At the end of September, 115 politicians and foreign policy experts signed a letter that was delivered to the heads of NATO and European Union States. The letter criticized Russian President, Vladimir Putin’s recent moves to end Democratic process in Russia. One of the recipients of the letter was George Bush, jr. As a man who has moved to end Democratic process in his own country, it would have been very hypocritical of Bush to condemn Putin for his actions. Consequently the only rebuke was Bush stating that he hopes Putin does not abandon Democracy upheld by checks and balances within the Russian government (The First Bush), but even this was ironic.
The charges brought against Putin in the letter were that he has given himself the power to appoint regional governers and would be creating a blacklist of terrorists in Russia. Senator Kerry added to the complaints in the first Presidential debate by noting that "Mr. Putin now controls all the television stations" (The First Bush). What he means is that the Russian media is once again controlled by the state as it was under the Soviets.
It is important to first examine each of these three charges. We will view these events in Russia and their parallel developments in the United States. Following this comparison will be an examination of the reasoning behind the dismantling of Democracy in Russia and how it relates to the United States.
State Controlled Media
In 2001 Russian media magnate, Vladimir Gusinsky was charged with embezzlement and consequently forced to flee the country. Russia demanded his extradition, but this was denied by both Spain (Russia Provides) and the United States (US Refuses). While running from the Russian authorities he continually tried to sell 25% of the Russian media to western countries (Vladimir Gusinsky). In the end, Gusinsky’s company was liquidated (Fomin) and by 2002 had been absorbed by state owned Gazprom, a natural gas company. It was reported that the arrest warrents for Gusinsky and the Gazprom buyout of his corporation were an effort by President Putin to end the "influence of some businessmen who used their media and business interests to gain political clout" (Gazprom Buys).
To this day there is no competetive corporate media in Russia. The only truly free press in Russia is Independent Media Center Russia.
In the United States the situation is slightly different, but much the same. Through investment, the US government controlls nearly 80% of the media not only in the US but worldwide (Parenti). While there is a slim margin of independent corporate ownership, it is in the interest of these corporations, such as Clear Channel, Sinclair Broadcasting, and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, to promote the far right agendas of the Bush regime.
Just as in Russia, the Independent Media Center (IMC) is an alternative to corporate media that goes beyond bias and actually lies about facts. In addition to this pioneering group exists hundreds, if not thousands of independent news and information sources, such as Free Voices, who struggle to convey the truth.
Apparently the truth has become too threatening. On October 7, the FBI confiscated the hard drives of the servers owned by Rackspace, Inc, a US owned company in the UK. The removal of these hard drives brought down twenty IMC sites and several radio streams around the world (IMC: FBI).
The FBI did not explain their actions except to say that they were acting under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT). MLAT enables authority agencies in different countries to work together to combat terrorism and so forth. Supposedly, the original request came from Italy and Switzerland, but no information has been released as to why they or the United States would need to confiscate the drives (Italy and Switzerland).
On October 13 the drives were returned to Rackspace, but nobody is certain what information was removed or added to them or why. IMC is currently working to restore the downed sites (Servers Returned). Regardless of the motivation this is a new level of control being exercised by the US government over media.
How long before IMC and other independent news and information sources are simply eliminated in the US and Russia? Both countries seem to be headed toward such militant crack downs on free speech.
Blacklisting Civilians
It is believed that international terrorist organizations are being funded through money laundering in Russia. The Russian government is taking steps to combat this problem. According to Viiktor Zubkov, Chairman of Russia’s new Federal Financial Monitoring Service, "Russia possesses a list of organizations that probably fund terrorist activities" (Tikhomirova). He later goes on to describe those on the list as potential extremists. Regardless of how realistic the allegations of funding terrorists are, the organizations listed will be blocked from participating in financial activities in Russia.
This tactic is being applauded by the United States and European Union as proof that Russia is working to fight the War on Terror. Russia is coming late to the game in blacklisting supposed terrorist organizations. Bush started blacklisting groups and individuals immediately after the September 11th attacks.
On September 23, 2001, George Bush, jr. issued Executive Order 13224. According to this order anyone determined to have any relation to an appended list of terrorist organizations was liable to have all of their assets frozen. It was illegal from that time forward to have any financial interaction that might be related to these organizations. Any person or agency to do so would be prosecuted.
Perhaps the most important part of this document is section 3.d which reads, "the term ’terrorism’ means an activity that involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking."
This language would later be strengthened by the passage of the USA Patriot Act of 2001. After the Patriot Act was passed people became very concerned, as it seemed that this language would make protesting itself an act of terrorism. Even if it is not violent, protesting can be construed as an act dangerous to human life in the simple fact that there may be thousands of people massed together. Further all protests are "intended to influence the policy of government by intimidation."
Not surprisingly, the expanded definition of terrorism required a new list of possible terrorist agencies. On November 15, 2002, the Department of State issued the Terrorist Exclusion List (TEL). This was followed by the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, 163 page list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons. With paranoia still in control, January of 2004 brought a 65 page addition to the list (Office of Foreign....Changes to List).
The public was informed that these lists were reserved for non-US citizens, but the efforts of the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to classify several activist organizations like Green Peace, and a loose collection of animal rights advocates known as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) as terrorists revealed the real intent.
As of 2004, any non-profit organization requesting federal funding through the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) would be required to blacklist possible employees by verifying whether or not they were listed on the previously mentioned lists. Part IV, Section 16 states, "I certify that as of _______ the organization named in this application does not knowingly employ individuals or contribute funds to organizations found on the following terrorist related lists promulgated by the U. S. Government, the United Nations, or the European Union. Presently these lists include the Department of TreasuryÕs Office of Foreign Assets Control Specially Designated List, the Department of Justice’s Terrorist Exclusion List, and the list annexed to Executive Order 13224. Should any change in circumstance occur during the year OPM [United States Office of Personnel Management] will be notified within 15 days of such change."
The ACLU issued a statement that these lists were "riddled with error and do not provide individuals with a means to correct false information" (John Ashcroft). The organization then publicly refused $500,000 in CFC funding to show their commitment to fighting the blacklists (Citing Government).
In the US the blacklist has grown and the people affected have also grown. It is only logical, that eventually it will affect all forms of employment. It must make George Bush very happy that Vladimir Putin is following his lead and blacklisting anyone who might be considered a threat to those in power.
Disenfranchising Voters
The move that made the world most wary of Putin was his proposal for changes to the appointment of the Governers of Federation States. Russia is composed of 89 Federation States whose governers are currently chosen by the parliament of the Federation State in which they govern, much like a Prime Minister. By January of 2006, Putin hopes to have reformatted the Russian map to be composed of 30 Federation States whose Governers are chosen by himself or his administration. The reasoning for this change is that it would simplify the complex government of Russia which is believed to be cumbersome and inefficient (Glikin).
This news sparked fears of a Kremlin plan to desmiss the Duma, Russia’s lower house of Parliament, with the intention of re-establishing it after an election in 2007, thereby giving Putin’s United Russia Party control in the decision to enforce the changes to the electoral process and creating a one party Parliament. Vice Speaker of the Duma, Oleg Morozov, refuted the claims that the Duma would be dismissed, " the United Russia Party is enjoying a very good position in the State Duma now. It would be absurd for them to bid farewell to it" (Belous).
Americans need not be reminded of similar changes that have taken place in the United States. We could begin with the fact that the 2000 Presidential Election was determined not by voting, but by the partisan manuevers of the Supreme Court Justices as detailed in the revealing Vanity Fair article "The Road to Florida." This was followed by redistricting legislation in several states that cast an unfair electoral advantage for the Republicans.
In recent months fears of moves by the Bush regime to stall or cancel the election have gripped the country. Would he be bold enough to cancel the election through the declaration of a national emergency and martial law? Many political and legal experts believe so and stated as much (Batzloff).
Bush has gone as far as to create the United States Election Assistance Commission (USEAC) whose duty it is to establish the methods used to cancel an election. USEAC Director, DeForest Soaries, jr. justified his role in cancelling an election. Soaries claims that under the threat of a terrorist attack, "If the federal government chose not to suspend an election it has political implications. Who makes the call, under what circumstances is the call made, what are the constitutional implications?" And further to twist what cancelling the elction actually means, "I think we have to err on the side of transparency to protect the voting rights of the country" (Ochenski).
With the amazing similarity in the erosion of Democracy in both the United States and Russia, it is understandable that George Bush, jr. would not be able to take a solid stance on the reforms that Vladimir Putin has made in Russia. Indeed, Bush should be proud, as many of these reforms were based on his own Constitutional demolition work.
Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Historically, a state will begin limiting the freedom of it’s citizens because of an external threat. The oppression of the Chinese began when the United States threatened to march into China and use nuclear weapons during the Korean War. Castro began limiting the freedom of Cubans when the United States began threatening to remove him from power. The perceived threats of terrorism after the September 11th attacks enabled the Bush regime to eradicate American freedoms.
Russia has suffered greatly since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It began when American corporations entered the country and exported much of it’s wealth, devastating the economy. In recent years an escalating series of terrorist attacks has complicated matters. The hostage taking and murder of school children in Breslan is viewed as the most severe attack to date. Much of this terrorism is related to the ongoing conflict in Chechnya. Incidentally, this is a conflict that Putin himself engineered in the early 1990’s.
Again, this is an area that the US has been interfering in and making things worse. After the invasion of Afghanistan, the US began placing soldiers in the former Soviet Republics that border Russia to the south. This has two effects. There is a great deal of mineral wealth in Georgia and Chechnya that the US is seeking to control. It is also geostrategically beneficial to have Russia boxed in (Brzezinski).
The mineral resources in Georgia have resulted in a massive influx of US soldiers into the country under the guise of fighting terrorism originating in Chechnya, which borders Georgia to the East. Consequently, American military deployments have largely been along this border. It can be noted that the increased presence and activity of the US in this area seems to be somewhat proportional to the increase in terrorist activities in Russia.
Are the two series of events connected? It is difficult to tell, but as in Iraq, an American military presence seems to have the effect of exacerbating a situation.
The Russian government is pinched between the increasing attacks and the demand of the Unites states and European Union to regulate terrorism. Director for Legal Cooperation of the European Council Roberto Lamponi claims that ""Russia is one of the main financial sources for terrorists" (Tikhomirova).
If the US is in fact making the terrorist situation in Russia worse, then the demands for Russias cooperation and subsequent subjugation in the War on Terror can be viewed as a form of political strong-arming.
In the first presidential debate, both Bush and Kerry stated that nuclear proliferation is the greatest threat at this time. One of Kerry’s main concerns on this topic was the lack of control over Russia’s nuclear arsenal., something that the Bush regime is already focused on. US Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Stephen Rademaker has expressed the Bush regimes concern about the fact that Russia still possesses nuclear weapons which could be upgraded to strike the US. There are also unspoken fears that Russia might be assisting In Iran’s production of nuclear weapons. The Russians have responded by saying that they believe Iran’s construction of a nuclear power plant is within the bounds of international law and that they will continue to assist Iran with the project (Litovkin).
The discussion is so serious that it has prompted Russian fears that when Kerry spoke of the Russian involvement with the problem of nuclear proliferation, he was actually planning military action against Russia. This fear stems from the proposals put forth by US Ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke and Mark Brzezinski on the subject of dealing with Russias weapons of mass destruction. Kerry is reportedly attempting to recruit both of these men to his cabinet if he becomes president. Holbrooke and Brzezinski wrote in their reccomendation that "Six hundred tons of nuclear materials remain unsecured in Russia. Currently, it would take 13 years to secure it. But with a concerted effort, and at a fraction of the cost of the war in Iraq, the problem could be eliminated in three to four years" (Kerry to Add).
It should be noted that Merk Brzezinski is the son of Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Carter advisor and expert on the Soviet Union. In 1997 Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote a book called The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. The book is nothing less than a game plan for global dominance by the United States. Russia is described as sitting in the middle of the Eurasian chessboard. One of the eight geostrategic imperatives that Brzezinski discusses is to continue weakening Russia. Another iis the abolition of Democracy in America.
Russia may not have too good a grip on their nuclear arsenal, but the US is even more frightening. After the Gulf War, UN inspections teams began storing material and hardware that might have been used to build nuclear weapons in storehouses in Iraq. After the United States conquered Iraq, George Bush, jr. barred the weapons inspectors from being able to enter Iraq again. This then brought these storehouses under american supervision. On October 10, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) submitted a report to the UN Security Council that the materials had disappeared. Satellite images reveal that the buildings in which these items were stored have been completely dismantled without the US government taking notice (Arieff).
In response, Iraq’s American controlled government announced that weapons inspectors were welcome to return to the country. They claimed that none of the materials had been reported missing after the time of the mass looting that took place in 2003 (Baker).
IAEA refuted this claim with evidence that the disappearance took place at the end of 2003 and beginning of 2004. They point out that theses materials could not have been moved and the buildings dismantled without the use of of heavy machinery (Charbonneau).
Did the United States, it’s puppet government in Iraq, or US companies remove and sell these items or are they being used to start a new nuclear weapons production program in the country? Whatever the case, this incident has created a dramatic increase in nuclear proliferation. With all of the emphasis on Russia by US politicians, it would not be surprising that when this proliferation stemming from Iraq has negative consequence, the blame will fall on Russia.
Democracy in Check
All facts considered it appears that Russia is following the example set in the United States on limiting or perhaps completely eliminating Democracy. Media control, blacklisting, and the failure of electoral process in both countries is extremely alarming. The United States and Russia have in the past been considered the most powerful countries in the world and are today considered the most dangerous.
It would seem that both countries are engaged in a game of chess in which millions of people have a stake. The political intrigues and manipulations of the War on Terror are the framework for the game. The players, at least in the US, seem to stop at nothing to win this game. During the Cold War the nuclear race was one that seemed to be very controlled because the US and USSR were the only countries who could really resort to the use of nuclear weapons. Now we are in a situation where these countries have begun distributing these weapons and the ability to build them to the pawns of the game, to the very people we are supposedly protecting ourselves against.
Both countries are responding to the resultant external threats, not only by attempting to checkmate each other, but by placing Democracy in check as well. This destructive and self-serving game must be brought to an end before we lose all that remains to us in both countries.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
