinate their actions soon enough, they may end up unwittingly empowering the forces that are intent on tearing it apart. Russia, perfectly positioned in a relationship of trust with both Asian anchors, has the greatest potential to bridge the strategic divide between them and help prevent the Yugoslav-like disintegration of the Union of Myanmar. By diplomatically balancing between India and China and helping the two reach an agreeable accommodation for the country’s overall regional role, Russia would become the force that’s critically needed to align the multipolar world behind Myanmar and help preempt the coming geopolitical catastrophe.
Part I begins by touching upon the four major threats to Myanmar’s internal balance, before listing the respective interests that India, China, and Russia have in the country’s stable future. The second part then looks at each of their unilateral initiatives in attempting to actualize this (with mixed results), and proposes a more efficient multilateral framework for achieving this shared goal. Finally, a brief concluding section summarizes the piece.
There are four primary drivers of destabilization in Myanmar, each of which is interlinked and has the distinct possibility of individually or simultaneously throwing the country into disorder around the time of the general elections in early November . In one way or another, all of these connect to the return of civil war in Myanmar, be they direct or indirect influencing factors:
Civil War Redux:
The risk of a full-fledged resumption of Myanmar’s civil war weighs heavily on the minds of the country’s decision makers, as they must delicately maintain the tenuous proto-truce that preserves the fragile peace. They intend to seal an actual deal with the patchwork of ethnic-affiliated rebel groups sometime later this year, but they will likely end up doing so around the time of the general elections, which would grant all sides added legitimacy either before or after the event. Thus, it’s of prime importance that the government secures peace within the country, but nonetheless, various disturbances have still taken place since the end of March when all sides agreed on the forthcoming truce’s text (the ‘proto-truce’). These include the Kokang insurgency that has been raging since February and the mid-June clashes between the government and the Kachin Independence Army. If either of these, or perhaps another outbreak of violence in a different region, results in the return of all-out civil war, then the country could quickly descend back into chaos and all of its previous economic and soft power gains from the past few years would evaporate, to say nothing of the destabilizing consequences this would have for India’s ‘Seven Sisters’ and China’s Yunnan Province.
Aung San Suu Kyi:
This pro-Western agent of destabilization has been making Color Revolution trouble since the late 1980s, when she first rocketed to notoriety and was subsequently placed under house arrest in 1989. This punishment was lifted at happenstance since then, and she’s presently able to move freely throughout the country and travel abroad since being released in late 2010 as part of the country’s ‘transition to (Western) democracy’. This was a mistake by the authorities, who originally anticipated the move as being an innocuous gesture intended to ingratiate them closer with their new Western ‘partners’. Suu Kyi has since then capitalized off of her image as a political ‘martyr’ in order to exceed the bounds of what’s acceptable in Myanmar (or any country for that matter), knowing that she could push all limits simply because the government is too afraid to jail her again after their much-publicized pro-Western pivot. This abuse of freedom saw Suu Kyi assemble a horde of ultra-nationalist militant Buddhist thugs that have since taken Myanmar to the brink of wider warfare between some of its Buddhist and Muslim communities. Their indiscriminate purges of the Rohingya minority are responsible for creating the present crisis afflicting that demographic, which runs the chance of opening up a new front in the country’s civil war.
Additionally, Kyi has implicitly threatened that any ‘instability’ in Myanmar around the time of the elections could invalidate their result, raising the question of whether or not she or her proxies would try to purposely escalate ethnic and/or political tensions in order to apply pressure against the government. Her “National League for Democracy” party could then present itself as the only force capable of mitigating them and saving the country from a (manufactured) imminent crisis. Playing identity politics in Myanmar is exceptionally irresponsible, however, since it runs the risk of foreseeably spiraling out of its initiators’ control and returning the country to uncontrollable civil war. Suu Kyi clearly has ambitions of leading the state (whether as its formal head [despite her legally being unable to do so ] or de-facto ruler [perhaps under a new state of affairs where the chair of parliament becomes more influential), and it’s thus not in her own political interests to see Myanmar fall apart. Still, in her lifelong pursuit for power, she and her supporters might recklessly engender this very scenario.
By itself, the existence of the Rohingya is obviously not a cause for destabilization, but the international role that they’ve been corralled into is. The transnational migrant crisis in Southeast Asia (which the Rohingya had been forced into because of Suu Kyi’s Buddhist militants) has bequeathed the US with the opportunity to create a South Asian “Kosovo” out of the Rohingya-inhabited Rakhine State. No matter if it succeeds in splitting the Rohingyas from Myanmar or not, the US can still use their plight as a ‘plausible’ justification for covertly aiding them in any forthcoming uprising against the state. Should this occur, then the opening of a new anti-government front might embolden the other rebels to break the proto-truce and go on the offensive as well, presenting an opportunity for a semi-coordinated nationwide campaign that might finally result in the success of some (or all) of the separatist movements. Simply put, the Rohingyas’ situation is one of the main triggers that could reignite Myanmar’s civil war.
Cross-Border Militant Groups:
The most destabilizing force in Myanmar today is the existence of cross-border anti-India militant groups. These organizations have the dangerous ability to draw New Delhi directly into Myanmar’s civil war, as is seen by India’s surgical intervention in mid-June. While all countries inarguably have the right to defend themselves against terrorism, India may have inadvertently exacerbated the simmering tensions inside Myanmar and endangered the country’s proto-truce. This is because the NSCN-K group that carried out the terrorist attack in India’s Northeastern state of Manipur is recognized as a legitimate fighting force in Myanmar per the ceasefire that it’s currently a part of. NSCN-K and its Indian-operating affiliates should be understood as forming part of the complex alliance network linking together other anti-government rebels in the country, meaning that any Myanmar military attack against them (as New Delhi proposed to do in coordination with Naypyidaw) would inevitably draw in their affiliates and likely return the country to civil war. It’s for this simple reason that Myanmar rejected India’s offer and is said to be reworking the proposal. Still, if India continues to behave unilaterally in attacking cross-border militants inside Myanmar (no matter how justified it may be in doing so), it might end up sparking a wider conflagration that could even spread to its own territory.
Each of the three Eurasian Powers has tangible interests that they seek to promote within Myanmar, thus giving them a vested stake in ensuring its stability:
New Delhi is fearful of Beijing’s ‘ String of Pearls ’ and Maritime Silk Road, and it feels the need to expand its influence into Myanmar and beyond as a means of responding to what it views as an encroaching encirclement around its borders. Its focus on ASEAN (and Myanmar as the geopolitical gateway) is embodied in the government’s new Act East policy.
The institutional means that New Delhi plans to use in promoting its interest to nearby Indian Ocean states is something called the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC). This entity encompasses India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Thailand, and is a loose multilateral economic framework that New Delhi wants to consolidate and turn into its formal sphere of influence.
The mainland trade corridor linking India with Myanmar and Thailand would be the proposed highway running from its Northeastern States to Bangkok. This infrastructure project would stimulate the Indian-ASEAN free trade area and tie India’s Southeast Asian partners more closely to its expanding economy. The net effect of this would be to compete with China in its own backyard through the deployment of a symmetrical response to what has been going on against India.
The maritime component of BIMSTECS and the Indian-ASEAN free trade area could realistically see India becoming a crucial commercial actor along Southeast Asia’s coasts. Geographic logic suggests that Myanmar would form a key component of this emerging trade architecture, and it’s thus in India’s interests to make sure that the country (and especially Rakhine Province) remains stable and capable of fulfilling its expected economic role.
Beijing’s primary interest in the former land of Burma is in establishing a secure non-Malacca maritime corridor that evades the potential control of the US Navy. China would ideally like to use this route for expediting the import natural resources and assisting with the export of its products to the world market. Again, it must be emphasized that this prospective trade corridor between Yunnan Province’s capital of Kunming and a sister city along Myanmar’s coast is pivotal to Chinese grand strategy precisely because it provides an alternative to the American-controlled Strait of Malacca chokepoint, which would give the Chinese leadership expanded options for securing its logistical interests in the event of any increased military tension with the US.
