Uprooted Palestinians are at the heart of the conflict in the M.E Palestinians uprooted by force of arms. Yet faced immense difficulties have survived, kept alive their history and culture, passed keys of family homes in occupied Palestine from one generation to the next.
بعد أن تيقنت أميركا مع ما تجرّه من أذيال إقليمية ودولية تسمّيهم حلفاء أو شركاء لها، طبعاً شركاء في العدوان والتآمر على الشعوب، بعد ان تيقنت من فشل عدوانها على سورية وتالياً على محور المقاومة ومع إرساء معالم هزيمتها الاستراتيجية المدوية في أفغانستان باتت تركز على الحرب الاقتصادية والإرهاب الاقتصادي الذي تعوّل عليه ليعوّض فشلها في ميادين المواجهة النارية والعملانية وكان لبنان مستهدفا مع سورية بهذه الحرب الوحشية التي طالت المواطن اللبناني في أهمّ حاجاته الحياتية كالدواء والغذاء والطاقة على أنواعها.
اعتقدت أميركا انّ هذه الوحشية التي تمارسها خنقاً وحصاراً ضدّ لبنان ومع وجود عملاء لها فيه خانوا بلادهم وخانوا شعبهم وانصاعوا لها في تحقيق ما تريد ارتكابه من جرائم بحق لبنان والمواطن اللبناني، اعتقدت أميركا أنها ستثير الشعب على المقاومة وتجعل الأخيرة تنكفئ عن مشروعها الاستراتيجي للتحرّر الوطني والقومي والإقليمي وتستسلم لها تحت ضغط المعاناة الشعبية وتقدّم رأسها منصاعة وتتنازل عن مكتسباتها التي حققتها خلال العقدين الماضيين.
اعتقدت أميركا أنّ حرمان الطفل في لبنان من الحليب وحرمان المريض من الدواء وحرمان المودع المصرفي من أمواله، وحرمان المواطن من الكهرباء والماء والبنزين والمازوت والغاز المنزلي، هذا الحرمان الموجع والمتعدد العناوين والأشكال سيتسبّب كما ظنّت بكسر إرادة لبنان ومقاومته وحمله على التراجع عن حماية الوطن والدفاع عن حقوقه والسكوت عن احتمال استجابة هذا او ذاك من المسؤولين في لبنان للإملاءات الأميركية والقبول برسم حدود برية جديدة مع فلسطين المحتلة طالما روّج لها لتعطي “إسرائيل” أكثر من ٢٠ مليون متر مربع من الأرض اللبنانية والقبول بترسيم حدود بحرية تعطي “إسرائيل” أكثر من ١٤٥٠ كلم٢ من المنطقة الاقتصادية البحرية الخالصة للبنان دون ان ننسى السعي الأميركي “الإسرائيلي” الدائم لتوطين الفلسطينيين في لبنان.
لقد منعت أميركا وبكلّ صلافة وفجور ووقاحة، منعت الاستثمار الأجنبي في لبنان خاصة الصيني والروسي والايراني وتسبّبت عبر عملائها في القطاع المصرفي في انهيار هذا القطاع، ما جعل الأموال بعيدة عن متناول يد أصحابها، وقادت لبنان الى الفراغ السياسي والانهيار النقدي والاقتصادي ووضعت لبنان على شفير المجاعة ما حمل الكثير من أبنائه على السفر الى الخارج هرباً من الجحيم المخطط أميركياً والمنفذ بأيدٍ لبنانية، وقد يكون إفراغ لبنان من شبابه أيضاً هدفاً من اهداف السياسة العدوانية الأميركية أيضاً.
لقد تسبّب الحصار الأميركي والاحتكار والوكالات الحصرية والجشع لدى التجار وممارسة النهب والفساد الميليشيوي في تداول المحروقات والدواء وبعض حاجات صناعة الرغيف، تسبّب في نشوء ظاهرة التجارة غير المشروعة وقيام السوق السوداء ووضع البلاد على عتبة مرعبة من التوتر والصدام داخل المجتمع والأخطر من ذلك خلق نوعاً من انغلاق المناطق على نفسها ممهّداً لما يمكن تسميته “الاقتصاد الذاتي” على صعيد المناطق وبعض شرائح الطوائف والأخطر من ذلك ما يمكن وصفه بأنه مقدّمات لـ “فيدرالية اقتصادية” تفرض بالأمر الواقع وقد يتخذها البعض مدخلاً لفيدرالية سياسية راج الحديث عنها او الدفع اليها خلال الأعوام القريبة الفائتة.
لقد وضعت السياسة الأميركية المخططة للبنان والمعتمدة في تنفيذها على لبنانيين، وضعت لبنان امام تحديات خطيرة لا تقتصر على الشأن المعيشي بل تتعداه وللأسف الى الشأن الوجودي والكياني من خلال الدفع الى الهجرة وتفكك المجتمع وضمور العلاقات الاجتماعية والحد من الزواج والتسبّب بانهيارات متعددة في مؤسسة الزواج ذاتها، بعد ان تعطلت عجلة الإنتاج الاقتصادي وتراجع الدخل الفردي والعام وانخفضت القيمة الشرائية للرواتب والأجور ورغم ذلك تستمرّ أميركا في سياستها في الإرهاب الاقتصادي وحماية عملائها من جلادي الشعب وأرباب النهب والفساد في أروقة السياسة والاقتصاد والمال والمجتمع مع رواج بدعة الـ N.G.O أيّ المنظمات غير الحكومة التي انتشرت بشكل عجائبي بإرادة أميركية واضحة رمت الى جعلها بديلاً عن دولة قيد التفكك والانهيار.
ورغم ما تقدّم من سوداوية المشهد اللبناني وحراجته وصعوبته وخبث أميركا ولؤمها ولا إنسانيتها في صنعه وسفالة ودناءة وإجرام لبنانيين ساعدوها في عدوانها وإرهابها فإننا لا نرى العلاج والدفاع أمراً ميؤوساً منه أو أنّ العدوان بات في وضع مقطوع بنجاحه. بل أقول رغم كل ذلك فإنّ منظومة العدوان والإرهاب الاقتصادي بوجهيها الداخلي والخارجي، على قدر من الوهن تنبئ فيه بأنّ مواجهة جادة مدروسة تمكن من إسقاط العدوان وتمنعه من تحقيق أهدافه ونقدّم دليلاً على ذلك ما قامت به المقاومة في موضوع استيراد النفط من إيران حيث تصرفت على أساس انّ الإرادة الأميركية ليست قدراً لا يُردّ او من قبيل الامور التي لا تواجه.
فالمقاومة التي خبرتها أميركا و”إسرائيل” في الميدان، كان لها في النفط جواب وموقف يسفه غرور أميركا ويفضح سوء التقدير لديها ويكشف جهلها بطبيعة المقاومة ونهجها ومنهجها ومبناها العقائدي والتنظيمي ويُرسل لها الرسائل الواضحة والقاطعة بأن من هزم العدوان الأجنبي في الميدان لن يستسلم له تحت أيّ ضغط اقتصادي مهما كان نوعه ومهما كان أثره. فللمقاومة أساليبها التي تمكنها ان تتفلت من مكائد العدو مهما تنوّعت واشتدت.
وفي هذا السياق أيّ الردّ على الحصار الأميركي للبنان وإيران وسورية اختارت المقاومة ان تنفذ عملية اقتصادية مثلثة الأضلاع تشارك فيها الأطراف الثلاثة المستهدفة بالإرهاب الاقتصادي الأميركي (إيران لبنان سورية) فجهّزت سفينة شحن نفط، اعتبرتها المقاومة أرضاً لبنانية لنقل نفط إيراني الى ميناء سوري لسدّ حاجة مستهلك لبناني، فكانت عملية تجارية منظمة أحسن اختيار موضوعها وأسلوب تنفيذها ووسائل حمايتها.
لقد أربكت المقاومة بقرارها أميركا و”إسرائيل” وجعلتهما تتيقنا انّ المقاومة تعرف كيف تحوّل التحدي الى فرصة وكيف تنجح باستثمارها ما جعل أميركا تبدي استعداداً للتراجع عن بعض سلوكيات الحصار فكان موقف سفيرتها في بيروت المعلن لتسهيلات أميركية للبنان لتمكينه من استجرار الكهرباء من الأردن والغاز من مصر وكله عبر سورية، ثم كان موقف السناتور الأميركي مورفي المتحدث باسم وفد الكونغرس الى لبنان والذي رغم ظاهره فإنه يستشفّ منه تراجعاً أيضاً عبر قوله انّ “واشنطن تبحث عن سبيل لتزويد لبنان بالمحروقات من دون عقوبات”، لأنّ ما تقوم به المقاومة من استيراد من إيران هو على حدّ زعمه خاضع للعقوبات لأنّ “أيّ وقود يجري نقله عبر سورية خاضع للعقوبات”.
فإذا كان قرار واحد بالمواجهة جعل أميركا تتراجع امام المقاومة وتفك الحصار ولو جزئيا، رغم انها رفضت في السابق طلبات لبنان ذات الصلة وعلى مدار سنتين متتاليتين واليوم جاء قرار المقاومة فأجبرها على إظهار الاستعداد لفك جزئي للحصار لان المقاومة وضعتها أمام خيارين: “فكوا الحصار بأيديكم او نكسر الحصار بأقدامنا” أما التهديد والتهويل فإنه لن يلقى عند المقاومة أذناً تهتمّ ولن تكون مفاعيله إلا مزيداً من الجهوزية للمواجهة التي نعلم أنّ أمّيركا المنكفئة و”إسرائيل” المتخبّطة لن تبادرا اليها وإنْ فعلتا فإنهما ستندمان.
وعليه نقول ان على لبنان ان يتخذ من قرار المقاومة استيراد النفط من إيران وعبر سورية نموذجاً يُحتذى للتعامل مع أميركا ومواجهة حصارها وإملاءاتها، وعلى المسؤولين في الدولة ان يعلموا انّ المقاومة التي انطلقت لتحرير الأرض بعد ان عجزت الدولة عنه، ستكون جاهزة لسدّ أيّ عجز او تلكؤ وعلى طريقتها ووفقاً لأساليبها لمواجهة الحصار والإرهاب الاقتصادي الأميركي حتى تحمي لبنان وشعبه، أما القول بأنّ “أميركا ستستمرّ بالحصار حتى الاستسلام او الاندثار” فإنه قول فيه من الخنوع والتشاؤم ما لا يتوافق مع نهج المقاومة التي ترى انّ أميركا ستتراجع عن الحصار وسيبقى لبنان كما تريده المقاومة.
The Reagan administration constructed a network of outsourced private organizations that would do the dirty work of the U.S. empire, shielding the U.S. government from the prying eyes of investigators and journalists.
After organizing coups, overthrowing democratically-elected heads of state, and arming death squads all around the world in the 1960s and 1970s, it was clear that the CIA had an image problem. The Reagan administration, therefore, began constructing a network of outsourced private organizations that would do the dirty work of the U.S. empire, shielding the U.S. government from the prying eyes of investigators and journalists.
“A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA,” Allen Weinstein, co-founder of the National Endowment for Democracy, told The Washington Post.
One of these groups is Creative Associates International, the subject of an in-depth MintPress News investigation by Senior Staff Writer Alan MacLeod. Alan joins MintCast host Mnar Muhawesh Adley today to discuss his findings.
Creative Associates International (CAI) was founded by Bolivian ex-pat M. Charito Kruvant in 1979. Visiting the organization’s website, viewers are met with images of smiling African children being taught how to read and write, happy Latino farmers, and pictures of Asian women going to school. The image CAI projects of itself is that it is a progressive charity helping many of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable groups. And it does indeed do education work in dozens of countries. But it also has a long history of being the shock troops for the U.S.’ regime-change agenda throughout the world.
CAI was involved in the 1991 Haitian coup d’etat that removed populist priest Jean Bertrand Arisitde from power; it has worked with Contra death squads in Nicaragua, helping to defeat the Sandinista revolution there; and it has also spearheaded a number of attempts to sow discord in Cuba, with the ultimate goal of removing the Communists from power.
CAI was hired to create a Twitter-like app for Cubans called ZunZuneo. The app would, at first, provide a great service and take over the market. Slowly, however, the plan was to drip-feed Cubans anti-Communist propaganda until the time came to organize a color revolution on the island through bombarding users with messages to take to the streets. CAI also recruited rappers to serve as anti-government figureheads who would push divisions and spread discord throughout the island.
With virtually all of its budget coming from the U.S. government and six of the seven members of its board former or current high U.S. officials, MacLeod describes Creative Associates as a government organization posing as a non-governmental organization.
Alan MacLeod is Senior Staff Writer and Podcast Producer with MintPress News. He completed his PhD at Glasgow University in 2017, where he studied the U.S. government’s attempts at regime change in Venezuela. Since then, he has published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent. Joining MintPress News in 2019, he writes primarily on U.S. imperialism, Latin America, media and propaganda, and on cybersecurity issues.
In this frank discussion, we delve into the world of soft power and regime-change ops.
Sheikh Hamade, who is the Imam of the Hamzah Mosque in Beirut, blasted pro-US forces in Lebanon and called on anyone opposed to the move to ‘quit trying to fool the Lebanese people’ and ‘get oil yourselves!’
Lebanese Sunni Sheikh Mustafa Hamade scolds local pro-US parties and media for their opposition to Hezbollah’s recently announced move to import Iranian fuel to Lebanon, a country facing a crippling energy and economic crisis.
Sheikh Hamade, who is the Imam of the Hamzah Mosque in Beirut, blasted pro-US forces in Lebanon and called on anyone opposed to the move to ‘quit trying to fool the Lebanese people’ and ‘get oil yourselves!’
The clip of the Sheikh’s comments has been spreading widely within Lebanese social media circles in recent days.
Sheikh Mustafa Hamade, Imam of the Hamzah Mosque in Beirut, Lebanon:
(Certain) media outlets don’t want Iranian oil, nor oil from God knows where. We, as a people, demand that you bring oil from wherever you want, and we’ll buy it from you and not from them (Iran).
Just get oil, if anyone wants to talk, then they better step up. They (Hezbollah) are importing oil because they’re true to their people.
(Regardless of) halal (permissible) or haram (forbidden), right or wrong, sanctions and what not. Are there sanctions more devastating than the ones we’re under (today)?
Are you going to tell me that when and if the oil comes from Iran, that you’re going to prevent me from getting Iranian petrol and diesel? We’re already dead!
If any of our leaders don’t like this, then get oil (yourselves)! You have friends all over the world. Aren’t you going to import electricity and gas? Get some oil while you’re at it. Get some diesel while you’re at it. Stop fueling sectarian tensions. People are tired! People are exhausted!
Go see Dahieh (Southern Suburbs of Beirut), and all Shia regions, and go see Beirut and all Sunni regions in Lebanon. Go see Akkar, Dinniyeh and Tripoli. Go see Baalbeck and Hermel, Central and Northern Beqaa. Go see the South, all of it, starting from Sidon and up to the Naqoura and see the hunger. Head to the mountains, to Baabda and all of Mt. Lebanon. People care little for where the oil will come from. When the oil’s here people will pay out of their own pockets for it, and they don’t need any of you officials. They’ll pay from their own money and bring in oil from wherever, because you do not feel the exhaustion we feel. Because you do not feel the humiliation we’ve endured.
You are still conspiring against us, and making fools of us. Because you’re Sunni, you still want me to hate the Shia, and because you’re Shia you want him to hate the Sunni.
People won’t fall for this anymore, they want to live, they’re tired, they’re exhausted.
I pray that God Almighty save us from this trial. May God grant us forgiveness.
Iraq hosted a regional summit on Saturday supposedly aimed at easing tensions in the Middle East while emphasizing the Arab country’s new role as a mediator. Heads of state attending included Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, King Abdullah II of Jordan, Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani and French President Emmanuel Macron.
In light of the US failure to defeat and eradicate Hezbollah through the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006 and the takfiri invasion of the region during the past decade, Washington has decided to resort to the Lebanese proxies in order to fight Hezbollah.
Hundreds of NGOs have recently emerged in a weird manner and under the pretext of providing social aids amid the deteriorating socioeconomic conditions in Lebanon are ready to engage in a political warfare against the Resistance. Moreover, the traditional foes of Hezbollah will not miss any chance to confront the Resistance Party.
In this context, a delegation from the Foreign Affairs Committee at the US Congress headed by Senator Chris Murphy visited Lebanon, underestimating the oil crisis caused by the American siege imposed on the country.
Murphy briefed the reporters about the outcomes of the delegation’s meeting with President Michel Aoun, “We have discussed the parliamentary elections of 2022, which will bring new faces to power. The government must ensure that every Lebanese can vote next spring in a safe and free manner.”
In this context, Senator Richard Blumenthal described Hezbollah as a cancer that must be eradicated.
In response to journalists’ questions about the Iranian oil ship, the delegation alleged that “there is no need for Lebanon to depend on Iranian fuel, and the US is actively working to solve the fuel crisis in Lebanon.”
So, Washington wants the parliamentary elections to introduce new ‘faces to power’ and insists the Iranian fuel ships are needless. It is a clear call on the Lebanese proxies to reject Hezbollah honest and determined endeavor to cope with the oil crisis caused by the US sanctions and to utilize 2022 vote in their confrontation with Hezbollah.
The United States 2021 elections are drawing near, with the majority of them taking part on November 2nd, 2021.
Many are taking place on the surrounding days.
It is a volatile season, as the Democratic Party won the Presidential Elections in the face of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, and holds a majority thanks to the vice president in the Congress.
In the House of Representatives, the Democrats hold the majority.
Interestingly, in the Senate the Republicans have 50 senators, but still Democrats hold majority with 48 senators, due to Kamala Harris swinging the vote.
Political instability was introduced in the United States following the fiasco that the withdrawal from Afghanistan turned into.
Americans were abandoned, Afghan allies were left behind, and an ISIS terror attack left 13 Americans and hundreds of Afghans dead.
This political instability didn’t simply appear out of nowhere with the fiasco in Afghanistan.
It was brewing when former President Donald Trump faced Joe Biden in the polls, and even before that.
This could also be a way to set the stage for Biden’s resignation, for health reasons or otherwise. A power grab is in order by Vice President Kamala Harris and the neoliberals she represents and whose interests she fights for.
Conservatives and traditionalists would surely come in the spotlight and receive quite a bit of negative attention focused at them. After all, they are the ones who elected Trump, and almost even re-elected him.
Various neoliberal movements, such as BLM and others will become the norm at Washington level, and that is when the true suppression attempts can begin.
This leading ideology will marginalize the states that are more conservative. There will likely be an ideology split within the United States, and even within singular states themselves.
Local authorities, as well as the local business elites and opinion leaders, will be strained, they will need to guide the population in one direction or another.
As a result, every state that’s strongly conservative or liberal will play a significant, leading role in the upcoming events ahead of the election, and after it.
If Texas remains strongly conservative, pro-Republican, as there is not even a Democrat candidate, it is likely that changes might be coming. Some states may wish for more independence in spending, development, legislation and more and be freed from some compulsory factors coming from Washington.
This doesn’t relate to a splitting of the federation into smaller countries, but rather a US in “two speeds”, similar to what is being observed in the European Union.
Texas is second in the US – second richest, and with its 29.1 million residents in 2020, is the second-largest U.S. state by both area and population. It is also a staple of conservatism and the Republican party, it promises to remain as such.
Naturally, the winner of the elections will become an important figure.
Currently, the governor of Texas is Greg Abbott, from the Republican Party.
He seems like a rather conservative, but adequate leader of his state, with the population having a generally positive opinion of him.
It is an up-and-down, however.
Recently, the most radical abortion law in the US has gone into effect, despite legal efforts to block it.
A near-total abortion ban in Texas empowers any private citizen to sue an abortion provider who violates the law, opening the floodgates to harassing and frivolous lawsuits from anti-abortion vigilantes that could eventually shutter most clinics in the state.
Senate Bill 8 ushered through the Republican-dominated Texas legislature and signed into law by the Republican governor, Greg Abbott, in May, bars abortion once embryonic cardiac activity is detected, which is around six weeks, and offers no exceptions for rape or incest.
He is also widely considered to have failed the COVID-19 pandemic. Texas was also woefully unprepared for the freezing cold, and citizens were left without power and heat for days.
Still, despite controversy, he is the favorite.
When CPAC, the nation’s leading conservative political conference, met in Dallas earlier this month, speakers included former Dallas state Sen. Don Huffines. And while Huffines bashed President Biden, he spent most of his time on stage blasting a fellow Republican: Gov. Greg Abbott.
Huffines invoked the story of the Alamo and praised Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, then said:
“Well, we don’t have a Donald Trump as governor. We don’t have Ron DeSantis as governor. We don’t have William B. Travis as governor. Unfortunately, we’ve got a career politician that’s a political windsock, a RINO (Republican in name only.)”
Abbott, citing the kickoff of the legislative special session, wasn’t there to defend himself. Huffines used his absence against him, attacking Abbott’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“He doesn’t want to face you,” Huffines said, “because he shredded our constitution. He put 3 million Texans on unemployment and dependent on the government in one day.”
But Huffines wasn’t just speaking out of passion. He’s also one of two candidates challenging Abbott as the governor seeks a third term in 2022. The other: former Texas Republican Party chairman Allen West, who’s made many of the same charges against Abbott’s pandemic response.
Essentially, the situation in Texas is such – the Republican party, more or less, has the victory certain. The favorite appears to be Greg Abbott, but his two main competitors are also from the Republican party.
The two main candidates: Don Huffines and Allen West are simply pushing the same platform, and want to win over the state away from Abbott, who has gone rogue, according to them.
There’s little to mention about West, he simply wants to “overthrow” Abbott, and he even gave up on the chairmanship of the Republican Party in Texas for the purpose. Both him and Huffines are on the same “team”.
In the case of Huffines, experts say that he didn’t win his own seat when he ran for Senate (in 2018), and it’s a seat that was more Republican than the state as a whole when he lost it. It is unlikely that this time he would have success.
Still, when he announced his campaign, he made no mention of Abbott.
It took aim at “politicians who offer nothing but excuses and lies” and promised to take on the “entrenched elites of the Austin swamp.” In promising more decisive action, Huffines said Texas needs to “finally finish the [border] wall” and that he would put the state “on a path to eliminating property taxes.”
Huffines was a strident conservative in the Senate. His announcement highlighted his record on issues important to the right, as well as his successful push to shut down the Dallas Public Schools bus agency amid reports of financial mismanagement there.
He got to the Senate in 2015 after unseating Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, in the primary, attacking him as too moderate. But the Dallas-based Senate District 16 swung toward Democrats under former President Donald Trump, and Johnson beat Huffines by 8 percentage points in 2018.
Huffines stayed politically active after leaving the Senate and especially so in the past year, as conservative angst simmered over Abbott’s pandemic management. Even then, Huffines has an interesting family connection to the governor’s circle: His brother is James Huffines, whom Abbott tapped last spring to chair the Governor’s Strike Force to Open Texas.
Southern Methodist University political science professor Cal Jillson said the odds are that Republicans will ultimately get everything they’re pushing in the current special session, even if it takes several more special sessions to get those priorities passed.
“Right now, the Republicans have the Democrats strung up by their thumbs with their feet barely touching the ground,” Jillson said. “I think the Republicans are going to win on the substance, and how the Democrats frame their eventual loss very much will determine whether or not the two bases are equally energized by this fight or one is energized more than the other.”
In his most recent gubernatorial race in 2018, Abbott won with 55.8% of the vote.
Abbott has money too.
He’s sitting on a war chest of $55 million.
But despite rampant rumors that former Congressman Beto O’Rourke or even actor Matthew McConaughey will get into the race, Democrats still don’t have a declared candidate for governor.
Still, the Democrats appear to have given up on Texas, as there is no candidate, two months prior to election.
يجزم الخبراء الأميركيون على تنوع خلفياتهم، بأنّ سببين من ثلاثة أسباب لبقاء القوات الأميركية في سورية والعراق قد سقطا مع الانسحاب الأميركي من أفغانستان، وهما أولاً، البقاء لضمان وزن وحضور لفريق حليف، فالقوات الأميركية تشكل المصدر الرئيسي للحفاظ على قوة وحضور الجماعات الكردية المنضوية تحت عنوان قسد، كما كانت بالنسبة لحكومة أشرف غني، وثانياً، الحفاظ على توازن جيوسياسي في منطقة التواجد، فالقوات الأميركية تحقق نوعاً من التوازن بين حضور اللاعبين الإقليميين الكبار، خصوصاً تركيا وإيران، كما كانت في أفغانستان تفرض توازناً على حدود الصين وروسيا وإيران، وبالمقارنة بين الوجود العسكري الأميركي في أفغانستان والعراق وسورية، تسقط كلياً عوامل البقاء انطلاقاً من هذين السببين طالما أن النموذج الأصلي قد سقط في أفغانستان، وأن ما هو قائم في العراق وسورية نسخة ضعيفة وهشة بالمقارنة مع النموذج الأصلي.
–
السبب الثالث الباقي للحفاظ على القوات الأميركية في سورية والعراق بخلاف أفغانستان، هو الدور الذي تؤديه في توفير ضمانات لأمن كيان الاحتلال، الذي يحتل أولوية في مفهوم الأمن الاستراتيجي الأميركي في آسيا وأفريقيا، وفي هذا المجال نصف الاعتبار قد سقط أيضاً، وبقي نصف آخر، النصف الذي سقط هو الرهان التفاوضي على مقايضة الانسحاب الأميركي بانسحاب قوى المقاومة وإيران من سورية، وقد حاول الأميركيون خلال سنوات تقديم عروض مختلفة على هذا الصعيد وصولاً لربط الاستعداد لرفع عقوبات قانون قيصر عن سورية، مقابل ما وصفوه بالعودة إلى ما قبل 2011، أي خروج اللاعبين الإقليميين والدوليين الذين وفدوا إلى سورية بعد 2011، بمن فيهم الأميركيون والإيرانيون والأتراك، والتوافق على بقاء الروس وحدهم، وفشلت العروض بالوصول إلى نتيجة، أما النصف الذي بقي يبرّر البقاء في سورية والعراق، فهو الإمساك بالحدود السورية- العراقية من الجانبين السوري والعراقي، عبر مثلث قواعد التنف وعين الأسد والقامشلي، وذلك لقطع طريق التواصل بين إيران وسورية، باعتبار هذا التواصل أحد أبرز مصادر الدعم للمقاومة، خصوصاً في لبنان وفلسطين.
–
تدخل المفاجأة الاستراتيجية التي يمثلها خط السفن الإيرانية إلى المتوسط، والتي بدأ التمهيد لها بإرسال سفن دعم لسورية في مجال المحروقات، وحاول الأميركيون اعتراضها بالحؤول دون عبورها قناة السويس والبحر الأحمر، فاستدارت عبر البحار ودخلت من مضيق جبل طارق حيث تعرّضت للاحتجاز على أيدي البريطانيين، ما تسبّب بردّ إيراني كاد أن يتحوّل إلى حرب سفن مع احتجاز سفن بريطانية تجارية، حتى انتهى الأمر بالإفراج المتبادل ومواصلة السفينة الإيرانية طريقها نحو سورية، وتأتي السفن التي أعلن عنها حزب الله لتقول علناً إنّ مسار هذه السفن في جزء منه سيعود للمقاومة، سواء عبر الموانئ اللبنانية أو السورية، ولا يمكن تجاهل حقيقة أنّ هذا المسار استهلك سنوات من التحضير والمواجهات، وعبر العديد من المحطات، حتى صار عبور سفن يستحضرها حزب الله من إيران قادرة على عبور الطريق البحري من إيران إلى المتوسط في مضيق باب المندب والبحر الأحمر وقناة السويس، ويلجأ الأميركي و»الإسرائيلي» إلى مناورة تذكيرية بالوجود بين مواعيد مرور السفن الإيرانية، والاختباء في خليج العقبة لتفادي التصادم مع هذه السفن.
–
السؤال الذي لم يقدّم الخبراء بعد أجوبة وافية عليه، لكنه موضوع على الطاولة، هو مبرّر الاحتفاظ الأميركي بقواعد عسكرية ستكون عرضة للاستهداف، بعد سقوط مبرر الرهان على قطع شرايين التواصل بين إيران سورية وقوى المقاومة.
As always, I am delighted to be here on September 1, and not only on this day, of course, since we hold events here at other times of the year as well. But September 1 has special importance, since this is Knowledge Day. First-year students get to feel the university spirit, and meetings like this help us streamline this experience and are sure to benefit students in their studies.
I am certain that you will not regret choosing this university. MGIMO graduates find work in a wide variety of spheres, from public service and research to business and journalism. We are proud that our alma mater has such a great reputation. MGIMO Rector, Anatoly Torkunov, has just shared some enrolment statistics. They are impressive. He said that the minister keeps a close eye on everything going on in this school. But you cannot keep track of everything, and I mean this in a good way. MGIMO University constantly improves its programmes and activity and expands its partnership networks. Today, MGIMO University will sign yet another cooperation agreement, this time with Ivannikov Institute for System Programming. This shows that we always need to be in step with the times. This is the right way to go. The quality of the education that graduates receive at this university is recognised both in Russia and around the world.
