Not specifically related to the farm. Ethiopia is a very non-free country, as is nearby Eritrea. We just don't hear much about it because journalism is impossible and the government is pro-west.
Can you explain "pro-west"? I suspect it means somebody who says "I like West. West will help us", not a liberal mind.
Liberal philosophy roughly means freedom and same rights to everyone, including very bad persons, in exchange to strict execution of written laws. So to be truly pro-west, person must advocate same right to everyone, including e.g. gays, and strong independent court for everyone, including e.g. top leaders and officials, which will adhere to written laws religiously. He also must fight to death with bribes and bribers.
Are you sure you labeling correct person with "pro-west" label?
PS.
It's looks like offtopic here. Should I delete this message?
It's a tricky turn of phrase, as a UK English user I'd use "pro-West" to mean that a government was complicit with Western _governments_ requests. So things like allowing USA to have an airbase. Pro-West is along way off "sharing Western liberal ideals" which appears to be how you interpreted it. As the parent responded many Westerners don't do that.
For you, pro-west means what you are said. For me, if a politic is elected by us, I will expect that "pro-west" will serve us by standards of West, not serve West government requests at expense of us. It's relative term. It's why I'm trying to clarify.
Well, yes, "pro-west" is usually used to mean "compliant with US foreign policy", not "liberal". Regardless of whether this is a good thing by other standards.
By your metric, even large parts of the "west" and United States aren't "pro-west". Sadly.
Yes, large parts of "west" are not "pro-west". Moreover, even most liberal liberals will use utilitarian philosophy in case of war or war-like situation. Usually, it takes about 3 years of war to convert a liberal country back to utilitarian. It's why USA and Britain bombed Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, which is a war crime, — because they are engaged in war for more than 3 years.
Liberal philosophy is luxury. NATO allowed to liberal countries to rise. Without NATO, a war with a strong neighborhood will quickly kick out any liberal minds from heads of people of a west country.
Liberal philosophy can be represented in mathematical logic by simple algorithm in a simple game. Game rules: player can make bad(+1,-1), e.g. war, neutral (0,0) or good (+1,+1), e.g. cooperation, moves. Optimal strategy: do a single good move to player neighborhood(s) and then copy their behavior, AKA "pay it forward". It's proven that this algorithm is optimal for growth when all players have equal size and power. For game with unequal players or when group dynamic is allowed (e.g alliances), it's good (not an optimal, because group dynamic is Turing complete, so it's impossible to prove that an algorithm is optimal) only for biggest and most powerful players, otherwise liberal algorithm will make the player to be the most valuable target very quickly. So, to win as liberal, player must be big and powerful, like USA, or be member of large defense alliance, like NATO. If you are liberal and you are nor USA nor in NATO, you are target (e.g. Kuwait - Iraq, Taiwan - China) and your life will be short, unless you will convert your country to utilitarian dictatorship or will create a mix of two, like in Israel, which is unstable.
