Yes, the paradox of adopting the same destructive traits and behaviors in the fight against perceived evil is indeed something that adversarial states or actors could exploit. This dynamic can undermine the moral high ground of those who oppose these states, allowing regimes like those of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea (the so-called “Crink”) to use the following strategies:
1. Framing the Opponent as Hypocritical:
• When democratic states adopt harsh measures—such as censorship, surveillance, or military aggression—they risk appearing hypocritical, particularly if these measures resemble the practices they criticize in authoritarian states. This allows adversarial regimes to cast their opponents as inconsistent, claiming that so-called defenders of freedom are just as oppressive as the regimes they condemn.
• For example, when Western countries engage in controversial military interventions or domestic surveillance programs, authoritarian regimes may highlight these actions to question the legitimacy of the West’s claims to champion human rights and democracy.
2. Justifying Their Own Repressive Measures:
• The paradox can be exploited by presenting their actions as defensive responses to external threats. If the actions taken by countries to “fight evil” include measures like economic sanctions, cyber warfare, or diplomatic isolation, adversarial states can claim that their repressive policies are necessary to protect national security and sovereignty.
• This narrative is often used to justify the restriction of civil liberties, portraying external criticism as part of a broader strategy to destabilize the regime or undermine the nation’s independence.
3. Weaponizing Double Standards in Propaganda:
• Adversarial states can use double standards in foreign policy as a tool for propaganda. For instance, if a democratic country turns a blind eye to human rights abuses by a strategic ally while condemning similar actions by an adversary, authoritarian regimes can point out the inconsistency. This tactic can erode global support for the policies of democratic states and foster skepticism about their motives.
• Propaganda often highlights incidents such as police brutality, racial discrimination, or social inequality in democratic societies to argue that these issues are not unique to authoritarian states, thereby deflecting attention from their own human rights violations.
4. Encouraging Overreaction and Escalation:
• By provoking or creating crises, adversarial states can induce their opponents to respond in ways that may seem excessive or disproportionate. This can serve to discredit the opponents’ claims to be defenders of moral and ethical principles. For instance, military provocations, cyberattacks, or information warfare might be designed to elicit a harsh response, which can then be used as evidence that the opposing side is not committed to peaceful resolution or human rights.
• This strategy leverages the idea that the opponent, in its effort to counter a perceived evil, ends up mirroring some of the tactics it condemns, thus creating a moral equivalence that blurs the distinction between good and evil.
5. Legitimizing an “Us vs. Them” Narrative:
• By highlighting the adversarial actions of other countries, authoritarian regimes can strengthen their own internal “us vs. them” narrative. They may portray themselves as victims of external aggression or unfair treatment, fostering nationalistic sentiments and rallying domestic support. This narrative can legitimize authoritarian policies as necessary measures to resist foreign dominance.
• Such regimes often position themselves as protectors of traditional values or national identity, contrasting this with what they depict as the moral decay or imperialistic intentions of their opponents.
Conclusion:
The paradox that arises from fighting perceived evil using methods that risk adopting similar traits is indeed a vulnerability that adversarial states can exploit. It allows them to undermine the credibility of those who oppose them, justify their own repressive actions, and manipulate public perception both domestically and internationally. To counter this exploitation, it is crucial for those fighting authoritarianism to maintain ethical consistency, uphold human rights, and avoid falling into the trap of moral equivalence or hypocrisy.
