State Values in International Policy

Image Credit: Newsweek

The relationship between beliefs and interests in shaping the actions of rational state actors has been the subject of debate for many international relations theorists. Keohane and Goldstein contend in their article on state interests that:

“Ideas influence policy when the principled or causal beliefs they embody provide road maps that increase actors’ clarity about goals or ends-means relationship, when they affect outcomes of strategic situations in which there is no unique equilibrium, and when they become embedded in political institutions.”[1]

Goldstein and Keohane’s argument is predicated on the idea that states adopt sets of values which help them clarify goals, providing subjective criteria for weighing policy decisions. Over time, those values are institutionalized as norms and customs for state behavior. The authors contend that values will come to form a framework for states as they evaluate their national interests as it relates to actions in the international realm. But within this context, how can we define a states’ values? More importantly, can a causal relationship be drawn between publicly expressed state values and policy decisions, or do divergent policy decisions indicate that a state holds values that are different from the beliefs that it publicly espouses?

I would contend that what states claim to believe and how they act are not always causally linked, and that the most appropriate method for determining a states’ values is to examine how their policy actions reflect perceived interests, tying those interests to subjective value judgments made by states. To illustrate this assessment, I will briefly evaluate the U.S. claims to value human rights within the context of our international policies since the Vietnam War.

Historical US Policy on Human Rights

“Human rights is the soul of our foreign policy. And I say this with assurance, because human rights is the soul of our sense of nationhood.”[2]

-          President Jimmy Carter

The U.S. established a formal human rights policy in 1970, and dedicated a State Department bureau to handle human rights concerns in international affairs.[3] Jimmy Carter in 1977 outlined a strong U.S. commitment to human rights and respect for sovereignty, seeking to shape a foreign policy which “changed the fundamental nature of American relations with the third world while still protecting essential American interests.”[4]^,[5] Carter felt that the U.S. had overreacted to Soviet expansion during the cold war, and that it had compromised our support for human rights.[6] Reagan similarly assessed that it was in the U.S. interests to encourage democratization, and encouraged reform in El Salvador, Chile, South Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan.[7]

George H.W. Bush was a committed realist, abandoning this strong stance on human rights, discouraging nationalism in Ukraine, maintaining close relations with China following the massacre at Tiananmen Square, and failing to prevent human rights violations by Saddam Hussein in Iraq.[8] Clinton vacillated on human rights, basing decisions on perceived national interest- removing human rights rules and trading actively with China while increasing the trade embargo against Cuba.[9] Each of these presidents made unequivocal commitments to value and support human rights, but often acted based on calculated rational self-interest.

Modern Positions on Human Rights

“Let us rededicate ourselves to the advancement of human rights and freedoms for all, and pledge always to live by the ideals we promote to the world."[10]

-          President Barack Obama

The U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia has been strained by generations of presidents who have sought to balance fundamental economic interests and raw power calculations with a fundamental distaste for the autocratic, and frequently repressive, regime.

Image Source: Economist

The Economist summarizes the interests at play in this relationship:

“The equation was simple: America would provide security, the Saudis oil. Those shared interests, cemented by a mutual loathing of communism (and a more recently shared hatred of Iran’s Shia theocracy and of al-Qaeda terrorists), papered over inevitable differences between a hermetic autocracy, backed by fearsomely puritanical Wahhabist clerics, and an ebullient, proselytising democracy…In the midst of turmoil across the region, and with the threat of jihadist terrorism ever-present, America still relies heavily on the Saudis as the leading local policeman.”[11]

Saudi disregard for international human rights norms is increasingly forcing the U.S. to pit value based interests of promoting democracy and human rights with economic and security interests. Within this context, Keohane and Goldstein might argue that our values should provide the roadmap for defining our goals and ends-means relationship with Saudi Arabia.

