Monday 31 March 2014

Another Color Revolution? The Deceptive Use of the Phrase “Peaceful Protests” in Venezuela





Another Color Revolution? The Deceptive Use of the Phrase “Peaceful Protests” in Venezuela
By Steve Ellner                                                                       Global Research, March 29, 2014
Region: Latin America & Caribbean

The Venezuelan opposition and much of the media use the term “peaceful protests” to distinguish gatherings of protesting students and other young people from the more violent actions including vandalism and shootings carried out by those outside of the university community.
“Peaceful protests,” however, is a loaded term that serves to plant doubts about the intentions of the Chavista government. In the first place, the actions of the police and National Guard are portrayed as a violation of the constitutional right to peacefully demonstrate at the same time that the government is blamed for failing to get the “violent” protests under control. In the process, Venezuela is depicted as virtually a failed state or, as opposition leader Leopoldo López put it in the title of his March 25 New York Times op-ed article, “a failing state.” Another outlandish assertion that makes its way into the media is that the “violent” protesters are actually Chavista infiltrators intent on discrediting the opposition. Consequently the violence has absolutely nothing to do with the peaceful protests and the opposition in general.
Barricades setup by “peaceful protests” are removed by people living in Las Vegas de Táriba, Táchira state.
 The Chavista discourse sometimes plays into this deceptive line of reasoning in an attempt to isolate the radical fringe of the opposition. In appealing to the mainstream opposition group the Mesa de la Unidad Democrática (MUD) to join the government-sponsored “Peace Dialogue,” President Nicolás Maduro and other Chavista leaders sometimes reinforce the distinction between the “peaceful” and “violent” protesters.

Protests Range from Nuisance to Fatalities

However the term “peaceful protests” is misleading if not deceptive. In the first place, nearly all of the thousands of opposition protests that have taken place over the last six weeks in Venezuela have been illegal and would not be tolerated in any democratic nation throughout the world. At best, the “peaceful protests” consist of blocking traffic lanes of major avenues, resulting in vehicle backups for miles often forcing thousands of people to lose an hour or more of their time. In addition, the “peaceful protests” sometimes include barricades, fires, and the dispersing of oil on lanes used by motorcyclists. In this sense the distinction between the “peaceful protests” and the violent ones is blurry.
In another blurring of differences, the opposition’s slogan “No More Deaths” leaves the impression that peaceful protesters have been the main victims of the violence, thus glossing over the fact that among the 36 fatalities, 6 are members of security forces, others are Chavistas, others are innocent bystanders, some are peaceful protesters and others are violent ones. Of course all 36 deaths are equally tragic, but the opposition discourse plays down the fact that many of the wounded and dead were engaging in violence. One report provided by the radio station Alba Ciudad 96.3 FM stated “We can observe that much of the international media, in their eagerness to discredit the Venezuelan government and label it murderous, assure that all of the dead are students or members of the opposition assassinated by government security forces, a claim we have proven to be completely false.” The report went on to claim that only five of the deaths were at the hands of security forces. See: “Conozca los 35 fallecidos por las protestas violentas opositoras en Venezuela.”
The defense of the “rights” of the peaceful demonstrators include statements by human rights advocates that in a democracy civil disobedience is perfectly legitimate and protesters have the right to take to the streets. However, in the first place, a distinction needs to be made between disruption for disruption sake and marches of protesters who use streets rather than sidewalks due to the large number of participants. In the second place, the objective of responsible civil disobedience is to make a statement, not to cause disruptions. I have observed acts of civil disobedience in the United States, one involving the Reverend Jesse Jackson at Yale University in New Haven in which the protesters were quickly rounded up and hauled off to jail. In another rally that I witnessed at Yale, protesters against Apartheid in the 1980s had previously reached an agreement with the municipal authorities and accepted that they would be jailed and fined for their actions. There was actually no “bad feelings” between the city authorities and the protesters and the details were planned ahead of time to minimize public inconvenience. This is a far cry from what is happening in Venezuela. In many if not most cases, the number of protesters do not exceed 50 people. The question can thus be asked: Why don’t they use the sidewalks?
There is another area of convergence between the peaceful and violent protesters which is a further justification for prosecuting both. Although the opposition sometimes denies this, or tries to play it down, the protesters of both groups are calling for regime change as embodied in their main slogan “la salida” (“exit”). Some opposition leaders spuriously claim that they are merely demanding the “resignation” of President Maduro and that change of government can be accomplished within the framework of the constitution. Jailed opposition leader Leopoldo López, for instance, in his recentNew York Times article, stated “a change in leadership can be accomplished entirely within a constitutional and legal framework.” These statements are deceptive. If Maduro were to resign, National Assembly president Diosdado Cabello would assume the presidency, a sequence which would not at all be to the liking of the opposition. This claim to legality is a replica of the April 11, 2002 coup when the opposition asserted that President Chávez had resigned and Pedro Carmona was merely “filling a vacuum” and thus acting in a democratic fashion. Not only was the allegation of Chávez’s resignation a blatant lie, but the procedure that followed was in complete violation of the constitution. Indeed, Carmona ended up decreeing the virtual abolition of the constitution itself.
The opposition and much of the national and international media claim that the “peaceful protesters” are demonstrating against concrete problems such as insecurity, scarcities and inflation. But the protesters have failed to put forward any specific proposals to correct these problems. Their sole aim at this point is regime change, as leaders such as María Corina Machado and López himself have explicitly stated on occasion. This is not to deny that opposition leaders have a hidden agenda of specific changes which they intend to implement once in power.

