Posts tagged ‘Sweden’

August 27, 2019

The Sandal that Slapped the Tank

by mkleit

In December 2018, the fighting Yemeni parties have conducted peace negotiations to pave the way to an end of the brutal war that has torn the country apart, especially with the military intervention of a Saudi-led coalition in favor of one of the parties. The negotiations did some change on the ground, yet in the art of war, the side that imposes its conditions must be the one that has the upper hand, and so far, that’s not the zone the Coalition is in.

The Yemeni military forces have targeted on the 17th of August ARAMCO’s Shaibah oil field and refineries, near the Saudi – Emirati borders, with 10 military drones, which makes it the second time the Yemenis target the strategic depth of the Saudis in the war that has started mid-March 2015.

Yemeni military spokesman, Yehya al Saree’, who goes by the command of the Yemeni government in Sanaa, said that on the morning of the 17th of August, the Yemeni aerial forces have launched its largest attack on Saudi Arabia since the start of the Saudi-led Coalition war on Yemen by targeting Shaibah oil field and refineries with 10 military drones. He promised “bigger and wider military operations on their (Saudis) vital facilities… the coming operations will be more hurtful for the enemy.”

 

Yemeni military spokesman, Yehya al Saree, announcing major attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil refinery in Shaibah

 

This peculiar development isn’t the first of its kind, if we’re speaking of an attack on Saudi Arabia’s vital oil facilities, where the Yemenis have targeted main oil pumps in central Saudi Arabia last May. It has caused some surges in oil prices as well as a change in the tone of Saudi officials and their allies inside Yemen – mainly in southern regions – towards the nature of the war they’re fighting against a Yemeni government located in Sanaa.

The Emirates, the Saudi’s most prominent regional allies in this war, has committed to withdraw its forces from Yemen after a series of attacks on its interests such as oil tankers in Dubai port, military drone operations on Abu Dhabi airport, and its military presence in Aden, south of Yemen. In addition to the international pressure from some governments and rights groups because of alleged war crimes committed against civilians in southern areas, such AP’s report on secret prisons where rape and torture is being practiced on opposers to the Emirati presence in the capitol of the Yemeni south, Aden, supervised by Emirati generals.

Report of Yemeni Army air force targeting Abu Dhabi Airport

 

The Emirati decision has indirectly led to sporadic clashes in Aden between Emirati-supported Southern Transition Council and the pro-Yemeni President Abed Rabbu Mansour Hadi forces, supported by the Saudis. This tension between both sides has shaken the trust among the members of the Coalition, especially with the different goals each party has from the war. For the Saudis, it’s about political control over the Yemenis, and the Emiratis are in it for the ports, especially Aden, Socotra, and Houdeidah, which would act as a vital replacement for the strategic Dubai port considering recent developments in the Persian Gulf and the potential big rivalry that the Chinese-funder Pakistani Gwadar port would create. As for the Hadi government, it’s acting basically as the Saudi’s political puppet to enforce the latter’s control over the country that has always been directly related to the national security of kingdom; while the Transition Council is looking for independence and separation from the Northern part of Yemen, taking he country back to a time before the unification in 1990.

This turbulence, alongside that in the Northern front, would mostly lead the Saudis to one of two options:

  • Conduct direct peace talks with the Sanaa government, especially the Houthis, alongside the revival of the agreements signed in Decemeber’s talks in Stockholm. This would pave the road to an end to the entire war and the sufferings of the millions of Yemenis whom are either displaced, suffering from famine, diseases, malnutrition, and injuries.

Even though the warring parties have signed several agreements that would be a starter in lasting peace process, yet, due to the direct and indirect intervention of many global players in the war, the agreements weren’t fully applied on ground, with the exception of the Houdeidah agreement where the clashes were halted and UN peace-keepers supervised the peace treaty there, in which lies the only port that’s an access for humanitarian aid to more than half of the country’s population.

It’s worth noting that there has been huge international pressure on Saudi Arabia and the UAE to stop the war from governments and International NGOs, and recently there has been a notable statement on the 20th of July by the Saudi Ambassador to the UN, Abdullah al-Muallimi, where he said that “we do not want war with Iran in Yemen or elsewhere… it is high time that the war in Yemen should end and the Houthis should accept UN resolution 2216 by ending their illegitimate occupation of power in Yemen.” This statement could serve as a beacon of light to end this catastrophic war.

 

Heads of both Yemeni delegations, Khaled al-Yamani (left) and Mohamad Abdul-Salam (right), shaking hands, with the presence of UN secretary general Antonion Guterres (center) at the closing of the Yemen peace talks in Stockholm (December 2018)

 

  • The second option would be getting the upper hand in the war over the Sanaa forces and the Houthis, yet it’s easier said than done considering the recent balance-tipping developments, whether it be in Dale’ governorate in the south, just north of Aden, the capitol of the Saudis’ Yemeni allies; as well as, and most notably, the losses the Kingdom is suffering from at the border fronts, where the Saudis have lost several towns and around three cities, clashes going on near other cities, air fields like Abha and Khamis Mousheyt are being constantly hit by military drones and ballistic missiles, and border outposts are being taken over by a few men wearing nothing but slippers and a traditional Yemeni outfit, unlike the Saudi-led coalition which is fully equipped with body armor, night vision scopes, state of the art machine guns, and protected by formidable air and ground forces.

History has taught us that one the hardest battles that any army would fight is against a group that has no fear of death nor does it have anything to lose. The Yemenis have fought 6 wars in the past 30 years, unlike the Saudis, who have entered their first actual war.

In addition to that, the problem that lies in this expectation is that several of the key allies of the Saudis are taking a step back from supporting them, such as the US, France, and UK, after reports on war crimes and human rights abuses by Saudi-led coalition forces. Yet that doesn’t mean that these three elite nations aren’t getting paid in billions in return for weapons for the Saudis and Emiratis. Human rights aside, money still has the higher ground in the case of Yemen.

Nevertheless, the Houthis and their allies in Sanaa are still producing and improving their military arsenal to repel the Coalition’s attacks in the north, which has been a surprise to the Saudis and a heavy punch that they’re trying to cope with.

 

 

Sanaa-supported Yemen military generals standing in front of newly developed missiles’ replicas

 

In conclusion, the most reliable option here is a total cease-fire in all of Yemen, though it’s hard to practically impose on the warring sides due to the lack of trust between them, yet it will open a door for serious negotiations to put an end to the war, or, to say the least, apply the agreements that have been signed between them in Stockholm last December.

November 25, 2016

Analysis: Why Sweden is giving an award to White Helmets?

by mkleit

 

 

Sweden did not succeed in getting Bob Dylan to come to Stockholm to receive the Nobel Literature Prize. As a consolation Sweden got nevertheless the “White Helmets”; they were bestowed today the Right Livelihood Award.

 

This article examines a likely geopolitical rationale that the Swedish elites had for selecting that organization. Also, facts suggest a congruence between the stances of those elites on Syria and the declared political aims of the organization White Helmets. The reviewing of the institutions involved in the award-decision and process can also result relevant in pondering the reason for the event. Finally, to inquire into the role of Carl Bildt, as member of the board of directors in the institution ultimately deciding, is interesting against the backdrop of his opposition against the participation of  Julian Assange and Edward Snowden in previous international events organized by the same institutions –all of them under the umbrella of the Swedish Foreign Office.

 

However, Sweden’s awarding a prize to this organization –called the  “murky Withe Helmets’ by Professor Jan Osberg– it might reveal a semi-concealed intervention in support of Hillary Clinton’s doctrine in the dirty war against Syria. In concrete, another means used by Sweden’s elites in uttering their view, and gathering support, for the No-Fly Zone campaign in Syria.

 

A main purpose of what I have called the Hillary Clinton doctrine in the Middle East is the ending –by violent means– of the secular governments in the region, to be replaced by fundamentalist dictatorships. That happened in Egypt, Libya, etc. Now it was Assad’s turn. A valuable testimony of both the origin and purpose of this stance by Clinton was given by US Senator Richard Black, who declared in video:

 

“Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, put into place a series of actions to overthrow the secular governments in the Middle East and to replace them with radical Islamic regimes. Why she was doing this? I know she has great connections, financial and otherwise, with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Kuwait, with tyrants of the Arab world”.

 

To these ends in Syria, the Swedish establishment has comprehensively supported the establishment of a No-Fly zone –precisely as advocated by Hillary Clinton. Beside illustrating Hillary Clinton’s stance on the No-Fly Zone issue, the video below shows also the risk of an all-out war against Russia and Syria, and what such measure would signify for the US Armed Forces (and others supporting the No-Fly Zone, such as the Swedish establishment).

