Month: June 2005

CONSTITUTION, LEGISLATION MEETING CE STANDARD TO OPEN NEW PROSPECTS
FOR ARMENIA’S DEVELOPMENT
YEREVAN, June 7. /ARKA/. The Constitution and legislation that meet
the CE standards will open new prospects for Armenia’s development,
the newly appointed Swedish Ambassador to Armenia Jugan Mulander
stated at his meeting with Speaker of the RA National Assembly Artur
Baghdasaryan. He expressed his country’s willingness to contribute to
reforms and development programs in Armenia. In his turn, Speaker
Baghdasaryan congratulated the Ambassador and informed him of the
reforms in Armenia. He pointed out that the country’s involvement in
the EU New Neighborhood program creates new opportunities for
democratic reforms and economic development. According to him, Armenia
needs both the experience and assistance of Sweden. P.T. -0–

Armenian speaker, Swedish envoy discuss ties
Arminfo
7 Jun 05
Yerevan, 7 June: The speaker of the Armenian National Assembly, Artur
Bagdasaryan, today received the newly-appointed Swedish ambassador to
Armenia, Johan Molander, and the Armenian ambassador to Sweden,
Vladimir Karmirshalyan.
During the meeting Bagdasaryan informed Molander of the reforms that
are under way in the country and touched on the process of
constitutional amendments. The Armenian speaker said that Armenia’s
inclusion in the programme Expanded Europe: New Neighbours is creating
new opportunities for democratic reforms and expansion of economic
development, the press service of the Armenian National Assembly
reported.
Bagdasaryan said that Armenia needed Swedish experience and
assistance, specifically in the sphere of legislation.
In turn, the Swedish ambassador to Armenia said his country was ready
to help Armenia in the processes of reforms and implementation of
development programmes. He believes that the constitution and
legislation which meet Council of Europe standards will open up new
prospects for the progress of Armenia and boost investment.
The sides also stressed the effective work of the Swedish Development
Agency in Armenia.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

WORLD FOOD PROGRAM TO ORGANIZE “FIGHT AGAINST HUNGER” ACTION
YEREVAN, JUNE 7. ARMINFO. Both the UN World Food Program (WFP) and the
TNT Organization on transportation of freight and mail announce on
conducting a procession with the aim to collect means for hungry
children in the world. The action will take place simultaneously in 90
countries. The PR specialist of the WFP Armenian office Marine Papyan
informed ARMINFO that everyone who wishes to contribute to this action
may be acquainted with details on or
Each visit to the site will
bring 19 American cents in favor of hungry children. The action
organizers plan to collect 2 mln euro or $2.5 mln. The WFP gives food
to 90 mln hungry children in 80 poor countries annually. To note, the
WFP has assisted to Armenia within the last 10-11 years; needy
families received more than $100 mln within this period. In 2005,
Armenia has already received $3.800 mln from the USA, $480.000 from
Sweden, $370.000 from Swiss, $163.000 from Netherlands and $43.382
from Canada on the WFP.

_schw/myasnikov.html
`How to Reconstruct a Bankrupt World’
Academician Vladimir S. Myasnikov
The Strategic Triangle of Russia,
China, and India: the Eurasian Aspect
March 21-23, 2003

Conference Declaration
Contact The Schiller Institute
Academician Vladimir S. Myasnikov addresses March 21-23 Bad Schwalbach
Conference

