After Destroying International Law, Washington now Preaches it on Ukraine
The United States helped defeat Nazism in World War II. Obama is bringing it back in Ukraine
The hypocrisy of Western leaders, led by USA is absolutely stunning and sickening. They have forgotten the 2003 invasion and bloody occupation of Iraq described by UN Sec Gen Kofi Annan against the UN Charter and illegal .West also destroyed Afghanistan Iraq, Libya and now with its Gulf cronies is destroying Syria. Still, Mr Obama has the gumption to talk about international law after its foreign official nutty Nagaland, said for the EU and open encouragement to collection of Nazis, Fascists the very worst criminal hoodlums in Western Ukraine.
The bloody scenes in Kiev were the direct result of the campaign waged by the US and Germany to oust Yanukovych after he rejected proposals for closer EU ties and signed a deal with Russia accepting financial aid. In their efforts to prise Ukraine out of Moscow’s orbit and isolate Russia, Washington and Berlin openly worked with the extreme-right parties.
Top US State Department official Victoria Nuland has repeatedly visited opposition leaders in Ukraine, including the head of the Svoboda party, Oleh Tyahnybok. Leaked phone calls between Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, exposed the extent of Washington’s micro-management of opposition leaders as it seeks to install a new client regime. (“Fuck—the EU” said not so lady like Victoria)
The US: An Outlaw unto itself
After 9/11, which most people believe was a false flag operation, allegedly done by Jihadis, most of whom were Saudi nationals, US began bombing Afghanistan and not Saudi Arabia, without UN sanction .It was part of president Bush’s foster father like figure and oilman vice president Dick Cheney’s plans to occupy strategic space and oil centres in West, South West and South Asia the Bush's threat of war against Iraq for defying international law was absurd. After coming into office, Bush tore up more international treaties and disregarded more UN conventions than the rest of the world in the previous 20 years.
The list is familiar, including but not limited to the withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, failure to ratify the Rio Pact on biodiversity, withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the pursuit of National Missile Defense. It appears ready to violate the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. It opposed the ban on land mines and has sought to immobilize the UN convention against torture so that it could keep foreign observers out of its prison camp in Guantanamo Bay and hide its treatment of al-Qaeda prisoners. It has sabotaged the small-arms treaty and is opposed to new provisions of the biological-warfare convention. It experiments with biological weapons of its own and has refused chemical-weapons inspector’s full access to its laboratories. It is opposed to the International Criminal Court and is coercing other countries to sign separate agreements not to charge US citizens. It has permitted CIA hit squads to recommence covert operations of the kind that included, in the past, the assassination of foreign heads of state. Even its threat to go to war with Iraq without a mandate from the UN Security Council is a defiance of international law.
The Bush administration's foreign policy undermined the fragile structure of international law and conventions built up during the past three centuries, to which the United States made important contributions. Former president Billy Carter, a respected elder statesman frequently invited as an observer to elections, wrote in the Washington Post on September 6, 2002 that, "formerly admired almost universally as the pre-eminent champion of human rights, our country has become the foremost target of respected international organizations concerned about these basic principles of democratic life". He added that statements on Israel by US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld indicate "a radical departure from policies of every administration since 1967, always based on the withdrawal of Israel from occupied territories and a genuine peace between Israelis and their neighbors". Even before last September 11, the US was kept out of the UN Commission on Human Rights and other bodies.
.
Post Ukraine Crisis;
Media reported that International law is suddenly very popular in Washington. President Obama responded to Russian military intervention in the Crimea by accusing Russia of a “breach of international law.” Secretary of State John Kerry followed up by declaring that Russia is “in direct, overt violation of international law.”
Unfortunately, during the last five years, no world leader has done more to undermine international law than Barack Obama. He treats it with rhetorical adulation and behavioral contempt, helping to further normalize a might-makes-right approach to global affairs that is the antithesis of international law.
Today, Uncle Sam continues to preen as the globe’s big sheriff on the side of international law even while functioning as the world’s biggest outlaw.
Rather than striving for an evenhanded assessment of how “international law” has become so much coin of the hypocrisy realm, mainline U.S. media are now transfixed with Kremlin villainy.
USA’s corporate media on Ukraine
On Iraq war more than 90% of western media had called for war .BBC was the worst, which gave 2% to anti war views .Western media has become corporate whores and pressitutes.
On 2 March, the top of the New York Times home page reported: “Russian President Vladimir V. Putin has pursued his strategy with subterfuge, propaganda and brazen military threat, taking aim as much at the United States and Europe as Ukraine itself.” That was news coverage.
Following close behind, a Times editorial appeared in print Monday morning, headlined “Russia’s Aggression,” condemning “Putin’s cynical and outrageous exploitation of the Ukrainian crisis to seize control of Crimea.” The liberal newspaper’s editorial board said that the United States and the European Union “must make clear to him that he has stepped far outside the bounds of civilized behavior.”
Such demands are righteous -- but lack integrity and credibility when the same standards are not applied to President Obama, whose continuation of the Bush “war on terror” under revamped rhetoric has bypassed international law as well as “civilized behavior.”
In these circumstances, major U.S. media coverage rarely extends to delving into deviational irony or spotlighting White House hypocrisy. Yet it’s not as if large media outlets have entirely excluded key information and tough criticism.
For instance, last October the McClatchy news service reported that “the Obama administration violated international law with top-secret targeted-killing operations that claimed dozens of civilian lives in Yemen and Pakistan,” according to reports released by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
Last week, just before Obama leapt to high dudgeon with condemnation of Putin for his “breach of international law,” the Los Angeles Times published an op-ed piece that provided illuminating context for such presidential righteousness.
“Despite the president's insistence on placing limits on war, and on the defense budget, his brand of warfare has helped lay the basis for a permanent state of global warfare via ‘low footprint’ drone campaigns and special forces operations aimed at an ever-morphing enemy usually identified as some form of Al Qaeda,” wrote Karen J. Greenberg, director of the Center on National Security at Fordham University’s law school.
Greenberg went on to indicate the scope of the U.S. government’s ongoing contempt for international law: “According to Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the Obama administration has killed 4,700 individuals in numerous countries, including Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Obama has successfully embedded the process of drone killings into the executive branch in such a way that any future president will inherit it, along with the White House ‘kill list’ and its ‘terror Tuesday’ meetings. Unbounded global war is now part of what it means to be president.”
But especially in times of crisis, as with the current Ukraine situation, such inconvenient contradictions go out the mass-media window. What remains is an Orwellian baseline, melding conformist ideology and nationalism into red-white-and-blue doublethink.
Pres Putin remains unperturbed and correct. Is watching the stupidities of Western leaders and its corrupt media, China has fully supported Moscow stands on Ukraine. Like in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria it is the people in the western Ukraine, who will suffer. Ukraine debt is USD 35 billion, U.S.-led West is going to do nothing about it and IMF prescriptions would only bring misery and further deprivation for western Ukrainians, which is a mixture of Poles, Germans and other elements from North Europe.
The author has covered the US Franchised (like McDonalds and KFCs) street revolutions in Eurasia in the following articles, which can be accessed for more info
Georgia in Turmoil; A gambit in Eurasian Great game
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers9%5Cpaper850.html
In Ukraine, a franchised revolution
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/FL02Ag01.html
After Non – Franchised Andijan Uprising East Closes Ranks
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SRR/Volume14/kgs1.html
Central Asian Backlash against US Franchised Revolutions
http://www.chowk.com/articles/9372
Strategic Chess Moves Across Eurasia
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9703.htm
BAKU-CEYHAN PIPELINE: Another West-East Fault Line http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers14%5Cpaper1395.html
Reproduced below is an article of mine on Ukraine after the Feb 2010 presidential elections, won by Victor Yanukovich, who is still legally elected president of Ukraine now in Russia. Perhaps I was too optimistic and had not counted the mal-influence of military-industry complex and neo-cons in USA. Every war brings profits to warmongers and their banker masters.
K.Gajendra Singh. 4 March 2014.
Ukraine Elections Confirm Rollback of US Hegemony
The Eurasian Great game; West Loses a Big Piece
by K. Gajendra Singh 13 February, 2010
The final round results from Ukraine's bitterly fought presidential elections on 7 February gave Victor Yanukovich , a pro-Russian former prime minister, a close win but the opponent, maverick prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko refuses to concede defeat and demanded a recount. The Central Election Commission gave Yanukovich 48.95 percent of the vote, with 45.47 percent for Tymoshenko. Nearly 70% of the registered voters exercised their right in this critically important election in an ongoing strategic battle between the West and the East. The official results will be announced by February 17.
