CONCLUSIONES Y RECOMENDACIONES

178

179

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 Human Rights and Foreign Policy

The phrase "Human Rights" has become so common not because hundreds of millions of people have suddenly taken to studying political philosophy but because it has become a central issue in foreign affairs. The intersection of Foreign Policy … and Human Rights —is the result of the complex interplay between the major actors in the decision making process (APODACA, 2005: 63). The United Nations Charter in its article 55 and 56 required States to cooperate on Human Rights matter and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights was the Inter Governmental statement in the world history to approve a set of basic principles on Universal Human Rights. Since the 1940s almost all states – not just western states have regularly reaffirmed the existence of Universal Human Rights without negative discrimination occurred most saliently at the 1993 United Nations conference in Vienna (Forsyth and Pieffer, ND:1).

Thus, from a conventional viewpoint, Human Rights and Foreign Policy form an uneasy partnership as each refers to and arranges different political domains. Whereas the former essentially refers to the domestic political structure in which the individual-state relationship is constitutionally determined and practically carried out, the latter conventionally deals with interstate relations without concerning itself with the internal affairs of the other state(s), i.e. the state of human rights (Dağı, 2001:1). It is the states that approves treaties and monitoring mechanisms (Forsyth and Pieffer, ND: 3). A state commitment to pursuing Human rights issues in its foreign policy depends both on its size and on its domestic political values. The frequency and intensity of the conflict between self interest and promoting Human Rights is often proportional to a state’s power. A small state have fewer and less complicated Foreign Policy objectives than large states, their Human Rights initiatives are less likely to clash with their political, strategic or economic interests abroad. On the other hand, large states have complex world wide interests which will often conflict with assertive Human Rights policy (Egeland, 1988). States are primarily responsible for the promotions and protection of Human Rights. To a large extent every state’s Foreign Policy, pertaining to Human Rights is shaped by its political culture (Forsythe and Pieffer, ND: 1).

3.2 Roles/ Significance of Human Rights to Foreign Policy

Human rights have always played a role in Foreign Policy (Cohen, 2008:

2). Human Rights have a place of their own in Foreign Policy (Baehr and

180

Castermans- Holleman, 2004: 2). Foreign Policy is a broad abstraction, comprising many separate policies, decisions, actions and reactions. In certain areas of concern such as national security … Foreign Policy may follow a relatively clearly defined and consistent pattern, but other areas of policy decisions may be ad hoc and sometimes inconsistent, and thus difficult to fit into a single pattern …, international Human Rights decisions seem to fall into the latter category (Bilder, 1974: 598). Foreign Policy decisions are frequently the result of a complex interaction of many diverse domestic, international and bureaucratic interests and pressures. It may not be easy for the decisions. Moreover, due to bureaucratic inaccessibility, diplomatic reticence or government secrecy, evidence indicating the actual influence of various factors may be hard to obtain. Where we are seeking to determine the influence of what are likely to be relatively secondary factors, such as Human Rights considerations, these problems may be magnified. In many instances the best we may be able to say is that, in the broadest terms, Human Rights consideration seem to have a relatively ” major significant” or negligible role in the relevant decisions (Bilder, 1974:

599).

Human Rights have become the subject of complaint procedures, and reporting procedures, and bilateral and multilateral governmental debates in such a way that it has become almost impossible to ignore the notion of Human Rights in international politics (Baehr and Castermans- Holleman, 2004: 2). There is considerable ambiguity as to what we mean by human consideration. in recent years the term” Human rights” has been used to describe a variety of very different goals and values. these include not only the civil and political liberties embraced in traditional western Human Rights concepts, but also other economic, social and cultural rights, including the rights to self determination, to a decent environment and so forth. As the definition of Human Rights consideration is broadened to include at least quasi political state interests, the apparent political state interests, the apparent role played such consideration will off course broaden accordingly (Bilder, 1974: 599).

If the influence of Human Rights consideration is judged by more traditional criteria such as participation in UN, Human Rights conventions, support for UN efforts against racial discrimination or willingness to condemn oppression in anti – communist or third world dictatorship, one might reach a different conclusion as to their role in Foreign Policy. Human Rights values may conflict. Some countries justify suppression of civil and political liberties as necessary to the achievement of economic and social liberties (Bilder, 1974: 600). There are inherent difficulties both in deciding what constitutes Human Rights considerations and in measuring the

181

influence of such considerations. Human Rights may play different or even inconsistent roles in different aspects of Foreign Policy depending upon the total configuration of relevant interests and personalities of the individuals involved (Bilder, 1974: 600).

SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE

Examine the link between Human Rights and Foreign Policy.

4.0 CONCLUSION

Human Rights and Foreign Policy form an uneasy partnership as each refers to and arranges different political domains. A state commitment to pursuing Human Rights issues in its Foreign Policy depends both on its size and on its domestic political values. Human Rights may play different or even inconsistent roles in different aspects of foreign policy depending upon the total configuration of relevant interests and personalities of the individuals.

5.0 SUMMARY

The main focus of this unit is establishing the link between Foreign Policy and Human Rights, while outlining the significance/ roles of Human Rights to Foreign Policy.

6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT

1. What is the relationship between Human Right and Foreign Policy?

2. How significant is Human Rights to Foreign Policy or vice versa?

7.0 REFERENCES/ FURTHER READING

APODACA, Clair (2005) U.S. Human Rights Policy and Foreign Assistance: A Short History. Ritsumeikan International Affairs Vol.3, pp.63-80

Baehr, Peter R and Castermans-Holleman, Monique (2004) the Role of Human Rights in Foreign Policy New York: Palgrave Macmillan Bilder, Richard B. (1974) Human Rights and US Foreign Policy: Short

Term Prospects Legal Studies Research paper series, Paper No 1366, 14 Virgin Journal of international Law 597, Vol. 14 No 4

182

Cohen, Roberta (2008) Integrating Human Rights in US Foreign Policy:

The History, the Challenges, and the Criteria for an Effective Policy.

Foreign Service Institute, University Of Bern

Egeland, J. (1988) Impotent Super Power and Potent Small States:

potentials and limitations of Human Rights objectives in the foreign policy of the United States and Norway

Forsythe, David P. (ed.) (2000) Human Rights and Comparative Foreign Policy: Foundations of Peace available at http://www.ciaonet.org/book/forsythe/index.html

183