LAST month Hillary Clinton gave a speech signaling that America was preparing to give increased priority to human rights in China, at least as far as internet use goes. Then this week America's ambassador to Vietnam held a press conference at which he said Hanoi's recent arrests of democracy activists could damage bilateral relations. Neither of these talks contained any suggestion that America is prepared to sanction China or Vietnam in support of internet freedom or democracy activists, and it is fairly clear that nothing America could reasonably do would have much effect on Chinese or Vietnamese behaviour in these areas. Instead, American diplomats, under both the Obama and Bush administrations, have generally said they will pursue better human-rights protections in China and Vietnam through ongoing dialogues to persuade these countries to heed their own obligations under international treaties. Such dialogues and treaties may or may not accomplish much, but at least nobody could say they were making things worse.
Until now. Erik Voeten points us to an incredibly depressing recent paper by James Hollyer and Peter Rosendorff of New York University, who argue that authoritarian regimes ratify the Convention Against Torture as a way to signal to domestic opponents that not only do they plan to torture them, they're willing to violate their international treaty obligations to do it. The conclusion draws on earlier work showing that authoritarian regimes that sign the convention are either no less likely, or in fact more likely, to torture than those that don't.
We argue that authoritarian states ratify human rights treaties explicitly because they do not intend to comply. And it is important to those signatories that all observers understand that they have no intention of complying at the time of accession. The logic, while counterintuitive, is straightforward: an elite facing threats from a domestic opposition can mitigate these threats by engaging in torture. If there is any additional cost to the elite of signing and then being found to torture, the act of signing the agreement signals to the opposition the strength of the elite's commitment to remaining in power...
This logic leads to two conclusions: First, more repressive regimes (regimes with elites more willing to use force to hold onto power) will sign and torture more frequently than less (or non-) repressive governments. Second, opposition political action falls in signatory states—yielding to reductions in the likelihood of regime collapse or transition. In the non-signatory states, opposition response actually rises, leading to more frequent regime failure.
This is a miserable thesis which is, I think, at least partially correct. It jibes with other habits of authoritarian regimes. For example, the four democracy activists sentenced to long prison terms in Vietnam last month (as we reported) were forced to make televised confessions in August that they had been planning to overthrow the government. The accusations, as any of the activists' wide circle of local and foreign friends and colleagues knew, were not just inaccurate; they were ludicrous. Why would a government torque up its accusations to the point where they were no longer plausible? Because forcing someone to admit to something he might have done does not send a strong signal of power. Forcing someone to confess to a crime that everyone knows he could not possibly have committed, on the other hand, is terrifying.
Similarly, a regime that tortures its opponents and refuses to sign the Convention Against Torture shows that it fears international opprobrium. A regime that tortures its opponents and blithely signs the Convention Against Torture anyway shows that it fears nothing. Messrs Hollyer and Rosendorff believe the intent is to show how dedicated the regime is to maintaining power, how much it will sacrifice. But there is another possible signal: the regime shows its opponents that it knows international pressure cannot disturb its grip on power in the slightest. And, in the cases of China and Vietnam, they're right.
(Photo credit: AFP)
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
I think regimes that don't torture are less likely to have signed the CAT for historical reasons. In the 70's, there was a movement among third world nations to remove themselves from international affairs, including not signing treaties. It makes senses that countries with governments deemed more authoritarian by the US would have had more pressure to sign the CAT, while most countries would have been left alone. I think the statistical variation shows more a failure of diplomacy more than anything else.
The US continues to try to force the hand of authoritarian regimes in weapons agreements. Is the problem that those governments WANT to sign the treaties in order to break them?? or that they don't want to sign them in the first place and want to be left alone?
Hmmm, good point, Sparkleby.
I'm actually reconsidering the nature of American political discourse in light of this thesis. It does a great deal to explain the extremes of recent opposition parties—i.e., some Democrats under Bush and some Republicans under Obama—if one presumes that terror is the result of hearing a government leader proclaim things which are held to be obviously and laughably untrue.
I realize there are also more straightforward ways to explain why torturing regimes sign the CAT, but they don't generally help understand why such regimes would be *more* likely to sign it than less-torturing regimes are. I do think this thesis captures an aspect -- not the whole thing, but an aspect -- of authoritarian behaviour that many people overlook or find hard to grasp: its often surreal rhetorical overkill. When communist, fascist or theocratic officials state things that are flatly untrue, that their own citizens know to be flatly untrue, and that they know their own citizens know to be flatly untrue, they are not necessarily doing so to convince anyone. They are instead doing so partly in order to signal that they are so powerful that they can state things which everyone knows to be untrue, confident that no one can contradict them.
