State-Enforced Discrimination and the Ukraine Problem

Black people in the American South experienced a long period of discrimination under Jim Crow, lasting 68 years from Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) to the Civil Rights Act of 1964; or even longer if we go back to earlier Supreme Court decisions in 1873 (Slaughter-House cases) and 1876 (United States v. Cruikshank) that supported racial segregation. Government rulings, federal and state, brought about this intolerable situation.

Because of this history and experience, you might think that the leadership of the U.S. federal government as a matter of principle understand and stand against social and economic discrimination founded upon political power. You might think that politicians who routinely speak against the slightest trace of discrimination, racial and other, here at home would recognize discrimination in countries overseas, note it, speak of it and fashion their policies accordingly. This is not the case. Instead, their principles vanish and other interests of theirs take over. Ukraine is a case in point.

Ukraine has two major ethnic groups: Ukrainian (77.5%) and Russian (17.2%). The Russian community is primarily located in Crimea.

Donetsk and Luhansk are the areas where separatists have declared republics. “But whereas Crimea has an ethnic Russian majority (around 58.5%), Donetsk oblast has an ethnic Ukrainian majority (around 56.9%), with a sizable ethnic Russian minority (around 38.2%). Luhansk has a similar demographic profile — around 58% ethnic Ukrainian and 39% Russian.” (See here.)

The reasons for Crimea’s movement out of Ukraine and into the Russian Federation and for the separation of Donetsk and Luhansk from Ukraine included as one factor perceptions and fears of anti-Russian discrimination by a Kiev heavily influenced by right-wing Ukrainians. These fears were aroused especially after the coup in 2014. Viktor Yanukovych, the President who was chased from office, was from Donetsk oblast. Prior to that, “During the presidency of Viktor Yushchenko (2005–2010) anti-Russian statements became common in the media, in particular, aired by right-wing politicians.” “The right-wing political party ‘Svoboda’,[64][65][69] has invoked radical Russophobic rhetoric[70] (see poster) and has electoral support enough to garner majority support in local councils.”

There has been a longstanding political divide, described in this 2007 article in The Christian Science Monitor: “…the two sides remain separated by language, religious traditions, societal histories, and geopolitical preferences.”

The division is along geographical lines: “In the three eastern provinces, also containing a quarter of the electorate, people are eight times more likely to vote for the ‘Blue’ Party of Regions, headed by Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich, which wants to make Russian the second official language, forge closer economic ties with Russia and stay out of NATO.”

Because of his race, his party and his rhetoric, you might think that Obama would have been sensitive to these divisions and to the fears of discrimination aroused by Ukraine’s revolution; but he was not. His policy was to bring about and encourage the revolution. He ignored the divisions within Ukraine. He fully adhered to the aspiration of the neocons to push against Russia as far and as much as possible in order to make the U.S. the dominant world superpower. That meant intervening in Ukraine to expand the empire. After Crimea and Donbass responded to the revolution, Obama not only ignored the meaning of these responses, seeing no parallels to the American history of suppression of its black population, but also he demanded that Ukraine retain control over these regions. He even blamed Russian expansionism for the result that he had catalyzed and he imposed sanctions on Russia.

The empire is an engulfing and deeply embedded factor in U.S. foreign policy. It’s embedded in the institutions, personnel and culture of the U.S. government. It negates appeal to such principles as self-determination, freedom of association and non-discrimination if it so happens that these obstruct its expansion. The principle of the empire’s dominance sweeps away classical liberal and libertarian principles that are in its path if they obstruct its motion. Those in office become blinded by the false rationalizations of empire and power. The moral principles that they articulate when it suits their purposes fall by the wayside as they appeal to such ideas as national security or sanctity of state boundaries.

The Best of Michael S. Rozeff