Western foreign policy should abandon attempts at universializing liberal values

Here are my opening arguments. Arg 1: Hegemony is inherently anti-Liberal Hegemony is defined as : “leadership or dominance, especially by one country or social group over others. ” (2) To universalize something, would require it to be internationally upheld. The United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights saw to it a unanimous voting from the initial 48 member states (3). In order for the UN declaration to be declared universal, it required a leading or dominant vote in favour of it. The UN declaration went through varying amends before it’s finalized copy (presented to the 48 member states), made to make sure that these rights could be applied universally. That it can apply despite different cultural or religious barriers. In short, it was made to be applied universally. To assert liberal values to the same universal degree as the UN would require hegemony, As not all countries are secular, as all countries are not as individualistic as liberal societies. In order to universalize such values, it would require some form of social or cultural homogeny. This inherently goes against Liberalism. For example, in Article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man it states (1): “The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law. ” Universalizing Liberal values such as Secularism and Individualism would ultimately require the suppression of ideologies that go against it. Which in turn, contradict with values of free speech and political pluralism. Sources: 1. . http://avalon.law.yale.edu... 2. . https://www.google.com... 3. . http://www.un.org... 4. . http://www.britannica.com... Arg 2: Liberalism developed within the social and political climate of the West. The development and rise of classical liberalism had grown for the later part of the past 4 centuries. Seeing it’s more influential thinkers (John Locke for example) come to prominence in the late 17th century and farther into the 18th century. Historically speaking, Liberalism is fairly new as an ideology. (1) Despite the “Whig narrative” to history, Liberalism was not the result of any “natural progression” in society. In came in response to the historical circumstances of Western Europe during the 17th to 18th century. The tumultuous political climate of 18th century France was the primary catalyst for the French Revolution. The “Ancien Regime” in France had grown weak and incompetent at dealing with France’s problems in comparison to their efficiency during the Middle Ages. The Revolution therefore, came in response to dealing with these issues. (2) Similarly, Liberalism had to change and adapt its values as time went on, and as circumstances required for a change in policy. Hence the transition from Classical Liberalism to Modern Day Liberalism. In short, Liberalism, just like other political and social systems, came in response to the political and social climate of its time. The situation in France during the late 1700’s was radically different from the problems the Qing Dynasty in China was dealing with in that same time period. To assert the solutions to such different social issues would be hegemonic, and unproductive. As put by Ergodan, Turkey’s 12th President (3): “According to this view, democracy is the product of Western culture, and it cannot be applied to the Middle East which has a different cultural, religious, sociological and historical background. ” Sources: 1. . https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://www.liberalismisasin.com... 3. . http://izquotes.com...This concludes my opening arguments, On to you Con ;)