Human Rights as Part of Foreign Policy

Should human rights be part of foreign policy? 

Before we answer this question, it is important to clarify that human rights are rarely a consistent element of foreign policy, even in the most developed democracies. 

Leaders who declare their commitment to such rights often betray them when it matters most. In 2009, for example, when Iranian citizens flooded the streets in opposition to their tyrannical rulers, then-US President Barack Obama chose to publicly engage with the theocratic regime rather than support those who sought to overthrow it. The result was a massive setback for the cause of Iranian democracy and for peace in the region.

All human beings want to live without the fear of being punished for thinking and speaking their minds. The universality of human rights stems from this deep foundation of the human psyche.

Nor is cozying up to dictators the province of any one political party. In 2019, then-President Trump visited North Korea and declared mutual love between ruthless dictator Kim Jong Un and his people, signaling that the US (and by extension, the free world) did not take relations between tyrants and the civilians they terrorize seriously.

To understand why supporting human rights abroad is ethical and prudent, we must take a closer look at situations on the ground. Let us say that your neighbor is a totalitarian regime. Why should you believe that the subjects of that regime would prefer to live in a democracy? Even if they did, is promoting their freedom in your interest? Even if it is, can your actions really make a difference?

Clearly, not everyone supports democracy understood as a specific arrangement of governing institutions. But all human beings want to live without the fear of being punished for thinking and speaking their minds. The universality of human rights stems from this deep foundation of the human psyche. The greater the dissonance between what a person believes and what his government forces him to profess, and the greater the fear of punishment for self-expression, the more unbearable it becomes to live under repressive rule. Democratic transitions are born from the desire to throw off the reins of double-think and self-censorship, and to pursue a life without fear instead. This desire is common across historical periods, cultures, and religions, seen from examples ranging from Eastern Europe during the time of communism to Muslim countries during the Arab Spring.

While the desire to live without fear is universal, this does not tell us whether liberal democracies should promote such freedom beyond their borders. To understand why they should, consider the key difference between democracies and dictatorships. In democracies, the people control their leaders; in dictatorships, the leaders control their people. This means that dictators face the permanent challenge of keeping their people in check, and the most common tool they use for this is permanent mobilization against internal and external enemies (real or, more often, imagined). Democratic leaders, by contrast, are accountable to their public, on whom they depend for reelection. 

It is therefore no accident that democracies do not start wars with one another. Dictatorships, or countries in the process of becoming dictatorships, are the sources of belligerence because their ability to control their own people depends on it. As a result, support for human rights is justified morally and practically. 

But can we have any influence?

Dictatorships, as a rule, need cooperation with free countries in order to compete economically. If we choose to condition our cooperation on their internal change—even moderate, incremental change—they will have little choice but to comply.

Indeed, the recent collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s government confirms what Syrian dissidents have been saying for years: there was no ideology sustaining the regime—only fear.

For example, during the period between 1974 and 1990, the world saw a series of democratic transitions, including the fall of the Soviet Union. Among the policies that aided these developments were America’s consistent use of economic pressure and support for dissidents to encourage greater respect for citizens’ freedoms, and the European Community’s decision to use membership as an incentive for repressive countries to liberalize.

Or consider the case of Saudi Arabia. While some of that country’s recent liberalization can no doubt be explained by domestic considerations, its new leadership also understood that the threat from Iran rendered foreign cooperation essential, and for this the Biden administration rightly demanded internal change.

The best way for democratic governments to promote human rights is by supporting those who are fighting for them on the inside: democratic dissidents. These brave men and women are uniquely attuned to the unraveling of true belief in the regime and to the regime’s anxious efforts to survive in the face of mounting discontent. As a result, they are often years ahead of external observers in understanding a dictatorship’s vulnerability to pressure. Soviet dissidents had predicted the fall of the USSR long before Western observers thought it was possible. Similarly, Egyptian and Syrian dissidents warned that their governments were susceptible to collapse years before these countries were engulfed by revolution and civil war.

Indeed, the recent collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s government confirms what Syrian dissidents have been saying for years: there was no ideology sustaining the regime—only fear. To be sure, Israel’s decimation of Hezbollah and Russia’s preoccupation with its war in Ukraine created the conditions under which Syrian citizens could finally throw off the shackles that had bound them for so long. But the fact that the regime offered no resistance to their uprising shows how brittle it was. The moment it could no longer generate fear, it crumbled.

The most important step toward international stability and peace is therefore to listen to freedom fighters—the true allies of a free world—and give them the help they need. Their efforts to promote democracy at home depend on our moral and practical support. Our security also depends on their success.

Natan Sharansky is a former Soviet dissident, political prisoner and human rights activist who has spent his life championing democracy and freedom. As a member of the Knesset, he has served in different Israeli governments and various Cabinet positions, including Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of the Interior, and Minister of Diaspora Affairs. Sharansky currently chairs the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy and Combat Antisemitism Movement. He chaired the Executive of The Jewish Agency for Israel from 2009 through 2018. Sharansky was awarded the US Congressional Gold Medal and the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Cover photo: December 8, 2024, Mersin, Türkiye. Syrian refugees who have been living in Mersin, Turkey since 2011, held joyful demonstrations as the Assad regime ended in Syria. AbidinYagmur/Shutterstock.