As Donnelly notes, the bulk of the time since WWII, America's top foreign policy concerns have dealt with anticommunism. Notice that human rights is in theory consistent with the general goal of opposing communism.

• Why is anticommunism in theor consistent with pursuing a foreign policy based on human rights?
• Why, in practice, did a conflict between human rights concerns and anticommunism appear?
• Is one policy truly any more "realist" than the other?

Another component of American foreign policy was an assumption of American "exceptionalism."

By this Donnelly means a belief that America was different from and superior to other countries because of our democratic structure and protection of individual rights. This belief can be traced back to the establishment of our country.

• President Washington noted American exceptionalism in his farewell address. Was America more "exceptional" in his time than today? Why or Why not?

Exceptionalism can support either isolation or intervention. Foreign policy isolationsim was based upon Washington's belief that engagement with the European powers of the time was against American interests because the US lacked the power to engage on its own terms and would become embroiled in the bickerings of petty monarchs over parochial issues where the US had no real interest. Instead the US was to serve as an example of what these countries could become if they established democracy and protected individual rights.

On the other hand, there is also a strand of interventionism that is supported by this exceptionalism. As US international power increased, there was little guarantee that the US or its interests would be safe from less democratic regimes who might wish to harm the country whose example was at odds with its own model of governance. Therefore the US could identify clear interests that might be threatened by the actions of undemocratic foreign powers. Additionally, since part of the notion of American exceptionalism is based in moralism, could the US be a moral country if it sat by and watched as millions of people were oppressed by somke ruthless dictator when the US had the power to stop it? President Wilson and others thought not, and led a "crusade" to make the world safe for democracy when the US joined WWI. Other presidents echoed similar beliefs after WWII through pronouncements like the Truman Doctrine.

Part of the problem of applying the interventionist strand lies in identifying potential enemies and friends. Trading off support for one country (with a poor human rights record) which was willing to help the US achieve another foreign policy goal (preventing the spread of communism) was quite common during the cold war. In fact, some commentators, like Jeanne Kirkpatrick criticized policies (like Jimmy Carter's) that seemed to put human rights first. Her argument was that it was more likely that non-communist but authoritarian countries would eventually become democratic and respect human rights; that such a natural transformation of communist countries was unlikely; and therefore it made sense for the US to be allies with authoritarian but potentially democratic countries which violated human rights against communist countries.

This kind of trade off was not limited to the Cold War. In October of 2001, in its efforts to oust the taliban and Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan, the US has made agreements with a country like Uzbekistan, with a dreadful human rights record, but with bases that will benefit the US military operations in neighboring Afghanistan. Similarly, the US has seemingly agreed to eliminate human rights criticisms of various coaltion partners in exchange for military and diplomatic support.

• Should the US support human rights goals in other countries when they conflict with U.S. national security?
• What are the dangers in such trade-offs?
• Does the post-Cold War world seem as open to US human rights influences as we perhaps once believed?
• What do you think about the possibility of "quiet diplomacy" for human rights as compared to openly criticizing human rights violators?

Donnelly presents two case studies of American foreign policy in Central America during the 1970s to the 1980s. After reading those case studies, think about these questions:

• Were US motivations in these cases primarily anti-communist? Human Rights? Economic?
• To what extent did the US have influence over the regimes involved?
• Evaluate Carter and Reagan's policies toward these countries. Was one more effective than another?

What do you mean by "effective"?

• What were the central human rights conflicts in El Salvador and Nicaragua? Was the 1980s or even the 1970s too late to resolve some of these issues?

Consider also the case study of US policy toward South Africa. Be ready to answer these questions:

• How did much of US policy rely on economic change and private enterprise? (p. 104)
• What was "constructive engagement"?
• How did human rights activists succeed in by-passing President Reagan's reluctance to impose sanctions on South Africa?
• What do you think was the importance of sanctions economically? Diplomatically? Symbolically?

How do other countries handle foreign policy decisions related to human rights? To what extent do smaller countries have an advantage over an economic superpower like the US in relation to foreign policy? What disadvanytages do they have?