 |
 |
The second half of the twentieth century brought political and institutional challenges for those seeking to promote a comprehensive human rights policy. It represented a period of intense repression in Latin American countries, coupled with a shift in the United States’ conceptualization of its human rights policy and national identity. In Mixed Signals, Kathryn Sikkink chronicles an attempt to integrate human rights into U.S. policy toward Latin America. Mixed Signals is an important book for politicians and organizations shaping human rights policies and for members of the public concerned with the human rights issues in places like Iraq.
As the title suggests, the central theme of the book concerns the implications of the mixed signals that the United States sends to foreign governments. Part One of the book begins by providing the reader with an introduction to human rights theory and human rights policies. This introduction comprises roughly one-third of the book—enough background to aid novices, but not bore readers with a background in human rights.
Part One notes that in the mid-twentieth century, human rights were thought to be a moralistic concern inappropriate for foreign policy discussions. American policies focused on eradicating communism further limited implementation of a human rights policy in Latin America. However, after the political and military failure in Vietnam, human rights policy considerations reemerged. Chairman Donald Fraser’s subcommittee in the House of Representatives generated momentum for legislation that created an Office for Human Rights within the State Department. Sikkink argues that it was President Carter who institutionalized a robust human rights policy. President Carter, motivated by both his own beliefs and the tangible political benefits of uniting his party under the banner of human rights, created a high-profile “bully pulpit” for promoting human rights, which further cemented the institutionalization of a human rights policy.
Sikkink asks and answers the important question of why such institutionalization occurred at this time. She argues that the identity conflict between rights ideals and the previous support of dictatorships finally came to a head. A global movement supporting human rights policies was underway, and internal factions within Congress signaled the uneasiness some representatives felt about providing support to repressive Latin American countries.
In Part Two of Mixed Signals, Sikkink evaluates the effectiveness of human rights policies toward Latin America. She focuses on “repression,” or what she calls a narrower subset of human rights violations that were the initial concern in Latin America. She proposes a “spiral model” of human rights change, where exchanges between the repressive state, groups in civil society of the repressive state, and international actors eventually result in the invocation of human rights norms and pressure on the repressors to change. The rest of the book develops Sikkink’s addendum to the “spiral model,” which draws
*** Top of Page 296 ***
on a “sensemaking” approach to explain how mixed signals regarding human rights undermine human rights policy.
Sikkink illustrates her theoretical model in the context of U.S. human rights policy toward Latin America over the course of six presidential administrations. She meticulously details how the Nixon and Ford administrations gave a “green light” for repression in Chile and Argentina; each administration engaged in private diplomacy that sanctioned human rights violations in these countries, but at the same time promulgated a public message to the contrary. These are the mixed signals that Sikkink says undermine attempts to protect human rights. When the repressing country interprets the message as a tacit acceptance of its gross violations of human rights, Sikkink documents a corresponding increase in repression. Sikkink further supports her argument by comparing these policies to the great progress in human rights made under President Carter—a time when the administration sent relatively clear, forceful messages condemning human rights violations. One of the most disturbing examples that Sikkink describes is the Reagan administration’s attempt to strengthen relations with Guatemala while a massive genocide was being conducted. The events in Guatemala, Chile, and Argentina highlight Sikkink’s conclusion that mixed messages give a “green light” for repression with devastating human rights implications.
Kathryn Sikkink provides an excellent account of U.S. human rights policy in Latin America. However, the book has two drawbacks. First, Sikkink’s theoretical framework for understanding the origin and effectiveness of human rights policies is interesting, but not comprehensively enough discussed. Although the book seeks to be more descriptive than theoretical, establishing background knowledge of her theory would make the book more intellectually satisfying. Second, as Sikkink recognizes, the main proposition she advances, that consistently condemning human rights violations makes a difference in countering repression, depends entirely on counterfactual reasoning. If one is not willing to accept that the human rights situation in Latin America would have been different had the United States sent clear, forceful messages, then Mixed Signals has little relevance for the reader. However, Sikkink has made a valuable contribution by reminding the reader of the dire effects of divorcing human rights from foreign policy. In an age where “anti-terrorism” is the justification for massive intervention, harking back to the time when “anti-communism” was the justification for policies that resulted in massive human rights violations, Sikkink provides a timely reminder that the fight against terrorism must incorporate respect for human rights and the rule of law.
—Luke W. Nikas
HLSHRJ@law.harvard.edu
This file was last modified: Wednesday, 03-Aug-2005 10:52:12 EDT