Progressive Ponderings: International "Leftists"
Democracy or empire, which will it be?
by Joe Mayer
Just as the last "Pondering" described how "leftist" domestic policy is actually mainstream but doesn't fit the agenda of the powerful, so too our foreign policy is designed to corrode and sabotage any "leftist" – mainstream – foreign governments and initiatives. Mainstream policy thwarts corporate freedom to exploit and is hostile to imperial designs.
United States elite and its conforming government's statements and actions regarding Venezuela are typical. Hugo Chavez has been elected three times by overwhelming majorities with normally 75 percent of registered voters participating. The international community, without reservation, recognizes that Venezuela has free and fair elections with ballots providing a "paper trail" contrary to some recently disputed U.S. elections. Still, the United States instigated a coup against Chavez and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated recently, "I believe there is an assault on democracy in Venezuela and I believe that there are significant human rights issues." No supporting evidence was offered. Chavez, democratically elected and popular, is almost always termed "leftist" in the U.S. media that swallows a skewed hierarchical definition of democracy.
Prior to the illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration organized the "coalition of the willing" through threats and bribes, but a few countries refused to be bullied. France and Germany took the most abuse from the right-wingers and their mass-media echoes. Why? France and Germany, among others, took a "leftist" position in following the desires of their citizens, who overwhelmingly opposed the war. Acting for the will of the people rather than the Bush dictates is insolence in the eyes of U.S. imperialists.
For a long period of time, and especially since World War II, independent "nationalism" (at home we call it patriotism) by countries vulnerable to our power was cause for U.S. outrage and aggression. Many had legitimate democratic governments, all termed "leftist" by the United States. Independent "nationalism" was never overtly announced as the justification of U.S. aggression. As with Iraq, the official "sins of independent nationalists" were contrived to appeal to the American sense of fear or righteousness. "Promoting Democracy" is often the appeal – Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Brazil, Chile, etc.
"Structural adjustment" mandates of the World Bank and IMF along with "free trade" agreements often target "leftist" positions especially in Third World countries. Programs, democratically sought and popularly supported, which benefit the poor and indigenous, are targeted for extinction. They interfere with multinational corporate appetites.
People-powered (leftist) movements usually drive a nation toward democracy with a greater sense of social justice and equality. The poor, the exploited, the masses of humanity around the world are beginning to rise up, no longer willing to accept perpetual poverty.
As this is happening, citizens of the United States apathetically accept greater inequality and less democracy and freedom. The latest U.S. military budget (not the supplemental Iraq budget), supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, authorizes and supports continued global dominance advocated by the neocons who brought us the Iraq disaster.
We have to choose – democracy, where the people decide, or empire, where money decides. The "decider" told us where he is. Let the real deciders speak!
by Joe Mayer
Just as the last "Pondering" described how "leftist" domestic policy is actually mainstream but doesn't fit the agenda of the powerful, so too our foreign policy is designed to corrode and sabotage any "leftist" – mainstream – foreign governments and initiatives. Mainstream policy thwarts corporate freedom to exploit and is hostile to imperial designs.
United States elite and its conforming government's statements and actions regarding Venezuela are typical. Hugo Chavez has been elected three times by overwhelming majorities with normally 75 percent of registered voters participating. The international community, without reservation, recognizes that Venezuela has free and fair elections with ballots providing a "paper trail" contrary to some recently disputed U.S. elections. Still, the United States instigated a coup against Chavez and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated recently, "I believe there is an assault on democracy in Venezuela and I believe that there are significant human rights issues." No supporting evidence was offered. Chavez, democratically elected and popular, is almost always termed "leftist" in the U.S. media that swallows a skewed hierarchical definition of democracy.
Prior to the illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration organized the "coalition of the willing" through threats and bribes, but a few countries refused to be bullied. France and Germany took the most abuse from the right-wingers and their mass-media echoes. Why? France and Germany, among others, took a "leftist" position in following the desires of their citizens, who overwhelmingly opposed the war. Acting for the will of the people rather than the Bush dictates is insolence in the eyes of U.S. imperialists.
For a long period of time, and especially since World War II, independent "nationalism" (at home we call it patriotism) by countries vulnerable to our power was cause for U.S. outrage and aggression. Many had legitimate democratic governments, all termed "leftist" by the United States. Independent "nationalism" was never overtly announced as the justification of U.S. aggression. As with Iraq, the official "sins of independent nationalists" were contrived to appeal to the American sense of fear or righteousness. "Promoting Democracy" is often the appeal – Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Brazil, Chile, etc.
"Structural adjustment" mandates of the World Bank and IMF along with "free trade" agreements often target "leftist" positions especially in Third World countries. Programs, democratically sought and popularly supported, which benefit the poor and indigenous, are targeted for extinction. They interfere with multinational corporate appetites.
People-powered (leftist) movements usually drive a nation toward democracy with a greater sense of social justice and equality. The poor, the exploited, the masses of humanity around the world are beginning to rise up, no longer willing to accept perpetual poverty.
As this is happening, citizens of the United States apathetically accept greater inequality and less democracy and freedom. The latest U.S. military budget (not the supplemental Iraq budget), supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, authorizes and supports continued global dominance advocated by the neocons who brought us the Iraq disaster.
We have to choose – democracy, where the people decide, or empire, where money decides. The "decider" told us where he is. Let the real deciders speak!
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
Does the American government really “want” democracy for all nations? The misadventures of Iraq should prove that it can take generations to develop and maintain a democracy. Bush seems to become more silent everyday as he realizes that Egypt and Saudi Arabia are better allies in their present forms of government than as democracies. (Would rendition be possible without those allies?) Hamas in Palestine, and the threat of Hezbollah engineering an elected political coup in Lebanon, are just two examples that all democratically elected governments will not be pro-American.
Venezuela is a problem because it has oil and other natural resources. The fact that they have oil is only part of the problem … the real problem is state-owned (privatized) versus foreign investor-owned. Even if the country does allow foreign ownership, they can affect profitability by its tax rates (oh, that must be a dagger right to the heart of the Bush-No-Tax supports.) This not only causes problems for the US but also for the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Venezuela’s actions can have a chain reaction in Bolivia, Ecuador, etc. Bush/Rice/Coleman view Chavez as a threat due to his economic views more so than concerns for democracy. (Coleman has warned Rice to keep a close eye on South America.)
2008 and 2009 will be a major test for Democracy. No, not because of the elections in America ---- but what will happen in Russia and Iraq. In March 2008, Russia is scheduled to elect Putin’s replacement --- will they ? And the bigger question is who will run in Iraq in 2009 when the current Parliament four year term expires ?
Your question “ We have to choose – democracy, where the people decide, or empire, where money decides” is not really valid in America. Our government is not a true democracy … we have a Representative form of government based on democratic principles. Thus the money flows to the Representatives who do not vote the way the majority of the people want … hence we do not have health care or the other issues that you state most Americans want. That is also why abortion, flag-burning, same sex marriage are just campaign fodder --- certain politicians need inflamitory issues to drive their voters to the polls --- but also do not get processed through the legislative process.
Post a Comment
<< Home