Chapter 19 3. The general dilemma of "universal values"

To deconstruct Western discourse, we must first deconstruct the so-called "universal values" that many people in the West insist on.Some Western countries claim that certain values ​​defined unilaterally by themselves are "universal", and promote them through various means, even resorting to force, causing turmoil in many parts of the world.In fact, for "universal values" to be "universal", we must first solve a procedural problem. "Universal values", as the name suggests, should be values ​​acceptable to all countries and peoples in the world, but precisely on this issue, the international community has never reached a consensus.

Western governments and mainstream media often say that democracy, freedom, and human rights are "universal values", but people can ask a simple question: In addition to democracy, freedom, and human rights as "universal values" recognized by the West, are there other values ​​in the world? What value can be "universal value"?For example, most people in the world probably agree that "peace" should be a "universal value", but major Western countries, especially the United States, do not accept this.For another example, can values ​​such as "harmony", "benevolence", "responsibility" and "poverty eradication" that the Chinese highly value become "universal values"?If so, what should be the next step?If not, what is the reason?First of all, a procedural issue is involved: there are so many countries in the world with such diverse cultures and value systems, which values ​​can become "universal values"?Which values ​​cannot become "universal values"?There should always be a process of selection and selection that everyone can accept, and all countries in the world should be allowed to express their views.If such a big matter can only be decided by a few Western countries, then how can there be justice and fairness in this world?

In other words, if "universal values" want to be "universal", we must first solve the problem of "procedural legitimacy", and say that something is "universal" and should be accepted by all countries and peoples. , it should be established through a certain procedure generally accepted by the international community, such as convening some international conferences to discuss and even negotiate, and finally form a consensus of the international community to determine which values ​​are shared by all mankind and which are not shared by all mankind of.Only in this way can "universal values" be convincing and truly "universal", and it is possible to prevent a few countries from describing some values ​​defined by themselves as "universal values" out of their own political, economic and strategic interests. world value", and then forcefully sell it to the whole world, even resorting to force and war, causing huge damage to the interests and well-being of the people of other countries.

Another dilemma facing "universal values" is the dilemma of the idea itself.The West says that democracy, freedom, and human rights are "universal values," but this idea does not seem to stand up to too much scrutiny.People may wish to ask: even in Western society, there are all kinds of democracy, freedom, and human rights, so what kind of democracy, freedom, and human rights are "universal values"?For example, should American-style democracy that costs so much money be considered a "democracy" or a "money master"?The United States, which advocates freedom of speech, monitors the online speech and communication of so many American citizens and citizens of other countries at the same time. Is this kind of freedom of speech with American characteristics that the whole world should emulate?As for human rights, did the United States launch the Iraq War to promote human rights in Iraq, as the United States said, or did it seriously violate human rights in Iraq?I am afraid that most people in the world will think that an illegal war that killed more than 100,000 people and displaced millions should be the most serious violation of international law and human rights by force in the 21st century.

In addition, in many fields such as democracy, freedom, and human rights, the international community has not yet reached a consensus.Even in some fields where the international community has formed basic consensus, some major Western countries have not yet accepted these consensus.Taking human rights as an example, most countries in the world have accepted and acceded to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Universal Convention on the Rights of the Child, but the United States refuses to join these conventions.From the point of view of specific human rights, Sweden’s social welfare is based on high taxes, which would be considered as a violation of private property rights in the United States; Britain still has a state religion, and it is a compulsory subject in schools. It is unacceptable in France, which experienced the French Revolution; and the French government’s monopoly on television stations lasted until 1982, which is unacceptable in the United States; similarly, France prohibits Muslim girls from wearing headscarves in classrooms, which is also unacceptable in China. unimaginable.Economic, social and cultural rights have long been universally recognized human rights by the international community, but the United States does not recognize them. This is unimaginable for the vast majority of people in the world.

