Human rights advocates are unhappy with the Obama administration’s foreign policy, citing three developments: (1) the failure to back the Goldstone Report; (2) the failure to pressure Sri Lanka to improve its treatment of Tamils; and (3) the willingness to deal with Sudan’s President Bashir, who was recently indicted by the International Criminal Court. It turns out that Sudan is a useful ally in fighting terrorism and Sri Lanka is, well, complicated, and Israel is Israel. As Julian Ku notes, coddling Bashir is hardly a way to support the ICC, which is already reeling from the decision of members of the African Union not to extradite him to The Hague if he enters their countries, in violation of their legal obligations (most of them belong to the ICC; a few have since backpedaled). Meanwhile, the Obama administration has apparently succeeded in pressuring Spain to water down its universal jurisdiction statute, the one that the Spaniards were supposed to use to prosecute Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and David Addington. Well, good for the Obama administration: it has implicitly repudiated campaign rhetoric that endorsed global legalism, and it didn’t take it as long as one might have thought.
The only real break from the Bush administration on the human rights front, rhetoric aside, was the decision to join the comically named Human Rights Council, which is dominated by human-rights abusing countries and almost never condemns anyone (except Israel) for violating human rights. The Human Rights Council replaced the Human Rights Commission, which was disbanded because it was dominated by human-rights abusing countries and almost never condemned anyone (except Israel) for violating human rights. Aside from rubber stamping anodyne periodic reviews of countries (which make for fun reading*) and condemning Israel, the Council issues resolutions promoting the values of the developing world, whose members outnumber and hence outvote the members from the developed world. These values include: redistribution from north to south (which, if history is any guide, means redistribution to regimes, not to people); weakening property rights, especially intellectual property rights, which southern countries would like to appropriate; protecting religious and “traditional” values, which, it turns out, have little to do with what westerners normally think of as human rights, and mainly involve the subordination of women and opposition to secularism; and asserting the “right to development,” which both underlies the south’s claims for aid and excuses developing countries from complying with obligations of any sort—including obligations to respect the other human rights—that might retard economic growth.
If the Human Rights Council has any real-world effect, it is to advance these anti-western values. This is inevitable in international legal forums which respect the principle of one-state-one vote, for the simple reason that most states reject western values and can outvote those that endorse them. Consider this excerpt from the article linked to above:
The administration continues to assert that “the United States is not going to preach its values and not going to impose its values,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “The problem is they are not American values — they are international values.”
The problem is that people like Roth continue to think (or to say they think) that international human rights are (1) universal values that (2) happen to be the same as those that have evolved in western countries since the Enlightenment—the standard list of political and civil rights plus some foggy positive rights to work, education, health care, and social security. This is not true. Many non-western countries are working to shift the meaning of “human rights,” which has become an essentially contested concept, so that they advance the interests and non-western values of those countries. Sooner or later, western countries will have to repudiate the Council, just as they did in the case of the Commission.
The Goldstone report, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Spain, the Council—they all reflect the same thing: Obama has chosen multilateralism—more precisely, a kind of cautious and pragmatic realpolitik—over human rights.
*E.g.:
27. Cuba stressed that despite limited resources, Yemen has demonstrated a clear will to improve the daily life of its citizens, particularly in the areas of education, health care, food and combating poverty. Cuba welcomed measures taken in the field of health care to expand coverage and improve the quality of services. It referred to the national report containing information on measures taken to promote the rights of women and voluntary commitments.
From here. The Council as a body does not express its views in these reports, so they are just a long list of statements from the various member states, along with responses by the state under review, and with no factual detail or documentation of human rights abuses whatsoever, nor any sort of final conclusion about the country’s human rights practices.
ArrowSmith says:
What else to expect? We told you last year that this is what Obama was.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 2:05 amBrettS says:
Prof. Posner,
I was wondering if you see any difference in the prevalence of these “values” in the domestic versus the international political system. For instance, for some reason the majority of Americans has chosen not to completely appropriate the wealth from the wealthiest few percentage of Americans. This may be because (1) the poor majority hopes (perhaps foolishly, according false consciousness-like idea) that they will one day be rich and don’t want to be taxed when that happens and/or (2) the poor majority realizes that excessive redistribution would be counter-productive because it would cause the rich to stop working/stop any trickle-down effect from the rich. Do you think that poor nations would be prone to making these same sorts of considerations or is something else driving them to arive at their “values.”
Thanks.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 2:44 amfishbane says:
These values include: redistribution from north to south (which, if history is any guide, means redistribution to regimes, not to people); weakening property rights, especially intellectual property rights, which southern countries would like to appropriate;
I’m going to focus in the intellectual property issue, because that’s one of my personal points of interest.
Can you make a case for why this should be an important point of interest for developing countries?
Historically, ignoring IP has been an important method of boot-strapping economies. The US did so for some time, just as one example. A guest blogger made the case (quite well, I think) that IP should not be considered a moral here issue, but rather a policy balancing act.
