The Economist debate a few months back: This house believes that the West should keep out of the Arab world's revolutions.
They say that the reason why the West intervenes with Middle Eastern wars is because they want to support and promote democracy in the world.
I find the defender of the motion's points a lot more interesting. Professor Abu Khalil's points out that democracy is not the reason, and that what the West envisions is not what comes out of meddling (as history proves, he said). If it were democracy, then they would not have had supported the tyrants to begin with. They are in close ties with Saudi Arabia's King. How is it that there is "Western alliance with Saudi Arabia—one of the most oppressive and exclusivist states on the face of the earth..."?
My personal take on the matter: the fight to democracy is just an excuse. It is but a short answer to a very long truth.
As in other revolutions, people do not want change unless they feel oppression, hunger, and/or poverty. Absolute monarchies have been toppled over because of these social and economic crises that have left the majority in a devastating situation. And then, they see their leaders eating grapes, feasting on abundance. NOT SUFFERING AS THEY DO.
Democracy is an excuse for change. If these tyrants have been heroes of the poor and still be leaders of the rich, then they would be in power forever. Other nations would want to be dictated by them.
A logical reason why the west would intervene is simply GLOBALIZATION. What happens to a nation affects all because of trade. In this case, Middle East is a gold mine, oil mine, and a reliable alliance. It is in the West's interest to prevent further uprising and keep the peace in the rest of the oil producing/transporting countries. It can prevent, not just loss in property and lives, but cost-push inflation that will affect the world.
The reason for the West's intervention may be suspicious, but then again, the end justifies the means. Too much transparency can be more damaging that keeping mouths shut for a little peace.
______________________
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/673
No comments:
Post a Comment