On the surface, the recent efforts by the United States to quash the advance of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) ostensibly demonstrates the degree to which the U.S. is committed to promoting democracy around the world and preventing forced rule by violent demagogues. Undoubtedly, ISIL is a horrendous organization whose designs for establishing a 21st century caliphate have resulted in death and destruction for those deemed unworthy of inclusion in the new Islamic state. The United States is right to denounce ISIL regardless of whether or not the current military engagement with the group proves to be effective in the long run. However, the fight against ISIL serves to remind us of a major discrepancy in American foreign policy. Even though it posits itself as a champion of democracy and justice around the world, the United States has shown time and again that it’s more than willing to support thoroughly undemocratic countries when doing so satisfies its strategic interests.
Consider Saudi Arabia, one of the United States’ closest geopolitical allies and current comrade in the fight against ISIL. As despicable and inhuman as the beheadings of innocent journalists and aid workers at the hands of ISIL militants are, this year alone Saudi Arabia has executed 46 people via decapitation, a portion of them for nonviolent crimes such as drug trafficking and sorcery. Yes, Saudi Arabia cuts people’s heads off for “sorcery.” Despite these blatant abuses and the fact that the country is an absolute monarchy in which judicial decisions are rooted in Sharia law and judges effectively command complete autonomy in decision-making, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry failed to sound any human rights alarms or decry the patently undemocratic nature of the nation’s political structure when visiting the kingdom this year. Funny how laying claim to the second largest hydrocarbon reserves on the planet can make your allies turn the other cheek to your human rights violations.
Whereas the United States continues to remain firmly silent on issues of democracy and fairness in Saudi Arabia, it’s been thoroughly outspoken in its disapproval of the actions of Russia in Ukraine. When Russia moved to annex the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine in the wake of Ukraine’s ousting of pro-Russia president Viktor Yanukovych, the United States denounced what it declared to be an illegitimate action on the part of the Russians.
The hypocrisy in condemning Russia’s incorporation of Crimea while supporting a government that came to power through a coup is glaring. It seems that in the face of Cold War 2.0 the United States has opted to forgo rhetorical consistency in favor of recruiting another player for the West. This isn’t to say that Russia should not be held accountable for any illegal actions it has carried out in Ukraine, but to suggest that Russia alone is in the wrong is to ignore the means by which the current Ukrainian government came to power.
Though not identical, the situation in Ukraine is reminiscent of the United States’ continued allegiance to Egypt after the overthrow of democratically elected President Mohammed Morsi by current president and effective dictator Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. Of course, Morsi was by no means an ideal leader, seeing as upon taking power he absorbed both the executive and legislative branches under his control. Nevertheless, U.S. support for his successor undoubtedly flies straight in the face of supposed U.S. ideals. In his zeal to curb the power of the Muslim Brotherhood, the political party to which Mohammed Morsi belonged, el-Sisi condoned the indefinite imprisonment of foreign journalists who had merely been reporting on the Muslim Brotherhood. The measly trials they were afforded were riddled with a dearth of evidence in favor of conviction (on an unjust premise, nonetheless) and drew the condemnation of rights organizations around the world. And even though the United States did voice its concerns regarding the affair, it still chose to back the legitimacy of the el-Sisi regime. Obviously the U.S. has made the decision that in such a volatile region geopolitical stability gets to take precedence over democratic virtues.
As the United States drops bombs on ISIL in the name of what is good and decent, it’s important to remember the ways in which the U.S. falls short of upholding notions of democracy, fairness and justice elsewhere in the world. Despite positioning itself as an unshakable proponent of these virtues, the United States has shown through its recent dealings with Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, Russia and Egypt that virtue all too often has to take a back seat to immediate strategic interests. I don’t doubt that individuals within the U.S. government such as President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry truly do believe in democracy and fairness, but their collective actions consistently fail to live up and actually run counter to their professed ideals. When it comes to resolving the discrepancy between its lofty rhetoric and its support of certifiably undemocratic powers the United States has a long way to go.
Do you agree with Elijah’s stance on America’s foreign policy inconsistencies? Send all feed back to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
