Human Rights and American Duplicity

Many reports have been published recently both inside and outside the United States that contend, in view of the present administration’s move to distance itself from the policy of promoting democracy and human rights in the Middle East, that the era of human rights is at an end.

Similarly, articles in the Washington Post and Newsweek have cited a number of examples that make clear the administration’s move toward normalization in the political sphere, in the sense of focusing on maintaining power instead of promoting principles. This forms the basis of the claim that this is the end of the era of human rights and the dawn of an era of realism, the likes of which hasn’t been seen for a long time.

So do democratic reforms and human rights principles take a secondary place in the Obama administration?

There is no doubt that President Obama has made a noticeable improvement in the presidential discourse on human rights and democracy, compared to that of his predecessor President Bush. In a series of speeches delivered around the world, Obama presented his vision strongly and convincingly, using all the appropriate words to emphasize his view that issues of human rights and democracy are two essential components in his foreign policy.

In his June 2009 speech in Cairo, he focused on the importance of freedom of religious belief and the rights of women, and replaced terms of conflict, tension and traditional binaries (such as good and evil) with other words, such as partnership, integration, reconciliation and democracy promotion.

It appears, however, that the Obama administration’s effort to induce some radical governments to respect human rights and democracy is sometimes lacking, and this has stirred up fears that the United States continues to apply a double standard when it comes to confronting severe human rights violations at the hands of important allies. As concerns the Israel-Palestine conflict, the administration’s record is mixed; President Obama did announce that the United States couldn’t accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement, but the administration shrunk from enforcing the halt to all of Israel’s new construction projects.

This conflict is considered a touchstone of America’s human rights policy, especially in that Israel represents a unique set of security threats and ambitions that give rise to policies that conflict with Obama’s broader agenda, part of which is his effort to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, as well as to reform America’s relationship with the Islamic world.

In another speech given by President Obama in Ghana in July 2009, he said that transparency, rule of law and sound democratic practice are necessities, and added that “Africa doesn’t need strongmen, it needs strong institutions,” such as honest police forces, a strong parliament and an independent press. However, this approach didn’t result in sustained pressure to change direction, not on the Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame, and not on the Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Meles Zenawi.

Obama is frequently criticized for what is considered to be a lax position toward China, which has been accused of suppressing minority rights in Tibet and Xinjiang. These accusations are what made him call on China to protect human rights, especially for minorities, in his Shanghai speech. In that meeting with local officials and youths, he said, “We do not seek to impose any system of government on any other nation, but we also don’t believe that the principles that we stand for are unique to our nation,” and he also defined some of the rights he wanted China to promote, including freedom of worship, political participation and free access to information. Though he spoke the truth about the importance of respecting human rights during this visit, he undermined his message when he botched the answer to a question about China’s Internet censorship, saying that it can represent a different tradition, rather than a flagrant violation of freedom of expression.

The significant development that garnered President Obama the most widespread criticisms from observers both inside and outside the United States, however, was a decrease in the material support allocated for the fields of democracy and human rights in the Middle East region in the 2010-2011 budget.

Despite the decrease in financial support for democracy in some Arab countries, I imagine that democracy promotion remains a priority for the Obama administration and that this decrease doesn’t erase America’s clear concern for the issue of political reform. I similarly believe that the administration will continue to support civil liberties. The Obama administration saw that the previous administration had diverted significant amounts of money away from crucial programs, and the downsizing or cancellation of programs dedicated to political infrastructure development, health care and agriculture for the sake of political reform conferences did little to advance the cause of democracy.

In addition to that, the Obama administration prefers a strategic approach to democracy promotion, considering economic development and political reform to be complementary goals. The proof of this is its support for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, a development fund that connects levels of aid with the quality of governance in the states and organizations that receive the aid, meaning that this organization is built on the theory that assistance becomes more effective if it is reinforced by good governance, economic freedom and investment in people.

In summary, Obama believes in a direction concerned less with form than with content, and that’s what makes his policy so well thought-out, relying on economic development and supporting organizations that allow a democratic society to develop. Likewise, his administration believes that foreign governments and global civil society cannot be forced to change, while at the same time it provides support and safety for human rights and democracy activists when they face problems. This is the reason why the Obama administration uses tools like the Global Human Rights Defenders Fund, which in the past year has provided meaningful legal aid and resettlement to 170 human rights defenders around the world.