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?

[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.

[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.