Conflicted - Wall Street

From a bomb maker to double agent to… banker?

In this episode, Aimen draws on his experience as a helping banks combat financial terrosism as our hosts explore the 2008 Financial Crisis and its impact on the world order.

You can listen to the episode wherever you get your podcasts, and you can also find the transcript below.

Read the transcript here:

Conflicted S2E5

THOMAS: Hello and welcome back. You are listening to Conflicted. My name is Thomas Small and with me, of course, is my co-host, Aimen Dean. How are you doing today, Aimen?

AIMEN: I'm still alive.

THOMAS: Still alive. Thank God. But where would we be without you, Aimen?

AIMEN: The land of the living perhaps? [laughs]

THOMAS: Oh, I think I'm there, but I'm not, I can't ever be quite sure. So, in season two of conflicted so far, we have been focusing on how America has been faring over the last few decades in its attempt to establish their New World Order. We've examined all three of their main objectives to achieve this. Essentially, those were: first sorting out the Middle East, bringing neo-liberalism to Russia, and establishing a new relationship with them after the Cold War, and as we learned in the last episode, bringing China in from the cold and integrating it into the global economic system. We learned about China's New Silk Road, which is their initiative to basically take control of continental Eurasian trade, which if successful could create a Chinese new world order to rival America's. In this episode, America is more clearly in our sights. We'll go back to 2008, the last time everyone thought the world was about to end, the financial world at least. Yes, I mean the credit crisis of 2008 and the impact it had on the West's hopes of a global neo-liberal order.

[Theme Plays]

THOMAS: So Aimen, we're talking about banking today. What makes you an expert on banking? I understand that after you left your job as a double agent for the security services working inside Al-Qaeda, you became a banker. [Aimen laughs] How did that happen?

AIMEN: Well, it's basically exchanging one form of terrorism to another.

THOMAS: That old chestnut. You love that joke.

AIMEN: I love that joke, because it's almost true. Actually, most funny jokes are the true jokes. But in reality, when I went into the banking sector, after I left the service of MI6 and MI5, I actually was there fulfilling three functions. So the first function is the global strategic security function. The bank that I went to work for, which was one of the biggest global banks, was attacked before in terms of terrorism and they lost many staff and they lost their entire headquarters, in one of their middle Eastern countries.

THOMAS: I mean, they were, they were actually the victim of a terrorist bombing.

AIMEN: Indeed. So that's the first function I fulfilled. The second function is terrorism finance. So, no I wasn’t--

THOMAS: [Overlapping] You financed terrorism? Wow!

AIMEN: No, no, no. Okay, okay, okay, I rephrase here. I rephrase. It's CTF or counter terrorism finance.

THOMAS: [Overlapping] Oh that’s less interesting. Oh that’s too bad.

AIMEN: Making sure, basically that high-net worth individuals or charities that are operating within the Middle East and beyond are not exactly dabbling in financing terrorists.

THOMAS: And the third thing you were doing?

AIMEN: And the third thing basically is investigating companies, high net worth individuals, and sometime even banks that are operating within the Middle East for signs of either corruption, money laundering, and understanding basically how they are operating to make sure basically that there is no corruption or money laundering going on.

THOMAS: Corruption amongst high net worth individuals in the Middle East. That must've kept you busy. Now, [Aimen laughs] now when you joined the banking system, what were your first impressions of it? How was it different from the worlds you had been inhabiting in Al-Qaeda and in MI6?

AIMEN: I felt basically there is no difference between them and Al-Qaida except they’re wearing suits.

[laughter]

AIMEN: But you know, I felt, of course it's full of nerds, geeks, it's full of also lawyers.

THOMAS: Well you must have felt right at home.

AIMEN: [laughs] Yes, and one of the things is that I felt that basically that my job was quite interesting because, you know, I was moving between these three functions seamlessly. Between the security function into the counter terrorism finance function into the investigative, financial investigative function. And of course, basically I had to learn a lot. You know, I had to be mentored by other people who will teach me about finance, how banking works. How financial services work, how insurance work in order to understand how financial fraud and insurance fraud work. So it was a learning curve—

THOMAS: A steep learning curve, but presumably during your times as a terrorist and as a double agent, you were aware of how terrorist financing happens from that side. I mean, were you ever involved?

AIMEN: I was involved in it, actually. [Laughs]

THOMAS: How did that involvement work?

AIMEN: Well, we used to infiltrate charities that were operating basically in places like Afghanistan or Azerbaijan and Georgia on behalf of the Chechens or in the Philippines or in Kenya on behalf of the Somali terrorists. So basically in order to divert charitable funds and resources and donations…

THOMAS: [Overlapping] These are donations given with goodwill from people. They didn't necessarily know that you were there pocketing the money and spending it on building bombs.

AIMEN: Ah, yeah, of course. It was all done, you know, without the full knowledge of the poor donors who were thinking basically it's going to buy, you know, tents and medicine for flood victims in Afghanistan or in Somalia.

THOMAS: So you knew about terrorist financing from the terrorism side, and it was a steep learning curve to come up to speed with how the banking system works. But tell us more. How did you use the resources of banks to help governments fight terrorist financing globally?

AIMEN: Well, because basically I came with the knowledge of how terrorists move money. And then I came into a bank where they told me basically about, you know, the basics of banking. And then, I combined the two together and I started to come up with ideas of how to spot what we call hotspots of terrorism activity in terms of finance. And so we can shut them down, we can track them down. And this is when you start to see an evolution. Where the banks started to become in some countries different from others, of course, but in some countries, the banks became the eyes and ears of governments to track down the movements of individuals, not only involved in terrorism, but sometime even involved in drugs and involved in child sex trafficking because there are certain hotspots around the world where these people congregate.

THOMAS: Yes, so tell, you say you came up with ideas. What was your big idea? What ultimately, what tool did you create that allowed you to combat terrorist financing from within the bank?

AIMEN: Okay, so banks utilise something called data mining software. They are expensive. I can tell you that they cost millions of pounds or dollars or whatever. So, but the problem is, data mining is like looking into 30 needles in a billion haystacks.

THOMAS: Wow, that sounds like a big job.

AIMEN: Yeah. Therefore you still need human intelligence to direct or zoom in on certain specific spots around the world in order for the data mining software to actually yield the tangible results.

THOMAS: You need to find the right haystack so you can focus on the right needles.

AIMEN: So let's take an example of ISIS. Since ISIS now is almost destroyed, almost, like physically destroyed. In hibernation, I would say.

THOMAS: [overlapping] Yeah for now…

AIMEN: So let's take an example. A certain bank here in the UK with a very expensive data mining software operation. They were thinking logically, rather than thinking as a terrorist. [Thomas laughs] So basically, they decided that, okay, let's look at the cities on the Turkish Syrian border. If any of our debit or credit cards are used there in ATMS or in shops or at hotels or whatever, then we flag it up.

THOMAS: And these aren't major cities actually along the border.

AIMEN: Yeah cities like Urfa, cities like Gaziantep, like Kilis ,like Reyhanli …

THOMAS: Provincial cities, Turkish provincial cities.

AIMEN: So, but they all close to the Turkish-Syrian border. So it started to give them results, but the vast majority were useless results because why? It turns out basically that these cards belong to British citizens or British residents who are of Kurdish origins. And they are going there to visit their families.

THOMAS: So not terrorists.

AIMEN: They're not terrorists at all.

THOMAS: Tourists, really.

AIMEN: Tourists, not tourists only, but actually visitors, expatriates in the UK who are visiting their families for the summer or whatever. So, you know, the results were so disappointing. So, and I walk in, and I say, basically, you are looking at the wrong place. You know, there is, you have to look at Istanbul. So I remember, you know, the banker who I was dealing with, he was saying, come on Aimen. Istanbul at any given day, including residents, tourists, and visitors and day workers there will be 30 million people there. So, you know, it's impossible. I said, no, no, no, no. So I took him up, and I'm not going to mention the name of the place so they don't avoid it anymore.

THOMAS: Fair enough, fair enough, the terrorists don’t avoid it.

AIMEN: So yeah. But I draw a 16-block radius to him on the map of Istanbul. And I said, this is where you will get results.

THOMAS: And you know this, I mean this reminds me of what you were saying in episode one of this season when you were talking about being a private spy today when you would go to cities and you would talk to taxi drivers and other such people to find out where the terrorists in that city are congregating. So this is how you can use this knowledge for practical purposes with the bank. You say they're here. Look here.

AIMEN: Exactly. So when I draw that square over 16 blocks radius. They said, okay, that's, that's manageable. It's not an entire mega city like Istanbul, which is, you know, if you include Istanbul in Europe, it would be the largest city in Europe. So basically, he said, you know, that's fine. So they looked at the 16-block radius. They asked me the question, of course, how do you know? So I said, because I've been there myself. I went there, I infiltrated the place. It is an elevated place; you don't end up there by mistake. Tourists don't go there. You only go there because you want to go there. And because you have business there. It's a place basically where jihadist congregate, where immigrants from Muslim countries and…

THOMAS: [Overlapping] Because there are radical mosques there? Because…

AIMEN: Radical mosques, you know…

THOMAS: Safe houses…

AIMEN: Safe houses, you know, associations that support them. So as soon as they implemented that they started to get tangible results that ended up basically with even sometime families, UK based families, being intercepted by the Turks before they reach ISIS and then deported back to the UK.

THOMAS: To face justice here.

AIMEN: Well, not necessarily because they haven't committed a crime yet. But the idea is to bring them back, confiscate their passports, make sure they don't travel to join ISIS. So in other words, basically it really saves lives. Because these families could have been killed by the coalition bombs there when ISIS were bombed.

THOMAS: Not to mention the people they might've killed themselves.

AIMEN: Yes, exactly. So there is…so when you talk about bank saving lives… [laughs]

THOMAS: People usually don't talk about that Aimen.

[laughter]

Aimen: Indeed, but this is basically part of their CSR, their Corporate Social Responsibility. That they make sure that none of their customers is dabbling in terrorism. And this applies also to areas of concentration where drug dealings takes place. So they take the profile of the individual, let's say, basically, they wouldn't necessarily take an individual who have a Turkish surname and say, Oh, he's there, let's investigate. But if there is someone basically with an English surname, a French surname, a Pakistani surname, an Algerian surname, but end up in that area in Turkey, then…

THOMAS: It's a red flag.

AIMEN: It’s a red flag. So profiling works. It saved lives.

THOMAS: So that's Istanbul. What other cities were you able to sort of target…?

AIMEN: [Overlapping] Well Karachi, Manila, you know, in Nairobi in Kenya. So basically there are many places around the world, even places that you would think it is kind of benign, but nonetheless, there is a concentration of certain individuals there or certain activities there. Even in Bangkok for example. I mean, there are places that are famous like you know for people who unfortunately go and have, you know, inappropriate sexual relationship with young girls. So, you know…

THOMAS: To put it lightly.

AIMEN: Yeah, to put it lightly. So this is where, you know, you can really you know…

THOMAS: Infiltrate and well, what's the word you can really…

AIMEN: Detect.

THOMAS: Yeah, detect.

AIMEN: This is how you can detect terrorism intention. So, and therefore, basically you can alert the authorities.

THOMAS: So there you are now working for a bank, in fact, it was quite soon after you started in the banking system. And in 2008, the famous credit crunch, the credit crisis, the global economic crisis begins to play out really starting in April 2008 and then really hitting the fan in September of 2008. What was the environment like inside the banks as the bankers realized, Holy smokes something really bad is happening?

AIMEN: Nervousness. Oh my God, I never seen many of my colleagues nervous. And you know where I was working, it was in Canary Wharf which is the financial hub of London where the banking industry have their skyscrapers there. And I remember there is a place called the Reuters Plaza where Thomson Reuters headquarters is there and in front of the underground station, which is the equivalent of the subway in America. So I saw many people from Lehman brothers, which is just on the Plaza itself from their building coming hundreds of them with their boxes. That's it, because it collapsed, and that's it. They ceased working and their faces told me everything that I need to know.

THOMAS: Yes, Lehman Brothers, which was allowed to go bankrupt in September 2008 and Lehman Brothers, which was an enormous global investment bank, was allowed by the federal reserve bank in the United States and the treasury department of the United States to collapse. They didn't bail it out. This is usually identified as the thing that…

AIMEN: [Overlapping] Catalyst.

THOMAS: Yeah, the catalyst, the thing that really started the whole house of cards collapsing. So, lots of bankers are losing their jobs. But you didn't lose your job. Why not?

AIMEN: Because my function became more important because many companies started to default on their loans to the banks, especially in places like the Middle East. Immediately after the crisis, two large families from my own hometown owed the global banks more than $22 billion after they collapsed due to the strain of the financial crisis. So it was my job, among others, to investigate whatever assets left of those two families in order to recover as much of the bank's losses as possible.

THOMAS: So for you, the credit crunch was a job opportunity?

AIMEN: Oh, yes. Actually, I got multiple pay rises after that. [Thomas laughs] You know, because of the fact that I started working, you know, seven days a week.

THOMAS: I swear Aimen. I wish I had signed up for jihad at the age of 15 [Aimen laughs] because clearly it means that from then on you're born under a lucky star. So just to sort of provide some historical context here, the credit crisis had many phases. On the 17th of March 2008 in New York, the federal reserve bank bails out a huge bank called Bear Stearns. It bailed out Bear Stearns, which was on the verge of collapse. And this, analysts pretty much agree, increased what was already a very morally hazardous situation because all the other investment banks, which were also facing huge pressures on their, on the system at the time thought, well, we'll be bailed out too and that seems to be proved. When on the 7th of September that year, in 2008, two huge government backed mortgage security broker institutions called Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the government and bailed out. And then a week later on the 15th of September, the Lehman Brothers bank was not bailed out, it was allowed to fail. Even though the following day on the 16th of September, the government did bail out the huge insurance company, AIG. So there was one bail out after another one, one rescue after another, with the exception of Lehman. But the whole world realized, oh my God, something big is happening. We're all gonna go to hell in a handcart. I can't impress upon the younger listeners that at the time, everyone was glued to their TV sets. We thought, this is it. The world is coming to an end. I can remember President George W. Bush is coming out standing in front of the cameras to give this speech about how the government was going to rescue the financial system because unless the government rescue the financial system, the whole world would end. And he was white as a sheet. He just looked like, Oh my God. He actually looked more scared during that press conference then he had a seven years earlier after 9/11.

AIMEN: Indeed, because it looked like as if the entire house of cards was collapsing and there was no one to put this back together again.

THOMAS: So Aimen, why did the credit crunch happen? I mean, we've heard about these things, I remember, and people probably remember hearing about things like credit default swaps and all these acronyms and all this financial verbiage used to be flying around. What, underlies the credit crisis?

AIMEN: It all comes down, after 14 years of being a financial investigator and still to this day, I came to the conclusion that it was the result of abandoning that concept of risk. It's abandoning risk aversion when it comes to lending.

THOMAS: So you mean banks used to lend with the full knowledge that if they lent unwisely, they would lose, they wouldn't get paid back.

AIMEN: Exactly. Banks take risk when lending, because remember, banks don't just lend what they have, banks lend where they don't have. So if you think basically that a bank is, the money that they lend you when you take a mortgage or a credit card or a loan, that this is money that is already existing there in the bank and by other depositors, then you're mistaken. The banks basically lend you between nine to ten times more than what they already have in deposits. So if a bank have $1 million of deposits, they can lend up to $10 million to customers on the knowledge that not every depositor will come and take their money at the same time.

THOMAS: This system is known as fractional reserve banking.

AIMEN: Indeed.

THOMAS: So banks are empowered to lend more than the amount of money they have in the vault.

AIMEN: Yes.

THOMAS: That obviously is an extremely risky thing to do because if you lend 10 times the amount of money you have in the vault and you don't get paid back then all the money's gone. Nobody has any money.

AIMEN: Exactly, but why we have this system? Some listeners would be screaming, why, why? And we have two answers for this. The first is to make sure that more people have access to credit. Otherwise, economic prosperity will be nothing like we have seen today since the 1950s. And the second is to increase the money supply in order for more people basically to have access to actual money in the system. The reality is that 95% of the money that we have in circulation are actually digits in--

THOMAS: [Overlapping] Computers.

AIMEN: In computers in these banks. You know, really only 5% of it is really tangible cash that we can hold. And the reason for this, some people basically saying this sounds like a Ponzi scheme, sounds like, you know, as we all it a house of cards. But this is exactly why we have such a huge amount of prosperity. Because the reality is there is no physical, tangible, currency like gold or silver or platinum that can actually correspond to the amount of wealth that is in the world right now. Whether it's natural resources, land, space, data, technology. We don't have enough--

THOMAS: [Overlapping] Anything of value.

AIMEN: Anything of value to catch up with it. I think the entire global gold and silver and platinum supply doesn't exceed $10 trillion, but the wealth, every year we generate is 250 trillion. So you see there is a 24-fold shortage of anything tangible we can use as money. And so we created a system based on trust that we have money based on confidence that it has a value. We agreed that it has a value. So when people basically say that this is unsustainable, we say, no. It is sustainable because it actually has the global wealth as a cushion to stand on it. So confidence is not a bad idea but it's a little bit fragile.

THOMAS: Yeah, it certainly is fragile as was proved in 2008. So I return to the question, in this case what caused the credit crisis to happen? Why did the house of cards collapse then?

AIMEN: The house of cards collapsed because there were too many houses in the system being bought by people who cannot afford them.

THOMAS: So the banks in America and elsewhere, primarily America, were compelled to give mortgages to people who actually in the past they wouldn't have given mortgages to because they couldn't pay back the mortgage.

AIMEN: Three letters, that’s all it takes to understand what happened, three letters, CRA.

THOMAS: The community Reinvestment Act.

AIMEN: Yes.

THOMAS: Now, this was passed in 1977 it was an act that the American government passed in order to encourage banks, if you like, or force them, to give loans to people who previously had not been able to get loans in order to buy houses. And in America because of the, you know, systemic racial injustice of America there was a sort of racialist tinge to this act because traditionally African Americans and Latino Americans hadn't had access to mortgages to the extent that white Americans had.

AIMEN: Exactly, but you do this gradually. I've learned throughout my life that if you're given adrenaline shot to any economic problem, it’s going to cause another problem in another organ somewhere else. Here's the problem is that if you have done this gradually, over years so basically you start to reduce the risk criteria by let's say 5%, 5% incrementally over time, then this crisis wouldn't have happened. What happened is that basically the risk aversion criteria has been thrown out the window altogether. In order to rectify a clearly social injustice that was always there, which is the fact that African Americans and Latino Americans couldn't have access in large to mortgages in order to buy homes. But when you suddenly remove the barriers without making them gradual, just do it now in the early 2000s, what happened is that many of them now are able to buy homes. So we're talking about millions of families are rushing into the market where there aren't already millions of homes built already to cope up with the demand. So what happened is that it created a bubble where the price of these homes…

THOMAS: Skyrocketed.

AIMEN: Yeah Because--

THOMAS: More demand than there was supplies and the price went up which caused all sorts of malinvestments to occur in the economy. Huge amounts of money was pumped into house building in order to catch up with the demand, the supply expanded, the price is expanding, and then credit is being extended in greater and greater quantities to people who can't pay back the loans. And then of course, this becomes very complicated. These bad loans are then packaged by hedge funds and sold around the world where very unscrupulous hedge fund managers are convincing global banks that, no, no, no, everything's fine. These are great. We have created very sophisticated mathematical algorithms that's going to protect you, [Aimen laughs] even though these are bad loans. They're not really bad loans because look I'm waving my magic wand. They're not bad loans, but they were bad loans, and then [explosion sound] eventually, when the time came, no one could pay them back.

AIMEN: Exactly, because what's happened is, the government, you know, in its haste to rectify certain injustices and win votes and all of that, they actually created a bubble.

THOMAS: But that's interesting because you're, you see, you know, most of the time people say that the bankers caused credit crunch, but you seem to be laying the blame more at the feet of the politicians.

AIMEN: Yes.

THOMAS: For example, there's a very famous act which regulated the banks called the Glass-Steagall Act in America, which was founded during the great depression, which separated off commercial banking, ordinary everyday checking accounts…

AIMEN: [Overlapping] Retail banking

THOMAS: [Overlapping] Retail banking from securities banking.

AIMEN: [Overlapping] Investment banking, it’s called investment banking

THOMAS: Investment banking and Commercial banking were split off from each other until 1999 when the act was repealed, which allowed the previously two kinds of banking to be carried out by the same institution. A lot of people say the repeal of Glass-Steagall is what caused the credit crunch about nine years later.

AIMEN: Not necessarily. I mean, not necessarily. Many of the banks that are actually both retail, commercial and investment banks did not suffer the same fate. Lehman Brothers was actually more of an investment bank and did not have that much of a retail banking--

THOMAS: [Overlapping] That’s true and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were certainly not banks in any traditional sense at all.

AIMEN: Exactly

THOMAS: AIG was an insurance company.

AIMEN: Yeah, so basically this is a bit of a simplistic way of looking at it. And this is why I'm saying that the reason it happened is because the government, without, you know, unintentionally, and as you know the road to hell is paved with good intentions, created a bubble. Because, okay, you have, let's say a hundred people that you want to bring into the housing market in a village. And you wanted to lower the mortgage criteria, the mortgage lending criteria in terms of risk. So you don't remove the barrier to all hundred at the same time. Otherwise, the price will skyrocket. Speculators who are greedy will come and start speculating and driving the prices even more, you know? And as a result, you end up basically with a massive bubble. And bubbles is always synonymous with modern capitalism and even as far back as the Tulip bubble in the Netherlands in the 1600s. So what you do instead of removing the barrier for the hundred people in the village, you remove the barriers first for five. Once they settle into their homes, the next five, once they settle, the next five, and then you stop to see what is the housing stock is like. I mean, are there enough supply basically to cope up with an extra five or 10 demands? That's how you do it.

THOMAS: But this sort of gradual, long-term thinking isn't exactly what our democratically elected politicians are famous for.

AIMEN: Unfortunately.

[Laughter]

THOMAS: Well, we can talk on and on about the, the details of the credit crisis from a financial point of view. But frankly, we'd put everyone to sleep. I'd like to shift now to talk about the response to the credit crisis on the ground. Because very quickly we saw in America, and spreading from America outwards, tremendous populist movements opposed really to finance capitalism as it was being practiced. Most famously, the Occupy movement, it started on Wall Street, the Occupy Wall Street movement, and then it spread to other major cities. I certainly remember here in London when the Occupy movement came here, and they, they ended up camping out in front of St. Paul's Cathedral for weeks and weeks. And it was quite funny because, you know, I remember TV interviews with the Dean and the priest of St. Paul's cathedral, you know, who are very well intentioned, nice Anglican vicars and things, were really wringing their hands. What do they do? Do they forcibly remove these protesters who are, after all animated by an antipathy to greed, which I think Jesus Christ also felt in his heart. So they didn't know what to do. Eventually, the protesters were moved on and some of the priests resigned. You know, it was, it was really an extremely sort of heady time where you had, on the one hand, the big evil forces of the banks versus, you know, plucky protesters on the ground saying, we need a new system. The system is rotten to the core.

AIMEN: I remember one of my friends at the time asked me a question, he said, Aimen, you work in the banks in it. Don't you think these banks are evil? And my answer was, this. They are too incompetent to be evil.

[Thomas laughs]

THOMAS: Well, I mean, I don't know people have told me that Al-Qaeda is incompetent, yet they are pretty evil.

[Aimen laughs]

AIMEN: Well, the problem is with the banks and I met many of their chief executives and the chief operating officers and the chief risk officers and all of these people basically to think that they are evil. It's just basically they are normal human beings like you or me who were lucky enough basically to be in the positions where they are. But you know, do they have greed? Every human have greed. And the idea that somehow the bankers are a class of their own in terms of greed is rather… You know, I've seen more royal oligarchs, and land-owning gentry who are the personification of greed. But bankers on the other hand, well, they see themselves as the conduit for human prosperity and the servants of free market forces. That's how they see themselves.

THOMAS: Hmm. I'm not sure the Occupy protesters saw them that way.

AIMEN: Yeah

THOMAS: I mean, Aimen, let's be serious, now. You've described the system, you're, you know, in general, a very objective observer of this system. But isn't injustice to some extent, at least built into this system? Doesn't it favour some people over other people and caused this growing inequality that we see today?

AIMEN: Of course.

THOMAS: [Overlapping] Are we just supposed to accept that?

AIMEN: Yes. The entire economic system of the world as it is right now will always have inherent injustices built into it. Why? Because life is unjust. Life is unfair. You cannot escape the unfairness of this world in any sector of it, no matter what. And this is the problem. And when people basically say that we want to build a completely fair, equitable, society, and I say, while it is noble, unfortunately, when you try to go against nature, nature, fight back. You know, and this is, you know, the problem basically with the financial world. Okay, I’ll give you an example now. Let’s say that, we are in the UK here, so let's basically take the entire UK population, 65 million people, let's say that we take all the wealth that everyone owns, and let's give everyone £10,000 to start with a new life, leveling everyone at the same level. And let's start. I guarantee you Thomas, that everyone have £10,000 today, within a week, within one week, we will have millionaires emerging. Within a month, we will have multi-millionaires emerging, and within a year we will have billionaires emerging/

THOMAS: Because it's just the natural order of things…?

AIMEN: The natural order that's it.

THOMAS: This is very depressing.

AIMEN: No, it's not depressing. It's the problem that not every human is as responsible with money as others.

THOMAS: Yes and not every human is as immoral as others. I mean, some people will steal that money. Some people will trick other people out of their money.

AIMEN: Exactly, but some people basically will come up entrepreneurial ideas, you know with products, that other people want to buy and they will start accumulating this money because they are making products.

THOMAS: I suppose your point is that before long, the world would just return to more or less what we have today. [Laughs]

AIMEN: Exactly I mean, so what I'm saying to people is that, do not be financially illiterate. You need to understand what wealth is and what money is.

THOMAS: Let's get back to that in a second. I know this is one of your great bug bears. We'll get to that in a second. I want to move away now from the Western world because we've talked about how in the higher echelons of Wall Street panic broke out and the banks were bailed out and government got involved. And down on the ground level in Wall Street, the Occupy movement rose to fight against the evil bankers. Now, as all of this is playing out in the West over the next 18 months, In the Middle East, something occurs which we discussed in season one of Conflicted. The Arab Spring breaks out first in Tunis, it spreads. It spreads to Cairo, it spreads to Damascus, it spreads to Yemen. It spreads everywhere, Bahrain. The Arabs are rising up against their rulers and they're saying, we want justice, we want democracy, we want freedom, or whatever they're saying. Is there a link between these two things? On the one hand, a kind of ground swell of anti-capitalist movement in the West and the Arab Spring in the East?

AIMEN: What people don't understand is that the world is a village. And you know, in one corner you have finance, in the other corner you have industry, in the other corner you have commerce, in the other corner you have agriculture, and in the center you have water. So the water, I mean by that, basically the energy of the world in oil and gas and natural resources, like in the Arab world and the Muslim world, you know. And the finance is America. The industry is Europe and China, and the agricultural is India and Russia and other places basically. And so you see, basically the world is interdependent. So if America sneeze, the rest of the world catch a cold.

THOMAS: Well America sneezed in 2008 and by January of 2011 the Arabs were on the street.

AIMEN: Exactly, why? Because everything because of, two words, really. The supply chain. The supply chain, we come back to the supply chain. Now when there is a credit crunch here, in North America, in Europe, people stop buying products. Now these products, let's say clothing, you will see lots of clothes basically, made in Morocco, made in, from Egyptian cotton, you know, made in Bangladesh or China or whatever. I mean, basically these are made from materials obtained from different other countries. You might wear a sweater, but this sweater basically, could have been handled in four countries by the time it comes to you.

THOMAS: So a access to credit in the West contracts, demand in the West goes down, and therefore the people who've been supplying that demand, they no longer have any orders. They're not being asked to make shirts anymore.

AIMEN: Exactly. Not just only shirts, but parts or even extraction.

THOMAS: So how does that lead to the Arab spring?

AIMEN: Because what's happened here is you end up with a situation where you have more unemployed. You'll have more unemployed. The whole Arab world caught fire because one single individual who was a university graduate and unemployed, Bouazizi

THOMAS: [Overlapping] Set himself on fire.

AIMEN: Set himself on fire and the rest of the world with him on fire, actually.

THOMAS: In protest against kind of

AIMEN: [Overlapping] Unemployment.

THOMAS: Well he had a little stall. He had a little market stall--

AIMEN: [Overlapping] Because of the unemployment.

THOMAS: I see, He was forced to resort to simply selling vegetables on the street.

AIMEN: Exactly.

THOMAS: And then some unscrupulous bureaucrat was oppressing him, and he decided the whole system was rotten. So he set himself on fire. And from there it spread.

AIMEN: Exactly. So that is why, you know, the idea that somehow what affects one part of the world doesn't affect the rest, and these ideas of protectionism and we need to be putting tariffs and putting walls and putting — no. We are in the 21st century and whatever happens in one corner of the world affects the rest of it.

THOMAS: That's one way of putting it but another way of, since we're talking about the New World Order, is that, you know, if America has erected this globalized order, globalization after all. Where, as you said, agriculture is in one part of the world, manufacturing is another part of the world and it's all being financed from the huge banks in London and in New York. Doesn't it mean that the New World Order is inherently fragile? Do we want a world order where if a bank sneezes in New York, unemployment throughout the Middle East grows to such an extent that civil wars breakout?

AIMEN: Let's put it this way. When I said to you, the world is now a global village, then what we see here is that, yes, it's a fragile village, but it's a prosperous one. Because look at the levels of abject poverty in the world in 2020 and look at the abject poverty in the world in the 1900s, just a 120 years ago. In the year 1900 I think the abject poverty basically reached heights of 80 and 90%. Now abject poverty around the world basically is around 9%. So to tell me basically that globalization did not shrink poverty is rather disingenuous in anyone's argument. So that's why I'm saying that yes, it’s fragile, but because it relies on peace and order as a conduit for this prosperity. But if peace and order start to crumble and nations started fighting each other, then the entire system collapse.

THOMAS: Well, it's true. I mean, it certainly is true that that abject poverty has decreased. It's hard to tell that to, say a poor Egyptian who has no job, has no money, bread subsidies are being lifted up because neoliberal ideology is taking hold there. He can't even feed his family. So he goes into Tahrir square and just starts demanding... Well, this is the interesting thing. What is he demanding? You know, during the Arab spring, the demands were more political than economic, it was all about democracy. We want democracy. But would you say that in fact, the Arab Spring protesters were barking up the wrong tree? It wasn't really about politics, it was more about the economic systems of the Arab world that needed reform? That just changing the politicians wouldn't do that, wouldn't do the trick or extending the vote isn't really going to achieve anything? Is that what you're saying? Or is it all sort of mixed up together?

AIMEN: Look, they understand—

THOMAS: They, you mean the Arab Spring protesters.

AIMEN: The Arab Spring protesters understood from the beginning that it's the oligarchy that is ruling them, which basically monopolize the money. If you look at every country, which you know, the system entirely collapsed. If you look at Ben Ali…

THOMAS: This is in Tunisia.

AIMEN: Yeah. He, his daughter, his son in law, controlled lots of businesses basically in Tunisia. And look what happened.

THOMAS: Egypt?

AIMEN: Egypt, the president, his two sons, Gamal and Alaa Mubarak

THOMAS: [Overlapping] The whole army.

AIMEN: The whole army as well as the party apparatus, Hosni Mubarak’s party, the national democratic party apparatus. All of these people who controlled, monopolized many aspects of the economy.

THOMAS: Libya?

AIMEN: Libya, of course. Basically you have…

THOMAS: [Overlapping] Colonel Gaddafi

AIMEN: Colonel Gaddafi and his sons.

THOMAS: Saif al-Islam!

AIMEN: Saif al-Islam, Hannibal, Moatassem

THOMAS: [laughs] Hannibal! Can you imagine naming your son Hannibal, really? [Aimen laughs]

AIMEN: Well, you know, he believes that… He hated the Italians so much because basically of Italy’s history in Libya and you think basically, okay, our neighbors the Tunisians have Carthage, and we were a part of the Phoenician-Carthaginian heritage. So I should name my son, Hannibal, the scourge of Rome.

[Laughter]

THOMAS: The man who conquered Rome, well almost conquered Rome…

AIMEN: Almost conquered Rome, to spite the Italians so…

THOMAS: Anyway, So Gaddafi controls a lot of the economy. The Tunisian leadership controls the Tunisian economy, the Egyptian leadership—

AIMEN: [Overlapping] Same with Syria, Syria for example, you know Bashar al-Assad’s mother, Anisa Makhlouf, her brothers and her nephews, Rami Makhlouf and others, they control 60% of the Syrian economy. Just let this sink in 60%.

THOMAS: Yemen?

AIMEN: In Yemen, it was far more different, but it was a failure of this nation state to provide any sort of services whatsoever.

THOMAS: So you think that the Arab Spring protestors really did know that when they're protesting against their government in the name of democracy, what they're actually wanting is the dismantlement of this oligarchic, corrupt oligarchic economic system and increase there of economic opportunities for everyone, basically liberalism. Basically the thing that the American New World Order is supposed to be giving them.

AIMEN: The ruler of Dubai, Mohammed bin Rashid in 2011, he gave a speech, it was a rare speech where he was so candid. He was so candid. He was saying to the audience in a conference in Arabic, he was saying that, I always have told my colleagues and my friends remember, he is also the prime minister of the UAE as well as being the ruler of Dubai. He said, I've been saying to my colleagues in the Arab world, feed your people, give them jobs, give them opportunities. Do not allow certain people to monopolize everything. Because what's going to happen is that these people will end up rising against you, because hungry people have nothing to lose. Hungry people got nothing to lose. So, and this is why in the UAE, as well as other resource rich countries in the Arab world, you know, the royals are very rich, filthy rich. But at the same time, they do not really squeeze the people out of their savings and out of their pockets. They still allow people to have loans to build houses. They give them free parcels of land. Land is free. Give them parcels of land, give them long term loans from the government…

THOMAS: [overlapping] Encourage entrepreneurship.

AIMEN: Yeah. You know, encourage entrepreneurship, give them loans to start businesses, send them to America and to Europe to gain degrees. I remember during the election campaign here in the UK, whenever you hear, you know, people who are leaning towards, you know, socialism like Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the labor party, whenever basically he talks about economic models, I always look at him and say the country that you most hate in the world, which is Saudi Arabia, he’s written so much against it, it's the economic model that you want to implement, you idiot. You know it's the one you wanted because basically, he wants free education. Well, Saudi have got a free education, and actually they send their students basically to Western countries to pay their tuition fees, their tickets…

THOMAS: Hundreds and thousands of students.

AIMEN: Hundreds of thousands, I think by far now is 400,000 students who have benefited from this. They've got salaries and accommodation and their tuition fee paid and tickets back and forth to their education destinations. So, you know, free healthcare, or insurance covered by the government or by the employer.

THOMAS: A very generous housing program for citizens.

AIMEN: Exactly. So the question is, you know, what is it that you hate about them then? Apart from being pro-American. Is there anything else? Their economy is a mix of state enterprise, profitable state enterprise, and private sector enterprise.

THOMAS: Well, sure, but Saudi Arabia also has that little magic bullet of huge amounts of oil to sell.

AIMEN: I tell you something, every time someone brought up this issue and says, Oh, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman, whatever, they have oil man. They have oil so of course they would be economic successful, and I will say yes, this is partly true, but if it is purely just natural resources, then Venezuela, and the DRC, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, will be far richer than Saudi Arabia. Because the DRC sits on $25 trillion worth of—

THOMAS: [Overlapping] Natural resources.

AIMEN: Natural resources and Venezuela have more oil than Saudi Arabia. And yet, look at both of them right now. It's not about, purely just natural resources. It’s about—

THOMAS: [Overlapping] How you empower the economy to take advantage of them.

AIMEN: Exactly. Exactly. That's why when people tell me the Arab world, they rose against oligarchy. And I say yes, but they say, well, Royal families are oligarchs too. And I will say yes, but the difference here between one set of oligarchs and the other is that if one oligarch or a government. Let's put it this way, if a government runs its country as a business and take stock of the potential of this country to generate profit, then you have prosperity comes in. So if you look at the model that is followed in China, in Turkey, you know, to some extent, especially between 2003 and 2014 in Turkey, and in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, in UAE, in Singapore, in Hong Kong, in the city-states. If you see that they are running their countries as businesses, any country will look at its capabilities. It will look at geographical position, whether advantages or not, population size, big or small, natural resources, you know, many or none.

THOMAS: Geographical location.

AIMEN: Cultural sites for tourism, natural beauty, there are many ways in which our country can look at all the negatives and positives, advantages, disadvantages, and basically makes it work. And then start with the idea. First of all, everything you've learned about economics in terms of Marxism, Capitalism, whatever…

THOMAS: All the great 19th century ideological buzzwords.

AIMEN: Exactly, throw it in the rubbish right now dear listener, please throw it in the rubbish.

[Thomas laughs]

THOMAS: Aimenomics, everyone. Here we go. Aimenomics.

AIMEN: Why? Because we live in the 21st century where the last 10 years technological advances were more than the past hundred years put together and the past hundred years were more than the past 10,000 years put together. Which means we need new kinds of economics. And with the world becoming a global village where we are so interdependent because of technology, because of the communication revolution, and the information revolution, we need to have new kind of economics.

THOMAS: Not some one size fits all, global paradigm of neoliberal American domination but...

AIMEN: Or socialism.

THOMAS: Or socialism.

AIMEN: No, we don't need Marxism. We don't need capitalism.

THOMAS: So when you said that countries should be run like companies, you're not just parroting some super right-wing capitalist perspective.

AIMEN: No, I tell you something. The right-wing people basically say the state should just regulate and should not run any business whatsoever. I disagree. And the left-wing will say that the government should own the means of production and run them for no profit motive, for the benefit of the people. That also I disagree with. What I agree with is a country where there is a state enterprise run efficiently for profit and also private sector that actually supports the public sector to achieve profit and to maximize the prosperity for the people.

THOMAS: And this is the model being pursued in these countries like Turkey and China and elsewhere that you mentioned.

AIMEN: Exactly. So when someone says to me, Aimen, have you seen any, for God's sake, any state-run company that generate profit? Because this is the skeptics always. And I tell them, yes, the largest company in the whole world.

THOMAS: Saudi Aramco.

AIMEN: Saudi Aramco. Because my father worked there, my uncles, all of them without exception work there, half of my cousins and their kids work there. So I know all about Aramco and I can't tell you basically that the largest state-run enterprise in the world is the most profitable company in the world. In 2018 they made $111 billion more than the other five largest oil companies that come behind them combined.

THOMAS: Well, of course. I want to counter by saying, well, you can sell oil, so pump oil out of the ground, you sell it. I mean, is that so difficult?

AIMEN: Look at the national oil company of Venezuela, they are making losses all the time. And basically the other five private companies just behind Aramco globally combined together, actually, they have larger production value together than Aramco. Yet their profits were less than Aramco, even though they are privately run, and Aramco is a state run--

THOMAS: It's also very important to point out that Saudi Aramco doesn't just sell oil. It actually is the linchpin of an incredibly sophisticated petrochemical industry that the Saudi state has allowed to grow in Saudi Arabia where they don't just sell the oil, they refine the oil. They oversee manufacturer of oil products. So it's a whole industry, which leads to economic prosperity there.

AIMEN: Exactly. So, you know, and Saudi Arabia and other companies basically like this. Maaden which is their minerals company.

THOMAS: [Overlapping] Mineral company.

AIMEN: They do that. So they do that. So actually, Norway does that. You know, it's not just only—

THOMAS: Yeah, the Norwegian oil company is state owned and profitable.

AIMEN: Equinor. Equinor is profitable, and this is state owned. The idea that somehow, we are afraid that the state will be inefficient, well look, if you have the will, you can create state owned companies that generate profits and compete like capitalist companies, like free market companies in that market, like each other.

THOMAS: This sounds remarkably moderate and balanced for you, Aimen. You're basically arguing for an intelligently designed and run mixed economy. Some state ownership, some private ownership, as long as everyone is animated by the profit motive in order to spread prosperity more generally.

AIMEN: Exactly. So first of all, leftist should drop this notion that profit is immoral.

THOMAS: [Overlapping] Evil.

AIMEN: And the right-wing, you know, ultra-capitalists should drop the notion that there will be no efficient and profitable state-run enterprises.

THOMAS: But Aimen, what about, dare I ask it… democracy? Human rights? Liberal societies? I mean, you've mentioned China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia. They don't really score very highly when it comes to that side of political economy.

AIMEN: Of course they don't score highly on that side.

THOMAS: Is that not something we should care about?

AIMEN: Of course we should care about the human rights of every single human being on this planet. Their right of free speech, the right to assemble, the right basically to express themselves. The freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of not having a religion to begin with.

THOMAS: How does that square with what you're advocating?

AIMEN: Okay. Because politics and economics are two separate things. And anyone who tried basically to argue otherwise. Look at China. Look at Hong Kong. Look at Singapore. Look at Saudi Arabia. Look at Norway. All of them have very different politics from each other. Yet they all achieved some sort of, you know, successful mixed economy of efficient, profitable state enterprise and a thriving private sector.

THOMAS: And perhaps the idea is: with prosperity down the line will come an increase in the protection of human rights and democracy, or not necessarily? This is of course, what animated George H. W. Bush’s New World Order. The idea that with prosperity would come, democracy, would come liberal democracy. It doesn't seem to be happening that way.

AIMEN: It doesn't seem to be happening because the more prosperous I see people become… For example, I have friends of mine in Saudi Arabia who were extremely critical of the government, the vision 2030. And the fact basically that there will be liberalization of the economy—

THOMAS: [Overlapping] This is an enormous program of reform, particularly economic, but also social and cultural reform that has been going on in Saudi Arabia since the coming to power of King Salman and the rise to power of now Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia. It's called Saudi Arabia Vision 2030.

AIMEN: But with this liberalization and economic reforms comes greater repression, greater control over people's thought. I mean, basically there is less freedom of thought in Saudi Arabia in 2020 than that was in 2014.

THOMAS: Isn’t that bad?

AIMENL: Oh, of course it's bad. No question about it. But the friends who I had who were critical suddenly changed their minds when they started having good jobs. Oh I love it. Now I have a job, they were telling me about the new joint ventures between big international companies and Saudi companies. They got jobs finally after they graduated long time ago from universities in the U.S. and what about the oppression? You were talking to me about, Oh, it's such a stifling situation in Saudi Arabia. We can't speak our minds. Oh yeah. I was just basically angry about being unemployed, but now I'm employed. [Thomas laughs] You know, I have a parcel of land now from the government and they are going to give me a loan to build a house on it and finally, I can get married. Suddenly all the talk about, you know, freedom, democracy and human rights evaporated as soon as you know, Mohammed bin Salman stuffed in a, a wad of cash in their mouth.

Thomas: Aimen I know last time I said that you were depressing me. I don't want to say this time that you have depressed me, although you do have this remarkable capacity of spinning an optimistic narrative that leaves me thinking, things aren't really that good. [Aimen laughs] But as ever your perspective is informed and thought provoking. It does make me wonder if the New World Order that America set out to create in the 90s, which we discovered last time when talking about China has countered a serious rival in the Chinese’s own version of that order, that the New World Order, the idea that through globalization, prosperity will increase, that through globalization the globe will become a village and we'll all be interconnected and that ultimately in some way fitfully we will all benefit from this, maybe it's not that it is failing, but that it is succeeding--

AIMEN: Economically.

THOMAS: Just not in the way that America expected and perhaps not ultimately to America's own benefit.

AIMEN: I tell you something. Do you know who really won the globalization game so far? Really? Google, Apple, Twitter, Facebook…

THOMAS: Silicon Valley

AIMEN: Silicon Valley. They were the ultimate beneficiaries of globalization.

THOMAS: Well, we are going to talk about Silicon Valley, among other things next time on our final episode of this season of Conflicted. As we've been discussing today, after the credit crunch, the Occupy movement rose to try to fight back against what they considered to be the injustices of global capitalism. The Occupy movement in the end fizzled out or did it? In the next episode, we'll describe the way the anti-capitalism movement following the credit crunch morphed into Extinction Rebellion and other environmental activist movements. And how with the end or at least mutation of the New World Order the new game changer for global politics may be the end of the world. That's right. We'll be talking about the climate crisis in the last episode of this series. I'm sure it will be a doozy.

[Outro music plays]

THOMAS: If you would still like to find out more about the effects of the 2008 credit crunch, enter our competition to win a copy of a wonderful book called ‘Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed’ the World by Adam Tooze. This is presently the definitive narrative history of the 2008 financial crisis. Tooze is an excellent writer and though his left-leaning views would probably irritate Aimen, the book is well worth reading. To be in the running to win, just make sure to become a member of our Facebook group before the 15th of April. Find it by searching ‘Conflicted Podcast Discussion Group’ on Facebook. In the group, you will find articles and further reading and it's also a place for you to enter into discussions with all the other Conflicted listeners. You can also find Conflicted on Twitter. We are at MHConflicted. And if you enjoy listening to the show, please do us a favor and rate us, review us, or maybe even tell other real human beings in your life about Conflicted. Join Aimen and me in two weeks’ time for the next episode of Conflicted. In which we conclude our journey across the unraveling of America's New World Order.

Conflicted is a Message Heard production. It's produced by Sandra Ferrari and Jake Otajovic. Edited by Sandra Ferrari. Our theme music is by Matt Huxley.

Conflicted - China 3.0

From the protests in Hong Kong, to the persecution of the Uighurs and the building of the New Silk Road, this episode explores the role China played in the New World Order.

Listen now where ever you get your podcasts, and find the whole transcript below.

Read the transcript

Conflicted S2E4 Final Transcript

THOMAS: Hello there. Welcome back to Conflicted. I'm Thomas Small and my friend and cohost Aimen Dean is here with me as well. Hello Aimen.

AIMEN: Hello Thomas.

THOMAS: How are you? Have you contracted Coronavirus yet?

AIMEN: Not yet.

THOMAS: I believe we're all going to die of it soon. [Laughs]

AIMEN: [Laughs] No.

THOMAS: Well, inshallah, as you say. So far in season two, we have been dissecting America's ambition following the end of the Cold War to establish a New World Order of global capitalism, liberal democracy, all protected by America's military might. Last time we talked about Russia and about America's ambition to establish a new profitable partnership with their old enemy, and about how thanks to Vladimir Putin that didn't quite work out. So, we've done the Middle East and we've done Russia, and today we're focusing on the third object of America's attention as it strove to build a New World Order. And of course, I'm talking about China. For the New World Order to succeed, China would have to be fully integrated into the global economy, which would result, or so America believed, in China's leadership enthusiastically embracing, liberal democracy. Let's discuss how successful that plan was.

[THEME MUSIC]

THOMAS: So Aimen, in your life now as a contractor let's say, around the world [Aimen laughs] working with all sorts of governments, you have grown into something of an authority on really the entire, what used to be called the Developing World, but let's face it, they're pretty developed now. So, you have authority to speak on China, would you say?

AIMEN: From a political and security point of view, yes, to an extent. Because in my first trip into China, and it was the first of hundreds of other trips like it afterwards, was in 2010 when I was invited by one of the largest oil and natural gas companies, state owned, to lecture on issues regarding security. After the lecture, I ended up basically being signed on as their security advisor in the Middle East, and I started basically frequenting China sometimes six, seven times a year or more than that.

THOMAS: What was your first impression of China when you arrived?

AIMEN: Um…

THOMAS: And we're talking Beijing here?

AIMEN: Yeah, but, Beijing, I went to Hong Kong, of course. Basically, and other places across China. From the Northeast, all the way to the Northwest and beyond. So, I really was fascinated by this society, by this place. I remember my first trip was in the middle of winter, so it was so cold, [laughs] but in time my relationships started to extend beyond just, you know, oil and telecommunication companies, started even to grow, even with the government departments there. You know, in order to basically talk with them, think tanks. Actually, you know, advise the leadership of the Communist Party. So, I started basically to have, a greater integration with them in terms of understanding, first of all, their fears and also their aspirations. Their fears of dealing with the Muslim world, but at the same time, their aspirations into really economically conquering the Muslim world as they have done in the 1420s, 1430s and 1440s during the voyage of the Muslim admiral from China, Zheng He. So, they wanted to have this extended trade network with the Muslim world, because that's where the energy is, and that's where the potential for China's economic expansionism is.

THOMAS: We're going to get there in the end. So, let's focus our attention on Hong Kong and see what the tensions between it and China can tell us about the wider question of an American-led New World Order. Aimen, as you know, Napoleon famously said, “China is a sleeping lion, let her sleep for when she wakes she will shake the world.”

AIMEN: I would have corrected him by saying, China is a sleeping dragon.

THOMAS: Ooh. When she wakes, she will burn the world!

AIMEN: Well in this case, I'm not saying burning the world, but I would say basically more or less embracing the world. [Laughs] But how tightly this embrace and how suffocating, well, that's what we are going to discuss today.

THOMAS: So, the theory has been for the last 40 years or so, that if China is integrated into the global order of world trade and the American-led Atlanticist order that that they built up following the second world war and ramped up following the end of the Cold War, if China could be integrated into that, then, not only would economic growth occur there, but liberal democracy would flourish there. Why do you suppose Western leaders first assumed this to be the case that that with economic growth comes liberal democracy?

AIMEN: I think because they always equated capitalism or free market system with liberal values and democracy which is not the case. If you look at many prosperous nations around the world, not all of them basically follow the same liberal democracy and human rights as others. I mean, you know, there are many prosperous nations that are really autocracies.

THOMAS: So from the Western, I mean, when we're talking about the West, this is just an ideological fixation. Liberal democracy and capitalism go together. They just think that, but there's no reason to think that.

AIMEN: There is no reason. I mean, just look at, for example, a country like the United Arab Emirates, or Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia. And if you look at a country like, even Singapore because it is very strict. You can't chew gum there. You can't throw anything on the street. You know, it's very, very regimented.

THOMAS: Not known for its liberal regime.

AIMEN: Exactly. So, if you look at a country like the United Arab Emirates, I mean, people there do not have the aspirations to become a liberal democracy because for them they believe that well, look, we're already a free market, free enterprise society. We are doing really well. Why do we have to rock the boat?

THOMAS: I want to stop you so that we don't get off track because we’re talking about China. And so, we've said now that the West was looking at China and thought, we've got to make them liberal democrats. We'll make them liberal democrats by incorporating them into our global economic system and with prosperity will come liberal democracy. Fine. Let's move away from America's point of view and try to imagine ourselves into China's point of view, particularly the point of view of the Chinese leadership. And as this series is talking about the New World Order, the post-Cold War world, it's good if we start back in 1989. The Berlin Wall is falling and precisely around that time in China, the Communists are crushing protesters in Tiananmen Square. This is a very famous event, the protests by students in Tiananmen square in Beijing. I remember, 10 years old, I guess, maybe 11, I remember watching it on TV and that famous image of the lone student standing in front of the Chinese tank. Daring the tank to crush him, daring the Chinese regime to crush his aspirations for a more liberal, more democratic China. Do you remember that episode from where you were at the time in Eastern Saudi Arabia?

AIMEN: Vividly. I was a child in Saudi Arabia, but it was a picture that was posted in most of the Arab newspapers at the time.

THOMAS: So, the Chinese are, the Chinese leadership I should say, in Beijing are watching the Soviet Union slowly collapse while struggling but succeeding in crushing any liberal dissent internally. But as they're watching the Soviet Union collapse, they're pretty concerned that the same thing might happen to them. They were born out of the same sort of ideology as the Soviet Union. You know, Maoism, Communist China, they had been allies of the Soviet Union before famously they broke away for geopolitical reasons that we don't want to go into. But they shared so much in common with the Soviet Union ideologically that they are… obviously the collapse of that empire would have threatened them, would have frightened them. So, they're determined not to have the same thing happen to them. Do you think it was ever likely around that time that the same thing could happen to them?

AIMEN: Well, what was going on through their mind and, remember basically that the Chinese leadership have greater collective wisdom at least than the collective wisdom of the Soviet Union leadership at that time, so for them they realize that Tiananmen was a wake-up call. And some within the party, within the Communist Party, decided that the direction is to go into more oppression and more state control. Dong Shao Ping, he basically envisioned that, no, we can survive. We can basically survive as a quasi-communist government. If we liberalize the markets. He basically saw that there is a way forward for China.

THOMAS: I think the, the important point here is about is to really ignore ideas about Communism. It gets in the way. The Chinese leadership were primarily interested less in maintaining Communism as an ideology.

AIMEN: [Overlapping] It is to maintain power

THOMAS: [Overlapping] Instead maintaining their one-party totalitarian rule.

AIMEN: Yup

THOMAS: They want one party rule in China focused entirely on Beijing, and their totalitarian system had already over the proceeding 40 years been through a lot. I mean, during the period of Chairman Mao, there were two great waves of extraordinary, really extraordinary, violence and social disruption let us call it. First, the so-called great leap forward, which caused a famine that killed about 30 million people. And then only 10 years or so later, the so-called Cultural Revolution. The Cultural Revolution, which killed at least 20 million. So, China has been through the ringer. Now in the 70s, things began to change. Nixon famously went to China in 1972 and brought China in from the cold, and from that point onward, the American leadership worked closely with China. At the time, of course, thinking well, since China and the Soviet Union have fallen out, we can maybe take advantage of that by making the enemy of our enemy our friends. And then following Mao's death when this Dong Shao Ping becomes the premier, he starts this shift away from Maoism and towards allowing aspects of a free market, or at least a private property dominated economy in the country. So, China has already, by the time of Tiananmen Square started to make these moves. But you're saying that Tiananmen Square was a wake-up call, but it wasn't a wake-up call like maybe the West wished it to be. They didn't think we need to have liberalism. They just said, what.

AIMEN: What they said is we should embrace pragmatism. In other words, that if the people have enough, if the people have financial aspirations, then their political aspirations can be kept in check.

THOMAS: So this is in fact the opposite of the Western point of view. So, the Chinese are saying with prosperity will come political quiescence. Now that's, that's interesting because in the last months we have seen in Hong Kong, the opposite of political quiescence. The Hong Kong people are rising up. Hong Kong, which is a very important bastion of the Western economic system, right there beside China. Sort of quasi a part of China since 1997 which beginning in April, 2019 has seen lots of protests which became increasingly violent, increasingly inflammatory over all sorts of questions. Questions that really get to the heart of the Western economic system, what's called neoliberalism, because in Hong Kong they're facing growing property prices, the young generation feel disenfranchised, economic growth is stagnating. The system actually, though it seems to have a veneer of democracy, is being revealed more and more to just be a kind of economic capitalist, crony capitalist oligarchy. So, first of all, before we start analyzing it, what can you tell me about these Hong Kong protests? Why did they start? When did they start? What do the people who are protesting in Hong Kong want?

AIMEN: Okay. In Hong Kong, the protesters are protesting mostly because of the extradition treaty between China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Which talks about basically the extradition of criminals or people basically who have been deemed a criminal in the Chinese justice system, and Hong Kong Justice System and in Taiwan Justice system. So basically, the idea is that it's an extradition treaty. So someone would say, is that really? And I will answer no, basically –

THOMAS: Well it’s true…

AIMEN: It's a culmination of so many things and the feeling that this is just an excuse by China to extend this hegemony into Hong Kong.