Regime Change By Any Means Except Elections

The demand for regime change on the part of both the “peaceful” and violent protesters would not be tolerated in any democratic nation in the world, beginning with the United States. The accusation, for instance, that the Communist Party U.S.A. advocated “the overthrow of the government” was the justification for jailing hundreds of party members during the McCarthy period in the 1950s. The assertion, however, was misleading since the Communists were not calling, or making preparations, for the overthrow of the government but only felt that it would inevitably someday occur. Nevertheless, Communist leaders felt the full weight of the law at the time. More recently, the FBI monitored the “Occupy Houston” movement on grounds that some protesters allegedly advocated “the overthrow of the government,” as has been revealed by transparency advocate Ryan Shapiro. Advocacy of regime change in non-democratic countries is even more perilous as shown by the recent death sentences handed down by the heavily U.S.-supported Egyptian government to 529 members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
In short, the rhetoric divide between peaceful and violent protests have served the interests of the opposition. Thus, for instance, opposition governors and mayors take advantage of this distinction in order to cover up their failure to check disruptive activity in their jurisdiction. The media, for its part, uses the binary construct in articles on the alleged excesses of security forces, such as the ones recently published in El Tiempo of Puerto La Cruz on March 25 headlined “National Guard Represses Peaceful Protests” and a similar one published in Ultimas Noticias on March 5. Not once in the forty years before Chávez’s advent to power in 1998, did the commercial media use such phraseology. •
Steve Ellner, who has been teaching at the Universidad de Oriente in Venezuela since 1977, is the editor of the recently published Latin America’s Radical Left: Challenges and Complexities of Political Power in the Twenty-First Century.

Wednesday 26 March 2014

Obama's Cold War Speech on Russia and Ukraine: Full Text

Obama's Cold War Speech on Russia and Ukraine: Full Text
By Gianluca Mezzofiore March 26, 2014 18:19 GMT

U.S. President Barack Obama delivers a speech Palais des Beaux-Arts (BOZAR) in Brussels,
Full text of US president's address in Brussels after meetings with the EU and Nato allies

Good evening! Goede avond. Bonsoir. Guten abend. Thank you, Laura, for your kind introduction and for your outstanding work—reminding us that our future will be defined by our young people.

Your Majesties, Mr. Prime Minister, and the people of Belgium—on behalf of the American people, we are grateful for your friendship, we stand together as inseparable allies, and I thank you for your wonderful hospitality. I have to admit, it's easy to love a country famous for chocolate and beer.

Leaders and dignitaries of the European Union; representatives of our NATO Alliance; distinguished guests – we meet here at a moment of testing for Europe and the United States, and for the international order that we have worked for generations to build.

Throughout human history, societies have grappled with the question of how to organize themselves – the proper relationship between the individual and the state; and the best means to resolve inevitable conflicts between states. And it was here in Europe, through centuries of struggle—through war and Enlightenment, repression and revolution—that a particular set of ideals began to emerge. The belief that through conscience and free will, each of us has the right to live as we choose. The belief that power is derived from the consent of the governed, and that laws and institutions should be established to protect that understanding. Those ideas eventually inspired a band of colonists across an ocean, and they wrote them into the Founding documents that still guide America today, including the simple truth that all men—and women—are created equal.

But those ideals have also been tested – and threatened – by an older, more traditional view of power. This alternative vision argues that ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs, and that order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign. Often, it roots itself in the notion that by virtue of race or faith or ethnicity, some are inherently superior to others, and that individual identity must be defined by "us" versus "them" or that national greatness must flow – not by what a people stand for, but by what they are against.

In many ways, the history of Europe in the 20th century represented the ongoing clash of these two sets of ideas, both within nations and among nations. The advance of industry and technology outpaced our ability to resolve our differences peacefully, and even the most seemingly civilized of societies descended into barbarism. This morning at Flanders Field, I was reminded how war between peoples sent a generation to their deaths in the trenches and gas of the First World War. Just two decades later, extreme nationalism plunged this continent into war once more—with populations enslaved, great cities reduced to rubble,
and tens of millions slaughtered, including those lost in the Holocaust.

It is in response to this tragic history that, in the aftermath of World War II, America joined with Europe to reject the darker forces of the past, and build a new architecture of peace. Workers and engineers gave life to the Marshall Plan. Sentinels stood vigilant in a NATO Alliance that would become the strongest the world
has ever known. And across the Atlantic, we embraced a shared vision of Europe; a vision based on representative democracy, individual rights, and a belief that nations can meet the interests of their citizens through trade and open markets; a social safety net and respect for those of different faiths and backgrounds.

For decades, this vision stood in sharp contrast to life on the other side of an Iron Curtain. For decades, a contest was waged, and ultimately that contest was won – not by tanks and missiles, but because our ideals stirred the hearts of Hungarians who sparked a revolution; Poles in their shipyards who stood in Solidarity; Czechs who waged a Velvet Revolution without firing a shot; and East Berliners who marched past the guards and finally tore down that wall.

Today, what would have seemed impossible in the trenches of Flanders, the rubble of Berlin, or a dissident's prison cell is taken for granted. A Germany unified. The nations of Central and Eastern Europe, welcomed into the family of democracies. Here in this country, once the battleground of Europe, we meet in the
hub of a Union that brings together age-old adversaries in peace and cooperation. The people of Europe—hundreds of millions of citizens, east and west, north and south—are more secure and more prosperous because we stood together for the ideals we share.

This story of human progress was by no means limited to Europe. Indeed, the ideals that came to define our alliance also inspired movements across the globe - among those very people who had too often been denied their full rights by Western powers. After the Second World War, people from Africa to India threw

off the yoke of colonialism to secure their independence. In America, citizens took freedom rides and endured beatings to put an end to segregation, and to secure their civil rights. As the Iron Curtain fell here in Europe, the iron fist of Apartheid was unclenched, and Nelson Mandela emerged from prison to lead a
multi-racial democracy. Latin American nations rejected dictatorship and built new democracies, and Asian nations showed that development and democracy could go hand in hand.

The young people in the audience today were born in a place and time where there is less conflict, more prosperity and more freedom than any time in human history. But that's not because man's darkest impulses have vanished. Even here, in Europe, we have seen ethnic cleansing in the Balkans that shocked our
conscience. The difficulties of integration and globalization, recently amplified by the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes, strained the European project, and stirred the rise of a politics that targets immigrants or gays or those who seem somehow different. While technology has opened up vast opportunities for trade
and innovation and cultural understanding, it has also allowed terrorists to kill on a horrifying scale. Around the world, sectarian warfare and ethnic conflicts continue to claim thousands of lives. And once again, we are confronted with the belief that bigger nations can bully smaller ones to get their way – that recycled
maxim that might makes right.

So I come here today to insist that we must never take for granted the progress that has been won here in Europe, and advanced around the world. Because the contest of ideas continues for your generation. And that is what's at stake in Ukraine today. Russia's leadership is challenging truths that only a few weeks
ago seemed self-evident: that in the 21st century, the borders of Europe cannot be redrawn with force; that international law matters; and that people and nations can make their own decisions about their future.

To be honest, if we defined our interests narrowly, with a cold-hearted calculus, we might decide to look the other way. Our economy is not deeply integrated with Ukraine's. Our people and our homeland face no direct threat from the invasion of Crimea. Our own borders are not threatened by Russia's annexation. But
that kind of casual indifference would ignore the lessons that are written in the cemeteries of this continent. It would allow the old way of doing things to gain a foothold in this young century. And that message would be heard – not just in Europe –but in Asia and the Americas; in Africa and the Middle East.

Moreover, the consequences that would arise from complacency are not abstract; they impact the lives of real people – men and women just like us. Just look at the young people of Ukraine, who were determined to take back their future from a government rotted by corruption; the portraits of the fallen shot by
snipers; the visitors who pay their respects at the Maidan. There was the university student, wrapped in the Ukrainian flag, expressing her hope that, "every country should live by the law." A post graduate student, speaking of her fellow protestors, said, "I want these people who are here to have dignity." Imagine, for a
moment, that you are the young woman who said, "there are some things that fear, police sticks and tear gas can't destroy."

We have never met these people, but we know them. Their voices echo calls for human dignity that rang out in European streets and squares for generations. They echo those around the world who fight for their dignity still. These Ukrainians rejected a government that was stealing from the people instead of serving them, and are reaching for the same ideals that allow us to be here today.

None of us can know for certain what the coming days will bring in Ukraine, but I am confident that eventually, those voices for human dignity and opportunity, for individual rights and the rule of law, will triumph. I believe that over the long haul, as free nations and free people, the future is ours. I believe this not because of the strength of our arms or even the size of our economies, but rather because these ideals are true, and these ideals are universal.

Yes, we believe in democracy – with elections that are free and fair; independent judiciaries and opposition parties; civil society and uncensored information, so that individuals can make their own choices. We believe in open economies based on free markets and innovation; individual initiative and entrepreneurship; trade and investment that creates a broader prosperity. And we believe in human dignity – that every person is created equal, no matter who you are, or what you look like, or who you love, or where you come from. That's what we believe. That's what makes us strong.

Our enduring strength is also reflected in our respect for an international system that protects the rights of both nations and people – a United Nations and a Universal Declaration of Human Rights; international laws, and the means to enforce them. But we also know that these rules are not self-executing; they depend on
people and nations of goodwill continually affirming them. That is why Russia's violation of international law – its assault on Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity – must be met with condemnation. Not because we are trying to keep Russia down, but because the principles that have meant so much to Europe and
the world must be lifted up.

Over the last several days, the United States, Europe, and our partners around the world have been united in defense of these ideals, and united in support of the Ukrainian people. Together, we have condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and rejected the legitimacy of the Crimean referendum. Together, we have
isolated Russia politically, suspending it from the G-8 nations, and down-grading our bilateral ties. Together, we are imposing costs through sanctions that have left a mark on Russia and those accountable for its actions. And if the Russian leadership stays on its current course, this isolation will deepen. Sanctions will
expand. The toll on Russia's economy – and standing in the world – will only grow.

Meanwhile, the United States and our allies will continue to support the government of Ukraine as they chart a democratic course. Together, we are going to provide a significant package of assistance that can help stabilize the Ukrainian economy, and meet the basic needs of the people. Make no mistake: neither the
United States, nor Europe, has any interest in controlling Ukraine. We have sent no troops there. What we want is for the Ukrainian people to make their own decisions, just like other free people around the world.

Understand, this is not another Cold War we are entering into. After all, unlike the Soviet Union, Russia leads no bloc of nations, no global ideology. Nor does the United States, or NATO, seek any conflict with Russia. Indeed, for more than 60 years, we have come together in NATO—not to claim other lands, but to
keep nations free. What we will do – always – is uphold our solemn obligation, our Article 5 duty, to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of our allies. And in that promise we will never waver; NATO nations never stand alone.

Today, NATO planes patrol the skies over the Baltics, and we have reinforced our presence in Poland. And we are prepared to do more. Going forward, every NATO member state must step up and carry its share of the burden – by showing the political will to invest in our collective defense, and by developing the
capabilities to serve as a source of international peace and security.

Of course, Ukraine is not a member of NATO – in part, because of its close and complex history with Russia. Nor will Russia be dislodged from Crimea or deterred from further escalation by military force. But with time, so long as we remain united, the Russian people will recognize that they cannot achieve security,
prosperity, and the status they seek through brute force. That's why, throughout this crisis, we will combine our substantial pressure on Russia with an open door for diplomacy. I believe that for both Ukraine and Russia, a stable peace will come through de-escalation – direct dialogue between Russia, the government
of Ukraine, and the international community; monitors who can ensure that the rights of all Ukrainians are protected; a process of Constitutional reform within Ukraine itself, and free and fair elections this spring.

So far, Russia has resisted diplomatic overtures, annexing Crimea and massing large forces along Ukraine's borders. Russia has justified these actions as an effort to prevent problems on its borders, and to protect ethnic Russians inside Ukraine. Of course, there is no evidence, and never has been, of systemic

violence against ethnic Russians there. Moreover, many countries around the world face similar questions about their borders and ethnic minorities abroad; about sovereignty and self-determination – tensions that have led to debate and democratic referendums; conflicts and uneasy co-existence. It is precisely

because these questions are hard that they must be addressed through constitutional means and international laws – so that majorities cannot suppress minorities, and big countries can't bully the small.

In defending its actions, Russian leaders have further claimed Kosovo as a precedent – an example of the West interfering in the affairs of a smaller nation, just as they are doing now. But NATO only intervened after the people of Kosovo were systematically brutalized and killed for years. And Kosovo only left Serbia
after a referendum was organized – not outside the boundaries of international law – but in careful cooperation with the United Nations, and with Kosovo's neighbors. None of that happened in Crimea.

More recently, Russia has pointed to America's decision to go into Iraq as an example of Western hypocrisy. It is true that the Iraq War was a subject of vigorous debate – not just around the world, but in the United States as well. I happened to oppose our military intervention there. But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system. We did not claim or annex Iraq's territory, nor did we grab its resources for our own gain. Instead, we ended our war and left Iraq to its people and a fully sovereign Iraqi state could make decisions about its own future.

Of course, neither the United States, nor Europe, are perfect in adherence to our ideals, nor do we claim to be the sole arbiter of what is right or wrong in the world. We are human, after all, and face difficult choices about how to exercise our power. But part of what makes us different is that we welcome criticism, just as
we also welcome the responsibilities that come with our leadership. We look to the East and the South and see nations poised to play a growing role on the world stage – and that's a good thing. It reflects the same diversity that makes us stronger as a nation, and the forces of integration and cooperation that Europe
has advanced for decades. And in a world of challenges that are increasingly global, all of us have an interest in nations stepping forward to play their part; to bear their share of the burden; and to uphold international norms.

Indeed, our approach stands in stark contrast to the arguments coming out of Russia these days. It is absurd to suggest, as a steady drumbeat of Russian voices do, that America is conspiring with fascists inside Ukraine, or failing to respect the Russian people. My grandfather served in Patton's Army, just as many of
your fathers and grandfather's fought against fascism. We Americans remember well the unimaginable sacrifices made by the Russian people in World War II, and have honored them. Since the end of the Cold War, we have worked with Russia under successive Administrations to build ties of culture, commerce and
international community – not as a favor to Russia, but because it was in our national interest. And together, we've secured nuclear materials from terrorists. We welcomed Russia into the G-8 and the World Trade Organization. From the reduction of nuclear arms, to the elimination of Syria's chemical weapons, the world
has benefited when Russia chooses to cooperate on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect.

So the world has an interest in a strong and responsible Russia, not a weak one. And we want the Russian people to live in security, prosperity, and dignity like everyone else – proud of their own history. But that does not mean that Russia can run roughshod over its neighbors. Just because Russia has a deep history
with Ukraine does not mean it should be able to dictate Ukraine's future. No amount of propaganda can make right something that the world knows is wrong.

In the end, every society must chart its own course. America's path – or Europe's path – is not the only ways to reach freedom and justice. But on the fundamental principle that is at stake here – the ability of nations and peoples to make their own choices – there can be no going back. It is not America that filled the Maidan with protesters – it was Ukrainians. No foreign forces compelled the citizens of Tunis and Tripoli to rise up – they did so on their own. From the Burmese parliamentarian pursuing reform, to the young leaders fighting corruption and intolerance in Africa – we see something irreducible that all of us share as human
beings; a truth that will persevere in the face of violence and repression and, ultimately, overcome it.

For the young people here today, I know it may be easy to see these events as removed from our lives – remote from our daily routines, distant from concerns closer to home. I recognize that there is more than enough to worry about in the affairs of our own countries. There will always be voices who will say that what happens in the wider world is not our concern, nor our responsibility. But we must never forget that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. Our democracy, our individual opportunity, only exists because those who came before us had the wisdom, and the courage, to recognize that our ideals will only endure if we see
our self-interest in the success of other peoples and nations.

Now is not the time for bluster. The situation in Ukraine, like crises in many parts of the world, does not have easy answers, nor a military solution. But at this moment, we must meet the challenge to our ideals – to our very international order – with strength and conviction.

And it is you, the young people of Europe, who will help decide which way the currents of history will flow. Don't think for a moment that your own freedom, your own prosperity, your own moral imagination is bound by the limits of your community or even your country. You can choose a better history. That's what

Europe tells us. That's what the American experience is all about.

I say this as the President of a country that looked to Europe for the values that are written into our founding documents, and which spilled blood to ensure that those values could endure on these shores. I also say that as the son of a Kenyan whose grandfather was a cook for the British, and as a person who once lived in Indonesia as it emerged from colonialism. The ideals that unite us matter equally to the young people of Boston or Brussels, Jakarta or Nairobi, Krakow or Kyiv.

In the end, the success of our ideals comes down to us— including the example of our own lives; our own societies. We know that there will always be intolerance. But instead of fearing the immigrant, we can welcome him. We can insist on policies that benefit the many, not just the few; that an age of globalization and dizzying change opens doors of opportunity to the marginalized, and not just a privileged few. Instead of targeting our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, we can use our laws to protect their rights. Instead of defining ourselves in opposition to others, we can affirm the aspirations we hold in common. That's what
makes us strong. That's what makes us who we are.

And just as we meet our responsibilities as individuals, we must be prepared to meet them as nations. Because we live in a world in which our ideals are going to be challenged – again and again – by forces that would drag us back into conflict or corruption. We cannot count on others to rise to meet those tests. The
policies of your government – the principles of your European Union – will make a difference in whether or not the international order that so many generations before you have strived for continues to move forward, or whether it retreats.

That's the question we all must answer – what kind of Europe, what kind of world, we will leave behind. If we hold firm to our principles, and are willing to back our beliefs with courage and resolve, then I have no doubt that hope will overcome fear, and freedom will continue to triumph over tyranny – because that is what forever stirs the human heart.

Tuesday 18 March 2014

“Crimea is Now Part of Russia”: Putin Signs Treaty

“Crimea is Now Part of Russia”: Putin 
Signs Treaty
Crimea Recognized as an Independent State within the Russian Federation
By The Voice of Russia   Global Research, March 18, 2014   Voice of Russia
Russia and Crimea have signed treaty of accession of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol in the Russian Federation following President Putin’s address to the Parliament. Crimea and Sevastopol are joining Russia as two separate regions, President Putin said.
The agreement will temporarily apply from the signature date and will take effect once ratified. Russia guarantees all peoples inhabiting Crimea and Sevastopol the preservation of their native language and the creation of conditions for learning and developing it, according to the agreement.
The Kremlin said Tuesday that it now considers Crimea part of Russia following the signing of a treaty. According to a report posted on the Kremlin website, “the Republic of Crimea is regarded as accepted in the Russian Federation from the date of the signing” of the relevant treaty.
President Putin signs treaty of bringing Crimea, Sevastopol into Russia
Russian, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar will be the official languages in Crimea, according to a relevant clause in the agreement between Russia and the Republic of Crimea, which was posted on the Kremlin’s official website.
Elections to Crimea’s and Sevastopol’s government bodies will be held on the second Sunday of September 2015, according to a treaty on Crimea’s and Sevastopol’s accession to the Russian Federation and the formation of new entities within it.
“Elections to the government bodies of the Republic of Crimea and the government bodies of Sevastopol as a city holding federal status shall be held on the second Sunday of September 2015,” says the text of the treaty available on the Kremlin website. Before the elections, the Crimean State Council and Sevastopol’s Legislative Assembly will perform the functions of these government bodies, it says.
The treaty on the inclusion of Crimea in the Russian Federation envisions a transition period, which will last until January 1, 2015.
According to a report posted on the Kremlin website, the purpose of this transition period is to “settle all issues relating to the integration of new regions of Russia [the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol in the economic, financial, credit, and legal systems of Russia, and also in the Russian public administration system.”
“Issues relating to conscription and military service on the territory of the Republic of Crimea and the federal-status city of Sevastopol” will also be resolved during this transition period.
According to a treaty signed by Russia and Crimea on the inclusion of Crimea into Russia, Russian citizens conscripted in Crimea and Sevastopol will serve on the territory of these regions until 2016.
The Ukrainian citizens residing in Crimea become Russian after the signing of an agreement admitting the republic and Sevastopol as parts of Russia, unless they express their wish to retain their current citizenship within a month.
“As of the day of the admission of the Republic of Crimea to Russia and the formation of new Russian constituent regions, the Ukrainian citizens and non-citizens permanently residing in the Republic of Crimea and in the federal city of Sevastopol are recognized as Russian citizens,” according to an agreement on the admission of Crimea and formation as new Russian constituent regions, posted on the Kremlin’s website.
An exception will be made for persons “who within one month from this day express their wish to retain their current (other than Russian) citizenship for themselves and their underage children or to remain persons without citizenship,” the document said.
Delimitation of maritime borders in the Black Sea and in the Sea of Azov following the Crimea’s joining Russia, will be based on international law.
This is clear from an agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of the Crimea on the Crimea’s joining Russia and on the formation of new constituent members within the Russian Federation, posted on the Kremlin’s website.
“The delimitation of the sea space in the Black Sea and in the Sea of Azov will be based on Russia’s international agreements and on the norms and principles of international law,” the agreement says.
“The land border of the Republic of the Crimea adjacent to the territory of Ukraine shall be deemed the border of the Russian Federation,” it says. The agreement will be temporarily applied from the date of signing and will enter force from the date of ratification.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has proposed that parliament pass a bill that accepts Crimea and Sevastopol as parts of Russia.
“I am submitting and asking the Federal Assembly to consider a constitutional bill on accepting two new constituent regions as part of the Russian Federation – the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol,” Putin said in an address to the Federal Assembly on Tuesday.
The federal bill is being submitted based on the result of the Crimean referendum and its people’s will, Putin said.
“The political decision is up to Russia itself, it can only be based on the people’s will. Only the people are its source of power,” the Russian president said.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia does not want a division of Ukraine and Crimea will stay Russian, Ukrainian, and Crimean Tatar.
“I want you to hear me, dear friends. Don’t believe those who scare you with Russia, who are shouting that other regions will follow Crimea. We don’t want a division of Ukraine. We don’t need that,” Putin said in the Kremlin on Tuesday.
“As for Crimea, it has always been and it will remain Russian, Ukrainian, and Crimean Tatar,” Putin said in his address to the Federal Assembly.
Germany, whose unification Russia has supported, will also approve the aspiration of the Russian world to restore unity, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in his appeal to the Russian Federal Assembly on Tuesday.
“I believe that Europeans, firstly Germans, will understand me,” the president said. During the political consultations on the unification of East Germany and West Germany “at expert, but very high levels, representatives of not all countries, who were Germany’s allies, supported the very idea of unification,” Putin said.
“Our country, on the contrary, supported explicitly and sincerely the aspiration of Germans for national unity,” he said.
“I am certain that you have not forgotten this and I count that German citizens will support the aspiration of the Russian world and historical Russia to restore unity,” Putin said.
Russia is also grateful to China and India for their stance on Ukraine and Crimea, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in his appeal to the Russian Federal Assembly on Tuesday.
“We treat with gratitude everyone, who approached our step in Crimea with understanding. We are grateful to the Chinese people, whose leadership has considered and is considering the situation concerning Ukraine and Crimea in its entire historical and political complexity,” Putin said.
“We highly appreciate India’s constraint and objectivity,” the Russian president said.
President Vladimir Putin said relations with Ukraine are of key and fundamental importance for Russia.
“Relations with Ukraine and its fraternal people are and will remain of key and fundamental importance for us. It’s no exaggeration,” Putin told the Federal Assembly on Tuesday.
Russia did not send troops to the Crimea, but only reinforced its grouping within the limits set by an international agreement, said President Vladimir Putin.
“It is true that the Russian president has received the right from the upper house of parliament to use the armed forces in Ukraine. Strictly speaking, the president has not even used this right so far. The Russian military did not enter Crimea. The troops were there already in compliance with an international agreement,” he told the Federal Assembly on Tuesday.
“It is true that we have strengthened our grouping. But I would like to make a point everyone should know and hear: we have not even surpassed the limit of 25,000 troops – the assigned strength of our armed forces in the Crimea. There was just no need in that,” he said.
The referendum on independence in Crimea was conducted in strict accordance with democratic principles and the international law, President Vladimir Putin told the Federal Assembly, as he was welcomed by a standing ovation. Putin stressed that the results of the referendum, in which more than 82 percent of Crimean residents came to polling stations and more than 96 percent of those voted for rejoining Russia, leave no room for equivocation.
He said the history of Crimea, its cultural, religious and spiritual ties bind it with the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, which explains the attitude Russians have towards the peninsula.
The president said Crimea had dark pages in its past, particularly the persecution of Crimean Tatars and other minorities in the USSR. The authorities of Crimea seek to recompense for those ills.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said that it is important to ensure the right of all ethnicities in Crimea, including Crimean Tartars, and measures to complete rehabilitation of Crimean Tartars should be taken.
There will be three official languages – Russian, Ukrainian and Crimean Tartar.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is about to make a statement on Crimea’s application for accession to the Russian Federation.
Earlier today, Putin has approved draft agreement to accept the Republic of Crimea as a consitutuent entity of the Russian Federation.
President Vladimir Putin on Monday, March 17, signed a degree recognizing the Republic of Crimea as a sovereign and independent state.

