|
SPECIAL STATE DEPARTMENT BRIEFING SUBJECT: 2005 COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES
WITH: SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE; PAULA DOBRIANSKY, UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEMOCRACY AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS;
AND BARRY LOWENKRON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR
LOCATION: STATE DEPARTMENT BRIEFING ROOM, WASHINGTON, D.C.
TIME: 11: 04 A.M. EST DATE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2006
(Federal News Service (Middle East) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge)
SEC. RICE: Good morning. I'm pleased today to join
Undersecretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Paula
Dobriansky, and Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human
Rights and Labor Barry Lowenkron, in announcing the publication of the
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2005.
These congressionally mandated annual reports attest to America's
continuing commitment to the advancement of what President Bush calls
the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. Our promotion of human
rights and democracy is in keeping with America's most cherished
principles, and it helps to lay the foundation for lasting peace in
the world. How a country treats its own people is a strong indication
of how it will behave toward its neighbors. The growing demand for
democratic governance reflects a recognition that the best guarantor
of human rights is a thriving democracy with transparent, accountable
institutions of government, equal rights under the rule of law, a
robust civil society, political pluralism, and independent media.
Today there is a worldwide discussion of democratic ideas and the
universal principles that democratic governance protects. This
discussion is taking place from the halls of government in newly
democratic Iraq to Internet cafes around the globe, in numerous public
squares and across countless kitchen tables. Indeed, the promotion of
human rights and democracy is a truly global phenomenon.
The duty to defend human rights and to help spread democracy's
blessings is especially great for the United States and other free
nations. That is why we are working with other democracies to develop
the institutions that will ensure human rights are respected over the
long term. We must help struggling democracies deliver on the high
hopes of their citizens for a better life.
We must call countries to account when they retreat from their human
rights commitments, and we must always stand in solidarity with the
courageous men and women across the globe who live in fear yet dream
of freedom.
All men and women desire and deserve to live in dignity and
liberty. Fulfilling the promise of the United Nations universal
declaration of human rights and building vibrant democracies worldwide
is the work of generations, but it is urgent work that cannot be
delayed.
As President Bush has said, the advance of freedom is the great
story of our time. These reports chronicle that great story. We hope
that the reports will encourage governments, organizations, the media
and publics to address human rights problems. We also hope that the
reports will be a source of information and inspiration to the noble
men and women across the globe who are working for peaceful democratic
change.
And now I will turn to the podium over to Undersecretary
Dobriansky, who will begin to take your questions.
Thank you very much.
Q Can you answer a question on Iran, please?
MR. LOWENKRON (?): Thank you.
MS. DOBRIANSKY: Thank you, Madame Secretary.
The 2005 Human Rights Report provides a comprehensive overview of
the status of individual rights and freedoms in 196 reports from
around the world. A key underpinning of the report is that the
promotion of democracy is essential to providing an environment in
which human rights can flourish. The furtherance of democracy, by
definition, advances individual rights and freedoms by increasing
people's ability to shape their government, their society and the
decisions which affect their daily lives.
Significantly, we know that a democratic and open society allows
us to acknowledge human rights abuses when they occur, to investigate
the circumstances, to punish those responsible and to take steps to
ensure that these incidents are not repeated. We can have this open
and critical dialogue when we have a free and informed media and a
vibrant civil society. Freedom of expression is freedom of
information.
In fact, several weeks ago, we announced the establishment of a
global Internet freedom task force here at the State Department to
develop recommendations to Secretary Rice on initiatives to maximize
access to the Internet and minimize government efforts to block
information.
Our non-governmental partners, NGOs, are also very essential to
achieving our human rights goals and objectives. They have on-the-
ground experience and years of expertise. They are the implementers
for our overseas programs often at great personal risk. They are the
watchdogs of our policies, and we value and solicit their input and
place great emphasis on their empowerment in the human rights report.
Finally, today is International Women's Day. We attach great
importance to ensuring the full and equal participation of women who
are half the world's population in government, business and civil
society. We have seen that women, when given the opportunity, are
forceful agents for democratic change and for the advancement of human
rights.
I'd like to say thank you, and I'd like to turn the formal press
conference over to Barry Lowenkron, our assistant secretary of
Democracy, Human Rights, Labor, who will make a statement and who take
your questions.
