interference
Bit disturbed to hear Hamid Karzai described as the "US-backed Afghan President" on the radio news earlier today. I know I'm a bit slow on the uptake with international political stories, but is that level of overt interference really a good idea? Surely no foreign power should back any candidate in a domestic election process?
I remember all the bro-haha over Clark's comments about Al Gore, after the 2000 US election was over. Clearly presidents, prime ministers, etc, have preferences, generally along party lines that mirror their own, but to actually back someone like this seems pretty dodge to me.
3 comments:
Yes - it certainly can be unhelpful. {smirk}
Just think of John Kerry and all those European leaders that apparently supported him... there must have been a collective laryngitis that afflicted the political left on this, because I don't recall any left-ish groups or individuals denouncing this apparent incident.
i think there is a bit of a difference between "apparently supported" and actively backing. although in my ideal world neither would happen.
i guess it begs the question - what level of interference is acceptable by foreign powers in a domestic election? eg if say the British Govt had known what Hitler was really up to should they have interfered in his election? my gut says no, but my heart says yes.
I'd say "US selected and imposed" president would be more accurate. Afghanistan is a satellite state of the US - they plan Iraq to go the same way. Democracy doesn't enter into - having elections is just a convenient smokescreen. These people have about as much legitimacy as Honecker did in the DDR before 1989.
It's ironic, isn't it, that writing a few letters to US voters is considered to be an unwarranted interference in domestic affairs, while invading a country to impose a friendly government is perfectly reasonable.
Post a Comment