It is no surprise to me how the international political class has reacted to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Russia has always been hated because of the threat it poses to the international order.
Since the end of World War II, the West, centred around America, has considered itself the moral arbiter of the world and has pushed for the spread of democratic, individual values in the belief that world peace and harmony requires a world that shares the same values.
This is not a new idea. Immanuel Kant proposed this idea in his book, Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch in which he believed that if every nation was a constitutional republic with a democratic system then their understanding of constitutional rights and democratic freedoms in domestic politics could be translated into their diplomatic methods. Therefore, a community of constitutional republics would become an international democratic order that adheres to a universal constitution.
Of course, there were different ideas about how this should be achieved. Joseph Nye believed that this could be done through what he called ‘soft power’: using culture and media along with economic liberalisation and free trade to attract countries to political democratisation. That was the reason for the trade deals with China. It was based on optimism that, just as the opening of the Soviet economy to world trade had led to the collapse of the USSR, Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms in the ’90s which opened up the Chinese market to the world would teach the Chinese the benefits of freedom and liberty and would lead to democracy. There were already several test cases for this: Hong Kong and Taiwan opened up their economy and democratised their political system.
There was a hope that this would happen with nations such as Russia and China. However, this has dismally failed. Even former American ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley admitted this in a recent talk.
This optimism was based on ‘the end of history’ proposed by Francis Fukuyama. In his 1992 book The End of History and the Last Man he argued that a new age of Western liberal democracy would be the final stage of human evolution after the fall of the Soviet Union. This was opposed by Samuel P Huntington who argued for a ‘clash of civilisations’. In his 1996 book The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order, he argued that the collapse of the USSR would lead to a new conflict along religious and cultural lines. This would not be a war between countries but rather between different societies or civilisations.
This is why it shouldn’t be a surprise that we are seeing the different responses to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The Western liberal democracies see an authoritarian regime invading a democratic country. This is despite the violations of human rights and sovereignty committed by said Western liberal democracies in their quest to spread human rights and values. This included arbitrary detention without trial, assassinations, the killings of civilians, overthrowing governments, kidnappings, torture and spying on civilians, described as ‘active measures’ by Dick Cheney.
But what are the values that are being pushed? They include feminism, racial equity, multiculturalism and LGBT rights. This can be traced back to the individualistic culture of the West which conflicts with the collectivist culture of the East.
Unlike the Western idea of individual liberty, rights and the pursuit of pleasure, the East emphasises the duties, obligations and responsibilities each has to their family, clan and community. Therefore, they are more likely to support traditional values and would be reluctant to change society as quickly. They would also be more willing to consider the majority rather than the minority as they consider what is good for the whole rather than for the few.
However, in saying that, another difference is that the Western liberal democracies believe in spreading their ideas because they are convinced of their moral superiority while the rest still believe in sovereignty and statehood despite their differences in culture. Why this difference? Possibly because the Western democracies have been isolated so have only known their own culture, whereas the other cultures in the East have interacted with each other for over two millenia. They share similar values with some minor differences and are therefore willing to work together. They also recognise that there are distinct identities that cannot be taken away, so therefore the East are willing to recognise and fight for their identity.
For a long time, the liberal order was able to do this through military alliances such as NATO and through trade relations and the SWIFT banking system. In exchange for trade and alliances with the Western liberal democracies, each country had to adopt those Western values even if they were at odds with their own.
The reason that Russia is so hated is because of the threat they pose to the western liberal order. Not geographically but ideologically.
And they are not the only country to challenge the values being introduced. India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and even China reject the values that the West repeatedly pushes. One major example of this is the attempts at democratisation which are not openly discussed in such cases as the ‘War on Terror’ and how ultimately it was rejected by the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. They also would not have appreciated that the American Embassy in Kabul flew a rainbow flag during Pride Month or the George Floyd mural. This could explain why a recent Pew Research poll showed 79% of Aghanistan’s people supported the Taliban.
Another explanation is that it is a backlash to the attempts at secularisation that the West has attempted to impose on these countries that still revere some deity or God. The people have enjoyed the benefits of the virtues of their religion, which gives them a sense of purpose, meaning and wellbeing as well as keeping the community together. Therefore, they would not appreciate the attempts by the West to destroy their beliefs.
Perhaps this is why we are seeing a decline in Western influence in the Middle East and Southeast Asian regions? The same reason the ‘Eastern bloc’ has supported Russia and vehemently resisted NATO and the EU could be because there are people who don’t want a bar of the values being pushed by the liberal democracies.
I would suggest that there will be two new world orders arising. One would be the Western, secular, liberal order which seems to focus more on minorities and the individual, and which believes in spreading their values. The other is the traditional, collectivist order that believes in respecting different identities. It is interesting that since Russia has been kicked out of the SWIFT banking system, they have turned to join the alternative banking and financial system set up by China in which other countries have also expressed interest, perhaps proving that we are seeing the decline of the liberal international order.
