Friday, 2 October 2015


Commemorating the Life of Radical Kenyan Trade Unionist and National Liberation Activist Makhan Singh

Khalili Lecture Theatre, SOAS, 
7-9pm Mon 05 Oct, 2015

[Facebook event page]

This event commemorates the life of Makhan Singh (1913-1973) who was a radical trade unionist, revolutionary, and activist in Kenya. He was imprisoned, detained, and exiled for over 15 years by the colonial authorities in India and Kenya for his outspoken stance on the imperatives of national liberation of the East African Territories. He dedicated his life to social, economic and political liberation and was an ardent campaigner for the rights of all workers in Kenya in speaking out against the regimes of colonialism and imperialism.

The event will not only highlight this important yet overlooked labour and anti-colonial history but will also bring together voices of activists, family members, and commentators who will reflect on this history of the labour movement in Kenya and on Makhan Singh’s life.

An edited volume (edited by Shiraz Durrani, Vita Books: London) which explores various aspects of Makhan Singh’s life will be released at this event.

Judith Heyer, Emeritus Fellow, Somerville College, University of Oxford
Mary Davis, Visiting Professor in Labour History, Royal Holloway, University of London
Shiraz Durrani, Kenyan activist in exile; (Retired) Senior Lecturer, London Metropolitan University
Sukant Chandan, activist and film-maker
Dr. Inderjit Jabbal-Gill (Daughter of Makhan Singh)
Arvinder S. Jabbal (Grandson of Makhan Singh)

This event will be chaired by Dr Navtej Purewal.


The 'west' and Russia and war in Syria: what they say, what they actually do:

The 'west' say: they are fighting the Syrian govt and also terrorists.

What they are actually doing: fighting to overthrow the Syrian govt and support all and every manner of death squads including especially al-qaeda branch 'Jabhan Nusra' and also 'Isis' (Isis is supported by the brits, yanks, and french even though they say they are against them, the west use their regional allies esp gulf monarchies to do so)

What Russia says: Support the legitimate independence and sovereign govt of Syria.

What Russia does: Support the legitimate independence and sovereign govt of Syria.

The west say: we bomb Isis in Syria to defend the Kurds

What they actually do: partition many countries they interfere with including defacto partition of Iraq, Libya and Syria as a result of installing sectarian allies

What the west do: Use the Kurds to try and look like the west aren't really deep in bed with isis and death squads, and use the Kurds to try and partition Syria.

Russia says: We have intervened at the invitation of the Syrian govt to fight isis and all terrorists who seek to destroy the Syrian govt and army which is the only viable force that can hold Syria together and defeat isis and other death squads.

What Russia does: intervene at the invitation of the Syrian govt to fight isis and all terrorists who seek to destroy the Syrian govt and army which is the only viable force that can hold Syria together and defeat isis and other death squads.

The west says: we are the champions of peoples human rights in Syria and Libya etc.

What the west do: finance, train, support, facilitate the most depraved sectarian armed gangs in Syria and elsewhere.

Russia says: we defend the rights of non-western countries from bullying nato.

What Russia does: tries to defend the rights of non-western countries from bullying nato.

The west says: we have been bombing Syria for months to attack isis.

What the west does: hardly any strategic advance against isis in Syria and Iraq for many many months, but they continue to covertly support isis proliferation and other death squads.

What Russia says: we are assisting Syrian govt in fighting the terrorists.

What Russia does: within a few days Russia has been very effective in targeting western-backed armed gangs and have the west and their pathetic hangers on in an utter state of panic and disbelief.

The Global South peoples and countries raise a big hurrah and eagerly await more unity and more alliance building of the people of the region, Russia and others to have an almighty push back on this imperialist death squad project.

- Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm

Thursday, 1 October 2015



Russia is not an Imperialist Power
And how Marx, Lenin and Decolonial analysis proves this to be the case

Sukant Chandan
Sons of Malcolm
01 Oct 2015

‪Referencing #‎Syria‬ and a kinda thorough argument as to why Russia (and China, India, Brazil, Iran etc) are NOT 'imperialists' nor are they 'sub-imperiaists'

With Russia being invited by the Syrian government to step up in assisting countering and defeating Britain, France and the USA's deaths squads in the country, with this relative upsurge in the defence of Syria that has been resisting a combined global imperialist attack against it for over 4 years, we hear those who echo the leading Nato powers in claiming Russia is an 'imperialist' country, or "Russian militarism" to quote a well known english left leader at the moment. It is not anything of the sort. Here I attempt to lay out why it is not, and why the western, actually imperialist or neocolonial left, seek to state that it is:

Colonialism, empires, and 'imperialism' is an ancient phenomenon, whose common nature includes the acquisition of lands beyond the original state, this acquisition is done through violence, but the degree of violence and state craft depends from incident to incident, and varies according to each empire and its historical moment(s). Nearly every region of the world has seen such empires for millennium. That's not to justify them at all, its just a fact. On an ethical level of judgement, I oppose all empires and colonialism, none of them should be a model for us today, and historically especially in the modern world many of our peoples have to overcome the legacies of these empires made much worse by the colonial experience which tended to (and continues) to champion and celebrate them but distorts them into a mirror reflection of european colonialism, and then encourages us to internalise them and then project that onto ourselves and others.

The genesis of what we understand MODERN imperialism, ie., the development of west european and north american-based modern capitalism/imperialism while sharing the common feature with ancient empires in the sense of acquisition of territories beyond the 'original', 'home' or 'mother country', the similarities end there.

Modern european capitalism has many very specific features which are unique to itself and cannot be conflated with ancient empires nor can it be conflated with countries like Russia.

This has been well analysed by Marx and Engels, developed by Lenin and Mao and others, and also one has to add decolonial theory of 'coloniality' into the mix, decoloniality exists to a large extent in Marx, Lenin and Mao's theories, but is not sufficient imho, and likewise, decoloniality tends to lacks in some cases but not at all (for example many good decolonials in our actual Global South struggles allied to Morales, Chavez, Maduro, Castro, Lula/Dilma, ZANUPF, ANC and many others) a viable and reality-based actually existing struggle of resistance and liberation against imperialist oppression.

Lenin defines five characteristics of modern imperialism, and by 'imperialism' he means and I also mean when I use the term the modern big capitalist-colonial countries. I will go through these point by point and after each point point out how this is not relevant to Russia nor the other countries stated above:

"(1) the concentration of production and capital, creating monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life";

- The state in Russia, which is a continuation of the security (KGB) and military (Red Army) elites of the Soviet period (from 1917-1991) are in the final analysis in charge of the economic and political life of the country, the monopolies are not. This elite is steeped in a world outlook and policies which confronts and is hostile to imperialism.

"(2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy";

- There is to some limited extent a financial oligarchy, except they are not oligarchical in the sense that they have any leading role in Russian life, no, it is the aforementioned security and military class that is leading Russia. Putin's ascendance to the Russian elite and leadership signalled the END of the western imperialism imposed looting of state assets and the bringing to power of a totally anti-Russian economic elite that was breaking the country down. Putin imposed a political terror and purge of this.

"(3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance";

- A fundamental premise of my general analysis is that Russia does not have 'capital' in the sense that it exists, 'capital' of west europe and north america (and Australia) has a totally different nature based on the world conceptualisation of modern colonialism, more of this shortly.

"(4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves."

- Russia is not and has never been at the table of Nato and the imperialists in which the imperialists accept Russia's role AT ALL on the world scene, rather the imperialists have always and continue to develop a policy of open war against Russia, encircling it militarily, and seeking ti downgrade its global allies. This policy is not going well at all!

'(5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed."

- Russia is RESISTING in PARTNERSHIP with the Global South this division of the world by the imperialist powers. Just a few examples of this is Russia's direction political and military support to 'latin' American nations such as Venezuela and Cuba. The Russians had a joint military naval exercise with the Venezuelans in 2007 in the Caribbean waters, this was a major historical victory of the global anti-imperialist movement, so much so, the imperialist media did not want to let you know about it so kept very quiet. The Global South are very content and generally happy with Russia's support to them.

Lenin also developed a concept of the three contradictions of imperialism, being:

1, between Labour and Capital (global imperialist capitalists / imperialists / neo-colonialists)

- in the 'global class war', Russia stands on the frontline in defence of the first interest of the global working class which is not being destroyed by imperialism. I analyse this more deeply in this piece.

