Democracy another tool of western Colonialism
uploaded 30 Aug 2003
http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=8146&TagID=1
Democracy another tool of western Colonialism
There has been much promise of bringing democracy to the Middle East by establishing a democracy in Iraq upon the ashes of Saddam Hussein's regime. President Bush said on Feb 26th "A new regime in Iraq would serve as an inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region,".
But it has not materialized for they fear that the democracies that may arise will not serve the interest of the West. So the purpose of implementing democracy is to serve the interest of the colonial powers. What we witness today in Iraq is exactly this where the British and the Americans are preparing Iraq to be governed by a puppet like Karzai who will wear the clothing of a democratic leader, and will have the protocol of a democratic leader, but underlying it all will be a dictatorship which will serve the West.
The statement of the state department exposes this :
"Liberal democracy would be difficult to achieve in Iraq," said a March 2003 State Department report, first reported by the Los Angeles Times. "Electoral democracy, were it to emerge, could well be subject to exploitation by anti-American elements."
"The question isn't whether it is feasible, but is it worth a try," Lieutenant Colonel James Cassella, a Pentagon spokesman.
The feasibility is not the question, but the big question is whose interest will it serve. As we have mentioned in a previous article on Democracy (Iraq's Liberal democratic future) that this was the fear of Lord Macaulay in 1832 when the institution of democracy was being debated in Britain. The dream they sold to the Muslims through their propaganda machine was that ‘of a liberated Iraq without Saddam Hussein’, but this was only propaganda. The report produced by the National Intelligence Council (represents the consensus view of American spy agencies) at the beginning of the year came to a totally opposite conclusion. The Boston Globe quoted a senior intelligence official who had read the report and remarded that: "what the administration was saying was a rosy picture," .. "The report's conclusions were totally opposite."
Also Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum think tank, which promotes American interests in the region now argues that "democratically-minded autocrats can guide [Iraq] to full democracy better than snap elections". What Iraq needs, he says, is "a democratically minded [sic] strongman who has real authority", who would be "politically moderate" but "operationally tough".
"US efforts to impose a US vision on the area could lead to instability in countries like Jordan and Pakistan, and could result in further strengthening the hand of fundamentalism and terrorism," Edward Walker, former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs in the Clinton administration, warned in a prewar speech.
The CIA reported that Democracy for Iraq may prove to be impossible. All this prove that there was never a vision for a western style democracy for Iraq. What was envisioned was the democracy that Saddam Hussien, Hosni Mubarak, Pervaiz Musharraf and all the other dictators implement in the Muslim world. This type of Democracy has been tried and tested for decades in Latin America, recently declassified documents on the democracy in Mexico exposes this colonial tool.
Jacqueline Mazza in her book called ‘Don’t Disturb the Neighbours: The United States and Democracy in Mexico, 1980-95. New York: Routledge, 2001’ terms the U.S. attitudes toward Mexican democracy as “implicit policymaking”. Through interviews with senior American officials and analysis of public records she concluded that there was an unspoken consensus within the US administration to avoid public criticism of the Mexican regime.” For U.S. purposes, Mexico was a successful regime, so why create trouble by alienating friends?”
Writing in 1969, Ambassador Robert McBride said “repeated affirmations of excellent relations between our two countries, our known preoccupation with problems of security, and the disposition of many Mexicans to believe that our only other foreign policy concern is the protection of U.S. investments, lead some persons currently in opposition or dissent to view the U.S. Government as the chief bulwark of the political status quo in Mexico.”
The US State department in its 1972 “Country Analysis and Strategy Paper” – an annual document which examined the issues at stake in the U.S.-Mexican relationship – the American embassy flatly stated that a key objective in Mexico was to “Preserve the stability of the Mexican political system.” According to its own reporting that year, the system to be preserved was one that relied on fraudulent elections, political manipulation and control of opposition parties at the federal, state and local levels, repression of dissent, and indifference and inaction toward fundamental problems such as rural poverty, unemployment and an alarming population increase.
In 1967, the CIA’s Intelligence Directorate produced a critical review of the Díaz Ordaz regime entitled Mexico: The Problems of Progress
“The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) has been a highly effective instrument of the small clique that has pre-empted political power while lavishly promoting the trappings of partisan competition. Successful maintenance of a benevolent dictatorship behind a façade of a federal republic responsive to the popular will has depended on an uneducated, backward ‘electorate’ resigned to unethical practices and political bossism.”
In the state of Jalisco in October 1967, for example, consulate officer R. B. Lane explained how the system worked to choose PRI candidates for state deputies.
“Consequently, candidates are selected to represent regions of which they are not residents, of which they have no specialized knowledge, and in which they have, in many cases, no particular interest except furthering their personal political careers. The only apparent criterion is that they ‘play ball’ with the Governor and be acceptable to the PRI State Executive Committee.”
