THE TRUTH In the Afoko case Is Out

Logo of Ghana's Opposition party NPP

By Ekow Mensah

Gradually but surely the truth in the Paul Afoko case is emerging and at the end of the day several party leaders may be exposed as liars.

 First, enquiries by the Insight have established that nobody has asked for Mr Afoto to be disqualified on grounds that he has been convicted before.

The petition before the Vetting Committee of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) only alleges that Mr Afoko spent time in a drug rehabilitation Centre in England.

 All along, Mr. Afoko and his supporters have claimed that the petitioner alleged that he was convicted for his opposition to the Rawlings- led coup of 1981.

They have also claimed that the petitioner alleges that Mr Afoko was convicted for dealing in narcotics.

 Another claim which has fallen flat is that the petitioner is unknown.

In an interview with Radio Gold, Mr. Martin Korsah, Director of elections of the NPP said the petitioner is known.

He claimed that the petitioner provided his or her name and address and hinted that he may not be a stranger.

 According to the “Daily Guide” of Tuesday, February 25, 2014, the NPP has requested for the assistance of Interpol to verify the allegations against Mr Afoko.

 This is clear evidence that the vetting committee chaired by a retired Supreme Court Judge is taking the allegations seriously.

The balloting for slots in the contest for national chairmanship of the party has been put on hold pending the outcome of the investigations into the allegations against Mr Afoko.

Some party insiders say that Mr.  Afoko is clearly in the lead in the contest for the leadership of the party. 

Mr Afoko has publicly denied all the allegations against him and urged his supporters to remain firm.

Editorial

Dangerious

 Last week, two stories made the headlines.

One was the story of a woman who allegedly gave birth to a still born child and has not been able to bury the baby because the body cannot be found .

The second is the story of three female students of the University of Ghana who alleged stole panties at the Accra Mall and were subjected to degrading treatment.

It has eventually turned out that the girls may not have stolen the panties after all.

What is striking is that religious, regional and ethnic twists are being given to these two incidents in a most reckless manner.

There are some social commentators who have said that the police is not pursuing the case of the woman who allegedly lost her baby because she is a muslin and a northerner.

What absurdity?

 Are we going to reduce everything to ethnicity and religion?

 Can Ghana survived this craze of rising ethnicity and religion?

The point is that the three girls and the mother, who allegedly lost her child at birth, all have rights which must be enforced.

 The rising ethnicity and religious bigotry is most dangerous.

WHO HAS DONE THIS?

By Kwasi Koffi

Resident of Weija  are lived with anger over the granting of a permit to a Chinese company , Ding Fan Lin to build what is described as a warehouse in a residential area.

The permit was granted by the Ga South Minicipal Assembly.

Although the facility is described as a warehouse, its features suggest that it is a factory of some sort.

The worst part is that the project is on land owned by a Ghanaian widow and it is being carried out without her consent.

The Environmental Protection Agency for Accra West has also issued the company with an environmental permit dated January 30, 2014.

Residents say that the sitting of the structure in a residential area could pose substantial risks to them.

NKRUMAISM IS THE KEY FOR A SOCIALIST REVOLUTION IN AFRICA.

Osagyefo Dr Kwame Nkrumah

By John Osei-Poku

If we, the peasant and workers of this Ghana are to maintain our hard won independence, attain our economic objectives and assist our brothers still under the yoke of western imperialism to achieve nationhood, we have got to stand firm as united men and women behind the cause of Osagyefo the President, and thus, retain our revolutionary spirit.

Nkrumaism, the key for permanent revolution in Africa, in the sense, must mean to us a revolution which makes no compromise with any single form of foreign domination, which does not stop at democratic stage, which goes over to socialist measures and to war against reaction from without, that is a revolution whose every successive stage is rooted in the preceding one and which can end only in the complex liquidation of imperialism and neo-colonialism.

  We have to agree that democracy is not a regime that remains self sufficient for decades, but is only a direct prelude to the socialist revolution. There is established between the democratic revolution and the socialist reconstruction of society a permanent state of revolutionary development. This means the second aspect of the permanent theory has to do with the socialist revolution as such.

For an indefinitely long time and constant internal struggle, all social relations undergo transformation.

Society keeps on changing its skin.

Each stage of transformation stems directly from the preceding. This process necessarily retains a political character, that is, it develops through collisions between various groups in the society which is in transformation.

Outbreaks of political differences and foreign intervention alternate with periods of peaceful reform. 

Revolution in economy, technique, science, the family morals and everyday life develop in complex reciprocal action and do not allow society to achieve equilibrium.  Therein lays the permanent character of the socialist revolution as such.

Once having seized revolutionary power through the initiative of Osagyefo the President, we should not make the fate of the revolution depends upon the passing moods of the least conscious, not yet awaken masses at any given moment, but that on the contrary, we must turn the political power concentrated in our hands into a mighty apparatus for the enlightenment and organisation of the masses.

We have to use the situation as the ruling class not for the rapid surrender of our positions to the neo-colonialist but for rendering powerful assistance to the proletarian revolution in Africa.

While we Ghanaians continue our fight under the leadership of Osagyefo, the president, for the complete liquidation of imperialism and neo-colonialism from our country and the whole continent of Africa, we still maintain our revolutionary spirit to arm our country with powerful industries.

Under Nkrumaism, we Ghanaians believe that industrialization of our counry is the key to success.

We believe that industriliasation means first of all the strengthening of the base of the proletariat as a ruling class. Simultaneously we believe it creates the materials and technical premises for the collectivization of agriculture.

The tempos of these two processes are interdependent. The proletariat is interested in the highest possible tempos for these process to the extent that the new society in the making is thus best protected from external danger, and at the same time a source is created for systematically improving the material level of the toiling masses.

However, we are conscious of the fact that the tempos that can be achieved are limited by the general material and cultural level of the country, by the relationship between the city and the village and by the most pressing needs of the masses, who are able to sacrifice their today for the sake of tomorrow.

But under the leadership of Osagyefo the President, we have the belief that our slogan “work and happiness” will lead us to victory. Osagyefo understands that the optimum tempos, the best and most advantageous ones are those which not only promote the most rapid growth of industries and the collectivization of a given moment, but which also secure the necessary stability of social regime, that is first of all strengthening the alliance of the workers and peasants, thereby preparing the possibility for the future success.

From this standpoint, of decisive significance is the general historical criterion in accordance with which the Party and state leadership direct economic development by means of planning.

The links in the long chains of social progress or industrial development or commercial policy are what the Osagyefo and the Party is striving hard to have it sought out and fitted together in the interest of our great country.

It is a question, therefore, not spectres of the past, not of the remnants of what no longer exists, not short, of the suns of yesteryears, but new mighty and continually rebel tendencies which we must stand firm all the days and years to fight against until mother Africa is free.

We the Nkrumaists believe that culture feed upon the juices of industry, and material excess is necessary in order that culture should grow, refine and complicate itself is therefore our aim to industrialize our country through the guidance of our great leader and with the revolutionary spirit we have gained since we took up the struggle. It is with this aim that we have succeeded in the Africanisation policy.

Under Nkrumaism, Osagyefo`s leadership made us to understand that only the masses actual participation in administration of their own destiny can at each new stage draw necessary lines between the demands of economic centralism and the living gravitation of national culture.

We as one people of a great country with bright ideas, believe that dependent character like independent thought cannot develop without criticism. We are therefore working hard as a team under the leadership of Osagyefo the President, to prove to our fellow brothers in other parts of Africa that Nkrumaism, as worthy of the name, means human relations without greed, friendship without envy and intrigue, love without base calculation.

It is with this reason why Osagyefo the President pointed out the other day that there could be no co-existence, while imperialist and neo-colonialism antagonisms survive in our continent.

Nkrumaism, the key for a permanent revolution has come to stay in mother Africa and it is up to all Africans to emulate its aims and principles.

It is only through the good and efficient interpretation of this ideology could we maintain our revolutionary force till mother Africa is totally free.

(First published in the Evening News Tuesday, April 9, 1963)

Time for US policy change on Cuba

Commandante Fidel Castro

Embargo is embarrassing, anachronistic – and has failed

If a policy is not achieving its objective, either the policy must change or the objective. For more than 50 years the US has sought to suffocate communism and promote democracy in Cuba through sanctions. Last November Barack Obama admitted this outdated policy had failed. “We have to be creative . . . to continue to update our policies,” he told a Miami fundraising event. The intellectual case for relaxing and eventually removing the embargo is certainly strong. Mr Obama should now advance it. 

The moment has never been more propitious for a fresh approach. Change is under way in Cuba, albeit fitfully. Since replacing his elder brother as president in 2008, Raúl Castro has begun a series of economic reforms. While meant to “update socialism” they have introduced elements of a market economy. Some 450,000 Cubans now work as self-employed entrepreneurs. Their position is precarious, and subject to the whims of a totalitarian state, but nonetheless they operate independently of the government. This is a welcome process that should be encouraged.

At the same time, 90 miles away across the Florida straits, opposition to lifting the embargo is crumbling. This month Alfonso Fanjul, patriarch of a pre-revolutionary sugar dynasty, broke with elite exile opinion by saying he had travelled to Cuba twice, spoken to officials and would invest in the island “under the right circumstances”. A few days later a poll by the Atlantic Council found that a majority of Americans and even Cuban-Americans favoured normalising relations. Bilateral co-operation on migration, the environment and countering narcotics is already good. 

Meanwhile, the EU is seeking a new approach to Cuba, and all of Latin America has normal relations. For some countries in the region, this is a cheap way to thumb their nose at the “gringos”. For others it represents a sincere desire to increase the chances of a soft landing.

This is in everyone’s interests, especially Cuba’s closest neighbour, the US. Opening to Cuba now would improve US standing in the region, while accelerating the possibility of change, especially given the troubles of Cuba’s main benefactor, Venezuela. Mr Obama has eased some restrictions on travel and remittances. He needs to go further. Although lifting the embargo fully requires an act of Congress, he has some executive powers at his disposal.

Travel restrictions for US citizens should be lifted; the list of authorised exports, currently only food and medicine, expanded; commercial activity with private businesses encouraged; and Cuba removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Havana has played a crucial role in Colombia’s peace talks; Cuba’s continued inclusion, which brings tough financial strictures, makes a mockery of the list.

The aim of the new approach is simple. The more restrictions there are on the island, the less Cubans have and the more subservient they become to whoever dispenses it – currently the state. Creating economic space therefore creates freedom. At the same time, engagement does not mean ending support for human rights or political liberalisation. Rather it provides a more credible context for criticism.

Mr Obama may suffer political blowback from any new approach. Cuba remains an emotional issue. Yet engagement is not appeasement, except as Winston Churchill once put it: “Appeasement has its place in all policy. Make sure you put it in the right place. Appease the weak; defy the strong.” It recognises that the constituency for reform within the regime is thin, and needs to be encouraged from outside. It also accepts that rebuilding democracy in a country that last had free elections in 1948 may be an uncertain process – and that policy must begin where you are, not where you hope to end. 

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2014. You may share using our article tools.
Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Civil war brewing in Ukraine?

By Ramin mazaheri

Ukraine, one of the poorest nations in Europe, stands on the brink of civil war as a protest over center-right voters and progressive reformers was taken over by separatists.

What’s worse, no matter what is finally agreed upon, Ukraine remains close to economic bankruptcy and (the historical norm in recent centuries) – ripe pawns for West European oligarchs. 

From the outside looking in, one must fault the EU-US tandem perhaps more than Russia. The EU has no intention of letting Ukraine into their union immediately and also no intention of extending visa-free Schengen travel. Unless all 28 members unanimously agree to reverse this current policy (as required by the body’s regulations), the EU’s meddling appears designed only to exacerbate Ukraine’s horrific turmoil, and also to weaken their closest geographical competitor - Russia.

Because the EU’s offer back in November was so paltry – simply 827-million-dollar chance to flood Ukraine’s markets with superior goods and eager, fat-pocketed businessmen – it is regrettable that they felt justified to immediately interfere with sanctions the day after the first two protesters were killed on Maidan Square. Instead of sanctions, their choice as a clearly disinterested observer should have been privileging dialogue, and only privileging dialogue.

But in the West, from politicians to journalists down the line, there has been an unquestioning policy of three tenets: 1. The democratically-elected Ukrainian government must be toppled, 2. Whatever Russia wants is wrong and morally reprehensible, and 3. Self-aggrandizing flattery that without reservation the average Ukrainian wants to join the EU. All three tenets are false at worst and only self-serving half-truths at best. 

Ukraine is undoubtedly torn: the center-right and far-right parties who fill Maidan Square want to turn westward. But there are vast silent masses, perhaps even the silent majority - certainly the dominant view in the nation’s east and southern Crimean regions - who want to remain close to Russia. 

And Russia’s offer of a $15 billion bailout appears to have been a far, far better option for Ukraine back in November. Russia’s additional offer of inclusion in their Eurasian customs union would be far better for Ukraine than being a dumping ground for the vastly richer EU; from being plundered by EU austerity as a pre-condition to a not-even-offered inclusion.

Focusing on the reality of the deals offered to Ukraine is a must, because many others are trying to get others to focus instead on the nation’s regional, linguistic or religious rivalries. No one can deny such rivalries exist (which seem to be quite common in nations with 46 million people), but focusing on these so-called “unresolvable differences” would be to apply the same limited worldview which has shaped the West’s terrible, destructive policy in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, the Central African Republic, Mali and elsewhere. Furthermore, this worldview serves to help outsiders “divide and conquer,” and Ukraine may certainly be, unfortunately, on the road to division. 

A word here on the much discredited idea of nationalism: Nationalism for a powerful nation-state is a conceit, but in a nation like Ukraine the tolerance of true patriotism is needed to prevent the nation from splitting, from weakening and to avoid being the continued pawns of more powerful neighbors like the EU and Russia. With so much appearing already lost, Ukraine needs a true, all-embracing sense of nationalism to stop the bloodshed and further extremism.

Returning to our previous subject - the actual choices Ukraine had offered to them in November - we can see how many Ukrainians believe that the Yanukovych government made a logical decision to choose Moscow’s package over Brussels’. The EU made a paltry offer, and the media are currently filled in France, Germany and the English-speaking world with the phrase “a lost opportunity for the EU.” Indeed, it was a bad, short-sighted offer that was justifiably rejected.

Many in Ukraine, contrary to Western media portrayals, already understand this. And time will surely see the rise of counter-protests to the shockingly violent tactics of the current right-wing protesters. Journalism is often just the business of predicting, and we can count on counter-protests in a nation so undeniably divided even before the Maidan Square.

But the free-market, capitalist, trade union building-burning, westward-facing protesters would have none of it: not more dialogue, not following constitutional law, not peaceful protests. Strong descriptors, but why have the reforming progressives given way to the nationalists bent on exterminating Russian influence? Where were the center-right refomers when Yanukovych was (already) voted out of office unanimously by Parliament, and without even the slightest pretense of due process? Of course, Ukraine’s constitution had many levers for a legal impeachment, but they were not followed, which is another discredit to the progressive protesters. 

Is Yanukovych responsible for the terrible deaths of dozens of protesters (and also the deaths of policemen, as well)? That is for a Ukrainian court to decide, and not an outside journalist, thankfully. 

But, one only imagines what the response in Western nations would be to protesters “occupying” a capital square for three months. Considering that in the US protesters usually went from the bus to the protest directly to a bus headed to jail, I guess we’ll never know. And we can only imagine how powerful Western police forces would respond to three months of “occupiers” who then chose to arm themselves with Kalashnikovs and handguns.

Because even the most radical proponents of immediate political change have to ask themselves: When does the rule of law come into play? In Ukraine, after three months the police were authorized to use force, resulting in dozens of protester deaths. That’s unacceptable, yet we struggle to answer questions of when a state can justifiably use lethal force without losing its president and constitution: All I can honestly say is that for some it is sooner than for others, but for others it is not at all.

But, sidestepping this difficult moral question, this is why it’s clear that what we have right now in Ukraine is a violent revolution – it is not a “velvet” one. Unfortunately, cooler heads did not prevail, and interested onlookers wonder how such violence will improve Ukraine’s quagmire of a national situation.

Will the protesters have effectuated major change? At this point, it seems unlikely. Ukraine is still stuck between a rock – the wary EU – and a hard place – an often self-interested Russia.

Regarding the EU, the coming days will see if they will actually radically change their offer to Ukraine. They are talking about a new, $20 billion IMF loan (with the usual society-crushing strings attached, of course: Reduced pensions, higher taxes on the people, more tax breaks for businesses, more privatization, more “outside investment” and selling off of sectors of the Ukraine’s economy).  But why would all of Ukraine choose this offer if they aren’t also offered membership into the EU or at least the chance to join the Schengen visa space? Nobody expects the EU will budget on either.

As far as Russia is concerned, not only are they not likely to invade but they are probably laughing from the perch in the catbird seat. They know their offer is better: Inclusion in their Eurasian customs union, albeit smaller and less appealing to the progressive protesters, but without the society-crushing demands of EU austerity. 

And what if Ukraine decides for neither? That’s the choice of the nationalist elements – unrepentant National Socialists, the ancestors of the Western Ukrainians who fought alongside Hitler. The neo-Nazis who want to crush Russian influence and also despise the EU. Like all rabid nationalists, they feel their country is so wonderfully perfect that they need neither allies, nor immigrants, nor modern protections for minorities (in Ukraine’s case, they are calling for outlawing the Communist Party and are rabidly anti-Semitic.).

Let’s hope the nationalists do not win, even though that currently seems to be the case. To review: Sevastopol is refusing to pay taxes to Kiev, which has declared its autonomy; provincial governors are throwing their hands up and resigning over the “complex political situation in the country;”  the former right-wing protesters are now in charge, with Yanukovych’s party and the Communists formally switching places to become the declared opposition to the new, self-appointed “government”;  the poor EU-secessionists in the Ukraine’s west are not wanted by Brussels, while the richer Ukrainian East and South are adamantly in favor of their old ally in Moscow. This list goes on and on and on it only spells two words: civil war. 

So Ukraine is quite stuck, but the EU’s constant fomenting of the protests and their failure to privilege dialogue (which is the same role, of course, as the US) is clearly open to greater charges of meddling and of Machiavellian maneuvers which may only serve to split, and thus weaken, Ukraine and its people.]

Ukraine has been raped, beheaded, dismembered. What's next?

 By Lyuba Lulko

 Is a guarantee that there is no conspiracy against Ukraine between Germany, Poland and Russia? As a result of certain events going on in the country, the Crimean Peninsula would be handed over to the Russian Federation, the land that belonged to Poland before 1939 would be handed over to Warsaw, while Germany would take control of the west of Ukraine. These were the ideas expressed by retired colonel Alexander Musienko.

Alexander Musienko took part in combat actions in Afghanistan and Chechnya, events in Baku in 1990 and the civil war in Tajikistan in 1992-1993. He told Pravda.Ru that one could have avoided the civil war in Ukraine if the authorities had declared the state of emergency on time. "There would have been victims, 500, 1000, maybe even five thousand casualties. This would have been a terrible tragedy, but it would have prevented much greater sacrifices - dozens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people and the collapse of the state," said Musienko. According to him, the events in Kiev show that Ukraine has not been able to build a state machine in its new history, nor could it do that before, during the times of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, who had to seek assistance from the Russian tsar.

The spineless Ukrainian authorities had the spineless military, the expert said. They formed a generation of military leaders of low and medium level, who could not take responsibility for their actions. They can be prosecuted for executing orders, although it is the officials, who give orders that should be prosecuted.

"In Tajikistan, to restore constitutional order, we once formed a guerrilla movement. Was created the Popular Front of Tajikistan, and a year later, the government of Emomali Rakhmonov was brought to power - the constitutional order was established. In Azerbaijan, in 1990, the conflict was suppressed quickly, as soon as it started. With the help of KGB, special forces of the defense ministry, interior troops, strict order was established quick. A curfew was introduced, and opposition politicians were isolated."

Those were correct actions to make, the expert said, as people need law and order- they do not need chaos. Therefore, the task of any state is to prevent chaos at all costs. And what is happening in Ukraine?

"I was on the phone with Lvov five minutes ago. Ambulance crews do not work, unbridled masked militants walk around the city wielding batons and weapons. This is anarchy. Looting, robbery, rape - this is chaos, and people were left defenseless."
"The events in Egypt, Syria, Yugoslavia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and even in Russia on Bolotnaya Square - this is one and the same scenario, where identical technology is used," said the expert.

