Liberalism and developing countries
We need to manage the Chinese Dragon alongside the American Eagle & John Bull in a pragmatic way
Leila Yasmine Khan is an independent writer and editor based in the Netherlands Daud Khan a retired UN staff based in Rome. He has degrees in economics from the LSE and Oxford — where he was a Rhodes Scholar
One of the epochal changes of the last decades is the emergence of China as a global power. As China rapidly replaces Europe and the US, there is much dire warning in the Western press of the dangers of dealing with the Chinese Dragon.
In assessing this anti-China rhetoric, let us not forget the record of wars and mayhem in our region and elsewhere caused by Britain, other colonial powers, and the US — all liberal and democratic countries. A glaring example is that of the US going to war to save democratic countries (read Israel) from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and to liberate the Iraqi people from an undemocratic regime. This narrative had strong resonance in Congress, in the Senate, in the popular media and among the general public and created the groundswell of support for the Shock and Awe campaign. In a few weeks, over 1,500 air strikes were launched against Iraq and almost 7,000 civilians were killed.
An important question for Pakistan and other developing countries is: Are these patterns of behaviour simply aberrations in what are otherwise free, peaceful and caring societies? Or are they an integral part of the political systems of these countries? Would things be different if the aggressive tendencies of the deep state and occult elites, such as the military-industrial complex, are harnessed by more democratic institutions? In order to answer this we need to look a little into the political philosophy and social consensus that underpins these societies.
Over the last two to three centuries, the espoused values of freedom, equality, dignity and independence have come to dominate the political and socio-economical mainstream in Europe and the US. This classical liberalism was complemented by shared views on social justice, the welfare state, and a reliance on the free market for the allocation of a society’s resources. The view that the liberal, democratic, free-market system is the best way to organise society is now widely shared in the West.
A somewhat deeper look suggests that aggression and exploitation are not an aberration but are very much part of western liberalism. In their critique to John Rawls’ liberal theory, modern political philosophers such as Charles W Mills, Leif Wenar and Branko Milanovic point out that a liberal society is “a cooperative venture for mutual advantage” regulated by rules for advancing the interests “of those taking part in it”. The practical manifestation of this is that the social commitment to liberal beliefs often tends to translate into a belief that if the system is under threat, or perceived to be under threat, it is legitimate to defend it against others — by violence when necessary. As a result the values of peace, freedom and liberty, which are the pillars of western liberal society, tend not to be extended to countries outside this system. As in the case of the Iraq war, the 9/11 attacks and the perceived threat to democracy, and the western way of life, created an unprecedented wave of popular indignation. It was considered more than sufficient cause to bomb Afghanistan back to the stone-age and to threaten other countries with a similar fate. History abounds with similar examples where liberal societies have had no qualms about going to war with the excuse of bringing civilisation, trade or democracy to other countries. In the same vein, western democracies have no second thoughts about making alliances with repressive and undemocratic regimes whenever it suited them.
The fact that western liberal societies are capable of colonialism and war does not mean that we should abandon our progress towards liberal values such as tolerance, freedom and equality. However, it does mean that we should not get swayed by the anti-China rhetoric of the western press. We need to manage the Chinese Dragon alongside the American Eagle and John Bull in a pragmatic way for the good of the country.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 2nd, 2019.
In assessing this anti-China rhetoric, let us not forget the record of wars and mayhem in our region and elsewhere caused by Britain, other colonial powers, and the US — all liberal and democratic countries. A glaring example is that of the US going to war to save democratic countries (read Israel) from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and to liberate the Iraqi people from an undemocratic regime. This narrative had strong resonance in Congress, in the Senate, in the popular media and among the general public and created the groundswell of support for the Shock and Awe campaign. In a few weeks, over 1,500 air strikes were launched against Iraq and almost 7,000 civilians were killed.
An important question for Pakistan and other developing countries is: Are these patterns of behaviour simply aberrations in what are otherwise free, peaceful and caring societies? Or are they an integral part of the political systems of these countries? Would things be different if the aggressive tendencies of the deep state and occult elites, such as the military-industrial complex, are harnessed by more democratic institutions? In order to answer this we need to look a little into the political philosophy and social consensus that underpins these societies.
Over the last two to three centuries, the espoused values of freedom, equality, dignity and independence have come to dominate the political and socio-economical mainstream in Europe and the US. This classical liberalism was complemented by shared views on social justice, the welfare state, and a reliance on the free market for the allocation of a society’s resources. The view that the liberal, democratic, free-market system is the best way to organise society is now widely shared in the West.
A somewhat deeper look suggests that aggression and exploitation are not an aberration but are very much part of western liberalism. In their critique to John Rawls’ liberal theory, modern political philosophers such as Charles W Mills, Leif Wenar and Branko Milanovic point out that a liberal society is “a cooperative venture for mutual advantage” regulated by rules for advancing the interests “of those taking part in it”. The practical manifestation of this is that the social commitment to liberal beliefs often tends to translate into a belief that if the system is under threat, or perceived to be under threat, it is legitimate to defend it against others — by violence when necessary. As a result the values of peace, freedom and liberty, which are the pillars of western liberal society, tend not to be extended to countries outside this system. As in the case of the Iraq war, the 9/11 attacks and the perceived threat to democracy, and the western way of life, created an unprecedented wave of popular indignation. It was considered more than sufficient cause to bomb Afghanistan back to the stone-age and to threaten other countries with a similar fate. History abounds with similar examples where liberal societies have had no qualms about going to war with the excuse of bringing civilisation, trade or democracy to other countries. In the same vein, western democracies have no second thoughts about making alliances with repressive and undemocratic regimes whenever it suited them.
The fact that western liberal societies are capable of colonialism and war does not mean that we should abandon our progress towards liberal values such as tolerance, freedom and equality. However, it does mean that we should not get swayed by the anti-China rhetoric of the western press. We need to manage the Chinese Dragon alongside the American Eagle and John Bull in a pragmatic way for the good of the country.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 2nd, 2019.