"Western value" (#276, Topic F)

This noon, I attended a seminar on "A Neocon Critique of Six Years of the Bush Presidency", at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. It was presented by a member of the British Parliament (and a former scholar at WWICS), scheduled with short notice to take advantage of his being here for high-level discussions with senior members of the administration. He opened with a very interesting remark. Last night, while having dinner with members of the Senate, he was given a sheet "This Day in Senate's Past". It showed that, on 12/4 in 1815 -- 191 years ago -- British troops burned the capital. So, this MP apologized. I could not help thinking that the British were equal-opportunity international pillagers! (They did the same thing, though much more thoroughly and much more profitably, to the Summer Palace in Beijing after the second Opium War, in 1856.) Before presenting his theme, he disclosed that his grandfather was American; thus, he claimed that he is not anti-American. His theme is that using foreign policy to justify military action is unacceptable -- military action is justified only for self-defense. He advocates order and stability, mutual recognition, and peaceful coexistence -- all high-sounding words. US, by moving away from multilaterialism and acting unilaterally, has lost "high moral ground." Further, by engaging in regime change and in preventative military action, US has made the world "highly destabilizing." His prescription? "Impose 'western value'." Along with "moral high ground"/"high moral ground", he repeated the two terms several times, though he never defined what "western value" is. In one instance, perhaps a slip of the tongue, he used the phrase "Christian and European value." During the Q&A period, I did not raise my hand at the beginning. The first 2 or 3 questions were apparently raised by the Center's staff (the seminar was held during lunch hour; two staff members actually brought their lunch to the conference room), since the moderator recognized them by their first name. My hand was not recognized for quite a while -- I got the impression that the moderator was afraid of unknown questioners raising unacceptable issues. Finally, with no one raising one's hand, I was recognized (it was the next-to-last question, as it turned out). I thought I would start with "Perhaps you might want to apologize for ransaking the Summer Palace during the Opium War as well," but restrained myself -- I was a guest just as the MP was; a sharp beginning would be counterproductive. I merely said: "You talked about 'western value' repeatedly; you also talked about 'Christian and European value' as well as the loss of 'moral high ground.' Is it time that you broaden your 'western value' by embracing Asian value as well? Instead of President Bush's 'you are either with us or against us,' why not follow the Chinese view of 'live and let live'"? He jotted down a few words and then made a perfunctory response. His final sentence deserves writing down: "I am not going to invade China." Well, our MP still dwelled upon the glorious 19th century -- but these days are gone forever. I almost felt retorting with "And you will be crushed." Before I could open my mouth, the last questioner began his query. So I left it stand unchallenged.