美国人权政治化行径毁损人权善治根基

US Politicization of Human Rights Erodes Foundations of Human Rights Governance

中国人权研究会

The China Society for Human Rights Studies

2021年12月

December 2021

第二次世界大战结束以来的全球人权实践反复证明，摆脱政治化思维、平等理性地商讨和推进人权，是国际社会妥善处理人权问题、开展人权交流合作的重要基础；而采取人权政治化措施，则势必对全球人权善治造成致命伤害。这已成为国际人权领域的基本共识。

Since the end of WWII, global human rights practices have repeatedly proved that rejecting the politics-oriented mentality and discussing and promoting human rights on an equal and rational basis is a major prerequisite for the international community to properly handle human rights issues and conduct exchange and cooperation in this regard. For this reason, measures taken purposely to politicize human rights issues could prove fatal to global human rights governance. This has become a fundamental consensus reached by the international community on human rights.

“人权政治化”，是指国际关系行为体出于某种政治动机以政治实用主义的态度来处理人权问题，将人权作为实现某种政治利益的倾向与过程。人权政治化的表现形式主要包括：（1）以选择性而不是普遍性的方式对待人权问题；（2）以双重标准而不是客观标准评价人权状况；（3）以对抗而不是对话的方式处理在人权问题上的差异；（4）以单方面强制而不是多边合作的方式处理人权方面的分歧等等。

The term “politicization of human rights” refers to the propensity and process that actors in international relations, out of certain political motives, deal with human rights issues in an attitude of political utilitarianism to realize certain political interests. The politicization of human rights has the following patterns of manifestation: (1) Human rights issues are treated in selective rather than universal ways; (2) Human rights conditions are evaluated by double standards rather than objective standards; (3) Differences in human rights issues are dealt with through confrontation rather than dialogue; and (4) Divergences over human rights issues are resolved through unilateral coercion rather than multilateral cooperation.

联合国人权机构明确主张人权的非政治化，要求在人权问题上采取普遍、客观的态度，坚持多边主义，促进建设性对话、国际团结与合作，消除人权政治化。联合国大会第60/251号决议要求“在审议人权问题时要确保普遍性、客观性和非选择性，并要消除双重标准和政治化”。人权理事会第5/1号决议规定人权普遍定期审议机制应“客观、透明、不作选择、具有建设性、非对抗、非政治化地进行”，应“适用客观性、非选择性、消除双重标准和政治化倾向的原则”，受理的来文应当“没有明显的政治动机”“不采取含有政治动机并有违《联合国宪章》规定的立场”。人权理事会第47/9号决议强调，“人权对话应具有建设性，并基于普遍性、不可分割性、客观性、非选择性、非政治化、相互尊重和平等相待等原则”。

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) advocates the non-politicization of human rights and a universal and objective attitude toward human rights issues. The UNHRC upholds multilateralism and calls for the elimination of human rights politicization through constructive dialogue and international solidarity and cooperation. Resolution 60/251 of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) underscores “the importance of ensuring universality, objectivity and non-selectivity in consideration of human rights issues, and the elimination of double standards and politicization.” The UNHRC’s Resolution 5/1 demands that “the universal periodic review should be conducted in an objective, transparent, non-selective, constructive, non-confrontational and non-politicized manner,” and that “the principles of objectivity, non-selectivity, and the elimination of double standards and politicization should apply.” Moreover, a communication…shall be admissible, provided that it is “not manifestly politically motivated” and “not resorting to politically motivated stands contrary to the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.” The UNHRC’s Resolution 47/9 emphasizes that “human rights dialogue should be constructive and based on the principles of universality, indivisibility, objectivity, non-selectivity, non-politicization, mutual respect and equal treatment.”

然而，美国为了维护自身的政治利益和全球霸权地位，在国际人权领域大搞人权政治化，采取选择性、双重标准、单方面强制等手段，严重侵蚀了全球人权治理赖以支撑和运行的重要基础，对全球人权事业发展构成重大威胁，产生了极其恶劣的破坏性后果。

However, to maintain its political interests and global hegemony, the United States has brazenly resorted to human rights politicization in the international community through such means as adopting selective and double standards and imposing unilateral coercion. Its behaviors have seriously eroded the foundation that underlies the global human rights governance, gravely threatened the international development of human rights cause, and generated outrageously destructive consequences.

一、美国人权政治化的历史进程

The historical process of US politicization of human rights

从总体上看，美国的人权政治化可以分为三个阶段：在20世纪70年代之前，对国际人权标准持勉强、冷漠甚至拒斥态度；在20世纪70年代至冷战结束前，推进“人权外交”，利用人权作为打击前苏联的政治工具；在冷战结束后，肆无忌惮地将自己的人权价值观作为“软实力”强加于他国，打压与自己政治制度不同的国家，以维护自身的全球霸权。

Generally speaking, the US politicization of human rights can be divided into three stages. The first stage is before the 1970s when the US adopted the international human rights standards after a fashion but still snubbed or even rejected them. The second stage was from the 1970s to the end of the Cold War when the US promoted “human rights diplomacy” and used human rights as a political tool to attack the former Soviet Union. The third stage started from the end of the Cold War and has lasted ever since, during which the US has arbitrarily imposed upon other countries its own human rights values as a “soft power” and suppressed countries of different political systems in the attempt to maintain US dominant status in the world.

（一）漠视及拒斥国际人权时期

(I) Period I: The US snubbed and rejected international human rights

在《世界人权宣言》制定过程中，美国政府一方面在口头上表示支持，另一方面却竭力强调这只是一个不具约束力、只具鼓舞性的文件。美国坚持把《世界人权宣言》中的人权条款写得尽可能含糊其辞，竭力抵制一些国家和组织提出的把人权条款细致化、把各国所应承担的义务具体化的倡议。在《世界人权宣言》通过后，出席联合国人权大会的美国代表立即宣称，《世界人权宣言》只有一条，即第22条对美国适用；而在第22条中，又只有一句话有价值，即《世界人权宣言》能否实现，取决于“各国组织与资源情况”。

While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was in the making, the US government expressed verbal support while stressing that it should be no more than an inspiring document with no binding force. It insisted on making the articles on human rights as ambiguous as possible, strongly objected to the initiative proposed by some countries and organizations to detail those articles and the obligations to be borne by each member state. After the UDHR was adopted, the American representative said that only one article – Article 22 – applies to the US, and only one sentence in Article 22 has any value, which is that whether the UDHR could be put into practice depends on “the organization and resources of each State.”

1953年后，美国对国际上公认的人权由不太情愿地参与和勉强支持转向公开的漠视。艾森豪威尔政府上台后立即宣布与《世界人权宣言》保持距离，声称在其内外政策方面，将不受人权义务的制约。1960年联合国通过的《非殖民化宣言》及其他一些对反殖民势力予以道义和政治合法性支持的措施，美国政府要么投反对票，要么投弃权票。许多其他人权条约也遭到了同样的冷遇。对20世纪60年代联合国反对南非种族隔离制度的努力，美国的回应则模棱两可，因为这与美国在南非的长期战略利益存在明显的矛盾。冷战初期，美国出于国家安全的考虑，将有民主化倾向的危地马拉阿本斯政府视为苏联共产主义势力在该国的扩张，并通过两次秘密行动，采取外交压力和心理战相结合的手段，最终推翻了危地马拉的民选政府。这成为后来美国在拉丁美洲干涉他国内政的常用模式。

After 1953, America’s attitude toward internationally acknowledged human rights shifted from reluctance and unwillingness to support to outright indifference. Soon after he came into power, Eisenhower announced that his administration would keep a distance from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and claimed that its domestic and foreign policies would not be bound by human rights obligations. The UN passed in 1960 the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and other measures providing moral support and political legitimacy to anti-colonist forces, which the US either voted against or simply abstained. The same happened to many other human rights treaties. The US was ambiguous about the UN’s efforts to support South Africa’s struggle against the apartheid system in the 1960s because that was at odds with its long-term strategic interests in the country. At the beginning of the Cold War, the United States, out of consideration of national security, regarded the democratizing Guatemalan government of Árbenz as the expansion of Soviet Communist forces in the country, and finally overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala through two secret operations and the combination of diplomatic pressure and psychological warfare. This became a common pattern for the United States to interfere in the internal affairs of Latin American countries.

（二）“人权外交”并入政治战略时期

(II) Period II: “Human Rights Diplomacy” was incorporated into the US political strategy

从20世纪70年代中期开始，美国国会将人权作为多边外交政策的重要内容，把人权同安全援助、经济援助及其在国际金融机构中的投票取向联系起来。1977年，卡特当选为美国总统后，正式提出“人权外交”口号，人权被说成是美国外交政策的“基石”和“灵魂”。美国历史学家和外交关系学者詹姆斯·派克在其所著的《完美的幻觉：美国政府是如何选中人权外交的》一书中认为，华盛顿急于寻找一种新的意识形态武器用于冷战，而人权则是一个难得的武器。在派克看来，越是刻意强调什么，越是说明要刻意掩饰什么。美国在越南犯下骇人听闻的暴虐，如摧毁庄稼和森林、强制民众搬迁、轰炸平民、实施“凤凰计划”等，美国支持的智利、危地马拉、菲律宾、安哥拉等地实施的军事暴政，以及美国中央情报局在欧亚国家的秘密渗透活动越是遭到揭发和批评，美国政治家越是要声嘶力竭地宣传其人权理念，以粉饰其形象。

US Congress began to take human rights as an important topic in the multilateral foreign policy in the mid-1970s, linking human rights with security assistance, economic assistance, and the US’ votes in international financial institutions. After Jimmy Carter was elected US president in 1977, he formally put forth the slogan of “human rights diplomacy” and called human rights the “cornerstone” and “soul” of America’s foreign policy. In his book, Ideal Illusions: How the U.S. Government Co-opted Human Rights, American historian and foreign relations scholar James Peck said Washington was eager to find a new ideological weapon in the Cold War and human rights just came in handy. In Peck’s opinion, the more a country emphasizes something, the more it wants to hide it. The US committed appalling atrocities in Vietnam, from destroying crops and forests and forced relocation of the people to the bombing of civilians and execution of the Phoenix Program. It supported the military tyranny in Chile, Guatemala, the Philippines, and Angola, and the CIA carried out secret infiltration in European and Asian countries. The more these outrageous facts were exposed and criticized, the harder American politicians clamored about their human rights concepts to whitewash the US national image.

20世纪80年代，里根政府的人权政策是以美国“例外论”和冷战政策为基础的。例外论者声称：美国在启蒙时期就领悟了人权的真谛，并早在美国革命初期就得到了贯彻。因此，美国对公民权利和政治权利所承担的义务应成为其他国家学习的楷模。既然如此，美国无需什么人权的国际标准。里根政府批评卡特政府在人权问题上的“幼稚”，要求把人权完全拉回到冷战的轨道上来。在联合国，里根政府公开攻击共产党国家侵犯人权，毫无隐讳地袒护像智利、阿根廷和危地马拉这样的盟国。里根政府明确要把人权作为同苏联及其盟国竞争的工具，并在联合国要求优先讨论共产党政权侵犯人权的问题，尤其是古巴的人权问题，但对许多其他国家的人权问题置之不理。对联合国《禁止酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚公约》，美国则始终持消极态度。

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration’s human rights policy was based on American “exceptionalism” and the Cold War policy. The proponents of exceptionalism claimed that the US grasped the truth of human rights during the Enlightenment and implemented it in the early stage of the American Revolution. Therefore, the US should be looked up to as a model for its obligations for civil rights and political rights, and it needed no international human rights standards. The Reagan administration criticized the Carter administration for being “naive” on human rights issues and tried to bring them back to the Cold-War track. At the UN, the Reagan administration openly accused communist countries of violating human rights while taking sides with its allies such as Chile, Argentina, and Guatemala. Explicitly using human rights as a tool to compete with the Soviet Union and its allies, it demanded that the UN give priority to the discussion of the communist regime’s violation of human rights, especially the human rights issues in Cuba while turning a blind eye to the human rights issues in many other countries. The US was also persistently passive about the UN’s Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

（三）强加本国人权观给其他国家时期

(III) Period III: the US rammed its view on human rights down the throats of other countries

冷战结束以后，美国对自己的政治制度产生出莫名的优越感，对其他与西方政治制度不同的国家则表现出一种制度性傲慢与偏见，认为只有美国的政治制度才是唯一合理并具有普世价值的。美国总统布什再次把“人权置于美国外交政策的中心位置”。1996年8月29日，克林顿总统在芝加哥的民主党全国代表大会上发表讲话时说：“我希望建造一座通往21世纪的桥梁，从而确保我们仍是全球具有最强大防务能力的国家，确保我们的外交政策继续在国际社会中推广美国的价值观。”正是基于这样的制度性傲慢，美国肆无忌惮在世界各地推行“全球民主运动”，任何一种非西方的政治制度都会受到严厉的舆论攻击和打压，相关国家也因此被贴上“不民主”“专制”乃至“无赖国家”的政治标签。

After the end of the Cold War, the US grew an inexplicable sense of superiority about its political system and an institutional arrogance and prejudice against countries that implemented a different political system, believing that only the American system was reasonable and universal. President Bush once again put human rights at the center of America’s foreign policy. When giving a speech at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago on August 29, 1996, President Clinton said, “I want to build a bridge to the 21st century that makes sure we are still the nation with the world’s strongest defense, that our foreign policy still advances the values of our American community in the community of nations.” With such institutional arrogance, the US has been blatantly enforcing a global democracy movement, whereby it launches rigorous public opinion attacks and suppression of any non-Western political system and labels relevant countries as “undemocratic,” “autocratic,” and even “rogue states.”

随着“9·11”事件爆发，以及美国出兵阿富汗、入侵伊拉克等事件的接连发生，美国已成为侵犯别国人权的主要国家。在反恐的名义下，美国司法部对国际人权法持拒绝态度，酷刑、暗杀等严重侵犯人权行为也是层出不穷，并因此遭到国际社会的普遍批评。美国国家安全局以国家安全为由采取针对外国情报目标的专项行动，监听并搜集外国政要以及美国公民的个人信息，侵犯公民隐私事件数不胜数，一次次引起轩然大波。

After the September 11 attacks and the US deployment of military forces to Afghanistan and its invasion of Iraq, the US made itself the primary violator of other countries’ human rights. In the name of counterterrorism, the US Department of Justice denied the international law on human rights. Torture, assassination, and other actions that severely violated human rights emerged one after another, which were widely criticized in the international community. The US National Security Agency, on the ground of national security, set in motion a campaign targeting foreign intelligence, under which it tapped and collected the personal information of foreign political figures and American citizens and violated their privacy, causing widespread outcries.

二、美国人权政治化举措的深层原因与表现形态

The deep-rooted reason for and manifestations of US politicization of human rights

美国对人权态度的历史演变显示，无论是早期对人权的漠视甚至拒斥，还是后期热衷于将人权作为大棒到处挥舞，本质上都是将人权视为政治斗争的工具，并依据人权与其政治战略的契合关系来决定对人权的态度。

The historical trajectory of America’s attitude towards human rights indicates that it has always viewed human rights as a tool for political struggle, both when it snubbed and rejected the subject in the early stage and when it wielded the baton of human rights around later. Its attitude hinges on to what extent human rights can serve its political strategy.

（一）美国将人权政治化的深层原因

(I) Deep-rooted reason for US politicization of human rights

美国将人权政治化的深层原因是国际人权标准与美国自身的人权状况及全球战略之间存在着根本性冲突。其一，美国自身存在严重的人权问题，包括种族歧视、枪支泛滥、暴力执法、两极分化等等。其二，美国在国际社会的盟友按照美国自己宣布的标准也是严重侵犯人权的国家。其三，美国为了维护自身的全球霸权，不断发动侵略战争，非法干涉他国内政，侵犯他国主权，这些都与人权原则背道而驰。因此，美国实际上无法将自己所宣扬的人权真正付诸实施，更谈不上与国际人权标准保持一致。当国际社会在各国的共同推动下将人权作为全球治理的共同道德标准时，美国为了增强自己的“软实力”不得不顺应国际社会发展的潮流，将人权旗帜为己所用，装扮和掩饰自身侵犯人权的行径。但是国际人权标准与美国全球战略之间的根本矛盾是无法消除的，由此导致美国必然选择以高度政治化的方式来使用人权原则。

The deep-rooted reason for US politicization of human rights is the fundamental conflict between international human rights standards and America’s own human rights situation and its global strategy. For one thing, the US is infested with serious human rights issues, including racial discrimination, gun abuse, violent enforcement of the law, and social polarization. For another, America’s allies in the international community are also serious violators of human rights by the standards pronounced by the US. Furthermore, the US, to maintain its global hegemony, has constantly waged aggressive wars, interfered in other states’ internal affairs, and violated their sovereignty, all of which go counter to the principles of human rights. It’s as clear as day that the US cannot put human rights it clamors about into practice, much less stay aligned with international human rights standards. When the whole international community is making united efforts to make human rights the common moral standard in global governance, the US, to enhance its “soft power,” has no choice but to follow the general trend, using it as a banner to cover up and dress up its rap sheet of human rights violations. However, the fundamental conflict between these international standards and America’s global strategy stays, and the US would inevitably use the principles of human rights in a highly politicized way.

（二）美国将人权政治化的三种形态

(II) US politicization of human rights shown in three manifestations

面对其全球战略与国际人权标准之间的冲突，美国或是放弃人权原则，赤裸裸地维护霸权；或是根据自己的政治利益有选择性地适用人权原则；或是直接将人权作为借口，对威胁自己政治利益的国家扣上“侵犯人权”的帽子，为侵犯他国主权披上道德外衣。

Given the conflict between its global strategy and international human rights standards, the US either gives up the latter to defend its hegemony, or selectively applies them to serve its political interests, or simply uses them as an excuse to label countries threatening its political interests as “human rights violators,” thus cloaking its breach of their sovereignty with a moral veil.

