In 1948 the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The document guarantees the individual the protection of the law, freedom of expression, and economic, social, and cultural liberty. It applies to all people irrespectively of their race, gender, and nationality. It didn't describe the world as it was, but it meant to be the guideline for international conduct, the ideal for humanity to aspire to. Not everyone agreed, though. Resistance from dictators or religious zealots wouldn't have been surprising, but one objection came from an unexpected place. The American Anthropological Association refused to endorse the declaration, claiming that it is an ethnocentric document projecting First World values to the rest of the world.
The affair captures what is wrong with the excessively liberal worldview. A total absence of faith in their own values combined with the knee-jerk objection to any assertive geopolitical action initiated by the West. This attitude is the luxury of security. It's relatively harmless as long as neither liberal democracy as a form of government, nor the supremacy of Western hard power faces serious challenges. With the rise of China and the decline in the popularity of liberal democracy, this is about to change.
The aggressive self-criticism of the West is a relatively new phenomenon with long roots in history. Western civilization has always looked for ideals outside its borders and time. The Romans admired the Greeks. The renaissance Europe idolized Roman times. The twentieth-century intelligentsia was enamored by the Soviet experiment. Since the 19th century to this day, spiritual wisdom is sought in the Far-East. As opposed to the inward-looking Asian empires, the West was always dissatisfied with itself and was always searching for meaning and answers elsewhere. This old tradition of self-doubt is reinvigorated by the very real crimes of the recent colonialist past.
Another factor might lie in the flawed human intuition on how economics works. The real economy is not a zero-sum game. Humanity collectively lives on a much higher standard than even a hundred years ago. But our instincts make us think that if we in the West have it so good - and we have it really-really good compared to our ancestors -, the price for it must be paid by someone else, and the reckoning is long overdue. Justice demands that the tables turn.
Let's examine what its critics level against Western civilization - as a geopolitical power and as a representation of a set of values.
The never-ending imperialism
According to Noam Chomsky, the intellectual lodestar of the Left, the greatest forces of terrorism in the world are the US and the UK. As Christopher Hitchens, himself a former hard-leftist and very harsh critic of American conduct in the Cold War, once said "... with little oversimplification, in Chomsky's view the American history is one genocide after another". Chomsky also suggested that all things considered, the Soviet Union was morally superior to its adversary (maybe the Gulags weren't considered).
Chomsky is at the left end of the spectrum, but he is definitely not fringe. For millions, he is a widely respected moral authority. He has an incredible body of academic work behind him, and a record of sixty years of consistent criticism of the USA. In the view of his followers, the West has been oppressing and exploiting the rest of the world since colonial times. Its methods might have become more subtle but the outcome is the same. It financially enslaves economically weaker countries (like the Germans do to the Greek), ruthlessly forces Third World populations into sweatshops to satisfy its consumerism (Asia and Africa), and when the situation requires, it uses its military might to destroy any attempt to challenge the supremacy of capitalism (Milosevic's Serbia), or to topple legitimate socialist governments and put America-friendly dictators in their place (Iran, South-America).
Attempts for nuance are brushed off as old imperialist reflexes (or excuses for racism) in the world where every problem can be traced back to the West. The Russians would not behave like malign, paranoid bullies if NATO hadn't expanded into the East. The Middle-East would be a land of peace and tolerance if not for the Balfour Declaration and our hunger for oil. Africa would be flourishing if the West hadn't colonized it - or maybe if it hadn't left it abruptly. Asian countries would thrive if they were not enslaved by Western greed for cheap material. Islamist terrorism is just a reaction to Western oppression.
War, colonization, and slavery
Western countries have committed their fair share of crimes against humanity. But believing as if they were the only ones requires willfully ignoring the whole human history. Genocides occurred left and right in ancient times. Civil wars of today in Africa are savage beyond the normal vocabulary for wars. The Japanese war crimes in China during the Second World War make the Nazis look good.
Even more than by its war crimes, the West is burdened with its stained and painfully recent history with slavery. But the proximity in time distorts the real picture of history. America or the UK didn't invent slavery. It has been the feature, in one form or another, of almost every civilization of every age on every continent up until modern times. Our era is a historical anomaly, and exactly these countries started it.
In comparison to the mid-twentieth century, we now live in a time of peace and prosperity. But many think it's just the facade. I have talked with otherwise intelligent people who entertain the view that the Greek debts to Germany is the literal continuation of the Second World War. Conquering by finance. As if borrowing money and expect (part of) it back were the moral equivalent of an invasion by the Wehrmacht, and IMF delegations were reminiscent of Luftwaffe visits.
Even more claim that the colonization of the Third World has never ended. Criticizing globalism is the focus of populists of every color. But according to the Left, globalism is bad not only because it only benefits the upper-class in the West but also because the West exploits the poor countries by forcing them to be the world's assembly factories of low-value products. Like it exploited Japan, China, Taiwan, South-Korea, Bangladesh, or Vietnam. Ahem..,.yes. Never mind that most of these countries catapulted from the Third World into the First in 2 generations. Where would they be if we didn't pull them down?
When a discussion turns to the relationship between rich and poor countries, the word "sweatshops" rarely fails to come up. Rich people wear Nike shoes that were sawn in some hellhole by miserably abused factory workers dragging 60 hours a week. And it's often true, and the powerful mega-companies are rightly taken to task for condoning inhuman conditions. But why people choose to work in such places is equally rarely mentioned. The reason is that the alternatives are often worse. When Western liberals, who have some romanticized idea of how traditional work on rice fields looks like, campaign for the closure of Asian sweatshops, they have no idea what the workers themselves think of it and what other opportunities they have.
Islamist terror attacks reliably stir up the voice of Western conscience. 9/11 was a just retaliation for America's atrocities in the Middle-East (unless it was an insider job of our own insidious leaders). Liberal journalists in Europe bent over backwards to express that, even though the murders were abhorrent, how insensitive and low-brow a magazine Charlie Hebdo was. Pym Fortoun and Theo Van Gogh were Islamophobes who brought their fate upon themselves. That is, they had an irrational fear of Islam (this is what "Islamophobe" means) before they were murdered in the name of that very religion. The causes of Islamic radicalism are invariable poverty, lack of education, and last but not least, Western antagonism. Poverty and the lack of education is a fertile ground for resentment and radical ideas. But the 9/11 terrorists, especially Bin Laden himself, were neither poor or illiterate.
Salman Rushdie was sentenced to death by the Ayatollah of Iran for a book. The story of Asia Bibi is even more heart-wrenching and infuriating. The bleak life under the Taliban is the story of misery for thousands. Public caning or death is the reward of blasphemers in Saudi Arabia. Hundreds of thousands of girls go under genital mutilation in Muslim Africa. None of these above has a Western hand in it.
But according to Chomsky, Jeremy Corbyn, and their fellow thinkers (in the latter case, I'm impoverishing the word "thinker"), there is. Every geopolitical problem is directly or indirectly caused by the US military-industrial complex or its satraps, mainly the UK. Obviously, the people inhabiting the rest of the world are so simple they can't even screw up things without our help. If there is a view that reeks of superiority complex, this is it. It deprives 90% of the world of any agency and treats them as benevolent but clueless morons; while depicting the Western states as greedy and immoral master manipulators. While in fact, the "clueless morons" would be apter quite frequently. Most countries have historically been quite immoral and greedy, and they couldn't even sort themselves out, much less manipulate others.
Useful idiots
Speaking of morons, the term "useful idiot" was invented in the Cold War for Westerners who propagandized Communist ideas without comprehending the real goals of the movement. Despite the fact that that war ended in 1991, old habits from a bygone era still steer leftish opinion. Jeremy Corbyn was so used to looking towards the Soviet Union that he can't stop doing it even though Russia left behind any pretense of propagating world peace and socialism 30 years ago. When Russian agents attempted to murder a defector on British soil in Salisbury, 2018, they accidentally killed a British woman, who got in contact with the poison they carelessly had thrown away, and almost killed the police officer who found the victims. The Russian's reaction was a smirky "prove it if you can". Corbyn, as the leader of the opposition, immediately rose to the occasion and demanded to withhold judgment until the facts are crystal clear and, ...that's the burlesque part... to involve Russia in the investigation. A useful idiot if ever was one.
Corbyn is also one of the many voices who urge unilateral nuclear disarmament. The only rational explanation for it is that he expects that Russia, China, Iran, and the like would get ashamed by this act of magnanimity, realize the error of their ways, and follow suit.
The only coherent idea that Jeremy Corbyn and the likes of his hold is the animosity towards the West. Corbyn never met a terrorist or dictator he didn't like as long as they were the enemies of the USA or the UK. He called the leaders of the Hamas "friends", and has been extremely understanding to Russia, Venezuela, Islamists, or the IRA.
Excessive tolerance toward adversaries originates from the Left but has taken over the center. The idea that Russian belligerence is the consequence of Western insensitivity and the expansion of NATO is mainstream. The Warsaw Pact and NATO were both military alliances but the shared definition seems to create the illusion that they were of the same stuff. They were not. Countries were forced under the Russian sphere and any attempt to leave was crushed by Soviet tanks (1956 Hungary, 1968 Prague). In contrast, NATO expands by countries applying for membership (and spending years in the queue) - in the hope of protection from Russian aggression.
China is viewed through similar lens. Following the often voiced argument, it rightfully demands the change of the international system because it had no say in its creation. The argument always stops short of explaining how an updated version would look like and how it would be fairer than the current one. China is already a member of the UN, WTO, WHO, IMF, and World Bank. From every single one of them it forces the exclusion of its peaceful and democratic neighbor, Taiwan. It doesn't look very fair.
Every incoming American administration makes a public commitment to "reset", or at least improve, the relationship with Russia (and ends up leaving with worse). This is in accordance with the Western habit of looking for problems on our side first, and assuming that international conflicts are mostly the results of misunderstandings.
But in the eyes of China, and especially Russia, compromise is not an act of generosity but a sign of weakness. It is also wishful thinking. If we caused the problem, we ourselves can fix it. A solvable problem is much more preferable to an honestly malign adversary.
Asymmetric warfare
The critics of the modern world largely focus on the West, and there are plenty of sins and mistakes to point out. Consequently, they less frequently raise attention to those of the other contenders. Free speech and vigorous opposition are the tenets of liberal democracies, and of theirs only. Criticizing the government and the nation alike is an important part of our culture (Hollywood is partially built upon it) and it creates an open and self-conscious society. But it also means that the misdeeds are amplified, and due to the world-wide dominance of the Western culture, they receive disproportional visibility. Everyone knows about the Vietnam War. Much fewer about the many wars between Vietnam and China. African and Middle-Eastern conflicts with no Western participation have been under the radar for most.
Guantanamo is the shame of the USA. How many facilities for torturing prisoners Russia or China has? What happens with their journalists who ask these questions?
"We've been kicking other peoples asses for so long I figured it's time we got ours kicked."
- Elias Grodin in Platoon
Kicked by whom? Let's assume the critics are right, and the Western influence on the world is a net negative. There are other powers in the world, so the result of unilateral withdrawal from the stage wouldn't be a utopia but a power vacuum. Who should step up to fill it?
How the Russian policeman of the world would look like, we got a long, unpleasant glimpse of in the Cold War. The Russia of the 21st century finances far-right parties all over the world, interferes with foreign elections, launches cyber-attacks against its tiny neighbors, regularly violates the airspaces of other countries, conducts assassinations on foreign soil, ... have I left out something? Ah, yes, invades and occupies sovereign countries. And that is the civilized face of her. To see how it behaves when it's nasty, take a look at Chechnya, where there are no gays, no torture chambers, and critics of its brutish caricature of a leader, Ramzan Kadyrov, definitely don't disappear.
What about China?
China is just building up the most Orwellian surveillance system imaginable over its own citizens, and if it doesn't frighten you, you don't pay attention. It routinely kidnaps Chinese citizens on foreign soil and takes foreigners hostage. It throws a tantrum if someone merely quotes the Dalai Lama and demands kowtow (which, to their shame, Mercedes and Daimler duly did). Through incompetence and carelessness, it just unleashed a worldwide pandemic. Those who think racism is the privilege of the whites would better read about how people of color are treated in China. And finally, it herds the men of a whole ethnic group into concentration camps and assigns Chinese officials to the families they leave behind. It separates children from parents. Its ghoulish organ harvesting business stretches credulity. They make the Soviets look humane.
A taste of Chinese diplomacy was, yet again, offered recently. One of the Communist Party's newspapers called Australia a "chewing gum stuck on the sole of our shoes" and the Party threatened with tariffs on its small neighbor's exports as retaliation for Australia's call for an independent coronavirus investigation.
Whether America is an overbearing bully should be asked from not Western liberals, but the neighbors of China and Russia. For the Baltic states, the dissolution of NATO would be terrifying. But for South-Korea, India, Japan, Vietnam, Australia, Singapur, Taiwan, or the Phillippines the prospect of American withdrawal from the Pacific is equally the stuff of nightmares.
Who are we to judge?
The root of the problem leads back to the anthropologists' statement in 1948. The foundations of Western values are the faith in reason and science, and in the dignity of the individual. Everything else is the logical consequence of these. Equality before the law regardless of sex, status, ethnicity, and creed; separation of church and state; free speech; religious and economic freedom, tolerance.
The pendulum has swung far back since the Victorian age when the inferiority of other cultures was accepted as a matter of fact. In the last couple of decades anthropologists and public intellectuals have bent over backwards to avoid passing any judgment over non-Western customs and practices of everyday life. Every culture is relative, none is superior to the other. Who are we to say that the way the Taliban treats women is bad?
Boris Johnson's comment about the burkas making women look like letterboxes sparked a predictable fury. One wonders why the habit of forcing women to wear a bag, through which they can barely see the world, didn't. Oh right, that's a different culture, they must like it that way. Shouldn't we ask the women's opinion about it? Probably when the husband and the imam are not around? It's possible that Johnson was just pandering to the far right, but that doesn't negate that the heated concern over women's rights and well-being suddenly cools down where it happens somewhere else.
The opposition to spreading democracy is based on similar notions. There are very good arguments against forceful nation-building abroad. First is that it mostly fails and leaves wreckages behind (Iraq, Libya). The second is that many countries lack the institutions that could maintain a democracy. But the often-heard claim that "theirs is a different culture, we have no right and understanding to impose our values on them" is just sanctimonious bullshit. Is there any country in the world where people wish to be imprisoned, and often tortured and killed if they dissent? Where they prefer corruption and intolerance? That is how most non-democratic societies look like. One Singapore doesn't disprove the rest of the world and history.
Why is so hard to step up
I mentioned three obstacles to a strong, shared Western ethos. These are "white guilt", the tradition of looking for answers elsewhere, and the flawed economic instincts. But I think there is another one. Fascism, nationalism, communism, or religion are radical, "pure" and uplifting ideas. Their worldview is simple and clear. They inspire people to the point that many have thrown away their lives happily for the cause. Advocating science, the rule of law, tolerance and personal freedom, and accepting the complexity of life makes a comparatively anemic "life philosophy". There is nothing heroic about it. And there is not an abundance of ideas around how to make it so. The opposite of "white guilt" is "white pride", and we already saw where it leads. Going back to Christianity is only good if a bad solution is better than no solution. Finally, it's very hard to build up a "philosophy" to serve as a force of cohesion for a billion people, based on the ideas of "live and let live" and rationality.
Today, for fear of sounding racist, war-mongering, or just condescending, liberals demand Enlightenment for themselves and their children, but not for others and their children. This is cowardice and hypocrisy. People on the Right are the only ones who proudly step up for Western values and they all too often equate them with Christianity, untroubled by the fact that before the 18th century, Christianity failed to produce anything resembling modern societies, and the progress was proportional to the withdrawal of religion.
The leaders of China or Russia don't have these inhibitions, neither do religious zealots or far-right movements. The West has to figure out how to believe in itself again. And if anyone does, she should first let the EU know urgently.
Conclusion
And we reached the end of my long and meandering anti-liberal diatribe. To summarize it in once sentence, the problems ailing the West most are the political correctness running amok, the flirting with socialism, and the lack of belief in its own values. The first one is annoying, but the pendulum tends to swing back. The second one is incomprehensible, but the welfare states already diffused the danger of its return. The third one is a problem.
The affair captures what is wrong with the excessively liberal worldview. A total absence of faith in their own values combined with the knee-jerk objection to any assertive geopolitical action initiated by the West. This attitude is the luxury of security. It's relatively harmless as long as neither liberal democracy as a form of government, nor the supremacy of Western hard power faces serious challenges. With the rise of China and the decline in the popularity of liberal democracy, this is about to change.
The aggressive self-criticism of the West is a relatively new phenomenon with long roots in history. Western civilization has always looked for ideals outside its borders and time. The Romans admired the Greeks. The renaissance Europe idolized Roman times. The twentieth-century intelligentsia was enamored by the Soviet experiment. Since the 19th century to this day, spiritual wisdom is sought in the Far-East. As opposed to the inward-looking Asian empires, the West was always dissatisfied with itself and was always searching for meaning and answers elsewhere. This old tradition of self-doubt is reinvigorated by the very real crimes of the recent colonialist past.
Another factor might lie in the flawed human intuition on how economics works. The real economy is not a zero-sum game. Humanity collectively lives on a much higher standard than even a hundred years ago. But our instincts make us think that if we in the West have it so good - and we have it really-really good compared to our ancestors -, the price for it must be paid by someone else, and the reckoning is long overdue. Justice demands that the tables turn.
Let's examine what its critics level against Western civilization - as a geopolitical power and as a representation of a set of values.
The never-ending imperialism
According to Noam Chomsky, the intellectual lodestar of the Left, the greatest forces of terrorism in the world are the US and the UK. As Christopher Hitchens, himself a former hard-leftist and very harsh critic of American conduct in the Cold War, once said "... with little oversimplification, in Chomsky's view the American history is one genocide after another". Chomsky also suggested that all things considered, the Soviet Union was morally superior to its adversary (maybe the Gulags weren't considered).
Chomsky is at the left end of the spectrum, but he is definitely not fringe. For millions, he is a widely respected moral authority. He has an incredible body of academic work behind him, and a record of sixty years of consistent criticism of the USA. In the view of his followers, the West has been oppressing and exploiting the rest of the world since colonial times. Its methods might have become more subtle but the outcome is the same. It financially enslaves economically weaker countries (like the Germans do to the Greek), ruthlessly forces Third World populations into sweatshops to satisfy its consumerism (Asia and Africa), and when the situation requires, it uses its military might to destroy any attempt to challenge the supremacy of capitalism (Milosevic's Serbia), or to topple legitimate socialist governments and put America-friendly dictators in their place (Iran, South-America).
Attempts for nuance are brushed off as old imperialist reflexes (or excuses for racism) in the world where every problem can be traced back to the West. The Russians would not behave like malign, paranoid bullies if NATO hadn't expanded into the East. The Middle-East would be a land of peace and tolerance if not for the Balfour Declaration and our hunger for oil. Africa would be flourishing if the West hadn't colonized it - or maybe if it hadn't left it abruptly. Asian countries would thrive if they were not enslaved by Western greed for cheap material. Islamist terrorism is just a reaction to Western oppression.
War, colonization, and slavery
Western countries have committed their fair share of crimes against humanity. But believing as if they were the only ones requires willfully ignoring the whole human history. Genocides occurred left and right in ancient times. Civil wars of today in Africa are savage beyond the normal vocabulary for wars. The Japanese war crimes in China during the Second World War make the Nazis look good.
Even more than by its war crimes, the West is burdened with its stained and painfully recent history with slavery. But the proximity in time distorts the real picture of history. America or the UK didn't invent slavery. It has been the feature, in one form or another, of almost every civilization of every age on every continent up until modern times. Our era is a historical anomaly, and exactly these countries started it.
In comparison to the mid-twentieth century, we now live in a time of peace and prosperity. But many think it's just the facade. I have talked with otherwise intelligent people who entertain the view that the Greek debts to Germany is the literal continuation of the Second World War. Conquering by finance. As if borrowing money and expect (part of) it back were the moral equivalent of an invasion by the Wehrmacht, and IMF delegations were reminiscent of Luftwaffe visits.
Even more claim that the colonization of the Third World has never ended. Criticizing globalism is the focus of populists of every color. But according to the Left, globalism is bad not only because it only benefits the upper-class in the West but also because the West exploits the poor countries by forcing them to be the world's assembly factories of low-value products. Like it exploited Japan, China, Taiwan, South-Korea, Bangladesh, or Vietnam. Ahem..,.yes. Never mind that most of these countries catapulted from the Third World into the First in 2 generations. Where would they be if we didn't pull them down?
When a discussion turns to the relationship between rich and poor countries, the word "sweatshops" rarely fails to come up. Rich people wear Nike shoes that were sawn in some hellhole by miserably abused factory workers dragging 60 hours a week. And it's often true, and the powerful mega-companies are rightly taken to task for condoning inhuman conditions. But why people choose to work in such places is equally rarely mentioned. The reason is that the alternatives are often worse. When Western liberals, who have some romanticized idea of how traditional work on rice fields looks like, campaign for the closure of Asian sweatshops, they have no idea what the workers themselves think of it and what other opportunities they have.
Islamist terror attacks reliably stir up the voice of Western conscience. 9/11 was a just retaliation for America's atrocities in the Middle-East (unless it was an insider job of our own insidious leaders). Liberal journalists in Europe bent over backwards to express that, even though the murders were abhorrent, how insensitive and low-brow a magazine Charlie Hebdo was. Pym Fortoun and Theo Van Gogh were Islamophobes who brought their fate upon themselves. That is, they had an irrational fear of Islam (this is what "Islamophobe" means) before they were murdered in the name of that very religion. The causes of Islamic radicalism are invariable poverty, lack of education, and last but not least, Western antagonism. Poverty and the lack of education is a fertile ground for resentment and radical ideas. But the 9/11 terrorists, especially Bin Laden himself, were neither poor or illiterate.
Salman Rushdie was sentenced to death by the Ayatollah of Iran for a book. The story of Asia Bibi is even more heart-wrenching and infuriating. The bleak life under the Taliban is the story of misery for thousands. Public caning or death is the reward of blasphemers in Saudi Arabia. Hundreds of thousands of girls go under genital mutilation in Muslim Africa. None of these above has a Western hand in it.
But according to Chomsky, Jeremy Corbyn, and their fellow thinkers (in the latter case, I'm impoverishing the word "thinker"), there is. Every geopolitical problem is directly or indirectly caused by the US military-industrial complex or its satraps, mainly the UK. Obviously, the people inhabiting the rest of the world are so simple they can't even screw up things without our help. If there is a view that reeks of superiority complex, this is it. It deprives 90% of the world of any agency and treats them as benevolent but clueless morons; while depicting the Western states as greedy and immoral master manipulators. While in fact, the "clueless morons" would be apter quite frequently. Most countries have historically been quite immoral and greedy, and they couldn't even sort themselves out, much less manipulate others.
Useful idiots
Speaking of morons, the term "useful idiot" was invented in the Cold War for Westerners who propagandized Communist ideas without comprehending the real goals of the movement. Despite the fact that that war ended in 1991, old habits from a bygone era still steer leftish opinion. Jeremy Corbyn was so used to looking towards the Soviet Union that he can't stop doing it even though Russia left behind any pretense of propagating world peace and socialism 30 years ago. When Russian agents attempted to murder a defector on British soil in Salisbury, 2018, they accidentally killed a British woman, who got in contact with the poison they carelessly had thrown away, and almost killed the police officer who found the victims. The Russian's reaction was a smirky "prove it if you can". Corbyn, as the leader of the opposition, immediately rose to the occasion and demanded to withhold judgment until the facts are crystal clear and, ...that's the burlesque part... to involve Russia in the investigation. A useful idiot if ever was one.
Corbyn is also one of the many voices who urge unilateral nuclear disarmament. The only rational explanation for it is that he expects that Russia, China, Iran, and the like would get ashamed by this act of magnanimity, realize the error of their ways, and follow suit.
The only coherent idea that Jeremy Corbyn and the likes of his hold is the animosity towards the West. Corbyn never met a terrorist or dictator he didn't like as long as they were the enemies of the USA or the UK. He called the leaders of the Hamas "friends", and has been extremely understanding to Russia, Venezuela, Islamists, or the IRA.
Excessive tolerance toward adversaries originates from the Left but has taken over the center. The idea that Russian belligerence is the consequence of Western insensitivity and the expansion of NATO is mainstream. The Warsaw Pact and NATO were both military alliances but the shared definition seems to create the illusion that they were of the same stuff. They were not. Countries were forced under the Russian sphere and any attempt to leave was crushed by Soviet tanks (1956 Hungary, 1968 Prague). In contrast, NATO expands by countries applying for membership (and spending years in the queue) - in the hope of protection from Russian aggression.
China is viewed through similar lens. Following the often voiced argument, it rightfully demands the change of the international system because it had no say in its creation. The argument always stops short of explaining how an updated version would look like and how it would be fairer than the current one. China is already a member of the UN, WTO, WHO, IMF, and World Bank. From every single one of them it forces the exclusion of its peaceful and democratic neighbor, Taiwan. It doesn't look very fair.
Every incoming American administration makes a public commitment to "reset", or at least improve, the relationship with Russia (and ends up leaving with worse). This is in accordance with the Western habit of looking for problems on our side first, and assuming that international conflicts are mostly the results of misunderstandings.
But in the eyes of China, and especially Russia, compromise is not an act of generosity but a sign of weakness. It is also wishful thinking. If we caused the problem, we ourselves can fix it. A solvable problem is much more preferable to an honestly malign adversary.
Asymmetric warfare
The critics of the modern world largely focus on the West, and there are plenty of sins and mistakes to point out. Consequently, they less frequently raise attention to those of the other contenders. Free speech and vigorous opposition are the tenets of liberal democracies, and of theirs only. Criticizing the government and the nation alike is an important part of our culture (Hollywood is partially built upon it) and it creates an open and self-conscious society. But it also means that the misdeeds are amplified, and due to the world-wide dominance of the Western culture, they receive disproportional visibility. Everyone knows about the Vietnam War. Much fewer about the many wars between Vietnam and China. African and Middle-Eastern conflicts with no Western participation have been under the radar for most.
Guantanamo is the shame of the USA. How many facilities for torturing prisoners Russia or China has? What happens with their journalists who ask these questions?
"We've been kicking other peoples asses for so long I figured it's time we got ours kicked."
- Elias Grodin in Platoon
Kicked by whom? Let's assume the critics are right, and the Western influence on the world is a net negative. There are other powers in the world, so the result of unilateral withdrawal from the stage wouldn't be a utopia but a power vacuum. Who should step up to fill it?
How the Russian policeman of the world would look like, we got a long, unpleasant glimpse of in the Cold War. The Russia of the 21st century finances far-right parties all over the world, interferes with foreign elections, launches cyber-attacks against its tiny neighbors, regularly violates the airspaces of other countries, conducts assassinations on foreign soil, ... have I left out something? Ah, yes, invades and occupies sovereign countries. And that is the civilized face of her. To see how it behaves when it's nasty, take a look at Chechnya, where there are no gays, no torture chambers, and critics of its brutish caricature of a leader, Ramzan Kadyrov, definitely don't disappear.
What about China?
China is just building up the most Orwellian surveillance system imaginable over its own citizens, and if it doesn't frighten you, you don't pay attention. It routinely kidnaps Chinese citizens on foreign soil and takes foreigners hostage. It throws a tantrum if someone merely quotes the Dalai Lama and demands kowtow (which, to their shame, Mercedes and Daimler duly did). Through incompetence and carelessness, it just unleashed a worldwide pandemic. Those who think racism is the privilege of the whites would better read about how people of color are treated in China. And finally, it herds the men of a whole ethnic group into concentration camps and assigns Chinese officials to the families they leave behind. It separates children from parents. Its ghoulish organ harvesting business stretches credulity. They make the Soviets look humane.
A taste of Chinese diplomacy was, yet again, offered recently. One of the Communist Party's newspapers called Australia a "chewing gum stuck on the sole of our shoes" and the Party threatened with tariffs on its small neighbor's exports as retaliation for Australia's call for an independent coronavirus investigation.
Whether America is an overbearing bully should be asked from not Western liberals, but the neighbors of China and Russia. For the Baltic states, the dissolution of NATO would be terrifying. But for South-Korea, India, Japan, Vietnam, Australia, Singapur, Taiwan, or the Phillippines the prospect of American withdrawal from the Pacific is equally the stuff of nightmares.
Who are we to judge?
The root of the problem leads back to the anthropologists' statement in 1948. The foundations of Western values are the faith in reason and science, and in the dignity of the individual. Everything else is the logical consequence of these. Equality before the law regardless of sex, status, ethnicity, and creed; separation of church and state; free speech; religious and economic freedom, tolerance.
The pendulum has swung far back since the Victorian age when the inferiority of other cultures was accepted as a matter of fact. In the last couple of decades anthropologists and public intellectuals have bent over backwards to avoid passing any judgment over non-Western customs and practices of everyday life. Every culture is relative, none is superior to the other. Who are we to say that the way the Taliban treats women is bad?
Boris Johnson's comment about the burkas making women look like letterboxes sparked a predictable fury. One wonders why the habit of forcing women to wear a bag, through which they can barely see the world, didn't. Oh right, that's a different culture, they must like it that way. Shouldn't we ask the women's opinion about it? Probably when the husband and the imam are not around? It's possible that Johnson was just pandering to the far right, but that doesn't negate that the heated concern over women's rights and well-being suddenly cools down where it happens somewhere else.
The opposition to spreading democracy is based on similar notions. There are very good arguments against forceful nation-building abroad. First is that it mostly fails and leaves wreckages behind (Iraq, Libya). The second is that many countries lack the institutions that could maintain a democracy. But the often-heard claim that "theirs is a different culture, we have no right and understanding to impose our values on them" is just sanctimonious bullshit. Is there any country in the world where people wish to be imprisoned, and often tortured and killed if they dissent? Where they prefer corruption and intolerance? That is how most non-democratic societies look like. One Singapore doesn't disprove the rest of the world and history.
Why is so hard to step up
I mentioned three obstacles to a strong, shared Western ethos. These are "white guilt", the tradition of looking for answers elsewhere, and the flawed economic instincts. But I think there is another one. Fascism, nationalism, communism, or religion are radical, "pure" and uplifting ideas. Their worldview is simple and clear. They inspire people to the point that many have thrown away their lives happily for the cause. Advocating science, the rule of law, tolerance and personal freedom, and accepting the complexity of life makes a comparatively anemic "life philosophy". There is nothing heroic about it. And there is not an abundance of ideas around how to make it so. The opposite of "white guilt" is "white pride", and we already saw where it leads. Going back to Christianity is only good if a bad solution is better than no solution. Finally, it's very hard to build up a "philosophy" to serve as a force of cohesion for a billion people, based on the ideas of "live and let live" and rationality.
Today, for fear of sounding racist, war-mongering, or just condescending, liberals demand Enlightenment for themselves and their children, but not for others and their children. This is cowardice and hypocrisy. People on the Right are the only ones who proudly step up for Western values and they all too often equate them with Christianity, untroubled by the fact that before the 18th century, Christianity failed to produce anything resembling modern societies, and the progress was proportional to the withdrawal of religion.
The leaders of China or Russia don't have these inhibitions, neither do religious zealots or far-right movements. The West has to figure out how to believe in itself again. And if anyone does, she should first let the EU know urgently.
Conclusion
And we reached the end of my long and meandering anti-liberal diatribe. To summarize it in once sentence, the problems ailing the West most are the political correctness running amok, the flirting with socialism, and the lack of belief in its own values. The first one is annoying, but the pendulum tends to swing back. The second one is incomprehensible, but the welfare states already diffused the danger of its return. The third one is a problem.
