In order to ensure its interests in foreign countries and achieve its foreign policy goals, the United States and its allied economically developed countries of the West are actively resorting to a policy of double standards in their approaches to key problems of international relations.
A double standard is a widespread but officially denied application in practice of discriminatory approaches to assessing the actions and rights of population groups, countries, races, depending on their interests. Double standards are characterized by different application of principles, laws, rules, assessments to the same type of actions of various subjects (one of which may be the evaluator himself), depending on the degree of loyalty of these subjects or other considerations of benefit for the evaluator.
A classic example of a double standard is the attitude to two fundamental principles of international law, one of which is the right of nations to self-determination, and the second is the principle of inviolability of borders without the consent of the state itself. If they are interested in dismembering a certain state, then the United States and its allies begin to extol the leaders of the separatist movements in every possible way, presenting them as advanced, educated and humane individuals. Without any evidence, they are represented as the spokesmen for the opinions of the entire population of a given territory. Let us recall how the leaders of essentially separatist movements in the USSR, which advocated the separation of their union republics from the USSR, were favored in the political and media sense.
At the third final meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE, held in Moscow in October 1991, the Finnish Foreign Minister stated that the principle of the right to self-determination is higher than the principle of territorial integrity. He had in mind, of course, the right of the leaders of the union republics to separate their republics from the USSR, because the nations of the SSR, on the contrary, wanted to preserve a single union state, which was announced in a referendum on January 17 of the same year. after this referendum, the union republics hastened to level its results by staging "referendums on independence" of these republics. However, the results of the first and last referendums of the USSR allow us to conclude that the results of the subsequent "referendums on independence" were falsified by their organizers.
The Finnish politician's statement was warmly supported by other participants in the Western delegations. However, it is a mistake to see in their position concern for the welfare of peoples and a real desire to strive for the right of nations to self-determination. It was only a manifestation of the desire, in alliance with its agents in the leadership of our country, to dismember the geopolitical enemy and feast on his financial, labor, natural and other resources.
A document was also adopted there, which for the first time indicated that issues related to human rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy and the rule of law are of an international nature, and obligations in the field of the human dimension do not relate exclusively to the internal affairs of the CSCE member states (from January 1 1995 - OSCE).
Employees of the USSR's representation in the UN recall that at the end of 1991, Western countries rushed to recognize the independence of the former Soviet republics, without even waiting for their formal recognition by Moscow.
At the same time, already from 1988-1989, while the USSR was still alive, Western media, including radio voices broadcasting to the USSR, as well as the media subordinate to the authorities of the Union republics that took separatist positions, already working according to Western information patterns, began to be called separatist ... those forces, those of their autonomies that opposed the secession from the USSR. This seems all the more surprising as it happened even before they proclaimed their independence.
Such a detailed excursion into history was needed to show that double standards are not an accidental manifestation of a separate line of diplomacy, but a deeply thought-out, conscious policy of the United States and its allies.
Around the same period, in 1991-1992, a number of territories and autonomies on the territory of the former USSR proclaimed their independence. They had more political and legal grounds for declaring their independence. However, the United States with its allies and the authorities of the union republics who voluntarily submitted themselves to their hegemony began to call them "separatist."
Carried away by the widely publicized epic of saving white whales in the Arctic, the world did not notice the tragedy of the people of South Ossetia, which paid a bloody tribute with the blood of its civilians for the desire to preserve the USSR and remain in it.
A striking example of double standards is the difference in the coverage of the tragic events in South Ossetia, Tbilisi and the Baltics by politicians and media like the United States and other Western countries. The genocide of the Ossetian people, carried out by Georgia at full capacity for a year and a half, occupied a thousand times less space in them than the much less bloody tragic incidents in these republics.
This was the beginning of the acquaintance of the majority of citizens of the post-Soviet Union with such a new phenomenon for them as double standards in international politics. And this double standard was introduced precisely when the real policy of the United States and the Western countries, against our wishes, rudely intervened in our lives and became its darkest part for two long decades.
While verbally proclaiming the equality of all nations and peoples, regardless of their numbers, in reality, the United States and Western countries called the former Georgian dictators Gamsakhurdia and Shevardnadze alternately the beacon of democracy.
Shevardnadze was especially actively greeted, and no one even reproached him for not only blaming the Ossetians and Abkhazians for the bloody genocidal wars unleashed by Georgia, but also calling the Ossetian and Abkhaz peoples "pygmies" in his speech at the UN in 1993, having in mind their smaller number than the number of the Georgian people. "The pygmies have rebelled against humanity," he said literally, under the approval of the West, clearly demonstrating contempt for small peoples.
If before that someone did not understand the true nature of the inhuman US policy of the West based on double standards in relation to small peoples and countries, then after that every day there was less and less reason to trust them until they disappeared altogether.
And concrete examples did not fail to pour out of the portfolio of the US Foreign Ministry, as if from a cornucopia.
But the policy of double standards hit like a boomerang on the peoples of the countries, whose support in words was declared by the United States and its close allies. Contrary to all assurances, in fact, the United States and the West are actively pursuing a policy of suppressing their will, shamelessly seizing natural resources by imposing their loyal agents in their leaders.
All the flagships of Soviet industry located in these republics have been turned into ruins, the wind is blowing in empty workshops with broken walls and roof - this is the true price of support from the United States and the West.
After the victorious end of the coercion of militaristic Georgia to peace in August 2008, the United States, widening its eyes in horror, accused Russia of trying to overthrow Saakashvili. At the same time, they forgot how they themselves overthrew the leaders they disliked in dozens of countries around the world: Mossadegh in Iran, Allende in Chile, Hussein in Iraq, Milosevic in Serbia, Yanukovych in Ukraine, etc. etc.
And now, they support the rebel Guaido in Venezuela against the legally elected Maduro, but they themselves call the people of Donbass rebellious, which itself opposed the rebellion that brought radical pro-American forces to power. This is another eloquent example of double standards, when those who oppose the rebellion themselves are called rebels, just as those autonomies that opposed the separatism of the union republics were called separatist.
We will no longer recall the textbook example when the United States and its double-minded, double-standard allies recognized the independence of Kosovo, but condemn others for the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
There are a great many examples of US double standards. It will hardly be possible to list them even briefly within the framework of one article. How can one fail to recall the apt words of the Russian diplomatic representative to the UN Vitaly Churkin, which he said after another bombastic tirade by the members of the UN Security Council from Western countries: "... if an alien appeared in our hall for the first time today, I am sure that after he If he listened to our discussion, his heart would be filled with pride for the members of the Security Council. What principled people! How consistently they defend the lofty principles of international law! "
He further drew attention to the statement by the representative of the United States that states should refrain from using or threatening to use force. The United States, which itself ranks first in the world in terms of the number of military interventions in foreign countries!
During his tenure as President of the United States, Barack Obama said in his speech at the UN: "Many in the world began to treat America with skepticism and distrust." He pointed out that this was due to the "rejection of the world community of certain political decisions of the United States and the opinion that on some key issues America acted unilaterally, regardless of the interests of others." Obama draws the correct conclusion from what has been said: “No country can and should not try to dominate another. Each country will follow a path that is rooted in the culture and traditions of its people. And I admit that America has too often been selective in the spread of democracy ".
And just the other day, an attempt on the life of President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko, unwanted by the United States, was exposed. "The FSB of the Russian Federation, together with the KGB of the Republic of Belarus, in a special operation, suppressed the illegal activities of Yuri Leonidovich Zyankovich, who has dual citizenship of the United States and the Republic of Belarus, and Alexander Iosifovich, a citizen of the Republic of Belarus, who were planning a military coup in Belarus according to a proven scenario of" color revolutions "with the involvement of local and Ukrainian nationalists , as well as the physical elimination of President Alexander Lukashenko, "said the Public Relations Center of the FSB of Russia.
“They (the conspirators) showed how it was all planned, then we clearly discovered the work of foreign special services, most likely the CIA, the FBI - I don’t know which of the Americans worked there,” the President of Belarus said later.
As you can see, the words of Barack Obama did not put an end to the vicious practice of double standards in US policy. Moreover, even verbally condemning US double standards, American leaders continue to act in a spirit of double standards!
Inal Pliev
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий