Thursday, March 27, 2014

WHAT WENT WRONG IN EGYPT

WHAT WENT WRONG IN EGYPT



Illustration: The Court in Egypt -- A day in court?

          Egypt has gone downhill since the revolution, the #Jan25 of Twitterdom.  How could this happen?

          Well, the first thing was that the leader of the Moslem Brotherhood resigned because the organization was excluded from elections as a political party.  Right after that, they were allowed to run, leaving Morsi able to run with the full resources of the Brotherhood behind him.  The major problem with a religious party, once in power, is that whoever is in charge can claim that God approves of what he is doing and the source is not easily available.  You can try 1-800-CALL-GOD, but it won't work.

          Next, the centrists and the leftists, especially the leftists who did the most to expunge Egypt of Mubarak, is that they did not cooperate.  Rather, they split into a myriad of factions leaving them with about 9 or more candidates to split the vote.  On the left, as we well know, there is always a tendency to proclaim oneself more committed to the rights of man than the other, the more liberal than thou syndrome, that splits movements and eliminates effectiveness.  The center has similar problems, although they tend to center on economic policy.

          So, Morsi easily was elected, but the judicial system would not allow him to finalize a constitution.  So, he simply proclaimed it law.  From that, his aggression against dissent intensified.

          Things got so bad, that the people revolted again hoping that the Army would help them again.  This time, however, the military proved even more rigid than the Brotherhood.  Now, the leader of the military is going to run for president, and one can easily predict that he will be elected as the brotherhood is once again banned from running in elections and the rest of the sensible people will not get organized in time.

          Even our reporter, one who we have followed for some time, is extremely careful in the following interview.  He is not one to back down from a fight and does convey the basic facts, but those of us who know him can see from his language that he is being careful lest he wind up in jail to join 20,000 others, about a hundred journalists among them:

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2014

Egypt’s Courts Further Repression with Journos on Trial & Mass Death Sentence for Morsi Supporters

