Freedom and Democracy for other Countries: America’s Hypocrisy

Article first published as Freedom and Democracy for Other Countries: America’s Hypocrisy on Technorati.

Hosni Mubarak is out, and Barack Obama is hailing his ouster as a triumph of democracy.

Isn’t this the same President (in fact one of several) that supported the former Egyptian strong-man because he was seen as a friend and ally of the West? Could it be possible that America lends support to foreign leaders for purely selfish and self-serving motives, with no regard for democracy or human rights?

Hosni Mubarak certainly isn’t the first ruthless and corrupt dictator propped up by  U.S. politics.  Over the decades many autocrats have been kept in power with American support, with no interest in the welfare of the people under these tyrants.

The years of suffering of the Cuban people under Juan Batista was a direct result of U.S. protection of American interests on the island, and a wish to keep the Communists from gaining a base so close to home.“I believe that there is no country in the world including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my country’s policies during the Batista regime” Despite this admission John Kennedy still did everything possible to stop the overthrow of the Cuban dictator.

The Philippines’ Ferdinand Marcos was as autocratic and corrupt as any third-world dictator, and the main source of his power was American interests in the country. “… the Marcos regime he (Ronald Regan) and previous American presidents had strongly supported even after Marcos declared martial law. The United States, which had provided hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, was crucial in buttressing Marcos’s rule.” After the People Power (or EDSA) Revolution, the United States allowed him to enjoy his stolen billions of dollars in exile in Hawaii.

The Shah of Iran, while initiating many reforms, used torture and execution without trial to brutally suppress all opposition. After the nationalization of the country’s oil industry by Prime Minister Dr. Mosaddeq, the CIA played a crucial role in having him removed and replaced by one of the Shah’s generals, Fazollah Zahedi. Secretary of State, Madeleine K Albright, stated: “…it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.” Yet the Shah continued to receive America’s blessing as a friend and ally, as he kept militant Islam at bay, and guaranteed the flow of oil to the West.

These are just a few of the more notable dictatorships to receive the blessing and support of the United States. There have been many other brutal and corrupt foreign governments that couldn’t have held power without American interference in their internal affairs.

It’s fine to make impressive speeches advocating freedom and democracy in foreign countries, but the hypocrisy of America propping up oppressive regimes for purely selfish motives, makes these fancy words sound shameful.

Egypt Without Mubarak – What Lies Ahead?

Article first published as Egypt Without Mubarak -– What Lies Ahead? on Blogcritics.

W73E5NQ67UVY

The only certainty in Egypt these days is that Hosni Mubarak is out. Whether it happens in the next few days, or in several months, his time is up. What isn’t certain, is what the future holds for Egypt, and the rest of the world, without the dictator that has been an ally of the West, and a much-needed element of stability in the region.

Barack Obama, and other world leaders, are urging Mubarak to step aside, and allow democratic reforms. This may seem a noble goal, but little thought is being given to who will succeed the Egyptian strongman. Any successor he might name himself would likely be unacceptable to those demanding change, and after thirty years in office he has few political rivals.

The group best positioned to take control of the government is the Muslim Brotherhood, and though banned from holding political office themselves, they get around this by running as independents. Their current strategy is the backing of Mohamed ElBaradei, who is emerging as the main opposition leader.

ElBaradei hasn’t spent much time in Egypt in recent years. In fact he has been out of the country since 1964, devoting many of those years to heading the United Nations nuclear inspection program. Despite being part of an organization that requires political neutrality, he says Israel is “the number one threat to the Middle East,” and attacks America and Israel for the “civilian carnage” they cause.

The Muslim Brotherhood, although claiming to oppose violence to achieve their goals, seem to limit this non-violent philosophy only to Jihad against the corrupt Western democracies. They agree with ElBaradei that Israel is the enemy, and must be destroyed by any means possible. Speaking for the Brotherhood, Muhammad Ghannem stated that “the people should be prepared for war against Israel,” saying the world should understand that “the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime.”

The United States has backed Mubarek by providing Egypt with one of the largest arsenals in this part of the world, and if it falls into the hands of the extremists, war is inevitable. Peace is always precarious in Middle East politics, and a stable ally of America, willing to respect a peace accord with Israel has been instrumental in maintaining a delicate balance of power.

The Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t limit its activities to the Arab world. They have established themselves as a political force throughout Europe, especially in Germany, by employing the same strategy currently being used in Egypt (the backing of respected candidates). Americans shouldn’t be deluded into thinking that they don’t have ambitions on this side of the ocean. They see their work here as a Jihad aimed at destroying our culture and replacing all religions with Islam. While they may not support terrorism against the West, there is no question that they seek our destruction.

President Obama is increasingly forceful in urging Hosni Mubarak to step aside. Given the present alternatives, this haste is likely a mistake. The most likely successor will be the Muslim Brotherhood, and with this group’s attitude towards Egypt’s neighbor, Israel, and its formidably armed military, the consequences will be catastrophic.

If The Muslim Brotherhood succeeds in Egypt, other Islamic countries in a state of crisis could prove easy pickings. Western leaders, instead of hastening events in Egypt, might be better off using what diplomatic influence they have, to try to stabilize the situation long enough to buy some time for other leaders to emerge.