2000 Human Rights Report

12:03 PM EST

     MR. PARMLY: Thank you, Peter, and thank you all for coming. It's an honor for me to introduce the Human Rights Report. It is an annual event for the Department of State and for the U.S. government, and this year we are rolling out our 25th annual Human Rights Report.

     This is an exercise that is probably poorly understood as to what we do and why we do it. We do it as an instance in truth-telling. What the report seeks to do is describe as accurately as possible -- and it can always be improved -- but as accurately as possible the situation of human rights in countries around the world; countries and territories. There are 195, of course. It runs 6,000 pages. I would have hoped that we could control the growth but, unfortunately, the Human Rights Report does seem to be a growth industry.

     We focus on countries, we focus on issues in countries, and then when we focus on an issue in a country, we look at every country on that issue. This year, for example, we devoted much more attention to the issue of trafficking -- trafficking in people, trafficking in women, children; men as well.

     Regrettably, it's a phenomenon common to all of the continents. There is no one culture or religion -- religious background that would seem to contribute more than another one to the issue of trafficking or to the phenomenon of trafficking. I would urge you all to read it, and I would ask that all of your questions be based on what the report itself says.

     I would highlight that it is not just a bad news report. Yes, we do describe deteriorating situations on the human rights and democracy front in specific countries. Yesterday the administration took the decision, for example, to do a resolution at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva next month on China. This is based on our perception of the status of human rights in China. It's not a political statement, it is a statement of fact. The report is a statement of fact.

     But as I say, it's not just a bad news story. There are good news stories in the report. I would call your attention, for example, to the Serbia story, to the Ghana story, or to the Peru story. Peru in particular gratified me because the improvements in the situation of human rights and democracy in Peru, it is a combination -- it's the result of the combination of forces: first of all, the Peruvian people, who manifested their will so firmly in the streets and in the voting booths; secondly, of regional organizations, that it's not just the United States, that it is the Organization of American States which together combined its efforts to bring about positive evolution in the situation of human rights in Peru. And the two working together, if you will, the Peruvian people and the international pressure. And then the third after the Paniagua government, which has made such significant strides in improving their human rights situation.

     I'll stop there. I look forward to your questions. I will try and answer them as briefly but as candidly as possible. Thanks.

     MODERATOR: Sir.

     Q Raghubir Goyal from India Globe and Asia Today.

     Like you said, sir, yesterday at the State Department, now you mentioned also there will be a resolution on China at the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Now, on smaller countries you can enforce by having sanctions, economic sanctions and other things, but on China, how can you -- or how are you going to enforce the human rights abuses on a continuous basis in China? And also, at the same time, any reaction from this report, and from your announcement yesterday, from China or from the Congress?

     MR. PARMLY: How do we get the Chinese to listen? I do think dialogue is important. The report itself is a statement. I would welcome the Chinese reaction. There's been a very vigorous Chinese reaction that I've seen in the press. I haven't seen that delivered through governmental channels. I wouldn't wait, however, for a positive reaction from the government of China to validate the report. I wouldn't expect that, I wouldn't look for it.

     How will that factor into our efforts to pass a resolution? As you know, the resolution has never passed. It only got through the procedural vote one year, and any other year, even the procedural vote has blocked an actual vote on the resolution. We will seek to use our diplomatic persuasion. The report itself provides a very powerful argument, a very powerful factual basis for the presentation of the resolution.

     But the report shouldn't be seen as simply a lead-in to the resolution. The report stands on -- as a testimony for the Chinese people to use, for neighbors of China, for any country that deals with China, but most importantly, for the Chinese leadership. I think they pay attention.

     MODERATOR: Sir?

     Q Yeah, Richard Finney (sp) with Radio Free Asia. The Chinese, yesterday, as part of their reaction, accused the U.S. government of hypocrisy for not including the United States in its country reports. Do you have any reaction to that?

     MR. PARMLY: Yes. I don't want to belittle that argument. It's an argument that's often made. We don't feel it is credible for us to do a report on ourselves. It would be too tendentious for us to do a report on ourselves. We certainly have no objection to others doing reports on us, and others have started doing reports on us. The Europeans, for example, do a human rights report on the United States.

     It's not as exhaustive as ours is; it's not as comprehensive an effort. But we welcome that. That is part of the dialogue. And any nation which subscribes to the international instruments, be it the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, be it membership in the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, or any of the other conventions that the U.N. system has, should not fear dialoguing with another country on the issue.

     MODERATOR: The gentleman in the gray suit.

     Q My name is Philip Tazi and I write for the Cameroon Herald.

     I've just gone over sections of the report on Cameroon and nothing really surprises me that my country has a terrible record; one that I can't be proud of. But what I want to just mention is that over and over it's -- I mean every single year the report comes out it states that the government in Cameroon has pretty much remained in power because they know how to steal elections. And I just wanted to say that I remember back in 1992 when the National Democratic Institute sponsored a team to monitor elections in Cameroon, and the -- I mean the report stated that the elections were stolen.

     What concrete measures does the United States, I would say, have to encourage much smaller countries which usually don't appear on the radar screens like -- I mean like China. What measures does the United States have in place to encourage the democratic process in smaller countries like Cameroon?

     MR. PARMLY: Thank you for your question. It's an excellent question.

     The tools that one has at one's disposal to try and get another government -- another country to improve its human rights record are limited. It's hortatory, it's rhetorical, it's shining the light on a situation on a problem. That's what the report does. And I would prefer to talk about the report today. And I see a lot of hands up of people also wanting to ask about other countries.

     But that's what have embassies in many of these countries to do, to engage in a dialogue with the host governments, to see if there are areas in which we can provide assistance. That's what -- I have an office in my bureau which is devoted precisely to that objective, so that the report is not just a finger-pointing exercise, but rather is an incentive -- is a basis on which to work. This is what I would hope China would respond favorably to. It's what I know the Cameroon government has already responded favorably to in addressing some of the major human rights problems that we've identified in the report.

     Q My name is -- (name inaudible) -- Beijing Daily Newspaper, People's Republic of China. I'm just wondering if you would like to make a comment on the terrible incident -- the immolations last month in Tiananmen Square by a few Falun Gong practitioners who believed that they could go to heaven by burning themselves. Do you think that such behavior should be accused?

     MR. PARMLY: Thanks for the question.

     I'm not an expert in the Falun Gong philosophy. I have heard said, and I believe, that it is not the philosophy of the Falun Gong to encourage adherents to comment suicide. Any insinuation of that is a distortion of the truth, from what I understand.

     Would I have a comment to make on a situation that leads people to commit actions like that? That is what I would prefer to focus my attention on. A self-immolation, a suicide, is an individual act, a response to a situation that that person or a whole range of people feel and see in their daily lives. That is something that I can focus attention on, and that's what I would hope to do.

     Increasingly you see countries and regions -- the Europeans have talked much more to the Chinese about the Falun Gong. We talk a great deal to the Chinese government about the Falun Gong. That doesn't mean the Chinese government listens to us at all times. But what we would like to see enshrined in the behavior of the Chinese government, in the behavior of any government, is respecting the rights of individuals to practice their philosophies, their beliefs. That's what we would call on the Chinese government to do.

     Q My name is Kenan Aliyev. I'm with Azerbaijani news agency Turan. And my question is on Azerbaijan. According to your report on Azerbaijan, the country has a poor human rights record. Elections were falsified, the corruption is high. And my question is, how will this assessment affect U.S. bilateral relations with Azerbaijan?

     And the second question is, you indicate in the report that there are 50 political prisoners in Azerbaijan. This is just -- you're taking this on note, or are you also asking the government to release these people from the prison, or this is just kind of report that there are political prisoners in Azerbaijan, and that's it? I mean, are you asking the government also to release them?

     Thank you.