Egypt is facing international criticism after the largest mass sentencing in its modern history. On Monday, 529 supporters of ousted President Mohamed Morsi were ordered killed over the death of a single police officer in protests last summer. The trial lasted just over two days, with the majority tried in absentia. The exceptionally swift trial and harsh sentences mark a new escalation of the Egyptian military regime’s crackdown on Morsi supporters, which has led to hundreds of deaths and thousands of arrests. In another closely watched trial, Al Jazeera journalists Peter Greste, Baher Mohamed and Mohamed Fahmy have been denied bail after nearly three months in prison. They are accused of belonging to or aiding a terrorist organization. Meanwhile, two leading Egyptian activists have been freed after over 100 days behind bars. Alaa Abd El-Fattah and Ahmed Abdel Rahman are among a group of activists charged with violating the military regime’s anti-protest law. They and 23 others have been released on bail but still face a trial that resumes next month. We go to Cairo to speak with Democracy Now! correspondent Sharif Abdel Kouddous.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Widespread outrage continues to grow after the largest mass sentencing in modern Egyptian history. Human rights groups, the United States and the European Union have denounced an Egyptian court’s recent decision to sentence 529 supporters of ousted President Mohamed Morsi to death. The convictions followed a trial that lasted just over two days, with the majority of the accused tried in absentia for their alleged role in killing a single police officer last summer. Now, a new mass trial has opened involving 683 people, including top Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Badie. On Tuesday, U.S. State Department spokesperson Marie Harf denounced the trials.
MARIE HARF: Implementation of yesterday’s verdict, imposing the death penalty on 529 defendants after a two-day trial, would be unconscionable. The verdicts handed down yesterday by the court and the commencement of another mass trial for 683 individuals today in the same court represent a flagrant disregard for basic standards of justice. The imposition of the death penalty for 529 defendants after a two-day summary proceeding cannot be reconciled with Egypt’s obligations under international human rights law. And its implementation of these sentences, as I said, would be unconscionable.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: The exceptionally swift trial and harsh sentences mark a new escalation of the Egyptian military regime’s crackdown on Morsi supporters, which has led to hundreds of deaths and thousands of arrests. Amnesty International said the recent mass convictions were, quote, "a grotesque example of the shortcomings and the selective nature of Egypt’s justice system." On Tuesday in Alexandria, students took to the streets in protest. This is Maha Abdel Aziz.
MAHA ABDEL AZIZ: [translated] This is the beginning of an escalation, and we will stop the police. We will not be quiet. We are here today against military rule, and we are all chanting together, whether Muslim Brotherhood, 6 of April Movement, Horeya movement or Ahrar movement. Anyone chanting anything other than "Down with military rule," we are obliged to deal with them. Today we are here united to bring down military rule.
AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, two leading Egyptian activists have been freed after over a hundred days behind bars. Alaa Abd El-Fattah and Ahmed Abdel Rahman are among a group of activists charged with violating the military regime’s anti-protest law. They and 23 others have been released on bail but still face a trial that resumes next month.
For more, we go to Cairo, Egypt, where we’re joined by Democracy Now!’s Sharif Abdel Kouddous.
Sharif, welcome back to Democracy Now! Start with the sentencing of—what is it—529 people to death.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Right, Amy. I mean, by all accounts, this was a stunning verdict that was handed down the other day. As you mentioned, 529 people sentenced to death in one of the largest death sentence rulings in modern history across the world. The judge issued his verdict after just one day in court on Saturday, a session in which defense lawyers said they weren’t allowed to present their case at all before the judge. There was—the defendants were, hundreds of them, in a cage in the courtroom, were chanting. The judge ordered security forces to close in on the defense lawyers, and then quickly adjourned the session and said he would issue his verdict two days later. And the verdict came down and really sent shockwaves throughout the international community, has been condemned by the EU, the United States. The Obama administration condemned it, as did local and international human rights groups.
And as you mentioned, that same judge just adjourned another mass trial on many similar charges involving suspected Morsi supporters, including the head of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Badie. This trial involved over 680 people, and the judge again adjourned it. The defense boycotted the proceedings following the verdict in the other case. And he’ll issue a verdict in that case on April 28th.
So, this has already sparked protests in Egypt. A group called the Students Against the Coup have called for protests in at least six universities today. Pro-Morsi groups, including the Anti-Coup Alliance, have called for demonstrations, as well. So, this ruling really is only serving to stoke the flames of tension in Egypt further.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Sharif, could you explain specifically what this case was about? What are these 529 people convicted of?
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: They’re charged with murder, attempted murder, joining an outlawed group with the intention of toppling the government, and stealing government weapons in connection with the attack on a police station in Minya, in southern Egypt. This took place in August following the raids on the pro-Morsi sit-ins, where at least 600 people were killed on August 14th. This set off violence in much of the country in retaliation. In this particular attack regarding this case, one police officer was killed. And in retaliation, these 545 people were put on trial, and as we know, 529 of which are now—have now been sentenced to death. Even judicial officials involved with this case are critical of the ruling. It’s widely expected to be overturned on appeal on proceeding—on procedure alone. So we’ll have to wait and see what happens with that.
But really, it really was a stunning verdict, and especially when you put it in the context of another recent court case in which a trial was brought against police officers who were charged in the killing of 37 prisoners who died of suffocation in a truck in August. One police officer was sentenced to 10 years in prison, and three others sentenced to one-year suspended sentences, which means they don’t serve any prison time. So, when you compare those to the lack of justice in Egypt’s justice system, it’s very stark.
AMY GOODMAN: Sharif, defense attorneys in the Muslim Brotherhood case boycotted the proceedings, complaining of judicial irregularities and media censorship. This is defense lawyer Tarek Fouda.
TAREK FOUDA: [translated] Implemented today in the crime of Edwa, there is a boycott by all lawyers to the hearing, an historical stand. And everyone should know that the lawyers’ syndicate will not and would not turn its back on a state based upon the law and the solidification of the spearhead that is the law.
AMY GOODMAN: Hours after Tuesday’s trial began, protests broke out at Minya University. Police lobbed tear-gas canisters, fired in the air, in attempt to disperse hundreds of demonstrators. Sharif?
