Friday, March 03, 2006
Regime change (reaction to Daniel Schorr)
NPR commentator Daniel Schorr recently summarized ongoing administration attempts to effect regime change in various Middle Eastern countries. We have seen how military force is used to depose foreign despots when they no longer serve our purposes. Short of military action, when things aren't going to Washington's liking, we apply various tactics to persuade the local populations to reject their current governments, even those resulting from 'free and fair' elections.
While one may wonder what gives our leaders the right to engineer these changes around the globe, the fact is, we've been doing it off and on for much of our nation's history. Now, however, it seems we've become uncomfortably conspicuous in continuing this practice. We have heard the word "unilateral" used over and over for describing the current administration's pursuit of controversial foreign policy objectives.
There are many who no doubt would welcome widespread international involvement in bringing about regime change, not necessarily in some distant land, but right here in the United States. After all, the present regime took power and consolidated it in two highly contested elections. The regime insists on overturning America's sacred allegiance to democratic principles in the name of spreading democracy, of human rights in the name of national defense, of civil liberties in the name of homeland security, And we continue to endanger the global environment in the name of corporate profit. These hallowed words are repeated as a mantra, but their meanings have been perverted and debased, so that our country, once respected and admired by many, is now largely distrusted by its former friends and reviled by many who might have been.
We need help in re-establishing our basic principles, in restoring the shining beacon of what America, however deservedly, used to stand for around the world. Even if it were possible, it isn't necessary to have foreign troops invade our country, toppling the regime and occupying our land as long as it takes to build the nation anew. Rather, we need thousands of international volunteers to come and monitor our elections, watching out for voting irregularities and outright fraud. We need foreign well-wishers to use whatever means they have at their disposal to undermine the regime and encourage the opposition. We need overseas governments to initiate sanctions and boycotts against us to shake the confidence of our invested power élite. Does this sound extreme? The U.S. routinely resorts to this kind of meddling in the affairs of foreign countries--in the name of democracy--any time our leaders deem our interests to be at stake. Why would it be wrong to encourage a reversal of this dynamic, when we discover that democracy is being dismantled from the top down, right here at home?
--Peter Carels, Oxford
While one may wonder what gives our leaders the right to engineer these changes around the globe, the fact is, we've been doing it off and on for much of our nation's history. Now, however, it seems we've become uncomfortably conspicuous in continuing this practice. We have heard the word "unilateral" used over and over for describing the current administration's pursuit of controversial foreign policy objectives.
There are many who no doubt would welcome widespread international involvement in bringing about regime change, not necessarily in some distant land, but right here in the United States. After all, the present regime took power and consolidated it in two highly contested elections. The regime insists on overturning America's sacred allegiance to democratic principles in the name of spreading democracy, of human rights in the name of national defense, of civil liberties in the name of homeland security, And we continue to endanger the global environment in the name of corporate profit. These hallowed words are repeated as a mantra, but their meanings have been perverted and debased, so that our country, once respected and admired by many, is now largely distrusted by its former friends and reviled by many who might have been.
We need help in re-establishing our basic principles, in restoring the shining beacon of what America, however deservedly, used to stand for around the world. Even if it were possible, it isn't necessary to have foreign troops invade our country, toppling the regime and occupying our land as long as it takes to build the nation anew. Rather, we need thousands of international volunteers to come and monitor our elections, watching out for voting irregularities and outright fraud. We need foreign well-wishers to use whatever means they have at their disposal to undermine the regime and encourage the opposition. We need overseas governments to initiate sanctions and boycotts against us to shake the confidence of our invested power élite. Does this sound extreme? The U.S. routinely resorts to this kind of meddling in the affairs of foreign countries--in the name of democracy--any time our leaders deem our interests to be at stake. Why would it be wrong to encourage a reversal of this dynamic, when we discover that democracy is being dismantled from the top down, right here at home?
--Peter Carels, Oxford
Comments:
Post a Comment
