Of course, Saakashvili’s “Rose Revolution” never was a democratic movement. That much is obvious. So it would be deeply mistaken to describe the continued U.S. backing of Saakashvili as a contradiction or betrayal of the “freedom agenda”–the “freedom agenda” has always been aimed at the empowerment of local oligarchic stooges who will align their governments with ours, and Saakashvili has certainly fit the bill. That is the whole point of the “agenda,” and how these lackeys rule at home has never been Washington’s concern. The internal affairs of other states concern Washington in inverse proportion to those states’ alignment with the United States.Â
In this way, we can understand why Washington continues foolishly to back Musharraf and will persist in its hostility towards Venezuela’s Chavez, despite the marked similarities in their styles of government and the clear destabilising effects all three rulers are having on their respective countries. Chavez doesn’t play ball, Musharraf occasionally does what Washington (again often foolishly) calls on him to do, and Saakashvili is a reliable lackey, and they are treated accordingly. Â
Cross-posted at Eunomia
