I mean, come on: who's better at spreading democracy like it should be done than the U.S. government? And who's even better at colonial suppression than the U.K.'s? Ever since the end of World War II, the U.S. government established itself as a superpower by nuking two separate cities in Japan, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese, all under the pretext of "saving the lives of millions"? This is not to relieve blame from the Axis Powers, but to highlight the fact that two wrongs don't make a right. However, the U.S. government kept using that pretext to elect governments that serve its interests all around the world. After all, it is the U.S. government, the no. 1 hombre of freedom and democracy, that is choosing those governments, so why should we be pissed?
My horrible sarcasm aside, the U.S. government has hid behind the auspices of freedom and democracy to mask its subduing post-colonialist neo-imperialist interests the world over. But I must say that I'm more impressed, however, at how the U.S. government managed to brainwash its people into supporting its foreign policy, which has rarely come under self-criticism on part of the government, let alone most of the nation's people. In fact, the reason the U.S. government succeeded in having its way in almost all nations on this Earth is the U.S. media's successful manipulation of international political and intellectual discourse as well as of how we perceive things and define certain concepts. Such manipulation blocks many a person's ability to attain a firm grasp on what is it that ails this world and how one should remedy it.
We are constantly led to believe that democratic regimes that run a certain way lead to progress. Of course, if one can shove aside all that political hogwash and look at the individual governments that have been labelled as "democratic", one can see that such governments are anything but democratic. It should come as no surprise that all Middle Eastern governments are undemocratic, and yet many of them are called as such because they serve U.S. government interests, and primarily because they have been elected for the interests of those in power rather than the people. Democracy, it seems, suits perfectly well for those who are in positions of power and can subjugate the people in accordance with their own selfish interests.
Let's start by taking a look at some of the more historically notorious dictators the world over that have been supported by the U.S. and U.K. governments, not that other countries are not equally victims of this wave of "change" (D. Bernstein, 1995). One of the most notorious was Idi Amin, the dictator of Uganda who was mainly famous for expelling foreign workers from the country. Such fame masks other atrocities that he committed. In fact,
Throughout the Middle East and Africa, the reasons that contributed to such operations, and in perpetuating such interests, were primarily colonial, although other factors, including the Cold War, were also involved. However, in European and South American nations, the reasons were mainly due to the Cold War and the end of World War II, which saw Britian as powerful as it was during colonial times and the U.S. as a new and emerging superpower which, in light of its newfound interests, had to find a new role in the world stage. In reality, there was no spread of democracy nor maintenance of freedom. Only people looking through red-white-and-blue KoolAid glasses thought as such... either that, or people are ignorant of what really is going on in the world, especially from the eyes of those who are sufferring as a result of such colonialism. The velvet glove of democracy, as one guy put it, was (and still is in 99% of cases) covering the iron fist of tyranny. The control of resources in such nations was a priority, and the colonial powers made sure that they had a leader whom they, rather than the people, can count on to allow for resource robbing, dividing the people if they have to in order to get at the stuff they want (A. Shah, 12-30-02). According to Anup Shah, the mastermind behind globalissues.org, the Middle East is at the focal point of resource control these days. This is already evident in the Iraq war, a struggle for political and resource control. The statistics overall are still horrible as tens of nations have been involved (Double Standards.org), and regardless, there is increasing demand for such policies to end (J.G. Hornberger, 08-09-06).
Bottom line: all this trash about spreading democracy is what it is, pure trash. It can't get any more rotten than this. There is no democracy as of today. There is no freedom. There is only subservience to those in power. Sadly, keeping reality in mind, it will probably never change within our lifetimes for the better, let alone change to begin with. In fact, all these nations are set in the wider scope of colonial and imperialist interests worldwide, particularly because each nation has its own resources and sociopolitical climate that has to be dealt with (mind the harshness of that statement). Losing one of them to the people of the nation would be disastrous for these interests, and given the viability that these colonialist nations assign to their servant nations, they will not be given up easily, all for the sake of maintaining the status quo. Indeed, Orwell said it right: "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength". What makes today's world more Orwellian is that this tripe is promoted by those in power, and are well-aware of their lies and their own inexcusable actions.
And just to let them know... we're aware of that, too.
Salaam, from Saracen
My horrible sarcasm aside, the U.S. government has hid behind the auspices of freedom and democracy to mask its subduing post-colonialist neo-imperialist interests the world over. But I must say that I'm more impressed, however, at how the U.S. government managed to brainwash its people into supporting its foreign policy, which has rarely come under self-criticism on part of the government, let alone most of the nation's people. In fact, the reason the U.S. government succeeded in having its way in almost all nations on this Earth is the U.S. media's successful manipulation of international political and intellectual discourse as well as of how we perceive things and define certain concepts. Such manipulation blocks many a person's ability to attain a firm grasp on what is it that ails this world and how one should remedy it.
We are constantly led to believe that democratic regimes that run a certain way lead to progress. Of course, if one can shove aside all that political hogwash and look at the individual governments that have been labelled as "democratic", one can see that such governments are anything but democratic. It should come as no surprise that all Middle Eastern governments are undemocratic, and yet many of them are called as such because they serve U.S. government interests, and primarily because they have been elected for the interests of those in power rather than the people. Democracy, it seems, suits perfectly well for those who are in positions of power and can subjugate the people in accordance with their own selfish interests.
