Sylvester sees power-mongering and the profit motive behind the West's hypocrisy over human rights.
We all are aware that Western countries such as the US, the EU, and Australia often promote the human rights to every corner of the globe. Today we see the protests by Westerners against human rights abuse in Tibet, Middle East, China, Sudan, Burma and many other parts of the world. Developed Western countries also often use human right issues in diplomatic relations with the developing countries in Asia and Africa. Personally I support the respect of the human rights. The idea is highly honourable. However, how sincere are the Western countries in promoting human rights worldwide?
There are hundreds of case that we can analyse. In order to prevent the reader like you falling asleep or having eyes sore for having to read a very long article, I only use three cases as the example.
The first is the Iraq War. The second is the issue of Tibet and Xinjiang. These two are chosen because they are the hot topics.
The third case is the East Timor simply because it is directly related to Indonesia.
1. Iraq War
The main reason stated by the US and UK governments for invading Iraq was to protect the world from the Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destructions (WMD) and to promote human rights in Iraq. Western countries accused Saddam's regime of torturing his own people. Saddam was evil, indeed. However, we should be aware how Saddam came into power.
Saddam was the US ally during the Cold War. He was supported by the US government to fight Khomeini in Iran, which was backed by the Soviet Union. The US urged Saddam to attack Iran, resulting in an 8-year war that killed hundreds thousand of Iraqis and Iranians. Even when Saddam used the WMD to massacre Iranians and Kurdish, the US government just ignored it. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and Saddam was not a good boy anymore, the US and UK started to try to eliminate him. We can see this similarity with Osama bin Laden when he was the US ally during the war with the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Now the US claim that they assigned more than 100,000 troops in Iraq for the sake of human rights and democracy. Many people know the true reason is oil. The US has predicted that the demand of oil would increase sharply that they need to protect their source of oil by invading Iraq. It is also the same reason the US is being ignorant of the human right abuses by the Saudi Arabian government. This is the first case showing how "sincere" the Western human right enforcement.
2. Tibet and Xinjiang
We need to understand the historical background why the Chinese occupied Tibet and Xinjiang. The reason in the past was more about geopolitical issue. Tibet is a plateau surrounded by the range of largest mountains in the world such as Himalaya and Kun Lun. It has a strategic advantage for land warfare. In 1950s, India under Nehru was close to the US and UK. Tibet under the Dalai Lama also more supportive toward India than his communist Chinese neighbour.
Apart from the historical fact that the Tibet was part of the Qing Dinasty, Mao saw that it was essential to secure Tibet to protect China from any possible invasion from the Western countries via India. This strategy worked well during the Sino-Indian War in 1960s when the Chinese defeated Indian troops in the Himalayas.
For Xinjiang, it was the same reason. China wanted to secure her border with the Soviet Union, using the Mongolian plateau and Gobi desert to protect the capital Beijing. Some analysts argue that Tibet and Xinjiang hold a huge amount of natural resources (ores, uranium, oil, gas, coal) and that is why China will strongly maintain her grip.
Now many Western countries protesting the human rights issue in both places, accusing China of cultural genocide, killing activists and monks. They also threaten to boycott the Beijing Olympics. This may be true but we should also realize that many Western media has been exaggerating the fact. The publication often misleads the readers. For example, many photos showing the Indian or Nepalese police beating the monks are explained that they were done by the Chinese police. Only an idiot couldn't distinguish between the Indian and Chinese faces.
In this case, the Western countries are using the human rights issue to prevent China from exploiting the natural resources in Tibet and Xinjiang. They fear that China will become the next superpower. Also, making independent pro-Western Tibet and Xinjiang governments would allow the access for the Western company to exploit the resources. Thus, we see the second case how "sincere" the Western human rights enforcement.
3. East Timor
The reason why Indonesia occupied East Timor was that the communist Fretillin won power in 1975. The US was afraid of the growing of communism in Asia Pacific and allowed Suharto (who was also anti-communist) to invade East Timor. Thousands of people were killed during Indonesian rule in East Timor but the US and Australian just played ignorant.
When they found that there was a huge amount of gas reserve in the Timor Gap, they tried to negotiate with Suharto with little success. Then they started to condemn the Indonesians for the human rights abuse in East Timor. Now after Indonesia was kicked out of East Timor, most of the natural resources are controlled by the US and Australia. East Timorese still live very poor, even worse than when it was part of Indonesia. This is the third case how "sincere" the Western human rights enforcement.
We now can conclude that the sincere Western human right enforcement is very hard to prove. It does not mean that all the Western human rights organizations are hypocrites. Many of them have been contributing a lot for the better respect of human rights worldwide. However, it is obvious that the Western governments often play a double standard. Money is still above human rights.
I totally agree that in Timor Leste and Iraq, US and Australian intervention (and laissez-faire) has been driven by commercial/political interests. The situation in China is similar to the US propaganda campaign against Iran and, to a lesser extent, Cuba.
But there are examples where Western governments have acted to preserve human rights, albeit under the UN umbrella. The example that immediately comes to mind is Yugoslavia. Other examples are the recurring boycotts and sanctions against Fiji and, historically, South Africa. While there was no direct intervention, they are comparable to the Tibet/Xianjing scenario.
Further, I am not sure it is fair to tarnish all Western governments with the same brush. For example, New Zealand is the second largest contributor to the UN forces in East Timor. I am sure there must be other examples.
What is certainly true, is that governments pick and choose according to their own interests.
There are many efforts by the Western government to promote respect of human rights in several developing countries. The problem is in many big cases there are hypocrisy.
The source is very credible.
What a load of toss…
When they found that there was a huge amount of gas reserve in the Timor Gap, they tried to negotiate with Suharto with little success
Factual rubbish, in fact under Suharto the deal was far far more advantagous than it is now or ever will be. Fact is Australia to its shame supported the Indonesian Invasion due its overwhelming fear of communism at the time.
Now after Indonesia was kicked out of East Timor, most of the natural resources are controlled by the US and Australia. East Timorese still live very poor, even worse than when it was part of Indonesia
Factual Rubbish again..Do you really want to know who the largest investors are in East Timor? Do you even care? Why are the East Timorese so poorly off ? Do you want to talk about the lack of educational facilities or employment provided by the Indonesian Government at the time?
Iraq..Cool..so why don’t the rest of the middle east get together and supprt democracy in Iraq and the US will have no excuse to stay..ho do ho..Although I do agree US should get out. Its not worth the effort, democracy is generations away from the middle east.
They fear that China will become the next superpower.
Yea what great and wonderful alternate world that would be, with China as the sole super power…
I am not really a political animal, but unfortunately the world we now live in is a political world. So like it or not, we often talk, read and think about politics, as it effects almost all area’s of our lives.
What individuals desire is not always what is represented in their governments, even in a democracy. Consider a hundred sheep, and two wolves… who has the power? It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions on the benefits of vegetarianism while wolves are of a different opinion.
The human rights issue is complicated. Governments take issues that exist in our society and use them or abuse them according to their own agenda’s. Sometimes (mostly not though) their agenda is to please their people and boost their popularity, so if the people are in an outcry over a human rights issue, they may move to deal with the situation. In Iraq, I don’t think the issue was purely oil. I think 9/11 was a major motivator behind that one. Maybe it was just the front to gain some control in that area, but I don’t think it was that alone. I think it was a primitive, you attack us, we’ll attack one of yours, thing as well. The US has a major ‘we, the good guys, the champions of the free world will win all our battles because God is on our side’ syndrome. I bet they thought they could kill all sorts of birds with one stone….. attack evil, gain control over oil rich country, appease military powers back home, control population with fear etc….
They probably thought it would be easy peasy, not like the japanese. Because after desert storm….. like that lasted what, 5 days? They lost 79 men? Probably would have won it anyway with 80 men hey? Tommy from Fife, Alabama pulled up a G12 and won the war today! Turns out they were dealing with a different kind of war this time…. and voters only love you when you win. But I guess my point is, that governments, by definition, never do anything out of the ‘goodness of their hearts’ or to promote ‘freedom and democracy’. Their only issue is to gain power and manipulate people. To ‘bring democracy’ to these countries translates in governmental speak to ‘gain control over these people/areas/resources’. They just know how to language it up so as it’s accepted by the voters… (read sheep)
Cool down Oigal,
The point is even Human Right Watch admits there are many hypocrisy.
I see, Janma.
You got the point
Thanks for writing this article, Sylvester.
Aside from the moral or political assessment of what’s right and what’s wrong, we do need more information on human rights issues delivered to the mass.
Every generalisation is dangerous, including this one.
