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."
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.














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+