> Not an easy issue to think about or discuss from an objective viewpoint, if one can even exist. Certainly so, if one has blinders to the history of coloniali

> Not an easy issue to think about or discuss from an objective viewpoint, if one can even exist. Certainly so, if one has blinders to the history of colonialism and neo-colonialism. Of course a global empire is also going to export it's culture and values, and these include things like privatization of public resources and other impositions. As far as western domination goes, historically the missionaries handle the preaching of values, while the armies, lawyers and accountants keep the population in line. Now, we have concepts like RTP ("right to protect") which is repeatedly and selectively weaponized to legitimize invasions and regime change over "human rights violations" while those same violations e.g. in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere are tolerated or even encouraged. This isn't to deny that some freedoms in the West are hard to find elsewhere. But there are also numerous examples of people having more practical freedom than in say the US, for instance, the freedom to get quality healthcare without a job and without going broke, which works way better in e.g. Turkey, despite it's bad political situation. In the case of Africa you have the legacy of colonialism to contend with. Africa isn't inherently predisposed to dictators and populists, it's a symptom of the dire circumstances of the various states which the West has a lot to answer for, in terms of maintaining corrupt structures, as well as continuing to reap the gains of resources mined in those states etc. In sum, the West can share a great deal of the blame for the poor situation culturally, politically etc in a number of states with fragile/bad political situations in Africa, so to blindly assert "gee, it seems like the Anglosphere is the only folks who care about human rights" without considering this reality is naive at best.