MADDOW: Do you think that the long-time strategy of America‘s sort of addiction to dictators, supporting despots in the name of stability - do you think that addiction may be weaker now than before this happened?
ROBINSON: Well, just in numerical terms, I think there are likely to be fewer of them, fewer American-supported dictators because this region was particularly thick with them, and they seem to be falling by the wayside.
I don‘t think we will ever get to the point where an administration will say we will never have a relationship, friendly or cooperative relationship, with a despotic regime.
We have a relationship with China and China has a despotic regime. And it was good that we talked to the Soviet Union, et cetera, et cetera.
But the sort of client relationship that we‘ve had with some of these countries, I think, that era may be closing, and we‘re going to have to figure out what replaces it, what sort of relationship replaces it and how it can be adapted to the different situations in different countries.
First off, “sort of addiction to dictators”? Excuse me, but the U.S. wants dictators in power in those countries where we want to exploit their resources. God forbid the people rule the country (aka: “democracy”). We would have no control over the country.
It is far more in our interest to control one dictator by giving him money (or anything else he wants) and reinforcing his power than a citizenry who could change their minds if they determine we’re exploiting them. So “sort of” is weak at best.
And what’s this rhetoric from Ms. Maddow about “supporting despots in the name of stability”? I think Ms. Maddow is smart enough to know that the “stability” line is just a U.S. front for exploitation of the country’s resources. Come on, Ms. Maddow! Really! Of course we want “stability.” We certainly don’t want the people of a country rising up in defiance of our exploiting their resources at their expense. A dictator will do nicely to stop that from happening, thank you! I think Ms. Maddow should clarify her mention of “stability.”
Secondly, Mr. Robinson’s comment that “the sort of client relationship that we‘ve had with some of these countries, I think, that era may be closing”? I don’t believe that for a second. The U.S. will continue to front dictators to make it easier to exploit their national resources, and not rely on the whim of the people regarding the interests of the U.S. at the nation’s expense.
As Noam Chomsky points out:
…there is a playbook: whenever a favored dictator is in trouble, try to sustain him, hold on; if at some point it becomes impossible, switch sides.
Then, of course, we work to put another dictator in place.
As an example of this, let’s look at Chomky’s take on Bolivia:
Bolivia is a striking example. The mostly white, Europeanized elite, which is a minority, happens to be sitting on most of the hydrocarbon reserves. For the first time Bolivia is becoming democratic. So it's therefore bitterly hated by the West, which despises democracy, because it's much too dangerous.
And that’s why I believe Mr. Robinson is flat out wrong in saying that this type of client relationship such as we had in Egypt is “closing.” I predict that if a “democracy” does arise out of this protest in Egypt, the U.S. will work to undermine it and bring in a new authoritarian regime.
The sad part is, I remember as a child learning in school that the U.S. was out there fighting for democracy (i.e., truth, justice and the American way). Turns out we've been exploiting countries and fronting vicious dictators for decades. I wish it were not true. Unfortunately, I feel it's too late for us to change our ways...at least in my lifetime.
No comments:
Post a Comment