U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–060PDF 2005

A GLOBAL REVIEW OF HUMAN RIGHTS:

EXAMINING THE STATE DEPARTMENT’S 2004

ANNUAL REPORT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN 

RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 17, 2005

Serial No. 109–35

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman 

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, 

Vice Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

PETER T. KING, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

THADDEUS G. MCCOTTER, Michigan 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

TOM LANTOS, California 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel 

ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL

OPERATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, 

Vice Chairman 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BARBARA LEE, California 

BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

MARY M. NOONAN, Subcommittee Staff Director 

NOELLE LUSANE, Democratic Professional Staff Member 

LINDSEY M. PLUMLEY, Staff Associate 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Michael G. Kozak, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of 

Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Department of State .................. 48

Mr. Brian Steidle (former U.S. Marine Captain), Global Grassroots .................. 77

Mr. Tom Malinowski, Washington Advocacy Director, Human Rights Watch ... 81

Mr. Adotei Akwei, Campaign Director, Amnesty International .......................... 89

Mr. Daniel S. Mariaschin, Executive Vice President, B’nai B’rith International ................................................................................................................. 99

Mr. Vincuk Viacohrka, Chairman, Belarus Popular Front Party ........................ 109

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global 

Human Rights and International Operations: Prepared statement ................ 5

The Honorable Michael G. Kozak: Prepared statement ....................................... 55

Mr. Brian Steidle: Prepared statement ................................................................. 79

Mr. Tom Malinowski: Prepared statement ............................................................ 84

Mr. Adotei Akwei: Prepared statement ................................................................. 92

Mr. Daniel S. Mariaschin: Prepared statement .................................................... 102

Mr. Vincuk Viacohrka: Prepared statement .......................................................... 111

APPENDIX 

Response from the Honorable Michael G. Kozak to question submitted for 

the record by the Honorable Adam Smith, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Washington ............................................................................. 129

Human Rights First Comments on 2004 State Department Country Reports ... 129

(1)

A GLOBAL REVIEW OF HUMAN RIGHTS: 

EXAMINING THE STATE DEPARTMENT’S 

2004 ANNUAL REPORT 

THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS

AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:47 p.m. in room 

2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith, 

New Jersey (Chairman of the Subcommittee), presiding. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. The Subcommittee will come to 

order. I am pleased to convene this hearing of the Subcommittee 

on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations. The 

Subcommittee today is not only reviewing the State Department’s 

2004 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices; it is also examining the state of human rights around the world. 

Let me begin by making some general observations about human 

rights. First, the very idea of human rights presupposes that certain rights are fundamental, universal, and inalienable. They are 

too important to be taken away or circumscribed by governments. 

The right to life, religion, speech, assembly, and due process are 

the pillars of a free, sane, and compassionate society. 

Second, the United States has a commitment to human rights 

that is unique in the history of the world. President Bush, in his 

State of the Union speech in January, reminded us that, and I 

quote:

‘‘Our founders dedicated this country to the cause of human 

dignity, the rights of every person, and the possibilities of 

every life. This conviction leads us into the world to help the 

afflicted, defend the peace, and confound the designs of evil 

men.’’

Human rights are indivisible, mutually reinforcing, and all inclusive. Human rights cannot be abridged on account of race, color, 

creed, gender, age, or condition of dependency. ‘‘Inclusiveness’’ 

means everyone, especially the inconvenient: The unborn child, the 

dissident, the believer in another religious tradition. 

It is particularly disturbing that human rights concerns are often 

subordinated to other concerns, such as trade, cooperation on terrorism, immigration control, or selling military equipment, in the 

name of maintaining relations with countries of high importance to 

U.S. strategic goals. That misses the point. The most important 

2

U.S. interest is the promotion of freedom and democracy and decency. We are strong enough, and we are prosperous enough, that 

we have no need to accept blood money or to send refugees back 

to persecution or to seek out alliances among regimes that murder 

and torture their own people. 

In my view, the Country Reports are among the most important 

work the Department of State does. They allow the United States 

an opportunity to bear witness, to reassert fundamental principles, 

and also to examine its own conscience about whether its foreign 

policy comports with these principles. Other annual reports, such 

as the Trafficking in Persons report, the Report on International 

Religious Freedom, and the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act, which I helped to pass last year, along with Tom Lantos and others, also shined a spotlight on specific human rights areas which 

warrant closer examination. 

There is a striking similarity between the ‘‘black lists’’ of all of 

these reports. Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi 

Arabia, Sudan, and Vietnam are all countries that engage in severe 

violations of religious freedom. Bangladesh, Burma, Cuba, Ecuador, 

Equatorial Guinea, Guyana, North Korea, Sierra Leone, Sudan, 

and Venezuela are all tier three countries whose Governments 

have made no significant efforts to satisfy the minimum standards 

to prevent the trafficking and the enslavement of people. It is no 

surprise that Secretary Rice’s six outposts of tyranny—Cuba, North 

Korea, Belarus, Iran, Burma, and Zimbabwe—also dominate these 

lists. 

This Congress, this Subcommittee will track the records of the 

worst offenders, the ‘‘dirty dozen of human rights abusers,’’ so to 

speak. Their names are among those I have just cited. We will hold 

hearings on their human rights records. We will enact legislation, 

engage the State Department, censure them at the United Nations, 

and implement other measures to effect positive change. The spotlight will be on their governments and on their records. The victims will not be forgotten. 

This year’s Country Reports, released by the State Department 

on February 28, 2004, document several important steps taken by 

governments around the world to respect and protect the fundamental human rights of their citizens. We have all heard about the 

historic elections in Afghanistan and Iraq where Governments are 

now in power because they have been chosen by their electorate. 

In Ukraine, the will of the people finally prevailed, and Ukraine’s 

supreme court upheld the rule of law to elect a new President. 

There were also numerous other smaller, but nevertheless important, victories, such as the inclusion of human rights provisions in 

the new Constitution of Qatar, indictments of former high-level officials for corruption in Costa Rica and Gambia; and the indictment 

of Pinochet for crimes in the 1970s in Chile. 

Unfortunately, the news is not all good. The Country Reports also 

serve to confirm and document what we knew already, that the last 

year has not been a good one for the state of human rights around 

the world. Despite a declaration by then-Secretary of State Colin 

Powell in September 2004 that genocide had been committed 

against the people of Darfur, the Government and Governmentsupported militias continued their attacks on civilian targets. The 

3

militias and Government forces routinely, according to the State 

Department, killed, injured, and displaced civilians, intentionally 

attacking civilians, looting their possessions, and destroying their 

villages. 

We are fortunate today to have as one of our witnesses Brian 

Steidle, a former U.S. Marine captain who was embedded for 6 

months with the African Union forces in Darfur and who was an 

eyewitness to many of these atrocities. 

The totalitarian Governments of China, North Korea, Vietnam, 

Turkmenistan, and Cuba all continued their persecution of political 

and religious dissidents, and in China, women are subjected to 

forced abortions and sterilizations. 

I am particularly upset that the State Department this year has 

decided not to offer a resolution condemning China and their record 

on human rights at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which 

is now currently underway. According to its own report, the Chinese Government’s human rights record remained poor, and the 

Government continued to commit numerous and serious abuses. 

Abuses include killing, torture, mistreatment of prisoners, and 

forced confessions. The State Department Human Rights Report

went on to say that, in late 2004, the Chinese Government 

launched a new campaign against dissident writers, commentators, 

and religious activists. 

Nowhere is this more clearly illustrated than in the deplorable 

case of Mao Hengfeng, a victim of a forced abortion whose ongoing 

attempts to receive justice have resulted in her sentencing to 18 

months of hard labor, during which she has been tortured, denied 

vitally-needed medicine, and whose life is in danger today. 

The torture does not stop with those who demand basic human 

rights and political freedoms. On the religious front, there is an ongoing, aggressive repression of those who want to practice their 

faith as they see fit. We see Falun Gong practitioners who are routinely rounded up, beaten and abused, including hundreds who 

have been tortured to death while held in captivity. According to 

the State Department, government repression of some unregistered 

religious groups increased, not decreased, in China during the past 

year. For instance, the report documents that Chinese officials beat 

and abused a number of Catholic priests and lay leaders during 

2004. 

As some of my colleagues may know, since 1979, there has been 

the one-child-per-family policy in the People’s Republic of China. 

That policy says that if a second child happens to come along, he 

or she has to be aborted. Heavy fines are imposed upon the women, 

particularly. They call it ‘‘social compensation fees.’’ Sometimes 

these are 6 to 10 times the annual salaries of the parents, compelling them to abort. Who can pay 10 times the father’s and mother’s 

salary—a husband and wife? It is absolutely ruinous, and it leads 

to a so-called ‘‘voluntary abortion,’’ which is anything but. 

Forced abortion and forced sterilization are commonplace in 

China, and according to the State Department’s 2003 report, one 

consequence of ‘‘the country’s birth-limitation policies’’ is that 56 

percent of the world’s female suicides occur in China. This is five 

times the world average and translates, according to the State Department’s report for that year, to about 500 suicides by women per 

4

day. Five hundred per day! This year, the language has been watered down to note that there exist ‘‘especially high’’ female suicide 

rates. 

Elsewhere in the world, dictatorships in Belarus and Burma 

were unsurprisingly similar in their repressive methods to control 

and maintain power. Security forces in both countries arbitrarily 

arrested and detained citizens for political reasons. Police abuse 

and torture of prisoners continued in Belarus, and, in Burma, 

abuses also included rape, beatings, forcible relocation of populations, and conscription of child soldiers. 

Yesterday, I introduced a resolution urging the United States to 

offer a resolution on Belarus at the U.N. Commission on Human 

Rights and calling upon the Government of Belarus to cease its 

human rights violations. I look forward to hearing the testimony 

today of the Chairman of the Belarus Popular Front, who will be 

speaking momentarily. 

In Africa, a continent this Subcommittee is particularly concerned with, human rights abuses are ‘‘almost routine’’ in places 

like the Great Lakes region, including the Congo, Uganda, and 

Rwanda, according to the U.S. State Department. Children are 

forcibly recruited and abducted into militia groups, rape is increasingly used as a weapon of war, and the region is home to one-fifth 

of the world’s IDPs. The situation is not helped by actions such as 

the Rwandan Government’s dismantling of leading human rights 

organizations as part of a campaign against ‘‘divisionism.’’

Perhaps even more alarming were the reports of serious human 

rights violations by governments with whom the United States enjoys a close relationship. While Saudi Arabia was for the first time 

designated a ‘‘Country of Particular Concern,’’ and I commend the 

Department for its courage in doing that, Saudi Arabia, because of 

its violations of freedom of religion, there were also credible reports 

of torture and the abuse of prisoners by security forces, arbitrary 

arrests, and restrictions of freedom of speech, assembly, and movement. 

The need for cooperation in the war on terror has also muted, at 

times, our concerns about the growing restrictions on democracy in 

Russia. The Country Reports’ overly positive and generalized statements in the introduction and in lead sentences elsewhere downplay the violations and are weak with regard to governmental responsibility for serious human rights abuses in Russia. 

In Indonesia, elections resulted in the transfer of power to an 

elected opposition leader. However, Indonesia’s ad hoc trials on 

East Timor acquitted most militia leaders and Indonesian officers 

indicted by the U.N. for crimes against humanity in connection 

with the 1999 violence in East Timor and levied only minimal penalties against others, none of whom have spent 1 day in jail. 

Rather than achieving accountability, the trials became a mechanism for impunity and were viewed as seriously flawed by most 

international observers. Many of those indicted for crimes against 

humanity in East Timor continue to maintain powerful positions, 

and the military continued its offensive in Aceh, attacking dozens 

of civilian targets, even after the tsunami devastated the region. 

In conclusion, the biggest problem with the Country Reports is 

not the reporting itself but the uses to which this human rights reVerDate Mar 21 2002 16:42 Jul 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGI\031705\20060.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
5

porting may or may not be put. It is a challenge. Human rights 

cannot be the work of one political officer in an Embassy who prepares the annual report once a year and then turns to other tasks. 

Rather, it must be the foundation on which our bilateral relationship is based. 

Secretary Kozak, I want to commend you and your colleagues for 

your exhaustive work on the 2004 Country Reports. As I stated earlier, this is one of the most important services the Department performs. The cornerstone of U.S. policy must be the promotion of 

American values, which really are universally-recognized values, 

which include the protection and advancement of fundamental 

human rights of people around the world. The moral character and 

depth of soul of any society, again, is measured not by its military 

might, technological prowess, athletic excellence, or GDP, but by 

how well it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members. 

I would like to yield to my good friend and colleague, Don Payne, 

for any opening comment you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A REPRESENTA- TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND CHAIRMAN, SUB- COMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

The Subcommittee will come to order. I am pleased to convene this hearing of the 

Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations. The 

Subcommittee today is not only reviewing the State Department’s 2004 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices; it is also examining the state of human rights 

around the world. 

Let me begin by making some general observations about human rights. First, the 

very idea of human rights presupposes that certain rights are fundamental, universal, and inalienable. They are too important to be taken away or circumscribed 

by governments. The right to life, religion, speech, assembly and due process are 

the pillars of a free, sane and compassionate society. 

Second, the United States has a commitment to human rights that is unique in 

the history of the world. President Bush in his State of the Union speech in January 

reminded us that ‘‘Our founders dedicated this country to the cause of human dignity, the rights of every person, and the possibilities of every life. This conviction 

leads us into the world to help the afflicted, and defend the peace, and confound 

the designs of evil men.’’

Human rights are indivisible, mutually reinforcing and all inclusive. Human 

rights cannot be abridged on account of race, color, creed, gender, age or condition 

of dependency. Inclusiveness means everyone, and perhaps especially the inconvenient—the unborn child, the dissident, the believer in another religious tradition. 

It is particularly disturbing that human rights concerns are often subordinated 

to other concerns, such as trade, cooperation on terrorism, immigration control, or 

selling military equipment, in the name of maintaining relations with countries of 

high importance to U.S. strategic goals. This misses the point. The most important 

U.S. interest is the promotion of freedom and democracy and decency. We are strong 

enough, and we are prosperous enough that we have no need to accept blood money 

or to send refugees back to persecution or to seek our alliances among regimes that 

murder and torture their own people. 

In my view, the Country Reports are among the most important work the Department of State does. They allow the United States an opportunity to bear witness, 

to reassert fundamental principles, and also to examine its own conscience about 

whether its foreign policy comports with these principles. Other annual reports, 

such as the Trafficking in Persons report, the report on International Religious 

Freedom, and the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act, which last year I helped to 

pass, also shine the spotlight on specific human rights areas which bear closer examination. 

There is a striking similarity between the ‘‘black lists’’ of all of these reports. 

Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Vietnam are 

all countries that engage in severe violations of religious freedom. Bangladesh, 

Burma, Cuba, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Guyana, North Korea, Sierra Leone, 

Sudan, and Venezuela are all Tier III countries whose governments have made no 

6

significant efforts to satisfy the minimum standards to prevent the trafficking and 

enslavement of people. It is no surprise that Secretary Rice’s six outposts of tyranny—Cuba, North Korea, Belarus, Iran, Burma and Zimbabwe—also dominate 

these lists. 

This Congress, this Subcommittee will track the records of the worst offenders—

the ‘‘Dirty Dozen of Human Rights Abusers,’’ so to speak. Their names are among 

those I have just cited. We will hold hearings on their human rights records. We 

will enact legislation, engage with the State Department, censure them at the 

United Nations, and implement other measures to effect positive change. The spotlight will be on their governments and their records. Their victims will not be forgotten. 

This year’s ‘‘Country Reports,’’ released by the State Department on February 28, 

2004, document several important steps forward taken by governments around the 

world to respect and protect the fundamental human rights of their citizens. We 

have all heard about the historic elections in Afghanistan and Iraq where governments are now in power because they have been chosen by their electorate. In 

Ukraine, the will of the people finally prevailed and Ukraine’s Supreme Court 

upheld the rule of law to elect a new President. And there were numerous other 

smaller but nevertheless important victories, such as the inclusion of human rights 

provisions in the new constitution of Qatar; indictments of former high-level officials 

for corruption in Costa Rica and the Gambia; and the indictment of Pinochet for 

crimes in the 1970s in Chile. 

Unfortunately, the news is not all good. The Country Reports also serve to confirm and document what we knew already, that the last year has not been a good 

one for the state of human rights in the world. Despite a declaration by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell in September of 2004 that genocide had been committed 

against the people of Darfur, government and government-supported militias known 

as ‘‘janjaweed’’ continued their attacks on civilian targets. Janjaweed and government forces routinely, according to the State Department, killed, injured and displaced civilians, intentionally attacking civilians, looting their possessions, and destroying their villages. We are fortunate today to have as one of our witnesses Brian 

Steidle, a former U.S. Marine captain, who was embedded for six month with African Union forces in Darfur and who was an eyewitness to many of these atrocities. 

The totalitarian governments of China, North Korea, Vietnam, Turkmenistan and 

Cuba all continued their persecution of political and religious dissidents, and women 

in China continued to be subjected to forced abortions and forced sterilization. 

I am particularly upset that the State Department this year has decided not to 

offer a resolution condemning China’s record on human rights at the UN Commission on Human Rights. According to its own report, the Chinese government’s 

human rights record remains poor, and the government continued to commit numerous and serious abuses. Abuses include killing, torture, mistreatment of prisoners, 

and forced confessions. The State Department Human Rights Report went on to say 

that in late 2004, the Chinese government launched a new campaign against dissident writers, commentators and religious activists. 

Nowhere is this more clearly illustrated than in the deplorable case of Mao 

Hengfeng, a victim of a forced abortion whose ongoing attempts to receive justice 

have resulted in her sentencing to 18 months of hard labor, during which she has 

been tortured, denied vitally-needed medicine, and whose life is in danger today. I 

chaired a hearing of the Committee on International Relations last December on 

this case and China’s continuing abusive and coercive family planning policies. A 

leading activist in Shanghai, Mao’s troubles with the Chinese government began in 

the late 1980s when, pregnant a second time, she petitioned her work unit for larger 

housing, which was refused. In the ensuing ten years, during which Mao has bravely fought the government through the Chinese courts, she has twice been confined 

to a psychiatric facility, been dismissed from her job for ‘‘missing too many days of 

work,’’ and arrested and sentenced to 18 months of re-education through labor 

(RTL) for ‘‘disturbance of the peace.’’

In RTL, credible sources report that in August she was beaten, and that camp 

police have bound Mao’s wrists and ankles with leather straps and pulled her limbs 

apart for a period of two days to force Mao to acknowledge wrongdoing. On November 19, she lost an appeal in a Shanghai court to receive welfare payments but was 

seen with blood-blisters and swelling around her wrists and ankles, indicating ongoing abuse. More recently, family members report she is being force-fed an unidentified medicine which turns her mouth black, that she is held for hours in restraints, 

and that she is incarcerated with two narcotics offenders who are reportedly free 

to abuse her. Her blood pressure is dangerously high, but she refuses to take medicine for fear of being given psychiatric drugs. 

7

The torture does not stop with those who demand basic human rights and political freedoms. On the religious front there is ongoing aggressive repression of those 

who want to practice their faith as they see fit. We see Falun Gong practitioners 

who are routinely rounded up and beaten and abused, and hundreds have been tortured to death while held in captivity. According to the State Department government repression of some unregistered religious groups increased during the past 

year. For instance, the Report documents that Chinese officials beat and abused a 

number of Catholic priests and lay leaders during 2004. 

As my colleagues know, since 1979 there has been the one-child per family policy. 

The policy says if the second child happens to come along, he or she has to be aborted. Heavy fines are imposed upon the women, particularly. They call it social compensation fees. Sometimes it is six times the annual salaries of the parents compelling them to abort that baby. Forced abortion and forced sterilization are commonplace in China. According to the State Department’s 2003 report, one consequence 

of ‘‘the country’s birth limitation policies’’ is that 56 percent of the world’s female 

suicides occur in China, which is five times the world average and approximately 

500 suicides by women per day. This year, that language has been watered down 

to note there exists an ‘‘especially high’’ female suicide rate. 

Elsewhere in the world, dictatorships in Belarus and Burma were unsurprisingly 

similar in their oppressive methods of control to maintain power. Security forces in 

both countries arbitrarily arrested and detained citizens for political reasons. Police 

abuse and torture of prisoners continued in Belarus, and in Burma, abuses also included rape, beatings, forcible relocation of populations, and conscription of child soldiers. Yesterday, I introduced a resolution urging the United States to offer a resolution on Belarus at the UN Commission on Human Rights and calling upon the 

Government of Belarus to cease its human rights violations. I look forward to hearing the testimony today of Vincuk Viachorka, Chairman of the Belarus Popular 

Front Party. Mr. Viachorka is a key leader in the Belarussian opposition who has 

refused to bend to the will of Lukashenko. 

In Africa, a continent this Subcommittee is particularly concerned with, human 

rights abuses are ‘‘almost routine’’ in places like the Great Lakes region including 

the Congo, Uganda, and Rwanda, according to the State Department. Children are 

forcibly recruited and abducted into militia groups, rape is increasingly used as a 

weapon of war, and the region is home to one-fifth of the world’s 25 million IDPs. 

The situation is not helped by actions such as the Rwandan government’s dismantling of leading human rights organizations as part of a campaign against 

‘‘divisionism.’’

Perhaps even more alarming were the reports of serious human rights violations 

by governments with which the United States enjoys a close relationship. While 

Saudi Arabia was for the first time designated a ‘‘country of particular concern’’ for 

its severe violations of religious freedom, there were also credible reports of torture 

and abuse of prisoners by security forces, arbitrary arrests, and restrictions of freedoms of speech, assembly, and movement. 

The need for cooperation in the war on terror has also muted our concerns about 

growing restrictions on democracy in Russia. The Country Report’s overly positive 

and generalized statements in the introduction and in lead sentences elsewhere 

downplay the violations and are weak with regard to governmental responsibility 

for serious human rights abuses. 

In Indonesia, elections resulted in the transfer of power to an elected opposition 

leader. However, Indonesia’s ad hoc trials on East Timor acquitted most militia 

leaders and Indonesian officers indicted by the UN for crimes against humanity in 

connection with the 1999 violence, and levied only minimal penalties against others, 

none of whom has spent a day in jail. Rather than achieving accountability, the 

trials became a mechanism for impunity and were viewed as seriously flawed by 

most international observers. Many of those indicted for crimes against humanity 

in East Timor continue to maintain powerful positions, and the military continued 

its offensive in Aceh, attacking dozens of civilian targets even after the tsunami devastated the region. I am disturbed that given these circumstances, the State Department recently certified cooperation on the Papua killings to allow resumption of 

IMET military training. 

Finally, I continue to oppose our growing trade and commercial ties with Vietnam, 

a one-party state run by the Communists which oppressively controls the ordinary 

lives of its citizens, rigidly represses political rights, and has been cited by the State 

Department for its severe violations of religious freedom. The country report on 

Vietnam documents that the government failed to issue a nationwide decree banning forced renunciations of faith, did not end the physical abuse of religious believers, continued to hold a significant number of religious prisoners, and refused to 

8

allow the re-opening and registration of hundreds of churches in the Central Highlands closed in 2001. 

In conclusion, the biggest problem with the Country Reports is not the reporting 

itself, but the uses to which this human rights reporting may or may not be put. 

Human Rights can not be the work of one political officer in the Embassy who prepares the annual report once a year and then turns to other tasks. Rather, it must 

be the foundation on which our bilateral relationship is based. 

Secretary Kozak, I want to commend you and your colleagues for your exhaustive 

work on the 2004 Country Reports. As I stated earlier, this is one of the most important services the Department performs. The cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy must 

be the promotion of American values, which include the protection and advancement 

of fundamental human rights of people around the world. The moral character and 

depth of soul of any society will be measured not by its military might, technological 

prowess, athletic excellence or GDP, but by how well or how poorly it treats its 

weakest and most vulnerable members.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me commend you for calling this very important and timely hearing. It is 

always very interesting to hear the annual report of the State Department examining the previous year. 

On December 10, 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This 

document should be used as a standard for the basic rights of people all around the world. Universal human rights include, for example, the right to freedom and equality, to not be held in slavery, 

to not be tortured or abused, the right to work, the right to education, and motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care 

and assistance. 

I think it is important that we focus not only on the most obvious 

human rights violations, such as violence, physical abuse, torture, 

and others, but that we also understand and focus adequate attention on hunger, poverty, lack of access to health care, poor quality 

of education, unfair trade, and the impact of Western agricultural 

subsidies on developing countries, which create problems back in 

their own lands. 

The World Food Program (WFP) estimates that when women, 

men, and children go hungry, their human rights, their basic rights 

to food, which is needed for mere survival, are violated. The worst 

locust invasion in 15 years has devastated the harvests in Mauritania, leaving hundreds of thousands of people in urgent need of 

food aid. WFP studies show that 6 out of 10 families in Mauritania’s agro-pastoral zone will not have enough food to eat in 2005. 

In the late 1990s, the rate of chronic hunger among people in the 

developing world increased by almost 4 million a year. In today’s 

world, one out of eight people do not have enough food to live 

healthy, active lives, according to the WFP, therefore, making hunger and malnutrition the number one health risk globally, greater 

than HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis combined. 

So whether in Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, or Cambodia, hunger still remains an issue, an issue that 

we need to attack as a basic human rights issue. Among the Millennium Development Goals agreed to by the United Nations member states in 2001 for the 21st century, having the proportion of 

hungry people in the world reduced is the number one issue on the 

list. The United States is the largest donor to WFP, but I think we 

could, and should, be doing more to combat this global human 

rights problem which should not exist. There is enough food in the 

world for no one to go hungry. 

9

To do so, we need to focus more on supporting and facilitating 

agricultural production in the developing world, particularly in Africa. We need to ensure our policies do not infringe upon the ability 

of people in developing worlds to grow their own food, feed their 

families, send their children to school, or trade their products. That 

should be a part of our commitment to human rights. 

If we adequately address the issue I just mentioned, we will find 

that the world will have fewer conflicts and less strife. As a matter 

of fact, if we can really go about truly alleviating poverty, I think 

many of the issues that we deal with in Committees like this will 

be alleviated and will be eliminated. 

In order for human rights to thrive, governments around the 

world must take the Universal Declaration of Human Rights seriously and uphold its provisions. That means allowing people to assemble and have a say in their government. That means girls 

should have equal access to education as boys and should not be 

subjected to forms of repressions, such as female genital mutilation. Women should have the same rights as men, including access 

to employment at wages equal to those of men, and make their own 

decisions. 

We have a long way to go in this world in order to fully live up 

to the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So I look forward to the witnesses’ testimony. We will continue to try to urge 

governments to address all of these human rights abuses, whether 

it is in Darfur, where it is estimated 180,000 people have died in 

the last 18 months of hunger and disease and killings, and the 

problems go on and on, as we have heard the Chairman mention. 

So I look forward to hearing the testimony of Ambassador Kozak. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you, Mr. Payne. 

Mr. Tancredo? 

Mr. TANCREDO. No. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Ms. Lee? 

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just thank you for 

this hearing, and I want to welcome our witnesses and just say a 

couple of things. I think it is very important that this hearing be 

conducted, and we continue to look at international human rights 

records, consider the inconsistencies, and adjust our foreign policies 

accordingly. 

I would like to also mention this report, and I want all of the witnesses, if possible, to comment on it, that the People’s Republic of 

China came out with as it relates to the human rights record of the 

United States. I would like to just ask our witnesses for their response to that report. 

Very briefly, as I was going through it, Mr. Chairman, let me 

just say a couple of things that it points out. It says, ‘‘Once again,’’ 

and I raise this because we are the greatest democracy in the 

world, and we care about standards of human rights everywhere in 

terms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it disturbs me, quite frankly, when I read reports like this, and so I 

would like the witnesses to kind of clarify what they think and how 

we should respond. But this report says:

‘‘Once again, the United States has acted as the world human 

rights police by distorting and censoring in the reports the 

10

human rights situation in more than 190 countries and regions 

across the world, including China.’’

They go on to say that:

‘‘As usual, the United States, once again, has omitted its own 

longstanding malpractice and problems of human rights in the 

reports. The Chinese report touches on a number of subjects. 

It mainly draws from news stories readily available on the 

Internet relating domestic accounts of crime, gun violence, 

drug abuse, and prison abuse, to name a few. This report also 

points to inconsistencies in the enormous wealth that the 

United States has but the poverty, hunger, and homelessness 

that is prevalent. The report also observes that 40 years after 

the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech, 

the equal rights pursued by American Blacks and minority ethnic groups remain an unattainable dream today. 

‘‘Internationally, the Chinese report takes exceptions to the 

unilateral foreign policy of the United States in terms of military aggression, citing,’’ and they cite in this report, ‘‘a 2003 

Human Rights Watch study on the use of cluster bombs in 

Iraq. The Chinese report also points out the questionable treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.’’

Now, they are not the only ones pointing out these inconsistencies. Well-respected nongovernmental organizations like Human 

Rights Watch and Amnesty International have also made similar 

claims that the United States is not living up to its name as the 

staunchest defender of global human rights. Human Rights Watch 

and Amnesty International point to prolonged, secret detentions in 

the United States after the horrific September 11th attacks. 

They also report on the ill treatment and excessive use of force 

by United States law enforcement and the harsh sentencing policies that continue to burden our prisons. In fact, Human Rights 

Watch notes that prisons generally fail to provide safe and humane 

conditions of confinement or adequate rehabilitative services and 

programs for prisoners. 

So, Mr. Chairman, whenever our human rights record is called 

into question, I do believe we must take a hard look at it and these 

reports in order to be credible in our attempts to ensure global 

human rights, and I would just ask for unanimous consent to insert this report into the record as we discuss global human rights. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information referred to follows:]

11


20060a.eps
12


20060b.eps
13


20060c.eps
14


20060d.eps
15


20060e.eps
16


20060f.eps
17


20060g.eps
18


20060h.eps
19


20060i.eps
20


20060j.eps
21


20060k.eps
22


20060l.eps
23


20060m.eps
24


20060n.eps
25


20060o.eps
26


20060p.eps
27


20060q.eps
28


20060r.eps
29


20060s.eps
30


20060t.eps
31


20060u.eps
32


20060v.eps
33


20060w.eps
34


20060x.eps
35


20060y.eps
36


20060z.eps
37

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you. If I could, if the gentlewoman would yield, this is a hearing, but it is also a semi-debate. 

I think it would be worth noting, especially for the international 

press that are here, there is a response—it may not be perfect—

to some of those concerns. One is that we have a two-party system. 

Obviously, other parties can run, and that friction that a free-andfair election generates, hopefully, gets to the truth, so where there 

is wrongdoing and culpability, it can be done away with or, at 

least, held to account. 

We have an independent judiciary, a Justice Department where 

in every department there are IGs who look into any malfeasance, 

whether it be misappropriation of funds or wrongful doing. When 

the problems with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo were discovered, 

Congressmen and Senators and others went into high gear to investigate, and while we are still not to the end of it, I, myself, offered a resolution at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly last year 

condemning all torture. The Convention Against Torture could not 

be more clear in its proscribing of torture in any way for any reason whatsoever, and we have convicted several people, including a 

man who was sentenced to 10 years in prison recently for committing atrocities against detainees. 

We have public advocates. We have, maybe most importantly, a 

free press. The press can come in here and do anything they want. 

Not so in China. As a matter of fact, today, there is an editorial 

in The New York Times, a Chinese journalist in peril, in which the 

Times opines how disturbed they are that Xaio Yan, because seemingly he broke a story, maybe or maybe not—we do not know if he 

was the one who helped write it—that Jiang Zemin was going to 

retire. For that, he has received a jail sentence and has been held. 

Now NGOs can operate freely. 

One of the things we have tried to do with Cuba, for example, 

and I have done it several times—I have done it with Cuban interlocutors in Geneva, and I will do it everywhere, and I have tried 

to get into Cuba myself to get into the prisons—is to say, let the 

Red Cross in. The Red Cross has unfettered access to the United 

States and our prisons. They are wide open to them and public advocates and attorneys and the like. Not so with China and a lot of 

other dictatorships. 

So, with all due respect, while we are far from perfect, we have 

safeguards and checks and balances. What is absent in these dictatorial regimes is anything that even comes close to being a check 

or a balance. 

Ms. LEE. May I respond, Mr. Chairman? I agree with you, Mr. 

Chairman, on everything you said. However, I think that we also 

need to add to that the issue of looking at the real disparities in 

sentencing as it relates to African-American men, when you look at 

the health care disparities, the unemployment disparities in the African-American community, when you look at the fact that the infant mortality rate is much higher and that 35 million are living 

in poverty, and the poverty rates continue to grow, when you look 

at the homeless population in the wealthiest country in the world. 

I think that what you are saying is very important in terms of 

the political systems that are nondemocratic, but we have the 

greatest democracy in the world, and there is much work to be 

38

done, and I suggest to you that these human rights violations 

which the world, at least, is condemning us on, we need to address 

very fairly in a global sense, and I think that this Committee can 

be forthright in doing just that. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. I am not a Member of this Subcommittee, so I appreciate your forbearance in letting me say a 

couple of words before we get started. 

I just want to raise one important issue that is contained in the 

report, and that has to do with the death of Rachel Corrie. Her relatives are constituents of mine, and she was killed in Israel 2 years 

ago yesterday. As a matter of fact, actually, she was killed in the 

Gaza Strip by an Israeli bulldozer that was engaged in demolition 

there, and Rachel Corrie was part of a protest against that effort. 

There are just a couple of specific issues I want to raise. First 

of all, I want to recognize Craig Corrie, Rachel’s father, and Sarah 

Corrie Simpson, her sister, who are in the audience today, as well 

as other members of her family, and thank them for their forbearance on this issue. There are a couple of things I want to submit, 

but the bottomline, what the Corries want is a full and fair and 

open investigation of what happened, and they and I and many 

others do not feel that they have gotten that to this point, and 

there is a mention of this incident in the State Department report. 

One thing I am going to submit for the record is a letter from 

the Corrie family which details their concerns about the incident 

and about the lack of a thorough, credible, and transparent investigation. 

And the other thing that I am going to submit for the record is 

a statement from Lawrence B. Wilkerson, who was the Chief of 

Staff of the U.S. State Department on June 11, 2004, responding 

to some of the concerns that the Corries had raised, and the key 

point in all of this is the contrast between that statement and what 

is in the Country Reports on Human Rights. The Country Reports 

on Human Rights describes the incident and says that ‘‘the Corrie 

family believes that the investigation was not thorough, credible, 

and transparent and continue to pursue the case,’’ and that is absolutely true, but it also leaves the impression that they are sort of 

on this lonely quest in which it is just their opinion. What Mr. 

Wilkerson said sort of makes it clear that that is not the case. 

In a letter he sent to them, he said:

‘‘Your ultimate question, however, is a valid one: Whether or 

not we review the report that was done by the Israeli military 

advocate general’s office to have reflected an investigation that 

was ‘thorough, credible, and transparent.’ I can answer your 

question without equivocation. No, we do not consider it so.’’

That was from our own State Department. In the interest of accuracy, that probably should have been reflected in the Country Reports to make it not appear that it was simply the Corries who felt 

this way. 

It is a legitimate issue to be raised, but like I said, overall, they 

want that thorough, credible investigation that they do not believe 

that they have gotten yet. From my investigation of it, I agree with 

39

them. If we could get it from the Israeli Government or the IDF, 

that would be fine. 

Also, it is something that I think the U.S. State Department and 

Justice Department should take an interest in. If we have a citizen 

of our country who is killed in another country, and we do not feel 

it was adequately investigated, we certainly ought to be able to do 

that, particularly when we are talking about a country that we 

have such a close alliance with and such a positive relationship, 

and I do not want anyone on the panel to misunderstand. I am a 

very strong supporter of Israel, but this matter deserves to be investigated. We do not feel that it has been. 

So I will submit those things for the record. I apologize. I have 

got other meetings I have to get to. We will also submit some questions, and, Ambassador, if you could respond to those, I would appreciate it, and, again, I thank the Chairman for giving me the 

time. 

[The information referred to follows:]

40


20060aa.eps
41


20060ab.eps
42


20060ac.eps
43


20060ad.eps
44


20060ae.eps
45


20060af.eps
46


20060ag.eps
47

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. PAYNE. Just on the same vein, Mr. Chairman, yesterday, we 

had a hearing on Libya which was interrupted. I think the Ambassador did testify, but he had to leave, and I was going to raise some 

questions. It may be a part of your human rights. I have not had 

a chance to go through the report. Although I am pleased to see 

there are overtures to Libya to try to come outside of the community of nations where there seems to be an advocacy on the part 

of the leadership there to suspend nuclear manufacturing, and it 

indicated that it wants to become a productive country. I cannot, 

for the life of me, understand why the United States Government 

has not pursued compensation for the two U.S. GIs who were killed 

at the Labelle Discotheque in Berlin. They were two Black soldiers. 

This was a place that was known where African-American soldiers 

used to frequent. I met the father of one of the young men just several days ago. 

But our Government has not even raised the question that the 

Libyan Government had paid the German Government for the 

deaths and injuries to Germans, and our Government will not pursue with Libya some kind of accommodation for the number of U.S. 

GIs and the two men who were killed at that discotheque. I cannot 

understand how it is not even an issue. And so I would appreciate 

it if you could look into that, and if we do have the reconvening 

of the Libya meeting, I will raise it again, but since you are here, 

and since this other issue was brought up, I thought I would raise 

that. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you, Mr. Payne. 

Ms. McCollum? 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I think what the Ambassador is 

hearing is that many of us have constituents in our districts, and 

I have been approached by people in Minnesota who had a son who 

was murdered in Armenia, another country which, I believe, we 

have worked to have warm relationships with. And to this day, 

they feel that they do not have answers. 

In our wanting to talk about human rights, I think, when we 

talk about other countries, people do want to know that we have 

open dialogue, that they can have questions answered, that our 

Embassies are treated with respect when investigating these 

deaths. And, Mr. Chair, I think maybe I would be interested for the 

Committee, at some point, to receive something from the State Department as to what the protocol is and how many reports like this 

we have in our congressional districts around the country where we 

are waiting to hear answers, whether they are allies of ours or 

emerging friends, so to speak, as we purport to be with Libya now, 

and get a handle on this because I would bet if we all started talking to each other, we all have instances of this in our districts, and 

we might perceive this not to be a problem one at a time, but when 

you put it all together, if there are countries that start appearing 

on the list frequently, we might want to address it. Thank you, Mr. 

Chair. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I would like to welcome our very distinguished first witness, Ambassador Michael Kozak, the Acting 

Secretary for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. 

He was appointed to the position of Principal Deputy Assistant 

48

Secretary in September 2003. From August 1, 2004, as I said, he 

is the Acting Assistant. 

A career civil servant, Michael Kozak was named U.S. Ambassador to Belarus in 2000. He served as Chief of the U.S. Diplomatic 

Mission in Cuba from 1996 to 1999 and Special Negotiator for 

Haiti from 1993 to 1996. From 1988 to 1991, he was Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs and 

Principal Deputy Legal Adviser from 1984 to 1988. During the 

1970s, Ambassador Kozak was Assistant U.S. Negotiator for the 

Panama Canal Treaties under Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Carter, 

and he participated in the multilateral efforts to mediate the end 

to the Nicaraguan civil war in 1978 to 1979. 

A very distinguished member of the U.S. Department of State, 

Ambassador Kozak, welcome, and we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL G. KOZAK, ACTING 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN 

RIGHTS AND LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. KOZAK. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

thank you very much. I did register the various comments, and I 

will try to address some of them either during or at the end of my 

testimony. Where there is a question about the status of a case, we 

will undertake to get answers back to the Committee. 

Again, I want to say, it is an honor and a pleasure to represent 

the Department at this hearing on the Country Reports on Human 

Rights Practices for 2004. Each year, this Committee has held a 

hearing to spotlight the release of this report and, in doing so, has 

elevated worldwide attention to democracy and other human 

rights. Each year, the Country Reports hearing has been a source 

of encouragement and hope to those around the world who long for 

liberty. Your dedication is appreciated, and you are to be commended for the steadfast support for our democracy around the 

world. 

The Country Reports represent the year-long efforts of hundreds 

of State Department employees. Our officers regularly go to great 

lengths, sometimes under dangerous conditions, to investigate reports of human rights abuses, monitor electoral processes, and 

come to the aid of individuals at risk. Our staff works closely with 

citizens, human rights defenders, foreign governments, NGOs, and 

community leaders to identify, investigate, and verify information. 

I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank everyone 

involved in producing this report. I particularly want to thank the 

officers of our Office of Country Reports and Asylum Affairs, headed by Nadia Tangor, who is here with me today, and others in the 

Bureau of Human Rights, Democracy and Labor. We take seriously 

our responsibility to report accurately and carefully in these reports. 

The Country Reports for 2004 covers 196 countries, ranging from 

the stoutest defenders to the worst violators of human rights. This 

year, we increased our coverage of anti-Semitism, disabilities, and 

corruption. Also, beginning with this report, all country-specific sections will be translated each year for each country where English 

is not the predominant language. We will also translate other 

49

human rights reports in a similar manner, for example, the International Religious Freedom Report, the Trafficking in Persons Report, and so on. So the main report will appear on the State Department Web page, and then the reports in the languages of the 

countries concerned will appear on our Embassy Web sites. 

In 2002, the U.S. adopted a new National Security Strategy 

based on the principle that promoting economic and political freedom and respect for human dignity are not only the right things 

to do but are essential to the national security of the United States. 

In his second inaugural address, President Bush elaborated:

‘‘Survival of liberty in our land depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the 

expansion of freedom for the whole world. . . . So it is the policy of the United States to seek and to support the growth of 

democratic movements and institutions in every nation and 

culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our 

world. . . . Our goal is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.’’

In 2004, the U.S. worked with many international partners in 

many countries to expand freedom. Where concerns centered on the 

rights of people to choose their own governments, dramatic developments focused global attention on their struggles and landmark 

achievements. 

As was mentioned earlier by the Chairman’s statement, following 

the removal of the Taliban regime, the people of Afghanistan have 

worked to reduce terrorism; improve security; bridge ethnic, religious, and tribal divides; and craft a Constitution faithful to their 

values and universal human rights principles. The international 

community responded to their efforts by helping to register voters 

across a geographically-scattered, largely illiterate population, to 

educate cadres of Afghan election workers and political participants 

in the conduct of elections and campaigns, and by joining with Afghan forces to provide security during the election cycle. 

In Ukraine, the Presidential campaign was marred by Government pressure on opposition candidates and by widespread violations. Government officials engaged in fraud and manipulations in 

the first two rounds of voting. The Government censored the media, 

sparking a ‘‘journalist rebellion,’’ and then popular demonstrations 

against electoral fraud and the official results swelled into an ‘‘Orange Revolution.’’ I chose the color of my tie today (orange) not by 

coincidence, it is the campaign color associated with Opposition 

Leader Victor Yushchenko. 

So we really felt that there were major improvements in 

Ukraine, where not only were people rebelling in the streets, but 

the supreme court and members of their parliament stood up and 

were counted as well. We all saw the result, which was a third revote of the runoff in the election, and a victory by Mr. Yushchenko. 

In Iraq, I think we all saw the drama there as people braved not 

only threats but actual shelling by terrorists who were trying to intimidate them for exercising their right to vote, and people turned 

out in great numbers and took back their country. Today, we are 

seeing the seating of the elected assembly of Iraq, a big first step 

on their path toward institutionalizing democracy. 

50

So we think events like these show the increased prospects for 

peace and provide a solid ground for self-government and for improvement of human rights. But despite these successes, we have 

got other areas where human rights practices have eroded. One example is in Venezuela where respect for human rights remains 

poor and where we have seen increased interference with the judiciary by the executive branch and efforts to suppress independent 

media. 

Sudan’s human rights record remained extremely poor, as was 

mentioned. In addition to the Country Reports, we did a special report done by our Bureau where we sent people out into the field, 

working with NGOs, and did a systematic set of interviews. It was 

that report that led to Secretary Powell’s conclusion that genocide 

was occurring. 

We provided our data to the Commission of Inquiry that the 

United Nations formed, on a motion to the Security Council, again 

led by the United States. They came to the conclusion that there 

were crimes against humanity being committed, and we are working very hard there to try to get further action from the U.N. Security Council to try to deter further attacks on the civilian population by the Government and their militias and to try to move 

back into a more positive light, as we have seen with the NorthSouth Agreement in Sudan. 

North Korea remains one of the world’s most repressive and brutal regimes, with an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 political prisoners, and horrific conditions. 

In Belarus, police abuse and occasional torture of prisoners and 

detainees continued. I have been to court in Belarus and seen Mr. 

Stakevich, who is in the next panel, put on trial for peaceful political demonstration. Mr. Labedka continues to have injuries from 

being beaten for doing nothing other than a peaceful protest following the rigged elections and referendums there earlier this year. 

We continue in that country to have the problem of political opponents of the President and journalists being ‘‘disappeared’’—kidnapped, taken away, and killed, essentially. A report done by the 

Parliamentary Council of Europe, which set up an investigative 

panel to look into this, concluded that high Government officials 

were the people responsible. The Government responded, first, by 

placing the main suspect as prosecutor general of the country, and 

now he has been elevated to head of the Presidential administration. 

In Burma, the junta ruled by decree and did not adhere to 

human rights standards and did not even abide by their own constitutional provisions. This is another horrific situation, as you indicated. 

We remain deeply concerned about China’s poor human rights 

record. Chinese citizens who openly expressed dissenting political 

views were harassed, detained, imprisoned, particularly in a campaign late in the year against writers, religious activists, dissidents, and petitioners. China’s coercive, birth-limitation regime 

remains a major human rights concern. The suffering of Civil Activist Mao Hengfeng, about which I testified in December 2004, is 

illustrative of these abuses. We understand her treatment may 

have improved since that hearing, and we believe, in part, at least, 

51

it is because of the increased international attention on her case. 

We commend Members of Congress who provided that opportunity. 

Others who are guilty only of peaceful political dissent and 

peaceful practice of their religious beliefs, including Tibetan Buddhists and Uighur Muslims, have suffered similar forms of repression, as have Falun Gong, the underground Protestant community, 

and Catholics faithful to the Vatican. 

Now, early this year, the Chinese Government took steps to provide some relief to those serving sentences for political activities. 

You mentioned our position on the resolution in Geneva, Mr. 

Chairman. We have always taken the position with the Chinese 

that whether or not we run a resolution in Geneva in a given year 

would depend on what concrete steps they took to improve the 

overall very poor human rights situation of its citizens. 

Over the past decade, we have urged the Chinese to take a number of steps to reform specific aspects of their system and to improve the situation of people who are in prison, often unjustly, in 

our view. We have also urged steps to reduce the number of cases 

in which people are harassed or detained for conducting what we 

would consider normal, peaceful activities. 

During the past half-year, the President, Secretary, and other 

State Department officials, both here and in Beijing, have been engaged with the Chinese about the poor human rights record and 

the need for structural reform and prisoner releases, and this has 

resulted in some steps. I do not want to overblow it because, as you 

mentioned, and as the report documents, the overall human rights 

situation in China remains poor. There has been a lot of backsliding. But what we have seen is, earlier in the year, the Chinese 

Government took steps to provide relief to people who were serving 

sentences for political activities, some of which are now out of the 

criminal code, the so-called ‘‘counterrevolutionary crimes,’’ and then 

ones that are current in the code, ‘‘state-security crimes.’’

For many years, China interpreted their own laws as excluding 

those prisoners from the opportunity to petition for a commutation 

of sentence or for parole. In a significant shift, China has now committed itself to applying the same criteria for sentence reduction 

and parole to such security prisoners as they apply to common prisoners. By the way, normally about a third of common prisoners get 

out early by applying these rules. 

We have seen some concrete progress in this already. China announced in February that it had granted sentence reduction or parole for a total of 58 individuals, including Tibetans and Uighurs 

who had been jailed on the so-called ‘‘security crimes,’’ and in other 

cases that were still under review. Of these 58 individuals, 17 were 

actually released from prison last year. One of them, Liu Jing 

Sheng, a democracy and labor activist whose case we have for 

years included in our Country Reports and our lists of prisoners of 

concern, was released in November 2004. Mr. Liu was involved 

both in the 1979 Democracy Wall movement and in the 1989 Beijing Spring, along with Wei Jeng Chang. 

Also, according to the Tibet Information Network, two Tibetan 

nuns, one of them still a teenager when she was jailed, were released in July of last year. 

52

Many more prisoners of conscience remain in detention, and we 

will continue our work to win them their freedom. As President 

Bush stated in his inaugural speech:

‘‘America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their 

chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or 

that any other human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.’’

Now, basically, this element of what the Chinese have done is a 

gift that keeps on giving. Not only have certain people been released; others who are in jail now or might be in the future will 

have increased opportunities to reduce their sentences. That is not 

an excuse for them being in jail in the first place, but it is a concrete step in the right direction of getting them out. 

In addition, on Tuesday, the Chinese announced for the first time 

that parents providing religious education to minors is not a punishable offense. You would think that that would not be a punishable offense, to begin with, but for some years people have been 

harassed for providing religious education to their children. Now 

they have made a public statement that is on the Web that, as of 

Tuesday, that will no longer be the case. 

Further, they have invited, for the period May 23 through June 

4, the Special Rapporteur on Torture of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, on his terms of reference. This is a matter that we have been seeking since 1995. So we now have a precise date, precise terms of reference. Again, it is not just the symbolic value of the visit. The Special Rapporteur on Torture’s practice is to go into prisons and other detention facilities, and to make 

specific recommendations so we will have benchmarks for further 

improvements for the treatment of prisoners. 

China also announced on Tuesday that an office of the International Committee of the Red Cross would open in Beijing by the 

middle of this year. They have issued an invitation to the U.N. 

Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance. They already hosted, 

in November 2004, the Special Rapporteur on Arbitrary Detention. 

On March 1, they issued new regulations on religious activities, 

many of which are of questionable value but one of which is of 

slight utility. They have made clear to us that if people have their 

friends and family in to worship in their homes, they do not have 

to have this registered as a church, and that they will be able to 

do that without harassment. They have again invited the U.S. 

Commission on International Religious Freedom to visit. 

They have already agreed on a date. They had a previous date 

for the High Commissioner of Human Rights to come. She was not 

able to, but they have agreed on a new date for that. 

And then, finally, as of early this morning, our time, they released Rebiya Kadeer, who has been one of the longest-serving 

prisoners of conscience in China. She is someone of great concern 

to all of us and, I know, she has been of concern to Members of 

the Committee. She was arrested allegedly for passing State secrets because she gave newspaper articles to someone—absolutely 

incredible. She was on her way to meet with U.S. congressional 

staff when she was arrested. So we are very pleased that she is 

out. She will be arriving in the United States this evening. 

53

But let me be clear. Her release, by itself, is not enough. Much 

as we welcome it, it is one step. The totality of all of the other steps 

I mentioned are progress. But we are still very concerned about the 

other prisoners who are in prison. We are hoping some of these 

steps will help to alleviate their condition, to some extent, but we 

have got to keep the pressure on. Again, we commend the Committee Members. The Chairman actually produced a resolution calling for statements in Geneva, and I think that helped in the effort 

to get some movement on the part of the Chinese. 

So we are going to stick with the effort to get further progress 

there. Again, I want to be clear. While we recognize that these 

steps were positive, and clearly to the people concerned are very 

useful, they do not change the overall situation in China. The Secretary, when she is there, is going to have a few things to say 

about the human rights situation, and also we will continue to 

speak out on the subject elsewhere. 

I will submit for the record, my remarks which are long and 

touch on Colombia, where there has been some progress but is still 

a horrendous situation, and Cuba, which is one near and dear to 

my heart. Tomorrow is the second anniversary of the crackdown on 

75 leading dissidents who were put in jail, many of whom I know 

personally. I also would not want to forget people who were in jail 

even before that, like Dr. Biscet. He is a real nemesis because he 

blew the whistle on them killing people born with birth defects in 

order to say that they were dead at birth and, therefore, would not 

count in the child-mortality statistics. Bureaucracy at its finest. 

Egypt is another one that we highlighted in the report this year. 

Happily, we have seen now some slight hints of movement on the 

part of the Egyptian authorities since the time the report was written. The continuation of the emergency law and torture of prisoners and so on is documented in the report. 

I am just going to turn in the rest of this, Mr. Chairman. I can 

come back and hit some of the comments that were made in the 

opening remarks because many of them were very good. 

Thank you for your call for attention to Belarus. By the way, we 

will be introducing, with the European Union, a resolution on 

Belarus at the U.N. Human Rights Commission. We are also introducing a resolution on Cuba ourselves. We are looking forward to 

co-sponsoring and supporting resolutions on Burma and North 

Korea. Those are run by the European Union, but we will be 

strongly supporting them. 

I mentioned an effort to downplay the situation in Russia. I 

would say there was no effort. I hope it did not come out that way 

because the situation there has gotten worse, not better, and that 

is what should be reflected. I think you have seen the President 

and the Secretary speaking out on that. 

Mr. Payne mentioned the Universal Declaration, which is the 

foundation for all of this. People tend to make a distinction between human rights and democracy, and yet when you look in the 

Universal Declaration, it covers everything. It has economic rights, 

it has the right to vote, it has freedom of speech, freedom of association. We need to look at all of those. It is not part; it is all together, including the situation on food and so on. I will leave it to 

my friend, Andrew Natzios, to expand on what we have been doing 

54

to try to alleviate the famine that you rightly mention is brewing 

in Africa, with the locusts and so on. More needs to be done. 

Ms. Lee mentioned the Chinese report on the United States, and 

I am not surprised that they accuse of us distorting and censoring 

others. But when they accuse us of omitting a report on ourselves, 

they are absolutely accurate, and we do that deliberately. For us 

to try to write a report on the United States would be like an investigative journalist trying to write a report on his own family’s 

finances. It might even be accurate, but it would not be credible. 

So we do not do it, but we welcome scrutiny by others, including 

the Chinese report, which I even actually managed to wade 

through once or twice in my career. 

In our report you get lots of data about countries that are not 

necessarily the worst countries. Our reports on many countries 

that are pretty good are very long because they have open societies. 

You can get data. But most of the data in the Chinese report comes 

from the FBI Web site, actually, and you see this in many other 

places. In closed societies it is hard to get information; in open societies, it is easy. 

But with respect to a number of the allegations the Chinese have 

raised, I would associate myself with the Chairman’s comments. I 

would also note, on the situation of prisoners in Iraq, during last 

year’s session in Geneva the High Commissioner of Human Rights 

decided that he wanted to do an investigation of Iraq and treatment of prisoners there. We said, great, we welcome it. 

CPA invited them to come visit. As it turned out, they chose not 

to actually visit in Iraq, for their own reasons of time and safety 

or something. But they did interview people in Jordan. They prepared a report. They sent it to us, and we followed up on the elements of the report that could be followed up on. Some allegations 

were so generalized, you could not. But we went back to the Defense Department, and we fed them information. So, basically, we 

tried to react to that report the way we would like to see others 

react to ours. 

As the Chairman said, nobody is perfect, and we are certainly 

not; you need scrutiny. The same with the Human Rights Watch 

and Amnesty reports. It does not mean we necessarily accept everything that is in there as being accurate, but it is there to be followed up on, and if we want to contest it. We are going to have 

to come out with facts and rebuttals, not just with denunciations 

of someone doing a report. 

Mr. Smith, who explained he had to leave us, had mentioned the 

Rachel Corrie case, which is something that I am familiar with. 

First, obviously, we have tremendous sympathy for the family regarding the tragic loss of their daughter. I want to make clear, 

though, the relationship between this report and what the State 

Department does overall in cases of this kind, or other cases. As 

you will note going through this report, there are all kinds of incidents described in here about which the U.S. has said a lot, done 

a lot, sometimes privately, sometimes publicly, sometimes with 

press statements, and sometimes with legislation passed by the 

Congress. We do not describe in this report what we did about 

something. So if we describe the situation in Belarus, we do not 

say, ‘‘and the United States passed the Belarus Democracy Act and 

55

put on these sanctions.’’ We do not write that we made a statement 

at a press conference, or something like that. So what I want to 

be clear is that we are not saying that only the family had concerns 

about the process in Israel and that we were disassociating from 

that. The statements that were made by Mr. Wilkerson have been 

made by other State Department officials and by our Ambassador 

to the Israeli Government. Those statements stand absolutely 

valid; there is no walking back from them. So I would just want 

to put on the record the way we write these reports. It should not 

be interpreted as saying that because we do not mention what we 

have done about something that means we are taking back what 

we have said or done about it. 

On Mr. Payne’s question about Libya, I will have to ask my colleagues who have been working on it and get to it. 

Ms. McCollum, I wanted to say there are a lot of cases involving 

American citizens abroad that tend not to be featured so much in 

this report because we have a separate branch of the State Department, the Office of Citizen Services of our Consular Affairs Bureau, 

that is specifically tasked with following up and trying to assist 

Americans who have problems of various kinds, whether they get 

arrested overseas or in cases where they are the victims of crime, 

or worse. We do organize and go in and push for investigations and 

so on. 

The limitation is, of course, that even in a friendly country, we 

cannot conduct an investigation ourselves in someone else’s country. We have to appeal, pressure, whatever, the Government to do 

that. And then there is also the use of the legal system of that 

country, and there we also do try to assist American citizens in 

pursuing their rights through those systems. But my colleague, 

Maura Harty, I am sure, can give you a long list of cases and cases 

where we have not been satisfied with the results to date. 

But, Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kozak follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL G. KOZAK, ACTING ASSISTANT

SECRETARY, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Chairman Smith, Mr. Payne, and Members of the Subcommittee, it is both an 

honor and a pleasure to represent the Department of State at this hearing to mark 

the submission to Congress of the Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 

2004. Each year, this Committee has faithfully held a hearing to spotlight the release of this report, and in so doing this committee has elevated worldwide attention 

to democracy and other human rights. Each year, the Country Report hearing has 

been a source of encouragement and hope to those around the world who long for 

liberty. Your dedication is appreciated, and you are to be commended for your steadfast support for democracy and other human rights. 

The Country Report represents the year-long efforts of hundreds of Department 

employees. Our officers regularly go to great lengths, under trying and sometimes 

dangerous conditions, to investigate reports of human rights abuses, monitor electoral processes, and come to the aid of individuals at risk. Our staff works closely 

with local citizens, human rights defenders, foreign governments, NGOs, and community leaders to identify, investigate, and verify information. I would like to take 

this opportunity to publicly thank everyone involved in producing this report. I 

would especially like to thank officers in the Office of Country Reports and Asylum 

Affairs and others in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. The officers of the Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Bureau take seriously our responsibility to report accurately and carefully in these reports. 

The 2004 Country Report covers 196 countries, ranging from the stoutest defenders to the worst violators of human rights. This year, we increased our coverage on 

56

anti-Semitism, disabilities and corruption. Also, beginning with the 2004 Country 

Report, all country specific sections of the Country Reports will be translated into 

primary languages for each country around the globe where English is not the predominant language. We will also translate other human rights reports in a similar 

manner. In addition, U.S. Embassies will be posting translations on their web 

pages. Reports are also available on the Department Web Page at www.state.gov. 

In 2002, the U.S. adopted a new National Security Strategy based on the principle 

that promoting political and economic freedom and respect for human dignity are 

not only the right things to do, but are essential to the national security of the U.S. 

In his second Inaugural Address, President Bush elaborated:

‘‘The survival of liberty in our land depends on the success of liberty in other 

lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all 

the world. . . . So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the 

growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, 

with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. This is not primarily the 

task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms 

when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And 

when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect 

customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose 

our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others 

find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.’’

In 2004, the U.S. and our international partners worked with many countries to 

expand freedom. Where concerns centered on the rights of the people to choose their 

own governments, dramatic developments focused global attention on their struggles 

and landmark achievements. 

Since the removal of the Taliban regime, the people of Afghanistan have worked 

to reduce terrorism and improve security; to bridge traditional ethnic, religious, and 

tribal divides; to craft a constitution faithful to their values and universal human 

rights principles; to extend fundamental rights to women and minorities; and to 

open their society to political competition and freedom of expression. The international community responded by helping to register voters across a geographically 

scattered, largely illiterate population, by educating cadres of Afghan election workers and political participants in the conduct of elections and campaigns, and by joining with Afghan forces to provide security during pre-election preparations and the 

actual voting. In the presidential election, 18 candidates vied for the votes. Despite 

threats and attacks before the vote and serious logistical challenges, more than 8 

million Afghans—including more than 3.2 million women—cast ballots to chose 

their leader in a truly democratic election for the first time. 

In Ukraine, the presidential election campaign was marred by government pressure on opposition candidates and by widespread violations. Government officials 

engaged in fraud and manipulation in both the first and second round of voting. The 

Government censored the media, sparking a ‘‘journalist rebellion.’’ Popular demonstrations against electoral fraud and the official results swelled into an ‘‘Orange 

Revolution,’’ the campaign color associated with opposition leader Viktor 

Yushchenko, who was widely believed to have won. Respect for the rule of law and 

human rights took a decided turn for the better when the country’s Supreme Court 

invalidated the runoff, vindicating the observations and reports of many domestic 

and international monitors. In the court-mandated revote, the people selected 

Yushchenko. International observers noted the improvements in media coverage, increase in transparency of the voting process, decrease in government pressure to 

support a particular candidate, and fewer disruptions at the polls. Yushchenko expressed strong commitment to democracy, the rule of law, and observance of human 

rights. 

In Iraq, people faced difficult tasks as they prepared for democratic elections, 

while the severity and ubiquity of terrorist attacks expanded the challenges. First, 

the Iraqi Governing Council achieved consensus on a framework and timeline for 

Iraq’s democratic transition. The Transitional Administrative Law clearly defined 

procedures by which Iraq’s citizens would be able to choose their own authorities 

and construct their own constitutional order. The approval of the Transitional Administrative Law paved the way for the restoration of Iraiqi sovereignty and the appointment of the Iraqi Interim Government. In the summer of 2004, with the assistance of the UN and other international advisors, the Iraqi Interim Government established the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq which developed registration and voting regulations and procedures for Iraq’s election. The National Conference convened and elected a 100-member Interim Iraqi National Council. On January 30, 2005, brave Iraqis cast their votes in elections for the Transitional National 

57

Assembly, the first step in the formation of an Iraqi Transitional Government. According to the Transitional Administrative Law, the Transitional National Assembly 

will draft a constitution that is to be ratified by October 2005, and new elections 

are to be held under that constitution by December 2005. 

We believe events like these increase the prospect for peace, provide solid ground 

for self-government and create momentum for the improvement of human rights. 

Progress will not be easy or rapid. Despite these successes, these reports show that 

human rights practices have eroded in some areas. One example is Venezuela where 

respect for human rights remained poor, despite the Government victory in an August referendum to recall President Chavez. Since the August recall referendum, a 

disturbing range of Venezuelan policies and actions reflect an increasingly authoritarian regime that is headed in a negative and undemocratic direction. The executive branch of the Venezuelan Government has established its control over the judicial branch and has increased its interference in the administration of justice. Independent NGOs were targeted for prosecution by the Government and have been subjected to intimidation by government supporters. The government-controlled legislature enacted laws that have eroded freedom of the press making criticism of the 

government a criminal offense. The Venezuelan Government has reduced the economic freedom of its people by expropriating private property and by undermining 

the rule of law in commercial matters as well. 

Developments and experiences in certain countries stand out, due not only to the 

intensity of the human rights problems, but also to our involvement with the victims and their governments during 2004. 

Sudan’s human rights record remained extremely poor as it continued deliberately 

to kill its own citizens and to restrict freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, religion and movement. It arrested and harassed those who exercised these 

rights. At year’s end, there were more than 1.5 million Internally Displaced Persons 

in Darfur, and another 213,000 civilians who had fled into Chad. Approximately 

70,000 people reportedly died as a result of violence and forced displacement. Despite Sudan’s repeated commitments to refrain from further violence in Darfur, 

atrocities continued. Government regular forces and government-supported militias, 

Jinjaweed, routinely attacked civilian villages, looted possessions and destroyed villages, sometimes under cover of military aerial support. In September, the State Department concluded: ‘‘Genocide has been committed in Darfur and the Government 

of Sudan and Jinjaweed bear responsibility that genocide may still be occurring.’’ 

Government forces along with Jinjaweed militia routinely killed, raped, injured, and 

displaced civilians. They destroyed clinics and dwellings intentionally during offensive operations. Year-end developments in negotiations provided hope for peace and 

an improvement of human rights practices in other areas of Sudan. We saw significant movement on the preliminary accords between the Government and the Sudan 

People’s Liberation Movement Army (SPLM/A). On January 9, 2005 the Government of Sudan and the SPLM signed a Comprehensive Peace Agreement ending 

over two decades of civil war. 

North Korea remains one of the world’s most repressive and brutal regimes. An 

estimated 150,000–200,000 persons are believed to be political prisoners, and defectors report that many prisoners have died from torture, starvation, disease, exposure, or a combination of causes. The regime also subjects its citizens to rigid controls. 

In Belarus, police abuse and occasional torture of prisoners and detainees continued. Security forces arbitrarily arrested and detained citizens for political reasons 

and individuals were sued and sentenced to jail terms for such political crimes as 

‘‘defamation’’ of state officials, often interpreted to include criticism of their policies. 

The Government persisted in discounting credible reports regarding the role of government officials in the disappearances of a journalist and well-known opposition 

political figures, and failed to conduct full, transparent investigations into these disappearances. The Government appointed Viktor Sheiman, linked to disappearances 

by a Council of Europe report, as Head of the Presidential Administration, perpetuating a climate of abuse with impunity. 

In Burma, the Junta ruled by decree and did not adhere to any constitutional provisions providing any fundamental rights. Security forces carried out extrajudicial 

killings. Disappearances continued, and security forces raped, tortured, beat, and 

otherwise abused prisoners, detainees and civilians in ethnic minority regions of the 

country. Arbitrary arrests and incommunicado detention were frequent. Security 

forces also regularly infringed on citizens’ privacy, forcibly relocated populations, 

used forced labor and conscripted child soldiers. 

We remain deeply concerned about China’s poor human rights record. Chinese 

citizens who openly expressed dissenting political views were harassed, detained, or 

imprisoned, particularly in a campaign late in the year against writers, religious acVerDate Mar 21 2002 16:42 Jul 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\031705\20060.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
58

tivists, dissidents, and petitioners. China’s coercive birth limitation regime remains 

a major human rights concern. The suffering of civil activist Mao Hengfeng, about 

which I testified in December 2004, is illustrative of these abuses. We understand 

her treatment may have improved since the hearing because of the international attention focused on her case. Others who are guilty only of peaceful political dissent 

and the peaceful practice of their religious beliefs, including Tibetan Buddhists and 

Uighur Muslims, have suffered similar forms of repression as have the Falun Gong, 

the underground Protestant community and Catholics faithful to the Vatican. 

But there are some hopeful signs in the overall picture for human rights. Early 

this year, the Chinese government took steps to provide relief to those still serving 

sentences for political activities that have been removed from China’s Criminal 

Code. For many years, China apparently interpreted its law to provide few if any 

opportunities for sentence reduction or parole to such security prisoners. In a significant systemic shift, China now is committed to applying the same criteria for 

sentence reduction and parole to such prisoners as apply to common criminals. In 

early February, China granted sentence reduction or parole for a total of 58 individuals, including Tibetans and Uighurs who had been jailed for these so-called security crimes, and other cases are under review. According to the Tibet Information 

Network, two Tibetan nuns—one of them still a teenager when she was jailed—were 

released in July 2004. Many more prisoners of conscience remain in detention and 

we will continue our work to win their freedom. As President Bush stated in his 

inaugural speech, ‘‘America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their 

chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being 

aspires to live at the mercy of bullies. We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people.’’ On Tuesday, the Chinese announced for the first time 

that they do not have a problem with parents providing religious education for their 

minor children under 18; this is a statement that we sought for years. The Chinese 

have also stated that they expect the International Commission of the Red Cross 

will establish a local office in Beijing by mid-year. 

Colombia demobilized approximately 3,000 fighters from the United Self-Defense 

Forces of Colombia. Hundreds of municipal officials returned to their towns after 

the government established a permanent police presence in every urban center in 

the country. As a result, rates for homicides, kidnappings, and other violent crimes 

decreased. Still, serious problems remain, as terrorist organizations of both the right 

and left, financed by drug money, continue to target innocent civilians and to bribe 

or intimidate and even kill prosecutors, investigators and judges. 

In Cuba, Fidel Castro added another year to his record as the world’s longest 

serving dictator. The Government rejected all democratic processes and continued 

its intimidation of pro-democracy activists, dissidents, journalists and others seeking 

to exercise their basic human rights. The majority of the 75 dissidents sentenced 

to long jail terms in 2003, and others such as Dr. Elias Biscet who were imprisoned 

even before that massive crackdown, remained incarcerated despite international 

protests. In addition, the authorities arrested 22 additional human rights activists 

and sentenced them for acts such as ‘‘contempt for authority’’ and ‘‘dangerousness.’’ 

Addressing abuses in Cuba continued to be a priority for the U.S. 

In Egypt, the 1981 Emergency Law, extended in February 2003 for an additional 

3 years, restricted many basic rights. The security forces continued to mistreat and 

torture prisoners, which resulted in at least 10 reported deaths in custody. Arbitrary 

arrest and detention and prolonged pretrial detention remained serious problems. 

Although there have been some significant positive developments in Georgia and 

Ukraine, political developments in Eurasia remain a serious concern. Governments 

of the region are drawing the wrong lessons from Ukraine and Georgia and attempting to stifle civil society by harassing democracy NGOs. Progress continues to be 

measured largely in terms of civil society development. More and more NGOs, opposition parties, and citizens are willing to organize and advocate for government accountability. In Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, opposition parties are unable to register. In Uzbekistan, torture has long been routine in prisons, pretrial facilities, and 

local police and security service precincts. Members of security forces responsible for 

documented abuses were rarely punished. However, the Government took some notable steps in 2004 to deter torture and establish police accountability. It created 

preliminary procedures within some divisions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for 

investigating and disciplining officers for human rights abuses and allowed NGO access to its prisons and to train prison guards in human rights practices. The Government also cooperated with international forensic experts in investigations of 

deaths in custody in which torture had been alleged. 

The Great Lakes region of Central Africa has been plagued by civil war, largescale inter-ethnic violence, and massive human rights abuses with the continuing 

59

presence of armed groups and militia. These groups compete with one another for 

strategic and natural resources and inhabit an environment of shifting alliances. 

Among the most notorious groups is the Ex-FAR Interahamwe who have taken 

sanctuary in the Eastern Congo region after the 1994 Rwandan genocide in the 

eastern Congo. The Ex-FAR Interahamwe or the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), continues to attack and kill civilians in the DRC as well 

as to pose a threat to the regional stability of Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda. There 

are also armed groups in the region who oppose the governments and peace process 

in Uganda and Burundi. While prospects for peace in the region are promising, 

armed militias continue to commit human rights abuses. Children, the primary victims, are abducted, forcefully recruited and turned into soldiers. Some of the governments have made progress in demobilizing child soldiers in their ranks. Some militia groups are predominantly comprised of children. Women and girls are particularly vulnerable, as rape increasingly is used as a weapon of war. The U.S. is actively facilitating Tripartite talks between the DRC, Uganda and Rwanda. 

In Haiti, political turmoil was compounded by violence between pro- and antiAristide factions. Aristide had deliberately and systematically undermined and corrupted the police force, preferring to exercise authority through loyal gangs. When 

the leaders of one large gang turned against him, and other gangs and members 

of the former military took advantage of that situation, he found himself without 

government institutions capable of maintaining order. The crisis culminated when 

Aristide submitted his resignation and left the country. Despite the presence of UN 

peacekeeping forces, the constitutionally-established Interim Government was hampered by the weakness of governmental security and justice institutions. ProAristide partisans launched a campaign of destabilization and violence known as 

‘‘Operation Baghdad’’ in the fall, which included kidnapping, decapitation and burning of police officers and civilians, indiscriminate shootings, and the destruction of 

public and private property. Violence prevented normal operation of schools, markets, the seaport, and the justice system in Port-au-Prince for several weeks. 

The human rights situation in Iran deteriorated and the regime was responsible 

for numerous killings, including executions following trials that lacked due process. 

There were numerous reports that security forces tortured prisoners and detainees. 

There were arbitrary arrests, extended incommunicado detention, poor and overcrowded prisons, lack of access to counsel, punishment by the lash, and violation 

of personal privacy. In February 2004, democratic forces in Iran were foiled by a 

rigged parliamentary election process. The Guardian Council ruled approximately 

2,500 of the over 8,000 prospective candidates ineligible to run, thereby consolidating gains by their supporters and further repressing the rights of individuals to 

choose their own leaders. 

In Russia, a shift to the appointment and confirmation by regional legislatures, 

instead of direct election, of regional governors strengthened the power of the executive branch. Greater restrictions on the media, a compliant Duma (Parliament), 

shortcomings in recent national elections, law enforcement corruption, and political 

pressure on the judiciary also raised concerns about the erosion of government accountability. Racially motivated violence and discrimination increased, despite considerable legislative prohibitions. Authorities failed to investigate actions against 

minorities while subjecting them to more frequent document checks, targeting them 

for deportation from urban centers, and fining them in excess of permissible penalties or detaining them more frequently. Government institutions intended to protect human rights were relatively weak. The September attack on a school in Beslan 

and other attacks on Russian civilians, including two airliner bombings and a bombing of a Moscow subway, underscored the extent to which terrorists in the North 

Caucasus continue to demonstrate little respect for human rights. Unfortunately, 

the Russian authorities have often responded in kind. There were also credible reports of serious violations by government forces, including politically motivated disappearances and unlawful killings by government forces, and individuals seeking 

accountability for these abuses continued to be targeted. 

Saudi Arabia remains an extremely closed, non-democratic society. Freedom of religion does not exist. The Government rigidly mandates religious conformity and 

failed to take responsibility for the propagation of religious intolerance and incitement to violence at home and abroad. However, there were positive developments 

in a few areas, including a government-sponsored conference on women’s rights and 

obligations, and the formation of the first formal human rights organization permitted in the Kingdom. The Government issued an executive by-law entitling some 

long-term residents to apply for citizenship. By year’s end, voter and candidate registration, albeit only for men, was well advanced for municipal elections. The record 

of human rights abuses still far exceeds advances. There were credible reports of 

abuse of prisoners by some security forces, arbitrary arrests, and incommunicado deVerDate Mar 21 2002 16:42 Jul 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\031705\20060.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
60

tention. The religious police continued to intimidate, abuse, and detain citizens and 

foreigners. Most trials were closed, and defendants usually appeared before judges 

without legal counsel. Security forces arrested and detained reformers. The Government continued to restrict freedoms of speech and press, assembly, association and 

movement, and there were reports that the Government infringed on individuals’ 

privacy rights. Violence and discrimination against women, violence against children, discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities, and strict limitations 

on workers’ rights continued. . 

In Syria, widespread use of torture resulted in at least 8 deaths. Arbitrary arrest 

and detention, prolonged pre-trial detention, fundamentally unfair trials in the security courts, and deteriorating prison conditions persisted. Security services conducted mass arrests of Kurds. Security forces in Hassakeh Province opened fire on 

a crowd at a soccer match after clashes between Arab and Kurdish fans erupted. 

In the days of rioting that followed, dozens were killed, as many as 2,000 Kurds 

were detained, and nearly 300 Kurds remained in custody and were awaiting trial 

at year’s end. 

Vietnam continued to restrict freedom of religion and religious organizations, 

other than those approved by the State and freedom of expression. The Government 

failed to issue a nationwide decree banning forced renunciations of faith, did not end 

the physical abuse of religious believers, and continued to hold a significant number 

of religious prisoners. Although it permitted the re-opening of some churches closed 

in the Central Highlands in 2001, it did not allow the re-opening and registration 

of hundreds of others. Following CPC designation, some improvements in religious 

freedom were evident. Some religious leaders expressed cautious optimism about a 

new ordinance on religion that the Government released in November, and in December, the Evangelical Church of Vietnam North (ECVN) held its first National 

Congress in 20 years and named a new, independent leadership board. Several democracy advocates remained in prison for the peaceful expression of political views. 

Zimbabwe conducted a concerted campaign of violence, repression, and intimidation marked by disregard for human rights, the rule of law, and the welfare of citizens. Torture is used against political opponents and human rights advocates. War 

veterans, youth brigades, and police officers act with brutality against political enemies. President Mugabe and his regime continue to target other institutions of government, including the judiciary and police. Judges have been harassed into submission or resignation and replaced by Mugabe’s cronies. The news media have been 

restricted and suppressed, with offending journalists arrested and beaten. Land seizures continue to be used as a tool for political and social oppression, and opponents 

of these destructive policies were subject to violent reprisals. 

Mr. Chairman, I have included in my remarks today summaries from the 2004 

Country Report for those countries typically of interest to Congress. I would also like 

to note that in less than two weeks we will be transmitting to the Congress our annual report concerning the strategy the U.S. is following to promote democracy and 

other human rights in the countries with the most serious human rights problems. 

I hope we will have further opportunities to discuss how best to pursue our common 

objectives in testimony concerning that report. We hope that the Country Reports

serve as an indicator of the progress made and as a guide for the challenges ahead. 

Thank you, again. I am prepared to take your questions.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I appreciate your willingness to answer questions raised in opening statements. 

Regrettably, we have a vote on the Floor which will be followed 

soon thereafter by another vote, but we will try to reconvene after 

this vote and just work our way through. I apologize for the delay, 

and thank you for your patience and for your fine answers. 

Mr. KOZAK. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. We stand in recess. 

[Whereupon, at 2:47 p.m., a brief recess was taken.] 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. The Subcommittee will come to 

order. 

The April or Easter crackdown from just a couple of years ago 

continues to be a very serious violation of human rights by the Vietnamese Government, and then if you look at their religious law, 

which went into effect just a few months ago, it is riddled with old, 

hard-line, Stalinist-type, catch-all phrases with boundaries that 

61

anyone can easily cross with regard to their belief or their expression of their religious faith and find themselves being incarcerated 

and worse, tortured. 

So my first question is on Vietnam. They are a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) country. What do you think we ought to be 

doing with regards to Vietnam on human rights and especially on 

the Montiyard, which have been very cruelly dealt with? 

Mr. KOZAK. Well, first, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, Vietnam was designated for the first time this year as a Country of 

Particular Concern under the International Religious Freedom Act. 

As you know, that has consequences downstream. One of them is 

that there is a provision in there to try to negotiate a resolution. 

John Hanford, our Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious 

Freedom, has been working very hard on that. I just met with him 

yesterday on the matter. 

So, basically, we are trying to get some of those things that you 

just mentioned rectified or mitigated. I hope John will be in a position to give you a progress report in the very near future. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. You know, when we wrote that law—

and Frank Wolf certainly was the prime sponsor of that legislation 

when it went through our Committee, that and the trafficking law, 

which I was the sponsor of—we wanted to make sure there was a 

way of making things whole. In the end, we do not want penalties 

or sanctions, although they should fall when a country continues 

an egregious practice, but if there is a way of getting or obtaining 

genuine progress, certainly that was the intent of the legislation. 

So perhaps we should have John here soon, Ambassador Hanford, 

to give some insights on that. 

Mr. KOZAK. I think that is a very good way of looking at these 

things. It is a tool to be used to try to achieve progress. That was 

the way we saw the situation with China as well. We used the tool 

of the Human Rights Commission resolution to accomplish something. That was the calculation. As you say, you could always differ 

on exactly what the cost benefit is, but the goal is identical. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Knowing you, I know there is good 

faith. 

Mr. KOZAK. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I would also point out, and I think, 

again, not to belabor the point, but on the trafficking legislation or 

the law, several of our best friends—South Korea, Greece, Turkey, 

and Israel—were all on tier three, subject to sanctions, but got off 

tier three when they moved rather aggressively to enact new laws 

and to enforce existing statutes and to protect women from trafficking. So I would agree with you. 

On Cuba, obviously, there will be a resolution, as you said, that 

we will be tabling in Geneva. I saw the foreign minister of Cuba 

in the press recently boasting that Latin countries would not be 

supporting our efforts, and my hope is that a full-court press will 

be made, especially, as you pointed out, with people like Dr. Oscar 

Biscet and others languishing in prison because they spoke truth 

to power. It is an outrage, and to think that they would be able 

to escape the scrutiny that they so richly deserve is also very troubling. 

62

Mr. KOZAK. I think the Cuban foreign minister’s statement is one 

of wishful thinking on his behalf, rather than a statement of fact. 

We have been out already, consulting. As you know, this is a matter of extremely high concern for the President and everybody on 

down, so ‘‘full-court press’’ is the right word. It is not a question 

of pressing people. People throughout this region know what the 

situation in Cuba is. We have had very good support for bringing 

it to light from countries in the region in past years and would anticipate it again this year. But also, in other parts of the world, we 

need to get people to pay attention to what goes on in Cuba. It is 

really horrendous. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. You mentioned Dr. Oscar Biscet and 

one of the reasons why he received the long prison sentence that 

he did. Could you elaborate on that, if you would, because I remember when we held a hearing on Ilean Gonzales, one of the Members 

of our Committee had talking points, if you will, that talked about 

how infant mortality rates were so low? There is a reason for it. 

When you do eugenic abortions because a child may have Down 

Syndrome, you get an outcome of healthier children, but that is because they have been destroyed prior to birth. 

Mr. KOZAK. Or in the Cuban case, you destroy them immediately 

upon birth and put them down as a stillborn child. I believe the 

last time he was jailed it was not for that, rather it was his activism on that topic that got him thrown out of the hospital and into 

the community that has tried to bring about more freedom in Cuba. 

He is very committed to peaceful demonstrations. I visited one time 

when he was conducting a hunger strike for 40 days, 1 day for, at 

that time, each year of the revolution. Now we are up to 45 or 46 

years of one man, one rule, not even one vote in that case; he never 

even bothered to have a vote. But that was, indeed, what motivated 

him in the first place to become an activist for freedom in his own 

country. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Let me just ask you, on the Congo, 

and, I think, the untold story on the revelations within the United 

Nations peacekeeping deployment of horrific behavior, including 

rape of 13- and 14-year-olds by U.N. peacekeepers; the impetus for 

that actually came from the United States Government and from 

our mission. We had a hearing on this just a few weeks ago, and 

we had a representative from the United Nations, Jane Holl Lute, 

who I do believe is a very dedicated person who wants to weed out 

this deplorable activity on the part of the U.N. peacekeepers, and 

Kim Holmes testified at that hearing as well. 

Could you speak to the issue of the Congo? First, the hopes and 

expectations that the U.N. peacekeepers will adhere to the Blue 

Helmet Code of Conduct and that there will be some enforcement 

of it and, secondly, the situation itself, which, in a way, gets obscured by misdeeds by the U.N. when we have two civil wars and 

a very large loss of life and all kinds of human rights abuses occurring. 

Mr. KOZAK. Let me hit the scandal first. We have been pleased 

that the U.N. hierarchy is now taking this seriously and starting 

to bring people to account. 

I think you run into the problems, too, though, of applicable law 

and so on. You have a peacekeeping force in one of these countries. 

63

They are not really there under the local law, so they are not going 

to be brought in, and maybe this is why people feel that they can 

behave that way. Obviously, their own military need to use their 

version of the Uniform Code of Justice to bring them to account. 

So I think it still remains to be seen just how the U.N. loops that 

all together, but, at least, they are taking disciplinary measures 

against not only people who were obviously culpable but people 

who had supervisory responsibility and failed to detect or act on 

these types of abuses. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Could you identify yourself, please? 

Ms. PEKKINEN. I am Jennifer Pekkinen, and I am the Senior Editor for Africa in the Country Reports. Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Have a seat, please. 

Ms. PEKKINEN. Well, the situation in the Congo is obviously a 

huge concern. We report extensively in the report about all of the 

violations committed on many sides. We report on several examples 

regarding the peacekeeper issue in the report this year. The transition is moving forward. There has been some progress toward ending the war. There are still a lot of difficulties, but there is some 

progress. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Let me ask you, if I could, and 

maybe you want to respond as well, to the issue, obviously, in 

Sudan, both Darfur and, of course, the ongoing——

Mr. KOZAK. I want to know a little better myself. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Yes, I know you would. 

Mr. KOZAK. Darfur remains one of the most acute, egregious 

human rights violations going on in the world today. 

As we mentioned in the testimony, we went out and did interviews of people in the refugee camps. This was done very systematically. We worked out a questionnaire with professionals so that 

we did random samples and interviewed people. What came across 

consistently was, unlike what had been thought before, this was 

not a case of Government not just reining in militias; virtually 

every attack was preceded by Sudanese Air Force strafing runs on 

villages. And, in most cases, you had regular army troops coming 

in in trucks, and then you might have militias coming in and molesting people. But it is clearly part of a deliberate Government policy; it is not just lack of control over local groups or something. 

So that was a big factor in the decision-making that the Secretary made. Now, given that both Secretary Powell and the Secretary-General of the U.N., and the Special Representative, Mr. 

Pronk, had gone out and talked to the Government in Khartoum. 

They have given assurances over and over again that they were 

taking measures to put an end to this kind of activity. Assurances 

are one thing; practice is another. We have seen no cessation or diminishment of their attacks on their own citizens, so it is a really 

bad situation. 

And as I mentioned, what we are trying to do about it is to get 

sufficient votes in the Security Council of the U.N. to impose some 

sanctions on government personnel who are behind these kinds of 

things or responsible in one way or another. We are working also 

with other members of the Security Council on trying to find a formula for accountability, as you may have seen in the debate. Many 

agree that there needs to be an international court. But then, what 

64

kind of international court becomes an issue. But that is under active work. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Well, if it is not at the ICC, why not 

do something like what David Crane did so well in Sierra Leone? 

Where not only did they prosecute, but they now leave a working 

physical plant and juris and judges that understand more, rather 

than less, the rule of law and what needs to be done to hold that 

kind of behavior——

Mr. KOZAK. Exactly. We very much think that is a very good 

model as to how to go forward. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. If you do not mind me asking, is 

there a problem in the Security Council with any particular nation 

with regard to the Sudan and Darfur? 

Mr. KOZAK. I would defer on that to Assistant Secretary Kim 

Holmes and others who are closer to the actual kind of vote-counting side of it, but there is no consensus yet on the passage of additional sanctions. There is also this issue of trying to find consensus 

on accountability mechanisms. Again, I will defer to Kim to give 

you the really sort of up-to-date, blow-by-blow. But there are problems on both fronts. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Let me ask you, with regards to the 

Belarus Democracy Act and the ongoing problems in Belarus, you 

know, a friend of mine, Mr. Labiedzka, was recently attacked when 

he was protesting. The concern is that I know Europe cares, but 

we have not done enough, I do not think, to build civil society and 

to promote those institutions that could make the difference, as we 

saw with the Orange Revolution. There was a lot of work for years 

that led to that very positive outcome. 

And I noticed in the President’s submission, the amount of 

money for the Belarus Democracy Act type of activities is far below 

what we envisioned. We were hoping for something on the order of 

$20 million, and it is $7 million or less. I am hoping that we can 

work to ratchet that up, but would appreciate any support you can 

provide from the Administration to say, ‘‘Wait a minute. We need 

to get that higher.’’ I did ask this question of Secretary of State 

Condoleezza Rice when she appeared on the budget, and I hope 

that we will realize that every dollar spent to strengthen civil society, free media, and the forces of democracy will pay off really well. 

Mr. KOZAK. I could not agree with you more, Mr. Chairman, and 

I think that view is widely shared within the Administration. The 

problems we get into, of course, is within the overall foreign-assistance budget. There are a lot of earmarks and so on, so the amount 

of money that you actually have that you can shift around to do 

these kinds of useful work is limited, and people make judgments. 

But we believe that additional funding is certainly warranted, will 

be usefully used, not wasted away, and that the capacity that is 

being developed in Belarus to do more in the areas you mentioned 

is there. It needs our support. It also needs support from others. 

One of the dilemmas in the world these days is that Europe, for 

example, provides a fair amount of assistance in emerging countries, but their whole system is based on the assumption that the 

Government in power is going to be helpful. In a place like Belarus 

where the Government has blocked them doing their work, that is 

a further constraint, that we do not end up with the conjoining of 

65

assistance that we are providing. That is not to minimize a lot of 

the individual European countries. Party institutes and so on have 

been helpful there, but there is a constraint on them as well. 

Anyway, we are working very hard on it with our Belarusan colleagues. We met yesterday with senior people in the Department, 

and I know there is a lot of interest there, too. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I appreciate that, especially given 

your ambassadorship. I was the prime sponsor of the Belarus Democracy Act, and when the President signed that legislation, the 

statement he made was outstanding. Now we need to back it up 

with money. 

Mr. KOZAK. Put our money where the President’s mouth is, yes. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. We need to put our money where our 

mouth is. It gave me and, I am sure, the true democrats in Belarus 

a real jolt of hope and a sense that real help is on the way. I would 

hate to disappoint and frustrate them. 

Mr. KOZAK. Well, we will keep working, and we will work with 

you as well, because you have been a champion on this topic. We 

really appreciate it. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. You mentioned that the U.N. torture 

rapporteur will be making a visit to China. Have you seen the 

terms of reference? Are we satisfied that that rapporteur will have 

unfettered access to wherever he wants to go? 

Mr. KOZAK. It is our understanding. Obviously, it is his job to decide what his terms of reference are, but my understanding of the 

terms of reference, and this had been one of the disputes in the 

past, was that the Special Rapporteur was saying he really needs 

to have unfettered access, and there had been efforts to limit the 

statement. The clear statement that was made was we are inviting 

him on his terms of reference. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Are we confident that he will have 

a sufficient number of prisoners lists. Mrs. Mao, Bishop Chiu—

there are so many people throughout China. 

Mr. KOZAK. He will have whatever information we have, and, 

hopefully, that from others as well. I know Kevin Moley, our representative in Geneva, who I think you know——

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Yes. 

Mr. KOZAK [continuing]. Has been in touch with the Special 

Rapporteur and offered all of the help we can provide. So, to us, 

this is a good development. We need to follow up on it in the ways 

you suggest to be sure that we get the expected payoff from the 

visit in terms of an improved situation for the people there. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Can I just ask you, on Zimbabwe, 

with the upcoming elections, what your sense is? Obviously, 

Zimbabwe has had egregious human rights abuses due to the fact 

that so many people have been killed—the opposition leaders, the 

White farmers. President Mugabe has not, obviously, comported 

himself to the universal standards on human rights. What is your 

sense on this upcoming election? 

Mr. KOZAK. Just to give you a sense, one of my old friends was 

our Ambassador in Zimbabwe when I was in Belarus. We used to 

e-mail each other about whose guy was doing the most damage to 

the democratic process that week, and it was a real close contest 

between the two of them. So I would not anticipate anything apVerDate Mar 21 2002 16:42 Jul 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\031705\20060.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
66

proximating a fair-and-free-election condition. There have been no 

new positive developments in the last week. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Let me ask you, on the new Global 

Anti-Semitism Review Act and the report that was submitted, 

would you care to comment briefly on that because we do have a 

representative from B’nai B’rith who will be presenting testimony. 

I just had the opportunity to read it. It is very strong, as it should 

be, and one of the points that Mr. Mariaschin makes in his testimony, and I quote him:

‘‘The two State Department reports reveal clear indications 

that anti-Semitic literature in media coverage is a common feature in the Arab and Muslim world, as well as in European 

countries with large Arab and Muslim populations. In Europe, 

these communities have immediate and regular access to Arabic language cable TV networks, like Al-Jazeera, print publications and Internet sites, all of which offer, predictably, onesided, inflammatory coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict . . .’’

and then it goes on with the stereotypes. 

We had a hearing on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe and heard from Chiransky, a minister in the Israeli 

Government, who himself was a political prisoner, and he showed 

a video that I will never forget on blood libel in which these actors 

purporting to be Jewish men were killing this young Christian boy 

named Joseph, as they called him, to make matzo mixed with 

blood. It was disgusting in the extreme, but as he pointed out, this 

is common fare, and these kinds of big lies perpetuate the hatred 

of Jews. And now that that is spreading throughout Europe, and 

virtually anyone can watch this in France and elsewhere by way 

of satellite television, it perpetuates a very cruel, like I said, stereotype that is absolutely untrue about Jews. 

Remember the old ‘‘South Pacific’’ song, ‘‘You’ve Got To Be 

Taught’’? Young people at very young ages are being taught to 

hate. 

I add to that, if you could, the textbook issue. I know UNESCO 

is trying to make an effort to work on textbooks where the antiSemitic perspective is done away with. We had a hearing last year 

in which we heard from a man from Saudi Arabia who brought in 

textbooks that were being promoted in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, and he read from them, and they were just filled with hatred toward Christians and Jews and anybody without a more 

radicalized Muslim belief. We are never going to get at this terrorism issue, as it shows itself, I do not think, or these other acts 

of anti-Semitism and the like until we get at what is causing that, 

and it seems it is being taught. Could you respond? 

Mr. KOZAK. Everything you mention is of great concern. In Europe, over the last few years—thanks to the work of many Members here, including yourself, and folks like Steve Minikes, our Ambassador to the OSCE—there has been increasing attention and 

creation of mechanisms within the European structures, particularly within the OSCE structure. Efforts have been focused on getting governments to pay attention to this, to try to find ways to 

combat anti-Semitism. There is always the balance between free 

speech and hate speech and hate education. We feel that there is 

67

some progress being made in Europe on trying to get a handle on 

this and restrict it. 

In the Middle East, much less extensive efforts. We have had discussions with the Saudi Government, for example. They have acknowledged that there is a problem and undertaken to start reining in some of these most egregious textbooks and so on. We are 

waiting to see the results. 

I am hoping we will get a boost out of this because of the recent 

legislation establishing a Special Envoy for Anti-Semitism. The 

Secretary has decided to locate that office in our Bureau. I was 

pleased at that decision, and we are moving now toward the administrative side of getting office space, getting positions allocated, 

and, obviously, getting a Special Envoy appointed. But I think once 

we have got that, we can start to work more methodically with 

some of those governments in the region. 

The Arab satellite TVs are a real conundrum. They do influence 

people all over the place. On one side, you want to back up the idea 

of free press; on the other side, you end up with some really horrendous, anti-Semitic remarks, anti-U.S., totally distorted facts 

about news that is going on on the ground. We have tried recently, 

though, to engage directly with them to try get our own side of the 

story aired. I appeared on Al-Jazeera not too long ago to talk about 

the Human Rights Report, and a friend of mine in Jeddah said that 

they actually showed it in Saudi Arabia. 

So maybe little by little, we will get a handle on it, but it is a 

very serious problem, and you are absolutely right. Kids are taught 

from a young age that these are the facts about the way the world 

operates, and these are the people who are behind it and the people 

you should hate and that the heroes are people who strap bombs 

around usually not themselves, around some innocent kid, and 

send them off to blow themselves up and kill. Somehow the leaders 

of these organizations never seem to put the bombs on themselves. 

They find some 18-year-old, or younger, and send them off to blow 

themselves up. 

But I guess I would also indicate that maybe one of the greatest 

hopes is the movement toward democracy in the Middle East right 

now. The reason these kinds of stations and activities can flourish 

is the kinds of regimes you have in power there. Hopefully we can 

start to see changes in Lebanon, and a little glimmer in Egypt—

we will have to see how that pans out. Even in Saudi Arabia itself, 

in the fact that they had municipal elections. ‘‘Municipal.’’ They 

still appointed a good deal of the people to those governments. 

They restricted the elections only to men, not to women. But the 

fact was there was an election is a new phenomenon there. 

So I get the sense, after Iraq, things are rolling. The Palestinian 

Authority had elections and are starting to move forward. It is 

going to be a question of the chicken and the egg: Are we successful 

in stopping all of this kind of hate speech first, or will there be governments that are responsive to their own people in place and 

thereby take some of the steam out of that hate doctrine? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. On India, I know the Members are 

deeply concerned about widespread human rights violations in the 

State of Gujarat. The Gujarat Chief Minister Modi has implemented numerous policies, including an anti-conversion law which 

68

requires State approval in order for an individual to change his or 

her religion, that violate the Indian Constitution and the most fundamental human rights of the Indian people. Could you tell us 

what actions the State Department has taken to condemn the actions of Chief Modi and to assist those in India who are fighting 

against this human rights abuse? 

Mr. KOZAK. In the report itself we outline the abusive situation 

in Gujarat, including the religious-conversion law. We have spoken 

out on that as well, as has our Embassy. My sense is that there 

are other consequences provided for in our law that people out 

there will have to take into account. I want to emphasize that the 

concerns you have just expressed are ones that we share completely and our perception of the situation in that state. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Has the North Korea Human Rights 

Act had any impact with regards to the human rights situation 

there? 

Mr. KOZAK. Well, again, it is the lag time that you find with anything. Congress passes legislation, and then we have to set up positions and all that, but we are moving along on two fronts. One, the 

North Korea Human Rights Act provides for a Special Envoy to 

carry out our diplomacy. We have got the office established—again, 

it will be in the DRL Bureau. We are moving to what I hope will 

very soon be an announcement of a very distinguished individual 

to serve in that capacity. So within the not-too-distant future, we 

should start to have staff in place to really pick up and galvanize 

that whole effort. 

On the other side, the act provided $2 million, and the appropriators had indicated that, for this year at least, that money should 

go to Freedom House for the conduct of a conference. The money 

is being administered in our Bureau. Freedom House has put forward a proposal for a series of conferences that will build up to a 

big, international conference on North Korea. So, again, the results 

will come down the stream, but steps are underway, in accord with 

the act. That would not have been possible were it not for the passage of that legislation. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. As you know, Turkmenistan and 

Uzbekistan have probably the worst records on human rights in 

the religious freedom area of the entire 55 countries of the OSCE. 

Obviously, you work with Ambassador Hanford in terms of working 

through the data and trying to come to conclusions. I, for one, have 

written in the past to the Department suggesting they ought to be 

CPC countries. What is your sense on that? 

Mr. KOZAK. You are right. The record is very bad in both. I was 

out in Uzbekistan 3 or 4 months ago. I toured around and I talked 

to a lot of people, both in Tashkant and in the Farigana Valley. 

What I found was sort of a mixed bag. On the democracy front, 

not good. Despite everyone’s appeals—and the Embassy there has 

been working very hard on this—no one who was not a Government candidate managed to get registered for the elections. 

On the torture front, what the Uzbeks seem to mix up is, they 

do have a problem with extreme terrorist groups who engage in 

violent activity in the name of Islam, but they extrapolate from 

that and say anyone who is a devout Muslim could be a terrorist 

and needs to be treated like one, which is where they lose us. 

69

We are trying to work to change it. Where we have seen some 

success has been on the torture front. They had the most absolutely 

egregious cases of torture. There was a report a year ago, when we 

were reporting on the previous year, that they had boiled people to 

death in the course of torturing them—just really horrendous stuff. 

The good news I found was that the Government had actually 

started to make some change on that. They were starting to prosecute police and prison custodians for abusing prisoners, for engaging in torture. When I got out in the field, I found some of the local 

police authorities were cooperating now with human rights defenders. When they arrest somebody, they call up lawyers and say, 

‘‘Please get over here and talk to this guy as your client so that 

I do not get accused of torturing him.’’ This is a good response, and 

I was happy to see that. 

So, again, I do not want to overblow this. They have still got a 

terrible problem of abuse of people in custody and so on, but we 

have seen some improvement in that area. But I cannot report any 

improvement on the democracy front, or on their attitude toward 

religion generally. Our Embassy there is very dedicated on this. I 

commend what they are trying to do. They spend half of their time 

on human rights issues. That is about what they should be doing. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Let me just ask you, on the Convention Against Torture, the United States is required to submit a report on that. Is that something we are planning on doing soon? 

Mr. KOZAK. Yes, sir, and we are overdue, as are many other 

countries. This was something, actually, that the Legal Adviser’s 

Office, our Bureau, and the IO Bureau have been working on very 

hard. 

I might expand it beyond the Convention on Torture. We will be 

submitting a report, I think, within the next couple of months. 

Then there will be a hearing on it, which is the way that the Convention on Torture works. There is also a report coming along on 

the ICCPR, where we were very overdue. 

But I might just use this occasion to get on record. We had a tremendous problem of unanswered responses to Special Rapporteurs 

from the U.N. Human Rights Commission and others, not because 

people were hostile toward them, not because people were cavalier 

about our obligations under CAP, but simply because if you leave 

it to the people who are trying to do the day-to-day work there, the 

urgent always takes precedent over the important. 

So what we did was gather up some money from our different 

Bureaus and hire a retired officer, a very good one, to be the 

sparkplug for preparing this report. He has got no other duties but 

to do these reports, and so, finally, it is getting done. Also, the IO 

Bureau got a very fine young officer in, and she has worked her 

way through all of the backlog. I think we are getting pretty close 

to current now in all of our responses. So we have tried to get our 

record on these topics up where we would like to see others to be. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Let me just ask you, if I could, on 

Indonesia. I recently was in Aceh as part of a delegation looking 

at the tsunami-ravaged area there, Sri Lanka and Puket, and one 

part that really concerned me was that some of the generals, and, 

in one case, one of the generals who was part of the relief effort 

in Aceh had been an indicted war criminal in the 1999 Isti Maurice 

70

killings. The ad hoc trial had acquitted him—surprise, surprise—

and I raised it, and it went over like a lead balloon, I think, with 

the foreign minister. For us in the international community who 

try to take human rights seriously and say that those who commit 

atrocities need to be held to account, this is poor management, to 

say the least, and this man should be behind bars, based on what 

we see. 

The report itself describes the convictions and acquittal on appeal of the defendants in the ad hoc trials in neutral terms, and 

it is a criticism that Human Rights First has levied. How do you 

respond to that? 

Mr. KOZAK. First, we share the view that people who engage in 

abuses should be behind bars. They certainly should not be still in 

uniform. We have not seen the kind of performance in Indonesia, 

and in some other countries as well. It is an interesting phenomenon where you see countries like Indonesia that are starting 

to move forward on the democracy front. Colombia is another one 

I would put in this category, where you are starting to see positive 

actions and so on on the part of the Government, but you have got 

crimes that were committed in the past where entrenched military, 

and perhaps sometimes in conjunction with corruption of judges 

and prosecutors and so on, get people off. Sometimes the ability of 

the new executive to do something about that is limited. We have 

to keep pushing for it, though, even as we recognize that they may 

have limits in their own ability to effectuate changes. 

But I think there is maybe a distinction that you can make between cases where people have been acquitted, even in a proceeding that we do not think is adequate, and I do not want to 

comment on every particular case. I cannot say this guy was guilty, 

or this guy was innocent, but the proceedings we have seen in Indonesia were not, in general, the kind of proceedings that would 

bring about justice, in our view. But even in those cases where 

somebody has gotten off, they have got no business being in the 

military. The very least the executive can do is get them dismissed 

so that they do not have the capacity to repeat their sins. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I regret that there is another vote 

on the Floor. I was hoping some of my colleagues would return. I 

am sure they have questions, but if you could, we will submit questions to you, if you would not mind getting back to us, because I 

have another dozen or so myself. I would greatly appreciate it. 

Mr. KOZAK. I would be delighted. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. And I want to say clearly for the 

record, I deeply appreciate your service. I think you are the consummate professional. You believe deeply in human rights and you 

have proven it, and I, for one, as Chairman of this Subcommittee, 

want to thank you so much for your service. 

Mr. KOZAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I deeply appreciate that. 

As you can tell, I am kind of choked up by your comments, but, 

likewise, it has been always just an honor and a pleasure to work 

with you and your staff. Again, you can see when the commitment 

is really there. I think we have managed to accomplish a few 

things together, so thank you. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you. 

71

Unfortunately, there is a vote on, and the hearing will be adjourned until immediately after that vote when we will bring up 

the second panel. I apologize to them for that delay. Thank you, 

Mr. Ambassador. 

[Whereupon, at 3:44 p.m., a brief recess was taken.] 

Mr. TANCREDO [presiding]. Mr. Smith will be back momentarily, 

and we will do a little tag-team match here on the votes. 

I really want to thank you, Mr. Ambassador, because I know that 

you have been here for some time and answered a lot of questions. 

There are a couple of things I did want to bring out that I am told 

were not brought out during the original questioning, and that is, 

first of all, the issue of the Dhalits in India. 

It is something that has been growing, I think, concerns certainly 

have been growing dramatically in the last couple of years, attempts by the Dhalits to convert to other religions, both Christian 

and Buddhist, have been met with anticonversion laws in India. 

I understand that they apply and have resulted in other things 

which you have already talked about, but I want to know specifically what you know about, and what you think about what we 

should say and do with regard to the Dhalits, the untouchables, the 

caste that is right now looking for support from the rest of the 

world in their attempt to—if they can extricate themselves from 

the religious constraints that they are operating under and become 

something else, it changes their whole life. It is not just moving 

from religion to religion; it is moving essentially out of the caste 

system for them. So should we be giving them some aid? What is 

the position of the Administration, and what do you think we 

should be talking about in terms of the report? 

Mr. KOZAK. Well, it is a serious concern. These anticonversion 

laws anywhere are a serious concern but particularly where you 

have the effect that you are mentioning. The caste system is supposed to be banned in India, but, in societal terms, it is not. I 

know, John Hanford, in our International Religious Freedom Office, has been looking into this very carefully, and I think I will let 

him speak to it since he is the one who has been carrying on the 

conversations. Let me just make it clear that it is a matter of real 

concern, and it is something that John will turn his attention to. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Is it mentioned in the report? And I am sorry, 

I do not know if it is mentioned in the report or not. 

Mr. KOZAK. The anticonversion laws are mentioned. 

Mr. TANCREDO. But nothing specific to the Dhalits? 

Mr. KOZAK. I will have to go back and look. I have to admit that 

this report is 5,000 pages long, and some of it, I just did not internalize, but——

Mr. TANCREDO. I did not either. 

Mr. KOZAK. So please understand. Let me try to get you a more 

precise answer on that, Mr. Tancredo. 

[The information referred to follows:]

72


20060ap.eps
73


20060aq.eps
74

Mr. TANCREDO. I sincerely appreciate it because when we talk 

about human rights abuses in any country, but especially in India, 

this, in my mind, anyway, comes to the top of the pack. We are 

talking about 350 million people, I believe. Among them, there are 

many millions who have been, of course, treated shabbily just because of who they are, not just because they are trying to change 

religions. But their position in Indian society, it seems to me, is 

something that we should address and do so in the context of your 

report. 

The other thing, I wondered if there was any concern expressed 

or any mention in terms of the way in which Sindis are treated in 

Pakistan. Sind is a province of Pakistan, but it is one, I think, that 

recently is witnessing a lot of human rights abuses, I think, at the 

hands of the Government of Pakistan, and I just wondered, again, 

if there is anything mentioned about them. The Sind is, as I say, 

a province. 

Mr. KOZAK. We lost the people from the country office who wrote 

this thing. 

Mr. TANCREDO. They were smart. They got out of here. 

Mr. KOZAK. They got out of here before I did. 

Mr. TANCREDO. [Laughter.] All right. 

Mr. KOZAK. I will have to see. I know, in Pakistan, generally, we 

documented some really serious human rights problems. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Right. I bring these up because they have also, 

in the past, sort of fallen through the cracks. We have not seen 

anything mentioned about them, but I think that there is reason 

for us to look at it a little more carefully and to look at their claims 

of abuse, especially in terms of the Human Rights Report, so I will 

just ask you to do that, if you would. 

Mr. KOZAK. Okay. And we will keep a focus on that for future 

years to be sure that it is properly addressed. 


20060ar.eps
75

Mr. TANCREDO. I have no other questions. I did want to just 

make an observation, and, I am sorry, my colleagues are not here 

yet, especially Ms. Lee, who brought up the issue of a report published by Communist China, sort of saying, ‘‘Oh, yeah? Well, look 

at what you are doing’’ type of thing. I would be happy to take a 

report from a country like that seriously when, in fact, you recognize that there are millions of people throughout the world who are 

fleeing to that country, that there are folks being packed inside of 

containers, trying to sneak into China for a better life. Then I will 

be willing to listen. 

In fact, you know, really, Mr. Ambassador, I am willing to listen 

to any country that can show me that they actually offer to the 

world what the West offers, what, at least, the United States offers. 

If you raise all of the gates all over the world, where do people flee 

to? There is only one place, really. I just do not know that many 

people who have fled from the United States to any other country 

in the world, looking for a better life. Now, they may be fleeing for 

other reasons, but not looking for ‘‘a better life, a greater opportunity.’’

It all happens the other way, and that is something that we 

should not be ashamed to admit, and it is something that I think 

we have every right to hold up as a reason for us to be able to prepare a report like this and not care one twit what the Communist 

Chinese think about it, for what it is worth. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. 

