LETTER — Like Alexander the Great, four British invasions, and the Soviets before them, Harper has limped out of Afghanistan while telling his constituents that democracy has won the day as sham elections are held to replace the puppet regime of Hamid Karzai.
In reality, a reality known to all except those who need to create a political “win” for self, we have left Afghanistan the way we found it. The drug dealers, the Tajik and Uzbek in the north, will remain in power because our American allies have chosen them to succeed Karzai.
Democracy building in Afghanistan has cost the Canadian taxpayer over $22 billion, not counting future medical and psychiatric care for our veterans. In essence, the Afghanistan venture has been another NATO failed regime change exercise which has cost Canadians a huge amount in terms of lives, welfare of combatants, and taxpayer dollars.
Terrorism in Afghanistan will continue against the Americans, delivered by our enemies the Taliban, and supported by the majority Pashtun tribes in the South who have been banned from voting in this election.
Canadian tax dollars have now moved north to Ukraine where we are “nation building” through another regime change, but this time with Fascist allies. Our allies in current world meddling are Svoboda and the Right Sector, a solidly neo-Nazi fascist group based in Ukraine that the West recently condemned but now embraces because they want the country to join the EU rather than be economically attached to Russia.
This new adventure in Ukraine is more hypocrisy by Harper. He talks about democracy but he often does not follow its principles nationally or in our international relations, conveniently ignoring treaties and accords to which the Canadian government has agreed. His comments during his recent trip to Ukraine are an exercise full of conservative doublespeak.
For example, Western governments and their media treat the Ukrainian famine as genocide but not the Irish Famine. We labeled Saddam’s killing of Kurds a genocide but not the Turkish killing of Kurds. We also labeled Serbian shelling of Sarajevo a war crime but not the U.S. shelling of Fallujah, and our media wrote and broadcast that the Hutu killing of the Tutsi was genocide but not the reverse – the Tutsi killing of the Hutu.
Just the other day, CTV interviewed the Ukrainian ambassador to Canada, Mr. Shwec. There was not a single question about the Nazi affiliation of the rioters, or the intercepted telephone conversations about the shooters of police and civilians in Kiev and their association with the protestors. It was very clear for anyone watching reports from Kiev that the petrol bombs and other weapons were used by the rioters.
Jacqueline Milczarek, the anchor on the CTV News Channel, ignored this action knowing full well that such violence would have been met by force if it had taken place in Canada. Rather than ask probing questions, Milczarek gave Mr. Shwec a forum to simply bash Putin, knowing full well, that was the expectation from her media bosses.
She went on to insinuate that what was going on in Ukraine is somehow a threat to the Baltic States and Poland. That was fear mongering with simplistic drivel designed to further the chosen agenda. Should balanced reporting include the fact that NATO and U.S. forces are on Russia’s borders, and the fact that EU and American governments instigated this revolution? Should pointed questions be asked about the history of Shwec and his supporters?
Russia is not Serbia, or Libya, or Iraq. Russia has an arsenal of nukes, and the more we attempt to partition it into small units ripe for takeover or to isolate it to gain access to its resources, the more the world is in danger of a nuclear war.
That said, Russia has never attacked others, but it has been attacked: from the East (Mongols); South (Turks); and particularly, the West (Teutonic Knights, Poles, Swedes, Napoleon with a European Army, as well as British, French, and Germans in WWI, and Canadians, Americans, British, and French after WWI , plus Germans with a European Army under Hitler). So, they have a multitude of significant lessons from history to distrust some foreign countries.
Harper does not tell Canadians that the government of democratically elected Viktor Yanukovych wanted closer ties with Russia rather than with the EU. SVOBODA, UDAR and the Right Sector (with support from the West) were instrumental in deposing Yanukovych. And, with this action, the move away from the EU was quashed, benefitting the west economically.
UDAR and SVOBODA were on the EU and NATO side rather than Russia’s, thus by disregarding their Fascist history they became our attractive partners regardless of their past history including the Holocaust, a history that included murdering their own people like UDAR and SVOBODA rioters did in Maidan.
We (the West) call ourselves ‘reformers’ when we engineer a regime change for our own benefit, while the regime that wants to remain as they are is labeled by our press and government as a ‘hardliner’, despot, or some similar easy to understand label like Axis of Evil to create the necessary impression.
When we (our side) kills in war and innocents die, it’s called collateral damage, while when nations that simply don’t agree with us or follow our leadership engage in warfare, it’s called violence, murder, oppression, or genocide. Those words create an image, which have led people in Ukraine (eastern and southern) regions to vote with their feet as they are now demanding to join Russia.
All three political parties in Canada condemned Russia over Crimea even though a democratic vote was taken to join Russia. However, this action shows our petty selfish prejudices, since these same parties supported Kosovo independence after they agreed to and participated in 78 days bombing of Serbia to detach Kosovo which was part of Serbia for 2000 years.
Once again our politicians find it easier to support who we think are our friends, rather than the rule of international law. America and NATO (those are the Western instigators) should not have a policy paper in their front pocket for one situation and another policy in their back pocket for a similar situation. But, they do.