THOMAS: Now Aimen, it must be said that the Chinese crackdown against these protesters has been, at least from our lights, severe. President Xi Jinping, China's strong man at the moment. He threatened the protesters openly. He said that ‘any attempt to endanger China's national sovereignty and security, or to challenge the power of the central government crossed a red line and would be dealt with harshly’. He did say that. Which is in general, a very clear articulation of the Chinese political perspective, which is: you will not stop us. China is going to win.

AIMEN: But you know, basically there hasn't been any direct Chinese crackdown in Hong Kong.

THOMAS: But he said they would.

AIMEN: They would, but they didn't.

THOMAS: I know, but they will.

[AIMEN LAUGHS]

THOMAS: I mean but they will. The Hong Kong police have cracked down very harshly and everyone knows, you know, to whom the Hong Kong police actually answer. [Laughs]

AIMEN: Yeah, but whose fault is that? You know, Britain did not defend its position in Hong Kong.

THOMAS: [Overlapping] It is not Britain's fault that Hong Kong police are cracking down on-- Britain doesn't have the power to--

AIMEN: [Overlapping] What I mean, basically is that they left in 1997. So, 22 years later, who do you think basically the Hong Kong police would answer to? If it's not to China, then to who? Because—

THOMAS: Maybe to the people of Hong Kong. That'd be nice.

AIMEN: Yeah, but in 20 years it will go back to China. [Laughs]

THOMAS: It's true. Well, in 20 years they can deal with that. It must be pointed out that for almost 200 years, Hong Kong was part of the British Empire. It was sort of leased to the British in the early 19th century on a long lease, and that lease came up in 1997 at which point Hong Kong was handed back to the Chinese. Now, a very complicated set of negotiations led up to that handover. And one of the many things that, one of the many concessions that the Chinese agreed to, was for example, not to extradite criminals from one justice system to the other because the Hong Kong residents were, for justifiable reasons, afraid that the legal system of Hong Kong based on British common law and respect for human rights and things might clash with the system in China. So, the extradition treaty may seem like a small thing, but it symbolizes something. Which is that the agreement that the Chinese had made might be coming apart and that the Hong Kong will be integrated more completely into the Chinese system, which Hong Kong people fear. Is that fair?

AIMEN: Well, one of my bosses when I was working in that particular global bank I used to work for after I left the UK intelligence services, he said to me that up to 1997 the people of Hong Kong were feeling so nervous that between 1992 and 1997 many, many people basically migrated to Canada, the U.S., U.K. and other places, you know, because they were afraid that the handover will make them proper Chinese. And remember, 1997 China wasn't as advanced as now.

THOMAS: And the shadow of Tiananmen Square hangs over this whole conversation.

AIMEN: Exactly.

THOMAS: Throughout the 90s China was still kind of a baddie. It hadn't been, you know, it hadn't been brought in entirely from the cold.

AIMEN: Exactly, but you know, when I started going to Hong Kong, I started to see basically that people there were relaxed about it because why? Because up until then, up until, even up until the celebrations of the 20th anniversary of the handover in 2017.

THOMAS: [Overlapping] In 2017 yeah

AIMEN: Because I was there in Hong Kong also, and I was seeing all these, you know, billboards and advertisement and celebration of ‘better together’ and all of that. So, you know, you ask people there and they say, well, so far China did not interfere too much, but also people are saying we are now almost halfway to become fully integrated into China. It is 2047, that's a date when the special status, most likely, the special status of Hong Kong as an SAR, a Special Administrative Region of China, will come to an end.

THOMASL This was also part of the negotiations with the British at the handover that the-

AIMEN: [Overlapping] Exactly

THOMAS: The settlement that they agreed on would last only 50 years, at which point China would do with Hong Kong what it wished, and everyone assumes that will be to incorporate it as a proper, a proper part of, of the country.

AIMEN: Exactly. But since then, if you see basically the Pearl River Delta

THOMAS: [Overlapping] The Pearl river Delta.

AIMEN: Yeah. And we're talking here about, you know, Macau, Hong Kong, but also Shenzhen and Guangzhou. So basically, all of these cities, you know, there are over 95 million people basically live in that Delta. And China now has basically built a sea bridge over that Delta in order to connect all the four cities together.

THOMAS: So they're coming, the infrastructure is being laid down already.

AIMEN: Exactly. So, for them, for the people of Hong Kong, they started to feel that, Oh my God, we're being incorporated. But at the same time, the living standards, you know, in the cities around Hong Kong, especially Shenzhen just to the North of it, started to improve considerably. And this is the mainland China, and this is something that started to affect the people of Hong Kong where they started to have this kind of double loyalty. They fear China, but at the same time, they admire the fact that China builds while Hong Kong doesn't. There is a monopoly of land in Hong Kong, and that basically has caused many young people to feel despair over the fact that they will never be able to own a property because it is the most expensive real estate in the whole world

THOMAS: This is extremely interesting to hear because in a way, Hong Kong is like a little Western satellite just beyond China. And the West as well is kind of going through waves of a similar realizations. That its relative prosperity is less than it used to be vis-a-vis the rest of the world, especially China, as a result of which it doesn't command the same sort of power. It looks across at China and is a little bit concerned or half concern, half admiring. Property values throughout the Western world are skyrocketing, especially in the cities. The young generation can't afford to buy houses, including, you know, even the generation like myself. And so, the Hong Kong people are kind of going through the same thing,

AIMEN: But 10 times worse. Ask any person from Hong Kong, can you afford to buy a house? Which is in reality, a shoe box in a high rise. That's what it is. And they will tell you, basically it's, you know, not until they are in their forties they can, you know, they would be able to afford. Um, and that is the problem here. Is the fact—

THOMAS: [overlapping] It’s true, Hong Kong is the world's most expensive real estate market, by far. The average house $1.2 million in, in Hong Kong. This is well above Singapore, which is the second most expensive in the world. So that's a big problem. Hong Kong's real estate prices are extremely high.

AIMEN: Not for shortage of land.

THOMA: Not for shortage of land? It's an Island!

AIMEN: Yeah, no, but still, they have a good, decent part of the mainland, basically that belongs to them. So basically, it's not a shortage of land. It is the monopolization of land by the land department of the government of Hong Kong. They rarely basically put out small parcels of land for development or for auction. And of course, it would be the highest bidder. And as a result, you know, the prices just keep going higher and higher and higher. They control it because basically of the fact that there is, when people say Hong Kong is you know, a democracy I really start to laugh. It's an oligarchy of real estate barons.

THOMAS: It's true. Hong Kong is headed up by someone called a “Chief Executive,” which is quite funny cause that's an expression we usually associate with the world of corporations. So the Hong Kong Chief Executive oversees a committee, which is dominated by property oligarchs really, but then who also have their fingers in all the pies of Hong Kong.

AIMEN: Exactly, so what happened here is that now the protests are about anti-China. That's what's happening. But the question is what triggers it? What triggered all of this? Yes. The fear that China is going to erupt them off their human rights of their freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and that's right. If I tell you what the Chinese official told me over dinner, and he is someone I also met in Hong Kong, you know, several times as well as in mainland China. And he said that the problem is I feel that the Hong Kong young are protesting against China. But they are protesting at the wrong enemy here. The real enemy are the ones who are robbing them of their aspirations. Because if he compared a young entrepreneur from China, from Shenzhen, just north of the border, and the young entrepreneur, you know, from Hong Kong. And he will say basically that the young entrepreneur in Hong Kong won’t have enough savings or money to invest in his business or invention because he's already spending so much of his income on rent, because he can't buy and if he tried to get an office around, incorporate basically, it is even more expensive. But a young man from Shenzhen can save more, even though the income is less, can save more of his income because the rents are less. And you know, if he wants to incorporate and start a business, the cost of business is less. So, you know, the reality is that Shenzhen is now becoming more successful than Hong Kong as a tech capital of China, while Hong Kong, remaining reliant on the financial sector as well as the trade sector. But, if only the real estate prices start to go down, only then we start to see basically that the people of Hong Kong, will start to feel more secure about their future…

THOMAS: It’s difficult though because the entire Hong Kong political economy is propped up by high house prices.

AIMEN: Unsustainable.

THOMAS: It may be unsustainable. But it's true. I mean, because Hong Kong has famously low taxes.

AIMEN: Yeah.

THOMAS: Which is, it is claimed, which lies behind its rise to economic domination over the 20th century. Fine. But the state which still needs to provide public services is funded largely by its ownership and its selling and renting of these, of property. So they have to keep the price very high in order to sustain the system as it is.

AIMEN: But then the system will lock out the next generation. The next generation will remain locked out of the property market because it's just too high. It's just unrealistically high.

THOMAS: So what does the China, what does the Chinese official say is the solution? What would the Chinese Communist Party do to solve this problem?

AIMEN: Well, for them, they are saying, well, we are going to wait until 2047. We are biding our time. 2047 is around the corner from a historical point of view. And only then basically when the whole, the two regions, both Macau and Hong Kong, become fully integrated into China then the real estate market basically, you know, in Hong Kong will collapse automatically because then there will be no border between Shenzhen, you know, Guangzhou, and the mainland China and Hong Kong people can commute. It will be linked up by trains. There will be no visas or passports or border anymore. There will be commuter belt created for Hong Kong by then. People can just live in Shenzhen or its suburbs and can basically commute to Hong Kong on a daily basis.

THOMAS: So, the Chinese are not threatened by these protests. I mean, we hear all the time in the news here that the protests in Hong Kong are a harbinger of big problems for China, that it might be the first domino in a set of dominoes that come that brings the whole system toppling down. The Chinese, they're pretty sanguine. They, they're not afraid?

AIMEN: This is the problem. I mean, the West always get excited about protests and freedom and all of that, but you need to understand that it's far more complex than that. The Chinese media machine is very formidable. They really know how to steer the public opinion of their people without the people knowing that they are being steered into that direction. The argument I made now, that the protesters in Hong Kong have been... Yes, they have been triggered by the treaty, but in reality, basically they are also protecting the-

THOMAS: [overlapping] The extradition treaty.

AIMEN: Yes, the extradition treaty. They've been riled up about it but also they are riled up because they feel that they don't have a future in Hong Kong because of the fact that they will always remain renters, you know, rather than property owning individuals and professionals. And so that is, so the Chinese media really made it into, Oh, these poor people, they are misled. They are protesting against the wrong enemy here. Their enemy is the oligarchs, those capitalist oligarchs who have monopolized the land, look at them. You know, unlike us, we are building entire cities in months, in order to accommodate you, our people. So you have cheap, you know, affordable, high quality homes.

THOMAS: So this is the Chinese counter narrative. Is it, is it landing? Is there any indication that you, that you know of that the Hong Kong people are listening and thinking, Oh, that's interesting.

AIMEN: Well, now it's not directed at the Hong Kong people, it is directed at the Chinese people. Because when the Chinese people see the protest, the Chinese government want to make sure—

THOMAS: [overlapping] That the protests don’t spread…

AIMEN: Exactly. So what they're saying, Look, look at Hong Kong model. People can't afford the shoebox. You guys however, basically we are building like there is no tomorrow. [Laughs] So you know, so in a sense they have actually cleverly turned the narrative upside down and that the protesters are just misled people who thinks their enemy is China, while in fact basically they are angry about their living conditions.

THOMAS: So the Hong Kong protests aren't going to derail the Chinese juggernaut anytime soon. Let's switch now. Let's move to the other side of China and return in fact to a topic that we discussed in Season One of Conflicted. And this is the other thing that you often hear about these days that's going on in China, on the West side of the country amongst the population of Uighurs, the Uighurs of the Xinjiang province in the West. Um, briefly now, because we did cover this in season one, who are the Uighurs? They're not actually Chinese.

AIMEN: Well, remember that China have 56 ethnic minorities. So, they are one of the ethnic minorities of China.

THOMAS: They're not Han Chinese.

AIMEN: Oh, no, the Han actually make up the vast majority of Chinese people. But then remember there are, you know, Mongolians, Kazaks, there are Tibetans.

THOMAS: [ Overlapping] Tibetans

AIMEN: There are the Cantonese, the Hui Muslims who are actually Han Chinese by ethnicity, but Muslims. Um, and don't forget the religious minorities who are always prosecuted, like many people basically talk about Muslims being prosecuted, not necessarily. Hui Muslims don't have the same trouble that the Uighur Muslims have. And that's because of the separatism that the Uighurs have.

THOMAS: Now Aimen I want to push you on this. You say that Hui Muslims haven't faced persecution by the Chinese state. I think that's not strictly speaking accurate. Now, it's true, they're certainly not experiencing what some of the Uighurs are experiencing, but in April 2018 the Chinese Communist Party’s United Front Work department took control of the State Bureau of Religious Affairs, and so they are now directly overseeing religious affairs, no longer the government itself. And this United Front has emerged as a very aggressive proponent of making sure that religious groups throughout China are not expressing anything that they consider to be anti-Chinese. It's part of a larger process of signification of religion in China. So for example, amongst the Hui Muslims, they've been knocking down domes and minarets, anything that smacks actually of Arab aesthetic. Arab Islamic aesthetic. Now I think it's important to point out that this actually, in fact, this actually backs up your larger argument, I would say. Which is that the Chinese state is involved in state building and creating a viable nation state, which can then project its power outwards. And Muslims within China are considered to be potentially antagonistic to that effort. Ironically, as they are often considered to be elsewhere in the world, even in the West. You know, it is Muslims that often create this sense that they're not really one of us. They're not really signed up to our national identity.

AIMEN: Well, historically speaking, the Hui Muslims filled up many, many posts in the government that are related to commerce, diplomacy, and even the Navy. So in a sense, yes, the emergence of that committee from the Communist Party to take over the religious, affairs of China was worrying and worrying for so many people, including the Hui. But for the Hui, when they were saying yes, only very few mosques of ours basically have minarets and domes because the vast majority of Hui mosques, and I've been to some of them, look exactly like Chinese temples.

THOMAS: They must be beautiful.

AIMEN: And they've been like this for centuries. The Hui Muslims from the beginning, from a thousand years ago, they built their mosques not distinguished at all from the rest of the Chinese architecture. So, when you see, you can't tell a mosque from outside, and this is not because of the communist party or anything, it's been happening from a thousand years ago.

THOMAS: It's true. But more recently, in fact, the Hui Muslims have received some money from the Gulf, especially Saudi Arabia. And Salafi missionary movements have been appealing to some Huis and the Chinese state is trying to stop this.

AIMEN: Exactly. I mean, and ironically, some members of the diplomatic mission of China in Saudi Arabia are Hui Muslims themselves, and they were talking to religious scholars in Saudi Arabia telling them, please, you know, just leave us alone when it comes to our religious identity. We are Muslims, Muslims enough. Thank you so much. Just stay out of it.

THOMAS: [Overlapping] Okay. You’re racing ahead now, who are the Uighurs?

AIMEN: So the Uighurs are a Turkic ethnic group. So, they are more similar to people in Kazakhstan, Kurdistan, and Uzbekistan. So they are Turkic in their, in fact, it's the birthplace of Turkic based languages, especially in places like Kashi, which called in Arabic Kashgar and in the local language, Kushgar. So, which is basically sitting in the Southern Part of the Xinjiang province in Northwest China.

THOMAS: So, let me just tell you what I know about the Uighur situation in China. The Chinese are evil and they're erecting enormous concentration camps, shoving millions of Uighurs in them and brainwashing them into not being Muslims because they hate God.

AIMEN: No, it's not like that. [Laughs]

THOMAS: Really? I mean, that's what I've been told.

AIMEN: Okay.

THOMAS: First, before you just destroy the perceived wisdom of it. To what extent is that narrative true?

AIMEN: Okay. So, you know, a disclaimer to the listener here as I have, you know, a lot of commercial interests in China, myself. So basically, I'm not defending China because of that. And I'm not actually defending it, I'm explaining the situation as it is.

Thomas: Great.

AIMEN: But also, I have to basically state that I relied a lot on the official Chinese narrative here. In fact, when I was invited to come to Xinjiang myself, I've been there and I visited, even one of the camps that’s been talked about, so I was still being minded. I was still basically like, in a way, you know…

THOMAS: [Overlapping] The Chinese government minder…

AIMEN: Exactly.

THOMAS: But you have visited one of these camps that are holding Uighurs?

AIMEN: Indeed. So, for them they believe that the separatism, you know that the Uighurs basically harbor…

THOMAS: Like Tibetans say. So the Uighurs think, we're a people. We shouldn't be dominated by Beijing. We want to be separate.

AIMEN: Yeah. So, the separatism which is cloaked in Islamic ideology also with it…

THOMAS: Because Uighurs are Muslim.

AIMEN: Exactly.

THOMAS: Sunni Muslim, like Saudis, like Egyptians, like Algerians…

AIMEN: Yeah, Sunni Muslims. But you know, there is a division there between those who are Sufis and those who are more influenced by other schools of thought. Not just only Deobandi--

THOMAS: Which is kind of hardline Salafi kind of…

AIMEN: [Overlapping] No no--

THOMAS: [Overlapping] From South India, South Asia…

AIMEN: Yeah, it’s not Salafi, it's a hard line, Hanafi—

THOMAS: [Overlapping] Sorry.

AIMEN: Yeah, it’s a hard-line Hanafi

THOMAS: These different labels [laughs] get all confused.

AIMEN I know, I know, trust me. I struggle always basically to explain this to others. But, you know, there are so many schools of thought that have influenced the Uighurs basically in terms of religious affiliation. Remember, Xinjiang province as a whole have about 26 million people. Um, and despite being so big as a province and roughly about 12 million to 13 million are Uighurs. So basically…

THOMAS: So roughly half.

AIMEN: Roughly half, below half. So, but they are concentrated mostly in the Southern half of the province and the Northern half have less Uighurs and more Han and Hui and Kazaks and other ethnicities.

THOMAS: So, the Uighur population, which lives more in the South part of the province. They're broadly speaking Sunni Muslim. So what are the Chinese government trying to do to them?

AIMEN: Okay. The Chinese didn't have that much problems with them in the 1970s and 80s, because mostly it was Sufi Islam that was dominant. I remember I was talking to an Iman there in Kashi and he said to me something interesting. He said, look, you know, you've noticed that on the way here there were villages that are looking like a post apocalypse, like basically no one is there. You know, a mosque is destroyed, bulldozed completely, and the streets are empty. No one is there. And then you pass into another village or another town where the mosques are open with lights and celebrations and the streets are bustling. He said, this is when you see a Sufi village that is, or a town, that is cooperating with the authorities. And you will see another place where there is more spirit of separatism. That's a place that is deserted and this is a place that is rewarded. So—

THOMAS: So the Chinese aren't really, it's not really about Islam. It's about a form of Islam that some Uighurs have embraced over the last few decades that is more political in its orientation, let's call it Islamism, more Islamist in its orientation and which feels that being within or being under the Chinese State is against Islam or something. They're political separatists.

AIMEN: Yeah. So, so what's happened here is that the problem is there were a group of people from Xinjiang who when they were studying in Pakistan in the Islamic university of Islamabad in the 1980s. Their teachers included, people like Kamal Helbawy, who was one of the most senior leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in the world. And Abdullah Hassan…

THOMAS: Oh wow.

AIMEN: Oh yes who was the—

THOMAS: [overlapping] The great ideologue who basically started the jihad in Afghanistan against the Soviets.

AIMEN” Oh, yes. So, they influenced a new generation of—

THOMAS: Uighur students in Pakistan.

AIMEN: Indeed. And they started to return and preach the gospel of jihadism.

THOMAS: [Overlapping] Ah.

AIMEN: I know it's a contradiction of terms, but anyway—

[Aimen and Thomas Laugh]

AIMEN: So, they started to preach jihadism, Muslim Brotherhood ideals, and even some of them returned from places like Uzbekistan and other places with the new ideas that coming from the Middle East which is the ideals of Hizb ut-Tahrir.

THOMAS: Which is a radical Sunni Islamist group.

AIMEN: Exactly. Which calls for the return of the Caliphate.

THOMAS: Like all the other bozos who we’ve been talking about. [Laughs]

AIMEN: Exactly. To the point where it's estimated that the number of Hizb ut-Tahrir members, underground members basically in Xinjiang, according to Hizb ut-Tahrir sources themselves exceed six or 7,000 members.

THOMAS: That doesn't sound like so many people. And I mean the country has 1.3 billion.

AIMEN: Ah, yeah. I'm talking about the Uighur population is 12 million. So basically having six or 7,000 members Hizb ut-Tahrir, and that’s only Hizb ut-Tahrirm, we're not talking about the Muslim brotherhood. And not to mention the jihadists.

THOMAS: Cause there have been Uighurs in Syria as we discussed in season one.

AIMEN: And Afghanistan, you know, fighting alongside the Taliban.

THOMAS: So the Chinese are afraid of the separatism that is being incubated amongst this kind of Islamist ideology amongst the Uighurs. But what are they doing to the Uighurs?

AIMEN: So if you are looking at them, they are, you know, they basically believe that, look, as we have pacified Tibet, they believe they have pacified Tibet. So the person, the individual who actually was responsible for the pacification of Tibet is now in Xinjiang. And he's been there for a few years. He is now basically leading the effort to pacify Xinjiang.

THOMAS: Aimen, I'm afraid you're not selling this to me. Because my whole life I've only heard that the Tibetans have been utterly crushed by the Chinese behemoth. And, you know, Richard Gere has told me many times at the Oscars that the Tibetans are suffering.

AIMEN: Well, okay, suffering politically maybe. But economically speaking, things are starting to change a lot.

THOMAS: We’re back again to that Chinese way. We will make you rich.

AIMEN: Yes.

THOMAS: And you just give us your freedom in exchange.

AIMEN: Well, yeah. You know, this is the money. Obey. That is the Chinese methodology and this is why when I talk to people about it, they keep saying, but they are not supposed to do that. I remind them that this is China. This is not Europe, this is not North America, this is not Australia, this is China. The Chinese have their own way of dealing with things and therefore we have to understand their mentality, their mindset. I must stress Thomas that I made my position very clear in my lectures on counter terrorism to Chinese officials that repression doesn't work. Repression will breed only further acts of terrorism and further acts of violence. And what's happening is beyond what could be endured by the population who are very proud people.

THOMAS: The Uighurs.

AIMEN: Yeah. And, you know, and I made my position very clear.

THOMAS: I'm glad you're saying this because I, you know, I want the listener to understand that Aimen is not justifying the Chinese state repression. He's simply explaining it.

AIMEN: I'm explaining it. I tell you that there is a possibility of a negotiated settlement for this entire sorry crisis. There are many people in China who are good-hearted people, decent people, whether in academia or in the think tanks that advise the Chinese government. If the demands for separatism is dropped, then the negotiation over religious freedoms can kickstart really. And this is why I'm saying, as long as there is a possibility of talks, of secretive talks basically taking place… take this chance. It's about the survival of the Uighur Muslim religious and ethnic identity.

THOMAS: Aimen, this is all very interesting. I mean I must say it freaks me out what you're describing about the Chinese and their apparatus of repression in Xinjiang against the Uighurs.

AIMEN: We have to understand, you know, basically we don't excuse by the way we just say understand, why they want to maintain the integrity of their borders and the integrity of China as a unified country.

THOMAS: And their way of doing things includes setting up camps, putting recalcitrant Uighurs into them and brainwashing them into being obedient to the Chinese state. Is that basically what's going on?

AIMEN: Yes.

THOMAS: And are they being murdered in droves if they refuse?

AIMEN: Uh, well, I mean, basically the question here is that, and I ask the question all the time, are there any people basically who has been executed? And the answer is there are people who have been executed since 2009 until now on charges of terrorism. And the fact that many of them were returnees from Afghanistan, or you know, in later years, basically have returnees from Syria who were trying to carry out acts of terrorism. There have been dozens of acts of terrorism by the Uighurs who are jihadists in China, you know. The Kunming Massacre is one of them--

THOMAS: I’ve never heard of the Kunming massacre.

AIMEN: Well, it is in the province of Hunan, I think, it was in 2014 where in a train station--

THOMAS: Oh it was a knife attack—

AIMEN: It was a knife attack

THOMAS: Someone went berserk and killed all sorts of people.

AIMEN: Exactly. Like dozens of people were killed. Hundreds were wounded. I mean, and there were many other acts of terrorism, you know, car bombs against police stations in Xinjiang and basically the Chinese, you know, released a video, basically containing five minutes, containing all of these acts of terrorism happening, caught on CCTV and all of that. So now—

THOMAS: [Overlapping] So jihadists have been executed in China,

AIMEN: [Overlapping] Yeah yeah.

THOMAS: But what about just garden variety Uighurs who would frankly rather be Muslims and not Chinese?

AIMEN: Okay, so this is basically when you ask and they say, no, we don't execute people because they think differently. We will put them in prison until they recant. But we do not execute people in this way. That's what they say. And I haven't seen any evidence of people being executed for thought crimes.

THOMAS: Frankly, even if that's the case, it doesn't make me really want to move to Xinjiang. The real question is why does China care that much? I mean, it’s Xinjiang, who cares about Xinjiang? Why can't these people just, why don't we just allow a new central Asian Republic, call it Xinjiang, to be established and it breaks away from Beijing.

AIMEN: Ah ok.

THOMAS: I mean Western China. It's nothing. It's just desert and crap.

AIMEN: Yeah, I know. I, you know, I've been there, but actually, you know, if you tour the place, it's really beautiful. I mean, really, I'm not kidding. It's really beautiful.

THOMAS: Sure. There are lots of beautiful places. The Chinese don't need to own them.

AIMEN: Yeah. But, [laughs] but historically speaking, first of all, the Chinese border always fluctuated. Against the Russian empire, against the Turkic empires in a back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, that's always the case. And since the Qing Dynasty and beyond, and before even that, the Uighurs lived, you know, for periods of time under a Chinese influence, under Russian influence, under Turkic influence. So there were always these movements. There wasn't a single country, you know, basically called Turkistan or East Turkistan, as they call it, you know or Xinjiang, except for brief periods of time in the last millennia.

THOMAS: [Overlapping]This part of the world has always been frontier zone between empires and always has been.

AIMEN: [Overlapping] Exactly. It always has been. So now for when I will not say this as my opinion. I will just tell you what that Iman from Kashi who was telling me about why the Chinese are putting hundreds of thousands of people in the camps and talking about them and saying, while it is regrettable, he believed it was necessary. Because you know, the ideologies that are coming out of other Muslim countries has infected them with the rebellious nature which doesn't bode well for the future of the Uighurs in the region. He said that, look, we are 12 million people in this province. This province was always the backdoor of China, you know. You know, there was no reason for the Chinese to hold onto it because basically it is not exactly rich in natural resources. It is not basically very strategic. But something changed in the recent years. Now, instead of being the back door of China, now Xinjiang is the front door of China, the new front door of China. And it's important for a strategic survival.

THOMAS: And why is that? What's changed?

AIMEN: Okay. What changed is the Belt and Road Initiative.

THOMAS: The Belt and Road Initiative. And I think just because it's easier to say and to remember, let's call this the new Silk Road. It has a very orientalist flavor about it.

AIMEN: [laughs] Exactly.

THOMAS: So the Belt and Road Initiative, the new Silk Road, is essentially a continental high-speed rail network which connects China to Europe via Central Asia and the Middle East and Russia, meaning that goods can get to Europe faster than by ship. And this is amazing because it undercuts American Naval shipping routes. It basically is shifting back to the continental system from the Atlanticist naval dominated system. And it includes all sorts of things, ports, new maritime routes... The Chinese are basically throwing down the gauntlet to the way the world has been run for the last 500 years and saying, We are back. We are going to dominate global trade.

AIMEN: Look, the Belt and Road Initiative is a gigantic, gigantic project. It will cost a trillion dollars and that's only phase one. What would happen is that there will be in Xinjiang, whether it is Ürümqi, the capital or Kashi the second city basically in the South of Xinjiang, they will become the junctions of this new Silk Road. Freight trains will leave Beijing with the containers and they will arrive in Berlin in 16 days. Now, these days, it will take by ship between 42 to 48 days to do it.

THOMAS: That's astonishing. That is really undercutting the time.

AIMEN: [Overlapping] Yes and not just only that, to cut the time… But also it would reduce insurance premiums because it’s rail, it’s safe; while the shipping routes basically are, of course, you know, threatened by hurricanes and weather—

THOMAS: Pirates.

AIMEN: Pirates in the Malacca Strait which is a chokehold. And also the Somali Pirates, there are many chokeholds. The Strait of Malacca, the Suez Canal and you have to pay money there and all of that. So what happened is, if the railroad will go from Beijing to Ürümqi, from Ürümqi then it goes to Almaty in Kazakhstan, from there and to Moscow and St. Petersburg, and from there into Poland and Germany and France and UK and Spain. And also, there will be another one from Kashi going all the way to Gwadar which is a port in Pakistan--

THOMAS: [Overlapping] On the Indian Ocean

AIMEN: No, on the Arabian Sea, just at north of the Gulf—

THOMAS: Well the Arabian Sea is part of the Indian Ocean--

AIMEN: [Overlapping] Yeah the Arabian Sea is part of the Indian Ocean [Laughs] but you know to be very geographically accurate. Sorry, I'm a nerd. And so, so basically 3000 kilometer of railroad and a truck road basically going from Kashi all the way to Gwadar. And that port basically will be selling goods to Saudi Arabia, to the UAE, to the Gulf countries, and even to Iran and to Pakistan itself, and maybe even to India. So the idea is that Xinjiang no longer basically a backwood province. It is now going to be the center of China's new Silk Road. It’s the junction, and this is what the Iman told me in Kashi. He said, if China didn't let us go basically when our province mattered little, they will never ever let us go. They will not let 12 million Uighurs stand in the way of progress of 1.4 billion Chinese. So, what he said for the survival of our religion, for the survival of our race, we need to cooperate with China. He said basically just like, and he mentioned this name, he said, just like Ramzan Kadyrov in Chechnya, realized—

THOMAS: Oh from the last episode, Kadyrov who is Putin’s little lapdog.

AIMEN: Yeah. So as Ramzan Kadyrov in Chechnya realized in the middle of the war against Russia that we're not going to win, the Russian bear will crush us completely. So for the survival of the Chechen race, and for the survival of us, our Chechen religious identity—

THOMAS: [Overlapping] Just like Kadyrov, the Uighurs need to, need to bend the knee really and just get with the program—

AIMEN: Exactly.

THOMAS: The program’s not changing and the West is not going to change it.

AIMEN: So no one is coming to our rescue. No one is coming to our rescue, not the Muslim world, you know, not the Western world. We are the only ones who can save ourselves by accepting like our ancestors accepted before, Qing dynasty hegemony over the Uighurs, we can basically accept the current hegemony. But we have to negotiate in order to regain our religious freedoms.

THOMAS: So Aimen, preventing Islamism from spreading amongst the Uighurs of Xinjiang, preventing separatism, political separatism amongst the Uighurs of Xinjiang. Is this really just an excuse that Beijing is giving in order to… do whatever they want in Xinjiang, including say, ethnic cleansing, just killing all the Uighurs? Often that is what you hear in the media that in the end, the Uighurs are done for, they're just going to be wiped out.

AIMEN: No, of course not. I mean, otherwise we would be hearing about, you know, hundreds of thousands of people dying, but that's not the reality. And know why spend billions of dollars basically trying to reeducate the whole population only to kill them later.

THOMAS: Right. So I can understand that perspective, but that's like, zoom out a bit from the Uighurs and talk about the new Silk Road and of a Chinese dominated economic transport system that completely changes the way everything is working. Now, officials in the Western world have actually known for quite a long time that this was coming. As I quoted at the beginning of the episode: China is lion. When it wakes, it will roar.

AIMEN: Dragon. [Laughs]

THOMAS: So, I was personally first introduced to this new reality of a growing China by a friend of mine. His name was Alexandros Petersen. A brilliant young American man who lived in central Asia, lived in China and was studying… He was actually one of the world's experts on the new Silk Road and what it meant for the world. Sadly, the Taliban assassinated, or he was a victim of a Taliban bombing in Kabul where he was teaching at a university and he died.

AIMEN: What a waste.

THOMAS: It's a terrible waste. He, but he wrote a book called ‘The World Island’ in which he reintroduced to people an older geopolitical theory. It's the World Island theory. It was first formulated in 1904 by a Victorian geographer called Halford Mackinder. The World Island theory is basically this: that if you take the whole globe, the African Eurasian part of the world is the vast majority of the world's land. It's the world island, and that in the middle of this world island is what's called the Heartland, which is basically central Asia. The Eurasian plateau that stretches from the West of Russia into China, The Heartland. The theory is if you control the Heartland, you control the world island, and if you control the world island, you control the world. Now, in fact, if you think about it, the whole history of the 20th century is the history of attempts to control the world island on the part of big land empires and the Western world, especially the British-American world, trying to prevent that from happening. Most famously during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union controlled the Heartland and the American Imperium, if you like, was absolutely animated about preventing it from maximizing the power that the Heartland gave it. And it succeeded. The Cold War ended with the Soviet Union failing to take power that it got from controlling the Heartland and dominating the world. Now we have China. China is dominating the Heartland today and is laying down the foundations for a new wave of economic domination that by taking the power of the Heartland, by linking the entire World Island via land-based trade routes like in the old days, like the Silk Road before the Portuguese and the Dutch and the British created the new maritime shipping system that has dominated the world for centuries. Now China's doing it and they're going to succeed. So Aimen, given the fact that the Chinese new Silk Road and its own new world order really threatens America's, is America trying to stop this or undermine it? Is this what lies behind the frankly bellicose language of President Trump in the last few years and the trade war between China and America? Is America trying to stop the new Silk Road?

AIMEN: Well. Yes, but halfheartedly because there is a problem here. Okay. And the problem is this: Trump has been engaging in a trade war not only with China, but also with Europe. And also basically insisting on America’s energy independence which means they don't buy oil anymore from the Middle East or beyond. So, who's buying the Middle East oil right now? It's China. So at the end of the day, it's like, okay, America. You don't want us to trade with China. You don't want 5G to come. You know, you're not buying our oil. But at the same time, basically, you are saying that we shouldn't even do it with China. So, either you provide the alternative or shut up.

THOMAS: So by isolating itself, America's forcing the rest of the world into China's arms.

AIMEN: Precisely. So if you are going to pick up fights with Russia over the Ukraine and Crimea, impose sanctions, who will Russia trade with? It will be China. You know, if China is going to buy Russia’s oil and gas, if China is going to buy the Middle East oil and gas, if China's going to export machinery to both Russia and the Middle East and America basically is saying uh well, we are going to defend human rights and we are going to stand for freedom and all of that okay, you want to stand for freedom, then become a viable economic partner or just do not try to sabotage another economic partnership that is emerging.

THOMAS: If the United States was being led by someone more internationalist in outlook than president Trump, is it possible that he might be able to create a genuine global alliance or coalition against the rising China? Do you think that would be possible?

AIMEN: No. Because you know, Obama also failed and he's an internationalist. America doesn't need a protectionist or internationalist. What it needs is a pragmatist.

THOMAS: America just needs to face up to the fact the Chinese train has left the station. You'd better get onboard.

AIMEN: Yes.

THOMAS: And so really, dear listener, everything is going to change. The Western world is sort of over as we understand it. And the new century is China's. Now this whole season is about the New World Order that George H.W. Bush wanted to create. America, it's not necessarily that America has failed. It's that China has succeeded. The Chinese New World Order is being born today. What do you think? Am I right about this or am I exaggerating?

AIMEN: You are right but there are some caveats here. You know, we have to always remember something. China is not a nation of innovation. China is a nation of imitation. And it will remain so for a little while. When will I see China rise to heights of greatness that was never seen before, is when they are transformed from a nation of imitation to a nation of innovation.

THOMAS: Because?

AIMEN: Because then if they become innovative, nothing can stop them. Because at the moment, why the American economy is so dominant--

THOMAS: With the tech boom and the internet. I mean, we dominate all of them. We, I mean, I'm an American, you know, I personally don’t dominate the world economy. America dominates, you know, all of the innovative technological advances that are creating economic growth at the time, especially from Silicon Valley.

AIMEN: Why? Because basically America is the innovation economy. Yeah, China manufacturer the iPhone. But really who designed it and made it and created it? America.

THOMAS: Ok, but what about Huawei, and all of these big Chinese firms and East Asian firms more generally, which fall within the Chinese orbit?

AIMEN: Exactly, that's what I'm saying, that at the moment they are imitating. But when they start innovating and they are beginning to, we can see the transformation now from the imitation nation to the innovation nation, this is basically when we start to see a greater Chinese dominance. Why? Because then they will be a true alternative. And the most important example of this now is the 5G row all over the world. The question is—

THOMAS: Huawei’s 5G network right here in the United Kingdom, you know… Absolutely. It's tearing political parties apart. Do we allow a Chinese firm, you know, basically linked to the Chinese security service, to install for us our telecommunications network?

AIMEN: But here's the problem is that the Americans could not yet come with a viable alternative.

THOMAS: So I didn't exaggerate. So the New World Order is Chinese.

AIMEN: Exactly. This is why I said… And I remember I was at a dinner at the largest oil company in China. I was their guest of honor at the time, and that was in 2010. So it was a really long time ago, almost 10 years ago. So I remember I said these exact words because they were asking me, when do you think China will become the top economy of the world? And I was asking, you’re Chinese you know, why do you ask me? And he said, because we love to listen to the opinions of others. So, I said, okay, once you stop imitating and you start innovating, then the world is yours.

THOMAS: Well, it's happened.

AIMEN: Yes, it's beginning. It's beginning to happen.

THOMAS: It's beginning to happen. And it seems to me that the Western world is beginning to wake up to this fact and this is directly connected to this New World Order, America's New World Order that it wants to create, because actually China hasn't played along. China all along has had its own plan to create its own new world order and it is succeeding. And so we see it with Trump and the trade war against China. We see it with even European leaders usually so deferent to China are beginning to speak out against the Chinese, against the power, the growing power that they have. Even George Soros, famous for supporting all sorts of internationalists liberal causes, in February of 2020 in a speech said that China is a rising threat and the Western world really needs to begin countering it. This represents a big change, and it could result in perhaps even a military clash between these two new world orders, these two visions for the 21st century.

AIMEN: Well, we hope it doesn't happen.

THOMAS: Of Course.

AIMEN: China is nuclear armed and it has an important ace which we didn't talk about. China has basically what I call the secret weapon.

THOMAS: Oh God.

AIMEN: Putin.

THOMAS: Oh, I didn't expect you to say that.

AIMEN: Yeah, and I tell you why. Vladimir Putin is looking at China as an important, not just only an important ally, but an important backer of the Russian economy. I mean, after all, basically, China buys a lot of oil and gas from Russia. Um, it's an important client but also at the same time, the new Silk Road is going to pass through Russia and through Russia and Satellite States, like, if we can call Kazakhstan a satellite state, but it's allied to the Russians. So basically the Silk Road will pass through Russia to Moscow and St. Petersburg, and then from there into Europe. This will empower Russia even more. Because basically, so many goods and services coming from China and so many European imports, don't forget, it's a two-way street. European exports from the UK and Spain and Italy and Germany—

THOMAS: [Overlapping] And Germany particularly.

AIMEN: The cars and the machinery will also travel from Europe to China through that. So, Russia will become the middleman between China and Europe and the rest of the world. And so for Putin, he's looking at this and rubbing his hands, [laughs] licking his lips, and thinking brilliant.

THOMAS: Well, there you have it. America's New World Order is being rather successfully countered by the Chinese alternative, a real competitor with the new Silk Road initiative from China. And you know, you never know what the future is going to hold but the Chinese economy is still chugging along pretty well. Economic growth in the West is not so hot in comparison. Neoliberalism, this is the economic faith of the West in the New World Order era. It was meant to spread. It was meant to promise endless economic growth for Western countries. It's not really happening. And it certainly became spectacularly unstuck during the credit crisis of 2008. And in the next episode of Conflicted, we will be talking about just that. What exactly happened in 2008? And what did it mean for America's grand vision?

AIMEN: I have to come wearing my banking hat next episode. [Laughs]

[Extro music]

THOMAS: This season we've set up a Facebook discussion group where we post recommended reading. And if you want to go into even more depth about the topics we cover on the show, as with every episode we are giving away a recommended book this week. This week's book is ‘Belt and Road: A Chinese World Order’ by Bruno Maçães. a book which successfully captures the exuberance as well as the apprehension that this huge project generates. Once again, all you have to do to have a shot at winning this book is join the Facebook group. Thanks to everyone who has. Your messages, comments and feedback mean so much to us really, and are actually very helpful in shaping the future of Conflicted. Find the group on Facebook by searching Conflicted Podcast Discussion Group. You can also find the show on Twitter at MHconflicted. And if you like the show, please rate and review us in your podcast app. It would also mean the world to us if you spread the word about Conflicted to your friends or even to your enemies, whether on social media or in person. Thanks again for listening. Aimen and I will be back in two weeks.

Conflicted is a Message Heard production. It's produced by Sandra Ferrari, Jake Warren and Jake Otajovic. Edited by Sandra Ferrari. Our theme music is by Matt Huxley.

Conflicted - Enter Russia

Conflicted is back with the third episode of Season Two. This episode is a deep dive into Russian foreign policy after the end of the Cold War and the sometimes surprising ways it intersects with the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East. 

Listen now wherever you get your podcasts, and as always you can read the transcript below!

Read the full transcript here

Conflicted S2E3 transcript

THOMAS: Hello Aimen.

AIMEN: Hello, Thomas.

THOMAS: Today we're going to talk about Russia.

AIMEN: Can I just mention like, you know, my first, you know landing in Azerbaijan?

THOMAS: Well you will, but when it gets there, sure, absolutely.

AIMEN: Because it was so funny story about how, you know…

THOMAS: Not yet.

AIMEN: Yeah, okay.

[Laughter]

[THEME MUSIC]

THOMAS: We have a very complicated episode of Conflicted to record today.

AIMEN: Every episode is complicated, Thomas.

THOMAS: This one is going to prove perhaps the most complicated. We're going to talk, as we have been talking about, the New World Order – America's attempt to create an American-led global, if you like, regime of free market capitalism and perhaps even liberal democracy everywhere following the end of the Cold War. In the last episode, I suggested that America faced three primary challenges in order to achieve that ambition. We discussed how one of the challenges, sorting out the middle East, has failed. Another challenge, incorporating China into the world, we're going to discuss in the next episode. In this episode, we're talking about Russia and America's need to get Russia onside to create a new partnership with Russia if its New World Order ambitions were to be satisfied. So, let’s start with a rough historical sketch of the Soviet Union, its breakup, and Russia’s fortunes after the end of the Cold War. For the 45 years following the second world war, the Soviet Union, as it then was, was the big baddie of the world as far as the West was concerned. America and the Soviet Union were fighting. By 1991, the Soviet Union has collapsed. Its Eastern European satellite states are independent. Poland, Czechoslovakia as it then was, Romania, et cetera. The Warsaw pact, which was the communist equivalent of NATO, has broken down. Russia narrowly avoids civil war when Boris Yeltsin in, in what was considered at the time an act of heroism, saves the day, becomes the president of newly independent Russia, or the Commonwealth of Independent States, as it was called. Now at this point, what happens? A kind of… confused logic at the heart of America's New World Order played out as NATO expanded into these countries, extended its umbrella across them. That was very provocative to Russia. The EU and its ever-desperate attempt to expand its own pool of cheap labor moves into Eastern Europe as well. Uh, eventually even flirting with moving into the Ukraine, which was one of the reasons why the Ukrainian civil war would, would would break out in 2014. So, we did almost immediately see how incorporating Russia into the New World Order forming a new partnership with it, wasn't necessarily going to work. And it was disastrous for the economy as a whole. In the 90s the Russian economy was chaotic at best.

AIMEN: Remember 1998? The collapse? I mean, it was awful.

THOMAS: Overnight the Ruble collapsed and you know, any, any lingering dream that following the fall of the Soviet Union the Russian economy might boom and Russia might match, you know, match the, the prosperity of the West… was destroyed. But first of all, to start us off, what does Aimen Dean, former jihadist, have to tell us about Russia?

AIMEN: It seems for some reason, basically, that I always used to pop up in places where Russia, you know, had a beef or two with. I was in Bosnia, I was in Afghanistan and I was in the Caucuses. Um, you know, supporting the Chechen jihadists.

THOMAS: Chechnya, for the listener, is a tiny Muslim country—officially called the Chechen Republic and is a part of Russia. It’s located in the North Caucuses, that sliver of mountainous land between the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea. Now, Russia’s relationship with Chechnya over the past thirty years is a great illustration of the way Russia responded and adapted to America’s New World Order. And Aimen, you were involved in the Chechen Jihad, were you? When did it all begin?

AIMEN: The first Chechen-Russian war really started in 1994, it was almost two years conflict. When Dzhokar Dudayev, uh, the president, the first declared, self-declared president of the Chechen Republic, declared independence from Russia.

THOMAS: Part of the wider trend following this collapse of the Soviet union for Russian satellite states, certainly in Eastern Europe but also within places like the Caucuses, to declare independence. To wrest independence away from the, the evil Russians who had dominated them for, in some cases, centuries.

AIMEN: Of course. I mean, basically the Chechen-Russian Wars, or I would say basically the Northern Caucuses-Russian Wars, you know, lasted since the days of Catherine the Great.

THOMAS: Yeah, they’re proverbial. And you know, the Caucasian peoples of the North Caucuses are famously warlike.

AIMEN: Very much so. Few in number in comparison to the numerous Russians. But nonetheless, I mean, they were really formidable foes, you know, to the Russians. And I was there, you know, witnessing the first conflict, um, evolving.

THOMAS: So how did you get there? After you left Bosnia, uh, in ‘95 would it have been?

AIMEN: Yes. I mean, by late ‘95 in, uh, the Bosnian war came to an end. And so, uh, before I went to Afghanistan, there was a detour where I went to Azerbaijan and then later Georgia in order to become what we, what I always used to term as an office jihadist.

THOMAS: But at that time you weren't actually a member of Al-Qaeda. You were a kind of freelance jihadist. Who arranged for you to go to Azerbaijan and then to Georgia in order to join the Chechen fight against, uh, against Russia?

AIMEN: Ah. Now in order for this story to make sense, we need to understand the life, or at least the name, of one single individual. He is known in the jihadist circles as Ibn Khattab.

THOMAS: Ibn Khattab.

AIMEN: Yes. Now, Ibn Khattab, you know he was assassinated by the Russians in the year 2002. You know, using a poisoned letter.

THOMAS: In Chechnya?

AIMEN: In Chechnya.

THOMAS: Is this man a Chechen?

AIMEN: No. He is from nowhere else except my hometown. Hubbard in Saudi Arabia.

THOMAS: Oh, what a marvelous city Hubbard is.

AIMEN: [Laughter] Hey, we gave the world Aramco! And we gave the world the list of famous terrorists

[Laughter]

THOMAS: None more famous than Aimen Dean.

AIMEN: Oh dear.

THOMAS: So, Ibn Khattab… Why did the Russians assassinate him in 2002 and what does he have to do with you?

AIMEN: Well. First of all, even Khattab was my hometown boy. In fact, he went to the same school I went to except he went… he went many years earlier. And then he went to the Afghan jihad in 1989. Then he made the detour into Chechnya in 1994 when they declared independence because he wanted to lead the first Arab jihadist or international jihadist contingent to fight the Russians there… in Chechnya. The war really was mainly anti-Russian as in the Russian, you know, state itself. So, it was about being pro-independence for Chechnya. Not only Chechnya, but also the other Muslim republics like the Dagestan…

THOMAS: All these places in the Caucuses.

AIMEN: Exactly. So, the whole idea was about an Islamic awakening in the Caucuses. It wasn't meant to be anti-Russian. If it was any other nationality there, it would have been anti that nationality, anti that ethnic, anti that state in order to start something, because… why? Chechnya is a mountainous country with warlike, devout Muslim people. But of course, Ibn Khattab, uh, being an international jihadist who spent years in Afghanistan, decided the Chechnya is the next Afghanistan. Because it's going to spread from there into the rest of the Caucuses. And it's a mountainous region. It's sandwiched between the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea. It's perfect.

THOMAS: And Ibn Khattab just called you up, you're in Bosnia, you get a call from Ibn Khattab, he said: “Come on over to Chechnya! Fight some Russians!”.

AIMEN: Well, I, I'm, I'm flattered you say that he called me, but no, he didn't. It was his financier from Saudi Arabia who said: “Well, we need you there, but you know, I have bad news for you. You are not going to the front straight away. You know, we need you basically to run some logistics in the office in Azerbaijan. And then later in Georgia.” So actually, I went there to become someone who basically add up sums, make sure basically that enough supply of mayonnaise and other materials basically made it into Chechnya.

THOMAS: An accountant and a grocery supply, uh, agent.

AIMEN: Exactly. Which actually, you know… was boring. But nonetheless, that was an eye opening. Because I started learning Russian, uh, because it's easier basically if you are going to cross many different, uh, Caucus states, whether it's Georgia, Osettia or Azerbaijan or Dagestan… I mean, they speak so many different local languages and learning one local language is a waste of time. Just learn Russian. Everyone speaks Russian there. So basically, that was the time when I started learning Russian.

THOMAS: So you never fought the Russians in Chechnya?

AIMEN: Well, I didn't fight them with bullets just with jars of mayonnaise.

THOMAS: Mayonnaise? What are you talking about?

AIMEN: Well you know, one of the requests, the frequent requests, I used to get from Ibn Khattab and his group of Jihadists in Chechnya was to keep sending them, you know, hundreds of jars of mayonnaise. Because in the mountains, mayonnaise was the source of protein that maintain, maintained them basically, maintain their levels of energy.

THOMAS: That is so weird. Are we talking about like Kraft mayonnaise? Jars of American made mayonnaise?

AIMEN: Yes.

THOMAS: But mayonnaise goes off so easily. It doesn't last long.

AIMEN: Not in the cold mountains of Chechnya.

THOMAS: So when that first Chechen war against Russia ended in ’96, why did it start again three years later?

AIMEN: That's when I can tell you the entire story as to why it all happened. It all come down to that man I mentioned, Ibn Khattab. And many of his deputies, who many of them come from my city again, Hubbard. I'm sorry about that. I, on behalf of all the good, decent people of Hubbard, I apologize to the world.

[Laughter]

AIMEN: Um, so what happened is that because these, you know, the Chechens follow a particular brand of Islam which is Sufism. You know, it's mythic, it's ritualistic. But Ibn Khattab and the mainly Saudi and Jordanian, uh, jihadists who arrived in Chechnya…

THOMAS: All of them Salafists really.

AIMEN: Salafist, Wahhabis as they are called, basically…

THOMAS: …and therefore anti-Sufi. In theory, they don't like Sufism at all.

AIMEN: Exactly. So Ibn Khattab realized that the Sufis are compromisers who compromised, um, on the goals, you know, basically off the Chechan uprising in 1996 when they negotiated with, uh, the Russian government in Moscow to achieve some sort of autonomy within elections and a referendum later, on full independence.

THOMAS: So in Ibn Khattab’s mind, the Chechen leadership sort of betrayed the jihad by signing a peace agreement with Boris Yeltsin and the Russian government.

AIMEN: Exactly. I mean, it was Alexander Lebed, you know, a famous Russian general and then later politician, uh, who brokered this deal, uh, with the then Chechen president Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev.

THOMAS: So how did, uh… what did Ibn Khattab do next?

AIMEN: As any good Jihadi Salafists, you know, on the same lines of Al Qaeda would do: establish a religious academy to graduate, uh, local Chechens and Dagestanis and other Caucuses minorities to become Salafi preachers.

THOMAS: He, he sort of educated them.

AIMEN: Oh he brought, you know, quite a few preachers from Saudi Arabia. Uh, of course, with the disapproval of the Saudi government. Many of them became, you know, wanted by the Saudi government because the Saudi government and Russia had a good relationship at the time. So, they were brought in order to teach a new generation of Chechens and Dagestanis other Caucuses minority people the principles of Salafism so they spread it and therefore dilute the Sufi character of the Caucus’s Muslims.

THOMAS: They must have worked very fast. If by 1999, only three years later, another war breaks out between Chechnya and Russia.

AIMEN: Indeed, and actually I go into quite, you know, in detail analysis of this in my book..

THOMAS: Ah! Aimen, so shameless plugging your book in the middle of our conversation.

AIMEN: I know I'm not being, you know, not trying to advertise anything here. But I talk about, you know, the reason why the second Russian-Chechan war started, which is the fact that they did not want to just remain confined within the borders of Chechnya. Because they had almost full independence by then! Although not recognized by the UN or anything, but they were on their way to have a full independence by 2002, 2003. But for Ibn Khattab and the Salafists and as you know, basically the Salafi jihadism do not believe in borders. For them borders, you know, they are just lines… you know, dotted on a map that has no meaning whatsoever. They wanted Dagestan The bigger… well, the biggest Republic within the…

THOMAS: Muslim Caucuses.

AIMEN: Yes, Muslim Caucauses to become independent and so they made more and more incursions, killed so many Russian soldiers, you know, Dagestani police who are cooperating with the Russians. And as a result, the Russians were threatening again and again that they will do something. But Yeltsin wanted to maintain the peace. However, something that the jihadists, did not, uh, take into account. Which is: while they were planning to launch massive attacks inside Russia, in Moscow itself, against the Russian army residential compounds, you know, which will kill at least 300 Russian soldiers and their families, uh, and wound another 600 in September and August of 1999, they did not count that Yeltsin who was changing prime ministers more than he was changing his socks, would appoint the head of the FSB, you know the…

THOMAS: The successor to the KGB.

AIMEN: Absolutely. I mean, the head of the Russian intelligence, Vladimir Putin, as his prime minister.

THOMAS: Ah! Vladimir Putin. I wondered when he’d come up.... Because Vladimir Putin is obviously an enormously important figure from recent history about which much has been written… much is said. He's played the role, something of the classic Russian bogeyman for the West and the world for the last 20 years now it's been a long time.

AIMEN: But who created him? Who made him into what he is right now?

THOMAS: And you're saying that the Chechnyan war has everything to do with his emergence as, as the new Russian strong man.

AIMEN: I can assure you that it almost the catalysts which propelled him into the leadership. And I tell you why. I met in 2013 with a senior Russian diplomat, slash spy most likely, and he's basically had a personal friendship with Putin. And he said that when he was appointed as prime minister he saw this as some sort of a destiny, fate calling him. And he basically, you know, as a devout Orthodox Christian, he saw that being a prime minister is a calling. But he needed a sign from God. That this is his destiny to fulfill.

THOMAS: Before you tell me what that sign was, I just want to press you on this. Putin a devout Orthodox Christian. I am, as it happens, an Orthodox Christian, because I, you know, I even lived in an Orthodox monastery for a while. I would question your description of Vladimir Putin as a devout Orthodox Christian. I admit to you that he definitely pretends to be an Orthodox Christian and invokes Orthodox Christian symbolism, uh, in, in the new Russia that he's building. Which, uh, which, you know, he's trying to kind of, he's trying, trying to bring back the glory days of the old Orthodox czarist empire. But a devout Orthodox Christian? Really?

