Two things are certain in this world. First, if there is a disaster, either caused by man or nature, the areas effected will turn to the United States for help and second, once that help is delivered they will call for the US to leave and protest, if it doesn't happen fast enough. Should America continue to operate as the policeman of the world? I say they should not, I'm not saying the US should withdraw and let the world crumble around them, just that they should be very careful about why, where and when they involve themselves. Why is it, that everybody loves the United States when they need something but once they get it, most countries, even our "allies" would rather not deal with us at all? The other countries of the world tend to treat America like a very dangerous tool. One to be used and discarded as soon as possible, and please keep all hands and feet away from the US or you might lose something. United States history is filled with examples of America sending troops to a country for good reasons and then having the country kick them out without even a thank you for their help as soon as the situation changes.
Somalia is a prime example of this. Somalia was mired in both a drought and tribal violence that was causing large portions of the population to starve. in 1992, President George H. W. Bush and other world leaders sent troops to the troubled African nation to secure food shipment and storage areas and insure food was getting to the interior of the country where the worst of the starvation was happening. This operation, called Operation Restore Hope, was a great success and the famine was lessened. As soon as this became apparent to some local leaders they began to call for the international forces to leave, before the mission was even complete. There were other local leaders calling for the overall situation in the country to be improved before the troops left. The United States sided with the leaders calling for the tribal groups to be disarmed and brought to the conference table to achieve a lasting peace. This shift in mission caused the majority of the armed groups to turn against the coalition forces and resulted in battles throughout the capital Mogadishu and the deaths of hundreds of Somalis and 18 Americans. One could say that without the mission creep of the American operation then this never would have happened but the Clinton administration just chose the wrong side even though their intentions were good. After this incident American troops were withdrawn and the country descended even further into chaos and still is a problem area of the world.
Violence doesn't need to play a part in the situations I'm talking about. Germany and Japan are also good examples of this. At the end of World War II the United States and the rest of the Allies, had carved up Germany into different areas of responsibility. The plan called for the Allies to set up a transition government and remove Nazis from leadership roles. After these goals were accomplished the Allies would withdraw and leave the Germans to govern themselves. Unfortunately this didn't go as planned. Shortly after declaring victory the Russian announced they would not be withdrawing and rigged elections in their areas to install a communist government. This caused Germany to be partitioned into western run West Germany and communist East Germany, propped up by the USSR. western, and later NATO troops were in West Germany until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1990. For the large part of the 45 years NATO troops were stationed in Germany they were the only thing standing between the free people of West Germany and a forced reunification under Soviet rule. When the Wall came down and the country was reunited, movements started to remove the troops, no thank yous for the years of keeping them free, no honoring the veterans that secured that freedom, just a pure and simple "get out, now". The same thing happened in Japan. The United States formed the new government of Japan and eventually allowed them to return to a stated of self-determination but troops remained after the communist takeover of China securing Japanese sovereignty but as soon as it became clear that China was not going to invade Japan, there were massive calls and demonstrations to have the US troops leave, even though there was an agreement between the Japanese government and the US about troops remaining in country to keep a far eastern presence for the United States. To this very day there are tense relations with the Japanese government over the status of bases on their soil and the population of Japan is even more fervently opposed to the United States presence. Only the aide offered after the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, seemed to sway public opinion in Japan.
How many other times have the United States offered aide after disasters around the world and how many times have those same countries failed to support the United States in other ventures or even openly oppose them? During the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami the United States diverted a whole carrier battle group, as well as many other military assets, to provide relief operations. For a time it appeared the aide would not be accepted but after some negotiations it was allowed . The government of Indonesia was trying to turn public opinion against the United States in spite of the relief efforts but it did not work as 38% of the public approved of the United States.
These are just a few examples of the theory I'm proposing and I think they go a long way to making my point. Since the fall of the Soviet Union it seems that quite a few countries are afraid the the United States and view all offers of help as the first moves in an effort to make those area colonies of America, nothing could be farther from the truth. While it might have been true in the height of the Cold War, that the US made all foreign policy decisions based on their effect on the USSR, that is no longer the case. The United States is just trying to help everybody join the 21st century and enjoy a working democracy. The fact that some countries don't want that seems to be something the US has trouble understanding. The United States will never be view as a friend to all countries and there are some that will be our enemies, as long as the United States understands this, our relations with the world will only be better.
