|
|
|
Last Updated: Oct 8, 2008 - 12:44:37 PM |
Not long before we marked the 15th anniversary of the revolution of
1993, when President Boris Yeltsin ordered tanks to fire on the
renegade White House, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political
Affairs and former ambassador to Russia William Burns made the
following statement at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing:
"Since 1989, the United States, under the leadership of Presidents
George H.W. Bush, Clinton and George W. Bush, has supported the right
of every country emerging from communism to choose the path of its own
development and to choose the institutions -- such as NATO and the
European Union -- that it wants to join."
If we believe Burns about the consistency of U.S. policy regarding a
nation's "freedom to choose" its alliances, then it was Soviet leader
Mikhail Gorbachev who lied when he said that the administration of
President George H.W. Bush assured him in 1989 that NATO would not
expand eastward following German reunification. Then-U.S. ambassador to
the Soviet Union Jack Matlock has substantiated Gorbachev's version.
So I tend to think Burns is the one who is not telling the truth.
Burns' words reek of a double standard, particularly in the context of
the anniversary of the 1993 constitutional crisis. The coup began on
Sept. 21 when Yeltsin issued Decree 1,400, which dissolved the Congress
of People's Deputies, the country's parliament and supreme governing
body according to the Constitution at the time. After the
Constitutional Court ruled the decree illegal, Yeltsin disbanded the
court. Then, Yeltsin ordered federal troops to surround the White
House, where the parliament was based, and he cut off the electricity
and plumbing. When, on Oct. 3, the desperate hold-outs in the White
House tried to break through the blockade, tanks opened fire on them.
In December 1993, there was a referendum on Yeltsin's new Constitution
and elections for the new State Duma were held. Despite the
pro-government media's pressure on voters, opposition parties gained a
majority in the Duma.
There are strong reasons to believe that the referendum on the new
Constitution, which greatly weakened the Duma and strengthened
presidential powers, had been rigged in Yeltsin's favor. But it did
show the people's deep dissatisfaction with Yeltsin's political and
economic platform -- one that led to a breakdown of the country's
industrial base, a lower life expectancy and a disastrous population
decline. Nonetheless, international observers considered the elections
exemplary. U.S. President Bill Clinton's administration could not find
a single word of condemnation for Yeltsin's bloody, anti-constitutional
coup d'etat. Moreover, the Western press praised Yeltsin for adhering
to "democratic principles" -- much in the same way as it has extolled
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili in recent years.
Yet when Yeltsin, who was despised by his own people, was replaced by
Vladimir Putin, who soon became widely popular at home, Washington
constantly criticized Putin's policies that were aimed at undoing the
damage done by Yeltsin.
Thus, we are seeing a disturbing pattern from the Western press.
Similar to the nonsense that was written in the West of Yeltsin's
"democratic revolution" of 1993, we hear and read the same distortions
about Georgian "democracy" and Russia's "aggression" against Georgia in
the August war.
By supporting aggressors and distorting the facts, the West believes it
is supporting "young democracies" and "the choice of the people."
Perhaps this is why the so-called young democrats, whether they be
Yeltsin or Saakashvili, take such satisfaction in inflicting human
losses.
Against this backdrop, it is scary to think what might happen in
Ukraine, where its own "young democrats" -- President Viktor Yushchenko
and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko -- are battling each other to gain
the West's admiration.
Source:Ocnus.net 2008
Top of Page
|
|
|
|