Series of articles
POLICY OF DOUBLE STANDARDS
Policy of double standards is a situation, when the estimation of the same actions of different subjects varies depending on each of these subjects` relations with the estimator. Thus the actions of "friendly" (loyal to the estimator), are justified, but the same actions of "aliens" are blamed and considered inadmissible.
In the sphere of international relations this policy usually takes the form of charge of unwanted in violation of principles, conventions, obligations, "violation of universal values", "violation of human rights", "deviation of international rules". At the same time absolutely similar one`s own actions or actions of allies are demonstratively ignored.
Glossary dictionary defines double standard as "officially denied, but used in practice and tacitly recognized as a norm, the discriminatory approach to estimation of behaviour, rights and duties of representatives of different categories of population, different countries, races, etc." The definition of Concise Oxford English Dictionary is more laconic: double standard is a rule or a principle applied more strictly to some people than others (or oneself). It would seem that there is nothing to argue about: double standard is an evil, allowing deceitful and dodgy politicians to complot. However all is not so unequivocal.
The policy of double standards exists as long as human society does. It is widely applied as a means of pressure on opponents with the help public opinion and a way of justification of one`s own actions with respect to someone. The method of charging in double standards is often and widely resorted for reflection of criticism.
USE OF DOUBLE STANDARDS In WORLD politics
During elections in the countries, where the ruling regimes are pro-Western orientated, the international observers recognize, that the elections are corresponded to the international standards. And they find a great number of infringements in elections` procedure if the ruling regime or the winner of the elections is not orientated the same. For example, the victory of M.Saakashvili during the elections in Georgia was named as triumph of democracy, but the victory of A.Lukashenko in Belorussia – as the results of manipulation. In both cases extraordinary high percent of votes for the candidate (in Western point of view) was represented as a proof.
The countries of Western Europe welcomed the referendum on separation of Montenegro from Serbia and recognized its results; however they didn`t want to recognize any probability of similar referenda in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdniestrian Moldavian Republic.
The European Union and some other world organizations supported dispersal of the demonstrators, who defended "Bronze soldier", and also named these actions by internal affair of Estonia. However at the same time the same organizations repeatedly condemned force measures in relation with dispersal of "movement of dissidents".
After the collapse of the USSR the western countries supported the cessation of practice of oil-products delivering by Russia to the post soviet countries at reduced ("non-market") price. After Ukrainian "Orange revolution" led to a change for pro-western policy, putting up of the price for the energy resources oriented for this country started to be called as "blackmail policy" and an attempt to undermine the economy of the other country.
In western mass media Iraqis and Afghans, attacked the US troops, were called "terrorists", but the Chechen separatists, made war against federal troops of Russia were named "insurgents" or "guerrillas".
The hijackers of the airliners had been directed to the World Shopping center were recognized as "terrorists". The American militaries bombed the Serbian hospitals, were not adjudged guilty as military criminals, and in most cases they even found support of the world community.
One of the vivid examples of the use of double standards policy is the events of August, 2008 on Caucasus, the military operation of Georgia against South Ossetia. The failure of this operation startled the world mass-media and gave cause for many speculations about the increasing role of Moscow in the world and further development of relations between Russia and West. Though the American newspapers went on concentrating on the events in Gori and foolhardy quoted "concerned" G.W.Bush. For example, Washington Post contended that the Russian Army operation in Gori incurred the US president`s relentless criticism, though many European editions recognized, that the events in South Ossetia had evidently shown the use of double standards in American politics.
According to British The Times the world community observed the brilliant and brutal chess playing where Moscow declared the checkmate. The newspaper said that the prime-minister of Russia Vladimir Putin had given several pawns on the chessboard – Kosovo, Iraq, NATO membership for the Baltic states, US renunciation to observe the terms of ABM treaty, US missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic – however he set the trap in Georgia. When the Georgian troops started shelling on South Ossetia, Russia was waiting, but from the day when the Russian tank brigade raced through the Roki Tunnel, Moscow didn`t take any wrong step.
According to the British edition each party should learn the lesson from the events. The former Soviet republics should keep in mind their geographical boundaries. NATO has to decide does it still want to admit the Caucasian republics into alliance. Georgian people should clarify if they want to keep the President who brought their country to such situation. Washington has to clarify doesn`t the voice of Russia still matter at all. Do they like it or not, but the stand of Moscow carries much authority.