 

 

 

 

 

It would be worth to mention in this context the participation of the “neutral and nonaligned” Swedish air Force in the No-Fly Zone operation masterminded by Hillary Clinton –the ultimate responsible for the bullets fired a close range against the head of the secular Libyan government, Omar Kaddafi, while he was held prisoner and immobilized. “We came, we saw, he died“, says Hillary Clinton on video, while she laughs.

 

Also, it should be reminded that the decision regarding the military participation of Sweden in Libya was taken at the Parliament after a proposition presented by Carl Bildt; a proposal that found uncontested support in ALL political parties of the Swedish political establishment, including the Left Party (the former ‘euro-communists’). Only the Sweden Democrats opposed.

 

For the Swedish rulers, as it was for Hillary Clinton, it is not about religion or ideology, or about an “idealistic” solidarity with refugees from the Syrian war (in fact most of those migrants are not ). It is only about money.

 

While those Sunni governments financially backed Clinton and the Clinton Foundation (mentioned in the above-quoted testimony by Senator Richard Black), the role of Sweden was to contribute either with direct public funds or with donations by important Swedish companies, such as Lundin Oil or Ericsson. In retribution, they got the kind of favours from Clinton’s State Department, which permitted further expansion of Swedish business in the area, such as  Ericsson. Meanwhile, the business of Sweden with Saudi Arabia, or Sweden’s arms export to the United Arab Emirates, continues unabated [See my recent articles in “The Indicter” and “Global Research”].

 

 

Another promoter for a No-Fly Zone in Syria is the organization “White Helmets”. Undoubtedly, there are in that organization, like in any of that kind,  true volunteer-individuals trying to do a humanitarian contribution. However, as organization at large, “White Helmets” is in fact another operation set up and financed by the same forces pressing for an escalation in the military conflict in Syria. In other words, the same factions that financed armed and trained the ‘moderate’ rebels –as the New York Times and the Washington Post call them (also called non-partisan media, also call them “moderate” terrorists, or “moderate jihadists”).

 

This organization has been boosted and financed by a number of State-donors, all of them implicated in the US-led (Clinton/Obama) political and/or military coalition aimed to depose the presidency of Assad in Syria. Most of these countries count with economic benefits in the planned oil-pipe construction designed to pass through Syria and that Assad opposed; the real cause of the war. For instance, Germany raised recently its financing to the “White Helmets” up to $7.85 million. Other examples of funding governments to this so-called “non-governmental organization”: The US government has contributed with $23 million; the UK government with $4.5 million.

 

 

One conclusion emerging in this analysis, considering also White Helmets own statements done previously in its home page, is that a main aim of its propaganda endeavour is bringing public opinion’s support to the ‘necessity of establishing a No-Fly Zone in Syria’. This is the geopolitical item that coincides with the one of Sweden’s political establishment pursuing a confrontation of “West” against Russia. And it is in this context where the Swedish award  to “White Helmets” should be understood.

 

The claims for a No-Fly Zone in Syria have been passed through standard psy-op  by the pro-Clinton corporate-owned press. This has been directed not only at American audiences, but also echoed among EU countries  viewed as potential proxies for the escalation of the Syria military conflict. Sweden is, historically considered, the primary government in Europe to react positively to such calls.

 

As Sweden now is giving its prestigious award to the White Helmets, the Swedish media has relentlessly reported in the most positive terms the deeds of the organization. None of the international reports denouncing a variety of manipulation techniques in constant use by the White Helmets has found space in the Swedish media. The image and video below shows how this is done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The appeals by “White Helmets” are done by fabricating or drastically exaggerating news on ‘war atrocities’. Hence, the suggestion of demolishing ‘air raids’ directed at civilian populations is a favourite number, for instance, in videos uploaded in YouTube. In the videos I have seen, however, such attacks never appear; what we see instead, solely, are rooms filled with smoke, dust, etc., where same “patients” move constantly in the scene with or without anti-dust protection masks.

 

In the Swedish version of “Swedish Institute of International Affairs” that I have access to, I found that the largest single entity financing this ‘independent’ institution is ultimately the Swedish State.

 

Right now, as I am typing these lines, the Swedish Institute of International Affairs has removed its web page in English. There is a growing focus on that institution right now because of the Right Livelihood Prize to the White Helmets. So, one reason might be that they are ‘cleaning up’ the page. And they should.

%d bloggers like this: