About the site
Oasis online magazine
Analytical journalism
Guest book
Magazine       "Oasis"
No. 24 (44) December 2006
№ 23 (43) December 2006
№ 22 (42) November 2006
№ 21 (41) November 2006
№ 20 (40) October 2006
№ 19 (39) October 2006
№ 18 (38) September 2006
№ 17 (37) September 2006
No 16 (36) August 2006
15 (35) August 2006
No. 14 (34) July 2006
№ 13 (33) July 2006
№ 12 (32) June 2006
№ 11 (31) June 2006
No 10 (30) May 2006
No 9 (29) May 2006
№ 8 (28) April 2006
№ 7 (27) April 2006
No. 6 (26) March 2006
No. 5 (25) March 2006
№ 4 (24) February 2006
№ 3 (23) February 2006
№ 2 (22) January 2006
№ 1 (21) January 2006
on       journal [PDF]:
Oleg Panfilov,
project Manager,

Dmitry Alyaev,
chief editor,

Roman Zyuzin,
webmaster [at] cjes.ru

Adil Dzhalilov,

a diamond stylus,

Nargis Zokirova,
zokirova77 [at] mail.ru

Representative Names
in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan
not disclosed

Lyudmila Burenkova,
technical editor,
lyuda [at] cjes.ru

Elena Dorokhova,
Came to us, came to us ... Hugo Chavez, dear !!!
Murad Aytakov (Ashgabat)
Hugo Chavez’s tour of Belarus, Russia, Iran and beyond, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Tajikistan almost coincided in time. But the voyagers nevertheless crossed in Iran, where Chavez was awarded the title of Hero of Iran by the Iranian authorities for his feats on the anti-American front.

As the route of visits, and their content does not cause anyone surprise. Anti-Americanism as a primacy of the state policy of voyagemakers and contactees, it seems, should explain everything. Or almost everything. Verbose arguments about the need to create an "Anti-Imperialist Front", "Anti-Imperialist Pact" smoothly flow into a condemnation of "interference in internal affairs", "color revolutions" and other European and American inventions. And if the ideas of creating the “Anti-Imperialist Front” were met with understanding only during Chavez’s visit to Iran, the content of the term “interference in internal affairs” according to Chavez met with universal understanding on all points of his tour.

“I came to conclude a unity pact. By a united front, the peoples of Venezuela and Belarus must stand up for the protection of human rights. We have a common enemy - the hegemonic interests of world capital, which enslaved Europe and Latin America. We feel among friends and brothers. We want no one to deceive and colonize us, ”said Chavez in Belarus.

There was no point in expecting any other reaction than approval from the President of Belarus, and he himself confirmed this a few days after his friend Hugo left, telling the whole world: “What was formerly called“ one sixth of the land ”became the most intense platform global struggle for energy, military presence and influence. This struggle is actually without rules. ” That's just wondering what the rules meant Alexander Lukashenko? And about the protection of what human rights and from whom, Hugo Chavez did not specify.

And what about Russia? The contract of 3 billion (scary to think American!) Dollars to buy Venezuela planes and Kalash? It seems to be: “business and nothing personal”, as is customary in the Russian authorities now ...

But what is strange is: it was precisely at the same time (Chavez’s visit) that the public run-in of one of the terms of the new national idea for Russia, “sovereign democracy”, was timed. And that it is difficult to clearly explain even those people who invented this term. Although they were not the first, but ... Turkmenbashi, who, by a separate law, introduced something like this into the constitution of his state and brought the idea of ​​"national" democracy to complete absurdity in the form of the status of "permanent positive neutrality."

By the way, about Turkmenbashi. He took Ahmadinejad on the same days. A month earlier, he exposed an entire underground group of spies and hirelings of “special intelligence centers” (“Oasis” wrote about this in one of its latest numbers). And it was not for nothing that during the visit of the Iranian President to Turkmenistan both leaders declared:

From the joint communiqué: "... Turkmenistan supports the active and positive role of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the direction of its foreign policy in solving international issues in order to strengthen peace, stability and tranquility ... The Islamic Republic of Iran once again supports the status of neutrality of Turkmenistan and positively assesses the direction Turkmenistan’s foreign policy to promote calm, stability and peace. ”

And then again the questions arise: What kind of "active positive role" of Iran "in order to consolidate peace" says Turkmenbashi? Is it about the refusal of the Tehran regime to cooperate with the IAEA and the UN on its nuclear program? Or about calls to erase another state from the world map? And the Turkmenbashi itself makes a reasonable contribution to the cause of peace, tranquility and stability by accusing it of subversive activities and espionage of other states and international organizations?

All these clown escapades are not only implicated, but not so much on anti-Americanism and anti-imperialism, but on the desire to fence off the fence of "sovereign", "national" and other democracies from the rest of the world, completely unleashing their hands to fight their opponents . “Our train is on fire ...” - this paraphrase is fully exploited by Chavez, Lukashenko, Turkmenbashi, Ahmadinejad. And the set of enemies of arsonists is about the same - the “imperialists” and their hirelings from among the local “opportunists”, among whom there are always dissidents, human rights activists and journalists.

The rhetoric of all defendants refers us to the 93rd year, when the Bangkok Declaration was adopted, proclaiming the denial of the universalism of human rights with reference to certain "national peculiarities". Many observers even then noted a strange combination of the main initiators of the adoption of this Declaration: the fierce anti-communist General Suharto, the president of Indonesia, the head of Communist China and Islamist Iran. And interestingly, all these leaders visited Turkmenistan within a year after the signing of the Declaration. And then, President Saparmurad Niyazov, immediately adopted all the terminology of “national” democracy. But now everyone is going to Turkmenbashi the Great for advice and lessons on building such a democracy. Both Ahmadinejad and the All-Belarusian Old Man, the first visit abroad to Turkmenistan was made by Viktor Yushchenko, the democratically elected president of Ukraine, and President Vladimir Putin was there immediately after his election (for the first time).

National democracy is now in demand. That's just Hugo Chavez missed.

And what's next? And the fact that human rights are becoming an “internal affair” of the “Neongangks”. All the rhetoric of the United States and other Western countries is focused on the oil and gas aspects of its own security. And what is interesting, they do not care about ordinary citizens of Venezuela, Turkmenistan, Iran and Belarus. They are as unprincipled as the leaders of the countries mentioned. Alas, and we will write about it later.

And in Iran, all will also execute juvenile offenders, and the rest - in public; imprison for owning a satellite dish. And everyone in Turkmenistan will also be imprisoned for meeting with foreign journalists, and their relatives and all those who dared not bring about all this and much more. In Belarus, the case has not yet reached public executions, but all those who disagree are hiding in the Belarusian “zindan” or blamed on the “missing persons”. And in Venezuela, about half of the country's capable population marches with Russian “Kalash” in their hands. And in Russia itself ...

P.S. According to the organization State of World Liberty, Turkmenistan, Belarus and Uzbekistan are recognized as one of the most unfree countries in the world. Of the 159 states that were investigated, they took places in the ranking from 154 to 156. All of them will surely be pleased that there is the last one in the list - North Korea.

P.P.S. The study assumed a single scale of calculation for the three indicators - the level of economic freedom, the level of personal freedom and the value of taxes.

The rankings took into account the freedom index of the human rights organization Freedom House, the press freedom index of the Reporters Without Borders organization, the indices of economic freedom of the Heritage Foundation and the Fraser and Cato institutes.
All messages are moderated by the webmaster.
* Email
* Message
[fields marked with * are required]