|
It's a sad situation if those considerations would lead to conclusion that since everybody is not perfect, then all approaches are equally valid. For example, references to historical events gradually lose sense, as in a distant past human behavior was different - i.e., Roman republic or China kingdoms were even ideologically very different from modern countries, or e.g. Denmark was very different from today's state. Times change in a sense that some people's values change, behaviors change and it makes less and less sense to construct intersocietal relationships on the events of the distant past. What's more justifiable is to consider the current state of affairs. For example, in 2001 Russia was helping USA to put a pressure on Afghan bases of jihadists, and today such a behavior is probably impossible, given that Taliban is welcomed in the Kremlin - so it's reasonable for US to change the stance toward Russia in relation to this state. As for e.g. South America, the Western approach gradually changed from "colonial" - where various resources were extracted and the society was pushed towards leaders convenient the West - towards "collaborational", where West has laws and habits regulating relations with foreign countries, which, for example, have penalties for bribes. The society changed enough so that after the war started in Ukraine a lot of Western companies left Russia - just because the population in markets more important to those companies, and that population doesn't in general approve the Russian actions. So, yes, the West isn't perfect, and efforts should continue to improve it. At the same time West provides a compelling demonstration of success in important areas of life, which could be useful to other countries. |
The argument is that the west ought not to do colonialism or imperialism. This has nothing to do with other countries being better or relative correctness of values etc.