The US government's hesitation to have the status of the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay determined by a competent tribunal, as prescribed by the Geneva Conventions, is indicative of the worrying tendency in many countries to overlook human rights when national interest is at stake. As understandable as this might seem following the shock that was caused by the terrible terrorist attacks of 11 September, it is crucial that governments do their utmost to maintain the high human rights standards that we have jointly developed over the past decades. Not just because they are obliged to do so by their constitutions and international human rights treaties. But also because it is in their own best interest. First, human rights and security are not mutually exclusive concepts. More human rights does not mean less security. Within the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the importance of human rights, the rule of law and democracy to stability and collective security has been recognized from the very beginning with the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. The human dimension of the OSCE's security concept is based on the experience that conflict and instability are often caused by human rights violations. The deterioration of the human rights situation has led to conflicts such as the one in Kosovo, and turned Afghanistan into a breeding ground for terrorism. In that sense, respect for human rights actually increases the security of us all. Second, respecting human rights at home, and promoting them consistently elsewhere, means retaining the moral high ground, and thus the ability to address human rights problems wherever they occur. How can we credibly ask other governments to improve their human rights records when we do not always take human rights so seriously as soon as they start to become a nuisance for ourselves? How can we demand from other countries to treat our citizens correctly in times of conflict when we ourselves do not respect the relevant international rules? Have we not always insisted on a wide interpretation of the Geneva Conventions in the past, knowing that it will also protect our own people in unclear situations? It is not only short-sighted to go down the slippery slope of ignoring human rights obligations just because it seemingly is the easier way. As current examples show, it has also been unnecessary to do so. The Taleban and al-Qaeda fighters captured in Afghanistan can be interrogated and brought to justice if they have committed crimes whether they are granted Prisoner-of-War status or not. So why not play by the book and have a court determine their status if this is what international law requires? The six suspected Algerian terrorists who were recently handed over to US custody in Bosnia on a highly questionable legal basis could have been extradited following due process of law. So why ignore domestic court rulings, as was the case, and thus undermine the year-long efforts of the international community to promote the rule of law in Bosnia? Turning a blind eye to human rights concerns, in particular by the well-developed democracies of Northern America and Western Europe, would result in lasting damage to the international human rights cause which has emerged over the past decades. After 11 September we need more respect for human rights, not less. It has often been said that the fight against terrorism is not about a clash of cultures, but about a clash of different values. If we really mean that, we must not allow the erosion of the principle of universality of human rights, which forms the core of our value system and the foundation of our legitimacy when fighting terrorism and promoting democracy. Allowing this to happen would be a mistake of historic dimensions.