Text 10111, 175 rader
Skriven 2005-03-20 05:38:44 av Stephen Hayes (5:7106/20.0)
Ärende: family.debate: Does the USA promote or suppress democracy?
==================================================================
* Forwarded (from: DEBATE_FMY) by Stephen Hayes using timEd/2 1.10.y2k.
* Originally from family.debate@family-list.org (8:8/2) to debate3.
* Original dated: Sat Mar 19, 06:44

From: family.debate@family-list.org(family.debate)
To: debate3@family-bbs.org
Reply-To: family.debate@family-list.org

From: "Steve Hayes" <khanyab@lantic.net>

excerpted from Venezuela News Roundup - March 14, 2005.

Summary:

An excellent [Op-Ed] in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer criticizes the US's
support of democracy throughout the world. According to [the column], while the
US praises the peaceful demonstrations in Lebanon asking for the withdrawal of
Syrian troops, it remains silent on the democratic movements in Venezuela and
Bolivia. Unlike the situation in the Middle East, Johann Hari writes, "The
neoconservatives' warm words about democracy are sent into the deep freezer
when it comes to Bolivia, or any other Latin American country that has the
temerity to ask for democratic control of its own resources and of corporations
operating within their borders," such as Venezuela under President Chavez. The
author concludes that what the US really wants in terms of freedom is in fact
"a pallid semi-democracy conditional upon a willingness to serve U.S. corporate
and strategic interests."

Seattle Post-Intelligencer - Mar 13, 2005

U.S. PUSHES STYLE OF DEMOCRACY THAT SUITS ITS PURPOSES

by Johann Hari

There are two democratic earthquakes happening right now. You've probably heard
about the "Cedar revolution" in Lebanon but have you heard about the watery
revolt in Bolivia? These countries are 7,000 miles and a mental universe apart
but taken together they reveal basic truths about the nature of American power
- and about the world we share.

You won't find many people eager to talk about both these rebellions.

The Bush administration and its cheerleaders are very happy to talk about
Lebanon, where a huge popular movement has spontaneously arisen to demand an
end to the 29-year Syrian occupation. The Bush message is clear. See? We told
you Arabs wanted to be free and Iraq would begin a "domino effect" for
democracy throughout the region. The Iraq war has blasted a hole in the Arab
Berlin Wall. Now Arabs are beginning to stream through, demanding throughout
the region that their governments answer to them.

The opponents of the Bush world-view have been cautious or silent about this
"ripple of change" (copyright British Prime Minister Tony Blair). Some have
even sneered, claiming that any change will simply risk restarting the Lebanese
civil war or reactivate Arab "tribalism."

By contrast, left-wing campaigners are eager to talk about the rebellion
erupting in Bolivia, a small, bitterly poor, landlocked country in South
America. It has technically been a democracy since 1982, but in practice the
Bolivian government has not been accountable to its people.

No: It has been subject to the undemocratic demands of the U.S. government, and
to massive corporations, and their proxies, the International Monetary Fund and
World Bank. For example, the U.S. demands that - in the name of the "war on
drugs" - Bolivia destroy the coca crops of its peasants, one of the few sources
of income for more than 5 million poor Bolivians. Or, in another example, the
World Bank ordered the Bolivian government to sell its water supplies to
Bechtel, a Californian multinational, even though they increased water bills by
as much as 200 percent - in a country where thousands of children die every
year because they don't have access to clean water.

But then - in 2000 - something remarkable happened. The Bolivian people rose up
and expelled Bechtel from the country, keeping their water supply under
democratic control. Over the past week, the Bolivian people have risen again.
They want to be allowed to grow coca without American interference, including -
yes - for the huge global market in recreational drugs.

And they want the massive (mostly U.S.) multinationals operating within their
borders to pay 50 percent corporation tax - the same level of tax that poor
Bolivians pay. The rebellion has been so popular that the president, Carlos
Mesa, has resigned.

This time, the roles are reversed. The left is eager to speak while the Bushies
are silent. The neoconservatives' warm words about democracy are sent into the
deep freezer when it comes to Bolivia, or any other Latin American country that
has the temerity to ask for democratic control of its own resources and of
corporations operating within their borders.

