Thinking about the middle East, we unwittingly become hostages of the most complex combinations and contradictions. When logic is already not help, but intuition is the prerogative of the elite, we turn to history, which political portraits of contemporaries are a lot of analogies.
So, for example, Gamal Abdel Nasser in its personal scope and strategic plans may be comparable to Muhammad Ali of Egypt. They came to power by military coup, and he and the other rebelled against the empires: the first against the British and the second against the Ottoman. These rulers foresaw the time of the transfer of world power. And they have made a good progress.
However, each century (and generation), its revolution and its upheavals. Sometimes it seems that human society is in dire need of shocks that enliven and add resistance in future tests. Revolution always pull down the old order, offering something new, something previously unthinkable. So, the revolution of the Netherlands (1568 – 1648) was destined to turn the XVI century, causing obstruction of the rule of the Habsburgs. English revolution (1640-1660), based on bourgeois principles of the Dutch, has shaken the monarchical Europe of the XVII century, putting an end to the hegemony of the United provinces in international trade. American revolution (1775-1783), rooted in the philosophy of the French Enlightenment, undermined the values of the eighteenth century, shattering the aura of English omnipotence. The French revolution (1789 – 1799) was agitated the nineteenth century, ending with the feudal foundations of the continental European societies that gave legitimacy to the Anglo-American model of capitalism on a planetary scale. The great October revolution (1917) determined the vector of development of mankind in the twentieth century, showing how national projects can seamlessly coexist with supranational Federal control. Based on these examples, can we assume the events in the middle East the Great Arab revolution? How to evaluate the change of regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen; civil wars in Libya and Syria, mass protests in Turkey, Israel, Bahrain, Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco, Oman, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Djibouti and sugar Trap? To these questions the author will try to give answers.
Flips a sign
At first glance, chaotic and uncontrolled, the upheavals in the Arab-Muslim world reflect a very interesting trend: the countries that took the brunt of the protest wave – Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Syria take about 80% of the coastline of southern and South-Eastern Mediterranean. That means: the political forces that will drive these countries to seize control over oil and gas supplies to the European Union and China, with all the ensuing consequences. Apart from designated economic centers of power, great damage can be inflicted on Russia, the most powerful nation-state in the international energy market. The guarantor of the stability of the position of Gazprom on the European market is Damascus, hindering the aggressive plans of Doha; the fall of Assad will mark the exit of the gas infrastructure of Qatar to the Mediterranean, his ability unhindered transit of raw materials from the giant gas field "North", located in neighboring Iran territorial waters (and his field "South Pars").
Judging by the foreign oil policy of Russia based on the strategic partnership of Rosneft and the American ExxonMobil, the country's leadership in the person of President V. Putin has learned the negative experience of the USSR, which, as we recall, the Reagan administration organized a dumping war. Agreeing then with allies about increasing production of "black gold" in the Arabian Peninsula and in the North sea, America forced the dismantling of the world system of socialism. Now, in case of success on the Syrian front, the Washington-based commodity reserves of Doha, has the potential to move the conflict zone into the territory of our country. The stakes are incredibly high. At stake is the global pricing of oil and gas, that will affect the integrity of not only individual countries but the entire international system created after world war II.
"Rosneft" and "ExxonMobil" do not lose time: 13 February 2013 they expand the scope of cooperation under the strategic cooperation agreement in 2011, further including about 600 thousand square kilometers (150 million acres) exploration area in the Russian Arctic shelf, the potential participation by Rosneft (or its affiliate) in the project "point Thomson" in Alaska and a joint assessment of the feasibility of an LNG project in the Russian far East (4). The agreements provide for exploration and 7 new blocks in the Chukchi sea, Laptev sea and Kara sea. March 6, 2013 the parties went even far: "Neftegaz America Shelf LP" (Neftegaz), an indirect independent subsidiary of Rosneft, acquires 30% stake in 20 deepwater blocks ExxonMobil in the Gulf of Mexico for exploration in accordance with the signed agreement (6).
Given that the changes affected those countries, which was based on the postwar dominance of the USA in the middle East, prospects for peace look dollarization more than vague, because the American currency, delivered in 1971, President Richard Nixon from quasisolution security is entirely dependent on oil prices.
The departure of Gaddafi and Mubarak (despite contrariant military overthrow on 3 July 2013 Mohamed Morsi) from their positions means the end nasierowski political line aimed at dismantling British influence in the Arab-Muslim world. Egypt with its population of 85 million people and Libya, with its large oil reserves previously stabilized the political landscape of the Arab-Muslim world, ensuring an uninterrupted supply of oil for such industry giants as ExxonMobil, Texaco, Chevron, and "Gulf oil". The current situation is worrying.
The changes affected even the country which they crossed – Qatar. 25 June 2013, Emir Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani abdicated in favor of his son Sheikh Tamim bin Hamada al-Thani. It would seem nothing special: the father handed over the reins to his son. But the geopolitical implications of this event not long to wait – June 26, Egyptian military launch contrariant, shifting a week later, the Qatari client. Civil movement Tamarud ("Rebellion"), which has United liberal and secular opposition, including the "national salvation Front", collected on the streets of Cairo, Port said, Suez, and Monavie Sharqiyah millions of his supporters, backed by resolute military.
The most interesting event occurred a few days after Morsi's arrest, when "the company "Qatargas" informed "Egyptian natural gas holding" that it undertakes to provide the AAR "blue fuel" on previously reached agreements", namely "give as a gift, five deliveries of gas during the summer months" (5). The new Emir of Qatar has sent congratulatory telegrams to the new President A. Mansur, setting an example for the UAE, determined to provide Cairo with substantial economic assistance. If Morsi Egypt received economic support from Qatar and Turkey, Saudi Arabia now provides about us $ 5 billion United Arab Emirates $ 3 billion and Kuwait $ 3 billion.
Where does such generosity? Why these countries are so changeable?
The answer lies in the foreign policy ambitions of Mohamed Morsi, who broke the 15 June diplomatic relations with Syria, declaring that Assad and Hezbollah a "Holy war", implying the direct participation of the Egyptian army in the war against Damascus. And there's former allies have come to his senses. It is one thing to Finance the Syrian opposition and to disrupt the country from within, quite otherwise – to prevent the release of the Egyptian army beyond the frontiers, which will undoubtedly upset the balance of power in the entire macro-region. At best, Saudi Arabia (where smoldering internal conflict between clans), along with Qatar and the UAE would be under the military influence of Egypt, in the worst – crumbled like a house of cards, as was the case with Iraq. The Arab monarchies, seeing the dire situation for his protégé, who was unable to solve the problem of a shortage of hard currency, fuel and grain in the major cities, decided not to risk it. The failure of the IMF to the government of Mohamed Morsi in loan of 4.8 billion dollars only confirmed their doubts.
Cycles of chaos
Economists studying the evolution of planetary political system, it is reasonable to believe that "throughout the capitalist era financial expansions have testified about the transition from one regime of accumulation on a world scale to another"; "they – components of the current destruction of "old" regimes and the simultaneous creation of new" (1). It is difficult to disagree with this statement. However, you must remember that each financial expansion, only marks the final stage of the redistribution of power; the event, her previous serves as a large-scale conflict between nation States. With their inherent aggression and tenacity, they fight not only for territory and population, but for the money, for the fact that this money came to be in the right place at the right time.
History shows: after the peace of Westphalia of 1648, the international system, as if by magic, mutated at the beginning of each new century. And this happens in the intervals between the first and second decades. So, at the beginning of the eighteenth century the epicenter of international politics was the War of the Spanish succession (1701-1714), weakened hegemonic position of France in Europe; the confrontation Louis XIV with England overseas has shaken the power of the French, allowing the British to juggle the continental balance of power. With its nineteenth century scale, the Napoleonic wars also occurred in a similar time period (1799-1815), making chaos in the world political system, on which Britain will respond by expanding their colonial possessions in East and South Asia.
Close to us of the twentieth century was no exception to the rule. The first world war (1914 – 1918), epochal human tragedy that will shake the old confidence in the British forces and forced them to compare notes his middle East policy with the Americans. However, the reconfiguration clock is not yet ensured compliance with the British American interests, it took another world war to London accepted the terms of Washington's redistribution of oil resources of the Middle East. As you know, this whole process was consistent with the scheme of Franklin D. Roosevelt announced to the British Ambassador E. Halifax during a meeting at the White house on 18 February 1944: "Persian oil is yours,' he told the Ambassador. – The oil of Iraq and Kuwait, we split. As for the Saudi Arabia oil, it is ours" (3). In order that the voice of America was much louder, Secretary of state E. Stettinius proposed to include in the UN Charter provisions on custody rights of individual countries, causing resentment Winston Churchill: "never, under any circumstances, I will not agree to the fumbling fingers of forty or fifty Nations dealt with issues of vital importance to the British Empire. As long as I am Prime Minister, I will never give custody of a single inch of our inheritance" (6). But London had to do, the capital of the once all-powerful Empire could not single-handedly to tame the chaos of the system of international relations. Control of chaos proved too expensive for the country, shrouded in multi-billion dollar public debt.
Isn't America Obama's fate in Britain of the twentieth century? It is an open question. Especially when it comes to the US debt, which by the end of 2013 will be 106,6 percent of GDP – 17 trillion. 453 billion. Louder the voices of eminent experts, who believe that economic recovery is on the Western shore of the North Atlantic after the crisis of 2008 is only possible with the Great war. Maybe the Great Arab revolution is a prelude to such a war?
From the point of view of historical comparison, much converges with previous eras. The great Arab revolution, launched in December 2010, lasted for two and a half years and most likely will last the same amount. We are witnessing a critical period of history, similar in its consequences to the eras of Louis XIV and Charles II of Spain, Napoleon Bonaparte and William Pete Jr., Lloyd George and Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt. The only difference is that earlier financial expansion was carried out within the territory of the historical West (Western Europe and North America), and now global money supply is concentrated around Russia and China. Despite the grandeur of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, never before has our country had such political options, as it is now. The great Arab revolution, according to the international system in its arms, opens the way for non-Western national projects, among which the Russian project – the youngest and promising.
- Arrighi J. The long twentieth century: money, power and the origins of our time / Per. angl. A. Smirnov and N. Edelman. – M: Publishing house "Territory of the future", 2006. – 472. – P. 34.
- Subsidiary company of Rosneft acquires a stake to conduct geological exploration works on sites ExxonMobil in Gulf of Mexico // Rosneft, official website http://www.rosneft.ru/news/pressrelease/30082011.html
- Yergin D. Mining: world history fight for oil, money and power. – M.: "Alpina Publishers", 2011. — 960 p. http://www.gumer.info/bibliotek_Buks/History/Ergin/_Index_Dob.php
- Rosneft and ExxonMobil expand strategic cooperation // the Rosneft official website: http://www.rosneft.ru/news/pressrelease/30082011.html
- Tarasov D. Qatar does not waive its obligations to supply Egypt with natural gas // Business analysts: http://www.biztass.ru/news/id/76504
- Utkin A. I. The Diplomacy Of Franklin Roosevelt. — Sverdlovsk: Publishing house Ural University, 1990. — 544 p. http://militera.lib.ru/research/utkin2/08.html
- 04-07-2012Russia cooking oil blockade and the collapse of the scenario of the 80-ies
- 23-12-2012The Vedic understanding of state policy
- 22-11-2013In the archives of the "world government"
- 08-01-2014Of a mega-Church and their communication strategies
- 08-11-2012The main threat to peace or a recipe for success