Putin Answers Bush Word For Word
By Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey - Pravda RU - 25 February 2005
The Presidents of the Russian Federation and the United States of
America stressed that there are more points in common than differences
at a time when the international policy of Washington has put a
strain on its relations with the international community.
Furthermore, unnecessary provocation by George W. Bush regarding
internal affairs in the Russian Federation created a wholly avoidable
climate of tension around this Summit, which was dispersed through
the goodwill of both Heads of State.
Nevertheless, the Russian President was firm and resolute in refuting
the veiled criticism leveled against Russia by the President of
the USA. By "veiled criticism", read "concern".
While George Bush said that his "concern" was expressed
in a "constructive and friendly way", the point is that
he raised issues which underline Washington's arrogance and lack
of tact over Russia's internal and external policies.
George Bush expressed his "concerns" over Russia's nuclear
cooperation with Iran (or did he say "nucular"?), he expressed
his concerns over the freedom of the press in Russia (??), he expressed
his concerns over Russia's treatment of "minorities" and
he expressed his concern at the centralization of power in Russia.
Concern?
Answering the points one by one, which is not difficult and which
should occupy a minimum of space, Russia is helping Iran to develop
a nuclear power programme, to generate electricity. While the word
"nuclear" might be emotive, there is a difference between
building a power station and making weapons-grade material. Russia
has said many times that it does not support any programme through
which Iran could obtain nuclear weapons.
Regarding the freedom of the press in Russia, what exactly is Bush
talking about? The author of this article has written for Russian
press outlets for many years and not once has any article been suppressed
or indeed have I ever received any guidelines as to what I should
say or not say. I go further, and George Bush had better listen
to this: I even contacted the Kremlin asking for such guidelines
and the answer was "we cannot give you guidelines. You must
write what you want to write. It is your affair, not ours."
The point is that the press has to be responsible and accountable.
It cannot give away secrets for terrorists to read, for example.
Freedom of the Press in Russia is about responsibility, it is about
curtailing the trend for millions of dollars to be passed around
in exchange for state secrets. Surely, this is common knowledge?
Surely someone in the US administration could have warned George
Bush about what was really happening before he made an idiot of
himself (yet again).
On the treatment of minorities, is the Russian Federation not constituted
by hundreds of ethnic groups with equal rights? In the time of the
Soviet Union, even more so. Or is George Bush referring to the 5%
of Chechens who support the terrorist elements which commit atrocities
such as Beslan and so on, many of whom take refuge in the Pankissi
Gorge in Georgia, which Washington favours so strongly?
Finally, on the centralization of power, it is utterly incredible
that George W. Bush raises this question. For a start, is Condoleezza
Rice not supposed to be a Russian expert?
The sentence "centralization of power" in Russia is a
clear demonstration that Washington, and indeed, the West in general,
does not understand Russia. Although Washington would love to see
Russia implode in a myriad of micro-nations, this is not going to
happen, for one clear reason: Vladimir Putin is not Boris Yeltsin.
So for the following four years, George Bush is going to have to
read articles such as this one, pulling his speech apart point by
point and receiving broadsides from his interlocutors. Moscow has
to centralize certain powers, otherwise opportunistic states such
as the USA today, which acts as the worst kind of international
vulture, a scavenger, will try to foster dissent and take advantage
of Russia's resources.
If George W. Bush considers "liberty" as invading a sovereign
nation based upon lies, committing an act of mass murder, slaughtering
tens of thousands of civilians in the name of "freedom and
democracy", winning "hearts and minds" through "shock
and awe" tactics, it is evident that he is intellectually constrained
to the table upon which he threw a record number of Texans. He is
intellectually, diplomatically and legally moribund, he is limited
to uttering Cold War Slogans and he has a retentive understanding
of the dossiers.
Who is governing the USA? It certainly isn't George W. Bush. He
doesn't even know what he is speaking about.
While we are speaking about freedom and democracy and so on, a couple
of questions. Where are Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction? No,
we cannot ask Dr. David Kelly, because he was the one who knew they
didn't exist and committed suicide...
And how to justify the firing of CNN journalists criticizing the
USA's act of mass murder in Iraq? Freedom and (BANG!!) Democracy
(BANG!!) folks, winning hearts (BANG!!) and minds by (BANG!!) shock
and (BANG!!) awe tactics.
Speaking about democracy, did George Bush's Washington use the processes
of dialogue and discussion in the UNSC? Or did it launch a criminal
act of mass murder against Iraq, against every norm in the book?
And this man dares to look Vladimir Putin in his eyes?
Certainly, Russia wants to have friendly relations with the USA
just as it fosters good relations with all nations. But is this
made easy by a Washington which talks and practises the law of the
jungle while pretending to stand up for the rule of law?
|