The other reason why Myanmar is geopolitically meaningful for China is that it behaves as a strategic buffer in keeping unipolar influence at bay from its southern borders. China is ever fearful that the country could become a staging base for hostile military forces along the vulnerable frontier, be they the Tatmadaw (Myanmar’s military forces) or perhaps even Western troops, or that its destabilization can spread across the border into Yunnan. Thus, it sought both to prevent the consolidation of a unified anti-communist state during the Cold War, and in the years afterwards, it reversed its strategy and aimed to position a stable, non-aligned ally at its doorstep. China’s policies did retain a notable constant, however, and that’s the adaptation of its buffer concept to the changing geopolitical realities of the day.
Pivot to Asia
Moscow’s strategic focus on expanding its relations with non-Western countries, specifically those in Asia and ASEAN, encapsulates the core of its interest in Myanmar. Russia needs partnerships that are politically reliable and not under the commanding influence of the US because it doesn’t want to repeat the ‘EU scenario’, which saw the US belligerently inserting itself into a flourishing bilateral economic relationship in order to sabotage it as payback for one of the parties’ souring ties with Washington. As regards Myanmar, although it’s a high-risk economy because of the politically destabilizing reasons outlined in the first section, it’s also one of attractive rewards for those who choose to take their chances.
Russia wants to intensify its trade and investment in the country and understands the regional significance of Myanmar’s stability. Any major outbreak of disorder could carry through to Thailand, affecting it with refugee flows and the illegal trafficking organizations (people, arms, drugs) that typically exploit cross-bordered humanitarian crises. Other than the fact that Thailand is emerging as one of China’s most strategic regional allies per the ASEAN Silk Road initiative (and Russia and China work hand-in-hand in assisting one another’s global strategic initiatives per their Partnership ), Russia needs a stable Thailand so that the Eurasian Economic Union (EAU) could enter into a proposed Free Trade Agreement with it and flex out its Pivot to ASEAN.
If it can clinch a deal with Thailand to complement the existing one with Vietnam , all while maintaining and growing its Myanmar investments, then the opportunity might arise for a EAU-Myanmar Free Trade Agreement too, which could set the stage for a potential free trade zone between all of ASEAN and the EAU one day. In order to move towards this mutually beneficial scenario, Myanmar must first be stable and prosperous. Since Russia has no ulterior geopolitical motives at play (unlike India and China in their rivalry with the other), it emerges as the most neutral multipolar partner for Myanmar and the one in the best position to help sort out New Delhi and Beijing’s conflicting strategic interests in the country’s long-term role.
Interesting, but I’m not entirely sure about the connection between Aung Saan Suu Kyi and the Buddhist thugs as it is presented here. I mean, certainly there is a connection to some degree, in that some of these monks also support her, but that does not mean that she “unleashed” them or that she ordered or suggested the attacks on Rohingyas. Or is there any evidence that this is indeed the case?
the reasons for her release and gaining illusory favorable treatment of the USA seems to resemble Khodorkovsky release by Russia and it coming back to bite them
Well, I do not think she can handle the monks by the grace that characterizes her, but some monks, if not many, at least those that I have found in the heart of Tibet / Nepal ( except honorable exceptions like in some really austere and spartan monasteries like Rongbuk ) are too interested in money, I think., for the alleged spirituality of their Bhuddist practices.
Put the money needed, and many people, including many monks, will do anything.
Of course it is bad enough that she hasn’t condemned the attacks on Rohingyas. Or at least she didn’t, for a long time. I now found an article claiming that she has now at least paid lip service to the rights of minorities. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/myanmar-aung-san-suu-kyi-says-rohingya-issue-needs-careful-handling-1506733
However, this was only after severe criticism from many of her earlier admirers. Difficult to know what she really thinks about it. For sure, the Western Dalai Lama-image of Buddhism is somewhat simplified, and it shouldn’t really surprise anyone that Buddhists, like any other people, can be nasty to minorities.
The naive Western mind thinks the Buddhists all are peaceful. Tibet was not and Burma was not.
The US goes back to the 40’s with these ethnics and has deep hands inside useful Buddhist groups.
OSS-CIA are a continuity of manipulation for 70 years.
Andrew is merely addressing the current state.
