Afghanistan, a 21st-Century Cuba
By Hans Vogel
Last week's elections in Afghanistan were, of course, a travesty of democracy. A farce, a joke, a charade. Still, we haven't been hearing lots of laughter, though loud laughter, no matter whether cynical or not, would have been the only proper reaction to what was ubiquitously presented as a serious event in a democratic country. Anyone observing the “elections” should have been roaring with laughter, with tears in his eyes and cramps in the stomach, that kind of laughter. Yet most “Western” media reported on them with the utmost seriousness. It is just another proof of how utterly insignificant these media have become, manned as they are by traitors, weaklings, half-wits and other losers whom no one with a modicum of self-esteem would want to associate with.
Even if Afghanistan would have been a democracy to begin with, and not as now, saddled with a phony democracy imposed on it by “Western” bayonets, the normal functioning of the system ought to have been suspended because of the savage war raging within its borders. Moreover, Afghanistan is under military occupation by tens of thousands of trigger-happy, racist, foreign criminals masquerading as soldiers. They are routinely killing Afghan civilians, destroying its economy, wrecking its social fabric, ravaging the country. They have set up a collaborationist regime that could not possibly survive without their presence. The current Afghan regime exerts no control over the country at all. Perhaps in and around Kabul it manages to maintain a semblance of authority, but in actual fact, part of the country is run by the US government at Washington, working through a wide array of local warlords and chieftains. However, most of Afghanistan is run by the Taliban.
Anyone would agree democracy cannot function properly during wartime and, just in case you would not, there is overwhelming historical evidence to support this assertion. On the contrary, war is always a splendid opportunity for the elite to strengthen its control and to curtail democratic rights. It was during the Great War (1914-1918) that European state bureaucracies grew to levels of power and control never witnessed before. And don't you believe the new bureaucracies gave up any of their power when the war ended. The Second World War (1939-1945) saw a further development of state control, not only in the belligerent countries themselves (Germany, Italy, Britain, the Soviet Union), but also in most of the countries that were liberated or occupied or whatever term you would use for the military takeover by any of the main belligerents.
In the US, developments followed the same pattern as in Europe. Today, individual citizens all over the “West” enjoy less freedom, less liberty, less rights than their forebears living a century ago. These rights have been taken away and curtailed, step by step, inch by inch. Today, most “Westerners” are little more than consumers. They have become numbed by lousy media, trash entertainment and silly commercials to the point of losing their political identities. Too many still believe the crooks they vote for in periodic elections have their best interests in mind. In most of the “West,” democracy exists in name only. The label no longer covers the content. In actual fact, most “Western” states would better qualify as oligarchic, autocratic, or even totalitarian regimes.
Indeed, compared the states like the US, Britain, the Netherlands or other supine US clients, the political system imposed on Afghanistan is not that different. It may just be a bit rougher around the edges. If the US calls itself a democracy and gets away with it, there is little reason why Afghanistan could not qualify as a democracy either...
Afghanistan is only the latest country to receive the benefits of US-style democracy. The US began exporting its particular brand of democracy in 1898, when it interfered in the Cuba's fight for independence from Spain. That year, a US warship, the USS Maine, blew up when moored in Havana harbor. The US press, then as unreliable and as bloodthirsty as today, cried wolf, accusing Spain of sabotaging its warship and clamored for a war to avenge the Maine. The press got its war and within months US forces had invaded Cuba, the main supplier of the tremendous US demand for sugar. Equipped with an excess of firepower and a minimum of courage, but with a propensity for cruelty and wanton violence, US troops quickly vanquished the Spanish forces on the island. These had been demoralized by long years of fighting a losing battle against the insurgents. Then, US forces found themselves facing the insurgents, who at first believed the US had come to help them. Not so.
The Cubans could now only get their independence from the hands of the US, and only after acceding to adopt a pernicious clause in their constitution. Known as the “Platt Amendment,” this provision gave the US the right to intervene in Cuban politics whenever it deemed fit, and to install a government to its liking. Thus, in 1902 Cuba became independent in name only. Elected in US-supervised elections (with the usual vote rigging and intimidations) its first president, Tomás Estrada Palma, was also a US citizen. In fact, Cuba was a US protectorate, at least until the US allowed it to delete the amendement in 1933. Until Fidel Castro dared
