U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

86–775PDF 2003

A REVIEW OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT’S

‘‘COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS

PRACTICES’’

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION 

AND HUMAN RIGHTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 30, 2003

Serial No. 108–26

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman 

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, 

Vice Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

PETER T. KING, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

AMO HOUGHTON, New York 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

NICK SMITH, Michigan 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

THADDEUS G. MCCOTTER, Michigan 

WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

TOM LANTOS, California 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

CHRIS BELL, Texas 

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

ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION

AND HUMAN RIGHTS

ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

PETER T. KING, New York 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

NICK SMITH, Michigan 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

GRACE NAPOLITANO, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

CHRIS BELL, Texas 

RICHARD MEREU, Subcommittee Staff Director 

RENEE AUSTELL, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member 

DONALD MACDONALD, Democratic Professional Staff Member 

JOSEPH WINDREM, Staff Associate 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Lorne W. Craner, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, 

Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State ...................................... 5

Alexandra Arriaga, Director of Government Relations, Amnesty International, 

USA ....................................................................................................................... 17

Jennifer L. Windsor, Executive Director, Freedom House ................................... 26

Rahman Aljebouri .................................................................................................... 31

Soon Ok Lee ............................................................................................................. 33

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on International Terrorism, 

Nonproliferation and Human Rights: Prepared statement .............................. 2

The Honorable Lorne W. Craner: Prepared statement ........................................ 7

Alexandra Arriaga: Prepared statement ................................................................ 19

Jennifer L. Windsor: Prepared statement ............................................................. 28

Rahman Aljebouri: Prepared statement ................................................................ 31

Soon Ok Lee: Prepared statement .......................................................................... 35

APPENDIX 

The Honorable Donald M. Payne, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New Jersey: Prepared statement .......................................................... 39

The Honorable Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Pennsylvania: Prepared statement ................................................................. 40

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Lorne W. Craner by 

Members of the Committee on International Relations’ Subcommittee on 

International Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Human Rights, and Mr. 

Craner’s Responses .............................................................................................. 42

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Lorne W. Craner by 

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

the State of New Jersey, and Vice Chairman, Committee on International 

Relations, and Mr. Craner’s Responses .............................................................. 49

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Lorne W. Craner by 

the Honorable Joseph R. Pitts, and Mr. Craner’s Responses ........................... 58

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Lorne W. Craner by 

the Honorable Donald M. Payne, and Mr. Craner’s Responses ....................... 67

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Lorne W. Craner by 

the Honorable Diane E. Watson, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and Mr. Craner’s Responses .............................................. 69

Questions for the Record Submitted to Jennifer L. Windsor by Members 

of the Committee on International Relations’ Subcommittee on International Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Human Rights, and Ms. Windsor’s Responses ..................................................................................................... 72

Question for the Record Submitted to Jennifer L. Windsor by the Honorable 

Joseph R. Pitts, and Ms. Windsor’s Response ................................................... 74

Questions for the Record Submitted to Alexandra Arriaga by Members of 

the Committee on International Relations’ Subcommittee on International 

Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Human Rights, and Ms. Arriaga’s Responses .................................................................................................................. 75

Page

IV

Question for the Record Submitted to Rahman Aljebouri by Members of 

the Committee on International Relations’ Subcommittee on International 

Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Human Rights, and Mr. Aljebouri’s Response .................................................................................................................... 79

Question for the Record Submitted to Rahman Aljebouri by the Honorable 

Joseph R. Pitts, and Mr. Aljebouri’s Response .................................................. 80

Questions for the Record Submitted to Soon Ok Lee by Members of the 

Committee on International Relations’ Subcommittee on International Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Human Rights, and Mrs. Lee’s Responses ....... 80

Questions for the Record Submitted to Soon Ok Lee by the Honorable Joseph 

R. Pitts, and Mrs. Lee’s Responses ..................................................................... 80

Additional Material Submitted for the Hearing Record by Soon Ok Lee ........... 81

(1)

A REVIEW OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT’S 

‘‘COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS 

PRACTICES’’

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:03 p.m., in Room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Elton Gallegly [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I call to order the Subcommittee on International 

Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Human Rights. Today the Subcommittee exercises its oversight responsibilities and its review of 

the State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for the year 2002. 

As asserted by the State Department,

‘‘The United States understands that the existence of human 

rights helps secure the peace, deter aggression, promote rule of 

law, combat crime and corruption, strengthen democracies, and 

prevent humanitarian crises.’’

Both overseas and here at home, we have witnessed horrific acts 

by terrorists that come from societies where there is no respect for 

human dignity and life, no rule of law, and no political outlet for 

dissension. For this reason, promoting human rights and democratic values must remain a top priority for the United States as 

we continue our war against terrorism. 

This Subcommittee will continue to highlight this nexus between 

terrorism and human rights violations. The Country Reports on 

Human Rights Practices is an indispensable tool which will assist 

us in this endeavor. 

I would like to commend our first panelist, Assistant Secretary 

of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Lorne 

Craner, for his leadership and dedication. I would also like to 

thank the many men and women who serve in the State Department, both stateside and abroad, that assisted in the compilation 

of this report. The impact of the language of this report cannot be 

overstated. It is what we in Congress and the Administration turn 

to as the best single source of information on human rights situations around the world. 

Once again, this year’s report has been lauded by most observers 

for its accuracy and quality. While not without flaw, overall the reVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:32 Jul 23, 2003 Jkt 086775 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\ITHR\043003\86775 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
2

port is to be commended for its straightforward coverage of both allies and adversaries. 

This year’s report continued its detailed accounts of specific violations and improvements that occurred during the year. These individual accounts truly put a human face on otherwise unimaginable horrors. For example, in this year’s Iraqi report, there is an 

account of an Iraqi child that fled to Yemen with scarring on his 

forearms and wrists. A health coordinator for the local refugee program reported that the child was injected with an agent that 

caused mental retardation in retaliation for his father’s suspected 

opposition to the Saddam Hussein regime. 

Whether it is one child, one dissident, or one political prisoner 

who is tortured, abused, or silenced, all are important, all are 

unique, and all deserve recognition and resolution. This is why we 

are particularly fortunate today to have panelists that can speak 

to both individual experiences and the broader international 

human rights situation. 

Our first panelist we will hear from is Assistant Secretary 

Craner who will give us an overview of the report and will address 

how the report is utilized in the creation of U.S. foreign policy. 

In this context, despite the report’s extensive coverage of China’s 

systemic human rights abuses, the Administration did not introduce a resolution condemning China at this year’s U.N. Human 

Rights Conference in Geneva. I would appreciate hearing Mr. 

Craner’s comments on this matter. 

Our second panel consists of human rights watch groups as well 

as human rights victims. I have read through the witnesses’ statements and look forward to the testimony today. 

At this point, I would like to turn over the segment of this hearing to the Ranking Member, my good friend from California, Mr. 

Sherman, the Subcommittee’s Ranking Member. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallegly follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ELTON GALLEGLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS

I call to order the Subcommittee on International Terrorism, Nonproliferation and 

Human Rights. Today the Subcommittee exercises its oversight responsibilities in 

its review of the State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 

for 2002. 

As asserted by the Department of State, ‘‘The United States understands that the 

existence of human rights helps secure the peace, deter aggression, promote rule of 

law, combat crime and corruption, strengthen democracies, and prevent humanitarian crises.’’

Both overseas and here at home, we have witnessed horrific acts by terrorists that 

come from societies where there is no respect for human dignity and life, no rule 

of law, and no political outlet for dissension. For this reason, promoting human 

rights and democratic values must remain a top priority for the United States as 

we continue our war against terrorism. 

This Subcommittee will continue to highlight this nexus between terrorism and 

human rights violations. The Country Reports on Human Rights Practices is an indispensable tool which will assist us in this endeavor. 

I would like to commend our first panelist, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of 

Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Lorne Craner, for his leadership and dedication. I would also like to thank the many men and women who serve in the State 

Department, both stateside and abroad, that assisted in the compilation of the Report. The impact of the language of this report cannot be overstated. It is what we 

in Congress and the Administration turn to as the best single source of information 

on the human rights situation around the world. 

3

Once again, this year’s Report has been lauded by most observers for its accuracy 

and quality. While not without flaw, overall the Report is to be commended for its 

straight-forward coverage of both allies and adversaries. 

This year’s Report continued its detailed accounts of specific violations and improvements that occurred during the year. These individual accounts truly put a 

human face on otherwise unimaginable horrors. For example, in this year’s Iraq Report, there is an account of an Iraqi child that fled to Yemen with scarring on his 

forearms and wrists. A Health Coordinator for the local refugee program reported 

that the child was injected with an agent that caused mental retardation in retaliation for the father’s suspected opposition to Saddam Hussein’s regime. 

Whether it is one child, one dissident, or one political prisoner who is tortured, 

abused, or silenced, all are important, all are unique, and all deserve recognition 

and resolution. This is why we are particularly fortunate today to have panelists 

that can speak to both individual experiences and the broader international human 

rights situation. 

On our first panel, we will hear from Assistant Secretary Craner who will give 

us an overview of the Report and will address how the Report is utilized in the creation of US foreign policy. In this context, despite the Report’s extensive coverage 

of China’s systematic human rights abuses, the Administration did not introduce a 

resolution condemning China at this year’s U.N. Human Rights Conference in Geneva. I would appreciate hearing Mr. Craner’s comments on this matter. 

Our second panel consists of human rights watch groups, as well as human rights 

victims. I have read through all of the witnesses’ statements and look forward to 

their testimony. 

I will now turn to Mr. Sherman, the Ranking Member on this Subcommittee, for 

any remarks he may wish to make.

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to summarize my opening statement and put the entire statement in the 

record. I want to thank you for holding these hearings. I know that 

they have been delayed because the submission of the report was 

delayed. It was due on the 25th of February; we got it on the 31st 

of March. I know the State Department often is a bit tardy in producing reports, and I look forward to improved timeliness and efficiency in the future. 

I want to thank Assistant Secretary Craner for his work. I know 

that it is a difficult position, and I know that the quality of these 

reports has improved first under Harold Koh and now under you, 

and that is moving in the right direction. 

I also want to thank those who will be participating in the second panel, two premier human rights organizations, Amnesty 

International and Freedom House. And I know that it is important 

that we hear from the victims of two of the world’s most brutal regimes, that of Saddam Hussein and that of Kim Jong-il. 

This report is important. It causes State Department officials all 

over the country to focus on human rights. I sometimes get a 

strange look when I tell people the name of this Subcommittee, because they see a connection between terrorism and nonproliferation; and then they say, well, and human rights? You know, do you 

deal with transportation as well? But there is a link, and that is 

the countries that support terrorism, those that are threats on the 

proliferation issue, are among the very worst when it comes to 

human rights. And so if you are going to talk about North Korea, 

if you are going to talk about Cuba, Syria, Sudan, this is a good 

forum in which to do so. 

Advocating human rights can conflict with the Nation’s economic 

situation. Many of our close friends and allies in Western Europe 

have adopted a more forgiving approach toward the governments 

of Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Sudan. Quite frankly, our Western allies 

seem put the almighty Euro above concerns for human rights and 

4

for dealing with terrorism. We have got to especially point out to 

our Western allies that their constructive engagement with Iran, 

where the human rights situation has not improved, may be in 

their economic interest but it is not a reasonable approach to dealing with that government. 

This year’s meetings of the United Nations Human Rights Commission has been disappointing on a number of fronts. Several of 

the resolutions that should have been brought up were not brought 

up or they failed. The intransigence of several of the states on that 

Commission is explained by the fact that some of them are the 

worst human rights violators, and hence we did not get resolutions 

on China, Zimbabwe, or Sudan. Our European friends scuttled the 

need to have a serious discussion of Iran, and I have commented 

on that already. 

I would point out, as long as I am mentioning the United Nations, that it is one thing to ask Congress to pay our past dues. 

That is arguably a debt voluntarily incurred by the United States. 

But it is another thing for the Administration to let the clock keep 

ticking at a 22 percent rate, and it is time for the Administration 

to simply declare that any amount over a particular identified reasonable percentage is not a debt of the United States on a goingforward basis and will not be paid by this Administration or any 

subsequent Administration, and does not deserve to be called paying our debts to the United Nations. It is absolutely absurd that 

we pay so much when China pays so little. 

I do want to briefly comment upon some of the human rights concerns: The routine torture in Iran, its mistreatment of Christians, 

Jews, Zoroastrians, some Muslims, and their very extreme treatment of those who practice the Bahai faith. That shows that that 

is a government that is not only a violator of human rights but coincidentally, or perhaps predictably, is also a grave concern when 

it comes to proliferation and terrorism. 

It is important that we support the struggle of the Iranian people 

for a moderate regime, and I hope the State Department will abandon the dream of opening up relations to the so-called moderates 

in the current government. Those in the current government are 

the source of the problem, not the source of the solution. 

China’s treatment of Tibetan people is something that I hope, 

Mr. Secretary, you will cover in your presentation. We must remember that we purchased Chinese goods to the tune of $125 billion just last year, and that is something we need to keep in mind 

as consumers and in government. 

Finally, I want to note that the long-running conflict between the 

Sinhalese-dominant government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation 

Tigers of Tamil Eelam has wound down, at least for now. There 

has been a cease-fire agreement that has generally been honored 

by both sides since February 2002. The Norwegian-mediated peace 

process has been difficult, complicated by the fact that the country’s Sinhalese President and Prime Minister, both representing 

the majority Sinhalese population, are often rivals with each other, 

slowing down the process. Both sides have made major concessions. 

The Tamils have agreed for the first time to talk in terms of autonomy rather than outright independence. Peace is still far off. It is 

obtainable. I hope the United States plays an important role in this 

5

process, because a solution in that civil war is critical to the human 

rights of all those on that troubled island. 

And I want to thank the Chairman again for putting together the 

two distinguished panels, and yield back the time that I have already taken too much of. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman from California. 

As I said, I would like to welcome Assistant Secretary Lorne 

Craner. Mr. Craner was sworn in as Assistant Secretary of State 

for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor June 4th, 2001. Mr. 

Craner coordinates U.S. foreign policy and programs that support 

the promotion and protection of human rights and democracy 

worldwide. Prior to his appointment, he served as President of the 

International Republican Institute which conducts programs outside the United States to promote democracy, free markets, and the 

rule of law. He served as President of IRI from 1995 until assuming his current appointment. Mr. Craner received his master’s degree in national security studies from Georgetown University and 

a bachelor of arts degree from Reed College. 

I reluctantly remind all our witnesses that opening statements 

today will be limited to 5 minutes. I have to make that request for 

a couple reasons. Number one, we have a commitment to vacate 

this room by 3:30. The problem has been exacerbated by the fact 

that I was just informed that we are going to have a series of votes 

between 2:30 and 3:00, and I just appeal to you to understand the 

circumstances we are dealing with today. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF LORNE W. CRANER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 

BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. CRANER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of time, I would like to ask that my written statement be submitted for the record. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection. 

Mr. CRANER. And I am just going to summarize my spoken. 

First of all, I am very pleased to be here to present the 27th annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. I do want to 

thank, as you did, the members of my staff and all the Foreign 

Service officers and others who have worked to keep up the quality 

of these reports this year, as in the past. 

As you have noted, we have seen important progress over the 

past year in a number of countries. In Afghanistan, women and minorities are again being allowed into government and into schools. 

East Timor has continued to develop. Turkey passed extensive 

human rights reform packages. In Bosnia and Herzegovina we 

have seen important elections, the first general elections since the 

Dayton Peace Accords. 

Less noticed but I think extremely important, especially in terms 

of what Mr. Sherman was talking about, was the first open municipal council elections held in Bahrain. In October women joined 

men in exercising their right to vote to elect a national Parliament. 

Morocco saw its first open elections in September. And in Qatar, 

just yesterday, a new Constitution establishing a partially elected 

Parliament was passed by referendum. In Africa, we saw important 

6

elections in Kenya in December that signaled hope for the continent. 

The reports also note the great human rights violations that continue to occur around the world. And as one of you noted, Saddam 

Hussein was one of the great practitioners of human rights violations. We are discovering every day just how depraved his regime 

was. But thankfully now, the Iraqi people for the first time in decades have a chance to reclaim their fundamental freedoms. 

Elsewhere in 2002, North Korea’s systematic and egregious violations of human rights continued, including torture, summary executions, and prison labor under incredibly inhumane conditions. 

I think we have all been familiar in the past couple of weeks 

with events in Cuba. The hopes that some of us had in 2002 have 

been demolished by the Castro regime’s significant act of political 

repression, the most significant in decades. 

China, as you noted, continued to commit serious human rights 

abuses in violation of all the international human rights instruments they had signed. A spate of arrests of political dissidents, 

the execution of a Tibetan without due process in early 2003 coupled with the continued detentions of Rebiya Kadeer, Wang Youcai, 

Qin Yongmin, and others symbolize China’s continued human 

rights violations. 

In Burma, my Bureau in 2002 documented accounts of rapes of 

ethnic minority women by the Burmese military. Those acts are 

just a symbol of the lack of progress that has been seen toward restoration of fundamental political and civil rights. 

As you noted, Mr. Sherman, Iran’s human rights situation worsened with attacks on media and more liberal political figures becoming increasingly common. 

Sudan remained a serious abuser of human rights with slavery, 

child labor, arbitrary arrests, and detention. Zimbabwe used a systematic campaign of violence and intimidation, and even withheld 

food from its opponents. 

For most of 2002, Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record worsened. While there were some incremental positive steps in 

Uzbekistan in the first half of 2002, there were also setbacks that 

were a cause of concern. 

I am just sampling some of what is in the report. As you noted, 

however, it is a guide to us to increasing our efforts on behalf of 

human rights. 

In Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan, for example, over the past 

year and a half we have doubled, and in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan 

quadrupled our resources to advance human rights. We have also 

made our programs in the region sharper and more aggressive. 

Past human rights reports have noted a democracy gap in the 

Middle East. The U.S./Middle East Partnership Initiative, the 

MEPI, is one important effort to overcome that gap. Our 2002 report details China’s serious human rights abuses, but for some 

years we have also noted increased pressure inside of China for political reform. This year, the Bush Administration is for the first 

time ever not only supporting dissidents outside of China, we are 

supporting Chinese inside China who are trying to advance structural reform. We are not going to see changes overnight but these 

processes offer perhaps the best hope for a democratic China. 

7

On a global scale, one of our highest priorities is to reshape the 

incentives for democratization. The President’s Millennium Challenge Account, the MCA, does just that by creating a new, innovative, and accountable framework for foreign aid that requires real 

progress and accountability on human rights in democracy. 

Mr. Chairman, as in the past, the reports will serve as an important compass for us at the State Department and I know for you 

in Congress. But because of the vision of the U.S. Congress in requesting this report 27 years ago, the reports have become one of 

the most well-respected and often-used tools around the world to 

gain a clearer understanding of the status of human rights. 

I would be pleased to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Craner follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LORNE W. CRANER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF STATE

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

before you today regarding the State Department’s 27th Annual Country Reports on 

Human Rights Practices. In our estimation, the reports reflect America’s diligence 

in the struggle to expand freedom abroad. Together with past reports, and reports 

to come, this compendium provides a clear picture of the state of human rights 

around the globe that depicts work in progress and, very significantly, points the 

way to future tasks. It is a statement of our fundamental belief that human rights 

are universal—that they are indigenous to every corner of the world, in every culture and in every religious tradition. 

Before I discuss the contents of the reports, I would like to acknowledge those who 

worked so hard to produce them. These reports include descriptions of the human 

rights practices in almost 200 different countries. The volume is a substantial 

work—millions of words in all—that requires an enormous amount of research, information gathering, and editing by diplomats here and overseas. Special thanks are 

due to Cynthia Bunton, who heads the Office of Country Reports. Her staff, like others in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, is a dedicated and talented group of people committed to presenting the facts as accurately and objectively as possible. 

