Tarzie Vittachi, a Sri Lankan journalist who in his final years was the bemused occupant of a high United Nations office, once summed up with his characteristic terse wit a central truth about international affairs: “Everything is about something else.”

The situation in Syria, and indeed, across the Middle East, exemplifies that truth: amidst unprecedented confusion and stir, surface developments make little sense. Why, for instance, is the United States supporting an opposition grouping in Syria dominated by Islamist forces it has fought in Iraq and Afghanistan?

What caused Britain to shy away from supporting the Barack Obama administration’s move to punish the Assad regime for using chemical weapons?

Why did Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar bin Sultan, for 22 years ambassador in Washington and rumoured killed in a 2012 terrorist attack, suddenly reappear and meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, offering arms deals and a guarantee that Chechen terrorists would not attack the Sochi Winter Olympics?

To understand what is happening we have to look to the beginnings of the “special relationship” between Britain and the United States in the deal Winston Churchill struck in 1946 with the U.S. military-industrial establishment to manage the post-World War Two world.

The quid pro quo of that arrangement was that Britain would help an unconstitutional nexus of power in Washington to rule the world, and be allowed in return to preserve its lucrative imperial interests; in effect, it was a British-sponsored coup that subverted U.S. democracy.

In the Middle East, that dispensation meant U.S. support for extremely corrupt regional power structures that Britain and France had put in place as they took charge of Ottoman territories after World War I.

As the United States was by then entering a period of increasing dependence on Saudi Arabian oil, this was in line with its own interests; in fact, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had struck a deal with King Ibn Saud in February 1945, assuring the country’s security in return for preferred U.S. access to its petroleum.

Over the last two years, as domestic shale oil production has moved the United States towards energy independence, fundamental aspects of the transatlantic “special relationship” have come unstuck. Two aspects of change are particularly important:

The United States has moved vigorously against the money laundering system the British put in place as their Empire declined. The 1.9-billion-dollar fine that U.S. regulators imposed in 2012 on HSBC, Britain’s largest bank, is indicative of the pressures on the system central to Britain’s post-imperial power.

Washington has withdrawn support for dictatorial regimes in the Middle East, setting off the wave of instability the media have presented as the “Arab Spring”.

Although the “Arab Spring” has turned into an increasingly bloody Summer as the extremist Muslim Brotherhood has come to the fore, the writing on the wall for Britain’s imperial interests is clear: the cozy arrangements with the old dictatorial regimes cannot be renewed.

The latest Russian initiative to head off a U.S. strike on Syria points to an interesting aspect of the emerging scene in the Middle East. Despite the Russian defence of the Assad regime, Moscow and Washington have a shared interest in changing existing realities in the region, and especially in Saudi Arabia, which supplied most of the 9/11 attackers and has been quite openly behind the Chechen terrorist uprising.

The Saudi gift of 100 million dollars to the U.N. Counter-Terrorism Centre and Prince Bandar bin Sultan’s offers to President Putin should be read as signs that Riyadh is acutely aware of its danger.

The involvement of Prince Bandar also points to intriguing developments in Washington.

During his long stay in Washington Bandar developed very close relations with the nexus of oil, arms and military/intelligence interests central to the shadow government established by the British coup of 1946. The nickname “Bandar Bush” captures his intimacy with the family that has been for two generations at the centre of that unconstitutional power structure.

The presidency of the senior Bush saw the Iraq war segue the world from the Cold War to the “War of Civilisations”. The stolen presidency of the junior Bush saw the 9/11 attacks inaugurate the “Homeland Security” era under the “Patriot Act”, with widespread violations of fundamental constitutional provisions.

The fact that Bandar Bush has emerged from the shadows in an attempt to win Russian support for the Saudi regime points to the threat felt by the Bush family.

In the past, a few choice assassinations would have resolved this situation. That might still happen, but I think the U.S. military/intelligence establishment has swung away from the Bush-centred power nexus. Edward Snowden’s decision to flee the farm is probably indicative of that, as is the “wrong name” on the papers sent to the Chinese authorities to extradite him from Hong Kong.

