Civilizationalism vs. Universalism
The
analysis from this section of my post comes from an article in Jacobin, a
fairly far-left publication associated with the Democratic Socialists. Though I
am no fan of Socialism, including Democratic Socialism, the article is
thought-provoking and offers an interesting analysis of conservative political
trajectories and positions. The author of the article is Michael C. Williams,
who teaches politics at the University of Ottawa and is a research fellow at
Queen Mary, University of London. According to the article, civilizationalism
is:
“…the idea that world politics revolves around
culturally bounded civilizations led by great powers.”
The article notes that the U.S.
2025 US National Security Strategy (NSS), released in December 2025, was
praised by Russia and China and dismissed by the Europeans. Those should be red
flags right there. The NSS sees politics as regional great powers ruling their
spheres of influence, something China and Russia would naturally prefer. This
is one reason why Putin felt justified in invading Ukraine. The article
explains that civilizationalism is bound by cultural homogeneity.
“At its core, the NSS lays out a civilizational view of
world politics. The world should be seen as a series of civilizational
complexes centered around great powers that anchor their civilizations and
exercise hegemony in their regions. The West is not just a geographic location:
it is a distinct historical and cultural sphere. Crucially, this civilization
is threatened less by external military threats than it is from dangers within
— the corrosive culture and politics of liberalism and the economic and social
dislocations and depredations of market globalism. This is a strikingly
divergent and, in many ways, troubling vision of world politics. The
universalism underpinning liberal globalism and human rights is explicitly
rejected. Developing ties between sovereign states united by a common
civilization and exclusionary cultures is its priority.”
The author states that
civilizationalism is the dominant geopolitical discourse of radical
conservatives in the U.S. and in Europe. The difference between
civilizationalism and universalism is that the latter advocates for “universal
values open in principle to all,” while the former exalts the value
and lineage of so-called “Heritage Americans” above others. He also notes that
Europe’s radical right is embracing civilizationalism:
“On the continent, assaults on “globalist EU elites” and
calls to reassert exclusive national identities, values, and interests have
been a staple of right-wing political rhetoric for years. However, appeals to
Western civilization now play a prominent role in attempts to reconcile
nationalism with Europeanness, offsetting charges of unrealistic national
autarky by crafting an alternative Christian or Enlightenment-based European
civilization. This vision provides a degree of international unity while excluding
its civilizational others, particularly Islam.”
We see this in paranoid fears in
the “Great Replacement” theory that says diluting the dominant civilization and
its world views is weakening it in favor of having no dominant civilization and
world view, or of other worldviews. I have written elsewhere about the idea of “Western” values. Many
non-Western countries, like South Korea, Japan, some Latin American countries,
and facets of many other countries, also exhibit those same values. Thus, it is
probably no longer correct or useful to continue to call them Western values. I
prefer the term Free World.
Williams notes that currently,
universalism has been degraded, and appealing to civilizationalism is a
currently popular political tactic on the right:
“In sum, what we are seeing across right-wing politics
is not an expression of a civilization or civilizational state that already
exists in any simple sense. Rather, it is the use of civilizational claims in
political struggles at home and abroad, alongside the development of novel
transnational strategies that seek to influence political identity, electoral
politics, and foreign policy.”
The current U.S. government seeks
to influence Europe and venerate those powers in Europe that see things the
same, namely, Hungary and Slovakia, which Marco Rubio visited after his
somewhat conciliatory speech at the last Munich Security Conference. Hungary’s
government controls its press, and both countries’ current governments favor
capitulation to Russia.
“The strength of the Right’s civilizational narrative is
reinforced by the fact that a traditional liberal response to a
counter-civilizational argument based on universalism has been undermined not
only by the Right, but also by critics on the Left and in the Global South, who
connect it with Western imperialism. The difficulties faced by the EU
Commission in attempting to craft a counternarrative demonstrate the challenge,
as well as the risk, that pursuing such a path may inadvertently amplify the
civilizational arguments of its opponents. Civilizationalism is suddenly
everywhere in the rhetoric of international affairs. That alone should alert us
to the likelihood that its popularity is not innocent.”
Of course, the migrant issue has
been huge and has powered the right in the U.S. and Europe. While leaders like
Angela Merkel may have been inspired by compassion to let in migrants, the
particular qualities of some of those migrants have been problematic, and in
places, they have not integrated well. Do we want to bring in religious
fanatics? In the U.S., the problem is perhaps more about criminals.
