[Senate Hearing 107-55]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-55
THE U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION: THE ROAD AHEAD
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
AND TERRORISM
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 24, 2001
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-071 WASHINGTON : 2001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JESSE HELMS, North Carolina, Chairman
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
BILL FRIST, Tennessee RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BARBARA BOXER, California
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
BILL NELSON, Florida
Stephen E. Biegun, Staff Director
Edwin K. Hall, Democratic Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND TERRORISM
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia, Chairman
JESSE HELMS, North Carolina BARBARA BOXER, California
BILL FRIST, Tennessee JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas BILL NELSON, Florida
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Dobrianski, Hon. Paula J., Under Secretary of State for Global
Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Responses to additional questions for the record from Senator
Helms...................................................... 12
Malinowski, Tom, Washington Advocacy Director for Human Rights
Watch, Washington, DC.......................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Shea, Nina, Director, Center for Religious Freedom, Freedom
House, Washington, DC.......................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 17
(iii)
THE U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION: THE ROAD AHEAD
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 24, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on International
Operations and Terrorism,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:48 p.m. in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. George Allen
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Allen and Boxer.
Senator Allen. The subcommittee will please come to order.
We have a hearing today on the United Nations Human Rights
Commission: The Road Ahead. This hearing today is clearly on
the subject of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights
and in the vote for the Commission members in 2002 which took
place in the U.N.'s Economic and Social Council just a few
weeks ago the United States lost its seat on the Commission for
the first time since 1947.
Unfortunately, this appears to have been directly resulting
from our European allies' refusal to work together with us to
form an agreed slate of candidates for the West's three seats
at stake. We will talk about the implications of that. We have
witnesses. Senator Boxer is the ranking member on this
subcommittee, and may soon be the chairperson of this
subcommittee very shortly, but hopefully she will be here, and
other members of the subcommittee.
So with that, I will give the balance of my statement. If
Senator Boxer arrives before Ms. Dobriansky's statement, then
Senator Boxer will make her statement. But when she comes, I
hope you will all work with us as we go through the panels here
in testimony on this matter.
Now, the unfortunate turn of events as far as the U.N.
Human Rights Commission. In this occasion, we want to look at
several important issues. Initially, we first need to assess
how useful is the United Nations body, especially since it is
supposed to be a voice for the world on human rights, but it is
full of undemocratic members. If Sudan goes onto the Human
Rights Commission and the United States comes off, should we
not be asking if this institution may need some reforms?
Maybe the United States should insist that nations that
have been censured by the Commission, like Cuba, should be
ineligible to be members of this Commission for a period of
time. Or maybe some other body, like an organization of the
world's democracies, would be a better forum to promote freedom
around the world.
Without the United States on this Commission, now the
European Union, or the EU, will be forced to be on the front
line in the fight for human rights. This is a change from the
past, when the EU has been able to let the United States take
the lead while the EU tended to treat dictatorial governments
like Libya or Cuba as ordinary countries. I hope to look to see
if the Europeans' conciliatory approach in the Commission, for
instance regarding China, and see if it improves the human
rights records of repressive governments.
We should look at why the Europeans and other members of
the Western Europe and Other Group states, which we are a part
of, did not cooperate with us to maintain a seat for the United
States. We ought to look at how to get the Europeans to work
more cooperatively with us in the future on votes in the United
Nations and more generally on securing the political and
religious liberties of people all around the world that we hope
all will enjoy the rights that we enjoy here in this country.
Now, what should the United States do about our removal?
Yes, it is embarrassing to the United States, but I also think
this removal of our seat is also embarrassing to the United
Nations and its credibility. I think that we, rather than
pouting as a country or having a fit or walking away from the
United Nations, I think we should look for ways to reassert our
leadership on human rights issues.
The United Nations needs the United States. They need our
support in its attempt to control AIDS in Africa, to keep peace
in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia, and to monitor existing
agreements in the Middle East.
The converse is also true. It is not as if they are running
that policy. It is in the United States' interest. We are
deeply interested in keeping the peace, in keeping peace in the
Balkans and controlling the spread of infectious diseases. We
are interested in fighting international terrorism and the
proliferation of arms of mass destruction. In more general
terms, the United States is very interested in promoting good
relations with such countries as China that are most active in
the United Nations.
All of these objectives can be facilitated by the
maintenance of strong ties between the United States and the
United Nations. Now, the bottom line of all of this is
Americans would like to know a lot of things as far as this is
concerned. No. 1, we want to know how the United Nations can be
effective and resolute in the future in promoting human rights
regardless of what Commissions we may be on or off in the
United Nations or anywhere else. That is very important, what
are we going to do in the future.
Part of this, we also want to, naturally, understand why,
for example, we were removed. We are fortunate to have with us
today the Under Secretary for Global Affairs, Paula Dobriansky,
as the administration's witness. Having introduced her
previously before this committee at her nomination, it is a
pleasure to have you back before this subcommittee to testify.
I hope that Secretary Dobriansky can speak to our human rights
policies in the future even though the U.N. affairs are not
directly your formal responsibility at the State Department.
Also, since she oversees the State Department Bureau for
Anti-Narcotics policy in addition to the Human Rights Bureau, I
hope she can discuss the implications of the United States
losing a vote for membership on the U.N. Narcotics Control
Board. Interestingly, the Netherlands is on that board.
Also, we have two excellent witnesses on our second panel.
Nina Shea is Director of the Center for Religious Freedom at
the Freedom House. She also serves on the Commission on
International Religious Freedom and is the first Commissioner
to be reappointed. Most relevant to the subject of this
hearing, she served as a member of the U.S. public delegation
to the annual session of the U.N. Human Rights Commission this
spring.
Based on first-hand observation and involvement in U.S.
diplomacy at the Commission, she can tell us about that U.N.
body's operations and how the EU nations conduct themselves at
the Commission and how each could do more in the service of
freedom.
Our other outside witness is Tom Malinowski the Washington
Advocacy Director of Human Rights Watch, a leading
nongovernmental organization. Human Rights Watch is among a
number of groups critical of the bullying role of the
autocratic states within the Commission and of those nations
who pledged to vote for the United States but did not, 14 out
of the 43 pledging support. Fully one-third were faithless to
us, and Americans and the United States Senate ought to know
who they are and what were their motivations.
Mr. Malinowski will make the case why the United States
membership on the Commission is vital to both the Commission
and to the United States policy. We will want to know why this
removal of the United States happened, to see that it does not
happen again. It is always important to look at the game films
after the game to make sure that the same mistakes or problems
do not arise in the future. That is important to know why.
But most importantly, what I want to focus on in this
committee is the future, the future and the positive,
constructive action the United States can take, whether on the
Human Rights Commission or with the United States' cooperation
with other Western powers, but mostly of course finding any
which way we can with strong resolve and credibility to advance
the cause of human rights for people all over our Earth.
On December 13, 2000, then-President elect George W. Bush
spoke of his commitment to ``a bipartisan foreign policy, true
to our values and true to our friends.'' That aim and how to
better encourage our friends in the world to be true to our
shared values of liberty, freedom, and self-determination will
be the subject of this hearing.
So seeing how Senator Boxer has not yet arrived, I would
ask Ms. Dobriansky to please share with us her views and
perspective of this issue.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAULA J. DOBRIANSKY, UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Dobriansky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I plan to submit a
full statement for the record, but I will provide now a
condensed version of my statement.
First let me say it is an honor to be here to discuss the
Bush administration's democracy promotion and human rights
policy and the importance of maintaining our leadership in this
field. When you think back, U.S. commitment to human rights
dates from the Declaration of Independence and our Nation's
founding. It reflects our Nation's values and our deeply rooted
belief in the importance of developing and maintaining
democratic governments subject to the rule of law, that respect
and protect individual liberty.
At the same time, the defense of human rights clearly
serves our national interest. As the history of the past
century has shown, the strongest, most stable, tolerant, and
prosperous countries are precisely those which respect
universal human rights. For this reason, we have long made the
promotion of human rights a focus of our foreign policy and our
foreign assistance programs.
Since the end of the Second World War, the United States
has been without equal in articulating a vision of
international human rights and having the grit to carry it out.
Whether crafting the United Nations Charter and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, championing freedom and democracy
throughout the cold war, insisting on human rights in the
Helsinki Final Act, compiling the Country Reports on Human
Rights Practices for the past 25 years, or helping establish
the Community of Democracies in Warsaw last year, the United
States has been the country that has set the agenda and has
done the heavy lifting.
Throughout these years, our message has not wavered.
Promoting democracy and protecting the individual against the
excesses of the state is the policy of the United States. Our
vision has come to be shared by many other states and is now a
fundamental component of NATO, the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe, the Organization of American States,
the Summit of the Americas, and in the basic laws of many
states that have emerged since the end of World War II.
Let me now turn to a subject that has been much in the news
recently, and that is the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights. You know that, with the U.N. Economic and Social
Council vote in New York on May 3, the United States lost its
seat for the first time since the Commission was created in
1947. Last week President Bush said on Cuban Independence Day:
``We might not sit on some Commission, but we will always be
the world's leader in support of human rights.''
The President is right. We did pay a price for taking
forthright, principled positions at the Commission this year.
Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke about this when he
addressed the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations May 15 and he stressed that the future policy of the
United States toward the Commission would be the result of a
review and ultimately a decision by the President. This review
is now under way within the administration.
As the President said, the United States will remain
committed to human rights. It will continue to be a crucial
part of our approach to China, Cuba, Indonesia, the Balkans,
Iran, Sudan, and all the other places where fundamental
freedoms are at stake. We shall continue to be the world's
leading advocate for democracy and human rights. We shall
continue to meet foreign government officials and insist that
our views on human rights be known. We shall speak up for the
dissidents, victims of persecution, the tortured and the
dispossessed. We shall continue to tell the truth when we
submit our Country Reports on Human Rights Practices to
Congress and to the millions who now access them via the
Internet. We shall also continue our reports on International
Religious Freedom, now in its third cycle, and a new report on
Trafficking in Persons to be released on June 1.
