The New Times reports that the crazed Russian nationalist press is now accusing, in classic Neo-Soviet style, Amnesty International of being . . . wait for it . . . a tool of the C.I.A. No kidding, that is what they really are saying in response to Amnesty's scathing critique of Russian racism as previously documented in La Russophobe.
The New Times quotes KM.ru as follows:
Having mentioned some points from the AI report, the author of the article, Alexander Pugachenko says without beating about the bush that this is one more provocation among many directed against Russia by Western secret services. And further, “It is well known that public, and especially human-rights, organizations are the most suitable and favorable instruments of the West in its information war against Russia. In this case, Amnesty International is the classical example of such effective instrument. This organization is trying to force on Russian citizens views that are not only harmful, but also dangerous to society and the country. Under the guise of the struggle against fascism, Russia is forced to adopt the unique and absurd law-enforcement practice, according to which any crime against a nona-Russian person is automatically made more serious by adding the motive of national hatred. Thus they are made the caste of ‘untouchables.’ And the struggle against mythical fascism acquires the traits of the struggle against Russians.” And now the crux of the matter: “Who benefits if there should be as few Russians in Russia as possible? You know the answer to this question. The disappearance of Russian civilization is the main goal of the West, primarily the United States.”The New Times concludes:
Such articles are interesting because their authors blurt out what many of their fellow thinkers do not dare say because of their high social or political position. In an interview with the German radio Die Deutsche Welle, AI analyst Peter Frank said that Russian authorities could be seriously reproached for their belittling, and sometimes ignoring and denying, the problem of racism. It had been considered unthinkable in the Soviet Union, which was the bulwark of “the friendship of the peoples,” although there were some completely unexpected events in Sumgait and Baku. And in the anti-fascist German Democratic Republic, neo-Nazi skinheads popped up as if by miracle, and there were many more of them there than in the Federal Republic of Germany. An admirer of the communist past could say something like “Here you are with the fruits of your democracy.” And this would only illustrate the concealment of information in the Soviet Union. Just as the authorities hid the truth about Chernobyl and Semipalatinsk, they did the same with Uzbekistan, where terrible pogroms of the Russian population took place in 1969. Is there a solution for xenophobia? In mid-April, two foreigners killed a Belgian youth in Brussels, not because of national hatred; it was a banal robbery. A protest meeting was held in the Belgian capital, in which more than 80,000 people took part. As journalists noted, despite the fact that the killers were foreigners, there was not one xenophobic word said.Once again, we see that despite absurd claims appearing in the popular press there has in fact been no significant transformation of any kind in the hearts and minds of Russians. And why should there be? If America had lost the cold war to Russia, would we expect Americans to give up their ideas about freedom, democracy and capitalism and to resolutely adopt Russian notions of slavery, dictatorship and poverty? Hardly.