I was poking around on my facebook page last night, when I came across a post from a friend of mine. He and I don't generally see eye to eye on political topics. That's fine with me, I believe everyone should have the right to pursue whatever beliefs they choose to have. I do, generally, have a problem with people who are misinformed, and try to push that misinformation upon others, though. That was the case with his post, which I wrote a fairly detailed response to. He had put up one of the popularized photos of Che Guevara, and said something to the effect that he didn't understand why people would have such affection for a dictator and mass murderer. I won't go into that much here, other than to say that I corrected his misinformation about Che, as well as pointed out the numerous reasons why he is still loved around the world. Anyone who can have Nelson Mandela refer to them as "An Inspiration" can't be all that bad.
However, the topic did get me thinking on a much deeper level about the very nature of politics. Being a history major, I am quite aware of the overwhelming ability for history to be "written by the winners". You don't hear opposing viewpoints very often, unless you are specifically searching them out. This, I have always felt, leads to a homogenization of history, which clouds not only our past, but our future, as we have fewer viewpoints from which to turn to for guidance.
Che was a truly brilliant mind. Even though I don't believe in all of the things that he did, I can respect his opinions, and I do see many of the truths that he held dear. We have a tendency in the U.S. to feel as though our way of doing things is the only way that things should be done around the world. That's incredibly arrogant, not to mention the fact that it is patently untrue. I'm glad that I live in the U.S., and feel extremely fortunate to be an American. But our system of government should not be the gold standard that the rest of the world should strive for.
One of the major reasons that the U.S. always wants to create capitalistic democracies in other countries, is that it allows us to exert the economic neocolonialism that we have been fond of since the cold war. We go into countries, mostly African and Latin American, use our influence over the IMF to put those countries into our debt, and then take over their economy from the ground up. We then slap a shiny new coat of paint on it, and declare them ready for democracy. But honestly, they aren't ready for it, and never will be. On top of that, they're now in our debt, and only have our support for as long as we are able to keep pulling resources from them.
To be fair, the U.S. isn't the only country doing this, but we did show the world how to go about it. China is now the second largest player in Africa, after the U.S., and they are even more brutal about it than we are.
The early years of this type of policy was what spurred Che into the actions that he took. When he was in Guatemala, fairly early in his life, there was a corporation called the United Fruit Corporation, that had major ties to the U.S. The secretary of state at the time, John Dulles, was not only a stockholder, but the attorney for the company. This corporation was the largest landowner in Guatemala, and created terrible working conditions for the average peasant farmer.
This is where the U.S. policy gets just a tad (oh, okay, EXTREMELY) hypocritical. The president of Guatemala was a man named Arbenz. Guatemala at the time had a democratic government, and Arbenz had been elected by the people. He wanted to end the system that had allowed UFC to control so much of the land, and give that land back to the people. Needless to say this made him very popular among the peasants, and not so popular among U.S. stockholders. (Did I mention that the secretary of state was one of those stockholders?) Che, being the Maoist that he was, wholly supported Arbenz' goals, and became somewhat active in his government. However, the U.S. decided that democracy didn't really work for them in this instance, and instead sent in a CIA sponsored private army, which overthrew Arbenz, and established a dictator by the name of Armas. Corporation saved. The people.... eh...
The difference is subtle, yet oh so distinct. There are democracies, and there are capitalistic democracies. We're fond of the latter, not so much of the former. The problem is that the U.S. can't make any money if there isn't a basis of capitalism that is driving the economy of a given country.
So, to keep it all straight... If there's democracy that suits our needs, then we're for it. Democracy that works against our economic interests (Arbenz, Sukarno), we're against it. Dictators that work against us (Saddam, Castro), we're against them. Dictators that preserve our interests (Armas, Chiang Kai-Shek, Kabila, Suharto), we're for them. Third world countries that are suffering abuses, which also have natural resources that we need (like say, middle eastern oil), then we're ready to fight for you. Third world countries that are suffering abuses, but are controlled by China (Sudan/Darfur) and/or don't have natural resources (Somalia), well we're kind of busy elsewhere.
Given our track record, I really don't think that we should be telling anyone else what they should or shouldn't be doing with their governments. The fact is, there are places in the world where other forms of government work. The Sukarno/Suharto situation in Indonesia is another great example. Sukarno was democratically elected, passed lots of popular reforms, and by most accounts was a very good leader. But he was also a communist, or at least leaned that way. So the U.S. comes in, helps Suharto overthrow him, and then stands idly by as Suharto kills a million plus in his first couple of years, and then spends thirty plus years being a tyrant.
Eventually, 30 years and many millions of deaths later, there's enough worldwide outcry that we finally say, "Okay, I guess, maybe, we kinda did something that wasn't so great. Ish." If we had just let the communist rule, the people would have been a lot happier.
The governments for most third world countries can't function in a U.S. style of government. Their economies just won't support it. Just because socialism, or Marxism, or Maoism, or communism doesn't work here, doesn't mean that it won't work elsewhere. We just have to get to the point where we can acknowledge our own flaws. And anyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the past couple of decades SHOULD be realizing that we have plenty of flaws in this country. We're not perfect, and neither is anyone else.
How about this? Lets fix our own problems, both in our government and our economy. Lets make it so that we truly are the shining beacon of hope that we make ourselves out to be. Then, maybe, we can start encouraging (not telling, just suggesting) the rest of the world to be more like us.
No comments:
Post a Comment