The Foreign Policy of Human Rights: Rhetoric and Reality from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan

Abstract

Throughout the 1980 presidential campaign, candidate Reagan clearly and sharply criticized the Carter human rights policy, arguing that it was morally unsound, ineffective, and threatening to United States' security interests.' According to the Reagan view, the policy was morally tenuous because it created a double standard, condemning minor human rights violators while overlooking major offenders. It was considered ineffective because it actually reduced United States influence in the targeted nations. Moreover, Carter's policy was said to threaten United States security interests because it seriously undermined regimes which, while imperfect, were at least proWestern. In contrast to Carter, Reagan promised that he would initiate a more realistic human rights program. By avoiding the pitfalls of the Carter policy and properly understanding the moral questions involved, he would enact a policy that was both ethically sound and politically effective. This paper will first examine the enunciated principles and rationale for the Reagan human rights policy. This will be followed by a comparison of the Reagan and Carter policies as reflected by their distributions of United States foreign assistance. Specifically, we will examine whether the two administrations followed congressional guidelines that mandate a link between United States foreign assistance and the human rights records of recipient