Imperial Power Behind the Rhetoric of Democracy
Dr Santosh Kumar Mohapatra
Despite projecting itself as the global guardian of democracy and human rights, the United States has repeatedly carried out unilateral military actions that violate national sovereignty and bypass international law. These actions are not isolated errors or unfortunate misjudgements; they form a consistent imperialist pattern in which military force is used to discipline nations that refuse to submit to U.S. geopolitical and economic interests. While the justification shifts—from defending democracy to combating terrorism or promoting humanitarian values—the underlying objective remains domination.
In 1989, the United States invaded Panama without United Nations authorization to overthrow President Manuel Noriega. Civilian neighbourhoods were devastated, thousands were killed or displaced, and a sovereign government was forcibly removed. The message was unmistakable: political independence would not be tolerated if it conflicted with Washington’s interests. A similar message was sent in 1983 when the U.S. invaded Grenada, a small Caribbean nation, under the pretext of protecting American citizens, but in reality to crush a left-leaning government and prevent an alternative political model.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq remains one of the most blatant examples of unilateral aggression in recent history. Conducted on fabricated claims of weapons of mass destruction, the war lacked UN approval and broad international legitimacy. Its consequences were catastrophic—millions of deaths and displacements, the collapse of state institutions, and the unleashing of prolonged sectarian violence. Afghanistan followed a comparable course. What began in 2001 as retaliation for the September 11 attacks soon turned into a twenty-year occupation marked by civilian suffering, infrastructural destruction, and eventual withdrawal, leaving the country shattered.
Libya presents another tragic illustration. Repeated U.S.-led military interventions culminated in regime change in 2011. The destruction of the Libyan state and the killing of Muammar Gaddafi did not bring democracy or stability but plunged the country into chaos, civil war, and human trafficking. In 1998, U.S. cruise missiles struck Sudan, destroying a pharmaceutical factory based on unsubstantiated allegations of links to terrorism—claims later proven false—yet the damage to civilian health and national sovereignty was immense and irreversible.
Earlier wars in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos exposed this imperial logic on a massive scale. Secret bombings, chemical warfare, and relentless military campaigns killed millions and devastated ecosystems in the name of anti-communism. In Somalia, U.S. intervention carried out without genuine sovereign consent further destabilised the country, exposing once again the hollowness of militarised “humanitarian” interventions.
Across regions and decades, the pattern is unmistakable. International institutions are ignored or manipulated, overwhelming military power is deployed, elected governments are undermined or overthrown, and civilian suffering is treated as collateral damage. Accountability is never imposed on the aggressor; instead, the victims are blamed for their own devastation.
The United States does not attack countries to defend democracy; it does so to enforce imperial discipline. Nations are targeted not for violating international law, but for asserting political and economic independence. Democracy cannot be delivered through bombs, and human rights cannot be imposed by occupation armies. Until imperialist aggression is clearly named and collectively resisted, the language of freedom will continue to be weaponised against the very people it claims to protect.
Leave a Reply