An update on the "New Axis of Evil"TM
Bolivia, a nation of only nine million people, is giving Washington (and the fine folks at PNAC) conniptions. They are getting ready to elect--democratically--their first President of indigenous Indian background. Sounds pretty democratic to me. Pretty egalitarian. The people are voting against a history of colonialism and North American influence. Kind of like Iraq. Who could find fault with this?
Well, the Bush administration for one. You'll notice they are not trumpeting the upcoming elections--which heavily favor former coca farmer and labor leader Evo Morales--as a "milestone" (although it is as much, if not more, of a milestone than yesterday's election in Iraq) in the history of democracy. in fact, they are doing everything they can to make it appear to be a symptom of dangerous chaos. The US State Department has sent our advisories that Sunday's election has created a "climate of potential violence."
Current Bolivian President Eduardo Rodriguez said yesterday that he "deplored" the insinuations that this particular election would somehow be marred by violence.
This is, of course, a CYA operation for the US State Department, a first step in delegitimizing the election should Morales win. Since Morales has a strong ally in Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, since he opposes free trade agreements with the US, since he supported a bill in the Bolivian Senate that increased taxes on foreign-owned oil companies ten times and is likely to follow Chavez's lead in nationalizing the oil industry, we may need to have some "intelligence" that rationalizes an invasion someday.
3 comments:
Washington is not worried about Evo because he's "indigenous" (that word has such an exclussionary connotation...) but because of his stances in coca growing, and his resume of blockades and overthrowing presidents, both of which are not very democratic ideals. I'm worried about those issues too, and that's all there's to it.
Jonathan
No, of course not--although my point was that this is a legitimate reason for trumpeting this election as a triumph of democracy over colonialism.
And blockades: no, not very democratic. Do you oppose the fifty year US blockade against Cuba? Ah, but that's different, I'm sure.
Overthrowing presidents. Well, I support the impeachment of George W. Bush. Such a democratic idea, we put it in our Constitution!
In the meantime, history shows scores of leaders in Latin America (and elsewhere in the world) overthrown with the help of covert or overt US force. So let's just have a double standard, eh?
Bush said yesterday, in reference to the uncovering of NSA spying on US citizens, that anything he does to "protect" the American people is "within the law."
Frankly, that's BS. And it ought to be.
I doubt it's relevant, but I'm against the blockade of Cuba, or any economic blockade to dictator-led countries. I believe that integration and access to free markets turns a country around much better than blockades be them from the us or anyother.
Post a Comment