PJ: To be honest, I had trouble publishing this opinion piece because of the author's blatant hatred toward US foreign policy. However, knowing that this person's opinion is shared by many others around the world, I felt it important to do so. Ignoring the rants of people who have an audience for their ideas, right or wrong, does not make those ideas go away.
TheNews
Revolutions with Yankee blessings
Opinion By Miguel Ángel Ferrer
Despite the revolutionary phraseology in Tunisia and Egypt, what is true is that Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak have been toppled. They were ancient and loyal North African sepoys of the United States. They both fell without resistance. Their yankee master ordered them out and they, resignedly, obeyed the imperial command.
But beyond the fall of the ancient sepoys, a change of regime in Tunisia and Egypt has not been seen yet. These states are retaining their entire systems. In Egypt, the power is now in the hands of the military, who were the main support of the now-shunned Mubarak for decades.
The quick acceptance of the Washington command made U.S. military intervention unnecessary. It was just about what happened with Alfredo Stroessner in Paraguay and Augusto Pinochet in Chile. They understood the message, and their meekness facilitated the preservation of oligarchic power and control by Washington.
In Panama, things were a little bit different. General Noriega did not obey the imperial command and, after the failed attempts of the United States to topple him or kill him, an armed U.S. military invasion was necessary, which began by bombing the popular neighborhood of El Chorrillo. It killed nearly 4,000 Panamanians in one night.
We already watched in Iran the movie we are watching now in Tunisia and Egypt: a very-well orchestrated campaign against the regime, financed with U.S. dollars. But the yankee effort did not pay off. This is why Washington continues preparing to bomb Iran and, if conditions are right, to invade it with military forces.
The yankee strategy is very well known. It promotes, supports and funds dissident and opposing groups and creates, if possible, an apparent democratic and revolutionary movement that benefits the United States. If the leader and its government fall, it’s a change that makes it all remain the same. But if the leader resists, and is supported by sufficient social forces, Washington begins preparing to bomb cities –remember Belgrade – or to invade them. And, if it’s possible, under the blessing and protection of the UN, to make it seem completely legal.
In Libya, up to the present, the movie has had an uncertain ending. If Gaddafi caves in, we will see the same plot as in Egypt and Tunisia. But if he manages to resist the yankee offensive, Washington will not have an excuse for a military intervention. But if local forces cause a civil war, Washington will have the perfect excuse for the longed-for invasion to end Gaddafi’s regime.
In any scenario, the situation is very clear. If Washington blesses the so-called democratic revolutions in the north of Africa, it means that they are neither democratic nor revolutions. We are, more likely, seeing coups, financed and guided by the U.S.
Will it be necessary to recall that, while the United States swore loyalty and provided weapons and money to Hosni Mubarak, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) organized, supported, financed and guided opposing groups to topple him?
The meddling of the United States in the alleged revolutions in northern Africa is evident. What we don’t know is, if the subversive meddling, which has only been propagandist and financial, will turn into an invasion of Libya.
http://www.thenews.com.mx/index.php/opinion/O05-7506.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment