Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26414267
label
Democracy/Human Rights
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26414267
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Democracy/Human Rights
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Christine Macy's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26414267
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-18557099-20130936S-016-005-2015
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
bef063a6988ad721
ocrText
+
Gale's Quotations
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
1917-1963
American. US President
Democracy is never a final achievement. It is a call to
untiring effort, to continual sacrifice and to the
willingness, if necessary, to die in its defense.
-- Speech, San Jose, Costa Rica, March 19, 1963
Born: May 29, 1917 in Brookline, MA. Died: November 22, 1963 in Dallas, TX.
Career Highlights: First Roman Catholic pres., 1961-63; won 1957 Pulitzer for
Profiles in Courage; assassinated while in office.
Also known as: JFK; Jack
1
Copyright (c) 1995 Gale Research Inc.
Noa A. Meyer
06/23/99 05:19:25 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Christine N. Macy/WHO/EOP@EOP
CC:
Subject: koh remarks
Harold Hongju Koh
Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
Roundtable Discussion, Commission on Human Rights
55th Session, Geneva, Switzerland, March 30, 1999
Assistant Secretary Koh: Thank you very much for coming. I am
delighted to be here. For 13 years I was a professor at Yale, and the rule
is that when you have a lecture you stand up, when you have a discussion
you sit down. So I am happy that we are having a discussion about the
U.S. priorities for this session of the Commission and particularly the
promotion of democracy. That means that this will not be a speech. I will
make some brief remarks and I hope to receive your questions. I hope
also to meet many of you in private discussion. I plan to return to the
Commission before the session is over, and hope that I will have many
opportunities to talk to you.
Let me say a little about who I am. I am a Korean-American. My father
was at one point the Ambassador for the Republic of Korea to the United
Nations. I was a professor at Yale and the head of the human rights
organization there for 13 years specializing in human rights and refugees
issues. At one point I was a journalist. In that sense, having been a
member of a foreign delegation, a journalist, an academic and working
with an NGO, I would feel more comfortable, to be on your side of the
podium than on this side.
Now though, I am a member of the U.S. Government. I have been in this
position, for about 4-1/2 months. During that time, I traveled to about 20
countries. I had bilateral discussions with about 40 countries. This is my
second trip to Geneva. I would like to emphasize how much the U.S.
Government values the Commission and the Commission process. This is
the world forum for the discussion of human rights issues. It is a forum of
principles we respect deeply and we are grateful to all of you for your
participation. We hope to use this forum as a way of raising matters of
principle. I hope that on that score, we will be able to cooperate with all of
you.
I should also say that we meet here at a very difficult time. There are
atrocities in Kosovo, repression in Belgrade, a time of military action. I
think we want to recall that the military action is not the end. It is the
means. The means for promoting human rights in Kosovo and greater
democracy and human rights throughout the former Yugoslavia. I went to
the Rambouillet Summit with Secretary Albright in February, I was in
Kosovo and Belgrade in December, and I was at the OSCE in Vienna just
last month. I am encouraged that in the early days of this Commission
session the situation both in Kosovo and throughout the former Yugoslavia
has gotten serious consideration here at the Commission.
Let me say something about the U.S. view of human rights generally. We
treasure human rights because those were the principles on which our
country was founded. We do not believe that we are perfect; far from it.
We do not believe that we have solved all our human rights problems. We
struggle with those problems every day. Like all of the countries that are
here, we are facing unfinished human rights challenges at home, but we
are a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all
people are free and equal.
For that reason, we think it is not just appropriate, but necessary, for us to
discuss human rights problems wherever they exist. Some think that you
should not come to the Commission to discuss human rights in other
countries. They think that if you are not perfect, you have no right to
comment on problems elsewhere. We think the point of coming to the
Commission is to compare human rights records with other countries, to
welcome their participation, to examine our own conduct in light of
democratic society, to have an honest discussion, and to call on other
countries to do the same, and according to international standards.
This why we believe we are talking about universal values, not just
particularistic values. The Asian values discussion of which much was
heard 5 or 10 years ago has quieted down, but as someone of Asian
heritage, I never believed that Asians had somehow a lesser commitment
to human rights.
Let me just point out that Asians believe that families should be together,
especially when someone is dying, and nothing in Asian values justifies the
recent treatment of Michael Aris and Aung San Suu Kyi. These are
violations of human rights standards and they should be recognized as
such. I think we should also say that the United States has a commitment
not just to civil and political rights, but to economic, social, and cultural
rights. As we acknowledge in the Vienna Declaration, these rights are
universal, indivisible, and inter-dependent. We believe as Franklin
Roosevelt did, that freedom from want is closely related to freedom from
fear, and we hope to move forward in this regard as well.
I think a primary theme of our involvement this year in the Commission is
to acknowledge the link between human rights and democracy. We are in
the second 50 years of the Universal Declaration, and one thing we have
come to recognize is that democracy is not just an experiment: It is a right
in itself. Democracy is not just an end that we try to achieve: It is also a
means of greater improvement of human rights.
In many countries around the world, human rights violations are the
symptom, and the cause is a lack of open political discussion. We in the
United States, in particular Secretary Albright and President Clinton, are
deeply committed to promoting democracy, and it is for that reason that
we intend to introduce a resolution supporting the Right to Democracy
which we hope that all nations who are participating in this session can
join to support.
It is for that reason that we hope to support the work of countries who are
moving toward democracy, and experiencing democratic transition. Take,
for example, Nigeria where elections were recently held. Although,
obviously, the movement to democracy is difficult, we believe that these
transitions have to be supported. But we also believe that promoting
democracy means much more than just elections. It means that we
support the development of civil society, the independent media, the equal
protection of women, ethnic and religious minorities and the political
process as well as the free labor movement. All of these are crucial to
promotion of democratic discussion.
