http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/08/world/08export.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
The Obama administration announced that they will now seek to open Internet exports to Iran, Cuba, and Sudan. They claim that this will allow citizens some freedom of speech that their respective governments have been repressing, however I have other suspicions. Iran, Cuba, and Sudan are all nations that have political turmoil, and that the United States have been trying to reform. However, these governments have been hesitant to US intervention. Opening up access to American sites will allow the US to have some sort of influence over the citizens of these nations. Whether this influence does just come in the form of instant messaging programs or social networking sites, I feel as if the US government has other interests than just opening up lines of communication.
The US is well known for imposing on nations and trying to form democratic societies, and this might just be another tactic for achieving imperialistic results. It will be interesting to hear what the Iranian, Cuban, and Sudanese government will have to say about this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that we are seeing a kind of war being fought here between the US and the non liberal nations using constructivist identities as the primary weapon. We are giving their populace the internet and the ability to communicate with the outside in a hope that they will be able to eventually change their government. As far as the imperialistic nature of the move that Glasha mentions, liberalism is a new form of imperialism. If we make everyone like us, then no one will fight each other. Same idea, different name. Of course this is just my opinion.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I wonder who has access to this internet service; even if the service is free, Iran, which has the most computers per capita of the three, only has 109.143 per 1 million people (the U.S. has about 7 times that number). Those with access to the new internet service probably were not completely disenfranchised anyway. So this constructed identity of the U.S. as benevolently humanitarian probably masks the liberal imperialism that Andy and Glasha point out. Is this process intended to reassure the U.S. of the legitimacy of these actions, or other countries? Is it necessary? Can such extensions of U.S. technology ever be given without regard to self-interest?
ReplyDelete