October 2007 Archives
« Previous · Home · Next »
Vladimir Putin, Natural Born Liar
Filed under: Russia
Can you imagine any more horrible, googly-eyed pumpkin on any doorstep this Halloween season?
As his All Hallow's Eve gift to the world, Vladimir Putin visited a site of Soviet mass murder, the proud KGB spy defiling it with his very presence, and rationalized the killing, saying: "Such tragedies have occurred more than once in the history of mankind."
You're a shameless liar, Mr. Putin, and you behave just like the Soviet thugs who came before you and taught you, at whose teet you sucked. The Soviet government was BY FAR the worst killer of civilians in world history, its actions have no parallel in the records of human habitation of the Earth. The Soviet Union killed 54.7 million between 1917 and 1987, and China killed only 35.6 million between 1949 and 1987. Even if there were other regimes that were worse than Russia's, or remotely close to being as bad, rationalization only helps to justify and continue the outrage. Not until the people of Russia become civilized enough to understand this, and to demand that their leaders do as well, will their lives ever begin to genuinely improve over the long haul.
Talk about a ghost story!
Publius Pundit takes this opportunity to wish all our readers a happy, ghoulish, horrifying Halloween! Ve vant to drink your blood! And those concerned about Russia can take this holiday also as a kind of Thanksgiving Day if they are lucky enough not to live in Russia, and a day of prayer for those who do. In Russia, they have no such luxury as this holiday, for every day is the real thing, not a matter for light-hearted jocularity.
del.icio.us | 
digg | 
technorati | 
stumble upon | 
furl | 
redditU.S. Majority Supports Striking Iran
Filed under: Iran ~ Russia
Pajamas Media links to a Zogby Poll which agrees with our prior poll here on Publius Pundit approving a military strike on Iran. Zogby states:
A majority of likely voters -- 52% -- would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows. The survey results come at a time of increasing U.S. scrutiny of Iran. According to reports from the Associated Press, earlier this month Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of "lying" about the aim of its nuclear program and Vice President Dick Cheney has raised the prospect of "serious consequences" if the U.S. were to discover Iran was attempting to devolop a nuclear weapon. Last week, the Bush administration also announced new sanctions against Iran. Democrats (63%) are most likely to believe a U.S. military strike against Iran could take place in the relatively near future, but independents (51%) and Republicans (44%) are less likely to agree. Republicans, however, are much more likely to be supportive of a strike (71%), than Democrats (41%) or independents (44%). Younger likely voters are more likely than those who are older to say a strike is likely to happen before the election and women (58%) are more likely than men (48%) to say the same -- but there is little difference in support for a U.S. strike against Iran among these groups.
This is a remarkable demonstration of solidarity given the quagmire that Iraq has become, and flies in the face of the nattering nabobs of negativity who claim Americans don't support standing up against those who threaten them.
It's unfortunate, though, that lost in the shuffle is the need to deal with Russia, the nation that is enabling Iran's outrageous actions by supplying the rogue state with nuclear technology, a missile system to defend it (even while, outrageously, inveighing against the U.S. system proposed for Eastern Europe) and blocking economic sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.
Vladimir Putin's Russia is as much our enemy, and as much the enemy of democracy, as Iran.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditNeo-Soviet Russia Obliterates its Internet
Filed under: Russia
Four major news stories about the Russian Internet published in recent days show that the dictatorship of Vladimir Putin has launched an all-out assault seeking to obliterate this last vestige of freedom of expression and genuine information and finalize Russia's transition to a neo-Soviet regime.
First, scholar and blogger Paul Goble reported that new data indicates that access to the Internet is no longer growing, and in fact is shrinking. CNews reported stark results:
The internet subscriber base formed [in Russia] within the last half a year has decreased by 2 million this summer as compared to spring. According to the latest survey "Internet in Russia," carried out by FOM, the subscriber base using the internet for half a year came to 26.8 million this summer, which is by 1.9 million lower than in spring. Monthly internet user base has decreased by 2.4 million to 22.4 million. Thus, 24% of the population above 18 used the internet in summer.
Russia's Internet base, in other words, was already puny, but at least it was growing. Now, that's no longer the case. Other news indicated clearly that this result has been brought about directly by the Kremlin's policies, even as the incomes of ordinary Russians is supposedly rising, making them better able to afford access.
For instance, the New York Times reported that Russia has become the leading source of Internet corruption, with Russian hackers becoming "something akin to national heroes last spring when a wave of Internet attacks was launched from Russia against Web sites in Estonia, the former Soviet republic." In other words, Russia's corruption is essentially state-sponsored and being weaponized for political gain (that's the Times graphic at the top of the page). The Washington Post reported that Russia is now the world leader in online child pornography, spam generation and outright theft by fraud.
Next, the Post reported on how Russia, already having mobilized a malignant cadre of online terrorists to attack voices of dissent and having taken over all significant outlets of journalism in the print and television areas, is now aggressively looking to seize control of source material on the Internet.
And finally, the Ukrainian Internet hub Maidan reported that the Kremlin is using the tactics of cyber attack, previously employed against recalcitrant foreign governments like Estonia, against domestic human rights organizations, who had retreated to the Internet as their last bastion after years of relentless assaults on their non-virtual activities.
All this is happening even before Russia's upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections over the next few months, perhaps in an effort to assert even more control over the outcomes of those ballots. Do you dare to imagine what will occur when Russia's politicians are no longer constrained by them? Russia's Internet is on its last legs, and it is the last vestige of non-Soviet life. The time is now to act aggressively to protect it.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditKhodorkovsky 2, Putin 0
Filed under: Russia
Extremely interesting developments are unfolding on the legal front in Europe. Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his besieged team of executives from Yukos are finally starting to score major victories in the European courts, pushing back the front lines on the battle for Russia's soul, handing Vladimir Putin's stormtroopers two major defeats in preliminary skirmishes. The big battles are yet to be fought (because, ironically, Russia's only real defense has been to flood European courts with cases, especially the European Court for Human Rights, meaning justice for Mr. Khodorkovsky takes a while as he must stand in a long line to reach a judge), but the signs are very promising and present what must be a terrifying prospect to Putin's dictatorship: total international illegitimacy. I explore the events in my most recent installment on Pajamas Media. Check it out! Voice your support for Khodorkovsky here.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditObsessed with Democracy?
Filed under: Cuba ~ Russia
President Bush, surrounded by victims of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro's oppression at the White House yesterday, delivered a blistering rebuke against the regime's decades of outrageous conduct, declaring that the U.S. would not relax its embargo if Castro attempts to pass power to his little brother Raul when he finally kicks the rusty communist bucket. He declared: "The socialist paradise is a tropical gulag. The quest for justice that once inspired the Cuban people has now become a grab for power. And as with all totalitarian systems, Cuba's regime no doubt has other horrors still unknown to the rest of the world." He actually made a direct call for insurrection, asking Cuba's military leaders: "When Cubans rise up to demand their liberty, you've got to make a choice. Will you defend a disgraced and dying order by using force against your own people? Or will you embrace your people's desire for change?" And he exhorted the people of the nation to rise up and show their true colors:
We will know there is a new Cuba when opposition parties have the freedom to organize, assemble and speak with equal access to the airwaves. We will know there is a new Cuba when a free and independent press has the power to operate without censors. We will know there is a new Cuba when the government removes its stranglehold on private economic activity. Above all, we will know there is a new Cuba when authorities go to the prisons, walk to the cells where people are being held for their beliefs and set them free. We will not support the old way with new faces, the old system held together by new chains.
He dismissed those who seek engagement with the dictatorship. The Miami Herald reported: "At a White House news briefing, Press Secretary Dana Perino was asked if Bush was 'obsessed with Cuba.'" Perino responded: "The president is obsessed with human rights -- if that is an accusation that they want to lodge against the president, we'll take it as a compliment."
That's all well and good, Mr. President, but there are two pretty big holes in your rhetoric that you'll need to address before your pretty words have any real significance.
First, you'd do well to read our two recent posts regarding the harsh reality that "people power" may fail in Cuba just as it has done recently in Burma -- both by Robert Mayer, one providing his own analysis and one touting that of Bo Nyein on Pajamas Media. You might then realize how long on verbal heat and short on the light of action your speech was. What if the people rise up, and Castro Jr. simply crushes them, and does try to shackle the nation into the old regime with new chains, just as you feared? What, specifically, will we do then, beyond just leaving a failed embargo in place? More terrifying a prospect, what if Cuba turns out to be like Russia, and the people don't rise up at all, but rather give support to a brutal regime and its oppressive ways? What then, Mr. President? What then?
Second, you really ought to take a look at your foreign policy beyond Cuba, and ask yourself whether it expresses a consistent message that would make Fidel Castro, and more importantly those who would rise up against him, believe you mean it when you say his scrawny Marxist goose is cooked. Most especially, you ought to review your benighted policy on Russia, a nation which is an egregious transgressor of human rights and democratic values which, for most of your presidency, you've swept under the carpet. Viewing it, many potential Cuban democratic revolutionaries -- to say nothing of those in Russia -- might think all you are offering is another Bay of Pigs.
Take Iran, for example. It was announced today by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and their Quds strikeforce were being branded terrorist organizations, their U.S. assets frozen and all contacts with U.S. citizens banned. Joining Rice, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson stated: "Iran funnels hundreds of millions of dollars each year through the international financial system to terrorists. Iran's banks aid this conduct using a range of deceptive financial practices intended to evade even the most stringent risk management controls." Rice added: "The Iranian government continues to spurn our offer of open negotiations, instead threatening peace and security by pursuing nuclear technologies that can lead to a nuclear weapon; building dangerous ballistic missiles; supporting Shia militants in Iraq and terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories; and denying the existence of a fellow member of the United Nations, threatening to wipe Israel off the map."
But where was the mention of Russia, which is supplying this rogue state with nuclear technology and missiles to defend it from NATO strikes, as well as vetoes in the UN Security Council blocking coordinated worldwide sanctions, favored by a majority of the Council? Where was the admission that President Bush has led us down the garden path on Russia, and that a course correction is needed and being made? Without dealing with Russia, no Iran solution can be effective. And where, pray tell, is the rhetoric about human rights. Both Iran and Russia are among the world's worst transgressors, making Cuba look small time by comparison. Did they just forget their obsession?
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditRussia: Zimbabwe, with Permafrost
Filed under:
This is your Mugabe.
If you were not the perspicacious Publius Pundit peruser that you are, and had imbibed a sufficient quantity of the insane Russophile propaganda that circulates out on the Internet from various corrupt screwball sources, you might think it quite impossible that "stable, resurgent" Russia would need to adopt exactly the same type of draconian state-imposed price controls seized upon by the maniacal regime of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Then, you'd undoubtedly be quite shocked to see the Financial Times report:
Russia is introducing Soviet-style price controls on some basic foods in an effort to prevent spiralling prices from denting the Putin administration's popularity ahead of parliamentary polls in December. The country's biggest food retailers and producers have reached an agreement, expected to be signed with the Russian government on Wednesday, to freeze prices at October 15 levels on selected types of bread, cheese, milk, eggs and vegetable oil until the end of the year. Russia's move is the latest sign of surging agricultural prices becoming an international political issue. Big retailers will limit their mark-up on those goods to 10 per cent.
So much for Russia being stable and resurgent! No wonder Putin is taking radical steps to crush all opposition in the upcoming parliamentary elections! He's even in the process of banning Western election monitoring! Russia is facing double-digit overall consumer price inflation for 2007 and inflation could be twice as high on the basic market basket of foodstuffs and other items that its impoverished mass population, which exists on an average wage of $4/hour, can afford. When will these tinpot despots like Mugabe and Putin ever learn that you can't solve the problem of inflation by simply making it illegal to raise prices? The next thing you know, as in the USSR and in Zimbabwe today, the shelves are empty and the prisons are full. The Streetwise Professor has more, as do I in my most recent installment in our articles section.
This is your Mugabe on nuclear weapons.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditCondi Lets Russia Have It
Filed under: Russia
"We want Russia to be strong, strong in 21st-century terms, not just with a strong independent center, but with strong independent institutions, an independent judiciary and legislature and independent civil society with a free media and vibrant non-governmental sector. Democratic institutions and a free society are not a source of weakness, they are a source of strength in a dynamic and modern world."
--US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice speaking yesterday at a history conference on U.S. Soviet relations (how's that for the cherry on top of the sundae?)
Ouch! "Strong in 21st-century terms." Translation from diplomaticese: "Russia, stop being so barbaric and try your hand at civilization for a while. You might like it." Way to go, Condi! The gloves are off at last!
Meanwhile, the Weekly Standard exposes Russia's "tyrant-in-waiting" on Kosovo as Russians busy themselves digging up and re-installing statues of Stalin. That's the backstory.
And even benighted President Bush seems to have awoken from his eye-peering stupor on Russia, making a major speech calling for missile defense in Europe no matter what Russia wants.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditHave the Swiss Become Racist, Or...?
Filed under: Europe
I've written an article over at Pajamas Media about yesterday's parliamentary election in Switzerland, where the press has heaped on the scorn over what it perceives as a Nazi-like campaign by the country's biggest party. I take the time to throw that notion in the trash. If you know about the controversy surrounding this issue then I think you'll be interested in the article for sure.
"Do the election results show the Swiss have become racist?"
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditBrand Spanking New Articles
Filed under: Site Updates
We have several new articles posted up to the "Articles" section of the site which I'm sure you'll all find very interesting.
The first is, "The End of Democracy?" written by Kim Zigfeld, who responds to an article in the Economist which states that the words "democracy" and "western" themselves no longer correctly define what they actually are. Also, in "Annals of Neo-Soviet Self-Destruction," she points out that Russia is incredibly setting up a commission to monitor the human rights situation in the West! One must wonder if it's all a joke.
The latest article is a commentary written by my friend Adam Goodman of The BEING HAD Times blog, which he writes from Pinsk, Belarus. His article is in response to recent anti-Semitic remarks made by the authoritarian president Alexander Lukashenka. He notes that anti-Semitism is on the rise in many corners, and whether or not such comments were intentional, they make him very, very nervous when the president of the country makes them.
So, enjoy! And as always feel free to leave your comments!
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditThat Woman Behind the Armenian Curtain
Filed under: Middle East
The Democrats have been drowning in bad news lately. A staunchly conservative Republican (and a racial minority to boot!) was overwhelmingly elected governor of Louisiana on the first ballot over the weekend. The New York Times (and Daily Kos) are moaning about their need to "double-check that the Democrats actually won control of Congress last year" after brutal defeats on national security and health care reform votes at the hands of George Bush, and moaning too as Speaker Pelosi is forced to back away from a crazy colleague spewing anti-Bush hatred under the withering fire of the conservative blogosphere. And the Democrats themselves are raising serious questions about whether their runaway presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton is electable.
And now, writing on National Review, Charles Krauthammer asks whether Pelosi has intentionally raised the Armenia issue to drive Turkish support away from the Bush administration on Iraq -- essentially, an act of treachery against her own country. He writes: "Turkey is already massing troops near the Iraq border, threatening a campaign against Kurdish rebels that could destabilize the one stable front in Iraq. The same House of Representatives that has been complaining loudly about the lack of armored vehicles for our troops is blithely jeopardizing relations with the country through which 95 percent of the new heavily armored vehicles are now transiting on the way to saving American lives in Iraq."
Let's not forget that today's Armenia is one of the few countries in the world to have closely allied itself with the Kremlin dictatorship of Vladimir Putin, thereby indirectly giving aid and comfort to such American foes as Venezuela, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. It begins to seem that the Democratic Party, drunk with its newfound power, is taking leave of its senses without even completing a single election cycle.
So, are the "Democrats" trying to accomplish by illicit means what they have been denied by democratic means? Does their own incompetence force them to adopt the tactics of subterfuge?
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditThe Orgy of Communism in China Revealed
Filed under:
The New York Times publishes some photographs of the orgy of Communism that recently unfolded in China. Click the jump to view the juiciest items.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditBurma's Destroyed Opposition
Filed under: Asia ~ Myanmar
Pro-democracy writer Bo Nyein pens a extremely quality article over at Pajamas Media telling of the completely disorganized Burmese opposition -- and how that amounted in large part to its failure to overthrow the military junta a couple weeks ago. If you found my article "When People Power Fails" insightful, then you will enjoy this. Whereas I focused on the strengths of the military-business regime, Bo Nyein focuses on the abhorrent weaknesses of the democratic opposition, which includes both those in the country as well as the organized expat NGOs and Western government. There is no cohesive strategy or connection between that outside and the actual, on the ground reality.
What astounds me is how the optimists believe the opposition had every chance of actually succeeding in overthrowing the military junta while in such a disorganized state. Of course, much of this can be blamed on the strength of the regime itself, but nonetheless certain comparisons should be made to other people power revolutions since the end of the USSR.
For one, the regimes in Central and Eastern Europe were much less cohesive, much less savvy, and much less oppressive than the Burmese military junta. As far as we can tell right now, the U.S. barely has its foot in the door with an American embassy in Burma, but is under such surveillance that little can be done to help. However, from the mid-'90s through the present, some independent media (radio and television) as well as native NGOs were able to set up in Central and Eastern Europe. The U.S. government, through pro-democracy institutions such as NDI, NED, and IRI -- not to mention George Soros' Open Society Institute above all -- were able to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars worth of cash, equipment, technical/logistical support, training, and advice that was able to organize the opposition in countries from Slovakia to Serbia to Georgia to Ukraine.
And while in these countries, sure, the democratic opposition would rally around a single charismatic leader, Bo Nyein points out that perhaps this is the wrong strategy in Burma. In Central/Eastern Europe, these leaders had an extremely strong organized support behind them. In Burma, however, Aung San Suu Kyi has been made into a golden idol who cannot possibly achieve democracy for her country alone when there is no organized, cohesive strategy behind supporting the people who support her.
One other point of Bo Nyein's that I would like to point out which I found very interesting is the extreme disconnect between the expat NGOs operating around the world for a free Burma and the situation with the domestic opposition. While these NGOs work tirelessly to promote awareness and influence foreign governments, very little has been done in terms of actually organizing the domestic opposition to deal with its struggle. Believe it or not, there are classes you can take at universities about democratization, and one of the things you will learn is that foreign influence is almost always second or third tier when it comes to a regime transition. Many of the NGOs and independent media that these foreign NGOs helped out and trained were native organizations that were simply given the boost they needed. Burma has very little of this.
Now, I'm not going to quote any of the article itself. I highly recommend that you click the link though if you're interested in Burma. Just keep these thoughts in mind as you read!
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditVladimir Putin, Unhinged
Filed under: Russia
Blogger Robert Amsterdam points to two breathtaking events showing how far gone Russian dictator Vladimir Putin really is:
(1) Putin thinks America wants to invade Russia to get at its oil.
(2) Putin thinks he's the next Franklin D. Roosevelt, and he thinks that's a good thing. WaPo is also on the case.
Don't flatter yourself, sir.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditBhutto in Pakistan
Filed under:
The American nutroots received a few rather unpleasant jolts of reality over the past few days.
First, a major campaign financing scandal erupted, tarnishing all the major Democratic candidates with the allegation of acceptance of seriously tainted money. Large amounts of the filthy stuff.
Then, despite all the hew and cry from the leftist lunatics about how George Bush is evil and the whole damn country knows it, the House (despite its Democratic majority) failed to override President Bush's veto of the child healthcare reform proposals (despite Bush recently recording the lowest-ever public approval ratings for a president, the House's approval rating is half that of Bush). The New York Times reports: "Despite a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign and intense lobbying by children's advocates, supporters of the bill were unable to convert a single House Republican who voted against the bill last month." On top of that, it began to appear that the Republicans would dominate the upcoming Louisiana governor's race.
Doubtless, the nutroots will still carry on with their insane drumbeat about all Republicans being evil, the party in disarray, feeling the president like plague. Because why let facts get in the way of a good psychotic rant.
Michelle Malkin 3, Daily Kos 0.
And then Ms. Bhutto was back in Pakistan. No sooner had she arrived than Al-Quaeda launched a suicide attack against her. FOX reports that "President Gen. Pervez Musharraf labeled the attack part of a 'conspiracy against democracy,' reaching out to the former prime minister with whom he is trying to forge a pro-U.S., anti-militant alliance." Over 100 innocent people were killed. On October 5th, Musharraf signed a corruption amnesty edict covering prior politically-motivated charges against Bhutto, opening the way for her return and a possible power-sharing agreement. In 1988, at the age of 35, Bhutto had been elected the first female leader of a Muslim country in world history.
Now, of course, the nutroots will blame President Bush for having failed to wipe Al-Quaeda off the face of the earth. They'll ignore the fact that Bill Clinton did nothing whatsoever to deal with them during his eight years in power. They'll ignore the fact that the U.S. homeland has been 100% free of terrorism events since 9/11, an event that was brewed and planned while Clinton was president. And most of all, they'll fail to come forward with any specific, coherent plan to deal with violent anti-democratic, anti-American (don't the two almost always go together) forces in Pakistan, or anywhere else for that matter. Criticize Bush's plan to deal with Al-Quaeda all you like, you know what it is. What's Hillary's plan? What's Obama's? Hard to say, isn't it.
As the Bits of News blog states:
Given the press that Pakistan has received of late and the way in which much of the country is perceived by the west, the reaction to Benazir Bhutto's triumphant return is a marker of why this country's soul is worth fighting for. Despite having a traditionally conservative population and an administration which has upheld laws which severely limit women's rights (the Koranic Hudood and Zina ordinances, for instance), hundreds of thousands of men and women alike were nevertheless willing to turn out to cheer on a woman whom they perceived to be their political saviour. It is now just as it was when Mrs Bhutto was still Prime Minister -- the fact that she is a woman, to a majority of Pakistanis, simply does not seem to matter. Furthermore, that she represents, for the time being, the country's single best hope of re-establishing democracy seems to be of infinitely more importance.
To put it more simply: If Al-Quaeda hates someone that much, they can't be all bad. This girl got game. Just when things start to look a little bleak for democracy's prospects, one of these breathtaking heroes steps forward, willing to literally risk it all, staring dictatorship in the eye, unblinking.
It's thrilling.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditThe Russian and the Grapes
Filed under: Russia
Twelve Nobel prizes have been awarded this year in six categories: Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Literature, Peace and Economics. Six of the twelve awards went to Americans -- including three for Economics, two for Medicine and one for Peace.
Zero awards went to Russia.
It's a pretty big jolt for a country that, because of incessant Kremlin propaganda fueled by latent Russian xenophobia and arrogance, believes America is a nation of morons while Russia has cornered the market on scientific expertise -- and believes, too, that Russia leads a coalition of America-haters soon to take over the planet. A pathetically bitter Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs and well expressing the frenzied Russian nationalist viewpoint, writes in the Moscow Times with enough sour grapes to choke Ernest and Julio: "The Nobel prize committee has repeatedly been the subject of international criticism for its bias and political intrigues, but it is a fairly accurate measure of the state of affairs in international relations. Committee members vote for candidates they believe to be promoting worthy causes."
Gosh. Wonder if he would have said the same thing if half the prizes had gone to Russians.
To be sure, this blog has expressed its fair share of skepticism as to the significance of the Nobel's substantive acumen. But even Lukyanov confirms (though he doesn't seem to notice he's done so) that the Nobel committee's judgment is, at the very least, an unquestionable confirmation of American power and prestige in the world. Yet, that's not what the Kremlin is telling the people of Russia, nor is it consistent with Russia's relentless provocation of the United States by providing aid and comfort to arch American foes like Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah. It's a very dramatic illustration of how far detached from reality the neo-Soviet state is rapidly becoming, a dangerous situation indeed. All throughout the Soviet period Russians, cut off from the news of the world, told themselves American achievements were all illusory and meaningless -- while their own were earth-shaking and dominant. Then, quite suddenly, the USSR ceased to exist.
Indeed, the next thing you know Lukyanov is exclaiming that "the war in Iraq has turned the triumph of the 'world according to Uncle Sam' into a failure, and the 'new world order,' to which former U.S. President George Bush referred in 1988, has yet to arrive. The United States' failure to achieve primacy in international relations has been analyzed by just about everyone, including the Americans themselves." But six out of twelve seems pretty much like primacy, and so does having an economy twelve times larger than Russia's and larger than the five major nations of Europe combined.
Even though America's power vastly exceeds Russia's, there are many in the U.S. who routinely ask what America is doing to avoid alienating Russia, and whether it could do more. The problem is, nobody who matters (and certainly not Mr. Lukyanov) is asking the reverse in Russia -- just as was the case in Soviet times. Russians, like cave men, take American self-analysis as a sign of weakness -- the same claim made by the defunct Soviets -- when it's actually the exact opposite.
And so it goes in Russia.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditI Love You, You Love Me . . .
Filed under: Iran ~ Russia
The Associated Press reports:
Vladimir Putin issued a veiled warning Tuesday against any attack on Iran as he began the first visit by a Kremlin leader to Tehran in six decades -- a mission reflecting Russian-Iranian efforts to curb U.S. influence. He also suggested Moscow and Tehran should have a veto on Western plans for new pipelines to carry oil and natural gas from the Caspian Sea, using routes that would bypass Russian soil and break the Kremlin's monopoly on energy deliveries from the region. Putin strongly warned outside powers against use of force in the region, a clear reference to the United States, which many in Iran fear will attack over the West's suspicions that the Iranians are secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made similar comments. "We are saying that no (Caspian) nations should offer their territory to outside powers for aggression or any military action against any of the Caspian states," Putin said. The Russian leader also used the occasion to make a nod to Iran's national pride -- describing it as a "world power" and referring to the might of the ancient Persian empire.
Now, remember folks -- Russia is a member of the G-8. We are officially through the looking glass. If this Putin fellow is our ALLY, do you dare imagine who our enemies might be?
My latest installment on the Pajamas Media megablog explains why Russia is becoming more and more interested in jumping under the sheets with Iran: In addition to a latent hatred of Western values that gives Iran's a run for its money, slowly Russia is becoming a Muslim nation.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditIs the Armenia Vote Anti-Democratic?
Filed under: Europe
Writing in the Washington Post, Fred Hiatt argues that the recent vote regarding genocide in Armenia by Turkey is actually a vote against democracy:
Imagine what the Armenian diaspora might have accomplished had it worked as hard for democracy in Armenia as it did for congressional recognition of the genocide Armenians suffered nearly a century ago. It's even possible that modern Armenia would be as democratic as modern Turkey. Things began well, with the honest election of a former dissident as president. But authoritarian tendencies soon emerged, the former dissident rigged his reelection in 1996, and things went downhill from there. As Freedom House noted last year, "all national elections held in Armenia since independence have been marred by some degree of ballot stuffing, vote rigging, and similar irregularities." Meanwhile, opposition politicians have been jailed, protests have been brutally suppressed, and broadcast media have been taken under government control.Armenia was sidetracked early on by a war with neighboring Azerbaijan over an Armenian enclave inside that country. The enclave is under Armenian control today, but a cease-fire has not given way to a peace settlement. Consequently, the two main Armenian American lobbying organizations in Washington have focused more on security questions -- opposing arms sales to Azerbaijan, for example, and opposing Turkey, Azerbaijan's ally -- than on promoting democracy in Yerevan. Armenia's rulers have known that, no matter how they trample on individual rights at home, the lobbying groups will cover for them here.
Here's the flip side, from a Greek perspective:
Today Turkey finds itself in a position where its value as an ally is countered by the political clout of Armenians within its allies. So time has run out. Turkey will, eventually, have to come to terms with its history or face the prospect of turning its back on the world that it set out to join in 1923. The only way that this can be achieved is if the Armenians and their backers make clear that the matter is moral and not political - because the issue is to honor the victims of the past, and not to undermine the common future of Turks, Armenians, Azeris and all the other nations of this troubled region. As for Turkey's allies, including the United States, they need only consider the simple part of the question: are you on the side of right, whatever the cost - or are you not?
What do you think? Should the U.S. side with Armenia or Turkey?
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditJohn McCain: Boot Russia out of the G-8!
Filed under:
A decade and a half ago, the Russian people threw off the tyranny of communism and seemed determined to build a democracy and a free market and to join the West. Today, we see in Russia diminishing political freedoms, a leadership dominated by a clique of former intelligence officers, efforts to bully democratic neighbors, such as Georgia, and attempts to manipulate Europe's dependence on Russian oil and gas. We need a new Western approach to this revanchist Russia. We should start by ensuring that the G-8, the group of eight highly industrialized states, becomes again a club of leading market democracies: it should include Brazil and India but exclude Russia. Rather than tolerate Russia's nuclear blackmail or cyberattacks, Western nations should make clear that the solidarity of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is indivisible and that the organization's doors remain open to all democracies committed to the defense of freedom. We must also increase our programs supporting freedom and the rule of law in Russia and emphasize that genuine partnership remains open to Moscow if it desires it but that such a partnership would involve a commitment to being a responsible actor, internationally and domestically.
-- U.S. Senator and presidential candidate John McCain, writing in the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. Hat tip: Robert Amsterdam.
If he doesn't become president, Mr. McCain should be the next U.S. ambassador to Russia! There's simply no doubt that his stance on Russia and democracy is insightful and correct. If only more would listen to him, before it is too late.
