The Sino-Russian Alliance: Challenging America's Ambitions in Eurasia

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

The Sino-Russian Alliance: Challenging America's Ambitions in Eurasia

The "Great Game" Enters the Mediterranean: Gas, Oil, War, and Geo-Politics

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, September 23, 2007

"But if the middle space [Russia and the former Soviet Union] rebuffs the West [the European Union and America], becomes an assertive single entity, and either gains control over the South [Middle East] or forms an alliance with the major Eastern actor [China], then America’s primacy in Eurasia shrinks dramatically. The same would be the case if the two major Eastern players were somehow to unite. Finally, any ejection of America by its Western partners [the Franco-German entente] from its perch on the western periphery [Europe] would automatically spell the end of America’s participation in the game on the Eurasian chessboard, even though that would probably also mean the eventual subordination of the western extremity to a revived player occupying the middle space [e.g. Russia]."

-Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)

Sir Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion states that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". These precepts of physics can also be used in the social sciences, specifically with reference to social relations and geo-politics. 

America and Britain, the Anglo-American alliance, have engaged in an ambitious project to control global energy resources. Their actions have resulted in a series of complicated reactions, which have established a Eurasian-based coalition which is preparing to challenge the Anglo-American axis.

Encircling Russia and China: Anglo-American Global Ambitions Backfire

"Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible. We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way."

-Vladimir Putin at the Munich Conference on Security Policy in Germany (February 11, 2007)

What American leaders and officials called the "New World Order" is what the Chinese and Russians consider a "Unipolar World". This is the vision or hallucination, depending on perspective, that has bridged the Sino-Russian divide between Beijing and Moscow.

China and Russia are well aware of the fact that they are targets of the Anglo-American alliance. Their mutual fears of encirclement have brought them together. It is no accident that in the same year that NATO bombarded Yugoslavia, President Jiang Zemin of China and President Boris Yeltsin of Russia made an anticipated joint declaration at a historic summit in December of 1999 that revealed that China and the Russian Federation would join hands to resist the "New World Order". The seeds for this Sino-Russian declaration were in fact laid in 1996 when both sides declared that they opposed the global imposition of single-state hegemony.

Both Jiang Zemin and Boris Yeltsin stated that all nation-states should be treated equally, enjoy security, respect each other’s sovereignty, and most importantly not interfere in the internal affairs of other nation-states. These statements were directed at the US government and its partners.

The Chinese and Russians also called for the establishment of a more equitable economic and political global order. Both nations also indicated that America was behind separatist movements in their respective countries. They also underscored American-led ambitions to balkanize and Finlandize the nation-states of Eurasia. Influential Americans such as Zbigniew Brzezinski had already advocated for de-centralising and eventually dividing up the Russian Federation.

Both the Chinese and Russians issued a statement warning that the creation of an international missile shield and the contravention of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) would destabilise the international environment and polarise the globe. In 1999, the Chinese and Russians were aware of what was to come and the direction that America was headed towards. In June 2002, less than a year before the onslaught of the "Global War on Terror", George W Bush Jr announced that the US was withdrawing from the ABM Treaty.

On July 24, 2001, less than two months before September 11, 2001, China and Russia signed the Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Co-operation. The latter is a softly worded mutual defence pact against the US, NATO, and the US sponsored Asian military network which was surrounding China. [1]

The military pact of the Shanghai Treaty Organisation (SCO) also follows the same softly worded format. It is also worth noting that Article 12 of the 2001 Sino-Russian bilateral treaty stipulates that China and Russia will work together to maintain the global strategic balance, "observation of the basic agreements relevant to the safeguard and maintenance of strategic stability", and "promote the process of nuclear disarmament". [2] This seems to be an insinuation about a nuclear threat posed from the United States.

Standing in the Way of America and Britain: A "Chinese-Russian-Iranian Coalition"

As a result of the Anglo-American drive to encircle and ultimately dismantle China and Russia, Moscow and Beijing have joined ranks and the SCO has slowly evolved and emerged in the heart of Eurasia as a powerful international body.

The main objectives of the SCO are defensive in nature. The economic objectives of the SCO are to integrate and unite Eurasian economies against the economic and financial onslaught and manipulation from the "Trilateral" of North America, Western Europe, and Japan, which controls significant portions of the global economy.

The SCO charter was also created, using Western national security jargon, to combat "terrorism, separatism, and extremism". Terrorist activities, separatist movements, and extremist movements in Russia, China, and Central Asia are all forces traditionally nurtured, funded, armed, and covertly supported by the British and the US governments. Several separatist and extremist groups that have destabilised SCO members even have offices in London.

Iran, India, Pakistan, and Mongolia are all SCO observer members. The observer status of Iran in the SCO is misleading. Iran is a de facto member. The observer status is intended to hide the nature of trilateral co-operation between Iran, Russia, and China so that the SCO cannot be labelled and demonised as an anti-American or anti-Western military grouping.

The stated interests of China and Russia are to ensure the continuity of a "Multi-Polar World". Zbigniew Brzezinski prefigured in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives and warned against the creation or "emergence of a hostile [Eurasian-based] coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America’s primacy". [3] He also called this potential Eurasian coalition an "‘antihegemonic’ alliance" that would be formed from a "Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition" with China as its linchpin. [4] This is the SCO and several Eurasian groups that are connected to the SCO.

In 1993, Brzezinski wrote "In assessing China’s future options, one has to consider also the possibility that an economically successful and politically self-confident China – but one which feels excluded from the global system and which decides to become both the advocate and the leader of the deprived states of the world – may decide to pose not only an articulate doctrinal but also a powerful geopolitical challenge to the dominant trilateral world [a reference to the economic front formed by North America, Western Europe, and Japan]." [5]

Brzezinski warns that Beijing’s answer to challenging the global status quo would be the creation of a Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition: "For Chinese strategists, confronting the trilateral coalition of America and Europe and Japan, the most effective geopolitical counter might well be to try and fashion a triple alliance of its own, linking China with Iran in the Persian Gulf/Middle East region and with Russia in the area of the former Soviet Union [and Eastern Europe]." [6] Brzezinski goes on to say that the Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition, which he moreover calls an "antiestablishmentarian [anti-establishmentarian] coalition", could be a potent magnet for other states [e.g., Venezuela] dissatisfied with the [global] status quo. [7]

Furthermore, Brzezinski warned in 1997 that "The most immediate task [for the US] is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." [8] It may be that his warnings were forgotten, because the US has been repealed from Central Asia and US forces have been evicted from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

"Velvet Revolutions" Backfire in Central Asia

Central Asia was the scene of several British-sponsored and American-sponsored attempts at regime change. The latter were characterised by velvet revolutions similar to the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and the Rose Revolution in Georgia.

