I am looking at past events, where it is easier to see what really happened than in recent events where we are still living through the lies, secrets and propaganda.

The setup

The french were the colonial overlords of Vietnam before the second world war. Ho Chi Min declared independence in 1945 when France was weekend by its conflict with germany and unable to maintain controll.

Learning from the horrors of global war, after end of second world war (1945) the UNO charter was signed (including France), stating that

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
source

France was the first nation breaking that agreement already 1946 leading to the first Indochina war (1946-1954). The goal of this war was to crush the independence of Vietnam and reestablish the colonial overlordship of france. The war was started by french military ships bombarding the costal city of Haiphong on the 23 November 1946, causing large destruction and over 6000 civilians killed and many more wounded and ruined.

source

The aftermath

The question is how can a nation signing the UNO charter in 1945, break it is such an obvious way already in 1946 and get away with it. Bombarding a city and randomly killing civilians is not only breaking the core principles of the UNO charter, it is also one of the worst possible ways to do so. And this was committed not by some crazy rouge state, but the self-proclaimed most civilised nation of france.

In 1950 the topic was discussed in the french parliament, where Ms Vermeersch correctly stated that by bombarding and burning down Vietnamese villages the french are committing the same crimes that the Nazis did just a few years ago in france. The response was a political tactic that is still widely used today. Instead of debating the facts, blame is shifted on the bringer of truth. The president of the parliament stated that Ms Vermeersch has not only insulted, in an unbearable fashion, the french parliament but the entire french nation with her speech.

The consequences of the french war were disastrous. Not only did France ultimately fail to remain in controll over Vietnam, but the war brought destruction poverty and death to the region. Over 400,000 civilians dies in the war. It also set Vietnam on a route that would lead to more war and violence in the future. Of course it is not clear if this could have been avoided when France would have accepted their independence, but it should be clear that the fate of the Vietnamese people could not have been much worse.

Moral Relativity

This situation is a great example of moral relativity. A few years before the french correctly stated that it is unacceptable that the germans take controll over france by force, destroy villages and kill people. And they were absolutely right; using violence is uncivilised and should be rejected by the rest of humanity. But a few years later the same people find it perfectly acceptable to do the same in Vietnam. At the foundation of this seeming contradiction is the absolute belief to be always on the good side.

This continues until today and seems to be a very problematic trend in human nature. When we are attacked it is always unjust, but when we attack others, we do it to 'help' them to get rid of terrorists, or bring them civilisation. We feel that we are superior and therefore the rules that apply to others need not apply to us because we would only break them for the good cause, while everyone else would break them for their own advantage.

When we send a plane in Russian airspace it is a mistake and our plane is harassed by russian jets. But when the russians send theirs into European airspace they are on a evil mission and we intercept their planes. In reality the situation is symmetric. Both militaries are trying to gain intel on reaction times and defence patterns. But by using an asymmetric language we later read in the news that 15 russian planes were intercepted when violating our airspace while our planes have been harassed 12 times by russians while on unarmed missions in international airspace.

It also extends not only to nationalism but all kinds of social groups. The left believes they are fighting for the good cause and because the right is evil, supporting the big money ruling us and threatening minorities, it is sometimes okay to violate their rights. At the same time the right believes that they have to stop a left that is conspiring with big money to destroy our society. They are the good people that protect sanity and the evil leftwing people need to be stopped, sometimes using violence. But everyone believes they are the good ones and they have the unique right to use violence.

The problem is always the same, we invent rules that everyone should follow. But we become blind to our own mistakes and because we think we are inherently morally superior it is okay to sometimes break the rules and turn a blind eye. But betraying our principles we turn into a force of evil that invites corruption and interprets facts with a two-fold metric. No matter our initial motivations, the result will always be blind supremacist dominance. And we see it everywhere in politics, the west vs the rest of the world narrative, the fight of left vs right.

The way to stop is to start criticising yourself. Be very cynical about your own group. Hold yourself accountable to the same standards as others. Do not believe you are superior, smarter or more advanced in any other way. Chances are high you are not. Don't believe the one-sided propaganda but try to get first hand experience.

The west is not the glorious civilisation that brings culture and progress to the world. We are just another empire abusing its power like many before us. We write the rules to fit us and still end up breaking them. While we demand absolute compliance from everyone else we ourselves can do whatever we want. Because russia is evil, china is evil, Iran is evil, ... This way of thinking has brought enough suffering to the world, it is time to reflect and stop. Violence is only acceptable in
self-defence. Everyone using violence has to legitimise it by fair global standards.

Peace!