Is There a Human Rights Double Standard?US Policy Toward Saudi Arabia,
 

I thought this was a decent analysis of questionable aspects of U.S. foreign policy.

Is There a Human Rights Double Standard? US Policy Toward Saudi Arabia, Iran, Uzbekistan, and Pakistan

Now, let me be clear: I don’t expect pure and perfect consistency from our government on this or any other matter. In fact, I think that there is only one way to be perfectly consistent in life, and that is to be consistently unprincipled. Doing the wrong thing all the time is easy. Doing the right thing all the time is a lot harder. And, I’d rather have a foreign policy that’s inconsistently right than one that’s consistently wrong.

What’s more, I don’t believe that the United States should treat every human rights violator in the world in exactly the same way. The strategies the U.S. government chooses to promote human rights should indeed vary from country to country. They must take into account what will be most effective in each particular case, and respond to the needs and desires of those who are struggling for human rights and democracy on the ground.

That said, while American strategies may differ from country to country, America’s voice should not. There is no reason why the United States can’t speak honestly, clearly, and publicly about human rights to every government in the world, whether it is friend or foe. After all, engagement is not the same thing as endorsement – you can have a relationship with a country like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia without feeling you have to defend its government’s policies whenever they’re criticized. Yet far too often, this is something the U.S. government forgets. Too often, American diplomats assume that to defend America’s choice of friends in the world, they have to defend everything those friends do – or at least be silent. Again – this should be seen as utterly unnecessary. It is also profoundly harmful to America’s overall human rights message in the world.

The United States is most effective in promoting liberty and human rights when people around the world believe it is rising above narrow self interest to defend universal ideals. If, instead, the U.S. government’s rhetoric about democracy is seen as a weapon it uses only against its enemies, people around the world become cynical about everything the United States does in the name of freedom. Under such circumstances, dictators in countries like Iran or Cuba can deflect U.S. criticism by arguing that it’s selective. Dissidents in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia doubt that the United States is really on their side; they suspect it is using its freedom agenda to mask other ends, and they're less willing to be associated with U.S. democracy programs.


Whether people like it or not the U.S. is still looked upon as the leader in the world in promoting human rights. That's an honorable position to be in, hope we don't squander it. It seems like the current administration ignores many of the human rights issues in places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia but could be convinced otherwise.

Re: Is There a Human Rights Double Standard?US Policy Toward Saudi Ara
 

[ QUOTE ]
Whether people like it or not the U.S. is still looked upon as the leader in the world in promoting human rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dream on! LOL

Re: Is There a Human Rights Double Standard?US Policy Toward Saudi Arabia,
 

[ QUOTE ]
Whether people like it or not the U.S. is still looked upon as the leader in the world in promoting human rights. That's an honorable position to be in, hope we don't squander it. It seems like the current administration ignores many of the human rights issues in places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia but could be convinced otherwise.


[/ QUOTE ]

The U.S. does indeed have a double standard. The matter is also very complex and it goes deeper than that as well.

The U.S. has a double standard in dealing with countries it thinks it stands to gain much from by their cooperation. Some of the oil-rich countries in the Middle East are good examples of this. Realpolitik would seem to apply irresistible pressure in such a direction, at least to an extent.

Where it really gets deeper is in regards to what human rights mean around the world. "Human rights" just doesn't mean the same thing everywhere. In many Islamic countries, the only human rights that are thought to have any validity whatsoever are those rights which are permitted in the Shari'a. This is a fundamental sticking point and impasse. We can't argue (meaningfully) with them that freedom of religious expression is a fundamental human right if the Shari'a says it isn't and if they believe the Shari'a is God's will. Other examples abound.

Another area in which the scenario is complex involves democracy. Democracy in the Middle East has been shown to empower fundamental religious forces which wish to apply religious law and principles in governenance. So merely being "for democracy" or promoting democracy is not the same as being for what we think of as "human rights" or promoting human rights.

It would be nice to see the USA not having a double standard but is it even feasible realpolitically speaking? Idealists may say yes, but I am retain some serious skepticism. That doesn't mean I support a double standard but it does mean I am considering that maybe the USA should stop trying (unsuccessfully) to tie its ideals to its foreign policy.

The USA can't lead the world as much as it would like to think it can, either by example or more pro-actively speaking. Involvement in other countries' politics seems to invariably lead to inability to maintain a consistent position of support for our ideal standards (and those standards are also increasingly being eroded even within the USA itself). Active involvement in other country's politics seems to often be misguided or unwise (e.g. Vietnam War, Iraq War). Telling Shari'a supporters that they must stop believing in and supporting the Shari'a is probably an exercise in futility (the USA doesn't have the balls to actually say that, so it instead tells them that they must stop supporting specific examples of things the Shari'a supports such as disallowing freedom of religious expression).

Much of the world just doesn't believe in human rights and civil rights the way the USA does (or purports to believe).

Much of the world is more concerned with practical matters and has little time or patience for idealism (even if their ideals are aligned with ours, which often isn't the case). Rulers generally care about holding power not "doing what is right". And again their perception of what is right often isn't aligned with our perception.

I think a consistent foreign policy on human rights would, realpolitically speaking, be impossible to achieve. If the USA stopped supporting or being friends with every government with which we have significant human/civil rights disagreements, there wouldn't be many countries left to be friendly with.

As depressing as it sounds, I am gradually leaning more to the side of a more neutral foreign policy as regards such things. I'm coming more to think that something like the Swiss policy is wisest and most practical in the long run (perhaps not quite the extreme of remaining neutral in something as enormous and world-moving as WWII, but just short of that).

Democracy in the Middle East generally empowers the forces opposed to freedom anyway (Hamas' rise to political power via election, and the support the Shi'ite fundamentalists are receiving in Iraq are but two examples). Some things, sadly, just have no good answers and messing with them just tends to cause even more trouble.

The Neo-Cons are still laboring under the grand delusion that democracy in the Middle East will improve human rights there (when it actually tends to empower strict religious rule with precepts which are very much opposed to our conceptions of human rights and civil rights).

I'd still like to see the USA champion the causes of frredom and human rights. I just don't see any way to successfully tie it to foreign policy while remaining consistent. So maybe mere stated declarations of principle would be better, and leading by example of trying to keep our own country free. Actually, at the rate we are losing freedoms in the USA, that ought to be enough of a challenge to keep us busy for quite some time to come.

Thanks for reading.

Re: Is There a Human Rights Double Standard?US Policy Toward Saudi Ara
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whether people like it or not the U.S. is still looked upon as the leader in the world in promoting human rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dream on! LOL

[/ QUOTE ] Yeah, I really don't think that is true.

Re: Is There a Human Rights Double Standard?US Policy Toward Saudi Arabia,
 

I think the more entangled the USA gets with foreign countries, the more the USA will realpolitically have to compromise ideals.

The words of our Founding Fathers seem at least as wise today as centuries ago:

John Quincy Adams:

"She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. "

Re: Is There a Human Rights Double Standard?US Policy Toward Saudi Ara
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whether people like it or not the U.S. is still looked upon as the leader in the world in promoting human rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dream on! LOL

[/ QUOTE ] Yeah, I really don't think that is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't true.

Ironically, in terms of Iraqi's, the former French president Chirac was hold to higher esteem than George Bush: presumably on grounds that the US were breaching every human right imaginable against their country.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have a favorable opinion of x, y and z? The one who ranked highest was by far was French president Jacques Chirac. He was the international symbol of opposition to the invasion. Well below him, you found Bush, and even below him, the rather pathetic Blair, trailing behind

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Is There a Human Rights Double Standard?US Policy Toward Saudi Ara
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whether people like it or not the U.S. is still looked upon as the leader in the world in promoting human rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dream on! LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Right it's Australia.

Re: Is There a Human Rights Double Standard?US Policy Toward Saudi Ara
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whether people like it or not the U.S. is still looked upon as the leader in the world in promoting human rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dream on! LOL

[/ QUOTE ] Yeah, I really don't think that is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't true.

Ironically, in terms of Iraqi's, the former French president Chirac was hold to higher esteem than George Bush: presumably on grounds that the US were breaching every human right imaginable against their country.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have a favorable opinion of x, y and z? The one who ranked highest was by far was French president Jacques Chirac. He was the international symbol of opposition to the invasion. Well below him, you found Bush, and even below him, the rather pathetic Blair, trailing behind

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Right it's France.

Re: Is There a Human Rights Double Standard?US Policy Toward Saudi Ara
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whether people like it or not the U.S. is still looked upon as the leader in the world in promoting human rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dream on! LOL

[/ QUOTE ] Yeah, I really don't think that is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

So which country do people look on as the leader? Sure it's easy to be flippant and you don't think it's true, but name me one other country that you feel people actually look upon as the more of a leader in promoting human rights? A non answer will certainly tell me you have nothing to offer.

Re: Is There a Human Rights Double Standard?US Policy Toward Saudi Ara
 

Adios, are you admitting now that you don't know where the US ranks as far as human rights are concerned? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Is There a Human Rights Double Standard?US Policy Toward Saudi Ara
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whether people like it or not the U.S. is still looked upon as the leader in the world in promoting human rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dream on! LOL

[/ QUOTE ] Yeah, I really don't think that is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

So which country do people look on as the leader?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm tied between America and Israel.

Re: Is There a Human Rights Double Standard?US Policy Toward Saudi Ara
 

[ QUOTE ]
Adios, are you admitting now that you don't know where the US ranks as far as human rights are concerned? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

No

I made the following statement:

Whether people like it or not the U.S. is still looked upon as the leader in the world in promoting human rights.

You obviously believe Australia is looked upon as the leader in promoting human rights. If not who is the leader?

Re: Is There a Human Rights Double Standard?US Policy Toward Saudi Ara
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whether people like it or not the U.S. is still looked upon as the leader in the world in promoting human rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dream on! LOL

[/ QUOTE ] Yeah, I really don't think that is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

So which country do people look on as the leader?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm tied between America and Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have an answer either. I wrote:

Whether people like it or not the U.S. is still looked upon as the leader in the world in promoting human rights.

Who does the world look on as the leader?

Re: Is There a Human Rights Double Standard?US Policy Toward Saudi Ara
 

Probably, Finland! The US would probably rate 10 to 20th in the world, objectively.

I think you need to be woken up from your dream (the USA dream) that is starting to look more and more like a nightmare for the rest of the world!

Re: Is There a Human Rights Double Standard?US Policy Toward Saudi Ara
 

[ QUOTE ]
Probably, Finland! Probably, Finland! The US would probably rate 10 to 20th in the world, objectively.


[/ QUOTE ]

Since we're editing posts I'll address this statement instead. Show me where I made the claim that the U.S. has the best human rights record bar none.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you need to be woken up from your dream (the USA dream) that is starting to look more and more like a nightmare for the rest of the world!

[/ QUOTE ]

Being looked upon as a leader doesn't you're perfect or not making serious errors. That was basically the main point of the post that you don't care to address as usual.

Re: Is There a Human Rights Double Standard?US Policy Toward Saudi Ara
 

Get out of your shell. Being insular is one of the most annoying thinks about a lot of people in the US, in my experience.

Credible link!

Re: Is There a Human Rights Double Standard?US Policy Toward Saudi Ara
 

[ QUOTE ]
Get out of your shell. Being insular is one of the most annoying thinks about a lot of people in the US, in my experience.

Credible link!

[/ QUOTE ]

A non sequiter as usual and ignoring the point I made. Where did I say that the U.S. has the best human rights record bar none? I never made the claim.

Re: Is There a Human Rights Double Standard?US Policy Toward Saudi Arabia,
 

Yes. All countries have the same double standards. The US 's hyprocracy is the most obvious because its the most powerful country and arguably the most vocal with its 'what me? Do anything bad', atitude - which is purely for domestic consumption. People maybe naive and idealistic but the US government is, and has been for a long time, as cynical as the rest of the worlds.

Re: Is There a Human Rights Double Standard?US Policy Toward Saudi Arabia,
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. All countries have the same double standards. The US 's hyprocracy is the most obvious because its the most powerful country and arguably the most vocal with its 'what me? Do anything bad', atitude - which is purely for domestic consumption. People maybe naive and idealistic but the US government is, and has been for a long time, as cynical as the rest of the worlds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the point about being consistent in the article was good. In light of the thread about Amadinejad thread I think it's worthwhile to note that the U.S. double standard is troublesome.

Re: Is There a Human Rights Double Standard?US Policy Toward Saudi Ara
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Get out of your shell. Being insular is one of the most annoying thinks about a lot of people in the US, in my experience.

Credible link!

[/ QUOTE ]




A non sequiter as usual and ignoring the point I made. Where did I say that the U.S. has the best human rights record bar none? I never made the claim.

[/ QUOTE ]


ORLY! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] You really think the following statement is right? I just linked you to a credible link that demonstrates that the US is definitely not looked at the leader in the world in promoting human rights! You speak with a forked tongue just like your president, dude, and I think you are pawned. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
[ QUOTE ]
Whether people like it or not the U.S. is still looked upon as the leader in the world in promoting human rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Is There a Human Rights Double Standard?US Policy Toward Saudi Ara
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Probably, Finland! Probably, Finland! The US would probably rate 10 to 20th in the world, objectively.


[/ QUOTE ]

Since we're editing posts I'll address this statement instead. Show me where I made the claim that the U.S. has the best human rights record bar none.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you need to be woken up from your dream (the USA dream) that is starting to look more and more like a nightmare for the rest of the world!

[/ QUOTE ]

Being looked upon as a leader doesn't you're perfect or not making serious errors. That was basically the main point of the post that you don't care to address as usual.

[/ QUOTE ]

Adios,

you probably shouldnt waste your time trying to have an actual discussion with Midge.

Re: Is There a Human Rights Double Standard?US Policy Toward Saudi Ara
 

[ QUOTE ]
A non sequiter as usual and ignoring the point I made. Where did I say that the U.S. has the best human rights record bar none? I never made the claim.

[/ QUOTE ] Respecting human rights seems to be the easiest and best way to promote human rights. And I don't mean because of a "good example" effect, but cleaning up one's own act is cleaning up someone's act.

I don't think there is much point in discussing if the US is the leading promoter of human rights. There are too many problems with definitions, and we would almost certainly talk past each other. But I'm pretty confident that your claim - That the world outside of the US looks at the US as the leading promoter of human rights - is false.

edit: I agree with your OP, obviously. What I'm saying is I think your reputation is already more damaged than you seem to think. Largely because of the "double standard" you describe.

Re: Is There a Human Rights Double Standard?US Policy Toward Saudi Arabia,
 

I was just want to say I think the entire idea of consitancy is bs.
Countries we don't like: try to make them look bad.
Countries we do like: ignore their shortcomings.

That's just the way the world works. We support countries that help us advance what we perceive to be our national interests. We villify those who don't. It's that simple.


Most countries have real [censored] "human rights" records. The only ones that are probably even close to ok are wealthy western liberal democracies. Drug smuggling in Thailand? Life in prison! (I'm sure those Thai prisons are a blast)
The Angolan police force must be fun to deal with. China, Pakistan, Israel, Saudia Arabia, Colombia, Russia, Sudan..."human rights" violations are pretty common in all of them.

