Are wars for oil inevitable?

It’s just a suggestion. I can’t support it with scientific facts, or with exact figures as I’m unable to prove with certainty the participation of man in the global climate warming. Nevertheless, the claims of the outbreak of World War III, due to conflicts over access to areas rich in oil prompted me to reflect on this. So, if science and technology created electric engines, especially in the 21stc, such as trains running on magnetic levitation, wind power and solar energy, why is oil still so significant and what is more likely to escalate conflict? Why does the whole world still have to fight for something that is almost replaced already? Isn’t that absurd? When I write word „absurd”, what comes to my mind is politics, and then the lobbying, corporations, banks, politically correct slogans such as “1% vs 99%,” etc.

Aren’t we in the alleged global conflict of oil just because of large corporations that do not want and cannot come to terms with the changes? Isn’t the fact that the project DESERTEC has been “suspended” because of the lack of profitability? However, this project has not been calculated for profit or loss, but on the benefits of political stabilization of the region.

So today, there is inflammation and a departure from traditional energy sources and the gradual transition to renewable sources. If you count the profits from the exploitation of oil, but thrown into the balance sheet also the wars in the Middle East and Africa, and losses counted today amongst a country’s debt, the threat to Western societies resulting from the terrorism arising from these wars, and we consider the greater majority of the population that does not participate in direct profits from trading oil, it turns out that it is a source of very scarce supply for the vast majority of societies.

There are many socially beneficial but unprofitable projects- almost all basic science is like that. But a more unprofitable and so drastically conflicting and perhaps completely unnecessary enterprise than the “War of Oil” is hard to even imagine.

As an observer and researcher of world politics, I have a growing conviction that a lot of things that happen now are created for the needs of conflict and the struggle for influence, and therefore power and we – ordinary people are tools to create and participate in these conflicts.

Powerful corporations, having their entire structure built on the basis of various institutions and interests in one way or another, with the industry dependent on oil, are responsible for the fact that these terribly bloody and devastating conflicts are ongoing. Add to that politicians who are addicted to, bought by or not competent enough to fight negative lobbying. For this, banks related to the corporations and politicians take advantage of our money and finance the war for oil.

The whole system, thus created, is now impossible (as, unfortunately, I believe) to change in the short term, therefore the war for oil is under way and even now threatens global conflict.

Another problem is political leadership, whose country budget depends (at their own request) on oil – like Putin’s. They believe have no choice but to fight for oil, or for the higher price of it, and expand their sphere influence. Others are afraid of their unpredictability and try to limit those “opportunities” for them.

In the Middle East, where the axis of „Oil wars cross mostly, the Kurds are used as pawns in the „competition”. They also trying to use that situation and enter the scene as a state and for this purpose, they will do almost anything. Currently, the complicated “Kurdish issue” becomes the epicenter of the war, where the actual substrata is Oil. The problem is not, that Kurdish areas are richest in petroleum, but: 1. they are deeply in conflict with Turkey, 2. necessarily want to become a state, 3. the West is, as usual, very ambiguous and 4. Russia wants to use them against Turkey. 5. You can add more to this – ISIS, Iran, the war in Syria, GCC states seeking, as Iran is doing, for influence in the same places, and that Israel, which has weapons of mass destruction and would not hesitate to use it if they will predict seriously danger for their existence.

Thus we have presumption and conditions for World War III – now it is essential that the West starts to pursue a rational policy – not avoiding problems, but measuring them. The problem for now – is to bring Turkish and Kurdish leaders to negotiations, which would take over the main argument from the hands of Putin. That would provide a strong and stable –pro-Western- ally, significantly reduce tension in relations with Turkey, but also with Iraq, Iran and Syria. Finally, it would stem escalating violence and then we could look for a second step to decrease the conflicts. That would be the stabilization of the Middle East and settling the relations with Russia (with the general condition there has to be true independence of Ukraine).

But all that would be possible if we refuse to use oil and other energetic resources as a main bacground of all actions. There is a strong need for a good Strategy for security in the Middle East and for decreasing the terrorist threat in Europe. But we can create it and use it only when we choose reasonable politicians not depended on corporations and banks.

Donald Trump in the context of this article seams the worst possible choice.

For the correction I would like to thank to Sarah: @omertaricerca

After Paris masarce I say: no WAR but good POLICY at last!!

