NEW WORLD ORDER
The 'Independence' of Kosovo & Camp Bondsteel
Terry Boardman February 2008
100 years ago in 1908,
people were told that the new 20th century would be one of wonderful progress
for humanity. Few people in Europe saw a World War just a few years off, but
small cliques of people in several countries were preparing and planning for it.
Because the majority were not awake to what that minority were doing (not least
because of the distractions, lies and misinformation in the Press), the majority
suffered horribly 1914-1919 and went on to suffer even worse just 20 years later
(1939-45); then, as a result of the victory of Bolshevism in Russia in 1917,
came the bipolar Cold War 1945-1991.
80 years ago Rudolf Steiner often pointed out the need for a symptomatological
view of history that could look at events in history and current affairs and
recognise the symptoms of deeper forces at work. The current effort by "the
West" (USA & EU) to separate Kosovo from Serbia and give it
'independence' is such a symptom. Steiner also said with regard to the First
World War that although it looked on the surface like a war between the allies
Britain, France and Russia against Germany and Austria-Hungary, in fact, as one
of their main (unofficial) war aims, the British and French elites were seeking
to destroy Russia and set up a massive 'socialist experiment' there and were
using the war against the Central Powers in order to bring this about. In other
words, the 'alliance' of France and Russia 1893-1917 and then of Britain, France
and Russia (1907-1917) was only a hiccup in the real relationship between the
western Powers and Russia, which was one of enmity since the time of Napoleon
and the Victorian 'Great Game' between Britain and Russia for control and
influence in Central Asia. The British imperialists, in particular, were
determined a) to prevent the rising power of the Russians and the Slavic peoples
of Eastern Europe from fulfilling any influential role in the coming centuries
and b) to ensure that it would be the English-speaking peoples that would, after
the defeat of the French napoleonic challenge, continue to dominate the world.
The substance of the philosophy that would underpin this Anglo-American hegemony
would be an utterly materialistic capitalism.
What then is actually at stake in the symptom of the so-called
"independence" of Kosovo? Why is the EU so keen to separate Kosovo
from Serbia? First, let's note that exactly 100 years ago in 1908 Europe came
near to war over a major crisis in the Balkans when Russia and
Austria-Hungary faced off over Bosnia. This was the most serious crisis before
the Balkan Wars began in 1912; they led on to Sarajevo in 1914 and the outbreak
of the Great War.
In 1908 Russia, still weak after its defeat in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05
(a war the British had - shall we say - not dissuaded their allies the
Japanese from fighting), was forced to step back and lost considerable face. The
Russian militarists and Pan-Slavists were determined that would not happen a
second time, which is why the Sarajevo crisis in 1914 was not solved peaceably.
The 1908 crisis happened when Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia, which it felt
entitled by the Congress of Berlin (1878) to do, but which it had not done for
the intervening 30 years. Bosnia had been part of the Ottoman Empire but the
Congress, which was called to settle the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, handed
Bosnia to Austria-Hungary (a ***British*** suggestion, please note) to
administer without formal annexation. The Russians, Franch and British protested
that this meant an unwarranted disturbance in the balance of power in Europe,
while the Germans supported their ally Austria. Now, in 2008 we have a similar
case - again a declining state - Serbia, instead of Turkey, is forced to cede a
portion of its territory, which hardly any longer belongs to it, in 1908 because
Austria had been effectively governing the nominally Turkish province of Bosnia
for 30 years, and in 2008 because the great majority of people in Kosovo are,
because of immigration through the 20th century, now of Albanian rather than
Serb origin. In 1908 Serbia had wanted Bosnia for itself and fiercely
opposed Austria's action, but all the Powers, including her friend Russia,
refused to accept Serbia's arguments. It look like that might be the case again
over
Kosovo.
As usual, we hear a lot of
pseudo-democratic masking waffle from the western media about "the wishes
of the majority of the people of Kosovo". We hear about the awful
'genocidal' crimes of the Serbs in the 1990s, about the wicked Milosevic,
who conveniently died while on trial in The Hague, his heart attack occurring
under very suspicious conditions.
Please read the following BBC article in which the BBC's supposed
"impartiality" and "objectivity" is clearly non-existent.
For when it comes to significant foreign policy issues, the BBC invariably
follows the line - in favour of US-UK objectives - that the Foreign Office
lays down for the BBC's World Service, which has always been controlled and
funded by the Foreign Office.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7247428.stm
But there is an elephant in the room here, which the BBC and the western media
avoid drawing attention to and that elephant is CAMP BONDSTEEL, the 360,000 sq.
m. US military base built in Kosovo since the end of the Kosovo War in
1999 and which is not about to disappear any time soon.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Bondsteel)
It was built by the Kellogg Brown and Root Corporation, with which the
Bush family have had connections stretching back decades. Cheney was also
connected to the firm in his Halliburton days.
(see http://electromagnet.us/dogspot/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=179
and http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/bushcheney.html.
So why is this huge base sitting there in Kosovo, 9 years after the end of
hostilities there? Its military commandant has been de facto the most important
person in Kosovo since the US arrived in 1999. The independent Kosovo will in
effect ensure the existence of an enormous US military presence in the Balkans
for the foreseeable future. What is this about?
It concerns two things: 1) the need via military forces placed not far away to
keep a wary eye on the 2 new pipeleines which will be soon coming on stream
bringing oil & gas to the West through the Balkans from Central Asia - 2
very different pipelines, and 2) the broader geostrategic struggle between
Oceania (USUK & allies - EU + Canada, Anzac, Japan, pliant Mid-east Muslim
states) and Eurasia (Russia, China, Iran). Between these two, and inclining
already towards the former group,, is India. A major battlefield for the two
groups' struggle for energy resources is going to be Africa. Needless to say,
this is all insane, in terms of reality, but it is nevertheless happening, and
untold mayhem, destruction and suffering will result from it - unless we wake up
to it.
The above map shows that
both the EU (Nabucco) and Russian (South Stream)-backed pipelines will pass
close to Kosovo, a region that therefore assumes vital geostrategic and military
significance. The map projects that South stream may actually pass through
Kosovo, but the map below shows a far more likely prospect that the two Russian
pipelines, the North Stream and South Stream, will avoid Kosovo completely.
The South Stream route (the deal was signed in Rome on 23 June 2007 between
Italy, Russia and Kazakhstan; deliveries are supposed to start by 2013) will
also draw Greece closer to fellow Orthodox Russia because Greece & Macedonia
will become major transit hubs for South Stream. Turkey, by contrast, will
be drawn closer to the West because the western-backed Nabucco pipeline will
pass through its territory, avoidung Greece completely; this doesn't bode well
for Greco-Turkish relations, which were always difficult but have been getting
better since the twin earthquakes of the late 1990s. Meanwhile, Bulgaria will
both boom and become a major site of East-West rivalry,
because both pipleines are due to pass through it.
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9009041
Getting direct access to Central Asian and Caspian gas is vital to European
energy security. The Russians are well
aware of this, as are the Americans, who have been active in the region
and brokered the deal to build the twin oil
and gas pipelines that now run from Azerbaijan to Turkey via Georgia. The
Americans would like this gas to be carried on from Turkey to central Europe via
the Nabucco pipeline, rather than the extension of [the Russian] Blue Stream.
Last June the Nabucco project (supposedly due for completion in 2012) seemed to
be stalling in face of powerful competition from Russia but the EU has now
persuaded German and French energy companies RWE and Gaz de France to get behind
the project.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/26/business/EUgas.php
http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy/hopes-revived-stalled-nabucco-pipeline/article-166800
A recent report for the Swedish Foreign Ministry reflects the concerns of
the transatlantic elites:
http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/Silkroadpapers/2007/0711Nabucco.pdf
In view of the fact that Nabucco has been primarily driven at the European
level, it would also fill the missing link between the hitherto disparate energy
policies of the European member states. As such, Nabucco is "much more than
just about gas"; it could potentially be the glue that keeps both Europe's
common energy policy and Europe's engagement with the states around the Caspian
Sea together....
To maintain the necessary momentum, the US and Europe need to form a joint
strategy.....The US has demonstrated its commitment in supporting the
trans-Caspian pipeline financially and politically. Since this, like Nabucco, is
an essential link in the East-West corridor Europe can scarcely afford to align
its strategy differently. Absent a link to Turkmen (and also Kazakh) supplies,
these countries may in the future be lost to Russia and China.....The successful
construction of Nabucco would also signal to Moscow that it will face a harder
time in its "divide and conquer" strategy that serves to undermine the
forging of a unified European energy policy."
The strategically
confrontational attitude of the western elites is mirrored in this report.
The report notes that the tricky financing problem for Nabucco can be got round
by using the same solution as for the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, which was financed
by
$500 million from the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the IFC while export
credit agencies provided a total sum of $1.36 billion of which $580 million came
from the Japanese bank for International Cooperation, $160 million from the US
Export-Import Bank, and $100 million from the UK's Export Credit Guarantees
Department.
It goes on suggest the same for Nabucco: Nothing precludes the Nabucco
pipeline from a similar financing structure and implementation.
Note that for this European project, the USUK elites have added only $260
million of their own financing but have leaned on the Japanese to come up with
$560 million. As with the Gulf War in 1990, when they need money, the US
knows it can always pressure its Japanese puppet elite to provide some.
***In the middle of all this, Camp Bondsteel sits in a crucial location with
easy access to both pipelines. This is the real reason why the US and EU are
pushing so hard for Kosovo's independence. It is part of the ongoing struggle
between the transatlantic elite - which effectively controls the EU and NATO -
and Russia.***
The solution to this absurd potential mega-conflict is obvious: the development
of alternative energy supplies that can dispense with the need for oil and gas
and for alternative bases for such things as plastics and the numerous other
products that currently result from oil-based chemicals. Few if any of the
western elites, however, seem to wish to go down this route, preferring to cling
to oil and nuclear power, both of which are inherently dangerous in the extreme,
for either geopolitical or ecological reasons.
If we fail to develop these alternatives, and failing any new moral impulses in
the near future that transform the nature of capitalism itself, then we shall be
looking at an impending horrendous conflict later in the 21st century between
East and West - first posited by geopolitician Halford Mackinder over a 100
years ago between the maritime Sea Powers of the West (USUK) and the continental
Land Powers of Russia, China and Iran. Just as 100 years ago, as Mackinder
advocated, the West is seeking to push its way into the East in order to control
the heartland of the 'World Island' (Central Asia). Eastern Europe is the
bridgehead for this push. Recall the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book
"The Grand Chessboard" (1997):
"...with Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical
chessboard, it no longer suffices to fashion one policy for Europe and another
for Asia... the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America's
global primacy and historical legacy." For Brzezinski, Europe is
"America's essential
geopolitical bridgehead in Eurasia".
"NATO entrenches American political influence and military power on the
Eurasian mainland."
"A larger Europe will expand the range of American influence without
simultaneously creating a Europe so politically integrated that it could
challenge the United States on matters of geopolitical importance, particularly
in the Middle East."
'A Geostrategy for
Eurasia', in Foreign Affairs, September/October 1997.
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/9709brzezinski.html
See also:
http://www.truthinmedia.org/truthinmedia/Columns/new-dawn-4-2k.html
http://www.monju.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/NWO3.htm
Terry
Boardman
This page was created by Terry Boardman 10.2.2009
Top | Homepage | New World Order |