open Democracy News Analysis - american power & the world - Comments

spamgreg on "Torture: America's policy, Europe's shame"

spamgreg — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:23:39 +0100

Not *all* europeans are guilty, far from that. It is only the stupid leaders of those countries who participated in the shameful attack on Iraq. The evil leaders of those countries who fell into shame : Australia, Bulgaria, South Corea, Denmark, Spain, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Lituania, Netherland, Philippinia, PolandPortugal, Romania, UK, Tchzchekia (or something, excuse me I can't spell it), Slovaquia, Turquey, Ukrainia. These leaders all knew the reasons for war were fake, and they often acted against the will of their own people who demonstrated by the millions.

Their main evil leaders are : of course the evil Briton Tony Blair first, then José Manuel Durão Barroso (yes, the fat UE unelected chief, he organized meetings of the other warpigs). Also the horrible Rupert Murdoch put all his power for the war. And too, Israel, who was extremely happy that their friend the USA attacks Iraq.

My country France has been so much spat upon for being against this crime, so I'm pityless with these bastards warpigs : let them all die. But also, I don't want innocents be blamed for crimes of others. So no, not *all* of europe.

SpamGreg

Akos Horvath on "Torture: America's policy, Europe's shame"

Akos Horvath — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:24:30 +0100

I wholeheartedly agree with the authors. I would also add that those kidnapped and tortured included European citizens and residents; some of these people were kidnapped by the CIA on European soil. One can imagine what the American reaction would be if European secret services kidnapped American citizens in the USA and then tortured them. If we are self-respecting people, we have to press on with this issue, get to the bottom of it, and prosecute those we can. We might not be able to put American officials in the dock, but we definitely can do this to our very own elected officials.

STOP THE WARS - US & UK HAVE LIED TO THE WORLD on "Torture: America's policy, Europe's shame"

STOP THE WARS - US & UK HAVE LIED TO THE WORLD — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:52:41 +0100

The Bush and Blair administrations are jointly responsible for this offence against human dignity. All members of both administrations should be judged guilty of crimes against humanity at The Hague. The US cover-up of the true facts of 9/11 which has served US in its war of 'terror' (for which IT is primarily responsible) should be exposed for once and for all to the world. Already several historians/writers/people within the Pentagon,intellectuals,parents of persons murdered on 9/11, have spoken out against the US administration for its cover-up of the TRUE FACTS concerning 9/11. The lies must stop. The US and UK have dragged the world into wars (INVASIONS of) with Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan... where are we heading? This is total INSANITY.

Student Speed Dating on "What Obama must say (and do) in Egypt"

Student Speed Dating — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:21:04 +0100

Muslim pro-democracy activists were hoping that Obama would deliver his talk in Jakarta instead of Cairo, partly in support of recent gains for democracy in the world's largest Muslim nation but also as a rebuke to authoritarian regimes who will register a public relations victory by hosting the new American president. Now that the venue has been decided there are three things that Obama must do if he wants his message to penetrate through to a deeply skeptical Muslim audience...

Not logged in Lawrence Efana on "The Cairo speech: letter to America"

Not logged in Lawrence Efana — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:34:54 +0100

You are definitely right. Surely many are likely to agree with your observations.

The two things most worthy to lift out, rightly highlighted are:
1) "Many commentators are right to point out that it will take more than even the most skilful of speeches to remove mutual suspicion between the West and Islam, let alone between Israel and the Arab-Muslim world"; and
2) "This proposal of 'a new beginning' did, however, reinforce my conviction that Barack Obama is one of the most gifted and serious statesmen the world has seen in action for a very long time".
Both are so important that it serves to quote in order not to add hence alter your original words and senses!

alfredo.bremont on "What Obama must say (and do) in Egypt"

alfredo.bremont — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 01:49:59 +0100

Obama will have nothing to say to anyone, he just has to be.

the confusing image of the world before obama realm is inconceivable to many, however it is a fact. this reality is related to the human side of the species than his culture. humans do have an organic defense. they keep themselves alive.

