In Ukraine, West Again Defines Democracy According to its
Interests (Global Times, China)
Do the United States and the West have a tendency to apply the word 'democracy' to revolutions they approve of, and 'oppression' when they do not? Here, Beijing is careful not to be too supportive of Russia, so as not to encourage its own separatists, and not to resort to its harshest rhetoric against the West, so as not to put off its largest trade partners. According to this editorial from the state-run Global Times, the crisis in Ukraine is just the latest occasion in which the West's famous double standards are at work.
On
Tuesday, Kiev authorities launched an "anti-terrorist operation"
against "pro-Russian" armed forces in the eastern city Kramatorsk.
This opens a Pandora's box, with Ukrainian forces bloodily quelling the
pro-Russian faction. The escalation of the conflict puts Ukraine on the verge
of civil war. The annexation of Crimea was clear and all parties quickly gave their
tacit consent to the outcome. However, if competition among parties in
Ukraine's eastern region is fully unleashed, the consequences are likely to be
uncontrollable.
The
crushing of rebels by the new Kiev administration shares similarities with the
February crackdown on protesters who occupied Ukraine's Maiden Square. However,
when then Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych ordered a crackdown on
demonstrators, he was beset by denunciations and threats, since the West
considered the order "bloody" and "inhumane."
This
time, however, Western public opinion has been sympathetic and understanding toward
Kiev's military operation against the eastern rebels. Yanukovych was
"suppressing democracy," while the acting Kiev authorities are said
to be carrying out legitimate state rights.
In
Ukraine, domestic politics have become entangled with geopolitical interests.
What can be called "democratic," and what is "anti-democratic?"
How can we distinguish "oppression" from "safeguarding
order?" These are not judged by objective standards, but by the power and
influence of those doing the judging.
Thanks
to the strength of its soft power, the West is able to define global conflicts.
Rather than being based on facts, the West judges based on its own interests.
That is why crackdowns in Ukraine - the one in February, and the other on
Tuesday, have resulted in sharply differing Western reactions. Double standards
like this have been regularly used by the West.
Revolutions,
when occurring in countries with tense relations with the West, are considered "democratic."
However, if the same situation occurs in pro-Western countries, protesters are
viewed as "radical."
Because
Western interests have penetrated the entire system of global discourse, terms like
"democracy" and "human rights" are thrown into the mix whenever
the West wants to impose its will on the world. For developing countries,
restoring the true meaning to these terms is a daunting challenge.
Posted By Worldmeets.US
The
"democratic revolution" backed by the West over the past few decades
has rarely brought about prosperity and stability, and the future of such
revolutionary countries is unclear. One thing iscertain, however: these "democratic
revolutions" have removed impediments for the West to realize its geopolitical
ambitions. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Ukraine found itself
at the forefront of the geopolitical competition between the West and Russia. Only
from the perspective of geopolitics can we understand the events in Ukraine.