1．图谋政治利益抛弃基本人权理念

Disregarding the basic concept of human rights to pursue political interests

美国在20世纪50年代提出的“杜勒斯主义”树立了这样的理念：同苏联竞争，就是对人权作贡献。杜勒斯主义主张把联合国作为谴责共产主义对手的最好讲坛，艾森豪威尔政府用“道德反共主义”代替对国际上公认人权的关注，肯尼迪和约翰逊政府则把反共置于优先地位，人权问题只放在第三位。曾任美国中央情报局局长和国防部部长的罗伯特·盖茨曾经写道，“卡特政府以任何美国总统前所未有的决心和力度向苏联发起了意识形态战争”，具体办法就是“攻击苏联政府的合法性”和全力支持苏联国内的持不同政见者。

The “Dulles doctrine” that the US put forth in the 1950s planted such an idea that competing with the Soviet Union was contributing to human rights. Dulles saw the UN as the best rostrum to condemn America’s communist rivals, the Eisenhower administration paid more attention to “moral anti-communism” than to international acknowledged human rights, and the Kennedy and Johnson administrations put anti-communism on top of their agenda and human rights issue on the third spot. Robert M. Gates, former Director of Central Intelligence Agency and Secretary of Defense, wrote that President Carter launched an ideological war against the Soviet Union with resolve and strength never seen in previous presidents of the United States, by attacking the legitimacy of the Soviet government and fully supporting any dissident in the country.

2．区分政治敌友双标适用人权准则

Exercising double standards on human rights with discriminations between US political friends and foes

美国在推行人权外交和处理人权事务时，并不是按照统一的国际人权标准，从公正、客观的角度关注人权保障，而是采取双重标准甚至多重标准。

When promoting human rights diplomacy and handling human rights affairs, the US doesn’t comply with the uniform international standards or guarantee human rights from a just and objective perspective. It always exercises double or even multiple standards.

首先，对自己国家的人权问题奉行一套标准，对别的国家的人权问题奉行另外一套标准。尽管美国国内长期存在大量失业、贫困、无家可归、枪支泛滥、暴力犯罪、种族歧视、移民人权等系统性人权问题，然而美国在其每年的国别人权报告中却对这些视而不见，避而不谈，一味趾高气扬地指责别国的所谓人权问题。

First of all, it upholds one set of standards for its own human rights issues and another set for those in other countries. Turning a blind eye to the myriad systematic human rights violations at home, the US never mentions these issues, such as unemployment, poverty, homelessness, permissive gun laws, violence, crime, racism and the human rights issues of immigrants in its annual country reports on human rights practices, while always pointing fingers at other countries in a condescending way.

其次，对自己的盟国或友好国家奉行一套标准，对与自己意识形态不同、政治和社会制度不同或利益相冲突的国家则奉行另一套标准。里根政府在提交国会的《人权备忘录》中规定了“积极的”和“消极的”人权标准，对苏联东欧社会主义国家适用“积极的”人权标准，对它们侵犯人权的行为给予最严厉的惩罚；而对美国的盟国，即使存在侵犯人权现象，最多也只采取“消极的”人权标准。在美国每年发表的国别人权报告中，对发展中国家、社会主义及其他“不友好”国家的人权问题夸张渲染，但对其盟友的人权问题则轻描淡写或遮遮掩掩。

Second, it upholds one set of standards for its allies or friendly states and another set for countries that have a different ideology, political and social system, and conflicts of interests with it. In the Human Rights Memo submitted by the Reagan administration to the Congress, the Reagan administration stipulated the “active” and “passive” human rights standards, the former applying to the socialist countries in East Europe, with the harshest punishments on their rights-violating acts, while the latter applying to America’s allies no matter how serious the violation was. The annual country reports on human rights released by the US exaggerate the human rights conditions in developing countries, socialist countries, and other “unfriendly” countries but downplay or cover up such issues in its allies.

第三，对同一国家在不同时期采取不同人权标准。如果某个国家在某个历史时期的政策违背了美国政府的利益，“人权问题”就可以被利用来指责、要挟和制裁该国；当该国迎合了美国政府的利益时，“人权问题”则可能被置于次要的地位，而改用激励方法。

Third, the US adopts different human rights standards to a country in different periods. If a country adopts a policy at a certain point that betrays the interests of the US government, “human rights issue” can be used to criticize, threaten or sanction that country; if the country panders to the interests of the US government, then “human rights issue” will be less important and incentives will be employed.

第四，在不同时期和不同问题上对人权采取不同的态度。在第二次世界大战刚结束的一段时期，美国始终对人权持冷淡态度。直到后来，特别是1956年匈牙利事件以后，联合国难民署的材料显示建立难民国际制度将是东西方斗争中的一个有力武器，美国才转而采取支持立场。

Fourth, the US adopts a different attitude toward different human rights issues in different periods. After the end of WWII, the US was quite indifferent to human rights and didn’t change its position until, especially after what happened in Hungary in 1956. Reports by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees indicated that the US began to take a supportive position because it believed that establishing an international system on refugees would be a powerful weapon in the struggle between the East and the West.

第五，对不同类权利采取不同态度。美国从自身经济和政治体制出发，对经济、社会和文化权利与公民权利和政治权利采取不同态度，对自由权与生存权、发展权采取不同态度，突出强调前者而淡化甚至否认后者。

Fifth, the US adopts a different attitude toward different types of rights. Entrenched in its own economic and political system, the US has one attitude towards economic, social, and cultural rights and another towards civil rights and politics, one attitude toward liberty and another toward the rights to subsistence and development – emphasizing the former but downplaying or denying the latter.

无论这种选择性和双重标准有多少形式，其最终目的都是使人权服从服务于美国的世界霸权和遏制社会主义国家发展的需要。正如美国前总统卡特的国家安全顾问布热津斯基在《大失败》一书中所公开宣称的：人权“是促进共产党国家逐步向民主政治过渡的具有远见卓识的战略选择，可加速共产主义衰亡的进程”。

No matter how many forms these selective and double standards take on, their ultimate purpose is to make human rights serve America’s global hegemony and curb the development of socialist countries. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser to ex-US President Jimmy Carter, proclaimed in his book The Grand Failure: The Birth and Death of Communism in the Twentieth Century that human rights are a provident strategic choice that will push the transition of communist countries to democracies and accelerate the decline of communism.

3．挥舞人权大棒侵犯他国主权

The US wielding the baton of human rights in violation of the sovereignty of other countries

美国将经济、政治乃至军事手段与人权外交手段相结合，以实现其人权外交目的。一方面，美国将人权与经济援助挂钩，要求接受美国援助的国家也必须同时接受美国的人权标准。另一方面，对于那些抵制美国人权外交的国家，则结合武力行动以实现人权外交目的。

The US combines economic, political, and military approaches with human rights to achieve its purpose of human rights diplomacy. On the one hand, it links human rights with economic assistance – countries that accept its assistance must also accept its human rights standards. On the other hand, it takes armed actions against those countries that resist its human rights diplomacy to pursue its purpose.

美国历届政府都将维持美国的霸权地位，防止亚太地区出现有损美国霸权的大国作为其战略核心。中国由于现实原因成为美国遏制的首要目标，而“人权”则是美国用来牵制中国的一张牌。美国纽约大学历史和国际关系学者詹姆斯·派克指出，在美国政府内部主张对华遏制的一派时至今日坚持认为，人权是针对中国的最后一个意识形态武器，是让中国共产党无法生存下去的一个项目。“既然不能在经济上指望中国‘崩溃’，那就通过‘人权’这一政治武器从内部促使中国崩溃。”2000年，美国国会成立了“美国国会——行政部门中国委员会”，集中体现参众两院、政府国家安全机构、商业集团和人权组织的共同利益。这个委员会监控中国各个方面的人权状况。

All US administrations have made maintaining America’s hegemony and preventing the appearance of a major Asian-Pacific country that would threaten it as their strategic core. China, for realistic reasons, has become its prime target, with “human rights” being a useful card to contain its rise. According to James Peck, a scholar at New York University, the anti-China faction within the US government still believes today that human rights are the last ideological weapon against China and a project that will bring doomsday to the Communist Party of China. They argue that they cannot count on China’s economic collapse and they must resort to the political weapon of human rights to bring it down from within. In 2000, US Congress formed the Congressional-Executive Commission on China that, monitoring China’s human rights conditions in all respects, represented the common interests of Congress, the government’s national security agency, business groups, and human rights organizations.

詹姆斯·派克通过分析大量的历史材料得出结论：美国官方所倡导的所谓人权与真正的人权理念几乎没有丝毫的联系，美国官方高举人权旗帜，其唯一的目的是利用人权推广自己的全球战略。美国政府逐步把人权变成推行其外交政策的一种话语权，成为美国意识形态和公共外交的工具。

Analyzing a huge amount of historical materials, James Peck concluded that the so-called human rights advocated by the US government are not in the least related to the genuine concept and that the country only takes advantage of the banner of human rights to advance its global strategy. The US government has gradually turned human rights into a discourse power to promote its diplomatic policies, or more precisely, a tool to promote America’s ideology and public diplomacy.

三、美国人权政治化行径严重危害全球人权善治

III. US politicization of human rights seriously undermines global governance of human rights

美国将人权政治化，对全球人权治理带来灾难性影响，阻碍了国际人权事业的正常发展，导致一些国家陷入混乱，玷污了人权的概念和神圣理想。

The US politicization of human rights has brought disastrous effects on global human rights governance. It has hindered the normal development of the international cause of human rights, plunged some countries into chaos, and profaned the sacred concept and ideal of human rights.