20 May, 2013
11 May, 2013
Should Every Country in the World Be Free?
With the end of Communism around the world, the Arab Spring and the removal of other dictators throughout the world, the question remains regarding the ability of these new countries to govern themselves and even if they should govern themselves. With the bloody war in the Balkans, ethnic violence in Africa and sectarian conflicts in the Arab world, I believe that some areas of the world are meant to have a strong central government and maybe even a dictator. We will examine each area one by one.
When the Soviet Union fell in 1990 followed shortly thereafter by the rest of the Warsaw Pact and the newly freed areas, as well as the former Soviet Republics started to declare independence it became clear almost immediately, as the areas became self governing, old grudges and ethnic differences were still fresh in the minds of the people in those areas. The former Yugoslavia is the best and bloodiest example of this.
The post-World War II Yugoslavia was in many respects a model of how to build a multinational state. The Federation was constructed against a double background: an inter-war Yugoslavia which had been dominated by the Serbian ruling class; and a war-time division of the country, as Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany split the country apart and endorsed an extreme Croatian nationalist faction called the Ustase which committed genocide against Serbs. A small faction of Bosnian nationalists joined the Axis forces and attacked Serbs while extreme Serb nationalists engaged in attacks on Bosnians and Croats.
The ethnic violence was only ended when the multi ethnic Yugoslav Partisans took over the country at the end of the war and banned nationalism from being publicly promoted. Overall relative peace was retained under Tito's rule, although nationalist protests did occur, these were usually repressed and nationalist leaders were arrested and some were executed by Yugoslav officials.
After Tito's death on 4 May 1980, ethnic tensions grew in Yugoslavia and resulted in a rise of nationalism in all republics: Slovenia and Croatia made demands for looser ties within the Federation, the Albanian majority in Kosovo demanded the status of a republic, Serbia sought absolute dominion over Yugoslavia. Added to this, the Croat quest for independence led to large Serb communities within Croatia rebelling and trying to secede from the Croat republic.
In 1990 each of the Socialist Republics of Yugoslavia held multi-party elections. Slovenia and Croatia held their election first after the Communists agreed to cede power peacefully. By the end of the year all the other Republics held elections with Communists holding power only in Serbia. On 25 June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia became the first republics to declare independence from Yugoslavia.
In August 1990 the Yugoslav People's Army sought to have a state of emergency declared that would allow them to take control of the country. The army was seen as a Serbian service by that time so the consequence feared by the other republics was to be total Serbian domination of the union. War soon followed.
The wars in the area lasted from 1991 until 1999 resulting in more then 140,000 people killed, four million people displaced, 30,000 women raped, many historic sites destroyed and several war crimes trials. The United Nations and the United States were involved in the area until 2000 and the countries in the former Yugoslavia still have not returned to normal. Without the fall of communism how long would the violence in the area have been held in check? Yes, there were ethnic violence in Yugoslavia pre-1990 but the central government did not look kindly on this and repressed those occurrences. As soon as the central government was weakened the ethnic divisions raised their ugly heads, unfortunately this is not the only example of this at the end of the 20th century and the start of the 21st century.
Somalia is another example where a strong dictator held tensions in check and one I've had personal experience in. Somalia is a country made up of 14 clans and 41sub-clans some of which are divided even further. This leads to difficulties in establishing a strong government as clan ties are stronger than national ones and sometimes has members of the same clan but different sub-clans fighting each other.
On July 1 1960 Somalia became a united independent nation after being divided by Italy and Great Britain since 1920. In October of 1969, the democratically elected President Abdirashid Ali Shermarke was shot dead by one of his own bodyguards. His assassination was quickly followed by a military coup d'etat in which the Somail Army seized power in a bloodless takeover. The coup was spearheaded by Major General Mohamed Siad Barre, who at the time commanded the army. Barre and the other leaders of the coup quickly established communism, suspending the constitution and dissolving the parliament. Barre made sure that clan issues and feuds were suppressed with his secret police making clan leaders, that were too vocal, "disappear"
In 1991 the Barre government was ousted by a coalition of clan-based opposition groups, backed by Ethiopia and Libya. In January 1991, President Ali Mahdi Muhammad was selected by the Somali Manifesto Group (SMG) as an interim state president. However, United Somali Congress (USC) military leader General Mohamed Farrah Aidid, the Somali National Movement (SNM) leader Abdirahman Ahmed Ali Tuur and the Somali Patriotic Movment (SPM) leader Colonel Ahmed Omar Jess refused to recognize Mahdi as president. This caused fighting to break out between the various groups and even with the USC itself. This lack of a strong central leader caused tribal issues to flare up throughout the country. This fighting led to widespread famine resulting in 300,000 deaths and causing the United Nations to established the United Nations Operations in Somalia I (UNOSOM), which was welcomed by all sides at first but after seeing it was without teeth, was ignored by all the warring factions. With the failure of UNOSOM the United States organized a military coalition to secure food storage areas and shipments to the interior, the coalition, United Task Force (UNITAF) entered Somalia in December of 1992 as Operation Restore Hope. I was part of this operation as a field radio operator with Echo Battery 2nd Battalion 12th Marines attached to the 1st Battalion 9th Marines.
The mission of this force was to establish safe corridors for food shipments and guard food storage areas as aide poured in from relief agencies around the world. This mission was welcomed by all sides at first but as the mission crept into nation building the Somalis turned on the UNITAF forces and fighting erupted in and around the capital Mogadishu. The Clinton Administration and the Secretary General of the United Nations Boutros Boutros-Ghali declared the mission a success and transferred command to UNOSOM II. By 1993 most US troops were gone and after the Battle of Mogadishu in October 1993, the rest of the US troops were withdrawn, the last leaving by March 3 1994.
To this very day Somalia is still a largely leaderless country home to pirates, Al-Shabaab, a organization allied with Al-Quaeda and many other Islamic militias. Both Kenya and Ethiopia have intervened in Somalia since the end of UNOSOM II and there is a constant naval presence in the Indian ocean to combat the pirates that have made Somalia famous in recent years.
When I was in the Somali countryside I saw people that lived like they have for centuries and still carried the grudges from decades ago. They were concerned with the clan down the wadi and the only thing making these people live together was the threat of central government involvement. If Barre was still in power in Somalia would there be so many problems with the troubled country? I think not, as he would make the clans leaders get along or rate a visit from the secret police. He certainly would not abide pirates turning the Indian ocean into their own little money making venture, nor would he have allowed a militant Islamic organization like Al-Shabaab to exist, for no other reason then it would have curtailed his personal power as well as drawn unwanted international attention. Of course Africa is the source of quite a lot of strife and has been, since the start of colonization in the mid-nineteenth century.
Libya and Egypt are further examples of what can happen to countries when a strong leader is overthrown or forced out of office. The Arab Spring started with protests in Tunisia and spread across Saharan Africa resulting in the overthrow of the governments in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt as well as major disruptions in other Arab nations. With the resignation of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak the people of Egypt elected Mohamed Morsi who is is closely linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. In November 2012 Morsi made a decree allowing him to take any steps to guard the revolution. This caused massive protests as the public was afraid Morsi would institute Sharia law. After days of large protests, Morsi reversed himself and decided to go ahead with the constitutional referendum in December 2012, which was approved with 63.8% of the vote. The new constitution did not change the stance of Egypt in regards to Sharia law but did state Egyptian law was based on Islamic law. Unfortunately this has not guarantee the rights of minority groups within Egypt, especially Coptic Christians who are been discriminated against and even driven from their homes, churches have been burned and the Morsi government does nothing. Egypt was a US ally for many years and this new situation makes that a difficult proposition as the new administration has been critical of both the US and Israel. Morsi once said "This Palestinian Authority was created by the Zionist and American enemies for the sole purpose of opposing the will of the Palestinian people and its interests." and called Israelis "decedents of apes and pigs". He said these comments were taken out of context but it seems clear he is a person to watch closely. If Egyptian/Israeli relations suffer because of this man then the United States will regret backing an Islamic radical.
