President Trump’s recent address to the UN General Assembly was notably vague, but it reflects a significant shift in U.S. human rights policy that could profoundly affect international human rights frameworks. This upheaval certainly raises the question: what can America do to effectively uphold human rights ideals?
A new report from the State Department illustrates a clear break from established norms, failing to address issues like government corruption or the right to assemble. Human Rights Watch has remarked that this shift could pave the way for authoritarian regimes that thrive on corruption and oppression. They argue, “The administration… does not seem to grasp the true human rights violations perpetrated by abusive governments.”
The report disregards critical information related to the rights of women and LGBTQ+ individuals, instead framing human rights through what this administration deems “traditional values,” thereby challenging both cultural and universal standards of human rights.
Some view the alignment of human rights data with national interests as “politicization.” Yet, every government likely prioritizes its own political and economic needs while evaluating the human rights records of other nations. In fact, nonpartisan organizations are often better positioned to carry out impartial human rights assessments than governmental entities.
It’s worth noting that authoritarian regimes have routinely accused the U.S. of politicizing human rights. In retaliation to the State Department’s reports, countries like China have devised their own contrived narratives condemning U.S. human rights violations, labeling them as influenced by racism and economic disparity.
The unveiling of the report typically garners attention from human rights advocates who hope it will bolster their endeavors and apply pressure on the administration. Even amid these changes, there remains a sense that America continues to champion fundamental political freedoms and is willing to confront even allied nations on these issues.
Nevertheless, the new report lacks substantial outcomes or concrete results.
It’s almost humorous how the report mirrors the propaganda of authoritarian regimes, completely discarding any pretense of objectivity. It suggests, in an indirect way, that the so-called “international community” resembles a state of nature rather than a cohesive civil society, reflecting John Locke’s observations.
Moreover, the Trump administration has expressed its intention to withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council’s universal periodic review. A spokesperson elaborated that participating in this review would imply support for the Council’s missions while ignoring its failures to hold severe human rights violators accountable, which ironically, is the same critique leveled against the new human rights report.
The universal periodic reviews aim to analyze the compliance of UN members with human rights standards. While the concept is sound, in practice, these reviews have often been exploited by authoritarian regimes. Countries like China have adeptly turned the reviews into public relations stunts, where selected individuals deliver scripted praise for their governments. Even North Korea has received unwarranted commendations during these reviews.
Despite being one of the few nations willing to confront human rights violators, politics has seeped into the United States’ approach as well. For instance, the State Department has regressed to support economic and social rights, a stance echoed by legal scholar Roger Pylon, suggesting that the government’s self-assessment reads more like a politically correct brochure than a genuine evaluation of rights.
Thus, while there may be justifications for refraining from participating in the UPR, other nations might follow suit, viewing it as a guide. President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio might have nailed down another point in the coffin of liberal internationalism, which has often devolved into hypocritical and bureaucratic rituals regarding human rights. However, without a constructive program to safeguard freedoms, they leave a community adrift, searching for a moral compass in an increasingly tyrannical world.