Monday 10 March 2014

Ukrainian Communists Condemn Violence and the US, EU for Orchestrating a Coup with Fascists

Ukrainian Communists Condemn Violence and the US, EU for Orchestrating a Coup with Fascists

By CPC
Global Research, March 07, 2014
People's Voice 15 February 2014


In an open appeal to international communist, workers’ and left parties, the Communist Party of Ukraine (CPU) warns that their country is the latest to fall victim to the “colour revolutions.”

As the Ukrainian Communists say, “shocking massacres, acts of vandalism, riots and seizures of administrative buildings in Ukraine have been shown to the world media.” The clashes have included serious injuries and even deaths to protesters and law enforcement officers, as well as kidnappings and physical violence against parties to the conflict.

These events, according to the CPU, have dispelled the myth that the struggle is between a “criminal regime” and “peaceful European democrats.”

In reality, they say, there is a fight for power among oligarchic clans in Ukraine, and for the Presidency in particular. Calling the current events a “coup”, the CPU points to the creation of parallel institutions of power by the opposition groups, fuelling the conflict and provoking stronger responses from the authorities.

Little mentioned in the West has been the role of neo‑Nazi and extreme nationalist political forces which provoke violence and confrontation. These organizations, says the CPU, include the Spilna Sprava (“Common Cause”), Trizub (“Trident”), UNAUNSO, “Right sector”, the “Freedom” party, etc.

The “Freedom” party occupies a special role in the escalation of the conflict. As a parliamentary party, in power in some Western regions of the country, “Freedom” continues to pursue “a policy of subversion against the constitutional order in Ukraine.”

All of these organizations, warns the CPU, follow the example of Nazi collaborators like Bandera and Shukhevych, even using identical slogans. For example, a popular slogan today, “Glory to Ukraine, Glory to Heroes!”, was used during the massacre of peaceful Polish and Ukrainian residents in western Ukraine. The neo-Nazi forces have committed numerous acts of vandalism, destroying statues of Lenin and Soviet‑era monuments to the heroes of struggle against fascism.

Fuelling the escalation of the conflict, says the CPU, is the political support of the Western powers in Ukraine. The U.S. State Department constantly demands that the Ukrainian authorities negotiate with the opposition, withdraw all law enforcement officers from Kiev, and allow the “opposition” to seize the government and reverse laws adopted by the Parliament of Ukraine.

Contrary to descriptions in the corporate media, these laws are consistent with similar legislation in the West, such as the requirement that public organizations financed from abroad must register as foreign agents. Many western countries have implemented laws to prohibit protesters from hiding their faces, or from using helmets and shields during demonstrations.

The Communist Party of Ukraine says it believes that “the responsibility for the violence equally rests on Ukraine’s leadership, whose actions forced the people of Ukraine to enter the mass protests, and leaders of the so‑called `opposition’, the ultra‑nationalist militant organizations and foreign politicians who urged people to `radicalize the protests’ and `fight to the bitter end.’”

The CPU is calling for an end to the use of force, non-interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine, and negotiations to end the conflict. The attempts to create parallel structures of authority, they say, threaten to escalate the conflict into civil war and a division of Ukraine.

In these circumstances, the Communist Party of Ukraine presents concrete proposals to resolve the situation:

 - Declare a Ukrainian referendum on the definition of foreign economic policy of Ukraine’s integration.

- Conduct a political reform to eliminate the presidency and install a parliamentary republic, and significantly expand the rights of territorial communities.

- Return to a proportional voting electoral system.

- Establish an independent civilian “National control” body with the broadest powers.

- Conduct judicial reform and introduce the institution of electing judges.

The CPU also urges international condemnation of extremist actions, fascist propaganda, and external interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine.
=============
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukrainian-communists-condemn-violence-and-the-us-eu-for-orchestrating-a-coup-with-fascists/5372336

Friday 7 March 2014

R.I.P. Freedom of Speech? Obama Bans Critics of Ukraine Coup

R.I.P. Freedom of Speech? 
Obama Bans Critics of Ukraine Coup From Entering U.S.Executive order suspends entry rights of anyone who “undermines” Ukrainian “democracy”

By Paul Joseph Watson                            Global Research,                                    March 07, 2014

 Under the sweeping language of President Barack Obama’s executive order issued today, critics of the US-backed coup in Ukraine could find themselves being banned from entering the United States.

The executive order suspends “entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of such persons” who fulfil the following criteria;

“[A]ny person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:

(i) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, any of the following:

(A) actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine.

As CNS News’ Craig Bannister notes, this would effectively ban entry for anyone deemed to be a ‘Russian sympathizer’, or anyone who has expressed a view similar to Moscow, which was that the Kiev uprising was a violent coup d’état and not a democratic uprising, since that could easily be characterized as an indirect action or policy which undermines Ukraine’s post-coup government.

By extrapolation, this would mean anyone who has drawn attention to the mountain of evidence that the Kiev protest groups were funded by the U.S. State Department in concert with the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the US government-backed National Endowment for Democracy.

It would also ensnare anyone who has highlighted the leaked phone call in which US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe Victoria Nuland was caught red handed plotting with top diplomat Geoffrey Pyatt to pick Ukraine’s future puppet leaders. Nuland specifically approved Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who later became Prime Minister after the coup.

The executive order could also target critics of the fact that both Nuland and John McCain met with the leader of the neo-nazi affiliated Svoboda Party before the election, an organization that was subsequently handed three top positions within the newly formed Ukrainian government despite its clear links to fascism and anti-Semitism.

The irony of Washington targeting anyone who took actions to “undermine democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine” is painful given that the Kiev revolt led directly to the overthrow of a democratically elected government.

The broad language of the executive order is also a chilling move towards discriminating against people for their political opinions. Obama is seemingly intent on mirroring the United Kingdom, where people like radio host Michael Savage are banned from entering the country and labeled “extremists” for daring to dissent from political correctness.
========================================
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.
Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

Tuesday 4 March 2014

What is the Endgame? The Break-up of Ukraine?

What is the Endgame? The Break-up of Ukraine?

By R. Teichmann
Global Research, March 03, 2014
News Beacon Ireland

The question of what is intended with the coup in Ukraine cannot be answered by solely looking at what is appearing on the surface as a highly dangerous powerplay between the US, the EU and Russia. There may be more to it than meets the eye.
We can safely assume that from the beginning it was clear to those behind the scenes that Russia would not tolerate a manufactured failed state on its doorstep, a possible base for terrorism against it (calls to the Chechen ‘freedom fighters’  by the putsch regime in this regard have already been heard) and another missile base within minutes of flight time. Only fools would have thought that Russia would tolerate such a situation and the potential threat to its Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol.  With the support of Russia for the mainly Russian speaking populace of Crimea and eastern Ukraine a split of the country seems to be on the cards. The coup regime in Kiev and its western supporters make no effort to go back to the agreement signed between Yanukovich and the opposition, which could have prevented a split. So what could the global power cabal gain by splitting this country?
 Oil and Gas Geopolitics
Today it was announced that the coup regime in Kiev will sign a deal with energy giant Chevron to commence large scale shale gas fracking operations in western Ukraine.  Already in 2013 the Yanukovich government signed a production sharing agreement with Shell and in November 2013 with Chevron. According to the US Energy Information Administration Ukraine has Europe’s 4th largest shale gas reserves (almost 3 trillion cubic meters). After the decision of the Yanukovich government to turn to Russia for help and cooperation instead of handing Ukraine to the global banking cabal in the shape of the infamous Troika or the IMF,  which would have had a devestating effect on the countries economy, this deal had to be protected.
While the industrial hubs of Ukraine are mostly located in the eastern parts, the western parts of Ukraine with its very rich and fertile soil have been the ‘breadbasket’ of Europe and the ex-USSR for a long time. These lands are perfectly suiting the agro-chemical monters like, Monsanto, Cargill,  Bayer, Syngenta to implement their destructive genetically modified agriculture on a large scale. However they are are only the means for the international cabal to control the food chain. To get their hands on this land is a very important objective towards this goal.  Once the local farmers have been driven off the land by making it uninhabitable by fracking it can be obtained for pennies on the dollar and then their plan can unfold.  With Ukraine under the influence of the EU it could have also be coerced to sign one of the so called ‘Free Trade Agreements’ basically surrendering its independence to the global coorporations.  The Yanukovich turn towards Russia, with its opposition to genetically modified crops, and with its own trade agreements, endangered this sinister plan too.
Again the events in Ukraine have nothing to do with democracy, freedom or self-determition but with the furthering of the global power cabal’s agenda. The ‘pro-European uprising’ and the ouster of the Yanukovich government must be viewed in this context and the break-up of Ukraine could be just what is intended. The step by the Kiev agent provokateur regime to pass legislation against the use of Russian as an official language, alienating half of the county’s populace, points in that direction.
About the author: R. Teichman is an activist living in West Cork, Ireland and is an editor with www.news-beacon-ireland.info and a frequent contributor to this blog.

Monday 3 March 2014

UKRAINE Global Research Articles & Analysis


UKRAINE
Global Research Articles & Analysis 
==================================
R.I.P. Freedom of Speech? Obama Bans Critics of Ukraine Coup From Entering U.S.

By Paul Joseph Watson                   Global Research,                                 March 07, 2014
http://enbwest.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/rip-freedom-of-speech-obama-bans_7.html

What is the Endgame? The Break-up of Ukraine?

By R. Teichmann (News Beacon Ireland)  Global Research,                      March 03, 2014
http://enbwest.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/what-is-endgame-break-up-of-ukraine.html

 The U.S. has Installed a Neo-Nazi Government in Ukraine

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky        Global Research,                                  March 02, 2014
http://enbwest.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/the-us-has-installed-neo-nazi.html

Ukraine and the “Politics of Anti-Semitism”: The West Upholds Neo-Nazi Repression of Ukraine’s Jewish Community

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky         Global Research,                              February 26, 2014
http://enbwest.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/ukraine-and-politics-of-anti-semitism.html

 The Road to Moscow Goes Through Kiev: A Coup d’Etat That Threatens Russia

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya         Global Research,                               February 25, 2014
http://enbwest.blogspot.co.uk/2014_02_01_archive.html

Democracy Murdered By Protest: Ukraine Falls To Intrigue and Violence

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts                Global Research,                                 February 24, 2014
http://enbwest.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/democracy-murdered-by-protest-ukraine.html

