Advancing Human Rights

and Peace in a 

Complex World

Briefly . . .

• Pursuing human rights and democracy is essential to success in the war on terrorism

and to overall efforts to secure peace. It is, however, a long-term process. Balancing

must always be done between those long-term goals and immediate needs, including

ending the terrorist threat.

• Democracy, a pillar of respect for the rights and value of each individual, remains key

to obtaining lasting peace and a resolution to a number of scourges that face the

world today, including terrorism, famine, corruption, and refugee flows.

• The war on terrorism has brought specific changes to how policymakers think. There

is a greater focus on the Muslim world. The United States is developing new relationships with nations that will allow new dialogue on human rights. In the U.S. government and among the American public there is also a heightened awareness of the

importance of foreign affairs. 

• These changes provide opportunities to further fundamental goals, including the

advancement of human rights and democracy. However, there is a difference between

knowing what needs to be done and being effective in its application. 

• Winning hearts and minds through the battle of ideas is a critical element of the war

on terrorism. This involves doing a better job of explaining universal concepts of

human rights, including labor rights. It also involves providing people with the means

to turn those ideas into reality in their own societies. There is an important role for

trade and business specialists in this process. The U.S. government must improve its

capabilities in these areas.

• The United States must stay the course in order to succeed. Military victory alone is

not sufficient. In addition to winning the military and ideological battles, the United States and the international community must devote substantial resources to

rebuilding failed states affected by the war, most immediately Afghanistan. Failure to

do so would undermine progress and could create conditions that foster new wars and

new threats to international security. The United Nations must play a leading role in

Afghanistan’s post-war political transition and reconstruction.

www.usip.org

SPECIAL REPORT

1200 17th Street NW • Washington, DC 20036 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063

April 22, 2002

ABOUT THE REPORT

As part of its Human Rights Implementation Project, the United States Institute of Peace held a

symposium on Capitol Hill last fall. It focused primarily on how the United States’s traditional 

commitment to advancing human rights and

democracy fits into the new order created by the

war on terrorism. 

Speakers included President Jimmy Carter; Ambassador Max M. Kampelman; Professor Shibley 

Telhami, University of Maryland; Morton Halperin,

senior fellow, Council on Foreign Relations; Andrew

Natsios, administrator, U.S. Agency for International

Development; Stephen J. Solarz, senior counselor,

APCO Worldwide; Lorne Craner, assistant secretary of

state for democracy, human rights, and labor; 

Elliott Abrams, senior director for democracy, human

rights, and international operations, National Security Council; Professor John Norton Moore, University of Virginia; John Kamm, executive director, Dui

Hua Foundation; William Clatanoff, assistant U.S.

trade representative for labor; Holly Burkhalter,

advocacy director, Physicians for Human Rights; and

Marc Leland, president, Marc Leland & Associates.

Also featured were Congressmen Tom Lantos and

Frank Wolf, co-directors of the Congressional 

Human Rights Caucus. 

This report was prepared by Kathy Ward under the

direction of Debra Liang-Fenton, program officer in

the Institute’s Research and Studies Program.

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the United States Institute of

Peace, which does not advocate specific policies.

UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE

CONTENTS

The Human Rights Imperative 2

Fighting Terrorism and Promoting 

Human Rights 3

Pursuing Human Rights and 

Democracy 5

Setting Priorities 6

Business and Rights 8

Conclusions11
The Human Rights Imperative in U.S. Foreign Policy

Jimmy Carter 

In pre-recorded remarks, former president Carter noted that a commitment to the pursuit

of liberty and freedom has bound together the United States since its earliest days. Because

human rights is a critical component of how Americans define themselves and their nation,

the United States creates a more responsible America every time it takes the lead in efforts

to secure peace and advance human rights at home and abroad. With its awesome

resources, the United States must function as a responsible world citizen in the global community. The nation should continue to support free elections and democratic development

around the world. It should also support international justice efforts including ad hoc international tribunals and the establishment of the permanent International Criminal Court to

prosecute genocide and crimes against humanity. The United States should pursue policy

paths that will lead to responsible, moral, and just governance worldwide and it must do

so with sensitivity and without arrogance. The nation has much to be proud of, but must

also remain humble in light of the struggles it has faced and those that lie ahead.

Max M. Kampelman 

Democracy and human rights are reflected in the way America defines itself. Democracy

is the political expression of the national faith. These values are an integral part of U.S.

power. They must also guide U.S. policy. Human rights are critical for the advancement

of democracy, and the spread of democracy is critical for creating a more stable, prosperous world. 

