2:15 P.M. EST
Real Audio of Briefing
MR. GUSS: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome once again to the Washington Foreign Press Center, and welcome to our colleagues in the New York Foreign Press Center. We are here today to introduce Gretchen Birkle, who is Senior Coordinator from the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor in the Department of State. Ms. Birkle will speak about today's rollout of the 2004 Human Rights Report, the country reports for human rights practices.
Please turn your cell phones off now. We will begin with a statement by Ms. Birkle and then she will be happy to take your questions. I will ask you to wait until I recognize you and the microphone comes to you, and please identify yourself by name, by news organization and by country.
Ms. Birkle is Senior Coordinator in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. She's had that job since June of 2004, working primarily with the country reports and the Asylum Office and the Office for the Promotion of Human Rights and Democracy, and has also taken the lead for the Bureau on issues related to human rights violations in Darfur, Sudan.
Prior to joining the Bureau, she worked for more than five years at the International Republican Institute. She worked actively in the field of human rights, serving as Deputy Director of its Eurasia Division and managing its activities in nine countries of the former Soviet Union.
She is a graduate of Pennsylvania State University in Political Science and has a Masters degree in International Relations, with a specialization in Soviet studies, from Johns Hopkins University's Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. She speaks Russian and has carried out extensive field work in Belarus and Ukraine.
Ms. Birkle.
MS. BIRKLE: Thank you. I'm pleased to be here today to discuss the release of the State Department's Country Reports for Human Rights Practices for 2004. This is our 28th edition of the report, which covers 196 countries, ranging from the stoutest defenders of human rights to the worst violators of human dignity. The reports in this volume will be used for a variety of purposes -- as a resource for shaping policy, conducting diplomacy and making assistance training and resource allocations.
We do not report on our own country but leave that to others and we welcome and cooperate in those endeavors. The same type of scrutiny we bring to bear here, we cooperate with for our own country. We are convinced that all countries benefit from continuous openness to improvement. Our embassies and Washington staff network with human rights organization and advocates from every corner of the globe to identify, investigate and verify data in order to produce these reports. I'd like to thank personally Nadia Tongour and LeRoy Potts from our Office of Country Reports and Asylum for taking the lead on this effort and also for the dedicated staff, many of whom are gathered here today.
This information gathering can be hazardous, and U.S. embassy officers regularly go to great lengths under trying and sometimes dangerous conditions to investigate reports of human rights abuse, to monitor elections and to come to the aid of individuals at risk, such as political dissidents and human rights defenders whose rights are threatened by their government. As our officers worked on these reports, they drew on their own sources of information. These included reports by other human rights organizations, by foreign governments and officials, and documentation from the United Nations and regional organizations and institutions and from experts in academia and the media.
The country reports on human rights practices cover internationally recognized individual, civil, political and worker rights as set forth in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Some trends that you'll see in the report this year are a dramatic shift in the world's landscape regarding elections. The report outlines elections in Afghanistan, the occupied territories, will cover a bit about Iraq and then Ukraine. Behind the massive detail in these 196 reports, we also discuss some serious problems. A case in point is Sudan.
New this year in the reports is an increased focus on government corruption, anti-Semitism and discrimination against persons with disabilities. Before we get to questions on the report, I also want to remind you that in one month, we'll be releasing a second edition; whereas this report details in great depth violations of human rights around the world, our follow-on report, which is called Supporting Human Rights and Democracy, discusses the U.S. action to work with governments and countries and NGOs to prevent some of these abuses.
I would also like to note that this year's report is somewhat shorter in length. We've reduced it by about five percent. We're having a regular process of reviewing each report individually to make them fresher, more concise and to make sure that all of our data is as current as possible. We're not able to bring you disks today, which we usually do, but we have posted the report on the website. So that's available for you immediately.
And with that brief introduction, I'd be happy to take your questions.
MR.GUSS: Yes, please, identify yourself.
QUESTION: Thank you. Vladimir Kara-Murza, RTV1, Russia.
What would you say are the main concerns of the State Department with regard to Russia, the human rights situation there?
And you mentioned that this report is a resource for policy and diplomacy. Can you mention any concrete steps that can follow such reports and will those issues be taken up, for example, with the Russian Government in any meaningful way?
MS. BIRKLE: Thank you. I do think the report on Russia speaks volumes for itself. We noticed backsliding in several areas. What I want to say about Russia is the recent statement that both Presidents made recently regarding the importance to focus on improving the situation for democracy in Russia. And President Putin outlined that he categorized Russian democracy as equal to that of democracy you see in Europe. And those -- I'm paraphrasing him from his press conference here -- but that is the kind of progress we would like to see. We use these reports in all of our bilateral discussions. They're used as a diplomacy tool down to the lowest levels to the highest levels.
QUESTION: Good afternoon. Olga Bakova, Slovak Radio.
I've been covering these reports since 2001, and I see basically the same problems, racially motivated crimes, Roma discrimination, trafficking in women, corruption in judiciary system, and so on and so forth. So do you see any progress or is it like a status quo and be, maybe, what is according to you main problem of Slovakia? Thank you very much.
MS. BIRKLE: We know the government is very engaged on working to solve several of those problems, particularly the issue of the Roma, and there is lot of effort on that end. We ourselves are very forthright in discussing those issues with the government.
MR. GUSS: All right. Let's take your question first and then come back.
QUESTION: Thank you. This is Chong Hyun Kim, working for Joong Ang Ilbo in Korea.
As you know, North Korea's human rights abuse situation has not improved. And I -- as far as I know, the U.S. Government and the South Korean Government have been talking about getting North Korean refugees into United States. So would you elaborate on that?
My question is: Do you think that North Korean refugees will be admitted to the United States within this year? And how many North Korean refuges do you think the United States will allow to come? Thank you.
MS. BIRKLE: I don't know the statistics for the refugee situation. What I would like to emphasize is the recently passed North Korean Human Rights Act legislation, which details this, and in fact, there's a report that's just released on the refugee situation and I would refer you to that. I think it's going to be on the State Department website very soon, and it will highlight many of those issues in great detail.
QUESTION: Thank you. Betty Brannan, from La Prensa of Panama.
For the past couple of years, the Panamanian Government has been responding to this report with two objections: One, they say it's an interference of the United States into Panama's internal affairs, and number two, they say that the report is too general to be useful when you say things like there's corruption in the Panamanian judiciary. No specific cases of corruption are cited. How do you respond? How does the U.S. Government respond to those criticisms?
MS. BIRKLE: We don't see these as an injection of U.S. policy into a foreign government. We're mandated by Congress to do this reports but it is also a useful tool for us. It is not something we shy away from doing. It really provides us a detailed set of facts from which to engage foreign governments.
So I think we really -- we prefer to take it from that angle. In general, I think what I would like to see is that we don't use these holding sentences, as we call them, that characterize specific assessments of the country. I think the news we need to focus on is the human rights abuses outlined in the report.
QUESTION: Pavel Vanichkin, TASS, from Russia.
I have two questions, if I may: first, the general one, and the second, specific. Mr. Kozak told us when he briefed this morning at the State Department that this report shouldn't be regarded as a judgment tool but it would be used as political tool. Could you explain what does it mean, not the judgment but the political tool, what's the difference?
And let me go back swiftly to Russia. It struck me in the introduction that the report describes the Chechen conflict, the conflict in Chechnya, as basically, as a balance conflict, where the two sides share the same responsibility. For example, it depicts the bombing of Moscow subway as an event in the expanding conflict in the north Caucus; you don't use the word terrorism.
As far as I remember, the White House denounced this as a terrorist attack and you don't use the term -- the word Chechen terrorists -- Chechen rebels -- no word “terrorists”. Does the shift in terminology -- can I apply from this shift of terminology that there is some kind of political shift in the State Department approach to the Chechen conflict?
Thank you.
MS. BIRKLE: For your latter question first, I would say no. I think that's just the phraseology we use in the report. To your first question, I don't want to put words in Ambassador Kozak's mouth. I think he was probably referring to the way that we can use these reports, as I mentioned earlier, as a tool for diplomacy, to engage governments and to work with governments.
QUESTION: Betty Lin of the World Journal, Taiwan.
Could you elaborate on China? And are you still considering introducing resolutions on China at a UN convention on human rights this year, and if you do, when are you going to make a decision on that?
MS. BIRKLE: We have renewed discussions with China -- I wouldn't call them negotiations -- renewed discussions starting in November. The Chinese are aware of our concerns and specific issues. We've made it very straightforward, the benchmarks and objective items that can be achieved. We have not made final decision about introducing a resolution this year in Geneva. I don't think we've put a timeline on it.
QUESTION: My name is JY Yoo, with Munhwa Broadcasting Company from Korea.
According to the report that the North Korean women are sold to China and Laos and Burma, could you elaborate on those situations? And you need Chinese Government's cooperation for these six-party talks to resolve nuclear issues, and yet you are criticizing China Government for the lack of human rights. Do you see any conflict between the two?
MS. BIRKLE: The latter part, no, there's no conflict, and often such types of negotiations give us the opportunity, the opening, the space, if you will, to discuss human rights situations in relevant countries. For the earlier part of your question, I refer back to the report on that. Obviously, those are appalling statistics, and, you know, we would just really like to see practices like that cease and desist, but those are covered in detail in the report.
QUESTION: Miroslaw Konvalina, Czech Public Radio, Czech Republic.
I'd like to ask about my country and how we were characterized in the development in the Czech Republic. What are the main issues?
MS. BIRKLE: I'm going to look at my cheat sheet to see what we did say about the Czech Republic because it is not one that I reviewed personally – the government generally respected human rights, however, there were some problems in some areas, so with that I have to refer you back to the report. Okay.
QUESTION: Yes. Concerning Egypt. That's Tariq Rashid from Middle East News Agency.
Have you spotted any developments in human rights in Egypt? And shifting to another area: Saudi Arabia. Have you spotted any upgrading or any developments in the human rights situation there?
MS. BIRKLE: There are serious human rights abuses in Egypt outlined in the report. I did want to mention and I'm glad you brought up Egypt. President Mubarak's recent statements about elections in Egypt. It's awfully soon for us to speculate on them, but we do hope to see free and fair elections there.
And I'm sorry. Could you repeat about Saudi Arabia?
QUESTION: Saudi Arabia, yes. Have you seen any developments in the human rights, whether it is becoming worse or becoming better?
MS. BIRKLE: The report outlines serious problems in Saudi Arabia. An area of concern this year was with international religious freedom, and that issue is carefully outlined in our report on international religious freedom.
QUESTION: I am Ana Baron, Clarin, Argentina.
I have two questions on procedure mainly. First of all, I wanted to know when you do the report in each country and you mention, for example, in the case of Argentina, some NGOs, for example, you say that Coordinator against Institution and Police repression has estimated that domestic security forces killed 131 persons. Do you check that or you take it like it is?
MS. BIRKLE: No, we carefully check all of the facts that we print in the report. They are double and triple checked. We have embassy personnel on the ground assigned to work very, very carefully on these reports. And we work with international NGOs as well, so there are often two or three sources for information.
QUESTION: And the second is about, as you probably know, there is now a lot of discussion of second generation human rights, like access, you know, to economic development and education. Is the State Department going to consider in the future these ones in the report?
MS. BIRKLE: That's a good question. The reports are really evolving. I mentioned three areas today that are new this year, particularly anti-Semitism and discrimination against persons with disabilities. So, over the years, you see an evolution in what needs to be covered. There's no plan specifically to discuss economic development and those terms and there are many, many other documents available that do that right now.
MR. GUSS: Olga, did you want to finish your question from before?
QUESTION: Yeah. I asked you if you have any specific about Slovakia. But maybe if you don't, I don't know how much, I mean, you have hundreds of reports. This report came after Abu Ghraib and concerns about different issues from Red Cross and different kinds of institutions -- respected institutions and organizations.
Did it anyhow influence when you were writing this report or were you cautious that, you know, we also have our own problems. Can you elaborate more about this fact? Because many people will ask me, well, yes, this is our problem, but look at Americans. So I have to somehow answer that.
MS. BIRKLE: Right. I'm glad you asked that question. I personally was appalled by the situation in Abu Ghraib, the President was, the former Secretary of State was, and the current Secretary of State is, and that is on the record. Two things, though, that I think are important to point out with the situation in Abu Ghraib. The first is, how did our country respond to that? We had an independent, transparent media, which broke the story, which covered the story in great detail. We also have a just rule of law system which is holding many of those people accountable and court-martialing them, and there are also lots of independent reports that have been done on the Abu Ghraib situation.
The second point I wanted to make is, as a result of that, would it be better if we just turned inward and stopped working with other governments and other NGOs on the human rights situation? I think the answer to that is no. We have received much information and much encouragement from folks in the field, many in your countries, who are encouraging us to continue our work. And I think that really addresses how we felt about writing these reports.
QUESTION: My name is Sam Rocha from RCN Columbia, and my question is about Columbia.
In the introduction to this report, when you read it, you can -- it feels like everything is improving in Columbia. But are there any concerns that need to be taken care of in Columbia immediately?
MS. BIRKLE: Yes, there are very serious human rights abuses in Columbia, and the report outlines many of them in great detail. I encourage you to refer directly to the report on that. What you did see was a note that the Government of Columbia is engaged now to try and improve the situation. There has been progress in a few areas. And the report was written to reflect that. Nonetheless, serious problems remain.
MR. GUSS: We have a question from our colleague Foreign press Center in New York City.
QUESTION: Adriana Sadeanu, from Capital Business Weekly, Romania.
I have read your report about Romania and I'm interested especially in the freedom of speech and press. Could you tell us please if there has been any improvement in terms of freedom of speech, compared with 2004?
MS. BIRKLE: I'm sorry. I don't know the specifics for Romania about that. I would encourage you to just, if you can, look at that report and make the comparison. I'd be happy to get back to you and look that up myself, but I just don't the specifics of that.
QUESTION: Hi, Anora Mahmudova from BBC Central Asian Service.
My question is about Uzbekistan. You say that torture is routine in prisons, but you also say that the government has taken some steps. Can you elaborate on those steps and whether it's a real improvement or was it just a very small thing that can be considered as an improvement?
MS. BIRKLE: It's an important first step, is how I would characterize it. There was much discussion with the war on terrorism about how the United States was engaging with governments in Central Asia. And I think in the instance of Uzbekistan, it's really provided us an opportunity to work directly with the government on some important issues.
And one issue we have focused on is the area of torture. We have subgranted to an NGO that is working carefully with the government to provide training and support to the Uzbek Government to make careful and important improvement in the area of how it treats its prisoners.
QUESTION: Yes, my name is Jose Carreno with El Universal, a Mexico City newspaper.
You'll excuse me, ma'am, but when I read your report on Mexico, and when I read your report on Brazil, I got a feeling that the U.S. Government is trying very hard to say the Mexican government and the Brazilian government are doing well things, are trying very hard, but the rest of the country is not paying attention to them. You're saying the Mexican Government has good intentions, but the rest of the country doesn't follow orders. They just keep doing -- the judiciary, the military, the police, et cetera, all of them are just blowing things off, but the Mexican Government is trying very nice.
MS. BIRKLE: The report does describe the very important efforts both of those governments are trying to make to solve human rights abuses in their country; nonetheless, I believe the report carefully outlines areas of important work that remain. These things don't change overnight. I don't think any of us think many of these very, very serious problems can be prevented within one year or two years, but the reports are designed to reflect efforts by the government to improve them.
MR. GUSS: Additional questions?
(No response.)
MR. GUSS: Well, then, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for being here.
Coordinator Birkle, thank you for being here and making yourself available for this briefing.
MS. BIRKLE: Thank you. My pleasure.
# # #
