Culture and identity issues may appear to affect foreign policy but this is posturing for domestic consumption. In reality, western states do deals with morally inferior nations all the time. In the west we happily buy goods manufactured cheaply by child labour. And countries which imprison or execute gays are not impeded in either trade or geopolitical manoeuvering.
Consumer boycotts can effect things as happpened over Barclays Bank and South African apartheid but this is quite rare. Governments are not so self-righteous. The only 'moral' foreign and diplomatic policies occur over trade tariffs and these are about domestic protectionism.
'Ethical' foreign policy was trumpeted by Robin Cook under Blair after 1997. I think researchers have given up trying to find examples.
Yes, but we need to make a clear distinction between "moral" values (dictated by the anglosphere) and "ethical" values that govern the market and international exchanges.
Excellent analysis! This constant obsession with LGBTQ and rainbow flags--that has become a parody of itself, as in "queering nuclear weapons"--creates conflict all over the world because non-Western countries feel attacked at their very core when Westerners lecture them. Well said: "That is why western diplomats so easily revert to the classical neo-colonial stance of lecturing foreign nations about their cultural values." And this is the irony and the paradox we find ourselves in: the very people who claim that they are fighting for the "marginalized" are, in fact, constantly lecturing the marginalized nations and practicing a type of cultural imperialism that is stronger than any other previous imperialism. In this upside-down world, those who claim to denounce colonization and imperialism are the very people who are practicing it. Let's be clear: all this moral posturing comes from America (Canada is just another version of America), which exports it all over the world. From American media and campuses, that is, the very places that can't stop lecturing us on the necessity to "decolonize." It is a colonization of the entire globe to a "progressive" American obsession.
Yes, agreed, excellent analysis. An issue that also bothers me is the way that Business has been empowered and encouraged to enter the fray, too.
So, now, we have ever more companies becoming ever holier than thou in their marketing activities - banging on about supposed moral values and behavioral issues.
When, in the UK in 2023, the COO of DIY company Wickes told a conference that people who hold gender-critical views were "not welcome in our stores" it made the news. But this sort of rubbish is going on all over the place. And in all sorts of ways. For example, there has been an ad campaign ongoing for a couple of years now whereby, in India, Ariel detergent preaches to Indian males the importance of "sharing the load" when it comes to their household laundry.
The message may even be a desirable thing but is it really the job of commercial brands to get involved in social engineering?
Diversity of all kinds depends on regionalism and crossovers at the edges of regions. The diversity crowd don't see the necessity of conservatism for maintaining the edges that they like to live on and so are highly prone to ingratitude, hubris, monotonous originality for it's own sake (Jaguar). Also conservatives can be blind to the need for liberal edge-dwellers to add some extra colour or interest to traditions.
This is overly simplified but is another way of putting the somewhere/anywhere dynamic described by David Goodhart in The Road to Somewhere.
Culture and identity issues may appear to affect foreign policy but this is posturing for domestic consumption. In reality, western states do deals with morally inferior nations all the time. In the west we happily buy goods manufactured cheaply by child labour. And countries which imprison or execute gays are not impeded in either trade or geopolitical manoeuvering.
Consumer boycotts can effect things as happpened over Barclays Bank and South African apartheid but this is quite rare. Governments are not so self-righteous. The only 'moral' foreign and diplomatic policies occur over trade tariffs and these are about domestic protectionism.
'Ethical' foreign policy was trumpeted by Robin Cook under Blair after 1997. I think researchers have given up trying to find examples.
Yes, but we need to make a clear distinction between "moral" values (dictated by the anglosphere) and "ethical" values that govern the market and international exchanges.
Nice distinction. And thought provoking.
Excellent analysis! This constant obsession with LGBTQ and rainbow flags--that has become a parody of itself, as in "queering nuclear weapons"--creates conflict all over the world because non-Western countries feel attacked at their very core when Westerners lecture them. Well said: "That is why western diplomats so easily revert to the classical neo-colonial stance of lecturing foreign nations about their cultural values." And this is the irony and the paradox we find ourselves in: the very people who claim that they are fighting for the "marginalized" are, in fact, constantly lecturing the marginalized nations and practicing a type of cultural imperialism that is stronger than any other previous imperialism. In this upside-down world, those who claim to denounce colonization and imperialism are the very people who are practicing it. Let's be clear: all this moral posturing comes from America (Canada is just another version of America), which exports it all over the world. From American media and campuses, that is, the very places that can't stop lecturing us on the necessity to "decolonize." It is a colonization of the entire globe to a "progressive" American obsession.
Post-colonial colonialism
Yes, agreed, excellent analysis. An issue that also bothers me is the way that Business has been empowered and encouraged to enter the fray, too.
So, now, we have ever more companies becoming ever holier than thou in their marketing activities - banging on about supposed moral values and behavioral issues.
When, in the UK in 2023, the COO of DIY company Wickes told a conference that people who hold gender-critical views were "not welcome in our stores" it made the news. But this sort of rubbish is going on all over the place. And in all sorts of ways. For example, there has been an ad campaign ongoing for a couple of years now whereby, in India, Ariel detergent preaches to Indian males the importance of "sharing the load" when it comes to their household laundry.
The message may even be a desirable thing but is it really the job of commercial brands to get involved in social engineering?
No, not their business!
Diversity of all kinds depends on regionalism and crossovers at the edges of regions. The diversity crowd don't see the necessity of conservatism for maintaining the edges that they like to live on and so are highly prone to ingratitude, hubris, monotonous originality for it's own sake (Jaguar). Also conservatives can be blind to the need for liberal edge-dwellers to add some extra colour or interest to traditions.
This is overly simplified but is another way of putting the somewhere/anywhere dynamic described by David Goodhart in The Road to Somewhere.