The USA has a long history of promoting values like human rights, environmental conservation, nuclear non-proliferation; and democratic values such as liberty, minority rights, sovereignty, and so on. The USA advocates these values on the global stage and urges other states to uphold the same principles. It often calls out other states like China for disregarding human rights and causing environmental damage.
US officials validate their attempts to make regime changes and their military interventions, by saying those were efforts to propagate universal human rights and democratic values. However, the USA did not take such a strong stance when its ally Israel disregarded human rights values and violated international law. Often, the USA has to make a trade-off and choose either its long-propagated values or realpolitik (strategic interests). The realpolitik approach in foreign policy is when countries prefer strategic interests over moral values. States take a pragmatic approach to gain geo-political advantage irrespective of ethical considerations. Whenever this clash happens, the USA often chooses its strategic interests over values.
During the Cold War, American priorities shifted to defeat the USSR by all means. It supported many dictators, murderers, and right-wing leaders, as long as they sided with the USA against communism.
In Chile, Salvador Allende, a democratically elected socialist, was overthrown by a coup sponsored by the US in 1973. The new military dictator, Augusto Pinochet, had a record of human rights abuse. The US, despite its pro-democracy stance, maintained close relations with Pakistani dictators because they served the US interests. The US even normalized relations with the communist China. President Nixon hoped that improved relations with China would benefit the USA against the USSR.
In the Vietnam War, the Nixon Administration wanted to either win the war or end it in a way that the American public accepted it. So they took an extreme step to cut the supplies of the North Vietnamese and they carpet-bombed neighbouring Cambodia. This attack was disproportionate and indiscriminate, inflicting mass civilian casualties. America dropped 2.7 million tons of bombs on Cambodia causing huge environmental damage. The instability in Cambodia gave rise to radical communist groups such as the Khmer Rouge which eventually conducted the Cambodian genocide. The USA showed no concern for the humanitarian loss and environmental damage in the attempt to win the war.
Again in the 1980s, the USA supported right-wing military dictators to counter leftist influence in central America, particularly Nicaragua, and El Salvador. The biggest controversy in the period was the Iran-Contra affair, in which the US covertly supplied arms to Iran, intending to free US prisoners held in Lebanon. The US used that money to fund Contras (rebels opposing the socialist government) in Nicaragua. This was a violation of US policy, as the US considered Iran a terrorism-sponsoring state. The US Congress has also prohibited direct military aid to Contras because of their brutal military tactics and human rights abuses in the Nicaraguan civil war. The whole Iran-Contra affair was done covertly which questioned the transparency of the Reagan Administration. It contradicted the US government’s public stance of boycotting terrorist-sponsoring states and its commitments to human rights and democracy.
In the Iran-Iraq war, there was strong evidence that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran. The USA still gave tacit support to dictator Saddam Hussain in this war to contain the revolutionary forces in Iran. The USA has a controversial role in many other Middle-Eastern countries, such as supporting Saudi Arabia despite its human rights violations and role in Yemen. These are just some instances where the USA’s actions contradicted its values of democracy, human rights, environmental conservation, nuclear non-proliferation and so on.
Even the world super-power never has consistently opted for an ideologically driven foreign policy. We need to understand that in this world driven by realpolitik, prioritizing ideology while oblivious of the pragmatic reality, can have unfavourable consequences. Acknowledging the prevalence of realpolitik is essential. International relations are complex, and nations should figure out a balance between ideological principles and strategic interests.
The realpolitik approach of the USA is evident in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Israel has reportedly killed 35,000 Palestinians so far, since the Hamas attack on October 7. South Africa filed a genocide case against Israel at the ICJ. This case is one of the five genocide cases ICJ has ever handled. The ICJ considering this case for further hearing itself speaks of the gravity of the charges. Despite the huge backlash, the USA still maintains its unwavering support for Israel.
This realpolitik approach explains why the USA supports Israel. Historically, the USA did support a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestine conflict. The USA has raised concerns about the issue of the continued expansion of settlements in Israel, calling it a hindrance to peace. But its approach leans more in favour of Israel. The US avoids officially calling settlements “illegal” to avoid having to place sanctions on Israel.
It has always vetoed resolutions against Israel. The Trump Administration recognized Israel’s authority over Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority protested the pro-Israel stance of the Trump Administration. PA has sought full membership for Palestine since 2011, but the USA vetoed it in the Security Council. However, the UN General Assembly granted non-member observer status to Palestine in 2012.
Israel has proved itself a reliable ally for the USA when it defeated a coalition of Arab states multiple times. Also, Israel watched over Syria, which had prominent Soviet influence. It kept a check on violent movements in neighbouring Jordan, Lebanon, and Palestine. Israel’s history is filled with wars and small-scale conflicts, which provide a battlefield for the USA to test US arms. Israel served as a conduit where the US couldn’t provide direct military aid, like to South Africa during apartheid, the Islamic Republic in Iran, the military junta in Guatemala, and the Nicaraguan Contras. Thwe USA has a large population that favors pro-Israel policies. Also, a notable contribution to US election campaigns comes from various groups, some among them favouring Israel.
The USA protects its ally because of Israel’s strategic importance. It continues to aid Israel with military support, economic assistance, and diplomatic protection. The US has been providing billions of dollars to Israel annually. Both countries share regular intelligence. Israel’s intelligence has assisted the USA in covert operations. International relations are multi-faceted and complex like that. For the USA, these interests matter more than any ethical considerations.
Pakistani public opinion shows elements of idealism, wanting a foreign policy driven by ideology. We expect the USA and our country to maintain their moral standings. But the reality of international realities is far less romantic. In Pakistan, and the public has often criticized the government for taking a realpolitik approach. Our people join in rallies when the agenda is to push the government for a values-driven or religion-centric foreign policy.
Even the world super-power never has consistently opted for an ideologically driven foreign policy. We need to understand that in this world driven by realpolitik, prioritizing ideology while oblivious of the pragmatic reality, can have unfavourable consequences. Acknowledging the prevalence of realpolitik is essential. International relations are complex, and nations should figure out a balance between ideological principles and strategic interests.
