Bill Overview
Title: Upholding Human Rights Abroad Act
Description: This bill prohibits, with some exceptions, the Department of Defense (DOD) from providing certain support to forces (e.g., foreign forces or irregular forces) engaged in U.S. special operations if DOD has credible information that the force in question has committed a gross violation of human rights.
Sponsors: Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD]
Target Audience
Population: People involved with or affected by foreign forces receiving U.S. defense support
Estimated Size: 10000
- This bill affects foreign forces that could receive support from the U.S. Department of Defense for special operations.
- The people impacted include members of these foreign forces, their leadership, and communities affected by their operations.
- U.S. Special Operations Forces may also be impacted as their engagements can be limited by the refusals outlined in the bill.
- Individuals and families in regions where these foreign forces operate or have influence might be impacted due to changes in operations or support.
- Individuals and groups concerned with human rights advocacy and international relations are also stakeholders in this bill.
Reasoning
- A considerable portion of the population expected to be affected consists of U.S. Department of Defense officials and employees involved in international operations.
- Participants in human rights advocacy have a vested interest, though the direct impact on their daily lives is less pronounced.
- The estimated population in the U.S. significantly impacted is small compared to the global reach of the policy, given the focus is on American strategic and defense interests abroad.
- Allocating interview slots to people indirectly benefiting from human rights advancements is necessary, despite their impact being more ideological and less on their immediate quality of life.
Simulated Interviews
U.S. Special Operations Forces Member (Tampa, FL)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might limit our flexibility in operations.
- While human rights are crucial, decisions may complicate missions.
- I believe some restrictions could lead to safer practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Senior Analyst, Department of Defense (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act aligns with our ethical guidelines.
- It's a step forward in ensuring our international partners uphold human rights.
- The policy supports long-term strategic stability despite potential short-term challenges.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Human Rights Advocate (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a necessary measure toward global human rights protections.
- I'm hopeful this can influence broader policy changes internationally.
- It may lead to initial resistance but is a sound long-term policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Senior Foreign Policy Advisor (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation is crucial for long-term strategic partnerships globally.
- My concern lies in the timely assessment of credible violations, which can delay critical decisions.
- Operational momentum might initially be hampered, but ethics are worth the investment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
University Professor, International Relations (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aims to bridge the gap between diplomacy and defense.
- It may challenge traditional military relationships but enhances ethical standards.
- The decision benefits academic discourse and practical policy models alike.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Journalist for Foreign Affairs (Boston, MA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Act shows a new direction in U.S. defense policies.
- Reporting on defense scandals could decrease, signaling a positive move.
- Challenges in maintaining operational success may arise, yet ethics should lead.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired Military Personnel (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy supports what we always hoped for: a stronger ethical standing.
- It's a morale booster for those of us who felt trapped by prior directives.
- Younger troops might initially resist the limitations but will adjust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Graduate Student in Political Science (Austin, TX)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this act encouraging my peers and me towards ethical policy careers.
- It's a small step towards balancing power and morality in global affairs.
- The impact on study materials and future work could be significant.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Lobbyist for Defense Contractor (Seattle, WA)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy introduces uncertainties in contract security.
- Might lead to restructuring of defense relationships which will affect our business.
- We're preparing strategies to adapt to new requirements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Defense Policy Consultant (Columbus, OH)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy integrates key human rights values into actionable defense strategies.
- Aligning defense policies with ethical standards strengthens our global position.
- Operational challenges require careful planning but are ultimately beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $53000000 (Low: $42000000, High: $62000000)
Year 3: $56000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $65000000)
Year 5: $59000000 (Low: $48000000, High: $68000000)
Year 10: $65000000 (Low: $51000000, High: $75000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy might reduce U.S. involvement in controversial defense partnerships, altering global perceptions of U.S. military operations.
- Ensuring compliance with this policy may lead to increased administrative and operational oversight costs.
- Potential downstream effects including better international relations or decreased incidents involving human rights violations.