In the final chapter of William Schulz’s book, In Our Own Best Interest, Schulz describes a need for a “new realism,” one that takes into account human rights as vital to national security and not in opposition to it. Arguing that promoting human rights is in the United States’ interest seems to work well theoretically, and there is also something to be said about the average American, through common sentiments and recognition of human plight, who may in fact be supportive of promoting and defending human rights abroad. However, reading a few recent articles from the New York Times, along with readers’ responses, proves insightful into how human rights play out in the political agenda, and what might have to be done to inspire a deeper American interest in promoting human rights.
In two recent articles in the New York Times, “Obama backs down on Sudan” and “Obama marks genocide without saying the word,” we see a non-committal tendency towards human rights on the part of the president concerning these two issues, particularly in comparison with language used during the campaign season. In the first article, Nicholas Kristof writes that while campaigning, Obama wanted the United States to apply considerably more pressure on Sudan. However, to quote the article, “Mr. Obama and his aides have caved, leaving Sudan gloating at American weakness.” 1 This statement begs the argument, who are we to be the one to stand up and defend these rights? Is it the sole responsibility of the United States? Surely not, but it is indeed our concern and in part, our duty. The concern seems to be there, especially as Obama made statements in his campaign in regards to the specific humanitarian crisis in Sudan and how the United States should do its part. The question is whether the concern displayed by the president in campaigns and as a general rule is simply a political tool, or if, in terms of our national interest and interest in defending human rights, the concern merits action.
Obama is also known to have said while campaigning that he would call the Armenian genocide by what it was, a genocide of Armenians by the Ottomans. But in an all too familiar debate on word usage, he refrained from using the word “genocide” on April 24 in marking the anniversary, an omission that did not go unnoticed. “When he was running for president and seeking votes from some of the 1.5 million Armenian-Americans, Mr. Obama had no qualms about using the term genocide and criticized the Bush administration for recalling an ambassador who dared to say the word.”2 Now, on the anniversary of the genocide’s beginnings, Obama as president clearly has qualms. This highlights the inconsistencies found in political discourse, and on the broader scale how it is always easier to say one thing and do something else, or to think one thing and say something else.
In a letter to the editor concerning the first article on Sudan, Stephan Pechdimaldji analyzed this particular situation well in my view, saying, “Sadly, human rights has become a political football in our country, where candidates looking for votes and campaign money promise to condemn those responsible for committing genocide and then bow to geopolitical pressure once in office.” 3This is a major concern, for if candidates looking for votes push (to some degree) human rights, then that correlates with an air of concern on the part of American citizens. Why then, in even the little things (little as opposed to direct military action for example) such as using the word genocide, does the United States bow to pressure?
The truth is people don’t always do what is in their self-interest, eating right for example and exercising to lead a long life and avoid health complications. So while I understand Schulz’s argument outlined in his book, I would also have to take into consideration that the United States isn’t always going to do what is in its self-interest, especially if it requires a certain level of forthrightness, dedication, moral sense, and commitment, and also if that self-interest is more in the long-term and not specifically affecting us in the present. Human rights do need to become a higher concern, and tying them to national security would do the trick, but in reality, they are a promotional means to show concern, to win sentiments, or what have you, and have yet to become a matter of urgency. It would take a bold move, or numerous bold little moves, to jumpstart human rights as a matter of national importance. The president could start by naming genocides and applying what pressure the U.S. can muster on countries with human rights abuses; the media could provide further discourse with the American people to bring it to our attention; and if the American people need theoretical reasons for promoting human rights then rely on whatever argument is applicable. Self-interest is a good one, as Schulz would agree.
2http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/world/europe/25prexy.html?scp=1&sq=genocide%20obama%20&st=cse
3http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/opinion/l26kristof.html?scp=2&sq=human%20rights&st=cse
Schulz, William. In Our Own Best Interest. Boston: Beacon Press, 2001.
No comments:
Post a Comment