|
|
| Human rights and foreign policy |
| Khanzala Khursheed |
| Human rights to become an ingredient of foreign policy making have become a contradictory issue in international politics. Some put the state sovereignty as the top most priority while others argue that the time of total sovereignty has passed with prevalence of transnational. World has become more liberal; favouring the democratic mode of government and it is very essence of democracy to protect the rights of individual so one cannot completely deny the human rights as an international peace issue. So the inclusion of human rights in foreign policy making has become debatable.
There are three problematic issues vis-à-vis human rights and foreign policy. Relativity of human rights is a major concern in theory as well as in practice. The moral values and human rights vary from culture to culture. It induces the universal concern— states may use the relativity of human rights as a tool to justify the acts of human rights violation.
Priority of national interest is another issue in insertion of human rights in foreign policy that can disturb the bilateral relations and can weaken the diplomatic ties among the states.
Economic, political and strategic interests are the main elements in driving the foreign policy. If human rights are given the priority then state cannot concentrate on the national interests. If there is a balance in foreign policy and the interests are set in long term perspective then human rights can serve the other objectives too. Primacy of international order and security is also questioned.
The international order is set as the top most priority in international relations. International order is defined as “a pattern of activity that sustains the elementary or primary goals of the international society” The two elementary or primary goals of international society are to preserve both the society of states itself and the external sovereignty of its constituent units.
Human rights emerge as a challenge to international society with its emphasis on the rights of individuals, not that of the state, and its prescription for a recognition and protection of the rights of man on a transnational base.
International order deals with the economic, political and defence issue related to inter-state relations. The inclusion of human rights disturbs the priority. But if one holds a futuristic point of view, then it becomes clear that the world has become and becoming more and more transnational.
There is a correlation between the domestic and international peace. So many states are preparing to compromise their human rights policies to avoid international pressure and criticism. If a state does not maintain stability and does not ensure basic human rights then it can be a source of instability and disruptiveness in international community. Violations of human rights do not only harm individuals, groups or the people in the country concerned but may well endanger others, particularly regional countries, for repercussions of human rights violations cannot be confined within national borders.
Therefore, the search for global peace and security starts with improving human rights conditions at a domestic level since there exists a clear-cut linkage between national and international security.
Therefore, while the respect for human rights enhances national security the state that is involved in systematic violations of human rights endangers not only national but also international peace and security. International concern over human rights aims at influencing the government that engages in human rights violations to change its attitude towards its own citizens.
This concern ranges from friendly influences to political and economic pressures, and in some cases involves direct military intervention to pressure the government to take human rights seriously.
The success of international pressure depends on the level of pressure exerted on the target country, the level and kind of linkages (political, economic, defence) between the centres of external pressure and the target state, and the self-confidence of the government to hold social dissatisfaction at home.
These elements determine the decision of domestic governments as to whether they should co-operate with international pressure centres. In some cases, when confronting dictators, diplomatic, political and economic leverage seems to be ineffective at stopping massive and consistent violation of basic human rights. Thus, the concern that there should be moral limits to territorial sovereignty leads to a quest for an exception to the non-intervention principle that is believed to guide international relations.
An international human rights regime with mechanisms to uphold human rights globally and a genuine interest in the fate of human rights in interstate relations may also contribute to international peace and stability through the formation of a politically homogeneous international system composed of states respectful to human rights. |
|
|