Western high morals are covers for international realpolitik

Sometimes, it happens that the West gets involved in wars. Chiefly, USA and States part of EU intervene in some conflicts (or even cause the escalations in first place, most notoriously in Iraq, 2003). The West even handpicks which wars are worthy of attention (through mass media) and of military intervention, and which not. In fact, States in the West acts on the basis of (supposed) higher morals, as the keepers of justice and the watchers over human rights in the world.

Throughout history we built our apparent moral superiority

An alliance was the pragmatic thing to do,

and also sold as the moral one. But give

it a few years and an Iron Curtain...

This attitude was largely built over the last decades, first inheriting the system of values that permeated the Second World War. While fighting fascism in various forms during the War, it was 'easy' and of course convenient to label the Axis Powers as evil and the Allies as good. While not unjustified - after all it is objectively difficult to see Hitler's figure and actions in a positive light, just to make an obvious example - it still was a simplistic instance of black-and-white moral. It became evident to everyone once the Sovietic Union - good ally during the World War - became in the public eye the next - and totally evil - enemy during the Cold War.

    Anyway, since history is written by victors, we as Westerners kept our higher moral ground even after the Cold War. We emerged as the defenders and torchbearers of civil and social freedoms. That actually gives us the excuse to make people believe that our wars are for humanitary reasons, to 'export democracy', to free people oppressed by dictators.

    The evidence that what the West do - the conflicts it involves itself with - is not based on morality is extremely public for who wants to see. The three following points prove that moral justifications have no real impact on the reality of our actions and decisions.

Selecting which wars are right enough to deserve Western intervention

Even after knighting ourselves paladins, we can keep double standards. We choose the wars in which is a moral duty to intervene, and we actively choose which wars to ignore. The conflicts in Libya and Syria fall under the first case, the war in Yemen under the second one; and this just limiting to the destabilization of the Arab world. In fact, the West backs up the violent removal of authoritarian regimes to further its own politics, uncaring of the consequent destabilization of the interested regions.

Our support of regime changes has disastrous consequences

What comes from the 'regime change' is often so much worse than the status quo that it can't be worth the cost. Such drastic transitions, in Countries near to each other, can't be mistaken for passages from totalitarism to freedom. The outcomes are civil wars, terrorism and chaos, and maybe eventual freedom after a long and bloody path. Such a path could be radically different if the transitions would be encouraged without sudden 'regime changes'.

Our modus operandi is wrong? Let’s reiterate it!

Then, we already had plenty of evidence of what happens when we support 'regime changes'. We obtain varying degrees of political instability, at its worse degenerating in all out civil wars. It happened in Afghanistan (since 2001), Iraq (since 2003), Libya (since 2011), Syria (since 2011... yeah, an intense year), Ukraine (since 2014) and so on. After so many attempts showing the negative results of our approach, we still persist.

Using pretense of morality to cover our misdeeds

Taken together, these three previous points demonstrate that we do not take morality into account in such politics. Western governments make decisions and take actions on the basis of pragmatic interests; even then, the worse consequence of wars enhanced by the West are overlooked, justified or made a fault of other parts. That is where moral virtues come back into the picture: since, by definition, we are the good guys and thus do moral things, we allow ourselves to give high moral reasons for every action we take on the international scene - including of course our

[05/27/14, CNN interview] By 'funding

democracy' in already troubled Countries,

Soros sets up the fuses. And then keeps

the fuel tanks handy. 'Chaos is a ladder'.

misdeeds. Even by proxy, we are allies with some very non-democratic regimes which we have no interest in changing. And yet we allow them to violate human rights; we allow them to mess with others' sovereign politics. Just looking at Saudi Arabia, which we support even if it openly supports Muslim integralism. All of this means that our governments, with the solidarity of most of the public opinion, use morality as a mediatic shield. By that, we rally international support to our cause and we shame potential opponents. We have set ourselves to act with impunity.

    Eventually, the circle closes itself. From the Second World War, when higher morality was something to make the Allies feel more united on a ground of common values; to now, when the West show a flag of higher morality to cover its shameless pursuing of political interests in other Countries. People like George Soros invest outrageous amounts of money in ingerences within other States politics (just think if Soros was Russian or a friend of Putin). His efforts consistently results in revolutions and conflicts and yet Soros has very good publicity on mainstream media. He - and others acting as him, just not so in the Open, pardon the lame joke - is widely considered a philantropist. Many people do not see any contradiction there, do not see anything wrong.

We are governed by hypocrites and complacent media feed us enormous amounts of biased information. We should know better, we should be able to stand as high as our ideals and virtues; if we really believe in freedom and tolerance we should not try to enforce them. On the other hand, we could admit that we accept that might makes right and also take responsibility for that.

Is this the freedom we obtained by winning the World War and the Cold War, then?

Nothing to be proud about.