European "values"

The emperor has no clothes

Dear Global Jigsaw,

I’ve lived in Europe for close to 8 years, time divided between Spain and Brussels- the headquarters of the European Union.

For anyone writing about foreign policy from these shores, there is one word that bestrides the discourse like a virtue-signaling colossus- values. All roads in European foreign policy discussion lead to destinations that share this moniker: “values-based diplomacy,” “values-based leadership,” “shared values.”

The Russia-Ukraine war had European leaders doubling down on values talk: variations of the idea that “our” (European/Western) values should never be compromised when dealing with nations that stand against these values, like Russia and China. In contrast, “shared values” are the basis for suggesting alliances with other “like-minded” players like India or Japan.

Now, Israel’s brutal punitive attacks on Gaza, have muddied the water somewhat. Fault lines have emerged on how best to stand up for European “values” between countries like Spain and Ireland on the one side, and Germany, along with some other eastern-bloc countries, on the other. The former have centered the slaughter in Gaza as the chief moral concern to which Europe must respond, while for the latter, any criticism of Israel is tantamount to antisemitism, and therefore anything but unqualified support for the latter would be immoral.  

But there are some key questions that must be asked about European values before bandying about the phrase as the basis for Europe’s identity on the global stage.

o   What exactly are these values? How can we break them down?

o   Are these European values, “Western values,” or universal values?

o   If they are not upheld by some countries- should these countries be forced into adopting the same values because they are purportedly universal?

o   What about if governments that are democratically elected hold values at odds with Europeans values? In other words, how should Europe react when there is tension between the value of democracy and others values, like freedom of faith or protection of sexual minorities?

o   How do non-European/non-Western societies view “European values?” Is their perception in consonance with the self-perception in Europe?

o   Colonialism was based on the ideas that European countries needed to export their civilization/values to primitive parts of the world. Is Europe’s global promotion of its values a modern-day extension of the “white man’s burden?”

Broadly speaking, contemporary European “values” refer to the following: human rights, rule of law, freedom of speech, democracy and secularism. The path to arriving at this particular constellation of virtues is understood as having started with the Greeks, on to the Romans, into the Enlightenment and industrial revolution, through the “bad” phases of colonialism and the 20^th century World Wars, until the European Union is arrived at: a morally assured entity, cleansed of the sins of the past, and ready to take on the mantle of “values based,” (rather than military) leadership.

Secularism

Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism and Jainism are all non-theistic religions, that gave the societies where they flourished secular foundations long before Europe discovered this value. They were already secular in the sense that there was no all-powerful God in these philosophical systems who determined the parameters of good and evil. Instead, they devoted intellectual effort at outlining the best, most ethical ways, to live a good life.

Confucianism is distinguished by its legalism. It is a set of precepts prescribing social and political arrangements between the ruler and citizens, as well as between citizens and amongst families. The rule of law has a special place in Confucianism, for the ruler is not capricious, but bound by a strict moral code

A religions like Hinduism is polyvalent. Dissent and argumentation are intrinsic to its philosophical universe. Unlike in Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions, there is no one right way of right thinking prescribed in a revealed book. Instead, the validity of several ways of thinking is acknowledged.

The charvakas, for example, were an ancient school of thinkers within the Hindu fold who were self-professed atheists. They were pure materialists who held that direct perception and empiricism were the only valid sources of knowledge.

Europe may consider itself to be a “leader” in the value of secularism and in the protection of minority rights, but arguably Asian countries like India and Indonesia, in fact, have something to teach Europe of these values.

They exemplify an understanding of secularism that is different in texture to Europe’s. In these countries rather than a separation of state and religion, the value of secularism is defined as equal treatment of all religions by the state. Schools and other public institutions in these nations, celebrate all religious festivals rather than keeping a distance from religion.

India’s current leader, Narendra Modi, has not done much to burnish India’s pluralist credentials, causing damage to the country’s traditions of syncretism and diversity. But notwithstanding Mr. Modi, there is still much that Europe can learn from the values of many Asian nations who have successfully balanced multi-religious, multi-ethnic, and polyphonic cultures.

Different parts of the world have their own historical and cultural trajectories, which determine the contours of their social and cultural values. While many of these are consistent with the values that have evolved in Europe, they often differ in emphasis and sources.

Human Rights

Most obviously there are divergences in the balance between priorities given to community versus individual rights. Confucian cultures, in particular, are more community oriented. A high value is ascribed in Confucianism to achieving social harmony, which is prioritized over individual rights.

There is nothing alien, per se, about this idea in Europe. Smoking, for instance is often prohibited in civic spaces, prioritizing the right to a healthy environment of the group, over the individual right to smoke.

Keeping this perspective in mind helps to better understand China’s argument that it has done much for human rights, if looked at from a macro or community, rather than a micro or individual, perspective. After all, it has lifted hundreds of millions people out of poverty in two decades.

Nations are sovereign. For many countries, in particular, former colonies, this sovereignty has been hard won and is fiercely protected. The policy priorities of these countries can often be at variance with those in Europe depending on their religious mores and level of economic development.

For example, in a poor country with a socially conservative culture, the government may choose to focus on economic development and basic healthcare, rather than the rights of sexual minorities.

Again, families in a developing nation might not have the economic privilege of keeping their adolescent children in school and out of the workforce. The “value” of a work-free childhood, focused exclusively on education may not be consonance with the economic realities of every country.

Colonialism

When it comes to how European values are seen in Asia, and indeed in many non-western parts of the world, the history of colonialism is crucial. For while WW-II is the “never again” of Europe, colonialism is the “never again” of the colonized world.  It shapes the actions/perceptions/values of the present, as much as Nazism/Communism shapes those of Europe’s present.

Not only is “Europe” synonymous with colonialism in decolonized parts of the world, the idea of European “values” is seen as particularly problematic given historical antecedents. Colonialism was justified by an appeal to values. Priests and evangelists were all about bringing enlightened values to heathens. And capitalist trading firms were vocal about the “value of free trade.”

Consequently, any broad reference to “European” values of human rights and equity must be tempered by Europe’s colonial past Not every European country was a colonial power, and nor did they all have the same track record as colonialists. But when talking of perceptions it’s important to keep in mind that in Asia, these discriminations between the EU’s different member states are rarely made.

You could call it a kind of reverse racism wherein European countries are lumped together under a generalized suspicion of “the white man.”

Colonialism created or exacerbated the geo-strategic fault lines that remain hotspots today, from Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan, the Congo and beyond.  Moreover, it disrupted the journey of non-European societies along their own path to modernity.

Colonization took place in the 18^th and 19^th centuries. This could have been a time for intellectual and religious reform within these societies on their own terms and inspired by their own sources of traditions. We could have had a constellation of enlightenments; in which case the world would look very different today.

Instead, colonized people were denigrated, in some cases deracinated and encouraged to adopt alien mores. This created gaping social gulfs within colonized societies, the outcome of which continue to play out in contemporary politics. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, for example, makes nativistic appeals to those sections of Indian societies who feel little connect with the “westernized” liberal elites who ruled India for much of her post-independence years.

Cold War

Western “values” hardly presented themselves as noble during the Cold War period either. These values essentially boiled down as anti-communism regardless of the cost in terms of human lives or indeed, morality. Guised in the rhetoric of human rights, liberty and freedom, NATO supported dictators around the world, assassinated leaders who were left-leaning and unleashed wars that killed countless civilians.

The conflicts in the Middle East have a direct line back to western “values.”

Europe’s amnesia about its own leading role as perpetrator when talking about wars and atrocities in other parts of the world without the consciousness of the role of European countries in having enabled, and even encouraged, many of these horrors, is problematic. And unless it is remembered, acknowledged and made an explicit part of its dealings with the rest of the world- it will mean that any ambitions Europe has for moral leadership in the world- will remain only for a domestic audience.

