This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
The west can no longer claim to be an honest broker in the search for peace in the Middle East.
Has Egypt exposed a blatant hypocrisy in the west's relationship with the Middle East? For decades the west has propped up and funded dictators in the region, preferring 'stability' to democracy in order to protect its own interests. All at the expense of the human rights of the people in the region. A people who have finally spoken and will continue to speak. Peacefully, elegantly and in a highly sophisticated manner.
For western leaders is freedom a question of strategy rather than principle?
A quote from Gary Younge in The Guardian: "Last week Tony Blair said Mubarak was "immensely courageous and a force for good". On Sunday he said Mubarak's departure could be a "pivotal moment for democracy in the Middle East". The man charged by the major world powers with bringing peace to the region can't make up his mind whether he is for despotism or democracy from one week to the next."
Taghi Amirani 200+
"In my opinion, any future Defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined,' as General MacArthur so delicately put it," Gates said in a speech to cadets at West Point.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-gates-speech-20110226,0,7763237.story?track=rss
And this from British PM David Cameron in a speech in Kuwait while on an arms sales tour of the Middle East
"Britain is prejudiced for believing Muslims cannot manage democracy"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/22/david-cameron-uk-muslims-democracy?INTCMP=SRCH
Greg Stevenson
Donald Thompson
I am not attempting to excuse the frequent and egregious policy bungling of the US, especially in this region. But the interests of any given nation is not a simple and striaghtforward proposition. It is full of more of the unseen than the seen, and changes rapidly so that at any given moment the interests of a nation may undergo 180 degrees reversals,without warning or preparation.
Taghi Amirani 200+
"Yusuf Qaradawi, the 84-year-old preacher whose roots are in the old Muslim Brotherhood before the latter turned to parliamentary politics, is nevertheless no Ayatollah Khomeini. Qaradawi addressed thousands in Tahrir Square in Cairo on Friday. Qaradawi called for Muslims to fight the Taliban and al-Qaeda alongside US troops in 2001. On Friday he praised the Coptic Christian role in the Egyptian revolution and said that the age of sectarianism is dead. Qaradawi is a reactionary on many issues, but he is not a radical and there is no reason to think that either the Youth or Workers’ Movements that chased Hosni Mubarak out of the country is interested in having Qaradawi tell them what to do."
Matthew A 20+
Li-Peng Huang
theodore Altmeier
Eran Givoni 20+
What I mean is: If two sides to any conflict are not interested in a solution, can any mediation help? And, if two sides toa conflict ARE truly interested in a solution, how essential is mediation to begin with?
An example: In his book "Innocent Abroad", Martin Indyck mentions that the US was completely oblivious the ongoing secret negotiations between the PLO and Israel until a very late stage. The same was to be said for the Israeli-Jordanian track.
Taghi Amirani 200+
These are economic revolutions above all else.The people on the streets in their millions are crying out for better jobs, better living standards, civil liberties and human rights, In Cairo's Tahrir Square Christians protected the Muslims while they prayed, the Muslims protected the Christians while they prayed. Young and old, educated and the uneducated walked together from all sections of the society. And yes, they even managed to organise and walk when the web was down. They used paper, flyers, word of mouth. And so, no, these are not Facebook and Twitter revolutions.
This week in the midst of the chaos and bloodshed British Prime Minister David Cameron is touring the region on a trade mission. His entourage: the biggest British arms manufacturers who've been selling weapons to dictators for decades.
So far, so the same. Blood and oil make a deadly mixture.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/21/cameron-cairo-visit-defence-trade
Hans Bauer
But it was wise to challenge others before to post their opinions.
By the way: I couldn't go on reading after: "David Cameron's efforts to promote democracy in the Middle East by becoming the first foreign leader to visit Cairo..."
Steve Varon 200+
Taghi Amirani 200+
Taghi Amirani 200+
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/21/cameron-cairo-visit-defence-trade
Linda Nordquist
These are limited democracies. There were 17 political parties in the last presidential election in Peru. That's a bit of democracy run-a muck -- but there is no economic democracy, not in the First or Third Worlds. Economic democracy seems to me to be a necessary ingredient, a foundation if you will, of political democracy.
Yes, I do think the veil was lifted off the discrepancy between words and deeds. The US talks but its actions speak to its own self interests - humanity be damned or imprisoned or tortured. The other hypocrisy exposed by the Egyptian revolution is that Israel opposed it. You would have thought that the "jewel of democracy in the Middle East" would have wanted some company.
Hans Bauer
Sure! Wars finally result of economic motives, even if others are being given as a pretext.
Taghi Amirani 200+
E G 10+
Justin Lodge
When I read the political perspectives written on Huffington Post about the recent Egyptian "revolution" it makes me cringe.
The rampant self-interest in the perspectives screams from the page when they talk about wanting a leader to come through that supports "American interests" .
It's definitely honest ... no doubt about it - honestly self-interested and self-serving.
How about supporting a leader that supports democracy and social justice? Or maintaining peace with Israel?
Neither of these would be co-incidental with the "American interests" who profit from maintaining dictatorships and selling weapons to both sides of the conflict would they?
For example, Halliburton, a corporation that has massively profited from their close relationship to the US government would much prefer that there were "security concerns" as it drives their revenue agendas - and their large political lobbying interests.
Western leaders have consistently demonstrated that their "self-interest" is their priority - the time has come for more "self-awareness" rather than "self-serving" and looking for win-wins that benefit the people rather than the dictators.
E G 10+
Michael McLoughlin
However, I must preface this with the remark that while America is certainly a world player it is not our job to topple every regime that is not a democracy; nor is this a viable or practical option for various, I think somewhat self-evident, reasons. So when it appears that America is making deals with dictators and autocratic regimes it is, I'm certain, just the most pragmatic course of action considering, as always, that these countries have resources and, curse me for saying it, leverage, all of which we need and , to procure them, there needs to be some compromise, even if that means dealing with a corrupt government.
I think Obama, personally, and his administration generally, by degrees, would love to just jump out and say that the whole force of America is behind the people of the free movement and that...DUH! Hard handed censorship and police brutality is WRONG. But the leaders of these nations, whether through fear, culture, detachment, or distended morals believe otherwise. To openly slander these governments, by siding unambiguously with the protesters, would immediately create an enemy in a vital state especially if the revolt should fail.
In many cases it is through the nearly red-herring of fear of terrorist regimes that creates a need for these governments who can, by proximity, directly move to ameliorate the issue. Moreover, and importantly, there is oil. If Obama were to side with the people, blatantly, and they were to lose, whose to say the now pissed off leader who once thought of America as an 'ally' would not now take measures to stifle trade? This would directly harm the American people, rocketing prices, negative world presence and so on...I do not aim to say the US has acted well or not, but, I do think that hypocrisy may be extensive
Hans Bauer
OCCIDENT, n. The part of the world lying west (or east) of the Orient. It is largely inhabited by Christians, a powerful subtribe of the Hypocrites, whose principal industries are murder and cheating, which they are pleased to call "war" and "commerce." These, also, are the principal industries of the Orient.
Tim Colgan 50+
He responded "I think it would be a good idea."
Hans Bauer
Mark Meijer 100+
Raheel Lakhani
Robert Schueler
Politics is the art of relationships. Dancing together one to one. Group to Group. Nation to nation. When WE all learn to dance wholeheartedly with all our 110 trillion cells within our body with THE CREATOR...politics will naturally flow into the reality of peace, freedom and ultimate well being of ONESELF.
Seeking wisdom from the center of the heart of reality ....makes all things east, west, north and south trusted advisors.
John Garrett
Steve Lindsey
Jimmy Toffali
Robert-David Steele-Vivas
Zeid Abdul-Hadi 500+
Goh Lip
The 'west', lead (read - bribed, threatened or bullied) by the 'leader of the free world' would see to it that their interests are preserved, nothing else would matter. Nevertheless, the need to appear principled and just is equally important, so as to gain consent and agreement for their actions; hence the calls for democracy and human rights.
The assasinations of many elected leaders, eg Lumumba, Mussadeth, Allende and many others; and the support for human rights and democracy for the people when their dictators, eg Mubuto, Shah, Pinochet and many others were overthrown should surely adduce to the nefarious, hypocritical and mendacious 'principles' of the 'free world'.
Furthermore, the people in the 'most free' country are themselves subjected to the ultimate insidous form of oppression; for thinking they are supremely free and democratic due to their electoral and capitalist systems, they do not realise that both political parties and other levers of control are subjucated by very narrow business interests and like the part of the world their country dictates to, they themselves are being exploited and oppressed, numbed by propagandist iterations by the media.
While we rejoice for the people of Egypt and Tunisia (and others more to come), violence in the world will not trully abate until the people of the 'freest country' have their own revolution.
The greatest perveyor of violence on earth today - my own government.
- Martin Luther King
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- John F Kennedy
Antoine Bonnin
Ziona Etzion
Depends what people call Freedom? Freedom brings personal responsibility for all people to act
with restraint not imposing their views on others.
