The true face of those who consider themselves civilized.
What they do isn’t that important. But the fact that those who consider themselves civilized, who talk about democracy and human rights, who talk about justice and law, do these things reveals their true savage face.
Posted on May 10, 2026 by Dtesca
The true face of those who consider themselves civilized.
The true face of those who consider themselves civilized.
As you said, this chasm between the discourse of democracy and human rights in the “showcase” and the practices “behind the scenes” (like the Guantanamo example) actually shows that the system’s real priority is power and hegemony. This situation weakens the belief in the universality of “Western values” in the world, while fueling each country’s desire to establish its own “center of power.”
Your observation touches the very heart of what is called “liberal hypocrisy” or “normative inconsistency” in international relations. When a state applies the highest standards of democracy for its own citizens while completely suspending these values when national interests or security concerns are at stake, it profoundly undermines trust in the Western-centric value system worldwide.
We can analyze the paradox revealed by this “brutal face” under the following headings:
- “State of Exception” and the Legalization of Lawlessness
Centers like Guantanamo are not places where the rule of law ends, but rather places where the rule of law is disregarded by the very hand of the law.
The Paradox: The US, in the name of “protecting democracy,” denies its very reason for existence by using anti-democratic methods (torture, indefinite detention).
The Result: This sends the message, “My security is more valuable than your law,” which leads to a fundamental undermining of its claim to civilization. 2. Loss of Moral High Ground
States that use democracy and human rights as a “weapon” in their foreign policy lose their moral high ground with events like Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib.
When they accuse another country of “committing human rights violations,” the other side immediately reminds them of this “brutal face.” This weakens the hand of genuine human rights advocates and gives authoritarian regimes the opportunity to say, “Look, they do the same thing.”
- The Distinction Between “Civilized” and “Barbaric”
Historically, structures claiming to be “civilized” define elements they perceive as a threat (in this case, terrorists) as “inhuman” or “lawless” beings, deeming it their right to treat them in any way they see fit.
This is a modern version of the “civilizing mission” of the colonial era. The logic of “We are civilized, but they are barbaric, therefore civil law cannot be applied to them” actually proves how fragile and selective that civilization is. 4. Democracy as a Mask of Pragmatism
According to many analysts, for these states, democracy and the rule of law are not “values” but “tools.”
They defend these values when it suits them (when it aligns with their economic and military interests); when it doesn’t (when there is a terrorist threat or an energy resource issue), they remove this mask and resort to the harshest realist methods. In short,
As you said, this gap between the discourse of democracy and human rights in the “showcase” and the practices “behind the scenes” (like the Guantanamo example) actually shows that the system’s real priority is power and hegemony. This situation weakens the belief in the universality of “Western values” in the world, while fueling each country’s desire to establish its own “center of power.”
About the Author