I am glad MGIMO University continues to attract international students. This is an important channel for maintaining humanitarian, educational and people-to-people ties. In today’s world these ties have special importance, since at the intergovernmental level our Western colleagues have little appetite for talking to us on equal terms. As you probably know, and I am certain that you have a keen interest in foreign policy, they persist with their demands that we change the way we behave and act the way they view as being correct. This is a dead end. We are open to a frank, constructive, mutually beneficial dialogue, taking into account each other’s interests. It is along these lines that we maintain dialogue and promote cooperation and partnerships with the overwhelming majority of countries around the world. This includes our closest allies and strategic partners – members of the CSTO, CIS, EAEU, SCO and BRICS. We have many reliable friends, almost in all continents interested in promoting mutually beneficial projects that benefit all the participants.
To counter this trend toward a multipolar world, which reflects the cultural and civilisational diversity on this planet, our Western partners seek to maintain their dominant standing in international affairs. They are acting in quite a brash manner making no secret out of the fact that their main objective is to contain their competitors, primarily Russia and China. The documents adopted at the NATO, EU, and US-EU summits over the past months are designed to consolidate the “collective West” in their efforts to counter the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China.
The Indo-Pacific strategies that are openly pursuing the goal (as it has been proclaimed) of containing China have gained currency in the Asia-Pacific region. They are trying to implicate another of our strategic partners, India, in these games. Everyone can see it and everyone understands what it is all about. But those who gave up their sovereignty and joined the ranks of the countries led by the United States and other Western countries are not in a position to utter a word of disagreement.
Truth be told, following the tragic events in Afghanistan and after the United States and its NATO allies had hurriedly left that country, a chorus of voices began to be heard in Europe advocating self-reliance in foreign affairs, especially in matters involving the deployment of armed forces, rather than reliance on directives issued by Washington that it can change in an instant. These are glimpses of something new in the position of the West, in this case, the Europeans.
The second notable aspect highlighted by US President Joe Biden and President of France Emmanuel Macron is as follows: both announced within one or two days of one another that it was time to give up on interfering in other countries’ internal affairs in order to impose Western-style democracy on them.
We welcome such statements. We have long been urging our Western colleagues to learn from the reckless ventures that they have got themselves into in recent decades in Iraq and Libya, and they tried to do the same in Syria. I hope (if the above statements are a true reflection of their hard-won understanding of the matter) that our planet will be a safer place in the future. But all the same, we have to “clear out the rubble” of the past policies. Hundreds of thousands of people, civilians, were impacted or killed during the invasion of Iraq and the attack on Libya. There are lots of problems stemming from the revived international terrorism in the Middle East and North Africa and huge numbers of illegal migrants. The illegal arms trade, drug smuggling and much more are on the rise. All this needs to be “cleared up” by the international community, because it affects almost everyone.
Now that the NATO troops have pulled out from Afghanistan, the most important thing for us is to ensure the security of our allies in Central Asia. First, they are our comrades, including comrades-in-arms, and second, the security of Russia’s southern borders directly depends on this.
I hope that if we act together, we will be able to agree on these external steps that will help create an environment within Afghanistan for forming a truly national leadership. We are working energetically to this end.
We are witnessing two trends in the international arena. On the one hand, it is about the formation of a multipolar and polycentric world. This trend reflects the position of most states around the world. On the other hand, efforts are being made to hold back this objective historical process and to artificially preserve control over everything that is happening in the international arena, including with the use of unscrupulous methods such as unilateral illegal sanctions, competition that is occasionally reminiscent of ultimatums, or changing the rules in the midst of an ongoing project.
The West tends to mention less often (if at all) the term “international law” and calls on everyone to maintain a “rules-based world order.” We have nothing against the rules. After all, the UN Charter is also a set of rules, but they were agreed with all states without exception. They are supported by every country that is a member of this one-of-a-kind organisation with incredible and unmatched legitimacy. The West has different rules in mind. They are creating formats of their own. For example, the US has announced that it will convene a Democracy Summit to create an Alliance of Democracies. Clearly, Washington will be the one to determine who will be invited and who is considered a democracy. By the same token, France and Germany announced an initiative to create an Alliance for Multilateralism, i.e. “multilateralists.” When asked why these issues cannot be discussed at the UN, where multilateralism is at its finest in the modern world, the answer is that the UN is home to “retrogrades” and they want to create an Alliance for Multilateralism based on “advanced” ideas. And the “leaders,” above all the EU, will set the rules for multilateralism, and the rest will have to look up to them. This is a crude description, but it conveys the essence of what they are trying to tell us in so many words.
There are initiatives to create partnerships, including in the areas that were supposed to be discussed at universal platforms long ago. Numerous initiatives appearing in the developing world are also being used for the same purpose. There are attempts to channel them to meet Western interests.
The policy of undermining international law and universal principles sealed in the UN Charter is reflected, to a certain extent, in the efforts to call into doubt the results of World War II. They are aimed at trying to equate the winners in this bloodiest war in human history with those who unleashed it and proclaimed the destruction of whole nations as their goal. These attempts are aimed at undermining our positions in the world. Similar attacks are being made on China’s positions. We cannot give up and remain indifferent on this issue.
Every year, we put forward major initiatives at the UN on the inadmissibility of glorifying Nazism, waging a war against monuments and fuelling any forms of racial discrimination and xenophobia.
The overwhelming majority of states not only support these initiatives but also become their co-authors. In most cases, our Western colleagues bashfully abstain from this. They explain that the appeal to prevent certain trends runs counter to democracy and freedom of speech. In other words, for them the neo-Nazi trends that are obvious in Europe, in part, in the Baltic states and Ukraine, do not amount to a gross violation of the Nuremberg trials verdict but merely reflect a commitment to tolerance and freedom of speech.
I do not think it is necessary to explain in detail the harmful and pernicious nature of such attempts to rewrite history and give the green light to those who want to reproduce misanthropic attitudes in the world arena. I do not believe it is necessary to speak in detail about the need to counter these attitudes with resolve and consistency.
We have a foreign policy course endorsed by President of Russia Vladimir Putin. Its main goal is to ensure the most favourable conditions for national development, security, economic growth and the improvement of the living standards of our citizens. We will consistently translate this course into reality.
We have never striven for confrontation, not to mention isolation. We are open to cooperation with the Western countries if they change their approach and stop acting like teachers who “know everything” and are “above reproach,” treating Russia like a pupil that must do its homework. It is inappropriate to talk to anyone in this manner, let alone Russia.
Our plans enjoy firm support of our people for the course towards strengthening the sovereignty of the Russian Federation and promoting good, friendly relations with our neighbours and all those who are willing to do this honestly, on an equitable basis.
Question: The question has to do with the changes in modern diplomacy under the influence of new technology. Digital diplomacy is a widespread term today. Technological development adds a fundamentally new dimension to a diplomats’ work, and also leads to a qualitative transformation of the system of international relations. How do you think new technologies will affect energy policy in particular and diplomacy in general?
Sergey Lavrov: I am asked this question every time I speak at Knowledge Day here. Apparently, this reflects the thinking of each new generation of students, about how technology will generally affect the processes concerning state-level problem solving and international relations.
Indeed, digital technologies are rapidly penetrating our lives, even faster in the context of the coronavirus pandemic. Many events, including international events, have transitioned to the online format. There is an upside to this. To a certain extent, it helps to save time, which is becoming a more sparse resource every day, given the aggravating international challenges and problems that our foreign policy tries to resolve.
When it comes to holding official meetings such as the UN Security Council or the UN General Assembly with a pre-agreed agenda where each country wants to express its point of view, such statements are prepared in advance through the efforts of a large number of specialists. The result is a policy document on a specific matter on the international agenda, which then goes through debates in one format or another. I see no problem with participating in this kind of discussion online using digital technology.
There are other international meetings, when something needs to be agreed upon as soon as possible; these meetings can also be held remotely. At least this way is better than a phone call because you can see the other person’s face, and this is very important.
But the most serious issues cannot be resolved online. All my colleagues agree with this. Maybe in the future, humanity will invent a way to convey the feeling of personal contact. But I doubt this will be possible. No machine is capable of replacing a person.
I am confident that conventional diplomacy will retain its importance as the main tool in international affairs. As soon as a serious problem arises, it is imperative to meet and try to negotiate.
Question: Will the autumn 2021 elections to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation impact Russia’s foreign policy in the international arena?
SergeyLavrov: A good question. Elections in our country actually begin in a little more than a fortnight. Even now Western colleagues make it clear that they are set to cast discredit on them. Various political scientists are publishing articles and making speeches aimed at preparing public opinion in the direction of the narrative that the elections results will be rigged.
We regularly invite international observers to our national elections. This year, around 200 observers will come to us as well, including those from international organisations. The only one of them who arrogantly declined the invitation was the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). We told them they could send a group of 60 observers. This is the largest group we invite from abroad. They said they wanted 500. When you are being invited to visit someone, you do not demand gifts for yourself instead of showing respect towards the hosts. OSCE does not have a rule under which ODIHR must dictate election monitoring provisions. All the countries have only one obligation there – to invite international observers to elections. It is not even written down that they should be from OSCE. They may be from anywhere you like. We do it regularly and meet our obligations in full. This is an example of how international law (and this principle is prescribed at OSCE, I mean that all issues must be solved by consensus) is being replaced by “rules.” This Office itself made up a rule, along the same lines the West operates, by demanding that its own “rules” must be obeyed.
However important international observers might be, we will also have our own observers. Their number is immense. The voting will be streamed live in full. Our Central Electoral Board provides detailed coverage of this and other innovations being introduced. We are taking steps to ensure maximum transparency of voting at our embassies and general consulates. As always, we are making arrangements so that it is possible for our citizens abroad to cast their vote and fulfil their election right.
With all the importance of international observers, it is ultimately our citizens who will take a decision on how we will live on and with which members our parliament will draft new laws. Those who are going to objectively figure out developments in the Russia Federation are always welcome. As to those who have already passed a judgement, let them bear the shame.
Question: I know that poetry and art are among your hobbies. How can we make Russian literature and cinema more effective as a soft power tool abroad?
Sergey Lavrov: There is only one way, and that is to promote these works in other countries’ markets. This policy was vigorously pursued in the Soviet Union. That was a useful experience for the international film and literary community as well. I believe we are renewing these traditions now. I do not know about literary exhibitions, I just do not think I have seen a lot of information on this, but many film festivals recognise the work of our directors, actors and producers. A number of Russian films are highly valued in Cannes and in Karlovy Vary. We must continue to do this.
Question: Does Russia have effective and proportionate methods of fighting manifestations of Russophobia, oppression of Russians, persecution against the Russian language and the Russian world in certain countries?
Sergey Lavrov: This is a difficult question, given the recent manifestations of inappropriate attitudes towards ethnic Russians in a number of countries, including some of our neighbours. This topic has several dimensions to it. The most important point is that the government of a country where our citizens are subjected to some kind of discriminatory influence must firmly oppose such manifestations and take steps to prevent them. This is important, not only because they attack Russians or our other compatriots, but also because it’s required by international conventions, the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many other documents that are universal and approved by everyone.
In Russia, too, we have seen situations recently where some migrant labourers were at odds with other labour migrants. This is also a problem because Russia needs migrant labourers. We are trying to make immigration as clear, transparent and legitimate as possible. We negotiate with the countries they come from for long-term employment (mostly the Central Asian countries) and agree on special courses for potential migrants that make sure they speak minimal Russian and are familiar with Russian customs, our laws, and that they are planning to behave in a way that is appropriate for being hired in the Russian Federation. This is important for our economy. Without migrant labourers, many Russian industries are now experiencing a significant shortage of personnel.
It is also important to keep in mind that these countries are our allies. We, as allies, must support each other; one way to do so is to ensure an appropriate environment for citizens who represent a different ethnic group.
We have a huge number of ethnic groups living in Russia. Russia is a record holder in multi-ethnicity. All this cultural and religious diversity has always made our country strong, providing the solid foundation on which we stand. We have never tried to destroy the traditions, cultures or languages of any peoples that have lived here since the Russian Empire, then the Soviet Union and now the Russian Federation. We have always supported their languages, cultures, and customs.
Another factor that must be taken into account is the basic quality of life for each and every citizen. We pursue a most open policy. We will make every effort to ensure that our neighbours or other countries where our compatriots live or work fully comply with their international obligations. The fight against discrimination must use political methods based on respect for international commitments.
Question: Do conditions exist for economic and investment cooperation with Japan on the Kuril Islands?
Sergey Lavrov: Yes, they do, of course. It is even more than that. We made a relevant proposal to our Japanese colleagues a long time ago. When, several years ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin met with the Japanese Prime Minister at the time, Shinzo Abe, we came up with an initiative to engage in joint economic activity on these islands. Our Japanese neighbours agreed to this proposal after a while, but decided to confine our cooperation to relatively unsophisticated areas, like aquaculture and waste treatment. These things are important but they are of no strategic significance. We offered them cooperation in any industry of their choice on the southern Kuril Islands and this has been stated repeatedly in the correspondence with our Japanese colleagues. However, the Japanese are seeking to secure a deal with us that would allow them to engage in economic activity and invest money [in the area], not in compliance with Russian law, but rather on the basis of an agreement that provides for another jurisdiction – not that of the Russian Federation. Under this jurisdiction, Russian and Japanese representatives in a certain administrative body would enjoy equal rights, meaning that some hybrid laws would be introduced. This cannot be done under our Constitution.
Regretfully, our Japanese friends are missing out on the opportunity to invest money with us for our mutual benefit. Nonetheless, we have good plans. Soon, new privileges will be announced for our foreign partners who agree to work with us in this part of the Russian Federation. I believe there will be practical interest in this.
Question: In one of your interviews you said (and I fully agree) that modern Western-style liberal democracies have run their course. How will nation states evolve going forward? What forms of state organisation hold the most promise? What should we be striving for?
The UN is plagued by many problems, ranging from Greta Thunberg to agreements that are not being acted upon, such as, for instance, the Paris Agreement. What can be done to turn this deplorable trend around? What laws need to be adopted? What kind of organisations must be created? What does Russia think about this?
Sergey Lavrov: I briefly touched on this matter in my opening remarks. I believe each state should be structured around its customs and traditions and be comfortable for its residents who will have children, grandchildren, etc. It appears that they have promised to stop trying to impose democracy on other countries. At least, President Biden and President Macron said this almost simultaneously. We’ll see how they deliver on their promises.
Each country should take care of its own affairs independently. Everyone now agrees that imposing a Western system on Afghanistan was a grave mistake. Afghanistan has always been a fairly decentralised country where clan-based and other bonds, as well as relations between different ethnic groups, have always played a major role. And Kabul usually balanced out these relations. Saying that tomorrow you will have elections and everyone should go and cast their vote to elect a president who will have certain powers – it was not the Afghans who came up with this idea. It was imposed on them and the ones who did it hurt themselves badly. I hope the promises not to impose democracy on anyone else will be kept.
With regard to environmental protection, the Paris Agreement can hardly be described as a treaty that is not being acted upon. It was based on the fundamental principle that included the need to reduce carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions, but each country was supposed to assume commitments of its own. Preparations for another conference of the parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which will take place in Glasgow this autumn, are underway.
As part of this process, the most important thing is to agree on variables that will meet the interests of each participant. The proposal of several Western countries to stop using coal-fired power generation starting literally today cannot be complied with by many countries, including several Western countries, simply because this would undermine their energy security. The same applies to large developing countries, including China and India. They are reluctant to stop their growth. They are making it clear to the West that the Western countries have attained their current level of development due to intensive use of natural resources, which gave rise to the greenhouse effect, and now the West wants large developing countries to skip their current phase of development and go straight to a post-carbon economy. It doesn’t work that way, they say. First, they need to complete the economic development of their respective states, which is a complex process that involves the interests of each state. An attempt to balance these interests is being undertaken in the course of preparations for the next conference of the parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
We made a commitment that by 2030 we would have 70 percent of the 1990 level when the countdown began under the UN Climate Convention. It is unlikely that anyone would have complaints with regard to us. President Vladimir Putin has made clear more than once that we must be extremely careful with regard to everything that is happening. The fact that Russia’s Arctic zone, which is mainly permafrost, is warming up much faster than the rest of the planet is worrisome. This matter is being carefully addressed by several of our ministries, and it is a concern for all of our Government.
Question: Can environmental issues motivate the world powers tо unite against a background of general discord? What is the potential for green diplomacy?
Sergey Lavrov: Environmental protection and concern for the planet’s climate must become a motive for pooling our efforts. It is hard to say now to what extent the world powers will manage to achieve this.
Let me repeat that the developing nations are strongly inclined to use their opportunities for the current stage of their development before assuming the commitments promoted by their Western colleagues. Many interests come together here. Our global interest lies in the health of the planet and the survival of humanity. However, every country has its own national assessment of the current situation and the commitments to their people. It is a complicated matter, but there is no doubt that this is a challenge that must prompt all of us to come together. We stand for pooling our efforts.
Question: Can the Russian Federation “enforce Ukraine to peace” under the Minsk Agreements?
Sergey Lavrov: The Minsk Agreements do not envisage any enforcement. They have been voluntarily approved, signed and unanimously endorsed by the UN Security Council, thereby becoming international law. When Ukraine as a state, both under Petr Poroshenko and Vladimir Zelensky, is doing all it can to avoid fulfilling these agreements, we must point this out to those who compiled them with us. I am primarily referring to Germany, France and other Western countries that are going all-out to justify the Kiev regime. When I say that it is trying to avoid fulfilling these agreements, I am referring to many laws that actually prohibit the Russian language, the transfer of special authority to the territories that have proclaimed themselves the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics and the efforts to harmonise the parameters of local elections in them. These are the basics of the Minsk Agreements.
Recently, German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited Moscow. This issue was raised at her talks with President of Russia Vladimir Putin. We showed our German colleagues the legal bans that Mr Zelensky adopted himself to justify his complete inability to fulfil what is required by all states in the world. All countries without exception believe that there is no alternative to the Minsk Agreements for settling the crisis in Donbass. Our Ukrainian colleagues are true prestidigitators. At one time, they believed that Rus was the true name of Ukraine (our ministry has already replied to this, so I will not repeat it). Later they said that the conversion of Rus was a Ukrainian holiday. This is sad. Mr Zelensky claims that Russian gas is the dirtiest in the world. He is doing this not because he is particularly bright but because he wants to maintain and fuel his Russophobic rhetoric and actions to prompt the West to continue supporting Kiev.
Ukraine continues to exploit the obvious efforts of the West to unbalance and destabilise Russia, sidetrack it from resolving its vital problems and make our foreign policy less effective. The Ukrainian regime is exploiting all this. This is clear to everyone. Having placed its bets on Kiev, the West feels uncomfortable about giving up on them. But this approach has obviously failed. The realisation of this fact is coming up but has not yet been embodied in practical steps aimed at convincing or, to use your expression, “enforcing” anything. It is the West that must enforce compliance from its client.
Question: How do you see yourself as a State Duma deputy, something you may soon be? Do you have proposals or ideas to offer? Perhaps, you have specific initiatives to promote our relations with Armenia or Georgia?
Sergey Lavrov: I will not speculate on the outcome of the elections to the State Duma.
We deal with our relations with Armenia and Georgia as Foreign Ministry officials. Armenia is our ally. New Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan was just in Moscow, on August 31. We had a good discussion. Our bilateral agenda is quite fulfilling and includes mutual visits, major projects and expanded economic cooperation. All of that is unfolding in a very intensive and confident manner.
There is the Nagorno-Karabakh problem, and Russia has played a decisive role in bringing a solution to it. The President of Russia, the President of Azerbaijan and the Prime Minister of Armenia signed agreements on November 9, 2020 (on ceasing hostilities and developing cooperation in this region) and on January 11. These agreements include specific actions that follow up on our leaders’ proposals to unblock all transport lines and economic ties. This is not a one-day project. It is underway, and the leaders of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan are closely following it. Our military personnel in the Russian peacekeeping contingent in Nagorno-Karabakh work daily on the ground to reduce tensions and build trust. The border guards are helping their Armenian allies sort out issues with their Azerbaijani neighbours.
Relations with Georgia are almost non-existent. There is a Section of Russia’s Interests in Georgia and a Section of Georgia’s Interests in Russia. There is trade, which is quite significant. Russia is one of Georgia’s leading trade partners. Our people love to go to Georgia (I myself love the country). There are no official interstate or diplomatic relations; they were severed at Tbilisi’s initiative. We have offered to resume them more than once. We planned to reciprocate to our Georgian neighbour when they introduced visa-free travel for our citizens. At first, we followed closely the developments as they were unfolding. We are not banning anyone from going to Georgia. In 2019, we were also willing to announce visa-free travel for Georgian citizens, but an unpleasant incident occurred with gross provocations against the Russian parliamentary delegation, which arrived in Tbilisi for a meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of Orthodoxy. Our deputy was the assembly chairman. In a conference room in Georgia, the Georgian hosts offered him the chair of the chairman of the parliament themselves. Then, immediately, a group of thugs came in the room demanding that Russia stop interfering in Georgia’s internal affairs and stop “occupying” their parliament. It even came to fisticuffs. With no apologies coming our way, we held back introducing visa-free travel for Georgian citizens and put our decision to resume regular flights on hold. We were ready to go ahead with it. If Georgia really doesn’t want to “play the Russian card” in an effort to retain Western protection, but instead prefers to have good relations with us as a neighbour, we will respond at any time.
Question: What qualities do you think a diplomat’s wife might need? What rules of etiquette she should observe?
Sergey Lavrov: There are no special rules here. A wife and a husband should both understand each other. Rather than obstructing the other, they should help each other carry out the ideas they have decided to devote their lives to and also achieve self-fulfillment in their professions. There is no universal advice.
When I was a rank-and-file diplomat, I worked with some top officials, whose wives had different “styles” – this occurs sometimes. In both cases, this proved to be effective and useful in our work. If a wife has a profession, her husband should also have respect for it. When a woman, regardless of whether she is the wife of an ambassador or a diplomat in a lower position, goes to a country which her husband has been posted to but where she cannot realise her professional potential, this can be a serious problem, which has to be addressed. In this situation, each family decides on its own whether the spouses go together or each of them keeps his or her job and tries to travel as often as possible to see the other. This is life; it doesn’t necessarily fit into a particular pattern.
Question: I believe the man himself comes first – Sergey Lavrov – and only then there is the Russian Foreign Minister. I like to look at politics through the prism of humaneness. What is your favourite song, the one you listen to and feel happy?
