AUGUST 2007

Interview with CC CPRF Chairman Gennady Zyuganov on Russia's Foreign
Policy and World Development Trends

Q. Vladimir Putin's second presidential term is drawing to a close. He has
presided over the country's foreign policy for almost eight years. What
has changed over these past years compared with the Yeltsin period?

A. Little has changed, if one leaves aside details or trifles, and looks
at the position of Russia in the international arena. Unfortunately, we
are still being pushed and discriminated against. From the West the NATO
steamroller is advancing on Russia, acting hand-in-hand with the European
Union. Japan looms over our Far East retaining its territorial claims,
demanding not only the four South Kuril islands, but hinting that it may
claim more. The areas to our south are anything but calm. War is raging in
Iraq and Afghanistan, and there is no end in sight to the war. Far from
winding down, the conflict in the region is set to escalate. There is a
danger that it may spread to Iran and Syria. The Palestinian issue has
dramatically sharpened. Behind all these developments in the West, East
and South stands the Untied States. Its present leadership seeks to rule
the world, i.e., world domination under the guise of fighting terrorism and
imposing American-style democracy, exporting the American way of life
through the use of force and gross violation of the norms and principles
of international law. What is particularly disgusting is that this openly
imperialist policy of robbing other peoples and countries, blackmail and
violence is covered with pious talk about the defense of human rights and
democratic values and sometimes even references to God's providence and
the Gospel.

Q. It looks as if the US is claiming the role of world policeman and seeks
the right to judge, punish and pardon anyone who stands in the way of its
imperial ambitions.

A. I disagree when the US is called an international policeman, even if
only a self-appointed one. A policeman is called upon to serve the law.
The US openly declares that the law is not for them, that the UN Charter
and international law are obsolete and that the US can ultimately do
whatever it likes because it has force on its side. This is not the way
the guardians of law and order behave, this is how gangsters behave.
Washington would like to turn the whole world into its "turf", where it
would hold sway. He who yields to these claims is doing a disservice not
only to himself, but to other peoples and countries. That adventurous
policy must be stopped through the common efforts of the world community.
Otherwise the world will face a catastrophe.

Q. In his Munich speech, and later in his April message, President Putin
did not pull his punches in assessing the policy of the US and its allies
and threatened that Russia would no longer dance to their tune and would
be more firm in upholding its national interests. Has the Kremlin done
anything since then?

A. Unfortunately, Putin's pronouncements have not been followed by any
substantial changes in the Russian foreign policy. There are objective
reasons for that. Of course, one can deliver speeches and fulminate,
especially in the run-up to the Duma and presidential elections. This is
what the Russian President is currently doing. Neither he nor the
so-called elite have the means to realize their statements. During the
Yelstin-Putin years Russia has lost the economic, defense,
scientific-cultural and information potential required to pursue a policy
that matches its position and national interests. It has also lost its
allies prepared to support it in the world. Never in its recent history
has Russia been so weak and so isolated as today. We are paying the price
for the anti-national policy pursued by Yeltsin after 1991 and now
continued by Putin, who leans on the docile United Russia party.

It is not by chance that the Western reaction to Putin's Munich speech and
other brash statements has been somewhat cynical. It seems to say, let him
talk and appease the Russian voters who are nostalgic about the times of
the Great Russia and the Soviet Union. In reality, the Kremlin cannot do
anything to change its current humiliated and deprived position. So, the
thinking in Washington and Brussels is that Russia will continue to toe
their line. The national projects and programs touted by Putin and the
United Russia will take many years to implement. Because of their
insufficient scale and lack of a coherent system of projected moves these
programs and projects are unlikely to do much to strengthen Russia's
international position. All these projects will most likely be a
convenient instrument for dividing up budget money and the Stabilization
Fund rather than a means of bringing the country out of its deep systemic
crisis. Clearly, most of the money earmarked will be simply stolen by
"efficient owners" and the corrupt state bureaucracy.

In general, all our foreign policy problems are rooted in our internal
policy course. Without its radical change Russia will not climb out of the
pit into which it has fallen as a result of the counterrevolutionary
putsch carried out by Yeltsin and the policy of his successor. A change of
administration is needed. Failing that, Russia"s current unfavourable and
in many ways dangerous position in the world, far from improving, will
continue to deteriorate. This is something to be borne in mind by the
Russian citizens as the Duma and presidential elections approach.

For centuries Russia has been a great power. Gorbachev and Yeltsin turned
it into a second-rate, weak and poorly managed country. Now Putin has come
up with a consolation for the Russians. It turns out that Russia, though
no longer a great power, is still a power of sorts -- an energy power.

Oil and gas have become the Russian President"s hobby-horse. But he
forgets that an energy power is as a rule an underdeveloped country, a
supplier of raw materials to leading world economies. Russia is addicted
to oil and gas. If export of energy is interrupted if only for a month or
if the prices for it drop sharply, that would cause an immediate collapse
of the Russian economy and finances. And that would bring down the current
administration with its rhetoric about the doubling of the GDP, the lack
of inflation, growing investments and prosperity of the people. The
Kremlin is well aware of it. So it is doing everything to continue to pump
abroad growing quantities of oil and gas, that non-renewable wealth of our
people. Putin is doing it personally. As soon as things stall with the
northern gas pipeline, he rushes to the south, to Italy and the Balkans,
all in order to maintain gas and oil sales abroad. But Russia itself is in
need of gas. Half of our country does not have gas. It is high time to
build capacity for deep oil refining and modern chemical production based
on our natural gas. It is a disgrace that Russia, which produces hundreds
of millions of tons of oil, has to import from abroad almost all the
high-octane petrol it uses. It is even more of a disgrace to have to
import from abroad almost all the products obtained from gas. And yet the
Russian Government persists in building its "northern"? and 'southern'?
streams, burying into the ground millions and millions of tons of metal,
and taxing its people, planning to raise internal gas prices to the world
level in its new three-year budget, all to enable our oil and gas barons
to line their pockets and do nothing to develop production capacity in
Russia. If this is a national policy then what is stupidity or, worse, a
crime against the national interests?

Q. But the Government acts deftly to raise gas prices for Byelorussia
explaining that this is done to boost the prosperity of the Russians.

A. This is hypocrisy, pure and simple. They try to create problems for
Byelorussia and destabilize it from within. It is a thorn in the side for
the Russian ruling elite. Why? Because during the 15 years that our
neo-liberal capitalists and their underlings in the government have ruled
Russia, they have never managed to create a truly effective transitional
economy. Russia has nothing except oil and gas money and revenues from the
sale of round timber, it does not produce anything and it is tens of years
behind the modern world, having failed to reach the 1989 level on a single
count. By contrast, Byelorussia has created such a model. They have a
working industry, a robust agriculture and they successfully address the
social issues. And Byelorussia has no gas or oil or gold or diamonds. You
can ask the inhabitants of the Russian regions that neighbour on
Byelorussia where life is better. And they will tell you that life is
better in Byelorussia. This is an indictment of our current regime. So it
is furious, looking for ever new ways of making mischief for Lukashenko
and evading the fulfillment of the agreement on the creation of a union
state. We demand that this situation change. We demand an end to the
blackmailing of Minsk and bickering with the Byelorussians over who should
be president and who should be the vice-president of the union state while
casting a covetous eye on the Byelorussian factories. If you have signed
an agreement on creating a union state be so kind as to fulfill it. Be so
kind as to create a single body for governing that state, uniting the
defenses, foreign policy, the customs services and harmonizing the laws.
The West dreams of tearing Byelorussia away from Russia, toppling the
current government and making Byelorussia part of NATO and the EU.
Resolute actions are needed to stop these plans, and to protect
Byelorussia from the West"s aggressive designs. The CPRF believes the
creation of a union state to be a priority of the Russian foreign policy.
At the end of the day it is the key to ensuring the security and
geopolitical interests of Russia.

Q. What can you say about the Russian policy in the CIS space?

A. I am afraid we don't have any policy there. We just react to the
situations as they arise. That's all. But the West has a consistent and
considered policy with regard to the CIS countries. Russia is being
surrounded with a cordon of states which are to become a kind of
geopolitical counterweight to Russia. They started with the Baltics.
Ukraine and Georgia are next. And this only begins the list. The pattern
of actions is the same everywhere: squeezing out the Russian population or
forcibly assimilating it, reorientation of the policy of these countries
against Russia, involvement in various international actions and
structures hostile to us, such as GUAM, and invariably a commitment to
bring all our neighbours into NATO and the EU. Their actions are aimed at
cementing and making irreversible the results of the dismemberment of the
USSR. They aim to hobble Russia with various disputes and conflicts along
the perimeter of its borders. To continue sidelining it from big politics.
To lay the ground for establishing control and possibly dismembering the
Russian state and gain possession of its resources.

Only very naive people can believe that Washington and Brussels could help
us to cut down to size the Balts or the Georgians or Ukrainian
nationalists. In reality we are faced with a united front of our
adversaries and ill-wishers whom the Kremlin is unable to or does not dare
to expose or split. And yet we have incomparably greater opportunities in
the CIS space than our rivals. Until recently we were a single state. But
there is no will or determination to use these opportunities consistently
and rationally for the good of Russia and our fellow countrymen.

The Russian policy with regard to the Crimea, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and
Transdniestria [Pridnjestrovlje] is puzzling. Their people in numerous polls
and referendums again and again speak in favour of independence and
subsequent merger with Russia, while the Kremlin keeps silent or even frowns
upon such appeals. How long can this continue? What is possible today will
become impossible tomorrow and new criminal omissions will be added to the
Byelovezhskaya crime causing colossal damage to the interests of Russia. We
have not written off and will never write off the 25 million Russians who have
found themselves outside Russia not of their own wish, and we will fulfill
our duty of successors to the Great Russia and the Soviet Union. We are
ready to extend a hand and to be a reliable shield and support for all
those in the CIS space who still see Russia as our common Homeland, our
common destiny and future.

Q. This prompts the following question: what to do about the Kosovo problem?

A. First of all, we should not yield to pressure from the US, NATO and the
EU which demand a recognition and legalization of the results of the
aggression against Yugoslavia and the collusion with the Albanian
separatists. If they persist in attempts to get the UN Security Council to
pass a resolution recognizing the independence of Kosovo over objections
from Serbia, we must use our veto. If, in the absence of a UN Security
Council Resolution, the West recognizes Kosovo independence unilaterally we
should act similarly with regard to the so-called unrecognized state
entities on the territory of the former USSR. The issue of Kosovo is today
a touchstone of the Russian leadership's determination to uphold its
stated position, and the interests of Russia. On the eve of the elections
we will see the real worth of the Kremlin's declarations. The CPRF is
ready to back the Russian leadership on the issue of Kosovo. But the
question is whether the leadership will show enough determination to act
as it should.

Q. Could you now comment on the US plans to deploy elements of its national
missile defense in Poland and in Czech Republic?

A. It is part of an overall plan to bring the US armed forces to the
Russian borders. Sizable American contingents are being deployed in
Bulgaria and Romania, the Czech Republic and Poland. In the former case
these are mainly Air Force assets and in the latter case missiles and
radar. The operation is carried out under the pretext of fighting
terrorism, although it is obvious that the US has never been threatened by
Iran or North Korea, especially by their missiles. We see the start of the
building of new bases close to Russia, one of the aims being to intercept
our ballistic missiles. They are starting with a modest 10 interceptor
missiles, but things will not of course end there. Before long they are
likely to be provided with multiple warheads, their numbers may be
increased and additional cover assets, including missiles, will be
deployed. In short, a new spiral of the arms race is beginning. An attempt
is being made to shift the strategic balance still more in favour of the
US. Of course, the current American anti-missile assets are inefficient.
The Americans risk to plough colossal amounts of money into the NMD
without providing an effective cover for the US territory. But apparently
blackmailing Russia and a tighter grip on its satellites in Europe is
reason enough to spare any money for its implementation.

As for Moscow's reaction of concern over these moves of the US, it is
quite natural. Obviously, a new threat is emerging. But what strikes one
is the chaotic and ill-thought-out statements and countermoves. When the
US pulled out of the ABM Treaty, the Russian leadership issued threats and
looked very angry. But when the withdrawal was complete it said that after
all it wasn't such a big deal because our self-targeting supersonic
missiles could easily handle American interceptors. The question arises
then, why is Moscow so exercised about ten American interceptors in Poland
or the Czech Republic?

