By Saira Rustam
Why moral language in foreign policy often masks strategic interests?
Human rights are universally presented as international axioms that should be above politics, but in international relations, these rights are diplomatically weaponized for convenience. Take the example of America’s outspoken criticism of Iran’s human rights abuses. What is conveniently ignored is the U.S. military’s continued sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, a country that is guilty of numerous war crimes in Yemen. This example is not an isolated case but illustrative of a continuing pattern where strategically important allies are granted mercy and shielded from consequences for committing egregious abuses of humanitarian law, while adversaries are demonized.
The modern framework of human rights emerged after the second world war, with its political roots gloriously proclaiming to the world the existence of a Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.
As a moral leap forward, soon triggered the cold war, human rights became a tool for both the US and USSR to vilify their adversaries, while shielded their allies from scrutiny. In contemporary world politics, we observe the opposite pole where countries indulge in reciprocal ‘soft power’ in more obfuscated forms the in the name of ‘humanitarian intervention’.
The selective form of solidarity is reflected in Western countries’ responses to the Uyghur Muslim situation in China. Some countries have placed sanctions and offered strong disapproval, but most others, including key democracies, remain quiet for fear of losing business relations with Beijing. The no-standstill situation at the United Nations Human Rights Council regarding even discussing the issue shows how strategic dependencies weaken moral obligations.
The difference in global responses to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine compared to other humanitarian crises underline further double standards. Western countries quickly mobilized to aid Europe’s second-largest country by sending assistance, enforcing sanctions, and welcoming refugees. However, similar need for urgency is absent from conflicts such as the Tigray War in Ethiopia, the military coup in Myanmar, or Israeli’s actions towards Palestinians. The absence of attention and response communicates a damaging narrative that some lives, and some rights, are prioritized and deemed vastly more important than others.
These actions closely resemble the Realist theory of international relations, which views states as power- and interest-driven entities, rather than moral idealists. While Liberal theorists pay attention to international law and institutions, their effectiveness seems limited when strong states prefer politics over principles. As Political Scientist Stephen Walt’s caustic remark, “foreign policy is not social work,” captures, this is a harsh lesson that many in the Global South have learned all too well.
The consequences of this duplicity are more than troubling. The revolving door of human rights selectively and politically appropriated undermines global institutions such as the UNHRC and the international legal order. It deepens resentment in the South, enabling authoritarian rule that demands repression while pointing to Western hypocrisy and rejected criticism.
To move forward, an adequate solution focuses on the unblocking of the political dimension in the enforcement of human rights at the international level. Regimes of independent and universal monitoring mechanisms that apply the same standards to all states irrespective of their power and alliances are necessary.
The Global South needs greater control in determining the definition and application of human rights to ensure that such a framework is not dominated by the West. Lastly, the rules for humanitarian intervention and imposed sanctions must be consistent rather than governed by geopolitical strategies.
If human rights are upheld mercifully—both for the ally and the enemy—they will serve not as a moral compass but rather, as a tool of diplomatic warfare. The integrity of international justice will continue to deteriorate, additionally.
–The author is also a student of BS International Relation at Iqra University Islamabad Campus
