Liberals and Human Rights

Intuitively, one would assume that "liberals" would take a stronger stand on human rights than conservatives. The demand for civil liberties, transparency, and basic freedoms are all issues liberals would naturally demand. Yet human rights have become the agenda of conservatives. When did human rights and the demand for liberal values abroad become the issue of conservatives (i.e. the rise of the neocons)? Are Democrats wary of pushing the human rights button, evoking the "freedom" rhetoric which rings so close to the Bush agenda.

We see the delicate balance Obama faces with Iran. Obama should provide the Iranian opposition moral support and denounce the use of violence to quash protestors. Yet he's been careful not to denounce Ahmadinejad, or make comments which would further incite the opposition, or suggest the illegitimacy of Ahmadinejad's rule (and by extension grounds for regime change). And from a "realist" perspective, Obama will likely be negotiating with Ahmadinejad's government on future nuclear policy. Thus he's exercising caution now with his words so as to not undermine future prospects of diplomacy or engagement with Ahmadinejad.
therefore is exercising caution. Glenn Kessler below gets at some of these points

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061703850.html


But this digression still doesn't get at the heart of my question about the position of political liberals (i.e. Democrats on human rights). More salient for my research is figuring out what the liberal position is on human rights in North Korea. My tentative answer is that they have no position. Liberals have been largely silent on human rights in N.Korea. The agenda has been dominated by conservatives and evangelical Christians. I think there is a "moderate" position here, which I would fall under. Focus on providing humanitarian aid. Denounce the lack of political, eocnomic, and religious freedom in N.Korea, but w/out openly promoting regime overthrow (even if this is desirable). Perhaps there is a way to silently promote regime change, by pulling internal levels, providing humanitarian assistance, and working with local officials to institute market reforms.

Thinking Outside of the Box on N.Korea

Two articles from the Post which I thought might help us think out of the box on N.Korea. When I mean out of the box, I mean thinking about issues outside of security, proliferation, and food aid, things like development assistance and the viability of economic zones.

The first article on agriculture development in Afghanistan doesn't apply to NK, but it' the principle of looking beyond existing models or frameworks which have continued to fail in the past.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061804135.html

The second article pertains to the precarious state of the Kaesong Industrial Complex with S. Korean investors pulling out amidst NK demands, and increased political risk in conducting business with the North. Again shows why at the end of the day the security issue dominates the agenda. Must security issues be resolved first before moving forwad on issues of economic reform, development, human rights etc... or will efforts promoting economic reforms and development help pave a resolution to security issues. (Update: S.Korea's "sunshine" engagement policy was an attempt at the latter. Obviously it failed...but perhaps the program was undercut by the early Bush Administration's NK policy).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061803683.html