Democracy Export

Mar. 24, 2014 marks 15 years since the beginning of the bombing of Yugoslavia by the U.S. and NATO. This military operation was carried out without the authorization of the UN Security Council and without the support of the majority of the international community. It fully fits the definition of aggression given in resolution 3314 (XXIX) by the UN General Assembly on Dec. 14, 1974 that states:

“Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.”

However, direct aggression is just one of the numerous methods in the U.S. arsenal that they use to pursue their foreign policy and economic interests.

After the collapse of the bipolar world model, the U.S. has used any way possible — from interfering in democratic elections to the kidnapping of the legitimate president, from suppression of national liberation movements to invasions and bombings — to impose and maintain its world dominance. Despite the diversity of these “special ways” of dominating the world they share common features:

1. Interference in the internal affairs of independent states always took place under specious pretexts with the establishment of democracy as the major excuse.

2. It was always in violation of international law; both de jure and de facto.

3. The consequences were always the destruction of states, the degradation of societies, and the decline of their economy.

That said, interventions only occur when it is advantageous to the U.S. Otherwise, the U.S. completely forgets about the protection of the population of these countries, let alone their human rights.

For example, the U.S. and the UN did not intervene during one of the largest genocides in history, which took place in Rwanda in 1994, and entailed the killing of anywhere from about 500,000 to 1,000,000 people. The explanation is simple: Washington did not have any interests in that part of the world at the time.

As for Yugoslavia, it is one of the most significant examples of the actions of “world police,” who by the sum of their actions deserve to be called “global criminals.” Among other examples are Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Haiti, the countries affected by the “Arab Spring”* and, added to the list recently, Syria and Ukraine. Let’s look at just a few of them.

Kosovo

Official bombing targets in Yugoslavia were proclaimed on Apr. 12, 1999, after the start of military operations at the meeting of foreign ministers of the members of NATO in Brussels. They resulted in the extension of an ultimatum to Slobodan Milosevic to stop all actions of the Serbian army and withdraw all military formations from Kosovo, allow international observers in Kosovo, and allow the return of refugees and a demonstration of the commitment to the principles of the Rambouillet Agreement.**

However, the real reason for attacking Yugoslavia was the country’s desire to pursue an independent policy: its desire to unite the southern Slavs into a strong state developing on its own, which did not want to join either NATO or the EU. NATO’s “Operation Allied Force” can be definitely considered a violation of international law, since the bombing was carried out without the approval of the UN Security Council.

The bombing of Serbia in 1999 also led to a significant number of casualties among the civilian population. For example, the statement of the International Committee of the Red Cross dated Mar. 24, 1999 (the first day of the bombing) shows the growth of civilian casualties and the destruction of civil and industrial projects that “deprived hundreds of thousands of civilians a means of leaving.”***

According to Human Rights Watch, in 90 proven cases in Serbia, between 489 and 528 people were killed by airstrikes. According to Amnesty International, war crimes and violations of Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 fall fully under the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia on violations of international humanitarian law on the part of any member of the “Operation Allied Force.” The organization stresses that to this day, none of the country leaders of NATO has been held accountable for these crimes.

Additionally, the investigation by Herbert Foerstela, the director of the U.S. National Security Archive, indicates that in the beginning of the bombings, the Kosovo Liberation Army did not conduct intense battles with Serbian forces, and the number of combat losses on both sides increased exactly after the beginning of the operation by NATO.

In other words, the doctrine of the U.S. and its allies of “humanitarian intervention” did not have any foundation and was only an excuse for intervention.

However, through the Yugoslavia bombings, the U.S. “tested” the new possibilities of intervention in the affairs of European states and realized that there were “no boundaries” and that they would not receive a proper rebuff.

In the very beginning of the 21st century, Europe saw a series of “color revolutions”**** in the former Soviet Union, followed by the “Arab Spring” in the Middle East, and their logical continuation: Syria and Ukraine.

Afghanistan

Officially, the purpose of the operation was to overthrow the undemocratic Taliban regime, and the excuse to do so was the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The U.S. demanded that the Afghan authorities hand over Osama bin Laden and the entire leadership of “al-Qaida,” who they believed were responsible for the organization of the Sept. 11 attacks.

The Taliban refused to comply with the requirement of the Americans, pointing to a lack of hard evidence. This created a break in diplomatic relations, and the military invasion began.

In reality, the reasons for intervention are seen in something else. Even before the terrorist attacks, the U. S. negotiated with the Taliban regime, finding common ground with them just fine.

The situation changed dramatically in August 2001, when the U. S. received the final denial to construct a trans-Afghan pipeline based on U.S. terms. Besides their interest in the transit of oil and gas, American leadership clearly had a strategic interest as well.

