Chinas Clash of Xivilization-War on Terror, der Schutz der Auslandschinesen und der Security Belt für Neue Seidenstraße

Chinas Clash of Xivilization-War on Terror, der Schutz der Auslandschinesen und der Security Belt für Neue Seidenstraße

Die Wahlen in Indonesien beschäftig auch das Zentralorgan des Council on Foreign Relations „Foreign Affairs“. In einem Artikel wird davon ausgegangen, dass Indonesien weiter an seiner Blockfreien-Orientierung festhalten wird, auch ein Prabwo nicht ein Marcos jr. sein wird oder „The American“, zumal Indonesien anders als Japan oder die Philipinen auch kein bilaterales Sicherheitsabkommen mit den USA hat auch für die von Peking immer an die Wand gemalte „Asian NATO“, den anglosächsischen AUKUS oder den Quad demnach nicht infrage kommen wird.

“Indonesia’s Path Between the Reefs

Why Jakarta Won’t Abandon Its Foreign Policy of Nonalignment

By Dewi Fortuna Anwar

February 12, 2024

Indonesia’s Path Between the Reefs | Foreign Affairs

Ein anderer Beitrag in der Foreign  Affairs dazu ist:

“ Indonesia’s Democracy Is Stronger Than a Strongman

Why Prabowo Would Find It Hard to Rule as an Authoritarian

By Ben Bland February 13, 202    

Hierin wird behauptet, dass die demokratischen Institutionen in Indonesien stark genug seien, um einen Dikator Prabowo, ein neues Suharto Revival samt Massakern ala 1965 zu verunmöglichen, wie auch Prabbowo und seine Unterstützer dies selbst nicht wollten. Die Prognose ist ja, dass Prabowo keine Diktatur und keine neuen Massaker anrichten wird, zumal seine Unterstützer das selbst nicht wollen, zudem ja scheinbar auch kein Putschversuch der Kommunistischen Partei Indonesiens wie 1965 anzusehen scheint, falls es diese überhaupt noch gibt, denn damals wurde sie ja faktisch ausgerottet und zerstört. Gibt es noch einen Nachfolger der KPI ? Der Artikel des The Intercept liest sich ,also ob da ehemalige Massakeropfer oder Sympathisanten der KPI geschrieben haben. Die stört, dass Prabowo aus ihrer Sicht „The American“ ist und daher nach dem prochinesischen Duterte ein indonesische Bongbong Marcos jr. werden könnte, stramm antichinesisch, was ja Chinas Einheitsfront, zu der offiziell nun auch die Auslandschinesen gehören, zu verhindern sucht, auch wahrscheinlich mit Artikeln wie The Intercept.

TRUMP’S INDONESIAN ALLIES IN BED WITH ISIS-BACKED MILITIA SEEKING TO OUST ELECTED PRESIDENT

An army front group linked to ISIS wants to oust Indonesia’s president — and prominent associates of President Donald Trump are supporting them.

Allan Nairn

April 18 2017, 9:50 p.m.

A member of the hardline Islamic group, the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) shouts slogans after burning an effigy of Jakarta Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama or Ahok as they reject Ahok as their governor in front of Jakarta’s city hall, Dec. 1, 2014. Photo: Beawiharta/Reuters

ASSOCIATES OF DONALD TRUMP in Indonesia have joined army officers and a vigilante street movement linked to ISIS in a campaign that ultimately aims to oust the country’s president. According to Indonesian military and intelligence officials and senior figures involved in what they call “the coup,” the move against President Joko Widodo (known more commonly as Jokowi), a popular elected civilian, is being impelled from behind the scenes by active and retired generals.

Prominent supporters of the coup movement include Fadli Zon, vice speaker of the Indonesian House of Representatives and Donald Trump’s main political booster in the country; and Hary Tanoe, Trump’s primary Indonesian business partner, who is building two Trump resorts, one in Bali and one outside Jakarta.

This account of the movement to overthrow President Jokowi is based on dozens of interviews and is supplemented by internal army, police, and intelligence documents I obtained or viewed in Indonesia, as well as by NSA intercepts obtained by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Many sources on both sides of the coup spoke on condition of anonymity. Two of them expressed apparently well-founded concerns about their safety.

The Coup Movement

On the surface, the massive street protests surrounding the April 19 gubernatorial election have arisen from opposition to Jakarta’s ethnic Chinese incumbent governor, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, known as Ahok. As a result of pressure from the well-funded, well-organized demonstrations that have drawn hundreds of thousands — perhaps millions — to Jakarta’s streets, Gov. Ahok is currently standing trial for religious blasphemy because of an offhand comment about a verse in the Quran. On Thursday, the day after he hears the results of the very close governor’s election, he is due back in court for his blasphemy trial.

Yet in repeated, detailed conversations with me, key protest figures and officials who track them have dismissed the movement against Ahok and the charges against him as a mere pretext for a larger objective: sidelining the country’s president, Jokowi, and helping the army avoid consequences for its mass killingsOpens in a new tab of civilians — such as the 1965 massacres that were endorsedOpens in a new tab by the U.S. government, which armed and backed the Indonesian military.

Serving as the main face and public voice of the generals’ political thrust has been a group of what Indonesians call preman — officially sponsored street thugs — in this case, the Islamic Defenders Front, or FPI (Front Pembela Islam). Originally established by the security forces — the aparat — in 1998 as an Islamist front group to assault dissidents, the FPI has been implicated in violent extortion, especially of bars and sex clubs, as well as murders and attacks on mosques and churches. During the mass protests against the governor, FPI leader Habib Rizieq Shihab has openly called for Ahok to be “hanged” and “butchered.”

FPI leader Habib Rizieq Shihab openly called for Ahok to be “hanged” and “butchered.”

Orasi Habib Rizieq Menggetarkan Lawan (youtube.com)

Joining Rizieq at the protests atop a mobile command platform have been the FPI’s spokesman and militia chief, Munarman, as well as Fadli Zon, who is known for publicly praisingOpens in a new tab Donald Trump and appeared with the candidate at a press conference at Trump Tower during the opening days of the presidential campaign. Fadli Zon serves as the right-hand man of the country’s most notorious mass-murdering generalOpens in a new tab, Prabowo Subianto, who was defeated by Jokowi in the 2014 election.

Munarman, who has been videotaped at a ceremonyOpens in a new tab in which a roomful of young men swear allegiance to ISIS and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is also a corporate lawyer working for the Indonesian branch of the mining colossus Freeport McMoRan, now controlled by Carl Icahn, President Trump’s friend and deregulation adviser. Although the Trump connections appear to be very important for the coup plotters, it is unknown whether Trump or Icahn have any direct knowledge of the Indonesian coup movement.

FPI spokesman and corporate lawyer Munarman, indicated with an arrow far left, at a ceremony in which young men swear allegiance to ISIS

Munarman did not respond to requests to comment for this article.

The FPI demonstrations in Jakarta, officially shunned by the country’s top mainstream Muslim groups, have been endorsed in messages from Indonesian ISIS personnel in Syria. The FPI, for its part, has waved black ISIS flags at Prabowo rallies and has officially endorsedOpens in a new tab the call of Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahri for Al Qaeda and ISIS to pursue their common fight in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere.

The Snowden archive contains numerous documents related to the Islamic Defenders Front, including an Australian intelligence document describing FPI as a “violent extremist group.” The documents include Indonesian-language intercepts of reports by police officials complaining that the Indonesian public distrusts the police because it uses violent groups like FPI. The intercepted Indonesian police reports also note that although FPI is largely a creation of the state security apparatus, it at times escapes the state’s control, particularly when fomenting mob violence, such as in a well-known case in which a man was beaten to death on videotape because he attended a mosque targeted for extermination by the FPI. In one case of murder carried out by an FPI mob, a memo states, police were unable to arrest and detain the FPI suspects because they were afraid the mob would attack and burn the police station.

Another intercept links FPI figures to an offshoot of Jemaah Islamiyah, the jihadist network implicated in the 2002 Bali bombings, and details weapons training delivered by officers of the Indonesian national police special forces to FPI Aceh members.

The NSA had no comment on the content of the intercepts. The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

As the FPI’s mass protest movement has proceeded over the last six months, I received detailed information from five Indonesian internal intelligence reports. The reports were assembled by three different Indonesian agencies. Each one was confirmed by at least two current army, intelligence, or palace officials.

Islamic Defence Front, FPI headquarters in Jakarta city center. On the wall, Osama bin Laden's portrait

Islamic Defense Front headquarters in Jakarta, where a portrait of Osama bin Laden hangs on the wall in 2007. Photo: Thierry Dudoit/Express-REA/Redux

One intelligence report asserted that the FPI-led protest movement was being funded in part by Tommy Suharto — son of the former dictator Suharto — who once served time for having a judge who displeased him shot in the headOpens in a new tab. Tommy’s financial contributions were also affirmed to me by retired Gen. Kivlan Zein. Kivlan, who helped the FPI lead a massive November protest in Jakarta, is currently facing the charge of treason (makar) for allegedly trying to overthrow the government during the recent protest drive. He is also the former campaign chair for Gen. Prabowo, who was defeated by President Jokowi in the 2014 presidential election.

Another report asserted that some funds came from Donald Trump’s billionaire business partner Hary TanoeOpens in a new tab, who was repeatedly described to me by key movement figures as being among their most important supporters. Last Friday night, when I sat down with a roomful of such figures — none of whom requested anonymity — they expressed excitement about their closeness to Hary and his personal and financial relationshipOpens in a new tab with President Trump, who along with his son EricOpens in a new tab welcomed Hary to Trump Tower and the inauguration. They said they hoped HaryOpens in a new tab, who is building two Trump resorts in Indonesia, would serve as a bridge between Trump and Gen. Prabowo. Manimbang Kahariady, an executive of Prabowo’s political party, said he had met with Hary three days before. He and others at the meeting were convinced that Hary is telling Trump about the need to back the movement and remove their adversaries, beginning with Ahok.

Tommy Suharto could not be reached for comment. Hary Tanoe declined repeated requests for comment.

A third report asserted that some FPI movement funds came from former president and retired general Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) — information that apparently angered President Jokowi, was leaked to the public, and was in turn denied publicly by an angry SBY who asserted at once that the facts were false and that the government had tapped his phone to get them. Nonetheless, seven current or former army or intelligence officials I spoke to said that SBY had indeed given funds but had channeled them indirectly. One official, retired Adm. Soleman Ponto, who is not a supporter of the coup movement, is the former chief of military intelligence (BAIS) and currently advises the state intelligence agency (BIN). Though he declined to comment directly when I asked him about specific intelligence reports, Soleman said that it was “very clear” that SBY, whom he called a friend, helped fund the movement, “giving through a mosque, giving through a school, SBY is the source.”

More broadly, Ponto said, “almost all the retired military” and “some current military back SBY” in supporting the FPI-led protests and the coup movement. He said he knows this because — in addition to his being an intelligence man — the pro-coup generals are his colleagues and friends, many of whom correspond on the WhatsApp group known as The Old Soldier. The admiral said that for the movement’s military sponsors, the Ahok issue is a mere entry point, a religious hook to draw in the masses, but “Jokowi is their final destination.”

As for the tactic of a straight army assault on the palace in a coup d’etat, Ponto said that would not happen. This one would be “a coup d’etat by law,” resembling in one sense the uprising that toppled Suharto in 1998, except that in this case the public would not be on the revolt’s side — and the army, rather than defending the president, would be working to bring him down. The FPI-led protestors, he said, would enter the palace and congress grounds, then try to get inside and set up camp until someone made them leave.

JAKARTA, INDONESIA - OCTOBER 14 : Thousands of the hardline Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) member take part in a protest in Jakarta, Indonesia, on October 14, 2016 to show their disapproval for Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, better known by his nickname "Ahok", after the governors controversial purportedly anti-Islamic speech. Although Jakarta governor Ahok was quoted out of context giving a speech that was interpreted by hardliners as anti-Islamic and blasphemy in Jakarta earlier this month, the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) group are staging a large protest to show their disdain for the politician.  (Photo by Agoes Rudianto/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

Thousands of members of the hard-line Islamic Defenders Front take part in a protest in Jakarta, Indonesia, on Oct. 14, 2016, to show their disapproval of Gov. Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, better known as Ahok, who has been charged with anti-Islamic blasphemy.

“It would look like People Power” — the people gathered by FPI and their allies, but in this case, “with everything paid. The military would just do nothing. They only have to go to sleep” and let the president fall.

The admiral’s description of the movement’s strategy matched that of a dozen top officials I spoke to, some of them still active in the aparat — some for the coup, some against it.

Another possible scenario was described by another large group of officials: that the FPI-led rallies would get out of hand, with Jakarta and other cities tumbling into chaos, and the army stepping in and assuming control to save the state. This second, more violent option was discussed in detail when I met in late February, on the record, with FPI movement leaders Ustad Muhammad Khattath and Haji Usamah Hisyam.

Ustad Khattath had been referred to me by the Freeport lawyer and FPI militia chief Munarman, who had declined to see me. Haji Usamah accompanied Ustad Khattath and they gave a joint interview.

(The material in this section is attributed to “they” and presented without quotation marks, because since our interview, Ustad Khattath has been arrested and charged with makar (treason), a legal concept that I view as being unjust and repressive and have denounced when it has been used before.)

Barely mentioning religious questions, they said Indonesia’s problem was New-Style Communism, and the army must be able to step in and guide the situation because Indonesia is not mature, not ready for democracy. Jokowi, they charged, was providing a space for communism, and the only strong organization that can face up to that is the army.

As to their street protest movement, they said, we civilians must be backed by the military, something they said was indeed happening secretly because now under reformasi the military can’t engage in politics. According to Haji Usamah, “It’s an intelligence operation by military personnel, but the army can’t be out front. They give the strategic view and direction. The army doesn’t like the communists.”

They said there are communists in the legislature and the executive branch. They must be targeted. For the street movement, the key strategic and tactical guidance was given to them by an anti-communist general who works with them. The army can only step in if there is chaos. If there is peace, they can’t do anything.

Ustad Khattath and Pak Usamah told me that they don’t want blood, they want peaceful revolution, but also insisted that not long from now there will be a revolution by the umaat, several weeks in the future. The palace is afraid, they said, they are afraid Jokowi will fall. They said the upcoming street actions would all be with revolutionary steps because peace has not yet brought down Ahok.

Ustad Khattath and Pak Usamah told me that if the president does not accede to their demands, there will be more massive action, using a stronger style of pressure, and added that their direct destination will be the president.

They saw the revolution beginning with days-long occupations of the congress and the palace and noted that if the people are hurt by being rebuffed, they will take the shortcut outside the law. Anything could happen. There could be millions that take the law into their own hands. Their position was, remind the president not to break the law by failing to jail Ahok or the people will get mad and out of control. It’s a disorderly situation, one that they felt would resolve itself by the army stepping in.

After Ustad Khattath was arrested by police and charged with treason, Usamah texted me to say he had now taken command of the street actions, just as Ustad Khattath had done after FPI leader Rizieq was brought up on pornography and other charges.

1965 Again

Soon after our interview, I received an army document from an officer inside the aparat that could be seen as providing the template for Khattath’s and Usamah’s remarks about the street actions.

Titled “Analyzing the Threats Posed by the New-Style Communism in Indonesia,” it is a series of PowerPoint slides used for ideological training at army bases nationwide.

New-Style Communism, or Komunisme Gaya Baru, abbreviated “KGB,” is a concept whose menace is framed with sketches of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler — and appears to be broadly enough defined to include any critic of the army anywhere.

A member of the hardline Islamic group, the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) shouts slogans after burning an effigy of Jakarta Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama or Ahok as they reject Ahok as their governor in front of Jakarta's city hall, December 1, 2014. Jakarta's first Christian governor in nearly 50 years was sworn in two weeks ago, despite protests from religious hardliners opposing a non-Muslim taking over one of Indonesia's most powerful political jobs. REUTERS/Beawiharta (INDONESIA - Tags: POLITICS CIVIL UNREST) - RTR4G75L

A member of the hardline Islamic group, the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) shouts slogans after burning an effigy of Jakarta Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama or Ahok as they reject Ahok as their governor in front of Jakarta’s city hall, Dec. 1, 2014. Photo: Beawiharta/Reuters

This picture taken on March 27, 2017 shows Indonesian President Joko Widodo reacting to a question during an exclusive interview with AFP at the Merdeka Palace in Jakarta. / AFP PHOTO / GOH CHAI HIN        (Photo credit should read GOH CHAI HIN/AFP/Getty Images)
Islamic Defence Front, FPI headquarters in Jakarta city center. On the wall, Osama bin Laden's portrait
JAKARTA, INDONESIA - OCTOBER 14 : Thousands of the hardline Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) member take part in a protest in Jakarta, Indonesia, on October 14, 2016 to show their disapproval for Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, better known by his nickname "Ahok", after the governors controversial purportedly anti-Islamic speech. Although Jakarta governor Ahok was quoted out of context giving a speech that was interpreted by hardliners as anti-Islamic and blasphemy in Jakarta earlier this month, the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) group are staging a large protest to show their disdain for the politician.  (Photo by Agoes Rudianto/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)
(Original Caption) A suspected sympathizer with the Communist-led abortive coup of October 1th is questioned under gunpoint. The Indonesian Army is continuing its careful screening in an effort to uproot dissenters.

ASSOCIATES OF DONALD TRUMP in Indonesia have joined army officers and a vigilante street movement linked to ISIS in a campaign that ultimately aims to oust the country’s president. According to Indonesian military and intelligence officials and senior figures involved in what they call “the coup,” the move against President Joko Widodo (known more commonly as Jokowi), a popular elected civilian, is being impelled from behind the scenes by active and retired generals.

Prominent supporters of the coup movement include Fadli Zon, vice speaker of the Indonesian House of Representatives and Donald Trump’s main political booster in the country; and Hary Tanoe, Trump’s primary Indonesian business partner, who is building two Trump resorts, one in Bali and one outside Jakarta.

This account of the movement to overthrow President Jokowi is based on dozens of interviews and is supplemented by internal army, police, and intelligence documents I obtained or viewed in Indonesia, as well as by NSA intercepts obtained by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Many sources on both sides of the coup spoke on condition of anonymity. Two of them expressed apparently well-founded concerns about their safety.

The Coup Movement

On the surface, the massive street protests surrounding the April 19 gubernatorial election have arisen from opposition to Jakarta’s ethnic Chinese incumbent governor, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, known as Ahok. As a result of pressure from the well-funded, well-organized demonstrations that have drawn hundreds of thousands — perhaps millions — to Jakarta’s streets, Gov. Ahok is currently standing trial for religious blasphemy because of an offhand comment about a verse in the Quran. On Thursday, the day after he hears the results of the very close governor’s election, he is due back in court for his blasphemy trial.

Indonesian President Joko Widodo at the Merdeka Palace in Jakarta on March 27, 2017. Photo: Goh Chai Hin/AFP/Getty Images

Yet in repeated, detailed conversations with me, key protest figures and officials who track them have dismissed the movement against Ahok and the charges against him as a mere pretext for a larger objective: sidelining the country’s president, Jokowi, and helping the army avoid consequences for its mass killingsOpens in a new tab of civilians — such as the 1965 massacres that were endorsedOpens in a new tab by the U.S. government, which armed and backed the Indonesian military.

Serving as the main face and public voice of the generals’ political thrust has been a group of what Indonesians call preman — officially sponsored street thugs — in this case, the Islamic Defenders Front, or FPI (Front Pembela Islam). Originally established by the security forces — the aparat — in 1998 as an Islamist front group to assault dissidents, the FPI has been implicated in violent extortion, especially of bars and sex clubs, as well as murders and attacks on mosques and churches. During the mass protests against the governor, FPI leader Habib Rizieq Shihab has openly called for Ahok to be “hanged” and “butchered.”https://www.youtube.com/embed/rm1XNXppdQc

FPI leader Habib Rizieq Shihab openly called for Ahok to be “hanged” and “butchered.”

