By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 30 March 2007
The concerns that South African commentator Hamilton Wende expresses in his opinion article in The Star newspaper, “It could have been so different” (Opinion & Analysis, 29 March 2007), are concerns that thousands of voiceless people across the world have long been expressing about George W. Bush, the tyrant at the helm down in Washington DC .
Wende aptly describes the Bush administration’s detention-without-trial and abuse of suspected terrorists at Guatanamo Bay as “an unforgivable indictment on the ideals which have made America the oldest constitutional democracy in the world”.
It is a grave pity that, after years of protest against America’s unjustifiable use of violence against antagonists, particularly those in the Arab world, Bush and the yes-men and women surrounding him seem to have renewed their arrogance towards the world as a whole.
It is ironic that Bush and his right-hand men in Britain and Australia, Tony Blair and John Howard respectively, are the same individuals trotting the globe to preach about democracy and human rights in Africa and elsewhere in the world. Their hypocrisy will not take us anywhere.
If Bush truly believes in democracy and respects other people’s right to life (both of which I doubt he does), he could not have invaded Iraq for reasons known only to himself, his dubious spooks and the head-nodding diplomats surrounding him.
The suffering inflicted on the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the detainees at Quatanamo Bay and other US detention camps around the world makes Bush’s regime comparable to the very regimes he so vociferously despises, such as Zimbabwe's.
Bush is in the same league with his Zimbabwean counterpart. Just like President Robert Mugabe, Bush came to power after a controversial election victory. Bush, like Mugabe, disregards critics, condones the use violence in campaigns to advance his interests and does not seem to value human life.
Bush is as undemocratic and authoritarian as his counterpart in Harare . The tone in Bush’s public speeches is similar to that of Mugabe’s. Both use words as unpresidential as “go to hell”. For example, Bush is on record as having said: “I will never relent in defending America - whatever it takes”. Mugabe, on the other hand, recently told his critics to “go hang”.
With the main proponents of democracy – Bush, Blair, Howard, etc – advocating human rights, liberty and peace whilst practicing the opposite, our continent Africa and the rest of the third world need to formulate an independent positions on matters affecting countries such as Zimbabwe.
It is easy to blame African leaders for non-action in Zimbabwe . Africa’s critics – both in and out of the continent – have strongly argued that South Africa abandons its so-called quite diplomacy and that sanctions should be imposed on Mugabe and his supporters.
That may help in pushing Mugabe out of office, but the questions really are: “Are the punitive international protocols only reserved for poor African autocrats and tyrants?” “Is the US , its president and his cronies all above the law?”
Friday, March 30, 2007
Friday, March 9, 2007
Colonial and apartheid names must go -- now!
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 09 March 2007
In his letter in The Star newspaper, www.thestar.co.za, “Name changes are going to haunt us” (09 March 2007), Mqizilili Gamedze makes a number of regrettable conclusions about name changes in South Africa, guided by his apparent lack of both historical knowledge and understanding.
Gamedze says, for example, that: “Post-apartheid opportunities for the redress of racial imbalances have worked in [the ANC’s] favour, providing the impetus to perpetuate the lie: VIP toilets, BEE (whatever that means), African renaissance and, of course, ostensibly to rewrite this country’s history”.
Sounding like a perfect example of an apartheid apologist, Gamedze further writes: “Changing place names of historical significance to other population groups, even if that history is written in African blood, is against the spirit of reconciliation, which brought the ANC to power in the first place”.
Gamedze’s greatest deficiency is his unwillingness to accept that the twin systems of colonialism and apartheid have done so much damage to the pride of black people that the many colonial names still hanging around our country serve to remind us that blacks are still a conquered lot.
To pump some pride back into the black people – who now have achieved their age-old dream of self-governance – the question of renaming key landscapes such as airports, cities, roads, etc, is so critically important that non-action would, in my view, amount to negligence.
Gamedze may think we’ve already had more than enough name changes already, but I think we have done too little too late. We blacks still have a lot more colonial and apartheid names to get rid of: names such as East London, Port Elizabeth , Bloemfontein , King William’s Town, Port St Johns, etc.
