The Economist reports on a China-sponsored forum, July 1-3, offering alternatives to the West’s allegedly self-serving values. The “global north” was accused of imposing its model of democracy; support for Ukraine’s resistance to Russia was criticized as impeding peace; security was put forth as the true “universal” need. China’s effort aims to mount a threat that matters more than many realize. America’s response bears serious thought.
First, we need not apologize for our values. As the Economist’s report notes, “Transparent rule, free speech and independent courts are not … tenets of some alien, Western religion.” That said, “As in 1945, universal values need defending from first principles.”
Americans might make the Economist’s point a bit differently. For us, those governing tenets are not universal values in themselves, but means to tie government to our own core value, the universal and unalienable rights of all persons.
The voices criticizing the West in Beijing came from rulers and governing class members of the various countries, not from the ranks of the governed. They have a vested interest in “diverse” (often non-democratic) forms of government, as they rule over people whose leeway to give or withhold consent they often suppress, or deliberately attenuate. The Chinese Communist Party held the event to weaken our appeal and justify their own vested ruling interests. What are their arguments?
One will certainly cite Western conduct that contradicts our own values. Has the West, including America, always promoted them in our doings? No, and not always as “lesser evil” choices forced on us by difficult circumstances. To some extent the Beijing rhetoric represents the wages of our sins. Defense of universal values going forward will require our own conscientious observance of the principles we claim. This does not mean renouncing our tangible interests – freedom requires security and material well-being. It does require thoughtful, extra efforts to reconcile creed and need if they clash.
Does NATO’s tolerance of Turkey and Hungary in their regression from democratic practice show that the alliance serves our dominance over Russia, or defends free societies? Does security collaboration with communist Vietnam against China raise the same question? Is it time to start restructuring our alliances, to ensure that our core values do not get lost in entanglements that contradict them?
Might China and the global south note that the well-established democracies are all wealthy nations, and call our “value system” a mere pursuit of wealth? The correlation is largely true, but no one adopted the principles for the sake of wealth. Rather, taking a definition from economist Amartya Sen, freedom and development are both the “expansion of the ‘capabilities’ of persons to lead the kind of lives they value – and have reason to value.” Wealth does expand that capacity, and that freedom, conversely, tend to increase wealth. But the point of a society of rights is for people to have, and grow, that capacity to live by their own lights. Defending the universal values will call for the well-off and free not only to argue with China’s ideologues, but to nurture Sen’s development-as-freedom wherever we feasibly can.
Any nurturing, though, must be accompanied by humility and rigorous adherence to our principles as we engage with others. If we condition assistance to a country on free and fair elections, but ignore the conditions that drive that society’s voting habits, our values look like window dressing, not true motive. Where we treat repressive regimes as friends because they serve our less-noble interests, we commit hypocrisy. Conversely, where a less than democratic regime meets its population’s needs and receives broad if passive acquiescence to its authority, we must assess the possibility that that regime might enable freedom’s growth. We must weigh that against hard costs or benefits of dealing with those actors. We cannot simply take license from a lack of damning evidence, to pursue our selfish interests in relations with them.
For Americans, such disciplines would serve a vital interest. The Declaration conceived the nation by our holding of certain “self-evident” truths, of personal rights and government that exists to secure those rights. We further believe that all persons are equally endowed with the unalienable rights. So we cannot ignore oppressions or deprivations that block anyone’s development in freedom. At the bottom of it all we must, for our own lives and to validate our creed, live well by its tenets.
If we validate our founding creed, defend the nations that live by its ethos, nurture its progress where people seek that growth, and encourage those who wish to overcome the obstacles, we clearly put ourselves on the side of people rather than regimes. The critics in Beijing will lose their case – possibly some will see this and the wiser rulers will alter their stance, for their own interest. Our friends are the governed and, if we exemplify our values well, regimes may see an advantage in accommodating the people in their rights. Freedom set loose might grow, and that would defuse anyone’s hostility to us.
Common Conviction 