Will non-Western democracies ever become interested in promoting democracy and human rights?

[Lord Halifax]

Right now the foreign poliy of all the major non-Western democracies (India, Brazil, Indonesia etc.) has a very narrow focus on "national interests" with not interest in promoting a rule based world order or making sure that tools like economic sanctions still have an effect (which they would arguably have an interest in given the alternative is more wars to settle things). As the relative power of the West declines that's going to be a major problem going forward.

Is there any hope that's going to change as they develop their economies and get more of a stakeholder perspective to the global order, or will "idealism" (interest in democracy, human rights etc.) remain something only Western powers care about?

[Red Velvet]

As long as “democracy” is continuously weaponized as a narrative to justify white power and superiority then nope.

The West doesn’t care about democracy elsewhere outside their borders at all when throughout history it always supported regime change tactics against ELECTED governments they disliked. So using this as a narrative in their favor simply sounds unauthentically fake and self-serving only.

You mention yourself that India; Brazil; Indonesia have these positions more focused on the internal interests despite being democracies, without really questioning WHY third world countries basically all end up thinking the same regardless if they are democratic or authoritarian.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I believe this would have to start at home first wouldn't it, and there's no sign of that happening anywhere.

[compucomp]

As long as “democracy” is continuously weaponized as a narrative to justify white power and superiority then nope.

The West doesn’t care about democracy elsewhere outside their borders at all when throughout history it always supported regime change tactics against ELECTED governments they disliked. So using this as a narrative in their favor simply sounds unauthentically fake and self-serving only.

You mention yourself that India; Brazil; Indonesia have these positions more focused on the internal interests despite being democracies, without really questioning WHY third world countries basically all end up thinking the same regardless if they are democratic or authoritarian.

What a beautiful post. Utter hypocrisy has been a hallmark of Western foreign policy for generations and in Western usage "freedom" and "democracy" are merely code words for slavery and submission to Western imperialism.

Just look at how the supposedly sacrosanct beliefs in free trade and property rights fall by the wayside when it comes to Russian sanctions and Russian assets. Perhaps the only thing preventing the West from seizing Russian assets is a practical one; that China holds $2-3 trillion of Western assets within our borders and you seizing Russian assets would give us just cause to seize yours whenever we want.

[gerritcole]

Are we going to purposely ignore all the evidence of overthrown governments and coups sponsored by the uk and USA in the name of these ideals across the world over the last century? No one cares about any of these so called ideals, especially in the west, it’s just marketing tools against the soviets that fooled the gullible and are now used as a cudgel because the west cannot use racism anymore to express their disapproval against democratic brown countries who don’t toe the western white line

[gerritcole]

I believe this would have to start at home first wouldn't it, and there's no sign of that happening anywhere.

Very much so the backsliding on freedom and democracy in the USA and uk is very concerning, hopefully under future labour pm Nadia whitcombe we can undo such backsliding, hopefully the non white deocmracies don’t kick us out of the cool kids club

[Lord Halifax]

As long as “democracy” is continuously weaponized as a narrative to justify white power and superiority then nope.

The West doesn’t care about democracy elsewhere outside their borders at all when throughout history it always supported regime change tactics against ELECTED governments they disliked. So using this as a narrative in their favor simply sounds unauthentically fake and self-serving only.

You mention yourself that India; Brazil; Indonesia have these positions more focused on the internal interests despite being democracies, without really questioning WHY third world countries basically all end up thinking the same regardless if they are democratic or authoritarian.

What a beautiful post. Utter hypocrisy has been a hallmark of Western foreign policy for generations and in Western usage "freedom" and "democracy" are merely code words for slavery and submission to Western imperialism.

Just look at how the supposedly sacrosanct beliefs in free trade and property rights fall by the wayside when it comes to Russian sanctions and Russian assets. Perhaps the only thing preventing the West from seizing Russian assets is a practical one; that China holds $2-3 trillion of Western assets within our borders and you seizing Russian assets would give us just cause to seize yours whenever we want.

the purpose of this thread is not to discuss "Western hypocrisy", but to discuss whether non-Western democracies may pursue a value based foreign policy, so please stay on topic otherwise I'll have to close the thread.

