US Human Rights Policy
Rights are claims that people make on political authorities, nation-states or powerful non-state institutions. Human rights are those claims and protections to which all people are entitled as human beings. The articulation and legal codification of such claims and protections result from a process of political struggle, a struggle with a long history and also a compelling future.
Historically, the human rights efforts of both the United States and the international community have been state-centered. In other words, the United States and international institutions have generally targeted their human rights efforts at states directly, utilizing an assortment of essentially punitive measures-including economic sanctions, public and private criticism, and termination of economic and military assistance–to enforce compliance with international human rights norms.
In the post-Cold War world, there has been a slow erosion in the belief of the universality of human aspirations and rights, stemming from a widespread conviction that human rights are a Western invention being forced upon non-Westerners. Though such attitudes are partly a propaganda ploy by leaders who seek to shield their abusive behavior from criticism, they also reflect the views of many non-Westerners who believe that current international policies do not adequately balance rights with responsibilities–witness the emergence of “Asian Values” or “Islamic Values.”
The most crippling feature of U.S. human rights policy abroad is its transparent selectivity. Assertions that human rights are central to U.S. foreign policy are undermined both by Washington’s reluctance to criticize the practices of commercially or strategically important countries and by a strong sense of exceptionalism. For example, an overriding concept is that the U.S. constitution and justice system can’t be improved upon, and that efforts to hold the U.S. accountable to international standards are unacceptable infringements on sovereignty.
Nowhere is this so pronounced recently as it is in the Middle East. In this region, human rights concerns are consistently overruled either by questions of military and corporate access or by the “peace process.” The U.S. generally exempts key allies from criticism without regard to their abuses, severely undermining the overall credibility of its human rights policy. For example, Saudi Arabia, the largest customer for U.S. weapons, is insulated from even the mildest and most indirect forms of public rebuke. Washington has made no discernible effort to use its leading role as donor and arms supplier to promote human rights. This selectivity undermines efforts by Middle Eastern activists and organizations to build strong human rights movements.
American exceptionalism is further manifested in the reservations the U.S. attached to those treaties it has joined. Ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) included a reservation to the prohibition against executions for crimes committed under the age of eighteen. The U.S. ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) rejected that treaty’s inclusion of effect as well as intent in determining whether laws and practices are discriminatory.
In all such ratifications, America has insisted that the treaties are not self-executing. In other words, specific implementing legislation is required and Washington has refused to introduce enabling legislation. Thus, Americans cannot claim any of these extra protections in a U.S. court of law. As a result, those ratifications that have occurred are largely empty gestures in terms of providing any additional enforceable rights for citizens and residents. Additionally, the Unites States has also failed to ratify optional protocols to the treaties that create international oversight committees.
Constitutional safeguards ensure de facto compliance with international human rights standards in many areas, but the divergences are serious. Federal, state, and local politicians and political commentators frequently denigrate international standards, and some American laws violate those standards. The “expedited removal” procedures of the 1996 immigration reform act, for example, conflict with U.S. obligations under the 1951 U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
U.S. detention of asylum seekers contravenes the international standard that allows for detention only in exceptional circumstances. The government has failed to incorporate the U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners into the policy guidelines of corrections departments. This measure is not a treaty but an authoritative interpretation of treaty standards on what constitutes cruel and unusual treatment in custodial settings. Moreover, in April 1998, Washington publicly rejected the finding of the U.N. Special Rapporteur for extrajudicial executions that the death penalty was being applied in an unfair, arbitrary, and discriminatory manner.
Furthermore, there are increasing assertions of value-based human rights policy and cultural variations representing a regional backlash against the unwanted aspects of globalization. These aspects include the fear of American dominance, related concerns about consumerism and the loss of tradition. One important way to establish regional identity has been to emphasize the distinctiveness of human rights, whether Asian or African, Islamic or Christian. Another example of this trend has been the greater prominence of representatives of indigenous peoples’ rights. Their sense of difference is so strong that, operating under U.N. auspices, a worldwide network of indigenous representatives is developing its own framework for human rights, known as the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
In addition to current issues of exceptionality, the Unites States faces many obstacles in crafting and improving foreign policy towards human rights. First, there are often problems with obtaining congressional approvals of human rights initiatives. Second, there are the troubles of economic sanctions and dealing with the realities of globalization. In addition, there is a need for consistency in actions in regards to human rights violations, and more importantly, a need for adherence to a unifying doctrine concerning human rights. Finally, reconciling human rights with foreign policy objectives has continually been a difficulty for the U.S.
Clearly, the changing interaction between Congress, the President, and international organizations is one problem America faces in the post-Cold War situation. The end of the Cold War has brought no mere adjustment among states but a new redistribution of power among states, markets, and civil society. National governments are not simply losing autonomy in a globalizing economy, they are sharing powers. Political, social, and security roles at the core of sovereignty are shared with businesses, with international organizations, and with a multitude of citizens groups, known as non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
This redistribution of power is being driven largely by global markets and information technology, which is able to transmit information around the globe instantaneously. A further consequence of change is that the rapidly emerging “global village” is a significant force, in which the power of states is weakening relative to the growing autonomy of the individuals within them.10 At the height of globalization, a nation-state’s capacity to act may be called into question and its presumptive legitimacy will be challenged.
Politics as well as technology help to explain these developments resulting from globalization. Public diplomacy detests a void, and with the end of the Cold War, there has been a noticeable hunger for a unifying doctrine. Thus, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, has assumed a robust second life. Its principles are advanced by an aggressive group of nongovernmental organizations, notably Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, and Human Rights Watch. 11
Developments have raised expectations that cannot plausibly be realized. The American role is critical as no forward movement is possible without Washington’s support and leadership. However, the very exercise of such leadership stirs an outcry against U.S. hegemony abroad and a backlash from liberals and conservatives at home. In truth, American policy has neither direction nor strategy but is a blend of diverse interests and reactions. 12
The world today substantially resembles that of 1900, with one global superpower: America, in place of Britain. A dozen or so pivotal powers also exist such as Britain, Germany, France, Russia, China, etc., and upward of 150 lesser entities, most of them poor and dependent. Granted, the old colonial empires no longer remain, but this is not always a plus from the human rights vantage. For reasons of crass self-interest, colonial powers maintained a monopoly on the use of force, put down regional and ethnic separatists, and imposed a rough Hobbesian peace.13 As we have seen in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Somalia, the international community has failed to devise a more acceptable, and effective, substitute to this course of action.
There are many today that point to the gap between the ideals set out in the Universal Declaration and the violations that persist 50 years after that document was signed. The inconsistencies in U.S. policy toward human rights abuses in China, Colombia, and Russia demonstrate one complexity in executing moral and strategic action without a realistic framework of goals. 14
If a basic obligation exists for the United States to protect fundamental rights and uphold democratic ideals, then it would seem that non-confrontational stances with both China and Russia, as well as aiding Colombian armed forces, would rob the U.S. of any moral authority on humanitarian issues.15 Yet these examples represent an unfortunate and permanent fact about the interface of “uniform policy” with multiple goals. In the cases of human rights and other “non-negotiable” obligations, trade-offs with other strategic goals will likely occur.
As the American relationship with Russia demonstrates, the positive consequences of a strategic partnership may clash with the need to guard all democratic ideals. In designing a framework for action, policymakers might first commit to not furthering any human rights abuses. From that point, they have to accept and navigate the clashing interests that their framework inevitably creates. The key lies in recognizing where interests are at odds with each other before one can assess them critically. 16
A United States that protects and advances the interests of distinct but politically powerful groups under the banner of rights, including bureaucratic constituencies, must damage the traditional freedoms of small groups and individuals, either absolutely or by relative deprivation compared with favored groups. Disregard for, or subordination of, the rights of the politically weak generates substantial unhappiness among persons and groups personally wronged or disillusioned with the failure of the country to honor its promises. 17
Policy recommendations abound to form solutions to the problems of U.S. policy towards human rights in the post-Cold War era. The current era demands that the United States rethink what it means to have a human rights policy. Americans can no longer automatically associate the promotion of human rights with imposing punishing measures against repressive regimes. 18
Truly integrating human rights into the foreign policy equation means reconciling human rights with other foreign policy objectives and taking a holistic look at all aspects of foreign. It means acknowledging that the status of human rights in any society has to do with the distribution of power between the state and the society–as reflected in political institutions and economic arrangements–as well as a host of cultural and social forces. 19
America needs to develop a policy that addresses the selectivity that exempts the foreign policies of allies or strategically important countries from scrutiny or rebuke, and the exceptionalism that demands U.S. exemption from international standards and accountability. Efforts to reform policy should build on accomplishments already in place. The State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices are now of generally high quality, placing on the record, accurately and comprehensively, the practices of friendly and adversarial governments alike.20 Typically, though, there is no connection between a report’s frank critique and U.S. policy toward that country. In the cases of Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, for instance, persistent gross human rights violations are publicly ignored and have no discernible effect on levels of U.S. aid or military cooperation-even though the Foreign Assistance Act has required negative consequences for the past twenty years.
To counter this penchant for selectivity, Congress should require that each Country Report include a section specifying what the U.S. has done to address the abuses cited. The administration should have to explain why weapons transfers were made or military training provided despite abuses, if such things occurred.21 If one extenuating factor was the failure of other countries to condition their military aid and sales on human rights issues, this would be an occasion to make that criticism.
To oppose American exceptionalism and the example of exception from recrimination it communicates to other countries, the federal government should conduct an annual assessment of human rights practices in the United States. Discourse on human rights should be reframed much more in terms of international standards and less exclusively in terms of “American values.” One key objective should be to disengage human rights from both democratization and privatization projects, especially nation-building efforts.
An option would be to heed George Kennan’s advice: disregard interventionist meddling, address the nation’s own neglected ills, and lead by example. Or the U.S. could, for the first time, make a serious commitment to collective action, building on structures that already exist, and thereby give some meaning to the hollow phrase “international community.” 22
More importantly, raising the profile of human rights in American bilateral relations requires devoting the necessary time, resources, and political will to fashion effective multilateral coalitions and establish international institutional frameworks that initiate and sustain successful pressures for reform. Specifically, multilateralism means challenging some well-vested interests in the corporate and national security establishments both in the U.S. and in closely allied countries.
There must be some consistency to our human rights policy based upon a coherent set of principles, whether they are philosophical or legal. It is obvious that an ideology already exists to direct human rights policy, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The critical factor is for the US, along with other nations, to truly follow the values set by each article of this document. Once there is consistent adherence to the rights dictated by the declaration, then the world can react more decisively toward human rights violations.
This does not mean that nations should respond with the same degree of force or the same tactics to every human rights crisis. Human rights organization did not advocate American military intervention in Chechnya, where to do so might have gotten the nation into confrontation with another nuclear power.23 Further, when genocide was underway in Rwanda, the UN commander on the scene believed that it could be short-circuited with the provision of just a few hundred more UN troops; and, as the United States has legal obligations to prevent genocide, there is no excuse for obstructing an international response.
As its government makes foreign policy decisions about human rights, the United States should keep in mind many principles. First, that criticism of other governments (be it China for religious persecution or Cuba for political prisoners) must rest upon more than American tradition or muscle if it is not to risk being dismissed as mere impulse or prejudice. 24 Also, the United States must actively promote international standards on human rights and abide by them as well. Commitment to those standards requires the nation to leverage influence to advance human rights. America’s leverage may be diplomatic, economic, or militaristic to ensure that there is rarely, if ever, a conflict between such advancement and our national security. 25
In a complex and interdependent world, enforcing uniform human rights standards, and establishing institutions of accountability through which to end impunity, will in the last analysis make the world a far safer place for all the world’s citizens. 26
Specific recommendations for policy reform should include a stance in which Americans will recognize the different values each nation upholds. Moreover, the U.S. should concern itself with its own human rights violations before those of other nations. Clearly, the United States should promote human rights on a global scale, but it should also refrain from imposing sanctions on foreign governments because they have policies that the U.S. simply doesn’t like. The government must be concerned with true human rights violations only.
In addition, the Washington must think about the costs of war, and weigh those costs against expected benefits, before launching any wars in the name of human rights. Balancing U.S. demands that other governments accept Western definitions of human rights should also be an element of reform in its foreign policy. The United States may also consider spending more money on foreign aid to support humanitarian ideals.
In short, there are many significant human rights issues that face the America in the post-Cold War global society. Most importantly, the nation must take steps to insure that human rights are dealt with in a responsible manner. Although integrating human rights initiatives with foreign policy objective may be difficult at times, the U.S. is in a position to take the lead and truly advance the cause of human rights worldwide.
