USA’s Rhetorical Democracy Prescription

BAPPY RAHMAN

The United States has a long history of advocating for democracy and portraying itself as a champion of democratic principles, both domestically and internationally. American leaders often speak in favor of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.However, critics argue that the foreign policy of the USA has been inconsistent and has sometimes supported authoritarian regimes or engaged in actions that contradicted democratic principles. This has led to accusations of hypocrisy in American foreign policy. Some argue that USA’s support for certain governments has been driven by strategic or economic interests rather than a commitment to democracy.During the Cold War, the United States often supported authoritarian regimes if they were seen as anti-communist allies. For example, the U.S. supported military dictators in Chile, Argentina, Iran, and Egypt. This support was often seen as inconsistent with democratic principles.

The United States has long been considered the world’s foremost superpower, wielding influence across political, economic, and military spheres. Its position as a global hegemon has been cemented by a combination of factors, including its robust economy, advanced technological capabilities, and formidable military strength. The Cold War era stands as a testament to USA’s hegemony, as the USA emerged as the dominant power following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The USA has also played a significant role in shaping the global order through institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Recently, the USA has demonstrated its ability to influence regime change in Iraq and Libya. Economic sanctions imposed by the USA have also had a crippling effect on nations like Iran and North Korea. Last month, the Department of State imposed visa restrictions on Bangladeshi individuals. USA claimed these persons are responsible for, or complicit in, undermining the democratic election process in Bangladesh.

In fact, in today’s complex global landscape, the democracy prescription of the United States, often intertwined with its hegemony, is viewed with skepticism and controversy. The United States, seen as a dominant hegemonic force, has used rhetoric as a means to assert its influence and maintain its position in world affairs. This history is fraught with questions about the ethical implications of such dominance and the methods employed to maintain it.American influence has been criticized for manipulating global narratives, disregarding the sovereignty of other nations, and perpetuating a power structure that benefits the USA at the expense of other countries. The balance between promoting democratic ideals and pursuing self-interest remains a contentious issue.

On the other hand, several Sikh leaders outside India have been assassinated this year. Paramjit Singh, former leader of the Khalistan movement, was murdered in Lahore, Pakistan, in May. Khalistani leader Avtar Singh Khanda and Canadian Sikh leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar were killed in Birmingham, UK, and British Columbia, Canada, respectively, in June. Some claim that agents of the government of India have initiated ‘Operation Blue Star II’ to target Sikh separatists, key supporters, and prominent members of the Khalistan movement, who are attempting to establish an independent Sikh state.It is learned from mass media that India’s foreign intelligence agency was involved in these killings. Similarly, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has made a significant accusation, stating that “agents of the government of India” were responsible for assassinating a Sikh community leader in British Columbia. However, India rejected as “absurd” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s allegation that its agents were behind the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. Unfortunately, up to now, the USA and the UK have been reluctant to condemn such acts, and the Canadian government has also been disinclined to publish the evidence it has obtained. Now, the question arises: are these the ‘democracy’, ‘freedom’, and ‘human rights’ these countries claim to champion?

The Israel-Palestine conflict stands out as one of the most protracted and violent disputes globally, with both sides holding deep-seated emotions due to decades of suffering and numerous unsuccessful attempts to achieve lasting peace. However, Palestine is constantly subjected to attacks by Israel. In the recent conflict, the United States has strongly supported Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip against Hamas. According to a Reuters report, US President Joe Biden assured Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that more assistance for the Israeli Defense Forces was being sent and would continue to be provided in the coming days, as stated by the White House. Additionally, the United States used its veto power in the UN Security Council to block a resolution that called for a ‘humanitarian pause’ in the Israel-Hamas conflict. The veto was because the resolution was perceived as not respecting Israel’s right to self-defense.

The United States has a complex history of advocating for democracy and human rights, while some of its actions are inconsistent with democratic principles. This has led to accusations of hypocrisy in American foreign policy. The USA’s global hegemony has allowed it to exert significant influence on the world stage, sometimes leading to skepticism and controversy regarding its rhetoric and influence. The balance between promoting democratic ideals and pursuing self-interest remains a contentious issue in international relations.Additionally, the situation with the Israel-Palestine conflict raises questions about the consistency of actions by countries that claim to champion democracy, freedom, and human rights. These issues demonstrate the challenges and complexities inherent in the foreign policy and global positioning of powerful nations like the United States.

Bappy Rahman is a development practitioner