However, the international community has a long-standing consensus on certain human rights. For example, advocating colonialism and racism is a violation of human rights. However, the Norwegian Nobel Committee still awarded the Peace Prize to "dissidents who publicly advocated that the West has colonized China for 300 years." People" Liu Xiaobo, is this trying to call out the soul of colonialism and racism, or is he ignorant of the most absurd claims of this "dissident"?Frankly speaking, the Nobel Peace Prize jury owes the Chinese people a candid explanation and an apology.

In short, once we make many abstract concepts moderately concrete, we will find that the problem is much more complicated.Some countries like to use abstract concepts to fool people, often behind the consideration of strategic interests at the expense of others.What we should do today is to make abstract concepts moderately specific, and then ask a few whys, so that we will not be fooled by superficial Western words.As for the Western saying that democracy is a "universal value", we can clearly respond: Democracy can be a "universal value", but the democratic system in the West has not been, is not, and will not be a "universal value". .The Western democratic system is the product of the unique culture and history of the Western society, which belongs to "local knowledge". Non-Western countries and societies can learn from the experience and lessons of Western democratic construction, but if they copy the Western democratic model, it is basically copying a , Disappointed one, failed one.Judging from the financial crisis and debt crisis sweeping the West today, it can be seen that the Western democratic system itself has a large number of flaws, which are even hard to recover, and its reform process still has a long way to go.

In addition, in addition to the procedural legitimacy of "universal values" itself, people have to question who in the world should adjudicate violations of human rights.Scholars Richard Gowan and Franziska Brantner of the European Council on International Relations conducted a study. Taking the voting situation of the UN General Assembly in 2010 as an example, they pointed out that 127 of the 192 members of the UN voted successively Against the EU's position on human rights.In the 1990s, the EU's position at the UN could count on 70 percent support, today that has dropped to 42 percent, almost on par with the US's 40 percent.This compares with 69 percent for China and Russia's stance on human rights.The support of the international community on human rights issues can be seen at a glance.In other words, issues such as human rights violations cannot be decided by a few people and countries in the international community, but can only be decided by the people of various countries themselves, and can only be decided by the international community.The era of Western hegemony in the field of human rights is long gone.The West tried to pass an anti-China resolution in the UN Human Rights Commission ten times but failed. This is an example.

Finally, there is the question of whether human rights can transcend sovereignty. The first principle stipulated in the Charter of the United Nations is the principle of sovereign equality of states, which leads to the entire modern international law system based on the principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries and the peaceful settlement of international disputes.From the perspective of the evolution of international law, the international community can only authorize "massive and gross violations of human rights", such as crimes of aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and apartheid. The United Nations must intervene, and such intervention must also be carried out using legal means in accordance with the procedures stipulated by international law.However, some forces in the West always want to be the judges and gendarmes of the world, interfering in the internal affairs of other countries under the pretext that "human rights are above sovereignty", even launching wars.This approach has already violated the human rights of many people in the world. The Iraq war alone has caused many lives and families to be destroyed. One of the important reasons why most countries in the world oppose Western "human rights diplomacy" is that these countries are just like China. , have suffered countless disasters brought about by Western colonialism and imperialism.

In fact, if Western countries really want to promote "human rights above sovereignty", they can start with themselves.For example, the European Union can take the lead in condemning and sanctioning the United States, because the Iraq war launched by the United States is undoubtedly a large-scale violation of human rights; Western countries can also ask the United Nations to pass a resolution to condemn and sanction all Western countries that have not yet achieved equal pay for men and women, including Norway. Countries, because equal pay for men and women for equal work has long been recognized by the international community as a basic human right.If you dare not even make such a request, it can only show that the West is pursuing double standards, that is, the so-called "human rights are higher than sovereignty" is equal to "human rights recognized by the West are higher than the sovereignty of non-Western countries", which is also the hegemony in the field of human rights. Typical manifestation of doctrine.Of course, in 2014, the West also tasted the taste of "lifting a rock and shooting itself in the foot". When Russian President Putin sent troops to Crimea for the same reason, he supported the Russians in Crimea to protect their human rights and passed a referendum. Joining the Russian Federation, at this time the American leader suddenly talked about the inviolability of national sovereignty, and the whole world laughed.

---

Notes: