Briefing on Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record 2003-2004 Report

(10:20 a.m. EDT)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: Thank you, Mr. Armitage, for your remarks.

A little over two months ago, I was here to introduce the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. That's the thick book that you're all familiar with. (Laughter.) The basis for this annual document, required by Congress, is that governments should be held to a globally recognized human rights standard. That report generally details what's wrong with a country.

The report we're issuing today, Supporting Human Rights and Democracy, describes what we're trying to do to fix those problems, how we're engaged worldwide with people and institutions dedicated to advancing freedom.

In the two months since the release of the country reports, much has happened. The U.S. delegation at the UN Commission on Human Rights spent six weeks working hard to make that body an effective instrument for advancing human rights worldwide. In some cases we achieved our objectives, evidenced by the passage of resolutions condemning human rights in Cuba, North Korea and Turkmenistan.

In other cases, we met resistance from countries that would prefer to obscure their records. These are the countries that claim to the world community, in general and the United States, in particular, that we have no right to raise concerns about human rights within their borders. But their protests did not and do not deter our effort to ensure that human rights are not swept under the rug.

More challenging over the last two months have been the revelations in recent weeks of abuses at Abu Ghraib Prison, which have horrified all of us.

As an individual, and as the State Department's Assistant Secretary charged with advancing human rights abroad, I have been particularly disgusted by many of the excesses and the abuses that have emerged these past few weeks. I've also been pleased to see the military and the White House pledge prosecution of anyone involved in such atrocious behavior.

Now, I've been asked by some if Abu Ghraib robs us of our ability to talk about human rights abroad. It's a reasonable question. How can we talk about human rights if we fail to uphold the highest standard?

You've heard the President talk about differences between how we will handle these abuses and how other countries don't. To that I would add only one thing: Who would be better off if we self-consciously turned inward and ignored human rights abuses elsewhere -- in places like Burma and Zimbabwe and Belarus?

This report is about trying to help others around the world who want the same institutions we have: institutions that protect human rights and punish those who would violate them. We employ a wide range of strategies to promote human rights and democracy. Many who follow these issues closely will recognize strategies that are tried and true, that are part of our standard toolbox.

Other strategies described in this report are innovative and represent the cutting edge of democracy promotion. We've highlighted some in this report: a school to enhance the leadership skills of East African women so that they can run for political office; the first independent printing press in Kyrgyzstan so that journalists can advance media freedom; halfway houses for former child soldiers in Colombia so that they can get off the battlefield and begin normal lives; a training academy for NGOs and others in Yemen to help enhance their democratic process.

"Does it all work?" some ask. Well, the support we've given for the past quarter century all over the world has helped usher in some of the most dramatic political changes in history.

Twenty-five years ago, there were around 40 democracies in the world. Today, there are over 120. In the 1980s in Latin America and in Eastern Europe, the U.S. Government sought to ensure that democratic reformers were given the oxygen they needed to bring about changes in countries like Chilé and El Salvador and Poland and Hungary.

In the 1990s, the U.S. Government supported South Africa's democracy movement, helping to produce the support that the U.S. Government gave the democracy movement there; that helped produce a new era of freedom in a country that some believed would descend into chaos. And for the last decade, we've worked with opposition leaders and NGOs in places like Cuba and Burma and Zimbabwe, and also, as you heard, in places like Georgia, where last year the time and the energy and the heart of our effort, and the effort of so many others, culminated in the peaceful Revolution of Roses.

Many challenges remain, and we in this Administration have not shrunk from taking them on. In China and in Central Asia and in the Middle East, where doors were closed for so long to anyone wanting to talk about democracy and human rights, we're continuing to press on those issues.

Let me close today by thanking my Deputy Assistant Secretary Liz Dugan, the Director of our Office for the Promotion of Human Rights and Democracy Rob Jackson, and his talented staff, without whom this report and many of the activities it details would not exist.

I also want to thank Sally Buikema for her work to make today possible.

I am now ready, I think, to take your questions.

MR. ERELI: George.

QUESTION: Could you explain why the report was delayed? We heard two reasons: one was a printing problem, and another was the "current climate" concerning the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: We weren't quite ready at that time to go, but we also looked at the larger question, do we really want to put this out -- this report out in the environment that it would have come out in the first week or so of the Abu Ghraib scandal.