It’s better to compare Australia’s conduct with the invasion of East Timor in 1975 with the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, rather the invasion of Iraq in 2003. ET and K are both oil-rich, similar size, etc. The difference was that there was the Cold War in the 1970s, and by 1990 there wasn’t.
If the border between australia and timor/indonesia are equidistant, then all the gas found in so called north west australia lies within the timor/indonesian borders.
indonesian negotiators, for reasons only known to them, gaveaway these precious rights to australia, by adjusting the border to accomodate the australian continental shelf, which moves the border up to to within 25% of the distant to indonesia/timor land mass.
Now with timor independent, they want these old treaties revoked and borders up to the 50% mark. But until australia agrees to the newformula, every gas found in the area stciks to the old formula, and nothing goes to timor until both sides reach and agreement.
Now you know why australian soldiers were the first to land in dili following timor chaos.
Maybe that and the human rights atrocities commited by the PKI in 1999 which the Indonesian government has conveniently swept under the carpet recently. I think in 1999 we finally saw that we were wrong for the previous 24 years and needed to make amends.
It hardly needs saying that when it comes to the focus of the world’s attention, and the focus of Western pressure the issue of human rights is riddled with hypocrisy. Which particular humans have their rights defended seems governed arbitrarily, by global geopolitics, regional power play, corporate needs and wants, and – goddammit – media agendas and fashion…
It isn’t really necessary to cite more examples of this apparent hypocrisy but my current favourite comes in the form of Afghanistan – now, I don’t intend to be entirely flippant when I introduce into this serious discussion that paragon of the high-brow that is Sylvester Stallone, but watch Rambo III, filmed in 1988. It makes much meat of the deaths of innocent women and children in Afghanistan at the hands of the wicked occupying Russians (as did the entire mainstream western media at the time) and ends with a dedictation to the “gallant people of Afghanistan” and a plea for their freedom from the yoke of foreign occupation. It’s almost impossible watch without collapsing on the living room floor in fits of hysterical, shrieking laughter (followed a little later by bleak depression and considerations of suicide). BUT THAT’S THE WAY IT GOES….
The problem is this: it’s tempting and easy to highlight this epidemic of hypocrisy, as sylvester (our sylvester, not stallone ) does, but to what avail? What is your solution? What is your suggestion for the rectification of this plague of injustice?
It seems that there is none, other than to throw up one’s hands and retreat into alcoholic cycicism of the sourest kind – or perhaps to strap on the suicide vest…
That pressure is brought to bear on China for its excesses in Tibet (and goddammit I wish someone would make more noise about Xinjiang – I discussed it on another thread here), that certain segments of the Western media still try to raise the profile of Darfur may in essence be hypocritical, but surely it’s not bad or wrong?
Unfortunately, the “the West is hypocritical in its attitude to human rights” line is most commonly heard as the defensive protest of the governments or the hyper-patriots of nations in the midst of high-profile human rights abuses of their own: we’re hearing it a lot from China right now.
Yes I’d like to see truly balanced and universal valuing of human rights. Yes I’d like to see pressure brought to bear on certain Western nations for their own excesses. Incidentally, and to mix it up a bit, I’d love it if the simpering liberal classes of my own nation (UK) would somehow rearrange their default setting whereby the exotic poor of distant post-colonial nations are to be patronisingly cooed over and sent aid packages, while the miserable lower classes of our own country are to be mocked, sneered at and feared with some bizarre kind of substitute racism…
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, if senior figures from Western governments make public statements of condemnation of China over its human rights record I’m going to applaud, not stand up and start howling about hypocrisy…
The “business of human rights” will always lead to charges of hypocrisy in the conduct of the parties, goes with the territory!
It’s a case of horses for courses and Tibet has a much better PR machine running than does Xinjiang and hence the world knows plenty about Tibet (and not always 100% accurate) and next to nothing about Xinjiang (although Timdog is staging a valiant effort to change the balance of power on this — I bet some of you have looked it up and could now point it out on the map!)
The 1950s and 1960s and through to the early 1970s the easy sell was the falling dominoes scenario. Where country after country would fall under the evil spell of communism and this had to stop. The place to stop it was SEA… Nah, this was good for that other evil, the military industrial complex, and was convenient for countries like Australia because the next best thing to the yellow peril would have been a communist threat, another cuba, on our doorstep.
So, complicity by Australia (and I might add the only country to recognize Indonesia’s invasion / integration of Timor Leste into Indonesia) in the invasion of Timor Leste may also have been based on the fact that at the time Australia felt it had more chance negotiating with Soeharto for oil and gas concessions than it would have with an independent Timor.
