9 October 2020
There is an inherently racist understanding of the world in Western societies caused by both the way our history is taught as well as the dominant Western theories which constrain our ability to imagine a different world. Misconceptions have led to the belief that the highly developed democratic societies of the West are much more advanced than the underdeveloped, ‘uncivilized’, third world countries. We often feel a certain superiority, leading to our unnecessary involvement in the affairs of other countries. While these supposedly ‘inferior’ countries may have their own understanding and ideas of how to resolve an issue, in many cases, Western powers feel the need to impose their authority.[1] Essentially, I believe it is possible to argue that Western countries often bully other countries, both to assert their power and dominance, and to take advantage of many of these countries’ resources.
Of course, in some cases Western aid is essential to others. In times of hardship, famine and natural disasters, medical and food supplies, as well as help from world organisations such as the UN are essential. However, they should not be viewed as opportunities to assert dominance on a struggling region. In fact, much of the problems in non-Western countries are the result of previous involvement from the West. Many of the civil wars, ethnic conflicts, and genocides we see today directly derive from a power vacuum left behind once a colonial power has left. While occupying certain countries, Western democracies have often favoured certain groups within a country, causing resentment and an inherent hatred between them. The Rwandan genocide, the troubles in Sri Lanka, and the current issues in Myanmar (Burma), are just some examples of the impact of Western interference.
I recently read an article in the Foreign Policy journal containing short pieces by a number of leading intellectuals in the field of International Relations. Interestingly, Toni Haastrup compared the predetermined assumptions in the relationship between developed and developing economies to similar attitudes towards feminism.[2] Feminist foreign policy enables wealthy countries to highlight the plight of women in developing countries. Consequently, wealthy countries (or those with developed economies) are able to position themselves as being better placed to respond to issue regarding gender discrimination.[3] This is another example of the ways in which stereotypes are embedded in the way we think. Maintaining a foreign policy that highlights the weaknesses within another state simply encourages the feeling of superiority in the West and the assumption that other countries are not as developed.[4] That is not to say that there are not issues regarding feminism in countries with developing economies. However, the West still has much to learn with regards to feminism, something that they should probably focus on improving within their own countries before focusing their attention on issues elsewhere.
A group of feminist activists, academics, and practitioners have formed the Feminist Foreign Policy Project which has called on wealthier countries to stop such actions. Rather, they are being encouraged to rethink the championing of economic policies that increase inequalities both within and between countries.[5] They are encouraging a form of foreign policy which is people-led instead of state-led, emphasising solidarity over interest, and advocating a more humanitarian approach.[6]
The COVID-19 pandemic has arguably decreased the disparity between Western societies and the rest of the world. As Seifudein Adem discussed, standards of response to the pandemic have been better met by numerous non-Western societies in comparison to the noticeable lapses in the Wests response to the pandemic.[7] Both the pandemic and other events over the past six months, such as the protests against police brutality and the Black Lives Matter movement, demonstrate that the challenges facing humanity, such as systemic racism, transcend the territoriality of the state.[8] Additionally, we are seeing that a transnational convergence of political responses may be emerging at the grassroots level. Many people are beginning to see that the moral disease of racism needs to be confronted in the same way as this physical disease.[9]There is a hope that this could become a catalyst for something bigger: the creation of a global initiative that is not based on cultural hierarchy, but what has been referred to as cultural ecumenicalism – a combination of global achievement and local innovation and tradition.[10]
Perhaps this means that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a somewhat positive impact on other aspects of our lives, despite the horrendous loss it has also caused. Arguably, it has encouraged us to see that Western societies have much to learn about the rest of the world. I also believe that they have much to learn from the rest of the world. Our governments’ handling of the pandemic could have been much more effective had they taken note from other societies and cultures. Underlying stereotypes around ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ countries have led to a failure to learn and understand how we can improve. There is an air of arrogance in our attitude towards the world which ultimately has been our downfall during the past six months.
~ Cerys
[1] Karen Smith, “Eurocentrism in IR is a Form of Intellectual Racism,” Why is Mainstream International Relations Blind to Racism, Foreign Policy, accessed October 6, 2020, https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/03/why-is-mainstream-international-relations-ir-blind-to-racism-colonialism/.
[2] Toni Haastrup, “Feminist Foreign Policy Cannot Ignore Race,” Why is Mainstream International Relations Blind to Racism, Foreign Policy, accessed October 6, 2020, https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/03/why-is-mainstream-international-relations-ir-blind-to-racism-colonialism/.
[3] Haastrup, “Feminist.”
[4] Haastrup, “Feminist.”
[5] Haastrup, “Feminist.”
[6] Haastrup, “Feminist.”
[7] Seifudein Adem, “The West’s Triumph Led to Racial Catastrophe. Its Decline Could Lead to Racial Justice,” Why is Mainstream International Relations Blind to Racism, Foreign Policy, accessed October 6, 2020, https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/03/why-is-mainstream-international-relations-ir-blind-to-racism-colonialism/.
[8] Adem, “West’s Triumph.”
[9] Adem, “West’s Triumph.”
[10] Adem, “West’s Triumph.”
This sounds a lot like you're upset with globalization. Much of globalization has centered around western economic, cultural and social attitudes and the economic systems are inherently there to ensure that the West maintains superiority. Ive always though that charity and humanitarian aid has partially been a way to justify terribly detrimental foreign policy in the past. You talked about ecumenicalism and i spoke about that in my diss a bit (though i didnt use that word). I thought one of the most interesting things about it was not necessarily its social impact in combatting Western views but in climate change, where stuff like indigenous farming practices would need to be adopted across the world. A fun read Cerys 😁
ReplyDelete