DOUBLE STANDARDS
International Relations are mostly about
Power and National Interest. Nowadays, however, they are also about taking the
moral high ground. Accordingly, OUR
intentions are the best and invariably ethically commendable. On the other
hand, THEIR intentions are
self-interest motivated, illegal and morally evil.
Ukraine, like other hotspots, offers
ample evidence of Double Standards.
EXHIBIT A: Government legitimacy
Russia upholds the legitimacy of
ousted President Yanukovych and does not recognize the legitimacy of Ukraine’s
current government and President.
The USA, Germany, Poland and
others, heretofore referred to as the West, promptly recognized the new
government.
1- Viktor Yanikovych was democratically
elected in 2010 and his mandate would only end in 2015.
2- Aleksandr
Turchynov
assumed the post of President without a popular mandate and the same can be
said about the government led by Arseniy Yatsenyuk.
3- On the 21 February, Yanukovych and the opposition signed an
agreement brokered and sponsored by Berlin, Paris and Warsaw, according to
which, some presidential powers would be devolved to parliament and Yanukovych
would stay in power at least until early elections took place in the Spring.
4- This notwithstanding, the President had to flee the Ukraine the
following day.
5- Subsequently, Parliament illegally impeached the President,
breaching the Constitution and snubbing the Constitutional Court.
6- Furthermore, this non-elected government has signed agreements
with the IMF and the EU that entail serious long-term commitments on Kiev’s
part and a great deal of enduring and very painful sacrifices for the Ukrainian
people.
Of course what mattered here was that the new powers that
be, favoured the interests and the agenda of the West. Real legitimacy was just
collateral damage. Obviously the same could be said about Russia.
EXHIBIT B: Protest movements
Russia labeled the protesters (a.k.a.
rebels) in Kiev and Western Ukraine as terrorists, fascists, thugs, illegal, anti-semitic
and purveyors of their alleged Western sponsors’ interests.
The West dubbed the protesters (a.k.a.
rebels) in Eastern Ukraine (and Crimea) as Russian-manipulated, violent, illegal, para-military and
wholly unacceptable. The new government in Kiev likes to call them terrorists.
In fact, these protesters
(a.k.a. rebels) are very much alike, which is of course anathema for Moscow,
Washington and Berlin, adamant as they are about their own morality, their
own legitimacy and their unique concern for the
Ukrainians’ well-being.
These claims notwithstanding, all these
groups engage in illegal and violent activities, serving their own interests
and those of their sponsors, whether domestic or foreign.
IMAGINE:
Imagine that a significant number of Portuguese
people would rebel against the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the three
major parties with the IMF, the EC and the ECB and that has caused excruciating
and unwarranted hardship on the Portuguese people.
Imagine that this angry mob, part of which was
trained and funded by a foreign power, occupy and ransack numerous government
buildings, sequestered government officials and killed a few others, resisted
and attacked the police and seized weapons depots.
Imagine that eventually the government resigned
and the President and the Prime-Minister would flee the country. Then the
organized groups within the rebellious crowd would constitute a new government.
Imagine what Washington, Berlin or Brussels
would think and do? Would they actually recognize and acclaim the new order? Of
course not. It would not be in their interest. Period.
Double standards are common practice in
politics and International Relations and they derive from the pursuit of
national interest which is frequently somebody else’s loss. But the
international actors could spare us the moral
posturing. That level of hypocrisy just adds insult to injury to everyone who
sees beyond the lame protests of innocence and good faith.