There is no counteraction to such technologies because of the amateurish  approach of the administration. "Unfortunately, no one asked specialists who have the knowledge and experience," Musienko said. According to him, in November 1994, it was possible to avoid bloodshed in Grozny, Chechnya, after which the first Chechen war started. "If they had used the technology that was used in Tajikistan in 1992, the first Chechen war wouldn't have happened, let alone the second war," he said.

As for Ukraine, the Ukrainian coup was administered by well-trained people, who used, among other things, the crowd effect, when two or three instigators start to generate and maintain aggression. The less aggressive the other party answers, the more aggression they show.

What does Berkut do? On the contrary, Berkut provokes the crowd. They shoot rubber bullets at protesters, and real bullets fly back at them. If Berkut fighters had used military weapons against snipers, leaders and those, who shoot most, the events that we can now see in Ukraine wouldn't have happened," said Musienko. 

The expert believes that Russia should intervene in the situation in Ukraine. "If the Americans intervene, if London intervenes, if Berlin intervenes, why Russia, having a common border with Ukraine, should not interfere? On the Russian side, this is not intervention - this is help. From the side of the West - this is nothing but intervention," the expert believes.

Musienko does not see anyone among opposition, with whom one could negotiate. "They are not responsible for the situation. They just flatter themselves with their ability to control everything. As a matter of fact, the situation in Ukraine is absolutely out of control."

"Human what-not on Maidan can not be controlled, and the crowd is on the offensive. The offensive position always wins. One can not win being in defense - let's face it. Unfortunately, many politicians and political scientists forget about it, and we can eventually see what we see. The militants who got to know the taste of blood are extremists. They will not listen to anyone, they can only careless about Yatsenyuk and Klitschko. They just do their shady business. They revel in anarchy, looting, violence, the possibility of taking people's lives," said the colonel. All this story with the European Union, in his opinion, is just an excuse to topple Yanukovych.

Musienko put forward a conspiracy theory about the events in Ukraine. Some believe that there was plan between Russia and Georgia for Georgia to annex South Ossetia and Abkhazia will go to Russia. "But the Georgian artillery captain (Saakashvili) was not warned that one should not shoot at Russian peacekeepers. So there was a situation, when Russia deployed troops. Then, Sarkozy, who could contribute to the partition, became an umpire and reconciled Russia and Georgia."

"Where is a guarantee that there is no similar collusion about Ukraine? There is an opinion that as a result of political events in Ukraine the Crimea will go to Russia. The land that belonged to Poland before 1939 will be handed over back to Poland, and the western part of Ukraine will be given under the protectorate of Germany. Respectively, southern or eastern regions of Ukraine turn to Russia for help."

Musienko believes that the deployment of occupying or peacekeeping forces in Ukraine will cause only another round of escalation. "I believe that the deployment of German, Polish or Russian troops in Ukraine is absolutely out of the question. It would be a mistake, but maybe someone wants it. We understand that there is a backroom struggle, there are geopolitical agreements that define the role and place for every subject. But we can only guess about it," retired Colonel Musienko said.

Obama: Boring and meaningless

US President Hussein Obama

By Lyuba Lulko

U.S. President Barack Obama is very active in condemning the actions of the authorities in Venezuela, Ukraine, and Syria. Yet, he does not see the deaths in similar circumstances in Egypt, Bahrain, or Thailand. This is not a political shortsightedness but an elaborate chess game participation in which Obama is denying. Or is he not cynical and believes in what he says?

"Our approach as the United States is not to see these as some Cold War chessboard in which we're in competition with Russia," Obama said on Wednesday speaking at the summit of the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in Toluca, Mexico. "Our goal is to make sure that the people of Ukraine are able to make decisions for themselves about their future, that the people of Syria are able to make decisions without having bombs going off and killing women and children ... because a despot wants to cling to power," said the President who recently was willing to kill Syrian women and children.