These velvet revolutions financed by the US failed in Central Asia, aside from Kyrgyzstan where there had been partial success with the so-called Tulip Revolution.

As a result the US government has suffered major geo-strategic setbacks in Central Asia. All of Central Asia’s leaders have distanced themselves from America.

Russia and Iran have also secured energy deals in the region. America’s efforts, over several decades, to exert a hegemonic role in Central Asia seem to have been reversed overnight. The US sponsored velvet revolutions have backfired. Relations between Uzbekistan and the US were especially hard hit.

Uzbekistan is under the authoritarian rule of President Islam Karamov. Starting in the second half of the 1990s President Karamov was enticed into bringing Uzbekistan into the fold of the Anglo-American alliance and NATO. When there was an attempt on President Karamov’s life, he suspected the Kremlin because of his independent policy stance. This is what led Uzbekistan to leave CSTO. But Islam Karamov, years later, changed his mind as to who was attempting to get rid of him.

According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, Uzbekistan represented a major obstacle to any renewed Russian control of Central Asia and was virtually invulnerable to Russian pressure; this is why it was important to secure Uzbekistan as an American protectorate in Central Asia.

Uzbekistan also has the largest military force in Central Asia.  In 1998, Uzbekistan held war games with NATO troops in Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan was becoming heavily militarised in the same manner as Georgia was in the Caucasus. The US gave Uzbekistan huge amounts of financial aid to challenge the Kremlin in Central Asia and also provided training to Uzbek forces.

With the launching of the "Global War on Terror", in 2001, Uzbekistan, an Anglo-American ally, immediately offered bases and military facilities to the US in Karshi-Khanabad.

The leadership of Uzbekistan already knew the direction the "Global War on Terror" would take. To the irritation of the Bush Jr Administration, the Uzbek President formulated a policy of self-reliance. The honeymoon between Uzbekistan and the Anglo-American alliance ended when Washington, D.C. and London contemplated removing Islam Karamov from power. He was a little too independent for their comfort and taste. Their attempts at removing the Uzbek President failed, leading eventually to a shift in geo-political alliances.  

The tragic events of Andijan on May 13, 2005 were the breaking point between Uzbekistan and the Anglo-American alliance. The people of Andijan were incited into confronting the Uzbek authorities, which resulted in a heavy security clampdown on the protesters and a loss of lives.

Armed groups were reported to have been involved. In the US, Britain, and the E.U., the media reports focused narrowly on human rights violations without mentioning the covert role of the Anglo-American alliance. Uzbekistan held Britain and the US responsible accusing them of inciting rebellion. 

M. K. Bhadrakumar, the former Indian ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998), revealed that the Hezbut Tahrir (HT) was one of the parties blamed for stirring the crowd in Andijan by the Uzbek government. [9] The group was already destabilising Uzbekistan and using violent tactics. The headquarters of this group happens to be in London and they enjoy the support of the British government. London is a hub for many similar organisations that further Anglo-American interests in various countries, including Iran and Sudan, through destabilisation campaigns. Uzbekistan even started clamping down on foreign non-governmental organisations (NGOs) because of the tragic events of Andijan.

The Anglo-American alliance had played its cards wrong in Central Asia. Uzbekistan officially left the GUUAM Group, a NATO-US sponsored anti-Russian body. GUUAM once again became the GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova) Group on May 24, 2005.

On July 29, 2005 the US military was ordered to leave Uzbekistan within a six-month period. [10] Literally, the Americans were told they were no longer welcome in Uzbekistan and Central Asia.

Russia, China, and the SCO added their voices to the demands. The US cleared its airbase in Uzbekistan by November, 2005.

Uzbekistan rejoined the CSTO alliance on June 26, 2006 and realigned itself, once again, with Moscow. The Uzbek President also became a vocal advocate, along with Iran, for pushing the US totally out of Central Asia. [11] Unlike Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan continued to allow the US to use Manas Air Base, but with restrictions and in an uncertain atmosphere. The Kyrgyz government also would make it clear that no US operations could target Iran from Kyrgyzstan.

Major Geo-Strategic Error 

It appears that a strategic rapprochement between Iran and America was in the works from 2001 to 2002. At the outset of the global war on terrorism, Hezbollah and Hamas, two Arab organisations supported by Iran and Syria, were kept off the US State Department’s list of terrorist organisations. Iran and Syria were also loosely portrayed as potential partners in the "Global War on Terror".

Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Iran expressed its support for the post-Saddam Hussein Iraqi government. During the invasion of Iraq, the American military even attacked the Iraqi-based Iranian opposition militia, the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organisation (MEK/MOK/MKO). Iranian jets also attacked the Iraqi bases of the MEK in approximately the same window of time.

Iran, Britain, and the US also worked together against the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is worth mentioning that the Taliban were never allies of Iran. Up until 2000, the Taliban had been supported by the US and Britain, working hand in glove with the Pakistani military and intelligence.

The Taliban were shocked and bewildered at what they saw as an American and British betrayal in 2001 – this is in light of the fact that in October, 2001 they had stated that they would hand over Osama bin Laden to the US upon the presentation of evidence of his alleged involvement in the 9/11 attacks. 

Zbigniew Brzezinski warned years before 2001 that "a coalition allying Russia with both China and Iran can develop only if the United States is shortsighted enough to antagonise China and Iran simultaneously". [12] The arrogance of the Bush Jr Administration has resulted in this shortsighted policy.

According to The Washington Post, "Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by US forces three years ago [in 2003], an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table – including full co-operation on nuclear programmes, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups." [13] 
 

The White House impressed by what they believe were "grand victories" in Iraq and Afghanistan merely ignored the letter sent through diplomatic channels by the Swiss government on behalf of Tehran.

However, it was not because of what was wrongly perceived as a quick victory in Iraq that the Bush Jr Administration pushed Iran aside. On January 29, 2002, in a major address, President Bush Jr confirmed that the US would also target Iran, which had been added to the so-called "Axis of Evil" together with Iraq and North Korea. The US and Britain intended to attack Iran, Syria, and Lebanon after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In fact immediately following the invasion, in July 2003, the Pentagon formulated an initial war scenario entitled "Theatre Iran Near Term (TIRANNT)". 

Starting in 2002, the Bush Jr Administration had deviated from their original geo-strategic script. France and Germany were also excluded from sharing the spoils of war in Iraq.

The intention was to act against Iran and Syria just as America and Britain had used and betrayed their Taliban allies in Afghanistan. The US was also set on targeting Hezbollah and Hamas. In January of 2001, according to Daniel Sobelman, a correspondent for Haaretz, the US government warned Lebanon that the US would go after Hezbollah. These threats directed at Lebanon were made at the start of the presidential term of George W. Bush Jr, eight months before the events of September 11, 2001.
The conflict at the United Nations Security Council between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente, supported by Russia and China, was a pictogram of this deviation.