We black people would be doing a great disservice to the pride of our great continent Africa if, in this era of black political rule, we become too complacent, too comfortable and too oblivious to worry about reclaiming our past and safeguarding our integrity.
The previous administrations have succeeded in instilling within black people a false sense Europeanism, of compulsorily having European names and promoting other Eurocentric beliefs and practices. Sometimes we black South Africans are accused by our own counterparts in other African countries of being easy convertibles.
Because of this false sense of Europeanism instilled within us by our previous masters, we still shun our own languages and even families. As the current political office bearers, we have a choice between maintaining a Eurocentric country, with all its European names (some of which as quite derogatory), and reclaiming our pride by getting rid of aparheid and colonial names.
An edited copy of this article appeared in The Star newspaper on 13 March 2007 under the headline, "Old place names remind us daily that blacks are a conquered lot", page 15.
Yes, but -- says a reader
Posted on 01 April 2007
I fully agree with the writer when he says "Colonial and apartheid names must go now!". However, one has to give consideration to the latest Supreme Court of Appeal decision that consultation is key in deciding whether these names should go or not.
It is my view that our hatred for the ills of the past undoubtedly overshadows our intentions to ensure that we do not repeat the excesses of the apartheid military junta that ruled in an autocratic manner. The will of the majority has to be considered through a consultative and inclusive process, enlisting the views of the Afrikaners and other interest groups even though we are clear that a minotiry of these groups are still clinging to our divided and racial past with passion.
Consultation might be challenging and demanding given the fact that most indigenous people, who unfortunately constitute the majority, do not have the necessary resources to make inputs in these processes as they are concerned with survival than lobbying. Remember, the majority of South Africans have been excluded from economic activity as result of the draconian laws of the previous racist regime that ensured that the historically oppressed, especially Africans, the most oppressed, do not even own property, let alone the means of production - the essence for survival. One must not forget that blacks in general and Africans in particular continue to bear the brunt of economic exclusion in South Africa despite the sterling efforts by the democratic government to integrate them to the mainstream economy.
These efforts of government, although noble, cannot transform over 350 years of colonialism and oppression over 12 years since 1994 - the year for the South African miracle where the poor compromised to ensure that there is peace in the Southern tip of Africa and this peace is for social cohesion and economic development for the benefit of the historically oppressed, especially the African majority that we said has no resources to engage in campaigns of this nature such as renaming towns, cities and institutions that remind us of our grim past.
Consultation is key and it requires us - myself, the writer and the rest - to be careful of becoming the copycats of Afrikanerdom and the imperialist agenda of failing to take into consideration the views of the minorities and the majorities that must be outlined to the public before we take the decisive actions of removing these sickening names from our new dispensation and replacing them with names understood and accepted by a major section of people that benefited from the Apartheid past. Sifiso Ndlazi
In his letter in The Star newspaper, www.thestar.co.za, “Name changes are going to haunt us” (09 March 2007), Mqizilili Gamedze makes a number of regrettable conclusions about name changes in South Africa, guided by his apparent lack of both historical knowledge and understanding.
Gamedze says, for example, that: “Post-apartheid opportunities for the redress of racial imbalances have worked in [the ANC’s] favour, providing the impetus to perpetuate the lie: VIP toilets, BEE (whatever that means), African renaissance and, of course, ostensibly to rewrite this country’s history”.
Sounding like a perfect example of an apartheid apologist, Gamedze further writes: “Changing place names of historical significance to other population groups, even if that history is written in African blood, is against the spirit of reconciliation, which brought the ANC to power in the first place”.
Gamedze’s greatest deficiency is his unwillingness to accept that the twin systems of colonialism and apartheid have done so much damage to the pride of black people that the many colonial names still hanging around our country serve to remind us that blacks are still a conquered lot.
To pump some pride back into the black people – who now have achieved their age-old dream of self-governance – the question of renaming key landscapes such as airports, cities, roads, etc, is so critically important that non-action would, in my view, amount to negligence.
Gamedze may think we’ve already had more than enough name changes already, but I think we have done too little too late. We blacks still have a lot more colonial and apartheid names to get rid of: names such as East London, Port Elizabeth , Bloemfontein , King William’s Town, Port St Johns, etc.
We black people would be doing a great disservice to the pride of our great continent Africa if, in this era of black political rule, we become too complacent, too comfortable and too oblivious to worry about reclaiming our past and safeguarding our integrity.
The previous administrations have succeeded in instilling within black people a false sense Europeanism, of compulsorily having European names and promoting other Eurocentric beliefs and practices. Sometimes we black South Africans are accused by our own counterparts in other African countries of being easy convertibles.
Because of this false sense of Europeanism instilled within us by our previous masters, we still shun our own languages and even families. As the current political office bearers, we have a choice between maintaining a Eurocentric country, with all its European names (some of which as quite derogatory), and reclaiming our pride by getting rid of aparheid and colonial names.
An edited copy of this article appeared in The Star newspaper on 13 March 2007 under the headline, "Old place names remind us daily that blacks are a conquered lot", page 15.
Yes, but -- says a reader
Posted on 01 April 2007
I fully agree with the writer when he says "Colonial and apartheid names must go now!". However, one has to give consideration to the latest Supreme Court of Appeal decision that consultation is key in deciding whether these names should go or not.
It is my view that our hatred for the ills of the past undoubtedly overshadows our intentions to ensure that we do not repeat the excesses of the apartheid military junta that ruled in an autocratic manner. The will of the majority has to be considered through a consultative and inclusive process, enlisting the views of the Afrikaners and other interest groups even though we are clear that a minotiry of these groups are still clinging to our divided and racial past with passion.
Consultation might be challenging and demanding given the fact that most indigenous people, who unfortunately constitute the majority, do not have the necessary resources to make inputs in these processes as they are concerned with survival than lobbying. Remember, the majority of South Africans have been excluded from economic activity as result of the draconian laws of the previous racist regime that ensured that the historically oppressed, especially Africans, the most oppressed, do not even own property, let alone the means of production - the essence for survival. One must not forget that blacks in general and Africans in particular continue to bear the brunt of economic exclusion in South Africa despite the sterling efforts by the democratic government to integrate them to the mainstream economy.
These efforts of government, although noble, cannot transform over 350 years of colonialism and oppression over 12 years since 1994 - the year for the South African miracle where the poor compromised to ensure that there is peace in the Southern tip of Africa and this peace is for social cohesion and economic development for the benefit of the historically oppressed, especially the African majority that we said has no resources to engage in campaigns of this nature such as renaming towns, cities and institutions that remind us of our grim past.
Consultation is key and it requires us - myself, the writer and the rest - to be careful of becoming the copycats of Afrikanerdom and the imperialist agenda of failing to take into consideration the views of the minorities and the majorities that must be outlined to the public before we take the decisive actions of removing these sickening names from our new dispensation and replacing them with names understood and accepted by a major section of people that benefited from the Apartheid past. Sifiso Ndlazi
Monday, February 26, 2007
Wrong to portray blacks as criminals
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 26 February 2007
In his opinion article, “The dangers of racial profiling” (The Star, 26 February 2007), Rich Mkhondo asks the critical question: “Is racial profiling or stereotyping a necessary tool to protect our communities from crime?”
The answer really depends on who you are. Those with a right-wing mentality would most likely agree with racial profiling or stereotyping or both, whilst democrats would oppose the idea.
Black people here in South Africa and around the world are still seen as the main perpetrators of crime, wars, corruption, fraud, etc. This perception is enforced by black people’s lack a popular medium through which they can claim innocence.
After 13 years of freedom and democracy in South Africa, our media is still a vehicle to glorify the white man, portray him as the target of some inhuman black people. The black man is still the subject of horrific headlines.
Media propaganda still reigns in favour of white people. More black faces are seemingly at the forefront of many major media houses, but the white man still has the final say. The boardroom wields much more power than the newsroom.
As a result, the media is still a vehicle to promote white interests. We have panic buttons pressed when a white man is attacked, but many black lives are brutally eliminated without any mention.
Portraying crime as a black-versus-white issue smacks of irresponsibility. Everyone could fall victim to crime anytime, and the perpetrator could belong to any race.
As Mkhondo correctly stated, “Racial stereotyping is a lazy way of labelling people”.
We black people may be holding political power, but we still endure a lot of public humiliation. In the malls and other public places, we still get nasty looks, with members of other races seeing us as some brutal parasites, unable to think constructively and mentally inferior.
Is this the freedom our elders have so tirelessly fought for?
In his opinion article, “The dangers of racial profiling” (The Star, 26 February 2007), Rich Mkhondo asks the critical question: “Is racial profiling or stereotyping a necessary tool to protect our communities from crime?”
The answer really depends on who you are. Those with a right-wing mentality would most likely agree with racial profiling or stereotyping or both, whilst democrats would oppose the idea.
Black people here in South Africa and around the world are still seen as the main perpetrators of crime, wars, corruption, fraud, etc. This perception is enforced by black people’s lack a popular medium through which they can claim innocence.
After 13 years of freedom and democracy in South Africa, our media is still a vehicle to glorify the white man, portray him as the target of some inhuman black people. The black man is still the subject of horrific headlines.
Media propaganda still reigns in favour of white people. More black faces are seemingly at the forefront of many major media houses, but the white man still has the final say. The boardroom wields much more power than the newsroom.
As a result, the media is still a vehicle to promote white interests. We have panic buttons pressed when a white man is attacked, but many black lives are brutally eliminated without any mention.
Portraying crime as a black-versus-white issue smacks of irresponsibility. Everyone could fall victim to crime anytime, and the perpetrator could belong to any race.
As Mkhondo correctly stated, “Racial stereotyping is a lazy way of labelling people”.
We black people may be holding political power, but we still endure a lot of public humiliation. In the malls and other public places, we still get nasty looks, with members of other races seeing us as some brutal parasites, unable to think constructively and mentally inferior.
Is this the freedom our elders have so tirelessly fought for?
Monday, February 12, 2007
America's new method of occupation
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 12 February 2007
The United States government has reportedly approved the establishment of a new single military command for Africa, to be known as Africa Command.
Announcing the new command, US President George W. Bush is said to have remarked that: “Africa Command will enhance our efforts to bring peace and security to the people of Africa and promote our common goals of development, health, education, democracy and economic growth in Africa.”
But, given the embarrassing defeats that the US is suffering in Iraq, it is not convincing that the real reason behind the creation of Africa Command is to ensure “development, health, education, democracy and economic growth in Africa”, as Bush is reported to have said.
Deploying a more coordinated military force in Africa -- the continent which some commentators have described as the poorest on earth -- will help the US to easily interfere in the internal affairs of our continent, deploy puppet states and remote control the continent with ease.
Those African leaders who are not popular in Washington should better watch out, for Africa Command is here for them. Once the Command is fully deployed on the African continent, the sovereignty of our nations will most likely be hanging in the balance.
To think, like Bush, that the US military can bring “democracy and economic growth in Africa” through the deployment of more troops on our continent is highly pathetic. New methods of occupation are being devised, and, quite clearly, Africa is still the continent for the taking.
Africa Command is here to intimidate our leaders, undermine our continental structures such as the African Union Security Council and interfere in the internal affairs of our continent.
The United States government has reportedly approved the establishment of a new single military command for Africa, to be known as Africa Command.
Announcing the new command, US President George W. Bush is said to have remarked that: “Africa Command will enhance our efforts to bring peace and security to the people of Africa and promote our common goals of development, health, education, democracy and economic growth in Africa.”
But, given the embarrassing defeats that the US is suffering in Iraq, it is not convincing that the real reason behind the creation of Africa Command is to ensure “development, health, education, democracy and economic growth in Africa”, as Bush is reported to have said.
Deploying a more coordinated military force in Africa -- the continent which some commentators have described as the poorest on earth -- will help the US to easily interfere in the internal affairs of our continent, deploy puppet states and remote control the continent with ease.
Those African leaders who are not popular in Washington should better watch out, for Africa Command is here for them. Once the Command is fully deployed on the African continent, the sovereignty of our nations will most likely be hanging in the balance.
To think, like Bush, that the US military can bring “democracy and economic growth in Africa” through the deployment of more troops on our continent is highly pathetic. New methods of occupation are being devised, and, quite clearly, Africa is still the continent for the taking.
Africa Command is here to intimidate our leaders, undermine our continental structures such as the African Union Security Council and interfere in the internal affairs of our continent.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
South Africa is not a 'banana republic'
By Madibeng Kgwete: 28 January 2007
Sunday Times editor Mondli Makhanya is rightly not shy of speaking his mind on matters of state incompetence and other issues of public interest, but the comparisons he makes between South Africa and so-called “banana republics” in “Slip-ups put our country in the company of banana republics” (January 21) taste sour.
As if he had foreseen widespread government failure as early as February 2006 when President Thabo Mbeki delivered his State of the Nation address, Makhanya writes in his I-told-you-so tone: “Those who were not moved by that speech were those with hearts as dead as ancient rock.”
Makhanya then goes on to suggest, obviously falsely, that Mbeki, after his 2006 State of the Nation address, “promptly disappeared behind his Union Buildings barricades and let us get on with being hopeful by ourselves”.
You’d think that Makhanya would follow his criticism of Mbeki with the latest incidents of state incompetence or denialism, but he relies heavily on recycled news items retrieved from previous editions of the Sunday Times.
He blasts Mbeki on the controversial Film and Publications Bill, whose enactment the state has already reconsidered following intense opposition by media freedom organisations, and the police’s reported attempt to centralise communication (also reconsidered after media opposition).
Whether or not the government had a hidden agenda behind each of the above plans and others is hard to fathom, but that the government has listened to critics should make the distinction that
A copy of this article was published in the Sunday Times newspaper on 28 January 2007.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Africa: Beholden to the ‘First World’
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 19 January 2007
The African continental renewal programme, popularly known as the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), is tasked with eradicating poverty, placing African countries on a path of sustainable development and halting the marginalisation of the continent in the globalisation process.
However, the reality in the international scene is hostile for the realisation of this magnificent dream, partly because the NEPAD programme’s success is wholly dependent on the will of the major economic powers that offended many international protocols in their paths to economic growth.
In its pursuit of poverty eradication solutions at home and a more prominent role in the globalisation process, Africa is faced with some tough choices, such as following the footsteps of the major industrial powers (which would lead to disregard for international laws and regulations) or succumbing to external pressure.
The former option is unlikely to materialise, while the latter has seen mixed reactions, ranging from extreme radicalism by countries such as Libya, Sudan and Zimbabwe, to a limited degree of consensus by the likes of Ghana, South Africa, Nigeria and Senegal.
The World Economic Forum’s The Global Competitiveness Report 2006-2007 ranks Switzerland, Finland and Sweden as “the world’s most competitive economies” above major traditional powers such as United States, United Kingdom, Germany and Japan.
The Group of 8 leading industrial nations, also known as the G8, has, after its 2006 annual meeting, announced that they will continue to work in partnership with Africa in order to settle conflicts and develop “African anti-crisis capabilities”, ensure “good and responsive governance”, invest in people, foster growth, provide financing for development and promote “mutual ownership and accountability”.
However, cynics such as Ted Grant and Alan Woods, writing in the article, Marxism and the Struggle Against Imperialism: Third World in Crisis, argue that: “The main aim of these debt relief initiatives is, on the one hand, to make sure the bankers get their money back and on the other to lift these highly indebted countries to a point were they are able to ask for more loans!”
If that is truly the main aim of the “debt relief initiatives”, then the success of NEPAD and other similar programmes on the African continent is tight up to what is clearly a new method of domination and control. Africa’s destiny won’t be decided by Africans as yet, it seems.
We poor Africans seem to have no other choice but to rely on our previous slave-masters to achieve the progress envisaged in programmes such as NEPAD.
When blamed for double-standards, the same countries that have denied the African people freedom for ages always have answers ready to defend themselves. The current Western leaders, we are told, were not there during the slave trade and should therefore not be held accountable for other people’s “mistakes”.