I am sure people have probably written dissertations on this subject and others related to it!
Is the western human rights agenda sincere? Yes and No! And in this regard Timdog makes a valid point it is easy to point out the hyprocrisy (or the fallacies or errors) in the arguments for a particular human rights agenda however the question is what is the solution? Sylvester, what do you suggest? How do we hold these hypocrits accountable?
Timdog, retreating into alcoholic cynicism and / or strapping on the suicide vest probably aren’t the right answers either!
The idea of this showing the examples is to bring awareness about human right hypocrisy. There is no generalisation of all western government on this issue. Western government in this case is mainly the US, UK, Germany, France, Australia since they are the key players. One could ask what the real motive of Sarcozy boycotting Olympic?
The solution? Politic is always tricky.
Human rights issues have to be separated from oils, natural resources, weapons, etc. But imagine if the US pushes Saudi Arabia on the issues, it would bring oil disaster.
The easier solution is never use human rights to disintegrate or invade other countries and at the end exploit them. Also, need to understand that in most western countries, people enjoy better life, so they are able to talk about human rights. However, in many developing countries, most people still thinking more about to get better job and improve their family life. What is the point of talking about the human rights if they can not provide a daily descent meal to their family? Something that many wealthy Westerners do not understand. For these poor people, money is the most important. Thus, to improve the human rights standard, first need to improve the economics and education in the developing countries.
I am not expert in politic either. Maybe you guys can give more solutions.
I think most people understand that there is hypocrisy and have so for so long that it has reached a point that most people do not think too much about it! They should and perhaps periodical postings like yours will at the very least ignite some temporary debate on the subject…
In a perfect world perhaps you could separate human rights from oil and other natural resources, but this is not a perfect world! As I said in my previous comment the reality is that human rights is a business. If more people understood this, they would see that it is not as easy and a little bit simplistic to just think they are two separate and distinct issues!
I think most “Westerners” do understand the concept of putting a decent meal on the table and as such are more concerned about their own tables than that of others.
Politics is not always tricky, it is just politics! If anything politics is a game of strategy and intrigue
It might be worth pointing out that approaches to foreign relations can often be categorized into two – moralist and realist. While no-one is exclusively one or the other you can probably say that people will tend more to one side than the other. Now when we can spot examples of “hypocrisy”, that is one way of describing it, hypocrisy, from the moralist perspective, but to others, like realists, it might just be an example of realism, and like Rob says with the food on the table example states are always going to be interested in putting their own interests first to some extent.
So taking a realist position on Sylvester’s Iraq example there is nothing really interesting about it – the Iranian revolution threatened America, they worried it would spill over into other Shia areas in Iraq and Saudi, and assuming they weren’t willing or able to crush it themselves they took the next best option – try to contain it, fight a proxy war against it, keep Iran busy and eventually exhausted. Saddam’s Iraq was just useful for this but stopped being useful at a later point. Realists too use “human rights” rhetoric when they feel like it I guess.
human rights atrocities commited by the PKI in 1999
Did I miss a memo?
about solutions to hypocrisy in politics….. I don’t think there is one, but it’s just good to know how it really works, so instead of always being manipulated, the public can do some manipulating of their own…..
as long as there are sheep, there will be wolves.
Cool down Oigal,
The point is even Human Right Watch admits there are many hypocrisy
I don;t have an issue with what you are saying about hypocrisy , even nation acts in its own interest or at least it colours thier aid to others but you supported your post with facts that were just plain incorrect and there is no need plenty of real facts to amke you point..
But until australia agrees to the newformula, every gas found in the area stciks to the old formula, and nothing goes to timor until both sides reach and agreement.
Now you know why australian soldiers were the first to land in dili following timor chaos.
Try just a little research
in many developing countries, most people still thinking more about to get better job and improve their family life. What is the point of talking about the human rights if they can not provide a daily descent meal to their family?
