The West and its hypocritical defense of freedom and democracy.

Polarization after World War II, especially during the Cold War, contributed to global tensions and the limitation of freedom in some cases due to ideological rivalry between the superpowers. The concentration of power in the hands of some powers can make other countries more dependent, as the decisions and policies of those powers can have a significant impact on the economy and security of other nations. Global interdependence may have benefits, but it also poses challenges in terms of autonomy and decision-making for less powerful countries.

The concentration of power in some actors, especially in the United States, has implications for global geopolitics and generates debates about the influence it exerts in different regions. This concentration limits the autonomy and freedoms of other countries, affecting their sovereignty and the perception that this makes the world less free.

This manifests itself in forms such as the political, economic or even military influence that dominant powers exert on other nations, which restricts their ability to make independent decisions and affects their autonomy. The struggle for the balance of power and the preservation of sovereignty are key issues in international relations.

Throughout history, some countries that have had colonial practices or participated in invasions have claimed to be defenders of freedom and democracy. This contradiction has been the subject of controversy and criticism, since actions against the autonomy of other nations clash with the democratic principles they claim to represent. The interpretation of freedom and democracy can vary and be the subject of debate in the context of international relations.

The invasion of another's territory is contrary to democratic principles and the practice of freedom, since it implies the violation of the sovereignty of another country and can have negative consequences for the rights and autonomy of the affected population. Unilateral actions that undermine the independence of other nations often generate controversy and criticism at the international level, which in my opinion is very biased and partial.

An example that is close to home is that of the United Kingdom, which has a significant colonial history, and its past includes the administration of an extensive empire. However, today, it is considered a parliamentary democracy. The controversy arises when the relationship between its colonial past and the democratic principles it defends today is examined.

It is inexorable that there is a contradiction or hypocrisy to the extent that a country with a colonial history promotes democracy, not only with a history, but also justifies and does not correct the lags of its expansive policy of the past

The British invasion of the Falklands in 1833 and subsequent retention of control have been a cause of tensions between the United Kingdom and Argentina. This action contradicts the principles of self-determination and respect for the sovereignty of states, which are fundamental to Western values ​​of freedom and democracy. The United Kingdom's current position on the Falklands continues to generate debate and rejection, as Argentina claims sovereignty over the usurped islands.

Historical situations such as the aforementioned UK invasion of the Falklands in 1982, and France's current colonization of Africa, have also been the subject of criticism. The condemnation is not uniform and there are elements of hypocrisy in the international response to different situations.

The perception of international actions is often influenced by various factors, including historical contexts, diplomatic relations, and international norms. In the case of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the international community has expressed concern and condemnation due to the violation of the sovereignty of an independent country. Such perceptions and responses may vary depending on the interpretation of events, geopolitical interests and international norms. The international community often faces challenges in consistently addressing all violations of sovereignty and international rights, although it exhibits some passivity

The responses and postures of Western countries towards events such as coups in African countries are complex and are affected by various factors. In many cases, Western countries emphasize respect for democracy and legitimate processes for leadership change. However, the response is always conditioned by geopolitical, economic and strategic considerations, and not by the situation suffered by each country suffocated by the West.

In the specific context of the relationship between France and its former African colonies, the economic and political structures inherited from the colonial era contribute to the dependence and impoverishment of these countries. Specific actions, such as coups d'état, are biased individually evaluated and are not always supported by the international community due to the associated risks of instability and violence, as an excuse for their domination projects in territories with a high degree of economic reserves, excuses that move to all the territories where Western powers create conflicts with their direct or indirect interventions.

In conclusion, I leave the evaluation of a sincere freedom that the so-called "West" claims to preach.