Если у вас возникли сложности с курсовой, контрольной, дипломной, рефератом, отчетом по практике, научно-исследовательской и любой другой работой - мы готовы помочь.
Предоплата всего
Подписываем
Double Standards in Modern Politics
Minsk, 2010
Plan:
Introduction
1. Double standards in the European Union:
.1 Big Sharks bullies Fish
1.2 UN vs Israel
1.3 International law
2. US double standards:
2.1 Double standards at home and abroad
2.2 American exceptionalism and common criticism
Bibliography
Introduction
One of the Noam Chomsky’s books is opened with a well-known story told by St. Augustine about a pirate captured by Alexander the Great who asked him: “How dare you molest the sea?” The pirate in return, relied: “How dare y o u molest the whole world? Because I do it with a little ship only, I am called a thief; you doing the same thing with the great navy are called an Emperor”.
Since the time this story took place a lot of time has passed. Yet the double standards are still applied to the same actions taken by different people. The term double standard, coined in 1912, refers to any set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, typically without a good reason for having said difference. A double standard may take the form of an instance in which certain applications (often of a word or phrase) are perceived as acceptable to be used by one group of people, but are considered unacceptable—taboo—when used by another group.
A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms. Such double standards are seen as unjustified because they violate a basic maxim of modern legal jurisprudence: that all parties should stand equal before the law. Double standards also violate the principle of justice known as impartiality, which is based on the assumption that the same standards should be applied to all people, without regard to subjective bias or favoritism based on social class, rank, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation or other distinction. A double standard violates this principle by holding different people accountable according to different standards. The proverb "life is not fair" is often invoked in order to mollify concerns over double standards.
The term can be applied to politics as well. The Emperors and the Pirates still exist, they still “molest the sea” and as well as many years ago their actions are treated in different ways.
1. Double standards in the European Union: Big Sharks bullies Fish
Sometimes in the press there spring up the statements that Brussels bullies smaller member states but is often feeble towards the big ones
EU bossiness from far away Belgium will be easy to endure by comparison. But "corruption" is a complaint which dogs the new EU Bulgaria (Romania too), so it is no surprise to hear today that Brussels is threatening to suspend financial aid and retain travel restrictions on work-seekers unless Sofia does more to crack down on organised crime and other forms of corruption. The promised reforms of the judiciary are also bogged down.
Bulgaria is the EU's poorest member which is counting on 7bn worth of euros ( £5bn-plus) to aid structural reform over the next five years, though a major road project linking the Black Sea coast to Serbia collapsed last month, according to the FT. The socialist-led government faces a no-confidence motion today.
So it's not hard to feel a bit sorry for the poor Bulgarians as they grapple with modernisation, evidently less well placed than several other recent EU entrants from the ex-Soviet bloc.
Doubly so, I think, because the EU admonition reflects a recurring habit whereby the European commission bullies smaller member states - but rarely the big ones.
Do you remember the fuss made when Jörg Haider's far right Freedom party - always dubbed neo-nazi in media-speak - made serious gains in the Austrian elections and nearly joined the coalition in Vienna in 2000?
Fourteen member states, admittedly not the EU formally, piled in to condemn Austrians, as if Haider had burned down the Reichstag.
The Portuguese and the Irish have been hammered over breaches of the eurozone's debt rules. The Danes and Irish were bullied over the "wrong" referendum results - and President Sarko was in Dublin the other day arm-twisting over the latest "No" to the Lisbon treaty.
Yet I'm stuck to remember the last time the French or German governments got threatened from Brussels - a city occupied many times by French and German armies - or the Italians got seriously hammered over its own corruption.
That has certainly eaten up a lot of EU aid south of Rome: you can see it in those half-finished motorways which come to an abrupt end (no more cash) in the middle of some Sicilian field.
Yes, I know, realpolitik requires a realistic approach to French breaches of European law or takeover rules - when did you last trying buying a French utility company? - over which there is a long list of charges dating back many years.
In Britain we not only take these rules rather literally, we gold-plate them in their domestic enactment. Health n' Safety is not something you will spot too much of in a French country market this summer.
Come to think of it, when Jean-Marie Le Pen got into the French presidential run-off against Chirac - a pretty disgraceful development - there was an embarrassed official silence.
In short, if Brussels is often feeble towards the EU big boys, wagging its stern, bureaucratic and pompous finger at the little boys looks like double standards.
1.2 UN vs Israel
The relationship between Europe and Israel is complex, tense, and historically loaded. A growing gap has developed between their political outlooks. European political actions can continue to cause Israel so many problems and harms that these in the longer run may increasingly dominate all other aspects of the relationship.
One strong gauge of Europe's negative political attitude toward Israel is its voting record in the United Nations. Another is the frequent condemnations of Israel from Brussels. A third is the financing the EU has provided for a variety of activities directed against Israel. France has been in the forefront of many European anti-Israeli initiatives.
The mood created by the political leaders of European countries toward Israeli government officials often permeates their societies. Their discriminatory attitudes are enhanced by many media, NGOs, and some churches. These factors together help build an anti-Israeli atmosphere in large parts of European society, which is expressed in opinion polls. This is often accompanied by anti-Semitic positions.
The relationship between Europe and Israel is complex, tense, and historically loaded. An increasing gap has developed between their political outlooks. At the same time, relations in areas such as trade, science, culture, and sport have continued to expand over the decades and have only been affected by the political divergences to some extent.
It is frequently claimed that when assessing European-Israeli relations, one has to attempt to establish an average of the interactions in the various fields. To consider this a balanced approach is mistaken. European political actions can continue to cause Israel so many problems and harms that these in the longer run may increasingly dominate all other aspects of the relationship.
The European Union (EU) consists of twenty-five states with a population of 460 million covering a territory of about 3.9 million square kilometers. Israel is a small country - covering a territory far less than one-hundredth of the EU's size - with a population of six million, partly surrounded by mortal enemies. Europe and Israel are not comparable entities. In view of the imbalance in power, populations, and geographic size of the two areas, an analysis must focus primarily on the much larger European side.
When looking for telling pointers in such a complex relationship, often a useful shortcut is to identify extreme attitudes. In turbulent times these become indicators of how Europe's attitude toward Israel may evolve if the world political situation deteriorates.
Analyzing extreme European attitudes is meaningful for another reason as well. It was against the Jews that Europe reached its absolute low of barbarian behavior in the twentieth century. Although Europe's current worldview is very remote from that of the 1930s, still there are several disquieting similarities with the demonizing of the Jews - mainly by Germans but also by others - before the Second World War. The focus of the defamation has shifted from the individual Jew to Israel, the Jewish state.
In the 1930s there were many Jews who closed their eyes, not wanting to see the signs of the times. In a large universe of events one can always find some positive pointers. Looking for those, while the power of Germany's Hitler regime was increasing, one could have cited the fact that in 1936 for the first time a Jew, the socialist Leon Blum, became prime minister of France. In 1939, Lodewijk Visser was appointed the first Jewish president of the Dutch Supreme Court.
These events could have been interpreted as signals of a greater acceptance of Jews even in the highest positions in various European countries. These, however, were irrelevant in the broad framework of the overall deterioration of the Jews' status in Europe.
Bayefsky stresses the relationship between anti-Israeli bias and the European desire to avoid condemning world anti-Semitism, which mainly means its high Muslim and Arab component.
One example of this occurred at the 2003 General Assembly. The issue arose of including the word "anti-Semitism" in a resolution on religious intolerance in a preamble. Ireland, which had been the lead state on the subject of religious intolerance for many years, was determined to keep mention of anti-Semitism out.
So Israel decided that it would move an amendment to add it from the floor. The Irish were unnerved. Irish Foreign Minister Brian Cowen and Israel's Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom made a deal that Israel would withdraw its threatened amendment to the resolution on religious intolerance. In exchange Ireland would introduce for the first time in UN history a resolution on anti-Semitism.
Israel was delighted by the prospect. The Irish delegation sat on the third committee, waited for the resolution on religious intolerance to pass through the committee without the mention of anti-Semitism. Then they withdrew their promised resolution on anti-Semitism. Their excuse was the lack of consensus. Among others, Ireland went to the Iranians for their support. They afterwards claimed that they were surprised at the opposition. To sum it up: there was no resolution on anti-Semitism.
The mood created by the political leaders of European countries toward Israeli government officials often permeates their societies. The EU's mindset and discriminatory attitude toward Israel is also manifested by various European ambassadors. It is unlikely that some of their statements would be tolerated concerning any other democratic country.
One of the most publicized scandals involved the former French ambassador to the UK, the late Daniel Bernard. At the dinner table in the home of then Daily Telegraph owner Lord Black, he said Israel was a "shitty little country" that had triggered the international security crisis. Bernard's remark was typical of the new anti-Semitism, in which Israel has taken the place of the Jews as the scapegoat for the world's evil.
Black's wife, journalist Barbara Amiel who is Jewish, quoted her guest without giving his name or the country he represented in a Daily Telegraph column. It did not take long until other papers revealed who Israel's undiplomatic detractor was.
Bernard's subsequent reaction gave even clearer insight into his mindset. Initially the press secretary at the French embassy said that the ambassador did not remember if he had used those words. Thereafter Bernard insisted that what he had said had been thoroughly distorted. It was reported that he - rather than addressing his own anti-Semitism - was outraged "that a private discussion found its way into the media." Zvi Shtauber, former Israeli ambassador to the UK, relates that Bernard came to the Israeli embassy afterward to apologize though publicly he had denied that he would do so.
The foregoing describes Europe's double standards toward Israel and what they have caused. One has to assess as well what should have separated Israel and Europe objectively. Only a few indicative remarks can be made.
To do so one has to define Europe's characteristics, policies, and worldviews. For Israeli strategy expert Yehezkel Dror, Europe is characterized by its focus on citizens' welfare and neglect of security risks. It is busy with current issues but does not devote adequate attention to the long-term future.
For Trigano, the EU's ambitions mainly create associations with the Napoleonic Empire because of its bureaucratic political character. He points out that every empire needs an enemy, and Europe defines itself in opposition to the policies of the nationalist American state.
Andrei Markovits, a political scientist at the University of Michigan, says: "Nobody knows what it means to be a European. It is unclear what Greeks and Swedes have in common. But one important characteristic they share is their not being American." He also observes that anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism are the only major icons shared by the European extreme Left and Right, including neo- Nazis.
The rejection of its proposed constitution by the populations of France and The Netherlands in spring 2005 has created some uncertainty about the direction the European Union may take. It is telling mainly in regard to the EU's worldview that many observers consider that a crisis in a democratic entity such as the EU may be advantageous for another democracy, Israel. This author summed it up by saying: "While past EU policies have been heavily biased against Israel, as it enters a period of disarray, EU policies may become less threatening to Israel."
The United Nations plays an important role in the establishment of international law. Israel is confronted with many new issues where international law falls dramatically short in meeting reality. In this area as well, Israel has become an indicator of the failures of Western society.
Yehuda Blum, a former Israeli ambassador to the UN, says that some fields of international law have greatly assisted society at large. He mentions as examples the law of diplomatic relations, the Law of the Sea, and the Law of Treaties. Blum adds:
One field where international law has failed in recent years is where it relates to the use of force. Its main weakness concerns the law of war, belligerent occupation, and so forth. Since these are usually acute problems, they highlight contemporary international law's weakness.
Another major failure of international law is to cope with the recent international terrorism. International law is premised on the existence of states, which are bound by its norms. In this particular case, we are confronted with a different phenomenon: armed groups perpetrating many crimes without any state taking responsibility for their actions.
There is often no possibility to hold any particular state accountable for these actions. Al-Qaeda is like an octopus, which has spread its tentacles all over the world. It was headquartered in Afghanistan where it has been disposed of. International law has been unable to develop the necessary adjustments to this novel situation.
Blum adds that for many decades the Europeans have been unwilling to confront the new reality of terrorism. "It started with hijacking of planes and the kidnapping of their passengers in 1969. At that time because it was an El Al airliner, there was little concern among the Europeans about the outcome." He adds that Israel has been at odds with Europe on matters concerning international law for several decades. "I think that the major sticking point in our relationship with the Europeans is their lack of ability or willingness to understand the perils of the current situation."
International lawyer Meir Rosenne, former Israeli ambassador to the United States and France, expresses an even stronger opinion: "There are two types of international law. One is applied to Israel, the other to all other states. This comes to the fore when one looks at the way Israel is treated in international institutions."
He observes:
One finds this attitude also in many aspects of customary practice. In 2004 at the Athens Olympics the International Olympic Committee did not commemorate the murder of the eleven Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. A private ceremony of the Israeli ambassador to Greece in Athens was all there was. The president of the Olympic Committee attended, but not the Olympic Committee as such. And this was their attitude despite what happened on September 11, 2001.
Rosenne mentions as a typical example of international law's double standards the 2004 International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Israeli security fence. "In its judgment the Hague court decided that the inherent right of self-defense is enforced only if one is confronted by a state. If this were true, that would mean that whatever the United States undertakes against Al-Qaeda is illegal. This cannot be considered self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter because Al-Qaeda is not a state."
2. US double standards at home and abroad
2.1 Double standards at home and abroad
The Bush administration is attempting to soothe the Turkish government’s apoplectic reaction to the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s label of “genocide” on Turkey’s slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians, which occurred almost a century ago. The administration fears that an enraged Turkish ally, already threatening to invade northern Iraq in order to suppress armed Turkish Kurd rebels seeking refuge there, will also cut off U.S. access to Turkish air bases and roads used to re-supply U.S. forces in Iraq. The administration essentially wants to allow the Turks to continue to deny a historical fact that preceded even the existence of the current Turkish system of government.
Similarly, the United States has never been too enthusiastic about criticizing Japan’s denial of having used Chinese and South Korean women as sex slaves (so-called “comfort women”) during World War II. More generally, the United States never really says too much when the current Japanese government regularly tries to whitewash in school textbooks the atrocious conduct of the Imperial Japanese regime before and during World War II. Again, a principal ally who does not face up to important historical facts is not reproved.
Yet the administration is still repeatedly bringing up Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s December, 2005 denial of the historical fact of the Jewish holocaust at the hands of the Nazis. That’s because the U.S. government chooses to get along a lot less with the Iranian government (than it does with the governments of Turkey and Japan); because Israel, Iran’s nemesis, is a U.S. ally; and because the administration can win points with its domestic Israeli lobby.
In the same vein, the administration is supposed to be supporting the expansion of democracy overseas—that’s why the United States invaded Iraq, right?—but does so only in less friendly countries, not close allies. The United States has pressured weaker Arab countries near Israel to hold elections and make democratic reforms, for example, among the Palestinians and Lebanese, but it has not pressured Israel to remove the second-class citizenship of the Arab population living within its borders. The administration has aided opposition forces in Iran, even though the groups don’t want the support, while making only half-hearted attempts to democratize its autocratic allies in Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Of course, the United States doesn’t really need to coddle despotic regimes just to win their lukewarm support for the “war on terror,” their promise not to attack Israel, or their agreement to pump oil which their own economic interest would cause them to sell on the world market anyway. But neither does it need to meddle in the internal affairs of adversaries, such as Syria and Iran.
But if the United States were to have the same standard for all countries—both friend and foe—and join the international community in identifying and strongly condemning all documented cases of genocide, other war crimes, and repressive behavior by all countries, then perhaps there would be a chance that history might not be repeated.
First though, the United States needs to clean up its own act. Other countries may have acted terribly in the past, but U.S. citizens should not be blinded to the sins of their own government. Since World War II, in terms of numbers of military adventures, the United States has been the most aggressive country in the world. And many such interventions cannot be blamed on the need to combat international communism. Even after the United States’ major foe—the Soviet Union—collapsed, the U.S. expanded its informal empire and stepped up military activities across the globe. The United States bombed Serbia and Kosovo; invaded Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq (twice); and intervened in Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia. Furthermore, the United States has kidnapped people and illegally rendered them to secret prisons in countries where torture is perpetrated, or simply had the CIA or U.S. military do the honors. These prisoners have been denied both the rights of prisoners of war and the rights of the accused that the U.S. Constitution guarantees—for example, their right to challenge detention using a writ of Habeas Corpus. It’s likely that a substantial portion of these inmates are innocent.
If the United States is going to criticize other countries’behavior, both historical and current, it should eliminate the double standard at home and abroad, and clean up its own act first.
2.2 American exceptionalism and common criticism
American exceptionalism is the theory that the United States occupies a special niche among the nations of the worldin terms of its national credo, historical evolution, political and religious institutions and unique origins. The roots of the belief are attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville, who claimed that the then-50-year-old United States held a special place among nations, because it was a country of immigrants and the first modern democracy.
The theory of American exceptionalism has a number of opponents, especially from the Left, who argue that the belief is "self-serving and jingoistic" (see slavery, civil rights and social welfare issues, "Western betrayal", and the failure to aid Jews fleeing the Nazis), that it is based on a myth, and that "[t]here is a growing refusal to accept" the idea of exceptionalism both nationally and internationally.
Criticism of United States foreign policy encompasses a wide range of sentiments about its actions and policies over time.
Critics charge that savvy dictators such as Uganda's president Yoweri Museveni have manipulated U.S. foreign policy by appealing to its need to fight terrorism. Others suggest U.S. should adopt a policy of realpolitik and work with any type of government who can be helpful.
Bibliography
1. "Europe and Hizbullah," Jerusalem Post, 15 February 2005.
2. Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Dore Gold, "Europe's Consistent Anti-Israeli Bias at the United Nations," Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, No. 34, 1 July 2005.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_American_foreign_policy
4.http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2008/jul/23/michaelwhitespoliticalblog207
5. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2053
6. http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-gerstenfeld-1-f05.htm