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Right. As I said, this is further stoking flames of tension in Egypt. We’ve seen ongoing protests since Morsi’s ouster back in July. But really, in 2014, a second wave of repression and crackdown has been significantly increasing. Many hundreds, thousands of people have been imprisoned by—at least 16,000 people are in jail, have been imprisoned since Morsi’s ouster in July. The higher count of that puts it at 24,000 in prison. Up to 2,500 people have been killed. And so, we’ve seen some of the worst violence, some of the worst repression in Egypt’s modern history take place. And rulings like this only serve to feed the flames of tension in Egypt.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Can you say a little about how the regime has responded, if at all, to the condemnation from the EU, the U.S., the international community and the human rights organizations in Egypt to this verdict?
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, officials in Egypt typically cite the independence of the judiciary and do not comment on justice cases. We saw the head of the State Information Service speak with Christiane Amanpour on CNN, defend the ruling or say he couldn’t comment on it. So, typically, this has been the typical response of the Egyptian regime to these kinds of cases.
There’s other cases that are ongoing, as well, that have received international attention, particularly the case of the Al Jazeera journalists who are on trial. This is a landmark case. Three Al Jazeera journalists have been imprisoned for nearly three months now after being arrested on December 29th. They’re on trial on terrorism charges. Mohamed Fahmy is a Canadian-Egyptian citizen, who was the acting bureau chief of Al Jazeera English; Australian correspondent Peter Greste; and Baher Mohamed, an Egyptian producer. The third court session of their trial adjourned on Sunday. The next session is being held on March 31st. They’re living in a notorious prison called Tora, sharing a cell, all three of them. They’re locked up 23 hours a day. They’re not allowed any books or writing materials and, up until recently, weren’t even allowed newspapers.
Mohamed Fahmy is suffering an injury in his arm. He had a fractured shoulder unrelated to his arrest, but it was worsened and broke during his detention. During the first weeks of his imprisonment, he was denied any proper medical attention. He was imprisoned in a worse section of the prison, a maximum-security wing known as the Scorpion, where he was held in solitary confinement without a bed, without sunlight, and his condition worsened and healed incorrectly. He can now only lift his right arm a few inches from his waist. He requires surgery and physical therapy to—in order to recover.
So this case has sparked solidarity protests around the world by journalists and by others calling for their release. At this session, they all, from the defendants’ cage, told reporters that the international pressure was very important to their case and that it helped with—alleviate some of their conditions. And so they’re calling on people to continue the pressure, and they’re demanding to be released on a fair trial.
AMY GOODMAN: Sharif, this is Mohamed Fahmy from the cage in the courtroom condemning the proceedings.
MOHAMED FAHMY: Today’s proceedings show that there is—it seems like all the witnesses have some amnesia or something, Alzheimer’s. There’s a lot of discrepancies in the documents and what they are saying themselves. The prosecutor has a lot to answer for, for allowing the four engineers in the Maspero state TV to have exactly the same copy/paste testimony, that we have seen in our video
AMY GOODMAN: That is Mohamed Fahmy. So, where does this case go, and why is the Egyptian government trying these three Al Jazeera journalists, Sharif?
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, the case, as I said, they are charged with joining or aiding a terrorist organization, charged with creating false scenes that harm Egypt’s reputation abroad in the benefit of the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s a very significant escalation in the crackdown on the press in Egypt. It marks one of the rare times that journalists have been put on trial and the first time that journalists face these kinds of very serious terrorism charges, which carry sentences, potential sentences, of up to 15 years in prison.
The Al Jazeera English was broadcasting from Egypt, would cover a lot of opposition voices, a lot of the protests that were taking place on universities and so forth. And we can only imagine or surmise that this is a way to clamp down on any media that was really covering the other side of the Egyptian political sphere. We’ve seen a crackdown on all of the local press. The pro-Morsi channels have all been shut down. The private media and the state media act as a propaganda mouthpiece, for the most part, for the regime, and so it’s very hard to hear opposition voices. People also assume that this is a crackdown also because of Al Jazeera being a Qatari-owned station and the animosity between Qatar and the government in Egypt, and this being a manifestation of that. But by all accounts, press freedom groups across the world have condemned this case, and journalists around the world are calling for their release. And it marks a serious escalation in the repression on press freedom in Egypt.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Sharif, could you speak briefly about the release of Alaa Abd El-Fattah and Ahmed Abdel Rahman, along with 23 other activists released on bail, and the significance of their release?
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Right, well, I think, you know, the crackdown has focused largely on the Muslim Brotherhood and his supporters, but it has seriously widened much beyond that and has encompassed all kinds of opposition voices, including Alaa Abd El-Fattah, who’s one of the most prominent activists in Egypt. He was jailed under the Mubarak regime, was jailed by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces that replaced Mubarak, was issued an arrest warrant under Morsi, and was jailed this time for a hundred days without having a hearing. His case was transferred to a criminal court, and he was refused a hearing up until just a few days ago, in which the judge did grant bail. He is charged with organizing a protest and violating a very draconian protest law that was put in place by the unelected government here in November. And the case is very meaningful because it’s still ongoing. He still could get a verdict.
Alaa was held in a prison section along with other very prominent activists, like Ahmed Maher and Mohammed Adel of the April 6 Youth Movement, and Douma, as well. And there’s thousands of other protesters who have been rounded up on the streets. Over a thousand were rounded up just on one day alone, on January 25th of this year. They’ve been held in terrible conditions. There’s been widespread accounts of beating, of torture. And prosecutors have been complicit in this crackdown by renewing preventative detention orders, so where preventative detention is being used as a form of punishment. So, many people don’t even have—have not seen a judge and are just being held with 15-day detention orders that continually are renewed. When court cases do come, they’re typically handed something like two to three years in prison for charges like breaking the protest law or gathering or trying to harm national security.
Many of these protesters are poor. They don’t have proper legal representation. Many of them are the only breadwinners in their family. And many of them are young. And this is really seen as a targeting of an entire generation, that its first experience with Egyptian politics has been the revolution. And they have seen over the past three years friends and colleagues and loved ones be jailed or be killed or be wounded in this uprising and the struggle, and I doubt very much that this kind of repression will silence them. And in fact, it’s really stoking the flames of further unrest. So, in 2014, we still have a long way to go to achieve real change in Egypt.
AMY GOODMAN: Sharif, we want to thank you for being with us, Sharif Abdel Kouddous reporting from Cairo, Egypt. And we’re looking at images of Alaa Abd El-Fattah when he was released, holding his baby, who was born when he was in prison under Mubarak, just as he was born as his father was imprisoned years before. Sharif Abdel Kouddous, thanks so much. This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we’ll look at Saudi Arabia with Patrick Cockburn in London. Stay with us.


Creative Commons LicenseThe original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Russia Today’s Beast Of Burden


THE ABSURD TIMES




Illustration courtesy of Latuff the Great or neo-fascists morons in Ukraine at work.



          I had thought that the nonsense over Russia Today TV had dissipated, but even I had underestimated the ferocity of U.S. Corporate media in protecting their own turf and serving as the official "Voice of Truth" available to the American Public.  Unfortunately, the teeny bopper news anchor mentioned below is now making the rounds of the corporate news outlets, first on Fox, of course,  and soon to follow on others.  Lip service is given to "all sides of the issue," here, but our news is very careful to adhere only to issues that assure a large audience of room temperature I.Q. idiots and ignorant dolts in the 18 to 35 year old range, or is it 35 to 55?  Also, care is taken not to violate the brainwashing that has taken place in our school systems.  (I know I am sticking my head out here, but I just thought I'd point out that the Universe is almost 14 million years old, much more that 6,000, and to hell with the consequences.)

          Here is a column published by Mr.  Schecter over two weeks ago on the subject:

Russia Today’s Beast Of Burden

March 9, 2014
Change text size: [ A+ ] / [ A- ]
Email this page

James Kirchick is just the neutral reporter the Daily Beast would assign to report on the ideological controversy surrounding the Russian backed RT-TV Channel’s coverage of the crisis in the Ukraine.
The Beast lives up to its name by sending a hardcore polemical ideologue to uncover what he predictably labels as ideological media bias.
Kirchick is a veteran of the anti-communist wars, now revived as the anti Putin wars, not some neutral journo crusading for democracy.
According to Wikipedia, he is a fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, prior to this he was writer-at-large for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. He is a graduate of the New Republic, Murdoch’s Weekly Standard and writes for Azure, a magazine that described itself as pro-Zionist and free market.
Ok, just so we know who are dealing with here.
And now, to bolster his “credibility” he presents himself as a victim in his latest article that exposes himself, far more than his target, asserting that his rights as a journalist were somehow compromised because of a gutsy quest for truth.
Here’s his exhibit:
The Headline: “Watch RT, Putin’s TV Network, Call the Cops on Me”
The Lead: “That’s what happens, it seems, when you ask some simple questions outside RT’s Washington headquarters.”
The Polemic: “What would possess an American to work for a Russian propaganda outlet, especially now that the world is on the brink of a potential war in Eastern Europe? 
I asked that question of about two dozen people coming in and out of the Washington headquarters of RT, the Kremlin-funded television network that has become infamous in recent days for whitewashing Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. No one would answer me directly. Instead, RT called the local cops on me. …”
Kirchik’s first story in his jihad against RT was to interview Anchor Liz Wahl who resigned flamboyantly on the air denouncing the channel she worked and making her an instant shero among Russia-bashers the world over.
Wahl offered up sweet innocence laced with the veneer of red white and blue (drop the red) patriotism, declaring, “I’m very lucky to have grown up here in the United States,” she said. “I’m the daughter of a veteran. My partner is a physician at a military base where he sees every day the first-hand accounts of the ultimate prices that people pay for this country. And that is why personally I cannot be part of a network that whitewashes the actions of Putin. I am proud to be an American and believe in disseminating the truth and that is why after this newscast I’m resigning.”
Cue the National Anthem!
Funny, after her declaration of independence, and stagy pledge to quit was broadcast on a network that could have cut her off, none other than former Congressman Ron Paul who was interviewed by Wahl weighed in after she claimed RT censored her interview with him.
He denied it, saying, “I don’t think it was slanted in any way.”
Earlier, another RT on-air personality, Abby Martin, also denounced Putin’s Ukraine policy on the air but was not fired and did not quit.
Later, she turned up on CNN debating Piers Morgan, he of the show about to be cancelled, about how fair and objective most American TV is. She was far better informed on that subject than this departing British host in assessing the US press, and on a network considered by some critics as an “American propaganda outlet.”
In an article about Martin in National Journal, Lucia Graves wrote, “While it’s clear the network maintains a strong pro-Russian bias, Glenn Greenwald on Tuesday defended RT’s coverage, saying it isn’t so different from what we saw on American media outlets in the lead up to the Iraq War. “For all the self-celebrating American journalists and political commentators: Was there even a single U.S. television host who said anything comparable to this in the lead up to, or the early stages of, the U.S. invasion of Iraq?” he wrote.
On Google, a story from CNN on Wahl’s hyped farewell to RT carried Martin’s picture, not hers.

