Centered on Civil Liberties & Political Issues, Human Development & Socioeconomic Matters
As centuries ago as now, we find many policy makers, politicians and political analysts who still consider the abstract idea of double standard is a shrewd political craft. They simply justify and identify this double play as a mean to attain goals of interest. Apart from the far-flung stigmatization of this concept, the fact remains that the double standard code is very active in political life, though hidden under the name of realpolitik (real politics). Actually, the practice of such idea has expanded to unparalleled level to which it has touched the judgment of most political leaders of our time.
Politics is generally defined as the art or science that involves constituting regulations and governing policies of a nation, formulating strategies of defense against foreign control or aggression, protection of its citizens’ rights and morals, and observing the codes of national ethics in which a nation can function and prosper safely.
Contrary to that, the double standard code—if there is one—is about the application of unfair designs and different modes to one group of people, community or nation than to another, irrespective of ethical issues.
Proponents of the double standard code consider such utilization is the best practical act to preserve national interest and communal advantages seeing that national concerns should have top priority over all other objectives or notions, without regard to moral considerations. Most of its drumbeaters also believe that being fair and square will unmask vulnerabilities, expose objectives and hence undermine the achievement of the required results.
On the other hand, human and civil rights advocates rebuff the idea entirely, seeing it a sort of discrimination as well as a camouflaged act of deceiving others. Supporters of honest dealings and equality believe that double standard, discrimination, segregation, racism, sectarianism, and so forth, have always been a product of one self-serving percept or another. Most intellectuals also believe that double standard would empty the moral values of people on the long run , and could demoralize the national underlying principles of the user-nation for decades. Forthright politicians affirm that similar political duplicities have failed to attain its declared objectives or to serve its unprofessed goals, especially when the record of such undertakings is full of disappointments rather than successes.
The primary call in question thereof is about the morality and consequences of double standard dealings. It is about whether people of the 21st century are destined to live with Niccolo Machiavelli’s supposition “the end justifies the means” or not. To exemplify the issue, the question is whether it is morally accepted to cheat in a test so that to graduate from university or be honest and bears the result.
Actually, the practice of double standard is silently spreading, here and there, in which it became a customary political application of many governments and international organizations, like the UN and its Security Council. It is observed very often where there are armed conflicts and wars, where there are turmoils and chaos, and, of course, where national interests and flow of foreign resources have to be guaranteed. Although it is officially denied, yet easy to discover its powerful omnipresence, especially in the socio-political practices of most decision makers of Arab states, Middle East countries, Iran, Turkey, China, Russia, EU’s influential states, UN and, above all, the dominant U.S..
Led by the U.S. Administration, probably the master of double standard, most of those governments, and others, have driven the world to a state of distrust and falseness thus and so to the absence of honest-broker international organizations and creditable world leader-nations that can reinstate regional order. In addition to that this chaotic situation have led, alongside other issues, to the rise of religious fanaticism and terrorism, massacres and barbarism, and obviously complicated regional conflicts much further—let alone generating of economic crises every now and then.
To cite a still-in-play case, the majority of political analysts criticize the ongoing double standard pattern of Obama’s administration, its European partners and Arab subordinates, in dealing with various radical Islamic groups. This, however, is because they arm or fund and support some Islamic fundamentalists (mainly, the Muslim Brotherhood and its subdivisions and byproducts) to enforce regime change in Egypt and Libya, for instance. Whereas this same U.S. administration imposes arm banning-orders and inhibit all nations to act differently so that to undermine another radical Islamic factions (though they interbred with those of Egypt and Libya) to overthrow Syria’s 43-year-old despotic regime, not to discuss the case of Jordan, Morocco, Bahrain and Iraq, at this moment.
Like it or not, though the U.S. role is still seen, more or less, as the most influential country of our time, nevertheless is losing momentum day-after-day. Just look into how Russia, North Korea and Iran, for example, openly defy the free world and its dis\United Nations to realize how serious the U.S leading status is degenerating. Most of that drop flows from the fact that the unrivaled U.S., which is widely preconceived to honor its proclaimed universal moral values, is running low of willpower and credibility to uphold its founding principles.
Unfortunately, the government, which Abraham Lincoln identified as the” Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth” is now redefined to become the government of material interest, by interest groups, for Washington’s politicians. It is quite hard to believe that the mightiest country on earth, which have fought and won two world wars to liberate Europe and the world from Nazism, fascism and other tyrannical doctrines, is now unnerved to support democracy and stop the massacre of the 21st century in Syria.
To all intents, it would be very consequential to all developing nations, especially Middle Eastern ones, to be reassured soon that the U.S. foreign policy is not customized to manipulatively stand against the will of people to remove dictators, or disinclined to get potently involved in the cooking of freedom and democracy in the Middle East.
By all odds, if president Obama is to maintain his unplug Middle East policy, the U.S will lose the last chance to uphold its influence and interests in this strategic region before long. Likewise, the free world, and the world of the free, will miss a rare chance to help democracy flourish in the Middle East and North Africa.
A close view of how Egypt’s dominant military junta and Syria’s regime are furiously opposing the U.S. administration along with the strong reappearance and interference of the Russian bear and Iranian mullahs in the region should serve as good examples of what could happen in the future.
Any further willful delinquency by the U.S. administration to abort its current double standard approach in the Middle East, and hence take sides with the people, who are dying to make change, will create a devastating catastrophe.
In all probabilities, if the U.S. is to maintain its standstill position, the world will witness the destabilization and disintegration of the entire region, spread of fear and human suffering and, of course, the descent of U.S. political mastery. Bearing in mind that, the winners will be those who have nothing to lose, mainly radical camps and anti-west despotic states.
If so, say goodbye to democracy.
Author’s Note: This article is also published at Arabian Gazette