Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this article |
News :: International
US's Propaganda Offensive About "Ukrainian Crisis" Unspun
26 Nov 2004
Modified: 05:40:48 AM
BHHRG Finds No Reason to Question the Ukrainian Presidential Election Results
Ukraine: 2nd Round of Presidential Election
This preliminary report of the BHHRG's observers on the controversial second round of the Ukrainian presidential elections challenges the widely-disseminated media image of government-sponsored fraud at the expense of an untainted opposition on the basis of first-hand reporting.
Ukrainian Presidential Elections - 2nd Round Preliminary Report
24th November, 2004
The British Helsinki Human Rights Group (BHHRG) sent observers to the second round of the presidential election in Ukraine on 21st November 2004. BHHRG monitored the election in the city and district of Kiev, Chernigov, and Transcarpathia. Counts were observed in central Kiev and Uzhgorod.
Contrary to the condemnations issued by the team of professional politicians and diplomats deployed by the OSCE mainly from NATO and EU states, the BHHRG observers did not see evidence of government-organized fraud nor of suppression of opposition media. Improbably high votes for Prime Minister, Viktor Yanukovich, have been reported from south-eastern Ukraine but less attention has been given to the 90% pro-Yushchenko results declared in western Ukraine.
Although Western media widely claimed that in Ukraine the opposition was, in effect, excluded from the broadcast media, particularly in western Ukraine the opposite was the case. On the eve of the poll – in flagrant violation of the law banning propaganda for candidates – a series of so-called “social information” advertisements showing well-known pop stars like Eurovision winner Ruslana wearing the orange symbols of Mr Yushchenko’s candidacy and urging people to vote appeared on state television!
Although BHHRG did not encounter blatant violations in either the first or second rounds, the Group’s observers were alarmed by a palpable change in the atmosphere inside the polling stations in central Ukraine in particular. In Round 1, a relaxed and orderly mood prevailed throughout the day. In Round 2 the situation had become slightly tense and chaotic. In BHHRG’s observation the change in Round 2 was attributable primarily to an overabundance of local observers, who exercised undue influence over the process and in some instances were an intimidating factor. The vast majority of observers in the polling stations visited were representatives of Viktor Yushchenko.
Transparent ballot boxes meant that these observers could frequently see how people had voted. This OSCE-approved innovation made intimidation of voters for the more unpopular candidate in any district easier since few supporters of the minority would wish it to be seen how they had voted.
Ukraine’s election law allows only candidates and political parties, not non-governmental organizations, to deploy observers. However, observers can be deployed in the guise of journalists. For example, the Western-sponsored Committee of Voters of Ukraine (KVU) – clearly sympathetic to the opposition – deployed observers throughout Ukraine as “correspondents” for the organization’s newspaper, Tochka Zora. On 31st October, BHHRG did not encounter any representatives of this newspaper anywhere, but on 21st November such journalist-observers were highly visible in central Ukraine. In Chernigov 11/208, for example, all 6 journalist-observers represented opposition newspapers and one, for Tochka Zora, stood very close to the ballot boxes and closely inspected how votes were cast. Because ballot papers in Round 2 were much smaller than in Round 1 and were not placed in envelopes before insertion into the transparent ballot boxes, secrecy of the ballot was compromised. In this case, the immediate impression was that a young Tochka Zora correspondent exercised more control over the process than the election commission chairman himself.
In Chernigov (7/208), all 7 journalist-observers represented opposition newspapers, in some cases simply temporary campaign publications such as the pro-Yushchenko propaganda paper Tak – his election slogan “Yes.” In a scene exemplary of the mood of voting on 21st November, BHHRG watched a nervous looking old woman emerge from a voting booth, approach the three opposition observers sitting directly behind the ballot boxes, and ask: “Have I filled out the ballot correctly?” An observer inspected the ballot, saw it was filled in for Viktor Yushchenko, and replied: “Yes.” The woman’s unfolded ballot was plainly visible in the transparent ballot box.