Joining Rizieq at the protests atop a mobile command platform have been the FPI’s spokesman and militia chief, Munarman, as well as Fadli Zon, who is known for publicly praisingOpens in a new tab Donald Trump and appeared with the candidate at a press conference at Trump Tower during the opening days of the presidential campaign. Fadli Zon serves as the right-hand man of the country’s most notorious mass-murdering generalOpens in a new tab, Prabowo Subianto, who was defeated by Jokowi in the 2014 election.

Munarman, who has been videotaped at a ceremonyOpens in a new tab in which a roomful of young men swear allegiance to ISIS and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is also a corporate lawyer working for the Indonesian branch of the mining colossus Freeport McMoRan, now controlled by Carl Icahn, President Trump’s friend and deregulation adviser. Although the Trump connections appear to be very important for the coup plotters, it is unknown whether Trump or Icahn have any direct knowledge of the Indonesian coup movement.https://www.youtube.com/embed/8k8Z8h7TCP8

FPI spokesman and corporate lawyer Munarman, indicated with an arrow far left, at a ceremony in which young men swear allegiance to ISIS

Munarman did not respond to requests to comment for this article.

The FPI demonstrations in Jakarta, officially shunned by the country’s top mainstream Muslim groups, have been endorsed in messages from Indonesian ISIS personnel in Syria. The FPI, for its part, has waved black ISIS flags at Prabowo rallies and has officially endorsedOpens in a new tab the call of Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahri for Al Qaeda and ISIS to pursue their common fight in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere.

The Snowden archive contains numerous documents related to the Islamic Defenders Front, including an Australian intelligence document describing FPI as a “violent extremist group.” The documents include Indonesian-language intercepts of reports by police officials complaining that the Indonesian public distrusts the police because it uses violent groups like FPI. The intercepted Indonesian police reports also note that although FPI is largely a creation of the state security apparatus, it at times escapes the state’s control, particularly when fomenting mob violence, such as in a well-known case in which a man was beaten to death on videotape because he attended a mosque targeted for extermination by the FPI. In one case of murder carried out by an FPI mob, a memo states, police were unable to arrest and detain the FPI suspects because they were afraid the mob would attack and burn the police station.

Another intercept links FPI figures to an offshoot of Jemaah Islamiyah, the jihadist network implicated in the 2002 Bali bombings, and details weapons training delivered by officers of the Indonesian national police special forces to FPI Aceh members.

The NSA had no comment on the content of the intercepts. The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Islamic Defense Front headquarters in Jakarta, where a portrait of Osama bin Laden hangs on the wall in 2007. Photo: Thierry Dudoit/Express-REA/Redux

As the FPI’s mass protest movement has proceeded over the last six months, I received detailed information from five Indonesian internal intelligence reports. The reports were assembled by three different Indonesian agencies. Each one was confirmed by at least two current army, intelligence, or palace officials.

One intelligence report asserted that the FPI-led protest movement was being funded in part by Tommy Suharto — son of the former dictator Suharto — who once served time for having a judge who displeased him shot in the headOpens in a new tab. Tommy’s financial contributions were also affirmed to me by retired Gen. Kivlan Zein. Kivlan, who helped the FPI lead a massive November protest in Jakarta, is currently facing the charge of treason (makar) for allegedly trying to overthrow the government during the recent protest drive. He is also the former campaign chair for Gen. Prabowo, who was defeated by President Jokowi in the 2014 presidential election.

Another report asserted that some funds came from Donald Trump’s billionaire business partner Hary TanoeOpens in a new tab, who was repeatedly described to me by key movement figures as being among their most important supporters. Last Friday night, when I sat down with a roomful of such figures — none of whom requested anonymity — they expressed excitement about their closeness to Hary and his personal and financial relationshipOpens in a new tab with President Trump, who along with his son EricOpens in a new tab welcomed Hary to Trump Tower and the inauguration. They said they hoped HaryOpens in a new tab, who is building two Trump resorts in Indonesia, would serve as a bridge between Trump and Gen. Prabowo. Manimbang Kahariady, an executive of Prabowo’s political party, said he had met with Hary three days before. He and others at the meeting were convinced that Hary is telling Trump about the need to back the movement and remove their adversaries, beginning with Ahok.

Tommy Suharto could not be reached for comment. Hary Tanoe declined repeated requests for comment.

A third report asserted that some FPI movement funds came from former president and retired general Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) — information that apparently angered President Jokowi, was leaked to the public, and was in turn denied publicly by an angry SBY who asserted at once that the facts were false and that the government had tapped his phone to get them. Nonetheless, seven current or former army or intelligence officials I spoke to said that SBY had indeed given funds but had channeled them indirectly. One official, retired Adm. Soleman Ponto, who is not a supporter of the coup movement, is the former chief of military intelligence (BAIS) and currently advises the state intelligence agency (BIN). Though he declined to comment directly when I asked him about specific intelligence reports, Soleman said that it was “very clear” that SBY, whom he called a friend, helped fund the movement, “giving through a mosque, giving through a school, SBY is the source.”

More broadly, Ponto said, “almost all the retired military” and “some current military back SBY” in supporting the FPI-led protests and the coup movement. He said he knows this because — in addition to his being an intelligence man — the pro-coup generals are his colleagues and friends, many of whom correspond on the WhatsApp group known as The Old Soldier. The admiral said that for the movement’s military sponsors, the Ahok issue is a mere entry point, a religious hook to draw in the masses, but “Jokowi is their final destination.”

As for the tactic of a straight army assault on the palace in a coup d’etat, Ponto said that would not happen. This one would be “a coup d’etat by law,” resembling in one sense the uprising that toppled Suharto in 1998, except that in this case the public would not be on the revolt’s side — and the army, rather than defending the president, would be working to bring him down. The FPI-led protestors, he said, would enter the palace and congress grounds, then try to get inside and set up camp until someone made them leave.

Thousands of members of the hard-line Islamic Defenders Front take part in a protest in Jakarta, Indonesia, on Oct. 14, 2016, to show their disapproval of Gov. Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, better known as Ahok, who has been charged with anti-Islamic blasphemy. Photo: Agoes Rudianto/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

“It would look like People Power” — the people gathered by FPI and their allies, but in this case, “with everything paid. The military would just do nothing. They only have to go to sleep” and let the president fall.

The admiral’s description of the movement’s strategy matched that of a dozen top officials I spoke to, some of them still active in the aparat — some for the coup, some against it.

Another possible scenario was described by another large group of officials: that the FPI-led rallies would get out of hand, with Jakarta and other cities tumbling into chaos, and the army stepping in and assuming control to save the state. This second, more violent option was discussed in detail when I met in late February, on the record, with FPI movement leaders Ustad Muhammad Khattath and Haji Usamah Hisyam.

Ustad Khattath had been referred to me by the Freeport lawyer and FPI militia chief Munarman, who had declined to see me. Haji Usamah accompanied Ustad Khattath and they gave a joint interview.

(The material in this section is attributed to “they” and presented without quotation marks, because since our interview, Ustad Khattath has been arrested and charged with makar (treason), a legal concept that I view as being unjust and repressive and have denounced when it has been used before.)

Barely mentioning religious questions, they said Indonesia’s problem was New-Style Communism, and the army must be able to step in and guide the situation because Indonesia is not mature, not ready for democracy. Jokowi, they charged, was providing a space for communism, and the only strong organization that can face up to that is the army.

As to their street protest movement, they said, we civilians must be backed by the military, something they said was indeed happening secretly because now under reformasi the military can’t engage in politics. According to Haji Usamah, “It’s an intelligence operation by military personnel, but the army can’t be out front. They give the strategic view and direction. The army doesn’t like the communists.”

They said there are communists in the legislature and the executive branch. They must be targeted. For the street movement, the key strategic and tactical guidance was given to them by an anti-communist general who works with them. The army can only step in if there is chaos. If there is peace, they can’t do anything.

Ustad Khattath and Pak Usamah told me that they don’t want blood, they want peaceful revolution, but also insisted that not long from now there will be a revolution by the umaat, several weeks in the future. The palace is afraid, they said, they are afraid Jokowi will fall. They said the upcoming street actions would all be with revolutionary steps because peace has not yet brought down Ahok.

Ustad Khattath and Pak Usamah told me that if the president does not accede to their demands, there will be more massive action, using a stronger style of pressure, and added that their direct destination will be the president.

They saw the revolution beginning with days-long occupations of the congress and the palace and noted that if the people are hurt by being rebuffed, they will take the shortcut outside the law. Anything could happen. There could be millions that take the law into their own hands. Their position was, remind the president not to break the law by failing to jail Ahok or the people will get mad and out of control. It’s a disorderly situation, one that they felt would resolve itself by the army stepping in.

After Ustad Khattath was arrested by police and charged with treason, Usamah texted me to say he had now taken command of the street actions, just as Ustad Khattath had done after FPI leader Rizieq was brought up on pornography and other charges.

An alleged dissident questioned under gunpoint by Indonesian soldiers in 1965. Photo: Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

1965 Again

Soon after our interview, I received an army document from an officer inside the aparat that could be seen as providing the template for Khattath’s and Usamah’s remarks about the street actions.

Titled “Analyzing the Threats Posed by the New-Style Communism in Indonesia,” it is a series of PowerPoint slides used for ideological training at army bases nationwide.

New-Style Communism, or Komunisme Gaya Baru, abbreviated “KGB,” is a concept whose menace is framed with sketches of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler — and appears to be broadly enough defined to include any critic of the army anywhere.

Referring to such purportedly communist policies as “free health care and education programs,” the document denounces “idealizing pluralism and diversity in the social system” as a specific “KGB” threat now rising in Indonesia. Using threat assessment techniques drawn from Western intelligence doctrine and texts — excerpts from which are used, sometimes in English — the document warns of the communist enemy “separating the army from people” and “using human rights and democracy issues while positioning oneself as victim to gain sympathy.”

The statement about human rights victims is an apparent reference to figures such as the brilliant social justice advocate Munir Said Thalib, my friend, who was assassinated in 2004 with a massive dose of arsenic that caused him to vomit to death on a flight to Amsterdam, or the victims of the 1965 slaughter of perhaps a million civilians, carried out by the army with U.S. backing in order to consolidate power after an attempted coup.

