China Rejects The US-Saudi-Israeli Plan For The Middle East (Cina menolak Rancangan Bagi Timur Tengah ke depan dari aliansi Amerika-Saudi-Israel)
(Blogger: artikel berikut dari
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article42131.html yang memberi gambaran apa sebenarnya yang tengah terjadi dari kaum muslimin, khsususnya di wilayah yang merupakan pusat-pusat dari kaum muslimin di timur tengah,..intinya adalah "meraup pundi-pundi duniawi" dengan "mengkhianati Allah dan Rasulnya", perhatikan "dua sumbu syetan" yang tengah mencengkeram kaum muslimin di muka bumi ini, dan perhatikan juga China sebagai sebuah negara adidaya baru lebih memilih sumbu syetan kedua dari varian Islam yang menyimpang juga, yaitu dari kaum Syiah Rafidhah, pelopor lama dari pengusung Ideologi Takfir, yaitu Iran dengan sohibnya Rusia dan konco2nya, suatu pojok lain dari perpanjangan protokoler Zion)
/
Middle East
Sep 04, 2013 - 12:56 PM GMT
THE YINON PLAN LIVES ON
Named after Israel's minister of foreign affairs at the time of the
1982 invasion of Lebanon and occupation of Beirut, with about 25 000
dead, this divide-and-rule geostrategy plan for the MENA (Middle East
and North Africa) lives on.
Already victims of this strategy since 2011 – operated by Israel,
the US and Saudi Arabia – we have the divided and weakened states of
Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria. Egypt and even Tunisia can also possibly
be added to the list. Others can be identified as likely short-term
target victim countries.
(Terjemahan Bloger: Rancangan Yinon terus berlangsung. Rancangan yang dinamai menurut nama menteri luar negeri Israel ini di usulkan pada 1982 ketika berlangsung invasi Libanon serta pendudukan Beirut, di mana telah menewaskan sekitar 25000 jiwa, politik geostrategi memecah belah ini, "pecah belah lalu bagi-bagi" bagi wilayah MENA (wilayah timur tengah dan afrika utara) terus berlanjut bahkan hingga hari ini.
Hasil dari operasi yang telah berlangsung semenjak tahun 2011--yang dioperasikan oleh Amerika Serikat dan Saudi Arabia serta Israel---telah memecah belah dan melemahkan negara-negara seperti Irak, Libya, Yaman, dan Syria. Mesir dan bahkan Tunisia juga mungkin dimasukkan di dalam daftar. Negara-negara lain dianggap sebagai negara target korban selanjutnya yang berjangka pendek saja.)
In February 1982 the foreign minister Oded Yinon wrote and published
‘A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties‘, which outlined
strategies for Israel to become the major regional power in the Middle
East. High up the list of his recommendations was to decapitate and
dissolve surrounding Arab states into sub-nations, warring between
themselves. Called the peace-in-the-feud or simply divide and rule,
this was part of Yinon's strategy for achieving the long-term Zionist
goal of extending the borders of Israel, not saying where but
potentially a vast region. His strategy was warmly and publicly
supported by leading US policy makers with close ties to Israel, like
Richard Perle, by the 1990s.
(Blogger: Pada Februari 1982 menteri luar negeri Israel Oded Yinon menulis dan menerbitkan "sebuah strategi bagi Israel untuk tahun 1980an," pada mana ia merumuskan strategi agar Israel menjadi kekuatan regional utama di timur tengah. Inti dari pada rekomendasi ini adalah untuk mencabik-cabik dan melelehkan negara-negara arab sekitarnya menjadi sub-negara (negara kecil) yang saling bertempur satu sama lain. Strategi ini dikenal sebagai peace-in-the-feud atau simpelnya adu domba lalu kuasai. Ini merupakan bagian dari strategi Yinon untuk mencapai tujuan jangka panjang Zionis memperluas wilayah Israel Raya, memang tidak disebutkan namun berpotensi meliputi wilayah sangat luas. Strateginya disambut secara terbuka serta hangat oleh pemimpin2 Amerika Serikat yang membuat kebijakan yang sangat dekat dengan Israel, seperti Richard Perle, di tahun 1990an.)
This regional balkanization plan is centred on the exploitation of
ethnic, religious, tribal and national divisions within the Arab world.
Yinon noted the regional landscape of the MENA was “carved up” mainly
by the US, Britain and France after the defeat and collapse of the
Ottoman empire in 1917. The hastily traced and arbitrary borders are not
faithful to ethnic, religious, and tribal differences between the
different peoples in the region – a problem exactly reproduced in
Africa, when decolonization started in the 1950s and 1960s. Yinon went
on to argue this makes the Arab world a house of cards ready to be
pushed over and broken apart into tiny warring states or “chefferies”
based on sectarian, ethnic, national, tribal or other divisions.
(Terjemahan Bloger: Balkanisasi (upaya menjadikan suatu daerah bergolak seperti daerah Balkan) berpijak pada usaha untuk mengeksploitasi keragamaan suku, mazhab agama, serta kebangsaan di dunia Arab. Yinon juga mencatat bentang regional dari daerah timur tengah dan afrika utara telah sukses "dibagi-bagi sebagai ghanimah" oleh kekuatan Amerika Serikat, Inggris, dan Perancis pasca kekalahan dan keruntuhan kekhalifahan Turki Usmaniah pada 1917. Penelusuran yang tergesa-gesa dalam penentuan batasan wilayah tak menentu yang tidak mengacuhkan perbedaan suku, agama, dan kabilah antara berbagai kelompok orang yang berbeda di suatu wilayah --suatu problem yang muncul dengan nyata di afrika, terjadi ketika dekolonisasi berlangsung di tahun 1950an dan tahun 1960an. Yinon selanjutnya berpendapat bahwa potensialitas ini membuat dunia arab bagaikan sebuah rumah yang tersusun dari kartu-kartu yang siap kapan saja di dorong sedikit lalu tercerai berai menjadi negara-negara yang saling bertempur satu sama lain atau "pemimpin lokal" yang berdasar kepada mazhab, etnik, kebangsaan, kabilah, atau berbagai bentuk pemisahan lainnya)
Central governments would be decapitated and disappear. Power would
be held by the warlord chiefs in the new sub-nations or ‘mini-states’.
To be sure, this would certainly remove any real opposition to Israel's
coming regional dominance. Yinon said little or nothing about economic
“collateral damage”.
(Terjemahan Bloger: Pemerintahan yang memusat akan dicabik-cabik dari dunia arab serta dimusnahkan. Kekuasaan akan dipegang oleh semacam "pemimpin perang" di pecahan subnegara atau "negara mini" tersebut. Tentunya, hal ini memastikan hilangnya oposisi nyata apapun terhadap dominasi yang akan muncul dari Israel terhadap wilayah ini. Namun Yinon sedikit sekali atau tidak menyinggung soal "efek sampingnya" bagi ekonomi wilayah ini. )
To be sure, US and Saudi strategy in the MENA region is claimed to
be entirely different, or in the Saudi case similar concerning the
means – decapitating central governments – but different concerning the
Saudi goal of creating a huge new Caliphate similar to the Ottoman
empire. Under the Ottomans nations did not exist, nor their national
frontiers, and local governments were weak or very weak.
(Bloger translate: Jelasnya, strategi Amerika Serikat dan Saudi di timur tengah dan afrika utara dikatakan sama sekali berbeda, atau dalam kasus strategi Saudi kesamaanya dengan strategi amerika hanyalah dalam usaha -memecah belah kekuasaan yang memusat--namun perbedaan terkait dengan strategi Saudi sendiri yang bertujuan hendak membangun sebuah kekhalifahan baru yang serupa dengan Kekhalifahan Turki Usmaniyyah. Di mana di bawah kekhalifahan Turki di masa itu, sekat-sekat kebangsaan, batas wilayah tidaklah wujud serta penguasa lokal mempunyai kekuasaan yang terbatas.)
ISLAMIC INSURGENCY IS WELL KNOWN IN CHINA
China knows plenty about Islamic insurgency and its potential to
destroy the nation state. Even in the 1980s and 1990s, some 25 years
ago, China had an “Islamic insurgency” threat concentrated in its
eastern resource-rich and low population Xinjiang region. Before that,
since the early days of the Peoples' Republic in the 1950s, China has
addressed Islamic insurgency with mostly failed policies and strategies
but more recently a double strategy of domestic or local repression,
but aid and support to Islamic powers thought able to work against
djihadi insurgents – outside China – has produced results.
