In late April, Daniel Calingaert, executive vice president of Freedom House, testified in front of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations in favor of expanding the Magnitsky Act worldwide. He explained:

The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 provided a sound policy instrument to address human rights abuses in Russia.  In addition to condemning those abuses and trying to provide some support for Russian human rights defenders, the U.S. government introduced a small measure of accountability for the perpetrators of abuses.
The law carefully targeted sanctions on individuals who, based on credible information, are responsible for gross human rights violations.  It in no way harmed ordinary Russians.

He urged that Congress take that effort global, arguing it was sorely needed. “Freedom has declined globally for nine straight years, as Freedom House has documented in its annual ratings of political and civil rights. This decline is driven in large part by a resurgence of authoritarian regimes. In the past year, the decline has accelerated, as authoritarian regimes used more brazen tactics to crack down on their critics and showed open disdain for democratic standards. In Egypt, for example, 1,400 political activists were sentenced to death in mass trials that lacked the most basic elements of due process.” That in large part is due to the Obama administration’s total lack of concern for the repressed and an unseemly desire to accommodate their oppressors. “Respect for established human rights norms is deteriorating. Until recently, most authoritarian regimes claimed to respect international agreements, such as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Now authoritarian regimes openly flout these agreements. Basic human rights principles, which were broadly accepted, are now being re-opened for debate,” Calingeart said. Under the legislation, he testified, “The Global Magnitsky Act would direct the President to extend the same consequences to perpetrators of human rights abuses and corrupt officials anywhere in the world. No matter where the abuses are committed, the perpetrator could be denied entry to the United States and prevented from using our financial institutions. The global scope of this bill is a key strength. No country would be singled out. And it would apply to countries like China and Saudi Arabia that tend to escape criticism for their human rights abuses because of U.S. economic or security interests.”

This is not mere do-goodism. By shining a light on wrongdoers, making it harder for dictators to recruit accessories to their crimes and taking incentives away from government functionaries who think there is no downside to following superiors’ edicts, the bill also strikes at the dictators’ power, weakening their hold on the countries and emboldening resistance:

There are several clear benefits to holding individual officials accountable for human rights abuses.  First, accountability is grounded in the basic premise that human rights abuses are unacceptable, no matter how powerful or politically connected the perpetrator.  We can defend fundamental rights—to free expression, belief, association, etc.—while still conducting business with foreign governments on a range of issues.  In almost every case, we are just pressing the foreign government to live up to its own constitution and international agreements.
Second, individual accountability is likely to do more than criticism of abuses alone to deter future human rights violations.  If a penalty hangs over a perpetrator’s head, he (or she) may think twice about committing the crime.
Third, and perhaps most important, calls for individual accountability force authoritarian rulers to make a difficult choice: either they protect the most repugnant officials in their regimes, and thereby attract further scrutiny to the worst aspects of their rule; or they cut loose the very officials who do their dirty work and keep them in power.
The benefits of targeting corrupt officials are equally compelling.  High-level corruption is the Achilles’ heel of authoritarian regimes.  They have grown adept at deflecting criticism of their human rights violations by vilifying domestic activists as tools of foreign interests.  For example, they talk up the supposed threat of a Western “gay agenda” to portray human rights as alien values imposed from outside, rather than universal norms.  But corruption is different.  Ordinary people readily understand—and detest—the injustice of rulers enriching themselves at citizens’ expense, particularly when those citizens are struggling to make ends meet.
High-level corruption often contributes to, or even drives, human rights abuses.  Corrupt leaders stand to lose their ill-gotten gains if they leave office. They will go to ever greater lengths to hold onto power.  Former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych was a prime example.  As he and his family accumulated massive wealth, restrictions on media intensified, opposition figures were selectively prosecuted, and elections became increasingly manipulated.  Efforts to curb high-level corruption thus serve in many cases to target the source of repression as well.

The bill has languished in committee, but now would be an appropriate time to press forward with it. Debate on the bill would also illuminate the administration’s foot-dragging on human rights reports, its laxity in adding names to the existing list of offenders in Russia and its dereliction in defending our values around the world. It would be interesting to see whether Hillary Clinton — the great champion of women’s and children’s rights who nevertheless took money for her foundation from repressive regimes — favors the bill. Under her, the State Department fought tooth and nail against the original Magnitsky Act; maybe she has changed her mind on the efficacy of sanctioning murderers, torturers and the like. If not, it would sure be interesting to hear why.