After 11/09, and the following the attacks in Madrid, London, Charlie Hebdo and today – after the massacre in Paris the same password is raised again: „We are at war!” „We must fight!” So I ask – Against whom? Where? Who is the enemy? I would like to remind, that George W. Bush declared the war already, 14 years ago – on the ruins of the World Trade Center the day after the attacks in 2001. This war continues, and is/was conduced in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Mali, CAR and others. In this war we hit with full force, and hundreds of thousands of troops (Afghanistan and Iraq) or operate less formally, but equally deadly (Yemen, Syria) sometimes openly support those who supposedly are fighting against dictatorship (Libya and Syria, and there were those who wanted to help in Egypt but thankfully they didn’t decided that). The opponent, however, continually strengthens and hit us occasionally, but extremely accurately causing death, fear and doubt. Time to realize – against whom we conduct the war, and who runs it against us? Another cry: „We are at war!” or „You have to fight!” will lead to further ill-considered military action, the consequence of which will be to strengthen the real enemy. At our own request we incur further losses in the army – sent no sense to the Middle East, and civilians more easily attacked in our (European or US) cities, not to mention further victims in the places of conflict in the Middle East – but that, in this day, after the terrorist attacks in Paris, probably only a few interests.

Who and where is the enemy I tried to show in the text:

Charlie Hebdo: Islam vs. Islamism

Why it is easy for them to grow and take action here:

Decision making process in Iraq in 2003

and here:

Syria: searching of lesser evil

MOST IMPORTANT – How to fight it:

Outline of the International Security Strategy

and partly here:

Humanitarian missions int he stabilization operation

I also wrote that further policy based on „WAR” will lead to further the spiral of violence, which, by the crisis of refugees and terrorist attacks already reaches Europe and the USA. In this connection it should be remembered that the war on radicalism – rightly called Islamo-fascism did not begin on September 11, 2001, but the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon were just the consequence of consistently wrong Western policy in the Middle East. The Middle Eastern societies at the end of the twentieth and the early twenty-first century is undergoing massive social changes, unnoticed by Western politicians or misinterpreted (as a sign of „explosion” of Western-style democracy). With no change in this policy, it is impossible to achieve peace and stability. These can only be achieved through wise (multi disciplinary and multi-level, varied – depending on the place etc.) international politics. Of course, also in case of such policy, military operations are a necessity, but they must be part of the policy and give results in the form of political progress, and not be objective or in response to enemy action. The war goes on and the opponent is getting better methods and tools to attack „us”. At the same time, many of us do not realize how many allies, we have the „other” side. I personally know many Syrians, Egyptians, Lebanese, Palestinians and Turks, who continuously demonstrate calling for „us”, that tolerating radicalism in the Western world, allowing the marches of Islamo-fascists calling for the overthrow of the democratic government and the establishment in the place of Sharia law, respecting freedom Citizens by not placing wiretaps in places where there is a promotion of hate, overthrowing the dictatorship in the Middle East – all that generate great risk! What’s more, the losses we get,  triggers our anger directed against those who are easy to reach (about which I wrote in the text of Charlie Hebdo). They are Muslims praying in the Mosque, Muslim children in school, women, often teachers, doctors, who like us are afraid of extremists and terrorists. The true enemy is the one who treats us as an enemy and   he is reachable despite the claims of the Politicians. We can not, however, see enemy between the dictators, groups not willing to cooperate with us or those who want to increase their influence in the region. Finally, we must separate the threat of extremism and terrorism from the economic interests, geopolitical influences etc. We hve to stop deciding for Middle Eastern societies and self-reliance of countries there, we have to treat them as partners. In that place we have to focus on the destruction of the actual centers of extremism and terrorism both in Middle East and West. We need partners and real allies against extremism and terrorism and for implementing a strategy similar to that which I suggested at the beginning of the text. If so, am sure that not more than six months would be enough to disappear: The so called Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusrah, Al-Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb and al-Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula and others. By doing this, the wealth of the West and the possibility of influencing policy would not have fall so badly as  Western leaders are worried.

                Of course, I also know well that this will not happen. The public want war and it will get it. „Tabloid War ” which will kill many „terrorists” – in fact the people living in the Middle East – not necessarily even a „bad” Muslims. between them they will get the persons related to the massacre in Paris. Nobody will say in Europe, that there are thousands of the same kind of people in the Middle East, so the threat will not be reduced even of half a percent. In this wa y „we will rebuild” sense of security for a while. It will grow with each killed a „terrorist” what will be presented by the politicians – just as the tabloids. In fact, we will prepare the ground for further attacks – more and more bloody, more easily conducted and more … provoking another wars. The extremists – as the name suggests live from extremes – chaos, war, injustice, poverty, geopolitical turmoil and , false image of the religion. This gives them the strengh and they get if from wars and again it threnghten their radicalism. More wars creates more radicals. Wars doesn’t kill radicals but create them!

The outline of the security strategy in the context of the immigration crisis

USA and EU policy in the Middle East implemented during the first 15 years of the twenty-first century was based on ad hoc measures, determined by domestic issues of Western countries. Thus, no strategy for coordinated action or calculation of any enduring positive effects was developed, by or for any side in the conflict. This resulted in a dramatic deterioration of the situation both within the region itself, and within Europe.

Below are the few projects of  tactical level which together make up the strategy and would, in my opinion, normalize the situation in the Middle East and radically reduce the threat from radical groups. From the European perspective, it would also indirectly contribute to reducing the wave of immigrants. Naturally, this is only the outline of such a strategy, and certainly contains many loopholes. However, with the proper will of the Western countries, it is feasible. Cited issues must be implemented in parallel for all three layers (unless otherwise indicated in the text). Points are therefore not in chronological order:

I. Middle Eastern political issues:

1. Using the agreement with Iran, immediately resume contacts with the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Agree on a “road map” for Syria*:
2. Prolonged agreement with Iran while controlling and reducing the Iranian nuclear program and consequent influence in the region in accordance with point 1 cited above.
3. Backroom negotiations with the GCC, Iran, Israel and China and Russia in order to establish cooperation. Initial area of common interest to launch negotiations: the division of spheres of influence in the region and agreement on the rights of Sunni and Shiite minorities where they are a minority. In the absence of agreement on the issue of Iraq and Yemen, a contingency plan should take into account the need to share these countries. In this respect, there is also the need to negotiate within the same group. The issue of delimitation and possible resettlement and access to places of worship. The best result of these negotiations would be obtaining the cooperation of both parties in reducing Sunni and Shiite extremism and prohibiting the efforts of (corrupting elements within these groups?) from acquiring weapons of mass destruction by either party.
   • How to withdraw from the conflict while minimizing further losses and trends of revenge,
   • Communicate with FSA leadership who have not gone over to Al – Nusry (probably already applies to a small number) and a reconciliation with Assad for their inclusion in Syrian military structures.
   • Direct joint military effort against PI.
4. Bring to the negotiations between Turkey and the Kurds the Kurdish statehood issue and Kurdish freedoms in Turkey and abandon their terrorist activities in Turkey. The negotiations should be attended by representatives of Iranian, Iraqi and Syrian authorities. Area of initial agreement to launch negotiations: the establishment of a Kurdish state in Northern Iraq and Syria but not in Turkey. Agreement between Turkey and Kurds is POSSIBLE!! Just how it happened during „Zero problems with neighbours” policy period of Mr Erdogan.
5. Creation of a Kurdish state, the borders of which should be established as a result of the Turkish- Kurdish agreement under UN agency. At the same time the UN should send a contingent to monitor agreements and designate observation points along all borders of the new state. Chinese UN troops as a sign of China role in modelling of theworld order.
6. Resume and place strong emphasis on re-opening negotiations between Israel and Palestine. The negotiations must take into account and engage countries participating in this conflict except the Israeli and the Palestinian Authorities– the EU and the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt and Iran. This will lead to the deployment of the UN contingent inside the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and at the Israeli borders. Again Chinese Peacekeepers together with US would seem to fit here.
7. Bring to the negotiations the stabilization of the situation in Yemen. For this purpose, it is necessary to include Iran and the GCC countries in the talks. The UN contingent to supervise the agreement and reconstruction of power.
8. To achieve points. 5-7: full EU cooperation with the US, China, Russia, GCC, Turkey, Israel, Egypt and Iran on security issues.
9. Great emphasis on and commitment of the EU and the United States in cooperation with the religious authorities in the Middle East. Scholarship program for religious leaders to promote “peaceful version” of Islam.
10. Maximum improvement of the relations with Egypt. Only after improving the conditions of the international situation, the weakening influence of the so-called IS in Egypt and stabilization of the situation in Egypt gradually increasing pressure on civil liberties, women’s rights etc.
11. Definite change of the course in case of China. China is making great policy in the ME and Africa and could be constructive if treated as partner.

II. Middle East – humanitarian issues:

1. The EU and the US must undertake the financing, organization and control of existing refugee camps in the Middle East. The model for these camps should be the Turkish organizational method, which provides the best conditions for refugees.
2. Negotiations with the Iraqi authorities and Syria, backed by strong action and propaganda or information to reflect the subjectivity and political role of minorities in those countries.
3. Financial and organizational support – through humanitarian organizations with confirmed authority and effectiveness for the reconstruction of Iraq, Syria and Yemen. A model of the stabilization mission with the use of the humanitarian organizations: https://mmilczanowski.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/humanitarian-missions-and-the-military-in-the-stabilization-interventions-the-example-of-the-intervention-in-iraq-2003-2011/
4. Alongside the political rebuilding and stabilizing of Iraq, Syria and Yemen and the formation of Kurdistan, a promotional campaign for the resettlement of the population of the camps and emigration to  home countries should be set up.

III. The EU and the US:

1. The introduction of “General Monitoring Refugees Rules” in the EU. From the EU external border refugees should be monitored, using all available methods.
2. Establishment of temporary refugee files on the basis of the monitoring process as detailed in point 1 above. Documenting all actions of individuals. As a result, even when their documents are unavailable,  you can collect data on them.
3. On the basis of the “General Monitoring Refugees Rules”, profiling of people of high suspicion and subjecting them to surveillance in countries that they eventually reach.
4. Strict law enforcement in EU countries without tolerating actions arising from cultural differences. Eg. Prayer in the temple or in the legally assigned place for that, freedoms and civil rights strictly adhered to, incitement to hatred on cultural or changing the constitutional order be treated with severity.
5. Persons calling for the establishment of Sharia in Europe the same treatment as neo-fascist groups. Not only deny it in public, but prohibited by law.
6. Treat surveillance of all places of worship where it is even less likely that 4 and 5 might occur. This action should be aimed at detecting particularly dangerous  “sleeper cells” of terrorists.
7. Educate people in Europe using programs like this: http://heroicimagination.org/ and here http://wp.me/p4y6QP-9M

*This point has become very complicated since Russia started its military operation. Propaganda on both sides (Russia – pro Assad and Western – anti Assad) radicalized and now it is much harder to make this point workable.

Warm thanks to Sarah @italianistica for helping me with the correction 🙂

Przyczyny wojen

W wielu moich tekstach wyrażałem przekonanie, że ani religia ani też ideologia nie są podstawowymi źródłami konfliktów. Religie mogą przecież funkcjonować obok siebie bez konfliktów, a nawet nietrudno znaleźć w nich zasadnicze zbieżności bardzo ułatwiające pokojową koegzystencję.

Spory w tym obszarze mogą więc być jedynie domeną teologów lub historyków. Z kolei ideologie mogą rywalizować ze sobą na polu gospodarki, czy nauki. Można wówczas szukać uzasadnienia, który z systemów lepiej się sprawdza. W warunkach wyraźnych dysproporcji, można wzorem Chin łączyć i modyfikować system wewnętrzny odchodząc od filarów danej ideologii, a dzięki temu przyśpieszając rozwój wewnętrzny i możliwości współpracy międzynarodowej.

Zarówno ideologia jak i religia, mają więc dawać możliwość rozwoju wewnętrznego człowieka jak i społeczeństwa, podnosząc poziom ekonomiczny i cywilizacyjny w pierwszym jak i duchowy oraz relacji między ludzkich w przypadku drugim. Jednakże religia i ideologia stanowią też łatwe narzędzie wykorzystywane przez strony do kreowania konfliktów i mobilizowania społeczeństw do udziału w nich. Ideologia przyjmowana przez strony tak, aby ułatwiać zarządzanie danym społeczeństwem i aby umożliwić wraz z religią takie ukształtowanie społeczeństw, aby były skłonne do walki z przeciwnikiem o innej ideologii w imię „wyższych wartości”.

Częścią zarówno ideologii jak i religii można uczynić dążenie do rozszerzenia ich na inne społeczeństwa. Wszak chcemy się podzielić naszą „dobrą nowiną” albo naszym „wyższym poziomem cywilizacyjnym” z innymi. Z drugiej strony – u odbiorców tych „dóbr” pojawia się poczucie agresji ze strony obcej, agresywnej ideologii czy religii.

A więc dążenie do rozszerzania własnych mechanizmów i sposobów funkcjonowania, które uznajemy za najlepsze, na inne społeczeństwa, jest już elementem polityki, stanowiąc pas transmisyjny umożliwiający wykorzystanie ich przeciwko innym społecznościom. Wszak sam Arystoteles mówił, że:

„(…) (Ważne jest zbadanie) jaki jest najlepszy ustrój, jak się powinien przedstawiać, by jak najwięcej czynił zadość życzeniom, tudzież, jaki ustrój tym lub innym ludziom odpowiada”ks. IV, 1, 1, 2..

oraz

„Trzeba się bowiem zastanowić, nie tylko jaki ustrój jest najlepszy, ale i nad tym, jaki jest możliwy (…)” Arystoteles, Polityka, ks. IV, 1, 1, 3.

