How deep state intervenes to protect its global agenda, vested interests

Those sovereign governments that disagreed with the agendas of this alleged network were countered with the full force of its infrastructure and were eventually destabilised with mass protests and/or military intervention, conveniently using the excuse of ‘right to protect’

Representational image. REUTERS

The deep state is an alleged network of mostly non-elected government entities and sometimes private parties (like the financial services or defence industries) operating extra-legally to influence and enact vested interests. Its intervention has led to extreme human rights violations and erosion of democratic processes to serve the selfish interests of retaining global power and protecting its investments.

At the end of World War II, the United States had uncontested air and naval power projection abilities; it accounted for almost 50 per cent of the world’s GDP, held almost half the world’s gold reserves, and had almost three-fifths of the world’s oil reserves. In short, after World War II, the US was the uncontested big boss of the world order. So, leveraging this extraordinary power, the US went on to create institutions of post-war international order that are still in use and wield power today—the United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organisation, and NATO—amongst others; and also went on to create a new framework of alliances in Asia with Japan, Pakistan in South Asia, the Philippines, and South Korea in East Asia.

Essentially, this was the time when the West also penetrated the fledgling new international order with its own belief systems—basically, what they considered right and wrong. For instance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, which articulated the notion of universal individual rights—outlining a vision where these rights deserved recognition around the world—independent of the sovereign government’s political preferences. This was then followed by a stream of conventions and treaties that continued to expand the vision for human rights. It is important here to note that these norms often provided these new institutions with major American influence and the right to intervene in the affairs of sovereign states—in other words, ‘a right to protect’.

Let me explain this further: if these international institutions, which were seeped in with American value systems, believed that any nation around the world did not function to their liking or their rating of morality, they could intervene militarily or otherwise to ‘protect’ its people from power centres in those nations, which they then termed ‘autocratic’ or ‘fascist’.

A more sophisticated network developed over the next few decades of NGOs, media houses, rating agencies, multilateral institutions, politicians, and businessmen, which worked together to decide which governments around the world would assist in serving to maintain this power structure and which wouldn’t. Those sovereign governments that disagreed were countered with the full force of this web of deep state infrastructure and eventually destabilised with mass protests and/or military intervention, conveniently using the excuse of ‘right to protect’.

Recent examples are Syria and Bangladesh, where Bashar al-Assad and Sheikh Hasina had to flee the country due to orchestrated protests against their governments. In fact, Sheikh Hasina has publicly stated that the United States has played a big hand in orchestrating regime change in Bangladesh because they wanted to carve out a separate landmass in South Asia to establish a military base. This is exactly what was done in Belgrade—the first war in the EU after WWII when the US bombed Belgrade for 78 days to change the borders of a European state—to break Serbia, to create Kosovo as an enclave to install Bondsteel, which is the largest NATO base in the Balkans. And then, of course, under the ‘right to protect’ ideology, they also intervened militarily and otherwise in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Iraq—changing regimes and instilling power centres that would remain compliant to their interests. Curiously, from Kosovo to Libya, the deep state has overcommitted itself in areas that have had little to do with the United States’ direct national security interests and has done so usually under the guise of human rights and democracy protection.

For an outsider’s eye, it is evident that there has been neither respect for maintaining human rights after these regime change operations have been executed nor has democracy been strengthened. For instance, in Afghanistan and most of the Arab Spring countries, the lives of women have increasingly worsened to a point that they are treated as non-humans by leaders instilled by the deep state. The instilled power centres carry around guns, terrorising citizens and making life a living hell for anyone hoping to lead a normal life. Clearly, such atrocities do not seem to disturb the Western world as long as the power centres in these countries are compliant with the interests of their deep state.

The same holds true for democratic structures in these nations where the West has intervened: Bangladesh does not have a legitimate government; Ukraine refuses to conduct elections despite the fact that the Zelensky government has overstayed its term; most of the other nations with Western intervention have been handed over to extreme radicals who do not believe in elections or freedom of speech for that matter.

These same power structures seem to be at play in India, with the primary political opposition having disturbing, deep-rooted, intersecting links in terms of monetary transactions and a web of NGOs. Indians must exercise caution when being supplied with misinformation to influence and instigate. India is a pole of authority in the new multipolar world order, and the vested interests of the West are likely to exercise all of their power to slow down and destabilise the nation in order to stop the Indian pole of influence from gaining strength.

Priyam Gandhi-Mody is an author and political communications expert. She has written four best-selling books. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.