Is it my imagination or has the Obama Administration changed the focus of American foreign policy? For decades U. S. foreign policy has at least paid lip service to human rights. Now we’re seeing even less than that.
There’s a connecting thread between the Administration’s approach to Cuba and its approach to Iran. Both are serious abusers of human rights. Can anyone produce an example in which engagement resulted in an improvement in human rights? I can’t think of one. By comparison it’s easy to come up with an example of ostracization leading to an improvement in human rights: South Africa.
Hasn’t Obama’s premise, since coming into the presidency, been to open up talks with declared enemies of the U.S.? His Cairo Speech, for instance, indicated a personal inclination to break bread with those who former presidents had rebuffed on the grounds of terrorist activities and/or human rights violations. In order to follow through with these goals he has had to overlook, minimize or simply rationalize the need to actively intercede or continue policies punitively dealing with continuing human rights issues. In fact, little has even been mentioned about Cuba’s anti dissonant policy that has seen only an increase in the incarceration of those speaking out against the government. Even some liberal pundits, weighing in on how it will effect Cuba by taking it off the terrorist list, predict little will change for the Cuban people, regarding their restricted liberties or lifestyles.
Also, remember that Hugo Chavez endorsed Obama’s presidency. And, even though there has been tension with the new Venezuelan dictator, Madura, our president nevertheless had a secret meeting with him during his latest Cuban foray. This all corresponds to this administration’s early “reset” button approach with Putin, unreinforced red line with Syria, and desperate attempts to reach any agreement with Iran, even if it means alienating allies, with the possibilities of increasing nuclear proliferation throughout the ME.
Historically, U. S. foreign policy has tried to maintain a difficult balancing act, weighing domestic interests, overseas interests, and humanitarian concerns. Sometimes the humanitarian concerns have been little more than lip service, honored more in the breach than the observance but they’ve been part of the balancing act nonetheless.
Well, depending on how you count, Russia or any number of former Soviet satellite states have significantly better human rights records now, than they did before active Western engagement in say, the 80s.
Then there’s debatable cases; China may be getting better or worse. It’s certainly better than it was in the 1970s, but a populace that’s getting high on new wealth is less likely to complain anyways. It’s very hard to quantify a country’s human rights record, and the State Department’s best attempts at doing so usually lead, at best, to saying whether an abuse happens sporadically or systematically; there can be significant swings either way that we’re not really in a position to detect, and there’s a lot of false positives and negatives (due partly to how successful a nation is at controlling information).
At the same time, we’ve always been willing to turn a almost total blind eye towards human rights violations with our “allies” (Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, Latin American dictatorships, Vietnam before we lost it, Iran before the revolution, etc.).
Do you think Iran has a significantly worse human rights record than the Saudis?
What happened in South Africa was the result of a broad, concentrated, and concerted international rights policy, not unilateral American sanctions. With Iran, an international consensus has apparently at least got Iran to the table, and change the domestic rhetoric if not all of its nuclear policy; I think Obama has basically taken the international consensus as far as it’ll go.
There is absolutely no such consensus with Cuba. In the last vote asking the US to end sanctions against Cuba, we could only get Israel (hardly an international darling at the moment) to vote with us and, what’s more, only managed to get abstentions from Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau (which are basically as close to client states as the US has). In other words, do we really think another 50 years of maintaining our policy towards Cuba will magically improve their human rights record?
I think Tim mostly gets it. 50 years of non-engagement certainly hasn’t helped human rights in Cuba. Many years of engagement didn’t improve them in Saudi Arabia or Egypt. I would make a bit stronger case for the USSr and China than he does.
That said, I think we mostly use the human rights issue against nations we don’t like and ignore it with countries we like or need.
Steve
jan- The only ally we risk alienating is Israel. They might become so angry they might refuse to take our money. LOL
Steve
I think this administration is like many others – human rights had greater prominence at the beginning of the administration, but over time reality set in and their importance diminished.
My point here is that the change of focus is likely to have a dampening effect on voter enthusiasm among parts of the Democratic base.
Steve,
There are other countries, other than Israel, who are nervous about any deal with Iran — Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, and perhaps even Bahrain or Morocco whom the Iranians are said to be involved in government-destabilizing activities.