The US is culprit to much of the strife that currently tolls Bolivia, and much of South America for that matter.
The recent coup, protests, and military violence in Bolivia have been a stark reminder of US global hegemony. The Bolivian military has recently forced the resignation and exile of their democratically elected President, Evo Morales. Despite the US media’s coverage of these events as a return to democracy, all visible evidence goes against this conclusion. This is not a majority of the population ousting a leader they do not believe represents them or their interests, this is the military and opposition parties getting rid of the leader that has been giving back to his people for the past 14 years. The US has a vested interest in conveying this as a righteous movement led by the people and for the people rather than as what it is, a military, right-wing party taking power by overthrowing the existing government. US interests lie in trying to cover up their latest involvement in an unpopular coup of a democratic government that went against the US’s best interest, not that of the Bolivian people, and subsequently creating massive unrest and turmoil within the country that has had its ability to vote and choose their own leader, taken away.
The US has a long history of instigating coups and revolutions in countries that they rely on for cheap trade once the country starts taking a socialist turn in order to provide social services and better conditions for the citizens of its country and then heralding these violent upheavals as somehow for the betterment of a people the US does not have a care for and Bolivia is just the latest. Bolivia has been in a state of turmoil and unrest since the contested elections held in October. Unrest had been sowing for months leading up to the elections as Morales narrowly lost the votes for a constitutional resolution that would allow him to run in these latest elections, but then won an appeal in the Supreme Courts which removed term limits altogether. Continue reading
The cost of continuing not to change should not go unnoticed.
If one were to recall, scenes of total jubilation were afloat in Srinagar, Indian-administered Kashmir, in response to Prime Minister Imran Khan’s address at the UN General Assembly. In his plea to the United Nations for intervention, Khan illustrated his views rather emotionally, and appeared to be apprehensive about the times of when the lockdown is likely to be lifted. A hundred days in and the clampdown remains in a state of paralysis with Kashmir heavily occupied by a force armed to the teeth. The increased propensity of fear looms with the rise in the fall of voices on deaf ears. In the hearts and minds of many, the lack of negotiation or perhaps even arbitration paint dire straits. The world has now been addressed, sentiments have been poured out before the policymaking and deliberative organ of the UN and Kashmir awaits for the unknown
Two scenarios have emerged, a victory for the centrist political party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) where their leader and Prime Minister to Pakistan has returned grateful for having been able to fight the case for Kashmir – as much as their intention may not have been to score political points, whereas the other leans towards the numerous questions raised for whether it was Kashmir being fought for or the humanitarian crisis with this inhumane siege, or perhaps whether it would really reinstate the law that has been scrapped in Indian-held Kashmir. Be it a plea for UN intervention, quest for justice or the unequivocal pitch, as applaud worthy as it may all be, the Himalayan region remains disputed and the UN silent, or at most – urges to dial down. Intervention in this jingoistic narrative is much awaited by many. By those that fear the army personnel, by those scrambling for medicines, by those disconnected, as well as those directly suffering as the economy now stifles. Continue reading
A successful foreign policy refers to the exercise of a spirit of idealism to keep the events under control. The lack of a global hegemonic authority often leads to many unanticipated changes in international relations. To meet such variants a state always keeps flexibility in foreign policy directives. Contemporary history tells us how nations survive in exigent situations by taking daring decisions. They took timely decisions to tackle challenges that not only dealt with the dangers posed for their existence, but also set examples for thriving nations. Although these decisions were not easy for nations, sometimes cost too much, yet they laid down the path for their grandeur in the history of mankind. Modern history glorifies that Winston Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter at the cost of disbanding colonialism. Charles De Gaulle gave Algeria independence, reducing France’s status from world power to regional power in order to strengthen its socio-economic gash. The United States also had to depart from the Monroe Doctrine for over a century because of coercion in the pacific theatre and jumped into World War II.
The exercise continued in the post Cold War era as India and China revisited their decades long firm commitments to the socialist economic systems. The Pakistani leadership that surfaced after the assassination of the country’s first prime minister and defense minister Liaquat Ali Khan had to prefer valediction to neutrality in foreign and strategic diplomacy against latent Indian aggression and expansion of Soviet influence. Thanks to the Korean War, the United States desperately needed to contain soviet influence in Asia. The experienced civil and military bureaucracy of a newborn Pakistan was adapted to the American requirements due to its western administrative structure and spirit. Thus under the new doctrine envisaged by the defense minister and then Commander-in-Chief General Ayub Khan, Pakistan was determined to turn out to be part of the great game and entered the US bloc as a regional military force. Apart from the SEATO, the CENTO and the RCD, bilateral agreements with the United States made Pakistan a strong pro-US military force in South Asia and Southeast Asia. Continue reading