The hypocrisy in
international relations, although nothing new, still manages to
bewilder and irritate me in equal measures. Are these hypocrites so
blind, so indoctrinated, that they don't see the nonsense that spews
from their mouths? Or are they very much aware of the double
standards that form the basis of their rhetoric but hope the public
won't pick up on it? There have been some great recent examples of
such hypocrisy.
A few weeks back French
and American political and social commentators were lining up to take
a shot at Britain's perceived “crisis of democracy” over
parliaments no vote to military strikes in Syria. Apparently
international law must be respected at all times, and any violators
must be severely punished. Except, what they actually mean is that certain
people and countries must respect international rules, where others
need not concern themselves with such things. It's telling when you
see big political figures such as US President Barack Obama and
Secretary of State John Kerry replace the more objective term
“international law” with the subjective “international norms”.
But, as big violators of the former, what choice do countries like
the US have but to change the terminology they use to deflect from
the reality of their foreign policy.
Politicians and
political commentators, particularly from the US and Israel, but
Britain too, have been quick to dismiss the newly elected Iranian
president's pledged willingness to discuss a settlement over the
nuclear issue. Here the hypocrisy is as acute as ever. Often
reference to Iran's violation of a UN resolution is quoted in the
same conversation that mentions Israel's security; yet rarely are
Israel's constant abuses of international law and disregard for UN
resolutions mentioned. In that region, India, Pakistan, and even more
relevant, Israel, are all allowed to stockpile nuclear weapons,
whilst the international community headed by the US refuse Iran that
same right.
Another recent example
of the use of double standards in international relations was the
grounding of the plane carrying Bolivian President Evo Morales.
Spain, France, Italy and Portugal, at the insistence of Washington,
all denied his plane access to airspace over their respective
countries, forcing him to land in Vienna. Whistle blower and to most
outside the US, hero Edward Snowden, responsible for the recent NSA
leaks, was suspected of being on-board. The fact that this turned out
to be incorrect is irrelevant. What is disturbing is that the US and
it's allies feel they have the right to force a plane carrying a
democratically elected president to land in order for them to search
that plane. Can you imagine, and I mean really try to envisage, a
group of Latin American countries trying to force Air Force One, with
president on-board, to land at a place of their choosing so they can
carry out a thorough search. We all know what consequences would
likely follow – the US would severely punish the perpetrators, and
quite possibly, militarily.
Hypocrisy seems to be a
key theme that runs through the foreign polices of some Western
powers. Is there any wonder then that countries like Iran or North
Korea are reluctant to engage with such countries? Countries that
criticise them for their human rights record yet at the same time
cosy up to Saudi Arabia, probably one of the worst abusers of human
rights out there. What are the rest of the world seeing when they
look at the US or Britain? - Aggressive, untrustworthy, and extremely
hypocritical countries – and it's really not that hard to understand why they
have such a perception!