Such groups of opposition journalist/observers were not in evidence in the Transcarpathian region visited by BHHRG’s observers. Exit pollsters in Mukachevo admitted to being Yushchenko supporters and were carrying out their poll in a simplistic manner – asking every twentieth voter for their choice without categorizing by age, class, etc. 40% of voters refused to say how they had voted, but 80% of the remainder said that they had backed Yushchenko. The exit polls were clearly not scientific – less so even than the ones predicting Kerry trouncing George W. Bush in Florida and Ohio!
In a polling station attached to Uzhgorod’s university a group of young, male Yushenko observers hung around the entrance to the polling room and next to the ballot box. OSCE guidelines condemn the presence of such un-authorised personnel. The commission chairman in this polling station stated that four members of the election commission had prevented observers for Mr. Yushenko from fulfilling their tasks leading to the intervention of lawyers. When this accusation was put to other members of the commission they appeared dumb-founded and said no such incident had taken place. The chairman appeared shocked that the BHHRG observers sought to confirm his detailed account of the misbehaviour of some of his colleagues by asking other witnesses, but no proper observation should accept allegations unquestioningly.
Whatever may have been the case in south-eastern Ukraine, it was clear to this Group’s observers in central Ukraine and western Ukraine that the opposition exercised near complete control. The broadcast media showed bias towards Mr. Yushchenko in these areas, particularly in western Ukraine where Mr Yanukovich was invisible – not even being shown voting on polling day. It is naïve to think only the government had the facilities to exercise improper influence over the polls. From what BHHRG observed, the opposition exercised disproportionate control over the electoral process in many places, giving rise to concerns that the opposition – not only the authorities – may have committed violations and may have even falsified the vote in opposition-controlled areas. So-called “administrative resources” in places visited by BHHRG appeared to be in the hands of the opposition, not the government, and this may have frightened voters. After all since Sunday, police and security personnel in some western towns have declared their loyalty to “president” Yushchenko.
The open bias of Western governments and their nominated observers in the OSCE delegation, some of whom have appeared on opposition platforms, makes it unreasonable to rely on its report.
In spite of concerns, BHHRG finds no reason to believe that the final result of the 2004 presidential election in Ukraine was not generally representative of genuine popular will. The election featured a genuine choice of candidates, active pre-election campaigns, and high voter participation. It is clear that Ukrainian opinion was highly polarized. That meant many people backing a losing candidate would find it difficult to accept a defeat. Foreigners should not encourage civil conflict because the candidate on whom they have lavished expensive support turned out to be a loser.
The OTPOR factor in the Ukraine?
Interference in the internal affairs of the CIS
First it was Georgia, now it is the Ukraine. Pro-western factions ready to sell out to the Washington camp, orchestrated by their foreign masters, sweep to power on the crest of a wave of popular revolt, hooliganism and riots. The Otpor factor. However there is a difference. Eduard Shevardnazde had alienated his people against him, whereas the Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovich, has just over half of his electorate on his side.
OTPOR, the Serbian word for "resistance" is the name given to the activists who ousted Slobodan Milosevic from power in Belgrade. The hand of OTPOR in Georgia was visible, Georgian activist and Washington stooge Giga Bokeria liaising with this group in Serbia and receiving them for the return visit to Tblissi which was financed by George Soros" Open Society. Bokeria in turn is financed by the Open Society and by the US-government-backed Eurasia Institute.
There were startling similarities between the events leading to the overthrow of Milosevic and Shevardnadze and now today with the handful of diehards fuelled by a few busloads of hooligans from the Western Ukraine.
The reaction to the elections in the Ukraine is yet another example of interference in the internal affairs of CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) countries (ex-USSR minus the three Baltic states).The condemnation of the findings of the Central Electoral Committee gives rise to the notion that collective hysteria breaks out in the west every time the stooge they try to place fails to make the grade. In this case, Viktor Yushchenko, the defeated centre-right candidate, is well known to Ukrainian society because he was already Prime Minister for two years between 1999 and 2001.
Where was this condemnation during the appalling electoral fraud committed in the USA on November 2nd?
The reaction from Moscow was more mature and as usual, more in line with the principles of international diplomacy - accepting the results of the election committee and congratulating the man who won - Viktor Yanukovich, with the statement that Moscow accepts whatever decision is taken in the name of the Ukrainian people by Kiev.
Yushchenko - a danger to the Ukraine
The defeated opposition candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, is dangerous in modern-day Ukraine, which has an innate tendency to polarise between East and West, Russian-speakers and Ukrainian-speakers, Russian Orthodox and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, pro-Moscow and anti-Moscow. Calling on his supporters to take to the streets amounts to insurrection and nothing short of an incitement to revolt.
In politics, as in sport, there is one winner and one loser and those who engage in these activities have to accept that. In the event, the policies of Prime Minister Yanukovich swayed the population to vote for a continuation of the same course of events by 49.72% against 46.7%, rather than the hot-headed sell-out policies preached by Yushchenko.
Western reaction immature and meddlesome
The reaction by the West to the defeat of their puppet candidate was as predictable as it was immature and meddlesome.
Mention of "electoral fraud and abuse" from an American observer was risible, after the two fiascos in the USA which saw the most flagrant examples of vote-rigging and electoral fixing in modern history.
The criticism, upon examination, amounts to what the OSCE observers describe in their initial report as "media bias" and "unauthorised persons" at polling stations. For the information of the OSCE, PRAVDA.Ru contacts in the Ukraine have informed us of a few incidents of violence. The "unauthorised persons" mentioned are police officers and local government officials. Where there is violence, or a threat of violence, police officers are present, in a civilised country. Besides, the deployment of police and government personnel is the prerogative of the Ukrainian Interior Ministry, not the OSCE.
Another ludicrous comment in this report was the complaint that the high voter turnout was "highly suspicious" in the Eastern Ukraine (more favourable to Yanukovich) but then there was no mention of the equally high turnout in areas of the Western Ukraine, where the vote suddenly took on a "strong democratic spirit".
Two weights and two measures
When the Republican Party deploys electronic voting machines bought from Republican Party fundraisers who promised before the election to help the President to win, the OSCE observers describe it as localised and insignificant incidents. However, when the incompent stooge Yushchenko fails to win in the Ukraine, it is fraud.
100,000 fanatics, hooligans and trouble-makers in Independence Square, Kiev, fuelled by a few busloads of drunken layabouts from Western Ukraine with nothing better to do and looking for an adrenalin rush, do not represent the 43,7 million strong population of the country.
The municipalities of Kiev, Lviv and Ivano-Frankivks do not have the jurisdiction to disobey the properly elected authorities.
Like it or lump it
The people of the Ukraine have voted for the continuaqtion of a close relationship with Russia, in the same sphere of influence, which makes sense.
The CIS mission and the Institute of Eastern European Countries monitoring the election declared that it was "legitimate" and "answers the norms of democracy and international law", as declared by the spokesperson, Emir Shleimovich.
If the West has a problem with that - and it appears that "international law" is a concept with which certain countries have a problem to understand these days - too bad.
In plain English, you can like it - or lump it.
from commondreams.org, 11/22/04}
Republicans Cry "Election Fraud" in Ukraine
Bush's cronies would know election fraud, wouldn't they? However, unlike John Kerry, in Ukraine the anti-Bush forces haven't rolled over and played dead - they're defending their country from a hostile takeover.
Does this sound familiar: Republicans calling for activists to overwhelm the vote count and overturn the results? At a press conference the morning after the election, US Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana), Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair, with long-standing ties to the CIA, and Bush's official envoy for the Ukrainian elections, called on Ukrainians to take action against their government regarding the election results.(1)
Why? Quitely possibly the most important election this year might not have been in the United States, the European Union, nor even Venezuela, but in Ukraine this past Sunday, 21 November 2004. The outcome of this election will have a direct impact on the global balance of power between the United States, the European Union, and the Russian Federation for many years to come.
After a decade of "shock therapy" at the hands of US and European advisers designed to cripple the economies of the former Soviet republics, the ascendance of Vladimir Putin as Russia's president has caused a sea-change turn around, with the reestablishment of governmental authority over the oligarchs and their mafia, economic growth after the most catastrophic depression in the world, and the reemergence of Russia as a strategic power. Those former Soviet republics with heads of state that came from the old political-industrial mangerial class, such as Belarus, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and most of Central Asia, are gravitating back toward a reviving Russia after following devasting International Monetary Fund dictates while stranded on their own during the Yeltsin era.
Following the successful coup in Georgia in 2003 orchestrated by the US via George Soros's "Open Society Institute," every one of the ex-Soviet leaders who had been working with the Western powers realized that they could be next, and hence rapidly turned back toward rebuilding ties with Russia to protect themselves and their countries from Western takeover.
One of the top goals of the US and European governments in the region is to stop this trend by keeping apart the largest of these republics, Ukraine, severely damaging attempts at rebuilding economic, political, and military ties. Keeping apart the Ukraine, known as the "breadbasket" of the former Soviet Union with nearly 50 million people, would be akin to trying to rebuild the United States without the industrial heartland of the Midwest.
Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma, a former missile industry manager, began by continuing his predecessor's pro-Western approach, appointing American-approved choices for prime ministers who privatized most industries at firesale prices and caused average incomes to fall to levels even below the average in Africa, largely because there was no alternative during the "Washington Consensus" of the 1990s: the US and Europe together dictated economic austerity and political obedience to the rest of the world. This is what Bush has undermined and Kerry wanted to bring back, which is why Putin publicly stated that a Bush victory would be better for Russia. Obviously, four more years of Bush spells doom for many in Haiti, Iraq, and within the US (the foreign policy implications of Bush for the rest of the world will be the subject of a future column).
When Russia's turn around under Putin started to become clear in 2001 and Ukraine's disaster became too deep to continue along the previous path, President Kuchma dismissed the architect of these policies, Prime Minister Viktor Yushenko, and appointed Viktor Yanukovich in his place. Yanukovich, hailing from the industrial belt of eastern Ukraine, recognized that Ukraine's economy was still deeply tied with Russia's and set out to revitalize its industries. Fueled by Russian investment and the restoration of favorable oil and gas pricing by Russia, Ukraine's economy finally began to turn around again, with actual wage and pension increases for the first time since the end of the Soviet Union.
With Kuchma's term coming to a close, the 2004 presidential election became a showdown between the former and current prime ministers, Yushenko and Yanukovich, with the US and the EU backing the former and Russia backing the latter. Heavy external interference, similar to what occurred in Venezuela during the recent recall election, brought in similar groups: National Endowment for Democracy, International Republican Institute, National Democratic Institute, Konrad Adenauer Foundation ("Christian Democrat") and Friedrich Ebert Foundation ("Socialist") of Germany, European Peoples Party (the conservative Christian Democrats), all to mobilize Catholic Ukrainian cultural "nationalists" and the youth for Yushenko against Yanukovich, Ukrainian economic nationalists, and Russia. George Soros's Open Society Institute literally flew in experienced saboteurs (Otpor and Kmara) from his successful post-election coups against Yugoslavia and Georgia to lay the same groundwork in Ukraine.
During the first round of elections on 31 October 2004, Yanukovich and Yushenko each received 39% of the vote, both sides claimed victory in the runoffs on Sunday, 21 November 2004, and both sides claimed the other side engaged in fraud. Most likely, both did: while as Prime Minister Yanukovich could count on his supporters in government to try to do everything in their power to maximize their number of votes, Yushenko had the full logistical support of European intelligence agencies and political operatives to inflate their totals as well, such as having individuals vote multiple times using false passports and identity documents.(2) The US and EU funded several polls that claimed implausibly massive leads for Yushenko, just as they did for the Venezuelan recall, and are now attempting to use these as part of their claim that Yushenko should have won.
So if both sides engaged in fraud, who should be the legitimate president? This question strikes at the heart of a very deep ideological issue that most progressives in Western nations have yet to reconcile: do elections legitimate governments? Put another way, is it legitimate for a nation attempting to prevent or liberate itself from Western domination to use non-electoral means to come to or keep power? And the flip side of the coin: does the fact that, despite massive fraud, Bush appears to have received a majority of the popular vote within the United States legitimate his government?
For many, whether considering a liberation movement in Africa, Southeast Asia, or Latin America, if they do not engage in what the Western corporate media call "free and fair elections" then these movements must be condemned. This would imply that the Viet Minh should not have fought against the US army but should have participated in the "elections" of South Vietnam and pushed for "reforms" that would have made those fraudulent elections more "free and fair." Should the Iraqis do the same?
This is a self-serving argument from armchair activists and agents of imperialism, used as a tool by the US and Europe to attack these countries and to prevent solidarity with them. If a government is forced to hold open elections, as Nicaragua and Yugoslavia did, Western countries impose massive external interference, funding, and sabotage to force them out. That is why some independent governments not under Western control, such as Vietnam, Cuba, Sudan, or Syria, organize their governments without Western-style elections. Others, such as Haiti, Zimbabwe, Belarus, and the Central Asian republics, have held elections that the US and European governments and their human rights agents relentlessly attack as "undemocratic" because the outcomes were governments that pursued a large degree of autonomy from Western control.
And it is no coincidence that the only international entity Bush officially invited to observe the US elections, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), gave Bush's election the seal of approval while leveling severe charges against Yanukovich but not Yushenko.
Does that mean elections should be ignored? No. Does that mean that elections should not be free from fraud? No. Elections can represent the will of an informed and empowered electorate. But anyone who believes that an election modeled after what we currently have in the United States would be "free and fair," where corporate money and media reign supreme, alternative choices are shut out through "winner take all" ballots, and partisan officials have unchecked control over the voting process, is either blind or lying. Clearly, for a leading Republican official from a state neighboring Ohio's widespread fraud to virtually call for a coup against another government over voter fraud is truly Orwellian. And the corporate media's one-sided portrayal of election irregularities halfway around the world while engaging in a complete blackout of election fraud at home demonstrates their propaganda bias.
Challenge the dogma - think independently.
(1) Source of Senator Lugar's statements - Interfax News Agency:
(2) Lawsuits documenting election fraud:
November 24, 2004
'Democracy' and Mendacity
From Iraq to the Ukraine, 'democracy' marches on – crushing the popular will
by Justin Raimondo
In the Ukraine, tens of thousands of protesters march through the streets demanding that pro-Russian Prime Minister and presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovich give up the reins of power: he stole the election, they claim. The whole thing was "rigged." How do they know this? Well, you see, the exit polls – conducted by Western organizations – showed their candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, the winner. When the final results didn't jibe with the polls, and Yanukovich came out ahead, Yushchenko called his supporters out into the streets, anointed himself the winner, and threatened civil war.
Gee, why didn't' the Kerryites think of that? After all, early exit polls in the U.S. showed the Democratic candidate as the putative winner: on election day in the U.S., rumors of Kerry's imminent victory were spurred by (possibly biased?) reporting based on the preliminary numbers that were coming in. According to the "logic" employed by Yushchenko and his Western supporters – including the EU, the OSCE, and U.S. government officials (and the White House) – this means Kerry is the actual winner of the November election, and a usurper sits in the Oval Office.
Plenty of people believe that already: Kerry had barely finished giving his concession speech before a cyber-subculture based on the premise that George W. Bush "stole" the election – and not only in Ohio – sprouted like mushrooms after a rain. In America, they're derided as moonbatty conspiracy theorists – in my view, rightly so – but overseas, such people have their uses.
As brigades of "experts," international busybodies, and militant do-gooders worldwide sprang into action, denouncing the Ukrainian poll as beneath "international standards," the U.S. State Department chimed in, warning that Washington could cut back on a $143 million aid package if the Ukrainians insisted on electing the wrong candidate. The Christian Science Monitor cites State Department spokesman Adam Erali darkly threatening:
"Some action will definitely be taken if 'in the final analysis, this election [proves] to be fundamentally flawed and tarnished.'"
This from a country whose leader got into office on the strength of a hanging chad and a single vote on the Supreme Court.
The U.S. government is for "democracy" overseas as long as the results are decided in advance. But when an election threatens to get out of hand by expressing the real sentiments of the people – watch out! In Iraq the other day, "President" Iyad Allawi's goons backed by U.S. forces stormed a Baghdad mosque, killed at least two people, and arrested dozens, including anti-occupation clerics for the "crime" of calling for a boycott of the elections scheduled for January 30.
Since voting has not been deemed mandatory, one wonders what the legal basis of this action will turn out to be. Or is it that just calling for a boycott was their real crime? In any case, the idea of outlawing a peaceful boycott so grotesquely inverts the traditional concept of democracy as the consent of the governed that it doesn't even bear contemplating, let alone discussing. This is "democracy" with a definite Soviet flair: that is, a system imposed – at gunpoint - in which all meaningful dissent is ruthlessly crushed. And it isn't just the mullahs who are feeling the back of America's hand: the offices of Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, our former ally and recipient of millions in U.S. tax dollars, have been raided again, this time by "masked Iraqis [from the Interior Ministry] and heavily armed U.S. civilians," or at least that's how the INC tells it.
Every time the troops of the Allawi regime come under fire from insurgents, they flee the battlefield – or defect to the ranks of their attackers. But shooting their way into a holy place and killing unarmed worshippers – that's the only sort of job the American occupiers feel confident assigning to their Iraqi quislings. The Iraqi National Guards are widely reviled, and not just as traitors. The Australian reports the story of Um Fatima, whose husband fell in the battle of Fallujah, and her frantic effort to escape the city:
"'There was no time to wail and sob at the death of my husband. I knew that I had to leave immediately and get my girls out of Fallujah ... there was no time to waste. I did not want to remain behind now. I was not afraid of death but I was afraid for the shame that might befall my daughters once the troops took the city."
And rightly so. As Fatima and her three daughters reached the place where city meets desert, they passed an American patrol, which didn't acknowledge their existence, but they soon met Allawi's goons, the ones we have invested so much in "training," and that's when Fatima knew she was in trouble:
"The women then encountered a group of Iraqi national guards who questioned them incessantly. One of them eyed her eldest daughter and ordered her to be searched.
"'I told him no and begged him to let her be. I reminded him that we were Arabs, Muslims, and that this was prohibited in our culture and religion,' Um Fatima said."
Oh, those Muslim fanatics! Haven't they seen Desperate Housewives? Because those Iraqi "National Guards" apparently have:
"He grabbed the young woman's hand and began to force a kiss on her, she said. The distraught mother hit him and tried to push him off as her other daughters began to cry.
"'There was not a soul in sight – a barren desert,' she said. But suddenly two American soldiers appeared, perhaps from a passing patrol. One of them kicked the Iraqi, hit him and began to yell at him.
"Fatima, a chemistry student who speaks English, said the American was shouting: 'If you were really here to liberate this city you would not treat the women this way. This is what people here believe how we behave and what they expect us Americans to do, but they do not expect this of you Iraqis.'
"Fatima added: 'At that instant the evil forces that had killed my father became my angel and savior. The American saved me and the Iraqi assaulted me.'"
Opponents of U.S. intervention in Iraq, and particularly some conservatives who disdain "nation-building," have often argued that the effort to transplant Western institutions in Iraqi soil is doomed to wilt on the vine. In this case, however, It looks like the implantation of Western cultural norms is succeeding all too well.
The Iraqi elections were originally scheduled for January 1 – in typical Orwellian fashion, however, pushing the date back to the 30th was never acknowledged (and rarely reported) as a rescheduling. I guess they figured no one would remember the original plan.
The initial plan, however, was not to hold elections at all, but to install Chalabi and his cronies in power. There was just one problem with that: the Grand Ayatollah Sistani, spiritual leader of the 60 percent of Iraqis who follow the Shi'ite faith, would not hear of it, and he prevailed in the end. The Americans can keep pushing back the elections as long as they want, but sooner or later they are going to have to confront the reality of an elected government of Iraqis demanding an end to the occupation – and what's the plan then? Shall we just move on to Iran, Syria, or points yet to be imagined – perhaps the Ukraine?
Let these self-proclaimed champions of the "global democratic revolution" hold a plebiscite in Iraq – not on which puppet of the Americans to install, but on the question of the Anglo-American occupation. Better yet, if the United States government is so intent on upholding "democracy" all across the globe, then let them start in their own country – where a well-known presidential candidate is kicked off the ballot because he dares get in the way of the powerful and the connected. In the Ukraine, it only takes a meeting of "no less than 500 voters" to nominate a presidential candidate: in America, it requires a legal team working 24/7 to battle the harassment and legal challenges of "major" party bosses.
The Afghan elections, hailed as a "success" by the Western media, were notoriously lax: votes were bought and sold, bales of ballots went missing, the "indelible" ink used to mark ballots was easily rubbed off: the whole country seemed to be engaged in a voter fraud competition – and the winner was "President" Hamid Karzai, the candidate of the Gucci Party.
Nothing quite so blatant tainted the Ukrainian election, yet the West is up in arms: a representative of the EU compared the Ukrainian poll to elections in North Korea! That this is coming from a spokesman for an entity that holds a "referendum" until it gets the "right" results – as in Denmark, Switzerland, and Ireland – brings to mind Big Daddy's famous bit from Cat on a Hot Tin Roof:
"What's that smell in this room? Didn't you notice it, Brick? Didn't you notice the powerful and obnoxious odor of mendacity in this room?"
– Justin Raimondo
Ukraine crisis: A Western circus with Yushchenko, the clown
The Ukraine crisis is for the Ukrainians to decide
It is not the business of Washington or London or Ottawa to decide whether they accept the election results in the Ukraine. It is for the sovereign Ukrainian institutions to solve the process through the proper and existing legislative process, namely an examination of the complaints by the supreme court and the subsequent publishing of the results.
After this, the new President will be announced. It is a simple, clear process and the Ukrainians are capable of solving their own problems without outside interference from the countries who are dying to install Yushchenko, no doubt so that lucrative arms contracts can be delivered to NATO and military bases set up on Russia's borders.
Therefore the declaration by a number of western countries that they did not accept the result obtained by the Ukrainian Central Election Committee is ludicrous. What if the rest of the world tells the United States of America that it does not accept the result of the ballot in Ohio because it was rigged?
And who is Tony Blair to make any declarations, now that members of his own party wish to impeach him for gross misconduct in leading the country into an illegal act of butchery in Iraq baced on barefaced lies?
The strongarm tactics used by the western stooge, Yushchenko, are typical of the anti-democratic processes set in motion by a rampant and militant Washington, crushed in the grip on a monetarist, neo-conservative crypto-fascist clique of elitists, whose corporate greed speaks louder than the mores of internacional diplomacy and whose thirst to dominate the
world's resources in the lifetimes of Rumsfeld and Cheney throws any moral concept into the trash bin.
Yushchenko himself has set himself up as the worst type of unprofessional clown playing the fool in public. His "swearing in" ceremony in a parliament without a quorum was as classic a case of his foolishness as has ever been seen. Why didn't he place a piece of parsley over each ear and stick an apple in his mouth, and claim he was a pig, as well?
Playing this type of childish game gives Yushchenko as much authority as a drunken down-and-out, lying on the floor of a public latrine in a pool of urine, with a bottle by his side, saying he is the president, that he is a doctor, that he is also a cosmonaut on Thursday afternoons and if it hadn't been for Eltsin, he would also be God.
Next time, why doesn't Viktor Yushchenko wear a baseball cap and a skirt, with a plastic red nose and his face painted like the clown he is?
This work is in the public domain
Re: US's Propaganda Offensive About "Ukrainian Crisis" Unspun
(No verified email address)
28 Nov 2004
and Pravda has credibility!