Promoting Human Rights: President Clinton's Foreign Policy—Dilemma in a Changing International Order

1. Robert O Keohane , “Theory of World Politics: Structural Realism and Beyond”, in his, ed., Neorealism and its Critics (New York, 1986), p. 165; Cecil V. Crabb, Jr., Policy Makers and Critics: Conflicting Theories of American Foreign Policy (New York, 1976), p. 167; Kenneth N. Waltz; “Anarchic Orders and Balances of Power”, in Keohane, ed., ibid. For fuller discussion of the realistic theory, see Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations (New York, 1967).

2. See, For example, US Congress, House Committee on International Relations, Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human rights and US Foreign Policy, 96th Lefever, 216; Robert W. Tucker, “The American Outlook”, in H. Bliss and G. M. Johnson, eds., Consensus at the Crossroads: Dialogues in American Foreign Policy (New York, 1972), pp. 14-43; Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, “Dictatorship and Double Standards”, in Howard J. and Wiarda, ed., Human Rights and US Human Rights Policy: Theoretical Approaches and Some Perspectives on Latin America (Washington D.C., 1982), pp. 5-29; and Samuel P. Huntington, “Human Rights and American Power”, Commentary, 72, no. 3, September 1981, pp. 38-41; see also his, “American Ideas versus American Interests”, Political Science Quarterly, vol. 97, no. 1, Spring 1982.

3. Jane Perlez , “Somalia Self-Destructs and the World Looks On”, New York Times , December 29, 1991, sec. 4.

4. Neorealism in human rights debate is not related to the “neorealism” or structural realism, of international political theory as developed by Kenneth Waltz. See Keohane, “Realism, Neorealism and the Study of Politics,” in his, ed., Neorealism and its Critics”, n. 1, p. 15.

5. See, for instance, Richard E. Feinberg, The Imperative Zone: The Third World Challenges to US Foreign Policy (New York, 1983); and Tom J Farer, “On a Collsion Course: The American Campaign for Human Rights and Anti-Radical Bias in the Third World”, in D. Kommers and G Loescher, eds., Human Rights and Foreign Policy (Notre Dame, Ind., 1979), pp. 263-70.

6. Alan Tonelson , “Human Rights: The Bias We Need”, Foreign Policy , Winter, 1982-83, pp. 52–74. For a detailed overview of neorealist vs. conservative debate concerning human rights in US foreign policy, see Sara Steinmetz; Democratic Transition and Human rights: Perspectives on US Foreign Policy (New York, 1994), pp. 3-20.

7. Feinberg, The Imperative Zone n. 5, ch. 4.

8. Steinmetz, n. 6, p. 14.

9. See, for instance, Charles Krauthammer, “Universal Dominion: Towards a Unipolar World”, The National Interest , no. 18, Winter 1989, pp. 46–49; and his, “The Unipolar Moment”, Foreign Affairs, vol. 17, no. 4, Fall 1991, pp. 1-20; Richard Feinberg and Peter Hakim, “Isolationists Talk is Dangerous”, Christian Science Monitor, November 27, 1991; George Melloan, “Bring the Boys Home: At What Price”, Wall Street Journal, September 29, 1991; Philip Shenon, “There is a New World Order in Asia: The US Will Have to Catch Up”, New York Times, November 10, 1991, sec. 4; Ted Galen Carpenter, “The New World Disorder”, Foreign Policy, no. 84, Fall 1991, pp. 24-39; William G Hyland, “The Case for Pragmatism”, Foreign Affairs, vol. 71, no. 1, January-February, 1992, pp. 38-52; Tony Smith, “In Defence of Intervention” Foreign Affairs, vol. 73, no. 6, November-December 1994, pp. 34-46; Michael Posner, “Rally Round Human Rights”, Foreign Policy, no. 97, Winter 1994-95, pp. 133-39; and Alan Tonelson, “Jettison the Policy”, Foreign Policy (Washington D.C.), no. 97, Winter 1994-95, pp. 121-32.

10. To nelson , ibid. Also his, “A Manifesto for Democrats”, National Interests , no. 16, Summer 1989, pp. 36–38.

11. Jean J. Kirkpatrick , “A Normal Country in a Normal Time”, The National Interest , no. 21, Fall 1990, pp. 40–44; David C. Hendrickson, “The End of American History: American Security, the National Purpose and the New World Order”, in Graham Allison and Gregory F. Treverton, eds., Rethinking America's Security: Beyond the Cold War to a New World Order (New York, 1992), pp. 307-36.

12. Nathan Tarcov , “If this Long War is Over”, The National Interest , no. 18, Winter 1989; and Thomas L Friedman, “Baker Spells Out US Approach: Alliances and ‘Democratic Peace’, New York Times, April 22, 1992, A 6.

13. Burton Yale Pines , “A Primer for Conservatives”, The National Interest , no. 23, Spring 1991, pp. 61–68; Irving Kristol, “Defining Our National Interest”, Ibid., no. 21, Fall 1990, pp. 16-25; Hyland, n. 9; and James Schlesinger, “The New Instabilities, New Priorities”, Foreign Policy, no. 85, Winter 1991-92, pp. 3-24.

14. Pat J. Buchanan , “America First—and Second and Third”, The National Interest , no. 19, Spring 1990, pp. 7–82.

15. Pines; and Kristol, n. 13.

16. Kirkpatrick, n. 11.

17. Tonelson, n. 9, p. 125.

18. Nalini Kant Jha , “Sizing Bill Clinton's Policy on India”, India Abroad (New York), March 26 1993.

19. Tonelson, n. 9, p. 124.

20. Nalini Kant Jha , “India and the United States: The Human Rights Dimensions”, in Malhotra V. K. , ed., Indo-US Relations in Nineties , (New Delhi, 1995), p. 96.

21. In the context of American foreign policy discussion, distinction between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes needs to be underlined. Authoritarin regimes may be described as not being destructive of “alternative power basis in a society” such as opposition parties, a restricted press, the church, business enterprises, etc. Though private dissent may be tolerated, anti-regime opposition is forbidden and public affirmation of regime is not required. See J. Kirkpatrick, “Human Rights and American Foreign Policy: A Symposium”, Commentary, vol. 72, no. 5, November, 1981, p. 44. Totalitarian states, on the other hand, “claim (Complete) jurisdiction over… society” and do not allow the existence of independent sources of authority, knowledge and power. See Kirkpatrick, n. 2, p. 26; Nathan Glazer, “Human Rights and American Foreign Policy”, Commentary, ibid., p. 36; Willian Barrett, in Commentry, ibid.; and Ernest W. Lefever, “The Trivialization of Human Rights”, Policy Review, Winter 1978, pp. 15-16.

22. Jha, n. 18. Also his, “US and India: Coming Closer?” Current (San Jose, Calif.), February 1993, p. 17.

23. Alan Tonelson , “Power and Human Rights”, Current March, 1995, p. 32.

24. Siddharth Varadarajan , “Nigeria in the Dock: Cynical Agenda of the West”, Times of India (Bombay), November 23, 1995.

25. While it is generally believed that promotion of democracy leads to protection of human rights, some members of the American human rights community do not see any natural or inevitable complementarity between the two. For a detailed examination of this debate within the US, see Thomas Carothers, “Democracy and Human Rights: Policy Allies or Rivals?” Washington Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 3, Summer 1994, pp. 109–120.

26. Varadarajan, n. 24.

27. Abhay Vaidya's dispatch from Washington, D.C., “Amensty Accuses the US of Hyprocrisy”. Times of India (Patna), July 11, 1993.

28. Editorial, “A Society on Trial”, The Hindu , October 7, 1995. Also see, Colin Swatridge, “West-Side Story”, The Hindu, June 11,1995.

29. C. Raja Mohan's dispatch from Washington, D.C. “US Climbs Down on Human Rights” The Hindu , May 29, 1994. While American economic stakes in China can not be denied, Washington's China policy is also shaped by its political imperatives like its dependence on China in tackling North Korea's mischief. See, for details, J. N. Dixit, “US Compulsions in Renewing MFN Status for China”, Indian Express (Madras), June 14, 1994.

30. Cited in Tonelson, n. 9, p. 34.