Why the rest of the world hates the West - and what the West can do about it
Western governments seem dumbfounded by the Global South's tilt towards Russia and China - it's time for some hard truths
The United States and Europe are home to some of the world's most prosperous economies, high living standards and liberal democracies, and allocate billions in aid every year to developing countries.
So why does the rest of the world have such disdain for the West? And why are so many countries in Africa, the Arab world and South Asia pulling away from Western partnerships in favour of Russia, China and India?
The storied colonial history of powers like Britain and France, or the United States' penchant for meddling in the affairs of other countries like the world's police force, certainly play a factor in the formulation of attitudes to the West elsewhere in the world.
But dig a little deeper and you begin to understand that the reasoning behind the Global South's mistrust of Western powers goes far beyond historical legacies.
In this video, we're going to pull back the facade of the West's liberal democracies to reveal just how they manipulate the rest of the world. We'll examine how and why so many countries in the Global South are choosing to align with the East. And finally, we'll explore what America, Britain and the powers of Europe must do if they want to turn the tide.
Hypocrisy
A core concept of Western political dogma is the 'rules-based international order'.
Under this concept, countries voluntarily agree to follow a set of rules and principles that govern their behaviour and interactions.
These rules are enshrined in treaties and conventions, such as the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various other international laws - the idea being that if countries big and small can cooperate within international frameworks, it will lead to a more stable and just world, preventing conflicts and assuring mutual progress.
The United States, United Kingdom, and Europe's most powerful countries regularly extoll the benefits of observing such a system, and in doing so position themselves as the moral arbiters of this rules-based order championing human rights, democracy, and the rule of law on the global stage.
The West imposes rules and values in other territories, expecting less powerful, developing countries to observe these norms.
But in the eyes of the rest of the world, the actions of Western powers fly in the face of the principles and values they claim to uphold.
One core principle of the rules-based order, as laid out in Chapter 1 of the United Nations' Charter, is that countries should 'refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state'.
But in just the past two decades, the interventions in Iraq, Syria, and Libya - not to mention many others - serve as poignant examples of Western countries invading and infringing on the territories and affairs of countries the world over.
In the case of Iraq, the US-led invasion in 2003, justified on the premise of removing weapons of mass destruction, led to the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime. Though Saddam was a piece of work, we now know that the WMD premise was totally false and the US intervention ultimately led to sectarian violence, instability, and the rise of extremist groups like ISIS.
Similarly, in Syria, America and other Western powers supported various rebel groups in their fight against President Bashar al-Assad, but the conflict escalated into a complex civil war, leading to widespread displacement, destruction, and civilian casualties - not to mention a flood of refugees surging into Europe.
In Libya, the US and its NATO allies intervened in 2011 to save civilians from the alleged atrocities of Muammar Gaddafi and his forces.
Admittedly, Gaddafi had been in power for decades and was demonstrably willing to massacre his countrymen to maintain grip on power.
But this intervention completely disregarded the efforts of the African Union to reach a diplomatic solution - and was conducted entirely from the skies. NATO air forces carried out literally thousands of aerial raids, bombing huge swathes of Libya into oblivion and killing civilians in the process.
Subsequently, NATO's near total disregard for the future of Libya following Gaddafi's execution in 2011 saw the country spiral into yet more civil war, with various splintered rebel factions, including Islamic extremists, vying for power. Libya is now widely considered a failed state, and the spectre of Islamic extremism has spread throughout much of Africa.Â
In each of these examples, the US, UK and other powers have by definition violated the territorial integrity and political independence of several countries.
Supposedly, they did so in the interest of human rights and to protect civilians. But any Western claim to moral righteousness is undermined by a total lack of consistency and often self-serving interests.
London and Washington cannot present themselves as saviours and defenders of the people in Syria and Libya, all while funnelling a steady supply of weapons to Saudi Arabia and turning a blind eye to the years of brutal atrocities meted out in Yemen, for example - or China’s treatment of Uyghur Muslims.Â
And why did Western powers not intervene in Rwanda when hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered in a matter of weeks? Many argue because doing so would return no obvious economic or political gain.
For evidence that the Global South is well and truly fed up with Western hypocrisy, look no further than the world's response to the war in Ukraine.
