Recently, the Press Office of the State Council of China published an article "On Human Rights in the United States in 2001."
We present it with minor abbreviations.
1. Lack of guarantee of life, liberty and personal security
Violence and crime are a daily reality of American society, where human life, freedom, and personal safety are under serious threat. According to the 4th edition of 2001 "dialogue" published by the US Embassy in China, in 1998 the number of crimes in the United States reached 12,476,000, including 1,531,000 serious crimes, 18 thousand murders; for every 100 thousand people there are 4,616 crimes, including 566 serious ones. From 1977 to 1996 400 thousand Americans were killed, which is almost 7 times more than were killed during the Vietnam War. Since 1997, another 480,000 people have been killed in the country.
The United States is the country with the largest number of weapons in private hands. On the one hand, concern for one’s own safety leads to a frantic purchase of weapons for self-defense, on the other hand, the proliferation of weapons is an important factor in the increase in violence and the number of crimes. FBI statistics show that gun and ammunition sales rose from 9% to 22% during the three months (September - November 2001). In October, a record for the sale of weapons was registered - 1,029,691 units. The data also shows that gunshot wounds are the second leading cause of death after road accidents, with an average of 15,000 deaths per year.
On January 15, 2002, a Martin Luther King Jr. High School student opened fire on his fellow students, seriously wounding two. This coincided with the 73rd anniversary of the birth of Martin L. King, leader of the US civil rights movement. What's even funnier is that on March 4, 2002, the day the US State Department released its annual report accusing other countries of "human rights violations," the following gun incident occurred: A 4-year-old boy in New Mexico while watching television , while in the bedroom, shot his 18-month-old sister with his father's pistol.
Facilities mass media The US, inundated with violent articles, contributes to the high crime rate in the US, especially among young people. Young people in the country are involved in crime from a young age. Due to the widespread cable television, computers, children have the opportunity to see bloody scenes. The culture of violence promotes the belief among young people that guns can solve all problems. A report dated August 1, 2001, prepared by the American non-governmental Parents Television Council, states that demonstrations of violence in television programs from 8 to 9 pm increased by 78%, and the use of obscene language increased by 71%. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, US television companies and movie theaters have attempted to curb the broadcast of violent programs and films. However, due to the fact that such products have a high rating, this was not easy to do. According to the Herald Tribune, one American child before reaching the age of 18 can learn about 40,000 murders and 200,000 other acts of violence from the media. A survey by the California-based Ethical Code Institute found that the majority of American teenagers have been violent in the past year. 21% of boys in high schools and 15% in secondary schools brought educational establishments weapon at least once.
2. Serious violations of human rights by the judiciary
Police brutality and unfair convictions are one of the major shortcomings of the US law enforcement system. In March 2001, the family of a French prisoner filed a complaint against police and prison guards in Nevada. Nine guards were accused of beating prisoner Philip Lehman to death. A forensic examination determined that death was due to suffocation, which occurred as a result of a rupture of the larynx. Of course, the local court acquitted 9 guards and freed them from responsibility for the death of the Frenchman.
Torture and extortion are also common in the United States, along with the number of wrongful death convictions. In December 2001, death row inmate Alan Petterson said his confession was extracted from torture by Chicago police, who used plastic-covered tape to strangle him. The case attracted attention. The Chicago office of the Herald Tribune sent reporters into the archives to investigate several thousand criminal cases (murders) tried in court since 1991. They found that convictions were reached in at least 247 cases without the testimony of witnesses, and justice was based only on the confessions of the accused.
Federal law in the United States and 38 states allows the death penalty. Since 1990, the number of crimes punishable by death has been increasing. The number of death sentences carried out is growing every year - from 23 in 1990 to 98 in 1999. Over the past 20 years in the United States, the number of crimes for which the death penalty is provided has expanded to 60 and its execution has accelerated by limiting the right of the convicted person to appeal. Since 1976, when the US Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty, about 600 prisoners have been executed in the US. According to a February report from Reuters, from 1973 to 1995. 68% of death sentences were found to be wrong by the courts. In cases with wrongful convictions, 82% of those sentenced were given shorter sentences and 9% were released. Since 1973, 99 people sentenced to death have been found innocent. These people spent an average of 8 terrible years on death row, experiencing terrible mental stress. According to analysts, main reason erroneous verdicts were: the impossibility of obtaining reliable information regarding the accused, testimony extracted by the police and the prosecutor's office by force, and incorrect information to the jury by the judges.
In February 2002, the world was shocked by the scandal surrounding crematoria in the United States. Employees of several crematoria in Georgia, after receiving money, instead of cremating the bodies of the dead, threw them into the forest or stuffed them into hollow trees and left them there to rot. This practice continued for about 15 years. More than 300 bodies were found in an area a fair distance from the crematoria. This is a fairly shocking crime, but the state of Georgia does not have a law that can be applied in this case.
3. The situation of the poor,
Hungry and homeless
As the most developed country in the world, the United States faces a serious divide between rich and poor. There are no fundamental changes in the situation of the poor. They are considered the forgotten "third world" within the superpower. The gap between high- and low-income families has continued to widen over the past two decades. In 1979, the average income of high-income families (accounting for 5% of the total population) was 10 times higher than that of low-income families, who make up 20%. By 1999, this number had increased to 19 times. According to an analytical study conducted in August 2001 by the American bureau Cencuc, the economic boom of the 90s could not make the American middle class richer. The reality is that the poor have become poorer and the rich have become richer. As for those who are between these two groups, by the end of the 90s their living conditions became worse than in the early 90s. The richest 1% of Americans now own 40% of the nation's wealth. The richest 20% of families in Washington are 24 times wealthier than the poorest 20% of families, an increase of 18 times from a decade ago.
