ARGUABLY, US human rights policy held a mentionable influence during the Cold War period. In the post-Cold War period, Washington seemed more prone to accepting or nurturing the influence of geopolitics over its human rights policy. Currently seen, US-India joint statement— clearly endorses the notion that for both the states, the rules-based international order is very important. What is ironically lacking — is a post-containment foreign policy— for the post-cold war world. The fundamental question that continues to confront American foreign policy is what to do with its decades-old approach of realpolitik. Obviously, the paradoxical human rights policy of Washington is widely criticized as it embodies a double standard.
In words, the two side—US and India, apparently underscored the importance of rules-based international order, according to the White House press release the leadership of the two countries affirmed: ‘’Together, we will build an even stronger, diverse US-India partnership that will advance the aspirations of our people for a bright and prosperous future grounded in respect for human rights and shared principles of democracy, freedom and the rule of law’’. Both the states, the US and India in form emphasis upon a rules- based international order but in substance they both negate it.
Seen from the American perspective, the Amercanists — a group of foreign policy crafters believes in promoting such foreign policy pursuits- defending US policy objectives and to achieve them without relying on others. The result is a preference for unilateral action, unbound by international agreements or institutions that would otherwise constrain America’s ability to act. As Charles Krauthammer puts it, “An unprecedentedly dominant United States…is in the unique position of being able to fashion its own foreign policy’’.
But conversely, the Globalists advocate that while America is powerful, it is not omnipotent. Far more able than most countries to protect itself against the pernicious consequences of globalization, it is by no means invulnerable. Some crucial problems do defy unilateral solutions. Global warming is, perhaps, the most obvious case, but others include stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction and fighting global terrorism.
In other cases, such as protecting the American homeland from terrorist attack, unilateral action can reduce but not eliminate risks—exclusively manifested by US’ most controversial and legally questionable drone policy during the US-waged war on terror in Afghanistan. All that said, a general propensity or ability to use the phrase “rules-based international order” seems to have become a job requirement for a top position in the US foreign-policy apparatus. One needs look no further than Secretary of State Antony Blinker’s opening statement during his meeting with top Chinese officials. “Our administration is committed to leading with diplomacy to advance the interests of the United States and to strengthen the rules-based international order,” he said. The alternative, he continued, “is a world in which might makes right and winners take all, and that would be a far more violent and unstable world for all of us.” Some analysts argue that apparently it is the Biden Administration strategy to rebalance US geostrategic goals vis-à-vis its human rights policy. Nonetheless, China’s global emergence as a world power gives other countries more options than they had during the unipolar era.
On the eve of Indian Premier Narendra Modi’s visit to Washington, US Congressmen wrote a letter to the Biden Administration: “As longtime supporters of a strong US-India relationship, we also believe that friends can and should discuss their differences in an honest and forthright way. That is why we respectfully request that — in addition to the many areas of shared interests between India and the US — you also raise directly with Prime Minister Modi areas of concern,” said the letter, which was led by Senator Chris Van Hollen and Representative Pramila Jayapal.
Yet most importantly, the Middle East scenario is highly indicative of the fact that the Biden Administration’s mysterious silence or indifference to the Israeli policy of racial and communal segregation in the Palestinian territories is a source of great despair in the Palestinian community. With regard to the Israeli policy of the Jewish settlements, the Biden Administration remains unsuccessful to take punitive action against Israel. In the same vein, to not annoy India, Washington deliberately ignores the ongoing HR abuses in the India-occupied Jammu & Kashmir.
A new Cold War is being waged in some respects – where human rights play a major role in the rhetoric of the opposing sides. As a former US Assistant Secretary of State, Tom Malinowski, has put it, some use human rights only as a club to hit governments they disagree with, while allowing those they are allied with to commit violations with impunity. Washington’s blatant indifference to Israeli –Indian transgression of human rights is a glaring manifestation of the fact that US perceived geopolitical interests overshadow the global human rights concern In India and Palestine.
At this critical juncture of the global order where human rights are being regarded as the pivot of global survival, US-India geopolitical honeymoon is the revival of a hypocritical assumption towards the path of sustainable peace and humane world order. Should the Biden Administration escape the truth that it is the same Narendra Modi who remained on US terrorist list and was justifiably denied a US visa because of Modi’s human rights abuses in Gujarat in 2002 where his government committed genocide of Muslims? Sadly, it has been a customary fashion of the American and Indian political leadership that in order to fulfil their vested interests, they orchestrate a game-play against Pakistan. Against this backdrop, responding to media queries regarding the US-India Joint Statement of 22 June 2023, the Spokesperson said:
“We consider the Pakistan-specific reference in the ‘Joint Statement from the United States and India’, issued on 22 June 2023, as unwarranted, one-sided and misleading. The reference is contrary to diplomatic norms and has political overtones. We are surprised that it has been added despite Pakistan’s close counterterrorism cooperation with the US Pakistan has rendered unmatched sacrifices in the fight against terrorism. In laying down their lives, our law enforcement agencies and defence forces have set an example. The people of Pakistan are the real heroes in this fight.’’
—The writer, an independent ‘IR’ researcher-cum-international law analyst based in Pakistan, is member of European Consortium for Political Research Standing Group on IR, Critical Peace & Conflict Studies, also a member of Washington Foreign Law Society and European Society of International Law. He deals with the strategic and nuclear issues.
Email: [email protected]
