Friday, 24 February 2012

Pop - America's anti-freedom policy


Before beginning this post I would like to make two things clear. First I am completely in favour of helping Syria and I don’t think that the Security Council should have been held back by veto’s from two corrupt/communist countries clearly scared of this wave of ‘democracy’ lapping at their shores. Secondly I always have a problem with what to call citizens of the United States. They call themselves Americans from what I can tell but considering the vast amount of countries on the American continent the term American seems like a wrong classification. For this reason I switch between various terms for them, please be assured no offence is meant.

While watching the news I noticed that Hillary Clinton has released a statement from the meeting about Syria that took place in Tunis. This statement was the normal rhetoric about how something needs to be done and its murder et cetera but one thing that she said really stuck with me. She made a comment about the veto that Russia and China used, saying that it was despicable that they took this course of action and she ‘is starting to wonder who’s side they are on.’

This goes back to a problem with Western culture in general, something propagated most strongly by the American government. Democracy and freedom are encouraged and absolutely fine as long as you agree with the majority. This is shown perfectly in this statement by the US’s foreign minister. Her problem is specifically that two countries used their veto in a way she deemed unworthy. Forget democracy, they didn’t do what everyone else wanted so they’re despicable. There is no mention of the reasons that these countries have, I remember at the time of the veto Russia had a list of conditions they wanted met before they agreed to the security council resolution. They didn’t just veto with no reason, they gave their reasons, but because it wasn’t what the Western world wanted those reasons have been ignored and they have been accused of having ulterior motives.

Lets concede for a moment that both China and Russia have ulterior motives, it isn’t inconceivable because there is evidence towards that fact. But why give them the power of veto if you are going to vilify them for using it? Surely the idea of a democracy is that everybody is allowed their say whether the opinion is liked or not. So what Hillary Clinton is saying in that statement is that she doesn’t believe in democracy, she just wanted her own way. Whatever the reasons that the countries have it shouldn’t affect their right to an equal vote if you are going to allow them to stay in the security council. Surely if the West want it to be made of Yes men who all agree with each other then they should kick out the countries who might have a different point of view. Or at the very least remove veto powers and admit that they work on a majority vote system. 

I pointed out previously that this is propagated mainly by America but really it is just the most prominent example. All countries, except Deutschland seemingly, work on this system of pretend democracy. For example a good number of years ago now the BNP got a large number of votes and got themselves a member in the European Parliament. Maybe they aren’t everybody’s cup of tea but they were voted for by enough people to earn that right. It was the view of a large number of people that the BNP should have a seat. However I was watching the elections on that day and the uproar was incredible. The PM at the time even threatened to rehold the election for that seat and the presenter at the time said that it was a sad day for democracy. A democratic vote produced an outcome that the PM backed by the majority of the country didn’t like so threats were made of a re-election. What kind of a democracy is that? The people vote but higher up people don’t like it so it’s wrong. Not to mention the fact that our ‘democratic country’ has only two possibilities for power. If I vote for the green party, or the Lib Dems or indeed the BNP then my vote is immediately discounted because we have a two party system with the option for a protest vote. In my mind, a democracy should allow equal representation of the country’s views but my only choice of having a say is to try to work out which rich person will win and vote with the herd. Otherwise nobody listens. 

This is exactly the same in the US only there is even less opportunity for those who don’t agree with one of the two parties in charge. Democracy is about having an equal voice, a vote in the way the country is run. But that doesn’t mean anything when we’re force-fed the choice we have to make.
Another example was the EU vote recently where David Cameron used his veto. All that the European countries did when he took this course of action was have the same vote without him. That isn’t democracy either. If you can just re-hold the vote without the person who didn’t like it then why have the original vote? It renders it completely redundant. 

Now back to the US. There is a commonly known fact which the whole world are aware of except for most Americans. There is no such thing as freedom in the United States. The government allows them to have guns and protest so the citizens genuinely think that they are free and in a position to spread this freedom to the rest of the world but these people aren’t listened to. They have the option to vote between two people who paid their way to power rather than being qualified for the job. This is essentially a vote between a war with whoever they don’t like and not going to war. If someone in the world posts something on the internet that America don’t like, they send them to prison. If somebody dares to smoke they are vilified, if someone is anything over a size 8 (American size 6 I believe) they are vilified, if someone takes drugs they are looked down on. But they can hold a gun and shoot whoever they like so they’re free right? What Hillary Clinton said is a perfect example of the American culture’s hatred of free speech, by which I mean hatred of anything at all which goes against the ruling party. That’s the US definition of terrorism, doing something against the US government. Sounds a lot less like freedom and a lot more like a form of fascist regime to me. 

With the way that the Western world operates democratically, we have no right to tell the Arabic countries how to act. From fake American freedom to the subtle European way of always getting things to go the way they want, democracy doesn’t exist in the Western world. Help the Arabic countries free themselves maybe but we should all be hoping for them to come up with a new form of running a country because maybe coming into it all fresh they have a chance of developing something genuinely equal. With the way that they treated Gadaffi however, I doubt that they even understand the principle. 

Pop *signature placeholder 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please tell us what you think and don't be afraid to be honest, that's what we're here for.