Why the West Cannot Preach What it Fails to Practice

What moral authority does a superpower wield when its hands are soaked in strategic contradictions? Can a nation accuse another of economic complicity while turning a blind eye to its own financial handouts that embolden state-sponsored terror? Is there one rule for allies, another for adversaries, and yet another for neutral partners?

The world has seen many geopolitical ironies, but the latest ones involving the United States, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and Pakistan expose a staggering level of duplicity.

The Russian Oil Allegation: A Convenient Accusation

When India pursued discounted oil deals with Russia amid the Ukraine conflict, Washington and Western commentators were quick to raise eyebrows. Accusations flew thick and fast. India was charged with “funding the Russian war machine,” even though the transactions were legal, transparent, and consistent with India’s national interest. Western media labeled it as backdoor support for Moscow, disregarding the fundamental truth: India was looking after its energy security in a volatile global market.

Now consider this: Europe itself imported far more Russian oil and gas in 2022 than India did. Yet, it faced little scrutiny from the same quarters. Why?

Because geopolitical morality is a currency often spent only when convenient.

The Pakistan Paradox: Aid to a Terror-Breeding Regime

In a shocking display of cognitive dissonance, the IMF and World Bank have approved multi-billion-dollar loans to Pakistan — a nation whose intelligence services have been repeatedly linked to terrorism, including harboring Osama bin Laden and financing jihadist groups that have spilled blood in Afghanistan, Kashmir, and beyond.

Pakistan’s army, its most powerful institution, has been accused of laundering foreign aid into luxurious real estate, overseas bank accounts, and a sprawling shadow economy that props up radical groups under the guise of strategic depth. And yet, while Islamabad's economy gasps under the weight of debt, corruption, and misgovernance, the world’s top financial institutions continue to reward it with bailouts — fully aware that these funds may feed the same network of terror they publicly claim to oppose.

A Mockery of Justice: Pakistan on the UN’s Counter-Terror Panel

Nothing underscores the moral bankruptcy of global institutions more than the United Nations appointing Pakistan as the Vice-Chair of its Counter-Terrorism Committee. It is akin to handing the keys of the bank vault to the master thief. Can an arsonist be trusted to put out fires? Can a country that provides safe haven to the Haqqani Network, supports infiltration into India, and coddles Lashkar-e-Taiba be expected to lead the fight against global terrorism?

The Two-Yardstick Doctrine: A Threat to Global Credibility

Washington must be reminded that consistency is the cornerstone of credibility. One cannot fault India for purchasing oil from a long-standing partner when it simultaneously channels billions into a state that fuels cross-border terrorism. One cannot cry foul over ethical responsibility while underwriting instability.

If the United States truly champions democracy, human rights, and peace, then it must hold all nations — friends, foes, and floaters — to the same standard. It must stop weaponizing economic tools selectively. Because in the absence of parity, trust dies. And in international relations, trust is everything.

Final Questions: Where Does Global Conscience Lie?

Is it not time to question the moral compass of institutions that reward terror states and chastise democracies? Can the West afford to maintain this double standard without eroding its own legitimacy on the global stage? And most importantly, how long will nations like India be expected to listen silently, while their sacrifices in blood are met with lectures in diplomacy?

The world is watching. It remembers. And history is rarely kind to those who lived in glass houses, but chose to throw stones anyway.