US Friends and Foes Grabbing Power
WASHINGTON — While President Bush has been distracted with his unpopular war against Iraq, friends and foes are busy grabbing power to perpetuate themselves in office.
Among them are Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan; Russian President Vladimir Putin; Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and President Mikhail Saakashvili of Georgia.
There is little the United States can do about the drift toward authoritarian rule.
For Bush, the toughest problem is the Pakistani leader whom he has called a “friend.” The two men have established a close relationship and the U.S. president is not about to lower the boom on the Pakistani leader who has received a bundle of U.S. aid since 2001.
Despite Bush’s personal entreaties and a visit from Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, Musharraf has refused to reverse his decisions to suspend Pakistan’s constitution and impose emergency rule, which is de facto martial law.
Musharraf’s purged court has defended his decisions and opened the way for him to serve another 5-year term — this time as a civilian president. The ruling is expected to hasten his decision to relinquish his post as commander of the armed forces.
Musharraf took power in a coup d’etat in 1999, deposing elected prime minister Nawaz Sharif.
Meantime, opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, former prime minister of Pakistan — who was ousted from power twice on accusations of staggering corruption — has called on Musharraf to resign.
U.S. officials also are concerned about the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.
Despite his efforts, the whole Pakistan episode is taking a toll on Bush’s reliance on personal diplomacy. Remember when Bush met with Putin, looked into his eyes and said he had a “sense of his soul”? Putin’s former career in the KGB secret police seems to have escaped Bush in the State Department’s Cliff notes.
Under Russian law, Putin must step down as president next year — but he obviously finds such an option to be very painful. The Russian president says he will run in the December parliamentary elections and hints that he could come back as a future prime minister.
Putin has been backsliding on democratic reforms, taking control of the television networks and the oil industry. He has been criticized by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for crushing reforms.
Another leader trying to stay on top — his critics say he wants to be president forever — is Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Chavez is stridently anti-American, a posture sure to generate support in some precincts — but opposition to his autocratic rule is growing in Venezuela and abroad.
Chavez wants to change the Venezuelan constitution so that he could be elected indefinitely and expand his control over the economy. He has already nationalized the oil, telecommunications and electricity industries.
Another close ally — U.S. educated President Mikhail Saakashvili of Georgia — has invoked an emergency decree after a police crackdown in Tbilisi on an opposition demonstration. The protesters claimed that the president intended to extend the mandate of the current Parliament.
Saakashvilli has ignored U.S. appeals to immediately revoke the state of emergency in his country, located in the Caucasus. An important fuel pipeline runs in the region from the Caspian basin through Georgia and Turkey to serve world markets.
Saakshvilli has called for a presidential election on Jan. 5 to test support for his government.
Sometime ago, Bush mused it was easier to be a dictator. He’s right about that.
Bush — with pressure from his neo-conservative vice president and staff — has himself expanded presidential power in the name of the “war on terror.”
The power grab-bag of this administration extends from its warrantless wire tapping to the president’s outrageous abuse of “signing statements” that he issues when putting his signature on new legislation; the statements are his claims that he won’t be bound by certain sections of the bill he just signed into law.
His decision to name as attorney general retired federal judge Michael Mukasey — who believes the president is above the law in wartime — is good insurance for Bush’s power surge.
Unfortunately, Bush’s actions show that America is not in a prime position to preach to friends and foes about abuse of power.
Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. E-mail: helent@hearstdc.com.
© 2007 The Seattle Post-Intelligencer
This is what happens when empires crumble. Power vaccums will be filled.
Ah yes, Friends and Foes.
I am reminded of a cowboy and indian story from my dim past told by Tom Mix as I recall.
There once was a cowboy who rode his horse all day across the desert until the exhausted animal collapsed. The cowboy removed the saddle and trudged on. Toward evening an indian found the distressed horse and with soothing words and a little water soon had the beast standing whereupon the indian mounted and road the stead another fifty miles and then ate it. Now I don’t know which political party, Democrat or Republican, is the cowboy or which is the indian but I am pretty sure that the American taxpayer is the horse. We seem to be fodder for both friend and foe.
