ICYMI: McCain Institute’s Corban Teague Op-Ed in Providence Magazine: “Three Principles for Defending Human Rights Amid Great Power Competition”

Americans are right to expect that our human rights policy advances broader national interests. At the same time, we must recognize that these interests should be shaped by America’s founding principles—chief among them, the belief that each person, having been made in the imago Dei, is “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Even Henry Kissinger conceded in his masterpiece Diplomacy that “America would not be true to itself if it did not insist on the universal applicability of the idea of liberty.”

While there is no inherent contradiction between human rights and national interests, the challenge lies in consistently aligning them in practice. Striking the proper balance will always be an art rather than a science. Trade-offs are inescapable, and while human rights should be a high priority, it will never be the sole priority. However, three key principles can help policymakers develop a more realistic and effective human rights strategy.

Emphasizing Civil and Political Rights

First, American human rights policy should emphasize civil and political rights—including the freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, and the press; property rights; and prohibitions against slavery, torture, and arbitrary detention. These fundamental freedoms are rooted in the natural rights owed each person because of their intrinsic, God-given dignity and provide the foundation for flourishing societies. They are at the heart of America’s founding principles and constitutional traditions and enjoy broad support from the American public, something required for any long-term strategy.

Civil and political rights are also prerequisites for the democratic institutions that provide citizens with avenues to safeguard their rights and resolve disputes peacefully. U.S. human rights policy should concentrate on encouraging other governments to respect and protect these civil and political rights so their citizens, guided by their own consciences and values, can engage in genuinely meaningful debate. We also should be prepared to give deference to decisions reached through legitimate democratic processes that respect these fundamental rights. And while we cannot expect every country to become a democracy, even incremental progress on civil and political rights within autocratic regimes can create tangible benefits for individuals and foster a more free and open international system. This approach frees the United States from the untenable burden of remaking the world in our exact image, instead allowing human rights to be a source for greater geopolitical democratic pluralism rather than counterproductive cultural imperialism.

Reconciling Universal Principles with National Sovereignty

Second, sovereign nation-states remain the best avenues for securing these fundamental rights. As Peter Berkowitz rightly noted(Open Link in new window), it is a mistake to suggest that we must choose between universal principles and national sovereignty. American human rights policy should encourage other nations to draw on their own legal traditions, heritage, and religious beliefs to protect the natural rights of their citizens, just as the United States has done. Though some nations like China use sovereignty as an excuse for human rights violations, the problem is not sovereignty itself but its misapplication. National political communities remain more accountable to their citizens than transnational bodies, and decisions should be made as close as possible to those primarily affected.

Grounding human rights diplomacy in sovereign nation-states also puts the United States on firmer diplomatic footing. Rather than attempting to circumvent the security and economic interests of other nations via transnational bodies, which sometimes promote politicized agendas lacking broad support, we should engage in constructive diplomacy that identifies opportunities where strengthening rights works in tandem with other interests. Ultimately, prioritizing steps towards advancing human rights rooted in the unique cultures and traditions of individual nations and consistent with truly universal principles will lead to more durable progress.

Understanding the Threat

Third, the greatest threat to human rights is a world dominated by the revisionist axis of China, Russia, and Iran. Therefore, we must view human rights through the lens of great-power competition. Jakub Grygiel points out(Open Link in new window) that “our rivals do not just oppose our economic or military strength, but are hostile to the principles that underwrite our political order.” If the global balance of power favors the genocidal Chinese Communist Party, Kremlin kleptocrats, and Tehran’s terrorist-supporting ayatollahs, repression will flourish while respect for human dignity suffers.

A major failure of U.S. human rights policy has been focusing on individual instances of rights violations rather than patterns of abuses as part of broader strategic competition. In our worst moments, we were blinded by the false hope that our tyrannical great-power adversaries could be persuaded to share our desire for cooperation on global challenges. As a result, the United States has too often addressed human rights violations at a rate inversely proportionate to the geopolitical power of the offender. President Reagan provides a notable exception by correctly identifying great-power competition against the Soviet Union as the decisive factor on which human rights globally ultimately depended and having a human rights strategy designed to “leave Marxism and Leninism on the ash heap of history.”

Today, as in the Cold War, our ability to defend fundamental rights and freedom depends on the U.S. overcoming our great-power rivals. In recognition of this reality, increasing the size and strength of the military will be essential to any successful human rights strategy. We also must take a nuanced approach toward allies and partners that are not democracies or whose respect for rights is lacking. While we should speak with candor and encourage progress, we must recognize that our allies are less likely to reform if pushed into the arms of China and Russia. Strong alliances are required to prevent our revisionist adversaries from reshaping the global order, which would be totally detrimental to human rights around the world. Additionally, we must be prepared to take the fight to our adversaries, finding ways to expose and exacerbate their internal instabilities (often caused by their repressive policies) to blunt their expansionist efforts.

Conclusion

In the years ahead, U.S. policymakers will face an increasingly complex world where the pursuit of human rights must be balanced against shifting geopolitical realities. Yet, by grounding our human rights strategy in our founding principles, recognizing the importance of national sovereignty, focusing on great-power competition, and acting within our limits, America can once again make human rights a strategic asset rather than a point of friction. We must lead with both moral clarity and strategic foresight and in a manner consistent with our national interest and national character.

As Senator John McCain stated in The Restless Wave, “A world where the human rights of more people in more places are secure is not only a more just world, it’s a safer world. For reasons of basic self-interest we must continue to lead the long, patient effort to make the world freer and more just.”