Exporting Democracy

A Culture of Fear

2007-12-06T13:18:00.000-08:00

If you had asked a college student on the 10Th of September, 2001 what came to his mind when you mentioned the word terrorist to him, his answer would have probably been either IRA, Tamil Tigers or the PLO. One day and over 3000 deaths later, the only words that people would associate with terror for decades were Islam, Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

One can say that the massive number of deaths caused by the incident, over 3000 people, was the reason why people remembered it. If that were the real reason then the world should have also mentioned the 2005 Pakistan Earthquake that by some accounts killed over 100,000 people, over 33 times the number of deaths that took place on the September 11th attacks, but that's not really the case , in fact most people around the world would either never have heard about it or don't care to remember.

Perhaps the reason was that it was American lives that were lost in the incident and somehow American lives are more important to the International community than others, but then why wasn't a war on Tobacco or a full scale military invasion of Phillip Morris's corporate headquarters launched for the over 435,000 American deaths caused by smoking tobacco every year?

Sadly it doesn't matter what angle you look at it from, the conclusion is that September 11th was so nicely packaged, coreographed and promoted for the benefit of the viewers of the media, that it justified almost any step of any magnitude that the U.S government would choose to take whether it be an invasion of Afghanistan for public appeasement or a full scale attack on a feeble Iraq in order to appease AIPAC and the Israeli lobby with the proxy war they wanted.

The real victory was not the United States ability to put down troops on the ground anywhere in the world and flex its military muscles without any moral backlash from the international community. The real victory was the culture of fear that was bred that allowed them to brainwash and control to some extent the international public and most definately the American public, to take liberties with the constitution never before dreamed of and to erode human rights and the rights of its citizens.

Its this Culture of fear: the fear of going to school cause some nut in math class with a gun might shoot you (a singularly American phenomenon), The fear of flying on planes, the fear of the shoes of your fellow passengers and what horrors they might contain, the fear of biological weapons and dirty bombs, the fear of men with long beards and short tempers, the fear of Palestinians, Pakistani's, Saudi's, Syrian's, Jordanian's, Lebanese, Malay's,Indonesian's or anybody that even remotely looks foriegn, the fear of Department of Homeland Security declarations of terror alert levels being lifted to orange from green even though no reason for this is forthcoming, the fear of train stations, bus stations and airports and the fear of people who leave their luggage unattended, the fear of the patriot act and what it might do to you, the fear of losing your job to outsourcing, the fear of african bees invading america, the fear of the razor left in the trick or treat candy, the fear of fear.

The best part about all this is that we dont even need any one thing in particular to be afraid of anymore. Fear and paranoia, after so many years of media conditioning has become a constant state of mind instead of an occasional emotional response to an event. what we must ask ourselves is, is it worth it living in so much fear just because 3000 people died 6 years ago ?
Is it worth it giving up our rights as citizens and our rights as human beings corroded so we can get imprisoned by our own governments hiding behind the patriot act and constitutional loopholes like Rendition? Is it worth it to see our children grow up in this culture of fear and have their innocent minds poisoned by Rupert Murdoch's lie factories? I only speak for myself but the fact that drugs like Aspirin kill more than 7,600 people a year (thats 2 9/11's) helped me decide that living in fear so others can take advantage of my vulnerability is not really an option.

Musical Chairs

2007-12-01T23:39:00.002-08:00

In the interest of democracy and promoting a free judiciary, General Pervez Musharraf after arresting and imprisoning all his political opposition and judges, decided to step down as cheif of the Army last week. The media would have you believe that it was a good day for American strong arm diplomacy and that American pressure has saved the day for Pakistani democracy, sadly theres as much truth to that as an American politician selling "No New Taxes".

Musharraf stepped down as army chief the eve before he was to be sworn in as president of pakistan for yet another term. The U.S pressured Musharraf to appoint General Kiyani, another pro-American General willing to tow the wests line, as the new Chief of Army Staff. The current scenario has allowed Musharraf to use the Army to bully his way to power once more but strip the uniform to take office as a civilian hence keeping the veneer of a democratic government intact.

There has also been speculation that the U.S plans on Backing former ousted Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, who has promised the U.S Military greater access into Pakistan (contrary to the Pakistani publics wishe) in exchange for another chance to get into office and to rob the country blind as she's accused of doing in her last term.