Is this easy? No. Is it always appreciated by our friends
and allies? Unfortunately not. But it is necessary. To quote
the President again: ``History tells us that forcing change
upon oppressive regimes requires patience. But history also
proves, from Poland to South Africa, that patience and courage
and resolve can eventually cause oppressive regimes to fear and
then to fall.''
My message to you today is that the vote at ECOSOC has
limited our role in one highly visible forum, but it has hardly
crippled us. Those states which voted against us in the hope
that they would prevent us from being forceful advocates for
human rights were sadly mistaken. Indeed, in the policy review
to which I earlier referred, we are taking a close look at new
approaches and new opportunities to pursue our human rights
objectives worldwide. We may be forced for a time to shift our
tactics, but we will never abandon our goal.
I would like to say a brief word about the proposal by some
to link the payment of our arrears to the outcome of the
Commission election. The administration believes strongly that
any attempt to link U.S. payments to the U.N. now or in the
future to U.S. membership in or support for the Commission is
counterproductive. Not only will withholding money or adding
additional conditions on arrears payments provide ammunition to
our adversaries, but it will also frustrate our efforts to
further U.S. political interests and push for reform of the
institution and its agencies.
While the Commission on Human Rights is far from a perfect
institution, it has done much good over the years. It
established Special Rapporteurs on country situations, like the
Former Yugoslavia or Iraq, and on crucial thematic issues such
as torture or the independence of judges and lawyers.
We would caution against penalizing the United Nations, the
U.N. human rights program, or the Office of the High
Commissioner for the vote by a small number of U.N. member
states in the Economic and Social Council over membership in
the Commission on Human Rights. I strongly urge the committee
to proceed very cautiously in this regard.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dobriansky follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paula J. Dobriansky
``COMMITMENT TO HUMAN RIGHTS''
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Foreign Relations Committee,
It is an honor to be here to discuss the Bush Administration's
democracy promotion and human rights policy and the importance of
maintaining our leadership in this field. This is my first chance to
address this committee since I became the Under Secretary of State for
Global Affairs. I look forward to future discussions with you on these
important issues. My purpose today is to highlight the Bush
Administration's commitment to democracy and human rights promotion and
the policies we intend to pursue in support of them.
U.S. commitment to human rights dates from the Declaration of
Independence and our nation's founding. This reflects our nation's
values and our deeply rooted belief in the importance of developing and
maintaining democratic governments, subject to the rule of law, that
respect and protect individual liberty. At the same time, the defense
of human rights clearly serves our national interest.
As the history of the past century has shown, the strongest, most
stable, tolerant, and prosperous countries are precisely those which
respect universal human rights. For that reason, we have long made the
promotion of human rights a focus of our foreign policy and our foreign
assistance programs.
Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has been
without equal in articulating a vision of international human rights
and having the grit to carry it out. Whether crafting the United
Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
championing freedom and democracy throughout the Cold War, insisting on
human rights in the Helsinki Final Act, compiling the Country Reports
on Human Rights Practices for the past 25 years, or helping establish
the Community of Democracies in Warsaw last year, the United States has
been the country that has set the agenda and has done the heavy
lifting. Throughout these years, our message has not wavered. Promoting
democracy and protecting the individual against the excesses of the
state is the policy of the United States.
Fortunately, that effort has been successful. The U.S. vision has
come to be shared by many other states, and is now a fundamental
component of NATO, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe, and the Organization of American States and the Summit of the
Americas, and in the basic laws of many states that have emerged since
the end of World War II. It is increasingly an important factor in
decisions of countries in other regions, for example in Africa.
Let me turn now to a subject that has been much in the news
recently: the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. I am sure you
are all aware of the UN Economic and Social Council vote in New York on
May 3, which resulted in the United States losing its seat for the
first time since the Commission was created in 1947 under the
chairmanship of Eleanor Roosevelt.
As President Bush said on Cuban Independence Day last week at the
White House:
Last month, the UN Human Rights Commission called on Castro's
regime to respect the basic human rights of all its people. The
United States' leadership was responsible for passage of that
resolution. Some say we paid a heavy price for it, but let me
be clear: I'm very proud of what we did. And repressed people
around the world must know this about the United States: We
might not sit on some commission, but we will always be the
world's leader in support of human rights.
The President was right: we did pay a price for taking forthright,
principled positions at the Commission this year. Secretary of State
Colin Powell spoke about this when he addressed the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations May 15, and he
stressed that the future policy of the United States toward the
Commission would be the result of a review and ultimately a decision by
the President. This review is now under way within the Administration.
As the President said, the United States will remain committed to
human rights. It will be a crucial part of our approach to China, Cuba,
Indonesia, the Balkans, Iran, Sudan and all the other places where
fundamental freedoms are at stake. We are working ever closer with our
friends and allies at the UN, the OSCE, OAS, NATO, and other
multilateral organizations, and the State Department remains strongly
committed to its round-the-clock, round the year, round-the-world human
rights monitoring portfolio.
We shall continue to be the world's leading advocate for democracy
and human rights. We shall continue to meet foreign government
officials, and insist that our views on human rights be known. We shall
speak up for the dissidents, the victims of persecution, the tortured
and the dispossessed. We shall continue to tell the truth when we
submit our Country Reports on Human Rights Practices to Congress and to
the millions who now access them via the Internet. We shall continue
our reports on International Religious Freedom, now in its third cycle,
and a new report on Trafficking in Persons to be released on June 1.
Is this easy? No. Is it always appreciated by our friends and
allies? Unfortunately, not. But it is necessary. It is worthwhile. To
quote the President again:
History tells us that forcing change upon oppressive regimes
requires patience. But history also proves, from Poland to
South Africa, that patience and courage and resolve can
eventually cause oppressive regimes to fear and then to fall.
The vote by the member states of ECOSOC has limited our role in one
highly visible forum, but it has hardly crippled us. Those states which
voted against us in the hope that they would prevent us from being
forceful advocates for human rights were sadly mistaken. Indeed, in the
policy review, to which I earlier referred, we are taking a close look
at new approaches and new opportunities to pursue our human rights
objectives worldwide. We may be forced, for a time, to shift our
tactics, but we will never abandon our goal.
I would like to say a brief word about the proposal by some to link
the payment of our arrears to the outcome of the Commission election.
The Administration believes strongly that any attempt to link U.S.
payments to the UN--now or in the future--to U.S. membership in or
support for the Commission is counterproductive. Not only will
withholding money or adding additional conditions on arrears payments
provide ammunition to our adversaries, but it will also frustrate our
efforts to further U.S. political interests and push for reform of the
institution and its agencies. In the words of the President, ``a deal's
a deal.''
While the Commission on Human Rights is far from a perfect
institution, it has done much good over the years. It established
Special Rapporteurs on country situations like the Former Yugoslavia or
Iraq, and on crucial thematic issues such as Torture or the
Independence of Judges and Lawyers. These special mechanisms of the CHR
are among the activities of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights, former Irish President Mary Robinson, which also
maintains field offices in trouble spots like Congo and Colombia.
We would caution against penalizing the UN, the UN human rights
program, or the Office of the High Commissioner, for the vote by a
small number of UN Member States in the Economic and Social Council
over membership in the CHR. I strongly urge the Committee to proceed
very cautiously in this regard.
Thank you.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Secretary Dobriansky.
The ranking member, possibly soon to be chairperson of the
subcommittee, Senator Boxer, has fortunately graced us and now
I would like to turn the time over to Senator Boxer for her
remarks.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman. You
are the chairman and I thank you very much for holding this
hearing this afternoon. I welcome everyone here, including our
witnesses. We really appreciate your being here on this
important subject.
I want to say for the record, Mr. Chairman, that you have
really bent over backward to be fair and to work with me in
ensuring that this particular issue has been handled in a
bipartisan fashion. I hope that will be the hallmark of how we
handle things together. Yesterday in the confirmation hearing
for Howard Baker you spoke of the tradition of southern
courtesy and I can personally say that you carry that spirit
and I appreciate it.
Today's hearing, the U.N. Human Rights Commission: The Road
Ahead, has been called to examine the steps that need to be
taken in order to ensure that we continue to be a voice for
human rights and, frankly, from my perspective, that we regain
a seat on that important body. I think that to do this we need
bipartisan cooperation here, but we also need cooperation
between Congress and the administration so we are singing from
the same song.
Earlier this month, we all know what happened to us to be
removed from this Commission. It is very hurtful for us
because, Madam Secretary, as you say, we are the leader in the
world on human rights in so many ways. I think we were
blindsided and I think it was an embarrassment, and we will not
be on the Commission for the first time since it was
established in 1947. Given that the United States and Eleanor
Roosevelt in particular played such an important role in the
creation of the Commission, it is I believe a shock to our
prestige to be forcefully ousted by the vote.
Look, I am angry about it. I cannot say that I am not. I
understand why some people in the House would bet so upset as
to say, well, we are not going to pay all of our dues. I just
think that is not the right way to go, and in the questions I
am going to ask you more about that, so I will not go into that
now.
But I do hope, Mr. Chairman, we will have a road map on how
to regain the seat on the Commission. Madam Secretary, you
surely were hit with this moments after you got your new
position, so I know it is very difficult. I am glad that you
are here, and I also am very glad that our second panel--we
have Ms. Nina Shea, the director of the Center for Religious
Freedom, who has written an article on the U.N. Human Rights
Commission that was published in the Weekly Standard May 21;
and also Tom Malinowski, the Washington Advocacy director for
Human Rights Watch, which I believe is one of the most
respected organizations in the world on the issue of human
rights. I am so pleased that he is here.
So again, Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I do have a number
of questions, but I will withhold until you ask yours. I really
appreciate this opportunity.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
Let me ask a few questions of you, Secretary Dobriansky.
One, last August the Clinton administration was there in
Warsaw--last June, excuse me, last June--and they started what
was called the Community of Democracies initiative, with
obviously other countries which were democracies. Would you
find that as a more useful forum to improve human rights
because its members would be by its nature and definition
democracies? What do you think should be done? What is the Bush
administration's view of what ought to be done with that
concept of the Community of Democracies, and do you see that as
being a viable forum, as well as bilateral efforts as far as
the United States?
Ms. Dobriansky. Well, I would say, Mr. Chairman, that in
dealing with human rights issues worldwide one really has to
use every means possible to try to promote this most important
cause, be it through multilateral or bilateral channels. So I
start with that very broad premise first.
Given that, the Community of Democracies is one of the
vehicles by which we could certainly reinforce our commitment
and the commitment of others to human rights. The vehicle of
the Community of Democracies provides a network and a standard
for countries to become part of as democratic members.
We find, of course, that democratic systems of government
respect fundamental human rights and fundamental freedoms. They
are not only respectful of their own societies, but are willing
to try to commit themselves to ensure that that standard is
respected worldwide. So, the Community of Democracies, I think,
is an important initiative. It is one which is welcomed by this
administration.
One thing that we plan to do is to undertake a review of
the Community of Democracies implementation structure. It had
its first meeting last year and now we have some lessons to
learn from that session. I think we could benefit from
consultation with the nongovernmental community that was
present at the first Community of Democracies meeting and with
other participants.
But simply put, it is a very important and useful vehicle
and one that would be welcomed by this administration as an
initiative.
To your broader question, as I stated, I think that the
most effective means of advocating human rights policy is to
pursue not only a multilateral track--and there are a number of
multilateral fora in which one can engage and express concerns
about human rights issues--but at the same time to pursue a
bilateral track as well. The difference is that in multilateral
fora you usually have an opportunity to spotlight collectively
human rights abusers. That is the greatest advantage of
multilateral fora. Then on a case by case basis each
multilateral forum is different in terms of the kind of impact
or focus that it may have.
In the case of bilateral efforts, I think there are two
factors which are important here. First, as you know, the State
Department issues the Country Report on Human Rights, which
does provide a focus on our bilateral engagement, in which we
discuss and point out human rights-related abuses with other
countries. At the same time, there are individual cases that we
may address with countries. So, the bilaterally track is much
more specific and targeted. As you can see, both avenues must
be pursued, not a single one.
Senator Allen. Well, thank you. Turning to the strong
statement by Senator Boxer as far as getting back on this
Commission and your statement, and it seems like we are in
agreement, we should not be pouting and leaving because we did
not get on it, but we need to be resolved for human rights, but
also make sure that, I think for the credibility of not only
the United Nations Commission, but also for our country's
leadership, we have to find out how to get back on there.
I hate to dwell on the past, but it is important to
understand how did we get knocked off. I have--and this is from
the State Department--43 confirmed yes votes for the United
States. There is a variety of countries: Angola, Morocco, South
Africa, Uganda, China, Syria, Croatia, Czech Republic,
Venezuela, Costa Rica, Austria, France, United Kingdom, and so
forth--43. But obviously there were 14 faithless countries that
promised to vote for the United States to be a member of the
Human Rights Commission and then clearly broke their promise.
I think we ought to know, we need to understand what their
motivation is. I am not going to put into the record William
Safire's article because there are a few things that I do not
necessarily agree with, but he has conjectured in this early
May article that appeared in various newspapers, including the
New York Times. He said: ``The real reasons for slapping us in
the face are obvious and immediate: First, to punish the United
Nations for daring to ask the 53 nations of the U.N. group to
criticize China's record of repression; and second, to
humiliate the U.S. for opposing the Commission's recent vote
for blaming Israel''--we opposed the Commission's recent vote--
``for blaming Israel for the war started by order of Yasser
Arafat. The U.N. nations did not enjoy being shown up publicly
as a pack of hypocrites in approving a dictatorship's offensive
and condemning a democracy's self-defense. The enraged
communists and their fellow U.N. travelers seized their chance
to show what decides how freedom is to be restricted and
morality is to be measured.'' He goes on to say why is there
such silence and so forth.
I think it is important for us to understand, to have an
answer who they were, but not just to find out who they were,
but figure out what are their motivations. He mentions
commercial or political advantage. Why did they swap these
votes by selling out the fundamental rights of fellow human
beings in this situation?
So could you share with us, or is it classified
information, who were these 14 countries and why did they do
so?
Ms. Dobriansky. Mr. Chairman, the difficulty here is that,
as you know, the vote is by secret ballot. So consequently, it
is difficult to pin down precisely who voted and how, how an
individual country voted, even how an individual member voted.
That is what our problem is.
As to the question more broadly of what happened, there was
a vigorous effort certainly on our part, not only in
Washington, New York and Geneva, and with all of the ECOSOC
member states to advance our candidacy. But you had four
countries, ours included, in the Western and Other Group vying
for three spots and the end result was that, we had to have an
election and were not able to form a consensus slate. This
outcome resulted in competition and there was some trading of
votes. The end result is that we lost.
When I step back from this and evaluate what seems to have
taken place, one conclusion that I have drawn is that I think,
the outcome was a genuine surprise to all concerned. I would
also add that I think some other countries actually took for
granted that the United States would be a member of the
Commission. We have been a member right from the outset. So
given that, I think it will be very difficult to identify
specific countries, because of the secret ballot. Consequently,
I think that it will be very difficult to pin down who voted
which way.
Senator Allen. You mentioned trading votes. Do we know
which countries were trading votes?
Ms. Dobriansky. That, too, is difficult to pin down. Even
if one country tells you prospectively that it will vote one
way, it may have done something else. In fact, it is quite
interesting to note that in some cases the actual ambassador of
a particular country, even despite instructions, may have voted
possibly a different way from the diplomatic instructions
issued from capital.
So consequently, I think that it is not really going to be
possible, given the secret balloting, given what took place, to
come out with a precise ledger as you are requesting.
Senator Allen. Well, with that I am going to turn it over
to Senator Boxer, who will undoubtedly ask you questions on how
to make sure that the next vote next year has the United States
on the Commission. Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Yes, thank you so much.
We will sit as a nonvoting member, correct?
Ms. Dobriansky. As an observer, correct.
Senator Boxer. I gather from your very strong opening
sentence you do not intend--we do not intend to just sit by and
not speak out, correct?
Ms. Dobriansky. That is absolutely correct.
Senator Boxer. So one of the things, Mr. Chairman, we will
be able to do is still have our voice. They have not kicked us
off as a nonvoting member.
Ms. Dobriansky. We can also co-sponsor resolutions. We just
cannot sponsor them individually.
Senator Boxer. I think that is very important.
Have we gotten any suggestions from our allies on a path
back?
Ms. Dobriansky. We have been in consultation with our
allies, particularly because of what has taken place. Clearly,
it is important for us to continue that discussion, to have a
common agenda, and also to look more specifically at the need
for having a consensus slate.
Senator Boxer. Good. So we are working toward that
consensus slate. I think that is important because as the most
powerful nation in the world we are always somebody's target,
and I think being on a slate in a body like the U.N. is
probably a good way to go about it.
I was very pleased with Secretary Powell's initial
response. His response is this happened, and he never backed
off of human rights. He did not let his anger get in the way of
the fundamental issue, which I believe you have carried out
today very eloquently.
I am concerned about the House of Representatives vote. I
mentioned it in passing. I said I understood why people would
be upset, but I think in the end it is not helpful if we now
start pulling back dues as a punishment since that may have
played a role, Mr. Chairman, in the anger, just the fact that
we did not pay our bills, et cetera. So I know that the
administration did not support the amendment in the House, but
it is my understanding--and this is just from the press and it
may not be accurate, so I want to ask you. The Post wrote:
``Administration officials did not actively lobby against the
amendment or contact Mr. Hyde to discuss it.'' Is that true?
Ms. Dobriansky. We made countless calls to make clear our
opposition more broadly, and many Members agreed with us.
Others were looking for a way to basically vent at the loss of
a seat. But we will be making our case clearly here if an
amendment is offered.
Senator Boxer. That was going to be my next comment, that I
hope--I really believe that the Senate will respond a little
differently, and particularly with the continued leadership of
Secretary Powell, yourself, the President, to say that this is
not the way to resolve things.
I want to bring up another issue because it is very
important to me and it is the Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention on
the Rights of the Child. CEDAW has been ratified by 166
nations, leaving the United States to stand with such nations
as Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea. Only the United States
and Somalia have failed to ratify the Rights of the Child
Convention.
As far as I am concerned, it is a humiliation and I do not
understand it. I do know there are colleagues here who read
things into these conventions that I personally do not.
Now, Secretary Powell has written to me and he said that he
is willing to review CEDAW and consult back with me at a future
date. Have you been asked by Secretary Powell to review the
CEDAW treaty, including the work that was done by this
committee when it was favorably voted out a long time ago on a
vote of 13 to 5? Have you been asked by the Secretary to review
that?
Ms. Dobriansky. In fact, I would mention that with respect
to both conventions that you referred to we are looking at and
reviewing all aspects of these conventions.
Senator Boxer. Good.
[The following questions and answers were prompted by a
question from Senator Boxer.]
Responses of Hon. Paula J. Dobriansky to Additional Questions for the
Record Submitted by Senator Jesse Helms
During the hearing about the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights chaired by Senator George Allen on May 24, 2001, it emerged that
Secretary Powell provided his written commitment to a Member of the
Foreign Relations Committee to review the Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
The Chairman--whose request for the Department's treaty priorities
has received no reply to date--was not previously aware of the
Secretary's commitment concerning CEDAW.
