Who Hijacked Democracy?
Published in Sin Chew
(Malaysia ) on 18 February 2011
by Lee Ai Ru (link to original)
What does the fighting for democracy in the Middle East and North Africa have to do with the United States? Why is the U.S. the one who was a victim of cynical criticism?
It all started from the shocking "Jasmine Revolution" incident last month. Washington is monitoring the development of the current situation closely, but they changed their positions as the situation progressed. Even though Washington has repeatedly stressed that the U.S.’s position has been the same, the outside world thinks otherwise.
From the beginning, the U.S. supported Mubarak and called him a reliable ally. Later, the U.S. asked Mubarak to quickly recognize the power transition, but agreed that he should remain in office until presidential elections in September. Next, the U.S. strongly expressed that Mubarak should step down immediately. The way the Obama administration avoided to call Mubarak to step down directly at the very beginning shows that the U.S. was unable to make a choice: to stabilize an ally, or support democracy?
It seems ironic, but more irony is yet to come. The wave of anti-government protests continues: the U.S.’s rival, Iran, and ally Bahrain, are the next countries. And the U.S. has demonstrated two distinctive attitudes towards these two nations, which clearly reveal its double identity — advocating Iranians to pursue freedom, but merely calling to restrain military crackdown on demonstrators in Bahrain.
The U.S. is protecting its allies, even though they know their allies have problems. The so-called ally is, indeed, a colonial practice in a new era. The purpose of shielding allies and colonies are the same: for their own interest.
The U.S. wanted to stabilize its allies despite many accusations, in fact, that it is purely for their own interest. By losing Mubarak and the King of Bahrain, the U.S., with too many enemies in the Muslim world, would be unable to befriend Egypt’s and Bahrain’s new government.
The U.S. has obviously failed. Clearly, the U.S. is not that powerful in suppressing democratic development. Some say that Mubarak sustained power until now all because of the U.S.’s support. However, the Myanmar military government, which is not supported by the U.S. and has faced sanctions, is still intact.
Achieving democracy depends on the people themselves. Outsiders cannot help much and cannot stop anything. A few people in a large country cannot do much, but when the majority of people are aware of democracy, the collective strength is therefore powerful and beyond imagination.
It all started from the shocking "Jasmine Revolution" incident last month. Washington is monitoring the development of the current situation closely, but they changed their positions as the situation progressed. Even though Washington has repeatedly stressed that the U.S.’s position has been the same, the outside world thinks otherwise.
From the beginning, the U.S. supported Mubarak and called him a reliable ally. Later, the U.S. asked Mubarak to quickly recognize the power transition, but agreed that he should remain in office until presidential elections in September. Next, the U.S. strongly expressed that Mubarak should step down immediately. The way the Obama administration avoided to call Mubarak to step down directly at the very beginning shows that the U.S. was unable to make a choice: to stabilize an ally, or support democracy?
It seems ironic, but more irony is yet to come. The wave of anti-government protests continues: the U.S.’s rival, Iran, and ally Bahrain, are the next countries. And the U.S. has demonstrated two distinctive attitudes towards these two nations, which clearly reveal its double identity — advocating Iranians to pursue freedom, but merely calling to restrain military crackdown on demonstrators in Bahrain.
The U.S. is protecting its allies, even though they know their allies have problems. The so-called ally is, indeed, a colonial practice in a new era. The purpose of shielding allies and colonies are the same: for their own interest.
The U.S. wanted to stabilize its allies despite many accusations, in fact, that it is purely for their own interest. By losing Mubarak and the King of Bahrain, the U.S., with too many enemies in the Muslim world, would be unable to befriend Egypt’s and Bahrain’s new government.
The U.S. has obviously failed. Clearly, the U.S. is not that powerful in suppressing democratic development. Some say that Mubarak sustained power until now all because of the U.S.’s support. However, the Myanmar military government, which is not supported by the U.S. and has faced sanctions, is still intact.
Achieving democracy depends on the people themselves. Outsiders cannot help much and cannot stop anything. A few people in a large country cannot do much, but when the majority of people are aware of democracy, the collective strength is therefore powerful and beyond imagination.
Next article![]( "The American Egypt")