In an exclusive 9 February interview with CNN (which indicates that Washington has acquiesced), Yanukovich called on Tymoshenko to accept defeat. Recalling the US franchised “Orange Revolution” in 2005 he said;
"This country has been democratic for five years, and that's been proven again by this election," taking a dig he added that "Yulia Tymoshenko is betraying the principles of her Orange Revolution" by failing to acknowledge defeat.”
A Yanukovich win is a remarkable comeback five years after he was ousted in a populist uprising, added CNN. (Except that the protests and December 2004 elections were financed and organized by US led west and their organizations and foundations and puppets in Eurasia.) The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which sent observers this time too hailed the process as "professional, transparent and honest," which should "serve as a solid foundation for a peaceful transition of power."
In a Kremlin statement of 9 February Russian President Dmitry Medvedev congratulated Yanukovich on the completion of the election campaign, which was highly rated by international observers, and the success achieved at the presidential election.
New York Times sarcastically commented that such an election has not been held in Russia since Vladimir Putin, the prime minister, and consolidated power. European election monitors praising the election as highly competitive, unpredictable and relatively fair called it an “impressive display” of democracy. “Ukraine “election, in other words, did not follow the Kremlin blueprint and, if anything, seemed to highlight the flaws in the system in Russia. As such, it presented a kind of alternative model for the former Soviet Union. (What about George Bush election in 2000!)
“Tymoshenko helped spearhead the Orange Revolution, which first brought Western-style democracy to Ukraine. (Really –more later) While her defeat might indicate a rejection of the revolution, the fact that the country carried out a contentious presidential election that was widely considered fair suggested that the Orange legacy had endured.”
Olexiy Haran, professor of comparative politics at Kiev Mohyla University, said that many Ukrainians were disappointed in the Orange Revolution, “Ukrainians did not gain much of what they were promised in the social or economic spheres in 2004, but at the same time, they are enjoying democracy,” Haran said. “They can criticize; they can watch television political talk shows with enthusiasm. They have real choices.”
“They would like order and stability, and they want strong leaders,” he said. “But that does not mean that they are going to sacrifice their democratic freedoms for that. This is the difference with Russia.”
Kiev was calm after the poll (unlike end 2004) and there was no indication that the kind of mass street protests that broke out with the Orange Revolution would occur now.
US President Barack Obama also congratulated Yanukovich. A White House statement described a “peaceful expression of the political will of Ukrainian voters as another positive step in strengthening democracy in Ukraine." It said that the two leaders agreed on the need to continue cooperation which "include expanding democracy and prosperity, protecting security and territorial integrity, strengthening the rule of law, promoting non-proliferation, and supporting reform in Ukraine’s economic and energy sectors.” "The strategic partnership between the United States and Ukraine is based on shared interests and values," it concluded.
Outgoing President Yushchenko’s bid to join NATO was strongly supported by the George Bush administration. But it was turned down at a 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest due to pressure from Germany and France, who did not want to antagonize Russia. NATO had expressed pious hope that Ukraine, along with fellow former Soviet republic Georgia, would join the alliance sometimes in the future.
"There is no question of Ukraine joining NATO," Yanukovich clarified in an interview with Russia's Channel One.
"Ukraine is interested today in the development of a project to create a system of collective European security. We are ready to take part in this and support the initiative of Russia President Dmitry Medvedev," he went on, in a clear indication that he was keen to restore ties with Russia, soured since 2004 over Yushchenko’s pro-West policies.
Tymoshenko a politician with a steely ambition with little experience of coming second and described by the west the heroine of the so called ‘Orange Revolution’ remained in a state of denial and refused to concede defeat. She is perhaps trying to prove to her supporters that she remains a formidable force and persuade them to back her in waging future battles against Yanukovich.
"Tymoshenko is more of a revolutionary than a democrat," said Volodymr Fesenko, director of the Penta centre of political studies. She has "always shown bad habits. Like not being able to let go of power". In Ukraine's parliament, she could make life very difficult for Yanukovich whose Regions Party does not have a majority. But deputies from her Bloc Yulia Tymoshenko (BYuT) are already reported to be in talks to switch to the Regions Party after her loss which could weaken her hand.
Yanukovych could dissolve the parliament and call elections but that would give a chance for Tymoshenko to launch an immediate comeback.
"For the moment, the most important thing for her is to be the person who fights Yanukovych in the eyes of the voters," said Fesenko.
"It's a long time since Tymoshenko lost. She is in shock," said Kost Bondarenko, Ukrainian political analyst.
"In Europe, recognizing the victory of the opponent is a sign of civilized behavior. For Tymoshenko, legitimizing Yanukovych would be a sign of weakness in the eyes of the voters," wrote Sergey Leshchenko, a journalist.
"She is going to try and get on Yanukovich's nerves and prevent him from enjoying his victory," said Dmytro Vydrin, political analyst and a former advisor to Tymoshenko. But challenging the results and creating a new political crisis is hardly likely to go down well with the European Union, where she has been such a favourite.
"Tymoshenko tells Brussels that Ukraine is a European country but at home she behaves like a Byzantine," Vydrin said.
"If the Russians have 'sovereign democracy' then the Ukrainians have a kind of carnival where spectacle is more appreciated than substance," he added.
In end 2003 Yanukovych was blamed for the vote-rigging that provoked the Orange Revolution and swept pro-Western politician Yushchenko to power in a repoll.
But now it is Yanukovych who is calling on Tymoshenko to respect democracy by conceding after players like OSCE, EU and the USA all praised the conduct of the elections.
Following Yanukovich's defeat five years ago, Yushchenko went in for a confrontationist policy with Moscow to please his backers, USA, UK and others at great harm and loss loss to the people. There were regular disputes with Moscow over price and supply of gas to central and west Europe from which Ukrainian people gained little. It provided Western propaganda organs like BBC and CNN handle to badmouth Russia, when Moscow wanted to charge market price to the gas sold to Ukraine, which stole gas or throttled gas supplies westwards.
Germany wants to have stable and beneficial economic relations with Russia to get the arrogant Washington off its back. Berlin even guaranteed a cover 1 billion Euros of the Nord Stream project cost for the laying of a gas pipeline under the Baltic to avoid traversing Ukraine and other territories, with former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder accepting Gazprom's nomination for the post of the Chairman of the Board. The change in Kiev augurs well for the Ukrainians, who became a pawn in West East strategic game.
Soon after the Yushchenko victory 5 years ago, American marines even turned up for naval exercises in Crimea (a Russian territory which was transferred to Ukraine by Soviet strongman Nikita Khrushchev of Ukrainian origin) where the Russian Black Sea Fleet remains anchored. The Russian speaking population protested and hounded out the Yanks to force a quick exit.
Ukraine Nov –Dec, 2004 Presidential Elections & the “Orange Revolution”
Do you remember the Ukraine presidential elections held on 21 November, 2004 and the aftermath. It was something like this;
“In scenes reminiscent of the overthrow of Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze in November last year (see Georgia in the melting pot, in Dec 2003) and Slobodan Milosevich of Serbia in 2000, crowds opposing Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich, the official winner of Ukraine's presidential polls on November 21, massed at the main door to parliament in support of his rival Viktor Yushchenko, a former premier too, who claimed that the polls were rigged.
“Parliament on Sunday annulled the results, which had given pro-Russian Yanukovich 49.46% of the votes against 46.61% for pro-West Yushchenko. But Roman Zvarych, a deputy and one of Yushchenko's close aides, said: "We are in legal limbo. Much of this we are making up as we go along." The Supreme Court, as of late seen as a neutral body, was due to sit for a third day Wednesday to examine allegations of systematic electoral fraud.
“These events are part of a major geopolitical battle being fought in Ukraine, with the United States and Europe trying to encroach on Russia's traditional strategic turf. With the latter resisting it, the situation is reminiscent of the Cold War era. Ukraine, despite so far evolving peacefully, is now teetering on the edge of an abyss, with the possibility of serious turmoil looming, which could have ramifications that affect post-Cold War equations.”
From In Ukraine, A Franchised Revolution 2 December, 2004
By K Gajendra Singh
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/FL02Ag01.html
On an appeal citing irregularities by Yushchenko, the Ukrainian Supreme Court declared the result null and void. The legal action was reinforced by incredibly well organized sit ins and demonstrations in Ukrainian capital Kiev, which was called the “Orange revolution’ with large scale financing by the West and help in training of thousands of Yushchenko supporters. Yushchenko was joined by Yulia Tymoshenko, who was to become prime minister. The re-poll held on 26 December gave pro-West Victor Yushchenko, 52% against 44% for Yanukovich, who also filed an appeal charging of irregularities running into 57 volumes. But finally Yanukovich threw in the towel.
The Parliament had also joined in the fray and set aside the 21 November elections. It dismissed Yanukovich as Prime Minister, which the in situ President Leonid Kuchma did not ratify. The Parliament also changed the constitution to reduce incoming President’s power and unanimously voted for the return of Ukrainian soldiers from Iraq (but the soldiers were not withdrawn). Yushchenko supporters did not allow Yanukovich to hold a cabinet meeting and occupied government buildings in Kiev barring the latter‘s supporters from discharging their duties.
US Franchised Revolutions
in November 2004 Ukraine poll outside supporters were vocal in support of their favored candidate, but after the December re-poll the major powers with strategic interests ie, Russia, USA and EU were cautious. Adam Ereli of the US Department of State said “that the US administration had not rendered support to any of the candidates.” Putin, who had hastily congratulated Yanukovich in November, said that he would work with Yushchenko, if he were elected.
Ukraine is not like Czech Republic or even Ukraine’s neighbour Poland, which are now firmly in the European orbit. Ukraine was generally an integral part of the historical East and strategically vital for Russia in East West rivalry. The first seeds of Russian identity and nationalism had sprouted in Kiev, but the Ukrainian perception of its own national identity has been somewhat ambivalent. After the collapse of atheistic communism, Russia has reverted to orthodox Christianity and wants to be partner of European and western political and economic system, but still remains on the other side strategically. So the reactions from US led west and Russia mimicked the cold war utterances.
Soon after 26 December re-poll, Mikhail Saakashvili, West’s poster boy of the “Rose revolution” of Georgia, who studied in Kiev, and is thus fluent in Ukrainian, turned up to address a meeting of hundred thousand Yushchenko supporters in Kiev and proclaimed,” This is the triumph of good over evil.” After Kiev, Saakashvili studied law in USA, worked in a US law firm and has a Dutch wife. Yushchenko, is married to an American, who reportedly worked for US state department.
“Rose revolution” in Georgia
On November 22, 2003, Saakashvili supporters had charged through the portals of the Georgian parliamentary building in Tbilisi, forced Shevardnadze, a fixture on the Georgian scene, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, who along with Gorbachev dismantled the USSR , to resign. Saakashvili then won the new poll by 90%, which looked suspiciously like Communist era results.
Many publications in the West like the Economist of London called the events in Georgia a "velvet" or "rose" revolution. "Proud Georgians will point to this non-violence to argue that their country is fundamentally different to its Caucasian neighbors, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Both of these held flawed elections earlier this year too.” That things in Georgia happened differently was “a tribute partly to the vibrancy of the democratic opposition there, and partly to the fact that the West's involvement - both in monitoring the elections and in speaking out about fraud afterwards - was much greater." The reality was that elections in Azerbaijan and even Armenia ensured pro west leadership.
US had put up with Shevardnadze misrule and provided aid worth $1 billion, and other help to build Georgia as a bulwark against Russian interests in the region. Most of the money went into pockets of the ruling elite but in return, under Shevardnadze, Georgia fully toed the US line. Russian President Putin turned hostile to Shevardnadze because of his conviction that the latter was less than helpful in the war in Chechnya, across Georgia's northern border.
In 1999, outgoing president Boris Yeltsin phoned Shevardnadze and requested use of Georgian territory for a Russian attack on Chechnya rebels. US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott advised Shevardnadze to say no. With little heed for long-term consequences, as earlier in Afghanistan and now in Iraq, the US perhaps let Georgia overlook Chechens using its territory to establish international links, which were possibly behind the end 2003 Istanbul bombings against two synagogues, the British Consulate and HSBC Bank.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell who urged Shevardnadze for a bloodless departure, said in an interview: "An unstable Georgia automatically results in an unstable Caucasus." Shevardnadze was a good man. It was nice to cooperate with him, but his time was up. Reportedly Powell hinted that US ambassador Richard Miles was part of a plan to depose Shevardnadze. On November 29, an angry Shevardnadze told the Russian television that US multibillionaire George Soros was one of the major malefactors who led to the change of leadership in Georgia. Ambassador Miles was known to have been active in grooming Saakashvili. A series of senior US figures passed through Tbilisi earlier in 2003 to warn Shevardnadze that his days were numbered, including his old friend Jim Baker. "We would like to see stronger leadership," Miles told the Washington Post before Georgia elections.
