You can spot them everywhere. They’re unmissable. Despite all their designer jeans, trendy shirts, buckled shoes, limited edition watches, matte or white cars, and custom perfumes, they can’t fool anyone. A characteristic stickiness gives them away. Russians, Africans, especially Arabs, Latin Americans, and to a lesser extent Europeans, are either the architects of tyranny or their offspring. Mayfair, Chelsea, Knightsbridge, Belgravia… the most expensive areas of London are their playground. They come and burn through ill-gotten wealth, the billions stolen from their countries or made through illegal businesses, as if there’s no tomorrow. Some people speak of the “unacceptable face of capitalism,” referring to the financial crisis that continues to impact our world. Unfortunately, the same critics of capitalism, along with everyone else, eagerly welcome these characters and their money with open arms. They go out of their way to fulfill every whim, in a nauseating spectacle that deserves nothing but contempt. Just ask Frank Williams, Ken Livingstone, or some folks from LSE.
But then, one has to read things like this, vague and undefined, regarding Britain’s role in preventing the development of Libya’s alleged weapons of mass destruction program:
The British role in achieving this magnificent result that made the world a notably safer place was praised at the highest level in Washington; it ranks among our greatest foreign policy successes since the end of the Cold War.
Honestly, I don’t know where to start. The infamous words of Colin Powell about “mobile ADM factories” in Iraq are still fresh in my mind. You have to be a fanatical warhawk willing to bomb perceived enemies, or incredibly ignorant, to make such arguments. Because only an extremely ignorant person from the first world can truly believe that a group of Middle Eastern fundamentalists living in tents in a desert has the technical expertise and technological capability to design, develop, and successfully produce advanced weaponry that could jeopardize the security of the Western world. More likely, as we saw on September 11, the preferred weapons are much more mundane and easier to acquire. The last time we faced a nuclear war threat from a deranged dictator was during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, and even that relied on Russia.
Tyrants worldwide are indeed a threat: to the dishonored citizens of the countries they come to power in, and above all, to the business interests of first-world nations. One only needs to look at what has recently emerged regarding arms sales to Gaddafi. China is in deep, but so are Britain and Russia, and if it weren’t these three, it would’ve been France, the United States, Italy, Spain, or Brazil. There’s no consideration for the victims on the ground. When billions are to be made, nobody cares. And this is what one might call “smart and effective,” in the words of the vague Charles Crawford, author of the linked article above. What’s “smart and effective” is to support the Gaddafis of our world with the most advanced technology in weaponry, so they can continue to oppress and kill to stay in power, but most importantly, they can keep doing business with first-world nations, acquire prime properties in N1, W1, and SW, and be the source of unimaginable fortunes for ‘respectable’ businesses and businessmen alike.
In a fashion reminiscent of Chamberlain, Crawford believes that engaging with tyrants is the way forward, thinking such interactions between democracies and dictatorships will eventually inspire the tyrants to abandon their ways in favor of democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights, etc. Such a proposition is unsustainable. Advancing the notion that a commercial relationship will change individuals who have no qualms about massacring their own is, erm, more than foolish—it’s sheer madness. But it reveals how thoroughly ignorant these first-world diplomats truly are. The guys who grow up in safe societies, educated in the best schools with perfectly symmetrical gardens, have never had to face the realities of living with rampant crime, totalitarianism, or poverty—they are ill-prepared to deal with the true bullies who rule some of our countries. One can only laugh at such disconnected naivety.
Indeed, Gaddafi, Assad, Castro, Mugabe, Chávez… they all remain firmly entrenched in power because there are many Chevrons, BPs, Exxons, Mitsubishis, ENIs, Totals, BAE, Vitols, Saabs, Gemaltos, etc., desperate to do deals with them. There are also Tony Blairs, Gordon Browns, and Alex Salmonds, as well as David Camerons and Nicholas Sarkozis, promoting democracy, so British and French companies can continue their usual practices in the developing world.
Undoubtedly, the world would be a better place without the rabid dog. However, no Libyan, Zimbabwean, Cuban, or Venezuelan freedom lover would argue that our nations will be safer and freer without the pure hypocrisy and greed of governments, officials, companies, and businessmen from the West, who pretend to be knights of freedom.