2, Between imperialist countries themselves

- Russia like every other country of the Global South seeks to exploit tensions between the imperialists for their own advantage, and Russia as well as China is doing this generally very well.

3, Between imperialist / 'oppressor nations' and oppressed nations or what some call the 'Global South' or 'Third World'

- In this contradiction, Russia clearly stands on the side of the 'oppressed nations'.

However, this is not at all enough to explore and identify the nature of imperialism, and if Russia fits that. Because imperialism is much more than just those five characteristics and the three contradictions.

So what else is it? What makes imperialism unique and totally distinct to ancient empires, colonialisms etc, is the world outlook of modern imperialism and the way this justified its unique and terrible, terrifying and dehumanising physical operations and dehumanising principles and ethics and world outlook.

Marx's Capital is in general the best analysis of physical capitalist-imperialism, but in one relatively short paragraph from his defining work - Capital - he sums up this uniqueness of infamous oppression: "The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief momenta of primitive accumulation."

Here we see how irrelevant are the labels 'imperialist' to Russia, China and others. Capitalism exists in Russia and China and frankly exists to some extent in ALL countries of the world. However, it is uniquely in the european colonial-capitalist-imperialist experience that we see that its very system is underpinned by what Marx calls out: the extermination of whole native populations; the mass enslavement and TREATING LIKE CATTLE/ANIMALS (*chattel* slavery) African peoples; emptying whole regions of the world of their wealth. Marx is blunt: THIS is the dawn of this system.

In other places Engels states that the oppression of women and girls being also a fundamental aspect of this system, with the mass extermination of women and girls in the middle ages being part and parcel of the process of 'primitive accumulation' of this system of imperialism, the extermination of women in the middle ages was an integral part of the oppression of peasants and the theft of common lands and the land tilled by the peasants. No other power before or after has done these combination of things, and this is what makes imperialism nothing to do with Russia, actually Russia is in the leadership of assisting Humanity to push back on all these oppressions of imperialism.

However, the picture is still incomplete. And this is where decolonial theory is so important to marry into an anti-imperialist approach, and similarly the anti-imperialist approach and analysis must be married to the decolonial theory and analysis. Without this coupling, both are weakened and are in danger of negating themselves. Because modern imperialism/colonialism impacts ALL relations between humans and humans and humans and the world and universe, and on this universe issue, it also conducts a mental genocide against non/pre-colonial belief systems.

That is not to say that pre-colonial belief systems are essentially good and liberating, they too can be oppressive, but one has to admit that all pre-colonial systems are just incomparable to the conceptual and physical oppression of modern imperialism.

Decolonial theory helps us to move away from colonial contagions, such as recycling european colonial supremacists in Black and White garb such as manifested in the mirror images of this colonial supremacism in Muslim (Muslim Brotherhood and Qaeda/Isis formations), Hindu (BJP and RSS), Sikh (Khalistani etc), and other garbs. Also within anti-imperialist socialist experiences and processes it is important to understand that one cannot wish away colonial contagions in our people, countries and liberation struggles, but only through 'working through' actually liberation struggles in the resistance and defence of our peoples can we apply a holistic liberation project.

In conclusion: if one has a keen mind and eye as to the nature of modern colonialism/-capitalism/-imperialism/-'europe'/-'the west'/-'western democracy' one can clearly see how inapplicable this is to Russia and China etc.

Unfortunately the western/imperialist left and westernised left always tail the imperialists, they nearly always echo the conceptual and actual policies of oppression of the imperialists across the world. They consider Russia equitable to imperialism, hence they claim they are 'Russian militarists', and 'imperialists'. People like J Sakai in his very important work 'Settlers', Marx and Engels, and Lenin all observed that the imperialist system could only function if it bought off a considerable section of the working classes within the imperialist centre so as to stave off their potential sympathy with the global working class and peoples who were fighting imperialism, and its worked and continues to work a treat.

So imperialism always seeks to 'racialise', or put outside of humanity or into the 'zone of non-being' (Fanon) all peoples they want to attack and destroy, the most vicious racialised assaults are visited upon darker peoples, but skin deep very light people can also be put into a dehumanised state ready for destruction such as some 'white' or even 'blonde' people that are in part constituent of the peoples of Afghanistan, Libya, Palestine, Iraq, Eastern Ukraine and frankly Russians are also defined in an imperialist white supremacist dehumanised manner.

Like in EVERY country of ours, there are problems of racism in Russia, but Russia has a leadership which also provides frameworks in pushing back against that, examples of this are Russia's leading alliances with Africa (Mugabe and others being their closest allies); its critique and on-going hostility to racial supremacism, for example in perhaps the most important show of unity and strength of Russia along with its allies (Zimbabwe, South Africa, India, and others) on the 70th anniversary of the victory against fascism Putin said: "We must not forget that the ideas of racial supremacy and exclusiveness had provoked the bloodiest war ever".

And finally but surely not least is Russia's leading part on the global stage of defending our Homelands from the imperialists.

What is needed is GREATER unity between Russia and the bigger and more assertive Global South countries and the entire Global South community, and this is developing apace.

Russia's upgraded entry into the defence of Syria against the imperialist death squad destruction project in alliance with Iraq and Iran as well, is a major important development for the continued existence and liberation of our Homelands.

We need MORE military defence pacts between our countries, we need MORE strategic military alliances between our countries to push back and defeat once and for all this supremacist genocidal system.

Russia and others are not imperialists, they are our vanguard defenders against the real purveyors of the greatest violence ever visited upon Humanity this last 500 years.

These oppressors must be defeated and they will ONLY be defeated by Russia and others allying with us more closely, and our job is to advocate for the positive alliances and unity and building towards greater unity.

Tuesday, 29 September 2015



PUTIN (THROUGH INTERPRETER): Your excellency Mr. President, your excellency Mr. Secretary General, distinguished heads of state and government, ladies and gentlemen, the 70th anniversary of the United Nations is a good occasion to both take stock of history and talk about our common future.

In 1945, the countries that defeated Nazism joined their efforts to lay solid foundations for the postwar world order.

But I remind you that the key decisions on the principles guiding the cooperation among states, as well as on the establishment of the United Nations, were made in our country, in Yalta, at the meeting of the anti-Hitler coalition leaders.

The Yalta system was actually born in travail. It was won at the cost of tens of millions of lives and two world wars.

This swept through the planet in the 20th century.

Let us be fair. It helped humanity through turbulent, at times dramatic, events of the last seven decades. It saved the world from large-scale upheavals.

The United Nations is unique in its legitimacy, representation and universality. It is true that lately the U.N. has been widely criticized for supposedly not being efficient enough, and for the fact that the decision-making on fundamental issues stalls due to insurmountable differences, first of all, among the members of the Security Council.

However, I'd like to point out there have always been differences in the U.N. throughout all these 70 years of existence. The veto right has always been exercised by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, the Soviet Union and Russia later, alike. It is absolutely natural for so diverse and representative an organization.

When the U.N. was established, its founders did not in the least think that there would always be unanimity. The mission of the organization is to seek and reach compromises, and its strength comes from taking different views and opinions into consideration. Decisions debated within the U.N. are either taken as resolutions or not. As diplomats say, they either pass or do not pass.

Whatever actions any state might take bypassing this procedure are illegitimate. They run counter to the charter and defy international law. We all know that after the end of the Cold War — everyone is aware of that — a single center of domination emerged in the world, and then those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think that if they were strong and exceptional, they knew better and they did not have to reckon with the U.N., which, instead of [acting to] automatically authorize and legitimize the necessary decisions, often creates obstacles or, in other words, stands in the way.

It has now become commonplace to see that in its original form, it has become obsolete and completed its historical mission. Of course, the world is changing and the U.N. must be consistent with this natural transformation. Russia stands ready to work together with its partners on the basis of full consensus, but we consider the attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They could lead to a collapse of the entire architecture of international organizations, and then indeed there would be no other rules left but the rule of force.

We would get a world dominated by selfishness rather than collective work, a world increasingly characterized by dictate rather than equality. There would be less of a chain of democracy and freedom, and that would be a world where true independent states would be replaced by an ever-growing number of de facto protectorates and externally controlled territories.

