During his recent trip to the Middle East, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken emphasized that the United States takes its human rights obligations seriously and does not pick favorites. The U.S. has laws in place that require cutting off defense assistance to foreign security forces found to be committing human rights abuses and publishes an annual report on human rights practices. However, the U.S. often treats allies and partners differently than competitors and adversaries when it comes to human rights issues. For example, during the recent conflict in Gaza, the U.S. continued to support Israel’s military campaign against Hamas, despite reports of unlawful attacks against civilians using U.S. weapons.
In the case of India, the values upheld by the country as the world’s largest democracy do not always align with its actions. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India has taken on an authoritarian turn, particularly harming its Muslim population. Modi has excluded Muslims from new citizenship laws and used divisive language that paints them as threats to India’s security. Despite these actions, the U.S. has maintained close ties with India, viewing the country as an important ally in the region. Even when India was implicated in acts such as an attempted assassination of a Sikh figure in New York, the U.S. response was limited to private warnings, indicating that strategic interests often supersede human rights concerns.
In both the cases of Israel and India, strategic considerations take precedence over values for the U.S. Israel is considered a vital partner, and the U.S. has been steadfast in its support for the country, even in the face of humanitarian concerns in Gaza. India, while not as sacred a partner as Israel, has become increasingly important in U.S. grand strategy, particularly in efforts to counter China. Both former President Trump and President Biden have viewed India as a key player in this strategy, leading to actions such as turning a blind eye to India’s dealings with Russia that may conflict with U.S. interests. Despite its self-image as an exceptional nation, the U.S. often prioritizes strategic alliances over upholding universal values in its foreign policy decisions.
Overall, the U.S. approach to human rights and international relations reveals a complex relationship between values and interests. While the U.S. claims to take human rights seriously, its actions often demonstrate a willingness to overlook violations by strategic partners in favor of maintaining alliances and achieving broader geopolitical goals. This pragmatic approach can raise questions about the consistency and credibility of U.S. foreign policy, particularly when values clash with strategic imperatives. As demonstrated in the cases of Israel and India, the U.S. faces challenges in balancing its commitment to human rights with its pursuit of national interests on the global stage.
