Should the left really be on this bandwagon?

Here's a longer version of my piece on the neo-conservatives' anti-Russian strategy from the Morning Star.

From a socialist perspective there are certainly plenty of grounds for criticising the Russian President, Vladimir Putin. He’s introduced a flat-rate income tax, which greatly benefits the wealthy, and plans the partial marketisation of Russia’s education and health systems. And while some of Russia’s notorious oligarchs, who made their fortunes from fleecing public funds in the 1990s under Yeltsin have been bought to justice, others remain free to flaunt their ill-gotten gains, in a country where the gap between rich and poor is chasmic.

Even so, those on the left who have been enthusiastically joining in in the current wave of Putin-bashing sweeping the western media, ought to consider whose cause they are serving. For it is beyond doubt that the driving force behind the campaign to portray the Russian President as a sinister totalitarian despot, have been Washington’s neo-conservatives.

Even before the recent unexplained deaths of journalist Anna Politskaya and former secret service man Alexander Litvinenko, hawks in the U.S. were doing all they could to discredit the Russian government. In 2003, Bruce P.Jackson, Director of the ‘Project for a New American Century’ and a key figure in several other neo-con pressure groups, talked of the way Putin’s re-nationalisation of energy companies threatened the West’s ‘democratic objectives- and claimed Putin had established a ‘de facto Cold War administration’. Jackson’s prognosis was simple: a new ‘soft-war’ against the Kremlin, a call echoed by many other leading neo-conservatives. The neo- cons are gunning for Putin not because of concern over alleged anti-democratic practices, but because the current Russian regime stands in the way of their plans for global hegemony. Their imperialistic strategy was recorded in the infamous ‘Wolfowitz memorandum’ a secret Pentagon document, leaked to the New York Times in 1992, which targeted Russia as the biggest future threat to US geo-strategic ambitions. The memorandum, authored by the then under-secretary for defence Paul Wolfowitz, considered by many to be the architect of the Iraq war, projected a U.S.-Russian confrontation over NATO expansion.

For neo-cons the great crime of Vladimir Putin is that he has proved to be a far more assertive Russian leader than his alcoholic predecessor. Putin not only held his ground on Iraq, openly making fun of American and British claims that Iraq possessed WMD, but also opposes Washington’s aspirations for enforced ‘regime change’ in Syria and Iran. He has also supported, to Washington’s chagrin, Venezuela’s bid for a place on the UN Security council.

As part of their anti-Putin strategy, the neo-cons have shown they are prepared to make some interesting alliances. The pro-separatist ‘American Committee for Peace in Chechnya’ (ACPC), claims to be "the only private, non-governmental organization in North America exclusively dedicated to promoting the peaceful resolution of the Russo-Chechen war.’ But its list of members makes interesting reading. Hard-core neo cons Richard Perle, William Kristol, Eliot Cohen, Michael Ledeen and Bruce P Jackson, not usually associated with ’promoting the peaceful resolution’ of international conflicts, are all members. “Although ACPC notes its concern about human rights violations by Russia, the committee appears to be more concerned with advancing U.S. geopolitics in this region with respect to Russia and secondarily with China”, concludes the progressive and highly respected International Relations Center.

The neo-cons have also been willing to champion the cause of some of Russia’s most notorious oligarchs in furtherance of their anti-Putin campaign. After the arrest of the billionaire businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky for tax evasion in 2003, Richard Perle called for Russia's expulsion from the G8, its exclusion from any post-war Iraq oil contracts, and accused it of collusion with Iran's nuclear power programme. The arrest of Khodorkovsky also brought condemnation from no less a person than the US President himself. Just imagine the hiatus if President Putin had commented on the arrest of a U.S. tax dodger by the federal authorities.

In the unrelenting pro-Khodorkovsky, anti-Putin propaganda we were subjected to back in 2003, much was made of the oligarchs' role in building Russian "democracy" - as opposed to the crude attempts of Putin to shunt his country back to the days of Peter the Great. But the "democracy" that oligarchs like Khodorkovsky- and his British based counterpart Boris Berezkovsky, a business partner of George W. Bush’s brother, stand for, is the "democracy" of an elite of billionaire businessmen to buy themselves not just political power, but immunity from the laws of the land. It’s this plutocratic model of ‘democracy’- not the democracy in which decision making power rests with ordinary people, that Washington’s neo-conservatives favour.

The recent unexplained deaths of Anna Politskaya and Alexander Litvinenko, have only provided further impetus to their long-standing - and well-financed campaign- to smear the Kremlin.

In the absence of any evidence to suggest President Putin’s involvement, socialists and progressives should be wary at jumping on a bandwagon orchestrated by the very people who bought death and destruction to the streets of Baghdad and whose aim is to unleash similar unlawful aggression against the populations of Syria and Iran.

This is what democracy looks like

Hugo Chavez has been relected by a wide margin in Venezuela. Place your bets on which will be the first pro-Empire journalist/blogger to claim the vote was 'undemocratic'.

In Bed with Russophobes

Here's my article from today's Guardian. on why progressives ought to be very wary of jumping on the current anti-Putin bandwagon.


The Litvinenko murder is being used by neocons in their campaign against Putin's national revival.
Monday December 4, 2006
The Guardian

Three weeks on, we are still no closer to knowing who was responsible for the death of the former Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko. The use of polonium 210 as a murder weapon could point in entirely opposite directions. It might suggest that the killing was carried out on behalf of the Russian security service as a public warning to others who might think of betraying it. But it could also be read as an attempt by President Putin's rich and powerful enemies to discredit the Russian government internationally. Whatever the truth, it has been seized upon across Europe and the US to fuel a growing anti-Russian campaign.

There are certainly grounds for criticising the Russian government from a progressive perspective. Putin has introduced a flat-rate income tax, which greatly benefits the wealthy, and plans the partial marketisation of Russia's education and health systems. He has pursued a bloody campaign of repression in Chechnya. And while some of Russia's oligarchs have been bought to justice, others remain free to flaunt their dubiously acquired wealth, in a country where the gap between rich and poor has become chasmic.
Even so, those on the centre-left who have joined the current wave of Putin-bashing ought to consider whose cause they are serving. Long before the deaths of Litvinenko and the campaigning journalist Anna Politkovskaya, Russophobes in the US and their allies in Britain were doing all they could to discredit Putin's administration. These rightwing hawks are gunning for Putin not because of concern for human rights but because an independent Russia stands in the way of their plans for global hegemony. The neoconservative grand strategy was recorded in the leaked Wolfowitz memorandum, a secret 1990s Pentagon document that targeted Russia as the biggest future threat to US geostrategic ambitions and projected a US-Russian confrontation over Nato expansion.

Even though Putin has acquiesced in the expansion of American influence in former Soviet republics, the limited steps the Russian president has taken to defend his country's interests have proved too much for Washington's empire builders. In 2003, Bruce P Jackson, the director of the Project for a New American Century, wrote that Putin's partial renationalisation of energy companies threatened the west's "democratic objectives" - and claimed Putin had established a "de facto cold war administration". Jackson's prognosis was simple: a new "soft war" against the Kremlin, a call to arms that has been enthusiastically followed in both the US and Britain.

Every measure Putin has taken has been portrayed by the Russophobes as the work of a sinister totalitarian. Gazprom's decision to start charging Ukraine the going rate for its gas last winter was presented as a threat to the future of western Europe. And while western interference in elections in Ukraine, Georgia and other ex-Soviet republics has been justified on grounds of spreading democracy, any Russian involvement in the affairs of its neighbours has been spun as an attempt to recreate the "evil empire". As part of their strategy, Washington's hawks have been busy promoting Chechen separatism in furtherance of their anti-Putin campaign, as well as championing some of Russia's most notorious oligarchs.

In the absence of genuine evidence of Russian state involvement in the killings of Litvinenko and Politkovskaya, we should be wary about jumping on a bandwagon orchestrated by the people who bought death and destruction to the streets of Baghdad, and whose aim is to neuter any counterweight to the most powerful empire ever seen.

The birth of a new racing Star

Well, what did you make of Kauto Star's performance at Sandown yesterday?

Paul Nicholls' sublimely gifted chaser is the first horse for a long time to be rated in the 170s over 2m, 2m4f and 3m. But the big question is: will he prove equally impressive over 3m2f at Cheltenham in March?
There has been no shortage of cracking horses who, while looking world beaters up to 3m, never got up the Cheltenham hill: One Man and Florida Pearl to name but two. Against that, the late Desert Orchid not only
excelled at much shorter distances, but also won a Gold Cup, and an Irish National over 3m5f!
While it's hard to see anything beating Kauto Star in the King George at Kempton later this month, I still have my doubts about him landing the Gold Cup, especially at the short-prices now on offer. How about you?

A supporter of "freedom" and "democracy" writes

Isn't it interesting that the loudest supporters of wars to spread "freedom" and "democracy" abroad are so keen on silencing any opinions which differ from their own!
Here's a letter which was sent in to The First Post.

SIR -

YOUR PUBLICATION CAME TO MY ATTENTION AS IT WAS ADVERTISED ON MY FRIEND MATT DRUDGE'S SITE.

I HAVE MANY FRIENDS IN NYC STARTING WITH MR SULZBURGER AT THE NEW YORK TIMES AND MR BRENDON MINTAUR AT THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. JOHN MEECHAM AT NEWSWEEK IS A VERY CLOSE FRIEND OF MINE FROM HIS DAYS AT THE OCHS FLAGSHIP, THE CHATTANOOGA TIMES.

I READ MR FOX'S ARTICLE ON IRAQ. HE HAS NO SOURCES OF MERIT TO BACK UP HIS ASSERTIONS. I KNOW COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AS MY COMPANY ADVISES THE PENTAGON AND STATE DEPARTMENT ON ACTIVITIES AND ACTIONS NEEDED IN IRAQ TO PROMOTE A BETTER DAY FOR THE IRAQI PEOPLE.
MY OP/ED ON IRAQ WILL BE PRINTED SUNDAY IN THE NEW YORK TIMES. I SUGGEST YOU READ IT AS IT IS THE CLOSEST TO THE FACTS ON THE GROUND YOU WILL FIND ANYWHERE.

I DO NOT SUGGEST THIS... THIS IS A TELL... IF YOU CONTINUE TO INTERFERE WITH USA INTERNAL POLITICS FROM OFFSHORE, I WILL BE FORCED TO CONTACT ALL YOUR ADVERTISERS AND ANY BANKS WHERE YOU MIGHT HAVE LOANS AND SQUEEZE YOU WITHIN AN INCH OF YOUR FINANCIAL LIFE.

I TELL YOU NOW TO DIVEST YOURSELF OF THIS THE FIRST POST HOLDING OR I WILL START MY OWN A---------Z POST IN THE BRITISH ISLES, AND MY INFORMATION SOURCES ARE INDIGNANTLY BETTER THAN YOURS AND I ENTERTAIN WHILE DESTROYING PHANTOMS WHO CALL THEMSELVES JOURNALISTS.
THE NEXT YOU HEAR FROM ME WILL BE THE PULLING ON THE NOTES OF YOUR BUSINESS AND PERSONAL HOLDINGS INCLUDING YOUR HOME OR HOMES. DIVEST IMMEDIATELY THIS HOLDING AND NEVER COME ON THESE SHORES AGAIN WITH THIS TYPE OF BIASED, SLANTED CONTENT.

Colonel David W Moon (USMC-R) Ceo, The Studies and Observations Group, Chattanooga, TN

UPDATE:
Here's another supporter of "freedom" and "democracy":
It seems the irony of a columnist for a magazine called ‘Democratiya’ deleting so many comments is entirely lost on this twerp:
http://fatmanonakeyboard.blogspot.com/2006/12/democratiya.html

Two deaths. Cuo Bono?

Who killed Pierre Gemayel and Alexander Litvinenko?

While we still don't know who was responsible, one thing is already clear - that neo-conservatives have been very quick to use both tragic events to their own advantage.

For the neo-conservatives, the greatest prize of all is to capture Russia's enormous mineral wealth and turn that potentially powerful rival into a vassal state. Through their strong links with the oligarchs, they came close to achieving their aim during the Yeltsin years. But to their consternation, Vladimir Putin has reasserted Russia's national independence and refused to play ball over a series of issues. For standing up for his country's interests, he has been subject to a tirade of abuse by the well-oiled neo-conservative propaganda machine.

Another important, long-standing, goal of the neo-conservatives is regime change in Syria.
President Assad's regime in Damascus has to go, not because of its poor human rights record (Saudi Arabia's is certainly no better, Turkmenistan's and Zimbabwe's certainly far worse), or because it supports Islamic fundamentalism-( it doesn't- and an al-qa'ida plot to blow up the US Embassy in Damascus earlier this year was thwarted by the Syrian authorities), but because of Syria's championing of the Palestinian cause.

We may never find out who was behind the deaths of Pierre Gemayel and Alexander Litvienko.

But we do know who has benefited most.


UPDATE: Martin Kelly, who has done such a terrific job writing about the Litvinenko case, has found that his main blog has been wiped. Martin's latest posts can be found here.

The Baron and the Billionaire

Many thanks to regular reader Bob Taylor for sending in this excellent piece on the Litvinenko affair by the American journalist Chris Floyd.