Fit for Human Rights? Race as the Defining Principle of an Improved Human Rights Situation

• In Event: 286 - Regular Session. Human Rights

Abstract

There has been a wealth of research examining the tactics used by the international community to promote respect for human rights and how rights-violating regimes have responded to both symbolic and material sanctions. This research has yet to grapple with two intertwined facts: (1) the international community must have a way to measure and define progress towards curbing human rights abuses while a particular conflict is taking place; and, (2) the process of policy-making is part and parcel of a process of meaning-making. So, how do policy advocates define and measure progress towards an improved human rights situation? To answer this question I examine the implementation of U.S. human rights legislation that linked U.S. foreign aid to the recipient nation’s human rights practices. Based upon a content analysis of 160 congressional hearings pertaining to two case testing U.S. human rights legislation—Argentina’s dirty war (1976-1983) and El Salvador’s civil war (1980-1992)—I find that policy advocates used what I call a racial microscope to evaluate a society’s capacity for self-governance and to respect human rights. They viewed Argentina as a nation endowed with capacities, while they argued that Salvadorans incapable of self-governance. The racial microscope allowed policy advocates to solely examine aspects of each society, while failing to fully grapple with the complex and interconnected nature of human relationships. This research highlights the importance of closely examining language as a way of abstracting meaning and demonstrates that race has shaped foreign policy well beyond the realms of imperialism and ethnic lobbies.

Author

• Angela Elena Fillingim, University of California-Berkeley