Judge Louis Oberdorfer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia solicited the views of the State Department as to whether litigation of this case “would impact adversely on the interests of the United States.” Specifically, lawyers for Exxon Mobil argued that because the case involves alleged human rights violations committed by security forces in Indonesia - the nation that is home to the largest Islamic population in the world - continued litigation would compromise the U.S. government’s “war on terrorism.”

Even though Human Rights First and other human rights groups urged the State Department not to issue an opinion supporting Exxon’s position, the State Department’s letter in the case claims that “adjudication of this lawsuit would in fact risk a potentially serious adverse impact on significant interests of the United States.”

“The letter speculates that an American jury could impose a large monetary award on Exxon Mobil -and that this might deter investors in the Indonesian economy,” said Mila Rosenthal, a spokesperson for Human Rights First. “But now more than ever, the administration has no business advising a 'see no evil, hear no evil' approach to justice on economic or any other grounds.”

“Gross and persistent human rights abuses are understandably embarrassing to government and corporations, but hopefully an American court will decide that the facts of the Exxon Mobil case should not be silenced out of hand,” she added. “The administration's logic that the case should be shelved on political grounds suggests the United States is being held hostage to Indonesia's sensitivities and a corporate bottom line."

Human Rights First deplores the position of the State Department. Its letter to Judge Oberdorfer blatantly undermines the efforts of the U.S. Congress to give meaning to human rights protections through the Alien Tort Claims Act and threatens to turn the law into a dead letter. While concerns about Indonesia’s economy and U.S. investment there are understandable, Human Rights First rejects the implication that this investment can come at the cost of human rights protection. Companies should not be immune from prosecution for human rights violations in their operations at home or abroad.