India, China, Saudi Arabia: Grappling with Human Rights Violators in a Complex World

Right now, the U.S. can best maximize human freedom by effectively managing the great power rivalries with China and Russia and getting its own house in order

The debate over how the United States should execute its international relations with countries that are illiberal and chronic human rights violators is nothing new.  But the recent visit of Narendra Modi to Washington, meetings between Secretary of State Blinken and top Chinese officials including President Xi Jinping, and a deal between the Professional Golfers Association and Saudi Arabia’s public investment fund has brought this tricky issue to the forefront of the national conversation. With Freedom House marking the 17th year in a row that liberal democracy has declined around the world and the Biden Administration having made the protection of democracy at home and abroad a centerpiece of its agenda, this issue is even more urgent, but also more fraught with difficulty, than ever.

It would be nice if the United States could be an outspoken advocate for human rights and democracy in all cases and in all instances, but the reality is that doing so is unfortunately not in our national interest and is probably not the most effective way to advance human freedom.

There are many reasons for this.

First, we live in a multipolar world.  The times when the threat of American economic sanctions or being cut off from U.S. military protection were tools that could be used to effectively shape state behavior -- if they ever existed -- are surely over.  States have choices. India is a prime example. It has a longstanding relationship with Russia that it chooses to maintain.  China is India’s largest trading partner. Allying with the U.S. is an attractive proposition for India for security and economic reasons, but not if the price, in its view, is too high. We also have to accept that our influence, while still substantial, is diminished. The failures in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown the limits of the U.S.’s massive military might. And decades of economic sanctions against North Korea, Iran, and Cuba have borne little fruit. While we can lecture states on their democratic shortcomings, most can ignore these entreaties and suffer few meaningful consequences.

Second, defending and spreading liberal democracy is an important national goal, but not our highest priority.  If Biden were given the choice of either having India increase press freedoms and rights for its Muslim minority or reduce its oil, coal and fertilizer purchases from Russia that are helping to fund the war in Ukraine, surely Biden would opt for the latter.  As much as we value democracy promotion and human rights, these values have to compete with other vital interests like supporting Ukraine’s war effort, countering China, tackling climate change, and opening markets for American exports to create jobs. The members of Congress who boycotted Modi’s speech to protest his horrible human rights record have the luxury of taking the absolutist position that “we must never sacrifice human rights at the altar of political expediency.” But those who shape and implement U.S. foreign policy do not.  (And it is worth pointing out that the members who boycotted the Modi speech have conducted official visits in the past couple of years to El Salvador (Freedom House score: (58),Guatemala (49), Honduras (48) and Mexico (60) – all of which have lower Freedom House scores than India (66)). 

Finally, our ability to advocate for democracy and human rights has been tarnished by our own human rights record and the erosion of our own democracy, with the U.S. Freedom House score dropping from 93 in 2013 to 83 in 2023. The excesses of the global war on terror such as the CIA interrogation program, prisoner abuse in Iraq, and the Guantanamo debacle have compromised our reputation. Countries around the world have watched carefully as the U.S. has struggled with issues of racial justice, seemingly unable to prevent police killings of people of color across the country. They also see a country awash in firearms and victimized by mass shootings, but a democracy that is incapable of dealing effectively with these problems. America is denying women control over their reproductive and health care decisionmaking at a time when even deeply Catholic countries like Columbia and Ireland have moved in the opposite direction on abortion access. And, of course, the world witnessed a U.S. president refuse to accept the results of a free election and encourage a violent riot to prevent the certification of his opponent’s victory.

All of this resulted last week in the irony of Modi being feted during an official visit as India’s longstanding leader, when he had previously been denied a visa to even enter the United States for almost a decade because of his role in failing to stem an anti-Muslim riot in 2002.

Human rights were also far from the top of the agenda during Secretary of State Blinken’s recent trip to China. U.S. priorities with China are reflected in New York Times reporting over a three day period on Blinken’s meetings which included 16 mentions of “Taiwan,” 8 of the spy “balloon,” 7 of “climate,” 4 each for “trade” and “sanctions,” and 3 for “technology.”  While this is a crude measurement, it is telling that there was only one reference to Blinken raising “repressive practices in Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong.” There were no explicit references to plight of the Uyghurs, even though this year the United Nations reported an active campaign of crimes against humanity by the Chinese government.

And as for the repressive Saudis and their take-over of world golf, it is important to consider how much influence the Saudis and their Gulf allies will be exerting around the world for decades to come. As Fareed Zakaria noted in his commentary last week, the sovereign wealth funds of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait reportedly total $3 trillion – amongst the largest collection of investment capital in the world.  The golf escapade is just one example of the Saudis successfully buying cultural influence. With so much cash on hand, there will be many more purchases, positioning the Gulf States to be key players on the world stage. And whereas the Saudis were once dependent on the United States for its oil consumption and security umbrella, our influence over them has diminished as its trade with China has increased twenty times over the past two decades. For all these reasons, it makes far more sense for the US to be engaging with the Saudis, as distasteful as it is, on a range of issues, rather than trying to punish them for past misdeeds. 

So, what does all this mean for the US role in advocating for democracy and protecting human rights.

First, as Biden often likes to say, we need to keep our eye on the ball. The US is deeply engaged in a great power rivalry with China and Russia. The outcome of these competitions will have far greater impact on the future of democracy and human rights than focusing on any one specific example of democratic backsliding or human rights abuses. Defeating Russia in Ukraine (or negotiating a favorable settlement for the Ukrainians) would be a huge boost for democracy and also defang Russia’s threat to pursue dominion over other parts of the former Soviet empire.

US efforts to counter China’s grand strategy to become the dominant world power is also critically important for human rights. One of China’s key goals is to replace the liberal world order that currently imposes human rights obligations on all nations with a set of rules and norms favorable to authoritarianism. Another is to retake Taiwan and eliminate its democracy. And yet another is to uses its regional military power to influence the internal political systems of countries in the Indo-Pacific. Successful execution of the US national security strategy to “outcompete” China “in the technological, economic, political, military, intelligence, and global governance domains” is the human rights program of our times, even if the US is not prioritizing or attempting to address the specific human rights abuses being committed by China on a day-to-day basis.

Second, the US should be and is advocating for human rights and democracy every day, even if these efforts are not at the forefront of bilateral relations with other countries. I visited the US Embassy in Morocco two weeks ago with my students.  Morocco is a US ally, but an authoritarian monarchy. We saw a pride flag in the embassy courtyard even though Morocco does not recognize any LGBTQ+ rights. We learned about programs that train young people to demand accountability from their local governments. Democracy promotion is not just about statements by the Secretary of State on the latest outrages, it is about building democratic practices at the grass roots and over the long haul and this is being done in a myriad of ways, through multiple government programs and funding efforts, all over the world.

Third, since the current global strategic alignment does not favor aggressive human rights advocacy by states, the burden for keeping human rights on the agenda falls to journalists, NGOs, lawyers, advocates, and the private sector. I have been following the tireless advocacy of Rushan Abbas for the Uyghur cause and her detained sister since she visited Duke in 2021. The amount of consternation she has caused to the Chinese Communist Party is staggering. Talking about human rights and democracy, posting on social media, giving money to groups, attending talks – all of these efforts can make a difference.

Finally, to be an effective advocate for democracy and human rights abroad, the US needs to get its own house in order instead of continuing to backslide, whether on abortion, gerrymandering, racial justice, voting rights, LGBTQ+ issues and a host of other topics. Keeping the authoritarian Donald Trump out of the White House is the number one priority for this agenda.