United States Installs another “Leader”
Yesterday President Hamid Karzai was sworn in as the President of Afghanistan for the second time. The ceremony was held inside the presidential palace and was witnessed by a few foreign journalists. The capital Kabul was completely shut down and was under curfew. President Karzai joins a long list of leaders of foreign countries who have been appointed to the post by the United States of America.
Calling Hamid Karzai as the President of Afghanistan is a real stretch. He at best is the President of Kabul. In reality the Afghanistan government has no control over most of the country outside of Kabul. It is a fact that the current government will be ousted if the United States leaves Afghanistan today. During these elections Karzai had the support of all the major nations involved in Afghanistan (including India). The main opposition leader Abdullah Abdullah is relatively unknown. Karzai still could not manage to get the votes necessary to win the election outright (many irregularities were found by agencies monitoring the election). Abdullah Abdullah decided not to participate in the run-off elections because he claimed that it would not be a fair election (I agree with him). So Karzai became the president by default just as America wanted.
The United States is a fiercely independent country. American citizens enjoy rights and privileges that very few in the developing world can only dream of. America is also a big proponent of freedom and democracy and incorporates these concepts as part of its foreign policy objectives. However, the reality is that the United States has a very mixed record of actually following what it preaches when it comes to freedom and democracy.
In the past 100 years the United States has actually actively supported the overthrow of governments and leaders of many nations. In many cases the governments and their leaders who were overthrown were themselves democratically elected by their people. This is a major contradiction and the United States has not really explained this conflicting behavior. This leads many to believe that the United States irrespective of what it preaches will do anything (including torture as we have seen recently) if it is in its best interests.
One of the most famous coups was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran led by Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. This coup was orchestrated by the CIA and the British intelligence. The Shah of Iran who was a puppet of the West started running the country (this coup was mainly done to prevent the Mossadegh government from nationalizing the Iranian oil industry which was under the control of the British and the Americans).
In 1964 the United States supported the Brazilian military in its efforts to overthrow democratically elected government led by President Joao Goulart (the reasons for the overthrow was actually very similar to the situation in Iran an year earlier). The military which took over power ran the country for the next 21 years.
In December of 1989 the United States invaded Panama (operation Just Cause) and removed the Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. Guillermo Endara was sworn in as President and the Panamanian Defense Force was eliminated. Noriega who himself came to power with the support of the US government was later found to be a CIA agent himself and was on the CIA payroll. He is currently in a prison in the United States on drug charges.
One of the interesting factors is how the American public reacts to these issues. The public was extremely supportive of the regime change in Iraq. The so-called independent media were merely cheerleaders and there were very few dissenting voices. Most of the initial coverage of the war was in fact by reporters who were “embedded” with the American armed forces. The reaction to the election in Iran recently was also interesting. The media in America clearly towed the government line that the elections were rigged (this was based more on a hunch than any real evidence). There was extensive coverage of the student protesters and the main opposition leader. Again just like in Iraq most of the reporting in American media was based on “expert” opinion (from individuals who have never set foot in Iran) and from people from Iran “Twittering” than from independent reporters on the ground.
Compare this reaction to the controversial election held in Afghanistan under the auspices of the American government. The public was totally disinterested and there was no pressure put on the government by the public to make sure that the elections were fair and square. So what we have today is a government that America wants but not what the people of Afghanistan want. Swearing in a government after declaring a curfew in the city and without a single citizen from Afghanistan present is shady at best. But then that is what empires do.
Related posts:
- Failed States Index 2010: United States should be First
- India Should Not Buy F-16s and F/A-18s from the United States
- United States Issues Biased Report on Religious Freedom
- United States & India Want Computers in Schools
- United States in an Education Arms Race with India
Category: News & Government