Human Rights in American Foreign Policy by Renouard Joe;

Author:Renouard, Joe;
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: University of Pennsylvania Press
Published: 2015-12-14T16:00:00+00:00

The Carter Legacy

Scholars and pundits still debate several questions about Carter’s human rights policy. Did it improve human rights practices? Was it good for America? How influential was Carter in the larger human rights story, and how influential were Congress, NGOs, and global events? If Carter had never been elected, would human rights practices (or American foreign policy) have suffered, improved, or remained much the same? Activists find much to admire in the Carter administration’s record in international human rights. He took a fledgling movement and helped to institutionalize it. His presidency lent more visibility to the cause and gave hope to the persecuted. Indeed, many dissidents welcomed the support of the American government, even if this was often only rhetorical. When Andrei Sakharov was asked in 1977 if Carter’s position had led the Soviets to increase pressure on dissidents, he answered, “Categorically—no! Repressions are our daily life.”126 Carter’s policy helped restore America’s democratic reputation, and it boosted the morale of activists worldwide.

With respect to Latin America, Carter made a difference in South America but had little effect in Guatemala and El Salvador. “Perhaps nowhere in the world,” concludes Kathryn Sikkink, “was Carter’s human rights policy more forcefully implemented than toward the countries of Latin America’s Southern Cone.”127 Deeply ingrained anticommunism and the State Department’s inertia inhibited the policy’s effectiveness, but as a result of his vigilance—in conjunction with congressional actions and the State Department country reports—various forms of assistance were cut to Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay. American military aid to the region fell from $233.5 million to $54 million between 1976 and 1979. Perhaps more important, disappearances in Argentina and torture in Uruguay and Paraguay declined through a combination of those nations’ changing domestic situations, U.S. policies, and increased international attention.128 In Chile, U.S. pressure played a role in the reduction of torture, disappearances, and political imprisonment. Not only did the Carter administration pressure General Pinochet to release political prisoners, but Chile dissolved the state security apparatus following a visit from Assistant Secretary Todman in 1977. The U.S. embassy also increased its contacts with opposition groups.129

Carter’s supporters could point to Paraguay as a place where the human rights policy got clear results. The long-reigning dictator Alfredo Stroessner, who had ruled his country for more than two decades, was a pariah in Washington. Under Robert White’s ambassadorship, the United States formed contacts with the opposition and intervened to free some dissidents. When Stroessner arrested leaders of Paraguay’s fledgling labor movement, pressure from Washington and international NGOs freed them within two months. Carter also convinced Stroessner to allow a visit from the IACHR, and he expressed willingness to support IADB loans if the dictator showed more signs of restraint.130 Nevertheless, Stroessner remained firmly entrenched in power, and the dictatorships in nearby Argentina, Chile, and Brazil made it easier for him to justify his autocratic methods. Carter’s critics were at least partially correct in arguing that he was tough on Paraguay because the United States had few interests in the small, landlocked nation.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.