Question a. What commitments did the Secretary make concerning
CEDAW?
Answer. The Secretary has told the Committee that the Department is
reviewing CEDAW.
Question b. Has the Secretary made commitments to other Members
concerning any treaty now pending before the Committee? If so, please
provide full details.
Answer. The Department is reviewing CEDAW and other treaties
previously transmitted to the Senate in connection with the
Administration's review of treaty priorities.
Question c. What are the Department's treaty priorities?
Answer. The Department welcomes the views of the Committee on all
treaties, including CEDAW.
Senator Boxer. Well, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me CEDAW,
the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Land Mine
Treaty, the Optional Protocol on Child Soldiers, which to put
children out to be killed is something I think we ought to be
taking the lead against. These are things I would like to see.
Let me just read. Former Assistant Secretary of State for
Human Resources Harold Koh has written: ``Although far less
law-abiding countries have ratified international treaties on
economic, social, and cultural rights, right of the child,
discrimination against women, banning land mines, and an
international criminal court, our Senate refuses to hold
hearings on the wisdom of joining these instruments.''
So I do not expect you today to take a position on these
treaties. That would not even be appropriate for you to do. But
I just say, given what has gone on with the Senate--and we
never know from one day to the next who the chairman is going
to be around here because, the truth be known, it could change
that many times. So we are going to have to work together.
But let me just announce today that if I have a chance and
the honor to hold the gavel, I do intend to bring hearings on
these various treaties, and I would encourage you and the
administration to take a really hard look, because I cannot
explain to my constituents when they raise their hand, and they
do, why we are not taking action. Even if the Senate does not
vote on them, Mr. Chairman, for some reason, I think it is our
responsibility to look at them.
So I just wanted the say that I am happy that you are
taking a look at these and you could expect it is a possibility
that we will be asking you to come back in the near future on
these.
I will just close with this final comment that kind of
picks up on the Safire article a bit. That is that I do worry
that, with our vote missing, that it is a problem, because we
are willing to speak up when others will not, whether it is the
Middle East or other places. There is a lot of politics, and I
worry about that as well. But I am feeling better that we will
be sitting at the table and we can speak out, even if we do not
have that precious vote yet. I want to encourage the
administration--well, really to underscore what you yourself
said, that we will still be courageous with our voice, whether
it is popular or unpopular, whether it is in the Middle East or
it is in Ireland or Africa or wherever it may be.
I want to thank you very much for your testimony today.
Ms. Dobriansky. Thank you. May I make a comment on the
issue of the arrears, the question or the comment you made
earlier?
Senator Boxer. Please.
Ms. Dobriansky. I wanted to make three points, if I may,
because we feel strongly about this. When you had posed the
question about tactics, I think there are three key points that
need to be kept in mind.
First, by making this kind of linkage it is
counterproductive, as I said in my statement. The reason why it
is counterproductive is, first, because one would be tying
together and not making a distinction between the United
Nations at large and then specifically the action of one body
of the United Nations, the ECOSOC, which comprises less than a
third of the members of the United Nations as a whole.
Senator Boxer. It is a good point.
Ms. Dobriansky. The second point is that the linkage I
believe, would defeat the very purpose that I think we would
all intend to achieve. That is, it would literally add fuel to
the fire and support those who would like to see us out of the
picture and not take the aggressive and leadership role on
human rights issues that we have. They would point to: Oh, this
is another problem; here the United States is tying its arrears
to securing a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Commission.
Instead, it would just be a counterproductive strategy toward
the end that we want to achieve.
But third, you will be hearing from Tom Malinowski. One
aspect in the human rights area that I think has always been
important is the collaboration between the government and the
NGO community. I was very struck by a letter that he had shared
with me that was signed by all the human rights organizations
to both Senators Helms and Biden, calling for no linkage, and
asserting that this approach would be ultimately detrimental to
our goals. I just wanted to underscore this point. I am sure
that he will be saying more about the letter in his own
testimony. This constituted an important signal from the NGO
community.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Senator Boxer, for your
questions.
Secretary Dobriansky, I am glad you wrapped it up with
that, because that will be the next step. That issue will arise
here. I would ask you if a fourth reason for not saying we are
not going to pay some of these dues is that we have made some
reforms. Senator Biden and Senator Helms, working in a
bipartisan manner, have made significant--had the United
Nations make significant reforms. Are they as much as we would
want? No. But we do want to be engaged.
A fourth reason I would query you on based on your most
recent comment, would be in the event the United States said if
we do not get on this committee or this Commission we are not
going to pay, would that not be a precedent for other countries
in the future to say, well, we are going to withhold, although
they are not as financially involved as the United States may
be? But you could have another country saying, well, if we do
not get on this Commission we are not going to pay a fifth or a
quarter of our dues. Would that be a precedent that some of
them would just love to bring up in the future?
Ms. Dobriansky. Mr. Chairman, I think you raise another
valid point in the variety of reasons why we should not go down
this path. We should maintain our leadership role and our
leadership role entails giving what you said at the beginning,
not undertaking any fits or pouting. I think that establishing
these ties between the arrears payment and our membership on
the U.N. Human Rights Commission is just simply
counterproductive and would defeat the very purpose of what we
want to achieve.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Secretary Dobriansky. We very
much appreciate you coming over and sharing your views with us.
I know I am speaking for all members of this subcommittee and
committee, we look forward to working with you and Secretary
Powell to advance our shared values.
Ms. Dobriansky. Thank you. I feel likewise.
Senator Allen. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
Ms. Dobriansky. Thank you.
Senator Allen. If the members of the second panel, Nina
Shea and Tom Malinowski, would please come forward. I would say
to Senator Boxer, I have introduced both Ms. Shea and Mr.
MalinowskI earlier and their groups, and I would ask Nina Shea
as a matter of courtesy, without objection, if Ms. Shea would
first give us your views, please.
STATEMENT OF NINA SHEA, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM,
FREEDOM HOUSE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Shea. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Boxer. I am very
grateful for this opportunity to testify about the recently
concluded session of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, which I
had the privilege of attending as a public member of the U.S.
delegation. I have been an international lawyer for 22 years
and over that period have attended many sessions of the U.N.
Commission, including as a public member of the U.S. delegation
in 1993.
I appear today in my private capacity as the director of
the Center for Religious Freedom of Freedom House and the views
expressed in the testimony are my own. They do not reflect the
views of the U.S. delegation, the Department of State, or the
U.S. Government. But before I begin I would like to commend the
very hard work of our State Department both in Geneva, which I
saw first-hand, and then in Washington, who were giving us
backup, and the leadership that the United States has taken at
the Commission.
Americans were shocked that our West European allies took
the lead in ousting us from the Commission. Having observed the
Commission first-hand, I was less surprised. Contrary to
reports in the media, the ouster was not a reaction to American
unilateralism on issues such as missile defense and global
warming. Rather, I believe the Europeans' action reflects the
abandonment of their historical commitment to human rights.
Whereas in the past the Western European delegations were
in the forefront of the Commission's work, highlighting
injustices in South Africa, East Timor and Bosnia, for example,
they now resort to euphemisms and half-truths. The United
States stands virtually alone in striving to focus world
attention on actual and specific violations of human rights.
Repeatedly at the 57th Commission the U.S. had to break with
the European Union in order to vote its conscience on issues
like slavery in Sudan, religious persecution in China, and
political repression in Cuba. The United States often stands
alone, too, in opposing blatantly political condemnations of
Israel.
In my view, the loss of our seat on the Commission is meant
to punish the United States for marching out of step. I believe
the United States is deeply resented, not only by the despotic
regimes that pack the Commission, such as Sudan, Libya,
Algeria, Cuba, Syria, and Vietnam, but also by our European
Union allies, who dislike being forced to vote in public on
measures censuring countries with which they hope to conclude
trade deals. A West European ambassador confidently told me
that in a few years there will be no more finger-pointing on
the Human Rights Commission.
If the United States is to win back its seat in 2002 and
prove him wrong, it will need to develop a strategy for
reversing four trends that are hastening the Commission's
decline into irrelevancy:
First, a new dominant culture requires that the Commission
pass its resolutions by consensus. I think about three-quarters
of the resolutions are now passed by consensus at the
Commission. The Europeans favor this, as do states with poor
records on human rights. Consensus politics means that Sudan,
say, gets to help draft the resolution censuring itself. The
Khartoum Government, which Secretary of State Colin Powell
recently called ``the biggest single abuser of human rights on
earth,'' thus was able to have removed from the latest
resolution all mention of slavery, even though the Commission's
rapporteurs have documented the involvement of Khartoum's
militias in the practice of slavery in seven consecutive annual
reports. The EU-sponsored resolution on Sudan was so weak that
the United States was forced to abstain and make a statement of
protest.
Second, the Commission, like many other U.N. forums, frowns
on the practice of naming violators of human rights in open
debate. However, during the recent 6-week session the
Commission adopted five resolutions censuring Israel over U.S.
objections. Israel was also the sole focus of a special session
of the Commission last October at which a resolution was
adopted condemning Israel for ``crimes against humanity.''
The United States does not conform to this. Thus, during
the discussion of human rights defenders the American
intervention mentioned case after case of particular defense
lawyers, journalists, clergy, and other human rights activists
in specified countries who have been imprisoned or murdered for
their work. In contrast, speaking for the EU, the Swedish
Ambassador addressed the issue in platitudes and generalities.
This same pattern held whether the subject under discussion was
persecuted religious believers, vulnerable groups, or those in
prison for exercising their international right to free
expression.
At most, EU delegates were willing to cite countries for
failing to cooperate with the Commission rapporteur, though
they never debated the actual findings of the rapporteur in
plenary.
The European Union states it prefers cooperation to public
measures. French President Chirac came to the Commission and
made a speech pointing to China, explaining that civilized
dialog coaxed China to ratify the International Covenant on
Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. In making this argument,
the French ignore China's recent labor camp detentions of
Catholic bishops and thousands of Falun Gong practitioners, its
destruction of a thousand temples and churches just before
Christmas, and its revival of the practice of confining
dissidents in psychiatric institutes.
A German diplomat recently named Special Rapporteur for
Sudan similarly cited the Commission's success at gaining that
country's cooperation in establishing, with international
funding, a committee to eradicate slavery. But of the tens of
thousands of people thought to be enslaved in Sudan, this
committee has rescued only 353, in a single, highly publicized
event shortly after its establishment 2 years ago. Slaves,
meanwhile, continue to be captured in government-sponsored
raids faster than they are being released by the committee.
Clearly, cooperation is a fiction invented to protect Europe's
honor and to shield the reputations of abusive governments.
Third, there is Europe's China problem. China is the
government that stands to gain the most from the U.S. ouster,
so much so that some observers believe eagerness to curry favor
with this important trading partner was the Europeans' main
motivation for running three candidates. Next year, with the
United States out of the way, there will be no embarrassing
resolution of censure that China will have to work hard to
defeat. At the 57th session the United States was the lone
sponsor of the draft resolution against China, having failed to
garner the European support it had through most of the 1990's.
China's open bullying and use of trade levers are well
known at the Commission. After Denmark introduced a resolution
citing China's human rights abuses in 1997, China threatened
Denmark. That was the last time the United States was able to
secure sponsorship of the measure. After Freedom House arranged
a press conference with Chinese democracy activists during last
year's session, China, with the support of Sudan and Cuba,
brought proceedings to bar it from participating at future
sessions.
Fourth, resolutions dealing with economic rights for groups
and even governments are proliferating. These rights as
envisioned in the resolution are unachievable, depending as
they would for their implementation on the wholesale transfers
of wealth and technology from developed to underdeveloped
nations. At the 2001 session a dozen resolutions passed, some
at European initiative, on the rights to food, water, housing,
HIV-AIDS drugs, education, development, and a raft of other
economic issues.
A ``right to development'' resolution, introduced by China,
Mexico, and the Non-Aligned Movement contains many references
to these transfers of wealth and technology. Incredibly, only
Japan joined the United States in opposing this resolution. All
of Western Europe voted for it, and one of the obstacles that
is cited to development in this resolution was the protections,
the international structure for protecting intellectual
property rights. All of Western Europe voted for this
resolution except the U.K., which abstained.
In the past, the most enthusiastic champion of economic
rights was the Soviet bloc. I believe then, as now, the main
purpose served by debating such unenforceable rights is to
deflect attention from a government's refusal to enforce civil
and political rights of the individual.
To reverse these four deplorable trends will be a challenge
and an insurmountable one unless the Europeans reverse course.
Eleanor Roosevelt and the other drafters of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights at the first Commission on Human
Rights in 1947 believed that moral suasion could be a potent
force for change. Since then Western Europe has made important
contributions in advocating human rights abroad and has been an
essential American partner at the Commission in giving a voice
to the voiceless. If the European nations do not return to this
tradition, in my view the Commission will have outlived its
usefulness, whether or not the United States recaptures a seat.
To conclude, I would like to emphasize that I am not
suggesting here that the United States walk away from the
Commission and not try to get its seat back. I am just trying
to point out that the problems at the Commission are deeper
than us losing our seat, they are deeper than the problems
presented by the EU, but the EU is a key, I think, to solving
and resolving these problems.
That concludes my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Shea follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nina Shea
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Committee Members for this opportunity
to testify about the recently concluded session of the United Nations
Human Rights Commission, which I attended as a public member of the
U.S. delegation. I have been an international human rights lawyer for
22 years and over that period have attended many sessions of the UN
Human Rights Commission, including as a public member of the U.S.
delegation in 1993. I appear today in my private capacity as the
director of the Center for Religious Freedom of Freedom House, and the
views expressed in the testimony are my own. They do not reflect the
views of the U.S. Delegation, the Department of State, or the U.S.
Government.
For over 50 years, the United States had been continuously
reelected to one of the seats at the Commission either by acclamation
when the Western Countries and Others Group (WEOG) to which the United
States belongs presented a single slate of candidates to the Commission
or by voted election when the number of candidates exceeded the number
of vacant seats in the regional group. When France, Austria, and Sweden
all insisted on competing for the three open Western seats this year,
they forced the Economic and Social Council, which oversees the
Commission, to resolve the matter by secret ballot.
Americans were shocked that our West European allies took the lead
in ousting us from the Commission on May 3. Having observed the
Commission first hand, I was less surprised. Contrary to reports in the
media, the ouster was not a reaction to American ``unilateralism'' on
issues such as missile defense and global warming. Rather, I believe
the Europeans' action reflects the abandonment of their historical
commitment to human rights.
Whereas in the past, the Western European delegations were in the
forefront of the Commission's work, highlighting injustices in South
Africa, East Timor, and Bosnia, they now resort to euphemisms and half-
truths. The United States stands virtually alone in striving to focus
world attention on actual and specific violations of human rights.
Repeatedly at the 57th Commission, the United States had to break with
the European Union in order to vote its conscience on issues like
slavery in Sudan, religious persecution in China, and political
repression in Cuba. The United States often stands alone, too, in
opposing blatantly political condemnations of Israel. In my view, the
loss of our seat on the Commission is meant to punish the United States
for marching out of step.
I believe, the United States is deeply resented, not only by the
despotic regimes that pack the Commission--such as Sudan, Libya,
Algeria, Cuba, Syria, and Vietnam--but also by our European Union
allies, who dislike being forced to vote in public on measures
censuring countries with which they hope to conclude trade deals.
Newspaper editorials from Copenhagen to Madrid have expressed
satisfaction with the American ouster, sneering that go-it-alone U.S.
behavior in international forums represents ``boorish'' isolationism. A
West European ambassador confidently told me that in a few years there
will be no more ``finger-pointing'' on the Human Rights Commission.
If the United States is to win back its seat in 2002 and prove him
wrong, it will need to develop a strategy for reversing four trends
that are hastening the Commission's decline into irrelevancy.
First, a new dominant culture requires that the Commission
pass its resolutions by consensus. The Europeans favor this, as
do states with poor records on human rights. Consensus politics
means that Sudan, say, gets to help draft the resolution
censuring itself. The Khartoum government, which Secretary of
State Colin Powell recently called ``the biggest single abuser
of human rights on Earth,'' thus was able to have removed from
the latest resolution all mention of slavery even though the
Commission's rapporteurs have documented the involvement of
Khartoum's militias in the practice of slavery in seven
consecutive annual reports. The European Union-sponsored
resolution on Sudan was so weak that the United States was
forced to abstain and make a statement of protest.
Second, the Commission like many other U.N. forums frowns on
the practice of naming violators of human rights in open
debate. However, during the recent six-week session, the
Commission adopted five resolutions censuring Israel, over U.S.
objections. Israel was also the sole focus of a special session
of the Commission last October at which a resolution was
adopted condemning Israel for ``crimes against humanity.''
The United States does not conform to this. Thus, during the
discussion of ``human rights defenders,'' the American
intervention mentioned case after case of particular defense
lawyers, journalists, clergy, and other human rights activists
in specified countries who have been imprisoned or murdered for
their work. In contrast, speaking for the EU, the Swedish
ambassador addressed the issue in platitudes and generalities.
The same pattern held whether the subject under discussion was
persecuted religious believers, vulnerable groups, or those
imprisoned for exercising the international right to free
expression. At most, EU delegates were willing to cite
countries for failing to cooperate with a Commission
rapporteur, though they never debated the actual findings of
the rapporteur in plenary.
The European Union states it prefers ``cooperation'' to public
pressure. French diplomats point to China, explaining that
civilized dialogue coaxed China to ratify the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In making
this argument, the French ignore China's recent labor camp
detentions of Catholic bishops and thousands of Falun Gong
practitioners, its destruction of a thousand churches and
temples just before Christmas, and its revival of the practice
of confining dissidents in psychiatric institutions. A German
diplomat recently named special rapporteur for Sudan similarly
cited the Commission's success at gaining that country's
cooperation in establishing, with international funding, a
committee to eradicate slavery. But of the tens of thousands of
people thought to be enslaved in Sudan, this committee has
rescued only 353, in a single highly publicized event shortly
after its establishment two years ago. Slaves, meanwhile,
continue to be captured in government-sponsored raids faster
than they are being released by the committee. Clearly,
cooperation is a fiction invented to protect Europe's honor and
to shield the reputations of abusive governments.
Third, there is Europe's China problem. China is the country
that stands to gain most from the U.S. ouster so much so that
some observers believe eagerness to curry favor with this
important trading partner was the Europeans' main motivation
for running three candidates. Next year, with the United States
out of the way, there will be no embarrassing resolution of
censure that China will have to work hard to defeat. At the
57th session, the United States was the lone sponsor of the
draft resolution against China, having failed to garner the
European support it had through most of the 1990s.
China's open bullying and use of trade levers are well known at
the Commission. After Denmark introduced the resolution citing
Chinese human rights abuses in 1997, China threatened to make
the issue ``a rock that smashes on the Danish government's
head. Denmark, the bird that pokes out its head, will suffer
the most.'' That was the last time the United States was able
to secure cosponsorship of the measure. Beijing tolerates no
criticism of its human rights abuses on U.N. premises. After
Freedom House arranged a press conference with Chinese
democracy activists during last year's session, China, with the
support of Sudan and Cuba, brought proceedings to bar it from
participating at future sessions.
Fourth, resolutions dealing with economic rights for groups
and even governments are proliferating. These ``rights'' as
envisioned in the resolution are unachievable, depending as
they would for their implementation on wholesale transfers of
wealth and technology from developed to undeveloped nations. At
the 2001 session, a dozen resolutions passed, some at European
initiative, on the rights to food, water, housing, HIV/AIDS
drugs, education, development, and a raft of other economic
issues.
A ``right to development'' resolution, introduced by China,
Mexico and the Non-Aligned Movement (alive and well a decade
after the Cold War), contains many references to these
transfers of wealth and technology. Incredibly, only Japan
joined the United States in opposing this resolution. All of
Western Europe voted for it except the United Kingdom, which
abstained. In the past, the most enthusiastic champion of
economic rights was the Soviet bloc. I believe that, then as
now, the main purpose served by debating such unenforceable
``rights'' is to distract attention from governments' refusal
to enforce the civil and political rights of the individual.
To reverse these four deplorable trends will be a challenge, and an
insurmountable one unless the Europeans reverse course. Eleanor
Roosevelt and the other drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights at the first Commission on Human Rights in 1947 believed that
moral suasion could be a potent force for change. Since then, Western
Europe has made important contributions in advocating human rights
abroad and has been an essential American partner at the Commission in
giving a voice to the voiceless. If the European nations do not return
to this tradition, in my view, the Commission will have outlived its
usefulness whether or not the United States recaptures a seat.
Senator Allen. Thank you very much, a very powerful insight
for us all. Thank you, Ms. Shea.
Mr. Malinowski.
STATEMENT OF TOM MALINOWSKI, WASHINGTON ADVOCACY DIRECTOR FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Boxer. It
is a pleasure to be here. Thanks again for your invitation to
testify on behalf of Human Rights Watch.
I want to just take a moment to talk a bit about what
happened and then focus a bit more, as you suggested, Mr.
Chairman, on the road ahead and what should come next. First of
all, as we all know, the United States lost a vote, and for the
first time in more than 50 years it will not be a member of the
Human Rights Commission.
But as we started looking at this, we actually found
something interesting that I have not seen in any of the news
reports on what happened following Geneva. That is that this
was not by any means the first contested election among the
members of the so-called Western European Group and Other, of
which the United States is a member. In fact, we looked at the
votes between 1974 and 1989 and found that in all but one of
those cases, every 3 years, the United States had to compete
against largely its Western European allies for a seat on this
Commission.
In 1989, which I think was the last of these contested
votes, the United States beat out Austria for third place by
just three votes. Of course, this last year--well, this month
Sweden beat out the United States for third place, once again
by three votes. So the shift from the historical pattern,
though obviously significant enough for the United States to
lose its seat, is not quite as dramatic as some might have
imagined. That is something that as people look at the strategy
for the year ahead needs to be kept in mind.
Second, as everyone has mentioned, the United States could
not have lost this vote without losing at least some votes from
among its closest friends and allies, not necessarily in Europe
but throughout the world. So the really important question is
how did this happen.
As Nina Shea and others have mentioned, one factor
certainly has been that the United States in recent years has
generally been more willing than its allies on the Commission
to confront the most abusive governments on earth. Nina spoke
about the high value that the Europeans place on consensus and
that has certainly been a problem, and the sort of embarrassing
situation in which resolutions are negotiated with the target
country itself.
I suppose a cynic might say that the United States
sometimes takes the heat for singling out abusers while others
take the contracts. That would not be entirely fair since on
many issues, such as Burma and Afghanistan to name two, the
Europeans have taken a principled leadership role in Geneva in
recent years, but they certainly do open themselves up to the
charge at times.
At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to
note that just because the United States has legitimate
concerns about some of its European allies and partners that
does not mean that they have no legitimate concerns about the
United States. Many of America's closest democratic friends on
the Commission have been deeply concerned in recent years, as
Senator Boxer mentioned, that we are at times walking away from
international treaties and agreements, including in some cases
those meant to strengthen human rights.
They point to issues like the death penalty and prison
conditions and say that America is sometimes unwilling to apply
to itself standards that it rightly applies to others. They see
America as a country that sometimes throws its weight around in
these international institutions without always being willing
to carry its weight by paying its dues, and that has been
mentioned as a problem in the past as well.
Now, the United States is certainly not obliged to agree
with its allies on all of these issues, but I think it is hard
to deny that the concerns that I outlined and others do exist,
and that is something that also must inform our judgment as we
plan the road ahead.
Now, what should the United States do in the coming year?
First, as I think we have all agreed, the United States should
not walk away from this Commission in disgust. We should not
cede this arena to the likes of Sudan and others. As Secretary
Dobriansky mentioned, despite the flawed membership of this
institution, it has managed time and again over the years to
speak for the world on behalf of those struggling for human
rights, whether it is East Timor or Serbia or Sudan.
For two straight years the Commission has condemned Russia,
a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, for its abuses
in Chechnya. Resolutions critical of China have never passed,
but they have helped to pressure Beijing to release political
prisoners and to let human rights monitors onto its territory.
This is why, of course, human rights violators work so hard to
thwart the Commission's work, and this is why the United States
needs to stay engaged.
The United States can stay engaged. Even as a nonmember, it
can speak out, lobby other members, draft and co-sponsor
resolutions, and perhaps most important it can press for the
implementation of existing resolutions. For example, this
year's Chechnya resolution, which was a milestone, urged the
Russian Government to hold accountable those responsible for
attacks on civilians and to let human rights monitors into
Chechnya.
We are very pleased to see that Secretary Powell raised
those precise concerns with Foreign Minister Ivanov when he was
here last week, and they ought to be front and center when
President Bush meets with President Putin when he goes to
Europe in June. I hope you will reinforce that case along with
us.
Second, if the United States does campaign in the
traditional way to regain the seat, it will probably succeed,
but it has got to do so by convincing its friends, not coercing
them. Again, as Under Secretary Dobriansky said, threatening to
withhold the U.N. dues would only make that job harder.
In short, Mr. Chairman, the United States can get back at
the world or it can get back on the Commission, but it cannot
do both. I hope and all of the human rights organizations that
wrote to you hope that, if America's interest lies in advancing
human rights, it will concentrate on the latter task.
Third, Mr. Chairman, I think all of us should be pressing
the remaining democracies on the Commission to help this body
fulfill its mandate. France, Austria, and Sweden have won the
privilege of membership on the Commission for the next 3 years.
Very well. The onus should now be on them to help the
Commission fulfill its mandate, and in particular, for example,
to ensure that a China resolution is introduced in the coming
year, as the European nations did actually in fact until 1997.
They were the lead sponsors of that resolution.
That is another issue that ought to be on the table when
President Bush visits Europe and when he has his summit with
the EU leaders in Stockholm in June. In fact, this whole issue
of how the United States and Europe work together on human
rights at the Commission and more broadly ought to be an
important subject of discussion at that meeting, rather than
waiting until we are 2 weeks away from the vote next year.
The United States should also work with the European Union
and others on the Commission to set minimal standards for its
membership. Mr. Chairman, you suggested one idea. Another that
we have long advocated is that no nation should gain a seat on
the Commission unless it promises to give the U.N. human rights
investigators free access to its territory.
If the United States were to issue such a standing
invitation itself, as 33 other countries have already done, it
would set a strong example and strengthen its campaign to
regain its seat on the Commission.
Finally, it would strengthen America's case and the cause
of human rights to show that the United States is still willing
to work with others to improve international standards of human
rights. Senator Boxer mentioned a number of the treaties that
have been awaiting ratification and it would send a powerful
signal to the world if this committee were to take action on at
least some of them.
One good place to start in addition to a number that
Senator Boxer mentioned would be the Child Soldiers Protocol,
which would do so much to bolster those who are campaigning
to----
Senator Boxer. I did mention that, just so you know.
Senator Allen. Yes.
Mr. Malinowski. You did? Good.
Senator Allen. Did you not say that Senator Boxer mentioned
that?
Mr. Malinowski. I think I did. I said among the many that
you mentioned.
Senator Boxer. I thought you said I did not, among those I
did not mention. Not that I am sensitive on the subject.
Senator Allen. You certainly mentioned it. For the record,
Senator Boxer mentioned it.
Mr. Malinowski. Good. For the record, I will recognize it.
Now let us ratify it. It would do so much good and it is
one of those treaties, for example very importantly, that the
Defense Department made clear last year that was fully in
keeping with the U.S. interests. I hope that you all take
action soon and I think it would help in this larger campaign
that we are all interested in being part of.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I think we should all of
course try to understand why this vote happened, recognizing
that there are plenty of hard lessons to be learned on both
sides of the Atlantic. Then, having learned those lessons, we
should move on.
In a few years I think we may look back on what now appears
to be a debacle and see it as a golden opportunity to
strengthen this Commission and its work in the cause of human
rights around the world. Let us hope we can say it was an
opportunity the United States helped to seize.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Malinowski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Malinowski
Mr. Chairman, members, thank you for your invitation to testify on
behalf of Human Rights Watch. Let me begin with a few observations
about how and why the U.S. lost its seat on the Commission on Human
Rights--and then move to the road ahead.
First, the United States lost a vote. For the first time, it will
not be a member of the Commission. But this was not the first contested
election among the so-called ``Western European and Other'' group. We
have begun to look into a number of past votes, and found that at least
between 1974 and 1989, the United States had to compete against its
friends and allies for a seat five times, virtually each time its term
on the Commission expired. In 1989, the United States received 33
votes, beating out Austria--for third place--by just two votes. This
year, Sweden beat out the U.S. for third place by three votes. So the
shift from the historical pattern was not as great as some have
imagined.
