Norayr Ebilghatian
I recently read an article about “How Modern Jihadism Became co-invented by the US and Saudi Governments” by Eric Zuesse.
The author makes reference to the beginning of the first ‘jihad’: The Crusades, organized by the Roman Catholic Church and European aristocracies.
The Islamic version of the Christian crusades started on 14 Nov 1914 in Istanbul when Sheikh Hayri Bey, the supreme authority of the Ottoman Empire and the Ottoman emperor Mehmed V, declared Jihad to fight against Britain, France, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro during World War One. The Ottomans partnered with the Central Powers (Austria-Hungary, Germany and Bulgaria).
It is within this context that the Central Committee of the CUP (Committee of Union and Progress) decided to perpetrate the Armenian genocide after “long and extensive discussions” (see Taner Akcam “The Ottoman Documents and the Genocidal Policies of the Committee for Union and Progress …….toward the Armenians in 1915” September 2006).
The new Jihad was organized by Saudi Arabia and they partnered with America’s aristocracy for creating it.
Whereas Nelson Rockefeller sponsored Henry Kissinger of Harvard as a geo-strategist; David Rockefeller sponsored Zbigniew Brzezinski of Columbia as a geo-strategist. Both became National Security Advisors. It was Zbigniew Brzezinski that cultivated ties with a graduate student at John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), prince Bandar bin Sultan al Saud. See:
- David B. Ottoway’s 2008 “The Kings Messenger: Prince Bandar” pages 41-44).
- Akbar Ganji “US Jihadist Relations (part 1): Creating the Mujahedin in Afghanistan”.
The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact military alliance ended in 1991. But these cold war relics continued to be supported and their latest manifestation was in Syria. In 2009, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, planned the rebellion called ‘The Arab Spring’ in Syria. The key combatants would be Syria’s Al Qaida rebranded as ‘Al Nusra’, because it was politically problematic to involve Al Qaida (who had turned against its partner/masters in 9/11 2001).
I will not go into the gory details about the rebellion in Syria. Suffice it to say that this war decimated the Armenian community in Syria. Yes, there are some remnants left and we have representatives in the Syrian parliament, but the Armenian community in Syria has been dispersed with little hope of regrouping.
It would be preferable to focus on the role of Turkey.
Turkey was used as an external base of operations to launch raids into Syria and create pockets of occupied territory that would eventually expand to engulf all of the territory of Syria. However, Turkey started introducing its own plans into this theatre. As a longer-term annexation project, Turkey:
- Forced a population movement of the Arab inhabitants out of the region and the resettlement/expansion of the Turkomans into northern Syria.
- It also hosted millions of ‘refugees’ into southern Turkey and used them as leverage to get financial aid from Europe and the US.
It should be noted that this is an old policy of Turkey and there are numerous historic books and analyses about this policy.
- “The Great Game: The struggle for empire in central Asia” by Peter Hopkirk is an analysis of the struggle between the Russian Empire and British Empire for supremacy in Central Asia, early in the 19th century.
- “On Secret Service East of Constantinople, The Great Game and the Great War” again by Peter Hopkirk.
Initially, Britain was fearful that Russia would expand south and invade India.
Over time, Otto Von Bismarck, the first chancellor of unified Germany also became a player in the Great Game. His approach was to stoke the flames of conflict and as a result tie down Russian troops in remote Asian steppes.
Kaiser Wilhelm II, visited the Ottoman empire three times, in 1889, 1898 and in 1917. During his second visit, the Kaiser gave a speech, during which he said: “I seize with joy the opportunity to render thanks, above all to the Sultan Abdul Hamid for his hospitality. May the Sultan rest assured, and also the three hundred million Mohammedans scattered over the globe and revering in him their caliph, that the German Emperor will be and remain at all times their friend.”
For Kaiser Wilhelm II, the 3oo million Mohammedans, with the leadership of the Turks were an instrument to fight his enemies. It is this role of leadership that President Erdogan refers to when he speaks of the earlier glory of the Ottomans.
At present times, the paymasters are different, the enemies are different, the theatres of conflict are different, but the role of Turkey has stayed relatively constant; that of a ‘mercenary’ to fight the enemies of its paymasters.
With the Russian military intervention in Syria, the initial gains of the jihadists were reversed. Now, there is another game between Turkey and Russia. Turkey wants to redeploy its assets in Idlib province before they get destroyed by the Russian air force and the Syrian army.
- Some have already been dispatched to Libya to fight for Turkey’s appetite for oil.
- Others are being recruited to ‘help’ Azerbaijan (another oil rich country) in its struggle to regain Artsakh.
On July 18th, The American herald Tribune headlined “As it did in Libya, Turkey recruits Syrian militants to fight in Azerbaijan” by Khaled Iskef. The article states “According to sources, Turkey opened special promotion offices in different parts of Afrin norther Aleppo, to attract the militants and encourage them to sign contracts by which they would move to fight in Azerbaijan for a period of six months, renewable in case they wanted to. According to the contract, the militants receive a monthly salary of $2500, while the advantage of granting Turkish citizenship to the families of the militants in case they died is absent, contrary to the contracts that Turkey had signed with the armed men who wanted to move to Libya”.
The irony of fate is that this new ‘pipeline war’ might pit Turkey against Russia. Which means that NATO would be against the Christians (Russia and Armenians) while backing Azerbaijan which is 85% Shiite. Consequently, in such a conflict, the US could end up with Shiite Azerbaijan and also against Shiite Iran.
“If history is any guide, aristocratic interests will take precedence on theocratic interests, but democratic interests – the interests of the publics that are involved – will be entirely ignored”.