Rights Wire

The Human Rights Blog of the Leitner Center for International Law and Justice


Leave a comment

Human rights and U.S. foreign policy: history, funding, data and action

By Shruti Banerjee

In recent years, we have seen an increase in authoritarian regimes rejecting democratic values and committing human rights violations. This crackdown on civil society poses an enormous threat to economic and political stability, making it a central issue to consider in U.S. foreign policy. To respond to these crises, the U.S. has allocated foreign policy funds with the intention of promoting democratic governments, creating allies, ensuring peace and security, stabilizing economies and trade, regulating immigration and preventing human rights violations. Unfortunately, the foreign affairs budget, which provides an invaluable set of tools for advancing U.S. foreign policy interests, represents less than 1 percent of the annual U.S. budget, and is subject to more cuts, if both Houses reject the President’s recent request for more funding.

By analyzing the political history of integrating human rights into U.S. foreign policy, the issues with funding, the lack of data and U.S. credibility, it becomes clear that effective human rights advocacy requires multiple factors to function in harmony with each other, including: political discourse, laws protecting human rights, foreign funding that has a non-negotiable component requiring compliance with human rights policies, U.S. compliance with international laws and accurate data to help properly document and fully gauge the threat posed by human rights violations. This means competing political or economic interests cannot completely overshadow the value of rights-respecting institutions and policies.

HUMAN RIGHTS PROMOTION AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

Despite the U.S.’ rise to superpower status after World War II, human rights did not become a central concern of the U.S. foreign policy agenda until the late 1970s. Congress was urged to push a human rights agenda by the public, which included human rights advocates, lawyers, scientists, labor unions and church groups, who all agreed that the U.S. had created a negative global presence by the late 1970s. As awareness grew around incidents like Watergate, the Vietnam War, carpet bombing in Cambodia and the U.S. support of police states in South and Central America, Congress was finally compelled to include human rights as a central topic in foreign policy and legislation. In 1974, a subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee issued the report, “Human Rights in the World Community: A Call for US Leadership.” It recommended that the Department of State makes human rights a priority in foreign policy, arguing that the current policy had led the US “into embracing governments which practice torture and unabashedly violate almost every human rights guarantee pronounced by the world community.” Congress proceeded to pass legislation that required reports on human rights violations for every country receiving aid from the U.S. and prohibited economic and military assistance to governments repeatedly violating human rights unless national security or humanitarian aid concerns justified the assistance.

While Congress was pushed by their constituents to make fundamental changes in their approach to human rights, other powerful government officials disagreed. In his book, Partners in Power: Nixon and Kissinger, Robert Dallek documented the influences and policies of Kissinger and Nixon that led to high tensions between the Executive Branch and Congress during the Nixon Administration. When Henry Kissinger was confirmed as Secretary of State in 1973 he argued that it would be dangerous for the U.S. to make “the domestic policy of countries around the world a direct objective of US foreign policy.” The policy of realpolitik embraced by Kissinger, and subsequently the Ford administration, excluded human rights calculations. Kissinger believed human rights considerations would damage bilateral relations with U.S. allies and thwart efforts to contain the spread of communism. Under his leadership, Congress and the Executive Branch engaged in a struggle over the prominence and relevance of human rights to the U.S.’ foreign policy agenda.

It was not until 1977, with the election of President Jimmy Carter, that human rights became integrated with U.S. foreign policy. Carter argued that advancing freedom internationally would protect our national security, promote economic interests and help the U.S. regain its lost moral credibility. More specifically, Carter maintained that U.S. national security would be enhanced by the expansion of human rights and democracy around the world and that the US was obligated under international law to promote human rights abroad. Carter and subsequent administrations utilized numerous tools to promote human rights internationally, including powerful political rhetoric, sanctions, symbolic gestures of support and peace and economic and military aid. While Carter was accused of failing to thwart the threat of communism because of these policies, he promoted more awareness and governmental action on human rights issues than any administration prior.

It is important to note that attention to human rights issues do not fall squarely within political lines. Democratic and republican administrations both succeed and failed at acknowledging and preventing human rights violations. For example, President Clinton has said that his administration’s failure to respond to the Rwandan genocide was his greatest regret during his presidency and his senior aides regularly apologize for this. On the other side, the Reagan Administration provided both Liberia and Somalia with arms in the 1980s, building up the oppressive regimes of Samuel Doe and Siad Barre. While the U.S. successfully prevented Soviet influence in those countries, the lack of consideration for democracy and human rights led both Liberia and Somalia to become failed states, rampant with human rights violations. Our political rhetoric towards human rights abuses may have changed since the Carter era, but our policies and funding have not caught up.