The annual report of the USA Conference of Mayors, published in December 2001, focuses on the increase in the number of hungry and homeless people in major US cities. In 27 cities, the number of people in need of charitable food increased by an average of 23%, and the number of people in need of housing increased by an average of 13%. Among those who need food, 19% are children. Among adults who need housing, 37% are unemployed.
It seems that the lives of the rich are more valuable than the lives of the poor. According to Libération of January 9, 2002, the federal fund created by the American government to compensate victims of the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, will pay money based on age, wages, number of family members. This path led to a shocking result. If a housewife was killed, her husband and two children would receive $500,000. If the victim was a broker, then compensation for his widow and two children will be $4.3 million. Family members of many victims have protested such inequality, forcing the US government to reconsider this method calculation of compensation.
4. Discrimination against women
Gender discrimination is one of the most important aspects of social inequality in the United States. The Constitution still does not provide for equal rights for men and women. On September 18, 2000, a dozen surviving "comfort women" went to federal court in Washington, D.C., demanding a public apology and compensation from the Japanese government. However, according to a July 2001 statement, the US government called for the trial to be dropped on the basis that the use of "comfort women" by the Japanese army during World War II was their "sovereign matter." This statement caused outrage from a number of public women's organizations.
Violence against women is a serious social problem in the United States. According to official statistics, in the United States, on average, one woman is beaten every 15 seconds, and 700,000 cases of rape occur every year. In 1998, about 1 million were suspected of violence between men and women. In March 2001, Amnesty International released a report containing the results of a two-year study, which found violations of the rights of female prisoners in US prisons, as well as frequent cases of sexual assault or rape by prison guards. 7 states don't even have a law or other legislative act, which prohibits sexual relations between prison officials and prisoners.
Children's rights protection in the United States is also far from ideal. The United States is one of two countries that has not acceded to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The United States is one of only five countries that punishes juvenile offenders in violation of relevant laws. international conventions. The United States punishes more juvenile offenders than any other of the four countries. Twenty-five states have a minimum age of 17 for the death penalty, 21 states have a minimum age of 16 or no age limit at all. In addition, the United States is among several countries where mentally retarded or mentally retarded criminals can be punished. According to a study in the 90s, 9 juvenile offenders were sentenced to death penalty, and this number is more than has been announced by any other country.
American children are exposed to violence and poverty. According to the Police Violence Research Center report dated November 28, 2001, with FBI statistics from 1995 to 1999. 3,971 minors and minors under 17 years of age were killed. Gun deaths of American children are 16 times higher than in 25 others developed countries. At the same time, black children die as a result of gunshot wounds 7 times more often. In April 2000, the American Children's Defense Fund published a report on the state of affairs in this industry, from which it follows that, according to official data for 1999, more than 12 million children lived below the poverty line, which is 1/6 of all children of the country. A Department of Health report issued in early 2002 found that 10% of American children have mental health problems and 1 in 10 suffers from severe mental illness. However, only one in five can receive appropriate treatment.
5. Deep roots
Racial discrimination
Racial discrimination is the most serious problem in the United States, a problem that the United States has not solved since the founding of the state. It is well known that the United States pursued a policy of genocide against the indigenous population and carried out the slave trade. In recent years, scandals related to racial discrimination have followed one after another.
On April 7, 2001, a white police officer shot and killed an unarmed black youth in Cincinnati, Ohio, after he attempted to flee a traffic violation. After the death of Thomas Timothy, black residents of the city staged a protest, which resulted in racial conflict. This incident once again attracted world attention to racial discrimination in the United States. According to the British Observer of April 15, 2001, Cincinnati is one of eight US cities where the problem of racial discrimination is the most serious. And although the world is already in the 21st century, racial exclusion is still practiced in virtually all schools in the city. Thomas Timothy was the fourth black man killed by a white police officer from November 2000 to April 2001, and 15 black suspects have been killed in the city since 1995. However, no murders of white suspects occurred during this period. According to the Associated Press, the mass protests in Cincinnati "ignited" those who "lay down their arms" after the assassination of Martin Luther King.
Racial discrimination is common throughout the United States. The number of positions held by American ethnic minorities in the federal government is much smaller than the number held by other ethnicities. According to an article in the July issue of the World Economic Review, of the 535 senators and congressmen, only 19, or 3.5%, are Hispanic. ethnic group, although Latinos make up 12.5% of the country's total population. Blacks make up 13% of the American population, but can only win 5% of office in elections. It's no secret that people of color should make up a certain percentage of the police force. It is an obvious fact that not many blacks can join the police force, and even fewer can serve as officers.
Social conditions ethnic minorities in America are terrible. According to the 2000 Census, blacks are half as likely as whites to obtain health insurance. Only 17% of blacks are able to graduate from college, compared to 28% of whites. Unemployment among blacks is twice as high as among whites. At the same time, blacks are hired for low-wage jobs at twice the rate of others. The average annual income of a white family in 1999 was $44,366, while that of a black family was $25,000.
6. Violation of US human rights
In other countries
The United States ranks 1st in the world in defense spending and arms exports. Military spending accounts for about 40% of the world total, which is more than the combined military spending of the 9 countries next to the United States.
The United States ranks 1st in the world regarding cases of violation of sovereignty and human rights in other countries. Since the 1990s, the United States has participated in more than 40 operations overseas. On April 1, 2001, a US reconnaissance aircraft violated China's sovereignty, flagrantly ignored flight regulations, and caused the crash of a Chinese military aircraft and the death of the pilot. He deliberately violated Chinese airspace without Chinese permission and landed at a Chinese military base, thereby violating China's sovereignty and human rights. After this, the United States made every possible attempt to protect itself, avoiding public apologies in every possible way in connection with the serious consequences of the aircraft intrusion and trying to evade responsibility.
The US has a large number of bases around the world, where hundreds of thousands of troops are stationed, thereby violating human rights everywhere in the world. Before the incident of September 11, 2001, the United States stationed its troops in more than 140 countries. Today the United States is pursuing its so-called national security interests in almost every corner of the world.
US-led NATO threw large numbers of unenriched uranium bombs during the war in Kosovo, putting soldiers there in grave danger. The United States cited radiation as one of the reasons for withdrawing its troops from Kosovo, which could harm the health of soldiers. From latest reports it follows that the United States knew about the danger of bombs with unenriched uranium and the places where they were dropped, when the division of peacekeeping zones took place, the most seriously contaminated areas were given to the allies. After the American army entered Bosnia, Herzegovina and Kosovo, this provoked a surge in the “sex industry.” Over the past year, dozens of cases of female prostitution have been uncovered in Bosnia and Herzegovina, most of which involved American soldiers. Most American soldiers were involved in prostitution, and some of them were involved in trafficking in women. In September 2000, the US Army published a 600-page report detailing all instances of misbehavior by soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division during operations in Kosovo.
The United States has always presented itself as the standard bearer of “free speech.” The Agence France-Presse report of February 21, 2002, the annual report of the International Institute of Journalism, focused on the fact that the way the United States dealt with the media during the Afghan war and its attempts to pressure freedom of speech in independent publications were "the most frightening in 2001".
The United States is also conducting experiments with the corpses of children on the effects of radiation on them. In June 2001 information Agency The Daily Telegraph reported that a number of top secret documents have been declassified in the United States, indicating that in the 50s the so-called. Project "Sunshine" For these experiments, about 6 thousand dead bodies of children were brought from abroad and cremated without the permission of their parents. The ashes were sent to a laboratory for radiological research.
To this day, the US government has refused to sign the Basel Convention, which restricts the transfer of waste hazardous materials. Quite often such materials different ways are delivered to developing countries, thereby posing a threat to the health of the population of other countries. According to a February 25, 2002 Associated Press report and environmental groups, 50 to 80 percent of U.S. electronic waste labeled as recycling was sent to some Asian countries for treatment, posing a serious threat to human health and the environment.
The US announced its withdrawal from the Kyoto agreement, refusing to take responsibility for improving the human environment and negatively impacting global environmental protection efforts.
The Third UN Conference against Racism, which took place in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001, was an important event in the field of international rights man at the beginning of the new century. Representatives from more than 190 countries attended the conference, demonstrating the great desire of the international community to end the hatred that has accumulated over time and eliminate the last vestiges of racism through dialogue and interaction. However, the United States remained deaf to the voice of the international community. Ignoring its international obligations, the US openly called for a boycott of the conference before it opened. Although the United States sent a delegation to the conference, as a result of pressure from the UN, it only took part in discussions of the slave trade and compensation for former colonies, while expressing opposition to placing Zionism on the same level as racism. The US behavior at the forum showed its hypocrisy as the “global defender of human rights” and showed the arrogance and selfishness of the hegemonic plans of the US government.
For many years, the US government has published reports on the state of human rights in other countries, without taking into account the opposition of many countries in the world, printing rankings, distorting facts and researching all countries except itself.
In 2001, by a majority vote, the United States was expelled from the Commission on Human Rights and the International Commission on Narcotics at the UN. This shows that it is very unpopular for the US to pursue a policy double standards and implement unilateral approaches on issues such as human rights, the failure of the fight against drug trafficking, arms control, and environmental protection. In this situation, all that remains is to call on the United States to reconsider its approaches, abandon the hegemonic practice of escalating tension and interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, and do more useful things for the progress and development of the international community.
“Look,” he says, “my dear godfather!
What kind of face is that there?
What antics and jumps she has!
I would hang myself from boredom
If only she was even a little like her.
But, admit it, there is
Of my gossips, there are five or six such crooks:
I can even count them on my fingers.” —
“Why should a gossip consider working,
Isn’t it better to turn on yourself, godfather?”
Ukrainian politicians are desperately erasing their posts on social networks, where they called the current President of America Donald Trump with all sorts of offensive and bad words. Interior Minister Avakov was the first to make his boorish statements, then Speaker Parubiy called Donald a “fine lad,” and Anton Gerashchenko quietly removed the name of the 45th President of the United States from the “Peacemaker” website.
However, Trump turned out to be a vindictive uncle. For example, he refused to accept congratulations from leaders of countries who insulted him during the election campaign. Apparently, the Ukrainian leader was also included in the “black list” of the new owner of the White House. In the meantime, Poroshenko is eager to go to Washington with all his might to meet with “old Donald,” and his administration reminds us around the clock that Petro Alekseevich never said anything bad about Trump, and the guarantor himself has already erased Joseph Biden’s number from his mobile phone. But this is not enough: a “scapegoat” is needed on whom all the blame for such a shameful mess can be pinned. To be honest, there are even several “goats”.
Firstly, oligarch Pinchuk and grant-eater Leshchenko were accused of turning Ukraine into Hillary’s election headquarters. They say they set up the whole of Ukraine.
“Ukrainian populists masquerading as “anti-corruption activists” have already shown that nothing motivates them to be “uncompromising” political struggle such as grants and the opportunity to purchase luxury real estate. At the same time, they were never interested in the consequences of their “struggle.” And this could remain our internal problem if they had enough education and political culture not to interfere in the internal issues of other states.
Moreover, when it comes to states - world leaders, who are strategic partners of Ukraine, on whose support our future largely depends.
Of course, the fact that former President Kuchma's son-in-law, oligarch Pinchuk, became one of the main foreign donors to Clinton's election campaign and her Foundation could already cause some tension. Moreover, it has a long history of creating and promoting grant “public organizations” in Ukraine.
It was under his dictation, with the “unobtrusive” support of Clinton’s henchmen, that the Ukrainian “public” and the media, led by Leshchenko, Nayem and other “public leaders,” suddenly began to take part in the US election campaign.
Despite the fact that they clearly forgot about their official status as people’s deputies, continuing to play the role of “independent” social activists and journalists. But the real problem was that, having gone into a frenzy, these figures did not just get involved in the US election campaign on the side of one of the candidates. They got into it government bodies Ukraine, which caused bewilderment in many countries of the world.
Since it’s one thing when, for example, Leshchenko or Nay, sponsored by Pinchuk, publishes his opinion in Ukrayinska Pravda, it’s another thing when the state law enforcement agency Ukraine's National Anti-Corruption Bureau is initiating a pre-trial criminal investigation against Trump's First Advisor Manafort based on the materials and statement of Leshchenok. The head of the body, Sytnik, gives an official press conference on this matter. MP from the BPP Leshchenko, in turn, publishes a “devastating” article in the Ukrainian media. And all this is immediately picked up by the world media.
And it turns out that this is no longer a matter of opinion of one or two provocateurs, but the official position of the state of Ukraine. Despite the fact that, in principle, such statements, as NABU made, could only be voiced after agreement with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Presidential Administration, which, according to the Constitution, determines foreign policy states.
But the leadership of NABU, recruited through competitions held with the participation of the same grant community, did not shine with diplomacy and common sense. Sytnik followed the lead of Leshchenko, who loudly calls himself in his publications “the creator of NABU.” And, speaking at a press conference, he actually accused Trump’s “right hand” and the Head of his campaign headquarters of criminal acts. And the world took it as it was presented: Ukraine accuses Trump’s advisor (read Trump himself) of aiding Yanukovych and illegally enriching himself using funds stolen from the state.
As a result, a scandal broke out and Paul Manafort left his position in the midst of the election race. This dealt a serious blow to Donald Trump's campaign. Elected on November 8 as the 45th President of the United States, significantly ahead of his rival.
And the real question now should be: “will Ukraine survive the populists - anti-corruptionists who are dragging it into international conflicts”? Especially considering that the United States is both our strategic partner and one of the few sources of our external financial support. Time will show. But conclusions need to be drawn now.”
This is the kind of angry philippic that lawyer Elena Tishchenko burst out on the pages of “Censor” - a publication “patronized” by Security Council Secretary Turchinov and Interior Minister Avakov. Deputies of the presidential faction did not stand aside either. In particular, Ivan Vinnik openly accused “young politicians” of interfering in the US elections, using dirty technologies and “framing” Ukraine. So far, of course, everyone is afraid to draw parallels and say that it was with the help of the same manipulations, dirty technologies and foreign money that Leshchenko and Nayem turned Ukraine upside down, organizing a coup and provoking a war. But it will come to this: the claw gets stuck - the whole bird is finished. The matter has already reached Savik Shuster, one of the main media “inciters”: the court ordered a search of the apartment of the “progressive journalist”, who also organized discussions in his studio in support of Madame Clinton, and provided a platform for revelations to the same Leshchenko and Nayem.
Secondly, the AP makes diplomats the worst offenders for failure in the strategic American direction. First of all, the Ambassador of Ukraine to the United States Chaly. Marikiyan Lubkivsky, also a “famous diplomat” from the time of Yushchenko, was the first to throw a stone at Chaly. The former ambassador to Croatia accused Ambassador Valeriy Chaly to the United States and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the failure of Ukrainian policy in the United States by supporting one of the candidates for presidential elections. Lubkivsky wrote about this on Facebook.
“It is obvious that our embassy in Washington relied on the Clinton campaign without having any high-level contacts with the Trump campaign. How former ambassador“I want to emphasize that giving false recommendations from the Center to support this or that candidate in the elections and not maintaining relations with all participants in the race is a gross diplomatic mistake that can have serious consequences for the development of bilateral relations.”
The “orange activist” also noted that the work of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry looked as if they had no information about the progress of the presidential campaign, and “Ambassador Chaly generally convinced Kyiv that the Democratic candidate would win the elections by 99%.
In general, Chaly did not understand the intricacies of the American elections and created a “puddle” into which the Ukrainian government entered. Without Chaly, Poroshenko, of course, would not have known at all what was happening in the United States. After all, the ambassador in Washington is the only window to the world for Ukraine, right?
It's not fair. Surely it was not Chaly who decided to publicly support Hillary Clinton in the US elections. And it was not Chaly who launched the entire information machine of Ukraine in support of “old lady Gillary.” In general, Ukraine has a Ministry of Foreign Affairs headed by Klimkin, and the president has international advisers and foreign consultants. And the head of state himself, I dare to remind you, a month before the final chord of the election campaign in the United States, visited Washington and took a photo with Clinton. I did not intersect with Trump, and now the protocol is being blamed for this “failure”: they say they did not finalize the schedule of the “marginal” (as Minister Avakov called him on his FB), and did not bring Poroshenko to the future president.
In general, this is the essence of all Ukrainian politics: looking for extremes in one’s failures, declaring that Ukraine has never lived worse than under President Putin, blaming “Brussels brothers” for leaks, and American partners for failures. Shouting: what about us? And never, never look in the mirror.
Encyclopedic Dictionary of winged words and expressions. - M.: “Locked-Press”. Vadim Serov. 2003.
See what is “Why should godmothers work? / Isn’t it better to turn on yourself, godmother?” in other dictionaries:
Union. 1. Attaches a revolution or adverb. sentence with the meaning of comparison, comparison of whom, what, l. with what is said in the main thing. Talk louder than usual. In the south the stars are brighter than in the north. The mountains were higher than anyone expected. 2... encyclopedic Dictionary
Turn around, turn around, turn around, completely. (to turn around) (simple). The same as turning into all values except 7, and turning into 1 and 2 values. “Rather than consider working as a godmother, isn’t it better to turn to yourself, godfather?” Krylov. “Here he is to the point... ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary
Union. 1. comparative. Introduces a comparative phrase into a simple sentence, explaining which l. a member of this sentence, expressed by the form of the comparative degree of an adjective or adverb, as well as by the words: “other”, “different”, “otherwise”, etc... Small academic dictionary
He covers someone else's roof, but his own roof leaks. My uncle would gasp, looking at himself. Wed. Why should godmothers work hard? Isn’t it better to turn on yourself, godfather? Krylov. Mirror and Monkey. Wed. Willst du fremde Fehler zählen, heb an deinen an zu zählen: Ist mir recht,… … Michelson's Large Explanatory and Phraseological Dictionary
Brutes from Russian Orthodox Church The Moscow Patriarchate, insecure representatives of other religions on the one hand, and dystrophies from science and pedagogy on the other, unanimously and impudently shout about the need to let the Law of God into school under the name of “alternative points of view.” And all this under the slogans of either democracy, pluralism, scientific creationism, or the eternal incompleteness and defectiveness of scientific knowledge. The polyphonic choir of defenders of ignorance and preachers of obscurantism made the public's ears blocked, dizzy, and common sense dulled. Well, let's try to think sensibly.
If we begin to put into the minds of schoolchildren not only the truths established by science, but also the content of those countless misconceptions about these truths that have existed in the scientific and near-scientific environment for at least two to three thousand years, then what will the mature students who graduate from such a school know? After all, in response to any modern scientifically reliable truth, the same scientists have expressed thousands of erroneous truths in the name of science. Dozens, hundreds and even thousands of assumptions, guesses and hypotheses were made about the phenomenon being studied and still unknown to science, and only one of them later turned out to be true. Moreover, the same truth in content was expressed in dozens and hundreds of competing versions. So, some proofs of the Pythagorean theorem in scientific world Several hundred have been recorded. But in order to know that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the legs, one convincing proof is enough. A hundred other versions of proofs will not add anything to the knowledge of this theorem. On the contrary, if one more, second, proof strengthens the knowledge of the first version of the truth, then the third will leave the student indifferent, the fourth will get boring, and the hundredth may cause disgust for the theorem itself. And the presentation of alternative, even essentially fair, points of view on the same truth will not leave room in the student’s mind for this truth at all. And if the scientific truth of evolutionary teaching is contrasted with theological creationism, then the student will stop believing not only science, but also creationism.
Of course, in science there have been and will be alternative points of view, alternative explanations of the same natural processes in nature, society and in the spiritual world of man. This is especially true for those problems that are still little accessible to practical and demonstrative comprehension of their essence. But these questions are meant to be answered by scientists. But a schoolboy is not a scientist. He, in the words of the Boy from the movie “Cinderella”: “I am not a wizard/scientist yet. I'm still learning."
Consequently, even from a pedagogical point of view, creationism and other types of alternative anti-scientific concepts will bring undoubted harm to the fragile consciousness of students.
ІІ.Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev, Archpriest Vsevodod Chaplin and the chief priest himself, Kirill Gundyaev, persistently with numerous “arguments” prove the necessity and usefulness of teaching at school in parallel with the Law of God called “Orthodox Culture” an alternative to evolutionary teaching, a course of creationism. The arguments of these God-bearing shepherds and their followers are ingrained in their teeth and have long been known to everyone. I won't repeat them. Boring and useless. But in line with the speeches of the “guardians” about the school and the younger generation, I can share practical advice with all the outspoken attackers on the school.
Fathers, saints and non-saints! Why are you trying to restore order in a secular and state school that is not yours? Religion, according to the Constitution, is separated from the state, and the school is separated from the church. Why do you, with your “good advice,” climb over the fence separating you from the school? What, you don’t have enough worries of your own? What?, don’t you have your own schools? There are plenty!
For the benefit of your own business, first read Ivan Andrevich Krylov’s fable “The Mirror and the Monkey.” In the monkey mirror you will see yourself. See:
Monkey, seeing in the Mirror your image, Quietly, he nudges the Bear with his foot: “Look,” he says, “my dear godfather! What kind of face is that there? What antics and jumps she has! I would hang myself out of boredom, If only I looked even a little like her. But, Admit it, there are five or six of my gossips who are such crooks: I can even count them on my fingers.”
