USIA - Transcript: Shattuck Geneva News Conference on Human Rights, 97-04-14

United States Information Agency: Selected Articles Directory - Previous Article - Next Article

From: The United States Information Agency (USIA) Gopher at <gopher://gopher.usia.gov>

TRANSCRIPT: SHATTUCK GENEVA NEWS CONFERENCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

(No nation should be beyond U.N. Commission's scrutiny) (3910)

At a news conference in Geneva April 14 on the eve of the introduction of a resolution on China at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, Shattuck insisted that "no nation, including the United States of America, should be beyond the scrutiny of the commission."

Denmark announced last week that it would introduce the resolution, which it is expected to formally introduce April 15. The United States and at least 14 other nations have thus far added their names to the text as co- sponsors.

Shattuck said the United States is urging other nations to vote down China's anticipated "no-action motion," a procedural maneuver used by China at past sessions of the Commission to prevent a China resolution from coming to a vote.

"We hope and expect that the members of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights will take a stand in favor of the universality of human rights principles and bring the issue of human rights in China to the floor for discussion and eventual passage," Shattuck said.

The resolution on China is just one of a number of country-specific resolutions which will be considered by the Commission April 15.

Shattuck said the United States will sponsor a resolution on Cuba which condemns Castro's regime for maintaining "a repressive system that denies the Cuban people basic rights."

"In doing so, we will send a strong message to the government of Cuba that its practices and policies are an anachronism in a hemisphere which has turned dramatically toward respect for human rights," he said.

The U.S. also will co-sponsor resolutions on Iraq and Iran, Burma, Nigeria, Rwanda, Burundi, Sudan, and the former Yugoslavia, Shattuck said.

"Today, more than ever, people all over the world look to the Commission as a beacon for their hopes of human rights," he said. "At its best, the Commission is not only the conscience of the nations of the world, it is the forum where governments are held accountable for their human rights records."

Speaking out against human rights violations makes it "more difficult for governments to act with impunity against victims of abuse," he argued.

Asked whether the U.S. would co-sponsor a resolution on East Timor, Shattuck said the U.S. would assess its position when the resolution is presented.

He described East Timor as "one of the most serious human rights issues facing this Commission" and noted that the United States is "very actively working in the Commission as well as outside the Commission to advance the cause of human rights in East Timor."

"We would have hoped that there would continue to be a constructive effort by the government of Indonesia and other governments -- including the Portuguese government -- to develop a chairman's statement which would advance the process," he said.

Following is the transcript of Shattuck's remarks, as delivered:

(begin transcript)

Tomorrow the United Nations Commission on Human Rights will consider resolutions on human rights in 19 countries around the world. By its actions, the Commission will reaffirm the principle that leaders have a profound obligation to respect the universal human rights of their people -- and that these critical issues are the legitimate concern of the world community.

The United States will play a leading role in the Commission's work on a number of country resolutions. We will, for example, publicly condemn the Government of Cuba, which maintains a repressive system that denies the Cuban people basic human rights. In doing so, we will send a strong message to the Government of Cuba that its practices and policies are an anachronism in a hemisphere that has turned dramatically toward respect for human rights.

The United States will also co-sponsor resolutions on Iraq and Iran, underscoring the fact that governments that engage in external aggression or support terrorism -- that willfully flout international norms of civilized conduct -- are also likely to be guilty of egregious abuses against their own citizens.

And we will sponsor or co-sponsor resolutions on the human rights situations in Burma and Nigeria, where military regimes continue to trample on basic human rights and democratic freedoms; as well as in Rwanda, Burundi, Nigeria, Sudan and the former Yugoslavia, where human rights tragedies have occurred in recent years.

In addition, we will co-sponsor a Danish resolution on the human rights situation in China.

We do not seek confrontation with China, but we do seek greater respect for the rule of law and for acceptance of basic principles set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- whose 50th anniversary we will mark next year.

Chinese society has undergone a significant transformation since the introduction of economic reforms, resulting in greater well-being for the Chinese people and greater scope for individual choice. Nevertheless, China's government continues to commit widespread and well-documented human rights violations and to severely restrict fundamental freedoms of speech, the press, assembly, association and religion, in violation of internationally established norms.

We welcome the principled stand in favor of the universality of human rights taken by Denmark and by the resolution's other sponsors. We believe that no nation, including the United States of America, should be beyond the scrutiny of this Commission and, for this reason, we are concerned by the effort of the Government of China to foreclose discussion through a "no action" motion on the resolution. We hope and expect that the members of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights will take a stand in favor of the universality of human rights principles, and bring the issue of human rights in China to the floor for discussion and eventual passage.

Today, more than ever, people all over the world look to this Commission as a beacon for their hopes of human rights. At its best, the Commission is not only the conscience of the nations of the world, it is the forum where governments are held accountable for their human rights records. In speaking out against human rights abuses, we help keep faith with those who champion the universal principles to which we aspire, and we make it more difficult for governments to act with impunity against victims of abuse.

I'd be happy to answer your questions.

Question: Sir, are you confident that you have the number of votes necessary to defeat a "no-action"?

Shattuck: This situation, as in all country situations on human rights, is a matter of principle. The issue is not one of win or lose, but rather one of using the appropriate international forum to focus the spotlight on human rights situations. That's particularly true in the case of the situation in China. I am not going to make any predictions at this point regarding any of the votes that are going to be taking place tomorrow. The countries of the world will have an opportunity to address these issues. They will be addressed openly, publicly. The spotlight of the international press and of the open proceedings at the Human Rights Commission in Geneva is itself one of the many mechanisms to advance human rights in the world today -- in China, and in all of the other country situations that I mentioned, as well as others that no doubt will be presented tomorrow.

Q: Are you disappointed that traditional U.S. allies such as France and Germany backed off on the China issue?

A: Again, I'm not going to comment on the details of any of the voting patterns tomorrow. But I will say that the fact that a country has decided not to co-sponsor a resolution is not in any way an indication of how it will vote on a resolution. I think you can expect to see many of the countries -- all of the countries you have mentioned -- take a principled stand on the fact that this Commission is the appropriate forum for the discussion of human rights issues, and that it is not appropriate to seek to block consideration of those issues by a "no-action" motion.

Q: Regarding the co-sponsors for the resolution on human rights in Cuba, could you tell us the nations that have so far agreed to co-sponsor? There is a cable mentioning that perhaps the European Union is no longer willing to co-sponsor this resolution.

A: As you know, the co-sponsorship list is a matter of public record. We can certainly make it available to you. I can indicate to you those co- sponsors that have publicly stepped forward to date. Obviously co- sponsorship is something that remains possible up to the moment a resolution is acted upon. I'm not going to comment on any countries that have not yet indicated co-sponsorship.

But let me give you the co-sponsorship list for the item on human rights in Cuba: Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, the former Yugoslavia, Macedonia, Germany, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Luxembourg.

If you didn't get any of those, they are a matter of public record, and we can make them available to you.

Q: On China, this year Denmark had to pick up the lead from the European Union. If this is not the case next year, would the United States table a resolution?

A: The position of the United States on all country resolutions that are considered by the Human Rights Commission is a matter of public record. We take positions based on the human rights situation at the time the resolution is considered. That has been our position with respect to the China resolution -- throughout this last year we've publicly and repeatedly stated that position. And I anticipate that it will continue to be our position. It has certainly been our position on the China resolution and all other resolutions. We take seriously the effort that we, as a nation- state, have, along with other members of this Commission, to look closely at the human rights records of all countries under scrutiny, and then to make a decision whether we will support a resolution on their country situation.

Q: A couple of weeks ago, (U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Bill) Richardson said you were short seven or eight votes on China. I was wondering if you had any update on that figure. My second question relates to the U.S. position on East Timor. As you're aware, it's a domestic issue in a couple of states -- Massachusetts, Connecticut and, possibly in the future, California. What was the thinking behind not co-sponsoring the E.U. resolution on East Timor?

A: I'm again not going to comment on votes that have not yet taken place. Certainly Ambassador Richardson was making comments based on the situation a couple of weeks ago. We are very actively working on the issue of the China resolution, as on other resolutions.