Second, the vote took place not at the Commission on Human Rights
itself, but in the UN Economic and Social Council. And the result can't
be explained solely by the presence of egregious human rights violators
like Sudan among the members of that body. The U.S. could not have lost
without losing a few votes from among its closest friends and allies in
Europe, Latin America, Asia and Africa. So it's not just abusers'
solidarity, but the diminished solidarity between the United States and
its democratic partners that ought to concern us. How has this
happened?
It is true that in recent years, the United States has generally
been more willing than its allies on the Commission to confront the
most abusive governments on earth, whether the issue has been human
rights in China, Cuba, Chechnya or Iran. Europeans in particular have
sometimes placed a higher value on ``consensus'' in Geneva than on
producing hard-hitting resolutions. This entails actually negotiating
country resolutions with the target country, leading to embarrassing
situations like the one two years ago when Sudan's Ambassador to the
Commission profusely thanked Germany for its approach to drafting a
Sudan resolution. A cynic might say that the United States sometimes
takes the heat for singling out abusers, while Europeans take the
contracts. That would not be entirely fair, since on many issues, such
as Burma and Afghanistan, Europe has played a leadership role at the
Commission and there are countries the U.S. has shied away from
targeting, too. But clearly, the Europeans do sometimes open themselves
up to the charge.
Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, just because the United States has
legitimate concerns about the approach its allies take in Geneva does
not mean its allies do not have legitimate concerns about the U.S.
America's self-image as the world's leading champion of human rights is
simply not shared by many of its closest democratic friends on the
Commission. They are deeply concerned that the United States is
increasingly walking away from international treaties and agreements,
instead of working with others to strengthen them--whether the issue is
climate change, or landmines, or the International Criminal Court, or
the many human rights conventions the United States has not ratified,
or the largely symbolic votes on issues like access to AIDS drugs and
the right to food on which the United States has been completely
isolated in Geneva. They point to the death penalty, to conditions in
U.S. prisons, and to the U.S. practice of ratifying human rights
treaties without giving its citizens the right to invoke them in court
(all problems that Human Rights Watch has repeatedly documented), and
they say America is unwilling to apply to itself the standards it
preaches to others. They see America as a country that throws its
weight around, while refusing to carry its weight by paying its dues to
the UN or participating in most of its peacekeeping missions.
The United States is not obliged to agree with its allies on all
these issues. But it is hard to deny that the concerns I described do
exist, and that they make it harder for the United States to advance
the cause of human rights and democracy with authority and credibility.
And that is something that must concern us all.
The question today is what should the United States do this year,
both to advance human rights at the Commission and to regain its seat,
should it choose to do so.
First, the United States should neither accept the status quo on
the Commission nor walk away in disgust. Despite its membership, this
Commission has managed to speak for the world on behalf of those
struggling for human rights from East Timor to Serbia to Sudan. For two
straight years, the Commission has condemned Russia for its abuses in
Chechnya. Resolutions critical of China have never passed, but have
helped pressure Beijing to release political prisoners, to accept
visits by UN rapporteurs, and to sign two important UN human rights
treaties (one of which it has ratified). This is why human rights
violators work so hard to thwart the Commission's efforts. This is why
the United States should stay engaged.
And the United States can stay engaged. Even as a non-member, it
can speak out, lobby other members, draft and co-sponsor resolutions.
It can still support the work of UN rapporteurs who are trying to shine
a light on abuses throughout the world. Perhaps most important, it can
press for the implementation of existing resolutions. For example, this
year's Chechnya resolution urged the Russian government to hold
accountable those responsible for attacks on civilians, and to let
human rights monitors from the UN and OSCE into Chechnya. We were very
pleased that Secretary Powell raised those issues with Foreign Minister
Ivanov last week. They ought to be front and center when President Bush
meets with President Putin in June. The United States and others should
also be pressing Indonesia to abide by a resolution adopted by the
Commission in 1999, by prosecuting those responsible for the violence
in East Timor.
Second, if the U.S. campaigns in the traditional way to regain its
seat, it stands an excellent chance of winning. But it would be a
mistake for the United States to claim an absolute entitlement to sit
on the Commission, just as it was a mistake to assume its seat was
unassailable. Nor should the U.S. threaten to withhold its UN dues.
That would intensify the very resentment among key partners which
contributed to the loss of its seat.
In short, Mr. Chairman, the United States can get back at the
world. Or it can get back on the Commission. But it cannot do both. And
if its interest lies in advancing the cause of human rights, it should
focus on the latter. That is the view of my organization and of just
about every major human rights organization in the United States, which
we expressed in a joint letter to Members of Congress two weeks ago;
I'm pleased it is the Administration's view; and I hope we will see it
reflected in the version of the State Department Authorization bill
that this Committee approves.
Third, Mr. Chairman, all of us--the Administration, the Congress,
and human rights groups--should be pressing those democratic nations
still on the Commission to help this flawed but vital body fulfill its
mandate. France, Austria and Sweden have won the privilege of sitting
on the Commission. Very well. Among other things, the onus must now be
on them and other nations committed to human rights to sponsor a China
resolution, as European nations did until 1997. This year, Sweden
pledged EU diplomats would be more active in lobbying against China's
``no action'' motion in Geneva. It's unclear if they were. Meanwhile,
by the EU's own admission, its human rights dialogue with China has
yielded no meaningful progress. The question of how to best coordinate
action on China in the coming year should be on the table when
President Bush holds his summit with the EU in Stockholm this June.
The United States should also work with the EU and others on the
Commission on Human Rights to set minimal standards for its membership.
At the very least, no nation should gain a seat unless it promises to
allow the UN's human rights investigators free access to its territory.
If the United States were to issue such a standing invitation itself--
as 33 other nations have already done--it would set a strong example,
and strengthen its campaign to regain its seat.
Finally, it would strengthen America's case and the cause of human
rights to show that the United States is still willing to work with
others to improve international standards of human rights. It doesn't
help American diplomats in Geneva that the United States is the only
country in the world, apart from Somalia, not to have ratified the
Convention on the Rights of the Child. The United States has not yet
ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women, the Child Soldiers Protocol, the
International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and
Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions. Early action by this Committee on
at least one of those treaties would send a powerful and welcome signal
to the world. A good place to start would be with the Child Soldiers
Protocol, which would bolster those campaigning against the use of
children in warfare around the world, and which the Defense Department
has said is fully in keeping with U.S. national interests.
Living up to the highest human rights standards at home is just as
important. The United States should be proud of its strengths, but not
so defensive about its weaknesses that it shuts out the concerns of its
closest friends about conditions within its borders.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I think we should all try to
understand why this vote happened, recognizing that there are plenty of
hard lessons to be learned on both sides of the Atlantic. And then we
should move on. In a few years, we may look back on this experience, as
troubling as it may be, and see it as a golden opportunity to
strengthen the Commission and its work and the cause of human rights.
Let's hope we can say it was an opportunity the United States helped to
seize.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Malinowski, for your insight
and cogent remarks. Both witnesses, Ms. Shea, Mr. Malinowski,
we thank you so much for your insight and very articulate
stands.
We are probably going to have a vote very shortly. So I am
not going to hold you up, but I would like to ask you all a few
questions. Mr. Malinowski, you brought it up in your remarks as
far as--it seems like it is fairly hard to get this Commission
ever to condemn anyone. Ms. Shea was talking about this
consensus approach, which does not seem to really work very
much as far as--the European approach of consensus. You were
talking about various things.
Now, on these other treaties, they are all worthy of
looking into. I do not think any of us want to cede our
sovereignty of our country to any international body. However,
in the event you can get such a disparate group of individuals
and countries with maybe disparate values as well to actually
condemn a country, what would you think the chances would be to
say, well, that country so long as, say for a period of 3 years
or 4 years--I do not know, even 2 years--could not be on the
Human Rights Commission?
If that were actually put to a vote, which would be very
logical--how can you be on a Human Rights Commission? Sudan
drafting condemnation of slavery of course taking slavery out
of it? And all of that, all those machinations. It would seem
to me very logical that any country that actually gets
condemned, which is very rare and very hard to get, should not
be on that Human Rights Commission.
Now, if that was taken to a vote--and I assume you all
endorse such a concept--do you think it has any chance of
passing?
Mr. Malinowski. Well, I think it would be very hard. But
just because it is hard does not mean it is not worth pursuing.
Senator Allen. Right.
Mr. Malinowski. That is what I would say about just about
any important human rights issues. You stand up for your
principles and push hard, and you are going to win some and you
are going to lose some. That ought to be our attitude overall
in our approach to this Commission.
Senator Allen. So you would support such an idea, though,
your organization?
Mr. Malinowski. We would have to look at it. It would have
interesting implications. You would have to look at the range
of countries being condemned right now. You might want to--
folks have mentioned Israel, for example. I think you might
want to look at a number of implications that that would have.
I think in principle it is something that we would consider to
be quite promising.
Senator Allen. Well, is Israel on this Human Rights
Commission?
Mr. Malinowski. Not currently, no.
Ms. Shea. No. It cannot go on the Commission. Israel has
never been on the Commission. It cannot go on the Commission
because it has not been part of a regional group. The way it is
structured is by regional groupings. A certain number of
representative countries get to go on every year from each
group. So Israel is completely off the Commission, does not
have a voice; it cannot judge, it can be judged.
It is an interesting idea that you propose. However, I am
not optimistic about it. I just want to say briefly that the
phenomenon we are seeing now is the bad guys pack this
Commission. They see it in their interest to get on the
Commission and help steer it away from themselves and help
shield themselves from scrutiny and from criticism. So that is
the problem with proposing that anyone who is the subject of a
resolution go off the Commission.
You would not get any more resolutions singling out
countries except maybe Israel. I think that is the way it would
go.
