"WE", "Regime Change" and "Democracy"
A guest article by Hugh McCarthy
My good friend, Hugh McCarthy, sent me this article. In fact it’s more of a letter. Some time ago Hugh was on a transcontinental flight and got chatting to the passenger sitting beside him. They have kept in contact since. In a recent piece of correspondence Hugh’s fellow passenger asked him his opinion of US (and Western) intervention - and wars - with foreign nations, including the most recent ‘campaign’ in Iran. I asked Hugh if I might publish his response (that he shared with me) here on The New Era.
For context, Hugh is a former Head Teacher and previously served as a Board member of two education governing bodies in Northern Ireland.
The answer depends on one’s own value system and one’s own view of world politics.
I have chosen to try to answer in terms of a holistic view of political events, which will include my view of the West’s and the US’s foreign policies.
I believe in the right to self-determination and the right of peoples to govern themselves, even if “we” do not like how they choose to do it. I do not believe that we have the right to impose our view of democracy. Actually, I do not believe there is anything moral or visionary in what we are doing. We support many oppressive regimes in the Middle East and Africa — just as long as they are our allies. We have failed to speak up for certain countries (e.g., Tibet) nor for Christian communities (e.g., Armenia, Syria and other places) presumably because it does not suit.
We have left a trail of destruction across the world — see Vietnam, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Syria, Libya, Iraq, and now Iran — in the name of bringing peace and democracy. We will bomb you to save you.
I believed in a free-speech democracy. I am now sadly disillusioned— I thought I had the right to express my views, even if the authorities did not like them. Isn’t democracy supposed to champion differing views and free speech? So, I opposed school closures, masking, and COVID vaccinations for children. I also made my opposition known about the WHO sexualisation of children (starting at the age of four) and the concept of transgender ‘education’ in the primary school curriculum. But my views were simply not welcome.
But this experience encouraged me to read widely about ‘our’ interventions and wars with nations that needed to be taught a lesson about our version of ‘democracy’.
Ukraine
Before the current war, I was aware that the eastern part of Ukraine was ethnically Russian and largely Russian-speaking. Ukraine elected a Russia-facing president. What would you do if you had a giant neighbour on your border? Being on friendly terms would be essential with respect to trade, transport, energy, etc. The US did not like it, so he was deposed, and Zelensky was brought in. His regime started to “Ukrainify” Eastern Ukraine—language, job discrimination, street names, school books, the downgrading of the Russian Orthodox Church—this eventually sparked opposition which turned violent, and hence the alleged reason for the war. In addition, NATO has moved 1,000 miles further east than it promised the Russians it would (rather like the white Americans betrayed the American ‘Indians’ with repeated broken promises (do read, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee).
The West repeatedly scuppered obvious solutions, such as autonomous status for the Donbas region within Ukraine.
Regarding Crimea — what would you do if you were Russian? Russia’s only warm water port is Sevastopol in Crimea; its navy is docked there. If Ukraine joined NATO, Russia would lose its port and badly damage its naval capacity. (Actually, Crimea was neither Russian nor Ukrainian; I believe it is/was Tatar).
When did the phrase “regime change” enter our vocabulary, and since when was it an acceptable democratic policy objective?
The Middle East
So, first up! I have long opposed US and Western policies in the ME and view the current war as a continuation of those policies: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria.
I mentioned earlier one’s own values.
I am a member of the majority community in Northern Ireland; it is very committed to Israel’s rights — that the Israelites were promised the ‘Promised Land’ by God. There is, by and large, widespread and often blind support for Israel.
That it discriminates against Christians in Jerusalem and is purging them is not known/mentioned.
750,000 Palestinians lived on the land before Israel established itself in 1948 — dispossessed and forcibly exiled.
Apparently, this was acceptable… and still is.
Israel attacked Gaza and the West Bank, allegedly because Hamas attacked it. So, we are told that a regiment-sized group of Hamas penetrated the most guarded border in the world, which also used the upgrade of US movement and heat detectors used in Vietnam —placed at very close intervals above and beneath ground — they did so 15 times. The army unit guarding the border was transferred a couple of days before. Not a hand was laid on the attackers, and nobody within the Israeli military or security forces was sacked, and nobody in the mainstream media (MSM) pointed this out.
This has led to the terrible bombing of civilians. Would RAF bombing of Catholic nationalist areas of Belfast have been acceptable during the 1970s when more people were killed by the IRA bombing campaign than died in the Hamas raid, just because IRA bombers hid and/or lived within the civilian community?
This brings us to Iran and to Israeli policy of a greater Israel and/or US policy, which appears to be regime change and the removal of WMD. The stated aims of the two main allies are different. So, how will we know if they are achieved — so that “they” can claim victory and stop?
Why is regime change a now acceptable policy objective and by force? Is it acceptable to bomb a civilian population?
Is Iran a threat to the US or UK? If so, how?
It seems the US wants to replace all Middle Eastern governments with acquiescent states.
So, I strongly disapprove of the Zionist regime and its stated aim of a greater Israel and the US’s stated aim of regime change and the method of achieving the subsidiary aim of de-nuclearisation.
What has been done is a double whammy: it has driven Christians from the Holy Land, Syria, and Lebanon and facilitated the huge numbers of political Islamists into Europe and the UK, seemingly changing the very nature of the UK.
As in Northern Ireland, force alienated the nationalist population, and more people joined the bombing campaigns. Do we imagine that Arabs will like us more, or will it produce more martyrs?
Do argue, dispute, disagree.
Hugh was recently interviewed by David Kurten, the leader of the small UK Heritage Party. You can watch the interview here.