This is a beginner’s starting point on the Saffron Monks violence in recent years. It began in 2007.
Do some research and you will discover Andrew is absolutely correct.
wow, thanks for the links that open my eyes!
Apparently it is as easy for terrorists in nominally Buddhist countries to call themselves monks as it is for ISIS to call itself Muslim or John McCain to call himself a Christian. And it’s equally easy for the CIA to have dealings with them all.
I admire Cartalucci and from your links it’s quite clear that his stories are the truth. Once again the color of peace and justice is being laid over violence and oppression.
We live in an age that is revealing exactly how far an evil intent can proceed and still remain concealed in a cloak of benevolence – sometimes all the way to the end objective. The United States, for all its incompetence, appears to be a master at this. We see from the color revolutions themselves that the groundwork is usually laid using the inspired energy of innocent and idealistic people.
I suppose it’s all part of understanding the nature of evil, to understand that its will to deception has no compunction in using sacred things as cover. I sympathize with the plight of Muslims, for example, who now have an enormous propaganda deficit to overcome.
In Nepal there are posters advertissing NED patronize everywhere, even in any road village next to a hanging bridge…..
Q; … a hanging bridge….
R; Is that the final destination for unruly monks?
Mordechai Vanunu was released in 2004 after serving 18 years in prison for revealing details of Israel’s nuclear weapons program. The U.S. agreed in 1969 not to discuss Israel’s nuclear arsenal, which has not been mentioned during the current debate on the agreement with Iran. Nati Shohat Tribune Content Agency
Yet as the sides joust over the Iran deal’s impact on Israel’s security, Obama has been silent on the Israeli arsenal as a potential deterrent against Iranian cheating on the accord. Opponents, led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, haven’t touched the issue, either. And it hasn’t figured in the public hearings that Congress is holding as part of a 60-day review that will culminate in a Republican-led bid to kill the Iran accord next month.
Very interesting Andrew, as always. As I do not follow the situation in Asia because of lack of time, I am not aware of these maneuvers, where I can see the parents of “color revolutions” everywhere, but I can not help but relate this to the recent attacks in Thailand.
As for migratory crisis, it seems that the same who benefit from conflicts causing them, also exploit this against other states which they want to attack / weaken. See for yourself:
“USA has organized an invasion of Europe by paying smugglers”:
“A leak of the intelligence service of Austria has revealed that US organizations spend extraordinary sums to pay smugglers who bring to Europe illegally every day thousands of refugees. Experts say that it is a geopolitical line based on the neomaquiavelic principles of American strategists.(…).
(….)The statement by the Austrian intelligence agent was analyzed by French journalist Nicolas Bonnal. In his article for the newspaper “Boulevard Voltaire” the analyst believes that this system is used by the US to organize an “invasion of Europe”(…)
(….)”Having plunged Africa into chaos and organized the invasion of Europe with the help of their loyal politicians like Renzi, Hollande and Merkel, US put into practice the neomaquiavelic principles of Leo Strauss and strategists Wolfowitz style. These failed Trotskyists want to rule countries by the chaos by depriving them of human and historical realities, turning them into bases, empty lands, drug addicts nests and refugee centers, “concludes the analyst.”
Elsi, I also have read that the US is paying for the invasion of Europe by refugees. Thierry Meyssan quotes the same Austrian Intell report. He says that the US attacks Europe w chaos so that it is weakened, cannot become a competitior. Moreover, that the chaos is part of a strategic plan whose end is the economic merger of Europe w US– to ensure irreversible vassalage.
Thierry speaks of the US desire to merge EU & NAFTA towards this end. However, I personally think that TTIP will be enough. TTIP will make the large transnational corps King. It will rob nations of any remaining econ sovereignty and of most political authority too.
People have misunderstood Vladimir Putin’s diplomatic efforts and restraint towards Europe: they have thought that he wants “Western acceptance” of Russia. Actually he wants to deprive the Empire of an important vassal– and perhaps out of cultural pity to save Europe.
MASSIVE MIDEAST REALIGNMENT. Thierry Meyssan, living in Syria, appears to have the inside track on the diplomatic agreements which change everything.
1. Some of us have argued that Israel does not rule US foreign policy, but is only a faction to whom dirty tricks are delegated. It appears that in the struggle for Congressional votes to ratify the Iran nuke deal that the Israelis and their cohorts are fighting against a larger, secret US-Iranian deal in which opposition between US & Iran will disappear and upper-class Iranians will join the capitalist classes.
Under the agreement Iranians will conrol Syria, 2/3 of Iraq & half of Lebanon; Iran will no longer be a revolutionary force resisting imperialism. If I remember correctly all 7 of the mideast nations to be taken down by US were not members of IMF, WTO & opposed charging interest. All had state banks that issued their own currency. Iran has already applied for WTO membership.
2. There are signs that the Israeli-neocon faction which resists the secret agreement are being defeated: General Allen, of the faction, arranged with Erdogan to impose a buffer-zone on Syria. It was announced. Then began the backpedalling as his faction, which includes Brookings thinktank, was overcome. Now it is only “planned, mulled, being considered”.
Further, it has been announced that US, NATO & Germany will withdraw their Patriot missiles from Turkey. (Thierry says Spain to announce soon, too). The missiles wd be necessary for the buffer zone, of course.
3. Thierry says it has been agreed that ISIS will be defeated and peace will come to Syria. [UN has already announced formation of a contact group & the steps to be taken.] This wd explain why the US has said nothing about the Iranian troops in Syria. It wd explain why the Patriot missiles are to be withdrawn– so that Syria can interdict the supply line coming out of Turkey. According to Thierry Russia will, for the first time, supply Syria w satellite photos to locate the enemy & his supply line– and US will stop supplying satellite photos to ISIS, altho al qaeda will continue to receive them.
4. Control of ISIS had been taken over by Turkey, and the predicted increase in Turkish power was a factor in Saudis’ acceptance of the new configuration.
5. The 6 Russian Interceptors (fighters, not bombers) exactly balance the US 6 fighters deployed to Turkey’s Incirlit Airfield. The Russians are taking no chances for a double-cross. Russians are considering deploying troops to Syria, if there is a UN mandate. [Russian sources have denied the presence of the Interceptors.]
6. There is to be a Common Arab Defence Force under Israeli command– which is already happening in Yemen. Palestinians are to get an internationally-recognised state, but w/o the right of return to Israeli-occupied lands.
Sources: http://www.voltairenet.org/article188459.html World After the Washington/Teheran Agreement
http://www.voltairenet.org/article187975.html The Secret Projects of Israel & Saudi Arabia
http://tarpley.net/audio/WCR-20150822.mp3 at 18:00.
This looks persuasive to me. What do you guys think?
It feels like living in some sort of morbid maelstrom at the moment, so it’s kinda difficult to keep a clear, objective mind going on about its daily business.
The fact that [or so it seems] both Cuba and Iran are now somewhat lesser evils, raises one of those flags indicating something suspicious is going down the drain. The US never moves anywhere without its 2nd agenda, so the question is, “What’s written down on those pages?”
Clearly there has been a tradeoff of Yemen for Saudi acquiescence on Syria.
I don’t know about the great rapprochement of US with Iran, giving Iran a place at the table of vassals.
Iran, with no effort at all, gets a huge stake in Eurasia.
Why would it subjugate itself beneath US hegemony (and keep itself vulnerable to NATO/US attacks).
Saudi shifting makes sense if they feel they need to hedge against Iran and ISIS (if that threat is not ended).
Russia on the ground in Syria is realistic with advisers, higher tech help and air cover as well as missile defenses (reportedly an Israeli jet taken down by S300).
Seeing all the Arabs suborn to Israel seems far fetched. If the US is leaving the planet, maybe they would want armed protection from someone, but who?
Turkey is unresolved in all these reports. Erdogan has played a bloody hand with the Kurds to gather nationalist support for his election.
Yet, Turkey is a powerful NATO armed force. I don’t see the US throwing the baby out with the bathwater even if Erdogan pissed in it.
As for a Crimean threat from Turkey via ISIS, Russia would take that very much as a threat to Moscow. Putin made it quite clear. He could supply the Kurds with weapons that would neutralize the Turkish air force.