Firstly, as Rob says, the idea that the entire “Western” world lives in such spectacular carefree luxury that they cannot even conceive of what it is to struggle to improve the lot of their family, and to put food on the table is a bit silly. First it ignores the millions of “Westerners” who lead a thoroughly miserable and impoverished existence; I would also argue that the average middle class “Westerner” has a considerably more stressful and precarious existence than many of the middle classes of “developing” countries…
Also, I’m afraid to say, the like the “the West is hypocritical” line, the “we’re too busy worrying about putting food on the table” defense is often that of the human rights-abusing nation. It is usually disingenuous, as it is usally voiced by an “impoverished” third world apologist sitting in a vast Air-con mansion full of scurrying maids…
And if it is voiced by a “Westerner” then they are engaged in an equally patronising piece of gross over-simplification as those who believe that the entire “West” dwells in gilded palaces of carefree luxury…
Rob, considerations of alcoholism/suicide bombing are unavoidable side effects of watching Rambo III – they pass after a few hours…
Firstly, as Rob says, the idea that the entire “Western” world lives in such spectacular carefree luxury that they cannot even conceive of what it is to struggle to improve the lot of their family, and to put food on the table is a bit silly. First it ignores the millions of “Westerners” who lead a thoroughly miserable and impoverished existence; I would also argue that the average middle class “Westerner” has a considerably more stressful and precarious existence than many of the middle classes of “developing” countries”¦
It is a silly thought.
I advise Timdog and Rob should study more about life in most third world developing countries. No matter how stressful people live in developed Western countries, they still can buy food, electronic gadgets, go to cafe/bar, get drunk, etc. The government still give support and insurance. Whereas in poor countries, almost 80% of the income is used for food. Your comment unfortunately proves my statement that many more wealthy Westerners do no understand the situation in many poor countries.
Promoting human rights is not a one night job.
Try Saudi Arabia (Western ally, largest oil producer) where the Western countries are being ignorant to women and religious discrimination and the abuse toward foreign workers such as Indonesian TKW.
Sylvester – I don’t know what your nationality is, and what your experience of the “West”, and conversely of “the Third World” is, but I’m afraid to say that your statements above indicate a level of “ignorance” that surpases mine – first, though people aren’t starving to death in Western countries, there are MILLIONS of Westerners who certainly do not have the disposable income to spend on “bars, cafes and electronic gadgets”. Equally, the blanket statement that “80% of income” in developing nations is used for food is rather hard to swallow
There are certainly some citizens of developing nations who spend 100% of their income on food and still don’t have enough really to survive, but last time I walked through the mall in Indonesia I saw more than a few citizens of a “developing” nation who were definitely not on the breadline – in fact, they appeared to have a lifestyle, priviledge and disposable income that, with retrospect, made my lower-middle-class upbringing in the UK look like Dickensian poverty… and I’ve seen those same “impoverished” people in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt and many other “developing” countries… and before you accuse me of blindness or ignorance I can assure you that I’ve dealt with very many people very much at the other end of the scale in all of those countries too. I can also assure you that there is a class of people in all but the most tormented of basket case nations who live in considerable comfort, and that there are homeless beggars on the streets of London, Paris and New York…
You do appear to be opperating on the most simplistic of conceptions – that everyone in the “West” lives in luxury serviced appartements and spends their days drinking cafe lattes while sending messages on their blackberries to their beautiful friends… while meanwhile, in the THIRD WORLD, every person lives in a mud hut and spends forty of their fifty cents a day on a few grains of rice…
It’s patronising and insulting to both “West” and “Third World”, and does rather leave me wondering from where on earth you hail to have such a conception of the world – some lost unreconstructed communist micro statelet forgotten by the rest of the world in the midst of the Russian steppe perhaps?
@everyone: all this dialogue proves is that making broad generalizations is stupid.
What you saw in the Indo mall is only a small fraction of the rich in the society. The gap between the rich and the poor in Indo is huge. You should compare those guys in UK with the poor people in the Indonesian small towns or villages.
You do appear to be opperating on the most simplistic of conceptions – that everyone in the “West” lives in luxury serviced appartements and spends their days drinking cafe lattes while sending messages on their blackberries to their beautiful friends”¦ while meanwhile, in the THIRD WORLD, every person lives in a mud hut and spends forty of their fifty cents a day on a few grains of rice”¦
This is your own interpretation.
Again, there is no intention to generalize all Western government or Western people.
That is why I mostly use the word MANY, SEVERAL, EXAMPLE, etc. Never use ALL
Russian steppes was a part of the Silk Road. A nice place, no pollution, still natural dan the scenery is breathtaking
“Human Rights enforcement by Western countries: Is it sincere?”
definitely NOT !…especially when ‘special business interests’ are involve, man….;)
No matter how stressful people live in developed Western countries, they still can buy food, electronic gadgets, go to cafe/bar, get drunk, etc. The government still give support and insurance. Whereas in poor countries, almost 80% of the income is used for food. Your comment unfortunately proves my statement that many more wealthy Westerners do no understand the situation in many poor countries.
