The West and the âdouble standardsâ smear
When the West asserts to support an international rules-based attempt or any other type of moral or social values, Russia and China seize every opportunity to criticise it of” double requirements” or hypocrisy.
Smaller and middle-class nations in Asia, Africa, or Latin America frequently gladly accept this accusation because they don’t want to be perceived as belonging to the American, if not worse, camp and they dislike hearing lectures from the West about what they should do.
This strategy can work, at least temporarily, especially for the Russians and Chinese as well as for those members of what is misleadingly referred to as” the Global South” who understandably want to kick back against histories of colonialism. It can also work as a way to draw attention away from their own transgressions. However, in both scenarios, this line of thinking actually serves as a complement to the West because it highlights its inherent allure.
The” twice standards” smear is significant because it emphasizes that the West does have specifications and stands for certain principles, despite the fact that it has a far from ideal track record. China and Russia don’t, and both countries have a terrible track history in terms of standards and values.
These two nuclear-armed power issued a joint statement on February 4 and nbsp, 2022, which lectured the world that it was” going through momentous adjustments” and denounced” some players” who” continue to advocate unilateral approaches to addressing global issues and resort to force ,” as well as” interfere in the internal affairs of another states.”
All was aware that the US and its allies in Europe and Asia were meant by” some players” like Russia and China.
However, some political figures or commentators in Asia, Africa, or Latin America bothered to point out that both Russia and China had only demonstrated their fools when Russia attempted the violent invasion of its neighbour Ukraine, a move that was the best” punitive approach” and” resort to force.”
The reason is that everyone is aware that Russia or China’s even requirements are those that serve their unique national interests or the objectives of their autocratic rulers. To use a sports expression, hypocrisy and other blatant inconsistencies are just the norm.
Fact of American dishonesty
Even when speaking to their own peoples, American nations have a history of being dishonest. While together telling itself it stood for democratic values, including politics, Britain established a global kingdom based on conquering and racial discrimination.
The United States has asserted” to hold these truths to be self – evident, that all men are created equal” since its Declaration of Independence from Britain in 1776, while simultaneously practicing bondage, massacring indigenous peoples, and denying black Americans similar civil right up until the 1960s( or, some may say, up to the present ).
However, the desire to better oneself and achieve higher norms has long been the central tenet of the West.
The United Nations Charter of 1945 marked the beginning of a procedure that the current West led to establish international norms, institutions, and rules that acknowledged the fact that some countries, particularly the great power, had committed dangerous sins during the first half of the 20th century.
That approach aimed to try to compel nations to act in accordance with higher and more beneficial standards than in the past. So, the UN Charter was not a claim to superiority but rather an admission or approval of its flaws.
However, it is always alluring and necessary to hold the West accountable.
For instance, in 2020 Kishore Mahbubani, a well-known public academic and former Singaporean ambassador to the UN, wrote an essay titled” The Hypocrisy of the West” denouncing America’s use of torture in the wake of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and claiming that this inconsistency in previous moral and legal positions was actively encouraging others to use torture as well as undermining American credibility.
In that article, which is part of Mahbubani’s now-well-read series, The Asian 21st Century, he asserted that” when the US started torturing people, it was thus declaring ,”” Thou shalt torture people.” This” double standards” criticism is ineffective because it is a blatant misrepresentation of the nature of what he refers to as” Western moral reasoning.”
the importance of variety
Since the emergence of German philosophy in the so-called Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries, the core of American moral reasoning has been one of discussion, experimentation, and an admission of uncertainty. The previously” brutally ironclad” argument based on religion and the purported divine right of kings was replaced by this liberal acceptance of doubt and variety.
The West today is characterized by a great deal of variety and experiment, including in regards to ethics and human rights, in the nations of Europe, North America, and Asia.
The US and Japan are criticized by Europeans for using the death sentence. Japan lags behind the majority of other countries in terms of gender equality, particularly when it comes to equal rights for queer people and others. We all criticize one another’s immigration policies, fairness networks, and even governments.
It would be a mistake for any American nation to center its foreign policy on morality lectures, precisely because of that variety and discussion. Additionally, it is wise for any European interventions in other nations’ affairs, such as those made in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya over the past 20 years, to be carried out with broad international support and specific goals based on UN Charter principles and procedures.
Unilateralism, as has occasionally been used by the United States, albeit typically( as in Iraq ) supplemented by a small number of colleagues, clouds these guidelines and produces worse results.
Following a military coup, ECOWAS ( Economic Community of West African States ) nations are currently considering armed action in their representative condition of Niger.
In the end, the issue that South, Southeast, and African nations are facing as a result of China’s bullying activities in the South China Sea and Russian invasion of Ukraine remains one that they can eventually depend on to advance norms and standards that are advantageous to all.
It is better to trust those nations that often sin than those that do not actually understand the concept of crime( or clearly lie about it when they do ), the more Russia and China accuse the West of having double standards.
In fact, it might be wiser to divide the world into those who understand the concept of criteria and those that blatantly don’t, as American leaders occasionally have a tendency to do.
The real danger to the West is the possibility that the United States will eventually abandon those standards entirely, not the issue of twin requirements. Donald Trump’s re-election in November 2024— a gentleman who rejects the idea of specifications— may pose a serious threat to the West because it would eliminate the fundamental distinctions between it, Russia, and China.
Much dwell the change, as the French say, andnbsp, vive la différence.
Bill Emmott, who was formerly The Economist’s editor-in-chief, is currently the chairman of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, International Trade Institute, Japan Society for the UK, and the & nbsp.
This article was originally published in English on the Mainichi Shimbun’s Substack blog & nbsp and is being republished with kind permission. It is the slightly edited original of a Japanese-languge Jidai no Kaze( winds of the era ) column that was published on August 27.
