Copyright by Gregory Krauss 2007 - The University of Texas at Austin

Reagan’s human rights policy was, undeniably, different from Carter’s. The
Reagan administration, at least in its rhetoric, treated human rights less as an absolute
matter and more as a policy factor to be considered in a geo-strategic context. 36
However, the Reagan administration by no means dismantled U.S. human rights
policy. The human rights reports required by Congress were kept objective. 37 Within
the Department, he took a less combative approach than had Patricia Derian, his
predecessor under Carter, although he reportedly challenged administration policy
toward countries including Chile, Argentina, and Guatemala. 38 He preferred quiet
diplomacy with foreign governments as opposed to public condemnations, but
arguably such a strategy could be effective. 39 Eventually, the Reagan administration
did publicly discuss human rights problems in countries such as Haiti, Chile, and the
Philippines. 40
Some of the difference was also a matter of tactics. The Reagan
administration shifted emphasis away from individual human rights violations to the
development of democratic institutions, which in the long-term it believed would be a
better guarantor of human rights. 41 Abrams’ introduction to the 1982 country reports
stated that the administration’s new approach was to “‘treat not only the symptoms
but the disease.’” 42
Since Reagan, a human rights emphasis has not been exclusively associated
with either Democratic or Republican ideology. Rather changed circumstances—as
well as shifting Presidential priorities—have meant that human rights policies
62