The Greatest Threat to World Peace and Stability is Democracy/

The first half of the 21st century is turning out to be decades full of fear around the globe including the developed nations, the emerging countries, and the undeveloped areas of our earth. One can argue forcefully and convincingly that these fears are directly linked by the decision of USA led Western Countries to enthrone what has been called Western Democracy in countries far and wide and to do so by the doctrine of “Regime Change.” Former USA president George Bush II introduced the practice by the invasion of Afghanistan on October 7, 2001 in the pursuit of 9/11 bombers followed by the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003 “to establish democracy in the Middle East”. Since that first blunder further regime changes had followed such as Libya. Nigeria came along afterwards although without military efforts and it is just a matter of time when the regime in Syria would be toppled by the western countries by force to establish democracy. Various Arab Spring uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and other countries are all traceable to this March 20, 2003 Iraq invasion, and occupation.
Each of these wars and invasions was instigated by strong men (usually men) who rule their country with strong hands AND who stood up against any dictations by US or her allied Western Countries. The process begins with accusations of corruption, longevity, lack of freedom as defined by the West; the accusations are followed by economic sanctions that create discontent and woes in the target countries, which in turn create enemies of the regime. The regime tightens its stranglehold on the population and more tightly on its enemies. As both sides become hardened US and the West provide economic resources to the regime’s enemies and when necessary weapons if civil war looms. After freezing of the assets of the target regime coupled with the already biting sanctions the regime looks weak and unstable; the country is labeled a “failed country” and the need for “Regime Change” is advanced.
It will not take a long time to find an excuse for invading or supporting the invasion by the opponents of the regime. After months and years of fighting the regime is toppled and usually the head of the disavowed, “the dictator,” is beheaded or killed in some ghastly ways and chaos begins to reign in the country. In short order we learn that the new puppet regime installed is even less capable than the “dethroned strong man.” All the evils that were formerly traced to the strong man are now vested on the new regime: ethnicism, tribalism, corruption, lack of services to the populace, insecurity arising from the war against the deposed former leaders and other new ones created by the new regime. The country is engulfed by large movement of people. The refugees created by the old regime tries to return and new fearful people try to get out of the way.
This movement of a large number of people spills over to their neighbors creating havoc along the way. The human tragedy is duly covered by the press and becomes subject of newspapers, radio stations and TV editorials with blame most often place on the defunct regime. US assistance is promoted and it benevolence becomes the new standard. Within US and Western countries a one sided debate is held between those who want more help to the target country and those who want less; between those who want tougher actions and those who argue that US should not be the policeman of the world. But there is never a discussion of weather the invasion was called for; never any discussion on if the goal of the enthronement of democracy was accomplished or not.
What is not in doubt is that with each destabilization the world is less safe for everybody including the West, Middle East, Africa and others. The fear and hatred between the religious groups are acerbated as each religious group sees itself as under attack by the other. Broad brushes are used to paint each side: Muslims are killing Christians one side will proclaim; Christians are killing Muslims the other side would counter, or to avoid religious sentiments some would phrase the war as “a clash of civilizations.” The more benevolent politicians would call it “Radical Islam or Radical Christianity (although this is less often heard). But when one dissects the sample one notices that radical Islam is exactly the same thing as radical Christianity.
No difference.
What has been accomplished with the doctrine of “Regime Change?”
1. There is fear engulfing Paris and all of France, US, EU and all the countries in between. Going to sports event is now the same as trying to fly, One is searched (almost strip searched) because the enemy could be you.
2. Massive refugee problem in Europe and everywhere else. The event in France this week could put pressure on Europeans to stop accepting any refugees and forcing them back. Should this happen the fight would be intensified with untold number deaths.
3. More fighting will bring more anger against the regime and against the West. Intensified fighting had already brought Russia into the war. The uglier the war gets the more likely it is that the West could find itself in direct war with Russia. It is a condition devoutly not to be wished for. mankind is unlikely to survive such an encounter.
4. Effort to change the Sudan regime resulted in the creation of South Sudan. Regime change in Nigeria is creating the demand for Biafra. The change in Iraq is creating a new state (Kurds) made up of parts of Iraqi and parts of Turkey and possibly also a Shite Iraq and a Sunni Iraq. Yemen may break up into many ethnic units.
Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
One thing that has not happened so far after 15 years of war is no democratic state has been created, at least not the type of democracy that Mr. George W. Bush had in mind.
So what is the lesson?
1. The lesson is that Western Democracy is a construct. (NOUN
an idea or theory containing various conceptual elements, typically one considered to be subjective and not based on empirical evidence: Oxford Dictionaries) that works perfectly in the West. It should be left to countries that want it to copy it and use it. But it shall not be imposed on all countries especially those who do not want it.
1. There are other forms of government that are indigenous in other areas and those forms of government should be allowed if it is how a people or country fashioned out their governance.
2. The emergence of strong rulers may not always be a bad thing and if one comes to be in a country, the citizens would be allowed to change their regimes as they see fit. The way of governance should not be one size fits all.
3. The destabilization of large populations is an ill wind that does nobody any good. Perhaps God knows why He did not create one huge nation instead he crafted villages. The evolution of super powers may not be what the world needs or wants

He that hath ears to hear let him hear it (Mathew 11: 15 KJV)

Benjamin Obiajulu Aduba
Boston, Massachusetts,
November 16, 2015