Further, if the Iranians have no missiles capable of reaching the US
territory and will not have them in the foreseeable future, why do we offer
Bush the use of our radar station in Azerbaijan? What does the Treaty on
Medium and Shorter Range Missiles, from which we threaten to withdraw,
have to do with elements of the American missile defense in Poland and the
Czech Republic? OK, we pull out of the Treaty. What do we get in exchange?
American Pershings, only stationed not in the FRG, Italy and Holland, but
in Poland, the Baltics or Georgia, which can reach our territory within
10-12 minutes or less? What is in it for us? What does the issue of
Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) have to do with national missile
defense issues? And yet for some reason we have linked the two.

In general, there has been a lot of talk, but we have yet to see any real
countermeasures that would impress the Americans. No wonder they don't
show any concern. Russian foreign policy may be heading for another
capitulation. To capitulate would mean to invite the Americans to go on
tilting the balance which is increasingly not in our favour. There is one
reason why all that is taking place: the weakening of Russia as a result
of the policy pursued by our rulers over the past 15 years. That policy
continues to this day.

Q. What about Iran?

A. The West has managed to get us to approve the resolutions on sanctions
against Iran. On Estonia, which is spitting in Russia's face, Moscow
keeps saying that it will not impose any sanctions against Tallinn as a
matter of principle. Allegedly Russia is against sanctions in general. But
when it comes to UN Security Council sanctions against Iran or the
DPRK, which have done us no ill, Moscow promptly forgets all these
principles and votes with the US and its satellites. The resulting
situation is quite embarrassing. We spoil our relations with Iran and do
not get any substantial concessions from the US in return. We are hostages
to America's adventurous and short-sighted policy with regard to Iran.

An agreement could long have been reached with the Iranians that they
would confine themselves to R/D required for peaceful uses of nuclear
energy. They were ready to accept any IAEA monitoring. The US blocked such
an agreement. In response the Iranians started producing low enriched
uranium, but they agree not to launch production of weapons-grade uranium
and are again ready to accept IAEA monitoring. But the US is not content
with that. It still hopes to break Iran's will by tougher sanctions.
Obviously it won't succeed. But it is quite likely that it will prompt
Iran to take the next step in deploying the production of enriched
uranium. Russia tags along with this harebrained policy. It is prepared to
forego its economic interests in Iran, see the relations with its southern
neighbour deteriorate and stop the construction of the nuclear plant in
Bushehr (under ridiculous pretexts). One can understand the Americans
using the issue of peaceful nuclear energy in Iran to destabilize the
situation there or hoping to topple the regime and establish control of a
strategically very important country. But what use to Russia is an Iran
captured by Americans or controlled by their puppets? Why are we playing
up to Washington at our own cost and to the detriment of all our southern
neighbours in the region? The CPRF categorically rejects that policy.

Q. How to you assess the results of the latest Putin-Bush meeting?

A. I followed the meeting closely. Unfortunately, I do not see any issue on
which the Americans are ready to meet Russia halfway. Meanwhile Russia
again appears to be backtracking. You can judge for yourselves. The
Americans do not renounce their plan to deploy their missiles next door to
us. And in response we suggest creating a Europe-wide information system
for national missile defense. We have promised to modernize our radar
station in Azerbaijan in the interests of the Americans and even to allow
their presence at our new modern radar in the Krasnodar area. We will
provide them with information in real time. What does Russia need today?
It wants the US to renounce its deployments in Poland and the Czech
Republic. Instead we will have American missiles there and then probably
in Ukraine, and simultaneously we are becoming involved in the
negotiations during the course of which the US wouldn't budge on a single
issue while we will end up presenting them with our radar stations and
much more.

Q. The press reports that during his meeting with Putin, Bush raised the
issue of democracy in Russia. Most probably he was interested in the
internal situation in our country on the eve of the elections and the
outlook for the internal political development in Russia. What do you know
about it?

A. I can imagine that the Americans wanted to know what Russia would look
like after the Duma and presidential elections. In short, who will be at
the helm and whether there are sufficient guarantees that no major changes
will take place in Russia. It was important for them to find out whether
the current economic and social policy will continue. Whether we will
continue to be committed to an alliance with the West and follow in tow
the EU and the US policy. That was why Putin was summoned to America,
treated to lobsters and taken out on a fishing party. If he has given
corresponding assurances and exposed all his cards, in short, pleased his
American hosts, Washington will continue to fret about infringements upon
democracy in Russia, but will not quarrel with Putin and his team in spite
of certain differences. If, however, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. did not find
the assurances convincing enough, then one can expect attempts to interfere
in Russian affairs according to "orange" or some other "fruit color"
schemes. We will know about it very soon.

