You are on page 1of 182

UNIVERSITY NAME

LOGO

COSTANT AND VARIABLES IN US FORIGEN POLICY
(Session: 2012-13)
POLITICAL SCIENCE

In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree
Of
P.HD
In
POLITICL SCIENCE



GUIDED BY : SUBMITTED BY:






UNIVERSITY NAME

LOGO

DEPARTMENT OF POLTICAL SCIENCE
(Session: 2012-13)
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that NAME student of P.HD in the academic year 2012-2013 of
this institute have completed their Dissertation Part-1 COSTANT AND
VARIABLES IN US FORIGEN POLICY and submit a satisfactory report as a
part of requirement for the award of degree of Master of engineering from
COLLEGE NAME



Guide Head of Department Director

















DECLARATION
We hereby declare that the work which is being presented in the
dissertation part-I report entitled
COSTANT AND VARIABLES IN US FORIGEN POLICY
In partial fulfillment of PHD in POLITICAL SCIENCE an auhentic record of our
own work carried out under he guidance of Asst. Prof. . he work has been
carried out at University name.


(Anonynous, 2014) (Anonynous, 2014)













I N D E X


1. ABSTRACT
2. INTRODUCTION
a. Stages in foreign policy decision making.
b. Middle range objectives
c. Long range objectives
3. REVIEW OF LITERATURES
a. Liberalism and realism
b. Organizational level
c. Individual level
d. State level
e. Key points
f. Problems with current U.S. policy
g. Toward a new foreign policy
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
a. Ending child labor: a critical need
b. Overview of U.S. government agency approaches to ending
child labor
c. U.S. department of state
d. U.S. agency for international development
e. U.S. trade representative
f. U.S. department of homeland security
g. U.S. department of education
h. The role of public procurement
i. Need for an integrated approach to ending child labor
j. Acknowledgements
i. Vital statistics
ii. The story of iqbal masih
iii. Questionanire
iv. A legal framework against child labour
v. Signs of progress
k. Case study
i. Liberia
ii. India
5. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
6. CONCLUSION
7. REFERENCES








1) ABSTRACT

I turn first to examine the effect of the indicators of foreign policy relationships
with the United States and constant and variables of US foreign Policy. The
presence of U.S. military forces stationed in foreign states has a mixed effect
across the four models. The incidence rate ratio for this variable is statistically
significant and positive in the estimates of the number of government crises and
assassinations, but statistically insignificant in the models of riots and anti-
government demonstrations. Interestingly, the effect of the U.S. military presence
is greater on the two indicators of what we might consider to be elite understands
instability. Government crises may have deep and wide societal implications, but
they often most directly involve regime leaders. Assassinations may involve
government, militia, or other disaffected groups, but the targets are generally
chosen for their high profile elite status. Taking this logic a step further, but as
always bearing in mind the difficulties associated with making direct, causal
inferences, it might be that a U.S. military presence may lead to political
difficulties for those in authority, but it may not always inspire protesters in the
streets. The substantive impact, as we saw in the model of terrorist actions,
however, is still rather slight even when the incidence rate ratio is statistically
significant. A rather sizeable increase in the number of U.S. troops stationed in a
foreign country is required before the predicted incidence of these instability
indicators will increase.













2) INTRODUCTION
A superpower, like the United States, and its foreign policy actions typically
produce substantial consequences throughout the worldit is the 800 pound
gorilla whose every move carries with it deep and wide repercussions. Hegemons
are able to supply a number of public and private goods that earn them many allies,
especially among those states with whom they already enjoy a coincidence of
interests. The hegemons very dominance, however, creates conflicts of interest,
disputes, and challengers to its role regardless of the substance of its interests. U.S.
foreign policy, broadly speaking, subsumes all actions taken by the U.S.
Government that are directed toward influencing the conduct of world affairs in
order to make the United States more secure and prosperous. When framed in the
broadest and most inclusive terms, the United States seeks to influence other
nations to adopt policies and take actions that more closely reflect American
interests. The more approximately other nations align their foreign policy
preferences to those of the United States, presumably, the better able is the United
States to realize its preferences. Influencing other regimes to move toward the U.S.
preferred position encompasses a substantial part of its foreign policy. To the
extent that the United States is able to effect such changes through diplomatic
inducement and deterrence and via other mechanisms that utilize its soft power, it
preserves foreign policy resources for use in situations that require more forceful
applications of U.S. power. And while the U.S. Government sometimes
deliberately, and sometimes inadvertently, takes actions that result in other nations
moving their policies away from U.S. preferences, nonetheless the overall goal in
world affairs remains: to make more nations act globally more like the United
States.
The United States possesses a plethora of tools at its disposal to effect change or
seek influence in foreign regimes, including the stationing of U.S. military forces
in foreign nations, the use of military and economic assistance, and the discrete use
of military force. Scholars have researched the extent to which these tools have
helped promote U.S. foreign policy objectives, such as democratization,
improvements in human rights, and economic development. While their
conclusions stress the limited impact the United States, or any other nation for that
matter, can have on such specific objectives, scholars have yet to investigate the
extent to which U.S. foreign policy tools are associated with broader U.S. foreign
policy goalsmost specifically regime stability. U.S. foreign policy relations
depend upon the stability of those nations with which it seeks good relations.
Those nations the United States seeks to influence that experience civil unrest,
terrorism, and war are unlikely to be capable of maintaining positive and
productive relations with the United States, to say nothing of democratizing or
improving their human rights practices. Thus, a fundamental goal of U.S. foreign
policy must necessarily be to help such regimes remain peaceful, stable and free of
terrorism. But, to what extent do U.S. foreign policy relations with nations help
improve the likelihood that these basic requirements of an effective foreign policy
are realized? Does the use of military force or the stationing of U.S. troops within
such nations or the use of foreign assistance contribute to peaceful and stable
regimes that are free of terrorism? Or do these foreign policy tools in some manner
make the realization of these objectives more difficult? The purpose of this
monograph is to evaluate the degree to which U.S. foreign policiesthe stationing
of U.S. military personnel; the use of military force; the provision of foreign
assistanceas well as a more general similarity of foreign policy interests between
the United States and a foreign regime stabilizes or destabilizes such nations.

In 1790 0, when Thomas Jefferson assumed his duties as the first U.S. Secretary of
State, his entire staff consisted of a chief clerk, three assistant clerks, and a
messenger. The young nation maintained two diplomatic missionsin Britain and
Franceand 10 consular posts. Today the United States has diplomatic relations
with some 180 nations and maintains over 250 diplomatic posts around the world.
Through multilateral institutions, many under the aegis of the United Nations, we
engage with other nations to address issues ranging from peacekeeping and human
rights to humanitarian relief and trade. The goal of American diplomacy is as
sweeping as our diplomatic representation around the world. President Bush said
in his second inaugural address: It is the policy of the United States to seek and
support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and
culture with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. With this charge,
the United States faces tremendous challenges and tremendous opportunities,
comparable, I believe, to those faced by our diplomatic predecessors who, sixty
years ago, helped to transform countries devastated by World War II into thriving
democracies, tries devastated by World War II into thriving democracies, allies
who joined us in the long struggle of the Cold War.
To meet the extraordinary challenges of the 21st century, the Department of State
is pursuing transformational diplomacy.

The goal of transformational diplomacy is to work with others to build and sustain
democratic, well governed states that will respond to the needs of their people and
conduct themselves responsibly in the international system. We seek to use
Americas diplomatic power to help others better their own lives and transform
their own futures.
Countries such as China, India, South Africa, Indonesia, and Brazil are playing an
increasingly prominent role on the world stage. Democratic reform has begun and
is spreading in the Middle East. The United States is working with our many
partners to promote freedom in every part of the globe.
This is not the work of months or even years, but of generations. Yet we face
urgent issues everywhere, from the global threat of terrorism to the fight against
AIDS in Africa and many other regions. The United States is helping to educate
girls in Afghanistan. With others, we have used our military and economic power
to bring peace to the Balkans, relief to the tsunami-devastated Asia Pacific region,
and help to the earthquake victims of Pakistan. We are engaged in the pursuit of
peace in East Africa and in the strengthening of democratic governance and
fundamental rights and liberties in the Americas. We are transforming traditional
institutions, like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, with our European
partners to meet the demands of the new century. In the six essays that follow, the
senior State Department officials who manage our daily relationships on the
international stage offer their perspectives on the policy objectives and priorities of
Americas global diplomacy.

Jendayi Frazer is Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, Christopher R. Hill for
East Asia and the Pacific, and Daniel Fried for Europe and Eurasia. C. David
Welch is Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Richard A. Boucher
for South and Central Asia, and Thomas A. Shannon for the Western Hemisphere.
While the details of U.S. policy objectives differ region to region, a common
thread runs throughout all of our diplomatic efforts: we will champion freedom,
respect for the individual, and a commitment to the opportunity for a better life for
all human beings everywhere.
The Constitution lays out the institutional framework for foreign an defense policy
that is clearly a federal power, not a power of the states. The Framers intended to
divide responsibility for foreign affairs between the president and Congress. The
president was to be head of state, thus appointing and receiving ambassadors,
signing treaties and representing the U.S. abroad. Congress was to fund the army
and navy as well as declare war, while the president, as commander in chief
would actually wage the war. Congress had the power to regulate commerce and
the president had authority to negotiate treaties that were then subject to the advice
and consent of the Senate (two-thirds vote needed for approval). The president
appoints key foreign policy and military officials as well as ambassadors, but
again, the Senate must consent. Through the doctrines of implied and inherent
powers, the president and Congress have exceeded these original grants of power
in a number of ways.
The Constitution lays out the institutional framework for foreign an defense policy
that is clearly a federal power, not a power of the states. The Framers intended to
divide responsibility for foreign affairs between the president and Congress. The
president was to be head of state, thus appointing and receiving ambassadors,
signing treaties and representing the U.S. abroad. Congress was to fund the army
and navy as well as declare war, while the president, as commander in chief
would actually wage the war. Congress had the power to regulate commerce and
the president had authority to negotiate treaties that were then subject to the advice
and consent of the Senate (two-thirds vote needed for approval). The president
appoints key foreign policy and military officials as well as ambassadors, but
again, the Senate must consent. Through the doctrines of implied and inherent
powers, the president and Congress have exceeded these original grants of power
in a number of ways.
Foreign policy of a state is concerned with the behaviour of a state towards other
states. It refers to the ways in which the central governments of sovereign states
relate to each other and to the global system in order to achieve various goals or
objectives. Through its foreign policy it endeavours to persuade others in
accordance with ones own ends. It is primarily in proportion to its national power
that its persuasive power is effective in this regard. However, even a powerful state
cannot afford to enjoy a solo flight in this regard. It has to take into account, not
only its own objectives and interests, aspirations and problems, but also those of
other states. This process involves intricate processes of diplomacy short of war. It
is also based on the observations regarding the traditional behavior of a given state.
Moreover, a state while implementing its foreign policy cannot afford to ignore the
rules of International law and canons of international morality. The whole essence
of this prelude is that the term foreign policy cannot be studied in isolation from
the factors that determine it.
So foreign policy is the bundle of principles and practices that regulate the
intercourse of a state vis--vis other states. Through foreign policy a state seeks to
achieve a variety of objectives. The objectives sought to be attained by a state are
of different types and categories, yet there are certain objectives which are
uniformly pursued by all states i.e. Political independence and territorial integrity,
economic well being and, prestige and status of a nation. They have been classified
into short range, middle range and long-range objectives.
Foreign Policy Analysis is the systematic study of and research into the processes
and theories of foreign policy. It is that branch of political science, which deals
with the study of and research into the processes and theories of foreign policy.
Foreign Policy Analysis involves the study of how a state makes foreign policy.
Because Foreign Policy Analysis involves the study of both international and
domestic politics, the academic discipline is located at the intersection of
international relations theory and public policy. Foreign Policy Analysis also draws
upon the study of diplomacy, war, intergovernmental organizations, and economic
sanctions, each of which are means by which a state may implement foreign
policy. In academia, foreign policy analysis is most commonly taught within the
disciplines of Political Science or Political Studies, and International Relations.









2.1) Stages in foreign policy decision making.
The making of foreign policy involves a number of stages:
Assessment of the international and domestic political environment - Foreign
policy is made and implemented within an international and domestic political
context, which must be understood by a state in order to determine the best foreign
policy option. For example, a state may need to respond to an international crisis.
Pakistan has to cultivate and maintain good relations with the members of OIC; it
has to support causes of the Umma because of the dictates of the public opinion.
Similarly one reason Pakistan conducted tit for tat nuclear tests in May 1998
following Indian nuclear tests was inter alia public pressure.
Goal setting - A state has multiple foreign policy goals. A state must determine
which goal is affected by the international and domestic political environment at
any given time. In addition, foreign policy goals may conflict, which will require
the state to prioritise. In the post. As Pakistans and for that matter any states
survival tops the agenda of objectives, so it has to side with the US in the wake of
Post 9/11 and the latters decision to be down with the Taliban.
Determination of policy options - A state must then determine what policy
options are available to meet the goal or goals set in light of the political
environment. This will involve an assessment of the state's capacity to implement
policy options and an assessment of the consequences of each policy option.
Pakistans decision of entering into Western sponsored alliances in the 50s and
taking a U Turn in the wake of 9/11 were in fact some of the policy options that
Pakistani Policy makers opted for.
Formal decision making action - A formal foreign policy decision will be taken at
some level within a government. Foreign policy decisions are usually made by the
executive branch of government. Common governmental actors or institutions
which make foreign policy decisions include: the head of state (such as a president)
or head of government (such as a prime minister), cabinet, or minister.
Implementation of chosen policy option - Once a foreign policy option has been
chosen, and a formal decision has been made, then the policy must be
implemented. Foreign policy is most commonly implemented by specialist foreign
policy arms of the state bureaucracy, such as a Ministry of Foreign Affairs or State
Department. Other departments may also have a role in implementing foreign
policy, such as departments for: trade, defence, and aid.



2.2) Middle Range Objectives
This particular category is comprised of economic uplift of the people, raising their
life standard, enhancing prestige and status of the nation, and expansion both
territorial, as well as ideological. These objectives are sought to be achieved within
a specific time period, implying that after the expiration the term, the objectives
even if attained would have lost their real value. Here the targets are more than one
or two states. A state has to carry out trade with a number of states and trade
blocks. It has to deal with multiple sources while pursuing these objectives.

Foreign policy aims at achieving economic prosperity, as only an economically
prosperous nation is to play more assertive role in international politics. That is
why, Pakistan is endeavoring to gear up the pace of its economic progress and to
attain economic prosperity. It is usually the keen desire of each state to establish,
strengthen and widen its economic ties with other states. Status and prestige of a
state can be secured only if the state is economically stable and prosperous. In the
process, the state has to diversify its trade and economy in order to make it resilient
enough to come up to the challenges of the competitive world. It has to export its
goods, commodities and raw material to more than one destinations i.e. States; it
has to strengthen its export base in more than one commodity or good, so that no
state, MNC, or group could exploit its vulnerability in this regard.

Expansion whether territorial or ideological falls within the purview of middle
range objective. Expansion through capturing lands is direct sort of expansion
which is no longer in vogue today. What is of greater concern is the ideological
expansion i.e. Expansion through the propagation of ideas, ideologies, systems,
cultures and values. The West has successfully launched this type of expansion at
the expense of Afro-Asian and the Third World countries. Capitalism, market
economy, English language and democracy of Western model and style have
occupied a place in the international system just because of hectic and effective
propagation of the same by the West. Courtesy this influence, the West and to
some extent India has increased its soft power.





2.3) Long Range Objectives
A state while pursuing such type of objectives seeks to gain almost at the expense
of all other states. Further they have no time restrictions, as time limit is usually
employed in pursuit of core and middle range objectives. After the Communist
Revolution of 1917 the Russian communist leaders, Lenin and Stalin reiterated that
they would endeavor to expand communist ideology through the every nook and
corner of the Globe, as to them the capitalist system was defective and exploitative
in its very nature. It was the Long Range Objective of Communist Russia, because
by doing so they did not set any time limit for the realization of these objectives.
So, Long Range Objective are not only time consuming, but are also indefinite and
vague i.e. Nothing can be ascertained regarding the outcome of the pursuit, so they
are unpredictable as well.

Similarly dissemination of capitalist economy and democracy is one of the long
range objectives of the US policy. After the end of cold war it was believed that
(Anonynous, 2014) there is no serious rival to the Western Democracy. The End
of History and the Last Man is a 1992 book by Fukiyama expanding the 1992
essay the End of History? Published in the Foreign Affairs journal the National
Interest. In the book, Fukuyama argues the controversial thesis that the end of
cold war signals the end of the progression of human history:

What we are witnessing is not just the end of cold war, or a passing of a particular
phase of postwar history, but the end of history as such; that is the endpoint of
humankinds ideological evolution and the universalization of Western Liberal
Democracy as the final form of human government.

The end of history as such, the evolution and the universalization of Western
liberal democracy as the final form of human government; these were the sort of
statements along with Fukiyamas professed conviction that the ideal will govern
the material world in the longer run that rang the alarm





3) LITRATURE REVIEW
The simplest definition of foreign policy is that, it is the attempt by a state to
maximize its national interest in the external or international environment.
However, this definition suggests some complexities. The definition assumes a
commonly agreed definition of national interest.
National interest, as a concept is derived from a realist perspective which means
decisions that states make to preserve and improve power. It is therefore not true to
assume that the definition of national interest as being commonly agreed.
Secondly, Foreign Policy is an ends and means, a problem of achieving certain
national goals with limited means available. The attempt to attain these goals is
largely outside ones control. These attempts are made with other states that are
seeking the same goals for themselves sometimes at the expense of the competing
state.
One would need to include some measure of cooperation, or at least alliance
building or working together. Of the two basic goals of the state, that is, security
and prosperity, security is always presented as a zero sum game. Prosperity
requires states to cooperate with each other.
One may then summarize and state that the foreign policy of a state are the
strategies employed by the state to safeguard its national interests and to achieve its
goals in international arena.
Basically a Nation first considers and decides upon various policy options,
methods and tactics based on influenced wants and needs from its domestic
environment
Foreign policy analysis involves the study of how a state makes foreign policy. It
also involves the study of both international and domestic politics. A state may
implement foreign policy through diplomacy, war, trade, intergovernmental
organizations and economic sanctions.
Foreign Policy Analysis is the study of the process, effects, causes, or outputs of
foreign policy decision making. Foreign Policy Analysis explains why specific
states do specific things at specific times. Foreign policy analysis is the study of
the conduct and practice of relations between different actors, primarily states, in
the international system. Diplomacy, intelligence, trade negotiations and cultural
exchanges all form part of the substance of Foreign policy analysis.
At the heart of the field is an investigation into decision making, the individual
decision makers, processes and conditions that affect foreign policy and the
outcomes of these decisions. By virtue of this approach, Foreign policy analysis is
necessarily concerned with the boundaries between the external environment
outside of the nation state and the internal or domestic environment, with its
variety of sub-national sources of influence.
The groups focus is to examine how the state level of analysis affects a countrys
formulation and implementation of its foreign policy. As such, it necessary to give
an in-depth definition of the terms nation, state and nation-state.
The United States had suggested that U.S. foreign policy is driven, at least in part,
by domestic considerations. According to this logic, unpopular presidents attempt
to rally support by diverting attention from domestic failures to overseas threats.
The view that domestic politics inuences foreign policy is also well represented in
the scholarly literature. Ostrom and Job (1986), for example, argue that during the
Cold War US presidents used force in response to domestic, more than
international, imperatives, especially uctuations in their approval rating. This
study takes issue with that nding.
Whether or not presidents engage in conict to manage their tenure in ofce has
important normative implications. If presidents do behave this way it runs counter
to the normatively appealing implications of the democratic peace literature (e.g.,
Russett 1993). Whereas that work anticipates that a federation of democratic
countries will resolve disputes peacefully, this argument suggests that democratic
states inject false conict, which is to say conict based on the electoral
incentives of specic leaders rather than the foreign policy interests of countries,
into the international system (Hess and Orphanides 2001). Thus, while our study is
rather narrowly focused on the impact of presidential approval on conictual US
foreign policy, to the extent that additional work on other democracies indicates
that the ndings can be generalized.
The United States has utilized a vast arsenal of foreign policy carrots and sticks to
induce, compel, and deter changes in other nations foreign policies.
Traditionally, U.S. foreign policy research focuses on the degree of success the
U.S. Government has achieved when seeking specific objectives such as
improvements in human rights conditions, democratic change, United Nations
(UN) General Assembly voting, trade policies, and a host of other goals. The
results of such studies have been mixed, with some finding evidence that the
United States can induce nations to vote more closely according to its preferences
in the UN General Assembly, and that U.S. militarized actions do sometimes lead
to advances in democracy in target nations.2 Yet, other researchers have concluded
that U.S. foreign assistance has little impact on human rights3 or democratization,4
and that the use of military force to promote democracy rarely works.5 And even
those researchers who have found evidence of linkages between U.S. foreign
policy actions and target nation behavior conclude that such relationships are often
neither strong nor direct. Thus, evidence of positive influence must be treated
carefully.
In this analysis, I seek to examine more broadly the effect of U.S. foreign policy
actionsdo they increase or decrease regime stability? The prime directive of
doctors, as well as many other types of practitioners, is held to be, do no harm.
That dictum may well be directed toward U.S. foreign policydo U.S. foreign
policy actions lead to harmful outcomes within those states with which the United
States has established relationships? Are nations in which the United States
maintains economic, political, and security relationships more likely to experience
adverse political events that may be a result of the U.S. presence? More
specifically, are the peoples of these nations likely to engage in disruptive or
violent behavior because of their opposition to the U.S. presence or the degree of
U.S. influence over their government? Or does the provision of foreign assistance,
the use of military force, or the stationing of U.S. military personnel in a nation
promote greater stability and lead to fewer instances of civil unrest, terrorism, and
war? Does a close relationship with the United States provide foreign governments
with the resources, assistance, and support they need to protect themselves from
such threats?
This is one of the ways of examining state behavior. It can also be said to be a
perspective on international relations based on a similar state of actors and
processes that suggests possible explanations to why a state acts in a particular way
.Scholars see several levels of analysis through which state behavior can be
examined.
Walter Russell Mead argues that throughout the U.S. rise to world power, most
observers have believed that the country did not care very much about foreign
policy and was not very good at it (Mead 2002a: xv). Given Americas relative
global success Mead questions this strangely fossilized conventional wisdom
which he labels the Continentalist outlook to foreign affairs. The approach that
Mead is referring to lionises realist thinking and sees America as both too nave
and unsophisticated in its foreign affairs, which leads, in Meads opinion, to the
severe underestimation of the richness and variety of Americas foreign policy
traditions. It also generally dismisses democracy as at best an irrelevance and at
worst a serious obstacle in foreign affairs. From the standpoint of Continental
realism, American foreign policy, and for that matter the whole American
government, looks wrong. Massachusetts congressman Fisher Ames put his finger
on the problem in a speech he made to the House of Representatives in 1795: A
monarchy is a merchantman which sails well, but will sometimes strike on a rock,
and go to the bottom; a republic is a raft which will never sink, but then your feet
are always in the water. According to Mead, because the raft of American foreign
policy lacks all the features that Continental realists look for in a vessel, they
consistently fail to grasp the rafts capabilities. To understand the US approach to
world affairs, Mead stresses that one needs an understanding of a number of
issues: the US constitution, the impact of Congress, regionalism, the role of
missionary tradition, and the impacts of American feminism, and American
democracy and nationalism. Mead argues that this multitude of influences has led
to the emergence of competing US foreign policy traditions rather than a single
unified view. Consequently American policy often looks inconsistent; however,
Mead claims that despite this, it has been unusually successful from the early
nineteenth century onward. In making his case, Mead offers a direct rebuke to Lord
Bryces claim in 1888 that US foreign affairs up to that point had been like snakes
in Iceland 1 rather nonexistent.
2 He also asks readers to rethink the orthodoxy expressed by Henry Kissingers
more recent assertion that between the Monroe Doctrine and the Spanish-
American War, the very notion of foreign policy its practices and strategies had
little place in American thinking. Mead challenges both of these views by
effectively bringing to life the richness and successes of US foreign policy in the
nineteenth century. Meads work on Henry Kissinger promotes the foreign affairs
experts more recent dalliances with the Jeffersonsian tradition. In my mind,
Kissinger is the arch-realist who sits outside the American traditions of foreign
affairs, and I feel that Mead, whose title at the Council on Foreign Relations is the
Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy, has overstated these
Jeffersonsian tendencies, taking the title of Kissingers 2001 book Does America
need a foreign policy? Too literally.
Kissingers longstanding foreign affairs career and the significance of both his
writings and actions in the field of foreign relations make this controversial figure
impossible to ignore. Many of the allegations directed at Kissinger by vehement
critics such as William Shawcross (1981) and Christopher Hitchens (2001) are
likely to be true, and Kissingers at times brutal approach to asserting American
power and influence while in government means that I too come to his writings
with a somewhat negative attitude. That said, it is hard not to admire the clarity of
Kissingers views in print and his ability to summarise broad historical themes. In
the introduction to Diplomacy (1994), he pithily highlights some of the central
paradoxes of the American approach to foreign affairs and its difference in
approach vis--vis other nations. On one hand, Kissinger hones in on the tension
between the belief that America serves its values best by perfecting democracy at
home, thereby acting as a beacon for the rest of mankind, while on the other hand
he asserts that Americas values impose on it an obligation to crusade for them
around the world.
Consequently, American thought has oscillated between isolationism and
commitment. Although the missionary and isolationist traditions appear
contradictory on the surface, according to Kissinger they reflect a common
underlying faith: that the United States possessed the worlds best system of
government, and that the rest of mankind could attain peace and prosperity by
abandoning traditional diplomacy and adopting Americas reverence for
international law and democracy. Kissingers realpolitik voice emerges to declare:
Americas journey through international politics has been a triumph of faith over
experience (Kissinger 1994: 17-18). American foreign affairs as outward-looking
(and imperialist) from the nations earliest days (Kagan 2006, 2008). Kagan is
undoubtedly a persuasive writer, and this can be seen in the narrative of US foreign
policy history presented in his article Neocon Nation (2008), where he so
selectively (and thus distortedly) presents the case that America has been a neo-
conservative nation from its beginnings. The piece is an excellent example of how
history can be used (and abused) to make the case for a tradition.
A scholar who offers a healthy antidote to Kagans tendency to marshal historical
evidence to suit his argument is Michael Dunne (1994, 1998, 2001). In Dunnes
work we see someone wrestling with the vastness and variety of US foreign ideas
and diplomatic history. By highlighting divergent tendencies, Dunnes essay in
this collection shows the ability of US foreign policy to renew and reinvent itself.
Dunnes reading of US foreign relations sees the US struggling to develop
traditions as it lurches from one set of events to the next (or one doctrine to the
next). His observation that the United States has not employed balance-of-power
methods since the earliest years of the Republic (Dunne 1994: 716-717) stands in
contrast to the work of Norman A. Graebner who sees American foreign relations
as far more realist.
Graebner views Washington, Adam and Jefferson as comfortable with balance- of
power politics (Graebner 1989: 606-609, 615-616). This takes us to one of the most
commented-upon speeches in US diplomatic history: Washingtons farewell
address.
In his classic work, To the farewell address, Felix Gilbert suggests a realist bent to
the thinking of Washington and particularly Hamilton on how best to preserve the
United States against foreign interference. It was estimated that America must do
everything possible to keep the peace for twenty years, until which time her
position would be almost unassailable (Gilbert 1961: 122). The best way to do
this was to have a general principle of policy of avoiding permanent alliances
while recognising that America might occasionally be forced into temporary
alliances (Gilbert 1961: 130).
Despite this largely realist interpretation of the ideas that guided early American
foreign policy, Gilbert concludes that: America has wavered in her foreign policy
between Idealism and Realism, and her great historical moments have occurred
when both were combined (Gilbert 1961: 136). Like Gilbert, Walter mcdougal
interprets this famous speech and early period of American foreign policy with an
emphasis on Washingtons view that Americas distance from Europe was one of
its great advantages, not to be squandered by becoming involved in either
European affairs or alliances (mcdougal 1997: 39). Washington was not alone in
holding this position: other leading minds and politicians of the time such as
Thomas Paine and John Adams echoed his thoughts (mcdougal 1997: 41).
Reflecting on this, mcdougal convincingly argues: So, our vaunted tradition of
isolationism is no tradition at all, but a dirty word that interventionists, especially
since Pearl Harbor, hurl at anyone who questions their policies (mcdougal 1997:
40). The tradition mcdougal prefers to use to describe this position is
Unilateralism.



3.1) Liberalism and Realism
All of Meads four traditions have been interpreted in a variety of ways, and
Wilsonianism scholarship provides vast testimony to this fact. A broader snapshot
of these trends is captured admirably by David Steigerwald (1999) in his essay
"the Reclamation of Woodrow Wilson?" while others such as Tony Smith focus on
the Wilson legacy. He writes: the greatness of Wilson lay in his understanding
that channeling the force of nationalism into liberal democratic governments that
would respect their citizens as well as their neighbors was the best solution reason
could establish (Smith 2007: 67). Like Colin Dueck, Smith sees liberalism as the
defining hegemonic ideology from World War I onwards, particularly after the
finish of World War II. According to Smith, Wilson provided the impetus and
many of the ideas that made liberalism the most appealing and successful ideology
of the 20th century. Smith paints an extremely positive picture of Americas use of
liberal ideas, claiming that their judicious transfer helped not only Germany and
Japan, but also the USSR.
Dueck is less positive, believing America has underfunded its commitment to
liberal internationalism. He sees this low-cost internationalism as a defining part
of the Wilsonian tradition, a tradition he believes has been followed by nearly
all of the 20th century US administrations apart from Nixons, which he argues
was condemned from both the left and right for not being Wilsonian enough.
Dueck argues that Reagan, Clinton and even George W. Bush took up the
Wilsonian mantle. Despite the many claims that Bush was a break from Americas
liberal past, Dueck claims that: the problem is not that the president is departing
from a long tradition of liberal internationalism; it is that he is continuing some of
the worst features of that tradition (Dueck 2003/4: 9). In short, Bush gave
sweeping commitments, too often supported by inadequate means (Dueck
2003/4: 7). Smith sees things very differently, arguing that there is much less
continuity in the liberal tradition. He paints liberalism in the post-Cold War period
as having undergone a less pragmatic transformation into what he calls liberal
imperialism (what others call neo-conservatism). Some would say that liberal
imperialism is a break from Wilsons pledge to make the world safe for
democracy as it sees America actively attempting to turn undemocratic nations
into democracies (within highly unrealistic timeframes). Smith argues that liberal
imperialism has three new conceptual underpinnings that make it a dangerous
departure from the liberal-realism of the 20th century: a belief in the democratic
peace thesis, a belief that democracy is a universal value, and a belief that
humanitarianism can be delivered by military means. All of these discussions about
Wilsonianism stretch this undoubtedly important tradition to the breaking point. In
other words, as crucial as Wilson was to providing key liberal ideas, liberalism is
bigger and more complicated than the term Wilsonianism implies. One of the best
cases for the limitations of the Wilsonian tradition is put by Steigerwald in
Wilsonian Idealism in America (1994) where he makes a case for how events such
as the Great Depression, the dropping of the atomic bomb and the Holocaust saw
the Wilsonians concede liberalism to the liberal realists (Steigerwald 1994: 169-
171). The divide in America between liberalism and realism in the early Cold War
was often slight, yet it is amazing how often the two have been treated as opposing
worldviews. This oversight seems even more dramatic when you consider the
centrality of this period to debates about American foreign relations. Mcdougals
work on containment shows how he sees balance-of-power ideas like containment
being pushed in the direction of global meliorism during the Cold War by liberal
desires to make foreign policy an extension of American domestic policy. To be
more specific, he argues that particularly in the 1960s there was an attempt to
export the Great Society outlook abroad to Vietnam and elsewhere. For example,
Lyndon Johnson pronounced an overriding rule that US foreign policy must
always be an extension of our domestic policy. Our safest guide to what we do
abroad is always what we do at home. Hence, mcdougal writes, Vietnam had its
origins in the same presidential impulses that gave birth to the Great Society and
the April 1965 offer to North Vietnam of a billion-dollar economic development
program for the Mekong River (mcdougal 1997: 190). This overstates the reality,
but again shows the strange mix of realism and liberalism in the Cold War.
Wilsonians were likely to see the liberal-realism of the Cold War as too realist
(Steigerwald 1994); mcdougal sees it as too liberal. Another interesting division is
how mcdougal and Mead diverge on where the Cold War fits into the history of
American foreign relations. Mcdougal treats the Cold War policies of the US as
drawing on earlier traditions and understandings, while Mead sees this period as
one where the American traditions took a back seat to more conventional
Continentalist ideas about spheres of influence and the balancing of power.
Mcdougal is more inclined to see realist thinking motivating the policies of
Washington, Quincy Adams and Monroe. So, for him, the best of the Cold War
strategies of securing Americas national interests are squarely within the
American tradition (in fact they are for him the best and wisest part of it). Further,
the excessive desires of Johnson, Rostow and mcnamara to remake Vietnam in
Americas image are, for mcdougal, foreshadowed by the actions and thoughts of
the 19th century progressive imperialists (and are the worst aspects of the
American tradition).

The relationship between the United States and the United Nations has been
closely linked since the institutions conception in the aftermath of World War Two.
The name 'United Nations' was created by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the
'Declaration by the United Nations of 1st January, 1942 during the Second World
War (Basic facts about the United Nations 2000). The League of Nations created in
the aftermath of the First World War had been a failed forerunner due to the
absence of the United States. It was the intention of the victors of World War Two
to create an institution that would bind all sovereign states to the role of
international law and international norms. The inclusion of the United States in
such an organisation was deemed vital as the League of Nations had failed because
the emerging superpower had been missing and thus the legitimacy and potential
collective security arrangement did not work in practice. The United States along
with its war time allies aimed to reincarnate a multinational organisation in order to
create the primary vehicle for maintaining peace and stability (Moore and
Pubantz, p, 49) Roosevelt needed to convince his war time allies that such an
organisation could prove successful in this role. The negotiations mainly took place
during the Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta conferences. During these negotiations
Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt reached consensus on the United Nations structure,
purposes and principals. The United Nations Charter was drawn up in 1945 in San
Francisco, 50 countries came together to deliberate on the make up of the new
institution. The Unites States played a key role in hosting and facilitating the talks
that created the institution. The Charter was singed on the 26th June 1945 by
representatives of all 50 countries in attendance. Poland later signed as a founding
member, creating a United Nations consisting of 51 member states. Officially the
UN came into existence on 24th October 1945, when the charter had been ratified
by the Soviet Union China, France, the United Kingdom and the United States. The
most important American contribution during this period was at the Bretton woods
conference which promoted a liberal economy implemented through institutions
such as the World Bank and international monetary fund (Moore and Pubantz p,
50). Importantly the United Nations was the first multilateral international
governmental organisation that the United States supported. This was in contrast to
the League of Nations which while championed by Woodrow Wilson had failed to
be ratified by the United States Congress. Thus from its conception the United
States played an important part in the United Nations and the relation ship between
the two became ever more important for international geo-politics. This position
remains to this day, with the US tempted into unilateral action in Iraq in 2003 only
to return to the multi lateral organisation with the election of the new Obama
administration. Patrick (2009) states the fundamental questions facing the 1940s
generation confront us again today. As then, the United States remains by far the
most powerful country in the world, but its contempory security, political, and
economic challenges are rarely amenable to unilateral action. In essence the sole
superpower in the modern world does not have the capabilities to maintain
international peace and security without a multilateral framework to provide
support.

A Rasmussen report in 2006 showed that only 31% of American adults had a
favourable view of the United Nations. This shows the lack of support for the
institution at a grass roots level in American politics. The United Nations has failed
to appeal to the ordinary citizens of the United States. The same report showed that
45% had an unfavourable opinion of the UN. This apathy for the UN has grown
with a similar report in 2004 showing 44% favourable and 42% unfavourable. This
report followed the controversial speech of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez at
the UN where he refereed to President Bush as the Devil, that it smelled of
sulphur and that he came here talking as if he were the owner of the world. Such
comments alienated the American public and provided them with evidence that the
UN was acting as a platform for anti-US interests. Despite this low esteem in
which the UN is held. 57% of Americans still want to remain a member of the UN
with only 26% advocating a withdrawal. Such a position is matched equally by the
academic literature, Weiss (2009) argues that the Expectations of the new
(Obama) administration are impossibly high, and there are few precedents for
deliberately destroying existing international institutions and establishing new
ones (p, 141). Although a staunch Republican Jesse Helms (1996) does not
advocate a withdrawal from the UN in his article Saving the UN. Instead he
argues for A United Nations that can recognise its limitations (p, 5) and one that
can facilitate diplomacy among nations-states (p, 3). While his Saving the U.N
article is highly critical of the UN bureaucracy, finances and role in the world it
stops short of advocating withdrawal but instead calls for the institution to be
radically overhauled. Only in the final paragraph does he threaten to lead the
charge for withdrawal if the UN does not take time to reform itself. He argues that
a United Nations that is helping sovereign states work together where appropriate
and staying out of issues where it has no legitimate role, is worth keeping; a United
Nations that insists on imposing its utopian vision on states begs for
dismantlement (p, 5). Hirsh (1999) further argues that the terrible irony is that the
United Nations; the organisation Washington has wilfully marginalized and
bankrupted, is now more central than ever to Americas global interests (p, 3). The
article understands that U.S/U.N tensions are not a new story but entrenched in
history. Cronin (2001) further expands on this point in his article the Paradox of
Hegemony explaining that twice in this century the United States has sought to
achieve a position of global leadership, and both times-in 1945 and 1990- its
leaders viewed the United Nations as one of its primary vehicles. Yet from the
beginning, the relationship between the U.S and the world organisation has been
ambiguous; the US has alternately been both the UNs most enthusiastic advocate
and harshest critic (p, 115). This ambiguous relationship has led to a number of
confrontations between the ambitions of U.S foreign policy and the United Nations
more liberal approach to global governance. Such a Conflict arose between the
United States and the United Nations in 2002 and 2003 over the issue of Iraq.
Saddam Hussein had continually refused to meet the obligations entered into at the
end of the 1991 Gulf War, in particular the requirement not to follow a policy of
developing weapons of mass destruction . The U.S was adamant that Iraq was
responsible for proving that such weapons did not exist. The U.N weapons
inspectors headed by Hans Blix found no evidence of WMDs or their
development, it was noted that on several occasions Iraq had failed to co-operate
fully with inspection teams. In November 2002, the UN Security Council adopted
resolution 1441, in effect giving an ultimatum for full co-operations with WMD
disarmament. However the United States launched military action in 2003 without
seeking a further UN security resolution. They entered the war with a loose
coalition of the willing consisting of 50 countries. This action split the United
Nations into two distinct camps, those who supported military action (including the
U.K, Spain, Australia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Netherlands and Poland) and
those who felt military action was not justified by resolution 1441 (France,
Germany and Russia). This split in the international community and subsequent
military action by the United States and its coalition partners has led to much
disagreement as to the legality of the war. Arguments abound in International Law
as to whether Resolution 1441 constituted a legitimisation of force against Iraq.

Jesse Helms (1996) directly tackles the work of Secretary General Boutros Ghali
and his campaign for UN empowerment. The basis of this criticism is the vast
financial waste of the UN and its various committees and institutions. The U.S. is
'the most generous benefactor of this power hungry and dysfunctional
organisation'. As such Helms argues that the situation is 'untenable and that the
United Nations must be 'radically overhauled'. This stance is countered by Hirsh
(1999) in his argument that the Clinton Administration in particular, used the
United Nations as a 'fall guy 'in international politics. Indeed the organisation is
'demoralised and in disarray' that this is due mainly to Washington's self defeating
assault on the UN' (p, 1). He argues that the United States is withholding dues as a
method of control and direction of UN. Arguing that 'U.S-UN tensions, of course,
are not a new story, what has become ever more alarming throughout the 1990s,
however, is that deepening contempt displayed by both Congress and the Clinton
Administration toward the world body' (p, 2). Prior to the 1960's the organisation
had held great prestige with the United States with peacekeepers posted from
Kashmir to Cyprus to Mozambique. The continued financial support of the UN is
important according to Durch (2003) who argues that it is vital that the United
States being the UNs principal source of cash and operational backup, remains
politically engaged and operationally supportive of UN post conflict activities
(p,196). Successful Intervention in East Timor showed that when Washington
makes use of it, the U.N system it can be a powerful channel through which a wide
array of threatened sanctions can be transmuted into a single hammer blow of
pressure (Hirsh, p, 4). Richard C Holbrooke the US ambassador to the UN
remarked that It was almost a textbook example of how the U.N Security Council
is supposed to work as envisaged by Churchill and Roosevelt. Holbrook was also
responsible for negotiating a reduction in the rate of dues that the United States
pays to the United Nations. This policy was pushed hard by Senators Jesse Helms
and Joe Biden; in return the United States paid a lump sum of there UN debt. When
the organisation is financed it can work more efficiently, however the US has often
used its overdue dues as a method of control over the organisation. This began in
the Reagan era as a response to developing countries forming the Third World
UN. However Hormats and Rothkopf (2008) argue that the united states cannot
effectively or affordably achieve its goals without restoring, renovating, or in some
cases reinventing the multilateral mechanisms available to it in each major policy
area (p, 1). In the long run the United States may indeed save money by investing
in the infrastructure of the UN.

Weiss (2009) identifies four key disorders that prevent the UN from acting
efficiently as a global institution. The first of these is the nature of the
Westphalian system (p, 146) established at the end of the Thirty Years War in
1648. The second problem identified is the diplomatic burlesque that passes for
diplomacy in UN circles, a problem that Weiss argues stems from the division of
the industrialized north and global south. The third problem is identified as the
structural pathologies arising from overlapping jurisdictions as well as lack of
coordination and centralised financing among UN agencies and bodies (p, 147).
Finally the bureaucracy is identified as a cause of low productivity within the
organisation. Weiss, Helms and Hirsh outline the problem of the overblown United
Nations bureaucracy. Helms (1996) in particular is a harsh critic of the UN
bureaucracy whom he argues has established a foothold on the international stage.
This process must be stopped (p, 3) Weiss (2009 and 2003) while advocating the
third generation of international institutions identifies the bureaucratic procedures
of the UN as a major area of reform. Weiss identifies the bureaucracy as a major
disorder related to the overwhelming weight of bureaucratic procedures and the
low productivity and underwhelming leadership within the international
secretariats (P, 147). He elaborates by describing the recruitment process as
flawed resulting in many talented individuals being overlooked for vital positions
within the institution.

Thomas Weiss (2009) in his article Towards a Third Generation United Nations
outlines the future of the United States relationship with the United Nations and
identifies four reasons why the United Nations is still an imperfect forum. Weiss
argues that by nominating his confidante, Susan E. Rice, as ambassador to the
United Nations and restoring the posts cabinet status, President Obama enunciated
his belief that the UN is an indispensable and imperfect forum (p, 147). Such a
comment has cemented the short term future of the UN while providing a platform
for potential reform. A firm commitment to multilateralism is backed up by the
simple fact that the global challenges we face demand global institutions that
work (p, 141). The new administration is keen to cultivate new friends and realises
according to Weiss that the UNs universal membership provides legitimacy and
is a unique asset, a belief that Rice confirmed sharing when she stated that the UN
as a global institution should enhance, not diminish, out influence, and bring more
security to our people and to the world (p, 141). Legitimacy has become important
in a world where a single superpower cannot act unilaterally without operational
and political problems as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Weiss expands his
argument by saying that the global financial crisis needed a response from an
adequate global institution that can provide compliance with collective decisions.
He backs up with a quote from Henry Kissinger (2009) stating the economic
world has been globalised. Its institutions have a global reach and have operated by
maxims that assumed a self regulating global market. The financial collapse
exposed the mirage. It made evident the absence of global institutions to cushion
the shock and to reverse the trend (p, 142). Such a view seems to advocate more
central control from the United Nations especially with fiscal apparatus. This
would be strongly opposed by Helms (1996) who states the United Nations does
not deserve continued American support. Its bureaucracy is proliferating, its costs
spiralling, and its mission is constantly expanding beyond its mandate; and beyond
its capabilities. Worse, with the steady growth in the size and scope of its activities,
the United Nations is being transformed from an institution of sovereign nations
into a quasi-sovereign entity in itself (p, 2). The original intent of the United
Nations was to cement the system of sovereign states established at the treaty of
Westphalia in 1648; such a transformation would thus represent an obvious threat
to U.S national interests (p, 2) according to Senator Helms. The backlash from
conservative politicians to a quasi sovereign institution would be strong; the
argument of Weiss (2009) appears a little nave in this respect. Republicans in the
U.S would argue for smaller government with less intervention from central
bureaucracies. The key battle the literature omits is the conservative demand for
less government intervention (including global government) and the multilateral
centralised government approach of more liberal politics. This is qualified by
Weiss (2009) when he states most countries, especially major powers, are loath to
accept elements of a central authority and the inroads that this would make into
their autonomy (p, 143). Then the question must be asked as to how the article
expects the global economic apparatus to be deployed on a mass scale. This idea
appears to be overly ambitions in its approach considering the massive financial
stress that the U.N has suffered since its conception. Helms also states that in the
United States, Congress has begun a process of devolution, taking power away
from the federal government and returning it to the states. This must be replicated
at the international level (p, 4). This provides the template for the Republican
dismantlement of the UN which began with the Reagan administration in the
1980s in response to a growing Third World UN in the general assembly. If the
UN begins to question or challenge the United States then a series of cuts or
reforms are brought against the institution to bring it back into line.
System level analysis examines state behavior by looking at the international
system. It is the most comprehensive of the levels available, encompassing the
totality of interactions which take place within the system and its environment. In
this level of analysis, the international system is the cause and state behavior is the
effect. Characteristics of the international system cause states to behave the way
they do. Change in the international system will cause change in state
behavior. The key variable in the international system is the power of a state
within the system. Some states are powerful; others are weak. So for example, the
cold war had two powerful states. Therefore the central cause of all state behavior
in the cold war was the fact that the US and USSR were the two powerful states in
a bipolar system. Today, there is unipolar system one superpower (or hyper
power) -- and that defines the behavior of all other states in the system. (See neo-
realism below). So this level of analysis might explain the US intervention in Iraq
as a matter of the US, the one and only powerful state, flexing its muscles to police
the world against states that threaten it. The US wants to preserve its dominance
and therefore crushes all challengers.




3.2) Organizational level analysis examines the way in which organizations
within a state function to influence foreign policy behavior. States dont make
decisions. Organizations bargain with each other to create a foreign policy that is a
compromise between competing organizations. This level of analysis for example,
might look at the Iraq war and try to explain it by examining the interests of the US
military, the department of defense, the state department, and central intelligence
agency. How did these organizations create US foreign policy would be the key
question at this level of analysis?








3.3) Individual level analysis focuses on people. People make decisions within
nation states and therefore people make foreign policy. Scholars might look at the
roles of different leaders. This level of analysis might explain World War II by
examining the role of Hitler. It might look at the end of the cold war by studying
Gorbachev. It might suggest that the economic reforms in China are a result of the
transition from Mao Zedongs leadership to Deng Xiaopings rule. This level of
analysis also includes cognitive theories --theories that explain foreign policy by
looking at the way leaders perceive the world. Larsons book is an example of
this. This is a focus on perception, misperception, and communication. Individual
level analysis might ask questions such as these: Are there aspects of George W.
Bushs character and belief systems that have defined the US response to the 9/11
attacks? Would Al Gore or John Kerry have behaved any differently in a similar
situation? How do Bush and his senior decision makers perceive the world and
their role in it?
Kenneth Waltz's theory of International Politics, is the most prominent effort to
develop a Rigorous and prudent model of "modern" or structural" realism, has
tended to define the terms of a vigorous debate during the past two decades. It
follows and builds upon another enormously influential book in which Waltz
developed the Rousseau an position that a theory of war must include the system
level (what he called the "third image") and not just first (theories of human nature)
or second (state attributes) images. Why war? Because there is nothing in the
system to prevent it.











3.4) State level analysis examines the foreign policy behavior of states in terms of
state characteristics. For example, some scholars say that all democracies behave a
certain way; they dont fight with other democracies. Some scholars might look at
the different behaviors of weak or strong states; states that live in rough
neighborhoods (Germany or France) vs. States that live in more benign
surroundings (the US). Some scholars might say that the foreign policy behavior
of every state is a cultural characteristic, defined by the historical legacy of the
state, the religious or social traditions, or the economic and geographic nature of
the state itself (see constructivism below). State level of analysis might explain the
US intervention in Iraq as a function of the missionary quality of US foreign
policy. The US has always had an idealist streak in its foreign policy (some
disagree with this) and sees bad guys out there in the international system. The
US is compelled by the nature of its political system and its belief that someday all
states will be like the US. It has a drive to remake the world in its own image. The
job of US foreign policy is not done until all states are democratic and all nations
have free market economies.
The most important actors within the global system continue to be the central
governments of sovereign states. Each central government has relationships with
other central governments and other international actors. These relationships are
summarized as that country's foreign policy. The dominant model of the global
system continues to hold the view that the world is composed of a system of
sovereign states. The sum total and the product of all foreign policies would result
in what we call the global system.
3.5) Key Points
Child labor is a serious problem with over 250 million children working
around the world.
Poverty is an immediate reason why families send their child to work, but
putting children to work in lieu of education condemns them to a life of poverty.
Legislation introduced by Senator Harkin to ban products made with child
labor from import to the U.S., while never enacted, provided the stimulus for
model programs like RUGMARK.

Advocacy by human rights groups, repeated media exposure, and reaction to
legislative proposals advanced to ban products made by child labor have led to
widespread acknowledgment that child labor is a serious problem in the world. It is
a problem that has its roots in poverty and the lack of educational facilities for
children of the poor. Around the world, but particularly in the South, these
circumstances force children into the work force-pushing children into the streets
to beg, into the fields to labor as farm hands, and into factories. The International
Labor Organization (ILO), the tripartite body representing governments, labor and
employers, estimates that more than 250 million children are at work in the global
economy. Many products, ranging from hand-knotted carpets sold in the most
exclusive stores, to soccer balls and T-shirts sold in malls, are made with child
labor.
Concrete action, however, lagged behind debate over child labor. Only in 1992
when Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) introduced the Child Labor Deterrence Act,
which sought to ban products made with child labor from importation to the U.S.,
did the action begin.
Much of the initial response from export-oriented industries amounted to
aggressive denial followed by accusations that the Harkin legislation was
protectionist and aimed at destroying foreign competition. Such positions may
have played well in the local press, but the business community soon realized that
serious steps were necessary to avoid the laws potential application.
Animated by the ideas and leadership of Kailash Satyarthi, Chair of the South
Asian Coalition on Child Servitude (SACCS) based in India, the RUGMARK
Foundation was one of the first and most successful efforts to create a program to
deal effectively with child labor in the notorious South Asian hand-knotted carpet
industry. The RUGMARK model confronting the problem of child labor includes
two key components: Independent monitoring and education/rehabilitation
programs for the former child workers. The ultimate goal is to break the cycle of
poverty by moving children out of factories and into schools. Efforts to implement
RUGMARK were languishing, however, until a group of Indian carpet
manufacturers and exporters, concerned about losing access to the U.S. market,
teamed up with SACCS, UNICEF, and other nongovernmental organizations
(ngos) to launch the program. With offices around the world, RUGMARK provides
on-site monitoring and certifies that manufacturers are making carpets without
child labor. Certified carpets receive a RUGMARK label, assuring consumers that
the carpets meet the child-labor-free requirements.
The most significant aspect of the program places any children identified in the
inspection process into RUGMARK-supported schools. RUGMARK, whose
schooling programs also reach out to street children and child workers in nonexport
industries, finances the schools from a service fee charged to importers who are
licensees of the RUGMARK label.
Garment manufacturers in Bangladesh, who depend on the U.S. for 60% of their
export market, also reacted. After the U.S.-based Child Labor Coalition called for a
boycott of garments from Bangladesh, the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and
Exporters Association (BGMEA) reached an agreement with UNICEF and the
ILO. The BGMEA agreed to contribute to a new schooling program (sponsored by
the ILO and UNICEF) that would educate all the children transferred from the
garment factories. Roughly 10,000 children have been placed in education
programs and provided with a small stipend to offset their loss of income. These
programs manifest hope that once the child labor problem is identified as a priority,
solutions are possible.
Advocates for child workers are now hopeful that further progress will be
facilitated by a law that was passed in early October 1997 that finally provides a
tool for regulating child labor in the global economy. Congress passed an
amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930 that will now prohibit the U.S. Customs
Service from allowing the importation of any product that is made by forced or
indentured child labor. The law will no doubt re-energize efforts to develop
programs to shift working children into schools and develop mechanisms for
certifying that products are made without child labor.


3.6) Problems with Current U.S. Policy
Key Problems
the U.S. lacks any clear policy direction on a comprehensive program to
combat the use of child labor in the global economy. President Clintons call for
voluntary codes of conduct to get companies to stop exploitative practices is
either naive or cynical.
the Clinton administration espouses trade agreements that regard boycotts
and labeling programs as unduly restricting international trade.
A fundamental aspect of any forward-looking policy is that child workers
need quality education programs that provide them with skills for the future.
The U.S. government has yet to formulate an effective, coherent, and consistent
policy with regard to child labor in the global economy. The administration has
complied with congressional mandates to conduct comprehensive studies of the use
of child labor in the global economy, and these have produced some extremely
thorough and useful reports by the Department of Labor. Yet none of the reports
have led to firm policy objectives. The administration has publicly encouraged
companies to abide by voluntary codes of conduct. But asking companies that
have benefited from the use of exploited child labor to suddenly become guardians
of higher standards is either naive or cynical.
The new legislation prohibiting the importation of products made by forced or
indentured child labor must be implemented by the U.S. Customs Service, under
the Department of the Treasury. What remains to be seen is whether the
administration will enforce the law and devote the necessary resources to
developing a more comprehensive and effective overall policy on child labor in the
global economy.
The lack of a clear U.S. policy is more problematic than mere indecisiveness or
deliberation. Trade agreements negotiated and signed by the Clinton administration
effectively preclude the U.S. from dealing effectively with extreme worker rights
violations, including the pervasive use of child labor. For example, the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), now enforced by the World Trade
Organization (WTO), would presumably prohibit the U.S. from the importation of
products made by child labor.
The WTO does not allow for social sanctions, which could be classified as
impermissible technical barriers to trade. Likewise, even labeling schemes like
RUGMARK might run afoul of GATT provisions and could be considered
technical barriers to trade. The separate WTO Agreement on Government
Procurement (AGP) would limit options for any comprehensive selective
purchasing requirement that prohibits the U.S. government from purchasing goods
made with child labor.
Membership in the WTO technically precludes the U.S. government from
combating child labor by developing options that might be inconsistent with
specific obligations in existing trade agreements. In the short run, the
administration has been circumspect in commenting on whether selective
purchasing or voluntary labeling programs like RUGMARK would violate WTO
constraints. Clearly, the administration is loathe to make a public issue out of the
broad reach of the WTO, particularly when the president is involved in the
sensitive process of seeking fast track authority to negotiate new trade
agreements.
Proponents of RUGMARK and selective purchasing on the local level would
welcome a WTO challenge to their efforts. Now that legislation is in place banning
the importation of products made with child labor, such a challenge will hopefully
provoke an appropriate discussion of the reach of the WTO in preventing sovereign
nations from regulating social issues as they relate to trade. Although there may
indeed be room to debate the extent to which trade rules should be the exclusive
means to deal with social issues in the global economy, few would deny that all
reasonable efforts should be made to eradicate the use of exploitative child labor.
The child labor issue should drive the larger struggle to regulate fundamental rights
in the global economy. As nations lose their sovereign rights to prohibit child labor
(through stealth provisions in complex trade agreements), there must be a plan to
ensure that the global economy does not force countries with reasonable child labor
prohibitions to scrap those protections and offer up their children as a source of
extra cheap labor in order to compete in the global marketplace. Should
Washington find itself in the position of seeking to dismantle child labor
prohibitions in order to comply with WTO rules, the U.S. will forever forfeit any
credibility to its claim that free trade is in the interests of people at the lower end of
the global economic spectrum.
Another basic problem with U.S. policy is the lack of clear priorities in its
development thrust. As the RUGMARK program illustrates, a key aspect of any
child labor policy is to ensure that child workers are taken out of factories and
placed in education programs that will provide them with skills for the future.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (AID), the primary U.S.
government agency charged with development issues, is still struggling to find its
place in the post-cold war world. Much of its past was spent funding programs in
developing countries to preempt the spread of communist movements. Now, after a
major reorganization, it is funding a range of programsfrom helping women
achieve a voice in governance to promoting democracy in generalbut precious
little is devoted to basic education and other support for children who are at risk of
being put to work.
The basic education of children does not seem to fit into any of the anagrams that
AID has devised. Unfortunately, desperate, poor, illiterate children do not have a
strong lobby in Washington. If the U.S. wishes to have a credible voice in efforts to
stop child labor, it is essential that it support its rhetoric with significant resources.
Such a commitment would demonstrate that the U.S. is motivated by a genuine
concern for working children and their future development prospects rather than by
an economic desire to eliminate the cheap-labor competitive advantage they
provide.




3.7) Toward a New Foreign Policy
Key Recommendations
To assume a global leadership role on child labor issues, the U.S. must ratify
ILO Convention 138 and initiate a process to create an enforcement mechanism for
that universal standard.
Any new trade agreements with the U.S. should include a provision to
prohibit both the use of child labor in manufacturing and the trafficking of products
made with child labor.
Through its AID programs and its membership in UNICEF and the World
Bank, the U.S. must make education and rehabilitation programs for child workers
a development priority.
The policy void on social issues in the global economy is at least partly due to a
failure to prioritize. There are many new problems attributable to the rapid spread
of global capital, ranging from inhumane conditions for workers in developing
countries desperate for employment to the destruction of natural resources and
environmental degradation. All these problems arise from the same basic
condition: Global trading rules have created a safe atmosphere for the expansion of
capital and the protection of property, but the resulting social problems have been
dumped on national governments, which are themselves restricted by trade
agreements like GATT.
The only provision for social issues is the discredited assumption that more trade
will lead to employment and prosperity for all. The gaunt faces of Pakistani
children making soccer balls for Nike and Adidas, the thousands of Burmese
villagers working at gunpoint to build a gas pipeline for Unocal, and the brave
political prisoners in China making soft fuzzy animals for sale in leading U.S.
department stores should constitute conclusive evidence that the promised
development nirvana will not evolve on its own. Fully developed and highly
profitable multinational firms are benefiting from extreme cases of exploitation and
will continue to do so until some form of global regulation is in place to make them
stop.
It is a significant step to begin a process of meaningful global regulation of social
issues, and it will take a combination of leadership and political will. Eradication of
child labor would be an appealing place to start the global regulation of social
issues. Even hardened free trade boosters balk at the use of child labor in the global
economy. Successful programs like RUGMARK and the agreement with the
Bangladesh garment industry provide strong evidence that progress can be made in
partnership with business. Putting exploited child workers in schools and giving
them a future is a laudable development objective that will, in the long run,
alleviate the need for direct development support as the educated children form a
new cadre of skilled workers ready for the competitive global economy.
The Clinton administration could assume a leadership role in eradicating child
labor by pursuing three distinct goals. First, the U.S. must ratify ILO Convention
138 and then initiate a process to enforce this standard on a multilateral basis.
Whether the solution is to give the ILO enforcement powers, to use the WTO
process to enforce the ILO Convention, or to develop an alternative solution is a
decision that should be made following a con (Anonynous, 2014)sensus-building
process. The key step is to avoid becoming paralyzed by the overwhelming array
of problems and take a visible role in making the specific issue of child labor a
high priority. This would (Anonynous, 2014) necessarily require the U.S. to
upgrade its own child labor laws and plug the gaping holes that, for example,
exempt agricultural workers from coverage.
As a second step, the U.S. should rigorously enforce the new legislation banning
products made by forced or indentured child labor and begin the process of linking
trade to a policy of eradicating child labor. Washington should insist that new trade
agreements include enforceable provisions that prohibit the production and export
of goods made with child labor. Washington should also take other unilateral steps
to reinforce its policy commitment, including adopting a child-labor-free
procurement policy.
Finally, to assure that working children do not simply become victims of high-
minded policy, the U.S. should adopt a clear development priority to fund
programs that target working children for rehabilitation and education. AID,
simply by declaring child labor a priority, could achieve a significant impact.
Through coordination of AID, World Bank, and UNICEF programs, real progress
could be made toward providing children with an option better than starving or
working: going to school and being fed a nutritious meal. Now that a ban on some
forms of child labor is in place, it is imperative for the U.S. to immediately make it
a priority to provide education assistance to ensure that the beneficiaries of this
law, the exploited children, truly do benefit from the law.





4) RESEARCH METHODOLGY
Research Design
For our research we will take up descriptive Research design as it answers the
question what is going on? A good description is a fundamental to the research
enterprise and it adds immeasurable of the shape and nature of the society.
Data Collection will be done in two phases:-
Preliminary Phase - In the initial phase we will try to understand what child labor
law is? Below is the process we would be following:-
Secondary Phase: - Based on the outcome of the preliminary phase; a
detailed questionnaire will be developed to collect information for the study.
Sampling Technique: - All these data will help in formulating very
comprehensive case study. The methodology which will be used for carrying out
the report is as follows:-
Type of Data Sources: For present research work, secondary data will be used.
Tools for collecting Secondary Data: - Various statistical tools will also be used
to analyzing the secondary data.
1. Document Review: - Obtaining the actual forms and operating documents
currently being used. Reviews blank copies of forms and samples of actual
completed forms.
2. Observation: - analyzing annual reports and press releases, verifying the
statements made during the interviews.
3. Web Search: - the information related to outside region (other part of India
and Globe) will be studied from internet to other published papers.
4. Various policies will be dealt in details by referring various government
publications and reference book, journals, published data from time to time.

This report provides an overview of United States government policies to address
child labor globally. The document represents a snapshot of publicly known
policies and programs, and does not purport to be a comprehensive or intensive
study of all U.S. government programs or policies that may affect the central issue
of child labor, directly or indirectly. Rather, it is meant to provide a laymans guide
to U.S. policies in this area.
Since the mid 1990s, the United States has demonstrated global leadership on the
important human rights challenge of ending child labor worldwide. In the 1990s,
the public became increasingly sensitized to the problem of child labor, galvanized
by media reports on child labor in garment factories in Central America and
Bangladesh, soccer ball production in Pakistan, and other exposs. Rising to the
challenge, the Clinton administration undertook a comprehensive study of child
labor around the world, and the U.S. Department of Labor published a
multivolume set of reports titled By the Sweat and Toil of Children.

U.S. government leadership on both policy and programmatic fronts contributed
greatly to the adoption and widespread ratification in 1999 of International Labor
Organization (ILO) Convention No. 182, on the Prohibition and Immediate Action
for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour, and to the expansion of
the ILOs International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour. Also, as
described in this review, new resources and legislative mandates for action on this
topic through various government agencies were initiated in the 1990s.
As illustrated in this paper, numerous government departments and agencies have a
role to play in combating child labor and promoting access to education globally.
The approaches range from policies affecting trade and regulating importation of
goods, to programmatic and development approaches that support eliminating
child labor and ensuring access to basic education.
In its most recent global report (May 2010), Accelerating Action against Child
Labor, the ILO specifically recommended the need to strengthen coherence
between a programmatic approach and a policy approach to addressing child labor.
the challenge is ensuring the coherence and impact of the programme when the
majority of funding is provided for direct services projects. Opportunities to
have an impact on global policymaking ... Have enormous potential which needs to
be capitalized.
The overview provided in this paper suggests that the U.S. government may
benefit from a close examination of whether policy coherence between
programmatic and policy approaches exists in the overall U.S. government
approach to child labor.
In keeping with the spirit of the ILO recommendation, the AFT and the
International Labor Rights Forum present this review to encourage a more
thorough and in-depth analysis and assessment by the U.S. government of its
overall approach to the important global developments and human rights problem
of child labor, with a view to developing a more cohesive and comprehensive
government framework in addressing child labor.
4.1) ENDING CHILD LABOR: A CRITICAL NEED
Child labor is defined globally by two key ILO conventions. Convention No. 138,
adopted in 1973, addresses the minimum age for employment. Specifically, ILO
138 calls on countries to establish a minimum age for employment and to
progressively raise the minimum age to a level consistent with the physical and
mental development of young people.
ILO Convention No. 182, the Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention, was
adopted by the ILO in 1999 and defines a child as all persons under the age of
18. ILO 182 defines the worst forms of child labor as follows:
A.) All forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and
trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom, and forced or compulsory labor,
including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;
B.) The use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of
pornography or for pornographic performances;
C.) The use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for
the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in the relevant international
treaties;
D.) Work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is
likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children.
Child labor remains epidemic in the world today. The most recent ILO global
report, released in May 2010, estimates that there are currently 215 million child
laborers worldwide, and 306 million children in the broader category of children
in employment.
Although these figures represent some progress from a decade ago, there is no
question that the overall numbers remain unconscionably high.
The ILO has identified agriculture as the most predominant sector in which child
labor is found globally, and has identified sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and
West Asia as priority regions. The reality for most of these children is a far cry
from the picture of a child helping on the family farm. An increasing number of
children are working in hazardous conditions in commercial agriculture, producing
global commodities such as cotton, bananas, rubber, tobacco, cocoa, tea and
coffee. They toil long hours, are exposed to harmful pesticides, and suffer
extensive workplace injuries as a result of handling dangerous tools and
equipment.
Many of them are trafficked or in debt bondage to their employers. Most of them
have no access to even a basic education. There are numerous cultural, economic
and social explanations for the widespread problem of child labor. Born to parents
who themselves were uneducated child workers, many child workers are forced to
continue a tradition that leaves them chained to a life of poverty. Furthermore,
child workers tend to come from social classes or castes that have very limited
influence within their societies, with few advocates in the political system. In
addition to an international commitment to eradicate child labor, the international
community also agrees that education is a basic right for all children. This is
expressed in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the ILO
conventions No. 138 and No. 182, and the Millennium Development Goals aimed
at providing basic education for all children by the year 2015.
Currently, more than 72 million children do not have access to a quality basic
education; more than half are girls. These children are some of the most socially
and economically disadvantaged children in the world, leaving them vulnerable to
child labor. As the recent ILO global report, Accelerating Action against Child
Labor, stated, Education is not the sole solution, but when it is free, full time,
compulsory and of quality, it is the most important part of the sum.
The global movement for education FOR ALL CHLDREN (Global Campaign for
Education, GCE) has set a goal of ensuring that by 2015 all children have access to
completely free and compulsory primary education. United States support for
concrete resources and commitment to achieving these targets is an important
aspect of the fight against child labor.










4.2) Overview of U.S. government agency approaches to ending child labor
The U.S. Department of Labor has the most prominent and direct role among
federal government agencies in addressing child labor globally. The departments
Bureau of International Labor Affairs has as part of its mission statement:
To support the Presidents and the Secretary of Labors labor and foreign policy
objectives, meet congressional mandates, perform public outreach by promoting
the elimination of the worst forms of child labor, and increase knowledge and
information on child labor, forced labor, and human trafficking. This function is
housed within the Office of Child, Forced and Trafficked Labor (OCFT). OCFT
was created in 1993 as a response to a congressional request to investigate and
report on child labor around the world. Its activities include research on
international child labor, forced labor and trafficking; funding and overseeing
cooperative agreements and contracts of organizations engaged in efforts to
eliminate child labor around the world; and assisting in the development and
implementation of U.S. policy on international child labor.
8 In fiscal year 2009, the Bureau of International Labor Affairs/OCFT
implemented its mission through $59 million in grants and cooperative agreements
to combat child labor through direct service, collection and analysis of data, and
through development and implementation of national action plans on child labor.
Since the office was established in 1993, OCFT claims to have rescued
approximately 1.3 million children from exploitative child labor.
9 OCFT plays an important role in providing expert analysis to enable other
agencies to fulfill legislative mandates related to child labor. In 2002, OCFT
initiated reporting mandated by the Trade and Development Act, signed into law
on May 18, 2000, which established a new eligibility criterion requiring efforts to
eliminate the worst forms of child labor in order to trade benefits under the
Generalized System of Preferences, Caribbean Basin Initiative, Andean Trade
Preference Act, and African Growth and Opportunities Act.
The Department of Labor was mandated as part of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act, which passed with near unanimous support in
Congress, to develop and make available to the public a list of goods from
countries that the Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) has reason to
believe are produced by forced labor or child labor in violation of international
standards.
10 On Sept. 10, 2009, the Department of Labor released its initial list of goods
from countries.
11 the list was released as part of a larger report detailing the methodology, scope
and limitations of the underlying research. Another example of OCFTs role with
respect to other agencies relates to the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (known as the Farm Bill), which is further described below, in the section on
the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The law assigns specific duties to the Department of Agriculture and the
Department of Labor in implementing this mandate. The Deputy Undersecretary
for International Labor Affairs represents the Labor Department on the
consultative group created under the Farm Bill, and the Labor Department is
assigned to determine the public interest representatives for the group.
The nature of a countrys political system also plays a crucial role. We saw
throughout the analyses that as constraints on the executive branch of government
increased, the incidences of terrorism, riots, anti-government demonstrations,
assassinations, government crises, and civil wars all increased. Clearly, powerful
executives play a powerful role in clamping down on virtually all forms of
domestic unrest. Only in the case of international wars do we find no statistically
significant relationship, as we might expect since this type of violence is one
initiated by the executive branch. On the other hand, political competitiveness
serves to decrease the likelihood of riots, anti-government demonstrations,
government crises, assassinations, and civil wars. Viewed from the perspective of
domestic tranquility, the most effective form of government would appear to be
one with a strong executive and robust political competition. The challenge in
many states that confront domestic unrest and are seeking to design more effective
political institutions to combat these problems is to reconcile those parties and
individuals who compete against one another to accept forceful control of the
executive by one party or one individual. Achieving this type of consensus would
seem to be the key. The strongest evidence of regional trends in these data is found
in the analyses of terrorist acts, anti-government demonstrations, civil wars, and
international wars where I show that the nations of the Middle East were much
more likely to experience such violence. Despite the presence of many other
variables in these models that help explain the prevalence of these indicators of
domestic unrest and violence, there is still something peculiar about such problems
in the Middle East that makes that part of the world especially conflict-prone. Such
unique factors would include the Arab-Israeli conflict, oil wealth, religious
schisms, authoritarian governments, and severe inequalities in the distribution of
wealth, to name but a few.
This does not mean that other countries of the world outside the Middle East are
comparatively less violent or safe. Indeed, there are a great many conflicts both
large and small occurring in Africa and Southeast Asia. Rather, the Middle East
more generally has been and will likely continue to be predisposed to such
violence because of many factors, but in particular the sorts of transnational forces
mentioned above. When viewed as a whole, the findings tend to show that U.S.
foreign policymakers should be mindful of the unintended consequences of the
provision of military assistance and the use of force, particularly the impact these
manifestations of U.S. power and influence have on those groups in the affected
states opposed to U.S. interests and prepared to take action to demonstrate their
opposition. There will always be such actors who are unalterably opposed to
virtually every aspect of U.S. foreign policy and with whom little
legitimatepolitical discussion is possible. But there are always many other
economic, social, ethnic, and political groups within societies which, while they
may oppose, even strongly, these manifestations of U.S. influence, are open to
dialogue and negotiation. Policymakers should be mindful of the impact their
actions have on these groups and individuals who are part of a critical mass of
regime citizens able to influence the direction of political opposition toward
violence or nonviolence. This is not to suggest that it is necessarily the role of the
U.S. Government to consult with such actors for this might well impinge on the
sovereignty of the government and undermine the very purposes of the policy.
Rather, before embarking on important new aid relationships or the use of military
force, policymakers need contingency plans to work with such groups to prevent
the outbreak of violence to ensure that U.S. foreign policy goals can still be
realized. This monograph provides us with important new insights into both the
impact of U.S. foreign policy actions on societal unrest in other nations and the
various other causes of instability. The next step in this process is to develop real-
time indicators of societal instability to better predict when such unrest is likely to
transform into more serious violence and challenges to governmental authority.
Key to this will be development of data on the indicators used in this monograph
on a monthly, if not daily, unit of analysisa project we are currently developing
at the University of North Texas through the creation of an Early Warning Center
to monitor all nations of the world through various electronic media, and
intergovernmental organizational and nongovernment organizational reports. By
deploying a team of student researchers who will monitor this information on a
daily basis, we hope to develop a more fine-grained analysis of emerging trends
and events, while at the same time creating a data base of such information to
develop better and more systematic explanations of regime instability. The use of
annual aggregated data, such as I use in this analysis, is useful in providing
researchers and policymakers with a more macro-level perspective on unrest. But,
if we wish to better determine when these nations are most at risk for violence,
more refined data on the measures used here, as well as actions taken by regimes
that might precipitate violence (e.g., mass arrests, crackdowns on political
opposition, etc.) Are also needed to predict with more precision when threats to
peace and stability are most likely.
The United States utilizes a vast arsenal of foreign policy tools to induce, compel,
and deter changes in other nations foreign policies. As the quantity and quality of
such activity increases, the U.S. footprint in such nations grows deeper and
wider. The U.S. presence may range from a diplomatic mission to a massive
invasion force. The United States may seek to use its presence to openly compel
change in a regimes policies; it may employ its leverage to quietly induce policy
modification; or it may use a combination of such strategies. And while the regime
and citizens of one nation may welcome the United States and its largess, others
may find such relationships a threat to the nations honor and sovereignty. To the
extent a deeper and broader foreign policy relationship (as measured by a U.S.
military presence; U.S. foreign aid relationship; the discrete use of military force;
and a substantial similarity in foreign policy preferences between the United States
and another government) contributes to stability and friendship, U.S. interests are
realized. But does a broad and deep military and foreign policy relationship with
the United States always succeed in realizing these interests?
Why would a cooperative relationship with the United States precipitate political
and societal instability in the host nation? First, the U.S. relationship with the
friendly or client regime may undermine the popular legitimacy and sovereignty of
the government or interfere with local, political processes. Second, political ties
with the United States often impact local economic conditions. Whether it is
economic ties per se the United States is seeking to advance through opening
markets, providing economic assistance, or promoting U.S. multinational
corporation interests, or it is the economic spillover effects from a U.S. military
presence, local market conditions are bound to be influenced by the actions of the
worlds largest economy within the local borders. Third, the local population may
also be opposed to the broader U.S. foreign policy goals with which U.S. officials
are seeking acquiescence or cooperation. Specific U.S. interests will also provoke
antagonism as the populations of other states take exception to the ends or the
means of U.S. foreign policy, and to their regimes degree of identification with
such interests. On the other hand, U.S. foreign policy means and ends are intended
and designed to promote positive relations and maintain stability in those nations
with whom the United States seeks to foster amicable and cooperative
relationships. A strong U.S. presence can promote multiple, positive conditions.
First, to the extent that a U.S. presence promotes both internal and external security
for a nation, it provides the protection and stability a state needs to develop
economically and politically. U.S. friendship can deter interstate rivals from
overtly aggressive behavior and can dissuade internal political rivals from sowing
unrest. Second, to the extent a U.S. military presence or U.S. military aid alleviates
the need for a government to expend resources on its own security, a regime is
better able to utilize freed up resources on economic and social development that
should further the nations prosperity. Third, a U.S. military presence and military
aid can stimulate the local economy and provide jobs for many nationals who are
involved in businesses that contract with and supply the U.S. military, and can
open avenues of opportunity for citizens to take part in educational, economic, and
military interactions with the United States. I use statistical analyses to evaluate the
extent to which indicators of a U.S. foreign policy relationship predict the level of
terrorism, domestic instability, and war in other nations. I find a statistically
significant relationship between several of the indicators of U.S. foreign policy and
instability in foreign countries. The closer the relationship between a country and
the United States, as measured by many of these indicators in most of the
estimates, the more likely nations were to experience various forms of instability.
Yet, the size of the impact of U.S. foreign policy was not always strong. Of all the
measures of ties to U.S. foreign policy, the one that demonstrated the strongest and
most consistent effects in the estimates was U.S. military aid. The greater the
amount of military aid received by a foreign government, the more at risk it
becomes for instability, including terrorism, riots, assassinations, anti-government
demonstrations, and civil wars.
4.3) U.S. Department of State
1. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor
The State Departments Office of International Labor and Corporate Social
Responsibility, part of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL),
promotes labor rights, including elimination of child labor, in partnership with the
private sector, trade unions, non-governmental organizations, intergovernmental
organizations, international organizations, and other U.S. federal agencies.
12 According to the offices public materials, key priority areas include partnering
with social partners, including workers organizations and the private sector to
protect human rightsincluding workers rightsand combating child labor,
forced labor and trafficking in persons.
The State Department supports projects that promote these goals, primarily through
DRLs Human Rights and Democracy Fund. DRL currently has a portfolio of over
$20 million in programs to promote workers rights, build the capacity of social
partners, increase social dialogue, strengthen supply-chain engagement on worker
rights, and promote better livelihoods to prevent child labor and assist former child
soldiers.
DRL coordinates the State Departments labor diplomacy function which involves
Foreign Service Officers at the U.S. embassies in promoting worker rights,
including advancing the policies to end child labor globally. Labor Officers
undertake a broad range of activities, including advocacy, investigation, reporting
and diplomacy. In countries where the United States has a presence and where
there is no Labor Officer, a Foreign Service Officer is usually designated as the
Labor Reporting Officer, normally after arriving at post. Labor Reporting Officers
contribute to the State Departments annual Human Rights Report, which
includes a section on workers rights, including child labor, in each country.
The Special Representative for International Labor Affairs, a position established
by the Secretary in 1999, is the highest level State Department official handling
labor issues. Responsibilities of the Special Representative and the Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor are to: develop and implement policies with
regard to international labor affairs; work through the interagency process to
coordinate international labor work with other agencies in the federal government;
and act as the central liaison between labor officers in the field and Washington,
D.C., including both the State Department and other agencies with a need for labor
information and labor diplomacy.
Elsewhere in the State Department, one officer in the International Organization
Affairs Bureau spends the major part of his or her time following United States
participation in the International Labor Organization. The Economic and Business
Affairs Bureau is the State Departments formal liaison with the U.S. Trade
Representative, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Treasury
Department. The IOA Bureau has one officer who covers labor and trade issues2.
Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons Efforts directed toward
addressing the trafficking in persons globally are highly relevant to efforts to end
the worst forms of child labor. The most recent ILO global report noted the
particular need for attention to children in migration, noting that about one-third of
all migrants from developing countries are children and youth between the ages of
12 and 24.
13the State Departments Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons
engages in diplomatic efforts, research and programs aimed at the prevention of
trafficking, the protection of victims and the prosecution of human traffickers. The
office is responsible for producing the State Departments annual Trafficking in
Persons Report.


4.4) U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
USAID is the lead agency in funding U.S. support for basic education around the
world. The President Obamas budget for FY 2011 includes a decreased amount of
funding for USAID, at $840 million, reduced from $925 million in FY 2010.
As of last year, just over one-quarter of all U.S. funding for basic education was
directed toward sub-Saharan Africa. More than half of U.S. basic education
resources are currently sent to only four countries in the Middle East and South
Asia: Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.







4.5) U.S. Trade Representative
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) includes an Assistant USTR
for Labor Affairs and several staff dedicated to the review of labor provisions in
U.S. trade agreements. Numerous U.S. trade agreements contain language on
workers rights, including language on child labor. In principle, this language
obligates trade partners to take steps to ensure the elimination of child labor as a
condition of continued access to U.S. markets. USTR is then obligated to ensure
that trade partners continue to meet these obligations.
The first labor clause of this type was that added to the Generalized System of
Preferences Act,
Which grants developing countries duty-free status on many exports to the United
States conditioned on compliance with internationally recognized worker rights.
The worker rights conditionality was added to the act in 1986. As envisioned by
Congress, the purpose of the Generalized System of Preferences program is to
promote the notion that trade is a more effective way of promoting broad-
based sustained economic development. In essence, the labor rights linkage in this
unilateral access program for developing countries was intended to ensure that
trade and development benefits went hand in hand with improving labor standards.
When awarding preferences, the U.S. Trade Representative is obligated to conduct
an assessment of labor rights, and on an ongoing basis, to review compliance with
this clause.
Numerous subsequent U.S. trade agreements incorporate the five-factor definition
of internationally recognized worker rights from the Generalized System of
Preferences Act, as amended in the Trade and Development Act of 2000:
(A) the right of association; (B) the right to organize and bargain collectively; (C) a
prohibition on the use of any form of forced or compulsory labor; (D) a minimum
age for the employment of children; and (E) acceptable conditions of work with
respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health.
USTR typically initiates an interagency review process, when a petition is filed by
an outside petitioner requesting suspension of benefits to a particular developing
country on the basis of ongoing violations of one or more of the internationally
recognized worker rights. At present, USTR has an ongoing review of benefits to
Uzbekistan, on the basis of a petition filed by the International Labor Rights Forum
on widespread use of forced child labor, and to Bangladesh, on the basis of a
petition filed by the AFL-CIO on numerous labor rights violations, including
information on child labor in the shrimp industry.
USTR has rarely revoked trade benefits on labor rights grounds E. U.S. Treasury
Department the U.S. Treasury Department is also legislatively mandated to
promote worker rights, including elimination of child labor, by governments who
are recipients of U.S. assistance via the international financial institutions (ifis).
The 1994 Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act provides that the Secretary
of Treasury shall direct the United States Executive Directors of the International
Financial Institutions ... To use the voice and vote of the United States to urge the
respective institution ... To adopt policies to encourage borrowing countries to
guarantee internationally recognized worker rights; and is obliged to use its
voice and vote to make sure loans through ifis do not undermine labor rights,
including ensuring they do not exacerbate child labor. The International Monetary
Fund has been critiqued for constraining fiscal space as part of its macroeconomic
formula of creditworthiness. Reports by non-governmental organizations suggest
this has led to caps on teachers salaries, wage freezes and pro-cyclical policies
that require massive cuts in public sector spending.
Many nations have implemented education budgets that have necessitated the
institution of school fees, which have provided an additional barrier to accessing
education, especially for the poor children who are most at risk of child labor.
Treasury plays a large role in determining the United States contribution to the
International Monetary Fund.
The Education for AllFast-Track Initiative (FTI) was formed in 2002 as a global
partnership to provide support to developing countries in meeting the Millennium
Development Goal of universal primary education by 2015. Although the FTI is
housed at the World Bank, the Treasury Department has not been actively involved
in recent years, and the United States has not yet made a direct contribution to the
FTI except for a $1 million contribution to its evaluation. USAID represents the
United States at the FTI meetings.









4.6) U.S. Department of Homeland Security
The Department of Homeland Security, through the Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement and the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, has a
role to play in regulating the importation of goods that may be produced with child
labor. The Tariff Act of 1930 was subsequently amended in 1997 to include a ban
on goods made by forced child labor. Following this change, the Treasury
Department created an Advisory Committee on International Child Labor
Enforcement. The committee is charged with making recommendations to address
child labor both from a preventive and rehabilitative standpoint, as well as from the
perspective of U.S. law enforcement. The advisory group is intended to meet
regularly to be briefed on Customs Service enforcement activities and to propose
other measures that could enhance the U.S. governments efforts against child
labor. G. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
In 2008, the USDA was legislatively mandated to play a role in oversight of
imported agricultural goods that may be produced with child labor. The 2008 Food
and Energy Security Act, also known as the Farm Bill, directed the establishment
within the USDA of a voluntary, independent, third-party monitoring and
verification program that would certify whether an agricultural product imported or
sold in the United States is produced by forced labor or child labor.
Section 3205 of the Farm Bill, which contains language related to child labor, was
developed to facilitate implementation of the directives of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act. The act, which passed with near unanimous support in
The Congress, directed the Department of Labor to develop and make available to
the public a list of goods from countries that the Bureau of International Labor
Affairs (ILAB) has reason to believe are produced by forced labor or child labor in
violation of international standards. This list was issued by the Labor Department
in September 2009. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act further directs the U.S.
government to work with industries involved in the production, importation and
sale of those products identified by the Bureau of International Labor Affairs to
develop a standard set of practices that will reduce the likelihood that their
products are produced with forced labor or child labor, with the ultimate goal of
ending the importation of goods into the United States that are produced with
forced labor or child labor.
The USDA created a Consultative Group to provide recommendations for this
purpose in September 2009. The group is scheduled to present its
recommendations to the USDA in June 2010.

4.7) U.S. Department of Education
The programs within the U.S. Department of Education related to international
relations are almost exclusively focused on student exchange programs.
I. Millennium Challenge Corporation
The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is an independent U.S. foreign aid
agency that was created by Congress in January 2004. The MCC provides qualified
countries with grants to fund projects aimed at alleviating poverty and stimulating
sustainable economic growth. So far, the MCC has approved over $7.4 billion of
funding for a range of projects. The MCC reports that about 7 percent of its
spending in compact countries (i.e., countries that meet MCCs eligibility criteria)
focused on health, education and community services.
The Millennium Challenge Act passed by Congress required that any country
wishing to negotiate with the MCC for grants must demonstrate a commitment to
12 core criteria listed in Section 607 of the statute that are necessary preconditions
to ensure MCC aid will promote sustainable and equitable economic development.
One of the 12 criteria Congress mandated is that a country must promote
economic freedom, including a demonstrated commitment to economic policies
that respect worker rights, including the right to form labor unions.
Only one of the 17 indicators used by the MCC includes an evaluation of a
countrys respect for workers core labor rights, the Civil Liberties indicator.
Within the Civil Liberties indicator itself, though, workers rights is only one of 15
different criteria used to examine civil liberties protections, and its limited focus is
Restricted only to the right to freedom of association.










4.8) The Role of Public Procurement
In June 1999, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13126 on the Prohibition
of Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor.
Pursuant to Section 3 of the executive order, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory
Council published a final rule in the Federal Register on Jan. 18, 2001, providing,
among other requirements, that federal contractors that supply products appearing
on the list issued by the Department of Labor must certify to the contracting officer
that the contractor (or a responsible official of an incorporated contractor) has
made a good faith effort to determine whether forced or indentured child labor was
used to mine, produce or manufacture any product furnished under the contract,
and that, on the basis of those efforts, the contractor is unaware of any such use of
child labor. The U.S. General Services Administration has noted that no contractor
has ever been barred under this provision. To date, nine states, 40 cities, 15
counties and 118 school districts have also adopted sweatfree procurement
policies to ensure that state and local tax dollars are not spent on goods produced in
violation of core labor rights, including, in all cases, clauses stipulating that goods
not be produced with child labor.
State and local government agencies that share a commitment to labor compliance
in purchasing-supply chains are forming a consortium to pool resources, share
information and coordinate labor standards enforcement.











4.9) Need for an integrated approach to ending child labor
The AFT and the International Labor Rights Forum note the possible relevance of
this paper to a U.S. government sponsored conference on June 8, titled Working
Together to Combat Child Labor: Its Time to Stop the Exploitation of Children.
The conference is co-hosted by the U.S. departments of State and Labor, as well as
the AFT, ILRF and the No Limits Foundation. According to the organizers, the
purpose of the conference is to focus on U.S. government international policy and
programming. The AFT and ILRF intends that this review might contribute to
more a comprehensive U.S. government review and integrated approach to the
challenges in combating child labor as we go forward toward 2016.
The paper takes note of a policy document recently issued by the European
Commission titled Commission Staff Working Document: Combating Child
Labor. The report was issued following stakeholder roundtables convened by the
European Union (EU) Parliament in December 2009. The report provides an
overview of existing EU measures to address child labor. These include chapters
on development policy, education, human rights dialogues, enlargement policy,
trade policy and the EU Generalized System of Preferences program, public
procurement and support for public-private partnerships.

This paper is intended to be an independent, but similar, review of U.S. policy
approaches to ending child labor globally. In addition, the ILO calls for global
action to be backed by solid research, particularly regarding the relationship
between child labour and other relevant aspects of the development process.
The most recent ILO global report suggests the importance of linking action
against child labor to national development efforts, particularly in the area of
poverty reduction and free, compulsory and universal education.
This recommendation is directed both to the developing countries where child
labor is prevalent as well as to donor countries seeking to develop appropriate
overall development strategies.
This review was conducted jointly by the American Federation of Teachers and the
International Labor Rights Forum and solely represents their views. This is not a
U.S. government analysis.
The American Federation of Teachers is a U.S. trade union representing more than
1.4 million members and an affiliate of the AFL-CIO. As a leader in Education
International and co-chair of the U.S. Child Labor Coalition, the
AFT promotes policies and programs that eradicate the worst forms of child
labor globally, and puts children in the classroom, where they are afforded the
opportunity to become full participants in the social and economic development of
their communities.
The International Labor Rights Forum is a nonprofit organization advocating for
just and humane treatment for workers worldwide, including an end to child labor,
forced labor, discrimination in the workplace and obstacles to the right to organize.
It promotes enforcement of labor rights internationally through public education
and mobilization, research, litigation, legislation, and collaboration with labor,
government and business groups.








4.10) Acknowledgements
The AFT and the ILRF greatly appreciate the assistance of the following
individuals for their review and comments on this paper: Sarah Beardmore,
RESULTS; David Gartner, Brookings Institution; Joanna Kuebler, Global
Campaign for Education; Stacie Harting Marsh, Words for Good.
4.10.1) Vital statistics
Some 250 million children between the ages of 5 and 14 work either full time or
part time.
Almost half, some 120 million, work full-time, every day, all year round.
Some 61 per cent of them live in Asia, 32 per cent in Africa and 7 per cent in
Latin America.
70 per cent of them work in agriculture.
70 per cent work in a dangerous environment.
Of the 250 million children concerned, some 50 million to 60 million are between
five and 11 years and work, by definition, in hazardous circumstances, considering
their age and vulnerability.
Child labour is also common in developed countries. For example, in the United
States, more than 230,000 children work in agriculture and 13,000 in sweatshops.
4.10.2) the story of Iqbal Masih
Iqbal was only four when he was sold into slavery. He was a child of bondage, sold
by his family to pay for a debt. Though very small and very weak, he was forced
to work at a carpet factory for 12 hours a day. He was constantly beaten, verbally
abused and chained to his loom for six years.
Severe malnutrition and years of cramped immobility in front of a loom stunted his
growth. All this changed in 1992, when Iqbal and some of his friends from the
carpet factory stole away to attend a freedom day celebration organized by a group
working to help end bonded labour. With their help, Iqbal, too, became free and
soon became a well-known critic of child labour. His campaign scared many,
especially those who used children as bonded labour. In December 1994, Iqbal
visited the United States to receive a human rights award. Soon after his return,
Iqbal was killed by a gunman hired by factory owners.
Iqbal was just one of over 250 million child labourers worldwide, but his story has
inspired many to act for change.

What is child labour?
Among adults the term child labour conjures up a particular image: children
chained to looms in dark mills and sweatshops, as if in a long nightmarish line
running from Lancashire in the 1830s right through to the South Asia of today.
In reality, children do a variety of work in widely divergent conditions. This work
takes place along a continuum, from work that is beneficial, promoting or
enhancing a childs development without interfering with schooling, recreation and
rest to work that is simply destructive or exploitative. There are vast areas of
activity between these two poles.
It is at the most destructive end, where children are used as prostitutes or virtual
slaves to repay debts incurred by their parents or grandparents or as workers in
particularly hazardous conditions, that efforts are focused to stop such abuse.
Who is a child labourer?
The term child labour generally refers to any economic activity performed by a
person under the age of 15, defined by the International Labour Organization (ILO)
of the United Nations. On the beneficial side of the continuum, there is light
work after school or legitimate apprenticeship opportunities, such as helping out
in the family business or on the family farm. At the destructive end is employment
that is
Preventing effective school attendance;
Hazardous to the physical and mental health of the child.
Are age limits for work the same in all countries?
Almost everywhere, age limits formally regulate childrens activities when
they can leave school, marry, vote, be treated as adults by the criminal-justice
system, and join the armed forces and when they can work.
But age limits differ from activity to activity and from country to country. The
legal minimum age for all work in Egypt, for example, is 12; in the Philippines, 14,
in Hong Kong, 15. Peru adopts a variety of standards: the minimum age is 14 in
agriculture; 15 in industry; 16 in deep-sea fishing; and 18 for work in ports and
seafaring.
Many countries make a distinction between light and hazardous work, with the
minimum age for the former generally being 12, for the latter usually varying
between 16 and 18. ILO conventions adopt this approach, allowing light work at
age 12 or 13, but hazardous work not before 18. The ILO establishes a general
minimum age of 15 years, provided 15 is not less than the age of completion of
compulsory schooling. This is the most widely used yardstick when establishing
how many children are currently working around the world.
Box: Marie
Marie is a seven-year-old from Haiti. She is a restavek Creole for rester avec
the local term for a type of child domestic found all over the world, one who has
been handed over by a poor rural family to live with and provide domestic help
for a usually urban, wealthier family.
She gets up at five in the morning and begins her day by fetching water from a
nearby well, balancing the heavy jug on her head as she returns. She prepares
breakfast and serves it to the members of the household. Then she walks the
familys five-year-old son to school; later, at noon, she brings him home and helps
him change clothes.
Next, she helps prepare and serve the familys lunch before returning the boy to
school. In between meal times she must buy food in the market and run errands,
tend the charcoal fire, sweep the yard, wash clothes and dishes, clean the kitchen
and -- at least once a day -- wash her female boss's feet. She is given leftovers or
cornmeal to eat, has ragged clothes and no shoes and sleeps outdoors or on the
floor.
She is not allowed to bathe in the water she brings to the household. She is
regularly beaten with a leather strap if she is slow to respond to a request or is
considered disrespectful. Needless to say, she is not allowed to attend school.
What is hazardous work?
Most child labour, 71 per cent, is found in agriculture and fishing. The main tasks
in agriculture include working with machinery and agrochemicals, and picking and
loading crops. Hazards may include unsafe machinery, hazardous substances
(insecticides, herbicides), heavy lifting and extreme temperatures. In deep-sea
fishing, children might be diving to depths of up to 60 metres to attach nets to coral
reefs, risking exposure to high atmospheric pressure and attacks by carnivorous
and poisonous fish. In manufacturing, where 8.3 per cent of child labour is found,
items such as glass bangles, matches, fireworks or bricks might be made. Hazards
occur in the form of noxious fumes and radiant heat from the molten glass;
stepping on or handling hot broken glass; exposure to hazardous chemical
mixtures; stuffing cracker powder into fireworks, risking fire and explosion;
exposure to silicate, lead and carbon monoxide; carrying excessive weights; and
burns from ovens through the processing of clay in the making of bricks.
4.10.3) A legal framework against child labour
Two UN agencies have directed their attention to the prevention of child labour
worldwide: the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the International
Labour Organization (ILO). They have helped define the problems and develop
international legal frameworks to correct them. As a result of their work, we now
have several international treaties (or conventions), banning child labour and
identifying concrete measures for Governments to take. Once a country ratifies a
convention, UN bodies monitor compliance and hold countries accountable for
violations.
1919: the first ILO child labour convention, the Minimum Age (Industry)
Convention (No. 5), adopted within months of the creation of the International
Labour Organization, prohibited the work of children under the age of 14 in
industrial establishments.
1930: the ILO Forced Labour Convention (No. 29) protected children from forced
or compulsory labour, such as victims of trafficking, children in bondage, like
Iqbal, and those exploited by prostitution and pornography.
1966: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, re-emphasizing
issues of slavery and forced or compulsory labour, was adopted by the General
Assembly, along with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights calling for the protection of young people from economic
exploitation and work hazardous to their development.
1973: the key instrument of the ILO was adopted: Convention No. 138 on the
minimum age for admission to employment (15 or the age reached on completion
of compulsory schooling).
1989: the UN adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifying the
right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and hazardous work,
and the refraining of States from recruiting any person under 15 into the armed
forces.
1999: ILO unanimously adopted the Convention concerning the Prohibition and
Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour
Convention (No. 182). It called for States to prevent the most damaging child
exploitation practices or the worst forms that currently exist.
Are making laws enough to prevent child labour?
Obviously not. Though the United Nations has already created a large number of
international conventions, setting legal standards to prohibit the exploitation of
child labour, the problem remains widespread. After all, laws mean very little if
they are not enforced. Besides, specific measures attacking child labour must be
taken at the national level.
According to the ILO, national strategies to address child labour issues should, at
minimum, encompass the following five elements:
National plan of action: Single action or isolated measures against child labour will
not have a lasting impact. Actions must be part of an overall national plan.
2. Research: To develop effective national (and international) policies and
programmes, extensive research must be undertaken to determine the state of child
labour.
3. Awareness: Child labour is often viewed as an unavoidable consequence of
poverty. Without greater awareness about the extent and exploitative nature of
child labour, the conditions for change will not occur.
4. Broad social alliance: Government action against child labour often ends with
making laws. Initiatives against child labour traditionally come from non-
governmental organizations that have limited resources. Both need to work
together. Other segments of civil society the media, educators, artists and
parliamentarians should also be enlisted in the fight.
5. Institutional capacity: To formulate and execute a national policy, an
institutional mechanism (such as a ministry or a department) within the
Government must be created to monitor enforcement.

4.10.4) Signs of progress
Legal framework: With over 20 international treaties against child labour in
place, the world now has a legal framework. What is needed is its implementation
at the national level.
International action: ILO created the International Programme for the
Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) in 1992. It works towards eliminating child
labour by helping developing countries strengthen their capacity to deal with the
problem and create their own national action plans.
So far it has helped implement more than 1,100 programmes in some 20
countries Joining hands: the United Nations wants to bring Governments, factory
owners and international donors together to work against child labour. Such
initiatives as one between ILO, UNICEF and the Bangladesh Garment
Manufacturers and Exporters Association were undertaken to remove under age
workers from 2,000 garment factories, place them in school and provide family
income supplements. UNICEF also pioneered a policy of not buying any products
made by child labour in their operations. Some Governments have followed this
example.
International solidarity: Children, youth, concerned citizens and government
leaders in Asia, Africa, Europe, and North and South America in 1998 took part in
a march against child labour. The march travelled through 56 countries, gathered
supporters and raised greater awareness, putting new pressure on Governments to
ratify conventions on child rights. Student advocacy: More and more students are
getting involved, raising funds to build schools and treatment centers for child
workers. For example, Free the Children, a Canadian-based student organization
advocating the elimination of child labour, formed by then-13-year- old activist,
Craig Kielberger, has raised funds to build schools in South Asia. The Kids
Campaign to Build a School for Iqbal, a Massachusetts-based grass-roots student
campaign initiated by a school in the United States, has drawn worldwide support
to build a school for Pakistani children of bonded labour in honour of Iqbal Masih
Corporate responsibility: Growing concern has been shown by corporations to
address this issue and develop corporate codes of conduct to reduce their numbers
of under-age employees and/or provide work to other members of the family or
schooling to supplement work. For example, all major soccer ball manufacturers
have developed a voluntary programme to eliminate use of children under 14 in
factories in Sialkot, Pakistan, where 75 per cent of the worlds hand-stitched soccer
balls are produced. Supported by ILO, UNICEF and Pakistani manufacturers, a
programme was launched to provide schooling for these child workers and instead
give their jobs to other family members. In addition, many clothing manufacturers
now hire outside companies to inspect working conditions in their factories. While
some companies fund their investigators directly, others have agreed to
independent monitors from human rights offices not employed by the corporations.
Advocacy by trade unions: In Brazil, trade unions in cooperation with IPEC have
managed to secure child labour clauses in contracts with employers in over 88
municipalities in over eight federal states. In addition, employers have signed
pledges to eliminate child labour from production chains of the charcoal, citrus and
footwear sectors. Trade unions help by monitoring working conditions, denouncing
abuses and reaching large numbers of adult members through education
programmes, collective bargaining and campaigning for policy change at all levels.
Anti-sweatshop movement: Campaign by labour rights groups has helped improve
working conditions in sweat shops. In several instances, multinational companies
now put pressure on their contractors to ban or reduce child labour.

Box
Ratify ILO Convention No. 182 now!
ILO Convention No. 182 is considered by many as perhaps the most significant
legal instrument to tackle child labour. It defines the worst forms of child labour
and asks all Governments to ban them. These are:
All forms of slavery;
Child prostitution;
the use of children for illicit activities, especially drug trafficking;
Work exposing children to grave health and safety hazards.
Ratification of the Convention should be the first and immediate task for all
Governments. It will mean acceptance of the Convention by national parliaments.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in his Millennium Report has urged all Member
States to ratify and implement the Convention without delay.
Once Governments have ratified the Convention, they must apply it in law and in
practice . Among other things, Governments should:
1. Introduce action programmes to remove and prevent the worst forms of child
labour;
2. Provide direct assistance for the rehabilitation of children and their social
integration;
3. Ensure access to free education;
4. Identify children at special risk;
5. Take account of girls and their special situation.
Governments must also report regularly to the ILO regarding the application of the
Convention and be accountable for all allegations of violations.
As of August 2000, 30 countries have ratified the Convention.
Box: Bina Akhtars dream
Bina Akhtar was only 10 years old when she began working at a garment factory in
Dhaka, Bangladeshs capital. She earned about $14 a month clipping loose threads
from shirts and pants bound for stores in the United States. Five years later, Bina
was no longer working in the factory. Instead, she was going to school, studying
mathematics, English and history.
This was possible because of a programme put in place by the United Nations.
ILO and UNICEF, working closely with the Government of Bangladesh,
persuaded factory owners to ban children younger than 14 from their shops. They
also consented to surprise inspections. Since 1994, ILO monitors managed to
move an estimated 50,000 children from the garment factories, all of them under
the legal work age of 14. According to ILOs Riijk van Haalem, who helped design
the Bangladesh programme, when inspections began in 1996, children were found
in 33 per cent of all factories searched. By the end of 1999, that figure had fallen
to under 10 per cent.
Bina was one of those rescued by UN inspectors. She was immediately enrolled in
a school. Until then, she had never set foot inside a classroom.
What are the areas needing attention?
UNICEF recommends the following:
Immediately end hazardous and exploitative child labour including bonded
labour, commercial sexual exploitation and work that hampers the child's
development.
Provide free and compulsory education, ensuring that children attend primary
education full time until completion.
Expand legal protection, ensure consistency and implementation in mutually
supportive ways.
Register all children at birth, in order to protect the child's right to have evidence
of the childs age.
Extend data collection and monitoring gather and analyse globally comparable
child labour data.
Develop codes of conduct and procurement policies Corporations should
adopt codes of conduct guaranteeing that neither they nor their subcontractors will
employ children in conditions that violate their rights and then abide by those
codes.
Suggested activities for students
Are there local or national examples that you can identify? Find out what others
are doing. Which do you feel would be priority areas for your country? Make
posters. Tell others what you learn.
Find out if your Government has ratified the conventions concerning child labour
Write your Government leaders
. Urge them to ratify child labour Convention No. 182 -- if they have not already
done so
. Letters can do a lot.
If your Government has ratified the Convention, write and ask what is being done
to implement it. Has your country developed a plan of action? If so, what does it
say? What is being done to address local or national issues? Who is helping? How
can they use support? Organize a forum to learn more about the issues in your
school and invite those who are working on the issues to speak and make
recommendations for actions you can take.
Support federal legislation that improves the conditions of child labourers in your
country.
Find out what others are doing, for example, the Free the Children campaign in
Canada or the School for Iqbal campaign in the United States. Support these efforts
or start your own.
Shop smart. As a consumer ask where and how items you are purchasing were
made. Use your purchases to help improve conditions for children, not aid in their
exploitation.
Start a letter-writing campaign in your school or gather signatures on a petition to
send to local or national authorities to let them know of your interest and concern.
Child Labor: U.S. Policy and Action
The U.S. Government works with foreign governments, United Nations (UN)
agencies, non-governmental organizations (ngos), and others to monitor, report on,
and prevent the worst forms of child labor and to protect and assist children who
are involved in exploitative child labor.
U.S. Policy Regarding Child Labor
Under the U.S. Tariff Act of 1930, the Department of Homeland Security
Immigration and Customs Enforcement is charged with refusing entry to any goods
identified as made by forced laborers, including children.
Additionally, in 1998, Executive Order 13126 prohibited the procurement by the
USG of any items made by forced and indentured child labor. The Department of
Labor (DOL) is responsible for maintaining a list of all such items. The list
includes products in Burma and Pakistan.

In 1999 the U.S. ratified International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 182.
The U.S. encourages all countries to ratify ILO Convention 182 against the Worst
Forms of Child Labor and ILO Convention 138 on the Minimum Age.
Convention 182 defines the worst forms of child labor to include trafficking,
forced and bonded labor, forced recruitment in the armed forces, use of children
for prostitution or pornography, illicit activity, or work likely to harm the health,
safety, or morals of children. As of 2008, 182 countries have ratified ILO
Convention 182.
The U.S. continues to highlight the significance of the child labor issue through the
Harkin-Engel Protocol to ensure that the chocolate that we eat does not come from
the hands of children working under forced or harmful circumstances. The
Protocol calls for the U.S. chocolate industry to certify that cocoa beans and their
derivative products have been grown without any of the worst forms of child labor.
Trade preference programs such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act,
Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Generalized Systems of Preferences contain
eligibility criteria that include whether a country is taking steps or is making
progress towards establishing the protection of internationally-recognized worker
rights, including child labor.
The effective prohibition of child labor, particularly in its worst forms, is also
included as a core labor standard in recent Free Trade Agreements (ftas) signed by
the U.S. As a result, parties to ftas have an obligation to effectively enforce child
labor laws in trade-related sectors.
U.S. Action To Improve the Situation
The Department of States annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and
the Trafficking in Persons Reports cite countries in which child labor occurs. The
practice is also reported on in the Department of Labors annual Findings on the
Worst Forms of Child Labor Report mandated by the Trade and Development Act
of 2000.
(2010, 05). Foreign Policy Variables. Studymode.com. Retrieved 05, 2010, from
http://www.studymode.com/essays/Foreign-Policy-Variables-328110.html

The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) oversees the
Partnership to Eliminate Sweatshop program which aims to work with companies,
governments, ngos and worker organizations to promote worker rights and
elimination of sweatshop labor worldwide, including by children.
In October 2006, DRL and DOL co-hosted the first Multi-stakeholders Cocoa
Forum focused on encouraging responsible labor practices in West African cocoa
producing regions. Several U.S. cocoa and chocolate manufacturers attended the
meeting. Since that meeting DRL has regularly engaged with these companies and
their industry associations to monitor the progress of their initiatives to eliminate
the worst forms of child labor in the cocoa sector in Ghana and Cte dIvoire.
Many of them presented a report on their progress at the second Multi-stakeholders
Cocoa Forum co-hosted by DRL and Bureau of African Affairs in April 2007. That
forum also included substantive discussion on the challenges that stakeholders
have faced in implementing their initiatives and an exchange of ideas on how to
overcome those obstacles. The third forum was co-hosted with the Belgian
Government in June 2008.
The Department of States Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons
has programs to combat child labor trafficking.
DOL has a program to combat exploitative child labor internationally and has $330
million in funding to go towards at least 89 currently active child labor projects
worldwide. To implement these projects, DOL has funded a number of different
organizations. One of the organizations to which DOL has provided funding is the
ILOs International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor (ILO-IPEC). These
technical cooperation projects aim to remove and prevent children from engaging
in hazardous work, provide children and their families with direct services, build
the capacity of governments and local organizations to combat child labor, increase
the knowledge base on child labor, raise public-awareness about the hazards of
child labor and benefits of education. DOL also publishes information on
international child labor issues through its reports on the topic.
Pursuant to Congressional appropriations language, DOL announced in 2006 the
funding of a $4.3 million 3-year project to oversee public and private efforts to
eliminate the worst forms of child labor in the cocoa sector in Cote DIvoire and
Ghana.
DRL and labor officers coordinate with the DOLs Office of Child Labor, Forced
Labor, and Human Trafficking and support their efforts with ILO-IPEC.





4.11) Case Study
4.11.1) Liberia
In 2012, Liberia made a moderate advancement in efforts to eliminate the worst
forms of child labor. The Government adopted the International Convention on the
Rights of the Child, raised awareness on its Child Rights Act, conducted police
raids on institutions suspected of engaging in commercial sexual exploitation of
children and expanded commitments to social programs. However, the
Government has yet to pass into law the Decent Work Bill, including a hazardous
labor list, and enforcement efforts are still lacking. Children in Liberia continue to
engage in the worst forms of child labor, particularly in dangerous activities in the
agriculture and mining sectors.

Prevalence and Sectoral Distribution of the Worst Forms of Child Labor
Children in Liberia are engaged in the worst forms of child labor, particularly in
dangerous activities in the agriculture and mining sectors. Some children working
in agriculture are engaged in risky activities, including using dangerous tools and
applying harmful pesticides.(3-7) On some rubber plantations, children are
employed to tap rubber trees, clear brush, and carry buckets, which are considered
dangerous activities. (3, 8, 9) Children are engaged in mining natural resources,
and although information is limited, it suggests that some children mine alluvial
diamonds.(3, 9-11) Some children are known to mine gold, engaging in dangerous
activities such as digging trenches with shovels and pick axes and washing gravel.
Reports suggest that some children are also engaged in quarrying and stone cutting
and crushing, though the full scope of the problem is unknown.(3, 10-14)
Childrens work in mining and quarrying often involves unsafe activities, such as
carrying heavy loads and working long hours.(15)
Liberian children are engaged in the informal sector as vendors, porters, and
construction workers (which may involve breaking rocks and digging sand), which
involve transporting heavy loads.(11, 12, 16-21) Some children are forced to beg
and engage in illicit activities, such as selling drugs or commercial sexual
exploitation.(11, 22) In the domestic service sector, children commonly work long
hours and are exposed to exploitative conditions.(11-13, 16) these children may be
required to work long hours, performing strenuous tasks, without sufficient food or
shelter. These children may be isolated in private homes and are susceptible to
physical and sexual abuse.(23, 24)
In 2012, limited reports indicate that children within Liberia were recruited from
border regions by pro-Gbagbo armed rebel groups for armed conflict in cross-
border raids between Liberia and Cte dIvoire.(25, 26).

Children are trafficked within Liberia for domestic service and exploitative
labor.(27-29) Children are also trafficked to Liberia from Sierra Leone, as well as
being trafficked from Liberia to Cte dIvoire, Guinea, and Nigeria for domestic
service, street vending, sexual exploitation, agricultural labor, and forced
begging.(29) In addition, during the reporting period, there were a few isolated
reports that some Ivorian refugee girls had engaged in sex for food and shelter in
Liberia.(22)
Between 1990 and 2003, Liberia was engaged in intermittent internal and regional
armed conflict, which resulted in the displacement of entire communities and the
destruction of the countrys political, economic, and physical infrastructure,
including schools.(30) Due to the level of destruction and budgetary and resource
constraints, the school infrastructure is still being rebuilt. The limited number of
schools in some areas impedes access to education and increases the risk of
children engaging in the worst forms of child labor.(29, 31, 32)
Furthermore, sexual abuse by male teachers in schools is reported as a barrier to
girls education.(33, 34) there are reports of children working on the streets, but
specific information on hazards is unknown.(11, 22)

Laws and Regulations on the Worst Forms of Child Labor
The Labor Law sets the minimum age for work at 16 for the agriculture sector. The
minimum age for work in the industrial sector is 18.(35) Children younger than age
16 are prohibited from working during school hours and may only work for wages
if the employer can demonstrate that they are attending school regularly and have a
basic education.(35) According to the Labor Law, recruiters are permitted to hire
children between ages 16 and 18 for light work in occupations that the Ministry of
Labor determines are not harmful to the childrens physical and moral
development.(8, 35) the Labor Law does not include any penalties for violations of
its child labor laws, which inhibits prosecution.(12, 35) However, at times,
perpetrators can be prosecuted under the Penal Laws child endangerment
provision.(36).

The 2011 National Childrens Act prohibits the worst forms of child labor
including engaging children in illicit activities, prostitution, pornography, and
armed conflictand protects children from (non-specified) hazardous activities.
(12, 22, 29, 37) During the reporting period, the Government disseminated and
raised awareness on the provisions of the Act.(11) Additionally, the Decent Work
Bill is still pending in front of the Senate.(38) the Bill would provide additional
protections for children, including a hazardouslabor list.(11) However, the Bills
list of hazardous labor is not comprehensive and does not include all activities that
are prohibited to children younger than age 18.(39)

The Constitution of the Republic of Liberia prohibits forced labor, bonded labor,
and slavery.(12, 40) the Act to Ban Trafficking in Persons within the Republic of
Liberia criminalizes internal and international trafficking of children for the
purposes of commercial sexual exploitation and forced labor.(12, 41) the Act to
Amend the New Penal Code Chapter 14 Section 14.70 and to Provide for (the
crime of) Gang Rape prohibits rape, including intercourse with a child younger
than age 18.(42, 43) When enforced, the penalties for violating these laws are
reportedly sufficient to serve as deterrents.(12) the minimum age for voluntary
military recruitment into the Liberian Army is 18.(44)
The Education Reform Act of 2011 increased the compulsory age of education
from age 12 to age 15. The Act eliminated the gap between the compulsory
education age and minimum age for work, which is age 16.(13) However, in
practice, many children still pay school fees to attend school, which may prevent
some children from attending school.(13) During the reporting period, the
Government also adopted the International Convention on the Rights of a
Child.(32) In addition, the African Union Convention for the Protectionand
Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa (the Kampala Convention)
came into force in Liberia. The Kampala Convention prohibits the recruitment and
use of children in armed conflict, as well as the trafficking, abduction, and forced
labor of women and children.(45, 46)

Institutional Mechanisms for Coordination and Enforcement
The National Commission on Child Labor (NACOMAL) is charged with
monitoring child labor issues and directing child labor policies. The commission is
headed by the Ministry of Labor and includes representatives from 16 other
Organizations, including ngos and international and civil society organizations.(11,
47) the objectives of NACOMAL include reforming national child labor laws and
designing a national child labor database.(13, 47) In addition, the Child Protection
Network, chaired by the Ministry of Gender and Development (MOGD),
coordinates child protection efforts through monthly meetings to discuss child
protection issues, including child labor and trafficking. Members of the network
include the Ministry of Labor, the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, the
Ministry of Justices Women and Children Protection Section (WCPS), the Liberia
National Police Force, civil society organizations and several NGOs.(11) the
Child Protection Network also is responsible for coordinating referrals for
provision of services to child victims, and receives support from international and
national organizations in doing so.(13, 48) In addition, the MOGD manages seven
community child welfare committees in different counties that monitor childrens
issues at the community level and also makes referrals to other organizations.(13)
NACOMAL and other ministries generally perform preliminary investigations on
exploitative child labor cases. (43)
Child labor cases requiring further investigation or possible prosecution are
referred to WCPS. WCPS has approximately 217 investigators.(11) During the
reporting period, the Government performed a number of raids on institutions
suspected of being brothels engaged in commercial sexual
Exploitation of children.(49-51) As of February 2013, the outcome of the raids is
unknown.(12) In 2012, WCPS processed 54 cases of child endangerment, some of
which were child labor cases. Though, none of the child labor cases were
prosecuted, and no additional information on the number of child labor
prosecutions was available at the time of writing.(11) According to the ILO and
other stakeholders, severe budgetary constraints, a lack of resources (such as
computer equipment), and staff training impede the efforts of NACOMAL and
WCPS to combat the worst forms of child labor.(11, 29, 43, 52)
The Ministry of Justice, through WCPS and BIN, is responsible for enforcing laws
relating to violations involving the worst forms of child labor including trafficking.
The Government coordinates anti-trafficking activities through the Anti-
Trafficking Task Force, which is chaired by the Ministry of Labor and includes the
Commisioner of BIN, the Liberia National Police, and representatives from the
Ministries of Justice, Foreign Affairs, and Internal Affairs.(54) During the year, the
Government of Liberia reports making an arrest of a child trafficker who
subsequently escaped captivity.(36, 55) Reports suggest that the Government did
not collect or publish information on exploitative child labor during the reporting
period.(12)

During the reporting period, the Governments of Sierra Leone and Liberia signed a
joint agreement to curb illegal crossborder activities between their two countries,
such as human trafficking and illicit mining.(57) No additional information is
available about the Plan or the Agreement at the time of writing.
The Government of Liberia has included child labor issues in other development
agendas and social policies. The United Nations Development Assistance
Framework for Liberia (20082012) tasks the Government with reforming national
labor laws in accordance with ILO Conventions and assisting in the
implementation of child labor policies.(58) the Framework promotes youth
empowerment and improving access to quality education.(58) the Governments
Poverty Reduction Strategy (2008-2011), still relevant during the reporting period,
recognizes the link between household income and child labor and highlights the
importance of protecting children from physical, psychological, and sexual
abuse.(59)
Liberias National Social Welfare Policy prioritizes the development of action
plans and policies that target children engaged in exploitive labor and child
trafficking.(60) the Government has a National Employment Policy that aims to
provide vocational training for youth.(61) the Liberian National Youth Policy of
2008 and revamped in 2012 identified as priority target groups for assistance
children working in the informal sector, children living and working in the streets,
and children associated with armed groups.(62) However, the National Youth
Policy for Liberia has not been formally adopted as of the writing of this report and
its status is unclear.(43) Additionally, the Government of Liberia has a National
Youth Policy Action Plan, which provides youth of legal working age with training
in entrepreneurship skills and links to business mentoring programs and
cooperatives.(63)
The Rubber Industry Master Plan (2010-2040) prioritizes the development of the
rubber industry and includes provisions for improving workers standard of living,
access to credit, and childrens access to education.(64)

The Government has an Education for All Policy (20102013) that aims to provide
universal primary education by 2015. The Ministry of Education has an Education
Sector Plan (2010-2020) that aims to improve the education infrastructure, as well
as the access to and quality of primary education.(65) the Ministry of Education
has a 5-year Plan (2010-2014) to provide education to vulnerable children affected
by HIV/AIDS. (66) During the reporting period, the President also endorsed the
New Deal Trust policy that commits the Government of Liberia to improving the
efficiency and effectiveness of its key ministries, such as the
Ministries of Finance, Health, and Education.(67) In addition, in the new 2030
Vision policy document (2012-2017), thegovernment of Liberia outlines its goal to
become a middle income country by 2030, by increasing focus on education and
livelihoods. (68, 69)
While the child protection, livelihoods, and education policies noted above address
some child labor concerns, the impact of these policies on child labor has yet to be
assessed.(43)
Social Programs to Eliminate or Prevent the Worst Forms of Child Labor
During the reporting period, President Sirleaf spoke out against child labor and
extolled the benefits of education. (70) the President passed a 2012 fiscal year
National Budget of an estimated $672 million; of this amount, $69 million was
allocated for education and an additional $20 million was allocated for youth
development.(71, 72) In addition, the Government continued to implement the
$175 million, multi-donor funded Liberia Agriculture Investment Program (2011-
2015), which aims to enhance household livelihoods in the agriculture sector by
building linkages with markets and improving rural infrastructure, which may have
a positive impact on reducing exploitative child labor.(73)

The Government of Liberia started participating in the USDOL-funded, 4-year, $6
million project to combat child labor in the rubber sector.(74) the project aims to
withdraw and prevent 10,100 children from engaging in the worst forms of child
labor by providing education, as well as providing livelihoods support to 3,700
vulnerable families. The project is implemented in collaboration with local rubber
industries. (74) the Government also cooperated with a USDOL-funded
$1.4 million grant for research on forced labor in the rubber sector, which ended in
March 2012.(75) the Government of Liberia participated in two regional USDOL-
funded projects, including a 4-year, $7.95 million regional project and a 3-year,
$5 million regional project, both of which assisted ECOWAS member countries in
strengthening regional efforts to combat the worst forms of child labor. In 2012,
with the assistance of the two regional projects, ECOWAS developed a draft
Regional Plan of Action for the elimination of child labor. (76, 77) In addition to
the two regional projects, USDOL funded a global, 4.5-year, $6.7 million project
worked with the Liberian Government to build national capacity to collect and
analyze child labor data.(78) the Government also continued to participate in the
USDOL-funded, 4-year Global Action Program on Child Labor Issues Project,
which is active in approximately 40 countries. In Liberia, the project aims to build
the capacity of the national government and develop strategic policies to address
the elimination of child labor and forced labor.(79)
Save the Children, with participation of the Government of Liberia, supported a
drop-in center in Monrovia, which provide street children with safe-haven and
services.(80) the Government supported microcredit activities by the Ministry of
Information, Culture Affairs, and Tourism, providing $2.7 million in funds as loan
guarantees for small businesses, which can increase livelihoods and decrease
dependence on child labor.(81) the Government of Germany also pledged funds to
support Government efforts to build national police capacity and build schools.(82)
The Government continued to participate in the UNODC West Africa Coast
Initiative that aims to strengthen national capacities and cross-border cooperation
to address organized crime, including human trafficking and drug trafficking.
(53, 83) With support from IOM, the Government provided training to immigration
and labor officials during the year, including on identification and provision of
services to trafficking victims.(29, 84)
The Government of Liberia participates in the EU-funded, $3.1 million Social Cash
Transfer Program, which aims to provide regular payments to poor and labor
constrained households in Bomi County, along with other counties. Labor
constrained households include households in which the majority of household
members are unable to work for reasons such as disability.(85) the program targets
5,000 households, and each beneficiary household receives between $10 and $25
Per month.(85) the Government of Liberia participates in the USAID-funded, 4-
year (ending September 2014) Educating and Protecting Vulnerable Children in
Family Settings Project, which aims to enhance protection systems for vulnerable
children, including improving access to primary education and health services.(86)
Liberia continues to participate in the World Bank-funded, $40 million Fast Track
Initiative Grant for Basic Education project that aims to improve primary education
access and quality. (87, 88) the Government participated in a project funded by
Sahbu, an NGO, that provided educational scholarships to children.(89) Ending in
June 2013, the project targets over 470,000 direct beneficiaries. The Government
of Liberia continued to implement the World Bank-funded, $6 million Youth
Employment and Skills Project that aims to provide employment opportunities and
training to youth.(90) the Project targets 49,500 direct beneficiaries and is
scheduled to end in June 2013.(90)

During the reporting period, the Government participated in numerous food
security, agriculture and livelihood improvement programs, which can decrease
household dependency on child labor. For example, the Government participated in
the USDA and USAID-funded Sustainable Tree Crops Program, which aimed to
support cocoa farmers through training and farmer field schools, and to improve
Cocoa production and income in the counties of Bong, Lofa, and Nimba.(91) the
International Fund for Agricultural Development and the Government of Liberia
also signed a loan agreement during the reporting period for $25 million to
improve food security for 300,000 households under the Smallholder Tree Crop
Project.(92) In addition, the Government signed for a $15 million credit from the
World Bank to increase access to finance, technologies, and markets for
smallholder tree crop farmers.(93) During the reporting period, the Governments of
Liberia and Japan signed a food aid agreement worth $8.5 million that aims to
build livelihoods and increase food security in the rice sector in 15 countries. (94)
the Government also participates in a U.S. Government-funded, $75 million Feed
the Future Project that aims to improve the food security and nutrition among
vulnerable populations.(95)

During the reporting period, the Government of Liberia continued to cooperate
with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to establish camps and provide
essential services to Ivorian refugees, including children.(96-100) the Government
participated in a World Bank funded Emergency Food Support for Vulnerable
Women and Children Project that provided school lunches to 310 schools in the
counties of Maryland, Grand Kru, Grand Gedeh, River Gee, and Sinoe, in
Southeastern Liberia.(101) In addition, the Government of Liberia took a number
of steps, such as increasing refugee camps security and apprehending suspects, to
address the issue of child soldier recruitment by cross-border rebel groups from
Cte dIvoire.(26, 102) As of February 2013, reports conflict as to whether or not
the Governments steps were sufficient to address the issue.(26, 103, 104) the
question of whether these education, social protection and livelihoods programs
have had an impact on child labor has yet to be assessed. In addition, despite
government efforts, the worst forms of child labor continue to be a significant
problem. Current social programs do not match the scope of the problem.






4.11.2) India
In 2012, India made a moderate advancement in efforts to eliminate the worst
forms of child labor. The Government passed new legislation to protect children
from sexual offenses and children and adults from trafficking and forced labor.
The Government also established a new anti-trafficking unit responsible for
arresting child traffickers; expanded its Right to Education Act to include children
with disabilities; and continued funding its National Child Labor Project (NCLP).
However, basic legal protections for children remain weak. Legislation to prohibit
work for children under the age of 14 and to proscribe hazardous work for children
under 18 has been introduced in Parliament but has yet to be passed. The worst
forms of child labor continue to exist in many sectors, particularly in dangerous
activities in agriculture and the manufacturing of goods in the informal economy.
Children are also trafficked and perform forced or indentured labor.


Prevalence and Sectoral Distribution of the Worst Forms of Child Labor

Children in India are engaged in the worst forms of child labor. Children work in
agriculture, producing crops such as rice and hybrid seeds and picking cotton.(3-9)
Children who work in agriculture may use dangerous tools, carry heavy loads, and
apply harmful pesticides. Children in India also work under hazardous conditions
manufacturing a variety of products, quarrying stone and other materials, breaking
stones, and polishing gems.(3, 8, 10-15)
Children in manufacturing make matches, bricks, carpets, locks, glass bangles,
fireworks, cigarettes, incense sticks, footwear, garments, hand-loomed silk fabric,
leather, and brassware.(3, 11, 12, 14, 16-29) Children spin thread/yarn, embroider,
sew beads to fabric and stitch soccer balls. (16, 30-32) Many children manufacture
goods in the informal economy, increasingly doing so in home-based production.
(3, 16, 33, 34) In addition to working long hours in cramped spaces with poor
lighting and inadequate ventilation, children in manufacturing may be exposed to
harmful chemicals and dangerous machinery and tools. Such occupational hazards
are known to cause joint pain, headaches, hearing loss, skin infections, respiratory
problems, and finger deformities. (20, 21)
Service industries that employ children include hotels, food service, and certain
tourism-related occupations. In these sectors, children are vulnerable to physical
violence, mental trauma, and sexual abuse.(35) Children work on the street selling
food and other goods, repairing vehicles and tires, scavenging and rag picking.(36,
37) Children are also found working in construction and domestic service.(38-40)
In 2012, a Government official estimated that 4 million children work in domestic
service across India.(41) Many work very long hours and suffer abusive
treatment.(38-40, 42)
Forced child labor occurs in India. Children perform forced or indentured labor in
domestic service, gemstone cutting and quarrying, as well as in brick kilns and rice
mills. Children also work under forced conditions producing hybrid seeds,
garments, and embellished textiles.(3, 8, 12, 38, 40, 43)
The federal police stated that an estimated 1.2 million children are victims of
commercial sexual exploitation.(36) Cases of child sex tourism continue to be
reported in cities and towns with tourist attractions, as well as in locations known
as religious pilgrim centers.(43)
India remains a source, transit, and destination country for minors trafficked for
commercial sexual exploitation and forced labor in domestic service, agriculture,
and activities such as begging and brick making.(38, 40, 43) the majority of these
Children are Indians trafficked within the country.(43) there are reports that
children have been recruited to serve as soldiers by extra-legal armed groups in
zones where armed conflict is occurring, such as by the Naxalites in Chhattisgarh.
(12, 37, 43) there are significant barriers to accessing the education system in India
including underprivileged children being denied entry to school.(12) In addition,
some schools lack proper sanitation facilities, particularly for girls, which deter
children from attending school. More than eight million children between the ages
of 8 and 14 were not in school during the reporting period.(12)
Laws and Regulations on the Worst Forms of Child Labor
According to the Child Labor Prohibition and Regulation Act, children of any age
may be employed, provided employers adhere to restrictions, including a
maximum 6-hour workday with a 1-hour rest period, at least 1 day off per week,
and no night or overtime work.(44, 45) the Child Labor Prohibition and Regulation
Act bars children under age 14 from 18 hazardous occupations and 65 hazardous
processes, such as handling pesticides, weaving carpets, breaking stones, working
in mines, and domestic service. (44, 46) the Factories Act bars children under age
14 from working in factories. (46, 47)
Employing children under age 14 in a hazardous occupation or process can lead to
fines and imprisonment. Additionally, the Government must either compensate the
family of the child or find employment for an adult member of the family.(44, 45)
State governments also have the authority to pass legislation establishing a
minimum age for work. In 2012, the State of Rajasthan passed legislation
establishing a legal minimum working age of 18 years.(41)

However, gaps remain in legal protections for working children. The lack of a
national minimum age for employment increases the likelihood that very young
children may engage in activities that jeopardize their health and safety.(34) the
minimum age for hazardous work is not consistent with international standards and
may likewise jeopardize the health and safety of young people ages 14 through 17.
Additionally, the labor law does not cover large segments of the economy,
including family businesses.(34) In 2012, the Cabinet worked to address legal gaps
by proposing legislation to Parliament to prohibit work for children under the age
of 14 and to proscribe hazardous work for children under 18. The new legislation
would also increase penalties for violations of the law related to child labor. (48)
the legislation has not yet been passed by Parliament, and therefore, has not gone
into effect.(49)
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act prohibits employers
from exploiting juvenile employees under age 18, through practices such as
keeping them in bonded conditions or garnishing their wages. Violators may be
fined or imprisoned.(50)
The Bonded Labor System (Abolition) Act outlaws bonded labor in India and
provides for district-level vigilance committees to investigate allegations of bonded
labor and release anyone found in bondage.(51) the Act also provides for
rehabilitation assistance payments for released bonded laborers. Persons found
using bonded labor may be fined and face imprisonment.(51) In April 2013, the
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act was passed, which amended the Indian penal
code to protect children and adults from being trafficked into exploitative
situations, including forced labor situations.(52) Penalties include fines and up to
lifetime imprisonment.(52) In 2012, the Government passed the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offence Act.(53) the law protects children from sexual
assault, sexual harassment and pornography and establishes Special Courts for
trials of these crimes. The amendment includes penalties for those who employ
children or adults who have been trafficked. Penalties include fines and up to
lifetime imprisonment.(53) the Information Technology (Amendment) Act of 2008
includes penalties of fines and imprisonment for any person who publishes,
collects, seeks or downloads child pornography in electronic form.(54) the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act No. 61 makes it illegal to cause
any person, including children, to produce or deal in narcotic or psychotropic
substances; punishment consists of fines and imprisonment.(55)
There is no compulsory military service in India. The voluntary military
recruitment age is 17 years and 6 months. However, the minimum age to serve in
combat is 18 years.(50) Education is free and compulsory to age 14.(8) the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE) lays out the countrys
commitment to provide universal access to primary education with a focus on
children from disadvantaged social groups.(56) the RTE provides for free and
compulsory education to all children ages 6 to 14. The Act prohibits denying
admission to children who lack a birth certificate, allows children to transfer
schools, requires local authorities to identify out-of-school children, forbids
discrimination against disadvantaged groups, and prescribes quality education
Standards.(56) In 2012, the RTE was amended to include children with
disabilities.(57) Research has shown that disabled children who face barriers to
education may be at greater risk of working in hazardous occupations.(58)

The Institutional Mechanisms for Coordination and Enforcement
The National Authority for Elimination of Child Labor is a high-level government
body, chaired by the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE). It reviews,
monitors, and coordinates policies and programs on child labor.(59) the National
Steering Committee on Child Labor is a tripartite committee that guides and
monitors child labor policy, with members representing government agencies,
employers, and workers.(60) ) the Secretary of Labor and Employment chairs the
Central Monitoring Committee, which is responsible for reviewing the prevalence
of child labor and monitoring actions taken to eliminate child labor.(61) the Core
Group on Child Labor, which is composed of eight ministries and chaired by
MOLE, coordinates the convergence of social protection schemes to reduce child
labor.(62)
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is charged with monitoring
implementation of the Bonded Labor System (Abolition) Act. The NHRC monitors
state level action against bonded labor through its review of quarterly reports by
state governments on bonded labor and through exploratory and investigative
missions.(46, 63) the NHRC maintains an office to monitor the progress of cases
involving bonded labor and child labor that are pending with authorities throughout
the country. (64) Despite the rescue and rehabilitation of bonded laborers,
prosecutions have not always taken place.(65) the Ministry of Women and Child
Development (MWCD) is charged with coordinating anti-trafficking policies and
programs for women and children. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Anti-
Human Trafficking Cell continues to implement the Governments nationwide plan
to combat human trafficking by coordinating with states to establish anti human
trafficking units (ahtus) and training thousands of officials to combat human
trafficking.(43, 66, 67) During the reporting period, 194 ahtus have been
established and the MHA provided an additional $1.5 million to establish 110 more
ahtus.(66) In January 2012, the Central Bureau of Investigation established an anti-
human trafficking unit with a mandate to conduct operations to arrest traffickers of
women and children.(43, 68).
The National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) investigates
cases that may involve a violation of a childs rights or a lack of proper
implementation of laws relating to the protection and development of children,
including those related to child labor.(45)
While MOLE provides oversight and coordination regarding the countrys labor
laws, state governments employ labor inspectors to enforce these laws. Between
January and August 2012, the Ministry of Labor reported that 25,040 child labor
inspections took place. During this same period, there were 589 prosecutions and
167 convictions.(62) During the reporting period, children were rescued from
hazardous work during raids in several areas, including Delhi, Gujarat, and
Karnataka.(69-71) When child labor prosecutions are launched, it may take years
before a case is resolved because the judicial system is backlogged and
overburdened.(72) Eight state governments adopted state action plans for the
elimination of child labor. In 2012, the Jharkhand State Action Plan became the
latest of these. The Jharkhand plan calls for stronger enforcement mechanisms as
well as the rescue and re habilitation of children.(45, 73-76) Complaints about
hazard ous child labor can be made through a toll-free helpline, Child Line, which
operates in 193 cities across India. In 2012, Child Line expanded to 68 additional
cities.(67) Complaints are then given to the police to investigate and rescue
children.(67)
Under Indias federal structure, state and local police are also responsible for
enforcing laws pertaining to human trafficking. (77) the Government of India has
invested more than $400 million to establish the Crime and Criminal Tracking and
Networking System to connect all of Indias 15,000 police stations.(66, 78) This
will enable police to better monitor trends in serious crimes, including trafficking.
As of 2012, this system was still in the process of being completed. (66, 78) It is
not known whether the tracking system will disaggregate its data to include child
trafficking victims, and this data is not currently being collected or made public
through other mechanisms.
Government Policies on the Worst Forms of Child Labor During 2012, the
Government continued to implement the National Policy on Child Labor, which
lays out concrete actions for combating hazardous child labor for children under
age 14, including implementing legislation and providing direct assistance to
children.(46) As noted above, eight states implemented action plans to eliminate
child labor from hazardous industries during the reporting period: Andhra Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Gujarat, Bihar, and Orissa.(45,
73-76) these action plans have resulted in the creation of task forces at the state,
district, and village levels. These plans also call for the coordination of social
protection programs and services provided by government and civil society
organizations to support the livelihood of households vulnerable to child labor.(76)
the MOLEs National Skills Development Policy includes provisions for child
laborers, including short-term skills training for children removed from the worst
forms of child labor.(79)
The Government also has a National Plan of Action to Combat Trafficking and
Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Women and Children, which aims to
rehabilitate and reintegrate victims of trafficking into society.(80) Several of the
specific initiatives above are supported by and can draw on the Governments 11th
5-Year Plan (20072012).
The Plan details how the Government would implement its vast array of social
protection schemes, including provisions for education, health and increased
livelihood support.(81)
Social Programs to Eliminate or Prevent the Worst Forms of Child Labor
The Government of Indias National Policy on Child Labor includes direct
assistance projects, which are collectively known as the nclps scheme.(46, 49, 82)
the MOLE coordinates the nclps, which operate at the district level to identify
working children under age 14, withdraw them from hazardous work, and provide
them with education and vocational training. (46) the projects set up NCLP
schools, mainstream children into formal education and provide them with
stipends, meals, and health checkups. Between April 1, 2011 and March 31, 2012,
the Government reported the rescue, rehabilitation and mainstreaming of 125,716
children into NCLP schools in 266 districts across India.(49, 62)
The NCLP scheme is linked to the Ministry of Human Resource Developments
(MHRDs) Education for All Program to ensure childrens smooth transition from
NCLP schools into the formal education system. During 2012, the MHRD
continued to offer its midday meal program to NCLP students. (83) With support
from UNICEF, the MOLE is developing a national communication strategy on
child labor and piloting a national tracking system to monitor children in NCLP
schools in the states of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and West
Bengal.(46) the Government is currently participating in a USDOL funded, $6.85
million Convergence Model Project, begun in 2008 and scheduled to conclude in
2013, which targets 19,000 children for withdrawal or prevention from work in
hazardous labor in 10 districts in the states of Bihar, Jharkhand, Gujarat, Madhya
Pradesh and Orissa.(35) As of March 2013, the project had linked over 19,740
children to education services. (84) the project is designed to strengthen the
Governments efforts to combat hazardous child labor by linking children to the
National Child Labor Project and increasing their families access to the
Governments various social protection and welfare programs, including the
National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS), the Rashtriya
Swasthya Bima Yojna Health Insurance Scheme, Education for All Scheme, and
the Skills Development Initiative Scheme. In 2012, the Government gave workers
in the informal economy access to the National Health Insurance Program.(85)
Research has not been conducted on the effects of these social protection schemes
on reducing child labor.
The MOLEs Grants-in-Aid scheme funds over 20 ngos to provide rehabilitation
services to working children.(46) Its Skill Development Initiative Scheme offers
vocational training programs and gives priority to children withdrawn from child
labor and the parents of child laborers.(86)
The Government of India and state governments are collaborating on a program to
rescue and rehabilitate child and adult bonded laborers.(87) As part of this scheme,
the MOLE supports the funding of a survey at the district level every 3 years on the
prevalence of bonded labor. Bonded laborers identified through the survey are
rehabilitated.(87) Although surveys are conducted, data on the prevalence of
bonded labor in Indias 28 states were unavailable and the data that have been
collected are not disaggregated to capture the number of children who are victims
of bonded labor.(46)
In 2012, the MOLE continued to expand its pilot project in Tamil Nadu to reduce
bonded labor in brick kilns and rice mills.(88) Based on this pilot project, the
MOLE implements a holistic, convergence-based approach to address bonded
labor in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Haryana and Orissa, which integrates
existing government social and welfare programs to target vulnerable workers.(46)
The MWCD provides a package of services for vulnerable children, including
those most likely to be exploited in the worst forms of child labor. It seeks to
protect children, including working children, through its Integrated Child
Protection Scheme (ICPS).(67) the ICPS aims to improve access to protection
services, create public awareness, increase accountability on child protection,
enhance service delivery, and set up a monitoring and evaluation system. From
January 2011 to January 2012, the Government expanded its investment in ICPS,
allocated more than $27.5 million, and signed mous with 16 additional states (33
states and union territories in total) to implement the ICPS.(67) the MWCD has
another scheme, the Welfare of Working Children in Need of Care, which provides
nonformal education and vocational training to street children and working
children living in urban areas not covered by other MOLE schemes. From January
2011 to January 2012, this scheme received $1.85 million, which was used to fund
91 projects that supported 9,100 beneficiaries.(67)
The MWCD also coordinates a wide range of anti-trafficking activities, in
collaboration with ngos and state governments, including raising awareness,
maintaining assistance hotlines, rescuing victims and providing shelter homes,
counseling, legal aid, medical care, repatriation, and rehabilitative services. These
efforts include the MWCDs Ujjawala scheme, which funded 19 new projects in
2012 and continues to support another 147 projects to help reintegrate, rehabilitate
and repatriate trafficking victims, including children.(67)












5) Research Hypothesis
Hypothesis 1a: the greater the number of U.S. forces stationed in a foreign nation,
the greater the level of domestic unrest, terrorism and war in that nation.
The provision of U.S. military assistance no doubt wins the United States key
friends (Anonynous, 2014)in foreign regimes and militaries, but may also provoke
anger and resentment on the part of many outside the government who disapprove
of its uses. U.S. military aid may be used to help buttress unpopular repressive
regimes; it may free up funds that regimes can then use to support private military
forces, and it may be used to support unpopular wars or other programs, such as
drug eradication. Ultimately, many in the population will likely see little direct
benefit from U.S. military assistance and believe that U.S. aid dollars would be
better invested in social programs and other initiatives designed to help the people.
And to the extent that the population perceives the military assistance program as
furthering U.S. dominance, whether locally or globally, its unpopularity may
provoke dissention and unrest. Scholars have sought to determine if linkages occur
between the decision to provide foreign aid and the level of such aid, and
improvements in a nations human rights practices and democratization. Regan
finds in his study of U.S. aid on human rights repression in 32 developing nations
that U.S. economic aid has had little or no impact on the human rights practices of
the recipient governments.
Similarly, in a study of the impact of U.S. foreign assistance on democratization,
Knack finds that the evidence presented here does suggest that either the
favorable impacts of aid on democratization are minor; or they are roughly
balanced by other democracy undermining effects of aid dependence. I measure
U.S. military assistance using annual data in constant U.S. dollars from the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID)
Hypothesis 2a: the greater the level of the U.S. military (Anonynous,
2014)assistance spending in a foreign nation, the greater the level of domestic
unrest, terrorism and war in that nation.
U.S. heavy-handedness in global affairs. Many regimes and individuals will likely
view U.S. military actions as protective of U.S. national interests rather than local
interests, and believe the United States cares little for the value of civilian lives in
those nations it enters. Thus, even though the U.S. military may be dispatched to
provide order and stability in foreign nations, it may also precipitate more violence
and unrest. Several scholars are skeptical of the utility of U.S. attempts to enforce
its values and practices on other nations, and argue that military force is far too
blunt an instrument with which to export values that take time, commitment
And resources to grow.11 It is certainly possible as well, however, that there is
reciprocal causation occurring between the use of military force by the United
States and foreign unrest, for such military operations may be authorized in
response to violence and instability in foreign nations. In order to account for such
reciprocal causation, I lag this variable 1 year. I measure this variable as the
number of militarized interstate disputes the United States was involved in with
each nation of the world.
Hypothesis 3a: the greater the number of U.S. militarized disputes involving a
foreign nation in the previous year, the greater the level of domestic unrest,
terrorism and war in that nation.
The U.S. military has played a major role in the democratization process in Haiti
and Bosnia after civil strife and war tore apart those nations. Indeed, one of the five
major objectives of U.S. military strategy in the Annual Defense Report 2000 is
fostering an international environment in which Democratic norms and respect for
human rights are widely accepted.13 Scholars have discovered, however, that
while the utility of military force depends on a deeper commitment among U.S.
policymakers to regime stability, democratization, and the promotion of human
rights, military operations do influence the likelihood of democratic transitions.
After spending substantial sums of money and incurring a great many political
Costs in major military deployments, policymakers will seek to help build friendly
and peaceful regimes. And of all the tools in the U.S. foreign policy arsenal, none
provides the degree of direct influence that military force does.

Hypothesis 4a: the more similar the voting behavior of a nation in the UN General
Assembly to that of the United States, the greater the level of domestic unrest,
terrorism and war in that nation.
Hypothesis 5a: the more similar the voting behavior of a nation in the UN General
Assembly to that of the United States, the lesser the level of domestic unrest,
terrorism and war in that nation.
Hypothesis 6a: the constant and variables of US Foreign Policy.





6) CONCLUSION
There are several general findings from this analysis that deserve further comment.
First, on the one hand I found a statistically significant relationship between several
of the indicators of U.S. foreign policy and instability in foreign countries. The
closer the relationship between a country and the United States as measured by
many of these indicators in most of the estimates, the more likely nations were to
experience various forms of instability. Yet, we also saw that, for the most part, the
size of the impact of U.S. foreign policy was not always strong. Of all the measures
of ties to U.S. foreign policy, the one that demonstrated the strongest and most
consistent effects in the estimates was U.S. military aid. The greater the amount of
military aid received by a foreign government, the more at risk it becomes for
instability, including terrorism, riots, assassinations, anti-government
demonstrations, and civil wars.
The challenge here, as in assessing the nature of the relationship among all the
various independent and dependent variables, lies in evaluating the type of effect.
As I indicated at the outset, while every precaution is taken in carrying out these
analyses, making causal inferences must always be done with a healthy degree of
objectivity and a critical eye. The relationship between U.S. military assistance
and regime instability, for example, could be one of reverse causality in which
The United States provides more such assistance to those nations that are most at
risk for such events in order to help prevent future outbreaks of violence.
The United States might provide more military aid to underdeveloped nations in
general that are also more likely to experience this sort of domestic unrest.
Regarding the first point, however, we must bear in mind that the values of the
independent variables were lagged 1 year to help alleviate problems of reverse
causality. Rather, it is more likely that regimes that receive greater amounts of
military assistance possess a constellation of characteristics that make them
susceptible to unrest and violence. It may well be that such assistance engenders
opposition in some sectors of these societies. Nations that receive large amounts of
military aid are also likely to have larger economies (small and poor nations would
be unable to utilize large amounts of military aid for the most part), but given their
reliance on the United States for such aid, they are also unlikely to have economies
sufficiently advanced and large enough to produce such hardware for themselves.
Thus, their economies may well remain underdeveloped in key respects, which
make them susceptible to instability. In this sense, the U.S. military aid relationship
may be most prevalent in societies at more advanced stages of development, both
economically and politically, that should cause policymakers to weigh carefully the
consequences of such strong ties with the United States.
The other measure of U.S. foreign policy relationships that exercises a strong,
albeit somewhat inconsistent, impact on regime instability is involvement in a
militarized dispute with the United States. When the United States has used
military force in or toward a foreign regime in the previous year, the predicted
incidence of terrorism and civil wars tends to increase in the following year. Uses
of force may inspire anti American sentiment, embolden regime opponents to take
violent action against the government (especially in cases where the United States
is taking action against the regime), or may simply indicate the prevalence of
uncertainty and trouble in a nation. Regardless of whether the United States uses of
force accomplish their specific, operational objectives (e.g., providing a military
presence, transporting military forces and/or military aid, rescuing American
citizens), broader U.S. foreign policy goals may be harmed in these incidents to the
extent the use of force serves to further destabilize a nation toward terrorism or
civil war. Therefore, even when U.S. foreign policymakers determine a use of
force is necessary, regardless of what other unintended and negative consequences
might transpire, they must be aware of the potential for more instability in the wake
of such militarized actions and take the necessary precautions to preserve U.S.
interests and protect U.S. allies.
We find less evidence that a large U.S. military presence contributes in any
significant manner, at least so far as is apparent in these analyses, to regime
instability. The effects of the size of the U.S. military presence on the indicators is
either small, statistically insignificant, or both. Since most of the large U.S.
military establishments in foreign countries tend to be fairly long-standing,
whatever impact they have on (in)stability within such states (e.g., North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) allies, South Korea, and Japan) does not generally
change from year to year, as indicators of civil unrest do. Rather, it may be that
whatever positive or negative effects a U.S. military presence in these nations
generates have long since become systemic or more or less permanent features of
the political landscape in these nations. If there were a sudden and drastic rise or
curtailing of a U.S. military presence, we might expect to find a more pronounced
effect. It may also be that the causal arrow is somewhat circular. Instability in some
nations may lead to a greater U.S. troop presence, which in turn leads to more
conflict.
Teasing out the causal relationships among the three indicators of a U.S. military
relationship with regimes could be furthered by in-depth and comparative case
studies.
The last U.S. foreign policy indicator to consider is the extent to which a nations
voting record in the UN General Assembly mirrors that of the United States. As a
states voting record in the UN more closely resembles that of the United States,
the incidence of various forms of instability, including riots, anti- government
demonstrations, assassinations, and government crises, increase. Anti-
Americanism is often de rigueur in many nations, and thus making public
pronouncements against U.S. foreign policy objectives almost seems to be
reflexive in many capitals around the world. Those in power generally understand
that their public and private face in regard to U.S. foreign policy must remain
different and separable. These data reveal why such public posturing, as evidenced
in the UN General Assembly, tends to occur. Regimes run a significant risk if they
appear too cozy with the United States, as evidence of such ties inspires political
violence and other forms of instability. U.S. foreign policy positions will often be
opposed simply because many view U.S. foreign policy objectives as nothing more
than attempts at U.S. global domination. Interestingly, however, foreign policy
similarity is negatively related to the incidence of terrorism. This is rather puzzling
since one would expect that this type of violence might be precipitated by
closeness to the United States. Perhaps, however, given the need for greater time
and organizational effort to mount a terrorist attack, there may be a longer time
interval between a regimes evidence of shared foreign policy outlook with the
United States and the incidence of terrorist violence.

The nature of a countrys political system also plays a crucial role. We saw
throughout the analyses that as constraints on the executive branch of government
increased, the incidences of terrorism, riots, anti-government demonstrations,
assassinations, government crises, and civil wars all increased. Clearly, powerful
executives play a powerful role in clamping down on virtually all forms of
domestic unrest. Only in the case of international wars do we find no statistically
significant relationship, as we might expect since this type of violence is one
initiated by the executive branch. On the other hand, political competitiveness
serves to decrease the likelihood of riots, anti-government demonstrations,
government crises, assassinations, and civil wars. Viewed from the perspective of
domestic tranquility, the most effective form of government would appear to be
one with a strong executive and robust political competition. The challenge in
many states that confront domestic unrest and are seeking to design more effective
political institutions to combat these problems is to reconcile those parties and
individuals who compete against one another to accept forceful control of the
executive by one party or one individual. Achieving this type of consensus would
seem to be the key. The strongest evidence of regional trends in these data is found
in the analyses of terrorist acts, anti-government demonstrations, civil wars, and
international wars where I show that the nations of the Middle East were much
more likely to experience such violence. Despite the presence of many other
variables in these models that help explain the prevalence of these indicators of
domestic unrest and violence, there is still something peculiar about such problems
in the Middle East that makes that part of the world especially conflict-prone. Such
unique factors would include the Arab-Israeli conflict, oil wealth, religious
schisms, authoritarian governments, and severe inequalities in the distribution of
wealth, to name but a few.
This does not mean that other countries of the world outside the Middle East are
comparatively less violent or safe. Indeed, there are a great many conflicts both
large and small occurring in Africa and Southeast Asia. Rather, the Middle East
more generally has been and will likely continue to be predisposed to such violence
because of many factors, but in particular the sorts of transnational forces
mentioned above.
When viewed as a whole, the findings tend to show that U.S. foreign policymakers
should be mindful of the unintended consequences of the provision of military
assistance and the use of force, particularly the impact these manifestations of U.S.
power and influence have on those groups in the affected states opposed to U.S.
interests and prepared to take action to demonstrate their opposition. There will
always be such actors who are unalterably opposed to virtually every aspect of U.S.
foreign policy and with whom little legitimatepolitical discussion is possible. But
there are always many other economic, social, ethnic, and political groups within
societies which, while they may oppose, even strongly, these manifestations of
U.S. influence, are open to dialogue and negotiation. Policymakers should be
mindful of the impact their actions have on these groups and individuals who are
part of a critical mass of regime citizens able to influence the direction of political
opposition toward violence or nonviolence. This is not to suggest that it is
necessarily the role of the U.S. Government to consult with such actors for this
might well impinge on the sovereignty of the government and undermine the very
purposes of the policy. Rather, before embarking on important new aid
relationships or the use of military force, policymakers need contingency plans to
work with such groups to prevent the outbreak of violence to ensure that U.S.
foreign policy goals can still be realized.

This monograph provides us with important new insights into both the impact of
U.S. foreign policy actions on societal unrest in other nations and the various other
causes of instability. The next step in this process is to develop real-time
indicators of societal instability to better predict when such unrest is likely to
transform into more serious violence and challenges to governmental authority.
Key to this will be development of data on the indicators used in this monograph
on a monthly, if not daily, unit of analysisa project we are currently developing
at the University of North Texas through the creation of an Early Warning Center
to monitor all nations of the world through various electronic media, and
intergovernmental organizational and nongovernment organizational reports. By
deploying a team of student researchers who will monitor this information on a
daily basis, we hope to develop a more fine-grained analysis of emerging trends
and events, while at the same time creating a data base of such information to
develop better and more systematic explanations of regime instability. The use of
annual aggregated data, such as I use in this analysis, is useful in providing
researchers and policymakers with a more macro-level perspective on unrest. But,
if we wish to better determine when these nations are most at risk for violence,
more refined data on the measures used here, as well as actions taken by regimes
that might precipitate violence (e.g., mass arrests, crackdowns on political
opposition, etc.) Are also needed to predict with more precision when threats to
peace and stability are most likely.
The United States utilizes a vast arsenal of foreign policy tools to induce, compel,
and deter changes in other nations foreign policies. As the quantity and quality of
such activity increases, the U.S. footprint in such nations grows deeper and
wider. The U.S. presence may range from a diplomatic mission to a massive
invasion force. The United States may seek to use its presence to openly compel
change in a regimes policies; it may employ its leverage to quietly induce policy
modification; or it may use a combination of such strategies. And while the regime
and citizens of one nation may welcome the United States and its largess, others
may find such relationships a threat to the nations honor and sovereignty. To the
extent a deeper and broader foreign policy relationship (as measured by a U.S.
military presence; U.S. foreign aid relationship; the discrete use of military force;
and a substantial similarity in foreign policy preferences between the United States
and another government) contributes to stability and friendship, U.S. interests are
realized. But does a broad and deep military and foreign policy relationship with
the United States always succeed in realizing these interests?
Why would a cooperative relationship with the United States precipitate political
and societal instability in the host nation? First, the U.S. relationship with the
friendly or client regime may undermine the popular legitimacy and sovereignty of
the government or interfere with local, political processes. Second, political ties
with the United States often impact local economic conditions. Whether it is
economic ties per se the United States is seeking to advance through opening
markets, providing economic assistance, or promoting U.S. multinational
corporation interests, or it is the economic spillover effects from a U.S. military
presence, local market conditions are bound to be influenced by the actions of the
worlds largest economy within the local borders. Third, the local population may
also be opposed to the broader U.S. foreign policy goals with which U.S. officials
are seeking acquiescence or cooperation. Specific U.S. interests will also provoke
antagonism as the populations of other states take exception to the ends or the
means of U.S. foreign policy, and to their regimes degree of identification with
such interests.
On the other hand, U.S. foreign policy means and ends are intended and designed
to promote positive relations and maintain stability in those nations with whom the
United States seeks to foster amicable and cooperative relationships. A strong U.S.
presence can promote multiple, positive conditions. First, to the extent that a U.S.
presence promotes both internal and external security for a nation, it provides the
protection and stability a state needs to develop economically and politically. U.S.
friendship can deter interstate rivals from overtly aggressive behavior and can
dissuade internal political rivals from sowing unrest. Second, to the extent a U.S.
military presence or U.S. military aid alleviates the need for a government to
expend resources on its own security, a regime is better able to utilize freed up
resources on economic and social development that should further the nations
prosperity. Third, a U.S. military presence and military aid can stimulate the local
economy and provide jobs for many nationals who are involved in businesses that
contract with and supply the U.S. military, and can open avenues of opportunity for
citizens to take part in educational, economic, and military interactions with the
United States.
I use statistical analyses to evaluate the extent to which indicators of a U.S. foreign
policy relationship predict the level of terrorism, domestic instability, and war in
other nations. I find a statistically significant relationship between several of the
indicators of U.S. foreign policy and instability in foreign countries.
The closer the relationship between a country and the United States, as measured
by many of these indicators in most of the estimates, the more likely nations were
to experience various forms of instability. Yet, the size of the impact of U.S.
foreign policy was not always strong. Of all the measures of ties to U.S. foreign
policy, the one that demonstrated the strongest and most consistent effects in the
estimates was U.S. military aid. The greater the amount of military aid received by
a foreign government, the more at risk it becomes for instability, including
terrorism, riots, assassinations, anti-government demonstrations, and civil wars.



7) REFRENCES
Aviles, William. 2012. the Political Economy of Low-Intensity
Democracy. In
Corporate Power and Globalization in US Foreign Policy, ed. Ronald W.
Cox. New York: Routledge Press.
Babcock, Robert H. 1974. Gompers in Canada: A Study in American
Continentalism before the First World War. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
Barker, Michael. 2011. Reporting on Egyptian Workers: Solidarity in the
Name of Capitalism. Swans, 28 March.
Http://www.swans.com/library/art17/barker75.html (September 27, 2012).
Conry, Barbara. 1993. CATO Foreign Policy Briefing No. 27. Loose
Cannon: the National Endowment for Democracy. CATO Institute, 8
November
Http://www.google.com/search?Client=safari&rls=en&q=%22loose+cannon
:+the+na
Cox, Ronald. W., and G. Nelson Bass. 2012. the Foreign Policy of
Organized Labor in the Context of Globalization. In Corporate Power and
Globalization in US Foreign Policy, ed. Ronald W. Cox. New York:
Routledge Press.
Daum, Walter. Exchange between LRP and Batay Ouvriye. League for the
Revolutionary Party. Http://www.lrp-cofi.org/statements/bo_exchange.html
Deere, Carmen Diana. 1982. A Comparative Analysis of Agrarian Reform
in El Salvador and Nicaragua 1979-81. Development and Change 13(1): 1-
41.Ellner, Steve. 2005a. the Emergence of a New Trade Unionism in
Venezuela with Vestiges of the Past. Latin American Perspectives 32(2):
51-71.
Basic Facts about the United Nations 2000 NO.E. 00 I 21 Chollet, Derek and
Robert Orr. Carpe Diem: Reclaiming Success at the United Nations. Centre
for Strategic and International Studies: the Washington Quarterly. (Autumn
2001)
Cronin, Bruce. The Paradox of Hegemony: Americas Ambiguous
Relationship with the United Nations. European Journal of International
Relations. (2001)
Durch, William J. Picking up the Peaces: the UNs Evolving Post Conflict
Roles. Centre for Strategic and International Studies: the Washington
Quarterly. (2003)
Goulding, Marrack. The Evolution of United Nations Peacekeeping.
International Affairs Vol.69. No.3 1993. Blackwell Publishing.
Helms, Jesse. Saving the UN: A Challenge to the Next Secretary-General.
Foreign Affairs (1996)
Hirsh, Michael. The Fall Guy; Washingtons Self Defeating Assault on the
U.N. Foreign Affairs. (1999)
Hormats, Robert and David Rothkopf. Discussion Document. Prepared for
the Carnegie Endowment Strategy Roundtable. (2008)
James, Alan. Peacekeeping in International Politics. London. Macmillan for
International Institute for Strategic Studies. 1990
Johnston, Ian. Benjamin Cary Totolani and Richard Gowan : the Evolution
of Peacekeeping: Unfinished Business. Center of International Co-operation.
New York University. 2005
John Allphin Moore and Jr. Jerry Pubantz. The New United Nations:
International Organization in the Twenty-First Century (Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006),
Patrick, Stewart. The Best Laid Plans: the origins of American
Multilateralism and the Dawn of the Cold war. Lanham, MD:Rowman and
Littlefield. 2009
Weiss, Thomas G. Towards a Third Generation of International Institutions:
Obamas UN Policy. Centre for strategic and International Studies: the
Washington Quarterly. (July 2009)
Weiss and Kalbacher, 2008. Security Studies: An Introduction, the United
Nations. Routledge : London and New York.
Weiss, Thomas G and Kessler, Merly A. Resurrecting Peacekeeping: the
Superpowers and Conflict Management. Third Wold Quarterly. Vol 12.
1990
Williams, Paul. Security Studies an Introduction. Routledge: New York.
2009 in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Haryana and Orissa, which integrates
existing government social and welfare programs to target vulnerable
workers.(46)
The MWCD provides a package of services for vulnerable children,
including those most likely to be exploited in the worst forms of child labor.
It seeks to protect children, including working children, through its
Integrated Child Protection Scheme (ICPS).(67)
The ICPS aims to improve access to protection services, create public
awareness, increase accountability on child protection, enhance service
delivery, and set up a monitoring and evaluation system. From January 2011
to January 2012, the Government expanded its investment in ICPS, allocated
more than $27.5 million, and signed mous with 16 additional states (33
states and union territories in total) to implement the ICPS.(67)
The MWCD has another scheme, the Welfare of Working Children in Need
of Care, which provides nonformal education and vocational training to
street children and working children living in urban areas not covered by
other MOLE schemes. From January 2011 to January 2012, this scheme
received $1.85 million, which was used to fund 91 projects that supported
9,100 beneficiaries.(67)
The MWCD also coordinates a wide range of anti-trafficking activities, in
collaboration with ngos and state governments, including raising awareness,
maintaining assistance hotlines, rescuing victims and providing shelter
homes, counseling, legal aid, medical care, repatriation, and rehabilitative
services. These efforts include the MWCDs Ujjawala scheme, which
funded 19 new projects in 2012 and continues to support another 147
projects to help reintegrate, rehabilitate and repatriate trafficking victims,
including children.(67)
National Human Rights Commission. Human Rights Issues, [online] [cited
January 23, 2013]; http://nhrc.nic.in/hrissues.htm.
64. National Human Rights Commission. NHRC Sets Up a Cell to Ensure
Expeditious Action by the Public Authorities towards Elimination of
Bonded Babour, [online] August 12, 2011 [cited January 23, 2013];
http://nhrc.nic.in/disparchive.asp?Fno=2365.
65. The Hindu. No prosecution so far under anti-bonded labour law.
Hindu.com [online] May 17, 2011 [cited January 23, 2013];
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2026330.ece.
66. Ministry of Home Affairs. Ministry of Home Affairs Annual Report
2011-2012. New Delhi; 2012. Http://mha.nic.in/pdfs/AR(E)1112.pdf.
67. Ministry of Women and Child Development. Ministry of Women and
Child Development Annual Report 2011-2012. New Delhi; 2012.
Http://wcd.nic.in/publication/ar201112e.pdf.
Arun Dev. 50 child bonded labourers rescued in Bangalore. The Times of
India, New Delhi, January 22, 2013; Bangalore.
Http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/50-child-bonded-
abourers-rescued-in-Bangalore/articleshow/18138175.cms?Prtpage=.
70. Indrani Basu. 14 children rescued by child labour activists. The Times
of India, New Delhi, October 4, 2012; Delhi.
Http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-10-
04/delhi/34258974_1_child-labour-ngo-complaint-ngo-activists.
Ministry of Women and Child Development. Initiatives Taken by Ministry
of Women and Child Development to Combat Trafficking of Women and
Children. New Delhi; October 11, 2006.
Http://wcd.nic.in/inititrafficking.doc.81.
Government of Andhra Pradesh. Eleventh Five Year Plan - A Review.
Hyderabad; 2011.
Http://www.aponline.gov.in/Apportal/AP%20Govt%20Information/
APES%20New/Chapter-10.pdf.
Ministry of Labour and Employment. National Policy on Child Labour,
Government of India, [online] [cited January 23, 2013];
http://labour.nic.in/cwl/clpolicy.htm.
Ministry of Human Resource Development. Meal Provision, [online] 2013
[cited January 30, 2013]; http://mdm.nic.in/.
Ministry of Women and Child Development. Initiatives Taken by Ministry
of Women and Child Development to Combat Trafficking of Women and
Children. New Delhi; October 11, 2006.
Http://wcd.nic.in/inititrafficking.doc.
Government of Andhra Pradesh. Eleventh Five Year Plan - A Review.
Hyderabad; 2011.
Http://www.aponline.gov.in/Apportal/AP%20Govt%20Information/
APES%20New/Chapter-10.pdf
Ministry of Labour and Employment. National Policy on Child Labour,
Government of India, [online] [cited January 23, 2013];
http://labour.nic.in/cwl/clpolicy.htm.
Ministry of Human Resource Development. Meal Provision, [online] 2013
[cited January 30, 2013]; http://mdm.nic.in/.
Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers. India, in Child Soldiers
Global Report 2008. London; 2008;
http://www.childsoldiersglobalreport.org/files/ country_pdfs/India.pdf.
Government of India- Department of Social Welfare,. Bonded Labour
System (Abolition) Act, Act No. 19, enacted February 9, 1976.
Http://pblabour.gov.in/pdf/acts_rules/bonded_labour_system_abolition_act_
1976.pdf.
Government of India. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013,
No. 3 of 2013, enacted February 3, 2013.
Http://www.scribd.com/doc/123706222/ Criminal-Law-Amendement-
Ordinance-2013.