U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

73–071 DTP WASHINGTON : 2001

S. HRG. 107–55

THE U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION: THE

ROAD AHEAD

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

AND TERRORISM

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 24, 2001

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

JESSE HELMS, North Carolina, Chairman

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

BILL FRIST, Tennessee

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware

PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin

PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota

BARBARA BOXER, California

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

BILL NELSON, Florida

STEPHEN E. BIEGUN, Staff Director

EDWIN K. HALL, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND TERRORISM

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia, Chairman

JESSE HELMS, North Carolina

BILL FRIST, Tennessee

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

BARBARA BOXER, California

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts

BILL NELSON, Florida

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware

(II)

CONTENTS

Page

Dobrianski, Hon. Paula J., Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC ................................................................... 4

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6

Responses to additional questions for the record from Senator Helms ....... 12

Malinowski, Tom, Washington Advocacy Director for Human Rights Watch,

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23

Shea, Nina, Director, Center for Religious Freedom, Freedom House, Washington, DC ............................................................................................................. 14

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17

(III)

(1)

THE U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION: THE

ROAD AHEAD

THURSDAY, MAY 24, 2001

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL

OPERATIONS AND TERRORISM,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:48 p.m. in room

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. George Allen (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Allen and Boxer.

Senator ALLEN. The subcommittee will please come to order. We

have a hearing today on the United Nations Human Rights Commission: The Road Ahead. This hearing today is clearly on the subject of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and in

the vote for the Commission members in 2002 which took place in

the U.N.’s Economic and Social Council just a few weeks ago the

United States lost its seat on the Commission for the first time

since 1947.

Unfortunately, this appears to have been directly resulting from

our European allies’ refusal to work together with us to form an

agreed slate of candidates for the West’s three seats at stake. We

will talk about the implications of that. We have witnesses. Senator

Boxer is the ranking member on this subcommittee, and may soon

be the chairperson of this subcommittee very shortly, but hopefully

she will be here, and other members of the subcommittee.

So with that, I will give the balance of my statement. If Senator

Boxer arrives before Ms. Dobriansky’s statement, then Senator

Boxer will make her statement. But when she comes, I hope you

will all work with us as we go through the panels here in testimony on this matter.

Now, the unfortunate turn of events as far as the U.N. Human

Rights Commission. In this occasion, we want to look at several important issues. Initially, we first need to assess how useful is the

United Nations body, especially since it is supposed to be a voice

for the world on human rights, but it is full of undemocratic members. If Sudan goes onto the Human Rights Commission and the

United States comes off, should we not be asking if this institution

may need some reforms?

Maybe the United States should insist that nations that have

been censured by the Commission, like Cuba, should be ineligible

to be members of this Commission for a period of time. Or maybe

2

some other body, like an organization of the world’s democracies,

would be a better forum to promote freedom around the world.

Without the United States on this Commission, now the European Union, or the EU, will be forced to be on the front line in the

fight for human rights. This is a change from the past, when the

EU has been able to let the United States take the lead while the

EU tended to treat dictatorial governments like Libya or Cuba as

ordinary countries. I hope to look to see if the Europeans’ conciliatory approach in the Commission, for instance regarding China,

and see if it improves the human rights records of repressive governments.

We should look at why the Europeans and other members of the

Western Europe and Other Group states, which we are a part of,

did not cooperate with us to maintain a seat for the United States.

We ought to look at how to get the Europeans to work more cooperatively with us in the future on votes in the United Nations and

more generally on securing the political and religious liberties of

people all around the world that we hope all will enjoy the rights

that we enjoy here in this country.

Now, what should the United States do about our removal? Yes,

it is embarrassing to the United States, but I also think this removal of our seat is also embarrassing to the United Nations and

its credibility. I think that we, rather than pouting as a country or

having a fit or walking away from the United Nations, I think we

should look for ways to reassert our leadership on human rights

issues.

The United Nations needs the United States. They need our support in its attempt to control AIDS in Africa, to keep peace in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia, and to monitor existing agreements in

the Middle East.

The converse is also true. It is not as if they are running that

policy. It is in the United States’ interest. We are deeply interested

in keeping the peace, in keeping peace in the Balkans and controlling the spread of infectious diseases. We are interested in fighting

international terrorism and the proliferation of arms of mass destruction. In more general terms, the United States is very interested in promoting good relations with such countries as China

that are most active in the United Nations.

All of these objectives can be facilitated by the maintenance of

strong ties between the United States and the United Nations.

Now, the bottom line of all of this is Americans would like to know

a lot of things as far as this is concerned. No. 1, we want to know

how the United Nations can be effective and resolute in the future

in promoting human rights regardless of what Commissions we

may be on or off in the United Nations or anywhere else. That is

very important, what are we going to do in the future.

Part of this, we also want to, naturally, understand why, for example, we were removed. We are fortunate to have with us today

the Under Secretary for Global Affairs, Paula Dobriansky, as the

administration’s witness. Having introduced her previously before

this committee at her nomination, it is a pleasure to have you back

before this subcommittee to testify. I hope that Secretary

Dobriansky can speak to our human rights policies in the future

3

even though the U.N. affairs are not directly your formal responsibility at the State Department.

Also, since she oversees the State Department Bureau for AntiNarcotics policy in addition to the Human Rights Bureau, I hope

she can discuss the implications of the United States losing a vote

for membership on the U.N. Narcotics Control Board. Interestingly,

the Netherlands is on that board.

Also, we have two excellent witnesses on our second panel. Nina

Shea is Director of the Center for Religious Freedom at the Freedom House. She also serves on the Commission on International

Religious Freedom and is the first Commissioner to be reappointed.

Most relevant to the subject of this hearing, she served as a member of the U.S. public delegation to the annual session of the U.N.

Human Rights Commission this spring.

Based on first-hand observation and involvement in U.S. diplomacy at the Commission, she can tell us about that U.N. body’s operations and how the EU nations conduct themselves at the Commission and how each could do more in the service of freedom.

Our other outside witness is Tom Malinowski the Washington

Advocacy Director of Human Rights Watch, a leading nongovernmental organization. Human Rights Watch is among a number of

groups critical of the bullying role of the autocratic states within

the Commission and of those nations who pledged to vote for the

United States but did not, 14 out of the 43 pledging support. Fully

one-third were faithless to us, and Americans and the United

States Senate ought to know who they are and what were their motivations.

Mr. Malinowski will make the case why the United States membership on the Commission is vital to both the Commission and to

the United States policy. We will want to know why this removal

of the United States happened, to see that it does not happen

again. It is always important to look at the game films after the

game to make sure that the same mistakes or problems do not

arise in the future. That is important to know why.

But most importantly, what I want to focus on in this committee

is the future, the future and the positive, constructive action the

United States can take, whether on the Human Rights Commission

or with the United States’ cooperation with other Western powers,

but mostly of course finding any which way we can with strong resolve and credibility to advance the cause of human rights for people all over our Earth.

On December 13, 2000, then-President elect George W. Bush

spoke of his commitment to ‘‘a bipartisan foreign policy, true to our

values and true to our friends.’’ That aim and how to better encourage our friends in the world to be true to our shared values of liberty, freedom, and self-determination will be the subject of this

hearing.

So seeing how Senator Boxer has not yet arrived, I would ask

Ms. Dobriansky to please share with us her views and perspective

of this issue.

4

STATEMENT OF HON. PAULA J. DOBRIANSKY, UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF

STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I plan to submit a

full statement for the record, but I will provide now a condensed

version of my statement.

First let me say it is an honor to be here to discuss the Bush administration’s democracy promotion and human rights policy and

the importance of maintaining our leadership in this field. When

you think back, U.S. commitment to human rights dates from the

Declaration of Independence and our Nation’s founding. It reflects

our Nation’s values and our deeply rooted belief in the importance

of developing and maintaining democratic governments subject to

the rule of law, that respect and protect individual liberty.

At the same time, the defense of human rights clearly serves our

national interest. As the history of the past century has shown, the

strongest, most stable, tolerant, and prosperous countries are precisely those which respect universal human rights. For this reason,

we have long made the promotion of human rights a focus of our

foreign policy and our foreign assistance programs.

Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has

been without equal in articulating a vision of international human

rights and having the grit to carry it out. Whether crafting the

United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights, championing freedom and democracy throughout the cold

war, insisting on human rights in the Helsinki Final Act, compiling

the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for the past 25

years, or helping establish the Community of Democracies in Warsaw last year, the United States has been the country that has set

the agenda and has done the heavy lifting.

Throughout these years, our message has not wavered. Promoting democracy and protecting the individual against the excesses of the state is the policy of the United States. Our vision has

come to be shared by many other states and is now a fundamental

component of NATO, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Organization of American States, the Summit

of the Americas, and in the basic laws of many states that have

emerged since the end of World War II.

Let me now turn to a subject that has been much in the news

recently, and that is the United Nations Commission on Human

Rights. You know that, with the U.N. Economic and Social Council

vote in New York on May 3, the United States lost its seat for the

first time since the Commission was created in 1947. Last week

President Bush said on Cuban Independence Day: ‘‘We might not

sit on some Commission, but we will always be the world’s leader

in support of human rights.’’ The President is right. We did pay a price for taking forthright,

principled positions at the Commission this year. Secretary of State

Colin Powell spoke about this when he addressed the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations May 15 and he

stressed that the future policy of the United States toward the

Commission would be the result of a review and ultimately a decision by the President. This review is now under way within the administration.

