Human Rights and Interests in Trump's Foreign Policy Discourse: Based on the US Department of State's Human Rights Reports

Document Type : Original Independent Original Article

Author

• Hossein Karimifard

Associate Prof. Political Science, Ahvaz Branch Department, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran

Abstract

Highlights

Introduction

The United States Department of State published the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for the first time in 1977, in which this country’s human rights issues were not addressed. Countries receiving critical reports have denounced the authority the U.S. government has given itself in its human rights reports. Nonetheless, the records are not only exploited in U.S. diplomacy and foreign policy, but also widely used by human rights organizations or as a corpus for academic studies. In addition to influencing the U.S. policy, they impact global discourses of human rights as well as the state and non-state actors’ orientations. These reports cover elements such as the respect for civil liberties, the right to participate in political affairs, corruption and lack of transparency in the government, discrimination, social abuse, human trafficking, government’s stance on international and non-state reports on alleged human rights violations, and the labor rights. This research focuses on “executive summaries” of human rights reports by the U.S. Department of State, and examines the language and the discourse used to refer to actors such as China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. These actors are selected from U.S. allies, rivals, and opponents in order to investigate the relationship between these reports and the U.S. policies and interests.

Methodology

This research used descriptive, interpretive, and explanatory methods, and focused on the original text (Human rights reports by the U.S. Department of State about Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel published from 2017 to 2020) as well as its hegemonic concepts and implications. An analyst is a selector too, who both picks the sentences of the text and discovers those in line with the next analyses. In other words, an interaction is made between the text and the interpreter’s mentality — between the text objectivity and the interpreter’s subjectivity. This research aimed at qualitatively analyzing the human rights reports by the U.S. Department of State about China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel published from 2017 to 2020, drawing on the text and its context. This was a comparative analysis in which the countries were selected based on their different relations with the United States.

Results and discussion

The general structure of human rights reports by the U.S. Department of State is the same as to the layout and the indices mentioned. However, the U.S. considerations, interests, and policies are observed in the content of the text. The results are outlined as follows:

• Emphasis on universality and exceptionalism in American human rights: American approach to human rights is based on “humanism”, “individualism”, and “self-defense” against “political power”, highlighting the priority of civil and political rights. The U.S. does not appreciate the culture, values, and norms of other countries. Thus, it evaluates the status of human rights in them based on the above criteria.
• Impact of geopolitical issues on human rights reports: The human rights reports by the U.S. Department of State about China cover Hong Kong, Macao, and in next reports, Tibet. Taiwan is listed separately with an exclusive report. It seems that this is due to geopolitical competition for power between the U.S. and China.
• Strategic issues and the U.S. human rights reports: These reports mention the military activities of different countries such as Iran, Russia, and Saudi Arabia in Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, etc. In other words, the U.S. Department of State has considered human rights according to geopolitical interests. It has investigated Russia’s military activities in Ukraine and its violation of human rights. It has not, however, looked into Russia’s color revolution, encouragement of Westernizers, and NATO expansion to the east. Moreover, it has considered Iran’s activities in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq, while not pointing out the reason of this involvement, i.e. combating terrorism (ISIS).
• Apoliticism: Overvaluing Mohammed bin Salman’s reforms and undervaluing human rights violations in Saudi Arabia: In its human rights report in 2020 about Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Department of State appreciated Mohammed bin Salman’s social reforms and considered them positive steps. However, not much attention was paid to human rights violations in this country, among which we can refer to the killing of political dissidents such as Jamal Khashoggi who was killed by Saudi agents in the Consulate of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in Istanbul. This led to mass protests by countries and human rights organizations. The U.S. human rights reports in 2018 and 2019 mentioned the killing of Khashoggi, but did not take any stance on the subject.
• The relationship between text representation and the U.S. positioning is another remarkable point in these reports. In other words, through a hegemonic power, the U.S. has entitled itself to evaluate the status of human rights in other countries based on the constitution and the liberal model of political, cultural, and economic developments. On the other hand, the United States during Trump’s presidency used to systematically pursue racist policies in different arenas. Among the main indicators of Trump’s policy, we can refer to Muslim ban, nationalism, and empowerment of white people.

Conclusion

The human rights subjects discussed by the U.S. Department of State during Trump’s presidency result from the hegemonic discourse of the country, and are not raised independently. The human rights reports by the U.S. Department of State about actors such as China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel are changed into a subject of the hegemonic discourse. These reports serve to represent concepts and implications in which other countries are rendered as an object differing from the U.S. The text and the language used in the U.S. human rights reports about different countries are laid out by its macro-political discourse and ideology. The texts are purposive, having a specific political and ideological orientation. They introduce the concept of “insiders vs. outsiders” or “allies vs. others”, facilitating the U.S. national interests and foreign policies. These reports connote linguistic, political, ideological, and social notions.

Keywords

• Human Rights Report
• US Department of State
• Iran
• Saudi Arabia
• Russia
• Israel
• China

Main Subjects

• North America
• Human Rights Declaration
• United Stats of America
• Human Rights
• Foreign Policy
• Great Powers