Taking sides.
If anything, the crisis in Ukraine grew hotter this week, and it's getting kind of scary. Through it all, though, there has been a persistent tendency in the media to support the maximalist position of the U.S. government and our European allies - namely, that the Ukrainian opposition is fully legitimate and essentially beyond any critical scrutiny, that the Russians are engaging in bald aggression of a kind not witnessed in decades (!), and that the violators of human rights in Ukraine are all on the pro-Russian side.
Okay, well ... a few points that probably need addressing:
Coup or no coup. Russia calls what happened in Kiev a few weeks ago a coup; Washington does not. In the United States, labeling something a coup triggers legislation designed to impede the delivery of U.S. aid to coup regimes. Our administrations of both parties typically do an end-run around this by simply avoiding the word when it's inconvenient. We've done this with Egypt and with Honduras. When it's someone we don't like, it's a coup, plain and simple. In Kiev, the elected leader of the country was ousted without due process, in the midst of a negotiation over rebalancing of political authority and early elections. It's not outlandish to call that a coup, regardless of how kleptocratic the old regime may have been.
Who killed who? The killing of oppositionists by sniper fire on February 26 has often been cited as a primary rationale for the ouster of the Ukrainian leader. Those killings were chalked up to the regime. However, this past week, The Guardian and others have reported on claims by the Estonian Foreign Minister that the shooters were hired by the opposition. The new Ukrainian government is reluctant to open an investigation into this.
Atypical aggression. Really? This can be reported with a straight face from a country that invaded Iraq ten years ago? In this category, we haven't a leg to stand on.
My point is, before we rush in to aid this new government, let's be honest about what our interests are in that region. And let's not paint one side virtuous and the other evil before we know the facts.
luv u,
jp
Okay, well ... a few points that probably need addressing:
Coup or no coup. Russia calls what happened in Kiev a few weeks ago a coup; Washington does not. In the United States, labeling something a coup triggers legislation designed to impede the delivery of U.S. aid to coup regimes. Our administrations of both parties typically do an end-run around this by simply avoiding the word when it's inconvenient. We've done this with Egypt and with Honduras. When it's someone we don't like, it's a coup, plain and simple. In Kiev, the elected leader of the country was ousted without due process, in the midst of a negotiation over rebalancing of political authority and early elections. It's not outlandish to call that a coup, regardless of how kleptocratic the old regime may have been.Who killed who? The killing of oppositionists by sniper fire on February 26 has often been cited as a primary rationale for the ouster of the Ukrainian leader. Those killings were chalked up to the regime. However, this past week, The Guardian and others have reported on claims by the Estonian Foreign Minister that the shooters were hired by the opposition. The new Ukrainian government is reluctant to open an investigation into this.
Atypical aggression. Really? This can be reported with a straight face from a country that invaded Iraq ten years ago? In this category, we haven't a leg to stand on.
My point is, before we rush in to aid this new government, let's be honest about what our interests are in that region. And let's not paint one side virtuous and the other evil before we know the facts.
luv u,
jp
Comments