America’s moral hypocrisy: Actions vs. rhetoric on human rights

Gaza, UN, United Nations

March 22, 2024, marked a day of stark contrasts in global affairs, shedding light on the stark dichotomy between the United States’ professed commitment to human rights and its actual actions on the international stage. On this day, two significant events unfolded, underscoring the hypocrisy that taints America’s purported role as a champion of human rights.

The day began with a damning failure at the United Nations, where a US-led effort to secure approval for a ceasefire in Gaza collapsed. Despite the escalating humanitarian crisis and mounting civilian casualties resulting from Israel’s bombardments, the US-backed resolution fell short, drawing criticism from allies and adversaries alike. Russia’s ambassador to the UN aptly characterized the proposal as a “green light” for Israel to continue its military operations in Gaza, highlighting the inadequacy of the US response to the unfolding tragedy.

This failure epitomizes a consistent trend of the United States hesitating to address Israel’s disproportionate use of force and disregard for Palestinian lives. Despite increasing pressure from within the Democratic Party and civil society to take a firmer stance, President Biden’s administration has unwaveringly supported Israel, prioritizing geopolitical interests over human rights considerations. This steadfast support underscores the enduring complexities of US foreign policy in the Middle East, where strategic alliances often supersede moral imperatives.

The US government’s tepid response to the Gaza crisis is further compounded by its silence in the face of other global tragedies. On the same day that the UN resolution faltered, a terrorist attack rocked Moscow, claiming the lives of 137 innocent people. While Russian authorities swiftly moved to address the attack and apprehend suspects, President Biden refrained from offering any public statement or condolences-a stark departure from the customary expressions of solidarity extended by US leaders in similar circumstances.

The glaring lack of condemnation or solidarity from the United States following the Moscow attack highlights the selective nature of America’s professed dedication to human rights and humanitarianism. Despite the State Department’s proud declaration of prioritizing respect for human rights in its foreign policy, the actions of the US government starkly contradict these lofty assertions. This inconsistency undermines the credibility of the United State as a champion of global human rights and exposes the underlying hypocrisy in its approach to international affairs.

Moreover, the United State’s failure to address domestic human rights concerns further undermines its credibility as a global advocate for human rights. Reports highlighting systemic issues such as hate crimes, gun violence, and police brutality expose the shortcomings of the US in upholding fundamental rights within its own borders. Despite espousing principles of freedom and equality, the US lags behind its European counterparts in key measures of human rights and civil liberties-a damning indictment of its moral standing on the world stage.

The stark dissonance between the United States’ professed ideals and its actual conduct lays bare the hypocrisy that erodes its assertion of moral leadership. From the catastrophic missteps of the Iraq War to the enduring crisis in Gaza, the United States’ consistent prioritization of strategic interests at the expense of human rights severely undermines its credibility as a sincere advocate for global justice. This pattern of behavior exposes the inherent contradictions within US foreign policy, casting doubt on its ability to uphold universal values and principles on the world stage.

For the United States to restore its moral authority and regain credibility as a champion of human rights, it must harmonize its actions with its espoused values. Superficial gestures towards human rights are inadequate; substantive measures and principled leadership are essential. Until such alignment occurs, the United States will rightfully face scrutiny and condemnation for its hypocrisy on the global stage. Genuine commitment to human rights demands more than rhetoric-it necessitates tangible and consistent adherence to universal principles.

Finally, the events of March 22, 2024, starkly highlight the glaring disparities between the United States’ professed commitment to human rights and its actual actions on both the international and domestic fronts. The failure to address humanitarian crises such as the Gaza conflict, coupled with the selective response to global tragedies like the Moscow terrorist attack, underscores the hypocrisy tarnishing America’s moral leadership. To regain credibility as a champion of human rights, the United States must align its actions with its stated principles through genuine, substantive measures and principled leadership, demonstrating an unwavering commitment to universal values.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here