Why Can?t Americans Have Democracy?

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
Why Can?t Americans Have Democracy?

by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS


Syria has a secular government as did Iraq prior to the American invasion. Secular governments are important in Arab lands in which there is division between Sunni and Shi?ite. Secular governments keep the divided population from murdering one another.

When the American invasion, a war crime under the Nuremberg standard set by the US after WW II, overthrew the Saddam Hussein secular government, the Iraqi Sunnis and Shi?ites went to war against one another. The civil war between Iraqis saved the American invasion. Nevertheless, enough Sunnis found time to fight the American occupiers of Iraq that the US was never able to occupy Bagdad, much less Iraq, no matter how violent and indiscriminate the US was in the application of force.

The consequence of the US invasion was not democracy and women?s rights in Iraq, much less the destruction of weapons of mass destruction which did not exist as the weapons inspectors had made perfectly clear beforehand. The consequence was to transfer political power from Sunnis to Shi?ites. The Shi?ite version of Islam is the Iranian version. Thus, Washington?s invasion transferred power in Iraq from a secular government to Shi?ites allied with Iran.

Washington?s hostility toward Assad is hypocritical. On February 26, the Syrian government held a referendum on a new constitution for Syria that set term limits on future presidents and removed the political monopoly that the Ba?ath Party has enjoyed.

The Syrian voter turnout was 57.4%, matching the voter turnout for Obama in 2008. It was a higher voter turnout (despite the armed, western-supported rebellion in Syria) than in the nine US presidential elections from 1972 through 2004. The new Syrian constitution was approved by a vote of 89.4%.

But Washington denounced the democratic referendum and claims that the Syrian government must be overthrown in order to bring democracy to Syria.

Washington?s allies in the region, unelected oil monarchies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have issued statements that they are willing to supply weapons to the Islamist rebels in order to bring democracy?something they do not tolerate at home?to Syria.

For Washington ?democracy? is a weapon of mass destruction. When Washington brings ?democracy? to a country, it means the country?s destruction, as in Libya and Iraq. It doesn?t mean democracy. Libya is in chaos, a human rights nightmare without an effective government.

Washington installed Nouri al-Maliki as president of Iraq. He lost an election, but remained in power. He has declared his vice president to be a terrorist and ordered his arrest and is using the state police to arrest Sunni politicians.

For a decade Washington has misrepresented its wars of naked aggression as ?bringing democracy and human rights to the Middle East.? While Washington was bringing democracy to the Middle East, Washington was destroying democracy in the US. Washington has resurrected medieval torture dungeons and self-incrimination. Washington has destroyed due process and habeas corpus. At Obama?s request, Congress passed overwhelmingly a law that permits US subjects to be imprisoned indefinitely without a trial or presentation of evidence. Warrantless searches and spying, illegal and unconstitutional at the turn of the 21st century, are now routine.

Obama has even asserted the right, for which there is no law on the books, to murder any American anywhere if the executive branch decides, without presenting any evidence, that the person is a threat to the US government. Any American anywhere can be murdered on the basis of subjective opinion in the executive branch, which increasingly is the only branch of the US government. The other two ?co-equal? branches have shriveled away under the ?war on terror.?

Why is Washington so determined to bring democracy to the Middle East (with the exception of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and the Emirates), Africa, Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, and China, but is hostile to constitutional rights in America?

The rights that Americans gained from successful revolution against King George III in the 18th century have all been taken away by Bush/Obama in the 21st century. One might think that this would be a news story, but it isn?t.

PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached through his website.
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
No One Seems to Care

No One Seems to Care

No One Seems to Care

Saudi Arabia?s Free Pass

by SERGE HALIMI


Saudi Arabia?s record is no better than Iran?s when it comes to respect for human rights. Yet the international community always manages to overlook the Wahhabi monarchy. Could this be connected with Saudi Arabia?s status as top oil-producing country and trusted ally of the US?

Saudi Arabia can intervene in Bahrain, crush democratic protests there, execute 76 people in 2011 (including a woman accused of ?sorcery?), threaten to execute a blogger who posted an imaginary conversation with the Prophet on Twitter, sentence thieves to amputation, announce that rape, sodomy, adultery, homosexuality, drug trafficking and apostasy are to carry the death penalty, and nobody except the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights seems to care. The UN Security Council, the G20 (of which Saudi Arabia is a member), the International Monetary Fund, whose director recently visited Riyadh and expressed her appreciation of the kingdom?s ?important role? in supporting the global economy: none of them care.

This monarchy still refuses to allow women to travel by car unless accompanied by husband or chauffeur, or to participate in the Olympic Games. Although the latest breach of at least two principles of the Olympic charter (1) hasn?t caused much of a fuss. If Iran had been guilty of such sexual apartheid, international protests would have been organised and widely reported.

The Tunisian prime minister Hamadi Jebali has provided another example of the preferential treatment automatically accorded to the Saudi monarchy. Jebali, who belongs to a movement savagely repressed by former president Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, praised his Saudi hosts on one of his first official visits abroad. Yet Riyadh, which supported the Ben Ali clan to the bitter end, refuses to extradite them and provides a safe haven for their finances. Gulf money also helps encourage the Salafists? provocative behaviour in Tunisia, funding TV channels that spread their medieval interpretation of Islam.

