Egypt and Euphemisms for Western Invasion

One can hardly avoid the uprising in Egypt in the last week.

However, I have serious objections to the strategic and motivated comments by the West.

Tony Blair, the most ironically titled man in the world as Middle East Peace Envoy, has been rendered to the back shelves of Radio 5 Live "taxi driver opinion" debates on the matter, which is more than he deserves.

However, Obama has been waxing lyrical in an attempt to win another Nobel for speculation, which, in my opinion, is simply preparing strategic and dangerous posturing.

Naturally, Europe cannot help but get their diplomats involved. And with this meeting comes a dangerous step.

Perhaps I am cynical. But we have seen too many invasions into other countries by the West with a hidden agenda, based on spurious justification of Human Rights, or some other politically motivated plan, which ultimately results in aggressive, nonsensical and aggressive wars.

Ultimately, the West has no place in designing another country's sociopolitical scope. We have no mandate to waltz in and enforce rules we live by. In this case, we are no better than the Europeans invading Easter Island, or the British enforcing Christianity on the Chinese.

I appreciate the need for diplomacy and fingers on the pulse. But I live in fear that we will stick our noses in, like NIMBYs, to ensure we reap any benefit that is to be had.

Liberalism v Democracy

To digress, this is the great conundrum of Liberal Democracy.

I believe in people power, I believe people will decide. If people are imposed upon with a overtly strict regime, people uprise. As we have seen in Tunisia, in Iran, in many other countries in the Middle East.

But I am too liberal to enforce democracy on people.

As the saying goes, Democracy may not be the best political system, but it is better than the alternatives.

Once upon a time, the West felt Christianity was the way to live, and implemented accordingly, dangerously ploughing through culture and societies accross the world. The surreptious aim, of course, was a Roman style obliteration of descent from the norm. Empire building. Fundementalism, if you like.

Is democracy the 21st Century's "fundementalism" in the West?

Euphemisms,

Getting back on track, individual countries should have no mandate for interfering in social regimes, unless those regimes are great oppressions of human rights.

And even then, it is the UN that should tackle and address the issue.

If human rights were realy the motivation in "diplomatic talks" (today's new euphenism), then US would have had such over Polpot, over Mugabe and over many, many other crises accross the globe.

Which brings me to believe that such talks are motivated by an entirely different mandate, and threaten to bring more harm to the middle east as it seeks to shape it's self, than they could acheive on their own.

A Final Note

I completely support the uprising in Egypt, where it is peaceful. However, while I watch, I do not interfere.