///The Dangers of Democracy in Third World Countries/// In his Jan. 2014 book, former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates captured the above dangers with clarity. He explains why—although it wants to be—Washington cannot just be supportive of free elections in poor countries all the time: “Will freely-elected governments be able to make the hard decisions necessary to bring economic growth and alleviate the grim existence of most [citizens]?” The use of the conjunction ‘and’ is interesting, given that economic growth IMF-style seldom ameliorates the populace’s plight in poor countries. The province of Gujarat in India, for instance, is world-famous for its stellar economic growth (applauded by the IMF, etc.). The living conditions of the province’s poor have experienced no improvement over the last decade or so. In fact, as all economists acknowledge, they have remained dismal, exactly as demanded by global investors. Gates’ sentence therefore is quite illuminating. The Secretary of Defense goes on by wondering what the U.S. is to do, should freely-elected governments in low-income countries fail to deliver economic growth? What then? “Will they turn to extreme nationalism, blame […] the United States, or ignite sectarian violence as a diversion from their domestic failures?” The phrase “extreme nationalism” or “fanatical nationalism” is long-standing Washington jargon. It was already in use 60 years when Gates’ predecessors overthrew Iran’s parliamentary democracy. Speaking of “underdeveloped countries with rich resources”, the NYT on 06-Aug-54 identified as intolerable the risk of seeing those countries go “berserk with fanatical nationalism” and taking control of their own natural wealth. A high-income country like, say, Norway or Canada can control its own oil. But that is not tolerated coming from a Third World society. That is what Secretary Gates means by “extreme nationalism.” The expression “to blame the United States” is a reference to Bolivarian states, which in recent years kicked out USAID, the IMF, the Workd Bank, all U.S. military bases and many transnationals like Bechtel and Suez/Lyonnaise des Eaux. The NYT, in its 11-Jul-13 issue, expressed explicitly its nostalgia for more direct subjugation from the U.S. in the area. “Washington is finding that its leverage in Latin America is limited just when it needs it most, a reflection of how a region that was once a broad zone of American power has become increasingly confident in its ability to act independently.” Clearly a problem. “Our influence in the [Western] hemisphere is diminishing,” said Bill Richardson, a former American ambassador to the United Nations who visited Venezuela in 2013. “It’s important that the Obama administration and Secretary of State Kerry devote more time to the region [to try and] resist that anti-U.S. movement.” Lastly, Gates’ notion of freely-elected governments choosing to promote sectarian violence so as to divert public scrutiny from their own domestic failures is perhaps the most interesting. First, if a given state chooses to do that, what business is it of Washington’s? Is it a valid reason to block access to democracy. Second, the most spectacular examples of governments actively promoting a sectarian rift within their region so as to maintain power are (i) dictatorships; (ii) close U.S. allies. I dont even need to mention their names. What is the point of this posting? Well, simply that Washingtons ideology is articulated with limpid, stark, unmistakable clarity—to whomever pays close attention. It is by no means concealed.
Posted on: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 18:23:23 +0000