Democracy Murdered By Protest: Ukraine

Democracy Murdered By Protest: Ukraine Falls To Intrigue and Violence
By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts                                                Global Research, February 24, 2014

ukraine-eu-us
 Who’s in charge?  Certainly not the bought-and-paid-for-moderates that Washington and the EU hoped to install as the new government of Ukraine. The agreement that the Washington and EU supported opposition concluded with President Yanukovich to end the crisis did not last an hour. 
Even the former boxing champion, Vitaly Klitschko, who was riding high as an opposition leader until a few hours ago has been booed by the rioters and shoved aside. The newly appointed president by what is perhaps an irrelevant parliament, Oleksandr Turchynov, has no support base among those who overthrew the government. As the BBC reports, “like all of the mainstream opposition politicians, Mr. Turchynov is not entirely trusted or respected by the protesters in Kiev’s Independence Square.” 
In western Ukraine the only organized and armed force is the ultra-nationalist Right Sector. From the way this group’s leaders speak, they assume that they are in charge.
One of the group’s leaders, Aleksandr Muzychko, has pledged to fight against “Jews and Russians until I die.”  Asserting the Right Sector’s authority over the situation, Muzychko declared that now that the democratically elected government has been overthrown, “there will be order and discipline” or “Right Sector squads will shoot the bastards on the spot.”
The bastards are any protesters who dare to protest the Right Sector’s control.
Muzychko declared, “The next president of Ukraine will be from Right Sector.”
Another Right Sector leader, Dmitry Yarosh, declared: “the Right Sector will not lay down its arms.”  He declared the deal made between the opposition and the President to be “unacceptable” and demanded the liquidation of President Yanukovich’s political party.
The Right Sector’s roots go back to the Ukrainians who fought for Adolf Hitler against the Soviet Union during World War 2. It was the Right Sector that introduced armed fighters and turned the tide of the protests in Kiev from peaceful protests in favor of joining the EU to violent attacks on police with the view of overthrowing the democratically elected government, which the Right Sector succeeded in doing. 
The Right Sector did not overthrow the Ukraine government in order to deliver it into the hands of the Washington and EU paid “opposition.”
There is a tendency to discount the Right Sector as a small fringe group, but the Right Sector not only took control of the protests away from the Western supported moderates, as moderate leaders themselves admitted,  but also the Right Sector has enough public support to destroy the national monument to the Red Army soldiers who died liberating Ukraine from Nazi Germany. 
Unlike the US orchestrated toppling of the stature of Saddam Hussein, which was a PR event for the presstitutes in which Iraqis themselves were not involved, Ukrainian rightists’ destruction of the monument commemorating the Red Army’s liberation of the Ukraine had public support. If the Right Sector hates Russians for defeating the Nazis, the Right Sector also hates the US, France, and England for the same reason. The Right Sector is an unlikely political party to take Ukraine into the EU.
The Russian parts of Ukraine clearly understand that the Right Sector’s destruction of the monument commemorating the stand of the Red Army against the German troops is a threat against the Russian population of Ukraine. Provincial governments in eastern and southern Ukraine that formerly were part of Russia are organizing militias against the ultra-nationalist threat unleashed by Washington’s stupidity and incompetence and by the naive and gullible Kiev protesters.
Having interfered in Ukraine’s internal affairs and lost control, Washington is now issuing ultimatums to Russia not to interfere in Ukraine. Does the idiot Susan Rice, Obama’s neoconservative National Security Advisor, think Putin is going to pay any attention to her ultimatums or to any instruction from a government so militarily incompetent that it was unable to successfully occupy Baghdad after 8 years or to defeat a few thousand lightly armed Taliban after 12 years?  In only took a few hours for Russian troops to destroy the American and Israeli trained and armed Georgian army that Washington sent to invade South Ossetia.
Where does Obama find morons like Susan Rice and Victoria Nuland? These two belong in a kindergarten for mentally handicapped children, not in the government of a superpower where their ignorance and arrogance can start World War 3.
Ukraine is far more important to Russia than it is to the US or EU. If the situation in Ukraine spirals out of control and right-wing extremists seize control, Russian intervention is certain. The arrogant and stupid Obama regime has carelessly and recklessly created a direct strategic threat to the existence of Russia. 
 According to the Moscow Times, this is what a senior Russian official has to say: “If Ukraine breaks apart, it will trigger a war.”  Ukraine “will lose Crimera first,” because Russia “will go in just as we did in Georgia.”  Another Russian official said: “ We will not allow Europe and the US to take Ukraine from us. The states of the former Soviet Union, we are one family. They think Russia is still as weak as in the early 1990s but we are not.”
The Ukrainian right-wing is in a stronger position than Washington’s paid Ukrainian puppets, essentially weak and irrelevant persons who sold out their country for Washington’s money. The Right Sector is organized. It is armed. It is indigenous. It is not dependent on money funneled in from Washington and EU financed NGOs. It has an ideology, and it is focused. The Right Sector doesn’t have to pay its protesters to take to the streets like Washington had to do.
Most importantly, well-meaning but stupid protesters–especially the Kiev students–and an Ukrainian parliament playing to the protesters destroyed Ukrainian democracy.  The opposition controlled parliament removed an elected president from office without an election, an obvious illegal and undemocratic action. The opposition controlled parliament issued illegal arrest warrants for members of the president’s government. The opposition controlled parliament illegally released criminals from prison.  As the opposition has created a regime of illegality in place of law and constitutional procedures, the field is wide open for the Right Sector. Expect everything the opposition did to Yanukovich to be done to them by the Right Sector. By their own illegal and unconstitutional actions, the opposition has set the precedent for their own demise.
Just as the February 1917 revolution against the Russian Tsar set the stage for the October 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, surprising the stupid “reformers,” the overthrow of the Ukrainian political order has set the stage for the Right Sector. We can only hope that the Right Sector blows its chance.
The American media is a useless news source. It serves as a Ministry for Government Lies. The corrupt propagandists are portraying the undemocratic removal of Yanukovich  as a victory for freedom and democracy. When it begins to leak out that everything has gone wrong, the presstitutes will blame it all on Russia and Putin.  The Western media is a plague upon humanity.
Americans have no idea that the neoconservative regime of the White House Fool is leading them into a Great Power Confrontation that could end in destruction of life on earth. 
Ironic, isn’t it.  America’s “first black president,” the person liberals thought would restore  justice, morality, and reason to Western civilization, is instead now positioned as the person who will have to accept humiliating defeat or risk the destruction of life on earth.
Sources:
A  B  C  D  E  F  G