Afghan territory allows the stationing of troops in close proximity to Iran, China, and Russia. Plus a cultivated area of poppy seeds gives additional influence in the countries affected by drug trafficking.

It should also be remembered that a full-scale military operation started just a month after the famous terrorist attacks and it is unlikely that they could have been prepared in such a short time. Most likely, the U.S. had been planning to attack Afghanistan beforehand.

Characteristically, one of the main consequences of the stay of international troops in Afghanistan was a rapid growth in the production of drugs and their export to Europe and Asia.

A year after the beginning of the operation, the production of raw opium had increased 1400 percent. According to expert estimates, during the stay of the U.S. troops in the country, stocks of heroin that would last for 100 years were accumulated.

Another feature of the regime established by the direct participation of the U.S. is corruption. In 2009, Afghanistan spent about 2.5 billion dollars on bribes, which represented 23 percent of its GDP.

By 2012, the proceeds of corruption had increased by 40 percent, and amounted to 3.9 billion dollars. The money for corruption comes from the U.S. budget and the drug trade; there is no other money in Afghanistan. However, a clear decline of the country, along with numerous civilian and military casualties, did not stop Washington from launching a new war in the region — this time in Iraq.

Iraq

The war in Iraq began on Mar. 20, 2003, with the goal to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein. American leadership had tried to prove the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but commissions who visited the country in 2002 and 2003 did not find any chemical or biological weapons, or even evidence of developing nuclear weapons.

Lack of consent from the UN Security Council did not bother the U.S., and on Mar. 20, 2003, together with allies, they began the war, which was outside the NATO framework.

The real goals of the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the construction of democracy or the protection of human rights. The U.S. was interested primarily in getting access to Iraqi oil — the fifth largest reserve in the world — to stimulate its own economy.

Furthermore, the creation of another “friendly regime” led to the formation of an important geopolitical bridgehead in the region. On Dec. 15, 2011, the United States finally withdrew its troops from Iraq. According to various estimates, about half a million Iraqis have died as a result of the war, and violence in the country from terrorist attacks still continues to kill thousands of people each month.

Extremely high levels of sectarian violence escalated into a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites in 2006. There were about 1.5 million Christians in Iraq before the invasion by the U.S. and its allies; now there are no more than 300 thousand.

Eighty-four percent of the educational institutions have been destroyed, looted or closed. One of the best health care systems that the Middle East ever had has been destroyed.

The country was swept with outbreaks of deadly diseases, including typhoid and tuberculosis. According to the UN World Food Program, 400 thousand children in Iraq consume below the required level of protein, conditions which are deemed detrimental to children’s development.

The use of depleted uranium shells, napalm, and white phosphorus destroyed the ecology of the region and lead to genetic abnormalities in humans. Sewage systems, water supplies, and other infrastructures were purposefully destroyed.

The legal system that operated in the country before the invasion, like any other, was not perfect, but now, after “establishing democracy,” it has been replaced by a system that allows the mistreatment of women and children, as well as the existence of such sadly famous prisons as “Abu Ghraib.”

The cost of replacement from “dictatorship to democracy” for thousands of citizens was death, and for the rest — unbearable living conditions. This is the cost that all the countries subjected to “democratization” have to pay. For example, now Ukraine pays this cost, and the citizens of different areas are subjected to atrocities and looting in actual conditions of anarchy “in the name of the Maidan.”

Libya

In the civil war in Libya in 2011, the U.S. had a tactic of “leading from behind,” controlling other countries from behind the scenes.

One of the main reasons for military intervention in this case, as in the case with Iraq, was access to oil: Libya had the twelfth largest oil exports in the world and ninth largest reserves.

Additionally, the situation in Libya fit into the Greater Middle East project, which was proclaimed by the U.S. in 2003. The main objective of the project was the export of American values and the American model of democracy to the countries of that region.

According to the Human Rights Council of the UN, more than 15 thousand people were killed during the conflict, and 50 thousand people according to the rebels. In reality, the consequence of the conflict and foreign intervention was the collapse of the country. The country is awash with armed groups that do not obey the government.

The proliferation of weapons looted from warehouses formerly run by Moammar Gadhafi made people forget about the stability in the region for a long time. Military operations, tribal warfare, and social disorder in the country still continue, and the number of the victims is growing.

In the case of the legitimization of the intervention in Libya, a violation of a UN Security Council resolution became well known for the fact that even though the resolution only called for the establishment of a no-fly zone, the bombing of the country began in reality.

Generally speaking, instant departure from agreements has become a hallmark of Western diplomacy recently. For example, after reaching an agreement on February 21 in Kiev between Yanukovych and the opposition leaders mediated by Russia and the EU, the storming of the administrative buildings began; Western leaders and diplomats simply “forgot” about relevant agreements the next day.

Syria

The conflict began in the wake of the events of the “Arab Spring” and initially manifested itself in the form of civil demonstrations, which became widespread in March 2011 and then developed into an armed struggle.

The clamor had its foundation: The already difficult economic situation in the country was aggravated by the global economic crisis; unemployment was getting close to 20 percent. The arbitrariness of the security services, rampant corruption, and the role of the constitutionally accepted ruling socialist Ba’ath Party added fuel to the fire.

Bashar al-Assad made concessions to the opposition: the cabinet of ministers which was in power since 2003 was dismissed, political prisoners received freedom, the Ba’ath Party lost its special status, the Kurds gained citizenship, governors began to change, and the state of emergency was canceled.

However, unlike Ukraine, the Syrian authorities were not going to make endless concessions and back down; they effectively fought the armed underground.

Then, the opposition received unprecedented foreign support. Turkey, along with the countries of the Arab League — led by Saudi Arabia and Qatar — had an interest in Syria, but the U.S. was the “conductor” again.

At all stages, the CIA monitored the procurement and supply of arms and military equipment for the Syrian rebels. American instructors prepared these fighters at bases in neighboring countries; in particular, in a Special Operations Training Center in Jordan built with American money.

In 2013, the U.S. was ready for a military scenario, from which the world was spared only by the timely intervention of Russia with a proposal for the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons.

Nevertheless, after three years of war (which cannot even be called civil, given that most of the fighters fighting against government forces are foreign mercenaries), Syria has become a place of terrible humanitarian disaster.

Many cities and neighborhoods have turned into heaps of concrete, entire villages were cut down by gangs of radical Islamists. The total number of dead exceeds 100 thousand people (according to other sources, 200 million); more than a third of them are civilians.

The number of refugees in Syria amounted to 6.5 million people, and in neighboring countries there were almost 3 million.

The example with Syria has shown once again that those who do not make concessions with the U.S. get war, either directly or unleashed by the hands of allies and mercenaries. The example of Ukraine shows that those who make concessions get stabbed in the back, in violation of all agreements.

Playing with American slang, we can say that messing around with democracy American-style is a lose-lose situation for other countries: you lose in any case.

Democratic Export/Import

The death of civilians, humanitarian disasters, refugees, disruption of social and life support systems, environmental destruction, erasing settlements from the face of earth, ethnic and religious wars and conflicts, economic decline, the dominance of banditry, the growth of all kinds of criminal business, exorbitant corruption — all of these are not declarative, but real, results of “exporting democracy” American style.

And the main reason for this export is the thirst for resources. In many cases, it is oil or other natural resources. In others, it is the establishment of a military bridgehead or geopolitical influence.

Many experts believe that in the second half of the twentieth century, the U.S. economy is functioning only due to the accumulation of public debt. During the presidency of Barack Obama, it has exceeded 100 percent of GDP.

It is obvious that the U.S. economy is heading for default; the only question is when it will happen. This is where the logic of stimulating the economy by military means comes into force. It is quite simple: The incitement of war and instability in various regions of the world contributes to the flight of capital from these regions into the United States. Besides, military spending is a classic way to support demand during the crisis.

Perhaps such pieces of the puzzle are still difficult to put together for the world community. So wide is the geographical coverage of U.S. intervention — from Vietnam to Iraq, from Egypt to Ukraine. So different are the methods of intervention — from the armed interventions and “allied operations” to “the leadership around the corner” and the organization of “Maidans.” All of this, of course, occurs under the beautiful slogan of democracy for all.

But the world is beginning to understand the truth: According to a WIN/Gallup survey from Dec. 30, 2013, that was conducted in 68 countries, 24 percent of respondents believe that the U.S. is the greatest threat to world peace. For comparison, the U.S. is followed by Pakistan at eight percent and Israel at five percent. After the events in Ukraine and Crimea, the U.S. seeks to portray the threat allegedly posed by Russia, “frightening” Belarus and Kazakhstan. However, given all the above, it is unlikely that the U.S. will succeed.

*Translator’s Note: Arab Spring is a term for the revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests (both non-violent and violent), riots, and civil wars in the Arab world that began on Dec. 18, 2010.

**Translator’s Note: Rambouillet Agreement is a peace agreement between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Albanian majority population of Kosovo that was drafted by NATO. The significance of the agreement is in the fact that Yugoslavia refused to accept it, which NATO used as justification to start the Kosovo War.

***Editor’s Note: This quotation, accurately translated, could not be sourced.

****Translator’s Note: Color Revolutions here refers to various related movements that developed in Eastern Europe.