Sergey Lavrov: There are many. I will not give examples. The list is long. I do not want to leave anyone out. These are mostly songs by singer-poets. I enjoy listening to them whenever I have the chance, say, in my car or when I meet with my friends.
Question: I have a question about Russia’s relations with the Eastern European countries, given the complexity of regulating relations in this region since World War II, not to mention after the USSR’s collapse. How will they develop in the near future?
Sergey Lavrov: If a particular country has a government concerned about national interests, projects that meet the needs of its population, economic growth, and a search for partners that will help it resolve these problems in the best way, Russia has no problems in relations with any Central or East European country or any other country in the world.
We have close ties with Hungary and it is being criticised for this. In the European Union, Hungary and Poland are reprimanded for not obeying the EU’s general standards and principles. Thus, they hold referendums calling into doubt LGBT rights. Recently, Hungary held a referendum on the same law as Russia did. This law does not prohibit anything but imposes administrative liability for promoting LGBT ideology among minors. Nothing else. I think this is the right thing to do. In addition to major economic projects (nuclear power plants, and railway carriage production for Egypt), we have many other undertakings and good humanitarian cooperation.
Together with Armenia and the Vatican in the OSCE and the UN Human Rights Council, Russia and Hungary are acting as the driver in protecting the rights of Christians, including in the Middle East where Christians are seriously harassed. Hungary is not embarrassed about its Christian roots (incidentally, nor is Poland ashamed of its past and present). When they start talking about the need to raise their voice in defence of Christians, other European countries say that this is not quite politically correct.
In the OSCE, we suggested adopting a declaration against Christianophobia and Islamophobia, because it has already passed a declaration on anti-Semitism. However, these proposals are getting nowhere. Seven years ago, the West promised to adopt them but so far the OSCE countries have failed to adopt a common position on banning both Christianophobia and Islamophobia.
Regarding other East European countries, we have good relations with Slovenia. In particular, we are both working to preserve our common memory, including the bloody events of WWI and WWII. People in Slovenia care a lot about war memorials. Recently, they established a new monument devoted to all Russian soldiers who perished in both world wars. Our economic cooperation is in good shape.
We are implementing economic projects with other Eastern European countries, for instance, with Slovakia. We have considered many ideas about projects with the Czech Republic, but in the past few months it has decided to take a more Russophobic attitude and adopt overtly discriminatory decisions, like banning Rosatom from a tender on building a new nuclear power plant unit. It justified its policy with allegations that have never been proved by anyone. It blamed us for detonating some arms depots in 2014. Even many people in the Czech Republic consider this far-fetched.
However, the allegations remain. We are used to being accused of all kinds of “sins” without any evidence. This happened during the so-called poisoning of the Skripals and Alexey Navalny, and the investigation of the Malaysia Airlines crash in Donbass in July 2014. As in many other cases, these accusations are not buttressed by anything. Our requests to present facts are ignored or qualified as “classified.” Or we are told someone has “prohibited” to transmit information or some other excuse. This position is not serious. It reflects the Western approach to fueling Russophobic tensions without grounds.
Question: Do you think that we can describe the meeting between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and US President Joe Biden in Switzerland as the beginning of a relative normalisation of relations between the two countries?
Sergey Lavrov: Holding a meeting is better than having no contact at all. No breakthroughs occurred, but there was a mutually respectful conversation, on an equal footing, without any grievances expressed to either side. The dialogue was permeated with the awareness of responsibility that the two biggest nuclear powers had for the state of affairs in the world. The presidents paid attention to the need to intensify bilateral contacts, particularly in the interests of stakeholders in the business community. But the main focus was on the international agenda.
The United States withdrew from the Treaty on Open Skies (TOS) just a few months before the meeting and from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) in 2019. This has created a background for the fading of the international arms reduction and control agenda. When Joe Biden took office, he promptly responded to the proposal (which was made way back to the Trump administration but remained unanswered for a couple of years) on the need to extend the New START Treaty without any preconditions. We have managed to preserve at least this element of the arms control architecture for the next five years.
This was the context for the presidents’ meeting in Geneva. The main positive result of the meeting is that the two leaders reaffirmed the position that there can be no winners in a nuclear war and therefore it must never be unleashed. A statement to this effect was made a long time ago by the USSR and the USA. We suggested that the United States confirm this axiom. The previous administration evaded this, but Joe Biden accepted the proposal.
Within the same statement that spoke about the inadmissibility of unleashing a nuclear war, the two presidents outlined an instruction to start a dialogue on matters of strategic stability. The first tentative meeting took place in July of this year. The second one is scheduled for September. At this stage, the parties’ positions are far apart, but the fact that the dialogue is under way gives hope for the coordination of a basis for further specific talks on arms limitation. These are our short-term objectives.
They also talked in general terms about the need to establish a dialogue on cyber security. This is yet another topic on which we were unable to reach out to Washington for several years. Vladimir Putin’s official statement was dedicated to the initiatives on ensuring a transparent dialogue based on trust and facts on cyber security in Russian-American relations. Contacts of this kind are being prepared as well. There are reasons to believe that we will reduce international tension just a little in some areas. But this does not abolish the fact that the United States continues to see the containment of Russia and China as one of its main tasks, as well as the encouragement of measures that may be instrumental in having an irritating effect on us.
Notorious tendencies
-
“FICO meets PUTIN. Moldova second front. RUTTE, stop poking The Pirate.
Trump, Panama & Greenland“ (Christoforou).“Ray McGovern : Trump, CIA, and a
Helples...
Episode 60: Secrets Of The Synagogue
-
Episode 60: Secrets Of The Synagogue December 20 2024
___________________________________ More Vids! +BN Vids Archive! HERE!
______________________________...
Voltaire, actualité internationale, n°113
-
Outre ce site internet gratuit, nous publions une lettre confidentielle en
PDF, Voltaire, actualité internationale. Chaque jeudi soir ou vendredi
matin, vo...
What are terrorists in Syria trying to achieve?
-
*Note: This was written on November 30 and published evening December 1.
Since then, I’ve been on the road & unable to post here, much has changed,
so the ...
Report on Beth Israel vigil 11-30-24
-
*The Only Game in Town? Really!??*
Witness for Peace has long claimed to be the only synagogue protest on the
planet. “Not So Fast!” says the quiet Vigil...
-
Hello all,
It is with great sadness that I share with you the passing of our beloved
sister, Mother, and Grandmother, the individual that you all knew ...
Ikhras Endorses Muntadhar Al-Zaidi
-
“Oh parties of banditry and sectarianism and corruption, we have come and
our goal is to destroy you.” Ikhras formally endorses Muntadhar al-Zaidi,
Iraqi j...
Prince Charles: Foreign Jews behind bloodshed in ME
-
In May, 2017, British Crown Prince Charles declined an invitation from
Zionist entity’s president Reuven Rivlin‘s to attend the 100th anniversary
of the no...
Palestinian Women – One for All, All for One
-
Honouring All Palestinian Women by Honouring Three: Hanin Zoabi, Ahed
Tamimi, Samah Sabawi Vacy Vlazna “Palestinian women have always stood side
by side ...
US’s Saudi Oil Deal from Win-Win to Mega-Lose
-
By F. William Engdahl Who would’ve thought it would come to this? Certainly
not the Obama Administration, and their brilliant geo-political think-tank
neo-...
-
*Mordechai Vanunu wins human rights prize of Brazilian Press Association *
* http://www.alternativenews.org/english/index.php/features/updates/7038-mordechai...
Abdul Aziz Rantissi:
"My ultimate wish, my God, is to attain martyrdom,"...God granted him his wish on April 17, 2004, at the hands of Israeli assassins.
