By Rekha Shrestha
It is increasingly possible to observe in modern society the use of such a term as the policy of double standards. The policy of double standards is usually called a situation in which the assessment of the same event taking place in international relations depends on the nature of the relations of the evaluating parties with the objects of assessment. With the same content of the action, some countries receive support and justification, while others are condemned and punished.
The United States and some European countries have been the most prominent representatives of the policy of double standards for more than a decade.
A classic example of a double standard is the attitude to two fundamental principles of international law, one of which is the right of nations to self-determination, and the second is the principle of inviolability of borders without the consent of the State itself. If there is an interest in the dismemberment of a certain state, then the United States and its allies begin to praise the leaders of separatist movements in every possible way, presenting them as advanced, educated and humane personalities. Without any evidence, they are represented as the representatives of the opinion of the entire population of this territory.
For a long time, the world community has been observing attempts by US and their allies to instill their ideas about the state and public order, hiding behind the mask of a fighter for justice, thereby expanding the areas of their influence on the world. The system of bias for these countries has long been the norm of behavior.
In order to present a clear picture of the inconsistency of actions in the policy pursued by the United States, it is necessary to refer to its examples.
A striking example in the history of the policy of double standards was US attitude to the issue of Kosovo, on the one hand, and South Ossetia and Abkhazia, on the other. In the first situation, the United States and some Western countries managed to blame Serbia for everything and recognize Kosovo, in the second issue, Washington and its allies did not consider it necessary to see the crimes committed by the Saakashvili regime in relation to South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Examples of the duplicity and cynicism of Western politicians were clearly manifested in the situation around Syria. For some reason, President Bashar al-Assad, who was re-elected by the overwhelming majority of the population for the next term, was considered an illegitimate leader in the West, and the motley armed opposition, including foreign mercenaries and members of well-known terrorist organizations, is recognized as “fighters for freedom and democracy in Syria.”
The Ukrainian crisis has once again clearly demonstrated the policy of double standards of the Western world. The policy of genocide of their own people by the new Kiev authorities and their anti-Russian rhetoric find the warmest support and approval of Washington. On June 6, 2014, State Department spokeswoman Mary Harf said at a briefing that the State Department had found no evidence of human rights violations in eastern Ukraine during the “anti-terrorist operation”. According to Harf, “it is really unacceptable to appeal to morality when a country is trying to protect itself, its people, its buildings, its land, its territory from armed separatists supported by another state trying to sow chaos.” It is noteworthy that the United States did not say this about the war they unleashed in Syria, although the government of Syrian President Assad, which is fighting with pro-American and Islamic militants, is in exactly such a situation.
Here US applies the basic principles of international law again selectively: if in the same Kosovo the right of Albanians to self-determination was unconditionally supported, then in the south-east of Ukraine preference was given to preserving the territorial integrity of the country at any cost, up to the death of thousands of innocent civilians.
The West does not recognize the elections in Syria, but it recognizes them in Ukraine. On May 25, 2014, presidential elections were held in Ukraine, which, despite the previous coup d’etat, as well as numerous incidents and violations, the West readily recognized. On June 3 of the same year, elections were held in Syria, which were won by the current legitimate President Assad and which the US and the EU recognized as illegitimate.
And this is not a complete list of the manifestations of duplicity in the conduct of politics by Washington and their allies.
Unfortunately, what is good for one people is bad for another. After all, the policy of double standards of the United States and some Western countries exerts significant pressure on the society of individual countries, which ultimately may lead to a change in the foreign policy of the state not for the better for its people.
The practice of “double standards” was applied during the Cold War, for example, when President Reagan declared the fight against terrorism one of the main goals of US policy. The US and its allies also use the policy of double standards in relation to modern Russia, which we can observe in such examples as the granting of political asylum to Akhmed Zakayev (in the UK) and Ilyas Akhmadov –in the USA) – people who are considered criminals and terrorists in Russia.
Russia, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Kosovo, Georgia, Moldova, South Ossetia, Abkhazia – everywhere on the part of the United States and its Western allies we meet a policy of double standards.
Unfortunately, for more than a century the world has been facing extremely dangerous attempts by the United States and some European countries, self-styled taking on the role of “missionaries of freedom and democracy”, to impose their will and their ideas about the most rational state structure and social order on all other countries and peoples on the planet. At the same time, they act “by the right of the strong”, not too ceremonious in choosing the means and often using the ” big baton”.
The policy of double standards exerts significant pressure on society. And mutual accusations and criticism of each other’s actions negatively affect the possibilities of reaching understanding between countries in the field of international security and other areas.
Login to add a comment