5

As the President said, the United States will remain committed

to human rights. It will continue to be a crucial part of our approach to China, Cuba, Indonesia, the Balkans, Iran, Sudan, and

all the other places where fundamental freedoms are at stake. We

shall continue to be the world’s leading advocate for democracy and

human rights. We shall continue to meet foreign government officials and insist that our views on human rights be known. We shall

speak up for the dissidents, victims of persecution, the tortured and

the dispossessed. We shall continue to tell the truth when we submit our Country Reports on Human Rights Practices to Congress

and to the millions who now access them via the Internet. We shall

also continue our reports on International Religious Freedom, now

in its third cycle, and a new report on Trafficking in Persons to be

released on June 1.

Is this easy? No. Is it always appreciated by our friends and allies? Unfortunately not. But it is necessary. To quote the President

again: ‘‘History tells us that forcing change upon oppressive regimes requires patience. But history also proves, from Poland to

South Africa, that patience and courage and resolve can eventually

cause oppressive regimes to fear and then to fall.’’

My message to you today is that the vote at ECOSOC has limited our role in one highly visible forum, but it has hardly crippled

us. Those states which voted against us in the hope that they

would prevent us from being forceful advocates for human rights

were sadly mistaken. Indeed, in the policy review to which I earlier

referred, we are taking a close look at new approaches and new opportunities to pursue our human rights objectives worldwide. We

may be forced for a time to shift our tactics, but we will never

abandon our goal.

I would like to say a brief word about the proposal by some to

link the payment of our arrears to the outcome of the Commission

election. The administration believes strongly that any attempt to

link U.S. payments to the U.N. now or in the future to U.S. membership in or support for the Commission is counterproductive. Not

only will withholding money or adding additional conditions on arrears payments provide ammunition to our adversaries, but it will

also frustrate our efforts to further U.S. political interests and push

for reform of the institution and its agencies.

While the Commission on Human Rights is far from a perfect institution, it has done much good over the years. It established Special Rapporteurs on country situations, like the Former Yugoslavia

or Iraq, and on crucial thematic issues such as torture or the independence of judges and lawyers.

We would caution against penalizing the United Nations, the

U.N. human rights program, or the Office of the High Commissioner for the vote by a small number of U.N. member states in the

Economic and Social Council over membership in the Commission

on Human Rights. I strongly urge the committee to proceed very

cautiously in this regard.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dobriansky follows:]

6

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PAULA J. DOBRIANSKY

‘‘COMMITMENT TO HUMAN RIGHTS’’

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Foreign Relations Committee,

It is an honor to be here to discuss the Bush Administration’s democracy promotion and human rights policy and the importance of maintaining our leadership

in this field. This is my first chance to address this committee since I became the

Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs. I look forward to future discussions with

you on these important issues. My purpose today is to highlight the Bush Administration’s commitment to democracy and human rights promotion and the policies we

intend to pursue in support of them.

U.S. commitment to human rights dates from the Declaration of Independence

and our nation’s founding. This reflects our nation’s values and our deeply rooted

belief in the importance of developing and maintaining democratic governments,

subject to the rule of law, that respect and protect individual liberty. At the same

time, the defense of human rights clearly serves our national interest.

As the history of the past century has shown, the strongest, most stable, tolerant,

and prosperous countries are precisely those which respect universal human rights.

For that reason, we have long made the promotion of human rights a focus of our

foreign policy and our foreign assistance programs.

Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has been without equal

in articulating a vision of international human rights and having the grit to carry

it out. Whether crafting the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights, championing freedom and democracy throughout the Cold War,

insisting on human rights in the Helsinki Final Act, compiling the Country Reports

on Human Rights Practices for the past 25 years, or helping establish the Community of Democracies in Warsaw last year, the United States has been the country

that has set the agenda and has done the heavy lifting. Throughout these years,

our message has not wavered. Promoting democracy and protecting the individual

against the excesses of the state is the policy of the United States.

Fortunately, that effort has been successful. The U.S. vision has come to be

shared by many other states, and is now a fundamental component of NATO, the

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the Organization of

American States and the Summit of the Americas, and in the basic laws of many

states that have emerged since the end of World War II. It is increasingly an important factor in decisions of countries in other regions, for example in Africa.

Let me turn now to a subject that has been much in the news recently: the United

Nations Commission on Human Rights. I am sure you are all aware of the UN Economic and Social Council vote in New York on May 3, which resulted in the United

States losing its seat for the first time since the Commission was created in 1947

under the chairmanship of Eleanor Roosevelt.

As President Bush said on Cuban Independence Day last week at the White

House:

Last month, the UN Human Rights Commission called on Castro’s regime

to respect the basic human rights of all its people. The United States’ leadership was responsible for passage of that resolution. Some say we paid a

heavy price for it, but let me be clear: I’m very proud of what we did. And

repressed people around the world must know this about the United States:

We might not sit on some commission, but we will always be the world’s

leader in support of human rights.

The President was right: we did pay a price for taking forthright, principled positions at the Commission this year. Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke about this

when he addressed the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations

May 15, and he stressed that the future policy of the United States toward the Commission would be the result of a review and ultimately a decision by the President.

This review is now under way within the Administration.

As the President said, the United States will remain committed to human rights.

It will be a crucial part of our approach to China, Cuba, Indonesia, the Balkans,

Iran, Sudan and all the other places where fundamental freedoms are at stake. We

are working ever closer with our friends and allies at the UN, the OSCE, OAS,

NATO, and other multilateral organizations, and the State Department remains

strongly committed to its round-the-clock, round the year, round-the-world human

rights monitoring portfolio.

We shall continue to be the world’s leading advocate for democracy and human

rights. We shall continue to meet foreign government officials, and insist that our

views on human rights be known. We shall speak up for the dissidents, the victims

of persecution, the tortured and the dispossessed. We shall continue to tell the truth

7

when we submit our Country Reports on Human Rights Practices to Congress and

to the millions who now access them via the Internet. We shall continue our reports

on International Religious Freedom, now in its third cycle, and a new report on

Trafficking in Persons to be released on June 1.

Is this easy? No. Is it always appreciated by our friends and allies? Unfortunately,

not. But it is necessary. It is worthwhile. To quote the President again:

History tells us that forcing change upon oppressive regimes requires patience. But history also proves, from Poland to South Africa, that patience

and courage and resolve can eventually cause oppressive regimes to fear

and then to fall.

The vote by the member states of ECOSOC has limited our role in one highly visible forum, but it has hardly crippled us. Those states which voted against us in the

hope that they would prevent us from being forceful advocates for human rights

were sadly mistaken. Indeed, in the policy review, to which I earlier referred, we

are taking a close look at new approaches and new opportunities to pursue our

human rights objectives worldwide. We may be forced, for a time, to shift our tactics, but we will never abandon our goal.

I would like to say a brief word about the proposal by some to link the payment

of our arrears to the outcome of the Commission election. The Administration believes strongly that any attempt to link U.S. payments to the UN—now or in the

future—to U.S. membership in or support for the Commission is counterproductive.

Not only will withholding money or adding additional conditions on arrears payments provide ammunition to our adversaries, but it will also frustrate our efforts

to further U.S. political interests and push for reform of the institution and its agencies. In the words of the President, ‘‘a deal’s a deal.’’

While the Commission on Human Rights is far from a perfect institution, it has

done much good over the years. It established Special Rapporteurs on country situations like the Former Yugoslavia or Iraq, and on crucial thematic issues such as

Torture or the Independence of Judges and Lawyers. These special mechanisms of

the CHR are among the activities of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for

Human Rights, former Irish President Mary Robinson, which also maintains field

offices in trouble spots like Congo and Colombia.

We would caution against penalizing the UN, the UN human rights program, or

the Office of the High Commissioner, for the vote by a small number of UN Member

States in the Economic and Social Council over membership in the CHR. I strongly

urge the Committee to proceed very cautiously in this regard.

Thank you.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Secretary Dobriansky.

The ranking member, possibly soon to be chairperson of the subcommittee, Senator Boxer, has fortunately graced us and now I

would like to turn the time over to Senator Boxer for her remarks.

Senator BOXER. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman. You are

the chairman and I thank you very much for holding this hearing

this afternoon. I welcome everyone here, including our witnesses.

We really appreciate your being here on this important subject.

I want to say for the record, Mr. Chairman, that you have really

bent over backward to be fair and to work with me in ensuring

that this particular issue has been handled in a bipartisan fashion.

I hope that will be the hallmark of how we handle things together.

Yesterday in the confirmation hearing for Howard Baker you spoke

of the tradition of southern courtesy and I can personally say that

you carry that spirit and I appreciate it.

Today’s hearing, the U.N. Human Rights Commission: The Road

Ahead, has been called to examine the steps that need to be taken

in order to ensure that we continue to be a voice for human rights

and, frankly, from my perspective, that we regain a seat on that

important body. I think that to do this we need bipartisan cooperation here, but we also need cooperation between Congress and the

administration so we are singing from the same song.

8

Earlier this month, we all know what happened to us to be removed from this Commission. It is very hurtful for us because,

Madam Secretary, as you say, we are the leader in the world on

human rights in so many ways. I think we were blindsided and I

think it was an embarrassment, and we will not be on the Commission for the first time since it was established in 1947. Given that

the United States and Eleanor Roosevelt in particular played such

an important role in the creation of the Commission, it is I believe

a shock to our prestige to be forcefully ousted by the vote.

Look, I am angry about it. I cannot say that I am not. I understand why some people in the House would bet so upset as to say,

well, we are not going to pay all of our dues. I just think that is

not the right way to go, and in the questions I am going to ask you

more about that, so I will not go into that now.

But I do hope, Mr. Chairman, we will have a road map on how

to regain the seat on the Commission. Madam Secretary, you surely were hit with this moments after you got your new position, so

I know it is very difficult. I am glad that you are here, and I also

am very glad that our second panel—we have Ms. Nina Shea, the

director of the Center for Religious Freedom, who has written an

article on the U.N. Human Rights Commission that was published

in the Weekly Standard May 21; and also Tom Malinowski, the

Washington Advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, which I

believe is one of the most respected organizations in the world on

the issue of human rights. I am so pleased that he is here.