THE PROCESS OF CREATING THE REPORTS

The process of compiling the reports also requires our Foreign Service Officers 

and other staff abroad to go to great lengths, often under trying and dangerous circumstances. Our embassy officers, who prepared the initial drafts, gathered information throughout the year from a variety of sources across the political spectrum, 

including government officials, jurists, armed forces sources, journalists, human 

rights monitors, academics, and labor activists. 

The draft texts were then sent to Washington for careful review by DRL, in cooperation with other State Department offices. As we worked to corroborate, analyze 

and edit the reports, our officers drew on their own sources of information. These 

included reports provided by U.S. and other human rights groups, foreign government officials, representatives from the United Nations and other international and 

regional organizations and institutions, experts from academia, and the media. Our 

officers also consulted with experts on worker rights issues, refugee issues, military 

and police topics, women’s issues and legal matters. Throughout this process, our 

guiding principle was to ensure that all relevant information was assessed as objectively, thoroughly and fairly as possible. 

THE PURPOSE OF THE REPORTS

Spreading democratic values and respect for human rights around the world is 

one of the primary ways we have to advance the national security interests of the 

United States. The defense of liberty is both an expression of our ideals and a 

source of strength that we have drawn on throughout our history. Democratic values 

have also been at the heart of America’s most enduring and effective alliances, partnerships which continue to help us meet the challenges of tyranny and deprivation. 

8

For that reason, these reports reflect our solidarity with those brave souls who dare 

to dream of freedom not only in democratic societies, but also in repressive ones in 

which they live. They are setting the course of history and we must help them. 

I introduce this point to underscore not only the utility of the reports but their 

necessity. This volume is one of the most significant tools available to the U.S. Government to help determine foreign policy strategies that promote the development 

of democratic systems and principles, and remedy abuse and disregard for human 

rights. They also serve as a basis for our government’s cooperation with private 

groups to promote the observance of internationally recognized human rights. 

The reports cover individual, civil, political, religious and worker rights, as set 

forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. By promoting these human 

rights, we seek to incorporate respect for human dignity into the processes of government and law everywhere. Furthermore, the promotion of human rights and 

human freedoms is an essential tool in the war on terror. As Secretary Powell said 

last year, freedom and rule of law fight terror, instability and conflict. 

THE YEAR IN REVIEW

We saw important progress in many countries in 2002 that can serve as the foundation of greater respect for human rights. In Afghanistan, human rights improvements included women and ethnic minorities serving in the government and an estimated one million girls back in school. Democratic politics continued to develop in 

Timor Leste and Taiwan’s strides were also notable. Turkey passed extensive 

human rights reform packages, and the first general elections conducted by local authorities since the Dayton Peace Accords were held in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 

In the Middle East, several positive steps were taken. In May, the first open municipal council elections were held in Bahrain, and in October women joined men 

in exercising their right to vote to elect a national parliament for the first time in 

nearly 30 years. Morocco saw its first open elections in September, and in Qatar, 

a new constitution establishing a partially elected parliament was drafted; in fact 

a referendum ballot to adopt it was just held yesterday. 

In Africa, Kenya’s free election and peaceful transfer of power in December signaled hope for the consolidation of democratic politics there. In our own hemisphere, 

the Organization of American States, which adopted an Inter-American Democratic 

Charter in 2001, put its collective commitment into action last year with vigorous 

efforts to resolve the political crisis in Venezuela. 

But the 2002 reports also provide a comprehensive view of the work that remains 

to be done. Not surprisingly, many human rights abuses occurred in nations that 

have non-democratic forms of government. While some structural reforms in the 

areas of rule of law and democracy continued in China, and pressure to expand direct elections from villages to townships grew, the Chinese also continued to commit 

serious human rights abuses in violation of their obligations under international 

human rights instruments they have signed. At year’s end, a spate of arrests of political dissidents, the execution of a Tibetan without due process, the continued detentions of Rebiya Kadeer, Wang Youcai, Qin Yongmin and others, and restrictions 

on religious freedom and repression of some ethnic minorities were particularly 

troubling and remain so. I also note with deep concern that April 25 marked the 

14th birthday of the Panchen Lhama, Gendun Choekyi Nyima, and the eighth year 

the Chinese government has refused access to this young boy. 

Sudan remained a serious abuser of human rights, including tragic violations 

such as slavery, child labor, arbitrary arrests and detentions, and attacks on civilians continued. Notwithstanding the failure of the UN Commission on Human 

Rights to pass a Sudan resolution this month, the Government of Sudan must make 

greater and more transparent improvements in the human rights conditions of its 

people. Zimbabwe’s government used a systematic campaign of violence and intimidation against its opponents, real and perceived. This campaign has also featured 

politicized distribution of food aid in an environment where half the population has 

been at risk of malnutrition and hunger. In Coˆte d’Ivoire, a coup attempt and ensuing civil unrest sparked human rights violations by government and rebel forces. In 

the Democratic Republic of the Congo, major abuses continued. 

In the first six months of last year, the Government of Kazakhstan’s poor human 

rights record worsened, including selective prosecution of opposition leaders and a 

pattern of media harassment suggesting an attempt to silence media critics. While 

there were positive steps in the first half of 2002, such as registration of the first 

human rights NGO and abolition of prior censorship of the media in Uzbekistan, 

there were also setbacks that are a cause of concern, including at least four deaths 

in detention due to torture. 

9

Momentum behind the Varela Project and the Assembly to Promote Civil Society 

in Cuba in 2002 gave us hope that Castro’s grip on power and oppression was eroding. But we are now witnessing the Cuban government’s most significant act of political repression in decades, with arrests, convictions and sentences being handed 

down in secret trials. Secretary Powell said three weeks ago that these citizens’ 

‘‘only crime was seeking basic human rights and freedoms,’’ and we remain vigilant 

and unrelenting in our pursuit of remedies. Also in Latin America, Colombia showed 

signs of progress, with generally transparent elections and a declaration by paramilitary forces that they would negotiate peace in 2003. But problems remain serious, particularly extrajudicial killings by illegal armed groups, an inefficient judiciary and impunity. 

Systematic and egregious violations of human rights in North Korea occurred, including torture, summary executions and the use of prison labor under incredibly 

inhumane conditions. In Cambodia, incidents of politically motivated killings began 

to increase as the country prepares for 2003 elections amidst a culture of impunity 

and with serious shortcomings in the government’s investigations. 

In Burma, the State Department documented accounts of rape of ethnic minority 

women by the Burmese military that were similar to NGO reports on the issue suggesting that rape continued to be a widespread practice. The conscription of child 

soldiers in Burma also remained a serious problem. Overall the human rights conditions in Burma remain bleak, as the Burmese people continue to see little to no 

progress toward the restoration of their most fundamental civil and political rights. 

Though this is a mere sampling of the 2002 reports’ findings, my testimony would 

be incomplete without mention of Iraq. Iraq’s Republican Guard and other members 

of the security apparatus committed widespread and systematic human rights 

abuses including killings, torture, disappearances, rapes and imprisonment of Iraqi 

political opposition and ethnic and religious minorities. Today, the world bears witness to the depth and horror of Saddam Hussein’s regime as more evidence of his 

brutality is uncovered during the efforts to reconstruct the country. The Iraqi people 

are now, for the first time in decades, reclaiming their fundamental freedoms as a 

direct result of the removal of Saddam and the Baathist regime from power. 

EFFORTS TO IMPROVE HUMAN RIGHTS PROBLEMS DESCRIBED IN THE REPORTS

The reports serve a valuable role in focusing public attention on human rights violations throughout the world, but they are also a call to action to those of us at the 

State Department and other agencies to direct our efforts of democracy promotion 

and human rights protection toward those nations whose records on these issues 

need improvement. We have several programs and mechanisms that can be used to 

encourage better progress. 

To remedy the abuses chronicled in past editions of the country reports, in the 

Kyrgyz Republic and Turkmenistan for example, we have doubled our resources to 

advance human rights and democracy. In Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, our resources 

to advance human rights and democracy have nearly quadrupled since September 

11. At the same time, we have sharpened our human rights and democracy programs in the region as a whole. 

For decades the Middle East has been considered the ‘‘democratic exception.’’ This 

year’s reports indicate that the democracy gap between many countries in the Middle East and the rest of the world remains large. 

The U.S.-Middle East Partnership Initiative is one program that we believe will 

help overcome that gap. Launched by Secretary Powell in December, MEPI has the 

aim of comprehensive reform and a prosperous future for the region. The initiative 

acknowledges the economic, political and educational challenges facing the Arab 

world and reflects the U.S. Government’s resolve to address them. MEPI reinforces 

programs begun before September 11, 2001—programs that are aiding democratic 

experiments under way in countries such as Morocco, Bahrain and Qatar. MEPI will 

extend them into countries where democracy has not yet taken root. 

The region’s democratic experiments, along with the experience of millions of 

Muslims living in established democracies, offer hope that achieving democracy in 

this region, while not an overnight process, is a realistic goal. Indeed, MEPI is not 

the only area of new dedicated funding for democracy; we are developing concerted 

efforts to help democracy evolve in non-Arab parts of the Muslim world too. 

I noted earlier that our 2002 report details China’s serious human rights abuses, 

from systematic abuses of political and religious freedom to the denial of fundamental worker rights to the jailing of dissidents. But the reports also notice increased pressure inside of China for political reform. This year, the Bush Administration is not only supporting dissidents outside China, we are supporting those 

Chinese inside the country who are trying to advance structural reforms. Again, we 

10

will not see change overnight, but over the long term, these processes offer, perhaps, 

the best hope for a democratic China. 

On a global scale, one of our highest priorities is to reshape the incentives for democratization. The President’s Millennium Challenge Account does just that by creating a new, innovative and accountable framework for how foreign assistance is delivered. 

