Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Good Guy's Guide to Overthrowing Governments

By G. Pascal Zachary, AlterNet. Posted April 6, 2006.


Just because Bush made a mess of Iraq doesn't mean we should abandon the use of regime change for humanitarian purposes.
040306_story

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by G. Pascal Zachary

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Sitting in a restaurant last week in the Ugandan capital of Kampala, I was introduced to an exile from Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe was once the breadbasket of Africa because of its fertile farms. Today, there are food shortages. The country's 82-year-old dictator, Robert Mugabe, has systematically wrecked his country's economy and relentlessly repressed his political opponents as part of a maniacal obsession with holding on to power. The country's currency is worthless and inflation is rampant. There is energetic opposition to the government, but Mugabe, who has ruled for 25 years, represses his opponents shamelessly. He clings to power on the strength of his reputation as a guerilla leader who forced an end to white rule in a country once known as Rhodesia (named after British imperialist Cecil Rhodes).

The exile is a professor of African history, a learned man whose mind becomes intensely focused when he hears I am an American. "Why can't you Americans overthrow Mugabe?" he asks. "Why can't you save us from our misery?"

"Well, we could," I say. But I tell him the United States won't lift a finger to save Zimbabwe because, with the Iraq exercise in regime change going so badly, Americans won't easily move to overthrow a foreign government again.

"What a shame," he told me and drifted off into the night, leaving me to nurse a Tusker beer.

As I drank alone, I got to thinking that the exiled professor had a good point. Besides, he wasn't the first person during my foreign travels to pointedly ask me if the United States would invade his country. Many Africans I've met have seriously advocated that the United States take over their school systems, their electricity companies, even their entire governments. Maybe American progressives, while right to insist on an immediate end to the occupation of Iraq by U.S. troops, are otherwise drawing the wrong lesson from President Bush's costly folly. Maybe there is a way to cut our nation's losses in Iraq and invest some of the savings into beneficial regime changes around the world.

Of course, overthrowing any foreign government -- even an awful one -- is inherently fraught. The United States has a long history of engineering the downfall of foreign governments by secretly supporting opponents of those governments. The techniques of regime change were honed by the CIA from the 1950s through the early '70s. Sadly, American-assisted regime changes too often installed far worse characters into power. The most flagrant examples came in Guatemala and Iran in the mid-'50s when talented and patriotic national leaders who wanted to limit American influence over their economies were deposed by American-assisted rebels.

Then in 1973 came the U.S.-orchestrated coup against Chile's elected socialist leader, Salvador Allende. Allende's overthrow exposed the dark side of regime change. In the aftermath of Allende's murder and the coup by Chilean generals, thousands of left-wingers in Chile were tortured and murdered. American complicity was suspected and quickly documented. Coming about the same time as the end of America's doomed war in Vietnam, the Chilean coup was a major factor in prompting the U.S. Congress to place firm limits on CIA-assisted assassinations and American-orchestrated coups anywhere in the world. In the end, these U.S.-led coups spawned a backlash that gave all manner of regime-changing efforts a bad smell.

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, revolutionized attitudes toward regime change, ending a generation of prohibitions against toppling foreign governments. That President Bush chose the wrong government to topple, however, should not make progressives abandon the use of regime change for humanitarian purposes.

There are no shortage of governments deserving of removal. Besides Zimbabwe, there is Pakistan, an erstwhile ally of the United States led by former general Pervez Musharraf, who seized power in a military coup and then sought to sanitize himself through sham elections. Musharraf's government tolerates and encourages the worst forms of bias and abuse of women. Rapes go unpunished, and women who resist their fate are routinely sanctioned by courts or murdered with impunity. This same general allowed his country's top nuclear scientist to sell weapons technology to other countries. The secret sales may have pushed Iran closer to completing a nuclear weapon and probably were critical in North Korea getting the bomb. And then, of course, there is Pakistan's protection of al-Qaida, and Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding in the outer reaches of the country. Musharraf insists he's doing he's all to capture bin Laden, but no one seriously believes that.


Digg!

G. Pascal Zachary is the author of "Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of the American Century."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Invading Iraq was never going to work
Posted by: Aussie Kim on Apr 6, 2006 12:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So many people saw it as a grab for oil that they were not going to help by not resisting. They also felt that the sanctions were doing a lot of damage. (as the article points out, we could have just waited a bit longer)
A dictatorship like Syria was probably never going to help by sitting back and doing nothing because that's the nature of dictatorships, I guess.

