Someone else already did the hard part of posting T B-H's article, so I figured I'd do the rest.
- The Question of Terminology: Liberation and Occupation: On the 60th anniversary of victory over Fascism, western sources refer to suffering under Soviet occupation.
 George Bush was, as usual, one of the first to try to spoil the party, mentioning the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe after the Second World War before he even stepped foot in Russia and this spoilsport attitude, hanging a grey cloud over the anniversary celebrations, has been copied by western press sources.
I hate to break it to you, but he's only thinking what any non-massively-ignorant person in the US has actually thought about the situation over the last fifty or so years.
As usual, it is a question of terminology, for liberation and occupation are two words which can be the same side of the same coin, or different sides of the same coin, depending on which way you look at it. If the Americans like to claim that they liberated western Europe, setting up their military bases, colonizing the countries economically and flooding their markets with American goods, then the Russians could claim that the Americans occupied western Europe while they installed a hostile regime, drew a line from northern Germany to the Balkans and set up an Iron Curtain behind which they adopted a belligerent stance against the USSR and her allies.
Yes, they could claim it.
There's just one problem.
It's not really true.
Anyone can tell a lie.
It's easy. It's been successful. The Nazis did it in the lead-up to WW2, and they were so successful they got Stalin to destroy the Soviet Army. And the stalinists have been successful at lying about the result for the past sixty years... but there's no other explanation for the massive casualties the Soviets suffered at the outset of the campaign unless you want to believe the Nazis really were ubermen or something like that...
At the same time, the USSR could claim that the liberation of eastern Europe brought with it for the citizens of the nine countries (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Democratic Republic of Germany) a guaranteed job, a guaranteed pension, housing, safety in the streets, a secure state, excellent and free healthcare and education and free or cheap public services. The American occupation of western Europe brought with it on the other hand societies colonized by perverse values, pornography, endemic unemployment, a situation in which it was, and is, a drama to buy a house, and when it is bought, the buyer is saddled with a massive debt which will be with him almost until he meets his Maker, education systems which churn out generations of idiots and thugs every year who cannot speak or write their own languages and whose weekend entertainment is to destroy other people's property, healthcare systems with massive waiting lists and an approach which squeezes the bottom line first and provides a service second, expensive and badly planned public transportation, drug abuse and so on and so forth.
Well, then where did those systems go? Why were the Eastern Europeans willing to celebrate the loss of their social services? Why are all the institutions he says Western Europe (naturally, he says, because of US interference) gets wrong all socialized institutions like the education systems or the healthcare? The last time I checked, the UK didn't have a capitalist health care system... and it wasn't run by US dictators.
Secondly, it should be remembered that the Soviet presence in these countries was to provide a buffer zone to stop the West coming East (after the loss of millions of lives in two world wars), the presence was there to help build the societies in these countries (under the Soviet-backed Comecon system, they developed in many cases from medieval societies into front-line development in many areas, meaning that today a Pole or a Balt or a Hungarian can compete for any job, against any other candidate anywhere in the world, on at least an equal footing).
Given the way the Soviets mismanaged their "buffer zone" of the Baltic States and their half of Poland the last time around, and their alliance with the Nazis, they'd have been much better off not invading the Baltic States and Finland in the first place.
Thirdly, the governors of these countries were not Russians. Poland was governed by Poles, Romania was governed by Romanians, Bulgaria by Bulgarians. If there was Soviet military presence in Eastern Europe, so was there American military presence in Western Europe.
Much is made of the absence of certain leaders at today's party. However, Russia sent out the invitations. Those who wanted to come to the party came. Those who preferred to stay outside did so. On one hand, a party and 50 heads of state, of government and of international organizations. On the other, a handful of sour-faced, bitter, complexed individuals with a chip of their shoulders. Small men are often complicated - just look at Napoleon.
So a president finally admitted we were wrong to sell the Eastern Europeans into servitude for a fifty-year period... and the natural response of Pravda's opinion page is to talk about how small-minded he was. Bah.
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Well, that's a suprise. (I thought I'd dodged his material for the day...)
- Debt Relief - Help or Hindrance?: Two months before the G8 leaders discuss debt relief for Africa, what are the issues at stake?
The basic and fundamental question at stake here is whether or not the richer nations are committed to helping Africa or to perpetuating endemic poverty, holding the continent hostage in a stranglehold which they refuse to loosen.
To a large extent, it's not the decision of the richer nations whether Africa remains poor or not. They have much natural resources, and Europe has for the most part given up on "colonization" or otherwise running the governments of small African nations.
On 6th July, at Gleneagles in Scotland, the leaders of the eight richest nations will gather to discuss the issue of debt relief for Africa. The agenda was drawn up by British Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2004, when he formed his Commission for Africa, whose report was released on 11th March this year, in preparation for the G8 Summit.
Among other things, the report calls for a total pardon of the continent's debt, which saddles the African nations with a system of debt repayment costing a staggering fifteen billion USD per annum, money which could be better spent on social programmes.
What will the G8 decide?
There is a difference between debt relief per se, which means a total pardon of the continent's debts with no political or commercial strings attached, and a neo-colonialist approach camouflaged by a debt relief which is massively and heavily conditioned in favour of the developed nations and against the interests of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries in Africa.
A real and complete debt relief will free the African countries from the yolk of the suffocating repayment to fat-cat financial institutions in western nations and will enable them to throw the full weight of their budgets into programmes which foster sustainable development. NEPAD, the New Partnership for Africa's Development, will ensure that a bilateral approach which stimulates accountability on one hand and responsibility on the other, can then flourish, aiding the African nations to grow as they discover new markets and become full and equal members of the international community.
What will not work is a debt relief which forces African nations to launch privatization programmes, only for their companies to be swallowed up by multi-nationals, sending hundreds of thousands of people across the continent into chronic unemployment and endemic poverty, precisely what Africa needs to avoid.
Equally disastrous would be an exchange between debt relief and a reduction in aid, because the African nations benefiting from relief would not be able to transform the capital into immediate liquid funds. They need a two-pronged approach, with an increase in aid and a cancellation of debt.
In short, you believe that they not only need the debt forgiven, but they need more money gratis, with no say from the contributors on how the money is spent.
How united is the G8?
It is not united when it comes to debt relief. However commendable the effort of Tony Blair, and however careful he was to make his Commission as broad-based as possible, the plan is always the British plan and there will be other members of the G8 which will want to impose their own plans for political reasons.
John Snow, the US Treasury Secretary, gave a clear sign of what we can expect at Gleneagles only last month, when the G7 finance ministers failed to agree on exactly the same question.
George Bush's Treasury Secretary refused to agree to total debt relief for debts to the IMF.
So, while the G8 squabble and bicker about what are paltry sums when compared with their resources, Africa is saddled with debt repayments of fifteen billion dollars every year, one hundred and fifty billion dollars over ten years. Meanwhile, the number of children who die from drinking unsafe water continues to increase, the AIDS infection rate rises and the endemic and chronic problems of sub-Saharan Africa in particular are not addressed.
I believe the author is mistaking correlation for causation... Noone in Africa was ever responsible for their own actions, they were all influenced by nebulous international capitalists? Oh dear, I'm beginning to suspect the author is...
If the G8 does not commit itself to a total pardon of Africa's debt and a new approach to global trade, practicing what they preach in the WTO, namely a cancellation of subsidies and tariffs to keep African producers poor and western producers rich, one could conclude that with friends like the G8, who needs enemies?
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Oh no, not again...
- Venezuela Tightens Control Over Strategic Oil Resources: President Hugo Chavez announced measures to probe tax evasion from foreign companies, which may add up to $2 billion
Speaking to the people through his Sunday radio emission "Alo Presidente", Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez promised to tighten control over strategic oil resources. The leftist leader said his government is ready to probe tax evasion from foreign companies in crude terms: "The companies must pay what they owe. If they don't pay, they must leave."
In short, he wants American companies to leave.
According to government reports, many private companies producing oil in the company have been evading taxes for years. Tax officials have said that many declare losses to avoid paying income tax. If that is finally probed, Chavez said they must be charged retroactively.
The government will charge "everything they owe retroactively, along with the interests of what they didn't pay," he said. It's not possible that an oil company can come here, pay 1 percent royalty and not pay income tax, and still declare losses," he said. According to Venezuelan law, oil companies must pay 30 percent royalty, but companies producing heavy crude were allowed to pay 1 percent royalty until last year, when the Congress raised it to 16 percent.
The case against foreign companies has been fuelled by lawmakers loyals to the President. Lawmakers expect to find evidence of tax evasion, royalty debts, production over the limit set by the government and irreversible damage to some wells, National Assembly President Nicolas Maduro, a pro-government lawmaker, was quoted as saying.
Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez said last month that many of these companies have evaded taxes for an estimated total of $2 billion.
Despite the National Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) State owned corporation controls country's oil market, the South American nation opened its oil industry to foreign oil companies in the 1990s. During that time, 32 operating agreements were signed with companies like ChevronTexaco, British Petroleum, Total, Petrobras, Repsol YPF, Royal Dutch Shell and the China National Petroleum Corp.
Lately, Chavez promoted similar agreements with Brazilian, Indian, Russian and Iranian companies, as well as cooperation deals with their respective governments. On the other hand, the current administration has shifted its sales strategy in order not to be totally dependent of its main client: the United States of America.
With the above in mind, Chavez's government has been studying selling PDVSA premises in the US, including a large refinery in Texas. Venezuela is the world's fifth oil exporter and produces over 3 million barrels a day.
This is interesting... we've already read reports of how the people currently running PDVSA are having problems running things after Chavez fired everyone who was on strike there from ever working in the oil industry in Venezuela again. Now he wants to get rid of the remaining foreign companies who still know how to do things.
- George W. Bush's Visit to Georgia Causes Unbelievable Public Excitement: Bush apparently liked the welcoming music show: the US president even tried to dance to the tune of the Georgian music
George and Laura Bush arrived in the capital of Georgia, Tbilisi, on Monday night. Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, the chairwoman of the Georgian parliament, Nino Burjanadze, Prime Minister Zurab Nogaideli, members of the Georgian government and parliament met US VIP guests at the airport of Tbilisi.
Two Boeing planes landed in Tbilisi: the first plane delivered three identical armored vehicles for the American president, who arrived shortly on another Boeing afterwards. It is noteworthy that local authorities closed the air space of Georgia in the expectation of the US president. Georgian law-enforcement agencies and special services toughened security measures in the whole city...
...The US president's visit to Georgia caused unbelievable public excitement in the capital of Georgia, Tbilisi. George W. Bush is expected to deliver a speech to the Georgian nation on Svoboda Square at 2 p.m. Moscow time. A crowd of people gathered on the square wishing to listen to the American leader. Thousands of local residents broke through the barriers and metal detectors and made their way to the city's central square, waiting for George W. Bush to appear at the tribune...
Gee, I wonder what the crowds know that the apologists for Stalin's occupations don't?
- World celebrates 60th Anniversary of Victory over Nazism in Moscow: Moscow begins celebrations to mark the end of WWII
50 Heads of State, of Government and of international organizations are currently participating in the celebrations of the 60th Anniversary of Victory in Europe today and tomorrow in Moscow. The only CIS President who will not participate is Mikhail Saakashvili of Georgia.
Today, 9th May, fifty heads of state, of government and of international organizations will stand alongside President Vladimir Putin to remember the victory over the Fascist tyranny of Nazism which took away the lives of around 25 million Soviet citizens between 1941 and 1945. The President of Georgia is the only one in the CIS states who has decided to boycott the event.
Several issues are at stake here. While the deaths of those heroes who gave their lives to make the world a better place for future generations are to be remembered and honoured, while the human sacrifice of those who lived through the war years must never be forgotten, we must also remember the millions of Germans who lost their lives, along with the citizens of other countries, as the world stood firm against Fascism and fought for right and reason against the forces of evil.
The Great Patriotic War was supposed to be the war to end all wars. However the vacuum created by the implosion of Germany created a stand-off between Soviet and American forces which would stagnate into the Cold War which neither side could afford to lose.
It occurs to me that if the Soviet Union had called it quits in 1975 instead of today, the main result would be much the same, except Russia would be able to afford to have a real economy, and an army real enough to stop things like Beslan.
In the event, the Cold War never became a war as such and so neither side lost nor won. Today, the Soviet Union, its objectives having been fulfilled, has evolved into the CIS. I suppose this will be Gibbon's next book: The Fulfillment of the Roman Empire. The Russian Federation and its allies stand for a continuation of the spirit of peace and good will pursued by the USSR, they stand for a development of bilateral relations in a spirit of friendship and equality, a brotherhood of nations living around a common lake - the sea.
Today, despite the efforts of the Russian Federation to guarantee that international crises are resolved and managed in the proper forum of law, the United Nations Security Council, there are still those who would rather pursue their own agendas in disrespect and open breach of international law, while justifying wars in which tens of thousands of innocent people were slaughtered with lies instead of a sound casus belli.
While we celebrate the victory in Europe 60 years on, we must also question whether what was fought for and gained is not still under threat today. The tears of the Russian child slaughtered by a Nazi storm trooper tasted of salt, just like the tears of the Iraqi child whose limbs were blasted away by an American pilot.
Oh, no, it can't be... but...
If we are to stand together this weekend to celebrate peace and to celebrate victory over one of the most evil regimes in the history of our planet, we must also stand together and take a firm position against those of us who still today flout the law as they perpetrate acts of mass murder.
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Yup, it was him. What did he do, weld himself inside the Bridge Deck on the USS Pravda?
- Burnt Bodies of Five Missing Russian Boys Found, Police Report Accident: The body fragments were found in the well of the city's sewage system, only 300 meters far from the residential area, where the children lived.
More at the link. This occured in the city of Krasnoyarsk.
- USA has been Using Russia for Egocentric Purposes for 13 Years: Urging Russia to take the pro-Western stance inevitably implies the collapse of Putin's regime.
One has to acknowledge that the USA and Russia differ a lot as far as their attitudes to major international issues are concerned. The two countries hardly have anything in common at this point. It is not ruled out that the dialogue might soon take the "cold war" style, unless Russian and American politicians learn to show mutual respect to each other. Russia and the USA need to turn down the double standards policy in order to be able to continue the cooperation, at least sporadically.
Here is a short list of what George W. Bush's administration dislikes about Putin's Russia. President Putin regrets the break-up of the USSR. Putin prevents the USA from "promoting freedom" on the post-Soviet space. Putin is not willing to join the Western perception of freedom and democracy, trying to adjust this concept to the Russian reality. Putin approves arms deliveries to anti-American regimes (nuclear technologies to Iran, missiles to Syria, Kalashnikov guns and helicopters to Venezuela). Russia does not participate in the anti-Hussein coalition and joins France and Germany in their disapproval of the US-led campaign in Iraq. To crown it all, the US administration protests against the process of the Yukos case in Russia.
Actually, I've rarely read anything about the Yukos case in the US press, or from the US administration. It seems to be something much more important to the current Russian administration than to the US. And to be blunt, the case seems to be hurting Russia much more than it does the US, since it limits Russia's possible oil revenue while oil is at the highest price it's been for years.
When Condoleezza Rice gave a friendly piece of advice to her Russian colleague, Sergey Lavrov, not to put obstacles on Belarus's way in its quest for freedom and democracy, Ms. Rice heard quite a harsh statement in return - to leave Belarus alone.
It is noteworthy that several members of the US Congress asked Russia to acknowledge the illegal occupation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia on the threshold of the 60th Anniversary of Victory over Nazism. It brings up the idea that the USA stands alongside with those, who dooms the Russian-speaking population in the Baltic states to semi-genocidal existence.
I wonder if the Russians are even aware that the Soviets invaded those countries during the period when the Soviets were still de-facto allies of Nazi Germany.
The USA's aggressive strategy has become evident already. NATO continues deploying its army bases around Russia, urging the Russian administration to close military bases in the Transdniestr region and in the former post-Soviet republic of Georgia. It goes without saying that Russia needs to abide by its obligations within the scope of decisions made at the Istanbul summit. On the other hand, it would be good for the North Atlantic Alliance not to build its bases in former Soviet republics too, in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, for instance. Once the USA establishes control over Eurasia, Russia's Ural and Siberian regions will find themselves unprotected. Control over Eurasia? We can't even control France (although, that begs the question, who would want to). In addition, refugees from Central Asia (Muslims) might inundate Russia on account of NATO's presence in the region. The US-led "humanitarian intervention" is likely to become "virus-infected freedom."
US Congressman Curt Weldon acknowledged, for example, that the USA has been using Russia for its purposes for 13 years already. It goes without saying that the USA can not come to terms with the "Russian empire" in its promotion of the single-polar world order. The Russian Federation, in its turn, does not at all wish to be a raw materials-producing appendage for the USA either. Russian and American politicians are standing on the line, which separates them from another cold war period. One may say that both Russia and the USA are following the preventive strategy of expectation, the strategy of containment, affecting each other with the help of indirect actions.
Urging Russia to take the pro-Western stance inevitably implies the collapse of Putin's regime in the country. Civil wars would tear Russia to pieces, and American interests would turn to might-have-been hopes.
I respectfully disagree. It isn't in Russia's interest to sell nuclear weapons technology to fundamentalist Islamic states on its southern borders, and if war breaks out there as a result of this a lot of the negative consequences the author speculates above will happen, and on a much greater scale.
One could probably refer to Henry Kissinger's formula in order to ease the tense relationship between the two superpowers: Russia and the USA can follow parallel courses in their policies, being at a certain distance from each other. The new quality of relations needs genuine truth and sincere respect to the interests of the true national security of both Russia and the United States of America.
Yevgeny Vertlib
I guess they've gotten back control of the bridge...
- Russia-EU Summit Ends Meeting of World Leaders in Moscow: The European Union is one of the basic political and economic partners for Russia.
The Russia-EU summit opened in Moscow's Kremlin Palace today. It became known prior to the start of the summit that Russian and European politicians had achieved the final agreement on the texts of road maps of joint Russia-EU spaces...
- Fake Medications Inundate the Russian Pharmaceutical Market: The Russian experience in introducing special marks for licensed video and audio production has not resulted in any positive changes.
- Unprecedented Russian Art Show to Mark 60th Anniversary of United Nations: Russia's leading museums of fine arts are expected to take part in an unprecedented show of Russian art called Russia to be opened at the Guggenheim Museum in New York this September. The exhibition will mark the 60th anniversary of the United Nations.
Must... not... snark... I am in control of my emotions!
- Black Peasant of a Russian Village Fell Victim to Nationwide Popularity: The police in the city of Voronezh has recently detained Josef Habimanu who is also locally known as Maksimka.
For the period of four years, the citizen of Rwanda is reported to have grossly violated the rules applicable to foreigners' stay in the Russian Federation. All that time the detainee lived in the village of Gremyachy Kolodez.
The use of the term 'peasant' bugs me; their excuse for everything they've done over the past ninety years, all the blood and sweat and tears, is to eradicate class and racial differences... but he's still a 'peasant.'
Mr. Habimanu, a former student, reportedly lived like a rural resident running errands for local people in exchange for board and lodging. He did not drink, did not get involved in antisocial behavior, and enjoyed talking to reporters. He said that he had come to Russia to earn a degree in university but soon the war broke out in his homeland. Then he ran out of money and was unable to pay for his education. "I'm the man without a passport," he used to say talking to reporters.
Elena Vasilieva is a disabled elderly woman. Regular housekeeping was a big problem for her until Josef or Maksimka came along and offered his services. Josef asked the old lady for lodging and she let him in. Soon he began helping her by carrying water and firewood to the house. He also looked after the house. He proved to be a hardworking and diligent person, a sort of indispensable helper a disabled old woman could only dream of.
So at one point or another he probably actually had legal papers, but they must have been misplaced, or were held by the embassy or some such bureaucratic nonsense, and when the regime at home fell into disarray, he became stranded. It occurs to me that Gerhard Neumann also had a similar status in this country at one time. You may have ridden on something that used an invention of his at one time or another... called the turbojet.
Josef Habimana Mr. Vasilieva developed a deep attachment to Josef. She thought she could even do a bit of matchmaking for the black guy. But Josef refused to talk marriage until he settled down and became a real breadwinner. Besides, a student's record book was the only document he had in his pocket.
Mr. Habimana arrived in Russia in 1994. Having spent a year attending preparatory course at the Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, he was sent to Voronezh to be enrolled in the department of mechanical mathematics of a local university. He studied in the university for four years, was reported to be an average student. Then a civil war broke out in Rwanda and the flow of money from home ran dry. He was told that tuition to complete his education would cost him $1,000.
Mr. Habimana took a year-off at the university to get the money for tuition and make both ends meet. He began working as a loading hand and rented a tiny room in a communal apartment. He did not know at the time that more troubles were coming his way. Once he called home and a stranger informed him that his father and two brothers had been killed and his mother moved away. Then his money and his passport got stolen.
So that's what happened to it.
Mr. Habimanu made a few attempts to get himself a new passport but to no avail. The embassy of Rwanda had shut down by that time in Russia, the nearest one was in Germany. No reply came to the letters he sent to Germany. The local authorities first issued him a document certifying that his passport was lost. Then they told him to refer his case to the embassy. His compatriot, a guy called Bon advised him to head for the country where life was cheaper and people were more simple-minded. Josef followed his advice.
"Simple-minded" must be the Russian euphemism for honest.
Mrs. Vasilieva still keeps a bunch of newspapers with articles about an unusual peasant in the Voronezh region. Many reporters left their business cards in her house while interviewing Maksimka. The old lady was going to call a reporter or two and tell them that Maksimka had been taken into custody. But for some reasons the black guy took all the cards with him before the police put him in a patrol car. So now Maksimka and the cards are in a holding cell.
The Voronezh police do not give any official comment regarding further developments in the case of Maksimka. On the other hand, police officers can tell you a great deal about the case off the record. They normally start by cursing the civil war in Rwanda along with the Russian laws. In theory, Maksimka should be fined for violating the rules applicable to foreigners' stay in Russia. But imposing a fine on Maksimka would certainly entail deportation. The whole matter boils down to paperwork and money. The authorities have no idea who would provide necessary paperwork and where to the guy should be deported after all. Not to mention the deportation costs which are roughly estimated at $2,000.
Mrs. Vasilieva says Maksimka would not mind staying in Russia. The question is: how? How can a person without any documents apply for a residence permit? According to some officials in the Voronezh law enforcement agencies who requested not to be identified, Maksimka is a misunderstanding and headache, period. The authorities are likely to set him free quietly but he should not have been detained in the first place, according to the police.
"We've determined that we shouldn't have arrested him and we might let him go."
- Israelis to Recycle Nuclear Waste in Chernobyl: Chernobyl nuclear plantAn Israeli energy company is going to kick off a large-scale project in Ukraine for the treatment and recycling of radioactive waste in Chernobyl nuclear power plant. The Israeli company signed an agreement with the Ukrainian government.
Israeli specialists are planning to use their exclusive methods of plasma gasification for storing and recycling the Chernobyl nuclear waste. The methods were developed in collaboration with the Moscow Kurchatov Institute, reports Regnum...
Well, at least someone's going to do something constructive. Maybe we could license the process, or form a similar collaboration. It doesn't look like the people who want us to remain dependent on foreign oil will let us build nuclear waste storage sites anytime soon.
|