La pace ad ogni costo

1.

The US plan to invade Afghanistan and other Islamic countries, whose participation to the September 11 attacks on the US is neither proved nor confirmed by anyone.

2.

The main strategical task of the US in this situation is to clearly reconfirm in the eyes of the world community its leading situation in the world, seizing the right to violate all international rules and the state sovereignty of those countries which stand on the way of US national interests. The US demand full support to their initiative from all the states in the world (especially in Eurasia). Offering such support will be considered as the acknowledgement of the unipolar world, while refusing it – as a direct challenge thrown at the US. The rejection of the full American request is evaluated by the US government as a ‘declaration of war’ and ‘supporting international terrorism’. Without going deep into the question of the true authors of the attacks, we must unequivocally state: the US try to exploit the occurred tragedy in their avid interests, and – on the wave of international solidarity, emotion and human compassion – build and consolidate the strategic ‘new world order’, and their formal strategical, ideological and political supremacy in it.

3.

The choice of Afghanistan as the target of reprisal (although the initiative of Bin Laden in the organisation of the attacks is only supposed) fully and perfectly tallies with the strategy of Zbigniew Brzeszinski aimed at partitioning Eurasia, separating Russia from Middle Asia, creating around it an instability belt, a ring of low and medium intensity wars. The American strategy exploits the emergency situation in order to hasten the realisation of their strategic plans for world supremacy.

4.

Not long ago the same Talibani movement, created by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the CIA to counter Soviet troops and pro-Soviet regimes, served as an instrument of US geopolitical strategy in Middle Asia. Today the situation changes as to give the US the chance to immediately send troops into the region, strengthening their strategic control over it. Such situation is by far the most convenient to the US, since it allows to depend no more from their own talibani-puppets and directly seize strategic positions in Middle Asia. That American strategists are thinking in these very terms is best illustrated by the following example: the London newspaper The Independent (17.9.01) informs that Zbigniew Brzeszinski in 1998 acknowledged: ‘The US took part into Afghanistan civil war since its very beginning, or even earlier – before its beginning’. Again Brzeszinski says: ‘We did not directly push the Russians to intervene in Afghanistan, but we purposely and in every way increased the probability for that invasion to happen. This secret operation was an excellent idea. As a result we thrust the Russian into the Afghani trap. And you really want me to repent of this?’. Of course the replica of the ‘Afghan trap for the Russians’ (which already once brought to the collapse of the USSR and to the US victory in the ‘cold war’) would be again highly convenient to the US and deadly to Russia. Today it is just Brzeszinski who, more than others, insists about the necessity to involve Russia into war operations. The situation is definitely clear.

5.

The pressure exerted by the US on Russia and on the CIS countries separately, aimed – on the pretext of ‘common opposition to terrorism’ – at weakening Russia's geopolitical sovereignty, deprives Russia of the possibility to pursue an autonomous regional policy in the future. The strategic task of the US in the Middle-Asian region is to prevent the strengthening of a strategic, political, military, economic Eurasian bloc, which the CIS countries had almost reached in the present times.

6.

In the very near future the Russian government must define its answer to the de facto US ultimatum: whether to participate or not to war operations against Taliban. This issue cannot be solved on the basis of a purely juridical procedure – from every point of view this invasion from the US and their partners will not be legitimate, since even the officially recognised government of the Republic of Afghanistan (President Rabbani, forces of the Northern Alliance), most bitter enemy of the Taliban, is categorically against the American invasion. Russia must take a strategic, geopolitical, resolute, historical decision, from which will depend the future of our country, our people, the whole Eurasia.

7.

It is a known fact that within the Russian government there exist some influential groups, following a different geopolitical logic. One of these brings to a pro-American orientation of Russia, to its inclusion in the ‘club of the Atlantic Western states’. Of course this group insists that Russia should provide the US with military bases to strike against Afghanistan and enter by their side the anti-islamic ‘crusade’. This position is sometimes motivated with the ‘common Christian civilisation’, the fact of belonging to the ‘modern world’, to the ‘general cultural heritage’. This group today has much lesser influence than before, especially in the political sphere, but within the mass media and among the urban intelligentsia the pro-American inclination was to some extent preserved. And now they get the opportunity to raise their head.

8.

Another political group, which in the present situation may exert influence in the same key (in favour of Russian participation by the side of the US in the war against Taliban and other Islamic regimes) is composed by some representatives of the patriotic current and the heads of some ministries and offices linked to defence. They motivate their choice by saying that Russia in this case would have a ‘free hand’ to strongly counter Islamic extremism within Russia itself (Northern Caucasus, and especially Chechnya), thus blocking the northward expansion of the aggressive Taliban in Middle Asia. The tune of the suppression of the Talibani menace was played by the Americans during their talks with the President of Uzbekistan. These ‘patriotic’ partisans of the participation to war by the side of the US are led by short-term (and mostly imaginary) benefits, they do not consider (nor realise) the longer term geopolitical context. Therefore the same Chechen separatists, on their part, back up this position, having recently intensified their terrorist sorties. These help to create the atmosphere pushing the Russian government towards the American variant.

9.

Both mentioned groups, led by different reasons, push nevertheless in the same direction, i.e. causing Russia a heavy geopolitical damage, in a short term and especially in a long term perspective.

10.

The only right decision for Russia in this situation shall be :

– keeping full neutrality,

– co-operating with international intelligence organisations in the fight against terrorist groups and organisations,

– staying loyal to the multipolar world pattern, the orientation toward which is written in the most important strategic documents (and especially in the national security concept).

Russian participation to acts of war side by side with the US would practically mean rejecting the multipolar pattern and recognising the unipolar world headed by the US.

11.

In this situation the movement EURASIA considers it as its own duty to turn to the government of the Russian Federation, to the representatives of the ministries and offices, to the political parties and movements, to the society, to the mass media, to the intelligentsia, to the common people: the image of the future world is being decided in these days.

12.

If we accept now US hegemony, the historical responsibility for such liquidatory action will fall upon us all. The unipolar world is cruel, unfair, ugly and vicious. Let us face the truth: the world is at the threshold of the Third World War. And yet we have the chance to avoid the catastrophe. Condemning the terrorism of those who organised the New York tragedy, Russia must condemn the barbaric logic, unworthy of Christianity, of ‘an eye for an eye’, ‘terror for terror’. Today for us all as actual as ever is the slogan advanced by the American public opinion, protesting against the coming war: ‘Kill them with love’ (that is, not with missiles).

13.

All the efforts spent in strengthening the strategical, political, economic and cultural ties in Eurasia may collapse in the nearest future.

14.

We must stand firm in these difficult times.

15.

The movement EURASIA invites all parties and social forces to gather today around the President, the Government and the military leaders of our country.

16.

We also express our sincere solidarity to all those who, knowingly or instinctively, led by geopolitical consciousness or simply by common sense, insist today for peace, for the considered and pondered position of Russia. A special praise deserves the stoical and consequent line adopted in this issue by the Minister of Defence Sergey Ivanov, showing in these difficult days a deep and wise geopolitical consciousness.

17.

Neutrality today means salvation, means worthy deed, means heroism. We sincerely wish the Russian government to show its worth.

The Political Council of the All-Russian Political Social Movement EURASIA

Moscow, 17.9.2001

Trad. di M. Conserva