top of page

"Love is the only power capable of turning an enemy into a friend."

Martin Luther King Jr.

Grischa Eichfuss​

Philosopher & environmental activist​

  • tolerance

  • human rights

  • charity

  • understanding

international understanding

politics of dignified tolerance


Nonviolent universality of human rights

  • promote human rights

  • Understanding & respect for states with deficits

  • Prohibition of sanctions

  • More real diplomacy


patienced at theimplementation of human rights

  • ​Implementation takes decades / centuries


Non-interference in the internal affairs of states

  • ignorance of the actual circumstances

  • Destabilization through massive measures

  • Voluntary cooperation 


Policy of non-interference ends in wartime

  • Sanctions against  Aggressoor 

  • Desired help for defenders


Non-violent treatment of all nations 

  • Ban on verbal and psychological violence

  • International Law Ban on Threats

  • Ban on the threat of sanctions under international law

  • International law prohibition of defamation

  • Constructive criticism


All cultures and states are equal

  • Every country is a unique organism

  • The wonderful thing lies in the diversity of states

  • Therefore EVERY country has to be respected

  • Non-Western values and cultures are to be respected


The central role of the UN in international law

  • May alone impose sanctions on countries

  • Abolition of the right of veto in the Security Council

  • 2/3 majority decision of the UNO  General Assembly

Human rights are our greatest asset, but may only be brought closer to other countries on the basis of non-violence, tolerance and respect. Human rights do not justify intolerance against other cultures, since different historical, economic and cultural developments created fundamentally different conditions for the implementation of human rights.

Due to the above fact, non-Western countries take a long time to establish human rights and stable democracies. The West should show tolerance and understanding for this. Patient and respectful diplomacy is the only way to achieve lasting change.

Most countries have committed themselves under international law to create legal and constitutional structures, but firstly, structures do not automatically generate an awareness of human rights and secondly, the agreement does not say anything about the period in which the changes will be established. Such processes can take decades and centuries.

No country or alliance of states may join theinnerinterfering in another country's affairs.Interference through pressure, judgments, threats, sanctions, embargoes or war endanger the organically grown structures and thus the stability of countries and is prohibited under international law. Only the UN can impose sanctions. 

The prohibition of interference is not a form of isolationism. I am for intensive cultural, economic and friendly exchange. But the contacts are voluntary and without coercion. The prohibition of interference refers to forced or unwanted exchanges


The ban on interference for individual states or alliances of states only applies inpeacetime. If a state is at war with a third state (direct confrontation, proxy war, hybrid war, terror war, guerrilla war, etc.), the ban on interference with theaggressorraised up. If belligerent combatants whose war equipment or third country unmanned warfare equipment crosses the territorial borders of another country , it is considered an aggressor. In the opposite case, he is considered a defender and can (only) auf own wishh to ask third countries for help.

All states are committed to non-violent dealings with one another. By violence I understand physical violence such as wars, deadly espionage, terror and all other physiological decreases in influence on the population of other countries.

Violence also includes verbal and/or psychological violence. No country in the world has the right to threaten other countries and their citizens. Attempts to intimidate, threats of war and/or sanctions, malicious defamation, discrediting of a state are prohibited under international law. Constructive, factual opinions, criticism or suggestions for improvement can be expressed. This should be done without hate, know-it-all, or overt rejection. The same applies here: Only in peacetime!

Every country is to be accepted unconditionally as it is – with all its strengths and weaknesses. Every state is one for centuries unique, grown, social, historical, cultural, ethnological, economic and social entity. It follows that each country is in its own time and at its own pace. The values of other nations or cultures can only be transferred to a very limited extent.

If states show deficits in terms of the implementation of democracy and human rights compared to western countries, they, their values and culture are just as valuable and unique as western states. Human rights are a product of Western philosophy, whose theory of ideas stems from the Enlightenment. In Asia, Africa, Arabia, Latin and Central America there was no Enlightenment or it only took place at the beginning of the 20th century.

The United Nations Security Council is the only body in the world that has the right to interfere in a country's internal affairs. Security Council resolutions against violations of international law may be passed with a majority of 60%. The right of veto of permanent members is abolished. The Security Council decision will be submitted to the General Assembly for approval and will require a 2/3 majority to be adopted.

The past seventy years have shown that the great powers have always found ways to exercise their veto power, even when they were directly or indirectly involved in the conflicts or when it affected their interests. This renders the UN unable to act: although Russia is openly waging a war of aggression against Ukraine, Russia uses its right of veto to block its actions from being condemned and sanctioned.

The Tragedy of Western Value Politics

Human rights are unique in their kind because they were created collectively by all countries of the world. It is not about a country going it alone or about an ideology, religion or doctrine of salvation of individuals. Human rights unite the experiences of 300 years of secular enlightenment and humanism.

Since most non-Western countries lag behind in terms of the implementation of human rights, which is due to tradition, history, economy, culture and intellectual history, there is a gap between East and West, rich and poor, between oligarchy and democracy.

The route is the goal


The aim of the EU is to improve and implement the human rights situation in those countries. The question is whichmethodis best to achieve this. Are you tolerant, understanding and respecting the countries for what they are - respecting their culture, traditions and values? This is how you gain their trust. In an atmosphere of trust, it is much easier to persuade states to advance human rights in their country through friendly talks and skillful diplomacy


The West uses the other method by wanting to force states to have more human rights. He uses coercion and pressure. Economic sanctions are imposed on states if they do not do what the West wants. They are blackmailed into doing good. The method of enforcing human rights violates their own charter. Your values are thereby taken ad absurdum

"If an ideal by force
enforced, it breaks."

Grischa Thomas W. Eichfuss


The West's means and policy of promoting human rights are contrary to its own values. The United States and the EU want to spread tolerance with intolerance, freedom with coercion, and justice with blackmail. When an ideal is attempted to be enforced with such violence, it usually falls apart. Those who preach water and drink wine should not be surprised if they lose credibility.

The example of Qatar 


The example of Qatar shows how this happens in practice. Qatar is being bombarded with accusations as a state and as a society, I have not heard a word of praise or recognition from Europe. It is of course right to address the poor working conditions, because it is wrong. However, Qatar is systematically reduced to its human rights violations. All of Qatar is being held in kinship for an injustice: It is being demonized, everything about Qatar - its culture, its tradition and politics - is  Bad. Other countries, most notably Germany, criticize Qatar in an outrageous, disrespectful manner. Many Westerners are downright morally agitated, akin to a medieval witch hunt.


Do not get me wrong,I am not a fan of Qatar nor their advocate. But I'm a fan of fairness, justice and truth. Have the Qataris violated human rights? Yes, of course they have. Is that why the inhabitants are all vicious brutes and monsters? No, of course not. Unfortunately, they are exaggerated to do so by the West. Human rights have mutated from a beautiful, humane ethic to an ideology through the political abuses of the West. Qatar is only viewed from the perspective of the lack of human rights. Everything else is no longer noticed - its hospitality, its culture, its beauty and its people

The tragedy 


The sad thing is that western approaches lead tothat you achieve the opposite of what you actually intended - more humanity in the world. The West frightens and offends most countries with its boorish behavior. They will turn away from the west and go with themChinaorRussiacooperate. The gap between East and West is growing. If the West continues to try to enforce human rights by force, it will soon be on its own.Compulsion to do good doesn't work.

Division of the world into East-West and North-South

viMany countries are turning their backs on the West politically because it does not respect them and ignores their history. We must not forget that human rights are the product of European intellectual history. In the Arab world there was no Enlightenment and therefore no separation of church and state. The Industrial Revolution, with its economic, technological, engineering, architectural and material science achievements, catapulted Europe and the United States a hundred years ahead of the rest of the world. The industrial revolution led to the financial and, as a result, political rise of the bourgeoisie. The gap between top and bottom was gradually smoothed out by the rise of a broader middle class. In Arabic and Asiatic countriesthere was no politically strengthened middle class, which, in addition to the lack of industrial revolution, was also a consequence of western imperialism. For thousands of years the people in those regions have always known a master above them who tells them what to do. This is how they grow up, socialize and internalize the rules of a regime. From suchn Societies to be expected in a short time, democratic and just Gto produce companies misses reality.

Many states do not want to be patronized and humiliated from above. There is a threat of another split in the world into democratic and authoritarian Hemisphere. The consequences of the split is, for example, the Ukraine war.

bottom of page