The Release of the State Department's 2005 Annual Report on Human Rights

MODERATOR: Good afternoon and welcome to the Foreign Press Center. This afternoon we have a briefing by the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Barry Lowenkron, who will be talking about the 2005 Annual Report on Human Rights. He'll start with a short statement and then be happy to take your questions from here in Washington and our colleagues up in New York as well.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: Thank you. Let me say a few words about the production of the reports and -- am I loud? I have to get to this new technology as opposed to two volumes of paper. I want to talk a little bit about the report itself and then make some brief observations about the content of the report before we go to Q and A.

As you all 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 now posted on the website. They were posted after my morning briefing at the State Department. 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 cooperation action, not only with other governments but with organizations and individuals seeking to end human rights abuses and to strengthen the capacity of other nations and to protect the fundamental rights of all.

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, from multilateral institutions as well as from indigenous and international nongovernmental organizations and groups, academics, jurists and the media. I owe special thanks to Nadia Tongour, who's with me this afternoon; Roy Potts, her deputy and our dedicated team in the Office of Country Reports within my own bureau who have spent a better part of the past year in working to produce this report. Many others in my bureau and throughout the Department of State also labored long and hard to ensure that the reports meet the high standards of accuracy and objectivity.

The 196 reports include every member country of the United Nations, 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 international debate. Each country reports speaks for itself. I'd like however to make six cross-cutting observations based on the report as a whole before we move onto Qs and As.

First, countries in which power is concentrated in the hands of unaccountable rulers tend to be the world's most systematic human rights violators and these states ranged 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 to the international community, with Iran being 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 the case with 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 and 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 in some quarters. The first post-conflict elections in Liberia resulted in Africa's first elected female head of state, marking a milestone in Liberia's transition from civil war to democracy.

Sixth and finally, progress on democratic reform and human rights 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 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 is an increasing worldwide demand for greater personal and political freedom and for the 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 whom not only serve but sacrifice for the cause of freedom. Thank you. I'll be happy to take your questions now.

MODERATOR: Right here in the third row. Again, state your name and your organization, please.

QUESTION: Jesus Esquivel from Proceso magazine, Mexico. I was listening to your briefing a couple of hours ago and it took me by surprise when you were asked about -- to respond to the accusation that in the U.S. human rights violations, in the case of the Guantanomo Bay prisoners especially, you said they only asked their lawyers for the prisoners -- or never asked the doctors. It seems to me that the U.S. is trying to tell everybody in the world don't ask anything about human rights in the U.S. because we always respect the human rights and we are the right guys; you are on the wrong side. Why is that -- you mean, everybody is wrong except you guys?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: I respectfully have to disagree with your assessment. This morning, what I talked about is a specific report from a UN special rapporteur. What I have made clear, not only today, but in all my discussions, is the issue of Guantanamo and the issue of American behavior is something that we will debate, we have debated and we will continue to debate.

The fact of the matter is that the Human Rights Report is not the vehicle to -- for discussion or debate about American policies. I will be going to Geneva later this year with our State Department Counsel John Bellinger to answer questions about a Convention Against Torture report, as well as our obligations under the International Covenant of Political and Civil Rights. In addition, as I have said, when I have traveled and I have engaged in human rights dialogues with my counterparts in Asia, in Europe, and the Middle East, they, of course, have a right to bring to the table any and all of their concerns and let me assure you that they do.

So again, these are not issues for this – for the Human Rights report, which is mandated to talk about other countries, not about our own country.

QUESTION: A follow-up (inaudible). In general, the human rights situations in the U.S. -- if you try to judge other countries, you have to accept your faults. Isn’t that right?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: I will never stand before you or anybody else, and I never have and my predecessors never have and my successors never will, and say that the United States never makes mistakes. There is not one single country on the face of the earth that can or will ever claim to have a perfect record. It simply does not exist.

What we have is an open society and an open debate. We have a vigorous press. We have a Congress that is elected by the people, that is an equal branch of government and that has been very strong in terms of its views on Guantanamo and all the issues surrounding the global war on terror, an example being the McCain Amendment. We have an independent Judiciary, all the way to the Supreme Court. We have a series of self-corrective mechanisms and again, I will never claim something which can not exist in any country.

MODERATOR: We’ll go to Bangladesh here.

QUESTION: My name is Arshad Mahmud and I represent the Prothom Alo newspaper in Bangladesh. The same -- I just want to follow up on that. Recently, the Pentagon released the names of the detainees in Guantanomo and two names came up -- there are many and there seemed to be (inaudible) and they have been victims of mistaken identity. One is a former deputy foreign minister of Afghanistan and the other is the governor of one of the provinces of (inaudible).

And according to your own Pentagon sort of account, it looks like, according to the newspaper reports, they are innocent people and they are being held in (inaudible) for four years. Don't you consider it a human rights violation?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: I am going to defer to my Pentagon colleagues to deal with that, but I will have to say, again, this is a report that does not deal with Guantanamo. These are the country reports on human rights.

QUESTION: No, but why the United States should not include in this whole thing? I mean, we don't understand this thing.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: Because again, the reports, which we have been producing for over 30 years are reports on other nations. You would expect us to file a report on ourselves? Let -- other countries are free to do so. Some countries have. And let us continue to have a vigorous debate not only on your question, but on all the questions surrounding our policies since 9/11. We don't shy away from them, but this is not the purpose of this specific report.

MODERATOR: We'll go to the second row here.

QUESTION: Antonieta Cadiz, El Mercurio, Chile, and just two questions about Chile in particular. The report mentioned problems in human rights in Chile like domestic violence against women, child labor. Which is the most serious issue according to the report or the vision of the Department of State? And also, in contrast to other countries in the region, how does the Department of State see the human rights situation in Chile?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: Let me answer that in three points. Point number one is that we don't compare countries against one another and we don't compare regions against one another. The second point is that Chile has a very good human rights record and the Secretary had a very, very good trip when she went to Santiago as part of the community of democracies, of democracies last year.

My third point is that in the context of what are the issues that we put more emphasis on, it is the nature of these reports. There are specific areas in the report and we work with our embassies and NGOs and others to fill in the information on all this. We don't say that this section takes precedent over others. But again, at the end of the day, I can tell you that Chile's report is very good.

QUESTION: Jose Lopez of the Mexican news agency. In your assessment of the case of Mexico, you use words such as a marked increase in violence in the border, a deeply entrenched culture of impunity and corruption in the country. I mean, in those cases where you say that no developments were made in the last year, you say that none are expected.

Since I don't want to put words in your mouth, what's the assessment of the situation in Mexico? Has it remained the same, has it improved, has it not improved enough, or has it worsened in the last year?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: I'm not sure that I would say that it's worsened. Let me just take a peek here. No, I think it's -- I wrote some general notes down on some of the countries. I think that at the -- it's generally good at the federal level. I mean, the human rights performance is good at the federal level, but when you go down from federal to state and from state to local, that's where the human rights climate begins to deteriorate. So again, we highlight that in the report, so that's why we don't give kind of an overall grade on Mexico. But again, at the federal level, it is better. As you go down into a more local level, that's when problems pop up.

MODERATOR: Just wait for the --

QUESTION: Olga Bakova, Slovak Radio. I would like to ask --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: I'm sorry, from where? I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Olga Bakova, Slovak Radio from Slovakia. I would like to ask you two questions. First of all, about my country, I -- basically covering this annual reports for four years and it looks like we have the same problem, widespread discrimination against (inaudible), violence against women, trafficking, corruption in -- you know, judiciary and et cetera, et cetera. So, what's the status? Is it improving or is it status quo or what is your message towards Slovak Government? That's a question and then I have a big question.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: You have a big one depending how I answer the first one?

(Laughter.)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: You want to give me both?

QUESTION: Yes. You mentioned in this report countries which are torturing in prisons, like Egypt, for example, and on the other hand, you are sending prisoners for the interrogation to these countries. Would you continue in this practice or you will reconsider because it's like -- it raises many questions and you are familiar with this question.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: Right. Okay. On the first question, yes, these problems persist in Slovakia, but again, you're not going to find -- I'm hard pressed to find many cases in which you're going to go from one year to the next and say, "you've gone from this, all the way to there," unless you have some really fundamental revolutionary changes. There are some good elements in the report, but the report is mixed, as you highlight. Well, the message is that these are still areas that are problematic in Slovakia. But again, if you look at other countries as well, it's the same thing. So what we do is we try to take, in effect, an assessment which ends as a snapshot at the end of every calendar year and then we write our report.

In terms of the second issue, there's a matter of policy. We do not send -- we will not send detainees back if we believe that they have a reasonable chance of being tortured. We need to have assurances. Since I've been in this position for about four or five months now, I have been involved in this issue and again, unless there are assurances, then as a matter of policy we don't do it. If we do it, we violate -- we violate the Convention Against Terror; it's a clear violation.

QUESTION: My name is Young Tang with People's Daily from China. My first question is, why not include America in this annual report? I think it's better to criticize somebody else -- it's better to do some self-criticizing if you want to criticize somebody else it's better for them.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: You know, my predecessor actually was told that the Chinese Government was preparing a report on the U.S. human rights practices. So I would invite any and all countries to do that. Would you expect us to do our own report on ourselves? Is it not better for other countries to (inaudible) if they so desire to do so and write a report on the United States? Again the fact of matter is I was in Beijing several weeks ago and I was prepared to address all of these issues. I was in Hanoi. I was in Bahrain with the Secretary. I was in Moscow. All of my meetings, when there are issues about the U.S. human rights performance, what I say is bring it to the table; that's part of a debate. We don't hide it. But again, when you look at this report, we do not write a report on ourselves in this country’s Human Rights Report. We haven't for over 30 years. We can't.

QUESTION: My next question is a number of developed countries like Canada, Finland and France are included in the 2005 report. I'm wondering, maybe I think some countries here -- you mentioned maybe they respect the human rights more than the U.S. Why do you include some allies in this report?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: It's very simple. It started out in the 1970s as a report on countries in which the United States provides foreign assistance and then it grew into the Congress saying, "We would like an assessment of the human rights practices in every single country." That's why they're there. I mean, we have people in the field that write human rights reports -- you mentioned Mexico, you mentioned Slovakia. We have them writing about Norway. We have them writing about every single country around. It is a comprehensive review of every single country in the world.

QUESTION: My last question is what's the use of this report? I mean, will this report be taken into consideration when you are making policies towards some specific countries?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: The use of the report is twofold. I think, one is that it's a good reference guide. But secondly, it also does factor into the overall foreign policy. And in particular, given the President's second inaugural, and given the Secretary of State's conviction that we need to mainstream the support of human rights and democracy promotion in our foreign policy, these reports do provide a valuable tool.

QUESTION: Thank you. Sonia Schott with Radio Valera in Venezuela. Just to follow-up the last question. It seems to me that this report, or those reports, are more reactive than proactive. What kind of solutions are they bringing toward those problems? Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: By law, what we do is we take a look at the last year; we always take a look at the last year. That doesn't mean when the report is done we don't talk about these issues. We have a very rigorous dialogue with friends and allies and we talk privately and publicly about our concerns.

You mention the case of Venezuela -- we talk about Summate. We talk about the disturbing developments in Venezuela. The purpose of this report is to say what has happened in the last year, which again serves as a good reference point and certainly a good reference point for the Congress as well.

QUESTION: My name is Talha Gibriel from Asharq Alawsat. You mention the problem of Darfur in this report. Do you think still there is a genocide in Darfur -- this is the first question. The second question (inaudible) on the attitude of the Israel Government -- they are talking always about tribal conflict in the region. Do you accept this attitude of the Israel Government or do you understand what they are saying about this conflict? Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: (Inaudible) several points, first, the Secretary of State made it clear several weeks that genocide continues to be practiced in Darfur, number one. Number two, the situation in Sudan -- I think if you take a look at the last year you have two stories. You have the story of bringing to an end the violent, bloody 22-year conflict that was in Sudan. If I may speak personally, this was a conflict that began when I was in the State Department as a member of the policy planning staff in the mid-1980s, so I was heartened by the agreement.

And that the second story then is you cannot have a fundamental peace between north and south until you solve the situation in Darfur. We have -- the Secretary has spoken out on it, the President, the Deputy Secretary Zoellick has taken a number of trips to the region. What we are trying is to bolster the efforts on the part of the African Union, to see what the United Nations can do to bolster the African Union effort. Ultimately, we not only need our peacekeepers, but ultimately we need a political solution for Darfur.

MODERATOR: Do you have a question?

QUESTION: I have another follow-up question on your -- what you said about that this is a good reference point for Congress. Again, we have been covering this thing for years, you know. And it looks like what is the real purpose in the sense that if you want to send a message to the countries who are violating human rights that, okay, if you are dependent on our aid there will be a cut or, you know, we will punish you this way and we don't accept this kind of (inaudible). Can you give us any example of the kind of stuff that I just said? That on the basis of your record, we are going to cut your aid or how do you foresee that this is going to have an impact?

It looks like the worst violators they're big friends of the United States, like Egypt and many countries in the Middle East who really don't care about that. I mean, how do you respond to this kind of --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: Well, let me say I disagree. I do not believe the worst violators are the friends of the United States, not when I see over 50 million people in Burma, not when I see North Korea, not when I see developments in Iran, not when I see Belarus and so forth. I cannot go into specifics in terms of how we conduct our day-to-day diplomacy, except to tell you -- maybe reassure you, if you want reassurance -- but certainly to tell you that the issue of promotion of human rights and democratic practices is something that does play into our foreign policy decision making. It does at the State Department, it does at the interagency process and it does at the White House.

MODERATOR: Any more?

QUESTION: As I hear this questions it's like our journalists has not the issue of their countries but they're asking you about human rights in America and human rights -- and what Americans are doing all over the world. So I would like to ask you if it is hard for you this year and if it was hard for you last year to issue this report and go in front of everybody and report about everything after Guantanomo and Abu Ghraib? What is your situation?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY LOWENKRON: That's an excellent question. I thought long and hard about that when I took this job. I was confirmed last fall. And I started doing some travels and I traveled with the Secretary to Bahrain. I mentioned I've been to Moscow. I've been to Hanoi to revive our human rights bylaws with the Vietnamese. I've been to China and I've met with foreign diplomats here, nongovernmental organizations as well as abroad. I have to say no. And the reason no is because, look, warts and all, problems and all, when I travel, I sit down, as do my colleagues, and we discuss this. I was asked about Abu Ghraib in Vietnam. What does one say about Abu Ghraib and what the President has said and what we all have said it is reprehensible and it is inexcusable and indefensible. And we can talk about -- we can talk about the various provisions of Guantanomo. We can talk about (inaudible) -- talk about these issues and I do. But at the end of the day, I still feel it is important to continue to have these kinds of human rights dialogue, results-based dialogues to press on democratic promotion. Why? Because I think there is a voice out there. I think there are people out there that still rely on us. I think there are still people out there, there are governments out there, there are organizations out there that call me every day and ask what are doing, for example, about Burma. Or what are you doing about nongovernmental organizations crackdowns in Russia? And there's still work to be done.

I would like more countries to do this kind of work along with us. I don't travel to preach and I don't preach. I travel to discuss. I travel to answer questions about my own record -- about the own record of the United States -- and I travel because I believe we need to do better in terms of advancing human rights and democracy.

MODERATOR: Any other questions?