Samantha Power: Liberal War Hawk
Liberal interventionist Samantha Power – along with neocon allies –
appears to have prevailed in the struggle over how President Obama
will conduct his foreign policy in his last months in office,
promoting aggressive strategies that will lead to more death and
destruction.By Robert Parry
June 16, 2015 "Information
Clearing House" - "Consortium
News" -
Propaganda and genocide almost always go hand in
hand, with the would-be aggressor stirring up resentment often by
assuming the pose of a victim simply acting in self-defense and
then righteously inflicting violence on the targeted group.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha
Power understands this dynamic having
written about the 1994 genocide in Rwanda where talk radio
played a key role in getting Hutus to kill Tutsis. Yet, Power is now
leading propaganda campaigns laying the groundwork for two potential
ethnic slaughters: against the Alawites, Shiites, Christians and
other minorities in Syria and against the ethnic Russians of eastern
Ukraine.
Though Power is a big promoter of the
“responsibility to protect” – or “R2P” – she operates with glaring
selectivity in deciding who deserves protection as she advances a
neocon/liberal interventionist agenda. She is turning “human rights”
into an excuse not to resolve conflicts but rather to make them
bloodier.
Thus, in Power’s view, the overthrow and
punishment of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad takes precedence
over shielding Alawites and other minorities from the likely
consequence of Sunni-extremist vengeance. And she has sided with the
ethnic Ukrainians in their slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern
Ukraine.
In both cases, Power spurns pragmatic negotiations
that could avert worsening violence as she asserts a black-and-white
depiction of these crises. More significantly, her strident
positions appear to have won the day with President Barack Obama,
who has relied on Power as a foreign policy adviser since his 2008
campaign.
Power’s self-righteous approach to human rights –
deciding that her side wears white hats and the other side wears
black hats – is a bracing example of how “human rights activists”
have become purveyors of death and destruction or what some critics
have deemed “the
weaponization of human rights.”
We saw this pattern in Iraq in 2002-03 when many
“liberal humanitarians” jumped on the pro-war bandwagon in favoring
an invasion to overthrow dictator Saddam Hussein. Power herself
didn’t support the invasion although she was
rather mealy-mouthed in her skepticism and sought to
hedge her career bets amid the rush to war.
For instance, in a March 10, 2003 debate on
MSNBC’s “Hardball” show — just nine days before the invasion — Power
said, “An American intervention likely will improve the lives of the
Iraqis. Their lives could not get worse, I think it’s quite safe to
say.”
However, the lives of Iraqis actually did get
worse. Indeed, hundreds of thousands stopped living altogether and a
sectarian war continues to tear the country apart to this day.
Power in Power
Similarly, regarding Libya, Power was one of the
instigators of the U.S.-supported military intervention in 2011
which was disguised as an “R2P” mission to protect civilians in
eastern Libya where dictator Muammar Gaddafi had identified the
infiltration of terrorist groups.
Urged on by then-National Security Council aide
Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama agreed to
support a military mission that quickly morphed into a “regime
change” operation. Gaddafi’s troops were bombed from the air and
Gaddafi was eventually hunted down, tortured and murdered.
The result, however, was not a bright new day of
peace and freedom for Libyans but the disintegration of Libya into a
failed state with violent extremists, including elements of the
Islamic State, seizing control of swaths of territory and
murdering civilians. It turns out that Gaddafi was not wrong about
some of his enemies.
Today, Power is a leading force opposing
meaningful negotiations over Syria and Ukraine, again staking out
“moralistic” positions – rejecting possible power-sharing with Assad
in Syria and blaming the Ukraine crisis entirely on the Russians.
She doesn’t seem all that concerned about impending genocides
against Assad’s supporters in Syria or ethnic Russians in eastern
Ukraine.
In 2012, at a meeting hosted by the United States
Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, former U.S. Ambassador
Peter W. Galbraith
predicted “the next genocide in the world … will likely
be against the Alawites in Syria” — a key constituency behind
Assad’s secular regime. But Power has continued to insist that the
top priority is Assad’s removal.
