Washington’s Cynical Approach to Global Human Rights

This article was last updated on September 25, 2024

Canada: Oye! Times readers Get FREE $30 to spend on Amazon, Walmart…
USA: Oye! Times readers Get FREE $30 to spend on Amazon, Walmart…

Washington’s Cynical Approach to Global Human Rights

Have you ever noticed that obvious human rights abuses in some nations are ignored by Washington whereas those in other nations are emphasized?  For example, it’s perfectly fine for Saudi Arabia to use the death penalty as the primary means of punishment for a wide range of crimes well beyond intentional killings (i.e for activists who criticize the nation), punish freedom of expression and failing to protect women and children from gender-based violence whereas, Iran, who has similar issues is vilified as an example of the worst human rights abusers on earth.

Fortunately, a leaked document from back in 2017 when newly minted Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was learning the ropes of international diplomacy tells the world all that they need to know about how Washington views human rights.  The memo was written by Brian Hook, the Director of Policy Planning in the State Deparmentfrom 2017 to 2018 under Secretary of State Rex Tillerson the U.S. Special Representative for Iran and Senior Policy Advisor to the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo from 2018 to 2020.

Let’s look at some key excerpts from the memo which covers the subject “Balancing Interests and Values” as they refer to human rights and democracy promotion in American foreign policy.  First, we find this with my bold:

“The liberal/idealist/Wilsonian view is that other countries, including US allies, should be pressed to adopt democratic reforms and human rights practices in accordance with American preferences.

The “realist” view is that America’s allies should be supported rather than badgered, for both practical and principled reasons, and that while the United States should certainly stand as moral example, our diplomacy with other countries should focus primarily on their foreign policy behavior rather than on their domestic practices as such.”

So, in other words, one should ignore the “bad human rights practices” of America’s allies because these are domestic issues within these nations and that these nations should be supported no matter how they mistreat their citizens.  Rather, Washington should be focussing on the foreign policies of these “friends” and ignore their bad behaviours.

The memo goes on to outline the history of America’s involvement (i.e. meddling) in the world when it came to its relationship with various nations and their human rights records.  The author of the memo approves of how President Ronald Reagan handled its role in the world as follows:

“As he (Reagan) stated at the 1980 Republican convention, “The basis of a free and principled foreign policy is one that takes the world as it is, and seeks to change it by leadership and example; not by harangue, harassment or wishful thinking.” Or again, from Reagan’s 1981 inaugural address, with reference to US allies: “We will not use our friendship to impose on their sovereignty, for our own sovereignty is not for sale.”

During Reagan’s second term, his administration began to move in the direction of more pointed pressure for liberalization with regard to allies such as Chile, South Korea, and the Philippines.  But these efforts bore fruit in part because viable democratic and pro-American forces existed in each country — and the US continued to provide vital reassurance. Reagan’s first instinct was always to back allies against adversaries, even in controversial cases, including through his second term. South Africa would be an excellent example. The approach used there was called “constructive engagement,” and in the long run it worked.“

In contrast, Hook notes that President Jimmy Carter’s approach was a complete failure, observing that Carter’s badgering of American allies, particularly Iran, “unintentionally strengthened anti-American radicals” and ended up “facilitating the job of the insurgents” despite the fact that the anti-American movement was alive and well in Iran before Carter took office.

Hook then goes on to outline the partial failures of the post-Cold War presidents who used American power to nudge nations toward positive social changes which ended up failing as was the case in Iraq, Afghanistan and the nations that were subjected to the Arab Spring movement.  

Here’s the most important part of the memo which clearly outlines the cynicism in Washington’s approach to human rights with my bolds:

“In the case of US allies such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Philippines, the Administration is fully justified in emphasizing good relations for a variety of important reasons, including counter-terrorism, and in honestly facing up to the difficult tradeoffs with regard to human rights.

It is not as though human rights practices will be improved if anti-American radicals take power in those countries. Moreover, this would be a severe blow to our vital interests. We saw what a disaster Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood turned out to be in power. After eight years of Obama, the US is right to bolster US allies rather than badger or abandon them.

One useful guideline for a realistic and successful foreign policy is that allies should be treated differently — and better — than adversaries. Otherwise, we end up with more adversaries, and fewer allies. The classic dilemma of balancing ideals and interests is with regard to America’s allies. In relation to our competitors, there is far less of a dilemma. We do not look to bolster America’s adversaries overseas; we look to pressure, compete with, and outmaneuver them. For this reason, we should consider human rights as an important issue in regard to US relations with China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. And this is not only because of moral concern for practices inside those countries. It is also because pressing those regimes on human rights is one way to impose costs, apply counter-pressure, and regain the initiative from them strategically.“

And there you have it.  The American political establishment’s approach to human rights is to be guided by each nation’s value to Washington’s global agenda; if the nation (i.e. China, Russia etcetera) is seen to be working against American hegemony, it’s human rights record is to be used as a cudgel to beat it into submission to American “democratic” values.  In contrast, the human rights abuses of those nations that are viewed as friendly to America are to be treated as though their obvious abuses simply don’t exist and never happened at all.