What _I_ want to know is why a spy network was not employed to get Saddam. If everyone's spies were supposedly so hard at work during the cold war, why not renew the industry? (Or did they try and it didn't work?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The story of the benevolent hegemony, again and again
Posted by: mick on Apr 6, 2006 1:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here we hear the never-ending story of the benevolent hegemony of the US, again, against all odds. Do you think your aggressive and suppressive nation will ever be able to act out of altruism? That's the bright shine of your school books, full of fairy tales about your own history. Learn the facts about your history: slavery, slaughter of the natives, fraud, robbery, and murder everywhere, at any time.
There are, unfortunately, still some people around in the world who believe the US, but not too many. And they are getting fewer every day. It seems people now remember the facts, don't believe your big words and don't fear your big stick: the nukes by which you threaten to destroy the world in order to save it from any other nation trying to acquire them. But in the end: it was only your nation that used nuclear bombs as weapons of mass destruction. Forgotten?
Mick, old Europe

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's just that we're no BETTER. Posted by: AdamSelene40
» So?? Posted by: decembrist
» RE: You said it exactly. Posted by: LOfstedal
» RE: You said it exactly. Posted by: oneMan
» RE: You said it exactly. Posted by: JimTheAnarchist
» RE: Is this satire? Posted by: ccbite
Contradiction
Posted by: bodo on Apr 6, 2006 1:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...it is worth noting that the sanctions against Iraq, applied by the first Bush administration and then by the Clinton administration, were working and would have ultimately brought about a change in the Iraqi government

If i am not mistaken the strongest effect the sanctions had on Iraq was to deprive an already oppressed population of the basic necessities needed to enable a healthy resistance. The sanctions did nothing to seriously undermine or destabilize the centralized power structure, obscenely excessive luxury, or inhumane tyranny of Saddam's regime itself.
The sanctions may have prevented Saddam from consolidating enough power to pose a threat to United States' interests directly, but they did nothing to actively encourage Regime change, that is unless you consider impoverishing and already brutalized population a justified method of instilling motivation.

Besides, Sanctions only work if you control all the possible trading partners. The Burmese Regime, for example, manages just fine trading with China and other countries not in the back pocket of Western Democapitalist forces.

The chemical weapons sold to Saddam to silence the Kurdish uprising (an uprising actively encouraged and then abruptly and traitorously abandoned by the US) are a prime example of where United States' interests truly lay; not in the successful overthrowing of the Regime by the people themselves, but in the carefully and coldly calculated coup de tat which was at the time in the process of being orchestrated to replace Saddam. Replace him not with a populist government truly representative of the Iraqi people, but a new, more pliable regime under the veil of democracy, one which would secure American strategic interests, ie - oil. The sanctions served their purpose in keeping the lid on any true Iraqi resistance until Bush and the American Capitalist Elite could manufacture their own regime change, one under their control, their rules. In other words, sanctions bought the United States the time they needed to secure the oh eye el.

All that being said, there are instances where sanctions have worked in the past i'm sure, aren't there? The only problem is that for sanctions to be effective, the regime in question needs to have a power dependence on the resources being sanctioned, and they can't be able to get those resources from some other state power that’s not playing the same game (Transnational Corporations, Countries, aliens).

As the world develops and new powers gain affluence, which is happening believe it or not, the effect of sanctions become more and more dependent on all the players cooperating.

Unfortunately, the state of things being what they are, international interests as mal-aligned as they are, leaders and profit juggernauts being as gluttonous and/or fundamentalist as they are, cooperation seems to be about the last thing on anybody's mind, and the first thing whited out of any formerly freedom oriented country's constitution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Contradiction Posted by: hms2004
» RE: Contradiction Posted by: bodo
Idealism or naivety?
Posted by: Far Sight on Apr 6, 2006 3:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Overthrowing evil regimes and doing our utmost to raise something better? Nice idea, but unlikely.

I have to question whether we have the moral and political will to make such changes.

A brief look at history - and an even briefer look at current governments - puts the question to that. When there is a chocie between a government that is good to its people and a government that is good to us we have a habit of choosing the latter. We're quite happy to hold our noses and extend the hand of friendship to just about anyone so long as they give us a nod of respect and cooperation (Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia are a few examples that come to mind). If Mugabe was starving and oppressing his people AND playing nice with us we'd never crack our teeth about him.

Even assuming we suddenly develop a collective conscience, you then have to look at capability. How often do we blunder happily into a situation without considering the actual people of the nation? We assume, we ignore the local culture, we try to shoe horn what works for us onto their country anjd cut off the bits that don't fit and every day our people likely deal a hundred insults without even realising it. Can we nation build? Do we actually know how?

And even if we gain this skill there is the additional problem of reputation. If our troops landed in Zimbabe and cried freedom would we be believed? We're not the only ones who can read history books, the people we are 'liberating' know what has happened before. Will they trust us? I wouldn't if I were them. Before we do any kind of "positive regime change" I think we would actually have to try and repair our standing in the world to something that IS positive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Idealism or naivety? Posted by: greggzachary
» RE: Idealism or naivety? Posted by: bodo
» RE: Idealism or naivety? Posted by: davewuxi
» RE: Idealism or naivety? Posted by: gazooks
the best target
Posted by: rsaxto on Apr 6, 2006 3:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we are to target only governments that clearly and relentlessly harm their populations then the first government that needs to be targeted is the Cheney/Bush regime. IMPEACH CHENEY/BUSH.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the best target Posted by: LOfstedal
Regime change begins at home
Posted by: Paul, London on Apr 6, 2006 3:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You don't have to look far for 'failed states that could do with a good dose of regime change. In fact, no further than Washington and London. Both regimes have failed on several fronts. Instead of peace, we have a 'war on terrorism' which is actually a war on people's rights at home. While the ecological crisis threatens to overwhelm us, Washington and London tell us that market forces/technology will do the trick. So failure on that front too. Regime change should begin at home!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: egime change begins at home Posted by: greggzachary
Lost trust cost lives...
Posted by: NIKUZAI on Apr 6, 2006 3:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A lot of people are rightly preoccupied with the behaviour of the Bush administration (and previous administrations) in US foreign policy. Iraq has raised a lot of questions to which the answers are deeply unpleasant.

However, I would argue that these people have become stubborn in their opposition if they argue against even the idea of humanitarian intervention. Iraq has disgraced the case for humanitarian intervention which performed relatively successfully in Kosovo and Sierra Leone.

I agree with people's concern about trust in the real intentions of the US/UK in foreign policy. Are we to become so preoccupied with these concerns that we ignore the pleas for help from Zimbabwe? Don't trash humanitarian intervention out of genuine concerns about trust - a balance needs to be struck.

Nick (neither old or new europe)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lost trust cost lives... Posted by: Redviper
» RE: Lost trust cost lives... Posted by: blueneck
» RE:stubborn in their opposition Posted by: Peter Boyd
Who are you to decide about others?
Posted by: farhada on Apr 6, 2006 3:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
God,
This is sickening; who do you think you are? How on earth can you sit in your coffee shop, 10 thousands miles away from another country and decide to get rid of other governments?

Change of regime is the work of the people who live in that country. It is the right and the "obligation" of people to do the deed not some blow hearth neo-con or leftists to decide that the US is the superman of the world and must go and get anyone he doesn’t like.

Give me a break. Grow up and learn from the history.

You, as the representative of the US, have absolute no rights, what so ever to dictate to others your own believes.

The world community has the obligation to support democracy movement in other nations, they have to stop supporting the dictators, stop the double standards in the political and economical way it is dealing with the 3rd world countries and most importantly, stop this BS propaganda that you are the saviors of the world and you have the "right" to go in and change the governments, left and right.

Who are you going to put in charge of Pakistan? A good dictator? How many millions of people will die in the next 10 or 20 years for you to make Pakistan what you like?

Do you have any idea about the real cituation in those countries and if there are any real movement among the locals to take over the country when you go in and get rid of the old one?

The only time I support such action is to prevent Genocide, something that the world has looked the other way in both Rwanda and now in Sudan.

The world will be a much better place if you Americans take all your soldiers home from the world, and if you are so interested in the well being of the others and so humanitarian, create an army under the UN to support those who really need your help, the millions of people who are dying in Africa and other poor nations, stop the slave labor in poor countries by putting a control over your co-operations and for god sake clean up your own mess and make a real democracy in your own country before advocating it on other places on earth.

/Farhad Abdolian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» you said it all for me Posted by: thaumaturgistguy
No way José
Posted by: wli on Apr 6, 2006 3:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read about the last 50 years of US interventions abroad. It's unclear whether you'll retreat in embarrassment or deny the basic facts (the more typical response), but either way, you'll know regardless of what you say that there can be no such thing as benevolent military intervention.

