A human rights foreign policy is a laudable ideal, but=20 it leads to a minefield of conflicting priorities,=20 writes Danny Titus
ONE cannot but wholeheartedly support the Mail Guardian’s headline last week: “Let human rights lead=20 the way in SA foreign policy”.
South Africa is moving towards adding the international=20 element of human rights to its citizens by ratifying=20 the international human rights treaties. South Africans=20 will then be afforded this added protection on top of=20 the constitutional rights. However, while this is a=20 major leap for the South African human rights culture=20 coming from a culture of systematic human rights=20 violations, this should not be confused with a foreign=20 policy of human rights.
The sobering lesson from human rights documents, and=20 also from our new Constitution, is that whatever the=20 fundamental nature of human rights, they are not=20 absolute, but subject to limitation. In the scale of=20 human rights, freedom from torture appears to be the=20 only fundamental human right that is absolute.=20 Similarly, when addressing the very complex issue of=20 foreign policy and human rights, absolutist terms=20 cannot advance the cause of human rights.
This is not to compromise South Africa’s clear national=20 and international commitment to human rights.=20 Responding to the argument that the human rights of=20 other countries are not our business, John Humphrey=20 (who signed the Universal Declaration on Human Rights=20 on behalf of the United States in 1948) states:
“(I)t is morally wrong to stand aside when our brothers=20 and sisters are being persecuted. It is my business if=20 other human beings are being tortured or exterminated=20 in concentration camps. And if it is my business, it is=20 also the business of the collectivity to which I=20
When this collectivity, the South African nation, is=20 asked, as the M&G did last week, to “let human rights=20 lead SA foreign policy”, what is called for is a=20 national discussion among ministries, parliament,=20 political parties, NGOs and the broader South African=20 public. Human rights policy has very important=20 implications that relate to the policies of other=20 ministries, such as Trade and Industry, Finance,=20 Justice, Defence, Police, Welfare, Agriculture. Foreign=20 policy is not made in a vacuum. Foreign policy makers=20 must take account of domestic public opinion.
What is proposed is what Peter Baehr of the Dutch Human=20 Rights Institute calls a “well-organised system of=20 policy co-ordination at governmental level”. This=20 should facilitate the making of policy choices. In some=20 countries there exists a co-ordination mechanism within=20 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which deals with human=20 rights matters.
The South African Ministry of Foreign Affairs=20 established a directorate of human rights in 1994,=20 which focuses on the very important international human=20 rights treaties and their implementation in our=20 national legal order. This directorate may be further=20 enhanced to include such a co-ordinating unit.
This unit should then systematically deal with the=20 plethora of questions that underlie the compatability=20 of foreign policy with human rights. Questions that=20 come to mind are: Can a government promote the respect=20 for human rights in other countries? Which governments=20 and which countries? Which fundamental human rights=20 will be addressed? How will these rights be promoted?
It is, of course, much easier to ask the questions than=20 to formulate policy. What is important with human=20 rights is that they have a place of their own in=20 foreign policy. The more traditional objectives of=20 foreign policy, such as the protection of national=20 security or the promotion of foreign trade, are based=20 on material interests of the state. Human rights, on=20 the other hand, differ from other objectives of foreign=20 policy in that they do not refer to such direct=20 material interests.
Governments which want to promote human rights abroad,=20 says Baehr, do not set themselves an easy task. They=20 have to face difficult choices of policies and=20 priorities. However, there are governments which have=20 decided to include the promotion of human rights among=20 their foreign policy objectives. South Africa has made=20 such a decision. The implementation of this decision is=20 what the country is waiting for.
There should be no illusions that a foreign policy of=20 human rights will mean a choice among priorities. The=20 government will have to decide whether and when it will=20 give a higher priority to human rights over other=20 foreign policy considerations, such as national=20 security, foreign trade and economic relations. These=20 policy considerations will obviously conflict with each=20 other. If they do, a government will have to make a=20 policy choice and set priorities. The recent refusal by=20 the Defence Ministry to sell arms to Turkey provides a=20 textbook example. Which considerations have prevailed?=20 National security, economic policy, employment or=20
National security: The country in question may be an=20 important link in the international security network.=20 This has been the reason for the silence of its Nato=20 allies, the US included. South Africa took a much=20 bolder step. But what about the implications for=20 economic policy? Was the contract not essential for the=20 survival of an important segment of national industry?
What about employment? The industry in question may be=20 vital for the maintenance of full employment and thus=20 it would be suicidal from the point of view of the=20 national interest to refuse such a contract. In the=20 Saldanha debate we see people opting for jobs over=20 environmental issues. And, finally, what about the=20 effectiveness? After all, what guarantee is there that=20 refusal of the contract will indeed help the cause of=20 human rights? Did it not hurt economic interests and=20 full employment without actually achieving the desired=20 improvement of human rights?
Again, it must be emphasised that it is much easier to=20 ask the questions than to formulate policy. But, on the=20 other hand, the South African government has=20 consciously decided for a foreign policy of human=20 rights. Human rights considerations necessitate=20 difficult policy decisions. Sometime or other, these=20 decisions will just have to be taken.
The Dutch government in 1979 committed itself to=20 promote human rights as an important element of its=20 foreign policy, but not under all circumstances to be=20 given priority over foreign policy objectives. In its=20 memorandum it reiterated its commitment to human rights=20 and set out clear priority choices for its national=20 situation. This is not to say that it has opted for the=20 right priorities. What is important is that a priority=20 formulation was done.
Dr Danny Titus is Executive Director, Human Rights=20 Institute of South Africa