Well, what I mean is that it is better that America is ruled by Americans than Englishmen, for example, or that the Vietnamese are best placed to decide what happens in Vietnam, and indeed that the best solution for the Balkans is not one decided in the West. It's a simple democratic point really. Odd that it should even be challenged.
> In the US today there is a habit
>to refer to 'the government' as though it's entirely
>separate from us. This habit pervades _all_
>discourse, and is pernicious because self-fulfilling.
No. I think Americans have good cause to distrust their government, which did after all open fire on its citizens (and some of my own compatriots from Manchester) at Waco, just as it annihilated the MOVE commune. It saddens me that the left are so uncritical of the state.
>
>So my question is: do we have 'self-government'? Did
>the Chileans under Pinochet have 'self-government'?
No, the Pinochet dictatorship was installed with US military support.
>Did the Cambodians under Pol Pot?
No, there country was destroyed by US aerial bombardment, forcing the evacuation of its cities.
> The USSR under
>Stalin?
No, the Soviet Union was invaded, blockaded and substantially destabilised before the West succeeded in getting a leader who would defeat the old Bolshevik leadership.
>I don't think there are many people who would freely
>choose to suffer deprivation, thuggery, or murder!
No indeed there are not, none, even. The reason that the Yugoslav Republic *elected* Slobodan Milosevic was that it was obvious that he was opposed by the West: seeing their own choice of government being challenged, the Yugoslav's rallied to his cause, as they have again today.
>
>So i would have to argue that 'self-government' is a
>myth and a fraud in most cases.
Which is a very convenient kind of cynicism when you are demanding that the people of the Yugoslav republic should be bombed in an attempt to overthrow their democratically elected government. If self-government is such a fraud, would it be ok for Britain to impose a military dictatorship in America, or again in Ireland, perhaps?
>As to US domination being generally benign: 'benign'
>is probably the wrong term. I would probably say
>'generally less directly murderous'.
Really? The figures that Michael Hoover published here not so long ago would seem to demonstrate otherwise. How about the 180 000 killed in Iraq, or the 1 000 000 that have died since as a consequence of the sanctions regime? How about the 300 killed so far in the bombing raids on Yugoslavia, or the tens of thousands of 'two bit pricks' (Clinton's words) that were killed by the US forces in Somalia?
The truth is that the US, like Britain is knee deep in the blood of those people that is has deigned to 'save'. You might as well ask Ed Gein to run an old people's home as ask America or Britain to act in a humanitarian way.
>'Benign' would be the right term only if the US were to
>intervene decisively in every case where one group
>exploits another by means of violence or systemic
>deprivation. And didn't intervene anywhere otherwise.
>
This is sheer utopianism. The US has never intervened to do good, only to subordinate other countries to its rule.
>>The West is not the solution, it is the problem.
>
>Are you in the West? Are you part of the problem? If
>you are, why don't you stop it? If you're not, then
>it can't be 'the West', because if it were, you would
>be.
Yes, I am in the West, and if I were to support my government's actions (or indeed merely acquiesce to them) I would be part of the problem. But I do not share your identification with Western governments, and instead, am campaigning against Western policy in the Balkans. -- Jim heartfield