The dilemma with our values
Should we stand up for Western values and clearly address the human rights violations of authoritarian regimes? A walk on the narrow geopolitical ridge of values.
Moral dilemmas are by no means a new phenomenon. Unlike in antiquity, however, they no longer play out today in the innermost depths of the tragic hero, but emerge at the level of geopolitics. Virtually every question we have to decide on today as a political and social entity presents us with a dilemma: Which values should we follow? And, above all, to whom do we concede the right to determine the values that apply at any given time?
The report on the oppression of the Uyghurs by the recently departed UN Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet, which was published after all, but only at the last minute, is only the latest example of the West’s distress with its values. After China had already obstructed the investigation, it subsequently wanted to prevent the report from being made public at all. It is hardly surprising that it used not exactly squeamish means such as counterattacks, intimidation, threats, but also the spreading of false information and conspiracy theories.
UN: Interference in the name of values
However, the constant accusation against the UN and the West, respectively, that they should refrain from interfering in internal affairs is completely specious. Such an accusation not only declares the UN obsolete, but also makes a mockery of any membership in this international organization. After all, by joining the UN, member countries pledge to secure world peace, uphold international law, protect human rights and cooperate internationally. Not that this promise is easy to fulfill. Nonetheless, the states are thereby committing themselves to the core function of the United Nations as the guardian of the values of the international community of states. That these are the values of freedom, equality and justice is widely agreed. What exactly is understood by these values, however, is increasingly the subject of dispute. Whereas there was once agreement on the „universal“ validity of these values, today they are increasingly being labeled „Western“ – on both sides – in order to underscore their one-sidedness and partiality.
This is precisely where the dilemma arises: The theoretical, university, and long since general public discourses on imperialism, neocolonialism, and cultural appropriation have led to a situation in which no one can be sure anymore who understands what by what. Depending on one’s origin, point of view and perspective, there are completely different understandings of what is or is not meant by free, equal or just. In principle, it is true today that cultures, traditions and religions stand above these values. From them alone, regional-community agreements can be derived on which non-members cannot even take a stand without being considered encroaching. Any assessment, no matter how objective, presented as a tentative evaluation, is dismissed as an unjustified judgment.
Values between woke and resistance
In this supposedly apodictic clarity, however, not infrequently those who see themselves as „woke“ also find themselves in a dilemma: while they forbid „whites“ to wear dreadlocks and play African music, they do not doubt in any way that their own judgment has a dogmatic character that may not be shared by all – not even by those who are to be taken into protection. Or, to stay with the example mentioned at the beginning, should we be outraged by the Chinese „re-education camps“? Condemn the Chinese rulers? Or simply ignore the corresponding reports because it is, after all, their „culture“ and decision? The consequence of such constant evaluation and condemnation is an ever-increasing confusion about what is good and right or evil and wrong.
Our core question is: Are we able and morally entitled to make judgments about the behavior of others – or not? And if so, on what basis do we do so? Do we see ourselves as guardians of the values of freedom and equality? And if so, do these freedom and equality apply equally to all people, regardless of origin, ethnicity, and culture? Or can each culture, religion and tradition define for itself what it means by freedom and equality – even if freedom means oppression and equality means power?
None of these questions is easy to answer. Contradictions lurk everywhere. In essence, however, two different directions can be distinguished: one that focuses on the individual and his or her freedom of development and choice – and one that advocates the primacy of culture and community. In other words, one can respond to these questions with more liberal concepts or with concepts that tend to be collectivist. In the former case, one must indict China and press for the publication of such reports. In the other case, one can follow the Chinese reasoning and stay out of China’s „internal affairs.“
Values versus self-interest
A suggestion that has been put forward more often recently is not to go too far with the accusations because, after all, one has to cooperate with the emerging superpower China – as well as with other authoritarian states – in matters of climate protection. Is this relativization of human suffering to the well-being of the planet a way out of the dilemma?