Over the past fifteen years, I have attended numerous meetings and conferences and met many people in Western governments, think tanks, and academia concerned about the rise of autocracies around the world. Many of them believe that authoritarian tendencies pose the greatest threat to the liberal world order and rules-based system.
But I do not agree. I believe the greatest threat to the liberal world order comes from liberal democracies, not their autocratic enemies. Indeed, there is a growing gap between the values that Western governments claim to defend and their actual conduct. This has triggered a credibility crisis that threatens to destroy the liberal global order.
What we say about our value system and how we project our foreign policy goals in our statements is important, but what we do next is even more important. People have eyes and ears, and when what they see is the opposite of what they hear, they lose confidence.
This is what is happening now with Western rhetoric and actions regarding Israel and Palestine. This gap between what is said and what is done is of course nothing new.
I come from a region where we have suffered enormously from the great liberal promises of the West; our neighbor, Afghanistan, has faced disaster not once, but twice because of this catastrophe. As we moved from one war to another after the 9/11 attacks in the United States, the liberal order created by the West began to lose credibility faster than the West had time. to realize it. He left behind debris of chaos, bloodshed and unfulfilled promises of “democratization” and “emancipation”. The “others” began to question the Western narrative and its legitimacy.
Wars leave behind a devastation that lingers long after the fighting and funding for “reconstruction” has ended, and long after the media spotlight, fervent hashtags, and impassioned messages fade, as the collective consciousness of the world loses interest. . The aftershocks are felt across the geography where wars have been fought for generations, as people continue to experience the intended and unintended consequences of conflict.
I was in office when Russia’s war against Ukraine began and saw first-hand how the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom and other Western countries tried to convince many people in developing countries that they should not side with aggression, that they should not be “on the wrong side of history.”
As the UN Security Council was unable to pass any resolution due to Russia’s veto, the West spent a lot of political capital introducing resolution after resolution in the General Assembly in favor of Ukraine. It aimed to show the world that Russia was using its veto against the global consensus and was in fact isolated on the world stage.
And then came the war in Gaza. I watched in disbelief as the calls rang out from Gaza in the form of resolutions presented to the UN Security Council, calling for an end to the bloodshed and calling for a humanitarian ceasefire to which the United States would veto them.
As the UN called for action – calling Gaza a “children’s graveyard” and reporting that more UN aid workers had died in recent months in Gaza than in any other conflict – the West, which had always been a champion of multilateralism, did so. Nothing. In fact, it hampered those trying to stop the indiscriminate killing of civilians.
This forced UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to invoke Article 99 – used only when international peace and security is threatened – in early December. Even then, the West took no action; the United States vetoed a subsequent resolution for a humanitarian ceasefire at the UN Security Council, then voted against a non-binding resolution at the General Assembly supported by 153 countries. The United Kingdom abstained in both votes. Let that sink in.
What makes this situation even more unpleasant than Russia’s veto in the Security Council is that, unlike Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom sanction people and countries for human rights violations and call for interventions on human rights grounds. How can the rest of the world trust the self-proclaimed “values-based leadership” of the West when countries like the US and UK abdicate their responsibilities and side with the aggressor ?
This obvious hypocrisy is reminiscent of the story of the emperor’s new clothes: everyone can see that Western rhetoric is naked.
The West talks about its commitment to human rights and democratic values, while providing full diplomatic cover to the State of Israel and guaranteeing its impunity in massacring as many Palestinians as it wants in the pursuit of its official and declared objective of complete extermination. of the Palestinian people.
By supporting Israel and allowing it to kill tens of thousands of civilians, mostly women and children, in the name of “self-defense”, Western countries place themselves in opposition to the values and principles of multilateralism and respect for humanity. human rights which they have made considerable efforts to promote in the past. They go against the fundamental principles on which the UN was built.
I believe in the commonality of our values, I believe that the West has much to celebrate when it comes to human rights and development, but I also know that the West has shown blatant disregard for these principles outside of its own geography.
Anyone concerned about the United States’ global leadership or its continued status as leader of the “free world” should certainly ask themselves why they have decided to isolate themselves on the world stage and why they are willing to pay a diplomatic price so high will have repercussions on reputation and credibility for decades.
Washington’s current position would not only undermine efforts to promote it as the only reliable global power, but also sabotage its ability to play the role of peacemaker in the future.
If the United States wants to save its global reputation, first and foremost it should stop obstructing Security Council resolutions demanding a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. He should also stop opposing General Assembly resolutions that commit to a two-state solution and condemn Israeli settlements; both of these are already part of the declared policy of the United States. Finally, it must respond to the calls of UN institutions and stop obstructing its action.
Those who claim that the UN has failed in the wake of this crisis are grotesquely mistaken. The UN continues to report unambiguously on what is happening on the ground and call for global action. Whether it is the UNGA, the voice of the world’s collective conscience, the Secretary-General, the head of WHO or the head of UNICEF, they have all made incredible efforts to bring the world to take action and put an end to the violence.
I have served in government long enough to know that as public servants we often make the mistake of thinking that our job is to maintain positions on certain issues that our countries have historically held. But this is not the right way to go about developing policy. Our job should be to defend principles, not positions. Leadership requires the strength to stand on the side of what is right and not on the side of historical positions.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Tel Aviv Tribune.