Senator Allen. Well, as a matter of principle I like what
Mr. Malinowski said, is you fight for principles. Even
sometimes you cannot win them, but you fight for those
principles. Maybe it would have to be prospective, because if a
country is for a period of time subject to one of these
censures or resolutions for violations of human rights, for a
period of time--things change. Some countries do reform, and we
have seen that in recent years.
Maybe you would not have it applicable to any currently on,
but by the next time there is an election, if they are
censured, they can be on it.
Now, is Israel--I was looking at this list of the 43
confirmed yes votes. Where would--since Syria is considered in
Asia, is Israel considered in Asia, that Asia group.
Ms. Shea. Not for the U.N. purposes, no. There is some talk
about sticking them in the Western Group, but they do not have
a regional group in Geneva right now.
Senator Allen. Well, Turkey is in the Western Group, I
believe. Maybe not.
I just want to mention, you are saying Israel is not
allowed in the membership?
Ms. Shea. That is right.
Senator Allen. Is that because they are not allowed to vote
or they are simply not eligible?
Ms. Shea. They are not--they are an observer state. They
are a member of the United Nations, but because this is done by
region these seats are rotated every 3 years.
Senator Allen. Right, I understand.
Ms. Shea. Three-year terms. In Geneva, it is not a member
of any region and it does not get to go on.
Senator Allen. Is there a reason why Israel is not a member
of any region, other than maybe--well, I will just ask the
question. You have Syria, which borders Israel, as we all know,
is in the Asian Region. Turkey I believe--I am not sure which
group Turkey is in. I thought they were in the Western Group.
Ms. Shea. There was an effort to get them to get them into
the Western Group, the WEOG, the Western Europe and Other
Group, bloc in New York. But I think that it has not been
possible that they can stand for election to the Commission. I
think that is something the United States advocates--I am sorry
the State Department is not here to answer that question,
because they know the different policy operations. All I do
know is that they have not been on the Commission and they are
not part of the Asian Group.
Senator Allen. Well, judging by their friends in the Middle
East, they would probably not get on any slate out of the
Middle East. We are talking about getting a slate for the
Western Europe and Other Group states, which would include,
obviously, Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Malta,
and I believe Australia and New Zealand.
It seems to me that Israel ought to be at least able to
compete. It is not the subject of this hearing, but that is an
interesting point.
Ms. Shea. Israel is an exception in many ways. It has its
own agenda item in the Commission agenda. Not only can it be
raised under other agenda items like every other country, but
it has its own agenda item just earmarked for it. Three of the
resolutions of the five this year were brought against it under
that agenda item.
I think, though, the problem that you are trying to get at
is this composition, and it is something we all have to grapple
with. I am not sure what the answer is, but I am beginning to
move in the direction that it is the structure of this body
that is the problem, the regional grouping is the problem
itself, and that it is the same for ECOSOC and it is also true
for the NGO Committee, which now is packed with these rogue
states. It is a den of thieves, it is a rogues gallery. It is
packed with these countries.
Freedom House, my own organization, is in the dock for a
technicality regarding a press briefing, by Sudan, China, and
Cuba.
Senator Boxer. Are you done?
Ms. Shea. Yes.
Senator Allen. Well, thank you.
We are going to have a vote very shortly, a quorum call.
Senator Boxer. We will probably need to go soon.
First I want to thank both of you, because I think you were
both very clear, provocative I think, in making me think in new
ways.
Ms. Shea, I found your article and your testimony extremely
interesting. I would make just a couple of comments. You
presented some really interesting points. The point about China
is really interesting and it always poses a dilemma for us the
way we have to deal with China.
It is interesting because we have been trying to, trade
with China, but yes, at the same time, not. I believe, if you
are a friend of a country or you are trying to be a friend to a
country, then you tell it like it is. We have tried to do that
through the Clinton administration and the Bush administration.
Now with the Europeans perhaps having some motives that are
against ours--it is an interesting thing I had not thought
about. So thank you for bringing that up.
I would say that in writing why you think there were
problems with the Commission, the fourth one you said is
``resolutions dealing with economic rights.'' I understand your
point, but I would caution you on one thing. I think when sick
people ask for a right to HIV-AIDS medicines, I do not put that
in the same category as I do a good job or even housing. I
think that is something that we cannot really do. But we can do
more on HIV-AIDS, and I think that to have a resolution that
says every single person deserves to have access, even though
it may be difficult for us, I would not condemn that in the
same breath as I would other things. It is just an opinion, and
we may disagree, but I wanted to put that out, because
suffering is suffering and that is suffering.
A couple of other points I would make. One goes to the
chairman's point about giving up sovereignty, that he kind of
threw that out there, which has been a line that I have faced
since I have been in the minority around here, to not even--
first of all, I would say even if what you say is accurate, and
it may be and it may mean we do not do certain treaties. We
ought to a least have some hearings and take a look at that
question and measure that against what would be gained.
Let me give you an example. On the Child Soldiers treaty,
what kind of sovereignty are we giving up. We would never, ever
send children out to war. I cannot imagine any circumstance
where we would put a child out on the battlefield.
So therefore, when we signed onto that protocol it seems to
me that we only benefit and, I would say to my chairman,
imagine our soldiers in the field fighting against 14-year-old
or 13- or 12-year-old children in battle gear who would be
shooting at them. Now, we have already heard from Senator
Kerrey and others as well that war memories come back to haunt
us. I think that is one example. I could give you others, but I
will not bore you, where I do not think that we give up our
sovereignty because we would not do that. What we are doing in
these treaties that I mentioned, unless I am missing something,
but I do not think so, is that we are taking our values really
that are embodied in these treaties.
So I do not think we give up anything, and I think we gain
a lot, because if other countries accept our values that is
what leadership is all about. But I do think it is a legitimate
question. I look forward to having hearings on these treaties
so we can look at them further.
The last point I want to make is, I once read this little
book entitled, ``Everything I Learned, I Learned in
Kindergarten.'' Did anyone read that? It was a best-seller. It
talks about how we never change, how we are always the same
since kindergarten. It seems to me when we look at some of
these things that happened--voting us off this Commission--I
think there was a lot of pique and anger in that. I think it
goes--nobody has mentioned these things, so I am going to
mention these things.
When we backed off of Kyoto, when we said we were going to
walk away from the ABM treaty, to not recognize that that had
an impact on our European friends is a bit naive. I think they
were annoyed.
Now, I do not know who walked away from us and I would be
furious if it was--certainly some of our friends did. I did not
agree with backing off from Kyoto or the ABM treaty. But there
is no reason for grownups to respond by saying: Well, now we
are going to kick you off the Human Rights Commission as well
as, by the way--were we not also kicked off narcotics control?
Senator Allen. Right.
Senator Boxer. So I think there is a lot to be learned.
Then when my colleagues in the House decide in a fit of pique
that they are going to withhold all dues from the United
Nations, you kind of perpetuate the cycle of: I do not like
what you are doing, so I am going to punish you; and you do not
like what I am doing and you punish me. Then we go through this
silly thing about what you learned in kindergarten and one
hopes can get beyond that.
But I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, I think this was
really good, that you called this hearing. There are not a lot
of cameras in the hearing room today. This is not something
that is on the front page. It was when it happened. But I think
your dedication in dealing with this issue, I really admire and
I really share, and I hope, that we will be able to continue to
work together to make sure that the United States does not give
in on the things that it believes in, because that would be
terribly wrong.
I do think Ms. Shea makes a good point: Do we have to say
at some point this Commission has outlived its usefulness? I
hope we never reach that point, because I have come to a belief
that, even if it does not operate the way we would like, at
least it is a forum. I kind of feel this way about the U.N. You
have brought up a couple of times the issue of the Middle East
and how unfair things can be. I raised the issue of China and
the fact that people are afraid to call them, and you certainly
did, and you did too, Mr. Malinowski.
So the point is we get frustrated, but at least it is a
place that we can go and we can say: These violations are
occurring and you, the Commission, may not vote it out, you may
cover it up, you may use an excuse that you are going by
consensus, but we the United States, are going to call it the
way we see it. At least it is a forum and, even without a vote,
which is bad, we are there to do it.
So I am going to work with you here, with the
administration, and I hope we can get the United States back on
the Commission. But even if we do not, I think the contribution
the two of you have made today to give us a little more insight
is extremely helpful.
Thank you.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Allen. Thank you both.
Senator Boxer, thank you for your remarks. When I referred
to sovereignty on some of the comments Mr. Malinowski made, I
was just thinking, gosh, we are going to get U.N. observers
determining our state laws. That does give me some trepidation.
As far as children in the military, clearly I am not saying
that violates our sovereignty. We in Virginia do remember a
Battle of New Market in 1864 where there were young soldiers
from VMI, cadets, that were thrown into battle, and that is not
something we ever hope to see within our country or outside of
our country again, and people fighting to protect their homes
or for their causes.
I would say I got a message here from staff: The treaties
Mr. Malinowski and Senator Boxer are talking about are on our
committee calendar. I do think it is important that, regardless
of people's views, we ought to have them discussed here and
have people hear the arguments pro and con and the
implications.
The Secretary of State has not yet replied to Chairman
Helms' request for the administration's treaty priorities. I do
think, and I share it with you, it is important to see if we
can find a consensus here in this country in the coming months
as far as these pending treaties. Maybe you all will be back on
this before the full committee. So thank you all for taking the
time to be here.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, I have to--our chairman, he is
so good. The actual note said: ``The treaties Mr. Malinowski
and B. Boxer are plugging are all on the calendar.'' And you
know what, you are right. We are plugging them.
Senator Allen. I thought I would use more diplomatic
language.
Senator Boxer. Well, that is why you chair this
subcommittee.
Senator Allen. Well, with that, thank you all so very much.
Senator Boxer, it is a pleasure working with you and we will in
the future.
Hearing adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
-