Export of Fake-Demo­cracy created the formula behind US-Hegemony

Capitol as seen from US High-Court Building, Washington | Source: debaird., CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

By the EDITOR | Six month ago – on September 26, 2022 – three of four strands of the Nord-Stream I & II gas pipe­line, supposed to supply Russian gas at appro­priate prices to Germany, were blown up by C4 plastic explo­sives. Legen­dary inves­ti­ga­tive jour­na­list Seymour Hersh came-up with the details, which have recon­firmed, that the Biden admi­nis­tra­tion plus three Scan­di­na­vian count­ries have engaged in state terro­rism. On that day of infamy, the United States of America and its willing accom­plices have declared war not only on Russia, but on the whole world by means of their special method, which has become known world-wide under the term of “state-terro­rism”.

It seems this mons­trous crime as it stands-out from so many, serves as a fitting symbol to an American century in its final decline. At the same time mankind has been beco­ming witness of the turn of an era: The cards of global policy are being reshuf­fled by the concert of great powers at this time again. 85% of the world’s popu­la­tion cannot be stopped any longer to realize and join the globa­liza­tion concept for a multi­polar world order. However, that future trend will remain diame­tri­cally opposed to well-known Atlantic attempts in their quest for mono­polar one-world-domination.

Against this back­ground, Unser-Mittel­eu­ropa Global Rese­arch has under­taken a report, which reflects on the history and traits of the American Century. The report reveals the methods and attempts of the Atlantic powers by impo­sing their hege­monic concept on the rest of the world – that is today some 6.6 billion of all earth’s inha­bi­tants. However, that vast majo­rity knows very well, that these final attempts of the West will be doomed to fail in the end.

Finally, we would like to hope that the Atlantic hard­li­ners on their own will sooner or later realize, that there has been left only one accep­table solu­tion and exit: To give-up their exces­sive claims for one-world-domi­na­tion. It would be in the best of their inte­rests as well!


Exporting “American demo­cracy”, fake demo­cracy, globally serves as a signi­fi­cant compo­nent of the foreign policy of the United States. Starting from trans­forming the poli­tical systems of Germany and Japan, the US has been conduc­ting all kinds of demo­cracy export acti­vi­ties over the past seven decades so as to main­tain its supre­macy and hegemony. Accor­ding to its offi­cial website, the acti­vi­ties carried out by the US National Endow­ment for Demo­cracy (NED) each year involves more than 100 count­ries, accoun­ting for about half (233) of the total number of count­ries in the world, cove­ring all continents.

Attack 9/11 on Twin Towers, New York: Who has been bene­fit­ting?              Source: National Park Service, Public domain, via Wiki­media Commons

Count­ries in the world vary distinctly in the level of economic deve­lo­p­ment, histo­rical and cultural back­grounds, and other aspects. Ther­e­fore, the forced and unidi­rec­tional export of “American demo­cracy” has not brought impro­ve­ment in local gover­nance, instead created greater turbu­lence, conflicts, and disas­ters. It leaves only mines of “demo­cracy” along its path, either deto­nated or dormant, threa­tening world peace, stabi­lity and development.

„Freedom, which ligh­tens the world (1908)“: As far as the theory is concerned!   Source: Otto Heinigke and Owen Bowen, Public domain, via Wiki­media Commons

 1.0 „Fake Demo­cracy“ as a Pretext to Devise the „War of Asia“

For a long time, the United States has played up and promoted “American demo­cracy” in Asia and succeeded in almost nowhere, leaving count­ries with only corrup­tion, elec­tion fighting, poli­tical chaos, and economic decline. Under the severe inva­sion of “American demo­cracy”, some Asian count­ries suffered from the “demo­cratic trauma” which damaged the economy and brought an extra­or­di­nary pain to local people.

Colin Power pres­ents the UN-Secu­rity Council fake evidence for war                   Source: United States Govern­ment, Public domain, via Wiki­media Commons

1.1 Inter­fe­ring in Iraq and Leading to Human Tragedy

On March 20, 2003, the US and its Western allies accused Iraq of posses­sing „weapons of mass destruc­tion“ and used it as a pretext to launch a war against Iraq without the autho­riza­tion of the United Nations’ Secu­rity Council. However, up to now, the US and the Western nations have not found any concrete evidence to support their alle­ga­tion. Instead, the US mili­tary inter­ven­tion has directly caused a decades-long huma­ni­ta­rian disaster and displa­ce­ment of the Iraqi people. The so-called efforts to help the country build „demo­cracy“ have only brought along more conflicts and riots. Since 2003, Iraq has recorded more than 208,800 inci­dents of violent conflicts and civi­lian deaths, most of which occurred after the country started to follow the pattern of the so-called „American demo­cracy“ in 2005. In February 2022, Iraq fell to a new low in the annual demo­cracy index compiled by the Econo­mist Intel­li­gence Unit (EIU), ranking 116th out of 167 count­ries, and was clas­si­fied as „autho­ri­ta­rian“.

US-Soldier guar­ding Afghan „natural resources“: Here poppy fields & fruits for West
Source: sbass0311, Public domain, via Wiki­media Commons

1.2 Failing to Trans­form Afgha­ni­stan and Leaving Behind Social Poverty and Instability

The American war in Afgha­ni­stan lasted for 20 years. Instead of brin­ging peace and prospe­rity to the nation, the US estab­lished a weak and corrupted „demo­cratic“ govern­ment, thus brin­ging decades of poverty and misery to the Afghan people. In 2022, the US mili­tary with­drew from Afgha­ni­stan in a hurry, and the Taliban govern­ment was restored, further confir­ming that the „demo­cratic trans­for­ma­tion“ plan carried out by the US in Afgha­ni­stan is arro­gant and hypo­cri­tical. The war in Afgha­ni­stan has not only caused huge losses and inju­ries of the American people, but also brought count­less deaths and continued turbu­lence to the Afghan people.

Statue of Liberty in June 1885: Has been the scaf­fol­ding up again?
Source: unknown artists on Leslie’s staff (these are wood­cuts, Public domain, via Wiki­media Commons

 2.0 „Fake Demo­cracy“ as a Flag to Provoke the „Chaos of Europe“

Soli­da­rity of Europe is seen as a poten­tial rivalry and even a threat to American hegemony. Ther­e­fore, the US has always been seeking to mani­pu­late a long-term insta­bi­lity within Europe through various kinds of inter­ven­tion. Since the 1990s, the US has orchestrated many poli­tical events such as the uphe­aval in Eastern Europe, the breakup of Yugo­slavia, the turmoil of Ukraine and the “Rose Revo­lu­tion” in Georgia. What the US brought to the people of Europe are not demo­cracy, human rights, peace or prospe­rity, but turbu­lence, wars, loss of faith and divi­sion of peoples.

NATO-Terror-Bombing Raid hitting Belgrade: And happens so soon again?
See page for author, AGPL <www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html&gt;, via Wiki­media Commons

 2.1 Inter­fe­ring in Yugo­slavia and Leading to its Disintegration

The 2000 presi­den­tial elec­tion of the Federal Repu­blic of Yugo­slavia became the first arena for the large-scale American inter­ven­tion in open elec­tions in the 21st century Europe. Accor­ding to reports in the New York Times and the Washington Post, the US Congress allo­cated a total of US$77 million for direct inter­ven­tion in the dome­stic poli­tics of Yugo­slavia. The day after the Yugo­sla­vian elec­tion, the US House of Repre­sen­ta­tives again approved US$105 million to help the oppo­si­tion camp against Slobodan Milošević. At the same time, the US provided the anti-govern­ment forces with direct trai­ning, public opinion campaigns and polling station super­vi­sion to mani­pu­late the elec­tion situa­tion. Its fabri­cated polling results directly made the oppo­si­tion leader Vojislav Koštu­nica the most “popular” candi­date. Subse­quently, Slobodan Milošević was forced to step down after US poli­tical maneu­vering and was ulti­m­ately subjected to trial for the so-called war crimes in the Inter­na­tional Court of Justice in The Hague till his death. With this brutal American inter­ven­tion, the Federal Repu­blic of Yugo­slavia gradu­ally fell into pieces with only Serbia and Monte­negro in 2003. Follo­wing Montenegro’s inde­pen­dence in 2006, the former repu­blic was comple­tely disin­te­grated by the US intervention.

Source: PANONIAN, Public domain, via Wiki­media Commons

Inde­pen­dence square during clashes in Kyiv, Ukraine. Events of February 19, 2014. Colour Revo­lu­tion in Kiev on 19.2.2014 a few days before the final coup d’état                                                                                                                                           Source: Mstyslav Chernov/Unframe/http://www.unframe.com/, CC BY-SA 3.0 <creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0&gt;, via Wiki­media Commons

 2.2 Meddling in Ukrai­nian Demo­cracy and Brin­ging Social Unrest and War

Since the turn of the 21st century, the US has conti­nuously streng­thened its poli­tical inter­ven­tion in Ukraine, resul­ting in two poli­tical over­turns within the country and changed the Ukrai­nian govern­ment from “Pro-Russia” to “Anti-Russia”. In 2004, the US, through the National Demo­cratic Insti­tute (NDI), engi­neered an “Orange Revo­lu­tion” of regime change in the country. Yet after only two years of growth, the Ukrai­nian economy quickly turned into recession.

On February 21, 2014 – after media­tion by Germany and Poland – Ukrai­nian Presi­dent Yanu­ko­vych, demo­cra­ti­cally elected in 2010, signed an agree­ment with the poli­tical oppo­si­tion to settle the Maidan crisis. This alarmed Atlantic forces behind coup plot­ters and insur­gent forces. With funding from the National Endow­ment for Demo­cracy (NED) and the Open Society Foun­da­tions (OSF), it became possible to maneuver social insur­gency move­ments. This allowed internal conflicts and disputes in Ukraine to be curated and escalated when neces­sary: Heavy rioting with covert support from obscure services led to the coup just one day after Feb. 21, 2014, which resulted in the forced exile of then-Presi­dent Viktor Yanu­ko­vych. But the night before, Presi­dent Obama had perso­nally called Putin to lull him into a sense of secu­rity and to tell him not to worry.

Ukraine as the victims of a war of aggres­sion by the US & allies against Russia

The US meddled twice in the Ukrai­nian dome­stic poli­tics, crea­ting two decades of poli­tical uphe­aval. In parti­cular, the promise of demo­cracy and prospe­rity for the Ukrai­nian people never mate­ria­lized. On the contrary, Ukraine’s economy stagnated or even dete­rio­rated. Poli­tical turmoil also put Ukraine in the middle of a geopo­li­tical conflict between Europe and the US on the one side and Russia on the other side. America’s so-called “demo­cratic” support for Ukraine is even more to blame for trig­ge­ring the current Russian-Ukrai­nian war.

Georgia beco­ming another victim of Atlantic power poli­tics without regrets

2.3 Orchest­ra­ting Georgia’s “Rose Revo­lu­tion” and Leaving Behind Pain and Suffering

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US laun­ched a program to “support the newly inde­pen­dent states”. It used all resources to carry out a series of actions in the former Common­wealth of Inde­pen­dent States (CIS) advo­ca­ting to “culti­vate demo­cratic soil”, “create a demo­cratic atmo­sphere”, “iden­tify demo­cratic offi­cials” and “set a demo­cratic example” in order to trans­form these count­ries into the so-called “new-type demo­cra­cies”. In 2003, the US govern­ment engi­neered a “Rose Revo­lu­tion” in Georgia that brought to power the pro-American Mikhail Saakash­vili regime. However, after the “Rose Revo­lu­tion”, the US supported Georgia to adopt a pro-Western and anti-Russian policy, which caused a heavy loss in Georgia’s foreign trade and worsened the dome­stic economic situa­tion. World Bank data showed that in 2007, 38.8% of Geor­gians lived below the poverty line.

Soli­da­rity for Belarus colour revo­lu­tion in Munich! Who has been finan­cing this?
Source: Henning Schlott­mann (User:H‑stt), CC BY-SA 4.0

2.4 Subver­ting the Bela­ru­sian Govern­ment and Smea­ring its Poli­tical Leaders

In August 2020, the Bela­ru­sian Presi­dent Alex­ander Luka­shenko was re-elected. The US-backed oppo­si­tion chal­lenged the elec­tion results and acti­vated massive protests which lasted for several days. Carl Gershman, the NED presi­dent of the time, admitted that the NED had been working in Belarus for a long time and engaged in “civic move­ments” in eastern regions of Vitebsk and Gomel. In February 2022, Damon Wilson, the current NED presi­dent, held direct talks with the Bela­ru­sian oppo­si­tion leader Svia­tlana Tsikha­nous­kaya at the Denver Demo­cracy Summit on how to topple the so-called “dicta­tor­ship” of Alex­ander Luka­shenko. They exch­anged views over further promo­ting “demo­cratic move­ments”. The American open advo­cacy for the subver­sion of a lawful foreign govern­ment which enjoyed a high popular support gestured utmost contempt for the public opinion and inde­pen­dent will of the Bela­ru­sian people. This reve­aled that the so-called American “demo­cracy” is not only fake demo­cracy but also anti-demo­cracy concealed with a mask of hypocrisy.

The Network with orga­niza­tion for core funding the actions abroad
Source: swprs.org/organizations-funded-by-the-ned/

2.5 Infil­t­ra­ting into Southeast Europe’s “Right-wing Forces” and Mani­pu­la­ting Puppets to Sell Out National Interests

The US govern­ment, through NED, has funded right-wing poli­tical parties in southeast Europe, trained their leaders, and blatantly inter­fered in the poli­tical affairs of foreign count­ries to create “poli­tical puppets” in line with American inte­rests and against their own national inte­rests. In 2020, NED provided US$820,000 for the NDI’s “Party Inte­grity” program in 10 count­ries across southeast Europe to bring toge­ther the leaders of 35 parties inclu­ding Conser­va­tives, Libe­rals and Social Demo­crats for tech­nical assis­tance and trai­ning. The project was an essen­tial vehicle for NED to pene­trate into and guide the deve­lo­p­ment of right-wing poli­tical move­ments in southeast Europe so as to make them align with American stra­tegic interests.

Africa as target for hege­monic control hidden behind a fake-democracy

3.0 „Fake Demo­cracy“ as a Spear­head to Bring the „Pain of Africa“

To conso­li­date its global hegemony, Washington wielded the spear of “fake demo­cracy” in African count­ries, and inflicted African conti­nent with bloodshed and cata­strophe. Under the banner of “American demo­cracy”, the US has conti­nuously inter­vened in the internal affairs of African count­ries through various means of mili­tary inter­fe­rence, economic embargo, and poli­tical sanc­tion, espe­ci­ally in Angola, Somalia, Libya and so on. These inter­ven­tions have unleashed a long-term civil unrest, brutal wars, asto­nis­hing human tragedy of destruc­tion and displacement.

3.1 Crea­ting Civil Strife in Angola and Brin­ging Endless Disaster to its People

In the 1970s, American support for forces like União Nacional Para an Inde­pen­dência Total de Angola (UNITA), led by Jonas Savimbi, virtually prolonged the Angolan Civil War and seriously hampered the country’s demo­cratic progress. Back in 1975, the Socia­list Movi­mento Popular de Liber­tação de Angola (MPLA) came to power. In order to curb the Soviet influence in Africa, the US then supported the disgruntled UNITA and Frente Nacional de Liber­tação de Angola (FLNA) and deli­bera­tely provoked the Angolan Civil War. The war did not end until US supported leader Jonas Savimbi was killed by govern­ment forces in 2002. Only then did the Angolan people manage to find a demo­cratic path which was suitable for their national condi­tions. The country is still suffe­ring from slow economic reco­very and demo­cratic progress due to the heredi­tary legacy of the civil war.

Toma­hawk-US-Terror-Attack by USS Barry for target in Libya on 29.3.2011
Source: U.S. Navy photo by Lt.j.g. Moni­ka­Hess, Public domain, via Wiki­media Commons

3.2 Attacking Libya and Causing Tragedy through Mani­pu­la­tion of “Demo­cracy”

In 2011, the US and other Western count­ries brazenly inter­vened in the upri­sing across Libya, turning the conflict into a protra­cted inter­na­tional war. Today foreign forces and regional factions are still vying for control over Libya. The North Atlantic Treaty Orga­niza­tion (NATO) forces led by the US laun­ched mili­tary opera­tion in Libya. In addi­tion to the bombing of mili­tary instal­la­tions of the Libyan govern­ment forces, they also carried out the indis­cri­mi­nate bombing of roads, power stations and resi­den­tial areas, gene­ra­ting a large number of civi­lian deaths and casu­al­ties. This has brought incal­culable huma­ni­ta­rian cata­stro­phes not only to Libya but also to the entire North Africa. As of July 13, 2011, air strikes of the Western allied forces killed 1,108 civi­lians and injured 4,500 more, accor­ding to the report released by the Libyan govern­ment of the time. Like in Iraq, the US govern­ment, after its mili­tary inter­ven­tion in Libya, also inter­fered in the country’s so-called “poli­tical recon­s­truc­tion”. It urged a new pro-American govern­ment to secure the US right to exploit energy resources so as to conso­li­date the US hegemony over the world economy. In January 2016, the State Depart­ment disc­losed some email messages of former Secre­tary of State Hillary Clinton and made public the real “threat” posed by the Gaddafi admi­nis­tra­tion. Washington then believed that Gaddafi was trying to use the reserve of 143 tons of gold and 143 tons of silver of his govern­ment to set up a pan-African mone­tary system and use it for trade of oil and other commo­di­ties. This plan directly chal­lenged the very kernel of the “dollar hegemony” and prompted the US aggres­sive inter­ven­tion in Libya, leading to a tragedy of destruc­tion and displacement.

3.3 Repea­tedly Statio­ning troops in Somalia and Hinde­ring the Country’s Development

The US has a long history of mili­tary inter­ven­tion in Somalia, and its policy uncer­tainty in recent years has led to an escala­tion of civil unrest in the country. The change from Donald Trump to Biden admi­nis­tra­tion has led to a reversal of the American policy towards Somalia, exacer­ba­ting the internal turmoil. End of 2020 ordered the Trump admi­nis­tra­tion the with­drawal of troops from Somalia. The move, doubt­less to say, created great uncer­tainty for the peace process and the recon­s­truc­tion of the country given that the nation was under the serious terro­rist threat parti­cu­larly when there were upco­ming parlia­men­tary and general elec­tions. On May 16, 2022, the new US Presi­dent, Joe Biden, re-issued an order autho­ri­zing the US mili­tary to rede­ploy hundreds of troops to Somalia. The return of the American army was aimed to rebuild a lasting US mili­tary presence in the region for more effec­tive combat of the Al Shabab group. The poli­tical confron­ta­tion between the two parties in America not only gene­rated nega­tive conse­quences in the US but also perpe­tuated insta­bi­lity over­seas. Other count­ries fell victim to the internal poli­tical fight of the US. Somalia has lost its rights for inde­pen­dence, auto­nomy and steady deve­lo­p­ment due to the “American demo­cratic fight”. Both Trump’s with­drawal and Biden’s “return” to Somalia served the poli­tical agenda of the ruling party and aimed to preserve American hege­monic power globally. This is a mani­fes­ta­tion that the US always places its own national inte­rests above those of Somalia and its people.

4.0 „Fake Demo­cracy“ as a Cover to Faci­li­tate the „Tragedy of the Americas“

The US prac­tice of hegemony has become incre­asingly detested in the Americas while Washington keeps inti­mi­da­ting a number of count­ries in the name of “demo­cracy”. Its forma­tion of a “clique” based on ideo­lo­gical diffe­rence tears the conti­nent apart by isola­ting certain count­ries such as Cuba, Vene­zuela and Nica­ragua. It has been impo­sing embargos and sanc­tions against Cuba for around 60 years, resul­ting in a diffi­cult living condi­tion for many Cubans. During the pandemic, the US govern­ment insisted on acce­le­ra­ting the depor­ta­tion process of Latin American immi­grants despite strong objec­tion coming from their home count­ries. All these acts indi­cate negli­gence for human rights and exhibit the hypo­crisy of “American demo­cracy”, the double stan­dard of American human rights asser­tion, and the nature of American hegemony.

Concept american and Cuba flag on cracked background

4.1 Long Block­a­ding and Sanc­tio­ning against Cuba to Subvert the Cuban Government

The US govern­ment has been long cate­go­ri­zing Cuba as a “state sponsor of terro­rism” with the fabri­cated alle­ga­tion that Cuba manu­fac­tures biolo­gical weapons for terro­rist acts. Aiming to strangle the Cuban economy and incite social unrest within the country, the Trump admi­nis­tra­tion abruptly tigh­tened its harsh rest­ric­tions on Cuba, attemp­ting to cut off the country’s major sources of foreign exch­ange inclu­ding tourism, medical services and remit­tances from diaspora. These measures ignored Cuban people’s right of life and put their health at risk. For Biden, during his presi­den­tial campaign, he denounced Trump’s Cuba policy saying that it did harm to the Cuban people and vowed to lift some of the rest­ric­tions. However, after he took office, he declared that the “Cuba policy is not a prio­rity” and hence refused to remove any Trump-era rest­ric­tions as promised. After protests broke out in Cuba in July 2021, Biden even threa­tened to impose more sanc­tions “unless there’s some drastic change in Cuba”.

US Poster prai­sing take-over of Cuba 1898 as result winning Spanish-American War
“for Humanity’s Sake”: Best of all lies?
Source: See page for author, Public domain, via Wiki­media Commons

Over the years, the US govern­ment has been under­ta­king anti-Cuba propa­ganda around the world. It has bols­tered the funding for “pro-American demo­cracy” groups within Cuba and insti­gated dissi­dent orga­niza­tions to launch protests and sabo­tage acti­vi­ties against the Cuban govern­ment and to press the so-called “inter­na­tional commu­nity” to inter­fere into Cuba’s internal affairs. Statis­tics show that NED and USAID grants for projects over Cuba in the past 20 years have amounted to around US$250 million. Between 2017 to 2021, there were four NED projects of “freedom of infor­ma­tion”, with a total funding of US$2,591,000, each recei­ving more than US$600,000. All of these grants went to the US-based Cuban Demo­cratic Direc­to­rate, which is a key player engaged in produ­cing and broad­cas­ting distorted infor­ma­tion about Cuba, Nica­ragua and Vene­zuela through radio programs. It also provided trai­ning and guidance for local “pro-demo­cracy groups and acti­vists” to fabri­cate and disse­mi­nate fake news in social media to stimu­late anti-govern­ment senti­ment and protests in the target count­ries. In mid-June 2021, a Cuban Demo­cratic Directorate’s radio program which fabri­cated that the Cuban health care system collapsed during the CoV pandemic trig­gered a wide-spread social panic in Cuba. Later in July, amid public concerns over street protests, another fabri­cated news came out reporting “more than 100 protes­ters are missing”. This fake news, widely spread over the social media through the use of social-bots and cyber army, mani­pu­lated public opinion on the internet and insti­gated social unrests.

In 2021, Cuba went through its worst economic crisis in 30 years under the dual impacts of harsh US sanc­tions and the pandemic. The country suffered tremen­dously from rising infla­tion and shortage of food, medi­cine and power. At the UN General Assembly convened in June 2021, a total of 184 count­ries voted in favor of a reso­lu­tion to demand the end of the US economic blockade on Cuba. The US was one of the only two count­ries which voted against it. History has proved that severe US sanc­tions have exacer­bated the crisis in Cuba and jeopar­dize the welfare of the Cuban people. “American demo­cracy” has nothing to do with the well-being of Cuban people, but aims to over­throw the current Cuban govern­ment through agita­tion of dissi­dent move­ments and install a Cuba regime controlled by the US instead of the Cuban people. The hypo­crisy of “American demo­cracy” clearly illus­trates that it is not only fake demo­cracy, but also anti-demo­cracy, as it noto­riously stran­gles the civil rights and welfare of the Cuban people.