FUNDING FOR FOREIGN AID, HUMAN RIGHTS AND DATA COLLECTION

The U.S. foreign affairs budget represents a mere 1 percent of the annual budget and recent changes in the U.S. political climate have made it significantly harder for the Obama Administration to push for more foreign aid and human rights funding. The tensions in passing budgetary laws can be seen in the current Fiscal Year 2016 (FY16) budget battle. Despite Obama Administration’s request for $47.8 billion in base funding for FY16, the House Appropriations Committee has only approved a $40.5 billion base budget, and the Senate Appropriations Committee has only approved a budget of $39.0 billion in base funding. (Base funding represents the U.S.’ continuing commitment to foreign policy missions and national security; the International Affairs budget also comprises of an Overseas Contingency Operations budget to be used in temporary emergencies.) Furthermore, the International Affairs budget has seen a general decrease in funding over the past few years, with overall FY15 funding ($50.9 billion) being 16 percent below FY10 ($56.6 billion), and base funding ($41.6 billion) reduced by nearly 20 percent from FY10 ($51.5 billion). This decrease during a time of increasing human rights and humanitarian crises is unacceptable. Moreover, accepting either the House or Senate budgets, both of which decreases International Affairs funding dramatically from the Administration’s original request and from FY10, would have detrimental effects on the ability of the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to continue promoting democratic governments, creating allies, ensuring peace and security, stabilizing economies and trade, regulating immigration and preventing human rights violations.

Aside from the fact that both proposed budgets drastically cuts an already miniscule budget, another major issue is that U.S. aid often goes to countries with poor human rights records. While our leaders have denounced continuing human rights violations in strong political rhetoric, our funding, policies and legislation have not yet matched this discourse. A stark example of this is the U.S.’s continued aid to Egypt after the government committed serious human rights violations, which were internationally documented by various human rights groups, journalists and social media platforms. Instead of instating a non-negotiable human rights compliance clause for foreign aid, the U.S. waived conditionality requirements on aid to Egypt.

It is also highly debated which countries should receive funding and which abuses require more attention and aid. These problems can be somewhat alleviated by increased transparency and disclosure of governmental reports on human rights conditions in various countries, pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act. Extensive data collection on human rights violations occurring in countries that are not currently receiving U.S. aid is another important solution. According to Foreign Affairs, these efforts are particularly crucial in countries such as Russia, Ethiopia and Kenya, where governments are actively passing laws restricting the work of NGOs and human rights groups. This includes making it difficult to register with the government, organize public events and collect data on human rights abuses. These same regimes are also passing laws making it more difficult for their citizens to be politically critical, organize demonstrations or voice opposing opinions on the internet. Accurate data is an integral part of effective advocacy and legislating and more transparency and data collection on human rights abuses is vital for documenting, analyzing and preventing these atrocities from continuously occurring.

EFFECTIVELY PROMOTING HUMAN RIGHTS DOMESTICALLY AND ABROAD

What would a compelling, rights-based foreign policy look like? According to a statement by the Brookings Institute, the first criteria for effective human rights promotion is credibility. Put simply, a government cannot promote human rights abroad if it is not observing them domestically and internationally. As discussed in previous articles, the U.S. violates human rights policies on its own soil by failing to prevent hate crimes and domestic violence. Furthermore, the U.S. is struggling with rampant police brutality, structural racism and inhumane prison conditions at home, as well as torture abroad. Our lack of credibility in human rights prevention and promotion has made it difficult for other countries to take us seriously and respect international human rights law. Moreover, human rights cannot be used as a pretext for pushing other foreign policy goals, such as engaging in a foreign conflict or accomplishing a domestic political goal.

In order to effectively promote human rights abroad, the U.S. needs to start by complying with human rights laws while actively promoting their implementation abroad. This requires making human rights a fundamental part of our foreign policy through rhetoric, political pressure and funding. More specifically, we must view human rights not solely as a moral or religious obligation, but as a fundamental tool to increase peace, security and economic prosperity around the world. In their book The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson found that more equal societies with less violence have a greater overall quality of life, not just for poor people, but for all income classes. Wilkinson and Pickett’s analysis can be extended to the international community: We can achieve greater economic and social prosperity in our own country by abiding by human rights laws and promoting equality abroad.

Shruti Banerjee is a Staff Writer for Rights Wire.

Photo credit: Stephen Melkisethian/Creative Commons

Advertisements


Leave a comment

A crisis beyond borders: the migration across the Mediterranean

By Zahava Moerdler

Europe is currently facing an international crisis. Thousands of migrants are making the perilous journey across the Mediterranean Sea to reach Europe in the hopes of finding better living conditions, escaping persecution or giving their families a better chance at education and prosperity. However, European states remain aloof as migrants flood both Italy and Greece and are resistant to policy changes that would ensure better treatment of migrants once they reach European shores. The number of deaths has decreased this month as several European Union (EU) navies have sent more ships and efforts by private rescue groups like Médecins Sans Frontières and the Migrant Offshore Aid Station have increased. Yet, 46,000 migrants have reached Europe since the start of 2015, as compared to the 41,243 who migrated to Europe between January and May 2014, according to the United Nations (UN). Even with increased efforts to help migrants cross the sea, thousands are still pouring into European countries, which are unready and unwilling to help them assimilate.

PAST AND PRESENT

With the vast influx of migrants during the height and close of colonialism, European countries endeavored to find a way to assimilate these populations. After World War II, many countries, including France, Belgium and Germany, opened their borders, often enticing foreign workers to migrate. For example, in the 1950s, Indians and Pakistanis began to immigrate to the United Kingdom and in the 1970s, so did many from Bangladesh. The European countries saw these groups as temporary “guest workers,” as did the migrants themselves. With the economic downturn in the 1970s, European countries began to close off access to foreign workers. Thus, one aspect of the current migrant dilemma resides in a historical precedent for foreign workers. However, today, many flee war-torn countries and seek better healthcare, childcare and standards of living in Europe.

It is illegal under international law for countries to return migrants who are fleeing persecution in their own countries. As a result, thousands are making the dangerous trek from war-torn North Africa and the Middle East across the Mediterranean and into Europe. Others are migrating to Europe to secure a better future for their families and for economic reasons. European countries are scrambling to figure out ways to help these individuals as they venture across the sea, and once they make it into Europe, to find them places to live and rebuild their lives. However, with a growing far-right in many European countries, instead of addressing the situation, many are protecting their borders from fear of terrorism threats from abroad. Countries like Britain and France are exercising “fortress policies” in which the focus remains on limiting the number of asylum applicants.

DANGER AND DEATH

In the first four months of 2015 alone, over 1,800 people have died attempting to cross the Mediterranean, according to the International Organization for Migration. Italy, which has become “Europe’s migrant bottleneck,” is at the center of this crisis. 170,000 out of the 200,000 migrants who arrived in Europe last year came through Italy. In April, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi organized an emergency EU summit due to the crisis. Because of EU budget constraints, Italy had to stop its Mare Nostrum, or search and rescue operations. Additionally, since Mare Nostrum was replaced by “Operation Triton,” the EU’s border agency, the number of deaths has greatly increased. The new operation will mean fewer boats are provided by EU countries for patrolling the Mediterranean. There will also be less search and rescue operations because of the decrease in ships and funding. Thus, a less secure Mediterranean is bound to result.

Most of the migrants taking the perilous journey into Europe in 2015 hail from Syria, Eritrea, Somalia and Afghanistan, according to the UN refugee agency. In 2011, thousands of Tunisians arrived in Italy through the island of Lampedusa, which remains a bottleneck because of its proximity to North Africa as compared with mainland Italy. With the vast number of migrants, the end of Mare Nostrum and the cheaper and more limited Triton in place, the trip across the Mediterranean has, according to many aid organizations, put more migrant lives at risk.

But even before making the trip across the sea, migrants travel hundreds and thousands of miles, often in hostile territory, in order to reach the shores of the Mediterranean and the smugglers awaiting them there. According to a United Nations report, human trafficking from Libya was a $170 million business last year. Migrants often pack themselves into anything seaworthy—most owned by human smuggling rings—and are loaded beyond the tipping point. Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat said, “gangs of criminals are putting people on a boat, and sometimes at gunpoint. They’re putting them on the road to death, really, and nothing else.” Many migrants travel from the Horn of Africa, are often treated brutally by traffickers, and endure desert heat and even unrest in Libya, the most common departure point. On April 20, another boat sank off the Greek island of Rhodes, which is another major bottleneck into Europe from the Middle East and Asia, killing at least three people. According to one survivor, many remained trapped inside the boat as it sank because the smugglers who organized the voyage had locked the doors to the lower levels of the ship.

