Human Rights Quote (40): Double Standards

double standards

(photo by Dennis Hopper, source unknown)

Double Standard 1. a rule or principle applied more strictly to some people than to others (or to oneself). – The Concise Oxford English Dictionary.

I think I made it clear in this blog how I feel about the importance of promoting democracy and human rights worldwide. However, often it is difficult to decide how to intervene, or whether to intervene at all, or perhaps do nothing. Should we have intervened some years ago when the Algerian government annulled elections that were going to be won by Muslim extremists? At first sight, we should have, because a democratic process was perverted. But intervention would perhaps have been counterproductive in this case. We would have made the situation worse because we would have allowed a fundamentalist group to take power. From the frying pan into the fire.

Non-intervention was a choice for the lesser evil. Opposition movements in undemocratic or non-democratic states can only be supported when they espouse the values of democracy and human rights. Sometimes, intervention can weaken a government that – although not very sympathetic – is fighting an extremist opposition movement that is even worse than the government. The FOTA principle – “fear of the alternative”, a phrase coined by The Economist – can convince the international community to accept a lesser evil and to acquiesce in a certain level of human rights violations.

However, if we want to avoid a greater evil, such as religious fundamentalism, then it is not always wise to be guided by the FOTA principle and to accept or even encourage rights violations committed by a state that combats the greater evil. Rights violations often only harden the opposition and make it even more extreme. And in many cases, the greater evil emerged as a response to violations that were already present. The only solution for an Algerian-type dilemma is to intervene sooner and pressure the government into reform. In this way, we can avoid the emergence of radical and undemocratic opposition groups that profit from the corruption and oppression of the government, flourish and ultimately take over power. A democratic government that respects human rights is less likely to create extremist and oppressive opposition movements.

In some cases, we choose not to intervene somewhere because the shortcomings in the field of democracy and human rights are so widespread that we have to make a choice. Considerations of urgency, appropriateness and, why not, self interest can play a part in this kind of choice. Consistent intervention everywhere is not possible, not even for the strongest world power. And it is unfortunate but inevitable that this will cause criticism and talk of double standards. But it is better to have double standards than no standards at all. We may have good reasons for a more gentle approach to China and a more decisive intervention in Korea. Decisive action may be dangerous or ineffective. If there is no one ready to fight for democracy in the target country, if the most elementary conditions have to be created first or if the target country is too powerful or insensitive to our pressure, then other, more subtle measures may be required. This may give the impression of double standards. We are much tougher on some countries, but it is not possible and not even desirable to be consistently tough on all countries. Resilience and firmness may work in some cases, but not in all. It is useless to demand immediate democratization in a country that is unable to progress or that is too powerful to be forced.

More on human rights and foreign policy here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.