On Defending Human Rights, America Returns to First Principles – Foreign Policy

Report on United States Human Rights Policy and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

1.0 Executive Summary

This report analyzes the evolution of United States foreign policy concerning human rights under the Trump administrations. It assesses the shift from a broad, multilateral framework to a narrower focus on “natural rights.” This policy realignment carries significant implications for the advancement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). The report finds that while the policy purports to champion fundamental freedoms, its effectiveness is challenged by a retreat from multilateralism and domestic actions that contradict the principles of strong, accountable institutions.

2.0 Redefinition of Human Rights Policy

The U.S. administrations have initiated reforms to redefine the nation’s approach to human rights, moving from the expansive framework of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to a concept grounded in “natural rights” and national founding principles.

2.1 The Rights Dichotomy and the SDGs

A central element of this policy shift is the distinction made between two categories of rights, which directly correlates to different sets of SDGs:

• Negative Liberties (Natural Rights): These rights require the state to abstain from interference and include freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion. This focus aligns directly with SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, specifically Target 16.10, which aims to “ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms.”
• Positive Economic and Social Rights: These rights require government action and resource allocation. The U.N. framework promotes these rights, which are integral to a wide array of SDGs. The U.S. policy shift questions the validity of this expanding list of rights, including:
  • Right to an adequate standard of living (SDG 1: No Poverty)
  • Right to food (SDG 2: Zero Hunger)
  • Right to medical care (SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being)
  • Right to education (SDG 4: Quality Education)
  • Right to housing (SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities)
  • Right to sanitation (SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation)
  • Right to a healthy environment (SDG 13: Climate Action)

The new policy’s emphasis on natural rights over positive rights suggests a prioritization of SDG 16 targets over the socio-economic goals that form the bedrock of the 2030 Agenda.

3.0 Key Policy Actions and Institutional Impact

Several concrete actions have been taken to implement this new policy direction, affecting institutions and global partnerships.

1. Withdrawal from the U.N. Human Rights Council: Citing the inclusion of autocratic regimes, the U.S. withdrew from the council. This action signals a retreat from multilateral engagement, undermining SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals, which calls for strengthening global partnerships for sustainable development.
2. Establishment of the Commission on Unalienable Rights: This body was tasked with advising on human rights based on U.S. founding principles. Critics expressed concern that its focus on “natural law” could be used to roll back progress on rights related to SDG 5: Gender Equality and SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities.
3. Proposed Office of Natural Rights: The plan to establish this office within the State Department aims to embed “values-based diplomacy” through bilateral channels rather than multilateral institutions. This further distances U.S. policy from the collaborative framework of SDG 17.
4. Promotion of Specific Rights: The first administration led initiatives on religious freedom and women’s economic empowerment, the latter of which is a key component of SDG 5.

4.0 Challenges to Effective Implementation and SDG Advancement

The successful promotion of rights and the SDGs is contingent on consistent policy and the power of example. Several factors challenge the current U.S. approach:

• Reduced Investment in Soft Power: Cuts to foreign aid and funding for entities like Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty diminish the primary tools for projecting democratic values and supporting civil society abroad. This directly hampers the ability to promote SDG 16 and other goals internationally.
• Inconsistency in Domestic Policy: To effectively champion SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) globally, a nation must demonstrate unwavering commitment to the rule of law, separation of powers, and constitutional principles at home. Actions perceived as undermining these domestic institutions weaken the credibility and effectiveness of U.S. human rights foreign policy.

5.0 Conclusion

The United States’ pivot to a “natural rights” foreign policy framework prioritizes aspects of SDG 16 while de-emphasizing the socio-economic rights that underpin numerous other SDGs. The policy’s success is severely constrained by a departure from the multilateral cooperation essential for SDG 17 and by domestic actions that fail to exemplify the principles of strong, accountable institutions central to SDG 16. For the policy to be effective, the U.S. must align its domestic conduct with its international advocacy and reinvest in the soft power and global partnerships necessary to advance a holistic and sustainable vision of human rights.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are relevant to the article:

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
  • This is the most central SDG to the article. The text is fundamentally about the definition and promotion of human rights, the rule of law, democracy, and the role of national and international institutions (like the U.S. State Department and the U.N. Human Rights Council) in upholding these principles. The article discusses “defending human rights and freedoms,” “constitutional governance and the rule of law,” and the promotion of “fundamental civil rights and freedoms.”
• SDG 5: Gender Equality
  • The article explicitly mentions the U.S. State Department’s efforts in “promoting women’s economic empowerment.” It also highlights the concerns of human rights organizations that a focus on “natural law and natural rights” could be “code for a rollback of women’s rights.”
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
  • The article discusses the concept of “positive ‘economic, social and cultural rights'” which “require the redistribution of wealth by governments.” This directly relates to reducing economic inequalities. The debate between this expansive view of rights and a narrower focus on “natural rights” is a key theme.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
  • The article details the U.S. approach to multilateralism concerning human rights. It mentions the U.S. “withdrawing from the U.N. Human Rights Council” and a policy shift to promote values “no longer via multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, but through the State Department’s embassies and regional bureaus.” This reflects a change in partnership strategy.
• Other related SDGs (mentioned as examples of rights):
  • The article references the U.N.’s promotion of a broad range of rights that connect to other specific SDGs, including the right to “food” (SDG 2), “education” (SDG 4), “medical care” (SDG 3), “housing” (part of SDG 1 and SDG 11), a “right to sanitation” (SDG 6), and a right to a “healthy environment” (SDG 13, SDG 14, SDG 15).

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements. The article is replete with references to this target, discussing “fundamental rights,” “free speech, freedom of assembly,” “religious freedom,” and the promotion of “the principles of freedom, democracy, and self-rule.”
   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. This is identified through mentions of “constitutional governance and the rule of law,” the “separation of powers,” and the need for the U.S. administration to “show more respect for fundamental constitutional principles.”
   • Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions… for building capacity. The article discusses the role of U.S. institutions like the “Commission on Unalienable Rights” and the new “Office of Natural Rights” within the State Department, which are designed to shape and implement U.S. human rights policy.
   • Target 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development. This is connected to the discussion of “equal treatment of all citizens” and the debate over whether a focus on “natural rights” might undermine rights for specific groups, such as women or same-sex couples.
2. SDG 5: Gender Equality
   • Target 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life. This is directly addressed by the mention of the State Department “promoting women’s economic empowerment.”
   • Target 5.c: Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality. The article touches on this by highlighting the fears of activists that the new U.S. policy could lead to a “rollback of women’s rights,” indicating a debate over the soundness of policies affecting gender equality.
3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices. The article’s reference to “equal treatment of all citizens” and the debate over a hierarchy of rights relates to this target. The U.S. policy shift away from “economic and social rights” that require “redistribution of wealth” is also relevant.
4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • Target 17.16: Enhance the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships. The article directly discusses the U.S. shift in its partnership approach, specifically “withdrawing from the U.N. Human Rights Council” and choosing to bypass “international human rights legislation and institutions” in favor of bilateral promotion through embassies.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 16:
   • Indicator for Target 16.10: The existence and funding of U.S. soft power institutions intended to promote fundamental freedoms. The article explicitly mentions that “resources would need to be devoted to U.S. soft power, such as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, whose funding has been cut.” The funding levels for these entities serve as a direct indicator.
   • Indicator for Target 16.3: The U.S. administration’s adherence to domestic constitutional principles. The article suggests that for the U.S. to be effective, it must “show more respect for fundamental constitutional principles including the rule of law, the separation of powers, and habeas corpus at home.” This adherence is a qualitative indicator.
   • Indicator for Target 16.a: The establishment and actions of national human rights bodies. The creation of the “Commission on Unalienable Rights” and the “Office of Natural Rights” are policy indicators. Their reports and diplomatic actions would measure their activity.
2. For SDG 5:
   • Indicator for Target 5.5: The implementation of specific government programs. The article points to the State Department’s initiative “promoting women’s economic empowerment” as a direct policy action that can be measured.
   • Indicator for Target 5.c: Changes in policy or legal interpretation regarding women’s rights. The concern about a “rollback of women’s rights” implies that changes in official U.S. foreign policy statements or legal positions on international treaties related to women would be a key indicator.
3. For SDG 17:
   • Indicator for Target 17.16: Participation in international bodies. The act of “withdrawing from the U.N. Human Rights Council” is a clear, negative indicator of engagement with this specific multilateral institution. Conversely, re-engagement would be a positive indicator.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: foreignpolicy.com