So again, Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I do have a number of

questions, but I will withhold until you ask yours. I really appreciate this opportunity.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Senator Boxer.

Let me ask a few questions of you, Secretary Dobriansky. One,

last August the Clinton administration was there in Warsaw—last

June, excuse me, last June—and they started what was called the

Community of Democracies initiative, with obviously other countries which were democracies. Would you find that as a more useful

forum to improve human rights because its members would be by

its nature and definition democracies? What do you think should

be done? What is the Bush administration’s view of what ought to

be done with that concept of the Community of Democracies, and

do you see that as being a viable forum, as well as bilateral efforts

as far as the United States?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. Well, I would say, Mr. Chairman, that in dealing with human rights issues worldwide one really has to use every

means possible to try to promote this most important cause, be it

through multilateral or bilateral channels. So I start with that very

broad premise first.

Given that, the Community of Democracies is one of the vehicles

by which we could certainly reinforce our commitment and the

commitment of others to human rights. The vehicle of the Community of Democracies provides a network and a standard for countries to become part of as democratic members.

We find, of course, that democratic systems of government respect fundamental human rights and fundamental freedoms. They

are not only respectful of their own societies, but are willing to try

to commit themselves to ensure that that standard is respected

9

worldwide. So, the Community of Democracies, I think, is an important initiative. It is one which is welcomed by this administration.

One thing that we plan to do is to undertake a review of the

Community of Democracies implementation structure. It had its

first meeting last year and now we have some lessons to learn from

that session. I think we could benefit from consultation with the

nongovernmental community that was present at the first Community of Democracies meeting and with other participants.

But simply put, it is a very important and useful vehicle and one

that would be welcomed by this administration as an initiative.

To your broader question, as I stated, I think that the most effective means of advocating human rights policy is to pursue not only

a multilateral track—and there are a number of multilateral fora

in which one can engage and express concerns about human rights

issues—but at the same time to pursue a bilateral track as well.

The difference is that in multilateral fora you usually have an opportunity to spotlight collectively human rights abusers. That is

the greatest advantage of multilateral fora. Then on a case by case

basis each multilateral forum is different in terms of the kind of

impact or focus that it may have.

In the case of bilateral efforts, I think there are two factors

which are important here. First, as you know, the State Department issues the Country Report on Human Rights, which does provide a focus on our bilateral engagement, in which we discuss and

point out human rights-related abuses with other countries. At the

same time, there are individual cases that we may address with

countries. So, the bilaterally track is much more specific and targeted. As you can see, both avenues must be pursued, not a single

one.

Senator ALLEN. Well, thank you. Turning to the strong statement

by Senator Boxer as far as getting back on this Commission and

your statement, and it seems like we are in agreement, we should

not be pouting and leaving because we did not get on it, but we

need to be resolved for human rights, but also make sure that, I

think for the credibility of not only the United Nations Commission, but also for our country’s leadership, we have to find out how

to get back on there.

I hate to dwell on the past, but it is important to understand

how did we get knocked off. I have—and this is from the State Department—43 confirmed yes votes for the United States. There is

a variety of countries: Angola, Morocco, South Africa, Uganda,

China, Syria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Venezuela, Costa Rica, Austria, France, United Kingdom, and so forth—43. But obviously

there were 14 faithless countries that promised to vote for the

United States to be a member of the Human Rights Commission

and then clearly broke their promise.

I think we ought to know, we need to understand what their motivation is. I am not going to put into the record William Safire’s

article because there are a few things that I do not necessarily

agree with, but he has conjectured in this early May article that

appeared in various newspapers, including the New York Times.

He said: ‘‘The real reasons for slapping us in the face are obvious

and immediate: First, to punish the United Nations for daring to

10

ask the 53 nations of the U.N. group to criticize China’s record of

repression; and second, to humiliate the U.S. for opposing the Commission’s recent vote for blaming Israel’’—we opposed the Commission’s recent vote—‘‘for blaming Israel for the war started by order

of Yasser Arafat. The U.N. nations did not enjoy being shown up

publicly as a pack of hypocrites in approving a dictatorship’s offensive and condemning a democracy’s self-defense. The enraged communists and their fellow U.N. travelers seized their chance to show

what decides how freedom is to be restricted and morality is to be

measured.’’ He goes on to say why is there such silence and so

forth.

I think it is important for us to understand, to have an answer

who they were, but not just to find out who they were, but figure

out what are their motivations. He mentions commercial or political advantage. Why did they swap these votes by selling out the

fundamental rights of fellow human beings in this situation?

So could you share with us, or is it classified information, who

were these 14 countries and why did they do so?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. Mr. Chairman, the difficulty here is that, as

you know, the vote is by secret ballot. So consequently, it is difficult to pin down precisely who voted and how, how an individual

country voted, even how an individual member voted. That is what

our problem is.

As to the question more broadly of what happened, there was a

vigorous effort certainly on our part, not only in Washington, New

York and Geneva, and with all of the ECOSOC member states to

advance our candidacy. But you had four countries, ours included,

in the Western and Other Group vying for three spots and the end

result was that, we had to have an election and were not able to

form a consensus slate. This outcome resulted in competition and

there was some trading of votes. The end result is that we lost.

When I step back from this and evaluate what seems to have

taken place, one conclusion that I have drawn is that I think, the

outcome was a genuine surprise to all concerned. I would also add

that I think some other countries actually took for granted that the

United States would be a member of the Commission. We have

been a member right from the outset. So given that, I think it will

be very difficult to identify specific countries, because of the secret

ballot. Consequently, I think that it will be very difficult to pin

down who voted which way.

Senator ALLEN. You mentioned trading votes. Do we know which

countries were trading votes?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. That, too, is difficult to pin down. Even if one

country tells you prospectively that it will vote one way, it may

have done something else. In fact, it is quite interesting to note

that in some cases the actual ambassador of a particular country,

even despite instructions, may have voted possibly a different way

from the diplomatic instructions issued from capital.

So consequently, I think that it is not really going to be possible,

given the secret balloting, given what took place, to come out with

a precise ledger as you are requesting.

Senator ALLEN. Well, with that I am going to turn it over to Senator Boxer, who will undoubtedly ask you questions on how to

11

make sure that the next vote next year has the United States on

the Commission. Senator Boxer.

Senator BOXER. Yes, thank you so much.

We will sit as a nonvoting member, correct?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. As an observer, correct.

Senator BOXER. I gather from your very strong opening sentence

you do not intend—we do not intend to just sit by and not speak

out, correct?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. That is absolutely correct.

Senator BOXER. So one of the things, Mr. Chairman, we will be

able to do is still have our voice. They have not kicked us off as

a nonvoting member.

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. We can also co-sponsor resolutions. We just

cannot sponsor them individually.

Senator BOXER. I think that is very important.

Have we gotten any suggestions from our allies on a path back?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. We have been in consultation with our allies,

particularly because of what has taken place. Clearly, it is important for us to continue that discussion, to have a common agenda,

and also to look more specifically at the need for having a consensus slate.

Senator BOXER. Good. So we are working toward that consensus

slate. I think that is important because as the most powerful nation in the world we are always somebody’s target, and I think

being on a slate in a body like the U.N. is probably a good way to

go about it.

I was very pleased with Secretary Powell’s initial response. His

response is this happened, and he never backed off of human

rights. He did not let his anger get in the way of the fundamental

issue, which I believe you have carried out today very eloquently.

I am concerned about the House of Representatives vote. I mentioned it in passing. I said I understood why people would be upset,

but I think in the end it is not helpful if we now start pulling back

dues as a punishment since that may have played a role, Mr.

Chairman, in the anger, just the fact that we did not pay our bills,

et cetera. So I know that the administration did not support the

amendment in the House, but it is my understanding—and this is

just from the press and it may not be accurate, so I want to ask

you. The Post wrote: ‘‘Administration officials did not actively lobby

against the amendment or contact Mr. Hyde to discuss it.’’ Is that

true?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. We made countless calls to make clear our opposition more broadly, and many Members agreed with us. Others

were looking for a way to basically vent at the loss of a seat. But

we will be making our case clearly here if an amendment is offered.

Senator BOXER. That was going to be my next comment, that I

hope—I really believe that the Senate will respond a little differently, and particularly with the continued leadership of Secretary Powell, yourself, the President, to say that this is not the

way to resolve things.

I want to bring up another issue because it is very important to

me and it is the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention on the Rights of

the Child. CEDAW has been ratified by 166 nations, leaving the

12

United States to stand with such nations as Afghanistan, Iran, and

North Korea. Only the United States and Somalia have failed to

ratify the Rights of the Child Convention.

As far as I am concerned, it is a humiliation and I do not understand it. I do know there are colleagues here who read things into

these conventions that I personally do not.

Now, Secretary Powell has written to me and he said that he is

willing to review CEDAW and consult back with me at a future

date. Have you been asked by Secretary Powell to review the

CEDAW treaty, including the work that was done by this committee when it was favorably voted out a long time ago on a vote

of 13 to 5? Have you been asked by the Secretary to review that?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. In fact, I would mention that with respect to

both conventions that you referred to we are looking at and reviewing all aspects of these conventions.

Senator BOXER. Good.

[The following questions and answers were prompted by a question from Senator Boxer.]

RESPONSES OF HON. PAULA J. DOBRIANSKY TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE

RECORD SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JESSE HELMS

During the hearing about the United Nations Commission on Human Rights

chaired by Senator George Allen on May 24, 2001, it emerged that Secretary Powell

provided his written commitment to a Member of the Foreign Relations Committee

to review the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against

Women (CEDAW)

The Chairman—whose request for the Department’s treaty priorities has received

no reply to date—was not previously aware of the Secretary’s commitment concerning CEDAW.

Question a. What commitments did the Secretary make concerning CEDAW?

Answer. The Secretary has told the Committee that the Department is reviewing

CEDAW.

Question b. Has the Secretary made commitments to other Members concerning

any treaty now pending before the Committee? If so, please provide full details.

Answer. The Department is reviewing CEDAW and other treaties previously

transmitted to the Senate in connection with the Administration’s review of treaty

priorities.

Question c. What are the Department’s treaty priorities?

Answer. The Department welcomes the views of the Committee on all treaties, including CEDAW.

Senator BOXER. Well, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me CEDAW,

the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Land Mine

Treaty, the Optional Protocol on Child Soldiers, which to put children out to be killed is something I think we ought to be taking

the lead against. These are things I would like to see.

Let me just read. Former Assistant Secretary of State for Human

Resources Harold Koh has written: ‘‘Although far less law-abiding

countries have ratified international treaties on economic, social,

and cultural rights, right of the child, discrimination against

women, banning land mines, and an international criminal court,

our Senate refuses to hold hearings on the wisdom of joining these

instruments.’’

So I do not expect you today to take a position on these treaties.

That would not even be appropriate for you to do. But I just say,

given what has gone on with the Senate—and we never know from

one day to the next who the chairman is going to be around here

13

because, the truth be known, it could change that many times. So

we are going to have to work together.

But let me just announce today that if I have a chance and the

honor to hold the gavel, I do intend to bring hearings on these various treaties, and I would encourage you and the administration to

take a really hard look, because I cannot explain to my constituents when they raise their hand, and they do, why we are not taking action. Even if the Senate does not vote on them, Mr. Chairman, for some reason, I think it is our responsibility to look at

them.

So I just wanted the say that I am happy that you are taking

a look at these and you could expect it is a possibility that we will

be asking you to come back in the near future on these.

I will just close with this final comment that kind of picks up on

the Safire article a bit. That is that I do worry that, with our vote

missing, that it is a problem, because we are willing to speak up

when others will not, whether it is the Middle East or other places.

There is a lot of politics, and I worry about that as well. But I am

feeling better that we will be sitting at the table and we can speak

out, even if we do not have that precious vote yet. I want to encourage the administration—well, really to underscore what you yourself said, that we will still be courageous with our voice, whether

it is popular or unpopular, whether it is in the Middle East or it

is in Ireland or Africa or wherever it may be.

I want to thank you very much for your testimony today.

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. Thank you. May I make a comment on the

issue of the arrears, the question or the comment you made earlier?

Senator BOXER. Please.

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. I wanted to make three points, if I may, because we feel strongly about this. When you had posed the question

about tactics, I think there are three key points that need to be

kept in mind.

First, by making this kind of linkage it is counterproductive, as

I said in my statement. The reason why it is counterproductive is,

first, because one would be tying together and not making a distinction between the United Nations at large and then specifically

the action of one body of the United Nations, the ECOSOC, which

comprises less than a third of the members of the United Nations

as a whole.

Senator BOXER. It is a good point.

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. The second point is that the linkage I believe,

would defeat the very purpose that I think we would all intend to

achieve. That is, it would literally add fuel to the fire and support

those who would like to see us out of the picture and not take the

aggressive and leadership role on human rights issues that we

have. They would point to: Oh, this is another problem; here the

United States is tying its arrears to securing a seat on the U.N.

Human Rights Commission. Instead, it would just be a counterproductive strategy toward the end that we want to achieve.

But third, you will be hearing from Tom Malinowski. One aspect

in the human rights area that I think has always been important

is the collaboration between the government and the NGO community. I was very struck by a letter that he had shared with me that

was signed by all the human rights organizations to both Senators

14

Helms and Biden, calling for no linkage, and asserting that this approach would be ultimately detrimental to our goals. I just wanted

to underscore this point. I am sure that he will be saying more

about the letter in his own testimony. This constituted an important signal from the NGO community.

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Senator Boxer, for your questions.

Secretary Dobriansky, I am glad you wrapped it up with that, because that will be the next step. That issue will arise here. I would

ask you if a fourth reason for not saying we are not going to pay

some of these dues is that we have made some reforms. Senator

Biden and Senator Helms, working in a bipartisan manner, have

made significant—had the United Nations make significant reforms. Are they as much as we would want? No. But we do want

to be engaged.

A fourth reason I would query you on based on your most recent

comment, would be in the event the United States said if we do not

get on this committee or this Commission we are not going to pay,

would that not be a precedent for other countries in the future to

say, well, we are going to withhold, although they are not as financially involved as the United States may be? But you could have

another country saying, well, if we do not get on this Commission

we are not going to pay a fifth or a quarter of our dues. Would that

be a precedent that some of them would just love to bring up in

the future?

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. Mr. Chairman, I think you raise another valid

point in the variety of reasons why we should not go down this

path. We should maintain our leadership role and our leadership

role entails giving what you said at the beginning, not undertaking

any fits or pouting. I think that establishing these ties between the

arrears payment and our membership on the U.N. Human Rights

Commission is just simply counterproductive and would defeat the

very purpose of what we want to achieve.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Secretary Dobriansky. We very much

appreciate you coming over and sharing your views with us. I know

I am speaking for all members of this subcommittee and committee, we look forward to working with you and Secretary Powell

to advance our shared values.

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. Thank you. I feel likewise.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you.

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much.

Ms. DOBRIANSKY. Thank you.

Senator ALLEN. If the members of the second panel, Nina Shea

and Tom Malinowski, would please come forward. I would say to

Senator Boxer, I have introduced both Ms. Shea and Mr.

MalinowskI earlier and their groups, and I would ask Nina Shea

as a matter of courtesy, without objection, if Ms. Shea would first

give us your views, please.

STATEMENT OF NINA SHEA, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, FREEDOM HOUSE, WASHINGTON, DC

Ms. SHEA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Boxer. I am very

grateful for this opportunity to testify about the recently concluded

session of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, which I had the

15

privilege of attending as a public member of the U.S. delegation.

I have been an international lawyer for 22 years and over that period have attended many sessions of the U.N. Commission, including as a public member of the U.S. delegation in 1993.

I appear today in my private capacity as the director of the Center for Religious Freedom of Freedom House and the views expressed in the testimony are my own. They do not reflect the views

of the U.S. delegation, the Department of State, or the U.S. Government. But before I begin I would like to commend the very hard

work of our State Department both in Geneva, which I saw firsthand, and then in Washington, who were giving us backup, and the

leadership that the United States has taken at the Commission.

Americans were shocked that our West European allies took the

lead in ousting us from the Commission. Having observed the Commission first-hand, I was less surprised. Contrary to reports in the

media, the ouster was not a reaction to American unilateralism on

issues such as missile defense and global warming. Rather, I believe the Europeans’ action reflects the abandonment of their historical commitment to human rights.

Whereas in the past the Western European delegations were in

the forefront of the Commission’s work, highlighting injustices in

South Africa, East Timor and Bosnia, for example, they now resort

to euphemisms and half-truths. The United States stands virtually

alone in striving to focus world attention on actual and specific violations of human rights. Repeatedly at the 57th Commission the

U.S. had to break with the European Union in order to vote its conscience on issues like slavery in Sudan, religious persecution in

China, and political repression in Cuba. The United States often

stands alone, too, in opposing blatantly political condemnations of

Israel.

In my view, the loss of our seat on the Commission is meant to

punish the United States for marching out of step. I believe the

United States is deeply resented, not only by the despotic regimes

that pack the Commission, such as Sudan, Libya, Algeria, Cuba,

Syria, and Vietnam, but also by our European Union allies, who

dislike being forced to vote in public on measures censuring countries with which they hope to conclude trade deals. A West European ambassador confidently told me that in a few years there will

be no more finger-pointing on the Human Rights Commission.

If the United States is to win back its seat in 2002 and prove

him wrong, it will need to develop a strategy for reversing four

trends that are hastening the Commission’s decline into

irrelevancy:

First, a new dominant culture requires that the Commission pass

its resolutions by consensus. I think about three-quarters of the

resolutions are now passed by consensus at the Commission. The

Europeans favor this, as do states with poor records on human

rights. Consensus politics means that Sudan, say, gets to help draft

the resolution censuring itself. The Khartoum Government, which

Secretary of State Colin Powell recently called ‘‘the biggest single

abuser of human rights on earth,’’ thus was able to have removed

from the latest resolution all mention of slavery, even though the

Commission’s rapporteurs have documented the involvement of

Khartoum’s militias in the practice of slavery in seven consecutive

16

annual reports. The EU-sponsored resolution on Sudan was so

weak that the United States was forced to abstain and make a

statement of protest.

Second, the Commission, like many other U.N. forums, frowns on

the practice of naming violators of human rights in open debate.

However, during the recent 6-week session the Commission adopted five resolutions censuring Israel over U.S. objections. Israel was

also the sole focus of a special session of the Commission last October at which a resolution was adopted condemning Israel for

‘‘crimes against humanity.’’

The United States does not conform to this. Thus, during the discussion of human rights defenders the American intervention mentioned case after case of particular defense lawyers, journalists,

clergy, and other human rights activists in specified countries who

have been imprisoned or murdered for their work. In contrast,

speaking for the EU, the Swedish Ambassador addressed the issue

in platitudes and generalities. This same pattern held whether the

subject under discussion was persecuted religious believers, vulnerable groups, or those in prison for exercising their international

right to free expression.

At most, EU delegates were willing to cite countries for failing

to cooperate with the Commission rapporteur, though they never

debated the actual findings of the rapporteur in plenary.

The European Union states it prefers cooperation to public measures. French President Chirac came to the Commission and made

a speech pointing to China, explaining that civilized dialog coaxed

China to ratify the International Covenant on Economic, Social,

and Cultural Rights. In making this argument, the French ignore

China’s recent labor camp detentions of Catholic bishops and thousands of Falun Gong practitioners, its destruction of a thousand

temples and churches just before Christmas, and its revival of the

practice of confining dissidents in psychiatric institutes.

A German diplomat recently named Special Rapporteur for

Sudan similarly cited the Commission’s success at gaining that

country’s cooperation in establishing, with international funding, a

committee to eradicate slavery. But of the tens of thousands of people thought to be enslaved in Sudan, this committee has rescued

only 353, in a single, highly publicized event shortly after its establishment 2 years ago. Slaves, meanwhile, continue to be captured

in government-sponsored raids faster than they are being released

by the committee. Clearly, cooperation is a fiction invented to protect Europe’s honor and to shield the reputations of abusive governments.

Third, there is Europe’s China problem. China is the government

that stands to gain the most from the U.S. ouster, so much so that

some observers believe eagerness to curry favor with this important

trading partner was the Europeans’ main motivation for running

three candidates. Next year, with the United States out of the way,

there will be no embarrassing resolution of censure that China will

have to work hard to defeat. At the 57th session the United States

was the lone sponsor of the draft resolution against China, having

failed to garner the European support it had through most of the

1990’s.

17

China’s open bullying and use of trade levers are well known at

the Commission. After Denmark introduced a resolution citing China’s human rights abuses in 1997, China threatened Denmark.

That was the last time the United States was able to secure sponsorship of the measure. After Freedom House arranged a press conference with Chinese democracy activists during last year’s session,

China, with the support of Sudan and Cuba, brought proceedings

to bar it from participating at future sessions.

Fourth, resolutions dealing with economic rights for groups and

even governments are proliferating. These rights as envisioned in

the resolution are unachievable, depending as they would for their

implementation on the wholesale transfers of wealth and technology from developed to underdeveloped nations. At the 2001 session a dozen resolutions passed, some at European initiative, on

the rights to food, water, housing, HIV-AIDS drugs, education, development, and a raft of other economic issues.

A ‘‘right to development’’ resolution, introduced by China, Mexico, and the Non-Aligned Movement contains many references to

these transfers of wealth and technology. Incredibly, only Japan

joined the United States in opposing this resolution. All of Western

Europe voted for it, and one of the obstacles that is cited to development in this resolution was the protections, the international

structure for protecting intellectual property rights. All of Western

Europe voted for this resolution except the U.K., which abstained.

In the past, the most enthusiastic champion of economic rights

was the Soviet bloc. I believe then, as now, the main purpose

served by debating such unenforceable rights is to deflect attention

from a government’s refusal to enforce civil and political rights of

the individual.

To reverse these four deplorable trends will be a challenge and

an insurmountable one unless the Europeans reverse course. Eleanor Roosevelt and the other drafters of the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights at the first Commission on Human Rights in

1947 believed that moral suasion could be a potent force for

change. Since then Western Europe has made important contributions in advocating human rights abroad and has been an essential

American partner at the Commission in giving a voice to the voiceless. If the European nations do not return to this tradition, in my

view the Commission will have outlived its usefulness, whether or

not the United States recaptures a seat.

To conclude, I would like to emphasize that I am not suggesting

here that the United States walk away from the Commission and

not try to get its seat back. I am just trying to point out that the

problems at the Commission are deeper than us losing our seat,

they are deeper than the problems presented by the EU, but the

EU is a key, I think, to solving and resolving these problems.

That concludes my testimony.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Shea follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NINA SHEA

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Committee Members for this opportunity to testify

about the recently concluded session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, which I attended as a public member of the U.S. delegation. I have been an

international human rights lawyer for 22 years and over that period have attended

many sessions of the UN Human Rights Commission, including as a public member

18

of the U.S. delegation in 1993. I appear today in my private capacity as the director

of the Center for Religious Freedom of Freedom House, and the views expressed in

the testimony are my own. They do not reflect the views of the U.S. Delegation, the

Department of State, or the U.S. Government.

For over 50 years, the United States had been continuously reelected to one of

the seats at the Commission either by acclamation when the Western Countries and

Others Group (WEOG) to which the United States belongs presented a single slate

of candidates to the Commission or by voted election when the number of candidates

exceeded the number of vacant seats in the regional group. When France, Austria,

and Sweden all insisted on competing for the three open Western seats this year,

they forced the Economic and Social Council, which oversees the Commission, to resolve the matter by secret ballot.

Americans were shocked that our West European allies took the lead in ousting

us from the Commission on May 3. Having observed the Commission first hand, I

was less surprised. Contrary to reports in the media, the ouster was not a reaction

to American ‘‘unilateralism’’ on issues such as missile defense and global warming.

Rather, I believe the Europeans’ action reflects the abandonment of their historical

commitment to human rights.

Whereas in the past, the Western European delegations were in the forefront of

the Commission’s work, highlighting injustices in South Africa, East Timor, and

Bosnia, they now resort to euphemisms and half-truths. The United States stands

virtually alone in striving to focus world attention on actual and specific violations

of human rights. Repeatedly at the 57th Commission, the United States had to

break with the European Union in order to vote its conscience on issues like slavery

in Sudan, religious persecution in China, and political repression in Cuba. The

United States often stands alone, too, in opposing blatantly political condemnations

of Israel. In my view, the loss of our seat on the Commission is meant to punish

the United States for marching out of step.

I believe, the United States is deeply resented, not only by the despotic regimes

that pack the Commission—such as Sudan, Libya, Algeria, Cuba, Syria, and Vietnam—but also by our European Union allies, who dislike being forced to vote in

public on measures censuring countries with which they hope to conclude trade

deals. Newspaper editorials from Copenhagen to Madrid have expressed satisfaction

with the American ouster, sneering that go-it-alone U.S. behavior in international

forums represents ‘‘boorish’’ isolationism. A West European ambassador confidently

told me that in a few years there will be no more ‘‘finger-pointing’’ on the Human

Rights Commission.

If the United States is to win back its seat in 2002 and prove him wrong, it will

need to develop a strategy for reversing four trends that are hastening the Commission’s decline into irrelevancy.

• First, a new dominant culture requires that the Commission pass its resolutions

by consensus. The Europeans favor this, as do states with poor records on

human rights. Consensus politics means that Sudan, say, gets to help draft the

resolution censuring itself. The Khartoum government, which Secretary of State

Colin Powell recently called ‘‘the biggest single abuser of human rights on

Earth,’’ thus was able to have removed from the latest resolution all mention

of slavery even though the Commission’s rapporteurs have documented the involvement of Khartoum’s militias in the practice of slavery in seven consecutive

annual reports. The European Union-sponsored resolution on Sudan was so

weak that the United States was forced to abstain and make a statement of protest.

• Second, the Commission like many other U.N. forums frowns on the practice of

naming violators of human rights in open debate. However, during the recent

six-week session, the Commission adopted five resolutions censuring Israel, over

U.S. objections. Israel was also the sole focus of a special session of the Commission last October at which a resolution was adopted condemning Israel for

‘‘crimes against humanity.’’

The United States does not conform to this. Thus, during the discussion of

‘‘human rights defenders,’’ the American intervention mentioned case after case

of particular defense lawyers, journalists, clergy, and other human rights activists in specified countries who have been imprisoned or murdered for their

work. In contrast, speaking for the EU, the Swedish ambassador addressed the

issue in platitudes and generalities. The same pattern held whether the subject

under discussion was persecuted religious believers, vulnerable groups, or those

imprisoned for exercising the international right to free expression. At most, EU

delegates were willing to cite countries for failing to cooperate with a CommisVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:36 Aug 31, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 73071 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
19

sion rapporteur, though they never debated the actual findings of the

rapporteur in plenary.

The European Union states it prefers ‘‘cooperation’’ to public pressure. French

diplomats point to China, explaining that civilized dialogue coaxed China to ratify the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In

making this argument, the French ignore China’s recent labor camp detentions

of Catholic bishops and thousands of Falun Gong practitioners, its destruction

of a thousand churches and temples just before Christmas, and its revival of

the practice of confining dissidents in psychiatric institutions. A German diplomat recently named special rapporteur for Sudan similarly cited the Commission’s success at gaining that country’s cooperation in establishing, with international funding, a committee to eradicate slavery. But of the tens of thousands

of people thought to be enslaved in Sudan, this committee has rescued only 353,

in a single highly publicized event shortly after its establishment two years ago.

Slaves, meanwhile, continue to be captured in government-sponsored raids faster than they are being released by the committee. Clearly, cooperation is a fiction invented to protect Europe’s honor and to shield the reputations of abusive

governments.

• Third, there is Europe’s China problem. China is the country that stands to

gain most from the U.S. ouster so much so that some observers believe eagerness to curry favor with this important trading partner was the Europeans’

main motivation for running three candidates. Next year, with the United

States out of the way, there will be no embarrassing resolution of censure that

China will have to work hard to defeat. At the 57th session, the United States

was the lone sponsor of the draft resolution against China, having failed to garner the European support it had through most of the 1990s.

China’s open bullying and use of trade levers are well known at the Commission. After Denmark introduced the resolution citing Chinese human rights

abuses in 1997, China threatened to make the issue ‘‘a rock that smashes on

the Danish government’s head. Denmark, the bird that pokes out its head, will

suffer the most.’’ That was the last time the United States was able to secure

cosponsorship of the measure. Beijing tolerates no criticism of its human rights

abuses on U.N. premises. After Freedom House arranged a press conference

with Chinese democracy activists during last year’s session, China, with the

support of Sudan and Cuba, brought proceedings to bar it from participating at

future sessions.