Human rights are already more widely respected than ever before and their reach continues to spread. Technology and globalization have brought awareness of the possibility

of a better, freer life to many who have been shut out from enjoying many of the advances

that have been made. 

The changes have also created a backlash among those who feel threatened by them.

Some think the changes are hostile to their beliefs and say they are ready to resist these

with every means at their disposal. The future will not be easy for Muslim nations with

closed political systems, where the only available outlet for criticism of government policies and corruption is today’s Islamic fundamentalism. 

The United States is indeed under attack from some who feel threatened by these

changes, but it can prevail by continuing its commitment to its fundamental principles,

including liberty, respect for human rights, and democracy. Democracy can succeed and

spread. It does have support in countries in which it has been suppressed. 

Only by addressing these issues abroad can the United States find security for itself.

Technological advances and threats that do not respect borders mean that no nation can

enjoy true security in isolation. Humanity’s requirements are increasingly turning national boundaries into patterns of lace through which flow many ingredients, including ideas,

natural resources, money, people, crime, and terrorism. The changes that have taken

place are immense and will only accelerate as science presses ahead. Each person must

understand that every nation has a mutual responsibility for the peoples in every other

nation. 

Democracy is the bulwark of peace and stability in the midst of these changes. It is

the best protection against many of the threats the United States faces, including war,

terrorism and fanaticism. Those who believe that democracy works best must understand

that it will work best for them only to the extent that it works well for others. 

Spreading democracy is the unfinished business of humanity. With this as the message of its foreign policy, the United States will not only have the strength of a national consensus behind its policy, it will also help to produce a world consensus in support

of government based on human dignity—a realistic assurance of peace.

2

ABOUT THE INSTITUTE

The United States Institute of Peace is an 

independent, nonpartisan federal institution 

created by Congress to promote the prevention,

management, and peaceful resolution of international conflicts. Established in 1984, the Institute

meets its congressional mandate through an 

array of programs, including research grants, 

fellowships, professional training, education 

programs from high school through graduate

school, conferences and workshops, library

services, and publications. The Institute’s Board of

Directors is appointed by the President of the

United States and confirmed by the Senate.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Chester A. Crocker (Chairman), James R. Schlesinger

Professor of Strategic Studies, School of Foreign Service,

Georgetown University • Seymour Martin Lipset (Vice

Chairman), Hazel Professor of Public Policy, George

Mason University • Betty F. Bumpers, Founder and 

former President, Peace Links, Washington, D.C. 

• Holly J. Burkhalter, Advocacy Director, Physicians for

Human Rights, Washington, D.C. • Marc E. Leland, Esq.,

President, Marc E. Leland & Associates, Arlington, Va. 

• Mora L. McLean, Esq., President, Africa-America Institute, New York, N.Y. • María Otero, President, ACCION

International, Boston, Mass. • Barbara W. Snelling, former State Senator and former Lieutenant Governor, Shelburne, Vt. • Harriet Zimmerman, Vice President, American

Israel Public Affairs Committee, Washington, D.C.

MEMBERS EX OFFICIO

Lorne W. Craner, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor • Douglas J. Feith, Under

Secretary of Defense for Policy • Paul G. Gaffney II, Vice

Admiral, U.S. Navy; President, National Defense University • Richard H. Solomon, President, United States

Institute of Peace (nonvoting)
3

Fighting Terrorism and Promoting Human Rights: 

Mutually Exclusive Objectives?

Shibley Telhami, Moderator

The war the United States faces is not a clash of religions. It is a clash of political views.

U.S. enemies use the language of religion because it is an organizing tool to which they

have access—not out of any true sense of faith. If they lost access to religious establishments, they would find another way to further their goals. The absence of democracy

contributes significantly to the existence of militancy. 

The United States has two missions in responding to September 11. The first is to

exercise its right to self-defense. It can do this on its own. It does not require authorization by the international community. The second mission is to conduct the broader

war on terrorism. It requires working with the international community in effective

coalitions. This will require difficult choices and tradeoffs.

In planning its response, the United States must remember that many people in

nations associated with terrorist activity believe they must choose between anarchy

and repression. The United States must also remember that the repressive leaders of

some of these nations are very good at making their citizens think there are no other

options. The challenge for the United States is to help people find other options. It

cannot create those options on its own, but it can help people in those societies create options for themselves.

At the same time, the United States must be realistic. Every democratization process

is unpredictable and can include a period of anarchy. The United States cannot expect

to transform the Middle East—particularly in the midst of the current crisis.

The United States’ short-term mission should focus on: 

• Pressuring governments with which it works. While making necessary tradeoffs, the

United States should continue to make statements supporting human rights and

democracy in these nations. That will provide symbolic support to liberals in those

societies who want to challenge repressive regimes. The United States should make

statements without expecting substantial responses from the governments.

• Encouraging economic reform. Much of the anger in the region is the result of the

absence of economic development, even more than it is the result of the absence of

political participation. If the United States first assembles a package primarily focused

on economic reform and transparency, that in time would also foster political reform.

Morton Halperin 

Fighting terrorism and promoting human rights are not mutually exclusive objectives.

The events of September 11 show that a commitment to promoting democracy and

human rights is essential to addressing the problems the world faces, including terrorism. However, balancing must be done. As the United States moves forward, it should

take practical steps, including:

• Begin by protecting human rights at home. The nation must be careful not to surrender at home the very rights it promotes abroad. Provisions in recent U.S. anti-terrorism legislation raise serious concerns.

• Be honest about what it is doing. The United States should be honest, for example,

about why it is giving aid to countries involved in the war on terrorism. If it is giving aid to non-democratic countries because they are cooperating in the fight against

terrorism then that is the reason that should be given. This is better than pretending that these nations have better records on human rights and democracy than they

do. The money to assist these countries should come out of the defense budget.

Because human rights is a 

critical component of how 

Americans define themselves and

their nation, the United States

creates a more responsible 

America every time it takes the

lead in efforts to secure peace

and advance human rights at

home and abroad.

Humanity’s requirements are

increasingly turning national

boundaries into patterns of lace

through which flow many ingredients, including ideas, natural

resources, money, people, crime,

and terrorism.

Many people in nations associated with terrorist activity

believe they must choose

between anarchy and repression.

. . . The repressive leaders of

some of these nations are very

good at making their citizens

think there are no other options. 
4

• Remember that promoting democracy is not inconsistent with the war on terrorism. In

fact, the United States should focus more on positive democratic forces around the

world. It should strengthen those forces and give priority to key nations at critical

stages in the transition to democracy. Many of these nations are Muslim.

• Work with Pakistan and India. The United States should do much more with Pakistan,

but must not do anything that would derail the important progress made on

strengthening the critical U.S.-India bilateral relationship. India remains very important to the United States.

• Make the United Nations more effective. There is no way to deal with the future of

Afghanistan or many other aspects of the war against terrorism without giving a central role to the United Nations and relying on its powers—including Chapter VII

action (which allows the use of force). The United States must invest the time and

resources necessary to make the United Nations a more effective partner. It must

strengthen the voice of democracies at the United Nations. The United States should

strengthen the existing fledgling caucus of democracies and encourage that caucus

to press the United Nations to be more responsive to democratic values. The majority of UN member states are democracies and their concerns as such should be better reflected in the decisions and work of the organization.

Andrew Natsios

All rights are not equal: of all rights, the right to survive is the most important. The

right to survive is in danger in Afghanistan and ensuring it must be the priority. Half of

the people of Afghanistan risk starvation. It may be too late to stop the famine but a

number of deaths can still be curtailed. 

The drought in Afghanistan started well before September 11. Longstanding assistance requests by humanitarian aid agencies had gone largely unmet. September 11

brought attention back to Afghanistan and with that pledges for humanitarian assistance have increased. Ironically, more Afghan lives may be saved than would have been

if September 11 had not taken place.

Sending aid is not enough in the long run. The United States and the international

community must take a new look at the root causes of humanitarian tragedies. It must

be acknowledged that political undercurrents often lie behind large-scale famines—for

example, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge and the famine in Ukraine earlier in the 20th

century. Scholars have repeatedly indicated that there is no incident in all of recorded

history of a famine in a democracy. The current drought in Afghanistan falls into the

same pattern. There is a clear political and ethnic overlay. Most of the severely affected people are Hazaras, Tajiks, and Uzbeks. These three groups opposed the Taliban and

also had the greatest number of atrocities committed against them by the Taliban even

well before September 11. 

While focusing on the right to survive, the United States must also work harder on

efforts to win hearts and minds by providing people with better access to more information about the world. Madrassas (schools run by Muslim religious authorities) provide

a wonderful influence for many children throughout the Muslim world. Too many children in Pakistan, however, are currently receiving distorted understandings of the world

through some madrassas. The U.S. Agency for International Development is considering

options to address this problem of people cut off from interaction with or exposure to

the outside world.

Stephen J. Solarz, Respondent 

Fighting terrorism and promoting human rights are not mutually exclusive, but they are

also not always mutually compatible. The United States must determine exactly where

There is no way to deal with 

the future of Afghanistan or

many other aspects of the war

against terrorism without

giving a central role to the

United Nations and relying on

its powers—including Chapter

VII action (which allows the 

use of force).

