A Russian official has expressed satisfaction with his country's role -- or, rather, the lack thereof -- in the settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict.The peace process has come to a halt, yet no one admits that its failure is due to the fact that it is based, fundamentally, on injustice.
When Russia withdrew from the Middle East peace process, it had already been excluded from its role as an accountable sponsor. The Russians are usually sceptical about US intentions when it ignores them or pushes them aside. Initially, the two sponsors of the peace process worked together; soon, although the US continued to consult Russia, it began to act single-handedly. Thereafter, Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk and their colleagues in the Zionist posse at the State Department assumed full responsibility for the peace settlement. The US still allowed the EU envoy to shuttle between the capitals involved in the peace process, but made sure he was powerless to interfere.
The current stage is part of an overall effort to impede the peace process as a whole, in a bid to push the Arabs, particularly the Palestinians, into a critical and embarrassing situation, thereby compelling them to accept much less than they are willing to accept today.
Arab "peace associationists" see this view as a powerful justification for their positions. They argue that, as Arabs, we must persuade the Israelis that peace is worthwhile, that we wish to live together in peace, and that we are committed verbally, practically, legally, materially and possibly even religiously to protect peace. This is tantamount to saying that we are ready to sacrifice the lives of the next several generations for Israel's safety. The most important element is that the Israelis believe us, and consequently bring pressure to bear on Netanyahu (seen by certain activists as the only survivor of an obsolete racist species of Israelis).
I have heard a number of Arab officials express the idea that the US is deliberately slowing down the peace process, not because its hands are tied by Congress or the Zionist lobby, but simply because it views this pace to be in Israel's interest.
The few international relations experts remaining in Russia today are soundi ng a warning, albeit with excessive discretion. Under normal circumstances, a Russian official would have objected to the exclusion of his country from the peace settlement, and would have eagerly accepted an impromptu invitation from the Palestinian Authority to travel to the Middle East and resume his country's nominal sponsorship of the peace process, as stipulated by the Madrid agreement.
The Russians, like the Europeans (with the exception of France), are aware that the current stage of the peace process is one of 'bogus death' -- a stage during which all the positive values which played a role in this conflict are to collapse, while the scum piles up ever higher. Finally, a great conference could be held -- within a few months, a year. In this conference Europe, Russia and China would join in drawing up a final statement appointing Israel as the legitimate leader and protector of peace in the region, a peace formulated and defined solely by both Israel and the US.
I am not suggesting that the international community acquiesces fully to this scenario. But no one ever said that the US implements its policies through the full consent of the other players on the international arena.
General Alexander Lebed has said that military men and scientists at the Siberian military base that houses nuclear warheads recently disclosed that they had not received their salaries for over five months. He noted that the government in Moscow does not seem worried about this fact, and suggested that a solution be found before the situation explodes. He implied that Russia could use its 20,000 nuclear warheads, at least to threaten the West. General Lebed may only have been joking, as he later claimed, but it is a telling jest. His statement gives an indication of the political situation at the apex of the ruling hierarchy in Russia.
Nor were China and Russia really joking when they issued a joint statement condemning international hegemony, alluding specifically to US hegemony. Both states are caught tightly in the process of globalisation, and are discovering -- perhaps too late -- that this implies the loss of their freedom to act in certain situations. In Moscow, a new elite is emerging, led by Anatoly Chubais, described by Peres -- at one time a close friend -- as the genius who was able to redistribute wealth in Russia without shedding a drop of blood. As the bloody history of revolutions in Europe or in the world at large indicates, this is no small achievement.
Any revolution aims to redistribute wealth; only rarely has the reallocation of property taken place gradually, through peaceful reform. The blood spilled by the Mafia in Russia and the other member states of the dismantled Soviet Union, however, far exceeds that shed during many of the major revolutions known in history. The Russian Mafia is involved in extremely thorough processes. It has mobilised an army of 80,000 and possesses weapons that can be easily upgraded. It controls 550 banking institutions and almost 40,000 industrial firms, of which 500 are colossal governmental plants and 4,000 joint stock companies.
Such massive force was hardly available to the Bolsheviks in 1917, when they began their attempt to change the system of ownership and to redistribute wealth in Russia.The events taking place in Russia today are taking place elsewhere, and not only in the formerly socialist countries. Countries where the ruling elite has traditionally monopolised the lion's share of national wealth are also ensnared in the nets of globalism, cast on the waters by the "Davos elite". Those countries that refuse to comply with the processes of globalism are pressured by this global elite, of which the principal members are the US government, the local and international Mafia, and "globalism compradors".
This is not to say that these figures are involved in some shadowy conspiracy. They have formed no organisation; in fact, even the term "alliance" may not be an apt description, since their objectives have simply converged along the same lines. Their common goal is the redistribution of property and wealth in various countries. Quite clearly, no programme has been devised, no details have been elaborately worked out, and the parties are not solemnly and secretly pledged to implement a master plan. Yet clearly, there are priorities which take precedence in US foreign policy over humanitarian or political issues in Africa. These priorities are being imposed today, nowhere more clearly than in Southeast Asia and Japan. All considerations have been sacrificed to the consolidation of US-Chinese relations.
As far as the peace process is concerned, the US has been stalling. On other fronts, it has continued to spend billions of dollars, and to persuade the IMF to provide billions more. It has established revolutionary bases as vanguards for the redistribution of property; it has mobilised all its resources in a bid to pressure governments to enact legislation guaranteeing the freedom of expression when its revolution needed to express itself freely, or restraining such freedom, when the interests of the revolution were better served by red tape and the suppression of opinion.
In fact, there is no reason for Washington to speed up an unjust settlement which may place an additional burden on governments already overloaded with the task of redistribution of wealth and the establishment of a legal base for such practices. After all, these governments resent the task, for they know that in this, as in other, revolutions, not everyone can be a winner.
*The writer is director of the Arab Centre for Development and Futuristic Research. organization.
