The attitude of most European Union countries and Anglo-Saxon Atlantas to the war in the east of Europe shows that Ukraine's problem has been consciously placed at the heart of the global strategy for respective years.
Interestingly, at the same time the dramatic problems of many countries, especially the alleged Global South, have not moved anyone behind the West. The top paradox revealed itself in treating Ukraine as the largest victim of the Russian attack, while the massacre of Gaza by the Israeli army deserves no effective opposition. Not for the first time in past we are dealing with a festival of hypocrisy, duality, indifference and cynicism of Western governments.
Double standards can be applied in everyday life to the “morality of Kale” popularized by Henryk Sienkiewicz. It means seeing transgressions as negative in relation to others alternatively than to ourselves. This is the application of different rules in analogous or even identical situations. This phenomenon refers in social life to divisions by gender, skin color, beliefs and creeds, property status. The usage of double standards is frequently a origin of disappointment and frustration in those who are required more than others to comply with the rules from which others are exempt. The consequence is unequal and biased treatment, which spawns rebellion, which is the root of aggression and conflict.
Nations better and worse
Many observers have observed that the governments and media of Western states value the lives of any nations more than others, more dear to them is the lives of all Israeli hebrew than the Palestinian Arab, they mourn the slain Ukrainian than the Russian, and yet they are appropriately equivalent, related Semitic and Slavic nations, though anti-Arabic or Russophobic propaganda treat them differently. The violations of global rules by geopolitical opponents are more condemned than by their own.
Accusing Russia of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in the eyes of many observers outside the West is ambiguous. The same West gives Israel a sense of impunity for his shameful acts during the pacification of Gaza, while demanding that Putin be prosecuted as a war criminal. The rhetoric of Polish politicians is peculiarly zealous. They do not take an honest position on the release of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from work before the global Criminal Court. It can be seen from the hands that politicians sin with clear bias, blaming all the evil of the president of Russia.
Every war is simply a origin of humanitarian disaster. erstwhile the U.S. and another Western states effort to convince global opinion that Israel's military run against the Palestinians is an act of self-defense, The Russians rightly mention the defence of their compatriots, the Russian-speaking population, discriminated against by the Kiev government in east provinces of Ukraine. So, then, does self-defense concern only the territory of a given country and its population, or besides compatriots surviving in the diaspora, outside the boundaries of the matrix? Why did the West defend Albanians in Serbian Kosovo and Israel evacuate thousands of Jews from east Africa (from Ethiopia and Sudan)? These cases are informative and instructive, although the guardians of global pseudomorality learn nothing from them.
Over the last decades, Western leaders have defended the order of “ruled” but only erstwhile it was convenient for them. By the way, no 1 has always codified these rules, although by the alleged collective West they were treated as apparent and undisputed. For a long time, however, it was known that there was a large "difference of self" against the background of their knowing and application. The US and its allies followed different principles towards its allies, partners and vassals, and others towards rivals and opponents.
Currently, which is possibly the top sensation of Donald Trump's second administration, even to US partners and allies, they do not apply a relief tariff. The United States departs from earlier declarations of Atlantic or wider Western solidarity. The mythical principles of promoting democracy, the protection of human rights and marketplace freedoms are interpreted inconsistently and selectively. 1 might be tempted to say that erstwhile we depart from these principles, Trump directs America toward amoralism. possibly – paradoxically – this is simply a more honest approach unlike the hypocrisy of his predecessor, citing the "moral good" as the imperative of US politics
Principles of global law, specified as respect for sovereign equality of states or territorial integrity, not to mention non-interference in interior affairs, are only respected if they service the interests of Western countries. Cases of repeated violations of these principles occurred during the Balkan wars during the 1990s, attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as during intervention in Libya and Syria. The United States is now fiercely bombing Yemen, and their Israeli ally is bloodyly dealing with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. He's threatening to assault Iran. However, this does not rise much opposition. due to the fact that the “immunity idol” belongs to the power promoted by ideology to Israel, while Russia is the on-call “whipping boy”. This is peculiarly actual of her assault on Ukraine, although many of the courts of her unquestionable guilt have been reviewed on the American side.
Farewell to Law and Principles
Before our eyes, solidarity and support for countries that share common values are melting. Protectionism, imposition of tariff and customs barriers prevail in global trade. In this context, the various "sustainable development" agendas have lost their meaning. one more time in history, imperial powers treat global law and various institutions in an instrumental way.
Such a policy favours the universality of global law by the countries of the alleged Global South, headed by China and Russia. They attach this strategy to the era of colonialism and imposing Western dominance throughout the global system. For years Chinese and Russian diplomats have stressed that the West has applied universal rules selectively, to accomplish unilateral benefits, whether it concerns trade or respect for human rights. In the meantime, pluralism and diversity of civilization must be defended, and we must advocate maintaining full sovereignty and non-interference in the interior affairs of the states. It is not hard to guess that this is primarily about defending authoritarian forms of government against Western democratization crusades.
Russia and China, pointing out double standards to the West, divert attention from their own gross violations of global law. China thus diminishes the mistreatment of the Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang while Russia tries to turn the "identity of the aggressor" into "the identity of the injured victim". So there is simply a "mistakeful wheel". Everyone blames each other, contributing to the degeneration of the normative-institutional basis of the global order that has lasted for decades. In order to prevent further erosion of these safeguards, consideration should be given to convening a universal global conference, which would give impetus to a fresh form of universal organisation that would defender the systemic balance.
The current American administration does not pretend to follow any rules. It demonstrates a transactional, profit-oriented approach to abroad policy. This means following only your own, selfish, and peculiar interests, without seeing what others think. It is this narrow approach that is conducive to the complete annihilation of universal principles, which, even if they were only of a postulate nature, have fulfilled a directive and corrective function.
The paradox of modern America is that it has grown to power through mass industrial immigration. It now shows a "human face" towards all illegal (visit-free) visitors to the US as "uninvited guests". This is expressed in deportations, tightening of border controls, building border networks or refusing residence permits.
Migration paradox...
It besides covers the countries of the European Union. They are incapable to keep their level of improvement and the state of possession without the influx of immigrants. They have built their wealth mostly thanks to the influx of abroad populations, frequently without either integration or even assimilation. This created immense adaptation and recognition problems. Demographic forecasts clearly indicate that the population of most European countries is shrinking rapidly. So what can we do in specified a situation? In order to prevent increasing conflicts, the governments of the EU countries are addressing oppressive and discriminatory measures. Everything against political correctness and the humanitarian values that have been proclaimed for years.
Western migration policy begins to scope for control measures, even repressive ones. Under the pretext of stopping the influx of immeasurable human masses, European states restrict the broad freedoms of citizens, which ricochets the native people. The candidates for elective positions, specified as Romania, Turkey or France, are being sequestered, rightly asking for rationalisation of government policies on migration issues. However, under the pretext of dealing with illegal migration, the fight against legal political opposition is developing, which calls for the defence of the civilizational identity of its countries and of Europe as a whole. This is already happening in almost all the associate States of the European Union.
Nothing has compromised the Anglo-Saxons and EU countries as the false communicative of the war in Ukraine imposed over the last 10 years. The formulation of many charges against Vladimir Putin, concerning genocide and crimes against humanity, was clearly biased and biased. At the same time, the work of American politicians for the tragic consequences of U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan or the mediate East was disregarded. There was besides a part of cruelly eliminating America’s opponents in various countries.
Ordering the killings of alleged enemies of the United States or Israel, in the territories of another countries, means attributing the right to alleged extrajudicial killings. Between 2008 and 2013, 2 1000 to 4,000 alleged U.S. enemies were to be killed by the CIA or Pentagon. president Barack Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner (Egmont R. Koch, licence to Kill), was peculiarly zealous in signing orders in these cases. The death of secret services, Warsaw 2015).
History through the battlefield
Historical policies of the states are not free from double standards. During the bloody war in Ukraine it turned out how perversely 1 can manipulate the memory of the bander military formations of planet War II. It is intended to heroize the national struggles of free Ukrainians, not to reprimand crimes. Meanwhile, erasing the memory of the Red Army's engagement in liberating Europe from German Nazism has become a common guideline for historical policies of many states, taking russophobic attitudes. Unfortunately, Poland has besides been affected by this, and 1 of the candidates for president of the Republic of Poland is highly arrogant of the fact that as president of the Institute of National Memory he had his active participation in these vile acts.
The war in Ukraine showed how prosecution rhetoric and diphamation communicative should be strengthened in the name of dealing with Russia. Solidarity with Ukraine, regardless of its assessment of its behaviour towards the Russian-speaking population and its provoking a short circuit with Russia, led the United States itself to a dead end. We are now seeing a gradual return to a balanced view of the situation. Most importantly, the most crucial media in America began to participate, which announces a thorough revision of the communicative about this senseless war.
Double standards concern the European Union as regards its long-established objective, i.e. the free movement of persons. Suddenly, it turned out that the rising cost of maintaining its own citizens, the failure of social welfare systems, the failure of energy reconstruction projects and the populist-nationalist sentiments against the background of xenophobia, exposed the weakness of this structure as never before. In a sense of impending disaster, the European Union is ready to transform itself into a militaristic-war project. Thus the loudly declared peaceful goals and values are subjected to dramatic erosion.
Remilitarisation of Europe...
is a defeat of the full political doctrine to date, which led after all, after planet War II to the dismantling of sources reborn erstwhile and again the expansion of the German power. The current ideas about creating a "European army" under the EU name are so nothing more than allowing the reconstruction of the imperial power of Germany. It starts with the militarisation of external borders, the concentration of migrants and asylum seekers in detention centres (guarded and closed with a prison nature) along EU borders, and will most likely end with offensive war doctrines and the planning of "trips to Moscow".
It is unusual that in this context there is no strong consequence from the full and rich European societies that have the most to lose in the event of a disaster to organise themselves in mass anti-military protest. Pacifism is surely not a panacea to prevent aggressive wars. However, it may be an inspiration to consciously and organized opposition to crazy spending on arms and rebellion against rusophobic governments, looking into the war against Russia to save the abyssing crises of liberal democracy.
It is now becoming rather apparent that the adoption of a black and white communicative about the rules and rules of the game in global relations is expected to make a powerful impression that imperial Russia by the will of the alleged global community, namely only Western countries, was outside the margins of the global system. However, it turned out that most of the alleged Global South countries, with China and India in the lead, were on the side of Russia. Russian warnings, directed from Moscow for many years towards the capitals of Western states, were shared that double standards would lead to a complete undermine of the foundations of consensus normative governance in global relations. Not only China and India, the world's most populous states, but besides Brazil, Indonesia and Turkey have begun to reprove the West that the "binar" image of countries breaking and respecting universal standards is false and destructive.
Rejecting the West's uniqueness and its civilisational mission is the starting point for designation of multipolarity as the basis for a new, more just and inclusive global order. The crisis of Western leadership means losing the privilege of teaching others how to live. Trump understands perfectly that the preaching or mentoring nature of communicating with the planet has lost its meaning. Rather, it is simply a pragmatic pursuit of self-interest, with respect for common profits, that allows for maintaining the position of "major quarterback".
Moreover, it appears that transactionability is no exception, on the contrary, in the US's footsteps are followed by another crucial countries. Many of them did not want to charge Russia for its war against Ukraine due to their protection of their interests, avoiding sanctions. any of them, specified as India or Brazil, utilized an impasse between Russia and the West and concluded long-term, mutually beneficial contracts. It turns out that taking an opportunistic position in geopolitical rivalry of powers can be a promising way to level the playing field.
The logic of polarization processes in the global strategy leads to the conclusion that the weaker the power of the West, the little the rightfulness of its principles. The application of double standards fosters the climate of distrust and undermines the meaning and effects of global cooperation. Without teaming up the rules of the game, the global strategy will sink into “a colossal global dysfunction”.
Prof. Stanisław Bielen
Think Poland, No. 15-16 (13-20.04.201025)
