American Exceptionalism and Human Rights
The United States has been a driving force in promoting global human rights but is also reluctant to commit to the international laws and conventions that protect them. This important collection of essays by leading scholars seeks to explain this seeming paradox. Ignatieff identifies three varieties of American exceptionalism: the willingness to sign a treaty only if the United States is exempted from its provisions, the use of different standards to judge U.S. behavior and the behavior of other countries, and the resistance of U.S. courts to accept the legal precedents established in other liberal democracies. The authors offer a rich array of cultural, institutional, and political explanations. Paul Kahn stresses the deep American belief that the country's founding values are the universal embodiment of human rights -- and so it need not learn from or be judged by others. Andrew Moravcsik argues that American federalism and the ratification process in the Senate undercut the ability of the central government to comply with international standards. Cass Sunstein notes the impact of the conservative counterrevolution since the 1960s, which has caused a divergence from liberal-minded Europe. In fascinating essays, Stanley Hoffmann and John Ruggie argue that American exceptionalism can be quite costly to national security and global problem-solving. Together the authors wonderfully capture the complex interplay between values, law, and American power.
Related
American foreign policy is in danger of responding to a capricious sequence of events, rather than to defined guideposts and a clear sense of priorities. In view at the start of a new administration is a vast array of worthy objectives, as if all could be pursued simultaneously and successfully. In fact, many goals are in conflict and all require difficult trade-offs. Support for democracy and for human rights are unsteady guides to policy; economic pressures or attempts to stifle the flow of armaments conflict with other interests. America's limited political capital must be husbanded, to be expended only when the society's fundamental interests are at stake.
"The unbridled assertion of collective rights, most often expressed as an aspiration to national self-determination, has become a major threat to global stability." U.S. foreign policymakers should emphasize individual human rights, which would release Washington from arbitrating conflicting national claims, consistent with America's own political traditions.
Any individual or government concerned with pluralism, democracy and human rights must not be complacent about the rise of militant Islamic groups. Islam is incompatible with these values--as shown by the continued oppression of women and minorities in Muslim societies. Support for democratic elections in the Middle East is thus contradictory, because radical Islamic fundamentalists, who are most likely to come to power, have no commitment to democracy. Trying to distinguish between good and bad Islamic groups may be convenient for U.S. policymakers, but it is impossible to determine which ones will keep their promises of democracy and human rights. In practice, few do.
