The Orange Revolution in decline?

[Miulang]

Two years ago, with some significant help from the United States, Viktor Yuschenko was elected President. (Yuschenko was the one who was poisoned immediately before the elections, presumably by his opponent's Moscow-based friends).

Democracy in that former Socialist country probably took at least a couple of steps back today as Yuschenko's rival in that contested election, Viktor Yanukovich (former prime minister), was handily elected to the Prime Minister spot by the Ukraine parliament. This means that US-backed Yuschenko has to share powers with Moscow-backed Yanukovich.

"...The further development of Ukrainian democracy is clouded," said political analyst Vadim Karasyov in televised comments.

"It is a not a real coalition government, they are mostly allies of Yanukovich. The government is a step forward but facing backwards. It is like deja vu."

The US State Dept. has pledged to work with the new Prime Minister, but people in Kiev have their doubts, most of them fearing that Ukraine will once again come under the direct influence of Moscow.

Miulang

[glossyp]

Re: The Orange Revolution in decline?

Despite your sometimes conflicting views as stated in various other threads of 1) the US shouldn't be imposing its standards of democracy on the world and 2) those that the US aids in the pursuit of democracy are ingrates who take the money and kick us in the okole (why do they have to do what we say to get respect from you anyway?) - the facts are it takes time for democracy, in whatever incarnation the people of any given nation want, to take hold. Germany, Japan, India and South Korea are excellent examples of this fact. Your preoccupation with the hardships, difficulties and setbacks is a hallmark of your postings and neglects to acknowledge that change is painful, takes decades and is worthwhile.
An excerpt from a piece written by a Tufts professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy:

"In 1919, in spite of Wilson's grandiloquent pledge to "make the world safe for democracy", the subjugated peoples beyond Europe soon found out under Wilson's stewardship that theirs was a world still beset by colonialism and far from safe for democracy. And as inspiring an icon as Wilson became for the downtrodden people from such diverse places as East Asia and India to the Middle East and Africa, the world was still not ripe for dismantling the web of colonialism. Instead in these places disillusionment and disappointment set in. However, Wilson's ideas had unintentionally engendered powerful forces of nationalism in various corners of the world, and however unsuccessful the various national efforts at independence may have proved in the short term, the symbolism and the legacy of such movements, especially in the context of national historiography, including that of the US, still resonate."

Read the entire piece.

[Miulang]

Re: The Orange Revolution in decline?

Despite your sometimes conflicting views as stated in various other threads of 1) the US shouldn't be imposing its standards of democracy on the world and 2) those that the US aids in the pursuit of democracy are ingrates who take the money and kick us in the okole (why do they have to do what we say to get respect from you anyway?) - the facts are it takes time for democracy, in whatever incarnation the people of any given nation want, to take hold. Germany, Japan, India and South Korea are excellent examples of this fact. Your preoccupation with the hardships, difficulties and setbacks is a hallmark of your postings and neglects to acknowledge that change is painful, takes decades and is worthwhile.
An excerpt from a piece written by a Tufts professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy:

Read the entire piece.

The point is, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars spreading democracy around the world every year. If in the process of exercising that democracy, the people of fledgling governments choose to freely elect those which the US has decided are detrimental to that cause, we shouldn't get involved in trying to tweak that democracy. That was my whole point about Lebanon and the Palestine. We gave them the opportunity to exercise democracy in their elections and they did that. It's not up to us to say they made the wrong choice.

Interesting little speech given by Rep. Henry Hyde. Chairman of the House International Relations committee about the perils of the "Golden Theory".

We can and have used democracy as a weapon to destabilize our avowed enemies and may do so again. But if we unleash revolutionary forces in the expectation that the result can only be beneficent, I believe we are making a profound and perhaps uncorrectable mistake. History teaches that revolutions are very dangerous things, more often destructive than benign, and uncontrollable by their very nature. Upending established order based on theory is far more likely to produce chaos than shining uplands. Edmund Burke's prescient warning of the deadly progress of the French Revolution, a revolution guided by intoxicating theory and heedless of all warnings, endures.

...For some, the promotion of democracy promises an easy resolution to the many difficult problems we face, a guiding light on a dimly seen horizon. But I believe that great caution is warranted here. Without strong evidence to the contrary, we should not readily believe that, without an enduring American presence, democracy can be so easily implanted and nourished in societies where history and experience suggest it is quite alien. It may, in fact, constitute an uncontrollable experiment with an outcome akin to that faced by the Sorcerer's Apprentice.

...The life of preeminence, as with all life on this planet, has a mortal end. To allow our enormous power to delude us into seeing the world as a passive thing waiting for us to recreate it in an image of our choosing will hasten the day when we have little freedom to choose anything at all.

Miulang

[glossyp]

Re: The Orange Revolution in decline?

The point is, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars spreading democracy around the world every year. If in the process of exercising that democracy, the people of fledgling governments choose to freely elect those which the US has decided are detrimental to that cause, we shouldn't get involved in trying to tweak that democracy. That was my whole point about Lebanon and the Palestine. We gave them the opportunity to exercise democracy in their elections and they did that. It's not up to us to say they made the wrong choice.

But is up to us whether we continue to give them money.

The broader point I was making is that the road to democracy (again in whatever form a country chooses) is a very difficult and lengthy one. The free nations of the world did not happen easily. It is no different in our time. The forces that would prevent the movement to liberty and freedom are determined; we need to be equally determined. As JFK said

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty."

We must support our allies and make decisions with a view to the long term, not what may be convenient, easy, polls well or, heaven forbid, what the French think.

[Miulang]

Re: The Orange Revolution in decline?

What you say is true. However, as an example, is the $80 million we have earmarked for "democratizing Cuba" really a good use of our money? We helped Castro to get rid of Batista by withdrawing our financial assistance to Batista's government, and then Castro turned around and became an autocrat. So we have to spend more money and then hope the next regime is more favorable to us? Many in Congress are saying we should open up relations with Cuba again, but the neocons will have nothing to do with it...they want to send money because they think money will curry favor with the people. Well, the only people it will help are the next ones who come into power. Instead of money to fund the dissidents, why not just try to establish dialogues with the government currently in power? How will we ever be able to broker peace with Iran and Syria if we refuse to speak with them directly?

We did the same thing in Chile: got rid of the Socialist government of Salvador Allende and installed Augosto Pinochet who ended up being a torturer and butcherer of his people.

We helped Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi depose Mohammed Mossadeq in 1959 (after the Shah's father had been deposed by Mossadeq and the Brits in 1953). The Shah ended up being a despot, who, while he loved America (and we loved him for Iran's oil), had SAVAK which tortured many of his citizens. He was overthrown by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who imposed a theocratic (religious) government on Iran. Then in 2005, the current President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was elected, and we have the tensions between our country and Iran starting all over again with the issue of nuclear proliferation. We currently don't speak directly with Iran either.

It is far more honest to try to engage in dialogue with a hostile country than to try to subvert it by funding the opposition. Funding revolutionaries increases the suspicions of the government in power. Much of that funding we now allocate annually for spreading democracy probably could be better used to help people in our own country.

Miulang