نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• مجید عباسی ¹
• محمدرضا عبیدیان ²

¹ دانشیار گروه روابط بین الملل دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

² دانشجوی دکتری روابط بین الملل دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

ایالات متحده با اقداماتی نظیر حمله مستقیم، دخالت در امور داخلی کشورها و ایجاد ناامنی، سیاست‌های متناقضی با اصول و شاخص‌های حقوق بشر نشان داده است. سیاست‌های متناقض ایالات متحده در غرب آسیا نشان دهنده نابرابری و ناپایداری در جامعه بین‌المللی و نقض قوانین بین‌المللی حقوق بشری است. لذا با توجه به اهمیت بررسی این موضوع، پرسش اصلی پژوهش این است که سیاست‌های امریکا بر اساس مولفه‌های حقوق بشر در منطقه غرب آسیا چیست؟ فرضیه پژوهش گویای این است که امریکا به‌طور مشخص در سه شاخص حق تعیین سرنوشت، حق صلح و حق حیات؛ سیاست‌های متناقضی با اصول و شاخص‌های حقوق بشری در غرب آسیا پیگیری کرده است. یافته‌ها حاکی از آن است که سیاست‌های حقوق بشری ایالات متحده در غرب آسیا، نه تنها کمکی به توسعه اصول و ارزش‌های حقوق بشر نکرده است بلکه با حمایت از رژیم‌های دیکتاتوری باعث تضعیف حقوق بشر و دموکراسی و با حمایت از رژیم اسراییل به ایجاد و توسعه ناامنی و تنش‌های منطقه‌ای و عدم توجه به حق تعیین سرنوشت، حق حیات و حق صلح، موجب برهم خوردن نظم و افزایش آوارگی و پناهجویی شده است. در این پژوهش از روش تحلیل محتوا با دیدگاهی آینده‌پژوهانه بهره گرفته شده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• حقوق بشر
• سیاست خارجی امریکا
• حق حیات
• حق صلح و حق تعیین سرنوشت

موضوعات

• روابط بین الملل

عنوان مقاله [English]

The U.S. Human Rights Policies in West Asia (2001–2024)

نویسندگان [English]

• Majid Abbasi ¹
• Mohammadreza Abidian ²

¹ Associate Professor, Department of International Relations, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

² Ph.D Student, International Relations, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