The message of this report, as you heard from Deputy Secretary Armitage, is what we're doing around the world to advance human rights, and we decided it wasn't the right environment to put that message out in.

Yeah.

QUESTION: When the Secretary says in the introduction that it's worth replicating the model of Georgia, where are you replicating it and what kind of resistance are you getting from governments?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: Well, the model of Georgia that we worked with was working with people inside of Georgia, people who said to us, "We want to have democracy in our country." And we worked with them for many, many years.

Mr. Saakashvili, as you heard, was a visitor to this country. But remember, in those years a lot of people said, "You're wasting your time. The government will never change in Georgia. There will not be democracy here." And we and a lot of NGOs, including the National Democratic Institute, worked very, very closely to help enhance their skills and their abilities and the skills of journalists. That's the kind of model that we're looking to replicate around the world.

QUESTION: In which countries? You know, are you talking specific countries?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: Yes. In particular countries that are included in this book and elsewhere. That's my point -- that we're working with people inside these countries who want to see things change in their country.

QUESTION: Can I just ask what you think exactly has changed about the atmosphere from 12 days ago to now that makes you more comfortable putting this report out when you didn't feel comfortable doing it on the 5th?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: I'll tell you what I think has changed. What has changed is the reaction we're getting from overseas. I just talked about how people think we export democracy. We don't. If we did, it wouldn't work. We cannot implant democracy elsewhere.

What we're hearing from people overseas is, we think Abu Ghraib is an awful thing and we think it shows that the United States is imperfect, but we still want you to help us.

We're watching -- there were postings on Chinese websites, for example, over the weekend, talking about how Chinese posters on these websites are watching what's going on in the U.S. Some of them said it's interesting that leaders in a democracy apologize for things that have happened, for things that have gone wrong in their country. Others said it's very interesting that in America, the press is free to report on abuses and torture that are committed by security forces in the United States Army.

So that's -- what’s changing is you're seeing a reaction from around the world of people saying, "No, don't stop helping us. We continue to want your help."

QUESTION: So you didn't want to put it out before an apology had been made and before various Administration officials had come out and vowed that justice would be done; is that it?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: My assumption was that justice would be done, because --

QUESTION: Well, it may have been your assumption and it may have been all of our assumptions --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- but you didn't want to come out with this before you thought the rest of the world had gotten that message. Is that --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: No, this was a cloud -- the Abu Ghraib scandal was a cloud that was obscuring what we try to do, what I try to do and what the Secretary and the President try to do on democracy issues. And we want to punch through the cloud and to say we're not going to give up on democracy and human rights promotion. We've done things wrong; we're going to fix it. We're going to hold people accountable. And yes, we're going to continue to try and advance these principles abroad.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: Elise.

QUESTION: But, at the same time, I mean, how do you break through that cloud and maintain your credibility and get people to pay attention to the works that you're trying to do around the world without them coming back to you and saying, "Well, why don't you get your own house in order first, and then come to us and talk to us about human rights?"

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: People understand we're not perfect. If they thought we were perfect, they would have -- or if they wanted us to be perfect to help them, they would have given up on us after things like My Lai and Watergate and Iran-Contra. They know we're imperfect.

What they like about the United States is that, in the United States, a President is accountable, as we saw in Watergate. They like that people are accountable to the press, that people are accountable to the courts, that people are accountable to Congress.

People in dictatorships understand, perhaps better than we do, that if you have a single branch of government, people in that single branch can be fallible, and they can take a country far away from the right path.

They like what we have in this country. They like that we have a civil society to monitor the government, to criticize the government. They like that we have you guys to question people like me, and to ask me and others questions.

They like that we have a Congress that can call a Defense Secretary to account for six hours and grill him. And they like the fact that we have courts where all of these issues can end up.

That's what they're interested in. They're interested in having accountability in their government. And that's what they're telling us.

Yes.

QUESTION: How, then, does it play when the U.S. military is shutting down media outlets in Iraq, and possibly blocking Al Jazeera or other television networks they don't like from getting to the people there? Have you heard reaction on that?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: Yes. You all apply a particular standard of journalism. You don't incite violence. When there are media outlets that incite violence in Iraq, reasonably I think people are going to take a second look at that, if they are not applying international journalistic standards.