Given the absense of the words “all”, “some” or “many” in this statement I took it to be a blanket generalisation. I also took the final part of the above to imply that while you had a cristal clear understanding of the fact that all “Westerners” live a life of cafes, bars and electronic gadgets, I, perhaps distracted by my “electronic gadgets, have no concept of the fact that “everyone” in the “Third World” lives in grinding poverty…
Please reread my above post carefully…
Human rights hypocrisy is needed since the countries who were supposed to be responsible (ie. UN Security council permanent state members) on international peace are those who produce (and supply) most weapons.
On May 15th, tens of thousands of bloggers worldwide participate in writing about human rights and drawing attention to issues often overlooked by mainstream media. Bloggers Unite for Human Rights is spearheaded by BlogCatalog.com, the fastest-growing social network for bloggers, and Amnesty International USA, a worldwide movement that campaigns for internationally recognized human rights.
If anyone here is interested in participating, please check further information on the event here.
Let’s not forget, the USA is the true Tibet, white people took it from true native Americans by genocide and cultural genocide. Same with Australia, Canada etc. White people are hypocrites indeed.
Not really a competition to see who can be the most hypocritical.
The “indeed” in this case is that indeed the US, Australia, and Canada among others need to address the injustices of the past! Whether these injustices are to be classified as genocide proper or cultural genocide or somthing else must be part of the debate.
However, if your suggestion is that China should be left alone to make the same mistakes as other have already made or to perpetuate genocide proper or cultural genocide because others have done it before them is a ludicrous proposition.
Is it about hypocrisy, No! It is about humanity and doing what is right! If any hypocrisy exists it is the nations that you mention who fail to recognize their pasts and the evils perpetuated against the indigenous populations of those countries and in the actions of nations who think that they can commit similar injustices now!
If I were a westerner and were sincere to help, below would be what I would say to Beijing (assumming honesty of CNN and BBC, but it is edvident by now that they are not honest, including editting Nepali pictures and even scenes from movies into reports of so-called “Chinese police violence in Tibet”. So whether ot not Tibet is the one that the west likes to portray is questionable. However, for the sake of analysis, let’s assume so at this momment):
“We westerners have committed so many crimes: slavery trading, global colonization, genocides, cultural genocides, Nazism…. you name it, we did it, and we have not even been punished yet. But we feel very bad about it, and things have not turned out good according to the law of Karma. Racial tensions, family failures, morality crisis… Even the word “white” sounds like a bad word now (at least in USA), morally we have already been being punished, our conscience tortures us….. So, if you, China, is doing or even just thinking anything remotely similar to what we have done, please do not do it.”
That way, China has no choice but at least litsens. This is the only truthful, sincere, and mostly importantly, the only effective way of doing it. By the way, what did Christ say to the mod when they were about to stone that poor woman? The west must CONFESS sincerily in heart and action first. This is the basic ABCs of ethics. So westerners don’t even know that? A murderer protesting at someone else for his not respecting life, a rapist protesting at someone else for his not respecting women, will that someone else respect the opinions of the unconvicted, unpunished murderer? Rapist?
As it is clear, westerners feel OK to protest as the murderer and the rapist described above, un-enlightened, un-embarrassed, un-convicted, un-punished. What does this phenonmenon reveal? It reveals: under the surface righteousness, westerners are still the same arrogance (we are now “good people”, we therefore can criticise you, after all we are still better than you…), and the stubborn self-centeredness, in other words, the same illness of the heart, and this is what hypocrisy means in a more fundamental sense if not a more hopeless sense.
Such simple basic ABCs of ethics, do we really need to “explain” it to westerners here? Is not the west supposed to be more “developed”? Where is the basics of western culture or wisdom?
And besides, protesting is a very lame form of culture. Oganized rudness and yelling is still rudness and yelling. Should any people of intelligence really believe yelling at someone’s face will make a difference for the better? There is something called “communication”in human culture which takes sincerity and patience. But as it is edvendent now, westerners know only two things: going to war and going to protest. Impatience, if not Stupidity, this is what I call it.
Forgot to indicate, the above comment was intended to answer Rob’s comment. I hope it helps.