When democracy is absent, human rights suffer. We think this is the
primary lesson of the former Yugoslavia where not only is there violence
and atrocities in Kosovo but a broader deprivation of human rights in
Serbia and Montenegro where the free press has been muzzled and the
universities have been stifled. We also see this problem in countries such
as Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo which are
facing intense conflicts and human rights abuses. Some have suggested
that the Commission should not focus on country situations.
We disagree. We believe that there are some countries in which the
human rights violations are too pervasive to be addressed merely by
thematic mechanisms. Take, for example, Afghanistan where we believe
that the blatant mistreatment of women by the Taliban is a severe and
atrocious abuse of human rights. It is to this that the Secretary of State
has spoken as well as the First Lady.
We believe that country situations must be addressed particularly when
pervasive human rights violations persist, when there have been
deteriorations in human rights in the last year, and when bilateral and
regional efforts to affect changes, have not succeeded. We believe that
Country Resolutions should come up for full discussion. We do not believe
that No Action Motions or other efforts to avoid discussion of country
conditions are consistent with the purposes of having a Commission on
Human Rights.
It is to reaffirm these basic principles that, as we announced last week,
we intend to introduce a Resolution with regard to China this year at the
Commission. We believe that the conditions and the violations there are
substantial, that there has been a deterioration in the human rights
conditions over the last year, that the particular concern that we have is
with the deprivation of the right to democracy, and the right of political
participation. Bilateral efforts to engage with the Chinese have produced
dialogue, but that has not produced real human rights improvements on the
ground. We reject the notion that dialogue, which we intend to continue
with the Chinese, is in some way inconsistent with engagement on the
question of human rights before this, the most prominent Human Rights
Commission in the world.
Let me also mention a number of other country conditions of concern to
us. We support efforts in regard to human rights in Cuba. Last year at this
time, shortly after the Pope's visit to Cuba, there was optimism about what
might be possible there. I think in the last few months, in particular, the
treatment of political dissidents and recent repressive laws have suggested
again that the right of democratic dissent has been repressed. We believe
that we must join together with those who are similarly concerned.
There are other country conditions of substantial concern to us. I will
mention them in due course. But let me close by saying again that we
hope this year to make it clear that our concern is one of principle,
particularly the right of political discussion and that our efforts to address
particular country situations arises out of our concerns for principle and a
desire to make effective use of this most important, multilateral forum on
human rights. Thank you.
Question: My name is Antonio Gonzales representing the International
Indian Treaty Council. On behalf of our delegation we extend good sailing
for you and your assignment. I have two particular comments on which
you don't have really to respond but just to keep in mind. As American
Indians, and the indigenous people that we represent, your concern for
democracy and human rights defenders as well, you are aware of the
killing of the three North American Indians in Colombia earlier this month,
one of which was a past member of our NGO delegation here in the years
past. We wanted to ask, what is the United States doing in investigating
the killing of these three individuals, and as we want peace in Colombia,
which is the most violent country in the Western hemisphere, and we
understand that the U.S. Government has said that they don't encourage a
peace dialogue with a FARC organization and the Colombian Government
until the responsible killers are extradited to the United States. We hope it
does not become a hindrance to the peace process in that country. We
want you to think about that and ask if you can respond to that?
The other is that we are concerned about the disproportionate number of
prisoners in the U.S. and in particular the exorbitant, disproportionate
number of American Indians who are also on death row. Can you respond
to how the United States would handle future death execution policies?
Assistant Secretary Koh: 1 said that 1 was going to be back at the
Commission at the end of the session. You might ask where I am going to
be between now and then. I am going to be in Colombia. Since I have
been in office, I have met with at least seven high officials of the
Colombian Government including Generals, the Defense Minister, the
Vice President, and the Ambassador to the U.S. I am planning to go to
Colombia to have discussions. The human rights defenders are obviously
of central concern to us, not just because of the Declaration that was
signed at the United Nations in the work of this Commission last year, but
also because of the fact that at our White House celebration of the 50th
anniversary of the Universal Declaration, we focused on the rights of
human rights defenders and, in fact, had a signing ceremony in which a
number of human rights defenders signed the Declaration at the White
House.
We have made clear our view of the human rights situation in Colombia.
At the end of February we issued our annual State Department report,
which I think told the truth about human rights conditions in Colombia. We
have also expressed our concerns about questions of impunity. We have
expressed our concerns about inadequate protection being given to human
rights defenders, we expressed our concerns about the relationship
between the military and paramilitary groups, and on all of these issues, I
intend to have bilateral discussion when I go to Colombia.
We do understand that the Colombian Government is faced with a difficult
situation both with regard to keeping a peace process going and the
earthquake that was there, and that is another purpose of my travel: to
understand the actual circumstances there on the ground. This is obviously
something that is a critical feature of our bilateral relationship with
Colombia, and which I intend to pursue.
The second point, the treatment of prisoners in the United States, in
particular those on death row: I think that the United States, on this score,
has been trying to work on and deal with this issue. We acknowledge that
there has been criticism. We also should point out that there have been
aggressive efforts at the Federal level to address the question. When the
Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women came to the United
States, as you know, my Bureau facilitated her access on this question.
The treatment of death row prisoners obviously is a subject of substantial
concern because of the length of time they are on death row, and this is
something on which there is a process for trying to examine this issue.
One of the things I mentioned is, I think not widely noticed in the
international community and that is, the Executive Order which the
President signed on December 10, 1998, with regard to implementation of
human rights treaties. When the United States appears before the UN
Human Rights Committee to issue its first report on compliance to the
international covenant, the committee suggested that should be a better
mechanism whereby the national government could respond to concerns
that were expressed about human rights conditions in the United States.