American geo-strategists for years after the Cold War had scheduled the Franco-German entente to be partners in their plans for global primacy. In this regard, Zbigniew Brzezinski had acknowledged that the Franco-German entente would eventually have to be elevated in status and that the spoils of war would have to be divided with Washington’s European allies.

By the end of 2004, the Anglo-American alliance had started to correct its posture towards France and Germany. Washington had returned to its original geo-strategic script with NATO playing an expanded role in the Eastern Mediterranean. In turn, France was granted oil concessions in Iraq.

The 2006 war plans for Lebanon and the Eastern Mediterranean also point to a major shift in direction, a partnership role for the Franco-German entente, with France and Germany playing a major military role in the region.   

 
It is worth noting that a major shift occurred in early 2007 with regard to Iran. Following US setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as in Lebanon, Palestine, Somalia, and former Soviet Central Asia), the White House entered into secret negotiations with Iran and Syria. However, the dye has been cast and it would appear that America will be unable to break an evolving military alliance which includes Russia, Iran, and China as its nucleus.

The Baker-Hamilton Commission: Covert Anglo-American Co-operation with Iran and Syria?

"America should also strongly support Turkish aspirations to have a pipeline from Baku in [the Republic of] Azerbaijan to Ceyhan on the Turkish Mediterranean cost serve as [a] major outlet for the Caspian Sea basin energy sources. In addition, it is not in America’s interest to perpetuate American-Iranian hostility. Any eventual reconciliation should be based on the recognition of a mutual strategic interest in stabilising what currently is a very volatile regional environment for Iran [e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan]. Admittedly, any such reconciliation must be pursued by both sides and is not a favour granted by one to the other. A strong, even religiously motivated but not fanatically anti-Western Iran is in the US interest, and ultimately even the Iranian political elite may recognise that reality. In the meantime, American long-range interests in Eurasia would be better served by abandoning existing US objections to closer Turkish-Iranian economic co-operation, especially in the construction of new pipelines..."

-Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)

The recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Commission or the Iraq Study Group (ISG) are not a redirection in regards to engaging Iran, but a return to the track that the Bush Jr Administration had deviated from as a result of the delusions of its hasty victories in Afghanistan and Iraq.  In other words, the Baker-Hamilton Commission was about damage control and re-steering America to the geo-strategic path originally intended by military planners that the Bush Jr Administration seems to have deviated from.

The ISG Report also subtly indicated that adoption of so-called "free market" economic reforms be pressed on Iran (and by extension Syria) instead of regime change. The ISG also favoured the accession of both Syria and Iran to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). [14] It should also be noted, in this regard, that Iran has already started a mass privatisation programme that involves all sectors from banking to energy and agriculture.

The ISG Report also recommends an end to the Arab-Israeli Conflict and the establishment of peace between Israel and Syria. [15]

The joint interests of Iran and the US were also analysed by the Baker-Hamilton Commission. The ISG recommended that the US should not empower the Taliban again in Afghanistan (against Iran). [16] It should also be noted that Imad Moustapha, the Syrian ambassador to the US, the Syrian Foreign Minister, and Javad Zarif, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, were all consulted by the Baker-Hamilton Commission. [17] The Iranian Ambassador to the UN, Javad Zarif, has also been a middleman between the US and Iranian governments for years. 

It is worth mentioning that the Clinton Administration was involved in the track of rapprochement with Iran, while also attempting to keep Iran in check under the "dual-containment" policy directed against Iraq and Iran. This policy was also linked to the 1992 Draft Defence Guidance paper written by people within the Bush Sr. and Bush Jr Administrations.

It is worth noting that Zbigniew Brzezinski had stated as far back as 1979 and again in 1997 that Iran under its post-revolutionary political system could be co-opted by America. [18] Britain also ensured Syria and Iran in 2002 and 2003 that they would not be targeted and encouraged their co-operation with the White House.

It should be noted that Turkey has recently signed a pipeline deal with Iran that will take gas to Western Europe. This project includes the participation of Turkmenistan. [19] It would appear that this co-operation agreement between Tehran and Ankara points to reconciliation rather than confrontation with Iran and Syria. This is in line with what Brzezinski in 1997 claimed was in America’s interest.

Also, the Anglo-American sponsored Iraqi government has recently signed pipeline deals with Iran.

Once again, America’s interests in this deal should be questioned, as should the high opinions being given about Iran by the puppet leaders of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Something’s Amiss...

The media attention given in North America and Britain to the positive comments made about Tehran by Anglo-American clients in Baghdad and Kabul is sinister.

Although these comments from Baghdad and Kabul about the positive role Iran plays in Iraq and Afghanistan are not new, the media attention is. President George W. Bush Jr and the White House criticised the Iraqi Prime Minister for saying Iran plays a constructive role in Iraq in early August of 2007. The White House and North American or British press would usually just ignore or refuse to acknowledge these comments. However, this was not the case in August, 2007.

The Afghani President, Hamid Karzai, during a joint press conference with George W  Bush Jr stated that Iran was a positive force in his country. It is not odd to hear that Iran is a positive force inside Afghanistan because the stability of Afghanistan is in Iran’s best interests. What comes across as odd are "when" and "where" the comments were made. White House press conferences are choreographed and the place and time of the Afghani President’s comments should be questioned. It also so happens that shortly after the Afghani President’s comments, the Iranian President arrived in Kabul in an unprecedented visit that must have been approved by the White House.

Iran’s Political Leverage

In regards to Iran and the US, the picture is blurry and the lines between co-operation and rivalry are less clear. Reuters and the Iranian Student’s News Agency (ISNA) have both reported that the Iranian President may visit Baghdad after August 2007. These reports surfaced just before the US government started threatening to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a special international terrorist organisation. Without insinuating anything, it should also be noted that the Revolutionary Guard and the US military have also had a low-key history of co-operation from Bosnia-Herzegovina to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

The Iranian President has also invited the presidents of the other four Caspian states for a Caspian Sea summit in Tehran. [20] He invited the Turkmen president while in Turkmenistan and later the Russian and Kazakh presidents at the August of 2007 SCO summit in Kyrgyzstan. President Aliyev, the leader of the Republic of Azerbaijan (Azarbaijan) was also personally invited during a trip by the Iranian President to Baku. The anticipated Caspian Sea summit may be similar to the one in Port Turkmenbashi, Turkmenistan between the Kazakh, Russian, and Turkmen presidents where it was announced that Russia would not be cut out of the pipeline deals in Central Asia.

