The United States' history of international relations reveals a pattern of unilateral actions that often conflict with global norms. This pattern is evident in the country's treatment of international law, its use of detention centers, and the continued reliance on controversial executive orders. The Biden administration has been criticized for perpetuating these precedents, which stretch back through previous Democratic and Republican administrations. Notably, the awarding of a $160 million contract to a private entity to manage the Migrant Operations Center in Guantánamo Bay exemplifies ongoing contentious practices.
The U.S. has a storied history of bypassing international law and showing contempt for international institutions. This behavior is not a recent development but rather a consistent thread through various administrations. The country's approach often involves embarking on unilateral campaigns without regard for international consensus. In addition to its foreign policy maneuvers, the U.S. has faced scrutiny for its domestic practices, such as holding and mistreating detainees, including Haitian refugees and Muslim men and boys.
The Migrant Operations Center in Guantánamo Bay is a glaring embodiment of these issues. The Biden administration's decision to allocate significant funds to a private contractor for its operation has drawn criticism from various quarters. This facility currently houses detained migrants under conditions that have sparked concern among human rights organizations.
The U.S.'s controversial practices extend beyond detention centers. The country's history includes the use of rendition, disappearance, and torture at CIA black sites. Additionally, U.S. law authorizes employing "all means necessary and appropriate" to free American or allied personnel detained by or on behalf of the International Criminal Court, further highlighting its willingness to act unilaterally.
Domestically, the U.S. government's approach to dissent has raised eyebrows. Historical instances include expelling students for protests, withholding their degrees, and deploying armed police to break up sit-ins. These actions speak to the broader theme of controlling dissent through authoritative measures.
Political dynamics within the U.S. also reflect this trend. For instance, Democratic leaders blocked requests for a Palestinian speaker at their convention, showcasing the selective nature of political discourse. Meanwhile, former President Trump's cabinet composition, filled with billionaires, has been viewed as a quid pro quo arrangement, raising questions about the influence of wealth in governance.
Executive orders are another tool that successive U.S. presidents have used to implement policies swiftly, often bypassing legislative scrutiny. Trump's executive orders, particularly concerning foreign aid and world trade, have caused significant disruption internationally. This practice is part of a long-standing tradition where executive power is used to enact contentious policies.
The U.S.'s international stance is further exemplified by its history of withdrawing from global organizations such as the World Health Organization. This pattern underscores an inclination towards isolationism and imperial adventurism in foreign policy, often at odds with collaborative international efforts.
Critics argue that these actions have deep roots in American history. Vince Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, emphasized this point:
“Like many of Trump’s authoritarian attacks on human rights, this one has shameful precedents in US history,” – Vince Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
In addition to Warren's remarks, journalist Ezra Klein offered insight into America's political framework:
“We talk about America’s system of government,” – Ezra Klein
These perspectives highlight the complex intersection between historical precedent and current policy decisions.