Let's start by taking a look at some of the more historically notorious dictators the world over that have been supported by the U.S. and U.K. governments, not that other countries are not equally victims of this wave of "change" (D. Bernstein, 1995). One of the most notorious was Idi Amin, the dictator of Uganda who was mainly famous for expelling foreign workers from the country. Such fame masks other atrocities that he committed. In fact,
Amin was one of the most notorious of Africa's post-independence dictators... a non-commissioned officer in the British Army there, Amin caught the attention of his superiors because of his efficient management of concentration camps in Kenya during the Mau Mau rebellion in the 1950s, where he earned the title of "The Strangler". Because of his loyalty to Britain and his strongly anti-communist stance, Amin was picked by the British to replace the elected Ugandan government in a 1971 coup. While in power, he earned a reputation as a "clown" in some circles in the West, but he was no joke at home. Amin brutalized his people with British and US military aid and with Israeli and CIA training of his troops. The body count of his friends, the clergy, soldiers, and ordinary Ugandans rose daily, but the West ignored his cruelty.This brings us back to the discussion on colonialism in Africa (Saracen, 07-25-07) and how colonial powers used to exploit the African people for their own interests. In the wake of the increasing demand for independence by people of all African nations, colonialist powers were ready to give them that, but were not ready to give up their influence and control over the region. And Idi Amin wasn't the only brute used to pursue the interests of the British. Rather, there were others, among them Nigeria's General Sani Abacha, South African former President P.W. Botha, Liberian General Samuel Doe, the apartheid Rhodesian president Ian Smith, Ethiopia's original Rastafarian Halie Selassie (who's sometimes hailed as the "Lion of Judah" by some of his supporters), and the notorious Sese Seko Mobutu.
When Zaire's first elected President, Patrice Lumumba, appeared to be getting too close to socialism, US companies feared they might lose control of Zaire's precious cobalt, copper, and diamonds. So the CIA stepped in, assassinated Lumumba, and replaced him with Mobutu Sese Seko. Since 1965, Mobutu has been the US's main man in Central Africa. Mobutu has amassed an estimated $5 billion personal fortune at his nation's expense. He is perhaps the only world leader who could pay his national debt from his own bank account. In fact, there seems to be no division between his pocket and the national treasury. In 1974, when the US sent $1.4 million to assist troops fighting a civil war, Mobutu pocketed the entire sum. And no foreign company sets itself up in Zaire without a tribute to Mobutu. Although Zaire has more resources than most other countries in the region, it is the fifth poorest. Malnutrition takes the lives of one-third of Zaire's children, and one child out of two dies before age five. But Mobutu has vowed to keep the world safe for democracy and according to Amnesty International, in the name of anti-communism, he imprisons and tortures, often without trial, anyone who threatens his power base. While some members of Congress grumble about giving assistance to Mobutu, they continue to reward his work against communism and his warm reception of American corporations.Of course, African leaders aren't the only ones in this long line of leaders who served the interests of superpowers instead of those who really needed such assets. You have leaders the world over who quell opposition to colonial/imperialist interests the world over.
Throughout the Middle East and Africa, the reasons that contributed to such operations, and in perpetuating such interests, were primarily colonial, although other factors, including the Cold War, were also involved. However, in European and South American nations, the reasons were mainly due to the Cold War and the end of World War II, which saw Britian as powerful as it was during colonial times and the U.S. as a new and emerging superpower which, in light of its newfound interests, had to find a new role in the world stage. In reality, there was no spread of democracy nor maintenance of freedom. Only people looking through red-white-and-blue KoolAid glasses thought as such... either that, or people are ignorant of what really is going on in the world, especially from the eyes of those who are sufferring as a result of such colonialism. The velvet glove of democracy, as one guy put it, was (and still is in 99% of cases) covering the iron fist of tyranny. The control of resources in such nations was a priority, and the colonial powers made sure that they had a leader whom they, rather than the people, can count on to allow for resource robbing, dividing the people if they have to in order to get at the stuff they want (A. Shah, 12-30-02). According to Anup Shah, the mastermind behind globalissues.org, the Middle East is at the focal point of resource control these days. This is already evident in the Iraq war, a struggle for political and resource control. The statistics overall are still horrible as tens of nations have been involved (Double Standards.org), and regardless, there is increasing demand for such policies to end (J.G. Hornberger, 08-09-06).
Bottom line: all this trash about spreading democracy is what it is, pure trash. It can't get any more rotten than this. There is no democracy as of today. There is no freedom. There is only subservience to those in power. Sadly, keeping reality in mind, it will probably never change within our lifetimes for the better, let alone change to begin with. In fact, all these nations are set in the wider scope of colonial and imperialist interests worldwide, particularly because each nation has its own resources and sociopolitical climate that has to be dealt with (mind the harshness of that statement). Losing one of them to the people of the nation would be disastrous for these interests, and given the viability that these colonialist nations assign to their servant nations, they will not be given up easily, all for the sake of maintaining the status quo. Indeed, Orwell said it right: "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength". What makes today's world more Orwellian is that this tripe is promoted by those in power, and are well-aware of their lies and their own inexcusable actions.
And just to let them know... we're aware of that, too.
Salaam, from Saracen
Comments
Post a Comment