[gerritcole]

As long as “democracy” is continuously weaponized as a narrative to justify white power and superiority then nope.

The West doesn’t care about democracy elsewhere outside their borders at all when throughout history it always supported regime change tactics against ELECTED governments they disliked. So using this as a narrative in their favor simply sounds unauthentically fake and self-serving only.

You mention yourself that India; Brazil; Indonesia have these positions more focused on the internal interests despite being democracies, without really questioning WHY third world countries basically all end up thinking the same regardless if they are democratic or authoritarian.

What a beautiful post. Utter hypocrisy has been a hallmark of Western foreign policy for generations and in Western usage "freedom" and "democracy" are merely code words for slavery and submission to Western imperialism.

Just look at how the supposedly sacrosanct beliefs in free trade and property rights fall by the wayside when it comes to Russian sanctions and Russian assets. Perhaps the only thing preventing the West from seizing Russian assets is a practical one; that China holds $2-3 trillion of Western assets within our borders and you seizing Russian assets would give us just cause to seize yours whenever we want.

the purpose of this thread is not to discuss "Western hypocrisy", but to discuss whether non-Western democracies may pursue a value based foreign policy, so please stay on topic otherwise I'll have to close the thread.

They are all pursuing a value based fp called self interest just like the white west which dresses it up a bit more

Edit upon further reading, oh no dont shut the thread down!!!! jajajajaja Imagine coming to a discussion forum and threatening to take your ball and go home when discussion ensues

[OSR stands with Israel]

As long as “democracy” is continuously weaponized as a narrative to justify white power and superiority then nope.

The West doesn’t care about democracy elsewhere outside their borders at all when throughout history it always supported regime change tactics against ELECTED governments they disliked. So using this as a narrative in their favor simply sounds unauthentically fake and self-serving only.

You mention yourself that India; Brazil; Indonesia have these positions more focused on the internal interests despite being democracies, without really questioning WHY third world countries basically all end up thinking the same regardless if they are democratic or authoritarian.

What a beautiful post. Utter hypocrisy has been a hallmark of Western foreign policy for generations and in Western usage "freedom" and "democracy" are merely code words for slavery and submission to Western imperialism.

Just look at how the supposedly sacrosanct beliefs in free trade and property rights fall by the wayside when it comes to Russian sanctions and Russian assets. Perhaps the only thing preventing the West from seizing Russian assets is a practical one; that China holds $2-3 trillion of Western assets within our borders and you seizing Russian assets would give us just cause to seize yours whenever we want.

Yes, because the world would be much better if we allowed the USSR to win the cold war. Yes its because of us that Eastern Europe is free today and they thank us for freeing them from the evil grasp of communism and it is thanks to us that Japan and South Korea are free as well. Did we do bad things yes, but we have done more positive for the world than any Super Power in history and it would actually be a tragedy for the world for American Hegemony to be lost .

Also as for your and Red Velvet claim, I will counter it by saying that no the third world is not moving away from the US and is in fact moving in our favor. India has a far more pro Western Foreign policy today as under the BJP they have moved the consensus pretty significantly away from Nehru's terrible foreign policy and young people in India are far more pro America than they are pro Russia or China.  Brazil would have reelected a very pro Western President if not for his complete mismanagement of COVID so this point maybe can be false too.

The fact is American Style capitalism works which is why you have seen countries who adopt it become far far more prosperous. You have seen this all across Asia actually including In India post 1991 and even in China who for decades were adopting American style capitalism until Xi became their leader and moved China back in a communist direction and predictably its failing.


American Hegemony is undeniably a good thing and yes we should not and we will not allow fascist regimes like Russia or Communist regimes like China to undermine it.

[oldtimer]

No

Different culture.

Foreign intervention (or foreign adventures) is a European ancestry (more Northern European) thing.

It maybe the bad weather.

