The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY, Vol. 10, Nos. 1/2 (Winter-Summer 2014)
ARTICLES FROM TF’S WEEKLY COLUMN
The real objectives of the Transnational Elite in Syria*
Abstract: This article attempts to show that the real aim of the campaign by the Transnational Elite against ISIS in Syria is not so much to crush ISIS itself but rather to see the dismantling of the PKK Kurdish cantons in North Syria, in a way that would not jeopardize its main strategic aim: regime change in Syria.
Through a new barrage of misinformation by the mass media (which in the NWO should more accurately be called the Media of Mass Misinformation (MMM), Islamophobia has run wild and now takes racist dimensions. Thus, in several western countries Islamist immigrants, even of second or third generation, are increasingly considered as the “enemy within.” The pretext given is of course the TV beheadings of Western subjects by jihadists of ISIS, while at the same time the MMM conceal the fact that beheadings are a common sentence in e.g. Saudi Arabia, one of the strongest and most criminal protectorates of the Transnational Elite (TE). This does not cause, of course, any NGO in the West defending “human rights” to ask the Transnational Elite for the heads of the criminal emirs in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as they readily did for the enemies of the TE (Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad et al.).
Yet, it is exactly the same Gulf regimes, which, with the decisive help of TE, literally massacred the peoples of Iraq, Libya and finally Syria in order to destroy the last states based on national liberation movements that refused to join the New World Order (NWO) of neoliberal globalization. The ISIS jihadis were of course at the time “ours sons of a bitch” (to recall Lyndon Johnson’s infamous phrase about the criminals used by US against national liberation movements) i.e. the “children of the TE” and of the regimes of the Gulf. Yet, from the moment the ISIS jihadis began attacking the organs of the TE and the Gulf states in Syria (the NATO “insurrectionists,” i.e. the Free Syrian Army etc.) and Iraq (the Kurds in Northern Iraq), they were immediately proscribed by their sponsors and military trainers. So, today, the TE have put up a phony drama (not always involving voluntary actors) stretching from the Syrian-Turkish border to Western capitals, allegedly against the Islamists slaughters. In reality, however, the goals are completely different: the final dismantling of the Ba’athist regime in Syria, as well as of the only non-dependent on the TE part of the Kurdish movement, the PKK, and its allies in Syria (PYD). At the same time, the disoriented part of the Kurdish movement, which has no qualms about becoming a protectorate of the TE, as long as they get some sort of “autonomy” from Iraq, Syria or Turkey, are begging the same criminal elites to bomb their enemies and achieve their “salvation”! That is, the western elites which historically destroyed their dreams for a separate nation-state for Kurds everywhere.
As is well known, the “Kurdish problem” was created at the end of the First World War when the British and French colonialists rejected, at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, the proposal for an independent Kurdistan and decided instead to disperse the Kurdish nation among Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Armenia and Azerbaijan, leaving the Kurds as the world’s largest stateless minority. As a result, today, the Kurds are spread mainly between Turkey (where they constitute 20% of the population), Iraq (15-20%), Syria (9%) and Iran (7%). Of these, the Kurds of northern Iraq, who had always played the role of the clients to the West, the TE and the Zionists, were rewarded, after the invasion of Iraq, with a kind of “autonomy,” a kind of pseudo-state perfectly integrated into the NWO. The Kurds of Iran, although they participated in the revolution against the Shah, then took part in the attempt of the TE for a Velvet Revolution in 2009 with the aim for “regime change,” i.e. the replacement of the regime that was created as a result of the great Iranian revolution of 1979 by a client regime. However, given the history of the Kurdish nation, had the Iranian Islamists been more flexible in granting Iranian Kurds full autonomy within Iran, as the Ba’athist regime has de facto done in Syria, it is possible that the Iranian Kurds would have been the allies of the regime against the transnational and Zionist elites, as it seems to be the case in Syria today. Finally, the Kurds of Turkey, who mostly followed the only genuine national liberation movement of the Kurds, the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) under Abdullah Ocalan ― who, thanks to the actions of the TE elite’s organs in Greece at the time (Simitis and Pangalos), is still rotting in Turkish prisons ― have been in talks with Erdogan for about a year and a half to grant them greater autonomy. Inevitably, these negotiations, following the recent developments, are likely to break down soon.