The MCA in fact increases the importance of sound reporting on human rights 

and democracy and is yet another example of the practical integration of human 

rights monitoring and foreign policy implementation. Establishing standards of 

democratic governance, economic freedom and development objectives for health and 

education, the MCA will provide another vehicle for reducing the gap between 

human rights ideals and actual practices. The 2002 country reports are helping us 

identify those gaps and address the challenges. 

Encouraging democracy and human rights is not an exclusive purview of the 

United States, as seen in important international developments. Last November, 

government representatives of more than 100 nations met at the Community of Democracies conference in Seoul and affirmed democracy as the best weapon to fight 

terrorism, saying, ‘‘Democracy provides a solid foundation for peaceful, thriving societies by empowering people, holding governments more accountable and responsive 

to the people’s needs, and facilitating sustainable economic development.’’

The proclamation credited democracy with, above all, enhancing respect for protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. One of our goals is to see 

more nations join that community through our diplomatic efforts and by aiding 

democratic endeavors through programs like the MCA and MEPI. 

HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY STRATEGY REPORT

This year, for the first time, DRL will compile a Human Rights and Democracy 

Strategy Report describing our efforts to improve human rights and strengthen democracy in the 94 countries identified in the country reports as being the worst 

human rights violators. This report will provide you as Members of Congress with 

a snapshot of our efforts in the most problematic countries. 

The strategy report should be released by June 1. Divided by region, it will report 

on U.S. programs to promote human rights, democracy, press freedom, religious 

freedom, and worker rights and our efforts to combat human trafficking. Though the 

report will be much smaller in size than the report on human rights practices, it 

will be of a similar caliber, intensity and utility. 

DRL’s Human Rights and Democracy Fund is used to support innovative, cuttingedge projects that address the foreign policy interests in countries of strategic importance to the United States. We put emphasis on pilot projects or ‘‘seed funds’’ 

that will have an immediate impact with the potential for continued funding beyond 

HRDF resources. The Fund is set up to act rapidly on political openings and niches 

where we believe progress can be made in strengthening democracy and building 

civil society and, in some instances, where other funding agents are not prepared 

to work. 

While DRL supports human rights and democracy initiatives worldwide, in fiscal 

years 2002 and 2003, my bureau is focusing a large part of our HRDF programming 

efforts on countries with significant Muslim populations, particularly those in the 

Middle East and in Central Asia, and on China. We have a vision for the Muslim 

world in which respect for the sanctity of the individual, the rule of law and the 

politics of participation grow stronger day by day. In the Middle East and North 

Africa, we have used the HRDF to support various initiatives that promote democratic reform intended to result in greater political stability, pluralism and respect 

for fundamental freedoms. 

In Central Asia as I’ve mentioned before, we are committed to promoting human 

rights. One key goal is to encourage government accountability through the development of representative political parties and human rights non-governmental organizations and the support of independent media. In China, we are using HRDF to substantially assist structural changes with projects that seek to make the judiciary 

more independent, promote rights awareness, conduct direct elections at the village 

level, support judicial, administrative and regulatory reform, and promote citizen 

participation in local government and civil society. 

The following is just a sample of projects that DRL is supporting:

• Journalism training in the Middle East as a means to defuse conflict and provide unbiased reporting

• Independent media in the Kyrgyz Republic by establishing a printing press

11

• The ability of human rights defenders in Uzbekistan to monitor and report 

on human rights abuses by providing training, resources and, most importantly, a safe place to meet

• Programs in China to secure protection of human rights under the law, including the rights of women, workers and criminal defendants

• Democratic reform in Indonesia by providing leaders of Islamic boarding 

schools, known as pesantren, with training in democracy, civic education, 

participatory education, human rights and school administration, and funding 

for small projects to increase community participation in the management of 

the pesantren

• The strengthening of democratic processes and institutions in Venezuela

• The expansion of access to independent radio in Angola to 85 percent of the 

population by funding the installation of repeaters and radio stations

• The strengthening of the organizational capacity of trade unions and increased awareness among trade union members of the functions and uses of 

trade unions in the Middle East

• Political party reform and party-strengthening programs in Latin America to 

address the political parties’ institutional weaknesses and enhance accountability

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like also to submit a more comprehensive list of the HRDF projects we are administering for inclusion in the 

record. 

COUNTRY REPORTS AND THE UNCHR

This year’s country reports also played a role in our negotiations at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. They were used as a source for drafting country-specific resolutions, including important information regarding disappearances 

that have taken place in Belarus, which served as the basis of that new U.S.-sponsored resolution, and other new resolutions on Turkmenistan and North Korea. Information from the reports was also cited in our delegation’s position statements on 

more than a dozen country-specific resolutions put before the Commission. 

The fact that the reports were made public during this year’s Human Rights Commission meetings also helped focus international attention on the issue of human 

rights and strengthened our lobbying efforts with other countries. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am confident that this year’s reports 

are a comprehensive and accurate account of the world’s human rights situation as 

we know it to be. As in the past, the reports will serve as an important compass 

for us at the State Department. But because of the vision of the U.S. Congress 27 

years ago, the reports have become one of the most well-respected and often-used 

tools for you, and others in our government, foreign governments, non-governmental 

organizations and the media to gain a clearer understanding of the status of human 

rights the world over. We believe our strategy report will also gain such respect 

through similar utility. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. And thank 

you for summarizing your statement as well as you did. I have reviewed your entire statement, and as we said, that will be a part 

of the record of the hearing. 

Mr. Craner, you mentioned in your testimony that the crackdown 

and human rights abuses in Cuba are the worst the world has witnessed in decades. In an unbelievable move yesterday, just yesterday, Cuba was reelected to the U.N. Commission on Human 

Rights. I would like to know what your reaction to the reelection 

of Cuba, one of the world’s most egregious violators of human 

rights, means to the Commission. What does that mean to you? 

Mr. CRANER. Well, like many others, I was disgusted by it. Mr. 

Fleischer at the White House described the sentiments of all of us 

that putting Cuba on the Commission is like putting Al Capone in 

charge of a bank. The Commission has for many years gone downVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:32 Jul 23, 2003 Jkt 086775 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\ITHR\043003\86775 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
12

hill, both in terms of membership and in results that come out of 

it. It used to be a good gathering place for countries that believed 

in democracy to gather and to discuss these issues and to decide 

what to do about them. It is no longer a good gathering place; it 

is more like a biker bar at this point. If you walk in, you see a lot 

of pretty ratty countries sitting around at the Human Rights Commission, so ratty that 2 years ago we were actually kicked off the 

Commission by them because we stand for human rights issues. 

What we have tried to do is decide if it is worth staying on the 

Commission. The Commission is the only body like it in the world. 

Alternatives may become possible. The Community of Democracies, 

with which I think some of you are familiar, is something that a 

lot of us would like to try to build as one alternative. But for the 

moment it is the only body like it. So the question is, if you think 

the Commission is worth something do you want to try to clean it 

up? That is what we are trying to do. 

It was noted yesterday that Cuba gained a seat on the Commission. It was less noticed that Qatar replaced Syria on the Commission, that Nepal replaced Vietnam, and that the Dominican Republic replaced Venezuela. It was also the case yesterday that Indonesia defeated Iran for a seat on the Commission. There were a 

number of bad results that came out of the Commission; the Sudan 

vote was chief among them. But a number of important resolutions 

were passed, some for the first time, on North Korea, on Belarus 

and Turkmenistan. 

This Commission did not become a biker bar overnight. It has 

taken a couple of years for it to get to that state. It is going to take 

a couple of years to bring it back from that state. But I think we 

can say that we have passed the worst on this Commission, and 

we are going to try in the coming year as we did in the past year 

to continue to improve the membership of this Commission and ensure that better results come out of it. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I have a 

feeling that there are a lot of bikers around the country that probably would resent that analogy. 

Mr. CRANER. I liked biker bars when I was younger. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. If the Committee by unanimous consent would 

agree to—in the interest of time, I would go ahead and yield to the 

gentleman from California. Under unanimous consent, if we could 

have any further questions asked of this witness and other witnesses and have them answered in writing and be made a part of 

the record of the hearing, I think that that might help deal a little 

bit with the brevity of this meeting today. And if I have no objection, that will be the order. 

And at this time, I would yield to the gentleman from California, 

Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. I will try to be brief. 

The first question I have for the record is that I note that you 

have got—you have done a better job in the report on Israel and 

that you have recognized that this is a country under attack by terrorist groups committed to its destruction. And yet the concern I 

have in the report is its incredible detail. Now ordinarily, Members 

of Congress don’t object to great detail. But 2 million people have 

died as a result of the Sudanese Government’s war against the peoVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:32 Jul 23, 2003 Jkt 086775 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\ITHR\043003\86775 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
13

ple in the south, and yet it only gets half as much space as what 

is going on in Israel and the territories. And if you were going to 

go into that same detail for the number of deaths that have occurred in the Sudan, you would need a 100,000-page report on the 

Sudan. And just the length in which each topic is dealt with means 

a lot, and especially to those who page through a report rather 

than actually read it—not that that would apply to your report in 

any way. 

I would also ask you to respond for the record about our decision 

not to seek a human rights resolution with regard to China. It has 

released a few dissidents. But given what is in your report, you 

would think we would have sought a resolution. 

You have also mentioned the idea that we should consider economic sanctions against the Government of Burma, and I hope that 

you indicate what you have in mind. And I hope that you would 

deal with Iran in terms of what you have done personally to express our concerns to European diplomats about their overlooking 

of Iran’s role as the number one—I mean, this like crystallizes our 

Subcommittee here—the number one state sponsor of terrorism, 

plus a major nuclear proliferation source, plus their abominable 

record on human rights. 

Finally, I would like to point out that at that biker bar, we are 

picking up 22 percent of the tab. And I hope that you would respond as to what the Administration is going to do to make sure 

that 3 years from now I am not voting on appropriations to pay 

our, quote, back dues to the United Nations at a 22 percent rate. 

I would like to buy fewer of the beers at the biker bar. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank the gentleman from California. 

Mr. Rohrabacher asked me to clarify the unanimous consent request that I had made. And it wasn’t to preempt anyone from asking questions; it merely was for the purpose of providing a venue 

for what appears to be many questions that we all have that we 

are not going to have time to ask today, that we will submit them 

to the witnesses after our time has expired and have a response 

that would be made part of the record of this hearing. 

Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. This is the first meeting that we have actually had with this Subcommittee concerning—specifically concerning human rights. And let me suggest this—and seeing that I 

have a friend who I have worked with for many years on the issue 

of human rights with us today as our first witness—I am concerned 

that this Administration may slide the wrong way on the issues of 

human rights. I am afraid, I greatly fear that this Administration 

might slip into the patterns of the last Administration and put 

human rights on a very low priority. 

During the last Administration, those of us who were very active 

in this arena—I mean, there is nothing we could count on the last 

Administration. They would just not be taken seriously on the 

issue, and they did great damage to the cause of human rights. I 

would hope and expect a lot more from this Administration; but 

with this first act of the first time—the last Administration, just 

even though they knew they weren’t serious, they went through 

some of the motions, like a resolution of the United Nations conVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:32 Jul 23, 2003 Jkt 086775 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\ITHR\043003\86775 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
14

demning China for its human rights abuses. I would hope that that 

does not suggest that this Administration is slipping in the wrong 

direction. 

Mr. CRANER. Since a couple of you have asked this question 

about China, let me try and address that. I think the first thing 

that a lot of people fear is that we traded the China resolution for 

help on Iraq or help on North Korea or something. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, why would anyone think that? 

Mr. CRANER. If we would have done that, we would have done 

it much sooner. We would have done it when we really needed the 

vote at the U.N. And we decided not to have a China resolution 

many many weeks, in fact months after that. 

I can tell you from being present in the discussions, and frankly 

waiting for somebody to bring it up, it never came up. The issue 

was, is this the best way to get what we want on human rights 

from China, or is there a better way? And I will tell you that I look 

on this resolution not as an icon or as something that we need to 

offer every year, but as a method of eliciting progress on human 

rights. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And what is the better way? 

Mr. CRANER. That is what we are trying this year. In 2002, we 

saw an unprecedented number of releases of individuals, including 

of Tibetans, that we had never seen before. We saw an unprecedented degree of willingness to engage in discussions—not get results yet, but engage in discussions—both on Tibet and religious 

freedom. During the year we also came together with all of those 

who have discussions with the Chinese on human rights issues. For 

the first time ever, we began programs to try and advance some 

of the structural reforms that are underway in China. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Does the Chinese Government still hold the 

Dalai Lama to be this young boy? 

Mr. CRANER. Yes, they do. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And have we brought that up? 

Mr. CRANER. Absolutely. And as we detail in the human rights 

reports, there are massive violations of human rights in China. The 

question is what is the best way to try and end them. And we are 

going to try for a year doing that without a resolution in China. 

We may be wrong. I may be sitting here in December or January 

eating humble pie in front of you. But we are going to try for a 

year doing it without a resolution in Geneva. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I know in respect to your commitment 

to human rights, I am very pleased that you have been appointed 

to this position. What this Administration will be, it will be determined by its actions. And we will know within a year whether or 

not this Administration—because I remember President Clinton 

criticizing the former President Bush about China prior to his election. And then when he got in it was, you know—well, we know 

what happened with his relations with China. 

Anyway, let us just say we are all anxious and we are watching, 

and I take this very seriously and I would hope that—let us put 

it this way. In Burma and in China, there are a lot of people out 

there who rely on us, and I hope that we do not extinguish their 

hope. We are their only hope. 

15

Mr. CRANER. And I can assure you that from the President on 

down, that is communicated to the Chinese publicly and privately. 

In the meetings the President has had with the Chinese leadership, 

a large proportion of the time is taken up with him discussing 

these issues, beginning with religious freedom. I think you know he 

has a great passion for these issues. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I thank you very much. And I also appreciate the fact that the President has made the expansion of democracy in the Middle East part of his strategy. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. CRANER. Thank you. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Bell, as you noticed the bells are going off; 

there will be a series of votes, and as I advised the witnesses, we 

have to be out of here at 3:30. So what I would like to do is if you 

could ask your questions of the Secretary, then we will release him, 

and then when we come back we will reconvene with the other 

panel. 

Mr. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a rather brief statement and just one question. And thank you, Assistant Secretary 

Craner, for your testimony and for being here today. 

I have some concerns regarding the situation in Iran. President 

Khatami and his allies in and out of government have demonstrated a clear willingness to pursue policies much different than 

those supported by the conservative clerics that form Iran’s ruling 

elite. But time and time again, we have seen the negative repercussions of this approach. Journalists and legislators allied with 

Khatami have been indefinitely detained, and security forces have 

repeatedly cracked down on university demonstrators who advocate 

for greater openness. 

Given the shifting political and strategic balance in the region, 

it is critical that Iran and regimes like it embrace political reform, 

pursue policies of open and transparent government, end the inhumane treatment of its people, and cease all support for terrorist activities. 

With the release of what has come to be called the ‘‘road map,’’ 

it is vital that terrorist groups—that Hezbollah, which Iran has financed and trained for years, be reigned in. A big part of this will 

depend not just on the new Palestinian Prime Minister’s ability to 

crack down on terrorists, but also on the ability of countries like 

Iran, who have provided the financial and technical support to 

these groups, to end all such activity immediately. 

Give than, Mr. Craner, I would like to hear what steps you think 

the United States Government can take to promote the improvement of the situation in Iraq. And if you could touch on that later, 

as the Chairman has directed, I would be most appreciative. 

Mr. CRANER. I would be pleased to touch on that at length in 

writing. Let me tell you up front, again, as I think we detailed in 

the reports, there are great violations of human rights in Iran. Our 

policy remains fundamentally unchanged that the future of our policy toward Iran depends on their ceasing harmful practices, not 

just in terms of what they are doing internally, which is horrible, 

but also in terms of obstructing the Middle East peace process, development of weapons of mass destruction, and other policies. 

16

I would note that this year for the first time, we have permission 

from Congress in the 2003 appropriations bill to begin looking at 

some programmatic activities to advance democracy and human 

rights in Iran. And I think, to go back to an earlier comment, that 

it is clear to all of us that that is going to come from the people 

of Iran and not from the government. Thank you. 

Mr. BELL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you. 

We have a gentleman with us who is not a Member of the Subcommittee; and generally, while it is not permitted for Members 

not on the Committee to be allowed an opening statement, I would 

ask, with unanimous consent, because of Mr. Payne’s keen interest 

and work in human rights, that he be allowed to join the balance 

of the Committee in submitting questions that would be answered 

and made a formal part of the record of this hearing. And hearing 

no objection, that will be the order. 

We will recess and be back just as quickly as possible. I understand we have three votes? Four votes. We are going to have to do 

some Houdini work when I get back. So with your patience, we will 

get back as quick as humanly possible. The Committee stands in 

recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. GALLEGLY. We will call the hearing back to order. We have, 

I understand, the ability to extend the room until 4 o’clock, which 

gives us a little breathing room, although it is not nearly what we 

need considering the issue that we are dealing with. But we will 

continue to advise those that are here that in the event that they 

are not able to ask and have answered the question that they 

would like, that they will submit the question to the respective witness and the witness will try to prepare or get a written answer 

back to us that will be made a part of the record in the hearing. 

We are also joined at the dais by a non-Member who wanted to 

be present, a good friend from Virginia, Mr. Moran, and I welcome 

him to join us. He has no questions, but he has a keen interest in 

this issue. So, welcome, Jim. 

With that, we will go to our second panel, keeping in mind that 

we have a very narrow window. And I would appeal to you to try 

to keep your statement to a maximum of 5 minutes. 

Appearing on behalf of Amnesty International is Ms. Alexandra 

Arriaga, Director of Government Relations. Ms. Arriaga is a chief 

liaison representing Amnesty International’s human rights concerns to U.S. and foreign government officials. She serves as a 

spokesperson for the organization, coordinates all of Amnesty International’s interaction with the U.S. Government. Prior to her current position, Ms. Arriaga served as Senior Fellow and Director of 

Legislative Affairs at Inter-American Dialogue. Ms. Arriaga also 

held several high level positions with the Clinton Administration 

and the State Department, as well as Director of the Congressional 

Human Rights Caucus. 

Did I pronounce that right, Ms. Arriaga? With that, I welcome 

you. And we look to your testimony, Ms. Arriaga. 

17

STATEMENT OF ALEXANDRA ARRIAGA, DIRECTOR OF 

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, USA 

Ms. ARRIAGA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Congressman. I am very pleased to be here today to testify on the Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. I 

am going to summarize my statement and submit it for the record. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection, your entire testimony will be 

made a part of the record of the hearing. 

Ms. ARRIAGA. Thank you. 

Amnesty International finds the Country Reports to be generally 

honest and factual in character, but we do have some concerns 

about a shift this year to downplay or omit some human rights 

issues related to the war on terror and issues for which the U.S. 

may feel vulnerable to international criticism. Amnesty International is increasingly concerned by the growing gap between 

these reports and the U.S. policy on human rights. This year more 

than in other years in the recent past, the Country Reports are reduced in value by being set adrift from the Administration’s development of foreign policy. Nonetheless, the Country Reports continue 

to serve as an important annual measure of the state of human 

rights worldwide and a tool to hold countries accountable for their 

actions relating to human rights. 

The contrast between the reports and the Administration’s selective actions on human rights are especially stark in the following 

areas: 

On torture. Over the past year, the White House has accurately 

cited torture occurring in Iraq, while dismissing concerns about 

U.S. ill treatment of detainees and their transfer to countries 

where they are at risk of torture. The Country Reports acknowledge 

reports of torture; cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment by security officials of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Palestinian Authority, Turkey, China, Burma, North Korea, and Haiti, for example. But what is deeply disturbing is that some of the techniques 

cited as torture and ill treatment in these Country Reports are the 

very same techniques that some Administration officials have been 

quoted or boasted as used or implemented in the war on terrorism. 

