One of the casualties of the war against terrorism - or, rather, of the way the United States is conducting the war - is the US influence in promoting human rights worldwide. For the international human rights movement, this is a severe setback.

For more than a quarter of a century, ever since advancing human rights internationally became an explicit and avowed goal of US foreign policy under President Jimmy Carter, American influence has played a leading role in mitigating abuses.

The consequences were most profound in what were the countries of the Soviet empire, but they extended to other regions as well.

Even where the US supported regimes that committed grave violations of rights - or served as an apologist for them because other national interests took precedence - it was often possible for the human rights movement to embarrass Washington by making it the surrogate villain for its clients' abuses.

In the 1980s, this approach focused attention on abuses in conflict-ridden Central America and in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which the Reagan Administration favoured in its struggle with America's enemy, Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran.

It thus sometimes achieved indirectly what could not be done directly: the leveraging of American influence to promote human rights.

Weakened capacity

But America's capacity to promote human rights in other countries has never been weaker than now. One reason is the tremendous increase in anti-Americanism since the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001. This is largely due to a widespread perception of American arrogance.

Despite (or because of) its insistence that all who are not with America are against it, the George W Bush administration alienated many who previously counted themselves either as friends of the US or did not take sides.

At the same time, rising anti-Americanism preceded the US response to the terrorist attacks. The Bush team was outspoken in its hostility to a range of international agreements, from the Kyoto Treaty to reduce global warming to the establishment of the International Criminal Court.

Whatever goodwill towards the US prevailed after Sept 11 was quickly squandered. The Bush administration proclaimed a national security policy that insists that America provides the only sustainable model for national success, and asserted its right to engage in unilateral, pre-emptive military strikes.

It treated the UN Security Council with disdain in its rush to war in Iraq, invoking justifications that have not stood up to scrutiny. Since then, it has continued to insist that its arguments for invading Iraq are beyond criticism, while making a mess of the post-war administration by refusing to share authority.

The other major reason that America is losing its effectiveness as a promoter of human rights is a widespread perception of hypocrisy.

Even before the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, America's image as a rights proponent had been tarnished, particularly in Europe, by its continued practice of capital punishment and, to a lesser degree, by its high incarceration rate - approximately seven times the average in the European Union's 15 member countries.

Since September 2001, the cause for concern has grown dramatically. Much international attention has focused on the US Patriot Act's sanctioning of grave violations of civil liberties, and on the subsequent treatment of thousands of immigrants - particularly south Asian Muslims - who have faced secret detention and deportation.

Above all, the rest of the world has looked on with alarm as the US holds more than 600 men at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba without access to family or counsel, and without prospect of an impartial hearing or trial.

New institutions

In some instances, reports of rights violations in the US are exaggerated. But this is an inevitable consequence of the Bush administration's own haughty manner, with leading spokespersons, such as Attorney-General John Ashcroft, proclaiming their own righteousness in leading the effort to abrogate rights.

Ashcroft is much less known internationally than Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, (photo) but he is an even match in arousing dislike for the US among those who do know him.

Unfortunately, there is no ready substitute for the US as a force for advancing human rights internationally.

The UN has been useful as a forum for adopting standards, but its machinery for seeking compliance with those standards is weak and has been badly compromised over the years by its failure to address grotesque abuses. The choice of Libya to chair the UN Human Rights Commission adds insult to injury.

Some European governments have evolved strong human rights polices but, for a variety of reasons, they have been unable, individually or collectively, to exert the influence of the US.

Fortunately, while this is likely to remain true for the foreseeable future, the international human rights movement is not completely without resources. Its own prestige is high.

Groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are respected voices, to whom many governments feel obliged to pay attention.

There is also the promise of new institutions. In cases of extreme rights abuses, the chance that an international criminal tribunal will ultimately sit in judgment of those principally responsible is growing, thereby becoming a deterrent to would-be tyrants elsewhere.

America should take note.

ARYEH NEIER, president of the Open Society Institute and a founder of Human Rights Watch, is the author most recently of 'Taking Liberties: Four Decades in the Struggle for Rights'.