• Fourth, resolutions dealing with economic rights for groups and even governments are proliferating. These ‘‘rights’’ as envisioned in the resolution are

unachievable, depending as they would for their implementation on wholesale

transfers of wealth and technology from developed to undeveloped nations. At

the 2001 session, a dozen resolutions passed, some at European initiative, on

the rights to food, water, housing, HIV/AIDS drugs, education, development,

and a raft of other economic issues.

A ‘‘right to development’’ resolution, introduced by China, Mexico and the

Non-Aligned Movement (alive and well a decade after the Cold War), contains

many references to these transfers of wealth and technology. Incredibly, only

Japan joined the United States in opposing this resolution. All of Western Europe voted for it except the United Kingdom, which abstained. In the past, the

most enthusiastic champion of economic rights was the Soviet bloc. I believe

that, then as now, the main purpose served by debating such unenforceable

‘‘rights’’ is to distract attention from governments’ refusal to enforce the civil

and political rights of the individual.

To reverse these four deplorable trends will be a challenge, and an insurmountable one unless the Europeans reverse course. Eleanor Roosevelt and the other

drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the first Commission on

Human Rights in 1947 believed that moral suasion could be a potent force for

change. Since then, Western Europe has made important contributions in advocating human rights abroad and has been an essential American partner at the

Commission in giving a voice to the voiceless. If the European nations do not return

to this tradition, in my view, the Commission will have outlived its usefulness

whether or not the United States recaptures a seat.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you very much, a very powerful insight

for us all. Thank you, Ms. Shea.

Mr. Malinowski.

20

STATEMENT OF TOM MALINOWSKI, WASHINGTON ADVOCACY

DIRECTOR FOR HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. MALINOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Boxer. It

is a pleasure to be here. Thanks again for your invitation to testify

on behalf of Human Rights Watch.

I want to just take a moment to talk a bit about what happened

and then focus a bit more, as you suggested, Mr. Chairman, on the

road ahead and what should come next. First of all, as we all know,

the United States lost a vote, and for the first time in more than

50 years it will not be a member of the Human Rights Commission.

But as we started looking at this, we actually found something

interesting that I have not seen in any of the news reports on what

happened following Geneva. That is that this was not by any

means the first contested election among the members of the socalled Western European Group and Other, of which the United

States is a member. In fact, we looked at the votes between 1974

and 1989 and found that in all but one of those cases, every 3

years, the United States had to compete against largely its Western European allies for a seat on this Commission.

In 1989, which I think was the last of these contested votes, the

United States beat out Austria for third place by just three votes.

Of course, this last year—well, this month Sweden beat out the

United States for third place, once again by three votes. So the

shift from the historical pattern, though obviously significant

enough for the United States to lose its seat, is not quite as dramatic as some might have imagined. That is something that as people look at the strategy for the year ahead needs to be kept in

mind.

Second, as everyone has mentioned, the United States could not

have lost this vote without losing at least some votes from among

its closest friends and allies, not necessarily in Europe but throughout the world. So the really important question is how did this happen.

As Nina Shea and others have mentioned, one factor certainly

has been that the United States in recent years has generally been

more willing than its allies on the Commission to confront the most

abusive governments on earth. Nina spoke about the high value

that the Europeans place on consensus and that has certainly been

a problem, and the sort of embarrassing situation in which resolutions are negotiated with the target country itself.

I suppose a cynic might say that the United States sometimes

takes the heat for singling out abusers while others take the contracts. That would not be entirely fair since on many issues, such

as Burma and Afghanistan to name two, the Europeans have taken

a principled leadership role in Geneva in recent years, but they certainly do open themselves up to the charge at times.

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to note

that just because the United States has legitimate concerns about

some of its European allies and partners that does not mean that

they have no legitimate concerns about the United States. Many of

America’s closest democratic friends on the Commission have been

deeply concerned in recent years, as Senator Boxer mentioned, that

we are at times walking away from international treaties and

21

agreements, including in some cases those meant to strengthen

human rights.

They point to issues like the death penalty and prison conditions

and say that America is sometimes unwilling to apply to itself

standards that it rightly applies to others. They see America as a

country that sometimes throws its weight around in these international institutions without always being willing to carry its

weight by paying its dues, and that has been mentioned as a problem in the past as well.

Now, the United States is certainly not obliged to agree with its

allies on all of these issues, but I think it is hard to deny that the

concerns that I outlined and others do exist, and that is something

that also must inform our judgment as we plan the road ahead.

Now, what should the United States do in the coming year?

First, as I think we have all agreed, the United States should not

walk away from this Commission in disgust. We should not cede

this arena to the likes of Sudan and others. As Secretary

Dobriansky mentioned, despite the flawed membership of this institution, it has managed time and again over the years to speak

for the world on behalf of those struggling for human rights,

whether it is East Timor or Serbia or Sudan.

For two straight years the Commission has condemned Russia,

a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, for its abuses

in Chechnya. Resolutions critical of China have never passed, but

they have helped to pressure Beijing to release political prisoners

and to let human rights monitors onto its territory. This is why,

of course, human rights violators work so hard to thwart the Commission’s work, and this is why the United States needs to stay engaged.

The United States can stay engaged. Even as a nonmember, it

can speak out, lobby other members, draft and co-sponsor resolutions, and perhaps most important it can press for the implementation of existing resolutions. For example, this year’s Chechnya resolution, which was a milestone, urged the Russian Government to

hold accountable those responsible for attacks on civilians and to

let human rights monitors into Chechnya.

We are very pleased to see that Secretary Powell raised those

precise concerns with Foreign Minister Ivanov when he was here

last week, and they ought to be front and center when President

Bush meets with President Putin when he goes to Europe in June.

I hope you will reinforce that case along with us.

Second, if the United States does campaign in the traditional

way to regain the seat, it will probably succeed, but it has got to

do so by convincing its friends, not coercing them. Again, as Under

Secretary Dobriansky said, threatening to withhold the U.N. dues

would only make that job harder.

In short, Mr. Chairman, the United States can get back at the

world or it can get back on the Commission, but it cannot do both.

I hope and all of the human rights organizations that wrote to you

hope that, if America’s interest lies in advancing human rights, it

will concentrate on the latter task.

Third, Mr. Chairman, I think all of us should be pressing the remaining democracies on the Commission to help this body fulfill its

mandate. France, Austria, and Sweden have won the privilege of

22

membership on the Commission for the next 3 years. Very well.

The onus should now be on them to help the Commission fulfill its

mandate, and in particular, for example, to ensure that a China

resolution is introduced in the coming year, as the European nations did actually in fact until 1997. They were the lead sponsors

of that resolution.

That is another issue that ought to be on the table when President Bush visits Europe and when he has his summit with the EU

leaders in Stockholm in June. In fact, this whole issue of how the

United States and Europe work together on human rights at the

Commission and more broadly ought to be an important subject of

discussion at that meeting, rather than waiting until we are 2

weeks away from the vote next year.

The United States should also work with the European Union

and others on the Commission to set minimal standards for its

membership. Mr. Chairman, you suggested one idea. Another that

we have long advocated is that no nation should gain a seat on the

Commission unless it promises to give the U.N. human rights investigators free access to its territory.

If the United States were to issue such a standing invitation

itself, as 33 other countries have already done, it would set a

strong example and strengthen its campaign to regain its seat on

the Commission.

Finally, it would strengthen America’s case and the cause of

human rights to show that the United States is still willing to work

with others to improve international standards of human rights.

Senator Boxer mentioned a number of the treaties that have been

awaiting ratification and it would send a powerful signal to the

world if this committee were to take action on at least some of

them.

One good place to start in addition to a number that Senator

Boxer mentioned would be the Child Soldiers Protocol, which would

do so much to bolster those who are campaigning to——

Senator BOXER. I did mention that, just so you know.

Senator ALLEN. Yes.

Mr. MALINOWSKI. You did? Good.

Senator ALLEN. Did you not say that Senator Boxer mentioned

that?

Mr. MALINOWSKI. I think I did. I said among the many that you

mentioned.

Senator BOXER. I thought you said I did not, among those I did

not mention. Not that I am sensitive on the subject.

Senator ALLEN. You certainly mentioned it. For the record, Senator Boxer mentioned it.

Mr. MALINOWSKI. Good. For the record, I will recognize it.

Now let us ratify it. It would do so much good and it is one of

those treaties, for example very importantly, that the Defense Department made clear last year that was fully in keeping with the

U.S. interests. I hope that you all take action soon and I think it

would help in this larger campaign that we are all interested in

being part of.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I think we should all of course try

to understand why this vote happened, recognizing that there are

23

plenty of hard lessons to be learned on both sides of the Atlantic.

Then, having learned those lessons, we should move on.

In a few years I think we may look back on what now appears

to be a debacle and see it as a golden opportunity to strengthen

this Commission and its work in the cause of human rights around

the world. Let us hope we can say it was an opportunity the United

States helped to seize.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Malinowski follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM MALINOWSKI

Mr. Chairman, members, thank you for your invitation to testify on behalf of

Human Rights Watch. Let me begin with a few observations about how and why

the U.S. lost its seat on the Commission on Human Rights—and then move to the

road ahead.

First, the United States lost a vote. For the first time, it will not be a member

of the Commission. But this was not the first contested election among the so-called

‘‘Western European and Other’’ group. We have begun to look into a number of past

votes, and found that at least between 1974 and 1989, the United States had to

compete against its friends and allies for a seat five times, virtually each time its

term on the Commission expired. In 1989, the United States received 33 votes, beating out Austria—for third place—by just two votes. This year, Sweden beat out the

U.S. for third place by three votes. So the shift from the historical pattern was not

as great as some have imagined.

Second, the vote took place not at the Commission on Human Rights itself, but

in the UN Economic and Social Council. And the result can’t be explained solely by

the presence of egregious human rights violators like Sudan among the members

of that body. The U.S. could not have lost without losing a few votes from among

its closest friends and allies in Europe, Latin America, Asia and Africa. So it’s not

just abusers’ solidarity, but the diminished solidarity between the United States and

its democratic partners that ought to concern us. How has this happened?

It is true that in recent years, the United States has generally been more willing

than its allies on the Commission to confront the most abusive governments on

earth, whether the issue has been human rights in China, Cuba, Chechnya or Iran.

Europeans in particular have sometimes placed a higher value on ‘‘consensus’’ in

Geneva than on producing hard-hitting resolutions. This entails actually negotiating

country resolutions with the target country, leading to embarrassing situations like

the one two years ago when Sudan’s Ambassador to the Commission profusely

thanked Germany for its approach to drafting a Sudan resolution. A cynic might say

that the United States sometimes takes the heat for singling out abusers, while Europeans take the contracts. That would not be entirely fair, since on many issues,

such as Burma and Afghanistan, Europe has played a leadership role at the Commission and there are countries the U.S. has shied away from targeting, too. But

clearly, the Europeans do sometimes open themselves up to the charge.

Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, just because the United States has legitimate concerns about the approach its allies take in Geneva does not mean its allies do not

have legitimate concerns about the U.S. America’s self-image as the world’s leading

champion of human rights is simply not shared by many of its closest democratic

friends on the Commission. They are deeply concerned that the United States is increasingly walking away from international treaties and agreements, instead of

working with others to strengthen them—whether the issue is climate change, or

landmines, or the International Criminal Court, or the many human rights conventions the United States has not ratified, or the largely symbolic votes on issues like

access to AIDS drugs and the right to food on which the United States has been

completely isolated in Geneva. They point to the death penalty, to conditions in U.S.

prisons, and to the U.S. practice of ratifying human rights treaties without giving

its citizens the right to invoke them in court (all problems that Human Rights

Watch has repeatedly documented), and they say America is unwilling to apply to

itself the standards it preaches to others. They see America as a country that

throws its weight around, while refusing to carry its weight by paying its dues to

the UN or participating in most of its peacekeeping missions.

The United States is not obliged to agree with its allies on all these issues. But

it is hard to deny that the concerns I described do exist, and that they make it harder for the United States to advance the cause of human rights and democracy with

authority and credibility. And that is something that must concern us all.

24

The question today is what should the United States do this year, both to advance

human rights at the Commission and to regain its seat, should it choose to do so.

First, the United States should neither accept the status quo on the Commission

nor walk away in disgust. Despite its membership, this Commission has managed

to speak for the world on behalf of those struggling for human rights from East

Timor to Serbia to Sudan. For two straight years, the Commission has condemned

Russia for its abuses in Chechnya. Resolutions critical of China have never passed,

but have helped pressure Beijing to release political prisoners, to accept visits by

UN rapporteurs, and to sign two important UN human rights treaties (one of which

it has ratified). This is why human rights violators work so hard to thwart the Commission’s efforts. This is why the United States should stay engaged.

And the United States can stay engaged. Even as a non-member, it can speak out,

lobby other members, draft and co-sponsor resolutions. It can still support the work

of UN rapporteurs who are trying to shine a light on abuses throughout the world.

Perhaps most important, it can press for the implementation of existing resolutions.

For example, this year’s Chechnya resolution urged the Russian government to hold

accountable those responsible for attacks on civilians, and to let human rights monitors from the UN and OSCE into Chechnya. We were very pleased that Secretary

Powell raised those issues with Foreign Minister Ivanov last week. They ought to

be front and center when President Bush meets with President Putin in June. The

United States and others should also be pressing Indonesia to abide by a resolution

adopted by the Commission in 1999, by prosecuting those responsible for the violence in East Timor.

Second, if the U.S. campaigns in the traditional way to regain its seat, it stands

an excellent chance of winning. But it would be a mistake for the United States to

claim an absolute entitlement to sit on the Commission, just as it was a mistake

to assume its seat was unassailable. Nor should the U.S. threaten to withhold its

UN dues. That would intensify the very resentment among key partners which contributed to the loss of its seat.

In short, Mr. Chairman, the United States can get back at the world. Or it can

get back on the Commission. But it cannot do both. And if its interest lies in advancing the cause of human rights, it should focus on the latter. That is the view

of my organization and of just about every major human rights organization in the

United States, which we expressed in a joint letter to Members of Congress two

weeks ago; I’m pleased it is the Administration’s view; and I hope we will see it

reflected in the version of the State Department Authorization bill that this Committee approves.

Third, Mr. Chairman, all of us—the Administration, the Congress, and human

rights groups—should be pressing those democratic nations still on the Commission

to help this flawed but vital body fulfill its mandate. France, Austria and Sweden

have won the privilege of sitting on the Commission. Very well. Among other things,

the onus must now be on them and other nations committed to human rights to

sponsor a China resolution, as European nations did until 1997. This year, Sweden

pledged EU diplomats would be more active in lobbying against China’s ‘‘no action’’

motion in Geneva. It’s unclear if they were. Meanwhile, by the EU’s own admission,

its human rights dialogue with China has yielded no meaningful progress. The question of how to best coordinate action on China in the coming year should be on the

table when President Bush holds his summit with the EU in Stockholm this June.

The United States should also work with the EU and others on the Commission

on Human Rights to set minimal standards for its membership. At the very least,

no nation should gain a seat unless it promises to allow the UN’s human rights investigators free access to its territory. If the United States were to issue such a

standing invitation itself—as 33 other nations have already done—it would set a

strong example, and strengthen its campaign to regain its seat.

Finally, it would strengthen America’s case and the cause of human rights to

show that the United States is still willing to work with others to improve international standards of human rights. It doesn’t help American diplomats in Geneva

that the United States is the only country in the world, apart from Somalia, not

to have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The United States has

not yet ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

against Women, the Child Soldiers Protocol, the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions. Early

action by this Committee on at least one of those treaties would send a powerful

and welcome signal to the world. A good place to start would be with the Child Soldiers Protocol, which would bolster those campaigning against the use of children

in warfare around the world, and which the Defense Department has said is fully

in keeping with U.S. national interests.

25

Living up to the highest human rights standards at home is just as important.

The United States should be proud of its strengths, but not so defensive about its

weaknesses that it shuts out the concerns of its closest friends about conditions

within its borders.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I think we should all try to understand why this

vote happened, recognizing that there are plenty of hard lessons to be learned on

both sides of the Atlantic. And then we should move on. In a few years, we may

look back on this experience, as troubling as it may be, and see it as a golden opportunity to strengthen the Commission and its work and the cause of human rights.

Let’s hope we can say it was an opportunity the United States helped to seize.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Malinowski, for your insight and

cogent remarks. Both witnesses, Ms. Shea, Mr. Malinowski, we

thank you so much for your insight and very articulate stands.

We are probably going to have a vote very shortly. So I am not

going to hold you up, but I would like to ask you all a few questions. Mr. Malinowski, you brought it up in your remarks as far

as—it seems like it is fairly hard to get this Commission ever to

condemn anyone. Ms. Shea was talking about this consensus approach, which does not seem to really work very much as far as—

the European approach of consensus. You were talking about various things.

Now, on these other treaties, they are all worthy of looking into.

I do not think any of us want to cede our sovereignty of our country

to any international body. However, in the event you can get such

a disparate group of individuals and countries with maybe disparate values as well to actually condemn a country, what would

you think the chances would be to say, well, that country so long

as, say for a period of 3 years or 4 years—I do not know, even 2

years—could not be on the Human Rights Commission?

If that were actually put to a vote, which would be very logical—

how can you be on a Human Rights Commission? Sudan drafting

condemnation of slavery of course taking slavery out of it? And all

of that, all those machinations. It would seem to me very logical

that any country that actually gets condemned, which is very rare

and very hard to get, should not be on that Human Rights Commission.

Now, if that was taken to a vote—and I assume you all endorse

such a concept—do you think it has any chance of passing?

Mr. MALINOWSKI. Well, I think it would be very hard. But just

because it is hard does not mean it is not worth pursuing.

Senator ALLEN. Right.

Mr. MALINOWSKI. That is what I would say about just about any

important human rights issues. You stand up for your principles

and push hard, and you are going to win some and you are going

to lose some. That ought to be our attitude overall in our approach

to this Commission.

Senator ALLEN. So you would support such an idea, though, your

organization?

Mr. MALINOWSKI. We would have to look at it. It would have interesting implications. You would have to look at the range of countries being condemned right now. You might want to—folks have

mentioned Israel, for example. I think you might want to look at

a number of implications that that would have. I think in principle

it is something that we would consider to be quite promising.

26

Senator ALLEN. Well, is Israel on this Human Rights Commission?

Mr. MALINOWSKI. Not currently, no.

Ms. SHEA. No. It cannot go on the Commission. Israel has never

been on the Commission. It cannot go on the Commission because

it has not been part of a regional group. The way it is structured

is by regional groupings. A certain number of representative countries get to go on every year from each group. So Israel is completely off the Commission, does not have a voice; it cannot judge,

it can be judged.

It is an interesting idea that you propose. However, I am not optimistic about it. I just want to say briefly that the phenomenon

we are seeing now is the bad guys pack this Commission. They see

it in their interest to get on the Commission and help steer it away

from themselves and help shield themselves from scrutiny and

from criticism. So that is the problem with proposing that anyone

who is the subject of a resolution go off the Commission.

You would not get any more resolutions singling out countries

except maybe Israel. I think that is the way it would go.

Senator ALLEN. Well, as a matter of principle I like what Mr.

Malinowski said, is you fight for principles. Even sometimes you

cannot win them, but you fight for those principles. Maybe it would

have to be prospective, because if a country is for a period of time

subject to one of these censures or resolutions for violations of

human rights, for a period of time—things change. Some countries

do reform, and we have seen that in recent years.

Maybe you would not have it applicable to any currently on, but

by the next time there is an election, if they are censured, they can

be on it.

Now, is Israel—I was looking at this list of the 43 confirmed yes

votes. Where would—since Syria is considered in Asia, is Israel

considered in Asia, that Asia group.

Ms. SHEA. Not for the U.N. purposes, no. There is some talk

about sticking them in the Western Group, but they do not have

a regional group in Geneva right now.

Senator ALLEN. Well, Turkey is in the Western Group, I believe.

Maybe not.

I just want to mention, you are saying Israel is not allowed in

the membership?

Ms. SHEA. That is right.

Senator ALLEN. Is that because they are not allowed to vote or

they are simply not eligible?

Ms. SHEA. They are not—they are an observer state. They are a

member of the United Nations, but because this is done by region

these seats are rotated every 3 years.

Senator ALLEN. Right, I understand.

Ms. SHEA. Three-year terms. In Geneva, it is not a member of

any region and it does not get to go on.

Senator ALLEN. Is there a reason why Israel is not a member of

any region, other than maybe—well, I will just ask the question.

You have Syria, which borders Israel, as we all know, is in the

Asian Region. Turkey I believe—I am not sure which group Turkey

is in. I thought they were in the Western Group.

27

Ms. SHEA. There was an effort to get them to get them into the

Western Group, the WEOG, the Western Europe and Other Group,

bloc in New York. But I think that it has not been possible that

they can stand for election to the Commission. I think that is something the United States advocates—I am sorry the State Department is not here to answer that question, because they know the

different policy operations. All I do know is that they have not been

on the Commission and they are not part of the Asian Group.

Senator ALLEN. Well, judging by their friends in the Middle East,

they would probably not get on any slate out of the Middle East.

We are talking about getting a slate for the Western Europe and

Other Group states, which would include, obviously, Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Malta, and I believe Australia

and New Zealand.

It seems to me that Israel ought to be at least able to compete.

It is not the subject of this hearing, but that is an interesting point.

Ms. SHEA. Israel is an exception in many ways. It has its own

agenda item in the Commission agenda. Not only can it be raised

under other agenda items like every other country, but it has its

own agenda item just earmarked for it. Three of the resolutions of

the five this year were brought against it under that agenda item.

I think, though, the problem that you are trying to get at is this

composition, and it is something we all have to grapple with. I am

not sure what the answer is, but I am beginning to move in the

direction that it is the structure of this body that is the problem,

the regional grouping is the problem itself, and that it is the same

for ECOSOC and it is also true for the NGO Committee, which now

is packed with these rogue states. It is a den of thieves, it is a

rogues gallery. It is packed with these countries.

Freedom House, my own organization, is in the dock for a technicality regarding a press briefing, by Sudan, China, and Cuba.

Senator BOXER. Are you done?

Ms. SHEA. Yes.

Senator ALLEN. Well, thank you.

We are going to have a vote very shortly, a quorum call.

Senator BOXER. We will probably need to go soon.

First I want to thank both of you, because I think you were both

very clear, provocative I think, in making me think in new ways.

Ms. Shea, I found your article and your testimony extremely interesting. I would make just a couple of comments. You presented

some really interesting points. The point about China is really interesting and it always poses a dilemma for us the way we have

to deal with China.

It is interesting because we have been trying to, trade with

China, but yes, at the same time, not. I believe, if you are a friend

of a country or you are trying to be a friend to a country, then you

tell it like it is. We have tried to do that through the Clinton administration and the Bush administration.

Now with the Europeans perhaps having some motives that are

against ours—it is an interesting thing I had not thought about. So

thank you for bringing that up.

I would say that in writing why you think there were problems

with the Commission, the fourth one you said is ‘‘resolutions dealing with economic rights.’’ I understand your point, but I would

28

caution you on one thing. I think when sick people ask for a right

to HIV-AIDS medicines, I do not put that in the same category as

I do a good job or even housing. I think that is something that we

cannot really do. But we can do more on HIV-AIDS, and I think

that to have a resolution that says every single person deserves to

have access, even though it may be difficult for us, I would not condemn that in the same breath as I would other things. It is just

an opinion, and we may disagree, but I wanted to put that out, because suffering is suffering and that is suffering.

A couple of other points I would make. One goes to the chairman’s point about giving up sovereignty, that he kind of threw that

out there, which has been a line that I have faced since I have been

in the minority around here, to not even—first of all, I would say

even if what you say is accurate, and it may be and it may mean

we do not do certain treaties. We ought to a least have some hearings and take a look at that question and measure that against

what would be gained.

Let me give you an example. On the Child Soldiers treaty, what

kind of sovereignty are we giving up. We would never, ever send

children out to war. I cannot imagine any circumstance where we

would put a child out on the battlefield.

So therefore, when we signed onto that protocol it seems to me

that we only benefit and, I would say to my chairman, imagine our

soldiers in the field fighting against 14-year-old or 13- or 12-yearold children in battle gear who would be shooting at them. Now,

we have already heard from Senator Kerrey and others as well that

war memories come back to haunt us. I think that is one example.

I could give you others, but I will not bore you, where I do not

think that we give up our sovereignty because we would not do

that. What we are doing in these treaties that I mentioned, unless

I am missing something, but I do not think so, is that we are taking our values really that are embodied in these treaties.

So I do not think we give up anything, and I think we gain a

lot, because if other countries accept our values that is what leadership is all about. But I do think it is a legitimate question. I look

forward to having hearings on these treaties so we can look at

them further.

The last point I want to make is, I once read this little book entitled, ‘‘Everything I Learned, I Learned in Kindergarten.’’ Did anyone read that? It was a best-seller. It talks about how we never

change, how we are always the same since kindergarten. It seems

to me when we look at some of these things that happened—voting

us off this Commission—I think there was a lot of pique and anger

in that. I think it goes—nobody has mentioned these things, so I

am going to mention these things.

When we backed off of Kyoto, when we said we were going to

walk away from the ABM treaty, to not recognize that that had an

impact on our European friends is a bit naive. I think they were

annoyed.

Now, I do not know who walked away from us and I would be

furious if it was—certainly some of our friends did. I did not agree

with backing off from Kyoto or the ABM treaty. But there is no

reason for grownups to respond by saying: Well, now we are going

29

to kick you off the Human Rights Commission as well as, by the

way—were we not also kicked off narcotics control?

Senator ALLEN. Right.

Senator BOXER. So I think there is a lot to be learned. Then

when my colleagues in the House decide in a fit of pique that they

are going to withhold all dues from the United Nations, you kind

of perpetuate the cycle of: I do not like what you are doing, so I

am going to punish you; and you do not like what I am doing and

you punish me. Then we go through this silly thing about what you

learned in kindergarten and one hopes can get beyond that.

But I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, I think this was really

good, that you called this hearing. There are not a lot of cameras

in the hearing room today. This is not something that is on the

front page. It was when it happened. But I think your dedication

in dealing with this issue, I really admire and I really share, and

I hope, that we will be able to continue to work together to make

sure that the United States does not give in on the things that it

believes in, because that would be terribly wrong.

I do think Ms. Shea makes a good point: Do we have to say at

some point this Commission has outlived its usefulness? I hope we

never reach that point, because I have come to a belief that, even

if it does not operate the way we would like, at least it is a forum.

I kind of feel this way about the U.N. You have brought up a couple of times the issue of the Middle East and how unfair things can

be. I raised the issue of China and the fact that people are afraid

to call them, and you certainly did, and you did too, Mr.

Malinowski.

So the point is we get frustrated, but at least it is a place that

we can go and we can say: These violations are occurring and you,

the Commission, may not vote it out, you may cover it up, you may

use an excuse that you are going by consensus, but we the United

States, are going to call it the way we see it. At least it is a forum

and, even without a vote, which is bad, we are there to do it.

So I am going to work with you here, with the administration,

and I hope we can get the United States back on the Commission.

But even if we do not, I think the contribution the two of you have

made today to give us a little more insight is extremely helpful.

Thank you.

Mr. MALINOWSKI. Thank you, Senator.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you both.

Senator Boxer, thank you for your remarks. When I referred to

sovereignty on some of the comments Mr. Malinowski made, I was

just thinking, gosh, we are going to get U.N. observers determining

our state laws. That does give me some trepidation.

As far as children in the military, clearly I am not saying that

violates our sovereignty. We in Virginia do remember a Battle of

New Market in 1864 where there were young soldiers from VMI,

cadets, that were thrown into battle, and that is not something we

ever hope to see within our country or outside of our country again,

and people fighting to protect their homes or for their causes.

I would say I got a message here from staff: The treaties Mr.

Malinowski and Senator Boxer are talking about are on our committee calendar. I do think it is important that, regardless of peoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:36 Aug 31, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 73071 SFRELA1 PsN: SFRELA1
30

ple’s views, we ought to have them discussed here and have people

hear the arguments pro and con and the implications.

The Secretary of State has not yet replied to Chairman Helms’ request for the administration’s treaty priorities. I do think, and I

share it with you, it is important to see if we can find a consensus

here in this country in the coming months as far as these pending

treaties. Maybe you all will be back on this before the full committee. So thank you all for taking the time to be here.

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, I have to—our chairman, he is so

good. The actual note said: ‘‘The treaties Mr. Malinowski and B.

Boxer are plugging are all on the calendar.’’ And you know what,

you are right. We are plugging them.

Senator ALLEN. I thought I would use more diplomatic language.

Senator BOXER. Well, that is why you chair this subcommittee.

Senator ALLEN. Well, with that, thank you all so very much. Senator Boxer, it is a pleasure working with you and we will in the

future.

Hearing adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