"My hope is at this point that a truce may hold but ... ultimately the government is responsible for making sure that we shift toward some sort of unity government, even if it's temporary, that allows us to move to fair and free elections so that the will of the Ukrainian people can be rightly expressed without the kinds of chaos we've seen on the streets," Obama said. These recommendations are interference in the internal affairs of another country. What court has proven that previous elections were not free?

Even more inadequate are the statements made ​​by his subordinates. "I have long stopped trying to guess what is on the mind of the Russian leadership," said one State Department official to RIA-Novosti. Nevertheless, for some reason she is convinced that the interests of Moscow and Washington on the Ukrainian issue are largely the same: "Don't we have a common interest in the restoration of Ukraine, stability and political unity, protecting the integrity of the state?" Perhaps the interests are common, but the means to achieve them are quite different. The U.S. does not realize that unbridled support of Bandera followers is dangerous for them because they are professional terrorists in many things are worse than al-Qaeda.

However, U.S. sanctions are not imposed against the parties "Freedom", "Fatherland" and "HIT" but against 20 Ukrainian officials who are trying to keep away terrorists operating according to the Syrian scenario.

In Toluca Obama turned his eyes to Venezuela, where riots that led to the deaths of six people have been ongoing for over a week. While so far the scale is still far from the Ukrainian, the scenario and methods are the same. Even the recommendations of Obama who demanded that the government of Nicolas Maduro addresses the legitimate demands of their people instead of distracting their attention by the expulsion of U.S. diplomats on false accusations are similar. Obama called for the release of detainees and engaging in a "constructive dialogue" with them.

Why did the U.S. president say nothing about Thailand where people are dying in the fight against the government? Why did he not impose sanctions against the Egyptian officials and General Abdel Fattah Sisi, responsible for the coup that killed over 550 people? Obama only canceled joint military exercises, said some standard phrases about regretting the victims and said that America could not determine the future of Egypt, it was up to the Egyptian people, and added that the U.S. did not take the side of any political party or political figures. 

However, Nicolas Maduro, unlike Viktor Yanukovych, is clearly assessing the situation and is acting tough. He arrested the main opposition, expelled three American diplomats in 48 hours and said that the developments in Ukraine had the same sponsors who prepared activists for the unrest in Venezuela. Foreign Minister Elias Hawa accused U.S. officials at different levels of assisting paramilitary groups and their financing through front organizations.

"All statements of Obama, Kerry and other U.S. officials are boring and meaningless," told Pravda.Ru Vitaly Tretyakov, editor in chief of Political Class. "No other country intervenes in the internal affairs of other countries more than the U.S. does. No country in the world has bombed more than the Americans bombed. Perhaps Russian diplomats, politicians, and high-level authorities should intervene to tell them that this is what they do, but it does not merit a serious discussion," said Tretyakov.

"American politicians are divided into two types. The first one believes their own fairy tales, the rosy one about themselves and the dirty about everyone else. The second type is the cynical one, they know that their words are not true, but say them anyway. I do not rule out that Obama belongs to the first type, but for us there is no big difference. In a recent statement, he said that the Ukrainian army should not interfere, or else. That is, the Ukrainian army has no right to interfere in the internal affairs of Ukraine and the U.S. has this right to interfere in the internal affairs of Yugoslavia and Ukraine. The Americans do not understand the absurdity of their statements, and, unfortunately, it is the most powerful country with a strong network of military bases, NGOs, secret Service, and it intervenes in every way, from moralizing to bombings. There is no need to listen to them, we have to protect our own interests," concluded Vitaly Tretyakov.

The last phrase is key. All this would be boring and meaningless if it were not that scary. It appears that a new wave of color revolutions is being prepared, now at the global scale. Who's next, Brazil, India, or Russia?

Ukraine: A call for responsibility

By Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Calling for the West to act responsibly is arguably the same as asking a bawling drunkard screaming obscenities to be quiet after a skinful of spirits and paramount to requesting a serial rapist to just stop. However, this is no time for quips and very much the time for some skilful diplomacy over early recognition of actors in a Putsch.

The last week has shown that the Law is only enforceable when it has a consensus to support or respect it. We saw how the kidnapping and illegal detention of Slobodan Milosevic took place against international, Yugoslav Federal and Serbian National law after a decision was made by a fraction of the Parliament, we see a copy-paste of the same situation in Ukraine, where another hasty decision was made by Parliament without the presence of the largest political party.

