Sergei Strokan: Welcome to the Voice of Russia and its new weekend program Red Line. This week we chose for our first heading the visit of president of Pakistan’ to China. President Asif Ali Zardari returned in Islamabad Sunday morning at the conclusion of a five day visit to China during which he held talks with President Hu Jintao, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, etc. There’s nothing new about Zardari visiting China—in fact he’s been a regular guest there since taking office, having travelled to Beijing five times since September 2008. The frequency of the visits at reassuring Chinese policymakers who preferred dealing with his authoritarian predecessor, Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

Mira Salganik: But although ostensibly, the latest trip was over whether China will sell the two additional nuclear reactors to Pakistan, the meeting also raises deeper—and in many ways more troubling—questions about the dynamics of Asia’s nuclear proliferation. According to the China National Nuclear Corp. (CNNC), the governments of China and Pakistan in February signed an agreement to finance construction of two new reactors — Chashma 3 and 4 — in Pakistan's Punjab province.   

Sergei Strokan: But there is a hitch - NSG(Nuclear Suppliers Group) rules prohibit the sale of sensitive nuclear technology and materials to nations that have not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and do not allow international monitoring of their nuclear activities. And Pakistan is not a signatory to the NPT. But for several years now, the Chinese government and Chinese nuclear security experts have claimed that they had agreed to build the two reactors before China joined the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in 2004, making the sale exempt from NSG rules.  (They’ve offered other public defenses of the sale, including that Pakistanis desperately need more electricity).

Mira Salganik: Such protestations haven’t stopped the US, UK and Indian governments from objecting to the sale and disputing Chinese assertions that ‘grandfathering’ exempts any nuclear deals agreed to before a country enters the NSG. But their efforts at pressing Chinese representatives attending the annual NSG plenary meeting in Christchurch late last month didn’t bear any fruit.

Sergei Strokan: US State Department Spokesman Philip Crowley, speaking last month, indicated that the United States was potentially troubled by the Chinese plan.

Mira Salganik: Well, and the Chinese probably calculated that the Americans and others would think twice before trying to expel China from NSG or retaliate in other ways if the sale occurs. After all they need China’s help dealing with other nuclear non-proliferation issues, including Iran and North Korea. On the other hand, China is quick to remind the United States of how it forced through an exemption for India from NSG guidelines in 2006. Well, supporters of granting India but not Pakistan a NSG waiver insist that the two countries’ nuclear proliferation behavior is fundamentally different.

Sergei Strokan: The attitude of Western governments to Pakistan is uneasy – and not without some cause. Harm done to proliferation by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program is not forgotten. Before his arrest Khan ran an illicit nuclear proliferation network that sold uranium centrifuges and even detailed designs for a nuclear bomb, some of which may remain in circulation.

Mira Salganik: This is clear. But am I right in thinking that Zardari’ s visit and China’s  obvious determination to go on with Chashma reactors deal sparkled anew the concerns over civilian nuclear cooperation and proliferation in Asia. Chinese assertions of the need to maintain a nuclear balance between Pakistan and India reflect the interconnected nature of these three countries’ nuclear programs.

Sergei Strokan: Yes, but this is not the whole problem. What is  the most fundamental point about the dispute with Pakistan is that it could so easily apply to many other Asian countries that might plausibly seek nuclear weapons—after all, its successful acquisition of an expanding nuclear force encourages other governments to believe they too could acquire a nuclear arsenal and overcome the resulting international opprobrium.

Mira Salganik: But even this is not the whole problem. Still, before I explain my position. I suggest that we give the floor to Professor Alexander Sotnikov of Oriental Studies Institute, Moscow, who apparently has a different view of the situation.

Now let us come to our second heading “Between the Lines” to discuss the most intriguing publication of the week. This week the theme is predictably the World Cup – what else could it be? We chose not one article, but two presenting American and Russian view of the great event. Here we go! The World Cup ended Sunday in grand fashion, with a stirring victory by some country over some other country. A fortnight that shook the world is finally over. The time has come to ask some questions what was it all about and what did leave behind? For two weeks it looked like the world forgot all its concerns concentrating on one question – whose football team is the best? Now we know – it is the Spanish team that is absolutely the best. Three cheers!

Mira Salganik: And absolutely the best football expert is octopus Paul.

Sergei Strokan: Paul the octopus grabbed all publicity, but I learned from good sources that there are others: a chimpanzee, a carp…

Mira Salganik: Plus some bacteria, no? Now to be serious – are sport events of this caliber sport contests or they are fights for national prestige display? Spain is the champion of the World Cup, which is fine, but the country has been depressed by a debt crisis, 20 percent unemployment and nationalist regions fighting to separate from Spain. Officials said about 75,000 fans celebrated the victory waving the Spanish flag celebrated in Barcelona on Sunday night, where more than 1.1 million people a day earlier protested a Spanish court ruling that their autonomous Catalonia region must remain part of Spain. "I wouldn't have thought the euphoria over the football will last very long," said Paul Preston, a Spain expert and history professor at the London School of Economics. "It may soften the blow of the economic news, but it won't have a long-lasting effect. As far as current outrage in Catalonia about the recent decisions of the constitutional tribunal, it will have little or no impact," he told The Associated Press in a phone interview. "The scale of the outrage in Catalonia has to be seen to be believed."

Mira Salganik: So once again, Sergei, what is sport today? Does it unite nations or does it enhance xenophobia?

Sergei Strokan: It is a fact that sport events. Be it street football or the World Cup, generate a lot of energy that does have a potential of turning destructive. I’d go along with Yuri Bogomolov of RIA-Novosti who insists that ‘football globalism demonstrates that nations can live side-by-side without big difference in their politics, or level of their material and technological progress but be ages and epochs apart mentally and psychologically. Bogomolov’s story is aptly called “a fair of national vanity”. But now I want to quote Michael Rosenberg, a Free Press columnist who writes about American national vanity. He starts with stating that Americans don’t like soccer but then goes on: "Admittedly, we don't like soccer as much as we like our true national pastime, reality television, which is part of our even bigger national passion, people acting like complete morons. But we do like soccer, at least when nations are playing it once every four years. Much like the Olympics, the World Cup appeals to our belief that anybody born in another country is our mortal enemy." You call it xenophobia; I say, "What are you, some kind of foreigner?" It's the American Way. I am kidding, of course. But there is no doubt that the nation-on-nation aspect of the World Cup is central to its appeal.

Mira Salganik: Neat. So now that The World Cup has come and gone. Will Americans notice soccer again in another four years?

Sergei Strokan: Probably. However, let me take you back to Bogomolov. He writes: "To celebrate victories with dignity and to accept defeats as useful lessons is an art that takes time to master." We in Russia are mastering it – somehow or the other. Surely not without stumbling and slips. There were street fights of fans and hoodlums. There was a shameful loss to Portugal 1:7. And there was Vancouver. There were all sorts of things. Then Yuri Bogomolov goes on to conclude: "Reaction of various nations to digits on the world cup panel is the surest testimony to the fact that we, humans, are not only scattered over territories separated by thousands of miles, but are living in different time streams." Or are located on different levels of time vertical. The African World Cup has demonstrated it with unprecedented clarity.

Man in News. This is Red line concluding heading. This week our man in news is – El Hefe. Yes, indeed, Commandante Fidel Castro in person. Cuba's former president Fidel Castro made a rare television appearance on Monday night just hours before the first wave of political prisoners were set free and flown to Spain. Is it coincidence?

Mira Salganik: For those skeptical of Cuba's commitment to increasing its human rights record and path toward democracy, Mr. Castro, whose public appearances have been few and far between since he fell ill in 2006, is re-emerging as many are hoping that changes are underway in the island nation.

Fidel Castro is 83. Although he looked fit and relaxed on TV screen, age obviously takes its toll: A meagre 90-minutes program, instead of 4 hours speech on any occasion in his olden-golden days. His theme, though, was vintage Castro: mostly dedicated to criticising the United States which, he claimed, was preparing for another war in the Middle East, this time against Iran.

Sergei Strokan: But at no point has Fidel made any mention of the dramatic announcement last week that his brother had agreed to release 52 political prisoners, in a deal brokered by the Roman Catholic Church and Spanish diplomats.The first group of prisoners to be set free were taken to Havana airport on Monday and flown into exile. All were kept away from reporters. Raul Castro, the current president, to whom Fidel has ceded power in 2006 will probably be hoping that this change of strategy will improve his government's image abroad at a time when he is struggling with the economy and criticism at the slow pace of reform.

Mira Salganik: It seems that release of prisoners – and a very curious timing of the event – I mean, of course, its proximity to Fidel Castro TV appearance after four years of total obscurity, sparkled a lot of speculation and political intrigue.

Sergei Strokan: Speculation #1: was the release negotiated by Cardinal Jaime Ortega of the Roman Catholic Church, been approved by Fidel or was it Raul’s independent decision? In other words: who calls the shots in Cuba? By taking the most obvious human-rights issue off the table, Raúl Castro has driven a new wedge between U.S. and European policies. Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos, who helped broker the deal, crowed that European negotiation, not American confrontation, had triumphed.

Mira Salganik: The way I see it, the prisoner release is more symbol than substance.  It is a gesture – no more.

Sergei Strokan: But the gesture was made! We know that about a week before Fidel Castro all of a sudden visited the National Center for Scientific Research in Havana. Next morning his photos with workers were run in Granma. Castro writes opinion columns, or "Reflections," for Cuba's state-run media that in recent weeks have focused on his prediction that nuclear war will soon break out, sparked by a conflict between the United States and Iran over international sanctions against Iran's nuclear activities. "The empire is at the point of committing a terrible error that nobody can stop. It advances inexorably toward a sinister fate," he wrote on July 5. Translation: “Empire” in Castro language usually means the United States, his bitterest life-long foe.

Mira Salganik: In a column published on Sunday night, Castro said he has reached his dire conclusion based in part on "observing what happened, as the political leader that I was during many years, confronting the empire, its blockades and its unspeakable crimes." The columns have attracted little attention internationally and caused little reaction in Cuba, but Castro is determined to continue his lonely fight to warn the world of the coming disaster.

Sergei Strokan: He writes: "I don't hesitate in running risks of compromising my modest moral authority. I will continue writing 'Reflections' about the topic."

Mira Salganik: Don’t you think, Sergei, that this “modest moral authority” coming from Fidel Castro is a priceless gem? 

Sergei Strokan: Indeed, It is a priceless gem of objectivity. An objective self-assessment. But about Castro’s obsession with imminent nuclear war …

Mira Salganik: Did you see what that blogger wrote: Poor guy, he still thinks he is living in 1962!

Sergei Strokan: Exactly! In a personal letter to Khrushchev dated October 27, 1962, Castro urged him to launch a nuclear first strike against the United States if Cuba were invaded, but Khrushchev rejected any first strike response. But it certainly looks like Fidel Castro did not hesitate to trigger the nightmare. It seems the picture is still lurking in his mind only now he is sending out signals of its inevitability. You must remember, Mira, that once upon a time in the eyes of leftist intellectuals, especially of young generation, Castro did look like a valiant David ready to confront the American Goliath…

Mira Salganik: It did not last very long? Did it? Che Gevara became the world-wide banner of fight for freedom. Well, you know what the Greeks used to say: “Whom the gods love, die young.”

Sergei Strokan: On the eve of this TV- program Philip Peters, a Cuba expert at the Lexington Institute prognosticated:  “With everything going on now in Cuba, he is going to appear on television but to speak about the Middle East. Fidel Castro remains head of the Communist Party, which is a position of leadership … But at the same time, in his commentaries he is talking almost all time about history or foreign affairs, not about the issues in play in Cuba right now. He is not a shrinking violet, I do not believe it means he has no say or that he is not voicing his opinion about current affairs in Cuba.”

Mira Salganik: At any rate Castro’s appearance on TV screen exploded rumors of his death or being incapacitated. There is little doubt that Cuba is in for fundamental changes – whether with El Hefe’s blessings or without him and his blessings.

Sergei Strokan: And now we are joined by Yevgeni Satanovsky, President of the Moscow based Institute of Middle East Studies.

Yevgeni Satanovsky: Fidel Castro made a prognosis about the potential nuclear conflict on the Middle East, nuclear conflict around Iran and nuclear bomb. Castro is unique man and unique leader who not so far from the United States.  Not only taking in his hands island which was practically part of the American cultural life but in time when the whole Latin America was under the control of the United states, in 20 years when Soviet Union collapsed and not helped him  and just now is the leader of Cuba, very old leader but a man who keep power in his hands in all time during all Democratic or Republican Presidents of the United States since the time of the beginning of the cold war.