Shifting Narratives: Western Media Hypocrisy on the vote in Crimea

In the aftermath of the Russian seizure of Crimea and the weeks leading up to the vote to secede from Ukraine, Western officials and their stenographers in the Main Stream Media railed about the illegitimacy of the vote. In that narrative they are probably on solid ground, the legality of Crimea’s secession is dicey at best and probably would not hold up to scrutiny under International Law. However the narrative has shifted to the vote being illegitimate due to the overwhelming YES vote (over 95%) for secession from Ukraine and re-unification with Russia. Western officials and media pundits should probably steer away from this narrative and stick with the original legitimacy of the vote occurring in the first place. Reason being given the Pro-Russian sentiments in Crimea it is not so hard to imagine that an overwhelming majority of the people there would seek to dissociate themselves from Ukraine (especially given the makeup of the current government in Kiev). Let us examine some national votes for secession or dissociation in the last few decades.

South Sudan: The plebiscite for the South Sudan to secede from Sudan occurred after overwhelming Western pressure on the government in Khartoum, even after South Sudan was given significant and far reaching national autonomy.  The result:

99% voted for independence

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12317927

Kosovo: This province of Serbia was carved out as a result of a sustained NATO air campaign on the Serbia under the guise of humanitarian intervention. This was in contravention of international law, Serbia’s national sovereignty and conducted without UN Security Council approval. There result:

Their was actually no formal vote for independence in this case, the ruling factions within Kosovo just unilaterally declared independence ( although the overwhelming majority Kosovar Albanians supported this move) and was legitimized and recognized by the Western powers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/world/europe/18kosovo.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Falkland Islands (Malvinas): This group of tiny sparsely populated islands in the South Atlantic have been the cause of a long running dispute (200 years) between Argentina and Great Britain, which culminated in the Falklands war in the early 1980s. The residents of the Island (who are overwhelmingly British descended) were given the opportunity to decide if they wanted to continue their association with Great Britain or chart a different course (to the chagrin of Argentina). The result:

99.8 % voted to remain a British overseas territory

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9925693/Falkland-islands-referendum-who-were-the-three-No-votes.html

East Timor: East Timor like the rest of Indonesia was part of Dutch East India, after the Netherlands abandoned the colony it was occupied and absorbed by Indonesia. Years of oppression and repression resulted in the local population eventually revolting. After heavy international pressure and democratic reforms in Indonesia, East Timor is given the opportunity to vote for autonomy or full independence. The result:

78.5 % vote for full independence

These are just some recent examples, is it so hard for Western observers to believe that a region that is overwhelming Pro-Russian and has been part of Russia for centuries would vote overwhelmingly to become part of the Russian federation?

Deluded: The “International Community’s Ukraine debacle

First let us define what the “International Community” is; Western leaders and press tend to refer to this all encompassing term to convey a sense of universal consensus on global issues. In reality the “International Community” is code for the major powers of the N.A.T.O alliance, Australia, Japan and lower rate powers that can be bribed or cajoled to support the particular global agenda being pursued. The opinions of the rest of the worlds 150+ nation states who do not happen to be members of the above exclusive club do not even compute.

Regarding the crisis in Ukraine it is essential we get three major points straight:

1. The overthrow of the Viktor Yanukovych was a coup, plain and simple. It neither conformed to any basic principles of democracy nor The Ukrainian constitution. The current leaders in Kiev have neither a democratic mandate nor support of the majority of the people.

2. The subsequent Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea is a violation of International Law, The Ukrainian Constitution, The United Nations Charter and dozen of other agreements and conventions.

3. The illegal overthrow of the democratically elected Victor Yanukovych was sponsored and orchestrated with the assistance, support and blessings of the “International Community”.

U.S Under Sectary of State discussing Ukraine destabilization efforts:

           http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

           http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o

          

           Snipers that killed protesters and police may have been opposition agitators:

      

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEgJ0oo3OA8

          http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/ukraine-bugged-call-catherine-ashton-urmas-paet  

German chancellor Angela Merkel was quoted as saying that Vladimir Putin was living “in another world” and he had “lost the plot”.

Unfortunately from the way events are playing out it seems that it is the “International Community” that may be living in a fantasy world of their own creation.  Let us take a look at events as they have played out.

1. Double Dealing: The “International Community” led by the European Union, negotiated a settlement to the crises in late February that would have led to among other things:

I.                   Early elections.

II.                Formation of a unity government between the opposition and Yanukovych government.

III.             Reduction of the Presidents powers.

           Within 24 hours of signing the agreement the opposition forces reneged on the deal (like they had done with other deals negotiated earlier) and overthrew the government anyway. Instead of the E.U pressuring the opposition to honor the very agreement they negotiated to, they went ahead and recognized the new coup regime and brought out the red carpet.

2. Cognitive Dissonance: The “International Community” seems to have a unique and unmatched ability for lack of self inflection and unrivaled hypocrisy. Take this gem from the esteemed U.S Secretary of State:

      “You just don’t invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests,”

         This coming from a former Senator who voted to authorized the Iraq War, which is not to say Russia does not deserve criticism for its illegal actions. However criticizing Russia in the context of international law, that the “International Community” has violated repeatedly and in total contempt of others countries, is not only highly hypocritical but invites total ridicule and derision from Russia and the rest of the world. This is no way to conduct honest diplomacy and is only a display of grandstanding and a lack of sincerity.

3. Exaggerated sense of self importance: The “International Community” seems to have blundered into this Ukraine crises without a plan B or contingency.  Western leaders assumed that they could change the dynamic without their being any reaction from Russia. Here are some false assumptions that the “International Community” seems to be working off of:

I.                   Credibility - Western leaders assume they have any moral credibility left; unfortunately the days of being able to hold the moral high ground are over.  The Iraq War, Libya War, 2^nd Lebanon War, Guantanamo Bay, Extraordinary Rendition, Drone Strikes, N.S.A wiretapping and Support for coup regimes has pretty much evaporated any good will in terms of global public opinion.

II.                Economic Sanctions – The West trying to use the same economic siege tactics that were inflicted on Iran is comical. It just will not work on a country with the size and clout of Russia; the threats are actually rather comical when you look at the big picture. Something like $70 billion dollars a year flows out of Russia into Western economies; Russia for decades has been trying to prevent this capital flight. Sanctioning the flow of capital would actually rank as a positive for Moscow.

III.             Political Isolation – Outside of the “International Community” Russia has next to zero risk of political isolation. The response from countries outside of the “International Community” to Russia’s seizure of Crimea has either been to ignore the move or tacitly endorse it.  

The “International Community” is currently operating and conducting diplomacy based on a set of principles that have not basis in reality or facts on the ground. The game has changed and Western leaders will need to start operating within the new parameters if they do not want to continue to have their lunch stolen.