New World Order
48:28 Share

This episode is brought to you by Shopify. Whether you're selling a little or a lot, Shopify helps you do your thing however you cha-ching. From the launch your online shop stage all the way to the we just hit a million orders stage. No matter what stage you're in, Shopify's there to help you grow. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash special offer all lowercase. That's shopify.com slash special offer.

Hello, Eamon. Hello, Thomas. Nice to see you again. Nice to see you too. 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

A new and glorious world where freedom, liberal democracy and capitalism would thrive everywhere. And unicorns flying everywhere. And unicorns as well. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there are only a dozen years left for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius. We're seeing the end of capitalism. The end of capitalism as we know it. And I say good riddance. What is at stake?

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: 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.

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.

And in general, support the establishment and the strengthening of nation states everywhere in order to allow international organizations 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 Sr. delivered that speech to Congress, Saddam Hussein had recently invaded Kuwait.

You, Eamon, were living not so far away at the time, down in Khabar on the eastern coast of Saudi Arabia.

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 world?

and prosperous world for everyone. You know what, Thomas? You would be surprised to know that I did hear that expression in the run-up to the first Gulf War between 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 that 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 axis.

that Baghdad was part of Moscow's alliance. Saddam Hussein had been allied with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, at least on and off, let's say. He was a bit of a wily character. 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

push for a status quo. And I think even Saddam might have thought this way. 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. And 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 press his advantage in Kuwait. Indeed. But what happened is,

suddenly we started to see that, you know, 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. The Berlin Wall had fallen the previous November, and, you know, communism was unraveling. 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

to protect Saudi border against possible Iraqi invasion. So even you, a 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? Of course. Because we were living with the idea that my house was only 800 meters away from the fence of the largest airbase

in the entire Middle East, King Abdulaziz Air Base. And not far away, two kilometers away, is the gate to Aramco, which is the largest oil company in the world, where 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. 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? 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 III. That's the first thing. Second thing is that the Americans are building a 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. What did you think the new world that America was now going to lead would be like? 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 my family, the extended friend circle, we were worried that

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 Well, it was certainly a short war very quick. I think within a hundred days Iraq was destroyed Yeah, 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. That is the speech in which we believed that there is a new world. And what how did you imagine it? What did you think it meant? I liked what my brother said. You know, my brother spent years in America studying for his, you know, degree and his master degree.

And he said something interesting. You know, he said, what this means is that McDonald's is coming to Saudi Arabia. McDonald's? That's what he said. You didn't have McDonald's yet. We didn't have McDonald's yet. But he said what this new world order means is that we would become similar culturally, economically, economically.

to the Americans. And was he saying that in a spirit of expectation, of anticipation, of excitement? No, more disappointment, actually. 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.

Somewhere, somewhere. So it all depends on who do 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 U.S. Aramco used to send so many people to study in America and then they come back and, you know, some have the opposite in the view of the U.S. as, you know, being a hegemonic country.

cultural encroaching... Great Satan. The Great Satan, yeah. 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. 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 globalization. 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. When possible.

when possible. 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 and Serbia had McDonald's. But it expresses a sort of idea that

thanks to American-led global capitalism, peace and prosperity would reign.

And your brother thought that that would happen immediately. He thought McDonald's is coming. Exactly. That's how he saw it. And funny enough, when the Soviet Union collapsed, months later... So the Soviet Union collapsed about nine months later. Exactly, yeah. So months later, we saw the first McDonald's open in Moscow and we saw lines and lines stretching a kilometer. And he told me...

Basically, do you remember when I told you it will be McDonald's? You know, that McDonald's represented both the cultural and the economic hegemonic arm of the United States. It's funny that you say that in Saudi Arabia, people 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. Wow.

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 new world order? Let me tell you something, Thomas. Please do, Eamon. You know, 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 Daman, Bahrain, and Khobar, my city, were covered in dark clouds for three months. So you must have thought the apocalypse had arrived. Indeed. And what happened is, you know, basically we wear white, you know, robes, you know, they call thobe. Yeah, the white thobes of the Saudis. Yeah. So I go to the mosque or the school, whatever, basically. 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. Basically, it becomes so grey because of the rain that comes with oil in it. So it was... It 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 Axis. 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, the world is changing around us. And

Is it for the better? Well, you know, the dark clouds literally were hovering above us. 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? 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, he has a PhD in Islamic studies. He's a part of a movement in Saudi Arabia called the Sahwa Movement or the Awakening Movement. Thomas, you always impress me. 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 ideas.