The 1965 massacre came up when I sat down with retired Gen. Kivlan Zein, who said that if Jokowi refused to accede to the army’s wishes, similar tactics could be deployed again.

Like many officials I spoke with, Kivlan said that the current army-backed street movement and crisis began as a result of the Symposium, a 2016 forum organized by the Jokowi government that allowed survivors and descendants of ’65 to publicly describe what had happened to them and to discuss how their loved ones died. For much of the army, the Symposium was an intolerable outrage and in itself justified the coup movement. One general told me that what most outraged his colleagues was that “it made the victims feel good.” The Symposium, of course, had nothing to do with Gov. Ahok or with religious questions of any kind. It was about the army and its crimes.

“If not for the Symposium, there wouldn’t be a movement now,” Kivlan told me. “Now the communists are on the rise again,” Kivlan complained. “They want to establish a new communist party. The victims of ’65, they all blame us. … Maybe we’ll fight them again, like ’65.”

I was taken aback by that and wanted to make sure I had heard correctly.

“It could happen,’65 could be repeated all over again,” he repeated.

And the reason?

“They are seeking redress.”

In other words, Kivlan was raising the specter of new mass slaughter if the old victims did not learn to forget. Kivlan then went on to detail why the ’65 coup was justified. He said that the ousted president, Sukarno, who was by then the army’s virtual captive, had given an order for the army to take over. The army “was handed power” by the congress.

Could that happen again now, I asked?

“It could,” the general said. “The army could move again now, like Suharto in that era.”

The general told me that last July, Jokowi had visited armed forces headquarters in the aftermath of the Symposium and had told the assembled generals that “he was not going to apologize to the PKI [communist party].”

“If Jokowi sticks with that” — the no-apology stance — “he won’t be overthrown. He will save himself. But if he apologizes, [he is] finished, over,” Kivlan said.

I again wanted to be sure he was really saying the army would take action, like ’65 again.

“Yes, it will secure the situation, including like in ’65.”

“No say surrender,” he concluded in English.

Though Kivlan is regarded as being among the more ideological of the generals, it’s worth noting that many of his colleagues have been toying with ousting Jokowi even if he doesn’t apologize. In that sense, Kivlan belongs to the movement’s moderate wing. Remarkably, the idea of a mere apology to the army’s victims is enough to motivate generals to move to overthrow the president.

Kivlan is often credited with helping to create the FPI, after Suharto’s fall. In our conversation he denied to me that he was responsible for setting up the FPI but went on to discuss in detail how the group was just one example of the broader army and police strategy of creating civilian front groups, sometimes Islamist, sometimes not, that could be used to attack dissidents while keeping the aparat’s own hands clean.

He said that days before the massive Jakarta demonstration of November 4 last year, he received a text message from retired Major Gen. Budi Sugiana asking him “to join and take over the 411 [November 4] movement.”

The mission, he said, was “to save Indonesia,” by joining FPI leader Habib Rizieq on the mobile stage at the demonstration, because “they need someone if [Rizieq] is shot and dead to take over the mass” outside the palace.

In December, Kivlan was arrested by the police for trying to overthrow Jokowi, but as we spoke in late February he remained free and had been traveling outside the country. Indeed, he told me he had been carrying out missions for Gen. Gatot Nurmantyo, the current armed forces commander, attempting to release Indonesian hostages held in the Philippines.

On the question of who privately backs the movement and who precisely the “communists” are, Kivlan spoke both on and off the record, and both precisely and generally. His characterization of his fellow generals’ stances meshes closely with what the other aparat people said, but, unlike most of them, he said it on the record.

“So many retired military — and in the military — are with the FPI. … Because the goal of the FPI is also against the communists.”

After his discourse to me about ousting Jokowi and taking actions like ’65, I asked him: Does Gen. Gatot — the current armed forces commander — agree?

“He agrees!”

But he noted that as a younger, still-active officer, Gatot has to “be very careful” in his public stances.

Kivlan’s on-the-record remarks about Gatot’s role are consistent with those of other generals and coup people, as well as with the purported remarks of President Jokowi himself. When I asked an official with regular access to the president about a claim that Jokowi had said that “Gatot is the main factor in the coup,” the official replied, yes, the president said it, privately. Gatot did not respond to requests for comment.

As for his old boss Gen. Prabowo, Kivlan also echoed what others said: “Prabowo doesn’t want to be close, but he does it through Fadli Zon.” If he were openly close to the movement, it would be difficult for him, so Fadli Zon is the front. Regarding Gen. Ryamizard, the current minister of defense, Kivlan claimed that “his heart agrees. He agrees with our goal,” but he can’t “speak candidly.”

Kivlan praised the stance of Gen. Wiranto, saying “Wiranto is good.” Kivlan said Wiranto “wants to build harmony” with the movement, often pressing its case from his current post as coordinating minister for politics, law, and security. It was under Wiranto’s command that the FPI was first created. When Wiranto received the FPI’s Rizieq during the demonstrations, he described him as “an old friend.”

Kivlan added that Wiranto, who is himself under indictment for East Timor war crimes, has a “good plan” on the army’s pivotal issue. He is pressing Jokowi for “no human rights trials.”

The strategic elegance of the army push for a coup is that the army wins even if it loses. Even if Jokowi stays in office, the generals will be safer than ever — they think — from human rights trials, since in order to stave off one group of killers, the president has embraced another group of equally murderous generals who have exacted a price.

Foremost among them is Gen. A.M. Hendropriyono, the former BIN chief and CIA asset, who has been implicated in the Munir assassination and a series of other major crimesOpens in a new tab. Throughout the coup crisis, it has been Hendro’s men — army, intel, police, civilian — who have been leading the anti-coup defense of Jokowi against their colleagues. It is mainly Hendro’s people who have organized the treason arrests and hobbled Habib Rizieq Shihab with pornography charges, as well as charging movement financiers with ISIS money laundering.

In exchange, Hendro and his allies have received what they view as guarantees of immunity from prosecution. And under prevailing aparat rules, if they’re safe, everyone else is as well, since there’s a tacit agreement to reject prosecution of colleagues, even if they’re bitter enemies.

In February, under palace pressure, a Jakarta administrative court declared that the Jokowi administration could duck its legal obligation to officially release a government fact-finding report that openly addressed Hendro’s responsibility for the Munir assassination. Munir’s widow Suciwati and Haris Azhar of Munir’s human rights group, Kontras, denounced that verdict as “legalizing criminality.”

In similar fashion, the coup movement has also been helpful for Freeport. Since last year, the Jokowi government, after decades of state quiescence, has been trying to rewrite the state contract with Freeport and has been dialing back their export rights. At the same time, the government has been shaken by the movement led in part by a lawyer associated with the company.

In early April, after the movement launched the first of what the police claimed were four planned attempts to seize congress and the palace, the Jokowi administration shocked Indonesia’s political world by unexpectedly giving in to Freeport and green lighting new copper exports. The sudden retreat didn’t end the dispute — deep, long-term contract issues remain — but it suggested, as Jokowi officials later told me, that the government now felt its position had been weakened.

In a story with the droll headline “Freeport gets red-carpet treatment, again,” the pro-U.S. and pro-business English-language Jakarta PostOpens in a new tab observed: “The government has defended its decision, even though there is no legal basis that backs [it]. … Freeport is seen as having dodged the bullet again.”

On April 20, Vice President Mike Pence is due in Indonesia. Jokowi administration officials have been saying privately that they expect Freeport’s demands to be at the top of his wish list. At the meeting of movement figures last Friday, one of them looked at me and exclaimed: “Pence will threaten Jokowi on Freeport!”

Freeport Indonesia did not respond to requests for comment.

Blasphemy as Pretext

Although privately movement leaders and their sponsors spoke incessantly of the army, evading justice, and seizing power, on the streets outside the theme was decidedly religious. Walking among the huge crowd at one action at the Istliqlal mosque near the palace, it was clear to me that although the protest movement was fronted by the FPI, it had drawn a wide swath of people, many of whom were demonstrating simply because they were conservative or felt aggrieved.

The proximate cause of that grievance was Ahok and his alleged blasphemy in suggesting that non-Muslims could lead Muslims. (Ahok is also justly criticized for his evictions of the poor.) It was therefore quite illuminating to hear the leaders of the coup movement privately minimize those themes.

Kivlan surprised me when he remarked offhandedly that Ahok had given the movement a “gift” with his “slip of the tongue” regarding the Quran.

The required public stance of movement leaders was to claim to be forever wounded by Ahok’s remark asking people not to be deceived by rivals trying to use a Quranic verse against him. But here was one of them — with a small smile — acknowledging that strategically Ahok’s statement was welcome, because it had enabled the FPI and its sponsors to shift the balance of power inside the state, elevate themselves from street killers to theologians, and alter the cultural climate to boot. And here he was, accepting that the fateful remark was a “slip of the tongue.”

With that, he not only appeared to be conceding that the blasphemy criminal case against Ahok was bogus — as we spoke, Ahok’s lawyers were arguing in court precisely that he had just spoken loosely, intending no offense — but also that the coup movement’s sole big public issue was something that, in private, they did not take seriously.

Beyond that, when I sat with Usamah and the movement leaders whom he half-joking called his politbureau, they casually contradicted their position that non-Muslims cannot lead Muslims. They did so while discussing Hary Tanoe, who they all effusively praised as their movement’s top supporter — through direct aid and by means of his TV stations, which were admonished by Indonesia’s broadcast commission for unseemly pro-movement political bias and inaccuracy — and their perceived lifeline to President Donald Trump.

Those in the room all agreed they wanted a Prabowo-Hary Tanoe government, perhaps with Hary as president and Prabowo as vice president, or the reverse, depending on the polling.

The catch, which didn’t seem to bother them, is that Hary, like Ahok, is an ethnic Chinese Christian, which if they believed in their own standards should disqualify him from leading Jakarta, let alone Indonesia.

