Neil Macdonald
2014-03-08 04:10:36 UTC
Note to the reader:
You will see below that a journalist writing for Canada's national
broadcaster (CBC) has no problems pointing out Israel's occupation of
the West Bank when drawing parallels with Russia and Ukraine. You will
not see such mention of Israel in the US media. This is an example of
something I pointed out a week or two ago - how Canada ranked so high on
the recent global scale of journalistic freedom - and the US was far
down on that list.
Of course it's par for the course that american media and "news" outlets
would not dare point out how ludicrous it is that only the US can invade
other countries to perform "regime change" under the pretense of
"preemtive war" while protecting their "strategic interests".
================================
Analysis: The Ukraine crisis through the whimsy of international law
Money and hard power count, and that's that
By Neil Macdonald, CBC News
Mar 05, 2014 5:00 AM ET
Listening to U.S. President Barack Obama bang on this week about the
importance of world opinion and obeying international law and respecting
sovereignty and being on the right side of history, you had to wonder
whether he didn't have a little voice in his head whispering: "Really?
Seriously? I'm actually saying this stuff?"
This is the commander-in-chief of a military that operates a prison camp
on Cuban soil, against the explicit wishes of the Cuban government, and
which regularly fires drone missiles into other countries, often killing
innocent bystanders.
He is a president who ordered that CIA torturers would go unprosecuted,
and leads a nation that has invaded other countries whenever it wished,
regardless of what the rest of the world might think.
Disclaimer here: Vladimir Putin's proclaimed justification for invading
Ukraine protecting Russian-speaking "compatriots" in that country from
some imagined violence stinks of tribalism.
His rationale is essentially ethnic nationalism, something responsible
for so much of the evil done throughout human history.
Stated motivation aside, though, what Putin is doing is really no
different from what other world powers do: protecting what they regard
as national self-interest.
And so far, he's done it without bloodletting.
Imagine, for a moment, what Washington would do if, say, Bahrain's Shia
population, covertly supported by Tehran, staged a successful uprising
and began to push itself into Iran's orbit.
The U.S. Fifth Fleet is headquartered in Bahrain, just as Russia's Black
Sea Fleet is parked at its huge naval bases in the Crimea.
To pose the scenario is to answer the question of how America would
react.
The same goes for all the other countries in America's political realm.
The Philippines, South Korea, certain Persian Gulf nations. Imagine if
Russia's military tried to return to Cuba.
The order of things
There is an order of things; it is disturbed at the world's peril.
And Ukraine, for better or worse decidedly worse, those in the western
portion of the country will tell you has for centuries been in
Russia's sphere.
Crimea, the region of Ukraine now occupied by Russia, was part of the
Soviet Union and was deeded to Ukraine in 1954 to celebrate the 300th
anniversary of a treaty that bonded much of Ukraine to Tsarist Russia.
To suggest, as European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso did
this week, that Ukrainians "have shown that they belong culturally,
emotionally but also politically to Europe," is just wishful thinking,
even if some Ukrainians wish it were true.
Furthermore, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was right when he
pointed out that many of the countries denouncing Putin's intervention
were actively involved in encouraging anti-Russia Ukrainians to
overthrow an elected, if distasteful, president and government.
Victoria Nuland, a senior American diplomat, was caught in flagrante
delicto a few weeks back, chatting with another American official about
which Ukrainian opposition figures should and shouldn't be installed.
Washington's reply: It was unconscionable of Russia to intercept and
leak that discussion.
Incidentally, some of the Ukrainian opposition groups that have now
ended up in power ARE thuggish, anti-Semitic, anti-Russian, extreme
right-wingers.
Putin's description of them ultranationalists was mild. You just
wouldn't know it listening to Western politicians.
In Obama's case, sitting beside him on Monday as he gave his lecture on
international law from the Oval Office was close ally Benjamin
Netanyahu.
