Home >> History, Ideology & Science >> Governance & Conspiracies

     Email   Print 

Human Rights Hypocrisy?

Bhuwan Thapaliya - 5/26/2006

"We set this nation up to make men free, and we did not confine our conception and purpose to America," proclaimed President Woodrow Wilson in 1919. As the new century rose, the Wilsonian idea that it is America's mission to promote freedom abroad retains a powerful grip in his country. Yet, for the boldness of Mr Wilson's words; American policy on human rights is in mess after the Sep 11.

In Washington meanwhile, the Bush administration has been facing a barrage of accusations about the civil liberties of American citizens and the human rights of American prisoners especially after the disgrace of Abu Ghraib. As a consequence, fighting for human rights in places like Myanmar and China has become more difficult for the American administration which is now rattled by the futile, "Letter Diplomacy," of Iran.

Meanwhile, observers argue that the internal affairs of other states are not the proper business of foreigners. Once that rule is broken, they say, the door is opened to all sorts of unnecessary disputes and diplomatic feuds. The observers also argue that it is hubristic to try to export western ideas of freedom to places with different traditions and levels of development.

Attempts to introduce Western political models into poor countries have a habit of bringing unwelcome repercussions. Meanwhile, the West's own experience teaches that rights evolve over time. Universal suffrage came to Britain only in 1918. Racial segregation continued in parts of the Untied States until the 1960s.

These are powerful arguments, but they are not ultimately convincing. It is true that in the long run internal changes, particularly wealth and better education, tend to be the main agents and underpinnings of civil rights. But that is not to say that there is no role for external pressure. In some places -- recently in Nepal, for one -- such pressure has undoubtedly helped to bring change.

The pressure need not be for wholesale reform. It is possible to object to governments torturing or silencing their citizens without asking them to adopt the foreign constitution in its entirety. But why bother to object? Why should it matter to the government of Europe or America if one lot of foreigners is mistreating another lot? For several reasons.

The first is simple morality. Take this example. If you hear your neighbour beating up his children, do you give a shrug and say it is none of your business? Most people think not. Realists argue that the moral rules that apply to individuals do not apply to the states, whose relations should be governed by considerations of national interests not of morality.

But countries are made up of individuals, and in democracies their wishes are meant to be reflected. Few voters would endorse the idea that their governments should completely ignore moral issues in making foreign policy.
Most tend to feel -- correctly-- that at some stage their own countries would be defiled by maintaining uncritical relations with an utterly barbaric government.

But morality is not the only reason for putting human rights on the West's foreign policy agenda. Self-interest also plays a part. Political freedom tends to go hand in hand with economic freedom, which in turn trends to bring international trade and prosperity.

And government that treat their own people with tolerance and respect treat their neighbours in the same way. Dictatorships unleashed the first and second world wars and most wars before and since. Democracies seldom, if ever, take up arms against each other, apart from some exceptional cases.

Even in more prosaic issues than those of war and peace -- the observance of international agreements on trade or the environment, for instance -- liberal democracies are more likely to play by the rules. They, after all, accept the concepts of unity and legal challenge.

Yes, a world in which more countries respected basic human rights would be a more peaceful place. All very well, the sceptics reply, but even with a global economy the world is not a global country with a global set of laws, a global police force to enforce them and a global judiciary to try wrongdoers.

Moreover, in the real world, western democracies trade enthusiastically with countries like China and Indonesia. They may wince at massacres in Beijing or East Timor, but they will not, in Jack Kennedy's words, "pay any price, bear any burden" to promote liberty.

They will almost certainly not go to war and they are generally reluctant to disrupt trade. The countries singled out for a bashing are often soft targets, like Myanmar, which offer few economic opportunities and have little power to hit back.

Sometimes when the West claims to be acting in the interests of human rights, it is really responding to domestic pressures -- such as protectionist demands against cheap competition.

It is true that there are elements of inconsistency, even hypocrisy, in the West's attempts to foster the cause of human rights round the world. So what? That is an inevitable consequence of the fact that human rights are only one of many foreign policy concerns.

Keeping peace and encouraging trade are also important issues. The point is that democracies should both accept and proclaim that promoting freedom is an important aspect of modern foreign policy.

Critics of those who want western policymakers to encourage human rights abroad often see the debate as a modern obsession -- even aberration -- that dates back to Jimmy Carter. Why disagree with another country if it presents no threat to your security and is prepared to co-exist with you peacefully?