Suchergebnisse

The pattern revealed is one of deliberate ambiguity. On some issues and in some forums, Canada has acted vigorously to promote human rights internationally, as in the United Nations Human Rights Commission, the United Nations Committee on Human Rights, and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Canada has been much less forceful about human rights in dealings with the International Labour Organization and has almost completely ignored this issue as it relates to international financial institutions. Canada has been outspoken about the violation of rights in countries ruled by communist regimes, while hesitation and ambiguity are a feature of Canadian policies toward South Africa and Central America, as well as in lending policies to international financial institutions, Canadian development assistance, and Canadian arms sales. Each of these areas is examined in Human Rights in Canadian Foreign Policy. Canada is most vigorous on issues of human rights when the rights in question are civil and political rather than economic and social, and when the offending regime is under Soviet rather than American influence. The contributors include: Frances Arbour, Victoria Berry, John W. Foster, Rhoda E. Howard, Kalmen Kaplansky, T.A. Keenleyside, Allen McChesney, Ronald Manzer, Robert O. Matthews, Stefania Szlek Miller, Cathal J. Nolan, Kim Richard Nossal, Cranford Pratt, Renate Pratt, Ernie Regehr, and H. Gordon Skilling.

Five recent books reveal the beginnings of important new work in conceptualizing the place of human rights concerns in national foreign policies. The moral force of claims of human rights requires that they be given serious consideration in foreign policy. Philosophical analysis also shows that categorical moral distinctions between personal (or civil and political) and economic and social rights must be abandoned. Any justifiable priority for one class of rights must rest on strategic or political, not conceptual or moral, grounds. Since human rights are only one of many foreign policy concerns, tradeoffs with other goals, interests, and values will be necessary. However, human rights and the national interest are often complementary. The "tradeoffs" actually made should be principled, instrumental decisions, rather than apparently ad hoc or cynical sacrifices of human rights.

The author deals with the following topics: promoting human rights in Chinese foreign policy, the Chinese position on human rights and sovereignty, international human rights pressure on China, powerful effect of the Tiananmen massacre on China's relations with most of the outside world and how Chinese decision-makers underestimated the depth of Western support for human rights. (DÜI-Sen)

In the wake of the 1980 CSCE follow-up meeting US human rights objectives should be defined contextually so as to include besides the traditional human rights ingredients, i.e. the right to personal integrity, civil and politica! liberties, such values as peace, national security, nuclear non-proliferation, economie growth and redistribution. To this effect, the US should stress more a proper «world order» as its ultimate policy goal. Doing so would provide it at once with the flexibility needed in the international forum and with the credibility needed on the domestic scene, in order to achieve some visible results. A high-pitched declaratory policy in favor of human rights leads to ineffectiveness with Communist nations and to arbitrary pressures on authoritarian countries which somehow rely on US assistance.Thus, the US should proceed contextually on the basis of a more balanced «human rights» concept.

Influence in world affairs is not limited to military and economic power. A government can use ideas and values to build support at home and to recruit sympathizers among publics and policy-makers abroad. The struggle over beliefs and values may be as complex as the struggle over other forms of power. The history of the human rights issue in Chinese foreign policy exemplifies such a process.