Mr. KOZAK. Thank you very much. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you. I appreciate it, and we will let you 

go now. 

Mr. KOZAK. Thank you. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Let us go ahead and start. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. TANCREDO. I want to wait until the Chairman gets back here 

so he can try to pronounce all of these names and not slaughter 

them, as I am afraid I might. 

At any rate, let me go ahead and introduce the panel. First, Captain Brian Steidle, and, by the way, it is good to see you again, 

Captain. I was over in Senator Brownback’s office when you did the 

briefing, and it was very, very compelling stuff, so I think you are 

all going to be, I think, quite moved by this. 

Captain Steidle graduated with a Bachelor’s from the Virginia 

Polytechnic Institute and State University in 1999 and then received a commission to the U.S. Marine Corps as an infantry officer. He served with the U.S. Marine Corps until the end of 2003 

as captain. 

In 2004, Captain Steidle accepted a contract position with the 

Joint Military Commission in the Nuba Mountains of Sudan, working on the North-South cease-fire, and worked his way up from a 

team leader to a senior operations officer. Captain Steidle was then 

invited to serve in Darfur as an unarmed military observer and 

U.S. representative with the African Union. After witnessing villages burned to the ground, hundreds of thousands of displaced civilians, and the results of violent atrocities, Captain Steidle joined 

his sister, Gretchen Steidle Wallace, founder of Global Grassroots, 

a nonprofit organization, to lead a social movement to raise public 

76

awareness about the atrocities in Sudan and seek international 

support for the African Union in stopping the violence. 

Mr. Tom Malinowski. Mr. Malinowski has been Washington Advocate Director for Human Rights Watch since April 2001, responsible for the organization’s overall advocacy effort with the United 

States Government. Prior to joining Human Rights Watch, he was 

a Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Foreign Policy Speechwriting at the National Security Council. 

From 1994 to 1998, he was a speechwriter for Secretaries of 

State Christopher and Albright and a member of the State Department’s policy-planning staff. He has also worked with the Ford 

Foundation and as a legislative aide to U.S. Senator Patrick Daniel 

Moynihan. He holds a degree in political science from the University of California at Berkeley and is an Oxford University member 

of the Council on Foreign Relations. He appears frequently as a 

radio and television and op-ed commentator on human rights policies worldwide. 

Adotei Akwei. Mr. Akwei is the Director of Amnesty International USA’s Campaigns Unit, a division of Amnesty responsible 

for the design of strategically sound, results-oriented, and effective 

programs. Prior to being appointed campaign director, Mr. Akwei 

served for 10 years as Advocacy Director for Africa. In that position, Mr. Akwei helped to implement the U.S. Government’s component of Amnesty campaigns. In 1999, he received the Washington 

Peacemaker Award from American University for his work promoting human rights values to university students. 

On December 10, 2001, he received the 2001 Human Rights 

Award from the United Nations Association of the National Capital 

Area. In 2003, Mr. Akwei was accepted as a Visiting Fellow by the 

Carr Human Rights Center at Harvard University and by the National Endowment for Democracy. Mr. Akwei has a Master’s Degree in Government, specializing in international relations, from 

the School of Government, the College of William and Mary. He received his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the State University of New York, College at Purchase. 

Daniel S. Mariaschin. Mr. Mariaschin is the Executive Vice 

President of B’nai B’rith International. As the organization’s top 

executive officer, he directs and supervises B’nai B’rith programs, 

activities, and staff in over 50 countries where B’nai B’rith is organized. Mr. Mariaschin serves in the dual capacity as Director of 

B’nai B’rith’s Center for Human Rights and Public Policy. In this 

position, he is a spokesman for B’nai B’rith, interpreting its policies 

to a variety of audiences, including Congress and the media, with 

the responsibility for coordinating its programs and policies on 

issues of concern to the Jewish community. 

Prior to joining B’nai B’rith, Mr. Mariaschin served as Director 

of Communications and Principal Spokesman for Former Secretary 

of State Alexander Haig, Jr., during this 1987–1988 Presidential 

campaign. Mr. Mariaschin has spent nearly all of his professional 

life working on behalf of Jewish organizations. 

Now, this one, help me again here. Mr. Vincuk Viacohrka. Mr. 

Viacohrka has served as Chairman of the Belarus Popular Front 

Party [BPFP], and Belarus Popular Front Revival since 1999. His 

public policy involvement dates back to the late 1970s, when he beVerDate Mar 21 2002 16:42 Jul 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\031705\20060.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
77

came a founding member of the Underground Youth Antitotalitarian and Pro-Independence Movement. 

Mr. Viacohrka participated in the creation of the Confederation 

of Belarusan Associations, the first nationwide democratic organization, in 1987, and was one of the BPF’s founders a year later. 

From 1995 to 1999, he was BPF’s Vice Chairman and also the 

Chairman of Sopolsnuk, a civil society center. 

Mr. Viacohrka has been detained and arrested by the authorities 

for his political activities many times. Welcome to you all, and my 

apologies for the way I tried to pronounce the names. I hope I came 

close. 

Mr. Steidle? 

STATEMENT OF MR. BRIAN STEIDLE (FORMER U.S. MARINE 

CAPTAIN), GLOBAL GRASSROOTS 

Mr. STEIDLE. Thank you for the opportunity to come here and 

speak about my experiences. Instead of reading through my statement, sir, I would like to just make a summary of the statement 

on my experiences in Sudan. 

First, I spent the last 6 months in Sudan, in the Darfur region 

of Sudan, a total of 13 months in Sudan. After getting out of the 

Marine Corps, I went there in the beginning of 2003–2004 and just 

returned there in February 2005. While I was there, I was part of 

an African Union monitoring team based in Nyalin, South Darfur, 

and we would conduct investigations of violations of the cease-fire 

agreement. 

Every day, we would go out on patrols, and we would see burnt 

villages. Twenty thousand have been burned to the ground. We 

would see men, women, and children who had been killed for no 

reason besides the fact that they were African. We would conduct 

interviews with women who had been gang raped when they went 

to collect firewood. We would see evidence of torture, people who 

had their ears cut off, eyes gouged out, men who had been castrated and left to bleed. 

And after serving there for 6 months, I felt that it was important 

that I come back here and try to spread the word about what I had 

seen so that the world can see what is happening. And I come before you today to speak about the three most important issues, one 

being the fact that this is ongoing, right now. Today, as we sit here 

in this room, people are dying in Darfur. The magnitude of this 

issue—hundreds of thousands of people, and possibly now 2 million 

people, have been displaced from Darfur. 

The second one being the fact that this is a Government-sponsored, military operation. This is not a tribal conflict. This is not 

an issue between a family and a family or a village and a village. 

This is a Government-sponsored, military operation that is backing 

the Arab militias, or the ‘‘Janjaweed.’’

And, three, the fact that this can be stopped. I think, with the 

number of suggestions I would like to make, I think that this can 

be stopped, and I have some specific examples on what the African 

Union has done there on the ground to actually stop it. 

So, to elaborate a little bit about the Government-sponsored—

they use helicopter gunships. Only the Government has those, not 

the Janjaweed, not the tribal families. They attack the villages toVerDate Mar 21 2002 16:42 Jul 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\031705\20060.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
78

gether, the Janjaweed and the Government forces. Many, many examples—I will just be brief. 

The things that can be done to stop this: I believe that a weapons 

sanction against the Government of Sudan will deter them from 

continuing to supply the Janjaweed with weapons and ammunition 

to fight these civilians; two, a no-fly zone over the Darfur region 

so that the Government not only stops attacking the villages with 

helicopter gunships but stops terrorizing the people with their 

Antanov aircraft and their helicopter gunships, even if they do not 

fire. People live in fear. And I think that more support to the African Union is needed on all levels, not just monetary level but logistics, communications, and assistance in getting an expanded mandate, whoever is responsible for that. Instead of having them on 

the ground and the protection force there for the purpose of protecting the monitors, they need 25,000 to 50,000 people on the 

ground to protect every village, every IDP camp. Open up the roads 

for humanitarian access. 

So my three points being that it is ongoing today and the magnitude of it; the fact that this is a Government-sponsored, military 

operation, and I have evidence of that; and that it can be stopped 

if the world pulls together and puts their differences aside and 

works together to stop this. 

So, with your permission, I would like to go through some pictures here. I have made some copies of some of them. I do warn 

the audience that some of these are rather graphic. 

This is what happens after the Government of Sudan comes in 

and drives the people out. This is an Arab Janjaweed militia. It has 

just begun burning this village of Umzaefa. 

This one here, sir, we were told by the Janjaweed chief that he 

had 15 animals stolen from him, and so he went out and burned 

15 villages, and this was one of the unknown villages that was 

burned that day. This is the result of the burning. This is the village of Labado, which housed 20,000 people. 

This was one of the first pictures I took in Sudan. Her name was 

Mihad Hameed. She is 1 year old. When her village of Valiet was 

attacked, her mother had her around her waist, tied in fabric, as 

they often do. She was running from the Government when her 

child was shot. 

This is approximately a 3- to 4-year-old child who had been apparently smashed in the face with the butt end of a rifle. This village of Hamada was surrounded by the Janjaweed and Government, attacked with gunships, and 107 civilians lost their lives this 

day. There were no rebels anywhere around. 

The same village. Lots of evidence of sexual assault, not only 

among the women but also among the men. This individual had apparently been sexually assaulted and then executed with a shot to 

the back of the head. Sometimes, the members, as I mentioned before, have been castrated. This gentleman here had been castrated 

and just left to bleed. 

This here, I do not recall the name of the village, but the members here—it is kind of hard to see in the photograph—have had 

their ears cut off and their eyes plucked out. I do not know whether 

that was an interrogation process or just brutal torture, but we see 

this often. 

79

This is a machete wound. The Janjaweed attacked this village, 

the village of Hamada, and this is actually in our dining facility. 

We were able to evacuate some of the members, even though it is 

not in the mandate of the African Union, but we were able to do 

the right thing and evacuate a number of people, and this was in 

our dining facility that we turned into a triage ward. 

The village of Amikasar. This individual had been hit in the 

head, a direct shot, by a rocket from a helicopter gunship. 

It is common practice for the Janjaweed to lock people in their 

huts and pull the door shut before they burn the huts down, and 

this is the result. 

Evidence of Government support: A helicopter gunship flying 

over the village of Labado after just recently firing. This village, as 

I mentioned before and showed the photograph, is no longer there. 

They deny that they use these. Here is a closer-up picture of one. 

We can see the Sudanese flag on the tail. 

Impacts from the rockets that they use on these villages and the 

shrapnel from the rockets that fired from the gunship. 

And this is flashettes, a flashette rocket. Each gunship carries 

about four rocket pods, each rocket pod, about 20 rockets; and in 

each rocket, about 500 of these little flashettes, which is a small 

nail. It comes out like a shotgun round, and it is not used against 

military targets. It is not used against trucks or buildings. This is 

used only against people, to kill or to maim people, and they use 

this almost exclusively. 

Military position outside the village of Labado. 

A Government of Sudan soldier looting stores after they attack 

a village and drive the civilian population out. All of the loot is collected by the Janjaweed as a form of payment. 

A Sudanese soldier burning food stores in the village after driving everyone out. 

This is the IDP camp of Algier, on the outskirts of Nyala. After 

the people are displaced by the Government, they are put in these 

IDP camps, as you can see in the background. They then come in 

and move them out and forcefully displace them, either back to villages or other IDP camps. On this day, we were tear-gassed taking 

these pictures because they did not want us to see what was going 

on. 

Mr. TANCREDO. I am sorry. You say they used tear gas on you? 

Mr. STEIDLE. They used tear gas on us, yes, sir. 

So, sir, I appeal to you and to the international community and 

anyone that will listen to me to let us, at least, step in here and 

help these people out. Thank you very much, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Steidle follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. BRIAN STEIDLE (FORMER U.S. MARINE CAPTAIN), 

GLOBAL GRASSROOTS

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. 

Three of the most important points that I wish to make today include:

(1) the atrocities resulting in millions displaced and hundreds of thousands 

killed are ongoing today and must be addressed urgently before thousands 

more die;

(2) these crimes against humanity result from a Government of Sudan-sponsored military operation that is systematically eliminating the black African 

population from all of Darfur;

80

(3) this conflict can be resolved through weapons sanctions, a no-fly zone 

throughout Darfur and greater international support and an expanded mandate for the African Union (AU).

First, I offer some quick background. I grew up living around the world as the 

son of a naval officer, now retired Admiral. I graduated with a B.S. from Virginia 

Polytechnic Institute & State University in 1999 and received a commission in the 

US Marine Corps as an infantry officer. I completed my service with the USMC at 

the end of 2003 as a Captain. In January 2004 I accepted a contract position with 

the Joint Military Commission in the Nuba Mountains of Sudan working on the 

North-South cease fire, now peace agreement. Within seven months I worked my 

way up from a Team Leader to the Senior Operations Officer. In September 2004, 

I was then invited to serve in Darfur as an unarmed military observer and U.S. representative with the African Union. I was one of only three Americans serving with 

a coalition of African countries monitoring the cease fire between the two African 

rebel groups and the Government of Sudan of Sudan. My military observer team 

was made up of representatives from the two rebel groups, the Sudanese Liberation 

Army (SLA) and Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), the Government of Sudan 

of Sudan, a Chadian mediator, a Team Leader and Assistant Team Leaders from 

the member countries of the African Union and either an EU or US representative. 

Our mission was to report back on the violations of the cease fire agreement, such 

as an attack on villages, troop movements and military operations. I was armed 

only with a pen and my reports were my ammunition. After six months, my conscience would no longer allow me to stand by without taking further action, and I 

became convinced that I could be more effective by bringing the story of what I witnessed to the world. I returned in early February 2005. 

Atrocities of the most hideous nature are occurring today in Darfur. Every day 

we saw villages of up to 20,000 inhabitants burned to the ground with nothing left 

but ash frames. In my team’s area of operation, which was South Darfur, I estimate 

that nearly 75 percent of the villages had been decimated by the beginning of February. We witnessed scores of dead bodies providing evidence of torture—arms 

bound, ears cut off, eyes plucked out, males castrated and left to bleed to death, 

children beaten to a pulp, people locked in their huts before being burned alive, and 

apparent executions. We would interview women who had been gang raped during 

attacks and others that had been raped in their huts within the confines of the IDP 

(Internally Displaced Persons) camps. Many children had been killed or violently injured and many others ended up missing never to be seen again. 

This February apparently saw a decrease in the overall violence in Darfur. However, December 2004 and January 2005 represented some of the most violent 

months of the entire conflict. These occurred after a similarly quiet lull in November. I do not believe the current calm may necessarily be an indication that the conflict is ending. 

I have clear evidence that the atrocities committed in Darfur are the direct result 

of a Government of Sudan of Sudan military operation in collaboration with the 

‘‘Janjaweed’’ Arab militias. To begin, Government of Sudan officials and Arab militias come together in coordination to attack a village. Before these attacks occur, 

the cell phone systems are shut down by the Government of Sudan so that villagers 

cannot warn each other. Helicopter gunships support the Arab militias on the 

ground by firing anti-personnel rockets at civilian targets. These rockets contain 

flashettes, or small nails with a stabilizing fin on the back. Each gunship contains 

four rocket pods, each rocket pod contains about twenty rockets and each rocket contains about 500 of these flashettes. These flashettes are used only to kill or maim 

people on the ground. Flashette wounds look like shot-gun wounds. One small child, 

I remember, looked as if his back had been shredded. We were able to get him to 

a hospital, but we did not expect him to live. 

On many occasions, when we would attempt to go investigate one of these attacks, 

we would find that the fuel for our helicopters was unavailable. We would receive 

many explanations from the Sudanese fuel company—from ‘‘we are out of fuel’’ to 

‘‘our fuel pumps are broken’’. At the same time, the Government of Sudan helicopters continued to fly and attack villages with no shortage of their own fuel. 

I have personally witnessed on many occasions Arab militias and Government of 

Sudan soldiers looting stores and huts, then setting these structures on fire. It is 

well known the Government of Sudan allows the Arab militias to keep the loot as 

a form of payment for their assistance in the attacks. 

Those villagers that were able to escape alive, flocked to IDP (Internally Displaced 

Persons) camps, where they would scrounge for sticks and plastic bags to construct 

shelter from the sun and wind. In even these desperate situations, the Government 

of Sudan would not give up its mission. The Government of Sudan was also responVerDate Mar 21 2002 16:42 Jul 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\031705\20060.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
81

sible for the bulldozing of a number of these IDP camps. The Government of Sudan 

would first announce the need to relocate an IDP camp and assess the population 

of displaced people, often grossly underestimating the need. A new camp would be 

built by the international aid organizations, and then the Government of Sudan 

would forcibly relocate the population, leaving hundreds to thousands without shelter. They would bulldoze or drive over the camps with trucks, often without notice 

in the middle of the night, then gather up the remaining debris to burn. 

The difference between the Government of Sudan and the rebel groups is that, 

for the majority of the time, the rebel groups target military and police positions, 

while the Government of Sudan targets civilians. The purpose of the rebel attacks 

are to gain ammunition, weapons, logistical stores and to show the Government of 

Sudan that they are still a force with which to be reckoned. I believe that one of 

the purposes of the Government of Sudan attacks is to kill or drive the African 

tribes from Darfur. 

I believe this conflict can be resolved through international support for the AU. 

More specifically, I believe weapons sanctions and a no-fly zone throughout Darfur 

are critical. I have witnessed the effectiveness of the AU and believe they can stop 

the conflict with more support. After a violent attack on the town of Labado (pop. 

20,000), a Government of Sudan General told us that his mission was to continue 

clearing the route all the way to Khartoum, several hundred kilometers away. The 

next village in line was the village of Muhajeryia, with a population near 40,000. 

The AU was able to place 35 soldiers into Muhajeryia to protect civilian contractors 

establishing a base camp for future deployment. This alone was able to deter the 

Government of Sudan of Sudan with a force of a few thousand soldiers and 

Janjaweed from attacking. Then the AU was able to deploy 70 more soldiers from 

the protection force and ten military observers to the burnt village of Labado. Within one week, approximately 3000 people returned to rebuild. In addition, the AU 

was able to negotiate and have the Government of Sudan of Sudan withdraw their 

troops from the area. 

The AU can secure and protect all villages in Darfur with the following support:

a) an expanded mandate to protect civilians and ensure secure routes for humanitarian aid access,

b) advanced logistics and communication support,

c) an increase in protection force troops in the tens of thousands on the ground.

We cannot fail the men, women and children of Darfur. We must stop the ongoing 

genocide.

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Steidle. Even though this is the 

second time I have seen it, I am still overwhelmed by it. You know, 

it is one thing to know all of these things happened there. We talk 

about it here often. It is quite another to see it and to hear a firsthand observer, as you are. We will get back to you with more questions. 

We will go to Mr. Malinowski now. 

STATEMENT OF MR. TOM MALINOWSKI, WASHINGTON 

ADVOCACY DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

inviting me to testify. I will skip 90 percent of my testimony, which 

goes over a number of the countries in the Human Rights Report, 

and just focus on what I think are two big issues that ought to 

trouble us in reading these reports, and the first is where we just 

left off, with Captain Steidle’s very moving presentation, and that 

is Darfur. 

If you read the description of Darfur in the State Department reports, I think the one thing that struck me was that it is exactly 

the same as last year’s report. Nothing has changed. We have 

made a lot of promises about ‘‘no more Rwandas,’’ but we are not 

keeping those promises right now. 

It occurred to me to compare the lethargic response of the world 

to what is happening in Darfur to the response to the tsunami. 

82

Somehow, when nature kills people, we do not hesitate; when governments kill people, we throw up our hands and say, ‘‘It is all so 

complicated, nothing can be done.’’ The truth is, a lot can be done 

right now to help the millions of people in Darfur who are still 

alive. The key lies in placing a military force on the ground with 

the size and the authority to protect civilians, to do more than just 

bear witness and take pictures, as you so courageously did, and 

stopping these aerial bombardments and imposing sanctions and 

ensuring that those responsible are prosecuted as quickly as possible. 

Now, the U.N. Security Council, as we speak, is debating a resolution on Darfur that, frankly, does not do the job. It does not call 

for the AU force to be increased or to protect civilians. It endorses 

a no-fly zone that is purely consensual. It does not resolve the issue 

of justice and accountability. 

Now, there are lots of excuses for this, including opposition from 

China and Russia. That just means the United States needs to 

make Darfur a higher priority than it has been with key allies, as 

well as with Russia and China. Unless the President and the State 

Department make the maximum effort, the apathy and opposition 

of others will not be a sufficient excuse. 

Now, the United States, I think, has done more than any other 

country in the world to respond to this crisis in Darfur, but there 

is one issue, frankly, where it is the United States right now, I am 

afraid, that is obstructing swift action, and that is this issue of justice and accountability for the killing. 

This is very urgent and consequential, Mr. Chairman, for once 

there is an international court that is investigating these crimes, 

Sudanese officials are going to be looking over their shoulders with 

a strong incentive to avoid crimes that are going to call attention 

to themselves. The sooner we get this process started, the more 

lives we can save. 

Right now, as a practical matter, there is only one institution 

that can move immediately to investigate and prosecute Sudanese 

officials, and that is the ICC. Now, I understand the Bush Administration’s concerns about the ICC and those of many Members of 

Congress, and I understand their alternative of setting up a brandnew tribunal based in Tanzania to deal with that concern. The 

problem is, it would take at least a year to recruit the judges, the 

prosecutors, and staff to get that new tribunal going. 

You asked, Mr. Chairman, about the Sierra Leone court, which 

is a wonderful model. It took a year and a half to set up the Sierra 

Leone court, and that was okay because the Sierra Leone crisis was 

largely over at the time. This is ongoing. We need to save lives 

now, and I am afraid that delay is going to cost lives. 

A Darfur-only tribunal is also going to cost, by the State Department’s own estimation, half a billion dollars over the next 5 years. 

That is half a billion dollars for what I believe is a superfluous 

court that could be spent to provide aid to these people, to help the 

AU put troops on the ground—not a good use of funds. 

The ICC, on the other hand, has the capacity to begin investigating and prosecuting right now. It has the support of virtually 

every member of the Security Council, including the African members, and the United States could support using this instrument 

83

consistent with the general objections that it has expressed about 

the ICC because this would be a Security Council referral, and we 

have never, as a country, objected to that mechanism of using the 

ICC. 

So I would strongly argue that we should have this debate about 

the ICC later and do what is best for Darfur now, and I would ask 

you, Mr. Chairman, to weigh in with the Administration on this 

issue because it really is about saving lives. 

The second big, troubling issue that I think is raised by these reports that I wanted to raise with you today is that the reports, in 

many respects, call into question some of the practices in which the 

United States, sadly, itself, has recently engaged. One of those 

practices is the so-called ‘‘extraordinary rendition’’ of terror suspects to countries that routinely torture prisoners. 

Now, these State Department reports say that in countries to 

which detainees have been rendered—countries like Syria, 

Uzbekistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia—the most gruesome forms of torture, from electric shock to pulling out fingernails to rape and asphyxiation, are standard operating procedure. This is what the 

U.S. Government knows about what happens in these countries. 

So how can we justify delivering prisoners into the hands of 

these regimes? The President was asked this question yesterday, 

and he said that the practice is okay because these countries have 

promised us that they will not torture the people we send. Now, 

does anyone here think that we should believe such unenforceable 

promises from regimes like Syria and Saudi Arabia? It is a bit to 

me like trusting unverifiable promises from North Korea or Iran on 

nuclear weapons. We would not do that, and yet we do it in this 

case, something that I believe is either willfully naive or terribly 

cynical. 

As it is, we have strong evidence that several of these countries, 

including Syria and Egypt, have already violated the assurances 

they have given to the United States in these cases. Even those involved in the process privately acknowledge that the promises are 

worthless. As one Arab diplomat said to The Washington Post in an 

article today, ‘‘It would be stupid to keep track of rendered prisoners because then you would know what’s going on.’’

Now, how can our Government speak with authority about the 

evil of torture in countries like Egypt and Syria, which I know 

President Bush genuinely is committed to ending, when it knowingly makes deals with the worst elements of those regimes to send 

people to the very dungeons in which they torture prisoners? The 

practice diminishes America, and it is not necessary to protect our 

security. After all, I would say it is pretty naive to trust the reliability of intelligence obtained in Syrian or Uzbek torture chambers 

by intelligence services in those countries that have their own 

agendas that they are trying to promote. 

The Administration must stop this practice, Mr. Chairman, and 

if it does not, I believe the Congress should. Now, this week, the 

House already took one very positive step in voting to prohibit the 

expenditure of funds for any purpose that contravenes the torture 

convention, as rendition to torture clearly does, and I thank you 

both for your support for that provision. But I urge the Congress 

to support legislation that would explicitly forbid this practice and, 

84

in that sense, to be the safeguard, Mr. Chairman, that you spoke 

about in your exchange with Ms. Lee earlier today. 

The basic point here is, we need the moral clarity that these reports provide, but we also need the moral authority that the United 

States has when it leads the struggle for human rights by example. 

Both are equally important. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Malinowski follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. TOM MALINOWSKI, WASHINGTON ADVOCACY DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

Thank you Mr. Chairman for inviting me to testify. 

This year’s State Department human rights reports live up to the tradition of candid and comprehensive reporting the Department has established over the years. 

The reports fairly describe human rights violations committed by America’s allies 

and adversaries alike. They are so honest, in fact, that they describe as abuses of 

human rights a number of practices in which the United States itself has recently 

engaged, a subject I will return to in a moment. Ambassador Kozak and his team 

deserve credit for a job well done. 

This annual exercise in truth telling serves a very useful purpose. By publishing 

these reports, the United States makes it harder for repressive governments to deny 

the indefensible reality of their behavior, and thus encourages them to alter that 

reality. The annual human rights reports also help to keep the State Department 

and the U.S. government as a whole more honest in dealing with abusive governments around the world. American diplomats can still argue that engaging the governments of countries like China or Uzbekistan or Egypt may be important to the 

national interest, despite their miserable human rights practices. But they cannot 

deny the brutality of those practices, or pretend that mere engagement is improving 

matters, if the State Department’s own human rights reports state otherwise. 

In addition to showing us what is happening inside individual countries, the reports also help us to see larger trends in the struggle for liberty and human rights 

around the world. They show us the hopeful victory of democracy in Ukraine, for 

example. But they also show how repressive governments elsewhere in the former 

Soviet Union, including Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and increasingly Russia itself are cracking down on dissent to avoid becoming the next Ukraine. They 

show how the Iraqi and Palestinian elections have encouraged demands for reform 

throughout the Arab world, but also how leaders in the region are pushing against 

the tide. They show the front edge of freedom and the backlash against it. 

Every word and paragraph and chapter in these reports represents a challenge 

for the U.S. government. For it is obviously not enough for the State Department 

merely to describe once a year the injustices it sees around the world. The ultimate 

test of the human rights reports lies in what happens after the day they are published. How is the administration using their findings the other 364 days of the 

year? Is it applying the tools Congress has given it to combat the problems described in the reports? Is respect for human rights truly a consequential issue in 

America’s bilateral relationships with governments that abuse human rights? When 

it becomes an issue, is the administration applying the right strategies and doing 

so aggressively enough? And is the United States leading the struggle for human 

rights by example, applying to itself the standards by which it judges others in 

these reports? 

With those questions in mind, let me briefly mention a few countries where 

human rights abuses pose particularly great challenges for the United States right 

now (a list that will be illustrative but far from exhaustive). And then I would like 

to say a bit more about two issues raised by these reports that I believe ought to 

trouble us the most. 

CHINA

This year’s State Department report makes clear that China remains a country 

where the most fundamental freedoms are denied. In Xinjiang, the government has 

engaged in a sweeping crackdown on Uighur religious expression, cultural traditions 

and social institutions, as well as systematic torture and executions. Regulations on 

March 1 of this year consolidate controls on religious belief and expression throughout the country, tightening requirements for any group hoping to register as a legal 

religious institution. China’s court system continues to use coerced confessions, and 

political interference with judicial decisions is common. Chinese authorities have 

continued to tighten their control over the media and the internet, to discriminate 

85

against people with HIV/AIDS, and to limit the rights of the people of Tibet. We 

welcome the announced release of Uighur dissident Rebiya Kadir. But this does not 

represent fundamental change in China, or even a signal that a commitment to 

change may be present. It is simply the hostage diplomacy that always precedes 

possible action against China at the UN Human Rights Commission. For that reason, I strongly disagree with the administration’s decision not to press a China resolution at the Commission this year. And I hope that these issues will remain front 

and center when Secretary Rice visits China this week and in every high level dialogue between the United States and China. 

NEPAL

For several years, Nepal has been ravaged by a civil war fought between government forces and Maoist insurgents. Hundreds and perhaps thousands of civilians 

have been killed by both sides. Nepal now has the highest rate of disappearances 

of any country in the world. On February 1st of this year, Nepal’s King and the 

Nepalese Army seized absolute power and imposed a state of emergency, suspending 

freedom of expression and assembly, and arresting opposition leaders, journalists, 

and human rights activists. The King launched the coup ostensibly to strengthen 

Nepal’s fight against the Maoist insurgents; in fact, the coup will almost certainly 

weaken that struggle. It increases the likelihood that the Nepali army will fight the 

insurgency with indiscriminate force that further alienates the country’s rural population and makes impossible a unified front of Nepali political factions against the 

Maoists. The Bush administration has condemned the coup and urged a restoration 

of democracy in Nepal. But surprisingly, it has not reacted as forcefully as the 

United Kingdom or even India, both of which, unlike the United States, have suspended military aid to Nepal. The United States should get in step with India and 

the UK and suspend military assistance until the King takes real steps to restore 

democratic freedoms. It should also mobilize donors to suspend budget support for 

the Nepali government, and back a Nepal resolution at the UN Commission on 

Human Rights. Swift action is needed both for the sake of the Nepali people’s 

human rights and their interest in ending the Maoist threat. 

BURMA

As the State Department reports make clear, the situation in Burma has worsened. Aung San Suu Kyi remains under house arrest. More than a thousand political prisoners languish in jail (and while the government has released a few in the 

last year, it has arrested even more). The Burmese government has ended its cooperation with the International Labor Organization on forced labor. The Burmese 

military continues its campaign of ethnic cleansing in isolated areas of the country, 

a campaign that merits international investigation to determine if prosecutable war 

crimes and crimes against humanity are occurring as well as responsibility for those 

crimes. The only good news about Burma, and it is a significant piece of good news, 

comes from its region. A number of Burma’s neighbors, including Singapore and the 

Philippines, have expressed increasing frustration with the Burmese government’s 

refusal to reform. The criticism is led by elected parliamentarians from the ASEAN 

countries, who well reflect the values of the people of the region and their desire 

to see genuine change in Burma. The United States must remain firm in its demand 

for the restoration of human rights in Burma. The Congress should renew sanctions 

imposed last year against Burma. The administration should urge more proactive 

leadership on Burma from the United Nations and America’s European allies. 

UZBEKISTAN

In the past few years, Uzbekistan has come under increasing pressure from the 

international community, including the United States, to improve its human rights 

record. Little progress has been made. The Uzbek government continues to imprison 

thousands of people for the peaceful exercise of their religious and political beliefs. 

Torture remains systematic in Uzbek prisons. There is no free media. Independent 

political parties cannot legally operate. Dissidents are persecuted and harassed; 

some, in an eerie echo of Soviet repression, are committed to psychiatric institutions. Uzbekistan has been a key U.S. partner in the war on terrorism and a host 

to U.S. military bases. Last August, the Bush administration suspended military aid 

to Uzbekistan over its human rights record. But shortly thereafter, General Richard 

Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, traveled to Uzbekistan, where he announced a new aid program equal to the one the administration suspended, and 

publicly criticized his own administration’s decision to suspend aid. Since then, the 

Uzbek government has become increasingly resistant to U.S. demands for reform. 

The Bush administration is sending Uzbekistan mixed messages that undermine 

86

both its human rights and its security agenda. All elements of the U.S. government, 

including the Pentagon, must start to speak with a single voice in Uzbekistan. 

TURKMENISTAN

The people of Turkmenistan are suffering from the increasingly bizarre, arbitrary, 

and potentially deadly policies of their president, Saparmurat Niazov, who has 

sought to exercise absolute power over their lives. His government tolerates no opposition or criticism and crushes critical thinking. He has instituted a perverse cult 

of personality that increasingly dominates public life and the education system. In 

the name of building the Turkmen nation, he has banned opera, ballet, circus, and 

the philharmonic orchestra. Libraries in rural areas are being shut down. And last 

month, Niazov announced that all hospitals outside the capitol of Ashgabat would 

also be closed. ‘‘If people are sick,’’ Niazov reportedly said, ‘‘they can come to 

Ashgabat.’’ Turkmenistan is an outpost of tyranny that also suffers from obscurity—

President Bush and Secretary Rice never mention it, though it clearly belongs in 

the same category as North Korea as a country that stifles the freedoms that make 

normal human life possible. The United States is even considering not supporting 

a resolution at this year’s UN Human Rights Commission on Turkmenistan. The 

spotlight on Turkmenistan should be growing brighter, not dimmer. 

RUSSIA

The largest human rights crisis in Europe remains the war in Chechnya. This is 

the only place on the continent where civilians are killed and disappeared on a daily 

basis as a result of armed conflict. As the State Department reports make clear, the 

situation is not ‘‘normalizing,’’ despite statements to the contrary from Russian officials. Chechens believed to be linked to rebels committed a serious of horrendous 

attacks on civilians, including the massacre of hundreds of school children in 

Beslan. Russian and pro-Russian Chechen forces continued to arbitrarily detain, extort, and execute civilians. Meanwhile, the Russian government continued its crackdown on independent media and civil society throughout Russia. The progress Russia has made towards democracy in the last decade is in serious jeopardy. During 

his trip to Europe, President Bush called on world leaders to make democracy a central issue in their engagement with the Russian government. But in his public appearance with Russian President Putin in Slovakia, President Bush did not confront 

the Russian leader, and instead appeared to take at face value Putin’s assertion 

that he was committed to democracy. 

EGYPT

The Egyptian government is under great pressure to begin political reforms, in 

large part from its own people, but also from the example of the Iraqi elections and 

the Bush administration’s efforts to promote democracy in the Middle East. But the 

State Department reports illustrate just how far Egypt has to go. Emergency rule 

in Egypt continues, with massive arbitrary arrests, routine torture, stifling restrictions on non-governmental organizations, persecution of persons engaging in consensual homosexual conduct, and discrimination against women. Recent political reforms announced by President Mubarak do not go nearly far enough to guarantee 

a fair presidential election. Opposition leader Ayman Nour was recently released 

from prison due in part to strong protests by the United States, but still faces harassment and possible prosecution. The Bush administration deserves credit for beginning to press Egypt to open its society, but should not rush to claim credit for 

success before that is merited. It will take a much more persistent and consistent 

effort to move Egypt in the right direction. 

DARFUR

Perhaps the most troubling part of these reports, Mr. Chairman, is the description 

of continuing human rights abuses in the Darfur region of Sudan. There is nothing 

inaccurate about the description itself. On the contrary: What should make us angry 

is that the description of massive atrocities committed against civilians in Darfur 

is absolutely true, and absolutely unchanged from the report the State Department 

issued last year. 

We have known for more than a year what is happening in Darfur. For more than 

a year, the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed militias it supports have been 

killing civilians in Darfur or pushing them from their homes. For more than a year, 

the Sudanese air force has been bombing villages in Darfur to support this brutal 

campaign. For more than a year, we have been saying that Darfur should not become another Rwanda. Speeches are given; resolutions are passed; promises are 

87

made. And yet, the violence continues. The most the world has been able to muster 

for the people of Darfur is a small force of only 2,000 troops sent by the African 

Union, who have a mandate to observe crimes, but not to stop them. The kinds of 

sanctions that might convince the government of Sudan to change course have not 

been imposed. The UN Security Council has not even managed to ban arms shipments to Khartoum. Meanwhile, probably over 100,000 civilians have died as a direct result of the Sudanese government’s actions. Almost 2 million people have been 

internally displaced. 

Compare the world’s lethargic response to what the United States has called genocide in Darfur to its immediate response to the Tsunami disaster in Asia. Somehow, 

when nature kills people, we do not hesitate to come to their aid. When governments kill people, we throw up our hands in despair and say it’s all too complicated; 

nothing can be done. And then, ten years later, we attend solemn ceremonies of remembrance, express regret, and promise that next time, the lessons will be learned 

and people will be saved. 

The truth is, a great deal can be done right now to help the millions of people 

in Darfur who are still alive and who still hold out hope of returning to their homes 

in peace. The key lies in placing a military force on the ground with the size and 

authority to protect civilians, in stopping aerial bombardment by the Sudanese air 

force, in imposing sanctions on the perpetrators until the price they pay for continuing atrocities is greater than the perceived benefit, and in ensuring that that 

those responsible are prosecuted for their crimes as quickly and credibly as possible. 

The U.N. Security Council is now debating a resolution that, frankly, does far too 

little. The draft resolution does not call for the AU force in Darfur to be increased 

or to protect civilians. It imposes targeted sanctions on government officials and militia leaders responsible for the violence, but only for acts committed after the passage of the resolution, not for the crimes that have already claimed so many lives. 

It endorses a purely consensual no-fly zone, without providing for any military enforcement or even active monitoring of Sudanese air force flights in Darfur. It does 

not resolve the issue of how perpetrators of atrocities in Darfur should be prosecuted. 

There are plenty of excuses for the weaknesses of this draft resolution. The Bush 

administration, which, to its great credit, would like tougher action on Sudan, will 

say that China and Russia are blocking it at the Security Council. That may be 

partly true. But that just means the United States needs to make Darfur a higher 

priority in its engagement with key allies as well as with Russia and China. Darfur 

was not prominent on President Bush’s agenda during his trip to Europe and it does 

not appear to be high on Secretary Rice’s agenda during her trip to China this week. 

Unless the President and the State Department make the maximum effort, the apathy and opposition of others will not be a sufficient excuse for weak action. 

Moreover, there is one issue on which the United States is obstructing swift action 

by the international community. That is the issue of justice for those responsible 

for the killing in Darfur. 

Justice is a moral imperative in Darfur. It is also a practical imperative. Justice 

is one of the most effective targeted sanctions we can apply to the Sudanese leadership. For once leaders are indicted by an international court, they will not be able 

to travel without fear of arrest; they will find it much harder to move their money 

around outside Sudan or to have any dealings with other governments. Indictment, 

therefore, would be the practical equivalent of a travel ban or asset freeze, but unlike those measures, it never expires; it remains in place at least until its targets 

stand trial. An effective process of accountability could also deter further violence. 

The more seriously officials in Khartoum take the prospect of prosecution by an 

international court, the more likely the are to refrain from further killing to avoid 

calling the court’s attention to themselves. Lives can be saved, therefore, if such a 

process can be started swiftly. Lives may be lost if there is delay. Right now, there 

is only one institution in the world that can move immediately to investigate, indict, 

and prosecute Sudanese officials. That institution is the International Criminal 

Court (ICC) in the Hague—so long as Sudan is referred to it by the UN Security 

Council (since Sudan is not a party to the ICC treaty, this court can only prosecute 

crimes committed there with a Security Council referral). 

As you know, the Bush administration has profound concerns about the ICC. It 

has proposed as an alternative the creation of a brand new international court for 

Darfur, to be housed alongside the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in 

Arusha, Tanzania. The problem with this alternative is that, based on past experience with such courts, it would take at least a year to recruit the judges, prosecutors, and staff needed to establish a new Darfur Tribunal. In the meantime, the Sudanese government could continue its killing spree without an existing international 

court looking over its shoulders. It could take the time to burn documents, kill off 

88

witnesses, clean up mass graves. This delay will cost lives. It will make the ultimate 

task of prosecuting the killers harder. 

Creating a new court for Darfur would also cost, by the State Department’s estimation, about $100 million a year for the next five years. Because most U.S. allies 

are already assessed to support the ICC, none are likely to contribute a penny for 

a new tribunal. Realistically, the United States would have to bear the entire cost. 

That means the Congress would have to be prepared to allocate half a billion dollars 

over the next few years simply to avoid having to use the ICC in Darfur—half a 

billion dollars for a superfluous court that could instead be used to equip peacekeepers to protect civilians in Darfur, or to buy food and medicine for desperate refugees. In addition, a Darfur-only court would expire after several years, as all adhoc, single issue tribunals eventually do. This means that the killers in Khartoum 

could wait it out. 

The ICC, on the other hand, has the capacity to begin investigating and prosecuting and deterring crimes in Darfur right now. The ICC is a permanent court—

it cannot be outlasted by indicted Sudanese officials; if they hide, it will be pursuing 

them till the day they die. It is fully funded by other nations. What’s more, the 

United States could support employing the ICC consistent with its general objections to this court, because the ICC would be acting in this case in the manner the 

United States has consistently said it could support—via a referral from the UN Security Council, where the United States has a veto. 

Wherever one stands on the merits of U.S. participation in the ICC, this court 

is clearly the best option for saving lives in Darfur. And in a moment of crisis such 

as this, that should be our only consideration. The State Department has argued 

that its alternative is better because it would empower Africans to settle this problem in an African-based court. But the African members of the Security Council 

have made clear that they themselves would prefer Darfur to be handled by the 

ICC. Twelve of fifteen Security Council members support using the ICC; none have 

endorsed the administration’s alternative. The administration’s reluctance to accept 

an ICC referral, therefore, is holding up a resolution that could bring some help to 

the people of Darfur. Were the administration open to compromise on this issue, it 

would be in a much better position to win its allies’ support for an even stronger 

resolution, with real sanctions and a more effective peacekeeping force. My understanding is that discussions are underway on a deal that would let ICC referral go 

forward. I urge all members of the Committee to encourage the administration to 

seek such an outcome as quickly as possible. 

RENDITION/TORTURE

Mr. Chairman, a second troubling issue raised by the human rights reports is the 

one I alluded to at the start—the reports call into question practices in which the 

United States itself has engaged since September 11th. One of those practices is the 

so called ‘‘extraordinary rendition’’ of terror suspects to countries that routinely torture prisoners. Consider what the State Department reports say about some of the 

countries to which the United States renders terror suspects. They say that torture 

is used ‘‘frequently’’ by security services in Syria, including methods such as electrical shocks, pulling out fingernails, forcing objects into the rectum, beating, 

hyperextending the spine, and using a backwards bending chair to asphyxiate the 

victim or fracture the victim’s spine. They say that in Egypt, ‘‘a systematic pattern 

of torture by security services exists,’’ including beating victims with fists, whips 

and metal rods, electrical shocks, and sexual assaults. They say that authorities in 

Uzbekistan ‘‘routinely tortured, beat, and otherwise mistreated detainees to obtain 

confessions’’ using suffocation, electric shock, rape, and beating. These reports make 

clear that the Bush administration knows perfectly well what goes on in the prisons 

of countries to which it sends terror suspects. It knows perfectly well that torture 

is standard operating procedure in these places and that anyone delivered to the 

custody of their security services is likely to be tortured. So how does the administration defend this practice? It says that it doesn’t send anyone to a place like Syria 

or Egypt unless Syria or Egypt promises not to torture that person. If anyone here 

today thinks we should believe such unenforceable promises from countries that systematically torture people, please let me know. 

As it is, we have strong evidence that several of these countries, including Syria 

and Egypt, have already violated the assurances they have given the United States 

in these cases. And those involved in the process privately acknowledge the assurances are worthless. As one Arab diplomat quoted in the Washington Post today 

said: ‘‘It would be stupid to keep track of [rendered prisoners] because then you 

would know what’s going on. It’s really more like don’t ask, don’t tell.’’ An American 

89

official quoted in the same story said: ‘‘They say they are not abusing [rendered 

prisoners], and that satisfied the legal requirement, but we all know they do.’’

How can our government speak with authority about the evil of torture in countries like Egypt and Syria and Uzbekistan when it knowingly making deals with 

the worst elements of those regimes to send people to the very dungeons where they 

torture prisoners? This practice diminishes America, Mr. Chairman. And it does not 

strengthen America’s security—for one would have to be truly naive to trust the reliability of intelligence obtained in Syrian or Uzbek torture chambers by intelligence 

services that have their own agendas to promote. The administration must stop this 

practice. If it does not, the Congress should. The House already took one step in 

this direction earlier this week when it voted to prohibit the expenditure of funds 

for any purpose that contravenes the Torture Convention (as rendition to torture 

clearly does). I urge the Congress to support legislation that explicitly forbids this 

practice. 

A similar problem highlighted by the State Department reports relates to the 

methods that the United States has used to interrogate suspects in American custody. In chapter after chapter of these reports, the State Department candidly describes some of these methods as torture. The chapter on North Korea, for example, 

condemns as torture methods of interrogation such as ‘‘prolonged periods of exposure’’; ‘‘humiliations such as public nakedness;’’ ‘‘being forced to kneel or sit immobilized for long periods;’’ and ‘‘being forced to stand-up and sit-down to the point of 

collapse’’ (practices referred to in the U.S. military as ‘‘stress positions.’’) The chapter on Libya condemns as torture the use of dogs to threaten detainees. The chapter 

on Iran condemns as torture ‘‘prolonged solitary confinement with sensory deprivation,’’ ‘‘long confinement in contorted positions,’’ and ‘‘sleep deprivation.’’ The chapter on Tunisia condemns as torture ‘‘submersion of the head in water’’ (which is 

often referred to as ‘‘waterboarding.’’) All these methods have at one point or another been approved by administration officials, including Secretary Rumsfeld, for 

use on detainees in Guantanamo, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in CIA custody 

around the world, where they clearly contributed to abuses that have done great 

harm to America’s standing in the world. When they are used in places like Libya 

and North Korea, the State Department agrees that they are torture. Yet their use 

by the Pentagon and CIA has never been repudiated by the administration; no one 

has acknowledged that it was wrong; no one has pledged that it will not be tolerated 

again. 

Once again, the Congress must do what the Executive Branch apparently will not. 

The Congress should establish clear standards for interrogating detainees that are 

consistent with the laws and treaties of the United States. The best way to do that 

is to mandate compliance with the standard that has guided America’s armed forces 

successfully in the past, the standard that reflects the armed forces finest values—

the standard contained in the U.S. Army’s Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation. The fundamental point is that we need the moral clarity that is provided by 

these State Department human rights reports and by the efforts of the President 

and the State Department to condemn human rights abuses throughout the year. 

But the United States needs to project more than moral clarity—it must maintain 

moral authority to promote a more humane and democratic world. That requires 

consistent leadership abroad and a sterling example at home.

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you. Mr. Akwei? 

STATEMENT OF MR. ADOTEI AKWEI, CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR, 

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL 

Mr. AKWEI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members 

of the Committee. I would like to say that it is a pleasure to be 

back again working with such longtime comrades and champions 

in the fight for human rights. I am also going to try to limit my 

presentation, really, to two issues: The first, looking at the status 

of women’s rights in Africa, which is one of the things that the 

State Department reports truly highlight in great detail and, for 

Amnesty International, represents one of the greatest deprioritized 

human rights epidemics, and that is the violence against women; 

and the second would be to just talk a little bit about the other 

major conflict zone in Africa, which is, of course, as you mentioned, 

the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Great Lakes. 

90

Very briefly, the reasons for talking about women’s rights and, 

in particular, gender-based violence is, first of all, because of the 

statistics that measure discrimination inflicted upon women, either 

in conflict or post-conflict situations and even within their families 

and the communities. For example, in conflicts in Liberia, Rwanda, 

Burundi, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and 

Darfur, the victims have been as young as 8 and as old as 80. They 

have been raped and mutilated in the open, in front of their families and their communities. 

At the same time, women throughout Africa face violence in nonconflict situations that are discriminatory and are either ignored by 

their societies or, in some cases, even condoned by them. For example, in North Africa, Amnesty estimates that as many as 6,000 

women suffer genital mutilation every day and that possibly as 

many as 135 million women have undergone this practice. In other 

regions, the failure of corrupt, inactive justice systems impacts all 

citizens; however, women face additional hurdles in terms of official 

inaction or indifference, combined with an unwillingness to 

prioritize gender-related, human rights concerns by other sectors of 

society and traditional allies in human rights work. 

Millions of African women, like others around the world, face cultures and practices that stigmatize women, who, let us remember, 

are the victims when they raise cases of domestic abuse or rape. 

The State Department reports underscore how prevalent violence is 

amongst women in Africa by exposing the fundamental inability or 

unwillingness to address it by the political or justice systems. 

These same failures of the rule of law—equal protection and respect for the rights of women and accountability—are, not surprisingly, usually present when other human rights issues are being 

discussed. To effectively stop those human rights abuses, we must 

prioritize ending violence against women as well. 

If that were not reason enough to highlight this issue, then one 

must also consider the link between gender-based violence and the 

spread of HIV/AIDS. As you know, at the moment, Africa holds the 

largest number of persons infected with the disease. African women 

constitute 58 percent of this population and are four times more 

likely to contract HIV from males than vice versa. 

Violence against women is both a cause and a consequence of a 

woman’s infection with HIV. Violence, especially coerced sex, increases a woman’s vulnerability to becoming infected with HIV infection. Violence and fear limit a woman’s ability to negotiate safe 

sexual behavior, even in a consensual encounter. When one adds 

the impact of conflict to health care systems that are already in 

ruins, the impact of gender-based violence and the spread of AIDS 

becomes starkly clear. 

Amnesty International has launched a campaign called the Stop 

Violence Against Women Campaign, and we hope to be working 

with Members of the Committee and Congress to try to highlight 

these issues and to try to get the governments in the countries 

where these issues are so serious to seriously prioritize them. 

I would now like to talk very briefly about the situation in the 

Democratic Republic of the Congo. Unlike Darfur where, I think, 

it is safe to say that the situation there has not just not improved 

but has probably deepened, given that we now actually have an AfVerDate Mar 21 2002 16:42 Jul 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\031705\20060.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
91

rican Union force there on the ground, and the abuses are still happening, the situation in the DRC is off the radar and certainly appears to be more intractable. 

We certainly have progressed, in terms of the Government of national unity having survived yet another year. You have an increased MONUC force. Despite major problems and the need for reform and strengthening, it is on the ground, and you also continue 

to have continuing growth in terms of civil society activities. That 

has not changed the security situation for the general Congolese 

person outside of Kinchasa. 

The violence that I referred to and which was documented in Mr. 

Steidle’s presentation is endemic in the Democratic Republic of the 

Congo—the use of child soldiers, the abuses and violence committed by the warlords and by militias—and the issue of accountability is so far off the radar that we are truly talking about how 

do you stabilize and implement even one set of rules for the whole 

country? 

So the situation there, I think, the reports underscore, is of a serious priority and impacts many different countries, and until you 

actually resolve it there, you are going to continue to have all of 

the abuses that I have just mentioned, in addition to transits of 

conflict diamonds, of weapons, and of other natural resources, not 

to mention instability within the whole region. 

There are, of course, other parts of Africa that are not in conflict, 

and those, I think, are areas where the United States must pay 

much greater attention. Just as Tom mentioned, the need for sticking to principles in terms of interaction with countries that are 

human rights abusers, the United States has to become a little bit 

more serious in terms of strategic partners, such as Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Uganda, and their respect for the rule of law and human 

rights. It is not good enough that they are key allies in the war on 

terror when they are, in fact, committing abuses that equate 

abuses of a terrorist organization on their own citizens. 

In particular, in Nigeria, you continue to have a disregard for the 

rule of law by the executive branch. You have vigilante violence in 

the Niger Delta, and you have a failure to prosecute abuses by the 

security forces. These are ongoing. They have been in the State Department report for the last 5 or 6 years, probably from the period 

under General Sani Abacha, and we still have no progress in terms 

of resolving those. 

The same concerns that we saw last year with Eritrea remain 

today in this year’s report, and, in fact, some of the prisoners-ofconscience cases that Members of Congress have been working on, 

we only do not have any new information; we have a complete disregard by the Eritrean Government, and I would like to mention 

Aster Yohannes and Fesshaye Yonhannes, who we have seen letters generated on by many of you. The Eritrean Government just 

denies any legitimacy of their prisoner-of-conscience status. 

The same concerns, in terms of the rule of law and accountability, also remain with Ethiopia and also with Uganda, and, of 

course, the crisis in northern Uganda, which, I know, is of personal 

interest to Congressman Payne. I would just end by saying that it 

is important that the security of the civilians in northern Uganda 

be a priority, and this would involve putting more pressure on the 

92

1This testimony was completed with the help of Mulenga Trish Katyoka 

Sudanese Government to stop offering safe haven to the LRA, to 

turn over weapons caches that the LRA has hidden in Sudan, and, 

of course, to put pressure on the Ugandan Government to seriously 

commit itself to a peace process as opposed to trying, after 18 years 

of futility, to resolve the situation by a military solution. And I will 

stop there. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Akwei follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. ADOTEI AKWEI,1 CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR, AMNESTY

INTERNATIONAL

INTRODUCTION

Amnesty International appreciates the opportunity to testify and provide an oral 

statement focused on Africa for this hearing and requests the opportunity to submit 

an expanded and revised statement for the record that will focus globally and provide Amnesty International’s overall assessment with regards the Department of 

State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2004. 

It is both an honor and a pleasure to be working again with members who have 

been steadfast champions and allies in the effort to promote human rights globally 

and in particular to highlight and address the challenges facing Africa. 

First Amnesty International commends the State Department for issuing a report 

that is generally strong and factual in character. This year’s report continues the 

trend of improvement year by year. In particular AI welcomes the coverage on 

issues such as Honor Killings and on the treatment of persons who are gay, lesbian 

or bi-sexual. We reiterate our call to the State Department to expand coverage to 

include rights issues linked to the HIV/AIDS pandemic, abuses related to corporate 

actions and lack of accountability, and country performances on access to housing, 

food, and medical services. 

Mr. Chairman I would like to frame my comments by first highlighting broader 

issues that face the continent and then looking at development in the past year in 

a select set of countries. 

I. CASE FOR PRIORITIZING WOMEN’S RIGHTS

I would like to start off by looking in particular the state of women’s rights in 

Africa. I do this for several reasons. First the statistics measuring discrimination 

and gender-based violence inflicted upon women, either in conflict and post conflict 

situations or within their families and communities, is staggering. For example in 

conflicts Liberia, Rwanda, Burundi, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the 

Congo and Darfur Sudan girls as young a 8 and women as old as 80 have been 

raped and mutilated in the open, in front of their families and communities. 

At the same time, women throughout Africa face acts of violence in non-conflict 

situations that are discriminatory and are either ignored by their societies or in 

some cases condoned by them. In North Africa AI estimates that as many as 6,000 

women suffer genital mutilation every day and that possibly 135 million girls have 

undergone this practice. In other regions the failure of corrupt, inactive justice systems impact all citizens however women face additional hurdles in terms of official 

inaction or indifference combined with an unwillingness to prioritize gender related 

human rights concerns by other sectors of society. Millions of African women, like 

others around the world, face cultures and practices that stigmatize women—who 

let us remember, are the victims—, when they raise cases of domestic abuse and 

rape. The DOS reports underscore how prevalent violence against women is in Africa, by exposing the fundamental inability or unwillingness of the respective political 

and justices systems to address this issue or prioritize it. These same failures of the 

rule of law, equal protection and respect for the rights of men and women and accountability are, not surprisingly, usually present when the other human rights concerns are being discussed. To most effectively stop human rights abuses in general 

our efforts here must prioritize ending violence against women as well. 

If this were not reason enough to highlight this issue then one must also consider 

the link-between gender-based violence and the spread of HIV/AIDS. As you know 

at the moment Africa holds the largest number of persons infected with the disease. 

African women constitute 58% of this population and are 4 times more likely to contract HIV from males than vice versa. Violence against women is both a cause and 

a consequence of a woman’s infection with HIV. Violence, especially coerced sex inVerDate Mar 21 2002 16:42 Jul 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\031705\20060.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
93

creases a woman’s vulnerability to becoming infected with HIV infection. Violence 

and fear also limit a woman’s ability to negotiate safe sexual behavior even in a 

consensual encounter. When one adds the impact of conflict to healthcare system 

that is already in ruins, the impact of gender-based violence on the spread of AIDS 

becomes starkly clear. 

Mr. Chairman, in the year since the last DOS report as published the level of 

human suffering in Democratic Republic of the Congo, Northern Uganda, and Cote 

d’Ivoire has not improved and in Sudan, in particular Darfur the situation worsened. In all of these conflicts women and girls can no longer be described as collateral damage, they are the targets of the violence. In Darfur one of the most disturbing of the war crimes committed in Darfur has been the violence against thousands of women and girls who have been and continue to be deliberately and systematically targeted by opposing forces for extrajudicial execution, rape, assault, 

harassment and mutilation. Women in camps for the internally displaced continue 

to be attacked and raped by the very people who forced them out of their homes 

in the first place further, in many cases by they are also being attacked by Sudanese security forces who claim to be there to protect the. Even after these women 

have survived rape or assault, in some cases multiple times, they face intimidation, 

harassment. Legal obstacles in getting action on their cases as well as a lack of resources to help them address their medical needs or, as the Sudanese authorities 

call it their ‘‘illegal pregnancies’’ The DOS report documents that the targets have 

been as young as 8 and as old as 80. 

Similar abuses are also documented in detail in the Democratic Republic of the 

Congo where the conflict between the Central government and regional militias continues to create suffering for Congolese women despite a government of national 

unity and the presence of international peacekeepers. Armed groups continued to 

use rape as a weapon of war, exacerbating the incidence of rape and other forms 

of violence against women and girls, which include forced labor and sexual slavery. 

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimated that between 

October 2003 and February of 2003, 5,000 women were raped in South Kivu Province alone. That is an average of 40 per day. While that level of violence has subsided somewhat, violence against women continues to be endemic and impunity—

only a handful of cases have ever been brought to trial—remains the law of the 

land. This behavior continued during the last year with armed groups using rape 

as a tool of war with impunity. 

Even in the areas of relative security, Congolese women face major challenges. 

The DOS report states that ‘‘that domestic violence, including rape, was common, 

police rarely intervened in domestic disputes and rapists were very rarely prosecuted. That there were no laws prohibiting spousal abuse or assault and that it 

remains commonplace for family members to instruct a rape victim to keep quiet 

about the incident, even to health care professionals, to save the reputation of the 

victim and her family. Further, the DRC’s active and energetic press that survived 

Mobutu rarely reported incidents of violence against women or children.’’

The law does not prohibit the practice of FGM and the government initiative to 

help end the practice was under funded and understaffed. The DOS report also refers allegations of official involvement in trafficking prostitution and child prostitution during the last year 

AI also is concerned that complacence to the plight of women to a secondary role 

in society contributes to encourages their oppression. Married women were required 

by law to obtain their husband’s permission before engaging in routine legal transactions, such as selling or renting real estate, opening a bank account, accepting employment, or applying for a passport. The law permits a woman to inherit her husband’s property, to control her own property, and to receive a property settlement 

in the event of divorce; however, in practice, women often were denied these rights, 

which in some cases was consistent with traditional law. Widows are commonly 

were stripped of all possessions—as well as their dependent children—by the deceased husband’s family. Human rights groups and church organizations worked to 

combat this custom, but there was little government intervention or legal recourse 

available. 

Similar concerns also apply to Uganda where women have been particularly hurt 

by the conflict in Northern Uganda. There were reports of trafficking in women, 

girls, and babies during the year. Rape remained widespread and common. Thousands of women and girls were victims of abduction and rape by rebel forces. There 

also were reports that women were raped by the UPDF. Unlike in previous years, 

there were no reports that the SPLA forcibly recruited Sudanese refugees in the 

north for service in their forces. 

Despite Uganda despite a parliament with a broad representation of women, laws 

that prohibit assault, battery, and rape, there were no laws that specifically proVerDate Mar 21 2002 16:42 Jul 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\031705\20060.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
94

tected women from spousal abuse. Many law enforcement officials continued to view 

wife beating as a husband’s prerogative and rarely intervened in cases of domestic 

violence. Women remained more likely to sue for divorce than to file rape or assault 

charges against their husbands. A 2003 HRW report concluded that married women 

were particularly vulnerable to HIV/AIDS infection as a result of forced sex in marriage by husbands with multiple partners or wives. The report identified numerous 

social and legal obstacles to women’s ability to protect themselves against HIV/AIDS 

infection in abusive relationships. 

The DOS report also documents how traditional and widespread societal discrimination against women continued, especially in rural areas where many customary 

laws discriminate. Many customary laws discriminate against women in the areas 

of adoption, marriage, divorce, and inheritance. In many areas, women could not 

own or inherit property or retain custody of their children under local customary 

law. Traditional divorce law in many areas requires women to meet stricter evidentiary standards than men to prove adultery. There was no law against FGM, but 

the Government, women’s groups, and international organizations continued programs to combat the practice through education. These programs, which received 

some support from local leaders, emphasized close cooperation with traditional authority figures and peer counseling. Significant press attention to these ongoing efforts brought public attention to the problem during the year. 

Trafficking in Persons is another area of grave concern in Uganda. The law does 

not specifically prohibit trafficking in persons; however, it prohibits trafficking-related offenses. The penalty for the procurement of women for purposes of prostitution or detention with sexual intent is up to 7 years’ imprisonment; the penalty for 

trading in slaves is up to 10 years’ imprisonment. A range of sentences up to the 

death penalty can be imposed for defilement, when adults engage in sex with minors. Forced labor is a misdemeanor. There were reports that persons were trafficked to, from, or within the country. During the year, persons were arrested for 

trafficking-related offenses; however, none reportedly were convicted. 

In Nigeria, domestic violence and discrimination against women remained widespread. Female genital mutilation (FGM) remained widely practiced in some parts 

of the country, and child abuse and child prostitution were common. Further, the 

use of Shari’a courts increased the likelihood that women would face discrimination 

based differing weight placed on a women’s testimony in the case of rape. Further 

these courts have sentenced women and men to harsh punishments including amputations and death by stoning; although there were no reports of any sentences actually being carried out during the year. 

In Ethiopia, women continue to face domestic violence, including wife beating and 

marital rape. There are no laws targeting domestic violence or sexual harassment. 

The DOS report states that while Ethiopian women ‘‘had recourse to the police and 

the courts, societal norms and limited infrastructure prevented many women from 

seeking legal redress, particularly in rural areas. Social practices obstructed investigations and prosecutions in rape cases, and many women were not aware of their 

rights under the law’’ The DOS report goes on to add that it is estimated that every 

year over 1,000 women are raped in Addis Ababa. During the year, rape sentences 

were handed down in line with the 10 to 15 years prescribed by law however, the 

problem persists. On a positive note, the government established a court to try cases 

of sexual abuse against women and children. . 

Women and girls in parts of the Ethiopia continue to face abduction as a form 

of marriage despite it being illegal and the government’s attempts to stop the practice. Forced sexual relationships often accompanied most marriages by abduction, 

and according to the report women often were physically abused during the abduction. Many of those girls married under these circumstances were as young as 7, 

despite the legal marriage age of 18. According to the report, in cases of marriage 

by abduction, the perpetrator was not punished if the victim agreed to marry him 

(unless the marriage was annulled); even after a perpetrator was convicted, the sentence was commuted if the victim married him. 

FGM remained a serious challenge during the year. According to the findings of 

a government national baseline survey released in 2003 on harmful traditional practices, 90 percent of women undergo one of four forms of FGM—circumcision, 

clitoridectomy, excision, and infibulation. The National Committee on Harmful Traditional Practices also reported that, harmful practices against women, including 

FGM, abduction, and early marriage have declined from over 90 percent to 73 percent since 1992. 

The Constitution and the penal code prohibit bodily injury. They do not specifically outlaw FGM. According the to report the Government continued to update the 

penal code during the year as well as working to discourage the practice of FGM 

through education in public schools and through broader mass media campaigns. 

95

The Government also took action against persons who were involved in operations 

such as arresting individuals who requested the procedure for women as well as 

people who performed the operations. 

Despite Constitutional provisions stating that all persons are equal before the law 

and a Family Law bill that removes numerous cultural practices that discriminate 

against women effective protection for women remains elusive due to a lack of mechanisms to enforce the laws and the fact that regional councils retain the authority 

to determine family law for their respective regions. 

According to the DOS report during the past year discrimination against women 

Ethiopia was most acute in rural areas, where 85 percent of the population lived. 

Legal codes recognize the husband as the legal head of the family and the sole 

guardian of children over 5 years old, do not view domestic violence as enough justification to obtain a divorce and had only limited juridical recognition of common 

law marriage. According to the report ‘‘Irrespective of the number of years the marriage existed, the number of children raised, and joint property, the woman was entitled to only 3 months’ financial support if the common law relationship ended. A 

husband had no obligation to provide financial assistance to his family and, as a 

result, women and children sometimes were abandoned when there was a problem 

in the marriage. The law states that any property owned before marriage belongs 

to the spouse that had it. Any property gained during marriage is shared equally 

by the husband and wife. Thus a widow is entitled to her 50 percent share of property gained during the marriage; however, a wife does not have inheritance right 

to her deceased husband’s share.’’ Women also faced continued discrimination in 

terms of access to leasing of land 

While all land belonged to the Government and although women could obtain government leases to land, through a Government policy to provide equal access to land 

for women, this policy rarely was enforced in rural communities. According to the 

Ethiopian women’s groups in nearly all regions women do not have access to land. 

They cannot inherit land, and the only way for them to gain access to land was via 

marriage. However, when the husband dies, other family members often take the 

land from the wife.’’

II. HUMAN RIGHTS DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAST YEAR

Mr. Chairman, I would now like to briefly review some of the developments in 

Africa documented by the DOS reports, starting with the situation in conflict areas. 

In the year since the last DOS report as published the level of human suffering in 

Democratic Republic of the Congo, Northern Uganda, and Cote d’Ivoire has not improved and in Sudan, in particular Darfur the situation worsened. In all of these 

conflicts women and girls can no longer be described as collateral damage, they are 

the targets of the violence 

Darfur/Sudan 

In Darfur the United Nations recently concluded that at least 180,000 people have 

died as a result of the conflict between the Sudanese government and two rebel 

groups the Justice and Equality Movement and the Sudan Liberation Army. Over 

2.2 million have been impacted with 1.8 million being internally displaced and 

213,000 in refugee camps in Chad. This violence has happened even with the presence of a Ceasefire Monitoring Force from the African Union, the very courageous 

work of international relief agencies at last count, nearly half a dozen UN Security 

Council resolutions and a surprisingly high level of attention from the international 

media and general public. We must and can do more. 

Democratic Republic of the Congo 

The human rights record in areas under marginal government control remained 

extremely poor, and armed groups continued to commit numerous, serious abuses, 

particularly in North and South Kivu, Maniema, northern Katanga, and Ituri District in Orientale Province. Political freedom increased slightly during the year. 

Armed groups committed numerous, serious abuses with impunity against civilians, 

including deliberate large-scale killings, the burning of villages, kidnappings, torture, rape, cannibalism, mutilation, looting, and extortion. Arbitrary arrest and detention continued to be problems. Armed groups severely restricted freedoms of 

speech, the press, assembly, and movement. Respect for religious freedom improved. 

Fighting in the Kivus and Ituri District of Orientale Province continued to result 

in large numbers of internally displaced persons (IDPs). Armed groups attacked 

local and international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and killed MONUC 

peacekeepers. Rape, violence against women and girls, and forced labor, including 

sexual slavery, were severe problems. Child labor, including the forced recruitment 

and use of child soldiers, was a serious problem. Trafficking remained a problem. 

96

Discrimination continued against indigenous Pygmies and Congolese Tutsis from 

South Kivu, known as Banyamulenge. 

Northern Uganda 

The reporting for Northern Uganda sufficiently recounts the ensuing human 

rights abuses resulting from the conflict between the Lord’s Resistance Army and 

the Ugandan government in Northern Uganda. This conflict has now reached its 

18th year, has continued to destabilize Uganda. In the last year President Museveni 

has asked the ICC to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of abuses committed 

during the conflict but at the same time has failed to protect persons in camps for 

the internally displaced while insisting that the LRA would soon be defeated militarily After 18 years of military initiatives, 20,000 child abductions and thousands 

of lives it is more than time to seek alternatives options to a military resolution of 

the conflict. Further given the lack of accountability for abuses by the Ugandan 

military and allied militia in the neighboring DRC, it is far from clear that supporting a military resolution will be the best use of assistance from the United 

States. 

The women have been particularly hurt by the conflict. To prioritize their strife 

and to raise their voices at a national platform so that communities in Northern 

Ugandan, in particular the children and women receive the support and empowerment that is key to their prosperity. There were reports of trafficking in women, 

girls, and babies during the year. Acts of rape remain common. Thousands of women 

and girls were victims of abduction and rape by rebel forces. There also were reports 

that women were raped by the UPDF. Unlike in previous years, there were no reports that the SPLA forcibly recruited Sudanese refugees in the north for service 

in their forces. 

The conflict between the Lord’s Resistance Army and the Ugandan government 

in Northern Uganda is now in its 18th year. In the last year President Museveni 

has asked the ICC to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of abuses committed 

during the conflict but at the same time has failed to protect persons in camps for 

the internally displaced while insisting that the LRA would soon be defeated militarily After 18 years of military initiatives, more than 20,000 child abductions and 

thousands of lives it is more than time to seek alternatives options to a military 

resolution of the conflict. Further given the lack of accountability for abuses by the 

Ugandan military and allied militia in the neighboring DRC it is far from clear that 

supporting a military resolution will be the best use of assistance from the United 

States. 

Zimbabwe 

President Robert Mugabe and continued the systematic dismantling of what little 

was left of the fac ̧ade of the rule of law and democracy in Zimbabwe. In fact with 

the exception of individual specifics on what new acts of repression inflicted by the 

government the DOS report entry for Zimbabwe was depressingly similar to the one 

from the year before and the one before that; legislation further restricting NGOs 

and information were enacted, efforts to organize by the MDM were blocked or disrupted. The 2004 DOS report notes that in the last twelve months the government 

‘‘used intimidation and violence to maintain political power.’’ Including ‘‘a systematic, government-sanctioned campaign of violence targeting supporters and perceived supporters of the opposition continued during the year. During the year security forces committed extrajudicial killings. Allies of the government continued to occupy commercial farms, and in some cases killed, abducted, tortured, intimidated, 

raped, or threatened farm occupants. The 2004 report details incidents where the 

security forces, government-sanctioned youth militias, and ruling party supporters 

tortured, raped, and abused persons perceived to be associated with the opposition, 

resulting in the deaths of some persons. There were arbitrary arrests and detentions 

and in addition to further enshrining impunity for government officials and their 

supporters. 

The Government continued to restrict freedom of speech and of the press, academic freedom, freedom of assembly, movement and the right of association for political organizations. In particular NGOs and members of civil society were attacked 

and arrested. The government also continued to churn out repressive legislation 

such as the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Amendment Act, which allows the police to hold persons suspected of committing economic crimes for up to 4 weeks without bail. 

Ethiopia 

The DOS report also continues to paint a grim picture in Ethiopia. During the 

last year the security forces committed unlawful killings in addition to beating, torturing and mistreating detainees. Persons were arbitrarily arrested and detained, 

97

particularly those suspected of sympathizing with or being members of the Oromo 

Liberation Front. The DOS report states that’’ Thousands of suspects remained in 

detention without charge, and lengthy pretrial detention continued to be a problem’’. 

The report found that freedom of the press remained restricted; despite fewer journalists being arrested, detained or punished for writing articles critical of the Government and freedom of assembly was restricted, particularly for members of opposition political parties; as was freedom f association. The report mentioned that during the last year tolerance of nongovernmental organization (NGO) in particular the 

registration process for NGOs continued to improve. 

Eritrea 

The last 12 months saw little to no improvement in terms of the human rights 

situation in Eritrea, leaving the government’s record poor. The DOS report noted 

that security forces were responsible for unlawful killings, arbitrary arrest and detention; numerous reports of torture and physical beatings of prisoners, particularly 

during interrogations, and the severe mistreatment of army deserters and draft 

evaders. At this point I would like to point out that over a dozen prisoners of conscience, many whose cases have been taken up during the year by members of Congress and this Committee remain in incommunicado detention including Aster 

Yohannes and Fesshaye Yohannes and others. 

The Government used special courts that limited due process and severely restricted freedom of speech and press, and restricted freedom of assembly, movement, 

association and religion (for religious groups not approved by the Government), 

Human rights groups were not allowed to operate in the country and access to Eritrea for international NGO remained proscribed with the exception of the Red 

Cross. Violence and societal discrimination against women continued to be problems, and female genital mutilation (FGM) remained widespread despite government efforts to discourage the practice. 

