Ronnie Reagan was awful on human rights, because he had an artist-type personality focused on his issues of anti-communism and the hell with everything else. For example, at one point in the '80s, he said the president of Guatemala was getting a bum rap regarding human rights. That might be barely defendable as part of a carrot-and-stick approach where we make public statements of support as well as doing such things as suspending military aid for nine weeks. But as far as I've read, we didn't do the stick approach of suspending military aid!
Full '70s wank: Ford met with Brezhnev in Vladivostok in Nov. 1974. In an ATL universe where Watergate isn't discovered (and where we get lucky and things go well), Nixon is better able to get Congressional approval of SALT II. In addition, Brezhnev realizes he doesn't actual need to reach nuclear parity with the U.S. during the '70s, it's enough that he's within reaching distance. That it, sometimes it's better to flash the ace than play it. Better yet, let the other player perceive the ace whether you have it or not.
With peace between the superpowers, competition shifts to human rights and economic development. Some academics and prominent members of Congress begin using the language of human rights, which Reagan likes and begins picking up. And regarding our allies who are less than fully democratic shall we say, the carrot-and-stick approach appeals to the side of Reagan where he likes to think of himself as pragmatic.
On the economic development front, there is more journalism and more public attention regarding the conduct of large corporations abroad. Things go much better for poor countries, who start becoming not so poor!
PS I still want to prevent the Camdodian genocide early to mid. And I ask you -- Yes, You! --- for your help in achieving this challenging goal.