The United States and the international community must take a

new look at the root causes of

humanitarian tragedies. It must

be acknowledged that political

undercurrents often lie behind

large-scale famines. . . . Scholars

have repeatedly indicated that

there is no incident in all of

recorded history of a famine 

in a democracy.

Fighting terrorism and 

promoting human rights 

are not mutually exclusive, 

but they are also not 

always mutually compatible.
5

and under what circumstances promoting democracy can contribute to the campaign

against terrorism. Promoting democracy may not be essential to the terrorism campaign.

In fact, as in World War II, the United States has needed to cooperate with non-democratic states. However, changes in international realities mean that the United States will

not adopt attitudes toward its new non-democratic partners that echo its World War II

era attitude toward Stalin. Yet, this is also not the moment for the United States to press

nations such as Pakistan and Uzbekistan on establishing democracy as a precondition for

cooperating in the war on terrorism. Democracy in those nations is a desirable goal, but

it cannot be the primary U.S. concern in the short-term. Pressing these nations on

democracy would endanger their willingness to support the United States against terrorism, and the United States cannot afford that. The United States also must recognize

it has little leverage with some of these actors. What the United States can and should

avoid is continuing such compromises any longer than is necessary.

The United States must also remember that while the absence of democracy contributes to terrorism, too much can be made of that relationship in understanding the

current conflict. The absence of democracy does not seem to be a major motivating factor for Osama bin Laden, or to be related to any of the causes he invokes to garner support. Democracy, for all its virtues, is not a panacea for every problem.

UN Security Council resolutions can give the U.S. cause added political legitimacy

around the world. They can also make it easier for other governments to justify cooperating with the United States. However, as the war moves into new phases, the United

States will face new difficulties. The ability to garner Security Council support is limited

by the veto power of China and Russia. The United States should not limit its ability to

protect its most vital interests by backing into a position in which its ability to act is

limited by its ability to obtain Security Council endorsement.

The right to survive is most important and one hopes that in waging the military campaign the United States is also clearly focused on the risk of collateral damage. At the

same time, people must remember that a potentially far greater loss of life could result in

Afghanistan from the famine. Now that the Taliban is gone, it is time that the international community work to avert the potentially horrendous consequences of the famine.

Finally, the United States must address the collapse of the Pakistani education system.

It is one of the reasons the extremist madrassas have gained a foothold there. Breaking

the grip of these madrassas on the education of young Afghanis is essential. The United

States should facilitate the financing of the reconstruction of the public school system.

Pursuing Human Rights and Democracy in the National Interest

Tom Lantos

Respect for human rights becomes even more important in wartime. The right to be safe

from terrorist attacks is fundamental. The question of Iraq must be addressed and also

other problems including Hamas and Hezbollah. In the later phases of the war on terrorism, fissures will arise in the international coalition and inside Washington. As support weakens, some may be tempted to use language that sweeps important issues under

the rug and obfuscates the truth. That must not be done.

September 11 has been a wake-up call to the United States. It has pulled the nation

out of a fascination with the trivial and focused attention on important issues of U.S.

relations with the rest of the world. The United States must make the most of this opportunity and remain faithful to its paramount commitment to fighting for the values of

human rights. 

The United States must also think ahead in terms of Afghanistan. The United States

cannot afford failed states. Nation building is necessary. The post-military phase in

Afghanistan will require a United Nations umbrella and a large UN component. It should

September 11 has . . . focused

attention on important issues of

U.S. relations with the rest of

the world. The United States

must make the most of this

opportunity and remain faithful

to its paramount commitment

to fighting for the values of

human rights. 
6

be supported by a peacekeeping force of Nordic and Baltic troops—perhaps with a Turkish component as well. Germany and Japan should be called on to step up aid for the

rebuilding of the country. Saudi Arabia should also shoulder a larger share of the costs.

In other words, the important task of nation building in Afghanistan will require a coordinated, multilateral effort.

Frank Wolf

America has been given many gifts and it has a commensurate responsibility to the world.

The United States must care about the poor and hungry. It must care about human rights

and must use some of its resources to promote those rights around the world.

September 11 has clearly changed the mood in Congress, but Congress will maintain

its strong interest in human rights—including issues previously on the agenda such as

Sudan, China, and conflict diamonds. 

In fact, September 11 may actually increase congressional attention to human rights.

It may encourage more members of Congress to focus on foreign affairs and human

rights. These events make clear that it is time for the United States to strengthen its

engagements abroad. Part of that will involve doing a better job of telling the story of

America and its values to the rest of the world.