Introduction
The concept of human rights emerged and developed in Western Europe in the 17th century, and by the 18th and 19th centuries it had spread widely across the world. Human rights soon became central to the foreign policies of many countries. For example, the constitutions and declarations of states such as the United States and France include sections devoted to human rights and have led to the establishment of national and international institutions concerned with the protection of human rights. After the formation of the European Union, its Common Foreign and Security Policy also emphasized the importance of human rights. Respect for human rights even became a fundamental principle guiding the EU’s relations with other countries. By the 20th century, human rights—along with the concepts and institutions associated with them—were established in the international system. Because of their close connection to the concept of democracy, human rights increasingly attracted the attention of politicians, scholars, and experts in international relations and came to be viewed as a foundation of democracy. Human rights are generally divided into several categories, including the right to life, the right to self-determination, the right to property, the right to freedom, the right to justice, the right to dignity, and the rights of individuals and minorities. Many actors around the world claim to be protectors of human rights. One such country is the U.S., which regularly presents itself as a global champion of human rights. However, numerous examples contradict this claim. West Asia is one of the clearest regions where the U.S. has acted under the guise of human rights—yet largely in pursuit of its own foreign policy objectives. In this regard, the present study sought to answer the following question: What are the U.S. human rights policies in the West Asian region?
Literature Review
In an article titled “A Study of the Human Rights Policy-Making Process of the United States of America in the Middle East,” Chehr-Azad (2019) compared the human rights approaches of Presidents Obama and Bush, emphasizing that Obama generally sought to reshape the country’s policies in the Middle East. Chehr-Azad argues how the Middle East has consistently been a region of interest for the U.S., particularly because of the presence of Israel. He notes that U.S.
 leaders frequently invoke human rights principles in their interactions with the Islamic world. In “Investigating America’s Dual Approach to Human Rights: A Case Study of U.S. Domestic Society and West Asia,” Sotoudeh (2021) examined the claim that the U.S. not only uses human rights as a tool to advance its own interests but also undermines this principle by adopting a double standard in its human rights practices. In addition, Soleimani-Porlak (2011), in Soft Power in America’s Middle East Strategy, explained various theories about security and specifically examined soft power approaches to security.
Materials and Methods
This study used a descriptive–analytical method to examine the topic.
Results and Discussion  
The most important international human rights instruments include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and various conventions protecting individual rights, including those of women, children, and minorities. In the West Asian region, the issue of human rights has long been a source of serious concern for the international community due to the region’s sensitive security environment and frequent political developments. Following World War II, major powers increased their involvement in the region under the pretext of supporting and promoting human rights. Among these powers is america. Although the U.S. claims to champion human rights and asserts that human rights occupy a central place in its foreign policy, it also uses the promotion of human rights, peace, and democratic norms as a justification for its presence in West Asia. However, U.S. actions in the region over several decades reveal significant contradictions in its policies. With regard to three key human rights components (i.e., the right to peace, the right to life, and the right to self-determination), U.S. policies in West Asia constitute clear violations of its stated commitment to promoting democracy and protecting human rights—particularly through its cooperation with and support for authoritarian regimes.
Moreover, the U.S. has demonstrated that its political priorities and strategic interests outweigh fundamental human rights principles, including the right to life and the right to peace. This is evident in the military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya, support for the actions of the Israeli regime in Palestine and Lebanon and the resulting consequences, the emergence and expansion of terrorist groups such as ISIS, and the use of weapons such as depleted uranium and phosphorus bombs in violation of the laws of war. Contradictions in U.S. policy are also evident regarding the right to self-determination. Although the U.S. claims to prioritize human rights and the right to self-determination for the people of West Asia, its actions frequently contradict this stance by supporting the regimes such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—both of which face serious criticism for violations of human rights and democratic norms. Likewise, the U.S. ambivalent approach to popular movements in the region further reflects its disregard for the self-determination of west Asian populations. In some instances, Washington has openly supported public uprisings, particularly when such movements challenge governments unfavorable to the U.S. interests. In other cases, however, the U.S. has criticized or opposed these demonstrations. Furthermore, its interventionist policies and support for Israel have placed significant constraints on the Palestinian people’s ability to exercise their right to self-determination. Overall, the findings indicated that the U.S. contradictory human rights policies in West Asia have not contributed to the promotion or protection of human rights in the region. On the contrary, America, at times, become a violator of human rights itself or a supporter of those who violate them, despite its stated commitments to the contrary.
Conclusion
The findings revealed a significant contradiction between the U.S. human rights rhetoric and its actual behavior in West Asia. This discrepancy can be understood through the theoretical lens of realism, which argues that states primarily pursue national interests and the maximization of power within the international system. In line with this perspective, human rights have not been treated as an inherent objective of U.S. policy, but rather as an instrumental tool used to legitimize interventions, weaken regional rivals, and advance strategic priorities such as ensuring Israel’s security and maintaining the steady flow of energy resources. The consequences of these contradictory policies include the erosion of democratic principles and human rights, the support for dictatorial regimes, and the intensification of instability and armed conflict across the region. This selective approach has not only resulted in direct violations of the rights to life, peace, and self-determination—most notably in Palestine, Iraq, and Syria—but has also damaged the U.S. credibility in its self-asserted role as a global advocate of human rights, thereby deepening mistrust within the international community. Ultimately, the research suggests that U.S. conduct in West Asia, rather than promoting humanitarian values, has itself become a factor leading to the systematic violation of human rights.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Human Rights
• U.S. Foreign Policy
• Right to Life
• Right to Peace
• Right to Self-Determination