The US has no interest in any Mid East stability that favors China - ABDULLAH MURADOĞLU

The US has no interest in any Mid East stability that favors China

The Americans are preparing for the 2020 elections, overshadowed by the impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump. It appears that the investigation will serve as background music to the elections. This tune is the beginning of America's new civil war. This one, however, has a transnational aspect because it closely concerns U.S. foreign policy, such as disputes over trade wars, chaos in the Middle East and NATO.

During the Cold War, the geopolitical rivalry was between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. China was the “weak link”. In the early 70s, China was distanced from the Soviet Union by U.S. President Richard Nixon and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger. Today, China represents another Soviet Union for the U.S., while Russia is the weak link.

For American strategists, the "China-Russia alliance" is a geopolitical goal that should never be achieved. According to these strategists, it would be more beneficial for the U.S. to focus on the east if Russia is satisfied with the Ukraine issue. Because even if China and Russia appear to be in cahoots against the U.S., this partnership is not as clearly cut as it seems.

Actually, the fact that George Soros, the liberal billionaire fund manager, who is seen as the enemy of Trump, makes statements supporting Trump's trade wars with China is a reflection of this thesis. In 2017, Trump signed a decree to withdraw the U.S. from the multilateral Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, the product of China's containment policy. Later, however, Trump also gave signs that he wanted to return to this partnership.

Trump promised to withdraw the U.S. from the “endless wars” in the Middle East. Trump did not take a determined stance on this issue either. We have seen how violently the resident elites in Washington reacted to Trump's attempt to withdraw troops from northern Syria. I understand that, for these elites, it is more important that the Middle East remains unstable. There is Syria to the west and Pakistan to the east of the geopolitical area, one end of which goes to Kazakhstan and the other to Yemen in the south. It is not in vain that this field is the area of activity of Centcom, the U.S. Central Forces Command.

This line appears to be a roadblock hindering China's progress in Eurasia on the north/south axis. Energy resources, which play an important role in China's economic growth, are largely located in this region. It is important to have energy resources, but it is more important to control the flow maps of energy. Do Americans, who see China as the biggest rival for the U.S., want this region to stabilize in favor of China? The question to be asked at this point will be “which stability?”. If there is no stability in favor of the U.S., of course, this region will be made unstable for China. This region is of critical importance for China's “new silk road” project, which extends to London. This project is capable of confining the U.S. to its continent. Therefore, the undermining of the project will be in the interest of Washington.

The broad Middle East basin is a vital area of geopolitical rivalry for the U.S., EU, China and Russia. The stability strategies of these forces for the greater Middle East contradict each other. However, at a time when the global system is in a crisis, we must state that these forces are also politically divided. These divisions, which reflect the contradiction of “globalists” and “nation-states,” are undoubtedly closely tied to the fate of all elections.

The elections to be held in the U.S. in 2020 are also crucial because they embody all these contradictions. Another important question is whether the Greater Middle East will continue to be the object of the “Great Game,” where great powers play. The crisis in the world system is deepening and decision time is fast approaching. Do the local powers in the Greater Middle East have any stabilization strategies for this region? This is the topic that should be occupying the minds of our intellectuals and policy makers. Chaos or order, conflict or reconciliation, to die or to be resurrected, which one?

+

Cookies are used limited to the purposes in th e Personal Data Protection Law No.6698 and in accordance with the legislation. For detailed information, you can review our cookie policy.