The Country Reports also raise concerns about the treatment of 

individuals detained by the U.S. and rendered interrogation to 

other countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco. These are 

countries that have a clear record of torture. Amnesty urges that 

the President make a very clear and unequivocal public statement 

on the abhorrence of torture and that the United States consider 

such practice to be illegal and immoral. 

Amnesty is also concerned about the dangerous allies that the 

U.S. has created. The Administration has cozied up to human 

rights abusers for the sake of alleged cooperation to fight terrorism. 

Some of these have egregious records. For example, the Philippines, Pakistan, Colombia, Ethiopia. 

The Country Reports have also downplayed further this year the 

treatment of the military tribunals and the lack of fair trial procedures that occurred in military tribunals in many countries including the Congo, Lebanon, and Egypt. 

It has downplayed the influence that the United States has on 

countries that have now expanded the restrictive policies that they 

18

have—antiterrorism legislation that has now been enacted or expanded in many countries such as China, Great Britain, Guayana, 

Pakistan, Tanzania, to name a few. 

In general, the world saw the international framework for upholding and promoting human rights at greater risk last year. 

There were some areas that were not so bleak. Afghanistan was 

one of the success areas where the international movement saw an 

improvement, but which is still in the balance, given the stalling 

of reconstruction efforts and the lag in the commitments of the 

international community. 

We also saw Turkey make some important changes to its Constitution but there are still very many problems in Turkey with 

their laws. 

Peru had some improvements in the judiciary system, and we 

have been pressing for the extradition of Fugimori to Peru to face 

the crimes that he committed. 

And Sierra Leone had elections and consolidated the peace process, ending 12 years of civil war. A special court in Sierra Leone 

has been very effective in indicting leaders that were responsible 

for crimes against humanity, and the Truth Commission is currently underway. 

We saw the release of prisoners of conscience in many countries 

as well. But there are many problems that remain, and I will summarize some of the many. We could have gone the world over. 

Among the areas of great concern are the conditions in the Congo 

and also the conditions in Cote D’Ivoire. The conditions in both of 

these countries worsened dramatically and we are urging that in 

both, the Bush Administration maintain or increase its commitment to international efforts to end the bloodshed. We are concerned about the recent announcement that the Bush Administration will cut contributions to peacekeeping in Cote D’Ivoire. 

Sudan’s involvement in Burundi are other areas of concern 

where we saw deterioration in particular. We also have ongoing 

concerns in Russia, Chechnya, specifically Uzbekistan. 

In the Americas, we have seen a deterioration of conditions in 

Colombia, Cuba, Guatemala, and also Venezuela, Haiti, and other 

regions, China, Burma, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam. The concerns there have intensified as well as in the Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore where we have seen existing security laws being used more broadly in the, quote, fight against terrorism. 

Finally, the Middle East, let me just say very quickly. In general 

the human rights conditions in the Middle East are increasingly 

precarious. The crackdowns on political dissent are widespread. 

Torture is used widely; harassment also. And the definitions that 

these governments have recently adopted for terrorism is very 

broad and has been used to crack down on dissent. Concerns have 

intensified in Egypt, Iraq, Israel, occupied territories, the regions 

under the control of Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, 

Syria, Yemen, among others. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Ms. Arriaga. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Arriaga follows:]

19

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALEXANDRA ARRIAGA, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT

RELATIONS, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, USA 

INTRODUCTION

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on the Department of 

State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Amnesty International finds the 

Country Reports to be generally honest and factual in character, but notes with concern an apparent shift this year. Specifically, we are concerned that the Country Reports downplay some human rights issues for which the U.S. may feel vulnerable 

to international criticism. The Country Reports also appear to omit information on 

measures taken by governments in the name of the war on terror, possibly in response to U.S. urging, that have led to human rights abuses. Moreover, Amnesty 

International is increasingly concerned by the growing gap between these reports 

and US policy on human rights. This year, more than in other years in recent past, 

the Country Reports are reduced in value by being set adrift from this Administration’s development of foreign policy, which has been selective, inconsistent and in 

some cases damaging to human rights over the long-term. Nonetheless, the Country 

Reports continue to serve as an important annual measure of the state of human 

rights worldwide and a tool to hold countries accountable for their actions relating 

to human rights. 

OVERALL CONCERNS

The contrast between the reports and the Administration’s selective actions are 

especially stark in the following areas: 

Torture 

Over the past year, the White House has accurately cited torture occurring in 

Iraq, while dismissing concerns about US ill-treatment of detainees and their transfer to countries where they are at risk of torture. The Country Reports acknowledge 

that torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment occurs in countries such as 

Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, China, Burma, North Korea, and Haiti, for example. What is deeply disturbing is that some of the techniques cited as torture and 

ill-treatment in these Country Reports are the same techniques that unnamed administration officials have boasted as employing in the war on terror. Several news 

stories have quoted senior policy officials as saying that ‘‘stress and duress’’ techniques are acceptable, and that ‘‘If you don’t violate someone’s human rights some 

of the time, you probably aren’t doing your job. We don’t want to be promoting a 

view of zero tolerance on this.’’ These statements send a devastating message to the 

world that the United States may be making exceptions to its commitments on the 

Convention Against Torture when it comes torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading 

treatment. 

The Country Reports also raise concerns about the treatment of individuals detained by the US and ‘‘rendered’’ for interrogation to countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and Syria that have a clear record of using torture. This concern is 

amplified by news accounts citing disturbing statements by unnamed Administration officials. One official reportedly involved in rendering, reportedly said that ‘‘We 

don’t kick the [expletive] out of them. We send them to other countries so they can 

kick the [expletive] out of them.’’

Amnesty International continues to urge President Bush, his leadership and 

members of Congress to make clear in unequivocal public statements that the 

United States considers torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment to be immoral and illegal, and that anyone found to use torture and ill-treatment will be 

prosecuted. The current climate runs counter to the efforts of previous Administrations, such as that of President George H.W. Bush who urged ratification of the 

Convention Against Torture, staying ‘‘The United States must continue its vigorous 

efforts to bring the practice of torture and other gross abuses of human rights to 

an end wherever they occur.’’ (March 12, 1992) 

Dangerous Allies 

In the war on terror, the Administration has cozied-up to human rights abusers 

for the sake of alleged cooperation to fight terrorism, and has essentially stopped 

challenging them publicly on their human rights record. Instead the United States 

is providing new or increased security assistance, without evidence of proper safeguards to prevent those nations’ security forces from committing further abuses, to 

countries that have an egregious human rights record. This is the case in: Colombia, 

Ethiopia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Uzbekistan, for example. 

20

Military Commissions 

As occurred in last year’s reports, this year’s Country Reports downplay even further the curtailment of fair trial proceedings that typify the military tribunal and 

court system in countries such as Egypt, for example. 

Repressive Policies in the name of Anti-Terrorism 

Clearly, the actions of the world’s superpower influence other countries. Countries 

as diverse as China, Cuba, Colombia, Great Britain, India, Jordan, Pakistan, Tanzania, and Uzbekistan have enacted or expanded restrictive policies in the name of 

anti-terrorism efforts. The Country Reports fail to make clear that effects of the new 

or expanded anti-terrorism legislation or policies, which emulate those proposed by 

this Administration, in the Patriot Act and subsequent initiatives. 

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS FRAMEWORK AT RISK

The message to the world is that the United States is at once praising the protection of human rights and discarding those protections at will. In the name of combating terror, the US has often turned a blind eye to the effects that its own actions 

have to the detriment of human rights in the world. The widening gap between the 

Bush Administration’s words and action on human rights is dangerous. 

Last year, the world saw the international framework for upholding and promoting human rights weakened. The US contributed to this decline by its rejection 

and dismissal of international instruments, such as by ‘‘unsigning’’ the International 

Criminal Court, refusing to apply the Geneva Conventions to those detained on the 

battlefield in Afghanistan, and brushing aside obligations under the International 

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against Torture, and the 

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The US adopted policies at home that set a poor example for other countries, such as the President’s order establishing military commissions which eliminated basic principles of 

fair justice, the discriminatory nature of the Special Registration initiative, and the 

Patriot Act’s rejection of due process by allowing indefinite detention without 

charge, curtailment of free speech and association through an overly broad definition of ‘‘domestic terrorism,’’ and infringement of privacy and other rights through 

unannounced ‘‘sneak and peak’’ searches, monitoring of e-mail and financial records, 

access to library and bookstore records, and more. These policies signal to other 

countries that it is acceptable to withhold unalienable rights. 

PROGRESS ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Not all was bleak. There were some successes and improvements in human rights 

over the past year. 

Afghanistan 

In 2002, one of the successes for the international human rights movement was 

the improvement of human rights in Afghanistan, particularly conditions for 

women. The improvements remain in the balance, however, with the stall of reconstruction efforts, largely due to failed commitments by the international community, 

and with the government’s inability to provide for a secure environment in regions 

outside of Kabul. Following the collapse of the Taliban, the new Afghan government 

removed restrictions on women, permitting women and girls to go to school, women 

to work outside their homes, and women to shed the burq’a. In March 2002, the 

country celebrated International Women’s day for the first time in many years, and 

this year, Afghanistan ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms 

of Discrimination Against Women. Religious minorities were generally able to practice their religion without official interference, rule of law began to take shape, and 

public executions (a common feature under Taliban) came to an end. An estimated 

two million refugees returned from Pakistan and Iran. Nonetheless, conditions in 

Afghanistan remain precarious. It is urgent that the United States and others in 

the international community come through on their commitments for reconstruction, 

humanitarian assistance, and ensuring a secure environment. In addition, Amnesty 

International continues to call for a thorough investigation into the killing of detained combatants and for those responsible be prosecuted and punished by trials 

that are conducted in accordance with international human rights and humanitarian laws. 

Turkey 

Turkey made important changes to its Constitution, including shortening of detention periods before being brought before a judge; the abolition of the death penalty 

for criminal offences; the introduction of the right to a fair trial; and the lifting of 

the ban on statements and publications in Kurdish. Although some restrictions on 

21

fundamental human rights were lifted, important problems remain. New restrictions 

were introduced on freedom of expression and none of the constitutional amendments included significant guarantees for freedom of expression and safeguards 

against torture. Amnesty International continues to call for the release of Layla 

Zana, a Parliamentarian and Kurdish prisoner of conscience, and appreciates the 

support of members of this committee on this case. 

Peru 

In Peru, Amnesty International noted the increasing independence of the judiciary 

in protecting human rights. For example, the Constitutional Court has declared unconstitutional a number of measures in the 1992 anti-terrorist legislation, passed 

during the regime of Alberto Fujimori. This is an essential step towards overcoming 

the serious injustices and human rights violations this law made possible. It makes 

it possible to review many of the cases involving people who were tried under the 

anti-terrorism law and who did not receive fair trials. Many of these unjustly convicted individuals were civilians tried by military courts. Amnesty International 

supports efforts to extradite President Fujimori from Japan to stand trial in Peru 

for crimes he committed. 

Sierra Leone 

Sierra Leone held elections and consolidated the peace process, ending twelve 

years of civil war. Amnesty International welcomed the work of the Special Court 

for Sierra Leone, which on March 7th of this year indicted of some of the leaders 

of the Revolutionary United Front opposition party for crimes against humanity 

during the twelve-year conflict. The court ruling complements the work of the Truth 

and Reconciliation Process, which held its first hearings on April 16th of this year. 

RELEASE OF PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE

In several countries Amnesty International continued to have extensive human 

rights concerns, but welcomed the release of individual prisoners of conscience: 

Mexico 

In Mexico, President Fox released General Gallardo on grounds that he had 

served over half of his sentence. He did this despite stiff opposition from the Mexican military. Nevertheless, the Mexican government has not fully complied with the 

recommendations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights pertaining 

to General Gallardo’s wrongful imprisonment. Many of you and hundreds of thousands of Amnesty International activists worked for the release of General Gallardo. 

Nonetheless, the human rights record in Mexico remains a concern in areas such 

as torture and ill-treatment of detainees and the continuing ‘‘disappearances’’ of 

women in Ciudad Juarez. 

Russia 

Last year, Amnesty International and many of you sought the release of Russian 

environmentalist and prisoner of conscience Grigory Pasko. We welcomed his release on parole this past January and continue to urge Russian authorities to drop 

the charges against him. Moreover, we are encouraged by the development of a new 

generation of post-Soviet civil society leaders working on issues like domestic violence and treatment of ethnic minorities, for example. This NGO community remains strongly dependent, however, on US support including through funding provided in the Freedom Support Act for Russia. 

Egypt 

In a groundbreaking effort, the United States linked the provision of additional 

assistance to Egypt with the release of Saad Eddin Ibrahim. His incarceration underscores the urgent necessity of abolishing Egypt’s Emergency laws which gives authorities extensive power to suspend basic liberties. Many of you worked for Professor Ibrahim’s release and, with the hundreds of thousands of Amnesty activists, 

celebrated on March 18th of this year the acquittal on all charges against Professor 

Ibrahim and Nadia Abd al-Nur by Egypt’s Court of Cassation. Despite this positive 

news, we continue to work for the release of dozens of prisoners of conscience held 

in Egypt, including political activists, members of religious groups, and those imprisoned solely because of their real or perceived sexual orientation. Amnesty International remains concerned about the restrictions on freedom of expression, religion 

and assembly, the use torture, and the use of special military courts to try civilians; 

these courts fall short of international standards for fair trials. 

22

Ethiopia 

Last year, Amnesty International also celebrated the release of Dr. Taye 

Woldesemayat, President of the Ethiopian Teachers Association, the country’s largest trade union. Dr Taye was released on May 14th after six years in detention on 

the basis of trumped up charges of treason. Many of you signed Dear Colleague letters for his release. Nonetheless, security forces in Ethiopia maintained a poor 

human rights record and were responsible for the deaths of unarmed civilian, including demonstrators; there has been no accountability for their crimes. 

HUMAN RIGHTS DISAPPOINTMENTS

Amnesty International remained concerned about the deterioration of human 

rights in many countries worldwide. In May, Amnesty International will release its 

Annual Report, which will provide a summary of human rights issues for every 

country. The following analyses is provided as mere examples of the many concerns 

of Amnesty International, responding to the Committee’s request to highlight a select few countries that have a human rights record that has deteriorated: 

The Democratic Republic of the Congo 

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, an estimated 3 million people have been 

killed as a result of the violence of the four-year civil war. Impunity continues to 

prevail among the entities that are plundering the country’s natural resources, despite the findings and recommendations of a report by a UN panel of experts on 

the issue of the looting of natural resources. Most of the governments that host the 

companies listed in the report have, unfortunately, decided to stall action by seeking 

to gather further evidence before taking next steps. Looting and suffering of the 

Congolese people goes on. Amnesty International USA has urged the Bush Administration and the international community to commit more resources and political 

leadership to help bring an end to this conflict. 

Cote D’Ivoire 

In what was once considered one of Africa’s most politically stable and prosperous 

countries, conditions worsened dramatically due to civil war. Peacekeeping troops 

from the West Africa regional group (ECOWAS) and France were instrumental in 

preventing a complete descent in to bloodshed. Human Rights abuses included torture, rape, extrajudicial executions and the use of death squads. 

Sudan 

Amnesty International welcomed the leadership of the US Administration to 

broker a lasting peace agreement in Sudan and end the nearly thirty years of conflict. Unfortunately, the Sudan government continues to obstruct humanitarian assistance and target civilian populations. Amnesty International has longstanding 

grave concerns about slavery, religious persecution, repression of civil society, widespread practice of torture, and the culture of impunity enjoyed by all warring parties. 

Zimbabwe 

In Zimbabwe, a nationwide and systematic crackdown has eliminated most civil 

and political rights. Despite ample documentation by NGOs and the United Nations 

of torture, assault, intimidation, and killings conducted by supporters of the government, key African governments continue to be silent and support President 

Mugabe’s regime. Their inaction contributes to the climate of impunity that facilitates the continuing, widespread abuse. 

Colombia 

In Colombia, there was an intensification of the conflict and human rights abuses 

throughout 2002, especially since the breakdown of the peace process a year ago. 

The result has been more political assassinations, kidnappings, ‘‘disappearances’’, 

and displacements of civilian populations. The latest report from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in March notes an increase in violations by public security forces. This is consistent with the reports AI is receiving. 

Cuba 

In Cuba, the government continues to detain people for their political, religious, 

or other beliefs. There was an increase in the number of prisoners of conscience 

from 6 to 15 between May 2002 and the present. Furthermore, political dissidents 

were arrested and harassed throughout much of the year. On February 27, 2002, 

21 Cuban men were arrested after they highjacked a bus and attempted to enter 

the Mexican Embassy to request asylum. On December 6, 2002, another 17 were 

arrested after they had attempted to meet in Havana to engage in a discussion on 

23

human rights and to reportedly form a grassroots project for the promotion of these 

rights. Amnesty International also reported on an increase in other types of violations, including short-term arbitrary arrests, threats, summonses and other forms 

of harassment directed by the state against political dissidents, independent journalists, and other activists in an effort to limit their ability to exercise fundamental 

freedoms. Amnesty International received numerous reports of such harassment 

against individuals who participated in the petition process promoted by the 

Proyecto Varela. This year, the crackdown has intensified, with the recent detention 

and arrest of 75 dissidents and the execution of three. 

Guatemala 

In Guatemala, the human rights situation deteriorated alarmingly, with an increase in threats, attacks, and killings of human rights defenders, judges, prosecutors, journalists, and leaders of social and political organizations. The justice system 

was unable to respond to the crisis. Impunity remained a primary concern because 

of the failure of the government to support the full investigation and prosecution 

of authorities and former military personal believed to responsible for many of these 

crimes. Amnesty International supported the formation of an international commission to investigate the proliferation of clandestine groups believed to be responsible 

for current abuses. We look forward to seeing this commission established and 

progress in its work. 

Russia 

Russian security forces continued to be responsible for ongoing human rights violations in Chechnya, including extrajudicial executions, ‘‘disappearances’’, torture, 

and rape. These abuses occurred with impunity. In one case, Russian officer Colonel 

Yuri Budanov was tried and relieved of criminal responsibility because of ‘‘temporary insanity,’’ despite having admitted to killing a nineteen-year-old Chechen girl 

and reportedly raping her as well. At the same time, Chechen fighters continued 

and escalated abuses of human rights, such as the taking of hostages at the Nord 

Ost theater and committing violent attacks against municipal authorities. 

Uzbekistan 

Conditions in Uzbekistan remained poor and continued to deteriorate. There were 

widespread reports of torture and ill-treatment by law enforcement officials against 

alleged supporters of banned Islamist opposition parties and movements, such as 

Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Thousands of devout Muslims and dozens of members or supporters 

of the banned secular political opposition parties and movements Erk and Birlik

were serving long prison sentences, convicted in unfair trials for membership in an 

illegal party, distribution of illegal religious literature, and anti-state activities. Devout Muslim prisoners were singled out for particularly cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in places of detention and prison camps. Several prisoners died in 

custody. The death penalty has reportedly been used after unfair trials and use of 

torture, and death penalty statistics remain shrouded in secrecy. 

China 

Thousands of political prisoners remained in prison, as did labor activists. Among 

those incarcerated is Rebiya Kadeer, who was detained while on her way to meet 

with Congressional staffers to discuss human rights in China. Many of you have 

joined hundreds of thousands of Amnesty International activists to seek her release. 

