The United States claims to be the leader of the ‘Free World’ and the defender of democracy globally, but if you look at its record it is rather murky. It has allied itself with military and civilian dictatorships at the expense of democratic governments and supported countless overthrows of such governments. Its imperialistic aspirations have overtaken the democratic ideals as far as external relations are concerned. Let us begin with the toppling of the elected government of Mossadegh in Iran in 1954 by the CIA in league with the British, which installed the Shah. The Shah’s oppressive and brutal regime, a major ally of the US, lasted for 25 years against the will of the Iranian people. The Vietnam atrocities, including the use of napalm, from 1961 to the mid-1970s are well known. In 1964, Brazil’s elected president, João Goulart, was toppled by the military with US support, who then ruled until 1985 under a succession of generals. A period of many human rights abuses followed with torture and murders being a common occurrence. The regime supported US interests. In 1966, President Seokarno of Indonesia was ousted for being soft on communists and General Suharto was brought to power. According to senior Indonesian military officers, over half a million Indonesians were slaughtered; the free world and its leader applauded this general and his marauders. For more than 30 years Suharto turned Indonesia into an authoritarian and one of most corrupt nations on earth. Again the regime was a staunch supporter of US interests. In 1973, the democratically elected socialist President Allende of Chile died in a military coup engineered and supported by the CIA. General Pinochet became president for the next 17 years. Hundreds and thousands were killed or went missing, never to be found. Pinochet’s rule was the darkest hour of Chile’s history and a reign of absolute terror, while the US political leadership was his biggest supporter. US economic and political interests were well served. The 1980 Turkish coup by General Evren against an elected government was supported by the US. The Ankara station chief of the CIA confirmed to Washington: “Our boys did it.” Marcos of the Philippines, an elected leader who turned dictator and ruled for 21 years, was a staunch US ally while he robbed and impoverished his people, ruling for nine of these years by decree and near the end probably also authorising the murder of his political opponent, Nino Aquino. In 1991, a Muslim religious party won 181 seats out of 232 total seats in the Algerian elections. The ruling party in Algeria, its army and the western world were alarmed. The army pressurised and forced the cancellation of the election and the great democracies of the west applauded! When Hamas won the elections in Palestine fairly and squarely, the same great democracies sanctioned it. A fairly and freely elected President Morsi has been removed, as he will not do the US’s bidding like the corrupt Mubarak, and military rule with tacit US support has been established. The self-appointed defenders of democracy are in fact its worst enemies. Papa Doc, the Somoza family, Generals Ayub, Yahya, Zia and Musharraf of Pakistan and many other despots were US allies; their regimes were financed and supported by the US regardless of undemocratic rule, major human rights abuses, and widespread oppression. How many democratic movements and nascent democracies has the US destroyed and how many millions of people’s oppression by despots have they aided and abetted to quench their undying thirst for protecting the vested interests of the US and its western allies? When President George W Bush said, “If you are not with us you are against us,” many people including world leaders were shaken by the crudeness of that remark. But then if we look at the last 100-year history of the US’s conduct in external affairs, we find that wherever they perceive that their ‘interests’ are not served, they abrogate to themselves the right to coerce, isolate, topple governments and even wage wars on false premises. Democracy, democratic norms, international law, moral or ethical grounds, colossal loss of human lives, nothing deters them from their objective. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the hawks in the Pentagon and elsewhere saw the opportunity to push an agenda to establish the absolute writ of the US. The Bush doctrine of preventive war was developed largely by Paul Wolfowitz and Saddam’s Iraq was chosen to “demonstrate the efficacy of preventive war.” Andrew Bacevich goes on to say, “The urgency for invading Iraq…was the imperative of claiming for the United States prerogatives allowed no other nation.” Western interests and their objectives in the rest of the world are fully supported by western media. The two work hand in hand. Except for a small minority, most journalists, anchors, commentators and analysts fulfil a required role under the bidding of their powerful and super wealthy owners such as Murdoch and other multinational corporations who are an integral part of the military-industrial complex. Access to many outstanding minds of our times from that minority has been blocked, for instance the late Edward Said, the late Eqbal Ahmed and Noam Chomsky were debarred from contributing to at least two of the most influential newspapers of the East Coast. Once a plan is conceived all parts of the media work in harmony and the required propaganda is orchestrated be it against Syria, Iran or anybody else or if it is to support the Egyptian army or be it Pinochet’s coup. The subtlety, the panache and the marketing gadgetry have been evolved to great perfection. Since a long time the west has been wary of the Muslim bloc; there is historical basis going back to Spain, the Crusades, Ottoman Empire, and Mughal Empire. Although presently impoverished and powerless, its future potential needs to be kept in check. Therefore, even before 9/11, Islam was of concern; for instance when Pakistan’s nuclear bomb was in the making in 1974, it was referred to as the ‘Islamic Bomb’. The Soviet or Chinese bombs were not known as Communist bombs, neither was the Israeli bomb known as the Jewish bomb. In the same way today when there is a barrage of anti-Muslim slanted propaganda bordering on vulgarity and falsehood, one is amused by inventive phraseology used to defame leaders. For example Mohamad Morsi was referred to as the ‘Islamist President’ of Egypt by both BBC and CNN. What does that mean? Is it because he is from the Muslim Brotherhood? Or is it because the media thinks he is a hardliner? If the answers are yes then why is Benjamin Netanyahu not called the ‘Judaist Prime Minister of Israel’ as he is from a rightwing Jewish party and has always been known as a hardliner? Or for that matter George W Bush a ‘Christianite’? The purpose of such phrases is to label those leaders who like Morsi are not acceptable and to create an adverse opinion in the public mind that the person is some kind of an extremist firebrand out to enforce archaic Islamic laws on the globe. By insisting to pursue unjust policies and using force to demand their implementation, the US is following the route of the colonial powers, a route whose day has come and gone, as the 21st century requires a more emancipated and egalitarian approach. The US is the global dictator, and like all dictators it has finally lost touch with realities; either it adjusts or prepares itself for adversity. Opinion polls indicate the opposition of the American people to war, a clear signal for change. Oppression will only create greater fissures in the body politic and the resulting contradictions will make room for conflicts even worse than those faced today. Moreover, the economic and fiscal impact is already damaging. How much larger deficits can be sustained to pursue the present policies? Adversaries and would-be adversaries like China, Russia, India and Brazil are building surpluses that increase their economic and political power; what will the scenario be, say, 50 years from now or a century later? An evenhanded and just policy in Palestine, a less intrusive approach globally, rejection of oppressive regimes worldwide and support of democratic governments would earn the US many more real friends than it has today. Not to mention the saving of trillions of dollars needed to support its illegal and brutal operations at present. The question really is whether the military-industrial complex that rules the US will ever allow such a major shift. Only the American people can answer that question. Most would say that to expect such an about-turn is both naive and idealistic, bereft of the realities of Realpolitik, but one must accept the fact that in a changing environment with the likely emergence of three or four power centres within the next 50 years, each nurturing its own satellites, major changes in policies is inevitable. This will be a major departure from the past bipolar or the recent unipolar world where the powers that be will have to compete vigorously for client states. Change is of the essence. The writer is a businessman and a former chairman of the National Textile Foundation. He can be reached at fsumar@cyber.net.pk