Rhetoric of democracy, human rights, and freedom in US foreign policy language
Looking at the language used in US foreign policy, especially the official version that exists in the statements and publications of institutions such as the White House and the Congress or the statements of the senior officials of that country, it seems that the concepts of freedom, democracy, and human rights are the central elements forming the foreign policy of the United States. Such elements have not only been considered valuable in US foreign policy language, but their promotion in the world has also been encouraged. As the official website of the US Department of State says: “Promoting freedom and democracy and protecting human rights around the world are central to US foreign policy” (Bureau). As a result, the US has declared itself committed to supporting people who promote democracy and human rights by introducing a range of diverse tools from diplomacy and interaction to foreign aid, economic sanctions, etc. (Bureau).
The language of American officials in describing US-desired governments
US presidents have used the typical language of freedom, democracy, and human rights in describing American values and US-desired governments. For example, Woodrow Wilson, the 28th president of the United States of America from the Democratic Party, declared in 1919: “We set this nation up to make men free, and we did not confine our conception and purpose to America” (“Suitable Target”). Almost less than a hundred years later, on the eve of the new century, US politicians still believed that the United States had correctly maintained the mission of promoting freedom abroad, in such a way that Newt Gingrich, the speaker of the US House of Representatives, announced during his visit to China that the “idea of freedom was so central to American identity that a Chinese-American relationship that did not include discussion of human rights was impossible” (“Suitable Target”).
Other American officials and presidents have also adopted similar positions during their terms. Franklin Roosevelt spoke of freedom, John F. Kennedy mentioned human rights in his inaugural address, and Jimmy Carter declared human rights to be a “central concern” of his foreign policy (Cohen). Relying on these concepts, they always sought to paint a humanitarian, attractive image of themselves and a positive, pluralistic image of their desired government in other countries. In this regard, the promotion of democracy and human rights has been a part of the foreign policy of the United States, and this issue, especially since the Carter administration, has often been described as a central aspect of the US foreign policy (Abrams). Even US President Joe Biden declared: “I’ve been clear that human rights will be the center of our foreign policy” (“Remarks”).
US double standards
If the inflated language of US politicians and high-ranking members of that country is compared to their actions toward supporting and opposing governments, drastic differences between theory to practice are revealed. One of the contradictions between America’s behavior and speech is related to its foreign interventions, because human values and human rights, which have been used many times in Washington’s political language, are not compatible with the disregard for civilians and the killing of women and children in American airstrikes on countries that were not considered America’s friends. As a result, writers, journalists, human rights activists and related organizations have criticized the American air raids and the killing of innocent people in different countries and have described such actions as contrary to the principles of human rights and even the laws of war (Benjamin). For example, the United States dropped more than 26,000 bombs on non-aligned countries such as Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, etc. in 2016, which resulted in the killing of a significant number of women and children in those countries. This behavior of America, which exposes a gross double standard in their speeches about foreign policy and the harsh behavior of their decision makers, has led to the protest of critics (Grandin).
In addition to direct military intervention and action, the US approach in supporting dictatorial and autocratic regimes is another fact that exposes the great distance between the claim of championing democracy, freedom, and human rights on the one hand and reconciling with autocratic supporters on the other. People such as Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Alfredo Stroessner in Paraguay, Efraín Ríos Montt in Guatemala, Jorge Rafael Videla in Argentina, and Suharto in Indonesia are among the autocratic rulers who established tyranny and oppression in their country for years with US support and made a mockery of democracy by suppressing the opposition and ignoring the rights of their people. The list of autocratic rulers who enjoyed immunity under US support is not limited to these people, and a look at Washington’s performance toward the rulers in West Asia and North Africa reveals the contradiction of the US regarding the central aspect of its foreign policy. In his meeting with the religious scholars and students of the Islamic seminaries on July 12, 2023, Imam Khamenei referred to this feature of Liberal Democracy’s thinking, saying, “They are not democrats either. They lie to impose governments on certain places. They are not in favor of democracy. They are 100 percent against a democracy that does not serve them.”
Here, the Iran of before the February 1979 revolution is an example of the repression of friendly governments supported by the United States and the silence of the United States or its support for dictatorships in recent times. America’s support for the Pahlavi Shah and efforts to keep him in power despite the nationwide uprising in the country and public hatred of his crimes is another example of the US double standards. In the last years of the 1970s, when there was widespread dissatisfaction among Iranian people and their suppression was on the agenda of the Pahlavi regime, General Huyser, the US’s point man in Tehran, believed that, if necessary, people must be shot in a massacre in order to preserve a US-desired dictator. Even before that, in 1953, the United States restored the Pahlavi regime to power during a coup against Mossadegh’s popular government in Iran (“Declassified”).
Conclusion
American leaders have always wanted to present the United States as an example of a government that defends freedom, human rights, and democracy in the world and the world order, and they have expanded the US foreign policy language accordingly. But the reality is very different, and the foreign interventions of the United States and its killing of citizens and civilians show that the political language of White House officials is contradictory to their actions in trampling the rights of the people of other countries. Also, the US support for repressive rulers such as the Pahlavi regime in Iran, the Somoza family in Nicaragua, Hosni Mubarak’s regime in Egypt, and other corrupt but US-desired regimes shows that the aforementioned concepts and doctrines have been a tool to serve the inhumane and aggressive interests of US imperialism rather than being the real central points of US foreign policy.
References
“A Suitable Target for Foreign Policy?” The Economist, 10 Apr. 1997, https://www.economist.com/leaders/1997/04/10/a-suitable-target-for-foreign-policy.
Abrams, Elliott. “Reorganizing U.S. Promotion of Democracy and Human Rights.” Council on Foreign Relations, 29 Oct. 2021, https://www.cfr.org/article/reorganizing-us-promotion-democracy-and-human-rights.
Benjamin, Medea. “America Dropped 26,171 Bombs in 2016. What a Bloody End to Obama's Reign.” The Guardian, 9 Jan. 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy.
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. U.S. Department of State, https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/index.htm.
Cohen, Roberta. “Integrating Human Rights in US Foreign Policy: The History, the Challenges, and the Criteria for an Effective Policy.” The Brookings Institution, 2008, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/04_human_rights_cohen.pdf.
“Declassified diplomacy: Washington’s hesitant plans for a military coup in pre-revolution Iran.” The Guardian, 11 Feb. 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2015/feb/11/us-general-huysers-secret-iran-mission-declassified.
Grandin, Greg. “Why Did the US Drop 26,171 Bombs on the World Last Year?” The Nation, 15 Jan. 2017, https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/why-did-the-us-dropped-26171-bombs-on-the-world-last-year/.
“Remarks by President Biden on the End of the War in Afghanistan.” WH.GOV, 31 Aug. 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/08/31/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-end-of-the-war-in-afghanistan/.
Comment