Iranian leverage is clearly getting stronger. Officials in Baku also stated that they will expand energy co-operation with Iran and enter the gas pipeline deal between Iran, Turkey, and Turkmenistan that will supply European markets with gas. [21] This agreement to supply Europe is similar to a Russian energy transport deal signed between Greece, Bulgaria, and the Russian Federation. [22]

In the Levant, Syria is involved in energy-related negotiations with Ankara and Baku and important talks have started between American officials and both Tehran and Damascus. [23]

Iran has also been involved in diplomatic exchanges with Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, and the Republic of Azerbaijan. Additionally, starting in August 2007, Syria has agreed to reopen Iraqi oil pipelines to the Eastern Mediterranean, through Syrian territory. [24] The recent official visit of Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki to Syria has also been described as historical by news sources like the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Also, Syria and Iraq have agreed to build a gas pipeline from Iraq into Syria, where Iraqi gas will be treated in Syrian plants. [25] These agreements are being passed as the sources of tensions between Baghdad and the White House, but they are doubtful. [26]

Iran and the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) are also planning on starting the process for creating an Iranian-GCC free trade zone in the Persian Gulf. In the bazaars of Tehran and amongst the political circle of Rafsanjani there are also discussions about the eventual creation of a single market between Iran, Tajikistan, Armenia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. The American role in these processes in regards to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the GCC should be explored.

Under President Nicholas Sarkozy, France has indicated that it is willing to engage the Syrians fully if they gave specific guarantees in regards to Lebanon. These guarantees are linked to French economic and geo-strategic interests.

In the same period of time as the French statements about Syria, Gordon Brown indicated that Britain was also willing to engage in diplomatic exchanges with both Syria and Iran. Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, the German Minister of Economic Co-operation and Development, has also been involved in talks with Damascus on mutual projects, economic reform, and bringing Syria closer to the European Union. These talks, however, tend to be camouflaged by the discussion between Syria and Germany in regards to the mass exodus of Iraqi refugees, resulting from the Anglo-American occupation of their country. The French Foreign Minister is also expected in Tehran to talk about Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq. Despite the war mongering by the US and more recently by France, this has all led to speculation of a potential about-turn in regards to Iran and Syria. [27]

Then again, this is part of the two-pronged US approach of preparing for the worst (war), while suing for the diplomatic capitulation of Syria and Iran as client states or partners. When large oil and weapons deals were signed between Libya and Britain, London said that Iran should follow the Libyan example, as has the Baker-Hamilton Commission.

Has the March to War been Interrupted?

Despite talks behind closed doors with Damascus and Tehran, Washington is nonetheless arming its clients in the Middle East. Israel is in an advanced state of military preparedness for a war on Syria.

Unlike France and Germany, Anglo-American ambitions pertaining to Iran and Syria are not one of co-operation. The ultimate objective is political and economic subordination.

Moreover, either as a friend or foe, America cannot tolerate Iran within its present borders. The balkanization of Iran, like that of Iraq and Russia, is a major long-term Anglo-American goal.

What lies ahead is never known. While there is smoke in the horizon, the US-NATO-Israeli military agenda will not necessarily result in the implementation of war as planned. 

A "Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition" – which forms the basis of a global counter-alliance – is emerging. America and Britain rather than opting for outright war, may choose to reel in Iran and Syria through macro-economic manipulation and velvet revolutions.

War directed against Iran and Syria, however, cannot be ruled out. There are real war preparations on the ground in the Middle East and Central Asia. A war against Iran and Syria would have far-reaching worldwide implications.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an independent writer based in Ottawa specialising on the Middle East and Central Asia. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG).

 

NOTES

[1] Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Co-operation Between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation, signed and entered into force July 16, 2001, P.R. of China-Russian Federation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China.
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjdt/2649/t15771.htm
The following are treaty articles that are relevant to the mutual defence of China and Russia against American-led encirclement and efforts to dismantle both nations;
ARTICLE 4
The Chinese side supports the Russian side in its policies on the issue of defending the national unity and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.
The Russian side supports the Chinese side in its policies on the issue of defending the national unity and territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of China.
ARTICLE 5
The Russian side reaffirms that the principled stand on the Taiwan issue as expounded in the political documents signed and adopted by the heads of states of the two countries from 1992 to 2000 remain unchanged. The Russian side acknowledges that there is only one China in the world, that the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China and that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. The Russian side opposes any form of Taiwan’s independence.
ARTICLE 8
The contracting parties shall not enter into any alliance or be a party to any bloc nor shall they embark on any such action, including the conclusion of such treaty with a third country which compromises the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other contracting party. Neither side of the contracting parties shall allow its territory to be used by a third country to jeopardise the national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other contracting party.
Neither side of the contracting parties shall allow the setting up of organisations or gangs on its own soil which shall impair the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other contrasting party and their activities should be prohibited.
ARTICLE 9
When a situation arises in which one of the contracting parties deems that peace is being threatened and undermined or its security interests are involved or when it is confronted with the threat of aggression, the contracting parties shall immediately hold contacts and consultations in order to eliminate such threats.
ARTICLE 12
The contracting parties shall work together for the maintenance of global strategic balance and stability and make great efforts in promoting the observation of the basic agreements relevant to the safeguard and maintenance of strategic stability.
The contracting parties shall actively promote the process of nuclear disarmament and the reduction of chemical weapons, promote and strengthen the regimes on the prohibition of biological weapons and take measures to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery and their related technology.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (NYC, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997), p.198.

[4] Ibid., pp. 115-116, 170, 205-206.
Note: Brzezinski also refers to a Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition as a "counteralliance" (p.116).

[5] Zbigniew Brzezinski, Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the 21st Century (NYC, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993), p.198.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.198.

[9] M. K. Bhadrakumar, The lessons from Ferghana, Asia Times, May 18, 2005.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GE18Ag01.html

[10] Nick Paton Walsh, Uzbekistan kicks US out of military base, The Guardian (U.K.), August 1, 2005.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1540185,00.html

[11] Vladimir Radyuhin, Uzbekistan rejoins defence pact, The Hindu, June 26, 2006.
http://www.thehindu.com/2006/06/26/stories/2006062604491400.htm

[12] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.116.

[13] Glenn Kessler, In 2003, US Spurned Iran’s Offer of Dialogue, The Washington Post, June 18, 2006, p.A16.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html

[14] James A. Baker III et al., The Iraq Study Group Report: The Way Forward – A New Approach Authorised ed. (NYC, New York: Random House Inc., 2006), p.51.
[15] Ibid., pp.51, 54-57.
[16] Ibid., pp.50-53, 58.
[17] Ibid., p.114.
[18] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.204.

[19] Iran, Turkey sign energy co-operation deal, agree to develop Iran’s gas fields, Associated Press, July 14, 2007.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/14/business/ME-FIN-Iran-Turkey-Energy-deal.php
[20] Tehran to host summit of Caspian nations Oct.18, Russian News and Information Agency (RIA Novosti), August 22, 2007.
http://en.rian.ru/world/20070822/73387774.html

[21] Azerbaijan, Iran reinforce energy deals, United Press International (UPI), August 22, 2007.
[22] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The March to War: Détente in the Middle East or "Calm before the Storm?", Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), July 10, 2007.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6281
[23] Ibid.
It is worth noting that Iran has been involved in pipeline deals with Turkey and in negotiation between Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, and the Republic of Azerbaijan in the possible creation of an energy corridor in the Eastern Mediterranean. These deals occurred in the same time frame that both Syria and Iran started talks with the US after the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s report.
[24] Syria and Iraq to reopen oil pipeline link, Agence France-Presse (AFP), August 22, 2007.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Roger Hardy, Why the US is unhappy with Maliki, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), August 22, 2007.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6958440.stm
[27] Hassan Nafaa, About-face on Iran coming?, Al-Ahram (Egypt), no. 859, August 23-29, 2007.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/859/op22.htm

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, October 14, 2007

[See maps that go with this article at: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6862]

Preface: The Caspian Sea Summit and the Historical Crossroads of the 21st Century

This article is part of The Sino-Russia Coalition: Challenging America’s Ambitions in Eurasia (September 23, 2007). For editorial reasons the article is being published by Global Research in three parts. It is strongly advised that readers also study the prior piece.

History is in the making. The Second Summit of Caspian Sea States in Tehran will change the global geo-political environment. This article also gives a strong contextual background to what will be in the backdrop at Tehran. The strategic course of Eurasia and global energy reserves hangs in the balance.

It is no mere chance that before the upcoming summit in Tehran that three important post-Soviet organisations (the Commonwealth of Independents States, the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, and the Eurasian Economic Community) simultaneously held meetings in Tajikistan. Nor is it mere coincidence that the SCO and CSTO have signed cooperation agreements during these meetings in Tajikistan, which has effectively made China a semi-formal member of the CSTO alliance. It should be noted that all SCO members are also members of CSTO, aside from China.

This is all in addition to the fact that the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and the US Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates, were both in Moscow for important, but mostly hushed, discussions with the Kremlin before Vladimir Putin is due to arrive in Iran. This could have been America’s last attempt at breaking the Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition in Eurasia. World leaders will watch for any public outcomes of the Russian President’s visit to Tehran. It is also worth noting that NATO’s Secretary-General was in the Caucasus region for a brief visit in regards to NATO expansion. The Russian President will also be in Germany for a summit with Angela Merkel before arriving in Tehran.

On five fronts there is antagonism between the US and its allies with Russia, China, and their allies: East Africa, the Korean Peninsula, Indo-China, the Middle East, and the Balkans. While the Korean front seems to have calmed down, the Indo-China front has been heated up with the start of instability in Myanmar (Burma). This is part of the broader effort to encircle the titans of the Eurasian landmass, Russia and China. Simultaneous to all this, NATO is preparing itself for a possible showdown with Serbia and Russia over Kosovo. These preparations include NATO military exercises in Croatia and the Adriatic Sea.

In May, 2007 the Secretary-General of CSTO, Nikolai Bordyuzha invited Iran to apply to the Eurasian military pact; "If Iran applies in accordance with our charter, [CSTO] will consider the application," he told reporters. In the following weeks, the CSTO alliance has also announced with greater emphasis, like NATO that it too is prepared to get involved in Afghanistan and global "peacekeeping" operations. This is a challenge to NATO’s global objectives and in fact an announcement that NATO no longer has a monopoly as the foremost global military organisation.

The globe is becoming further militarised than what it already is by two military blocs. In addition, Moscow has also stated that it will now charge domestic prices for Russian weaponry and military hardware to all CSTO members. Also, reports about the strengthening prospects of a large-scale Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq are getting stronger, which is deeply related to Anglo-American plans for Balkanizing Iraq and sculpting a "New Middle East". A global showdown is in the works.

Finally, the Second Summit of Caspian Sea States will also finalise the legal status of the Caspian Sea. Energy resources, ecology, energy cooperation, security, and defensive ties will also be discussed. The outcome of this summit will decide the nature of Russo-Iranian relations and the fate of Eurasia. What happens in Tehran may decide the course of the rest of this century. Humanity is at an important historical crossroad. This is why I felt that it was important to release this second portion of the original article before the Second Summit of the Caspian Sea States.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Ottawa, October 13, 2007.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The haunting spectre of a major war hangs over the Middle East, but war is not written in stone. A Eurasian-based counter-alliance, built around the nucleus of a Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition also makes an Anglo-American war against Iran an unpalatable option that could turn the globe inside-out. [1]

America’s superpower status would in all likelihood come to an end in a war against Iran. Aside from these factors, contrary to the rhetoric from all the powers involved in the conflicts of the Middle East there exists a level of international cooperation between all parties. Has the nature of the march to war changed?

Tehran’s Rising Star: Failure of the Anglo-American attempt to Encircle and Isolate Iran

Shrouded in mystery are the dealings between Iran and the Republic of Azerbaijan during an August, 2007 meeting between President Ahamdinejad and President Aliyev. Both leaders signed a joint declaration in Baku on August 21, 2007 stating that both republics are against foreign interference in the affairs of other nations and the use of force for solving problems. This is a direct slur at the United States. Baku also reemphasised its recognition of Iran’s nuclear energy programme as a legitimate right.

However, the meetings between the two sides took place after a few months of meetings between Baku and the US together with NATO officials.

Baku seems to be caught in the middle of a balancing act between Russia, Iran, America, and NATO. At the same time as the meetings between the Iranian President and Aliyev in Baku, Iranian officials were also in Yerevan holding talks with Armenian officials.

This could be part of an Iranian attempt to end tensions between Baku and Yerevan, which would benefit Iran and the Caucasus region. The tensions between Yerevan and Baku have been supported by the US since the onset of the post-Cold War era, with Baku within the US and NATO spheres of influence.

At first glance, Iran has been busy engaging in what can be called a counter-offensive to American encroachment. Iranian officials have been meeting with Central Asian, Caucasian, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and North African leaders in a stream of talks on security and energy. The SCO meeting in Kyrgyzstan was one of these. The importance of the gathering was highlighted by the joint participation of the Iranian President and the Secretary-General of the Supreme Security Council of Iran, Ali Larijani.

Iran’s dialogue with the presidents of Turkmenistan, the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Algeria are part of an effort to map out a unified energy strategy spearheaded by Moscow and Tehran. Iran and the Sultanate of Oman are also making arrangements to engage in four joint oil projects in the Persian Gulf. [2]

Iran has also announced that it will start construction of an important pipeline route from the Caspian Sea to the Gulf of Oman.[3] This project is directly linked to Iranian talks with Turkmenistan and the Republic of Azerbaijan, two countries that share the Caspian Sea with Iran. Furthermore, after closed-door discussions with Iranian officials, the Republic of Azerbaijan has stated that it is interested in cooperating with the SCO. [4] In addition, Venezuela, Iran, and Syria are also coordinating energy and industrial projects.

The Nabucco Project, Eurasian Energy Corridors, and the Russo-Iranian Energy Front

Across Eurasia strategic energy corridors are being developed. What do these international developments insinuate? A Eurasian-based energy strategy is taking shape. In Central Asia, Russia, Iran and China have essentially secured their own energy routes for both gas and oil. This is one of the reasons all three powers in a united stance warned the US at the SCO’s Bishkek Summit, in Kyrgyzstan, to stay out of Central Asia. [5]

In part one of the answers to these questions leads to the Nabucco Project, which will transport natural gas from the Caucasus, Iran, Central Asia, and the Eastern Mediterranean towards Western Europe through Turkey and the Balkans. Spin-offs of the energy project could include routes going through the former Yugoslav republics. Egyptian gas is even projected to be connected to the pipeline network vis-à-vis Syria. There is even a possibility that Libyan gas from Libyan fields near the Egyptian border may be directed to European markets through a route going through Egypt, Jordan, and Syria which will connect to the Nabucco Pipeline.

At first glance, it appears that the transport of Central Asian gas, under the Nabucco Project, through a route going through Iran to Turkey and the Balkans is detrimental to Russian interests under the terms of the Port Turkmenbashi Agreement signed by Turkmenistan, Russia, and Kazakhstan. However, Iran and Russia are allies and partners, at least in regards to the energy rivalry in Central Asia and the Caspian Sea against the US and the European Union.

In May, 2007 the leaders of Turkmenistan, Russia, and Kazakhstan also planned the inclusion of an Iranian energy route, from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf, as an extension of the Turkmenbashi Agreement. A route going through either Russia or Iran is mutually beneficial to both countries. Both Tehran and Moscow have been working together to regulate the price of natural gas on a global scale. If Turkmen gas goes through Russian or Iranian territory, Moscow will profit either way. Both Tehran and Moscow have hedged their bets in a win-win situation.

Russia is also involved in the Nabucco Project and has secured a Balkan energy route for the transportation of fuel to Western Europe from Russia vis-à-vis Greece and Bulgaria. To this end on May 21, 2007, the Russian President arrived in Austria to discuss energy cooperation and the Nabucco Project with the Austrian government. [6] One of the outcomes of the Russian President’s visits to Austria was the opening of a large natural gas storage compound, near Salzburg, with a holding capacity of 2.4 billion cubic metres. [7] The Nabucco Project and a united Russo-Iranian energy initiative are also the main reasons that the Russian President will visit Tehran for an important summit of leaders from the Caspian Sea, in mid-October of 2007.

One might ask if Russia, Iran, and Syria are surrendering to the demands of America and the EU by providing them with what they sought in the first place.

The answer is no. The Franco-German entente is very interested in the Nabucco Project and through Austria has much at stake in the energy project. French and German energy firms also want to get involved as are Russian and Iranian companies. This is also one of the reasons Vienna has been vocally supporting Syria and Iran in the international arena. Total S.A., the giant French-based energy firm, is also working with Iran in the energy sectors.

Tehran, Moscow, and Damascus have not been fully co-opted; they are acting in their national and security interests. However, the national interests of modern nation-states should also be scrutinised further. The leverage Moscow and Tehran now have can be used to drive a wedge between the Franco-German entente and the Anglo-American alliance. A case in standing is the initial willingness of France and Germany to accept the Iranian nuclear energy programme. It is believed in Moscow and Tehran that the Franco-German entente could be persuaded to distance itself from the Anglo-American war agenda with the right leverage and incentives.

This could also be one of the factors for the marine route of the Nord Stream gas pipeline, which runs from Russia through the Baltic Sea to Germany and bypasses existing energy transit routes going through the Baltic States, Ukraine, Belarus, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Poland. Eastern Europe is part of what is called "New Europe" as a result of Donald Rumsfeld’s 2003 comments that only "Old Europe", meaning the Franco-German entente, was against the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. [8] For example Poland is an Anglo-American ally and could block the transit of gas from Russia to Germany if it was prompted to do so by Britain and America. Moreover, Russia could exert pressure on these Eastern European countries by cutting their gas supplies without effecting Western Europe. Several of these Eastern European states also were pursuing transit fee schemes and reduced gas prices because of their strategic placements as energy transit routes.

Russia and Iran are also the nations with the largest natural gas reserves in the world. This is in addition to the following facts; Iran also exerts influence over the Straits of Hormuz; both Russia and Iran control the export of Central Asian energy to global markets; and Syria is the lynchpin for an Eastern Mediterranean energy corridor. Iran, Russia, and Syria will now exercise a great deal of control and influence over these energy corridors and by extension the nations that are dependent on them in the European continent. This is another reason why Russia has built military facilities on the Mediterranean shores of Syria. The Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline will also further strengthen this position globally.

The Baltic-Caspian-Persian Gulf Energy Corridor: The Mother of all Energy Corridors?

To add to all this, American and British allies by their very despotic and self-concerned natures will not hesitate to realign themselves, if presented with the opportunity, with Russia, China, and Iran. These puppet regimes and so-called allies, from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to Egypt, have no personal loyalties and are fair-weather allies. If they can help it, the moment they believe that they can no longer benefit from their relationships as clients they will try to abandon the Anglo-American camp without hesitation. Any hesitation on their part will be in regards to their own political longevity. Iran, Russia, and China have already been in the long process of courting the leaders of the Arab Sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf.

The ultimate aim of Russo-Iranian energy cooperation will be the establishment of a north-south energy corridor from the Baltic Sea to the Persian Gulf and with the Caspian Sea as its mid-axis. An east-west corridor from the Caspian Sea, Iran, and Central Asia to India and China will also be linked to this. Iranian oil could also be transported to Europe through Russian territory, hence bypassing the sea and consolidating Russo-Iranian control over international energy security. If other states in the Persian Gulf were included into the equation a dramatic seismic shift in the global balance of power could occur. This is also one of the reasons that the oil-rich Arab Sheikhdoms are being courted by Russia, Iran, and China.

Eurasian Energy Corridors: Two-Edged Knives?