     MR. PARMLY: Thanks. We dialogue on a regular basis with the Azerbaijani government about the issue of human rights. We have a very rich and complex relationship with Azerbaijan, with the people of Azerbaijan and the government of Azerbaijan. This is an important issue; it's not the only issue on the agenda.

     We do talk to the government. We talk to them about the 50 prisoners. We don't intervene in the judicial system of Azerbaijan or of any other country.

     If someone is imprisoned for his or her own beliefs, political beliefs, we consider that a mistake and we call on the government that is incarcerating those people to release them.

     But do we go in in each individual case and act as lawyers for the individuals? No, I don't believe we do. We urge the government to redress the situation which leads to the imprisonment of the people.

     MODERATOR: (Exchange off mike.)

     Q Sorry. Mr. Parmly, my question relates to the section on India. One feels that the report soft-pedals the treatment of religious minorities, whereas the reports which have appeared in the press present a much more horrific picture than one finds in the report; number one. Number two, there is scathing criticism about the human rights situation in Kashmir. One cannot fail to notice that throughout the year 2000 there was not a single word from the State Department itself on these violations of human rights.

     And one question which is more informative, this is a tremendous array of information which is put together. It is very impressive. I was just wondering if you would like to tell us how exactly is this massive exercise undertaken? Is it through the U.S. embassies, is it through other human rights organizations like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch? How exactly is it done, and how many people do you have in your bureau working on this? Thanks very much.

     MR. PARMLY: Well, that's a lot of questions. Let me see if I can go through them one by one. On India, I spent a lot of time on the report on India. India is a very important country; an important partner with us in a number of enterprises around the world. I'm talking about political enterprises, the pursuit of human rights among them.

     I think the human rights situation in India, in any country as massive, as huge, as complex as India, is going to be a mixed picture. The report sought to focus principal attention on the most glaring human rights problems, and I think the situation in Jammu and Kashmir is the first among them, as well as in the northeastern states. Obviously, there are circumstances which could explain some of those abuses. The report is a call on authorities to exercise greater control to halt those abuses. In fact, I find the language on Kashmir very good, very well-crafted.

     Why don't we speak more frequently about Kashmir in the United States? I suppose we could address -- Richard Boucher could start every briefing talking about, All right, here's the situation in these five countries, these 10 countries. We try and speak out when there is a major problem, and if we don't do it every day, perhaps it's because we sense that there is the commitment on the part of the Indian government to improve the human rights situation in India, in the subcontinent, and around the world.

     You asked a question of a different order, which is how do we put the Human Rights Report together. The Bureau of Human Rights -- Democracy, Human Rights and Labor has the primary responsibility of putting it together. But we couldn't do it without all of our embassies around the world. And, I would say, we couldn't do it without you. Now, what do I mean by that?

     The original draft, the first draft of every country's human rights report, if we have an embassy in that country, is done by the embassy. It comes in to my staff, my colleagues. We look at it. We seek to supplement it. With what? With information that we get from newspapers, with information that we get off the Internet, with any source that we possibly can. Congress in the legislation specifies that the Human Rights Report will be completed in consultation with the non-governmental organizations. That's critically important. Governments don't have a monopoly of the truth. We need to seek sources from anywhere they can come.

     Because there is this huge avalanche of information, I have tried to implement the policy of, in the end, the embassy itself, to the extent that we have an embassy in that country -- in a country, should be the final judge as to whether -- as to the credibility of a piece of information. It's hard for us sitting back in Washington to judge the veracity of a specific piece of information.

     But anyway, the report comes in from the embassy. Its gets supplemented, worked on, then it goes back to the embassy. And the embassy makes its revisions. And there is this process that goes back and forth. That's the way it's put together.

     So it's not just the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor that produces the report, it's the entire U.S. government, and it's people like you.

     MODERATOR: Take a couple more questions here, and then go to New York for a question on Africa.

     Q Margarita Funes (sp) from El Salvador for El Diario de Hoy. You report here about the resignation of the human rights ombudsman in February. That was one year ago. And I have two questions regarding that. The first one is how accurate and complete can we expect this report to be since, I'm assuming, you take the ombudsman, the human rights ombudsman office as one of your major sources of information? And the second one is, have you in any way tried to pressure the government to -- or the political parties to, you know, go ahead with this election of the new ombudsman since, for me, one of the major problems and issues we have now, because it's a country where you hear a report there are so many violations of human rights, and it seems we don't have a formal ombudsman. I mean, it's quite serious, I think.

     MR. PARMLY: We do -- thanks for the question. We do look to all sources, genuinely and truly all sources, and we don't take anyone as the gospel. That doesn't mean you'll be speaking with the president of the country, who will make an assertion, and you'll immediately run out and verify it. One seeks to have as complete a picture as possible. Certainly the ombudsman, any information that came from the ombudsman's office would be an important input into the report.

     In terms of what -- if I understood correctly your question; have we pressed the Salvadorian government to name a new ombudsman -- discussions on human rights and issues like this are part of the daily discourse between our embassy and the government, or between the Salvadorian Embassy here in Washington and our Department of State.

     I can't tell you which days we have raised this, but I'm confident that that's been a regular source of discussion.

     MODERATOR: One from here, and then we'll go to New York.

     Q Thank you, sir. My name is -- (inaudible) -- from South Korea. I am interested in freedom of press, because I am a reporter. In the part on freedom of press in South Korea, your report mentioned that the latent threat of tax investigations on media companies. But these days there are much controversy over the South Korean government's irregular tax investigations on the media, especially newspaper company. What do you -- -- (word inaudible) -- about that?

     MR. PARMLY: What do I -- ?

     Q What is your opinion?

     MR. PARMLY: Oh. Korea is, in fact, one of the shining lights in Asia on the democracy and human rights side. No country is perfect. Lord knows the United States isn't perfect. We raise that sort of issue with the Korean government as part of our normal discourse. But I wouldn't have anything exceptional to say about that. We're very pleased with the leadership that the president and the government of Korea have shown on the issue of human rights, and we see in that government, in that leadership, the commitment to overcome human rights problems.

     Q A follow-up? Thank you.

     Your report said that the government abandoned the (tightest ?) control on media, but it has still indirect influence. What does it mean, indirect influence?

     MR. PARMLY: I think the report speaks for itself.

     MODERATOR: What I'd like to do now is go to New York for a question.

     Q Good afternoon. My name is Agnes Niemetz. I work for a Hungarian daily publication. My original question was already answered before.

     I have another one for you, concerning Hungary, very specific. How do you deal with the fact that the ex-communists are still overwhelmingly present at times in the opposition, influencing both the political and economic atmosphere of Hungary? How would that information you are receiving from Hungary, from the different politically influential -- they are correct -- (off mike)?

     MR. PARMLY: Thanks for your question. That's a part of the world that I left a few years ago but am very fond of.

     Democracy is a messy thing. And people will choose as their elected representatives sometimes coalitions, groups that I or you wouldn't necessarily choose. The free expression of ideas -- that's what seems to us to count the most.

     If one party were to gain a stranglehold over a political process, as occurred before '89 in a number of countries in that region, that would be a negative development. Certainly the election of countries that -- of groups that have that kind of tendency is a phenomenon that we would need to watch, that we would all need to watch, you as well as the United States.

     But the messiness of democracy only confirms the saying that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest. And I think that's the best explanation for the situation in -- that you were describing.

     MODERATOR: We'll go to this young lady next.

     Q Thank you. Diane Oh (sp), Asahi Shimbun. Mr. --

     MR. PARMLY: From -- excuse me, from where?

     Q From Asahi Shimbun, a Japanese newspaper.

     Mr. Parmly, I'm wondering if you can tell us more in details, if possible, from the U.S. side, on the U.N. human rights resolution, because you mentioned that at the beginning of your remarks.

     Thank you.

