The Hegemony, Imperialism and Chicanery of Western States

How the UN screws us

Savic Consultants

By Sitati Wasilwa

Image: Courtesy Image: Courtesy

The post-World War 2 period, the era of the dawn of independence in Africa and certainly the post-Cold War period have all been critical junctures that have largely determined the foreign relations of the different states of the world with respect to the superpower status and operations of the multi-lateral institutions.

The end of the WW2 led to the establishment of the United Nations Organization and its related entities thereafter, the dawn of the independence era in Africa was undoubtedly a milestone that assured Africans of a greater role in the global geopolitics and the end of the Cold War was earmarked with the disintegration of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soviet Union).

All the three phases, as far as the inter-relations between the states of the world are concerned, have cemented the position of some of the leading Western nations as the world’s…

View original post 1,819 more words


About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

18 thoughts on “The Hegemony, Imperialism and Chicanery of Western States

  1. basenjibrian says:

    Interesting article, Maku.

    My only (trivial) plaint is the reference to “Brother Leader” Qadaffi. He was not a great man.


  2. basenjibrian says:

    But then, given the realities of colonialism and power playing western hegemons, maybe only a “nasty” leader like the Big Q would have successfully lasted as long as he did.

    Obama’s horrific decision to support the French and British power play was one of the worst legacies of his Peace Prize Presidency. (Along with Yemen, also mentioned)


    • makagutu says:

      I always think it was a strange decision by the Nobel Committee to award him the Peace Prize so soon in his presidency unless it was as a mockery to the American people, especially the white class for its treatment to people of colour. In essence, it was to tell the Americans they have come along way.


  3. tildeb says:

    Although I agree the UN is a means by which the Great Powers can avoid another World War, and so is not designed to mitigate or stop local conflicts that can THEN be used as proxy wars between them, the rest of article is a load of juvenile misunderstandings that would make any regressive Left member proud.


    • makagutu says:

      Regressive Left or Right, unfortunately makes sense only in the west. If you stopped a fellow in my university and asked them whether they belonged to the left or right, I am certain 8 out of 10 times you will be met with a blank stare.
      That said, what is it you disagree with in the article? That the French were not complicit in the murder of Sankara? That they, the French, don’t corrupt the West African govts, that the Americans are not complicit in the diamond wars in the Katanga province of Congo? Or that Saddam was a darling of the USA at some point?

      Liked by 1 person

      • tildeb says:

        I mention the regressive Left to indicate the level of one-sided self whipping blame and guilt directed only at the West in this piece. Put another way, if only the West up and left everything alone outside of their respective national borders, would all of these situations described degrade or improve?

        Usually, it’s only at this point that strong critics of the West even begin to think about the other major players and what their ‘influence’ into this vacuum might be. What I am saying is that one has to see the West’s actions not in isolation but as part of a global real politiks in order to compare and contrast fairly.


        • makagutu says:

          Of course not, I think the Sunnis and the Shiites would still find a reason to bomb one another with bombs from Russia or China.
          But maybe, just maybe, if America and others stopped meddling in the diamond business in Katanga, the warlords reigning terror there would have no motivation to do so anymore.
          Whereas you are right in saying the article does seem to blame the west only, most of the problems addressed arose mainly as a result of policies of the west


          • tildeb says:

            Not for a moment am I trying to justify the failed foreign policies and support for despots by the West. All I’m doing is trying to put into context of global real politiks to better understand how these things come into being and why. This is central to understanding why the UN does what it does. Criticisms of the local interference are juvenile if they are understood only in terms of local isolation and when these criticisms focus only on the West then the author indicates an important lack of understanding the context in which they take place.

            I have long battled the idea that real politiks outweighs principled policies based enlightenment values. The values that found Western liberal constitutional democracies are universal and should be promoted and supported with all the power of the West. (There is currently a movement ot tolerate and accept despotic anti-enlightenment values by uplifting the idea of culture to be more important than the rights and freedoms of the individuals who constitute it and packaged for Western consumption as ‘respect’. This in my mind is a capitulation of principle and worthy of the greatest disdain.)

            Because I understand the role of taking action before and/or in response to the other Great Powers in these local areas, I understand why very often action by the West – even action deserving of high criticism for it’s lack of Western principled values – is preferred over no action. But my position is that unprincipled action – like the deplorable support for the blood diamond trade – is actually worse than despotic action by other Great Powers. The counterargument is that by getting involved early allows the West time to change the situation from ‘within’ because of the sway the West has with local corrupt leaders and strongmen. I think this hope is rarely realized and does not justify the cost to real people in real life. What it does is advertise the West itself to be equally if not more so corrupt… not just in whatever the local issue is or involves but as a reflection of the values the West endorses by policy. This has been used to great success by the enemies of enlightenment values. And we all pay a price for this lack of exporting our values. And these acts of corruption and supporting local brutality demonstrate a tolerance for values that antithetical to the founding principles of Western liberal democracies.

            The West should demonstrate higher values in their global dealings and show respect for legal individual equality rights. When these are subjugated, then the flip side is to fully endorse and support armed intervention and the creation of a new state based on these founding values. In other words, walk the talk.and demonstrate zero tolerance for anti-enlightenment values in whatever guise they appear… ethnic, cultural, religious, or political. But I don’t think that will happen any time soon because so many people in the West have no clue how brutal the world actually is protected and coddled from such unpleasantness by our legal rights and freedoms institutionalized and enforced by powerful states.


          • makagutu says:

            Maybe I am wrong in this, but I believe the main value from the Enlightenment period is self determination. I don’t know where in that it includes the West lording it over others.
            In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to convince me the rapin of Africa, most of Asia and Latin America by the colonial powers was anything close to spreading enlightenment ideals.


          • tildeb says:

            I quite agree. And this is what happens when the West is willing to export economic interests and use political and military power to enable it but not the principles on which they been obtained at home.

            Leading by example is a pretty powerful argument whereas what we have – do as I say but not as I do – is a foreign policy failure even if it constrains other World Powers from expanding their influence. Nevertheless, the battle goes on….


  4. basenjibrian says:

    tiled: There was a lot of rhetoric, but I would argue that some of the analysis is deserved.

    But only some of it.

    There is a profound silence on the fact that many African leaders, including Brother Leader Q!, are not all innocent victims or pawns of the west. Nothing they do in their pillaging and corruption is their fault…no, only the evil West is to blame.

    Boko Haram are freedom fighters! Congo is only and exclusively the fault of the west and western diamond buyers. On and on.


    • tildeb says:

      I think it’s a misunderstanding of real politiks; major players can destroy the world many times over. The UN is meant to try to neutralize global conflicts by allocating their exercise to local contests.

      Mind you, there’s a lot more to this and the role of, say, foreign aid or funding the world health organization is really a kind of war between the Great Powers by another means. Just look at where the appeals for aid originate and to whom they are directed. That’s why real aid organizations have as little to do with government as possible and why the role of mass media has been the central weapon by which the West with its representative democracies can be undermined in this game so effectively and why Western government spends so much effort trying to neutralize its sway.

      Real politiks in global affairs is a brutal game and real statesmen from other ‘middle’ countries are so rare and so dangerous to the unwritten rules. Blaming the West for how they play this game is exactly the goal of totalitarian hostile Powers who simply make those who say the kinds of things this author says about the West directed at the Russians of Chinese disappear. It behooves us plebs to better understand the actual game we are playing and not the one-sided make-believe world such authors enjoy pontificating about.

      And you can demonstrate this skewed version by looking at the number of UN resolutions condemning, say, Israel and compare that to, say, resolutions condemning China. The UN is just another front in this ongoing war.


    • makagutu says:

      I agree with you there is a silence on the fact that African leaders pillage a lot of resources from their country’s coffers. But the fellow did write that by allowing shady banking operations, the west makes it possible for this money to be hidden in offshore accounts or under shell companies.
      I would love to understand the motivation for Boko Haram or Al Shabaab


      • basenjibrian says:

        I think one of the main reasons is a desire to “stop the world from changing”. Plus, Nigeria is absolutely riven by ethnic and religious conflict, badly governed by a series of corrupt and brutal governments, and developmentally disabled by an “honor-based” culture* that is one of the worst inventions of us overly brainy primates. What is ironic to me is that Islam-especially hard core Wahabi-based Islam-is as much a foreign import as any sinful Western culture.

        *Some of the girls released by Boko Haram have now been rejected by their families because they were dishonored. That is just appalling to a westerner. I would note that the most violent parts of the United States (the southeast, descendants of African slaves) are also burdened by an “honor” culture.

        These are just my opinions…I’m sure there are people with more knowledge.


        • makagutu says:

          I like your opinions, always.
          Fundamentalist ideologies are detrimental to societal cohesion. They put demands that are impossible on their followers and are a source of conflict with their neighbors


  5. shelldigger says:

    Interesting, I found this article rubbing me the wrong way a few times. But overall makes a good point.

    Fantastic comments. Which I find myself much in agreement.


    • makagutu says:

      I thought it was an interesting article.
      Last night I saw an article by the Economist telling off South Africa for living the ICC. Until the Economist can have enough balls to tell the UN member states to recognize The state of Palestine, I don’t think they should lecture African states in staying in the ICC. US of A is not a signatory and goes killing people not within its boundaries, I am not saying we are not an occupying force in Somali, I am just sick of the hypocrisy on the world stage


We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s