Nigeria 

In the case of Nigeria, the DOS report states clearly that the Government’s 

human rights record remained poor, and that security forces continued to commit 

serious abuses such as extrajudicial killings and the use of excessive force. During 

the year under review, the police and army regularly beat protesters, criminal suspects, detainees, and convicted prisoners and committed torture although the DOS 

report indicates that there were fewer reports then in previous years. The rule of 

law did not advance during the year, with impunity, the questionable interpretations of the law by Shari’a courts, and arbitrary arrest and detention being a problem. 

During the year the Government occasionally restricted freedom of speech and 

press and limited freedom of assembly. Inter-communal violence in particular but 

no limited to the Niger Delta continued. 

Positive Developments 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I will end my review by noting that 

despite all of these issues the year in review in Africa also held major advances in 

terms of human rights, there was the deployment of the African Union Ceasefire 

monitors in Darfur, representing a fundamental shift limiting national sovereignty 

in defense of human rights. The AU also forcefully responded to violations of the 

ceasefire by the Ivorian government and worked with the international community 

to impose an arms embargo. There were the continuing operations of the Special 

Court in Sierra Leone and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. As I 

mentioned earlier, the efforts of the Ethiopian government over the last year to end 

the practice of FGM were also laudable. But much more needs to be done because 

as the DOS reports illustrate what we are doing is simply not enough. We can and 

must do better. 

III RECOMMENDATIONS

Until the culture of impunity is shattered and clear disincentives for abusive behavior be it against women, children or men are established, in all of these conflicts, 

effort to secure peace, security and the protection of human rights will be reduced 

to running from one fire to another. At the same time more can and must be done 

to try and address the medical needs of the survivors. We can do this by increasing 

our support for efforts to provide medical care for all of those impacted by these conflicts but in particular for survivors of gender based violence and by encouraging 

government in Africa to challenge and end cultural taboos stigmatizing victims, in 

too many cases the mothers and the babies born of these rapes, by the very communities that should be helping them. Current restrictions on US funding for health 

98

care services has caused some desperately needed services to close, denying urgent 

care to many. 

Members of the Committee, these limited examples of the issues facing women 

in these African countries are, sadly, replicated all too often in other countries 

around the world, including here in the United States. As a result of this AI has 

launched a multi-year campaign focused on stopping violence against women that 

we hope Congress and the Administration will work on with us. Among the initiatives we hope to use to end this epidemic of violence will be working for US ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against 

Women and domestically, reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. These 

standards will help convey the message that violence and discrimination against 

women are unacceptable and that wherever it happens—whether in Nigeria, Ethiopia or here in the United States—we will stand with local women and men to fight 

it and we will work to bring governments to the same position. We must also make 

such behavior have real consequences, be it in the form of prosecuting those who 

commit acts of gender based violence in front of the International Criminal Court 

or linking the possible provisions of security assistance to aggressive and measurable actions taken to end violence against women. Finally we must also increase our 

support of efforts to help the survivors of this violence as they seek to rebuild their 

lives. The United States should and must lead by example in the fight to end gender-based violence against women and promote and protect human rights internationally. The DOS report provides a critical diagnostic tool. Congress and the Administration must now provide the political will and resources to make a difference. 

Recommendations for Darfur/Sudan 

The United States should

• press for extending the UN arms embargo to include the government of 

Sudan

• urge the African Union Cease-fire monitoring force to protect civilians and 

supporting this more proactive mandate logistically, financially and politically.

• bring the perpetrators of the abuses in this crisis to justice by allowing the 

case of Darfur to be referred to the International Criminal Court. As the only 

government to have officially declared abuses in Darfur to constitute genocide, opposing and obstructing the use of the very mechanism created to help 

prevent future genocides is puzzling, disappointing and undermining to the 

entire human rights system that the United States helped create.

• Ensure that human rights, in particular issues of gender based violence be 

prioritized by the international community in the larger on-going peace process between the Khartoum government and the Sudan Peoples Liberation 

Movement.

• Ensure that the Sudanese women must have a genuine and central role in 

the peace and reconciliation process in Sudan. 

Recommendations for Northern Uganda 

The United States should

• press the Government of Sudan to end safe harbor for the LRA and turn over 

LRA leadership who are implicated in the commission of human rights 

abuses;

• Press the Government of Sudan to identify and help destroy secret LRA 

weapons caches.

• Press the government of Uganda to improve protection of civilians in particular children who remain at risk of forcible recruitment by the LRA.

• Urge the Ugandan government to prioritize it’s commitment to the peace 

process as well as on the involvement of women in the peace process.

• Link future security assistance to the Ugandan government’s performance vis 

a vis transparency within the security forces and on human rights issues. 

Recommendations for the DRC 

The US Government should

• Ensure that perpetrators of human rights violations, in particular genderbased violations are held accountable by international as well as domestic 

mechanisms of justice.

• Increase support for efforts to provide material and therapeutic services for 

survivors of gender-based violence in addition to general medical support.

99

• Work with the government, civil society and societal leaders to address and 

end discrimination and stigmatization of survivors of gender based violence. 

Recommendations for Ethiopia and Eritrea 

The US Government should

• Link future security assistance to improved respect and protection for human 

rights by both governments.

• Encourage and support the initiatives by the Ethiopian government and Ethiopian civil society to end the practice of FGM and societal discrimination 

against women.

• Challenge and press the government of Eritrea to release all prisoners of conscience including Fessahaye Yohannes and Aster Yohannes.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY [presiding]. Thank you so much for 

your testimony. 

Mr. Mariaschin? 

STATEMENT OF MR. DANIEL S. MARIASCHIN, EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT, B’NAI B’RITH INTERNATIONAL 

Mr. MARIASCHIN. Mr. Chairman, I have a full written statement 

with attachments which I have submitted for the record. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Without objection, your statement, 

with attachments, and all statements and any attachments you 

would like will all be made a part of the record. 

Mr. MARIASCHIN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to 

thank you for the privilege of addressing this hearing on behalf of 

B’nai B’rith International and its more than 110,000 members and 

supporters. Your role and that of your colleagues on the International Relations Committee and on the U.S. Helsinki Commission has been invaluable to the global effort to promote human 

rights. You have helped guide U.S. policy in this area and have fostered international cooperation, both in the struggle to expand 

human rights generally and, in particular, in the effort to combat 

anti-Semitism, which will be the topic of my remarks today. 

I would also like to acknowledge the dedicated work of Assistant 

Secretary of State Michael Kozak, whose Bureau of Democracy, 

Human Rights and Labor has compiled the State Department’s 

2004 Human Rights Report. Two months ago, Assistant Secretary 

Kozak’s Bureau also produced the Report on Global Anti-Semitism, 

consistent with the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004, another initiative for which you deserve great credit, Mr. Chairman. 

The work of Ambassador Ed O’Donnell, who has focused on antiSemitism and Holocaust-related issues since 2003, has also been 

essential to this concerted effort. 

As a member of the U.S. delegation to the OSCE’s Vienna conference on anti-Semitism in 2003 and as an adviser to the U.S. delegation at the Berlin anti-Semitism conference last year, I am encouraged by what I feel to be the many positive developments that 

have resulted from these OSCE-sponsored gatherings. I hope that 

the followup conference in Cordoba, Spain, this June will prove 

similarly productive. 

What we have seen in Europe over the past decade has been a 

series of meetings, the adoption of legislation, and the creation of 

commissions and committees on Holocaust-era restitution issues, 

but nothing so coordinated or prioritized regarding anti-Semitism 

has been attempted. 

100

Compounding the problem has been the ‘‘blinders-on’’ view of 

many European leaders about the demonization of Israel and Zionism, which has become a pernicious and regularly accepted form of 

modern-day anti-Semitism. Rather than characterize, for example, 

the comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany or violent acts against 

Jews and Jewish communal properties as outright anti-Semitism, 

the initial reaction of some leaders to these acts was dismissive, 

with many ascribing such incidents or portrayals as ‘‘legitimate 

criticism’’ of Israel or as ‘‘pranks’’ of disaffected youth. This was especially true when such acts were carried out by individuals from 

the growing Arab and Muslim communities in countries like Belgium and France. 

It was, therefore, of particular note that the historic Berlin Declaration, which provided a blueprint for combating hate crimes 

against Jewish individuals and institutions, specifically addressed 

the growing problem of anti-Semitic attacks being committed by opponents of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians. The passage 

stating that ‘‘international developments or political issues, including those in Israel or elsewhere in the Middle East, never justify 

anti-Semitism’’ should be a wake-up call to those who try to justify 

hate crimes with politics. 

But despite these decidedly positive developments, some of the 

data presented in the State Department’s 2004 Human Rights Report reveal a disturbing increase in anti-Semitic activity in certain 

countries. 

In France, where the problem has been most acute over the past 

5 years, authorities recorded a rise of more than 50 percent in the 

number of anti-Semitic incidents in 2004 compared to 2003, bringing the total number of acts in the most recent year to 950. However, the report also noted about France:

‘‘Authorities vigorously condemned anti-Semitism, increased 

security at Jewish institutions, investigated all attacks, and arrested and prosecuted perpetrators when there was sufficient 

evidence.’’

Furthermore, in December, the State Council banned the transmission in France of al-Manar—this was an issue which, Mr. 

Chairman, you raised earlier with Secretary Kozak—a Lebanese 

Hezbollah satellite channel which aired an anti-Semitic television 

series during Ramadan in 2003. 

In the United Kingdom, where London Mayor Ken Livingstone 

recently compared a Jewish journalist to a ‘‘German war criminal’’ 

and a ‘‘concentration camp guard,’’ the country experienced a similarly significant increase in anti-Semitic violence. According to the 

State Department’s recent report, the number of acts in Great Britain ballooned from 163 in 2003, to 310 in 2004. Incidents targeting 

Jews also increased in Belgium last year. 

In Russia, according to the report, ‘‘while the number of anti-Semitic incidents remained roughly stable in 2003, the nature of the 

attacks had become more violent.’’ And while Russian officials, including President Putin, have condemned anti-Semitic activity and 

prosecuted some offenders, some local and regional officials have 

minimized the extent of the problem by dismissing anti-Semitic violence as simple ‘‘hooliganism.’’

101

One particularly disturbing episode occurred in Russia earlier 

this year, when more than 500 public figures, including 30 members of the Duma, signed a flagrantly anti-Semitic letter calling for 

a ban on Judaism and Jewish institutions. The fiery missive, from 

which the Russian foreign ministry has publicly distanced itself, 

called Jews anti-Christian and accused them of performing ritual 

murders. 

Both the Human Rights Report and the earlier Anti-Semitism Report cited a finding by B’nai B’rith Canada’s League for Human 

Rights that anti-Semitic incidents north of the U.S. border had increased significantly in 2004. However, the State Department reported no increase in anti-Semitic activity in Argentina, which is 

home to Latin America’s largest Jewish community and which, I 

might add, is also where the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires was 

bombed 13 years ago today. Argentina’s Jewish organizations have 

reported their ongoing concern about incidents and threats, especially against the backdrop of the unresolved investigations into 

the 1992 bombing, which I just cited, and the 1994 bombing of the 

AMIA Jewish social welfare building in Buenos Aires. 

With the advent of last year’s Berlin conference, the demonization of Israel has now been broached in an international forum, but 

the parameters of the problem still have not been defined. European leaders will need to summon the political will and courage to 

acknowledge the dangers of anti-Israel hatred and to act forcefully 

against it. This means recognizing that anti-Israel sentiment is 

growing fastest among Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East and 

in Europe, a realization that, until now, European officials have 

not been swift to achieve. 

The two State Department reports reveal clear indications that 

anti-Semitic literature and media coverage is a common feature in 

the Arab and Muslim world, as well as in European countries with 

large Arab and Muslim populations, and you referenced this earlier 

in your question to the Assistant Secretary. 

In Europe, these communities have immediate and regular access to Arabic-language cable TV networks like Al-Jazeera, print 

publications, and Internet sites, all of which offer predictably onesided, inflammatory coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. These 

outlets employ primitive Jewish stereotypes in service of their antiZionist message, often borrowing symbols and motifs from Nazi 

propaganda so as to evoke the virulent anti-Semitism of Der 

Sturmer. 

Thus, one sees images of Jews as ghoulish, even satanic, caricatures with misshapen noses, festooned with dollar signs or carrying 

money bags, and of Israelis bearing swastikas or drinking the blood 

of children. As attachments to my written testimony, I have included several recent editorial cartoons from the Middle East and 

Europe that are representative of this trend. Meanwhile, Arabic 

editions of Mein Kampf sell briskly in London and other European 

capitals. 

In Iran, where an Olympic athlete was lavishly praised by his 

Government for avoiding his obligation to compete against an 

Israeli opponent last summer, a viciously anti-Semitic series called 

Zahra’s Blue Eyes began airing on national TV less than 3 months 

ago. Filmed in Farsi and dubbed into Arabic, the series depicts 

102

Israeli doctors posing as United Nations medical workers whose 

true purpose is to harvest body organs from Palestinian children. 

In Egypt and Syria, anti-Semitic and virulently anti-Israel content abounds in the press. The Egyptian Government maintains 

that it has advised journalists and cartoonists to avoid anti-Semitic 

themes, but anti-Semitism is nonetheless found in both the Statesponsored and opposition media. Meanwhile, Syrian textbooks not 

only contain rabid, anti-Semitic material; they teach children that 

Zionism is more egregious than Nazism, that Israel’s very existence 

is intolerable, and that the Jewish State must be destroyed. 

Mr. Chairman, European leaders attending opening ceremonies 

at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum, the new museum building 

in Jerusalem, just yesterday, vowed to fight the rising anti-Semitism in their countries. In a moving display, leaders, such as German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer and French Prime Minister 

Jean-Pierre Raffarin and others promised to be vigilant against the 

world’s oldest and most resilient social pathology. 

But as the evidence in the two recent State Department reports 

indicates, much work remains to be done in this regard. The incidents and statistics detailed in the 2004 Human Rights Report and 

the Report on Global Anti-Semitism, some of which I have cited in 

my remarks today, are painful reminders of the urgency of the 

problem we continue to face. 

As we gauge our progress in the struggle against anti-Semitism, 

let us draw reassurance from the positive atmosphere of the Berlin 

conference and the promise of the Cordoba conference, but let us 

also commit ourselves to sustaining the forward momentum of 

these gatherings. Sixty years after the Holocaust and nearly 5 

years after the start of the current rise of anti-Semitism in Europe, 

let us embrace one of the central messages of the Berlin conference, 

that complacency and passivity in the face of anti-Semitism can no 

longer be tolerated. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mariaschin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. DANIEL S. MARIASCHIN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, 

B’NAI B’RITH INTERNATIONAL

Mr. Chairman, 

I would like to thank you for the privilege of addressing this hearing on behalf 

of B’nai B’rith International and its more than 110,000 members and supporters. 

Your role, and that of your colleagues on the International Relations Committee 

and on the U.S. Helsinki Commission, has been invaluable to the global effort to 

promote human rights. You have helped guide U.S. policy in this area and have fostered international cooperation both in the struggle to expand human rights generally, and in particular, in the effort to combat anti-Semitism, which will be the 

topic of my remarks today. I would also like to acknowledge the dedicated work of 

Assistant Secretary of State Michael Kozak, whose Bureau of Democracy, Human 

Rights and Labor has compiled the State Department’s 2004 Human Rights Report. 

Two months ago, Assistant Secretary Kozak’s bureau also produced the Report on 

Global Anti-Semitism, consistent with the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 

2004—another initiative for which you deserve great credit, Mr. Chairman. The 

work of Ambassador Ed O’Donnell, who has focused on anti-Semitism and Holocaust-related issues since 2003, has also been essential to this concerted effort. 

As a member of the U.S. delegation to the OSCE’s Vienna conference on anti-Semitism in 2003, and as an advisor to the U.S. delegation at the Berlin anti-Semitism 

conference last year, I am encouraged by what I feel to be the many positive developments that have resulted from these OSCE-sponsored gatherings. I hope that the 

follow-up conference in Cordoba, Spain this June will prove similarly productive. 

The Berlin conference was long overdue. With the exception of the Vienna meeting the year before, and a brief seminar on the subject hosted by the European 

103

Union earlier in 2004—both of which helped place anti-Semitism on the world 

‘‘radar screen’’—no collective body since 1945 has met to discuss, and act, on hate 

crimes committed against Jews. 

What we have seen in Europe over the past decade has been a series of meetings, 

the adoption of legislation, and the creation of commissions and committees on Holocaust-era restitution issues. But nothing so coordinated or prioritized regarding 

anti-Semitism has been attempted. 

Compounding the problem has been the ‘‘blinders-on’’ view of many European 

leaders about the demonization of Israel and Zionism, which has become a pernicious—and regularly-accepted—form of modern-day anti-Semitism. Rather than 

characterize, for example, the comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany, or violent acts 

against Jews and Jewish communal properties as outright anti-Semitism, the initial 

reaction of some leaders to these acts was dismissive, with many ascribing such incidents or portrayals as ‘‘legitimate criticism’’ of Israel, or as the ‘‘pranks’’ of disaffected youth. This was especially true when such acts were carried out by individuals from the growing Arab and Muslim communities in countries like France and 

Belgium. 

It was therefore of particular note that the historic Berlin Declaration, which provided a blueprint for combating hate crimes against Jewish individuals and institutions, specifically addressed the growing problem of anti-Semitic attacks being committed by opponents of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians. The passage stating 

that ‘‘international developments or political issues, including those in Israel or elsewhere in the Middle East, never justify anti-Semitism’’ should be a wake-up call to 

those who try to justify hate crimes with politics. 

But despite these decidedly positive developments, some of the data presented in 

the State Department’s 2004 Human Rights Report reveal a disturbing increase in 

anti-Semitic activity in certain countries. 

In France, where the problem has been most acute over the past five years, authorities recorded a rise of more than 50 percent in the number of anti-Semitic incidents in 2004 compared to 2003, bringing the total number of acts in the most recent year to 950. However, the report also noted about France, ‘‘Authorities vigorously condemned anti-Semitism, increased security at Jewish institutions, investigated all attacks, and arrested and prosecuted perpetrators when there was sufficient evidence.’’ Furthermore, in December the State Council banned the transmission in France of al-Manar, a Lebanese Hezbollah satellite channel which aired 

an anti-Semitic television series during Ramadan in 2003. 

In the United Kingdom, where London Mayor Ken Livingstone recently compared 

a Jewish journalist to a ‘‘German war criminal’’ and a ‘‘concentration camp guard,’’ 

the country experienced a similarly significant increase in anti-Semitic violence. According to the State Department’s recent report, the number of acts in Great Britain 

ballooned from 163 in 2003 to 310 in 2004. Incidents targeting Jews also increased 

in Belgium last year. 

In Russia, according to the report, ‘‘while the number of anti-Semitic incidents remained roughly stable [in 2003], the nature of the attacks had become more violent.’’ And while Russian officials, including President Putin, have condemned antiSemitic activity and prosecuted some offenders, some local and regional officials 

have minimized the extent of the problem by dismissing anti-Semitic violence as 

simple ‘‘hooliganism.’’

One particularly disturbing episode occurred in Russia earlier this year, when 

more than 500 public figures, including 30 members of the Duma, signed a flagrantly anti-Semitic letter calling for a ban on Judaism and Jewish institutions. The 

fiery missive, from which the Russian Foreign Ministry has publicly distanced itself, 

called Jews anti-Christian and accused them of performing ritual murders. 

Both the recent human rights report and the earlier anti-Semitism report cited 

a finding by B’nai B’rith Canada’s League for Human Rights that anti-Semitic incidents north of the U.S. border had significantly increased in 2004. However, the 

State Department reported no increase in anti-Semitic activity in Argentina, which 

is home to Latin America’s largest Jewish community, and which is also where the 

Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires was bombed 13 years ago today. Argentina’s Jewish organizations have reported their ongoing concern about attacks and threats, 

though, despite the government’s attempts to combat anti-Semitism. 

With the advent of last year’s Berlin conference, the demonization of Israel has 

now been broached in an international forum, but the parameters of the problem 

have still not been defined. European leaders will need to summon the political will 

and courage to acknowledge the dangers of anti-Israel hatred and to act forcefully 

against it. This means recognizing that anti-Israel sentiment is growing fastest 

among Arabs and Muslims, in the Middle East and in Europe—a realization that, 

until now, European officials have not been swift to achieve. 

104

The two State Department reports reveal clear indications that anti-Semitic literature and media coverage is a common feature in the Arab and Muslim world, 

as well as in European countries with large Arab and Muslim populations. In Europe, these communities have immediate and regular access to Arabic-language 

cable TV networks like Al Jazeera; print publications; and Internet sites, all of 

which offer predictably one-sided, inflammatory coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. 

These outlets employ primitive Jewish stereotypes in service of their anti-Zionist 

message, often borrowing symbols and motifs from Nazi propaganda so as to evoke 

the virulent anti-Semitism of Der Sturmer. Thus, one sees images of Jews as ghoulish, even satanic, caricatures with misshapen noses, festooned with dollar signs or 

carrying money-bags, and of Israelis bearing swastikas or drinking the blood of children. (As attachments to my written testimony, I have included several recent editorial cartoons from the Middle East and Europe that are representative of this 

trend.) Meanwhile, Arabic editions of Mein Kampf sell briskly in London and other 

European capitals. 

In Iran, where an Olympic athlete was lavishly praised by his government for 

avoiding his obligation to compete against an Israeli opponent last summer, a viciously anti-Semitic series called Zahra’s Blue Eyes began airing on national TV less 

than three months ago. Filmed in Farsi and dubbed into Arabic, the series depicts 

Israeli doctors posing as United Nations medical workers whose true purpose is to 

harvest bodily organs from Palestinian children. In Egypt and Syria, anti-Semitic 

and virulently anti-Israel content abounds in the press. The Egyptian government 

maintains that it has advised journalists and cartoonists to avoid anti-Semitic 

themes, but anti-Semitism is nonetheless found in both the state-sponsored and opposition media. Meanwhile, Syrian school textbooks not only contain rabid anti-Semitic material; they teach children that Zionism is more egregious than Nazism, 

that Israel’s very existence is intolerable, and that the Jewish state must be destroyed. 

Another major issue at the Berlin conference was the matter of how best to monitor acts of anti-Semitism, Europe-wide. While the Office of Democratic Institutions 

and Human Rights (ODIHR) serves as the OSCE’s own monitoring arm, it has only 

recently begun to carry out any kind of systematic process of gathering accurate 

data on anti-Semitic acts in the OSCE member-states. For there to be a coordinated 

approach to combating the phenomenon, one needs to have factual information on 

what is happening, and where. 

ODIHR’s involvement in this effort is indispensable, and it must be provided with 

the necessary funding to implement this information- and data-gathering process. 

And yet, even on this question, some member-states initially balked, citing budgetary concerns or doubts as to whether national governments could demand such 

information from provinces or states. 

To capitalize upon the progress made at the Berlin conference, OSCE memberstates should actively carry out their own recommendations. Some of these proposals include an informal exchange of ‘‘best practices’’ between nations; government 

support for anti-hate programs; assistance in facilitating the prosecution of anti-Semitic crimes; and the promotion of academic exchange and educational programs. 

Furthermore, as we look forward to the Cordoba conference this June, there must 

be ongoing work in the areas of legislation; law enforcement; education; media; and 

general monitoring of anti-Semitic hate crimes. Progress in these spheres will require a continuation of the collaborative effort of friendly countries and NGOs in 

order for the promise of Berlin to be realized in a serious way. Education ministers 

and justice ministers, for example, should regularly meet in multilateral forums to 

develop an ongoing form of cooperation on matters related to anti-Semitism and 

hate crimes. Governments should actively support the important work of the International Task Force on Holocaust Education. And as OSCE member-states create 

legislation, they should call on the experience of NGOs—many of whom met the day 

before the opening of the Berlin OSCE plenary and agreed on their own highly detailed proposal to combat anti-Semitism—to assist them in this effort. 

Another action the OSCE could take to elevate the problem of anti-Semitism on 

the organization’s agenda, now that a special representative has been appointed to 

deal with the issue, would be to extend his term, which is currently scheduled to 

expire on December 31. German parliamentarian Gert Weisskirchen, who has been 

appointed by and is working closely with the OSCE chair, should have the prestige, 

the profile, and the resources—on an ongoing basis—to bring the OSCE’s influence 

to bear in addressing the problem. 

Mr. Chairman, European leaders attending opening ceremonies at the Yad 

Vashem Holocaust museum in Jerusalem just yesterday vowed to fight the rising 

anti-Semitism in their countries. In a moving display, leaders such as German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer and French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin 

105

promised to be vigilant against the world’s oldest and most resilient social pathology. But as the evidence in the two recent State Department reports indicates, much 

work remains to be done in this regard. The incidents and statistics detailed in the 

2004 Human Rights Report and the Report on Global Anti-Semitism, some of which 

I have cited in my remarks today, are painful reminders of the urgency of the problem we continue to face. 

As we gauge our progress in the struggle against anti-Semitism, let us draw reassurance from the positive atmosphere of the Berlin conference and the promise of 

the Cordoba conference, but let us also commit ourselves to sustaining the forward 

momentum of these gatherings. Sixty years after the Holocaust, and nearly five 

years after the start of the current rise of anti-Semitism in Europe, let us embrace 

one of the central messages of the Berlin conference: that complacency and passivity 

in the face of anti-Semitism can no longer be tolerated. 

Thank you.


20060ah.eps
106


20060ai.eps 20060aj.eps
107


20060ak.eps 20060al.eps
108

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Mariaschin. Thank you. I would just note for the record that you 

were very helpful in establishing the Berlin and, before that, the 


20060am.eps 20060an.eps
109

Vienna conferences as well, and I do appreciate the good work and 

leadership you provide. 

Our next witness, Mr. Viacohrka. 

STATEMENT OF MR. VINCUK VIACOHRKA, CHAIRMAN, 

BELARUS POPULAR FRONT PARTY 

Mr. VIACOHRKA. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am grateful for the attention this Committee, as well 

as the Helsinki Commission, has focused on the deteriorating 

human rights situation in Belarus and for your personal involvement in passing the Belarus Democracy Act. It is important that 

Members of Congress recognize that the lack of political freedom in 

Belarus is an important piece of the overall lack of human rights 

there. 

The recently released United States State Department Country 

Report on Human Rights Practices paints a bleak picture of the 

human rights situation in my country. I am here today to personally attest to this. If anything, the situation is getting worse by the 

day. Let me mention only recent facts. 

Just last week, we received reports that Michail Marynic, one of 

the opposition leaders, suffered a stroke after being unjustly detained by the KGB. Marynic sits in prison, accused of stealing 

United States Government computers, despite the fact that the 

United States Embassy has stated that the computers are being 

loaned to him and have not been stolen. He was moved to a prison 

outside of the capital and was then denied access to needed medicine and suffered a stroke. Unfortunately, this mistreatment is all 

too familiar in Belarus. Viktar Hancar, Anatol Krasouski, Jury 

Zacharanka, and Dzmitry Zavadksi all suffered fates far worse 

than Marynic. 

After the 2004 parliamentary elections, which were assessed as 

fraudulent by the majority of international observing missions, numerous party activists, including party leaders in attendance today, 

Anatol Labiedzka and Mikalaj Statkievic, suffered severely for 

their protestations during the most recent elections. Mr. Labiedzka 

was severely beaten; Statkievic and Youth Leader Paval 

Sieviaryniec, as well present here, were imprisoned. 

Simply claiming that the elections were fraudulent is dangerous 

in my country. During the elections, I participated in a press conference with two other party leaders present here, Mr. Labiedzka 

and Mr. Siarhiej Kalakin, where the examples of electoral fraud 

were detailed. As a result of this press conference, the criminal 

case of libel against Lukashenko is now prosecuted. 

The people of Belarus suffer from the lack of economic freedom 

and fair legislation. Recently, small vendors carried out acts of civil 

disobedience throughout Belarus, including strikes and meetings, 

protesting against a double taxation. Now, Anatol Sumcanka, the 

leader of their association, is falsely accused of assaulting his prison cellmate and is expecting a long-term imprisonment. Four leaders of vendors’ actions and political activists in Hrodna City and 

one in Recyca were sentenced for administrative terms. This one in 

Recyca is sentenced to spend his term in a very cold cell where the 

ice is now on the floor. 

110

Let me remind the Subcommittee that in Hrodna City, two people, Valery Levanieuski and Alaksandar Vasiljeu, have already 

spent years in prison for libel against the President. Ironically, 

Constitution Day, March 15th, was marked by a new series of arbitrary arrests. Young activists tried to carry out a mock funeral for 

democracy, commemorating the holiday. They were immediately arrested before the peaceful protest and immediately sentenced to 

prison. 

The structures of civil society are consistently destroyed by the 

regime. After closure of dozens of pro-democratic NGOs and labor 

unions, the Government has focused its attention on the political 

parties. It leads to the counseling of the registration of democratic 

political parties in Belarus. 

I fully agree with an assessment of the situation with media in 

Belarus made by the United States deputy representative to the 

OSCE Permanent Council, Paul Jones. After closure of 25 media 

outlets during the last year, it is impossible for the majority of 

Belarusan people to obtain independent information about their 

own country and the outside world. Meanwhile, Mr. Lukashenko 

has launched his satellite TV for Russia, Ukraine, and Baltic 

States with anti-Western, anti-American, totalitarian propaganda. 

This means that the existence of alternative information space, including printed media, radio from abroad, and satellite TV, becomes a priority for the democratization of Belarus. 

It is not only the political rights that are violated in my country. 

The same is true with regards to educational, cultural, and linguistic rights, all of which are violated according to the ideology of 

a Soviet-style cult of personality. The only high-profile high school 

with instruction in the Belarusan language in Minsk, Humanities 

Lyceum, was closed by the Government a year ago. The pupils continue their activities in the underground. After protesting in 

Minsk’s central square with posters stating, ‘‘We want to study in 

our native language,’’ they were detained and beaten by the special 

police for their actions. 

As for freedom of belief, only the Russian Orthodox Church enjoys full support from the State, despite the history of traditional 

multi-confessionalism in Belarus. Numerous Protestant beliefs, as 

well as Belarusan Autocephalous Orthodox Church, claim they are 

deprived of equal rights. Additionally, the authorities have a record 

of anti-Semitism with the destruction of an historical synagogue in 

the center of Minsk and of a Jewish cemetery in Hrodna. No excuse 

from the Government for this. 

Over the past year, numerous actions and statements have been 

made by the United States Government that have energized our 

movement. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Belarus an 

‘‘outpost of tyranny.’’ Speaking to a crowd of thousands in 

Bratislava, President Bush stated that ‘‘the people of Belarus will 

someday proudly belong to the family of democracies.’’

We are grateful for these statements; however, more needs to be 

done. The Belarus Democracy Act needs concrete instruments to 

fulfill its purpose. The unanimous position on Belarus by the 

United States and the European Union should be followed by practical steps. Lukashenko is reaching out to corrupt regimes in Iran 

and Libya for support. Russian President Putin has made it clear 

111

that keeping Lukashenko in place is a priority. Simply put, Belarus 

marks the final regime that Putin can rely upon. He will do all in 

his power to keep it this way. 

However, the situation is not hopeless. Ukraine’s Orange Revolution had a profound impact on the people of Belarus. Lukashenko, 

too, was influenced by the revolution. In fact, he recently issued a 

decree granting himself the right to directly order Internal Forces 

to use arms. 

However, according to an exit poll conducted by the International 

Republican Institute and the Gallup Organization 3 months ago, 

Mr. Lukashenko only received 48 percent of the vote on his referendum to change the Constitution and only 39 percent for his 

personal support. While he ultimately chose to ignore the results 

of the voting, the democracy movement was buoyed by the results 

of the exit poll. 

Building on this, our coalition has expanded to include more parties and more NGOs. We have drafted a detailed democratic plan 

to select a candidate for the Presidential elections next year. We 

understand that any success of democracy in Belarus, the last dark 

spot on the map of Central Eastern Europe, depends on our unity. 

Mr. Chairman, I understand that my time before you today is 

limited. I am available to answer any questions, and, once again, 

I thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. I would like 

to submit my written testimony to the Subcommittee. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Viacohrka follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. VINCUK VIACˇ OHRKA, CHAIRMAN, BELARUS POPULAR

FRONT PARTY

Congressman Smith, Members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for 

the opportunity to testify today. I am grateful for the attention this committee has 

focused on the deteriorating human rights situation in Belarus and for your involvement in passing the Belarus Democracy Act. It is important that Members of Congress recognize that the lack of political freedom in Belarus is an important piece 

of the overall lack of human rights in Belarus. The Members of the House International Relations Committee have taken the lead in doing this. 

The recently released United States Department of State Country Reports on 

Human Rights Practices paints a bleak picture of the human rights situation in 

Belarus. I am here today to personally attest to this. If anything, the situation is 

getting worse by the day. Just last week, we received reports that Michail Marynicˇ

suffered a stroke due to the lack of medical attention he received while being unjustly detained by the KGB. 

Michail Marynicˇ’s story is but one of the many struggles facing the leaders of the 

Belarus democracy movement. Marynicˇ sits in prison, accused of stealing United 

States Government computers, despite the fact that the United States Embassy has 

stated that the computers are being loaned to Marynicˇ and have not been stolen. 

He was moved out to a prison about 100 kilometers outside of the capital and was 

then denied access to needed medicine and suffered a stroke. 

Unfortunately, this mistreatment is all too familiar in Belarus. Viktar Hancˇar, 

Anatol Krasouski, Jury Zacharanka, and Dzmitry Zavadski—all suffered fates far 

worse than Marynicˇ. 

After the 2004 parliamentary elections, which were assessed as fraudulent by the 

majority of international observing missions, numerous party activists, including 

two party leaders in attendance today, Anatol Labiedzka and Mikalaj Statkievic, 

suffered severely for their actions during the most recent elections. Mr. Labiedzka 

was severely beaten; Statkievic and youth leader Paval Sieviaryniec were imprisoned. 

Simply claiming that the elections were fraudulent is dangerous in my country. 

After the elections, I participated in a press conference with two other party leaders 

present here, Mr. Labiedzka and Mr. Siarhiej Kalakin, where we detailed examples 

of electoral fraud by the Belarusian authorities. As a result of this press conference, 

we have now been accused of libel against Lukashenko. 

112

Recently, small vendors carried acts of civil disobedience throughout Belarus, including strikes and meetings, protesting against a double taxation. Now, Anatol 

S

ˇumcˇanka, the leader of their association ‘‘Perspektyva,’’ is falsely accused of assaulting his prison cellmate and is expecting a long-term imprisonment. Leaders of 

vendors’ actions and political activists in Hrodna (Horadnia city), namely Vadzim 

Sarancukou, Zmicier Ivanouski, Mikola Lemianouski, and journalist Andrej Pacobut 

were sentenced for administrative terms, as well as Leanid Nievar in Recˇyca city. 

Let me remind the Subcommittee, that in Hrodna, two people—Valery Levanieuski 

and Alaksandar Vasiljeu—are already in prison for libel against the president. 

Ironically, Constitution Day, March 15, was marked by a series of arbitrary arrests. Young activists Zmicier Dasˇkievicˇ and Artur Finkievicˇ tried to carry out a 

mock funeral for democracy commemorating the holiday—‘‘Funeral of the Constitution’’. The authorities learned of their planned protest and they were arrested before 

the protest and immediately sentenced to prison. 

The structures of civil society are consistently destroyed by the regime. After closure of dozens of pro-democratic NGOs, the government has focused its attention 

on the political parties. The Labour Party was just eliminated by a decision made 

by the Supreme Court, which is controlled by Lukashenko, and now the local cells 

of other parties are losing their official registration. 

I fully agree with an assessment of the situation with media in Belarus made by 

U.S. Deputy Representative to the OSCE Council Paul W. Jones. After closure of 

25 media outlets during the last year, it is impossible for the majority of Belarusian 

people to obtain independent information about their own country and the outside 

world. 

It is not only the political rights that are violated in my country. The same is true 

with regards to educational, cultural, and linguistic rights, all of which are violated 

according to the ideology of a Soviet-style cult of personality. The only high-profile 

high school with instruction in Belarusian in Minsk—Humanities Lyceum—was 

closed by the government a year ago. Despite the closure, the pupils continue their 

activities in the underground—trying to defend their rights on the First School Day 

holiday by protesting in Minsk’s central square with posters stating, ‘‘We want to 

study in our native language.’’ They were detained and beaten by the special police 

for their actions. 

