Columns
Ukraine, UN resolutions and the rank hypocrisy of US policy
View(s):
The astounding developments in Ukraine over the past several weeks continue to unfold as the draft of a third US resolution against Sri Lanka simmers in the Human Rights Council awaiting possible amendments before it goes to a vote at the end of this month. Swiftly moving events in Eurasia create new variables in the political firmament almost daily. Crimea votes in a referendum today on whether it wishes to join Russia or remain a part of Ukraine. The US and EU have warned of consequences tomorrow (Monday) if Russia acts on the result of that poll — which is predictable in view of the region’s ethnic Russian majority.
Given the history of US armed interventions in parts of the world it wishes to dominate, it is strange indeed to hear the US president and the Secretary of State suddenly make pronouncements on the ‘principle of sovereignty’ and the ‘inappropriateness’ of ‘invading a country at the end of a barrel of a gun’ etc. This was not the kind of rhetoric heard during the invasion of Iraq or the numerous coups in Latin America; there is no talk of the sanctity of international law when the US launches drone attacks from Pakistan.
Shortly before newly-installed Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk’s speech in the UN Security Council on Thursday, the US circulated a draft resolution re-affirming the Security Council’s commitment “to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders,” AP reported. The resolution which would predictably be vetoed by Russia, declares the referendum on Crimea invalid and calls for the peaceful resolution of the dispute ‘through direct political dialogue.’
It is ironic that at the same time that the US tries to influence members of the world body on the biggest East-West standoff the world has seen since the end of the Cold War, it has circulated another draft resolution in the Human Rights Council against a small state where there is no war, no threat to international peace and security, no nuclear factor, no coup. On Sri Lanka the US seeks to move a resolution without precedent, asking the High Commissioner for Human Rights to investigate abuses allegedly committed during a past conflict, internal to a member state (with a legitimate government) that was under attack by a non-state actor. There is no parallel here with Syria, Sudan or North Korea.
The events leading up to the crisis in Ukraine would seem to reveal a great deal about the US’s instruments of policy in foreign relations. Several reports show that the crisis that developed with clashes in Kiev between pro-EU and pro-Russian protesters was engineered, that high ranking US officials were in contact with opposition forces including a neo-fascist group, and that NATO was involved in the deadly sniper fire that caused mayhem in Independence Square leading to scores of deaths, the ouster of democratically elected president Viktor Yanukovich and the government’s collapse.
Crimea is home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and its access point to the Mediterranean Sea, a key energy transport route for Russian oil. While Russia’s occupation of Crimea surely violates international law, the recent developments need to be seen against the background of US intrigue and Russian fears of NATO influence extending to its borders.
A ‘Media Note’ on the US State Dept. website dated 30.01.14 – a month before the situation escalated – matter-of-factly referred to travel plans of Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia, where she was scheduled to “meet with government officials, opposition leaders, civil society and business leaders” in Kiev to “encourage agreement on a new government and plan of action that can put Ukraine back on track…”
Reports say the foreign ministers of Germany, France and Poland had a compromise deal in place to resolve the crisis, following talks that included Yanukovich, Ukraine’s opposition parties and a Russian representative, but before 12 hours had passed chaos broke out. The conspicuous omission of the US in these talks points to divisions between the US and EU, according to analysts. The rift became public after the now-infamous leaked phone call between Nuland and Geoff Pyatt, US ambassador to Ukraine, where Nuland cursed the EU:
Nuland: “My understanding is that the big three [Yatsenyuk, Klitsch and Tyahnybok] were going in to their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a three plus one conversation with you.”Pyatt: ” That’s what he proposed but knowing the dynamic that’s been with them where Klitsch has been top dog; he’s going to take a while to show up at a meeting, he’s probably talking to his guys at this point so I think you reaching out to him will help with the personality management among the three and gives us a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and he explains why he doesn’t like it.”
Nuland: … “when I talked to Jeff Feltman this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy …Robert Serry – he’s now gotten both Serry and Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday… so that would be great I think to help glue this thing and have the UN help glue it and you know f*** the EU.”
Pyatt: “Exactly. I think we’ve got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure the Russians will be working behind the scenes. …. Let me work on Klitchko and I think we want to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help midwife this thing.”
(Counterpunch, 05.03.14)
The most shocking aspect of this conversation is not the US swearing at its ‘best friend’ the EU, but its exposure of the US’s cynical and manipulative attitude towards the UN itself. The world body is simply an instrument of US policy that helps to ‘glue’ things for the US. If one substitutes ‘Navi Pillay’ for the ‘UN guys’ mentioned in this conversation, and substitutes ‘India’ for ‘the EU,’ could they be talking about Sri Lanka?