within them; and when the West overlooks the abuses of human rights and breach of international (CSCE) treaty obligations which have occurred, we undermine the forces of democracy in Russia, not assist them. There is, of course, no neat democratic solution to the problems which plague the sprawling entity that is Russia. But its component peoples have the right to be treated with respect — even if, as is alleged of the Chechens, some of their members are involved in criminal activities. And if ultimately the Chechens wish to go their own way, Russia will gain nothing by seeking to prevent their doing so.
Of course, as with Chechnya, the history of past struggles influences the present. It is not my purpose to suggest that all nationalisms are good, let alone safe. But much is blamed on them which is attributable to other problems — in general, primitive political cultures retarded by communism and, in particular, lack of respect for human rights and democracy. Moreover, the record of supra-nationalisms is at least as mixed as that of nationalisms proper and their potential far more dangerous.
ADVANCING FREEDOM
This brings me to my fourth suggested tenet of a conservative foreign policy, which is that we should persistently seek to advance freedom, democracy and human rights across the world. The reasons why are, above all, practical. Democracies do not by and large make wars upon each other. Regimes which respect human rights at home are more likely to forswear aggression abroad. In practice, even the most cynical practitioner of
The so-called Reagan doctrine, which Ronald Reagan developed in a speech to both Houses of Parliament in 1982, demonstrated just how potent a weapon in international politics human rights could be. His view was that we should fight the battle of ideas for freedom against communism throughout the world and refuse to accept the permanent exclusion of the captive nations from the benefits of freedom.[88]
This unashamedly philosophical approach and the armed strength supporting it transformed the political world. President Reagan undermined the Soviet Union at home by giving hope to its citizens, directly assisted rebellions against illegitimate communist regimes in Afghanistan and Nicaragua, and facilitated the peaceful transition to democracy in Latin American countries and the Philippines. Of course, previous American governments had extolled human rights, and President Carter had even declared that they were the ‘soul’ of US foreign policy. Where President Reagan went beyond these, however, was in making the Soviets the principal target of his human rights campaign, and in moving from rhetorical to material support for anti-communist guerrillas in countries where communist regimes had not securely established themselves. The result was a decisive advance for freedom in the world.
In this instance, human rights and wider American purposes were in complete harmony. But do human rights have an independent value in foreign policy? There are two classic attacks on the idea that they do. The conservative critique is that a human rights policy amounts to a dangerous intrusion on the sovereignty of other countries; and the liberal thesis is that it is flawed because based upon an inadequate conception of human rights.
Of the conservative view, one can say that it is a partial truth that we should take into account in formulating policy. Societies plainly differ in their social and economic development, their religious traditions, their political consciousness. Where a fledgling democratic movement really exists, we can foster and encourage it — and to a limited degree protect it against government suppression by protests, public diplomacy, and similar measures. Where there is no such popular movement locally (or where it is limited to a few Western-educated intellectuals in the capital), we cannot implant democracy from outside. However, although we must necessarily pick and choose the cases where Western influence can usefully accelerate a peaceful transition to democratic ways, some abuses of human rights, notably torture, are so flagrant, so egregious, and so offensive by any national or cultural standard, that we will always be justified in opposing and deterring them. The main question in such cases is how best to do so — by economic pressure, or by speeches and motions in international forums, or by quiet diplomacy. In any event, a conservative human rights policy, applied as it must be with prudence and discrimination, will always fall short of a crusade.
The liberal criticism is that Western human rights policy, by concentrating on such ‘procedural’ rights as freedom of speech or freedom from arbitrary arrest, neglects the more important ‘substantive’ rights such as freedom from hunger or the right to a decent education. The international documents to which appeal is generally made on questions of human rights themselves illustrate this drift of thinking. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) not only affirms, as I would, that everyone has the right to life, liberty, equality before the law, property and so on: it also affirms the ‘right’ to an adequate standard of living and education and to social security — which are plainly in a quite different category. Other subsequent documents go even further. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) includes the ‘right to work’, the right to the ‘continuous improvement of living conditions’, the right to be ‘free from hunger’ and ‘the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health’.
Of course, as soon as we discuss freedom in terms of rights rather than duties, classical liberalism slips easily into soft socialism with all kinds of ‘rights’ being claimed with little regard for the cost or even the possibility of fulfilling them. These ‘rights’, to the extent that they are even theoretically attainable, can in practice only be fulfilled if the state coerces
If then advancing human rights as traditionally defined is a legitimate aim of foreign policy, what in general is the best way to achieve it? We are fortunate that in the post-Cold War world, new opportunities for freedom have opened up. As the revolution in the technology of communications, the opening of world markets and the opportunities for greater mobility of capital and people all put authoritarian rulers under greater pressure, it will be increasingly hard for them to resist pressures to liberalize their regimes. This, in fact, is why in seeking to advance democracy and human rights, high regard must be paid to the wider impact of economic freedom.
Even countries which maintain a fairly free economy — with a sound currency, limited government intervention, low taxes, private property and mobility of labour — but which for a time experience authoritarian rule, as for example did Chile under General Pinochet, find relatively few difficulties in developing political freedoms later. But, as the experience of Russia shows, without a framework of law, an understanding of the limits of government, private property and a living tradition of enterprise, it is extremely difficult in these conditions to build democratic institutions. Recognizing this, the conservative — as opposed to the liberal-left — enthusiast for human rights will not make the mistake of underrating the progress towards the goal of political freedom which the growth of market capitalism brings with it.
It is this consideration, quite apart from my concerns for the long-term future of Hong Kong, which has led me to oppose linking human rights issues in China with trade issues. We need consistently to press the Chinese to end human rights abuses and to observe civilized standards in their dealings with Tibet, the Christian churches, and dissidents if China is to enjoy the full practical benefits which a relationship of respect brings with it. But it would be counter-productive to slow down the rate of progress towards an open, free economy by seeking to cut China off from trade, investment and outside influence, since these are roads to freedom.
Having said all of which, I would note that policy in regard to human rights is a great deal more complicated in theory than it is in practice. Politicians and diplomats generally know by instinct the cases in which Western influence can be usefully exercised and how best to exercise it. I must add, however, that they sometimes need a kick from public opinion.