Trump Partners Back Islamic Coup Movement in Indonesia (theintercept.com)

Die angebliche IS- Connection der angeblichen neuen Putschbewegung unter Prabowo und anderen Generälen wurde schon zu Trumps Zeiten vom The Intercept behauptet, aber nun auch genauso der Biden- Administration und den Demokraten unterstellt. Die USA bleiben eben die USA. Speziell interessant ist dass herausgestellt wird, dass Prabowo angeblich Gruppen mit IS-Verbindungen unterstützt. China hat nämlich gerade ein Weißbuch zu Terrorismus verfasst. Und Wang Yi den chinesischen War on Terror auch als Aufgabe der internationalen Gemeinschaft bezeichnet. Hisbollah, Hamas, Taliban, pro- iranische Terrormilizen im Irak oder Yemen natürlich nicht gemeint. Die gelten ja eher als wackere Kämpfer gegen die USA.

“Combating ETIM is China’s core concern in counter-terrorism and shared responsibility of intl community: FM

By Global Times

Published: Feb 08, 2024 05:19 PM

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin. Photo: VCG

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin. Photo: VCG


The East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM), a terrorist organization that has planned and carried out a series of violent terrorist attacks both inside and outside of China, has increased its connections with international and regional terrorist forces such as the Islamic State (IS) and Al-Qaeda, posing a serious threat to China’s overseas interests and the security and stability of relevant countries and regions, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said at a press conference on Thursday, stressing that combating ETIM is China’s core concern in counter-terrorism and shared responsibility of the international community. 

Wang’s remarks came as Turkish authorities formally arrested 25 suspects in connection with the shooting of a man during a service at a church in Istanbul in January. One of the suspects was formerly a Chinese citizen but had obtained Turkish citizenship, with the suspect being identified as having links with ETIM and IS. 

Wang noted that ETIM, also known as the “East Turkistan Islamic Party,” has planned and carried out a series of violent terrorist attacks both inside and outside of China. It is a UN Security Council-listed terrorist organization and is also listed as a terrorist organization by the Turkish government. 

In recent years, ETIM has increased its connections with international and regional terrorist forces such as IS and Al-Qaeda, and has been actively involved in planning and carrying out terrorist activities against overseas Chinese targets, posing a serious threat to China’s overseas interests and the security and stability of relevant countries and regions, said Wang.

The spokesperson emphasized that terrorism is the common enemy of humanity, and the reports once again demonstrate that ETIM is a seriously harmful terrorist organization. Combating ETIM is China’s core concern in counter-terrorism and is also the shared responsibility of the international community, he said.

Wang noted that China is willing to strengthen counter-terrorism cooperation with the international community, including Turkey, to resolutely combat ETIM and jointly maintain international and regional security and stability.

Global Times

Combating ETIM is China’s core concern in counter-terrorism and shared responsibility of intl community: FM – Global Times

Noch  wird vor allem die ETIM, Al Qaida und der Islamische Staat genannt. Zwar vor allem erst mal wegen Xinjiang und den Uiguren, zumal die Taliban wieder Afghanistan regieren und sich der Islamische Staat in Khorasan auch wieder breitmachen will und nicht nur China befürchtet , dass der Islamismus wie auch der Islamische Staat sich über Afghanistan nach Zentralasien und Pakistan ausbreiten könnte, die Neue Seidenstraße verhindern oder stören und dann auch in China aktiv werden. Deswegen unternimmt China auch im Rahmen der SCO Anti- Terror- und Anti- Seperatismus-Manöver und hat als Teil seines ne entstehenden Security Belts entlang der BRI nun auch massenhaft Uiguren in „Umerziehungslager“ inhaftiert, die offiziell als Fortbildungs- und Integrationskurse bezeichnet werden  und auch der Terrorprävention dienen sollen. . Der ETIM werden ja auch Al Qaida- und IS-Kontakte nachgesagt und einige kämpften ja auch an deren Seite in Afghanistan und Syrien , werden auch  hinter den lange zurückliegenden, wenigen Anschlägen in China verantwortlich gemacht. Unmittelbar nach 9 11 nutzte China das Interesse der USA an einem weltweiten War on Terror auch dazu seine Repression in Xinjaing mit Tolerierung der USA systematisch auszubauen. Die USA haben die ETIM jedoch inzwischen von der Terrorliste gestrichen. Es bleibt abzuwarten, ob die USA wieder zu den Tagen Brezinskis Unterstützung afghanischer Gotteskrieger und Muddjaheddin gegen die kommunistiche und atheistische Sowjetunion oder zu Britens Lawrence von Arabien oder einer Version von Max Oppenheims „Deutschen Dschihad“ oder Osakr Ritter von Niedermeyers Afghanistanexpedition, um Chinas Neue Seidenstraße und den Aufstieg Chinas zu bremsen oder zu verhindern zumal das wetslcihe Seidenstraßen projekt India-Middle- East- Europe Economic Corridor nun durch den Hamaskrieg vorerst nicht einmal über die Startinie zu kommen droht.

Desto interessanter ist, dass nun Prabowo und „Trumpleuten“ vorgeworfen wird, IS-nahe Gruppen zu unterstützen und nu  auch de USA Prabowo als den „The American“ fördern zu wollen. Denn da könnte sich auch ein anderes Szenario ergeben, nämlich das sich Chinas Weißbuch dann auch gegen ein angebliches Prabowo-IS-Terror-Indonesien, das zumal auch Streitigkeiten mit China im Südchinesischen Meer hat vorgeht, Denn anders als Japan und die Philipinen hat Indonesien nicht den US-Schutz eines bilateralen Sicherheitsvertrages., falls es sein Blockfreien-Politik nicht aufgeben sollte. Das könnte sich auch zuspitzen, falls es zu einer Art 9 11 in China kommen sollte oder chinesischstämmige Indonesier oder chinesische Geschäftsleute oder Mitarbeiter bei der Neuen Seidenstraße angegriffen werden sollten, wie es etwa gerade in Pakistan desöfteren geschieht ,wobei China  nun erstmals Indien als Unterstützer des Terrors der Balutschenorganisationen in der Global Times genannt hat, während Indien Pakistan der Unterstützung der Taliban, islamistischer Terrorgruppen in Kaschmir und auch für Terrorschläge in Indien wie etwa im Hotel in Mumbai verantwortlich macht. Zudem bei 200 Millionen indischen Muslime da auch ein großes Potential besteht, das allerdings Sicherheitsmaßnahmen erforderlich macht, doch hinzu kommt, das die Modis BJP und der RSS mit ihrem Hindunationalismus, den Islamismus natürlich auch anstacheln, zumal auch, dass Modi beim momentanen indischen Wahlkampf als Auftakt die Einweihung eines wiederrerrichteten historische Hindutempels wählte, der auf den Ruinen eines von BJP- und RSS- Lynchmob niedergebrannten Ruinen einer Moschee gebaut wurde und vom „Begin eines neuen Zeitalters“ spricht. Die indische Kongreßpartei, Muslime und Christen befürchten nun, dass Modi das säkular-demokratische Indien in eine hindunationalistische – autoritäre Staat umbauen will. Während das in westlichen Medien kaum Beachtung fand, war ds dem Islamistenstaatssender Katars Al Jazerra abendfüllende Berichte wert, u die muslimische Welt- Ummah, denen die Uigruren egal sind, nebst Hamas- Jihadkrieg , vielleicht in der Hoffnung mal wieder eine Krise und Gotteskrieg medial und anders anfachen zu können . um sich dann wieder als unverzichtbarer Vermittler zu präsentieren. wenn die dann richtig hochkocht.

China versucht immer noch die Taliban als Kämpfer gegen den Islamischen Staat zu nutzen und hofft irgendwann doch Afghanistan als fehlenden geopolitischen Legostein in seine schöne neue win-win-Wel einer Neue Seidenstraße, die der Welt die Xivilization bringt integrieren zu können. Doch der Islamismus in Pakistan ist auf dem Vormarsch und die pakistanische Taliban erstarkt, so dass Pakistan sich auch nicht klar ist, ob das Versprechen der afghanischen Taliban die pakistanische Taliban nicht zu unterstützen auch eingehalten wird. Nicht nur aufgrund der wirtschaftlich katastrophalen Situation in Pakistan, sondern auch aus Terror-und Sicherheitsbedenken hat Pakistan nun eine „Remigration“/Massendeportation von 2 Millionen afghanischen Flüchtlingen nach Afghanistan einzuleiten, da man die Flüchtlingslager als Rekrutierungsnährboden und Operationsbasis von Islamisten aller Colour fürchtet. Iran hat nun auch ähnliches vor, zumal nach dem IS- Anschlag auf die Gedenkfeiern des von den USA ausgeschalteten Führers der Iranischen Revolutionsgarden Solemeini im Iran.

Chinas War on Terror, der sich nicht den aus Indien Terrorstaat Pakistan oder die Taliban richtet, könnte nun auch über das Gebiet des Greater Middle East im Namen des Schutzes von chinesischstämmigen Auslandschinesen ausgeweitet werden. Wie bei Putin oder damals bei Hitler könnte statt dem „Schutz von Auslandsdeutschen oder Auslandsrussen“ Peking mittelfristig n Zukunft intervenieren wollen, wenngleich China für Island hoping ala Mc Arthur oder boots on the grounds ala Irakkrieg 2003 oder Afghanistankrieg noch nicht dazu in der Lage und das in dieser Form nach den desaströsen US- Erfahrungen so wohl auch nicht wollen könnte, vielleicht aber mit Atomschlägen und Sanktionen drohe könnte. . Aber für Auseinandersetzungen ums Südchinesische Meer könnte es reichen, auch in Bezug auf Indonesien. Zumal Suharto 1965 ja auch unter anderem mit Hilfe von islamistischen Mördermilizen antichinesische Massaker anrichtete. Die Gründe waren gemischt. Einige hielten die Chinesen für Kommunisten, andere als ethnische, nicht-nationale Fremdkörper, also eher nationalistisch-rassistisch motiviert, andere weil sie keine Muslime und Ungläubige waren,  wiederum waren neidisch, dass sie so erfolgreiche Geschäftsleute waren ,die ja wie in ganz SOA wesentliche Teile der Wirtschaft kontrollieren. Oder alles irgendwie zusammen. Da wurden scheinbar gleich mehrere Rechnungen zugleich beglichen. Nicht umsonst werden Chinesen ja auch „die Juden Asiens“ genannt-aber anders als die damals heimatslosen und schutzlosen Juden vor der Gründung Israèls infolge des Holocausts  als safe haven (was ja seit dem Hamaskrieg nun infrage steht) haben die nun mit einer neuen kommenden Weltmacht als atomaren Schutzmacht China “im Rücken wie damals die Henlein- Faschisten in Sudetendeutschland oder die russisch-stämmigen Ukrainer oder Balten ,so daß China das mittelfristig- und langfristig auch außenpolitisch für sich für imperialistische Expansionen in SOA und darüber hinaus instrumentalisieren kann. Vielleicht dann auch im rahmen einer chinesisch angeleierten internationalen Anti-IS-Koaltion nach Vorbild der US- geführten Anti- IS- Koalition im Irak und Syrien. Aber wenn dann die Version wie in The Intercept verbreitet wird, dass die USA, Prabowo und andere den IS unterstützen wäre das dann eine Anti- US- IS- Koalition. Aber wer soll da mitmachen? Teile des Global South, Taliban, Iran, die arabischen und muslimischen Staaten? Also noch alles etwas weit weg.

Interessant finde ich diese nicht nur in sozialen Medien gestreuten Gerüchte, dass die USA den IS unterstützen würden oder gar geschaffen hätten ,nachdem die Insiderjobgeschichten im Rahmen 9 11s, ob nun LIHOP oder MIHOP- False Flag nicht mehr so populär waren.

Bei 9 11 sich man fragte, wenn denn die USA es selbst inszeniert haben sollten. warum die USA sich in so ein abgefucktes Land wie Afghanistan reinziehen lassen sollten. Nun gut, da gab es verschiedene Theorien, dass die USA sich zentral reinsetzen wollten um Rußland mittels NATO- Osterweiterung sich nun auch in Zentralasien einzukreisen und ein Aufmarschgebiet gegen Iran zu haben. Interessant ist auch immer, wei schnell gewisse LÄnder da auch als zentral strategisch bedeutend im Ranking gehypt werden von interessierter Seite. Naja, nichts dergleichen geschah in der Folge, zumal die USA zuvor auch den Taliban anboten, Osama Bin Laden und die Al Qaida auszuliefern, was diese aber nicht tat und erst darauf kam es zum Afghanistankrieg und die USA und die NATO versandeten da immer mehr und nicht der Iran wurde angegriffen-trotz oder wegen Axis of Evil, sondern der panarabische Diktator Saddam Hussein. Naja, vielleicht wollte man dann auch erst Afghanistan besetzen, um dann Irak zu besetzen, um Iran einzukreisen und dann auch zu besetzen. Irgendwas gibt es dann immer zum Umkreisen und zu besetzen, aber so kam es eben nicht, zumal es wohl den ultimativen overstretch bedeutet hätte. Also entweder ging man von Hitlerschen Blitzkriegen aus, die ja bekanntlich dann auch scheiterten, also eher eine Fehlkalkulation, was bei der US-amerikanische Hybris und ihres exxceptionalims durchaus auch Teil der ERklärung sein könnte.

Nun gut, da fühlten sich einige mit dem Irakkrieg 2003 vorerst bestätigt, dass 9 11 und der Afghanistankrieg nur ein Vorwand sei für eine größere Agenda für einen Greater Middle East. So kam es auch durch ein Bündnis zwischen Menschenrechts- Demokratie- Neocons und Realisten wie etwa Cheney, der zuvor eine Energiestudie erstellt hatte, dass die USA und der Westen, sowie die Weltwirtschaft im nächsten Jahrzehnt von einer Energieelippse von Nordafrika bis zum Golf immer abhängiger werde und da verbanden sich beide Kräfte wie damals im Amerikanischen Bürgerkrieg nordamerikanische Industrialisten mit den Abolisten, hier eben die 7 Sisters und andere Wirtschaftskreise mit Demokratisierungsenthusiasten. Zumal eben d auch noch die Lüge von Saddam Husseins Massenvernichtungswaffen und Verbindungen zu Al Qaida und der Verhinderung eines nuklearen 911 als Propaganda gestreut wurde, die aber Großteile der Weltgemeinschaft nicht glaubten, auch das Old Europe, Deutschland und Frankreich nicht, während das New Europe und nicht die NATO sich an einer Coalition of the Willing beteiligte. Nun gut, den desaströsen Ausgang kenn man ja. Iran steig als Regionalmacht erst recht auf, trieb sein Nuklearprogramm erst recht aus, dann auch noch der Islamische Staat samt Massenflüchtlingswellen für die die USA nie aufkamen, wie auch immense Verschuldung und ein halber Imperial overstretch samt Abwendung der USA von strategic competitor China in Zentralasien rückte China und Rußland mittels CO vor, usw. usf. Das Ergebnis war also das Gegenteil des angeblich Beabsichtigten, was etliche Verschwörungstheoretiker dann aber so umdeuteten, dass es den USA nur darum gegangen sei den Greater Middle East zu destabilisieren, die EU und Deutschland durch Flüchtlingswelle und Wirtschaftskonkurrenz zu schwächen und es in der Natur der Amis liege, überall nur Krieg und Zwietracht zu säen. Nicht ganz falsch, aber wohl nicht als Selbstzweck, auch wenn die Phänomenologie passend scheint.. Und wahrscheinlich eben aus ersteren und nicht letzteren Motiven. Umgekehrt fragte ich mal den indischen Ex- General Asthana, ob Osama Bin Laden nicht 9 11 gemacht habe, um die USA und die NATO in den „Graveyard of Empires“ und eben eine „Afghanische Falle“ nach dem Muster von Brzezinski zu locken, was er auch für übertrieben hielt. Aber dieser NATO- Krieg war ja auch in Indiens Interessen, um Pakistan und die vom ISI unterstützte Taliban zurückzudrängen, als auch China rauszuhalten. Inzwischen braucht es kein Öl- und Gas mehr seit die USA mit Fracking energiepolitisch Cheneys Energieellipse selbst gar nicht mehr nötig haben, ja auch Exportweltmeister in dieser Richtung inzwischen geworden sind und ihr LNG unterbringen wollen. Zudem nach dem Scheitern des Arabischen Frühlings, dem failed state in Libyen infolge des NATO-Intervention gegen Ghaddafi die USA sich sukzessive aus dem Greater Middle East zurückzogen, Trump die Globalisten samt die war of choices kritisierte und Biden und die USA sich  jetzt erst wieder durch den Hamaskrieg im Gaza sich dort wieder stärker engagieren müssen, wenngleich wohl nicht in dem Ausmaße wie beim Irakkrieg mit boots on the grounds  und eine Invasion im Iran werden sie sich auch mehrmals überlegen. Ansonsten kmen sie dann auch wieder nicht mehr dazu sich endlich dem Asian Pivot und China zuzuwedden.

Nun also als neues Gerücht, dass die USA den IS unterstützen oder sogar geschaffen haben. Erstmals hörte ich diese Versionen in Bezug auf Irak und Syrien. Da wurde behauptet die USA hätten den IS geschaffen, um dann einen Vorwand zu haben weiterhin im Greater Middle East Truppen stationieren und aktiv zu sein. Vor allem, dass Al Baghdadi und andere in einem US-Gefangenenlager saßen, wird als untrüglicher Beweis gesehen, dass die USA diese dann zum IS aufrüsteten und das Ganze eine CIA-Kreation gewesen sei. Nun gut, die USA haben dann in Irak und Syrien eine Anti-IS-Koalition geschmiedet und in beiden Ländern dann den IS zurückgedrängt, aber nicht mit eigenen Boots on the ground sondern mit ein paar Special Forces, arabische Golfstaaten, vor allem kurdischen Peschmerga und den Teilen der irakischen Armee, der mal wieder nicht weggelaufen ist. Iran und Solemeinis Revolutionsgarden und proiranische irakische Milizen kämpften da seperat und nicht Teil der Anti-IS-Koalition in Konkurrenz als schiitische Anti-IS-Koalition daneben mit. Das nutzten die USA aber infolge eben nicht als Vorwand sich nun wieder stärker zu engagieren, sondern zogen sich dann eben  zurück, wenngleich sie kleine und marginale Restkontingente in Nordsyrien und dem Irak beliessen. Dann auch noch der überstürzte Abzug aus Afghanistan. Also wohl eher Fakenews.

China- und Orientexperte Professor van Ess meinte noch:

„Die Theorie, dass die USA den IS geschaffen hätten, war (und ist) im Vorderen Orient überall und überaus populär. Er stieg so plötzlich auf damals nach dem Beginn des Kampfes gegen Assad auf, dass sich die Araber das nicht anders erklären konnten oder wollten. Dass der IS sich dann plötzlich als viel brutaler herausstellte, als man das ursprünglich gedacht hatte, führte dazu, dass man sich zusammentat, um ihn zu bekämpfen. Aber interessanterweise sind einige Gebiete an der syrisch-irakischen Grenze bis heute nicht eingenommen, und noch interessanter ist, dass ausgerechnet in der Nähe dieser Gebiete US-Militär stationiert ist (am Al-Omar Ölfeld, in Al-Tanf etwas weiter nördlich etc.). Die meisten IS-Gruppen sind allerdings wohl in Idlib, und auch da führt niemand gegen den Islamischen Staat Krieg. Im Gegenteil, diese Zone ist eingefroren, damit Assad da nicht vorrücken kann. „

Wohl aber eher die Frage, ob der IS noch so bedeutende ist oder man ihn mit den türkischen und US- Truppen überhaupt noch so als Hauptproblem sieht. Zum einen ist Idlib eine Hochburg von Erdogan- Islamisten, nicht nur des IS, sondern von anderen islamistischen Mordbrennermilizien, die Erdogan  Davatoglus anfängliche No Problem. Auß0enpolitik, die ein Bündnis mit Assad und auch gemeinsame türkisch- syrische Militärmanöver bedeuteten, gekippt hat und beim Arabische Frühling dann voll auf eine Machtübernahme der Muslimbrüder umschwenkte, wie schon zuvor in Ägypten, Libyen oder Ghanouchi Tunesien oder nun mit der Muslimbruderschaftfiliale Hamas nebst solchen Gruppen wie Jayesh- El Islam, Jayesh el Fatah, Al Nusra- Front etc .Bündnisse einging zu Sturz von Assad und diese Brandschatzer dann auch noch in westlichen Medien als „Rebellen“ bezeichnet wurden, als wären da noch groß säkulare oder demokratishe Kärfte wie am Anfang beteiligt- entweder aus Unwissen oder aus Rücksicht auf den NATO-Partner Erdogan und seiner Muslimbruderschaft- AKP. Die ein neoosmanisches Reich erobern will. Momentan aber hat man mehr mit der PKK und ihren Ablger YPG zu tun, die wiederum vonden USA unterstützt werden und da den Hauptkern der US- Enklave im Nordirak und Nordsyrien abdecken, und das bisschen Erdöl in Nordsyrien ist recht marginal, auch wenn China da in der Global Times behauptet die katastrophale Lage in Syrien sei wegen US- Ausbeutung der kleinen Erdölenklaven erklärbar, was völliger Quatsch ist, denn auch diese marginalen Mengen könnte die Probleme von Assads Bankrotthaushalt nicht lösen, sondern dienen eher der Finanzierung der Kurdenmilizen   während Assad und seine schiitischen islamistischen Hilfskräfte aus Iran, Hisbollah und Revolutionsgarden da alles mit Captagon- und Drogenhandel inzwischen finanzieren und die ganze Region damit fluten, dass auch andere Länder wie Jordanien und Saudiarabien forderten, sie würden einer Wideraufnahme Assad- Syriens in die Arabische Liga nur zustimmen, wenn dieser das Drogenproblem beseitige oder zumindestens eindämme. Dabei ist es seine Hauptfinanzierungsquelle.

Aber ebenso wie die Story rumgeht, dass die USA den IS erschaffen hätten, könnte man da auch Erdogan als deren Erschaffer bringen und auch die Geschichten, dass das türkische Militär Waffen zu den islamistischen Mordbrennermilizen in Nordsyrien überliefert, scheinbar auch dem IS, weswegen solche investigative türkische Journalisten, die das aufdeckten auch in den Knast wanderten, während Erdogans Sohn über eine Ölfirma IS Öl während deren Herrschaft im Nordirak und den Kurdengebieten aufgekauft, in langen Öllasterkolonnen in die Türkei  transportiert und verkauft haben, während Erdogans Kopftuchfrau auch verletzte IS- und islamistische Mordmilizenkämpfer mit islamischen humanitären NGOs versorgt und auch persönlich im Krankenhaus besucht haben. Eigentlich hat sich Erdogan ja erst über den IS aufgeregt, als dieser erste Anschläge in der Türlkei verübte. Ob das alles wahr ist oder man eben Rücksicht auf den guten NATO- Partner nahm, dahingestellt. Auch gab es Gerüchte bezüglich der  Unterstützung des IS durch das wahabistiisch- salafistische Saudiarabien, Katar und andere sunnitische Staaten, um dem Iran und den Schiiten etwas entgegenzusetzen, Fraglich, ob das alles so stimmt, aber diese Herrscherhäuser würden ja dann wie auch Erdogan selbst wieder von dem IS bedroht, wenn er zu mächtig geworden wäre. Zumindestens ist interessant, dass dem IS viele Erschaffer zugerechnet wird, aber ihm selbst nicht, dass er sich selbst erschaffen hat und eigenwillig handelt oder eben die jeweiligen Seiten wie Lenin das deutsche Militär für seine kommunistische Oktoberrevolution einzuspannen wu0te. Aber jetzt soll mal wieder nur die USA in diesen interessensgeleiteten Fake News der Erschaffer und Unterstützer des IS sein und US mit IS in der antiamerikanischen Propaganda gleichgeschaltet werden wie eben ach Israel mit Hitler, Nazis und „Gaza Holocaust“ (Tehran Times) oder Genozid.. Eigentlich ein ziemlich leicht durchschaubares Spielchen bis auf Bullshitgläubige,.

Dennovh irritiert es etwas ,dass die USA unter Pompeo die ETIM von der Terrorliste genommen haben und das scheinbar auch unter Biden nicht rückgängig gemacht haben, Obwohl die mehr säkulare ETAM infolge gegründet wurde, die Terrorismus und Islamismus ablehnt. Desweiteren stimmt es durchaus, dass Prabowo und andere Generäle islamistische Gruppen als Hilfskräfte nutzten, wie der Intercept-Artikel ja gut belegt. Aber inwieweit die nun mit dem Islamischen Staat in Verbindung oder gar identisch sind ,ist da die Frage.FJ Strauß meinte ja auch mal, dass man mit Hilfstruppen nicht zimperlich sein sollte und auch die Kontakte zu Rechtsradikalen im Rahmen der Gladio sind ja inzwischen belegt und ein offenes Geheimnis, bis ihm dann eben das Oktoberfestattentat und das Bombenattentat in Bologna um die Ohren flog, wie den USA Osama Bin Laden und 9 11. Brzezinski dachte ja auch ähnlich und da wurde an Hilfstruppen gegen die kommunistische Sowjetunion  eben jeder noch so krude sunnitische Islamist bis auch zu Bin Laden unterstützt, bis der sich  eben zum Frankensteinmonster entwickelte samt 9 11.Die Frage ist, ob man zu diesem Hilfstruppenmuster wieder zurückkehrt im Kampf gegen Chinas Einheitsfront in anderen Ländern und seiner Seidenstraßenexpansion als eben neue kommunistische Gefahr. Oder China auf Islamisten wie Taliban, Iran, Hisbollah, Hamas, Muslimbrüder, Erdogan-AKP versus die USA auf andere mehr sunnitische Islamisten oder mehr „säkulare“ Autokraten wie Al Sissi zu setzen beginnen, zumal demokratische Gruppierungen und Regime changes ja mit Ausnahme der Kurden nach dem Scheitern des Arabischen Frühlings und  deŕ „Frauenbewegung“ im Iran vorerst keine realen Optionen mehr darstellen? Aber ob die USA wirklich soweit gehen den IS zu unterstützen ,wage ich zu bezweifeln

Das scheint eher interessensgeleitete antiamerikanische Propaganda. Wobei ja interessant ist, dass die USA dem Iran eine Terrorwarnung vor dem IS-Anschlag bei den Solemeini-Gedenkfeiern zukommen lassen haben sollen, was Murdochs Wall Street Journal lenkte, worauf die Tehran Times meinte, diese Warnungen seien so vage gewesen, dass man sie nicht ernst nehmen konnte und das Ziel der USA sei Irans Sicherheitsapperat als schwach und unfähig vor aller Welt darzustellen .Sllerdings ging auch der Iran nicht soweit zu behaupten ,dass die USA diesen Anschlag initiiert hätten oder den IS unterstütze würden.

Ebenfalls scheinen bei aller beschwornen iranisch-russisch-chinesischen SCO- und  BRICS-Solidarität, und Gazakrieg sich da auch MIßtöne , auch schon mal in der Tehran Times einzuschleichen: Iran sieht da eine mögliche westliche Falle der VAE und der USA  wegen der drei strategischen „iranischen Inseln“und dass Putin und Peking da iranische Interessen opfern könnten.Aber ob das ein breaking point in oder so beschworenen iranischen-chinesisch-russischen Beziehungen ,die auch zusammen im Golf gemeinsame Marinemanöver abhalten. Oder will man die Inseln heim ins Reich holen? Intereesant auch, dass der Autor beim chinesischen Shanghai International Studies Univeristy in China ausgebildet wird:

“. By Amir Mohammad Esmaeili

Iranian Pearls in the Persian Gulf

February 13, 2024 – 12:23

The three islands of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb, despite their small size, carry strategic and distinctive importance. These islands indeed play a crucial role in controlling maritime movements at the entrance of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

The enduring and legitimate presence of Iran has been instrumental in upholding stability and security in this critical regional and global thoroughfare. This strategic presence has thwarted attempts by Western powers to assert control through their allies and undermine the region’s security. However, the names of the three islands have Persian origins. “Abu Musa” is short for “Bum Musa,” referring to the house of Musa, while “Tunb” is derived from the Persian Tangestani, meaning hill and mound. 

Examining historical records reveals that these islands have been an integral part of Iran’s territory until the interference of Western colonial powers in the region. In the early 16th century, the Portuguese were the first colonial power to enter into the Persian Gulf, subsequently seizing Hormuz Island. Over time, other colonial powers began to make their way into this region. British forces entered the Persian Gulf under the guise of securing shipping routes and curbing the slave trade. After some time, they occupied these Iranian islands and handed them over to the emirates of Sharjah and Ras Al Khaimah. After 68 years of persistent efforts by Iran, Iranian forces reasserted sovereignty over the Abu Musa and Tunb Islands on the morning of November 30, 1971. This took place one day before the official withdrawal of British forces from the Persian Gulf and two days prior to the formation of the United Arab Emirates.

After the Iranian forces assumed control of the islands, the 1971 Memorandum of Understanding between Iran and Sharjah concerning Abu Musa Island stands as an official and valid document, preventing any interference by other external parties. Furthermore, the restoration of the Tunb Islands to Iran relies on an implicit understanding, given the absence of disputes over Iranian ownership and sovereignty. Avoiding a written agreement was intentional, as any such document could introduce uncertainty regarding Iran’s unquestionable sovereignty and absolute ownership of these two islands. The memorandum of understanding between Iran and Sharjah on November 29, 1971, authorized Iran to deploy its forces to Abu Musa. On November 30, 1971, Iranian forces landed on the three islands. This was carried out with the presence and approval of certain Sharjah officials and with prior notification to Britain. Iran’s conduct since that date has been entirely grounded in this memorandum of understanding, fully respecting the rights accorded to the emirate of Sharjah and its citizens in Abu Musa. 

What renders the UAE’s claim legally invalid?

Despite the wealth of historical documents, some of which are in languages other than Persian, there is no doubt about the historical ownership of the three islands by Iran. Before the imperialist presence of Portuguese and British naval forces in the Persian Gulf, Oman and Saudi Arabia were the only Arab states in the region. During that period, the sheikhdoms of Sharjah and Ras al-Khaimah were not recognized as states at all. Consequently, for the few Arab residents of Abu Musa it was legally impossible to have their citizenship. This is while, most of the Persian Gulf islands, including Abu Musa, Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb, have been under Iran’s ownership and sovereignty. Indeed, after Iran reasserted its sovereignty over three islands in 1971, the United Arab Emirates declared its establishment through the union of six emirates on the southern coast of the Persian Gulf, including the sheikhdom of Sharjah (claiming Abu Musa). A year later, the emirate of Ras al-Khaimah, the sheikhdom claiming Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb, joined the union as the seventh member. Therefore, Sharjah’s assertion that the residents of Abu Musa belonged to the Ghasemi tribe, and the ruler of Sharjah shared the same lineage, does not constitute evidence for the citizenship of the state established in the subsequent years. Moreover, historical records indicate that the Ghasemis were divided into two groups, one Iranian and the other Arab. 

In the claims put forth by the sheikhdoms of Sharjah and Ras Al Khaimah, it has been consistently asserted that Britain recognizes these three islands as belonging to these two emirates. Despite Britain considering these emirates as belonging to the mentioned sheikhdoms due to its protectorate and safeguarding of its interests, Western countries, including Britain itself from 1770-1898, officially portrayed those islands as being under the sovereignty and within the territory of Iran. Regarding Iran’s sovereignty over the three islands, there are at least twelve official reports prepared and dispatched to the British Foreign Office in London by the War Office and the Admiralty, the East India Company, and the British political representatives in the Persian Gulf. One common point in these reports is that they consistently refer to Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb as territories under the sovereignty of Iran. It is evident that Britain recognized the three islands as part of Iran until the early 20th century, and their stance shifted after occupying them.

The sheikhdoms of Sharjah and Ras Al Khaimah have asserted their sovereignty over the three islands based on their occupation and possession over the years. However, the mere passage of time does not validate their claim to sovereignty over these islands. Indeed, the initial settlers who inhabited these islands and constructed buildings on them held Iranian citizenship. Furthermore, the argument that they spoke Arabic is not regarded as evidence of sovereignty in international law.

Upon becoming aware of the occupation of the mentioned islands in 1904, Iran promptly issued an official protest. Iran consistently voiced its protest on numerous occasions in the years that followed. Iran asserted its authority by lowering the flag of Sharjah and hoisting its own flag in lieu of the sheikhdom on the islands. Throughout this period, Iran made several attempts to regain control of the islands, achieving success in 1934 when they were returned to Iranian sovereignty. Iranian officials have visited these islands at different times, and negotiations between Iran and Britain to restore Iran’s sovereignty over these territories have consistently persisted. At various junctures, the Sheikhs of Sharjah and Ras Al Khaimah displayed a hesitancy to exercise their control over these islands. On numerous occasions, they formally lowered their flag, thereby relinquishing control of these islands. Therefore, the sovereignty of the UAE has not been conclusively reconciled, unchallenged, undisputed, and uninterrupted. 
One of the justifications put forth by Sharjah and Ras Al Khaimah for their claim is the proximity of these islands to the sheikhdom of Ras Al Khaimah. However, there is a clear response to this claim. As indicated by maps, both Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb are situated closer to the Iranian coastline. Furthermore, Abu Musa is located near Siri Island, one of Iran’s islands.

Conclusion

Throughout various historical periods, Iran has consistently rejected the sovereignty of any nation or colonial power over the islands in the Persian Gulf. The historical occupation of certain islands by the British forces has consistently prompted protests from Iran. An assemblage of evidence, encompassing international law, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, official documents from Iranian and British embassies, correspondences, reports from British Foreign Office, the doctrine of promissory estoppel affirming Iran’s sovereignty, adherence to the Law of State Succession, and the content of the 1971 Memorandum of Understanding, collectively establishes irrefutable proof of Iran’s enduring ownership and sovereignty over the three islands in the Persian Gulf. 

Years after successfully settling differences regarding these islands, the UAE is attempting to reopen the case with the support of third parties lacking legitimate rights and shares in this matter, thereby creating an issue known as the islands dispute. Iran believes that there is no dispute; rather, what exists is the baseless claim and ambition of the UAE regarding Iranian territory. In recent years, the UAE has exerted extensive diplomatic, political, and propaganda efforts to shift the discourse surrounding the three islands from a bilateral matter between Iran and the UAE to a regional, then Arab, and ultimately an international issue. Undoubtedly, this adventure, entangled with the provocation of Western powers, has the potential to seriously jeopardize regional and international stability and security. While the Islamic Republic of Iran has consistently pursued regional security and stability, recent history, including the eight-year Iran-Iraq war wherein Saddam Hussein aimed to challenge Iran’s sovereignty over its western provinces and the three islands, highlights Iran’s seriousness in responding to foreign territorial adventures without any hesitation.

From a geopolitical and geostrategic standpoint, the three islands hold fundamental importance not only for Iran but also for its friends. Consequently, it is expected that nations with friendly relations will approach this issue with heightened sensitivity and a strong sense of responsibility. 

Recently, the repetition of Russia’s detrimental stance towards the Iranian islands has prompted strong negative reactions from politicians across all political spectrums, academic elites, and the public opinion of Iran, who expressed unified dissatisfaction. Indeed, this has reignited concerns within Iranian political and academic circles. This stance has reinforced a growing perception that Russia’s willingness to sacrifice Iran for its own interests is casting doubt on its role as a strategic partner. There is a concern that if Beijing falls into the same trap set by the UAE and Western powers, China’s positive and friendly image, cultivated as a supporter of the Iranian nation during challenging times, may be tarnished, aligning it with the negative historical image of Russia. This has the potential to pose a notable challenge to the friendly and strategic cooperation between the two countries during the critical decade of regional and international developments. 

China and Iran maintain a friendly and comprehensive strategic partnership, demonstrating unwavering support for each other on issues concerning their vital interests and fundamental security concerns, irrespective of external influences from Western powers. Hence, by fostering mutual cooperation and remaining impervious to external manipulations, both nations can play a pivotal role in reinstating peace and stability in the West Asia region and globally. Over many years, the Islamic Republic of Iran has consistently adhered to the principle of One China and recently, in response to the Taiwan election results, Nasser Kanani, the spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iran, emphasized that “the Islamic Republic of Iran bases its foreign policy on respecting the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of states. Within this framework, Iran has consistently expressed its support for the One China principle.” 

 Amir Mohammad Esmaeili is PhD Candidate at Middle East Studies Institute, Shanghai International Studies University
 

Iranian Pearls in the Persian Gulf – Tehran Times

Es gab auch mal die Idee einer „säkularen Anti- Islamismus-Bündnis“, in das der Westen „säkulare Autokraten“ wie Putin, Assad, General Al Sissi und etwa General Hafta, ja vielleicht auch China  ähnlich wie damals beim War on Terror der USA nach 9 11.einbezogen werden sollten. Thomas von der Ostensacken, klärte uns da zum einen auf, dass es mit dem Säkularismus da nicht weit her sei, Großmachtinteressen da nicht in säkular/ islamistisch erfolgten, wobei da in muslimischen Staaten das Ganze auch fließende Übergänge und Seitenwechsel kenne, zumal eben Assad ohne Iran und Hisbollah gar nicht existieren könne und Putin da ein ganz unzuverlässiger Verbündeter wäre, auch wenn Israel seine stillschweigendes Stillhalten bei israelische Luftschlägen gegen Hisbollah-Einheiten und iranische Revolutionsgarden in Syrien hätte. Mit dem Gazakrieg scheinen nun die Fronten ohnehin klarer. Brzezinski meinte mal als als er dafür kritisiert wurde, dass er mit seiner Unterstützung des sunnitischen Islamismus dessen weltweite Ausbreitung und nicht nur 9 11erst richtig möglich gemacht habe: „Was ist schon der Islamismus als historischer Preis für den Sieg über den Kommunismus“. Man wird sehen, inwieweit man sich wieder auf dieses „Der Feind meines Feindes ist mein Freund“ wieder einläßt oder bis zu welchem Grade. Aber es scheint es  schon jetzt so, als würde da jede Großmacht wie auch schon früher auf verschiedene Islamisten oder Muslime setzen und da gilt „Dein Islamist/Terrorist, mein Friedenskämpfer“. Und wenn sich der sinoamerikanische Konflikt weiter zuspitzt, dann vielleicht nochmals stärker unter einem wiedergewählten Trump, ist es falls Chinas Einheitsfront in Südostasien oder eben auch Indonesien die Macht der dortigen Regierung zu sehr infrage gestellt wird, dann doch das Sukarno Revival angesagt, das ja die Foreign Affairs bisher noch für unmöglich hält. Vielleicht wird dann Indonesien, wie nach dem Militärputsch unter dem pakistanischen Militärdiktator Zia Ul Haq, der dann auch die pakistanische Gesellschaft islamisierte, wie Malan in ihrem Buch „Ich bin Malala“ plastisch darstellt Ähnlich war das ja auch im Sudan unter Al Baschir und Turabi. Angesichts der weiteren zunehmenden Islamisierungstendenzen in Indonesien, wie auch Malaysia ein riskantes Spiel. Aber eben für wen und wen nicht?

CHINA´S AND INDIA´S WAR ON TERROR

 27. Januar 2024  Ralf Ostner

China´s and India´s War on terror – Global Review (global-review.info)

USA-CHINA: NACH BONGBONG MARCOS JR. NUN DOMINOTHEORIE UND SUHARTO RELOADED IN INDONESIEN?

 13. Februar 2024  Ralf Ostner

USA-China: Nach Bongbong Marcos jr. nun Dominotheorie und Suharto reloaded in Indonesien? – Global Review (global-review.info)

Kommentare sind geschlossen.