In the West, Vladimir Putin's invasion of his sovereign neighbour marked the beginning of a murderous, imperialist crusade to seize territory and erase the identity of the Ukrainian people.
The US, EU and a few other Western-aligned countries like Japan, South Korea and Australia condemned the war. They slapped Russia with all manner of economic sanctions while committing billions to military and humanitarian aid programmes in support of Kyiv.
But although most countries disapproved of the armed invasion of Ukraine, many countries in the Global South looked on with indifference – and some criticised the West for supporting Kyiv.
Brazil, South America's largest economy, has refused to provide aid to Ukraine, accused the Biden administration of stoking war by arming Kyiv, and suggested that Ukrainian negotiators consider relinquishing control of occupied regions to reach a peace deal.
More than a dozen African countries abstained from UN resolutions condemning Russia's invasion, continuing to foster economic and trade ties with Moscow. Others, like Mali and the Central African Republic, have renewed partnerships with mercenary forces from Russia's Wagner Group.
And the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) offered no more than a token response, calling for a cessation of hostilities but making no further efforts to support Ukraine or discourage Putin from pressing on.
Even India, which enjoys strong ties with the United States thanks to its shared interest in monitoring China and working closely on technological development projects, remained firm in its rejection of the Western party line on Ukraine.
As Former Indian ambassador to Russia, D B Venkatesh Varma, wrote in February: 'In not accepting the Western framing of the Ukraine conflict, India took a calculated risk… Its 'extractive diplomacy' — securing pragmatic benefits in the economic, energy and defence sectors from the dying embers of US unipolarity and our traditional strong relations with Russia, set commendable standards of diplomatic success. Multipolarity was pursued in practice, not just advocated in theory.'
In short – India has no interest in a world that runs according to Western narratives.Â
Rules for thee, not for me
The perceived hypocrisy of the West then is difficult to dispute. But perhaps an even more fundamental issue with the rules-based order concept is that the Global South feels it is being forced to play a game designed by the West, according to Western rules.
For a rules-based order to be maintained, cross-border organisations and frameworks must exist as a forum to debate, cooperate and progress according to shared laws and principles.
But Western countries utilise these international bodies as instruments through which to exercise their disproportionate share of power, largely for their own agendas.
The UN Security Council, as a critical organ responsible for maintaining international peace and security, exemplifies the disproportionate power of Western states within the global order.
The Council consists of five permanent members (P5) who established themselves as the most important world powers in the months following World War II.
Among them are the US, UK, and France, who hold veto power over resolutions. This veto authority allows them to protect their interests and allies, regardless of the broader international consensus.
It also allows Western countries to exert power and influence in territories that have no say in the matter.
Take Africa as an example. It is the second largest continent by landmass, contains more than 50 countries and an abundance of natural resources vital to both West and East, and is home to more than a billion people.
Yet not one African nation has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and are therefore unable to veto any resolution taken by the council that pertains to African affairs.
The same goes for South America, despite Brazil being one of the world's top ten largest economies and biggest countries. Not even India, despite its vast population, rapidly growing economy and massive influence in the East and throughout the Global South, is a member of the P5.
This glaring asymmetry, where a select few possess the authority to shape global affairs, undermines the very essence of a rules-based system that emphasises collective decision-making.
One principal argument in favour of a rules-based order, as it is portrayed by Western governments, is that it can be an antidote to 'might makes right' - the idea that, in the absence of a higher authority or framework to enforce rules, powerful nations or actors can shape the course of events and influence the behaviour of weaker nations, and generally take unjust advantage.
This is an enduring theme of Western foreign policy rhetoric and is often parroted by diplomats. A perfect example was served up in 2021 by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who, in a blatant jibe at Chinese officials during a tense meeting in Alaska, said: 'Our administration is committed to leading with diplomacy to advance the interests of the United States and to strengthen the rules-based international order.' He argued that the alternative 'is a world in which might makes right and winners take all, and that would be a far more violent and unstable world for all of us.'
But Blinken's moral proselytising holds no weight.
The US may not be engaged in any active wars or interventions, with the exception of a few hundred troops stationed in parts of Syria, Somalia and Yemen. And Britain and France are no longer colonial powers with near total dominion over Africa. But by solidifying themselves as pillars of global governance in the aftermath of the Second World War – when might really did make right – Western countries have maintained their power.
They just exercise it in a soft manner through an asymmetrical, inequitable system of officialdom – in other words, the very rules-based order they are so keen to uphold.
This is also where the legacy of colonialism comes into play. One glaring example of this is France's enduring control over the economies of its former colonies. Despite gaining independence in the last century, fourteen African countries still peg their currencies to the euro through the CFA franc. This arrangement requires these countries to deposit half of their foreign exchange reserves in the French Treasury – and the money is printed in France itself.
France argues this offers stability and keeps a lid on inflation.
But critics say the system simply allows France to maintain economic and political leverage over its former colonies, facilitates trade and commerce by boosting market access for French companies, and means that France remains a hub for transactions and financial services, allowing French banks and financial institutions to capitalise.
In short, France may present the CFA franc as a cooperative partnership designed to stabilise West African economies. But the underlying economic and strategic advantages France enjoys as a result merely affirm its vested interest in preserving this system of financial control – just another example of soft power in practice.
A turning tide
Though the relationship of South and Southeast Asian nations with the US is growing stronger, largely due to mutually beneficial military ties to monitor China amid Beijing's increasingly expansionist tendencies in the South China Sea, the attitudes of much of Africa and the Arab world towards the West are undoubtedly strained.
A recent BBC poll showed a considerable decline in the United States' popularity among Arab youth, with 57 per cent now viewing it as an adversary. Perhaps more alarmingly, a German survey of nine Arab nations as well as Iran, Turkey and Israel, cited by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, revealed the following:
'In five countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Jordan - all considered to be traditional allies to Washington - public opinion showed greater confidence in Russia than the United States. Seven countries viewed the war in Ukraine as a geopolitical conflict between Russia and the West, rather than a war between two countries, and all nine countries saw Washington as the war's biggest beneficiary.' (Walid Al-Sheikh, for Carnegie Endowment for International Peace)
An anti-colonial tide has swept through West Africa of late, with military coups in Mali, Burkina Faso and most recently Niger resulting in a rejection of French involvement in African affairs, the ejection of French military forces deployed to quell the threat of Islamist movements.
And South Africa, keen to cement its standing as an equal partner in BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), has roundly embraced Russia and China, conducting joint military exercises and openly professing support for the actions of its 'old historical friend' in Ukraine.
Western governments seem dumbfounded by the Global South's lack of support for Ukraine and tilt towards Russia and China - countries whose leaders are largely seen as authoritarian and intolerant by Americans and Europeans.
But for much of the Global South, the allure of Russia and China stems from their portrayal as counterweights to Western unipolarity.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine was not roundly applauded, but the narrative that the West provoked Russia by seeking to expand the NATO security alliance eastwards holds far more weight. And China, with its non-colonial economic approach and commitment to improving trade and infrastructure projects, is well-positioned as an alternative partner to the domineering West.
Next steps
For the US and Europe to rekindle their cold relations with many in the Global South, a number of key steps must be made.
Firstly, Western governments, particularly the US, must realise that the era of unipolarity that characterised the end of the Cold War and the turn of the millennium is well and truly over.
From here, a path forward necessitates a strategic recalibration. The West must embark on a proactive course to restore trust by first addressing historical grievances, and subsequently reevaluating its foreign policy to approach countries in the Global South as partners, rather than weaker nations to be taken advantage of.
The West's engagement in economic partnerships and development initiatives must be grounded in genuine collaboration. Learning from the successes of Eastern powers, crafting initiatives that empower rather than impose, and aligning with local aspirations, can help restore goodwill.
It is the prerogative of every government in every country to engage with others in such a way that benefits their own people. But the West must show respect for the sovereignty and interests of developing countries if it is to kickstart a warming of icy relations with the rest of the world.
An effort on the part of Western countries to consider how international institutions could be reformed or restructured to offer greater standing to the Global South, reflecting the contemporary multipolar reality, would constitute a major step towards this.
Reforms that ensure more equitable representation and decision-making will undoubtedly help bridge the trust deficit - and may help the West to prevent a seismic shift of the Global South eastward.