Shimaa Samy
The Politics Behind Human Rights Rhetoric
Western powers—especially the United States and the European Union—often present themselves as global defenders of human rights. Yet, history reveals a pattern of selective advocacy, where rights are championed or ignored based on political interests rather than universal values. From Cold War hypocrisies to today’s migration policies and trade deals, human rights have often been used as tools of geopolitical strategy.
This report examines the double standards underlying Western human rights discourse and their impact on shaping global power dynamics. When placed on the scale, which weighs heavier for the West: politics or human rights?
Politicising Human Rights and Using Aid as Leverage
The United States has a long history of weaponising aid to exert political influence. U.S. President Donald Trump used these overt strategies throughout his first term. In August 2018, Washington slashed more than $500 million in aid to Palestinians, targeting the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) in an attempt to pressure Palestinian leadership into negotiations skewed towards Israeli interests.
The pattern extended beyond the Middle East. In June 2019, the Trump administration suspended aid to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—countries plagued by poverty and violence—until they curbed migrant flows to the United States. A U.S. State Department spokesperson stated bluntly, “No funds will be provided unless these countries take steps to reduce migration”, underscoring how human rights and development assistance were subordinated to immigration control.
While reversing some policies, the Biden administration has also leveraged aid to push for political concessions. For instance, security aid to Egypt has been partially conditioned on human rights improvements. Yet, arms sales and military cooperation have continued unabated, reflecting the balancing act between values and strategic alliances.
Now, we are witnessing Donald Trump once again manipulating financial tools from day one of his return to the political scene—cutting humanitarian aid to various regions across Africa, the Middle East, and beyond, in pursuit of economic and military interests.
Trump Administration’s 2025 Decision to Cut Funding for Key Organisations
The return of Donald Trump to office in January 2025 marked a continuation of policies undermining international human rights mechanisms. In February 2025, Trump signed an executive order permanently halting U.S. participation in the UN Human Rights Council and ending funding for UNRWA. These decisions paralleled his previous tenure (2017–2021) and were framed as efforts to counter anti-U.S. and anti-Israel bias.
However, the impact of these cuts was profound. UNRWA, which provides education, healthcare, and social services to millions of Palestinian refugees, faced severe operational challenges, exacerbating humanitarian crises in Gaza, Lebanon, and Jordan.
Europe’s Double Standards: Human Rights in Name Only?
The European Union often presents itself as a normative power committed to upholding international law and human rights. Yet, its selective enforcement of human rights clauses in foreign relations tells a different story.
For example, while the EU includes human rights clauses in its bilateral agreements, powerful allies often enjoy exemptions. Oxfam highlighted this disparity, stating, “The EU includes human rights clauses in its bilateral deals for good reason, but with Israel, these provisions seem optional.” Despite Israel’s ongoing violations of international law, such as settlement expansion in the occupied Palestinian territories and the blockade of Gaza, Brussels has refrained from meaningful action, including suspending preferential trade agreements.
Similarly, the EU’s handling of human rights abuses in the Gulf States, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, reflects a double standard. Despite these countries’ records of suppressing dissent and limiting civil liberties, they fuel wars, like in Sudan. Yet, they remain valued partners due to their oil wealth and strategic roles in regional stability.
Case Studies: Sudan and Palestine
Sudan and Palestine are emblematic cases that illustrate how human rights concerns are often subordinated to geopolitical considerations. In Sudan, Western powers long condemned the regime of Omar al-Bashir for human rights violations and imposed sanctions. However, after Sudan agreed to normalise ties with Israel in 2020 and pay compensation to victims of past terrorist attacks, sanctions were lifted, and the country was removed from Washington’s list of state sponsors of terrorism. This transactional approach revealed that human rights were used as a bargaining chip rather than an ultimate goal.
In Palestine, Western powers continue to adopt a selective posture. Despite decades of documentation by UN bodies and rights organisations detailing violations against Palestinians, including forced displacement and disproportionate use of force, Israel has faced limited accountability. The U.S. has repeatedly vetoed UN Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, shielding it from international repercussions. Moreover, Washington withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council in 2018, accusing it of bias against Israel, a move reaffirmed under Trump’s second term in 2025.
Silencing Dissent: The Price Paid by Journalists and Advocates
The politicisation of human rights extends to suppressing critical voices, particularly when they challenge Western allies. Journalists and human rights advocates have increasingly faced job loss, visa bans, and public vilification for exposing uncomfortable truths.
Israel’s expulsion of Omar Shakir, Human Rights Watch’s director for Israel and Palestine, in November 2019, exemplifies this trend. The Israeli government accused Shakir of supporting the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to pressure Israel to comply with international law. Human Rights Watch called the expulsion “an escalation in suppressing human rights defenders.”
Western states have exhibited similar tendencies. In October 2023, Global News fired journalist Zahraa Al-Ghazar in Canada for social media posts supporting Palestinians during the Gaza war. Al-Ghazar, who is Palestinian, labelled her dismissal part of a broader clampdown on pro-Palestinian voices in Western media. This reflects how editorial freedom can be curtailed when it conflicts with national or allied foreign policies.
Such cases point to a growing intolerance of dissent within Western democracies, particularly when that dissent highlights rights violations by strategic partners.
Impact of Funding Cuts on Global Development and Stability
The suspension of U.S. aid extended beyond UNRWA, affecting various development projects and civil society initiatives across the Global South. Critical health, education, and women’s empowerment programs in Egypt and Sudan experienced funding shortfalls. Civil society organisations that rely on external support to promote the rule of law, fight corruption, and advocate for marginalised groups struggle to survive.
The cumulative effect of these decisions has been to weaken the structures that promote human rights and democratic governance. Vulnerable populations bore the brunt as service delivery deteriorated and advocacy spaces shrank. Additionally, these aid cuts empowered authoritarian-leaning governments to consolidate power under the guise of resisting Western influence.
When Human Rights Become a Political Bargaining Chip
Between 2018 and 2025, the Western approach to human rights has revealed deep-seated contradictions. Far from being a universal and impartial standard, human rights have been applied selectively, conditioned by political and strategic interests. Whether in Sudan, Palestine, or Central America, Washington and Brussels have manipulated aid, sanctions, and advocacy to secure geopolitical objectives.
These double standards have corroded the credibility of Western states and international institutions, contributing to growing cynicism about the universality of human rights. As emerging powers challenge Western dominance, questions about the moral authority of Western-led human rights advocacy will only intensify.
To safeguard the integrity of the global human rights regime, a decoupling from political interests is essential. Otherwise, human rights risk remaining what they have too often become: a flexible tool wielded in service of power rather than a shield for the powerless.
The question remains: Can a system so entangled in political interest truly stand for justice? And more importantly, how can we begin to change that?
Shimaa Samy is a freelance journalist and researcher covering migration, human rights, and legal issues in Africa and MENA