The fact that current Western leadership continues to remote-control the African continent through so-called “debt relief” initiatives is enough indication that Africa’s destiny is still far from being determined by Africans.
The African continental renewal programme, popularly known as the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), is tasked with eradicating poverty, placing African countries on a path of sustainable development and halting the marginalisation of the continent in the globalisation process.
However, the reality in the international scene is hostile for the realisation of this magnificent dream, partly because the NEPAD programme’s success is wholly dependent on the will of the major economic powers that offended many international protocols in their paths to economic growth.
In its pursuit of poverty eradication solutions at home and a more prominent role in the globalisation process, Africa is faced with some tough choices, such as following the footsteps of the major industrial powers (which would lead to disregard for international laws and regulations) or succumbing to external pressure.
The former option is unlikely to materialise, while the latter has seen mixed reactions, ranging from extreme radicalism by countries such as Libya, Sudan and Zimbabwe, to a limited degree of consensus by the likes of Ghana, South Africa, Nigeria and Senegal.
The World Economic Forum’s The Global Competitiveness Report 2006-2007 ranks Switzerland, Finland and Sweden as “the world’s most competitive economies” above major traditional powers such as United States, United Kingdom, Germany and Japan.
The Group of 8 leading industrial nations, also known as the G8, has, after its 2006 annual meeting, announced that they will continue to work in partnership with Africa in order to settle conflicts and develop “African anti-crisis capabilities”, ensure “good and responsive governance”, invest in people, foster growth, provide financing for development and promote “mutual ownership and accountability”.
However, cynics such as Ted Grant and Alan Woods, writing in the article, Marxism and the Struggle Against Imperialism: Third World in Crisis, argue that: “The main aim of these debt relief initiatives is, on the one hand, to make sure the bankers get their money back and on the other to lift these highly indebted countries to a point were they are able to ask for more loans!”
If that is truly the main aim of the “debt relief initiatives”, then the success of NEPAD and other similar programmes on the African continent is tight up to what is clearly a new method of domination and control. Africa’s destiny won’t be decided by Africans as yet, it seems.
We poor Africans seem to have no other choice but to rely on our previous slave-masters to achieve the progress envisaged in programmes such as NEPAD.
When blamed for double-standards, the same countries that have denied the African people freedom for ages always have answers ready to defend themselves. The current Western leaders, we are told, were not there during the slave trade and should therefore not be held accountable for other people’s “mistakes”.
The fact that current Western leadership continues to remote-control the African continent through so-called “debt relief” initiatives is enough indication that Africa’s destiny is still far from being determined by Africans.
New US decision-makers, same old imperialist policies
By Madibeng Kgwete: written on 08 November 2006
The defeat of United States President George W. Bush’s Republican Party in the recent midterm elections has been welcomed from various corners of the world, including Britain, where Bush has drawn most support for his widely-criticised “war on terror”.
The new Democratic majority in the US Congress is expected to bring about a shift in the superpower’s foreign policy, bearing in mind the US’s damaged international reputation, resulting primarily from the war against Iraq, denialism over climate change, the undermining of the United Nations, hostile role in trade negotiations, etc.
Those hoping for a new paradigm shift in US foreign policy would better ask themselves whether the Democrats have a problem with US world dominance, or just the ruthless manner in which the Republicans have stamped US authority on the international stage.
Just like the Republican Party, sometimes referred to as the Grand Old Party (GOP), the Democratic Party places security high on its agenda, stating on its website that it has a security plan “that is comprehensive -- from repairing our military, to winning the war on terror, to protecting our homeland security, to ensuring success in Iraq”.
Just like Bush, the Democrats are eager to expand US domination, but have a more moderate plan to go about expanding the same imperialist agenda whose aggressive implementation has reduced Bush’s conservatives to a congressional minority.
Whatever purposes the Democrats will use their new congressional powers for, one can be sure of one thing: all decisions with international implications will be geared towards preserving US interests, shielding the world power from economic and military competition.