QUESTION: But you're not allowing the audience to take a second look at it. You're not giving them the opportunity to see it at all or hear it.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: To hear -- hear the message of --

QUESTION: You say -- you say people should take a second look at that. You're not allowing the audience to take --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: We're not allowing them to hear the message of inciting violence? That's true. I mean, that was a standard that was also applied by MacArthur in Japan. That was his one rule.

When we moved into Iraq, when I was there last July, there were scores of newspapers that had already opened. There was lots of criticism, and I read it, of the U.S. forces. I was kind of surprised by what people were saying, that it was so harsh. That's fine.

But when you cross the line and you start inciting violence, that's different. You guys don't do that, and we think those are international journalistic standards.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Given some of the programs that U.S. undertakes with respect to human rights, I can see a lot of economic activity going on there, which confirms the standard definition of democracy from the standpoint of political scientists, who do not limit the definition to politics to the political side, but also to the economic side.

Now, given that the U.S. puts in this money, are we saying -- are you saying that maybe it is the economic democracy which is the issue, as opposed to the human rights aspect, because the -- when the economy of a particular society is not working, then it reflects on the political and the social --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: No, you're absolutely right. People around the world have come to expect, because they associate democracy with Western Europe, with the United States, they have come to expect that democracy will deliver economic betterment. They don't just expect that it enables you to stand on a soapbox and say whatever you want.

So, around the world, you have seen governments grapple with this issue of economic betterment, about how to get their economy going. And it's particular acute in some very, very poor countries that have taken on this democratic experiment, places like Mali and Mongolia that are very poor. And what the people in those countries expect is that their economy is going to get better.

We're also trying to help on that end of things, to give -- to work with people to have free trade agreements, to give economic assistance, to help them open up their economy, to help them with the industries that they need to survive, understanding that if the economy does not prosper in a new democracy, that democracy may not prosper.

QUESTION: I have a follow-up.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: Okay.

QUESTION: Whenever these such reports have come out of the State Department, the countries under discussion tend to deny, most of the time; they challenge what the U.S. view of them is. What is it that would convince us and the rest of those countries that the U.S. view of them is the correct view?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: I'll tell you two things. Number one is, anything that's in this book or in the big fat book that we put out earlier, we double- and triple-check. So we don't just go on one source. We don't just go on the source in the embassy, for example. We will go to NGOs and say, "What are you hearing? What are you seeing in this country?"

So stuff that goes into the reports, we have double-checked, triple-checked, to try and verify its accuracy. I have many ambassadors coming to my office saying this or that was not true, what you put in the report. And I invite them all to give me a detailed written response to that country report. You know, if they want to come in and say, "My country is completely free and we feel otherwise," I will argue with them. But I'll also say, "If you want to tell me what's wrong on page 14 of your report, I'll take a look at it for next year and make sure that it's accurate."

QUESTION: Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: Sir.

QUESTION: The report, justifiably, indicated or pointed out to the Israeli practices of collective punishments against Israelis (sic) and demolition of their homes and the killing of hundreds of them. Lots of people in the Middle East would like to hear from you, sir. What are the practical -- why you are talking about your efforts in other countries, what you are doing to support the human rights? What exactly are you doing other than just talking to the Israeli officials? What practical steps you are taking within the occupied territories?

And the second thing is: The Syrian Golani Heights people, (inaudible) of thousands of them have not been mentioned in your report, even though they are part of the occupied people, same Israeli practices are practiced against them, but the report did not mention anything about what's happening to them there, the violation of their human rights by the Israelis.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: Let me say two things. Number one, remember what this report is. This report is what we're trying to do to fix things. If it's not in this old report, we'll take a look at it on your suggestion.

What are we trying to do to fix things? You heard the Secretary yesterday talking about these issues of collective punishment, and I'll certainly go with his statements.

As far as what we're trying to do within the occupied territories, we are engaged, as you know, in trying to make sure that it becomes a country called Palestine.

The third thing I would talk to you about is what we're actually doing in the meantime, that all through the 1990s we, no other country but we were the largest donor to the Palestinian people to try and make sure that they were able to move ahead in terms of democracy and human rights, that their media was able to broadcast sessions of the Palestinian assembly, that they were able to have decent elections, that people who wanted to run for office were able to do that. And we're going to continue doing those kinds of things.

QUESTION: I'm talking about the Israelis, sir. The Israeli -- what you are doing with the Israelis in order to stop these violations of human rights against Palestinians.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: When the Israelis do something wrong, we call them to account through this and other books. And if you read the chapter on Israel in this book, I think you'll find it rather frank. We also go to them on these issues.

But remember, like Colombia and some other places, the majority of the human rights violations are arising from the fact that there is a conflict. And you can treat the symptoms as much as you want, but you are going to have to get at the root cause -- the conflict -- if you are going to be able to end the majority of the human rights violations.

QUESTION: One you mentioned a while back about the Chinese websites and --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- that sort of -- about Abu Ghraib -- that sort of represents the grassroots for you. I'm wondering what you're hearing from the governments there, the governments of China, the governments of Belarus, Zimbabwe, Cuba. Are they using it as an excuse to sort of push back and basically say go take a leap when you're trying to push human rights?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: The Government of China has not, but other governments have. I mean, they routinely will find whatever excuse they can not to enhance human rights and democracy in their country. And if that means criticizing us for what we're doing, they're more than happy to do that.

But I can tell you, if it wasn't -- if it wasn't Abu Ghraib that supplied them with an excuse, it would be something else.

QUESTION: Can you say which ones?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: You've seen all the reports. I mean, you've seen the reports of which governments are criticizing us.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Sir, back to the freedom of the media. Are you planning to do something about CBS? Because somebody might argue that those pictures incite violence. Mr. Berg's killers used those pictures to kill him, and because I don't think Al Jazeera is doing anything different.

And also, talking about the freedom of the press, are you going to do something about New Yorker Magazine? And how about the climate in which those allegations have been made, at least one of the government agency has sanctioned what happened in Abu Ghraib.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: No, we're not planning to close down CBS or the New Yorker Magazine. (Laughter.) You know, I think that illustrates my point. You have to go quite far, and that isn't quite far on what they have done, either CBS or New Yorker Magazine. But for people --

QUESTION: But that is what Al Jazeera is doing, showing pictures.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: Al Jazeera, from what I understand from CPA and others, is quite different in what they do. They go a lot further than New Yorker Magazine or CBS. And that's my point. We are extremely tolerant, we have been for over 200 years in this country, of criticism, but incitement of violence is something else.

QUESTION: About the allegations of New Yorker Magazine and the climate in which this report -- the allegations that, at least, an agency in the government sanctioned what happened?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: Mm-hmm. Well, you've heard what the Pentagon said about that. They said it as soon as it came out yesterday.

Sir.

QUESTION: Don't you think it is about time to accept the fact that the Geneva Conventions and your annual report have failed to stop violation of human rights, and to think about something new?

I mean, it is, evidently, it just is not working. Even in the United States, all democracy and everything, bad things are happening. So what are the specific things the United States is going to do to change the old methods?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: Bad things happen in the United States and bad things happen elsewhere because people aren't perfect. I'm not perfect. You're not perfect. Nobody in this room is perfect. The point about the United States is what we have to try and make people accountable here in the United States.

QUESTION: So the Geneva Conventions still are -- are still valid?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: Absolutely, absolutely. The point here is that we have institutions that hold people to account if they go wrong. And as I said before, other people don't have that. You know, when there is a new Tashkent Times that can carry pictures of torture in Uzbekistan, or when the Sudanese parliament can call a defense minister and grill him for six hours, or when a Burmese president publicly condemns and holds people accountable for torture in Burma, then we're going to be getting somewhere. And that's what people overseas tell us that they want.

Sir, at the back.

QUESTION: Could you talk about the issue of the quality of democracy? You mentioned that there are people in China who like the fact that government officials in this country are accountable to the people, and these same people probably like democracy in Taiwan, as well.

But there are also private citizens, as well as government officials, in China who consider Taiwan as a failed example, or if not failed example of democracy. And democracy in Taiwan is very much a product of U.S. efforts to promote democracy and human rights worldwide. These people point to the fact that there are scuffles in the legislature, problematic elections and a very polarized society in Taiwan.