Meanwhile the fundamentalists are now beginning to be joined by regular Pakistani's who until now had never thought of doing anything militant but have grown tired of outside interference and military rule in their country. a recent stream of bomb blasts and attacks against the military, along with widespread protests int he country against the military, some of them violent, drive home the fact that the Pakistani people have had enough.

The Hand That Feeds

2007-11-24T20:21:00.000-08:00

U.S. Hopes to Use Pakistani Tribes Against Al Qaeda, blares a New York Times headline. The article outlines a new military proposal to arm, finance and support tribesmen in the now war torn tribal regions of northern Pakistan, to fight against invading Taliban from the west. the plan calls for shipping in men and equipment en-mass into Pakistan in order to train and arm these so called "friendly" tribals to the teeth.

One shudders to think of the sheer stupidity and the severe short sightedness of American military policy as it was arming so called "friendly" Mujahideen in the 80's that has brought Afghanistan to its present state. Now the U.S is proposing to repeat its mistake for good measure in Pakistan with no thought of whats going to happen to all these armed "friendly"tribals after the dust settles. What of the extremely fragile political situation in the country? what of the Pakistani public that doesn't want anything to do with America or its war, and what of the ever present and growing Anti-American sentiments in Pakistan.

Its not that big a stretch of the imagination to see these tribesmen, at best using the American's own weapons and training against them or at worst using them against the government and people of Pakistan and taking over a nuclear state.

Either outcome would be disastrous for all involved.

The Democracy To End All Democracies.

2007-11-16T19:31:00.000-08:00

It’s sad that my generation and many others had to live to see the day when ideals like Justice, Equality and Freedom would have to be set aside in order to further American strategic aims. In Pakistan, supposedly America’s closest ally in the war on terror, General Musharraf, the American supported dictator, has imposed a state of emergency citing rising extremist and terrorism in the country. In fact General Musharraf was about to be ruled against by the Supreme Court that his holding office was unconstitutional. This state of emergency also helps to indefinitely delay elections that had been promised by the end of this year and guarantees absolute power to the general. All this is acceptable to the U.S because it ensures that as long as their dictator is in place, the American military will be given continued access to secret bases within Pakistan and the Pakistani military. Two things that the people of Pakistan or a democratic government would never have allowed.

Pakistan is a country that unwillingly finds itself becoming the front line in the war against terror and as a result the country has had a gradual rise in terrorist incidents like bomb blasts and kidnappings, but there had been nothing major happening in the time period that Musharraf declared emergency. Indeed there had been a much bigger threat to national security only a few months previous to the declaration, when extremists took over a mosque in the capital city of Islamabad and were threatening the government and the capitals inhabitants. Then the government decided to conduct a full blown military siege without declaring emergency the but now that elections were drawing closer and Musharraf could feel the heat from the Supreme Court, The real nature of the emergency became clear to him. Throughout this time the U.S continues to support Musharraf, both with military equipment and monetarily while only showing token resistance in the form of “deeply distressing” feelings expressed by the white house and hollow ultimatums.

Meanwhile Musharraf has used the increased terror fighting capabilities bestowed upon him by this state of emergency to dismantle the Supreme Court (the real threat to international peace and prosperity), swear in new judges overnight, scrap the country’s constitution, arrest all opposition political leaders, shut down television channels/news presses and issue a new provisional constitutional order that revokes all rights from the citizens and the media and gives the General absolute power. The international community has tried to put pressure on Musharraf, the commonwealth has issued an ultimatum for Musharraf to step down and the U.S is now trying to convince Musharraf to step aside and let the corrupt Ex-Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto to take office so that an illusion of democracy can be maintained.

While this entire power struggle is going on in the capital with everyone concerned with who gets to play the big boss for the next few years, the real reason for the war on terror, the Islamic Extremists, have taken full control of the SWAT region in the North West Frontier of Pakistan and the place has become a no-go area for security forces. Everyone’s too preoccupied with playing king to notice that the foundations on which the throne stands are cracking. The government is now also faced with a huge crisis in the Balochistan province with separatist rebels who after years of neglect by the government and having their requests for assistance repeatedly ignored have vowed to seek independence from Pakistan.