(Cina sangat faham tentang watak pembrontak Islam serta potensialitasnya dalam menghancurkan negara bangsa. Bahkan di tahun 1980an dan tahun 1990an, kira-kira 25 tahun yang lalu, China mempunyai sebuah ancaman " Islami revolusioner" yang terkonsentrasi di bagian timur yang sumber dayanya kaya namun populasinya sedikit yaitu wilayah Xinjiang. Sebelum itu, semenjak zaman awal RRC tahun 1950an, China telah berkutat dengan Islamik insurgensi dengan kebijakan dan strategi yang sebgian besar gagal namun baru-baru ini suatu strategi ganda dari represi domestik atau lokal, namun didukung kekuatan Islam di luar China mampu menunjukkan hasil dalam menentang pembrontak muslim dalam menekan radikalisme )
The Chinese strategy runs completely against the drift of Western policy and favours Iran.
A report in 'Asia Times', 27 February 2007, said this: “Despite
al-Qaeda's efforts to support Muslim insurgents in China, Beijing has
succeeded in limiting (its) popular support..... The latest evidence
came when China raided a terrorist facility in the country's Xinjiang
region, near the borders with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and
Kirgizstan. According to reports, 18 terrorists were killed and 17 were
captured”.
(Strategi China sepenuhnya bertentangan dengan arus kebijakan barat dan mendukung Iran. Sebuah laporan di "Asia Times," 27 Februari 2007 menyatakan: "Meskipun al-Qaeda menyokong pembrontakan kaum muslimin di China, Beijing telah berhasil membatasi para penyokong populernya,....fakta terbaru adalah ketika China menyerbu sebuah fasilitas teroris di wilayah Xinjiang, dekat perbatasan Pakistan, Afganistan, Tajikistan dan Kirgistan. Menurut laporan tersebut, 18 orang teroris tewas dan 17 orang ditangkap)
Chinese reporting, even official white papers on defence against
terror are notoriously imprecise or simply fabricated. The official
line is there is no remaining Islamic insurgency and – if there are
isolated incidents - China's ability to kill or capture militants
without social blowback demonstrates the State's "hearts and minds"
policy in Xinjiang, the hearth area for Chinese Muslims, is working.
Chinese official attitudes to Islamic insurgency are mired with
veils of propaganda stretching back to the liberation war against
anti-communist forces. These featured the Kuomintang which had a large
Muslim contingent in its Kuomintang National Revolutionary Army. The
Muslim contingent operated against Mao Zedong's central government
forces – and fought the USSR. Its military insurgency against the
central government was focused on the provinces of Gansu, Qinghai,
Ningxia and Xinjiang and continued for as long as 9 years after Mao
took power in Beijing, in 1949.
Adding complexity however, the Muslim armed forces had been
especially active against the Soviet Union in the north and west – and
by 1959 the Sino-Soviet split was sealed. Armed hostilities by Mao's
PLA against the Red Army of the USSR broke out in several border
regions, with PLA forces aided by former Muslim insurgents in some
theatres. Outside China, and especially for Arab opinion, Mao was
confirmed as a revolutionary nationalist similar to non-aligned Arab
leaders of the period, like Colonel Husni al-Zaim of Syria and Colonel
Nasser of Egypt.
CHINA'S THREAT TO WESTERN STRATEGY IN THE MENA
Especially today, some Western observers feign “surprise” at China's
total hostility towards UN Security Council approval for “surgical war”
strikes against Syria. The reasons for this overlap with Russia's
adamant refusal to go along with US, Saudi Arabian, Turkish and French
demands for a UNSC rubber stamp to trigger “regime change” in Syria but
are not the same. For China the concept of “regime change” with no
clear idea - officially - of what comes next is anathema.
As we know, when or if al Assad falls, only chaos can ensue as the
country breaks apart, but this nightmare scenario for China is brushed
aside by Western politicians as a subject for “later decision”.
China's successful efforts to keep the global jihad from spreading
into its territory is surely and certainly taken as a real challenge by
Saudi-backed insurgents in western China. Various reports indicate the
al-Qaeda organization trains about 1 000 mostly Xinjiang-origin
Uighurs and other Chinese Muslims every year. Located in camps in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kirgizstan and elsewhere, this terror training
has continued since at least the mid-1990s, for a total of more than 15
years.
