Evaluate the extent to which the promotion of human rights is a primary driver of western states

Human rights are the universal and inalienable rights that each person has simply in virtue of being human. This essay will consider the role played by humanitarian intervention, courts/tribunals and sanction attempts, however will argue that the promotion of human rights is not a primary driver of western states.

Some political theorists argue, albeit incorrectly, that human rights are the primary driver of western states, as the west has intervened in countries where human rights were being abused. The intervention in Kosovo in 1999 has been labelled as the pinnacle of humanitarian intervention, where NATO and US forces prevented an attempt at ethnic cleansing from Serbia. This is an example of a genuine humanitarian intervention concerned with the protection of human rights. Blair set out the principles for state intervention in his Chicago speech, where he claimed, ‘if right-minded nations see human rights abuses on a mass scale and the UN refuses to act, then it is a duty for these nations to act.’ This concept of the international community stepping in to protect human rights is strengthened by the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) introduced by the UN in 2005. The principle represents the liberal idea that a state’s sovereignty is given by the people and in return the state has a duty to uphold and protect their human rights. If they fail to do so, their sovereignty is retracted, and other states have a responsibility to step in. While it is true that all nations voted in favour of this principle, the UN is not only dominated by the West, but their agenda is mainly dictated by western nations, as this is where global power currently lies. The R2P principle was instigated by Blair and Clinton, who encouraged the general assembly to consider this. Additionally, humanitarian intervention has been predominantly led by the US: as it rose to a global hegemon after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has been able to act as a global policeman. Thus, this argument seeks to demonstrate that the promotion of human rights is the primary driver of western nations, particularly the US.

While it is undisputed that western states are concerned with human rights on the global scale, this argument overstates the extent to which this is the case. The contrary has been illustrated by the decline in humanitarian intervention over the past 20 years. This is mainly due to the catastrophes of intervention in Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq. These interventions were not only expensive, but also cost many lives and were unsuccessful and did not achieve their aims. For example, the Iraq war has been labelled as the three-trillion-dollar war and is widely frowned upon by the international community. The decline of humanitarian intervention was illustrated by Obama’s inaction in Syria. Intervention in the civil war in Syria was not in America’s self-interest and thus he restrained from stepping in, leading to a huge refugee crisis across Europe. This also introduces the idea that realist principles of national self-interest have returned. It could be argued that countries are only intervening in the Russian invasion of Ukraine to prevent the rise of Russia as a bipolar power potentially threatening global security once again. This line of thinking is corroborated when it is considered that there were greater political and economic motives dressed up as humanitarian reasons in many interventions. Chomsky noted that the main reason for the Kosovo invasion was to cripple and defeat a Russian ally (Serbia) and thereby reinstating American dominance. Furthermore, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 has been criticised for being heavily tied up with the abundance of oil reserves in the region.

This clearly illustrates that not only is humanitarian intervention not a hot topic in global politics any longer as the power of the US is in decline, but there were often underlying reasons for these interventions, not purely centred on the protection of human rights.

A further reason why it can be argued that the promotion of human rights is the primary driver of western states is emphasised by the significant role played by international courts and tribunals. Special tribunals were set up ad hoc by the UN to judge the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Not only are these an effective method of punishing severe abuses of human rights, with the ICTY having convicted over 120 individuals, but they also act as an effective deterrent to further abuse. The International Criminal Court (ICC) was set up in 2002 as a replacement for these tribunals as a ‘court of last resort’ when national courts are unwilling or unable to put people on trial. This entails it can also put heads of state on trial, for example the former vice president of Congo, Jean-Pierre Bemba, was sentenced to 18 years in prison in 2016 for deploying sexual violence as a weapon. This illustrates how international courts and tribunals have served to protect and promote human rights across the world. It is also clear that these courts and tribunals are dominated by western opinion, with the ICC investigating Russian actions in Ukraine after only 5 days of invasion upon western outrage. Thus, some argue that through the establishment of such courts, human rights have been shown to be the primary driver of Western states.

However, these courts and tribunals are not free from criticism. These courts and tribunals have been very selective with their involvement in human rights abuses. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that only Africans have ever been indicted and convicted by the ICC, leading the AU to discourage participation. There have been countless human rights abuses that have been given a free pass and have not been investigated. For example, Obama used indiscriminate drone strikes during the war on terror, killing over 100 civilians. America has also refused to shut down its Guantanamo Bay prison, where torture techniques such as waterboarding are common practice. America also committed war crimes during their occupation of Afghanistan, with an airstrike in 2015 killing 42 Afghans in a hospital in Kunduz. All these actions undertaken by the west going unnoticed is a clear sign that such international courts and tribunals are a tool of oppression to sustain western dominance, shrouded under a veil of human rights.

Therefore, the extent to which these courts and tribunals operate purely to protect human rights is questionable due to the lack of consistency, and thereby it cannot be claimed that the promotion of human rights is a primary driver of western states. Rather, political motivations, such as sustaining global dominance, take precedence.

On the other hand, it is also argued, unconvincingly, that sanctions illustrate that the importance of human rights trumps political and economic considerations. The US trade embargo against Cuba is an example of this. The US banned businesses from conducting trade with Cuban interests, including almost all exports, after the Cuban government refused to move towards democratisation and a greater respect for human rights. The government punishes dissent and public criticisms with beatings and surveillance, clearly disrespecting its citizens human rights. While trade with Cuba would have been beneficial to the American economy, the US saw the issue of these human rights abuses to be more pressing. The US and other western states, including the UK, have also placed extensive sanctions on Iran, despite their oil reserves. This illustrates the argument that human rights concerns are considered more important than politics or economics, and therefore that they are a primary driver of western states.

However, this argument is flawed and greatly undermined when underlying reasons for these sanctions are considered. Once again, it seems that there are political motivations for such sanctions. For example, Iran sought to create nuclear weapons, and America wanted to prevent this as it may act as a challenge to the unipolar power they held at the time. This provides a clear reason for sanctions. Furthermore, the US was lobbied by states that oppose Iran, such are Saudi Arabia and Israel, to place sanctions on them. In contrast, there have been many occasions where it seems rational to place sanctions on a country, but this was not done as it was not in the national self-interest of western nations. A clear illustration of this is Saudi Arabia’s bombing campaign in Yemen flattening towns and cities and resulting in a mass famine. This has been ignored by both Trump and Biden due to Saudi Arabia’s natural resources and close ties with the west. In fact, the US has continued to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia, essentially supporting their human rights violations.

Therefore, the selective sanctions of the west demonstrate that political concerns are more important than human rights, and thus human rights are not the primary driver of western states.

In conclusion, it is evident that the promotion of human rights is not the primary driver of Western states. Rather, it is more often than not the case that human rights have been used as an excuse for underlying political and economic concerns. This is not only the case in humanitarian intervention, but also UN courts and sanctions. The upshot of this is that it seems that pessimistic realist views of states acting in their own best interests, disregarding moral considerations, have been proven correct by history. In contrast, liberal attitudes regarding human rights have only been used as a form of justification and thereby definitely not being the primary driver.