The cornerstone of American democracy is stated in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Certainly, these words provide an ideal of equality for all citizens of the United States. Yet, how do these democratic ideals apply to our official treatment of foreign citizens and governments? I readily admit that foreign policy is a nebulous maze of complex goals and secret agendas difficult to identify much less analyze. For that reason this article will focus on simply rebutting the policies outlined in Madeline Albright’s article “The Testing of American Foreign Policy” instead of attempting to analyze every aspect of American foreign policy. During the Cold War, American foreign policy identified itself as a beacon of light to an oppressed world, bringing the promise of democracy in the face of the threat of Communism. Although the iron curtain has fallen, America retains the image of an international bearer of democracy. However, self-serving double standards riddle American foreign policy. Even more disturbing, many of our official policies show little interest in establishing global human rights or even supporting staggering democracies.

In her article, Albright refers to the differing treatments of China and Burma by the United States. Both countries are non-democratic and both receive condemnation for showing little respect for human rights. Yet, the United States is engaged in a “strategic dialogue” with China while imposing sanctions on Burma. Albright explains that “many Chinese reformers welcome Western political and commercial engagement with their government” while, in Burma, “Sanctions may work well. Having driven the economy into the ground, the regime desperately needs foreign investment, loans, and aid. By denying these benefits-and encouraging others to do the same-we may eventually persuade Burmese leaders to rethink where their best interests lie.”

There are several flaws in this argument. Burmese reformers may also welcome Western intervention, yet the government or the sanctions may silence these supporters. Further, economic sanctions tend to have the most detrimental effects on farmers and shopkeepers. The governmental agents, cushioned by the wealth and prestige of their position, are often able to live in relative comfort despite U.S. sanctions.

Seen in this light, it becomes apparent that our contrasting treatment of Burma and China is the result of more than a warm welcome from governmental reformers. Albright explains by stating that “America’s stake in China is far deeper and broader than in Burma. Asian security, nonproliferation, and economic health cannot be won without Chinese cooperation.” Apparently, American’s treatment of China is self serving, not altruistic. American business will benefit immensely from a stable Asian economy, and it appears that foreign policy makers are willing to overlook violations of certain unalienable rights to guarantee economic stability. Albright’s defense, that “we must design policies not with a cookie cutter but with the special characteristics of each in mind,” seems like poor justification for such a glaring double standard.

The contradictory treatment of China and Burma is not the only example of self-serving American foreign policy. In her introduction, Albright explains that the unchanged purpose of American foreign policy is to “ensure the continued security, prosperity, and freedom of our people.” This is a simple definition, and the goal of any country’s foreign policy. However, America too often brings about its own security, prosperity, and freedom by limiting the democratic rights of others. Albright states that: To protect our interests, we must take actions, forge agreements, create institutions, and provide an example that will help bring the world closer together around the basic principles of democracy, open markets, and a commitment to peace. If we succeed, the American people will benefit from a world economy that has regained its footing and assumed broad-based growth. We will find it safer, and easier to trade, travel, invest, and study abroad.

Although Albright suggests that all countries will enjoy democracy and peace, she only sites Americans as beneficiaries. The implications of this statement, far from furthering an international democratic ideal, suggest that by virtue of their citizenship Americans are more entitled to the luxuries of travel and trade. Albright may be attempting to appeal to her audience but these implications, although subtle, undermine work for global equality by suggesting that American citizens are inherently more deserving.

More disturbing than America’s blatantly self-serving foreign policies are our disregard for human rights, and our failure to support new democracies. Once again, America’s contradictory treatment of China reveals our willingness to place the importance of economics over the importance of the human rights defined in our Declaration of Independence. When describing America’s reaction to Bosnia’s struggling democracy, Albright states that “it is up to Bosnia’s people to choose their leaders, but we will continue to help only those who are helping to implement Dayton.” In other words, the United States will offer support to Bosnia’s struggling democracy only if the leaders agree to support United States interests. This statement is an obvious manipulation of elected leaders and, carried to the fullest extent, may even condone the establishment of a puppet government, very different from the ideal of universal freedom and democracy.

Albright claims that “the true challenge of diplomacy does not reside in the beauty of our goals. Foreign policy is practical, not aesthetic.” Yet, without idealistic goals, all that is left to center a foreign policy is self-serving objectives. The goal of equality and liberty for all people may seem like too ambitious a starting point for the foreign policy of such an immense world power, but it is the ideal that founded our nation. Our society still struggles with issues of equality and freedom, yet these struggles seem strangely absent from our foreign policy. It is only when America begins to apply our Constitutional ideals of justice and equality to every aspect of our government that our foreign policy will be any

Briana M. Wright ’02 is a staff writer and is currently interested in English Writing and Religious Studies.

China News	Asian Values and Human Rights : A Confucian Communitarian Perspective
	China, the United Nations, and Human Rights : The Limits of Compliance