The focus on Xinjiang, formerly called Turkestan is no accident. The
region's Russian influence is still strong, reinforced by Muslim
migration from Russia in the 19th century, accelerated by the Russian
Civil War and 1917 revolution. During China's warlord era preceding
Mao's rule, the USSR armed and supported the Muslim separatist East
Turkestan Republic which only accepted Mao's rule when the PRC under
the Chinese communists was fully established in 1949. The longstanding
East Turkestan jihadi movement (ETIM) is highly active today after
being relaunched in the early 2000's, especially since the Iraq war of
2003. It however mainly acts in “external theatres” such as Pakistan's
Baluchistan province. The Baluchi of Pakistan have long-term rebellious
relations with the central government in Islamabad, and are allied
with Kurd nationalists in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Turkey.
The US Council on Foreign Relations in a 29 May 2012 briefing on
Xinjiang noted that since the Chinese Qing dynasty collapse of 1912,
the region has experienced various types of semi-autonomy and on
several occasions declared full independence from China. The Council for
example notes that in 1944, factions within Xinjiang declared
independence with full support from the USSR, but then cites US State
Dept. documents claiming that Uighur-related terrorism has “declined
considerably” since the end of the 1990s and China “overreacts to and
exaggerates” Islamic insurgency in Xinjiang.
Notably, the US has declassified the ETIM Islamic movement – despite
its terror attacks – as a terrorist organization. The ETIM was defined
as such during the Bush administration years, but is no longer listed
as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) in the State Dept. FTO list
as from January 2012.
China has fully recognized the Islamic insurgency threat, with its
potential for drawing in hostile foreign powers seeking to destroy
national unity and break the national government. Its concern, shared
by Indian strategists and policy makers is to “stop the rot” in the
MENA.
THE CHINESE STRATEGY
Unofficially, China regards the US and Saudi strategy in the MENA and
Central Asia as “devil's work” sowing the seeds of long-term
insurgency, the collapse of the nation state and with it the economy.
The US link with and support to Israel is in no way ignored, notably
Israel's Yinon plan for weakening central governments and dissolving the
nation state right across the MENA.
China's main concern is that Central Asian states will be affected,
or infected by radical Islamic djihadi fighters and insurgents drifting
in from the West, from the Middle East and North Africa. These will
back the existing Islamic insurgent and separatist movement in
resource-rich Xinjiang. To keep Central Asian states from fomenting
trouble in Xinjiang, China has cultivated close diplomatic ties with
its neighbors, notably through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
which has a secretariat concerned with counter-insurgency issues.
US analysts however conclude, very hastily, that China
“instinctively supports the status quo” and therefore does not have an
active international strategy to combat djihadi violence and anarchy
outside China. US analysts say, without any logic, that China will
respond to and obediently follow initiatives from Washington and other
Western powers – as it has starkly not done in the UN Security Council
when it concerns the Western powers' long drawn out attempt to repeat,
for Syria, their success in 2011 for getting UNSC approval to the NATO
war in Libya!
China was enraged, and regarded it as betrayal when its support for
limited action by NATO in Libya - a rare instance of China compromising
on nonintervention - turned into an all-out “turkey shoot” to destroy
the Gaddafi clan. Libya was handed over to djihadi militants, who
subsequently declared war against central government, an accelerating
process resulting in Libya, today, having no central government with any
real authority. That experience certainly hardened Beijing's responses
on Syria.
Post-Mao China has restored the concept of Chinese cultural
continuity, with a blend of Confucian, Taoist and Buddhist strands
which had been been weakened but not completely destroyed in the years
of ideologically-driven Communism. For the Communists of Mao's era
“history was bunk”, not even a mixed bag but an unqualified evil that
must be smashed. The Chinese attitude to radical Islam as embodied in
the ideologies of Wahabism and Salafism is the same – they are treated
as a denial of world history and its varied cultures, with immediate
and real dangers for China. Its counter-insurgency strategy against
Islamic radicals is the logical result.
This strategy ensures closer Tehran-Beijing relations, usually
described by Western analysts as a “balancing act” between ties to
Washington and growing relations with Iran. China and Iran have
developed a broad and deep partnership centered on China's oil needs, to
be sure, but also including significant non-energy economic ties, arms
sales, defense cooperation, and Asian and MENA geostrategic balancing
as a counterweight to the policies and strategies of the United States
and its local allies, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Chinese attention now
focuses the Washington-Riyadh axis and its confused and dangerous MENA
region geostrategy, resulting in a de facto proliferation of Islamic
djihadi insurgents and the attack on the basic concept of the nation
state across the region. The Chinese view is that Iran's version of
“Peoples' Islam” is less violent and anarchic, than the Saudi version.
