SmokingTarpan

Provided that the elections are fair and accurate, who exactly are we to determine the "correct" way to do things? So long as the majority of the people have a wish for the country to be run a certain way, we shouldn't step in and attempt to change things just because it isn't the way we want it done. I'm rather tired of the thought that the only way things should be done is the way that the US and our allies do them.

That's what bothers me quite a bit about the situation in Iraq. Regardless of what the people want, there's no way that we'll let a government stand over there unless it meets our requirements. It's apparently only what the people want if we give a thumbs up to it first.

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

xTYBALTx

So you oppose intervention on human rights grounds, then? Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia, Darfur, Liberia; you were opposed to intervention for these past abuses and would be opposed to future interventions in similar cases? Or to be more precise, you would be opposed to intervention if and only if at least half of the native population opposes our intervening?

But wait - intervention was never really brought up by me. I only said that the US would not necessarily recognize and 'support' a 'democracy' simply because a vote took place and the "people have spoken!". Without the rule of law, protection for minorities, and the protection of certain liberal rights, a nations' so-called democracy is quite useless. Or at least, that's what we high and mighty westerners say.

Don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of intervening in places all around the world nor throwing our 'military weight' around. But I certainly do not think that the deciding factor in whether or not the USA supports another nation's government should be left to the will of their people.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

fighter10101

Hi, thanks for the replies


I don't agree on the definition on “modern” democracy's . MVR has implemented a new economic treaty called ALBA, which far more newer than the Neoliberal doctrines that the US has tried to force on Latin American countries that had have devastating effects on the people. The MVR has not won a vote, it has won 9 elections since 98, and according to the highly respected Latinobarometro 70 % of the people of Venezuela were positive to “Acceptance towards democracy” a huge improvement since 1996 where only 62 % where positive to their democracy which is in decline in the rest of Latin America, especially in Peru and Colombia, the US's favorites. [1] I think you are a bit vague on the critic on MVR, i will comment further if u can be more specific.

But your concept that “ vital components to 'modern democracy including free markets.” is quite interesting.
Lets take Bolivia as an example: In 2003 the water was privatized by Bechtel. It had devastating effects, including rising the prizes up to 250% and making it illegal to collect water from the skies[2]. The water distribution was now in a totalitarian institution that don't cares about the fact that many people would die. The people said “ya basta” and revolted against the totalitarian institution and finally its now in democratic hands. Your “modern” democracy does in fact undermine democratic institutions and support private tyrannies that don't care about the wishes of the people only about profit. My conclusion is that the US government supports anti democratic policies.

Why would the MVR support neoliberal policies? They did experience a economic depression because of it. The people of venezuela felt this on their lives and wanted change, thats a crucial factor on the 98 elections and the rest. Ill quote wikipedia: “ President Carlos Andrés Pérez proposed to implement free-market "reforms" in his second presidential term (1989–1993), following the recommendations of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Whilst some were glad, large sections of the populace felt betrayed, as they had voted him in on a populist platform. Pérez belonged to the Acción Democrática (AD) party (social-democrat). This programme was known as the paquete — the "package".

Measures taken by Pérez included privatizing state companies, tax reform, reducing customs duties, and diminishing the role of the state in the economy. He also took measures to decentralize and modernise the Venezuelan political system, by instituting the direct election of state governors (previously appointed by the President).”[3] It led to economic disaster and undemocratic measurements and massacres strongly condemned by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights “and referred the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. In 1999, the Court heard the case and found that the government had committed violations of human rights, including extrajudicial killings.” This is your “modern” democracy in Venezuela.

Its nothing new, high level documents describe some countries i Latin America as “radical” and “nationalistic regimes” that are responsive to popular pressures for “immediate improvement in the low living standards of the masses and development for domestic needs” These factors conflict with your “free market” or as the document said : “a political and economic climate conducive to private investment.” with adequate repatriation of profits and “protection of our raw materials”-who happens to be in other countries.[4]


Back in February 1945 high Washington proposed an “economic charters of the Americas” that would eliminate economic nationalism “in all its forms”. The planners did understand that it would not be easy to impose this principle. State department documents warned that Latin Americas prefer “policies designed to bring about a broader distribution of wealth and to raise the standard of living of the masses” and are “convinced that the first beneficiaries of a country's resources should be the people of that country”.[5]

Ill go further into the “modern” “free market” democracy in Chile:
We know here that the US organized and supported the coup in 11 September 1973.[ill find the quotes from H.K etc if you want to] and was actually the 1st “free market” experiment in Latin America” (I don't know if the dictator was portrayed as a pro democratic president in the US propaganda you tell me)

Chile:
According to Elton Rayack t “The initial effects of introducing free market policies in 1975 was a shock-induced depression which resulted in national output falling buy 15 percent, wages sliding to one-third below their 1970 level and unemployment rising to 20 percent.”[6]. He continues : “This meant that, in per capita terms, Chile's GDP only increased by 1.5% per year between 1974-80. This was considerably less than the 2.3% achieved in the 1960's. The average growth in GDP was 1.5% per year between 1974 and 1982, which was lower than the average Latin American growth rate of 4.3% and lower than the 4.5% of Chile in the 1960's. Between 1970 and 1980, per capita GDP grew by only 8%, while for Latin America as a whole, it increased by 40%. Between the years 1980 and 1982 during which all of Latin America was adversely affected by depression conditions, per capita GDP fell by 12.9 percent, compared to a fall of 4.3 percent for Latin America as a whole.[7] “In 1982, after 7 years of free market capitalism, Chile faced yet another economic crisis which, in terms of unemployment and falling GDP was even greater than that experienced during the terrible shock treatment of 1975. Real wages dropped sharply, falling in 1983 to 14 percent below what they had been in 1970. Bankruptcies skyrocketed, as did foreign debt and unemployment.”[8]

Thomas Skidmore and Peter Smith descried the situation as:” By 1983, the Chilean economy was devastated and it was only by the end of 1986 that Gross Domestic Product per capita (barely) equalled that of 1970”[9]

Silvia Borzutzky analyzes the situation and found that: ” The law was also changed to reflect the power property owners have over their wage slaves and the "total overhaul of the labour law system which took place between 1979 and 1981. . . aimed at creating a perfect labour market, eliminating collective bargaining, allowing massive dismissal of workers, increasing the daily working hours up to twelve hours and eliminating the labour courts.”[10] according to Rayack : “By 1976, the third year of Junta rule, real wages had fallen to 35% below their 1970 level. It was only by 1981 that they has risen to 97.3% of the 1970 level, only to fall again to 86.7% by 1983. Unemployment, excluding those on state make-work programmes, was 14.8% in 1976, falling to 11.8% by 1980 (this is still double the average 1960's level) only to rise to 20.3% by 1982. [11] Skidmore og Smith said that “unemployment (including those on government make-work programmes) had risen to a third of the labour force by mid-1983. By 1986, per capita consumption was actually 11% lower than the 1970 level”[12] Bortzutzky writes that “Between 1980 and 1988, the real value of wages grew only 1.2 percent while the real value of the minimum wage declined by 28.5 percent. During this period, urban unemployment averaged 15.3 percent per year.” [13]

Noam chomsky found that : “Per capita consumption fell by 23% from 1972-87. The proportion of the population below the poverty line (the minimum income required for basic food and housing) increased from 20% to 44.4% between 1970 and 1987. Per capita health care spending was more than halved from 1973 to 1985, setting off explosive growth in poverty-related diseases such as typhoid, diabetes and viral hepatitis. On the other hand, while consumption for the poorest 20% of the population of Santiago dropped by 30%, it rose by 15% for the richest 20%”[14] “The experiment with free market capitalism also had serious impacts for Chile's environment. The capital city of Santiago became one of "the most polluted cities in the world" due the free reign of market forces…. With no environmental regulation there is general environmental ruin and water supplies have severe pollution problems.”[15]

Reagan actually used more money than on protectionism in USA than all the presidents combined since ww2 , so we see a clear line of double moral, some must have “free markets” some can use a high level of protectionism, you can call this what you want but its not free markets(anther example is the EU, that threated to block Chinese textiles (mar 2005) under “free” market policies)

The US government supports financial and diplomatic the dictator of Uzbekistan. The regime has and awful record of human rights violations[16],(their favorite method of torture is boiling humans alive) and is carrying out “free market” policies, that impoverish the people even more, do you support this?
I am trying to explain that the US does not make a distinction between a democratic or a totalitarian state when they support them. Both are accepted if they behave right, thus the US's “mission to bring democracy is a farce

I did not say that the CIA organized the coup, however thats what a senator said a coupel of weaks ago" our CIA organized a coup against Venezuela"[trying 2 find the source, sorry] Did u see my footnotes, here we have clear evidence that the US gave financial support(wich is the word i used) to the organizer of the coup, and that they knew that the coup was to be implemented.