 Wszystko to można zastosować zarówno do kwestii wojny między państwami, ale też do walk frakcji lub całych partii politycznych. Prawdziwa walka toczy się jednak o to, o co toczyła się w czasach przedhistorycznych, w starożytności i średniowieczu, czyli  o „bogactwa” i władzę. Zależnie od danych polityków jedna wartość bądź druga może być ważniejsza, niemniej są one od siebie zależne i ze sobą nierozerwalnie związane.

Powyższa teza staje się łatwa do uzasadnienia, jeśli weźmiemy pod uwagę, że zarówno religia jak i ideologia nie stanowią żadnego uzasadnienia dla wojen. Dopiero chęć dominowania nad innymi jest powodem koniecznym dla rozpoczęcia konfliktu i do tego właśnie narzędziem najłatwiejszym są religia i ideologia. Aby mieć władzę nad sąsiednim społeczeństwem możemy wykorzystać kilka sposobów:

1. Zachęcić odpowiednim systemem korzyści jakie z podległości wynikają.
2. Zastraszyć za pomocą odpowiednich środków perswazji: od straszenia innym „gorszym” przeciwnikiem, poprzez korzyści dla władzy z wciągnięcia społeczeństwa w taki „system” współpracy, aż po pokaz siły i szantaż.
3. Wojna i dominacja za pomocą sił zbrojnych, które umieszczają u władzy posłuszne woli agresora osoby.

Pierwsze dwa elementy występują zwykle wspólnie, trzeci jest ostatecznością z punktu widzenia humanitarnego, ale zupełnie powszechnym środkiem jeśli wziąć pod uwagę realia i bezwzględność tych, którzy do tej władzy dążą.

Zgodnie z twierdzeniem Clausewitza wojna jest jednym ze  środków do osiągnięcia celu politycznego. Jeśli tym celem jest władza, wówczas kwestia życia ludzkiego, niedoli tysięcy czy milionów ludzi nie jest niestety dla dążących do tej władzy żadnym argumentem przeciw. Takimi są jedynie środki odstraszania, zbyt duże straty własne (choć te są często zbyt późno przewidywane) lub brak korzyści politycznych.

Nowa (choć oparta na znanych z historii zasadach) doktryna wojny hybrydowej ułatwia w znaczny sposób łączenie wszystkich trzech ww. punktów. Świetnym przykładem (choć smutnym) może tu być interwencja zbrojna Rosji na Ukrainie. Właśnie za pomocą wojny, prowadzonej w taki sposób, aby wywoływać konflikty wewnętrzne i kreować pozory wojny domowej, Kreml tworzy warunki w których będzie mógł zastosować punkt 1 i 2. W sytuacji zupełnego upadku państwowości, chaosu wewnętrznego i wzrostu ekstremizmów, przy jednoczesnym zablokowaniu drogi do integracji z UE, odcięciu pomocy z USA za pomocą odpowiedniego przerzucenia zaangażowania dyplomatycznego i także militarnego na Bliski Wschód gdzie dotąd to USA realizowały swoje interesy, dla wielu Ukraińców rzeczywiście polityczny „powrót” do Rosji będzie korzystny. Z drugiej strony Rosja angażując się militarnie i dyplomatycznie w Syrii, nie ma oczywiście na celu walki z Państwem Islamskim, ale ugruntowanie swoich wpływów w tym pańśtwie i poprawienie relacji z Iranem „szachując” jednocześnie USA i po części Chiny.

Przy czym zwalczanie Państwa Islamskiego, którego odłamy są powiązane z państwami Zatoki jest w pewnym sensie korzystne dla Rosji ograniczając oddziaływanie Państw Zatoki powiązanych z USA. Wieści o porozumieniu osi Rosja-Iran-Irak-Syria jakie miało być zawarte w Bagdadzie, mogą o tym świadczyć.

Dzięki rosnącej roli Rosji w tym układzie, zwiększa się też prawdopodobieństwo włączenia się już oficjalnie Turcji do takiej współpracy. Byłoby to doraźnie korzystne dla Rosji, a zgubne dla Zachodu. Utrzymywanie niskiej ceny ropy przez Państwa Zatoki wskutek porozumienia z USA w ramach OPEC, jest jednym z powodów zaangażowania się Rosji po stronie Asada.

Teraz Rosja może zmusić USA do zmiany polityki, wywierając presję na forum międzynarodowym i pozorując swój udział w walce z terroryzmem. Jednocześnie Rosja przejmując inicjatywę na Bliskim Wschodzie odwraca uwagę od sytuacji na Ukrainie, umniejszając też znaczenie komisji w sprawie MH17 jak i swojego weta w ONZ w tej sprawie.