These power grabs are possible because the majority of human beings –remember, there are 6.5 BILLION of us out there–prefer to sit on our hands and moan about how unfair it is rather than sacrifice everything to ensure a better world for ourselves and our children. Accountability is a hard pill to swallow, it’s difficult to accept–but we are all accountable for these monsters’ existence and rise to power. Now we pay for our apathy and self centerdness.
old tory bat
Helen Thomas…I have great respect for you as an elder and a journalist among journalists. But, to write Chavez off so quickly as an autocrat is quite unfair. Chavez has done more for the people of Venezuela than bush ever dreamed of doing for any American citizen other than the members of the corportocracy. Give bush half a chance to rule the United States as a dictator and believe me, you and I would be in deterrment camps, freedom of the press a distant memory and the Constitution very expensive wallpaper in bush’s bathroom.
NCYCAT: A few things are operating here. First, we’ve seen these battles before, and as a friend of mine said, “get tired of fighting the same battles over and over again IN the trenches.” HIS-STORY indeed repeats. Understanding this seeming inevitability, one would be giving their life to stave off future runs against democratic liberties. There is also the TV factor, and by that I mean, HOURS of our days–which is equivalent in composite to years of our lives–spent in front of that hypnotic medium suggests to many that they can CHANGE the channel at will. There is an unconscious sense these days that if one does not like consensual reality, they can “slip into another,” kind of like a channel change. Think “reality based” versus “faith-based” communities. And then, added to these factors, are the prophecies for this complex, confusing Age phase transition.
I also feel that Hugo bashing is just part of the American media’s current playbook. Being ‘anti-bush’ doesn’t make him anti-American, though his being against the American government (under bush) is likely. Remember Chavez offered free heating oil to Americans and other stuff, and because he called shrub “the devil” we call him a bad guy. So bush isn’t the devil? Where’s the proof?
The real problem is that organizing liberals is like herding cats - it’s hopeless, and even if you round them up, you can’t train them anyway. They’re so bent on ‘doing their own thing’ that they let the fascist dictators take over - and the rest of the sheeple are glad to have ’security’ again…
You won’t see any progress until honest traditional conservatives get tired of the incompetence - probably about the time resources run out…
“Bush — ……has himself expanded presidential power in the name of the “war on terror.” Unfortunately, Bush’s actions show that America is not in a prime position to preach to friends and foes about abuse of power.”
What’s more unfortunate is that the majority of U.S. citizens still don’t see the increase in abuse of power and the vanishing democracy we’re living in since George Bush took office.
Practice what you preach!
Helen
Compare and contrast the political processes of different countries, cultures and histories at your peril.
For example, Chavez emerged as powerful political figure because the traditional two party system did not respond to the needs and desires of the majority.
In fact, in the late-1980s, the so-called left-center Venezuelan president, Perez, successfully implemented IMF austerity measures…even though the platform he ran on promised to do the opposite.
In response, thousands hit the streets in protest. What was the “democratic” method used to answer these protests? The gun barrel.
Up to 2,000 people were killed. What was the “international” community’s (or US’s) take on these massacres?
A job well done.
After the massacres, Mr. Hugo emerged as a political player via a coup attempt.
And the rest is history.
Of course, Mr. Perez has never faced charges for murdering his fellowing citizens (as did Echeverria of Mexico).
Instead, he is retired and living in luxury in Miami.
Of course, Perez is one of Mr. Hugo’s most strident critics-in-exile.
What would happen if Mr. Chavez ordered the massacres of the present Venezuelan elite/US-sponsered protests?
Too much ‘ColdWar reporting’ has ill-schooled Helen. She places entirely too-much association between authoritarian-’dictators for life’ and the appropriate and beneficial Nationalization of resources/industries that are vital to the citizen-owners of any-country. [Putin and Chavez, for example, stopped the absolute-looting/theft of their country’s ‘lifeblood’ from internal and international-thieves/bankers/cartels — as has Morales in Bolivia (and as ’should’ have happened in Mexico, if their election wasn’t as ‘rigged’ as in ElNorte’].
There ARE certain ‘Public Interests’ that _should_ be Nationalized EVERYWHERE — among them the Military, Law/Enforcement/Judiciary, Health-care, Education, and (in today’s-world) Energy [if the citizens of the US were to wake-up to this Fact, and demand this Right/blessing for themselves, it would be the best-possible Means for actually checking/balancing our Economy and for bettering our lives — while it would reduce opportunity for wealthy/criminal-Interests to influence our leaders regards ‘foreign-adventurism’].
