Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Those Who Have Nothing to Lose Can Easily Be Moral

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
unhappycamper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-10-11 06:41 AM
Original message
Those Who Have Nothing to Lose Can Easily Be Moral


... for the big powers’ economic relations, strategic interests and military consideration are also in play. The allegations have always been made that they put such interests over morality.


Those Who Have Nothing to Lose Can Easily Be Moral
Die Presse, Austria
By Michael Fleischhacker
Translated By Elissa Yonkers
5 February 2011
Edited by Gillian Palmer

It’s hard to say what can be learned from a little more than 200 years of European revolutionary history about the events to come in Egypt. Alexis de Tocqueville would have agreed with Rudolf Burger’s words in this “Presse” edition: “I have always observed that in politics one goes under when one has too good of a memory.”

Remembering past revolutions doesn’t help to stop current events, to achieve leadership or to become instrumental. Those are essentially the options of the big Western powers in the face of revolutionary events in strategic nerve centers. The morality suggests supporting the tactic of stopping such events and the strategy to stop them. What could one learn from the Iranian revolution in 1979, which also came out of nowhere? Nothing.

A few examples of big-power politics during revolutionary citizen uprisings appear to stay relatively constant. The decided ideology of American foreign policy in the past, with Caribbean, Central and South American civil uprisings against reigning dictators, has been: “He is a pig, but he’s our pig.” In the 1950s that was the sentiment toward Cuban leader Fulgencio Batista.

The U.S. let him fight (and later the right-wing Central American dictators) because in the 1950s, and then again in the 1980s, a very serious fear was forming that the Soviet Union could incorporate Latin America and the Caribbean into their empire.

After the downfall of the Soviet Union, the Islamic fundamentalists took over the role of the big threat. And the U.S. aligned again with the principle: “He’s a pig, but he’s our pig.” That went for the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein; that goes for the Saudi Royalty, the Hashemites (of Jordan) and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC