The West and its enemies

Isabelle Lasserre — Who are today’s anti-Westerners?

Frédéric Martel — To answer that question, we need to consider both the West’s traditional enemies and its new opponents. We have known the former for a long time; on the one hand, the traditional representatives of Marxism-Leninism and its various offshoots (Sovietism, Maoism, Castroism and all forms of far-left totalitarianism which, for various reasons, hate the West, Europe and sometimes France); on the other hand, the proponents of Islamism. I did indeed say ‘Islamism’, not Islam, which is a respectable religion, like most religions.

Added to these are new enemies who — and this is what is new about our era — are targeting the Western world and, above all, Europe, because Europe is said to have betrayed its own values, because it is said to be decadent, corrupted by ‘wokism’, feminism, liberalism and legalism, which are said to prevent it from protecting itself against waves of migration.

I. L. — Who are these new enemies? Can we name them?

F. M. — This kind of rhetoric is very prevalent among Donald Trump and his allies in the Republican Party, some of whom are ‘techno-totalitarians’ or supporters of the ‘Dark Enlightenment ’ (1) . But it is also found among three other political leaders. Firstly, in Javier Milei, who is offering figures such as Peter Thiel, the founder of Palantir (2), an Argentine refuge (3) organised around the West’s most enduring values to protect them – a Gallic village from which ‘woke’ movements would have been banished, even though Peter Thiel is openly gay – which is rather contradictory. Next, in José Antonio Kast, Chile’s new president, although I remain cautious, as he has only just been elected and we have not yet really seen him in action. Finally, we find this Trump-style rhetoric in Abelardo Gabriel de la Espriella, the brand-new president of Colombia. Of course, there are nuances between these three leaders. Nevertheless, we can observe a sort of reactionary arc stretching from Argentina to Chile, to Colombia and all the way to Donald Trump, the origins of which owe much to Viktor Orbán, who has just stepped down from power in Hungary after nearly sixteen years. We Europeans find ourselves in the middle of this arc, surrounded. This, it seems to me, is the defining feature of our era.

I. L. — All this criticism directed at Europe is also widely shared and disseminated by the Kremlin. What is the difference between Soviet anti-Westernism and that of Putin’s Russia?

F. M. — Marxism-Leninism, imposed on Russia over a hundred years ago, has taken various forms over the decades: Leninism, Stalinism, Brezhnevism… Their anti-Western – and, above all, anti-American – framework has become strongly anti-European, at least since Europe became associated with the market economy, capitalism and freedom of expression. The USSR made little secret of its hatred of democracy, political pluralism and the rule of law… This communist framework found echoes elsewhere, notably in China. Gorbachev sought to preserve socialism whilst adapting it to reality, but his successor, Yeltsin, brought an end to the USSR and to socialism. He also allowed – alas – the country’s industrial jewels to be sold off at rock-bottom prices to the nouveau riche, often with KGB backgrounds, which led to the collapse of the economy in the 1990s. This is what gave rise to the monster that is Putin, who, paradoxically, is reviving both Yeltsin’s clan-based approach and the classic Soviet model, characterised by a single party and the restriction of all freedoms. Putin’s enemy – which, for us Westerners, has succeeded the Soviet enemy – is, from an ideological perspective, a form of ultra-nationalism that could be described as fascism in certain respects. What interests me is this ‘red-brown’ aspect, this shift from the far left to the far right – or vice versa.

I. L. — What influence has the philosopher Alexander Dugin, whom you have met on several occasions and who is sometimes presented as the Kremlin’s ideologue, had on Putin?

F. M. — Dugin’s background is quite similar to Putin’s; that is to say, he was brought up in a very Soviet culture — indeed, through his parents, he had close ties to certain Russian secret service agencies. In the 1980s, he underwent an increasingly nationalist transformation (he even sang for a time in a punk band under the pseudonym Hans Sievers, named after a Nazi officer, Wolfram Sievers, who was executed after the war…). Subsequently, he became increasingly Slavophile and Eurasianist — a dual vision according to which Russia is a civilisation apart that must distance itself from Europe and the West in the broader sense, and draw closer to Asia. In his view, the former USSR should be reconstituted in new forms, if possible through peaceful dialogue with China, its only potential ally. It is, moreover, striking to see how interested Chinese officials close to Xi Jinping are in Dugin’s ideas, even though he is an intellectual charlatan, an ideological fascist and a philosophical incompetent.

As for his influence on Putin, it is a complex matter. Some say that Putin has entrusted him with missions, notably in Turkey — this information has been confirmed by WikiLeaks documents. We also know that he has been, and remains, very close to a number of Putin’s advisers and to several think tanks well favoured in the Kremlin, but there is no evidence that he whispers in the head of state’s ear. On the other hand, what we can be fairly certain of is that, as early as the late 1980s, Dugin wrote texts foreshadowing the occupation of Ukraine, Russia’s current military strategy and its interference in Europe. His influence is therefore that of an ideologue whose works have no doubt been read by Putin’s advisers. But those who know both men, such as the former Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev, maintain that Putin has numerous puppets whom he manipulates according to his interests. And when the ideas put forward by these puppets no longer serve his political agenda, he discards them.

I. L. — You mentioned China; what are the driving forces behind Chinese anti-Western sentiment?

F. M. — Here too, as in the Russian case, it is a product of Marxism-Leninism, but adapted to Chinese circumstances. The Beijing regime’s anti-Western sentiment is first and foremost a form of nationalism — ultra-nationalism, even. China is hostile towards the West because it accuses it of aiding the ‘colour’ revolutions that have taken place in various parts of the world (4), of having long supported democracy in Hong Kong and, of course, of backing Taiwan. This animosity manifests itself above all in repeated verbal attacks directed at the United States. I am thinking, in particular, of the book America Against America by Wang Huning, the number four in the Chinese Communist Party and the author of speeches for Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao and, today, Xi Jinping. Published in 1991, this study of America in the late 1980s is a thorough critique of the United States. In its wake, a whole body of literature – rich and serious – has sought to lay the foundations for the ‘New Enlightenment’. Intellectuals such as Zhang Weiwei, Wang Shaoguang and Jim Canrong are now guided by Wang Huning and continue this anti-Western – and therefore, first and foremost, anti-American – critique. This hatred of the United States is also directed against Europe — albeit in a less visible manner, as China, like Russia, is still seeking to find partners and allies in Europe amongst those who criticise the functioning and values of the EU. The European Union has, moreover, described China as a systemic rival. I believe this perception is mutual.

I. L. — Could you analyse the anti-Western criticism expressed by the ‘decolonialists’?

F. M. — First of all, let us acknowledge that colonialism was characterised by abuses, by crimes, and by an extremely unjust and illegal Western domination.

That said, whilst decolonisation was a legitimate process, it also seems legitimate to me, sixty years on, to acknowledge certain mistakes – and sometimes certain failures – in the decolonisation process. Yet many of the decolonised countries which once belonged to what was known as the Third World and which today form part of the ‘Global South’ remain entrenched in a very virulent anti-Western critique; and this is despite the fact that these countries are themselves ruled by dictators, kleptocrats and mafia figures — I am thinking, amongst other examples, of Vietnam and many African countries. They are, of course, right to criticise us for colonisation, but they are wrong not to acknowledge their own failures in the area of democracy.

It is quite striking to note that this criticism of the West and of Europe on account of colonisation finds such a ready audience here at home. Yet today, colonialism is no longer the preserve of Europeans but is practised by Putin in Ukraine, by Xi Jinping in Hong Kong and potentially in Taiwan, by the FLN in Algeria towards the Kabyle people, and so on…

I. L. — And what are the driving forces behind the Islamists’ anti-Western stance?

F. M. — The root of anti-Western sentiment across much of the Sunni world lies first and foremost in that vast, diffuse network known as the Muslim Brotherhood movement, with its offshoots and proxies, such as Hamas. The ‘Brotherhoodists’ place the Qur’an above all else. They believe that God alone must be the source of all legislation. Consequently, the Muslim Brotherhood criticises the very principles of the rule of law, justice, democracy and everything that contributes to granting people legislative power. It is therefore logical that they should attack countries which attempt to separate state and religion, preferring instead Putin’s Russia — which, they claim, is faithful to the Orthodox faith. The Sunni Muslim Brotherhood – though this is equally true of the Iranian mullahs, who are Shia – radically reject any secular project and, in particular, French laïcité, which is, in a sense, the very epitome of secularism.

It is worth noting that Islamists share a common trait with the Russians and the Chinese: they level accusations at us that could very well be turned back on them! The Chinese, for example, accuse us of being soulless capitalists, whereas China, although officially communist, lives under a regime that is in many respects more ultra-liberal than our own – a regime where there is no wealth tax, where corporation tax is very low, where the welfare state is very limited, including in terms of pensions and unemployment benefits… a system which, when all is said and done, cares far less about the people than about the millionaires surrounding Xi Jinping! Similarly, the Muslim Brotherhood takes a highly critical view of the place of religion in our societies, whilst they themselves have an extremely sectarian conception of religious freedom.

I. L. — And what about the Iranian regime?

F. M. — It is distinctive in that it is based on a particular sect, Shia Islam, which is a minority within Islam. This status might, in theory, make the adherents of Shia Islam more understanding towards minorities — particularly as the Shia faith is by nature more tolerant and Iran, which is not an Arab country, is generally more secular than other Muslim countries. But the 1979 Islamic Revolution established a dictatorial system in which pluralism and freedom of expression do not exist, and has spread this model—which vehemently rejects the West—through its ‘proxies’, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Houthis in Yemen.

I. L. — What role does Israel play in the Iranian leadership’s perception of the world?

F. M. — In their eyes, Israel is the very embodiment of the West, its ultimate symbol. It is an imperialist country that has stolen Palestinian land and enjoys the constant support of the American ‘Great Satan’. I would add that Israel is also a symbol of modernity. However, what lies behind the hatred that Islamists – and, in particular, the Iranian mullahs, harbour for the West is, first and foremost, a hatred of modernity. This does not mean that they do not own mobile phones or that they reject technology, but there is, amongst them, a general mistrust of modernity — and, of course, a deep loathing of democracy, if only because democracy, is, at the end of the day, what prevents corrupt dictatorships such as the Iranian regime (but this also applies to China, Venezuela and Cuba) from perpetuating themselves.

I. L. — What are the points of convergence between the various anti-Western movements?

F. M. — That is a very important question. It is important to understand that all these forces have different objectives and different rationales. Nevertheless, through ‘campism’, they find common ground when it comes to denigrating their common enemy, the West. ‘Campism’ refers to the fact that actors sharing the same main adversary draw closer together and act in concert, even whilst remaining in profound disagreement on many issues and continuing to regard one another as secondary adversaries. This alliance of convenience amounts to a form of political hypocrisy. We know, for example, that relations between China and Russia are fraught with tension. Similarly, the fundamental points of convergence between China and Iran, or between Iran and the Venezuelan regime, are limited. Yet all these countries are cooperating, at least for the time being, towards a common goal: to weaken what they regard as their main adversary, namely the West — sometimes the United States, sometimes Europe.

I. L. — You also say that hatred of the West was invented in the West. What do you mean by that?

F. M. — First of all, let us note that from Lenin, through to Cuba and Venezuela today, and even to Xi Jinping’s China, it is most often Marxism that is brandished to castigate our mistakes; yet Marxism is a Western school of thought invented by a German and Jewish philosopher. Secondly, when speaking with Chinese intellectuals who are working to shape a new form of universalism that would no longer be ‘Western’ ’ — that is to say, one that would no longer emphasise human rights and the rule of law as Westerners usually perceive them — one is struck by the fact that they draw on countless Western authors, notably Heidegger, Nietzsche and, above all, Carl Schmitt — to denounce democracy, double-standards in Western morality and technocratic modernity. By drawing on their ideas, they are attempting to develop a new form of universalism that is not Western. Anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-European and anti-French rhetoric is fuelled in large part by the works of Western authors!

And let us not forget that a significant number of dictators known for their hatred of the West — I am thinking, amongst others, of Ho Chi Minh and Zhou Enlai — studied in Europe or the United States. This is also true of certain influential intellectuals from the so-called ‘decolonial’ camp — such as Franz Fanon, who was French even though he broke with France during the Algerian War, or the Palestinian Edward Said, a theorist of postcolonial studies, who was an American citizen. The incredible paradox is that, in order to criticise the West, anti-Westerners draw on Western thinkers or, at any rate, thinkers deeply steeped in Western culture.

I. L. — How do you explain the fascination felt by some sections of the Western elite for dictators and autocrats?

F. M. — The starting point, which is in itself positive, is the idea that one should take a critical look at one’s own society. Westerners have become masters in this field. It is the very essence of the West to accept scrutiny of its own institutions, its political leaders, its intellectuals… The problem arises when, at the same time, one is blinded and, at times, bought off by foreign dictators whom one would be careful not to criticise with the same vehemence. I rather like the acronym ‘MICE’ (meaning ‘mouse’ in English), which refers to the four methods used by authoritarian regimes to secure the support of a particular individual in the West. M-I-C-E breaks down as follows: M for ‘money’; I for ideology; C for compromise, for example of a sexual nature; E for ego. It is clear that these four techniques are very much at work in the West: some people believe in ideologies, others are bought off financially, others still give in out of ego because their position is too marginal within the Western system, and some act because they are being blackmailed or have been compromised. The list of Western intellectuals who have aligned themselves with dictatorships is long — whether it be Sartre, who was always wrong in supporting Mao, Castro or Ho Chi Minh; Philippe Sollers and Julia Kristeva with Mao; or even Simone de Beauvoir, who was also a Maoist and Castroist. This is also true of Franz Fanon, who was mistaken about the FLN and Algeria, of Noam Chomsky in his anti-Israeli hatred, and of Oliver Stone in his fascination with Cuba. As for Michel Foucault, I recently re-read his reports on Iran: it’s appalling! Driven by a visceral anti-Americanism, he went to listen reverently to Ayatollah Khomeini in the Parisian suburbs and wrote scandalous articles, notably in Le Nouvel Observateur, on the early days of the Iranian Revolution. And this sort of blindness continues today. Le Monde diplomatique, for example, which has long been sympathetic to Castro and Chávez, remains ambiguous on Russia. Once again, the criticism is legitimate, but in the case of Le Monde diplomatique, it is directed more at democracies – the United States and the European Union – than at Third World countries. It is true that Donald Trump’s policies provide them with ammunition, and that is precisely the problem! Ultimately, this blindness is one of the reasons why I wrote my book Occidents: to try to understand these absurd lines of reasoning.

I. L. — In Europe, democracy and human rights are regarded as universal. But are they really?

F. M. — According to some, our values are those of a stunted, dying, decadent Europe, and we should stop trying to impose them on the Iranians or the Cubans. Such views are expressed by Dominique de Villepin, Hubert Védrine, *Le Monde diplomatique* and all those who side with Chinese, Russian, Castroist or Islamist ideologues, who claim that Western values are not universal and that we should stop trying to spread them. My book vehemently opposes such arguments. I do not do so to defend our values at all costs; I do so because I have listened to dissidents, in every country I have visited, explaining that democratic values, political pluralism, the independence of the judiciary, the separation of powers and freedom of expression are the only valid basis for government. These are not ‘Western values’: they are universal principles that must be defended.

And, ultimately, what alternative values are proposed by these anti-Westerners who do not listen to the people? The day the Chinese vote, the day the Iranians and Russians vote, the day the Cubans vote – only then, perhaps, will we be able to listen to the demands of their leaders. But, for the time being, voting in these countries is nothing but a farce and their people have no say. There are cultural differences, of course, but I do not believe in ‘Chinese values’. Legal principles must be the same everywhere: universal democracy and freedom. And I believe that the Brazilians, Indonesians, Indians and Turks agree with us on this point. None of these peoples want a democracy ‘with Chinese characteristics ’. That is why we must not leave the ‘Global South’ to China.

I. L. — Have the two major blocs that make up the West – namely the United States and Europe – drifted apart for good because of Trump?

F. M. — I have a rather iconoclastic view on this subject. In my view, Donald Trump is an ultra-authoritarian figure heading down a totalitarian path. However, that does not mean the United States strikes me as a country on the brink of dictatorship. After all, despite the attacks by Trump supporters, freedom of the press and academic freedom have not collapsed. Federalism is holding firm, as is the justice system, despite the Supreme Court’s excesses. The ‘checks and balances’ are still functioning. I believe that Donald Trump is failing in his attempt to undermine American democracy. My hypothesis is that the United States will succeed in winning the battle against Trumpism. We might even witness a great lesson in American democracy at the mid-term elections this coming November or during the next presidential election in just over two years’ time. And I believe that the transatlantic bond, which has indeed been strained since Donald Trump’s return to power, could then become strong once more. Ultimately, as you can see, I am, in these rather gloomy times, relatively optimistic about the United States.

I. L. — One final question: in your view, could Western democracy die out?

F. M. — We’ve known for a long time that all civilisations are mortal. But I still believe that democracies possess an advantage that dictatorships do not: they have forces within them that enable them to correct their flaws, to curb their excesses, and to change their leaders. And I think that is what will happen, particularly in the United States. I hope I’m not wrong!