The role of Great Britain in destabilization on the Middle East
Role of foreign powers in the organization of revolutions deny today only in a circle of incorrigible romantics. Certainly, once, in days of Robespierre and Cromwell, all forces of the old Europe threw on conservation of former world order, but it then. From those since then, in the world of the developed imperialism, about any solidarity of speech did not go any more.
Become by the talk of the town, Lenin - “German money” have perfected the organization of revolutions as technology of repartition.
Foreign sponsors dexterously play internal contradictions, operating with terminology like “ a revolutionary situation ”, or « tops — which cannot, and bottoms – which do not want », the terminology which has passed from the category of communist know-how in commonly known academic trues.
Export of revolutions, became business so ordinary, what even desktop geopolitic game "Risk" (Brzezinski’s so-called chessboard) has created the version "Risk-revolution" where dislocation of armies and military actions mesh with the organization of revolutions and revolts in territories of the opponent.
Have undergone variations and revolutions. If in days of Cromwell, Lenin, and Fidel with Ho Shi Min, the revolutionary governments, resorted to revolutionary terror (as to the answer to resistance of former owners and military intervention from their friends) today, revolutions became bloodless, or nearly so bloodless.
For this purpose even have thought up the term – “gandians”, "velvet", or "color" revolutions. Apparently, to such revolutions, unequivocally it is necessary to carry and an avalanche of protests and the mass disorders, swept to Maghreb and the Near East, the governments which have caused change in Tunis and Egypt.
Opened there is only one question: to whom is it favorable, and who behind it costs?
Today, in an assessment of events in Egypt there is an expert unity – the Washington tanks seriously discussed such prospects during an epoch of color revolutions in the East Europe (http: // nationalinterest.org/article/close-but-no-democracy-560).
Moreover, above their preparation worked international human rights the organizations, and scandal famous tv-leader Enderson Cooper similar has for ever got over to Cairo. All this can be treated as the American trace, however the answer to a question “what for to Americans of all this”, still does not exist.
Really, the policy of president Obama at all did not require similar escalation. It has deduced militarians from Iraq, supported in slow israel-palestinian negotiations, and change of a format of attitudes with Russia has opened the Central Asian countries for military cooperation across Afghanistan.
Besides, destabilization of region should frighten allies of the USA in Delhi and Tel Aviv – one the prospect of chaos in Pakistan will disturb, others – revival of the Arabian consciousness.
It is possible to explain the developed situation intrigues of republican competitors. Not without reason tea drinking, in the antisystem and quasar-patriotic absurdity, than do not concede of plays of "color" counterparts from the post Soviet countries.
Theoretically, creation of foreign policy problems will allow loosen positions of Obama as there is position of President Carter. Then, revolutions in Iran and Afghanistan have allowed to declare the future Nobel laureate, weak, not capable on an adequate management of the head of the state.
Destabilization of the Near East just as in days of Carter will create problems with oil, and loss of the control over Egypt will turn on from the president a Jewish lobby influential in mass-media. However, the scale of a political disaster can become critical not only for the president, but also for the USA as a whole.
And it understands not only in the White House, but also in opposition.
In the mean time, the USA is completely not unique sponsor of promotion of democracy. It is more than that; their role can be exaggerated, underestimating thus power of the transnational capital.
And in fact it, instead of the Congress of the USA, the main sponsor of human rights funds, and collector of fruits of velvet revolutions. So, color revolutions of the beginning 2000-s, have not brought essential dividends the USA, to the countries of the European Union.
Bruxelles is tired to beat off from persuasive attempts of the post-revolutionary governments to enter EU, Washington, in turn, has not managed, and probably and did not aspire to establish puppet modes like the Latin American juntas. The USA has merged on the nearest elections of the Ukrainian “Pinochet-loser”, and has made it without excessive sentiments.
Eventually, mission has appeared is executed. The transnational capital has received the – deregulation of credit sector, mass involving of citizens in credit dependence, trans nationalization of local banks, and on an output – the decision of internal problems of the information of the credit with debit due to distension a mortgage-credit bubble in the next country.
In the Near East, as it known, the key players have appeared not bankers, and petroleum experts. And one of leading forces is British Petroleum, in combination – one of key sponsor’s world human rights movements. Especial interest, British Petroleum feeds for promotion of democracy in Iran.
And it is no wondering – the nationalized Iranian stocks of oil, have been withdrawn at BP. In case of “democratic transformations » to Iran, deposits will be returned to former owners among which, as is known, it is a lot of relatives of English queen and the Persian check.
Once, in 50 last centuries, BP already returned the petroleum industry nationalized by prime-minister Mosadyk. Then corporation two years have sufficed. BP has lost for courts in the Hague, but, has soon organized mass protests and prime-minister-patriot has been compelled to submit to resignation.
Similarly BP operates and now – finances the Iranian opposition and Diaspora, creates to it unprecedented support in the West. But, as it known, without special successes.
In the mean time, financial position of BP forces to play Va-bank. From the beginning of 2000-s corporation is pursued with losses. At first – a fire at an oil refining factory in Texas.
Then, hurricane "Denis". A finishing chord became flooding a petro plat form “Deepwater Horizon”. The government of the USA has estimated damage in $20 billions, approximately in not the smaller sum technical measures on grating holes and water treating have managed. It, certainly, should be reflected both in reputation of the company, and on its capitalization.
BP has lost third of market capitalization (about $180 billion up to $115 billion, and its rating has decreased with АА (high reliability) up to pre-bankrupt rating ВВВ.
In turn, the position of administration of the USA has appeared rigid. The presidential couple, as is known, does not feed a piety concerning the British monarchy. And therefore, account of BP has been shown on-full. Republican congressmen even apologized before management of BP for the size of the penalty.
http: // www.youtube.com/watch? v = _ Ou5qEdiGpU .However, to achieve decrease in the sizes of compensation of BP it was not possible.
So, BP there is a motivation – both in destabilization of president Obama, and in destabilization of Iran (in opinion of many experts, revolution in Iran is objective of avalanche regional destabilization).
In the mean time, in the analysis of a situation on the Middle East, experts hold back the basic instant connected with technology of their organization. For some reason nobody occurs to connect events in Tunis and Egypt with provocations of Wikileaks.
For some reason it wanted to world to believe in the such Robin Hood-hacker who has stolen running metres of the compromising evidence at bad State Department and CIA. And it is not important, that security service Wikileaks is headed by former head of corporation Google.
By the way, Wikileaks has opened suspiciously few secrets of the British investigation.
By and large, it has opened only its one secret – it ostensibly weakness and bribability. A similar myth, as is known, it is extreme with pleasure dismiss special services, as a rule, before scale provocation. Like provocation in the Near East. Such participation of the British special services in protection of interests of a private concern at all it is no wonder.
In fact it is a question not simply of private enterprise – it is a question of the property of Queen. And not looking at constitutionality of a monarchy, to it, and not so British people, the British officers take the oath.
Anton Rozenvajn for Academy of Open Society Security.