The Limits of Western Moral and Political Credibility – Amr Hamzawy

Western universities are organizing seminars and conferences to discuss the rise of populist politicians and the success of their parties in parliamentary and presidential elections in Europe and the U.S. Most of the ideas put forward to explain the rise and the factors that explain the success of populism are based on the complex crisis facing democratic principles around the world.

On the one hand, the United States and some European countries, led by Britain and France, continue to rush to use military tools in ways that are contrary to democratic values, 1) in the context of the ongoing war on terror, considering the necessity of combining “drone” and missile strikes … to help countries in the Arab-Islamic world and some parts of West Africa whose environments are vulnerable to terrorism and violence to piece together the fragments of their countries, establish the rule of law, and fight poverty, backwardness and extremism through serious development efforts, or 2) in the context of undermining the sovereignty of some countries and splitting their nation-states, as happened in Afghanistan. Or direct military intervention in civil wars, as was the case in Somalia in the 1990s, or a limited military role limited to air strikes and arming some local groups to resolve power struggles, and then leaving the problem to absurd wars that everyone opposes 3) or in the context of using military bases to protect despotic and dictatorial governments and keep them alive, because they guarantee the vital interests of the West and bring democracy, human rights and freedom to hell.

On the other hand, in exchange for the eagerness to use military tools in the context of the above contradiction with democratic values, the West is unwilling to mobilize its armies, fleets and aircraft carriers to prevent or stop massacres, genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and religious wars when they occur in areas without great strategic importance, and impose their bloody maps on countries where the West has no vital interests. Thus, the West denies the remaining moral and humanitarian obligations it declared at the end of the Second World War (1939-1945), which ended with the defeat of the Nazi and fascist governments and the liberation of humanity from their terrible crimes, including the preservation of the rights of human life, self-determination and world peace of nations and peoples, and never allowing the recurrence of atrocities such as genocide, arson, murder, destruction and violation.

Third, the United States of America and its European allies have not given up their persistent desire to dominate the world by imposing scientific, technological, economic and commercial dependence on non-Western countries and by continuing to develop and produce conventional military equipment and weapons of mass destruction, and by engaging many countries in the arms race, arms exports and the provision of “protection” in exchange for military bases and facilities, and by constantly promoting the discourse of Western superiority. As a result, humanity has never suffered such a large number of civil wars, massacres, genocides, terrorism and acts of violence, nor has it ever reached the current level of adoption of conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction.

Fourth, because the West prefers to dominate the world, to subject its countries to the collective progress of human equilibrium, to achieve sustainable development of its countries and peoples, to eradicate poverty, backwardness and ignorance, to escape the evils of war, terrorism, violence, genocide and other atrocities, and to cooperate scientifically, technologically and humanitarianly in the face of environmental dangers, natural disasters and health challenges (such as AIDS and Ebola) that transcend the borders of nation-states, the United States and Europe. Development support policies and programs for the transfer of scientific, technological and industrial knowledge to non-Western countries are often promoted as a direct translation of democratic universal values, but have only produced some positive results – I define it here as the transformation of non-Western countries from dependence on the United States and Europe and from being perpetual consumers of Western products to participating in the competition of scientific, technological and industrial progress, which is what Japan and South Korea achieved in the second half of the twentieth century, and is being achieved today by China, India and to a lesser extent by some other Asian countries such as Malaysia and Brazil in the Latin continent.

Fifth, the crisis of democratic principles and the continued decline in their observance in countries outside the West are linked to the emergence of major alternative ideas, whose social and political efficacy is growing in the imagination and reality of many countries and peoples. The most prominent representative of these ideas is the “authoritarian development” presented by the contemporary experience of the Chinese giant, which has achieved impressive growth rates of GDP since the 1990s (7 to 11% per year), sustainable development based on high levels of science and technology, productivity in the industrial and agricultural sectors, high competitiveness, substantial improvements in economic and social conditions, living conditions of the broad masses of the people and basic services (at present). China’s population is approaching 1.4 million), it has developed a vast network of global economic and trade relations, the balance of which is tilted in its favor, thus accumulating financial resources and wealth unprecedented in contemporary history. The role of the United States in its Asian neighbors, the various power centers associated with Japan, India and Eurasian Prussia, is gaining increasing influence, and its global role is being concretized within the framework of full equality with the United States and the European West. The experience of the Chinese giant, and therefore its description as authoritarian development, is based on a comprehensive disengagement between scientific, technological and industrial progress and the competitiveness of a free market economy, and the adoption of national values ​​associated with democracy. The rule of law, the protection of human rights and freedoms, the rotation of power, pluralistic political and party life, and the protection of minorities. Therefore, as well as its global commitment to the maintenance of international peace and security, and not to engage in military conflicts and armed wars (except for some wars on the Asian continent in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, the most obvious of which were the Korean War and the Vietnam War, which was triggered by US military intervention), it presents a model that is, on the one hand, antithetical to Western democracy, and on the other hand its appeal lies in its economic and social effectiveness. On the other hand, it is consistent with lofty global values ​​such as the maintenance of peace and the rejection of war, which go beyond the empty claims of the US and European West.