Monday, February 27, 2012

Syrians vote for democracy and western leaders are unhappy


Syria’s referendum on a new democratic constitution saw a turnout of 57% and out of those who voted 89% voted in favour of the new constitution.

The vote is a historic one, for as Russia Today reports : “it puts an end to five decades of one-party rule"

And what’s been the reaction of western leaders- so keen to trumpet their support for democracy-  to this great move forward for democracy in Syria?

It’s ’a cynical ploy’ says Hillary the Hawk Clinton.

 It’s  a ‘sham’ says Guido Westerwelle, German Foreign Minister.

And the oh-so democratic EU responds to this very positive move by imposing even tougher sanctions on Damascus.

As I've said all along, the very last thing the west wants in Syria is democracy. All they are interested in is toppling President Assad and installing a new puppet government in Damascus which will change the country's foreign policy.

7 comments:

D-Notice said...

Is there anything to suggest that it was a free-and-fair vote?

Here2Today said...

Thankyou! so much Neil for highlighting the hypocrisy of the West's 'oh so democratic' support for the people of Syria., ..While watching events unfold, including the media/political misinformation, my 'goose bumps' are becoming critical. It's obvious that armed conflict only ends with a ceasefire, but unfortunately the so-called 'Friends of Syria' appear to be obsessed with their own agenda. In fact, it's almost laughable that 'they' are posing as 'friends'., as well as ignoring the presence of pro-Assad Syrians. It really upsets me that the original 'march for reforms', (albeit a small 'gathering' in comparison to the whole Syrian population) has been hijacked by armed factions instigated via international political meddling distruptors. My concern is for what may happen when the '?friends?' don't get the result they prefer, ie: instability, regime-change ect ect.
Considering the relentless sanctions being piled on Syria, it appears the 'friends' are gearing towards intervention by any means. However, i think 'their' pursuit would be a 'bridge too far'..(pardon pun)

brian said...

off topic but FYI:
The British ambassador to Israel and the plot to attack Iran
Craig Murray graciously authorised the republication of this article which has been blocked by Mainstream Media. There is no need to present Craig Murray, an ex ambassador, but most importantly an insider of British politics and a courageous individual who denounced torture in Uzbekistan while he was posted as an ambassador there as well as western support for its regime. His courage is unlike the false courage of some ambassadors in the ME today where they provoke local regimes with the full support of their governments.

etc
http://lespolitiques.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/british-ambassador-to-israel-and-plot.html

brian said...

one party rule? since when have western democracies ever been anything but one party capitalist systems? Its a matter only of heavy or lite.

Neil Clark said...

D-Notice: Is there anything to suggest that it wasn't a free-and-fair vote?

Here2Today: many thanks. The millions of Syrians who do not support the opposition are 'non-people' as far as the west is concerned.

brian: thanks for the eyes up re Craig Murray's piece.
re 'democracy' it's clear that in the west there is a huge democratic deficit. The EU is fundamentally undemocratic. In the US 'democracy' effectively means the 'right' to choose between two pro-big business, pro-war parties. Ditto Australia. In Britain it means the 'right' to choose between three pro-big business, pro-war parties. I'd rather we'd work on making our own countries more democratic, than go around the world pompously lecturing other countries on 'democracy'. And of course, the 'democracy' the west wants in Syria and elsewhere is not genuine democracy, but the very narrow 'Henry Ford' type. ie Syrians can have any colour govt they like so long as it's neo-liberal and pro-western in its foreign policy.

D-Notice said...

Is there anything to suggest that it wasn't a free-and-fair vote?You mean other than Syria being a dictatorship & has responded to its own citizens saying "We don't want you in charge anymore" with a year-long crackdown & thousands of deaths?

Either would render the results of any vote suspicious at best...

Neil Clark said...

D-Notice. The point is, that after five decades of one-party rule, Syrians have endorsed a new democratic constitution which provides for a new multiparty system, free elections and fixed Presidential terms. That's something all true democrats should be lauding. But why aren't the western powers?
The answer of course is that they don't want to see genuine democracy in Syria because they know that Assad and the Baath Party still has sizeable support.
Genuinely democratic governments reflect the will of the majority of people- that's the very last thing the west wants.