I suppose a question that might be useful here is, do you think that, even if it holds back (in terms of economic growth, lifespan, access to self-improvement) a large number of people in developing countries, we should still respect the notions of IP that Western nations have settled upon? Or is this something that should be, perhaps, winked at until they “catch up”?
Quote
October 19, 2009, 2:59 amRicky Nelson says:
A little early to declare Obama is all rhetoric on human rights. While the US has not endorsed the Goldstone report, it has refrained from completely dismissing it. The administration has taken a wait and see approach to the report by recommending that domestic institutions try and take care of the matter. This rhetoric is toned down from previous administrations which probably would have rejected the report outright. Moreover, given Obama’s attempts to reach out to the Arab world it’ll be interesting to see what sacrifices he makes to appease the Arabs.
I must admit I know significantly less on Al-Bashir and Sri Lanka. But the prospect of Al-Bashir cooperation was a recent development that will probably catch more media attention if it continues. When the media hits, I’ll be watching for how the US changes its stance. Obama certainly wouldn’t want his image to have the chink of giving amnesty to a human rights abuser.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 6:34 amzywotkowitz says:
Obama certainly wouldn’t want his image to have the chink of giving amnesty to a human rights abuser.
Dream on. The Obama admin won’t risk taking a tough stance with anyone (except of course those nations that are in such a position of such weakness that they cannot react in kind ie. Israel, Honduras).
Quote
October 19, 2009, 7:18 amDYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Human Rights Versus Multilateralism says:
[...] Read it. Human rights advocates are unhappy with the Obama administration’s foreign policy, citing three developments: (1) the failure to back the Goldstone Report; (2) the failure to pressure Sri Lanka to improve its treatment of Tamils; and (3) the willingness to deal with Sudan’s President Bashir, who was recently indicted by the International Criminal Court. It turns out that Sudan is a useful ally in fighting terrorism and Sri Lanka is, well, complicated, and Israel is Israel. As Julian Ku notes, coddling Bashir is hardly a way to support the ICC, which is already reeling from the decision of members of the African Union not to extradite him to The Hague if he enters their countries, in violation of their legal obligations (most of them belong to the ICC; a few have since backpedaled). Meanwhile, the Obama administration has apparently succeeded in pressuring Spain to water down its universal jurisdiction statute, the one that the Spaniards were supposed to use to prosecute Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and David Addington. Well, good for the Obama administration: it has implicitly repudiated campaign rhetoric that endorsed global legalism, and it didn’t take it as long as one might have thought. [...]
Ariel says:
While the human rights institutions (the Human Rights Council, the NGOs, etc.) view the Goldstone report as affirming human rights, I don’t see it that way at all. The Goldstone report had the mandate of looking at only one of the two parties in the conflict and did so. This means that it completely ignored the serial human rights violations committed by Hamas: everything from targeting civilians and using human shields to throwing rival Palestinians off of buildings. While the human rights industry may not see it that way, the only appropriate response to this report would be to reject it outright.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 10:10 amyankee says:
Since when are economic redistribution, weaker intellectual property rights, religious values, opposition to secularism, and subordination of women all “anti-Western”? All of those things enjoy a long history in the West and still have substantial support there. You don’t get to take your personal values and attribute them to all of Western Europe.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 10:35 ameyesay says:
Within 2 days of his inauguration, Obama set a timetable for closing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp as well as all overseas CIA detention centers for terror suspects. That’s human rights too.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 12:32 pmTruePath says:
Even though the HRC is hardly a body with a stellar track record I would argue we accomplish far more good by joining it than we do by boycotting the process. If we boycott the process (thus encouraging other western powers to do the same) we
1) Effectively hand the HRC over to the human rights abusers giving them a free stamp of approval from the UN HRC. Those in the know might realize it doesn’t mean much but it can divert a lot of attention.
2) Send the message to other countries that we value our security/renditions more than human rights. Sure that may not be why we aren’t joining but it’s the message that would be sent.
3) Allow human rights declarations and possibly even agreements to be developed without our input and there is a real danger these would end up forming the basis for a future more powerful international system that we would have difficulty ignoring.
Ultimately either you believe that declarations of UN commissions lacking in any legal force or even presidential signature don’t pose any threat or you worry about their creeping influence. In the former case there is no harm to us joining while in the later it’s vital we don’t let the HRC function without our input.
There is a good argument for refusing to participate in international institutions when participating would give the institution significant legitamacy and power, e.g., if we had joined the ICC I think it would be a much more powerful institution. However, even if we join the HRC my sense is that it would still just generate ineffectual official ideals and condemnations.
eyesay:
I think most references to human rights in this discussion are meant to refer to the signing of treaties and the making of official pronouncements about human rights. Obviously, when it comes to really advancing human rights everyone things we should be all in, the question is just whether the international human rights agreements help or hurt than endeavor.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 1:21 pmRyan Waxx says:
Take that, neocons! He set a timetable! Boy, don’t you feel stupid now...
Quote
October 19, 2009, 1:25 pmMartinned says:
Yes, “one country, one vote” is horrible (or “one country, two votes” like the US Senate). IMF/World Bank rules are sooo much better! Or maybe we should just vote more or less in proportion to population, like the EP and EU council of ministers.
Wouldn’t the more sensible thing be to do another investigation into the other half of the story?
I agree, except: Israel? Really? It is my distinct impression that Israel can take care of itself just fine. Ever since its independence, it has taken care of itself, and it still does to this day. Unlike Honduras, they don’t have to care very much about being adressed in the strongest possible terms by the Obama administration.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 1:55 pmeyesay says:
Ryan Waxx wrote: “Take that, neocons! He set a timetable! Boy, don’t you feel stupid now…”
Well, Ryan, it’s not Obama’s fault that the Bush administration collected these individuals in such a slipshod manner, mixing willy-nilly the dangerous ones with the innocent bystanders, plus the totally innocent who were fingered by their enemies. And it’s not Obama’s fault that Americans, and Congress, are hysterically opposed to having the Guantanamo prisoners brought to U.S. soil for trial, and incarceration or release as the case may be. Given the atrocious politics on this — delivered by the Rove-Cheney-Bush administration — this was perhaps the best Obama or any president could do.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 4:09 pmeyesay says:
Gosh, this 5 minute grace period for fixing stupid HTML mistakes (or any other kind of mistakes) is so cool! Thanks, Prof. Volokh!
Quote
October 19, 2009, 4:12 pmdavod says:
“Moreover, given Obama’s attempts to reach out to the Arab world it’ll be interesting to see what sacrifices he makes to appease the Arabs.”
This may be a downpayment -
“National Security Advisor Reiterates US Commitment to Peace, Palestinian State at ATFP Gala (hat tip Nidra Poller)
Washington, DC, Oct. 16 –
At the Fourth Annual Gala of the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP), the National Security Advisor, General James L. Jones, reiterated the Administration’s commitment to establishing a Palestinian state and determination to move forward with peace talks.
“We are clear, unambiguous and consistent,” said Gen. Jones, “The time has come to relaunch negotiations without preconditions to reach a final status agreement on two states.”
The National Security Advisor emphasized that, “President Obama’s dedication to achieve these goals is unshaken, is committed, and we will be relentless in our pursuit of achieving these.” He said that ending the conflict and the occupation is essential because what is at stake is “nothing less than the dignity and the security of all human beings.” [is this a pre-condition. If so, for whom]“We must move beyond talking about talks and get to the hard work of addressing the core issues that separate Israelis and Palestinians,” Jones said.”
Quote
October 19, 2009, 5:15 pmJohn A says:
Off-topic? Or perhaps quite on target?
As to respecting values, I think of Lord William Henry Cavendish-Bentinck. He tried to outlaw suttee, aka sati, and was met with the “But it is tradition!” argument — even though it was not as widespread as usually assumed today. Recalled to England, he was told to stop his move to outlaw the practice. Upon returning to India, he had decided that his English employers and the Indian could be subvertedm and to paraphrase what he told a gathering of Indian officials:
With support from high Indian officials (a couple of whom had already banned the practice in their areas) it was effectively stopped...
Quote
October 19, 2009, 8:58 pmAriel says:
I suppose that this might be true in an ideal world, or if the Goldstone report’s reporting on Israel were adequate. In an ideal world, the UN HRC would not have spent all of its time on Israel and ignored the various worse human rights abusers out there. But that’s not the world we live in — Hamas will never be investigated by the HRC. The Goldstone report wasn’t exactly sensible on Israel either: it ignored the thousands of rockets to which Israel responded, thereby ignoring the question of whether Israel’s actions were in self-defense. It also ignored the question of whether Israel is the most moral army in the world.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 9:09 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Human Rights Versus Multilateralism -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by PostRank – Law, andrew. andrew said: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Human Rights Versus ...: Human rights advocates are unhappy with the Obam.. http://bit.ly/3vqEox [...]
Californio says:
” Cuba praised Yemen’s work to improve the lives of it’s citizens, but tempered their comments by noting that Yemen had yet to build any concentration camps in which to imprison homosexuals. Er, Give them special medical care.”
“Naturalmente, er I mean ‘naturally’ we could help with with our expertise in that area.” Stated sub-Commandante Marcos de La Guerra, speaking on behalf of Los Companeros de Comité para promover el odio de homosexuales de Cuba’ (aka the Government).
Quote
October 20, 2009, 4:41 amInstapundit » Blog Archive » ERIC POSNER: In some areas, Obama better than credited. “Well, good for the Obama administration: … says:
[...] POSNER: In some areas, Obama better than credited. “Well, good for the Obama administration: it has implicitly repudiated campaign rhetoric that [...]