The Kurds of northern Syria around the “Democratic Unionist Party” (PYD) co-chaired by Saleh Muslim and Asiyah Abdullah, with the help of the PKK, in the last two years have managed to acquire de facto autonomy, without the “help” of the TE. Thus, at the end of July 2012 it was reported that Kurdish militias controlled at least four main towns and cities in northern Syria, which reportedly at least included parts of Qamishlo, Efrin, Amude, Terbaspi and Ay El Arab. Erdogan was quoted at the time as saying that “in the North, (Assad) has already allocated five provinces to the terrorists (Kurds)”, while later reports referred to Kurdish control over half of their region in North-East Syria, with Kurdish flags having replaced the Syrian ones. Ankara simply regards the Syrian PYD as a branch of its own, outlawed PKK.
In fact, it was reasonable for the Syrian regime to grant autonomy to the Kurdish areas in the border with Turkey, securing Kurdish support in the fight against the transnational elite and at the same time dividing the opposition against him. Particularly so if Assad, in effect, allied with the PKK (although Syrian Kurds deny operational links to them) a Kurdish organization which was the most radical Kurdish group, fighting, as Ba’athism did, for national liberation and socialism. Needless to add that PKK was promptly classified as a terrorist organization by the biggest terrorists on Earth, i.e. the transnational elite (mainly the US and EU elites) and of course the international organizations like the UN controlled by the TE. The PKK has been fighting since 1984 an armed struggle against the Turkish state but also attacking civilian and military targets in various countries, such as France, Germany and Belgium aiming at an autonomous Kurdistan covering land in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran and for the rights of the strong Kurdish community in Turkey. In fact, although PKK initially considered itself part of the worldwide communist revolution, it has evolved later into a national liberation movement.
The de facto alliance between the Kurdish national liberation movement and Ba’athism was noticed by an experienced liberal left observer of the Middle East conflicts, Patrick Cockburn, who at the end of August 2012 stressed that:
“The new development is the withdrawal of almost all of the Syrian army in the north of the country along the Syrian border. The Syrian Kurds (whose total numbers are about 2.5 million or 10 per cent of the Syrian population) have achieved de facto autonomy just as the Iraqi Kurds did in 1991. Both Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian rebels are vying for Kurdish support and have to accept, at least for now, the establishment of a Kurdish enclave. For their part, the Syrian Kurds may wish for the present civil war to continue so their shaky control of their own areas can put down roots. The significance of what has happened is not immediately obvious until it is recalled that Kurdish nationalism is one of the great forces in Middle East politics.”
He then rightly asked the question “if the Syrian Kurds achieve the same status of autonomy close to independence as in Iraq, how will Turkey be able to deny similar status to its own Kurdish minority in the south-east of the country?” It is hardly surprising therefore that since the creation of a de facto free Kurd area in the border with Turkey in July 2012 ― following perhaps a tacit agreement with the Ba’athist regime that once it comes out victorious against the criminal jihadists and other “rebels” supported by the transnational elite it will grant a formal autonomy status to the Kurds within a united Syria ― the NATO “insurrectionists” in Syria frequently attacked the Kurds, although they were not supposed to be part of the regime’s forces. Here is how Los Angeles Times described such an attack by “rebels” in January 2013 on a Kurdish town at the northeast Syrian border with Turkey:
“The Kurds, a non-Arab ethnic minority, say the Arab rebels are using tanks and artillery to attack Kurdish positions and civilian neighborhoods in Ras Ayn, about 450 miles northeast of Damascus, the capital. The Kurds also accuse the rebels of collaborating with neighboring Turkey, which has long fought a Kurdish rebellion, in a bid to crush emerging Kurdish leadership in northern Syria.”
No wonder Eric Draitser raised the unanswerable reasonable question:
“The Western media and Western government representatives from the United States and across the European Union, still insist that the sectarian bloodbath unfolding in Syria, fueled by US, British and EU weapons and cash, is a so-called “pro-democracy” uprising. Why then, one might ask, are these so-called “pro-democracy” freedom fighters turning their weapons on Syria’s Kurdish minority if the “rebels” are allegedly locked in mortal combat with a “dictatorship” they seek to overthrow for the sake of all Syrians? The answer of course is that the conflict is most certainly not a “pro-democracy” uprising, but rather Saudi-Qatari inspired sectarian extremists imported and armed by NATO from abroad, to subjugate and conquer the people of Syria ― to subjugate and conquer anyone who does not subscribe or submit to Saudi-inspired, NATO underwritten extremism in pursuit of foreign-backed regime change and regional geopolitical reordering.”
However, one of the inconsistencies of Bashar al-Assad’s father, who for many years recognized the PKK, was that, in the late 90s, he declared the PKK illegal with the obvious aim to form some sort of alliance with Turkey. Today, the same Ba’athist regime faces being crushed by an unholy alliance of Turkey, the TE and Zionists! In the meantime, the PYD Kurds of northern Syria had not agreed to co-operate with the NATO “rebels” and ― despite their pressures to cooperate with them ― did not join the Syrian National Council, which is controlled by the TE and is being groomed to succeed the Ba’athist regime, once it is overthrown. Instead, they had created self-governing cantons in many provinces of North-eastern Syria. This meant the formation of a de facto alliance between Ba’athists and PKK/PYD, i.e. of all national liberation movements in the region. Naturally, this alliance represented a mortal danger to the interests of the TE and the Zionists, and therefore had to be crushed! Particularly so as the Kurdish cantons were creating also the model of a different, really democratic model of social organization, as opposed to the parliamentary juntas established all over the world by the TE at the moment, within the context of the NWO, against which thousands of people were demonstrating over the weekend all over the world.
In conclusion, what happens today at the Turkey-Syria border is that the jihadists of ISIS, who were initially armed and funded by the TE, the Gulf states and the Zionist elite, when they turned not only against Assad and the PYD Kurds, as their mission was supposed to be, but also against the TE’s organs in the area, the TE had to intervene but in a way that would not jeopardize its strategic aims: regime change in Syria and the parallel dismantling of the cantons in North Syria. In fact, these are also the aims of the Turkish elite, which however does not want to fight single-handed on the ground the Syrian army. Yet, one could expect that once the TE agrees to a no-fly zone and a buffer zone in North Syria (i.e. once it agrees to play the role of the air force of a Turkish attack against Syria) it will probably accept the role the TE wants it to play, i.e. that of the infantry, so that the TE forces will not have to send “boots on the ground” in Syria. At the same time, it seems that the PYD (if not also part of the PKK) perhaps confused by the agreement between Erdogan and Ocalan (who seemed to believe that the TE would really fight against ISIS) began begging the TE to bomb its jihadis enemies. Thus as the London Times reported:
“When Salih Muslim, the Syrian Kurds’ political leader, begged for military aid to save Kobani, he was told that he could have it, but with strict conditions: dismantle the self-governing cantons established this year, renounce any claim to self-determination and allow the setting up of the buffer zone. He declined.”
The next act will therefore be played after the fall of Kobani and the inevitable massacre that will follow, which will persuade the “world community” to act against ISIS ― that is, against the Syrian Ba’athist regime and the non-dependent on the TE part of the Kurdish movement…
* This article was also published in Pravda.ru, on October 13, 2014. An early version of this article was first published in TF's weekly column in Sunday's Eleftherotypia (a Greek daily published in Athens) on 12/10/2014. The translation into English was edited by Jonathan Rutherford.
 See Takis Fotopoulos, Subjugating the Middle East, Vol. 2 : Engineered Insurrections (forthcoming by Progressive Press).
 Patrick Cockburn, “As the violence intensifies in Syria, there can be only one winner - the Kurds,” The Independent (26/08/2012).
 “NoTTIP: Mass protests slam US-EU trade deal as 'corporate power grab',” RT (11/10/2014).
 Catherine Phillip, “Why Erdogan is refusing to send his forces into Kobani,” The Times (08/10/2014).
The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, Vol. 10, Nos. 1/2 (Winter/Summer 2014); Special Edition: A Collection of the 2014 Articles by Takis Fotopoulos; The completion of Iraq’s destruction by the Transnational Elite and the role of ISIS (11.07.2014); The new Transnational Elite and Zionist massacres (20.07.2014); Obama and the Ideology of Globalization (27.07.2014); The Zionist Brutalization Within the New World Order and the Need for a United Multi-national and Multicultural State (06.08.2014); The imperative need for popular fronts of national and social liberation in the globalization era (12.08.2014); The Russian embargo and the Ukrainian “coup from below” (18.08.2014); The new “growth” economy of the New World Order (25.08.2014); Russia, the Eurasian Union and the Transnational Elite (31.08.2014); NATO and planned "chaos" in the NWO (11.09.2014); Syria Next and the Islamist bogeyman (17.09.2014); Scotland and the myth of independence within the EU (22.09.2014); Transnational Terrorism (29.09.2014); BRICS and the myth of the multipolar world (06.10.2014); The real objectives of the Transnational Elite in Syria (13.10.2014); Τhe Transnational Elite and the NWO as “conspiracies” (20.10.2014); Oil economic warfare and self-reliance, (27.10.2014); Towards a new Democratic World Order (03.11.2014); Democracy, the internet and freedom of speech (14.11.2014); Russia at the crossroads (20.11.2014); Globalization, Russia and the Left (27.11.2014); Economic warfare the main Western weapon (06.12.2014); The Myths about the New World Order (15.12.2014).