Club of Norms and Legality: The UN Security Council as a Theater of Double Standards

Well, dear members of the “Club of Norms and Legality,” last weekend Russia, China, and Iran decided the world had been too quiet for too long and called an emergency session of the UN Security Council—arguing that the U.S. was “violating international humanitarian law” by striking uranium enrichment facilities in Iran (which, incidentally, had been enriched to 60%—close to weapons-grade). I covered these strikes in detail in my article “Midnight Hammer: The Climax of Trump’s Ultimatums.”

On paper, it all sounds fair: strikes on “peaceful” enrichment facilities—a tragedy of violations. Russia, China, and Iran cast themselves as defenders of the UN Charter.

But here’s the paradox: the very champions of international law—some of whom have used such “measures” repeatedly (think Crimea’s annexation or the full-scale war in Ukraine)—suddenly delivered pompous lectures on “ethics” and “law.” Add to this: a state that openly tolerates rhetoric calling for the destruction of another country suddenly worrying about international norms.

And that’s the sarcasm, friends: the Security Council echoes Eric Arthur Blair’s dystopia—

“War is Peace,” “Law is Power,” “Truth is the Opium of the Masses.”

What Was Said

The official statements went like this:

— Russia: Representative Vassily Nebenzia declared that U.S. strikes “opened Pandora’s box,” creating a precedent that “could undermine global security architecture” (NDTV).

— China: According to Reuters, “trust in the U.S. as a responsible player for global peace has been eroded.”

— Iran: The Iranian envoy to the UN stated that “an attack on peaceful nuclear infrastructure” constitutes a gross violation of international law.

In summary: these Security Council members attempted to portray the U.S. as the world’s aggressor, bombing purely civilian uranium centrifuges. (Between the lines: these centrifuges are enriching uranium not to the 10% needed for energy but to 60%, hardly a “peaceful” standard.)

The scene was almost theatrical: a banner reading “Ministry of Truth” above the stage would have fit perfectly.

The Parallel Morality

It’s curious to watch how, inside the Security Council, some states dust off the “Principles of International Law” and suddenly become zealous enforcers of its observance. But a glance at their own track records quickly turns the scene into an Orwellian farce.

Russia

• 2014: The annexation of Crimea—a blatant violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, recognized as such by a majority of UN member states (UN).

• 2022: Full-scale invasion of Ukraine—massive bombardments of civilian infrastructure (UN), civilian deaths (UN), and documented crimes against humanity (OHCHR).

And from this very state come grand appeals to “justice and fairness.” If this is an art form, then a special prize for mastery in double standards is well deserved.

Iran

• Decades of official foreign policy rhetoric openly calling for the destruction of Israel.

• IRGC commander Hossein Salami has stated:

“You are a rootless tree planted by the British in Islamic lands. We will pursue you from house to house, avenging every drop of our martyrs’ blood in Palestine.”

“The Zionist regime is slowly disappearing from the face of the earth… Soon, there will be nothing left on this planet called the Zionist regime.”

(Jewish Policy Center, PBS)

• Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei wrote in 2015:

“You will not see the next 25 years. With God’s help, within 25 years there will be no Zionist regime.”

(X (Twitter), CNN)

• In 2020, Iranian law imposed criminal penalties:

— up to 5 years imprisonment for using Israeli software,

— up to 4 years for contacts with Israeli-related entities,

— up to 5 years for visiting Israel or communicating with its citizens. (Wikipedia)

And yet, from this UN podium, Iran presents itself as an expert in “peaceful” nuclear technology.

China

• In Xinjiang: mass detention of Uyghurs, forced labor, and cultural assimilation. In 2022, the UN concluded these acts “may constitute crimes against humanity” (OHCHR).

• In October 2022, 13 countries (including the U.S., Canada, and the UK) called on the UN for an investigation into Xinjiang—China dismissed this as “political manipulation” (Reuters).

Despite these well-documented accusations and refusal to allow international monitors, China loudly accuses others of rights violations—with the same confident voice from the Security Council, where law is more often a tool than a principle.

Cognitive Dissonance: How It Works

In psychology, there is a perfect term—cognitive dissonance: when reality conflicts with beliefs, the mind quickly reshapes the worldview to preserve internal comfort. Some states have elevated this “reshaping” to a level of state ideology.

Today: strikes on uranium enrichment at 60% (Time) are labeled “aggression” and “violations of humanitarian law.” Tomorrow: the occupation of Crimea or criminal penalties for contact with foreign nationals is reframed as a “right to security” or “defense of historical truth.”

As George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) wrote in 1984:

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them…”

Modern Security Council sessions increasingly resemble not debates, but a parade of doublethink. Law is no longer a universal norm—it’s a flexible political instrument: today a “peaceful atom,” tomorrow “erasing a state from the map.” Today “protection of the people,” tomorrow “liberation of territory.”

And while grand words fill the Security Council chamber, the scene could be straight from an Orwellian poster:

“War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.”

When an institution designed as the world’s highest peace forum becomes a stage for political farce, it’s not just a game of words. It devalues international norms themselves.

When states that openly annex territories, seek to wipe nations off the map, or oppress entire peoples stand at the Security Council podium as champions of “humanitarian law,” public trust in the very concepts of “international law” and “norms of behavior” starts to crumble.

In the end, this undermines the very foundation on which the UN stands. If the law is just another propaganda tool—if leaders can proclaim “we stand for law” while systematically violating it—there will be no one left who takes that podium seriously.

Of course, it’s not only Moscow, Tehran, or Beijing guilty of double standards. Washington (The Guardian, The Washington Post), London (The Guardian, Foreign Affairs Committee), Paris (AP), Berlin (DW, Reuters)—the list goes on—are hardly paragons of perfect adherence to international law. Any major power, when speaking of “peace” and “human rights,” carries its own history of political campaigns, covert operations, or actions that cause legal experts to cringe. That's how the real world works. This is the reality of Homo sapiens—and it is normal. The key difference lies in acknowledging the complexity and contradictions of foreign policy versus standing at the moral pulpit while practicing the opposite. That is the true essence of today’s political farce.

When the United Nations was founded in 1945, immediately after World War II, its concept was much more idealistic and bright: the UN was conceived as a place where great powers would negotiate — not exchange reproaches beneath elegant curtains. At that time, there were only 51 member states — primarily countries of real weight, representing a certain legal and political order. Today, however, there are already 193 members — and among them, quite a few states where the basic norms of humanitarian law are not observed at all (according to Freedom House, nearly half of UN member states are classified as “Not Free” or authoritarian regimes). As a result, the platform increasingly resembles a stage for loud monologues and diplomatic theater, rather than a workshop for real agreements. Over time, the organization has further lost its capacity to serve as a true instrument for global compromise — becoming ever more an arena of declarations and diplomatic showmanship.

The Security Council risks becoming not a symbol of peace, but a symbol of cynical doublethink—where “war is peace,” and law is the club of the strong.