Crimea's Case for Leaving Ukraine

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

10 March 14

f you were living in Crimea, would you prefer to remain part of Ukraine with its coup-installed government – with neo-Nazis running four ministries including the Ministry of Defense – or would you want to become part of Russia, which has had ties to Crimea going back to Catherine the Great in the 1700s?

Granted, it’s not the greatest choice in the world, but it’s the practical one facing you. For all its faults, Russia has a functioning economy while Ukraine really doesn’t. Russia surely has its share of political and financial corruption but some of that has been brought under control.

Not so in Ukraine where a moveable feast of some 10 “oligarchs” mostly runs the show in shifting alliances, buying up media outlets and politicians, while the vast majority of the population faces a bleak future, which now includes more European-demanded “austerity,” i.e. slashed pensions and further reductions in already sparse social services.

Even if the U.S.-backed plan for inserting Ukraine into the European Union prevails, Ukrainians would find themselves looking up the socio-economic ladder at the Greeks and other European nationals already living the nightmare of “austerity.”

Beyond that humiliation and misery, the continuing political dislocations across Ukraine would surely feed the further rise of right-wing extremists who espouse not only the goal of expelling ethnic Russians from Ukraine but Jews and other peoples considered not pure Ukrainian.

This troubling racist element of the “inspiring” Ukrainian uprising has been mostly airbrushed from the U.S. media’s narrative, but more honest sources of news have reported this disturbing reality. [For instance, watch this report from the BBC.]

What’s Wrong with Secession?

And, despite what you hear from the U.S. government and the mainstream U.S. media, it’s not at all uncommon for people to separate themselves from prior allegiances.

It’s especially common amid political upheavals, like Ukraine’s neo-Nazi-spearheaded coup that ousted elected President Viktor Yanukovych – after he signed an agreement on Feb. 21 to relinquish much of his power, hold early elections and order police to withdraw.

Though this agreement was co-signed by European nations, they stood aside when neo-Nazi militias exploited the police withdrawal and overran government buildings, forcing Yanukovych and many government officials to flee for their lives.

Then, under the watchful eye of these modern-day storm troopers, the rump parliament “impeached” Yanukovych but did not follow the procedures laid out by Ukraine’s constitution. The overthrow was, in reality, a putsch.

But American political leaders and journalists have pretty well expunged that inconvenient history, making the crisis simply a case of black-hatted villain, Russian President Vladimir Putin, bullying the white-hatted “pro-democracy” coup-making heroes of Ukraine.

U.S. politicians and pundits now cite the Ukrainian constitution as some sacred document as they argue that Crimea has no right to hold a popular referendum on leaving Ukraine and joining the Russian Federation. President Barack Obama says a Crimean plebiscite would be illegitimate unless Crimea gets permission to secede from the national government in Kiev as stipulated in the constitution.

In other words, the Ukrainian constitution can be violated at will when that serves Official Washington’s interests, but it is inviolate when that’s convenient. That situational view also presumes that some normal constitutional process exists in Kiev when one doesn’t.

More Hypocrisy

This U.S. government/media hypocrisy on the Crimean vote is underscored, too, by Official Washington’s frequent role in advocating and even mid-wifing secession movements when they correspond with U.S. foreign policy interests.

Fifteen separate nations emerged from the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991 as U.S. politicians celebrated. No one seemed to mind either when Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993.

That same decade, U.S. officials helped negotiate the dissection of Yugoslavia into various ethnic enclaves. Later in the 1990s, the U.S. government even bombed Serbia to help Kosovo gain its independence, despite centuries of deep historical ties between Serbia and Kosovo.

In 2011, the U.S. government supported the creation of South Sudan, carving this new oil-rich nation out of Sudan. The supposed motive for breaking South Sudan loose was to stop a civil war, although independent South Sudan has since slid into political violence.