Instead of climbing over the fence into secular schools, wouldn’t it be better for you priests to turn to your own schools? In your schools, you all, individually and collectively, teach listeners and students only your own creed. But the belief that you teach yours, there are dozens and hundreds of more powerful beliefs in the world than your belief. You interpret to yours, for example, that the Bible is the only absolutely holy and absolutely infallible teaching of the Lord God himself - Hosts/Jehovah. There is no evidence for this assertion of yours. An objective, unbiased analysis shows that the Bible is a contradictory, ignorant and untenable source. This, as they say, goes without saying. But besides this, the Bible has many alternative sources of doctrine. For Muslims, the Koran is no less than your Bible, the only absolutely holy and absolutely infallible teaching of the Lord God himself - Allah. Compared to the Bible, the Koran has much fewer internal contradictions, although the absurdities there are biblical. For Buddhists, the Tripitaka is infallible and absolutely true, for Hindus - the Vedas, for Mormons - the Book of Mormon... All these sources of the “only true” religious teaching have three to four times more admirers than there are in the world of Bible admirers. Why don’t you introduce the study of these alternative holy books to the Bible in your educational institutions? Oh, that's how it is?! You study the beliefs of other religions and their holy books! Wonderful! But how do you study them? - Oh, that's how it is! - Critically. So, in our secular schools, both your sacred scriptures and the same creationism are critically studied. And as many good words you say about their teachings about other religions, so many good things are said about creationism in schools. We are not against what you talk about other religions and other sacred books that are not yours. So don’t oppose what we talk about your creationism in our secular schools. Would you like to debate with us publicly? Please invite us to your radio and TV shows. We, and I personally, agree to speak with you, even in your seminaries, even in your theological academies. Invite. Would you like me to give you a course on atheism? From me, seminarians can hear what atheism says about itself, and not what you tell them about atheism. Is this not suitable for you? In that case, why should we accept the utter heresy that you are trying to smuggle into our school?
"Why should gossips consider working? Isn’t it better to turn on yourself, godfather??" -The US military leadership continues to invent and publish in the media so-called violations by Russia of the provisions of the INF Treaty. Thus, the Washington online publication Daily Beast, citing authoritative government experts, stated that the Russian side, under the guise of developing ICBMs, is testing medium-range missiles that are prohibited by the agreement. We are talking about launches of the RS-12M Topol (SS-25) ICBM along a “short” route between the Kapustin Yar and Sary-Shagan test sites, which the Americans qualified as violations of the INF Treaty. Meanwhile, based on the results of many years of inspections of mobile ground-based missile systems (MGRS), the US State Department and the Pentagon are well aware that products of this type are not medium-range missiles.
In the author’s article “What to consider, work for gossips...” (“NVO” No. 25, 07.19.13) it was proven that Russia responsibly and punctually fulfills its treaty obligations when developing the relevant types of strategic offensive weapons. Therefore, US claims about Russian violations of the INF Treaty are groundless. It was also recommended that American experts turn to the basics of ballistics of strategic missiles and study the dependence of their flight range on the parameters of combat use data entered into the missile control system.
Nevertheless, the Daily Beast, at the suggestion of the same experts, announced that Russia had also violated the “Hague Code of Conduct on Preventing Ballistic Missile Proliferation,” which has nothing to do with the INF Treaty and missile launches.
In this regard, it seems relevant to analyze the “fresh” violations by the Americans of the INF Treaty and other non-proliferation and disarmament agreements.
VIOLATIONS OF THE TREATY DURING ANTI-MISSILE LAUNCHES
Paragraph 5 of Article II of the INF Treaty defines: “The term “intermediate-range missile” means a GLBM or GLCM whose range exceeds 1,000 kilometers but does not exceed 5,500 kilometers.” The Treaty also noted that “each of the Parties will eliminate its intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles and will not have such weapons in the future.”
Once again, we recall the opinion of the general designer of the unique PGRK “Topol”, “Topol-M”, “Yars” and the Bulava-30 SLBM, Academician Yu.S. Solomonova: “The Americans, in violation of the INF Treaty, actually created a medium-range missile for testing.” This made it possible to conduct about 22 successful anti-missile interceptions and put the Standard-3 anti-missile missile into service. The first stage of creating the European missile defense system has been completed and the deployment of the Aegis Ashore ground-based missile defense system has begun in Romania.
Unfortunately, Russian officials, various experts and “wise men” do not notice that the Americans are violating the provisions of the INF Treaty when conducting test launches of GBI (Ground-Based Interceptor – GBI) interceptor missiles, designed to intercept strategic missiles in the middle part of their flight path. It is known that interceptor missiles of this type have been adopted and deployed in Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base.
At the same time, bypassing the INF Treaty, the American side:
1) develops medium- and intermediate-range target missiles for testing anti-missile interception tasks;
2) introduced the term “intermediate range” without agreement with the Russian side;
3) did not submit the target missile for demonstration and display of its distinctive features;
4) did not declare the launch sites of target missiles;
4) does not transmit notifications about the status and movement of target missiles.
As part of the still “old” START-1 Treaty, they carried out an undeclared conversion of five silo launchers (silos) at Vandenberg Air Force Base and placed GBI interceptor missiles in them, committing a similar list of violations of treaty obligations. Moreover, little is known about the purpose and tactical and technical characteristics of these products. Data on their anti-missile capabilities have not been confirmed by treaties, except through spectacular illustrations in the media.
The Russian inspection this year at Vandenberg Air Base did not reveal any work on the silo conversion, and the Americans did not show the type of products loaded into the silo.
Conducting unannounced launches of GBI anti-missile missiles from silos could create the preconditions for nuclear incidents between the United States, Russia and China. This is explained by the fact that notifications of GBI missile defense launches in relation to the “Agreement between the USSR and the USA on notifications of launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles of May 31, 1988” are not provided. As a consequence, it is possible to provoke a retaliatory missile strike due to the false classification of the GBI anti-missile launch and its incorrect identification in flight, especially if a crisis situation arises in the world. This is explained by the identical size of the GBI anti-missile missile with the Minuteman-3 ICBM and the similarity of the ICBM warheads and the interceptor stages of the GBI anti-missile missile. Therefore, it is quite difficult to distinguish between an attacking ICBM and a “harmless” anti-missile missile in flight.
In addition, AFB Vandenberg conducts combat training and test launches of Minuteman-3 ICBMs using standard radars of the nuclear missile strike warning and control system outer space, control points at various levels, infrastructure facilities of the terrestrial data transmission network. In addition, there is an insufficient level vocational training American strategic nuclear forces specialists and nuclear support units, who have committed several nuclear accidents in recent years that have gained worldwide fame. If necessary, one can also recall nuclear incidents related to undeclared missile launches and failures in American missile launchers.
The governing bodies of the Russian Federation know that the Americans, within the framework of the “old” START-1 Treaty, assured the Russian side: test launches of GBI anti-missile missiles will be carried out from an experimental silo. However, these promises are not kept.
General Designer Yuri Solomonov has repeatedly emphasized that “despite the fact that theoretically the target missile is a surface-to-air missile, modifying it to the surface-to-surface class is not a problem. Because after the active section it will not be difficult to fly along a ballistic trajectory to the ground.” Of course, such capabilities can also be implemented in the GBI anti-missile missile, since its flight range is about 4000 km.
It should also be emphasized that the final stage of modernizing these interceptor missiles (by 2016) will require the creation of intercontinental-range target missiles, which will be associated with further US violations of the START Treaty.
VIOLATIONS OF START AND OTHER AGREEMENTS
An analysis of foreign information materials has revealed new aspects of the Americans’ violation of Article XIII of the START Treaty: “The Parties do not transfer to third parties strategic offensive weapons subject to this Treaty... This provision does not apply to any practice of cooperation existing at the time of signing this Treaty, including obligations in the field of strategic offensive weapons between one of the parties and a third state.” At the same time, the term “existing practice of cooperation” and areas of cooperation are not disclosed in the START Treaty. It is also unclear how many “third” countries there may be.
The essence of the “fresh” violation of this article is that the Americans are carrying out the practice of cooperation with Great Britain, which was not declared at the time of signing the START Treaty (April 8, 2010), in terms of preparing and conducting combat control launches of Trident-2 SLBMs with US Eastern Missile Range, for which a British SSBN arrives at the range. In recent years, about 15 launches have been carried out, which are classified as successful. At the same time, the Americans refuse to submit notifications about the upcoming launch, explaining this by the fact that Great Britain is not a party to the START Treaty.
Based on the results of launches of British (or American) SLBMs, telemetric information is not transmitted to the Russian side, which may mean a covert improvement in the tactical and technical characteristics of the missile and combat equipment. Also notified are the storage locations of British and American SLBMs, special markings, the location of each missile, and other information. However, paragraph 7 of Section II of the Protocol to the Treaty is puzzling: “Notification provided no later than five days after the completion of the transfer of SLBMs to a third state or receipt of SLBMs from a third state in accordance with existing cooperation practices.” Of course, we are talking about the reception and transmission of American SLBMs between the US and British Navy. It’s hard to even imagine that Russia will transfer its SLBMs to a third state - they themselves have a shortage, the Yuri Dolgoruky SLBM is still without missiles. A reasonable question is: why are the Bulava-30 SSBNs and SLBMs declared as existing in the START Treaty, which made them targets for American inspections?
The content of the next violation of Article XIII is that the Americans, at the time of signing the START Treaty, did not declare any practice of cooperation in the field of START with their nuclear ally, France, but it is taking place. Thus, information materials indicate that the United States, in violation of a similar article of the “old” START-1 Treaty, provided assistance to France on the design of ballistic missiles and ensuring the technical safety of nuclear materials. France, in turn, provided the United States with a variety of information based on the results of modeling tests of nuclear warheads for ICBMs. There is a “Memorandum of Agreement” between the states on cooperation in the field of ensuring nuclear safety and protection against unauthorized access. The document contains a section “Monitoring the state of the nuclear arsenal”, which regulates cooperation in the field of theoretical, numerical and experimental modeling methods, and a section “Nuclear technical safety and protection from unauthorized access” determines the procedure for the exchange of information on the design of nuclear weapons, research, development , testing, manufacturing, transportation and dismantling of components made of nuclear and explosive materials.
Within the framework of the Memorandum, there is also an agreement “Long-term participation of technical personnel in joint projects and mutual site visits.” After the signing of the Comprehensive Ban Treaty nuclear tests(CTBT) nuclear cooperation between the United States, France, and Great Britain focused on maintaining the combat readiness and reliability of arsenals without conducting full-scale nuclear tests. In 2010, an agreement was signed between France and the UK, which involves the creation of joint radiographic hydrodynamic centers, one in France and one in the UK, necessary for computer modeling of tests of nuclear components, in which the United States is interested. In this regard, trilateral cooperation between the United States and its nuclear allies, which was not stated in the START Treaty, is developing. In this case, one of the states is an intermediary in the transfer of information between the other two. A reasonable question is: when will the US Congress ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty?
The American side is also violating the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) by carrying out technical cooperation with Japan in the creation of a national missile defense system. Thus, the joint development of the Standard-3 Mod.2A anti-missile missile falls under the restrictions of Category I of this Regime, which prohibits the transfer to other states of: missiles with a maximum range of 300 km or more with a payload weight of 500 kg, as well as engines; control and communication system elements; software and other technologies. By the way, this missile defense will be deployed at the third stage of the European missile defense system (2018) and poses a threat to Russian strategic nuclear forces. In addition, Russian claims against the Americans who are assisting Israel in deploying its own missile defense system based on Arrow-type interceptor missiles remain in force.
Thus, the United States itself is violating the “Hague Code of Conduct for the Prevention of Ballistic Missile Proliferation,” the “Missile Technology Control Regime,” and the “Agreement between the USSR and the United States on the Notification of Launches of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and Submarine-Based Ballistic Missiles of May 31, 1988.”
