Exposed: Uneven Global Standards in International Diplomacy ?

Introduction: Is It really about Democracy?

For Decades, the West - led primarily by the United States, the United Kingdom and the Western European nations - has positioned itself as the moral compass of the World. These powers frequently claim to uphold and promote universal values such as democracy, human rights, and freedom of speech. From media broadcasts to diplomatic summits, they project themselves as the defenders of global justice.

But when we observe how these principles are applied in real-world geopolitics, a troubling pattern begins to emerge. The West’s commitment to these values seems to shift depending on who the target is, what political or economic interest is at stake, and whether the nation in question is an Ally or a Rival.

·       Take the example of the Middle East and Asia - regions often criticized by the West for lacking democratic institutions or committing human rights violations.

·       Countries like China, Iran and North Korea are frequently singled out, sanctioned and criticized across international platforms. But on the other hand, Western-aligned nations like Saudi Arabia or Israel, despite having documented histories of suppression, war crimes, or censorship, often escape similar scrutiny – or are actively supported with weapons deals and diplomatic cover

·       Nowhere is this selective morality more apparent than in the treatment of Asian countries. Whether it’s in economic forums, international media, coverage or United Nations resolutions Asian nations are often judged more harshly or held to different standards than their Western counterparts. Their cultural nuances, development challenges, and alternative political models are rarely acknowledged with empathy.

·       Even initiatives led by Asia, such as BRICS or Belt and Road Initiatives (BRI), are viewed with suspicion rather than balance – while Western-led organizations like NATO or the IMF are portrayed as benevolent, even when their history shows otherwise

Through this blog, we aim to unpack the layered Hypocrisy behind such selective narratives. We will explore hoe economic tools like sanctions, trade restrictions, and foreign aid are often politicized, how media narratives are shaped and controlled, and how global institutions are sometimes used to protect the interest if a few, rather than uphold the rights of all.

Understanding these double standards is the key – not just for political analysis, but for building a more balanced multipolar world where Asian voices are heard. Respected and no longer filtered through Western lens.

Human Rights Double Standards: Why West chooses and picks its Battles?

Western governments and media outlets pride themselves on championing Human Rights and Democracy, yet their responses reveal a stark double standard. When non-Western or adversarial countries commit abuses, the West is swift to condemn, impose sanctions, and lead global media campaigns. But when strategic allies engage in similar or worse violations, the reaction is often muted – or entirely absent.

Selective Outrage: Case Studies

Here is the detailed explanation:

1.      China – Xinjian and Surveillance

Western countries have imposed sanctions on Chinese officials and orchestrated widespread media campaigns condemning China’s treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang – with allegations of mass internment, forced labour, and surveillance. This response reflects a broader strategic rivalry with China, prompting a forceful human rights narrative against Beijing.

 

Saudi Arabia, a key Western ally, offers another parallel. The country has been widely documented to use forced labour (especially among migrant workers), mass surveillance, arbitrary detention, torture and executions against dissidents and activists. Despite these abuses, Western states continue to maintain strong diplomatic, trade and military ties with Saudi Arabia and refrain from imposing significant public condemnation, sanctions or coordinated pressure similar to what they direct at countries like China and Iran.

 

Another example is United States’ Guantanamo Bay detention facility. After the September 11 attacks, the U.S. established Guantanamo Bay as a military prison for suspected terrorists and “enemy combatants”. Detainees have been held for years without trial or formal charges, denied habeas corpus and subjected to indefinite detention. Human rights groups have documented patterns of torture, forced confessions and harsh living conditions within the prison. Despite heavy criticism from advocacy groups, only limited condemnation or sanctions have emerged from other Western states, and U.S. continues to maintain the facility.

2.      Myanmar – military coup and Rohingya genocide

Following the 2017 ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims by Myanmar’s military, Western governments condemned the atrocities and imposed targeted sanctions on generals. International bodies voiced strong protests, and humanitarian aid increased.

However, Myanmar remains a s source of cheap garments and natural gas that flow into Western markets, despite the reported genocide. The West’s sanction focused on individuals but largely avoided comprehensive trade embargoes, allowing continued profit from Myanmar’s resources.

 

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia had led a military intervention in Yemen that has resulted in widespread civilian casualties and what the United Nations considers one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. At the same, Saudi officials have been implicated in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and ongoing crackdowns on dissent within the kingdom. Despite these actions

·       The United States and European powers have continued to sell billions of dollars’ worth of arms to Saudi Arabia and have largely avoided imposing significant sanction or diplomatic isolation on the Saudi government.

·       There has been little meaningful accountability or condemnation from these governments, especially compared to their vocal criticism of official enemies such as Myanmar or Iran.

·       Economic and strategic interests – particularly energy security and regional alliances – are prioritized, with business as usual often prevailing over human rights concerns.

Another prime example is of Isarael’s treatment of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West bank. Repeated military operations in Gaza have resulted in large numbers of civilian deaths and widespread destruction, widely condemned by numerous international organizations as possible as war crimes. However:

·       The United States frequently shields Israel from international accountability, including using it veto power at the UN council to block resolutions critical of Israel actions.

·       No Western power has imposed serious trade or arms sanctions against Israel, and diplomatic support remains strong, starkly contrasting with responses to other states accused of similar abuses.

 

3.     For decades prior to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, western countries – especially in Europe and the UK – welcomed investments and deposits from Russian oligarchs, even as questions swirled about the origins and the legitimacy if their wealth. These oligarchs, many with close ties to Vladimir Putin and Russia’s political elite, purchased luxury real estate, yachts, artworks, and financial assets, often with the assistance of Western lawyers, accountants, bankers, and financial advisors who sometimes looked the other way regarding money-laundering risks.

Details of the Pattern:

·       “Londongrad” and Western Enablement: London and other European cities earned reputations as playgrounds for Russia’s super-rich. Russian money poured into real estate, football clubs, and philanthropic donations to high-profile institutions. UK authorities and financial institutions facilitated these flows, generating tax revenues, fees and prestige, despite warnings - from figures such as financier Bill Browder – about potential corruption and the risk of laundering illicit money

·       Weak Oversight and Selective Enforcement: until recently, anti-money laundering enforcement and due diligence on Russian capital were widely regarded as lax. Only half of the top Russian billionaires were sanctioned even after the 2024 annexation of Crimea, and substantial Russian investments remained unchallenged while oligarchs deepened their links to Western economies.

Double standard in application:

·       The timing and selectivity of the West’s actions have led to accusations of hypocrisy. For years, economic and strategic benefits from Russian capital effectively trumped ethical or political concerns – regulation was minimal, and due diligence often superficial.

·       When Russia became a pronounced political adversary, the same assets and individuals, previously tolerated or even courted, were suddenly portrayed as toxic and subject to punitive measures. This rapid about-face underscores how political necessity and convenience, rather than principled consistency, drove enforcement.

Economic manipulation: Sanctions and Trade Wars

The West often uses economic tools to “punish” nations don’t conform to its worldview. However, these tools are rarely applied to Western-friendly autrocities.

Case Examples:

1.      Iran and North Korea: Serve Sanctions

Both Iran and North Korea have faced some of the most severe and comprehensive international sanctions, led by the United State and supported by allies. The justification sanctions, led by the United States and supported weapons development. These sanctions are not limited to individuals or officials; they strike entire sectors – banking, energy, shipping and even humanitarian supplies are hindered, devasting ordinary citizens.

·       Iran: Sanctions have crippled its oil exports, blocked access to the international banking systems, and isolated its economy, with only partial relief during the short-lived JCPOA nuclear deal. These measures are presented as upholding a “rules-based order”, yet there is minimal Western engagement with the catastrophic humanitarian fallout, showing the primary concern is strategic containment rather than universal justice.

·       North Korea: Along with weapons - related embargoes, there are wide-ranging restrictions on finance, trades, and even textiles, causing humanitarian crises. Western governments go so far as to pressure third countries (like China and Russia) to server all economic ties, regardless of unintended broader consequences for North Korean civilians.

But this severe treatment is not universal. When Western-favoured autocracies or even Western nations themselves engage in nuclear brinkmanship or violates international treaties, the response is muted or non-existent.

 

2.      Pakistan (during war in terror): billions in aid despite military rule.

Despite periods of military dictatorship, severe internal repression, and support for the Taliban by elements within its security apparatus, Pakistan received tens of billions in U.S. aid in the name of War on Terror. Western criticism of human rights abuses or lack of democracy were largely set aside in favour of strategic partnership.

India has suffered due to the consequences of Pakistan receiving billions in aid from the U.S. during the War on Terror despite its military rule and alleged support of extremist groups. This complex dynamic has impacted India in several ways:

·       Sustained terrorist attacks supported from Pakistan Territory:

Pakistan’s military and intelligence agencies have been widely accused f harbouring and supporting terrorist groups like Lashker-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), which have carried out numerous deadly attacks on Indian soil, including the:

1.      The 2001 Indian Parliament attack

2.      The 2008 Mumbai Attacks

3.      The 2016 Uri Attack

4.      2019 Pulwama Attack

5.      2025 Pahalgam Attack

 

3.      Sri Lanka’s Crisis: Selective Blame and Narrative Simplification

·       Media Narrative: Western reporting frequently assigns primary for Sri Lanka’s 2022 economic crisis on Chinese loans, painting Beijing as a predatory lender.

·       Hypocrisy: This narrative often ignores or minimizes the impact of decades of Western-backed economic policies, brutal civil conflict (supported at times by Western interests) and global commodity shocks. In reality, Sri Lanka’s debt is owed as much to private Western lenders and multilateral institutions as to China, but Chinese involvement is singled out for criticism.

Western Military Interventions: Democracy or Hidden Agenda?

Military intervention by the West – whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya – are framed as efforts to promote democracy. But in Asia, the story flips. Taiwan is supported due to anti-China sentiment. Hong Kong protests were globally amplified.

But Kashmir, Palestine, and Yemen received muted coverage.

1.      Military Intervention Framed as Democracy Promotion

·       The West often justifies military actions in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya by invoking the goal of spreading democracy and human rights.

·       However, these interventions have frequently resulted in long-term instability, civilian suffering and geopolitical complications – not genuine democratic flourishing.

·       The proclaimed values mask strategic motives such as securing energy resources, projecting power, or reshaping regional balance.

 

2.      Selective Support in Asia Based on Political Alignments

·       Taiwan: Western countries, led by the US, vocally support Taiwan’s autonomy and democratic governance, largely driven by strategic intent to counterbalance China’s rising influence – not purely moral concern for democracy.

·       Hong Kong Protests: Global media ad political support were highly visible during the 2019 pro-democracy protests, amplifying the narrative of the resistance against authoritarianism, aligned with Western critiques of China.

  

1.      Muting or ignoring similar struggles in non-allies:

·       Kashmir: Despite longstanding conflict, allegations of Human Rights abuses, and calls for self-determination, Kashmir receives comparatively muted international attention. Indian sovereignty claims combined with geopolitical ties to India as a strategic partner led to less public Western criticism.

·       Palestine: The plight of Palestinians under occupation and blockade often receives minimal, guarded coverage, in Western capitals. Strategic alliances with Israel and regional politics result in restrained criticism and blockage of strong UN resolutions.

·       Yemen: The devastating humanitarian crisis caused by Saudi-led interventions, supported indirectly by Western discourse despite calls for justice and ceasefires.

 

Rise of Alternatives: Why the Global South is waking up

The rise of alternative global institutions and initiatives led by Asia powers reflects a profound shift in the international order, driven in large part by long-standing frustrations in the Global South with organizations like BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), symbolizes more than just economic and strategic cooperation -  they are powerful manifestations of the Global South and Asia asserting political and economic independence from te decades of Western hegemony.

1.      BRICS: Multipolar Economic Cooperation

·       Formed in 2009, BRICS represents a grouping of major emerging economies seeking to challenge Western economic dominance.

·       The BRICS nations cooperate on trade, finance and diplomatic coordination, aiming to create more equitable global governance structures.

·       they have established the New Development Bank (NDB), providing an alternative to the World Bank and IMF with fewer political conditions, emphasizing infrastructure and sustainable development in their member countries.

·       BRICS also pushes for greater representation of the Global South in international decision-making.

 

2.      Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO): Regional Security and Economic Integration:

·       The SCO is a Eurasian political, economic and security alliance led mainly by China and Russia, with several Central Asian countries as members.

·       It provides a platform for regional cooperation from Western influence, focusing on combatting terrorism, fostering trade and advancing infrastructure connectivity.

·       Its emphasis is on mutual respect for sovereignty, contrasting with Western interventions justified as democracy promotion or human rights enforcement.

 

3.      Belt and Road Initiative (BRI): Infrastructure and Development without Strings

·       Launched by China in 2013, the BRI seeks to connect Asia, Africa and Europe through a vast network of infrastructure projects – roads, railways, ports and energy pipelines.

·       Unlike Western-dominated financial institutions, BRI provides development finance without the austerity demands or intrusive policy conditions commonly attached to western loans.

·       Many countries appreciate BRI as a path to rapid economic development and regional integration without compromising sovereignty or local policy choices.

 

4.      Trade in Local Currencies: Reducing Dependence on the US Dollar

·       Countries within these alliances increasingly conduct trade in local or regional currencies instead of the US Dollar.

·       This practice reduces dependency on Western-controlled financial systems, lowers transaction costs, and shields economies from Western sanctions or financial pressures.

 

5.      Rejection of Western Hypocrisy and a Move Toward true Sovereignty

·       These alternatives are not just economic or strategic enterprises - they represent a rejection of a global order perceived as rigged, hypocritical, and extractive.

·       The Global South, led by Asian powers, is asserting its right to develop on its own terms, free from external political interference or moralizing narratives selective in their application.

·       This shift challenges Western narratives about globalization, development, and governance, demanding a more pluralistic, equitable and just international system.

3.  Final thoughts: What Needs to Change?

It's time the world rethinks the outdated frameworks of who gets lead, who gets judged, and who gets silenced. The West's hypocrisy is not just a diplomatic issue - it affects lives, economies, and justice systems around the globe.

If Asian countries want real agency, they must control their narratives, insitutions, and financial systems - and that change is already underway.

What's Your Take?

Do you think the West applies double standards when dealing with Asia? Are we witnessing the decline of a one-sided globa order?

Share your thoughts in the comments and don't forget to follow Zaltina's Collection for more hard-hitting global insights.

About the Author:
Zaltina is an independent geopolitical analyst and content creator, writing deep-dive blogs that decode Western policies, economic power shifts, and Asia’s global role. Passionate about presenting well-researched, thought-provoking content that’s free of mainstream bias.

📸 Follow on Instagram
🎥 Subscribe on YouTube