The policymakers of a nation involved in such foreign relations as alliances, trade agreements, or military partnerships are not only faced with statistics and world maps but also with an age-old question that has troubled the practice of politics all through the time of the modern international system: Will a country accord number one priority to its universal human rights obligations, or will it put its national interests—security, economic growth, strategic positioning—first?
This is the dilemma of moral diplomacy versus realpolitik. On one side are values: human dignity, the rule of law, the rights of minorities, and the accountability of governments. On the other side are interests: power, stability, markets, strategic alliances, and resource access. Rarely do the two align perfectly; often they tug in opposite directions. For a country like India, deepening its global engagement and facing complex regional challenges, the trade-offs are real and urgent. The tension is exposed.
The liberal tradition in international relations argues that human rights are part of a global moral order and should therefore inform foreign policy. Many states today include human rights promotion in their official foreign policy lexicon. A 1989 study of U.S. foreign policy concluded that pursuing human rights “serves our security interests; it helps establish a system of world order based on the aspirations of people and the rule of law.”
Yet the realist tradition argues that states must look first to their interests. From the famous dictum of Henry Kissinger—“America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”—to the distinction often drawn between national security and idealistic values, realpolitik warns of the dangers of allowing moral commitments to undermine strategic imperatives. In practice, decisions about foreign policy often show this tension. International coverage of large powers consistently highlights the routine marginalization of human rights issues in favor of security or economic interests. A recent article claims that the assumed human rights versus national security conflict is, in fact, a “manufactured choice,” since the more important question is how national security is defined and whose interests are protected.
Why the trade-off matters
This trade-off is considered very important for several reasons:
Credibility and consistency: It is difficult for states to earn respect and to be regarded as having soft power if they are criticized for having double standards and talking about human rights while at the same time supporting regimes that are known for their harsh treatment of people. A very rigid values-first approach might be able to prevent such situations but at the cost of compromising key interests.
Operational effectiveness: Many actions are involved, such as deciding which oppressive governments to ask for requests from and how to apply human rights restrictions on aid and trade agreements, which require heavy deliberation. It is possible to lose both ethical reputation and economic benefits by making poor decisions.
Long-term vs. short-term: Putting national interest ahead of rights may bring short-term benefits, but it can also lead to unrest, anger, and security risks in the future.
However, the prioritization of rights may cancel out or delay the realization of short-term gains but will eventually help in establishing a more durable global order. For instance, a commentary asserts that inhuman treatment of people frequently leads to the endangering of the state’s security; hence, the overlooking of rights is in itself a risky strategy.
An illustrative case is India, which exemplifies the nexus between human rights and national interests.
India’s foreign policy is becoming more active in many areas, such as its neighbors, the global South, climate diplomacy, supply chains, and technology alliances.
Here, the rights versus interests dilemma plays out concretely:
• Economic diplomacy: In economic diplomacy, India needs to safeguard her trade interests, investment flows, and strategic supply chains. Statements from domestic organizations say that while negotiating with major partners like the United States, India must “safeguard national interest … especially that of our farmers and small entrepreneurs.” – Business Standard
• In regional security: India faces human-security challenges as much as classic state-security ones, with a neighborhood featuring fragile states, insurgencies, human displacement, and cross-border flows. The question: if a partner country has rights deficits, how should India engage? India presents itself as a voice of the Global South, a democracy with civil liberties, and a responsible power. If its external policy persistently ignores human rights concerns in favor of strategic convenience, it is likely to erode its credibility.
Reconciling the dilemma: a heuristic framework
Rather than framing the problem as “rights first or interests first,” a more productive way to consider this issue is to acknowledge that states must balance both.
Some guiding heuristics:
1. Define human rights as part of the national interest: Rather than treating rights and interests as separate categories, recognize that a stability-promoting, rights-respecting world is itself in the interest of states. This view represents the position of liberal IR scholarship.
2. Transparently address trade-offs as the foremost issue: A government should make the decision, the reasoning should be clear, and the limits should be accepted when a government collaborates with a rights-deficient partner for strategic reasons. Mistrust and hypocrisy are the results of concealed trade-offs.
3. Turn rights conditions into interest-based engagement: In case of the need for strategic or economic engagement, offer the development of rights as a precondition rather than unconditional partnerships.
4. Set the smart sequence for the goals: In some cases, making the conflict-prone area stable or securing the supply chains may be time-sensitive; the rights improvements can be part of a follow-up track. That does not imply leaving rights behind but rather incorporating them into the phased strategy.
5. Institutionalize consistency: Develop mechanisms within the foreign-policy architecture that routinely consider the human-rights implications of treaties, alliances, and aid programs—not as an afterthought but as a factor in the analysis.
Institutionalize
Doubts and constraints that might prove to be possible objections:
For instance, some activities may be deemed acceptable. Proponents of this view warn that a very strict rights-based approach may undermine activities in the national interest.
On the other hand, some advocates of human rights assert that making concessions not only compromises the moral outrage but also permits oppressive regimes to escape punishment for their crimes.
There is also empirical complexity: metrics of rights-respect vary, and international politics is messy. Critics note that publicly declaring a rights-first policy does not guarantee better human rights outcomes.
Why is it especially important now?
The global order is undergoing a transformation: the rise of multipolarity, the impact on human rights in supply chains, the intensification of climate shocks, and the proliferation of digital authoritarianism.
In such a world, it also means that states are exposed to non-traditional threats such as climate migration, cyber operations, and ideological influence campaigns, which a rights-blind policy may miss.
The legitimacy of power matters more: when peers and publics assess a country’s leadership role, how it treats people—at home and abroad—becomes a metric.
More value-driven partnerships: Many medium powers and non-state actors require increasingly higher ethical standards regarding trade, investment, and cooperation. Purely transactional foreign policy will likely face resistance.
The tension between human rights and the national interest is not going away. However, it doesn’t have to be presented as a binary decision—either upholding rights or upholding interests. The more useful perspective is that rights and interests must be integrated, not opposed. For India and other countries that seek both relevance and respect in a complex world, the task is to craft a foreign policy that is strategic and principled: that recognizes national interest while affirming that dignity, rule-of-law, and human security are themselves dimensions of the national interest.
Sources:
- https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-international-law-serves-u-s-national-interests/
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2598122/
- https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-450
- https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/john-ruggie/files/hr_and_the_future_international_community.pdf
- https://sur.conectas.org/en/foreign-policy-human-rights-emerging-countries/
