As centuries ago as now, we find many policymakers, politicians, and political analysts who still consider the abstract idea of double standard a shrewd political craft. They simply justify this double play as a mean to attain goals and preserve interest. Though the manipulative concept is broadly stigmatized, yet the double standard code is very active in the real political life but hides under the name of realpolitik (real politics). In practice, realpolitik has expanded to unparalleled level at which the judgment of most political leaders is transformed.
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 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, advocates of human rights and civil rights rebuff the idea entirely, seeing it a type of discrimination and 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 instead of successes.
The primary call in question thereof is about the morality and consequences of double standard dealings. It is about whether people of the twenty-first century are destined to live with Niccolo Machiavelli’s supposition “the end justifies the means” or not. To simplify the case, the question is whether it is morally acceptable 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 largely practiced where there are armed conflicts and wars, where there are turmoil and chaos, and most importantly, where national interests and flow of foreign resources have to be guaranteed. Although it is officially denied; yet easy to discover its powerful omnipresence in the socio-political practices of most decision makers of Arab states and Middle Eastern countries, like Iran and Turkey–let alone China, Russia, UK, EU leading states, UN and, above all, the dominant United States
Led by the U.S. Administration, probably the master of double standards, most of those governments among others have driven the world to a state of distrust and falseness thus and so to the absence of international honest-broker organizations and creditable leader-nations to reinstate regional order. Aside from that, this chaotic situation has led, alongside other issues, to the rise of religious fanaticism and terrorism, massacres and barbarism, which have complicated most regional conflicts much further and generated frequent economic crises.
To cite a still-in-play case, most political analysts criticize the current double standard pattern of Obama’s administration, its European partners, and Arab subordinates, in dealing differently with radical Islamic groups. This is, however, 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 the same U.S. administration imposes an arm ban on other radical Islamic factions (like those of Syria who share the same ideology and targets like those of Egypt and Libya) so that they could not overthrow Syria’s 43-year-old despotic regime–not to mention cases of Jordan, Morocco, Bahrain, and Iraq, at this time.
Like it or not, though the U.S. role is still seen as the most influential country of this era; nevertheless, it is losing momentum day-after-day. A look at how Russia, North Korea, and Iran, defy the free world and the 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 on 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 has 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.
On this subject, it is very illustrative to reiterate (without annotating) Tomas Jefferson’s wisdom: “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty”.
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 continue in 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. Bearing in mind that the free world will also miss this rare chance to help democracy flourish in the Middle East and North Africa.
Considering the way the Egyptian military junta and the Syrian regime oppose the U.S. administration, and in view of the strong comeback of the Russian bear and interference of the Iranian mullahs in the region, is a small sample of what will happen in the future.
Any willful delinquency by the U.S. administration to abort its current double standard practices in the Middle East, and change its policy to side with the people, who are dying in hundreds of thousands to make the change, will create devastating consequences on all.
In all probabilities, if the U.S. is to maintain its political dormancy, the world will witness the destabilization and disintegration of the entire Middle East region, the spread of fear and human suffering all around, and the descent of U.S. political and economic position in the world. Remembering that, the winners will be those who have nothing to lose, mainly the radical camps and anti-west despotic states.
If so, say goodbye to democracy.