Who Gets the Guns? How Democratic Values and Security Threats Affect American Attitudes Toward Military Aid

The paper examines the allocation of economic as well as military aid from the United States (US) to Israel and investigates whether the US has ever linked its aid to human rights performance in case of the Jewish State. In doing so, the paper explores US foreign aid policies in the light of US Congressional legislation enacted in 1974, which aimed at linking the provision of US aid to human rights performance of aid recipient governments. An assessment of US foreign aid policies illustrates that the US has rarely acted upon such legislation in letter and spirit to terminate or restrict aid to governments involved in violation of the globally recognized human rights. Focusing on US bilateral aid policies during three distinct periods: the Cold War, the post-Cold War and the ‘war on terror’; this study shows that instead of linking aid to respect for human rights in the case of Israel, the US has rather authorized more aid to the Jewish State despite the latter's dismal record of human rights performance. The paper illustrates that the provision of US aid is not inspired by the promotion of democracy, liberty and human rights in aid-receiving states. The study concludes that when US foreign policy goals including political, security and geo-strategic interests are at stake, human rights are not significant dynamics behind US aid distribution to Israel or any other US strategic partners.

The principles of Mexico's foreign policy remained essentially unchanged during the Cold War and into the early post-Cold War period. The most vigorous discussion concerning change-or even rupture-in Mexican foreign policy were prompted by the negotiations for the North American free trade agreement (NAFTA), and Mexico's internal political opening towards the end of the 1990s. This paper will examine Mexican policy towards Cuba and Haiti to assess the extent of change and continuity in Mexican foreign policy in a post-Cold War and post-September nth context.For some time during the 1990s, Mexican governments resisted international trends towards the active promotion of democracy and human rights, although they enthusiastically endorsed goals such as economic liberalization and free trade. In time, however, Mexican governments recognized they could no longer ignore the importance of democracy and human rights, not only because of the influence of the international agenda, but also because of rapid social and political transformations domestically. Thus, as President Vicente Fox took office in 2000, the promotion of democracy and human rights became a key element in Mexico's foreign policy and the discussion about Mexican foreign policy change deepened. As a country that had traditionally defended the principle of non-intervention and the right to self-determination, Mexico was now taking forceful positions in favour of democracy and respect of human rights everywhere in the world. The two cases examined here, Cuba and Haiti, are related to Mexico's attitude towards international politics. The promotion of democracy and human rights was a consideration in Mexican policy towards both Cuba and Haiti, and yet its approach differed significantly in each case. With respect to Cuba, Mexican policy changed significantly from what it had been since 1959 by including an explicit position in favour of the adoption of democracy and the protection of human rights in Cuba. In other words, the Mexican government has taken a stand for political change in Cuba, thereby leaving aside principles such as non-intervention and the right to self-determination. This policy, coupled with Cuba's resistance to change, led to a deterioration in bilateral relations not seen since the Cuban revolution.The Haitian case, on the other hand, illustrates the limits of Mexico's support for democracy and human rights abroad. The Mexican government agreed on the need to encourage democracy and the protection of human rights in Haiti through multilateral mechanisms, but rejected the use of force and refused to join United Nations efforts to stabilize Haiti. Thus, the Cuban case illustrates change in Mexican foreign policy whereas the Haitian case reflects continuity. In both cases, Mexico acted in accordance with a regional agenda that privileged democracy and human rights but, as this paper will argue, only when domestic circumstances benefited from it.REGIONAL SECURITY, DEMOCRACY, AND THE UNITED STATESThe 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks have been taken as the end of the post-Cold War era and the beginning of the antiterror era. Although they did not mean a complete rupture in the international structure and dynamics-international politics is always composed of a series of continuities and changes-the terrorist attacks did give a more specific meaning to the idea of a security threat in US foreign policy.As US foreign policy did not have a clear regional enemy or security threat once the Soviet bloc disintegrated and Nicaragua and El Salvador joined most Latin American countries in embracing democracy, issues such as drug trafficking and organized crime were given an important position in the US foreign policy agenda, and were even considered security threats not only to the United States, but to the region as a whole. This did not occur in a straightforward way, however, with all hemispheric countries agreeing on a new security agenda. …

The Inter-American Human Rights System and U.S.-Latin America Relations

Scholars disagree about the determinants of U.S. foreign policy instruments. According to realpolitik, security interests determine the outcome of U.S. decisions on arms transfers. Neo-liberals counter that respect for human rights and democratic governance are important in U.S. foreign policy. The objective of this study is to assess whether human rights and democracy are significant determinants in the decision to transfer arms abroad. Focusing on U.S. arms exports to developing countries for the years 1990 through 1994, 1 use modified Heckman model to take into account two-stage decision-making process. The findings indicate that in the initial decisionmaking stage, human rights and democracy are important determinants of the eligibility of countries to receive arms. In the second stage, democracy is significant, though human rights no longer affect the decision on the amount of arms to be transferred. any view the coming of the twenty-first century as a critical turning point in history wherein Western democracies have ( an opportunity to shape the political nature of our (Diamond 1992, 27). Along these lines, the United States endorsed the promotion of liberal democracy as cornerstone of its foreign policy. Thus, the Bush administration called for new world order characterized by freedom and justice, and the Clinton administration sought to enlarge the global democratic community. To what extent are the instruments of U.S. foreign policy used in manner consistent with proliberalization rhetoric? I address this question by exaimining the degree to which U.S. practices on arms exports mirror its professed concern with human rights and democracy. If this rhetoric is sincere, the conditions of human rights and democracy in recipient countries should be related to patterns of U.S. arms transfers abroad. This intent is embodied in legislation such as the proposed Code of Conduct that would constrain the export of U.S. arms to those countries that, among other things, respect human rights and have democratic form of government. Such efforts are based on the belief that the U.S. responsibility to protect human rights, promote democracy, and take the lead in reducing regional arms races throughout the world. They are also linked to the premise that since democracies do not go to war with each other (ONeal et al. 1996; Maoz and Russett 1993), exporting arms only to democracies reduces the likelihood of the boomerang effect.' Furthermore, as U.S. funds are used to subsidize many arms sales through foreign aid and off-set agreements (Neuman 1985), policymakers find it harder publicly to justify such arrangements when the recipient abuses human rights or is nondemocratic. Critics contend that these goals are disregarded in practice. In the postCold War period, the United States has subverted human rights to commercial concerns (Wheat 1995, 16; see also Hartung 1995). In period

This dissertation aims to investigate the sources of United States (US) foreign policy toward Azerbaijan by examining the relative impact of domestic, geostrategic and structural factors in explaining US foreign policy toward the country. Azerbaijan is one of the newly independent states that emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Despite its small size, the country’s strategic location, vast oil and natural gas reserves, and its conflict with Armenia over the Nagorno- Karabakh region elevated its importance and made Azerbaijan the center of interest for great powers. As the sole superpower after the end of the Cold War, the US has largely followed a unilateral foreign policy agenda. US foreign policy toward the South Caucasus in general, and Azerbaijan in particular, has been marked by inconsistencies, and by a lack of coordination and an unwillingness to take the initiative in crucial issue areas. Most importantly, experts have observed several important shifts in US policy toward Azerbaijan. These shifts can be conceptualized as critical junctures as they represent fundamental changes in the orientation of US policy. The dissertation is focused on these critical junctures as they relate to four main issue areas: the political economy of oil, the security partnership, economic reforms, and human rights. Why did the US disengage from Caspian energy issues after the successful completion of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline? Why did the US lose its commitment to Azerbaijani security, including the peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? Why did the US grow unhappy about the investment climate in Azerbaijan in the 2000s? Why did the Obama administration decide to shift to a “human rights policy” toward Baku, despite two decades of neglect of such issues by the Clinton and Bush Administrations? This dissertation follows a chronological format and analyzes the sources of US foreign policy towards Azerbaijan in three time periods: 1991-2001, 2002-2007, and 2008-2015.

The purpose of this study is to identify and explain recent US human rights policy in the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs). Foreign aid, whether distributed directly (bilateral aid) or indirectly through multilateral institutions such as the MDBs, is one of several tools through which the USA furthers its human rights policy. Several studies show the conflicted human rights policies the USA pursues with bilateral aid, but very few examine the role of human rights in US multilateral aid policy. It is this deficit that the present study addresses by examining what factors determine how the USA votes on proposals before the Executive Board in the various MDBs. Using a multinomial logistic regression model I test whether US votes in the MDBs are conditioned on recipient countries’ respect for human rights along with other strategic interest variables. The study finds that respect for political rights has an important role in determining US votes in the MDBs although much of the impact is accounted for by votes specifically against China. Conversely, respect for rights of personal integrity do not have an impact on US voting. Level of economic development and whether the country receives military aid from the USA are also important determinants of US votes, as well as the level of trade between the USA and the recipient country.

Presidential Power, the Panay Incident, and the Defeat of the Ludlow Amendment

Foreign policy is an integral part of international relations. This study examines the United States (US) foreign policy towards Jordan from 1990 to 2017 since the period witnessed important regional and international political events that significantly impacted the US foreign policy. These events have the greatest impact on the development of relations between the two countries in terms of political and security aspects. The study looks at four political events and their impacts on Jordanian-American relations from the political and security aspects. Therefore, the objectives of this study are to examine the US foreign policy towards Jordan from the political and security aspects. This study adopted the qualitative approach. The primary data were collected from interviews while the secondary data were obtained from books, journals, theses, newspapers, seminar papers, articles and other documents. In this study, 16 respondents from political, economic and security experts in Jordan and the US were selected for semi-structured interviews. The study employed Thematic Analysis in analysing the data obtained. This study adopted the neo-realism theory as a theoretical framework. This study found that the US foreign policy recognizes Jordan as a close ally and considers its stability very important. The US foreign policy was seen slightly negative towards Jordan during the Iraqi War on Kuwait in 1990. However, the Wadi Araba peace treaty between Jordan and Israel in 1994 had promoted positive US foreign policy towards Jordan. This policy was slightly weakened in 2017 due to the transfer of the US Embassy to Jerusalem. Certain political events play an important role in the US foreign policy regarding security aid towards Jordan. The study found that the US foreign policy provides security support to Jordan to protect Israel, spread American ideology and fight against its enemy. This research also found that Jordan has a suitable location to defend Israel because the country is surrounded by important Arab countries. The US links its aids to Jordan due to political events. Accordingly, the study recommends the necessity for the Jordanian state to increase its influential economic alliances at the international level. In addition, Jordanian policy must be redrawn in line with international realities to pressure the US to make Jordan play an active role in the region and international arena. Jordan should better use its geographical location to achieve international cooperation and enhance Arab security as a barrier against Israel.

Issues in Australian Foreign Policy January to June 2022

Reviewed by: Reagan, Congress, and Human Rights: Contesting Morality in US Foreign Policy by Rasmus Sinding Søndergaard Aryeh Neier (bio) Rasmus Sinding Søndergaard, Reagan, Congress, and Human Rights: Contesting Morality in US Foreign Policy (Cambridge University Press, 2022), ISBN 9781108495639 (hard-back), 324 pages. Rasmus Sinding Søndergaard, a Danish historian teaching at a Swedish university, has written an excellent account of the way that the United States Congress, through its struggles in the 1980s with the Reagan Administration, helped to make the promotion of international human rights an important ongoing component of American foreign policy. His book, Reagan, Congress, and Human Rights: Contesting Morality in US Foreign Policy, is deeply researched. To one who was a close observer and participant in those struggles as they were taking place, Søndergaard’s highly detailed reporting seems flawless. Most of his judgments seem well-considered and fair. And yet, despite his book’s many virtues, it appears to me that Søndergaard has told only part of the story. It was not only struggles with Congress during the Reagan years that led to an ongoing American commitment to promote human rights. It was also the focus on human rights reporting in the mainstream American press during that period and the emergence of an array of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) dedicated to the human rights cause. The press coverage and the lobbying by NGOs complemented and contributed to the efforts of those members of Congress who were at the forefront of disputes with the Reagan administration. In turn, of course, the battles waged by members of Congress provided material for press attention to human rights, and NGOs built their constituencies by mobilizing their supporters around struggles in Congress. Before the 1970s, the international human rights cause did not attract much attention. It was rarely an issue in the US Congress. Press coverage was scarce. And a civil society movement to promote human rights barely existed. Amnesty International had been founded in 1961, but while it caught on in a few European countries, it had only a small following in the United States. Also, in those days, it restricted its activities to very few issues. Its main activity was to identify “prisoners of conscience” in a number of countries and to organize letter-writing campaigns for them. All of this changed in the 1970s because human rights became a focal point in the Cold War struggle. The most important developments were the emergence of a small dissident movement, quickly subjected to harsh repression in Moscow, at the heart of the Soviet empire; a military coup that was accompanied by extensive torture and killings that overthrew a democratically elected leftist government in Chile; and large scale protests against the Apartheid government in South Africa that were violently suppressed. The geopolitical alignments of the governments engaged in repression became a central part of the story. Some reacted to abuses because of their political sympathies for certain victims of repression. Others were insistent that all such abuses should be condemned and that human rights should be upheld regardless of Cold War alignments. [End Page 157] A member of Congress who responded to the human rights developments in different parts of the world was Representative Donald Fraser of Minnesota. He conducted hearings on those developments and was the principal author of legislation that would change the way the United States Department of State would deal with human rights. Fraser’s legislation mandated the creation of the post of Assistant Secretary for Human Rights, provided that the Department would issue annual “country reports” on the human rights practices of governments worldwide, and prohibited security aid to governments that had practiced gross abuses of rights. The latter provision was seen as a repudiation of the role of Henry Kissinger in facilitating the military coup in 1973 that brought General Augusto Pinochet to power in Chile. The legislation was vetoed by President Gerald Ford, for whom Kissinger served as Secretary of State. It was adopted by Congress over Ford’s veto. An essential part of the process that secured the votes needed to override Ford’s veto is that the legislation won the support of right-wing members of...

BOOK REVIEWS 179 ofLatin America. This theme would have added a more personal, human dimension tothebook thatismissing—howdidLatin Americansfeeltowardsthe Commission? Did the presence of the Commission empower the citizens of each country? After all, both systems were developed for the victims of human rights abuses. Insight from such individuals is often forgotten and is in dire need. These criticisms aside, Mower's book is a thoughtful, contextual comparison ofboth regional organizations. Exporting Democracy: Fulfilling America's Destiny. By Joshua Muravchik. The AEI Press, The American Enterprise Institute: Washington, D.C, 1991. 258 pp. 1991. Reviewed by Jennifer A. Lind, SAIS MA., 1992. The end of the Cold War has allowed democracy to flourish in much of what was its central battleground: Eastern Europe. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, many ofthe former Warsaw Pact countries have already held internationally monitored, free and fair elections. The Third World, however, will pose a much more difficult challenge to those who strive to establish pluralist political institutions in undemocratic states. Many Third World governments are increasingly vulnerable to domestic pressures to reform their political and economic systems. However, the sudden end of superpower rivalry has left former recipients of American and Soviet aid without the funds to secure their power base. Democracies are not created quickly or easily: they require stable institutions and processes such as electoral and constitutional codes, a free press, voter protection laws, civil rights legislation, and an impartial judicial system. The United States is currently in a unique position to encourage the success of this worldwide wave of democracies. Exporting Democracy, by Joshua Muravchik, is a counter-revisionist account ofAmerican foreign policy since 1945. According to Muravchik, U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War was aimed not only at the containment ofcommunist aggression through military deterrence, but also at the suppression and annihilation of communist ideology through the promotion of democratic ideals. He argues that the peaceful end of this fifty year old rivalry was America's greatest triumph. Muravchik's thesis is that democracy is the "natural centerpiece" ofAmerican foreign policy. He takes his argument one step further, suggesting that U.S. purposes are not only morally justified, but that they also coincide with its national interest. He draws two conclusions from the relationship between democracy and American foreign policy. First, the spread ofdemocracy would create a world more congenial to the U.S. since democracies are both pro-peace and pro-American. Second, as the world's leading example of democracy, the U.S. would gain support for both its domestic and international policies more easily. For these reasons, the author argues that post-Cold War American foreign policy should be based on democratic principles. Exporting Democracy clearly challenges the traditional realist notion that international relations are determined by independent states pursuing national self-interest. Muravchik begins by stating his case as to why promotion ofdemocracy is the centerpiece ofAmerican foreign policy. Placed in the context ofAmerican diplomatic history, Muravchik's argument refutes realism, neo-realism and ideal- 180 SAIS REVIEW ism as doctrines that underestimate the role ofideology in policy-making. Specific examples of how the promotion ofdemocracy entered into American foreign policy during the Cold War, however, are not offered. The author devotes considerable attention to the likelihood that democracy will spread across large parts ofthe globe, notwithstanding significant differences in history, culture, and levels of industrial development. The U.S. has contributed to this trend in a variety of ways, including the military occupations of Germany, Japan, and the Philippines, the conduct of covert action in Eastern Europe and the Third World, and the rendering of economic assistance to under-developed countries. Muravchik, however, misjudges the extent to which these policies were motivated by the goal ofspreading democracy. Although moral considerations were not irrelevant to policy formulation, U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War was primarily concerned with its strategic and economic interests. The text concludes with the notion that in order to make democracy the centerpiece ofits foreign policy, the U.S. should simply increase its support for newly democratic and democratizing countries through diplomatic, military, and economic assistance. Muravchik's conclusion is weakened by his failure to specify how...