Why would an authoritarian administration concern itself about such rule elsewhere?
The US has supported tyrants enthusiastically and often since WWII, why is it a big deal now? (Well, I suppose one could argue that it is a big deal because are squandering so much blood and treasure in support of a “democracy” in “Iraq.”)
Here’s the real question: why should I care what kind of government they have in those countries. If the populace won’t bleed for freedom, they don’t deserve it, do they? For all I know, they like tyrannical rule.
This article highlights part of what is wrong with the U.S. Who are we in our arrogance to decide what is right and good for other people in the world? All one has to do is to look at Iraq to see what a wonderful job we do with our meddling in other’s affairs. Not to mention the fact that we should concentrate on straightening out our own backyard before complaining about the backyards of others.
Lobo Gris
Another anti-Chavez hit. I always write off these articles. Why is this posted on Common Dreams? We are not all MSM stooges.
Helen Thomas you are the BEST.
The usual losing scorecard for America, propping up some dictators and Sheiks, while destroying and hanging other leaders we deem unacceptable.
Oh America is very special, we are the chosen nation, and we get to choose who lives or dies and what system of government is best for other people.
America, we are constantly told, is the greatest country in the history of the world.
Aside from our moral bankruptcy the dollar is now sinking almost as fast as the Titanic.
I would like to know if it is too early to start writing the Rise and Fall of the American Empire?
“It is a tragic mix-up when the United States spends $500,000 for every enemy soldier killed, and only $53 annually on the victims of poverty.”
MLK
VIVA CHAVEZ
Armybrat; You are right on target! Consensus among liberals on achieving a set goal is a rarity, as each person or group within the overall movement prefers his or her way over the others’ way, resulting in deadlock. A prime example is the ‘Spanish Civil War against fascism. The ‘money and power’ folks stay united and usually win, throwing us a few crumbs to keep us content.
American people are the most ignorant in the so-called civilized ( whatever that means) industrialized world when it comes to history, politics, labor, and civic studies, but we are second to none in our knowledge of sports and entertainment.
SEQUOIABISON; Good post, especially the MLK quote.
MeAlsoToo; Very good comments. Putin is restoring national pride after the ‘post Gorbechev/Yeltzin/Soros crowd began the ‘privatization of the country. In spite of US propaganda, Vladimir is popular within Mother Russia. Same with Hugo And Evo.
Hey Twoblueday,
Are you serious?: “The US has supported tyrants enthusiastically and often since WWII, why is it a big deal now?…Here’s the real question: why should I care what kind of government they have in those countries. If the populace won’t bleed for freedom, they don’t deserve it, do they? For all I know, they like tyrannical rule.”
Are you suggesting that you bleed for freedom? Are you a military person who believes that shooting foreigners somehow upholds freedom in the US? Or are you taking personal responsibility for the founding of the US and translating that into your sacrifice and suggesting that people in other countries haven’t made the sacrifice you have and therefore deserve whatever they get (whatever that may be)?
You even recognize that the US has supported tyrants entusiastically, but then you say they might like tyrants, so who cares about those people? People around the world bleed for freedom every day. That’s why you SHOULD care. Here’s the difference: these people are not you. That is why you don’t care.
mahaffey–the people of our nation bled to establish it, and have bled often since in defense of it (yes, I served in the military). Let those in other nations do the same, if they feel oppressed. That’s what I meant, and I still mean it. It is not the job of the USA to die for others’ freedom, when they seem unwilling to put up much of a fight for it themselves.
Yes, I do care more about myself and my fellow countrymen more than I do about those in other countries. So shoot me.
As for tyrannies, we’ve shed a lot of treasure, and some blood, to prop some of them up. So why the alligator tears if some country or another seems to prefer tyranny to freedom?
Bravo Helen!
Great article. Those of you praising Chavez, one of these days you’re going to wake up with a massive hangover. You’re either extremely naive, or complete morons (no offense). Apparently you’ve never been to Venezuela, never lived there long enough to understand what’s going on there. Instead, you just look for (and believe) whatever crap that supports your own beliefs. Truth is out of the question, you just want to feel comfortable and righteous. But hey, that’s perfectly normal, part of human nature, some would say. After all, nobody likes to have their beliefs messed with. To think for yourself is too unsettling, too dangerous.