In the coming month the CPRF will build its policy accordingly. We believe
it vital for Russia to substantially adjust its internal and foreign
policies. We will press for it and insist on it.

Q. What sort of relationships does the CPRF have with the left-wing forces
in Latin America?

A. What is happening on that continent is in many ways a prototype of what
is sure to happen in Russia. It was in Latin America that the US was
trying out, since the early 1970s, its neo-liberal concepts of an
unbridled sway of the market economy with minimum government interference.
And, like in Russia today, the policy was imposed through tough,
occasionally dictatorial police methods of suppressing the opposition.

And what has been the outcome? A rejection of the economic concepts and
political models imposed from outside because they had collapsed. The
overwhelming majority of the population in Venezuela, a country rich in
natural resources, lived in poverty. Argentina, a country with excellent
conditions for agriculture, was totally ruined. The same happened in
practically all the Southern and Central American countries.

Latin America"s shift to the left is a direct answer by the people to the
tough neo-liberal course of the preceding years. The left-wing forces were
suppressed for a long time, but they could not ultimately be stopped. You
cannot cancel the laws of nature and society by force of arms. The recent
years have seen one country on the continent after another adopting a
left-wing orientation. We are extremely interested in the experience of
the reforms carried out by our Latin American friends. They are pursuing
them from positions similar to ours: following the chaos brought about in
their countries by the "reformers". Of course, in many ways they follow
the example of Cuba where many of these things have been sorted out. But
the new governments are operating in their specific conditions working out
the forms and methods of actions that suit the local conditions.

We do not just follow the transformations in Latin America, we maintain
constant contacts with the left-wing forces of these countries at
international forums and in our bilateral relations. I recently visited
Cuba, Mexico and Venezuela: they have valuable experience that we try to
use.

Q. On the other hand, we know the experience of the communist parties
which have long been in power.

A. Yes, anti-communists in Russia and in Europe try to obscure the fact
that the ideas of socialism exert a very favourable impact on the fate of
a number of countries which were colonies or semi-colonies only half a
century ago. China's success today is not only indisputable, but is taken
for granted. But one should recall that only 60 years ago (a very short
time by the measure of history) that country was fragmented and the
Chinese people, with their rich traditions going several thousand years
back, were living under feudalism. The Communist Party was the modernizing
force which turned the country into a world leader.

Similar processes have been taking place in Vietnam, which in the 1960s-70s
inflicted a heavy military defeat on the American imperialism.

Left-wing forces are driving some interesting processes unfolding in Laos.
In India, the Communist Party is part of the ruling coalition. The
Chairman of India's National Parliament is a communist. By the way, this
is a measure of the influence our comrades exert in this, one of the most
powerful countries in the world.

Our comrades abroad, especially in Asia, are pioneering ever-new, effective
forms of building socialist society. That is an example of a creative
approach to socialism. That is an example of mutual exchange of ideas
between parties working in different conditions. The communists in China
and Vietnam have treated Soviet experience in a creative fashion taking on
board all the valuable things and renouncing what has been rejected by
life itself. Similarly, we closely study the experience of our friends in
order to use it with due account of the conditions in which Russia has
found itself as a result of market "reforms"?.

The countries where the communist parties rule or take part in ruling the
state are the home to about 40% of the world's population. Almost half of
all the Earth's people consciously opt for socialism. Is it not potent
proof of the relevance of socialist ideas? The successes of our friends
show that socialism is not the past of mankind, but its perspective.

This is the message we should firmly and very clearly get across to people
during the celebrations of the 90th anniversary of the Great October
Socialist Revolution which will take place in Minsk and Moscow and which
will be attended by tens of delegations of fraternal parties from all over
the world, in order to stress that the future, the 21st century, belongs
to socialism , and to this we will dedicate our efforts, knowledge and our
faith.

Pravda, July 12, 2007

From: Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Wednesday, July 18, 2007
http://kprf.ru ,

Letter from Mick Collins, CirqueMinime/Paris http://cirqueminime.blogcollective.com
90 Years After: Russia and the West, Socialism and Terrorism -- Zyuganov in 12 July 2007 Pravda by Mick Collins on Thu 19 Jul 2007 10:34 AM EDT  |  Permanent Link

[Here, from the 12 July 2007 Pravda, is the Russian CP weighing in on world affairs. Pridnjestrovlje [Transdnistria] is mentioned in relation to Kosovo. But what is striking in this article is the extent to which anti-Russian sentiment continues to color the geopolitical discussion under various guises: anti-authoritarianism/pro-democracy, energy-transparency/free-market fuel pricing, even anti-terrorism/anti-Semitism (after all, were not the Soviets the first 'Holocaust deniers' when they made the audacious claim that the Fascists had actually invaded them in 1941 to destroy THE ENTIRETY OF SOVIET COMMUNISM and not just the Jews of the USSR?). Remember, throughout the late 70s and the 80s it was the goal of the West to lay the blame for all terrorism on the USSR. Jacques Vergès (and then Barbet Schroeder with his film on Me V, Terror's Advocate) built an important TVQ as France's most mysterious shyster on this seldom-spoken piece of The Obvious--hanging around with Pol Pot or Georgie Habash meant you were working for Russia against the West. To a great extent this tangent of traditional Christian anti-communism (aka Fascism) required the development of vast networks for instigating false-flag terrorism. [For details see Prof. Pumphrey's essay, Three Types of Terrorism and 911, on this very blog at
http://cirqueminime.blogcollective.com/blog/_archives/2005/7/17/1039393.html]

Here's an excerpt from Thierry Meyssan's quite interesting sequel to his 911 exposé L'Effroyable Imposture--strangely entitled L'Effroyable Imposture 2 (pron: 'duh'). Actually, though not evident at the outset, the place of 911 within the decades-old movement of false flag terrorism in the service of US/UK/Israeli geopolitical interests comes across loud and queer. Of course you can't explain how 911 didn't bring squat but widespread death and devastation to the Arab (terrorist) world. Because Terrorists, like Communists before them, don't act reasonably, or in their own interests, like the rest of us, because they are E V I L !!

But here's an excerpt from EI2, the Chapter headed 'The Invention of "Islamic Terrorism"', which explains how the USSR and International Terrorism were wired together, through the International Victims' Rights wing of the Holocaust Industry, in an early example of that iron-clad rhetorical gambit that makes such heinous charges as mass murder unto genocide impossible to refute.

[since EI2 is out only in French and Arabic, you'll have to make due with my free-hand translation from the French]

>>In 1979, Benyamin Netanyahu, a young man as yet unknown to the world public, created a study-group dedicated to the struggle against the Palestinian Resistance, The Jonathan Institute, named for his brother, Jonathan ('Yoni'), a commando like himself, who died in the Entebbe operation attempting to free hostages from a hijacked airliner. The two men are the sons of Bension Netanyahu, secretary to Ze'ev Jabotinski, the renowned leader of revisionist Zionism and the founder of the Jewish Legion.

Supported by Aman (the Israeli military intelligence services), this institute organized a conference in Jerusalem to demonstrate that the USSR was behind all acts of terrorism at the time. Four directors or former-directors of Aman as well as the Secretary General of NATO were present. Delegations from the US and UK took part, as did foreign intellectual personalities more or less connected to the national intelligence services. The US Republican George H. Bush, made the trip to Jerusalem in his role as director of the CIA. He was accompanied by the Democratic senator Henry 'Scoop' Jackson and by the principal journalists for Commentary, the review of the American Jewish Committee.

Until then one spoke of 'Irish terrorism', of 'Palestinian terrorism', etc., without thinking of connections between them. From then on, it became a common assumption that all these groups were allied, that they were not expressions of national liberation struggles, but that they were all part of the same secret plan by the Soviet Union to destabilize 'the West'. It is useless to negotiate with these terrorists because the causes they pretend to defend are only covers. Terrorism is no longer a military technique directed against civilians, it is the result of a moral choice. And in making this choice, the terrorists demonstrate their diabolical character and the malevolence of their demands.

On the Israeli side, the two great parties sent their highest-level representatives: Shimon Peres, leader of the Labor Party, and Menahem Begin, leader of Likud. And as Israeli Prime Minister at the time, Begin exhorted the participants to exchange a maximum of intelligence and to organize campaigns in the press to assign to the USSR the well-hidden responsibility for what troubled minds persisted in calling 'the Palestinian Resistance', and that from then on this phenomenon would be referred to as 'International Terrorism'. Everyone present followed these orders precisely.

