Speaking with the Philadelphia Gay News last week, Hillary Clinton said she would be “very strongly outspoken” as president against governments that don’t respect the rights of their GLBT citizens.

That would mark a considerable advance over the current and past policies of the United States government and if she wins the presidency, we hope she follows through on that promise. And we hope her fellow candidates get on board and make the same pledge.

It has been a long time since the United States government was looked on internationally as a hope for the advancement of human rights in the world. The U.S. led the way in the establishment of the United Nations in the aftermath of World War II and a generation before that President Woodrow Wilson inspired people around the world with the principles he set forth in arguing for the creation of the League of Nations.

These days, however, our government acts as if it could care less when other governments, including our allies, abuse their citizens.

The Bush administration has failed to take any sort of vocal stand on abuses of GLBT people in Ukraine, Jamaica, Nigeria, Poland and Nepal. Even though it frequently rattles its sabers against Iran, the White House doesn’t utter any dissatisfaction when Iranian courts execute gays. And in Iraq, in the chaos that the Bush administration created, gays are in worse shape than they were under Saddam Hussein, a fact that doesn’t seem to upset the White House at all.

And, to be sure, there are other human rights issues of importance that aren’t especially gay-related. The most notable, of course, involves China’s policy of silencing AIDS activists by imprisoning them and the Chinese government’s treatment of Tibet. Both policies invite complaints by anyone who cares about the rights of their fellow human beings. Both policies have elicited nothing but silence and inaction from the Bush White House.

Our government can and should do more. China, for example, relies on sales of its products to the United States. Our government can set conditions that make that more difficult. We should make it plain that we’re prepared to do so. Other countries rely on our economy. We can say no to Nigerian oil. We can make tourism to Jamaica less attractive. We can influence Poland in a number of ways. We have lots of influence in Ukraine.

Other governments do far more than we do to support human rights around the world. The Netherlands gives grants to GLBT groups in small countries where GLBTs face persecution. Other governments have similar programs. On a broader scale, the French government last week made its displeasure with China’s Tibet policy abundantly clear. It’s too bad our government didn’t join in doing that.

Our government is supposed to reflect our ideals. It’s supposed to be, we would hope, the embodiment of our best intentions. It should represent the sentiments set forth in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Those sentiments place a high value on liberty and equality. Whether we always meet them or not is beside the point—they are what we say we strive for and they should be at the heart of our foreign policy.

It’s nice to hear a presidential candidate talk about placing a high priority on human rights, and specifically GLBT rights, in other countries. The other candidates need to match Clinton’s pledge and whoever is elected president needs to deliver on that pledge. That would be change we could believe in.