Should the West, Change its Tactics?
OK, what do I mean?
The west sends its troops to countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, supposedly for human rights issues. The Governments are treating their people bad.
OK, Iraq first. This was probably really about the control of their oil. If it was, then they were probably successful but as for the human rights side: they still have trouble with the Kurds and insurgents from Iran, so are they better off?
Now we come to Afghanistan. Was this really about their untapped minerals? If it was, then the west has lost all around. When the west pulls out, the Afghans will once again return to the tribal kind of leadership that they have had for hundreds of years. The difference here is that: whilst the west has been spending money and lives, defending the so called “human rights”, China, without a bullet being fired, has stepped in with investments in mining and railroads. They are the only victor in this conflict.
Is the west using human rights as an excuse to wage war in order to get countries to accept their investments? I ask this because I didn’t see them step into the Sudan or Angola when mass genocide was taking place.Saudi Arabia has one of the worst human rights records in the Middle East, yet not even a mention of sanctions on them. Why not? Because they freely accept trade with the west, we buy their oil; they buy our munitions and infrastructures. No problem and not a whisper about human rights.
Should the west now try the Chinese tactics? What are those?
China does not concern themselves with a countries human rights record. Some say: How could they, given their own. That is not the point. The point is they just get on with business and in Afghanistan and Africa it has worked.
If the west kept their troops at home more, would more countries be prepared to accept their investment?
Currently, the west is rattling sabers with Iran and North Korea. Iran only accepts Russian investments and North Korea, Chinas.
So, you ask, what would happen to those poor countries human rights if we don’t intervene?
History shows that countries only really change for the better, when it is an internal change. England, France, Russia, China and more recently Tunisia and Egypt are all examples of this. Foreign intervention rarely solves the problems in the long term.
Should we blame China for doing what they are doing? No, they are just doing what we want to do, except they are currently being more successful at it and will soon become the second biggest economy in the world.
So, should the west rethink its strategy: Keeping the soldiers home more and sending investors abroad more?
Should the West now move along similar lines to China, for seeking investmentsSee results without voting
More by this Author
Some scientists believe that colonization of space has already happened. Does this mean that we have been colonized? If so then what happened to the colonizers?
The report of a live Dinosaur having been seen in Papua, New Guinea may sound unbelievable. This though, is not a first for the Island.
There are many stories of aliens visiting our ancient ancestors. This highlights a couple of them that although they are so well known, are perhaps a little more believable.