In January 2008 French president Nicolas Sarkozy claimed that Saudi Arabia, ?encouraged by His Majesty King Abdullah?, was promoting a ?policy of civilisation?. Four years on, this country riddled with corruption is the Arab world?s foremost proponent of ultra-conservative Sunni Islam. Riyadh?s elders, who see the protests of young Saudis as a ?new form of terrorism?, only care about peoples? rights when they can be used as a weapon against the ?radical? or Shia regimes of their regional rivals. The kingdom thinks it will be shielded from popular protests by spending a drop of its oil revenues on social services, by its Sunni majority?s contempt for the 10% to 20% of Shia nursing their grievances in the eastern part of the kingdom, and by the fear of Iran. The international indulgence of the Saudi monarchy is an added comfort.

SERGE HALIMI is director of Le Monde Diplomatique. He has written several books, including one on the French press, Les nouveaux chiens de garde and another on the French left in the 20th century ? Quand la gauche essayait ? both are fine works. He can be reached at Serge.Halimi@monde-diplomatique.fr

Notes.

(1) Principle 4 of the Fundamental Principles of Olympism states: ?Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport, without discrimination of any kind.? Principle 6 says: ?Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.?

This article appears in the excellent Le Monde Diplomatique, whose English language edition can be found at mondediplo.com. This full text appears by agreement with Le Monde Diplomatique. CounterPunch features two or three articles from LMD every month.
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
From the Alawite Fantasy to the Surrealism of the UN

From the Alawite Fantasy to the Surrealism of the UN

From the Alawite Fantasy to the Surrealism of the UN

The Syrian Mirage

by PIERRE PICCININ


More than a year after civil unrest broke out and plunged part of Syria into the chaos of the ?Arab Spring?, the Baath government remains firmly in control and the majority of the country is calm; almost untouched by an opposition which is scattered and confined to the cities of Homs and Hama, as well as a few towns on the Turkish and Lebanese border. The main reported cases of unrest are linked to regular attacks from Salafist bands which are of an extremely violent nature and more importantly, the Free Syrian Army. The latter counts amid its ranks numerous Qataris and Libyans, all whom have been trained in the art of urban guerilla warfare by the French army in refugee camps, which provide perfect bases from which to operate and orchestrate attacks.

How can one explain the resilience of this regime? A regime which is more or less in complete control despite facing what is usually described as a ?revolutionary populist uprising?? One which is determined to overthrow the ?Alawite dictatorship? from the political and economic realms of Syrian society, the so-called privilege of the Alawi, a community which accounts for no more than about 10% of the population?

Perhaps it is because the reality does not correspond to this over simplified equation.

Indeed, the communitarian and religious Syrian patchwork is far from closing ranks on the Alawi population. Moreover, this group, do not in fact monopolize the political landscape.

Therefore, even back in the 1980s, when Hafez Al-Assad, father of the incumbent president, Bashir, and author of the ?Alawi coup d??tat?, succumbed to serious health issues, he had designed a directorate of six members to run the Syrian government ? All six were Sunnis.

Furthermore, all the prime ministers who have served in Bashir Al-Assad?s government have been Sunnis. Similarly key positions including the Ministers of Defence, Finance and Oil and the heads of the numerous police corps and the secret service do not depend on the Alawi community. The Druze, Christian, Shiite and Kurd minorities also benefit from governmental representation.

This would explain why the opposition is a fractious minority whose support base lies outside Syria?s borders rather than at the heart of the population.

In these circumstances it is understandable that Russia (and China), treading carefully in order to preserve her last card in the Middle East, resolutely opposes the pressure to sign up to the latest United Nations Security Council resolution. This would undoubtedly lead Syria into a scenario similar to Libya, where tens of thousands of civilians would perish as during the destruction of Sirte (and Russia has asked for there to be a UN commission to investigate these Atlantic war crimes).

The most striking element is this whole situation is that the UN has neither the right nor the objective, to decide the nature of a sovereign government, less still the identity of its head of state; meaning that the text proposed to the Security Council by the Arab league, calling for the departure of President Bashir Al-Assad, a text supported by Qatar with substantial French backing, is directly opposed to the basic principles of international law and completely surreal.

Furthermore, if the Baath regime is dictatorial and brutal, so are numerous factions of the opposition: an opposition which is seriously divided and made up of groups with conflicting objectives, none of which necessarily represent the Syrian population; for on the one hand there are the radical Islamic factions, who massacre their opponents and commit atrocities against the military (kidnappings, mutilations, decapitations?) but also civilians who refuse to support their objectives. This is why Russia has demanded that any UN resolution must be applied not only to the government forces but to all factions resorting to violence, including those supported by foreign states, specifically France and Qatar.

It would therefore seem that from an Alawite fantasy to the surrealism of the United Nations, Syria as depicted by the mass media certainly bears very little resemblance to the reality of the actual situation.

Pierre Piccinin is a professor of political science at the Ecole Europ?en de Bruxelles I.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top