Thank you so much.
MR. LOWENKRON: Good morning. I would like to say a few words
about the production of the reports, make some brief observations, and
then, I'll go into the Q's and A's.
As you know, Congress mandates the State Department to produce
these reports annually, and we've done so since 1977. The reports for
2005 were delivered to Congress earlier today, and they're going to be
posted on our website immediately after this briefing.
For almost three decades, these reports have been an essential
element of the concerted efforts of successive Congresses and
administrations to promote respect for human rights worldwide. The
reports have served as a reference document and a foundation for our
cooperative action with other governments, organizations and
individuals.
Officers at our overseas posts go to great lengths to gather
information for these reports. The reports are based on information
we receive from governments and multilateral institutions and from
indigenous international non-governmental groups, academics,
journalists and the media.
I owe special thanks to Nadia Tongour and Roy Potts and their
dedicated team in the Office of Country Reports within my own bureau
-- who have spent the better part of last year working on the 2005
reports. Many others in my bureau and throughout the Department of
State here and abroad have labored long and hard to ensure that the
reports meet high standards of accuracy and objectivity.
The 196 reports include every member country of the U.N. except,
of course, the United States. We do, however, consider the human
rights performance of any government, including our own, to be a
legitimate subject for international comment and debate.
Each country report speaks for itself. I will, however, make six
cross-cutting observations based on the reports as a whole.
First, countries in which power is concentrated in the hands of
unaccountable rulers tend to be the world's most systematic human
rights violators. These states range from closed totalitarian systems
like Burma and North Korea, to authoritarian systems like Belarus and
Zimbabwe in which the exercise of basic rights is severely restricted.
Second, human rights and democracy are closely linked, and both
are essential to long-term stability and security. Free and
democratic nations that respect the rights of their citizens help to
lay the foundation for lasting peace. In contrast, states that
severely and systematically violate the human rights of their own
people are likely to pose threats to neighboring countries and the
international community, and Iran is a case in point.
Third, some of the most serious violations of human rights are
committed by governments within the context of internal and/or cross-
border armed conflicts, such as in Sudan's Darfur region.
Fourth, where civil society and independent media are under
siege, fundamental freedoms are undermined. In 2005, a disturbing
number of countries, from Cambodia to Venezuela and Russia, Belarus to
Zimbabwe and China, passed or selectively applied laws against NGOs
and the media, including, in China's case, the Internet, restricting
or having a chilling effect on the exercise of fundamental freedoms of
expression, association and assembly.
Fifth, democratic elections by themselves do not ensure that
human rights will be respected, but they can put a country on the path
to reform and lay the groundwork for institutionalizing human rights
predictions. In 2005, the people of Iraq went to the polls three
times and held to democracy's course despite high levels of violence.
The men and women of Afghanistan cast their ballots countrywide in the
first free legislative elections since 1969, even as the government
struggled to expand its authority over provincial centers due to
continued insecurity and violent resistance from some quarters. The
first post-conflict elections in Liberia resulted in Africa's first
elected female head of state, marking a milestone in Libya's
transition from civil war to democracy.
Sixth and finally, progress on democratic reform and human rights
-- this is critically important -- progress is neither linear nor is
it guaranteed. As a reading of the various reports will show, some
states still have weak institutions of democratic government and they
continue to struggle. Others have yet to fully commit to the
democratic process. Democratically elected governments do not always
govern democratically once they are in power. But despite hard
realities and high obstacles, there's an increasing worldwide demand
for greater personal and political freedom and for adoption of
democratic principles of government. This growing demand derives from
the powerful human desire to live in dignity and liberty, and the
personal bravery and tenacity of men and women in every society who
serve and who sacrifice for the cause of freedom.
And now I'll be happy to take your questions. Thank you.
Q How problematic is it for the administration that you have
to use the practice of renditions to send some U.S. detainees to
countries where you know and you cite in the report there are serious
violations in detainee practice?
MR. LOWENKRON: Let me be clear we do not send detainees to
countries if we believe that they will be subjected to torture. That
has been our policy.
Q (Off mike.) I have a question about Burma. Just the last
year, the Burmese regime increased pressure and restriction on
international NGOs and the U.N. agency, including the ICRC and the --
(inaudible word). Do you have any updates or comments on that
situation?
MR. LOWENKRON: What I can tell you is that the issue of Burma is
very high on the administration's list. I testified along with
Assistant Secretary Hill last month before the House International
Relations Committee. I have just come back from a trip to China and
Vietnam, where I pressed the issue of Burma. We have had some
progress in the United Nations on Burma. We will continue to press on
Burma.
This regime is reprehensible. And the hardships, the hardships
that the Burmese people endure are unacceptable. We will work very
hard with our Asian -- ASEAN partners. We will work very hard with
countries in the region and beyond, we have put that on our agenda in
our discussions with the EU, and we will continue to press in the U.N.
to bring about change that is long overdue in Burma.
Q Mr. Secretary, any progress to report on the opening of the
Chalki Theological School of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of
Constantinople in Istanbul, Turkey, under the auspices of the
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the head of the Orthodox Church
globally? And how the Turkish government is treating the Greek
minority in Turkey from the point of human rights, if you like,
property rights, education rights, civil rights, et ceterea, et
cetera?
MR. LOWENKRON: On those specific issues, let me get back to you
on all of them.
Q Can I just follow up on the first question? I didn't
realize you'd finished your answer before you went to someone else.
When you say -- you're very clear, you don't send people to countries
if you believe they will be abused.
MR. LOWENKRON: If they will be tortured, because this is our
obligation under the CAT, the Convention Against Torture, which John
Ballinger (sp) and I will be answering questions on that report in
Geneva later this year.
Q Okay. But you are sending detainees to countries where in
the report you say there are abuses. How is it that you marry those
two things? What do you do to prevent the torture?
MR. LOWENKRON: Okay, we can send a -- okay. It is done on a
case-by-case basis. In some countries that do not have full
democratic practices, if we get solid assurances, and if there is
precedent -- and we have precedented examples that have occurred --
then we feel confident and we do it. If we do not, we do not do it.
Q Thank you.
MR. LOWENKRON: Elise?
Q Yeah, it's kind of a two-part question. On Iraq and
Afghanistan, how do you respond to charges that you're holding these
countries to a kind of lower standard in terms of human rights
violations because of the violence there?
And also, how do you respond to critics that say that the U.S.
has kind of lost its moral authority to criticize other countries
around the world because of issues of the secret prisons, because of
Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, et cetera?
MR. LOWENKRON: Okay, let me take both of those. In the first
one, we do not hold these countries to lower standards. What we do,
and what you will find in the reports on Afghanistan and on Iraq is an
assessment of the impact of the deadly insurgency on the ability of
the Iraqi government and the ability of the Afghan government in order
to build and sustain and nurture democratic institutions and
practices.
On the second one, I have to tell you that I have been in this
job for about four or five months. I've traveled already. I've been
to Moscow, I've been to -- I was with the secretary in Bahrain for the
BMENA Forum For the Future. As I mentioned, I just got back from
China and Vietnam. And in all of my stops and all of my discussions,
we continue to have vigorous debate, discussion and events of these
policies. This in no way -- this in no way has hindered me from my
job, hindered me from the efforts to advance the democracy agenda or
the human rights agenda. It's in no way hindered me from raising
issues of Burma. It did not hinder me in any way from raising the
problems of the Internet in China, or the problems of constraints on
NGO activity in Russia.
Q Back to detainees for one second. From the human rights
perspective, why in any case, even if you are assured in these
countries that have spotty records, why would not bring the detainees
back to the United States where you can guarantee that their human
rights would be respected?
MR. LOWENKRON: Well, on the issue of detainees, some of these
detainees, when they're released, they go home. It's as simple as
that. For other ones, again, all I can say is when we get the
assurances, we send them back.
Q But I'm asking why you don't bring them to the United
States since you can guarantee that their human rights will be
respected in the United States.
MR. LOWENKRON: If we get the guarantees that they will not be
mistreated, they go home.
Q Sir, from the Middle East. We didn't see yet the report in
detail, but could you brief us from your perspective -- there is this
moral issue that Michaelean (sp) just posed right now, but also
overall, the Arab world, the Islamic world -- what could you say on
the state this year in 2005 about the human rights issues? Are they
advancing like the United States wants them to, or are they -- on the
contrary, you see setbacks?
