By Matthew Continetti
Saturday, February 13, 2021
Human rights are in bad shape. No one is able to agree on
what they are. For trendy academics, “human rights” are just cover for Western
imperialism and “market fundamentalism.” The progressive left has reduced human
rights pretty much down to abortion and same-sex marriage. Conservatives have
turned inward and barely consider the importance of human rights. Outside the
United States, transnational bureaucracies police the boundaries of an
ever-expanding list of human rights without democratic oversight or
accountability. The rise of authoritarianism globally has eroded protections
from government interference in freedom of speech, assembly, religion, press,
and democracy. Meanwhile, new technologies are invading individual privacy and
increasing the power of the state.
In July 2019, then–Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tried
to cut through the confusion. He established a Commission on Unalienable
Rights. Its purpose was to “furnish advice to the Secretary for the promotion
of individual liberty, human equality, and democracy through U.S. foreign
policy.” The goal was to align America’s approach to human rights with the
principles of the Declaration of Independence and the 1948 Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). “My hope,” he wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, “is that the
Commission on Unalienable Rights will ground our understanding of human rights
in a manner that will both inform and better protect essential freedoms—and
underscore how central these ideas are not only to Americans, but to all of
humanity.”
Pompeo selected as chairwoman Mary Ann Glendon, who had taught him at Harvard Law School. Glendon, a former ambassador to the Holy See, is a well-known figure in Republican legal circles and pro-life activism. She’s also an expert in the philosophy and law of human rights. Among her many books is A World Made New, an engrossing study of Eleanor Roosevelt’s role in crafting the Universal Declaration. Glendon also has experience on government commissions, having served, for example, on George W. Bush’s Presidential Council on Bioethics. “She’s the perfect person to chair this effort,” Pompeo said.
Not for the left, she wasn’t. Glendon’s history in GOP
politics, her association with the Vatican, and her long-held opposition to
abortion were guaranteed to set off controversy, and they did. Aside from that,
the prospect of a Republican administration weighing in on human rights—and
suggesting that human rights are not the exclusive province of left-wing
interest groups—instantly mobilized a sizable coalition of progressive
institutions and activists against the commission. That the commission was
announced a month after the Trump administration had instructed U.S. Embassies
to fly the American flag alone—and not, as some had been doing, the rainbow
flag as well—intensified the left’s fear that Glendon would lay the
intellectual foundation for Pompeo to exclude women, gays, and minorities from
human-rights policy.
On July 23, 2019, more than 150 nongovernmental
organizations and 250 former government officials, religious leaders,
professors, and advocates sent Pompeo a letter about the commission that asked
him to “immediately disband this body” and to “use the resources of your office
to take action on the great many grave human-rights issues facing the world
today.” Signatories included Obama-administration hotshots Susan Rice and
Samantha Power.
The commission’s opponents targeted the makeup of the
commission, saying it was stocked with members who “have focused their
professional lives and scholarship on religious freedom” and who “are
overwhelmingly clergy or scholars known for extreme positions opposing LGBTQI
and reproductive rights.” They accused Pompeo of violating government procedure
by not working through the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor. And they feared that efforts to ground human rights in U.S.
traditions would “nationalize” human rights and allow authoritarian regimes to
justify repression on a cultural basis.
All these claims were specious. Glendon did not preside
over some theocratic council. The commission’s 11 members included Christians,
Jews, Muslims, and atheists, and both Republicans and Democrats. It is true
that these scholars and activists believe in religious freedom. But only in
feverish minds is religious freedom the same as religious fanaticism.
Nor did the commission violate administrative law or
State Department protocol. It wasn’t a substitute for the Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights, and Labor. It was a supplement. And the deputy assistant
secretary in charge of the bureau at the time didn’t seem to mind. After all,
the commission was by its nature independent. Its purpose wasn’t to formulate
policy, but to take a step back from the bureaucratic day-to-day and think more
deeply about the meaning of human rights and their connection to diplomacy.
Even though it was charged with investigating the roots
of unalienable rights in American political thought, the commission was not
designed to suggest that human rights are whatever America says they are. Its
mission was to make sense of the origins of America’s promotion of human rights
and democracy, and to explain how that impulse culminated in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights after World War II. The commission’s members recognized
that not every nation will have the same reasons for embracing dignity and
freedom. What’s important is that nations reach the same conclusions about
respecting human rights.
The commission released its final report in August 2020.
No one who reads it with unbiased eyes can reasonably claim that it is extreme
or even controversial. It is a learned, well-reasoned, considerate, deliberate,
measured, and just document that carefully explains the American rights
tradition, its triumph over slavery, its expansion to include women and black
people, its centrality to the UDHR and to post–World War II American
statesmanship, and the challenges to human rights from corrupt international
institutions, Russia and China, pandemics and migration, terrorism, and decay.
Progressive shibboleths—abortion and gay rights—are
hardly mentioned. They come up twice: once when the commissioners admit to
disagreement on such issues, and again when they write, “In divisive social and
political controversies in the United States—abortion, affirmative action,
same-sex marriage—it is common for both sides to couch their claims in terms of
basic rights.” That is not an incendiary statement. It’s an obvious one.
The left wasn’t satisfied. Despite the commission’s
report being translated into multiple languages and supported by Nahdlatul
Ulama, one of the largest Muslim associations in the world, the international
human-rights bureaucracy continues to see it as an exercise in nationalism and
bigotry. In January, Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts asked incoming
Secretary of State Antony Blinken, “Will you repudiate the findings of the
report of the Commission on Unalienable Rights and reaffirm the United States’
acceptance and adherence to the human rights laid out in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights? And will you ensure that ambassadors are able to fly the pride
flag once again at our embassies around the world?”
Blinken didn’t hesitate. “Yes to both,” he said. And
within hours of President Biden’s inauguration, the commission’s report was
removed from the website of the State Department’s Policy Planning Committee.
Which proved a couple of things. First, Pompeo’s
reasoning was sound: Human rights really are in bad shape. And second, the
Commission on Unalienable Rights wasn’t motivated by animus.
Its enemies were.
No comments:
Post a Comment