Category: Opinions

    BA HH, UPND MULETUTWALA KWISA? …why destroy the credibility of ECZ just to fix Lusambo and Malanji?

    BA HH, UPND MULETUTWALA KWISA? …why destroy the credibility of ECZ just to fix Lusambo and Malanji? Featured

    October 12, 2022 by Socialist Party Zambia in

    The Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) has announced that the Kabushi and Kwacha parliamentary by-elections will be held on 21 October 2022. The Commission has further stated that the campaign period in both constituencies will run from 11 to October. We find this move by the ECZ problematic for a number of reasons. And we ask the Commission to reconsider their decision.

    First, following the earlier resignations of the two candidates in both Kabushi and Kwacha constituencies, which decisions were formally communicated to and acknowledged by the ECZ, it would be unconstitutional for the Commission to conduct elections in both constituencies without calling for fresh nominations. Article 52 (6) of the Constitution of Zambia provides that “Where a candidate dies, resigns or becomes disqualified in accordance with Article 70, 100 or 153 or a court disqualifies a candidate for corruption or malpractice, after the close of nominations and before the election date, the Electoral Commission shall cancel the election and require the filing of fresh nominations by eligible candidates and elections shall be held within thirty days of the filing of the fresh nominations”.

    This is the only provision that deals with the resignations of successfully nominated candidates. In both Kabushi and Kwacha, we had a candidate who resigned and the ECZ acknowledged receipt of their resignations. Once a candidate has resigned, the law requires the Commission to cancel the existing nominations, call for fresh nominations by eligible candidates and hold a new election within 30 days of the date of the new nominations. Indeed, this is what the ECZ has previously done. When a candidate belonging to the opposition UPP who had successfully filed nomination papers for the Kabwata by-election resigned, ECZ immediately cancelled the election and called for fresh nominations. When Ms Charity Lumpa who had successfully filed nomination papers for Lusaka Central resigned as an independent candidate prior to the 12 August 2021 election, the ECZ cancelled the earlier nominations and called for fresh ones.

    Why is the ECZ abrogating the law and changing the precedent it has set when it comes to Mr Bowman Lusambo and Mr Joseph Malanji? And can the ECZ cite any law that empowers the Commission to proceed to conduct elections if a candidate who had resigned changes their mind after the Commission has even acknowledged receipt of their resignation? What the ECZ has done this time is lawless. The law requires the Commission to cancel the nominations and call for fresh ones only. There is no law that provides for a nominated candidate who has resigned to rescind their decision after resigning. After receiving the resignations of the two candidates, what the ECZ should have done is to call for fresh nominations from all eligible candidates. Anyone interested, including those who had resigned, would be free to file their nominations, if they are eligible to stand for the election.

    What those who had resigned cannot do is to pull back their resignations and crawl back into the race. Nix! It does not work that way. This is not a game. It is not chidunyu where one can do whatever they like without any regard to the laws of the land. The decisions of the ECZ should always be based on the or backed by law. The ECZ should stop this lawlessness and do the correct, legal thing. We know they are under extreme pressure from the UPND, but if the three commissioners who made the decision – Mr Ali Simwiinga, Ms Ndiyoyi Mutiti and Maj Gen Vincent Mukanda Rtd – cannot follow what the law provides for, let them resign before they set the country ablaze.

    Second, it is blatant lawlessness and contempt of court for the ECZ to proceed to conduct elections in both Kabushi and Kwacha when there are active processes relating to the same issue that remain before our courts of law. When a matter is in court, parties to the case cannot do some self-help measures outside the court process to correct the premise of the original dispute. That is lawless. As things stand, the ECZ’s hands are tied. Proceeding to hold elections in Kabushi and Kwacha before the matters that are in court are disposed of would amount to interfering in the court processes or in the matters that are before court. It actually amounts to contempt of court.

