The value of universal values

The West should not be intimidated by accusations of double standards, but should engage in an open discourse with the countries of the Global South. Our core principles are in everyone’s interest.

The paper has it all: Contrary to his intention to „look to the future together,“ the British prime minister left the recent Commonwealth summit with a demand. The grouping of some fifty former British colonies in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean unanimously adopted a declaration stating that the time had come for a „meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation“ about how to deal with the historical legacy of the slave trade.

The message is clear: after decades of having to agree to „dialogues“ on human rights with Western countries, developing and emerging countries are now turning the tables. They want to come to terms with the past with their former colonial masters. Whether the reparations demanded would be effective is more than questionable – imagine a world in which states compensate each other for past military campaigns, spoils of war and other violations: for the past years, decades, centuries.

The incident is just one example of the increasingly common accusation of „double standards“ against Western countries. The countries of the „global South“ are becoming increasingly self-confident in their perception of the international policies of the „West“: While refugees from Ukraine were quickly and easily accepted, migrants from Africa are to be sent back on a large scale; while Russia is hit with massive sanctions, Israel is limited to calls and outrage over its disregard for the laws of war; while human rights violations in China and Iran are criticized, reprisals in the Gulf states, on whose raw materials one depends, are ignored – to name just a few accusations.

Western hypocrisy?

Not that accusations of double standards are entirely unjustified. One need only recall the U.S. war „on terror“ in Iraq and the illegal arrests that accompanied it, or more recently, the unequal distribution of vaccines at the onset of the swine flu pandemic – a policy that has gone down in history as „vaccine apartheid“.

There is no denying that the foreign policy of Western and Northern countries also reflects the pursuit of their own interests, although the same can be said of the foreign policy of the countries of the Global South. In any case, the West should not allow itself to be cornered by accusations of hypocrisy. Rather, it must lead the discourse – in its own interest and with a view to the future of the world order. Many accusations can be refuted by pointing to the context, international law, or other efforts by Western states.

For example, the distinction between war refugees from Ukraine and labor migrants from Africa is legally sound; and even if war is raging in numerous African countries, this does not justify seeking asylum in Europe. While Israel is accused of colonialism, Russia’s neo-imperialism is not an issue. Moreover, Russia, whose war crimes we witness daily, can avoid institutional criticism by exercising its veto in the Security Council.

Another reason why the West need not shy away from confrontation is that this discourse is not just about the double standards of Western states. Behind the accusation lies a fundamental rejection of universal rights and principles, which are rejected as „Western values“ in the West’s own interest.

We must defend our values

One of the spokespersons is China, which propagates peace, security and prosperity under the title of „the common destiny of mankind“. But above all, it emphasizes the principle of „absolute sovereignty“ – i.e., non-interference in internal affairs – and respect for „cultural diversity“ as a lever for relativizing human rights. The obvious human rights violations in their own country, such as the treatment of the Uighurs, are ignored.

Putin, for his part, promotes a multipolar order based on spheres of influence, thus justifying his revisionist policies. In other words, the accusation of double standards is not aimed at strengthening uniform standards, but at abandoning common standards wherever possible. Instead of a rule-based order, negotiations and counter-deals are to take precedence – also known as „deals“ since Donald Trump’s first term; an essential element of „Trumpism“ that is likely to characterize the president-elect’s second term as well.

The question is to what extent this discourse will reach not only a Western but also a global public. The Munich Security Conference presented a study that analyzed survey data from Brazil, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and Turkey – countries that account for one-third of the world’s population.

Not surprisingly, not only China and Russia are seen as rule-breakers, but also the United States and many other countries. However, the majority of people in these countries agree on one thing: that the established international rules and principles are not „Western“ but reflect the values and needs of most people in the world.

Opportunities for healthy exchange

This result is more than a valuable reminder that our core values and principles have a universal basis if we defend them honestly and credibly. With this knowledge, the UK will also be able to engage in the „conversation“ about the slave trade in the Commonwealth. If this exchange – and others that are likely to follow – is conducted in a truly respectful manner, it can also address the introduction of education, rule of law institutions and the subsequent provision of development aid. Such exchanges could prove beneficial to all sides as they look to the future together.

Op-ed by Katja Gentinetta, published at DER PRAGMATICUS