Credentials, if you like, or 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. You know, they wanted to go as far as, you know, Saudis condemning the new peace process started in 1992 in Madrid between the Palestinians and the Israelis. We'll get to that shortly. So basically, there were so many things.

things they wanted. And they were to some extent successful in shifting attitudes within the government and certainly outside the government towards a more hardline Islamic direction. 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 he used to call it, to push away Saddam and to safeguard the energy supplies of the world.

He saw it as another episode of the Crusades. He said that this is not because people wanted to safeguard 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. Of course, we know that another person who was around at that time, Osama bin Laden, interpreted America's arrival in the Middle East in the same way. Exactly. 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 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 order,

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 going to play a 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.

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 global economic model that the Americans wanted to install. And I tell you why, because while Egypt, Algeria,

While Iran, Pakistan, these countries failed to embrace these principles. The principles of capitalism, liberalism, etc. Well, not so much liberalism, but I would say basically 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 onward, basically, when they embraced free market capitalism, thanks to Dawood Ahmedoglu, 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. Well, eventually, George W. Bush and his advisers would come to the same conclusion and thought that they would have to remove dictatorship from the Middle East in order to see the new world order through with fabulously catastrophic results, as we saw again in season one.

This episode is brought to you by Shopify. Whether you're selling a little or a lot, Shopify helps you do your thing, however you cha-ching. From the launch your online shop stage, all the way to the we just hit a million orders stage. No matter what stage you're in, Shopify's there to help you grow. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash special offer, all lowercase. That's shopify.com slash special offer.

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 militaries

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 Sr., 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? Well, it didn't succeed because, you know, of multitude of reasons. 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? I

I like the fact that the plan was a slogan. The slogan for the conference was also the plan. Land for peace. Land for peace. Meaning? Meaning give the Palestinians lands and they give the Israelis peace. So they'll stop attacking Israel if Israel gives back lands, basically. That's the idea. That's the idea. The 1967 lands in return for peace. In 1967, there was a war between Israel and Egypt.

And Syria and Jordan. And in the course of that war, Israel conquered huge amounts of land in the West Bank and in Gaza. Yeah.

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. 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. So Egypt got the Sinai back, and now the Palestinians say, well, we want all of the West Bank back, please. 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. No, I hate siding with one side. Exactly. 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 Akko. We came actually for this particular piece of land, Judea and Samaria. So now that we have them, by right of conquest, you know, still, don't forget, many people basically think that the Israelis are Europeans or enlightened or whatever. No, they are Middle Easterners, like everyone else. LAUGHTER

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. So they say, we've conquered the land. We're not giving it back. And the Palestinians? And the Palestinians say, basically, excuse me, we are living here. OK, so to explore America's perspective here.

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, you know, for example, look at Iraq also. 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 used 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... But they still invoked the Palestinians when it served them. When it served them. As all Arab leaders and Muslim leaders did. All of them, yes, indeed. So here is the issue.

is that one of the things that was really stark for me is that I visited Al-Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp in Damascus. I've been there too. Yeah. I visited Ain al-Hulwa in southern Lebanon. It's a refugee camp. It's a thousand meter by a thousand meter, but inside it there are 140,000 Palestinians living. So you can imagine basically the awful living standards there. I visited Al-Bag'a camp in Amman in Jordan.

And then I visited the West Bank in 2018. And what a contrast. A positive contrast? 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. And I was thinking, what is going on here? Well, that is actually a sad and tragic fact that most visitors to Lebanon and Syria and Jordan

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 in order to maintain this idea that the Palestinians are victims and need our help.

Exactly. I mean, the hypocrisy of it, like 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, when I visited the West Bank,

You know, you notice basically that they had the places that were destroyed in the 2004 Intifada, which means uprising in Arabic. You know, when you look at Dunin, for example, they have a new brand 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. No, I mean, Palestinians suffer a lot of injustice in the West Bank. There's no question. And in Gaza Strip, no question. But why?

What is often not pointed out is that they suffer sometimes similar or even worse forms of injustice in their fellow Arab countries. 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. So the Americans want to neutralize their opponents within the Arab world's ability to do that. Exactly. And the Islamists.

And don't forget the Iranians. The Iranians already created the IRGC, the Quds Force. We talked about the Quds Force in the last episode. What does the word Quds mean? It means Jerusalem. Exactly. So, you know, when you have an entire, you know, empire,

army in Iran called Jerusalem Army, 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. You know, the Palestinians have signed up

to this peace, you can't be more Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves. But they didn't sign up to the peace. Why? Again, you know, peace require compromise. And both sides, you know, 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, 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. The Holocaust. The Holocaust. And they've been attacked again and again by multiple countries, 1948, 1967, and 1973. So they always basically have...

above anything else a worry called security. Absolutely. And the country is so tiny, you know, basically if you drive from Tel Aviv to the, you know, hills of Samaria and Judea, basically it's only like in 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, you know, irrational almost basically like an obsession with security. So they don't want to compromise their security and the Palestinians, they want their land back. And the Israelis said, we're not giving it to you. Well, you know, this is where things get really complicated. The headline is the Palestinians basically, you know, 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, the sovereignty over the airspace, the sovereignty, where is the airspace is 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 sovereign 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. But why not? Because while these talks were continuing, the Israelis continued to build more settlements. I see. So they were antagonizing the Palestinians more. And this is where we are stuck now.

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, Ayman, what happened in '92, '93 around Somalia? What happened is that what was put together post-colonialism by force ended up basically separating by force.

Remember that Somalia was a socialist, you know, planned economy kind of a country. Allied with the Soviet Union? To an extent. It was, you know, kind of, didn't know what it wants. And so basically with the...

In the weakening of the Soviet bloc, add to this basically the fact that Siad Berri 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. In 1991. Finally, the breaking point was reached. Siad Berri, 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. That may be the final solution. But at the time, the United Nations 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. 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 Israel.

exactly part of the Muslim world, but slightly part of the Muslim world, the Balkans, specifically Yugoslavia. Ah, the Balkans, homeland of war and ethnic strife. So people may know Yugoslavia was a member of the Eastern Bloc, although quite an independent member. It's long-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. He died in the 80s and a man called Slobodan... Slo... Slo...

Slobodan. Slobodan Milosevic came to power there, who, as the Eastern Bloc and as communism began to fall apart everywhere, decided that the best way to move forward was to become perhaps even a Trump style, let's say, a nationalist party.

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, 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. Exactly. I mean, the Slovenians and the Croats are Catholics and the Bosnians are Muslims and the Serbs are Orthodox Christians. That's right.

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 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 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? You know, when I decided to go to Bosnia, I didn't

wake up that morning and said 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 defense 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. That were failing to intervene. Exactly.

you know, their failure to intervene, you know, 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,

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, you know, small mortars and sniper rifles killed more people than heavy weapons in Sarajevo. And the slaughter definitely took place. I mean, you must have witnessed this with your own eyes.

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. I've seen the suffering. I've seen the mass graves being discovered and dug up. So, of course, 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 very destructive world war in their continent. 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 D.C. 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 when Kosovo, you know, genocide was about to start. In 1999, they did intervene militarily.

early in Kosovo. Exactly. However, in this case here... In the Bosnian case, so this is where 92, 93, 94... 95 was the end of it with the Dayton Accord, which means, again, the Americans are the ones who basically intervened

In this case. So in this case, in the case of Bosnia and the collapse of Yugoslavia in general, America's leadership in initiating this new world order succeeded, would you say? Succeeded in putting an end to a war, 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, in a wedding in Bosnia in October of 2014,

1995. You're talking about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Indeed. He was the architect of the 9-11 attack. Exactly. He viewed it differently. He said the Americans, you know, are now 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 are going to give them half the republic. Half the republic.

Half the Bosnian Republic is under a Serbian, you know, Bosnian control. 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 Muslim half diluted, you know, with 15 percent Croats who are going to be there. But that's not really true. That was his paranoid conspiracy theory. Of course, 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 needed to persuade the Serbs to come to the table by bombing them. They used force to bomb certain sites in order to tell the Serbs, we are willing to do it. So I think Slobodan Milosevic and Franjo Todeman, you know, Slobodan Milosevic was the president of Serbia. Franjo Todeman, who was the president of Croatia.

Both of them in the end basically decided, you know, it's time for the war to end. And Ali Ezzat Bigovic, 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...

Credit goes to him, basically. I mean, he, in the end, agreed. 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. You know, in Ali Aziz Bigovich, you have a politician philosopher. In Yasser Arafat, you have a flamboyant revolutionary.

So these are the two differences between Arafat and Ali Aziz Bigovich. Bigovich showed leadership.

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. You know, Russia was, for everyone to see, was about to fail, was about to disintegrate. Eamon, you're giving away the game in two weeks, everyone. Yeah.

Conflicted is a Message Heard production. It's produced by Sandra Ferrari, Jake Warren, and Jake Otajewicz. 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, our 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, Eamon Dean. We will be back in two weeks' time. ♪