SARA DANIAL
As all of us grapple with the inequality and injustice stemming from modern repetitions of historical oppression, along with the repercussions of human life on Mother Earth and its ecosystems, this article dares to ask about our potential role in addressing the crises and challenges characteristic of the 21st century.
The horrific accounts of historical and present instances of global and regional injustices are an integral aspect of many political disputes – Balochistan, Kashmir, Sudan, Palestine. While each case might evoke empathy when viewed from the perspective of the victims, it doesn’t inherently signify that the events were universally “unjust.” What remains consistent across all scrutinized incidents is the divergence in standards upheld by opposing sides.
As global society navigates the complex landscape of justice, international law, and responses to criminal war atrocities, a glaring reality persists: the white supremacist West often exhibits diverging standards across these crucial realms. In the pursuit of justice, disparities emerge when considering the treatment of individuals based on their racial or ethnic background. The judicial system in many Western nations reflects biases that disproportionately impact marginalized communities. Despite the professed commitment to equality before the law, disparities in arrests, convictions, and sentencing persist, revealing systemic biases deeply entrenched within these societies.
The white supremacist West’s approach to upholding international law also demonstrates a double standard. While advocating for adherence to global norms in the case of the Russo-Ukraine war, Western powers frequently skirt accountability for their violations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon, etc. The selective application of international law, particularly in geopolitical conflicts, becomes evident when certain nations face repercussions while others evade accountability for similar transgressions. This asymmetrical approach not only undermines the credibility of international institutions, such as the United Nations Security Council, and the International Court of Justice but also perpetuates a perception of impunity among powerful nations, further eroding trust in the principles of justice and fairness on the global stage.
To address criminal war atrocities, the West’s response often mirrors another form of divergence in standards. Instances of grave human rights abuses and war crimes in various parts of the world receive varied levels of attention and action based on geopolitical interests. There exists a palpable reluctance to hold allies or favored nations accountable for their transgressions, while harsher condemnation and punitive measures are swiftly advocated against adversaries. This inconsistent approach not only undermines the pursuit of justice but also perpetuates a cycle of inequality in addressing crimes against humanity.
The persistence of these diverging standards in matters of justice, upholding international law, and addressing war atrocities poses a significant challenge to global equity and accountability. To foster a more just and equitable world, it becomes imperative for the West and global powers to introspect, and rectify systemic biases, or face the repercussions in the upcoming elections.
The glaring double standards in global politics between the treatment of Palestine by the United States and Israel versus the approach toward Russia’s actions in Ukraine incite a profound sense of injustice and hypocrisy. For decades, the Palestinian territories have endured the brunt of occupation, facing egregious violations of human rights and international law by Israel, often supported and enabled by the United States. The relentless bombardment of Gaza, the displacement of families, the destruction of homes—these atrocities cry out for justice, accountability, and genuine efforts toward peace.
Yet, when similar violations unfold elsewhere, such as Russia’s in Ukraine, a contrasting narrative emerges. The international community swiftly condemns and imposes sanctions, demanding accountability and adherence to international law. The stark contrast in responses underscores a disturbing bias that reeks of political expediency, undermining the very principles of justice and equality that nations claim to uphold.
The biased approach of the United States isn’t confined to the situation in Palestine. Instances such as the invasion of Iraq in 2003 under the pretext of weapons of mass destruction, resulting in prolonged conflict, destabilization, and immense civilian suffering, demonstrate a similar selective application of international standards. In Lebanon, the unwavering support for Israel despite documented instances of disproportionate force and civilian casualties during conflicts further showcases the inconsistent stance on justice and accountability. The situation in Kashmir, where human rights violations persist amid a complex geopolitical landscape, also underscores the tendency for political expediency over consistent adherence to humanitarian principles.
The prolonged war in Syria witnessed varied responses from the international community, revealing how certain actions are met with condemnation and others with muted reactions or geopolitical calculations. These instances collectively paint a distressing picture of how powerful nations pick and choose when to champion human rights and international law, perpetuating a vicious cycle that undermines global stability and moral authority.
The glaring disparity in how these situations are handled emotionally wounds the spirit of fairness and integrity in global governance. It leaves scars of disillusionment, reflecting a world where power dynamics dictate justice, where the suffering of one group is seemingly deemed less significant than another’s solely based on geopolitical interests. This double standard prolongs a cycle of violence, eroding trust in the pursuit of true peace and justice for all nations and peoples.
source : americankahani