Hypocrisy behind the US, Sanctions on Amit Shah - watsupptoday.com
Hypocrisy behind the US, Sanctions on Amit Shah
Posted 10 Dec 2019 05:46 PM

WATSUPPTODAY

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, or USCIRF, on Monday, said it was “deeply troubled” by the passage of the Citizenship Amendment Bill in Lok Sabha and sought sanctions against Union Home Minister Amit Shah and other principal leadership if it is passed by the Rajya Sabha.

In a statement, the commission said the bill was “a dangerous turn in the wrong direction”, pointing that the legislation uses religion as a legal criterion to grant citizenship. “It runs counter to India’s rich history of secular pluralism and the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law regardless of faith,” USCIRF added.
Let’s have a look at how the US has fared in the past.

Role of US in International Politics

The US has, in certain times and places, lived up to its democracy- and rights-promoting creed.
But it has very often not. That this is so can be easily shown.

The demonstration is nevertheless worth undertaking because it points to truths that the American political class (and public) rarely acknowledge. The US has failed in various ways to advance the cause of liberal democracy internationally. The least flagrant instances are where it chooses to coexist with an undemocratic power on prudential grounds. Taking on that power may be too dangerous for itself and the world.

More interesting are those occasions when the US has been an active opponent of democracy. American governments directly aided the armed Overthrow Of elected leaders in the following instances: Iran 1953, together with Britain; Guatemala 1954; Dominican Republic 1965; Chile 1973; and Nicaragua (the 1980s).

On other occasions, such as Congo 1961, Brazil 1964 and Cyprus 1974, the US tacitly backed the overthrow of elected or democratically legitimate leaders. In some of these cases, the US proceeded to re-establish electoral democracy on its own terms (Dominican Republic, Nicaragua); in other cases, its intervention led to long periods of repressive US-backed dictatorship (Iran, Guatemala, Chile).


The US has offered variable degrees of support to many authoritarian regimes, often against oppositions that included democratically promising elements. In another set of cases, the US has opposed undemocratic governments, but on behalf of other undemocratic governments. Thus the US-backed authoritarian anti-communist regimes against Communist opponents (in the Korean and Indo-China wars); anti-Moscow Communists (China, Ceausescu's Rumania, even the Khmer Rouge in post-1979 Cambodia) against pro-Moscow ones; authoritarian nationalists against Islamists (in the Iran-Iraq war); and a semi-absolute monarchy against authoritarian nationalists (Kuwait against Iraq).

The US currently props up a monarchy (Saudi Arabia) threatened by domestic anti-Western Islamists.
On at least some criteria, the US in both cases supported the more illiberal parties to the conflict. Whatever the balance between them, it just the case that, the killing and injuring of civilians on behalf of undemocratic forces is more difficult to justify in liberal terms than in defense of democratic ones.

American air forces inflicted massive civilian casualties in World War II, Korea, and Indo-China.
Washington has also backed governments that have massacred civilians, the most egregious post-1945 examples being Guatemala (1954—1980, Pakistan (1971) and Indonesia (1965—6)

Since September 11th the US has proclaimed a new guiding principle: opposition to 'terrorism' in all forms and its state sponsors. The US has repeatedly breached this principle, backing insurgencies in Europe and, in the 198()s, in Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Ethiopia, and Nicaragua. It closely supported a government (Israel) backing an armed militia in Lebanon and protected another (South Africa) that sponsored guerrilla wars in Mozambique and Angola.


Whether the hypocrisy is germane or not, its critics should advance one further argument: that if the US genuinely believes in the global promotion of democracy and human rights, it should support the creation and effective resourcing of international institutions committed to such ends. Universalist liberals believe in morally consistent governance, and that effective international regulation cannot be provided by a single state accountable in the first instance to its own electors and interest groups, however powerful that State, however well-intentioned. It can be provided only by institutions representing diverse states and peoples.
American unilateralism constitutes, in the context of current efforts to forge treaties and institutions that impartially enforce liberal-recognized international humanitarian standards, one more instance of criticism-worthy inconsistency, one more respect in which it is legitimate to demand that the world's unelected hyperpower behave less hypocritically.

Leave a comment: (Your email will not be published)