From the Nation:
Wondering why Vice-President Dick Cheney recently played footsie with Kazakhstan's autocratic leader--an oil-rich president with an awful human rights record whose recent re-election was fraudulent? (Hey, sounds sort of familiar.) No, it wasn't because Cheney wanted to mimic his boss, who recently received another oil-rich autocrat--the president of Azerbaijan--in the White House. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that Cheney used to occupy a cushy seat on Kazakh's Oil Advisory Board? (Did anyone see this in coverage of the Vice-President's trip?) As reported by Mark Ames in the June 2003 issue of The Exile, Cheney was a member of that board in 2001 and advised Bush to "deepen [our] commercial dialogue with Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and other Caspian states." On this trip, he pronounced himself to be "delighted" to be a guest of the Kazakh president, adding that the United States "is proud to be your strategic partner" and looks forward "to continued friendship between us."
11 comments:
Tom: The neocons do not propose demanding that every nation on earth adopt democracy. Instead, they have set a remarkable benchmark by expanding the rhetoric towards convenient allies, and in making that a genuine aspect of any military interventions. For example, in response to 911, most liberal/lefties claimed that the Al Qaida strike resulted directly from the failure of Reagan to include "nation-building" as part of support for anti-Soviet efforts there, and to require errection of democracy as a requirement for this aid. Also, Bush became the first president to publically inform the Saudies that US leaders supported democracy for all nations in that region, and would work to speed its spread.
The neocons have never proposed invading countries soley to erect democracies. Instead, they have proposed the erection of democracies as a neccessary component of invading countries whose leadership has militarily threatened the US or its allies. The neocons believe that foriegn nations run with governments "of, by, and for its people" and which resect universal concepts of personal liberty produce the most wealth for themselves and the US, and provide themselves and the US with the most security.
This view is revolutionary, as it rejects previous shared view of democrats and republicans to either befriend despots or replace an unfriendly despot with a friendly one.
I think it is crazy to call Cheney as "tyrant", especially compared to the other national leaders in this world.
The erecting democracy ploy is a farce anyway.
The US is at least consistant in its inconsistency. It supports military dictatorships (Pakistan), totalitarian regimes (Egypt), and colonial invaders (Israel) on one hand and opposes democratically elected governments (Venezuela, Haiti, Bolivia) on the other.
US foreign policy for decades has promoted corporate interest and US military strategy over human rights. The only wealth that neocons hope to build is wealth for themselves.
Unlike previous presidents, Bush II has made plain his support not merely for pro-US regimes in nations neihborboring Pakistan and Egypt, but democracies, and that he wants democracy to spread also to Pakistan and Egypt. Has any president ever stated as much?
Please explain to me how Isreal qualifies as a colony or a colonial power; apparently one of us misunderstands those terms. If Isreal is a colony, please identify its home nation to which it exports licensing and protectorate fees, and which dictates its leaders and policies; if Isreal is a colonial power, please identify its satalite subject entities that function as I've described.
You and Tom have claimed that Isreal dictates the US's foriegn policy. And certainly a big chunk of the US's tax revenue get sent to Isreal. Is the US a colony of Isreal? (By the way, I oppose the US subsidizing Isreal, and reject all justifications for its establishment.)
I agree with you leftists that the Bushies' cozy comments regarding these dictatorships seem to contradict their professed advocacy of democracy, and warrents questioning of them, and explanations by them.
I hope that you lefties are as critical of the relationship that officials from the UN, Germany, and France had with pre-911 Iraq, which contradicted their own UN humanitarian sanctions.
Paul, Israel counts as a colonizer because it grew out of Great Britain's old Palestine territory. The Brits magnaminously handed it over, neglecting to consult with the natives. Israel is the legacy of European colonial control of the Levant. I didn't call Cheney a tyrant (though that claim isn't so very far-fetched). The title refers to his good friend the dictator of Kazakhstan.
I'll call Cheney a tyrant.
Again, the Bushies' "pro-democracy" rhetoric is bullshit as evidenced by their support of totalitarian regimes and their opposition to democracies that move counter to US corporate interests. It is a sham that you right-wingnuts have bought because Bush's tax cuts are providing a slight bump in your 401K's.
Tom: I agree that Isreal is a "legacy of colonialism", but it exists as neither a colony nor as a colonial power. By this odd usage of yours, most African and Arabian nations would constitute "colonial powers" because they formed via the same mechanism. And of course I believe that founding Isreal was a collosal mistake, and utterly unjustified. However, we might say that about many nations that we've all agreed to accept as humanity marches forward.
Nadir: I agree that the Bushies have not been 100% true to their call for democracy. However, they have called for democracy accross left-right lines, which constitutes a revolution in US foriegn policy.
Tom: Looking back at your comment, I see you used the term, "colonizer", which is even more preposterous a description of Isreal, as it does not seek to expand its borders!
Paul said: "Looking back at your comment, I see you used the term, "colonizer", which is even more preposterous a description of Isreal, as it does not seek to expand its borders!"
Who's being preposterous? Ever heard of the Occupied Territories? Just as there are elements among the Palestinians -- empowered by Israeli intrangisence -- who want to push Israel into the sea, there are Israelis -- empowered by Palestinian intrangisence -- who want to reclaim Biblical Israel. If Israel wants to prove it's not a colonizer, it should remove its colonies from the West Bank And what do you mean that Bush has "called for democracy accross left-right lines"? Was the CIA not involved in the failed coup against democratically elected Chavez a few years ago? As with Eisenhower (Guatemala), Nixon (Chile), and Reagan (Nicaragua), Bush doesn't seem much a fan of public will in the Americas when it contradicts the interests of his corporate clients.
Post a Comment