In 2007, Vladimir Putin spoke at the 43rd
Munich Conference on Security Policy. Far from being a diatribe, Mister Putin
spoke eloquently and without the bluster that we tend to expect from political
leaders.
He began by stressing the need for all
countries to benefit within the global economy, overcoming poverty, maintaining
economic security and developing an ongoing dialogue. He then addressed the increasing
threat of warfare in the world, quoting American President Franklin Roosevelt
as having said, “"When
peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in
danger."
He warned against
a “unipolar” world and aspirations of world supremacy by a single
uber-government, saying, “However one might embellish this term, at the end of
the day it refers to…one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre
of decision-making. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for
all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it
destroys itself from within. And this certainly has nothing in common with
democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in
light of the interests and opinions of the minority.”
“Incidentally,
Russia - we - are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason
those who teach us do not want to learn themselves. I consider that the
unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today's world...the
model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral
foundations for modern civilisation. Unilateral and frequently illegitimate
actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human
tragedies and created new centres of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars as
well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished…even more are dying
than before.”
He
goes on to describe the growing US disdain for the basic principles of
international law stating pointedly that, “One state and, of course, first and
foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way.
This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies
it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?”
Of
course, it’s true that, worldwide, there’s growing concern that the US sees
itself as the world’s policeman - providing largesse to those governments that
kowtow to US interests, whilst attacking those that don’t. It claims that it
does so to make the world “safe for democracy” yet, in recent years, it has invaded
more countries than ever before in its history, destroying well-functioning
governments, replacing duly-elected leaders with puppet governments or, worse,
with nothing at all.
Mister
Putin goes on to state that, “of course this is extremely dangerous. It results
in the fact that no one feels safe… Moreover, significantly new threats…have
appeared, and today threats such as terrorism have taken on a global character.
I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously
think about the architecture of global security. And we must proceed by
searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in
the international dialogue. Especially since the international landscape is so
varied and changes so quickly - changes in light of the dynamic development in
a whole number of countries and regions.”
“The
need for principles such as openness, transparency and predictability in
politics is uncontested and the use of force should be a really exceptional
measure, comparable to using the death penalty in the judicial systems of
certain states. However, today we are witnessing the opposite tendency, namely
a situation in which countries that forbid the death penalty even for murderers
and other, dangerous criminals are airily participating in military operations
that are difficult to consider legitimate. And as a matter of fact, these
conflicts are killing people - hundreds and thousands of civilians! “
“It represents a serious provocation
that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against
whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our
western partners made?”
Mister
Putin also describes the opportunism by the US to profit from aggression,
saying, “one hand distributes charitable help and the other hand not only
preserves economic backwardness but also reaps the profits thereof. The
increasing social tension in depressed regions inevitably results in the growth
of radicalism, extremism, feeds terrorism and local conflicts. And if all this
happens in, shall we say, a region such as the Middle East where there is
increasingly the sense that the world at large is unfair, then there is the
risk of global destabilisation.”
“It
is obvious that the world's leading countries should see this threat. And that
they should therefore build a more democratic, fairer system of global economic
relations, a system that would give everyone the chance and the possibility to
develop. But this does not mean interfering in the internal affairs of other
countries, and especially not imposing a regime that determines how these
states should live and develop. It is obvious that such interference does not
promote the development of democratic states at all. On the contrary, it makes
them dependent and, as a consequence, politically and economically unstable.”
“Russia
is a country with a history that spans more than a thousand years and has
practically always used the privilege to carry out an independent foreign
policy. We are not going to change this tradition today. At the same time, we
are well aware of how the world has changed and we have a realistic sense of
our own opportunities and potential. And of course we would like to interact
with responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in
constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and
prosperity not only for a select few, but for all.”
Mister
Putin’s words in 2007 were those of a leader of one of the world’s greatest
powers, yet his tone (as the reader can attest after reading his words) was
that of a leader seeking mutual respect, partnership and cooperation. His
message rings true today, yet the US government has consistently sought to
present him to the American people as a tyrant – one who seeks dominance over
other jurisdictions, when, in fact, it is the US that has been the world’s
foremost aggressor.
Since
this speech was made, the US has annually either continued or increased its
aggression against sovereign nations and duly-elected leaders. There can be
little doubt that the danger that the US government is placing the American
people in is reckless in the extreme. Were the American people to view Mister
Putin’s speeches nightly on their televisions, in place of endless rants from
neocons with ties to the military industrial complex, it’s altogether likely
that they’d favour backing off rather pursuing more mischief abroad.
Unfortunately,
Mister Putin’s speeches are never heard by the vast majority of Americans,
which assures that they’ll be left in the dark. Just as Americans have been
tricked into endorsing past military adventures from the Spanish American War
onward, we can expect that, given enough prodding, they will once again concede
that, although they do not seek further aggression, the media and the government
have demonstrated that it’s “necessary.”
Although
Mister Putin’s speeches are not heard in America, it’s important to note that they
are heard by the rest of the world. Those of us who are not American and live
outside the US have greater access to balanced reporting on world events and,
like Mister Putin, we fear the unparalleled interference by the US government.
To
us, he seems at present to be a voice in the wilderness – countering the US
when necessary, but repeatedly seeking peaceful solutions, only to be rebuffed
by the US government time and time again - presented as an evil warmonger.
History
is replete with the tales of empires that sought to gobble up the world – to
subject all people to the whims and dictates of one central government. Never
has this been truer than today, when so many American leaders have touted the
supposed necessity of a “One World Government” or “New World Order”, in which
the US reigns supreme.
Historically,
each of these empires has gone through a period when its power base spread
dramatically, yet each one, in turn, collapsed through excessive warfare on
numerous fronts, coupled with increasing debt at home. In each case, the empires
have collapsed under their own weight and, in so doing, found themselves
without allies, as the world breathed a sigh of relief at the downfall of the
latest Goliath.
When
this comes to pass with regard to the US empire, Mister Putin’s pleas for each
country to have had the freedom to decide its own fate will be remembered. He
will cease to be a voice in the wilderness and will be remembered as a
statesman.
It
is eternally true that our loyalty and patriotism should not be bestowed upon
any particular government simply because we were born there.
Jeff Thomas
