Many countries around the world have cultures and behaviours which we, of the 'civilized' West disapprove. Such countries are frequently critiicized for their 'barbaric' treatment of an assortment of miscreants, as well as of people whose views, attitudes, behaviours or cultures they simply dislike or disapprove of.
There is logic in this but also a degree of arrogance. How can anyone define terms such as 'civilized' or 'barbaric' ? Indeed, not many centuries ago, the very things which we now find unbelievably awful were common practice in our own country, in fact we did even worse. While the Saudis cut off hands, feet or heads, we habitually burnt people at the stake or sentenced them to be 'hanged, drawn and quartered', a fate which involved partial hanging, castration, disembowelment and finally cutting into 4 pieces. Has anyone ever invented a more barbaric means of execution ? No doubt there are other contenders for the most abominable method of execution but I think this serves to demonstrate that we 'civilized' people are not far removed from similar atrocities.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has recently visited Saudi Arabia in pursuit of an improved arrangement for the supply of oil and gas from a kingdom which is overflowing with these necessities of modern life. Given that an increase in supplies from the Saudi kingdom would be matched by a reduction on reliance on the abomination which is Russia under Putin, this seems to be a perfectly sensible approach. However, Saudi Arabia does not share the West's attitudes to many things. As a Muslim nation, it takes it's direction from its reading of the Muslim bible, the Koran. Of this, many in the West, do not approve and yet ......... .
Why is the 'West' so dogmatic in its view ? Why is it so certain of its rectitude ? Of course, much of this arrogance is based on its belief that Christianity is, effectively, the one and only true religion, which is quite obviously the most appalling example of arrogance ever visited upon any human population anywhere. However, there are also other factors such as belief in individual freedom and to what extent this should be over-riding, listened to, or even tolerated. On this subject, the West has generally worked on the basis that countries are governed according to the supposed 'will of the people' as exercised through 'free and fair' elections.
More poppycock. Elections in the 'West' are as fixed as they are in supposedly less democratic countries, they're just fixed in a different way. The rich and powerful still gain dominance, whether they espouse politics of the left or right, and they still impose their will on a largely docile population. In the West, governments do not resort to terror in order to control their people, instead they are rather more subtle - they use the media to spread stories, however true, debatable or entirely fictitious, which tend to push a largely ignorant and suggestible populace in the desired direction.
That this has nothing to do with democracy is obvious; that it is devious, likewise. In the United Kingdom, a democratic vote of the entire population which produced a majority in favour of leaving the European Union was met with massive and still ongoing opposition from the defeated elitist minority, who continue to look for ways of overturning the will of the democratic majority. Have this minority not heard about democracy or do they simply have an arrogant belief that 'they know better' ? While a democratic majority would almost certainly vote for the restoration of the death penalty for certain heinous crimes, those in power will never allow a vote on such a subject, as they themselves disapprove. Where is the democracy in this ? The goal of 'net zero', a highly nebulous concept which relies mostly on exporting our production of carbon dioxide to third world countries, is implemented with very little public consultation and even less consideration of its consequences; the costs are entirely unknown but we, the people, will pay for it. The rich and powerful who decided to pursue this ludicrous cause and, of course, run the country, will find the costs of no concern, the rest of us will have to choose between heating and eating.
To be clear. I have no more time for the appalling and barbaric behaviour of countries such as Saudi Arabia than I do for the Russian bombing of helpless civilians in Ukraine. At the same time, I deplore the appalling activities of 'militias', 'freedom fighters', 'guerrillas' or any other pseudo-military groups which have reigned terror around the world in recent years and yet largely avoided any significant attention. Far too often the West has seemed reluctant to take sides against such groups, for fear of 'picking the wrong side' or supporting the 'wrong cause'. 'Wrong' of course, meaning whatever didn't sit comfortably with western ideals or economic ambitions, rather than any more fundamental definition of right and wrong. The West set itself against the likes of Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad and the leaders of the Taliban and determined to remove them from power by force; only partial success has left behind little more than chaos, with several countries decimated. Now that Vladimir Putin has taken a similar approach towards achieving his goal of bringing Ukraine back into Russia's sphere of influence, he is vilified. Of course invading a sovereign nation is wrong, destroying its towns and cities, ruining its economy and killing thousands of its citizens is wrong, but why was it apparently acceptable when the West was doing the same to numerous middle eastern nations ?
The Soviet Union, under Stalin and then Khrushchev, perpetrated a tyranny over their own nation as well as over all of eastern Europe. Yet we, the civilized peoples of the West, backed away and allowed these tyrants to rule, for fear of the consequences of confronting them. Instead we launched our assaults against easier targets, and continued to do so as the Soviet tyranny was replaced by a Russian one. At the same time, we said little about the 'barbarity' of many other regimes around the world, with which we continued to trade and count as 'friends'.
Today, we are reaping the rewards of this ambivalent and basically selfish attitude towards life, one which has been practiced by Western political leaders for decades, in pursuit of popularity, electoral success and power.
No comments:
Post a Comment