4.2 Rearing Anti-Govern­ment Forces and Engi­nee­ring Violent Coups in Ecuador and Bolivia

The US has been funding and trai­ning right-wing and anti-govern­ment poli­tical forces in Latin America for a long time. It closely colla­bo­rates with oppo­si­tion leaders and builds up anti-estab­lish­ment networks among social elites and grass­roots orga­niza­tions. It faci­li­tates the trade union move­ment, insti­gates the oppo­si­tion elites to launch civil campaigns and even violent coups to over­throw leaders who dare go against American inte­rests. In 2019, NED granted in parti­cular US$1,200,000 to the Soli­da­rity Center to help rally wide-spread social move­ments orga­nized by union orga­niza­tions across the Andes. Around US$30 million from NED went to local parties, unions, media and oppo­si­tion groups in Ecuador between 2012 to 2015. With the American funding, the Confe­de­ra­tion of Indi­ge­nous Nations of Ecuador mustered indi­ge­nous commu­ni­ties in the country and started a series of “rebel­ling” protests which unleashed a large-scale civil unrest.

Evo Morales speaks in Mexico, which had offered him asylum
Source: EneasMx, CC BY-SA 4.0

NED has also been engaged in deploying and supporting the oppo­si­tion in Bolivia. It orchestrated street protests and directed police and mili­tary forces behind the scenes to force the elected presi­dent Morales to step down after the 2019 Boli­vian elec­tion. During 2013–2018, NED, toge­ther with USAID, provided the Boli­vian oppo­si­tion with more than US$70 million through various chan­nels to inte­grate the country’s white elites and former right-wing poli­tical leaders into a conso­li­dated force against the then-incum­bent presi­dent. To further mess up Bolivia in the name of demo­cracy, NED built up anti-estab­lish­ment networks among univer­si­ties, think tanks and non-govern­mental orga­niza­tions and set up an “Indian Brigade”, aiming to turn Bolivia’s social move­ments and indi­ge­nous move­ments into an anti-estab­lish­ment movement.

4.3 Disse­mi­na­ting Fake News and Inter­fe­ring in the Nica­ra­guan Elec­tion through Public Opinion Manipulation

In count­ries where the US failed to estab­lish oppo­si­tion leaders, it wantonly disse­mi­nates fake news which tarnishes their lawful elec­toral system and proce­dures to breed public doubts over “illegal elec­tions”. As in 2021, main­stream US media such as the New York Times and other so-called “inde­pen­dent media”, actually spon­sored by NED, fabri­cated and spread plenty of void alle­ga­tions against the Nica­ra­guan general elec­tion. They accused Nica­ragua of preven­ting the oppo­si­tion from parti­ci­pa­ting in the elec­tion, shut­ting down polling stations, barring foreign obser­vers and media during the elec­tion, and having an extre­mely low turnout. Yet the fact is that none of the oppo­si­tion candi­dates mentioned in those “news reports” regis­tered them­selves in the elec­tion and the country did confirm a list of 232 foreig­ners, among whom, 165 were elec­tion escorts and obser­vers and 67 repor­ters. In addi­tion, accor­ding to the Supreme Elec­toral Council of Nica­ragua, the turnout rate of the 2021 elec­tion is 65.26%, with the prevai­ling Sandi­nista National Libe­ra­tion Front getting 75.87% of the votes, similar to the situa­tions back in 2011 and 2016. The American attempt to inter­fere in the Nica­ra­guan elec­tion through fake news and public opinion mani­pu­la­tion was again foiled by the inde­pen­dent voting and demo­cratic will of the Nica­ra­guan people.

