How the Snipers on the Maidan Figure in the Kosovo Precedent

The big Ukraine story that the Gray Lady is featuring this Sunday is actually a good one. Written by Peter Baker, "Sovereignty vs. Self-Rule: Crimea Reignites Battle" explores the applicable precedents of the Wilsonian doctrine of self-determination. The one that gets the most ink, and the one that makes Obama's national security public relations man Benjamin Rhodes defensive, is Kosovo. If Kosovo can secede from a democratically elected government why can't Crimea?

Kosovo declared independence in 2008. The United States under George W. Bush recognized it, as did Britain, France and Germany, but Russia adamantly rejected it, as did Spain. The International Court of Justice later ruled that Kosovo’s declaration was legal. 

“We never saw it as setting a precedent, but there were some nations that saw it that way and still do,” said James W. Pardew, who was Mr. Clinton’s special representative for the Balkans.

John B. Bellinger III, who was the top lawyer at the State Department under Bush, said: “We were very careful to emphasize that Kosovo was a unique situation. We were fond of saying it was sui generis — and it did not create a precedent that would likely be replicable anywhere else.” 

That is not how the Kremlin sees it. Ever since, Russia has cited Kosovo to justify support for pro-Moscow separatist republics in places like Georgia, where it went to war in 2008 and recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia over Western objections.

But here is the "money" passage:

“Kosovo is very much a legitimate precedent,” said Dimitri K. Simes, president of the Center for the National Interest, a Washington research organization, agreeing with Moscow’s argument. “Independence was accomplished despite strong opposition by a legitimate, democratic and basically Western-oriented government of Serbia.” By contrast, he said, the new pro-Western government in Kiev “lacks legitimacy,” since it came to power by toppling a democratically elected president.

The Obama administration maintains that the cases cannot be compared. Serbia, White House officials said, lost its legitimacy and right to rule in Kosovo by its violent crackdown. Despite Russian claims, there has been little, if any, independent evidence of such a campaign against the Russian-speaking population in Crimea. 

“There’s no repression or crimes against humanity that the government in Kiev has committed against the people of Crimea,” Mr. Rhodes said. “There’s no loss of legitimacy.”

But what if the "legitimate" government in Kiev came to power by means of a violent crackdown, a putsch? This is obviously what happened. And it is getting trickier for the Obama administration since a leaked phone call between Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and EU foreign affairs representative Catherine Ashton reveals that the sniper fire that killed both the protesters and police on the Maidan had the same "handwriting," meaning it came from the same snipers.

Why would the snipers, if they were Yanukovych goons, as the Obama administration prefers, gun down police? They wouldn't. Therefore the sniper fire was an act of provocation designed to create mayhem, mayhem used by the putsch leaders and their Western allies to delegitimize the Yanukovych government.

The Guardian ran the story last Wednesday. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is now pressuring the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to investigate. Agence France Presse has the story. Lavrov is making his request because the putsch government refuses to investigate.

I assume the Gray Lady will maintain her blackout of this story for as long as she can, even up to and including the OSCE actually conducting an investigation (maybe then she would assign it a sidebar). In any event, add this sniper issue to the March 16 Crimea vote to align with the Russian Federation (not to mention the enormous funding issues facing the putschists, ably outlined in a story by Steven Erlanger, as well as the political rise of anti-EU-integration Right Sector) and you have a train coming round the bend that is sure to fly off the rails.

The People vs. Obama

Here's something to consider, the distilled wisdom of the Obama administration, in the form of a quote from its prodigy Benjamin Rhodes as he makes the pitch to Congress to authorize military force against Syria:

“One thing for Congress to consider,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, his deputy national security adviser, “is the message that this debate sends about U.S. leadership around the world — that the U.S. for decades has played the role of undergirding the global security architecture and enforcing international norms. And we do not want to send a message that the United States is getting out of that business in any way.”

This from Peter Baker's "White House Looks to Syria Vote as Rudder for Rest of Term." Needless to say, this is exactly the message the voters are sending to Congressional Representatives, "Get us out of the business of being the world police." You hear it time and again. "Let's spend the money here at home." It's so obvious and sensible, it requires an immense perversity to try to persuade people otherwise. Obama's electoral success was largely due to his ability to convince people that he felt as they did; he campaigned as a leader who would do some "nation building here at home."

But now what's on display is the polar opposite. According to Peter Baker's story, the administration is relying on a version of the domino theory to rally Congressional support for the authority to strike Syria. The argument goes something like, "If you don't show we mean business on Syria then Iran will start pumping out nuclear bombs and Israel will be imperiled." It's the Sunday funnies version of reality; it has held sway with Congress before, but now times are different.

To get a snapshot of the anti-war mindset that dominates the country today, read Michael Wines' dispatch from Waynesburg, PA, "Skepticism and Wariness in Talk of Syria Attack":

Jennifer Taylor said that she was managing the officers’ club at the Marine Corps Air Station in Cherry Point, N.C., and cheering on Mr. Bush when American forces invaded Iraq. But this week, from her spot tending bar at Hot Rod’s, she was decidedly against the use of force in Syria and questioned Mr. Obama’s motivations in proposing it. 

“Obama was against” the invasion of Iraq, Ms. Taylor noted, “and I don’t understand why he’s changed his stance.” Seconds later, she offered an explanation: “He’s having trouble keeping his popularity up; this war on guns has made him unpopular. And this is his way of getting back up.” 

Indeed, her customer, Mr. Tripp, suggested that the use of chemical weapons was actually a plot by Al Qaeda to lure the United States into toppling the Syrian government, and that Mr. Obama was falling for it. Terrorists will rush into the vacuum once Mr. Assad is gone, he warned.

You won't find any in-depth coverage by the Gray Lady of a false flag attack being at the center of what happened in East Ghouta on August 21, but there are plenty of voters who are willing to consider the possibility.

No, Obama still has a steep climb ahead of him. It's a classic Mr. Smith Goes to Washington showdown. The people -- represented by who? -- against the institutional power structure represented by Obama and the fourth estate and D.C. beltway neoliberal elites.

No one should believe Obama that the bombing of Syria will be limited and surgical. David Sanger and Eric Schmitt have a story this morning, "Pentagon Is Ordered to Expand Potential Targets in Syria With a Focus on Forces," that puts that lie to rest.

U.S. Says al-Assad Used Chemical Weapons

Based on a reading of this morning's story by Mark Mazzetti, Michael R. Gordon and Mark Landler, "U.S. Is Said to Plan to Send Weapons to Syrian Rebels," which is definitely worth checking out, yesterday's announcement that U.S. analysts have concluded that the Assad government has used poison gas and that military support for the Syrian opposition will now commence is not as dire as first imagined. It appears that Obama has only signed off on small arms and ammunition with the possibility of antitank weapons. No antiaircraft weapons will be supplied; a no-fly zone is all but ruled out.

This will please neither the Arab monarchies, nor the war pigs in the State Department and the U.S. Senate. To be charitable to Obama, a weakness to which I am susceptible, he appears to be trying to deftly defuse a lot of unseemly war lust. Reading the statement by Benjamin Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser wunderkind, one finds that it is pretty tepid. Here's the part that deals with the allegation that chemical weapons were used by the Syrian government:

Following a deliberative review, our intelligence community assesses that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year. Our intelligence community has high confidence in that assessment given multiple, independent streams of information. The intelligence community estimates that 100 to 150 people have died from detected chemical weapons attacks in Syria to date; however, casualty data is likely incomplete. While the lethality of these attacks make up only a small portion of the catastrophic loss of life in Syria, which now stands at more than 90,000 deaths, the use of chemical weapons violates international norms and crosses clear red lines that have existed within the international community for decades. We believe that the Assad regime maintains control of these weapons. We have no reliable, corroborated reporting to indicate that the opposition in Syria has acquired or used chemical weapons. 

The body of information used to make this intelligence assessment includes reporting regarding Syrian officials planning and executing regime chemical weapons attacks; reporting that includes descriptions of the time, location, and means of attack; and descriptions of physiological symptoms that are consistent with exposure to a chemical weapons agent. Some open source reports from social media outlets from Syrian opposition groups and other media sources are consistent with the information we have obtained regarding chemical weapons use and exposure. The assessment is further supported by laboratory analysis of physiological samples obtained from a number of individuals, which revealed exposure to sarin. Each positive result indicates that an individual was exposed to sarin, but it does not tell us how or where the individuals were exposed or who was responsible for the dissemination.

There was a prompt push back from Syria and Russia. And it is important to keep in mind that the UN fact finding mission does have evidence of rebel use of chemical weapons. We know this from Carla Del Ponte's statement in May. The portion of Rhodes' statement that deals with this is ridiculously weak. "We believe that the Assad regime maintains control of these weapons. We have no reliable, corroborated reporting to indicate that the opposition in Syria has acquired or used chemical weapons." One can easily imagine a situation where a deserter grabs a cache of canisters on his way out the door.

No, it appears that this is all just status quo. And the status quo favors the Syrian government. The opposition has no answer for the more highly motivated fighting forces of the government and its Hezbollah allies. Antitank guns will not change this; a no-fly zone would, but this does not appear to be in the offing.

An interesting portion of the Mazzetti et al. story is the growing impatience of the rancid Arab monarchies with Obama:

But the president’s caution has frayed relations with important American allies in the Middle East that have privately described the White House strategy as feckless. Saudi Arabia and Jordan recently cut the United States out of a new rebel training program, a decision that American officials said came from the belief in Riyadh and Amman that the United States has only a tepid commitment to supporting rebel groups. 

Moreover, the United Arab Emirates declined to host a meeting of allied defense officials to discuss Syria, concerned that in the absence of strong American leadership the conference might degenerate into bickering and finger-pointing among various gulf nations with different views on the best ways to support the rebellion.

It's safe to assume that Obama's approval of small arms will be followed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar moving to provide the jihadi heavier weapons.

On top of this there is the filthy spectacle of the flaccid Bill Clinton doing his Gulf paymasters' bidding and shilling for more rebel weapons. (See also Colum Lynch's Turtle Bay blog.)

Adding to those voices was former President Bill Clinton, who earlier this week endorsed a more robust American intervention in Syria to help the rebels, aligning himself with hawks like Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who fault Mr. Obama for his reluctance to get entangled in the war. 

Speaking on Tuesday at a private session in New York with Mr. McCain, Mr. Clinton said, “Sometimes it’s best to get caught trying, as long as you don’t overcommit.”

Clinton has a knack for fomenting war. Think about Yugoslavia in 1999. Clinton took his high approval ratings following the GOP impeachment and went to war against a country trying to put down an internal uprising that was stoked by foreign intelligence agencies. Today Kosovo is a failed state held together by UN assistance; it is known for exports of harvested organs and prostitutes.