フォロー
buvery
@buvery
William Blum は、チョムスキーや、オリバー・ストーンに近い、米国では極左の人で、『米国は死の商人であり、その輸出しているものはデモクラシーだ』という人だけれど、これと全然違う立場のミアシャイマーと、事実関係としてはほとんど同じことを言う
フォロー
buvery
@buvery
ミアシャイマーは、『良い悪い』は言わずに、『大国は歴史的にこう振舞ってきたし、今後もこのような原則で振舞う』といって、別に呪詛の言葉では書かないけれど
さて、その”極左”のチョムスキー
Another part may have been Europe. Europe was offering Turkey the possibility of entering the EU. I never believed it myself because I think Europe is too racist. They don’t want Turks walking around in their streets
Turkey has taken almost 2 million refugees. The whole refugee situation is pretty shocking. Some countries have taken huge numbers. The champion is Lebanon, where now maybe one third of the population is made up of refugees. Jordan has taken huge numbers of refugees. Iran is taking many, and of course Turkey.
Then there are the countries that generate refugees. The prime examples are the U.S. and Britain. The invasion of Iraq itself probably generated almost 2 million refugees. But it also smashed up the region. The invasion incited a sectarian conflict that wasn’t there before, which is now tearing Iraq apart and wrecking the whole region. It is a major factor in the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant [ISIL] and the generation of refugees throughout the region. The same is true about the attack on Libya. Libya could have settled itself without a major disruption. But the U.S., Britain and France decided to violate the U.N. resolution that they got. This led to a total disruption of the region - a huge flow of weapons to West Africa and the Levant and so on. It also opened the path to the refugee flood to Europe.
So there are countries that generate refugees. There are countries that accept them. And there are countries that generate refugees but do not want to accept them.
It is obvious which countries you mean, but let’s get further.
Namely the U.S., Britain and Europe. There is a reason why Africans are fleeing to Europe, not Europeans to Africa. There’s been a couple of hundred years of vicious, brutal colonialism that cannot be wiped away
You harshly criticize U.S. foreign policy and say drones amount to the biggest war crimes of the 21st century. You also have problems with the U.S. stance on democracy, as well as its methods. What is the biggest problem of U.S. foreign policy?
The countries that most matter to the U.S. are the oil dictators. In these places, the Arab Spring never took off the ground. People tried, but the repression was so severe that nothing was possible. In Saudi Arabia, which is the most backward extremist fundamentalist state in the world, when there were efforts to have some very mild demonstrations, they were crushed by force. People were afraid to walk in the streets of Riyadh. In Bahrein there was an uprising but Saudi Arabia sent in troops and crushed it. The U.S. and Britain are the major outside actors there, and they have supported the dictator up to the last. In Egypt, when it was finally impossible to support Hosni Mubarak any longer, they sent him off to Sharm El Sheikh and tried to restore the old system as much as possible.
It was exactly the kind of thing that was done in the case of Samosa in Nicaragua, Marcos in the Philippines, in case after case. It takes genius for the Western press not to recognize this. That is exactly what was done with Mubarak, and eventually a really vicious military dictatorship took over, leading to some of the darkest days in Egypt’s history. The U.S. continues to support the Egyptian regime, along with Britain. Still, in Egypt, despite the awful dictatorship, the labor movement won some gains and has to some extent sustained itself. So I suspect something will come back. A base has been laid there for something in the future.
On the subject of the U.S. “bringing democracy to the Middle East,” would you say Washington’s current critical stance on freedoms in Turkey is sincere or not? Will the U.S.’s military and logistical expectations, such as the use of the Incirlik Air Base, always come before democracy?
The U.S. radically opposes Turkish democracy. Just look at what happened in 2003. It was very striking. In 2003, the U.S. was invading Iraq and it wanted Turkish participation, for obvious reasons. The Turkish population was about 95 percent opposed to the invasion of Iraq, and everyone was surprised when the government went along with the population. What happened? The U.S. bitterly attacked Turkey for following the will of the population. Paul Wolfowitz gave lectures to the Turkish military, denouncing it for allowing the government to follow the will of 95 percent of the population and demanding it apologize for this. You couldn’t invent a more clear and dramatic illustration of hatred for democracy.
That was not the only time. Throughout the 1990s - during a real period of state terror in Turkey, which was pretty horrible - the Clinton administration was providing 80 percent of the arms. But the U.S. media essentially refused to describe what was happening. In fact, in 1997 alone Clinton sent more arms to Turkey than the entire Cold War period combined, to encounter the [PKK] insurgency. That is how much they in the U.S. like democracy in Turkey. It goes case after case.
欧州がトルコをＥＵに受け入れなかったのは、欧州が人種差別主義者でトルコ人が欧州を歩き回っているのをみるのがいやだから、難癖をつつけて、受け入れなかった。
介入ないほうがうまくいったであろうところを、英米仏が軍事介入して、今現在の巨大な難民を創出、トルコ、レバノン、ヨルダンなどがその受入国になっている。
アメリカが世界に民主主義をもたらすなんてのは嘘っぱちで、逆に、独裁者に武器を提供して、民主化運動をつぎから次へつぶしていったのだが、アメリカのメディアは、実際におきていることを報道するのを拒絶している、と。
偏向したアメリカのメディアを鵜呑みにしちゃまずいわけですね。
、
