Chapter 72 SECTION 4 PROMOTION OF LIBERTY

This question brings me to my proposed fourth principle of Conservative foreign policy, which is that we should continually promote freedom, democracy and human rights throughout the world.There are practical reasons why this is the case.Generally speaking, democracies do not go to war with each other.A regime that respects human rights at home is even less likely to invade abroad.In practice, even the most unscrupulous man of practical politics judges threats from various regions, not only by their military technology but also by the nature of their regimes.The value of freedom makes even culturally diverse nations recognize the need for restraint, compromise and respect for others.Encouraging these values ​​is therefore an essential part of foreign policy.

As for the Conservative point of view, one could say that it is part of the truth that we should take into account in formulating policy.Clearly, societies differ in their social and economic development, in their religious traditions, and in their political consciousness.Where a nascent democratic movement has really emerged, we can promote and encourage it and give it limited protection from government repression through protest, open diplomacy, and the like.Where there is no such popular movement locally (or if the popular movement is limited to a small number of Western-educated intellectuals in the capital), we cannot plant democracy from the outside.While we must pick and choose instances in which Western influence has been effective in hastening their peaceful transition to democracy, some violations of human rights—particularly torture—are so scandalous by any national or cultural standard that they Shocking and so disgusting that we have every reason to oppose and stop them.In dealing with such events, the main question is how best to do so, whether through economic pressure, or through statements or initiatives in international forums, or through quiet diplomacy.But in any case, because of the caution and distinction that must be exercised in the implementation of Conservative human rights policy, it will never take the approach of the Crusades.

Liberals' criticism is that because Western human rights policies focus on "procedural" rights such as freedom of speech or not arresting people indiscriminately, they ignore more important and "fundamental" rights, such as freedom from hunger rights or the right to an adequate education.International documents that generally reflect the requirements of human rights issues themselves illustrate the tendency of people to think about issues.For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) not only affirms, as I do, that every human being has the right to life, liberty, equality before the law, property, etc., but also the right of every human being to an adequate standard of living, both The "right" to an adequate education and the "right" to social security - these obviously belong to another category.Later other documents stipulated more content. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) includes the "right to work", the right to "continue to improve living conditions", the right to physical and intellectual fitness".

Of course, as long as we talk about liberty in terms of rights rather than responsibilities, traditional liberalism can easily slip into moderate socialism, demanding only various "rights" without much regard for their cost or even the possibility of their realization sex.Even though these "rights" are theoretically possible, in practice the state can only achieve them by disincentivizing other individuals through regulation, control, and taxation.At this point, people have actually gone through the entire process from liberalism to socialism.Moreover, the liberal human rights approach has given foreign agencies the power to intervene in nearly the entirety of domestic social and economic policy, which not only violates but completely abrogates the sovereignty of the state.

If the promotion of human rights as traditionally defined is a legitimate purpose of foreign policy, how is this purpose best achieved in general?Fortunately for us, the post-Cold War world has created new opportunities for freedom.As revolutions in communications technology, the opening of world markets, and greater opportunities for mobility of capital and people place pressure on dictatorships, it will become increasingly difficult for them to resist calls to liberalize their regimes pressure.Indeed, this is why, while seeking to promote democracy and economic rights, the wider implications of economic liberty must be kept in sharp focus.

Even in countries with relatively free economies—with sound currencies, limited policy intervention, low taxes, guaranteed private property, and mobile labor—if they have experienced dictatorships for a Chile) they will find less difficulty later in the introduction of political liberties.But, as the Russian example shows, it is extremely difficult to build democracy without a legal framework, limited management, private property, and a tradition of vibrant business.Human rights enthusiasts in the Conservative Party recognize this, liberals on the left do not.Therefore, when the growth of market capitalism brings political freedom, the former will not mistakenly underestimate the progress made in achieving the goals of political freedom.

Having said all this, I would like to point out that the theory of human rights policy is much more complex than its practice.Politicians and diplomats generally know by instinct when and where Western influence can be effectively exerted and how that influence can best be exerted.However, I must add that they sometimes need the encouragement of public opinion.