Similarly, Power has shown little sympathy for
members of Ukraine’s ethnic Russian minority who saw their elected
President Viktor Yanukovych overthrown in a Feb. 22, 2014 coup
spearheaded by neo-Nazis and other right-wing nationalists who had
gained effective control of the Maidan protests. Many of these
extremists want an ethnically pure Ukrainian state.
Since then, neo-Nazi units, such as the Azov
battalion, have been Kiev’s tip of the spear in slaughtering
thousands of ethnic Russians in the east and driving millions from
their homes, essentially an ethnic-cleansing campaign in eastern
Ukraine.
A Propaganda Speech
Yet, Power traveled to Kiev to deliver
a
one-sided propaganda speech on June 11, portraying the
post-coup Ukrainian regime simply as a victim of “Russian
aggression.”
Despite the key role of neo-Nazis –
acknowledged even by the U.S. House of Representatives –
Power uttered not one word about Ukrainian military abuses which
have included reports of death squad operations targeting ethnic
Russians and other Yanukovych supporters.
Skipping over the details of the U.S.-backed and
Nazi-driven coup of Feb. 22, 2014, Power traced the conflict instead
to “February 2014, when Russia’s little green men first started
appearing in Crimea.” She added that the United Nations’ “focus on
Ukraine in the Security Council is important, because it gives me
the chance – on behalf of the United States – to lay out the
mounting evidence of Russia’s aggression, its obfuscation, and its
outright lies. … America is clear-eyed when it comes to seeing the
truth about Russia’s destabilizing actions in your country.”
Power continued: “The message of the United States
throughout this Moscow-manufactured conflict – and
the message you heard from President Obama and other
world leaders at last week’s meeting of the G7 – has never wavered:
if Russia continues to disregard the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of Ukraine; and if Russia continues to violate the rules
upon which international peace and security rest – then the United
States will continue to raise the costs on Russia.
“And we will continue to rally other countries to
do the same, reminding them that their silence or inaction in the
face of Russian aggression will not placate Moscow, it will only
embolden it.
“But there is something more important that is
often lost in the international discussion about Russia’s efforts to
impose its will on Ukraine. And that is you – the people of Ukraine
– and your right to determine the course of your own country’s
future. … Or, as one of the great rallying cries of the Maidan put
it:Ukraina po-nad u-se! Ukraine above all else!”
[Applause.]
Power went on: “Let me begin with what we know
brought people out to the Maidan in the first place. We’ve all heard
a good number of myths about this. One told by the Yanukovych
government and its Russian backers at the time was that the Maidan
protesters were pawns of the West, and did not speak for the ‘real’
Ukraine.
“A more nefarious myth peddled by Moscow after
Yanukovych’s fall was that Euromaidan had been engineered by Western
capitals in order to topple a democratically-elected government.”
Of course, neither of Power’s points was actually
a “myth.” For instance, the U.S.-funded National Endowment for
Democracy was sponsoring scores of anti-government activists and
media operations — and NED President Carl Gershman had deemed
Ukraine “the biggest prize,” albeit a stepping stone toward ousting
Russian President Vladimir Putin. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “A
Shadow US Foreign Policy.”]
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs
Victoria Nuland was collaborating with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey
Pyatt how to “midwife” the change in government with Nuland picking
the future leaders of Ukraine – “Yats is the guy” referring to
Arseniy Yatsenyuk who was installed as prime minister after the
coup. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The
Neocons: Masters of Chaos.”]
The coup itself occurred after Yanukovych pulled
back the police to prevent worsening violence. Armed
neo-Nazi and right-wing militias, organized as “sotins” or 100-man
units, then took the offensive and overran government
buildings. Yanukovych and other officials fled for their lives, with
Yanukovych narrowly avoiding assassination. In the days following
the coup, armed thugs essentially controlled the government and
brutally intimidated any political resistance.
Inventing ‘Facts’
But that reality had no place in Power’s
propaganda speech. Instead, she said:
“The facts tell a different story. As you remember
well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own accord,
only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that
would have led to early elections and democratic reforms.
“And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital
that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected Rada voted
to strip him of his powers – including 36 of the 38 members of his
own party in parliament at the time. Yanukovych then vanished for
several days, only to eventually reappear – little surprise – in
Russia.
“As is often the case, these myths reveal more
about the myth makers than they do about the truth. Moscow’s fable
was designed to airbrush the Ukrainian people – and their genuine
aspirations and demands – out of the Maidan, by claiming the
movement was fueled by outsiders.
“Yet, as you all know by living through it – and
as was clear even to those of us watching your courageous stand from
afar – the Maidan was made in Ukraine. A Ukraine of university
students and veterans of the Afghan war. Of Ukrainian, Russian, and
Tatar speakers. Of Christians, Muslims, and Jews. …”
Power went on with her rhapsodic version of
events: “Given the powerful interests that benefited from the
corrupt system, achieving a full transformation was always going to
be an uphill battle. And that was before Russian troops occupied
Crimea, something the Kremlin denied at the time, but has since
admitted; and it was before Russia began training, arming,
bankrolling, and fighting alongside its separatist proxies in
eastern Ukraine, something the Kremlin continues to deny.
“Suddenly, the Ukrainian people faced a battle on
two fronts: combating corruption and overhauling broken institutions
on the inside; while simultaneously defending against aggression and
destabilization from the outside.
“I don’t have to tell you the immense strain that
these battles have placed upon you. You feel it in the young men and
women, including some of your family members and friends, who have
volunteered or been drafted into the military – people who could be
helping build up their nation, but instead are risking their lives
to defend it against Russian aggression. …
“You feel it in the conflict’s impact on your
country’s economy – as instability makes it harder for Ukrainian
businesses to attract foreign investment, deepens inflation, and
depresses families’ wages. … It is felt in the undercurrent of fear
in cities like Kharkiv – where citizens have been the victims of
multiple bomb attacks, the most lethal of which killed four people,
including two teenage boys, at a rally celebrating the first
anniversary of Euromaidan.
“And the impact is felt most directly by the
people living in the conflict zone. According to the UN, at least
6,350 people have been killed in the violence driven by Russia and
the separatists – including 625 women and children – and an
additional 1,460 people are missing; 15,775 people have been
wounded. And an estimated 2 million people have been displaced by
this conflict. And the real numbers of killed, missing, wounded, and
displaced are likely higher, according to the UN, due to its limited
access to areas controlled by the separatists.”
One-Sided Account
Pretty much everything in Power’s propaganda
speech was blamed on the Russians – along with the ethnic Russians
and other Ukrainians resisting the imposition of the new U.S.-backed
order. She also ignored the will of the people of Crimea who voted
overwhelmingly in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and rejoin
Russia.
The closest she came to criticizing the current
regime in Kiev was to note that “investigations into serious crimes
such as the violence in the Maidan and in Odessa have been sluggish,
opaque, and marred by serious errors – suggesting not only a lack of
competence, but also a lack of will to hold the perpetrators
accountable.”
Yet, even there, Power failed to note the growing
evidence that the neo-Nazis were likely behind the crucial sniper
attacks on Feb. 20, 2014, that killed both police and protesters and
touched off the chaos that led to the coup two days later. [A
worthwhile documentary on this mystery is “Maidan
Massacre.”]
Nor, did Power spell out that neo-Nazis from the
Maidan set fire to the Trade Union Building in Odessa on May 2,
2014,
burning alive scores of ethnic Russians while
spray-painting the building with pro-Nazi graffiti, including
hailing the “Galician SS,” the Ukrainian auxiliary that helped Adolf
Hitler’s SS carry out the Holocaust in Ukraine.
