Why the global democratic alliance is nothing more than a Western fantasy
- The
West likes to argue that market capitalism and political liberalism go
hand in hand; in reality, the former has proved far more powerful than
the latter
- Having
made countries around the world economically interdependent, the West
should not expect them to jeopardise their global links by taking
political sides
Li Xing
Why is the world so divided over such a simple issue of political correctness in Russia’s invasion of a sovereign state? The answer lies in the contradiction between the West’s two inherent identities which tends to generate double standards when dealing with global affairs.
These two identities are “market capitalism” and “political liberalism”. The former refers to the capitalist mode of production, characterised by private ownership, capital accumulation, profit pursuit, surplus value and the like. The latter is a system of norms and values based on individual civil rights, democracy, secularism, rule of law, and political, economic and religious freedom. Proponents of liberalism argue that the world would be peaceful if every country became a democracy, because “democratic states rarely, if ever, go to war with one another”.
Western ideologists believe there is a positive interconnection between these two systems: the success of the former will lead to the latter, while the achievement of the latter will further facilitate the former. The West’s victory in the Cold War is heralded as a mark of the global triumph of these two systems. Regarding the first, the victory indicates that Western market capitalism is ubiquitous and powerful. Economic growth in the form of wealth-seeking and self-enrichment is regarded as a common desire among all people. “High living standards” and “material well-being” are seen not merely as Western values but universal ones.
Yes, sanctions hurt Russia, but they also contribute to disruptions in global supply chains, higher global commodity prices and a slowdown in global economic growth. As market capitalism’s law of value becomes the survival mechanism of every society, few countries would risk the loss of the Chinese market and the negative impact of sanctioning Russia for the sake of “defending democracy against autocracy”
Having lived in the West for decades, I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with Western identities as such. The problem lies in the contradiction between them, so that whenever a choice has to be made between them, the law of value always takes priority, while liberal values are optional. Many double-standard policies of the West are a result of this contradiction, which is why the world is divided today.
- - -
Professor Li Xing is director of the Research Centre on Development and International Relations, Department of Politics and Society, at Aalborg University, Denmark
12 Jan, 2023
US President Joe Biden has framed the Ukraine war as a battle between “democracy and autocracy”, while also claiming that “the West is now stronger, more united than it has ever been”.
During a recent visit to Taiwan, former Danish leader and Nato secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that, when combined, the world’s democracies represent 60 per cent of the global economy, providing an overwhelming deterrence to Beijing’s ambitions regarding Taiwan.
The irony is that, if we
applied this logic to the Ukraine war, the US and Europe would have
already won. In reality, the question is why there is no global
democratic alliance on the war, with two of the world’s largest
democracies, India and Indonesia, preferring not to take sides or
calling for negotiations.
Contrary to Biden and
Rasmussen’s postulations, the Ukraine war is widening the global
disparity between attitudes to the US, China and Russia. Cambridge
University recently released a report that merges data from 30 global
surveys spanning 137 countries. It found that, “Among the 1.2 billion people who inhabit the world’s liberal democracies, three-quarters (75 per cent) now hold a negative view of China, and 87 per cent
a negative view of Russia. However, for the 6.3 billion people who live
in the rest of the world, the picture is reversed. In these societies,
70 per cent feel positively towards China, and 66 per cent positively
towards Russia.”
Why is the world so divided over such a simple issue of political correctness in Russia’s invasion of a sovereign state? The answer lies in the contradiction between the West’s two inherent identities which tends to generate double standards when dealing with global affairs.
These two identities are “market capitalism” and “political liberalism”. The former refers to the capitalist mode of production, characterised by private ownership, capital accumulation, profit pursuit, surplus value and the like. The latter is a system of norms and values based on individual civil rights, democracy, secularism, rule of law, and political, economic and religious freedom. Proponents of liberalism argue that the world would be peaceful if every country became a democracy, because “democratic states rarely, if ever, go to war with one another”.
Western ideologists believe there is a positive interconnection between these two systems: the success of the former will lead to the latter, while the achievement of the latter will further facilitate the former. The West’s victory in the Cold War is heralded as a mark of the global triumph of these two systems. Regarding the first, the victory indicates that Western market capitalism is ubiquitous and powerful. Economic growth in the form of wealth-seeking and self-enrichment is regarded as a common desire among all people. “High living standards” and “material well-being” are seen not merely as Western values but universal ones.
Since
the end of the Cold War, West-driven globalisation has made market
capitalism a truly global system, with every individual and state
operating according to its dominant mode of functioning. Globalisation
has resulted in a complex world structure characterised by
interconnection, interdependence and inter-embedded systems. It
has also led to the fragmentation and decentralisation of production
chains, as well as the worldwide dispersion and integration of the
different segments of these chains.
The
rise of China’s pivotal position in global manufacturing supply chains,
and Russia’s position in the global energy supply chain, are the
outcomes of globalisation and global capitalism. Regarding
the second system, the outcome of the Cold War proves Francis
Fukuyama’s “end of history” thesis, marking “the end point of mankind’s
ideological evolution and the universalisation of Western liberal
democracy as the final form of human government”. Liberalism has gone
beyond the form of an ideology to become a tool used by the West to
maintain and reinforce its status as the global hegemon.
Now,
the underlying assumptions of the West’s dual identities are being
challenged both by the rise of China and by the ongoing Russia-Ukraine
war. Today, there is widespread anxiety in the West that an illiberal
China is becoming one of the world’s dominant powers. The West suffers
from “China syndrome”, a set of psychological symptoms characterised by
fear, hysteria and demonisation. This is because China’s economic success and its global rise do not conform to the interaction between the two identities.
China
is able not only to challenge them, but to offer alternatives with
“Chinese characteristics”, making it a “systemic rival”.When viewing the
coverage of the Ukraine war, it becomes clear that major Western media
outlets acknowledge the fact that the world is divided over the war, and
so is Europe. Some EU countries have only implemented selective
sanctions against Russia, while others have resisted joining the
sanctions, especially those that are dependent on Russia’s energy
supply.
Yes, sanctions hurt Russia, but they also contribute to disruptions in global supply chains, higher global commodity prices and a slowdown in global economic growth. As market capitalism’s law of value becomes the survival mechanism of every society, few countries would risk the loss of the Chinese market and the negative impact of sanctioning Russia for the sake of “defending democracy against autocracy”
Having lived in the West for decades, I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with Western identities as such. The problem lies in the contradiction between them, so that whenever a choice has to be made between them, the law of value always takes priority, while liberal values are optional. Many double-standard policies of the West are a result of this contradiction, which is why the world is divided today.
- - -
Professor Li Xing is director of the Research Centre on Development and International Relations, Department of Politics and Society, at Aalborg University, Denmark