The first that comes about when we hear phrase “a policy of double standards” is a well-known thesis: what is allowed to Jupiter is not allowed to the bull. Watching the conduct of the US Administration worldwide we involuntarily understand its concealed logic: thus conduct is based on acquisitiveness combined with an ambition to insistently impose pseudodemocracy that is used sometimes as a punitive baton.

The United States, which considers itself a carrier of democracy, believes that the whole world needs its opinion, and heatedly advocates the ideal of democracy in fact is a self-contradictory state. This self-contradiction became especially visible nowadays when the defenders of the American democracy on the Capitol Hill unanimously condemning and teaching Russia, meanwhile surround it with its ABM systems. America that initiated the process of arms reduction now actually demonstrates its readiness to confrontation.

The US policy of “double standards” is actually a national policy that protects the US citizens, and to be more precise, those US citizens who hold the resources. They are both oil companies and sponsored parties, public organizations, TV, etc.; altogether – almost the whole establishment. The corporate America is inseparable from “the US statehood”, which includes people and declared priority in protection of their interests.

This is a true face of America that condemns constructive yet sometimes rather tough Purin guarding the interests of Russia, and simultaneously supports the Turkmenbashi’s ideas believing that it is a step forward to rule from 1989 until the death. In this connection we have to recollect also other politicians who do not please the White House – Alexander Lukashenko named by the US State Department as “the last dictator of Europe”, Kim Chen Ir – the Korean father of the “axis of evil” core state, and late Saddam whose murder was initiated by America.

It means that any regime that indulges the interests of America is a democratic regime while all others are not democratic regimes and therefore may be destroyed as failing to comply with the democratic standards.

Another sphere where the US policy of “double standards” manifests itself rather explicitly, is a sphere of international agreements on strategic weapons. The nonproliferation treaty was always internally inconsistent. The commitment of five officially recognized nuclear powers to disarm in exchange for promises of other countries to abandon the nuclear weapons is a kind of illusion. And the prospects that the US will start nuclear disarmament were never real. “The double standards” manifest themselves in a quiet attitude of the West to the nuclear programs of Israel, India and Pakistan, on the one hand, and in an extremely sharp reaction to “a nuclear threat” from North Korea and Iran, on the other hand.

Probably, the George Bush’s Administration assumes that international agreements are necessary but only to the extent they do not limit the USA. Such disparaging attitude results in erosion of international agreement legitimacy. Actually, many international agreements remain valid unless and until all parties thereto equally comply with their provisions.

Eventually, such “duality” of the American policy has its roots stretching into history. The American society and state were built under the religious colours but the ideals of Christianity are understood here differently. The most important religious principle was a political and civil freedom required by immigrants.

The American democracy is tolerant to any ideas, for its basis is a freedom of choice of any ideology. The doctrine of “American exclusiveness” was never designed for internal use only. Considering the USA the hub of the universe and model to emulate the right-wing politicians of the country together with a significant part of the society consciously or unconsciously run into a kind of “global messiahship” positioning them and their country as an elite that can afford everything.

The American “messiahship” was always of a dual nature that affected the external policy and practice of the USA. On the one hand, the idea of “American messaihship” explains the fact why America performed as a carrier of humanistic and democratic values, and played a role of a moral standard for the rest of the world. On the other hand, the concept of “American exclusiveness” became a basis for active interference into the world affairs. At this angle, the “messiahship” sometimes got a military overtone.

The doctrine of “American exclusiveness” and “global messiahship” is a source of creative aspiration for legislators and politicians because it enables them to find new arguments justifying intervention into internal affairs of other countries facing religious armed conflicts. It also every time gives a new occasion to offer (rather insistently) the American model of the society and state-Church relations to these countries.

Here is a true face of the American policy of “double standards” that makes people be doubtful of democracy. Tomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin or George Washington hardly dreamed of it when they sowed the seeds of the American democracy.