Listening to Power’s speech you might not even
have picked up that she was obliquely criticizing the U.S.-backed
regime in Kiev.
Also, by citing a few touching stories of pro-coup
Ukrainians who had died in the conflict, Power implicitly
dehumanized the far larger number of ethnic Russians who opposed the
overthrow of their elected president and have been killed by
Kiev’s brutal “anti-terrorism operation.”
Use of Propaganda
In my nearly four decades covering Washington, I
have listened to and read many speeches like the one delivered by
Samantha Power. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan would give
similar propaganda speeches justifying the slaughter of peasants and
workers in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, where the massacres
of Mayan Indians were later deemed a “genocide.” [See
Consortiumnews.com’s “How
Reagan Promoted Genocide.”]
Regardless of the reality on the ground, the
speeches always made the U.S.-backed side the “good guys” and the
other side the “bad guys” – even when “our side” included
CIA-affiliated “death squads” and U.S.-equipped military forces
slaughtering tens of thousands of civilians.
During the 1990s, more propaganda speeches were
delivered by President George H.W. Bush regarding Panama and Iraq
and by President Bill Clinton regarding Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Then,
last decade, the American people were inundated with more propaganda
rhetoric from President George W. Bush justifying the invasion of
Iraq and the expansion of the endless “war on terror.”
Generally speaking, during much of his first term,
Obama was more circumspect in his rhetoric, but he, too, has slid
into propaganda-speak in the latter half of his presidency as he
shed his “realist” foreign policy tendencies in favor of
“tough-guy/gal” rhetoric favored by “liberal interventionists,” such
as Power, and neoconservatives, such as Nuland and her husband
Robert Kagan (whom
a chastened Obama invited to a White House lunch last
year).
But the difference between the propaganda of
Reagan, Bush-41, Clinton and Bush-43 was that it focused on
conflicts in which the Soviet Union or Russia might object but would
likely not be pushed to the edge of nuclear war, nothing as
provocative as what the Obama administration has done in Ukraine,
now including dispatching U.S. military advisers.
The likes of Power, Nuland and Obama are not just
justifying wars that leave devastation, death and disorder in their
wake in disparate countries around the world, but they are fueling a
war on Russia’s border.
That was made clear by the end of Power’s speech
in which she declared: “Ukraine, you may still be bleeding from
pain. An aggressive neighbor may be trying to tear your nation to
pieces. Yet you … are strong and defiant. You, Ukraine, are standing
tall for your freedom. And if you stand tall together – no
kleptocrat, no oligarch, and no foreign power can stop you.”
There is possibly nothing more reckless than what
has emerged as Obama’s late-presidential foreign policy, what
amounts to a plan to destabilize Russia and seek “regime change” in
the overthrow of Russian President Putin.
Rather than take Putin up on his readiness to
cooperate with Obama in trouble spots, such as the Syrian civil war
and Iran’s nuclear program, “liberal interventionist” hawks like
Power and neocons like Nuland – with Obama in tow – have chosen
confrontation and have used extreme propaganda to effectively shut
the door on negotiation and compromise.
Yet, as with previous neocon/liberal-interventionist
schemes, this one lacks on-the-ground realism. Even if it were
possible to so severely damage the Russian economy and to activate
U.S.-controlled “non-governmental organizations” to help drive Putin
from office, that doesn’t mean a Washington-friendly puppet would be
installed in the Kremlin.
Another possible outcome would be the emergence of
an extreme Russian nationalist suddenly controlling the nuclear
codes and willing to use them. So, when ambitious ideologues like
Power and Nuland get control of U.S. foreign policy in such a
sensitive area, what they’re playing with is the very survival of
life on planet Earth – the ultimate genocide.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the
Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the
1980s. You can buy his latest book,
America’s Stolen Narrative,
either in print
here or as an
e-book (from
Amazon
and
barnesandnoble.com).
You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family
and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34.
The trilogy includes
America’s Stolen Narrative.
For details on this offer,
click here.