About this and that on: PCN, ideology, praxis, perspectives – European Communitarianism – Libyan Resistance – ELAC & ALAC Committees – MEDD-RCM – Russia – Belarus – Transdniester – Abkhazia – Greater-Europe – Eurasia – NATO – "color revolutions" – "Arab Spring" …
During a regional conference of MEDD-RCM and ELAC-RUSSIA in Moscow on October 14, 2011,
Fabrice BEAUR interviews Luc MICHEL for PCN-TV Moscow.
Transcript of the video interview.
1. Fabrice BEAUR: You’ve commented on the Libyan case. You took a major part in the defense of Libya and criticized the official Russian position. You wrote that "Russia had fired against its camp" and had also "lost a great geopolitical ally."
Can you tell us more?
Luc MICHEL: Russia has lost a great geopolitical ally in Libya. Absolutely! Russian foreign policy in the Libyan case is an inconsistent policy which goes against all the national interests of Russia. It was the opinion of the last Russian Ambassador in Tripoli when he returned to Russia after leaving Libya in late March. Let us come first to the position of Libya in favor of Russia. Gaddafi’s Jamahiriya was the stronghold of Russia in the Mediterranean. With Syria. But Syria is quite in a different position.
Gaddafi was extremely favorable to Russian interests. Following his trip to Russia in 2009, it was still with Vladimir PUTIN that he had negotiated a number of treaties. The Russians would have had to have a naval base in Benghazi. Adding that Russia had become the leading supplier of arms to Libya and that the Russians were favored for many oil contracts.
The problem of the general policy of Russia is that the coup that has destabilized Libya and then Western aggression take place in a series of events that aim actually the control by the United States of Eurasia. This is the program defined by Zbigniew Brzezinski in "THE GRAND CHESSBOARD" And I remind, because it is something often ignored, that at the time of the U.S. presidential election, Obama’s principal adviser on foreign policy was precisely Brzezinski. Going support the overthrow of the Libyan regime, behaving with extreme shyness in face of the aggression against the Syrian regime, is of course set the stage for future aggression against Russia itself, which is the ultimate goal of the Americans .
2. Fabrice BEAUR: The wave of aggression against the Arab world, and especially against Libya and Syria is clearly a Western operation to destabilize similar to the "color revolutions" carried out by the United States in Eastern Europe since 2000 and the fall of President Slobodan Milosevic.
What do you think of this?
Luc MICHEL: I was the first in early February, to draw attention to the similarities between the "color revolutions" and the so-called "Arab spring". What concerned me from the beginning, is that not only the scenario is the same as in the "color revolutions" in Eastern Europe, but also that the actors are the same. You should know that the so-called "color revolutions" is a series of coups generally organized on the occasion of elections, but also of social unrest. Behind these operations, there is a set of organizations that are so-called "NGO", but in fact are camouflaged U.S. state agencies, which under the guise of "promoting democracy" provide financing for opposition in countries that Americans want to destabilize.
Behind this system, there is an international group called OTPOR (in Serbian: "resistance"). This is the first group, which organized a "color revolution" with funding from the Americans. They are the ones who organized the coup against Milosevic in October 2000. You should know that President Milosevic ran against Kostunica, the opposition candidate and of the West, some idiots have called the "Serbian de Gaulle" (sic). In fact, Milosevic had won the election. The people of OTPOR have spread into the street, they proclaimed the victory of Kostunica, who was both the candidate of the West but also the candidate of the Serbian ultranationalists. And then followed a series of days of rioting. The so-called "peaceful revolution", as OTPOR claims to organize peaceful revolutions, was immediately turned into riots, attacks with the occupation of the Serbian Parliament, the looting of the seat of our comrades of the Socialist Party of Serbia, SPS.
OTPOR then was transformed by the Americans with huge funding, in an international movement. Which organized in Belgrade, Serbia, the so-called international school CANVAS. A school where one learns to militants to destabilize regimes. Courses are taught in Arabic since 2009 and most of the activities on the Internet social networking, but also in the riots in the cities during the so-called "revolutions" in Egypt and Tunisia, were from this group. The group OTPOR also trained and sponsored other similar groups that have been seen in Algeria, Yemen, Bahrain and also in the first few days in Benghazi in Libya.
How do we know? One must be blind not to see! Because the hallmark of OTPOR is its logo, a stylized hand that recalls the emblems of some fascist organizations in the 30′s. The flag of OTPOR is a white fist on black in a white circle. This is exactly the design of the flag of the SS, who had two runic S in exactly the same black circle. Our Yugoslav comrades in 2000 called the people of OTPOR the "Madleen Jungen" by reference to Madleen Albright who was the U.S. Secretary of State at the time and who financed them. The characteristic of all groups associated with OTPOR is this common logo. Why do they do it? On the one hand between them justly to show their solidarity. But also because they must justify their American master the money spent.
3. Fabrice BEAUR: You have extensively analyzed the relationship between these "color revolutions" and the so-called "Arab Spring", about which you are the specialist. In the beginning of February 2011, you were the only one to discern the current operation and to announce the aggression against Libya ten days before it began.
Can you explain us the links between all these events in Europe and the Arab world?
Luc MICHEL: I just explained to you already the modus operandi. When the events started in the Arab world, that is to say at the end of 2010, I was immediately struck, even before the OTPOR emblems appear by the similarity of the process. That is to say that what happened in Serbia in 2000, then in Belarus and Russia (where they failed), in Georgia, Ukraine (where they succeeded), in Kyrgyzstan (where they succeeded), then back in Belarus. I discerned this process, this modus operandi in the achievement.
But behind this achievement, there is a plan, a scenario. This scenario what is it? This is the U.S. project of "Greater Middle East". What is it? It is about creating a vast geopolitical area under U.S. control, with a maximum of small states, of micro-states, if possible religious or ethnic groups. If you look at what is happening in Iraq, Americans favor the break-up of Iraq. In Syria, there is no doubt that it’s the same question. In Libya, one will oppose Cyrenaica to the rest of Libya.
The control system is therefore the balkanization. The one who invented in politics balkanization is Cardinal Richelieu in Germany of the 17th century. When France, the great power at the time of the Continent, had intervened in German affairs. Can neither control nor dominate Germany militarily, the French, just to stay dominant power, organized the balkanization. This is the Thirty-Year War. The Thirty-Year War ends with the Treaty of Westphalia and Germany is divided into 700 micro-states. I make this long digression, because you should know that the political model of Kissinger – and Kissinger is himself a mentor to Brzezinski, who was his collaborator – is precisely Cardinal Richelieu.
These people belong to the American School of Geopolitics and they also belong to another school, also ideological called American neo-Machiavellian. For you to understand how these people think of politics, we are, we, the European neo-Machiavellians. Their vision of politics is based on geopolitics, on the basis of the power of states. There is in it no morality and feeling, but power relations.
To understand how we arrived at these pseudo "revolutions," I told you about the actors, I told you about the process. But to achieve all this, there was essentially a scenario. This scenario, in fact, no one realized that it was not only written but published in form of a book in the middle of this decade, in 2004-2005. The Americans have launched, under the control of the CIA, a large number of prospective studies. What are these prospective studies? This is what the founder of this discipline, Bertrand de Jouvenel, the great French political scientist, called "futuribles." How does it work? Well, many experts are studied, they are made to talk, have a series of symposiums and so on. And from that, people draw scenarios. Among the scenarios that were outlined by the Americans, there is the balkanization of the Middle East. There is a scenario of "the worst" which is a huge success of our ideas is to say, the freeing of Eurasia becoming a superpower taking the rank of first world power on the United States. There is an Islamist scenario, they call the "New Caliphate".
The Americans drew the conclusions of these scenarios. Not they expect that they realize, but they are learning for action. The purpose of these "futuribles" is to say how to react. And it’s very simple! It will be necessary on one side to prevent the emergence of Eurasia and on the other side to prevent the emergence of radical Islamic states. The solution is very simple, it is the "Greater Middle East". That is to say that on one side there are thus a series of micro states to create. Balkanization policy destabilizes permanently the area, this destabilization affects Europe itself. It affects it directly because on the southern flank of Europe, the Caucasus and the Balkans, Islamist unrest will develop that will harm Russia, but also the European Union. And secondly there will be problems in the supply of oil. It is again the sources of supply of Europe that are affected. And the third reason of what will happen is that through NATO the European Union is involved in the aggression against Arab countries. That is to say that the puppets, the ‘European’ puppets, with quotes, of NATO make the policy that will harm the fundamental interests of the Greater Europe. In particular they attack those who should be our best allies.
In the case of Libya, it is particularly tragic, since it overlooks the fact that Muammar Gaddafi was a great European. He supported the European Union, he supported its emergence as a power, he supported the Euro in 2008. These are the Libyan sovereign fund that saved the euro in France, Belgium, Italy and Switzerland.
The scenario of what I say here has been published in a book called "Report of the CIA." No secret at all since published in French under the title " LE RAPPORT DE LA CIA. COMMENT SERA LE MONDE EN 2020 ? (THE REPORT OF THE CIA. HOW WILL THE WORLD BE IN 2020?") All this has nothing confidential or secret. There’s even a pocket edition in French, which is prefaced by the Zionist journalist Alexandre ADLER, where he describes what is happening in the Middle East and is announced in this report of the CIA.
What is the technique? The general method is to organize unrest in the states, destabilizing the system they want to reverse. This is what the leftists did not understand! No matter that these states are anti-American like Libya or pro-American like Tunisia and Egypt. In these states, the Americans want to see the emergence of pro-American military. Those already in power in Tunisia and Egypt, and those they are trying to bring to power in Libya. And facing them, Americans want to organize the rise of Islamist parties around the Muslim Brotherhood who are old allies. They have been allies of the Americans for 40 years. The power will then be shared among Islamist parties like the Muslim Brotherhood, which will dominate parliament. But to stay in power they will have to deal with the army, which itself will continue to control public life, the military and the economy.
This is a particularly vicious plan. For those who have illusions about the so-called "Arab spring" (sic) on the spontaneity of the people on the "youth revolution" (resic), you must look at what happened in eight months in Egypt or Tunisia. In Egypt, it is always a marshal who replaced General Mubarak. It’s the army that controls and Islamists who are preparing to win the election in accordance with the military. What is happening in Tunisia is the same. It is always in fact the military who were behind the regime of General Ben Ali, and those about to win elections, it is the Tunisian version of the Muslim Brotherhood, the party Ennahda. It’s still the same scenario as the Americans try to impose Syria. Always with the Muslim Brotherhood.
4. Fabrice BEAUR: There are parliamentary elections in Russia on December 4. On Social Networks a "color revolution" is specifically announced at the same time. A procedure similar to what happens in the Middle East since late 2010.
What do you think?
Luc MICHEL: I must say that my analysis is long overdue. I have always said that Europe would one day with Russia be a target of the movement and I said it particularly when Medvedev betrayed his Libyan ally in the UN. And then again in June, when he recognized the so-called Libyan "National Transitional Council".
The news confirms my analysis. Because it is not just to announce a "color revolution", insurgency events in Russia in connection with the parliamentary election. This is something that goes much further because there is a desire to organize an armed uprising, as in Libya!
A few days ago, U.S. Senator McCain was in Tripoli. One must first know who is McCain. Most people in Europe present him as a "U.S. Senator" or "former candidate" for the presidency. What he is actually! But McCain has quite a different hat. He is actually one of the men who control precisely this group of NGOs we discussed earlier, pro-American, that depend on U.S. State organizations. It is this funding that sustains such associations or NGOs depending on McCAIN and the CIA. Directly, please see their budgets! McCAIN is so controlling them. McCAIN went to Tripoli I would say to receive the report of his subordinates.
And from there he launched a call. This call is not for a "color revolution". He called for an armed uprising in Russia! What did McCAIN say? Simply that what happened in Libya is an "example" and he hopes that "the Russians will take the opportunity to do in Moscow what the Libyans did" We are now in a process that is not just the "color revolution", but that is a call to civil war.
Why this escalation? For various reasons. But from an American point of view – I mean, the Europeans and especially the French particpate in the same operation but have a different agenda and other purposes than those of the Americans – it is that America is in deep economic crisis. It is now a minor economic power. They no longer have the means to ensure the domination of the world. So now the Americans are in a hurry, time is against them, and they want to quickly organize the destabilization of Eurasia and the Middle East.
The Americans also know that their process of "color revolutions" in Eastern Europe, is very well known by the regimes that are the targets. And they have organized backfiring. Their leaders have the same analytical frameworks than me.
I gave a conference with the MEDD-RCM, "the European 6th Congress of the MEDD" in Zawiah, near Tripoli, Libya, on 5 and 7 February 2011. And I at the podium, and then in several interviews attracted the attention of the Libyan brothers on this. And I must honestly say that I was greeted with polite smiles. Some have said I was going crazy. "What is he doing? "Because the Libyans had no keys of analysis, nor the knowledge to understand what was happening.
In Eastern Europe, it was not the case!
The first to put a stop to the "color revolutions", is President Lukashenko, on several occasions, beginning in 2001. How has he done? He did it very simply, it is to say, taking the street by a youth movement, which is the Republican Union of Youth of Belarus. It is a movement which is not far from the theses of the PCN-NCP, also in particular because they advocate the development of a "Eurasian civilization" in a strong and socialist state. He also used the means of propaganda, media of counter-propaganda, compared to what do against him the Americans and Europeans. And those who followed his example, it’s obviously the Putin regime. The idea of a "color revolution" in Russia goes back to several years ago. The Americans were organizing an opposition movement quite artificial, but that has large financial resources. We’ll come back if we have time. The seditious movement has repeatedly tried riots, insurrections, occupations of government buildings. Putin’s response was to build on Lukashenko and create a great democratic anti-fascist youth movement, capable of having the street under control. It is the movement NASHI "ours", which are also friends of the PCN-NCP.
The Americans, knowing that and knowing then that a "color revolution" just starting from activists in insurrection does not work or not anylonger, obviously think of plunging the country they attack in the civil war.
5. Fabrice BEAUR: The so-called "Russian opposition" is a motley conglomerate that includes liberals like Kasparov and Kasyanov, Trotskyists, neo-fascists like Limonov …
How do you explain this? What unites all these traitors? Is the money paid by the West an important factor?
Luc MICHEL: There are between these people three powerful links. The first link is resentment. Resentment because these people are failures of politics. They know that the Russians will not follow them. You must know that the national policy Putin is doing, which is supported also by a real opposition, which is that of our comrades of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation of Zyuganov, the KPRF. Zyuganov does not agree with Putin economically, but he agrees with the main lines of the patriotic and Eurasian recovery of Russia. For it is his program! How Putin defined his main lines? Simply by taking the program of the KPRF, which draws on the theories of Jean Thiriart adopted by the Russian National-patriots in 1992.
The second thing that unites these people is a desire for revenge, a desire for negative, nihilistic power. That is to say that these failures of politics, however, would like dominate Russia. Or destroy it!
The third thing that unites them, it is clear and sharp, it’s money! That is to say – and I’ll be honest in my response – in the case of Kasparov or Kasyanov it’s money personally. In the case of Limonov, who I will speak of at greater length, it is not to put money in his pocket, but that money is there to finance his movement and its cultural enterprises.
Obviously this coalition called the "other Russia" (sic) is a heterogeneous team, to use the correct French term. There are first in that coalition the hard-core liberals. Kasparov, Kasyanov who is a former minister, and others from the liberal ranks of the Yeltsin era. Obviously these people dream of a Russia that is a great "America" integrated into the Global System. The second element are elements of some ultra left-wing Trotskyist minority. The third element is actually the movement of Limonov. Limonov, and it must be clear, called his movement "National Bolshevik". You know that the modern version of National Bolshevism was created by the PCN-NCP in the early 80′s. At that time Limonov was an anti-Soviet dissident, who will long live in the United States, in prostitution as revealed in his novels. You must read the biography devoted to him by the son of Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, Emmanuel Carrère. The movement of Limonov is a movement that is neither "national" nor "Bolshevik." It is a movement of a purely neo-fascist type, whose mode of action is violent activism and whose base is not a social base, but a mass comprising the most culturally marginal milieu. The movement of Limonov, is not a political movement but a youth movement that has the cult of violence for violence. What was also one of the characteristics of Mussolini’s Fascism. How Limonov develops this? He develops all in a permanent policy of confrontation with the authorities. And that’s where I’m going to use a strong term, the French word “crapule” (scoundrel, crook) who he is really. Why? Because he involves a year-round hundreds and hundreds of young men who sacrifice their lives, who are excluded from the universities, who are doing prison sentences. All this to satisfy a personal literary career and a personal ego of a failed artist.
You should know that we intervened in at least one occasion to help a young female "National-Bolshevik" activist Alina LEBEDEVA, a Russian youth activist from Riga in Latvia. Who was driven by Limonov to a public act during a visit of Prince Charles (of England) in Riga. I speak here of 2001. She slapped the prince with a red rose and Latvia, which is a state whose law enforcement system is quasi fascist, was about to sentence her to five years in prison! Limonov has done nothing to help her, because his goal is just that, to satisfy the publicity of his movement. This publicity is through repression with media coverage. This causes me disgust, because I think we do not play with the lives of young people. So it suited him this girl takes 5 years. The PCN-NCP did a great campaign. It was the beginning of the Internet. We contacted among others all the Latvian and European MP’s, all the journalists, we have faxed and phoned the Latvian government. And finally she was given one month suspended sentence. And I tell you frankly that this is one of the acts I am the happiest in my political career!
So this coalition "Other Russia" is the backbone of the destabilization, these are people who are willing to destroy their country, to deliver it to the Americans, just to overthrow a regime. There is no ideology in there!
And in the case of Limonov, explain to me how this movement could be "for Eurasia." This movement, which asserted itself for the "Stalinist grandeur" … Tell me how it can be in a coalition funded directly by money from the CIA, by the Americans, whose ultimate aim is the dismemberment of Russia. Because you should know that the U.S. plan to destroy Russia, is a project that was in 1940 the one of the Nazis. It is the project of Brzezinski, it is the project of Madeleine Albright. It is to divide Russia into three states: a Muscovite state, a Siberian state and a Caucasian state. And that is to say that Russia does not even become a regional power. It would be nothing!
These are the people that the U.S. uses to destabilize Russia, these are the people who will be put in action in a few weeks in December in Russia. And we hope that our comrades of NASHI obviously will do their patriotic duty with firmness.
6. Fabrice BEAUR: The PCN-NCP is active in many European countries, both East and West, and Africa. You fought particularly the "color revolutions" supporting Milosevic’s Yugoslavia from 1996. Then countries directly attacked as Belarus, Transdniester, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Libya or the Ivory Coast.
The PCN-NCP is analogous in fact to an "anti-OTPOR" the armed wing of the "color revolutions." This analysis, as do many observers, does it seem correct for you?
Luc MICHEL: The analysis that many observers do of our action may be a little bit caricatured, but real, and not far from the truth. In fact I think for the people who will listen to us, we must give more details. So there are recent studies, because there are a lot of studies about the PCN-NCP at the moment. Among our opponents, there is a political activist who plays the "researcher" in a University of Southern France, and explains that "the PCN-NCP is an international organization in itself." He is right of course. The way we work, how we are organized, how our executives can be militants, sometimes far from their home country or even cross-country campaigning, it all reminds what the KOMINTERN in the years 20-30 was.
The comparison is also developed by Kornel Sawinski, PhD student at the University of Krakow, Poland. He is a serious researcher, unlike the French scribbler, who works great for the moment on a doctoral thesis on Jean Thiriart and the PCN-NCP, on our ideas. And on the occasion of his research, so he was obviously struck by the fact that not only we act in many countries where we operate, but we played, a little of course, the role of an "anti-OTPOR." Not so much as we would like, because we have not obviously been funded by either the CIA or by any state, because that doesn’t interest us. We do not politics for the money, so we have limited resources. But insofar as we act in a number of countries, we are actually both a movement that trains people, we are an activist movement, we are extremely present in social networks.
And I will say that on the level of social networks, because it requires fewer resources, we are often on a par with our adversaries. You know we worked throughout Europe and Africa to support the assaulted Libyan Jamahiriya with the ELAC committees / Euro-Libyan Action Committees and the African sister association, which we then created, when I was asked by Tripoli after the great Conference in April 2011 to support the Jamahiriya, in Tripoli. So we created a sister association that is ALAC / African-Libyan Action Committees, with African comrades. We have thus developed a very great action on social networks. You should know that social networks are one of the issues, one of the main fields of action. Precisely because our movement is coordinated via social networks. But also because, inter alia, agents of the West use them to launch a "color revolution" in Russia for the next legislative. It’s on the Internet in Libya that started the coup of February 15, 2011. On Internet still, in Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria and so on. On social networks we are therefore often on par. We don’t say it but our opponents do. In July 2011, there was a major campaign against the ELAC committees and against me personally, made by e-mail and on all social networks. And they explained that "in Europe and particularly in the Francophone area" (Belgium, France, Canada, etc.) what they called "the pages of supporting dictators" (sic) "accounted for more people than those who attacked them. "
So I think that this comparison was bold but not inaccurate. It also corresponds to our project. That is to say that for us the policy is something concrete. We are people who love ideology, political doctrine, geopolitics. But that’s the theory. You know that I often quote this quote from Goethe because it pleases me. This is the one that said that "the theory is gray, but the tree of life is green." I think that ideology has to be activated. What is our European Communitarianism? What is the PCN-NCP? It is a praxis, that is to say it is a worldview, an ideology into action. So you have to do something concrete.
