Monday, 18 May 2015

Democracy - American style

One of the main reasons I wanted to see Ed Miliband become British prime minister is that he was clear in the final TV debate that the United Kingdom's subservient relationship to the United States would not continue, and that his default position would not necessarily be that of the United States government. 

I suspect that this development was not an inconsiderable factor in the hysterical attacks against him by the print media and the BBC in the final weeks of the campaign. 

The United States has jealously guarded its position as the world's only superpower, and is ruthless in its actions to remain so - whether that is killing a million Iraqis to safeguard its access to the country's oil wells or overthrowing the president of Ukraine to try and force its military wing, Nato, into another country in Russia's sphere of influence.

In the past few years, US-led coups, dressed up as "popular revolutions" have toppled anti-Nato presidents in Yugoslavia, Georgia and (twice) in the Ukraine. It has armed rebel militias in Libya which used those arms to rape and then murder the (anti-Nato) Libyan president, Muammar Qadaffi. 

This isn't a new development for the USA - it has overthrown or helped to overthrow anti-Nato or socialist governments from Nicaragua to Chile during the Cold War. After the Cold War, it carried on - destabilising governments in Iraq, Venezuela, Syria and Iran. 

In Yugoslavia, the last remaining socialist government in Europe before SYRIZA took control of Greece this year, the Americans were confronted with the example of a successful socialist nation, leading the non-aligned movement, and instead of demanding hard currency when selling expensive technical equipment to developing countries, this industrialised, prosperous nation instead traded technology for commodities, threatening the prevailing American-led financial system of selling over-advanced technology to countries which didn't need it, plunging them into unpayable levels of debt. 

As president Miloševic said himself: "our system provides living proof that more than one economic system is possible". This, to the Americans, was an unacceptable threat to their hegemonic financial system, and the demonisation of Miloševic began in preparation for his overthrow - the first of many. 

Miloševic, we were told, is a dictator. A strange word to use for a man who won three successive democratic elections in a state in which no fewer than twenty-one political parties operated freely at a federal level. 

Once the Americans decided to topple Miloševic, they used tactics which have become almost Standard Operating Procedure for Nato in the years since. They funnelled over €60 million to the anti-socialist Miloševic candidate, Vosislav Koštunica, who even then failed to win the 2000 election, gaining only 49% of the vote in the first round. Horrified at his failure, and knowing that Miloševic's popularity was such that it would potentially see the second round, his American-backed and American-armed and American-funded supporters stormed the Yugoslav parliament and overthrew the legitimate government by force in a coup d'état. Miloševic was then put on trial in the Hague, where after more than a hundred prosecution witnesses were unable to testify that he had ordered war crimes to be committed, he died suddenly, without witnesses, in his cell. 

This (successful) tactic was used time and time again. In Georgia, George Soros and James Baker called openly for Eduard Shevardnadze, the former Soviet foreign minister turned Georgian president, to be overthrown, with the OSCE paying for anti-government activists to fly to Serbia for training by those who had mounted the anti-socialist coup three years previously. Again, the pattern: the United States pours millions of dollars into the opposition. The opposition fails to win the election. And a "people's revolt" forces an anti-Nato president out and replaces him with a pro-Nato president. 

The tactic was used twice in the Ukraine in the last ten years: a pro-Nato candidate backed financially and morally by the United States loses the election, and US-armed militias force the democratically-elected president out. 

Against that backdrop, it's not difficult to see why even the timid Ed Miliband would have been a step too far. 

One example of a genuine citizens' revolt was in Egypt, where the Arab Spring forced out the US-backed military dictator, Hosni Mubarak, and decades after the end of the monarchy, installed a democratically-elected president, Mohammed Mursi.

The results of every Egyptian presidential election winner since the Republic was declared are as follows:

1956 - Nasser 99,9%
1958 - Nasser 100%
1965 - Nasser 100%
1970 - Sadat 90%
1976 - Sadat 99,9%
1981 - Mubarak 98,5%
1987 - Mubarak 97,1%
1993 - Mubarak 96,3%
1999 - Mubarak 93,8%
2005 - Mubarak 88,6%
2012 - Mursi 51,7%
2014 - Sisi 96,9%

You will notice two things about these results. Firstly, the military dictators (Nasser, Sadat, Mubarak and Sisi) are tremendously and implausibly popular. Secondly, that the Americans were quite happy to work with military dictators who are rigging elections. 

Mursi visited Iran in August 2012, in the first step to repairing relations between Cairo and Tehran: the latest sign that the Mursi presidency would be moving Egypt away from its erstwhile Washington allies and towards a non-aligned future. 

Within ten months, Mursi had been the victim of an American-backed coup d'état, the new military dictatorship immediately swearing allegiance to Washington. 

And within two years of that, this week, the Egyptian military dictatorship has announced that it is to shoot Mursi dead in retaliation for him winning the presidency by popular vote. The British government, the lapdog of the American regime, has refused to intervene or condemn it. Needless to say, neither have the Americans, or Nato, that great sword of freedom and democracy.

R.T. Erdogan, the Turkish president, has condemned the decision to murder president Mursi. He has moved Ankara away from its long-standing Western outlook and shifted its long-term ambition from joining the European Union to looking at improving relations with its neighbours to the south and east. Soon, he will begin to make noises about moving Turkey away from Nato, and towards a non-aligned future, or towards a future in the CSTO. He may muse, publicly, that Nato is keen on having Turkey as a member of the club, but that the EU, the political wing of Nato, continues to exclude his country. 

And when he does, you can be sure that an assassin's bullet or a "citizens' revolt", funded and armed by Washington, will be coming his way.

If there is a threat to stability, democracy and the rule of law in the world, it does not exist in Pyongyang, Havana, Moscow, Beijing, Caracas or Athens, but in Washington. 

No comments:

Post a Comment