http://journal-neo.org/2015/12/28/syria-its-not-a-civil-war-and-it-never-was/

The weapons are foreign, the fighters are foreign, the agenda is foreign. As Syrian forces fight to wrest control of their country back and restore order within their borders, the myth of the “Syrian civil war” continues on. Undoubtedly there are Syrians who oppose the Syrian government and even Syrians who have taken up arms against the government and in turn, against the Syrian people, but from the beginning (in fact before the beginning) this war has been driven from abroad. Calling it a “civil war” is a misnomer as much as calling those taking up arms “opposition.” It is not a “civil war,” and those fighting the Syrian government are not “opposition.”

Those calling this a civil war and the terrorists fighting the Syrian state “opposition” hope that their audience never wanders too far from their lies to understand the full context of this conflict, the moves made before it even started and where those moves were made from.

When did this all start?

It is a valid question to ask just when it all really started. The Cold War saw a see-sawing struggle between East and West between the United States and Europe (NATO) and not only the Soviet Union but also a growing China. But the Cold War itself was simply a continuation of geopolitical struggle that has carried on for centuries between various centers of power upon the planet. The primary centers include Europe’s Paris, London and Berlin, of course Moscow, and in the last two centuries, Washington.

In this context, however, we can see that what may be portrayed as a local conflict, may fit into a much larger geopolitical struggle between these prominent centers of special interests. Syria’s conflict is no different.

Syria had maintained close ties to the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. That meant that even with the fall of the Soviet Union, Syria still had ties to Russia. It uses Russian weapons and tactics. It has economic, strategic and political ties to Russia and it shares mutual interests including the prevailing of a multipolar world order that emphasizes the primacy of national sovereignty.

Because of this, Western centers of power have sought for decades to draw Syria out of this orbit (along with many other nations). With the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the fractured Middle East was first dominated by colonial Europe before being swept by nationalist uprising seeking independence. Those seeking to keep the colonial ties cut that they had severed sought Soviet backing, while those seeking simply to rise to power at any cost often sought Western backing.

The 2011 conflict was not Syria’s first. The Muslim Brotherhood, a creation and cultivar of the British Empire since the fall of the Ottomans was backed in the late 70s andearly 80s in an abortive attempt to overthrow then Syrian President Hafez al-Assad, father of current Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The armed militants that took part in that conflict would be scattered in security crackdowns following in its wake, with many members of the Muslim Brotherhood forming a new US-Saudi initiative called Al Qaeda. Both the Brotherhood and now Al Qaeda would stalk and attempt to stunt the destiny of an independent Middle East from then on, up to and including present day.

There is nothing “civil” about Syria’s war.

In this context, we see clearly Syria’s most recent conflict is part of this wider struggle and is in no way a “civil war” unfolding in a vacuum, with outside interests being drawn in only after it began.

The Muslim Brotherhood and its Al Qaeda spin-off were present and accounted for since the word go in 2011. By the end of 2011, Al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise (Al Nusra) would be carrying out nationwide operations on a scale dwarfing other so-called rebel groups. And they weren’t this successful because of the resources and support they found within Syria’s borders, but instead because of the immense resources and support flowing to them from beyond them.

Saudi Arabia openly arms, funds and provides political support for many of the militant groups operating in Syria since the beginning. In fact, recently, many of these groups, including allies of Al Qaeda itself, were present in Riyadh discussing with their Saudi sponsors the future of their joint endeavor.

Together with Al Nusra, there is the self-anointed Islamic State (IS). IS, like the Syrian conflict itself, was portrayed by the Western media for as long as possible as a creation within a vacuum. The source of its military and political strength was left a mystery by the otherwise omniscient Western intelligence community. Hints began to show as Russian increased its involvement in the conflict. When Russian warplanes began pounding convoys moving to and from Turkish territory, bound for IS, the mystery was finally solved. IS, like all other militant groups operating in Syria, were the recipients of generous, unending stockpiles of weapons, equipment, cash and fighters piped in from around the globe.