I too am cynical about governments, yet the question is would the "crowd" act more sensibly? Not
imposing their own interests, grabbing the riches and raping the weak?
Mark Meijer 100+
In other words, to the extent that we allow "our" governments to act in ways of which we say we disapprove, to that extent they really do represent us, "the crowd", even if only in our relative indifference. To put it dramatically (only to illustrate the point), our "leaders" in this regard represent our big mouth and lack of spine.
I would agree with OP. In my opinion, the west never has been an honest broker in search of peace in the middle east. These kind of things have not essentially changed since ancient civilizations, later empires, and later colonies. The methods and terminologies change, but the core aims and motives do not.
However, I don't think that the west is particularly unique in this. It has been more or less the same in every corner of the world. The west just happens to be "in the lead" for the moment, perhaps because we've been so ruthlessly subversive, and experts at providing incentives that seem very appealing initially (technological, financial, etc). But this too won't last. It never does.
Which brings me to the other excellent point Nassim Assefi made in her comment, namely that the west is acting under false pretenses which for example China is not. I think Nassim is right about our false pretenses. But in a way, perhaps this is simultaneously the bad news as well as the good news. I imagine that we're acting under false pretenses because that's the only way we can get away with it. Which is to say, if the truth about that were to come out (as it has been coming), then many people in the west would probably (hopefully) not stand for it. Contrary to the people in China, as it appears.
Hans Bauer
For some reasons people are rich and others are poor, some are extremely rich and many are extremely poor. But are they different races or species? Would rich or poor people act and react in different ways under equal conditions?
I do not talk about individuals but the average of each group when I deny it. Many people would neither grab nor rape. But others, be they rich or poor, actually do, only that the rich one's grabbing and raping is not so evident and often justified by law and therefore named differently or simply kept secret.
I do not consider this a constitutional flaw of the human species but a consequence of social evolution. Man has on the one side indispensable instincts and on the other side intelligence. Man has to learn to combine these two sides, mankind itself and each individual. Suppression is certainly not the way to achieve this, but real democracy requires, demands it.
Does anyone have an proposal how to achieve it?
Mark Meijer 100+
What has worked, is to learn to see them for what they are. I am not my instincts, and I am not my intelligence, those are only parts of what makes up the entirety of this human being. Insofar as I forget this, I will think I am my instincts and/or my intelligence. But then that is just another thought. Or I will resist my instincts and/or my intelligence. But then I am in denial of what is. Or I will do some combination of that, resist my instincts and identify with my intelligence, or the other way around. So that's no good, I will not be seeing any of them for what they are.
If we can see our instincts and intelligence (and all the other parts that make us up) for what they are (namely our wonderful human tools to be used when appropriate and not when inappropriate), instead of identifying with them and being controlled by them, then we achieve what you are asking about. And the way to do it is to observe them, without latching on or pushing off or fabricating judgemental thoughts and feelings. And let nature take its course. If you keep observing them as they occur in you, you will learn to see them for what they are.
So, keep that skill of observation ;)
Hans Bauer
Steve Lindsey
"Has Egypt exposed a blatant hypocrisy in the west's relationship with the Middle East?" No, it was clear to all that the west backed the status quo.
"A people who have finally spoken and will continue to speak. Peacefully..." Not having your foresight I'll wait and see.
"For western leaders is freedom a question of strategy rather than principle?" Both.
As for the Tony Blair quotes, there may well be a contradiction if one reads both quotes in full but in the passages that you quote there is none.
In general do not be surprised if western politicians do what they think is best for their own constituents.
I happen to agree that it would be better for the west to encourage democracy everywhere and deal with whatever it throws up, but in the past some leaders have, honestly, thought that real politik was the best policy at certain times. It's easy for us, keyboard warriors, to blame them when they get it wrong.
Adrian Hong 500+
Also, freedom and democracy are not the same thing, and one does not always lead to the other.
Nassim Assefi 200+
Ralph Davis
Truman era US diplomat to the Soviet Union George Kennan wrote in 1948; " We have 50% of the world's wealth and 6% of the population. Our policy should be to develop relationships that maintains that disparity."
Given what's evolved in US foreign policy since, Kennan's brutally frank advisement was well heeded and embraced.
Pretense to spreading democracy, saccharine enabler to the body of lies, (thank you David Ignatius), is the choke point for anyone inclined to more than window-shop the history of US foreign policy.
Honest broker? Please.
Hans Bauer
Isn't this already an adequate answer to Taghi's question: "For western leaders is freedom a question of strategy rather than principle?"
Tim Colgan 50+