Indeed, the Bush administration actually tried to destroy the democratically
elected government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in 2000 for just this kind of
anti-corporate policy.

So what can we learn from this Tale of Two Revolutions? The most important
lesson is that there are such things as universal values. It is a natural human
desire to want to live in a free, self-determining democracy.

Lebanon and Bolivia have totally different histories and totally different
intellectual heritages but both want to be democracies. So it's not right to
respond to neocon rhetoric about "ending tyranny" and "spreading democracy to
the darkest corners of the Earth" by howling that this belief is "utopian."

But - the second crucial lesson - nor is it right to take them at their word.
Bolivia - and the wider U.S. strategy in Latin America - reveals the limits of
the "freedom" the U.S. government wants to spread. Let's look at what
neoconservative "freedom" does not include. It doesn't include freedom from
torture. The less-than-White House is knowingly handing suspects over to
torture in Egypt, Uzbekistan and elsewhere.

Nor does "freedom" mean that a democracy should be allowed to control its own
economy and resources, even to the limited extent we enjoy in Europe. In Iraq,
the democratically elected government - put in office with stunning courage by
the Iraqi people - will have to hand over its economic policies (including its
tax rates) to the International Monetary Fund for the next decade. If they
refuse - or defy the demands of their new masters, Bolivia-style - the
"international community" will reverse the cancellation of Saddam's debt and
slap a $101 billion bill on the Iraqi table.

It goes on: "Freedom" doesn't even mean more countries adopting U.S.-style
capitalism. The model of "democracy" spread by the Bush administration is far
more extreme than the capitalism that Americans practice at home (which is
itself the most extreme in the democratic world). In the United States, 85
percent of water is owned by public utilities yet the United States demands
other countries privatize their supply completely.

So what does the Bush administration mean when it says it wants to promote
"freedom?" In reality, what it wants is a pallid semi-democracy conditional
upon a willingness to serve U.S. corporate and strategic interests. In a "free"
country, you must allow the IMF and World Bank, in effect, to run your economy.
You must enforce the "war on drugs." You must privatize your entire public
sphere. You must accept massive inequalities in wealth. But you will be allowed
to pick your own local administrator to implement these policies. When it comes
to anything outside the U.S. conditions - religious rules, say, or women's
rights - you will be allowed to decide for yourselves.

But if you push this democracy lark too far - as the people of Venezuela did,
by trying to control their own oil and impose restrictions on corporations -
you will be crushed, and a more corporate-friendly viceroy will be installed
for you to approve.

There are some countries in the world so locked in tyranny that this
American-imposed model of quasi-freedom is a significant advance on the status
quo. Having some say over some issues - however unacceptably limited - is much
better than living under Saddam's genocidal dictatorship, for example. But in
most other circumstances - and eventually, as it develops, in the Arab world
itself - the very same model will be hideously regressive. This complexity
doesn't lend itself to scabrous polemics - but it is the truth.

So sincere advocates of democracy should simultaneously welcome the ripples of
change in the Arab world and the changes in Latin America. Indeed, we should
embrace these stirrings so enthusiastically that we demand they are followed
through to their proper conclusion. The people of Lebanon, Bolivia and
everywhere in between deserve more than a corporate neocon "freedom" where most
of the people's choices are ignored or crushed. They deserve real democracy.

[Johann Hari is a columnist for The Independent in Britain.]

Venezuela Information Office
733 15th Street, NW Suite 932
Washington, DC 20005
t. 202-347-8081
f. 202-347-8091
::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :::
The Venezuela Information Office is dedicated to informing the American public
about contemporary Venezuela. More information is available from the FARA
office of the Department of Justice in Washington, DC.


-+- family.debate
Sponsored by FamilyNet International. Support FamilyNet at
http://www.fmlynet.org You can also read via newsgroups at
nntp://nntp.family-bbs.net

___ BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 - Origin: FamilyNet Sponsored by http://www.christian-wellness.net (8:8/2) 

--- WtrGate v0.93.p9 Unreg
 * Origin: Khanya BBS, Tshwane, South Africa [012] 333-0004 (5:7106/20)