Meanwhile the state of injustice and poverty that is the breeding ground for dissention and terrorism is growing worse by the day. Curfews and barricades mean that the few schools in the country stay closed and children go without education. Closed markets mean that the poor don’t get to make the meager wages that they used to make. The military and police are also having a field day terrorizing the public, openly beating and arresting students, lawyers and anyone else who dares to come out in the street to demonstrate against the tyranny, hence effectively forming a whole new generation of terrorists. 2 days ago, 26students for the Lahore University of Management Sciences, the top rated business and management school in Pakistan were arrested for protesting against the government, there have been hundreds of arrests in the past few days from opposition leaders to anyone who dares to speak out against the government. Those arrested tend to disappear into secret prisons run by the military intelligence agency ISI, notorious for being a state within a state, with no way of accounting for how many people were abducted and what became of them.

Overnight this once proud democratic country has become a picture of military fascism very similar to the Germany of old right before Hitler took power and subjected the world to his wrath. If Pakistan descends into Civil war which is most definitely a possibility, then the U.S would have found itself a democracy to end all democracies, an ex-democracy dismantled by U.S meddling and now a nuclear power possibly run by the very enemies the U.S vowed to destroy. Wouldn't that be cause for a whole list of new neat 3 digit date references? Let’s hope the people of Pakistan can handle the mess we made and the rest of us never have to find out.

Hail To The Theif!

2007-11-11T02:41:00.000-08:00

A lot of people saw it comming, they warned us against it, but it has finally happened all the same. General Pervez Musharraf, Dictator of Pakistan for the last 9 years and one of america's closest allies on the war on terror, finding himself at risk of being ruled against by the country's supreme court for illegally holding the office of the president while being the head of the army, has declared a "state" of emergency and effectively silenced any opposition .

Members of the provincial assemblies have resigned in protest. disenting voices have been silenced by illegal arrests. The constitution has been thrown out and a new Provisional Constitutional order has been brought in , authored by the general himself to give him complete and total power. The United States has expressed that it is deeply distressed by the situation while the pentagon has issued a statement that this will not in any way affect the flow of funds and military equipment to Pakistan.

sort of clear how distressing this is for the American government, meanwhile 160,000,000 Pakistanis have had all their rights revoked.Their freedom of movement , freedom of speech , freedom to speak out against the administrations injustices have all ceased to exist. Media channels were taken off the air, and blamed with not towing the administrations line enough. newspaper presses have been shut down by military personnel and Pakistan has become an information vaccum. All brought to you by a man who is still fully supported by the U.S government, the oldest democracy in the world. oh the irony.

The Puppet Masters

2007-10-27T23:55:00.000-07:00

Apparently the only way left to export democracy is to support military dictatorships. On the 8^th of October, General Pervez Musharraf, the dictator of Pakistan for the last 9 years won another rigged presidential election. Half of his parliament boycotted or resigned in frustration. General Musharraf still enjoys the United States undivided support as its most important partner in the war on terror.

Without U.S support, Musharraf could never have maintained illegal military control over a democratic country for so long. The U.S has a strategic interest in having a friendly government in Pakistan, as it shares a border with Afghanistan and has become the new front line for the war on terror. Sadly, where strategic interests are involved, promoting democracy and respecting sovereignty take a back seat.

The people of Pakistan have had to live with the consequences of America’s foreign policy, facing the ever present threat of bomb blasts and attacks by extremist organizations which see Pakistan as a proxy for the American government. More than 700 Pakistanis have been abducted by their own government’s intelligence organizations and the FBI. The fortunate ones get detained and tortured by the ISI (Pakistan’s version of the CIA) while the unluckier ones get sent off to Guantanamo and other secret U.S prisons where the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply and human rights magically cease to exist. No evidence or warrants are necessary, cash rewards offered by the U.S government for the arrest of suspected Al-Qaeda sympathizers are enough to circumvent any due process that may have existed in this once democratic country.

The government has played to the population’s anti-U.S sentiments by officially denouncing America’s slaughter of the people of Afghanistan, while secretly launching a military offensive against some of its own citizens in the Taliban sympathetic Northwest Frontier of Pakistan, because of U.S demands. These clashes were the result of mounting U.S pressure on Musharraf to deliver on their investment in diplomatic and monetary support. As a result, thousands of Pakistani citizens living in the tribal belt and at least 2000 Pakistani soldiers, by some unofficial estimates, lost their lives while fighting each other in order to satiate U.S demands.

The General, in order to stay in power has also had to take measures previously thought impossible. In order to garner support in the Sindh province, The MQM, an organization heavily involved in organized crime and held responsible for many incidents of terrorism in Karachi, was allowed control of the provincial government. Individual’s against whom active murder cases were pending, were allowed to take office and the MQM openly massacred any political opposition in the province resulting in massive bloodshed in Karachi on the 12^th of May 2007, that left more than 200 opposition political workers dead. All this happened under the watchful eye of government security personnel that refused to intervene.

Another consequence of America’s continued support for the “General President” has been the complete undermining of Pakistani institutions such as the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Earlier in the year, Musharraf “fired” a Supreme Court justice when he questioned the constitutional basis of him holding power. This caused massive upheaval in the country and the people of Pakistan rioted and rallied behind the deposed Chief justice until the government had to reinstate him. Many people, including lawyers, lost their lives in the riots, others were injured and maimed. Throughout all these events, the U.S never once officially condemned the draconic measures that Musharraf was taking in order to stay in power.

One can argue that America shouldn’t care about what happens in other countries, that it can write these things off as someone else’s domestic problem. If only that were the case, there would never be situations like the one that prevails in Pakistan today. In a country like Pakistan, burdened by debt and reliant on foreign Aid, the U.S has a lot of say in who takes power as it controls the purse strings for foreign aid and provides much needed military equipment and technology.

Any General taking power in Pakistan needs the blessings of Pakistan’s U.S masters, otherwise his regime would be overthrown by a more favorable candidate. This alone goes against promoting democracy, not to mention the heinous acts perpetrated by the puppet governments on behalf of the puppet masters in order to maintain the status quo. All the while the people, who are supposed to elect their own leaders, suffer under tyrants chosen by foreigners sitting half the world away who have no stake in their country’s destiny, only selfish short-term strategic interests.

This isn’t anything that the world hasn’t seen before. The Shah of Iran, The Saudi Royal family, Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan are a few other examples of the U.S putting strategic interests before its ideal of exporting democracy. The only difference between how Myanmar or Pakistan are perceived internationally is how vital they are to U.S interests, and that is injustice in a nutshell. One can only hope that the U.S wakes up from its self induced moral slumber and once more realizes its true role as a defender of democracy instead of an exporter of Tyranny.

A Failure to Communicate

2007-10-13T23:59:00.000-07:00

There is a huge problem with government’s that operate on a different logical wavelength than their subjects, the problem obviously being that the government completely fails to understand the needs of the people it is supposed to be serving. Thus as you move across the spectrum from the liberal to the more authoritarian forms of rule you see this phenomenon of people serving the establishment rather than the other way round.

In a democracy the government is not supposed to preach to the people or impose laws that the majority of the people it rules, dislike. There is always due process, and laws are made by institutions like congress that are made up of representatives of the people.

Short circuiting that representation, such as in a theocracy, move’s us to a more oppressive system where laws and rules are imposed on people whether they like them or not.The logic behind this oppressive system being that if people live life in the way we believe is the right way, they will start to see the light and start to approve of our system. This is all well and good but it does give rise to a very obvious question, what if people don’t see things your way?

This ideological gap is apparent in most theocracies or partial theocracies. One excellent example of this is Iran and its battle to portray a public image that is both acceptable to the international community and also in accordance with its Islamic fundamentalist principles. It will suffice to say that Iran doesn’t always succeed in its tight rope walk to please both audiences. In a debate organized by Columbia University, President Ahmedinejad (in a very questionable manner I might add) was asked why homosexuals were persecuted in his country. His reply to the question, "we do not have homosexuals in Iran like you do in your country.” It isn’t the fact that Iran doesn’t have Homosexuals or that the president isn’t aware of them, its just that the ideological gap mentioned above is sadly apparent here.

Do the people of Iran not want there to be any homosexuals in their country? One cannot be certain about that in the absence of a poll or a referendum, but one does find it hard to believe that public opinion would require them to be treated as they are now. According to the religious hardliners in control, homosexuality is not allowed in Islam and thus it would not do to have the president of an Islamic country admit to having homosexuals in his constituency. Thus Homosexuality is treated like a crime in Iran, with people being jailed and/or executed if thought to be homosexuals. Gay Rights is just one in a plethora of issues that the public disagrees on with the government, but are silenced with accusations of opposing religious logic. But isn’t the whole purpose of having an organized government to give the people what they need? obviously not in theocracies like Iran. In such cases it is not the dog that wags the tail, but the tail that wags the dog.

