Visible Double Standards, Hidden Order

Recently, criticism of Western double standards has intensified once more. The most frequently discussed issue is that of nuclear weapons. Many question why Iran continues to face pressure over its nuclear programme, whilst Israel, which is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, does not face the same pressure.

Such reactions are entirely understandable. If all states are said to be treated equally under international law, why does reality differ? From this perspective, the accusation that the West behaves hypocritically does seem reasonable.

However, stopping at the conclusion that this is merely a matter of hypocrisy causes us to lose sight of the bigger picture.

In international relations, states often speak of universal values such as justice, democracy and international law. At the same time, however, they also weigh national interests, the balance of power, alliances and security considerations. As a result, the decisions taken are not always consistent with the principles they proclaim.

Double standards therefore do not arise because world leaders suddenly forget the principles they espouse. More often, they emerge because states must choose between upholding principles and protecting their interests. In many cases, it is interest that ultimately prevails.

This does not happen only in the West. Almost all states behave in the same way when confronted with situations involving their strategic interests. The difference lies merely in how much power they possess to sustain such policies.

In other words, double standards are often a symptom, not a cause. The more fundamental cause is the existence of an international order that was never built on absolute equality. The world remains heavily shaped by the distribution of power. Stronger states usually enjoy far greater room for manoeuvre than weaker ones.

Consequently, if we merely denounce double standards, we are only scratching the surface of the problem. What matters more is understanding why double standards keep recurring. As long as the international political structure remains dominated by great-power rivalry, unequal treatment of different states is almost certain to persist.

Such an understanding is also important so that we do not fall into the assumption that every international problem stems solely from hypocrisy. In reality, international relations are far more complex. Behind every decision there usually lies an interplay of political, security and economic calculations, as well as the balance of power.

For Indonesia, the most important lesson is not simply to criticise double standards. What matters more is understanding how the international system works. With that understanding, Indonesia can formulate a more realistic foreign policy: holding fast to its principles whilst also being able to read the power dynamics that shape the world’s decisions.

In the end, anger at double standards is natural enough. But if we wish to understand international politics more completely, we must look beyond the mere inconsistency of major powers’ behaviour. What truly determines outcomes is the international order itself—an order in which principles and interests almost always walk side by side, but do not always carry the same weight.