And the first proposal was that this be done by creation of a mechanism
whereby the U.S. national and other government agencies could get
together and talk about these issues. That was formed by President
Clinton on December 10. We now have met a number of times including
not only officials of the State Department, but also of the Justice
Department, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and other entities
who are concerned about making sure that in fact our domestic conditions
do meet international standards.
This is an area in which we are working hard. As I said, we have
unfinished business but I think that is true for all of us.
Question: Why did it take so long for the U.S. to get its act together on
China this year and at a time when NGOs and others have denounced
steady deterioration on the record over the last year? When are you going
to start circulating the draft resolution? I understand that the EU officials
have not even seen it. Do you think that this late in the game, in the
second week of the Commission, you can get serious support?
Assistant Secretary Koh: I don't agree that it took a long time to get
our act together. We have being having consultations on this question for a
very extended period of time. I personally conducted most of them. I don't
think that a lot of the capitals here were surprised by the result. We have
begun sharing a draft of the resolution and so I am not sure that the
second part of your question is correct. I should point out that the more
critical question is that there is nearly a month to go before the vote, and I
think anyone who participated in the Commission process knows that this
is quite a substantial period of time. I think it is a question of principle. If
there is agreement that the human rights conditions in China areas our
resolution says they are, and if it is true that the Commission is an
appropriate place to discuss and raise the questions, then I think that each
delegation should vote its conscience and stand up for an important point
of principle. That decision is still some time away.
Question: (Human Rights Watch Asia, Washington, DC) The
Government of the United States imposed economic sanctions on two
South Asian states after they tested nuclear bombs in May 1998. The
purpose was to contain them from nuclear proliferation. But when gross
human rights violations against ethnic groups and minorities in these
countries have been reported, all that the U.S. did was to express its
displeasure. It does not help the U.S. Government to establish its
credibility as an ardent supporter of human rights. Your comments please.
Assistant Secretary Koh: With regard to the South Asian countries,
this has been again another object of concern for me. I do have a trip
upcoming to this region and it has been the subject of intense discussion.
Let me explain, more generally, that our approach with the regard to
human rights issues in countries with whom we have relationships is what
we call an "outside-inside" approach. Our view is that there is only so
much that can be accomplished with sanctions, but there is also something
that can be accomplished through "inside" mechanisms, mainly modes of
discussion.
This is diplomacy at work. What you call "expressing displeasure" is
diplomacy. We all know that diplomacy is one of the primary tools of
human rights movement and influence. If you consider for yourself, how
you intend to influence the behavior of someone, an ally or friend, who is
doing something with which you disagree, you do not simply threaten them
with sanctions. You try to persuade them. You try to use points of
leverage to influence their conduct. You have honest discussions and
dialogue with them, and you use whatever mechanism of pressure's
available. In short, you use an "outside- inside" approach.
This is what we have being doing, with regard to these countries. This is
what we do in many countries. Indeed, this is our attitude with regard to
countries such as China. Our view is that we have honest dialogue with
them about their human rights issues and we tell them like it is. At the
same time, we invoke legitimate, legal, recognized mechanisms to express
our views, for example, a resolution in Geneva. We have to recognize that,
ultimately, change has to be from within, and that the job of human rights
advocacy and diplomacy is to promote change to achieve greater
compliance with international standards.
Question: (ABC radio) Earlier you spoke about dealing with the
treatment of prisoners on death row. Amnesty International has, for the
first time, pinpointed the United States among its five priority countries as
worst violators of the world, to be presented to the Human Rights
Commission, asking the Commission to focus upon that, for the reasons
they state that the United States has widespread violations against ethnic
minorities and blacks and also that the U.S. is among the greatest users of
the death penalty in the world. There is a movement right now to try to
make a convention against the death penalty. Also your friend Mrs.
Radhika Coomaraswamy came out with a report which is very critical
about violence against women in prisons in the United States. So how do
you react to all of this, first of all being put quite specifically in the human
rights spot light, and what are you going to do about it here, and more
importantly, after that the 6 week session is over?
Assistant Secretary Koh: Let me say, first, that I have a great respect
for Amnesty International. It is a leading non-governmental organization
and has played a historic role in the non-governmental organization human
rights movement. I am not sure exactly about the content of your
statement but if the view of the United States is that it is one of the five
worst human rights violators in the world, I think that it is a proposition that
everyone can examine for themselves and find it to be false.
Furthermore, I do believe that many of the issues which are discussed in
the Amnesty report are the product of examinations of the U.S. law
enforcement records. For example, discussion about prison conditions etc.,
on any of these discussions come from efforts within the United States to
address the problem through prosecutorial or legislative means. So, that is
not to say that there are not problems, but that is to say that legal action is
being taken within the United States to address the problem.
Question: (ABC Radio) I asked you about the report on violence against
women in the United States prisons and just one comment about the death
penalty. Amnesty International and other organizations say that the U.S.
gives juveniles, under the age of 18, capital punishment.
Assistant Secretary Koh: With regard to the execution of people who
commit crimes under a certain age, I should point out that it is in, I believe,
Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, there
is a provision under which the United States took a reservation on the
Convention which they are entitled to do as a matter of law. That is a
position in which the U.S. Supreme Court took a position which is, in the
U.S. controlling. The U.S. Supreme Court interprets the Constitution of
the United States, and in that case, those Justices of the Supreme Court
made this interpretation.
Question: We are concerned about the United States' position on the
World Conference on Racism, its lack of mobilization and organization of
non-governmental organizations to participate. I would further like to
elaborate on the question of the use of the death penalty. I don't know if
you responded to the fact that not only is there an extraordinary number of
African Americans and Indians on death row, but people who have less
means to participate in the democracy that you talked about, because it is
indeed expensive. Would there be national position for this conference?
What is the United States doing on the issue of racism and the death
penalty?
Assistant Secretary Koh: I think everyone in the United States form
our President on down, has been extremely open and direct on the fact
that racism has been a major problem in American history. It's been
something with which we have grappled and continue to grapple with. It is
something to which our President has made a personal commitment,
because it is something so close and direct to his heart. It is something on
which we have had many Presidential task forces and extensive
examinations within the executive branch. With regard to a range of
issues, race discrimination has been addressed at the Constitutional level,
at the statutorial level, and by ratification of the UN Convention for
Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
We intend to participate and support the work of the World Conference
on Racism. We have participated in the discussions that were held in the
last week. I am not sure that I agreed with your characterization of the
attitude of the U.S. toward NGO groups. I think we have had extensive
and valuable discussion with NGO groups. The Conference on Racism is
an opportunity for an exchange of views on best practices which I think is
one thing which is widely needed because countries around the world
have grappled with the question in different settings and have come to
different conclusions.
On the death penalty, the question of how the death penalty is
administered will always be a controversial question. In fact, it is an issue
whether racial bias occurs in the death penalty. This has been extensively
examined by our Supreme Court. I was a clerk to the United States
Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has struggled with that question on
a number of different occasions and has held that if there can be
demonstration of a racial bias in sentencing that the conviction ought to be
set aside. There is no systematic racial bias in the various cases brought
forward to date. The world community is entirely free to move to other
standards on the death penalty and this is something where there is a very
substantial difference of views among the countries of the world. It is
certainly a subject of interest to many of us here.
I repeat the point that I made earlier: the U.S. position on the death
penalty has been that the administration of the death penalty in the United
States is consistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and in accordance with the motion with which that we have ratified
that Convention.
Question: With regard to China, you took issue with my colleague when
she asked why did it take so long to get your act together. In other words,
you now seem to be at odds with the EU whose position was expressed
last week by the German Foreign Minister, Ms. Fischer, was that the EU
does not go along with the actions you propose. Would you be making
attempts to harmonize the EU and the U.S. position?
Assistant Secretary Koh: I have read with admiration the speech of
Ms. Fischer at the opening of the session. I don't think that there is
disagreement on the facts. I think it is a very important point. Ms.
Fischer's speech points out the deterioration of the human rights situation
in China. I think it concurs with our view that political dissent has been
repressed in an unjustified fashion. It expresses the view that it is an
appropriate subject for discussion at this Commission and ought to be
examined and redressed in this forum. What we have made clear is that
our view is that the most principled and forthright approach to this
assessment of the situation it to proceed with a Country Resolution in
which we clarify our view that the conditions in China deserve
examination by this body.
We also have made clear the view that this is something that should come
before the Commission and not be avoided on a procedural technicality.
We think that if this Commission is going to have the ability to examine
country conditions it must do so on the merits of those resolutions. There
have been very substantial discussions between our delegation and the EU
as a whole, and individual members of the EU. This continues on a daily
and hourly basis. My boss, Secretary Albright, cannot be faulted for any
lack of conversation with the EU members. She has them many, many
times a day, and she has discussed this issue with her counterparts. It is
very clear is that they share the concern, and the question is what the
response before the Commission will be? The important question here,
given the unanimity of view among the interested nations in China's
conduct, would there be a response through the Commission this year?
The U.S. position has been yes, as a matter of principle. We have chosen
to do this Country Resolution and we welcome the support that we think
we should receive on this important decision.
Question: There have been several Rapporteurs that have come to the
United States to address human rights violations and the conditions of the
people in the U.S. I was just wondering, and I heard you speak to the
U.S.'s response to some of these conditions, would there be a consultation
or something national within the U.S., that would speak to what has
occurred here at this Commission, even some of the responses of some of
these Rapporteurs that have come to the U.S.? I have not seen any
representatives, on a national basis, in terms of what was the result. I just
want to know, when we return to the U.S. that there would be something
about this Commission about some of the concerns that you addressed.
Assistant Secretary Koh: There are two questions with regards to the
norms against torture. First are the U.S. legal rules and compliances and
secondly, are actions been taken on the ground to implement those rules.
With regards to international norms, I think it is straightforward. The U.S.
has an Eighth Amendment prescription against cruel and unusual
punishment. The U.S. has ratified the Convention against Torture. The
U.S. has passed the Torture Victim Protection Act, the U.S. has passed
the Torture Victims Relief Act, the U.S., under its international human
rights law, has recognized a civil cause of action for torture in cases since
1981.
The NGOs on torture have been extremely effective most recently with
the Torture Victim Relief Act, which was passed just last year. With
regards to implementation of these norms, the question is what are the
conducts which are called torture and this has not been addressed. To the
extent that it has been addressed, torture resulting from Police misconduct,
the U.S. Constitutional Law, under the Eight Amendment and the
statutorial law has been a very active subject of litigation and prosecution.
This is the point that I have made earlier with regard to claims of torture in
the United States. Many of the cases that are cited are, in fact, drawn
from Justice Department Prosecutions. It does not mean that there are no
high profile incidents, but, usually, the way these come to attention, is
because there are trials about them, which means that there is a legal
enforcement mechanism at work and being applied.
If there are reports, certainly the U.S. takes them into account, that is the
purpose of this inter-agency working group that I have described. Its very
purpose is to receive the international reports to try to make sure that the
recommendations of the reports are implemented into U.S. Law. The
short answer to your question is, we are working very hard to take these
concerns into account, both on the legal level and on the level of actual
action by our government officials.
Question: Recently during a conference on disarmament two
delegations left the so called eastern group, and it coincided with their
official announcement of entry into the NATO alliance. But both
delegations denied any connection between two events. You said that you
are strongly supportive of human rights in Cuba. Perhaps it is coincidence,
but Czechoslovakia and Poland will be jointly sponsoring this Resolution on
Cuba. Could this be viewed as an attempt to politicize an already heavily
politicized agenda in the Human Rights Commission in general?
Assistant Secretary Koh: Is it a coincidence that these two countries,
one now headed by a former political dissident care about the plight of
political dissidents in Cuba? No, I don't think it is a coincidence. I think, it
is a matter of principle.
Question: You have said that is it a matter of principle of the
relationship between democracy and human rights. But first, within the
United States of America itself, law permits disenfranchisement of people
on the basis of certain crimes. How do you feel if it consistent with the
principle of democracy, then, when people committing some crimes are
disenfranchised? Second, the point has been raised again and again with
regard to the trade relations of the United States and violation of human
rights. Is there a clear-cut question of preference to be given to the trade
or democracy? What will be your foreign policy preference to trade or
democracy?
And finally, you have said that you have accepted the idea of a World
Conference on Racism. Now accepting an idea and to be open is one
thing, but supporting an action positively is something different. It is on
record that United States of America has been opposing the idea of World
Conference on Racism as well as the question of right to development.
Having accepted both these, what positive role will The United States of
America play with regard to implementation of these? Thank you.
Assistant Secretary Koh: Let me respond to what I heard. I think the
first point is with regards to democracy and the relationship between trade
and human rights. Our view is that with many of our important partners,
we have both trade relations and human rights concerns and we address
them both through a strategy of engagement, what we call principled,
purposeful engagement. That means that we recognize that the
relationships go forward and that we raise those concerns legitimately in
the context of our relationship.
For example, I went with Secretary Albright recently to China. We had a
discussion of trade relations and that included both points of agreement
and points of disagreement. We also had intense discussions about human
rights and that included points of agreement, of which there were not very
many, and points of intense disagreement. In both cases, it was clear that,
from our perspective, the use of multilateral forums to raise these same
issues, was something that we consider entirely appropriate and part of
the strategy of principled, purposeful engagement. "Principled" meaning
we follow the relationship based on principle and not based on expediency.
With regard to the World Conference on Racism, I think I made that point
already. You are suggesting that there is something on the record in the
past which binds us to some position. First of all I know of no such
position, secondly, today is today. The U.S. Government has been actively
engaged on this question before this Commission and will continue to be.
We would like to see the Conference on Racism be a successful,
productive, cooperative, examination of the problems of racism and how
different countries have addressed the question and come up with
solutions to what is a very vexing worldwide problem.
Question: Could you elaborate what would be the country priority list
beside China for this year, and you mentioned that you have had
consultations on the China resolution, if that was so why did Congress
pass unanimous resolutions asking for the White House to act on China?
Assistant Secretary Koh: Do you mean that if we did not have
consultations there wouldn't have been a resolution? Congress does what
it does and the Executive Branch does what it does. I think that we have
an obligation to have consultations before we proceed and that's what we
have done. Congress has expressed a view, and expressed views on many
issues, and we also have consultations with Congress. The import is we
are where we are, we are about a month to go before the vote, and we
are committed to using this to make a strong and clear statement about
multilateral concerns about human rights in China. On the question on
countries of concern to us and country situation, on Thursday, if I get on
the speaker list, I will be addressing Item 9 on the question of country
situations. I prefer to leave that to further discussion. Thank you.
Question: You said that there is no racial bias in your prison system, yet
between the age of 18 and 25 among black people, there are more blacks
in prison that there are in colleges. Your sudden decision to move a
resolution against China has it something to do with Chinese strong
condemnation of your action in Yugoslavia? Is it an attempt on your part
to replace the Security Council of the United Nations with NATO?
Assistant Secretary Koh: Let me take part two of your question first.
First you call a sudden decision with regard to China. I think I have made
it clear, that we have consulted for a long time. The fact of the matter is
this is something we have discussed for a long time, and we moved on it
based on a matter of principle before this Commission. Our deep concern
is with the right of political participation and there is no question that in the
last quarter of the last year, the Government of China over repeated
protests from many different quarters, repressed political dissent,
subjected three very high profile dissidents to trials which were clearly in
violation of the due process of law and frankly that is something that has
to be responded to through this Commission. With regard to Yugoslavia, it
is the Government of China which vetoed the UNPRODEP in Macedonia
because of bilateral concerns.
Our concern in the former Yugoslavia has consistently been the gross
violation of human rights which is going on not just in Kosovo, but also in
Serbia. That was the subject of my visit in December, to examine the
repression of the independent media, the repression of university
professors, the treatment of prisoners in Kosovo, the obstruction of
humanitarian assistance, and I think it should be clear that, as we proceed
into this crisis, the Milosevic regime is only confirming the humanitarian
concerns that we have about his government and his intentions in Kosovo.
We have to call what is going on there a crime against humanity about
which all of us should be outraged.
Question: Considering what is going on in Yugoslavia there is a great
deal of debate because at least in Europe, most of the political pundits
were predicting that if the United States through NATO proceeded to
bomb Yugoslavia, there would be slaughter of the Kosovar population.
That seems to be happening right now. Considering the U.S. concern for
human rights, what provision has the administration taken to make sure
that these crimes against humanity would not take place when the
bombing started? I am not talking about human rights abuses such as
limiting the media or making things difficult for university professors, but
the outright massacres such we hear among the refugees showing up in
Geneva.
Assistant Secretary Koh: There is no question that our deep concerns
motivating the action, is a concern about ethnic cleansing. That is why the
United States and its allies have moved into action. The Rosack massacre
which was called by Ambassador Walker and the Kosovo Verification
Mission to be a crime against humanity is, I think, what set the final act of
mobilization for the issue. An effort of this kind is a very massive
undertaking and for those who have any doubt that Milosevic's intentions
were to continue its human rights violations I am afraid that they are being
answered on a day-to-day basis.
The real question is are there more effective means of stopping what we
all consider to be a gross human rights abuses? It is clear that none of the
allies had any intention in this crisis but to save lives, and that is where the
multilateral effort has been directed. We would seek the support of the
world community in recognizing that when crimes against humanity occur,
the appropriate response is to stand together and say that human rights
violations of this kind should not be used as instruments of political activity
by governments intent on repression.
I don't think you can prove what would have happened if this intervention
had not occurred. All the forces are working together to do their absolute
best. The fact that the response has been one of atrocities, is something
that only confirms the need to go forward. You are seeing the efforts of
the allies playing out on the ground, an intense effort to try to deal with
both the human rights violations and the humanitarian effort. Everybody
would have hoped that this effort would be one which could avoid all
atrocities of this kind. This is something that has just begun. The important
thing it is that the effort has begun. This is something on which the world
community ought to be united.
Thank you.
[end of document]
Noa A. Meyer
06/23/99 05:18:08 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Christine N. Macy/WHO/EOP@EOP
CC:
Subject: frank loy remarks
Frank E. Loy
Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs
Statement, UN Commission on Human Rights
55th Session, Geneva, Switzerland, April 12, 1999
Civil and Political Rights: The Right to Democracy --
Item 11
Madam Chair.
It is my pleasure to appear before you today to discuss civil and political
rights and the vitally important role that democratic governance plays in
defending fundamental human rights and freedoms.
We have witnessed -- or experienced -- profound and wondrous changes
in the architecture of world governance since the passage of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights a half-century ago. Communism in Europe
-- gone. Apartheid in South Africa -- vanished. Dictatorship in South
America -- disappeared or "desaparecido" to use a term that was born of
authoritarianism on that continent.
Today more people enjoy the right to democratic self-governance than
ever before. In the mid-70s, for example, there were 40 democracies in
the world. Today there are 118. This growth of democratic government
around the world is, I believe, the most stunning development of our times.
Needless to say, though, all is not well. In Yugoslavia, just 1000 kilometers
from where we comfortably sit today, freedom and human rights are being
trashed in truly horrifying fashion.
In Sierra Leone, rebel factions are murdering, maiming, torturing and
raping innocent people, leaving a bloody swath of human suffering in their
wake.
In China, where nearly a quarter of the world's people live, democratic
activists continue to be harassed, arrested, and detained. The Chinese
government has taken to banning books and closing newspapers. We do
acknowledge that China has made measurable progress, however.
Chinese people today have more freedom than their parents had to make
economic choices, move freely around the country and choose local
government officials. But a huge amount of progress remains to be made
there.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban regime treats women like chattel -- beating
them in public for not covering their faces or for venturing out of their
homes unescorted by a close male relative.
In Belarus, President Lukashenko is imprisoning opposition leaders trying
to hold a presidential election in accordance with the constitution he
arbitrarily threw out two years ago. The recent local elections made a
mockery of democracy and were based on a new law that flouts OSCE
standards.
In Cuba, the government of Fidel Castro continues to exercise control
over all aspects of Cuban life and ruthlessly suppress all forms of political
dissent.
And in Iraq, if I may quote UN Special Rapporteur Max van der Stoel,
"the gravity of the human rights situation has few comparisons in the
world since the end of the Second World War."
In many other countries, we see governments subjecting their citizens to
the worst indignities -- governments giving lip service to democracy at the
same time they are rigging elections, brutally suppressing dissent, and
gagging the press.
The United States' interest in promoting democracy does not end when an
authoritarian regime is overthrown or an election is held, Madam Chair.
Democratization is a long, difficult and complicated struggle, one that must
begin within a society, rather than being imported. As Secretary Albright
has said, "Democracy must emerge from the desire of individuals to
participate in decisions that shape their lives
Unlike dictatorship,
democracy is never an imposition; it is always a choice."
So, our support for democracy is not ephemeral; we are in it for the long
term. The U.S. Government invests more than $1 billion per year in
democracy-building activities around the world, with particular emphasis
on supporting countries in transition and defending democracies under
attack. Why do we do this? Because it's the right thing to do. But there
are other reasons as well:
Our own national security -- and that of every country -- depends on
international stability and the rule of law. As President Clinton has
explained, this notion is the basis for our efforts to restore peace and order
to the Balkans and establish democratic institutions there.
Democracy also provides the surest route to prosperity. Open, transparent
economies unlock the full creative and commercial potential that lives in
people everywhere. This freedom, which only a broad-based civil society
can provide, drives economic growth, boosts employment and powers the
engine of national development. It is no coincidence that the most
prosperous nations of the world are all free market democracies. Nor is it
surprising that, as India's recent Nobel Prize winner for economics,
Amartya Sen, has shown, no major famine is known to have occurred in a
democratic country.
And last -- and most relevant to the work of this Commission -- we have
learned over the years that the protection of human rights requires more
than intervention in specific instances of abuse, or even shining the light of
international public opinion on patterns of human rights violations. What
we have learned is that governments that are truly democratic offer their
citizens the best assurance of respect for basic human rights and the best
opportunities to improve their lives. They do this by offering people:
open and transparent governmental institutions; an independent
judiciary;
respect for the rule of law;
a free press;
freedom of religion;
and particularly, the right to political dissent.
As Vice President Gore said in his November speech to the APEC
Summit in Malaysia, "History has taught us that freedom -- economic,
political and religious freedom --unlocks a higher fraction of the human
potential than any other way of organizing society."
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has recognized
this and been deeply and commendably involved in democracy-building
efforts. But the Commission for Human Rights has not spoken directly to
the issue of promoting the right to democracy for many years.
For these reasons, we think it appropriate that this Commission -- the last
of the 20th century -- affirms the right of all people to democratic
government.
The Universal Declaration for Human Rights declared just over half a
century ago that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and
rights." And yet this cannot come to pass without the guarantees that only
democracy can provide.
Let this Commission, then, be the one which is remembered for the bold
and vigorous manner with which we embraced the universal human right
to democratic governance.
Thank you.
[end of document]
939-
5298
Noa A. Meyer
06/23/99 05:20:18 PM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Christine N. Macy/WHO/EOP@EOP
CC:
Susan Benda
Kendell Days
Subject: additional remarks that might be helpful
Felice Gaer
U.S. Delegate
in
Remarks to the UN Commission on Human Rights
55th Session, Geneva, Switzerland, April 13, 1999
4708
2
Cerp
Integration of the Human Rights of Women
and the Gender Perspective -- Item 13
mast paints
20
Madam Chair, just over 50 years ago, under the skilled leadership of its
first chair, Eleanor Roosevelt, this Commission on Human Rights adopted
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and changed the way
governments are expected to treat their citizens. In the half century since
then, only three other women have had the privilege to chair this body. So
it is with particular pleasure that I rise to address the Commission today,
Steve
with you as chair, for the Commission's first substantive debate on the
Walmer
new agenda item on the integration of the human rights of women and the
7239
gender perspective.
NEA
822
As we begin the next 50 years, we have the urgent task of integrating the
human rights of women into all that we do here.
1) Supper Edmistr/teache
7)
It took five decades to move women's human rights from the UN Charter
personnel-
to the Beijing World Conference on Women. Next year we will convene a
Beijing-plus-five conference. Our task as nations is very clear: We must
that a it leh
make our global human rights machinery expand and adapt; we must shift
villes 2
from neglecting women's rights to mainstreaming them. We must mobilize
the will to stop the abuses facing women throughout the world and
establish instruments of accountability and effective domestic remedies.
teecher
This agenda item offers us a choice, Madam Chair: We can examine
on drus,
women's human rights, express concern, and then move on to other issues,
sections
or we can use our time to look seriously and thoroughly at the way the
UN system addresses the human rights of women, raising those concerns
elsewhere on our agenda, whenever appropriate.
support
Many of the special rapporteurs have approached their tasks with new
personnel
perspective and new vigor. The human rights of women are beginning to
pervade our Commission's agenda.
Educaters/ ( not couches)
For example, this year the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary
and Arbitrary Executions drew attention to "honor killings" where male
relatives kill women for alleged adultery or because they seek divorce.
The Special Rapporteur correctly states that such killings cannot be
explained in the context of tradition or culture. "Honor killings" are murder.
Abuses against women have been often justified as private matters and
ascribed to culture or religion, but as the Rapporteur has vividly shown,
these are criminal acts, outside the rule of law, due process, and individual
protections. As such, they are the legitimate concern of the human rights
community.
We deplore the reports of the recent death threat against Mrs. Asma
Jahangir, the Special Rapporteur. We urge all governments to condemn
such threats and ensure her safety.
The Special Rapporteur on Education also brought a gender-perspective
into her study this year. Similarly, we welcome the comments by the
Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression regarding the rights of
women to seek, receive and impart information, and the link between
freedom of opinion and expression and the elimination of discrimination
and violence against women. These are but a few examples of what
gender integration really means: breaking the silence, ensuring the visibility
of abuses against women, and pressing for accountability.
The Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance has proposed
undertaking "a series of studies on discrimination" regarding women. And
several country specific Special Rapporteurs have demonstrated concern
about the treatment of women in countries like Iran, Nigeria, the former
Yugoslavia and elsewhere.
This year, the Special Representative on Iran concluded that despite
well-meaning declarations, the government has so far achieved little
improvement in the condition of Iranian women. The Special Rapporteur
on Nigeria criticized the slow pace in eradicating harmful traditional
practices, such as female genital mutilation or early marriages. The
Special Rapporteur on the Former Yugoslavia addressed gender concerns
in his discussion of Croatia, but not in the other countries in his mandate.
Consider Afghanistan, Madam Chair. Publicly beating women for failing
to wear a burqa or for not being accompanied by a close male relative, or
severely restricting women's access to medical services is not a
manifestation of local culture, but criminal abuse. To hinder women from
working or girls from going to school deprives thousands of families of
their daily bread and robs half the nation of its future. The Special
Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance concluded that the Taliban has
introduced "what is in point of fact a system of apartheid" with respect to
women. The Commission has been monitoring the Taliban's cruel
mistreatment of women for some time. Its resolution last year emphasized
the need to end widespread violations against women and the urgency of
ensuring the participation of women in numerous spheres, including the
economy. It also called on the Afghan parties to recognize the right of
women to work, to receive an education, to security, and to "the highest
attainable standard of physical and mental health."
By contrast, many other countries are making progress in advancing
women's rights that are well worth noting. Cote d'Ivoire and Togo passed
statutes banning the practice of female genital mutilation. The Turkish
Parliament passed a law in 1998 making spousal abuse illegal. Uganda and
Malawi have granted women property and inheritance rights, and the
women of Nigeria have won a long, hard legal battle that gives widows
the right to inherit property. The International Criminal Tribunal for the
Former Yugoslavia set a precedent for prosecuting the aiding and abetting
of rape as a war crime.
Despite these advances, numerous challenges remain. In 1998, domestic
violence and sexual harassment remained endemic. Women in Saudi
Arabia continue to face institutionalized discrimination affecting their
freedom of movement and association and their right to equality in
employment and education. In Algeria, militants continued to target
women for rape, kidnapping and forced prostitution. In China, coercion in
family planning practices including instances of forced abortion and
sterilization continued. Throughout South Asia, dowry related violence,
including the practice of dousing women with gasoline and setting them
aflame, remains a serious problem.
For its own part, the United States is committed to advancing women's
rights, working at the local, national, regional and international level.
Madam Chair, the United States is proud of its contributions to global
initiatives promoting women's rights. Throughout the world, progress
depends not only on protecting women's fundamental human rights, but
also on ensuring that women everywhere have the opportunity to
participate fully in every sphere of national life. For it is clear that no
country will succeed in the next century if half its citizens are excluded.
For several years we have worked in partnership with other governments
and NGOs to educate women about their legal rights and develop
strategies to participate more fully in their country's social, political, and
economic life. We supported development of community-based
approaches to eradicate female genital mutilation, raise awareness about
violence against women, and strengthen national legislation. Some of our
programs are helping women participate more fully in national political life,
training future leaders, promoting gender equity laws and establishing
regional and international networks. Elsewhere, we have helped women
form their own labor unions and develop the capacity to run for elective
office.
Still, there are few programs as important to women's development as
economic participation. We have worked to further this through our
support for microcredit programs, and education. For it is clear that
women with at least primary education are healthier, have fewer and
healthier children and tend to earn more money for their families than
those who have not attended school. Not surprisingly, educated women
make better farmers, workers and managers. They are more active in
business and politics and generally contribute more to national life.
Yet in many places, girls are still less likely to attend school than boys or
attend for as many years.
There are many other issues facing women which are of serious concern
to the United States. One the most widespread and pernicious concerns
violence against women in the home. It is only recently, of course, that this
all-too-common violation of women's rights has been recognized
internationally as a form of human rights abuse. But it is truly a worldwide
problem, and no country -- including the United States -- is immune from
it.
Over the past few years, however, we have made substantial efforts to
combat domestic violence at the local, state and federal level. All in all, we
have quadrupled our funding to domestic violence shelters over the past
few years and established a nationwide 24-hour domestic violence hotline
to complement the many such hotlines created locally. Indeed, this year,
U.S. is devoting more than $283 million to combat gender-based crime.
The U.S. is also taking steps to combat the trafficking of women and
children, a form of modern-day slavery which affects a million women and
children every year. Victims are lured into trafficking networks through
false promises of good working conditions at high pay as domestic
workers, nannies, waitresses, sales clerks or models. Trafficking victims
suffer extreme physical and mental abuse, including rape, torture,
starvation, imprisonment, death threats and physical brutality. To combat
this scourge, the U.S. had developed a three-prong strategy conducted in
partnership with other countries based on prevention, protection for
victims, and prosecution and enforcement against traffickers.
Madam Chair, the report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence against
Women, its Causes and Consequences raises concerns about the situation
of women in some state and federal prisons in the United States. While
the U.S. Government has not yet had a chance to evaluate the report fully,
it is reviewing it carefully and will respond in the near future.
U.S. laws prohibit sexual abuse and sexual misconduct in prisons and
provide for the prosecution of those who engage in such conduct. Under
the 1980 Civil Rights for Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), the
United States Department of Justice investigates conditions in jails,
prisons, and juvenile detention facilities in the event that individuals are
systematically deprived of their constitutional rights. In addition, numerous
U.S. court rulings and state laws have mandated that decent standards of
treatment be maintained.
Some of the examples cited in the Special Rapporteur's report are drawn
directly from cases which the Department of Justice had already
investigated and in some cases prosecuted, or in which either U.S. or state
officials had already corrected the problems. To this effect, the Civil
Rights Division has increased its investigations of sexual misconduct in
prisons, and we have taken several steps to prevent it, including
disciplinary sanctions, training and technical assistance, and complaints
mechanisms. We note that the Special Rapporteur herself cites several
model programs for preventing sexual misconduct in prisons, including
those in the states of Georgia and Minnesota and the training provided by
the National Institute of Corrections.
In keeping with our recognition of the universality of human rights and our
openness as a democratic society, the United States has played a
prominent role in the establishment of the UN Special Rapporteur system
and the support that has maintained it. We particularly urged the creation
of the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women. We welcome
outside investigations -- whether by United Nations Special Rapporteurs
or by non-governmental organizations -- and we urge other countries to do
the same. At the same time, we would urge the Special Rapporteurs to
focus their attention on countries where the situation is the most dire and
the abuses the most severe.
Madam Chair, the United States will continue to champion the human
rights of women around the world -- and at home. Our citizens insist on
the protection and enhancement of every citizen's rights. U.S. policy
emphasizes helping women overcome the many barriers that confront
them at home and abroad. While we acknowledge that human rights
abuses sometimes occur in the United States, ours is an open system in
which problems that occur are readily exposed. Ours is a nation of laws,
and our people, our non-governmental organizations, our legal system, and
our government are vigilant. When violations occur, we have the
mechanisms and protections in place to prosecute.
But more than that, we understand the importance of educating people
everywhere to the key role that women play in society's advancement and
the necessity of protecting their human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The fact that it has taken the international community until this decade to
acknowledge that women's rights are human rights is an indication of how
much work remains for us to do. But with that recognition comes
responsibility and commitment, too.
In country after country, women are making incredible strides, battering
down barriers that have stood for centuries and leaving a new record of
achievement that cannot be denied. But in far too many places, old
prejudices remain and violations of women's human rights are blatantly
ignored. We cannot be true to ourselves or the principles that this
Commission stands for if this continues. The time to recognize the truth is
now.
Women make up more than half the planet, Madam Chair. Women's
rights are human rights. That is an integral part of our mandate, our
agenda, and must be part of all our human rights programs, both in field
operations and in conference rooms like this. If we are to meet the
challenges of the next millennium, we must not only engage all the people
who live on this planet, we must pay attention to their plight, and we must
empower them by guaranteeing, protecting, and defending their rights.
Thank you.
[end of document]