The Disturbing Pieces of Liberal Peace

By Medhane Tadesse

In March 2007 the US State Department issued its annual report on human rights and democracy practices in the world. The document continues to draw the attention of politicians, analysts and political experts for some good reasons. A quick glance at the report shows that some parts of it reveal real problems in the realm of freedoms and human rights, but a deeper understanding of the report brings a conclusion that the document is politically motivated and biased and poorly reflects the true state of things. No doubt, democracy and respect for human rights is a universal aspiration and widespread demand. But it is not unproblematic. Liberal global governance marks the post-Cold war era. It has been a uni-polar world dominated by the US with the unrealized possibility of a global pax Americana. After 2000, the unilateralist tendency, which sees America as not bound by the rules that constrain other nations, has been dominant. This being the case, Empires need a justifying ideology, and in this case it has been an emphasis on human rights. It is important to examine both how this enterprise consolidates power unevenly and how the liberal values inherent in it are selectively used for sinister motives. Probably, the argument that liberalism fosters, the so-called liberal peace theory, is the most comforting. But again, the pieces of liberal peace are not always in order. This argument is still fine provided that they are promoted with consistency and a grain of credibility. That is not often the case. Besides, there is a technical problem. The document by the State Department may represent some truth, but it is also an incomplete report. No mention on the unhealthy dynamics around the human rights situation in the US in recent years. American citizens have suffered increasing civil rights infringements, as the US government has put average American under intense surveillance as part of the war on terror.

As in previous years, the State Department pointed finger at the rest of the world, but avoided touching on the human rights situation in the United States itself. I was reading a report by the State Council of the Peoples Republic of China on the Human Rights Situation in the US, exhaustive, elaborative and highly informative. The report reveals how the US, relying on its strong military power, violated human rights in other countries. This raises the issue of reciprocity. Does the US welcome the criticisms towards its human rights record from a foreign country, say China, and take it as a basis to appraise its own policies and take corrective measures? I don’t think so. Had this been the case, the US could have encouraged a kind of peer review mechanism on the global human rights situation, involving well-known violators enabling them to operate within and improve their record through a credible mechanism. This also exposes double standard and hegemonic tendency in the field of reporting on human rights. Sadly enough, the credibility of the whole global liberal project is in question. This makes it clear that the worldwide “democratizing crusade” by America is far from being a genuine endeavor to promote democratic values and principles. Another problem is evident too. Countries following the mainstream American foreign policy received a warm reference as regards the situation with human rights, while those trying to pursue an independent course are being pounded with harsh criticisms. This is compromising the credibility of the whole project. There is a kind of popular disenchantment with democracy and human rights because the same authoritarian (pro-US) leaders succeed in scoring relatively fair ratings and in sustaining their non-accountable power behind a democratic facade, and US-blessing of their human rights record, with fixed elections, a controlled press, and no independent judiciary.

Human rights is unevenly reported, unevenly promoted and even more unevenly achieved. On the promising side, the liberal crusade has led to unprecedented spread of democratic values and practices, notably in raising the democratic aspirations of Africans. But the human rights agenda also masks the reality that it also serves to establish and consolidate certain forms of power. As such it unmasks its true intentions. Many in Africa and Eastern Europe have noted how the US-led crusade on human rights is associated with shrinking autonomous space for governments and their citizen’s legitimate aspirations, not to mention the whole issue of sovereignty. Well, sovereignty must be accountable, and no government be allowed to hide behind it to go out of line. The problem lies on how the human rights project is used for consolidation of power by some and the disempowerment of many others. It is a fair charge. The assessment of the global human rights situation doesn’t go hand in hand with a similar assessment in the US, as the pressure of democratization in unfriendly African states doesn’t go hand in hand with similar pressure on the allies in the war on terror. Certainly, this selective approach has given a new lease of life to some authoritarian African governments, who have discovered a patron, which could provide moral and diplomatic coverage whenever they commit serious violations.

It goes without saying that it is inadmissible to use the ideas of democracy and human rights to benefit some and hurt others. Clearly, citizens’ aspirations for peace, security and good governance are higher than in the past and any support, including from the US, is always welcome. The principle of accountability for human rights violations should also be universal. It is not easy, however, to overlook how the human rights issue is also an exercise in power politics. It is better if the US quickly finds out its selective approach towards human rights and democracy, was mistaken.

April 27, 2007

Medhane Tadesse of CPRD is a long time specialist on issues of peace and security in the Horn of Africa. He can be reached at mt3002et@yahoo.com