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

[CumbrianLefty]

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.

Whilst you are not totally wrong, it takes an awful lot of courage to rise up against a totalitarian state like Saddam's was - and wasn't there an uprising post the 1991 war, which we let him crush?

[Pres Mike]

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.

This is the biggest point. I sincerly think the US should form a league of democracies but that is really hard when the US isn't consistent. We shouldn't be allies with Saudi Arabia. The US needs to be more even handed in the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Of course, no one that can make up for the US invading Iraq.

[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.

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

At least you concede that you're hypocritical while your whole post is an exercise in hypocrisy. You're condoning India's actions while you certainly wouldn't condone the same actions by China or Brazil.

Of course, in your case this is because you're Indian and a strong supporter of India and Modi, so of course whatever they do is acceptable. This is actually another point of hypocrisy, for this forum in particular, but is indicative of Western foreign policies. This forum believes that to be an real immigrant to the US, one needs to assimilate into American culture and leave behind the old country, and likes to claim that I'm a CCP agent or whatever because I refuse to. I actually think this is a reasonable "rule", but then why does this forum accept OSR, when he's clearly Indian and clearly has not left India behind, as he's posted to support the caste system, defend Indian assassinations of Sikh activists, and support the construction of the new Ram temple? Is it because OSR is on your "team" and I'm not on your "team"? What happened to your "rule" here, if you can bend it at will to support who you want to based on arbitrary considerations?

[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

At least you concede that you're hypocritical while your whole post is an exercise in hypocrisy. You're condoning India's actions while you certainly wouldn't condone the same actions by China or Brazil.

Of course, in your case this is because you're Indian and a strong supporter of India and Modi, so of course whatever they do is acceptable. This is actually another point of hypocrisy, for this forum in particular, but is indicative of Western foreign policies. This forum believes that to be an real immigrant to the US, one needs to assimilate into American culture and leave behind the old country, and likes to claim that I'm a CCP agent or whatever because I refuse to. I actually think this is a reasonable "rule", but then why does this forum accept OSR, when he's clearly Indian and clearly has not left India behind, as he's posted to support the caste system, defend Indian assassinations of Sikh activists, and support the construction of the new Ram temple? Is it because OSR is on your "team" and I'm not on your "team"? What happened to your "rule" here, if you can bend it at will to support who you want to based on arbitrary considerations?

Except I support the US being the hegemon and do not support India replacing the US while you want the US’s hegemon to be replaced . Funny how you never ever seem to accept this fact then accuse others of engaging in your behavior but sorry we aren’t the same , as I want the US to remain the hegemon for as long as possible .

As for my other posts such as the Ram mandir , you fail to differentiate between Hindu and Indian . Ram Mandir was a moment for Hindus and btw I support the Temple Mount being rebuilt too so it’s not like I only support this for Hindus. The same is true with the law Newsom vetoed as that would specify Hindus out and I’m not a hypocrite on the latter given I supported the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Colorado baker too . I generally do take pro free market positions and that California law went against it which is why half the CA GOP voted against it as well.

On the Sikh assassinations, your point is wrong as I defended it for Canada but not the US because Trudeau obviously was using it for political points against the Tories . The point I made in the other thread was this is an India thing not a Modi thing so replacing Modi won’t change this . If investigations found out India did this then yes I’d support putting tarrifs on India as a punishment for them doing it and said so in the thread