In fact, Turkey may have stopped the Turkish Stream, but I would bet the gas pipeline is there sooner than Erdogan stays as leader. He’s marking himself as the next martyr in the region. The loss of wealth by rejecting the Russian gas supply is incomprehensible. His only other option is from pipelines in Central Asia and Iran or from the Gulf states, none of which are enough nor anywhere as profitable.
So, some of Meyssan’s information rings true, other things seem incongruous.
Once he gets beyond the borders of Syria, things go squirrely.
re: “Iran, with no effort at all, gets a huge stake in Eurasia.
Why would it subjugate itself beneath US hegemony (and keep itself vulnerable to NATO/US attacks).”
There are several reasons for trying to be moderately pro-Western (not subjugated). One is that their economy is so bad that they could have a revolution at some point. The harsh sanctions that China and Russia have supported have done their job. Another is that they will be vulnerable whether they are in Eurasia or not. Which is a bit strange phrasing, as they will do business with all the Silk Roads and such no matter what. The other thing is that Iran needs technology and their tens of billions of dollars back that the West has frozen. So this is the price – there is no other way to get things like parts for Boeings or specialized oil equipment. Finally, Iran, like Russia, has a powerful and dangerous pro-Western group in high places. Think Rafsanjani.
Anyway, one big advantage of making this deal is that Russia will finally sell them weapons. They may get more help from Russia as a non-friend than as a friend.
Daniel Rick & Larchmonter: Thanks for the feedback.
A point in favor of its credibility is that it’s a way to “clear the deck” so US can concentrate on Russia/Caucasus.
As for Russia supplying weapons to Kurds against Turkey: I wd think the destabilization of Turkey to be very much against Russia’s interests, don’t you? I do agree w Thierry that Erdogan’s days in power may be coming to an end cuz he just seems so volatile, so incautious. (the polar opposite of the discretion shown by the Russians). The army seems more diplomatic than erdogan does; they may settle it in the end w a coup. Under the constitution he should be holding snap elections now, but he’s annunced them for Nov– while he stays in piower meanwhile!
Turkey’s holding up the pipeline is officially explained as failure to agree on a rate, but rumor has it US queered the deal. Since EU as vassals have already queered Macedonia & Bulgaria & others, that seems believable to me.
MSM is full of “2 secret Iran deals known not even to Congress” said to be w the IAEA (not believable) Another reason to think maybe Thierry is right about a secret Iran-US deal? I saw a reference to a secret US-Iran deal this morning on Russian site (sorry, machine translation):
“After all the “strange” it looks at first glance. And only in the eyes of the “experts” be fooled for a long time and a respectable audience sucked from their own fingertips hypotheses about the “war of the USA against the IG and the” secret agreement between Washington and Tehran. ” According to which – supposedly … – Americans are either already started, or from day to day will begin cooperation with Iran in the fight against the Islamists and restore order in Iraq.”
http://www.stoletie.ru/geopolitika/ig_nastupajet_v_irake_423.htm “IG Comes in Iraq”
If Iran’s a vassal w compensating development and trade for her elites, she wd be less at threat from NATO than now. A situation not unlike under the Shah.
Gas pipeline: I don’t see how EU can continue to make it impossible for Russia to bypass Ukraine as a transit point cuz the line is old & in need of refurbishing, as well as the political instability. So I suppose they’ll go w Eastring or Tesla. Sharing the pipeline w other suppliers so as to lessen her influence..
It sounds like Brzezinski is getting his wish, and makes perfect sense. Makes good sense for Iran, at least the business class and the North Tehran crowd.
The situation in Turkey seems most unclear. Erdoghan and the AKP have cleaned out the military brass and replaced them with their guys. It may not matter what Russia wants as far as destabilization goes, though the question would be over who could help the PKK and the Kurds in Syria. Would Barzani do it without support from the US or Israel? Of course, if Iran’s version of Western-acceptable Islam is powerful, where does that leave Turkey? They would be fairly isolated.
