After the NSA revelations, who will listen to America on human rights?

The US was once in a position to promote human rights abroad. That was undermined under Bush, and the damage continues

Aryeh Neier

One of the unfortunate consequences of the spying by the NSA that has now been revealed is that it makes it more difficult for the United States to be effective in promoting human rights internationally. America's ability to exercise a positive influence on the practices of other governments had been severely damaged under the Bush administration. That was because American abuses against detainees at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib deprived Washington of the moral authority to criticise others when they engaged in such practices as prolonged detentions without charges or trials, or trials before irregular courts, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or torture.

President Obama's inability to fulfil his promise to close Guantánamobecause of congressional opposition, and his unwillingness to hold Bush-era officials to account for their abuses, has hampered his administration in recovering lost moral authority. That may help to explain why the Obama administration has been relatively reluctant to speak out forcefully about abuses of rights by governments such as those of China and Russia. Of course, dependence on those governments economically and eagerness for their collaboration in the ongoing global struggle against terrorism were also probably factors in muting American criticism.

What the world has learned about the NSA's systematic intrusions on the privacy of others has dashed hopes that the US would gradually recover its voice in speaking out for rights. It is difficult, if not impossible, for a government that is seen by many worldwide as a great violator of rights to be credible in promoting those same rights.

Of course, the damage to American foreign policy by the practices of the NSA goes far beyond American capacity to promote human rights. Perhaps the damage in Europe has been the greatest. Europe has much stronger protections for privacy than the US, reflecting a high level of public concern. Nowhere is the commitment to privacy stronger than in Germany, where article one of the country's constitution, the Basic Law, begins with the assertion: "Human dignity is inviolable. To respect it and protect it is the duty of all state power." Dignity, which also has a central place in the European charter of fundamental rights, but is not mentioned in the US constitution, is understood in Germany and elsewhere in Europe to encompass a commitment to privacy. In the absence of a clear repudiation by the Obama administration of practices of the NSA that go far beyond the requirements of national security, including a pledge to discontinue spying on European leaders, and to end indiscriminate surveillance of many millions of European citizens, it seems likely that co-operation with the United States on a host of issues will decline drastically.

The US once enjoyed a reputation as a country that respected human rights. This enhanced its political standing with other countries and gave Washington the capacity to promote these rights worldwide. Its stand on rights had been an asset; now it is turning into a liability. The main reason to respect rights, of course, is because of their intrinsic worth and significance. A secondary reason that is not negligible, however, is that America's practices on rights also have a significant impact on the country's other interests in its relations with the rest of the world.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/11/nsa-revelations-america-human-rights