Features » May 5, 2009 » Web Only

The Past and Future of Human Rights (cont’d)

A dream deferred (by Eleanor Roosevelt)

This anti-intervention provision also kept racists in the United States happy. They read the provision as complementary to their “states rights” movement, which argued that in a federal system, issues like racism were matters to be decided on a state-by-state basis. Wearing American federalism as a shield against human rights demands, the U.S. delegation at the UN Charter negotiations rejected the NAACP’s demand that it acknowledge and address the ill-effects of American racism.

Ignored, the NAACP filed its own petition with the UN two years later, in 1947. That petition squarely linked racism to U.S. foreign policy, declaring: “It is not Russia that threatens the United States as much as Mississippi, not Stalin or Molotov, but Bilbo and Rankin.” (Senator Theodore Bilbo and Congressman John E. Rankin, both of Mississippi, were two outspoken racists on Capitol Hill at the time.) The petition went on to condemn the denial of human rights to minorities of African descent in the United States.

It was Eleanor Roosevelt, of all people, who led the drive against the NAACP petition, despite being on the organization’s board of directors. At the same time, Roosevelt worked to block a complaint to the UN concerning race discrimination and related human rights abuses in South Africa. Her reasoning? The old slippery slope argument: If the South Africa complaint won, it would set a dangerous precedent that could ultimately lead to the UN investigating the condition of African Americans in Alabama.

Not surprisingly, the NAACP petition went nowhere. Frustrated from its experience and fearful of being red-baited, the NAACP almost completely withdrew from the global campaign for international human rights, situating itself as an American organization concerned with American civil rights.

The U.S. delegation’s actions (or inactions) in San Francisco set the stage for America’s fear of engagement with human rights during the next 61 years. In its dealings with the UN, Washington has kept international human rights laws at bay by excluding the issue of race as much as possible and creating weak enforcement structures whenever possible–unless the U.S. was in control of that structure, or exempted from its ambit. In other words, human rights have not been immune to “American exceptionalism.”

And yet, also from the very beginning, human rights abuses committed by Americans on U.S. soil–in particular, race discrimination and abuse–have inevitably bled into foreign policy.

While serving as vice president in 1954, Richard Nixon–not exactly well-known for his liberal beliefs–adamantly scolded racists: “Every act of discrimination or prejudice in the U.S. hurts America as much as an espionage agent who turns over weapons to a foreign country.”

Still, there is remarkable continuity from president to president on human rights issues. From Harry Truman to George W. Bush, all have embraced American exceptionalism and selectively made good and bad moves on human rights diplomacy, treaty-signing and human rights assistance. While some presidents stand out as exceptionally bad–for example, George W. Bush, who actually “unsigned” the treaty establishing an International Criminal Court–and some exceptionally good–perhaps Bill Clinton, minus all activities in Africa–the trend is consistent. None can really be considered a human rights president.

End of ‘American exceptionalism’?

Flash forward to today, when America’s human rights reputation is in urgent need of repair. Might America finally have a human rights president who doesn’t embrace American exceptionalism?

Almost immediately upon taking office, President Obama did announce that the United States would abide by international law on torture, and that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba would be closed by the end of the year.

Three months into his administration, Obama announced that Washington would try to restore its relationship with international institutions, and would run for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, the top UN human rights monitoring body. Obama has also exercised a strong commitment to human rights in his choice of key staff–for example, Harold Koh, the Yale Law School dean who was nominated to become State Department Legal Advisor. There is no question that the White House is moving in the right direction.

For a clear break with the Bush era, however, Obama needs to demonstrate leadership and redefine human rights as nonpartisan and in the U.S. national interest. To do so, his administration must follow through with signing and submitting for ratification all core international human rights conventions. It might begin by re-signing the International Criminal Court treaty and adding the America’s name to the Convention on the Rights of the Child–signed by every country in the world except for the United States and Somalia–and the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, which is largely modeled on American disability law.

These are no-brainers. As for other human rights treaties that are not signed and/or ratified, Obama should appoint an independent board of experts to study and report on the likely outcome of greater American engagement in the treaty processes. The U.S. Senate, which has traditionally blocked these treaties through filibusters, is much more likely to approve human rights treaties now that Arlen Specter is a Democrat, and his new party holds a nominal 60-member majority.

Barack Obama could be our first human rights president by showing the world that America is no longer afraid of human rights and the international institutions that enforce them. He could prove that America is willing to apply human rights to itself, not just to other nations.

[Editor’s note: This article has been adapted from a presentation at The Past and Future(s) of Revolutions: A Global Exploration, a conference held at Northeastern Illinois University in Chicago March 2009. A longer version of the article will appear in a forthcoming book based on that conference.]