Coup d'etats and Dissidents!

DEAH DIAWRY
MOOD: APATHETIC

I've been disappointing myself yet again. Note to self: Blog entries don't have to be perfect. Quantity beats quality. I'm only holding myself back by not writing when I supposedly 'don't have anything intelligent to say'.

Anywho, let's commence.

Iran:

In my last entry, I took an ambivalent stand towards the Iranian uprisings: Since all of my information about the demonstrations was filtered through mass media outlets, I felt it was difficult to get a decent picture of the array of classes in Iranian society-

In short, I couldn't tell whether or not the demonstrations counted as a 'mass democratic uprising' or an attempt at a 'color revolution'- an attempt by the imperialist west, headed by the United States, to expand their sphere of influence and restore the comprador bourgeoisie to power in Iran through the manipulation of mass media and by throwing their support behind the westernized reformist factions.

Well, a couple days later, there was an interesting article posted by Stratfor, a private intelligence firm-
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090622_iranian_election_and_revolution_test
- which raised several points that I think make choosing a side in this whole debacle much easier.

First of all, the writer mentions that the West's interpretation of events from Iran tend to come from a very limited number of sources- It is usually westernized, English-speaking Iranians that are the ones interviewed. The author doesn't mention it, but looking back on history, it seems to me that there's a historical precedent for this, with regards to all nations not submitting to the Washington consensus.

I guess I'm already going off on a tangent- but anyways, let's continue

The way the western masses receive their information about countries hostile to U.S. foreign policy is as follows- Information is compiled from two main sources:

1. The Official State media for said country.
2. The personal accounts of dissidents.

With regards to the State media, keep in mind that the Western paradigm still views the world in a black-and-white way- a Good vs. Evil battle between the forces of 'Democracy and Capitalism' and 'Evil Totalitarianism', and therefore, the official media of said country is always assumed to be dishonest.

As for the personal accounts of dissidents, their personal accounts of what has happened in the country they fled from is typically unquestioningly swallowed by the media and reported as truth. Never mind the fact that these dissidents are commonly the ones most disillusioned with the government they fled from and likely have no qualms about just plain making stuff up. Also, for example, with regards to the divided countries during the Cold War (North/South Korea and East/West Germany), the capitalist nations typically dangled a carrot in front of prospective dissidents- If they 'crossed over' to the capitalist world, they would be rewarded.

Basically, in order to make sure that these exiles didn't immediately become disillusioned with the widespread inequality and other social ills of the capitalist system, and to prevent their 'information weapons' from turning on them, the capitalists provided these people with a cushy, comfortable life, sparing them from the reality of the system they chose to live under.

Anyways, back to Iran. Yes, well it looks to me like another case of the above- like the media is blowing the size of the demonstrations and the extent of their support way out of proportion, in an attempt to destabilize the Iranian government. Thus, I really don't think that these protests are worth supporting- Despite the fact that the Iranian leftists are giving their support, they are rallying around a small clique of liberal intellectuals completely detached from the Iranian working masses.

Also, shit's been going down in Honduras. We have yet another coup d'etat- The first one of the Obama administration, and SUPRISE SUPRISE!- The American government actually declares the coup illegal! Of course, anyone who has the ability to read between the lines can see what's going on- Obama is still attempting to spread U.S. hegemony, but he's trying to distance himself from the Bush/Reaganite way of doing so- That is, invasions, occupations, militarist coup d'etats and all that jazz.

The other interesting bit of information regarding this coup is the story behind the ex-Honduran president, Zelaya. He was a member of the 'Liberal Party'- a member party in the Liberal International; Your typical pro-Oligarchy neoliberal crap we're so used to seeing. However, after taking power, he sided with Hugo Chavez and attempted to legalize drugs, seeing as how the U.S.-led 'War on Drugs' only increases the prescense of gangs and drug cartels. Well, this alienated some members of his party, and apparently the military, which lead to this coup.

Well, the result is yet to be seen. Currently, it looks like the military is attempting to restore order by taking news media off the air, firing at protestors, and appointing another liberal oligarch guy as president. Things look hopeful, though. With the regime looking isolated, with even the yanks questioning it's legitimacy, hopefully we'll see Zelaya return to power, further fragmenting the opposition and pushing Honduran politics further to the left.