By contrast, Hillary Clinton says in the same publication that while Russia has screwed us on Kosovo, Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltics, Iran, democracy and, well, just about every which way, that's not such a big deal because "Putin has used Russia's energy wealth to expand the Russian economy, so that more ordinary Russians are enjoying a rising standard of living." That's what Chamberlain said about Hitler. Thanks a lot Hillary -- brought to you by the woman whose husband gave us the KGB presidency in the first place. It would be interesting to ask her to name a specific policy Putin enacted which has increased the income of the average Russian, and to ask her whether she feels increasing their average wage from $2.50/hour to $3/hour is really an offset to the absolute destruction of democracy, revival of a neo-Soviet state and provocation of a new cold war. Also interesting to ask whether she realizes she is agreeing with George Bush Jr. (without giving him the credit).
Talk about a clear choice at election time!
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditWeekend Update
Filed under: Cuba ~ Russia ~ US Elections ~ Venezuela
It was an eventful weekend. Democracy took it on the chin.
Despite recent revelations concerning deep flaws the factual presentation of his film An Inconvenient Truth, to say nothing of the lack of any apparent connection between global warming and global war (much less any life-risking courage shown by the recipient, much less any actual evidence that anything he's done has actually reduced climate change) it was announced that Al Gore would receive the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Committee no doubt believes that noted humanitarian Yasir Arafat is beaming widely up there in heaven, delighted to welcome his fellow traveler to the club.
Then, Fidel Castro came out of hiding and had a powwow with Hugo Chavez, including a joint broadcast on a Cuban radio program, and observers declared him to be on the track to regaining his health. Among other things, Chavez actually sang love songs to Castro.
Meanwhile, the New York Times reported that "Israel's air attack on Syria last month was directed against a site that Israeli and American intelligence analysts judged was a partly constructed nuclear reactor, apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel."
And to round things out, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin snubbed a visiting delegation to Moscow comprised of Condi Rice and Bob Gates "by making them wait 40 minutes and then delivering a stern lecture before a room full of reporters." The pair were in Moscow to discuss U.S. plans to install a ballistic missile defense system in Europe, and Putin crazily declared: "Of course we can sometime in the future decide that some anti-missile defense system should be established somewhere on the moon. But before we reach such arrangements, we will lose the opportunity for fixing some particular arrangements between us." Echoes of Khrushchev and his infamous, self-destructive shoegate incident. Rice (who Putin, like his predecessor, may have forgotten leads a nation with an economy twelve times larger than Russia's and which leads a large group of powerful allies) promptly responded by issuing a stern blast against the Putin dictatorship and followed it up by meeting with his political opponents. This came on the heels of French President Nicolas Sarkozy giving Putin the business a few days earlier.
All that can be viewed as adequate preparation for today's main course: Putin is due to arrive in Tehran later today for another meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As world criticism of this conspiracy mounted, it was suddenly announced by Russian authorities that a plot to assassinate Putin during the visit had been discovered (Putin craftily cloaked the visit in the shroud of a regional conference on the Caspian Sea). Is it possible that Putin's KGB pals have cooked up this "threat" as a way of further distracting the world's attention from the outrageous nature of Russia's actions in Iran (providing nuclear technology, missile defense systems to protect it -- even while opposing such systems in Europe -- and diplomatic support against international sanctions in the U.N. -- and Russia is also supplying weapons to Syria)? Oh, it's possible alright. Last week, Putin's rubber-stamp legislature passed a law which will basically abolish referendum voting in Russia. The bill's sponsor stated: "There is, for example, a group of disgruntled people who get together and begin to disrupt society. We don't need this." Days earlier, it had been announced that Garry Kasparov's party would not be allowed to vie for seats in the upcoming parliamentary elections, and many others were facing the same fate. Welcome back to the USSR.
The net result of the Clinton administration in which Al Gore served was the rise to power of proud KGB spy Putin in Russia (shortly before that, Clinton became the first U.S. president to shake Castro's hand since he took power), resulting in a new cold war, and the most significant terrorist attack on U.S. soil by the Islamic extremists beloved by Ahmadinejad. Little wonder, then, that Gore is so fond of the subject of melting ice (even if he has to misdirect the conversation).
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditI'm Coming Out of the Closet
Filed under: Humor
I was just informed that two days ago was International Coming Out Day, how dare I forget?
I've got one for you Publius readers though. I'm coming out of the closet, right here, right now, on the world wide web. Everyone will know and it will forever be available to public scrutiny. And if, some day, I am put into the horrible position where I am in some sort of political office, my opponents will forever use this against me.
That's right. I'm a former hardcore Marxist. I loved reading boring books written in the 70s about Soviet and Chinese economic models. I carried The Communist Manifesto with me wherever I went. Camo was in style. Revolution could be pretty sweet.
Did I mention that this wasn't the '60s or '70s, but up until about 2003? Let me just say, that 30 years later than I should have had a phase like that, such a thing does not work so well with the ladies.
Who knew coming out of the closet could be so much fun? Any readers who want to take a crack at this, and share their deepest, darkest secrets about former political affiliations? Dumbest things, in retrospect, you've ever said about an issue? What you had for breakfast this morning?
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditThe Nobel X Prize
Filed under: International Institutions
'Whisky is for drinking, water is for fighting over." -- Mark Twain
The fury that has erupted over Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his work lecturing the public about climate change shouldn't bewilder anyone. It is an honor that should be bestowed upon someone whose works and achievements for world peace have stood the test of certifiability -- years of time. Brokering peace between Russia and Japan (Teddy Roosevelt) is verifiable. Climate change is very much a current issue that is not only unsolved, but actually up in the air as to what extent it is actually the fault of humans and that anything can be done about it.
Whatever the reason, climates all over the world will continue to change. Some places have historically gotten warmer, others colder, but overall it has been a giant flux back and forth over the centuries. I can tell you for a fact that humans did not cause the Ice Age, for example. What is important, however, is to realize that while humans may not actually be able to control the climate itself -- talk about ego! -- we do have the ability to shape how these changes affect our lives. And not only our lives, but the lives of those who will be most effected by it: citizens of the impoverished developing world.
One of the greatest factors that the human race will have to deal with in regards to climate change is the availability of water.
Surely we in America use more than we should, whether it's leaving the faucet on while we brush our teeth or watering the lawn in the middle of a summer day. Then, one day, a drought hits and everyone gets pissy about municipal and state restrictions limiting consumption. It becomes a huge issue in the papers, everyone is talking about how unfair it is, and if the state handles the situation poorly then it won't bode well for election season.
Now imagine you're a cutthroat member of the northern Sudanese economic elite. All the forests have been decimated already, few more resources exist for expansion, and desertification has left the region arid and in some cases uninhabitable. You need resources and more than anything you need water, or everything you and your colleagues have built up through vast exploitation of all around you will be for "nothing".
Now imagine you're a refugee in southern Sudan. You're living in a UN camp because government-supported, renegade militias from the north have invaded and killed everyone you know. Life basically sucks and there is nothing you can do about it. What did you do wrong? Why are you being punished like this?
Well, you didn't do anything, but this is a story that has played out, is playing out right now, and will only continue to play out far into the future as long as the world's water supply continues to shrink. Wars are fought over this most precious of all resources that we tend to believe is free and ever-available. Much credible research has shown that the civil war in Sudan is even more about water and resources than it is an ethno-religious war. One of the reasons cited for the current condition is regional climate change (a continuous drought since the 1960s) as well as the total devastation of the environment.
In fact, the UN recently reported that water will be the main reason for conflict in Africa over the next 25 years. This will likely be true for the rest of the world as well. China is already making sure that it has access to Asia's water lifeline. Water-strapped Israel continues to hold the Golan Heights -- awash with it -- which is a major point of contention with Syria. One could very well say that water is the next oil!
The Norwegian Nobel Committee obviously realizes this, because if you took the time to read the reasons why they award Al Gore the prize, it was expressly for that reason.The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change. Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.The connection between climate change and the destruction of the environment with the world's contracting water supply is pretty clear, and I think the connections between those and the inevitability of wars over water are even clearer. The Nobel Committee obviously believes that Gore's work raising awareness over the issue in the developed world has mobilized action to find solutions for the developing world, thus helping to prevent major future conflicts.
Yet one cannot help but be unimpressed with this, when truly the door is still open on his major platform: global warming. I simply cannot fathom the idea of spending trillions of dollars in the hope that we humans can lower the temperature of the earth when those trillions of dollars can fuel research and technologies that, despite whatever happens outside our control, will improve the overall human condition regardless. I'm talking about technologies that can better conserve and distribute water and create more of it. It can also be invested in education. If we really have to water our lawns as often as we do (well, I live in Arizona now, where colored rock lawns have been popularized), could it hurt to let people know to do it at night? Can't we teach our children by example and just turn the faucet off?
So I must say that I must agree with Czech President Vaclav Klaus -- the reasons for giving Al Gore the peace prize for his work on global warming is unclear and indistinct. He has raised awareness of an issue that itself is rather unclear and indistinct when there are plenty of climate and environmental issues that can actually be solved without the need to put civilization on hold.
My suggestion is that the Nobel Committee, if it really wants to prevent future wars that occur because of climate change, the environment, water, or what have you, is to offer the peace prize up as much like the X Prize which has shot the space tourism industry into orbit. For example: the $1.5 million dollar prize will go to whoever can develop a new desalination process that is cheaper and more effective than those currently in existence. Trillions of dollars in economic losses due to Al Gore's prescription is ridiculous compared to the $1.5 million it would take to unleash human potential all over the world in developing new technologies to deal with these problems.
Offering up the honor of the Nobel Peace Prize and the $1.5 million dollars to the man who does that is a small price to pay for human advancement. Whoever can develop a way to make fresh, pottable water very cheaply and efficiently will do more to foster present and future peace than Al Gore's speeches and concerts ever can.