Post ‘Rose Revolution”:
Writing in International Herald Tribune soon after, Tinatin Khidasheli, Chairwoman of the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association, a human rights group, and a fellow at the Yale University and who was an enthusiastic participant in the “Rose revolution” wrote that Saakashvili consolidated his power, initiating constitutional amendments which reduced the Parliament’s powers, and granted him more powers than any elected president in any democratic state. As for freedom of speech in Georgia, “dozens of media outlets were shut down, including three television stations. Even the more popular political talk shows were discontinued and replaced” and others labeled as traitors. Several critics have fared worse the editor of an independent newspaper, with no history of drug use, was arrested in the street for drug possession after criticizing a Saakashvili appointed regional governor. The home of a member of parliament was raided without warrant, “where police claimed to find a stockpile of arms in his children's wardrobe.” So much for freedoms in Georgia.
West’s Franchised Revolutions:
“Elections are a moment of triumph,” gloated USA Today. It added that “ the potential is clear: Ukraine's Orange Revolution was fueled by young voters in Kiev, who created Web sites and wrote rap songs to inspire voters. They ate at the McDonald's off Independence Square and lined up at Coca-Cola kiosks for drinks. The Orange Revolution is the latest in what appears to be a slow trend toward more democracy among the former Soviet republics and satellite states, including Georgia in 2003, Serbia in 2000 and years earlier in the Czech Republic and Poland.
Yes, the same tactics were applied by the US triumphantly in Serbia in 2000 to topple Slobodan Milosevic. Michael Kozak, the US ambassador in Minsk, then sought to emulate the success in elections in Belarus against the authoritarian Alexander Lukashenko, but failed.
There were many write ups in Guardian, Globalsearch and other websites which have documented western agencies’ support to Yushchenko. According to New Statesman Yushchenko was supported covertly by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Freedom House and George Soros' Open Society Institute, the very entities, which had helped oust Shevardnadze last year. The NED has four affiliate institutes: The International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), and the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS). They” provide technical assistance to aspiring democrats worldwide."
“In Ukraine, the NED and its constituent organizations funded Yushchenko's party Nasha Ukraina (Our Ukraine), as well as the Kiev Press Club. Freedom House, along with “The Independent Republican Institute (IRI) “were involved in assessing the "fairness of elections and their results". IRI had its staff in "poll watching" in 9 districts, and local staff in all 25 districts. "There are professionals outside election monitors from bodies such as the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, but the Ukrainian poll, like its predecessors, also featured thousands of local election monitors trained and paid by western groups. ... They also organised exit polls which gave Yushchenko an 11-point lead and set the agenda for much of what has followed."
Of course, western media and governments are committed to the "Freedom of the Press". They organize exit polls and then feed disinformation into the Western news chain, create and fund "pro-Western", "pro-reform" student groups, who then organize mass displays of civil disobedience. (Read Traynor, in Guardian) “In the Ukraine, the Pora Youth movement ("Its Time") funded by the Soros Open Society Institute is part of that process with more than 10,000 activists. Supported by the Freedom of Choice Coalition of Ukrainian NGOs, Pora is modeled on Serbia's Otpor and Georgia's Kmara. The Freedom of Choice Coalition acts as an Umbrella organization. It is directly supported by the US and British embassies in Kiev as well as by Germany, through the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (a foundation linked to the ruling Social Democrats).
Victor Yushchenko
The outgoing president Yushchenko as the head of the newly-formed National Bank of Ukraine enforced in 1993 IMF's usual shock therapy economic medicine which only impoverished its economy. As it had all over the world. He created a new Ukrainian national currency, which resulted in a dramatic plunge in real wages, with bread, electricity and transportation prices increasing by three, six and nine times respectively. The standard of living tumbled.
Yushchenko was appointed Prime Minister in 1999 because of loans which IMF had promised. In the now discredited IMF programmes, it closed down part of the country’s manufacturing base. Yushchenko also tried to undermine bilateral trade in oil and natural gas with Russia and demanded that this trade be conducted in US dollars rather than in terms of commodity barter. In 2001, he was dismissed following a non-confidence vote in the parliament-"Viktor Yushchenko has fulfilled obligations to the IMF better and more accurately than his duties to citizens of his our country, Olena Markosyan, a Kharkiv-based analyst, opined in Ukrainian centrist daily Den" (BBC Monitoring, 16 Nov 2004)
Energy Pipe Lines and Strategic Games
Georgia is being built up as a bulwark against Russia and would protect the $2.9 billion Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipe line that runs from Baku in Azerbaijan through Georgia to a new terminal at Ceyhan on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey. It was financed by Western oil companies and would counter the present Russia monopoly of oil transport from the Caspian basin to the West. Similarly Western control over Ukraine throttled Russian plans to export its oil to Europe. Loss of control over Crimea, populated by ethnic Russians and Tatars would have made Russia’s coastline restricted like Iraq’s in the Gulf .Of course, Russia is selling oil to energy hungry China and Japan as are many central Asian republics, who also oppose US led western regime changes and closed ranks with Russia. It appears that EU has no clear policy and would suffer the most. Even tiny countries in EU talk of glory and influence, and harangue defiantly against Russia.
It is a crazy situation .Washington does not want Europe to take Russian gas or for that matter from Iran either .From where else they should get it. Europeans along with Turkey as transit point are ignoring alternate US plans which are unlikely to take off and are making their own arrangements.
Unfortunately in India, decision makers on pensions from Washington Consensus outfits have done little to make alternate arrangements and have even annoyed Iran, a likely source for oil and gas.
Ukraine made several military agreements with NATO and Washington after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Ukraine joined GUUAM, a military alliance between five former Soviet republics (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova). Its objective was to undermine the alliance between Russia and Belarus, signed between Moscow and Minsk in 1996.
Members of GUUAM lie strategically at the hub of the Caspian oil and gas reserves "with Moldova and the Ukraine offering [pipeline] export routes to the West" and thus excluding Russia from the Black Sea, and protect the Anglo-American pipeline routes out of Central Asia and the Caspian sea.
Conclusions
The East West rivalry is as old as history itself, beginning with the Indo-Europeans, Trojan and Greek-Persian and other wars; Turks, Mongols, and later Russian Czars and Communists from the East moving on to the European heartland. The other points of East-West tectonic clash are now secular but 99% Muslim Turkey, which is reorienting itself eastwards .It, is unlikely to enter an almost openly proclaimed Christian EU club. Cyprus remains divided among Christians and Muslims, and the Western implant Israel in the Arab heartland remains a keg of Uranium ready to explode.
Russia was invaded by French Emperor Napoleon and Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, making Ukraine a major battle field. Both failed miserably but Russian sufferings and destruction were immense. USA was not prepared to pay the price and open a front through Greece, to keep East Europe out of USSR orbit. The Nazi war machine was 80% destroyed by Russia, but Western propaganda and films paint a different picture. Escape from Dunkirk was perhaps the only remarkable British operation in WWII. American contempt for Field Marshal Montgomery and the British is made amply clear in Hollywood film on Gen Patton. Even in the 2003 invasion, of Iraq, a few days before the D-Day US defense secretary Don Rumsfeld even asked UK not to bother joining but the poodle did tag along for scraps from the loot.
The power struggle in Eurasia and elsewhere is for strategic control, influence, and raw materials, the so called promotion of democracy and people’s welfare by US led west is a sick joke. In Ukraine ,following implementation of IMF programs in Ukraine, trade liberalization (which was part of the economic package), allowed US grain surpluses and "food aid" to be dumped on the domestic market, contributing to destabilizing one of the World's largest and most productive wheat economies. By 1998, the deregulation of the grain market had resulted in a decline in the production of grain by 45 percent in relation to its 1986-90 level. The collapse in livestock production, poultry and dairy products was even more dramatic. The cumulative decline in Ukraine’s GDP resulting from the IMF sponsored reforms was in excess of 60 percent (from 1992 to 1995). India knows too well the impact of IMF programs and wants rich nations like USA and EU to remove agriculture subsidies for free trade.
There is a similar pattern developing elsewhere in Eastern Europe with the nationalist card (against Communism) being used by corrupt politicians to cover up their own misdeeds and corruption. The events in Serbia, Georgia and now Ukraine were an expression of people's frustration and helplessness. However, pro-West leadership is unlikely to deliver the goods either. Romania's GDP now equals what it was in 1989, when the communist regime was overthrown. Most of the GDP is now cornered by 10-15% of the top political and bureaucratic elite.
The masses - especially the older generation - suffer from daily privations and are withering away. The populations in most of the former communist states are declining fast. A study indicated that in the wake of capitalism and globalization, a million extra deaths took place in Russia .Up to a trillion dollars worth of Russian wealth or even more was transferred to the West by the charade of globalization creating seven oligarchs in Russia, six out of whom are Jews, some out of country on criminal charges and one who wanted to take over the Kremlin itself for the West is now languishing in a Siberian jail. But the Western media rarely write about the terrible impact of this so-called neo-liberal democracy, capitalism and globalization. Nor does west enslave corporate media of India.
After the Fall of the Berlin wall, western media joked that communism was the longest and the most tortuous way from capitalism to capitalism. (In the Mecca of Capitalism, US, the banks are now owned by public funds and ought to be nationalized but are managed by banksters, who control the administration and the Congress). The route unfortunately first falls under mafia style authoritarian rulers and can be seen all over Eastern Europe, central Asia, Russia and elsewhere. It is no different in the US led West, where they control everything including the military-industry complex, the engine of western power and industry. The joke in Moscow in 1990s was that what the Communists said about Communism was all wrong but what they said about Capitalism was all correct.
The enforced collapse of the Berlin Wall failed to bring prosperity or lay foundations for European security. Hopes of millions of Europeans to see a better world order did not fructify. The wars and conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia, and Macedonia, in former Yugoslavia, Karabakh, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia in the Caucasus demonstrate that in a world without the stability, even armed one, sustained by the bipolar system there is no legally binding respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of countries. Without the basic principles, force by the West became the main arbiter in international relations.
However when US tried testing Russian resolve and inspired its puppet ruler in Georgia to invade disputed south Ossetia, Moscow gave a bloody thrashing and grabbed south Ossetia and Abkhazia in a riposte to US detaching Kosovo from Serbia and recognizing its independence. Georgia is unlikely to try again .Its ruler remains unpopular. It sent around a signal. So Azerbaijan is trying to somewhat distance itself away from USA.
After the collapse of USSR, USA went about methodically dismantling Russia further i.e. Chechnya and it’s near abroad. Contrary to the self proclaimed congratulatory triumphalism of neo-liberals after the collapse of Communism and Socialism in end 1980s, celebrated from the house tops by the so called philosophers, think tanks and analysts with delusions of permanent world domination of Western financiers and corporate houses based on dubious theories like 'the Clash of Civilizations' and 'the End of History ' or even claims of Washington - the New Rome with absolute control planned via the 'Project for American Century ' by arrogant and historically ignorant Straussian neo-cons, Zeo-cons and their supporters , the situation on the ground has turned out to be quite adverse.
"Those whom the Gods wish to destroy they render mad first"
The 9/11 assaults on US symbols of power were exploited by the Bush administration to spread its tentacles to Afghanistan and beyond in central Asia. For USA the Cold War never really ended and all means were employed to push Western military arm NATO to encroach into and encircle and even enter Russian strategic space. In central Europe it was carried out by dismantling Yugoslavia, an Orthodox Christian Slav nation close to Russia and by aligning Georgia and Azerbaijan to Washington. US franchised street revolutions failed in Belarus but succeeded in Serbia and Georgia and partially in Ukraine. When USA tried the same in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, Uzbek ruler Islam Karimov expelled the Americans from the air base and Kyrgyzstan placed new restrictions. The eastward movement of NATO has resulted in the upgrading of Shanghai Corporation Organization which now promotes military coordination and collaboration among its members to counter NATO.
The author has covered the US Franchised (like McDonalds and KFCs) street revolutions in Eurasia in the following articles, which can be accessed for more info
Georgia in Turmoil; A gambit in Eurasian Great game
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers9%5Cpaper850.html
In Ukraine, a franchised revolution
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/FL02Ag01.html
After Non – Franchised Andijan Uprising East Closes Ranks
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SRR/Volume14/kgs1.html
Central Asian Backlash against US Franchised Revolutions
http://www.chowk.com/articles/9372
Strategic Chess Moves Across Eurasia
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9703.htm
BAKU-CEYHAN PIPELINE: Another West-East Fault Line http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers14%5Cpaper1395.html
· Georgia in Turmoil; A gambit in Eurasian Great game
· In Ukraine, A Franchised Revolution
· After Non – Franchised Andijan Uprising East Closes Ranks
· Central Asian Backlash Against US Franchised Revolutions
· Strategic Chess Moves Across Eurasia
· BAKU-CEYHAN PIPELINE: Another West-East Fault Line
K Gajendra Singh, Indian ambassador (retired), served as ambassador to Turkey and Azerbaijan from August 1992 to April 1996. Prior to that, he served terms as ambassador to Jordan, Romania and Senegal. He is currently chairman of the Foundation for Indo-Turkic Studies. Copy right with the author
February 14, 2010