To those still suffering in the long shadow of having been subjugated and brutalized, often for centuries, colonialism is not some distant, largely benign, regrettably racist --but understandably so, given the context-- phenomenon, with no bearing on their sense of self and environment.

Outside Europe, the EU is not seen as something that is so different from its member states. It might think of itself as new creature untainted by the sins of the past, but the average person in India, for example, doesn’t even know what the EU is. It is not taught in our education system. What we learn about is British colonialism, French colonialism, and Dutch colonialism and how our nation was beggared and belittled by Europeans whose only values were self-gain.

Ultimately an emphasis on values as the basis for Europe’s actions in the world is at best a strategy that works as a virtue signaling mechanism to domestic audiences/NGOs. It is not useful as the basis of attempted global leadership. For if the claim is to moral leadership, that morality needs to be acknowledged by that one claim to lead. Self-proclamations of moral leadership might have worked when Europe was a pre-eminent power. In a multipolar world such a position only seems naïve at best, or hypocritical at worst. 

The Way Forward

The way forward for Europe will be to learn to live with differences, including with nations that espouse different value systems, by agreeing on the rules of engagement. The nations of the world are not going to suddenly share all the same values.  And there are many who do not believe that Europe has the moral standing to claim the title for defender of global human rights for itself.

What is needed, is to figure out a basic set of rules that everyone can play by. To agree to disagree, except on the rules that adjudicate those disagreements.

But, arriving at this framework will requires real compromise. It cannot be a set of rules that only Europe thinks is fair, because others may have a different sense of what constitutes fairness. Any functional framework will have to genuinely take on board non-European actors with interests and goals that may well be divergent to those of Europe’s. The resulting set of rules will likely disadvantage Europe compared to the advantages it has had in the past. But this is a necessary, inevitable, corrective.

The world has not been equal - leading to severe distortions in prosperity and development. So, to claim a common set of rules when the starting point for different countries is totally uneven, is morally wrong.

The challenge for Europe will be getting domestic audiences to accept their place among equals, when they have become used to the false narrative of being the moral saviors of a corrupt and immoral world, in need of the freedoms that only European values can bring. 

Instead of trying to establish itself as a normative power, the way forward for Europe is to undertake an exercise in genuine empathy. In putting itself in the shoes of others, by understanding not only their current difficulties, but also the complex and confounding roots of those difficulties, as well as an acknowledgement of the role of its own member states in creating, or worsening, those difficulties.

A new manifesto for European values should emphasize reconciliation as its core value. After all the European project has kept in check the fear, prejudices, and violence that have characterized relations between the warring empires and states of Europe the continent centuries. The ideas embedded in the European Union of inclusion, openness, peace, and prosperity are powerful ones, that will resonate afar.

The spirit of reconciliation that underlay the creation of the European Project needs to be extended beyond Europe’s own borders, to other parts of the world that have been damaged directly, or indirectly, by the EU’s member states. Other values should include solidarity, but at a global level, which would include an appreciation of the ambitions of other countries.  

Realpolitik

Beyond these values, there should also be transparency in recognizing the valid, and inescapable, role of realpolitik in foreign affairs. Ultimately, it is impossible for nations to act wholly altruistically on the global stage. The national economic interests of different parts of the world, for example, can be harmonized to an extent, but there will be unavoidable contradictions too.

These should be acknowledged transparently. While defending a nation or region’s vested interests, honesty is the way forward. To hide behind a rhetorical cloak of values only signals to the rest of the world that the emperor has no clothes.

xxxx

Thanks for reading this rather long polemic. Would love to know what you think. Do comment and please share with others. Finally, could I ask you to subscribe to The Global Jigsaw? Its only the price of a monthly cup of coffee. And when I’m banging away at the desk every week, I really appreciate that coffee :-)

Till soon,

Pallavi