We believe that the United States should have good relations with all countries but they should have not attachment to said countries
by Anwar A Khan
The language coming from the Trump administration is that of straight-up regime change. Senator Marco Rubio is crafting Latin America policy for the White House, with John Bolton screaming “Troika of Tyranny” at the top of his lungs. Not that we should have expected anything less.
It is an operetta to damned Guaidó for pushing the envelope in Venezuela. If you were a no-name politician in the Venezuelan legislature, only to become a household name in less than a year, you might also have a sense of invincibility, as I have heard. And if you had the senior-most officials of the world’s most powerful country rooting you on and throwing down sanctions on your mortal enemy, well, that’s even more reason to keep screaming into the bullhorn.
Guaidó is in no mood to capitulate to Maduro. Surrounded by disaffected members of the Venezuelan army near the La Carlota base in Caracas, the opposition leader has pledged to continue the fight and urged Venezuela’s senior officers and rank-and-file troops to choose the constitution over Maduro. “People of Venezuela,” Guaidó said, “we will go to the street with the armed forces to continue taking the streets until we consolidate the end of usurpation, which is already irreversible.” A dullard’s ranting!
Back in Washington, Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security Adviser Bolton, and Senator Rubio all seconded the motion. “Estamos con ustedes!” Pence tweeted. “We are with you! America will stand with you until freedom and democracies are restored.” Other pudding heads raving!
Bolton, speaking in a rare press conference outside the White House, stated that a post-Maduro future for Venezuela was on the minds of US officials. “We have been planning for what we call the day after—the day after Maduro—for quite some time,” he told reporters. “It’s been very much on our mind that we can provide a lot of assistance to the Guaidó government when he assumes power to try to get the Venezuelan out of the ditch that Maduro has put it in,” as he is a cruddyblackguard.
In the end, we do not know where Venezuela’s political crisis is heading. The possibilities are endless. As it stands now, the country is in a holding pattern, with Guaidó trying his best to incite a rebellion from within the ranks of the army but Maduro thus far keeping control of his men. The vast majority of the army remains on the side of Maduro, perhaps out of fear for their lives or concerns about instigating a civil war.
All this could end with Maduro making the decision to vacate his chair and search for asylum, though that is highly unlikely unless his supporters in the military push him out. Alternatively, there could be a split in the Venezuelan armed forces between pro- and anti-Maduro factions, which would precipitate a civil war and result in more refugees and an even direr economic catastrophe. Venezuela’s neighbours could conceivably step up and organise a Latin American coalition of the willing, although this too is far-fetched, given the political capital such a campaign would require and the popular opposition it would create. Or, in a far more likely scenario, Venezuela could go through a slow burn for months or even years. But it is because of American establishment.
But whatever comes to pass, the United States should check its regime change impulses at the door. The propensity in Washington on both sides of the aisle to take ownership of the Venezuela problem and fix it with an American-imposed solution must be tamped down in favour of the prudence and restraint so often thrown by the wayside. Dictation should no longerprescribe policy.
All of us would like to see democracy sprout up in Venezuela like the cherry blossoms along the Jefferson Memorial Tidal Basin. Perhaps someday, these hopes will turn into reality. But hope is not a strategy. And neither is regime change—a policy that is likely to cause as many problems as it solves. US policymakers need to understand that it is the Venezuelan people who must be their society’s people of change.
There is no way we can impose peace on those countries without getting our own hands dirty. It is almost impossible to force people to be free or to impose sweetness and light on a part of the world that has known nothing but brutality and death.
Oil and lucrative contracts for US private defence companies are the primal objectives. The Military Industrial Complex needs to keep its wheels oiled (literally and figuratively) and therefore, the USA invents a new war every few years in order to keep the powerful private defence contractors well paid and to make sure the oil flows.
I think most Americans and people all over the world; I know wish American politicians would stop being the world policeman. I mean even George Washington said that America should stay neutral and mind their own business. But we may cite a few examples further: American atomic weapons were first used in combat against Japan during World War II. The Reagan administration sent American troops to overturn a Marxist coup in Grenada. We know the roughshod role played by the US administration in the 1971 Bangladesh-Pakistan war siding with the vicious Pakistani war mongers which resulted in large part as a result of India's support for the independence of Bangladesh. The Ford administration authorised the CIA to launch a large scale covert operation in Angola in an attempt to prevent a Marxist government from coming to power. The Nixon administration expanded the Vietnam War into Cambodia and Laos. Even America’s CIA was allegedly involved in the cruel murder of our nation’s Founding Father Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman along with his most of the family members in 1975.
Whereas American administration’s main principle should be that of non-intervention and non-interference in the domestic affairs of other independent and sovereign states across the world. It also should reinforce the idea that the United States would be a good neighbour and engage in reciprocal exchanges with other countries.
When all is said and done and the history of this effort is examined, one will see that we who have sought justice and also have sought to repair historic wrongs being done by America for more than seven decades. In repairing this wrong, we use the storehouse of history to feed our arsenal. What we find in that storehouse is simply the truth, and as the saying goes, the truth shall set you free someday.
We believe that the United States should have good relations with all countries but they should have not attachment to said countries. They believe that attachment to other countries would draw them into a war that they have no common interest being involved in. Antipathies also lead to more frequent collisions and conflicts which is what the US should not want. Becoming friends with a stronger nation meant the weaker nation would become a satellite for the stronger one. In this case, the US would be the weaker country and therefore, the satellite. Promote trade and a commercial relationship but keep political connection at a minimum.
John Adams (October 30, 1735 [a] – July 4, 1826) was an American statesman, attorney, diplomat, writer, and one of the Founding Fathers who served as the second president of the United States from 1797 to 1801. We recall Adams who said that the US greatest contribution to the world was her "honest friendship equal freedom and generous reciprocity" He also says,“America respects the freedom and independence of other countries. He also says America will give moral support and prayers to any friend of the US who has their rights or liberties threatened. He says America should not get involved in other countries' affairs. He was concerned that if the US got involved in these affairs the US would become sort of a dictates to the rest of the world which is bad for America.”
It is tragic that American nation has invaded or is invading another sovereign nationunabatedly because “the intelligence and facts are being fixed around the US policy,” as stated in the Downing Street Minutes. It is equally tragic that the US Administration has been unwilling to examine these facts or take action to prevent this scenario from occurring again. Since they appear unwilling to act, it is incumbent on individual American Members of Congress as well as the American public to act to protect their constitutional form of government.
However, in the end, these investigations at least will provide a measure of justice and historical rectification reflecting the truth about the times. It is also leavened thatthe United States’ power is inherently not only false, but also dangerous.
-The End –
The writer is a senior citizen, writes on politics, political and human-centred figures, current and international affairs.
Post a Comment