Ibrahim al-Jaafari the current rotating President and Ahmed Challabi, who have spent most of their lives outside Iraq living in the West, who have no representation and no interest in Iraq are no different to these candidates for the PRI. They only seek to further their own political interest and the Anglo-American interests.
In Uruguay the US administration fixed the elections to prevent a victory by the leftist “Frente Amplio” in the Uruguayan presidential elections of 1971. A Secret memcon from Henry Kissinger on a meeting between the U.S. President and British Prime Minister Edward Heath (December 20, 1971) states “[t]he Prime Minister asked about the situation in Cuba. 'The man Castro is a radical,' the President replied 'too radical even for Allende and the Peruvians. Our position is supported by Brazil, which is after all the key to the future. The Brazilians helped rig the Uruguayan election... There are forces at work which we are not discouraging."
They resorted to oppression and even torture to quell the insurgency. The US government established in 1964 an AID Public Safety office in Uruguay to assist and train the local police in quelling the insurgency instigated by the Tupamaro guerrilla and a growing political crisis. The U.S.-trained officers quickly came to occupy key positions in the police force, and it was then that the claims of torture grew.
A. J. Langguth documents in his book Hidden Terrors (Pantheon Books, 1978, p. 286) how older police officers were replaced - “when the CIA and the U.S. police advisers had turned to harsher measures and sterner men.” He also states how the US "introduced a system of nationwide identification cards, like those in Brazil… [and] torture had become routine at the Montevideo [police] jefatura.”
Many similarities can be draw between the Uraguyan Police force and the newly constructed police force in the Anglo-American colony of Iraq. The same police force, which used to intimidate and torture the civilian population under Saddam Hussein is now working for the US administration.
On September 11 1973 The US instigated a violent coup to overthrow the democratically-elected Popular Unity government of Salvador Allende. The US President Richard Nixon had ordered the CIA to "make the economy scream" in Chile to "prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him,". The declassified documents reveal the true nature of the call to democracy. In this case and many others around the world where the democratically elected government did not serve the interest of the US, then the US instigated a coup to replace that government.
The western Capitalist nation have always sought to colonize other nations, they never set out to liberate them. Whenever they intervened or instigated wars they always occupied and exploited the countries.
Abu Musab
Khilafah.com Journal
3 Rajab 1424 Hijri
30 August 2003
uploaded 30 Aug 2003
http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=8146&TagID=1
Democracy another tool of western Colonialism
There has been much promise of bringing democracy to the Middle East by establishing a democracy in Iraq upon the ashes of Saddam Hussein's regime. President Bush said on Feb 26th "A new regime in Iraq would serve as an inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region,".
But it has not materialized for they fear that the democracies that may arise will not serve the interest of the West. So the purpose of implementing democracy is to serve the interest of the colonial powers. What we witness today in Iraq is exactly this where the British and the Americans are preparing Iraq to be governed by a puppet like Karzai who will wear the clothing of a democratic leader, and will have the protocol of a democratic leader, but underlying it all will be a dictatorship which will serve the West.
The statement of the state department exposes this :
"Liberal democracy would be difficult to achieve in Iraq," said a March 2003 State Department report, first reported by the Los Angeles Times. "Electoral democracy, were it to emerge, could well be subject to exploitation by anti-American elements."
"The question isn't whether it is feasible, but is it worth a try," Lieutenant Colonel James Cassella, a Pentagon spokesman.
The feasibility is not the question, but the big question is whose interest will it serve. As we have mentioned in a previous article on Democracy (Iraq's Liberal democratic future) that this was the fear of Lord Macaulay in 1832 when the institution of democracy was being debated in Britain. The dream they sold to the Muslims through their propaganda machine was that ‘of a liberated Iraq without Saddam Hussein’, but this was only propaganda. The report produced by the National Intelligence Council (represents the consensus view of American spy agencies) at the beginning of the year came to a totally opposite conclusion. The Boston Globe quoted a senior intelligence official who had read the report and remarded that: "what the administration was saying was a rosy picture," .. "The report's conclusions were totally opposite."
Also Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum think tank, which promotes American interests in the region now argues that "democratically-minded autocrats can guide [Iraq] to full democracy better than snap elections". What Iraq needs, he says, is "a democratically minded [sic] strongman who has real authority", who would be "politically moderate" but "operationally tough".
"US efforts to impose a US vision on the area could lead to instability in countries like Jordan and Pakistan, and could result in further strengthening the hand of fundamentalism and terrorism," Edward Walker, former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs in the Clinton administration, warned in a prewar speech.
The CIA reported that Democracy for Iraq may prove to be impossible. All this prove that there was never a vision for a western style democracy for Iraq. What was envisioned was the democracy that Saddam Hussien, Hosni Mubarak, Pervaiz Musharraf and all the other dictators implement in the Muslim world. This type of Democracy has been tried and tested for decades in Latin America, recently declassified documents on the democracy in Mexico exposes this colonial tool.
Jacqueline Mazza in her book called ‘Don’t Disturb the Neighbours: The United States and Democracy in Mexico, 1980-95. New York: Routledge, 2001’ terms the U.S. attitudes toward Mexican democracy as “implicit policymaking”. Through interviews with senior American officials and analysis of public records she concluded that there was an unspoken consensus within the US administration to avoid public criticism of the Mexican regime.” For U.S. purposes, Mexico was a successful regime, so why create trouble by alienating friends?”
Writing in 1969, Ambassador Robert McBride said “repeated affirmations of excellent relations between our two countries, our known preoccupation with problems of security, and the disposition of many Mexicans to believe that our only other foreign policy concern is the protection of U.S. investments, lead some persons currently in opposition or dissent to view the U.S. Government as the chief bulwark of the political status quo in Mexico.”
The US State department in its 1972 “Country Analysis and Strategy Paper” – an annual document which examined the issues at stake in the U.S.-Mexican relationship – the American embassy flatly stated that a key objective in Mexico was to “Preserve the stability of the Mexican political system.” According to its own reporting that year, the system to be preserved was one that relied on fraudulent elections, political manipulation and control of opposition parties at the federal, state and local levels, repression of dissent, and indifference and inaction toward fundamental problems such as rural poverty, unemployment and an alarming population increase.
In 1967, the CIA’s Intelligence Directorate produced a critical review of the Díaz Ordaz regime entitled Mexico: The Problems of Progress
“The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) has been a highly effective instrument of the small clique that has pre-empted political power while lavishly promoting the trappings of partisan competition. Successful maintenance of a benevolent dictatorship behind a façade of a federal republic responsive to the popular will has depended on an uneducated, backward ‘electorate’ resigned to unethical practices and political bossism.”
In the state of Jalisco in October 1967, for example, consulate officer R. B. Lane explained how the system worked to choose PRI candidates for state deputies.
“Consequently, candidates are selected to represent regions of which they are not residents, of which they have no specialized knowledge, and in which they have, in many cases, no particular interest except furthering their personal political careers. The only apparent criterion is that they ‘play ball’ with the Governor and be acceptable to the PRI State Executive Committee.”
Ibrahim al-Jaafari the current rotating President and Ahmed Challabi, who have spent most of their lives outside Iraq living in the West, who have no representation and no interest in Iraq are no different to these candidates for the PRI. They only seek to further their own political interest and the Anglo-American interests.
In Uruguay the US administration fixed the elections to prevent a victory by the leftist “Frente Amplio” in the Uruguayan presidential elections of 1971. A Secret memcon from Henry Kissinger on a meeting between the U.S. President and British Prime Minister Edward Heath (December 20, 1971) states “[t]he Prime Minister asked about the situation in Cuba. 'The man Castro is a radical,' the President replied 'too radical even for Allende and the Peruvians. Our position is supported by Brazil, which is after all the key to the future. The Brazilians helped rig the Uruguayan election... There are forces at work which we are not discouraging."
They resorted to oppression and even torture to quell the insurgency. The US government established in 1964 an AID Public Safety office in Uruguay to assist and train the local police in quelling the insurgency instigated by the Tupamaro guerrilla and a growing political crisis. The U.S.-trained officers quickly came to occupy key positions in the police force, and it was then that the claims of torture grew.
A. J. Langguth documents in his book Hidden Terrors (Pantheon Books, 1978, p. 286) how older police officers were replaced - “when the CIA and the U.S. police advisers had turned to harsher measures and sterner men.” He also states how the US "introduced a system of nationwide identification cards, like those in Brazil… [and] torture had become routine at the Montevideo [police] jefatura.”
Many similarities can be draw between the Uraguyan Police force and the newly constructed police force in the Anglo-American colony of Iraq. The same police force, which used to intimidate and torture the civilian population under Saddam Hussein is now working for the US administration.
On September 11 1973 The US instigated a violent coup to overthrow the democratically-elected Popular Unity government of Salvador Allende. The US President Richard Nixon had ordered the CIA to "make the economy scream" in Chile to "prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him,". The declassified documents reveal the true nature of the call to democracy. In this case and many others around the world where the democratically elected government did not serve the interest of the US, then the US instigated a coup to replace that government.
The western Capitalist nation have always sought to colonize other nations, they never set out to liberate them. Whenever they intervened or instigated wars they always occupied and exploited the countries.
Abu Musab
Khilafah.com Journal
3 Rajab 1424 Hijri
30 August 2003