En relación a RE: [CrashList] Z-Net Flunks Test on Depleted Ura,
el 9 Feb 01, a las 8:24, Mark Jones dijo:
>
> Jared, I think the story about Pavel Borodin is more complicated than this. Your
> interest in the matter seems to come down to this: an important Russian diplomat
> and public official is arrested. This is prima facie an attack on 'the former
> Soviet peoples' themselves and a sign of renewed American aggression.
>
> If only life was so simple. [...] frankly I don't think you are doing your cause
>many favours
> by attaching it to the fate of someone as notoriously corrupt and evil as Pavel
> Borodin, [...] one of the oligarchs and pro-western
> modernisers with strong Kremlin links, like Anatolii Chubais or Boris
> Berezovsky, who could not appear in a public place: if he did, the mob would
> tear him to pieces. So arresting Borodin is one of the few 'unfriendly acts' by
> Americans which most ordinary Russians would actually be grateful for.
>
>
> [...] Trying to save Borodin on
> the grounds of his alleged diplomatic status is equivalent say to the attempts
> which some well-meaning Americans made to have Hermann Goering saved from the
> noose on the grounds that he was a former member of a Govenrment and should have
> immunity as a result of the German surrender.It is absurd to argue that
> criminals can enjoy life with immunity because they own a piece of paper.
The situation in Russia resembles, again, that in Latin America. I will never
stop reminding everybody that, even though the Bolshevik revolution would have
failed (as many used to state) as a socialist revolution, the passage from
whatever the fSU was to a Latin American status is anything but a good,
progressive, step in history.
In fact, after the Pinochet case -where we had some strong exchanges, namely
with yours truly defending Chilean sovereignty against British and Spanish
imperialist outrage- there appeared a couple of minor cases involving, this
time, Argentinean criminals. In all three of these cases, our sovereignty was
brutally maimed by all-powerful imperialist courts. In this sense, one can't
but point out that this cannot be accepted.
_But_ (and this is a big "but")...
If we look at the issue from closer quarters, however, there is a substantial
difference between the Pinochet case and what has been happening our
Argentinean or Russian rogues. Chile, partly under imperialist pressure, partly
due to internal tensions, HAS ACTUALLY PUT PINOCHET TO THE BENCH, and
the bloc of assassins of 1972 seems to have been rent apart. That the personal
cowardice of Pinocho made it easier[1] and that in fact this is only a
demonstration of the STRENGTH, not the weakness, of the post-1972 regime, is
not essential for what I will argue here.
This difference makes it much more difficult, as eagerly Mark points out, to
defend the right of sovereignty of states such as Russia or Argentina today.
Why, in Argentina we even have a legal framework that protects the criminals
from indictment (a legacy of both Alfonsín and Menem, while De la Rúa was one
of the most outspoken defenders of the military in 1976)! No surprise at all:
both Alfonsín, De la Rúa -and our shameless Minister of Foreign Relations
Rodríguez Giavarini[2]- share an upbringing in a gorilla-military environment
during the high years of the Shooting Revolution of 1955, the thing most
resembling Chile 1972 and Yugoslavia 2000 you can imagine. Menem, at his turn,
was a petty rogue in the way of Napoleon the 3rd., who established the closest
relationship between the world of organized crime and our ruling classes and
gave Peronism the final blow that had been the desire of all the 1955 bloc for
three decades of mortal political struggle in Argentina.
Thus, a difference must be established. Chilean criminals, at least their arch-
criminal, is under trial by law. Ours are safely convinced they will not.
Similar situation for Russians, or so it seems.
Under these conditions, although I still keep convinced that sovereignty of
states such as Argentina or Russia must be defended against any kind of
"international" (that is extra-territorial) courts, it is important to note
that the pertinent, territorially valid courts, are themselves a piece in the
system of extra-territoriality. This, basically, because these courts have been
so deeply turned into a gang of concealers that they will violate any principle
of Justice in order to defend both the establishers of the current situation
(civilian and military) _and_ the current (civilian) "administrators" of their
heritage.
Thus, defending a country such as ours against the unbelievable Judge Garzón
and his likes takes a lot more than merely stating the absolutely correct -but
partly just formal- truth that extra-territorial courts are a crime themselves.
I understand Mark's objections too well. And, still...
******************************************************************
N O T E S
[1] He forced other military to assume responsibilities on issues he did not
want to appear as responsible himself, thus leading to at least one of them
carefully keeping the records of what actually happened and eventually bringing
them to light in a "safe" -that is, non-conflictive for imperialism-
environment. This gives the case against Pinocho strong amount of legal
evidence, with the then commander of Northern Chile revealing that he had been
ordered to murder dozens of political prisoners by Pinocho himself, while
Pinocho's defence lies on the argument that poor good kid knew nothing of what
was going on...
[2] The guy who is outraged because Fidel Castro simply told the world the
already evident truth that even a country that in its own way had been
powerful, such as Argentina, becomes a boot-licker of imperialists due to the
debt
Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
CrashList website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