edit: I forgot to talk about Cafta the new "free trade" treaty.
I agree with Stein, Guatemalan Vice President Eduardo Stein who said "It's an affront to Latin America when a government says it wants to be a 'partner' but then is only interested in our money and commodities,"

polls showed that: 76 percent of Salvadorans believed that CAFTA would not help their country; 65 percent of Guatemalans said it would worsen conditions; 61 percent of people in the Dominican Republic opposed the deal; and 77 percent in Honduras regarded their pro-CAFTA government as corrupt. Again its anti democratic treaties if you belive that the people of the countries should have a say.
[ source: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...13&ItemID=9865 ]

again sorry for the grammar

footnotes
[1] the original is in spanish :
http://www.latinobarometro.org/uploads/media/2005.pdf
but u can read some of the results in english here:
http://www.economist.com/world/la/di...ory_id=3084404

[2] here are some of the prizes that were left on their pc's when the management fled the company.
http://democracyctr.org/bechtel/wate...lls-global.htm
see also
http://democracyctr.org/bechtel/waterbills/index.htm
http://democracyctr.org/bechtel/the_water_war.htm
and John Pilger, “verdens nye herskere” introduction

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracazo

[4] Noam Chomsky “profit over people”, seven stories press, 1999 p.19

[5] Noam Chomsky, p23


[6] Elton Rayack, “Not so Free to Choose”, s. 57

[7] Ibid se s. 64

[8] Ibid se. S. 69

[9] Thomas Skidmore og Peter Smith, "The Pinochet Regime", se. s. 137-138

[10] Silvia Bortzutzky, "The Chicago Boys, social security and welfare in Chile" se s.

[11] Elton Rayack se s. 65

[12] Thomas Skidmore og Peter Smith Ibid.

[13] Bortzutzky, se s.. 96

[14] Noam Chomsky, “Year 501”, se .s. 190-191

[15] Chomsky se.s 190

[16] see HRW:
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=europe&c=uzbeki

I know i know:

sorry

__________________

SmokingTarpan

Actually, I'm opposed to outside intervention in any civil war/foreign domestic conflict, regardless of what's going on or what any amount of people over there think. Call me harsh, call me cruel, but it ain't our business. Think about it; would you appreciate a foreign government supporting the side you oppose in a civil dispute?

My comment was geared more toward the general scheme of things. We spout off about giving people equality, a fair say in things, what the populace desires. Yet when the populace speaks, we refuse to recognize what they say unless it coincides dead on (or very closely) with our wishes and beliefs.

We preach about the right way of things- racial and gender equality a few among them. Don't get me wrong, these are good things in my opinion. However, the only reason we have them is because the majority of the populace decided to have them. Had crucial turning points in our history gone in a different direction, such as the women's rights movement being defeated or the South conquering the North in the civil war, we'd more than likely have a largely different set of core values that were "right".

Our "right" is not the ultimate right. We decided what we wanted for ourselves, and it's quite sad that we become hypocrites when other countries do the same but choose to be largely different than us.

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

xTYBALTx

fighter1010,

I admire your well researched well spoken post. You clearly have much knowledge of modern Latin American history, which I'm afraid I do not. However, the point which I raised was simply one of definition: that when most people speak of supporting democracy, what they really support is "modern democracy," and oftentimes, as you insightfully noted, "neoliberalism."

Understanding this definition helps explain some of the apparent discrepancies between American rhetoric and action, such as when Americans claim to be supporting democracy by the very action of opposing a democratically elected dictator. Additionally, it's important to note that no nation's foreign policy should ever be based upon a strict accordance to any idealogy, no matter how promising such an idealogy is, nor is it really feasible for a nation to do so if it wished.

And while I may personally support the spread of neoliberalism, I am afraid that I'm not interested in defending such an idealogy via this thread. Nor have I made up my own mind on the proper way to deal with people such as Hugo Chavez - and I certainly did not intend to defend the Bush administration's policies towards Chavez' government. Again, my intended purpose in this thread has been only to cast light upon the way American governments speak in relation to their actions, not to defent those actions. I am typically personally opposed to the use of force excepting the most dire of circumstances.


SmokingTarpan,

As you may imagine from my response to fighter, I'm afraid that I do not myself necessarily approve of American interventions in cases such as Kosovo, Rwanda, Liberia, etc. I was merely drawing your points out to their logical mid-extremes, only to find that you've clearly already thought this through thoroughly and rendered my post quite useless! Well, your position is certainly a valid and reasonable one - and I suspect that we may agree more than we disagree on questions like these.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

fighter10101

Thanks for the kind words.

Who is the democratically elected dictator ? Please come with concrete arguments and have facts to prove them,

Thats the point i addressed in my previous post, I didn't say oftentimes, that would be your argument, please find and example to prove it. I say always.(in terms of the support of neoliberalism)

Its difficult to give a proper reply when you use terms as “most people” who are they? Do you have any information that “most people” support Imperial policies, or what u call “modern democracy”

You said that the definition of "modern democracy's" are but as I wrote above none of this is correct, the support of rule of law etc is not a constant in imperial policies, its a dependent variable. There are a lot of factors that does affect this variable but 1 factor is the question of obedience.