Zarówno wpływy jak i korzyści ekonomiczne są tu jedynym motywem działania władz Kremla i niestety wskutek krótkowzroczności Zachodu, nie są one pozbawione szans na powodzenie. Z drugiej strony Zachód w identycznym stopniu prowadzi walkę o wpływy i surowce nie licząc się z katastrofą humanitarną w Syrii i Jemenie oraz fatalną sytuacją w Iraku.

Interwencja zbrojna USA i sojuszników w Iraku, nie miała oczywiście nic wspólnego z promocją demokracji, czy pragnieniem usunięcia „złego” dyktatora, ale miała dać USA kontrolę nad ważnym geopolitycznie państwem pomiędzy Iranem i Syrią, którego władze nie były skłonne do współpracy z USA. Oczywiście ważnym czynnikiem do rozpoczęcia tej wojny było pragnienie państw Zatoki Perskiej do rozszerzenia dzięki USA swoich wpływów w Iraku i powstrzymanie rosnących aspiracji Iranu. Sam George W. Bush w książce „Decision Points” stwierdza, że nie mógł przewidzieć, że Iran tak skorzysta na interwencji USA. Niestety niedobrze to świadczy o samym prezydencie jak i procesie decyzyjnym jaki realizowano wówczas w  Białym Domu (Decision making process).

Sama wojna jak i korzyści związane z surowcami, dają olbrzymie możliwości wielkim koncernom zbrojeniowym, firmom paliwowym, a także bankom finansującym konflikty. Niestety w dalszej perspektywie traci na tym społeczeństwo, zagrożone terroryzmem, falą zdesperowanych imigrantów i rosnącym długiem publicznym.

Wsparcie militarne rebelii w Libii i Syrii także nie miało na celu likwidacji „złych” reżimów, ale usunięcie przywódców i ich grup politycznych, które nie były skłonne do współpracy z Zachodem na warunkach Zachodu. W obu przypadkach istnieje wiele świadectw, że zarówno w Libii poziom życia jak i swobody obywatelskie stały na jednym z najwyższych poziomów w całej Afryce, podczas gdy rodzina Asadów cieszyła się poparciem i autentyczną sympatią dużej części społeczeństwa – nie tylko Alawitów.

Zarówno Kadafi jak Asad rozwijali też dobre stosunki z państwami zachodnimi, choć starali się o konkurencyjność i suwerenność gospodarczą. W sytuacji gdy w obu tych państwach do głosu dochodziły grupy przeciwne władzy, Zachód (głównie Francja) zapraszał je na rozmowy w sprawie przyszłości tych państw. W obu przypadkach, przywódcy rebelii byli w stanie przekonać przywódców zachodnich, że formują rząd porozumienia narodowego i władza po dyktatorze będzie sprawiedliwa, demokratyczna i maksymalnie przyjazna dla Zachodu.

W istocie zapewne liczył się tylko ten ostatni argument. Sytuacja w Libii dobitnie pokazała absurd, hipokryzję a wreszcie także zagrożenia płynące z takiej polityki Zachodu. Mimo to w Syrii nadal realizowana jest polityka usuwania „złego” dyktatora.

Wreszcie przywódcy Państwa Islamskiego kuszą najemników z całego świata możliwością uzewnętrzniania i stosowania nieskrępowanej niczym przemocy, jak i wysokim standardem życia w wyniku dokonywanych podbojów. Ludzie ci egzekwują w brutalny sposób wprowadzone bardzo pierwotne zasady, których sami nie przestrzegają zamykając się w ufortyfikowanych osiedlach z dala od widoku coraz słabiej popierających ich sunnitów. Nie ma to nic wspólnego z religią, która ma jedynie dawać poparcie zmarginalizowanym i pozbawionym ochrony państwa sunnitom w Syrii i Iraku („Searching for Lesser evil”).

To tylko kilka przykładów, świadczących o tym, co leży u podstaw wojen. Zachód, który rzekomo wspiął się na wyższy poziom cywilizacyjny i nie dąży już ani do stref wpływów ani do wojen, oczywiście stosuje te piękne zasady tylko w relacjach wewnętrznych. Niestety jednocześnie słusznie postrzegany jest poza Europą jako główny promotor wojen. Z kolei z Rosją jest odwrotnie. Jako że nie dominuje, przez wielu na Bliskim Wschodzie postrzegana jest jako wyzwoliciel spod dominacji Zachodu, podczas gdy jedynym jej celem jest ustanowić własną dominację równie, a może jeszcze bardziej opresyjną.

W istocie Rosja, jako znacznie słabszy, ale posiadający broń nuklearną aktor stosunków międzynarodowych, nie chce konfrontacji z Zachodem, ale stosuje szantaż który ma jej umożliwić podział stref wpływów (nowa Jałta) i zapewnić pozycję mocarstwową dzięki dostępowi do surowców i przede wszystkim zyskaniu wpływu na ich cenę. To jest klucz do prawdziwej potęgi i władzy w rozumieniu geopolitycznym i globalnym, a nie „tylko” lokalnym.

O to toczy się gra, jednak uczestniczą w niej nie tylko państwa. Równorzędnymi aktorami, a może często ważniejszymi są wielkie międzynarodowe korporacje, banki i grupy społeczne odgrywające często rolę ponadpaństwowych uczestników stosunków międzynarodowych.

Byłoby wielkim błędem niedostrzeganie innych niż państwa, kluczowych aktorów na globalnej „szachownicy”. Trudniej analizować ich udział i wpływ na układ sił geopolitycznych, ale bez zrozumienia ich znaczenia widać tylko niewielki wycinek rzeczywistej partii „szachów” jaka się obecnie toczy.

Atak i eliminacja pionków przeciwnika jest zawsze elementem gry. Wojna jest nieodzownym elementem gry o władzę i będzie tak zawsze, ale społeczeństwo świadome historii, swej siły i sytuacji oraz mechanizmów, jakie są wykorzystywane aby je popychać do zabijania drugiego człowieka, może zatrzymać decydentów i zmusić ich do szukania innych – pokojowych dróg do budowania relacji z innymi.

„Zbijanie pionków” nie musi polegać na fizycznej eliminacji ludzi – całych grup społecznych czy religijnych, może być efektem walki ekonomicznej i zyskiwania sojuszników. Jednakże tylko społeczeństwa mogą zmusić decydentów do zmiany narzędzi wykorzystywanych w grze. Nie dajmy sobie wiec wmawiać, że wojna leży w „interesie narodowym” kogokolwiek.

Mapa zapożyczona z artykułu w Le Monde Diplomatique: Stratégies pétrolières et militaires américaines dans la région du Golfe, par Philippe Rekacewicz, novembre 2002 https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cartes/golfe2002

Do Blog

Interview with prof. Phillip Zimbardo about Iraq, military and education

Discussion took place in profesor Zimbardo’s house in San Francisco 2nd of July 2015.

 This meeting was a part of my visit as a fellow in the Hoover Institution. First we had a good conversation through the skype and Professor Philip Zimbardo invited me to his house. There was the continuation of the discussion in that beautiful house beside the Lombard Street in San Francisco. We spoke about many things and this script is just a part of the whole discussion. I had two objectives in this conversation. First was to consult my research about the war in Iraq and it’s influence on US policy. Second was to discuss Professor’s projects. Especially the Hero Imagination Project (HIP) which Professor was so kind to invite me to join it. I admire professor’s works and I believe, that he deserves the Nobel prize for his famous experiment  (even if it was very controversial). This meeting was form me much more than just a consultation or talk. I’ve met man who is legend, as my Egyptian friend Sonia Azer told me when I told her about this meeting. I find his works – his experiments and his projects very basic for the explanation of all wrong what is happening today. Iraq, Ukraine, Palestine, Israel, Yemen, Somalia, Rwanda, Serbia and Bosnia Stalin or Hitler and now Putin or Assad, all wrong starts from the peoples mind and most of it can be explained and described by the Stanford Prison Experiment.

MM – Do You think the psychological trainings in area of intercultural communication or similar to Hero Imagination Project would be helpful for soldiers in Iraq?

PZ – I’m an academic, I work with the high schools and students, but it (HIP) should work for the military of course. The new idea of soldiers, in a peace time, is not to learn how to kill. It is learn people how to appreciate each other.  After Abu Ghraib, I was expert witness to one of the guards who had the night shifts when the prisoners were abused. I said: when You went to Iraq, what was Your cultural training, how did they prepared You to deal with the people of so different culture? He said we had thirty minutes I asked what did they teach You? He said, they gave him the list of all the things they shouldn’t do. But it was nothing about the different religion, about conflict between the Shia and Sunni, nothing. So this was a failure of the military education form the top down. Soldiers have to realize those people have very rich history, they civilization was ancient even before America was even discovered.

