« Russia: Not Exactly Born-Again Global Citizen | Main | Albrighty Then, Time for Progress »

August 18, 2009

Secretary Clinton: Human Rights is Hard - Why Bother?

 

 

During her whirlwind tour this past week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took credit for nearly every foreign policy success that was not nailed down by the previous administration or, as we saw in North Korea, the husband she refuses to channel. The Joanie-come-lately to foreign policy also stands by the “rightness” of her choice to avoid human rights concerns in China and Iran as essential to the overall strategic interests of the United States. She cites for instance, China’s prima face cooperation on North Korea, which may to some degree be genuine if Beijing sincerely believes Pyongyang is out from under its control. However, there is as much uncertainty as ever as to Beijing’s genuine role or the lasting positive effect it might have on the DPRK.

 

If it is true that the administration is placing “non-proliferation ahead of democratization in Russia and Iran” (as well as China), as Clinton has said, then one must conclude democratization has been pushed farther back, given where we are on non-proliferation. Indeed, Mrs. Clinton’s rationale for putting off talk of human rights during her visit to China is that “We already know what they are going to say”. When asked about her apparent about-face in Africa, one place she claims to be trying to channel human rights, one quickly discovers that instead of genuine human rights, as in human liberty and the institution of democracy, Clinton seems to be pushing for the kind held up in the manifestos of utopian promises proffered by regimes such as China, North Korea, Russia, and even Iran. The right to be provided food, work, and shelter – of some sort – by the government so long as you keep your mouth shut, believe what you are told, and do the job you are told to do; the kind that puts necklaces of flaming tires around your head if you don’t. But never mind the details; if you slap a label on it, it must surely count as human rights.

 

 It would seem then there is no point in pushing for non-proliferation, either. After all, we already know what Iran has to say about it, as they have done so repeatedly. We are also abundantly aware through the actions of Russia, China, North Korea, and others where we stand on non-proliferation wherever it has truly counted. Far from former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s confident assertiveness in support of democracy, Clinton at this early point already seems to hold little interest in championing the cause of liberal democratic governments which are ultimately far less likely to support nuclear proliferation or start wars, for that matter.

 

Far from Rice’s confident assertiveness in support of democracy, Clinton this early on already seems to feel little interest in championing the cause of governments that ultimately are far less likely to support nuclear proliferation or start wars, for that matter. While some may see it as unfair to critique the rhetoric of someone so new, particularly in the absence of actions or their results, it bears mentioning the vital importance of demonstrating knowledge of fundamental, widely-supported ideas. For instance, the Democratic Peace Theory posits that states which are liberal democracies are far less likely to go to war with each other than totalitarian regimes would be to go to war with democracies or other totalitarian regimes. The Secretary may also benefit from her husband’s own former Secretary of Defense William Perry. Perry spoke at a recent Henry Jackson Society event (which I transcribed), in which he concluded that the best way to mitigate the threat of a nuclear Iran is through supporting the creation of genuinely democratic institutions in that state along with respect for human rights and all their trappings.

 

Whether or not time is on the side of that strategy, of course, remains to be seen, but certainly what is taking place at the moment will not prove efficacious. There would seem to be only about four real options for changing a hostile regime’s nuclear ambitions, some or all of which could be used concurrently in different ways. One would be military confrontation or the credible threat of it. Another would be economic pressure or the credible threat of that. The next would be through internal political change and lasting stability thereafter affecting the target country, which in most cases would be the best and certainly most lasting option. And a fourth way to change, or at least frustrate a hostile regime’s nuclear ambitions would be to persuade any third powers interested in assisting a nuclear weapons program that they should cease in doing so. The fifth option, which is to ask that Iran or any similar regime please play nicely, is of course not a realistic option at all.

 

While Dr. Rice pushed the power of “transformative democracy” and was at least in part effective, Mrs. Clinton champions the “power to convene." The administration of her husband, while enjoying unusually good relations with China, attempted to use this mighty power to convene, free of significant demands, in the 1990s and the result was the successful test of a nuclear warhead by the North Koreans. That regime continues with its predictable cycle of becoming more bellicose, receiving foreign money, softening and then becoming more belligerent than in the last round for more foreign money. While Rice, too enthusiastically some argue, sought to stop proliferation (as in the case of Iraq), there was no question that the former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor understood the real geopolitical threat posed by backdoor proliferation of nuclear weapons technology by Russia and China, through North Korea to Pakistan and Iran, and through Pakistan and Iran to other states and entities. Clinton, however, at this point seems almost dismissive of this threat, choosing, possibly in reference to Russia and Iran’s relationship, to casually relegate these states to the status of "a few outliers", as she put it.

