In the United States, a disturbing paradox unfolds, revealing a stark discrepancy between the nation’s international human rights discourse and its domestic actions. Recent events on American university campuses and the handling of pro-Palestinian protests underscore a profound crisis in the country’s commitment to the very ideals it promotes globally.
A former president, controversially prosecuted and still leading in presidential polls, underscores the political tumult gripping the nation. Simultaneously, esteemed campuses from coast to coast erupt in protest, students and faculty alike demanding a reassessment of U.S. support for Israel amidst its conflict with Hamas. Yet, the state’s response has been anything but the championing of democratic values of free speech and assembly it advocates overseas.
The crackdown on these protests has been severe. Law enforcement agencies have not hesitated to deploy disproportionate force — elderly professors violently arrested, students dragged away by police on horseback, and peaceful protestors met with rubber bullets and tear gas. At Columbia University, a hub of such activism, the administration has moved to suspend students engaged in sit-ins and protests, citing violations of multiple university policies. These actions culminate in a troubling question: Where is the line drawn between maintaining order and suppressing dissent?
This enforcement zeal is mirrored by a media landscape that, while quick to criticize similar actions in other nations, remains conspicuously silent or supportive of domestic crackdowns. This selective blindness reveals a bias that undermines the press’s role as a watchdog of freedoms. The narrative pushed forward often distinguishes between ‘acceptable’ protests and those that are inconvenient to the political or social status quo, revealing a discomforting alignment with state interests rather than an objective adherence to journalistic integrity.
Moreover, the reaction to campus protests in the U.S. starkly contrasts with the media coverage and public discourse surrounding similar events in other countries. For instance, actions by the Indian government against campus protestors are often framed as signs of democratic backsliding or authoritarianism. Yet, domestically, similar actions are packaged as necessary for public safety and institutional order. This double standard not only exposes a hypocrisy at the heart of American discourse on freedom and rights but also diminishes the country’s moral standing globally.
The violence meted out to protestors and the punitive measures against them are not anomalies but rather reflections of a broader American strategy of controlling narrative and dissent through overt and covert means. The power to define the acceptable limits of protest and civil disobedience has become a tool wielded by those in authority to maintain their grip on power and stifle oppositional voices. This approach to domestic unrest, marked by a stark departure from the principles of freedom and human rights, is indicative of a statecraft that prioritizes control over the nurturing of democratic values.
It is worth watching this CNN video from the moment Emory Econ Professor @CarolineFohlin came across the violent arrest of a protester on campus and asked the police, with shock, "What are you doing?" That's all that prompted an officer to hurl her to the ground and handcuff her. https://t.co/QKNRqOoIiS pic.twitter.com/uYpXwKuc8D
— Robert Mackey (@RobertMackey) April 26, 2024
The dissonance between America’s international advocacy for human rights and its domestic practices reveals a cynical use of human rights as a tool of foreign policy, not a genuine commitment to those principles. It is a manifestation of realpolitik, where ideals are subordinate to interests and power dynamics dictate the bounds of freedom and justice.
As the world watches, it is imperative for American citizens and the international community to hold the U.S. accountable, not just when it preaches human rights abroad, but more importantly, when it fails to uphold them at home. Only then can the United States truly foster a culture that values democratic principles both within and beyond its borders, ensuring that its actions are consistent with the values it claims to champion.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of Khalsa Vox or its members.
