The perils of unprincipled foreign policy

‘Naïve.’ ‘Unrealistic.’ ‘Ignorant.’ These are some of the kinder terms commonly used to describe human rights campaigners, who advocate that countries should take principled stands in designing their foreign policy initiatives. It is alleged — and often unquestioningly accepted — that such do-gooders just don’t understand the intricacies of modern-day international affairs. Values, and ideologies and ethics are all well and good in the abstract, but realpolitik is the order of the day. Get on board, or get out of the way.

It is easy to dismiss such activists as unsophisticated rubes, because frequently, their methodologies are unpolished and their language is imprecise. But such disdain by policymakers is mistaken — and many governments would do well to incorporate human rights groups’ concerns into their larger strategic planning, if for no other reason than to calculate self-interest. It will save them complications and embarrassment in the long-term.

One need look no farther than Russia’s present adventures in southern Ukraine to see a textbook example of the perils of unprincipled foreign policy. Vladimir Putin has never pretended to be an ardent defender of human rights, nor a strong believer in democratic processes. His tenure at the top of Russian politics has seen at least one rigged presidential election, the jailing of political dissidents and the murders of several independent journalists. Despite this, several European Union (EU) member states have made the decision to receive 100 per cent of their natural gas supplies from Russia. This is notable primarily because the oft-trumpeted ‘core values’ of the EU include democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. Other energy supply options were surely available — they are undoubtedly more expensive and would require laborious infrastructure changes, but they exist. The decision to choose economic expediency over human rights has left the EU rather red-faced in response to Russia’s current expansionist policies. The problem with engaging with an unreliable dictator is that there is just no telling when they will act unreliably, or in a dictatorial manner.

The crisis in Crimea is the most contemporary example of monumental miscalculation by Western governments, but others abound. The US is famous for its shifting alliances and propping up of unsavoury regimes, only to be forced later to confront them when things deteriorate. In this respect, Uganda comes to mind as a partner the US may wish it had not so vociferously supported. President Museveni was once lauded as part of a ‘new generation’ of African leaders, but has since weathered allegations of widespread political improprieties, launched armed incursions into neighbouring states and severely restricted the operation of civil society. At a time when public opinion in the US is inexorably moving in the opposite direction, America’s political leadership may want to rethink the nearly $500 million it gives to Uganda in bilateral assistance, or at least, ensure that the money comes with some strings attached.

States and international organisations do not have much choice in deciding whom to engage with regard to inter-governmental affairs. The leader of a country — whether chosen diplomatically, by birthright, or a coup — is the interlocutor they must deal with on a whole host of issues not related to human rights, including border security, drug-trafficking, terrorism, weapons proliferation, and economic and trade matters. Principled foreign policy decisions need not equate to idealistic, cloistered foreign policy decisions. But in those areas where engagement can be influenced by human rights concerns, it should be. Even if it’s more expensive. Even if it’s less politically expedient.

There are those who would protest that Western values are not shared by all countries, who would argue that innumerable cultural, religious and ethnic considerations trump human rights considerations. This is certainly a realistic assessment of current practice. But there are states for whom a foreign policy influenced by human rights is possible, and many of them are in the geo-political West. If Western countries won’t uphold Western values, who will?

Published in The Express Tribune, March 13^th, 2014.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.