LOOKING FOR SOLUTIONS

So, what is Europe doing about all this? The United Nations envoy for international migration, Peter Sutherland, told the Security Council that the first step towards addressing the crisis must be a resolution to immediately save lives. On May 18, EU ministers, in response to the crisis, approved an air and sea mission that would destroy the vessels human traffickers are using to smuggle migrants across the sea. The mission’s first phase will be an intelligence gathering operation and the United Kingdom is expected to offer drone and surveillance support. As the mission progresses, vessels suspected of harboring migrants will be boarded and searched and either seized or disposed of in Libyan territory. The EU’s foreign policy chief claims the operation could be launched as early as June 25. The mission will be launched from Italy, one of the major bottlenecks into Europe. There is anticipation that the plan will be brought before the UN due to concern over militarization and Libyan concerns over sovereignty. Additionally, Russian officials have expressed concerns about the mission, which leaves approval in the UN uncertain. Rights groups also warn about the impact of militarization on migrants who could be placed in far greater peril.

Meanwhile, European countries continue to militarize their borders and to maintain policies of inaction as a form of deterrence for future migrants. Although funds for Operation Triton have increased threefold, most Europe countries are reluctant to see the crisis in the Mediterranean as a humanitarian crisis, which would require search and rescue efforts as well as a willingness by European states to resettle and even welcome refugees. For example, the United Kingdom has donated substantial funds but has been unwilling and has made no commitment towards taking in any refugees. On June 2, French police evacuated a migrant camp in Paris and then bulldozed the tents located there. Police undertook this operation as a way of controlling the ever-growing population of migrants moving into France. 380 individuals from Eritrea, Ethiopia and Sudan were told to pack their belongings and loaded onto a bus before their camp was destroyed. This was not the first time a European state destroyed a migrant camp—in May, authorities in Rome evacuated a camp that had been around for almost two decades.

Many of the refugees migrating to Europe are asylum seekers fleeing turmoil in Syria, Somalia and Eritrea. Yet, the EU has had difficulty coordinating and reconciling its asylum policy for years, especially since there are 28 member states with their own police force and judiciary. There are more detailed joint rules brought in with the Common European Asylum System, but there has been little practice in putting those rules into action. The major principle for handling asylum claims in the EU is the Dublin Regulation, which stipulates that responsibility for processing claims lies with the member state who played the largest part in the applicant’s entry into the EU. By and large, that is the first country the migrant entered, which today means Italy and Greece. Thus, large numbers of applicants and migrants currently reside in Italy and Greece awaiting word on their petitions. Sometimes, migrants have families elsewhere with whom they want to be reunited, and so the principle member state would be that country where the family resides. As a result, there is significant tension across Europe because states like Greece and Italy are inundated with applications, since they are the first point of entry. Germany and Finland are the only two states who have stopped sending migrants back to the original point of entry, whether it be Italy or Greece. Additionally, countries like Germany and France have opposed EU plans to spread 40,000 migrants across member states in an attempt to mitigate the effects of the influx on Italy and Greece.

The net result is a rather dark picture of Europe today. While thousands are attempting incredibly dangerous trips through deserts, war, hostility, and across the Mediterranean, Europe remains as cold and aloof as ever. With no clear resolution in sight and no adjustment for asylum or immigration policy, migrants who do make it to Europe are stuck at their point of entry. With Europe’s Eurodac system, a database of asylum seekers’ fingerprints, mobility becomes even less likely. Unless Europe can adopt a proper policy for acceptance, assimilation and resettlement, thousands will continue to remain stuck in Greece and Italy, causing problems not only for the migrants seeking to start a new life, but also the economic, social and political situation in Greece and Italy. Hopefully, the EU can provide greater support beyond the bare bones of Operation Triton, since the influx of migrants and refugees does not seem to be stopping anytime soon.

Zahava Moerdler is a Staff Writer for Rights Wire.

Photo Credit: Sarah Tzinieris/Creative Commons