首先，美国的人权政治化行径阻碍国际人权事业的健康发展。美国以政治利益划界，阻塞了不同人权观点之间正常对话的可能性，将联合国人权机构变为政治对抗的战场。这不仅影响了全球人权事业的发展，而且也使美国自身的人权状况长期得不到应有的改善。哥伦比亚大学法学院教授塞缪尔·莫恩等学者认为，由于美国那些善于玩弄实力政治的政客们对人权问题根本不屑一顾，20世纪40年代所谓的人权革命“夭折于诞生之时”。众多学者认为，20世纪40年代末到70年代初期人权问题陷入“死胡同”，是因为美国在冷战政治中未能积极参与对人权问题的国际行动。

First, the US politicization of human rights hinders the sound development of the cause of human rights at the global level. Dividing the world based on political interests, the US has precluded the possibility of having a normal dialogue between those holding different views on human rights and turned the UN human rights body into a battlefield of political confrontation. This not only hurts the development of the global cause of human rights but also keeps America’s own human rights conditions in a chronically poor state. Samuel Moyn, a professor of Columbia Law School, and other scholars held that as the politicians in the US who are good at playing with power politics treated human rights issues with scorn and contempt, the so-called “human rights revolution” in the 1940s came to an abrupt end right after its birth. From the end of the 1940s to the early 1970s, human rights issues came to a “dead zone” because, as many scholars believed, the US didn’t take an active part in international actions on this subject amid Cold War politics.

其次，美国以人权为借口干涉别国内政，制造国家动荡，产生新的人权灾难。美国侵犯他国主权，导致被干涉和侵略国家战火纷飞、生灵涂炭，造成了新的人权灾难。美国学者崔升焕和詹姆斯·帕特里克指出，美国向国际社会单方面输出自己人权价值观有四种常见的政策工具：一是军事干涉，如在伊拉克或科索沃，美国以这些国家和地区的人权状态恶化为借口而发动战争；二是军事援助，以消除人权危机为由，美国政府将武器提供给特定派系的武装分子；三是经济制裁，最典型的是认定所谓的“流氓国家”，号召其盟友一起切断与该国的经济往来；四是经济援助，这种工具被广泛运用在美国对拉美的外交政策之中，在提供经济援助的同时，要求这些国家依照美国的标准改善人权水平。两位学者在对近30年间144个国家的数据进行对比分析后得出的结论是：二战后，美国基于外交的人权输出几乎全是失败的，无论是军事干涉伊拉克，还是经济援助拉美国家，至今都未能使那里的基本人权得到保障。这表明，美国将人权战略工具化，非但不能真正地改善人权，反而会导致新的人权灾难。

Second, interfering in the internal affairs of other countries on the excuse of human rights, the US has created national turmoil in other countries and started new human rights disasters. The US' violation of the sovereignty of other countries has led to wars and loss of lives in the intervened and invaded countries, resulting in new human rights disasters. US scholars Seung-Whan Choi and James Patrick revealed that the US generally employs four policy tools to sell its human rights values to the international community. The first is military interference, which is what happened in Iraq and Kosovo, where the US launched wars on the pretext of their state of human rights. The second is military assistance, meaning that the US government provides weapons to the militarists of specific factions on the excuse of eliminating the human rights crisis. The third is economic sanction. The most typical way to use this tool is first labeling certain countries as the so-called “rogue states” and then instigating American allies to cut off economic ties with it. The fourth is economic assistance, which is widely used in the diplomatic policies towards Latin American countries, who are demanded to improve their human rights according to American standards if they are to accept the economic assistance. The two researchers, through a comparative analysis of the data of 144 countries over nearly 30 years, concluded that almost all of America’s diplomatically driven output of human rights since WWII have failed. Its military interference in Iraq is a failure, so is its economic assistance to Latin American countries, as basic human rights are not fully guaranteed in those areas even until today. This fully proves that using human rights as a strategic tool will not truly improve human rights; rather, it will lead to new human rights disasters.

最后，美国将人权作为实现其全球战略的工具，玷污全球人权崇高的理想。美国大搞双重标准，漠视甚至纵容真正侵犯人权的行径，而且对保护人权的政策措施口诛笔伐甚至实施经济制裁、政治施压或军事威慑。这使得人类长期追求的人权理想被严重玷污，人权概念成为美国侵犯他国人权的借口和工具。正如中国前驻古巴大使徐贻聪指出：“它们提倡的‘人权’，实际上是一根政治大棒，基本上是用来干涉他国内政、颠覆他国合法政府的工具，是一种‘政治化’的手段和策略，并非是对人权的本质尊重。在世界各地，凡是有动乱的地方，都能听到它们‘保护人权’的口号，在一些国家处理危害国家主权和安全的叛国分子时，也都能看到西方世界的‘人权大棒’。说到底，它们就是在将人权‘政治化’，完全是别有用心。从本质上说，将人权问题政治化，是在实质上并不尊重人权的表现。”

Last but not least, taking human rights merely as a tool to implement its global strategy, the US has profaned the lofty ideal of human rights. The US blatantly exercised double standards, ignored, indeed even indulged, true violations of human rights. In the meantime, it has slammed policies and measures that are genuinely aimed at protecting human rights and even imposed economic sanctions, political pressuring, or military deterrence on countries adopting them. What America has done has seriously tainted mankind’s long-cherished ideal of human rights and reduced the concept into no more than an excuse and tool for its outrage against human rights in other countries. As Xu Yicong, former Chinese ambassador to Cuba, pointed out, the human rights concept advocated by them is a political baton, a tool it uses to interfere in the internal affairs and subvert the legitimate regime in other countries and a politicized approach and tactic. It is never intended to respect human rights. Whenever there was unrest and disturbance somewhere in the world, we could hear them chanting about human rights. When sovereign states were dealing with insurgents endangering national sovereignty and security, we could see the West wielding its baton of human rights. In the final analysis, they are politicizing human rights with ulterior motives, and that is essentially and exactly a show of disrespect for human rights.

美国的人权政治化行径侵蚀和毁损全球人权善治的基础，给全球人权事业带来了灾难性的后果，受到了国际社会正义力量的普遍谴责和广泛声讨。中国常驻联合国代表张军2021年10月7日在第76届联合国大会第三委员会一般性辩论中发言指出，美国等少数国家执意在联大三委挑起对抗，点名批评其他发展中国家人权状况，各种帽子满天飞，却对自己和盟友国家的人权劣迹视而不见。美国等少数国家罔顾事实、编造谎言、对中国进行无理指责，借人权干涉中国内政。对此，中国政府和人民坚决反对、严正拒绝。埃及、阿尔及利亚、乍得、土库曼斯坦、白俄罗斯、委内瑞拉等国在发言中强调，各国人民有权根据国情自主选择人权发展道路，坚决反对将人权问题政治化，反对搞双重标准，反对干涉内政。

The US politicization of human rights has eroded and ruined the global foundation of human rights governance and incurred disastrous consequences to the global cause of human rights. It has been extensively condemned and criticized by the just forces in the international community. At the General Debate of the Third Committee of the 76th Session of the UN General Assembly on October 7, 2021, China’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Zhang Jun, made the following statement: “At the Third Committee, the US and a few other countries are provoking confrontation, pointing fingers at other developing countries’ human rights situation, and brazenly launching smear campaigns. At the same time, they choose to stay silent on their own issues and turn a blind eye to the terrible human rights records of their allies… In total disregard of facts, the US and a few other countries are fabricating lies…making groundless accusations against China, and using human rights to interfere in China’s internal affairs. These moves are firmly opposed and resolutely rejected by the Chinese Government and people.” Representatives from Egypt, Algeria, Chad, Turkmenistan, Belarus, and Venezuela all underscored in their speeches that the people of each country have the right to independently choose their path of human rights development according to national conditions. They firmly opposed the politicization of human rights, the exercise of double standards, and the interference in the internal affairs of other countries.

美国将人权政治化所导致的恶果使人们日益深刻地认识到，人权非政治化是全球人权治理得以顺利进行的基础和前提，防止和遏制人权政治化，是促进世界人权事业健康发展的重要保障。美国为了维护自身利益，逆历史潮流而动，变本加厉推行人权政治化，破坏全球人权事业的健康机体，将一个又一个国家推入社会动荡的漩涡。世界各国人民越来越认清其“人权卫士”面具之下的真面目，反对美国逆时代潮流而动的卑劣行径，这将使美国竭尽全力维护的国际霸权遭到全面反噬，在全球人权事业发展的凯歌声中鸣响起美国霸权衰落的丧钟。

The disastrous consequences of US politicization of human rights have made people realize, ever more deeply, that the non-politicization of human rights is the foundation and precondition for smooth global governance of human rights and that preventing and curbing human rights politicization is an important guarantee for promoting the sound development of the international human rights cause. To safeguard its own interests, the US, acting against the historical trend, has doubled up its acts of politicization that have damaged the healthy mechanism of global human rights development and pushed many countries one after another into the swirl of social turbulence. People across the world, having seen through its mask of “human rights defender,” have stood up to oppose its despicable moves. As a result, the global hegemony that the US has tried so hard to maintain will be shaken, and the bell for its decline will toll amid the song of triumph celebrating the development of human rights worldwide.