Many people often argue that the US government does not care about human rights in its foreign policy. From overthrowing South American communist governments and replacing them with oppressive far-right dictators to allowing MBS to get away with murdering a journalist, there is a lot of evidence to contradict diplomats’ assurances that they are committed to human rights.
The US frequently ignores human rights violations if a country is an important ally. For example, it ignored a resounding body of evidence that Saudi Arabia murdered Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. More disturbingly, the US has installed oppressive dictators in order to protect their interests. When Guatemalan President Jacobo Árbenz initiated land reforms that threatened the holdings of the America-based United Fruit Company, the US overthrew Arbenz and replaced him with a series of juntas. The overthrow of the Guatemalan government isn’t a one-off incident. There are numerous coups of democratically elected leaders, including the Congo, Brazil, and a planned coup in Chile.
Human Rights are also weaponized to justify political actions. The US has sanctioned both China and Russia over their human rights abuses. Did those countries deserve sanctions? Absolutely, but why were those countries actually sanctioned.
Part of the reason the US sanctioned China and Russia was probably because they were adversaries to the US. Bringing attention to the countries Human Rights abuses would serve as a pretty effective political strategy, despite being frankly disgusting.
When Does It Work
There are cases, however, where the US tries to spread human rights in good faith. The US supported ECOWAS sanctions on Mali’s military leaders after they staged a coup, overthrowing the democratically elected president. The country doesn’t really have any political relations, so the US probably sanctioned them in good faith.
In another example, in December, the US sanctioned Bangladesh’s paramilitary forces for its human rights abuses. It also sanctioned two Sri Lanka military officials over their human rights violations. These two sanctions were somewhat significant because they sanctioned two allies of the US, albeit small ones.
There are several key parameters that tend to guide whether the US will hold a country accountable for its human rights abuses. First off, it usually has to be a pretty insignificant partner. While Bangladesh is a political ally of the US, it wasn’t really significantly important. It didn’t have some sort of coveted resource, like oil. It also wasn’t in a geopolitically important area, such as the South China Sea. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia has faced little consequence for years for its treatment of women and its human rights oppressions because of its oil reserves.
Second, countries need to matter little domestically. Countries like Israel have faced no sanctions, despite numerous human rights abuses because of its heavy domestic political lobby. The country detains civilians without any pretext of a crime. It made it nearly impossible for the Palestinians to leave the Gaza strip, effectively turning the place into the “World’s Largest Open-Air Prison.” Israel has allowed settlers to literally trespass on Palestinian homes with no consequence.
The country faces little consequence for this because there’s a heavy amount of US support. There has been an effective Israel lobby that’s effectively prevented the US from sanctioning or criticizing Israel.
The US does call out human rights abuses, but if the US doesn’t pursue a policy that punishes all human rights abuses, it undermines its credibility as a fair supporter of human rights around the world.