> Now, I'm sure someone can come up with some intricate, carefully reasoned explanation for why this is all the fault of the CIA and Exxon.
Jacob, you have a point here. The people of those countries bare some responsibility for their plights. And in fact, had we left them alone, by now they would have figured out what it is that they should be doing. At the very least, they would not have seen US as the source of their problems.
The problem is this. Just as there is no perfect mate to marry, there are no perfect international partners. Many of these countries had leaders that leaned (to varying degrees) in the direction of fixes you are suggesting. But those same leaders were not as profitable (though not necessarily hostile) to the short term US interests. So the state department had a choice, "do I support a corrupt dictatorship who to be in power is willing to sell out his country and kill every nonamerican voice (among other voices), or do we let a more moderate leader come to power who leans away from the US".
The answer to them is obvious; "the hell with the world. Mr. X is more profitable to us NOW and that is whom we support regardless of what he does inside his country". So while you are rightly identifying the cause of their misery as lack of education and governmental corruption, you are missing on the point that we failed to support the less corrupt and more independent leaders of those countries because they would not sell out as easily.
Had we allowed, dare I say encouraged, democracy and American values in spite of the almighty $, there would have been more established countries around the world. Those citizens would have been happier people and would not be driven to desperate acts. Their improved economies, though initially at a cost to us, would now be able to support purchase of more advanced goods from America. So net-net we all would have come out winners.
Yes we want a world in peace and harmony without hunger or brutal dictatorships. But we do not want it if it means a corporate loss for the big business. Gottfried posted a good article from NY Times. At the end of it says,
This civil war within Islam, between the modernists and the medievalists, has actually been going on for years - particularly in Egypt, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan.
What is interesting in there, is countries they are naming as the hotbeds of the conflict: Egypt, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan. All of them for years have had governments that have been extremely pro US.
About 10 years ago (may be 12), the people of Algeria exercised their democratic rights to vote for an Islamic government. Guess what happened? The party was outlawed. There have been no elections. And the country has been in a state of emergency since. Anyone reminded of Chili?
As an American, how do you feel about that? Do you believe in democracy? Do those people have the right to choose their government even if that government is not to our liking?
Pakistan (along with Iran and others) used to be a member of CENTO. CENTO was sold as a military treaty between America and the regional countries, similar to NATO. It became obvious that the United States had no intention of keeping its end of the bargain (i.e. should you be attacked, we are all in it together and give you any support we can). That would be in direct conflict with the pursuit of almighty $ as the defense industry would lose a lot.
There were leaders in the CENTO countries who naively thought they do not need to purchase too much arms from the US. To their surprise boarder skirmishes and foreign attacks without even a statement of support from the US taught them otherwise.
Then there were those who argued (and rightly so) that regardless of what kinds of treaties are in place, the United States would not risk helping, if it is not in its interest to do so. And if in fact it is in the interest of US to help, it will do so with or without a treaty. Therefore, they argued the treaty is useless and should be abolished. However, the treaty had items in it that were in the interest of United States and the reaction to such suggestions was even stronger than the reactions to those who called NATO irrelevant anymore.
So those voices were also made silent. In other words, we got rid of the guys who wanted to decrease their defense budget and use it for health and education. And we got rid of the guys who wanted to buy the armaments but get rid of the treaty. And we were left with the ones who'd buy so much arms that later became dangerous. And we paid them off under the pretext of "relief" and "aid". And yes indeed, the people's education and view of the world remained in the middle ages, but we did not care. We were busy selling arms and "eradicating communism".
BTW, does it not strike you as strange that Saudi Arabia, which is the most US friendly government in the Middle East is on that list? Could it be that the zeal with which their government has backed US has alienated its people? Should it not be that the governments ought to be considerate of their people's wants?
I could go on, but this post is already too long.
All the best,
Sun Tzu |
