The US is a great pretender when it comes to human rights.
It presents itself as a champion of human rights.
What human rights?
The right to free speech? The US favors this specifically for members of opposition elites in developing countries. However, if free speech is deemed a national security threat or violates obscenity laws, then it may be curtailed by law, or at least met with intense scrutiny by US law enforcement agencies.
Opposition politicians (usually members of competing elites) can advocate the overthrow of established governments or state systems in their own countries or in other countries. They will be protected by the US interpretation of the human right to free speech.
But if this kind of free speech propagates hatred of America, as seen in some Islamic religious schools, then it may violate US laws that classify such speech as preparation for terrorist acts against the US, even if it happens abroad.
Or what about free speech regarding the sexual liberation of adolescents under the age of 18? One would have to be very careful indeed not to violate US child pornography laws, or laws that prohibit the interstate solicitation of minors for sexual acts (and the use of the internet for such purposes, even if it happens on the other end of the globe).
Apart from free speech (as long as it doesn’t violate US security interests), another human right the US concerns itself with is the human right to worship a god or hold religious services. The US advocates this right primarily for Christian groups in distant countries, especially if these groups are politically sympathetic to the US.
The US is obviously not inclined to advocate the religious rights of the Taliban, or those fundamentalist Mormons who still practice polygamy, or, hypothetically, religious sects that are radically pro-sexual.
The US government’s advocacy of human rights is, obviously, hypocritical and highly selective.
But free speech for opposition elites and Christian fundamentalists are fringe human rights issues.
The primary human right that a state must protect is the right to live in a society free of physical violence against its members.
And when I say physical violence, I primarily mean: murder, robbery, physical assault, and physical threats. I do not mean ambiguous cases of sexual violence.
I want to emphasize this because the US, especially its NGO alliances of Christian fundamentalists and radical feminist groups, are experts at twisting issues and hijacking them for their anti-sexual, right-wing agendas.
Therefore, if one discusses the human right of protection from physical harm with Christian fundamentalists and radical feminist groups, they claim to be in favor of it. And they demand the implementation—not of the protection of ordinary people from murder and robbery—but of unmarried women from being approached sexually (ambiguous cases of sexual violence), and of two-week embryos from being aborted.