What is the state sovereignty, after all, that has been mentioned by our colleagues here? It is basically about freedom and the right to choose freely one's own future for every person, nation and state. By the way, dear colleagues, the same holds true of the question of the so-called legitimacy of state authority. One should not play with or manipulate words.

Every term in international law and international affairs should be clear, transparent and have uniformly understood criteria. We are all different, and we should respect that. No one has to conform to a single development model that someone has once and for all recognized as the only right one. We should all remember what our past has taught us.

We also remember certain episodes from the history of the Soviet Union. Social experiments for export, attempts to push for changes within other countries based on ideological preferences, often led to tragic consequences and to degradation rather than progress.

It seemed, however, that far from learning from others' mistakes, everyone just keeps repeating them, and so the export of revolutions, this time of so-called democratic ones, continues. It would suffice to look at the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, as has been mentioned by previous speakers. Certainly political and social problems in this region have been piling up for a long time, and people there wish for changes naturally.

But how did it actually turn out? Rather than bringing about reforms, an aggressive foreign interference has resulted in a brazen destruction of national institutions and the lifestyle itself. Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster. Nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life.

I cannot help asking those who have caused the situation, do you realize now what you've done? But I am afraid no one is going to answer that. Indeed, policies based on self-conceit and belief in one's exceptionality and impunity have never been abandoned.

It is now obvious that the power vacuum created in some countries of the Middle East and North Africa through the emergence of anarchy areas,  which immediately started to be filled with extremists and terrorists.

Tens of thousands of militants are fighting under the banners of the so-called Islamic State. Its ranks include former Iraqi servicemen who were thrown out into the street after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Many recruits also come from Libya, a country whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. And now, the ranks of radicals are being joined by the members of the so-called moderate Syrian opposition supported by the Western countries.

First, they are armed and trained and then they defect to the so-called Islamic State. Besides, the Islamic State itself did not just come from nowhere. It was also initially forged as a tool against undesirable secular regimes.

Having established a foothold in Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State has begun actively expanding to other regions. It is seeking dominance in the Islamic world. And not only there, and its plans go further than that. The situation is more than dangerous.

In these circumstances, it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make loud declarations about the threat of international terrorism while turning a blind eye to the channels of financing and supporting terrorists, including the process of trafficking and illicit trade in oil and arms. It would be equally irresponsible to try to manipulate extremist groups and place them at one's service in order to achieve one's own political goals in the hope of later dealing with them or, in other words, liquidating them.

To those who do so, I would like to say — dear sirs, no doubt you are dealing with rough and cruel people, but they're in no way primitive or silly. They are just as clever as you are, and you never know who is manipulating whom. And the recent data on arms transferred to this most moderate opposition is the best proof of it.

We believe that any attempts to play games with terrorists, let alone to arm them, are not just short-sighted, but fire hazardous (ph). This may result in the global terrorist threat increasing dramatically and engulfing new regions, especially given that Islamic State camps train militants from many countries, including the European countries.

Unfortunately, dear colleagues, I have to put it frankly: Russia is not an exception. We cannot allow these criminals who already tasted blood to return back home and continue their evil doings. No one wants this to happen, does he?

Russia has always been consistently fighting against terrorism in all its forms. Today, we provide military and technical assistance both to Iraq and Syria and many other countries of the region who are fighting terrorist groups.

We think it is an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces, who are valiantly fighting terrorism face to face. We should finally acknowledge that no one but President Assad's armed forces and Kurds (ph) militias are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria.

We know about all the problems and contradictions in the region, but which were (ph) based on the reality.

Dear colleagues, I must note that such an honest and frank approach of Russia has been recently used as a pretext to accuse it of its growing ambitions, as if those who say it have no ambitions at all.

However, it's not about Russia's ambitions, dear colleagues, but about the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world. What we actually propose is to be guided by common values and common interests, rather than ambitions.

On the basis of international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are facing and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism.

Similar to the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite a broad range of forces that are resolutely resisting those who, just like the Nazis, sow evil and hatred of humankind. And, naturally, the Muslim countries are to play a key role in the coalition, even more so because the Islamic State does not only pose a direct threat to them, but also desecrates one of the greatest world religions by its bloody crimes.

