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

[John Kilduff]

[ 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.

[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.

[John Kilduff]

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. "

[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 ]
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.

[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.

[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.

[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]