Foreign Policy, Public Diplomacy & Human Rights

In line with my last post on relationships between development and diplomacy,I feel compelled to discuss the relationship between human rights and foreign aid. Studying any of the Social Sciences, eventually one ends up tangled in the question of why people allow so many obviously horrible things to happen to other people?  We tend to pursue this question of human rights with such a measure of outrage, blended with bewildered naiveté, that by the time one stumbles into foreign policy it’s hard not to expect the worst to happen.  Yet governments around the world continue to discuss human rights as a central issue of international relations regardless of how unlikely it might seem based on policy.  As in so many other policy areas, the issue of human rights is clearly one of words vs. actions.

If one relied on press releases, official remarks and speeches alone for their information, it might seem only a matter of time until human rights violations are a thing of the past.  Human rights is perhaps one of the best examples of the divide between public diplomacy and changes in policy.  Particularly in the more influential nations of the world, human rights tend to conflict with many of more noteworthy policy concerns like economics and security.

In a way, stable yet less-powerful nations have the ability to be more sincere in their support of human rights, as obviously do non-government organizations.  From the European Parliament to Human Rights Watch, Freedom House to the government of Ecuador, strong commentary on human rights should be expected.  It’s easy enough to express outrage over government support of violent repressive groups, or state support of cultural or ethnic prejudice, but until powerful nations decide to shift from words to actions we shouldn’t be surprised by the current state of affairs.

2010 IRF Report

Last week the State Department released its 2010 Report on International Religious Freedom (IRF Report), our government’s annual assessment of the state of religious freedom around the world.  The release of a new IRF report has never been a particularly grand media event, typically receiving limited coverage and going largely ignored domestically outside the limited sphere of human rights organizations.

Perhaps in part these reports go ignored due to an issue we’ve tangled with in the past, the difficulty of impacting change through public diplomacy without the support of policy change (or words without actions).  In many ways this appears to be a typical difficulty faced by the State Department, particularly in the area of human rights there’s little intention to take action beyond the status quo of economic sanctions.  Sanctions, which are pretty widely recognized as being ineffective or counterproductive and further seem to contrast the words of Secretary Clinton and past officials, asserting that the report is not an attempt by the US to judge other nations.

Internationally the reports earn little more press than they do domestically, save among those nations criticized in the report.  Largely in nations like Iran and China, which can be expected to remain in the report for the foreseeable future, these reports either go ignored or elicit responses which revolve around the assertion that we’ve neither the right nor the moral high ground to criticize other nations on issues of human rights.  In either case the reports seem only to illustrate the mutual hostility we have with these nations refracted through the lens of human rights.  Among our allies and those nations with tenuous US relations however, responses can be more pointed and useful. Nations like Egypt, Israel and Russia might be valuable in assessing whether or not these reports have any worth or tangible effect on future religious freedom policy.  Here as in other areas, public diplomacy only seems effective in nations where some manner of positive relationship already exists, if even there.

Obama’s Asia Tour & Public Diplomacy

Continuing the trend from my previous post on President Obama’s Asia trip, I find myself pleasantly surprised that democracy promotion continues to be a public subject of this tour.  Most recently the President spoke in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim state, and a center of democracy in South East Asia.  While in Indonesia, Obama praised the country as an example of how developing nations could improve the lives of citizenry by embracing the principles of democracy and diversity.

Contrary to the focus on trade and economics during his trip to India, the President’s speech in Jakarta focused primarily on the subjects of democracy, development and religious tolerance.  Not only did his speech bring the subject of democracy in development to the forefront, but of at least equal importance, it returned to past efforts by the administration to strengthen the US relationship with the “Muslim world”.  Who can say for certain if there’s much tangible worth to these latest comments on the role of religious tolerance in foreign policy? I would argue that there is value,  but that’s an easy conclusion to reach given my appreciation for public diplomacy.

As in the President’s call for a new beginning between the US and Muslim communities last year in Cairo, the Jakarta speech displayed the innate value of public diplomacy.  Often we who study this field argue that public diplomacy and rhetoric without substantial change to support it is effectively meaningless, but I disagree, particularly in situations of ideological struggle.  I would assert that the promotion of democracy and religious freedom is worthwhile regardless of tangible changes to policy, due to its ability to influence the populace, if not the policy makers.  There is substantial value to discussion of these subjects, and to the continued support of our allies abroad who uphold religious freedom.  Further, in light of our own issues with religion and freedom of expression, it is important that policy makers continue to make clear that the US led struggles in the Middle East are not struggles against Islam.

Regardless of its relative successes, Indonesia’s history of tolerance and human rights is far from spotless. As such I’d hardly be surprised to see criticism of Obama’s words in praise of the country, either by his domestic and international political opponents, or human rights activists.  Many of the criticisms of Indonesia’s history of tolerance will be valid, a weakness of public diplomacy, which necessitates strong often hyperbolic statements contrary to the minutia of realities on the ground.

Fight between State and NSC is over; DoD won

Josh Rogin posted a leaked draft of Presidential Study Directive 7 (PSD-7) on Foreign Policy yesterday. The NSC drafted the report and its subject is development policy in the Obama administration. The State Department is also working on this policy and will release it as the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR). This is part of a broader fight within the Obama administration between State and NSC over control of development policy.

The PSD-7 outlines a pretty good development policy. Obama might even implement it. In his third time. The problem here is that while State and NSC have been fighting over development policy, the Department of Defense has already made it. Don’t believe me? Check out this article by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Still don’t believe me? Well, consider this: according to the FY 2011 budget request the administration largely wants to channel foreign aid  to weak states, such as Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Pakistan (as well as the perennial favorites, Egypt and Israel), just like Gates outlined in his article. PSD-7, by contrast, places much less weight on weak states.

I have floated this hypothesis by a number of knowledgeable people in this area and they tend to agree that DoD is setting development policy while State and NSC are bickering. So here’s my recommendation to State and NSC. You can stop your sniping over development policy. The fight’s over. DoD won.

Clinton’s speech pleases the left and the right

Michael Allen at Democracy Digest has a good review of reactions to Secretary Clinton’s Human Rights Week speech.  Two big themes emerge from the reactions.  One, critics on the left and right both seemed pleased with the speech.  Two, the strong commitment to supporting democracy abroad was unanticipated.  We will see how that translates into policy.