     MR. PARMLY: Thanks. We only came to the decision -- the president only came to that decision very recently, just as we were coming up to what we call the roll-out of the human rights report, which is what I'm engaged in. The secretary is traveling. We will have intensive consultations in the days and weeks ahead. We've already started them with a number of governments regarding what we would like to see in that resolution and who might want to sign on as a possible cosponsor with us.

     Q Valerie Levin (sp) from Voice of America, East Asia Division. The report presents a detailed picture of the human rights abuses in Burma, and one, also, that the Burmese government has already rejected. I was wondering how this report will affect U.S. policy towards Burma with respect to sanctions and also to the preservation of the dialogue between Aung San Suu Kyi and the Rangoon government.

     MR. PARMLY: The government's dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi is one of the more hopeful signs that we've seen in recent weeks and months, as was the visit of Special Envoy Razali (sp), as was the visit and discussions that the European Union troika had in Rangoon in recent weeks. Unfortunately, the issue that they are working on, the subject of the dialogue is -- and I should say we welcome that dialogue -- but the situation on the ground that that dialogue is an attempt to respond to is very sad. You have a tendency towards a totalitarian state, with the government attempting to control all aspects of life. You have the situation of the ILO for the first time invoking an Article 33 procedure back in, I believe it was, November of last year because of forced labor practices in which the government plays a heavy role.

     We find the dialogue itself hopeful. We think that there is a long, long way to go.

     Q (Name off mike) -- Washington correspondent for Guinea News. I would appreciate if you could comment on the latest clashes along the border between Guinea and Liberia, and who may be behind the situation there.

     And also, my second question is about United States. Given the fact that there have been some reports, arrests and execution of people on death row --

     MR. PARMLY: You mean in the United States?

     Q Yeah, in the United States. And I would appreciate if you could comment on that and perhaps tell me what would you characterize the human rights situation in the United States, given the fact that many people, you know, on death row were exonerated. They were not, in fact, the right people.

     MR. PARMLY: I would look to you to evaluate the human rights situation in the United States. As I said earlier, I'm not sure that I would be a credible source, judging my own country. It would be like a youth in college being asked by the teacher, "Well, go ahead and evaluate how you think you are doing in this course." I don't think that would be a credible evaluation.

     The situation on the border between Liberia and Guinea --

     Q (Off mike.) What about these deaths in prisons?

     MR. PARMLY: The situation on the border is very worrisome. The presence of the RUF and the RUF forces, their activities, are well- known, are well-documented, are legion. We need to get on top of that situation, and I'm working with my colleagues in the African Bureau to do precisely that.

     Q Parasuram with Press Trust of India. Just as you have an organization to promote democracy, is it possible to have an organization to promote human rights? And also, in what ways can the United States help in this matter, because you do help people to build the institutions of democracy and free press and all that; or radio. Can you do anything to help people -- (inaudible word) -- the situation on the ground?

     MR. PARMLY: Thanks for your question. That's a very important question. What can we do? We can carry out activities. Each of the regional bureaus in the Department of State has funds for democracy. My bureau, the Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Bureau, has some funds for democracy, but they're a small pittance; they're a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of effort that is needed.

     Fortunately, in responding to that, the civil society organizations, the NGOs, are often some of the most effective people in addressing the human rights situation.

     My bureau is the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, so I do consider that my bureau, and my colleagues and I are working on the human rights as well as on the democracy portion. The new administration has put in the National Security Council a senior adviser on democracy and on human rights -- two separate people. This is a very hopeful and a very important sign. It shows -- underlines the commitment of the new administration to these issues. We're working on it, but we're not the only ones, thank goodness.

     Q Sir, my name is Adnan Al-Kaatib with the Qatar News Agency, Washington correspondent. What is your comment on the announcement or statement made earlier by the emir of Qatar that Qatar will have an elected parliament in the next 18 months? And to what extent do you think this will change or impact the country status, your update on Qatar as contained in your new report?

     MR. PARMLY: Developments like that, like the developments in Bahrain, are very hopeful developments. That would figure in next year's report. One can only hope that the institutions that are in the process of being formed will take hold with the population itself and lead to greater democracy in those countries. I'm hopeful.

     Q May I follow up? The question was particularly specifically related to Qatar not Bahrain.

     MR. PARMLY: No, I say Qatar and Bahrain. I was saying that there are hopeful developments in all regions of the world, including in the Arab world. The elections in Bahrain and the announcement in Qatar, to the extent that they are followed by facts and developments on the ground -- it's not a mere announcement, it's developments on the ground. That's why the Bahraini elections are so important. And I can only hope that the evolution in Qatar follows that same course.

     Q But how does the administration receive this news, as reported a couple of days ago?

     MR. PARMLY: I haven't seen a formal reaction. The secretary has been traveling with Ned Walker, our assistant secretary for the Middle East. I haven't seen a formal reaction. But as I say, to the extent that it's a significant development that affects people's lives on the ground, one can only welcome it.

     Q My question is, again, as far as this report is concerned, what message you think this report has for the military government in Pakistan? And number two, the Pakistan have asked the United States to drop the sanctions against Afghanistan and negotiate with the most notorious and most wanted terrorist in the world, who is having the empire -- running his empire from Afghanistan, killing innocent people around the world. And now his empire is on trial in a New York federal court.

     MR. PARMLY: I think the Pakistan report speaks for itself. I wouldn't attempt to elaborate on it. The situation in Afghanistan regrettably is among the most lamentable documented in the report. One doesn't see the elements there that could produce a positive evolution. I never lose faith, but one doesn't see the elements there that could produce the positive evolution, I regret to say.

     Q One more question, but my original question. What would be your answers to the critics who say that because of the presence of a lot of officials from the Bush administration who previously were connected to the oil business, people like Mr. Cheney, Mr. Armitage and some other people, and even Mr. Bush himself, that the priority in the Caspian region -- Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan -- will be more driven by the oil interests, U.S. oil interests in that region, not by the, you know, issues like democratization and human rights? I know you are from previous administration, but still, what will be your response to that question?

     MR. PARMLY: I'm not from the previous administration.

     Q I'm sorry. (Laughter.)

     MR. PARMLY: I've been a Foreign Service officer for 23 and a half years. I've served in all administrations. And I think that sort of analysis of the incoming administration is so oversimplistic as to not even merit comment.

     MODERATOR: Take a couple more questions.

     Q Thank you. I have a question about the resolution against China. If my memory serve me right, last year the former secretary, Ms. Albright, went to Geneva in order to get this resolution passed. So what are you going to do this year? Will Mr. Powell, the secretary, or are you yourself going to Geneva to do the same thing?

     MR. PARMLY: I suspect I will be in Geneva. I don't know the secretary's travel plan. He is just settling into his job. I will be hesitant to ask him to go to Geneva. Nobody should mistake the commitment of the administration to pass the resolution simply on the basis of, well, did the secretary of State go or not go. The administration has made the decision to push ahead with that. They don't take decisions like that lightly. They will push for it with all the strength that they have.

     And I will be one of those pushing the hardest.

     MODERATOR: The last question -- (off mike).

     Q Thank you. I would like to follow up on the first question I have concerning the situation along the border with Guinea, and you said you've been in touch with some of your colleagues at the State Department working on that. What can we expect, concretely, as a measure in order to stop what's going on there?

     MR. PARMLY: We work in a variety of fora -- the U.N., bilaterally with other countries that are concerned about the situation there. We talk to the Liberian government. We talk to the Sierra Leonean government. Unfortunately, the RUF is not within the control of the Sierra Leonean government, and so it's hard for them to get a handle on that. We're continuing discussions with them.

     I don't have any specific measure to announce to you today.

     MODERATOR: Thank you very much.

     MR. PARMLY: Thank you.

     MODERATOR: Thank you to our friends here in Washington and our audience in New York.

     MR. PARMLY: Thank you, everyone.

END.

Copyright (c)2001 by Federal News Service, Inc., 620 National Press Building, Washington, DC 20045 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service, please email Jack Graeme at info@fnsg.com or call (202)824-0520.