Report on the United States’ Annual Human Rights Reporting and its Implications for the Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Historical Context and Alignment with Global Goals

For nearly five decades, the United States Department of State has produced the Annual Country Report on Human Rights Practices (ACR). This initiative has served as a cornerstone of US foreign policy, intended to promote accountability and justice worldwide. The reports have historically functioned as a critical tool in advancing several key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), most notably:

• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): By documenting human rights violations, the ACRs have aimed to promote the rule of law, ensure equal access to justice, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.
• SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): The data and analysis within the ACRs have been instrumental for non-governmental organizations, think tanks, and international bodies, fostering global partnerships to achieve human rights objectives and, by extension, the broader 2030 Agenda.

The ACRs have guided the allocation of USAID funding and have been foundational in producing quantifiable data on global human rights standards. Despite historical criticisms regarding the prioritization of national interest, the reports have largely been regarded as a significant mechanism for global human rights monitoring.

Analysis of the 2024 Annual Country Report on Human Rights Practices

Deviation from Precedent and a Setback for SDG 16

The 2024 ACR, released by the Trump administration, marks a significant departure from established practices, thereby undermining progress toward SDG 16. The report exhibits several changes that weaken its role as a tool for promoting justice and accountability:

1. Structural Reductions: Entire sections of the report have been removed, resulting in a document that lacks the comprehensive scope of its recent predecessors. This reduction in monitoring capacity directly impedes the goal of building effective and transparent institutions.
2. Politicized Assessments: The report’s findings appear influenced by political alliances. For instance, it criticizes close US allies like the UK and France for regulations on online hate speech while claiming “no credible reports of significant human rights abuses” in El Salvador, a favored government, despite contrary evidence from other international observers.

This politicization compromises the report’s integrity and weakens a vital instrument for holding governments accountable for violations, a core target of SDG 16.

Undermining Global Partnerships and SDG 17

The diminished credibility and scope of the 2024 ACR threaten the collaborative frameworks essential for achieving the SDGs. By altering a long-standing and widely used resource, the US administration’s actions risk fracturing the global partnerships (SDG 17) that rely on impartial and comprehensive human rights data. The downgrading of human rights as a foreign policy priority, as outlined in documents like Project 2025, signals a retreat from the multilateral cooperation necessary to address complex global challenges, including those outlined in the 2030 Agenda.

Geopolitical Consequences and the Challenge to Universal Human Rights

Erosion of US Leadership and its Impact on SDGs 5 and 10

By appearing to downgrade its commitment to universal human rights, the United States risks its standing as a global leader in this domain. This shift has direct implications for goals centered on equality and non-discrimination.

• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): A less rigorous focus on human rights abuses invariably means less attention on the persecution of marginalized and vulnerable groups, hindering efforts to reduce inequality within and among countries.
• SDG 5 (Gender Equality): The removal of specific sections from the report could disproportionately affect the monitoring of women’s rights and reproductive health, representing a significant setback for SDG 5.

The Rise of Alternative Narratives and the Redefinition of Development

The vacuum created by the US policy shift provides an opportunity for geopolitical rivals, such as China, to advance alternative human rights frameworks. Since 1999, China has published its own “Human Rights Record of the United States” report. The Chinese narrative challenges the universality of human rights by prioritizing state sovereignty and emphasizing the right to development over civil and political liberties. This approach presents a direct challenge to the integrated nature of the SDGs, which posits that sustainable development can only be achieved when economic progress (e.g., SDG 1, SDG 8) is pursued in tandem with justice, freedom, and strong institutions (SDG 16). By politicizing its own reporting, the US inadvertently strengthens a competing vision that could decouple development from fundamental human rights, thereby threatening the holistic foundation of the 2030 Agenda.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This is the most relevant SDG as the article’s central theme is human rights, the rule of law, and the role of governmental institutions (like the US State Department) in monitoring and reporting on these issues globally. The article discusses “gross violations of internationally recognized human rights,” “arbitrary detentions,” and the function of the Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (ACR) as a tool to promote an international human rights agenda, all of which fall under the purview of SDG 16.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The article connects to this SDG by discussing international relations, foreign policy, and development aid. It explains how the ACRs are used to “guide foreign policy towards and decide USAID funding allocated to the countries they report on.” This demonstrates a mechanism of international cooperation and policy coherence for development, where a developed country uses its institutional outputs to influence policies and provide financial resources to other nations, aligning with the principles of global partnership.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. The article’s focus on “internationally recognized human rights” and the use of ACRs to hold countries accountable for violations like “arbitrary detentions” directly relates to promoting the rule of law and justice.
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article analyzes the US State Department’s ACRs as an institutional mechanism for promoting human rights. The critique that the reports have been altered and shortened, potentially reflecting political bias (e.g., the favorable report on El Salvador), questions the effectiveness, accountability, and transparency of this institution.
   • Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, to build capacity at all levels… to prevent violence. The article describes how the ACRs and associated USAID funding are tools of US foreign policy. This represents a form of international cooperation intended to influence and strengthen other countries’ adherence to human rights standards and, by extension, the capacity of their institutions to prevent violations.
2. Under SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • Target 17.14: Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development. The article explicitly details how the US has historically linked its human rights monitoring (the ACRs) with its foreign aid (USAID) and broader foreign policy. This is a direct example of policy coherence. The changes under the Trump administration, which “downgrade the human rights agenda as a priority for US foreign policy,” represent a potential breakdown of this coherence.
   • Target 17.16: Enhance the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge… The article states that the ACRs are “used by various think tanks and non-government organisations in producing quantifiable human rights data and rankings.” This shows how a government report (knowledge) is shared and utilized by other stakeholders (NGOs, think tanks) in a multi-stakeholder effort to advance a global human rights agenda.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Quantifiable human rights data and rankings: The article explicitly mentions that think tanks and NGOs use the ACRs to produce “quantifiable human rights data and rankings.” These rankings are a direct indicator used to measure a country’s human rights performance.
• Content and scope of the Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (ACR): The article implies that the report itself is an indicator. The fact that “Whole sections of the State Department document have been removed” and that it is “a much shorter report” is a qualitative indicator of a decreased commitment to comprehensive human rights monitoring.
• Reports of specific human rights violations: The article mentions specific types of abuses that are tracked, such as “gross violations of internationally recognized human rights,” “arbitrary detentions,” and issues like “online hate speech.” The number and nature of such credible reports are key indicators.
• Allocation of USAID funding: The article states that the ACRs help “decide USAID funding.” Therefore, the amount of security and development assistance provided or withheld from countries based on their human rights record is an implied financial indicator of policy coherence.
• Publication of national human rights reports: The existence of the US’s ACRs and China’s counter-report, the “Human Rights Record of the United States,” serves as an indicator of national engagement and positioning within the global human rights discourse.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: blogs.lse.ac.uk