Human Rights & Development

Human Rights & Development

The United States can only be a safe and prosperous nation if the rest of the world is safe and prosperous as well. The commitment to reducing poverty, expanding opportunity, and upholding human rights is the cornerstone of U.S. global leadership abroad. When we fail to live up to our own ideals, our moral standing suffers. Future generations can enhance our national security and promote American values through a commitment to human rights and development. The question, however, is how to manage the tradeoffs with other national priorities, and how best to organize these tools of American power.

Related Debates

Aid for Leadership, not just National Security

Submitted by Saul Garlick on Tue, 09/09/2008 - 10:45.

There is inherent self-interest and national benefit from all types of foreign assistance. While the US State Department thought/thinks that it is breaking new ground with the creation of its F Bureau, which intends to allocate aid funds in a manner consistent with our political "national security agenda," I sense that it is really doing the opposite. Take a closer look at this ongoing debate.

Youth Answering the Question: "What Can I Do?"

Submitted by Elizabeth Sullivan on Thu, 07/24/2008 - 10:50.

Interested in learning more about how you can begin to address global development? On August 5, 2008, 9:15 a.m. - 4:00 p.m., the Next America Project, Student Movement for Real Change (SMRC), and Americans for Informed Democracy (AID) will host a conference to discuss what young people are doing in the non-profit sector and how youth can affect meaningful change.

Enough is Enough

Submitted by Christopher Haight on Mon, 06/30/2008 - 09:41.

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof comments about how President Mugabe of Zimbabwe, while condemned internationally for his oppressive electoral strategies, has received comparatively light pressure to acquiesce to democratic will. Kristof notes that Mugabe's predecessor, Ian Smith, was at the receiving end of far greater outcry because his rule was characterized by racism in addition to the typical authoritarian oppression.