The Israeli prime minister, having just engaged in a protracted, robust
handshake for the cameras, presides over a country that operates a
military occupation in the West Bank, an occupation that includes
Israeli settlements, which violate the international law Obama was
demanding Putin obey.
The U.S. insists that Israel's occupation can only be solved by
respectful negotiation between the parties themselves, and it vehemently
opposes punishing Israel with the sort of moves currently being
contemplated against Russia.
It's easy to go on and on in this vein Britain's prime minister, who
leads a nation that helped invade Iraq on a false pretext, denouncing
Putin's pretext for going into Crimea. The NATO powers that helped bring
about the independence of Albanian Kosovars complaining about the
separatist aspirations of Russian-speaking Ukrainians, etc.
But that's diplomacy. Hypocritical declarations and acts are woven into
its essence.
What's remarkable is the unspoken pact among the Western news media to
report it all so uncritically.
When Obama spoke, the gaggle of reporters in attendance rushed to report
his statements, mostly at face value.
Likewise, Western news reports seriously reported Russia's ridiculous
threat to end the role of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve
currency, as though Russia's creditors will begin to accept rubles at
whatever exchange rate Putin decrees.
On TV and in print, we hear serious talk about the possibility of
economic sanctions against Russia which would only trigger a
devastating trade back-blast against European economies.
Other media analysts agree with the angry flailings of U.S. foreign
policy hawks, who seem to think Obama should be much more aggressive
with Putin, although they have few concrete suggestions. (A frustrated
Senator John McCain demanded that rich Russians be barred from Las
Vegas.)
The unspoken media-government arrangement is understandable, I suppose.
We must at least pretend there's international law and fairness and
basic rules, because it reassures us that we live in a world where raw
power doesn't ultimately rule.
But it's all just gibberish; through the looking glass. We might as well
be reporting that slithy toves gyre and gimble in the wabe.
Money and hard power count, and that's that. The big players have it,
and the smaller players play along. If we need the anaesthetic liquor of
self-delusion to deal with it, well, drink up.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/the-ukraine-crisis-through-the-whimsy-of-international-law-1.2559980
You will see below that a journalist writing for Canada's national
broadcaster (CBC) has no problems pointing out Israel's occupation of
the West Bank when drawing parallels with Russia and Ukraine. You will
not see such mention of Israel in the US media. This is an example of
something I pointed out a week or two ago - how Canada ranked so high on
the recent global scale of journalistic freedom - and the US was far
down on that list.
Of course it's par for the course that american media and "news" outlets
would not dare point out how ludicrous it is that only the US can invade
other countries to perform "regime change" under the pretense of
"preemtive war" while protecting their "strategic interests".
================================
Analysis: The Ukraine crisis through the whimsy of international law
Money and hard power count, and that's that
By Neil Macdonald, CBC News
Mar 05, 2014 5:00 AM ET
Listening to U.S. President Barack Obama bang on this week about the
importance of world opinion and obeying international law and respecting
sovereignty and being on the right side of history, you had to wonder
whether he didn't have a little voice in his head whispering: "Really?
Seriously? I'm actually saying this stuff?"
This is the commander-in-chief of a military that operates a prison camp
on Cuban soil, against the explicit wishes of the Cuban government, and
which regularly fires drone missiles into other countries, often killing
innocent bystanders.
He is a president who ordered that CIA torturers would go unprosecuted,
and leads a nation that has invaded other countries whenever it wished,
regardless of what the rest of the world might think.
Disclaimer here: Vladimir Putin's proclaimed justification for invading
Ukraine protecting Russian-speaking "compatriots" in that country from
some imagined violence stinks of tribalism.
His rationale is essentially ethnic nationalism, something responsible
for so much of the evil done throughout human history.
Stated motivation aside, though, what Putin is doing is really no
different from what other world powers do: protecting what they regard
as national self-interest.
And so far, he's done it without bloodletting.
Imagine, for a moment, what Washington would do if, say, Bahrain's Shia
population, covertly supported by Tehran, staged a successful uprising
and began to push itself into Iran's orbit.
The U.S. Fifth Fleet is headquartered in Bahrain, just as Russia's Black
Sea Fleet is parked at its huge naval bases in the Crimea.
To pose the scenario is to answer the question of how America would
react.
The same goes for all the other countries in America's political realm.
The Philippines, South Korea, certain Persian Gulf nations. Imagine if
Russia's military tried to return to Cuba.
The order of things
There is an order of things; it is disturbed at the world's peril.
And Ukraine, for better or worse decidedly worse, those in the western
portion of the country will tell you has for centuries been in
Russia's sphere.
Crimea, the region of Ukraine now occupied by Russia, was part of the
Soviet Union and was deeded to Ukraine in 1954 to celebrate the 300th
anniversary of a treaty that bonded much of Ukraine to Tsarist Russia.
To suggest, as European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso did
this week, that Ukrainians "have shown that they belong culturally,
emotionally but also politically to Europe," is just wishful thinking,
even if some Ukrainians wish it were true.
Furthermore, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was right when he
pointed out that many of the countries denouncing Putin's intervention
were actively involved in encouraging anti-Russia Ukrainians to
overthrow an elected, if distasteful, president and government.
Victoria Nuland, a senior American diplomat, was caught in flagrante
delicto a few weeks back, chatting with another American official about
which Ukrainian opposition figures should and shouldn't be installed.
Washington's reply: It was unconscionable of Russia to intercept and
leak that discussion.
Incidentally, some of the Ukrainian opposition groups that have now
ended up in power ARE thuggish, anti-Semitic, anti-Russian, extreme
right-wingers.
Putin's description of them ultranationalists was mild. You just
wouldn't know it listening to Western politicians.
In Obama's case, sitting beside him on Monday as he gave his lecture on
international law from the Oval Office was close ally Benjamin
Netanyahu.
The Israeli prime minister, having just engaged in a protracted, robust
handshake for the cameras, presides over a country that operates a
military occupation in the West Bank, an occupation that includes
Israeli settlements, which violate the international law Obama was
demanding Putin obey.
The U.S. insists that Israel's occupation can only be solved by
respectful negotiation between the parties themselves, and it vehemently
opposes punishing Israel with the sort of moves currently being
contemplated against Russia.
It's easy to go on and on in this vein Britain's prime minister, who
leads a nation that helped invade Iraq on a false pretext, denouncing
Putin's pretext for going into Crimea. The NATO powers that helped bring
about the independence of Albanian Kosovars complaining about the
separatist aspirations of Russian-speaking Ukrainians, etc.
But that's diplomacy. Hypocritical declarations and acts are woven into
its essence.
What's remarkable is the unspoken pact among the Western news media to
report it all so uncritically.
When Obama spoke, the gaggle of reporters in attendance rushed to report
his statements, mostly at face value.
Likewise, Western news reports seriously reported Russia's ridiculous
threat to end the role of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve
currency, as though Russia's creditors will begin to accept rubles at
whatever exchange rate Putin decrees.
On TV and in print, we hear serious talk about the possibility of
economic sanctions against Russia which would only trigger a
devastating trade back-blast against European economies.
Other media analysts agree with the angry flailings of U.S. foreign
policy hawks, who seem to think Obama should be much more aggressive
with Putin, although they have few concrete suggestions. (A frustrated
Senator John McCain demanded that rich Russians be barred from Las
Vegas.)
The unspoken media-government arrangement is understandable, I suppose.
We must at least pretend there's international law and fairness and
basic rules, because it reassures us that we live in a world where raw
power doesn't ultimately rule.
But it's all just gibberish; through the looking glass. We might as well
be reporting that slithy toves gyre and gimble in the wabe.
Money and hard power count, and that's that. The big players have it,
and the smaller players play along. If we need the anaesthetic liquor of
self-delusion to deal with it, well, drink up.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/the-ukraine-crisis-through-the-whimsy-of-international-law-1.2559980