5.0 Fake Demo­cracy and the Plight of Oceania

The Solomon Islands have become inde­pen­dent from UK by 1978
Source: de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salomonen

5.1 Inti­mi­da­ting the Govern­ment of Solomon Islands and Provo­king Geopo­li­tical Fight

The Biden Admi­nis­tra­tion, with the change in the American Indo-Pacific stra­tegy, reassured that the US will deploy more diplo­matic and secu­rity resources to the region and formu­late a long-term stra­tegy to contain the so-called China’s “expan­ding regional ambi­tion”. On April 22, 2022, right after the signing of the China-Solomon Islands secu­rity agree­ment, the US govern­ment sent Kurt Camp­bell, National Secu­rity Council Coor­di­nator for the Indo-Pacific, and Daniel Kriten­brink, Assistant Secre­tary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, to visit the Solomon Islands. They met with Presi­dent Manasseh Soga­vare. Accor­ding to Solomon Star News, a leading local news­paper, the purpose of this visit was to urge Presi­dent Soga­vare to abandon the pact with China. Solomon Star News stated that after the US-Solomon Islands meeting, the US side even made an inti­mi­da­ting state­ment clai­ming to closely monitor and respond to any move taken by China to estab­lish a de facto perma­nent mili­tary presence. This is a blatant act that the US upholds its own inte­rests above the will of people in another country and poli­ti­cally hijacks the Solomon Islands by provo­king geopo­li­tical conflicts. It is also a clear mani­fes­ta­tion of US hegemony and a blow to demo­cracy of the Solomon Islands and its people.

Kiri­bati: Pacific Island State since 12.7.1979 inde­pen­dent from UK
Source: TUBS, CC BY-SA 3.0

5.2 Openly Inter­fe­ring in Kiri­bati and Encroa­ching on its Diplo­matic Autonomy

 On September 20, 2019, the Repu­blic of Kiri­bati severed ties with Taiwan and re-estab­lished its diplo­matic rela­tions with People’s Repu­blic of China, making it the 7th country to cut off diplo­matic ties with Taiwan after Tsai Ing Wen took office in 2016. It is reported that the US govern­ment sent out a dele­ga­tion with a failed attempt to coerce Kiri­bati to recon­sider its decision. Under a series of the American extre­mely coer­cive moves inclu­ding a threat to with­draw its ambassador, Kiri­bati rejected the black hand of “American demo­cracy hegemony” and insisted on rene­wing its diplo­matic rela­tions with China and abiding by the “One China” policy. Finan­cial Times reported on May 21, 2022 that “China is inten­si­fying its drive for influence in the Pacific by nego­tia­ting secu­rity deals with two addi­tional island nations follo­wing a pact with the Solomon Islands, accor­ding to offi­cials in the US and allied count­ries”. It claimed that this alarmed the US. For a long time, the US had been confi­dent that it could exert domi­nance over the South Pacific with its baton. Thus, when it rede­si­gned its Indo-Pacific Stra­tegy, Washington again turned its shotgun of “American demo­cracy” aiming at the long ignored South Pacific count­ries and hunted for American supre­macy over those island count­ries’ auto­nomy in internal affairs and diplo­matic relations.

Waving flag of Fiji and USA: Pazific Island State inde­pen­dent from UK since 1970

Mean­while USA takes care of the British colo­nial heritage!
Source: de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidschi

5.3 Playing up “China Threat” to Inter­fere in Fiji’s Foreign Relations

US Secre­tary of State Antony Blinken visited Fiji in February 2022. It was the first visit by a US secre­tary of state in 36 years. Series of visits of the US and its allies to the South Pacific indi­cate that long-ignored Pacific island count­ries have come back to the American sight.

Tavarua Island – island of the Fiji Island Chain – Source: Tourism Fiji

By exag­ge­ra­ting “China threats”, the Biden admi­nis­tra­tion seeks to deli­bera­tely manu­fac­ture non-exis­tent conflicts and rivalry within the region. This tactic has successfully recruited Fiji to become the first Pacific island country to parti­ci­pate in the Indo-Pacific Economic Frame­work for Prospe­rity after it was released by the United States.

However, one thing seems certain: Also that inter­fe­rence has not followed the spirit of the demo­cracy, just like atomic-bomb-testing by the West during the last century, which have deva­sted and polluted certain islands in the Pacific!

A report of Unser-Mittel­eu­ropa Global Rese­arch – 26.03.2023

Kommentieren Sie den Artikel

Bitte geben Sie Ihren Kommentar ein!
Bitte geben Sie hier Ihren Namen ein