    In the High Court, there is a case between Mr Lusambo and Mr Malanji and the ECZ that is yet to be determined. The judgment for this case was ready but moments before it could be delivered, the UPND rushed to the Court of Appeal to stop the Lusaka High Court from delivering the judgement. Why? It is possibly because the UPND may have learnt that the verdict was likely going to be in the favour of Mr Lusambo and Mr Malanji. Rather than facing the humiliation of losing to PF lawyers including Tutwa Ngulube, the Attorney General and his team appear to have decided that they would rather have no elections in both Kabushi and kwacha and deprive the people in these constituencies of representation in Parliament than allow the courts to pass any verdict that would clear Mr Lusambo and Mr Malanji to stand in the by- elections. But should the institutional credibility of both ECZ and the Judiciary be destroyed this way just to punish two individuals?

    There is also an active case involving Mr Peter Sinkamba and Mr Isaac Mwanza versus the ECZ in the Constitutional Court. In the wake of the resignations of those two candidates from Kabushi and Kwacha, Mr Sinkamba and Mr Mwanza asked the Constitutional Court to order the ECZ to cancel the earlier nominations for both constituencies, call for fresh ones and organize a fresh election within the stipulated timeframe, as per the earlier cited provision of the Constitution. The matter was heard and the Concourt was supposed to deliver judgement on Monday this week, 10 October. But when the matter came up for judgement, the Attorney General applied to be joined to the case on the ground that it borders on public interest. Again, here, like was the case in the matter before the High Court, the UPND may have learnt that the verdict was likely going to be in favour of the petitioners and consequently moved swiftly to file an application that prevented the ConCourt from delivering judgement. Again, we ask: why this desperation?

    The reason why the UPND is running from one court to another seeking to delay the delivery of any judgment that may go against them is that any cancellation of the earlier nominations in Kabushi and Kwacha would provide the opportunity for Mr Lusambo and Mr Malanji to file their nominations, since, in the wake of the earlier ConCourt judgment on their matter, nothing now stops them from doing so if fresh nominations are called. What we see here is the abuse of the court process by those in power today, one that the judiciary itself is perpetuating. The matter between Mr Sinkamba and Mr Mwanza versus the ECZ was already argued. Why did the Concourt allow the State to join the matter at the 11th hour when the court was set to deliver judgement? Where was the State all along or when the matter was filed and argued?

    We urge our judges to refuse to be abused in this way. Let all the judges in the judiciary know that the best way of securing their credibility and the credibility of the judiciary itself is by dispensing justice in a timely manner and in accordance with the law. It is not by taking sides that appease one political group or another, be it those in government or those in opposition. The UPND and their supporters are quick to condemn the ConCourt when it suits them and similarly are quick to abuse the same judges again when it suits them.

    It is also becoming clear that the Attorney General is not defending public interest in the matter of Mr Lusambo and Mr Malanji. He and his team appear to be defending the interests of the UPND. They seem to have decided that they would rather have no elections in both Kabushi and kwacha than allow the courts to pass any verdict that would pave the way for Mr Lusambo and Mr Malanji to stand in the by-elections. The UPND knows that they do not stand a chance of winning Kwacha and Kabushi if Mr Lusambo and Mr Malanji are on the ballot, hence this desperation to exclude the two from the ballot. But should we destroy the institutional credibility of both ECZ and the Judiciary just to punish two individuals? Why not defeat them through the ballot if the UPND is as popular, as they claim in these two constituencies? Not even Mr Edgar Lungu and the PF were so afraid of defeat that they excluded their political opponents from the ballot. Let Mr Lusambo and Mr Malanji stand. Defeat them fairly and through the ballot.

    We ask the ECZ to reverse the decision they have made and wait for the active court processes to be completed. Destroying the credibility of this important institution just to disqualify Mr Lusambo and Mr Malanji is akin to shooting down an Airbus A380 plane carrying 853 passengers just to kill 2 people! We repeat: if Mr Ali Simwiinga, Madam Ndiyoyi Mutiti and Maj Gen Vincent Mukanda Rtd cannot comply with the provisions of our Constitution, we demand that they resign from their posts instead of setting the country on fire. No elections should be held in Kabushi and Kwacha without fresh nominations.

    We also ask the UPND to stop abusing the ECZ and the justice system all in an attempt to block Mr Lusambo and Mr Malanji from standing. Yes, there are loopholes in our electoral laws but until the relevant law is changed, Mr Lusambo and Mr Malanji have the right to benefit from those loopholes. It is not the job of the UPND to determine who should lead our people. The job of the party in power is to deliver what they promised people when they were in opposition and hope that voters will reward them at the ballot. Mr Hakainde Hichilema and your UPND, muletutwala kwisa? Please stop destroying the credibility of our institutions. You were elected to rebuild, not worsen, the standing of ECZ and the judiciary in the eyes of the public.

    Finally, we ask Mr Hichilema to appoint the substantiative leadership at ECZ so that they can in turn appoint the new CEO, as per the law. It is not healthy to our democracy and the strength of our formal institutions to leave such vital institution like ECZ being run by people on an acting basis. This leaves room for the manipulation of the ECZ that we continue to witness.

    Fred M’membe

    President of the Socialist party

    IF WE STRUGGLE WE WILL WIN

    July 5, 2022 by Socialist Party Zambia in

    Today I have been reflecting and meditating deeply on our enslavement, colonisation, exploitation, humiliation and degradation as Africans. I have been thinking about our heroes – those selfless, genuinely good people who were willing to risk their own lives to save us.Many guilty consciences have been created by our enslavement – the slave trade. Europeans know that they carried on the slave trade, and we Africans are aware that the slave trade would have been impossible if certain Africans did not cooperate with slave ships. To ease their guilty consciences, Europeans try to throw the major responsibility for the slave trade on to us Africans. One major author on the slave trade (appropriately titled Sins of Our Fathers) explained how many white people urged him to state that the trade was the responsibility of African chiefs, and that Europeans merely turned up to buy captives – as though without European demand there would have been captives sitting on the beach by the millions! These issues can be correctly approached only after understanding that Europe became the centre of a world-wide system and that it was European capitalism which set slavery and the Atlantic slave trade in motion and today our under development is not blamed on our continued modern enslavement, neo colonialisation, exploitation, humiliation and degradation but on our corrupt and inept leaders as if they are not the ones who sponsor these corrupt and inept puppets so that they can easily continue, albeit in a new way, to enslave, neo colonise, exploit, humiliate and degrade us. Yes, we Africans are aware that without the cooperation of African puppets, lackeys of imperialism our continued enslavement, neo colonisation, exploitation and degradation would be impossible. When will they take or accept responsibility for their sins? They will never. We have to struggle to restore our freedom, progress and human dignity. There’s no doubt that if we struggle we will win.

    Fred M’membe President of the Socialist Party

    Press Briefing by the Socialist Party on the establishment of an AFRICOM office at the US embassy in Lusaka, 3rd May 2022

    May 4, 2022 by Socialist Party Zambia in

    Good morning ladies and gentlemen from the press. Today’s Press Briefing focuses on the controversial topic of establishing an AFRICOM office at the US Embassy in Zambia.

    To start with, let us look at some content from the recent press statements coming from the US Embassy as well as from our Minister of Defence.

    US Embassy Zambia (April 26, 2022): “Building on the foundations of U.S. –Zambia shared security interests, the new Office of Security Cooperation will enhance military to military relations and expand areas of cooperation in force management, modernisation, and professional military education for the Zambian security forces.”

    US Embassy Zambia (May 2, 2022): “There is no U.S. military base (or plans for one) in Zambia. An Office of Security Cooperation is not a military base – the new Office of Security Cooperation will be an office at the U.S. Embassy in Lusaka and will work hand-in-hand with the Zambia Defence Force to enhance military to military relations and expand areas of cooperation in force management, modernisation, and professional military education for the Zambian security forces.”

    Minister of Defence Zambia (May 2, 2022): “We have had a long-standing relationship with US-AFRICOM in the areas of peacekeeping that has predated this administration and has benefited our military. Zambia has no intention whatsoever of establishing or hosting any military bases on Zambian soil.” “… the Ministry of Defence would like to take this opportunity to warn all perpetrators of such misinformation meant to tarnish our existing cordial relationship with our neighbours and strategic partners, to desist from issuing alarming statements which hinge on the security and territorial integrity of our nation.”

    Obviously, the US Embassy and our Minister of Defence are worried about the reaction of the Zambian public on. They are therefore trying to clear the air – that there will be no US military base in the country, but a new office for security cooperation. The Minister of Defence goes a step further – threatening those issuing alarming statements!

    However, what is lost in all this controversy is why AFRICOM is widely rejected amongst the African masses! What is its mission? What is its history?

    Ladies and gentlemen, it is important to understand these facts in order to give context to the current anxieties in the country. Threats and arrogantly formulated press statements are not helpful.

    Here is a short history. On 15 October 2003, Nile Gardiner and James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation in the US published a white paper called US Military Assistance for Africa: A Better Solution. They argued that the US government should create a US Africa Command that would intervene in Africa ‘when vital [US] national interests are threatened’ in the same tradition as was done in Latin America and the Caribbean with the establishment of the US Southern Command in 1963. This became a reality in 2007. President Bush announced on February 6, 2007 the establishment of a Unified Command for U.S. military forces in Africa, known as AFRICOM.

    African nations have repeatedly declared their opposition to the hosting of U.S. bases on the African continent and the militarization of their relations with the United States. It was apparent that AFRICOM was going to pursue narrowly defined U.S. interests at the expense of both the sovereignty and welfare of the African nations.

    At that time, two African countries, Botswana and Liberia, indicated that they would be pleased to house the headquarters of AFRICOM. However, South Africa voiced opposition to AFRICOM’s move to the continent. Through AU intervention, both Botswana and Liberia backed off.

    Regional organizations have been most vocal in their critique of AFRICOM. The Southern African Development Community (SADC) was the first to issue a clear message of dissent against the Bush initiative. On August 29, 2007, SADC announced its position “that it is better if the United States were involved with Africa from a distance rather than be present on the continent.” The SADC Defence and Security Ministers further stated “that sister countries of the region should not agree to host AFRICOM and in particular, armed forces, since this would have a negative effect. That recommendation was presented to the Heads of State and this is a SADC position.”

    President Levy Mwanawasa reaffirmed Zambia’s stance on October 2, 2007, when he stated “none of us is interested” in hosting the command.

    Other key regional organizations made up of nations across Africa declared their condemnation of AFRICOM and its implications for US-African relations. The 25-member Northern African Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-SAD) backed SADC’s position on the establishment of U.S. bases and stated that CEN-SAD “flatly refuses the installation of any military command or any foreign armed presence of whatever country on any part of Africa, whatever the reasons and justifications.”

    The Arab Magreb Union also voiced strong opposition to the placement of U.S. bases anywhere on the continent.

    The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) stated resolutely its opposition to American bases in the region. At the forefront of this effort stood Nigeria, whose leadership unequivocally denounced the possibility of American troops being based in West Africa.

    The mood to prevent AFRICOM’s headquarters from being based on the continent remains strong and is widespread amongst the African people. As a result of all this dissent, AFRICOM is currently still based in Stuttgart, Germany. AFRICOM HAS FOUND CREATIVE WAYS OF OPERATING IN AFRICA –DESPITE THE REJECTION Despite the rejection of AFRICOM amongst the African masses, the US has found various ways of getting AFRICOM to operate on the continent:

    (i) US military bases have continued to proliferate after 2007. In the aftermath of the NATO war on Libya, the Sahel region experienced a number of conflicts, many of them driven by the emergence of forms of militancy, piracy, and smuggling. Using the pretext of these conflicts, and inflamed by NATO’s war, France and the United States intervened militarily across the Sahel. In 2014, France set up the G-5 Sahel, a military arrangement that included Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger, and expanded or opened new military bases in Gao, Mali; N’Djamena, Chad; Niamey, Niger; and Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. The United States, for its part, built an enormous drone base in Agadez, Niger, from which it conducts drone strikes and aerial surveillance across the Sahel and the Sahara Desert. This is one of the many US bases on the African continent. The United States has twenty-nine known military facilities in fifteen countries on the continent, while France has bases in ten countries. No other country from outside the continent has as many military bases in Africa. The increasing number of foreign military bases on the African continent alarmed the Peace and Security Council of the AU, which raised this as an important issue in its May 2016 meeting: “Council noted with deep concern the existence of foreign military bases and establishment of new ones in some African countries, coupled with the inability of the Member States concerned to effectively monitor the movement of weapons to and from these foreign military bases. In this regard, Council stressed the need for Member States to be always circumspect whenever they enter into agreements that would lead to the establishment of foreign military bases in their countries.”

    (ii) AFRICOM has found itself into the AU with an attaché to the Peace and Security Council and staff in the AU Conflict Prevention and Early Warning Division, as well as the Peace Support Operations Division. With the entry of AFRICOM into the AU in the name of ‘interoperability’ to link US military forces with AU peacekeepers, the US has begun to shape the AU’s security framework more directly. (iii) The inability of some African militaries to fight dissidents is providing a chance to AFRICOM. On 27 April 2021, Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari asked the US to relocate AFRICOM Headquarters from Stuttgart, Germany to the African continent in order to help fight insurgencies. Growing pressure from Islamic and other dissidents and increased instability in Nigeria was the contributing factor to President Buhari’s appeal, though he fell short of suggesting Nigeria as host for AFRICOM. Nigeria’s position is a major shift from its initial stand, which, a decade ago, was against the presence of AFRICOM in Africa.

    (iv) Various security cooperation agreements have led to serious surrenders of national sovereignty that have occurred through military exchange and so-called security cooperation. The example of Ghana is quite telling. In 2018, the US Department of Defense proposed that the US and Ghana agree to a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), a $20 million deal that would allow the US military to expand its presence in Ghana. In March 2021, widespread unhappiness of this agreement swept large sections of the population into the streets; opposition parties, who worried about the possibility that the US would build a military base in the country, raised their objections in parliament. By April, Ghana’s President Nana Akufo-Addo said that his government had ‘not offered a military base, and will not offer a military base to the United States of America’. The US Embassy in Accra repeated the statement, saying that the ‘United States has not requested, nor does it plan to establish a military base or bases in Ghana’. The SOFA agreement was signed in May 2018.

    It does not require a close reading of the agreement’s text to know that there is in fact the possibility that the US could build a base in the country. Article 5, for instance, states, Ghana hereby provides unimpeded access to and use of Agreed facilities and areas to United States forces, United States contractors, and others as mutually agreed. Such Agreed facilities and areas, or portions thereof, provided by Ghana shall be designated as either for exclusive use by United States forces or to be jointly used by United States forces and Ghana. Ghana shall also provide access to and use of a runway that meets the requirements of United States forces.

    Through this article, the US is permitted to create its own military facilities in Ghana. By any definition, this means that it can set up a base. The surrender of Ghana’s sovereignty also comes to light where the SOFA agreement states (Article 6) that the US would ‘be afforded priority in access to and use of Agreed facilities and areas’ and that said use and access by others ‘may be authorised with the express consent of both Ghana and United States forces’. Furthermore, Article 3 says that US troops ‘may possess and carry arms in Ghana while on Official duty’ and that the US troops shall be accorded ‘the privileges, exemptions, and immunities equivalent to those accorded to the administrative and technical staff of a diplomatic mission’. In other words, the US troops can be armed and, if they are accused of a crime, they will not be tried in Ghana’s courts. In March 2018, Ghana’s minister of defence, Dominic Nitiwul, was challenged on a radio station by Kwesi Pratt of the Socialist Forum Ghana (SFG). Nitiwul said that there was nothing peculiar about this agreement, since other African countries – like Senegal – had signed such agreements. Ghana, said Nitiwul, had signed similar agreements with the US in 1998 and 2007, but these were done in secret because there was no tax waiver. Pratt warned that Ghana would be ‘surrendering sovereignty’ in entering this agreement. The general sentiment in the country was opposed to the base, which is why both the Ghanaian government and the US denied that a base would be built. Pratt was right. The US presence at Kotoka International Airport in Accra became the heart of the US military’s West Africa Logistics Network. By 2018, weekly flights from Ramstein Air Base in Germany landed in Accra with supplies (including arms and ammunition) for the at least 1,800 US Special Forces troops spread out across West Africa. Brigadier General Leonard Kosinski said in 2019 that this weekly flight was ‘basically a bus route’. At the Kotoka airport, the US maintains a Cooperative Security Location. This is a base in all but the name.

    REASONS FOR REJECTING THE NEW OFFICE FOR SECURITY COOPERATION

    1. The US has provided direct and indirect military support to Zambia for a long time now using the existing embassy facilities and defence attaché. There has been no felt need for a new office within the embassy. The setting up of the new office escalates the role of AFRICOM in Zambia. Such a development has implications for the SADC defence initiatives and raises anxieties in the region.

    2. There is a real danger of the country’s military doctrine being hijacked through this form of security cooperation. Zambia’s military doctrine was for a long time a product of the country’s post independence insights gained through international exposure (primarily from the UK, Yugoslavia, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Tanzania and several other countries) as well as the threats that were posed by colonial fascist regimes supported by Europe and the US. Today’s doctrine has to build on this past – but with a clear understanding of the country’s changed geopolitical situation. It will be extremely dangerous and fatal to turn the Zambia military into some extended arm of the American military.

    3. The US military operates not only to provide an advantage to the United States and its ruling elites, but it functions – along with the armies of the other NATO nations, including France – as the guarantor of Western corporate interests and the principles of capitalism. Nkrumah came to the same conclusion in 1965, stating that ‘Africa’s raw materials are an important consideration in the military build-up of the NATO countries… Their industries, especially the strategic and nuclear factories, depend largely upon the primary materials that come from the less developed countries’. Reports from the US military routinely sketch out the responsibility of its range of armed forces to ensure a steady stream of raw materials for corporations – especially energy – and to maintain unimpeded movement of goods through shipping channels. Such reports include National Energy Policy (May 2001) from the National Energy Policy Development Group, led by former Vice President Dick Cheney, and Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States (September 2018) from the Interagency Task Force in Fulfilment of Executive Order 13806. In this sense, the US military – alongside its NATO partners – operates as the gendarme not for the world community, but for the beneficiaries of capitalism. Alongside the US is France, whose military presence in Niger is closely linked to the imperatives of the French energy sector, which requires the uranium mined in Arlit (Niger). One in three French light bulbs are powered by the uranium from this town in Niger, which is garrisoned by French troops.

    4. The New Cold War. As Chinese private and public commercial interests have increased on the African continent, and as Chinese firms have consistently outbid Western firms, US pressure to contain China on the continent has increased. The US government’s New Africa Strategy (2019) characterised the situation in competitive terms: ‘Great power competitors, namely China and Russia, are rapidly expanding their financial and political influence across Africa. They are deliberately and aggressively targeting their investments in the region to gain a competitive advantage over the United States’. The European Union followed with a report called Towards a Comprehensive Strategy with Africa (2020), which – while it did not directly mention China – worried about ‘competition for natural resources’. Under this New Cold War, the Zambian military must protect the country’s economic interests and those of our motherland – Africa. More autonomous security cooperation arrangements are – within today’s context of a multipolar world – needed more than ever before.

    5. Zambians need to have a say over this increasing military cooperation with any NATO country and Israel. The NATO countries enslaved, colonised and exploited our continent for centuries. They supported the most reactionary forces in Africa – including the racist apartheid regime. They systematically killed progressive African leaders that stood for African dignity and against the underdevelopment of the continent. This is a tragic history that cannot be grossed over quickly. What type of values are therefore our military learning from AFRICOM? The recent military coups in West Africa are associated to former AFRICOM military trainees, what exactly is going wrong and what lessons can Zambians draw from this development? As long as we don’t have convincing answers to these questions, further security cooperation with AFRICOM is unacceptable and dangerous in the long run.

    An appeal of the Commission for international Cooperation & Support of Compatriots Abroad of the General Council of the All-Russia political party “UNITED RUSSIA” to partner parties on the situation around the Ukrainian crisis of 2014-2022

    An appeal of the Commission for international Cooperation & Support of Compatriots Abroad of the General Council of the All-Russia political party “UNITED RUSSIA” to partner parties on the situation around the Ukrainian crisis of 2014-2022 Featured

    March 14, 2022 by Socialist Party Zambia in

    Dear colleagues, friends, comrades! We appeal to you, our partners in the international inter-party relations, so that each of you and the peoples that you represent on all continents of the Earth can get first-hand information about what is actually happening in Ukraine and around it, about the reasons for the extreme aggravation of the protracted crisis that arose in a country neighboring Russia after the anti-constitutional coup d’etat committed there in 2014 with the participation of the United States and a number of other NATO countries.

    The attempt of the organizers of this coup to turn Ukraine into an anti-Russian springboard over the past eight years not only turned into the beginning of the of the collapse of the Ukrainian state, the collapse of it’s economy ,a social crisis, rampant terrorism and neo-Nazism,but also led to thousands of civilian casualties as a result of the civil war in the region of Donbass (in the Southeast of Kyiv). Year upon year, the pro-American puppet regime had been intensifying its preparations for a war with the Minsk agreements approved by the UN Security Council for seven years in a row. As a result, through the fault of the official Kyiv, the agreements were completely thwarted and Russia had no other choice than,given Ukraine’s refusal to accept a peaceful settlement, to recognize on February 21, 2022 the independence of the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic based on the referendums held there and numerous official requests for assistance sent to Moscow by the authorities of these long-suffering territories. After the recognition of republics, Treaties of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance were concluded and ratified by the Russian parliament unanimously, with the participation of all the parliamentary parties of Russia.

    At the same time, the Ukrainian regime was preparing a large-scale punitive military operation against the inhabitants of Donbass. It could lead to hundreds of thousands of victims among the civilian population, including among Russian citizens who have long and permanently lived in these territories. In accordance with article 51 of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and based on the consent of the Federation council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, it was decided to launch a special military operation.

    Among the tasks of this operation, the demilitarisation and denazification of the Ukraine were announced. It should be recalled that since the declaration of independence of Ukraine, it’s leadership has announced a firm intention to maintain the status of a neutral non-bloc state. However, after the putsch of 2014, amendments were made to the constitution, fixing the country’s desire for membership in the NATO bloc, which officially declared Russia to be its adversary. At the same time, the West categorically refused Moscow’s requests for guarantees of the non-expansion of NATO to Russian borders and started mass deliveries of weapons to the Ukrainian authorities, encouraging the actions of nationalist anti-Russian armed groups and foreign mercenaries.

    It even came to the point that the President V. Zelensky explicitly expressed his intentions to make Ukraine a nuclear power and seize part of the Russian territories by force. Moreover, there was reason to believe that the extremists would try to use the Ukrainian nuclear repository at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant near the Russian and Belarusian borders for the terrorist act that would become a real threat to the inhabitants of all Eastern and Central Europe. The timely actions of the Russian military eliminated this opportunity and thus protected millions of Europeans.

    It is impossible the fact that the current Ukraine over the past years has become a real hotbed of Nazi and neo-Nazi ideas, and the matter was not limited to street possessions with the symbols of the criminal organization “SS” and other fascist attributes, the voting of the present-day Kyiv against all UN resolutions,condemning the glorification of Nazism and neo-Nazism. The combat detachments of these extremists,armed with the help of foreign patrons, openly terrorize civilians in Ukraine, actually take them hostage and try to pass their war crimes off as the actions of the Russian military personnel. We will seek to bring to justice those who have committed and are committing these bloody crimes.

    The same applies to the fact that for eight years the Ukrainian authorities have been pursuing a targeted policy to infringe on the rights of the Russian-speaking population living on the territory of Ukraine. At the suggestion of the nationalist elite, the Verkhovna Rada adopted draconian laws prohibiting the free use of the Russian language in all spheres of the public life, including education, the media, and consumer services. Any manifestations of dissatisfaction with ordinary citizens on this score were severely suppressed by right-wing radical groups with the complete inaction of the local law enforcement agencies.

    It is important to state with all certainty that the Russian Federation has not waged, does not wage and does not intend to wage war on the Ukrainian people. Our political activity, as the President of the Russian Federation V.V Putin declared, “is based on the freedom for everyone to independently choose and determine their own future and the future of their children….. what is happening today does not come out of a desire to infringe on the interests of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. It is related to the protection of Russia itself from those who took Ukraine hostage and are trying to use it against our country and its people.” The position of the Russian leader is fully shared and supported by the UNITED RUSSIA party.

    Against this background, the behaviour of the United States and its European satelites, those who helped plan and implement the criminal coup in Ukraine in 2014, armed the Ukrainian regime, purposefully contributed to the transformation of the neighboring, fraternal country into the an anti-Russian project and fueled the conflict in the Donbass for eight years, arming the Kyiv regime, encouraging its inadequate actions and belligerent rhetoric, is seen as especially cynical and irresponsible. These destructive forces-the so called collective West-they don’t want peace for the Ukrainian people, they are ready to “fight with Russia to the last Ukrainian.” The United States, the European Union, NATO show their true bloodthirsty face: they declare their intention to increase the supply of lethal weapons to Ukraine and continue to send military specialists there. Thus, they are also bringing the world to the brink of a new global war, risking the fate of all mankind for the sake of their ambitions to contain Russia. At the same time, Western-controlled means of the propaganda that for eight years did not notice the suffering of ordinary people in the Donbass, deliberately distort what is happening today in Ukraine and around it, and thereby further and thus further exacerbate the already crisis situation.

    Dear colleagues,

    By imposing illegitimate unilateral sanctions against the Russian Federation, the West will not force us to change its principled line aimed at ensuring national security and protecting its citizens. We hope that you and the people’s you represent will bear with Russia on its position at this complicated moment for peace and security. Together we are able to thwart the West’s policy of containment. The sad experience of the Ukrainian events clearly shows what the impudent intervention of the NATO countries in the sovereign affairs of states, disregard for the UN charter, flirting with Naziz, neo-Nazis, terrorists and other extremists leads to. Together, we are able to prevent the sanctions policy pursued by the West against anyone who is not ready to follow their imperial instructions, their desire to ensure their own security at the expense of the security of others, incitement of local wars and an arms race, and other acts dangerous for humanity.

    We hope that you, like us, fully share the principles of peaceful coexistence of states with different political systems, respectful cooperation, unacceptability of the illegal policy of sanction pressure, uncompromising struggle against any manifestations of Nazism, neo-Nazism and terrorism.

    The “UNITED RUSSIA” party is ready to continue mutually beneficial cooperation with its partners,is open to interaction with all responsible political parties and public organizations of the world.

    AZIM YARAKHMEDOV

    Ambassador of the Russian Federation