SNL's reply to Ahmedinejad's official position

What’s Wrong With Theocracy?

2007-10-06T23:56:00.000-07:00

Communism, socialism, imperialism, egalitarianism and democracy are some of the different systems of rule and social order that mankind has witnessed throughout the ages. All have their flaws and their shortcomings but to some extent provide a degree of stability to society and allow for progress. The one system of rule that is different from most of those mentioned above is a theocracy, because while communism or democracy may be based on man made rules and logic, theocracy relies strictly on religious teachings and thus the rules and principles that it is based on cannot be questioned by society on the basis of logic.

The problem occurs when a society’s beliefs are not uniform, and this is usually the case since societies are made up of people and people are as different as the five fingers on your hand. Most people are fairly passionate about their beliefs, as someone once said “Ideas are like children, everybody loves their own.”. Every individual is unique and different in his own way and thus every individual’s beliefs may vary. The idea of organized religion is counter to this argument. Organized religion seeks to make a society’s beliefs uniform, and this is the case in almost all religions. Even though many religions teach tolerance for other peoples beliefs, the idea of propagating and spreading the “true” message is present in almost all religions and thus in itself preaches religious uniformity in society.

But what happens when, say in a theocracy, a religious code is imposed as law on an entire society or an entire nation. The flaw behind the idea of a functioning theocracy becomes evident in cases like Afghanistan and Iran, where certain parts of the country and certain parts of society may accept and welcome the rule of religious law, but other parts of the population may chose to differ and offer resistance. It is in these scenarios that some of the worst atrocities occur, the worst part being that it is all done “in the name of God”.

[ Audio Feed] describing inset picture.

In The Name Of All That Is Holy.

2007-09-29T23:44:00.000-07:00

The issue of religion in politics is indeed a wicked paradox, as Mack explains in his article. The concept of using religious zeal to create support for oneself (or ones cause) is not new, It has proved effective enough to win a presidency In the U.S for George W. Bush (that is If you believe in the fairness of the Florida supreme courts decision); it has proved a very effective method of generating support for wars and atrocities as was seen during the course of the Iranian revolution and the Soviet Afghan war, It has also been fundamental in the building of entire Nations as was seen in the formation of Israel and Pakistan.

Using Religion in politics is as old as politics itself, mind you even in secular states where there is a clear division between the church and the state, religion is still used as an effective force in politics and doing so is not seen as crossing the secular line. While it may garner support for politicians and clerics turned politicians, religious politics is indeed a double edged sword that sooner or later ends up cutting those who wield it.

An interesting case to illustrate this point would be the religious parties that now control the provincial government in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) of Pakistan and form a coalition opposition against the federal government. The MMA or Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal came to power in the vacuum that was created when General Pervez Musharraf seized control of the country and exiled the leaders of the two main secular political parties in the country. Anti-American sentiment in the NWFP which borders Afghanistan and had borne the brunt of the American sponsored Soviet-Afghan war was also a major factor in getting the MMA elected to power. The MMA’s agenda was purely religious; their track record had shown no real interest in developing the infrastructure of the country or expanding in other key areas such as health care or education. They preached a return to religion and an imposition of Sharia law.

The arguments made by the MMA leadership in their campaign were based primarily on religious teachings, which is all of what most of the MMA’s mostly illiterate leadership knew. After several years of living under MMA rule, the people of the NWFP have seen the results of their decision in voting on religious grounds alone. Cinemas have been closed; billboards containing images of women banned, public entertainment such as concerts condemned, peoples houses raided and their televisons stolen and burnt in public places, the education and health sectors in the province are grossly under-funded, women’s rights and freedom of movement without “the veil” have been decimated, the province has seen a huge spike in illegal activity such as drug/arms smuggling, terrorism and militarism is at an all time high and the province has seen a return to a more hard-line and fundamentalist form of Islam to name a few of the fun facts of having religious scholars as your rulers.

Furthermore, the Pakistani Federal Government’s Pro-American stance and obligation in the war on terror have created further problems for the religiously motivated party that rules the NWFP. As Khalid Bhatti Writes

But other political forces have also been exposed by this operation. The role of Mutahidda Majlis-e-Amal, (MMA - an alliance of Islamic fundamentalist parties that did well in the last elections, winning an outright majority in the North West Frontier Provincial government) has been exposed in this crisis. Despite being the governing party in NWFP, they have sat back as the Pakistani military have bombarded people in the tribal areas of South Waziristan which is part of the province they are supposed to govern! The conclusion drawn by the poor peasants and tribes’ people is that the MMA is more interested in saving its position as governing party than defending their rights.

The double edged nature of religiously motivated politics is all too apparent in this case. It also shows that while the MMA preaches religious zealotry, it is a party made up of people who are politician’s first and religious zealots second, And while having religious opinions is all well and good, they do not mix well with the dirty game of politics. The mixture of religion and politics, as the inhabitants of that unfortunate province are experiencing, can be most unpleasant.

How Foreign can Foreign Policy be?

2007-09-20T00:12:00.000-07:00

Although America is hailed as the oldest democracy in the world, it is drawing ever increasing criticism due to its policies on how to perpetuate its ideals and values to the rest of the world. It is now widely agreed that American foreign policy in Afghanistan and Iraq has failed miserably and the world is definitely not a safer place to live in. Among a rising tide of Terrorism and global anti-Americanism, it has become imperative that America re-evaluate its foreign policy and support the same ideals of democracy abroad as it does at home if it is ever to realize its dream of exporting democracy and freedom to the rest of the world.

There are many reasons why American policy has met with such disaster in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. One cannot help but notice a certain double standard when it comes to American interests and the interests of other sovereign nations. Too often, the greater ideals of freedom and justice that the American nation was founded upon are set aside in the name of strategic interests and politics when it comes to foreign policy. The current situation in Afghanistan and indeed the problem of global Terrorism that America faces are in part a consequence of these double standards. While it is unthinkable that any other country might try to interfere in American politics and support a dictatorship in the United States, it is considered perfectly acceptable for the U.S to support regime change and to influence the democratic process in other countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan among others. As one writer notes

“Global distrust of American leadership is reflected in increasing disapproval of the cornerstones of U.S. foreign policy. Not only is there worldwide support for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but there also is considerable opposition to U.S. and NATO operations in Afghanistan. Western European publics are at best divided about keeping troops there. In nearly every predominantly Muslim country, overwhelming majorities want U.S. and NATO troops withdrawn from Afghanistan as soon as possible. In addition, global support for the U.S.-led war on terrorism ebbs ever lower. And the United States is the nation blamed most often for hurting the world's environment, at a time of rising global concern about environmental issues.”(Manicarver 1)

Sadly this failure of foreign policy and growing tide of anti-Americanism has served to lower the image of the U.S as the leading superpower in the international arena. While the policy of containment during the Cold War era may have served U.S strategic interests, there was a tremendous cost of implementing that policy. One such disaster was the Soviet Afghan war in which America, still reeling from its defeat in Vietnam, decided to use the situation to support the Islamic Mujahideen in a proxy war that later resulted in the capitulation of the soviet army and its withdrawal from Afghanistan. Another much less publicized consequence of this war was the arming and training of Islamic extremists that afterwards went on to form groups like Taliban, Al-Qaeda, The Northern Alliance and sowed more than a decade of bloody civil war in the memories of Afghans to come. The U.S had an opportunity to support a democratic solution in Afghanistan that would have allowed for power sharing between the different factions in Afghanistan and given the Afghan people their much deserved chance at a peaceful existence but instead the U.S, after training and arming the Extremists to the teeth decided to cut and run once the Soviets were defeated. The current culture of terrorism stemmed, in part from this feeling of betrayal and a ready supply of American provided arms, ammunition, funding and military training that has allowed these people to wreak havoc in the decades to come.

Americas support for Israel is another such sore point that has turned the tide of global public opinion against the U.S. Most Muslims the world over see the creation and the continuation of the state of Israel as a theft of Muslim land previously controlled by the sovereign state of Palestine. The Overwhelming amount of foreign financial and military aid that Israel receives from the United States has allowed it to engage in the genocide of the Palestinian people. While freedom of speech is a fundamental right of every American, that same right usually not afforded to the international media if it tries to go against America’s policy on the middle-east and the atrocities of the state of Israel. As witnessed by one report,

“A monstrous war crime that Israel has tried to cover up for a fortnight has finally been exposed. Its troops have caused devastation in the center of the Jenin refugee camp, reached yesterday by The Independent, where thousands of people are still living amid the ruins. A residential area roughly 160,000 square yards about a third of a mile wide has been reduced to dust. Rubble has been shoveled by bulldozers into 30ft piles. The sweet and ghastly reek of rotting human bodies is everywhere, evidence that it is a human tomb. The people, who spent days hiding in basements crowded into single rooms as the rockets pounded in, say there are hundreds of corpses, entombed beneath the dust, under a field of debris, criss-crossed with tank and bulldozer treadmarks.”(Hoffman 2)

While the United States may condemn ethnic cleansing in places like Bosnia and Rwanda, It turns a blind eye to the events in Israel due to its need to have a friendly government in the middle-east in order to keep “anti-American” states in check.

To say that the American government only fails to support democracy abroad by not intervening would also be a mistruth. Indeed there have been instances when supporting democracy has produced such unexpected results that America has had to completely rethink its position. As David Makovsky points out in “Democracy: A Journal Of Ideas”

“It seems a very long time ago that President George W. Bush gave his second inaugural address. In January 2005, he proclaimed that "the best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world." With this soaring idea, deeply rooted in America's Wilsonian political tradition, Bush defined the organizing foreign policy principle for his second term in office. However, exactly a year after uttering those words, Bush's Middle East democracy initiative came to a halt when Hamas won a parliamentary victory in the West Bank and Gaza in January 2006. Suddenly, it became clear that the United States had erred by equating democracy with one election and by not forming policy around the establishment of liberal institutions, which would ensure that liberal means would not lead to an illiberal end.”(3)

The U.S realizing its mistake in equating democracy with pro-Americanism quickly moved to impose heavy sanctions on the new Palestinian government. Whatever the reason may have been, it was certainly not to promote democracy or the Palestinians right to choose their own leaders. As Ismail Haiyeh reporting for the Voice of America observed

“Israel has cut off $50 million in monthly tax payments to the Palestinians, and the United States and Europe are re-assessing donations of nearly $1 billion a year because they consider Hamas a terrorist organization.

Arab states have promised Hamas $55 million a month, but they have rarely met their commitments in the past, and so far, they have not delivered….

…In the meantime, the economic noose is growing tighter, and Hamas cannot find a bank to handle its finances. Hamas officials say the Jordan-based Arab Bank is no longer willing to handle Palestinian Authority accounts because of international pressure.” (4)

The Attacks on 9/11 only served to worsen the situation, ushering in a new era of American foreign policy that bordered on paranoia. Preemptive strikes against Afghanistan and Iraq set a new precedent in strong arm politics and warfare. What the U.S then failed to realize is that it is not always possible to impose your will just by military might alone, the current situation in Iraq is testament to this fact. Using the Threat of WMD’s and casting Saddam Hussein as the foremost threat to American security further deteriorated America’s credibility on the international stage. The War that followed and the current quagmire that is Iraq have further weakened the United States ability to influence other nations, as was evident by the Iranian nuclear situation.

The real threat to international nuclear proliferation due to India and Pakistan manufacturing their own bombs was ignored as both countries were in some part allied with the U.S and central to U.S strategic interests. This again turned out to be a mistake when Abdul Qadeer Khan, the self titled “Father of the Pakistani Bomb” was later implicated in an international nuclear proliferation scandal that may indeed have been responsible for handing over nuclear technology to North Korea and Iran among other anti-American nations.