The American leadership continues to fail to comply with the provision stated in the preamble of the START Treaty: “... recognizing the existence of a relationship between strategic offensive weapons and strategic defensive weapons, the increasing importance of this relationship in the process of reducing strategic nuclear weapons and the fact that current strategic defensive weapons do not undermine the viability of and the effectiveness of the Parties’ strategic offensive arms.” Thus, the Americans successfully completed the program of the first stage of creating a European missile defense system; announced their intention to strengthen the defense of US territory against attacks by ICBMs and SLBMs by deploying 14 more GBI anti-missile missiles and began selecting a position area; are deploying the Standard-3 Mod.1B ground-based anti-missile system in Romania, capable of intercepting Russian ICBMs; provide assistance to Japan and Israel in the deployment of national missile defense systems, as regional missile defense systems, aimed primarily against Russia. In connection with the progress of negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program, the US and NATO leadership do not plan to adjust plans for creating a European missile defense system. Thus, NATO has already stated that “the European missile defense system is not aimed at protection from any specific country. This is about defense against a real and growing threat, and against a real threat we need real defense.”
It should be noted that the US State Department once again violated the requirements of paragraph 5 of Article VII of the START Treaty: “Each Party has the right to make public data regarding its strategic offensive weapons.” Thus, the combat composition of Russian strategic nuclear forces was published on the State Department website in October: 473 deployed ICBMs, SLBMs and heavy missiles; 1,400 warheads on deployed ICBMs, SLBMs and nuclear warheads; 894 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, deployed and non-deployed TB. By the way, how is the counting rule implemented in the table: for each TB there is one warhead and how many TB warheads are there in total? The question of the mechanism for transferring Russian data for inclusion in the US State Department certificate is also relevant.
Further. The US government, by deploying tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) on the territory of a number of NATO member countries, violates the first article of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). As is known, this article introduces a ban for nuclear powers to transfer or provide control of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states, and the second article of the NPT is a ban for non-nuclear powers to acquire and use nuclear weapons.
Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Anatoly Antonov said: “The deployment by the United States of tactical nuclear weapons in non-nuclear countries goes beyond the NPT. Tactical nuclear weapons stationed in Europe can theoretically be quickly transported to the borders of the Russian Federation, while Russian non-strategic nuclear weapons cannot be transported quickly to the US border and do not pose a threat to American security. Nuclear weapon must be returned to the United States and the associated infrastructure destroyed.”
IT'S TIME TO UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING OBJECTIVELY
It is important to note that Russian President Vladimir Putin said for the first time that the INF Treaty does not fully meet the interests of ensuring the military security of the state: “Other states are actively improving medium-range missiles, and around us, almost all of our neighbors are developing these weapons systems. The Soviet Union in its time and, naturally, Russian Federation abandoned medium-range missiles by signing a corresponding agreement with the United States. This is not very clear, since for Americans these systems are not relevant at all, since there is nowhere to use them, but for Soviet Union and for today’s Russia, especially considering that our other neighboring countries are developing these strike systems, such a decision was, to say the least, controversial.”
The head of the Russian Presidential Administration, Sergei Ivanov, emphasized: “The Americans do not need this class of weapon at all, they did not need it either before or now. Because with the help of such weapons they can theoretically fight only with Mexico or Canada, and their flight range does not allow them to hit targets in Europe.”
The failure of the Russian-American initiative to globalize the INF Treaty, which was announced at the 62nd session of the UN General Assembly in 2007, also causes concern. This is largely due to the lack of interest of the American leadership in promoting the initiative. As a result, the number of countries possessing medium-range missiles is growing, and not a single one of them has expressed a desire to join the open-ended INF Treaty.
It seems that this policy statement of the President of the Russian Federation and his instructions at the meeting in Sarov make it possible to begin an objective analysis of the START Treaty for compliance with the military security interests of the state - after all, more than two years have passed since the date of its entry into force.
As an example, let's look at two articles that are detrimental to Russia. Thus, paragraph 7 of Article III states: “For the purposes of this Treaty: a) a missile of a type designed and tested solely for the purpose of intercepting and combating objects not located on the surface of the Earth shall not be considered a ballistic missile subject to the provisions of this Treaty.” . It must be admitted that the clause was creatively copied from the INF Treaty and has no direct relation to the START Treaty. There is no doubt that the Americans will continue to develop medium-, intermediate- and intercontinental-range target missiles, and the topic of analyzing violations of the INF Treaty and filing claims can be closed.
The wording of paragraph 2 of Article X is puzzling: “The obligation not to use camouflage measures includes the obligation not to use them at test sites, including measures leading to the concealment of ICBMs, SLBMs, ICBM launchers or the relationship between ICBMs or SLBMs and their launchers during testing.” .
Thus, the Russian side is asked not to carry out operational camouflage measures: when conducting combat training (test) launches of new missiles, testing promising types of combat equipment and missile defense control systems with the provision of telemetric information to the Americans; when testing new forms and methods of action of the Topol, Topol-M and Yars PGRKs. At the same time, the Americans do not plan to develop new strategic missiles in the near future, except for test launches of Minuteman-3 ICBMs and Trident-2 SLBMs in order to extend their service life. In this regard, the composition and content of telemetric information based on the results of launches of the existing type of American missiles are not of particular interest.
We have to admit that the START Treaty, its Protocol and its Annexes contain a significant number of restrictive and harmful provisions regarding Russian PGRKs, which the Americans do not have. Conclusions from the analysis of their content will be presented in a separate article.
