Can order come out of chaos?
By : Harun Yahya
We are used to hearing conspiracy theories on a great many subjects. When it comes to the Middle East, however, it is difficult to describe plans and projects as mere conspiracy theories. Because we have seen some of the scenarios planned for the Middle East over the course of time actually be made a reality. The people dreaming up today’s scenarios no longer even bother to hide them.
Various maps shaping the Middle East were drawn up in line with the plans of secret state apparatuses while the WWI was still underway. The lands of the still intact Ottoman Empire were already being shared out behind closed doors; walls had long since been erected between people who were brothers and shared the same religion and ethnicity. If we were unaware of the six secret agreements drawn up while the war was still raging we might think they were all exaggerated or fantastical. Had Russia, one of the signatories to Sykes-Picot, not fallen out with the West, we might never have grasped the scale of these covert plans.
The WWI had long since ended, and the Middle East had been divided up with rulers and compasses, just as the tabletop planners had intended. This not only cleared the way for the plans of those who claimed rights over the Middle East, but also represented a kind of source of inspiration for later generations. The term “constructive chaos” was coined at that time. It is one of the secret state apparatus plans to use conflict and violence to divide the Middle East.
Let us remember the New Middle East project drawn up by Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, one of US President Clinton’s advisers, in 2006. In a paper titled “Blood Borders: How a better Middle East would look,” published in the Armed Forces Journal, Peters said that the borders of the Mideast need to be re-drawn to spread democracy and stem terrorism. Accordingly, the Middle East needed to be divided further into almost 20 comonents. This virtual map, in which Iraq was divided between Shiites and Sunnis, a state of Kurdistan was established, the borders of Armenia were extended and states belonging to Azeris and Baluchis in the north of Iraq were set up, and in which the borders of Syria, Lebanon and Jordan were re-drawn, was in fact created in line with an objective, and appears to have proved itself as we enter 2016.
After 2006, this map entered into circulation within the US government, NATO and military circles. No harm was seen in propagating this map in order to prepare the world, countries and peoples for it. The map in question was even used in training programs in NATO defense education units.
Peters started out from the idea that, “History showed us that artificial borders always led to instability and that ethnicity-based borders had always been preferable even after 1,000 years.” It is true that artificial borders always lead to instability. However, the way to put an end to instability is not through further division, but through unity. If Peters wished to prevent terrorism and find a solution to instability, then he should have focused on a spirit of unity in the Middle East.
However, creative chaos was not invented for any such innocent purpose, of course. In the same way that dividing brothers with artificial boundaries after the WWI was not intended for the benefit of the people of the region, so this project did not operate in that way, either. Ralph Peters served with the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence in the US Department of Defense and was an intelligence official who wrote countless strategy papers regarding US foreign policy. Although his earlier four books are said to have been quite influential in government and military circles, in fact Peters did nothing other than reveal what strategic planners had already foreseen for the Middle East. In other words, the plan went deeper than that.
The region of the Levant, which has for years been shaped by covert strategic plans, might have been a weak area in need of administration in the wake of the WWI. Today, however, we need to look at the question of why the West is always involved when the Middle East is brought up. Why is the West always planning to break it up? Why is the domestic turmoil in countries of the Middle East of more concern to the West than to the people of the region? Why is it that meetings intended to find a “solution in the Middle East” always held by Europeans in European capitals? Why is it that there are western military bases and jets armed with western rockets all over it? Where are the Middle Eastern leaders and peoples capable of deciding on its future?
Now is the time for a totally different strategy for the Middle East. Now is the time for a community that welcomes friendship, but that rejects western plans for fragmentation and that has realized, from centuries of experience, that division will lead to disaster, not to prosperity, to come to the fore. We need to convince the world that a spirit of unity will benefit, not just the Middle East but the West as well, and will also eliminate the problem of terror. We need to show the backstage strategists who have become used to trying to solve all problems with violence over the years, the false nature of their plans and dreams.
It must not be forgotten that human beings have a tendency to use angry words, to hate, and to use violence as a shortcut. They, therefore, also have a tendency to believe that problems can be solved and happiness can come as a result of division, fragmentation and isolation. Those who desire conflict and turmoil have always made use of that tendency. We have the power to show both the peoples of the Middle East and western strategists that this is wrong. While certain people make plans to incite hatred, let us — together — make plans to destroy hatred. Let us not wait for the West to build peace between us.
The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He tweets @harun_yahya
Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in the Column section are their own and do not reflect RiyadhVision’s point-of-view.