Soon it will be a year since the South Ossetian conflict. To remind all of us of this tragic event there are a number of opportunists hoping to ignite another “media war” like the one that ensued after Saakashvili’s reckless adventurism. One such person is Svante Cornell of Johns Hopkins University and co-editor of the recently released “The Guns of August 2009: Russia’s War in Georgia.”
After having a look at the list of contributors to this book, I strongly suggest you avoid this tome. There is nothing new in it: just the same old prejudices and ideologically-driven affection for the “Mugabe of the Caucasus.” However, I do suggest you read Cornell’s ‘please buy book’ article “Russia shuts out the international community” printed by the Daily Telegraph. It is a wonderful example of how the neocon agenda never dies and never fades away.
I think Cornell should have been a poet or a fiction writer. In the first paragraph he exhorts us to be aware of evil in the world, and the greatest evil is of course Russia. This week Russia vetoed a UN Security Council resolution extending the 16-year-old UN mission monitoring Abkhazia. Russia’s veto was correct in every way. The resolution simply did not reflect new realities – Abkhazia and South Ossetia are finally free of the ethnic cleansing maniacs located in Tbilisi. These two new countries will never again be menaced by the descendents of Zviad Gamsakhurdia.
Cornell then goes on to repeat falsehoods at the start of the second paragraph – “Last August, Russia invaded Georgia and effectively annexed two of its provinces, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.” This sentence alone is the best reason to avoid Cornell’s book. This sentence is the premise on which the entire article is based, and thus invalidates the entire article (and book I would assume).
Allow me to rewrite Cornell’s sentence: “Last August, Saakashvili launched a pre-emptive attack on South Ossetia which targeted civilians – primarily women and children – and recognized peacekeepers. Later, and because of Tbilisi’s aggression, Russia with great reluctance recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states.” I have to assume that Cornell either lives under a rock or is willfully ignorant. Saakashvili has already publicly admitted he started the war. On top of this, leaks from an upcoming EU-related report support Saakashvili’s admission. What other evidence is needed for Cornell and his cabal of “blame Russia first” supporters to accept that the American-supported, -funded, and -trained Saakashvili regime is in the wrong?
I would comment on the rest of the Daily Telegraph article, but it is the same bluster and closed-mindedness we have heard and read in western mainstream media and from ideological diehards when it comes to Georgia’s so-called “western orientation.” Cornell and his ilk simply cannot admit that Washington’s Georgia project failed – thankfully it did and will continue to.
But I am not finished. There is something I think we all need to remember when reflecting on a conflict that should never have happened. People like Cornell like to think big and feel big, but what about the issue that really matters? He appears to have no interest in the fate and trials of the South Ossetians and Abkhazians. However, this is what the August conflict was all about – the status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia was willing to live with the status quo before the aggression. Later, that stance changed. To avoid more ethnic cleansing of people who wanted to be free of Tbilisi, Russia agreed to their recognition as independent states for humanitarian reasons.
Please give the following a thought: South Ossetia and Abkhazia have since the early 90s wanted to be free of Tbilisi’s influence - neither wanted to be part of Georgia (let alone NATO). South Ossetia and Abkhazia have, since the end of the Soviet Union, looked to Russia for assistance and security from intensely hostile Georgian nationalism. But then again, that tragic story doesn’t fit into Cornell’s ideologically-driven narrative. That narrative avoids considering the hopes of oppressed people.
The neocon project is only about geopolitical ambitions - everything and everyone must conform to this thesis in advance. Any evidence that denies this thesis is discarded and so should Cornell’s book.
Freedom House calls itself something of an unbiased and well intentioned NGO looking after and protecting freedom (whatever that means today) around the world. It likes to judge and rank countries. It claims it has the ability to “objectively” criticize governments based on its own very subjective worldview and primarily funded by the US government. This is for all to see in its latest report, "Authoritarianism 2.0."
The fact is, Freedom House is an outfit with an agenda – a neocon agenda at that. It seeks out any person who will provide an opinion that will perpetuate and defend its very misplaced sense of what democracy means. It claims that its methodology is sound and apolitical, but in fact it sources information designed to fit its political tastes and appetite (and probably a sense of revenge).
Freedom House claims that five “authoritarian governments”-- China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and Pakistan-- are undermining democracy and international development. Well, all of this is quite curious. All of these countries are part of Barack Obama’s new foreign policy to reach out to so-called enemies the neocon subjectively singled out during the Bush years. It appears that Freedom House is really targeting Obama and not the alleged violators of democracy and freedom in the world.
Let’s have look at the basic findings of the Freedom House report.
“Authoritarian Foreign Aid: By doling out billions of dollars in no-strings-attached foreign aid, these regimes are hobbling international efforts to improve governance and reduce corruption. China, for example, is now the largest lender to Africa, according to the World Bank.”
Well, that is some kind of bizarre thank you to Beijing for its efforts. The Western world competes with itself to feel sorry for Africa, but it is the Chinese who are actually doing something. The West always attaches preconditions on African and other poor countries when it lends money. The Chinese, on the other hand, want to make a profit. This is how the market system works and is reinforced by globalization. Interestingly, because the Chinese are interested in a profit, that is the acknowledgment for that aid and investment to continue, the African government in question usually has to clean up its act on many issues, including corruption, in particular. Why should Freedom House have a problem with this? Are they afraid the “Chinese model” is better than the “Western model” when it comes to creating positive change in Africa?
“International Organizations under Siege: These regimes are actively disrupting the human rights and democracy work of international bodies such as the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Organization of American States. They have also created new institutions to counter organizations that promote human rights and accountable governance.”
This takes the ham off the hog. Western institutions were designed to serve Western interests. When Western institutions can’t do this, the same institutions call foul play. The UN votes on resolutions and the powerful Western countries and their allies can ignore them with impunity.
There is undeniable evidence that the OSCE was negligent moments before the conflict in South Ossetia last August when civilians and peacekeepers were killed. Why should anyone expect Russia to have trust in this institution now?
As an organization, the OAS, does not have a single problem with Cuba, though one member does and that member is the US. Washington’s approach towards Cuba is a complete and embarrassing failure. It is a pity that Freedom House cannot admit this.
Democracy Redefined: Authoritarian regimes are tarnishing the public understanding of democracy by distorting its meaning at home in state-dominated media and abroad through well-financed international media ventures.
Who says the West owns the concept of democracy? Freedom House shows its hubris with such a ridiculous statement. The mention of “state-dominated media” is simply misleading. All the major television networks in the US (and majors in print media) followed and supported Bush’s preemptive wars. Using the term “state-dominated media” is grossly misleading. The meaning of democracy is no longer found in Western capitals. Democracy finds its fit depending on the circumstances on the ground. And it is up to each polity to find consensus of what democracy should mean and, importantly, produce.
“Internet under Growing Threat: Authoritarians are using sophisticated and well-funded techniques to subvert legitimate online discourse, especially in China, Iran and Russia.”
I cannot claim to know the condition of the Internet in China and Iran. However, in Russia there are stinging characterizations of its politicians and policies. The Internet in Russia is vibrant and exciting. Those who abuse it, often to incite racist and religious hatred and promote obvious “black PR,” find the law in quick pursuit. This is as it should be.
Illiberal Education: “By either actively promoting or enabling the distortion of history through a nationalistic or extremist lens, authoritarian regimes are creating a new generation that is hostile toward democracy and suspicious of the outside world.”
This statement is truly disappointing. I don’t see any intentional hostility to distort what democracy means in the countries that Freedom House wants to isolate. What I see is an alternative narrative in play. Why should historical narratives always be in line with promoting Western interests? Freedom Houses' enemies have their own historical narratives. And they are by-and-large because of the very real hostility experiences with their contact with the West.
This Freedom House report is a parody of itself. In its top line findings Pakistan was not mentioned in any detail. This is for a reason. Recent US policy is to blame. Freedom House and other hack NGOs have a bad habit of overlooking the deficient of democracy and rights in countries aligned or controlled by Washington. But as Freedom House has an agenda, Pakistan is given attention. But is not because of any interest in Pakistan’s democracy – it is a undisguised attack on the Obama administration.
Obama has made some overtures toward China, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. Also, there have been some harsh words about Pakistan. In all, Freedom House shows itself to be very much out of step with the times. It seems to me it only wants to remain relevant and be funded.
It is time for Freedom House to fold its tent. Its mission has nothing to with ideals anymore (if it ever did). It only wants to keep a backward-looking few employed. Freedom House is worried about its very existence and will tell you anything to stay in business. A truly pathetic lot when everything is said and done (and thought-out).
08 June, 2009, 00:59
It seems your very hyped on Great Britain. After all said and done they do control the Russian economy. But also they control the U.S. foreign policy. Very powerful. They hand picked Clinton and Bush two, and maybe Obama.
07 June, 2009, 14:50
Both scenic and rugged, Pittsburgh in the 1960’s was a conflicted city. Located in the southwestern part of Pennsylvania, the summers were warm and pleasant, the winters brutally cold. The downtown is situated at the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers. Back then, even the rivers were contrary. The Monongahela River, a conduit for industrial waste, ran a chocolate brown, in marked contrast to the less polluted Allegheny. A clearly defined boundary could be seen where they converged to form the Ohio River. Emerging from the Fort Pitt Tunnel on the drive from the airport, the sight of downtown was sudden and spectacular. Steep, tree-covered hills offered stunning views of the valleys below, beautiful from a distance. Close up, the inner-city neighborhoods were tough and the people territorial. The air and water are cleaner now, but in the 1960’s, the steel mills and coke ovens were still operating at full capacity, spewing out their smoky residue. Depending on the wind, a cloudless sky could be brilliant blue or gray-brown.
07 June, 2009, 14:33
Peter,
I am so thrilled that my home town, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, will be the next host of the G20 Summit. Pittsburgh is old school, nothing flashy about it.
Gene H.
07 June, 2009, 12:43
Historian, you’re still not analyzing specifics. Therefore it is not possible to provide a specific reply to you. If you have a disagreement with how a specific constituent category of a country report was specifically dealt with, if you detail the reasons why you believe it should have been dealt with differently and provide evidence to back this up, if you can provide examples of inconsistency in regard to how a comparable situation in another country was dealt with differently in the corresponding category of that country’s report, then we will have something tangible to discuss. For now, still the only thing that we can know from your posts is, that you don’t like Freedom House. That’s fine; I don’t like garlic.
07 June, 2009, 09:08
Yes, Marzipan6, there is "a problem with the BASIS upon which determinations are made in to a specific component, and a problem with mathematical VALUES that are assigned to component determinations". Simply because these evaluations are made by a group of anonymous experts, selected by Freedom House, according to their bias. There's no open discussion on the values assigned by these experts. We are given only the results of final compilation. Whatever sophisticated a compilation is, the Index doesn't have any credibility because the initial values are purely arbitrary. All it reflects is the opinion of the Freedom House experts, nothing else. That's why the information about the political connection of Freedom House is quite relevant.
07 June, 2009, 06:52
Peter,
I'm down in the dumps. Detroit beat my beloved Pittsburgh Penguins 5-0. Beware the Penguin. Sochi should have a Penguin as a mascot.
Gene H.
07 June, 2009, 05:38
To Historian: you write, “There is no such thing as an objective instrument to measure democracy and freedom.” On its website, Freedom House gives detailed information on the many-faceted basis upon which its ratings were made. Components include political rights and civil liberties and definitions of what these mean in the context of the compilation of their Freedom Index, details of four criteria that must exist for a state to qualify as an electoral democracy, and an explanation of the basis upon which mathematical values are assigned to each of the above in the compilation of the Index. If there is a problem with the Index results, that problem must be traced back to some flaw with either the definition with one or more of the constituent components, a problem with the basis upon which determinations are made in to a specific component, and/or a problem with mathematical values that are assigned to component determinations and the weighting such values have in determining final outcomes. Not a one of these kind of issues has been addressed by any of the Forum’s critics, and until they are methodically addressed their criticism carries no more weight than an expression of personal displeasure. Historian then goes on to complain, “The survey findings are reached after a multi-layered process of analysis and evaluation by A TEAM OF REGIONAL EXPERTS AND SCHOLARS". Would he be happier if evaluations were made by a single individual instead? Or perhaps by a group consisting (from memory) of 28 Kremlin-minded parliamentarians, members of the FSB and military plus three (count them!) historians whom fellow historians do not hold in high professional esteem. Such is the composition of Medvedev’s “Commission Against the Falsification of History” – which at least one Russian Newspaper has called “Commission Against History”. Historian confidently concludes his post by saying, “Freedom House tries to convince us that ‘although there is an element of subjectivity inherent in the survey findings, the ratings process emphasizes intellectual rigor and balanced and unbiased judgments.’ But these words are just fig leaves concealing the fundamental subjectivity of the methodology.” Unfortunately Historian did not find the time to actually detail for us the specifics of the flaws of methodology about which he enthuses. And so he has revealed nothing of relevance about Freedom House. He has revealed only something about himself, namely, that he doesn’t like Freedom House. This is something we already knew.
07 June, 2009, 05:23
johnx,
Your statement, "Under the Freedom Support Act of the US Congress, in 2004 the dirt poor country of Kyrgystan got a total of $12 million in US government fundsto support the building of democracy. Twelve million will buy a lot of democracy in an economically desolate, forsaken land such as Kyrgystan." evidentally didn't come true. The last I heard the USA was KICKED out of Kyrgystan. I agree with this decision. The Russians should fund these nice people. Then Moscow should do the same in Latin, Central, and South America and this will "free" up BILLIONS dollars in US Aid and this could be used to support the American people and let Putin support these other "nice" people!
06 June, 2009, 21:11
@Marzipan6
I meant to say that foreign intelligence supports terrorism and organised crime in Russia which are interlinked in the country. Moglevich, Berezovsky, Guisinky, Fainberg, etc.
I will agree with you on relations with Estonia Russia making something out of nothing although they have rightful concerns about Ukraine and Georgia as they were brought in by foreign intelligence outfits through Soros NGO’s and Berezovsky who seek to over through the Russian government.
Freedom House relies on his analysis on western and domestic NGO for analysis in the case of Russia are based on NGO’s and organisations financed and run by people who are not a political like the OSCE and Soros HRW, Transparency International etc and other civil and human rights groups that are that are financed by other institutions like the British foreign office that was revealed during the Rock spy exposé that finance Freedom House.
The same NGO’s were also instrumental in the break up of Yugoslavia and the overthrough of Milosevc like Soros Optor who provided computers, training, financial backing, alternative media and tactics like attacking police to garner a response a claim police state brutality.
Plus all and any political opposition are under the Other Russia coalition backed by NED and the AEI which receive logistical and financial support, alternative media, etc. There also involved in creating and financing internet websites.
It’s estimated that there are 600,000 of these NGO’s operating in Russia.
“Alexei Pankin, writing in the Jan. 25 issue of the magazine Russia Profile, described his relation with two NGOs. “I ran a USAID-funded three-year program supporting Russian media, with a total budget of $10.5 million, and a Soros Foundation program supporting Russian media with an annual budget of $1.8 million. The number of supervisors, bosses, inspectors and advisers who I had to deal with (or had to deal with me) defies belief. I am sure there were intelligence officers among them.”
http://www.workers.org/2006/world/ngos-0216/
http://www.asiantribune.com/?q=node/13213
06 June, 2009, 18:40
America is a Constitutional Republic,not a Democracy
06 June, 2009, 18:17
To Marzipan6. You are talking about Freedom House methodology as of something based on some kind of "objective" scientific measurement. This claim won't hold water. There's no such thing as an objective instrument to measure democracy and freedom. As Freedom House admits it: "The survey findings are reached after a multi-layered process of analysis and evaluation by A TEAM OF REGIONAL EXPERTS AND SCHOLARS". That is basically by a group of "experts" selected by Freedom House itself. Of course Freedom House tries to convince us that "although there is an element of subjectivity inherent in the survey findings, the ratings process emphasizes intellectual rigor and balanced and unbiased judgments." But these words are just fig leaves concealing the fundamental subjectivity of the methodology.
06 June, 2009, 08:27
Isn't it an irony that the country that makes a big deal of being the leader of the democratic (I wouldn't use the word free) world, has always backed vicious dictators like Pinochet, sundry generals of poor countries, the Saudis and other Arab despots, and now the Kosovar thugs. Compare this to countries it has always been apposed to: India, the world's only true democracy and the largest; Serbia, whose citizens saved countless American pilots who were shot down by the Germans (the American pilots that landed in Croatian hands were immediately handed over to the SS to be tortured).
If there's any doubt about the hypocrisy of American policy, just look at two countries in democratic India's neighborhood they were backing during the Cold War: China, the butchers of Tiananmen, and Pakistan, the butchers of Bangladeshi citizens and the creators of the Taliban. It's India's natural affinity for friendship with Russia that perhaps saved India and its democracy. Especially when such a dangerous triple alliance was arrayed against it. Democracy be dammed. Shouldn't we all learn from Singapore, which has prosperity, unparalleled security and limited freedom -- a combination that has given its citizens remarkable happiness.
06 June, 2009, 01:12
Good global research article on NGO's in coloured revolutions which references Freedom House.
Since early 2005 when a series of opposition protests erupted over the fairness of parliamentary elections in February and March, Kyrgystan has joined the growing list of Eurasian republics facing major threat of regime change or color revolution. The success of former Kyrgystan Prime Minister Kurmanbek Bakiev in replacing ousted President Askar Akayev in that country’s so-called ‘Tulip Revolution,’ becoming interim President until July Presidential elections, invited inevitable comparisons with the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, or the Georgian Rose Revolution.
Washington’s Radio Liberty has gone to great lengths to explain that the Kyrgystan opposition is not a US operation, but a genuine spontaneous grass roots phenomenon. The facts speak a different story however. According to reports from mainstream US journalists, including Craig Smith in the New York Times and Philip Shishkin in the Wall Street Journal, the opposition in Kyrgystan has had ‘more than a little help from US friends’ to paraphrase the Beatles song. Under the Freedom Support Act of the US Congress, in 2004 the dirt poor country of Kyrgystan got a total of $12 million in US government fundsto support the building of democracy. Twelve million will buy a lot of democracy in an economically desolate, forsaken land such as Kyrgystan.
Acknowledging the Washington largesse, Edil Baisolov, in a comment on the February-March anti-government protests, boasted, ‘It would have been absolutely impossible for this to have happened without that help.’ According to the New York Times’ Smith, Baisolov's organization, the Coalition for Democracy and Civil Rights, is financed by the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, a Washington-based nonprofit organization in turn funded by Condi Rice’s State Department. Baisolov told Radio Liberty he had been to Ukraine to witness the tactics of their Orange Revolution, and got inspired.
But that isn’t all. The whole cast of democracy characters has been busy in Bishkek and environs supporting American-style democracy and opposing ‘anti-American tyranny.’
Washington’s Freedom House has generously financed Bishkek’s independent printing press which prints the opposition paper, ‘MSN,’ according to its man on the scene, Mike Stone.
Freedom House is an organization with a fine-sounding name and a long history since it was created in the late 1940’s to back the creation of NATO. The chairman of Freedom House is James Woolsey, former CIA director who calls the present series of regime changes from Baghdad to Kabul, ‘World War IV.’ Other trustees include the ubiquitous Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Clinton Commerce Secretary Stuart Eizenstat, and National Security Adviser Anthony Lake. Freedom House lists USAID, US Information Agency, Soros Foundations and the National Endowment for Democracy, among its financial backers.
One more of the many NGO’s active in promoting the new democracy in Kyrgystan is the Civil Society Against Corruption, financed by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).The NED which, with Freedom House, has been at the center of all the major Color Revolutions in recent years, was created during the Reagan Administration to function as a de facto privatized CIA, privatized so as to allow more freedom of action, or what the CIA likes to call ‘plausible deniability.’ NED chairman Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman is close to neo-conservative Bill Bennett. NED President since 1984 is Carl Gershman, who had previously been a Freedom House Scholar. NATO General Wesley Clark, the man who led the US bombing of Serbia in 1999, also sits on the NED Board. Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, said in 1991, ‘A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.’
Not to be forgotten, and definitely not least in Kyrgystan’s ongoing Tulip Revolution is George Soros’ Open Society Institute -- which also poured money into the Serbian, Georgian and Ukraine Color Revolutions.
The head of the Civil Society Against Corruption in Kyrgystan is Tolekan Ismailova, who organized the translation and distribution of the revolutionary manual used in Serbia, Ukraine and Georgia written by Gene Sharp, of a curiously-named Albert Einstein Institution in Boston. Sharp's book, a how-to manual for the color revolutions is titled ‘From Dictatorship to Democracy.’ It includes tips on nonviolent resistance -- such as ‘display of flags and symbolic colors’ -- and civil disobedience.
Sharp’s book is literally the bible of the Color Revolutions, a kind of ‘regime change for dummies.’ Sharp created his Albert Einstein Institution in 1983, with backing from Harvard University. It is funded by the US Congress’ NED and the Soros Foundations, to train people in and to study the theories of ‘non-violence as a form of warfare.’ Sharp has worked with NATO and the CIA over the years training operators in Burma, Lithuania, Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine to Taiwan, even Venezuela and Iraq.
In short virtually every regime which has been the target of a US-backed soft coup in the past twenty years has involved Gene Sharp and usually, his associate, Col. Robert Helvey, a retired US Army intelligence specialist. Notably, Sharp was in Beijing two weeks before student demonstrations at Tiananmen Square in 1989. The Pentagon and US intelligence have refined the art of such soft coups to a fine level. RAND planners call it ‘swarming,’ referring to the swarms of youth, typically linked by SMS and web blogs, who can be mobilized on command to destabilize a target regime.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=518
06 June, 2009, 00:44
To Johnx: I have looked at your links, and not a one of them even tries to analyze the methodology underpinning Freedom House’s World Freedom Index. Rather, their stock in trade is an anally retentive straining about who financed whom, who is allegedly connected to whom, and about what the alleged financiers and others did here, there and someplace else. We have heard nothing at all from them, nor from you, about where and how Freedom House indexing methodologies are flawed. Your comment about the Estonian government and organized crime is unclear due to an apparent typing mistake (happens to everyone, and after it does there’s no way you can get back in the post to fix it!). If you wish to clarify what you meant, I will be happy to comment on it. As for why I compare Russia with Estonia at all, the answer is very simple. Russia’s leadership seems to feel a chronic political and psychological need to endlessly criticise, accuse, defame and verbally attack Estonia. This happens on almost a weekly basis in government or Duma statements within Russia, in Russian press releases, or through Russian ministerial statements at overseas diplomatic events. Perhaps you are not aware of this as you would naturally not be particularly attuned to it, and only a few of the more prominent outbursts would actually be noticed by you. Estonians notice every one, and have done for the best part of 20 years. Russia likes to assume the high moral ground for itself, and its verbal raids against Estonia have a persistent air of self-righteousness. It is therefore entirely fitting to point how very far behind Estonia Russia objectively falls in regard to the very values on which it criticises. Once Russia stops its campaigns of defamation, I for one will stop pointing out its own record of freedom, ethics and societal non-achievement, and will be content to let it either tower or languish in whatever spot on such indexes that it chooses.
05 June, 2009, 18:05
I don't want to start a debate, but as "single-minded" person, I just need to reply to Marzipan6 showing what the current board of trustees of Freedom House is made of.
Like all American NGOs, it seems to me the organization is not so free from the Department of State.
Chairman Emeritus: Max Kampelman
Head of the United States Delegation to the Negotiations with the Soviet Union on Nuclear and Space Arms in Geneva from 1985-1989 and as Counselor to the Department of State from 1987-1989.
He is currently co-chair of the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya and a member of the Committee on the Present Danger, a policy institute that favors larger defense budgets and arms buildups
Chairman: William H. Taft IV
Great-grandson of U.S. President William Howard Taft, he was in service in George W. Bush administration.
Vice-Chairman: Thomas A. Dine
Former foreign policy staff member in the U.S. Senate and member of (AIPAC) an American lobbying group that advocates for pro-Israel policies.
Secretary: John Norton Moore
Served as the counselor on international law to the Department of State
05 June, 2009, 14:06
@Marzipan6
I provided links and analysis that like the OSCE that was from the Hague tribuneral which was a creation of Soros who actively supported the KLA and anti Serbs NGO’s and media outlets so you can hardly call it bias except against the Serbs.
And the links I provide are not Russian government or funded agencies or organisations unlike Freedom House so it’s not Russian propaganda at all.
Plus no one is trying to over through the Estonian government sponsor terrorism or organised crime in the country.
Why are we even comparing Russia with Estonia that’s not even the issue.
Of course its going to be more free it’s fairly small, homogeneous, and secure borders and has no reason for MI6 or the CIA to run subversive forces in the country.
In every western country including the internet the 2% minority buys and monopolises and controls the media, banking, academia, political financing etc.
05 June, 2009, 13:12
Lorenzo Ghilardi has a good comment!
Peter is spot on as always.
05 June, 2009, 10:43
As I live in the West, it is the problems, shortcomings, contradictions as well as benefits of the West that I must negotiate and deal with every day, and I very much doubt that I am especially starry-eyed about any of it. I am also aware of no end of conspiracy theories on just about every issue imaginable, including those pertaining to Western institutions such the ones mentioned on this Forum topic. Because I am no more privy to behind-the-scenes “privileged” information regarding these institutions than are its confident Forum critics, I note what the theories purport but do not draw definitive conclusions on the basis of them. What is of much greater importance is the objective authenticity and verifiability, or otherwise, of reports like the World Freedom Index. On its website, the much maligned Freedom House provides very detailed information about the methodologies, subset charts and weightings that were used to produce overall country scores. If critics of its survey outcomes are serious, they should present detailed, credible and logical evidence detailing exactly where the flaws and failings in the methodology are. General broad brush strokes about such-and-such being financed by so-and-so are little more than excitable bluster, and objectively non-verifiable at that. Freedom House might theoretically be an organization of rogues producing verifiably accurate reports; or it might be fine organization producing woeful reports; or it might be a hopeless organization producing hopeless reports. In each case, it is the reports and their constituent data and methodologies that crucial; yet it is precisely this kind of disciplined analysis that is single-mindedly avoided by the critics here. Lorenzo Ghilardi’s post, for example, is no exception. Without the benefit of any analysis of evidence but solely on the basis of Russian propaganda, he thinks that suggestion that Estonia is as free country, indeed more free than Russia, is funny. A logical analysis of objective evidence may – and does – render Russian propaganda to be funny.
05 June, 2009, 04:16
Johnx - excellent summary of what western government and institutionally funded NGOs are all about. Should Russia just copy, I hope not, Russia should just as Pauline said, focus on a non political angle, my prediction is that the wheels of the political chariot will come off pretty soon, as eveyone can see the western people are just being lied to, time and time again, by their governments, for the benefit of a select circle of western players. I think Russia, just needs to play it straight, offer an alternative approach, and adhere strictly to non-politicised media output in other countries, to add cultural value instead of propoganda, as practised by the western 'NGOs'
04 June, 2009, 23:53
@Lorenzo Ghilardi
Yes could not agree more on the point of media information the best info I get on Russia is a handful of US and western commentators and my own research. Serbs have done a great job using the internet to get the truth and fact about Serbia and the Balkans conflict with out any government support or backing which is controlled by western aligned financial and media affiliates which Russia does not have as it has no expat community abroad. In fact they are the exact opposite they are anti-Russian.
@Marzipan6
Peter is critical of Freedom house because is an intelligence front like all the other ones who are financed primarily through NED, Soros Open Society Ngo’s etc.
As it promotes freedom as much as Jacob Schiff’s Friends of Russian Freedom.
In fact it’s not even a NGO Government Organisation as it is financed by NED which gets yearly financial backing from US congress and his a members of its trustees senior foreign policy advisor and politicians like Brezinski who like others like ex-CIA director James Woolsey who are also members of other anti-Russian organisations like ACPC, AEI, etc advocate the dismemberment of Russia. So it is not apolitical or independent and has a political agenda.
"The NED was founded by the Reagan Administration in the early 1980’s, on the recommendation of Bill Casey, Reagan’s Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), following a series of high-publicity exposures of CIA assassinations and destabilizations of unfriendly regimes. The NED was designed to pose as an independent NGO, one step removed from the CIA and Government agencies so as to be less conspicuous, presumably. The first acting President of the NED, Allen Weinstein, commented to the Washington Post that, 'A lot of what we [the NED] do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.'
http://www.voltairenet.org/article30112.html
The other organisations OSCE is filled with former diplomats from the intelligence agencies who prior to the Kosovo war helped point GPS coordinates for NATO bombers in Kosovo and was a recognised CIA front aiding the KLA.
http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/yugo_hiddenhand.htm
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg012506.htm
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg101805.htm
And as for Reporters Without Frontiers that is also part of this nexus which is financed by NED and Soros Open Society among others.
Which would explain why Kosovo is fairly high above the list 58 despite the fact it is run by the KLA mafia terrorists regime that has organised mass programs, ethnic cleansing and state terrorism against the Serbs not to mention involved in organ, drug and sex trafficking which Estonia deemed worthy of granting independence.
As for human development it has improved dramatically since Putin came to power raising the middle class, has a steady economic growth (before the current economic downturn) reduced poverty by half more millions more Russians travelling abroad while he inherited a country that was falling apart looted and controlled by handful of western oligarchs that totally controlled the country media, government, etc running it into the ground conspiring with foreign intelligence, Chechen led terrorists and affiliated organised crime from dismembering and Balkanising the country.
In fact they have done almost everything possible to try and replace Putin financing NGO’s http://www.workers.org/2006/world/ngos-0216/and political parties in Russia, state sponsored terrorism and organised crime, NED/Soros led coloured revolutions in neighbouring countries and even waging war through proxy third parties just like they did to Czarist Russia when they installed Communism in Russia.
So maybe this is the reasons for Russia’s peace index placement.
Almost forgot to mention the US is using Neo-nazi mercenaries that they used against the Serbs in the Balkans conflict to destabilise Bolivia.
http://de-construct.net/e-zine/?p=5492
http://de-construct.net/e-zine/?p=5606
Is it inevitable that the world will have to accept North Korea as a nuclear power? For now the international community is committed to a denuclearized Korean peninsula. The world may be forced to reconsider this proposition.
We have seen countries consider development of a nuclear weapon (or in possession of such technology), but later change their position (almost always under pressure from the international community and the West in particular). Libya did, after being made into a pariah in the West, though not in the rest of the world. South Africa came clean on its weapons program after the apartheid regime relinquished power. Ukraine actually inherited an arsenal when the Soviet Union collapsed, only to later, and wisely, relinquish them to Russia. South Korea has seriously given thought to building its own nuclear deterrent, but to this day it has accepted American security guarantees instead.
Then there is the other side of the coin – countries that did drive toward nuclear status in spite of international concern or even condemnation. It is widely believed that Israel has a large arsenal of nuclear weapons. However, because of its special status as part of Washington’s strategic thinking, Israel is allowed a special indulgence around and in defiance of international law. Pakistan and India are also in the nuclear arms club. The other members of the club, over the years, have bowed to this political reality.
Many believe Iran aspires to join the nuclear arms club. It claims otherwise and also claims it is in compliance with its international obligations on the issue. According to Tehran it is only interested in peaceful use of nuclear power. This story is ongoing and remains to be played out.
North Korea is in a category of its own. It has contempt for anything it has signed regarding weapons development. In fact, it has shown that it can use words of conciliation while planning to up the ante to get what it wants. This is where we are at. Not only is North Korea a member of the nuclear club, but it also demands to remain in the club and use membership to green-mail the entire world to secure the country’s sovereignty and extort badly needed aid.
I find it very odd that the mainstream continues to regard North Korea as a crazy or irrational state. The opposite is true. North Korea is acting in a way that is very pragmatic given its international standing and domestic conditions. It is simply wishful thinking to assume North Korea will disarm because others countries have done so in the past. Those countries had many reasons to reverse course – North Korea doesn’t.
Hopefully, long and hard negotiations are ahead and not a conflict of any kind, but it should be remembered and reflected upon how North Korea has taken extreme advantage of the poor state of the current international non-proliferation regime. This has happened because the West has been too selective on its implementation. Now we are being made to pay the price for this negligence.
Nothing is inevitable, I suppose, but I won’t be surprised that the world will eventually have to accept a nuclear North Korea and a very much nuclearized northeast Asia. The alternative is to destroy the North Korean regime. Is the world prepared to do this? I think not. The negligence and complacence of the past is catching up with us.
29 May, 2009, 13:37
“The alternative is to destroy the North Korean regime. Is the world prepared to do this? I think not. The negligence and complacence of the past is catching up with us.”
They can’t afford to. To integrate East and West Germany into a single state after the fall of the USSR it cost over £1 billion dollars to integrate North to South Korea would cost over $1 trillion plus China would not be to welcoming of a potential exodus of Koreans into China.
I think the internal apparatus of North Korea is pretty weak they could probably arrange a coup of top army generals who could poison him or wait till he dies and take control.
I think we should be more concerned with Pakistan's stockpile with the instability there.
29 May, 2009, 12:09
Peter,you write "It has contempt for anything it has signed regarding weapons development. In fact, it has shown that it can use words of conciliation while planning to up the ante to get what it wants."
What you fail to mention, and most people conveniently forget is that America has equally reneged on every deal made with north korea, it's thinking that the regime is about to collapse, so there is no need to fulfill their end of the bargain. Maybe if America fulfills it's end of deals it makes, we will see some progress.
29 May, 2009, 11:29
Yes that's the teaching that has been given. If you don't have Nukes then the US and NATO are on their way to rape your woman and torture your relatives. They will come even faster if you have oil or gas. All supported by their public. We haven't controlled the bullies, so people have wised up, and know they have to look after themselves with Nukes.
With limited resources, it is the best option for them.
29 May, 2009, 11:27
Peter,
A recent rough estimate (guess?) of the total number of nuclear weapons per country is as follows: Britain 185, China 410, France 464, India 60, Israel 200, North Korea ???, Pakistan 25, Russia 10,000, United States 10,500. I gathered this information from the following web site: http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/nukestab.html.
Submitted by Gene H.
29 May, 2009, 10:55
Mr. Lavelle,
I agree that the world and international relations are complex. In this multi-polar world, large and powerful nations like Russia, the U.S., China and India would be best served if they cooperate to find solutions to very difficult issues. For example, China more than any other country, can greatly influence North Korea and encourage them to take a more reasonable path. Russia can have the same clout with Iran. The United States has similar pull with Israel, though it is widely suspected (wink, wink) that Israel already has close to 200 nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. And India, through constructive dialogue, could ease tensions with Pakistan. I also agree that it is disingenuous to say that some countries can have nuclear weapons and others cannot. Unless the great powers are willing to eliminate their own nuclear arsenals altogether, they can't righteously dictate that certain smaller nations are not allowed to also have such weapons. India has accepted this reality with Pakistan. The sad fact is, however, that the world becomes a much more dangerous place as nuclear proliferation spreads.
Gene H.
29 May, 2009, 10:03
Since the invasion of Iraq every small country in the world knows that only being aligned with a major power or having there own nuclear weapons will ensure they will not be invaded . Thats the real politic and we will have to live wth it.
24 June, 2009, 18:38
Elictricity 24 hours a day - European Magic! How do they do that! Such innovation, such grasp of cutting edge technology, what will come next! can anyone see the future, maybe some device for seing pictures. Something, so I can talk to someone far away, oh stop! the contemplation is too enormous, the possibilities are boundless! But wait, I can see something, its large, its a Union, a new idea, the EU to be precise, I can see it clearly, it robs countries of their sovereignty, It installs a political master class, it puts its population into tax slavery, it ignores the rule of law, oh stop, what is this Frankensteins creation, that tries to suck the blood from its people, 65% tax, a huge mortgage, cerdit cards, delux coffee machines for Brussels beurocrats, huge expense accounts, quick cut the power, this is a monster. Good the lights are still on, hope they last 24 hours, its truly magic. Now a revolutionary thought, that countries could just be independent and not in blocks. All sitting within global security and finacial structures on equitabke terms. Sort of the way they were designed to be, nothing magic in that, can't be Europe!
24 June, 2009, 17:28
Peter I think this is part of Brezinski’s Grand Chessboard agenda rather than a Neocon one although the favours an Israeli centrist US foreign policy although the Neocon are heavily prevalent in foundations, think tanks, NGO’s and media pushing the GCB agenda.
@giustino
The post soviet Oligarchical system came to power due to IMF imposed economic policies implemented by George Soros through his Open Society foundation putting the economy in the hand s of a few western aligned oligarchs.
Lord Rothschild of London transferred billions of dollars to Khodorkovsky and others to influence Yeltsin to run auctions of state asset’s which they bought up at fire sale prices.
Khodorkovsky was on the verge of signing a contract handing over oil pipeline rights to Exxon mobile essentially out sourcing the Russian economy when Putin took action. In fact he was on the plane about to sign the contract when he was arrested.
It turned out that Lord Rothschild was the major shareholder of Yukos and Khoderkovsky was just the front man. Other senior shareholders include Henry Kissinger and Nevzlin.
The same pattern happened with the auctions in Ukraine.
Lukashenko saw the danger that it would have on the economy and kicked out the IMF policy makers when he was elected in 94 avoiding the economy suffering the same fate as Russia and Ukraine.
Shevardnadze was helped into the presidency by George Soros who set up shop in Georgia in 94 to oversee US pipeline deals which would go through Azerbaijan, Georgia, to Turkey and Israel
Ukraine’s economy started to grow in 2000 when he followed Putins lead and went against the IMF backed ruling Oligarchy.
He was removed from power when he began to negotiate pipeline deals with Gazprom and Russia. in a Soros sponsored coup by Saakashvili who worked for a Soros law firm in New York and was director of a CIA affiliated NGO USAID linked NGO ( actually I was going to post a link to the Asian Tribune article but it seems to have been removed).
Or Azerbaijanis western backed family ruling class system presidency handed down from father to son.
I could also cite US and Europe’s support for every Arab regime in the Md East Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc. as well as the states they help create in Bosnia an Islamic hub in Europe and Kosovo where 75% of Afghan heroin runs through KLA networks in Europe.
Brezinski clearly states the US objective in regards to states in Eurasian’s sphere in his 97 book The Grand Chessboard:
"Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above..." (p. 40)
"To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)
As for Karimov in Uzbekistan he changes alliances between Russia and the US when he feels his position is threatened. Russia would favour him in power as the ISI/CIA created IMU in 92 would seize power and a hub and base for Islamic terrorism in the region which would destabilise the whole region which has millions of Russian civilians living in the region.
"Uzbekistan, nationally the most vital and the most populous of the central Asian states, represents the major obstacle to any renewed Russian control over the region. Its independence is critical to the survival of the other Central Asian states, and it is the least vulnerable to Russian pressures." (p. 121)
"Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia." (p.130)
How is Putin/Medvedev government a neo-Brezhnevian regime?
Georgia was Russia’s only use of military force outside the country since the break-up of the USSR and only after it’s peacekeepers and South Ossetian capital were bombed by Grad rockets and an emergency UN security council meeting was called by Russia putting forth an emergency ceasefire resolution was vetoed by the US and Britain.
Contrast hat to the US and Britain and there wars across the world since the end of the Cold War. Days after the Georgian assault US forces in Iraq bombed villages in neighbouring Syria without informing them killing civilians claiming it was
I don’t think Putin is static I think you’re a victim of western propaganda that these oligarchs have put these money into financing media and think tanks, NGO’s like the Carnegie Endowment for Democracy, HRW, etc.
Putin has managed to reduce poverty by half, introduced a flat rate tax system, develop a nano-technology industry, paid of most of Russia’s foreign debt and taken measures to tackle Russia’s demographic decline.
Although he has still to tackle problems of corruption, large sections of the economy in the hands of certain individuals Oligarchs, court and army reform, etc which Medvedev has addressed. We will see how it develops.
24 June, 2009, 16:28
Too much vodka makes for confused thinking. The russian terrorists are to blame for what happened, not the cowardly tie-eater.
24 June, 2009, 13:41
Pauline,
I do live in Europe, a magical place where, in most places, one can count on electricity 24 hours a day. Many Georgians still cannot count on that. I am not sure if you still have running water and electricity in Michigan. I hope so.
It's like I said, if I was the leader of a small post-Soviet nation, looking for a good deal, Russia wouldn't really be on my shortlist of options. What are they going to give me? Some oligarch in power for life like in Belarus or Uzbekistan?
That's what Georgia had until 2003 and would still have today -- Shevardnadze.
Russia's neighborhood policy is ultimately unsustainable because it relies on static, personality- focused regimes (not unlike its own neo-Brezhnevian regime of Putin). But, eventually, local dictators will have to be replaced. The question is with what. If the West is no longer the answer, what is?
24 June, 2009, 07:53
Fully agree with Count Cash. There will always be an industry that gets its sustenance from the "Russia is wrong" take. It was there before the Russian revolution in 1917 - the British were locked in a struggle with Russia in the Great Game - and it continues long after the communists have tucked the red flags in the back of their drawers. The end of communism in Russia has exposed the hatemongers in London and New York who continue with their bear bating. I think it basically boils down to the clash of civilizations cliche. In this case the Anglo-American (English speak nations) versus the Orthodox Slavs. Living in Auckland, New Zealand, I know that many people here swallowed the American line in the war with Georgia (of course some thought the Russians had invaded the southern American state of Georgia and were wondering why WW III had not yet begun!). However, it's all going to matter little in the end. As the Hindu aphorism coined thousands of years ago in India goes: Truth Alone Wins.
24 June, 2009, 01:16
Guistino,you are very funny. You talk as if it were 1994 or something! You should see all the vacant stores in my neighborhood, which is among the best in the USA, actually. We have whole cities going into the ground, like Flint, Michigan or Detroit, Michigan. People are FARMING on the vacant land in the center of Detroit! We have 2 million people in prison, FAR MORE per capita than the USSR ever had in jail! China currently has only 1 million prisoners and 1.4 billion people! We have 61 million people without health insurance, and our industry cannot compete because of the employer based health care. Maybe you are talking about EUROPE, not the USA? I understand France, wth a social democratic system is doing pretty well about now?
23 June, 2009, 18:33
Saakashvilis miscalculated actions freed S Ossetia and Abkhazia form the eternal poverty in Georgia. It freed them from the exploitation that the western masters had planned for them, with their willing designated governor Saakassvili. However, the Georgians have to keep on suffering, until they can free themselves, also from the western puppet. The west considered Georgia and its people, like it does all countries, an animal to be devoured for its net worth, and then left discarded as a carcase on the side of the trail. Abkhazia and S Ossetia are luckier, they have moved on to freedom, thanks to Russia, free of the western exploitation that sadly the Georgians will have to suffer under the oppressive west, until they too can free themselves. They will though one day, like all the exploited countries, awaken and push back against the western empire. yes when they do, they will see a second wave, of western exploitation through invasion, torture and rape, the pattern is well known, but in the end they will free theselves of the western opression, and stand freely in a multipolar world created by Russia. The west just has suffering to offer, nothing else, it is disintegrating, due to internal pressure from its own people who are waking up to the media control they are continually subjected too. The western rotten exploitative regime will fall like a deck of cards, allowing the western people to also join a multipolar world. The institutional west is desperate, the world is developing without their control, and like all control freaks, they become violent, when they can't control.
23 June, 2009, 11:09
Saakashvili came to power because the post-1991 settlement in the successors of the USSR is not sustainable.
Eventually, all of the men who have been in power since that time -- Lukashenko in Belarus, Karimov in Uzbekistan -- will eventually have to be replaced, just as Georgia's leadership was in 2003.
Replaced by what? Russia would like to maintain the status quo -- friendly, anti-reform regimes tied to the center by financial interests. That is the regime that is in place in Russia anyway. They are the same kinds of oligarchs who are busy milking the country's natural resources. Of course, they put rival oligarchs into prison or exile. But they are not fundamentally different in attitude towards the state.
The problem is that people in places like Georgia, at least the ones I have met, are sick of substandard living conditions and will gladly back those who promise to lead them away from being post-Soviet.
Saakashvili is one of these politicians.
The reason that such a power vacuum exists and will continue to exist in these countries is that, at its heart, the Russian Federation is anti-reform. It has nothing to offer. It has nothing to export, except maybe gas or oil.
That's why some politicians in these countries look West. Given the choice between ex-Soviet countries and open economy held down by a Western security guarantee, you can see why people supported Saakashvili.
This is a problem that isn't going to go away. The post-1991 settlement is rotting, just like old Soviet housing tenements. Eventually, it will fall, just like those buildings will have to be demolished. But what will be built in its place?
Russia so far has nothing to offer.
23 June, 2009, 09:12
I'm wondering why there are still people willing to fight wars of the neocons. If neocons believe the case they put forward, they should put themselves forward to the frontlines of their wars. This is an easy way for everyone to see the difference between the plot and the true cause.
21 June, 2009, 21:16
Hi Peter,
I was walking down the street this past Sunday evening. I saw a black fellow about my age standing on the corner and he was smoking a cigarette. I went up to him asked if he had a spare one. He said, "no, but you can share this one with me". I mentioned to him that I had just called my 86 year old mom and made her laugh. I didn't mention that I had told mom that I dressed up as a drunk Polish woman named "Anita Brewski." He got tearful and pulled out a pamphlet from a church. It had a picture of his mom who had passed away the previous week. He said "I just buried her this last Tuesday. She told me to always be kind. Keep calling your mom". He said, "I am blessed to have met you". I said, "Don't make my cry dude. No I am blessed to have met you". This complete stranger and I hugged and parted ways. We both had a tear in our eye.
Perhaps I am biased, but I think that the recent events in Iran, though sad for human rights, are positive for world peace. The United States has no right to meddle in Iran's election or internal affairs. With the election of President Obama, we have had our own peaceful revolution. I understand that America still remains as an international bully of sorts, but things are changing for the better.
Gene H. from San Francisco
20 June, 2009, 20:05
When we see all the dirty tricks still fomented by US neocons and their NATO croonies; don't you think strange that the "messi" of freedom (a certain Obama) has so far done absolutly nothing to curb that anti-russian feeling (except when he needs).Beware of that man'sincerity! Sorry Future Generations
Jean-Claude Meslin
20 June, 2009, 11:10
I can strongly recommend Prof. George Hewitt's reply to Svante Cornell’s Daily Telegraph Article.
http://circassianworld.blogspot.com/2009/06/reply-to-svante-cornells-daily.html
19 June, 2009, 20:41
Peter, once again good comments, however, I question whether comments are needed at all. The western propaganda machine is well known, and will operate continually, regardless of any astute observations, Russia will always be portrayed as wrong, as it is the whole purpose of this propaganda machine to deliver according to that tune. The enlightened in the west know this, the Russians know it, so let's just have a chuckle at the likes of this, an the Daily Telegraph and concentrate on the real issues that matter, like building a stable Saakasvilli free zone for the Caucuses. We are too locked in a look west mentality. Let's glance west and look everywhere else, because a western obsession is pointless. The west has nothing to offer us in terms of moral or other values, it is the invader, the torturer, the raper, the controller; be aware of it, but don't waste too much time on it. There is a wider world out there developing in a free manner, a true multipolar world.