By Cliff Montgomery – Mar. 17th, 2014
Does America actually stand for human rights? That depends on which federal bureaucrat you ask, according to a recent study from the Congressional Research Service.
The current version of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) outlaws U.S. aid to any foreign security force unit if that unit credibly appears to have engaged in “gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.”
Those violations include “torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges and trial, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons, and other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, or the security of person.”
A blog published by Amnesty USA declares that the FAA now is “a powerful yet often-overlooked tool to help prevent the U.S. government from directly arming human rights violators in the ranks of foreign security forces and to help the U.S. avoid complicity in the commission of human rights violations.”
A recurring provision in annual Pentagon appropriations also works to keep U.S. assistance on the side of decency.
But some federal officials aren’t so sure about all this concern for human beings. In a speech delivered in December 2013, National Security Advisor Susan Rice asserted that while a respect for human rights and democracy are very important aspects of U.S. foreign policy, it should be remembered that “advancing human rights is not and has never been our only interest.”
Rice insists that federal bureaucrats “sometimes face painful dilemmas…[and] American foreign policy must sometimes strike a difficult balance…between our short and long-term imperatives.”
Below, The American Spark quotes sections of the introduction to this controversial report:
“The increasing Department of Defense (DOD) emphasis on expanding U.S. partnerships and building partnership capacity with foreign military and other security forces has refocused congressional attention on two long-standing human rights provisions affecting U.S. security assistance policy.
“Sponsored in the late 1990s by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and often referred to as the ‘Leahy amendments’ or the ‘Leahy laws,’ one is Section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended…and the other is a recurring provision in annual defense appropriations.
“FAA Section 620M prohibits the furnishing of assistance authorized by the FAA and the Arms Export Control Act, as amended…to any foreign security force unit that is credibly believed to have committed a gross violation of human rights.
“The other provision, inserted annually in DOD appropriations legislation, for years prohibited the use of DOD funds to support any training program (as defined by DOD) involving members of a unit of foreign security or police force if the unit had committed a gross violation of human rights.
“For FY2014, the prohibition has been expanded to also include ‘equipment, or other assistance.’
“As two of the many laws that Congress has enacted in recent decades to promote respect for human rights, which has become widely recognized as a core U.S. national interest, the Leahy laws have been the subject of long-standing debate. Policy makers, practitioners, and advocacy groups continue to deliberate overarching questions regarding their utility and desirability, as well as specific questions regarding their appropriate scope and problems in implementation.
“For many, the Leahy laws are important U.S. foreign policy tools not only because of their potential to promote human rights but because they may help safeguard the U.S. image abroad by distancing the United States from corrupt or brutal security forces.
“Some, however, raise concerns that these laws limit the Administration’s flexibility to balance competing national interests and may constrain the United States’ ability to respond to national security needs.
“Central to this debate are overarching questions that are difficult to answer given the lack of systematic study of Leahy law results. Have these laws indeed been effective in promoting human rights? To what extent have these laws impeded or advanced other key U.S. objectives, such as countering terrorism, preventing violence, or stabilizing territory? Do the laws lead other nations to choose competitors for foreign influence as the source of military materiel and training? Will the United States be able to control down-range effects as it outsources military training through third-party nations?
“Competing perceptions of these overarching issues underlie perspectives on specific proposals for congressional action.
“In the 113th Congress, an illustration of the enduring debate surrounding the Leahy laws is deliberation on a provision in the Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) version of the FY2014 DOD Appropriations bill (Section 8057 of S. 1429), a modified version of which is now contained in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Division C, Section 8057, P.L. 113-76, signed into law January 17). This provision expanded the scope of the DOD Leahy law by extending the FY2013 (and prior fiscal year) prohibition on training to all DOD assistance.
“Further action in the 113th Congress may occur during consideration of FY2015 foreign aid appropriations, which may include proposals to fund implementation of the laws.
“This report provides background on the Leahy laws, including a brief history of their legislative development, an overview guide to the standards and processes used to ‘vet’—that is, review and clear—foreign military and other security forces for gross violations of human rights, and a brief review of salient issues regarding the provisions of the laws and their implementation.”