The United States must also remember that the campaign ahead will be difficult and

will require facing difficult truths and difficult choices. This is not just about Afghanistan

and bin Laden. The fight against terrorism will be a long-term effort requiring perseverance around the world and in handling the aftermath of the end of the Taliban regime.

Lorne Craner

U.S. national interests are paramount in determining U.S. foreign policy. The Bush administration must pay particular attention to nations important to those interests, even if

those nations have poor records concerning democracy or human rights. However, promoting human rights and democracy is an important part of U.S. national interests and

engaging with countries does not mean forsaking the longstanding and ongoing U.S.

commitment to those issues. When involved with nations with poor records in human

rights and/or democracy, the Bush administration is committed to staying the course—

engaging the governments and societies on these issues and working for real progress. 

In countries that have already made the transition to democracy, the administration

will increase governance assistance. The 1980s focused on elections. The 1990s concentrated on the demand side of governance—civil society. Those efforts will continue,

but the new challenge is to help new democratic rulers govern in a manner that

advances democratic practices and economic well-being while also ending corruption.

That includes emphasizing labor rights and working with America’s corporations. U.S.

companies are laboratories of innovation and repositories of experience and relationships. And an increasing number of businesses are interested in advancing human rights

and giving back to the communities in which they operate. 

Setting Priorities

Elliott Abrams

September 11 has not undercut the administration’s commitment to human rights. It

has, however, changed the landscape in which that commitment is carried out. For

example, the administration has increased its attention to the Islamic world and it is

facing up to the difficult question of how to encourage rule of law and respect for human

rights in numerous countries in the Islamic world where neither of these matters are in

America has been given many

gifts and it has a commensurate

responsibility to the world. 

The United States must care

about the poor and hungry. It

must care about human rights

and must use some of its

resources to promote those

rights around the world.

The challenge is to help new

democratic rulers govern in a

manner that advances democratic practices and economic

well-being while also ending

corruption. That includes emphasizing labor rights and working

with America’s corporations.

U.S. companies are laboratories

of innovation and repositories

of experience and relationships.

And an increasing number of

businesses are interested in

advancing human rights and

giving back to the communities

in which they operate. 
very good shape. People in these countries often believe they must choose between secular tyranny and religious tyranny. The challenge for the United States is to help people

to understand that they have another option.

Some characterize the current war against terrorism as one in which the United States

is trying to impose its particular ways on others. The United States must counter those

concerns by reasserting that it is advancing universal human rights principles recognized

as such by the international community. This is not a new argument, but it is important

to restate it in light of recent events.

The United States faces a situation reminiscent of the Cold War in certain ways. Both

situations involve close relationships with non-democratic nations. Some non-democratic states will disappoint the United States over time because of their unwillingness to

enlist seriously in the war against terrorism. The willingness of others to work with the

United States, however, may create opportunities for the United States to improve bilateral relations and to talk with those nations about human rights. When that is the case,

the question becomes, as it was in the Cold War, whether one employs public statements

or quiet diplomacy. 

The administration’s policy toward a country may change as opportunities come and

go. However, it is important to note that the Bush administration has clearly sought to

tell these governments—and probably has been clearer in private than in public—that

cooperation against terror does not buy U.S. government silence on human rights. For

example, the administration has continued to express its concerns to the governments

of Sudan and China about ongoing human rights violations by those governments.

Human rights officials in the U.S. government are integrated into the planning

process of the campaign against terrorism. For example, while properly not involved in

battle planning, the NSC Democracy Directorate is well integrated into the process of

planning future relations with a large group of relevant countries. The point is that while

much of the public attention in the early days of the war has been on the military campaign, terrorism is a form of political warfare and defeating it will require more than military action. There is definitely an important role for U.S. military action, but ultimately

the battle against terrorism is a political struggle that requires winning hearts and

minds. The United States must pay careful attention to that fact, for our history shows

that while the United States successfully wages military campaigns, it too often loses

the political battles that must be won to consolidate military victories.

There is a difference, however, between knowing that the political battle must be won

and actually being able to win that battle. The U.S. government needs new methods to

fight this type of ideological and intellectual struggle. Those methods should include a

version of Radio Liberty for Afghanistan. The Voice of America cannot fill that role

because of restrictions in its charter.

John Norton Moore, Respondent

September 11 was a watershed. In its aftermath the United States and its people now

see the rest of the world and their relationship to it in a new light. As the nation’s policymakers respond, the following points must be remembered:

1. September 11 and its aftermath is not a clash of civilizations or religions. It is a political clash between democracy and anti-modernist statists opposed to human freedom

and democracy. 