The situation in Libya is even worse, with a armed overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi and a short civil war needing United Nations intervention to help end the war. Since the end of the war there have been many incidents of abuses, especially of black Libyans. There is also a strong undercurrent of Islamic militancy summed up by the attacks on the US Embassy and the death of the Ambassador. These were coordinated and planned attacks with multiple waves and the use of heavy weapons, not something a small force of angry civilians are capable of. Even in the worst of relations between Libya and the United States diplomatic personnel were considered off limits and although the Embassy was attacked and burned in 1979 there were not any causalities. This attack, although condemned by the National Transitional Council, would have never happened under Qaddafi because he wouldn't have risked so directly angering the United States.
Iraq is another prime example of a situation that occurs when a long time dictator is removed. Saddam Hussein was named President in 1979 and ruled Iraq with an iron fist until his removal by US troops in 2003. Hussein was one of the most ruthless dictators in modern history, responsible for the deaths of at least 250,000 Iraqis including 50,000 to 100,000 Iraqi Kurds. The Mukhabarat was one of the most feared intelligence and secret police services in the entire world, they would kill anyone with only a word from Hussein, they would jail all family members of anyone suspected of disloyalty and their prisons and torture centers were as feared as the KGB's Lubyanka. The thing the Mukhabarat was better at then anything else was keeping all the different groups in Iraq from banding together and putting up any kind of opposition to Saddam. Of course when this organization was disbanded with the fall of the regime all those groups were free to do anything they wanted and what they wanted to do was start killing each other. The Shai majority wanted revenge on the Sunni minority that had been suppressing and discriminating against them for decades.
added to this sectarian violence was a insurgency aimed at he United States, this combination killed tens of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans as well. The conflicts between Shites and Sunnis are well documented and widespread but were severely repressed under Saddam Hussein, with his removal the two sides were free to give in to their long standing hatred.
I understand that the people of the countries involved in the Arab Spring and other countries have elected their leaders using the democratic process but that is not the point of this post. The point is to say that there are areas of the world where people will not get along unless they are made to. Areas, where ethnic, tribal, religious or political differences run too deep for people to be left to their own devices. Areas of the world, where the occurrences of centuries ago still influence the relations of today. The last two decades are full of instances of violence and bloodshed caused or exacerbated by what happened centuries ago. My point is that unless people can forget and forgive the sleights of the past then they might not deserve, or be able to govern themselves. Every person in the world deserves to be free but in these countries there isn't a tradition of democratic rule and if the people can't get past the sleights of the past and work together to form a true democracy then they might as well stay under authoritarian rule. There have been too many examples of states that have descended into violence after a long standing leader is removed to think that these are just isolated incidents.
When the Soviet Union fell in 1990 followed shortly thereafter by the rest of the Warsaw Pact and the newly freed areas, as well as the former Soviet Republics started to declare independence it became clear almost immediately, as the areas became self governing, old grudges and ethnic differences were still fresh in the minds of the people in those areas. The former Yugoslavia is the best and bloodiest example of this.
The post-World War II Yugoslavia was in many respects a model of how to build a multinational state. The Federation was constructed against a double background: an inter-war Yugoslavia which had been dominated by the Serbian ruling class; and a war-time division of the country, as Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany split the country apart and endorsed an extreme Croatian nationalist faction called the Ustase which committed genocide against Serbs. A small faction of Bosnian nationalists joined the Axis forces and attacked Serbs while extreme Serb nationalists engaged in attacks on Bosnians and Croats.
The ethnic violence was only ended when the multi ethnic Yugoslav Partisans took over the country at the end of the war and banned nationalism from being publicly promoted. Overall relative peace was retained under Tito's rule, although nationalist protests did occur, these were usually repressed and nationalist leaders were arrested and some were executed by Yugoslav officials.
After Tito's death on 4 May 1980, ethnic tensions grew in Yugoslavia and resulted in a rise of nationalism in all republics: Slovenia and Croatia made demands for looser ties within the Federation, the Albanian majority in Kosovo demanded the status of a republic, Serbia sought absolute dominion over Yugoslavia. Added to this, the Croat quest for independence led to large Serb communities within Croatia rebelling and trying to secede from the Croat republic.
In 1990 each of the Socialist Republics of Yugoslavia held multi-party elections. Slovenia and Croatia held their election first after the Communists agreed to cede power peacefully. By the end of the year all the other Republics held elections with Communists holding power only in Serbia. On 25 June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia became the first republics to declare independence from Yugoslavia.
In August 1990 the Yugoslav People's Army sought to have a state of emergency declared that would allow them to take control of the country. The army was seen as a Serbian service by that time so the consequence feared by the other republics was to be total Serbian domination of the union. War soon followed.
The wars in the area lasted from 1991 until 1999 resulting in more then 140,000 people killed, four million people displaced, 30,000 women raped, many historic sites destroyed and several war crimes trials. The United Nations and the United States were involved in the area until 2000 and the countries in the former Yugoslavia still have not returned to normal. Without the fall of communism how long would the violence in the area have been held in check? Yes, there were ethnic violence in Yugoslavia pre-1990 but the central government did not look kindly on this and repressed those occurrences. As soon as the central government was weakened the ethnic divisions raised their ugly heads, unfortunately this is not the only example of this at the end of the 20th century and the start of the 21st century.
Somalia is another example where a strong dictator held tensions in check and one I've had personal experience in. Somalia is a country made up of 14 clans and 41sub-clans some of which are divided even further. This leads to difficulties in establishing a strong government as clan ties are stronger than national ones and sometimes has members of the same clan but different sub-clans fighting each other.
On July 1 1960 Somalia became a united independent nation after being divided by Italy and Great Britain since 1920. In October of 1969, the democratically elected President Abdirashid Ali Shermarke was shot dead by one of his own bodyguards. His assassination was quickly followed by a military coup d'etat in which the Somail Army seized power in a bloodless takeover. The coup was spearheaded by Major General Mohamed Siad Barre, who at the time commanded the army. Barre and the other leaders of the coup quickly established communism, suspending the constitution and dissolving the parliament. Barre made sure that clan issues and feuds were suppressed with his secret police making clan leaders, that were too vocal, "disappear"
In 1991 the Barre government was ousted by a coalition of clan-based opposition groups, backed by Ethiopia and Libya. In January 1991, President Ali Mahdi Muhammad was selected by the Somali Manifesto Group (SMG) as an interim state president. However, United Somali Congress (USC) military leader General Mohamed Farrah Aidid, the Somali National Movement (SNM) leader Abdirahman Ahmed Ali Tuur and the Somali Patriotic Movment (SPM) leader Colonel Ahmed Omar Jess refused to recognize Mahdi as president. This caused fighting to break out between the various groups and even with the USC itself. This lack of a strong central leader caused tribal issues to flare up throughout the country. This fighting led to widespread famine resulting in 300,000 deaths and causing the United Nations to established the United Nations Operations in Somalia I (UNOSOM), which was welcomed by all sides at first but after seeing it was without teeth, was ignored by all the warring factions. With the failure of UNOSOM the United States organized a military coalition to secure food storage areas and shipments to the interior, the coalition, United Task Force (UNITAF) entered Somalia in December of 1992 as Operation Restore Hope. I was part of this operation as a field radio operator with Echo Battery 2nd Battalion 12th Marines attached to the 1st Battalion 9th Marines.
The mission of this force was to establish safe corridors for food shipments and guard food storage areas as aide poured in from relief agencies around the world. This mission was welcomed by all sides at first but as the mission crept into nation building the Somalis turned on the UNITAF forces and fighting erupted in and around the capital Mogadishu. The Clinton Administration and the Secretary General of the United Nations Boutros Boutros-Ghali declared the mission a success and transferred command to UNOSOM II. By 1993 most US troops were gone and after the Battle of Mogadishu in October 1993, the rest of the US troops were withdrawn, the last leaving by March 3 1994.
To this very day Somalia is still a largely leaderless country home to pirates, Al-Shabaab, a organization allied with Al-Quaeda and many other Islamic militias. Both Kenya and Ethiopia have intervened in Somalia since the end of UNOSOM II and there is a constant naval presence in the Indian ocean to combat the pirates that have made Somalia famous in recent years.
When I was in the Somali countryside I saw people that lived like they have for centuries and still carried the grudges from decades ago. They were concerned with the clan down the wadi and the only thing making these people live together was the threat of central government involvement. If Barre was still in power in Somalia would there be so many problems with the troubled country? I think not, as he would make the clans leaders get along or rate a visit from the secret police. He certainly would not abide pirates turning the Indian ocean into their own little money making venture, nor would he have allowed a militant Islamic organization like Al-Shabaab to exist, for no other reason then it would have curtailed his personal power as well as drawn unwanted international attention. Of course Africa is the source of quite a lot of strife and has been, since the start of colonization in the mid-nineteenth century.