However, the creation of these energy corridors and networks is like a two-edged sword. These geo-strategic fulcrums or energy pivots can also switch their directions of leverage. The integration of infrastructure also leads towards economic integration. If other factors in the geo-political equations are changed or manipulated, the US, Britain, and their partners might wield control over these routes. This is one reason why Zbigniew Brzezinski stated that the creation of a Turkish-Iranian pipeline would benefit America. [9] It should also be noted that Turkey will also be jointly developing three gas projects in the South Pars gas fields with Iran. [10]

If regime change were initiated in Iran or Russia or one of the Central Asian republics the energy network being consolidated and strengthened between Russia, Central Asia, and Iran could be obstructed and ruined. This is why the US and Britain have been desperately promoting covert and overt velvet revolutions in the Caucasus, Iran, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Central Asia. To the US and EU the creation of a Baltic-Caspian-Persian Gulf energy grid is almost the equivalent, in regards to energy security, of a "Unipolar World", but only not in their favour.

The "Great Game" Enters the Mediterranean Sea

The title "Great Game" is a term that originates from the struggle between Britain and Tsarist Russia to control significant portions of Eurasia. The term is attributed to Arthur Conolly. A romanticised British novel, Kim, written by Rudyard Kipling and published in 1901 arguably immortalised the concept and term. This Victorian novel was a suspenseful story about the competition between Tsarist Russia and Britain to control the vast geographic stretch that included Central Asia, India, and Tibet. In reality the "Great Game" was a struggle for control of a vast geographic area that not only included Tibet, the Indian sub-continent, and Central Asia, but also included the Caucasus and Iran. Additionally, it was London that was the primary antagonist, because of British attempts to enter Russian Central Asia. In fact the British had spying networks and facilities in Khorason, Iran and Afghanistan that would operate against the interests of St. Petersburg in Russian Central Asia.

A contemporary version of the "Great Game" is being played once again for control of roughly the same geographic stretch, but with more players and greater intensity. Central Asia became the focus of international rivalry after the collapse of the former USSR and the end of the Cold War. For the most part Central Asia, aside from Afghanistan, has been insulated. It has been the Middle East and the Balkans where this contest has been playing itself out violently.

The "Great Game" has also taken new dimensions and has entered the Mediterranean. This gradual outward movement has been creeping in a westward direction from the Middle East and the Balkans as the area of contention is expanded. This is not a one-directional competition. With the drawing in of Algeria, this push has reached the Western Mediterranean or the "Latin Sea" as Halford J. Mackinder refers to it, whereas before it was limited to the Eastern Mediterranean. This extension of the area of the "Great Game" is also a result of the outward push from Eurasia of the Eurasian-based alliance of Russia, Iran, and China. Examples of this are the emerging inroads China is making in the African continent and Iran’s alliances in Latin America.

However, in reality the Mediterranean region is no stranger to international rivalry or conflicts similar to the "Great Game". The Second Turkish-Egyptian War (1839-1849), also called the Syrian War, was a historical example of this. It was during this war that Beirut was bombarded by British warships. The Ottoman Empire, supported by Britain, Tsarist Russia, and the Austrian Empire, was facing-off against an expansionist Egypt, which was supported by Spain and France. The whole conflict had the overtones of underlying rivalries between Europe’s major powers. Another example is the three Punic Wars between the ancient Carthagians and the Romans.

Gas, Oil, and Geo-Politics in the Mediterranean Sea

The Mediterranean has literally become an extension to the international and dangerous rivalries for control of Central Asian and Caucasian energy resources. Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, and Egypt are all Arab countries involved. Algeria already supplies gas to the EU through the Trans-Mediterranean Pipeline which runs to the Italian island of Sicily via Tunisia and the Mediterranean Sea. Niger and Nigeria are also building a natural gas pipeline that will reach the EU via Algerian energy infrastructure. Libya also supplies gas to the EU through the Greenstream Pipeline which connects to Sicily via an underwater route in the Mediterranean Sea.

Russia and Iran are spearheading a move to bring Algeria into their orbit in order to establish a gas cartel. If Algeria, and possibly Libya, can be brought into the orbits of Moscow and Tehran the leverage and influence of both would be greatly increased and both would tighten their control over global energy corridors and European energy supplies. Approximately 97 percent of the projected amount of natural gas that will be imported by continental Europe would be controlled by Russia, Iran, and Syria under such an arrangement, whereas without Algeria approximately 93.6 percent of the natural gas exported would be controlled. [11] Algeria is also the sixth largest exporter of oil to the US, following behind Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria.

Western and Central European energy security would be under tight controls from Russia, Iran, Turkey, Algeria, and Syria because of their control over the geo-strategic energy routes. This is one of the reasons that the EU has unsuccessfully tried to force Russia to sign an EU energy charter that would obligate Moscow to supply energy to the EU and one of the reasons that NATO is considering using Article 5 of its military charter for energy security. [12] In addition, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America obligates America’s top energy sources, Canada and Mexico, to supply the US with oil and gas. Worldwide the securing of energy resources has become an issue of force and involuntary compulsion.

Oceania versus Eurasia in the Mediterranean Littoral

"...we might weld together the West and the East, and permanently penetrate the Heartland with oceanic freedom."

-Sir Halford J. Mackinder (Democratic Ideals and Reality, 1919); in regards to "oceanic freedom" refer to George Orwell’s definition or warning in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

It was also in the Mediterranean Sea that the geo-strategic paradigm of sea power versus land-power that was observed by Halford Mackinder first came into play. [13] Mackinder put forward the concept, which one is tempted to almost label as organic, that rival powers or entities, as they expand, would compete for dominance in a certain area and as they reached maritime areas this competition would eventually be taken to the seas as both powers would try and turn the maritime area into a lake under their own total control. This is what the Romans did to the Mediterranean Sea. It was only once a victor emerged from these competitions that the emphasis on naval power would decline in the maritime areas.

According to Mackinder, the First World War was "a war between Islanders [e.g., Britain, the US, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan] and Continentals [Eurasians; e.g., Germany, Austro-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire], there can be no doubt about that". [14] Also, according to Mackinder it was dominant sea power that won the First World War.

Naval power has clearly had a cutting edge over land-power in establishing empires. Western European nations like Britain, Portugal, and Spain are all examples of nations that became thalassocracies, empires at sea. Through the control of the seas an island-nation with no land borders with a rival can invade and eventually expand into a rival’s territory.

The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) is a modern embodiment of Halford J. Makinder’s oceanic power versus land power paradigm. [15] The Anglo-American alliance and their allies represent oceanic-power, while the Eurasian-based counter-alliance, based around the nucleus of a Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition, represents land-power.

It can also be observed that historically Eurasian economies did not require far-reaching trade and could exist within a smaller geographic trading area, while the economies of the oceanic powers such as Britain and the US, also called "trade-dependent maritime realms" by some academics, have depended on maritime and international trade for economic survival. If the Eurasians were to exclude the US and Britain from the trade and economic system of the Eurasian mainland, there would be grave economic consequences for these "trade-dependent maritime realms". This was what Napoleon Bonaparte was trying to impose through his Continental System in Europe against Britain and this is also one of the reasons for the survival of the Iranian economy under American sanctions.

Two blocs are starting to manifest themselves in similarity to the geographic boundaries of George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four and Mackinder’s Islander versus Continental scheme; a Eurasian-based bloc and a naval-based, oceanic bloc based on the fringes of Eurasia as well as North America and Australasia. The latter bloc is NATO and its network of regional military alliances, while the former is the reactionary counter-alliance formed by the Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition as its nucleus.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an independent writer based in Ottawa specialising in Middle Eastern affairs. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG).

NOTES

[1] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The Sino-Russian Coalition: Challenging America’s Ambitions in Eurasia, Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), August 26, 2007.

[2] Iran, Oman to develop joint oilfields, Press TV (Iran), August 25, 2007.

[3] Iran to lay Caspian-Oman seas oil pipelines, Mehr News Agency (MNA), August 27, 2007.

[4] Azerbaijan interested in ties with SCO - official, Interfax, August 25, 2007.

[5] Leila Saralayeva, Russia, China, Iran Warn US at Summit, Associated Press, August 16, 2007.

[6] Putin heads for Austria, energy high on agenda, Reuters, May 21, 2007.

[7] Russia, Austria to open gas storage facility - Putin, Russian News and Information Agency (RIA Novosti), May 23, 2007.

[8] Outrage at ‘old Europe’ remarks, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), January 23, 2003.

[9] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (NYC, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997), p.204.

[10] Roman Kupchinsky, Turkey: Ankara Seeks Role As East-West ‘Energy Bridge,’ Radio Free Europe (RFE), August 27, 2007.

[11] These figures are based on calculations that are built on mid-2006 statistical figures from British Petroleum (BP). They are based on imports and exclude each EU member state’s domestic or indigenous production.
British Petroleum (BP), Quantifying Energy: BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2006 (London, U.K.: Beacon Press, June 2006), p.22.
bcm=billion cubic metres
1 bcm=263.96 billion gallons
Total amount of natural gas imports projected for European energy markets: 139, 960 bcm.
139, 960 bcm=100% of natural gas imports
Total amount of natural gas imports projected from Algeria: 4, 580 bcm.
4, 580 bcm/ 139, 960 bcm ˜ 0.037 bcm
0.037 bcm X 100=3.27% ˜ 3.3%
Therefore: 4, 580 bcm ˜ 3.3% of natural gas imports
Total amount projected from the Middle East, Caspian Sea, and Central Asia sources: 83, 140 bcm.
83, 140 bcm/ 139, 960 bcm ˜ 0.594 bcm
0.594 bcm X 100 ˜ 59.4%
Therefore: 83, 140 bcm ˜ 59.4% of natural gas imports
* Calculations include Egyptian natural gas reserves.
Total amount projected from Russia, Caspian Sea, and Central Asian sources: 47, 820 bcm.
47, 820 bcm/ 139, 960 bcm ˜ 0.3416 bcm
0.3416 bcm X 100=34.16% ˜ 34.2%
Therefore: 4, 580 bcm ˜ 34.2% of natural gas imports

[12] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The Globalisation of Military Power: NATO Expansion, Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), May 17, 2007.
The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) in North America between Canada, the United States, and Mexico is also related to this parallel drive in Eurasia and the Mediterranean littoral to ensure access to energy resources. Under the framework of the SPP both Mexico and Canada are obligated, without choice, to supply the United States with its energy needs, even at the expense of Mexican and Canadian national, economic, demographic, and environmental interests. The matter of energy supplies has been transformed into a security issue. There is a strong link between NATO, EU, and North American energy initiatives in this regard.

[13] Halford John Mackinder, Chap. 3 (The Seaman’s Point of View), in Democratic Ideals and Reality (London, U.K.: Constables and Company Ltd., 1919), pp.38-92.

[14] Ibid., p.88.
"The Heartland, for the purposes of strategical thinking, includes the Baltic Sea, the navigable Middle and Lower Danube, the Black Sea, Asia Minor, Armenia, Persia [Iran], Tibet, and Mongolia. Within it, therefore, were Brandenburg-Prussia and Austria-Hungary, as well as Russia — a vast triple base of man-power, which was lacking to the horse-riders of history [a reference to the people’s of the Eurasian steppes that invaded Europe and the Middle East, such as the Iranic Scythians, the Magyars, and various Turkic tribes]. The Heartland is the region to which, under modern conditions, sea-power can be refused access, though the western part of it lies without the region of the Arctic and Continental [Eurasian] drainage. There is one striking physical circumstance which knits it graphically together; the whole of it [the Heartland], even to the brink of the Persian Mountains [the older English name for the Zagros Mountains] overlooking torrid Mesopotamia [Iraq], lies under snow in the winter time (Chap. 4, p.141)."

[15] Supra. note 12.
"Aside from the global naval force being created by the US and NATO, a strategy has been devised to control international trade, international movement, and international waters. The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), under the mask of stopping the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) components or technology and the systems for their delivery (missile technology or components), sets out to control the flow of resources and to control international trade. The policy was drafted by John Bolton, while serving in the US State Department as US Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security (Nazemroaya, NATO Expansion)."
Mackinder also argued for a super-navy under the control of the League of Nations that would control Germany and Russia: "None the less the League of Nations should have the right under International Law of sending War fleets into the Black and Baltic Seas (Chap. 6, p.215)." This is part of Mackinder’s solution to securing the Eurasian Heartland through what he called an "internationalisation" process in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

SOURCES FOR MAPS

[1] Jan Horst Keppler: Institut français des relations internationales (Ifri) Energy Programme of the Université Paris Dauphine, France (International Relations and Security of Energy Supply: Risks to Continuity and Geopolitical Risks).

[2] Nabucco Gas Pipeline International GmbH.

[3] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG).

[4] Der Standard, Austria.

[5] Nabucco Gas Pipeline International GmbH.

NABUCCO GAS PIPELINE INTERNATIONAL GmbH PROPERTY RIGHTS
NIC has full and exclusive property rights (e.g., ownership, industrial property rights, copyrights) regarding the map material provided. The publication of this material can not be construed as the granting of a license or of any other right. The material made available are for private use and information only and must not be commercially reproduced, presented, distributed, or used in any other form unless prior written consent by NIC has been obtained.