U.S. Fears, Not Evil, Motivate Desperate Search for Snowden (PaginaSiete, Bolivia)
"PRISM (the espionage program revealed by Snowden),
the persecution of this former agent, and the intolerable prison at Guantanamo,
are all reactions of fear: fear caused by a sense of uncertainty that U.S. citizens
feel. This is understandable, but at the same time dangerous, leading nations
to sacrifice freedom in the name of security. This is an outbreak of authoritarianism
in a democratic environment. ... This is a bad day for liberal Bolivians."
Desperate
to prevent former NSA analyst Edward Snowden from
seeking asylum in Bolivia, it appears that several European countries denied the
plane of President Evo Morales from refueling in any
of the their airports. The president was returning from Russia, which is where
Snowden is now located. These events have fed into the worldview that forms the
basis of Morales' politics: all evil that happens in the world is the result of
an imperialist plot.
Thanks
to Austria and Spain, which finally allowed the presidential aircraft to
refuel, Morales escaped to accuse the United States of "kidnapping"
and "attempting to kill him." Everything that has occurred in an
attempt to silence Snowdon, the rising star of anti-northamericanism, who had the courage to prove the lengths to
which Washington will go to maintain its control over the world, is no example
of democratic behavior, and in any case, is not an example of practicing what one
preached.
No,
the United States doesn’t practice what it preaches, neither when spying on its
enemies (and even on allies), or when acting like a kind of "bully
diplomat" to silence the boy who caught them with their trousers down and exposed
them to the world. This nonsense involving Evo
Morales, which had all the signs of an "inspired" demonstration of gringo
strength, can be compared to the roar of a wounded male elephant.
It
would of course be illogical to conclude that the United States has ceased to
be a democracy (the fact that Snowden's revelations were immediately admitted
by the U.S. government demonstrates this eloquently). Nor does any of this mean
that the United States has carried out these acts for malevolent or
totalitarian reasons and with the sole purpose of increasing its "imperial
power." The truth simpler. PRISM (the espionage program
revealed by Snowden), the persecution of this former agent, and the intolerable
prison at Guantanamo, are all reactions of fear: fear caused by a sense of
uncertainty that U.S. citizens feel. This is understandable, but at the same
time dangerous, leading nations to sacrifice freedom in the name of security. This
is an outbreak of authoritarianism in a democratic environment.
The
spirit of the group, defense of the group, reappears like a throwback to
squelch the civilizing progress that has been made over the centuries. For the
moment it has weakened the concept of freedom, i.e., freedom based on values
that were unknown in antiquity, like the right to privacy and the honesty of leaders.
This "negative liberty,"
is abdicated, in favor of "positive liberty,"
which is the idea that the state can intervene in the lives of its people, lie
to them, and define what is good for all: the PRISM system entirely encapsulates
this vision of freedom.
Fears
of Bolshevism lead Europe to Nazism. Fear of terrorism (and the anticipated
victor thereof) has relativized democratic convictions,
and in my view, the sincere convictions of citizens of the United States. Yet
this analogy should not lead us to delusion: in a democracy, the imbalance
between negative and positive liberty can be corrected without bloodshed.
Despite recent events, the Obama Administration has made efforts in this direction.
Posted By Worldmeets.US
Having
said that, who will convince Latin American politicians of this, particularly
those that use the United States as a scapegoat, and who condemn negative liberty
(the power of control) as a "liberal illusion."
This
episode has given ammunition to all of those skeptical of democracy and of the
possibility of building a rule-bound international community. It is a disservice
to those struggling against authoritarianism in Latin America.
Beyond
the shock Morales may have suffered, this episode has given a great boost to
his politics: not only does it allow him to appear on the front line of the global
anti-imperialist struggle, but it confirms his deepest convictions: If things
are going badly, it is the fault of the empire. Therefore, the reasoning goes, to
improve the situation, nationalist states must be strengthened so that they can
better cope with this powerful and criminal outside power.