The Syrian conflict was borne of organizations created by centers of foreign interests decades ago who have since fought on and off not for the future of the Syrian people, but for a Syria that meshed more conveniently into the foreign global order that created them. The conflict has been fueled by a torrent of weapons, cash, support and even fighters drawn not from among the Syrian people, but from the very centers of these foreign special interests; in Riyadh, Ankara, London, Paris, Brussels and Washington.

How to settle a civil war that doesn’t exist?

If the Syrian conflict was created by foreign interests fueling militant groups it has used for decades as an instrument of executing foreign policy (in and out of Syria), amounting to what is essentially a proxy invasion, not a civil war, how exactly can a “settlement” be reached?

Who should the Syrian government be talking to in order to reach this settlement? Should it be talking to the heads of Al Nusra and IS who clearly dominate the militants fighting Damascus? Or should it be talking to those who have been the paramount factor in perpetuating the conflict, Riyadh, Ankara, London, Paris, Brussels and Washington, all of whom appear involved in supporting even the most extreme among these militant groups?

If Damascus finds itself talking with political leaders in these foreign capitals, is it settling a “civil war” or a war it is fighting with these foreign powers? Upon the world stage, it is clear that these foreign capitals speak entirely for the militants, and to no one’s surprise, these militants seem to want exactly what these foreign capitals want.

Being honest about what sort of conflict Syria is really fighting is the first step in finding a real solution to end it. The West continues to insist this is a “civil war.” This allows them to continue trying to influence the outcome of the conflict and the political state Syria will exist in upon its conclusion. By claiming that the Syrian government has lost all legitimacy, the West further strengthens its hand in this context.

Attempts to strip the government of legitimacy predicated on the fact that it stood and fought groups of armed militants arrayed against it by an axis of foreign interests would set a very dangerous and unacceptable precedent. It is no surprise that Syria finds itself with an increasing number of allies in this fight as other nations realize they will be next if the “Syria model” is a success.

Acknowledging that Syria’s ongoing conflict is the result of foreign aggression against Damascus would make the solution very simple. The solution would be to allow Damascus to restore order within its borders while taking action either at the UN or on the battlefield against those nations fueling violence aimed at Syria. Perhaps the clarity of this solution is why those behind this conflict have tried so hard to portray it as a civil war.

For those who have been trying to make sense of the Syrian “civil war” since 2011 with little luck, the explanation is simple, it isn’t a civil war and it never was. Understanding it as a proxy conflict from the very beginning (or even before it began) will give one a clarity in perception that will aid one immeasurably in understanding what the obvious solutions are, but only when they come to this understanding.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

http://journal-neo.org/2015/12/28/as-the-east-creates-the-west-tries-to-destroy/

I’m feeling more and more in recent months that, as difficult as it may be to believe, our world is moving away from seemingly endless wars. Make no mistake, we haven’t seen the end of wars at all. The dynamic and the war energy is changing, however. Not without a frenzy of self-conceit does the so-called Western World throw forks, china, pots, pans, rolling pins–anything it can get its bloody hands on–like a spoiled child throwing a gargantuan temper-tantrum. It tries to deny this reality over which it has less control by the second. The world is moving away from wars, from an, if-you-will, patriarchal psychosis of control–a matrix of fear, shame, guilt, rage, hate. What is beginning to emerge in what we in the West have egoistically termed the East, is construction, building new great projects to uplift a sector of mankind ignored for more that a thousand years. This transformative positive motion is what, if anything, will save our humankind from the mass death and destruction some in the West so devoutly wish for us.

I want to illustrate this with recent developments out of what was centuries ago called in Chinese, “zhōngguó” or “the center of civilization.” It may well become that again if present trends with China, Russia and other Eurasian nations continue.

China is moving forward with an impressive array of major international infrastructure projects, including with Russia and the other states of the Eurasian Economic Union, even on to the European Union. Beijing is, with customary Chinese speed, linking its economy by land and by sea lanes to all Eurasia, from the East China Sea to the Black Sea, from the Malacca Strait to the Gulf of Finland, to Piraeus in the eastern Mediterranean.

Beijing has just inaugurated its Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, AIIB, an institution that could soon pale the floundering US-controlled World Bank in funding not wasteful windmills but real infrastructure projects across Asia and into Eurasia. However, Beijing is not waiting for new banks.

China as new Zhōngguó

It’s important to have a clear view to the positive developments in the world. We tend to forget as we are too often hypnotized by the negative. I want to touch briefly on recent developments involving the Peoples’ Republic of China which are potentially transformative for the entire planet if done in a right way, a way that disentangles the Eurasian countries from the destructive and bankrupt Dollar System.

On December 4, at the opening of a two-day Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) in Johannesburg South Africa, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced China will give $60 billion in assistance and loans for African countries. It will “include $5 billion in zero interest loans and $35 billion in preferential facility and export credit and concessionary loans.” Xi also announced drought aid for the African continent, stating, “China is greatly concerned about the poor harvest caused by El Nino in many African countries and will provide one billion renminbi yuan ($156 million) worth of emergency food aid to the affected countries.”

It’s worth noting that China founded the FOCAC with participation of 40 African nations and their ministers in 2000. In 2006 Beijing hosted the first FOCAC Heads of State Summit in China with participation of 35 African heads of state. At that summit China announced it would make $5 billion worth of concessionary loans to Africa. That major Chinese economic interest in Africa caused shock waves in Washington at the US Treasury and at the US-dominated iMF. China’s then-President Hu later announced the creation of the China-Africa Development Fund to further Chinese investment in Africa with $1 billion initial funding, which he said was expected to grow to US$5 billion in the future.

The Washington response by the Bush-Cheney cabal to China’s economic cooperation with long-neglected IMF-depressed African nations, was to create AFRICOM, a dedicated Pentagon command solely devoted to countering Chinese influence in Africa. How? With wars, Color Revolutions, Arab Spring, destruction of Libya under the fraudulent “Right to Protect” ruse, creation of terrorist gangs in Mali, of Nigeria’s Boko Harem, and so, ad nauseum.

Now, at the Johannesburg second heads of state Summit and the sixth ministerial meeting of FOCAC, Beijing announced it will give an added $60 billion to African states for development projects and aid. Will it benefit Chinese interests? Of course, and why not? Will it benefit Africa? Yes, again. Unlike NATO’s endless wars, construction of infrastructure—railways, water navigation, electric power grids, lifts people up and enhances peace and stability. That’s a basic fact of human history.

Prior to the FOCAC meeting Xi went to Zimbabwe, a long-standing Chinese ally, where he announced loans to revamp its depressed economy. Ten economic agreements were signed between China and Zimbabwe’s President Mugabe, someone the British have tried repeatedly to oust since 1997. In South Africa, Xi signed bilateral agreements and loan deals worth $6.5 billion, mainly to build South African infrastructure. A total of 26 agreements were signed between South Africa and China, noted South African President Jacob Zuma. South Africa is also a member of the BRICS countries–Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa.

China’s fast road to EU

In addition to growing its economic links to the vast, rich and by-the-West largely neglected African continent, China is moving to secure its vast One Belt, One Road high-speed railway that goes into the countries of the European Union.

On November 26, China’s Prime Minister Li Keqiang hosted 16 European leaders in Suhzou in the fourth China-Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) summit. The forum, initiated by Beijing in 2012 saw leaders from China and 16 Central and Eastern European states: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Slovenia. All those European countries are struggling under the depressed EU economic situation. Chinese media called the meeting a “golden opportunity” to deepencooperation. Given China’s fascination with gold of late–China has surpassed South Africa to become the world’s largest gold mining country–it could have multiple meanings.

Given the de facto state of near-war and economic sanctions existing between the states of the EU–led by Germany, France, UK and Spain–with China’s close ally, the Russian Federation, China wants to secure completion of its vast Eurasian network of high-speed railways rapidly. One Belt, One Bridge as it is officially known, would as Beijing sees, place China firmly into the large markets of the European Union as an urgent priority, as well to boost depressed Chinese economic growth.

The states of Central and Eastern Europe are to be China’s entrepôt to the larger EU markets. Beijing knows it’s merely a matter of time before the warhawks in Washington and Wall Street target China too. Beijing has few illusions about Washington geostrategy, this I know for certain.

Big Infrastructure Projects

China’s Li told the summit participants how China views the region: “Located at the east gateway to Europe and along the routes of the Belt and Road initiative, CEECs enjoy a distinct advantage for enhancing connectivity,” adding that China wants to work with them, “to build the China-Europe land-sea express line and promote connectivity inEurope.”

Xinhua, the official China state news agency, summarizing the results of the summit spoke of, “infrastructure-led all-round cooperation” between China and the CEE states. China is also making a bid to construct railways, roads, and ports in Europe. Concretely, China signed deals with both Hungary and Serbia to build a high-speed rail line between Budapest and Belgrade. Construction will begin before the end of this year, to be completed by 2017. Xinhua described the new railway as “a fast lane for import and export of products between China and Europe.”

China is the world leader in building high-speed (faster than 200 km/hour) rail lines. The country has built more than 20,380 km of high-speed tracks over the past decade, more than the rest of the world’s high-speed rail tracks combined, with another 16,775 km (10,424 miles) domestically under construction or in planning. That does not include the external Eurasian lines of the One Belt, One Road Beijing is currently laying down.

China is the world address in rail infrastructure today, while the West, led by the pathetic rail construction record of the USA, falls farther and farther behind. China built the advanced Shanghai Maglev magnetically levitated ultra-high speed train that goes over 400 km/hour. It’s the world’s fastest regular service train that German industry developed in the 1980s, but which was politically blocked at home in Germany. Initially, China began it’s high-speed rail development with foreign technology transfer agreements with Alstom, Siemens, Bombardier and Kawasaki Heavy Industries. The Chinese engineers then re-designed internal components and built indigenous trains that can reach speeds of up to 380 km/h. China now exports Chinese rail technology.

The Hungary-Serbia high-speed railway will be part of a larger “land-sea express passage” linking China and Europe. According to the Chinese government, “This express passage extends from the Piraeus Port of Greece in the south to Budapest, Hungary in the north via Skopje in Macedonia and Belgrade in Serbia.” Though Greece was not part of the China-CEE summit, leaders from the other three– Hungary, Macedonia, and Serbia – met with Li and agreed to work together on the project.

Li also announced that China will invest in constructing and upgrading port facilities in the Baltic, Adriatic, and Black Seas. He stated that “Croatia, Slovenia, Poland, Latvia and Bulgaria have proposed to strengthen cooperation on port development.” Projects will focus on “production capacity cooperation among the ports and industrial parks of the coastal areas of the Adriatic Sea, the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea.” Chinese companies will be “the main players in these projects.”

China will use incentive financing to insure that Chinese companies get a decent share of the work. Li said, “China will provide preferential financing support for those projects that use Chinese products and equipment in production capacity cooperation.” He proposed a new “16+1 finance company” to financially support such projects “through business means.” That would avoid the severe EU public debt restrictions. Vazil Hudak, Slovakia’s Minister of Economy, told Xinhua, “The whole region could be interested in larger infrastructure projects like communication, transport or some energy infrastructure between these countries, meaning gas pipelines.”

Little wonder that Washington and the American oligarchs fear they are losing control of the world. China, especially in concert with Russia and the Eurasian states is leading an economic renaissance of a scale not seen in more than a century.