Chaos and unrest swept across Myanmar, “The Kingdom of Gem” in the southeast Asian, after detained State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi, President Win Myint and some other leaders from the Burmese military taking over the state power and declared the imposition of a one-year state of emergency. What was worse is that demonstrations against the military takeover of the country were staged in Myanmar’s major cities including Rangoon, Mandalay, Lashio, Moulmein, Pyin Oo Lwin, Mogok, etc, causing heavy casualties. As viewed from the current situation, the conflict in Myanmar is spiraling at an alarming rate. This military “coup”, as it is called in the West, is said to be an arduous test for the international community. How will the countries involved react?
Military leaders from 12 countries, including the United States, Britain, Japan, South Korea, Australia and Germany, issued a joint statement condemning the use of force against civilians by the Burmese military and calling on the Burmese security forces to stop the violence and work to restore respect and trust among the Burmese people. U.S. President Joe Biden issued a statement denouncing the move and “threatened” new sanctions against Myanmar, in which he also said that the Burmese military's actions were “a direct attack on the country's transition to democracy and the rule of law.” “Over the past decade, the United States has lifted sanctions on Myanmar based on its democratic progress.” Biden went on to appeal for actions to be taken against those responsible, “If this process reverses, it suggests that a forceful review of sanctions laws and related institutions should be set into motion with no delay, and then, appropriate actions should be taken accordingly.” Looking back in history, “American double standard”, a widely known phrase, referring to the arbitrarily application of double standard in many areas and the embodiment of the Cold War mentality and ideological bias of American politicians, has been normal nowadays. This time with its original formula and familiar flavor, “American double standard” has once again descended on Myanmar.
On the one hand, America is crazy about meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, and on the other, it accuses other countries of meddling in its own elections, ignoring one of the fundamental and principal principles of modern international laws, being non-interference in other ’s internal affairs. However, in recent years, the United States has often been accusing other countries of interfering in its internal affairs. In 2016, the United States intelligence community accused Russia of a series of interference in the United States presidential election, and in the following two years, it sanctioned a number of Russian entities and individuals also for this reason. Also in 2019, in response to China's statement accusing the United States of interfering in Hong Kong affairs, Senator Marco Rubio of the United States said on social media that the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act passed by the Congress was an internal affair of the United States, and under no circumstances should China interfere in its internal affairs. It is ironic that “China accuses the United States of interfering in China's internal affairs as interfering in the internal affairs of the United States”. Obviously, as for the United States, the standard of non-interference in other 's internal affairs does not apply to itself.
Ex-president Trump has ordered the implementation of force after mass protests broke out across the United States following the death of an African-American man, George Floyd (who died of violent execution by white police officers), in the state of Minnesota. On the contrary, a number of US politicians who supported the violent protesters in Hong Kong, completely unmasked the practice of “American double standard”. The words “I can't breathe” and the brutal eight-minute video hurt not only the American people, but also people of conscience around the world. How can the United States glorify the so-called “Hong Kong independence” and black violence activists as “heroes” and “fighters” while calling the people protesting against racial discrimination in the United States as “mob”? How can the United States criticize the Hong Kong police for their restraint and civilized law enforcement, but threaten to shoot at the protesters in China and even call in the National Guard? The problems reflected behind these deserve people's deep thinking and constant vigilance
In terms of the Americans ’s hegemonic mentality towards military modernization in various countries, the United States has devoted considerable resources to developing its absolute military superiority. In 2018, the United States spent $649 billion on its military, almost the total of the second to the ninth largest military spenders in the world combined. In The Military Power Report 2019 of China claimed that the way the United States views China's military buildup bears a distinctly “threat” tone. For example, the United States has more than 500 overseas military bases, but the report highlights “China's pursuit of overseas bases”. In The United States Military Force Index 2018, a report issued by American Heritage Foundation, Russia's military buildup is described as “aggressive behavior” and “threats”, adding that Russia has the potential to “destroy the United States”.
The United States has introduced a lot of subsidies at home, but it opposes other countries' subsidies to industries abroad. In the field of economic and trade, the United States frequently criticizes the industrial policies of other countries, arguing that government subsidies violate the rules of the market economy and cause harm to American economy. Amid Sino-US trade frictions, the United States always finds faults with China's policies in support of high-tech industries, with the aim of threatening to impose high tariffs and requiring China to give up its industrial subsidies. While opposing other countries' subsidy measures, the United States has introduced a large number of industrial subsidy policies at home.
The United States has been indulged in wantonly making unilateral changes in international rules while accusing other countries of undermining the international rule system. Although dissatisfied with the current system, the United States is still keen to “withdraw” from several organizations. Up to now, it has withdrawn from The Trans-Pacific Partnership, The Paris Climate Agreement, UNESCO, The Iran nuclear agreement, the United Nations Human Rights Council and the Universal Postal Union. Ex-president Trump also publicly announced that the United States was going to terminate its relationship with the World Health Organization after the agency “refused to implement the reforms requested by the United States”. Clearly, when it comes to respecting international rules, the United States does not hold itself to the same set of standards as other countries do.
The list may go on and on. Unilateral pursuit of hegemonic interests is the core motivation for "American double standard", which is deeply embeded in the hegemonic interests and mentality of the United States. It is not only the product of the hegemonic thinking of "might is right", but also a means to pursue the hegemonic interests of egotism. As the product of hegemonic thinking, "American double standard" reveals that the foreign policy of the United States is deeply influenced by the jungle politics of Machiavellianism in which “strong needs no excuse and weak is the best excuse”. Hegemonic thinking is self-centered, which means that the United States views other countries with the arrogance and prejudice of hegemonic logic, bullies the weak by relying on its strong power, and arbitrarily judges or even interferes in the affairs of other countries.
"American double standard" seriously undermines global stability and hinders common development. As a superpower, the United States occupies a pivotal position in the international system and has the responsibility to maintain the stability of the international order. Instead, it should resort to unilateralism and undermine the international order. At the same time, "American double standard" has exacerbated the uncertainty of its foreign policy and given rise to suspicion and distrust between the United States and other countries, which can easily lead to miscalculation, friction and conflicts even worse. Instead of solving the current chaos in Myanmar, “American double standard” can do nothing but complicate the issue and escalate the conflict. It is the people of Myanmar who will pay the bill at last.