What we really need is to have people stop giving a f*ck about the political rights of people that live thousands of miles away, come from a totally different culture, and don't really care about us. If the government wants to start beheading every second-born child over in Tajikistan, it's really not going to affect my life in any way whatsoever.

Re: Is There a Human Rights Double Standard?US Policy Toward Saudi Ara
 

I can't believe anyone is naive enough to believe that we tie anything into human rights. China runs over its people with tanks and that hasn't stopped us from having relations with China. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: Is There a Human Rights Double Standard?US Policy Toward Saudi Ara
 

Please, try to be objective. Let’s think about human rights in the US first.

A hint – when talking about human rights search about discrimination against gays $ lesbians, treatment of non-citizens, labor rights, prison conditions/violence, etc. You tell me if USA is the world leader in promoting those human rights.

Then search about criminal sentencing and death penalty (as human rights).
During 2006 at least 1591 were executed in 25 countries. I will purposely name all of them, so one might get a better idea what group was that: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Botswana, China, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, North Korea, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mongolia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Uganda, USA, Vietnam, Yemen. What a company! Leaders in promoting human rights? link

USA is the most aggressive jailer in the world with over 2 million prisoners, followed by China with 1.5 mio and Russia 0.86 mio. No other country in the world is known to incarcerate as many people. That’s 727 prisoners per 100.000 residents in the USA, compared with 102 for Canada or with most European countries that imprison fewer than 100 people. Not to mention again conditions with torture, violence, abuses in US jails.
link

You might be surprised, but in 1999 Amnesty International put the USA on a list of persistent violators of human rights, higher than China.
link

‘World leader in promoting human rights’ while failing so much at home. But let’s go abroad.

Just think about a support of repressive regimes in Latin America, Middle East, Africa, US corporations even employing local militias and militaries to violate people’s rights. How many military actions of the US army were there abroad since WWII? How is that supported by promoting human rights? Like in Iraq? What about kidnapping foreign people abroad, imprisoning people for extremely long periods of time without any sentences, denying visits of Red Cross, humanitarian organizations, their lawyers, Guantanamo, denying of international law and conventions, etc. World leader of promoting human rights? Are you kidding?

You have to admit that people abroad somehow don’t realize how humanitarian purpose of attacking other countries actually is. According to BBC poll in 27 countries (28.000 people), where Israel, Iran and USA share the most negative ratings about countries’ influence in the world. link
Maybe countries/people abroad support rather softer ways of promoting human rights, than by military actions (just compare Canada with only 14% negative votes vs 51% negative votes for the US).

To get a good and objective perspective, sometimes is good to check independent sources and not stay with the common view presented by home media. This time I’d check institutions like Human Right Watch or Amnesty International. I’m sure you shouldn’t have troubles finding much better examples about who’s better in promoting human rights.

Regarding Leadership
 

Here's a link to speech that Bush gave today:

Bush urges U.N. to spread freedom

"The people of Lebanon and Afghanistan and Iraq have asked for our help, and every civilized nation has a responsibility to stand with them," Bush said.

"Every civilized nation also has a responsibility to stand up for the people suffering under dictatorship," the president said. "In Belarus, North Korea, Syria and Iran, brutal regimes deny their people the fundamental rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration" of the United Nations.

and

"The nations in this chamber have our differences, yet there are some areas where we can all agree," Bush said. "When innocent people are trapped in a life of murder and fear, the declaration is not being upheld. When millions of children starve to death or perish from a mosquito bite, we're not doing our duty in the world. When whole societies are cut off from the prosperity of the global economy, we're all worse off."

"Changing these underlying conditions is what the declaration calls the work of larger freedom and it must be the work of every nation in this assembly," he said. "This great institution must work for great purposes: to free people from tyranny and violence, hunger and diseases, illiteracy and ignorance and poverty and despair."

More stuff quoted in the article but you get the idea.