March 25, 2006
The recent elections in Belarus have been condemned by the U.S. and the European Union (EU). Both sides state
they will impose sanctions and travel restrictions on Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko.
Sound
familiar? It should because this is yet another hypocritical action
taken by the U.S. in its quest to democratize the world. Unfortunately,
the EU came on board with the U.S. in this case. I thought the
Europeans would have had more dignity and not mimicked Uncle Sam.
There
are a few puzzling aspects to this case. Belarus has not had many
internal problems, yet those who lost the election are being branded as
"freedom fighters" in their country. According to Al-Jazeera News of
March 23, 2006:
Despite his 12 years of Soviet-style rule that has made him a pariah in the West, Lukashenko is genuinely
popular among the 10 million Belarussians for having ensured relative political and economic stability.
It seems that the "groundswell" of political opposition in Belarus was concocted by the U.S. A couple of hundred
demonstrators assembled in Minsk’s central square. After five days, Belarus security moved them.
The
U.S. was outraged and condemned the actions of the security forces.
However, they are no different from that of U.S. police in clearing out
demonstrators in the U.S. Most American demonstrators would not be
allowed to protest for five days before being rounded up and taken to
the clink.
Until
a week or two before the elections, virtually nobody was talking of
Belarus. Then, allegations that there would not be fair elections came
forward, which created an atmosphere of unfair actions prior to the
actual vote. This is a standard tactic by the U.S. in its psychological
warfare campaign. According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Larov:
Long
before the elections, the OSCE mission led by the Office of Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) had declared that the elections
would be illegitimate and it was pretty biased in its commentaries on
their progress and results — let’s be frank — thus playing an
instigating role."
Normally,
countries undergoing a good economy and stability are not the targets
of massive demonstrations. Belarus is no exception. Yes, there was some
opposition, as there is in every country in the world. But, this was
hardly a groundswell of dissident ideas with a strong following.
Now,
let’s look at the map at the beginning of this article and we may see
the reason for the U.S. taking such a newly-found interest in the
democratic institutions of Belarus. The country is the main land
transit route for Russian oil and gas to western Europe and it is
surrounded by nations that have succumbed to U.S. desires, such as
Poland and the Ukraine. It is the last country bordering Russia that is
still independent of U.S. troops and stooges. Once a government in
Belarus comes to power that favors U.S. tactics, and is bought out, the
country of Russia will be surrounded by nations once a part of the
Soviet Union that have changed sides. Belarus is the last outpost of an
independent nation on Russia’s borders.
We
all know of the U.S. quick-draw tactics of using military options to
acquire its desires. Few, however, are as knowledgeable about the
political tactics used to put in power U.S. stooges. In its stated
quest to export democracy, the U.S. uses many non-democratic means and
when the coup is accomplished, states that democracy works.
Look
at Iraq. The U.S. is hailing it as a great emerging democracy. However,
in the Iraqi elections, the ballot was so difficult to understand that
a master of statistics would have had trouble knowing the players.
Candidate names were not on the ballots. And, the largest political
party in Iraq, the Ba’ath Socialists, were not allowed to run.
In Bosnia in 1995, two elections were negated and Madeleine Albright admitted that "the wrong side won." When
the "right" side eventually won, the U.S. accepted the results.
The
same happened in Serbia in 2000. When Milosevic won, the U.S. negated
the results. When his opponent finally beat him, Albright proudly told
the world that the U.S. had put $42 million into the coffers of the
opposition and stated that it was money well-spent.
The recent Ukraine elections were tainted with much U.S. money and shenanigans. Other countries have fallen
into the same trap.
Aristide was the elected president of Haiti. The U.S. did not like him so they arranged demonstrations against
him in Haiti and eventually paid for his one-way trip to South Africa, where he lives today in exile.
Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was more difficult. It took 13 years with a cost of three million Iraqi deaths
and almost a trillion U.S. dollars.
Democracy
is a fine concept, but it may not be in the best interests of some
nations. No one seems to debate this issue today. Selective democracy
stinks. In most cases, the people who have to adhere to this U.S.
institution are far worse than they were before under not-so-democratic
regimes. I don’t want to get into a debate about the merits of
democracy. It has been well-discussed in the past.
How
about a democratic country that practices democracy at all levels being
branded a totalitarian state? This is happening right now with
Venezuela. The country is more democratic today than at any time in its
history and is a vanguard for future democratic movements in the world.
But, the U.S. does not like Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chavez. In this
instance, the U.S. outright lies and accuses one of the world’s leading
democrats of threatening democracy.
A
recently-released document, called "Strategy for National Security,
2006," stated, "In Venezuela, a demagogue inundated with petrol money
is undermining democracy and trying to destabilize the region." This
preposterous statement is official U.S. doctrine against the president
and people of Venezuela.
Chavez, however, is not one to be mute in criticism of his regime. Here’s how he replied to the U.S.
security report:
You (Bush) are a coward, murderer, and responsible for genocide. Why don’t you go to Iraq and command
your armed forces there?
Sounds good to me.
|