MM – What I do in Hoover Institution Archives is an juxtaposition of the US commitments made to the Iraqi people with the decision making process and it’s consequences which created the real disaster for the people there. In Hoover Institution I have found few collections of the materials spread in Iraq and Afghanistan at the beginning of both interventions. In my opinion two major thing which were made wrong in Iraq (despite the reasons of intervention which are also very questionable): lack of proper psychological training for the military and the wrong decision making process. Those two created the so called „Lucifer Effect”.

PZ – Yes, the first thing was the promise and another delivering it. There was a big gap. I’m against the war, but if You go to war, You can do it in a good way or a bad way. That was the bad way.

MM – In my opinion the most important in Iraq was to win support of the Iraqi people – Shia, Sunni and Kurds.

PZ – So if You look on our project of Hero Imagination, You would see it could be also a soldiers training.

MM – I assume it could be implemented as the basic training in the military schools or academies?

PZ – Yes, it is very basic understanding of human nature. Why the people do good things, why the people do bad things. How to get people who do nothing to do something. Because if You have to do something You better do the right thing.

MM – In my opinion, what You do in HIP and what is Your work about, is so basic that it fits all areas of life: military in Iraq, primary schools, students, Ukrainians trying to assimilate in Poland (like in my University in Rzeszow) and so on. Problems starts from the teachers too, many of them in all levels make a lot of mistakes. They don’t have the intercultural preparation so they also use prejudice.

PZ – It is called the teacher prejudice.

MM – like in that another experiment of the Jane Elliott with the Blue eyes-brown eyes children in the primary school.

PZ – Oh yes, we have that lesson in our program and we use the video from that experiment, actually I work with the Jane Elliott personally. When she did the study I have to come to Stanford and she teach me what she did and lectured me on it. I have analyzed all of her data for her. Video is so powerful. You can talk a lot, but that video makes the impression. So now for the record I would like to say, that I Philip Zimbardo would like to work with You Maciek to export our programs on understanding human nature both to Your students through Your institute (Institute for the Research of the National Security in the University of Information Technology and Management) but I am sure it would also work for the military which would be unique. I didn’t prepared it for the military, although I had lectured in America at the West Point and Annapolis (United States Naval Academy) and they actually used some of the ideas from the prison study in what they called the SEAR program – Survival Evasion Resistance Escape. So they play the war games with some people pretend to be the prisoners who escape, and the other ones have to capture them and interrogate, to see if they can get confessions. In many cases, even though everybody knew it was a game, the people who were to catch the captives, physically abused and in some cases even sexually abused the other soldiers. It was a big scandal in the military. So now they use the Stanford Prison Experiment as a warning of the abuse of power. Because even if You know it is a game, like in these prison cells, they knew it was a game, You cross the line and it becomes the real that You are prison guard and not the student. So the main ideas are so general, that when I came to West Point Academy and Annapolis they told me: „Your video is in our program, they watch that in the training”. They make a warning of what can happened. So these are important areas of my work. We have now the non profit foundation in Poland, but we need to expand so we could divide it into divisions – one will be military, other primary schools and another college. So we will meet in Katowice 28-29 of August and You need to have the panel there about Your experience.

MM – Thank  You. I would like to participate in it. Thank You also for Your proposal of working together and joining Your projects.

PZ – I’m sure it will be an important part of it. Now the other thing is, that in America, the strongest influence on education have a group called PTA – Parents Teachers Association. It doesn’t exist in Poland. I have met with the parents association and I have asked: „Do You link the teachers?” They answered: „No, teachers are like the enemies”. I have said, that only parents plus teachers have the political power to change the system! So this is my another idea, how to get the parents association to create a new organization which is parents and teachers in improving the education.

MM – I have to admit that the ground for that is getting better now in Poland. Ministry of Education pressures the primary schools directors to implement the parents. But the objective is just to make the school and lessons more interesting with help of the parents. There is no will to use such cooperation for the system improvement.

PZ – So look: in America the PTA is a very powerful group. They have political influence, they have more money for the schools, they can prevent the school from the closure if the administration wants to do that. What I find also not good in Poland is lack of philanthropy. Rich people don’t have a concept of giving back. They should pay for the good projects which helps the society.

MM – Yes I believe it’s a huge problem in Poland to find a donors. Even if You have a great projects prepared You need to know people to get donations. Thank You for inviting me to Your projects. So we will meet and discuss all of the details in Katowice in August, but I would like to invite You to Rzeszów to the University of Information Technology and Management and to my newly founded Institute for the Research of National Security. If You could find some time I would be very happy to host You there.

PZ – I will try to find some time to get there too. It is not so far from Katowice where we will meet at the end of the August so I will try.

Finally I was invited for the conference in Katowice where the main issue is the project which meant to start the revolution in Polish education system.

 

Powrót do Blog