Obama is a symbol of survival.

however the rules were written long ago, applied by time at the right time for the proper purpose.

this is why Obama is president of a nation now.

the past blends with the present and follows the future. however the past can and is the future.

everything is at the right time, the right moment, and the right place to be.

markwalters on "There is no zombie free lunch"

markwalters — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:47:54 +0100

Money keeps on being put in but to what effect? Over $2.5 trillion will be lent the USA, yet only 2.5% interest will be charged on the loan. Still, the USA are in difficulty with it and will seem to have to fiddle with inflation or default on it. The White House should get to grips with it now (can't believe some of them are off skiing at the moment!) and not keep saying that the economy will naturally adjust in time. There's not enough being done. Mark Walters.

syed salamah ali on "Barack Obama's middle east: pragmatism and hope "

syed salamah ali — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:54:14 +0100

I would like to ask every American simple and basic questions and it does not matter whether he or she is a politician or political expert or media commentator or reporter or lobbyist or a couch potato or a hip hopper. (1) Is America a party in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? Expected answer, No! (2) Then, which are the 2 parties in the conflict? Expected answer, Israelis and Palestinians (3) If so, then why is America negotiating as a party to the conflict with and on behalf of only one of the parties in the conflict, that is, Israel, without the other Palestinians being ignored or even forgotten, as if the latter are not even a party in the conflict? Expected answer, "None of your business!"
Till such times this none-of-your-business attitude changes, America, America's pro-Jewish lobbies and America's 'fellow travellers' will going 'round the mulberry bush' dancing to the music of the Quartet for years and years to come, just like during the past 60 years.

Dan E on "Open veins, closed minds "

Dan E — Fri, 15 May 2009 23:41:52 +0100

The chutzpah of this article is quite extraordinary – it really only tells us something about the self-serving myopia of Washington-based intellectuals who are plugged into the well-funded foreign-policy establishment.

It’s telling that the word “imperialism” is placed in scare quotes. The two authors know very well that Latin America was under the direct imperial rule of Spain and Portugal for over three centuries. They also know very well that their own state took up the imperial baton in the twentieth century, proclaiming its right to interfere in the domestic affairs of every Latin American nation from Mexico to Argentina – 20th century Latin American history is dominated by coups and invasions that ousted progressive nationalist governments whose policies were generally quite moderate, but interfered with the interests of US corporations.

De Shazo and Mendelson Forman claim that the economic problems of Chile under Salvador Allende had nothing to do with US “machinations”and were entirely caused by allegedly “disastrous policy-making” on that government’s part. They also know very well, but choose to forget, that the US government had openly declared its intention to inflict massive damage to the Chilean economy, and set about that task with all the weapons at their command, exploiting their dominant role in bodies like the World Bank.

They doubtless also know, but choose not to say, that Allende’s Popular Unity coalition increased its share of the vote in the last elections held before the coup early in 1973. Not what you’d expect if the government was clearly making a mess of the economy – the Chilean people could obviously recognise that while Allende’s government had made some mistakes, it was generally doing a good job under difficult conditions. The coup was necessary because there was no prospect of defeating Allende’s project by democratic means.

What arrogance to lecture about the importance of democracy, without once mentioning the role of the US state in undermining democracy across the region over the space of many decades. There is a vague allusion to “vastly improved civil-military relations” – the reader is left to remind his- or herself about the character of the old “civil-military relationship” – death squads roaming the streets of El Salvador, kidnapping trade unionists, peasant organisers, human rights activists, priests and nuns, or just random civilians with no political involvement, torturing and killing them and leaving their bodies by the side of the road, while the Reagan administration pumped millions of dollars of military aid into the Salvadorean army every month to keep its dictatorship in power. The two authors may find it professionally rewarding to forget this bloody history – but don’t expect others to allow them to whitewash the record of the US government as a sponsor of massive human rights violations in the very recent past.

Not just in the recent past, either. The only exception De Shazo and Mendelson Forman allow for their picture of democracy triumphant throughout the continent is Cuba. By logical deduction, this means they consider Colombia to be one of those states where democracy reigns, with nothing more troubling than the weakness of legislative and judicial branches of power to spoil the picture. I am sure they know perfectly well that Colombia is a state where the members of social organisations that campaign for fundamental human rights are routinely murdered by death squads that work hand-in-glove with the Colombian army, which has received billions of dollars of military aid from the US government in the past decade.

When I visited Colombia, I heard the testimony of a woman who had been forced to watch while the paramilitaries made her aunt swallow a live grenade with the pin removed – these are the close allies of Alvaro Uribe (they campaigned actively for his election and re-election, and murdered people campaigning for his opponent), who is himself Washington’s staunchest ally in the region.

After they have displayed such extraordinary moral and intellectual blindness in their own article, it really takes one’s breath away to see the two authors refer to the “backward thinking” and “closed minds” of Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales – both of whom have been elected and re-elected by their own peoples with majorities that would make Barack Obama envious. Since they refuse to acknowledge the well-documented historical role of the US state as the sworn enemy of Latin American governments trying to implement policies of social reform and wealth redistribution, naturally they cannot understand why leaders such as Chavez and Morales – and the people who support them – have a healthy, well-founded distrust of the US.

One of the few accurate statements in this article acknowledges that Chavez has a knack for symbolic gestures. The meaning of his gift to Obama seemed very clear – “We’d like to have a better relationship with you than with Bush, we’d prefer to get along with the US, but if that’s going to happen, you need to learn a little about the role your country has played in the past and the damage it has done.” The authors of this piece could use a similar lesson.

quidoculosavertis on "Open veins, closed minds "

quidoculosavertis — Wed, 13 May 2009 17:48:21 +0100

Venezuela is in a situation where it would do much better to look ahead instead of to the past, be it the 70s, when this book was written, or today when Chávez is in the middle of tearing up Venezuela as if it was his personal property, in the throes of bankrupting every corporation he has rushed to put under his poorly advised military boot. I wonder if in 20 years time, the next Venezuelan generation will have the time to whine à la Galeano with all the work to sort Chávez' mess out.

Indeed, today Venezuela would do well to refresh its ideas on independence and throw off the confining, oppressive yoke configured by Chávez' enslaving Cuban style autocracy, especially since it now seems quite clear that democratic avenues are being closed off one by one and that he's not going anywhere, anytime soon.

Is this unimaginative, somewhat malicious gift all Chávez could think of after his drawn out 10 year wait to be taken into account by the leader of the most powerful nation of the world? A grudge book, if ever there was one. Why the Spanish version when Obama doesn't read Spanish. There is an English edition. Was Chávez not aware of this?

Since Bush royally ignored him and never answered any of his multiple insults, it had to be Obama, even after dispensing him a few insults and racial slurs on a couple of his long-winded Aló Presidentes before and since. Chávez' drooling, enraptured expression says it all: I finally arrived!

alfredo.bremont on "Open veins, closed minds "

alfredo.bremont — Tue, 12 May 2009 23:51:14 +0100

democracy as most think it exist will find that it does not exist at all, you exist on a parallel democracy this is the democracy that the west the Americas and practically the whole of the world believed as democracy. the soviet style of democracy we can call it authoritative democracy, similar to Adolph Hitler democracy or pinochet democracy. however direct democracy is what we can call real democracy something that does not actually exist today. when GW talks to Iran there is no difference than when OBAMA talks to Iran. his parallel democracy classifies Iran as insurgent however he calls his own democracy as real which is false as real democracy in America does not exist. the ballot is just an illusion that the common folks happen to believe as people that are elected on any democracy are part of an elite. the people per say do not rule and never will under a paralleled democracy it is the elite that rules.

