The world is not fair. That is a reality that we perceive somewhere down the line. But some entities are neither upright nor sincere. Hypocrites! as we know them. Over recent history, the United States has stood out as the most prominent hypocrite in the global diplomatic scheme. It has situated itself as a self-assured decree over human rights and freedom while turning a blind eye to violations in its own circle of allies.
And while the US remains critical of the human rights infractions in China and the Russian aggression, it has inconspicuously maintained a muted response to the brutality committed by its own confederates. Be it the barbaric lockdown in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) or the illegal expansion of Israel in the West Bank. Thus, I believe that championing human rights and sovereignty with a selective focus is the modern-day definition of hypocritical diplomacy.
Read more: Americans to leave Ukraine as Russian invasion at hand
Kashmir has been the core topic of contention between India and Pakistan
The region got divided under the UN conventions between the two nations – where it serves under a special status with its own respective governments. However, the Indian regime unilaterally abrogated the special covenant; IIJOK was converted into an open prison by about 900,000 Indian troops in 2019. According to the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS) – an amalgam of various non-funded research and advocacy organizations – more than 41,000 people, including 14,000 civilians, have been killed between 1990 and 2017.
Last year alone, more than 210 civilians got brutally murdered by the Indian military in the guise of raids and faux search operations. An estimated 50 houses were incinerated in Srinagar, the capital city of IIOJK, while the soldiers raped and pillaged innocent Kashmiris in the name of nationalism and islamophobia. The United Nations (UN) has remained silent, much like the rest of the western bloc.
While denouncing genocides in Eritrea and Myanmar, the US government has predominantly adopted an indifferent attitude towards the genocide in Kashmir. Instead, US magnates and diplomats are forging trade agreements and security alliances with India. What about imposing sanctions similar to the stance adopted against China? No one could ever justify the Chinese oppression of the Uyghur community in Xinjiang. The internment camps are an abomination. But is it not convenient to slam your biggest economic rival while simultaneously embracing an ally committing the same atrocity? And adding insult to injury, is it not questionable to impose sanctions at face value and boycott national events yet continue to import roughly 18.6% ($456.8 billion) of your import bill from China – still the largest supplier of US goods.
The current situation at the border of Ukraine is incendiary
It is enclosed on three fronts by almost 130,000 highly-trained soldiers and state-of-the-art artillery with a recent precedent of an invasion – the epitome of an unfortunate situation. Good thing that Russia is facing the United States! But the table of negotiation has no Ukrainian representative. An invasion is being bargained by NATO – with a vague promise to Ukraine – without any consideration for its safety. Instead, the US fears an imbalance of power in Europe amidst surging energy prices and post-Brexit vulnerabilities. The race to negotiate with the Kremlin is not to guarantee a safe future to Ukraine but to stall a conflict – long enough to enable Europe to find alternative energy streams, in case Russia retaliates by choking its gas supply.
Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula in 2014, and lukewarm sanctions barely dented the Russian economy in the long run. Almost eight years forward, Russia is the largest energy supplier of Europe and dictates the global crude supply via OPEC+ autonomy. The Biden administration asserts that “heavy sanctions” would be levied on Russian Oligarchs. But the energy sectors would be conveniently sidestepped to avoid disruption in broader Europe.
Furthermore, the US military – and the NATO alliance – would not directly intervene to push the Russian offensive off Ukrainian soil. Russia would not get expelled from the SWIFT financial messaging platform. And Nord Stream 2 pipeline – bypassing Ukraine to supply more than 40% of gas supply to Europe – was already shown a green light last year. Now I have one question: how on earth would the western coalition impose prohibitive economic sanctions when they are so desperately dependent on the same Russian resources?
Read more: A narrative of China’s debt trap diplomacy and BRI
Speaking of encroaching on foreign land, how can I scuttle past the notorious US-Israel alliance. Israel annexed the West Bank – alongside East Jerusalem – in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. In a clear violation of the Geneva convention, the government of Israel has continued to defy the two-state solution and sponsor settlements in the West Bank – exclusively allotted to Israeli citizens and displacing rightful Palestinians. From 1967 to 2017, over 200 official Israeli settlements got licensed by the state of Israel.
In 2016, the UN Security Council (UNSC) condemned these settlements; a senior UN official classified the expansion as synonymous with war crimes. A layman would expect the United States to intervene to safeguard Palestinians like it’s doing for Ukrainians. But instead, each successive US government has been reluctant to even publicly criticize Israel. Sanctions are a far outcry. On the contrary, the US annually bestows an estimated $3.8 billion to Israel in military assistance. Additional funding is reportedly underway despite the brutal warfare last year
I have not even discussed Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria; countless other warfares spectacularly botched and left to fester. The US hegemony is the perfect example of hypocrisy in modern history. It continues to prevail despite selective justice and sophistic policymaking. However, this world order is under threat as Sino-Russian engagement solidifies in a spectrum of economy, military, and diplomacy. Sooner or later, the US would have to face the ghosts of the past and the faults of the present. Ultimately, it would have to choose: continue down this path of hypocrisy and gradually fade in infamy or reform before it is too late.
The writer is currently working as a writer for South Asia Magazine and a columnist for Modern Diplomacy – a European Think Tank. The views expressed in the article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Global Village Space.