America Must Protect Portugal from Imminent Russian Aggression
By : Sarah Louise Heath Palin, Candidate for the Office of Vice President of the United States and President of the United States Senate; Governor of the Democratic Republic of the State of Alaska; Foreign Policy Expert
Alaskans have broad experience in foreign relations matters. Unlike any other American State, Alaska is situated between two foreign Nations: Canada to our South and Russia to our West. Internationalists routinely complain that America’s comparative isolation from foreign neighbors disqualifies her from effective foreign policy. These complaints do not apply to Alaska. Like a central European Nation, we are a State surrounded by foreign adversaries. We understand diplomacy because we have to.
As Governor of Alaska, I obtained valuable experience in foreign policy practice. I oversaw trade missions across the Bering Strait to Russia. Although I was not physically present during those trade missions, I heard they went well. Our emissaries reported that the transactions between East Siberian port officials and West Alaskan fur merchants proceeded without substantial hitch. Additionally, our merchants reported that the Russians were somewhat suspicious hosts.
Personally, I have never left American territory. But I have learned a lot about the world through books. Many young people backpack through Europe and even Asia during college. I worked for a living. I had to educate myself about foreign lands through books, and I did an excellent job. I understand what makes countries tick. My experience as mayor of Wasilla and later as Governor of Alaska only reinforced my international acumen. I routinely heard reports about Canadian cross-border foraging and I took measures to ensure expedited passport checking procedures at all Canadian highway crossings. In short, my tenure as Governor has uniquely qualified me to speak on foreign policy matters.
Just last week I posed for photographs with the Pakistani President, whose name I cannot pronounce. During that photo session, I heard stories about Pakistan and India that were very interesting. In return, I told stories about Alaska, including my secret recipe for elk burger seasoning. I made polite conversation about freedom and the United States. I also mentioned that I was running for Vice President with John McCain. I said that I had read books about Pakistan and knew the name of its capital city: Baghdad. The Pakistani President was extremely impressed with my knowledge. He wished me well in my future endeavors. It felt invigorating to represent the United States in a diplomatic capacity.
But not all diplomatic missions can be so cordial. Alaska’s proximity to Russia only reinforces the serious nature of foreign policy questions. Based upon reports I received from West Alaskan fur merchants, I have learned that Russia is a wily and dangerous competitor. I have seen several movies about Russia, including Red Dawn, Dr. Strangelove and The Hunt for Red October. I also heard that Russia used to be a Communist country, and that is not good at all. Recently, I also heard that Russia invaded its defenseless southern neighbor, Georgia. At first I pictured Russian tanks in Atlanta, but an advisor later told me that there is another Georgia near Russia, not the Georgia near Disney World.
That news relieved me, but Russia is still dangerous. Putin may rear his ugly head at any moment. I heard that he is no longer the Russian President, but West Alaskan fur merchants reported that several Russians were discussing an imminent Russian attack on Portugal during a recent trade mission in Anchorage. Considering what Russia has already done in Georgia, we must take seriously every threat of future Russian aggression.
Portugal is a free and beautiful country. I have not been there, but I have read a book about Portugal. They grow oranges there. There are beautiful seaside towns and vacation escapes. The Portuguese are peace-loving people. They love freedom and equality. They have faith, just like Americans. As far as I know, Portugal borders Russian territory. That means that Russia may at any moment engulf Portugal in tyranny. We must not allow this to happen. We must take a stand to stop Russian aggression. I agree with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice: It is not 1968 anymore. My calendar says it is 2008. Obviously she is right. It is not 1967, either. In fact, it is currently no year other than 2008.
Russia must not remain unchecked. If we allow Russia to conquer Portugal, what is next? The Sudan? Bolivia? These are valuable U.S. allies. I have read books on all of them, and it would be simply tragic if Putin were allowed to make them Russian. The United States has a moral duty to protect Portugal now. We must not allow Portugal to go Georgia’s way. And because Portugal is so close to Russia, we must do something immediately. We could start by sending a trade mission to Moscow and demanding that Russia cease all hostile action toward Portugal. We should confront them with the statements obtained from the West Alaskan fur merchants and demand an explanation. Good diplomacy at times requires confrontation. And when it comes to defending Portugal, testy dialogue is a risk we must take.
Obviously no one wants a war. John McCain hates war, and so do I. Still, threatening war is a legitimate diplomatic tool. I recommend demanding that Russia abandon its aggressive plans against Portugal or risk war with the United States and its Allies. This is the only way to deal with Putin. He only understands strength. If he wants to wage war on freedom in Portugal, he must deal with us, too. The United States fights countries that fight freedom. We do not tolerate dictators anywhere. That is why we attacked Iraq, and that is why we will defend Portugal.
Let us stand with our beleaguered Portuguese brethren. We must not delay a single moment in curtailing Russian aggression. We must not allow Russia to invade countries at will. Nations of freedom do not invade other countries. Let us come together to defend Portugal—and freedom—from the Russian hordes. Here is my diplomatic message to the Russian aggressors: Hands off Portugal, you dirty commies.
Showing posts with label Georgia Crisis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Georgia Crisis. Show all posts
Monday, September 29, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
REFLECTIONS ON THE GEORGIA CRISIS
AN ESSAY
Written August 14, 2008
I have grown accustomed to absurd statements issuing from the Bush Administration. But yesterday’s gaffe bears mention for its sheer hypocrisy. Sadly, it underscores the damage Bush has done to America’s international credibility; the damage is so severe, in fact, that America is virtually disqualified from invoking international law.
While Bush watched swimmers at the 2008 Olympic games in Beijing, Russia launched an attack on its southern neighbor, Georgia—a new American ally and aid recipient. The conflict arose over a Georgian province called South Ossetia, which is ethnically Russian and has strong ties with Moscow. Georgia moved to expel Russian peacekeepers from South Ossetia, leading to a Russian intervention and encroachment onto Georgian territory. After several bloody days and numerous casualties through Russian air and artillery bombardment, Georgia called for a cease-fire. Russia agreed, but the atmosphere remained tense. Russian troops continued to advance into Georgia. After returning to Washington, President Bush demanded that Russia “adhere to the cease-fire agreement with Georgia.” Meanwhile, U.S. aid arrived at the Georgian capital, Tbilisi.
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice gave a statement announcing the Bush Administration’s approach to the crisis. In a direct rebuke to Russia, she said: “If Russia wants to play on the world stage, it must play by the rules.”
The outrageousness of this statement should be lost on no one who knows recent American foreign policy. Today, America is the last country on earth that should feel entitled to assert international law. Bush and his Administration have repeatedly shown that they do not care about “rules,” whether international (Treaties and the United Nations) or domestic (The Constitution). It is therefore extremely hypocritical for Bush now to insist that Russia refrain from an invasion. After all, America did not “play by the rules” in 2003 when it invaded Iraq on false pretenses and without approval from the United Nations. Similarly, America did not play by its own constitutional rules when it held citizens and foreign nationals without charge at Guantanamo Bay, wiretapped phone calls without warrant or probable cause and authorized its executive agents to hand prisoners over to foreign allies to circumvent domestic bans on torture. Furthermore, Bush’s Administration showed contempt for the rules of international law. The Administration actually requested that lawyers seize upon linguistic ambiguities in treaties such as the Protocol Against Torture and the Geneva Convention (to both of which the United States is a signatory) to maintain disingenuous arguments that its practices did not amount to torture. This, in turn, led to the grotesque spectacle of American “jurists” actually debating whether forcibly suspending a person on a declining board with cellophane over his head and pouring water down his face “intentionally inflicts serious pain.” These barely legal methods have earned America a reputation for dishonesty and lawlessness on the world stage. They have undermined America’s credibility on matters of international principle and render her attempt to hold Russia to “the rules” laughable. Russia must now be wondering: “How can the world’s most facetious rulebreaker now insist that we play by the rules?”
America’s take-no-prisoners approach in the War on Terror has created dangerous international precedent. If America plays fast and loose with international law and faces no consequence, should it surprise us that other powerful countries may wish to do the same without fear? Whether it knows it or not, America has a responsibility—as the world’s preeminent economic and military power—to adhere to principle, if for no other reason than to take the moral high ground over more unscrupulous world powers. America has always prided itself as the world’s beacon for democracy, freedom, justice and right, even if its own history reveals a checkered record on these issues. Yet America’s recent contempt for international rules has badly tarnished whatever reputation it may have had as the “White Knight” of world powers. When our public officials speak now about “international rules” on the “world stage,” their words ring hollow and warped.
This is the price Nations must pay for obtaining results “by any means.” While such an approach may guarantee victory in one confrontation, it stains the Nation’s image for all time, weakening any attempt to assert principles that it ignored in other circumstances. Such damage can only heal with time and conscientious, genuine effort. Of course, a Nation may take the haughty road and admit no fault, pressing onward as if it did nothing wrong. But to press on without acknowledging unjust conduct is a hallmark of tyranny, for nothing will deter that Nation from resorting to the same conduct—or worse conduct—when the next crisis arises. And what is tyranny, if not the raw assertion of power in conscious disregard of established rules?
Written August 14, 2008
I have grown accustomed to absurd statements issuing from the Bush Administration. But yesterday’s gaffe bears mention for its sheer hypocrisy. Sadly, it underscores the damage Bush has done to America’s international credibility; the damage is so severe, in fact, that America is virtually disqualified from invoking international law.
While Bush watched swimmers at the 2008 Olympic games in Beijing, Russia launched an attack on its southern neighbor, Georgia—a new American ally and aid recipient. The conflict arose over a Georgian province called South Ossetia, which is ethnically Russian and has strong ties with Moscow. Georgia moved to expel Russian peacekeepers from South Ossetia, leading to a Russian intervention and encroachment onto Georgian territory. After several bloody days and numerous casualties through Russian air and artillery bombardment, Georgia called for a cease-fire. Russia agreed, but the atmosphere remained tense. Russian troops continued to advance into Georgia. After returning to Washington, President Bush demanded that Russia “adhere to the cease-fire agreement with Georgia.” Meanwhile, U.S. aid arrived at the Georgian capital, Tbilisi.
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice gave a statement announcing the Bush Administration’s approach to the crisis. In a direct rebuke to Russia, she said: “If Russia wants to play on the world stage, it must play by the rules.”
The outrageousness of this statement should be lost on no one who knows recent American foreign policy. Today, America is the last country on earth that should feel entitled to assert international law. Bush and his Administration have repeatedly shown that they do not care about “rules,” whether international (Treaties and the United Nations) or domestic (The Constitution). It is therefore extremely hypocritical for Bush now to insist that Russia refrain from an invasion. After all, America did not “play by the rules” in 2003 when it invaded Iraq on false pretenses and without approval from the United Nations. Similarly, America did not play by its own constitutional rules when it held citizens and foreign nationals without charge at Guantanamo Bay, wiretapped phone calls without warrant or probable cause and authorized its executive agents to hand prisoners over to foreign allies to circumvent domestic bans on torture. Furthermore, Bush’s Administration showed contempt for the rules of international law. The Administration actually requested that lawyers seize upon linguistic ambiguities in treaties such as the Protocol Against Torture and the Geneva Convention (to both of which the United States is a signatory) to maintain disingenuous arguments that its practices did not amount to torture. This, in turn, led to the grotesque spectacle of American “jurists” actually debating whether forcibly suspending a person on a declining board with cellophane over his head and pouring water down his face “intentionally inflicts serious pain.” These barely legal methods have earned America a reputation for dishonesty and lawlessness on the world stage. They have undermined America’s credibility on matters of international principle and render her attempt to hold Russia to “the rules” laughable. Russia must now be wondering: “How can the world’s most facetious rulebreaker now insist that we play by the rules?”
America’s take-no-prisoners approach in the War on Terror has created dangerous international precedent. If America plays fast and loose with international law and faces no consequence, should it surprise us that other powerful countries may wish to do the same without fear? Whether it knows it or not, America has a responsibility—as the world’s preeminent economic and military power—to adhere to principle, if for no other reason than to take the moral high ground over more unscrupulous world powers. America has always prided itself as the world’s beacon for democracy, freedom, justice and right, even if its own history reveals a checkered record on these issues. Yet America’s recent contempt for international rules has badly tarnished whatever reputation it may have had as the “White Knight” of world powers. When our public officials speak now about “international rules” on the “world stage,” their words ring hollow and warped.
This is the price Nations must pay for obtaining results “by any means.” While such an approach may guarantee victory in one confrontation, it stains the Nation’s image for all time, weakening any attempt to assert principles that it ignored in other circumstances. Such damage can only heal with time and conscientious, genuine effort. Of course, a Nation may take the haughty road and admit no fault, pressing onward as if it did nothing wrong. But to press on without acknowledging unjust conduct is a hallmark of tyranny, for nothing will deter that Nation from resorting to the same conduct—or worse conduct—when the next crisis arises. And what is tyranny, if not the raw assertion of power in conscious disregard of established rules?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)