Italy is perfect example: the CIA was plotting a coup and would implement it(in the time of the elections after WWII) if the outcome of the elections could be the opposite of what the U.S wanted. [ see NSA document 1 ] however they managed to threaten, starve, use limited violence etc and forced the population to vote for the "right" outcome . Another example is Saddam .H who was one of the USs favorite dictators, until he made the fatal mistake: it was not committing horrible massacres, waging war etc, the “crime” was not obeying orders. Lets take H. Kissinger's position on the current Iran situation. The CIA organized a coup and destroyed the parliamentary democracy in Iran in 1953. They supported the Shah and also supported the same nuclear program's they now oppose.[1] H. Kissinger answered : “well then they were an allied country.”Or take the military support the Clinton administration gave to the Turkey support to violently oppress the minorities in the country, the kurds, the record of these event are huge,these are only a few examples. If we look at the facts your argument does not hold.

But I do find a constant, its explained almost perfectly by Thomas Carothers who combines scholarship with an insider perspective having worked on “democracy enhancement “ programs under the Reagan administration. His general conclusion is that the U.S sought to maintain “the basic order of ...quite undemocratic societies “ and to avoid “populist-based change” “inevitably seeking only limited, top down forms of democratic change that did not risk upsetting the traditional structures of power with which the United Stated has long been allied to”(-which includes Somoza and the rest of dictators)[2] he also notes that “where Washington's influence was greatest, progress was least, and were it occurred the US role was marginal or negative”. In the constant they also overthrow democracy's.

The term “modern democracy” as you defined it's a historical fantasy and does not exist.


Footnotes
[1] http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/1819.html
and:
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/1825_1826.html

[2] T. Carothers “the Reagan years” Abraham lowenthal edition. “”Exporting democracy” J.H university press, 1991

__________________

xTYBALTx

fighter1010,

You're reading inferences into my statements which simply aren't there. I suggest a more literal reading of my posts.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

aeroripper

I like this fighter10101 guy


That's kind of an oxymoron. A dictactor that is democratically elected, yet suppresses democracy.

I my own opinion, America only supports democracies if the person\government elected is favorable to US interests. On the other side of a coin, people like hitler got elected democratically, could it be argued that the US is trying to avoid this type of election (even though the german parliament was bullied by the pre-SS)?

I always thought its funny how the US uses doublespeak whenever evangelizing about democracy to the world.

xTYBALTx

It's not exactly an oxymoron. It's an apparent contradiction, or a discrepancy. A contradiction which is at least partially accounted for by the two different definitions of democracy which have popped up in this thread.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

Varp

They voted for Hitler....

'course a dictator gets elected to begin with (more often than not)....if there was already a dictatorship in place, they'd get zapped for being opposition

once in power they then empower their administration by changing laws to enforce and legitimise their position, usually unifying the country against a perceived threat external to their society



then they get undermined when they try and veto a vote on port authorities....oh no, oops sorry - stretched that one a little too far there

__________________
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese

aeroripper

Contradiction, there's a better choice of words. I was using oxymoron in a broad sense of democracy and dictatorship:


Oxymoron: something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements

Dirt013

Ummm...never. You must be thinking of a different Prime Minister, Churchill consistantly spoke out against the NSDAP and Hitler.

__________________
Dirt013

xTYBALTx

I stand corrected!

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

PanzerHans

Neville Chamberlain(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain) is the PM I believe.
Known for hish appeasement politics.

__________________
--
VI VI VI - the number of the beast

fighter10101

xTYBALTx I think I may have found what inferences you are talking about

I wrote several arguments specifically in my 1st post against the policies of the Bush administration. You replied by using the words "most people" as a replacement of the bush administration. So you read inferences in my 1st post.

Panzer thanks for the info, I couldn’t remember he’s name. Generally European governments were positive towards NSDAP because of the booming business(before the war of course) , it didn’t bother them that he had racist policies etc.



Since we are off topic:

Little known fact about Winston Churchill

An uprising of more than 100,000 armed tribesmen against the British occupation swept through Iraq in the summer of 1920. Churchill sent in the Royal Air Force and ordered gas attacks on Iraqis. RAF flew missions totaling 4008 hours, dropped 97 tons of bombs and fired 183,861 rounds for the loss of nine men killed, seven wounded and 11 aircraft destroyed behind rebel lines. The rebellion was thwarted, with nearly 9000 Iraqis killed. Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes to spread a lively terror" ---taken from wikipedia

For more info :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...939608,00.html

__________________