The best way to deal with Mugabe and similar figures is economic pressure, but even that is frequently abused. Witness the 47-year-long embargo against Cuba, and such shenanigans as "drug war" -related sanctions in Latin America, most often used as a cattle prod against governments that don't bend over backward for US/IMF dictates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No way José Posted by: Polly
Another Nut Case.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Apr 6, 2006 4:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for sharing these bogus ideas with us.

But, it would be to the best interests of the American people, if we changed our ways in this nation.

How about a "free and fair" electorial system?

Or universal health care?

Or free university education for all who qualify (objective standards, only).

How about a more equitable economic and banking system.

???????

Dear Alternet: please stop posting "ediitorials" from these CIA hirelings. I am tired of the warmed over intervensionist rhetoric.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Another Nut Case. Posted by: kingfelix
» RE: Another Nut Case. Posted by: Redviper
» RE: edviper - Everything COSTS Posted by: Redviper
extremely naive
Posted by: kingfelix on Apr 6, 2006 5:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what you fail to understand is that dictatorships offer, potentially, a lot of security to the West, who are prepared to overlook human rights abuses.

if i had my pick of regimes to overthrow?

china, saudi arabia, zimbabwe, uzbekistan, north korea

why you include pakistan is beyond my understanding, they have nuclear weapons and could melt the entire region. but it is a fair point that they are presented uncritically in the media, despite the illegitimacy of musharraf's power (acquired in a military coup)

the US must stop using its own economic interests as the overriding criteria for what constitutes the necessity of regime change. Venezuela being an absolute case study in demonising a popular, elected, national leader, simply because he thumbed his nose at american big business and now sits on the world's largest oil reserves. and, of course, if chavez attempts to build up his military to protect venezuela from the almost inevitable US intervention, then he will be "militarising aggressively, threatening the US" and this becomes yet another justification for US intervention.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Please, stop this noncence Posted by: farhada
Happy to see this is getting the drubbing it so richly deserves...
Posted by: medstudgeek on Apr 6, 2006 5:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know it sounds like a nice idea to replace 'bad guys' with 'good guys', but this isn't the Lord of the Rings. While I am sure many Africans would like us to invade (their current governments are frequently so incompetent any change would be good), there's no guarantee anybody we could install would be any better. And the idea that certain governments are 'as bad as possible' strikes me as naive; one of the things history has taught us is that humanity can always sink to new lows, and people's future behavior can be hard to predict beforehand.
Assume (this is a REAL counterfactual, mind you) that the French were strong enough to invade America, and promised to impose a European welfare state. How many of you would take up arms to help them? Probably a few, I suspect. But given the way countries run their colonies, we'd probably be raped and exploited.
We also don't understand other countries all that well, as we see in Iraq. We are uniquely poorly-qualified to execute regime change; the Brits at least tried to learn about the countries they were going to invade (with the result that former British colonies often wound up a lot better off after decolonization than, say, French colonies or our own mess, Liberia).
Also, even if someone says they are promoting democracy, they often have ulterior motives. The Iraq War was about oil, and the Cold War was about protecting capitalism. It did result in freedom for Eastern Europe, but that was a (beneficial) side effect. It did not result in more freedom for Latin America (remember Allende?).
Let's stay at home and fix our own problems, starting with regime change for Chimpy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hear, hear!! Posted by: stormchilde1975
Change is mass movement by the working people
Posted by: Xjy on Apr 6, 2006 5:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with most of the comments so far. This article is warmed-over imperialist rhetoric, White Man's Burden, you name it...
There are only two ways the US could really make a difference for the better. The first is to stop subsidizing the thuggish puppets, the rabid running-dogs who rule most of the problem states. If the US took its hand from Israel, that vicious state would collapse in less than a fortnight. The second is by doing what Cuba is doing in Venezuela - sending hundreds of trained specialists to help ordinary people solve health, education and infrastructural problems on their own terms and by invitation only.
The first alternative can only come about when the mass of American working people boot out your current kind of government and regime.
The second can only work on an effective scale under the same conditions, although steps in this direction might be possible sooner, even if they are contradictory and cancelled out by the greater assistance given to the zombies.

Till then, the people in exploited and oppressed countries will have to fight on their own against both their own oppressors and the US-led international imperialist conspiracy of exploiters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wonder....
Posted by: oneMan on Apr 6, 2006 5:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How many barbarian tribes were happy when the roman army rolled into town? Rome had mild taxes, was religiously and culturally tolerant and brought massive technological improvements everywhere it went. Which also makes me wonder. If the founding fathers of America based our government on the Roman republic why wouldn't we proceed to the next stage of Rome? I've had similar experiences in my travels to those of the author of this article. Many people worldwide are willing, nay anxious, to endure American occupation in order to receive the benefits. With all of these reasons shouldn't empire be the logical conclusion? And yet I still wonder. Why is it that any time you reference the American empire, Americans get uncomfortable? What is it about going empire that makes most American citizens go a little green around the gills? These are only partially rhetorical questions. Intelligent responses would be appreciated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I wonder.... Posted by: stuck_in_FL
» Erm . . . Posted by: stormchilde1975
» They lasted a few hundred years Posted by: medstudgeek
» Compare, say, to China Posted by: stormchilde1975
» RE: Compare, say, to China Posted by: blueneck
» RE: I wonder.... Posted by: gar
» RE: I wonder.... Posted by: owleyes
We can't agree on which countries?
Posted by: davidhobby on Apr 6, 2006 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've read the comments so far, and what strikes me
most is the lack of agreement as to which countries
would merit "regime change". I believe that a case
could be made for helping countries get rid of repressive
leaders. Ideally, the United Nations would be in charge
of the movement. That's not likely, but it would need
to be a multi-national group of some sort.

Note that I didn't say bad leaders--those would definitely
be local problems. I also agree with the author, there
would have to be a solid opposition within the country
that could form the basis for a new government. That's
one lesson that should definitely be learned from Iraq!

Would catalyzing regime changes be right? That's a
thorny question, but I think a good test would be what
the citizens of the target country thought a year later.
If almost all of them are happy the outside world intervened
to overthrow their old government, then doing so was
right.

With this out of the way, I'd like to point out that we can't
even agree on which countries are good candidates. The
example that springs to my mind is Burma, which no one
suggested.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You can't blame a writer for writing ...
Posted by: AdamSelene40 on Apr 6, 2006 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... it's what they do: write, publish, move on ... hopefully get paid at some point.

And when you come down to it, AlterNet exists primarily to give writers opportunities to show their work and promote their books -- not to promote some consistant moral or ideological position.

STILL: this particular article was more than a little disturbing.

"How stupid must you think I am not to notice how wicked you just assumed I could be?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

US tends to overthrow good governments
Posted by: ceti on Apr 6, 2006 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author of this piece has it backwards -- the US is in the business of overthrowing good governments more than bad ones -- remember Arbenz? followed by four decades of genocide. Allende? followed by the long nightmare of fascist dictatorship, all brought to you by American regime change. There are countless other examples.

This liberal imperialism bunk is just as dangerous as old fashion command and conquest. Most empire builder really believed that they were bringing peace, security, stability, and order to the galaxy, er.. the world.

So while many in the world hope against hope that the US with its power and wealth will work for the welfare of humanity -- it won't as long as it's an empire.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

otto
Posted by: otto on Apr 6, 2006 6:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see the point, but I still feel uncomfortable and find the whole notion dangerous. It's too easy to be subjective, to see the speck in our brother's eye and ignore the mote in our own eye. Also, I think I detect a bit of "old American flavor" that I don't like...seeing Communist nations like Russia and North Korea as "all bad"...from our point of view. I suspect that regime change over here because of the evils we've perpetrated against other nations may have been the objective of Osama Bin Laden and 9-11, just as Palestinians often want to change the mentality if not the regime of past Israeli governments.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nice idea but ramming America down people's throats won't work
Posted by: Bobsays on Apr 6, 2006 6:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Humanitarian regime change is a holdover from the Clinton era. It is espoused by Tony Blair. It will never work as long as it is America calling all the shots. America now generates either fear or hate in the world today. So many people (and I'm a fan of American culture and its people) have had it with taking orders from America. We can see that you don't have the best place in the world - Americans frankly look like a nation of angry burn outs. We don't want to go the same route. All regime change, if it happens again, must go through international bodies. The UN is useless so a new body is required. I don't know what it would look like, but somebody has to invent one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I see, use our "arrogance" for "good" instead of bad?
Posted by: Prophit on Apr 6, 2006 6:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am sorry, but anything that requires invading another sovereign nation should be done through the entire international community.

