Saturday, March 26, 2011

Western apathetic hypocrisy or hypocritical apathy?

Extracts from an article by award-winning journalist Paul McGeough in the Sydney Morning Herald titled First days of a new war:

Put to one side the seeming inability of the West to agree on a course of action, and to act upon it in the face of the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's threats to monster his own people. Focus instead on the curious circumstances in which the West has gone to war against Gaddafi, because he is rude enough to suppress an uprising by his own people, while elsewhere in the region the West's stoutest ally, Saudi Arabia, has sent troops into Bahrain to suppress an identical quest by Bahrainis for the same rights as sought by the Libyans. And all that the West, from Barack Obama down, does about the incursion into Bahrain is to mumble in its muesli.

It's the same in Yemen, where the President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, has unleashed the full power of his security forces on protesters, but he, too, gets only the mumble treatment. He provides a platform for the US-led war on Islamic extremism; the Saudis have a lot of oil; and Bahrain is the home port for the US Fifth Fleet.

The President of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni, wondered aloud about what it all said about Western hypocrisy. ''In Libya they are very eager to impose a no-fly zone. In Bahrain and other areas where there are pro-Western regimes, they turn a blind eye to the very same conditions or even worse conditions.''


More than their typically western double-standard hypocrisy, it tells us about their apathetic (couldn’t care less) attitude towards oppressed people under the ugly dictatorial thumb of their clients and their Israeli master.

As one of my visitors said, "if Libya doesn't have oil, the US and European governments would keep their distance like they did with Rwanda", and indeed Gaza and Lebanon as well.


More Western hypocrisy:
(1)
Europe's Dilemma - Holocaust Denial vs Caricatures
(2)
European 'Freedom of Expression' took nosedive!
(3)
David Irving - Still divisive to the end
(4)
Danish double standard hypocrisy & anti Islamic provocation
(5)
What happened to British 'Freedom of Expression'?
(6)
Jewish Goose, but no Arab Gander
(7)
Western Double Standards Again
(8)
Cartoons - Some Provocative to publish; Some Hypocritical not to!
(9)
World Lesson for China & Korea
(10) US hypocrisy in freedom of expression

Also read:
(11)
President Carter on Israeli Supremacist Racism
(12)
Clash of Civilisations, or Clash of Civilities?

6 comments:

  1. most countries with some muscle will somehow be involved in some kind of hegemony

    if you look nearer, a big country in the east is now claiming the sea between west & east Malaysia as theirs, just because of some gravestones (or is it the sea bears its name?), It is because of the oil there!

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you are referring to the Chinese claim over the Paracel and Spratly islands you should also know that at least more than half a dozen other countries also claim sovereignty over these islands. China will be launching an aircraft carrier group very soon and there can be no doubt the Sanya naval base on Hainan island is ready to support such a battle group. With the US busy killing Arabs and the Japanese totally focused on rebuilding the ravaged nation for the next ten years the Chinese carrier group would become the single most powerful Asian military unit in Asia since the Pearl Harbour Attack in 1942. The last time the Chinese launched their ships to demonstrate Chinese military muscle to the Southeast Asian none of these countries were attacked by the Ming ships. While it is true 'most countries with some muscle will somehow be involved in some kind of hegemony' the same may not happen in our part of the world. On the other hand it would be sheer stupidity of the Southeast Asian nations to not offer the Chinese some form of tribute as a peace offering.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey, didn't China attack Vietnam in 1979?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Any of you old enough remember the Konfrontasi years?, the drills in school, in anticipation of some aerial attack?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anon 9:11 PM, March 28, 2011,

    You are right. However, I think you misunderstand the meaning of hegemony. Hegemony usually has to do with consensus rather than military force while military battles with specific strategic goals usually means the lack of hegemonic influence/ability. The 1979 attack on Vietnam had more to do with China asserting its sphere of influence vis-a vis the Soviet Union.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Vinnan is correct in China's objectives in the invasion of Vietnam in 1979. It's one of those typical high level geo-strategic manoeuvres between China and USSR. China wanted to attract Vietnamese troops (and thus Soviet influence) out of Cambodia and also to show Soviet inability to aid its ally Vietnam. It started by positioning 1.5 million troops in high alert at the Soviet-Chinese borders and evacuating 300,000 Chinese civilians from there, making ferocious threats about its preparedness to go to war against the USSR. That got the USSR's top attention

    It then made a limited invasion (just 20 kms) into Vietnam and stopped there. But Soviet satellite intelligence saw through its ploy and advised Vietnam about China's ploy; Vietnam then saw no necessity to withdraw its troops from Cambodia, though it moved its government from Hanoi to Hue.

    When the Chinese saw that the Vietnamese was not deceived by its feint, it withdrew its troops. But it did something bad; it conducted a 'scorched earth' policy as it withdrew, destroying all important infrastructure and pillaging assets with the aim fo setting Vietnamese ecnomic situation back to prevent future Vietnamese military ambiitons (and thus Soviet influence) in SE Asia.

    ReplyDelete