Dr. Myasnikov is an Academician of the Institute of Far Eastern
Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. His presentation to the
Schiller Institute International Conference at Bad Schwalbach, was
part of the March 22 panel on Eurasian development keynoted by Helga
Zepp-LaRouche. The speech is translated from the Russian by Tamara
Karganova; some subheads have been added.
A strange but probably logical recourse of events can be observed in
history. The advent of the 19th Century was marked by Napoleonic wars,
and the beginning of the 20th Century, by World War I. Now, at the
dawn of the 21st Century, we are witnessing the rapid lowering of the
security threshold for the whole world. Notwithstanding the clear
striving to peace manifested by a number of leading powers, the world
again finds itself at the brink of war. In his address of Jan. 28,
2003, Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, one of the most highly reputed and honest
analysts, quite correctly noted that bombing of Iraq and making the
latter a theater of hostilities could trigger a new world war and a
new great depression. Lyndon LaRouche once again emphasized that the
world would face an economic crisis more severe than the crisis of
1928-1933. However, Iraq is not the only potential trigger.
A recent report by the RAND Corporation, which presents “Conclusions
on Russia’s Decline … and Consequences for the U.S. and Its Air
Force,” says that “degradation” of Russia would affect the
U.S. interests directly or indirectly, and therefore it should be
suggested that the U.S. armed forces might be asked to help, and then
would have to operate in Russian territory or in the adjacent
areas. Incidentally, U.S. interests in the Russian theater of
international politics seem to be pretty much the same as in Iraq. As
noted by authors of the RAND report, Russia is a major producer and
supplier of energy resources, and a route for transit of oil and gas
from the Caspian region, which is defined as a key area for
U.S. national security interests.1
Finally, in 2001, Gordon G. Chang, a Chinese American, published his
book on The Coming Collapse of China.2 With his 20-year experience as
a legal counselor for a big American company in Shanghai, Gordon Chang
predicted that the Chinese state would collapse in the near-term
future. His forecast was based on the perceived inefficiency of
state-run enterprises, weaknesses and shortcomings of the banking
system in the P.R.C., as well as on the P.R.C. leaders’ alleged
inability to build an open democratic society.
So, let us try to visualize the global political scene in the near
future: The United States is hit by financial crisis; Russia’s
degradation is at the point when U.S. military interference is
required; while collapse of continental China shakes Asia and the
world at large. This would be a most gloomy scenario of international
developments in the first half of the 21st Century. To what extent it
is realistic will become clear quite soon. In this presentation, I
would like to address only those trends of international relations,
which’should they gain momentum’might prevent realization of the above
scenario.
Russia, China, and India
Can Guarantee Stability in Asia
The need to accomplish their respective reforms properly predetermines
a certain line of international behavior, pursued by the leaders of
Russia, China, and India. “Peace and Development,” the logo of the
P.R.C. foreign policy, is being pursued in the form of active work for
stability in East, Central, and Southeast Asia. As Eurasian powers,
Russia and India are interested in sustained strategic stability in
the whole of Eurasia. Visits by the Russian Federation President
Vladimir V. Putin to China and India in December 2002 have manifested
the shared positions of the three great powers with regard to major
problems of contemporary international relations. The contents of
Russia’s relations of strategic partnership with China and India are
becoming ever more specific.
By the 16th Congress of the ruling Chinese Communist Party, the team
of leaders headed by Jiang Zemin reached impressive results in the
sphere of foreign policy. These results serve as a good foundation for
international activities of the new team led by Hu Jingtao.
Such attainments include, but are not limited by, the following:
Treaty of Good-Neighborliness, Friendship, and Cooperation with
Russia; agreement on the free-trade zone with the ASEAN member-states;
normalization of relations with India; balanced condition of relations
with the United States and Japan; and, willingness to resolve border
issues with all neighbor countries within 20 years.
The new world environment offers opportunities for peaceful
coexistence and other universally recognized principles of
international law, which guarantee observation of national interests
to prevail in interstate relations. Exactly such principles serve as
the basis for the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness, Friendship, and
Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic
of China, signed by Russian Federation President Vladimir V. Putin and
P.R.C. President Jiang Zemin in Moscow on July 16, 2001. This Treaty
is of substantial importance’not only for Russia’s relations with its
great neighbor in Asia, but also for the whole complex of
international relations in the world of the 21st Century.
What is the reason to qualify this “treaty of the century,” as the
P.R.C. President Jiang Zemin put it, in the above terms?
First, the Moscow treaty restored the international legal and treaty
platform of Russian-Chinese relations that had been in existence for
three-plus centuries. Second, such restoration took place on a
qualitatively new basis, in conformity with the principles of
good-neighborliness, friendship, cooperation, equal trustful
partnership, and strategic interaction between the states in the 21st
Century. In this sense, the Moscow treaty, having summed up the
previous decade of constructive progress in good-neighborly relations
between Russia and China, has also paved new ways for their further
enhancement and development in the long-term perspective.
Third, for a long time already, Russian-Chinese relations have been
responsible for the general climate of international life. In the
given case, the treaty has laid the bases for regional stability in
East and Central Asia. And, finally, this instrument is the first
treaty of such magnitude in the new century. Having signed this act,
Russia and China substantially contributed to construction of the new
system of international relations, which is taking shape these days.
Russian-Chinese Treaty
The Treaty, with its systemic and comprehensive nature, has
established that Russia and China build their relations in compliance
with the universally recognized principles and norms of international
law’i.e., principles of mutual respect of sovereignty and territorial
integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in one another’s
domestic affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful
coexistence. In their mutual relations, the two parties would
repudiate the use of force or threat of force as well as other methods
of pressure, and would confirm their pledge of non-first use of
nuclear weapons and non-targeting strategic nuclear missiles against
one another. These commitments are especially meaningful in the new
circumstances, when the United States has seceded unilaterally from
the ABM Treaty.
With the proper respect of social, political, economic, and cultural
development of each party, Russia and China provide for long-term and
stable progress of relations between the two states. Based on their
respective national interests, Russia and China support one another in
issues pertaining to protection of the state unity and territorial
integrity for either party.
Article 6 in the Treaty is of exceptional importance, as it stipulates
that the Parties, “recording, with satisfaction, the absence of mutual
territorial claims, feel resolute to transform the border between them
into a border of eternal peace and friendship to be passed through
generations, and shall apply active efforts to this end.”
Russia and China are aware of the fact that arrogance of force in
international affairs could lead to irreparable
consequences. Therefore, they “stand in favor of strict observation of
universally recognized principles and norms of international law, and
against any actions, designed to exert force pressure or to interfere
in domestic affairs of sovereign states under any pretext whatsoever;
[they] intend to apply active efforts for consolidation of
international peace, stability, development and cooperation” (Article
11). As a follow-up of the Treaty provisions, Russian Federation
President Vladimir V. Putin set forth an initiative of building the
“arc of stability” in Eurasia.
Proceeding from this principal position, both states pledged to take
efforts in order “to enhance the central role of the UN as a most
highly-reputed and most universal international organization, formed
by sovereign states, in resolution of international affairs,
especially … in providing for the main responsibility of the UN
Security Council for sustaining international peace and security”
(Article 13).
The true democratization of international life suggests recognition of
the fact that a partner in international relations must be taken as
such, and that each state is entitled to select independently,
autonomously, and on the base of its specifics, the mode of
development without interference on the part of other states. With
this, differences in social systems, ideologies, and systems of values
must not impede development of normal state-to-state relations. All
countries, whether big or small, rich or poor, are equal members of
the international community, and none of them should seek hegemony,
purse a policy of force, and monopolize international affairs.
The new international order must not be imposed forcefully. More
generally, in order to establish the new comprehensive security
concept, it is necessary to eradicate the Cold War mentality and the
recidivisms of using some national armed forces beyond the national
territory.
As emphasized in Article 20 of the Moscow treaty, “the High
Contracting Parties, in compliance with their respective national laws
and international commitments, actively cooperate in the struggle
against terrorism, separatism and extremism, as well as in the
struggle against organized crime, illegal traffic of narcotic
substances, psychotropic substances and weapons, and other criminal
activities.” Certainly, struggle against international terrorism must
proceed most resolutely.
Action Against Terrorism
The context of terrorist acts that took place in several countries in
September and October 2002 serves as a basis for a conclusion that the
counter-terrorist operation, started in Afghanistan in 2001, did not
bring comfort to the world. On the contrary, terrorism building up its
muscles and attacking in various corners of the globe.
By all evidence, it is necessary to draw national programs of struggle
against international terrorism’for example, like the one developed by
Japan’s Prime Minister Koizumi in 2001. Further on, it might be
possible to draw regional programs for struggle against terrorism’like
the one tried by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)
member-states. For Northeast, East, and South Asia, such programs
might consider the experience accumulated in drafting the regional
security systems’with the only reservation that terrorism, being
well-organized and actively operating, would give us no respite, no
chance for slow action, and no opportunity for years-long negotiations
on the matter. Government structures must be better organized and more
active, must operate preventively to frustrate any possible plans and
attacks on the part of terrorists.
Finally, it seems necessary to hold a special session of the UN in
order to develop a comprehensive international counter-terrorist
program of action that would take account of political, economic,
legal, social, and national aspects of such phenomena as
terrorism. Russia, China, and India, for whom counter-terrorist
struggle is not merely a part of the international campaign but rather
an urgent national task, seem to be able to put forward their joint
initiatives on this issue on the international scene.
It should be noted, however, that’as evidenced by the course of
history’no “witch-hunt” could ever serve a basis for religion. By the
same logic, the “international terrorist-hunt,” too, cannot serve a
basis for contemporary international relations. For normal interaction
of states on the world scene, their activities must be put on a
healthy, positive, and constructive basis.
New World Order
As Chinese experts emphasize, the P.R.C. pursues a pragmatic foreign
policy, which meets the national interests of China. National
interests and their priorities are defined in the modern world on the
basis of reasonable national egoism. They are tightly connected with
provision of the given nation’s actual rights to political,
territorial, cultural, and linguistic freedom and autonomy, as well as
to equal co-existence with other nations.3
At the present time, national interests are closely connected with a
most acute issue of world policy’i.e., construction of a New World
Order. As evidenced by analysis of the concepts developed in this
sphere, they have nothing to do with purely theoretical designs, which
are always in stock with fans of scholastic discussions at
international conferences. The problem of building a new structure of
international relations is connected with national interests of all
states of the contemporary world. What is the core of the problem?
Addressing the attitudes of Russia, China, and India in this regard,
Sherman Garnett, an American political scientist, at the same time
discloses the main line of differences. In his view, all three states
feel more or less suspicious about the phenomenon, which appears as
the world order dominated by the United States. Each of the three
actors prefers one or another version of what was qualified in the
Russian-Chinese declaration of April 27, 1997 as the “multi-polar
world”; and they see such a world as a world which would give more
room for their respective national interests.4
Indeed, Russia, China, and India stand in favor of building a
polycentric world; i.e., a new structure of international relations
taking shape in the context of objective development conditions in
individual countries. This concept is supported by many states on
various continents, because it is designed to create optimal
conditions for realization of their national interests, and to provide
a new historical environment for the life of mankind in the new
century. Being renovated today, the system of global political,
economic, and cultural ties must be built on the basis of democratic
elements and principles of the UN Charter, as well as the fundamental
principles of international law. Meanwhile, it would be necessary to
consider all value orientations of each civilization, the regional
interests as well as national interests of any international actor.
Would it be possible to build a polycentric system of international
relations? In the view of Russia and China’the most active promoters
of this concept’the answer is “yes.” Both states proceed from the
understanding that by the end of the 20th Century, the post-Cold War
international relations have undergone profound changes. The two-pole
confrontational system has disappeared, to be replaced by the positive
trend for construction of a polycentric world. Changes are taking
place in relations between and among major states, including the
former adversaries in the Cold War. A growing number of countries
shares the understanding that their national interests must be
provided by equality and mutual benefit in international affairs,
rather than by hegemony and policy of force; by dialogue and
cooperation, rather than by confrontation and conflicts. Regional
organizations of economic cooperation play an ever more active role in
building a new peaceful, stable, fair, and rational international
order. Broad international cooperation becomes an urgent requirement
for realization of national and state interests.
Russia and China coordinate their plans for realization of such grand
projects of the 20th Century, as development of Western China; the
East-West and North-South international transport corridors;
construction of pipelines for downstreaming of hydrocarbon resources
from Russia to China; and the Eurasian Transcontinental Economic
Bridge. All these projects are tied directly to the central regions of
Eurasia.
Events of Sept. 11, 2001 in the United States
The New York explosions have caused a tangible effect on the course of
international affairs. The international environment, where states
operate as sovereign actors, has been made much more complex. Russia,
China, and India actively joined the anti-terrorist coalition and
supported the U.S. military action against the Taliban movement in
Afghanistan. Such support was, as well, manifested by the fact that
base airfields in the Asian states of the Commonwealth of Independent
States were provided for the U.S. Air Force transports. For the first
time in history, the U.S. Air Force came to be stationed in the
immediate vicinity of Russia’s and China’s strategic rears. In this
context, the above-cited forecast by the RAND Corporations appears
even more ominous.
In order to sustain stability in central Eurasia, Russia and China
have been and are exercising strategic partnership with Central Asian
countries, republics of the former Soviet Union. In April 1996,
Russia, China, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan held their summit
in Shanghai and signed the Agreement on military confidence-building
measures in the border area. Thus the five powers, nicknamed as
“Shanghai Five,” started their cooperation. In 1997, at their summit
in Moscow, leaders of the Five signed the even bigger-scale Agreement
on mutual reduction of armed forces across the former Soviet-Chinese
border.
The summit meetings of the Shanghai Five, held in Almaty (1998) and
Bishkek (August 1999), proved that these powers could interact quite
productively’both in the political sphere (in order to sustain
stability and to deter aggressive assault on the part of Islamic
extremists and terrorists in Central Asia), as well as in trade and
economic affairs.
On June 15, 2001, the Shanghai Five, convened in session at the
Shangri-la Hotel in Shanghai, admitted Uzbekistan as a new member and
was institutionalized as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO). At the same time, the SCO decided to set up its anti-terrorist
center in Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan. Finally, at its summit
meeting, held in St. Petersburg in July 2002, the SCO passed its
Declaration and Charter (the latter deemed as the organization’s
statute). The Secretariat of the SCO is headquartered in Beijing. The
organization is not closed, and offers the procedures for admission of
new participants in their capacity of attending observers or
full-fledged members.5
Mongolia, India, Iran, Pakistan, and even the United States express
certain interest in interaction with the SCO. In the view of Kazakstan
President Nursultan Nazarbayev, the SCO must become a body of
confidence and partnership among the member-countries, while Russia,
China, and India are to play a key role to this end.
At the signing of the SCO basic documents in St. Petersburg, President
Putin noted that requirements for admission of new members were
described in the statutory documents, and in principle, any country
that shared the principles of the SCO Charter could become a new
member. Moreover, Russia’s President said that India “was exploring
the possibility of a more detailed introduction in the SCO activities”
through Foreign Ministry channels. As noted by India’s Foreign
Minister Yashvant Sinha, “India believes that the SCO fulfills
important tasks, especially in the struggle against the threat of
terrorism. India is interested in joining the SCO and has notified
Russia and other member-states of her intention. Our membership in the
SCO does not depend on whether any other country is or is not going to
join this structure. We believe that India can contribute considerably
to the SCO activities. However, we realize as well that at the present
moment its admission regulations make it difficult to become a new
member. Nevertheless, we watch its activities attentively.”6
U.S. ‘Sole Superpower’
A most important strategic objective of the United States in the
continent of Eurasia is to prevent the growth of forces, which could
compete with American domination and therefore are qualified as
“hostile to the United States.” Such a force was represented, for
example, by the former Soviet Union. Now the United States sees a
threat to its interests in integration developments in the post-Soviet
space, as well as in the potential unpredictability of China’s policy
in case the latter is not “engaged” in the U.S.-tailored model of
international relations.
While addressing national interests, one cannot but devote some
attention to the new role of the United States in the contemporary
world.
Today the U.S. international strategy is based on the intention to
build a one-system’that is, actually, one-pole’world. In the given
case, one system means establishment of such regimes in the world as
would comply with the national security interests of the world’s
strongest military power. The old motto'”he who is not with us, is
against us”‘has been transformed into the notion of the “axis of
evil.”
Some experts (in particular, at the Schiller Institute) argue that the
United States has moved to build an empire by the model of ancient
Rome. This would mean division of the world into two parts, metropolis
and periphery. In order to sustain its domination, the metropolis
would keep the periphery in the condition of instability, leaving very
little, if any, room for strengthening either the entire periphery or
individual peripheral states. Those countries, which for one or
another reason cause concerns in the metropolis, would be subject to
preventive attacks by metropolitan armed forces.7
The U.S. military doctrine of such kind was elaborated as early as in
the early 1990s, right after the disintegration of the Soviet
Union. Today D. Rumsfeld, R. Cheney, and P. Wolfowitz, perceived as
active promoters of this doctrine, exert influence on President George
Bush along the relevant direction.
At the same time, however, experts from the Brookings Institution in
Washington argue that Sept. 11, 2001 opened a “post-post-Cold War
era,” in which the central role should belong to the “concert of
powers,” struggling against terrorism. In their view, the architecture
of the would-be system of international relations is not yet quite
clear, but it would hardly be the one-pole structure of the post-Cold
War period. However, in the nearest future the world would not be led
by a “global government,” represented, for example, by such an
international organization as the UNO. By all evidence, the concept of
a one-pole world is starting to lose support within the United
States’at least, at the experts’ level.8
>From the standpoint of Russia’s, China’s, and India’s national
interests, the most acceptable policy of the United States would be
one for the stabilization of international security. Such a policy
should not proceed from narrow self-interests of some group within
American ruling circles, but rather from true care about sustainable
peace that would correspond also to the U.S. national interests. In
this sense, the “concert of powers” theory may be considered as an
option of the “polycentric world” theory, which is accepted by the
three states as well.
New Silk Road Policy
As for the nations which the United States tries to make an object of
its policy, they, too, are not at all happy to play the offered
role. Along with active participation in the SCO, they are putting
forward broad initiatives for the system of international relations in
the 21st Century to be polycentric and aimed at economic reforms in a
peaceful environment. For example, in the Spring of 1999, Askar
Akayev, President of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan, published his
manifesto entitled “Silk Route Diplomacy,” which says: “Building of a
nuclear weapon free zone in Central Asia, discontinuing the arms race,
and converting defense production, as well as providing proper
conditions for sustainable development of all countries along the
Great Silk Route without exception’all these would give a reason to
hope that in the beginning of the 3rd Millennium, the [Silk] Route
region, with its enormous potential and resources, would be one of the
most prosperous and wealthy in the world; because problems, connected
with interests of all countries, would be resolved jointly; and all
obstacles to free movement of goods, capitals, services, and labor in
the whole area of the Route would be eliminated.
“There are sufficient grounds to suggest that all countries of the
Great Silk Route would apply maximal efforts to the effect that in the
new millennium, only positive impulses of creativity, peace, progress,
and prosperity would be generated from the region of the Route, which
is a vast space crossing the whole mainland of Eurasia from East to
West, and which unites the rich diversity of cultures, traditions, and
historic destinies.”9
This approach is accepted by a number of Asian and European states
that are interested in the grand project of the 21st Century’the
Trans-Continental Economic Bridge. In China, for example, this project
has been adopted as a government program. The project means to build a
high-tech-based network of high-speed transport and communications
lines in the expanses of Eurasia, and thus to unite Asian and European
nations in a new type of association for development. The central
purpose of such an association would be to build, through joint
efforts, an integrated super-modern infrastructure for transport,
energy, and communications, that would extend from the Pacific through
to the Atlantic, and thus provide a basis for rapid economic
development of the whole mass of Eurasia in the 21st Century.
As noted in the comprehensive expert assessment of this project,
“Having lived through geopolitical manipulations, alienation and
conflicts, as well as the ‘Great Game’ of the colonial powers, peoples
of the greatest continent have approached the opportunity to overcome
the chronic backwardness of Eurasian ‘inland areas’ with the help of
advanced technologies. For the first time in history, Eurasia, as an
integrated unit, would arrive at a quite clear economic reality,
composed by sovereign states intensively cooperating with one
another.”10
Coming back to Russia’s current strategic partnership with China and
India, it should be said that an important strategic objective in the
central part of Eurasia is the need to create and to sustain favorable
international conditions for successful realization of planned
reforms. This is a point of coincidence among major national interests
of Russia, China, and India, which is multiplied by the existing long
traditions of friendly ties in the spheres of economy, culture,
science, and technology. Lyndon LaRouche highlighted exactly this
point in his presentation of Dec. 3, 2001 in New Delhi; and exactly
this point provides a real opportunity for interaction among the three
Eurasian giants. However, in practice, the opportunity alone would not
be sufficient for such interaction, because the latter could take
place only in a certain international environment, which we have to
create and for which we shall have to struggle.
In the environment which is taking shape under the influence of other
powers, favorable factors work together with quite many unfavorable
ones, which could complicate and even frustrate interaction among the
three powers, and which are not generated exclusively by bilateral
relations within the “triangle.” So, let us try to systematize the
main unfavorable factors, and to weigh the real extent to which such
factors could jeopardize attainment of our common strategic objective.
Old and New Aspects of International Security
The first group of factors is connected with international security,
as well as its old and new aspects. All strategic threats’or, in the
given case, unfavorable factors’are embedded in the changed state of
international security. The trends that have generated the change have
been accumulated implicitly. The main aspects of the old security
structure (in the 1960s-1980s) were represented by the willingness: to
avoid nuclear war at the level of the two superpowers; to prevent the
growth of local conflicts and wars into a universal holocaust; to
block the proliferation of nuclear weapons; to solve the ecological
problems of the planet; and, to regulate the demographic explosion.
The disintegration of the Soviet Union activated development of some
old trends and generated new ones, such as: 1) So far, the reduction
of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems does not guarantee
against a nuclear war; 2) The proliferation of nuclear weapons could
not be stopped, and now the task is not so much to make such weapons
unavailable to states, but rather to individual terrorist
organizations and groups; 3) Ecological problems are mounting’both in
connection with the U.S. refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol, and in
connection with global climate change and the growing number of
technology-generated catastrophes; 4) By all the evidence, demographic
problems will be growing until the mid-21st Century, which is defined
as the final point of demographic transition (i.e., a global
self-regulating demographic process); 5) By that time, China’s
population, for example, would reach the mark of 1.6 billion; 6) The
two-pole structure of the world in general, and international security
in particular, is being replaced by a multi-polar structure of both,
which is taking shape in the struggle against the trend towards a
U.S.-led one-pole world; 7) Hence, there is reason to discuss the
United States as playing a new role, of a “brake” on the development
of international relations; 8) In the resolution of international
problems, evident attempts are being taken to regard domestic
legislation as higher than the UN Charter; 9) The creation of the EU
and the role of united Europe carry both positive and negative
potentials for the new system of international relations; 10) China
and India have appeared in the position of major world powers, and
their role will be growing; 11) As proved by the financial crisis of
1997-1998, the economic security of nations is no less important than
security in the military and political spheres; 12) The role of such a
factor of world development as the Islamic Revolution is growing
rapidly; and 13) Finally, factors have appeared such as international
terrorism, the international drug business, corruption and crime in
many spheres of human activity, etc., all of which serve as a reason
to discuss the process of criminal globalization. The above list of
factors could be crowned by the appearance of a worldwide
anti-globalist movement.
The second group of factors is connected with a struggle within the
United Nations and for the United Nations. The UN was established as a
collective guarantor of international security. Nowadays, we hear the
widely disseminated view that the UN is somehow outdated and lagging
behind rapidly developing international relations. To some extent,
this view seems correct’especially in the context of several
substantial failures of the UN in the last several years. The failures
include: the Yugoslavian crisis of 1999, when NATO was placed over the
UN; the year 2001, announced by the UN as the Year of Dialogue Among
Civilizations, and “creamed” by the events of Sept. 11 in the United
States; and, the resolution by the U.S. Congress allowing the
U.S. President to attack Iraq at his own discretion, neglecting the UN
resolutions and inspections. Today, if one asks the question as to
“Who is interested in the UN?” the answer will be: “Nobody but,
probably, Taiwan, who wants to be back in there” However, to bury the
UN would be premature.
Along with the ever more frequent neglect of the UN on the part of the
United States and NATO, several objective factors, too, are
responsible for weakening the UN’s role.
First, apart from the five leading countries’being the UN founders and
permanent members of its Security Council’a group of other important
actors has appeared on the world scene, and hence in the UN. These
countries’India, Japan, Brazil, Germany, and Canada’seek to strengthen
their positions in the United Nations. Reorganization of the UN
structure has been on the agenda for several years already, but so
far, consensus on this issue seems to be quite distant from
now. Second, there are a number of new multinational associations
(European Union) and international organizations’both regional (for
example, APEC) and specialized (OPEC, WTO). Regular summit and
ministerial meetings within the framework of such organizations
somehow dissolve the need to delegate a number of problems to the
UN. At the same time, informal but regular summits of the G-8 or
Asia-Europe also remove many issues from the UN agenda.
It appears that along with reorganization of the UN structure, the
authority of this organization as the only world-scale forum to
address the problems of international security could be enhanced by
such measures, as: to conduct the G-8 summit at the UN’while resolving
global issues, the G-8 must not isolate itself from the rest of the
world, because otherwise it would place itself in confrontation with
many states and with many movements; to continue the Year of Dialogue
Among Civilizations and, to this end, to select the UN as the venue
for the Asia-Europe summit, Islamic Conference Summit, and Conference
on Islam and Europe (the latter planned to take place in Spain); to
conduct the APEC and OPEC summits within the framework of the UN; to
hold a special session of the UN General Assembly that would address
unification of all forces in the struggle against international
terrorism (as discussed above).
The UN could make all the above-listed summits more transparent for
the world public, and thus create an atmosphere of better confidence
in the world. Such Eurasian powers as Russia, China, and India are
interested, probably more than others, in the UN being again an
efficient instrument of peace for the world community, and this is one
of their shared positions, where they have started to apply
coordinated efforts.
Economic Crisis, New Bretton Woods
The third group of unfavorable factors is connected with the economic
aspects of international security. In the new system of international
relations at the dawn of this century, the economic component has
grown considerably. This growth has been predetermined by three
elements: 1) the objective course of globalization; 2) depletion of
world energy resources: and, 3) global ecology problems’such as the
shortage of freshwater and depletion of soils.
Apart from these rather obvious factors, there are factors, which are
not very visible for the broad public, but which could blow up all
economic ties in the world. By this, I mean the condition of global
finance.
The situation is presented most fully and clearly in the Resolution of
Sept. 25, 2002, passed by the Italian National Parliament, with regard
to authorizing the government to take measures that would help
Argentina to overcome the crisis. The Parliament proceeded from
recognition of the fact that escalation of the banking and financial
crisis, which started from crises of 1997 in Asia, Russia, and Latin
America, and has lasted through to the recent failure of the “new
economy” in the United States, the massive and, so far, lasting
banking collapse in Japan, and the bankruptcy of Argentina, cannot but
cause concern in all countries’among the population, ruling classes,
companies, investors, and depositors’because this is not some chance
string of events, but rather expresses the crisis of the entire
[global] financial system, marked by the staggering gap between the
volume of speculative capital’worth $400 trillion ($140 trillion of
which the United States accounts for)’and a world gross product worth
only $40 trillion.
This is exactly the delayed-action mine laid within the international
financial system. The authors of the above-cited parliamentary
resolution consider it necessary to convene a new Bretton Woods-like
international conference that would address the adaptation of IMF and
IBRR [World Bank] activities to the new conditions. The evident task
of such a conference would be to free European countries from the
dependence on the U.S. dollar, in connection with enactment of the
euro, and to try to provide the same international parity for the euro
as the one that was provided at Bretton Woods for the U.S. dollar. The
nearest future will show if these efforts help to save the world from
the so-called “vampire capital”‘i.e., the continuously growing
speculative capital, which is capable of causing damage not only to
individual national economies, but to entire regional economies,
too. So far, however, all countries should be prepared for a sudden
and painful attack on the part of that vampire.
Such preparations seem to be a reasonable element of interaction among
Russia, China, and India within the framework of their constructive
partnership. The prospects for interaction in the 21st Century among
such countries as Russia, China, other SCO member countries, and
India, Mongolia, Iran’i.e., the countries that historically are
connected with the center of Eurasia’are not at all exhausted by the
vectors addressed in this presentation. Certainly, interaction of all
these countries must be put on the solid platform of economic and
science-technology cooperation.
——————————————————————–
Footnotes
——————————————————————–