Why would the Iranians believe they can work a deal with the US.A truce,I can see.A deal I don’t see.Could they point to any deal the US has ever in all their dealings in the ME kept.The US,no matter what the Obama Administration says is 100% committed to support of Israel.And Israel would never accept a deal that has Iran in power in Syria and Iraq.Iran does and will have power in those states.But it isn’t something Israel likes.Which is why they continually badmouth Iran.And whenever possible attack Syria.The power of the pro-Israeli lobby in the US isn’t only Jewish influence.Support of Israel has become over the years part of the Christian culture of the US.And I don’t see any change in that.
Uncle Bob, I don’t think the imm’y advantages to Iran are based on trust:
I rather think the nuke deal was dependent on the secondary rapprochement I mention. Consequences of both:
1. Massive development investment, doubtless involving big bucks to upper classes.
2. Development of her gas market.
3. Ceasing of Syrian conflict, which means Iran less threatened. Demonstration of US intentions in announced w/drawal of Patriots, prevention of Turkey’s further actions against Syrian Kurds, who are effective against ISIS. We’ve only to ee a definitive shutting of the trans-Turkey supply line now, and Syrians may be able to accomplish this themselves w/o the Patriots to stop their airpower.
Obviously none of this bodes well for Russia.
Degree of Iran’s integration into Western sphere can perhaps be measured by her participation in neoliberal financial institutions: NWO, IMF; whether she continues to issue her own currency from her state bank; whether she begins to charge interest (usury). The first 3 of these make an independent political policy very difficult.
This Fars news report points to closer cooperation with China – both banks are state-owned:
@Paul – not sure how this trend fits in with Zig’s ‘vision’…
Nice information. Generally speaking, another case of a country trying to get out from under the “rogue” umbrella, with the problem that the West wants regime change, so any friendship is absurd. Unfortunately, China, Thailand, and India were not friendly enough for Myanmar to avoid this problem. Many feel that China abused its power in Myanmar, which may indeed have been the case.
And the US always has two acceptable options. Regime change or major turmoil.
Never enough chaos for the Empire. Now their after Myanmar’s neighbor.
“US vs China US Backed Mobs Seek to Overthrow Malaysian Govt” August 24, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci – LD) – Malaysia’s “Berish” movement – an umbrella organization for various opposition groups opposed to the current government of Prime Minister Najib Razak – plans its fourth street demonstration in 8 years to unfold at the end of August. While Bersih’s alleged goal is “clean and fair elections,” it is openly led by the government’s opposition headed by the now imprisoned US-proxy Anwar Ibrahim and a myriad of US-funded and directed nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The US State Department, through its US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its subsidiary the National Democratic Institute (NDI), along with convicted financial criminal George Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI), have funded both Bersih directly, http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2015/08/us-vs-china-us-mobs-seek-to-overthrow.html
NATO TERRORIST GROUP Implicated in Bangkok Blast. — Cartalucci
Jane’s analyst at FCCT panel implicates “Grey Wolves” terror organization in Bangkok blast – created and for decades run out of the US embassy in Ankara, Turkey.
August 25, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci – LD) – The means, motivation, and opportunity have all already long been established linking last week’s unprecedented terror attack in Bangkok to ousted US-backed dictator Thaksin Shinawatra and his foreign sponsors. It has also been established that nearly all of the potential suspects these interests may have used to carry out the bombings are also linked to US interests.
The bombing occurred as Thailand prepared to move forward with a new national charter and as additional measures were being put in place to fully uproot Shinawatra’s political networks once and for all. -more- http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2015/08/breaking-janes-analyst-implicates-nato.html
China-Iran cooperation on nuclear energy, and the claim of a ‘special relationship’ between the two countries.
I am becoming more and more doubtful of any ‘secret agreement’ along the dimensions of Myassan’s report: where is he getting this information anyway?
You make a lot of claims while promoting the msm New York Times and Washington Post “Iraq has WMDs” propaganda machine. You smear reliable alternative media sources, (I don’t mean the penelope blogger, btw), all without sourcing any of this. Or proving your point in any way whatsoever. That is not what this site is about. Mod ME
Please go to websites such as: malaysiakini.com, themalaysianinsider.com. Please take the trouble to google the Wall Street Journal report, thanks!!