Human rights issues will come to a head this month, as the Saudi autocracy prepares to punish Saudi blogger Raif Badawi with the second installment of a total of 1000 lashes, earned for egregiously “insulting Islam,” or perhaps simply insulting powerful Sunni clerics.[12] One wonder’s little why Badawi’s lawyer was then rewarded with 15 years imprisonment for "undermining the regime and officials," ''inciting public opinion" and "insulting the judiciary.”[13]

Even the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, Arab Muslim Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid al-Hussein of Jordan, called the flogging “cruel and unusual punishment” and torture.[14] The U.S. response has been characteristically timid, with the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry calling for “many avenues of legitimate review for the judgment.”[15]

The Way Forward

Determining which values best suit the U.S. interests will continue to be a challenge, especially when new diplomatic crisis emerge. Mark P. Lagon, writing for The Council on Foreign Relations, concluded that:  “A broad-minded view is that more consistency in promoting human rights would in fact better serve U.S. credibility and national interests. Presidencies past too often sacrificed human rights for other foreign policy objectives.”[16]

---

[1] Goldstein, Judith, and Robert O. Keohane. "Ideas and foreign policy: an analytical framework." Ideas and foreign policy: Beliefs, institutions, and political change (1993):  1

[2] Jimmy Carter, Remarks at a White House Meeting Commemorating the 30th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 's Signing, December 6, 1978 (Accessed online, 21 January 2015 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=30264)

[3] Mark P. Lagon, “Promoting Human Rights: Is U.S. Consistency Desirable or Possible?”, The Council on Foreign Relations, October 2011 (Accessed online, 21 January 2015 http://www.cfr.org/human-rights/promoting-human-rights-us-consistency-desirable-possible/p26228 )

[4] Ibid, par 4

[5] Schmitz, David F., and Vanessa Walker. "Jimmy Carter and the foreign policy of human rights: The development of a post–cold war foreign policy." Diplomatic History 28, no. 1 (2004): 113

[6] Mark P. Lagon, “Promoting Human Rights: Is U.S. Consistency Desirable or Possible?”, The Council on Foreign Relations, October 2011 (Accessed online, 21 January 2015 http://www.cfr.org/human-rights/promoting-human-rights-us-consistency-desirable-possible/p26228 )

[7] Ibid., par 5

[8] Ibid. par 6

[9] McCormick, James. American Foreign Policy and Process. Cengage Learning, 2013, p. 331

[10] President-Elect Barack Obama, Statement of President-elect Obama on Human Rights Day, December 10^th, 2008 (Accessed online, 21 January 2015 http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/statement_of_president_elect_obama_on_human_rights_day/)

[11] “Awkward Relations,” The Economist, March 29^th, 2014 (Accessed online, 21 January 2015 http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21599767-american-president-and-saudi-king-will-have-unusually-edgy)

[12] Corey Charlton, “Saudi blogger sentenced to 1,000 lashes,” Daily Mail, 22 January 2015 (Accessed online, 22 January 2015  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2921597/Saudi-king-halts-flogging-blogger-facing-1-000-lashes-Middle-Eastern-country-accused-outrageous-inhumanity.html)

[13] Dominique Mosbergen, “Saudi Blogger Sentenced To 1,000 Lashes May Not Withstand 2nd Round Of Flogging, Says Wife,” The Huffington Post, 15 January 2015 (Accessed online, 21 January 2015 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/15/raif-badawi-saudi-blogger-flogging_n_6478520.html?cps=gravity_2684_8260730021359095942 )

[14] Rick Gladstone, “Saudi Arabia: U.N. Denounces Flogging of Blogger,” The New York Times, 15 January 2015 (Accessed online, 21 January 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-un-denounces-flogging-of-blogger.html?_r=0

[15] JAY SOLOMON andnFELICIA SCHWARTZ, “U.S. Rebukes Saudis for Sentencing Blogger to 1,000 Lashes,” Wall Street Journal, http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-rebukes-saudis-for-lashing-sentence-1420764258

[16] Mark P. Lagon, “Promoting Human Rights: Is U.S. Consistency Desirable or Possible?”, The Council on Foreign Relations, October 2011 (Accessed online, 21 January 2015 http://www.cfr.org/human-rights/promoting-human-rights-us-consistency-desirable-possible/p26228 )