With respect to the issue of East Timor, the United States is very actively pursuing, along with other countries, an effort to bring about an improvement of the human rights situation in East Timor. I myself recently traveled to East Timor and was facilitated in that visit by the government of Indonesia. We believe that this Commission is an appropriate forum for progress on human rights in East Timor, as in other countries in other parts of the world. Certainly East Timor is an appropriate subject. And we would have hoped that there would continue to be a constructive effort by the government of Indonesia and other governments -- including the Portuguese government -- to develop a chairman's statement which would advance the process. We will assess our position, including the issue of co- sponsorship of a resolution, when the resolution is presented. But let there be no mistake about our deep concern about the human rights situation in East Timor. It is one of the most serious human rights issues facing this Commission. We are very actively working, in the Commission as well as outside the Commission, to advance the cause of human rights in East Timor.

Q: There have been some rumors about the fate of Mr. Abiola in Nigeria -- including that he might not even be alive. Do you have any update?

A: I don't have any specific information on Mr. Abiola at the moment. I would note that I traveled last year to Nigeria and sought an opportunity to visit Mr. Abiola in prison and was not able to do that. That is one of the many reasons why the United States very actively supports and co- sponsors a resolution on the human rights situation in Nigeria. Nigeria, as I noted in my opening comments, is trampling on basic human rights and democratic freedoms through a military regime.

Q: Regarding former Yugoslavia, what is the situation of human rights in Kosova in this draft resolution? Second, do you think that U.S. policy is able to prevent a new conflict there?

A: As you know, the human rights situation in the former Yugoslavia has been one of the paramount issues of U.S. foreign policy over the last several years. It has been a personal preoccupation of mine. I've now made some 20 trips to the former Yugoslavia, both before the Dayton peace accord and after, in an effort to shine the spotlight on the terrible human rights atrocities that were occurring in that region. With respect to the resolution that's presented before the Commission, it is an omnibus resolution that is intended to capture all of the elements of the human rights situation, including in Kosova, which is referred to in the resolution in that fashion. It is a resolution that takes note of some of the progress that's occurred, including the cessation of hostilities and the ending of the atrocities that were plaguing the former Yugoslavia and Bosnia in particular. It also takes note of the very serious unfinished business to implement the Dayton peace accord. The United States expects to continue to make this one of its principal foreign policy areas of focus, working very closely with many other countries, and it is perhaps the single most urgent human rights situation in our foreign policy.

Q: Given the agreement reached between the European Union and the United States on the Helms-Burton legislation, have you been to the World Trade Organization during your stay here in Geneva?

A: No, I'm here to work in the Human Rights Commission and the focus of this visit will be entirely on that.

Q: You have mentioned Finland as a co-sponsor in the draft resolution of Cuba. I haven't got it on my paper. Secondly, the resolution asks the Secretary-General to provide all the necessary support to the Special Rapporteur. Would you please clarify what kind of support is the resolution asking for? Thirdly, last year 20 countries voted in support of the resolution against Cuba. Will you consider it a failure if you cannot unite at least 20 countries this year?

A: Finland is on the list, yes. The assistance to the Special Rapporteur -- we think the situation in Cuba is sufficiently urgent that the work of the Special Rapporteur needs to be highlighted, and the Rapporteur needs to be given more broad access and to be able to report more effectively than has certainly been the case in a period of long non-cooperation by the government of Cuba. As I said earlier, I'm not going to comment on any votes that have not yet taken place, but I think you can see from the very long list of co-sponsors, and a very strong resolution, that this resolution has very significant support within this Commission.

Q: Just to follow up, exactly what kind of support are you asking the Secretary-General to provide to the Special Rapporteur, as mentioned in paragraph 13 of the resolution?

A: The kind of support we're calling for is the kind of general support that the Secretary-General provides to Rapporteurs in particular country situations. There are many Rapporteurs, obviously, and the fact that this one is highlighted in a resolution and efforts to get more general support in the form of administrative and other support is what's anticipated here. There is no specific reference in the resolution or elsewhere to other forms of support.

Q: The Russian delegation expressed its concern about the human rights situation of the Russian-speaking population in Baltic states. Latvia and Estonia were named by the head of the delegation. What is the general attitude of the United States toward this problem? Does the problem exist? Is the United States trying to persuade these countries not to violate the rights of the Russian-speaking population -- which was deprived of the right to citizenship overnight several years ago?

A: This is a topic of general interest and concern to the United States. We have had extensive discussions with the countries in question. We are confident that an effective mechanism has been developed through the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and, particularly, the very active role of the High Commissioner for National Minorities of the OSCE, who has spent perhaps more time in the Baltic states on the basic questions of assuring a framework in which discrimination does not occur. We think very significant progress has occurred in this area, and we have certainly communicated that view to Russia as well.

Q: What were the reasons that France and Japan gave to you for not joining the resolution against China?

A: Again, I said at the outset of this press conference that I'm not going to comment on any particular country's position on any resolution other than the positions that they have stated publicly. I will tell you, however, that the fact that a country is not co-sponsoring a resolution does not mean they will not support the resolution or vote against any "no-action" motion. That certainly is the case in the countries that you mentioned.

Q: Can you describe for us how you see China's campaign during this Commission -- leading up to it and certainly during the Commission. What tactics have been used? Does it follow the pattern which (former U.S. delegation head) Geraldine Ferraro has denounced in past years as a pattern of maneuvering and of tying this whole issue to economic and other rights?

A: The positions of countries and what they're doing to advance their positions in this Commission, including China, is not something that I'm going to comment on here. Publicly, any position that is taken by a government is very clear. I think China's words on this subject will be very clear when it has an opportunity to address this topic of the country resolution tomorrow. We have both publicly and privately made our position very clear to China and to other countries over a long period of time. Our position on this resolution has been always that, absent significant progress since the Commission last met, we would sponsor or co-sponsor a resolution. And that is what we are doing, and that is what I've announced here today.

Q: I assume you've approached all 53 members of the Commission. Can you perhaps tell us what the countries -- especially the non-aligned -- tell you? Do they say, "Sorry, China's just too big and important," or, "We don't like this North-South approach to human rights?" What do they tell you to justify voting for the no-action motion?

A: You'll find countries in many different positions, which will not be surprising because that's been the situation in this Commission over many years. This Commission reflects very different positions of different countries in reaching their conclusions on the issue of human rights. When there is a fundamental issue of principle, that is often very unfortunate. The issue of principle that is here presented is that all countries should be subject, and are subject, to the jurisdiction of this Commission, and no country, no matter how large, or no matter how strongly it feels about a subject, should be able to block consideration by the Commission of its human rights record. That is the issue of principle that we discussed extensively with other countries. Many agree with us, and I'm sure their positions will be reflected in their votes tomorrow.

But let me be equally clear that this is not a counting game or a game of win or lose in a very narrow sense. In the broadest sense of the word, what wins in the Human Rights Commission is the cause of human rights, the advance of human rights, the effort to keep faith with the millions of people all over the world who are advancing their own cause for human rights -- by shining a spotlight on particular country situations. I am confident that that spotlight will shine very brightly -- as it has been throughout the year in the lead-up to this Commission -- on the human rights situation in China, as in other countries under consideration here.

Q: Amnesty International is quite concerned about the human rights violations in Turkey as well. Turkey should maybe be a matter of principle as well? Maybe Turkey needs your light shining as well? So why does Turkey get special treatment from a close ally? Is military cooperation the only reason for this?

A: Turkey does not get any special treatment from the United States on human rights. Turkey has been one of the principal focal points of our bilateral work on human rights. I, as Assistant Secretary for Human Rights, have made numerous trips to Turkey, extensive discussions with the government of Turkey, made public in many instances the results of those trips on human rights issues. These same points have been raised by other officials at higher levels, including some of our military officials in their discussions with the government of Turkey. This is a very bright spotlight, if you will, in the context of human rights in that country.

Q: The United States on Friday (April 11) cut a deal with the European Union on Helms-Burton. According to Mr. Eizenstat, President Clinton would also seek ways to limit possible damage to European companies under the D'Amato Act on Libya and Iran. How does this square with the tough stance you're taking on the human rights situation in Iran?

A: The subject of the Human Rights Commission is not the subject that you've raised today, and I'm not going to speculate on any future developments that may occur around the Helms-Burton legislation. I think that what was agreed to between the United States and the European Union speaks for itself. I think it's a good agreement. I think it advances interests of all parties including, very significantly, the interest in human rights advances in Cuba.

(end transcript)

From the United States Information Agency (USIA) Gopher at gopher://gopher.usia.gov

United States Information Agency: Selected Articles Directory - Previous Article - Next Article