HUMAN RIGHTS AND FOREIGN POLICY
Lecture by Dr. Nikolas Gvosdev
Because the issue of human rights has entered into the discourse of international affairs, especially through the signing of international covenants and other agreements, human rights have become an integral part of many nation's foreign policy posture. Nations justify their actions on the grounds of compliance with human rights treaties, while the question of human rights can be used as a way to criticize other states.
Consider the following report:
Angry Russia Defends Its Rights Record Before Washington. MOSCOW, Mar 1, 2000 -- (Agence France Presse) Moscow on Wednesday slammed as unacceptable and biased a US State Department report expressing concern over the Russian military's conduct in Chechnya.
Washington's 123-page review of Russia's human rights performance released last week accused federal troops of using indiscriminate force that caused unnecessarily high casualties among Chechen civilians.
It called for Moscow to investigate "credible reports" of abuses that include rape and torture in civilian detention camps in the breakaway republic.
The Russian foreign ministry bristled at the study and accused the United States of basing its findings on slanted Western media reports.
"We find the accusatory tone of the report unacceptable," a foreign ministry statement said. The State Department had concluded that Russia's human rights record "remained uneven and worsened in some areas" over the past year.
Moscow for its part accused Washington of openly siding with the Chechens and ignoring brutalities committed by rebels against federal troops and Russian civilians still living in the republic.
"The US international politics department while reporting on the action of federal forces in Chechnya relies on unverified information that was selected with bias. "The report ignores human rights violations by Chechen terrorists, which had prompted the Russian government to take extraordinary measures in order to restore constitutional order and defend Russia's territorial integrity," the statement added.
Russia further accused the United States of failing to understand what forced the Kremlin to order troops into Chechnya for the first time since a 1994-96 war, which left the province awash in arms and wracked by crime as well as enjoying de facto independence. "An impression is forming that the State Department is completely ignoring the fact that one of the main goals of the anti-terrorist operation is the restoration of human rights in Chechnya."
Moscow last year accused Chechen rebels of staging a series of terrorist apartment block bombings which killed 292 civilians in September. Coming shortly after two deadly Chechen-led incursions into the Russian republic of Dagestan, the bombings prompted Moscow to launch its five-month "anti-terrorist" operation on October 1.
Should human rights, in fact, form a part of a nation's foreign policy? REALISTS would say no. REALISTS are those who subscribe to the notion that the international system, lacking any real mechanism for law enforcement, operates only on the basis of power. Each state is responsible only to its own citizens and must pursue policies that are designed to further the interests of the specific state. Issues of human rights and morality are relevant only in that they may strengthen a state's position, a useful tool in statecraft, but a state has to be guided by self-interest, not by abstract notions of justice or morality, in formulating policy. IDEALISTS, on the other hand, believe that the promotion of human rights and justice in the international system is an obligation of a democratic state's foreign policy. A democratic state must try to make the world fairer and more democratic in the hopes of achieving the basis for long-lasting peace and security. IDEALISTS often point to the historical record that democratic states tend not to fight each other in the international arena, and that, in the long-run, democratic states that respect human rights are more stable and reliable international partners.
A purely REALIST policy would say that the United States should deal with other states solely on the basis of national interest. A purely IDEALIST policy would link U. S. interaction with other states to their record on human rights. Neither is completely feasible. In the contemporary American understanding of foreign policy, human rights is seen as one factor among several in determining the U. S. relationship with other states, one factor which may be outweighed by other considerations (economic, military, etc.)
How should the United States deal with a state that violates human rights norms? An argument advanced by former UN ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick was that the U. S. could and should not treat all violating states equally, that policy had to make clear distinctions. For Kirkpatrick, some states that were violating human rights were preferable to more totalitarian alternatives that might take power if the US withdrew its support and/or initiated sanctions. Finally, if the choice was between a pro-US repressive regime and an anti-US repressive regime, the US should work to preserve or promote the pro-US alternative. Others pointed out that some repressive states might in fact be laying the groundwork for a more democratic future, citing examples such as the regime of Pinochet in Chile or the "Asian Tigers" of the Far East, where authoritarian regimes eventually gave way to multiparty democracies. Another argument, advancing during the 1980's, was that American interaction with repressive states was preferable to isolating them because Americans might be in a position to use political or economic leverage to induce reforms. This policy of "constructive engagement" was first delineated with regard to South Africa, and later applied to China. Others, however, have argued for the strict application of sanctions against violators, on the grounds that ignoring human rights abuses only perpetuates them.
The United States has often employed a mix of these approaches. With regard to Iraq, Cuba, or Yugoslavia, for example, the US has employed tight sanctions designed to cripple the existing regime. However, constructive engagement has been the justification for the continued US interaction with China, especially in economic matters. With regimes like Saudi Arabia, or, to a lesser extent, Russia, the argument has been that the alternative to the current governments might be decidedly more unpleasant.
How sincere is the pursuit of human rights in American foreign policy? This can be a difficult question to answer. To some extent, there is a genuine desire to promote freedom and democracy throughout the world; at the same time, it is undeniable that American efforts to promote such ends often coincide with other American strategic or economic interests or are based in the lobbying efforts of powerful US blocs of voters. Given that US coverage on human rights is going to be uneven, it raises a critical question: does selective US pressure with regard to human rights harm the overall cause of human rights (e. g. it would be better if we did nothing) or does uneven US pressure, while perhaps not addressing all current abuses of human rights, help to improve the overall global climate with regard to the protection and defense of human rights?