As for freedom of belief, only the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) enjoys full support from the state, despite the history of traditional multi-confessionalism in 

Belarus. Numerous Protestant beliefs, as well as Belarusan Autocephalous 

Orthododox Church, claim they are deprived of equal rights with the ROC. Additionally, the authorities have a record of anti-Semitism with the destruction of a historical synagogue in Minsk and of a Jewish cemetery in Hrodna. 

However, the situation is not hopeless. I am in Washington this week with a delegation of Belarusan pro-democracy leaders who are present here and may confirm 

my words. We are visiting key members of the Administration, House, and Senate, 

as well as NGOs to shed light on the current situation as well as articulate our plan 

for the 2006 presidential elections. 

Despite being not so large in size, Belarus is important. As the final dictatorship 

in Europe, bringing democracy to Belarus marks the final step in fully restoring democracy on the continent. Until Belarus is democratic, Europe is not safe; so long 

as a corrupt regime is in place anywhere inside the continent, Europe is not safe. 

However, too many people see the situation in Belarus as one that is too difficult. 

They are wrong. The democratic opposition is united and ready to campaign, despite 

real personal risks, to advance the democratic cause in Belarus. We are putting 

aside our personal aspirations to run the country in the interest of ensuring that 

a democratic leader is elected in Belarus. 

Over the past year, numerous actions and statements have been made by the 

United States Government that have energized our movement. As I acknowledged 

earlier, the House and Senate passed the Belarus Democracy Act, a very important 

piece of legislation to those involved in bringing democracy to Belarus. Secretary of 

State Condoleezza Rice called Belarus an ‘‘outpost of tyranny’’ in her confirmation 

hearing before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Speaking to a crowd of 

thousands in Bratislava, President Bush stated that, ‘‘the people of Belarus will 

someday proudly belong to the country of democracies. Eventually, the call of liberty 

comes to every mind and every soul.’’

We are grateful for these statements. However, more needs to be done. The 

Belarus Democracy Act needs concrete instruments to fulfill its purpose. 

Lukashenka is reaching out to corrupt regimes in Iran and Libya for support. Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it clear that keeping Lukashenka in place 

is a priority. Simply put, Belarus marks the final regime that Putin can rely upon. 

He will do all in his power to keep it that way. 

113

The European Parliament recently recognized Belarus as the last dictatorship in 

Europe. There are several concrete steps that Europe, together with the U.S., can 

take to promote democracy in Belarus. Unlike Ukraine, which had Channel 5, 

Belarus has no independent television or radio stations. I would like to see the Europeans assist Belarus in immediately supporting the still existing independent 

printed media, and in setting up additional independent media sources, like TV and 

FM/AM radio, to counter the state-run media, which is the only news that the people of Belarus have access to. 

Much in the same way that political parties of different ideologies have united behind a common strategy to compete in the 2006 elections, the international community must unite. This is even more important in light of the recent success by our 

brothers in Ukraine. More so than the Rose Revolution in Georgia, Ukraine’s Orange Revolution had a profound impact on the people of Belarus. Lukashenka, too, 

was influenced by the revolution. In fact, he recently issued a decree granting himself the right to directly order Internal Forces to use arms. 

For the parliamentary elections in 2004, the Five Plus Coalition came together 

with a common platform for a group of six pro-democracy parties and non-partisan 

activist organizations. We achieved significant success in the 2004 election. According to an exit poll conducted by the International Republican Institute and the Gallup organization, Mr. Lukashenka only received 48 percent of the vote on his referendum to change the constitution to allow him to seek a third term in office. 

While he ultimately choose to ignore the results of the voting, the democracy movement was buoyed by results of the exit poll. 

Building on this, our coalition has expanded to include more parties and more 

NGOs. Four additional political organizations from the European Coalition have 

joined together with the parties and organizations in Five Plus to form a coalition 

for 2006. We have drafted a detailed, democratic plan to select a candidate for the 

presidential elections. We understand that any electoral success depends on our 

unity, and we will all campaign for this candidate. 

Mr. Chairman, I understand that my time before you today is limited. I am available to answer any questions that the committee has for me. And once again, I 

thank you for the opportunity to appear here today.

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Viacohrka, thank you so much 

for your testimony and for the bravery that you have exhibited 

throughout these many years in speaking out for democracy and 

human rights in Belarus and for being here. Your presence here 

today sends a clear and unmistakable message about not only what 

is going on on the ground in Belarus but the fact that there is a 

strong group of individuals who are very strong-willed and full of 

passion who are speaking out against the abuses. 

We will do everything we can, and your point about how more 

needs to be done and that the Belarus Democracy Act needs to fulfill its promise, and that is to provide those necessary resources, 

you heard our Ambassador earlier today testify, and I can assure 

you, we will work very hard on this Committee to make sure that 

those resources are there. It is a matter of when and not ‘‘if’’ that 

democracy does break out in Belarus, and the sooner, the better, 

obviously. 

I do have a couple of questions, and then I will yield to my good 

friend and colleague, Mr. Payne. If you want to respond any further, your time is not limited. If you have more to say, we want 

to hear it. 

I would like to ask Mr. Akwei: One of the things that we are trying to do is to figure out what more needs to be done with regards 

to Sudan and many other countries where there are ongoing problems. Mr. Tancredo, to my right, as you know, was the leader on 

the Sudan Peace Act, and one of the provisions he had in that piece 

of legislation that all of us, at least those of us who thought that 

it was a very useful tool, was to allow for the delisting of those 

companies that are aiding and abetting the killing fields in Sudan. 

114

In particular, Mr. Payne and I wrote and admonished our own 

States to divest themselves of Talisman Oil, which was obviously 

providing petrodollars to keep the killing fields going in Sudan. 

And, of course, the legislation that Mr. Tancredo was offering had 

that provision in there, but, regrettably, it was taken out, and it 

was against his will, my will, and many others people’s will who 

wanted that in there. 

My question would be: Do you think that is something we should 

reenergize in terms of a useful tool, because not only would companies like Talisman Oil but the company that is based in China 

would also find itself being denied access to capital from United 

States markets as a result if they were, indeed, delisted. 

Also, if I could, you mentioned Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Uganda, 

that it is not good enough, because they are good, key allies, that 

we cease boldly speaking truth to power. My question would be: 

Are the Country Reports of Human Rights Practices accurate as it 

relates to those three countries since we have a good relationship 

with each? It is important that these reports be as accurate as possible. 

Let me ask you, Mr. Malinowski, with regards to the rapporteur 

on torture, and you have spoken to so many countries, and time 

does not permit to go into every one of them, but you heard earlier, 

and I know you know, that there will be a rapporteur on torture 

deployed to China. It has been my experience that sometimes the 

rapporteurs do an outstanding job; other times, they exchange letters and really get very little accomplished. Have you had access 

to any of the terms of reference that he might be using to ensure 

that he has an access to the prisons in China so he can go anywhere he wants to go and do a report that is real and not half a 

loaf? 

On Burma, I am glad you raised that, and I wanted to raise that 

earlier, but time did not permit it. Is there anything else you might 

want to speak to on Burma and Aung San Suu Kyi and the ethnic 

cleansing that you speak about in your testimony? 

Just finally, and we will get to a second round if your time permits it, but, Mr. Mariaschin, the Cordoba conference is upcoming; 

what are your hopes and expectations there? As you know, there 

is an effort now underway to train the trainers, for police to train 

USAID. We think it will be a fully-funded effort to make sure that 

police understand. 

You spoke to it in your testimony that, very often, acts of antiSemitism are mischaracterized, and if Nathan Chiransky said anything, he said it very clearly in Berlin, that chronicling the abuse 

is the beginning of rectifying it, and if the people do not know what 

they are looking at, if the police arrive at a synagogue, and swastikas are all over it, and they say ‘‘hooliganism’’ or some other 

characterization, they have missed by a mile what is actually happening there. 

I will never forget, in Berlin—I will say this to the panel and especially to Mr. Mariaschin—when we were at the Berlin conference, the head rabbi of Berlin said, ‘‘It is not the way it looks 

here.’’ He goes:

‘‘A few years ago, I could wear my yarmulke, I could travel on 

public transportation without any fear. Now I take a taxi beVerDate Mar 21 2002 16:42 Jul 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\031705\20060.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
115

cause I am not sure what is going to come my way because 

things have changed so dramatically in Berlin.’’

Mr. Akwei, if you could begin. 

Mr. AKWEI. Sure. As you know, our organization has never taken 

a position on economic sanctions, not just because of internal policies, but I think that Mr. Tancredo’s efforts and Mr. Payne’s and 

all of the efforts to maximize pursuing the Sudanese Government 

are the only way forward. 

I think that the Government, its allies, and, unfortunately, I 

would also argue, even some members of the African Union need 

to make a decision as to whether they are for the people of Darfur 

and Sudan or whether they are for the Government of Sudan, and 

that seems to be our big stumbling block at this point. They have 

deployed troops on the ground. These troops are supposed to protect the monitors. Some of them are doing an outstanding job, but 

then you also get reports that they do not want a referral to an 

international court. They do not want a mechanism, and, in some 

cases, you hear reports that they would like to have a mechanism 

in Sudan itself to try the atrocities in Darfur. 

So I think that, in some cases, some of these hard discussions 

about putting your money where your mouth is in terms of wanting 

assistance, wanting investment, and accountability on human 

rights have to be taken to these African governments, even as we 

support them and improve the work that they are doing in terms 

of actual peacekeeping on the ground in Sudan. 

In terms of the accuracy of the reports, I think, absolutely, they 

are accurate. That is the real tragedy. As Tom said, you look at the 

detail, and you have seen it the year before, and there is no 

change, and it makes you wonder what happens with the reports. 

The gap between what the report says is happening and the political will to increase pressure or to raise difficult issues seems to be 

widening, and, in particular, there are concerns about copycat or 

worse versions of legislation allegedly designed to combat terrorist 

organizations by governments that are abusive, even to begin with, 

and that is extremely alarming. 

So I think that, yes, in particular, in those countries, we found 

no shading or gray areas, but the problem is, is there going to be 

follow-up? 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. Thanks. You asked about the torture 

rapporteur, and as you said, some rapporteurs are better or stronger than others. The torture rapporteur is fantastic—forceful, fearless—and has done fantastic work in places like Uzbekistan, for example, and demands proper terms of reference, including access to 

everyone. 

Now, Mr. Kozak said today that China has agreed to allow the 

torture rapporteur in based on his terms of reference. I assume 

that is good news. I would like to see the details, obviously, before 

rendering more of a judgment, and that is a very useful step because he will go in, if he, indeed, can, and find what we all know 

he will find and leave behind a series of very precise, specific, hardhitting recommendations, which we will then be able to use with 

the Chinese Government and say, this is not just the United States 

demanding these things but an agent of the United Nations, which 

is important for legitimacy. 

116

On Burma, very little good news. Aung San Suu Kyi remains 

under house arrest, as do, well, more than 1,000 political prisoners, 

not under house arrest but in prison, subject to torture. A few releases over the last year, but many more arrests than releases. As 

you mentioned, an ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing by the 

Burmese military against ethnic minority people in the outlying 

areas of the country, which we have been watching and observing 

and denouncing for many years. 

I really do believe it is time to start investigating properly with 

the aim of actually holding specific Burmese officials and military 

officers accountable in, hopefully, someday the International Court. 

We have not gone that route, in part, because Aung San Suu Kyi 

has been so focused on reconciliation, and God bless her. But I 

think the time has come to really begin seriously putting that on 

the table, and if the Burmese Government wants to avoid it, well, 

they, you know, had better deal with Aung San Suu Kyi, who may 

be the only person who can ultimately save them from that kind 

of accountability. 

Perhaps the only good news on Burma is that there is increasing 

activism in the region, which is always a good thing to hear, particularly from members of parliament in other ASEAN countries—

the Philippines, Indonesia, and so forth—and that is something 

that I would encourage you all, as American parliamentarians, to 

engage in: To work with newly-elected, increasingly democratic 

parliaments in the region in Southeast Asia to try to bring more 

pressure to bear on their Governments to put more pressure on the 

Burmese Government. Thank you. 

Mr. MARIASCHIN. Before addressing the Cordoba meeting itself, 

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a couple of comments 

about OSCE itself. The Office of Democratic Institutions and 

Human Rights, ODIHR, as its known by its acronym, is the monitoring mechanism, as you know, for the OSCE, and it has only recently begun to carry out any kind of systematic process of gathering data on anti-Semitic acts in the OSCE member states. And 

it is important that before we can begin to really assess how deep 

the problem goes, that that monitoring get moving. 

Funding is an important part of that. There are some funding 

problems, and, frankly, there are countries who have been dragging 

their feet on this issue by raising budgetary concerns and over 

whether or not this monitoring could be able to demand information from provinces or from member states. But the will is there, 

the mandate has been set, and we need to move ODIHR to gather 

this information. 

Secondly, as was referenced by Secretary Kozak, the OSCE now 

has a special representative dealing with anti-Semitism, also one 

dealing with Islamaphobia and one dealing with Christianaphobia. 

The term for the special representative, and the one who handles 

anti-Semitism is a member of the German Parliament, Gert 

Weisskirchen, who really is topnotch, one of the best, I think, appointments that could possibly be made for handling this. But his 

term expires December 31st, and it is important that this term be 

extended so that Gert and the others can work with the Chair in 

office to accomplish the important monitoring mechanism that they 

have. 

117

As far as Cordoba is concerned, there were people who did not 

want to have, and countries that did not want to have, a Vienna 

conference, and then, as you know, they did not want to have a 

Berlin conference. Now, we have the third conference, and we see 

the merit and the value in meeting annually, frankly, to assess exactly what is being done to grapple with these problems and to deal 

with anti-Semitism. 

So, for Cordoba, we look for discussions on best practices regarding legislation; law enforcement training, which you have referenced; education; the media; and general monitoring of anti-Semitic hate crimes. And we would like to see specifics about how 

education ministers and justice ministers, for example, could regularly meet in multilateral forums and develop an ongoing form of 

cooperation on those specific areas where their interests and their 

influence can be brought to bear. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you. Mr. Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. I have a question that maybe 

Mr. Akwei might be able to address. I have heard very little in 

OSCE or in European countries in general, and I am not sure 

whether this is your area or not, or anyone else who might want 

to comment—I have been following the reports of the increase in 

anti-Semitism in Europe, and the issues have been brought up, and 

there is acknowledgement of it and work toward it. 

I have heard, in several European countries, that there is an increase in sort of racism in general, difficulty in Africans getting 

housing and proper protection under the law. Belgium has a large, 

new population. In England, there has been tension in the prisons, 

several deaths by the police system they use, the choke lock or 

something, that they have had several deaths in the prisons. 

And I wonder if OSCE or anybody is paying any attention to—

and even in Ireland, and they have been doing great with the tremendous growth, but the African immigrants in Ireland are having 

an extremely difficult time with immigration authorities. That is in 

Ireland, not in the North of Ireland. 

I have had some discussions with some of my friends in the 

North of Ireland who also are very disturbed at what they see happening in Ireland with Africans and Caribbeans trying to get into 

Ireland because they say, well, we have been fighting injustice from 

Protestants and the Brits all of these years, and to see our people 

using discrimination against another group, some of the ones that 

are being really criticized, the Sinn Fein people, were discussing 

their disapproval of what is happening in Ireland. As you know, 

they have been sort of persona non grata because of what happened there, although I think we are making a mistake if we isolate the organization, and I think that dialogue is very important 

and that an incident is a setback, but you do not throw out the 

baby with the bath water. 

But, anyway, on that, have you heard any discussion, or has Amnesty International been taking any surveys, or has there been any 

kind of reporting done on that, to your knowledge? 

Mr. AKWEI. I will be honest. I can go back and find out for you. 

I, myself, do not have that knowledge. I know that we do work on 

asylum issues and treatment of African immigrants, and I am sure 

that I can get you information, and I promise I will do that. 

118

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

On the DRC, unfortunately, I missed most of your testimony on 

Darfur and all of yours, but you are the gentleman that took the 

photographs that Senator Brownback had, and you are also showing your photographs tomorrow at the Holocaust Museum. 

Let me commend you for the work that you have done, and Senator Corazine also spoke to me yesterday about the fact that the 

photos and what you have testified and have shown were really 

worth a thousand words and that we may want to see if we can 

get you to come up to New Jersey at some point. 

But let me ask a question about the DRC and its elections. Anyone can try to answer that. The elections are due in June. I do not 

feel that the country is ready for elections in June. In the accord, 

it said that if it is not ready, there should be a 6-month reevaluation at two 6-month triggers, and I do not like to delay things. But 

there is a group that is coming around that has been advocating 

having the elections in June. I think that Tesakaty’s party, evidently they might feel they have more going, so let us get them 

over with; he might win. 

I just think that if you have elections that are flawed, you just 

set the clock back, and the DRC has been in turmoil ever since 

they murdered Patrice Lamumba, and to push an election in 3 

months, rather than maybe 18 months from now, would be foolish, 

in my opinion. What is your opinion about whether the country is 

ready for elections 2 months from now? 

Mr. AKWEI. Again, I want to be clear. We usually do not take a 

position on elections, but we do talk about conditions for elections 

because they are directly linked to fundamental civil liberties and 

human rights, and, like you, I would have to say that the conditions do not exist. In all honesty, the parties that ‘‘will be contesting the election’’ are limited to the capital. 

Mr. PAYNE. That is right. 

Mr. AKWEI. The rest of the country is, at best, loosely affiliated 

based on personal allegiances. I think that it would probably behoove interested governments to really focus more on reestablishing some kind of accountability and connectivity in the country 

as opposed to working on a poll that is going to happen in 3 

months, and as you said, that could easily not only inflame competition in the center and thereby lose the ground that has been 

gained over the last few years, but that could also basically just 

continue this disintegration that is happening. 

So I think, yes, in terms of conditions, it would be very hard to 

see free-and-fair elections in 3 months in the DRC. 

Mr. PAYNE. Finally, on Darfur, as you know, Congressman 

Tancredo and I, and Mr. Smith, we pushed for capital market sanctions before, and we have been discussing attempting to do that 

again. We had it passed, but there was pressure from the Wall 

Street types that say, ‘‘Well, you cannot do that.’’ Now, I know that 

Amnesty International does not advocate sanctions and all. 

As a matter of fact, I was very disturbed, but I got a little better 

news today from my brother, who is an assemblyman in the State 

of New Jersey, that legislation passed that the State of New Jersey 

has about $5 billion invested in companies that do business in 

Sudan, and although it is restricted in the United States, compaVerDate Mar 21 2002 16:42 Jul 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\031705\20060.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
119

nies that do business in New Jersey do business in Sudan, although they may not specifically be United States companies. And 

so his legislation was to then have those companies divest from 

Sudan, just invest the money somewhere else, because this is pension money from workers in New Jersey. His pension is being used 

to support the Government of Sudan. There is $100 billion in oil, and I started a move with the state 

legislatures, and with the bill that he has passed, we sent it 

around to a number of States, and Illinois and California are looking at it and New York State. However, the treasurer of New Jersey, a week ago, was saying that he really did not think that the 

State should take money out of profit-making investments, but I 

think there has been a change because some of the photos and 

things that my brother brought forth to some of the authorities in 

New Jersey, I understand the bill may be posted next week. 

What do you think, either one of you, who are not necessarily 

bound by the bylaws of the institution on sanctions? We have tried 

everything else, and the Government just seems to continue to look 

the other way. 

What do you think about, secondly, the PRC, the People’s Republic of China, being on the Security Council, having the veto threat, 

and Russia, both of them dealing with oil? Petro China is, as you 

know, the biggest. They even had Chinese troops in Sudan during 

the time of the North-South fighting. And Talisman; as Congressman Smith said, we have forced the government of New Jersey to 

finally divest, but then it was picked up. Talisman moved out, and 

the oil was turned over to Malaysia and the PRC, and they continue to try to keep any strong resolution from the Security Council, although our Nation has its normal trade relation and balanceof-trade deficit, so, you know, that is another issue another day. 

But how can China sit around and make billions of dollars off of 

the United States and then sit there at the Security Council and 

say, ‘‘We are not going to allow anyone to do anything because we 

sit on the Security Council and have this vote that we can veto’’? 

But, anyway, if I could hear some of your feelings on what else 

can be done because the Government of Sudan is just one of the 

most nongovernment governments I have ever seen, and the photos 

of bombing their people with the Antanovs and then strafing them 

with fighter planes and then having the Janjaweed come on camels 

and kill and rape and maim, and our Government and the governments of the world—it was very difficult even to get the Europeans 

to decide that they would even be involved. We went to the meeting 

in Scotland—remember, Mr. Tancredo?—and it was like Nero was 

fiddling while Rome was burning. They did not know what was 

going on. Is it really that bad? We have seen a little change, but 

what about economic sanctions and those things, either one of you? 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. Economic sanctions, yes, absolutely. Capital 

markets; I am not an expert in the practicalities of how that would 

work, but, in principle, if there is a way to raise the cost to Chinese 

companies of doing business with the Sudanese Government, 100-

percent yes. There is not much more beyond that that the United 

States can do that it has not already done. 

There are, obviously, sanctions that the U.N. Security Council 

can impose beyond that, that European countries can impose beVerDate Mar 21 2002 16:42 Jul 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\031705\20060.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
120

yond that. We still do not have an arms embargo, an effective arms 

embargo, which is just pathetic after all that has happened. We 

could impose internationally-targeted sanctions on Sudanese officials, banning their travel, seizing any assets they may have overseas, sanctions that, I think, would be quite effective. 

And then, of course, there is accountability and prosecution, 

which, I think, is the ultimate sanction. We often think of it as sort 

of a principled thing to, you know, satisfy the victims. It is actually 

a very practical measure that targets the perpetrators in very real 

ways. 

You mentioned China, which is, of course, a problem in the Security Council. It is a problem, I think, that can be dealt with. Secretary Rice is traveling to China right now. I would like to know 

how high up on her agenda with the Chinese Government the situation is. I am not confident that it is the first thing in her talking 

points. You know, we have to be realistic about these things, but 

when an Administration has declared genocide, I do think that one, 

a reasonable person, can then ask that it be at the top of the talking points in dealing with a permanent member of the Security 

Council. 

At the end of the day, though, I do not think the Chinese will 

veto a resolution, and we have talked to diplomats at the U.N. 

every day, more than once, about this, and there is a complicated 

game being played. I think, at the end of the day, if we push them 

hard, if we work our allies the right way, we can get a resolution 

that the Chinese will not veto. In fact, I am a little more worried 

right now about a United States veto than a Chinese veto because 

of this dispute over the ICC. That is real. 

Mr. PAYNE. It is very unfortunate. I would like to see the ICC 

move forward, but that is a policy decision above my influence. 

Yes? 

Mr. STEIDLE. I think that economic sanctions would be a tremendously good idea. I think, though, that the first thing that needs 

to happen is the fighting needs to stop, and that is what we need 

to concentrate on. Let us worry about punishment of the people, 

and let us worry about whether the U.N. wants to call this genocide or not. Let us separate the issues. 

I do not like to put the issues together. I think that the people 

that have done these things need to be held accountable. They absolutely need to be held accountable, whatever way that is, but 

what needs to happen first is it needs to stop. Since we have been 

in this room, more than 50 people in Darfur have died. That is how 

serious this is, and it has got to stop. Economic sanctions, I think, 

would be a great way to convince the Government of Sudan to stop 

it. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Yes. You raised earlier the point 

about the OSCE and racism. We have had conferences at the ministerial level in September 2003 and September 2004. There have 

been conferences on racism, xenophobia, and discrimination. J.C. 

Watts led the delegation on one of those. So your point is well 

taken, and we are, in that organization, trying to get the countries 

to address the issue of racism in their respective lands, so thank 

you for raising that. 

121

Mr. Tancredo? 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As I sit here today and listen to both the testimony of the Ambassador and these fine gentlemen, the thought keeps running 

through my mind—I think it was Russo who said at one time—

‘‘Men are born free, and everywhere they are in chains,’’ and you 

think to yourself about the degree to which the President has been 

able to articulate this philosophy, this idea, that there is a desire 

for freedom all over the world. It is an innate human desire. 

Boundaries of countries or cultures really do not influence it, and 

as I sit here and look at this table, I am impressed by the fact that 

it is a true statement. There is that innate human desire, and yet 

it is so difficult in so many places to actually achieve. That is the 

perplexing dilemma of the human race and none we are going to 

solve today, of course. 

I just want to commend you all, and really the purpose of my 

stating all of that is that I want to commend you all for trying and 

for doing what you do to bring about a change in the human condition and the breaking of those chains. Our challenge here, and it 

is a frustrating one because Mr. Steidle says, you know, let us put 

things in proper order in Darfur, for instance, and stop the killing 

now. Well, okay, absolutely. There is not a soul here, not a soul in 

this room, and not a soul in the Capitol; no one here would disagree with that, yet it is so hard to actually accomplish this task. 

It is just sometimes so frustrating and so overwhelmingly difficult 

for us all. 

Let me ask you, the claim, specifically, Mr. Akwei and Mr. 

Malinowski, actually, anybody who wants to answer it, but I would 

think that the three of you would have the insight: The claim on 

the part of the Government is that they—I have heard this 

voiced—that they really have nothing to do with the Janjaweed. 

We know, of course, that that is not true. We saw the slides. We 

saw the helicopters. We know the Antanovs fly. 

I guess what I am wondering is: Do they have control? I know 

the Government is involved with doing this, but what if tomorrow 

they said, ‘‘Okay. We want to stop them.’’ Can they? Are they now 

in a situation where they may have lost control of this thing that 

they prompted, they started, they funded, they armed, because the 

killing in Darfur is not based on some sort of property disputes or 

even economic? It is a racial issue. It is Arab Muslim against Black 

Muslim. That is the situation in Darfur. People are being killed because they are Black. There are implications, of course, and other 

things happening, but it is a racial war, and one wonders whether 

or not, if the Government says tomorrow, ‘‘Okay, everybody, cool it. 

Janjaweed, cool it,’’ will it happen, do you think? 

Mr. STEIDLE. Sir, I know that they have not total control over the 

Janjaweed. There are going to be groups, there are going to be elements, that do not listen to the Government, but the majority of 

the Janjaweed, at least the ones that they have equipped, armed—

there are other groups, other small factions that act more like bandits that they call in on mercenary missions and pay them money, 

but the majority of them are controlled directly by the security 

agencies within the military units, and I believe that they can rein 

them in, and I believe that they can control them, for the most 

122

part. There will always be banditry groups that are out there, but 

once they rein them in, then they can worry about prosecuting the 

banditry. 

Mr. TANCREDO. I agree completely. Mr. Akwei? 

Mr. AKWEI. Two things. Obviously, I also agree with the assessment of the control of the bulk of the militias. 

The second is that even if it were not the case, these African governments have made a commitment under this new African Union 

charter to allow, in theory, an intervention on behalf of African 

people. We are still stuck in this governmental niceties type of relationship that we do not do it except with the consent of the Sudanese Government, and the Sudanese Government does not have the 

moral authority in this case to say, ‘‘We will take care of this,’’ even 

when they know they cannot. And that is what we need to get to 

change within the leadership of the AU. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Yes. 

Mr. AKWEI. The second issue, in terms of the defining of the conflict, racial elements, yes. It is a part of it. 

Mr. TANCREDO. When they are being raped and being told that 

the purpose of the rape is to produce lighter-skinned babies you 

have to think that race has something to do with it. 

Mr. AKWEI. It does, but it is not the only driving thing. I think, 

in many cases, the racial element of it, the structure may have existed in the Darfur region itself, but then the Government, by making use of those militias and the power structure, has aggravated 

it. And so Mr. Steidle’s point about the Government-sponsored-type 

campaign is very important to be identified and given the same 

weight as the existing racial tensions that are now playing themselves out in this kind of ugliness. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Yes. 

Mr. PAYNE. You are right, and, you know, the devastation, even 

as one-and-a-quarter million people went over into Chad, to the 

camps on the eastern part of Chad, other problems are being created in Chad now. I have been there twice in the last 6 or 7 

months, and the water is going to dry up in that region in about 

another year. Now, the people who already live there are now saying, ‘‘Well, what is going to happen to us?’’ You have got a million 

people on their land, and now the tensions start to grow between 

refugee people, and the people of Government. The President is 

concerned because, as you know, African countries have cross-border ethnic groups, and this election is coming up, and there is a 

group that feels he is not doing enough since these people who are 

being persecuted are from his own ethnic group. And that is why 

he is allowing them to come in, even though it is having a 

degradative [sic] effect on the ecology. Of course, it is very fragile 

up there in that region that these camps are in. 

And so, as Mr. Steidle mentioned, you know, people die every 

day. It is unbelievable, and I agree with you that the AU, unfortunately, this started when the organization started, and, I think, if 

this were 5 years from now, they would have in place strong practices, best practices. I think that they are starting a new organization and have this tremendous challenge there with Muslim countries. 

123

With Algeria, just because they are Muslim, they were voting 

against Darfur, our resolutions in Russia, because they are interested in oil. And they do not want to see an oil sanction because 

what happened with Chechnya, where they have been treating the 

Chechnyans wrong for all of this time. Unfortunately, the 

Chechnyans have turned and used terror against children, which, 

I think, set their cause back because it has been similar to what 

happened in Northern Ireland with the killing of this Catholic by 

some Catholics. It has kind of set back a movement. 

These things happen, and I have visited the AU three times in 

the last 6 months to talk to their leadership about having a sufficient number of troops, having a plan, getting the logistics going 

again, trying to change the mandate. And so we will continue to 

try to work with the AU. They mean well, but like I said, it is such 

a fragile beginning, and I think they are totally overwhelmed. 

Mr. AKWEI. I think Tom mentioned a point: The U.S., I think, 

has created an incredible precedent by declaring this genocide. The 

U.S. officials have gone very far also, but they need to go that final 

step of basically dealing with this emergency-type situation. In 

other words, we need to have Presidential level, Secretary of State 

level-type interventions with the AU. If this is how important it is, 

and if we really believe this term to be that important, that is the 

only acceptable type of energy and nothing less. 

Mr. PAYNE. I could not agree with you more. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. On that point, I would just remind 

my colleagues, Don Payne and I tried very hard during the Rwandan massacres to get the word ‘‘genocide,’’ to get the Administration then to be, at least, a little bit proactive, and, you recall, they 

could not utter the word. Not only was our policy feckless and ineffective; we could not even say the word ‘‘genocide’’ when 800,000 

people were slaughtered. 

Mr. TANCREDO. I wanted to ask Mr. Viacohrka something about 

the situation in Belarus. You know, our hands are tied in so many 

ways, and I would like to ask you to be as specific and clear as possible about exactly what the United States unilaterally could do, if 

anything, to change the situation there. In fact, we have been trying to figure that out here quite a bit. 

I wish there were ways that we could act in lieu of something 

like the World Court and the ICC. If we do not want that, then I 

sometimes wonder why we cannot act unilaterally to go ahead and 

indict these people ourselves for war crimes. There is a precedent, 

after all. Israel did it after the second world war and brought people back and tried them and executed them. It is a different world, 

and I know all of the kinds of problems we would run into. But 

what can the United States do unilaterally, do you think, Mr. 

Viacohrka, in regard to Belarus? What actions can we take in this 

Congress to change the situation for you and those others who have 

suffered? 

Mr. VIACOHRKA. Thank you for the question. First of all, we do 

appreciate the consistent and value-based position of the United 

States and all of the international bodies where the United States 

participates. The OSCE was a very effective floor for this position 

of the United States, despite the fact that OSCE sometimes was too 

weak an instrument to promote democracy in problem countries. 

124

We suppose it is very important to continue the synchronization 

of policies between the United States and the European Union, and 

the last resolution of the EU, I suppose, is a result of these consistent efforts to synchronize both the words in which the situation 

in Belarus is described and concrete steps. 

As for instruments, the Belarus Democracy Act provides a couple 

of effective steps to isolate the regime itself, Lukashenko and his 

clique, not the country. This is a very important division line, to 

isolate Lukashenko and not the people, not the country. There are 

effective means provided by the media like following the accounts 

of Mr. Lukashenko and so on. 

I must stress that, according to the statement made by the finance minister of Belarus, no ruble acquired from the weapons 

trade comes to the State budget; it comes from somewhere else. So 

this is a recognition of the fact that the weapons trade exists, and 

it does not contribute to the country’s welfare. 

The Belarus Democracy Act provides other measures like assistance in the creation of alternative information space for the 

Belarus people. I do hope our people are ready for democracy. They 

are eager to see changes, and, as it was in Ukraine half a year ago, 

a few people in Ukraine made forecasts that something like it happened could happen at all. But the information channels were prepared, and the democratic job in regions throughout the country 

was supported. That is a kind of example for us as well, and this 

is a hint of what needs to be done for the changes in Belarus. We 

are convinced that without a democratic Belarus, the stability in 

our region is not finally done. The Central Eastern European region cannot be described as democratic without Belarus. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. PAYNE. You mentioned Ukraine. I happen to have spent 

Christmas week in Iraq and Afghanistan. We left Christmas night, 

which happened to be the eve of the election in Ukraine, and had 

a chance to be around at the pre-election, and then, on election 

day, monitored, went to a number of polling sites, and it was really 

very inspiring to see the turnout. This was their fourth election, I 

think, in 2 months, and people were still very anxious. But then 

the evening after the polls closed, to see the tens of thousands of 

people out in the square where, you know, once democracy started 

to catch hold, the people really were determined that it was irreversible. They were going to have a fair-and-free election, and we 

sort of evaluated the election the next day and came up with our 

feeling that it was fair and free. 

But the point is, I think that once a movement gets going, people 

see that one person can really get things moving in the right direction, and so I hope that even in Uzbekistan where they are struggling—I had some opportunities to stay there—they have some 

good leadership that, with encouragement, I think, from the Europeans and from the United States, I think that we can see a transformation from the former Warsaw Pact countries and see democracy flourish in those countries. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I know it is late, and you have been 

so patient with your time and generous with it. I do have a couple 

of additional questions, and then we will submit some for the 

record. 

125

I think, Mr. Malinowski, you made a very compelling point about 

the importance of timeliness in getting this referred to a competent 

court of jurisdiction, justice and accountability, as you pointed out, 

and I think your point about how it would take at least a year to 

construct the Sierra Leone type of court is a very good point, and 

your point about the referral to the Security Council, likewise, covers one of the objections that the Administration has. 

I will try and do my level best because I think, while the ICC 

has some flaws, in my view, there are a number of ongoing atrocities that I personally would like to refer to it, not to mention 

Cuba, what has gone in China and other places certainly are 

crimes, heinous crimes, so your point, I think, is very well taken. 

I would like you, if you could, to give us any evidence you might 

have about how many detainees—or, at least, a number—have 

been sent to third countries, either now or for the record. I think 

that would be very helpful because that is a serious problem that 

we need to confront in our own backyard in terms of our performance. 

Mr. Akwei, if you could respond. You mentioned how several of 

us—I think you raised that point—have raised individual cases visa-vis Eritrea. I raised the case of Fesshaye Yonhannes, a woman 

who got pre-cleared, if you will, by the Embassy right here, the Eritrean Embassy, and I talked to the Eritrean Ambassador to the 

U.N. Commission on Human Rights, who promised me he would 

look into it. A year later, as far as I know, nothing has happened, 

and here is a mother who went over with the precondition that 

nothing would happen to her, and then the Government, you know, 

picked her up. 

And, Mr. Malinowski, you might want to speak to the issue of 

Rachel Corrie, which was raised earlier, if your organization has 

done any reporting on her tragic death and whether or not the 

Israeli Government and the United States Government has done 

what it ought to do to investigate that very tragic passing. 

And if I could, on Ireland, it being St. Patrick’s Day, and the fact 

that just yesterday, Mr. Payne and I held a very long but, I think, 

very insightful hearing on the ongoing problems of Patrick 

Fanoogan and we had Geraldine Fanoogan as our lead witness, and 

she spoke to the fact that, 16 years later, the issue of collusion remains unsettled, and now the Government of the U.K. is poised to 

pass an inquiries bill which will probably make that inquiry impossible. 

Without objection, I would like to include in the record a letter 

from the Honorable Peter Cory, the eminent jurist who was picked 

by the Blair Government and the Verdia Hearn Government to determine whether or not a public inquiry was justified. He has 

said—and he has been very, very severe and, I think, accurate in 

his criticism—that a public inquiry, under the new law that may 

be passed shortly by the British Parliament, will make such an inquiry impossible. 