To sum up, the grim and confused situation in the Middle East could be the most tangible indicator of a historic U.S. shift back to fully constitutional government.

The “something else” that Syria signifies could be the exact opposite of all the dark readings of the situation.

Bhaskar Menon is the editor of Undiplomatictimes.com, which carries a longer version of this analysis.

The story of Chinese “princeling” Bo Xilai, his “Jackie Kennedy wife” Gu Kailai, and murdered “British businessman” Neil Heywood is a textbook case of mass media hypocrisy in covering international affairs.

Consider for example the Letter from China ( http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/evanosnos/2012/04/chin as-public-servants-why-bo-xilai-matters.html ) headlined “Corruption Nation: Why Bo Xilai Matters” in the last week’s New Yorker, and the investigative piece by Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-13/china- murder-suspect-s-sisters-ran-126-million-business- empire.html ) on Gu’s four sisters who “controlled a web of businesses from Beijing to Hong Kong to the Caribbean worth at least $126 million.”

In both articles, as in the general flow of news agency reporting of the matter, the focus is firmly on Chinese corruption. The cesspool represented by Neil Heywood, who Reuters reported was “poisoned after he threatened to expose a plan by a Chinese leader’s wife to move money abroad,” remains firmly in the shadows.

Heywood was no ordinary “British businessman.” He was a fixer for the global black market centered on and run from The City, London’s financial center. His main job seems to have been helping corrupt Chinese officials move hot money into safe havens abroad. On the side he reported to MI6, Britain’s nefarious spy agency (a link he advertised in a pathetically juvenile manner by incorporating 007 on his car license plate).

Why is China “corruption nation” and not Britain?

The New Yorker piece sins by omission; the Bloomberg article engages in active distortion. Noting the use of offshore tax havens by Gua’s sisters, it says that is “not unusual: P.O. boxes in jurisdictions such as the Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands can serve as the address for thousands of companies. While the majority of tax haven- based companies are set up for legitimate reasons, offshore jurisdictions have been linked to multiple frauds and corruption cases…”.

The Bloomberg authors do not say what “legitimate reasons” are served by accounts and shell companies with untraceable owners in off-shore tax havens (of which there are now over 70, most of them in tiny former British colonies). I can see none; those who use tax havens want to avoid taxes, evade legal responsibility, and stash the proceeds of crime.

Illicit outflows from China are the largest of any country in the world. Sarah Freitas (http://www.financialtaskforce.org/2012/04/16/murder-of-a- british-businessman-offers-a-glimpse-into-the-scale-of- chinese-corruption/ ) notes in her blog at Washington- based Global Financial Integrity that the country lost $2.74 trillion over the past decade. Partial estimates from a number of sources including the IMF and the World Bank indicate that global black market assets amount to over $30 trillion.

Assets in the trillions of dollars cannot be managed by hoods carrying around suitcases filled with high denomination currency notes. Major financial institutions are involved, and they operate in a coherent system that drains an estimated $1 trillion from developing countries every year.

Mainstream media have been incurious about such numbers, and especially in the mechanisms used to move and manage the money. The growth of a global black market that Britain developed as its Empire dwindled in the 1960s is perhaps the most uncovered international story of our time. The corruption represented by that enterprise is not just victimless “white collar” crime. The global black market sustains terrorist organizations, drug traffickers, civil wars, coups against elected governments, trafficking of women and children for the sex trade, and a host of other organized criminal activities. It feeds the huge speculative “hedge funds” that have driven oil prices beyond $100 a barrel during a global recession. It kills democracies. To bring the current situation into political focus it is necessary to see it as a second British Empire, one that employs drug mafias and “Islamic terrorists” instead of conquering armies and rewards its primary agents — bankers — not with titles and tiaras but with munificent “bonuses” even as their above-ground organizations wallow in public funds to avoid bankruptcy.

Public outrage about those bonuses is often reported in the mass media, but strangely, there has never been an investigation into the rationale for them. The halfhearted excuse that the bonuses are necessary to ensure the integrity of those who deal with billion dollar flows is not valid; there are thickets of safeguard procedures and special oversight and audit arrangements to impose honesty.

As we move into a period of individual connectivity rich with democratic promise it is critically important for people everywhere to recognize that corruption at the national level is sustained by a global system run by a violent and unprincipled elite. Unless we dismantle that system the world will continue to be in a state of perennial violent disorder.

*Bhaskar Menon worked for the United Nations in numerous capacities, including Editor in Chief of its flagship “Monthly Chronicle,” and later editor of “UNDIPLOMATIC TIMES.”

If civil society activists create their own action plan to save the planet, there would be no need for governments to negotiate common standards for nations and communities widely unequal in wealth and technical capacity.

- Fabricio Vanden Broeck

That is because government delegates at the conference will not address the matter of reorienting the world economy, a task the United Nations has acknowledged is essential to deal with the growing crisis of environment sustainability.

The secretary-general's report submitted earlier this year to the committee preparing for the conference noted that to succeed in "fundamentally shifting consumption and production patterns onto a more sustainable path," public policy would have to extend "well beyond 'getting prices right.'"

However, it did not say what specific policy measures would be necessary. Indeed, nowhere in the massive body of documentation the United Nations has produced since it convened the first Environment Conference in 1972 can we find a single analysis of that issue.

Agenda 21, the voluminous action plan adopted at the 1992 "Earth Summit" in Rio, did not deal with the matter, and the Commission on Sustainable Development that has overseen its implementation for most of two decades has not considered it. The U.N.'s World Economic Survey earlier this year estimated the cost of "greening" the world economy at 72 trillion dollars without spelling out a specific process.

These lacunae reflect an inescapable contemporary political reality, the power of the giant corporations that run the world economy. They have established existing global patterns of production and consumption with the singular aim of maximizing their own profits, and strongly oppose accommodations to constrain negative social and environmental effects.

For 17 years, from the 1970s into the 1980s, the United Nations tried without success to negotiate a Code of Conduct for transnational corporations. In the subsequent decade, the U.N. tried a softer approach, inviting corporations to join a Global Compact for voluntary compliance with a set of environmental and human rights standards.

Fewer than 5,000 of the 60,000 corporations with annual revenues over one billion dollars have joined the Global Compact; even that minuscule figure inflates their participation, for it includes small and medium enterprises, many from developing countries.

During this continuing standoff, environmental problems have assumed crisis proportions. Pollution and habitat loss are now driving species to extinction at a rate not seen since the dinosaurs disappeared. Over the last decade, extreme weather patterns that scientists associate with global warming have caused unprecedented natural disasters in countries around the world.

Unless the warming is stopped, scientists project significant shifts in patterns of precipitation and aridity, with major implications for agricultural productivity. If nothing is done about global warming, we could be facing an era of turf wars that could destroy any semblance of international law and order.

Despite these frightening prospects, few governments are willing to take on corporate interests: with world population set to reach 10 billion by 2050, official policy makers have no stomach for confrontations that could upset the applecart of current benefits from corporate globalization. Poverty reduction and job creation are their immediate and most urgent priorities.

In this scenario, civil society activists are uniquely capable of fashioning a safe exit strategy. They know the nature and scope of environmental problems, and the Internet and the Worldwide Web have given them unprecedented capacity to network globally.

If they combine that with a local capacity for effective action – the easiest way would be by allying with entrepreneurs running small and medium enterprises – they could create a powerful and flexible mechanism capable of mapping, monitoring and addressing environmental issues while promoting eco-friendly economic activity at local and regional levels.

Overall, that would gradually move the world economy from global exchanges massively wasteful of energy and other resources to much more efficient regional and sub-regional patterns of activity. Such change would be minimally disruptive of wealth and jobs creation; indeed, as small and medium enterprises are far more labour-intensive than the behemoths that now control the world economy, we could see an uptick in employment, consumer demand and socially equitable growth.

