Nazi’s met ervaring

“No debería suponerse un «nosotros» cuando el tema es la mirada al dolor de los demás” dice Sontag: todo intento de totalización de la comunidad en un nosotros que observa y se observa en el relato de la Historia –un nosotros moderno, iluminador- oculta el silencio de los vencidos, la opacidad siempre ilegible que antecede a toda visión: la oscuridad en la que se abre nuestra posibilidad de ver.
(Caligrafía de las sombras como legado, Juan Diego Perez Moreno. Sobre la serie “Silencios de Bojayá” de Juan Manuel Echevarría. Ministerio de Cultura – Ediciones Uniandes, 2012)

Een Amerikaanse president die beweert ook onze waarden en belangen te verdedigen. Waar en wanneer hebben we dit eerder gehoord?
Een vredesapostel die zegt ze te verdedigen door openlijk steun te verlenen aan neo-nazi’s is toch wel zeer uitzonderlijk. Of niet? Deze president weet ongetwijfeld ook dat de Oekraïne in een niet zo lang verleden een betrouwbare collaborateur bleek voor de Germaanse nazi’s in hun strijd tegen de Roden en de Polen. En het voorop liep bij het mogelijk maken van een genocide op de joden. Hij, Obama, weet dat ongetwijfeld, evenals zijn grote voorganger Roosevelt. Beiden lieten en laten het bewust gebeuren dat fascisten kunnen moorden. Waarom, waarvoor? Welke belangen zijn hiermee gediend? Toch geen humanitaire en zeker geen Europese?



Under pressure from the Pentagon, Congress has stripped the spending bill of an amendment that prevented funds from falling into the hands of Ukrainian neo-fascist groups.

James Carden

Recruits of the Ukrainian volunteer battalion Azov regiment take part in tests after training at the Azov Battalion base, in Kiev, Ukraine, November 28, 2015. – Photo by STR / NurPhoto

In mid-December 2015, Congress passed a 2,000-plus-page omnibus spending bill for fiscal year 2016. Both parties were quick to declare victory after the passage of the $1.8 trillion package. White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters “we feel good about the outcome, primarily because we got a compromise budget agreement that fought off a wide variety of ideological riders.” The office of House Speaker Paul J. Ryan touted the bill’s “64 billion for overseas contingency operations” for, among other things, assisting ”European countries facing Russian aggression.”

It would be safe to assume that one of the European countries which would stand to benefit from the omnibus measure—designed, in part, to combat “Russian aggression”—would be Ukraine, which has already, according to the White House, received $2 billion in loan guarantees and nearly $760 million in “security, programmatic, and technical assistance” since February 2014.

Yet some have expressed concern that some of this aid has made its way into the hands of neo-Nazi groups, such as the Azov Battalion. Last summer the Daily Beast published an interview by the journalists Will Cathcart and Joseph Epstein in which a member of the Azov battalion spoke about “his battalion’s experience with U.S. trainers and U.S. volunteers quite fondly, even mentioning U.S. volunteers engineers and medics that are still currently assisting them.”

And so, in July of last year, Congressmen John Conyers of Michigan and Ted Yoho of Florida drew up an amendment to the House Defense Appropriations bill (HR 2685) that “limits arms, training, and other assistance to the neo-Nazi Ukrainian militia, the Azov Battalion.” It passed by a unanimous vote in the House.

And yet by the time November came around and the conference debate over the year-end appropriations bill was underway, the Conyers-Yoho measure appeared to be in jeopardy. And indeed it was. An official familiar with the debate told The Nation that the House Defense Appropriations Committee came under pressure from the Pentagon to remove the Conyers-Yoho amendment from the text of the bill.

The Pentagon’s objection to the Conyers-Yoho amendment rests on the claim that it is redundant because similar legislation—known as the Leahy law—already exists that would prevent the funding of Azov. This, as it turns out, is untrue. The Leahy law covers only those groups for which the “Secretary of State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.” Yet the State Department has never claimed to have such information about Azov, so funding to the group cannot be blocked by the Leahy law. The congressional source I spoke to pointed out that “even if Azov is already covered by Leahy, then no there was no need to strip it out of final bill.” Indeed, the Leahy law cannot block funding to groups, no matter how noxious their ideology, in the absence of “credible information” that they have committed human-rights violations. The Conyers-Yoho amendment was designed to remedy that shortcoming.

Considering the fact that the US Army has been training Ukrainian armed forces and national guard troops, the Conyers-Yoho amendment made a great deal of sense; blocking the avowedly neo-Nazi Azov battalion from receiving US assistance would further what President Obama often refers to as “our interests and values.”

That neo-Nazis (or neo-fascists, if you prefer) are a distinctly minority taste in Western Ukraine, is clear and is not in dispute. Of late, however, there have been troubling signs that they may become a force to be reckoned with. According to The Jerusalem Post, in Ukrainian municipal elections held last October, the neo-Nazi Svoboda party won 10 percent of the vote in Kiev and placed second in Lviv. The Svoboda party’s candidate actually won the mayoral election in the city of Konotop. Meanwhile, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported in November that Azov operates a boot camp that exposes children to “the regiment’s far right-wing ideology.”

Whether White House spokesman Josh Earnest was referring, in part, to the Conyers-Yoho amendment as one of those “ideological riders” the administration fought to defeat is unclear. What is clear is that by stripping out the anti-neo-Nazi provision, Congress and the administration have paved the way for US funding to end up in the hands of the most noxious elements circulating within Ukraine today.

James Carden is a contributing writer for foreign affairs at The Nation. He served as a policy adviser to the Special Representative for Intergovernmental Affairs and the Office of Russia Affairs at the US State Department.

Bron: The Nation – 14 januari 2016

Uitgelicht: foto en tekst

Geef een reactie

Deze site gebruikt Akismet om spam te verminderen. Bekijk hoe je reactie-gegevens worden verwerkt.