All these instances underline a failing American policy and a lack of understanding of the international situation. America needs to decide once and for all if its role is to be the protector of American ideal of democracy or to become an imperial power. The Secretary of Defense Robert Gates raised the same question in his address to the world forum on the future of democracy

“ Still, we Americans continue to wrestle with the appropriate role this country should play in advancing freedom and democracy in the world. It was a source of friction through the entire Cold War. In truth, it has been a persistent question for this country throughout our history: How should we incorporate America’s democratic ideals and aspirations into our relations with the rest of the world? And in particular, when to, and whether to try to change the way other nations govern themselves? Should America’s mission be to make the world “safe for democracy,” as Woodrow Wilson said, or, in the words of John Quincy Adams, should America be “the well-wisher of freedom and independence of all” but the “champion and vindicator only of our own”? ”(5)

It is sad that while America itself continues to pursue the ideals of justice and freedom within its own borders, its policy somehow dramatically changes once it considers situations outside these borders. The only real way to rectify the situation is to uphold the same ideals of democracy and freedom abroad, as are upheld so dearly within Americas own borders. It has indeed become Imperative for the U.S to discard its attitude of realism and militarism in exchange for a more idealistic perspective. Its not a certainty that “If you do not fight them abroad, you’ll fight them at home.” The roots of terrorism are based in poverty and injustice, as long as these fertile grounds for dissention remain, there will be Anti-Americanism and there will most certainly be Terrorism.

If America pursues the same ideals of democracy abroad instead of supporting militarism and totalitarianism, it would meet with much greater success in eliminating injustice and promoting liberal societies abroad. The answer lies in alleviating poverty in third world countries, promoting education, social equality, providing freedom and security for the exploited populations living under oppressive regimes and supporting the people’s right to choose their own destinies and their own leadership rather than carpet bombing entire nations into submission. Ultimately it is up to the American people to decide that it is time for a change in policy and perspective, and to elect representatives that would bring that mentality of idealism that’s much needed in American politics right now. One can only hope that in the future, a more idealistic American foreign policy would usher in a new era of peace and prosperity, for Americans and non-Americans alike.

Works Cited

1. Manicarver. “Global Unease With Major World Powers” 19 Sep 2007.

Yahoo 360 http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-4ysGxcs7equsuMqoe51pfmli.2Aw?p=2234

2. Hoffman, Michael. “The Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians” 16 April 2002

<http://www.revisionisthistory.org/palestine52.html>

3. Makovsky, David. “Promote Liberal Democracy” Fall 07

The Washington Institute http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=1088

4. Haniyeh, Islmail. “Economic Sanctions Empty Coffers of New Hamas Government”

6 April 2006. Voice of America http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-04/Economic-Sanctions-Empty-Coffers-of-New-Hamas-Government.cfm?CFID=129499194&CFTOKEN=69255450

5. Gates, Robert. “World Forum on the Future of Democracy” 17 Sep 2007

U.S Department of Defense http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1175

6. “US is the No 1 risk to world economy: US prof” 19 Sep 2007

<http://sgpropertypress.wordpress.com/2007/09/19/us-is-the-no-1-risk-to-world-economy-us-prof/>

7. Sactodan. “Bush Doctrine- Changes in American Foreign Policy” 28 June 2005

Blogcritics Magazine http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/28/233127.php#comment-632766

War-gaming In The Dark.

2007-09-11T13:37:00.000-07:00

I recently read a piece on Atlantic.com by Joshua Hammer titled "After Musharraf" that spoke of The Center for Strategic International Studies, a "Bi-partisan think tank" formulating strategies to deal with different scenarios in the event of the military regime in Pakistan becoming destabilised.

I found it amusing to say the least when I found such prodigious personalities as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry A. Kissinger and none other than ex-deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage who had been accused in September 2006 by Musharraf of "Threatening to bomb his country back to the stone age".

Even if we somehow manage to stomach the "Bi-partisan" nature of this think tank, the conclusions that they arrive at are simply preposterous to say the least. Musharraf who has recently gone through a number of crises including a rebellious supreme court and a disgruntled population calling for elections and his removal from power, is in no position to start a war within his own borders. What all these "experts" on Pakistan failed to mention is that Musharraf hangs on to power by a thread, and thus any incident that would call for him turning the military lose on his own people would be the last straw. Less than 2 months ago the Pakistani military regieme was seriously considering declaring a state of emergency in order to maintain control and to somehow short-circuit the elections that have been promised in 2007. less than 2 weeks ago 200 pakistani soldiers belonging to the Frontier Corps were "Abducted" by the same tribesmen that the "experts" are claiming will be confronted by Musharrafs military government. The complete lack of touch with reality is sadly apparent, afterall these are some of the same people who have brought the U.S to this stage, when the only real way to export democracy is to support military dictatorships.