Recep Tayyip Erdogan shakes hands with his Hungarian counterpart

The West’s Decadent Foreign Policy

Jul 24, 2017 Chris Patten

The West is increasingly reluctant to allow its vision of civil liberties and human rights to shape foreign policy, often owing to the potential commercial costs. Such foreign-policy decadence threatens to undermine the West's claim to be a community of values – and the EU's claim to be more than a glorified customs union.

LONDON – Nowadays, the West can be described as decadent. That does not mean simply that we are addicted to “bread and circuses,” from welfare programs in Europe (which we can barely afford) to the Super Bowl in the United States. It means also that we are increasingly reluctant to allow our own vision of civil liberties and human rights to shape our foreign policies, owing to the potential commercial costs.

Consider the case of the Chinese dissident and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo, who recently died while serving an 11-year prison sentence for calling for democracy in China. The Chinese authorities refused Liu’s request, made just weeks before his death, to seek treatment abroad for his aggressive cancer, and his wife remains under house arrest.

China’s treatment of dissidents like Liu is nothing short of savage. Yet Western leaders have offered only a few carefully phrased diplomatic statements criticizing it.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

US President-elect Joe Biden may have promised a “return to normalcy,” but the truth is that there is no going back. The world is changing in fundamental ways, and the actions the world takes in the next few years will be critical to lay the groundwork for a sustainable, secure, and prosperous future.

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world’s foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

A Life Lived in Truth PS OnPoint
Billy H.C. Kwok/Getty Images

A Life Lived in Truth

Ma Jian examines the work and legacy of his friend and fellow dissident, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo.

0
China’s Hong Kong at 20
Pool/Getty Images

China’s Hong Kong at 20

Chris Patten doubts that the

21
Defending Academic Freedom in a Populist Age PS OnPoint
Arpad Kurucz/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

Defending Academic Freedom in a Populist Age

Michael Ignatieff says that governments are not the only threat to a core democratic value.

25

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 22 in all 22 Comments on this article

Delia Ruhe Jul 31, 2017

I can't remember a time when the US didn't trade off its values in favour of its economic interests. The only difference vis-a-vis China is that China holds the majority of American debt.

Moreover, it's high time the US quit interfering in the domestic affairs of other nations. That is what governs the multipolar world we're moving toward, dragging the US kicking and screaming into it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
venze chern Jul 27, 2017

Apparently, the writer thinks that the West's decadent foreign policy comes from their failure to tackle China on human rights and Hong Kong issues. Is that so? How flabbergasting!!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jul 27, 2017

Chris Patten takes the West to task for its "decadent foreign policy" - a departure from its fundamental values. While world Leaders paid tribute to China's most prominent dissident and Nobel Prize laureate, Liu Xiaobo, who died of cancer two weeks ago, they stopped short of condemning Beijing for denying Liu palliative treatment abroad. They feared it would infuriate the world's second largest economy "owing to the potential commercial costs" involved. This is a shame, because "we are increasingly reluctant to allow our own vision of civil liberties and human rights to shape our foreign policies."
Beijing is aware of its economic clout and has warned the international community about interfering in its internal affair, saying other countries were "in no position to make improper remarks". Even Liu's widow is a target of China's repression. Liu Xia is said to be suffering from depression after spending years under house arrest and heavy surveillance. Her current whereabouts are unknown, and there are calls for her freedom. Germany, UK, France, the US and Taiwan have urged China to allow her to travel and leave the country if she wishes.
What the author finds more shameful is EU leaders' reluctance to take decisive actions against Hungary and Poland - two "illiberal" democracies that have trampled on European values and ignored the rule of law. Last week, Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban vowed to defend Poland from criticism from the EU and attacked detractors, calling their condemnation an "inquisition campaign against Poland" - his staunch ally.
Poland has approved controversial reforms that would bring the courts under the control of the Law and Justice Party, whose conservative and eurosceptic leader, Jaroslaw Kaczynski de facto rules Poland. The European Commission's Vice-President, Frans Timmermans, has threatened to take legal action against Warsaw, if it does not suspend the reform. President Andrzej Duda has vetoed two of the most controversial bills, that aim to destroy the country's judicial independence, but the government is determined not to yield to pressure from street protests and from the EU.
Hungary's rightwing Fidesz government under Orban has launched a witch hunt against the 86-year-old Hungarian-born philanthropist, George Soros, who funds the renowned Central European University, "a bastion of open debate, teaching, and research in Hungary." The government is trying to close the University, and has passed legislation forcing non-governmental organisations to declare themselves "foreign-funded" - and hence suspect, in the increasingly xenophobic Hungary. Although Orban himself had been able to study abroad "on a Soros-funded scholarship," he has joined the chorus of nationalism, anti-Semitism and demonisation of Soros.
Hungary benefits enormously from its EU membership, while rejecting its obligations. It "receives more than €5.5 billion ($6.4 billion) from the EU each year, while contributing less than €1 billion to the common budget." When it joined the EU in 2004, many Hungarian homebuyers and consumers borrowed in foreign currency - mostly in Swiss francs. The same happened in Poland.
The high level of both private and state borrowing left Hungary particularly vulnerable to the credit crunch. In October 2008 the government was forced to appeal to the IMF and the European Central Bank for massive loans to avert an economic collapse. Many resented the centre-left coalition government's handling of the economy from 2002 to 2010. This helped the right-wing nationalist party Jobbik and the authoritarian Fidesz party rise to power after they won parliamentary elections in 2010 and 2014. Some say Hungarians sought revenge against the EU, by supporting far-right eurosceptic parties, instead of blaming themselves for excessive spending.
The author shouldn't believe that EU-leaders would let Hungary and Poland get away with impunity. It's most likely that they after the Germany elections, will take tough actions against the two countries, by triggering Article 7 of the Lisbon treaty, that allows the EU to suspend a member if it deems it to be in breach of basic principles of freedom, democracy, equality and rule of law. Hungary and Poland could be stripped of their voting rights in EU meetings, sending a message to their citizens that they need to address their problems.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Matthew McCarthy Jul 26, 2017

Truthfully, I think that the EU would be a better moral force if it understood it is a customs union rather than its current compulsion to be a creeping empire. The pre-Lisbon EU could claim a lot more moral high-ground than the current one can.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop Jul 25, 2017

The West has nice values. Is it not common sense to consider the practical consequences in dealing with other countries ?
It is decadent that we cannot protect the EU borders and that we are not proud of our culture anymore but embrace diversity.
- Henk Crop Jul 26, 2017
  
  It is also decadent that many EU countries have a birthrate that is too low to maintain their existence as a people.
  Countries like Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and many East European countries have birthrates, which are below the 2,1 child per woman required to maintain a constant population.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Daley Jul 25, 2017

Chris Patten as a neo-conservative, demanding crusades on behalf of secular democracy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Martin Jul 25, 2017

Strange, I see the decadence of Europe rather in gay marriage and multiculturalism. Probably Chris Patten has another notion of the conditions for the very survival of people's and nations than me.
- Tim Bowler Jul 27, 2017
  
  @Matthew McCarhty
  As you say, the arguments are best thought of as simplistic. They don't contain truths. The idea that allowing the small percentage (in any given population) of LGBTQ adults to marry has an effect on the rest of us is without any intellectual or moral merit.
  
  Ditto multiculturalism.
  
  Sure European societies have problems - and will continue to have problems - in absorbing the numbers of immigrants and refugees that we have - and will continue with global warming and Middle East violence. Part of that will be stopping them coming through police/customs measures; help in their nations of origin; and the rest will be making a better effort to integrate those who are here. None of which is to do within 'decadence' . Best Tim
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Matthew McCarthy Jul 26, 2017
  
  @ Bowler - If you try you can figure it out:
  
  Gay marriage indicating social structure should be changed to no longer be founded on the idea of raising the next generation, but rather on sexual fullfillment of the current generation.
  
  Multiculturalism indicating that novelty is more important than quality in behavior.
  
  Simplistic arguments, but they have some truth to them. Of those 2 arguments I think the multiculturalism one holds more weight. Both have SOME degree of truth, and both have limiited truth, but multiculturalism has encouraged more bad behavior where divorcing marriage from its physical contribution to the next generation seems more an effect of the sexual revolution than a cause of current changes.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Rune Bugten Jul 26, 2017
  
  This comment by Paul Martin is the embodimemt of Orbans "illiberal" democracy, where the focus is on "traditional" or liberal values. This positioning makes Orban still can claim tjat he has a democracy, which Hungary resembles less and less
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Tim Bowler Jul 26, 2017
  
  @Paul Martin How on earth is gay marriage or multiculturalism any kind of decadence?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jochen Klingler Jul 25, 2017

As much as I would love to see Emmanuel Kant’s perpetual peace to be extended from Europe to the rest of the world, I wonder if the West really wants to be more vociferous about its values towards non-Westerners. This is not just about money because standing up more forcefully for liberalism would create (even) more conflicts with non-Western societies. And to be clear, Western electorates would hardly support such normative foreign policy.
Furthermore, it would imply some sort of interventionism and interference that weakens the very bedrock of international law (invulnerability of sovereignty and the principle of non-interference). But many European states like Germany rely on the international legal framework.
The article highlights a number of really concerning developments, none of which are new to anyone finding his or her way to Project Syndicate, but the real question is how to deal with those developments.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Nicolas Cornejo Jul 24, 2017

The West's moral bankruptcy is as old as the West. What finished is the hipocresy. For 600 years "the west" pillaged the world, using slavery, colonization and foreign intervention as tools. Now that the world has realized that the "universal values" don't mean a thing, the west cries. Written by the last governor of Hong Kong? come on.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ariel Tejera Jul 24, 2017

I think that most governments are driven by the same practical rules to validate themselves, in front of their power bases. You may want to take a look at U.S. President Trump. A very important difference remains that in the West people is able to express their opinion with far greater freedom, and that counts a lot.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Brian Shannon Jul 24, 2017

Hi Chris,

The West is, in some strata of society, decadent.
But that represents only a fraction of the totality of the Western experience.

It's more like 'amoral' -- being neither moral, nor immoral. The West is amoral, but only because that is what serves its best interests. If being moral better served its interests, Western political thought would be aligned along those lines.

"Countries don't have friends, they have interests." -- Winston Churchill

Nations have taught each other over the centuries that being 'amoral' in politics is the best way to prosper. It's too bad that they didn't teach each other that the moral path is the path to the better reward!!!

"Every day, we teach others how to treat us."

We have taught every nation, how to treat our nation. Therefore, we shouldn't complain about their treatment of us.

In your opening paragraph you suggest that Europe cannot afford its generous welfare programmes, yet the European nations with the most generous welfare programs are the most successful.

Norway with a typical 2.5% unemployment rate! Always in the Top 10 in every positive metric, especially lack of corruption, per capita income, lowest crime rate per capita, debt-to-GDP, government deficits, education level, life expectancy, UN Happiness Index, SDI (Index) and in many other ways, Norway provides the largest amount of supports and receives the largest amount of gain from doing so. Only the productivity index ranking lags (a bit) coming in at 18th place in the entire world. Not bad!

"Generous welfare programs" clearly aren't the problem in Norway, nor in any of the other Scandinavian nations which have similar stats to Norway.

It's not a case of "can't afford" it's a case of 'can't afford not to' !!!

Unless a person is addicted to money (Wall Street's Gordon Gekko, "Greed is Good") there is more to life than profit. Quality of life is surely more important than counting your dividends.
_____

Liu Xiaobo was, no doubt, a well intentioned soul who saw a chance to 'Westernize' China. In his mind, this was obviously a good thing. Had he stayed in the West longer, he might have become our critic instead of China's critic!

I and many others wished him well, particularly at the beginning of his journey through life.

But it became clear that Liu did not enjoy the support of the government -- leading to one inevitable conclusion, his death in a concentration camp, prison, sanitarium, hospital, or while under house arrest.

(A boy pulling an elephant isn't going to get very far unless the elephant also wants to travel in that direction)

Sometimes, it's good enough to make a point. Then leave.

Hong Kong and Taiwan are both former Chinese provinces which left China during a time of upheaval and many decades ago British gunboats may have helped contrive that outcome.

It is natural that both jurisdictions must 'find their way back' to China, and for Western nations to try to prevent it is supreme arrogance and is provocative in the extreme.

For instance, if the Chinese Navy had taken the Isle of Wight from Britain 200 years ago, wouldn't it seem natural by now that the Chinese should return it and no longer comment on the method of its governance thenceforth? Rather obvious.

Great man that he was, I feel that Liu Xiaobo should have made his point and then continued on with his life, keeping away from protest movements. He made his point which was his to make. Prolonging it only opened him up to criticism, both fair and unfair, which took away from his pure points that he made in the beginning.

The reason we have younger generations is so that we can pass the torch to them, once we have made *our* point.

If no one deigns to take that torch, then it was only a passing fancy. But if younger people pick up that torch and run with it, then there is something to that movement.

For a movement's founder to stay on too long, it obfuscates whether there is strong support for the actual movement, or is it only a cult built around the personality of one?

So, did Liu Xiaobo succeed? Certainly. But I feel that 95% of his success was made in the first 24 months.

Did I respect Liu Xiaobo? Of course. Right or wrong, he was a person of strong convictions and determination. A person to be admired by the people and a person to be feared by governments. Which always has one result, doesn't it?

Did China benefit from Liu Xiaobo's actions? Yes. The people saw that they too could have a say in how they were governed and have more rights than the government was (then) comfortable with.
_____

Regarding your comments about Viktor Orbán, the PiS government, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Vlad Putin and Donald Trump:

These people are simply the individuals that their respective citizens have chosen. A majority of voters in each country chose those people to lead.

If we criticize those leaders, we must also realize that we are criticizing every single person who voted for them (hundreds of millions of people, in total) and we must take that into account.

I enjoyed reading your fine essay. Thank you for posting it at ProSyn.

As always, very best regards, JBS
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Heng Jul 24, 2017

With the benefit of hindsight, the EU might have expanded too fast and too hastily, driven by an over optimistic assessment of development down the road. The same could be said of the Euro.
Having discovered the shortcomings of EU membership regulation, what is to be done?
For starters, it is not too late for the EU to formulate rules to remove subsidies to states like Hungary and Poland who go against the democratic norms of the EU. If these countries really cannot live by EU's norms and rules, they should leave. If they fulfil the conditions again later on, they are welcome to apply again. The EU is not like the Warsaw Pact where a member left with the risk of Soviet tanks rolling down the main streets.
- Michael Heng Jul 26, 2017
  
  After Brexit, the fear was that the Netherlands and France might follow. If Hungary and Poland are to have Huexit and Poexit, will there be much worry? The EU project is a great historical project. This does not imply that it could not have been done better.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Matthew McCarthy Jul 26, 2017
  
  Have you been keeping up with Brexit news? The EU intention is not tanks rolling down the street but death by a thousand paper cuts. Notice that for the first few weeks after the Brexit vote the EU leadership had a consistent message of "the UK must be punished to discourage others"... until they realized how bad that message was.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
vivek iyer Jul 24, 2017

Chris Patten is the Chancellor of Oxford University. Has he called for an academic boycott of China? Why not? Is the answer 'money'? Or is Oxford decadent?

No country has ever had an ethical foreign policy. It has had a hypocritical policy. Why pretend otherwise? Who is fooled?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Jul 24, 2017

It would be nice if US foreign policy were principled. But If you removed the shameless dominance of commercial interests, the only thing left would be an equally shameless group of alliances with maybe evn more unprincipled dictators, for purely state-power purposes. Decadent isn't really the right adjective - "unprincipled" is.

EU foreign policy isn't on the same level of significance or hypocrisy as the US's or China's, but the hypocrisy runs deep there too. Anyway, it is US and Chinese policy that counts in today's world.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernhard Kopp Jul 24, 2017

This reads like an outburst of elite self-righteousness. The author knows quite well that different civilisations can well be on different stages of development. Britain may have a legitimate stake regarding Hongkong. But beyond that it is pure arrogance.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/DNMquaH

Cookies and Privacy

The West’s Decadent Foreign Policy

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

A Life Lived in Truth

China’s Hong Kong at 20

Defending Academic Freedom in a Populist Age

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Handpicked to read next

Britain’s European Ties That Bind

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

The West’s Decadent Foreign Policy

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Handpicked to read next

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification