Putin's pact with China
05.30.05 (4:55 am) [edit][b]Putin's Power Pact with China[/b]
By Chris Brown
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 30, 2005
Putin’s recent lament about the fall of the tyrannical-Soviet system as the "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century" received only passing notice within the general press. This misguided view is not only tragic but also potentially dangerous for the millions in Russia whose freedoms are under attack daily, in addition to hundreds of millions of others around the world whose futures are at risk because of Putin’s policies. If one is to understand the implications of Putin’s statements for the future, one must look to history in addition to events unfolding outside of Russia.
To understand Putin, including his view of government and the role of State, one must remember the situation present in Russia at the beginning of his professional life. Following the removal Khrushchev in the Sixties, Brezhnev allowed the diffusion of control away from the position of Secretary General of the Soviet Union to the "power ministries." At the time in the 1970’s when Putin joined the KGB, which was under the leadership of Andropov, these ministries and in some respects, the Soviet Union itself was at the height of power. From this pinnacle Putin was witness to the decline and fall of Soviet system that many of his generation blame on the liberalization within the Soviet Union. With this came the accompanying loss of the privileges enjoyed by the elite, of which Putin was a member, and the loss of power on the world stage. This power was based on the amoral application of fear oppression and violence, which the Soviet leadership misunderstood to be respect.
With this history in mind it is easy to see why Putin would be nostalgic for a time when he and his fellow elites were veritable masters of their world. It also explains why, Putin has been systematically dismantling many of the freedoms that were won by the Russian people because he likely blames these liberties for the decline of Russia’s strength and its position of ‘respect’ in the world. Putin seems to believe that by looking back he can move Russia forward, unfortunately, not only do these domestic policies, which include curtailing basic liberties while centralizing more control in the Kremlin, have grave repercussions for the Russian populace, but the evolving foreign policy portion of the Putin worldview presents dangerous challenges to the U.S., its allies and even Russia itself.
The most obvious, but apparently ignored challenge to the U.S. from this neo-Soviet policy is a growing cooperation between China and Russia. This cooperation has included the signing of the treaty creating the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or SCO in June 2001 followed a month later by the bilateral "treaty of good neighborliness and friendly cooperation."
Comprised of almost every nation from the former Soviet Union in Central Asia together with China, Russia, and Mongolia, the SCO is perhaps the most dangerous organization that the American people have never heard of. Although the SCO does not currently possess the same nature as the Warsaw Pact, it is not as its apologists claim purely an economic organization with limited military characteristics. By its own post September 11th definition its purpose is to fight the "three evils" of separatism, extremism, and terrorism, however, considering the nature of some of the member states the actual definition of those "three evils" is extraordinarily loose. This includes the Chinese leaderships policies in Tibet, Xinjian, Hong Kong, and Macao, as well as the obsessive desire to extinguish the freedom, democracy, and sovereignty of Taiwan whose existence the PRC view as examples of extremism, separatism, and continuously labels any attempt by Taiwan to defend itself as terrorism. In one ironic yet fitting twists the regional anti-terrorism center of the SCO in Uzbekistan is known by the acronym RATS.
Under the formal structure of the SCO, the senior leaders from all the ministries of the member countries, including the heads of state/government, meet at least once a year to increase cooperation and coordination. An additional concern for the U.S. and our allies is the potential future inclusion of Iran in this organization, particularly since one of the programs of the SCO is the linking of the road systems in the region, which would ease the transportation of all manner of dangerous goods between the world's leading state sponsor terrorism and the communist régime of China which views the proliferation of WMD and ballistic missile technology as an extension of diplomacy. These road systems could potentially place such shipments out of the reach of the U.S. under the existing efforts of the Proliferation Security Initiative.
More worrisome than the SCO however, is the bilateral treaty between the Russia and China. Although this is often dismissed by those who either can’t or don’t wish to deal with the implications of a growing Sino-Russian relationship, the July 2001 treaty has some strong language that cannot be denied. Article nine of the treaty reads as follows:
When a situation arises in which one of the contracting parties deems that peace is being threatened and undermined or its security interests are involved or when it is confronted with the threat of aggression, the contracting parties shall immediately hold contacts and consultations in order to eliminate such threats.
Perhaps the most chilling portion is the last words of that provision, particularly if one compares it to the second paragraph of article three from the Warsaw Pact which is analogous to Article 5 of the NATO treaty:
They [the contracting parties] shall immediately consult with one another whenever, in the opinion of any one of them a threat of armed attack on one or more the Parties to the Treaty has arisen in order to ensure joint defense and the maintenance of peace and security.
This language from the Warsaw Pact was the basis of nightmares during the Cold War, and yet it is civil when compared to the bold assertion that China and Russia will, when they deem it appropriate to their definitions of peace and security, hold "consultations in order to eliminate such threats."
It appears that Putin somehow believes that the post-Cold War U.S.-Russian relationship is governed by the same zero-sum paradigm as it was during the Cold War. This together with Russia’s apparent nihilistic approach to the current global position of the United States has led Russia to becoming China’s arsenal of tyranny.
If Putin and the Kremlin leadership cannot see the dangerous path that they are on, after all this time Moscow would be in the subservient position to Beijing, it will continue in the direction of creating an extremely dangerous situation for Russia, the United States and the world. Perhaps it is time for the U.S. to clearly explain to Russia that if it continues to undermine the very domestic institutions and freedoms, which provide the only potential for raising Russia up, while at the same time arming and strengthen the Chinese, that Russia may one day awake to find its Far East and its natural resources have become the sovereign territory of China while whatever remains of Russia is nothing more than a client to China forced to follow orders from Beijing.
Christopher Brown works at the Hudson Institute for the Program on Transitions to Democracy.
Surrogate and Memorial Day
05.30.05 (4:39 am) [edit]Blogger Surrogate has a nice little rant against America concealed in a remembrance today, basically summing up his position as follows:
"Funny. All over the world folks thought America was an almost magical place - the proof being our penchant for promoting (as opposed to "forcing") freedom, fairness, generosity and human rights. Certainly only people from a wonderful land could be so magnanimous and caring. Right?
Somehow though, we seem to have decided that what other people think of us means diddly, so we pour black paint and excrement all over that carefully developed reputation."
This is a lie. The US is still a magical place to those who don't resent us for being a "magical place". The US was either loved or hated in the world since even before World War II-- precisely because of our freedom and our blessings. Now, we used those blessings repeatedly to urge peace and promote (as opposed to "forcing") freedom, and let's look at where it got us:
*We remained neutral and urged peace during World War I until, forced to join in, we ended the war. Our fighting brought the end to a war that our urging did not. Instead of taking the cue and trying to get along, Britain and France humiliated and isolated Germany, which brought about--
*World War II. We were neutral in World War II, urging peace and all until we were attacked at Pearl Harbor and Hitler started destroying US ships in the Atlantic. Again, the US fought and brought an end to a war that our "urging" did not. At the end of the war the US "urged" peace with the Soviet Union, who then went on trying to conquer Europe. The Cold War brought the advent of two more wars-- Korea and Vietnam-- that were fought so that millions wouldn't die from communism and that the US wouldn't be threatened.
For most of the Cold War we sought peace without war, we urged peace, and what happened? We witnessed Stalin finish his killing of about 30 million of his own citizens, we witnessed Pol Pot, we witnessed communism spread through S. Vietnam-- all of which killed far more people than these wars that Surrogate opposes.
Even in Iraq today, we have the results of "urging" peace. We wasted billions of dollars in Iraq throughout the 1990s via sanctions and no-fly zones to keep Saddam Hussein from murdering his neighbors and his own people. This peaceful, UN route did not work. In fact, we now know that the UN was in bed with Hussein in the oil-for-food program. After 9/11, which was the result of the US "urging" a more peaceful resolution with terrorists that hate this "magical" place, the idea that Hussein could have banned weapons and support terrorists was logically anathema. It was finally time to hold him accountable-- WMD or not-- to the UN cease-fire he agreed to.
Urging peace only gets you so far. Eventually you have to come to terms with what affects the common good. The US has a long history of urging peace and being an example to the rest of the world. Some countries, like China and Russia (China being a country that Surrogate apparently thinks just became our enemy-ha!), have never gotten that and, indeed, seem incapable of respecting the individual. Past presidents, like Bill Clinton, for example and Jimmy Carter, were great urgers of peace while they sat by and watched events like the Iranian revolution and Rwanda take place.
Surrogate thinks our troops are in harms way for less than truthful reasons. But this is a phony sentiment. In reality Surrogate is broadly anti-war and anti-US, failing to understand recent and past history. This is exacerbated because a Republican is in the White House and for some reason that means a war-monger is in the White House, even though Democratic presidents have started or participated in more wars throughout this country's history than Republican presidents.
But oh well-- it's all just for oil, right? Keep drinkin' the kool-aid, lefties.
Which is worse: flushing a Koran or beheading someone?
05.25.05 (3:07 pm) [edit]Let's assume that the "US military flushing Korans in the toilet" story is true. So what? I cannot understand why the Left goes nuclear over psychological manipulation like this, done in an effort to save innocent lives from those who want to kill innocent lives yet looks the other way when someone like, oh, Nick Berg is beheaded. Why does the Left stifle any outrage whatsoever over 9/11 and worry about "offending" the terrorists in the first place?
These guys don't flush bibles or torahs down the toilet-- they blow up Christians and Jews.
So if flushing a few Korans makes these lunatics talk, so be it. The only thing preventing peace in the Middle East is not the US-- it's the Radical Islamic Terrorist.
Period.
China has no right to criticize Japan on its war shrine
05.24.05 (5:19 pm) [edit]For some time now, China has been manufacturing anti-Japan sentiment among its peoples by protesting how the Japanese view their atrocities in World War II. Of course, China wants to be the big fish in Asia, so let's not forget that, but specifically their beef with Japan is a recent textbook printed by a private company that treads lightly on Japan's atrocities in China (like, oh, the gruesome, barbaric Rape of Nanjiing) and the repeated visits by Japanese government officials to the Yasukuni shrine, which honors all of the soldiers that fought for Japan-- including a little over a dozen Class A war criminals form World War II.
Japan has apologized for their atrocities in China, and they also paid dearly in being the only country two be attacked with nuclear bombs. Currently, and this is most important, they are one of the world's most pacifist countries.
Meanwhile, let's look at China. China has not apologized for its killing of about 70 million of its own people in the name of Communism. China has not apologized for its work camps and stifling of freedom, for its current (that's current, folks) abuses of human rights. China is the master of saying one thing and doing another, creating the largest buildup of weapons in Asia via any immoral and unethical means necessary, arming terror states and threatening the democracy of Taiwan. It is also hoodwinking the rest of the world with its largely unchallenged unfair trade policies.
So if Japan, a free, peaceful country, has to apologize and grovel to China for its long ago war atrocities, atrocities they do not commit anymore, maybe China can apologize and grovel to the world for its own war atrocities, for its communist past, and for its ongoing abuses against human rights.
Since that isn't going to happen, the Chinese government should shut up.
At the root of this, though, is China trying to flex its muscle against one of the most powerful countries in the world. It wants to be the big fish in the big pond.
A fitting farewell to Pope John Paull II
05.22.05 (3:20 pm) [edit]The following editorial from Brian Saint-Paul is from May 2005 edition of [i]Crisis[/i] magazine.
[b]Farewell[/b]
In the end, it was a beautiful death. Surrounded by those who knew and loved him, within earshot of the cheering thousands who came to be near his broken body, John Paul the Great passed into eternal life.
With his prolonged suffering and dying, he offered a final homily-- one that even the mainstream media could not ignore. It said this: Every human life has inherent dignity, every human life is precious; and even death shold be embraced and experienced without shame.
How different that is from what our own culture tells us. We kill our young, starve our disabled, and hide away our elderly so we're not confronted with a forward glimpse of our own mortality. Our world fears death, as it distrusts those who do not. And so it's no wonder that the secular mind never really understood John Paul II.
We're told he was a great political warrior who overthrew Communism and urged peace in the world. That's true, as far as it goes. But he was no politician; he was no social worker or starry-eyed dreamer. Everything the pope did came out of his faith hin Christ and his trust that love will always defeat death.
And this, for many, seems a contradiction. Indeed, much of John Paul II's life appears inconsistent to the secular West. He was a celibate priest who wrote much on the glories of marriage; he advocated religious freedom while "stifling debate" in his own Church; he was "progressive" on social issues and "conservative" on moral matters; a brilliant philosopher/writer/poet who tried to shut down intellectual inquiry.
Contradictions, the critics say. But therein lies the key to understanding this man, for the person of John Paul II is a kind of mirror for the rest of us. The way we see the Holy Father tells us far more about ourselves than it does about him. For this great and holy pope was remarkable not for his ability to balance opposing forces in his personality, but for his thoroughgoing consistency. He believed-- as the Catholic Church has always taugh-- that all human life has dignity and that that dignity must be reflected in our relations with God, ourselves, and each other.
His writings, his theological positions, his political activism-- all of it emerged from this fundamental belief. That so many of us find contradiction in him shows us how far we have fallen. Virtue looks like foolishness to the sinful man, and wisdome appears naive.
Not so with John Paul II. He recognized the cruelty of the human heart and the ravenous hunger of souls without God. But he knew the other side as well. In the wretchedness of the 20th century, he saw the beauty shining through-- the remnants of a world created and deemed good. Humanity's fall has corrupted much, but despite our best efforts, we cannot erase God's fingerprints on us.
This is reality. This is what we would see if the glass were not so dark. John Paul II saw it, and that's why he traveled and spoke and wrote and prayed so very much. Through his eyes, he let us glimpse the world that exists just behind the veil. Many of us saw it too, if only for a moment. And what we beheld-- what we beheld through him-- was beautiful.
George Galloway CREDIBLE? Ha!
05.18.05 (4:50 pm) [edit]Some nutjob left-wing blogger gushed about former MP George Galloway as being credible for his theater the other day in front of the Senate committee investigating oil-for-food. Essentially, like all lefties, she was impressed with his emotion, and not with the actual defense. For Galloway's defense was this: "I'm innocent, and you're all liars."
Well hell folks, that was easy!
In reality, a world our nutjob friends always approach but never quite inhabit, George Galloway could not answer:
*Why is his name on Iraqi government documents that indicate he was in on the take?
*What about the statement from a captured Iraqi leader that Galloway was in on the take?
Even circumstantially, Galloway has no defense. This "credible" encouraged Arabs in the Middle East to kill his country's troops, and encouraged these same troops to disregard the orders of their superiors. This is not a man that was against the war: this is a man who is against the west, who is pro-Arab.
It certainly stands to reason that he's have a friend in Iraq, wouldn't it?
Galloway's defense was that the documents were fake, there were forgeries, etc. All stuff he simply cannot prove. But he's "credible"-- credible only to the left because he was anti-war.
Galloway's testimony made for some wonderful drama, and liberals always love foreigners, but it was nothing but empty bluster. He didn't reject a thing, contrary to the left's propaganda. It's almost as if the left didn't even see the same testimony.
A filibuster on Bolton means that the Dems are nothing but sorry losers and obstructionists
05.13.05 (4:26 pm) [edit]You know, this shit is getting a little old.
The Democrats in the Senate have decided that, after losing solidly for 10 years plus they will not honor the crystal-clear will of the American people. They've decided, instead, to through a tantrum by abusing the filibuster. It seems now that no matter who President Bush nominates for any position, if he/she is a big C conservative, and not a moderate conservative or liberal, they will thwart the majority. The irony is that these nuts say that democracy and the intent of the founding fathers is being thwarted by those who oppose this abuse of the system!
With the Bolton nomination, at least that got out of committee. Now it appears that the minority leadership is getting ready to try and block a confirmation vote-- http://www.washingtonpost.com... . Some relevant parts:
[i]WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats opposed to President Bush's nomination of John R. Bolton to be U.N. ambassador are trying to delay a Senate vote with a legislative maneuver that ultimately could lead to a filibuster.
As a result, Senate consideration of the nomination is unlikely before the end of the month, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's spokesman said.
The White House, in pushing for confirmation, has taken the position Bolton was needed badly and promptly at the United Nations to work on reform of the institution.
But Sen. Barbara Boxer of California said Democrats were holding up the nomination to compel the State Department to provide more information about the embattled undersecretary.
...Boxer told The Associated Press on Friday she would use procedural delays until Democrats receive the requested information.
"It is not fair to bring this nomination to the floor for debate and a vote until all the information has been delivered," she said.
Boxer said the Democrats want to know if Bolton sought the names of U.S. officials whose communications were intercepted by U.S. intelligence, details on the private business activities of a Bolton assistant, Matthew Friedman, and the circumstances of a tough Bolton speech on Syria.[/i]
Blah, blah, blah....the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is supposed to be the place where this type of thing is investigated and-- guess what?-- they voted him Bolton onto the floor for a vote. The Democrats don't care about these questions, they only care about delaying the vote. If they cared about these questions, they would have brought them up in committee. I mean, they pored through this guy's history. They know.
How can anyone say they are a Democrat? What do the Democrats stand for except obstruction and a perversion of the US system of government? What ideas do they have? They've done nothing but wage a five year battle against the president and still, STILL, refuse to accept that they are nothing but losers, the minority if you will.
The Democrats say that Bush nominates "too conservative" people to important posts. But the American people have voted, overwhelmingly for 10 years on, for convervatives. It should be up to the people's representatives, and not a bitter, paranoid minority bent on obstruction, to decide this. And that's done by voting.
VOTING
CBS caught in a lie again, this time on filibusters
05.12.05 (4:54 pm) [edit]Apparently, CBS stretched the truth a wee bit when it aired Ken Starr's interview with Gloria Borger. The editing job made it appear that Ken Starr was foursquare against the Republican majority attempts to rewrite the rules on filibustering judicial nominees (this fully within the constitutional rights of the majority Senate party, with similar tactics being used by Democrats in previous decades). CBS made it look like Starr said this in reference to the filibusters:
"This is a radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government."
However, in an email from Starr made public, Starr makes it clear that CBS has, once again, lied to the American people in an effort to carry water for liberals. According to Starr-- http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/h... :
[i]I sat on Saturday with Gloria Borger for 20 minutes approximately, had a wide ranging, on-camera discussion. In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather has been lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. [b]The 'radical departure from our history' snippet was specifically addressed to the practice of invoking judicial philosophy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience.[/b] I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice and that employed viciously against your father with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process as numerous Republicans voted, rightly, to confirm a former ACLU staff worker. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer but they voted -- again rightly -- to confirm her.[/i]
Again we have the mainstream liberal media clearly in a wrong, and again we probably won't hear anything else about it. We live in a world where people take it for granted that they're being lied to, and I'm sure the western phenomenon of moral equivocation has a lot to do with it.
Lying by overtly conservative or liberal party organs is one thing, but to lie while portraying your network as unbiased is shameless.
Want more fun? Read this "news" article about UN ambassador nominee John Bolton being passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Comm. for a vote on the Senate floor-- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/am... . Most likely now, Bolton will get the nod. This is a victory for the Bush administration, but this BBC article focuses on how the Committee refused to endorse the nominee, calling it a blow for Bush.
Who cares if these Senators endorse the nominee? Their function is to vote the go up or down for a full Senate vote. The article doesn't even explicitly mention that this is a victory for Bush.