Our favored candidate shows time and time again that on many issues his stand is indistinguishable from that of McCain's or 99% of other U.S. politicians. Not surprising perhaps, but disappointing. The U.S. response to events like those taking place in the former Soviet republic of Georgia is essentially out of the C.I.A. and State Department play book. Only U.S. citizens seem to accept uncritically the pronouncements made and the interpretations presented by our politicians and most of our press as well.
The candidate of change is adjusting his stands in such a manner as to raise a real question as to where the promised change will manifest itself. Hopefully, it will be in those areas rarely mentioned in the torrent of words that accompanies a campaign, namely, in the nature of the appointments Barama will make. The way he fills government posts, judgeships and the personnel of the Justice Department will hopefully stem the descent into the vortex of privatization and the dismantling of the role of government that we have been treated to for almost thirty years now. Perhaps we will once again have viable institutions in the FDA, the FCC, the EPA and all the other branches of government that Americans once expected to protect their interests against the greed of large corporations and the know-nothingism of the extreme right. On events in South Ossetia, however...When Kosovo, a district of Serbia viewed by the Serbians as their spiritual heartland declared its independence, the U.S. did not pause for a moment to recognize the rogue province. This, of course, may have something to do with the fact that Kosovo is home to the largest U.S. military institution on the planet, Camp Bondsteel, and occupies a strategic location with regard to oil. This has been the pattern of U.S. policy since the very origins of the break-up of Yugoslavia into warring independent states. The U.S., after making some silly noises about keeping the peace, encouraged the dissolution of the country by encouraging Croatia and Slovenia in their independence movements. Now, if one applied similar standards, one might expect the U.S. to support the people of South Ossetia--who already had autonomy on paper--from assaults by the Georgian government. Instead, we hear talk about respecting the sovereignty of Georgia and cries for an immediate Security Council session. I fail to see how this does not represent an obvious double standard. Georgia, of course, is even closer to the oil production centers and thus a natural candidate as far as the U.S. is concerned for entry into NATO. Not surprisingly, the Russians are a little sensitive about having yet another of their sattelite states turn into a U.S. satellite. While this gets worked out, there is the inevitable death of innocents.
Respected news venues like PBS' Nightly News now handle such issues by having discussions between two or three respondents either from the realm of journalism, academia or politics whose views are virtually indistinguishable. Sometimes, it seems that the C.I.A. guy is debating the State Department guy. The full parameters of debate from, as they say, A to B. While we go through these charades in the marketplace of discourse, most of the rest of the world's instinctive reaction is that events like those taking place in South Ossetia have the fingerprints of U.S. covert operations all over them. It is a tired game, but is, sadly, one Senator Obama seems to have learned how to play all too quickly and readily.