from Obama to GW.

therefore the problem is not a book or a president or the Americas the problem is on the nature of democracy, how it is applied now and what it really is.

what the common folks does how he exist and what he has become from 1792. so far not much and he does not even has the king to blame but himself. he has created wars, disasters and has become an slave of the state. has destroy nature and is on the process of destroying himself. simply 1792 was one of the biggest mistakes that the western world experience and the beginning of its unavoidable decline. 1792 gave to the bourgeois elite a wonderful and very rich nation. today that nations has no comparison to what it was.

democracy as we can see has destroyed more than it has created however we can call it a step on mens enligthment.

JFox on "Open veins, closed minds "

JFox — Sat, 09 May 2009 15:58:13 +0100

What a fuss! A simple gift of a book by one president to another gives the impression of having upset the entire hemispheric community of political pulpiteers and "Latin-American" pundits - the English-speaking ones anyway.

Reading this contribution, I even got to wondering whether Open Democracy might not be a neo-liberal propaganda machine run or financed for the defence of - let's say a conservative ideology, so frequent and shrill are the attacks made in its pages against the governments of Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia (in rough order of bombardment).

Though the writers of this piece are surprised that Las Venas Abiertas has become a best- seller (presumably they mean "in English" for it has never been out of print in Spanish), it's more than a fair bet that copies are on the bookshelf of, at least, the current presidents of Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Cuba and, of course, Venezuela.

Given the hail of venom routinely directed at Chavez by the western media, a gift of flowers would probably have been turned into a symbol of something nasty. Because the aim - all too clearly - is to discredit the regime, and in particular its domestic programs of investment in social housing, public health, education, and the encouragement of popular participation in local and national decision-making - the latter formerly the reserve of political and economic elites. Chavez's international policy is equally "unacceptable" - not least, of course, the creation of ALBA, the Banco del Sur and TeleSur, but also his persistent calls for an end to the blockade of Cuba and his support for the government of Evo Morales.

What has all this to do with Galeano's book? Plenty. Because Galeano's narrative relates Latin America's long and rather wretched history of subservience to foreign interests, and equally long one of widespread poverty and extreme inequality. The book is well researched and superbly written, and the argument difficult to refute (detractors invariably confine themselves to misrepresentation and condescension).

Independence - economic as well as political - is a necessary condition of dignified development. The US rose to its present status of wealth and power on precisely that basis: by throwing off the shackles of foreign domination and going her own way. At his inauguration, Barack Obama referred to this element of his country's history with justifiable pride.

Chavez's gift is a way of conveying a message that the Venezuelan leader has good reason to believe his US colleague will understand, namely that in order to achieve her potential, Latin America must travel a similar but different road, finding her own way to the promised land. And if Peter DeShazo and Johanna Mendelson Forman care to cast their eyes eastward in the direction they recommend to Chavez, they will note that China, India, Singapore etc. ya estan de vuelta (know this already).
jf

earthgecko on "Barack Obama’s hundred days"

earthgecko — Wed, 06 May 2009 17:12:03 +0100

He's no Ghandi....

Not logged in on "Barack Obama’s hundred days"

Not logged in — Mon, 04 May 2009 23:59:06 +0100

I haven't been following his "progress" much, but I have heard he's sending more troops into Afghanistan (which negates taking them out of Iraq) and he's putting this country in more debt than any other president has in history with his new economy plan (defeats the purpose of talking about stimulating the economy throughout his campaign).

It just seems like his "campaign politics" were just that, and now it's business as usual. I think the president is just a face for the government, but the government makes all the decisions...not the president.

- Daphne Dew

PaulCleese on "Barack Obama’s hundred days"

PaulCleese — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 03:56:11 +0100

It's hard to make a comment on how a president is going until they are near the end of their term. Sure people can make predictions and judgments. But the most accurate judgement on how Obama leads will be after he is finished his term. Well thats what i think anyway