[The information referred to follows:]

126

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. As a matter of fact, he calls it an ‘‘intolerable, Alice-in-Wonderland situation’’ because the ministers will 

have the ability to set terms of reference, to tell the justice of the 


20060ao.eps
127

commission what they can do and what they cannot do. That would 

be like having members of the President’s Cabinet investigate 

themselves and say it is an absolute, impartial inquiry. It looks 

like a farce in the making. If you might want to speak to that, I 

would appreciate that. And I do have other questions, but for the 

sake of time, we will defer and submit them for the record. 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. Sure. Thank you. First of all, I appreciate your 

comments on Darfur. Maybe we should talk more with your office 

about the complexities at the Security Council of that situation. We 

very much appreciate any help that you can offer. 

On rendition and the numbers, of course, nobody knows—well, 

somebody knows, but we do not know. I would imagine it is dozens 

or maybe low hundreds, but that is speculation. But we can send 

you what information we do have based on what has been admitted 

publicly, and that gives us, I think, a picture of the totals and, 

more importantly, the kinds of countries that people are being sent 

to. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Do you have any confidence that the 

report of the Convention Against Torture, that the Ambassador 

spoke of earlier, will include information on those? 

Mr. MALINOWSKI. I have confidence that it will include a vague 

statement that the commitments are being met by virtue of the fact 

that the United States receives assurances from these countries, 

which the State Department will argue is sufficient, which we 

would argue is just not sufficient when it is Syria or Saudi Arabia. 

On Rachel Corrie, I do not believe that we have investigated the 

case ourselves, but we are aware of it. We agree that the Israeli 

investigation was insufficient. We have also done extensive work on 

this larger issue of home demolitions where we found, regrettably, 

that there has been quite a high degree of indiscriminate violence 

that has been harmful to human rights and also harmful to Israel’s 

legitimate security interests. We can get you more details on that 

and any more details we may have on Rachel’s case as well. Thank 

you. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Akwei? 

Mr. AKWEI. I will definitely want to get you the most recent updates on the—but I can tell you now [off mike] that she was a spy, 

and she had not done that yet. I will also provide you the names 

of the others who have also been in detention for about 2 years who 

are also part of a larger group of thousands of local prisoners that 

we do know [off mike]. So I will direct them to do that. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I appreciate that. 

Would anybody else like to add anything before we close? 

Mr. PAYNE. Just on the Northern Ireland situation, you know, we 

were trying to get the Pat Fanoogan going, but also, Rosemary Nelson’s case is going to be sort of similar to that. And I had the opportunity to visit the late Rosemary Nelson’s husband 6 or 7 

months ago in Northern Ireland, and, you know, the authorities 

have never even interviewed him yet on circumstances surrounding 

the death. 

Like I said, the incidents that happened in the north of Ireland 

with Sinn Fein and the IRA and all; by the authorities, RUC, not 

moving rapidly enough and doing the right thing, one of the problems is that there is the lack of confidence in the policing up there, 

128

and that is why people do not go to the authorities to say, ‘‘I want 

to give you evidence,’’ and so forth, because the RUC has been so 

anti-Republican that they have this sort of blue code of silence, so 

to speak. And so if the authorities can see that if they can do something serious with the Patton Commission Report and other things 

to truly open up policing, then I think some of this long history of 

silence and cooperation with the police as their enemy will break 

down, and it will be better for everyone there. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. We have held 10 hearings on policing 

in Northern Ireland. We had Rosemary Nelson, as you might recall, 

as one of our witnesses, and she told us, right from the witness 

table, ‘‘The RUC is going to kill me.’’ Six months later, her car was 

blown up. We remembered the sixth anniversary of that just 2 days 

ago. 

So it is very tragic, and, hopefully, that sense of impunity that 

was rampant within the RUC is being changed. Hugh Ward, who 

is now the chief constable, is a professional policeman and, I think, 

very much committed to the rule of law and, hopefully, the proper 

enforcement of the laws of Northern Ireland. 

I, again, want to thank our very distinguished witnesses for your 

wise counsel and insights, and your testimonies help us and help 

the whole Congress make, hopefully, informed decisions going forward. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:39 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(129)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

RESPONSE FROM THE HONORABLE MICHAEL G. KOZAK, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF STATE, TO QUESTION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ADAM

SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Question: 

To your knowledge, has the U.S. government requested of the Israeli government 

that the U.S. be allowed to conduct either its own investigation, or a joint U.S.-

Israeli investigation, into Rachel Corrie’s death? If not, why not, considering State 

Department Chief of Staff Lawrence B. Wilkerson’s statement that the Israeli investigation was not ‘thorough, credible, and transparent’? 

Response: 

The death of Rachel Corrie in Gaza on March 16, 2003 was truly a tragedy. In 

response, President Bush raised Ms. Corrie’s death with Prime Minister Sharon immediately after the incident, and received assurances that a thorough and transparent investigation would be undertaken by the Government of Israel. The investigatory results that have been shared with us by Israel were not entirely satisfactory, and we have pressed for additional information. U.S. Ambassador to Israel 

Daniel Kurtzer followed up on several occasions with Prime Minister Sharon and 

other senior Israeli officials, including Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, while thenAssistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs William Burns raised the issue 

with Israeli representatives both in Washington and in Israel. The Corrie family has 

maintained continued contact with the State Department since Rachel Corrie’s 

death, and is currently in the process of pursuing legal remedies through Israel’s 

court system. 

We do not believe that pursuing an independent U.S. investigation into the circumstances of Rachel Corrie’s death would be fruitful. As we have explained to the 

Corries, there is no basis under U.S. law upon which U.S. law enforcement entities 

would have authority to conduct such an investigation. Equally if not more significantly, the consent and cooperation of the Israeli authorities would be essential, and 

we have no reason to believe that the Israeli authorities would be more forthcoming 

than they have been in response to our diplomatic efforts to date. 

HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST COMMENTS ON 2004 STATE DEPARTMENT COUNTRY REPORTS

MARCH 2005

Human Rights First appreciates the opportunity to provide this assessment of the 

State Department’s 2004 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. We look forward to a continued dialogue on this important subject and related issues. 

The State Department’s 2004 Country Reports represent a significant contribution 

to the monitoring of human rights worldwide. Most of the 196 country reports are 

detailed and comprehensive, and reflect the diligent work of numerous officials serving in U.S. embassies and the Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, 

and Labor in monitoring both individual cases and broader human rights conditions 

throughout the year. 

Based on over a quarter century of monitoring and reporting on human rights 

conditions, and analyzing the Department’s annual reports, and on a close examination of several of this year’s country reports (focused critiques of the chapters on 

Russia, Indonesia, Thailand, and Uzbekistan are included below), we highlight 

130

below two general concerns that we see as increasing in recent years, as well as 

two concerns specific to the content of this year’s reports. 

A. GENERAL CONCERNS

1. The use of the reports in determining foreign policy 

As the quality of the reports has improved, the question of how they relate to the 

process of policy formulation within the State Department and the executive branch 

as a whole has come into sharper focus. For example, the contrast between the picture of the Indonesian military as a source of widespread human rights abuses set 

out in the report on that country contrasts sharply with the decision to restore the 

U.S. training program there. Similarly, the concerns in the Russia report were only 

partially raised at the recent Bush-Putin summit in Bratislava. 

The question of the role of human rights in foreign policy is both broad and complex, but any consideration of the reports should consider their importance as a tool 

to guide and influence U.S. foreign policy. Too often, even when the reports are detailed and accurate, they appear to be largely fenced off from U.S. policy toward the 

country in question. 

2. Challenges to U.S. Credibility 

In recent years concerns have grown regarding the credibility of the United States 

as a human rights monitor and a champion of international human rights protection. While once this was the province of only the United States’ most vocal critics, 

such as Cuba and China, this year several U.S. allies joined the chorus accusing 

the United States of hypocrisy, particularly citing incidents of torture by U.S. forces 

in Cuba, Iraq, and Afghanistan. 

While we have little appetite for criticism directed at the United States from governments that are among the world’s leading human rights abusers, Human Rights 

First shares the concern that U.S. credibility as a global leader in human rights promotion and protection is being undermined by this country’s own human rights violations and failure to hold those responsible for instigating, consenting to, or acquiescing in torture and other serious violations. The proper response must not be to 

reduce the United States’ commitment to monitoring of and reporting on human 

rights abroad, and to naming and criticizing violators, but to promptly and effectively address the United States’ own human rights record and diminished leadership position on this issue. 

With particular respect to this problem of reduced U.S. credibility, while the impact of U.S. policies is specifically excluded from the consideration of country conditions in the main body of the report, the Introduction leads with a strong affirmation of the U.S. government’s policy ‘‘to champion aspirations for human rights and 

build democracy.’’ The clear intention is to associate that policy with positive developments in Afghanistan, Ukraine, Iraq, and elsewhere. 

If the Country Reports are to be used as a vehicle for presenting the positive impact of U.S. policies in promoting human rights and democracy, their credibility 

would be enhanced if there also was mention of the revelations about the involvement of U.S. forces in serious violations of human rights—and the consequences for 

global efforts to promote respect for human rights. 

B. SPECIFIC CONCERNS WITH THE 2004 COUNTRY REPORTS

Despite improvements in both the reporting guidelines and their execution over 

the past two years, Human Rights First has two particular concerns regarding the 

substance of this year’s reports. 

1. The Whole is Less than the Sum of the Parts 

The cataloguing of facts in the reports, while important, too often lacks the complementary analysis or summation necessary to identify systemic problems. For example, the decline in human rights observance in Thailand can be inferred by the 

facts presented but is nowhere evident in the general country description. Descriptions of individual cases, such as the death or ‘‘disappearance’’ of a human rights 

defender, often lack the context necessary to understand that each is part of a trend 

or tied to a much more systemic problem, such as police impunity or an ineffective 

legal framework. 

In some cases the concern in this regard is not just a lack of analysis, but a tendency to sum up evidence of systemic problems or trends in language that does not 

seem warranted based on the facts presented in the report itself. Those who skim 

the report or rely mainly on the Introduction are likely to come away with a misleading picture of the human rights conditions in a given country despite the careful 

cataloguing of specific incidents and cases. For example, the two paragraph discusVerDate Mar 21 2002 16:42 Jul 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\031705\20060.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
131

sion of Saudi Arabia in the introduction leads off with the statement that there 

were ‘‘positive developments’’ followed by a very weak list of supposed advances, like 

a ‘‘government sponsored conference on women’s rights’ taking up an entire paragraph. Only in the second paragraph does the reader learn of the serious human 

rights violations that remain widespread in the Kingdom. 

Moreover, too often, particularly in reports on countries of high importance to U.S. 

strategic goals, conclusions concerning the overall human rights situation bear little 

relation to the details of abuses catalogued. Practices that together represent patterns of gross and persistent violations of human rights frequently are described 

only in isolation. The disconnect between the country reports and actual U.S. policy 

is in turn facilitated to the extent that coverage even of extremely abusive situations 

rarely describes these as representing patterns of gross and persistent violations of 

human rights. 

2. The Reports Often Fail to Link Specific Incidents to Broader Trends 

Even where there is clear evidence of abuse or even prior statements on a particular matter by State Department officials, some reports describe incidents without assessing either their veracity or their human rights implications. While acknowledging the degree of uncertainty that attaches to many cases, the reports risk 

contributing to a lost opportunity to establish a clearer factual record and in so 

doing help fight impunity. 

Taken together, these tendencies can mask the true human rights conditions of 

a country. This phenomenon deserves particularly close monitoring in areas in 

which the United States has cooperated with a country, such as in the development 

of antiterrorism laws or trials of alleged terrorists, or where human rights conditions may impact key policy outcomes, such as a decision to resume military ties. 

C. ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC COUNTRIES

1. Indonesia 

The chapter on Indonesia is detailed and comprehensive, and its opening paragraphs clearly state the significant human rights problems facing the nation. The 

report includes important, if brief, acknowledgments of often-overlooked issues such 

as land conflicts, military businesses, and clashes between the military and the police. 

As in years past, in places the strength of the report is undermined by problems 

of both structure and voice. The report describes some events in judgment-free language not wholly warranted by the facts or even commensurate with past statements by U.S. government officials. The language on the anti-terrorism law is particularly uncritical, as are several sections with special relevance to U.S.-Indonesian 

relations: the ad hoc trials of those implicated in serious violations of human rights 

in East Timor and the killing of two Americans in Papua. The discussion of human 

rights defenders omits some salient facts, as do the references to the tsunami. Because the disaster occurred at the very end of the reporting period, presumably 

issues connected to the relief effort will be covered in next year’s report. 

Anti-Terrorism Law 

Despite a detailed description of the rules of detention under the Code of Criminal 

Procedure, there is no explanation of the expansion of the scope of detention powers 

under the 2003 anti-terrorism law. None of the human rights concerns raised by Indonesian civil society are noted, such as an overly broad definition of terrorism and 

the use of uncorroborated intelligence reports as a basis to detain suspects. The report also notes that the law was used against negotiators from the Free Aceh Movement but does not critique or otherwise evaluate this practice. 

There are descriptions of successful prosecutions of terrorist suspects, which are 

in fact one of Indonesia’s achievements in 2004. However, other than a mention of 

an alleged torture victim it does not describe allegations of the arbitrary arrest and 

detention of Muslim activists under the provisions of the anti-terrorism law. It also 

does not mention the allegations of torture and coerced confessions made by those 

charged with involvement in terrorist bombings. The language from the 2002 report 

asserting the support of human rights lawyers for the law has been removed, but 

so has 2003 language describing domestic criticism of the law’s application against 

Muslim activists and GAM negotiators. 

There is also no mention of an armed forces law passed in late 2004 that retains 

the military’s territorial role down to the local level and returns to the practice of 

members of the military simultaneously serving in some key civilian posts, a setback in the struggle to place the military more fully under the civilian control. 

132

1 ‘‘US ‘dismayed’ at E Timor tribunal,’’ BBC, August 10, 2004, available at http://

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3550390.stm. 

The Ad Hoc Trials and Timika Killings 

The report’s language is somewhat vague on two issues closely linked to U.S.-Indonesian military ties: the ad hoc trials on East Timor and the killing of two Americans and one Indonesian near the Freeport MacMoRan mine in Timika in the province of Papua. Progress on the first is required to remove restrictions imposed by 

Congress on lethal arms transfers and Foreign Military Financing. The Secretary 

of State recently certified cooperation with the FBI on the Timika killings to allow 

resumption of the military training program known as IMET. 

The report describes the convictions and acquittal on appeal of the defendants in 

the ad hoc trials on East Timor held in Jakarta in neutral terms. It does not describe the extensive flaws throughout the process, from weak indictments to intimidation in the courtroom. Rather than achieving accountability, the trials became a 

mechanism for impunity. 

State Department officials, including the outgoing ambassador, have previously 

expressed disappointment in the trials. After an appeals court overturned several 

convictions in August 2004, a spokesman noted that the State Department was ‘‘dismayed’’ and ‘‘profoundly disappointed,’’ adding, ‘‘We think that the overall process 

was seriously flawed and lacked credibility.’’ 1 The 2003 country report, commenting 

on the conviction of only four police defendants, noted, ‘‘The tribunal’s performance 

reinforced the impression that impunity would continue for soldiers and police who 

committed human rights abuses.’’ Now that even those convictions have been overturned, the report does not comment on the implications for accountability in Indonesia. 

The 2004 report also notes that ‘‘As a possible alternative to a [United Nations] 

Commission of Experts, the Governments of Indonesia and East Timor agreed in 

December to form a bilateral Truth and Friendship Commission to address accountability.’’ It is not clear from this sentence whether the view that the bilateral commission might serve as an alternative to the U.N. mechanism comes from the Indonesian and Timorese governments or from the State Department itself. Even if it 

is only the former (a recent State Department expressed support for both processes) 

it is important to describe the significant flaws in the terms of reference of the proposed bilateral commission, which are consistently advantageous to the perpetrators 

of human rights abuses at the expense of their victims. 

The report is also somewhat vague on the 2002 Freeport killings of three teachers, 

including two Americans. Following the guidelines, it refers only to indictment by 

a ‘‘foreign court’’ (not mentioning it was a U.S. court) and uncritically describes the 

suspect Antonius Wamang as an OPM (Organisasi Papua Merdeka, or Free Papua 

Movement) guerilla. The report does not note the possible involvement by the military in the killings, despite earlier statements to that effect by the Indonesian police 

and U.S. government officials. Wamang himself has said of the Indonesian army 

that he was in ‘‘a business relationship with them for purchasing ammunition.’’

Human Rights Defenders 

The report includes numerous incidents of attacks on human rights defenders in 

recent years, and also notes failure to achieve accountability in most of these incidents. However there are a few gaps in the discussion under ‘‘Section 4: Governmental Attitude Regarding International and Nongovernmental Investigation of Alleged Violations of Human Rights’’ and in relevant paragraphs on disappearances 

and killings. 

Possibly because of reporting guidelines on deaths outside the country’s borders, 

the report states that no human rights defenders were killed this year. However, 

one of Indonesia’s most famous defenders, Munir, was poisoned in September while 

flying to Amsterdam on the Indonesian national airline Garuda. Elsewhere the report does describe the killing and notes that ‘‘the incident was under investigation 

at year’s end.’’ (In March 2005 evidence mounted that airline staff was involved in 

the death, and a pilot rumored to have ties to the State Intelligence Agency has 

been named a suspect.) 

The report describes the army’s successful libel suit against the human rights 

group ELSHAM but does not mention other libel suits against activists, including 

the prominent human rights lawyer Hendardi, by the head of the intelligence service, Hendropriyono. The US$1 million suit was filed after Hendardi accused the intelligence chief of harassing activists instead of catching terrorists. It was withdrawn late in the year, but only after officials had threatened to confiscate 

Hendardi’s house to cover potential damages. (Hendropriyono stepped down during 

the transition to the new administration). 

133

2 ‘‘Konferensi Pers Bersama, ELSHAM Papua, LBH Papua, Kontras Papua, Dewan Adat 

Papua, Gereja, dan Mahasiswa , Hentikan Upaya Pemberlakuan Darurat Sipil dan Militer di 

Papua,’’ November 17, 2004. http://www.geocities.com/elshamnewsservice/ENS2004/

ENS171104—Hentikan—Upaya—Pemberlakuan—Darurat—Sipil—dan—Militer.htm 3 Amnesty International, ‘‘Case sheet: The Jayapura Flag-raisers,’’ February 1, 2005. http://

web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA210042005?open&of=ENG–IDN 

While the report discusses the expulsion of Sidney Jones of the International Crisis Group, it does not mention that just prior to that act, in May 2004, intelligence 

chief Hendropriyono told the House of Representatives that 20 local and foreign 

NGOs were a threat to security in the run-up to the July 5 presidential elections. 

He warned that the country might need to return to ‘‘old measures’’ against people 

who ‘‘sell out their country.’’ Taken together, these additional incidents helped create an increasingly threatening climate for human rights defenders. 

Military Operations in Papua 

While noting the higher incidence of rights abuses in conflict areas, identified primarily as Aceh and Papua, the report is silent on a new round of military operations 

in the Central Highlands region of Papua. The report does note: ‘‘In Papua Province, 

the Government continued to conduct operations against rebels of the Free Papua 

Movement (OPM), and OPM rebels continued their operations against military 

units.’’ This description masks the overwhelming imbalance in the two forces, and 

more significantly overlooks the fears of local rights organizations over a new round 

of operations that began in August 2004 and continued through the end of the year. 

Local NGOs cited direct attacks on civilians leading to widespread displacement.2

After a priest named Elisa Tabuni was shot and killed by Indonesian troops on September 14, several thousand residents fled their villages. There were reports of dire 

living conditions contributing to an unknown number of deaths. While information 

from the remote region is difficult to obtain or confirm, this makes it that much 

more important to include in the annual report. 

Political Prisoners 

Definitions used in drafting the country reports may lead to statements confusing 

to the reader. Similar to the statement on the killing of human rights defenders described above, the report states that ‘‘There were no reports of political detainees.’’ 

However, several categories of prisoners described in the report, such as nonviolent 

Acehnese activists or those held for ‘‘insulting the president’’ or ‘‘spreading hatred 

against the government’’ were clearly imprisoned for political reasons. Amnesty 

International noted in May of 2004 that there were at least 58 prisoners of conscience sentenced since 1998, including ten that were currently imprisoned and 

seven more facing trial. 

The report itself notes the use of these charges. It is possible the statement means 

no new prisoners, but this is also called into question by such as cases as the 

Acehnese environmentalist Bestari Raden sentenced to two years and a half years 

in prison in October 2004 and two Papuans, Filep Karma and Yusak Pakage arrested in late 2004 for joining a peaceful flag-raising ceremony in Abepura, Papua 

on December 1, 2004. They were later charged with rebellion and ‘‘spreading hatred’’ towards the state.3 The report should clarify its definitions and avoid misleading declarations that seem to clear the government in question of an important 

category of human rights abuse. 

The Impact of the Tsunami 

Because the tsunami happened at the very end of the year, on December 26—and 

its full impact was not known until well into 2005—it is not surprising that the disaster is mentioned only briefly in the 2004 report. The human rights aspects of the 

disaster, including the role of the military in aid coordination and the treatment of 

internally displaced people, will be an important topic in next year’s report. However, in the description of unfair trials held in Aceh that led to the imprisonment 

of several activists and suspected GAM members, the report should have mentioned 

that many died in several coastal prisons when the tsunami hit, including several 

mentioned by name in the report. 

The report also states that both the Free Aceh Movement and the Indonesian 

military declared a unilateral ceasefire after the tsunami. However, the armed 

forces did not at first declare a ceasefire and in fact claims it has killed more than 

200 rebels since the tsunami, although these figures were met with skepticism by 

many observers. 

134

Thailand 

The 2004 report on Thailand is largely accurate and well-researched. It describes 

the lack of progress in cases from past years and also identifies several new and 

worrying trends, such as the use of deadly force in the southern states, libel suits 

to attack critics, and internet censorship. 

However, due in part to the atomized structure of the report, it does not provide 

a clear, overall picture of the decline in the human rights situation in Thailand in 

2004, or of the some of the systemic problems Thailand faces, including torture and 

attacks on civil society. This decline can be inferred from the facts presented, but 

are not made clear in the report. As in past years, the report is reluctant to assign 

blame in some cases. 

Overlooking Declining Respect for Human Rights 

The 2003 report had noted, ‘‘The Government’s human rights record worsened 

with regard to extrajudicial killings and arbitrary arrests. There was a significant 

increase in killings of criminal suspects.’’ This assessment was largely due to the 

killings of suspected drug traffickers in the context of the ‘‘war on drugs’’ declared 

by the Prime Minister. 

While these killings largely subsided in 2004, there were many new violations 

that undermine the assertion that ‘‘the Government generally respected the human 

rights of its citizens’’—including:

• Violence in the south surged on all sides, as more than 500 people were killed 

by unknown gunmen and some 200 people were killed by government forces, 

most of them in two incidents.

• Civil society came under attack as well, with at least one human rights defender killed and another disappeared. Threats and intimidation against the 

press were on the rise, and as noted in the report, even members of the official National Human Rights Commission received death threats for its reporting on the violence in the south.

Based on these developments, several local and international organizations noted 

a decline in the human rights environment in 2004. However, this trend does not 

come through adequately in the tone and substance of the report. 

Failure to Identify Systemic Problems 

As with past reports the whole is often less than the sum of its parts. As noted 

in the introductory comments above, the cataloguing of facts, while important, lacks 

the analysis or summation necessary to identify systemic problems. 

One of these failures is particularly clear in the discussion of human rights defenders under Sections 4 (Governmental Attitude regarding International and Nongovernmental Investigation of Alleged Violations of Human Rights) and in the descriptions of disappearances and killings. While noting the death of Charoen 

Wataksorn and the disappearance of Somchai Neelaphaijit, the report does not mention that 18 human rights defenders have been killed or disappeared since Thaksin 

Shinawatra became prime minister. In the March 2004 report of her mission to 

Thailand (which is not mentioned in the State Department report) the Special Representative of the Secretary General on Human Rights Defenders expressed alarm 

over statements by government officials attacking NGOs, and human rights advocates in particular. 

The report also notes incorrectly that the suspects in Somchai’s disappearance, all 

policemen, were charged with kidnapping, when in fact they face lesser charges of 

gang robbery and coercion. The distinction is tied to a systemic problem: a loophole 

in Thai law precludes more serious charges in the absence of a body, making the 

prosecution of forced disappearances extremely difficult. The report does not note 

that efforts by Somchai’s wife and colleagues to have the investigation transferred 

from the police to the Department of Special Investigations have been unsuccessful, 

and that cooperation by the police and Prime Minister’s office with a Thai Senate 

inquiry has been poor. 

The Somchai case illustrates another worrying phenomenon, accusations that 

human rights defenders, and especially Muslim lawyers, are terrorists or terrorist 

sympathizers. Somchai was told shortly before he disappeared that he was on a ‘‘terrorist blacklist’’ for his work representing suspected militants and terrorists. 

A second example of the failure to identify systemic problems is in the observation 

that ‘‘some members of the police occasionally tortured’’ people in custody. But several organizations have identified torture in custody as a pervasive problem. The report does note elsewhere that there are significant problems with respect to police 

impunity, which encourages widespread rights violations in custody. In one place 

135

the language has improved in this regard, noting that security forces (rather than 

‘‘elements’’ of the police, as in 2003) ‘‘continued to use excessive, lethal force against 

criminal suspects and committed or were connected to numerous extrajudicial, arbitrary, and unlawful killings.’’

A third example is in the discussion of the press. The report states that ‘‘Journalists generally were free to comment on government activities without fear of official 

reprisal.’’ But at the same time it details a list of reprisals, including warning letters from the Police Special Branch. Furthermore, the libel suit filed by the private 

corporation owned by the Prime Minister is not clearly unofficial. The report notes 

all of these measures and one view of their impact on press freedom:

According to some members of the Thai Journalists Association, the Government used various means to increase control over the media, including direct 

control through ownership, the threat of withdrawing financial support and advertisements, constraints on the flow of information, and direct pressure on critical journalists and activists.

But the report subsumes them all under a fairly broad conception of self-censor- ship. But when sparked by direct and indirect warnings from police or other officials, in a context where journalists have been killed in the past, some of these 

measures may approach actual censorship. The report also fails to mention direct 

government efforts to prevent the release and distribution of DVDs with footage of 

the demonstration and arrests at Tak Bai that preceded 78 deaths in custody. Interestingly, unlike previous years, the launch of the State Department report in Bangkok was closed to the press. 

A fourth example is that in the discussion of the violence in the south there is 

also no mention of the fact that the government declared martial law in the southern states at the start of 2004, a declaration that enables widespread detentions. 

In the same incident in which 78 protestors died of suffocation, more than a thousand civilians were detained under martial law provisions. 

Finally, Burmese victims are mentioned in nearly every section, but there is not 

a comprehensive picture of the increasingly precarious position of Burmese activists 

and refugees in Thailand. 

Reluctance to Assign Blame 

As in previous years the report is reluctant to clearly assign responsibility. For 

example the section on the extrajudicial executions of some 1,300 suspected drug 

dealers in 2003 notes:

The Government maintained that the deaths were the result of disputes between those involved in the drug trade. Local and international human rights 

groups, including the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), disputed 

this claim and called for thorough investigations of all extrajudicial killings.’’

But rather than just describing two opposing views, the 2003 report more clearly 

assigns blame to the government in its voice and in the presentation of evidence, 

such as statements by the Prime Minister and directives to create ‘‘blacklists’’ and 

eliminate the names on those lists. 

While the report does note a rise in deadly force in the southern states, the statement that ‘‘Separatist violence in the extreme southern region of the country resulted in the deaths of more than 180 persons at the hands of security forces’’ seems 

to absolve the Thai security forces of much of the blame for these deaths. While 

many of the estimated 500 killings may have been caused by militants, most of the 

180 deaths cited are a product of significant missteps by the security forces. As described in the report, 78 of those who died were unarmed protesters who died of 

suffocation while stacked horizontally in trucks. In the other major incident about 

100 men and boys armed mainly with machetes were killed by security forces said 

to have advance knowledge of the attack. These cases are extremely important, as 

the deaths are thought to have further inflamed the violence. 

Anti-terrorism Law 

There is no human rights critique of either the terms of the Anti-terrorism law 

passed in 2003 or concerning its implementation by the Thai government. 

Russia 

The introductory paragraphs of the country report on Russia correctly state that 

the human rights record there is poor in certain areas and worsened in several others since 2003. However, the tone of the report is generally weak with regard to 

governmental responsibility for serious human rights abuses. Whereas the report 

clearly attributes some abuses to criminals or rebels, in most cases, government acVerDate Mar 21 2002 16:42 Jul 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\031705\20060.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
136

tions are described merely as ‘‘reports of government involvement’’ although credible 

sources have provided information about government involvement. Given the report’s description of corruption and lack of independence of the judiciary, threats 

and attacks on witnesses to abuses and attacks on human rights lawyers, the failure to clearly attribute responsibility to the government is particularly disappointing. 

The report makes overly positive generalized statements in the introduction and 

in several lead sentences, although it often does present adequately detailed information about specific human rights abuses. The impact of this presentation is to 

downplay violations. Nevertheless, the cataloguing of abuses is in there, even if examples are sometimes deeply buried in the text. 

An example of this involves the description of the use of the armed forces against 

peaceful demonstrators. The report states in general terms that ‘‘in contrast to previous years, there were no reports of beating of peaceful protestors.’’ However, further along the report states that on June 1, 2004, members of the Federal Guard 

Service attacked a correspondent for a daily newspaper while dispersing a rally near 

the Cabinet headquarters. 

The description of the judiciary’s independence in the introduction, stating that 

‘‘the judiciary continued to show greater independence in non politicized cases,’’ is 

more positive than what is indicated by specific instances of political pressure on 

the judiciary, described later. The report mentions the undue influence of the Federal Security Service (FSB) in judicial proceedings and other examples of executive 

control over the judiciary. Attacks on defense lawyers and witnesses also undermine 

independent judicial proceedings. 

The report similarly misrepresents the government’s attitude toward nongovernmental organizations, stating that they are ‘‘permitted without hindrance’’ to criticize the government. On the contrary, organizations that are critical of the government face obstacles to their legal registration, attacks on their members, arrests, 

as well as other measures to harass or intimidate them. Registration problems, receiving passing mention only, have actually been a fairly serious means for 

harassing defenders. Furthermore, patterns of attacks on and arrests of human 

rights workers over the past two to three years should be taken into account when 

characterizing the government’s attitude toward non-governmental organizations 

(NGOs) in 2004. 

The report states that local officials arrested people who were publicly discussing 

their religious and political views, but downplays the significance of these arrests 

because the individuals were released after a short time. The report should not 

imply, however, that these arrests are insignificant as routine arrests amount to serious harassment, and torture and other forms of mistreatment can occur even during a short stay in government custody. 

Another category of violations against NGOs are prosecutions under security-related laws. The introduction mentions that restrictions on NGOs were ‘‘in part for 

security reasons,’’ but does not clarify what exactly the security concerns were, nor 

does it point out that charges against NGOs on security grounds were proven to be 

unjustified and a means for harassment. The human rights group Chechen Committee for National Salvation (CCNS) was prosecuted under the law ‘‘On Countering 

Extremist Activities’’ for publishing press releases critical of the government. This 

incident is described under the freedom of speech section of the report, though it 

could be characterized as abuse of the judicial system, prosecution under false pretexts, or other categories of abuse. Regardless, it is a key example of the hindrances 

that NGOs face in today’s Russia, and an oversight that this incident is not characterized as such in the relevant section of the report. 

Reliance on counterterrorism as a pretext to mask unjustifiable human rights 

abuses is a serious and growing problem in Russia, and one that should have been 

more clearly identified and described as such in the report. 

The report leaves out discussion of the government’s affirmative responsibility to 

investigate attacks committed by unknown assailants so that its citizens will be protected. For example, the report states that leaders of NGOs received death threats 

from nationalist organizations, but it does not indicate whether the government took 

any steps to investigate the abuses or to ensure the protection of human rights 

workers in the future. While the report described attacks on complainants to the 

European Court for Human Rights, it did not address what is being done to investigate their deaths. 

Furthermore, while the introduction mentions, for the first time, official harassment of those who seek accountability for human rights abuses in Chechnya and 

Ingushetia, it does not go a step further to assess what the government is doing, 

or failing to do, to assure the safety of human rights defenders. The report highlights the case against Mikhail Trepashkin as a cause for concern and the killing 

137

of Nikolay Girenko. However, the report does not explain that no independent investigation into the murder of Girenko is taking place. 

The report names Igor Sutyagin a political prisoner and mentions that some organizations have characterized other individuals as such. The report fails to draw attention to the political nature of the arrest and detention of other individuals who 

could fit the definition of a political prisoner, such as Trepashkin, whose prosecution 

appears to arise from his investigation into the circumstances of the devastating 

apartment building bombings in Moscow in 1999, and Mikhail Khodorkovskiy. However, in discussing the right of citizens to change their government, the report indicates that the arrest of Khodorkovskiy was ‘‘widely believed’’ to be in retaliation for 

financial support he provided to opposition political parties. Also in that section, 

during the discussion of the elimination of direct gubernatorial elections, the report 

discusses Khodorkovskiy’s arrest as ‘‘the most recent of a number of politically motivated moves.’’

In short, the report presents evidence leading to conclusions of serious politically 

motivated detentions, but is unwilling to label such individuals political prisoners. 

Doing so would contribute to an understanding of the weight of the control of the 

executive upon the judiciary. 

Uzbekistan 

Overall, the country report on Uzbekistan does an effective job of covering the 

range of human rights abuses in the country. The tone and language of the report 

are strong. It accurately reflects changes in regulations placing increased governmental pressure on domestic and international nongovernmental organizations operating in Uzbekistan. 

However, there remains a notable inconsistency between general statements 

claiming improvements in areas of human rights abuses and the specific examples 

of abuses raised throughout. The introduction refers to ‘‘important steps’’ taken by 

the government to address torture and establish police accountability. However, 

these measures are described as the creation of ‘‘preliminary procedures’’ in ‘‘some 

divisions’’ of the Ministry of Internal Affairs—changes which hardly merit noting in 

the report, let alone describing as important. 

In fact, the report makes clear that torture in prisons—like suspension of detainees in boiling water—and abuses by police—including arbitrary arrest and detention—are widespread and systematic. The report also states without qualification 

that incidents of brutality by police and prison officials go uninvestigated and are 

not prosecuted. Therefore, it is unclear to which ‘‘important steps’’ the introduction 

could be referring. 

Furthermore, the effectiveness of any measures to address torture and police accountability which may have been instituted must be evaluated with skepticism 

when the government’s overall human rights record worsened during 2004. The increased oppression of human rights defenders is a sign that any measures the government may have taken are purely cosmetic. 

Another shortcoming of the report is that some positive statements do not take 

into consideration official measures to obstruct investigations into government misconduct. The introduction to the report states that ‘‘unlike past years, there were 

no credible reports of persons dying in custody as a result of torture.’’ This positive 

statement should reflect government pressure to quickly bury those who die in custody as well as the difficulty in ascertaining the cause of death of many prisoners 

due to the lack of forensic examiners independent of the government. 

The report plays down government responsibility for deaths that take place while 

individuals are in government custody. The report states that ‘‘police and security 

force negligence likely contributed to the deaths of at least four persons.’’ The term 

negligence is too weak to describe the inhumane conditions of confinement and the 

absence of proper medical care for detainees which directly led to the deaths of 

many detainees. Extremely poor prison conditions were common, and in some cases 

prisoners were allowed to suffer from curable diseases such as tuberculosis or from 

infections which were fatal because the government did not provide treatment. 

The report describes the arrest and detention of hundreds of observant Muslims 

immediately after the March and April 2004 terrorist attacks in the section relating 

to arbitrary arrest and detention, but seems to justify the arrests as necessary for 

‘‘national security reasons.’’ The report explains that arrests were based on a list 

of people previously convicted of extremism and later amnestied, but omits available

138

information that many of those harassed and arrested were simply religious Muslims with no connection to groups implicated in terrorism. It also omits mention of 

credible reports that many of those who were ultimately convicted were forced to 

make confessions while being tortured by government officials.

Æ