In this review, we explain how human rights research can inform the study of foreign policy analysis (FPA), namely by surveying where certain foreign policy actions (sanctions, military intervention, foreign aid) can help or harm human rights outcomes and showing how action by external non-state actors may motivate domestic respect for human rights. Evidence shows this is especially likely when international civil society effectively frames an issue. A review of published work further reveals that respect for human rights lowers the risk of war and terrorism. We also consider how FPA research can influence the study of human rights, focusing on the effects of state identity on domestic and foreign policy and the feedback loop between domestic and international norms. Research further indicates that non-state actors, especially non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the public, and the media, play a role in defining appropriate foreign policies related to human rights.

Reviewed by: From Selma to Moscow: How Human Rights Activists Transformed U.S. Foreign Policy Sarah B. Snyder Debbie Sharnak (bio) Sarah B. Snyder From Selma to Moscow: How Human Rights Activists Transformed U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Columbia University Press, 2018), ISBN, 978-0-231-16947-9, 320 pages. The history of human rights, perhaps surprisingly, emerged relatively recently as a field of scholarly inquiry.1 Historians began publishing widely on the topic only in the past decade and, as historian Barbara Keys noted, scholars of US foreign relations have been "among the most avid" contributors to fill the void in this burgeoning field.2 Sarah Snyder became one such pioneer in 2011 when she published her first book, Human Rights Activism and the End of the Cold War: A Transnational History of the Helsinki Network.3 In that volume, Snyder examines how non-state actors used the passage of the Helsinki Act of 1975 to promote a human rights agenda as a central element in East-West diplomacy, which helped lead to the end of the Cold War. In her latest book, From Selma to Moscow: How Human Rights Activists Transformed U.S. Foreign Policy, Snyder looks again to nonstate actors to examine how human rights emerged—this time as a central part of the US foreign policymaking apparatus. Eschewing claims from Samuel Moyn in The Last Utopia that human rights' true rise can be traced to the 1970s, Snyder is part of a group of historians, which includes Steven L.B Jensen and Roland Burke, who are looking to the 1960s to locate the origins of [End Page 527] modern human rights.4 While Jensen and Burke are more concerned with global events in their analyses of the earlier decade, the former examining the impact of decolonization and the latter looking to the terminal years of liberal postcolonialism, Snyder focuses on how US nonstate actors and low level diplomats played a pivotal role in bringing human rights to the forefront of US policymaking, and how their actions continues to have lasting relevance. With this project, Snyder contests the prevailing emphasis on Jimmy Carter's presidential anointment that "our commitment to human rights must be absolute" to locate when human rights had finally arrived on the US foreign policy scene. Instead, Snyder shows how a diverse set of activists, missionaries, academics, and bureaucrats laid the groundwork for Carter's inaugural claims in the "long 1960s"—a period she defines as John F. Kennedy's inauguration in 1961 through the end of Gerald Ford's presidency in January 1977. By investigating various actors' personal connections, racial identity, and transnational ties in a diverse set of ideological and geographical case studies, she argues that the long 1960s set the stage for the "institutionalization of human rights in US foreign policy and the expansion of human rights activism" in subsequent decades.5 In reexamining the temporal origins of human rights in US foreign policy, Snyder also points to an important geographic shift that occurred, which re-centered human rights activism in the US from New York to Washington DC in the 1960s. As Snyder explains, this change is significant because it shows how activists who cared about global rights stopped appealing to the United Nations and foreign governments to advocate for moral claims abroad. Instead, their frustration and disillusionment with a UN-centered approach led them to see the US as an important arbiter that could marshal its power in support of human rights to effect change. These two important historiographical contributions are illustrated through diverse emblematic case studies. Chapter one examines how human rights became an issue in US-Soviet relations. According to Snyder, pressure on the US foreign policy establishment arose from personal ties—particularly Soviet-Jewish connections—that led to the formation of NGOs, student groups, and mass demonstrations around the issue. This mobilization ended in Senator Henry Jackson's push to pass the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which limited trade with communist countries that restricted freedom of emigration and other human rights abuses. In Chapter Two, Snyder focuses on Africa, studying American activism against Southern Rhodesia's minority-ruled, racially discriminatory government. In this context, US citizens...

T Carter Administration has given human rights issues high priority, in American foreign policy. During the past two and a half years, the United States has taken the leading role in the international financial institutions in voting against loans to human rights violators and has restructured its bilateral aid programme to Latin America so as to reward nations with good human rights records and punish those with poor records. U.S. security assistance has been eliminated or reduced to countries where there is no perceived security interest. However, the President has found that the inevitable tension between idealism and realism in foreign policy means that considerations other than human rights are repeatedly given priority. For example, the Carter Administration generally has not linked levels of military and economic aid to human rights with respect to those countries considered important to American security interests, such as South Korea and the Philippines. Critics have inferred from this that President Carter's human rights policy is concentrated on strategically and economically inconsequential countries. As one writer noted: The Carter Administration runs the risk of dividing the world into two categories: countries unimportant enough to be hectored about human rights and countries important enough to get away with murder.

The article is exploring issues related to the protection of fundamental freedoms and human rights as values on which the European Union (hereinafter referred to as the EU) is built. It is established that securing the values on which the EU is built is part of the rights-based approach as well as a prerequisite for the further development of EU interstate relations with other countries, including Ukraine. It is noted that the application of the rights-based approach means that the EU and the EU Member States will deepen cooperation only with those countries which profess respect for democratic principles, human rights and fundamental freedoms in their foreign and domestic policies. It is established that the rights-based approach encapsulates the principles and standards of human rights protection both as means and as a goal of cooperation for development. It is noted that by signing on March 21, 2014, the political part, and on June 27, 2014, the economic part of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union, the success of political association and economic integration with the EU will depend on progress in the implementation of this Agreement, as well as on achievements made by Ukraine in ensuring respect for the EU’s common values and their proper implementation. The preamble to the Agreement emphasizes importance of "respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms" among the list of its main values. In order to follow the provisions of the Association Agreement, Ukraine has declared mutual respect for the common values of the EU, in particular those related to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and has undertaken to integrate them properly in its foreign and domestic policies. The legal acts of Ukraine adopted for this purpose are analyzed. It is noted that despite the formal consolidation of human rights policy in Ukraine, its effective implementation in practice, in particular through consolidation of efforts with the EU, becomes particularly important. Key indicators taken into account by the EU in assessing Ukrainian progress in ensuring fundamental freedoms and human rights are analyzed as well. The overall conclusion is made that by signing the Association Agreement, Ukraine has declared mutual respect for the common values of the EU, in particular those related to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and pledged to integrate them properly in its foreign and domestic policies. However, without strong democratic traditions, a stable legal system and a real understanding of importance of these values for state building, human rights and fundamental freedoms may be secured properly when and only when not just individual laws but the entire political system of the state is formed around their observance.