Should Russia Really Take After Such an America?
In response to the politically-motivated expulsion of the head of the Rustaveli State Drama Theatre, Robert Sturua, and the constant persecution of any political opposition, Russia has introduced new sanctions against Georgia. Henceforth, any American or European company that collaborates with Tbilisi may be expelled from the territories of the Russian Federation, and any Russian company that buys Georgian-manufactured production will be fined or subject to other forms of disciplinary and criminal prosecution. The order introducing the sanctions is effective immediately.
All of the above has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
It is easy to imagine what indignant protests would arise from the global community if Moscow were to take such steps, without prior arrangement, against Tbilisi. How many anxious words about democracy would all of kinds of civil activists articulate, foaming at the mouth, in order to prove that such sanctions contradict international law are baseless and do not correspond to the principles of a modern government.
These statements would, admittedly, appear fully legitimate. Indeed, the aforementioned sanctions against Georgia are far from the norms of international law and contradict all established methods for imposing such punishment on a sovereign state.
Yet just last week, exactly such sanctions, if not harsher, were brought against Syria by the United States of America. No protests followed. In addition, no American peacekeepers were killed by Syrian soldiers. In simple language, President Bashar Assad has not done anything bad to the Americans or Europeans. In contrast, he actively facilitated trade with them, helped the coalition forces restore order in Iraq and did not even support terrorists.
The problem with Assad lies in his unwillingness to cede power without a fight to an Islamic opposition, which has skillfully provoked inter-religious discord, taking advantage of the fact that the majority-Sunni population is ruled by an Alawite minority. The Syrian president is also guilty of blaming the disruption in Sunni cities on foreign agents and sending in the army to re-establish order.
All the discussion about the purely peaceful nature of the demonstrations in Syria is based on a tale artfully fabricated by the opposition in order to stir Western human rights activists. In rebellious cities, soldiers were forced to engage in prolonged street battles with armed gangs of regime opponents and deploy heavy machinery to quell the center of opposition, which happens to be situated in densely populated areas.
National news agencies reported all of last month about the death of dozens of police officers at the hands of “peaceful” demonstrators.
All these facts are being ignored by the champions of a Western-style democracy. This is not surprising, given that presidential elections are approaching in the United States and most European countries. The fight for democracy in Syria is an excellent and, most importantly, risk-free way for Western leaders to boost their popularity ratings in the eyes of voters and show them who is boss in the world.
It was with great pride and, simultaneously, affected grief that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the newly imposed sanctions on Damascus last week. American companies are forbidden to have financial dealings with Syrian businesses, buy oil or other products from them, among other things.
This, according to Ms. Clinton, should strike at the very heart of the Syrian regime. For the first time, the White House officially called on the Syrian president to step down.
Ecstatic approval for these measures slowly proceeded to stream in from the highest European officials in Brussels, who had no objection to punishing Assad’s regime — by way of the Americans.
All these noisy statements directly followed the announcement by a Damascus official of an end to military operations in the restive cities, as well as the granting of access into the country to a United Nations humanitarian mission.
With these concessions, it would seem that President Assad fulfilled the main demands made on him by the West and ended the armed conflict with the opposition. Yet, despite all logic, new sanctions were declared by the White House.
Washington’s actions have no justification in international law or in fact in any law, except perhaps that which applies only in the very territories of the United States.
The United Nations Security Council did not produce any resolution condemning Damascus’s actions and did not agree to the round of sanctions against the Syrian regime. No international court ruled that Bashar Assad was a criminal.
Who then, allowed the White House to penalize the Syrian ruler for actions taken in the interest of keeping his country from slipping into chaos and becoming yet another hot spot in the Near East? The answer is obvious: No one allowed it. Washington’s political elite simply decided for itself a long time ago that its opinion is always the final verdict and in no need of any additional endorsement from anyone.
At the same time, no one recalled the actions of Yemen’s president, Abdulla Saleh, who also ordered his army against demonstrators calling for his ouster. Dozens of people died every day on the streets of Sana’a. The Yemeni Abdullah Saleh, however, was considered Washington’s ally in its battle with al-Qaida, whose actions were justified by exceptional regional circumstances. On the other hand, the Syrian Bashar Assad practiced his own independent politics, which often did not coincide with United States interests in the region. For him there is no pardon.
It appears that Washington knows deep down that the imposed sanctions are not — to put it gently — entirely legitimate in the eyes of the international community. It is now trying to pass the already initiated decision through the United Nations Security Council. Neither Russia nor China, however, wish to play the role of extras, left only to use their voice to corroborate a verdict already made by the White House.
Moscow’s refusal to pass the resolution, which would legalize the already effective American and E.U. sanctions, has triggered indignation among the American political elite, used to acting with impunity with regard to international laws. And not only in the case of Syria.
Is it then possible to consider as legal the extradition of Russian pilot Konstantin Yaroshenko, convicted for allegedly plotting to smuggle narcotics from Liberia to the United States? The Russian national was secretly transported from the Russian embassies in America and Liberia onto United States territory. The court proceeded to convict him solely on the basis of American laws, although neither Yaroshenko nor Viktor Bout, another Russian national handed over by Thailand to the American justice system, committed any crimes in that country. Neither is a resident of the New World.
Both were nevertheless brought to America to be tried under American law, a breach of many international norms. Such is the logic of Washington’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, which has already for so long demonstrated no respect whatsoever for international law.
Equipped with this logic — which Ivan Krylov conveyed in his fable about the wolf and the lamb with the immortal line “Your guilt lies only in that I’m hungry” — American officials are proceeding resolutely forward. Especially when it comes to supposedly lawful American interests abroad.
All of the above has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
It is easy to imagine what indignant protests would arise from the global community if Moscow were to take such steps, without prior arrangement, against Tbilisi. How many anxious words about democracy would all of kinds of civil activists articulate, foaming at the mouth, in order to prove that such sanctions contradict international law are baseless and do not correspond to the principles of a modern government.
These statements would, admittedly, appear fully legitimate. Indeed, the aforementioned sanctions against Georgia are far from the norms of international law and contradict all established methods for imposing such punishment on a sovereign state.
Yet just last week, exactly such sanctions, if not harsher, were brought against Syria by the United States of America. No protests followed. In addition, no American peacekeepers were killed by Syrian soldiers. In simple language, President Bashar Assad has not done anything bad to the Americans or Europeans. In contrast, he actively facilitated trade with them, helped the coalition forces restore order in Iraq and did not even support terrorists.
The problem with Assad lies in his unwillingness to cede power without a fight to an Islamic opposition, which has skillfully provoked inter-religious discord, taking advantage of the fact that the majority-Sunni population is ruled by an Alawite minority. The Syrian president is also guilty of blaming the disruption in Sunni cities on foreign agents and sending in the army to re-establish order.
All the discussion about the purely peaceful nature of the demonstrations in Syria is based on a tale artfully fabricated by the opposition in order to stir Western human rights activists. In rebellious cities, soldiers were forced to engage in prolonged street battles with armed gangs of regime opponents and deploy heavy machinery to quell the center of opposition, which happens to be situated in densely populated areas.
National news agencies reported all of last month about the death of dozens of police officers at the hands of “peaceful” demonstrators.
All these facts are being ignored by the champions of a Western-style democracy. This is not surprising, given that presidential elections are approaching in the United States and most European countries. The fight for democracy in Syria is an excellent and, most importantly, risk-free way for Western leaders to boost their popularity ratings in the eyes of voters and show them who is boss in the world.
It was with great pride and, simultaneously, affected grief that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the newly imposed sanctions on Damascus last week. American companies are forbidden to have financial dealings with Syrian businesses, buy oil or other products from them, among other things.
This, according to Ms. Clinton, should strike at the very heart of the Syrian regime. For the first time, the White House officially called on the Syrian president to step down.
Ecstatic approval for these measures slowly proceeded to stream in from the highest European officials in Brussels, who had no objection to punishing Assad’s regime — by way of the Americans.
All these noisy statements directly followed the announcement by a Damascus official of an end to military operations in the restive cities, as well as the granting of access into the country to a United Nations humanitarian mission.
With these concessions, it would seem that President Assad fulfilled the main demands made on him by the West and ended the armed conflict with the opposition. Yet, despite all logic, new sanctions were declared by the White House.
Washington’s actions have no justification in international law or in fact in any law, except perhaps that which applies only in the very territories of the United States.
The United Nations Security Council did not produce any resolution condemning Damascus’s actions and did not agree to the round of sanctions against the Syrian regime. No international court ruled that Bashar Assad was a criminal.
Who then, allowed the White House to penalize the Syrian ruler for actions taken in the interest of keeping his country from slipping into chaos and becoming yet another hot spot in the Near East? The answer is obvious: No one allowed it. Washington’s political elite simply decided for itself a long time ago that its opinion is always the final verdict and in no need of any additional endorsement from anyone.
At the same time, no one recalled the actions of Yemen’s president, Abdulla Saleh, who also ordered his army against demonstrators calling for his ouster. Dozens of people died every day on the streets of Sana’a. The Yemeni Abdullah Saleh, however, was considered Washington’s ally in its battle with al-Qaida, whose actions were justified by exceptional regional circumstances. On the other hand, the Syrian Bashar Assad practiced his own independent politics, which often did not coincide with United States interests in the region. For him there is no pardon.
It appears that Washington knows deep down that the imposed sanctions are not — to put it gently — entirely legitimate in the eyes of the international community. It is now trying to pass the already initiated decision through the United Nations Security Council. Neither Russia nor China, however, wish to play the role of extras, left only to use their voice to corroborate a verdict already made by the White House.
Moscow’s refusal to pass the resolution, which would legalize the already effective American and E.U. sanctions, has triggered indignation among the American political elite, used to acting with impunity with regard to international laws. And not only in the case of Syria.
Is it then possible to consider as legal the extradition of Russian pilot Konstantin Yaroshenko, convicted for allegedly plotting to smuggle narcotics from Liberia to the United States? The Russian national was secretly transported from the Russian embassies in America and Liberia onto United States territory. The court proceeded to convict him solely on the basis of American laws, although neither Yaroshenko nor Viktor Bout, another Russian national handed over by Thailand to the American justice system, committed any crimes in that country. Neither is a resident of the New World.
Both were nevertheless brought to America to be tried under American law, a breach of many international norms. Such is the logic of Washington’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, which has already for so long demonstrated no respect whatsoever for international law.
Equipped with this logic — which Ivan Krylov conveyed in his fable about the wolf and the lamb with the immortal line “Your guilt lies only in that I’m hungry” — American officials are proceeding resolutely forward. Especially when it comes to supposedly lawful American interests abroad.