Are Western double standards undermining the global order?

"Wherever I go, I find myself confronted with the accusations of double standards," said EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell at Oxford University in May. At last year's Munich Security Conference (MSC), French President Emmanuel Macron said: "I am struck by how much we are losing the trust of the Global South." And after she criticized China's human rights record last year, Germany Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock was told by her Chinese counterpart at the time, Qin Gang: "What China needs least is a teacher from the West."

Countries in the Global South have long accused the West of only defending the rules-based international order when it is convenient. Recently, however, such criticisms have become more frequent, especially since the start of the war in Ukraine and the war between Israel and Hamas.

India: Europe's problems are not the world's problems 

It was Russia's attack on Ukraine, more than anything else, that caused Western heads of state to start talking about a struggle for global political order: US President Joe Biden said that a Russian victory "could mark the end of the rules-based international order." In a New York Times op-ed, he argued that to defend Ukraine is to defend the principles of this order.

However, attempts by the West to persuade friendly democratic countries in the Global South to support sanctions against Russia have often failed. This was the case with India, Brazil, and South Africa, all of whom continued to trade with Russia, in some cases more than before the war, even while insisting that this not an endorsement of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

India's Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar has said, referring to the war in Ukraine, that the Europeans apparently believe that "Europe's problems are the world's problems, but the world's problems are not Europe's problems." And Indonesian Defense Minister Prabowo Subianto Djojohadikusumo said that when it came to advocating peace, Western governments apparently have "one set of principles for Ukraine and another set of principles for the Palestinians."

Rules for everyone or 'the diversity of civilizations'? 

Sophie Eisentraut, head of research at the MSC, described a growing problem for the West in her latest security brief, entitled "Standard Deviation – Views on Western Double Standards and the Value of International Rules." In a world of increasing geopolitical rivalry, she argues, the Western model of a rules-based order is increasingly suffering from a loss of credibility — at a time when the West is losing power.

China, Eisentraut says, is offering an alternative approach: Instead of globally applicable rules, China wants "absolute sovereignty," meaning non-interference in internal affairs — and respect for the "diversity of civilizations."

China is promoting this alternative approach globally, as is Russia. About a year and a half into the war in Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin said during a summit last summer with African leaders: "A truly multipolar world order is evolving and the era of domination by one country or a group of countries is coming to an end." With this statement, he left the door wide open for many African governments.

There is a widespread perception that the existing international order of rules and institutions that the West has shaped mainly benefits the West itself, and that Western countries do not live up to their own standards. An MSC survey of nine populous countries in the Global South also confirms this point. At the same time, the survey also shows that many people in this part of the world do believe in the value of established international rules.

Criticism is often justified

Eisentraut makes this clear in her brief: The criticism of Western double standards is often justified. For example, countries from the Global South point out that the US and other Western states insist on the principle of the territorial integrity in Ukraine, but did not respect this principle during the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Western states have often disregarded human rights by carrying out illegal detentions as part of their war on terror. And the Europeans have made common cause with North African autocrats in order to prevent migration to Europe.

However, Eisentraut also points out that critics from countries such as China and Russia often use their accusations to relativize their own violations. Or they use them to justify an approach to foreign policy that is no longer based on moral principles at all, but only on their own interests. The result is that the value of universal rules is being questioned around the world.

A world without rules would be a nightmare 

According to Eisentraut, Western countries face a dilemma: They fear that being self-critical about their own inconsistencies will play into the hands of their global rivals. However, on the other hand, if they ignore the criticism, they will be justifiably seen as self-righteous and, as President Macron once put it at the MSC, will encourage "a new cynicism that is tearing down the global order."
In response, the author makes three recommendations: First, Western countries should, of course, minimize the contradictions between their demands and their actions. Second, they should be more honest about when "consistency has its limits." This also includes moving away from a black-and-white view of the world in which states are either rule-abiding or rule-breaking, because there are many shades of gray. Communication should also emphasize that autocratic governments forbid open debate about a state's own self-contradictions and thus possible corrections.

Finally, Eisentraut argues that the West should address what is often implied but not openly stated in criticisms of Western double standards: Namely, that an order of double standards is no better than an order with no standards at all.  Not only would Western countries have much to lose in a world without generally accepted rules, but so would many countries in the Global South.

Christoph Hasselbach is a journalist working with DW. He is based in Europe. 

Disclaimer: This article first appeared on DW, and is published by special syndication arrangement.