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

[adios]

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.

[MidGe]

[ 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

[wtfsvi]

[ 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.

[zasterguava]

[ 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 ]

[adios]

[ 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.

[MidGe]

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]

[adios]

[ 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.

[zasterguava]

[ 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.

[adios]

[ 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?

[boracay]

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.