2. The United States was not attacked for doing something wrong. The attack was not

at heart about any of the causes Osama bin Laden invokes to rally support. The United States was attacked because of the ideals it represents on human freedom and

democracy. The argument that the United States is anti-Islamic is specious. The last

three wars the United States fought (Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo), plus its intervention in Somalia, were all fought to protect Muslims.

7

Some characterize the current

war against terrorism as one in

which the United States is

trying to impose its particular

ways on others. The United

States must counter those conerns by reasserting that it is

advancing universal human

rights principles recognized as

such by the international

community.

While much of the public 

attention in the early days of

the war has been on the military

campaign, terrorism is a form 

of political warfare and defeating it will require more than 

military action.
3. The source of the hatred and violence witnessed on September 11 is a regime bent on

using any available means of force to achieve a statist utopia. It is a cause that is

attempting to highjack one of the world’s great religions. It is also the product of the

international community’s poor track record of responding effectively to terrorism. 

4. To overcome those extremists, the United States must sometimes cooperate with nondemocratic governments. The United States did so in World War II, of course, in the

struggle against fascism. However, the United States government will not, and should

not, turn a blind eye to human rights violations by its allies. It will continue its

engagement on human rights. In fact, the new alliances may create new opportunities to further human rights.

5 It is important to stay the course. There is a perception among some that the United States may not. This time, however, it will. The United States and the rest of the

international community must put in place in Afghanistan a government that will

bring that country through a transition toward a democratic future. The United

Nations also must play a critical role in that process.

6. The U.S. military’s extensive efforts to avoid civilian casualties should be noted and

commended.

7. There are reasons for optimism. The United States has defeated far greater threats in

the past. The international community supports the United States. NATO has invoked

Article 5 for the first time in its history. Similar action has been taken under the Rio

Treaty. 

The achievement of respect for human rights is tied to the achievement of democracy.

There are strong links between low respect for human rights/absence of democracy and

the occurrence of many major ills: major war, terrorism, corruption, and refugee flows, for

example. Research shows that over the course of the 20th century, more people were killed

by their own governments than were killed as casualties of war. Other research demonstrates that refugee flows overwhelmingly originate in non-democratic countries. Economic growth also goes hand-in-hand with democracy and human freedom.

But as critical as it is to work for democracy, that is not enough. Unfortunately, as

most of the world works for democracy, there are those who are prepared to commit

democide to keep the world from reaching those goals. A critical part of the effort to

counter those forces must be incentives by the international community. There must be

a full range of incentives (including rewards for productive activities and deterrents to

negative ones) that can be used to overcome failed governments and destructive forces.

Deterrence of those opposed to human freedom is as important in the short run as support for democracy and the rule of law is in the long run.

Business and Rights

The desperation caused by poverty is often cited to explain the frustrations that foster

extremist ideology. To create the stability that respect for human rights can foster,

human rights efforts must address economic rights and needs as well as political rights.

One panel during the meeting addressed two critical aspects of the economic component

of the equation: the role of business in promoting human rights, and the importance of

labor rights. 

John Kamm

To say that trade is good for human rights is to put the cart before the horse. It is human

rights that are good for business. When business people realize this, it will unleash a terrific force for promoting human rights.

There are strong links between

low respect for human

rights/absence of democracy

and the occurrence of many

major ills: major war, terrorism,

corruption, and refugee flows,

for example. Research shows

that over the course of the 20th

century, more people were killed

by their own governments than

were killed as casualties of war.

8

The desperation caused by

poverty is often cited to explain

the frustrations that foster

extremist ideology. To create the

stability that respect for human

rights can foster, human rights

efforts must address economic

rights and needs as well as

political rights. 
Promoting human rights opens markets and enhances creativity. Productivity also

increases when the basic rights of workers in the factory are respected. An examination

of the history of China’s economic reform shows cases where the government’s recognition of a right preceded the opening of a market. For example, the Chinese government’s

decision to ease rules allowing its citizens to travel within China created a market for

airplanes. Similarly, allowing people in Guangdong to watch Hong Kong television

increased local demand for television sets. Promoting human rights is also good for business in the area of the rule of law. It encourages respect for the law, an independent

judiciary, and compliance with international standards. It can also improve a company’s

image.

Business people can be good at promoting human rights. Governments tend to see

business people as friends or at least allies with shared interests. This can create an element of trust. Business people are also often familiar with the nation’s culture and know

how to deal with government officials in a way that produces results. Finally, business

people should be good at promoting human rights, because they are skilled at salesmanship. Salesmanship is the art of convincing people they need something they think

they do not need. That skill can be applied to promoting human rights to governments

as well.

Using these skills and their positions in the nations in which they operate, business

people can promote human rights both in the workplace and in the general environment.

In the workplace they can design and implement codes of conduct. They can promote

free association—not only through trade unions, but also via other types of associations

that may not be seen as so politically charged, such as quality associations and safety

associations. Business people can also protect their workers against arbitrary detention

and forced abortions. Business people can give their workers access to more and better

tools of communication, including providing them with more opportunities to travel for

work. Finally, business people can promote human rights in the workplace by strictly

enforcing rules against corruption. Corruption is the handmaiden of human rights violations in many countries.

Business people can also take many simple steps to promote a better general environment for the respect of human rights. They can monitor human rights conditions

where they operate and provide that information to non-governmental organizations.

They can lobby governments to make systemic reforms to strengthen human rights. This

includes strengthening intellectual property rights and encouraging Red Cross access to

prisoners. Finally, business people can intervene on behalf of people jailed for non-violently expressing their political or religious beliefs. This has had a positive impact in past

cases. It is important as a matter of respect for the rights and dignity of the individual.

It is also important to realizing the dreams of those who want to see a better future for

a nation. Outsiders will not be the driving force for change in a country. The people of

that nation will fill that role. However, outsiders can assist by helping those agents for

change get out of prison so they can do their work. The basis of the free enterprise system is individuals making free choices. If individuals cannot make free choices, the free

enterprise system does not work.

It is also important to overcome the false dichotomy often posited between promoting systemic reform and working on individual cases. One can only promote systemic

reform by working on individual cases. One cannot promote human rights without talking about human beings.

The U.S. government can also contribute to the promotion of human rights. The U.S.

government’s human rights reports are a very effective tool. The Chinese government, for

example, takes those reports very seriously. The reporting could be even more effective

if the government enhanced and expanded the reporting so that it could differentiate

between different regions and actors within a single country. This would increase the

sense of individual accountability at a lower bureaucratic level and encourage those

actors to compete against each other to produce better human rights records. It would

9

It is important to overcome the

false dichotomy often posited

between promoting systemic

reform and working on individual cases. One can only 

promote systemic reform by

working on individual cases.

One cannot promote human

rights without talking about

human beings.
also be helpful if the U.S. government created incentives for companies that do a good

job of promoting human rights. 

William Clatanoff

Respect for workers’ rights is basic to a broader environment of respect for all human

rights. No regime respects political and civil rights if it does not first respect workers’

rights. Work is important. It provides people with a means to satisfy wants and needs

for themselves and their families. It gives them a sense of self worth. And it is often a

way in which they are defined by the societies in which they live. People want to prosper. They have a right to have the opportunity to succeed.

The International Labor Organization (ILO) is often overlooked in the United States

as a human rights organization, but it is just that. In addition to much other work on

labor rights, in 1998 it passed the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights

of Work. The declaration culls from many other sources, including treaties, a set of basic

labor rights—rights so fundamental that all nations are bound to honor them. These

rights are: (1) freedom of association; (2) the right of collective bargaining; (3) abolition of forced, bonded, or slave labor; (4) elimination of child labor; and (5) non-discrimination for employment based on race, gender, ethnicity, or village.

But rights require enforcement. There are several ways to enforce them:

• creating and enforcing good domestic legislation;

• sanctions, applied by one or more countries against another to force the target country to enforce its laws; or

• enforcement by businesses.

The last is associated with codes of conduct. There are many such codes. Some are

empty words. Others are better and are becoming more meaningful, often because of

pressure on companies from market forces, including consumer demand to avoid association with labor exploitation. The other major market force improving enforcement is the

opening of markets through the breaking up of economies that previously only had one

employer—often the government. With multiple employers comes competition between

employers to attract the best workers. That fosters better treatment of those workers and

respect for workers’ rights.

Holly Burkhalter, Respondent

Globalization, increased visibility, and efforts by human rights campaigners to find new

ways to tackle ongoing problems have accelerated the interaction between business and

human rights communities. The interaction takes at least four major forms. The first is

through attention to workers’ rights. The second is through business people highlighting human rights and encouraging improvements in the human rights conditions in

which they operate. The third is through the creation of conversations about moral

standards and expectations of corporations relating to economic rights. Examples

include the conversation surrounding the Nestle baby food boycott and recent pressure

on pharmaceutical companies concerning the pricing of HIV/AIDS drugs. The fourth

form is through efforts relating to the relationship between commodities, their

exploitation, and conflict. The conflict diamonds campaign is a good example. In this

form, the goal is more than encouraging the industry in question to stop harmful practices. It is also to encourage business to take proactive measures to create and maintain the peaceful environments that are good for business. All these lines of interaction

between the business and human rights communities are not, however, a substitute for

actions including debt relief, large-scale foreign aid, and responsible policies by the

affected governments.

10

Respect for workers’ rights is

basic to a broader environment

of respect for all human rights.

No regime respects political and

civil rights if it does not first

respect workers’ rights.

Globalization, increased visibility, and efforts by human

rights campaigners to find new

ways to tackle ongoing problems

have accelerated the interaction

between business and human

rights communities.
11

Marc Leland, Moderator

Pressing for action on a human rights issue can have negative effects as well. For example, pressure on pharmaceutical companies could lead them to develop fewer new AIDS

drugs. On child labor, if one simply demands that a family’s child stops working that

could take away the income that keeps the family from starving. The same holds true in

some situations for the advancement of women’s rights and religious freedom. The point

is that there are always tradeoffs. It is also important to remember that with regard to

punitive measures, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, unilateral action may not

produce the desired results when others not bound by those measures do not voluntarily go along with them. The lesson is that many of the goals discussed in terms of outside action producing changes in a government’s behavior in a global marketplace only

work if there is global cooperation.

Conclusions

While the landscape has changed since September 11, the importance of human rights

to achieving U.S. foreign policy goals has not. U.S. government officials at the meeting

stressed that the government’s commitment to advancing human rights and democracy

has not changed either. Both are considered critical for undermining support for extremism and creating stable societies that are less likely to experience war, famine, terrorism,

and other forces that erode growth and stability.

However, interests and needs must be balanced. Tradeoffs must be made. The war on

terrorism requires the United States to work with and offer assistance to nations that are

not democratic and that have poor human rights records. The United States must be honest about why it is assisting them and cannot expect those nations to quickly change

their track records in these areas. However, since democracy and human rights are critical to long-term stability, which these nations need, the United States must find ways

in public and private to continue to press for progress toward those ends. Those efforts

will lend support to the people in these countries who can bring about change. It will

help them create the middle space necessary to avoid the either-or choice between

repression and anarchy that many feel they now face. This is not a quick process, and

the United States must be prepared to stay the course.

The way ahead will be difficult as well. Coalition support is critical. While there is

strong, broad support for the anti-terrorism campaign during the phase that targets

Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, that support will likely fray or at least be seriously

tested when attention is turned to others responsible for terrorism. An effort against Iraq

would clearly fall into this category.

A critical part of keeping support strong at home and abroad, and of ensuring long-term

success, is conducting a successful campaign in the battle of ideas—to win hearts and

minds. This will be especially challenging in certain parts of the international community,

particularly in the Islamic world. While the U.S. government understands what must be

done, there is a difference between understanding what must be done and being able to

do it well. The U.S. government must deepen its intellectual capital for this battle and

improve its tools to carry out the campaign. This will take time, but it is important.

More generally, there is opportunity in the midst of the tragedy of September 11. It

has been a wake-up call: for the international community, for the American people, and

for parts of the U.S. government that did not previously pay as much attention to the

importance of U.S. engagement in international affairs and to the support of human

rights and democracy in particular. We should seize the opportunity.

Unilateral action may not

produce the desired results. . . .

Many of the goals discussed in

terms of outside action producing changes in a government’s

behavior in a global marketplace only work if there is 

global cooperation.

Since democracy and human

rights are critical to long-term

stability, . . . the United States

must find ways in public and

private to continue to press for

progress toward those ends.

Those efforts will lend support

to the people in these countries

who can bring about change.
For more information on this topic, 

see our web site (www.usip.org), 

which has an online edition of this

report containing links to related 

web sites, as well as additional

information on the subject.

SPECIAL REPORT 86

United States 

Institute of Peace

1200 17th Street NW

Washington, DC 20036

Human Rights Implementation Project

In 1999, the U.S. Institute of Peace’s Research and Studies Program launched a new initiative on human rights implementation. This project seeks to critically examine human

rights policies implemented by the U.S. government in order to identify ways these policies might be improved. 

The Human Rights Implementation Project is exploring the following questions:

• What role do human rights issues play in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy?

• How successful or unsuccessful has the U.S. government been in improving human

rights practices abroad?

• What are the key challenges to implementing an effective human rights policy?

• What roles have the Executive Branch, the Congress, other governmental agencies,

and the non-governmental and business communities played in promoting human

rights?

• How can policymakers maximize their impact on human rights protection and promotion?

The Institute is exploring these broad questions from the vantage point of a nonpartisan, congressionally funded institution committed to expanding the understanding

of international conflict and the means to prevent, manage, and resolve it.

To learn more about the Human Rights Implementation Project, contact program officer Debra Liang-Fenton at (202) 429-3822 or <debra@usip.org>.