Libya and Egypt are further examples of what can happen to countries when a strong leader is overthrown or forced out of office. The Arab Spring started with protests in Tunisia and spread across Saharan Africa resulting in the overthrow of the governments in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt as well as major disruptions in other Arab nations. With the resignation of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak the people of Egypt elected Mohamed Morsi who is is closely linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. In November 2012 Morsi made a decree allowing him to take any steps to guard the revolution. This caused massive protests as the public was afraid Morsi would institute Sharia law. After days of large protests, Morsi reversed himself and decided to go ahead with the constitutional referendum in December 2012, which was approved with 63.8% of the vote. The new constitution did not change the stance of Egypt in regards to Sharia law but did state Egyptian law was based on Islamic law. Unfortunately this has not guarantee the rights of minority groups within Egypt, especially Coptic Christians who are been discriminated against and even driven from their homes, churches have been burned and the Morsi government does nothing. Egypt was a US ally for many years and this new situation makes that a difficult proposition as the new administration has been critical of both the US and Israel. Morsi once said "This Palestinian Authority was created by the Zionist and American enemies for the sole purpose of opposing the will of the Palestinian people and its interests." and called Israelis "decedents of apes and pigs". He said these comments were taken out of context but it seems clear he is a person to watch closely. If Egyptian/Israeli relations suffer because of this man then the United States will regret backing an Islamic radical.
The situation in Libya is even worse, with a armed overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi and a short civil war needing United Nations intervention to help end the war. Since the end of the war there have been many incidents of abuses, especially of black Libyans. There is also a strong undercurrent of Islamic militancy summed up by the attacks on the US Embassy and the death of the Ambassador. These were coordinated and planned attacks with multiple waves and the use of heavy weapons, not something a small force of angry civilians are capable of. Even in the worst of relations between Libya and the United States diplomatic personnel were considered off limits and although the Embassy was attacked and burned in 1979 there were not any causalities. This attack, although condemned by the National Transitional Council, would have never happened under Qaddafi because he wouldn't have risked so directly angering the United States.
Iraq is another prime example of a situation that occurs when a long time dictator is removed. Saddam Hussein was named President in 1979 and ruled Iraq with an iron fist until his removal by US troops in 2003. Hussein was one of the most ruthless dictators in modern history, responsible for the deaths of at least 250,000 Iraqis including 50,000 to 100,000 Iraqi Kurds. The Mukhabarat was one of the most feared intelligence and secret police services in the entire world, they would kill anyone with only a word from Hussein, they would jail all family members of anyone suspected of disloyalty and their prisons and torture centers were as feared as the KGB's Lubyanka. The thing the Mukhabarat was better at then anything else was keeping all the different groups in Iraq from banding together and putting up any kind of opposition to Saddam. Of course when this organization was disbanded with the fall of the regime all those groups were free to do anything they wanted and what they wanted to do was start killing each other. The Shai majority wanted revenge on the Sunni minority that had been suppressing and discriminating against them for decades.
added to this sectarian violence was a insurgency aimed at he United States, this combination killed tens of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans as well. The conflicts between Shites and Sunnis are well documented and widespread but were severely repressed under Saddam Hussein, with his removal the two sides were free to give in to their long standing hatred.
I understand that the people of the countries involved in the Arab Spring and other countries have elected their leaders using the democratic process but that is not the point of this post. The point is to say that there are areas of the world where people will not get along unless they are made to. Areas, where ethnic, tribal, religious or political differences run too deep for people to be left to their own devices. Areas of the world, where the occurrences of centuries ago still influence the relations of today. The last two decades are full of instances of violence and bloodshed caused or exacerbated by what happened centuries ago. My point is that unless people can forget and forgive the sleights of the past then they might not deserve, or be able to govern themselves. Every person in the world deserves to be free but in these countries there isn't a tradition of democratic rule and if the people can't get past the sleights of the past and work together to form a true democracy then they might as well stay under authoritarian rule. There have been too many examples of states that have descended into violence after a long standing leader is removed to think that these are just isolated incidents.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)