While civilizationalism may have
some appeal, especially when we consider so-called Western values, it also has
several potential downsides, including unfairness, possible racism, and a kind
of cultural arrogance. That cultural arrogance can lead to military
adventurism, ala Putin, or radical anti-immigration sentiment. It also carries
the danger of aligning with religious fanaticism. Those dangers make it
unstable as a worldview or as a basis for international order. While the UN is
not in vogue these days, I think we should continue to venerate basic ideas
like the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This might be seen as a
document in favor of universalism, which also seems to favor a secular approach
to world problems.
Enforcement vs. Tolerance: The Challenges of Policing the
World
This section of my post involves
how we deal with the breaking of rules, norms, and basic human rights
assurances. It is my own analysis. The U.S. has often been hailed and/or
condemned as the world's policeman, the chief enforcer of those rules, norms,
and rights assurances.
I think perhaps that several
issues are testing the current international order and its health. These
include the effects of oil sanctions and the sanctions-evasion networks that
have been developed to circumvent them. Stronger enforcement is now beginning
to take effect, and we will see how it plays out. This is one example of the
struggle between enforcement and tolerance. Ukraine’s Zelensky has recently
advocated for seizing shadow fleet tankers. After all, Russian oil is a prime
funder of the war against his people. He has called the tankers Moscow’s
“floating purse.”
“Russia operates like a mafia organization, and the
response must match that reality. If they reject the rules for the sake of war,
the rules must foresee a clear and firm answer.”
Although I am generally against
the idea of civilizationalism that the Trump administration seems to embrace, I
am in favor of enforcement, which the Trump administration also embraces. Why
make and have rules if they can’t be enforced? Why tolerate violent
narco-traffickers and the Mexican cartels? Why tolerate massive human rights
abuses and the killing of civilians by armed government assassins? Why tolerate
organized crime networks? We should work to fix these problems even if it won’t
be easy. We need to act against brutality. We need to be wary of military
buildups and militantism, especially by what have become known as “bad actors.”
Those folks need to be called out at the UN rather than coddled and being
projected as legitimate. Back in 2022, when Russia commenced its full-scale
invasion of Ukraine, there were very few countries that supported them, even by
abstention in UN votes. That was somewhat encouraging. It was also annoying
that some countries like India, China, and South Africa were not condemning the
Russians enough. Sadly, the U.S. abstained on the fourth anniversary of
the full-scale invasion to condemn the invasion. The tally was 107 in favor, 1
opposed, and 51 abstentions. I don’t know the actual wording, but I find it
shocking that we would fail to condemn Russia.
The whole notion of BRICS and the
unholy alliance of Russia, Iran, and North Korea are offered up as alternatives
to the current international ways of doing things in service to some kind of
multipolar order. It is nonsense. It was annoying to me to hear that Russia and
especially China were giving Iran cyber-capabilities to shut off domestic
dissent through controlling communication, and that China was set to make a
deal to give Iran hypersonic missile capabilities. I am not happy that India
and China are profiting immensely from Russian and Iranian oil sanctions
through buying sanctioned oil. I am not happy that Brazil is importing lots of
Russian wheat and petroleum distillate products from Russia. Is some of that
wheat coming from occupied Ukraine?
Positions in favor of tolerating
the rulebreakers often involve “not poking the bear,” or not risking worse
outcomes of inadvertent suffering. But, as we have seen over the years as
oppressive regimes build up and expand their capabilities, the results suggest
to me that we need to act. We have seen what happened when Israel lowered its
guard to the threat of Hamas. We have seen what happens when Iran encounters
protestors. We see how Russia treats its people and soldiers and how it
conducts warfare. We know how poorly its residents, as well as those from Iran,
North Korea, China, and other oppressive regimes, are treated. We know who is
profiting from sanctions. We know the Mexican cartels have been buying guns and
ammo from U.S. big box stores and that they possess drones and rocket
launchers. It has also been reported that cartel members have volunteered to
fight for Ukraine in order to develop their drone warfare capabilities. There
are good arguments for enforcement, while most arguments in favor of tolerance
are geared toward limiting collateral damage.
We have evolutionary relics at play within us that are no longer useful. We also have religious prayers and edicts that are not merely un-useful but also potentially harmful. Examples are Islamic prayers calling for the death of infidels, or roughly, ‘non-believers,’ and Evangelical Christians praying for the deaths of those with whom they disagree. In a way, these are like relics, too, no longer applicable. Of course, cultures have long had those who used religion and magic against their adversaries. Religious justifications, edicts, and prophecies have long influenced militantism. The Shia Islamo-fascist theocracy of Iran utilizes the apocalyptic al-Mahdi prophecies to prefer martyrdom to failure. The Sunni mujahedin (holy warriors) have a similar ethos. Christian evangelicals also often cite Biblical prophecies. It has been noted that those with strong religious convictions also develop strong wills and fearlessness. Islamic Jihadist suicide bombers are an example. Their religious convictions guide them to blow themselves up in order to kill others, to commit mass murder, probably the most un-religious thing a human can do. They are deluded by their fanatical religious convictions.
The U.S. armed forces are not officially or
operationally religious, but it has been noted that sometimes there are strong
religious elements present. Apparently, many of our American warriors,
including those bombing Iran, are apocalypticists as well, believing they are
fighting for the return of Jesus. They are supported from the top by Pete
Hegseth and his cultish version of Christian evangelicalism. Consider the
following from Jonathan Larsen at Substack:
“A combat-unit commander told non-commissioned officers
at a briefing Monday that the Iran war is part of God’s plan and that Pres.
Donald Trump was “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause
Armageddon and mark his return to Earth,” according to a complaint by a
non-commissioned officer.”
“From Saturday morning through Monday night, more than
110 similar complaints about commanders in every branch of the military had
been logged by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF).”
“The complaints came from more than 40 different units
spread across at least 30 military installations, the MRFF told me Monday night.”
“The MRFF is keeping the complainants anonymous to
prevent retribution by the Defense Department. The Pentagon did not immediately
respond to my request for comment.”
This is one reason among several
that I believe Pete Hegseth is not a good leader. He has put evangelical
Christianity at the highest levels of the U.S. military. How is such a
Christian “end times” eschatology any better than that of the Shia eschatology?
It’s bullshit. We don’t need Christian mujahideen. Replacing one set of
religious fanatics with another is not a solution.
One might ask what is being
enforced. Is it a rule, a norm, an assurance of rights? Or is it an ideology, a
certain moral code, or a biased and not universally agreed-upon rule? One would
expect the detractors to argue that it's ideological, and the Russians and
Iranians typically do when dismayed. In most cases, the criterion for breaking
the rule is the causing of harm, which in many cases is clear-cut. It is often
easy to see who is the oppressor and who is oppressed. Shooting unarmed
civilians is an example. The current war against the Iranian regime is
justified in my opinion due to the mass execution of up to 40,000 unarmed
protestors over a two-day period – January 8 and 9, 2026. The regime is a
murder cult and must be held accountable. Thus, enforcement is also justice.
Without it, justice is not served.
It can be argued that Europe has
been excessively tolerant of dictators like Putin and the Iranian leadership.
Part of the reason for that is that they have reveled in the “Peace Dividend”
after the Cold War ended. That all came tumbling down when Russia invaded
Ukraine, and the Europeans have let their military apparatus fall into
disrepair even as Russia continued its militancy. Europe is now doing what they
need to do in building up its military, but it will take time. Europe’s
inability to confront Putin without the U.S. is a testament to the failure of
tolerance as a strategy for international order. It is no strategy at all. If
you want to have a rules-based order, the rules must be enforced. Strongly
worded statements won’t work.
The Russian Foreign Ministry recently commented about the attack
on Iran, saying that the goal of the campaign was:
"to destroy the constitutional order and destroy the
leadership of a state they do not like, which has refused to submit to forceful
dictate and hegemonism."
This is Russia
complaining that they do not like the rule and ‘refuse to submit’ to it. However,
they would be outnumbered in a UN vote of countries. Of course, it would be better
if the UN did not coddle countries that routinely break the rules. Then again,
the U.S. has broken some rules as well, arguing that the rules are nonsensical.
I agree with the current U.S. government that several of the UN agencies are
compromised by obviously trying to punish the wrong parties in several cases.
In both the cases of Russia and the U.S., both are complaining that they are unfairly
being forced to be subject to rules, but in the Russian case, the preference is
for tolerating human rights abuses and in the American case it is more for
stretching the rules a bit here and there, which suggests that it is the rules
that are the real issue for the Americans. While there are some human rights abuses in America and perpetrated by America, they are very small and mild compared to countries like Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea. Those are the countries that should be coerced into respecting human rights. The anti-Israeli sentiment and the coddling of
dictatorships and authoritarians have permeated some UN agencies. They can be
quite vulnerable in some cases, as the UNRWA fiasco in Gaza showed.
References:
The
Right’s Civilizational New World Order. Michael C. Williams. Jacobin. February 21,
2026. The
Right’s Civilizational New World Order
Zelenskyy
proposes confiscation of Russian shadow fleet vessels. Oleksandra Bashchenko. RBC
Ukraine. March 1, 2026. Zelenskyy
proposes confiscation of Russian shadow fleet vessels
U.S.
Troops Were Told Iran War Is for “Armageddon,” Return of Jesus: Advocacy group
reports commanders giving similar messages at more than 30 installations in
every branch of the military. Jonathan Larsen. March 2, 2026. U.S.
Troops Were Told Iran War Is for “Armageddon,” Return of Jesus
No comments:
Post a Comment