Oh well, details, details!
Back to Mr. Kirchick’s heroism in defense of democracy!
What you see is a wise-guy provocateur harassing people entering the building with hostile, if not nasty and self-righteous questions, in an argumentative and aggressively hostile manner.
RT later challenged this image-building exercise of the “man who is not afraid of Putin” with a denial that they called the cops, an “update” that the Daily Beast tacked on to their story.
“RT America did not contact the DC police at any point,” Anna Belkina said in a statement. “The building’s security personnel called in the police after an intruder has been reported inside the building. The police questioned Mr. Kirchick as part of the investigation of that incident.”
Kirchick’s shouted out questions were there to call attention to himself, and score political points, and not to challenge the network that actually offers programs with views that are more diverse than on any US TV news channel. It features programs with Tom Hartmann and even Larry King, both of whom deny they have been censored.
As an occasional commentator on RT News myself, I can and have said the same. I am not surprised that the networks I once worked for, ABC, CNN and CNBC never have me on, while BBC, RT, Press TV and Saudi TV, among others, feature my commentaries without telling me what to say.
Kirchick is less bothered by what gets on RT than that it exists at all, and especially because the network has built an audience among Americans disgusted by how controlled and manipulated most US media outlets are.
His real target are RT’s viewers who he bitterly denounces as a “species,” perhaps because they are looking for information you never find on the Daily Beast or many of the outlets he whores for as a self-styled “objective newsman.”
Listen to this: “RT has become the go-to network for a particular species of disillusioned American, fed-up with what the “corporate media” is telling them about the world.”
He doesn’t waste any putdowns either from an arsenal of vituperative broadsides and even—get this— denounces RT employees as “slovenly.”
He then rants on to share what may have been his Yale-bred elitism about his perception of the people the network interviews that includes politicians and commentators of all stripes.
“RT, both in its employment and viewership,” he writes,” seems to attract a particular type of person. You know the man who writes political chain emails IN ALL CAPS or the bag lady shouting on the street corner about the metal device the government has implanted in her head? Under normal circumstances, no one would give them a television show. But these are the people who appear on, and watch, RT.”
Oh, really– another round of clichés to keep the truth from getting in the way of his preconceived perceptions.
Now, now, feel better Mr. Kirchick, time to take your medication, before you melt down, or stir up more hatred and animosity for people who lack your years of slimy experience as a media warrior in the service of a neocon empire.
MR KIRCHICK?
Oh, you have more to say?
“For the past 9 years, RT has provided steady paychecks and frequent media appearances to a veritable insane asylum of the great unwashed and unemployable dredges of the American fringe.”
Whew, I am glad he got that out of his system, until tomorrow, of course, when he will find another way of cursing without cursing, while showcasing superiority to those of us in that other sub- human “species.”
Now, let me get back to my Rolling Stones record:
I‘ll never be your beast of burden
I’ll never be your beast of burden
Never, never, never, never, never, never, never be
Also, by the way, do I need to say that I am not a Putin booster, my father was a veteran, I have pledged allegiance to the flag many times, and wrote two books and made a film about media miscoverage of the Iraq War. My critique was based, in part, in my own experience in network TV.

News Dissector Danny Schechter edits Mediachannel.org and blogs at NewsDissector.net. His latest book is Madiba A to Z: The Many Faces of Nelson Mandela. Comments to dissector@mediachannel.org. 

Thursday, March 20, 2014





THE ABSURD TIMES


  


          We have been subjected, you and I, to a constant stream of erroneous and quite biased language on the subject of the independence of Crimea and its joining of the Russian Federation. We warned of it, it happened, and now we are making things worse.  This is quite an accomplishment for this country, but we are full of, er, resources.

          For example, our media usually uses words such as the "invasion" of the region, "annexing," and "takeover".  

          A short after this former Reagan/Bush ambassador to the Soviet Union and then Russia gave this interview, Obama got on the networks to say he is imposing "sanctions" against Russia.  Shortly after that, Russia imposed sanctions on several U. S. Senators, the correct ones, BTW.  


THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 2014

Former U.S. Ambassador: Behind Crimea Crisis, Russia Responding to Years of "Hostile" U.S. Policy

The standoff over Ukraine and the fate of Crimea has sparked the worst East-West crisis since the end of the Cold War. The U.S. has imposed sanctions on top Russian officials while announcing new military exercises in Baltic states. Meanwhile in Moscow, the Russian government says it is considering changing its stance on Iran’s nuclear talks in response to newly imposed U.S. sanctions. As tensions rise, we are joined by Jack Matlock, who served as the last U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union. Matlock argues that Russian President Vladimir Putin is acting in response to years of perceived hostility from the U.S., from the eastward expansion of NATO to the bombing of Serbia to the expansion of American military bases in eastern Europe.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: The Ukrainian government has announced plans to abandon its military bases in Crimea and evacuate its forces following Russia’s decision to annex the region. Earlier today, Russian forces reportedly released the commander of the Ukrainian Navy, who has been seized in his own headquarters in Crimea. At the United Nations, ambassadors sparred over the situation in Crimea. Yuriy Sergeyev is the Ukrainian ambassador to the U.N.
YURIY SERGEYEV: The declaration of independence by the Crimean Republic is a direct consequence of the application of the use of force and threats against Ukraine by the Russian Federation, and, in view of Russian nuclear power status, has a particularly dangerous character for Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity, as well as for international peace and security in general. Accordingly, I assert that on the basis of customary norms and international law, that the international community is obliged not to recognize Crimea as a subject of international law or any situation, treaty or agreement that may be arise or be achieved by this territory.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, defended Moscow’s move to annex Crimea.
VITALY CHURKIN: [translated] A historic injustice has been righted, which resulted from the arbitrary actions of the leader of the U.S.S.R. at the time, Nikita Khrushchev, who, with the stroke of a pen in 1954, in violation of the constitutional norms, transferred the Russian region of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which was part of the same state then. And he did this without informing the population of Crimea and, of course, without their consent. And nobody cared about the views of the Crimeans.
AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, on Wednesday, the U.S. Navy warship, the Truxtun, a U.S. guided-missile destroyer, conducted a one-day military exercise in the Black Sea with the Bulgarian and Romanian navies. And Vice President Joe Biden has been meeting this week with the heads of states of Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, promising Washington would protect them from any Russian aggression. On Wednesday, President Obama addressed the crisis during an interview with NBC 7 San Diego.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We are not going to be getting into a military excursion in Ukraine. What we are going to do is mobilize all of our diplomatic resources to make sure that we’ve got a strong international coalition that sends a clear message, which is: The Ukraine should decide their own destiny. Russia, right now, is violating international law and the sovereignty of another country. You know, might doesn’t make right. And, you know, we are going to continue to ratchet up the pressure on Russia as it continues down its current course.
AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about the growing crisis in Ukraine, we’re joined by Ambassador Jack Matlock. He served as U.S. ambassador to Moscow from 1987 to 1991. He’s the author of several books, including Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended. He recently wrote a column for The Washington Post headlined "The U.S. Has Treated Russia Like a Loser Since the End of the Cold War."
Ambassador Matlock, welcome to Democracy Now! Talk about the situation right now, what has just taken place, Ukraine now pulling out of Crimea.
