Mainstream Media Fooled Again

Mansbridge points to the “relatively free elections in Afghanistan and Iraq” without commenting on how those elections served to do nothing but cement into power the appointed American puppets. He indicates that there is a hint of democracy in Egypt and Saudi Arabia although it must be a quiet hint, more like a whisper, and certainly nothing that the locals have noticed. And he speaks of the election of Mahmoud Abbas in Palestine as though American policy in the Middle East was somehow responsible for the job vacancy that Abbas was able to fill. Was it? Finally, there is the people power in Lebanon where a prime minister was sent packing 10 days ago only to be called back to the job today (March 10) by parliamentarians who have chosen to ignore what Mansbridge implies was the will of the people. If the departure of Omar Karami was democracy in action, how will the media speak of the return of the pro-Syria leader? Still, Bush’s Middle East policy is being hailed, or at least grudgingly praised, as successful by media all round the world. Unfortunately, there is a vast audience of people uneducated or unsophisticated enough to accept this codswallop. Let’s recall the pretend reasons for invading Iraq in the first place: weapons of mass destruction. When those weapons, which the highest officials of the United States and Britain assured us were there, couldn’t be located, the secondary reason of getting rid of a bad guy became the mantra. And once he was toppled, well then the real reason became that the Iraqi people needed to have democracy. It can certainly be argued that some Iraqis are delighted to be rid of Saddam Hussein, but there are likely very few who are pleased with the ongoing manslaughter brought about by this ‘liberation’. Even if we can agree to dismiss the obviously fluid thoughts of the American administration, how does anyone conclude that: invading Iraq has lead, or is leading, to democracy anywhere; that democracy actually is raising its head anywhere near the Middle East; that the United States had any democracy to export in the first place? The best anyone anywhere should expect from American intervention is a shift from control by some unpleasant leader (and a fair number of pleasant ones, too) to control by some unpleasant corporation, usually with strong American roots. How, exactly, is that a move toward democracy? Whether any change in the rights of citizens in the Middle East comes about, nothing implanted by the United States is going to bring democracy. Most everyone would agree that democracy means that the people are fairly represented in the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of all social and economic policies; that elections are held freely with those elected being responsible to the people, not to faceless corporations. Americans don’t have that in their own country, and they are certainly not going to be implementing it in the nations they hope to hold as vassal states. If America was really interested in bringing democracy to people anywhere, including at home, they would be promoting policies that fostered some fundamental shifts in the world’s thinking: • They would be trying to set standards that collapsed such organizations as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization. • They would be mandating corporate responsibility and using the courts to revoke the concept of ‘corporate personhood’. • They would be pushing for rigid controls over currency speculation in order to protect the economies of countries devastated by this form of Hold ’Em poker. • They would be urging the cancellation of Third World debt and the enactment of international covenants designed to protect the economic integrity and sovereignty of all nations. • They would be promoting international trade agreements that have human rights protections as their primary purpose, that provide for ‘fair trade’, as opposed to the euphemistically-named "free trade." • They would insist on pushing toward sustainable development, including protection for workers, trade unions, the environment, women, minorities. And those agreements would not undermine the ability of each nation, state or local community to meet its citizens' social, environmental, cultural or economic needs. • They would promote socially responsible investment. • They would work toward a better and more just world by adhering to the long-standing agreements and treaties which were designed for the advancement of all, not just the United States. • They would agree to work within multilateral projects as equal partners. • They would pay what they owe the United Nations. And then accept that this organization is intended to make a better world, not a wealthier United States. But America is promoting and supporting precisely the opposite of each point above. And for the mainstream press to suggest that anything fomented by George Bush is going to lead to democracy anywhere, including the Middle East, is an incredible blight upon their profession. It may very well turn out that the invasion of Iraq does spark changes in the Middle East. But with the Americans behind it, the last thing anyone should be expecting is democracy. The United States has never wanted any of its client states to be democratic: in a democracy, the will of the people might not be what you want it to be. But a good solid corporate state, something like Benito Mussolini tried to build, now that’s something Washington can work with. It’s worked pretty well for them at home. So when journalists spout that maybe Bush was "right," the only context in which that could conceivably be true is in the phrase "right-wing theocrat." And that is not something that should be celebrated. [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on March 16, 2005]