OPPOSING THE WASHINGTON-RIYADH AXIS
Both Chinese and Indian strategists' perceptions of the US-Saudi
strategy in the MENA, and other Muslim-majority regions and countries
is that it is dangerous and irresponsible. Why the Western democracies
led by the US would support or even tolerate the Saudi geostrategy and
ignore Israel's Yinon Plan – as presently shown in Syria – is treated
by them as almost incomprehensible.
China is Tehran's largest trading partner and customer for oil
exports, taking about 20% of Iran's total oil exports, but China's
co-operation is seen as critical to the Western, Israeli and Arab Gulf
State plan to force Iran to stop uranium enrichment and disable the
capacity of its nuclear program to produce nuclear weapons. Repeated
high-level attempts to “persuade Beijing” to go along with this plan,
such as then-US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's 2012 visit to
Beijing, however result each time in Chinese hosts politely but firmly
saying no. This is not only motivated by oil supply issues.
Flashpoints revealing the Chinese-US divide on Iran crop up in world
news, for example the US unilateral decision in January 2012 to impose
sanction on Chinese refiner Zhuhai Zenrong for refining Iranian oil
and supplying refined products back to Iran. This US action was
described by China's Foreign Ministry spokesman as “totally
unreasonable”. He went on to say that “China (has) expressed its strong
dissatisfaction and adamant opposition”.
At the same time, China's Xinhua Agency gave prominence to the
statement made by Iran's OPEC delegate Mohamed Ali Khatibi: “If the oil
producing nations of the (Arab) Gulf decide to substitute Iran's oil,
then they will be held responsible for what happens”. Chinese analysts
explained that China like India was irritated that Iranian oil
sanctions opened the way for further de facto dominance of Saudi Arabia
in world export supplies of oil, as well as higher prices.
Iran is however only the third-largest supplier of oil to China,
after Angola and Saudi Arabia, with Russia its fourth-largest supplier,
using EIA data. This makes it necessary for China to run sustainable
relations with the Wahabite Kingdom, which are made sustainable by
actions like China's Sinopec in 2012 part-funding the $8.5 billion 400
000 barrels-per-day refinery under construction in the Saudi Red Sea
port city of Yanbu.
The Saudi news and propaganda outlet Al Arabiya repeatedly
criticises China and India for their purchase of Iranian oil and
refusal to fully apply US-inspired sanctions. A typical broadside of
February 2013 was titled “Why is China still dealing with Iran?”, and
notably cited US analysts operating in Saudi-funded or aided policy
institutes, such as Washington's Institute for Near East Policy as
saying: “It’s time we wised up to this dangerous game. From Beijing’s
perspective, Iran serves as an important strategic partner and point of
leverage against the United States”. US analysts favourable to the
Saudi strategy in the MENA - described with approval by President
Eisenhower in the 1950s as able to establish a Hollywood style Saudi
royal “Islamic Pope” for Muslim lands from Spain to Indonesia – say that
Iran is also seen by China as a geopolitical partner able to help
China countering US-Saudi and Israeli strategic action in the Middle
East.
A 2012 study by US think tank RAND put it bluntly: “Isolated Iran
locked in conflict with the United States provides China with a unique
opportunity to expand its influence in the Middle East and could pull
down the US military in the Gulf.” The RAND study noted that in the
past two decades, Chinese engineers have built housing, bridges, dams,
tunnels, railroads, pipelines, steelworks and power plants throughout
Iran. The Tehran metro system completed between 2000 and 2006 was a
major Chinese engineering project.
THE BIG PICTURE
China's Iran policy and strategy can be called “big picture”. Iranian
aid and support to mostly but not exclusively Shia political movements,
and insurgents stretches from SE Asia and South Asia, to West and
Central Asia, Afghanistan, the Caspian region, and SE Europe to the
MENA. It is however focused on the Arabian peninsula and is inevitably
opposed to Saudi geostrategy. This is a known flashpoint and is able
to literally trigger a third world war. Avoiding this is the big
picture – for China.