And I'm wondering whether you also would share the feeling that, you know, Taiwan's -- I guess my question is: Do you think, still think that Taiwan can be held up as an example of democratization in the Chinese communities?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: I think so, and I'll tell you why. Because I have had people from around the world tell me that they want to go to Taiwan and they want people from Taiwan to come to their country to tell them how they made the changes in Taiwan.

I lived in Taiwan in 1982. I lived there when, if you talked about independence for the island, you got arrested and thrown into jail. Today, the people that talk about independence for the island are running the country. So clearly, over that period of time a great deal of change, gradual change, has occurred in Taiwan.

I'm the first to admit that democracy, as Winston Churchill said, is not perfect. It's just the best of all systems that we have found. And so what -- again, what people want around the world is the checks and balances and the accountability that democracy produces.

Let me give you another example. The last time I was told, "You're not going to be able to promote human rights and democracy overseas," was just a few years ago. It was after the 2000 elections here in the United States. We were told, "The elections weren't perfect. How can you talk about elections overseas?"

Within a few weeks, we started having people overseas say to us: "You don't have tanks or troops in your street. Why is that? There has been no coup in your country. Why is that? The courts are settling this. Why is that?" And the reason was, they saw that. They saw that as a good example that they didn't have in their own country.

We were the first to admit, yes, our elections aren't perfect, and our election machinery isn't perfect. We have hanging chads, et cetera. But again, they said, you have a system, short of tanks and troops, to settle these kinds of things. And, again, that's what we're interested in.

So, obviously, you know, people see that democracy elections are not perfect. But they also see that in that kind of system, you have the checks and balances that can produce nonviolent changes of government, for example.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: It's very true that many, many, many Chinese people are very interested to find out that the U.S. Government can be held accountable. And, of course, they, meanwhile, express their own -- a term like disappointment -- to say that their own government, I mean, Chinese Government, or some people inside the government cannot be held accountable, even though they did much, much worse things; example, the persecution of the Falun Gong group.

I guess you know that maybe, actually next week there is going to be a oral debate on the Federal District Court in Chicago, and many, many more Chinese people expressed their excitement when they learned that the former Chinese President can be brought to justice on the Federal Court in the United States.

My question is: Is the State Department aware of this, those informations? I mean, those Chinese people are really for this righteous lawsuit. Will you make the decision to try to say that the former Chinese President have immunity?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: Yes, we say that because we have subscribed to certain conventions about international diplomacy and how it's handled. And that is one of the -- one of the provisions. Is that the only way by which we can address this problem? We don't think so.

And that's why I and the President and the Secretary of State, whenever we meet with leaders, including in China, talk about these issues. We talk about religious freedom. We talk about freedom of conscience. And where it's applicable, in terms of what country we're talking to, we talk about Falun Gong. But I don't think law -- I don't think personally that lawsuits are the only way to address this issue. And we've been trying to get at it through other means.

QUESTION: Another question is about Hong Kong. You know recently two famous radio and talk show anchor were forced to stop broadcasting in Hong Kong, which is generally believed to be the sign of the erosion into the freedom of speech there. Do you think -- I mean, do you have anything to say on this?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: I don't know about the particular case, but you have heard us repeatedly talk about how we believe that the freedoms offered in Hong Kong that were agreed to by the Chinese should continue to exist.

MR. CASEY: Well, I think we have time for just about one more.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: One more?

Yes.

QUESTION: Yes, various NGO-type groups, such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Center for Victims of Torture, Red Cross and Freedom Foundation, some of these groups have been critical about the lack of urgency by the U.S. Government and State Department. They look for more proactive-type remedies.

Now, you mentioned internet websites. But, obviously, you can monitor those, but there can also be fake information and other type instances.

Are you going to try and expand your efforts to talk to other media groups -- you did mention Al Jazeera and some of the others -- so that they come into a compliance in our modern age to get this information accurately to other countries, as well as peoples, whether they be in urban, rural or far-removed areas?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: One of the things we do is to reach out to those media, and you saw the president on al-Hurra and other outlets, a few weeks ago, talking about Abu Ghraib and these issues.

One of the other things we do is to work with journalists and work with governments: journalists to make sure that governments have the freedom to publish and reach out; and journalists to help improve their capabilities so that they're able to present the most credible, if critical, news that they can so that they maintain international standards of journalism.

Thank you.

2004/558