MR. LOWENKRON: That's a very good question, but I have to tell
you, we don't do comparative analysis within regions or between
states. What we do is we evaluate each of the countries. What I
could do is talk to you from my experience outside of the human rights
report in terms of traveling with the secretary to Bahrain, where I
saw the Forum for the Future. It was the second meeting of the forum,
and it has gone light-years from when President Bush first announced
it along with the G-8 partners and some countries in Middle East at
Sea Island in the summer of 2004.
Q Where's the source of concern primary to in the Middle East
countries? Could you name them, sir?
MR. LOWENKRON: The sources of concern?
Q Of real concern about human rights.
MR. LOWENKRON: Okay. I will list several, and then I would
refer to the hardcopy or the -- or this, which I have to learn how to
use myself. Anyway, it's obviously problems in Syria, and certainly
problems in Iran are two in particular that I would highlight.
Q (Off mike.) What about Saudi Arabia and Egypt?
MR. LOWENKRON: So what your asking me to do to is start making
comparisons between them all, which I will not do.
Q (Inaudible) --
Q This -- I'm sorry -- this administration --
MR. LOWENKRON: I'm sorry.
Q -- this administration has failed --
MR. LOWENKRON: I'm sorry. He asked the question. You want to
know about Egypt or Saudi Arabia?
Q Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
MR. LOWENKRON: Okay. All right. In terms of Saudi Arabia, the
president worked out with the king a strategic dialogue, which will --
the purpose of the strategic dialogue is to elevate all the facets of
our relationship, including the issues of reform, including the issues
of development, including the issues of exchanges. And I regret that
I will probably not be able to attend the session devoted to these
issues, which is supposed to be taking place next week in the kingdom,
because I'll be testifying on the Hill on the Human Rights Report.
In terms of Egypt, the secretary has been clear. She was clear
in her speech that she gave in Cairo. The -- what we would like to do
is to ensure that there is breathing space within the Egyptian
political system, so secular voices will also be heard, and the
secretary has made her views known, both privately and publicly about
Ayman Nour.
Q Secretary Lowenkron, Secretary-general Kofi Annan was
interviewed last night on Charlie Rose show on PBS. He's frustrated.
There needs to be an overhaul of the U.N. Now, he has stated that
most of power at the U.N. goes to the Security Council, and yet the
General Assembly is left without power.
And can you talk -- what are our values being interjected to work with
some of these rogue-style countries? We, of course -- President Bush
has talked about elections, and we've seen where the rug has been
pulled out from various countries such as in Ethiopia recently and
Belarus and so forth.
And can you also talk about the religious hatreds? Many times
you're talking only government to government, but, obviously, it's a
religious hatred that's come into some of this.
MR. LOWENKRON: Okay. On the last point, the human rights
reports do cover the issue of religious hatred because they give you a
sense of what is going on in the country itself.
In terms of the U.N., I would say the critical point now, and we
are at the end game in terms of -- can we get an effective Human
Rights Council. And let me be clear, we do not want rogue countries;
we do not want countries who are systematic, gross violators of human
rights to be seated on the Human Rights Council.
Who has not had a chance?
Q The Saudi Arabia section says there's a lack of religious
freedom. A separate report earlier -- or I guess it's last year --
talked about a complete absence of religious freedom. What is the
United States doing to try to address that? And I mean, I know you
don't make, like, year-over-year analysis, but could you give us your
view of how bad that problem is?
MR. LOWENKRON: The -- my colleague, ambassador-at-large for
Religious Affairs, John Hanford, will be going to Saudi Arabia next
week as part of this dialogue. In fact, this will be his second trip
within 30 days working with the Saudis to get them off the -- it's
called the Countries of Concern List, and the Saudis are there. So
all I can say is that we're involved in negotiations. He's got the
lead on that. But we are involved in negotiations to see how we can
push on the issue of religious freedom.
Q You touched -- briefly touched China in your statement.
Could you elaborate the major or new concerns of this administration
on China's human rights situation? And at the same time, we noticed
that the deputy secretary of the Labor Department, Steven Young (sp)
-- Steven Law, he testified in the Congressional-Executive Commission
on China two days ago. He noted that China is stepping forward to
address a broad range of human rights and worker rights, and the U.S.
has provided technical support. Can you share with us the
communication or even cooperation between U.S. and China on this
touchy issue?
