In this issue:

'Automatic Use of Force Is Unacceptable,' Russians Say

Menshikov Exposes 1990 Cheney Doctrine as Source-Book for Current 'Mental Disorder'

Treaty of Westphalia Principles, vs. U.S. as 'Latter-Day Roman Empire'

Sharon's Moscow Meetings Nothing To Write Home About

From the Vol.1 No.31 issue of Electronic Intelligence Weekly, Published October 7, 2002
Russia and Central Asia News Digest

'Automatic Use of Force Is Unacceptable,' Russians Say

Russia's top diplomats continue to issue almost daily statements regarding the United Nations' role in the crisis around Iraq, current target of the Washington chickenhawks.

On Sept. 28, after meeting with U.S. Undersecretary of State Mark Grossman and British Foreign Office official Peter Ricketts, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said that Moscow was "disappointed" in the U.S.-British draft UN Security Council resolution on Iraq, which would be "unrealizable." Grossman arrived in Moscow after a stop in Paris, aiming to convince Security Council permanent members France and Russia to agree on attacking Iraq.

On Oct. 2, Ivanov told reporters in Moscow that Russia had not ruled out the possibility of new resolutions altogether: "If new resolutions are necessary for the work of the UN weapons inspectors, we will be ready to adopt them."

But Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Saltanov clarified Oct. 3 that this means Russia might present its own resolution to the Security Council, containing a "package solution" including conditions for lifting economic sanctions on Iraq. Itar-TASS reported that Saltanov said Russia was categorically opposed to the U.S.-British draft resolution. "Attempts to make the UN Security Council subscribe to the automatic use of force against Iraq are unacceptable for us," Saltanov said. "What the U.S. and the British have provided us with, only strengthens us in the correctness of our position in favor of the quickest possible resumption of inspection activities in Iraq, and a political settlement around this country as a whole without the automatic use of force."

Menshikov Exposes 1990 Cheney Doctrine as Source-Book for Current 'Mental Disorder'

In his column in the Moscow Tribune of Oct. 4, Prof. Stanislav Menshikov took up Condoleezza Rice's assertion that the United States "is a very special country," which Rice used in support of the neo-imperial National Security Doctrine just promulgated by the Bush Administration. Menshikov traced this doctrine to its 1990 antecedent, which was rejected at that time:

"...[I]t turns out that the 'new' U.S. strategy is a paper following along the lines and repeating the major points of an old draft dating back to 1990-1991 and produced by a group of U.S. military experts headed by today's Deputy Secretary for Defense Paul Wolfowitz for the then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, now U.S. Vice President. That old document was inspired by the fundamentally new situation which was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of its external empire. Among other things, it said: 'Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, to prevent any hostile power from dominating Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.' Obviously, the only potential power to assume that role was Russia, weak at that time, but a dangerous rival in the long run, all the same.

"That document was vetoed by the White House and never became an official strategy. But the authors waited a long ten years to reproduce it and get top approval from George W. Bush. Its preemptive part looks like it is inspired by the Iraqi 'threat.' But it is clear that Saddam Hussein is not the real geopolitical rival to America and not the power that, in Condoleezza Rice's words, 'keeps part of the world in tyranny.' Iraq is not 'part of the world,' it is a very small piece."

Therefore, Menshikov polemicized, Russian strategists ignore the content of the U.S. doctrine at their peril. He develops this idea with a number of acerbic observations, including on the mental derangement of the authors of such a doctrine. Some Russians may be complacent about Washington's posture, he writes, because "Moscow has considered itself one of the centers of civilization for so long, that somebody else's claim to exclusivity does not look too unnatural around here. After all, the Soviet Union was spreading freedom for decades. If someone else wants to try, take your turn. The end will hardly be different." Secondly, because "such claims are now universally recognized as signs of mental disorder...."

Menshikov warned that if Russia were to go along with U.S.-prescribed "regime change" in Iraq, Russia might be next. He cites a recent Washington Post op-ed by the Carnegie Foundation's Michael McFaul, who argued (as quoted and paraphrased by Menshikov): "President Bush has ... [been] stating repeatedly that the United States has a strategic interest in regime change in Iraq. To make his case, Bush has a powerful historical experience to draw upon: the end of the Cold War. Regime change in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union fundamentally enhanced American national security. Unfortunately, the task of promoting democratic regime change in the former Soviet Union is not complete. In rightly focusing on how to promote democratic regimes in the Muslim world, the Bush Administration is failing to complete the consolidation of capitalism and democracy in the former communist world. To assume that this process of democratization and integration will march forward without American prodding is misguided."

Menshikov reported that McFaul mentioned Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia itself as places where Vladimir Putin is seen as a barrier to the "democratic process." Though McFaul is not a member of the U.S. government, Menshikov concludes, "This kind of logic should give the Russian elite the creeps. When the bell is tolling for Iraq it could also be tolling for U.S.-prodded regime changes in Moscow."

Treaty of Westphalia Principles, vs. U.S. as 'Latter-Day Roman Empire'

The latest event in the series of round tables called Postscriptum was held in Moscow Oct. 2, titled "Iraq, Georgia, the Bush Doctrine and Russian-American Relations." Participants ranged from Irina Khakamada of the Union of Right Forces to A. Mitrofanov of Zhinovsky's LDPR, but the most substantial contributions came from Andrei Fyodorov of the Foreign and Defense Police Council and Gen. Leonid Ivashov, the former Defense Ministry official who is now at the Geopolitical Studies Academy.

The moderator, named Pushkov, set the theme by saying that "Iraq is just a field where a very powerful worldwide trend is manifesting itself.... To prevent the United States becoming a latter-day Roman Empire, and to prevent the establishment of a Pax Americana is practically impossible. But there are empires and empires. Some empires have unlimited sway and some have limited sway. There are reasonable empires and unreasonable empires. The question is, what will the United States be like and accordingly, what will we be like? And the question is whether Vladimir Putin would like to become a governor of one of the provinces in this empire or to be a partner...?" Like many current Russian commentators, Pushkov focused in on Condoleezza Rice's recent presentation, in the Bush Administration's National Security Strategy document, of the "preemptive action doctrine."

Fyodorov, who had just returned from Washington, said, "We are talking about the formation of a new American empire, an empire that may last several decades and one should not entertain any illusions about it." What happens around Iraq is just a first step, "and one shouldn't entertain any illusions that Iraq will be a stumbling block for U.S. policy. We have come to a point, unfortunately, when Iraq is becoming politically more and more isolated, and I wouldn't be surprised if Russia abstains in the vote on the new resolution on Iraq." But after action against Iraq (which he claimed would be a quick job for the U.S.), Fyodorov warned that "the next target will be Iran," and that Russia had better expect to "be presented with an ultimatum, to shut down the Bushehr project or else."

"The new American empire will be built with temporary support from Russia," said Fyodorov, stressing, "Temporary. It needs Russia as long as Iraq exists," but not longer.

Ivashov developed his analysis through historical analogies, making the point that what the German Justice Minister was criticized for saying, about the similarity between Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf and current U.S. positions, is not far off the mark. "The Americans are gradually destroying the principles laid down by the Treaty of Westphalia and defined, after the Second World War, in the principles of the United Nations," Ivashov charged. Drawing out a comparison of ideological themes used by the Nazis with those used on behalf of "American interests" today, Ivashov proposed that Washington-London-Tel Aviv be seen as "the axis" on which an aggressive ideology hinges, just as Berlin-Rome-Tokyo became during World War II. Furthermore, Ivashov said, "I would even draw this parallel: Look, one of the methods of accomplishing those objectives ... was provocation—the setting of the Reichstag on fire, Sept. 11, and minor provocations. And then it is the buildup of the military component—it is the first strikes and one can mention Grenada, Panama, Iraq, then Yugoslavia, then Iraq back again and so on.

"As to how it all ended we are excellently informed. And I would also say a few words about the big similarity, incidentally, between Mein Kampf and the current U.S. strategy, or so far the draft strategy, of national security. The result of all this was the Second World War, and as to what will happen now, we can only make guesses. And of course the epilogue—which is the Nuremberg trials."

Ivashov proposed that the China-Russia-India relationship could serve as the basis for opposition to these designs: "What is the way out of this situation and what could be the conduct of Russia? It seems to me that the way out is quite obvious—it is pooling efforts to counteract such policy. It wouldn't be quite correct or logical to say that this is impossible. Today conditions exist for forming a normal geopolitical continental bloc centered around Russia, China, and other states which disagree with the present logic of U.S. behavior.

"In fact, the basis for this exists, it is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. We could also invite India to form a strategic triangle, Iran could immediately align itself with it and then some European states, perhaps Germany. I am not saying that this idea, the formation of such a bloc, can today prevent an aggression against Iraq. But it will erect a barrier in the way of such dangerous developments in the future."

The next speaker was spin doctor Gleb Pavlovsky, founder of Strana.ru and other media projects. He pitched a fit about Ivashov's remarks on the Treaty of Westphalia, in particular. Since the Nuremberg Trials and the Yalta Accords were already "violations of the Westphalia agreements," the latter are a dead letter and the "principle of absolute sovereignty" is long gone, raved Pavlovsky. He then praised the British dossier on Iraq and attacked Saddam Hussein as a major funder of "mega-terrorist acts carried out by suicide bombers."

Sharon's Moscow Meetings Nothing To Write Home About

Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon completed a hasty trip to Moscow, where he met Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov. Reports in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz indicate the meetings were not a success for Sharon.

Discussions were said to focus on Middle East issues. In his meeting with Putin, Sharon brought up the question of Russian backing of Iran's nuclear power industry. Putin replied that Russia's support of construction of Iran's first nuclear reactor was for peaceful purposes and was monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

As for Iraq, Putin told Sharon that Russia had initiated diplomatic moves leading to recent talks between Iraq and the UN over readmitting the weapons inspectors, and that Russia favored continuing the use of diplomatic means, and not military ones. Sharon is said to have told Putin that Israel would defend itself if Iraq were to attack Israel.

On the question of the peace process, Sharon told Putin that Israel would not compromise on the security of its citizens, saying, "The Jews have a small state ... and have the right to defend themselves." Putin responded that the Jews have another state, which is Birobijan, a Jewish autonomous province established by Stalin in 1934. He invited Sharon to visit the province with him (it is a remote district in Russia's Far East).

Sharon also met with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov for a discussion whose details were not released. Meanwhile Israel's Mossad chief, Ephraim Halevy, who attended the meeting between Sharon and Putin, visited Russian Security Council head V. Rushailo in the hospital, where he is recuperating from a near-fatal automobile accident.

All rights reserved © 2002 EIRNS