海角大神

Rex Tillerson's human-rights report no-show: A sign of indifference?

The US State Department may take a back seat under the Trump administration, analysts say. But how the US government defends human rights abroad 鈥� and how it defines those rights 鈥� has long been in flux.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R) of Florida tweeted his disapproval of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson鈥檚 decision not to attend the rolling-out of the State Department鈥檚 annual human rights report, considered the department鈥檚 crown-jewel analysis of conditions in most of the world鈥檚 countries.

鈥淔or 1st time in a long time听@StateDept听#humanrights report will not be presented by Secretary of State. I hope they reconsider,鈥� .

The senator鈥檚 remarks reflected some State Department employees and human rights activists' concerns after hearing, ahead of time, of Mr. Tillerson's absence. Instead, the report鈥檚 Friday release, normally treated by secretaries of State as an occasion to exalt the Department鈥檚 work, involved little more than a phone briefing with reporters, rather than the standard press event. The secretary of State did , calling the promotion of human rights and democracy "a core element of U.S. foreign policy."

For several analysts, Tillerson's decision to skip the event multiplied uncertainties about whether the Trump administration could pull back from a typical bipartisan commitment to weaving human-rights concerns听鈥撎齢owever听each White House might construe them听鈥� into its foreign-policy work.

"Tillerson's absence from the State Department's annual human rights report release reinforces the message to governments, rights activists, and at-risk minorities that the State Department might also be silent on repression, abuse, and exploitation," said Sarah Margon, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch, a New York-based NGO, as the Associated Press reports.

But while a shift may be ahead, human rights experts say, the US government has always听promoted human rights selectively, or even inconsistently. Nor is it an issue that ranks very highly among public concerns.

鈥淲e know that overall, in terms of priorities, foreign policy tends to be a bit lower than domestic priorities like dealing with terrorism or economic growth,鈥� says Jacob Poushter, a senior researcher at the Pew Research Center, in an interview with 海角大神.听

In a 2013 survey performed by the Pew Center, Mr. Poushter notes, 鈥溾�� ranked ninth out of Americans鈥� top eleven policy priorities.

Historians usually trace the US government's emphasis on human rights听abroad to the Vietnam- and civil-rights eras, when Congress passed laws that withheld aid to countries that engaged in egregious human-rights abuses. And in the 1980 presidential race, candidate Ronald Reagan put a conservative twist on what had generally been a concern for liberals, emphasizing Soviet Union-linked 鈥渢errorism鈥� as a chief threat and criticizing Jimmy Carter鈥檚 鈥減urism鈥� on the issue as ineffective, in a paper from that decade.

But some see President Trump鈥檚 talk of a more transactional style of foreign policy as evidence that he could break with a post-cold war consensus听in which business links are seen as a means of securing influence on other 鈥渧alues-driven concerns,鈥� like human rights. During Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of State, for example, her 鈥渟upport for American businesses and embrace of economic tools reflected a worldview in which increasing trade and investment links , where corporate success, capitalist economic development and effective political institutions all reinforced one another,鈥� as Geoffrey Gertz wrote in an opinion piece for The Hill in January.

鈥淭rump is likely to turn this maxim on its head, using political means and might to secure economic gains,鈥� added Dr. Gertz, a post-doctoral fellow听in the Brookings Institution's Global Economy and Development program.听

Still, many human rights advocates had mixed feelings about the Obama presidency: while Mr. Obama was fond of soaring rhetoric, Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth wrote during the former president鈥檚 final days in office, he had a 鈥渕ixed record鈥� on human rights, particularly where it intersected with counterterrorism, as in the use of drones and the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, and the Syrian civil war.

鈥淚n fact, he has often treated human rights as a secondary interest 鈥撎齨ice to support when the cost was not too high, but nothing like a top priority he championed,鈥� .

Tillerson himself has also given clear endorsements of human rights considerations in foreign policy, to a watching world what America stands for鈥� in his Senate confirmation hearing.

鈥淥ur values are our interests when it comes to human rights and humanitarian assistance,鈥� he said then.

The role of human rights may hinge on听how much influence Tillerson and the State Department can end up exerting within the Trump administration. And for many State-watchers,听both the Department and Tillerson himself so far seem to be playing a drastically diminished part. The secretary of State, for instance, has given no public interviews and suspended daily Department press briefings since being confirmed, , and the Department remains short of about two dozen key senior staff who abruptly resigned not long after the new administration鈥檚 arrival.

鈥淥n human rights, in particular, it doesn鈥檛 seem like there鈥檚 a policy being formulated,鈥� says Michael Posner, a human rights lawyer who headed the Department鈥檚 Democracy, Human Rights and Labor division during Obama鈥檚 term.

But 鈥淚鈥檓 more broadly troubled by the seeming diminished role for our professional foreign service and diplomats,鈥� he tells the Monitor, citing conversations with current employees.

鈥淭he question of priorities ultimately starts with the White House. You can change policy toward the Middle East or China, and that鈥檚 a discussion that involves multiple agencies, but State is ultimately the implementer. So their voice ought to be important and right in the middle of those discussions.鈥