Editorial Overview

Can Liberals and Conservatives agree on human rights?

As a nation, we have an uneven record in dealing with the matter of mass killings in foreign lands. In Bosnia, the United States and NATO made a late but effective intervention. In Rwanda in the mid-1990s, we did nothing while 600,000 died in 100 days. President Clinton called it his greatest policy failure. In Darfur, the U.S. has not considered putting "boots on the ground" to stop the Sudanese national government-sponsored Janjaweed militia from its campaign of terror. The Organization of African Unity has intervened with mixed results, and the United Nations is still pushing negotiations. The next wave of genocide is inevitable.

Political Science doctoral candidate Scott Racek, presenting at the Millersville University Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide, noted that in this arena of foreign policy, the U.S. is ineffective because Congress shirks any role in dealing with such issues. Mr. Racek relates the wisdom imparted by one student of genocide: each Congressman might tell you that "Darfur is not in my district."

But is there a liberal-conservative argument here? Or is this just an institutional problem: our government is unprepared to deal with human rights issues in foreign lands. Are human rights abroad part of our "national interest?" Do conservatives and liberal disagree about this?

Conservative Response

As a people, we object to the behavior of barbarous people, whether they are in Lhasa, Dili, Medellin, or Darfur. The question is when to put American lives at risk. Read more...

— Editor

Liberal Response

Whether it is genocide in Darfur or the oppression of Uighers and Tibetans in China, universal human rights is critical to liberals. It should be central to our foreign policy. Read more...

— Editor

Alternative Response

We need to deal with our own human rights issues. Let us admit that we are human right abusers. Let us fix our own house, and let the Sudanese fix their own. Read more...

— Editor

Author

Comments

.

No Comments

Is diversity a good thing for this country, or something we should limit?

How does this fit into the liberal-conservative debate? Is the real story somewhere between the extremes of liberals promoting the "browning of America" and conservatives wanting to arm the borders? How should government serve our interests in this culturally, economically and politically interconnected world?

If you are interested in submitting essays for either Next Month's Topic or a Future Topic, please read and follow our Rules for Submission.

How should the United States relate to China?

China has the fastest growing economy in the world. Its producer and consumer demands are driving prices of fuel upward, and its trade role in the world is significant and growing. It is a world leader as a polluter; it has almost no quality checks on produce leaving the country; its treatment of its people both as citizens and workers is disgraceful. Its foreign policy seems to us amoral. Provide machetes to murderers in Rwanda? Sure! Support the genocide in the Sudan because of oil agreements? No problem! So, how do we deal with these guys? Would the United States be hypocritical to take action against China — can we really claim the moral high ground? And what happens to the world economy if we take action? Would the rest of the world stand with us or against us?

If you are interested in submitting essays for either Next Month's Topic or a Future Topic, please read and follow our Rules for Submission.