The US congressional power is in new hands, but the mission is the same old one of domination and control, of military power and hanging on to undemocratic votes in multilateral institutions such as the United Nations Security Council, the International Monetary Fund, etc.
For as long as the Democrats believe that there is a way of “ensuring success” out of the war in Iraq, one is adamant that the liberals are equally committed to domination, even through such extreme measures as military occupation.
Throughout his path to the 2004 presidential victory, Bush successfully managed to portray and ridicule Democratic Party leader John Kerry as inconsistent with regard to the war in Iraq.
Introducing Bush at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York, Governor George Pataki said of Kerry’s alleged flip-flopping: “He was for the war [against Iraq] and then he was against the [same] war. Then he was for it but he wouldn’t fund it. Then he’d fund it but he wasn’t for it”.
The allegations against the Democrats, though made in the context of competing for voters, create a strong impression that, with them as the new decision-makers in the US Congress, all that may change is the tactics, but the strategy remains the same.
One of the US’s own academics, Prof. Samuel Huntington of the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies, suggests in his paper, “The Lonely Superpower”, that: “It is in U.S. interests to take advantage of its position as the only superpower in the existing international order and to use its resources to elicit cooperation from other countries to deal with global issues in ways that satisfy American interests”.
We should not be surprised when the US fails to retreat in its campaign to unilaterally rule the world despite new leadership in Congress: the country only has new faces, with the same old mission to dominate.
The defeat of United States President George W. Bush’s Republican Party in the recent midterm elections has been welcomed from various corners of the world, including Britain, where Bush has drawn most support for his widely-criticised “war on terror”.
The new Democratic majority in the US Congress is expected to bring about a shift in the superpower’s foreign policy, bearing in mind the US’s damaged international reputation, resulting primarily from the war against Iraq, denialism over climate change, the undermining of the United Nations, hostile role in trade negotiations, etc.
Those hoping for a new paradigm shift in US foreign policy would better ask themselves whether the Democrats have a problem with US world dominance, or just the ruthless manner in which the Republicans have stamped US authority on the international stage.
Just like the Republican Party, sometimes referred to as the Grand Old Party (GOP), the Democratic Party places security high on its agenda, stating on its website that it has a security plan “that is comprehensive -- from repairing our military, to winning the war on terror, to protecting our homeland security, to ensuring success in Iraq”.
Just like Bush, the Democrats are eager to expand US domination, but have a more moderate plan to go about expanding the same imperialist agenda whose aggressive implementation has reduced Bush’s conservatives to a congressional minority.
Whatever purposes the Democrats will use their new congressional powers for, one can be sure of one thing: all decisions with international implications will be geared towards preserving US interests, shielding the world power from economic and military competition.
The US congressional power is in new hands, but the mission is the same old one of domination and control, of military power and hanging on to undemocratic votes in multilateral institutions such as the United Nations Security Council, the International Monetary Fund, etc.
For as long as the Democrats believe that there is a way of “ensuring success” out of the war in Iraq, one is adamant that the liberals are equally committed to domination, even through such extreme measures as military occupation.
Throughout his path to the 2004 presidential victory, Bush successfully managed to portray and ridicule Democratic Party leader John Kerry as inconsistent with regard to the war in Iraq.
Introducing Bush at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York, Governor George Pataki said of Kerry’s alleged flip-flopping: “He was for the war [against Iraq] and then he was against the [same] war. Then he was for it but he wouldn’t fund it. Then he’d fund it but he wasn’t for it”.
The allegations against the Democrats, though made in the context of competing for voters, create a strong impression that, with them as the new decision-makers in the US Congress, all that may change is the tactics, but the strategy remains the same.
One of the US’s own academics, Prof. Samuel Huntington of the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies, suggests in his paper, “The Lonely Superpower”, that: “It is in U.S. interests to take advantage of its position as the only superpower in the existing international order and to use its resources to elicit cooperation from other countries to deal with global issues in ways that satisfy American interests”.
We should not be surprised when the US fails to retreat in its campaign to unilaterally rule the world despite new leadership in Congress: the country only has new faces, with the same old mission to dominate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
