Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s vision for an “America First” U.S. foreign policy implies a clear distinction between national security and economic interests and our values, suggesting that promoting our values is separate from realizing our interests.

After working on foreign policy for nearly 30 years, I could not disagree more with Mr. Tillerson or this view.

It is a false dichotomy to suggest there is a choice between promoting U.S. values and other core interests. For example, we can provide for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula without retreating from our concerns about Pyongyang’s gulag state.

ADVERTISEMENT

And we can push for elimination of forced labor in Malaysia both because we abhor modern slavery and we want to level the international economic playing field for U.S. workers.

Putting forward a narrative about our values helped the United States win the Cold War, even if we weren’t always consistent when it came to our allies.

Today is no different.

While retreating from human rights may allow for some immediate gains in the short term, long-term objectives will be irreparably undermined.

When we privilege counterterrorism cooperation over democracy and human rights, the very activists who are promoting such values often suffer the most and can profoundly feel the loss of support from the United States and like-minded countries. To alienate these potential future government leaders is wrong both morally and tactically; we cannot expect to ignore their concerns and later obtain their support.

Beyond even its damaging rhetoric, the administration’s early actions are undermining U.S. leadership on human rights. Despite paying lip service to fighting human trafficking, the administration’s approach to immigration actually heightens the risk of human trafficking in the United States, making victims less likely to report their traffickers to law enforcement and making them more vulnerable to exploitation.

President Trump Donald John TrumpBarr criticizes DOJ in speech declaring all agency power 'is invested in the attorney general' Military leaders asked about using heat ray on protesters outside White House: report Powell warns failure to reach COVID-19 deal could 'scar and damage' economy MORE’s invitation to President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines and his less well-reported invitation to Prime Minister Chan-ocha Prayuth of Thailand, who overthrew a democratically elected government, are both troubling and signal the direction the administration is pursuing.

Tillerson’s remarks come at a particularly urgent time for many human rights activists.

In the next month, the State Department will issue the 2017 Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report. This report, which ranks virtually every country in the world on their efforts to combat modern slavery, can be a critical lever for change.

In 2014, for example, the TIP Report pointed to abuses in the seafood sector in Thailand, spurring businesses to action.

And yet government reports are only as useful as they are credible. When decisions are made for political expediency over accuracy, the research is no longer powerful. Over the last two years, the Obama administration politicized and undermined the integrity of the TIP Report, dismaying many of us who see it as a critical tool.

The Trump administration will face a clear choice: continue to rebuild the integrity of the TIP report as a key tool in fighting the scourge of human trafficking by issuing a fact-based assessment on such key countries as China, Malaysia, Qatar, Thailand, Tunisia and Ukraine, or demonstrate that it is unwilling to use the U.S. relationship to help end modern slavery.

For a president that has made big claims to fight human trafficking, the choice should be simple. But given the way this administration is surrendering the mantle of leadership on human rights around the world, it won’t be.

David Abramowitz is the managing director of Humanity United, which support efforts to change the systems that contribute to problems like human trafficking, mass atrocities, and violent conflict.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.