Regime change project to stay or go?


AS US President Barack Obama leaves the White House and Donald Trump relieves him on January 20 2017, one of the foremost questions in people’s minds is: Is the regime change policy-cum-doctrine of the US to go or stay?
Arguably one of the biggest political disappointments about the outgoing administration of President Obama is the fact that it never attempted to revise the doctrine of regime change bequeathed by George W. Bush.
This is the doctrine which justifies the American invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the invasion and destruction of Libya in 2011, the sponsoring of the so-called Arab Spring, the sponsoring of the armed opposition political parties in Syria and the imposition of economic sanctions against Sudan, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Russia and Cuba, among other nation states.
It is unfortunate that from 2008 to 2016, the Obama administration continued to implement the regime change project and in some cases, in Ukraine for example, it even intensified it!
And often this is done at the expense of the interests of local populations purported to be the beneficiaries.
Simply put, this Western doctrine spearheaded by the US promotes the idea that those countries of the world whose governments do not support and protect Western interests have to go; those governments whose policies protect and promote Western interests are entitled to US support, be it political, diplomatic or financial!
The aim is simple: To support those outside regimes which further American interests and to replace foreign governments that are perceived as being unfriendly to the West with brand new puppet regimes.
The regime change doctrine goes further in the sense that it justifies the giving of financial support by the US to most political parties which happen to oppose ruling parties in some Third World countries.
Where some of these opposition parties appear weak, the US goes on to mobilise and to give financial support to labour organisations, professional, cultural and social associations; in fact to any groupings which aspire to be part of an emerging civil society.
The idea is to inculcate in all these groupings an anti-establishment and pro-Western ethos. And this ethos is premised on the ridiculous assumption that the model to follow is the Western one, the future of the whole world is in the West and that a country which implements economic, social, cultural and political polices as dictated to it by the West cannot do any wrong.
There are several reasons this regime change doctrine remains highly objectionable. Some of these are:
l The doctrine is used by the US and its Western allies to justify wholesale interference in the internal affairs of other nations.
The ostensible reasons cited to justify such interference are predictably, and in a banal sort of way, associated with allegations of abuse of human rights, lack of democracy and freedom in the targeted country and/or a lack of rule of law.
l The key question is: Who appointed the US and its allies as the apostles of human rights and democracy, as the policemen of the world and as the prosecutors and judges with special powers to torment and topple governments of other nations?
l It is fundamentally undemocratic to dictate who should run other countries, which political parties should win elections in those countries and which ones should not win. Regime change is in fact a kind of American-cum-Western dictatorship, but often projected and/or marketed as a self-righteous crusade for democracy and human rights.
It is tyranny of a kind designed to sustain an American empire which emerged soon after the Second World War – an empire in which Western multi-national corporations do as they like in pursuit of profit.
l Western-sponsored civil societies in Third World countries are not necessarily organic to the growth of those countries.
They remain, for the most part, mercenary organisations imbued with values and beliefs of their sponsors and therefore distortions in one form or other to the polities of those countries.
Civil societies which are sponsored by external forces remain vulnerable to manipulation, creating in the process divided peoples often at war within themselves and with each other.
l Regime change is a doctrine which betrays the contempt with which the US and its Western allies regard the sovereignty and independence of other nations.
It is a doctrine that is designed to subvert and displace all those governments which are progressive and determined to address the interests of their people as the Cuban government tried to do for over 50 years
The same applies to the Libyan Government, under Muammar Gaddafi, which served the Libyan people well, but which the West, in its singular lack of wisdom, decided had to go.
The result of such foolishness is there for all to see – massive migration to Europe, in the process turning the Mediterranean Sea into a vast water cemetery.
l Judging by the complete chaos which now engulfs Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya – in fact all those countries invaded in one way or another by the West, it is obvious that the chaos is deliberate and meant to divide and rule, to keep weaker targeted countries off balance all the time.
The overall objective is to enable the West, led by the US, to fish in troubled waters. It is all about looting resources of other countries using fair and foul means!
Therefore the exit of Obama and the entry of Trump into the White House is a unique opportunity to change the confrontational direction which the US has been following for the past 16 years.
The question is: Will Trump take full advantage of his presidency to make the US live in peace with other nations of the world?
Will his administration have adequate courage, intellect and vision to introspect, to soul-search and find out the true underlying reasons the US was subjected to the 9/11 experience; why the West in general is today being subjected to seemingly random and numerous terror attacks?
To ask for introspection is not necessarily to justify and endorse the killing of innocent people in Western capitals; it is simply to ask for knowledge, including self-knowledge, about why the world, particularly the Middle-East and North Africa, are in such a big mess they are in today?
Responding to the anti-Russian hysteria which has gripped the US recently, the Russian President, Vladmir Putin, appealed directly to American people for tolerance and understanding.
Here is what he said: “It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.
There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those finding their way to democracy.
Their policies differ, too. We are different but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here