What made me laugh reading this article was the description of that horrible little country, Zimbabwe and how much like our own leader and government is was. Does that mean Germany should invade us, overthrow Bush and Cheney and restore leaders acceptable to Germany???? LOL

No, I say, we the people should take care of that ourselves or have our people make their case to a full international body with a resulting decision by the international community if a case can be made for "crimes against Humanity" against Bush and Cheney and then have them implement what needs to be done in the name of compassion and human rights.

The US has never had the right to overthrow another sovereign nation and as far as I am concerned it still doesn't. We are arrogant to think we alone can determine such action. In addition it would leave such decisions to someone like Bush who may or may not be telling us the truth about that nation. Its better for those in exile to make their case for crimes against humanity with a full international community group.

Once you break the rule of sovereignty you then act as God in these things. That is too much power.

Now, I have to say it, "What is going on with Alternet with these articles that support a neocon agenda?" Before I felt this was a good thing to have controversial subjects for discussion, but this one is way outside the realm of anything resembling integrity.

Not a word there about South Africa and how we changed it using the entire world community and non violently as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

American exceptionalism lives
Posted by: Blanktivist on Apr 6, 2006 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I saw the headline and slugline, my first thought was that the "use of regime change for humanitarian purposes" under discussion would be the removal of George W. Bush from the People's House. So add my voice to the chorus of disappointment with the article we actually got.

"so rah rah rah democracy
let's all be thankful as hell
and bury the statue of liberty
because it begins to smell"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what about Burma?
Posted by: guvdrone on Apr 6, 2006 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I propose Bush & co. topple the military government of Burma. They changed the name of the country, moved their capital on the advice of astrologers, refuse to turn over power to the legimitate leader of the nation (Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel laureate, who is under house arrest), torture and murder their own people, allow citizens to be used as slaves by the military and foreign corporations, wage war against their ethnic minority populations, sell off massive chunks of the country to the Chinese, deal in drugs... and so on. Did I mention they were defeated in 1988 in one of the few real elections in the country's history? Well they were. Only problem is the military dictatorship has made sweet deals with foreign natural gas firms so we really wouldn't want to upset the apple cart in the name of something foolish like basic human rights, would we?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: what about Burma? Posted by: kelly.nickell
Mick
Posted by: Johanna Moren on Apr 6, 2006 7:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mick, you are so right. When I pressed the button for this site to-day and was confronted with that letter to sign for Bush going into Darfur, I thought I was on the wrong site.
Good grief, what is the matter with the woman.
What do these American suffer from.
He is about the last person they need. I'm sure he would love to go in there. They have oil.
Johanna Moren.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What crap
Posted by: Ghoulman on Apr 6, 2006 8:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's only one thing worse than a right wing liar and that's a left wing fantasist.

This article is so full of American self-delusion I can't even pick one thing about it to demonstrate my point.

America doesn't go to other countries to make nice, it goes there for oil. Period. Revisionist history on Chile and the rest of South and Central America and twisting facts "just so" proves only that Americans still don't care enough about the rest of the world to even come to a meager understanding of just how destructive US foriegn policy has been for the last 150 years. Really, ... worse than France in Africa.

*sigh*... just waiting for someone to point out how much I "hate America" or some such rubbish.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What crap Posted by: antoniomo
» RE: What crap Posted by: owleyes
» RE: What crap. Neocon nonsense too. Posted by: doinaheckuvajob
» RE: What crap Posted by: Aussie Kim
Good way to help the powerful start more wars
Posted by: gorthaur on Apr 6, 2006 8:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In an ideal world there might be some benevolent power that would only do good. But in the real world, the only people who have the power to overthrow others' governments are interested only in power itself, not in doing good. Any intevervention will primarily be carried out to serve their own interests. There have probably been a few interventions that have had beneficial effects, but even in those cases there has been a great human cost. If you support the imperial power against "bad guys", you strengthen that power's ability to intervene wherever it wants. It's like supporting a sniper shooting into a schoolyard because he happens to hit some bullies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't be so guillible
Posted by: jane on Apr 6, 2006 8:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr Zachary, I advise you not to trust the word of a Western-educated African elite musing over the role of the US over a beer. Most Africans know that Westerners have egos so fragile that they need to be affirmed with absurdities like humanitarian intervention, and so will say anything