Barrister Usman Ali, Ph.D.
For decades, the United States has presented itself as the champion of democracy, freedom, human rights and global peace. Yet its historical conduct tells a far more troubling story. Over the past eight decades, Washington has repeatedly placed political, military, economic and strategic interests above justice, international law, national sovereignty and human life. It has pressured weaker nations, undermined elected governments, fueled wars, used sanctions as weapons, and often treated human rights less as a universal principle than as a tool of political convenience. This is why, across much of the Muslim world and the Global South, America is associated not with hope or justice, but with intervention, double standards, war crimes and the ruthless use of power.
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 revealed, with devastating clarity, the mindset behind unchecked power. Hundreds of thousands were killed immediately or suffered the long-term horrors of radiation. This was not merely a military decision; it was a moral earthquake that showed how easily humanity can be trampled when power is freed from accountability.
During the Cold War, America called itself the defender of freedom, yet supported oppressive regimes, dictatorships and military governments whenever they served its interests. The 1953 overthrow of Iran’s elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, interventions in Latin America, and the cases of Chile, Guatemala, Congo and Indonesia reflected the same logic: democracy was acceptable only when it did not conflict with American priorities. Where independent national choices challenged U.S. economic or geopolitical interests, principles retreated and intervention advanced.
Pakistan also witnessed this pattern. Military rulers such as Ayub Khan, Zia-ul-Haq and Pervez Musharraf received strong American support because they were useful to U.S. strategic objectives. This damaged democratic development and strengthened a political structure in which public authority weakened while unelected forces gained power. America spoke of democracy, but in practice preferred relations with centres of power. In those same periods, extremism and terrorism in Pakistan also gained strength.
The Vietnam War remains one of the gravest examples of American military aggression and moral failure. Millions were killed, entire regions were devastated, and chemical weapons left effects that lasted for generations. Afghanistan offers another clear example of contradiction. At one time, armed groups were supported against the Soviet Union; later, the same region was turned into a battlefield of bombing, occupation, drone strikes, covert operations and political engineering in the name of the war on terror. When America withdrew, it left behind not stability and peace, but a wounded, exhausted and fragmented society afflicted by terrorism and extremism.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq stands among the darkest chapters of U.S. foreign policy. Claims about weapons of mass destruction were used to justify war, but those claims were later exposed as false, weak or baseless. Yet an entire country was shattered. Millions were killed, infrastructure collapsed, state institutions broke down, sectarian violence spread, and groups such as ISIS emerged from the resulting vacuum. Iraq was not only a destroyed state; it was also a severe blow to international law, Western moral claims and the legitimacy of American leadership.
Libya and Syria followed the same pattern. Interventions and policies carried out in the name of protection, democracy and stability did not save those societies; they fragmented them. State institutions collapsed, armed groups gained strength, and ordinary people were pushed into prolonged human tragedy. These cases show that foreign intervention often does not solve the problems it claims to address; it multiplies them.
Nowhere is America’s double standard more painful than in Palestine. Washington speaks of human rights, civilian protection, international law and peace, yet continues to provide Israel with military, financial and diplomatic support despite the suffering of Palestinians. American vetoes at the United Nations, political protection and one-sided diplomacy have convinced millions that, for the United States, law and morality are not universal principles but tools shaped by interest.
America has also used sanctions as a silent but devastating weapon. Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Venezuela and other countries have faced restrictions that often hurt ordinary citizens more than ruling elites. Food, medicine, employment, trade and basic necessities are affected, yet such policies are still presented as pressure, reform or support for democracy. When a powerful country uses its financial dominance and influence over global institutions to cripple weaker societies, that too is coercion.
Venezuela has become an extraordinary example of this mindset. America imposed harsh sanctions, pressured the oil sector and repeatedly signalled political change. Then, in January 2026, in a highly controversial operation, U.S. forces arrested President Nicolás Maduro along with his wife, Cilia Flores, and took them into American custody. American allegations and legal arguments stand on one side, but the operation raised serious questions about sovereignty, the legal protection of a head of state, the use of force and the limits of international law. For critics, this was not merely law enforcement; it was a dangerous precedent in which a powerful country imposed its will on a sovereign state.
America’s relationship with international law has long appeared selective. When an opposing state is accused, the United Nations, human rights, war laws and resolutions are invoked immediately. But when America or its close allies are involved, those same principles are reinterpreted. The Iraq War, drone strikes in sovereign countries, covert operations, extrajudicial killings, prolonged detention and actions against foreign leaders all strengthen the impression that America seeks the rule of law for others and exceptions for itself.
Guantánamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, secret detention centres, torture, inhumane interrogation and imprisonment without due process severely damaged America’s human rights claims. Drone strikes deepened global anger further. In Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere, they killed not only wanted individuals but also civilians, women and children. Death descending suddenly on homes, villages, weddings and daily life created fear, humiliation, anger and psychological wounds across generations.
America’s global reputation suffered another major blow under Donald Trump. His authoritarian style, harsh stance toward immigrants and Muslims, insulting tone toward allies, use of tariffs as pressure, distance from international institutions and unilateral “America First” decisions damaged whatever moral credibility remained. His policies made even many previously sympathetic observers view America as a country driven less by law and responsibility than by anger, domination and intimidation.
Other great powers have also committed injustice, aggression and interference. But America’s case is distinct because of its unmatched military reach, financial power, diplomatic influence, media dominance and constant claim to moral leadership. When such a powerful country repeatedly disregards law, justice, sovereignty and human life, the consequences are far greater.
The real issue is not simply that America made mistakes. The deeper issue is that many of its policies were built on structures where interest was placed above principle, power above justice, and domination above partnership. That is why, in much of the world, America is no longer seen as a symbol of freedom, but as a symbol of intervention, war, double standards, economic coercion and political domination.
If America truly wants global leadership, it must change not only its language but its conduct. It must prove that international law is not only for others, that human rights are not merely slogans, and that justice is not subordinate to interest. Otherwise, the growing distrust toward America will not be a misunderstanding, but the logical consequence of its own history.
The world is now judging America not by its claims, but by its actions.
Leave a Reply