How then can Washington and the European Union refer to Oleksandr Turchynov as "Interim President" with any seriousness, since he appointed himself and had the decision ratified by an incomplete Parliament without the presence of the largest party? For now, Turchynov is an imposter, the leader of an illegal Putsch which claims power, riding on the crest of a wave of violence perpetrated by thugs, Fascists and agents provocateurs, many from outside Ukraine, most from Western Ukraine. Turchynov may as well proclaim himself King of the Planet Woppo, and there will be the European Union crawling up his anatomy.
If the European Union and Washington wish to recognize the leader of a Putsch as President of a country, then it comes as no surprise, for the EU also negotiates exploitation rights with Morocco for fisheries and minerals in Western Sahara, which Morocco annexed and which it holds as occupying power, illegally.

Recognition of a faction as the legal representative of a country, devoid of any Constitutional or legal foundation, sets a dangerous precedent, and is the epitome of irresponsible behavior which can create a scenario for things to escalate. Had the West acted differently in the case of Yugoslavia, then the Balkans Wars could have been avoided.

What matters in the case of the Ukraine, and fundamentally, is the welfare of the Ukrainian people as a whole, including all ethnic minorities and ethnic groups - otherwise what is the justification for the territorial integrity of the country? And the welfare of all Ukrainians means all foreign powers should be very careful before they jump the gun and start recognizing dubious figures as being the legal representatives of something they are not. So, quite what Catherine Ashton thinks she is doing in Kiev, today, recognizing the leader of a Putsch, defies logic.

While the media is quick to reiterate the words of another self-proclaimed figure, that of Arsen Avakov as "Interior Minister", stating that an arrest warrant has been issued for Viktor Yanukovich for "mass murder of peaceful citizens", let us go deeper. After seeing the images of what gangs of thugs were doing, for weeks, before they started shooting at the police force, then if these are images of how peaceful citizens behave in the Ukraine, God protect us from the violent ones. Arsen Avakov's comments, then, are an insult to police forces everywhere, laying down their lives to keep the peace.

A correct reading of the situation would be that the police were fired on by protesters, that protesters were fired on by other protesters to incriminate the police and that certain rogue elements within the police used live rounds to defend themselves or to retaliate. Lamentable, lamentable, lamentable in all three cases but if armed thugs are shooting at the police, what happens, in any country?

And here is the crux of the matter. Almost one hundred Ukrainians have lost their lives over the last days - students, police, thugs alike - and before the party escalates into a riot, people like Catherine Ashton should be made aware of the Fascist elements among those opposed to Yanukovich. Confirming the status of those from the fringes of politics, such as the "deputy leader" of a political party long in opposition to President Yanukovich, the one Ashton refers to as "Interim president", is more than likely to exacerbate the situation and create an imbalance which can see more violence and this, surely, has to be the first priority as something to avoid.

There are some very dark and dangerous forces in Ukraine, some self-proclaimed racists who have vowed to combat "Russians and Jews", for instance, followers of Fascist movements which were born by Ukrainians supporting Hitler against the Soviet Union. Recognising Putsch leaders and jumping the gun would be paramount to giving Hitler the nod in 1933. And today Jewish leaders advised Ukrainian Jews to leave Kiev.
The Ukrainian people as a whole are resourceful, educated and intelligent and are perfectly able to choose for themselves, under due legal process and Constitutional law - with a properly constituted Parliament for instance - who they wish to represent them.

It is obvious that many of those who are waving banners today have not any idea of the perils of being indebted to the IMF or of receiving European Union bailouts, and have no idea about what will happen if they join the European Union - their jobs will be destroyed, their country colonized by troikas that dictate their policies from Brussels, they will lose their factories, their farms, their fishing fleets.

So, Yanukovich was right to turn more to Russia as an alternative. Whether he was right in how he conducted his internal policy is a question for Ukrainians to answer and nobody else, certainly not Catherine Ashton, but an answer must come from within the law and under the Constitution.

The moral of the story: Recognising a Putsch as a Constitutional exercise in law-making is as sound a decision as appointing a paedophile as a kindergarten teacher. And just as dangerous. Watch this space.