Former secretary of state eyes breaking up of current-day Syria into â€śmore or less autonomous regionsâ€ť
In a very recent presentation at the Ford School, former secretary of state Henry Kissinger commented on the current Syrian situation, expressing his preference for a broken-up and balkanized Syria to emerge out of the current Assad-controlled unity (from 19 minutes and 30 seconds onward):
â€śThere are three possible outcomes. An Assad victory. A Sunni victory. Or an outcome in which the various nationalities agree to co-exist together but in more or less autonomous regions, so that they canâ€™t oppress each other. Thatâ€™s the outcome I would prefer to see. But thatâ€™s not the popular view.â€ť
After being introduced by the chair as â€śthe honorable Dr. Kissingerâ€ť, the 90-year old power-broker began an interesting history lesson. Kissinger detailed how the current state of Syria was designed by European powers, as is the case with the neighboring state of Iraq:
â€śFirst of all, Syria is not a historic state. It was created in its present shape in 1920, and it was given that shape in order to facilitate the control of the country by France, which happened to be after UN mandate. The neighboring country Iraq was also given an odd shape, that was to facilitate control by England. And the shape of both of the countries was designed to make it hard for either of them to dominate the region.â€ť
As a result of Syriaâ€™s a-historical origins, Kissinger explained, the current Syria was conceived as a more or less artificial national unity consisting of different tribes and ethnic groups. As the recent â€śrevolutionâ€ť is further spiraling into chaos, Kissinger comments on the nature of the current situation:
â€śIn the American press itâ€™s described as a conflict between democracy and a dictator- and the dictator is killing his own people, and weâ€™ve got to punish him. But thatâ€™s not whatâ€™s going on. It may have been started by a few democrats. But on the whole itâ€™s an ethnic and sectarian conflict.â€ť
â€śIt is now a civil war between sectarian groupsâ€ť, Kissinger went on to state. â€śAnd I have to say we have misunderstood it from the beginning. If you read our media they say: weâ€™ve got to get rid of Assad. And if we get rid of Assad, then we form a coalition government. Inconceivable. Iâ€™m all in favour of getting rid of Assad, but the dispute between us and the Russians on that issue, was that the Russians say: you start with getting rid of not just Assad, thatâ€™s not the issue, but you break up the state administration and youâ€™ll wind up like in Iraq- that there is nothing to hold it together. And then youâ€™ll have an even worse civil war. This is how that mess has taken the present form.â€ť
Kissinger has commented previously on the desirability of breaking up dissenting nations into smaller fragments, after which the emerging chaos may facilitate their introduction into a global order. This, in essence, is the rule of divide and conquer. These recent comments by Kissinger are in step with previous statements in which he promulgates the idea that social upheaval and mass civil unrest are to be used as a means of merging nations (including, by the way, the United States) into an â€śinternational systemâ€ť.
â€śThe United States has to be part of an international system that we create domesticallyâ€ť,Â Kissinger told The Harvard CrimsonÂ in 2012. When asked what the most important problems are facing American society today, Kissinger then answered:
â€śInternationally, the problem is that there are upheavals going on in every part of the world, but these upheavals donâ€™t follow the same basic causes, and so the United States has to be part of an international system that we create domestically.â€ť
The concept of seizing crises and upheavals, the causes of which may differ from nation to nation, in order to bring about an international order- is neatly following the eliteâ€™s golden rule, namely that a global order is best brought about by chaos. Furthermore, Kissinger provides us with a glimpse of the underlying intent he and his fellow-bilderbergers have in mind, stating in so many words that civil unrest- be it economically, politically or socially motivated- must be seized upon in order to merge nations into the desired â€śinternational systemâ€ť .
In a December 2008Â Prisonplanet.com articleÂ it was reported that Kissinger, in an interview with Bilderberg-darling Charlie Rose, â€ścited the chaos being wrought across the globe by the financial crisis and the spread of terrorism as an opportunity to bolster a new global order.â€ť, Steve Watson wrote.
â€śI think that when the new administration assesses the position in which it finds itself it will see a huge crisis and terrible problems, but I can see that it could see a glimmer in which it could construct an international system out of itâ€ť, Kissinger told Rose some years ago.
This talk of crises and upheavals as just another country-specific means to a centralized global end could specifically point to an underlying transnational plan- a sinister concept that follows the course of classic Hegelian dialectic, namely the problem (whether real or feigned) provokes the reaction which in turn allows the elite to provide the solution on a silver platter. It occurred to me that Kissingerâ€™s words are ominously reminiscent of those written down by University of Chicagoâ€™s Alexander Wendt, who in 2003 in his treatise titledÂ Why a World State is Inevitable: teleology and the logic of anarchyÂ stated:
â€śNationalist struggles for recognition are by no means over, and more new states- â€śmore anarchyâ€ť- may yet be created. But while further fragmentation is in one sense a step back, it is also a precondition for moving forward, since it is only when difference is recognized that a larger identity can be stable. (â€¦) Far from suppressing nationalism, a world state will only be possible if it embraces it.â€ť
These words may shed some light on the words uttered by Kissinger and his fellow supranationalists, in essence revealing they are very much aware of the fact that the mere proposition of a world state will not make it so- may even backfire on them when proposed too directly- and that the same goal may be better achieved via the fragmentation and balcanization of nation-states, whether in the East or West, in order to then merge those fragments into a global construct, usually described as the new world order.