 

Mrs. Clinton argues that the time is now to develop closer ties with China on economics and the environment. From news accounts one must certainly deduce that working with China on the environment is another hopeless matter, so why bother? As for the economy, China has also been signaling anything but cooperation, as it calls for countries to replace the dollar as the world’s base currency and the incident where Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was laughed at by Chinese students for telling them their assets are safe, as the U.S. continues to increase its debt through massive public spending, while paying for that debt by an equally massive increase in currency, which, as the Chinese correctly worry, will devalue the dollar and devalue U.S. debt to China.

 

Nevertheless, there certainly are reasons Clinton is interested in working with China on economic and environmental matters. The first is that simple comparatively short term economic self-interest on the part of the White House has led the U.S. government to continue to hold its hand out for Chinese loans and trade to help pull itself out of the current recession and the administration doesn’t want to encounter any bumps in that road (which may be a futile effort). This desire is at least partly tied to political realities for the administration, tied in turn to domestic economic considerations. As with economic considerations, the ecological ones, too, are based in short-term interest back home. Clinton and fellow Democrats believe it is important to placate environmentally zealous constituents as well as at least pay lip service to industries vexed by China’s exemption from various international environmental treaties, which effectively gives China an unfair advantage in yet another area.

 

So far, ecology not only seems to be turning out better than all others, it is easily trumping human rights. Clinton says she finds it “quite remarkable that every country has recognized climate change as a problem.” This, of course is no surprise, given what at times appears to be the precedence of controversial ideas of anthropogenic climate change over human rights as a priority within the Obama administration and within the UN. Thus, we behold the shameful reality that had human rights been as aggressively pressed by the UN and others, perhaps we would have some progress there, as well. Perhaps if people grew roots and leaves, their rights could enjoy international protection, too.

 

However, the forecast does not as yet appear much improved with respect to China: The Obama administration has very little sway right now; however, in the interest of the administration, Clinton must at least ever so meekly petition for the bread crumbs explicitly tied to some form of US economic interests. Lacking any real foreign policy experience (as symbolized by the “reset” button fiasco with Russia but exemplified in more substantive areas) and crippled by an ideology that is at once both naïve as well as one which maintains a blind spot with respect to human rights in certain countries for perhaps ideologically strategic reasons, she is unable to in any real way confront China, Russia or Iran about human rights. The same short-comings, at present, suggest to also hamper nuclear non-proliferation considerations, let alone those of the environment or economy.

 

This same collection of realities will handicap the State Department and the Obama administration with Russia, Iran, and elsewhere, also. Naturally, one hopes this changes. It is very early on, so there is the possibility Madam Secretary will be a quick study. She claims to be a realist; what this means for her, however, may evolve, as may the breadth of facts about which she must be realistic. For the moment, Clinton has neither the overflowing respect of her opposites nor always the benefit of bright expectations from those in her own camp at home, and that, for any Secretary of State, can be problematic.

 

From Thomas Jefferson to Dean Acheson, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz or Condoleezza Rice, there are to be sure very few who would counter the notion that the role of the United States Secretary of State has historically been an important one. Nor has it ceased to be as important today. In fact, to argue that such a role presently is inconsequential in light of the probability of further nuclear proliferation into the hands of unstable regimes and actors, would be to also argue that the consequences of such proliferation is also inconsequential. In other words, the role of Secretary of State has always been important, but it is one which becomes increasingly so as the tasks of preserving US interests in a diffuse, hostile, and dangerous world become ever more important and necessary. While Secretary Clinton has for only a short while occupied her post, her rhetoric to this point has not inspired much confidence in what is to come from her actions as would be desired.

 

 

Martin Kite-Powell is an American research assistant with the Henry Jackson Society, a London-based trans-Atlantic think tank focused on international security and human rights. He has written numerous articles and blogs, conducts research, divines event transcripts, and performs other daily tricks for the society.

 

This post is an expanded version of one I added today to the Henry Jackson Society weblog "The Scoop." The HJS version can be found here.

 

 

Posted by Martin at August 18, 2009 04:20 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogbat.us/mt/mt-tb.cgi/819

Comments

Post a comment




Remember Me?