Hegemonic Nature of US Human Right Diplomacy

The recent release of the US State Department's 2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices has sparked criticism from several countries, including Mexico, Vietnam, and Cambodia. The Mexican President, Lopez Obrador, dismissed the report as "worthless" and "violative of international law," while Vietnamese and Cambodian officials accused the US of bias and double standards.

The annual human rights report, which the US government has been producing since the 1970s, is intended to promote democracy and human rights worldwide. It is compiled by the State Department based on intelligence gathered by US embassies worldwide, as well as reports from NGOs, the media, and other sources. The report provides a detailed assessment of the human rights records of each country, including any significant developments or challenges over the past year, and makes recommendations for improving the human rights situation.

However, the coverage and level of detail in the report often depend on the US's relationship with the country or region in question. The report may be more focused on human rights issues in countries that are US rivals or have tense relations with the US, while highlighting positive progress and developments in US allies or partner countries, such as NATO members. Many countries criticize this approach as a form of hegemony, arguing that the motivation behind the report is more about US geopolitical advantage than genuine concern for the rights and freedoms of people worldwide.

The US is aware of this criticism, but it continues to pursue its human rights diplomacy. In a leaked memo to the media in 2017, senior State Department official Brian Hook argued that the US should use human rights, democracy, and freedom as tools to pressure and compete with its enemies.

The deeper reason for US human rights diplomacy may be traced to its core guiding principle of exceptionalism. Exceptionalism is the guiding principle that shapes the US's national identity and foreign policy. It is a "moral superiority" that believes the US is a "City upon a Hill" built by the "chosen people" (Puritan colonizers). This "moral superiority" became closely linked to the US's rapid economic and military power in the 19th century. In 1823, US President James Monroe introduced the Monroe Doctrine, which claimed that the US had a "special responsibility" to regulate affairs in the Western Hemisphere (primarily referring to the Americas). In the 20th century, US exceptionalism continued to evolve in response to global changes. In the aftermath of World War II, the US saw itself as the leader of the free world and the defender of democracy against totalitarianism.

US human rights diplomacy is part of this exceptionalist tradition, which seeks to promote democracy and human rights as universal values. However, its selective approach has made it vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy and double standards. The US's pursuit of human rights diplomacy is driven not only by a desire to promote these values but also by a belief in its own moral superiority and geopolitical interests. As such, it is important for the US to acknowledge the criticisms of its approach and strive for greater consistency and objectivity in its human rights reporting.

(Contributed by Tian Li, assistant researcher at the Human Right Research Center of Shandong University)