Li Weijian, the director of the Research Center of Asian and African
Studies at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies puts it
so: “China’s stance on the Iranian nuclear issue is not subject to
Beijing’s demand for Iranian oil imports, but based on judgment of the
whole picture.” China is guided in foreign relations by two basic
principles, both of them reflecting domestic priorities. First, China
wants a stable international environment so it can pursue domestic
economic development without external shocks. Second, China is very
sensitive to international policies that ‘interfere in or hamper
sovereign decisions”, ultimately tracing to its experience in the 19th
and 20th centuries at the hands of Western powers, and the USSR, before
and after the emergence of the PRC. It adamantly opposes foreign
interference in Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjiang.
This includes radical Islamist or djihadi interference, backed by
any foreign power. While China has on occasions suspected Tehran of
stirring Islamic insurgency inside its borders it sees the US-Saudi
geostrategy of employing djihadists to do their dirty work as a
critical danger, and as wanton interference. Indian attitudes although
not yet so firm, are evolving in the same general direction. Both are
nuclear weapons powers with massive land armies and more than able to
defend themselves.
Claims by Western, mostly US analysts that China views Iran as
exhibiting “unpredictable behaviour” in response to US-led sanctions
and that Iran is “challenging China’s relations with its regional
partners” can be dismissed. In particular and concerning oil, China is
well aware that Iran will need many years of oil-sector development to
return to anything like pre-Islamic revolution output of more than 5
million barrels a day. Unless oil sanctions are lifted, Iran's oil
output will go on declining, further increasing the power of the Gulf
States led by Saudi Arabia, and Shia-governed but insurgency threatened
Iraq to dictate export prices.
China dismisses the claim that its policies have hampered US and
other Western political effort to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear
weapons capability.
China's distaste for toppling almost any central government, even
those run by dictatorial strongmen springs from a deep sense of history
– marked by insecurity about the uncertain political legitimacy of
governments arising from civil war and revolution – like the PRC. At
its extreme, this Chinese nightmare extends to fears that if the
US-Saudi geostrategy can topple governments in the Middle East almost
overnight, what will stop them from working to bring down China's
government one day? Unlike almost all MENA countries minus the oil
exporters, China has scored impressive victories in the fight against
poverty. Its economy although slowing creates abundant jobs and
opportunity.
For China, this is the only way to progress.
HARDENING POLICIES AND POSITIONS
The emerging Chinese anti-Islamist strategy also underlines a menacing
reality for the US and other Western powers. China rejects the belief
there is still only one superpower in today's world—the USA. The USA's
weakened economy and uncontrollable national debt, its confused and
cowardly drone war, its slavish support to Israeli and Saudi whims do
not impress China – or India.
To be sure China's classic-conventional weapons development programs
lag far behind the US. The Chinese military strategy for pushing back
US dominance focuses global reach ballistic missiles, tactical nuclear
weapons, drones, submarines, and military space and cyberwarfare
capabilities.
With the PLA it possesses the biggest land army in the world. No US warmonger, at least saner versions would “take on China”.
China has invested heavily in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf
states, as well as Iran. It does not want to see its investment effort
destroyed by deliberately promoted Islamic anarchy. Also, its Middle
Eastern presence will continue due to the fact that while US dependence
on oil imports is declining, China overtook the US as the world's
largest oil importer on a daily basis, this year, several years ahead
of analysts' consensus forecasts.
The likely result is that China is now poised and almost certain to
strengthen relations with Iran. The intensifying Syrian crisis as well
as the dangerously out of control US-Saudi-Israeli djihadi strategy, of
fomenting sectarian conflict and destroying the nation state in the
MENA, will likely prompt China to soon take major initiatives.
By Andrew McKillop
Contact: xtran9@gmail.com
Former chief policy analyst, Division A Policy, DG XVII Energy, European Commission. Andrew McKillop
Biographic Highlights
Co-author 'The Doomsday Machine', Palgrave Macmillan USA, 2012
Andrew McKillop has more than 30 years experience in the energy,
economic and finance domains. Trained at London UK’s University
College, he has had specially long experience of energy policy,
project administration and the development and financing of alternate
energy. This included his role of in-house Expert on Policy and
Programming at the DG XVII-Energy of the European Commission, Director
of Information of the OAPEC technology transfer subsidiary, AREC and
researcher for UN agencies including the ILO.
© 2013 Copyright Andrew McKillop
- All Rights Reserved
Disclaimer: The
above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes
only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis
above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be
reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may
incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisor.
A
A
representative of Israel's Ministry of Propaganda attempts to divert
blame for the bombing of another UN School killing many women and
children as reported on by Channel 4 News on the ground in the Gaza
concentration camp.
