Today the experts are drawing attention to the complexity of the overall geopolitical landscape around the world. Indeed, alarming processes in this direction are on the rise. As a matter of fact, by conducting an inconsistent and double-standards based policy America has aggravated the situation in different parts of the globe. The number of experts rightfully describes this as duplicity. This trend has intensified with B. Obama assuming leadership in the U.S. Instead of objective evaluation of reality, he is driven by self-interests and guided by spurious criteria. He has failed to honor his campaign promises and his actions is a testimony to that. Especially, the actions aimed against the Islamic world are thought-provoking.

Divergence of Declarations and Deeds

America considers itself as the most powerful nation on earth. This country has had a final say in the international arena for years. The dawn of the XXI century brought many new geopolitical factors. Taking this into account, the ongoing processes within a foreign policy of such a big power as the U.S. evoked interest. The analysis proves that Washington not only fails to recognize the responsibility it bears, but in most cases, undertakes actions that aggravate the situation in different parts of the world. This statement can be supported by many examples.

The ambiguity of American foreign policy is a feature that has been associated with the Barack Obama’s presidency. He made many promises prior to his presidency, particularly, with regard to qualitative changes in relations with the Islamic world, ceasing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the withdrawal of the U.S. troops and putting an end to direct military involvement in any region of the world.

American President also gave hope when it comes to a military camp in Guantanamo. The venue for horrific tortures – this notorious facility was promised to be shut down. The people really trusted this black president. He was even viewed as a person capable of laying a foundation of a new era for the American statehood. Another pledge had to do with Iran’s nuclear program. B. Obama repeatedly stated that he would do his best to mend fences with Tehran. In general, given the significance of this issue in the West, the positions of the presidential contenders draw extra attention. But nobody could have imagined that some hidden agenda underpinned those developments.

The point is that, on the nuclear issue, the Washington was, as usual, guided by double standards. No efforts were made to prevent such nations as Israel and India to acquire nuclear weapons. After India had signed the treaty on the peaceful use of nuclear energy the U.S. turned a blind eye on the Delhi’s development of nuclear weapons. The motive – geopolitical interests pursued by Washington in that part of the world. India armed with nuclear weapons served as a precaution signal for Russia and China. Subsequently Pakistan’s obtaining of nuclear arms halted India’s advance. Therefore, a complex geopolitical maneuver was employed to force the nations with nuclear weapons to contain one another. And once again, America emerged as a winner.

Actually true intentions cannot be masked by such ruses. The world realized that there was a hypocritical U.S. position involved. Other facts that emerged had only solidified this claim. It was clearly seen from the policy conducted by Washington regarding the Muslim nations. For 30 years, Egypt’s President Housni Mubarak remained loyal to America, rigorously following every instruction that came from overseas. Nevertheless, it took little time for the U.S. to erase this person from the political scene. His successor M. Moursi shared the same fate. In fact, nothing was done to prevent general Sisi from ousting the legitimately elected Moursi. Why did not America label him a mutineer? Moreover, a Cairo court convicted to death penalty hundreds of Moursi’s supporters in a single day. Astoundingly, all the human rights organizations in the West remained silent.

Interference: Duplicity Against Independent Policy

By the way, D. Kramer, who seems to be on a perpetual offensive against Azerbaijan, at the time, was leading the ``Freedom House`` organization. Yet no reaction came from him either. Apparently, back then, Mr. Kramer had no understanding of what human rights were all about.

Indeed, not everyone in America approves Washington’s two-faced policy. For instance, the world saw B. Manning and E. Snowden bring clarity to many issues with information they leaked. It turned out that the Americans were eavesdropping on the leaders of the most stalwart ally nations. Their actions around the world, staggeringly conflicted with their declarations. Surely, this was a severe setback to Washington’s image. And if it wasn’t for the Ukraine events, one would hope that the situation would gradually improve.

Nowadays, it is no secret that America had artificially nurtured the Maydan movement in Kiev. And it had invested substantial funds to that end. People were urged to take to the streets under various pretexts. Amazingly, the process was proven to be inadvertent. At the height of the developments Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland used explicit language to insult the European Union. Thus, America had once again demonstrated that, as the situation aggravated or plans failed to come to fruition, it was ready to put even the closest allies under fire. And let us not forget that Madame Nuland was among those who distributed food to people on Maydan.

Today the geopolitical situation in Ukraine is fluid. The socioeconomic situation in the country is deteriorating, with no end in sight. Had Washington learned its lesson? Obviously, not! On the contrary, America attempts to meddle with the internal affairs of other post-Soviet nations. And as those efforts fail, it resorts to "black PR” campaigns against the leaders of those countries. The duplicity is seemingly so ingrained in the Washington politics that the malady has become incurable.

Azerbaijan displays a completely independent posture in the foreign policy. The country builds its relations with any country in the world in the spirit of equal partnership. One would expect that America highly appreciated this fact and showed consistency with respect to Azerbaijan. However, that also was a failure. President of Azerbaijan refused to take any action that contravened Azerbaijan’s national interests. Perhaps that had troubled President Obama. Presumably, this may impel certain actions against Azerbaijan.

Yet, the official Washington has repeatedly stressed that Azerbaijan remains a strategic ally of the U.S. in the South Caucasus and that America highly valued Baku’s contribution with regard to major energy projects and its role in ensuring Europe’s energy security. Baku has always stood firm with the international community on the subject of combating international terrorism. Thus, there is a marked contradiction.

Then, how can one describe bias against Azerbaijan when the country is considered to be a close ally, in terms of economic cooperation, security issues and combating terrorism? Apparently, Washington is insincere and there are two motives – it either pursues a hidden agenda on the above mentioned issues or aims to continue the double-standard policy against Azerbaijan under the pretext of defending human rights. Both of that is unacceptable. No power can force Azerbaijan off the chosen course.

For now Washington appears reluctant to introduce cardinal changes to its foreign policy. And thus, the same hypocrisy is likely to endure. No other outcome can also be expected of the geopolitical game, it started with China. Apparently, America is defiant in aggravating the geopolitical situation in the world. In the environment of escalating struggle of the big powers in Asia, Africa, Far East and other regions, the new conflicts may emerge. Duplicitous posture can hardly be productive. On the contrary, the situation in the world, in general, can become more complicated. This is when the true culprits would be the ones with a two-faced posture, even if some are the Nobel Prize laureates for their ostensible services for the sake of peace. Indeed, the likes of Barack Obama – the politicians whose declarations and deeds diverge greatly, should receive different awards.

More about: