Traditions of the Kyrgyz people were being formed with the help of economic, trade, domestic and other relations with kindred and other tribes that were closely related to the geography of their ha...

After the coup of 19 March 1953 in the socio-political history of Iran there were fundamental changes: the powers of parliament were limited and the absolute power of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was...

In the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran are two countries that claim to leadership in the region. With a powerful resources and political potential these countries are the...

Is The C5+1 Format A New Mechanism Of Carrying Out Color Revolutions?

Thursday, April 6, 2017 - 22:21

Today, more and more focal points of instability and armed conflicts emerge in different parts of the world. The struggle for access to natural resources is intensifying, while the geography of the activities of international terrorist organizations is expanding.

 

A paradoxical situation is developing: the Western “democratic” countries ignore the provisions stipulated by the international law. They often resort to double standards to promote their interests. One of the main factors contributing to this is Washington's desire to maintain a unipolar world and its “leading” positions.

 

The White House uses the tactics of alternating military preventive measures and the “controlled chaos” technology. It's still fresh in one's memory that the previous US administration forced a part of the population of the Middle East to leave their homes and migrate to Europe, while the German leader, A. Merkel, created the conditions for their settling across the European Union.

 

Despite the active development of the domestic political situation in Europe, its eastern part, and also in the countries of the Middle East, the attention of the world's major powers will definitely be refocused on the Central Asian region in the near future. This is evidenced by the fact that within the framework of the strategic deterrence of Beijing and Moscow and the prevention of emergence of a multi-polar world, Washington is making increasingly strong attempts to draw the countries of the post-Soviet space into the orbit of its interests. And the region of Central Asia is not an exception. The main instrument of the USA in Central Asia is the C5+1 format of interaction with the foreign policy departments of the Central Asian countries.

 

Very little is written about this format; let's see whether it is effective.

 

Worth recalling, on April 1, 2017, there was closed the NATO Office for Relations and Interaction with Central Asian Countries in Tashkent that had been operating since May 2014. Its head Rosary Pulizi was transferred to work in Georgia. Against this backdrop, it becomes clear that the US foreign policy in the region will primarily focus on the C5+1 format and the US-controlled non-governmental organizations. It was mistakenly believed that the closure of the representation office of the North Atlantic bloc was connected with the efforts of the Uzbek authorities, which allegedly forced Brussels to close it. However, after leaving Tashkent, Pulizi denied this. She stated the decision was related to the effectiveness of the C5+1 format.

 

Within the framework of the project, the working sub-groups have already been formed. They will create the best conditions for solving the “parallel” tasks related to gaining access to a wide range of information on the partner countries, strengthening the influence on the policy-making circles, and creating the conditions for discrediting the existing formats of cooperation in Central Asia. These include:

 

1. Economic partnership (Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan have been determined as the states responsible for this);

 

2. The issues related to ecology, environment and water use (Kazakhstan bears the responsibility);

 

3. Security issues (Uzbekistan and Tajikistan have the responsibility for this).

 

With that, within the framework of the last subgroup, the US considers the following to be the priority areas of cooperation: strengthening security in the Central Asian regions bordering on Afghanistan; increasing the effectiveness of the fight against terrorism, extremism, and drug trafficking; strengthening the capabilities of the armed forces of the CA republics, including through the training of “new-generation officers.”

 

All this testifies to the fact that the C5+1 format is nothing more than a new and non-standard mechanism for implementing color revolutions in the Central Asian region. Political technologists of the US State Department approached its development meticulously. They took into account the restrained mentality and religious susceptibility of the main part of the population, and decided to rely upon the work with the elite groups.

 

The format pursues completely different goals that are not declared officially. This is evidenced by the fact it does not take into account the interests of all the CA countries in solving the delicate issues. Again, there are quite logical questions about the above three groups. Is Tashkent less interested in the problems of water use or development of trade and economic ties? Or is Ashgabat not troubled by the terrorist threat coming from the territory of Afghanistan? Why was there a need to divide the CA countries into groups? The answer is simple. This scheme allows to solve the “parallel” C5+1 tasks connected with gaining access to a wide range of information about the partner countries, strengthening the influence on their policy-making circles, and creating the conditions for discrediting the existing formats of cooperation in Central Asia.

 

Thus, it turns out that the project is also aimed at creating conditions that impede the integration of the Central Asian states into the associations promoted by Moscow, Astana (the EEU, the CSTO, the CIS) and Beijing (the Silk Road Economic Belt), as well as the cooperation within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The main objective of the C5+1 program is to involve the Central Asian states in cooperation in the field of security against the background of the growing terrorist threat coming from the territory of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

 

The US political circles (the Carnegie Endowment, the Pentagon Center for Strategic Studies) unequivocally state that the Republicans' coming to power in the US has resulted in an adjustment of the country's foreign policy course, including in the Central Asian area. This is evidenced by Washington's systematic approach to solving its tasks. For example, the US diplomatic corps in the CAR countries, including US Ambassador to Uzbekistan P. Spratlen, openly states that, in addition to the C5+1 format, the promotion of democratic values ​​in the region will make a more actively use of the capabilities of the non-governmental organizations, such as the British Council, the USAID, the GIZ, and others.

 

It seems groundless to argue that the C5+1 format was created by the former US administration and the new team of Donald Trump and R. Tilleson will not take advantage of the already launched and reasonably thought-out mechanism for conducting a color revolution in the CAR.

 

The United States never enters a country to withdraw from it without profit, as evidenced by their actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and a number of countries of the former Soviet Union.

 

The clock is ticking. Time will show who's going to be the gambit.



URL of this article:
http://easttime.info/analytics/uzbekistan/c51-format-new-mechanism-carrying-out-color-revolutions