Home | About | Donate

Military Regimes Shouldn't Be Recognized


#1

Military Regimes Shouldn't Be Recognized

César Chelala

The military upheaval in Turkey, whose final consequences are yet to be seen, highlights a major weakness in worldwide efforts to promote democracy. This event underscores the need to establish binding international legal principles to ban the recognition of military regimes as a result of coups d’état. Establishment of such principles, and the creation of the legal mechanisms for applying them, would foster democracy throughout the world.


#2

Absolutisms Shouldn't Be Recognized (there, fixed it)


#3

Although the sentiment seems to make sense, we shouldn't overlook the fact that the biggest proponents of (pluralistic) democracy are also by far the most militarized nations on the planet, and very often engage in using military force to select the governments of a number of supporting nations.

I mean, really, this should be emphasized, because it catches a lot of well-meaning people off guard, who'd expect the situation to be the other way around.


#4

"This happened to the Greek junta after its debacle in Cyprus, to the Chilean regime under Augusto Pinochet and to the Argentine military after the Falklands conflict. New principles could be developed, however, that would automatically bar the recognition of such de facto regimes."

Don't forget Haiti and Honduras. And I think it could be argued that our own nation has suffered likewise only it's happened through a slow creep (what I term gradual accommodation) and covert merger of big business interests with the entire MIC-media complex.

Some coups are more easy to identify than others.

From the article:

"But what if a country's military forces stage a coup against an oppressive or corrupt civilian regime? An ousted civilian government that has been freely elected by the people should not be denied recognition in favor of a post-coup military regime unless the overthrown government was responsible for gross human rights violations. Further, after a coup, recognition should be withheld until another civilian government is chosen in free and democratic elections."

Wisely asked question; yet like all cases of Absolute Power corrupting in order to achieve its own ends, the problem comes down to what force can hold Corrupt Power to account?

This syndrome is at play in our own country right now.


#5

If you think these militarized nations are spreading Democracy, you've got a lot of books to read on your "to do list" starting with John Perkin's "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man."

A cursory look at those dictators propped up by U.S. Special Interests shows that NONE are interested in Democratizing their nations.

Do you think Greece's citizens have Democracy while under the financial heel of Europe's Central Bankers?

Same thing goes for Puerto Rico. Tricked into Hedge Fund financial graft at bizarre interest rates (which simulate the financial metrics of "Payday Loan" centers placed in poor communities throughout the U.S.), citizens are now held hostage to policy that is anything BUT Democratic.

Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi both improved the lives of their citizens as did Hugo Chavez prior to his death (and the parallel drop in global oil prices).

Did U.S. "Democratic" elites see any reason to tolerate these individuals?

So you can take your red-blooded, flag-waving, unquestioning apologia to the Military Industrial Complex and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Then, educate yourself!


#6

So you can take your red-blooded, flag-waving, unquestioning apologia to
the Military Industrial Complex and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Um... if you think my post was in any way supportive of MIC-backed democractic crusades, then you have deeply misunderstood my point. Obviously the "democracy" spread by the US leaves a lot to be desired, but "democracy" is the rallying cry it uses to justify anything and everything.


#7

In this era where propaganda is used to SELL wars, it makes sense to provide for this distinction... otherwise, you sound like another card-carrying nationalistic fan of the Military bringing its brand of "Democracy" at bayonet point to all those villages it has to "destroy in order to save."

I speak on behalf of all those being bombed back to the Stone Age and good people inside the U.S. in voicing opposition to these felonious frames.

It's interesting that you use the generic term "it" to define those who use the lie of spreading Democracy to destroy nations.

Afraid to honestly define who that it is.... shades of Bill Clinton's slippery interpretation of the word "is"?

Presuming you honor the distinction, I'll accept your clarification.


#9

In your next post you mention John Perkin's "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man." From the prologue:

"People like me are paid outrageously high salaries to do the system's bidding. If we falter, a more malicious form of hit man, the jackal, steps to the plate. And if the jackal fails, then the job falls to the military.

Ecuador is typical of countries around the world that EHMs have brought into the economic-political fold. For every $100 of crude taken out of the Ecuadorian rain forests, the oil companies receive $75. Of the remaining S25, three-quarters must go to paying off the foreign debt. Most of the remainder covers military and other government expenses — which leaves about $2.50 for health, education, and programs aimed at helping the poor. Thus, out of every $100 worth of oil torn from the Amazon, less than $3 goes to the people who need the money most, those whose lives have been so adversely impacted by the dams, the drilling, and the pipelines, and who are dying from lack of edible food and potable water. All of those people — millions in Ecuador, billions around the planet—are potential terrorists. Not because they believe in communism or anarchism or are intrinsically evil, but simply because they are desperate. Looking at this dam, I wondered — as I have so often in so many places around the world—when these people would take action, like the Americans against England in the 1770s or Latin Americans against Spain in the early 1800s. The subtlety of this modern empire building puts the Roman centurions, the Spanish conquistadors, and the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century European colonial powers to shame. We EHMs are crafty; we learned from history. Today we do not carry swords. We do not wear armor or clothes that set us apart. In countries like Ecuador, Nigeria, and Indonesia, we dress like local schoolteachers and shop owners. In Washington and Paris, we look like government bureaucrats and bankers. We appear humble, normal. We visit project sites and stroll through impoverished villages. We profess altruism, talk with local papers about the wonderful humanitarian things we are doing. We cover the conference tables of government committees with our spreadsheets and financial projections, and we lecture at the Harvard Business School about the miracles of macroeconomics."

With today's events in Baton Rouge and the upcoming conventions, I am wondering how long it will take our government to enforce martial law. This "mission creep" is exactly what the capitalist thieves ("elites" isn't derogatory enough) have planned for a long time. The rhetoric of Obama and government officials to placate the masses, "the violence and hatred has to stop," or "we must unite to stop the hatred" or, referring to the police, "an attack on one of us, is an attack on all of us" will not change until it is connected to the terrorism we impose on people all over the world...


#10

In this era where propaganda is used to SELL wars, it makes sense to provide for this distinction

Yes, indeed. The distinction is necessarily important to my point, so I didn't think it would be easy to miss. I suspect that there isn't a huge difference in the substance of our views.

... otherwise, you sound like another card-carrying nationalistic fan of the Military bringing its brand of "Democracy" at bayonet point to all those villages it has to "destroy in order to save."

Unlikely. My views are far from what you'd call pro-war or nationalistic extremist, and I'm still not exactly sure how you were able to mistake it from the original post.

It's interesting that you use the generic term "it" to define those who use the lie of spreading Democracy to destroy nations.

"it" was specifically referring to the US. I'd even written "US" in the exact same sentence, so it seems like you're unnecessarily inserting ambiguity where there is none.

Presuming you honor the distinction, I'll accept your clarification.

Thank you.