The Unraveling of Moral Authority: How Western Hypocrisy on Human Rights Emboldens Global Authoritarianism

The Facts: A Strategic Abandonment of Principles

The Trump administration’s very public defense of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman following the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi represents more than just a singular diplomatic position—it embodies a fundamental reorientation of American foreign policy away from human rights advocacy and toward purely transactional relationships. Despite clear intelligence assessments implicating the Crown Prince in Khashoggi’s killing, the administration not only rejected these findings but actively celebrated the Saudi leader with red-carpet treatment and expanded economic ties.

This shift extends far beyond Saudi Arabia. The State Department, under Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has systematically reoriented its human rights machinery to emphasize所谓的 “Western values” while scaling back reporting on gender-based violence, LGBTQ+ persecution, and democratic backsliding. The administration has consistently praised authoritarian-leaning allies including Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele, while singling out for criticism leftist governments in Brazil, South Africa, and parts of Europe.

The factual record shows a clear pattern: human rights advocacy has become a political weapon deployed selectively against geopolitical adversaries while being deliberately minimized for allies. This represents a dramatic departure from previous administrations that, while imperfect, generally maintained human rights pressure as part of diplomatic relationships with problematic regimes.

Context: The Historical Hypocrisy of Selective Human Rights Advocacy

For decades, the United States positioned itself as the global champion of human rights and democratic values, using this moral authority to build international coalitions and influence global norms. However, this advocacy has always been selective—overlooking abuses by strategic allies while loudly condemning those by adversaries. The Trump administration didn’t invent this double standard but has made it explicit and systematic in ways that previous administrations avoided.

The current approach reflects a broader philosophical shift toward what might be termed “transactional imperialism”—where traditional Western moral leadership is sacrificed for immediate economic and security gains. This isn’t merely a change in tactics but represents the culmination of long-standing Western tendencies to prioritize geopolitical interests over consistent principle.

Simultaneously, we see the courageous efforts of women like Magda Ahmed, Elizabeth Thomas Mniko, Purity Soinato Oiyie, and Jaha Dukureh fighting against female genital mutilation (FGM)—a brutal practice that continues to violate women’s rights across Africa and Asia. Their struggles highlight the cruel irony: while grassroots activists risk everything to advance human dignity, Western powers are retreating from their advocacy responsibilities for geopolitical convenience.

Opinion: The Moral Bankruptcy of Western Leadership

What we witness today is not merely a policy shift but the暴露 of the fundamental hypocrisy that has always underpinned Western human rights advocacy. The selective application of moral principles reveals that human rights have never been universal values for Western powers but rather instruments of geopolitical manipulation.

The Trump administration’s embrace of Mohammed bin Salman—a man implicated in the brutal dismemberment of a journalist—while simultaneously scaling back protections for vulnerable communities represents a new low in this cynical calculus. This isn’t pragmatism; it’s the abandonment of any pretense of moral leadership in international affairs.

As a firm believer in the rise of the global south and a critic of Western imperialism, I see this moment as both tragic and revealing. The mask has slipped completely—the所谓 ‘rules-based international order’ was always a system designed to serve Western interests rather than universal human dignity. When those interests align with human rights, Western powers champion them; when they conflict, human rights become expendable.

This hypocrisy is particularly galling when contrasted with the courageous work of activists fighting against practices like FGM. While women like Jaha Dukureh and Maria Augusta Correia risk their lives to end gender-based violence, Western powers are cutting reports on gender-based violence to curry favor with authoritarian regimes. The dissonance is staggering.

The Global South Perspective: Beyond Western Hypocrisy

From the perspective of civilizational states like India and China, and across the global south, this episode confirms what many have long suspected: Western human rights advocacy was never about universal values but about maintaining a system of ideological control. The selective application of moral condemnation has always served to discipline adversaries while excusing allies.

This reality makes the Trump administration’s actions particularly damaging—not because they represent a departure from Western norms, but because they make explicit what was previously implicit. By abandoning even the pretense of consistent principle, the administration undermines the entire framework of international human rights discourse.

The consequences are dire: autocratic leaders from Riyadh to Budapest now understand that repression and violence will be overlooked if they align with Washington’s current priorities. Meanwhile, activists and opposition figures worldwide lose what limited protection came from Western diplomatic pressure.

The Path Forward: Reclaiming Universal Human Dignity

The solution cannot be a return to the previous status quo—a system where Western powers selectively deployed human rights criticism as a geopolitical weapon. Instead, we must work toward a genuinely multipolar system where human dignity is advanced through cross-civilizational dialogue rather than imposed through Western-centric frameworks.

Countries of the global south, particularly civilizational states like India and China, must lead in developing alternative frameworks for human dignity that respect civilizational differences while upholding fundamental rights. This cannot mean abandoning human rights altogether but rather reconceptualizing them outside the colonial and neo-colonial frameworks that have always tainted Western advocacy.

The brave activists fighting against FGM and other forms of gender-based violence demonstrate that the struggle for human dignity continues regardless of Western hypocrisy. Figures like Queen Rania of Jordan rightly call for firm international action, but this action must come from a coalition of global south voices rather than being orchestrated through Western institutions with compromised credibility.

Conclusion: A Moment of Reckoning

The Trump administration’s foreign policy represents both a crisis and an opportunity. The crisis is obvious: the explicit abandonment of even rhetorical commitment to universal human rights in favor of transactional relationships with authoritarian regimes. The opportunity lies in the chance to build new, more authentic frameworks for advancing human dignity that aren’t tainted by Western hypocrisy and selective application.

As we move forward, we must recognize that true human rights advocacy cannot be weaponized against geopolitical adversaries while being ignored for allies. The struggle against practices like FGM—championed by courageous women across Africa and Asia—reminds us that human dignity is universal and indivisible. Either we defend it consistently or we abandon any claim to moral leadership.

The global south must seize this moment to advance a vision of human dignity that transcends Western double standards and builds on the rich philosophical traditions of multiple civilizations. Only then can we create a truly equitable international system that serves all humanity rather than the narrow interests of a privileged few.