So, this campaign was promoted in France by two speakers from the conference: Jacques Soustelle (former leader of the Organisations de l'Armée Secrète, the terrorist group that had attempted several times to assassinate De Gaulle) and Annie Kriegel (Le Figaro). It brought on an avalanche of sensational books cataloguing all sorts of imaginary details on the secret role of the KGB, and eventually on its connections with Colonel Khadafi and Lybia. The theme was launched and it would last for a decade until the fall of the Berlin wall.

For the Straussians [neo-cons] this conference marked a decisive stage. Until then they had denounced the Soviet threat by grossly over-cooking the data to make the public believe that the USSR was heavily armed and highly belligerent. This alarmism allowed them to mobilize forces, to remove military inhibitions from the US and its allies, to redouble the production of arms and to divvy up the conquest of the world. But back then the USSR existed on the for-real side. The public could see its arms on parade through Red Square. Yet, at any moment they might also discover that the Russian Bear was too weak to represent any real danger. So the Straussians had to resort to hiding the failure of the Soviet economic system, even unto the offers of large-scale food aid to Moscow, in order to maintain the fiction of a Red Menace.

'International Terrorism' is a nightmare much more easily controlled because it is completely virtual. Something that does not exist cannot be refuted. Besides, if terrorism is not a tactic but a manifestation of Evil, then it cannot be connected to historical circumstances and can not be dealt with politically. A terrorist attack can go down anywhere at any time, without any other reason than that it is in the nature of terrorists. Everyone is in danger. Everyone has reason to be afraid. Human survival demands that all sacrifice their freedoms for their security and that of their families. (L'Effroyable Imposture II: Manipulations et Désinformations. Éditions Alphée, Jean-Paul Bertrand, Paris. 2007, pp 189-92)<<

Meyssan's politics on Russia and, especially, on that other of CM/P's fields of interest, Central Africa, are dubious at best. For example, there are no depths of journalistic treachery he will not plumb to invalidate the Bruguière report on the double assassination of the Hutu heads of state, Burundian president Cyprien Ntaryamira and Rwanda's president Juvenal Habyarimana on 6 April 1994 (which, to date, much like the murder of Slobodan Milosevic or 911, itself, has been denied any independent investigation worthy of the term), mainly because its namesake magistrate, Me Jean-Louis Bruguière, is known as an 'anti-terrorist' judge and has ruled on some cases involving 'Arab terrorists'.

But no one but the most petty-jealous scribbler can diminish the Reseau Voltaire's coup in publishing the photos of the immediately post-attentat Pentagon sans visible damage or debris from AA flt 77's Boeing 757. This was the key, now lost and forgotten in the furor over the brazen deception in NYC covering Larry Silverstein's $4.8 billion WTC insurance scam, which unlocked--however temporarily--the psychic shackles applied by America's gruesomely mutating campaign of terror-enforced ignorance. This new book on the US's Big Lie only opens the historical frame on terrorism to include the pre-911 atrocities as well as those recent and ongoing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, Iraq, and, more and more, Iran. And all this criminal activity has its roots, as well as its prospects, in the campaign to criminalize, sicken and colonize Russia and the CIS.

So, as with Milosevic's genocide for a Greater Serbia, or a Rwandan Hutu genocide of the Rwandan Tutsi, or the post-Stonewall gay genocide expressed in the popular axiom HIV=AIDS=Death, which, even after the purported discovers of the voodoo virus, Drs Luc Montagnier and Bob Gallo, recently renounced their claims to having found anything like HIV, continues to rationalize the filthy-rich AIDS fantasmagoria: these humbug claims of International Islamic Suicide Terrorism's being the single force currently driving History continue to justify the Military/Industry/Pharmaceutical waste combine's making big bank through the destruction of innocent lives, while false-flagging onto the victims the responsibility for the real pathogenic effects of the various exploitations that are reducing our planet to toxic dust.

And there is Russian CP Central Committee Chairman Gennady Zyuganov in Pravda on the future of Socialism and Russia's policies, foreign and domestic, in relation thereto. Further discussion of the international campaign to neutralize and dominate Russia will be found in the up-coming discussion of our Voyage to Pridnjestrovlje. Stay tuned. Stay strong. Stay long. --mc]