----- Original Message ----- From: Ken Freeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: STOP NATO: ¡NO PASARAN! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 6:55 PM Subject: FW: [houstonpeaceroundtable] Fw: Russia vs. New World Order [STOPNATO.ORG.UK] STOP NATO: NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --------------------------- ListBot Sponsor -------------------------- Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/links/joinlb ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Mrs. Jela Jovanovic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 7:12 AM To: Undisclosed-Recipient:@smtp.EUnet.yu; Subject: [houstonpeaceroundtable] Fw: Russia vs. New World Order http://www.newdawnmagazine.com.au/Articles/Russia_vs_New_World_Order.html Russia vs. New World Order By Susan Bryce At the September 2000 meeting of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez characterised the rising discontent with the US inspired New World Order when he stated: The 20th century was a bipolar century, but the 21st is not going to be unipolar. The 21st century should be multipolar, and we all ought to push for the development of such a world. So, long live a united Asia, a united Africa, a united Europe! The New World Order, a euphemism for US hegemony, is based upon a unipolar concept of the world, meaning US superpower domination. What is developing, however, is a multipolar world, implying many centres of influence, including Russia. The Russian Federation considers that social progress, stability and international security can only be guaranteed in the framework of a multipolar world and resents attempts by the US to marginalise Moscow in world affairs. Hence, Russia has become a political, military and cultural thorn in the side of the New World Order, representing an obstacle to its goals. Following the end of the Cold War, US President George Bush declared a New World Order, in which the heavy hand of American imperialism would fill the post Cold War geopolitical vacuum, enabling the US to ultimately conquer the geopolitical space of the former Soviet Union and interpose its authority over all of Europe. Plan to Disempower Russia In his 1993 book, Out of Control, Zbigniew Brzezinski describes the US strategy as: An invasion created by the dissolution of the Soviet Union, aiming to transform the former republics of the Soviet Union into an area of overt and exclusive preponderance of American power. He argues that American hegemony is unlike any previous hegemony because it is truly global. It is based on an unprecedented mixture of military supremacy, ideological ascendancy, technological innovation and control of the world s financial system. Brzezinski says quite clearly that if America wants to control the world, as she should, then she must establish domination over Eurasia, especially what he calls its Western periphery (i.e. the European Union) and also its Heartland, the Middle East, Central Asia and the oil resources which flow from there. To coincide with the release of Brzezinskis Out of Control, former National Security Adviser to President Clinton, Anthony Lake, defined the new expansionist doctrine of the United States in a foreign policy statement, From Containment to Enlargement. Lakes statement asserted that, the successor to the Cold War doctrine of containment must be the doctrine and strategy of enlargement. The recent past is testimony to attacks upon Russia, aimed at reducing the great bear to pauperism and totally disempowering it in line with US expansionist policy. The dying days of the Clinton administration saw the release of the Cox Commission report, Russias Road to Corruption: How the Clinton Administration Exported Government Instead of Free Enterprise and Failed the Russian People. The report accused a troika of Clinton administration officials Vice President Al Gore, Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, and Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers of implementing policies that fostered corruption and criminality and retarded Russias free market and democratic development. Russian President Vladimir Putin recently acknowledged that Russia is in the midst of one of the most difficult periods in its history. In the aftermath of Gorbachev, Russia was seen as a state without politics. Explaining this conception, Russian political philosopher Alexander Dugin says, the main postulate of the Russian ruling elite in the liberal period was confidence in the fact that confrontation with the West resulted from the difference of social, economic and ideological models. On the basis of this, all the economic, political, foreign, cultural, and defence strategy of the Russian Federation was built. The countrys leaders seriously thought that giving up the Marxist outlook along with the socialist economy would automatically create a balanced system in Russia with the active and friendly cooperation of the West. This was a fatal mistake and it took a decade to realise it. With the obvious appearance of geopolitical factors, everyone realised that the Cold War was not just a display of an ideological duel, but the display of a historical constant, not dependent on social or political up-to-dateness. It was just one of the stages in the great war of continents. Russia's Concept of the World in the 21st Century Since Vladimir Putin has been in charge of Russia, his initiatives have centred upon opposition to a unipolar world, and the advocacy of multipolarity. Rather than surrendering to the viperous aims of the New World Order, Russia has launched a renewed effort to counter the Anglo-American NATO domination of the world, undertaking reforms which enable it to take part in the reality of globalisation but in a more guarded fashion. The keystone of this new approach is the document Russias Concept of the World in the 21st Century, released by the Russian government on the eve of the new millennium. The theme of the Concept is multipolarity based on integration capabilities of the Russian regions and their interaction in the interests of stability and security. The Concept recognises that the movement to multipolarity reflects the will of the majority of the members of the world community, and its real and potential centres of influence. In line with the multipolar view, Moscow is establishing itself as a mediator between the West and disaffected developing countries, which the US could never hope to represent. Vladimir Putins enthusiasm for a multipolar world is reflected strongly in his diplomatic initiatives, which have seen Russia engaging in cooperative mechanisms to enhance international security, while also considering its own sovereign interests. For the developing world, Putin is offering diplomatic solutions, strategic alliances and cooperation, as opposed to the Wests standard reactive policies of isolating rogue states, applying sanctions and taking military action. The US response to what it describes as Putins diplomatic offensive has been to quickly reassess its attitude toward the rogue states, renaming them in more politically neutral terms as states of concern. So far, Putins diplomatic forays have been remarkably successful. He has held talks with more than twenty world leaders, including North Korean leader Kim Jong Il. In this area he has played an important role in bridging the gap of information between North Korea and the West. Putin sought and obtained a compromise from North Korea on its missile development program, undercutting the US rationale for the nuclear missile defense program. More recently, Putin successfully conducted a telephone conference of Middle East leaders, bringing Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak to the negotiating table. Post Cold War Attempts to Crush Russia In the 1990s Russia was not only perceived as a state without politics, but also as a state without organised and disciplined defence forces. Dissolving the Warsaw treaty organisation meant the strengthening of NATO, as opposed to what Russia (perhaps naively) surmised would be NATOs demise. The heady days of glasnost and perestroika saw the Western media portray Russia as a shadow of its former self. One cartoon accompanying an article in the New York Times depicted a hopeless Russian teddy bear prostate on the ground with American soldiers looking down on the poor creature. In the background, China was shown as an enormous dragon whose claws were poised ready to destroy both soldiers and teddy. With news headlines such as Communism is Dead and soap drama style news analysis from the bastion of US propaganda, CNN, Russia was reduced, in the eyes of the Western public, to third world status. The Russian media recklessly sang the glories of Westernism and Liberalism, advocating an end to the Warsaw pact, trade liberalisation and financial deregulation. Ideological TV centres (refuges for NATO agents) instilled, day and night, an inferiority complex into the peoples of Russia. Russian political philosopher Alexander Dugin says the print media also played a powerful role in this process. The propaganda machine assisted to build public support for NATO providing America with a geostrategic basis for control of what Brzezinski called the Eurasian Balkans. This area includes the Eastern Shore of the Black Sea to China, including the Caspian Sea and its oil resources. The aims of NATO in the post Cold War era were clearly outlined in a report prepared for the US Secretary of Defense by the Rand Corporation, titled Enlarging NATO: The Russian Factor. The reports author Richard Kugler outlined the strategy or end games of what he called American open door-enlargement, with the overriding objective of destroying the possibility of an independent, autonomous Eurasian geopolitical space, and the assumption of that space under American control. The US approach was also outlined in the Pentagons Defence Planning Guidance reported by the New York Times in February 1992. The Guidance set out a total blueprint for domination of the world, concluding we must seek to prevent the emergence of European only security arrangements which will undermine NATO. Slowly, the US goal to isolate Russia by creating a NATO-dominated buffer zone on the periphery of the former Soviet Empire emerged. States that could act as gas and oil transit lines were subsumed by NATO. Others, whose importance would increase as Caspian Sea deposits were developed, were granted NATO observer status. Russian Efforts to Counter NATO Russias political elite and intellectuals gradually began to sober up to the aims of the aggressive, domination-longing bloc. Not all Russians slavishly surrendered their principles or agreed to NATO control of Eurasia. Opposition was expressed through the publications Den, Zavtra, Sovetskaya Rossia and Elementy. As vehicles for conceptual and creative work, these publications alerted the conformist press to the fact that the West and its ideological banner liberalism was no more than a screen for the direct predatory and egoistic colonial interests of atlantist civilisation, building its own new world order to the detriment of all other countries, nations, cultures, and traditions. While most Russian efforts to counter US hegemony have focused upon diplomatic initiatives, Russias negotiations with the European Union have touched upon military cooperation in response to NATOs expansion. President Putin has supported the idea of a greater Europe, in which there should be no hegemonism of any kind. The dangers of an expanded NATO, supporting the barbarism of the New World Order, have already been dramatically illustrated by the US actions against Yugoslavia. For all practical purposes, NATO took over all the essential functions of the UN, in fact, replacing the UN. The ensuing Dayton Agreement (modelled after the Platt Amendment in regard to Cuba) created a virtual American protectorate in Bosnia. Last year Russia offered to join NATO, in an attempt to counter the blocs growing power. However, NATO made it clear that no one had extended such an invitation. Following the snub, Putin stated: If nobody expects us in NATO why should we be happy about the expansion of NATO and its movement toward our borders? Seeking to counter NATO in an appropriate manner, Russia announced in November 2000 that it was willing to consider military cooperation with Europe, should it go ahead with plans for an international rapid reaction 60,000 strong force aimed at defusing or preventing conflicts. Further cooperative relationships between Russia and Europe are developing with an agreement to open talks on how Russia might contribute to the European Unions new common security and foreign policy. Russia's Active Foreign Policy Strategy for Multipolarity Russia has reinvigorated its relationships with Libya, Iraq, North Korea, India and China, pursuing an active foreign policy strategy, and establishing economic partnerships with these nations. Putins recent visit to India highlights these significant strategic shifts. It was the first visit to India by a Russian President in nearly eight years, and resulted in a series of seventeen agreements on economic matters, nuclear energy and defence. A joint statement issued during Putins visit indicated that he and Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee are both looking to each other as a counter to aggressive interventions around the world by the US. As Putin noted in an interview in India Today magazine: It is in our interest to have a strong, developed, independent India that would be a major player on the world scene. We see this as one of the balancing factors in the world. The joint declaration stated a preference for a multi-polar global structure and opposed the unilateral use or threat to use force in violation of the UN charter, and intervention in the internal affairs of other states. The US response to Russias initiatives for multipolarity has been to identify (or invent) new threats and to label Russias diplomatic partners as states of concern and proponents of international terrorism. Indias nuclear status, for example, is now being quietly factored into Washingtons latest assessments of global security. In the recent report of the influential Trilateral Commission, titled 21st Century Strategies of the Trilateral Countries (North America, Europe, Japan), a former high-ranking US State Department diplomat, Robert Zoellnik, includes India as one of the three great challenges of Eurasia for early in the 21st Century. The others being China and Russia itself. Another response to Putins diplomacy has been the renewed and aggressive push by the US defence establishment for the militarisation of space. Its planned Nuclear Missile Defence Program is a revival of President Reagans Star Wars program, which would see 20 nuclear missile interceptors deployed in space by 2005 at an estimated cost of US$60 billion. The US has also continued to develop and deploy nuclear weapons by the thousand, and the US government even now refuses to issue a no first use pledge. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor www. Call the White House, 202/456-1414, Feb 5 & 6, the campaign's call-in days, and say "President Bush, fulfill your campaign promise to bring the world's nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert. Work with other nations to move our nuclear weapons arsenals to a lower state of alert in order to prevent accidental or unauthorized use of these horrible weapons." http://www.dealert.com ______________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
