U.S. and Hong Kong (2004)

U.S. Department of State

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

Lorne W. Craner, Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor

Washington, DC
May 17, 2004

(10:20 a.m. EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

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

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

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

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

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

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

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

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: Mm-hmm.

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

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

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

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, ma'am.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

[End]

Released on May 17, 2004