Editorial: President Trump wastes his power when he doesn’t speak out on human rights abuses

For 40 years, the advancement of human rights around the globe has been a pillar of U.S. foreign policy.

Democratic and Republican presidents alike have understood that the United States, as the most powerful democracy in the world, has the political wherewithal as well as the moral duty to call on other governments to respect human rights and condemn them when they fail to do so.

But President Trump, disturbingly and deliberately, has chosen to move away from that stance. This week, Trump hosted at the White House Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Sisi — whose repression and unjust jailing of tens of thousands of political opponents, journalists and others (including some Americans) cost him any chance of an invitation from former President Obama. In advance of Sisi’s visit, aides to Trump said he would not publicly broach the topic of human rights. That issue would only be dealt with in private, Trump aides said. Whatever that means.

The Trump administration also announced that it would sell new American fighters to its Middle East ally Bahrain and lift human rights conditions on that sale that had been imposed by the Obama administration. The monitoring group Human Rights Watch is concerned that such a move could embolden Bahrain, which has imprisoned peaceful protesters, to crack down further.

Trump did condemn one of the most extreme examples of a human rights violation in recent memory, the horrific chemical attack on civilians in Syria — a war crime thought to be the work of Syrian President Bashar Assad. At least, that’s where the administration ended up. Days before the attack, White House spokesman Sean Spicer had argued that there was no point in publicly calling for Assad to leave office because “there is a political reality we have to accept.” On Wednesday, Trump, noting the atrocities committed against children, said his attitude toward Syria and Assad had changed, although he didn’t say how that might affect U.S. policy.

There will always be a necessary balancing act for the U.S. between maintaining national security interests and standing up for human rights internationally. Allies must be cultivated; overseas military bases must stay open. But most presidents before Trump have been able to hand out aid and aircraft contracts to other countries while demanding in return some resolution of a human rights situation or some progress toward democracy. In exchange for Myanmar transitioning from a quasi-military government to a fledgling democracy and releasing many (if not all) political prisoners along the way, the Obama administration restored full diplomatic relations and lifted economic sanctions. Challenging as finding that balance may be, President Trump, who prides himself on being a deal maker, should try harder to advance both national security interests and human rights.

It’s imperative that U.S. leaders take public — not private — stances on human rights around the globe. Not using the presidential bully pulpit to call foreign governments to account is simply an abdication of moral responsibility — and a waste of our power and ability to coax other countries toward democracy. Just weighing in publicly on human rights abuses sends a signal to all governments and strengthens the hand of activist groups. “When the U.S. raises the issue of human rights, people in prisons get treated better,” says Sarah Margon, Washington director of Human Rights Watch, “because it means that someone powerful is watching.”

It’s in our best national security interests to have our closest allies be democracies. The more we can do about achieving that, the better. Disengaging on human rights because it might complicate our pursuit of a short-term objective is misguided and shortsighted. The more disengaged the U.S. is, the more it telegraphs to governments already violating human rights that we will tolerate that behavior. That only leaves us less secure in a world of repressive governments violating human rights with impunity.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion or Facebook