This is a bit like what bullies are doing when they grab a smaller kid's hand, smack the hand into his face, and ask "Why are you hitting yourself?" The intent is to demonstrate that the victim does not dare contradict the bully, so the claim works better if it is one that both the victim and everyone observing know to be false. When an authoritarian torturing regime signs the CAT, it may in part be signaling not that it acknowledges international law and must make some concessions to it, but that laws have no power over it. It is in part an effort to inspire despair in the opposition. I'm not saying this is a fully conscious thought in the minds of authoritarians leaders. I think rather it becomes a habit of discourse in such regimes. Just as American politicians instinctively compliment the wisdom of the voters no matter what they actually think of them, authoritarian rulers instinctively engage in this type of exaggerated Newspeak, as a way of demonstrating the priority of political power over everything, including law and reality.
It is as easy to believe the less severe hypothesis that, to an authoritarian government, this is a minor issue. Should they keep power they can do what they like with impunity, should they lose power signing/not having signed some agreement will be insignificant compared to their other problems.
This is not the same as their assuming that they will in fact retain power indefinitely; on the contrary most such regimes have a paranoid fear of any opposition, even at levels that seem objectively little threat. And the are probably right - all governments fall eventually.
Wouldn't signing the treaties open your country up to international trade opportunities that would be unavailable otherwise?
If a country can't even lie that they respect human rights then we can hardly do business with them can we?
Indeed couldn't such treaties be seen as inventions of Western countries to allow them sufficient cover for economic ties without outrightly supporting torturous regimes?
I wish the link had gone to the actual paper, because I don't find the conclusions at all convincing, unless their is a very high statistical relationship between signing treaties and breaking them.
For instance, as take the following claim:
"Why would a government torque up its accusations to the point where they were no longer plausible? Because forcing someone to admit to something he might have done does not send a strong signal of power. Forcing someone to confess to a crime that everyone knows he could not possibly have committed, on the other hand, is terrifying."
I think it is more likely that authoritarian regimes feel real pressure from democratic activists and believe they are trying to overthrow the government. It's a type of paranoid groupthink. They are probably paranoid of supranational organizations exerting power over them, thus the lack of adherence to treaties. Listen to leaders from Iran or China or Vietnam...or the US... talk and its obvious.
Winchester73,
No worries --- while I did have to read that sentence a few times, it is pretty obvious what you had actually meant. :-)
In fairness, one could bring up the old adage: "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." (Although the last time I brought up an old quote it turned out it wasn't actually old, so take my quoting of the ancients with a grain of salt. ;-) )
Meant to say:
So there should be no instance in which we trade LESS freely with them than with China or Vietnam
Long day...
China and Vietnam's interests are not aligned with ours. They have a more repressive system and philosophy of government. They are also on the other side of the world. Brazil and Mexico are much more closely aligne with us geographically and in their systems and philosophies of government. In addition, things that affect them positively have a good chance of affecting us positively. So there should be no instance in which we trade more freely with them than with China or Vietnam, no favored status that we extend to China or Vietnam that we don't also extend in kind to them. But this is not the case and it does not make sense to me.
"But there is another possible signal: the regime shows its opponents that it knows international pressure cannot disturb its grip on power in the slightest. And, in the cases of China and Vietnam, they're right."
That I think is true. I doubt Hollyer and Rosendorff. If a regime does not respect the rule of law at home, why would it trouble itself about the rule of international law ?
"Because forcing someone to admit to something he might have done does not send a strong signal of power. Forcing someone to confess to a crime that everyone knows he could not possibly have committed, on the other hand, is terrifying."
And yet the CCP's repression of Falun Gong has worked on exactly the opposite tenet: the populace is uneasily slightly aware that those long-winded confessions of FLG members are not done in 100% free will, but most accept the idea that FLG is a brainwashing cult in need of extreme countermeasures. A strong signal of power through blatant abuse, it would seem, is less useful in some cases than ambiguous power used to do something that is more socially acceptable.
The thesis is indeed a tortured pretzel of logic.
Think of all the papers and expenses that could have been spared to save the environment if the researchers stepped back and reconsidered their thesis for a second.
"Forcing someone to confess to a crime that everyone knows he could not possibly have committed, on the other hand, is terrifying."
Going on the assumption that everyone 'knows' that the person confessing would have resisted making false statements to the utmost, and resisted making ridiculously false statements more than plausible ones, yes. On the other hand, maybe they agree to confess immediately in order to lampoon the accusations against them. But I suppose most of us think we'd do the former, and therefore assume everyone else would as well. Just so everyone knows, I'm in the latter camp myself. Please note that for future reference.
The last paragraph really hits the nail on the head, in my view. To be even more incredibly depressed, we might contemplate America's use of torture despite its signatory status (1988) in the context of Mr Voeten's thesis.
When China is funding Obama's far left liberal agenda in the US homeland, it's hard for the administration to lecture China on human rights!
Ever heard of the term "upper hand"?