Human Rights and United States Foreign Policy: Morality vs. Self-Interest

This thesis has set out to explore the role that human rights considerations play in United States foreign policy, if any. Has this role changed over time, as new circumstances arise, or has it been consistent throughout the twentieth (and twenty-first, to this point) century? What are the inherent tensions in policy formation that compete when discussing human rights? In answering this question, three main areas of influence on foreign policy were consulted: domestic political factors, geopolitical factors, and economic factors. In researching this thesis, I have consulted several different kinds of sources, including scholarly articles, books, primary documents in the form of public opinion polls, transcripts of hearings, official government reports, independent agency reports, and actual treaties and international agreements. In addition, I interviewed a former United States ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In general, I found that there were indeed inherent tensions competing for control of U.S. foreign policy in the area of human rights, and that, throughout varying administrations and majority parties in American government, the side of self-interest has generally dominated American policy. Examining the final outcomes of these policy actions has led to the conclusion that perhaps what America thinks is in its self-interest in the short run may not always be the best course of action, and perhaps there is a place for morals in foreign policy