The difference between the PCN-NCP and other organizations, which differentiates us from most of the movements known as "extremists" or "radical" is that these are movements that are inactive. They are in a political theater, do not act on the concrete, nothing. The PCN-NCP since it exists leads concrete campaigns, works with states, including Libya, which is a very good example. The PCN-NCP is involved in the fighting and engage in concrete things with real success! This is one of our characteristics and this is why also a lot of militants are joining us because they don’t want to live anylonger in a political ghetto.
7. Fabrice BEAUR: Nashi also is a fine example of militant response to Western interventionism. What do you think of Nashi, its development, its current presentation?
Luc MICHEL: Nashi is the big youth movement that supports Putin. As we have said before, this movement is based on former KOMSOMOL, the Communist Youth, which they have taken in particular the red colour as emblem. NASHI is a movement that runs very well and it is a movement that has the support of the Russian state. The head of NASHI Vasily YUKAMENKO is Minister of State in charge of youth since recent years. We met him in Seliger in 2007. And so NASHI is mainly what could be the PCN-NCP if it had the financial means of its ambitions. It is a great movement, which has a lot of work, which maintains a great sense of patriotism in Russian youth.
We lived its work from inside. It is a privilege and a great human adventure. We participated in July 2007 to the NASHI summer camp "Seliger" on Lake Seliger near the city of Tver, 400 km from Moscow. It is a great youth camp in tents, which includes between 10,000 and 20,000 young people from across the former Soviet space. They come there to play sports, attend ideological conferences, see their combined force. The best of the camp have the privilege to meet Putin himself. In 2007 we had the honor of participating as trainers at the camp. We sent a delegation of senior Walloons, French and Moldovans to the camp, where we lectured. Including me on the geopolitics of the "Greater Europe". We saw an extremely healthy youth, we saw some interesting people, not at all these tired young people of the West, sinking into drugs and alcohol. About alcohol, you should know that in this camp alcohol is banned, in a country like Russia where alcoholism is a big problem. They took this problem round the waist.
So I consider NASHI as a brother movement! It does not stop there of course. Beyond that, there are other youth movements in Europe that fall into the same extension. There is NASHI in Russia, there are our comrades of PRORIV (Прорыв) in PMR ("Breakthrough" in English). PRORIV is a kind of NASHI much more ideological besides, much more politicized, under the patronage of Che Guevara. They have a school of the same name in Tiraspol, Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria, which also has as emblem Che Guevara. It is the "Che Guevara School for the top political staff". With PRORIV we come back to the response to "color revolutions" since PRORIV was created to prevent a pro-Western creeping coup in the Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria, precisely to prevent a color revolution there. Other movements obviously exist too. Among others the Republican Youth Union of Belarus, pro-Lukashenko.
And is also part of this circle of influence everywhere and not just in Western Europe, the PCN-NCP-J, "the NCP youth," our youth organization. Why do I say everywhere? Because we are profoundly reshaping the movement. To the branch of the current PCN-NCP-J, which is mainly in French-speaking area, will be added in a few weeks a Turkish branch, a branch for Central Europe and the Balkans, and a liaison office in Russia. Here there is no question of going double NASHI, for example, which would not be productive. We want more and more work with them on practical grounds.
Because I insist on this, in the PCN-NCP they are not dreamers, they are not people who play "independent journalists". These are activists who act politically. We do politics, we do not do journalism. We conduct concrete actions such as in Libya. There have already been actions of senior PCN-NCP members that framed the actions of young people of NASHI in Strasbourg and Brussels on the issue of fascism and the rights of Russian minorities in Estonia, in the Baltic countries. We campaigned with NASHI in the Baltic countries. Here they were preceded by almost 10 years since the first major European campaign that has been made to defend the rights of Russians in the Baltic countries, that is to say people who are second class citizens without civil and political rights since the breakup of the Soviet Union, was made by the PCN-NCP in 1998.
Just because I knew those countries, I got married in 1998 in Riga with a Russian and therefore I was living the problem directly. This also the case of our comrade Fabrice himself, since he now lives in Russia, where he married a senior officer of NASHI, met in Seliger in 2007.
8. Fabrice BEAUR: You have theorized in the mid 80′s, with Jean Thiriart and your "Euro-Soviet School of Geopolitics" a Eurasian vision of the Greater Europe. In 2006, you have theorized the concept of "two Europes".
My question is twofold: Can you briefly summarize these geopolitical concepts? And do you consider that our ideas have gained ground and that the Eurasist theses of Vladimir Putin are part of the same vision? Indeed Putin has just taken a public stand for the further integration of Eurasia. Do you share his geopolitical vision?
Luc MICHEL: That’s a big question. But I’ll summarize it quickly. First from the departure of the concepts. What was the "Euro-Soviet School of Geopolitics?" The name specifies the content, that is to say that we advocated at the time, in 1983-1990, a Greater-Europe from Vladivostok to Reykjavik. We thought, we still think that the "Piedmont" of Greater-Europe will be Russia or the Soviet Union at the time. It’s a Eurasian type Greater-Europe, since it includes the Caucasus and in our broad vision of Eurasia the two shores of the Mediterranean. When the Soviet Union collapsed, we have transformed this concept into reality by taking what still existed, in other words, the Russian Federation, which is still a large part of the Soviet Union. How we see it? We see a progressive union of the European Union, the European Economic Community and the former – I stress the former – Soviet Union, because it is not only Russia but it also concerns all the republics which are derived from it, including in the Caucasus.
The key to this concept, is thus to understand that the EU is not exclusively or only Europe. I speak here of how we expressed it between 1983 and 2000. Not only it’s not all Europe but it’s not a Europe that can legitimately claim to represent Europe. Just because it accepted, and it’s the internal betrayal of the European Union, to place itself under the subjection of the United States, a subjection that is provided by NATO. NATO, in the words of Jean Thiriart, "it is not the shield of Europe, it is its harness," as a harness to keep a dog or a horse.
When Russia began to recover with Vladimir Putin, Russia’s recovery has been at the very moment when the EU itself collapsed. Why the European Union collapses with the economic crisis? It collapses because it has an internal contradiction, which is here also again the subjection to the United States. That is to say that the EU is an economic giant and is the main economic enemy of the United States. There is a Europe-US economic war. But parallel to this, NATO made the EU the first of the American colonies. And European countries provide the United States through NATO the means of its military power. We have the example again with Libya. The United States can not afford now, in an economic crisis, to organize the attack on Libya and have thus made it by the NATO countries.
When Russia began to recover, it was done also with an ideological vision of Eurasia, which is ours, which began to develop in the political and military elite.
I want to digress to indicate that the first modern manifestation of the Eurasist theses were made by the PCN-NCP in 1986. In the journal CONSCIENCE EUROPEENNE we spoke for the first time of the Russian Eurasists, the Russian National Bolsheviks of USTRIALOV. We developed these concepts at a time, and I will speak directly because we do not practice waffle cant, when some, like DUGIN, who then built a Russian version of Eurasism, which is much different of ours, attending the traditional far right-wing circles. They were related to the movement PAMIAT and they absolutely did not practice these theories.
When PUTIN intervened, the Eurasist theories have developed, they arrived within the PUTIN system. Moreover, not only via Dugin, as experts like Marlène LARUELLE write, but by a channel that is a little different. That is to say that in the early 90s, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation of Guenady ZYUGANOV adopted the Eurasist and great-European theses and it adopted them just after the trip to Moscow of Jean Thiriart in August 1992, just weeks before his death. In the preface to the Italian edition of the book of Zyuganov "STATO E POTENZA" is a tribute to Thiriart. These ideas were also developed in another area of politics, always via Zyuganov’s party, it is the party of Zhirinovsky.
Dugin plays a useful role, because to be honest, he is a great polyglot intellectual. We disagree with him outside of geopolitics, but we agree on geopolitics. His movement has supported our efforts to assist the Libyan Jamahiriya and I think it’s a gesture that is welcome! And Dugin let also penetrate these ideas in the military, in military academies, etc..
The result, now I come back to your question in general, in the middle of this decade we were in a situation of a Russia standing up and in parallel to a European Union that was collapsing. We are among those for whom the failure of the European Union has always been considered already in the early 60′s. How we saw the European process? We saw a harmonious positive process, that is to say that Europe, the European Community (which is the meaning of our "European Communitarianism" and not that given to this term in the United States), the European Union would have passed to the stage of a federal state and then to a supranational state. The foundations of that State, was the single currency what has been done, but it was also an independent diplomacy and an army, an independent government. And that, let’s be clear, they never will do because of NATO! Because of this, the European Union is a planned failure.
I was struck in 2005-2006 by the positions taken by Vladimir Putin, but also by some of the ideologues of the regime, as Surkov, for example. What was that position? It’s that more and more Russia aimed to create another Europe. What I have, I, theorized under the name of the "two Europes". It was to reconstitute from the countries of the former Soviet Union a number of unions. These include the Eurasian Economic Union, that’s what Putin has just spoken about strengthening it, it’s a kind of European Economic Community. That’s how the EU has started, but there is also a political union and a customs union between Belarus and Kazakhstan. There is also a union member, which is the CSTO, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, also known as the "Shanghai Group". And there is clearly an anti-NATO, that is to say that this is a group that seeks to oppose NATO. Furthermore, in terms of military power, we must know that this "Shanghai Group" militarily has superior means than those of the United States and NATO.
And those who have dreams of "an American 21st century" make many illusions. Because in the "Shanghai Group" there is not only Russia but also China. The Americans lost the war in Iraq, they have lost in Afghanistan. And the tiny Libyan Jamahiriya, with its 6 million inhabitants, it vigorously resists. And I tell you it’s not over! Throughout Libya, cities resist now for six months to all the Western powers, including the major military powers such as the United States, France and Great Britain.
Since it concerns the two Europes, it’s pretty simple to say that a "second Europe" exists. And we think, we, it’s that Europe that embodies legitimacy. Because this second Europe is independent. There is no legitimacy in Western Europe with the European Union. Because what’s the European Union? These are the Kollabos of the Americans, just as Petain’s France with the Third Reich had no independence. This "second Europe" will go to developing more and more, it covers a huge area, almost the former Soviet Union minus the Baltic states and Moldova. There are immense material reserves. And it is expected to grow. It is also called to be a counter-model as the failure of the European Union will assert itself.
I would add that this view of the "two Europes" is a concept that goes back even further. In the mid-30, some political theorists, in France and Belgium in particular, at the time also spoke of "two Europes". They talked then so little of Russia, but of Western Europe and Central Europe, Hungary, Romania and Poland and so on. They wanted to unite at the time in a united Europe. The pan-European idea is not new, that’s when the young Jean Thiriart – he was born in 1922 – acquired his European consciousness. Then as now, these "two Europes" are economically complementary. And the purpose of course is that from these two Europes we go to one Europe and to a supranational state.
I would add two direct things. And we come back to political praxis. That is to say that we believe that the PCN-NCP and our ideology, the European Communitarianism, have a central role to play, being a reserve of ideas and a Think-Tank as the Americans say, providing concepts. You should know that the second Eurasian Europe is in large part many of our concepts. Those who refuse to see and note it are dishonest and want to harm us.
We think there is room in this process for an activist movement, and not just in the defense of the countries of the Second Europe: Russia, Belarus, states what are called the "CIS-Bis" is to say, Transdniester, Abkhazia, South Ossetia. We were on the field, we have directly participated in 2006-2008 when these republics have led the fight capital for the existence of their states, we went there, we helped them. We have provided logistical media support. We participated in the organization in particular of their independence referendum.
And of course we have decided to continue providing the service of the idea of a Greater-Europe, a movement both ideological and activist, transnational, unititarian, organized. This is the very definition of the PCN-NCP!
Fabrice BEAUR for PCN-TV, Moscow.