AIMEN: Well, I have to take the word of the person who told me. Who basically is a senior diplomat and someone basically who knew Putin quite well.

THOMAS: Okay. So what was the sign from heaven that devout Orthodox Christian Vladimir Putin was looking for?

AIMEN: The bombings of the army barracks in Moscow.

THOMAS: Tell us that story. Tell us the story of the Chechen jihadists and your hometown boy Ibn al-Khattab’s attack on the barracks in Moscow.

AIMEN: Well, the jihadists for 19 months, and I go into great details of that, of that operation in my book, but the jihadist planned for 19 months to avenge massacres, took place in Dagestan and Chechnya by the OMON and the Alpha, uh, units of the Russian Special Forces. They located where these special forces live alongside their families in military compounds and they attacked them in the summer of, uh, 1999. Just weeks after Putin was sworn in as the prime minister of Russia.

THOMAS: What did Putin do?

AIMEN: Putin saw this is as ‘This is the Lord's calling’. That's what he basically, you know, interpreted these attacks. Russia is challenged and therefore we should not shy away from more. Until then, basically the Russians suffered major losses in the first Chechen war, and they were not organized and they didn't have a good leadership. Yeltsin was a drunk, you know, incompetent idiot. But Putin decided that he will take charge of this Russian war you know, using his exceptional skills as a spy in order to execute the, uh, war against these people. So, this is why I always say that it is ironic that as Russian bombs are falling on jihadists in Syria, I always used to say ‘You want to blame someone? Blame yourselves. You made this man when you bombed Moscow in 1999.’

THOMAS: How was that greeted in the West? Because I imagine at the time the West must have itself been shocked, uh, at such a heinous crime by jihadists in Moscow.

AIMEN: Well, actually the West believed that it was Putin who orchestrated the whole thing.

THOMAS: Why did they think that?

AIMEN: Well, first of all, basically, okay. There is this man, he is the head of the FSB, the Soviet intelligence. So now he is the head of the Russian Intelligence. Then he became a prime minister. And then suddenly there are these, there are these bombings which basically you know making him so angry that he basically invade Chechnya again. And surprisingly, drive away the jihadists way into the mountains and take back Grozny and other Chechen cities. Uh, so everyone was saying… ‘Oh, how convenient, the timing. You become prime minister, six weeks later, you know, the pretext for the war that will make you a war hero and Russia’s strong man to the point where Boris Yeltsin appoint you as his successor. I mean, how convenient!’

THOMAS: But you're saying that's not true?

AIMEN: Not true. Because why? In Christmas of 1999 I just returned back from [Afghanistan. I was, you know, loaded with letters from Al Qaeda to say certain operatives here in London…

THOMAS: You're already a double agent at this time.

AIMEN: Exactly. I was already spying for MI6 and these letters actually were already opened, expertly scanned, and then put back again as if they were never opened. And then I have to deliver them myself without knowing the content. So… So basically I was supposed to deliver some of the letters to Abu Qatada, you know, famous, you know, Al Qaeda linked cleric who was based in London.

THOMAS: Abu Qatada… gosh, up takes me back.

AIMEN: Exactly. So I called him and he said “Come tonight.” It was Ramadan I remember. He said “Come tonight after the evening prayers. You will be hearing from an old friend of yours. So I said “Okay, fine. I'm coming.” So when I went to his house, we were sitting around, you know, like corporate managers, five of us. We were sitting around a speaker phone and from Tbilisi in Georgia, we were listening to Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri who I knew from Afghanistan years earlier. He was the head of the logistics for the Chechan jihadists.

THOMAS: Ah.

AIMEN: Including Ibn Khattab because he planned the whole thing. He told us when we asked him you know, “Was it disadvantageous to you?” Because even us thought that Putin did it.

THOMAS: You asked him about the, about the attack in Moscow.

AIMEN: Exactly. So you know, it's good basically that the whole thing was recorded. So, um, so basically I asked uou know “Was it disadvantageous that the war, you know, the, the timing of the war was determined by the Russians?” And so he asked “What do you mean, determined by the Russians?” “Uh, well, because Putin carried out, you know, these attacks in Moscow as a pretext”

THOMAS: A false flag. A false flag mission.

AIMEN: Exactly. False flag. I mean, it has all the hallmark of a false flag. And he said “No, we did it.” And he went on to explain the whole process, the reasoning, the pretext, and why they did it. It was damning evidence because he talked about details only the bombers would have known.

THOMAS: So, you have just been told from the horse's mouth as it were…

AIMEN: Yes.

THOMAS: …that what the whole West believed that Putin had launched a false flag operation killing his own soldiers in Moscow was not true. The jihadists had actually done it.

AIMEN: Yes.

THOMAS: And it was just amazingly convenient for him. A sign from God even.

AIMEN: A sign from God like in the later years, like you know, almost 15 years later I had a Russian diplomat who knew him told me that he viewed this as a sign from God. I, however, immediately called my MI6 handlers and told them, that “There is something that you need to know. And immediately.” So we met, I told them the information. It was a bombshell and it landed on Tony Blair's desk within days, basically. And as a result, he shared it with other world leaders and suddenly Putin was no longer treated as a pariah. Putin was treated as a victim of terrorism. And Tony Blair invited him to a pub a few weeks later where they shared the pint. They were wearing jeans and casual and everything, and suddenly everything seemed in a going Putin’s way.

THOMAS: But his reputation did not remain very high in the estimation of the West. What happened? Why? Why did the… People forget now because Putin is a big bad guy, but in the noughties, he wasn't a big bad guy. He sort of was playing along.

AIMEN: He was playing along, but then he was playing along, but then several things happened along the way. 9/ 11 happened. And not many people know but again, jihadists. Putin’s path was forged by jihadists. You know, if you want to blame, you know the rise of Putin on anyone, it's the bloody jihadists.

THOMAS: So why didn’t 9/11 have an impact on, on Putin?

AIMEN: Okay. So, he thought that 9 11 is a good thing in a sense that basically the Americans will realize finally that there is a serious war against terrorism.

THOMAS: He'd been fighting jihadists in Chechnya. And now he says, look, we're all fighting jihadists.

AIMEN: Absolutely. And he offered his help, you know, against the Taliban. Which he did actually. You know, the Russian military and intelligence provided, you know significant help to the US and the UK war efforts in Afghanistan.

THOMAS: And of course, they were experts on Afghanistan. They'd fought in Afghanistan for 11 years.

AIMEN: Exactly! And they have their own assets there, they have their own allies…

THOMAS: So Putin was an ally of the West in the war on terror.

AIMEN: Absolutely.

THOMAS: What happened to change that?

AIMEN: Iraq war….Because Putin was absolutely against it.

THOMAS: Because?

AIMEN: First, he believed that Saddam Hussein, just like Bashar al-Assad and others, they are the pillars of stability. They are, you know, the pillars of Arab nationalism because Arab nationalism protected Arab Christians. Because you know, look at who was Saddam's foreign minister? Tariq Aziz.

THOMAS: Yes, Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi deputy prime minister and foreign minister under Saddam Hussein.

AIMEN: He was a Christian. And there were many Christian officers in Saddam's army and in Saddam's government and in Saddam's Ba'ath Party.

THOMAS: Certainly in Syria, the Christian community are very close to the Assad regime.

AIMEN: Exactly. I mean, he viewed both Saddam and al-Assad as the pillars of Arab nationalism and Arab nationalism was an important buffer against Islamic extremism.

THOMAS: So Putin begins to realize that America's war on terror is not being prosecuted wisely.

AIMEN: No, he started to see that the war on terror had a more sinister ulterior motive. He started to doubt whether the neo-cons of Washington really wanted to fight terrorism or wanted to basically, you know, have an American hegemony in a project in the middle East. Which would then basically make America far more powerful because they will have access to the world natural resources. They can then flood the market with cheap, Iraqi oil, which would then undermine the Russian economy. Russia was a massive net exporter. So if you bring down the price of energy, both oil and gas, then the Russian economy would suffer significantly. So he saw that you know, with America being there, America will have its you know basically its foot on the hose like they can basically just press and cut, you know, the dollars to theRussian economy by manipulating oil prices.

THOMAS: This is very interesting because this is putting us into Putin's head. And often, you know, people aren't encouraged to see the world from Putin's point of view. Now….

AIMEN: By the way, I'm not the Putin apologist. I'm just basically stating facts. I don't like the man. I don't like what the Russians did in Syria whatsoever. I condemn it with the most, you know, you know, strongest way possible. I condemn it the strongest way possible. But we have to talk about facts. Here at Conflicted we are dissecting conflicts in order to come up with the right diagnostics.

THOMAS: So, from Putin's point of view, he's looking out at a certain foreign policy decisions that America is making and realizing ‘I'm not sure I really want to be a part of this new world order or I'm not sure if this new world order actually has my best interests in mind.’ Of course, there are other foreign policy decisions that America makes in this time. It expands NATO into former Warsaw pact countries.

AIMEN: Yep.

THOMAS: This is happening in conjunction with the EU which is trying to expand its influence into former Warsaw pact countries in Eastern Europe, which, which Russia considers to be something of a threat to its sphere of influence and this definitely includes the Ukraine as I mentioned before.

AIMEN: Thomas, remember… Kiev?

THOMAS: Well the Orange Revolution in Kiev... I mean, Ukraine would definitely come up in this conversation because we all know that, uh, that a civil war has been raging in Ukraine for six years now. Russia has covertly, sometimes overtly, intervened on the side of the Eastern Ukrainian pro-Russian separatists.

AIMEN: Yeah. And guess whose forces, whose irregular forces are fighting in Ukraine now alongside the Russians or alongside the pro-Russian separatists in order to keep K… you know, the Ukrainian forces at Bay.

THOMAS: Don't tell me the president of Chechnya is…

AIMEN: Yes. Ramzan Kadyrov…

THOMAS: Alrght, for the listener… Ramzan Kadyrov became president of Chechnya in 2007. His father was also president, though he was assassinated in 2004. Now Ramzan Kadyrov… the thing is he has this cherubic face. He looks like a little baby with his sort of soft, downy beard. But he’s a really fucking hard guy. He’s a real tough warlord.

AIMEN: He has a private army of many Caucuses Muslims, Sufis who are, you know, brave warriors. And…

THOMAS: A private army?

AIMEN: A private army…

THOMAS: You mean it's not the army of Chechnya?

AIMEN:

No, it is basically a private army you know, of Ramzan Kadyrov and they are deployed according to whatever they are needed. So in Syria they are deployed. They are between 4 and 5,000 of them. They are deployed as the Russian military police in order to, uh, police, newly liberated areas where I know… basically so-called liberated areas from the opposition. But because they are Sufi Sunni Muslims, they make it easy for the Syrian population to accept them.

THOMAS:

Uh, I mean, this is blowing my mind. A private army separate from the Chechnyan military. This, this is very much like…

AIMEN:

They are the Chechnyan military, but they are not a regular Russian military.

THOMAS:

This is, this is similar to the privatization of espionage you were talking about in the first episode. Are we seeing the privatization of the military completely?

AIMEN:

Not only that, Ramzan Kadyrov has his own mercenaries fighting alongside, you know, UAE and Saudi Arabia forces in Yemen. They are fighting alongside Haftar, General Haftar in Libya. You know, it's all for money. And he has actually a military Academy, uh, in Grozny where he is training…

THOMAS:

In Chechnya.

AIMEN:

In Chechnya. Where he is training, you know, soldiers from Saudi Arabia, from the UAE, from Nepal. You know, even Nepalis Gurkas in order to be deployed to war zones according to the whims of certain leaders in the middle East.

THOMAS:

War zones, including the war zone in Eastern Ukraine.

AIMEN:

In Eastern Ukraine and wherever Putin wants them to.

THOMAS:

This is amazing. So, Putin rises to power in 1999 on the back of Chechnyan separatism, he crushes Chechnyan separatism, installs in Chechnya a president that is basically his lapdog and now Chechnyan soldiers are everywhere fighting… jihadists, fighting anti-Russian forces, fighting whoever. They're the great mercenaries of the world?

AIMEN:

Yeah. And they are devout Muslims who believed, who believe that, you know, Russia is actually pushing back America's evil influence and therefore they are fighting Putin's jihad. I know it's, it's mind boggling.

THOMAS:

I'm actually speechless cause there's just such a conflation of everything we've talked about now for, you know, for almost a year… You know, Russia, it's not actually that Russia is simply geopolitically America's enemy. But Russia has actually allied itself with Islamists who think that America is the antichrist. And in a similar vein, before you brought up Russia’s presence in Syria today because it's an amazing thing. It's in fact one of the most amazing things about America's failure in the Middle East, that for so many decades, America did whatever it could to prevent Russia from, uh, having a untrammeled control of a swathe of the middle East. And yet now we have Russia, which can do more or less what it wants throughout Syria.

AIMEN:

Exactly.

THOMAS:

Now. They're there for many reasons. Why is Russia in Syria?

AIMEN:

Again, that diplomat who I spoke to… and… he said that there are multitude of reasons why the Russians felt confident enough that they can intervene in Syria. Because one, Obama is weak and wobbling and wasn't willing to intervene. And that even though Assad cross the red line, the chemical weapons red line, twice, Obama did not do anything.

THOMAS:

Obama's… Obama's lack of response emboldened Putin, fine. But that's not why he's there.

AIMEN:

The second reason we have an intervention in Russia, according to the diplomat is that again, it comes back to Putin's, you know, if it's not belief in the Christian Orthodox church at least it is, you know, acquiescing to the pleas by the Russian Orthodox church that the Czarist a treaty with the Ottomans, which basically granted the Syriac Orthodox Christians of Syria the protection of the czars of Russia. So, the idea is that since France was always viewed as the natural protector of the Catholics of the middle East…

THOMAS:

Like the Maronites in Lebanon…

AIMEN:

Exactly. It’s the same thing there. That the Russians are tasked since hundreds of years with the protection of the Orthodox Christians in Syria.

THOMAS:

Now for the listener, from well before the Russian Revolution made the Soviet Union an atheist state, Russia was the biggest Orthodox country. And as such it considered itself the protector of the Orthodox Christians of the Middle East. In the 18th century in fact, the Czarina, the Empress of Russia, Catherine the Great, who was in fact a German not a Russian, but she took to it like a duck takes to water, she was the first one to explicitly say that she was going to protect the Orthodox Christians of the Middle East. She had this idea and it, and a lot of Russians did at the time, that eventually the czar of Moscow, heir to the ancient Roman and Byzantines emperors would conquer Istanbul, Constantinople, and become the great leaders of the entire Middle East. Of the entire formerly Christian world. In fact, Catherine the great named her grandson, Constantine, the founder of Constantinople with this ambition in mind. Now, in January 2020 Vladimir Putin visited Syria. We all know the Russians are in Syria. The Russians are allied very closely with Bashar Al-Assad. But when he visited Damascus in January, he went along with the Orthodox Archbishop of the city, the Patriarch of Antioch, to the cathedral of the city, the Orthodox cathedral, to worship there alongside Bashar Al-Assad.

AIMEN:

Well… As you know, the czars of Russia has always been tasked with the protection of the Orthodox Christians of the Middle East. That's the first thing. The second thing is that Qasem Soleimani has just been killed. He is the major competitor to Russia's ambitions in Syria because he represents Iran's interests in Syria. He's dead - perfect. Putin is there to consolidate.

THOMAS:

Well, it's interesting. I was in Syria… I lived in Damascus in 2007, 2008.

AIMEN:

Lucky you. [Laughs]

THOMAS:

And I used to worship at that cathedral. I remember specifically, I'll never forget a Psalm Sunday, you know the Sunday before Easter…

AIMEN:

Yeah.

THOMAS:

…at the cathedral. You know, Arab Christians are a wonderful people… Quite bourgeois, very middle-class, but also slightly chaotic. So, I remember just at the end of the mass, outside of the cathedral an enormous ruckus began. A sort of din of brass band music. Because all of the young Christians of the old city of Damascus had organized themselves into a brass band. And then they spent the next several hours just wandering around the city playing this sort of brass marching music. It was very strange, but it was a tremendous sign of the depth of Orthodox Christian penetration in an old Middle Eastern city like Syria which, which we often forget about.

AIMEN:

Exactly that they predate Islam. We forget basically that they've been there since before the Muslims actually arrived in Damascus.

THOMAS:

And Vladimir Putin considers himself their protector. Clearly he has cultivated very close relations with Orthodox Christian communities in Syria and elsewhere.

AIMEN:

Absolutely.

THOMAS:

But how does that support his wider strategic vision?

AIMEN:

Because then we come to the third issue. You remember we talked about the Chechen war before and how that lasted years and years? Now you remember I talked about the friction between the Sufis and the Salafists in the Chechen war?

THOMAS:

Yeah. You can take it for granted that I remember what you say.

AIMEN:

Yeah. Putin decided that he will split the jihadists from each other. The Sufi jihadists he will court. And he will court them in order to cultivate their enmity against the Salafists to use it to beat the Salafists.

THOMAS:

To divide and conquer?

AIMEN:

Absolutely. So he showered Ramzan Kadyrov and his father before him, Akhmad Kadyrov.

THOMAS:

Who is, who are these Kadyrovs?

AIMEN:

Basically, they are members of a prominent Sufi clan in Chechnya. Uh, they were promised the presidency of Chechnya afterwards within the Russian Federation. And that they will be having the backing of the Kremlin, the backing of the Russian armed forces if they just basically turned their back on the Salafists, the Wahhabis basically, who are trying to ignite a never ending war in the Caucuses against Russia and against other ethnicities in the region.

THOMAS:

So Putin gave the Kadyrov family the control of Chechnya in exchange for turning against the Salafists?

AIMEN:

Exactly. So a war raged between the Kadyrovs and the Salafists, including Shamil Basayev and other people who were the leaders of that Salafist movement along with the successors of Ibn Khattab there. But you know, as the war raged and it claimed actually Kadyrov’s father, Ramzan Kadyrov, his father Akhmad Kadyrov was killed actually by a IED place under his podium by the jihadists. So what happened is: the Arab spring happened. Syria happened. And suddenly Syria became the magnet of jihadism. And what Kadyrov did? He opened the Southern border towards Georgia and allowed all of these people to exit.

THOMAS:

Bye, bye.

AIMEN:

Bye, bye. Go to Syria, wage your jihad there, go establish your califate there. So they went there and then what happened is – when they were all there, between five and 6,000 of them, then this is basically when the Russians thought ‘That's it. We have emptied the Caucuses from them, let us now pound them there.’

THOMAS:

So Russia has been fighting its own enemies in Syria.

AIMEN:

Exactly.

THOMAS:

Why doesn't anyone know about this? That's fascinating.

AIMEN:

Well, you need to be quite intimate with the events as I did when I was in Azerbaijan and Georgia in these days.

THOMAS:

We should all be more intimate with jihadists.

AIMEN:

[Laughs]

THOMAS:

You should create a dating app for jihadists. ‘Get intimate with jihadists’.

AIMEN:

Yeah, except basically I mean, it will entail some sort of slavery contract. [Laughs]

THOMAS:

But let’s get back to this. Russia. And Russia’s role in the formation, or perhaps subversion, of George H. Bush’s New World Order. The economic collapse in Russia that happened at the end of the 90s followed several years where Russia really did dance to the beat of America's drum. Americans insisted on radical economic surgery. The IMF, which along with the World Bank, tries to manage the global economy as it fitfully lurches towards free markets and liberal democracy, and America more or less insist on radical economic and financial surgery to what was a completely sclerotic post-communist economy. And very quickly it caused all sorts of economic problems. The ruble collapsed in value in 1998 I think quite famously, state assets were sold to the highest quote unquote bidder but actually that meant…

AIMEN:

The oligarchs…

THOMAS:

Insiders within who had influence within the government there, and most of them actually seem to live just down the street here in London but…

AIMEN:

Indeed.

[Laughter]

THOMAS:

That’s another story. Um. So initially, Russia did dance to the beat of America's drum. ‘98 the ruble collapses and from then on Russia really stops playing along. That decision, to go its own way again, is largely the result of Vladimir Putin who came to power at that time.

THOMAS:

There's obviously a lot more we could have talked about in this extremely complex episode of Conflicted. I mean, 20 years of Russian history is not easy to summarize. We could've gone into greater detail about the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Or we could've talked about the war in Georgia, Russia’s war in Georgia, in 2008. And, of course, the ongoing Ukrainian civil war which we did touch on. But as we’ve seen through the story of Russia’s relationship with Chechnya, America’s strategy toward Russia at the dawn of the New World Order was a bit of a roller-coaster. And it was, once again, jihadists, this time in Chechnya, who played such a huge role in undermining that strategy by creating the conditions for the rise of Vladimir Putin. A man who, you know love him or hate him, began to look around and realize that America’s global ambitions weren’t necessarily in the interests of Russia. In the end in a sort of twist, Putin partnered with the Sufi Muslims of Chechnya and gave them independence of a sort in exchange for becoming his vassals. Which is why we now see Chechen mercenaries in every Middle Eastern hot zone fighting for Russia and ironically enabling Russia to regain its age-old role of protector of Orthodox Christians everywhere. An unexpected dimension of Russia’s power struggle with America in the Middle East. So we see that despite efforts on both America’s and Russia’s parts to forge a new partnership following the collapse of the Soviet Union, that relationship soured over the course of the noughties leading us to where we are now. Russia with a strong foothold in the Middle East. Russia becoming an opposing force to America, definitely not their partners. Russia allied with Muslim warriors of the Caucuses who are in almost every war zone in the region and beyond supporting and projecting Russian power. It was certainly not what George H W Bush had in mind when he first invoked his New World Order.

[THEME MUSIC]

THOMAS:

Conflicted is a Message Head production. It’s produced by Sandra Ferrari and Jake Otajovic. Edited by Sandra Ferrari. Our theme music is by Matt Huxley.

This week we’ve got another book to giveaway to one of our lucky listeners. Our recommended reading for this episode is: ‘A Dirty War. A Russian Reporter In Chechnya’ by Anna… let’s see if I can get this right… Politkovskaya. Anna Politkovskaya is a hero among journalists and an early victim of Putin’s crackdown on independent journalism. Assassinated in 2006 for exposing the dark side of the new Russia. In this brutally honest book, Politkovskaya courageously documents the Chechnyan War from the ground. To be in with a chance of winning a copy, join our Facebook group before Wednesday 18th March when we announce the winner. The link to the group is in the show notes or search ‘Conflicted Podcast Discussion Group’ on Facebook. You can also find the show on social media – Twitter and Facebook at MHConflicted. And if you’re a fan of the show, please subscribe to Conflicted in your podcast app and leave us a rating and a review. It will really help us to spread the word.

You’ve been listening to Conflicted with me, Thomas Small, and my good friend Aimen Dean. See you again in two weeks!

Conflicted - New World Order

In 1990, George Bush proclaimed the dawning of a New World Order. The Cold War was over, the nation-state and capitalism had won, and the US was ready to deliver their strategy for global governance of the world. Aimen and Thomas discuss how this played out in the Middle East and where the grand vision fell short.

You can now listen now wherever you get your podcasts — and we’re also publishing our transcripts this season, so check it out below!

Read the full transcript here

Conflicted S2Ep1 New World Order

THOMAS: Hello Aimen

AIMEN: Hello Thomas.

THOMAS: Nice to see you again.

AIMEN: Nice to see you too.

THOMAS: And hello to you, dear listener. Thanks for tuning in to the second episode of the second series of Conflicted. A podcast where we try to take you through the history of the last 30 years. The history of America's attempt from out of the ashes of the Cold War to build a new, and the glorious world, where freedom, liberal democracy and capitalism would thrive everywhere.

AIMEN: And unicorns flying everywhere [Laughs]

THOMAS: [Laughs] [Overlapping] And unicorns as well.

[THEME MUSIC]

THOMAS: In the last season, we started our story on 9/11. The infamous day when Al-Qaeda attacked New York City and Washington D.C. In this season, we're also going to start on September 11th, but not in 2001, in 1990. When George H. W. Bush, that is to say, George Bush Senior, the first President Bush, delivered a speech to Congress in which he said this:

[ARCHIVAL CLIP STARTS]

GEORGE BUSH: We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. Out of these troubled times, a new world order can emerge. A new era, freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South can prosper and live in harmony. A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor, and today that new world is struggling to be born. A world quite different from the one we've known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice.

[ARCHIVAL CLIP ENDS]

THOMAS: So there you've just heard President Bush Senior invoke the New World Order, which he hoped to establish following the Cold War. What was the New World Order? Well, I think we can define it like this. America, now unopposed, a global hegemon with no Soviet Union to oppose it, uses its military to police the world, prevent one nation state from invading another… with the exception of America itself of course but that's another issue. [Laughs]

AIMEN: [Laughs]

THOMAS: And in general support the establishment and the strengthening of nation states everywhere in order to allow international organisations like what became the World Trade organization, to spread neoliberal capitalism everywhere, which they believed would spur global trade and lead to economic growth.

When President Bush Senior delivered that speech to Congress, Saddam Hussein had recently invaded Kuwait. You Aimen were living not so far away at the time down in Khobar on the Eastern coast of Saudi Arabia. Uh, and in the first season you told us about your memories of that time of having American troops come to Saudi to help rescue Kuwait and prevent Iraq from invading Saudi Arabia.

We don't want to go over that story again, but what I'd like to know from you is: do you remember the first time you heard this expression, New World Order and heard about America's ambitions following the cold war to create a new and prosperous world for everyone?

AIMEN: You know what, Thomas, you will be surprised to know that I did hear that expression in the run up to the first Gulf War between, you know, Saddam invading Kuwait and the launch of the war to expel him from it. Why? Because the listeners might not think of it like this right now, but actually at the time, we were afraid, and we were genuinely afraid, that the Gulf could become the battlefield of the Third World War. Because there was that general belief that Baghdad was part of the Soviet access. That… Baghdad was part of Moscow's Alliance.

THOMAS: If Saddam Hussein had been allied with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, at least on and off let’s say…

AIMEN: [Overlapping] Indeed.

THOMAS: He was a bit of a wily character.

AIMEN: Absolutely. So many people thought that Moscow wouldn't allow the Americans to launch an all-out war against Iraq to expel them from Kuwait, and that Moscow would, uh, push for a status quo. And I think even Saddam might have thought this way.

THOMAS: And that's how it always had been during the Cold War. In general, America had not been able to project its power militarily very directly with some exceptions of course, because Moscow would counter their power, so the world was held in a kind of stalemate.

So you're saying that Saddam Hussein thought he could take advantage of that Cold War scenario to… to press his advantage in, in Kuwait.

AIMEN: Indeed. But what happened is suddenly, we started to see that, you know, there is, there is a new shift. First of all, Moscow wasn't exactly very supportive of Saddam's move. That's the first thing. And Moscow was already weak, beyond weak. I think we didn't know how weak it was until Saddam invaded Kuwait.

THOMAS: [Overlapping] Well the Berlin wall had fallen...

AIMEN: [Overlapping] Yup.

THOMAS: …the previous November and you know, communism was unravelling.

AIMEN: Exactly, so Moscow was in a weak position, but what actually made this seem like a new world order is that another of Moscow's allies, Damascus – Syria – sent 27,000 troops to protect Saudi border against possible Iraqi invasion.

THOMAS: So even you, a young, well young, 13 year old, 12 year old boy in Saudi Arabia could tell that things had changed. Did you see President Bush give this speech? Were you watching it on TV? Were Saudis watching it?

AIMEN: Of course, because we were living with the idea that, you know, my house was only 800 meters away from the fence of the largest air base, you know, in the entire Middle East, King Abdulaziz Air Base. And you know, not far away to… two kilometres away is the gate to Aramco, which is the largest oil company in the world. Where, you know, two of my brothers were working, my two uncles were working there, and so of course we knew that we will be the next target, you know, Iraqi tanks could be in our town within four hours.