JACK MATLOCK JR.: Well, I think that what we have seen is a reaction, in many respects, to a long history of what the Russian government, the Russian president and many of the Russian people—most of them—feel has been a pattern of American activity that has been hostile to Russia and has simply disregarded their national interests. They feel that having thrown off communism, having dispensed with the Soviet Empire, that the U.S. systematically, from the time it started expanding NATOto the east, without them, and then using NATO to carry out what they consider offensive actions about an—against another country—in this case, Serbia—a country which had not attacked any NATO member, and then detached territory from it—this is very relevant now to what we’re seeing happening in Crimea—and then continued to place bases in these countries, to move closer and closer to borders, and then to talk of taking Ukraine, most of whose people didn’t want to be a member of NATO, intoNATO, and Georgia. Now, this began an intrusion into an area which the Russians are very sensitive. Now, how would Americans feel if some Russian or Chinese or even West European started putting bases in Mexico or in the Caribbean, or trying to form governments that were hostile to us? You know, we saw how we virtually went ballistic over Cuba. And I think that we have not been very attentive to what it takes to have a harmonious relationship with Russia.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Ambassador Matlock, Americans often look at these crises in isolation, and some of the press coverage deals with them that way. But from your perspective, you argued that we should see the continuum of events that have happened from the Russian point of view—for instance, the Orange Revolution, the pronouncements of some of our leaders several years back, the crisis in Georgia a few years ago, and how the Russians are seeing the original good feeling that most Russians had toward the United States after the collapse of the Soviet Union compared to now.
JACK MATLOCK JR.: Yes, that’s absolutely true. You see, in the Orange Revolution in Kiev, foreigners, including Americans, were very active in organizing people and inspiring them. Now, you know, I have to ask Americans: How would Occupy Wall Street have looked if you had foreigners out there leading them? Do you think that would have helped them get their point across? I don’t think so. And I think we have to understand that when we start directly interfering, particularly our government officials, in the internal makeup of other governments, we’re really asking for trouble.
And, you know, we were pretty careful not to do that in my day. And I recall, for example, when I was being consulted by the newly elected leaders of what was still Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania. They were still in the Soviet Union, and they would come to us. We were, of course, sympathetic to their independence; we had never even recognized that they were legally part of the Soviet Union. But I had to tell them, "Keep it peaceful. If you are suppressed, there’s nothing we can do about it. We cannot come and help you. We’re not going to start a nuclear war." Well, they kept it peaceful, despite provocations.
Now, what have we been telling the Ukrainians, the Georgians—at least some of us, officials? "Just hold on. You can join NATO, and that will solve your problems for you." You know, and yet, it is that very prospect, that the United States and its European allies were trying to surround Russia with hostile bases, that has raised the emotional temperature of all these things. And that was a huge mistake. As George Kennan wrote back in the ’90s when this question came up, the decision to expand NATO the way it was done was one of the most fateful and bad decisions of the late 20th century.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to Vice President Joe Biden, who criticized Russia recently during his trip to Lithuania Wednesday.
VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I want to make it clear: We stand resolutely with our Baltic allies in support of Ukrainian people and against Russian aggression. As long as Russia continues on this dark path, they will face increasing political and economic isolation. There are those who say that this action shows the old rules still apply. But Russia cannot escape the fact that the world is changing and rejecting outright their behavior.
AMY GOODMAN: And in a speech Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin blasted what he called Western hypocrisy on Crimea, saying that the U.S. selectively applies international law according to its political interests.
PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN: [translated] Our Western partners, headed by the United States of America, prefer in their practical policy to be guided not by international law, but by the right of the strong. They started to believe that they have been chosen and they are unique, that they are allowed to decide the fate of the world, that only they could always be right. They do whatever they want
AMY GOODMAN: Ambassador Jack Matlock, if you could respond to both Biden and Putin?
JACK MATLOCK JR.: Well, I think that this rhetoric on both sides is being very unhelpful. The fact is, Russia now has returned Crimea to Russia. It has been, most of its recent history, in the last couple of centuries, been Russian. The majority of the people are Russian. They clearly would prefer to be in Russia. And the bottom line is, we can argue 'til doomsday over who did what and why and who was the legal and who was not—I'm sure historians generations from now will still be arguing it—but the fact is, Russia now is not going to give up Crimea. The fact also is, if you really look at it dispassionately, Ukraine is better off without Crimea, because Ukraine is divided enough as it is. Their big problem is internal, in putting together disparate people who have been put together in that country. The distraction of Crimea, where most of the people did not want to be in Ukraine and ended up in Ukraine as a result of really almost a bureaucratic whim, is—was, I think, a real liability for Ukraine.
Now, the—we should be concentrating now on how we put Ukraine back together—not we, but the Ukrainians, with the help of the Europeans, with the help of the Russians, and with at least a benign view from the United States. Now, the American president and vice president directly challenging the Russian president and threatening them with isolation is going to bring the opposite effect. All of this has actually increased President Putin’s popularity among Russians. Now, you know, most politicians, they like to do things that make them more popular at home. And, you know, the idea that we are acting, you know, contrary to what Russians would consider their very natural interests—that is, in bringing an area which had been Russian and traditionally Russian for a long time back into Russia—they look at that as a good thing. It’s going to be very costly to Russia, they’re going to find out, in many ways. But to continue all of this rhetoric, I would ask, well, how is it going to end? What is your objective? Because it isn’t going to free up Crimea again or give it back to Ukraine.
I think it would be most helpful to encourage the Ukrainians to form a united government that can begin reforms. The proposals before, both by the EU and by Russia, would not have solved their problems. And they are not going to solve the problems by taking a government that basically represents one half of the country and making it work on the whole country. And all of this interference, both by Russia and by the West, including the United States, has tended to split Ukraine. Now, that is the big issue there. And we need to turn our attention more to it. And I just hope everyone can calm down and look at realities and stop trying to start sort of a new Cold War over this. As compared to the issues of the Cold War, this is quite minor. It has many of the characteristics of a family dispute. And when outsiders get into a family dispute, they’re usually not very helpful.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Ambassador Matlock, what would you, if you were counseling the president, urge him to do at this stage? Because obviously there are these pretty weak sanctions that have so far been announced. What would your advice be?
JACK MATLOCK JR.: Well, I think, first of all, we should start keeping our voice down and sort of let things work out. You know, to ship in military equipment and so on is just going to be a further provocation. Obviously, this is not something that’s going to be solved by military confrontations. So, I think if we can find a way to speak less in public, to use more quiet diplomacy—and right now, frankly, the relationships between our presidents are so poisonous, they really should have representatives who can quietly go and, you know, work with counterparts elsewhere.
But fundamentally, it’s going to be the Ukrainians who have to put their society back together. It is seriously broken now. And it seems to me they could take a leaf from the Finns, who have been very successful ever since World War II in putting together a country with both Finns and Swedes, by treating them equally, by being very respectful and careful about their relations with Russia, never getting into—anymore into military struggles or allowing foreign bases on their land. And they’ve been extremely successful. Why can’t the Ukrainians follow a policy of that sort? I think, for them, it would work, too. But first, they have to find a way to unite the disparate elements in Ukraine; otherwise, these pressures from Russia, on the one hand, and the West, on the other, is going to simply tear them apart. Now—
AMY GOODMAN: Ambassador, on Wednesday—
JACK MATLOCK JR.: —in the final analysis, if the—
AMY GOODMAN: On Wednesday, the head of Ukraine’s First National TV was attacked in his office by members of the far-right Svoboda party, including at least one member of Parliament who serves on the parliamentary committee on freedom of speech. The attackers accused the station of working for the Russian authorities, after it aired a live broadcast of the signing of the agreement between President Putin and the de facto Crimean authorities. In a video posted online, the attackers are seen forcing the head of the channel to write a resignation letter. Heather McGill of Amnesty International condemned the attack, saying, quote, "The acting Ukrainian authorities must waste no time in demonstrating that basic human rights are protected in Ukraine and that nobody will face discrimination because of their political views or ethnic origin." Ambassador Matlock, can you talk about this attack and the role of these far-right-wing parties in the new Ukrainian government?
JACK MATLOCK JR.: Well, I’m not intimately informed about all of the details, but—and I would say that I think Russian media have exaggerated that right-wing threat. On the other hand, those who have ignored it, I think, are making a big mistake. We do have to understand that a significant part of the violence at the Maidan, the demonstrations in Kiev, were done by these extreme right-wing, sort of neo-fascist groups. And they do—some of their leaders do occupy prominent positions in the security forces of the new government. And I think—I think the Russians and others are quite legitimately concerned about that. Therefore, you know, many of these things are not nearly as black and white, when we begin to look at them, as is implied in much of the rhetoric that we’re hearing. And I do think that everybody needs now to take a quiet breath to really look at where we are and to see if we can’t find ways, by keeping our voices down, to help the Ukrainians in present-day Ukraine to get to a road to greater unity and reform that will make them a viable state.
AMY GOODMAN: Jack Matlock, we want to thank—
JACK MATLOCK JR.: And I would argue that—
AMY GOODMAN: We want to—
JACK MATLOCK JR.: —they are better off without Crimea.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for being with us. Ambassador Matlock served as the U.S. ambassador—
JACK MATLOCK JR.: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: —to Moscow from 1987 to 1991 under both President Reagan and President George H.W. Bush, and he’s the author of a number of books, includingSuperpower Illusions and Autopsy on an Empire: The American Ambassador’s Account of the Collapse of the Soviet Union, as well as Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended.

Creative Commons LicenseThe original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.