Valdai Club

The selective stigmatisation of some countries while partnerships are maintained with others which are no more virtuous is detrimental to the image of the Western bloc; it will inevitably lead to growing accusations of hypocrisy against the United States and its allies, undermining their claims to embody moral virtue, and the increasing provincialisation and isolation of the West, Natalia Rutkevich writes.

“Gender and hybrid threats”, “Gender and resilience”, “Gender and military-political deterrence”, “Gender and climate change” – conferences on these topics were organised during 2022-2023 not by the social sciences department of one of the universities on the East Coast of the United States, but by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

These topics, unexpected for a military organisation, have been addressed in recent years by representatives of the Pentagon and US State Department, as well as the leadership of influential US think tanks almost as often as by university researchers, NGOs, international organisations and the media. A certain feminisation of the military sphere is also noticeable: female leaders such as former Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas are increasingly acting as defenders of “enlightened militarism.”

According to one of the reports of the organisation, “gender factors have become essential to understand the causes of conflicts. Better knowledge of these factors will help NATO anticipate and adapt to threats, as well as withstand, respond to and recover from strategic shocks.” Now NATO positions itself as a champion of the rights of women, sexual and ethnic minorities, regularly expressing concern about their well-being in a number of countries.

Even more paradoxically, these slogans are being heard from representatives of the military industry. Thus, the motto of the world’s largest weapons manufacturer, US-based Lockheed Martin, is “Diversity and inclusion are the foundation of our culture, and reflect our values of doing what's right, respecting others and performing with excellence.” It is not much different from the mottos of other commercial, financial, and political organisations that in every possible way demonstrate their commitment to the principles of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

These values, which arose several decades ago in political activism circles and evolved into scientific doctrines, have eventually become a kind of official ideology, and therefore their introduction, including into military structures, was only a matter of time.

It should be noted that the use of human rights vocabulary and the involvement of human rights organisations in the foreign policy of states in the West is not new. A significant convergence of the human rights movement and State Department policy has been going on since the beginning of World War II. As CNRS expert Nicholas Guilhot noted in his seminal study in the postwar period and in the context of the fight against communism, the human rights movement evolved from a force opposed to the hegemonic order into Washington’s partner in promoting that order.

Democracy itself, traditionally understood as the expansion of autonomy and civic participation, became during that period a “set of good practices” defined in Western centres and subject to export, and humanitarian organisations began to play a central role in the development of a normative form of governance subordinated to neoliberal logic and its liberal promotion.

However, today the slogans that were previously used to justify military interventions – promoting democracy, fighting terrorism, the responsibility to protect (R2P) – have been discredited in several extremely unsuccessful operations and, from the perspective of the Western powers, need to be updated. NATO’s rebranding was in keeping with both the spirit of the times and the need for further development.

The main message of the leading organisations of the Western bloc remains the same – the imposition of rules approved by this bloc. However, when the justification for the promotion of these rules (even by military interventions) was democratisation, it simply meant changing the political system. When claims concern respect for social rights, then the change must concern the entire structure of society, the family, the status of women, gender relations, etc.

The roots of this desire to unify the whole world according to its own standards are seen primarily in the messianic sense of chosenness inherent in Protestantism. These features have been clearly visible in the American identity and American politics for a long time and are recorded, in particular, in statements by top US officials:

In his most famous work on Protestantism, Max Weber pointed out that for the chosen persons – saints by definition – the awareness of divine grace does not at all imply a benevolent and condescending attitude towards the sins of others, based on an understanding of one’s own weakness. On the contrary, chosenness is combined with an attitude of hatred and contempt for those whom they consider rejected by God, marked with the stamp of eternal curse.

Although today Protestantism as such has greatly lost its position, it has degenerated into its civil version, a secular religion, which is expressed both in the domestic and foreign policy of the United States and that bloc that is now commonly called the “Collective West.”

American sociologist Joseph Bottum calls this ideology “post-Protestant ethics,” while French demographer Emmanuel Todd calls it “zombie Protestantism.” According to the latter, the ideas of superiority and chosenness still determine the policy of the West, rallied around more aggressively because the Western bloc feels threatened.

Using the theme of social rights gives the West new arguments to fight undesirable regimes, the opportunity to brand them as vicious, reactionary and intolerant, and justify various interventions, sanctions and other pressure in the eyes of the Western public. These arguments are supported and developed by the media and resonate with the general public, as the sensitivity to issues of gender equality, diversity, minorities and climate change is now instilled from school.

This has been the most important turning point in the socio-political life of Europe. While during the Cold War the European left gathered millions of protests against US militarism and the deployment of Pershing II missiles and cruise missiles in Europe, little remains of this radical opposition today.

The new consensus among researchers, the dominant media, their target audiences and the ruling circles is to consolidate an approach in which any deviations from the normative package of values are branded as reactionary, and the cultural unification of the planet is carried out through the use of the Western soft power, military interventions and diplomatic pressure. This approach involves bringing social rights and values to the forefront in dealing with international adversaries.

Thus, in 2022, Washington cancelled planned negotiations with the Taliban due to the fact that the movement did not open schools for girls. Virtually all speeches by Western politicians and media on Afghanistan since 2021 have focused on the plight of Afghan women and girls. The destruction of a mural depicting George Floyd in Kabul also received widespread publicity; it was interpreted as a clear manifestation of racial intolerance. Of course, all these topics are raised only in relation to certain partners – surprisingly little is heard in the Western media about the fate of Saudi girls or minorities living in the country.

This new “imperialism by virtue” may turn out to be an even riskier undertaking than the forced democratisation carried out earlier, since it seeks, de facto, the complete destruction of national cultures and characteristics.

French legal scholar Alain Supiot calls this attitude “Western fundamentalism” and warns of its dangers it prevents for the West itself. “Western messianism lies in the fact that human rights are seen as a new Decalogue, a text that "developed’ societies reveal to developing ones, leaving them no choice but ‘catch-up development’ and imitation. I call this messianism fundamentalism because it seeks to ensure that the literal interpretation of human rights prevails over all teleological interpretations that they have in the national laws of different countries. The most widely-expected consequence of the fundamentalist interpretation of human rights is the fuelling of anti-Western fundamentalism and, thus, the involvement of human rights ideology in the war of religions. Moreover, Western thought and values themselves will be in danger of degeneration,” writes Alain Supiot.

Many other critical observers in the West warn that the process of aggressive cultural propagation could, over time, lead to the further radicalisation of the countries of the South, not only against America, but also against liberalism and progressivism as such. Already today we see how countries that have few common interests other than hostility to American interference unite- against liberal hegemony in the name of their state and civilisational sovereignty. The selective stigmatisation of some countries while partnerships are maintained with others which are no more virtuous is detrimental to the image of the Western bloc; it will inevitably lead to growing accusations of hypocrisy against the United States and its allies, undermining their claims to embody moral virtue, and the increasing provincialisation and isolation of the West.