The Obama administration disputes allegations of U.S. hypocrisy about secessions, calling these comparisons “apples and oranges.” But the truth is that all secession cases are unique, a balance of history, pragmatism and politics. Very seldom are they simple and clear-cut.

In Crimea, the case for secession from Ukraine seems strong: Crimea is populated mostly by ethnic Russians; many people speak Russian; and they have historically viewed themselves as part of Russia. If a large majority of the voters prefer joining Russia, why shouldn’t they?

Perhaps the case for Crimea’s secession would have been weaker if the Western nations hadn’t so eagerly embraced the putsch in Kiev. If the Feb. 21 agreement had been enforced – clearing the way for Yanukovych’s orderly departure – Obama’s argument might make more sense. The constitutional procedures would have remained intact.

But the haste with which Washington and Brussels recognized the coup government – with Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s choice for Ukraine’s leadership, neoconservative favorite Arseny Yatsenyuk, named interim prime minister – shattered the formal political process of Ukraine.

That was followed by the post-coup rump parliament passing measures, often unanimously, that targeted the political security of ethnic Russians in the country’s east and south. Combined with threats from the neo-Nazis who have grabbed significant power and favor a purified Ukraine for ethnic Ukrainians, the nation confronts a potential civil war.

In such a case – with the prospects of ethnic cleansing and the violence that would surely follow – the most reasonable solution might well be to hold referenda in Crimea and in eastern Ukraine on whether the people in those areas want to stay attached to the Kiev regime. If the people in those regions want independence or association with Russia, why should the United States ratchet up a new Cold War to prevent that?

If what’s left of Ukraine wants to join the European Union — and if the EU would want it — then those Ukrainians could vote for their future, too.

Democracy means little if populations are compelled to remain part of an undemocratic regime that has seized power in the capital by force and demonstrates hostility toward outlying regions. Since such a predicament now exists in Ukraine, the best-imperfect solution could be to dispatch international observers to Crimea to monitor the plebiscite and verify whether the popular vote fairly reflects the people’s will.

After Pledging Transparency, PBS Hides Details of New Deal With Billionaire Owner of NewsHour

By David Sirota, PandoDaily

10 March 14

ast month, in response to Pando's revelations that anti-pension mogul John Arnold secretly was financing PBS's "Pension Peril" series, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting issued a scathing report demanding immediate reform. Criticizing "the lack of transparency" at PBS, CPB's ombudsman Joel Kaplan declared that public broadcasting outlets must let the public access details of their financial dealings.

So how's that new commitment to transparency going?

Here's how: Once again, a PBS flagship station is in the process of negotiating a deal with a politically active mogul. Once again, the deal involves the NewsHour - the same iconic PBS program that stealthily promoted Arnold's anti-pension programming. And once again, PBS is refusing to disclose the deal's financial details to the public.

The major difference this time is that this new story of secrecy isn't about who funds the journalism on the NewsHour. It is about who actually owns the NewsHour.

Most Americans likely assume that the NewsHour (which, after all, is made with support from viewers like you) is actually owned and produced by PBS. It is an understandable assumption considering PBS's own president declared that the NewsHour "is ours, and ours alone," and further considering that the program receives millions of public dollars every year.

However, since 1994, the NewsHour has been produced and primarily owned by the for-profit colossus, Liberty Media. Liberty, which is run by conservative billionaire John Malone, owns the majority stake in MacNeil/Lehrer Productions - the entity that produces the journalistic content of the show. While other standalone public television projects are often produced by small independent production companies, the NewsHour stands out for being owned by a major for-profit media conglomerate headed by a politically active billionaire.

But now that ownership is about to change. According to an internal memo sent to staff by NewsHour's founders and minority owners Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer, ownership of NewsHour will soon be transferred from Liberty Media to Washington, D.C.'s PBS member station, WETA.

We have concluded that the time has come to find a new, long-term home for The NewsHour. The current operation has worked beautifully because our long-time partnership with Liberty Media has been as perfect as any such relationship could be. When Liberty acquired its majority interest in MLP 18 years ago it was done with the agreement that editorial control and management would always rest with us-Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer, individually. Liberty has honored that arrangement in such a way that has made it possible for us to have the independence we all have enjoyed all these years.

Despite the chummy nature of the letter, and the apparent generosity underlying the deal - Liberty is handing the NewsHour to PBS! - the deal raises a huge number of questions.

For one thing, why is the for-profit Liberty Media agreeing to transfer ownership of a privately owned, $28-million-a-year asset to a PBS member station? Is it an altruistic move on the part of John Malone or might there possibly be some financial or tax benefit to Liberty? Also, during Liberty's ownership of NewsHour, exactly how much money from "viewers like us" (and taxpayers like us) went from PBS to NewsHour and into the coffers of Liberty? And how much control did Liberty have over NewsHour's journalistic output?

Following Pando's reporting on John Arnold and WNET, CPB ombudsman Joel Kaplan agreed that "without actually being able to examine" the documents involved in PBS transactions, "there is no way to know" if PBS content is being unduly manipulated. Referring to WNET's move to give Arnold back his money, Kaplan added: "I hope that the decision to return the money was not done to avoid disclosing the original contract between the (Arnold) foundation and WNET - that agreement still needs to be disclosed."

Ultimately, he concluded that "in the interest of objectivity, balance and transparency, such agreements should never be confidential." (Three weeks after the ombudsman published his findings, WNET and the Arnold Foundation are still refusing to release the terms of their multi-million-dollar agreement.)

Despite this new commitment to transparency, it seems nothing has changed at PBS. Over the past month, as part of our continuing investigation of the public broadcasting system, Pando has contacted top officials at PBS, WETA and the Liberty-owned MacNeil-Lehrer Productions requesting basic information about the upcoming transfer-of-ownership transaction.

For example, we asked how much the NewsHour is being valued at for purposes of a potentially lucrative tax write-off for Liberty Media. We also asked exactly how much taxpayers have spent over the years subsidizing a Liberty Media property that now may be transferred to the public, at a potential cost to the public.

Despite the clear transparency demands from the CPB, neither PBS nor Liberty would disclose any details of the deal. Nor would PBS, MacNeil/Lehrer or WETA spokespeople commit to disclosing any details in future. Even the most basic questions about the current funding and editorial direction of NewsHour were met with vague answers, or no answers at all.

Officials refuse to release details of NewsHour's existing financial arrangement

With public broadcasting officials refusing to answer questions about its pending ownership transfer deal with Liberty Media, Pando requested basic information about the existing financial and editorial contract between Liberty Media, MacNeil-Lehrer Productions, WETA and the hundreds of PBS stations that air the NewsHour. More specifically, we asked exactly how much money taxpayers spend each year to subsidize the show's whopping $28-million-a-year budget, and what kind of editorial control PBS has over the Liberty Media property.

In response, a MacNeil-Lehrer Productions spokesperson revealed that "PBS funding represents roughly half the PBS NewsHour revenue budget." By that count, every year approximately $14 million of public money goes to the for-profit Liberty Media's subsidiary through the non-profit PBS. However, the spokesperson provided no documentary evidence of that, nor did she even permit Pando to review the existing contract between WETA and Liberty Media. When asked how that squares with the CPB's demands for transparency, the MacNeil-Lehrer Productions spokesperson said: "Contracts between funders and producers are not public."

Similarly, Pando asked how much - if any - profit Liberty Media takes every year out of PBS's multi-million-dollar public subsidies to the NewsHour. We also asked for documentation showing whether or not the tax-deductible contributions the show solicits from "viewers like you" are actually being used to subsidize the private profits of Liberty Media. And we asked for financial documents showing whether or not the NewsHour's recurring deficits - which it has cited to get more public subsidies - factors in profit margins for Liberty Media.

A MacNeil-Lehrer Productions' spokesperson asserted only that the for-profit Liberty Media "takes no profit from the ongoing operation of the PBS NewsHour program."

If it is in fact true that Malone and the publicly traded Liberty Media takes no profit from its $28-million-a-year property, this would seem to violate Liberty's fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits on behalf of its shareholders. It would also run counter to sentiments expressed by those with knowledge of the Liberty-NewsHour relationship.

For instance, in 1994, Variety cited a "source familiar with the negotiations" between Liberty Media and MacNeil-Lehrer Productions saying that John Malone "may want the good-will this buys him, but he is also in this to make money."

Likewise, in contrast to MacNeil-Lehrer's "no profit" assertion, just months before his company purchased its controlling stake in MacNeil-Lehrer Productions, Malone himself publicly declared that "Nobody wants to go out (and) invest hundreds of millions of dollars of risk capital for the public interest." He added: "One would be fired as an executive of a profit-making company if he took that stance."

Again, MacNeil-Lehrer Productions refused to provide any documentation outlining the current financial arrangements between WETA and Liberty Media. Thus, as the CPB ombudsman said in his recent report, "without actually being able to examine" such financial documents "there is no way to know" if any of MacNeil-Lehrer Productions' "no profit" assertions are accurate.

Officials refuse to provide evidence of guarantees for editorial independence

As mentioned above, the NewsHour was the program that broadcast the infamous "Pension Peril" segments without explicitly disclosing that anti-pension billionaire John Arnold was funding the series. In light of that being discovered during the "Wolf of Wall Street" investigation, Pando requested information from WETA, PBS and MacNeil-Lehrer Productions about editorial control, and whether Liberty and/or Malone have been exercising such control over the NewsHour.

In response, a MacNeil-Lehrer Productions spokesperson told Pando that the letter from MacNeil and Lehrer announcing the transfer of ownership "makes it clear that Robin and Jim have editorial and management control, and that Liberty Media has honored this agreement." The spokesperson also forwarded two 20-year-old press releases in which Liberty Media and MacNeil-Lehrer Productions rhetorically promised to preserve editorial independence.

Yet, when asked for proof that such independence is contractually guaranteed and protected in Liberty Media's original agreement to purchase the NewsHour, the spokesperson declined the request.

This is particularly relevant not just because of the NewsHour's role in the recent "Wolf of Sesame Street" scandal, but also because of the long-term political activism of both Liberty and Malone.

According to the Sunlight Foundation, Liberty Media employees have spent roughly $2 million on campaign contributions in the last 20 years. Most of that money has flowed to Republican candidates. That includes top Liberty executives like Greg Maffei being major financiers of the Republican Party's national campaigns. Meanwhile, the Public Accountability Initiative's LittleSis reports that in the same time period, Malone spent almost $200,000 on campaign contributions, mostly to Republicans. Malone also sits on the board of the right-wing Cato Institute, whose employees are periodic guests on the NewsHour.

At the same time, studies suggest that the NewsHour has often artificially narrowed the terms of the political discourse that it permits in its broadcasts - and, perhaps not so coincidentally, in ways that seem congruent with Malone's conservative politics.

In a 2006 analysis of PBS programming, the watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting found that "Republicans outnumbered Democrats on the NewsHour by 2-to-1? and that "public interest groups accounted for just 4 percent of total sources." Similarly, in a 2010 analysis of PBS programming, FAIR found that "Republicans outnumbered Democrats among live (NewsHour) guests by a 3 to 2 ratio" and that overall, the show's "sources (are) drawn largely from a narrow range of elite white male experts."

When asked why Pando's request for public information about editorial independence on public broadcasting's flagship news program was being declined, the MacNeil-Lehrer Productions spokesperson insisted that the public broadcasting agreement between Liberty and MacNeil-Lehrer Productions "is a private partnership."

In other words: this deal is between PBS, WETA and Liberty Media. Viewers like you should keep their noses out - but keep the donations flowing.