 |
| Photo courtesy of Wikipedia |
"I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul."
-George W. Bush after meeting Vladimir Putin in 2001.
Written by Craig Boehman
There's nothing more heartwarming than a bunch of Neocons getting together and discovering the prospect of human rights, especially when it comes to one of their own billionaires, Mikhail Khodorkov. Even Hillary Clinton is getting in on the action in her role as Secretary of State in declaring that "serious questions about selective prosecution and about the rule of law being overshadowed by political considerations" and that it has "negative impact on Russia's reputation for fulfilling its international human rights obligations and improving its investment climate."
Key phrase: Improving its investment climate. Let's forget about the nitpicking on human rights for just a moment, and forget about Obama's proposed executive [read about this here] order that would hold detainees in Guantanamo indefinitely and thus continue to breach an age old doctrine of Habeas corpus. The fact remains: There is no meaningful difference between the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States when it comes to foreign and economic policies.
The Curious Case of Mikhail Khodorkov
Mr. Khodorkov is facing a second round of prison time for his current charges of embezzlement. As one of the pioneers of free market in Russia, he founded Bank Menatep in 1989, one of Russia's first private banks. He was head of Yukos Oil Company when he was first arrested and imprisoned on tax evasion charges. Now, in what can only be described as the I'm-Just-a-Poor-Russian-Oligarch-Defense-Strategy, Khodorkov's story is tugging at the heart strings of neocons and the public alike. How could Putin (the real power in Russia -- not Medvedev) go against democracy and the free market, and all the good things they stand for, and illegally convict and detain such a distinguished gentleman of business?
The answer: what is now widely accepted as the “free market” is not good for uninspiring billionaires.
Khodorkov was one of the powerful Russian oligarchs that began privatizing and siphoning off government institutions after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This was seen as a victory in the West as it was the end of Communism as the major player, the beginning of capitalism, the end of The Evil Empire. Unfortunately, as is always the case with corporatist tyranny, the very companies that were champions of capitalism were also the biggest suppressors of freedom and instigators of violence. While the old guard of communism and the Soviets may not be viewed in a flattering light, after the takeover by the oligarchs the Russian economy all but collapsed resulting in record unemployment never seen under Soviet rule. This led to mass poverty, starvation, rampant suicide rates, and exploitation of women as sex slaves for export – mainly to the West.
While Khodorkov was a local player, he certainly wasn't the mastermind behind neoliberalism. The rat carrying this plague is none other than the late American Milton Friedman and “his” economists. The movers n'shakers that subscribed to his Chicago school of economics started their experiments in Chile under Pinochet. Friedman acted as economic adviser to Pinochet at one point while the murder of thousands of Chilean citizens was being carried out. This move was supported fully by the US Government as recommended by right wing think tanks and carried out by the CIA in various operations. Since the 1970s privatization, cuts in government spending, and deregulation has been the name of the game – all in the name of profit, not democracy. This worldwide pandemic of insanity is now the standard issue for most governments in the West, if not all. Governments unwilling to open their doors to corporate exploitation, i.e. “free trade”, are subject to sanctions and military intervention. The latest incarnations of this policy have been playing out in Iraq, Afghanistan, China, and Russia, not to mention Venezuela, Nigeria, and many others. The narrative of Friedman and is ilk is wonderfully exemplified in Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine. This book should be a mandatory read for an understanding of the economic realities of the early 21st Century (but if you read all the hyperlinks here the dots can also be connected).
Analysis
Khodorkov is no champion of democracy. When Putin recently likened him to the Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff, he was hitting the nail on the head...he was judo-throwing his opponent to the mat...he was uncorking the vodka – he was right. How else would an old school KGB head react to western corporatist encroachment on Mother Russia? That's right. He'd send the agitator off to a prison camp in Siberia! Now if this doesn't tickle your cold war bone, nothing will. Does this mean we should pity Khodorkov? If you're a billionaire that subscribes to everything free market at all costs, profit-before-people, then yes. But if you're making less than say 7, 8, 9, or 10 figures a year, a resounding NO should be your gut response.
Regrettably, the much-maligned economic forces at work in the rest of the world are already firmly established in the US. The drive to privatize, deregulate, cut taxes, and to cut government spending to vital programs has already taken its toll. And it doesn't help when the financial institutions are bailed out of trouble with billions in tax dollars. It also doesn't help that both the Republican and Democrat parties, once in power in the Executive (already ensconced in the House and Senate and the Supreme Court) continue to conduct operations of economic and militaristic campaigns against countries that don't want to play ball. Indeed, members of Obama's administration sound no different in their rhetoric than any of Bush's cronies. Read the leaked cables on Wikileaks and specifically look at comments made by the Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. Her comments in many of these cables are quite revealing and hypocritical to the persona she likes to create for herself as a liberal. She may be a liberal, but she's the wrong kind, the “new” kind, the neoliberal. And I don't know about you, but when prominent members of both Parties agree on a topic such as the economy, it makes my blood run cold. Why would two parties so nakedly opposed to one another in almost every way agree one hundred percent on economics, the Chicago Boys inspired policies, and economic dissidents imprisoned in Siberia? Why would a President that campaigned on shutting down the Guantanamo detention (torture) facilities want to issue an Executive Order to detain prisoners there indefinitely, without due process, without rights? Why is there so much corroboration between the Parties on foreign policy (the wars) and the economy? Why did both Parties sell out its citizens?
Clue: “In god we trust.”
Whatever sublime mystery George W. spied in Putin's one eye, one thing remains a distinct possibility. Cold War II may have just begun. Could it be there is only one faction fighting this war for both sides in the form of corporatist government? Could it be that a second faction may be needed to win the conflict, one represented by the direct democracy of the people, by sheer force of number?
Whatever sublime mystery George W. spied in Putin's one eye, one thing remains a distinct possibility. Cold War II may have just begun. Could it be there is only one faction fighting this war for both sides in the form of corporatist government? Could it be that a second faction may be needed to win the conflict, one represented by the direct democracy of the people, by sheer force of number?
If scientists could create in a lab a super suspended state of disbelief, a theoretical lesson provided by George W. may be plausible. One needs to look into both eyes of the enemy to get a sense of soul. Otherwise, a wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse.
Please copy-paste, plagiarize, link, steal, or mass-produce this blog in any way you see fit!