The ideologists (ph) of militants make a mockery of Islam and pervert its true humanistic (ph) values. I would like to address Muslim spiritual leaders, as well. Your authority and your guidance are of great importance right now.

It is essential to prevent people recruited by militants from making hasty decisions and those who have already been deceived, and who, due to various circumstances found themselves among terrorists, need help in finding a way back to normal life, laying down arms, and putting an end to fratricide.

Russia will shortly convene, as the (ph) current president of the Security Council, a ministerial meeting to carry out a comprehensive analysis of threats in the Middle East.

First of all, we propose discussing whether it is possible to agree on a resolution aimed at coordinating the actions of all the forces that confront the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations. Once again, this coordination should be based on the principles of the U.N. Charter.

We hope that the international community will be able to develop a comprehensive strategy of political stabilization, as well as social and economic recovery, of the Middle East.

Then, dear friends, there would be no need for new refugee camps. Today, the flow of people who were forced to leave their homeland has literally engulfed first neighboring countries and then Europe itself. There were hundreds of thousands of them now, and there might be millions before long. In fact, it is a new great and tragic migration of peoples, and it is a harsh lesson for all of us, including Europe.

I would like to stress refugees undoubtedly need our compassion and support. However, the — on the way to solve this problem at a fundamental level is to restore their statehood where it has been destroyed, to strengthen the government institutions where they still exist or are being reestablished, to provide comprehensive assistance of military, economic and material nature to countries in a difficult situation. And certainly, to those people who, despite all the ordeals, will not abandon their homes. Literally, any assistance to sovereign states can and must be offered rather than imposed exclusively and solely in accordance with the U.N. Charter.

In other words, everything in this field that has been done or will be done pursuant to the norms of international law must be supported by our organization. Everything that contravenes the U.N. Charter must be rejected. Above all, I believe it is of the utmost importance to help restore government's institutions in Libya, support the new government of Iraq and provide comprehensive assistance to the legitimate government of Syria.

Dear colleagues, ensuring peace and regional and global stability remains the key objective of the international community with the U.N. at its helm. We believe this means creating a space of equal and indivisible security, which is not for the select few but for everyone. Yet, it is a challenge and complicated and time-consuming task, but there is simply no other alternative. However, the bloc thinking of the times of the Cold War and the desire to explore new geopolitical areas is still present among some of our colleagues.

First, they continue their policy of expanding NATO. What for? If the Warsaw Bloc stopped its existence, the Soviet Union have collapsed (ph) and, nevertheless, the NATO continues expanding as well as its military infrastructure. Then they offered the poor Soviet countries a false choice: either to be with the West or with the East. Sooner or later, this logic of confrontation was bound to spark off a grave geopolitical crisis. This is exactly what happened in Ukraine, where the discontent of population with the current authorities was used and the military coup was orchestrated from outside — that triggered a civil war as a result.

We're confident that only through full and faithful implementation of the Minsk agreements of February 12th, 2015, can we put an end to the bloodshed and find a way out of the deadlock. Ukraine's territorial integrity cannot be ensured by threat of force and force of arms. What is needed is a genuine consideration for the interests and rights of the people in the Donbas region and respect for their choice. There is a need to coordinate with them as provided for by the Minsk agreements, the key elements of the country's political structure. These steps will guarantee that Ukraine will develop as a civilized society, as an essential link and building a common space of security and economic cooperation, both in Europe and in Eurasia.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have mentioned these common space of economic cooperation on purpose. Not long ago, it seemed that in the economic sphere, with its objective market loss, we would launch a leaf (ph) without dividing lines. We would build on transparent and jointly formulated rules, including the WTO principles, stipulating the freedom of trade, and investment and open competition.

Nevertheless, today, unilateral sanctions circumventing the U.N. Charter have become commonplace, in addition to pursuing political objectives. The sanctions serve as a means of eliminating competitors.

I would like to point out another sign of a growing economic selfishness. Some countries [have] chosen to create closed economic associations, with the establishment being negotiated behind the scenes, in secret from those countries' own citizens, the general public, business community and from other countries.

Other states whose interests may be affected are not informed of anything, either. It seems that we are about to be faced with an accomplished fact that the rules of the game have been changed in favor of a narrow group of the privileged, with the WTO having no say. This could unbalance the trade system completely and disintegrate the global economic space.

These issues affect the interest of all states and influence the future of the world economy as a whole. That is why we propose discussing them within the U.N. WTO NGO (ph) '20.

Contrary to the policy of exclusiveness, Russia proposes harmonizing original economic projects. I refer to the so-called integration of integrations based on universal and transparent rules of international trade. As an example, I would like to cite our plans to interconnect the Eurasian economic union, and China's initiative of the Silk Road economic belt.

We still believe that harmonizing the integration processes within the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union is highly promising.

Ladies and gentlemen, the issues that affect the future of all people include the challenge of global climate change. It is in our interest to make the U.N. Climate Change Conference to be held in December in Paris a success.

As part of our national contribution, we plan to reduce by 2030 the greenhouse emissions to 70, 75 percent of the 1990 level.

I suggest, however, we should take a wider view on this issue. Yes, we might defuse the problem for a while, by setting quotas on harmful emissions or by taking other measures that are nothing but tactical. But we will not solve it that way. We need a completely different approach.

We have to focus on introducing fundamental and new technologies inspired by nature, which would not damage the environment, but would be in harmony with it. Also, that would allow us to restore the balance upset by biosphere and technosphere (ph) upset by human activities.

It is indeed a challenge of planetary scope, but I'm confident that humankind has intellectual potential to address it. We need to join our efforts. I refer, first of all, to the states that have a solid research basis and have made significant advances in fundamental science.

We propose convening a special forum under the U.N. auspices for a comprehensive consideration of the issues related to the depletion of natural resources, destruction of habitat and climate change.

Russia would be ready to co-sponsor such a forum.

Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, it was on the 10th of January, 1946, in London that the U.N. General Assembly gathered for its first session.

Mr. Suleta (ph) (inaudible), a Colombian diplomat and the chairman of the Preparatory Commission, opened the session by giving, I believe, a concise definition of the basic principles that the U.N. should follow in its activities, which are free will, defiance of scheming and trickery and spirit of cooperation.

Today, his words sound as a guidance for all of us. Russia believes in the huge potential of the United Nations, which should help us avoid a new global confrontation and engage in strategic cooperation. Together with other countries, we will consistently work towards strengthening the central coordinating role of the U.N. I'm confident that by working together, we will make the world stable and safe, as well as provide conditions for the development of all states and nations.

Thank you.




Nice to see Xi Jinping nearly directly quoting Mao-Tse Tung and a Chinese proverb in his speech at the UNGA.

"Lifting a rock only to drop it on one's own feet" is a Chinese folk saying to describe the behavior of certain fools. The reactionaries in all countries are fools of this kind. In the final analysis, their persecution of the revolutionary people only serves to accelerate the people's revolutions on a broader and more intense scale. Did not the persecution of the revolutionary people by the tsar of Russia and by Chiang Kai-shek perform this function in the great Russian and Chinese revolutions?

- Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm

(Picture taken from today's guardian newspaper)


An often asserted attack on Scottish Independence is that the some Scots were involved in the british colonial project, and thus their claim to independence is not legitimate.

Some people of the Indian subcontinent also played into empire (albeit not to the extent of the people on this island), fought for it, and enjoyed some benefits from it, some of us were promoted into strategic divide and rule privileged positions in East Africa, does that mean people of the subcontinent should not have fought for independence? Of course we should, and we did.

One has to 'work through' these contradictions to a higher ground of conceptual and actual struggle, and this is what the Scots under the leadership of the SNP is delivering. The SNP and the state of play historically at this moment for Scottish independence still has colonial hangovers, there is no pure strategy of delinking from imperialist economy and many other contradictions, however, the importance  for the global struggle against neocolonialism is that the Scottish people not only are seeking to historically and irreversibly break british imperialism from the 'inside', but that this process opens them and in relation the whole people of these islands and beyond to new radical anti-imperialist thinking.

The other obvious point to make is this:

The elites of the Irish and some lower classes from that were also bought into british colonialism, but we don't say that they should never have fought or should fight for independence.

And the other very obvious point is that the english working class historically AND STILL currently ideologically and materially buy into imperialism, but we all advocate that they should overthrow british imperialism.

- Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm