I’m confused. A few weeks ago we were told in the West that people
occupying government buildings in Ukraine was a very good thing. These
people, we were told by our political leaders and elite media
commentators, were ‘pro-democracy protestors’.
The US government warned the Ukrainian authorities against using force against these
‘pro-democracy protestors’ even
if, according to the pictures we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who
were throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the police and
smashing up statues and setting fire to buildings.
Now, just a few weeks later, we’re told that people occupying government buildings in Ukraine are not
‘pro-democracy protestors’ but
‘terrorists’ or
‘militants’.
Why was the occupation of government buildings in Ukraine a very good
thing in January, but it is a very bad thing in April? Why was the use
of force by the authorities against protestors completely unacceptable
in January, but acceptable now? I repeat: I’m confused. Can anyone help
me?
Pro-Russian
activists gather outside the secret service building in the eastern
Ukrainian city of Lugansk on April 14, 2014. (AFP Photo / Dimitar
Dilkoff)
The anti-government protestors in Ukraine during the winter received
visits from several prominent Western politicians, including US Senator
John McCain, and Victoria Nuland, from the US State Department, who
handed out cookies. But there have been very large anti-government
protests in many Western European countries in recent weeks, which have
received no such support, either from such figures or from elite Western
media commentators. Nor have protestors received free cookies from
officials at the US State Department.
Surely if they were so keen on anti-government street protests in Europe, and regarded them as the truest form of
‘democracy’,
McCain and Nuland would also be showing solidarity with street
protestors in Madrid, Rome, Athens and Paris? I’m confused. Can anyone
help me?
A
thousand people gather in front of fences blocking the street leading
to the Spain’s parliament (Las Cortes) during an anti-government
demonstration in Madrid (AFP Photo / Javier Soriano)
A few weeks ago I saw an interview with the US Secretary of State John Kerry who
said,
“You just don’t invade another country on phony pretexts in order to assert your interests.” But I seem to recall the US doing just that on more than one occasion in the past 20 years or so.
Have I misremembered the
‘Iraq has WMDs claim’? Was I
dreaming back in 2002 and early 2003 when politicians and neocon pundits
came on TV every day to tell us plebs that we had to go to war with
Iraq because of the threat posed by Saddam’s deadly arsenal? Why is
having a democratic vote in Crimea on whether to rejoin Russia deemed
worse than the brutal, murderous invasion of Iraq – an invasion which
has led to the deaths of up to 1 million people? I’m confused. Can
anyone help me?
AFP Photo / Pool / Mario Tama
We were also told by very serious-looking Western politicians and media
‘experts’ that the Crimea referendum wasn’t valid because it was held under
“military occupation.” But I’ve just been watching coverage of elections in Afghanistan, held under military occupation, which have been
hailed by leading western figures, such as NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen as a
“historic moment for Afghanistan”and a great success for
“democracy.” Why is the Crimean vote dismissed, but the Afghanistan vote celebrated? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
An
Afghan policeman keeps watch as Afghan voters line up to vote at a
local polling station in Ghazni on April 5, 2014. (AFP Photo /
Rahmatullah Alizadah)
Syria too is rather baffling. We were and are told that radical
Islamic terror groups pose the greatest threat to our peace, security
and our
‘way of life’ in the West. That Al-Qaeda and other such groups need to be destroyed: that we needed to have a relentless
‘War on Terror’ against
them. Yet in Syria, our leaders have been siding with such radical
groups in their war against a secular government which respects the
rights of religious minorities, including Christians.
When the bombs of Al-Qaeda or their affiliates go off in Syria and
innocent people are killed there is no condemnation from our leaders:
their only condemnation has been of the secular Syrian government which
is fighting radical Islamists and which our leaders and elite media
commentators are desperate to have toppled. I’m confused. Can anyone
help me?
AFP Photo / Amr Radwan Al-Homsi
Then there’s gay rights. We are told that Russia is a very bad and
backward country because it has passed a law against promoting
homosexuality to minors. Yet our leaders who boycotted the Winter
Olympics in Sochi because of this law visit Gulf states where
homosexuals can be imprisoned or even executed, and warmly embrace the
rulers there, making no mention of the issue of gay rights.
Surely the imprisonment or execution of gay people is far worse than a
law which forbids promotion of homosexuality to minors? Why, if they
are genuinely concerned about gay rights, do our leaders attack Russia
and not countries that imprison or execute gay people? I’m confused. Can
anyone help me?
US President Barack Obama shakes hands with King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia (AFP Photo / Saul Loeb)
We are told in lots of newspaper articles that the Hungarian
ultra-nationalist party Jobbik is very bad and that its rise is a cause
of great concern, even though it is not even in the government, or
likely to be. But neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists do hold positions in
the new government of Ukraine, which our leaders in the West
enthusiastically support and neo-Nazis and the far-right played a key
role in the overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected government in
February, a
‘revolution’ cheered on by the West. Why are
ultra-nationalists and far-right groups unacceptable in Hungary but very
acceptable in Ukraine? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
Chairman
of the far-right parliamentary JOBBIK (Better) party Gabor Vona (C)
reacts for the result of the parliamentary election with his party
members at Budapest Congress Center in Budapest on April 6, 2014. (AFP
Photo / Peter Kohalmi)
We are told that Russia is an aggressive, imperialist power and that NATO’s concerns are about opposing the Russian
‘threat’.
But I looked at the map the other day and while I could see lots of
countries close to (and bordering) Russia that were members of NATO, the
US-led military alliance whose members have bombed and attacked many
countries in the last 15 years, I could not see any countries close to
America that were part of a Russian-military alliance, or any Russian
military bases or missiles situated in foreign countries bordering or
close to the US. Yet Russia, we are told, is the
‘aggressive one’. I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
No comments:
Post a Comment