Also on the plus side, there would be no need for governments to negotiate common standards for nations and communities widely unequal in wealth and technical capacity. With decision-making and action entirely in the hands of national and sub-national authorities, the global network would become a strong mechanism of international solidarity, extending technical and financial support, coordinating action where necessary, and disseminating best practices.

To initiate this process, activists should go to the Rio+20 Conference prepared to agree on a Manifesto and Action Plan outlined in the following draft.

Rio+20 Activist Manifesto

Activists gathered at the Rio+20 Conference in June 2012 are convinced of the need for urgent action to reorient the world economy towards more sustainable patterns of production and consumption. We aim to do so while enhancing the global creation of wealth and decent employment in an inclusive frame of freedom, full enjoyment of fundamental human rights, and support for weak and vulnerable sections of the world's people.

To those ends, we intend to create a global network supporting and drawing support from a new form of community level organization formed by the alliance of environmental and social activists and business entrepreneurs. We call upon the world's governments and peoples to support this initiative and contribute to its processes.

Action Plan

Within the framework of the aims and values expressed in the Manifesto activists at the Rio+20 Conference agree to do the following:

1. Network: Activists will create a global electronic network arranged in an easily accessible hierarchy (local, national, regional, global), to facilitate sharing of information, interactive discussion, and concerted action.

2. Organize: Activists will work with entrepreneurs running small and medium businesses to establish community-level organizations for cooperative action. These organizations will be the basic units of the global network and will have two primary aims, environmental protection and accelerate economic growth at the local, sub-regional and regional levels.

3. Survey and Monitor: The network will share the best available expertise in national and international agencies, with the U.N. Environment Programme playing a coordinating role. Activists will begin a global environmental survey based on community-level feedback, creating a permanent monitoring system to provide real time status reports for consideration by government policy-makers at the national, regional and global levels

4. Analyze: On the basis of the information collected, a panel of governmental experts working with the network will create a technical plan of action setting out the remedial and preventive measures to address all global environmental issues. Implementation of the plan will be by community-level action wherever possible, with governments and international agencies providing financial and technical capacity.

5. Educate and Mobilize: The community level organizations and their networks will engage in educating and mobilizing popular support for environmental action.

These steps should create a global apparatus capable of monitoring damage to the natural environment from human activity and taking remedial action. That process should reorient the full range of economic activities to eco-friendly patterns and create the general public awareness and support for continuing action.

Unless civil society activists launch their own programme of action at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro next summer (Jun. 4-6), the event will be little more than an expensive talkfest.

That is because government delegates at the conference will not address the matter of reorienting the world economy, a task the United Nations has acknowledged is essential to deal with the growing crisis of environment sustainability.

The secretary-general’s report submitted earlier this year to the committee preparing for the conference noted that to succeed in “fundamentally shifting consumption and production patterns onto a more sustainable path”, public policy would have to extend “well beyond ‘getting prices right'”.

However, it did not say what specific policy measures would be necessary. Indeed, nowhere in the massive body of documentation the United Nations has produced since it convened the first Environment Conference in 1972 can we find a single analysis of that issue.

Agenda 21, the voluminous action plan adopted at the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio, did not deal with the matter, and the Commission on Sustainable Development that has overseen its implementation for most of two decades has not considered it. The U.N.’s World Economic Survey earlier this year estimated the cost of “greening” the world economy at 72 trillion dollars without spelling out a specific process.

These lacunae reflect an inescapable contemporary political reality, the power of the giant corporations that run the world economy. They have established existing global patterns of production and consumption with the singular aim of maximising their own profits, and strongly oppose accommodations to constrain negative social and environmental effects.

For 17 years, from the 1970s into the 1980s, the United Nations tried without success to negotiate a Code of Conduct for transnational corporations. In the subsequent decade, the U.N. tried a softer approach, inviting corporations to join a Global Compact for voluntary compliance with a set of environmental and human rights standards.

Fewer than 5,000 of the 60,000 corporations with annual revenues over one billion dollars have joined the Global Compact; even that minuscule figure inflates their participation, for it includes small and medium enterprises, many from developing countries.

During this continuing standoff, environmental problems have assumed crisis proportions. Pollution and habitat loss are now driving species to extinction at a rate not seen since the dinosaurs disappeared. Over the last decade, extreme weather patterns that scientists associate with global warming have caused unprecedented natural disasters in countries around the world.

Unless the warming is stopped, scientists project significant shifts in patterns of precipitation and aridity, with major implications for agricultural productivity. If nothing is done about global warming, we could be facing an era of turf wars that could destroy any semblance of international law and order.

Despite these frightening prospects, few governments are willing to take on corporate interests: with world population set to reach 10 billion by 2050, official policy makers have no stomach for confrontations that could upset the applecart of current benefits from corporate globalisation. Poverty reduction and job creation are their immediate and most urgent priorities.

In this scenario, civil society activists are uniquely capable of fashioning a safe exit strategy. They know the nature and scope of environmental problems, and the Internet and the Worldwide Web have given them unprecedented capacity to network globally.

If they combine that with a local capacity for effective action – the easiest way would be by allying with entrepreneurs running small and medium enterprises – they could create a powerful and flexible mechanism capable of mapping, monitoring and addressing environmental issues while promoting eco-friendly economic activity at local and regional levels.

Overall, that would gradually move the world economy from global exchanges massively wasteful of energy and other resources to much more efficient regional and sub-regional patterns of activity. Such change would be minimally disruptive of wealth and jobs creation; indeed, as small and medium enterprises are far more labour-intensive than the behemoths that now control the world economy, we could see an uptick in employment, consumer demand and socially equitable growth.

Also on the plus side, there would be no need for governments to negotiate common standards for nations and communities widely unequal in wealth and technical capacity. With decision-making and action entirely in the hands of national and sub-national authorities, the global network would become a strong mechanism of international solidarity, extending technical and financial support, coordinating action where necessary, and disseminating best practices.

To initiate this process, activists should go to the Rio+20 Conference prepared to agree on a Manifesto and Action Plan outlined in the following draft.

Rio+20 Activist Manifesto

Activists gathered at the Rio+20 Conference in June 2012 are convinced of the need for urgent action to reorient the world economy towards more sustainable patterns of production and consumption. We aim to do so while enhancing the global creation of wealth and decent employment in an inclusive frame of freedom, full enjoyment of fundamental human rights, and support for weak and vulnerable sections of the world’s people.

To those ends, we intend to create a global network supporting and drawing support from a new form of community level organisation formed by the alliance of environmental and social activists and business entrepreneurs. We call upon the world’s governments and peoples to support this initiative and contribute to its processes.

Action Plan

Within the framework of the aims and values expressed in the Manifesto activists at the Rio+20 Conference agree to do the following:

1. Network: Activists will create a global electronic network arranged in an easily accessible hierarchy (local, national, regional, global), to facilitate sharing of information, interactive discussion, and concerted action.

2. Organise: Activists will work with entrepreneurs running small and medium businesses to establish community-level organisations for cooperative action. These organisations will be the basic units of the global network and will have two primary aims, environmental protection and accelerate economic growth at the local, sub-regional and regional levels.

3. Survey and Monitor: The network will share the best available expertise in national and international agencies, with the U.N. Environment Programme playing a coordinating role. Activists will begin a global environmental survey based on community-level feedback, creating a permanent monitoring system to provide real time status reports for consideration by government policy-makers at the national, regional and global levels

4. Analyse: On the basis of the information collected, a panel of governmental experts working with the network will create a technical plan of action setting out the remedial and preventive measures to address all global environmental issues. Implementation of the plan will be by community-level action wherever possible, with governments and international agencies providing financial and technical capacity.

5. Educate and Mobilise: The community level organisations and their networks will engage in educating and mobilising popular support for environmental action.

These steps should create a global apparatus capable of monitoring damage to the natural environment from human activity and taking remedial action. That process should reorient the full range of economic activities to eco-friendly patterns and create the general public awareness and support for continuing action.

*Bhaskar Menon has four decades of experience in covering the United Nations and edits www.Undiplomatictimes.com.