The foreign policy has experienced an interesting shift under President Joe Biden. Joe Biden has centered his foreign policy on democracy and human rights to sustain the US hegemony and status quo in international order. For the last three years, the United States of America (USA) has been focusing on strengthening global institutions bilaterally and multilaterally. Promoting democratic values and preserving human rights worldwide has become an integral part of US foreign relations. For that, the US has been relying on diplomacy, aid politics, frameworks such as IPEF, and targeted use of sanction programs. The Western allies of the US are also aligned with the policy. While the West claims the public good of the policy, the rest of the world is skeptical about the original objective of the policy.
The US's role in the major conflicts in the last three years and its targeted 'arm twisting' has further increased the skepticism within the global south outside the US alliance. The 'global citizens' and many governments worldwide have developed an adverse perception regarding the US policy on Ukraine and Gaza. Exploring the perceptions suggests that the credibility of the policy and the promise the policy had made lack serious credibility and acceptance at this moment owing to the inconsistent and selective intervention of the US.
US Democracy and Human Rights Policy and Geopolitics: After the 'rise' of China, the Western narrative quickly assessed that the Chinese development finance and the ongoing democratic backsliding were fuelling authoritarianism worldwide. The decay of Western liberal values also challenges the existing US hegemony. So, The Biden administration formulated the democracy and human rights policy to restore the values, promote the practice, and preserve rights - a saintlike policy that would yield public good for the world. For that, the US wants to strengthen institutions globally while countering the adverse factors affecting democracies, such as political corruption, economic crimes, etc.
The US also incorporated the policy in maneuvering its geopolitics. For example, the US Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) promotes accountability and the rule of law. Western scholarship also perceives authoritarian states such as China and its practice as a 'source of global authoritarianism'. Hence, the US aims to curb authoritarian entities and their practice worldwide to promote 'best practice'- which is the 'Western model of democracy' for many. In turn, it would allow the US to 'contain' its rivals, such as China and Russia's influence, and would preserve the Western Hegemony in international relations.
However, the correlation between the policy and US geopolitical interest suggests that the policy is subject to national interest first. For example, almost all withdrawals of sanctions have a strong clause that the withdrawal can be made if the subject is crucial to US national security or interest. As a result, in the empirical field, many believe the policy has only weaponized democracy and human rights for upholding US interests. As state interest takes a steering wheel, the US often takes a contradicting stance based on a Western subjective worldview in recent conflicts. While the US and its Western allies justify their stance, owing to different worldviews, their 'realist' interest-driven justification often fails to pursue the global south.
Recent Conflicts, the Western Stance, and Credibility in Question: When the Ukraine war broke out, the US and its European allies stated their full support for Ukraine. The Western narrative presented the war as a war between democracy and authoritarianism- a decades-old notion of good vs. evil. Subsequently, the US sanctioned Russia and banned transactions with Russian banks through Swift- a global payment system. While the US and Europe extended their unwavering support for Ukrainians, the rest of the world was not convinced by the Western narrative portraying Ukraine as the poster boy of democracy and Russia as the evil warmonger. Many countries were also disappointed at Swift banning for Russia as it would complicate their transactions with the country. The subsequent disruption in the global energy and commodity market further fueled dissent among the nations as they suffered economically.
Most countries called for de-escalation for greater humanity, but the increasing offensive from both sides disappointed them. Even though the Ukraine war polarized the bloc politics, most countries preferred to avoid any side-picking, as per a leaked US intelligence report.
The credibility of the democracy and human rights policy is further lost during the latest Gaza crisis. The one-sided support for Israel and the US's overlooking the gross violation of human rights by the Israeli military in the name of 'self-defense' further angered countries and citizens worldwide. Israel's indiscriminate air strikes and ground offensives into Gaza to 'crush Hamas' has sparked criticism of the US democracy and human rights as the US is providing continuous support to Israel's offensive. The US is also ignoring the heavy civilian casualties taking place by Israel in the Gaza Strip. Demonstrations in favor of the ill-fated Palestinians took place even in the West by ordinary citizens who are also criticizing the Western governments' responses to the conflict. Even a senior official of the State Department, Josh Paul, resigned as he disagreed with the US approach. In an open letter, Paul criticized the US approach as "shortsighted, destructive, unjust, and contradictory to the very values that we publicly espouse"- which again blows a hit to the democracy and human rights policy.
Besides, 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter', which means the judgment is a subjective interpretation. While the West perceives Hamas as a terrorist organization, in many parts of the world, Hamas is seen to be a resistance force in Palestine in the face of Israeli apartheid. Turkish President Erdogan recently presented Hamas in such a way. The aim of this article is not to decide whether Hamas is a terrorist organization or not but to focus on the fact that the US, under its democracy and human rights policy, is hardly doing anything to bridge the gap between the Eastern and Western perception of contested issues. As a result, the US policies on global conflicts would increase resentment towards the US in many parts of the world.
Lastly, many middle and small powers have also identified the US policy of 'pick and choose'. While the US heavily sanctioned Nicaragua and Cambodia for election rigging, meddling in Bangladesh's politics, and demanding a 'free and fair election', it hardly said anything regarding the Pakistan government's crackdown on the Pakistan Tehrik-e Insaf (PTI) party, and farcical trial of its leader and former Prime Minister, Imran Khan. Perhaps it is because the last regime in Pakistan is a pro-US regime. Khan even accused the US of plotting his overthrow. The US response to India's democratic backslides and minority repression at the hands of the incumbent BJP government- a hard right party is also lackluster.
Such observation has created a narrative in the global south that the US democracy and human rights policy is applied selectively, and it is a US attempt to restore its values to preserve hegemony and the status quo. As a result, the efficacy and credibility of the policy are currently being challenged and critiqued.
There is also a tendency among repressive regimes to withstand the coercive measures and carry on, which ultimately turns them more repressive and resentful towards the US. The cases of Nicaragua and Cambodia suggest that the regimes chose to embrace the US repercussions and become more resistant to US policy. Therefore, it seems the US democracy and human rights policy is losing credibility at this moment and is likely to fail gradually.
The writer is a secretary, International Affairs, Bangladesh Students' League
