Global, Global Geopolitics, Headlines, Human Rights, North America

U.S.: Clinton Calls for “Principled Pragmatism” on Human Rights

Jim Lobe*

WASHINGTON, Dec 14 2009 (IPS) - Replying to growing criticism that the administration of President Barack Obama has not been tougher on abusive governments, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Monday declared a policy of “principled pragmatism” on human rights designed “to make a difference, not prove a point”.

Speaking at Georgetown University here, she stressed that public denunciation and sanctions may be appropriate in dealing with some countries, while “tough negotiations behind closed doors” may work better with governments, such as China and Russia, with which Washington shares a “broader agenda”.

And, in a marked departure from previous administrations, she also repeatedly emphasised that U.S. human rights policy should promote more than political and civil rights – to which Washington and many western-based rights groups have long given pride of place.

“Of course, people must be free from the oppression of tyranny, from torture, from discrimination, from the fear of leaders who will imprison or ‘disappear’ them,” she said. “But they must also be free from the oppression of want – want of food, want of health, want of education, and want of equality in law and in fact.”

“(H)uman development also must be part our human rights agenda,” she said. “Because basic levels of well-being – food, shelter, health, and education – and of public common goods – environmental sustainability, protection against pandemic disease, provisions for refugees – are necessary for people to exercise their rights. And because human development and democracy are mutually reinforcing.”

Ultimately, she said, the administration’s success in promoting human rights should be measured by whether “more people in more places better able to exercise their universal rights and live up to their potential because of our actions”.

Clinton’s remarks, parts of which echoed – indeed, in some places, quoted directly from – Obama’s speech last week when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, came amid growing criticism of the administration from both the right and the left for allegedly failing to make human rights more central to its foreign policy agenda.

Right-wing critics, especially Israel-centred neo-conservatives who championed President George W. Bush’s “Freedom Agenda”, have been scathing about Obama’s policy of diplomatic engagement with Syria and Iran; his efforts to “re-set” relations with Russia; and his deference toward his hosts during his visit to China last month, notably his decision to put off a meeting with the Dalai Lama of Tibet, until after his trip.

They have been increasingly joined in their complaints by liberal interventionists and some human rights activists who, while more reluctant to openly criticise Obama and more willing to criticise abusive U.S. allies than their right-wing counterparts, have become alarmed by what they see as over-conciliatory approaches towards the governments of Sudan, Egypt, Burma, Sri Lanka, among others.

“There was a time when presidents gained political strength from upholding democratic values,” wrote James Rubin, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s spokesman, in last week’s Newsweek. “But it’s now seen as smart politics to be a ‘realist’. And that is the real tragedy.”

Obama himself showed some sensitivity to this criticism in his Nobel speech. He explicitly rejected the choice between realism and idealism in foreign policy, and insisted on the link between peace and respect for human rights. Citing his support for the opposition in Burma, Zimbabwe, and Iran, in particular, he declared that “America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal”.

Indeed, Clinton’s speech appeared to be part of an effort to reassure his liberal constituency and rights groups that Obama remains committed to the cause.

“Our principles are our North Star,” she said, “but our tools must be flexible and reflect the reality on the ground wherever we are trying to have a positive impact.”

Clinton said Washington’s approach under Obama would be guided by four elements beginning “with universal standards and with holding everyone accountable to those standards, including ourselves”. She noted Obama’s order banning torture and closing the Guantanamo detention facility.

“By holding ourselves accountable, we reinforce our moral authority to demand that all governments adhere to obligations under international law,” she said. Washington will also encourage other countries to build their “own internal mechanisms of accountability when rights are violated”, she added.

Second, she said, “we must be pragmatic and agile in pursuit of our human rights agenda, not compromising on our principles, but doing what is most likely to make them real.” In some cases, that may require public denunciation and sanctions; in others, a quieter diplomacy.

“Principled pragmatism informs our approach on human rights with key countries like China and Russia,” she went on. “Cooperation with each is critical to the health of the global economy and the non proliferation agenda, to managing security issues like North Korea and Iran, and to addressing world problems like climate change.”

In that connection, she quoted from Obama’s Nobel speech: “We must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement; pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.”

Third, Washington will work more closely with civil society groups and “local grassroots leaders”, particularly human rights defenders, in what she called a “bottom-up” strategy to promote reforms, including by providing them with technology they can use to better carry out their work.

Finally, the administration “will widen our focus” on rights both by reinforcing positive change with tangible support for fragile institutions and by remaining engaged even in “places of seemingly intractable tragedy and despair”, such as Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, North Korea, and Zimbabwe.

Clinton’s remarks received cautious praise from human rights groups here, although the U.S. section of Amnesty International (AIUSA) noted that, despite her words about accountability, the administration has fallen short in numerous areas.

These include closing Guantanamo, failing to properly investigate abuses, including torture, committed by U.S. personnel in the “global war on terror”, and fully implementing human rights treaties it has ratified.

“Discussion of human rights can’t be an empty re-branding exercise,” said AIUSA’s director, Larry Cox, who nonetheless praised the speech as “welcome progress” in the administration’s engagement on human rights.

The speech received a similar reaction from Human Rights First whose president, Elisa Massimino, called on the administration to place human rights and democracy promotion “at the centre of the administration’s foreign policy”.

Like Cox, Massimino noted that, despite Clinton’s emphasis on accountability, “the administration has taken few steps to hold accountable the perpetrators and architects of torture and arbitrary detention and to compensate its victims”.

Carroll Bogert, associate director of Human Rights Watch (HRW), praised Clinton’s emphasis on human rights as a multilateral “system of mutual obligation” but said the speech “was a little disconnected with the administration’s biggest and most pressing foreign policy issues”, such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

“Some of the world’s most brutal dictators are in Central Asia, but the Obama administration has made it clear they don’t want to talk about that, because Central Asia is the doormat to Afghanistan,” she told IPS. “They’re not going to stir up trouble with the Uzbeks or the Kazakhs, because they have bigger fish to fry across the border. That’s a pretty cynical compromise.”

*Jim Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.