One of the ugliest aspects of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy has been its indifference to human rights abuses worldwide. Despite the administration’s claim that it is merely prioritizing U.S. strategic interests over ideological aspirations, Obama’s outreach to authoritarian regimes has yielded discouraging results: China still refuses to accept binding cuts in carbon emissions; Iran is still pursuing nuclear capabilities; and Venezuela is reportedly looking to join Iran in the near-nuclear club. In turn, many Americans are starting to fear that a key tenet of American exceptionalism – supporting pro-democratic forces against their authoritarian repressors – is being sacrificed for naught.
Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sought to allay these concerns. Speaking at Georgetown, Clinton declared that the Obama administration remains committed to promoting human rights abroad, but was doing so “pragmatically”:
Sometimes, we will have the most impact by publicly denouncing a government action, like the coup in Honduras or violence in Guinea. Other times, we will be more likely to help the oppressed by engaging in tough negotiations behind closed doors, like pressing China and Russia as part of our broader agenda. In every instance, our aim will be to make a difference, not to prove a point.
A few hours – but six thousand miles – away from Foggy Bottom, another State Department event demonstrated the problems inherent in the Obama approach. In a press conference at Tanta University, U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Margaret Scobey declared that Egyptians enjoy full freedom of the press and that Egyptian human rights organizations work in complete freedom (h/t Samuel Tadros). So: did she “make a difference”? Alas no. This past weekend, an Egyptian court sentenced pro-democratic blogger Wael Abbas to six months in prison in absentia for sabotage. (As if straight out of Kafka, Abbas is still unsure what he is being accused of sabotaging.)
The Obama administration’s approach isn’t “realist.” It’s useless.
4 responses so far
1 balconesfault // Dec 15, 2009 at 2:35 pm
China still refuses to accept binding cuts in carbon emissions
Hell, the Republican Party would refuse to accept binding cuts in carbon emissions, even if China signed on.
Iran is still pursuing nuclear capabilities; and Venezuela is reportedly looking to join Iran in the near-nuclear club.
In turn, many Americans are starting to fear that a key tenet of American exceptionalism – supporting pro-democratic forces against their authoritarian repressors – is being sacrificed for naught.
Did I miss this in the “American exceptionalism” book? Does this mean, for example, that we are always acting against exceptionalism when we provide military support to an authoritarian regime?
The near nuclear club? What does that mean?
Iran understood the message of our invasion of Iraq – without real nukes, rather than imaginary ones, a nation is not safe. And without all the countries within range of intermediate range missles of Iran working in concert to stop their nuclear program, nothing the US can do or say is going to influence them. I just cannot understand why this should primarily the job of the US President, rather than something for Russia and China to exert their pressure to control. Although as long as the US is willing to expend our resources to police the world, no reason those countries shouldn’t use theirs to further their control at home.
2 mlloyd // Dec 15, 2009 at 3:42 pm
A damned shame, too, because George Bush Jr. had solved all those problems with his second inaugural speech.
Curse you and your apology tour anti-military socialist fascist Euroweenie Kenyan Muslim appeasement, Barack Hussein Obama!
3 teabag // Dec 15, 2009 at 6:39 pm
I far prefer the Republican way with human rights.
You select a country, bomb the living $hit out of it, kill 100,000 people, drive a million into refugee camps, invade and occupy.
There human rights fixed. Most dead others have a puppet government.
4 sinz54 // Dec 16, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Where Egypt is concerned, Obama is caught between a rock and a hard place.
Mr. Trager (and the moralistic type of conservatives) criticize the Obama administration for being too soft on Egypt’s human rights record.
But Egypt is also a valuable U.S. ally, who would stand with us against Iran, and who is the recipient of billions of dollars of U.S. aid. If Obama had come down hard on Egypt for its violations of human rights, I’ll bet that national-security conservatives like Frank Gaffney would have criticized Obama for pushing around a valuable U.S. ally and potentially weakening it against foreign threats–the same charge they had made against President Carter’s criticisms of Latin American regimes when he was President.
I say that the critique of human rights has to be proportional to the offense. Egypt is no liberal democracy. But its regime cannot be remotely compared to the Janjaweed in the Sudan or to the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe, just to name two. It doesn’t deserve the same criticism.
You must log in to post a comment.