Special to Times of Oman
Why is Washington so opposed to Crimean self-determination? The answer is that one of the main purposes of Washington's coup in Kiev was to have the new puppet government evict Russia from its Black Sea naval base in Crimea. Washington cannot use the government Washington has installed in Ukraine for that purpose if Crimea is no longer part of Ukraine.
What Washington has made completely obvious is that "self-determination" is a weapon used by Washington in behalf of its agenda. If self-determination advances Washington's agenda, Washington is for it. If self-determination does not advance Washington's agenda, Washington is against it.
The Washington-initiated UN Security Council resolution, vetoed by Russia, falsely declares that the referendum in Crimea, a referendum demanded by the people, "can have no validity, and cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status of Crimea; and calls upon all States, international organisations and specialised agencies not to recognise any alteration of the status of Crimea on the basis of this referendum and to refrain from any action or dealing that might be interpreted as recognising any such altered status."
Washington could not make it any clearer that Washington totally opposes self-determination by Crimeans. Washington claims, falsely, that the referendum cannot be valid unless the entire population of Ukraine votes and agrees with the decision by Crimeans. Note that when Washington stole Kosovo from Serbia, Washington did not let Serbians vote.
But overlook Washington's rank hypocrisy and self-serving double-standards. Let's apply Washington's argument that in order to be valid any change in Crimea's status requires a vote on the part of the population of the country that it departs. If this is the case, then Crimea has never been a part of Ukraine.
Under Washington' s interpretation of international law, Ukraine is still a part of Russia. When Khrushchev transferred Crimea (but not Sevastopol, the Black Sea base) to Ukraine, Russians did not get to vote. Therefore, according to Washington's own logic it is invalid to recognise Crimea as part of Ukraine. That also goes for other parts of Russia that Lenin transferred to Ukraine.
Under the logic of Washington's UN resolution, large parts of Ukraine are not legitimately part of Ukraine. They have remained parts of Russia, because Russians were not allowed to vote on their transfer to Ukraine. Thus, there is no issue about "Russia annexing Crimea," because, according to Washington's logic, Crimea is still a part of Russia.
Do you need any more proof that the Ukrainian crisis is made up out of thin air by schemers in Washington who created the entire crisis for one purpose — to weaken Russia militarily?
No one was surprised that the New York Times published on March 14 the warmongering rant, written by neoconservatives for John McCain, which described Washington's aggression in Ukraine as Russia's aggression.
The US government overthrows an elected democratic Ukrainian government and then accuses Russia of "invading and annexing Crimea" in order to divert attention from Washington's overthrow of Ukrainian democracy. There is no elected government in Kiev. The stooges acting as a government in Kiev were put in office by Washington. Who else choose them?
What surprised some was Rand Paul joining the hysteria. Rand Paul wrote his propagandistic rant against Russia. Rand claims, falsely, that Putin has invaded Crimea and that it is an affront to "the international community." First of all, the decision of Crimea to leave Ukraine is a decision of the Crimean population and the elected government, not a decision by Russia.
But, for the sake of argument, let's take Rand Paul's lie as the truth: Is "Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine a gross violation of that nation's sovereignty and an affront to the international community" like Washington's invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and Washington-sponsored invasions of Libya and Syria, and Washington's on-going slaughter of Pakistanis and Yemenis with drones, and Washington's violation of Iran's sovereignty with illegal sanctions, and Washington's violation of Ukrainian sovereignty by overthrowing the elected government and imposing Washington's stooges?
If Putin is behaving as Rand Paul ignorantly asserts, Putin is just following the precedents established by Clinton in Serbia, by Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq, and by Obama in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.
The author is the former US assistant secretary of the Treasury and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. All the views and opinions expressed in the article are solely those of the author and do not reflect those of Times of Oman.