[1] This theory was voiced as early as July 1997, when the U.S. Senate
Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on Washington’s policy
vis-à-vis “eight new independent states of Caucasus and Central
Asia”‘i.e., Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. According to the main
conclusion of those hearings, these republics would form a sphere of
U.S. priority interests. Such a conclusion was predetermined, first
and foremost, by the extremely rich Caspian oil and gas deposits,
comparable to the hydrocarbon resources of the Persian Gulf. In the
Caspian, the United States considers Russia and Iran as its main
competitors, while Turkey is seen in Washington as a potential ally or
tool of its policy.
[2] Gordon G. Chang, The Coming Collapse of China (New York: Random
House, 2001).
[3] V.S. Shevtsov, Gosudarstvennyi suverenitet’voprosy teorii (State
Sovereignty’Questions of Theory) (Moscow: 1979), pp. 167-168.
[4] Sherman Garnett, Influencing Transition States: Russia. China, and
India; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Project on “Foreign
and Security Policy Problems,” Program on Asian Security (Washington,
D.C.: July 1998), p. 3.
[5] For SCO documents, see: Far Eastern Affairs, 2002, No. 4.
[6] Vremya novostei, Feb. 19, 2003, p. 5. (As the original English
text of the speech by the Indian Foreign Minister was not available,
the above quotation is translated from Russian.)
[7] Such a U.S. strategy was outlined by Alexander Oslon, President of
the Obshchestvennoye mneniye (Public Opinion Foundation), in a book
published right after the events of Sept. 11, Amerika: vzglyad iz
Rossii, Do i posle 11 sentyabrya (America: View from Russia, Before
and After September 11) (Moscow: 2001), p. 14.
[8] Brookings Northeast Asia Survey: 2001-2002 (Washington, D.C.:
2002), p. 4.
[9] A. Akayev, Diplomatiya Shelkovogo Puti (Silk Route Diplomacy)
(Bishkek: 1999), pp. 1-3.
[10] V.S. Myasnikov, “Kontinentalnyi most’proyekt XXI veka”
(Continental Bridge: Project of the 21st Century), Metally
Evrazii. Natsionalnoye obozreniye, 1997, No. 3, p. 8

onf_feb_1994_wgt.html

Schiller Institute/ICLC Conference
“The Palmerston Zoo”
Feb. 1994

This report is adapted from presentations delivered to the Conference
of the Schiller Institute/ICLC Conference in suburban Washington, DC.,
on President’s Day weekend, 1994. See Solving the Paradox of Current
World History” for the setting of the following articles. It was
published as a special report by EIR, and is available in photocopy.
Contact Schiller Institute at email or phone numbers listed below.

INTRODUCTION
Speaking from the vantage point of Lord Palmerston’s British Empire
circa 1850, Schiller Institute U.S. President Webster Tarpley chaired
the panel on “Lord Palmerston’s Multicultural Zoo” at the Schiller
Institute’s conference on Feb. 20. Tarpley served as tour guide
through the centuries, and as the “choral” backdrop to the
historical drama, introducing each of the seven speakers in turn and
concluding the panel. What follows is Tarpley’s
introduction. Subtitles have been added.

Lord Palmerston

I am now standing in the shadow of the Houses of Parliament in the
part of London called Westminster. It is the year of grace
1850. Around me lies Victorian London, the London of Dickens and
Thackeray, of John Stuart Mill and Thomas Carlyle. This capital city
is now the center of the greatest colonial empire the world has ever
known, shortly to embrace between one-fifth and one-fourth of the
total population and land area of the Earth. Although in theory there
are still empires ruled by the French, the Spanish, the Portuguese,
the Dutch, the Belgians, and the Danes, all of these, in this year of
1850, are but the satellites of the British Empire. Britain is the
mistress of the seas, the empire upon which the sun never sets. It is
the new Rome on the banks of the Thames.
The empress is Queen Victoria, who is largely occupied with Prince
Albert in her business of breeding new litters of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to
take over the royal houses of Europe. A quarter-century from now
Victoria will be made empress of India to reward her for so much
breeding. But for all of Victoria’s wealth and power, Britain is not
really a monarchy; it is an oligarchy on the Venetian model, and the
most powerful leader of the British oligarchy in these times, between
1830 and the end of the American Civil War, is Lord Palmerston.
Henry Temple, the third Viscount Palmerston. Palmerston is the man the
others–the Russells, Disraelis, and Gladstones–simply cannot
match. Palmerston was first a Tory, then a Whig, always a disciple of
Jeremy Bentham, and for 35 years there is scarcely a cabinet without
Palmerston as foreign secretary or prime minister. In London they call
him Lord Cupid, a Regency buck always on the lookout for a new
mistress, perfectly at home in a ménage ô trois. On the continent they
call him Lord Firebrand. The schoolboys of Vienna sing that if the
devil has a son, that son is Lord Palmerston. “Pam” is an occultist
who loves Satanism and seances. And here, between Big Ben and the
Foreign Office, are the haunts of this nineteenth-century devil, Lord
Palmerston, old Pam.
A New Roman Empire
It is 1850. Lord Palmerston is engaged in a campaign to make London
the undisputed center of a new, worldwide Roman Empire. He is
attempting to conquer the world in the way that the British have
already conquered India, reducing every other nation to the role of a
puppet, client, and fall-guy for British imperial policy. Lord
Palmerston’s campaign is not a secret. He has declared it here in the
Houses of Parliament, saying that wherever in the world a British
subject goes, he can flaunt the laws, secure that the British fleet
will support him. “Civis Romanus sum, every Briton is a citizen of
this new Rome,” thundered Lord Palmerston, and with that, the
universal empire was proclaimed.
During the Napoleonic Wars, the British managed to conquer most of the
world outside of Europe, with the exception of the United
States. After 1815, the French–be they restored Bourbons, Orleanists,
or Bonapartists–are generally pliant tools of London.
But in central and eastern Europe, there was Prince Metternich’s
Austrian Empire, a very strong land power. There was vast Imperial
Russia, under the autocrat Nicholas I or the reformer Alexander
II. There was the Kingdom of Prussia. Lord Palmerston likes to call
these the “arbitrary powers.” Above all, Palmerston hated
Metternich, the embodiment and ideologue of the Congress of Vienna
system. Metternich presided over one of the most pervasive police
states in history. Men said his rule was shored up by a standing army
of soldiers, a sitting army of bureaucrats, a kneeling army of
priests, and a creeping army of informers.
For Britain to rule the world, the Holy Alliance of Austria, Russia,
and Prussia had to be broken up. There is also the matter of the
dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. Starting with Lord Byron’s Greek
Revolution in the 1820s, British policy has been to play the card of
national liberation against each of these rival empires.
The imperial theme was sounded in 1846 with the free trade policy,
Britain’s declaration of intent to loot the world in the name of the
pound. Then, in January 1848, Lord Palmerston arranged an insurrection
in Sicily, using British networks that went back to Lord Nelson.
That started the great revolutionary year of 1848, and in the course
of that year, every government in Europe was toppled, and every
monarchy badly shaken, at least for a time. Metternich of Austria and
King Louis Philippe of France fled to London, where they now spend
their time playing cards. There was war in Italy, civil war in
Austria, barricades in Paris, and tumult in Germany.
The only exception to the rule was Russia, and now Lord Palmerston is
preparing to invade Russia, with the help of his strategic catamite,
Napoléon III, also known as Napoléon le Petit. That will start in
about three years, and it will be called the Crimean War. As soon as
the war against Russia is over, Palmerston and John Stuart Mill at the
British East India Company will start the Great Mutiny in India, which
some historians will call the Sepoy Rebellion. Muslim soldiers will be
told that new cartridges are greased with pig fat, Hindu soldiers will
be told the cartridges are greased with cow fat, and the result will
be what you would expect. But in the conflagration the British will
get rid of the Great Mogul and the Mogul Empire, and impose their
direct rule in all of India. Typical John Stuart Mill. He, of course,
is the author of “On Liberty.”
The British would like to give China the same treatment they are
giving India. Since 1842, Palmerston and the East India Company have
been waging Opium Wars against the Chinese Empire, partly to get them
to open their ports to opium from India, and also as a way to conquer
China. Already the British have Hong Kong and the other treaty
ports. By 1860, the British will be in Beijing, looting and burning
the summer palace of the emperor.
Shortly after that, the British will back Napoléon in his project of
putting a Hapsburg archduke on the throne of an ephemeral Mexican
Empire–the Maximilian Project. These projects will be closely
coordinated with Palmerston’s plans to eliminate the only two nations
still able to oppose him–the Russia of Alexander II and the United
States of Abraham Lincoln. Lord Palmerston will be the evil demiurge
of the American Civil War, the mastermind of secession, far more
important for the Confederacy than Jefferson Davis or Robert
E. Lee. And in the midst of that war, Palmerston will detonate a
rebellion in Poland against Russian rule, not for the sake of Poland,
but for the sake of starting a general European war against Russia.
But when the Russian fleets sail into New York and San Francisco, when
Lee’s wave breaks at Gettysburg, when the Stars and Bars are lowered
over Vicksburg, the British Empire will be stopped–just short of its
goal. Just short–and yet, British hegemony will still be great enough
to launch the two world wars of the twentieth century, and the third
conflagration that will start in 1991. And as we look forward for a
century and a half from 1850, British geopolitics, despite the
challenges, despite the defeats, despite the putrefaction of Britain
itself, will remain the dominant factor in world affairs.
Palmerston’s Three Stooges
How do the British do it? How can a clique of depraved aristocrats on
this tight little island bid to rule the entire world? Don’t believe
the stories about the workshop of the world; there are some factories
here, but Britain lives by looting the colonies. The fleet is
formidable, but also overrated, and very vulnerable to serious
challenges. The army is third-rate. But the British have learned from
the Venetians that the greatest force in history is the force of
ideas, and that if you can control culture, you can control the way
people think, and then statesmen and fleets and armies will bend to
your will.
Take our friend Lord Palmerston. Pam has the Foreign Office, the Home
Office, and Whitehall, but when he needed to start the 1848
revolutions, or when the time will come for the American Civil War, he
turns to a troika of agents.
They are Lord Palmerston’s Three Stooges. But instead of Moe, Larry,
and Curly, these Three Stooges are named Giuseppe Mazzini, Louis
Napoléon Bonaparte, and David Urquhart. These Three Stooges–far more
than the Union Jack, Victoria, the bulldog breed, the thin gray line
of heroes, and the fleet–are the heart of what is called the British
Empire.
We will get to know Lord Palmerston’s Three Stooges better. But first,
one thing must be understood. Moe, Larry, and Curly often had to work
together on this or that project. But their relations were never
exactly placid.
[Slapstick episode from a “The Three Stooges” movie is shown to the
audience.]
You understand: Their stock in trade was infantile violence. So do not
be surprised if we find Palmerston’s Three Stooges lashing out with
slanders, knives, and bombs against each other, and even against their
august master, Lord Palmerston himself.
Under Lord Palmerston England supports all revolutions–except her
own–and the leading revolutionary in Her Majesty’s Secret Service is
Giuseppe Mazzini, our first Stooge.
Mazzini’s terrorist revolution
Mazzini has concocted a very effective terrorist belief
structure. Mazzini is a Genoese admirer of the diabolical Venetian
friar Paolo Sarpi. Mazzini’s father was a physician to Queen
Victoria’s father. For a while Mazzini worked for the Carbonari, one
of Napoléon’s freemasonic fronts. Then, in 1831, Mazzini founded his
Young Italy secret society. Louis Napoléon Bonaparte, today’s
President of France, sent him articles for his magazine. Mazzini’s cry
is “God and the People,” “Dio e Popolo,” which means that the
people are the new God. Populism becomes an ersatz religion. Mazzini
teaches that Christianity developed the human individual, but that the
era of Christianity, of freedom, of human rights, is now over. From
now on, the protagonists of history are not individuals any more, but
peoples, understood as racial nationalities. Mazzini is adamant that
there are no inalienable human rights. There is only Duty, the duty of
thought and action to serve the destiny of the racial
collectivities. “Liberty,” says Mazzini, “is not the negation of
all authority; it is the negation of every authority that fails to
represent the Collective Aim of the Nation.” There is no individual
human soul, only a collective soul. According to Mazzini, the Catholic
Church, the papacy, and every other institution which attempts to
bring God to man must be abolished. Every national grouping that can
be identified must be given independence and self-determination in a
centralized dictatorship. In the coming century, Mussolini and the
Italian Fascists will repeat many of Mazzini’s ideas verbatim.
Mazzini thinks that each modern nation has a “mission”: The British
would take care of Industry and Colonies; the Poles, leadership of the
Slavic world; the Russians, the civilizing of Asia. The French get
Action, the Germans get Thought, and so forth. For some strange
reason, there is no mission for Ireland, so Mazzini does not support
the independence of Ireland. There is only one monarchy which Mazzini
supports, because he says it has deep roots among the people: You
guessed it, Queen Victoria.
Mazzini preaches an Italian revolution for the Third Rome: After the
Rome of the Caesars and the Rome of the Popes comes the Rome of the
People. For this, the pope must be driven out. Mazzini has tried to
put this into practice just last year. In November 1848, armed Young
Italy gangs forced Pope Pius IX to flee from Rome to Naples. From
March to June of 1849, Mazzini ruled the Papal States as one of three
dictators, all Grand Orient Freemasons. During that time, death squads
operated in Rome, Ancona, and other cities. Some churches were sacked,
and many confessionals were burned. For Easter 1849, Mazzini staged a
monstrous mock Eucharist in the Vatican he called the Novum Pascha,
featuring himself, God, and the People. During this time he was
planning to set up his own Italian national church on the Anglican
model.
The defense of Rome was organized by Giuseppe Garibaldi, who had
joined Mazzini’s Young Italy in the early 1830s. But a French army
sent by fellow Stooge Louis Napoléon drove out Mazzini, Garibaldi, and
their supporters. Lord Palmerston said that Mazzini’s regime in Rome
was “far better than any the Romans have had for centuries.”
Right now Mazzini is here in London, enjoying the support of Lord
Ashley, the Earl of Shaftesbury, a Protestant fanatic who also happens
to be Lord Palmerston’s son-in-law. Mazzini’s direct access to the
British government payroll comes through James Stansfeld, a junior
Lord of the Admiralty and a very high official of British
intelligence. Last year, Stansfeld provided the money for Mazzini’s
Roman Republic. Stansfeld’s father-in-law, William Henry Ashurst, is
another of Mazzini’s patrons, as is John Bowring of the Foreign
Office, the man who will provoke the second Opium War against
China. Bowring is Jeremy Bentham’s literary executor. John Stuart Mill
of India House is another of Mazzini’s friends. Mazzini is close to
the protofascist writer Thomas Carlyle, and has been having an affair
with Carlyle’s wife.
One of Metternich’s henchmen has said that Palmerston’s policy is to
make Italy turbulent, which is bad for Austria, without making her
powerful, which would harm England. Mazzini’s role in Italy has been
that of a marplot, a wrecker, a terrorist, an assassin. His specialty
is sending his brainwashed dupes to their deaths in terrorist
attacks. He hides out and always succeeds in saving himself. Mazzini
travels readily on the continent using false passports, posing as an
American, an Englishman, a rabbi.
In the thirties and forties, Mazzini was targeting Piedmont in the
north, and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in the south. In 1848, he
rushed to Milan as soon as the Austrians had been driven out and tried
to start trouble. One of Mazzini’s agents, General Ramorino, let the
Austrian commander Radetzky outflank the Piedmontese and win the
battle of Novara. Ramorino was executed for treason, but Piedmont had
lost the first war for Italian liberation. The king abdicated, and
Mazzini tried to break up Piedmont with a revolt in Genoa. Three years
from now, Mazzini will stage an abortive revolt against the Austrians
in Milan, mainly to stop Russia from allying with Austria in the
Crimean War. A few years after that Mazzini will try another
insurrection in Genova, still trying to break up Piedmont. In 1860, he
will encourage Garibaldi to sail to Sicily, and then try to provoke a
civil war between Garibaldi’s dictatorship in the south and Cavour’s
Piedmontese government in the north. In 1860, he will be thrown out of
Naples as a provocateur. By that time, Mazzini will be a hated and
reviled figure, but British propaganda and British support will keep
him going.
Mazzini is also an assassination bureau. In 1848, there was a chance
that Pius IX’s very capable reforming minister Pellegrino Rossi could
unify Italy and solve the Roman Question in a constructive way,
through an Italian confederation, chaired by the pope, arranged with
Gioberti, Cavour, and other Piedmontese. Mazzini’s agents, members of
Young Italy, stabbed Pellegrino Rossi to death. The killer was in
touch with Lord Minto, Palmerston’s special envoy for Italy.
Stooge violence between Mazzini and Napoléon III is always intense,
especially after Napoléon’s army finished off Mazzini’s Roman
Republic. In 1855, a Mazzini agent named Giovanni Pianori will attempt
to kill Napoléon III, and a French court will convict Mazzini. Have
Napoléon’s forces outshone the bungling British in the Crimea? Are the
British nervous about Napoléon’s new ironclad battleship, when they
have none? Attempts to kill Napoléon are financed by the Tibaldi Fund,
run by Mazzini and set up by Sir James Stansfeld of the Admiralty.
Later, in February 1858, there will be an attempt to blow up Napoléon
by one of Mazzini’s closest and best-known lieutenants from the Roman
Republic, Felice Orsini. Napoléon will get the message that it is time
to get busy and start a war against Austria in 1859.
At other times, Mazzini tried to kill King Carlo Alberto of
Piedmont. Mazzini’s Young Italy is always the party of the dagger, of
the stiletto. “In the hands of Judith, the sword which cut short the
life of Holofernes was holy; holy was the dagger which Harmodius
crowned with roses; holy was the dagger of Brutus; holy the poniard of
the Sicilian who began the Vespers; holy the arrow of Tell.” Vintage
Mazzini. London’s future ability to assassinate men like Walter
Rathenau, Jürgen Ponto, Aldo Moro, Alfred Herrhausen, Detlev
Rohwedder, stretches back in unbroken continuity to the Mazzini
networks of today.
Mazzini is actually doing everything he can to prevent Italian
unity. When unity comes, 20 years from now, it will come in the form
of a highly centralized state dominated by Grand Orient
Freemasons. For 30 years the prime ministers will be Mazzini’s agents,
like DePretis and Crispi. Because of the violent liquidation of the
Papal States, the Catholics will refuse to take part in
politics. Italy will remain weak, poor, and divided. After Mussolini,
the Italian Republican Party will identify with Mazzini, and Ugo
LaMalfa and his friends will continue Mazzini’s efforts to make sure
that Italy is weak and divided, bringing down one government after
another, and ruining the economy.
Palmerston’s London During the 1850’s — A Tour of the Human
Multicultural Zoo

The Ethnic Theme Parks of Mazzini’s Zoo
Mazzini’s work for the British extends far beyond Italy. Like the
Foreign Office and the Admiralty which he serves, Mazzini encompasses
the world. The Mazzini networks offer us a fascinating array of
movements and personalities. There are agents and dupes, professional
killers, fellow-travelers, and criminal energy types. Mazzini’s court
of miracles was a public scandal. Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, now
the king of Belgium, has been complaining to his niece Queen Victoria
that in London there is maintained “a sort of menagerie of Kossuths,
Mazzinis, Legranges, Ledru-Rollins, etc. … to let loose occasionally
on the continent to render its quiet and prosperity impossible.”
Indeed. On Feb. 21, 1854, this crew will come together at the home of
the American consul, George Sanders: Mazzini, Felice Orsini,
Garibaldi, Louis Kossuth, Arnold Ruge, Ledru-Rollin, Stanley Worcell,
Aleksandr Herzen, and U.S. traitor and future President James
Buchanan. There will also be a Peabody from the counting house.
We can think of Mazzini as the zookeeper of a universal human
zoo. Mazzini’s human zoo is divided into theme parks or pavilions, one
for each ethnic group. In a normal zoo there is an elephant house, a
monkey house, an alligator pond, and the like. In Mazzini’s human zoo
there is an Italian house, a Russian house, a Hungarian house, a
Polish house, an American house. Let us walk through the various theme
parks in the zoo and identify some of the specimens.
Young Italy, as we have seen, was founded in 1831, attracting the
young sailor Giuseppe Garibaldi and Louis Napoléon. Shortly thereafter
there followed Young Poland, whose leaders included the
revolutionaries Lelewel and Worcell. Then came Young Germany,
featuring Arnold Ruge, who had published some material by an obscure
German “red republican” named Karl Marx. This is the Young Germany
satirized by Heinrich Heine. In 1834, Mazzini founded “Young
Europe,” with Italian, Swiss, German, and Polish components. Young
Europe was billed as the Holy Alliance of the Peoples, opposed to
Metternich’s Holy Alliance of despots. By 1835, there was also a Young
Switzerland. In that same year Mazzini launched Young France. The
guiding light here was Ledru-Rollin, who later became the interior
minister in Lamartine’s short-lived Second French Republic of
1848. There was also Young Corsica, which was the mafia.
By the end of this century we will have a Young Argentina (founded by
Garibaldi), Young Bosnia, Young India, Young Russia, Young Armenia,
Young Egypt, the Young Czechs, plus similar groupings in Romania,
Hungary, Bulgaria, and Greece. Mazzini is especially interested in
creating a south Slavic federation dominated by Belgrade, and for that
reason, he has a Serbian organization. That will have to wait for
Mazzini’s student Woodrow Wilson and the Versailles peace conference
of 1919. Right now, a masonic group in the United States is gearing up
to support the pro-slavery doughface Franklin Pierce for President in
1852; they are the radical wing of the Democratic Party, and they call
themselves Young America. In the future there will be the Young
Turks. And yes, there is also a Palmerston-Mazzini group for Jews,
sometimes called Young Israel, and sometimes called B’nai B’rith.
For Mazzini, a nationality means a race, a fixed array of behavior
like a breed of dog or a species of animal. He is not thinking of a
national community united by a literate language and a classical
culture to which any person can become assimilated through a political
choice. For Mazzini, race is unchangeable, and race is destiny. It is
a matter of blood and soil. Cats fight dogs, French fight Germans,
Germans fight Poles, and so on through all eternity. These hatreds are
the main datum of sensory perception.
Each of Mazzini’s organizations demands immediate national liberation
for its own ethnic group on the basis of aggressive chauvinism and
expansionism. Mazzini’s warhorse is the Territorial Imperative. Each
is obsessed with borders and territory, and each finds a way to oppose
and sabotage dirigist economic development. Each one is eager to
submerge and repress other national groupings in pursuit of its own
mystical destiny. This is Mazzini’s racist gospel of universal ethnic
cleansing.
We have seen some Italian cages; next comes the Hungarian theme park
in the zoo. Our principal specimen here is Louis Kossuth, a leader of
the Hungarian revolution of 1848-49. Kossuth was for free trade. He
wanted equal status for Hungarians in the Austrian Empire–equal with
the Austrians. But within the Hungarian part of the Hapsburg Empire
there were many other national groups–Poles, Ukrainians, Germans,
Serbs, Romanians, Croatians, and others. Would they receive political
and linguistic autonomy? Kossuth’s answer was to ban all official use
of the Slavic and Romanian languages in favor of Hungarian. Kossuth
was therefore on course for a bloody collision with the Illyrian
movement for Greater Croatia, and with the military forces of the
Croatian leader Jellacich. There was also conflict with the
Serbs. Mazzini had promised the same territories to Hungary, to the
Illyrian Croatians, and to his Serbian south Slav entity. Then there
was the question of Transylvania, claimed by the Hungarians but also
by the Young Romania of Dimitirie Golescu, another Mazzini
agent. Young Romania’s program was to restore the Kingdom of Dacia as
it had existed before the Roman Emperor Trajan. So Young Hungary and
Young Romania were pre-programmed to fight to the death over
Transylvania, which they did, last year. Because of the ceaseless
strife of Hungarians and Croatians, Hungarians and Serbians,
Hungarians and Romanians, it proved possible for the Hapsburgs to save
their police state with the help of a Russian army.
The ethnic theme houses of the zoo thus sally forth to fight, not only
Hapsburgs and Romanovs, but most of all, each other. We will find the
same thing in viewing the Polish and Russian pavilions.
The Young Poland of Lelewel and Worcell demands the re-creation of the
Polish state and rollback of the 1772-95 partitions of Poland. But
they go much further, laying claim to Poland in its old Jagiellonian
borders, stretching from the shores of the Baltic to the shores of the
Black Sea. This includes an explicit denial that any Ukrainian nation
exists. In the orbit of Young Poland is the poet Adam Mickiewicz, a
close friend of Mazzini’s who was with him last year during the Roman
Republic. Mickiewicz argues that Poland is special because it has
suffered more than any other nation; Poland is “the Christ among
nations.” Mickiewicz dreams of uniting all the west and south Slavs
against the “tyrant of the north,” the “barbarians of the north.”
By this he means Russia, the main target. Young Poland’s program also
foreshadows the obvious conflict with Young Germany over Silesia.
Young Russia means the anarchist Mikhail Bakunin and the aristocratic
ideologue Aleksandr Herzen. Herzen is an agent of Baron James
Rothschild of Paris. Right after the Crimean War, Herzen will start
publishing The Polar Star and The Bell, both leak sheets for British
secret intelligence that will build up their readership by divulging
Russian state secrets. Herzen’s obvious target is Czar Alexander II,
the ally of Lincoln. Herzen prints the ravings of Bakunin, who
preaches pan-Slavism, meaning that Russia will take over all the other
Slavic nations. “Out of an ocean of blood and fire there will rise in
Moscow high in the sky the star of the revolution to become the guide
of liberated mankind.” Vintage Bakunin. If Mazzini relies on the
stiletto, for Bakunin it is “the peasant’s axe” that will bring down
the “German” regime in St. Petersburg.
Herzen is interested in sabotaging Alexander II and his policy of
real, anti-British reform in Russia. To block real industrial
capitalist development, he preaches reliance on the aboriginal Slavic
village, the mir, with “communal ownership of the land” plus the
ancient Slavic workshop, the artel. The mir will never build the
Trans-Siberian railway. Herzen sees Russia as the “center of
crystallization” for the entire Slavic world. Herzen, although he is
usually called a “westernizer,” is totally hostile to western
civilization. He writes of the need for a “new Attila,” perhaps
Russian, perhaps American, perhaps both, who will be able to tear down
the old Europe. In the moment when the British will seem so close to
winning everything, Herzen will support Palmerston’s Polish
insurrection of 1863, and will lose most of his readers. Once the
American Civil War is over, the British will have little use for
Herzen. By then, London will be betting on the nihilist terrorists of
the Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), who will finally kill Alexander
II, plus the Russian legal Marxists, all British agents. But already
today we can see the conflicts ahead between Young Poland and Young
Russia. In the conflicts among Mazzini’s national chauvinist
operations, we can see the roots of the slaughter of World War I.
Now, let us view the cages in the American theme park in Mazzini’s
human zoo. This is Young America. The name was popularized in 1845 by
Edwin DeLeon, the son of a Scottish Rite, Jewish slave-trading family
of Charleston, South Carolina. Edwin DeLeon will later be one of the
leaders of the Confederate espionage organization in Europe. The
leader of Young America is George N. Sanders, the future editor of the
Democratic Review. Young America’s view of Manifest Destiny is a slave
empire in Mexico and the Caribbean. In the 1852 election, Young
America will back the dark horse doughface Democrat, Franklin Pierce,
against the patriot Winfield Scott. Scott’s Whig Party will be
destroyed. Young America operatives will receive important posts in
London, Madrid, Turin, and other European capitals. Here they will
support Mazzini and his gang.
Mazzini’s American contacts are either proto-Confederates or strict
abolitionists, such as William Lloyd Garrison. During the American
Civil War, Mazzini will favor both the abolition of slavery and the
destruction of the Union through secessionism–the London line. This
subversion will be showcased during the famous tour of Kossuth in the
United States, next year and the year after. Kossuth will be
accompanied by Mazzini’s moneybags, the Tuscan Freemason Adriano
Lemmi. On the eve of the Crimean War, with Palmerston doing everything
to isolate Russia, Kossuth’s line will be that the “tree of evil and
despotism” in Europe “is Russia.” Kossuth will try to blame even
the problems of Italy on Russia. Despite Kossuth’s efforts, the United
States will emerge as the only power friendly to Russia during the
Crimean conflict. Kossuth will call for the United States to join with
England and France in war against Russia–Lord Palmerston’s dream
scenario.
Kossuth will refuse to call for the abolition of slavery. Kossuth will
get on well with the slaveholders, since he will also be attempting to
mediate a U.S. seizure of Cuba, which meshes perfectly with the
secessionist program.
The Second Stooge: David Urquhart
Mazzini is the zookeeper for all of these theme parks. But there are
other zookeepers, and still more theme parks in the human,
multicultural zoo. The custodians are Palmerston’s two other Stooges,
David Urquhart and Napoléon III.
There is also a theme park for the English lower orders. The keeper
here is the strange and eccentric Scot, David Urquhart, the most
aristocratic of Palmerston’s Stooges. Urquhart was chosen for his work
directly by Jeremy Bentham, who lavishly praised “our David” in his
letters. Urquhart took part in Lord Byron’s Greek revolution, but then
found he liked Turks better after all. He secured a post at the
British Embassy in Constantinople and “went native,” becoming an
Ottoman pasha in his lifestyle. Urquhart’s positive contribution to
civilization was his popularization of the Turkish bath. He also kept
a harem for some time. Urquhart also thought that late Ottoman
feudalism was a model of what civilization ought to be. In Turkey,
Urquhart became convinced that all the evil in the world had a single
root: Russia, the machinations of the court of St. Petersburg. A very
convenient view for Palmerston’s Britain, which was always on the
verge of war with Russia. For Urquhart, the unification of Italy is a
Russian plot. He once met Mazzini, and concluded after ten minutes
that Mazzini was a Russian agent! The usual Stooge on Stooge violence
again! For this Russophobe, the problem of Great Britain is that
Palmerston is a Russian agent, having been recruited by one of his
many mistresses, the Russian Countess Lieven. During the years of
Chartist agitation, Urquhart bought up working class leaders and
drilled them in the litany that all of the problems of the English
working man came from Russia via Lord Palmerston. To these workers
Urquhart teaches something he calls dialectics. Urquhart will be a
member of Parliament and he controls a weekly paper, The Free Press.
Palmerston understands that his subversive methods will always
generate opposition from the Tory gentry and the straight-laced
crowd. So he has taken the precaution of institutionalizing that
opposition under his own control, with a raving megalomaniac leader to
discredit it. Urquhart’s demonization of Russia foreshadows something
that will be called McCarthyism a century from now.
Urquhart’s remedy is to go back to the simplicity of character of
Merrie England, in the sense of retrogression to bucolic medieval
myth. “The people of England were better clothed and fed when there
was no commerce and when there were no factories.” That is vintage
Urquhart.
Does this talk of pre-capitalist economic formations strike a familiar
chord? Do you smell a big, fat commie rat?
How interesting that Urquhart should be the controller of British
agent Karl Marx, who earns his keep as a writer for Urquhart’s
paper. David Urquhart is the founder of modern communism! It is
Urquhart who will prescribe the plan for Das Kapital. Marx is a
professed admirer of Urquhart–acknowledging his influence more than
that of any other living person. Marx will even compose a Life of Lord
Palmerston, based on Urquhart’s wild obsession that Pam is a Russian
agent of influence. This says enough about Marx’s acumen as a
political analyst. Marx and Urquhart agree that there is no real
absolute profit in capitalism, and that technological progress causes
a falling rate of profit.
Another of Urquhart’s operatives is Lothar Bücher, a confidant of the
German labor leader Lassalle, and later of the Iron Chancellor, Otto
von Bismarck himself. After Gettysburg, Urquhart will move to France,
and open a theme park for right-wing Catholics; he will meet Pius IX
and will join members of Cardinal Newman’s Oxford Movement at the
First Vatican Council in 1870.
The Third Stooge: Napoléon III
Our third Stooge is the current President and soon-to-be emperor of
France, Napoléon III. Napoléon le Petit. As we have seen, he started
off as a Carbonaro and terrorist in contact with Mazzini. In 1836,
Napoléon tried to parlay his famous name into a successful putsch; he
failed and was exiled to America. Then Napoléon was given a private
study at the new British Museum reading room and frequented Lord
Palmerston. He began work on his book, Les Idées Napoléoniques. His
main idea was that the original Napoléon was not wrong to be an
imperialist, but only erred in trying to expand his empire at the
expense of Great Britain. There is plenty of room for a French Empire
as a junior partner to the British. The preferred form of government
would be democratic Caesarism, with frequent plebiscites.
In 1848 Napoléon was working for the British as a special constable–a
riot cop–to put down an expected Chartist revolution; he was then
shipped to Paris. There Napoléon III used his name to become
President, and then organized a coup d’état that made him
emperor. Palmerston quickly endorsed the coup, causing hysteria on the
part of the Victoria and Albert palace clique. Palmerston was forced
out, but he was soon back, stronger than ever.
After hundreds of years of warfare, France at last had been broken,
placed under a more or less dependable British puppet regime. The
“western powers,” the “Anglo-French,” were born. Napoléon III gave
Palmerston one indispensable ingredient for his imperial strategy: a
powerful land army. Soon an open Anglo-French entente was in full
swing. When Victoria came to Paris it was the first such visit by an
English sovereign since Henry VI had been crowned King of France in
Notre Dame in 1431. When Napoléon joined Palmerston in attacking
Russia in the Crimea, it was the first war in 400 years to see France
and England on the same side.
The French pavilion of the zoo is being redecorated with a new version
of British empiricism: This is positivism, the miserable outlook of
Auguste Comte and Ernest Renan. This will lead to the French
structuralists, ethnologists, and even deconstructionists of the late
twentieth century.
Napoléon III is Palmerston’s strategic catamite, usually with as much
will of his own as an inflatable sex doll. Think of him as a blow-up
British agent. After the Crimea, Palmerston will need a land war
against Austria in northern Italy. Napoléon, egged on by Camillo Benso
di Cavour who knows how to play the interstices, will oblige with the
war of 1859 and the great Battle of Solferino. When the time will come
for Maximilian’s Mexican adventure, Napoléon will be eager to send a
fleet and an army. During the American Civil War, Napoléon’s
pro-Confederate stance will be even more aggressive than Palmerston’s
own. In 1870, Bismarck will defeat Napoléon and send him into exile in
England. Here Napoléon will plan a comeback after the Paris Commune,
but he will need to be seen on horseback, and he has a bladder
ailment. The bladder operation designed to make him a man on horseback
once again will instead kill him.
Napoléon III calls himself a socialist and will style the latter phase
of his regime “the liberal empire.” That means all of France as a
theme park in the British zoo. In 1860 Napoléon will sign a free trade
treaty with the British. Along the way, he will pick up a junior
partner colonial empire in Senegal and in Indo-China in 1862,
something that will set the stage for the Vietnam War a century
later. Under Napoléon, France will build the Suez Canal, only to have
it fall under the control of the British. Napoléon III will furnish
the prototype for the fascist dictators of the twentieth century.
After his defeat in the Franco-Prussian war, he will bequeath to
France a party of proto-fascist colonialists and revanchists beating
the drum for Alsace-Lorraine, which Napoléon will lose to
Bismarck. These revanchists will turn up again in Vichy, the Fourth
Republic, and the French Socialist Party of today.
And so it will come to pass that Lord Palmerston will attempt to rule
the world through the agency of a triumvirate of Stooges, each one the
warden of some pavilions of a human zoo.
The reason why must now be confronted.
The ideology of British Imperialism
The British Empire exists in the mind of its victims. This is the
empire of senses, of sense certainty, the empire of empiricism. It is
the empire of British philosophical radicalism, of utilitarianism, of
hedonistic calculus, existentialism, and pragmatism.
Why are the British liberal imperialists called the Venetian Party?
Well, for one thing, they call themselves the Venetian Party. The
future prime minister Benjamin Disraeli will write in his novel
Conningsby that the Whig aristocrats of 1688 wanted “to establish in
England a high aristocratic republic on the model of [Venice], making
the kings into doges, and with a `Venetian constitution.’|”
During the years after the Council of Florence in 1439, the Venetian
enemies of Nicolaus of Cusa plotted to wage war on the Italian High
Renaissance and Cusa’s ecumenical project. To combat Cusa’s
Renaissance Platonism, the Venetians of the Rialto and Padua turned to
a new-look Aristotelianism, featuring Aristotle’s characteristic
outlook shorn of its medieval-scholastic and Averroist outgrowths.
This was expressed in the work of Pietro Pomponazzi, and in that of
Pomponazzi’s pupil, Gasparo Contarini. During the War of the League of
Cambrai of 1509-17, an alliance of virtually every power in Europe
threatened to wipe out the Venetian oligarchy. The Venetians knew that
France or Spain could crush them like so many flies. The Venetians
responded by launching the Protestant Reformation with three
proto-Stooges–Luther, Calvin, and Henry VIII. At the same time,
Contarini and his Jesuits made Aristotle a central component of the
Catholic Counter-Reformation and the Council of Trent, and put Dante
and Piccolomini on the Index of Prohibited Books. The result was a
century and a half of wars of religion, and a “little dark age,”
culminating in the Great Crisis of the seventeenth century.
Venice was a cancer consciously planning its own metastasis. From
their lagoon, the Venetians chose a swamp and an island facing the
North Atlantic–Holland and the British Isles. Here the hegemomic
Giovani party would relocate their family fortunes, their fondi, and
their characteristic epistemology. France was also colonized, but the
main bets were placed further north. First, Contarini’s relative and
neighbor Francesco Zorzi was sent to serve as sex adviser to Henry
VIII, whose raging libido would be the key to Venetian hopes. Zorzi
brought Rosicrucian mysticism and Freemasonry to a land that Venetian
bankers had been looting for centuries. The Venetian Party in England
grew under the early Stuarts as Francis Bacon and his wife Thomas
Hobbes imported the neo-Aristotelianism of Fra Paolo Sarpi, the great
Venetian gamemaster of the early 1600s, the architect of the Thirty
Years’ War.
When James I and Charles I disappointed the Venetians in that Thirty
Years’ War, Cromwell, Milton, and a menagerie of sectarians were
brought to power in an all-Protestant civil war and Commonwealth. This
was the time of the Irish genocide and the foundation of the overseas
empire in Jamaica. After the depravity of the Restoration, the
“Glorious Revolution” of 1688 gave birth to the most perfect
imitation of the Venetian oligarchical system ever created. The great
Whig and Tory aristocrats set as their goal a new, world-encompassing
Roman Empire with its center in London. After the defeat of Leibniz’s
attempt to save England, Great Britain set off on the path of empire
with its new Hanoverian Guelph dynasty.
The War of the Spanish Succession in 1702-13 was the first war fought
on a world scale and the last gasp for rivals Spain and Holland. The
Peace of Utrecht left the British supreme on the oceans. Louis XIV and
Colbert were defeated by divide-and-conquer Venetian geopolitics, as
British cash was used to hire states like Brandenburg and Savoy to
fight the French. By winning the coveted asiento, the monopoly on
slave commerce with Spanish America, the British became the biggest
slave merchants in the world. The wealth of Bristol and Liverpool
would be built on slaves.
After several decades of Walpole and the Hell-Fire Clubs, there came
the great war of the mid-eighteenth century, the Austrian Succession
followed by the Seven Years’ War. This was the end of France as a
naval power and worldwide rival for the British. William Pitt, Earl of
Chatham, subsidized Frederick the Great of Prussia to win an empire on
the plains of Germany. The British took Ft. Louisburg and then seized
Quebec City, driving the French out of Canada. The British became the
paramount power in India. The British oligarchs of the day, like their
successors after 1989, were convinced that they could run wild,
violating the laws of nature without penalty, for nothing could now
stand against them. But, in loading the American colonies with their
prohibitions of settlement and manufacture, their Quebec Act, Stamp
Acts, Townsend Acts, and Intolerable Acts, they set the stage for the
American Revolution.
In these years William Petty, Earl of Shelburne and Marquis of
Lansdowne, gathered a stable of ideologues and operatives, his
stooges. These were Jeremy Bentham, Adam Smith, Edward Gibbon. These
were the founders of British philosophical radicalism, the most
primitive form of Aristotle yet devised, and its Siamese twin, free
trade. Shelburne was defeated by the superior ability of Hamilton,
Franklin, and Washington, but he did succeed in destabilizing and
nearly destroying France. The reign of terror in the French Revolution
was the work of agents and dupes of Shelburne among the Jacobins,
enragés, and sans-culottes.
By now British policy was in the hands of Shelburne’s student and
protégé, William Pitt the Younger. After letting the Jacobin horrors
of Bentham’s agents brew up for three years, Pitt was able to unite
the continental powers against France in the first, second, and third
coalitions. Using the armies raised by Lazare Carnot, Napoléon
shattered each of these coalitions. Napoléon’s final defeat was the
work of Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and the Prussian reformers, but the
beneficiaries were the British.
At the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the British were clearly the
dominant force, but they were still obliged to make deals with
Metternich, Russia, and Prussia. But under the regimes of Castlereagh
and Canning, the oligarchical stupidity, greed, and incompetence of
Metternich and Co. made possible the revolts and revolutions of 1820,
1825, and 1830. By 1830, Lord Palmerston was ready to take control of
the Foreign Office and begin his direct march to undisputed world
domination. Metternich was still sitting on the lid of the boiling
European cauldron, but Lord Palmerston and his Three Stooges were
stoking the flames underneath.
There was a time when the center of oligarchy, usury, and geopolitics
was Venice, the group of islands in a lagoon at the top of the
Adriatic. In the sixteenth century, in the wake of the war of the
League of Cambrai, Venice was a cancer planning its own
metastasis. These were the years during which the patrician party
known as the Giovani, the Youngsters, began meeting in a salon known
as Ridotto Morosini. It is here that the future course of England and
Britain was charted.

Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
The Jamestown Foundation
June 7 2005
TURKEY, GEORGIA, AZERBAIJAN LAUNCH NEW STRATEGIC RAILWAY PROJECT
By Zaal Anjaparidze
While the May 25 opening of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil
pipeline garnered considerable media interest, a second initiative
has received less attention. On the sidelines of the BTC ceremony,
the president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliev, Georgian President Mikheil
Saakashvili, and Turkey’s President Akhmed Nedget Sezer announced the
creation of the Kars international railway corridor, linking
northeast Turkey, Tbilisi, and Baku. The project, roughly valued at
$400-800 million, includes construction costs for the 258-kilometer
long railway line. In Georgia the project needs a new 30-kilometer
line between Kars and Akhalkalaki (in Javakheti region) and must
restore the Akhalkalaki-Tbilisi railway section (Regnum, Media News,
May 25).
Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey had signed a joint statement on the
construction of the railway at the Georgian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs on December 28. Georgian Economic Development Minister Alexi
Alexishvili called the joint venture “an historic project of the
century.” He declared, “We have agreed that the
Kars-Akhalkalaki-Tbilisi railway project will be implemented at an
increased pace. A working group will be set up to work on specific
details of the project.” All three countries will finance the
project.
The railway project has already been registered for international
tender and will be managed by a Georgian-Azeri-Turkish joint venture.
Some analysts almost equate the importance of the railway project to
the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas
pipeline (Regnum, April 8, May, 5, 20; Caucasus Press, December 29,
2004; Georgian Messenger, December 31, 2004).
The idea for the Kars railway was born eight years ago, when (then)
Turkish President Suleiman Demirel arrived in Georgia on July 14,
1997, and talked with (then) Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze
about building a railway from Kars to Akhalkalaki to “open a third
frontier crossing between the two countries.” However, the idea
subsequently stalled mostly for financial reasons.
The Kars-Akhalkalaki route is expected to fully replace the now
inactive Kars-Gyumri-Tbilisi line, which was the only rail route the
USSR used to reach Turkey. Istanbul unilaterally halted traffic on
this route after Armenian-Turkish relations deteriorated due to the
Armenian-Azerbaijani war in Karabakh.
If the new trilateral project goes into effect, any country in the
Caspian region will be able to transport cargo and passengers from
Baku to Europe via Turkey. The Azerbaijani side appears to have
far-reaching strategic goals for the railway. Nazir Azmamedov,
spokesman for the Azerbaijani Transport Ministry, said Baku is
extremely interested in seeing the Kars-Akhalkalaki railroad built.
“There are cases when the Batumi [Ajaria] port does not work and from
this viewpoint Azerbaijan is interested in the construction of an
additional railroad that would help transfer our goods to the Turkish
ports,” he said.
Evidently the Georgian political leadership is pursuing its own
strategic goals with regard to the railway. The rail line could boost
economic activity in Javakheti region, develop local infrastructure,
and contribute to the reintegration of the Armenia-oriented Javakheti
region with Georgia. In addition, construction of the railway should
speed up the Russian military pullout from Georgia. The functioning
railway could relieve, to a certain extent, the severe
social-economic problems for the Javakheti Armenian community,
especially after closure of the Russian base. Saakashvili has
underlined several times that full integration of Javakheti into
Georgian state life is a compelling problem. He may consider the new
railway to be a tool to address this problem.
Apart from the local goals, the Kars railway is expected to serve
Georgia’s international interests, including strengthening Georgia’s
status as a transit country, developing an strategic alliance with
Turkey and Azerbaijan, and likely curbing Armenia’s regional
ambitions, which Tbilisi has long considered a dangerous neighbor and
the sole strategic ally of Russia in South Caucasus.
Some Russian and Armenian analysts argue that construction of the
Kars-Tbilisi-Baku railway line plays into the hand of Georgia,
because it actually “takes Armenia out of the international transport
circuit” with all the ensuing economic and political consequences.
Besides, they argue, launching a new railway would fundamentally
change the whole regional transit structure, making Azerbaijan a
major traffic hub (, Turan, February 7;
International Railway Journal; March 1; Novoe vremya, April 14;
July 30, 2004).
According to the Armenian newspaper Hayots Ashkharh, “Armenia should
take a wide range of urgent measures in order to prevent the
construction of the Kars-Akhalkalaki railway that will link Turkey,
Georgia, and Azerbaijan.” Furthermore, the paper argues, the “railway
will strengthen Armenia’s dependence on Georgia” (Hayots Ashkharh,
October 1, 2004).
The Kars-Akhalkalaki-Baku railway line promises other benefits for
Georgia. According to analysts, the railway has the potential to
attract freight, including oil, from Central Asia en route to Turkey
by offering a further outlet to the sea. Caspian traders, for
example, may want to deliver oil by rail directly to European buyers.
They will obviously save money and time bypassing tanker routes.
Georgia could thus offer two oil routes to Europe, by sea and by
land, making the country an important element of the transport
corridor linking Asia, the Caucasus, and Europe.
Some investments in the Kars-Akhalkalaki Railway are already pending.
In 2002, China, which reportedly prefers this route to the Russian
one to connect to Europe, showed a readiness to invest in the project
and has submitted relevant plans to the Turkish government. Georgia,
Azerbaijan, and Turkey have already applied the European Commission
to include the new railway line in the TRACECA transport corridor.

Azeri, Armenian ministers to focus on liberation of seven districts – envoy
Ekspress, Baku
7 Jun 05

Excerpt from Xazar Altay report by Azerbaijani newspaper Ekspress on 7
June headlined “`Concrete principles’ will be discussed in Paris” and
subheaded “Araz Azimov: ‘Talks between ministers go on as planned'”
The Paris meeting of the Azerbaijani and Armenian foreign ministers on
17 June will discuss “concrete principles”, Araz Azimov, the
president’s personal representative for the Nagornyy Karabakh
settlement and deputy foreign minister, has told Express paper. He did
not go into details of the “principles”.
“The talks will focus on relevant guarantees of coexistence in
Nagornyy Karabakh, issues of security at the international level and
mutual commitments. The talks are based on a specific plan. The plan
envisages the liberation of seven occupied districts, the restoration
of regional ties, the return of Azerbaijanis to their homes and the
settlement of the [Nagornyy Karabakh] status issue afterwards,” Azimov
said.
The president’s personal representative has described as “important”
the upcoming meeting of the foreign ministers. The core objective of
the ministers’ private meeting is to resolve the conflict. Azimov
hopes that Yerevan is ready for the continuation of the talks and
“useful dialogue”. [Passage omitted: the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen
will also attend the meeting]
“All the issues discussed within the framework of the Prague process
are details relevant to the conflict. So, there are no limits to the
agenda. At the same time, some details are of more fundamental
importance. They might be discussed in the first place and others at
the next stage,” Azimov said.
The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen will visit the region after the
ministers’ meeting. Following this, it is expected that a go-ahead
will be given to the discussion of the details at the level of
experts.
“At this stage, we are dealing with several elements. They envisage
specific directions. Sensitive political issues could be discussed at
later stages,” Azimov added.
He believes that the on-going discussions contain “some clarity”. The
key structure and the concept of the peace process are clear for both
sides. Official Baku’s principled position on the liberation of the
occupied territories has not undergone any changes. At the same time,
the return of the lands does not represent a complete resolution to
the problem. So, it is important to create conditions for the
coexistence of the Nagornyy Karabakh Armenians and Azerbaijanis who
will go back to Karabakh.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Journal of Turkish Weekly
June 7 2005
Armenia to Launch Iran-Built Windmill
PIN reported that Armenia will soon put into operation a windmill
Iran has cooperated in its construction.n said. Garen Nazarian told
PIN Armenia can take advantage of clean energies due to its
geographical position.
“Natural geography is of help in bilateral ties between Iran and
Armenia,” he said.
The envoy said the 2.6-megawatt power plant underwent construction in
2003 and has so far made good progress.
Armenia and Iran have developed close relations in last decade.

Los Angeles Daily News
June 7 2005
AN HONORED GUEST
John McCoy/Staff Photographer Kristine Torssian, left, and Lianna
Khasayan, students from Glendale High School, offer bread to Armenian
Pontiff Karekin II as he arrives at the school on Monday. It is his
second visit to the U.S. since his appointment in 1999. John
McCoy/Staff Photographer Members of the A Cappella Choir from
Glendale High School, left, perform during the school rally on
Monday. Above, Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All
Armenians, applauds their performance.

Journal of Turkish Weekly
June 7 2005
Russia to move some armaments from Georgia to Armenia – minister
Jan SOYKOK, ST. PETERSBURG – Russian armaments will be moved from the
Russian bases in Georgia to the Russian base in Armenia, Defense
Minister Sergei Ivanov told a Monday press conference in St.
Petersburg. Russia will start withdrawing two military bases from
Georgia in 2005 and complete the withdrawal in 2008, Interfax news
agency reported.
“The armaments will not be transferred to Armenia. They will be
simply moved to another Russian military base,” he said. He further
said Russia would stick to limits on armaments under the Treaty on
Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. However the transfer will change
the balanace of power in the region.
Baku is against any Russian militarization in Armenia. Russian
military forces backed Armenian occpation forces against Azerbaijan
during the Karabakh War. Armenian forces occupy 20 percent of
Azerbaijan territories. The EU and the US have called the Armenian
forces to withdraw. Yet Yerevan rejected all proposals.