Egyptian Coup an Example of "Democracy of Interests"

Published in Wenweipo
(China) on 12 July 2013
by Huang Haizhen (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Leonard Fung. Edited by Gillian Palmer.
Without Washington's orchestration and assent, the Egyptian military would not have dared act so brazenly, abducting and placing the country's first democratically elected president under house arrest. No matter how the army tries to claim it is acting on behalf of the people, it cannot hide the reality of a coup d'état. However, because the coupists had an understanding with Washington and the acting president currently suits Washington's taste, the world's policeman will not call the coup what it is. According to United States law, it is illegal to aid the government of any country that has deposed its formally elected head of state through a military coup. But by not calling a spade a spade, the U.S. government can maximize its interests. This highlights America's shifting standards and its pursuit of "democracy of interests.”

The Egyptians are an ill-fated people. As early as 2011, it suffered from the disease of democracy planted by the U.S. Since then, it elected a president democratically, per America’s intent. But because Mohamed Morsi did not toe the U.S. line, he was ousted by the U.S.-supplied military. Although the U.S initially supported Morsi after his victory in last year's election, the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood held a majority of seats in parliament was less than optimal to U.S. interests led to his being red-carded from the game. A similar example is Saddam Hussein of Iraq, whom the U.S. initially favored and praised as a champion of democracy, but was subsequently sent to the gallows once he no longer maximized U.S. interests.

No Peace for Tahrir Square Thanks to the White House

It matters not whether an idea is fair, reasonable or lawful — as long as it serves U.S. interests, Washington will do everything in its power to pursue it. For the sake of achieving the greatest gain at the least cost, the U.S. supports opposition movements of almost every government in the world. Whether it's in Asia, Europe, Africa or Central and South America, as soon as a group is found to be opposing the government, the CIA immediately leaps into action, offering encouragement as well as economic and military aid. The U.S. also actively promotes internal rivalries within national governments and supports pro-U.S. elites and media in constantly creating appalling news, ultimately achieving victory without firing a shot. Thanks to the CIA's schemes, Cairo's Tahrir Square has known no peace in recent years.

Even if there are large-scale protests against a nation's government, to overthrow an elected president clearly contradicts America's oft-touted democratic values. But not to worry, the White House is highly adept at using word games to defuse opposition and deflect questions from the media. If Washington has the ability to instigate street protests at Tahrir Square, then it certainly has the power to prop up a military junta against the mob. The sad part is that as soon as Egypt's government does not satisfy Washington's demands, it will be mired in never-ending conflict. Of course, the loser in this situation is the Egyptian people. Thus, Egypt's government can only follow the White House's orders, since whatever means Washington employs to enforce its obedience will be portrayed as democracy. In America's naked pursuit of its geopolitical ambitions, human rights and democracy are but tools of the game.

White House Backing Emboldens Egyptian Army

Egypt is an ancient civilization which has been a steadfast U.S. ally in the Middle East. It plays a crucial role in safeguarding peace and stability in the Middle East and the Arab world. In 2003, Hosni Mubarak opposed George W. Bush's Iraq War being launched without evidence, a move which garnered widespread approval in the Arab world but enraged Washington. This spurred the White House to put Egypt on its list of recalcitrant governments and begin planning a "democratic revolution." CIA agents proceeded to plant the disease of democracy in Egypt and energetically supported the opposition. Washington then condemned Cairo as an undemocratic despotic regime with no respect for human rights; Mubarak was hence removed from power.

In international politics, nothing is given without the expectation of a return. America's support for "democracy" in Egypt is motivated only by its own interests, and those of Israel. It is the White House's "democracy of interests" which emboldened the Egyptian military to abduct Morsi and put him under house arrest. Tahrir Square's disease of democracy is but one more of the Middle East's color revolutions. As for why America would turn against its own democratic principles, it is simply because the elected governments that were toppled did not serve American interests. That is to say, American-style democracy is but a tool for maximizing its own gains, to be used when expedient but otherwise cast aside. In this way, Washington can ensure Egypt stays on the "right" democratic track.


西方走廊:導演埃及政變凸顯「利益民主」

黃海振 資深評論員

 沒有華盛頓的首肯和導演,埃及軍方哪有膽量敢赤裸裸地將該國首位民選總統穆爾西綁架軟禁。無論軍方怎樣聲稱行動體現「人民」的利益,都掩蓋不了「軍事政變」這個事實。由於政變軍人疏通了白宮,也因為「代總統」合華盛頓口味,結果在「世界警察」口中,政變就變成了不是政變。按照美國法律,「國家禁止向正式選舉產生的政府元首被軍方政變或法令罷黜的任何國家政府提供援助」,但將政變說成不是政變,美國政府就可以使白宮利益最大化。這凸顯了美國的「靈活標準」,和推行的「利益民主」。

 埃及是一個不幸的民族,在美國的策動下早於2011年就患上「民主病」,然後按照美國的意圖,選出民主總統。但由於穆爾西不懂得白宮的「利益民主」程序,結果又讓由美國提供軍事援助的軍人反過來用裝甲車、坦克和子彈將其送入「暗室」。穆爾西雖然在美國的支持下在去年總統大選中贏得多數選票當選,但由於埃及議會中佔據最多席位的穆斯林兄弟會不合美國「最大利益」,於是被裁判的「黑哨」中傷出局。與此相似的例子是,伊拉克薩達姆原來合美國口味,稱其是「民主鬥士」,但隨後因「不符合利益」又被送上絞架。

白宮讓解放廣場不得安寧

 只要有利美國的事,不管其是否合情、合理或合法,華盛頓都會盡力而為之。為了用最小的代價獲得最大利益,美國幾乎支持全球所有政府的反對派。不管是亞洲、歐洲、非洲和中南美洲國家,只要發現有人反對政府,中情局就會聞風而動,向他們傳去「積極信號」, 並給予經濟和軍事支持。美國還積極培養各國政府的內部敵對勢力,鼓動親美「精英」和媒體,不斷製造駭人聽聞的議題,最終達到「不戰而屈人之兵」的目的。在 中情局的策劃下,開羅解放廣場近幾年就沒有安靜過。

 即便有大規模民眾示威作序曲,隨意拉下一位民選總統無論如何都與美國掛在嘴邊的「民主」相悖。但不要緊,白宮很會玩文字遊戲,可以化解媒體的質問和各界的不滿。華盛頓既有策動解放廣場「街頭抗議」的本領,也有扶植軍政府對付「暴民」的能力。遺憾的是, 埃及政府只要無法滿足白宮的「胃口」,就會陷入永不休止的紛爭,傷害的當然是埃及人民的利益。埃及政府唯有「聽白宮的話」,無論採取什麼手段,華盛頓都會將其判決成「民主」,美國要的「除了利益,還是利益」,所有民主、人權只不過是一件工具而已。

白宮壯了埃及軍人的膽

 埃及是一個文明古國,曾經是美國在中東的鐵桿朋友。在維護中東和阿拉伯國家的和平、穩定過程中,起了至關重要的作用。2003年,埃及穆巴拉克政府反對小布什政府在沒有證據的情況下發動伊拉克戰爭,得到阿拉伯國家的普遍認同和支持,觸怒了華盛頓。白宮 隨後將埃及列入「不聽話」政府,並策劃「民主革命」。隨之而來的是,美國中情局人員將「民主病毒」植入埃及,大力支持反對派。華盛頓「法官」通過外交途徑給開羅政府戴上「專制、獨裁、不民主、沒人權」的「黑帽子」,穆巴拉克於是下了台。

 國際政治上沒有無緣無故的愛與施捨,美國對於埃及的「民主援助」都是源於保護華盛頓和以色列的利益。是白宮的「利益民主」壯了埃及軍人的膽,敢於出手將穆爾西綁架和軟禁。開羅解放廣場的「民主病」,是中東「顏色革命」的繼續。至於美國為何一再違背自己的「民主」原則?原因就是因為那些被推翻的民選政府「不符合美國利益」。換句話說,「美式民主」是美國尋求自身利益最大化的工具,合適就用,不合適的時候就拋諸一邊。這樣華盛頓就可以保證埃及在「正確的民主軌道上行駛」。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Mexico: EU: Concern for the Press

Germany: Absolute Arbitrariness

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Austria: Musk, the Man of Scorched Earth

Germany: Cynicism, Incompetence and Megalomania

Topics

Mexico: EU: Concern for the Press

Austria: Musk, the Man of Scorched Earth

Germany: Cynicism, Incompetence and Megalomania

Switzerland: Donald Trump: 100 Days Already, but How Many Years?

     

Austria: Donald Trump Revives the Liberals in Canada

Germany: Absolute Arbitrariness

Israel: Trump’s National Security Adviser Forgot To Leave Personal Agenda at Home and Fell

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Related Articles

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary

Hong Kong: Can US Tariffs Targeting Hong Kong’s ‘Very Survival’ Really Choke the Life out of It?