MR. LOWENKRON: Well, all I can say is that I had a full range of
discussions in China several weeks ago. They covered the issues of
the Internet, and they covered the issues of the work of non-
governmental organizations. They covered the issue of individual
cases.
And they also covered what I would call kind of the systemic issues,
issues of judicial process, issues of the right of the accused, the
right of defense attorneys, the criminal procedure law. We went
through an entire list of issues with China. That's part of the
agenda, of our human rights agenda. So it goes beyond talking about
an individual case or two.
Q Follow-up on China? (Off mike) -- problem you list today
in your China report published today is that denial of the right to
change the government. Then you also acknowledged about Chinese law
the law does not provide citizens with the right to change their
government peacefully and citizens cannot freely choose or change the
laws and officials that govern them.
MR. LOWENKRON: Mm-hmm.
Q So on this kind of issue, which, obviously, you put very
high priority on them, what are you doing, trying to convince the
Beijing government, or trying to do on this front?
MR. LOWENKRON: No. When I -- when I went to Beijing and had my
discussions with the Chinese I focused on roughly those half-dozen or
dozen issues, which I think we can help to open up a process and help
to provide fundamental rights to all Chinese.
Way in the back, there.
Q (Off mike.) Is there anything new or surprising in the
report this year over last year?
MR. LOWENKRON: It'd be hard to answer in one broad -- one broad
--
Q Or for any country in particular -- anything. I mean,
because a lot of it's just -- it's -- every year it seems the same.
MR. LOWENKRON: Pardon? (Laughter.)
Q I mean, every year the language seems very similar, and
trying to (weed ?) out what's new, you know --
MR. LOWENKRON: This is -- this is my first year.
Several things are new. I mean, I would point to Liberia as a
good -- as a good story. I would point to Sudan as a mixed story,
because we finally had the end of a 20-plus-year crisis. But then, of
course, we had the issue of genocide in Sudan. I think the issue of
the Internet is something that's going to be highlighted -- much
. The issue of NGOs, because we're starting to see this appear,
that pop up all over the globe.
So it's not a problem in Russia of NGOs. You find it in Central
Asia, Caucasus, in China, you find it in terms of Sumate in Venezuela,
so it's spreading. So these are kind of warning signs about where we
need to focus our efforts.
Who hasn't had a chance?
Q You have been saying that there are different types of
countries according to the violations of human rights, yeah? Like,
for the worse countries like North Korea or Burma, other countries
that have --
MR. LOWENKRON: These are illustrations. Correct.
Q Yeah. Yeah. Which kind of group of countries would you
put Cuba on as concerning the human rights violations, and also, how
do you feel about the new situation of the Human Rights Council in the
United Nations?
MR. LOWENKRON: Okay. In terms of the Human Rights Council in
the U.N., I've already -- I've already discussed that. But in fact,
what -- our goal is still to ensure a Human Rights Council that is
effective, that -- and secondly that does not -- does not include the
most egregious violators of human rights. Those two things are very
important.
In terms of where I would put Cuba, I would ask you, read the
report and make the judgment for yourself. What I can tell you about
Cuba is that there are over 300 political prisoners still there. Many
of the ones that were snared in the crackdown several years ago still
remain behind bars. And it is one of the most oppressive regimes.
Who has not -- ?
Q I would like to add a question to that: the southeastern
side of Cuba, Guantanamo Bay.
Secretary Rice mentioned the United Nations Convention on Human
Rights. And according to the U.N., Guantanamo Bay, or Camp Delta, is
a human rights violation. How do you respond to the claim that it's a
double standard on the side of the U.S.?
MR. LOWENKRON: Well, in terms of that report, we had offered --
we had offered to provide the rapporteurs the same access of the
members of Congress and over a thousand journalists, both domestic and
foreign. As you know, Guantanamo is a prisoner camp under the rules
of humanitarian law, the law of war. We are disappointed that the
report that was issued did not even -- the people that wrote the
report did not even bother to interview doctors. They based their
entire report on discussions with defense attorneys.
Now, let's leave that aside.
In the issue of double standards, as I said before, in all of my
discussions and all the work that I do, if somebody wants to talk to
me about Guantanamo or for that matter talk to me about Abu Ghraib or
talk to me about detainees, I say fine, and I'm willing to discuss
that with them because the purpose of a dialogue is everybody brings
everything to the table. That's what I've done overseas in my
discussions.
At the end of the day, let me tell you something that is the
ultimate strength, whether I'm standing here or my successor will
stand here, and that is unlike so many of these other countries, what
is it that we have in the United States? We have a robust and
vigorous press that reports on these issues. We have a Congress that
is elected by the people, and a Congress that legislates such issues
as the McCain Amendment. We have a independent judiciary, it goes all
the way up to the Supreme Court, that passes laws on these issues. We
have all of these self-corrective mechanisms that are built in,
whether in times of peace, or especially in times of war.
Q Around 60 congressmen have asked the State Department do
not certificate (sic) Colombia because of violation of human rights
from the army side and also because of violation of human rights from
the paramilitaries that are going on in the peace process. How can we
explain that the State Department keeps saying that Colombia is doing
better in human rights?
MR. LOWENKRON: Well, I would refer you to the report in terms of
the demobilization efforts that are under way. And let me say at the
outset, they're not finished with that. We still want to see .
We hope that they will be done by March.
The letter also highlights certain units that were particularly
egregious human rights violators, and we have special provisions in
which we're not going to deal with those units. We single those out.
So all I can say is that this is an ongoing process in terms of
certification with the Hill.
Q What criteria of objectivity you employ in preparing these
reports since you feel -- one feels that there is a positive brush
when it comes to countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, and a negative
one when it comes to Iran and Sudan, and Israel is not mentioned at
all -- things like that. So what are the criteria for objectivity in
your reports?
MR. LOWENKRON: First of all, I would ask you to look at the
report. This year -- we used to have one sentence that kind of tried
to capture what the report was all about. This year what we did was,
we -- we got rid of the sentence, which we found was a little bit too
arbitrary. It was hard to capture 12 months of a country.
So we have a list of bullets, a list of key items. And you will
find criticisms of virtually -- of every country. The criteria that
we used -- this is -- the standard -- not the standards, the
categories are set. These are the same categories that have been
mandated year in, year out. We now add a few . For example,
we're going to talk -- we talk about the Internet. We talk
about NGOs.
I do not want to leave you with the impression that everything is
all fine and well in Iraq. That is not the case. If you read the
report, you will find out of -- the specific areas where we still need
to see serious work to be done. It's the same with Afghanistan. It's
across the board.
Now let me hasten to add that we do not sit among ourselves and
decide "This is in" or "This is out." We rely on a tremendous amount
of input from the media overseas, from nongovernmental organizations,
from academics, from jurists.
When there are questions, we go back and we say, "What is the
evidence?" We want to ensure that we do not make these blanket
statements in the report as not -- that aren't backed up.
Q Yes, sir, about the Middle East -- again, we didn't see the
report yet. What grade would you give the Palestinian Authority?
They have elections. We saw the results. What's your evaluation here
this year?
MR. LOWENKRON: The only time I give grades is when I teach part-
time America foreign policy. (Laughter.) I no longer -- and I no
longer do that.
Q I mean, what's your real evaluation? It's a major event in
the Middle East to see those elections held the way they were held.
MR. LOWENKRON: It is a major event, absolutely. But as the
secretary put it, you can't have one leg in terrorism and one hand --
and one leg in governance. The way I've always put it, you can't do
the ballot Monday, Wednesday, Friday and bullets Tuesday, Thursday,
Saturday. So there's some fundamental decisions that Hamas will have
to take.
Who has not had a chance to ask a question? The gentleman that
you pointed to. Okay.
Q Your last report and also the report in the interim on
religious freedom focused in Israel much than previous reports
had on non-Arab minorities, like the Christians among the Russian
immigrant population, the workers who come in from countries like the
Philippines and Thailand. Is that a -- is that going to be a new
emphasis for you? I haven't read this year's Israel report. Is that
something that you're looking at intensely?
MR. LOWENKRON: I'll get back to you on that. I mean, it's not
something that was kind of the centerpiece of the report, but I'd be
happy to follow up on that.
Did you have a question before?
Q No, I haven't.
MR. LOWENKRON: This is it. You're up.
Q Okay. What is your reading of the situation in Cambodia
and then broadly in Southeast Asia? Can you point to any sort of
positive developments? I mean, obviously Burma is not one and --
MR. LOWENKRON: Well, I think Cambodia was heading in the right
direction and then it slipped back. I think Assistant Secretary Hill
had a good trip out there earlier this year, and we've seen some
progress.
I think in the case of Vietnam, what you have is a -- I was
there, as I said, several weeks ago -- you have a country that wants
to work on elevating the relationship, as the prime minister and
President Bush agreed to last July.
We made it clear that elevating that relationship also included
progress on human rights. We had suspended a dialogue -- my
predecessor had suspended a dialogue with the Vietnamese in 2002
because it was just -- you know, its invective and accusations, and it
was not terribly productive, not productive at all.
And I had a very good session with the Vietnamese. It doesn't
mean that all the issues have now been resolved but we're beginning.
I'm required by law as a result of the suspension of the talks in
2002 -- I'm required by law to provide a report to the Congress -- I
believe within 60 days, and I probably will be doing it by the end of
the month.
Q On Iran, what is the U.S. doing to pressure Iran, since we
don't have direct contact with them? And is there any special thought
-- any thought given to a special envoy to -- for Iran as we do in
North Korea?
MR. LOWENKRON: What I will I do is I will answer the first
question by referring you to the testimony today of Undersecretary
Burns and Undersecretary Joseph.
Q We're missing it to be here with you. (Soft laughter.)
MR. LOWENKRON: I'm -- I'm honored, I really am. (Chuckles.)
In terms of the envoy, there's no -- we are not -- I do not
envision that there's going to be a special envoy along the lines of
what we have for Korea.
Q Well, if not, how can we put effective pressure on them to
change their ways other than rhetoric?
MR. LOWENKRON: Let me -- I made a suggestion at one point when
somebody had suggested an envoy for another country. And I said, "You
know, it would make my life a lot easier if you could appoint about
190 envoys, and I can go home and I can come in about once every three
months and have a town meeting." So --
The secretary has asked me -- I mean, this is my role as the
assistant secretary, working with Undersecretary Dobriansky and with
the NSA.
Go ahead.
Q (Off mike) -- speaking, do you see the human rights
situation in China -- has it deteriorated from last year? Or has it
improved? And your discussions with the Chinese authorities -- are
they within the ambit of the dialogue that the U.S. has with China,
which has started with those talks?
MR. LOWENKRON: Are they within the ambit of the dialogue?
Q Yeah.
MR. LOWENKRON: What we have done is -- I went to China to go
over a whole host of human rights issues before the visit of President
Hu Jintao. And then our hope is that after that visit, we can then
sit down and hammer out a new framework for a human rights dialogue
with the Chinese.
Several years ago, we laid out a series of conditions, and the
Chinese had met -- at the end of the day, they finally met the eight
conditions.
So now we have a blank piece of paper, and on the blank piece of
paper, we're going to debate and discuss what we want to put down in
terms of the human rights dialogue.
Q Has the situation improved from last year?
MR. LOWENKRON: It depends on what areas.
Q And what about the dialogue between U.S. and China? It has
been scrapped, right?
MR. LOWENKRON: No, no, no, no. As I said, I mean, I went to
China to talk about these issues. And our hope is that making
progress on these issues, we will have a new set of issues for human
rights dialogue with China.
One .
Q (Off mike) -- last year --
MR. LOWENKRON: Pardon?
Q President Bush gave him a list of human rights issues --
(off mike) -- concerns. Have any of those issues on that list been --
you have seen any results? Or are you just going to Beijing and give
them another list?
MR. LOWENKRON: We are working on the individual cases in that
list as we speak.
Q Any results? You don't go to Beijing just for talks to --
MR. LOWENKRON: No, no. Thank you for saying that.
You know, I am not the official global tourist of the State
Department. (Laughter.) All of our discussions I start by saying,
"These have to be results-based." So, no, we are working those
individual cases.
Thank you very much.
[ Back To TMCnet.com's Homepage ]
|
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Activate Email 
TMCnet LOGIN