THOMAS: So you're watching television with your family and Bush introduces this idea, the New World Order that he wants to create. What was your family's response to this?

AIMEN: We deduced really three things. One, Moscow is not coming to the aid of Saddam, so brilliant. It means there is no new world war, there will be no World War Three. That's the first thing. Second thing is that the Americans are building the coalition, which means basically that they are going to overwhelm Saddam, and by extension Moscow, with so many countries coming side-by-side together. It means that there will be no two sides fighting this war. Saddam will be alone, which means that Moscow is going to abandon one of her allies in the region. And the third thing is that, well perfect. It means there is no invasion, it’s going to be a simple war later basically to expel Saddam out of Kuwait. The question is, are we going to witness chemical war or whatever? That's what we were worried about.

THOMAS: What did you think the new world that America was now going to lead would be like?

AIMEN: We didn't think that America is going to lead yet because they haven't been yet tested in the battlefield. Yet, all of us in, you know, my family, the extended friends circle, we were worried about America's previous performance in Vietnam. I'm not kidding. Seriously. We were really worried that yes, the Americans are coming, but can they really expel Saddam out of Kuwait and is it going to be short or long, protracted war? We were worried about that.

THOMAS: It was certainly a short war, very quick. I think within a hundred days, Iraq was destroyed.

AIMEN: Yeah.

THOMAS: And then on the 6th of March 1991 again, George H.W. Bush gave a speech in which he again, invoked the New World Order.

AIMEN: That is the speech in which we believed that there is a new world.

THOMAS: And what, how did you imagine it? What did you think it meant?

AIMEN: I liked what my brother said. You know, my brother spent years in America studying for his degree and his masters degree, and he said something interesting, you know, he said: “What this means is that McDonald's is coming to Saudi Arabia.”

THOMAS: McDonald's.

AIMEN: That's what he said.

THOMAS: You didn't have McDonald's yet?

AIMEN: We didn't have McDonald's yet, but he, he said what this new world order means is that we would become similar culturally, economically, to the Americans.

THOMAS: And was he saying that in a spirit of expectation, of anticipation, of excitement?

AIMEN: Uh, no, more disappointment actually. [Laughs]

THOMAS: Oh, so people weren't looking forward to this New World Order where they could have McDonald's at every waking hour of the day and night.

AIMEN: Some were, some weren’t, so it all depends on who you speak to. Do you speak basically to liberal Saudis, or do you speak to conservative Saudis? Conservative Saudis especially… Don't forget, many conservative and liberal Saudis studied where? In the US. Aramco used to send so many people to study in America and then they come back and, you know, some have the opposite, you know, view of the U.S as you know, being a hegemonic, uh, culturally encroaching…

THOMAS: Great Satan.

AIMEN: Great Satan, but others basically have more positive view of the U.S and its influence in the world. But I think his words stuck with me when he saw that speech after the defeat of Iraq.

THOMAS: Well, that's very interesting. It shows your brother's prescience because about eight years later a book came out, a very famous book at the time, by Thomas Friedman, still a highly regarded New York Times columnist called The Lexus and the Olive Tree, which sort of became for the liberal intelligentsia, for the metropolitan elite if you like, the kind of Bible of globalisation. I mean, globalization is a word that sort of grew in precedence, but it’s expressing the same thing. This New World Order, where the globe is knitted together, united under American military, economic and cultural supremacy around the ideals and principles first of capitalism, let's be honest. And second, of liberal democracy.

AIMEN: When possible.

THOMAS: When possible. Um, and Thomas Friedman's book, the Lexus and the Olive Tree actually introduced a principle, which became quite famous, in which he said that two countries, each of which have a McDonald's in them, would never go to war with each other. In the end, this proved to be untrue. In fact, the very year the book came out in Kosovo, there were McDonald's there. [Laughs]

AIMEN: [Laughs]

THOMAS: And Siberia had McDonald's, but it expresses a sort of idea that thanks to American led global capitalism, peace and prosperity would rain and your brother thought that would happen immediately. He thought McDonald's is coming.

AIMEN: Exactly. That's how he saw it. And funny enough, when the Soviet Union collapsed months later-

THOMAS: The Soviet Union collapsed about nine months later.

AIMEN: Exactly. Yeah. So, months later, we saw the first McDonald's open in Moscow and we saw lines and lines stretching a kilometre. And he told me, basically: “Do you remember when I told you it would be McDonald’s?” You know, that McDonald’s represented both the cultural and the economic hegemonic arm of the United States.

THOMAS: It's funny that you say that in Saudi Arabia, people, uh, greeted the New World Order differently depending on whether they were liberals or conservatives. Because certainly I, in America at the time, growing up in a kind of quite right wing, fundamentalist evangelical environment, I was given to believe that the New World Order was absolutely terrifyingly, apocalyptically, horrible that it was the reign of antichrist about to arrive on earth. And in fact, the same year that Bush gave his first speech on the New World Order, a famous American Evangelical Preacher and Broadcaster called Pat Robertson, he published a book called The New World Order, in which he said: “It may well be that men of Goodwill, like George Bush, who sincerely want a larger community of nations living at peace in our world, are in reality unknowingly and unwittingly carrying out the mission and mouthing the phrases of a tightly knit cabal whose goal is nothing less than a new order for the human race under the domination of Lucifer and his followers.

AIMEN: Wow.

[Laughter]

THOMAS: So, amongst the right wingers of America, there was a lot of consternation about this New World Order and what it could mean. Of course, they thought it was going to undermine American national sovereignty as America's political class pursues something like an international global order, which would dilute national sovereignty in pursuit of international goals. Inside Saudi Arabia amongst, say, the conservative preachers and conservative teachers that you were socializing with on your way to becoming a Jihadist Terrorist a few years later, was there a similar, almost paranoia about this, this New World Order?

AIMEN: Let me tell you something, Thomas.

THOMAS: Please do, Aimen.

AIMEN: You will be surprised to know that the three months that followed the American victory in the Gulf War against Saddam, these three months were incredibly weird and surreal. And of course, when Bush spoke about a new world and a New World Order, it was almost visible above our heads. Why? Because before Saddam left Kuwait, he blew up all the oil wells, and so the smoke, the heavy dark smoke from the oil wells, covered all of our region. You know, the tri-city area of Dammam, Dhahran, and Khobar, my city, were covered in dark clouds for three months.

THOMAS: So you must have thought the apocalypse had arrived.

AIMEN: [Laughs] Indeed. And what happened is, you know, basically we wear white robes, they’re called thawb.

THOMAS: Yes, the white thawbs of the Saudis.

AIMEN: Yeah, so I go to the Mosque, or the school, whatever, basically like, I mean, and they closed the schools actually at the time, because of the health hazard. So whenever I go to the Mosque or to the shop or whatever, I, come back. And when it rains, it becomes black you know, basically it becomes so grey, you know, because of the rain that comes with oil in it. So, it was and smells, really smells awful. So, in this environment we were forming our opinion of what the world will be after the defeat of Saddam, the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union and the Soviet access, Communism is defeated in Afghanistan. Remember, it was collapsing in Afghanistan also. It was collapsing in East Europe and Arab nationalism was defeated by Bush when he expelled Saddam out of Kuwait. So, we were thinking, yes, you know, the world is changing around us. And is it for the better? Well, you know, the dark clouds, literally, were hovering above us.

THOMAS: Take us into the minds of the conservative religious Saudis at the time, like my religious contemporaries in America. Were you afraid that the reign of Antichrist had arrived?

AIMEN: Well, I tell you something. You know, you remember there is a preacher. Not many listeners would have heard about, but of course, many, many, many within the Arab world and Muslim world heard about, his name is Safar Al-Hawali. Safar Al-Hawali, you know, you know, he has a PhD in Islamic studies--

THOMAS: He’s a part of a movement in Saudi Arabia called the Sahwah movement or the Awakening movement.

AIMEN: [Overlapping] Absolutely. Thomas, you always impress me.

THOMAS: Which was a movement of primarily Saudi clerics who it is alleged were to some extent allied to, or at least sympathetic with, Muslim Brotherhood ideas. And they petitioned the Saudi government over a series of years to increase the government's Islamic credentials, if you like, or-

AIMEN: Basically, to have a stricter introduction of Sharia into everyday life. To fight off the westernizing influence of globalization, culturally, economically, and all of that. And they wanted to ban interest-based lending. You know, in the kingdom. They wanted to ban conventional banking. Uh, you know, they wanted to go as far as Saudis condemning the new peace process started in 1992 in Madrid between the Palestinians and Israelis.

THOMAS: We'll get to that shortly.

AIMEN: So basically, there were so many things they wanted-

THOMAS: They were… They were, to some extent, successful in shifting attitudes within the government and certainly outside the government towards a more hard-line Islamic direction.

AIMEN: To an extent. But Safar Al-Hawali, he basically was looking at the American arrival to the Middle East, especially in the Arabian Peninsula as they used to call it, to push away Saddam and to safeguard the energy supplies in the world. He saw it as another episode of the crusades. He said that this is not because people wanted to save God, the sovereignty of one small little country like Kuwait. This is bigger than Kuwait. This is bigger than Saudi Arabia. This is bigger than anything else. This is about American Christian crusading hegemony that is in the service of the Zionist project in Israel.

THOMAS: Of course, we know that another person who was around at that time, Osama bin Laden, interpreted, uh, America's arrival in the Middle East in the same way.

AIMEN: Exactly.

THOMAS: Which led to Al-Qaeda. Which led to 9/11 and everything we talked about in season one. But I think it's interesting that within Saudi Arabia there was almost immediately, in response to the New World Order, in response to America's new unopposed role in the world, that within Saudi Arabia people responded to this. Some people at least, with a call for a more Islamic order. Because the year after Bush’s speech, an extremely famous and influential book was then released by someone called Samuel Huntington. It's a book called The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. It started in ‘92 as a lecture, in ‘93 an article, and then finally in ‘96 a book. And in this book, Samuel Huntington quite infamously says that America's dream of a New World Order is not going to happen because actually, though, perhaps capitalism has defeated communism, in a new world it's not a clash of political ideologies anymore. It's a clash of culture. And he specified two cultures in particular that were not gonna play game. One was China, and we'll get to that in another episode, and the other was Islam. And as we saw to some extent, Samuel Huntington was proved correct. That to some extent, and in some ways, the Islamic world was not easily or successfully integrated into this New World Order.

AIMEN: Some more than others. You know, the problem is it's not so much basically that Islam in itself did not play a part because Islam is absent to be honest. Because of the fact that it's the Muslims who did not successfully integrate into this New World Order or into this you know, global economic model that the Americans wanted to install. And I tell you why. Because while Egypt, Algeria, you know, Iran, Pakistan – these countries failed to embrace, you know, these principles.

THOMAS: The principles of capitalism, liberalism, et cetera.

AIMEN: Well, capitalism, not so much liberalism. But I would say basically in a free market, economic liberalism. Those were embraced by countries like Malaysia, the UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia. These countries embraced it, and as a result, basically the living standards in these countries basically are far better. Of course, oil helped. But in the case of, for example, Malaysia, you know – hardly any oil. And in the case of Turkey, you know, in 2003 onwards, basically when they embraced, um, free market capitalism, thanks to Ahmet Davutoğlu. Also, there was unprecedented levels of prosperity there. So, there are some countries that successfully embraced you know, free market liberalism. And other countries who did not embrace… They did not embrace, or they failed, because of the excessive dictatorship and autocracy that was implemented there.

THOMAS: Well, eventually, George W. Bush and his advisers would, would, uh, come to the same conclusion and thought that they would have to remove a dictatorship from the Middle East in order to see the New World Order through – with fabulously catastrophic results, as we saw in again, in season one.

Now, initially you're America. It's 1991, you've decided we won the Cold War. We have this unbelievable opportunity to erect a New World Order. You're basically going to have three objectives in mind. First, you need to establish a new partnership with Russia going forward. You've been their enemy for the last 50 years, but you've won and now you have to establish a new partnership with them. You need to incorporate China, this incredibly enormous and rising economic and, indeed, military power. You need to incorporate China into the world economy thinking that by doing so you will encourage the spread of liberal democracy there, and you will finally have to sort out the Middle East, a strange collection of monarchs and dictators and Islamists and post-Ottoman failed states. You finally have to sort out the problem. I would like us now to talk about that third objective, the Middle East, because immediately things started to happen. You mentioned before the Israel Palestinian peace plan that was relaunched in Madrid in 1992 by George Bush Senior, and then it was taken forward by President Bill Clinton. At the time, Yasser Arafat was the leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The Palestinian authority hadn't yet been set up. It would be set up as part of this peace plan. And on the Israeli side, most famously, Yitzhak Rabin, who was eventually assassinated by a hard-line Jewish Israeli who felt that he had conceded too much to the Muslims. That peace plan didn't succeed. Why?

AIMEN: Well, it didn't succeed because, you know a multitude of reasons.

THOMAS: Well, first of all, let's talk about the plan. What was that plan? The Madrid peace plan which was supposed to sort out the Israel Palestine problem, finally. What was the plan?

AIMEN: I love the fact that the plan was a slogan. The slogan for the, [laughs] for the conference was also the plan. Land for peace.

THOMAS: Land for peace.

AIMEN: Yeah.

THOMAS: Meaning?

AIMEN: Meaning, give the Palestinians lands. And they give the Israeli's peace.

THOMAS: So they'll stop attacking Israel if Israel gives back lands, basically.

AIMEN: [Overlapping] Yes.

THOMAS: That's the idea.

AIMEN: That's the idea. The 1967, you know, lands in return for peace...

THOMAS: In 1967 there was a war between Israel and Egypt.

AIMEN: [Overlapping] And Serbia and Jordan

THOMAS: And Serbia and Jordan, [Laughs] and in the course of that war, Israel conquered huge amounts of land in the West Bank and in Gaza.

AIMEN: Yep.

THOMAS: And so, it became a sticking point of the Palestinians that in order to have a peace plan put in place, they needed to get those lands back.

AIMEN: Exactly, because there was a precedent for that which is in that war also, Israel conquered the entire Sinai Peninsula but they returned that to Egypt when Sadat, who was way ahead of his time in reading events, went to Jerusalem, reached peace with the Israelis unilaterally, and got most of the Sinai back. And piece by piece, basically it was returned. Until finally, in 1986, the last small drop called Taba you know, was given back to Hosni Mubarak.

THOMAS: So Egypt got the Sinai back and now the Palestinians say: “Well, we want all of the Westbank back, please.”

AIMEN: Indeed. And Gaza. Um, however, here, there is a problem. You know, this is where we have to tread carefully because we don't want to be, you know, siding with one side, Thomas, here.

THOMAS: No, I hate siding with one side. [Laughs]

AIMEN: Exactly. So, so on one side, the Israelis are saying that, you know, this is the land of Judea and Samaria, and this is our ancestral homeland. You know, basically, we came all the way from all over the world, basically not because of Tel Aviv or Haifa or Acre. We came actually for this particular piece of land, Judea and Samaria. So now that we have them by right of conquest… But you know, still don't, don't forget. Many people basically think that the Israelis are Europeans or enlightened or whatever. No, they are Middle Easterners. [Laughter] Like everyone else, they behave like such. I've been to Israel before basically, and you know, it was so refreshing to see the way they talk, they behave and everything. It's exactly like we talk and behave.

THOMAS: And so, they say we've conquered the land. We're not giving it back. And the Palestinians?

AIMEN: And the Palestinians say basically: “Excuse me, we are living here.”

THOMAS: Okay, so to explore America's perspective in the early nineties as they're creating the New World Order, why was it important for the Americans to solve this problem and what was the Madrid Peace Plan? How was it going to solve it, and how did it come unstuck?

AIMEN: Well, the Americans thought, and rightly so, that the Palestinian issue is the cause of you know, radicalization. Is the cause to which Arab Dictators use as a stick to beat, you know, their people into submission. Look at Syria, for example. Look at Aleppo. So, Saddam used it to say: “I'm pro-Palestinian and that's why the West is hating me and that's why we have sanctions”. And Hafez Al-Assad, you know, Bashar’s father in Syria, always use the Palestinian issue as a way to say: “If you are not with me, you are with the Israelis.” You know, to be honest I mean…

THOMAS: [Overlapping] They still invoked the Palestinians when it served them.

AIMEN: When it served them. [Overlapping]

THOMAS: As all Arab leaders and Muslim leaders did. [Overlapping]

AIMEN: All of them yes, indeed. So here is the issue, you know, is that one of the things that was really stark for me is that I visited a Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp in Damascus.

THOMAS: I've been there too.

AIMEN: Yeah. I visited the Ain al-Hilweh in Southern Lebanon. It's a refugee camp. It's a thousand meter by a thousand meter, but inside it there are a 140,000 Palestinians living. So you can imagine basically the awful living standards there. I visited The Baqa’a camp in Amman, in Jordan, and then I visited the West Bank, you know, in 2018 and what a contrast.

THOMAS: A positive contrast?

AIMEN: A positive contrast. The living standards of the Palestinians in the West Bank, far, far better than the living standards in Lebanon, in Syria, and Jordan. I was thinking, what is going on here?

THOMAS: Well, that that is actually a sad and tragic fact that most visitors to Lebanon and Syria and Jordan learn, you know, that ultimately the Palestinians who are not granted citizenship of those countries, even though they've been living there for decades, up to 50 years, 60 years in some cases, and they're not provided with the level of public service that the normal citizens are provided…

AIMEN: Yeah in Lebanon [Overlapping]

THOMAS: …In order to maintain this idea that the Palestinians are victims and need our help.

AIMEN: Exactly. I mean, the hypocrisy over in Lebanon – they are barred from 84 jobs. 84 jobs they can't even do. They are barred from education. They are barred from so many things. They can't go to university in Lebanon. So, you know… And when I visited the West Bank, you know, you notice basically that they had the places that were destroyed in the 2004 Intifada. Intifada, which means uprising in Arabic. You know, when you look at Jenin, for example, they have a brand new university now there and you drive around and you find BMWs and Mercedes and you know, the levels of prosperity is far better. I'm not saying basically they are living the life...

THOMAS: No, I mean Palestinians suffer a lot injustice in the West bank.

AIMEN: [Overlapping] Exactly.

THOMAS: There's no question. And in Gaza strip, no question. But what is often not pointed out is that they suffer sometimes similar or even worse forms of injustice in their fellow Arab countries. [Laughs]

AIMEN: It’s worse in the Arab countries than in Israel. It's worse. Much worse. The hypocrisy of it, you know, is astounding. And I think that's one of the reasons why the Americans wanted to solve this issue, is to make sure that it cannot be ever used again to beat the Arab people into submission.

THOMAS: So, the Americans want to neutralize their opponents within the Arab world's ability to do that.

AIMEN: Exactly. And the Islamist… And don't forget the Iranians. The Iranians already created the IRGC, Al Quds Force. We talked about Al Quds force in the last episode. What does the word Quds force mean?

THOMAS: It means Jerusalem.

AIMEN: Exactly. So, you know, when you have an entire, you know, army in Iran called Jerusalem Army [laughs] Al Quds force. You know, so basically for the Americans, they looked at all of this in 1992 and said “Only when there is a viable peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis that we can tell the Syrians, the Iraqis, the Iranians, and the Islamists of the region – that's it. Put up or shut up. The Palestinians have signed up to this peace. You can't be more Palestinians than the Palestinians themselves.”

THOMAS: But they didn't sign up to the peace. Why?

AIMEN: Aha. Again, you know, peace require compromise. And both sides, in a way, were not willing to compromise enough for each other, basically, to accept. For the Israelis, who remember, basically, they are people who, you know, just a generation earlier, you remember this is 1990, a generation or two generations earlier, suffered one of the largest, you know, ethnic cleansing and genocide that ever happened in the world.

THOMAS: The Holocaust.

AIMEN: The Holocaust. And they'd been attacked again and again by multiple countries. 1948, 1967, and 1973, so they always basically, have above anything else, a worry called Security.

THOMAS: Absolutely.

AIMEN: And the country is so tiny. You know, basically, if you drive from Tel Aviv to the Hills of Sumaria and Judea, basically it's only like in a 12 kilometers or 12 miles, I think. I can't remember. But you know, we're talking about a small stretch of land, which means any opposing force can cut Israel in half and basically just divide the country very quickly and swallow it. So, they always have this, you know, unbelievable, irrational almost, obsession with security.

THOMAS: So they don't want to compromise their security and the Palestinians, they want their land back and Israel said we’re not giving it to you.

AIMEN: Well, you know, this is where things get really complicated. The headline is the Palestinians basically would like to have yes for an answer, or no for an answer. They take either yes or no. For the Israelis, they don't like answers. They like questions. They like hundreds of questions to be raised. You know, okay, well, the sovereignty over the airspace, the sovereignty, where is the airspace defined? Is it like in 200 meters above the sea level? 300 meters above sea level? Okay. What about the water underneath? Does it belong to Israel or the Palestinians? What about the settlements that already been built there? What do we do with them? Do we annex them, but, okay...? What about the roads between them? Basically, are they still a part of Israel or not? Can you believe these issues took years and years and years to just basically, you know, being hashed out and then in the end they were never agreed.

THOMAS: But why not?

AIMEN: Because, while these talks were continuing, the Israelis continued to build more settlements.

THOMAS: I see. So, they were antagonizing the Palestinians more.

AIMEN: And this is where we are stuck now.

THOMAS: So, America's goal of solving the Middle Eastern problem failed at the first hurdle. But, very soon, there was a second hurdle in the Middle East, or let's say the Muslim world which was in Somalia. Briefly because Somalia is goddamned complicated, tell us Aimen – what happened in ‘92, ‘93 around Somalia?

AIMEN: What happened is that what was put together, post-colonialism by force, ended up basically separating by force. Remember that Somalia was a socialist, planned economy, kind of a country.

THOMAS: Allied with the Soviet Union?

AIMEN: To an extent, it was, you know, kind of didn’t know what it wants. And so basically with the weakening of the Soviet Bloc, add to this basically the fact that Siad Barre was a dictator who ruled the country with an iron fist. Somalia is a tribal country and its borders were a construct of post-colonialism. It was bound to break. The question is when. In 1990…

THOMAS: [Overlapping] In 1991

AIMEN: Finally, the breaking point was reached. Siad Barre after ruling the country for 20 years with an iron fist, faced an armed uprising against him by some of his generals. And that led to the tribal powder keg to finally explode and the country to this day, 30 years on, still divided. If you want my opinion, you want to solve the problem, partition the country into three or four countries.

THOMAS: That may be the final solution, but at the time, the United Nations, uh, decided to get involved. A number of security council resolutions were drawn up and ratified to keep the peace in the country. Peacekeepers were sent, led by the United States, of course. Um, and that attempt by the United States to police these United Nations security council resolutions failed. Perhaps the listener will have seen that excellent Ridley Scott film, Black Hawk Down, which tells the story of some American peacekeepers there. When their Black Hawk helicopter was taken down and they were subjected to a prolonged assault from Somalians, which became infamous and ultimately led or helped lead to the withdrawal of America from Somalia. And the country's continual collapse into a state of total misery. So, America failed with Israel, Palestine. They failed with Somalia, and then they were forced to turn their attention to another part of the world. Not exactly part of the Muslim world, but slightly part of the Muslim world. The Balkans, specifically Yugoslavia. Ah, the Balkans, Homeland of war and… [Laughs]

AIMEN: [Laughs]

THOMAS: …and ethnic strife. Um, so people may know Yugoslavia was a member of the Eastern Bloc, although quite a, uh, independent member. It's long, uh, living, Communist dictator Tito did not get along with Stalin and the Soviets so well. So he kind of forged his own path and Yugoslavia was a relatively prosperous and peaceful place.

Uh, he died in the 80s, and a man called Slo.. Slo.. Slo-

AIMEN: Slobodan.

THOMAS: Slobodan Milosevic came to power there, who as the Eastern Blocc and as communism began to fall apart everywhere, decided that the best way to move forward was to become a, perhaps even a Trump style, let's say, [laughs] a nationalist, a dictator. So he leaned heavily on the Serbian rhetoric on supporting Serbian ambitions. That Serbs are the greatest people in this part of the world, and they need their rights to be protected. Uh, which was seen to be very threatening by the other peoples of Yugoslavia, the Bosnians, the Croatians, although they're actually all the same people. What really divides them is religion.

AIMEN: Exactly. I mean, the Slovenians and the Croats are Catholics and the Bosnians are Muslims and the Serbs are-

THOMAS: [overlapping] Are Orthodox

AIMEN: [Overlapping] Orthodox Christians.

THOMAS: That's right. Uh, and this led to a lot of suffering. Especially in the Muslim area of Bosnia where, not just from the Serbs, but from the Croats as well the Muslims were subjected to extremely harsh treatment. And as the the two larger partners, if you like, wanted to prevent their own ambitions for national sovereignty and statehood, again, in a way, addressing this larger question of the Muslim world and sorting it out. Yugoslavia and the descent there into sectarian warfare, which targeted the Bosnians particularly badly. Of course, this is where your own journey through life really starts because you signed up as a young man to join the jihad in Bosnia. What, at the time amongst your jihadist comrades in Bosnia was the attitude towards America's, let's say, hegemonic leadership? By this time, you're, you're, you're, you're not a member of Al-Qaeda, so let's say you're not a jihadist maniac yet. You're just defending Bosnians who are being targeted mercilessly by Serbs and Croats. But nonetheless, what was the attitude towards America at the time?

AIMEN: You know, when I, when I decided to go to Bosnia I didn't wake up that morning and say to myself, I'm going to join a terrorist group. I'm going to become a terrorist. No, of course not. I mean, it wasn't viewed this way. It was viewed that you want to go and join the defence efforts of the Bosnian people against the Serbian genocide. You will be surprised to know that there wasn't so much anti-American feelings within the jihadist movement at that time. It was more of anti-European feeling mainly Britain, France, and Germany…

THOMAS: That were failing to intervene.

AIMEN: Exactly. You know, their failure to intervene. Although there was some interventions by the Americans and the French, you know, forbidding the Serbs from placing heavy artillery weapons around Sarajevo during the siege of the city. But all of these basically were viewed as too little, too late, a window dressing. You know, it's not going to solve the problem. The slaughter is still taking place. Again, it's the obsession with heavy weapon, but in fact, basically in those small mortars and sniper rifles killed more people than heavy weapons in Sarajevo.

THOMAS: And the slaughter definitely took place. I mean, you must have witnessed this with your own eyes.

AIMEN: The discovery of mass graves was something that was happening all the time. So for me, basically I've seen the effects of the war, the, you know, I've seen the suffering. I've seen the mass graves being discovered and dug up. So of course, you know, there is no question that genocide took place there in Bosnia. The problem was that the European powers were just so unwilling to intervene. And I think, because don't forget, basically, you know, the European powers, you know, just also two generations ago, experienced a world, very destructive world war in their continent. Um, you know, but the question is…Russia was so weak to intervene in the side of the Serbs if they even wanted to. Boris Yeltsin was still basically begging DC and the Europeans basically for cash. So they could have intervened militarily and put an end to it, but they did not. And I think basically this is the lesson that Blair and Clinton learned later. Uh, when Kosovo, you know, uh, genocide was about to start…

THOMAS: In 1999 that they did intervene early in Kosovo.

AIMEN: Exactly. However, in this case here…

THOMAS: [overlapping] In the Bosnian case, so this is where? ‘92, ‘93, ’94?

AIMEN: ‘95. ‘95 was the end of it with the Dayton Accord which again, the Americans are the ones who basically intervened um in this case.

THOMAS: So in this case, in the, in the case of Bosnia and the, in the collapse of Yugoslavia in general, America's leadership in initiating this New World Order succeeded would you say?

AIMEN: Succeeded in putting an end to a war. Uh, that's for sure. But, in the words of another person, another man who will have a very profound effect on America, you know, when he sat down next to me, knee to knee, uh, in a wedding in Bosnia in October of 1995.

THOMAS: You're talking about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

AIMEN: Indeed.

THOMAS: He was the architect of the 9/11 attack.

AIMEN: Exactly. He viewed it differently. He said the Americans, you know, are not trying to put an end to the war, but what they are doing is that they are going to reward the Serbs, who are only 35% of the population, they’re going to give them half the republic. Half the Bosnian Republic is under a Serbian - Bosnian control. And the, and the rest which is, you know, the Bosnians, who are about half the country and the 15% of the Croats basically, they are going to share the other half. So, he was saying they intervened but he actually twisted it. He said on the side of the Serbs. They came here to ensure that there will be no Muslim Republic in Europe. And they ensured that by making the Muslims half diluted with the 15% Croat who are going to be there.

THOMAS: But that's not really true. That was his paranoid conspiracy theory.

AIMEN: Of course, but what do you expect from someone who hated the Americans so much that in six years’ time he's going to launch 9/11 on them? Another thing is that of course, the Americans also had to convince the Serbs. They, they needed to persuade the Serbs…

THOMAS: To come to the table by bombing them.

AIMEN: Yes, by bombing them. They, they used in a force to bomb certain sites in order to tell the Serbs we are willing to do it. So, I think Slobodan Milosevic and Franja Tudjman, you know, Slobodan Milosevic was the…

THOMAS: [Overlapping] President of Serbia.

AIMEN: [Overlapping] President of Serbia. Franja Tudjman who was the President of Croatia. You know, both of them in the end basically decided, you know, it's time for the war to end. And Alija Izetbegović who was the president of Bosnia, who wasn't exactly happy with the terms – the Muslims had to give up so many lands basically. But in the end, he thought that the alternative to this is an ongoing war for another five years. Can the Bosnian people take it? And, um credit goes to him basically. I mean, he, in the end agreed.

THOMAS: Imagine if Yasser Arafat representing the Palestinians had come to the same conclusion in the 90s when the peace between those two countries was being ironed out.

AIMEN: You know, in Alija Izetbegović you have a politician-philosopher. Um, in Yasser Arafat, you have a flamboyant revolutionary. So, these are the two differences between you know, Arafat and Alija Izetbegović. Izetbegović showed leadership.

THOMAS: As I said earlier, America faced three main challenges in its pursuit of the New World Order. The first was sorting out the Muslim world, which as we've seen today largely failed. The other two: incorporating China into the international community and establishing a new partnership with Russia following decades of antagonism during the Soviet period. These two challenges we will discuss in upcoming episodes as we focus, in general in this series, on unpacking the story of the New World Order. First up in the next episode, Russia.

AIMEN: You know, Russia was for everyone to see, was about to fail. Was about to disintegrate.

THOMAS: Aimen You're giving away- you’re giving away the game. In two weeks, everyone!

AIMEN: Yeah. [Laughs]

[OUTRO MUSIC]

THOMAS: Conflicted is a Message Heard production. It's produced by Sandra Ferrari, Jake Warren and Jake Otajovic, edited by Sandra Ferrari. Our theme music is by Matt Huxley.

Now, as we mentioned last episode, we are going to be running giveaways for our listeners this season. This week, a recommended reading is a book I didn't mention during the podcast, but which is equally fascinating and extremely groundbreaking, very important when it comes to explaining the New World Order.

Francis Fukuyama's classic ‘The End of History and the Last Man’. This hugely influential book appeared the year after the Cold War ended and set out to explain why now that the Soviet union was gone, mankind had reached its predestined endpoint in the American-led global order of Western liberal democracy.

A controversial book, indeed. For a chance of winning your very own copy, join our Facebook group before Wednesday the 4th of March when we announce our winner. A link to the group is in the show notes, or you can search Conflicted Podcast Discussion Group on Facebook. You can also find us, of course, on social media at MHconflicted on Twitter and Facebook.

And if you enjoy the show, please subscribe to Conflicted in your podcast app and leave us a rating and a review. It will help the show to grow.

You've been listening to conflicted with me, Thomas Small, and my good friend Aimen Dean. We will be back in two weeks’ time.

Conflicted - World War Iran

With the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, the world found itself teetering on the edge of a conflict, the scale of which has only been threatened a few times since 1945.

Aimen and Thomas kick off Season 2 looking at who Soleimani was, his role in defeating ISIS, as well as the place of privatised espionage and drone technology in modern warfare.

You can now listen now wherever you get your podcasts — and we’re also publishing our transcripts this season, so check it out below!

Read the whole transcript here:

THOMAS: Well, hello! Dear listener, we're back. I'm Thomas Small, your co-host, with me as ever is… Aimen Dean. If you’re new to the show go ahead and binge listen to every episode of Season One right now. It'll give you a lot more about Aimen’s amazing backstory and my… my less amazing one. [Laughs]

AIMEN: Excuse me! [Laughs]

THOMAS: [Laughs] And you'll also hear us tell the whole story of the War on Terror, from behind the scenes. And discuss the issues involved in that war in a different way, really, from how you usually hear them discussed. Or… You could just start right here.

[THEME MUSIC]

THOMAS: Hi Aimen, how are ya?

AIMEN: Hi Thomas. I'm still alive.

THOMAS: [Overlapping] Still alive!

AIMEN: [Overlapping] I’m still alive.

THOMAS: [Overlapping] Oh! I’m so glad to hear it. Not only alive, but in fact celebrating a new birth. I believe you have a son now.

AIMEN: Indeed. Now I have one of each…

THOMAS: Aw!

AIMEN: [Overlapping] …and they are delightful. But also, they come with the usual tax of sleepless nights.

THOMAS: [Laughs] Well, I imagine that your life as a spy also led to several sleepless nights.

AIMEN: [Laughs] Indeed.

THOMAS: In fact, frankly given the threat that you constantly live under of assassination and other such things, have you really ever had a good night's sleep?

AIMEN: Before the kids? Yes. I always had good night's sleep.

THOMAS: That’s not true. You’re lying. You once told me that you couldn’t sleep until you had endless audiobooks playing in your…

AIMEN: Exactly! That’s the source of my, you know, wonderful sleep. [Laughs]

THOMAS: [Laughs] So Aimen you know, here we are, series two, season two of Conflicted… Season one, it seems, was rather appreciated. In fact, we have been nominated for Best Independent Podcast at the ARIA awards – the Audio and Radio Industry Awards. Can you believe it?

AIMEN: I was… I was surprised, to be honest.

THOMAS: I'm sure that we owe any, any adulation we are receiving… we owe to you, dear listener, for sticking with us through these extremely complicated stories which we will now continue with a whole new series of Conflicted.

[PAUSE]

THOMAS: If you are starting here, then I’ll do a quick recap. In season 1, we told you the story of The War on Terror from 9/11 onwards. And we did it through the prism of Aimen’s life story. Aimen joined Jihad as a young man. He fought in Bosnia. He fought in the Philippines. He ended up in Afghanistan where he swore allegiance to Osama Bin Laden, becoming an Al-Qaeda terrorist. Couple of years later, he decided terrorism wasn’t really his thing. So ,he left and was given an option: you go to prison or you join MI6. He joined MI6, they trained him up and sent him right back to Afghanistan as a double agent inside Al-Qaeda. Which he was for eight years until Dick Cheney outed him [Laughs] and he had to flee the embrace of MI6 and go into the banking sector. One form of terrorism for another.

AIMEN: [Laughs]

THOMAS: Was that fair?

AIMEN: Oh yeah. [Laughs]

THOMAS: [Laughs] This season we'll be looking at another swathe of history. But before we go back in time, we want to start with a bang in the present.

[NEWS CLIP STARTS]

BBC NEWS PRESENTER: Iran says it will take revenge for the US killing of its most powerful military commander. General Qasem Soleimani died when his convoy was hit with a US drone at Baghdad airport.

[NEWS CLIP ENDS]

THOMAS: So Aimen… who was Qasem Soleimani?

AIMEN: Well, sometime if you ask this question in Iran, people will tell you, well, you should say, or you should ask, who Qasem Soleimani wasn't, because he was so many things. He was the leader of the Quds force.

THOMAS: So, the Quds force is part of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. And I think it's important – it's, it's usually known in the press as the IRGC. And people think that the ‘I’ stands for Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. That's not true. It is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Which I think indicates what its purpose is. And the Quds force within that corps is an elite group of fighters who are devoted to spreading the Islamic Revolution beyond the borders of Iran.

AIMEN: Well, if you remember, we talked in the previous season about the civil war within Islam. And we talked about the fact that, you know, the entire Islamic world is divided between those who believe in the modern nation-state and those who don't. Whether they are on the Shia side or the Sunni side. So, on the Shia side, you have the Iranian nation-state. But people always forget that Iran is actually two Irans. One Iran is the nation-state and one Iran is the revolution.

THOMAS: So Qasem Soleimani was devoted to spreading the second Iran, the revolutionary Iran.

AIMEN: Exactly, because the Quds Force transcended borders and national identities. They didn't believe in the modern nation-state.

THOMAS: And so, what are some of the things that Quds force did to project Iranian power and the revolution?

AIMEN: Let's put it this way: The Al Quds force, you know, might be 20 or 30,000 Iranians, but there are 280,000 non-Iranians who actually are fighting under the banner of the Al Quds force.

THOMAS: Afghan mercenaries, other sort of other mercenaries. All Shia, some Sunni?

AIMEN: No, no, all Shia. And we are talking here about bigger than just Afghan mercenaries and Pakistani mercenaries. We're talking here about all of the Iraqi militias like Asa'ib Ahl Al Haq and Hezbollah Iraq. And then you have Hezbollah in Lebanon. You have the Houthis in Yemen.

THOMAS: All of these proxies around the region, they're sort of, in a way, they're members of the Quds force. And Qasem Soleimani was their commander.

AIMEN: To put this into perspective, 280,000 active troops fighting for Iran in the region. That's more than the standing armies of the UK, Sweden, and Netherlands combined.

THOMAS: So why was Qasem Soleimani assassinated by the Americans and why now?

AIMEN: Okay.

THOMAS: And he's been, he's been in the IRGC for decades, I guess, and the commander of the Quds Force since 1998. So why now?

AIMEN: Well. You know, ironically, I did encounter, not Qasem Soleimani personally, but I did encounter his influence when I was, you know, basically spying for the British intelligence services. So, when I was stationed within the Gulf after the 9/11 attacks and the movement of Al Qaeda from Afghanistan into Iran, especially many of his leaders relocated to Iran. So, I did encounter Al Quds Force influence when they hosted the commanders that were giving us instructions. The Al Qaeda commanders who are giving us instructions in Saudi and Bahrain and Kuwait and other places to attack American and Saudi interests.

THOMAS: You mean these commanders were in Iran at the time …

AIMEN: Yeah

THOMAS: … or they were with you in the Gulf?

AIMEN: No, no. They were in Iran. They were hosted in Iran. Abu Hamza Rabia who was the head of the external operations for Al Qaeda he's quite famous. He's the one who masterminded the assassination attempt against Hosni Mubarak, the president of Egypt at the time, in Addis Ababa in 1995. And he is the one who actually was responsible for planning the 7/7 attacks in London.

THOMAS: So, he was being held under house arrest in Iran with someone like Qasem Soleimani’s knowledge, and coordination even.

AIMEN: Total coordination. Because Qasem Soleimani saw these people as perfect, useful people. They want to attack Saudi Arabia, they want to attack America. How about basically we give them safe haven? They’re in Iran, and let them, let them do whatever they want to do. Let them wreak havoc in the region.

THOMAS: Just so… what I want to know, actually Aimen is: what, you know, what has the assassination of Qasem Soleimani achieved?

AIMEN: A former senior US intelligence official just told me that killing Soleimani is the equivalent of hacking into the military service of a belligerent nation and disabling them and, you know, wiping them out completely. Soleimani was always electro-phobic or electronic phobic. He believed the Israelis and the Americans were trailing him. So he never wrote any phone numbers. He never wrote any plans. He never basically, you know, put his plans together in written form, whether paper or online. And…

THOMAS: He was a walking hard drive, this guy.

AIMEN: Exactly. He was the ultimate hard drive, the ultimate brain, of Iran’s external operations.

THOMAS: So...

AIMEN: Iran’s revolution.

THOMAS: So, by wiping him out, basically, America has just formatted the hard drive of the Quds Force.

AIMEN: They have set them back 10 years.

THOMAS: Hmmm.

AIMEN: They have set them back 10 years. So, taking him out was a shock. You know, just look at the Iranians to this day, they are still in shock that the Americans were so bold to do it. And that's why when people say, you know… You remember the “World War Three” trending.

THOMAS: Yeah.

AIMEN: And I was thinking ‘guys, come on, world war three…’

THOMAS: This isn't going to lead to world war three?

AIMEN: No, it’s simple. Because the Iranians, they do not want to war, especially a direct war with the Americans, because they know it will only take 72 hours for all of their military hardware to be destroyed.

THOMAS: Yeah. I mean, everyone has to remember that even though it seems these days, with good reason, that American power is in decline, when push comes to shove, the American military can pretty much destroy any country, especially a second-tier country.

AIMEN: Exactly… And that's why wiping him out… This is important because he was the engine of Iranian aggressive expansionism in the region in Iraq, and Syria, and Yemen, and Lebanon, in Bahrain.

THOMAS: Not only that, a lot of analysts have suggested that he was actually being groomed to replace the Supreme leader Khamanei when the Supreme leader dies.

AIMEN: Not only that… he was actually groomed to become the newly elected president of Iran. You know, once Rouhani is, you know, the current one, basically finishes his term. [Overlapping]

THOMAS: So, this assassination has some serious consequences for Iran… politically, militarily, geopolitically. [Overlapping]

AIMEN: Exactly. It is their Chernobyl moment.

THOMAS: As we know, there have been these protests rocking Iran since early October with a sort of ferocity and an extent that has never been witnessed before. The regime has been cracking down, killing people in the street. We haven't heard much about it because they've done a good job of silencing the media and shutting off social media, but it is happening. Instead of World War Three are we perhaps seeing the second Iranian Revolution in as so many as 50 years?

AIMEN: I don't think if… This is my analysis: that if Iran descends into chaos, it's not going to be a revolution or an overthrow of the regime because they have the IRGC. It’s going to be another Syria… it’s going to be a civil war.

THOMAS: Oh God.

AIMEN: You know… As much as many people basically wish for a toppling of the regime, the regime will not topple because it’s an ideologically committed, driven regime. It’s going to be a civil war. Another point I want to make: many people objected, especially in the West, objected to what's happened based on two reasons. First, it was Trump, and they say: ‘Oh, Trump, the idiot. He's starting another war.’ They don't understand that the killing of Soleimani was engineered by none other than Mike Pompeo.

THOMAS: This is the American Secretary of State. But since when two secretaries of state organize the assassination of foreign generals? That's very odd.

AIMEN: Well, he is not organizing the assassination… He is actually putting it as a policy forward. And remember, he was the former head of the CIA.

THOMAS: [Laughs]

AIMEN: So, Mike Pompeo has a beef with the Iranians – that's well known in DC. And also, basically he believes that Iran's aggression in the region needs to be checked. For him, the killing of Soleimani is pushing back against aggression. [Overlapping]

THOMAS: I.e. It's not causing the third world war, it's preventing it.

AIMEN: It's preventing it because, you know, the two forces in the region, the Sunni and the Shia forces, basically are colliding. And therefore, to rebalance the conflict, you have to push back against Iran because they were being aggressive the six months prior with the oil tankers and the attacks and the ballistic missiles and you know, arming of the Houthis and the, you know, blockading the Strait of Hormuz, you know, or threatening to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. So therefore, it was important. So, when people were saying: ‘This is Trump, he's the idiot, how could he have a strategy? He doesn't know anything.’ It wasn't Trump. It was Mike Pompeo.

THOMAS: Former head of the CIA, who we assume knows one or two things about the way the world works.

AIMEN: Exactly.

THOMAS: So, I return to my original question. Why now? If, if Soleimani has been involved in this kind of activity, anti-American activity, for 15 years, 16 years, 17 years, why on January, 2020 did the president say ‘okay, take this, this guy down’?

AIMEN: So many things happened during that time that really led to that moment. Because first, Qasem Soleimani had a low profile in 2003, 2004. But then it's the American invasion of Iraq that really propelled Al Quds force into prominence. So in 2006, was a pivotal year for Qasem Soleimani. First, there was a decision taken by the Iranian leadership that the Americans have overstayed their welcome in Iraq and they need to leave in order to make place for Iran’s hegemony in Iraq. The second thing is the Israeli war with Hezbollah in 2006, in Lebanon.

THOMAS: So, Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy allied with the Quds Force overseen by Qasem Soleimani. And in 2006, it initiated a fighting war with Israel which lasted about a month I think… in the summer. [Overlapping]

AIMEN: 33 days.

THOMAS: Yeah, 33 days in the summer.

AIMEN: So… So, for Qasem Soleimani his involvement in first of all instigating the beginning of the Shiad resistance to the American presence in Iraq in 2006 by supplying… First of all, by establishing Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq which is the foundation of the PMUs or the Popular Mobilization Units.

THOMAS: So, these are Shia militia groups armed by Iran, coordinated by Iran that are within Iraq, agents of Iranian foreign policy?

AIMEN: Absolutely, they are the IRGC of Iraq. They are the Hezbollah of Iraq.

THOMAS: I see.

AIMEN: Basically. So, when, you know, he established that and then gave them sophisticated IEDs that were targeting American armoured personnel carriers and American tanks, which basically led to the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers and the maiming of thousands of them.

THOMAS: I think most people remember, who were around then, remember these IEDs that were targeting American soldiers in Iraq, or British as well… you know, coalition soldiers in Iraq. But I'm not sure people then realised that they were being directly funded and coordinated by Iran.

AIMEN: Manufactured in Iran. Because they were so sophisticated, you know, they worked basically with infrared sensors and you know, a video imaging targeting. So, they were absolutely amazing in their own sophistication.

THOMAS: Okay. But you've taken us back to 2006. I'd like you to answer the question: why now? Why in 2020 has Qasem Soleimani been assassinated?

AIMEN: Because there are milestones. So, 2006 was a milestone here.

THOMAS: What was the next milestone?

AIMEN: The next milestone is 2011.

THOMAS: 2011 with the Arab spring and Syria?

AIMEN: Absolutely.

THOMAS: There is now evidence, hard and fast evidence, that Qasem Soleimani, as representing the Quds Force, was on the ground in Syria at the outbreak of the conflict there. Really moving it towards civil war from the very beginning.

AIMEN: Absolutely. I mean, the defence… The Syrian defence minister himself, Ali Ayyoub, was talking and giving an interview. He said: ‘I knew Qasem Soleimani. I met him and from the beginning in 2011 we planned to counter the uprising of the Syrian people.’ And the first battle was the battle of Baba Amur in Helms in 2011. Which basically was the first armed clash, you know, of the Syrian Civil War. So, you know, after six months it was peaceful. But then of course, basically the Assad regime you know, during the peaceful period killed more than 8,000 protestors. So of course, basically it was inevitable that it will turn into a civil war.

THOMAS: So, 2011 Qasem Soleimani plays a role in the destruction of Syria. So why 2020?

AIMEN: Again, another milestone is 2015. [Overlapping]

THOMAS: 2015.

AIMEN: Yeah, the outbreak of the Yemen War, which we talked about extensively as well as the Syrian conflict.

THOMAS: It does seem that Qasem Soleimani has been behind the scenes of Series One of Conflicted the whole time. [Laughs]

AIMEN: [Laughs] He was behind Al Qaeda’s relocation to Iran, he was behind, you know… [Overlapping]

THOMAS: In every great sequel at one point, you know, someone rips off the mask and says ‘I was there the whole time.’

AIMEN: Exactly. I mean, the man was really a pivotal, you know… He was a pillar of the terror in the region. Because, you remember when we said, basically there are three tectonic plates moving on in the region, moving in in the region, basically, colliding. So, you have the modern nation state, and you have the Shia political and militant Islam, and you have the Sunni political, and militant Islam – all of these plates basically joining together. So when you have three plates, tectonic plates colliding, what's going to happen?

THOMAS: [Overlapping] Earthquakes.

AIMEN: Volcanoes, and earthquakes, and seismic shifts. So, Soleimani, you know, was basically moving between the three plates, basically organising this chaos.

THOMAS: So, Aimen, why 2020?

AIMEN: Because he overstepped. That's really… That's it. Because in the six months prior to his death, he escalated so much.

THOMAS: What did he do? [Overlapping]

AIMEN: Beyond America's endurance. And beyond the region’s endurance. One, he escalated by attacking oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz several times, you know, in May and June and June, you know, so he continued to attack and seize oil tankers.

THOMAS: And then there was that famous drone strike of the oil facility in Saudi Arabia. People probably heard about that.

AIMEN: Not only that, like you're talking about the largest producer of oil in the world. You know, you're talking about a country that produced 12% of the world’s oil every day. So, when you attack it with 26 cruise missiles and drones [Overlapping] ...

THOMAS: 26 cruise missiles, I don't think that's what was reported?

AIMEN: It was 26, a combination of cruise missiles and drones.

THOMAS: That is, that's an enormous strike

AIMEN: In one facility alone, 17 explosions. 17 explosions and actually it was so accurate, it was because there was an insider job. Someone placed tracker beams from members of staff who are actually Shia and belong to the IRGC in secret. They are [Overlap] ...

THOMAS: Working for Aramco in Saudi?

AIMEN: Working for Aramco in Saudi.

THOMAS: It's really cold war stuff. My God.

AIMEN: Exactly. They placed tracker beams basically to guide the drones and the cruise muscles to hit their targets with precision accuracy.

THOMAS: I'm very glad that you brought this up because I want to move away from the politics…

AIMEN: Yeah.

THOMAS: … and just go to the nuts and bolts of how someone is assassinated in this way. So obviously as, as you've established, he escalated beyond America's endurance. So, Trump said: “go”. Probably a long-planned assassination strategy was put into effect and a missile from a drone just came out of the sky and obliterated him. But how does that happen? Literally take us into your knowledge of how that kind of thing happens on the ground. What would have America had to do to kill Soleimani, in that way when they said “go”.

AIMEN: Well, when you have targeted assassination, we have to go back into the beginning of the decision. So basically, the decision was taken that Bin Laden must go, Baghdadi must go, you know, Imad Mughniyeh who was the military commander of the Hezbollah during the 2006 war where he was killed

THOMAS: In Damascus. I was there when that happened.

AIMEN: Exactly. In 2008, that was a very sophisticated attack by the Mossad and where they placed a bomb basically in his car seat. You know, obliterated him. So, it was very sophisticated.

THOMAS: So, someone decides this guy needs to go.

AIMEN: Exactly. So, the process is like this: you decide this person is the person I want to get rid of. So, this is your strategy. So how do you go about it? First of all, you have to establish pattern. You have to establish…

THOMAS: But how do you do that? I mean, you literally have to tail them so that you follow their life. You find what? He wakes up at six, he has a boiled egg for breakfast. He shags his wife at seven, he has a shower.

AIMEN: [Laughs]

THOMAS: How is that? How does that who, who's doing this?

AIMEN: Well, when you are a country like America or Israel, you have an army, of intelligence assets on the ground, and in every single country.

THOMAS: You mean CIA agents?

AIMEN: More than that. CIA agents, defence, military intelligence agents, for the Pentagon, the Pentagon have their own intelligence capability: the DIA. Not many people know about it, but it exists.

THOMAS: The DIA is the defence intelligence agency, which is American military intelligence. It's like a CIA inside the Pentagon.

AIMEN: Indeed. Then you'll have the Mossad, and then you have a network of regional assets that helps you. We will talk about that later, what I call basically the privatization of intelligence. This will be another episode. We will talk about how [overlapping]

THOMAS: It's actually this episode, and we're going to get there in a second. [Laughing] So I'll... Let me, I'm in charge of what episode.

AIMEN: Okay. So, so basically you have a a network of privateers, you know, private intelligence.

THOMAS: They’re freelancers, mercenaries. This is Star Wars stuff. This is Han Solo and Greedo shooting out in the Mos Eisley Cantina.

AIMEN: Exactly. The Mossad, the CIA, you know, MI6, the French intelligence, even countries from far away, China, Russia, all of these organizations have networks of people who cooperate, and these people are privateers, intelligence collectors who sell information to those who pay.

THOMAS: They do sound like pretty shady individuals. How are they trustworthy? For example, I can imagine one of these privateers being hired by one government to get some intelligence, but then just selling that intelligence to a rival government. Do they work for rival governments and are they trustworthy?

AIMEN: I work with teams that sometime basically work for competing governments. You know, these are teams in Syria.

THOMAS: They're not your employees. They have other people they work for.

AIMEN: Exactly. I just hired them between now and then for whatever project that, you know, comes across my way from whatever government around the world basically that asked the question, you know, or, you know, have the inquiry. So, the problem here is that: you can't control these people on the ground so much because basically they are living in hellish circumstances. They are living in a war zone, man. I mean, it's a war zone. They don't know if they will survive to the next day and if they are found out in Syria, they will be, you know, a head shorter and six feet underground.

THOMAS: Have you ever, ever lost one of your contractors? Have you ever had to face that rather tragic reality?

AIMEN: Not while on the job, but basically over the years I always, you know, almost like I know three or four times a year, we hear about the deaths of these people due to … It’s collateral damage basically, I mean, bombs falling from Russian airplanes, you know, the regime basically shelling of the villages where they are based. Sometimes they lose family members and many of them end up making good money from the work we give them, that they end up basically moving on to Turkey and from there, possibly to other European countries.

THOMAS: I see. So, America has lots of these in Iraq, the American government says to one or two of them: trail Soleimani or maybe even infiltrate within the, within his bodyguards … [Overlapping]

AIMEN: It’s more than that.

THOMAS: … Become a bodyguard

AIMEN: Soleimani because of his constant movements across Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, other places. So, what happened is you don't tell him in the classic way, get someone and that's it. No. So basically what you have is that you have what we call basically points on the map where whenever he appears, someone would alert you. So basically, you know, Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus, these are the three weak points in Soleimani’s itinerary. So, you have assets in Beirut who can alert you. They are working in the airport that Iranian VIP is coming and based on the protocol, who picks them up? What car comes? All of these things you can deduce from that, from the repeated nature of that, that this must be Soleimani.

THOMAS: Okay, fine. So, on the morning of the assassination, you know, how does the reaper drone operator who's probably sitting in Utah or something, how does he know that when he pushes the button, the missile is going to get Soleimani?

AIMEN: Several things. First, the American intelligence just learned that he is on a flight from Damascus. Coming to Baghdad. It is a commercial flight so they can shoot it down.

THOMAS: But that's about a 45-minute flight, 50-minute flight.

AIMEN: Exactly.

THOMAS: So, you can imagine like, you know, red klaxons are going [Thomas making siren sounds].

AIMEN: Exactly.

THOMAS: The countdown starts.

AIMEN: Exactly.

AIMEN: But remember, the decision has been taken that he will be killed. And remember that for the several months before that, they would have known about his movements too, but there was no decision to kill yet. There was the planning to kill, the decision has been taken that if certain escalation happened, we will kill him. But until then, the trigger never took place. There was no trigger yet, but the attack against the US Embassy, the attack that killed an American contractor in Kirkuk in Iraq just a few days prior. So, when they happened, now they are going to wait for the next time they know his movement and then take him out. So now they are aware of his movements. He is leaving Damascus airport coming to Baghdad and therefore the Reaper was just waiting. And what the Reaper does is that it has a facial recognition software in it.

THOMAS: This is like stuff out of a Marvel movie. They're just looking at our faces and sort of Thomas' and Waitrose, Thomas's and going into the pub. [Laughs]

AIMEN: Yeah, I think they can't see inside the small buildings, but no, I mean, of course if Soleimani is stepping out of the airplane and then he is moving into a car and while he is on the tarmac, the drone can actually just look at his face, detect his facial features and …

THOMAS: I thought that there needed to be something on the ground, either near him or attached to the car or something. Some, some electronic device that tells the drone where he is. That's not the case?

AIMEN: That's not the case. In this case, basically, they made it easy for the drone because he was a VIP who was taken immediately from the plane stairs into a car and being driven. So, this protocol has been done many times before, so the Americans already knew his protocol. So that's why it was easy for them to recognize that it's him, and then to target him and kill him.

THOMAS: So, what kind of missile was it?

AIMEN: Hellfire.

THOMAS: And a Hellfire missile, what kind of damage does that missile do?

AIMEN: Oh wow. It obliterate a car, easily.

THOMAS: So, I mean, something like: how many people died in that attack?

AIMEN: I think there were about nine people because, you know… [Overlapping]

THOMAS: We’re talking about vaporisation here.

AIMEN: Exactly.

THOMAS: I mean, I saw a picture of his maimed, mangled body after that, basically. I mean…

AIMEN: Why didn't you share it on social media, Aimen?

THOMAS: [Laughs] Well, I mean, it's out there. But you know when I saw this, the first thing that came to my mind is that he died when his car was targeted the same way when he planned and orchestrated and gave the order 15 years earlier, almost to the day, 15 years earlier in February of 2005, to kill the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri. While he was in a car, his body was thrown out of the car, he was maimed. So it felt as if karma, it looked, you know, when they say karma is a bitch, and looking at that in a photo of him mangled like this because his car was attacked and the same way that he ordered another decent, good human being like Rafic Hariri to be killed this way, and I was thinking, you know, that's it. You live by the sword. You die by the sword, you live by the bomb, we die by the bomb. [Laughs]

THOMAS: Well, Aimen. It's always fascinating to hear your insightful comments about these things and you know, just to veer towards a different topic now, the reason you know about these things is because you actually are, to some extent, one of those private practitioners of espionage in the 21st century.

AIMEN: Indeed. To some extent, yes.

THOMAS: So, tell us about this world.

AIMEN: I know we're talking here about, you know, an exceptionally, not just, I'm not going to say secretive, but I would say a fascinating world where you have a lot of former spies continue to be spies, but in a very different manner. They are no longer basically answerable to one single government. Sometimes they are answerable to several governments, because basically they sell their services.

THOMAS: It's a private sector job.

AIMEN: It's a private sector job. What's happened is of course, when you are working in espionage and then you move into working for the banking sector, which basically when I was there, I was a financial investigator into the, you know, the money-laundering and terrorism finance world. As well as security. So then when you are in these jobs, you create a, a network of contacts. You see, espionage is not just only about what you know; it’s who you know. And when you have a massive network of people, friends all over the world, basically, especially in the hotspots centre…

THOMAS: [Interrupting] And to be blunt, these are all bad guys. You have a big Rolodex full of bad guys that you can call.

AIMEN: Oh no. Basically every manner. Bad guys, good guys. You know, neutral guys. People talk about sometimes people who are, even some of them, royalty. You know, you have people basically sometime who are teachers, people basically who are taxi drivers.

THOMAS: And what unites them all is a thirst for money.

AIMEN: Yeah, the desire. You know, why we don't call it the thirst for money. We call it the desire for a better life.

THOMAS: I see.

AIMEN: [Laughs]

THOMAS: So, they're all mercenaries to some extent.

AIMEN: Yes.

THOMAS: Intelligence, mercenaries.

AIMEN: You see, what does intelligence, I mean, just just to give you an idea…

THOMAS: Frankly, I know so little about it. I don't know. [Laughter]

AIMEN: Just to give you an idea and I give the listener an idea. You know, one of the best sources, if you are landing in a city, and you want to know a lot about the city that you landed in, for example, basically I remember I landed in Sao Paulo and I was there investigating Hezbollah finances because Sao Paulo is an important financial hub for Hezbollah. Not many people know that, but it is the case. So, when I land there, you know the most important thing is to find a taxi driver who speaks English. So that's the first thing. The second thing is that when you sit down and talk to them, the taxi drivers know more about the locations of people in the city than anyone else.

So, he will tell you all, “yeah, Shia Lebanese people basically they have, you know, a mosque. They are in this particular neighbourhood. Oh yes. They, you know, they do have a particular get together, you know, in this area or this area. I heard about them.”

THOMAS: Taxi drivers are great sources of information.

AIMEN: Exactly. And actually, even terrorists use them as a source of information. For example, the Bali bombers, when they landed …

THOMAS: The Bali bombers, yes. They landed in 2002. [Overlapping]

AIMEN: Yeah. In 2002. So, when they landed there, it was a taxi driver who told them where the Americans and the Australians go for parties. So basically, taxi drivers are a great source of information. Do not discount them, basically as just people who talk nonsense all the time. No, they see things the average people don't. And as a result, we and the terrorists basically utilize them without them knowing, poor things, for information.

THOMAS: What I want to know is, why would a government need to hire you? I mean, governments have James Bonds, you know, they have guys they can call up and say, leave the girl, put on your tuxedo…

AIMEN: [Laughs]

THOMAS: … You know, fly to Baghdad and assassinate that guy, or find out this or that. You know, and HQ gives some magic watches and amazing Aston Martin cars with ejector seats. I mean, governments have these sort of guys, so why do they need you? I mean. No offense, but you know …

AIMEN: [Laughs]

THOMAS: That's not your lifestyle. I know you very well. You're a good boy.

AIMEN: Okay? What does intelligence, but really, most of the intelligence gathered around the world, I'm talking about the human intelligence here rather than the, we talked about it before and season one, signal intelligence and other forms of intelligence, basically, you know, eavesdropping and all of that and electronic, and surveillance. But if you look at the human intelligence, most of it has gathered, really, in restaurants and hotels. Really.

THOMAS: But by freelancers like you, not ... I mean, why would a government hire you or someone like you?

AIMEN: Okay, so let's take an example like Syria. What do you think the survivability is of a white blonde agent going in for the first time into Syria without that much support from local people?

THOMAS: So, Daniel Craig touches down, he walks off the tarmac, everyone says, “I think that guy might be a British spy.”

AIMEN: Exactly. His life expectancy would be measured in minutes. Let's put it this way. So, so what you need then is a local, because you can't put your own people at a stupid risk like this because they will be known immediately. I mean you can't just land in, in a tuxedo.

THOMAS: I'm actually always wondered when I'm watching James Bond movies, look out for the guy in the tuxedo.

AIMEN: Exactly. So, you can't just land in, and even basically if you were, you know, very normal clothes. It's still, casual or whatever. Still you are recognizable as foreigner, so therefore, and even if you send people who are of Syrian origin or Arab origin from your own, but you have to send them slowly, you have to send them gradually and you have to integrate them into society. It takes months.

THOMAS: So...

AIMEN: But what if you need something now?

THOMAS: What if you need something now?

AIMEN: Yes. Therefore, basically you look for people basically who run networks, these privateers and there are quite few of them. I know these private intelligence companies and sometimes they must create as research groups, or research offices. What they do for you, you come to them, you know, let's say basically they have an office in Beirut, or Amman, or Istanbul, and you go to them and you say, “Oh, okay. These are pictures of individuals we are interested in Syria. We want to know where they live. We want to get the exact coordinates. We want you to get close to them, so switch on your wifi and basically find out their IP addresses and all of that.” So, you know, I want to know what caused the drive. Take a video, take a photo. So I would say, “okay, no problem at all. I'm in that office in Beirut.” So basically, I call my, you know, friends, let's say in Adlib or in Raqqa in the past, or in Deir ez-Zor, or in Damascus.

THOMAS: All Syrian cities.

AIMEN: Yup, exactly. So, I called and I say, you know, my friend inside Syria, “who do we have? Let's say in the city of Deir ez-Zor in Idlib, and he would say basically why we have quite few. I have this guy, this guy, this guy, and this guy. Do they have motorcycles or cars? Motorcycles. Okay, perfect. I need motorcycles. Okay, fine. I need…”

THOMAS: Just ordering up, a kind of a menu.

AIMEN: Exactly.

THOMAS: Of intelligence. [Laughs]

AIMEN: I'm going to send you by either Threema or other, you know, I'm not going to mention other apps, but in certain apps, I’m going to send you basically four pictures of four individuals who are seen in that vicinity. You know, these are what they are known by. This is their Kunya, or the aliases. I want information on them within two weeks. So, within two weeks I would receive full information with fresh photos, fresh videos. I know the exact coordinates of their houses, who they're married to, if they're married, where do they go to pray, what cars they're driving. So perfect. And then I hand over this. Now, if that government wanted to do it on their own, they would have to send someone to find them fast and basically that someone would be at risk. But because the individuals we tasked for this are locals who wanted to do it for money and they have no idea actually, who is the ultimate Tasker,

THOMAS: [Interrupts]

AIMEN: Who is the one who actually, they have no idea. They just know that this is the target. This is what you need to collect. Need-to-know basis. So, then we'll collect all the information and then based on the information, that government will decide either to liquidate…

THOMAS: [Laughs]

AIMEN: ... or to extract. I mean, there are certain, even EU governments did it.

THOMAS: Liquidation. Woah.

AIMEN: Liquidation even. I know, governments did this.

THOMAS: I should really press you on which governments, but I don't think you'll tell me.

AIMEN: No, but I know sometimes what happened is, you know, some governments even installed live feed cameras. For example, one of the secrets not known actually is that these privateers, these individuals inside Syria placed a live feed camera for more than 16 months outside of the main ISIS court in Raqqa photographing everyone going and coming, and that live feed was in a 24 hours basically beaming into one of the European capitals.

THOMAS: For what purpose?

AIMEN: For basically facial recognition. Just going and coming. People basically going into the court and to ISIS court. So, they identified the judges, their commanders just …

THOMAS: But I don't understand. I can understand, you go into an ISIS court, you can see your face, but you know, you don't come out with your head so …

AIMEN: [Laughs] Well you start to come out with your head, but the execution happened in the public square…

THOMAS: Very pleasant. So, this privatization of espionage that you're talking about, to some extent, you know, I've seen Casablanca, I've seen these movies. I mean, to some extent, governments have always employed freelancers on the ground. But would you say in recent years, decades, even the privatization of espionage has gone up in a way like governments in general outsource to the private sector these days. Are they outsourcing to the private sector in this regard as well?

AIMEN: Yeah, I mean, basically. [Overlapping]

THOMAS: Why? Why did it change?

AIMEN: First in Iraq, we started to see the privatization of armies. You know, we have Black Water. We had EGIS, we had G4S.

THOMAS: These are American security consultants. [Overlapping]

AIMEN: American, British, everything you can imagine.

THOMAS: They’re providing mercenaries on the ground.

AIMEN: South African even, the Maltese. I mean basically, you know, registered in Malta but they are private companies, even basically people from Nepal basically being recruited to go and fight in other Wars. So that's already happened. But the privatisation of intelligence, I’ve never seen it like this before. In the past, it used to be like this: you want to spy on a certain country. You have your own embassy staff in that country. You form really good relationship with businessmen, civil servants, military officers, law enforcement agencies. So, they cultivate all of this and they get the intelligence. However, these days, because the source of the greatest and the gravest security threats happen in places where there are no embassies anymore.

THOMAS: This is a consequence of really the Arab Spring, the War on Terror in general, the nation-state has been weakened throughout the region, and therefore nation-states and the embassies that are meant to dialogue with those nation-states just aren't where the real power lies, in many cases.

AIMEN: I mean down to war zones. I mean, basically this is the problem with gathering information in a war zone for example…

THOMAS: Not just war zones. I think it's important they’re civil war zones.

AIMEN: Exactly.

THOMAS: It’s not that it's a nation-state fighting a nation-state. These are non-state actors within governments, within states, transcending state borders moving. You can't just anymore throw some swanky embassy party, don your tux, handout some champagne, and talk to your Soviet counterpart. You can't do that anymore.

AIMEN: So, places like Afghanistan, Syria, Libya. You are basically at the mercy of people who have strong connections inside.

THOMAS: … these non-state actors.

AIMEN: Non-state actors, basically people basically who have, you know, a small company with a title, or managing director or CEO, or whatever. Basically, I'm a private individual, but I'm a private individual with a massive phone book. And this phone book includes lots of people on the ground there who will do anything for a buck or two because basically they are desperate. They are in a war zone.

THOMAS: So, you say that we started to see this developing in Iraq.

AIMEN: First, and then Syria, Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan. These are the places now where a lot of intelligence, especially Syria, a lot of intelligence is gathered by private individuals. Well, private groups together basically forming these intelligence gathering networks. I mean, basically, when people say data in the West, what Mark Zuckerberg and you know, the owner of Google is doing, you know, data is the new oil. Data is the new wealth. That's in a very crude way what is happening on the ground in Syria and Yemen and Libya. And to some extent, even in Turkey, among the refugee communities. That's what's happening. Data information is so important. And this happened and I've seen it myself. People sometime risk their lives to go and collect the mobile phones and the laptops off a bomb site in Syria. If a site is bombed and this site belonged to either Al Qaeda [Insert Group Here] or any of their affiliates or ISIS, they will go and collect all of these because this can be sold for two thousand, three thousand dollars. Because they contain addresses, phone numbers, email addresses of people within Syria, in Turkey, outside, in Europe, in the Gulf, in the Arab world, which means that every phone have a treasure trove of intelligence. So young city people go collect them very quickly.

THOMAS: It's like mining. They're mining for the gold of post-terrorism atrocities. [Overlap]

AIMEN: Exactly. Then these phones and devices, they make it into Turkey where then they are sold to brokers. And these brokers, people like myself and others.

THOMAS: These espionage privateers, aren't they criminals? Isn't this illegal?

AIMEN: Are you saying I’m a criminal?

THOMAS: Far be it for me to say that a former Al-Qaeda bomb maker might be a criminal …

AIMEN: [Laughs]

THOMAS: But I don't understand. Surely this isn't legal. Is it that governments turn a blind eye to this stuff because it's so useful to them?

AIMEN: No, it is perfectly legal because basically, first of all, you know. Imagine. Let's say you, Thomas Small, you have friends in Syria, don't you? Yes. Okay. So basically if I come to you, I’m government, I come to you, Thomas, and I say, Thomas, I know we have heard a rumour of know, basically a coup in Damascus or something like that, you know, there was a coup within the intelligence, and we are trying basically to ascertain is it true or not? Can you tap into your local people that are basically and see what they have heard? And I mean, basically you say yes, of course. And we would say, okay, we want detailed report and you know, then I push an envelope to you basically with five, $6,000. And I say, this is for your trouble. And also, you can basically send gifts, your friends there in Damascus, but we need, really good, juicy information.

THOMAS: So, you…

AIMEN: Come back to me and you say, yes, we found out this, this, this

THOMAS: Ok, that doesn't sound so illegal. But you know, come on. Sometimes you're going to be asked maybe to do something illegal or certainly immoral. How do you navigate the thorny moral swamp of private espionage?

AIMEN: That is where you have layers and layers of different levels of commitments. So basically, for example, you know, I wouldn't do any, how can I say assassination, engineer any extraction.

THOMAS: Why now?

AIMEN: Because basically, there is so much, you know, legality issues behind this. You're right, in a sense, because you know, if you just kind of, my work, my work is information gathering. That's it.

THOMAS: [Laughs]

AIMEN: You know? So, what they do with that, what the governments do with that after that, I mean, that's their own business.

THOMAS: Have you ever been in a position where you, you heard, saw on the news or heard through your, through your networks, of a strike against a facility or a strike against a person and you thought to yourself, “Hmm. I know how they knew where that guy was.”

AIMEN: Well, to some extent, yes. I'm not going to say no. It does happen, but sometime you're wondering. Because sometime you pass this intelligence basically to a particular government, but then the Russians come and destroy it, and then that's when you know that definitely it wasn't the government that supplied the Russians with it. Why? Because they are enemies. They are not talking to each other whatsoever. So then how did the Russians know about that? Because if I knew about it. If I knew about it, if my sources on the ground confirmed that this is a weapons storage facility for Al-Nusra…

THOMAS: Al-Qaeda

AIMEN: Yeah, Al-Qaeda. Then basically the Russians would have their own privateers, possibly the same privateers who I have, might have been tasked by the Russians.

THOMAS: Hmm.

AIMEN: It's a murky world.

THOMAS: Very murky. So back to Qasem Soleimani then. He is often credited. Let's play devil's advocate here. So obviously, you know, you weren't a huge fan of Qasem Soleimani. You probably smiled to yourself when you found out that he had been assassinated.

AIMEN: Smiled? I danced in the house!

THOMAS: Danced in the house. Let's imagine, I mean, there are some people who say that Qasem Soleimani is a hero because he played such a vital role in the destruction of ISIS.

AIMEN: Well, first of all. Okay. Soleimani did not defeat ISIS. Let's put this a myth to rest. It was the American firepower, from the sky raining on ISIS that ended them. Because the Iranians and the Iraqi militias did not have the capability to just take cities and then hold them because they couldn't. Because only the American precision firepower, massive overwhelming firepower that did that for them. So, you know, what Soleimani provided is boots on the ground.

THOMAS: Shia militia men.

AIMEN: Exactly. But Soleimani wasn't doing it out of the goodness of his heart. He was taking advantage that, “Oh, this is the chaos through which I can create a massive unregulated army.” He wasn't recruiting men to join the Iraq army. He was recruiting men to join a revolutionary Iranian-backed army.

THOMAS: And he recruited tens of thousands.

AIMEN: Hundreds of thousands.

THOMAS: And they still exist. I mean, even though Soleimani might be dead, but they exist –– what's going to happen to these Shia militia who, who actually feel perhaps, more allegiance to Iran than Iraq?

AIMEN: Well, that is what the protests happening right now in Iraq is about. Is Iraq going to end up like Lebanon, having a state within a state. I mean, Hezbollah in Lebanon being a state within a state, having a private army, private welfare network, private finance, private everything.

THOMAS: Which would suit the Iranians very well.

AIMEN: Exactly. So, in other words, it is a very weak nation-state. So, the protest in Iraq right now, gathering momentum and not only Sudanese. But also, many, many Shia Arabs who do not like the idea of Iraq becoming just another province for Iran.

THOMAS: But we can understand why the Shia of Iraq think that caused Qasem Soleimani was their saviour. Because ultimately ISIS is coming, you know, down the road. And anyone who's going to fight ISIS is probably your friend.

AIMEN: And we can say the same thing about Al-Qaeda in Yemen. Yemenis in the South will view them basically as the saviours against the Houthis. At the end of the day, we cannot basically just sit there and cheer packs of wolves fighting each other. And ignore the fact that lambs need to be saved. So, because they are fighting each other over who will eat the pack of lambs.

THOMAS: So, who is the shepherd here? Is it, with this newly muscular America and President Trump is America once again, playing the role of the shepherd, trying to fight the wolves off the sheep, the lambs, whatever? I'm screwing up your metaphor.

AIMEN: I mean, I just had to have a very difficult time picturing Trump as a shepherd, basically with his stick and a turban over his head. [Laughs]

THOMAS: I've heard some of these Jeffrey Epstein revelations.

AIMEN: [Laughs]

THOMAS: I don't have a hard time imagining that.

AIMEN: But, can I tell you something? Yes. America is playing to some extent, basically, the role of the shepherd. But the role of the shepherd as a whole is played by the nation-states. We come back again, Thomas into the question of what do we want? Do we want the modern nation-state to prevail because they are the best guarantors of safety, security, stability, prosperity in the region, or do we want trans-national ideology built on revolutionary ideas, perpetual revolution that will keep shedding blood on, and on, and on, until they build their empires on mountains of skulls and oceans of blood.

THOMAS: Well, I think we know how America would answer that question. It sides with the nation-state. As long as the nation-state buys into America's hegemonic role as chief shepherd of the sheep. Now, that really brings us to what series two of Conflicted is going to be all about. In the first series, we focused more narrowly on the War on Terror and the modern history of the Middle East. In this series, we're going to widen the scope of our investigation out a bit. And we're going to tell a slightly larger historical story. It's what has been called and indeed was called by George Bush Senior, just at the end of the Cold War, America's new world order. America's attempt to create an everlasting, prosperous and peaceful world and really lies behind so much of what we see in the headlines today.

[OUTRO MUSIC]

THOMAS: you've been listening to Conflicted with me. Thomas Small and my good friend, Aimen Dean. Conflicted is a Message Heard production. It's produced by Sandra Ferrari, Jake Warren and Jake Otajovic, edited by Sandra Ferrari. Our theme music is by Matt Huxley. New episodes of season two of Conflicted will come out every other week on Wednesday, so tune in.

This season, we're trying something a little bit different. We want to hear more from you. Dear listener, what did we get right? What did we get wrong? What topics do you want to hear us chat about in future episodes? We've set up a Facebook discussion group. You can find the link in the show notes or search “Conflicted Podcast Discussion Group” on Facebook to join in the group. We'll post early access to episode teasers, recommend further reading for people, looking to go deeper into episode topics as well as running exclusive giveaways. Each week we'll be giving away some recommended reading to one lucky listener. All you have to do is join the group. This week's book is The Twilight War: the secret history of America's 30-year conflict with Iran, an excellently written and researched account of US-Iranian relations from the 1979 Iranian revolution onward. Join our Facebook group before the 19th of February and you might just win. You'll hear from us soon in two weeks’ tim

Benched - Cat Hulbert on Gambling

From getting her first job in a Las Vegas casino to earning her place in an elite card counting gang, Cat Hulbert faced chauvinism at every turn during her professional gambling career. Overcoming the odds, she has now been called, the ‘best female gambler on earth’. This week on Benched, we found out how she broke the glass ceiling in this notoriously male-dominated arena.

Cat started her career as a dealer behind the table, rather than playing at it - which is where she first noticed a ‘strategy’ being used behind some of the most successful blackjack players. As she dealt, she tried to figure out what it was they were doing. After finally asking one of the players, she was introduced to card counting.

She went on to successfully master the skills herself, become a top blackjack player and join notorious card counting gang, The Czechoslovakians. But it wasn’t exactly smooth sailing. It was originally thought that having a woman in the gang would be so unexpected that she would go under the radar, and the whole group would reap the rewards. The reality was very different, “No woman bet up to the stakes I did. It drew a lot of attention,” says Cat” As a result, she was arrested, back-roomed and barred from casinos many times - even making it into the notorious Griffith Book.

After blackjack, she went on to play poker at a similarly high-level, but the transition wasn’t easy. Not only did she have to master new tactics, but she also had to learn to keep her own emotions in check noting that, “Poker has an emotional quality that almost occupies 50-60% of the game … And because I’m bipolar, I’ve always fought with that.”

Today, retired from the professional game after a stint player virtual poker, she tells us the story of how she worked her way up to the top and what she makes of her life’s work looking back. Listen to Benched to hear the full story.

Benched - Liam Davis on Homosexuality and Football

Football had silently ignored homosexuality - and homophobia - for decades. Then in 1990, Justin Fashanu came out. But after facing years of abuse on and off the pitch, Fashanu committed suicide in 1998.

After that, there was silence again until 2013 when, then Leeds United player, Robbie Rogers, came out as gay and retired from professional football. Robbie’s coming out started an international discussion about the toxic environment football has created for gay players.

After him, two more footballers who played in England came out. In January 2014, the former Aston Villa, West Ham and Everton player, Thomas Hitzlsperger, came out in an interview shortly after he retired from the professional game. Shortly afterward, Liam Davis, a semi-professional for Cleethorpes Town FC, was outed by his local newspaper based on a series of supportive tweets he sent about Hitzlsperger.

With the media storm that surrounded these men - teams, fans and other players were presented with an opportunity to reckon with the reality of gay players and address homophobic culture on the pitch and in the stands. However, it’s been five years since, and no other male players in England have come out, and the conversation that Justin Fashanu and Robbie Rogers has started faded away once again.

Today on Benched, we will reopen that conversation with our guest, Liam Davis, who was for a time England’s only active out player. He is interviewed by guest host and queer journalist Jasmine Andersson. Listen now.

Benched - Kelly Naqi on the legend of Ali Dia

This week on Benched, we dig into what’s been called the biggest scam in British Premier League’s history - the swift rise, and even swifter fall, of Ali Dia.

The popular legend goes a bit like this: in 1996, Southampton’s manager, Graeme Souness, received a phone call from someone claiming to be footballing superstar George Weah recommending the signing of his cousin, Ali Dia.

After being subbed in on a game against Leeds, Dia lived out the fantasy of millions by playing Premiership football, albeit not very well, for 43 minutes - before vanishing for decades.

In today’s episode of Benched, guest host Robbie Knox (Soccer AM) gets the story from Kelly Naqi, the journalist responsible for finally tracking Dia down twenty years after his Southampton debut (...and farewell).

Naqi is quick to point out it’s still not clear if this infamous, chant-inspiring event was a scam - or something much more innocent. She details how she finally found him due to an investigation that took her all the way to Sudan, only to end up back in London. Listen to the whole episode here, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Benched - Kwame Acheampong is the Snow Leopard

Kwame Nkrumah-Acheampong had a dream: to the Winter Olympics to compete with the world’s best skiers. But in order to get there, he had to become one of the world’s best skiers himself.

As a Ghanaian, he was underestimated at every step and regarded more as a curiosity than someone with a serious chance at Olympic success. He learned to ski at an artificial slope in Milton Keynes on a dare and from then on his journey didn’t get any less unusual.

In order to qualify for the Olympics, he had to be part of Ghana’s ski federation but the problem was that there wasn’t one. So he created it himself. He needed sponsorships so that he could afford to train in the years leading up to the Games. So he walked into EasyJet’s headquarters, asked for one and got three years of unlimited flying across their network (with no luggage limits). This is how he got things done.

This determination of his is what gained him worldwide attention and made him famous as the Snow Leopard. This determination is what eventually got him to the Olympics. And now, years later, he is putting all his energy into skiing once again. His goal is to make Ghana a skiing country and to make everyone at home fall in love with winter sports. In the meantime, he is also training the next generation of snow leopards for the next Winter Olympics.

This week on Benched, Kwame Acheampong sits down to talk to Carl Anka, a sportswriter and broadcaster, about his journey. Listen to the latest episode to hear how Kwame achieved his dream through hard work, support from the people around him and, most importantly, his never waning belief that he could do it.

Benched - Johnny Greaves is Boxings Biggest Loser

Boxer Johnny Greaves fought 100 professional fights throughout his career and lost 96 of them – and he’s proud of it.

As a journeyman, Johnny was essentially an opponent for hire. Promoters would pay him - generously - to fight their upcoming prize fighters helping them cut their teeth on the circuit, build their confidence and get some wins under their belt. “No one told you to lose as such,” Johnny told us, “but your just a cog in the wheel for these home fighters building their record.”

“For every winner, there’s got to be a loser - and I was that loser. But I got paid pretty well for it.”

— Johnny Greaves

It’s also not in the interest of journeymen to win their matches. It deters promotors booking you, and in some cases can cause you to lose gigs you’ve already got in the diary. As a journeyman, Johnny took home over £1000 a fight compared to many boxers who struggled to break even from box office takings.

However, whilst occupying the so-called away corner came with its benefits - like higher pay - it also took its toll physically and mentally. In this week’s episode of Benched, Johnny gives boxing expert and sports writer, Mark Turley, a no-holds-barred account of his time in the ring. Listen to his story here.

Want to find out more about British boxing and the journeyman tradition? This weeks guest host, Mark Turley, wrote about in this Telegraph article and his book Journeyman.