Father Orthoduck will make this post very brief. The comic above illustrates an attitude that is all too common in USA history. Beginning in the 1950’s, USA political doctrine was that it was safer to support friendly dictators than it was to take a chance on unknown freedom movements. Thus, in the post-World War II period, the USA began to interfere in the national life of countries in Latin America, particularly in countries close to the USA. Several times USA troops were sent in to quell popular uprisings in order to preserve a friendly dictator in power. The ostensible excuse was always that the USA was preventing a leftist takeover. Since every uprising was held to be leftist, this meant that the USA always had to interfere on the side of the dictator. The fact that there were a couple of truly leftist uprisings in both Cuba and Nicaragua was only thought to be proof that every uprising was to be considered leftist.
This only earned the USA a significant amount of dislike, growing to hatred, in many Latin American countries. If it is taken as a given by African-Americans that the police are not to be trusted, it is also taken as a given by Latin Americans that the USA will invade, given an opportunity. In the Middle East some of the same policy was in place. The USA supported the Shah of Iran against pro-democracy movements. When the explosion finally came, it was an explosion that went to an extreme, because it took extremists to be willing to face USA provided weapons and USA training in the hands of an absolute dictator, the Shah of Iran. To this day we continue to reap the harvest of our supporting a dictator over against a pro-democracy movement, just like in Cuba we are reaping the the harvest of our supporting a torturing dictator against any pro-democracy movement. So, instead of the Shah of Iran, we have an Ayatollah, and against the dictator Batista, we have the dictator Castro.
The comic above shows that we have yet to learn our lesson. Faced with a pro-democracy movement, we are so fearful of a possible extremist takeover, that we are all too willing to support a repressive dictator. You see, democracy is for Americans. The rest of the world needs to be controlled for our benefit. Until the day that we believe in practice that democracy is for everyone, until the day that we are willing to fully support pro-democracy movements, until the day that we are willing to take the chance that a movement may have overly radical results at first, until that day, we shall be known as not true to our beliefs in many parts of the world. You see, revolutionary USA was a bit extremist at times. Revolutionary France killed too many innocent people. Revolutionary Greece did away with various Turks without a trial and without a clear determination of guilt. Yet, everyone of those countries is a stable democracy nowadays. But, yes, there are failures that one can point to. Revolutionary Russia gave us 70 years of pain, agony, and suffering. Having said that, did you know that the USA interfered in the Russian Revolution? That did not make us liked by the Reds who eventually won their internal civil war by 1923 in spite of our support of the Whites.
Nevertheless, the comic above shows that “here we go again.” The comic above appears to be almost arguing for interference to prevent the possibility of “radical” elements taking over Egypt. Look closely at the comic above. It is clearly saying that the choices are a dictator or a Muslim extremist. This is setting up the stage for the USA to interfere, in other words to either send troops or to send arms and money or to give permission to Israel to interfere in a much more violent and direct manner. Is there a real danger of extremism? Yes, of course. But, is it our place to determine for other countries how to achieve freedom? No, it is not. And, until we learn to abide by our stated principles, we will continue to earn the enmity of those countries who gain freedom of choice in spite of USA opposition.
Sadly, like the Roman Empire, we seem to assume that the rights we espouse are not truly universal, but only apply to USA citizens. For non-USA citizens, we often do not support their rights, rather we support a stable government (even if it be a strong dictatorship) in order to ensure that that country will not be a problem for us. And, this goes against our publicly stated principles.
“Sadly, like the Roman Empire, we seem to assume that the rights we espouse are not truly universal, but only apply to USA citizens. For non-USA citizens, we often do not support their rights, rather we support a stable government (even if it be a strong dictatorship) in order to ensure that that country will not be a problem for us. And, this goes against our publicly stated principles.”
Well said, Father; well said.
Condi Rice, when Secretary of State, gave a major speech that showed a shift in policy, which in effect showed that history had taught us something. Although the Bush administration did not produce the results they had hoped (in the case of Egypt, one former official says they got double-crossed), but at least the mindset had changed.
I am not sure the current administration is as eager to further that policy shift, although the details of such a shift can get bogged down in muddy realities.
I could cheerfully vote for Condi Rice where she to run for almost any office for which I could vote her in. She is a thoughtful person who got put in some very bad positions and handled it all with great grace.
I would be a little happier if the “pro-democracy” movements were not so hard on their own minorities. Not that this means we should intervene–just that I think ALL countries should be held to the same human rights standards–ie you don’t kill people who are different than you are just because they look different, worship differently, are from another tribe, sect, or what have you. That includes–ALL COUNTRIES–
That being said, I think that there is a lot here we should be worrying about. I firmly believe in cleaning one’s own side of the street before calling someone out about the garbage on their side of the street. Often, there is a strange concept of”self-defence” operating in almost EVERY country. Maybe we should all just learn to mind our own business and that includes giving huge amounts of arms, money, etc to folks barring huminatarian efforts in times of natural disaster.
Just my two cents–(Not that I am an isolationist–I firmly believe in helping folks start their own small businesses, helping repair huge ecological disasters, helping rebuild from earthquake, fire and flood–but with people who LIVE there saying what they need not us deciding what they need–but having firm boundaries on what we will give and for what and we should be helping INDIVIDUALS NOT GOVERNMENTS!! The teaching folks to fish thing…..)Alix
I agree with most of what you have said. Much of the problem is that over the last few decades only a couple of Secretaries of State have had an actual global policy in mind. Most of them are simply responding on the spur of the moment without any forethought.
John Foster Dulles and Henry Kissinger were two examples of Secretaries that had a clear idea in their mind of what the USA’s role in the world was and what we could and could not do.
Having said that, Libya is an example of what a little involvement can do, provided it is limited, has basic world approval, and is not wholy headed by the USA.