[Electric Circus]

No, and I think that Western democracies are within a generation or two of taking the same direction, with the populist right as a leading indicator,.

[CumbrianLefty]

People will eventually start taking democracy and human rights seriously again, once it becomes quite clear that loudmouthed populists with "easy answers" to everything don't actually have the solutions.

[Dan the Roman]

I think there is a lot of racial charges being thrown around, ironically from socialist avatars, when this is actually more of a class issue. "Human Rights"" has always divided between a Middle Class concept of individual rights - which is inherently tied to the belief that what someone has and deserves is tied to what they do in life.

Both traditional elites and those outside the middle class tend to reject this. Those at the top occupy their role through natural right, whether from god, or because they fulfill a social function. There is a village chief, or landlord, or mafia boss because there needs to be, and those who challenge them are challenging the institution necessary for society to exist.

Those outside the "Middle Class" in turn tend to value collective rights. The right of a village to access land and water trumps the right of a specific villager to keep others away from grazing ground they need, or from water when they are thirsty. Individual rights then become greed, and that extends even to things like sexual rights. It is not that homosexuality is bad per se - more that the identity means someone placing their own interests above everyone else, and today that combines with the inspiration for doing so coming from abroad.

Also the Western middle class is unique in having grown up independent of traditional power structures, largely among mercantile interests. Almost everywhere else throughout history it has been dominated by bureaucrats, and the concept of merchants or lawyers wielding political power is a sign of corruption, because it is associated with a coup by middle management in the same way Eunuchs ruling through a monarch would be. Because lawyers, judges, and merchants are all state creations or the cronies of the elites.

This leaves very little room for a Western concept of individual rights to flourish as the basis of democracy except in areas where a Western class structure has developed.

Ironically, the decline of Western liberal democracy is tied to the Western middle class becoming more like the middle classes everywhere else. The average voter no longer sees Academics, lawyers, the media or business figures as independent challengers to the state power structure, but rather as its creations and tools.

[Battista Minola 1616]

The fact is American Style capitalism works which is why you have seen countries who adopt it become far far more prosperous. You have seen this all across Asia actually including In India post 1991 and even in China who for decades were adopting American style capitalism until Xi became their leader and moved China back in a communist direction and predictably its failing.

What in the world are you talking about

[Upper Canada Tory]

The best way I can respond to this is by pointing out that promoting 'values-based' foreign policy (or at least claiming to) is a privilege of economic power.

Why can the United States impose economically harmful sanctions on countries for human rights violations and other illegal or immoral actions (eg Russian invasion of Ukraine)? Because it has the power to do so - it's the richest country in the world, it has the world's reserve currency, it controls most international trade routes, has a significant degree of control over the global financial system, banks and companies will comply with US sanctions to be able to do business in the US, etc.

A country that violates human rights or international law isn't going to be seriously hurt by Brazil or India imposing any kind of economic sanctions on them, so there's no point for these countries to do so - at least for now. These countries' foreign policy is about increasing their influence elsewhere and growing their economy so that they can one day be as powerful as the United States.

Maybe one day when either India or Brazil is the world's largest economy and has a significant degree of control over the world's financial system they will be able to sanction a country for violating human rights or international law. But if you're a poor country, what's the point of limiting your trade networks simply on 'values-based' concerns that will have little to no aggregate economic impacts? It's not, as you said, in their national interest - and these countries want to protect their national interests.

[Lord Halifax]

The best way I can respond to this is by pointing out that promoting 'values-based' foreign policy (or at least claiming to) is a privilege of economic power.

Why can the United States impose economically harmful sanctions on countries for human rights violations and other illegal or immoral actions (eg Russian invasion of Ukraine)? Because it has the power to do so - it's the richest country in the world, it has the world's reserve currency, it controls most international trade routes, has a significant degree of control over the global financial system, banks and companies will comply with US sanctions to be able to do business in the US, etc.

A country that violates human rights or international law isn't going to be seriously hurt by Brazil or India imposing any kind of economic sanctions on them, so there's no point for these countries to do so - at least for now. These countries' foreign policy is about increasing their influence elsewhere and growing their economy so that they can one day be as powerful as the United States.

Maybe one day when either India or Brazil is the world's largest economy and has a significant degree of control over the world's financial system they will be able to sanction a country for violating human rights or international law. But if you're a poor country, what's the point of limiting your trade networks simply on 'values-based' concerns that will have little to no aggregate economic impacts? It's not, as you said, in their national interest - and these countries want to protect their national interests.

a country's national interest can be defined more or less narrowly and upholding a rule based international order can be in the national interest of a country (when it comes to basic principles such as non-aggression it is arguably in the interest of most countries).

India has the world's 3rd largest economy based on PPP and is a major player, which could potentially choose a stakeholder approach to international relations. The countries we're talking about are not "poor" but middle-income countries.

plenty of small and mid-sized economies pursue a foreign policy with a strong value based element, it is not the prerogative of super powers.

economic sanctions work if enough of the major economies support them, as the Ukraine war has shown even the US can't impose efficient sanctions on its own.

[CumbrianLefty]

a country's national interest can be defined more or less narrowly and upholding a rule based international order can be in the national interest of a country (when it comes to basic principles such as non-aggression it is arguably in the interest of most countries).

This is a vital point that many self-styled "realists" simply don't get.

[compucomp]

the purpose of this thread is not to discuss "Western hypocrisy", but to discuss whether non-Western democracies may pursue a value based foreign policy, so please stay on topic otherwise I'll have to close the thread.

Imagine being so oblivious and deluded that you can't even acknowledge that the obvious answer to your question is an answer, much less even try to address it.

snipped

Great, then tell me why India, a nation you have a clear affinity towards based on your past posts, went from buying roughly 0 barrels of Russian oil to 2 million a month in 2023? Why it is helping Russia circumvent sanctions by playing oil trader and reselling Russian oil to Europe at a profit? Why has the West condoned this? This is just the latest example of Western hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy. Even in the "clearest example in the world today of right and wrong" the West shows that what's "right" is to serve their interests. I'll be honest, India has done a huge favor to China on this issue because if the West is unwilling to confront India on Russian trade then China will never be diplomatically isolated.

[OSR stands with Israel]

the purpose of this thread is not to discuss "Western hypocrisy", but to discuss whether non-Western democracies may pursue a value based foreign policy, so please stay on topic otherwise I'll have to close the thread.

Imagine being so oblivious and deluded that you can't even acknowledge that the obvious answer to your question is an answer, much less even try to address it.

snipped

Great, then tell me why India, a nation you have a clear affinity towards based on your past posts, went from buying roughly 0 barrels of Russian oil to 2 million a month in 2023? Why it is helping Russia circumvent sanctions by playing oil trader and reselling Russian oil to Europe at a profit? Why has the West condoned this? This is just the latest example of Western hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy. Even in the "clearest example in the world today of right and wrong" the West shows that what's "right" is to serve their interests. I'll be honest, India has done a huge favor to China on this issue because if the West is unwilling to confront India on Russian trade then China will never be diplomatically isolated.

1. Cause Left wing energy policy has been a disaster for Western Europe and neither have we or Canada truly unlocked our energy potential . Imagine if we produced far more energy here in North America and sold it to Western Europe . Then maybe we wouldn’t need oil from unsavory actors

2. Cause India’s FP is pretty much the definition of realpoltick and while it’s not ideal for us , it’s still better than outright hostility like the CCP or even much better than India’s FP prior to the mid 1990s . Israel/Palestine is a huge example of how India has shifted on foreign policy

Now yes that will prevent a full on alliance but we don’t need a full on alliance either . We just need a case by case relationship to counter the CCP and that’s what we are doing . We aren’t trying to make a full on alliance like you think .

3. It’s ok to be hypocritical on foreign policy . So yes , I’d favor regime change if Canada for example was taken over by a communist or Russian friendly regime but like I said it’s ok to be hypocritical on foreign policy

[Open Source Intelligence]

the purpose of this thread is not to discuss "Western hypocrisy", but to discuss whether non-Western democracies may pursue a value based foreign policy, so please stay on topic otherwise I'll have to close the thread.

Who decides the values? Are those values fixed and unchanging or they open to adjustment over time? Are those values subject to interpretation in the eye of the beholder or is there only one interpretation that is allowed?

[buritobr]

This question doesn't make sense.

The foreign policy of the US, UK, France, Germany is based on the national interests of the US, UK, France, Germany. There are no motives for the foreign policy of Brazil, India, Indonesia, Argentina, Mexico, South Africa to be different.

The interests of high income countries are not the same of the interests of medium/low income countries.

All the high income countries are liberal democracies (except the oil monarchies in the Middle East). Some medium/low income countries are liberal democracies, some of them are not. There is no justification for the medium/low income democratic countries to defend the interest of high income countries only because they are democracies.

In Brazil in 2019, the first year of Bolsonaro's administration, he (who is not a good example of promotion of democracy and human rights) started an anti-China rethoric. The agrobusiness sector, who endorsed Bolsonaro, but exports soybean to China, asked him to shut up.

Another example: the cheapest vaccines against Covid19 were the Chinese Coronavac and the Russian Sputnik. Almost all the western vaccines were purchased by the western countries in the first semester of 2021. If only western vaccines were available, the developing countries could have started the mass imunization program only in the second semester of 2021. None should think that the developing countries should let more people die only to avoid the Chinese and the Russian vaccines and to support democracy.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Another example: the cheapest vaccines against Covid19 were the Chinese Coronavac and the Russian Sputnik. Almost all the western vaccines were purchased by the western countries in the first semester of 2021. If only western vaccines were available, the developing countries could have started the mass imunization program only in the second semester of 2021. None should think that the developing countries should let more people die only to avoid the Chinese and the Russian vaccines and to support democracy.

A curious example as both vaccines were comparatively rubbish, though for different reasons (i.e. on paper Sputnik wasn't so bad, but there were severe quality control issues in the production process).

[kaoras]

Another example: the cheapest vaccines against Covid19 were the Chinese Coronavac and the Russian Sputnik. Almost all the western vaccines were purchased by the western countries in the first semester of 2021. If only western vaccines were available, the developing countries could have started the mass imunization program only in the second semester of 2021. None should think that the developing countries should let more people die only to avoid the Chinese and the Russian vaccines and to support democracy.

A curious example as both vaccines were comparatively rubbish, though for different reasons (i.e. on paper Sputnik wasn't so bad, but there were severe quality control issues in the production process).

That Sinovac saved lifes in Chile is not really something that is up for debate. The problem is that they weren't effective against the new variants, but in the first semester of 2021 which is the period we are talking about they caused a very sharp reduction in the amount of contagions and deaths in those over 60 (the age group where it was applied)

[CumbrianLefty]

the purpose of this thread is not to discuss "Western hypocrisy", but to discuss whether non-Western democracies may pursue a value based foreign policy, so please stay on topic otherwise I'll have to close the thread.

Who decides the values? Are those values fixed and unchanging or they open to adjustment over time? Are those values subject to interpretation in the eye of the beholder or is there only one interpretation that is allowed?

Well, "values" are by definition somewhat vague and flexible - the method of realising them will vary.

[Indy Texas]

I'm not sure the example of the US is a particularly good endorsement of that strategy.

We have promoted democracy and human rights to varying degrees and have never applied those standards consistently. So you end up with it being a problem that people in Cuba who speak out against the government are put in jail, but for some reason it's not a problem when that happens to people in Saudi Arabia. And as a result, people in other countries largely don't take us seriously on those issues anyway.

Trying to promote democracy and human rights in Afghanistan and Iraq was done at the expense of trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives. It wasn't worth it. If Iraqis had really wanted to be rid of Saddam Hussein, they'd have gotten rid of him themselves. If Afghans really cared about their daughters being able to go to school, they'd have defended their rights to do so. India or Brazil would be crazy to embark on a misadventure of that scale.