China’s authorities intensified their crackdown against the Muslims of Xinjiang and 

independent religious groups throughout the country faced intense repression, including practitioners of Falun Gong, Tibetan Buddhists, members of the unofficial 

Catholic church, and Protestants. China’s government introduced scores of regulations used to intensify their crackdown on Internet use; many persons were arrested 

and detained and two died in custody as a result of torture. Amnesty International 

also continues to urge the release of all who are detained for the peaceful expression 

of their religion and beliefs, including those who remain incarcerated for their role 

in Tiananmen square. Although the Chinese government’s behavior towards human 

rights did not change, the Bush Administration’s response to China’s gross human 

rights violations appeared to soften, failing even to sponsor a resolution on China 

at this year’s UN Human Rights Commission. 

North Korea 

Amnesty International has longstanding human rights concerns in North Korea, 

including torture, executions, arbitrary detention and imprisonment, inhumane prison conditions, and the near-total suppression of fundamental freedoms including 

freedom of expression and movement. During the past year, three sets of circumstances have served to heighten Amnesty International’s concerns: the governVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:32 Jul 23, 2003 Jkt 086775 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\ITHR\043003\86775 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
24

ment’s practice of discriminatory denial of food and health care; increasingly desperate refugee flows into China; and heightened concerns about security on the Korean peninsula. Famine and acute food shortages have led to widespread malnutrition among the population and to the movement of hundreds of thousands of people 

in search of food, many becoming victims of human rights violations as a result of 

their search. Intensified security concerns in the region have had affected human 

rights, as northeast Asian nations have tread more softly on the human rights 

issues and donor countries have limited or suspended their humanitarian assistance, aggravating the plight of North Koreans most in need. North Korea must end 

the human rights abuses against its own people and ensure that international food 

aid and other food supplies are distributed equitably to all among its population 

without discrimination, and there should be no embargo on international food supplies. Food should never be used as an instrument of political and economic pressure. 

The Philippines 

The human rights situation in the southern Philippines deteriorated. The Philippines’ armed forces engaged in indiscriminate bombing and shelling of civilian targets resulting in a numerous deaths and injuries, and the displacement of over 

400,000 persons. There were continuing reports of extrajudicial executions, ‘‘disappearances,’’ torture, deaths in custody, and arbitrary arrests and detentions. A 

key factor contributing to these tragedies was the lack of attention by the international community. 

The Middle East (General Concerns) 

In general, the human rights conditions in the Middle East are increasingly precarious, with an increase in violations of the right to express political dissent and 

widespread clampdowns in Egypt and Jordan, among others, on freedom of expression and assembly, including harassment, arbitrary arrest and detention. Police 

have reportedly used excessive force against demonstrators, and some of those arrested allegedly have been subjected to torture and ill-treatment. Adoption of the 

Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism has only facilitated the intensification of the already poor human rights record by the region’s governments, 

which used the pretext of ‘‘fighting terrorism’’ to suppress dissent. Since the world’s 

media has largely been focused on the Iraq war, such violations throughout the rest 

of the region have not received sufficient public scrutiny. Amnesty International 

urges all governments to respect the right of people to express peacefully their opinions, and to refrain from using the war in Iraq as a pretext for curtailing or abusing 

fundamental human rights. The Iraq war and ‘‘fighting terrorism’’ must not render 

the suppression of political dissent invisible or acceptable. 

Egypt 

In recent weeks abuses have intensified in Egypt. For example, Amnesty International is concerned about the safety of dozens of men, women, and children detained in connection with anti-war demonstrations in Cairo. Several detainees have 

alleged that they were tortured or ill-treated in custody. Following the demonstrations, dozens of people including lawyers, journalists, Members of Parliament, and 

students were issued detention orders in March for up to 15 days of incarceration. 

Although they were subsequently released on bail, they were accused of committing 

various offences, including participating in illegal gatherings and threatening public 

security. 

Iraq 

In 2002, the human rights situation in Iraq remained grave with widespread 

human rights violations, including suppression of freedom of expression and association, ‘‘disappearances,’’ extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrest, unfair trials, and the 

use of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The two Kurdish political 

parties controlling northern Iraq detained prisoners of conscience, and armed political groups were reportedly responsible for abductions and killings. According to 

UNICEF and other organizations, the economic sanctions contributed to severe 

hardship for the civilian population and a humanitarian crisis. In recent months, 

Amnesty International has urged adherence to international human rights and humanitarian law by all parties to the war, and in the aftermath of the war is focusing 

on ensuring that humanitarian and human rights concerns are urgently addressed. 

Israel/Occupied Territories/Palestinian Authority 

The human rights abuses occurring in Israel and the Occupied Territories intensified over the past year. An estimated 1,000 Palestinians have been killed, most of 

them by the Israeli Defense Forces, and more than 450 Israelis have been killed by 

25

Palestinian armed groups. Most of the killings have occurred under conditions that 

contravene the Geneva Conventions provisions for the protection of civilians. Amnesty International has repeatedly called for all parties to the conflict to take immediate measures to protect civilians and end all unlawful killings, for international 

human rights monitors to be sent to Israel and the Occupied Territories, and for 

reports of torture by Israeli and Palestinian authorities to be investigated and for 

those found to be responsible to be prosecuted for their actions. 

Jordan 

In Jordan, Amnesty continues to be concerned about laws that have expanded the 

scope and definition of ‘‘terrorism’’ and placed additional restrictions on freedom of 

expression and the press. The new security measures criminalize peaceful activities 

unrelated to politically motivated violence and run counter to international human 

rights law. The laws are part of a worrying trend of growing repression, building 

on laws introduced 2001 that limit the right to assembly and to access legal counsel. 

In recent months, Amnesty International has grown concerned about the clampdown 

on freedom of expression and assembly and the use of indiscriminate force surrounding demonstrations about the Iraq war. Amnesty International is concerned 

about the welfare of anti-war activist Ibrahim Alloush, Dr. Issam Al-Khawaja of the 

political board of the Popular Union Party, and Ibrahim Al-Yamani of the Shura 

Council of the Islamic Action Front, along with other anti-war activists who were 

arrested and believed to be held in incommunicado detention. 

Saudi Arabia 

Although the report is generally more comprehensive and detailed than in years 

past and included coverage of modest efforts taking place within Saudi Arabia to 

improve human rights, there were, however, omissions or understatements. While 

there was discussion of the aftermath of the April 2000 events in Najran, there was 

no discussion about the arrests of Shaikh Ahmad Turki al-Sa’ab, Hamad ’Ali 

Daseeny al-Hutailah, Hamad Qulayan al-Zbeydi, including the fact that they were 

arrested after Shaikh al-Saab gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal. In addition, the mention that an editor was fired for criticizing judges (actually it was for 

publishing a poem critical of judges), should also have included that the poet whose 

criticism was published, Abdul Mohsen Musalam, was jailed. Not mentioned at all 

was the arrest of Sa’d bin Sa’id Zua’ir, detained while on his way to Qatar to appear 

on al-Jazeera TV to lobby on behalf of his father, Dr. Sa’id bin Zua’ir. Dr. Zuair was 

recently released after being held without charge since 1995 for criticizing the government; his son remains in prison. As in the past, this report states unequivocally 

that in Saudi Arabia: Freedom of religion did not exist. This is true, and so it remains puzzling as to why the U.S. Department of State did not name Saudi Arabia 

as a country of particular concern, as recommend by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. 

Yemen 

During the past year the Yemeni government detained scores of people in connection to the ‘‘war on terrorism.’’ Some have been released, but the government has 

continued to arrest more. Reportedly, none of the detainees have been charged or 

brought before a court. In most of the cases of these detainees, the government has 

acknowledged the absence of strong evidence to charge them. The detainees are held 

by the Political Security Office (PSO), which answers only to the president and is 

known for its ill-treatment and torture of prisoners. In addition, the government deported over 100 foreign students including a dozen Americans, primarily those 

studying at Muslim religious schools. No legal process was followed in these deportations and in most cases their embassies were not notified of their detention prior 

to deportation. At the same time, the Yemeni government tried to play a balancing 

act, seeking to support the US war on terror and oppose the war in Iraq. The Yemeni government supported anti-war demonstrations and the country saw some of the 

largest anti-war protests in the Middle East. However, anti-war protesters, including an 11-year-old boy, were killed in a recent demonstration, as was a policeman. 

Reports indicate that the protests began peacefully but deteriorated when police responded with excessive force. There has been no government investigation of this 

incident. Amnesty International has called on the government to ensure that those 

detained are not tortured and receive prompt access to family and lawyers, and that 

anyone held solely for demonstrating peacefully be released without delay. 

Thank you.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Our next witness is Ms. Jennifer Windsor, Executive Director of Freedom House. Freedom House is a nonprofit, 

26

nonpartisan organization that works to advance the worldwide expansion of political and economic freedom through international 

programs and publications. Prior to her position with Freedom 

House, Ms. Windsor served for 9 years with the U.S. Agency for 

International Development, most recently holding the position of 

Deputy Assistant, Administrator, and Director for the Center for 

Democracy and Governance of the Global Bureau. Ms. Windsor is 

also an adjunct Professor at Georgetown University. 

Welcome, Ms. Windsor. 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER L. WINDSOR, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, FREEDOM HOUSE 

Ms. WINDSOR. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting 

me to testify today. I am also summarizing my testimony, and ask 

that my prepared remarks and additional background information 

be included in the record. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection. 

Ms. WINDSOR. Freedom House welcomes the opportunity to comment on the latest State Department Report on Human Rights. The 

U.S. Government has released this report at a critical moment. Recently, several of the world’s most repressive regimes have initiated 

or accelerated campaigns of oppression against members of the political opposition, civic associations, and independent journalists in 

their countries. The dictators in Cuba and Zimbabwe in particular 

have moved decisively to smother freedom of thought and brutalize 

their nonviolent opposition while the world’s attention has been 

turned to the war in Iraq. 

The State Department report does a credible and in many cases 

superlative job of reporting and assessing internal conditions in the 

world’s dictatorships and tyrannies. The country evaluations are 

generally forceful and comprehensive. 

There are of course aspects with which we take issue. In the case 

of Russia, the report is notable for its thorough listing of the instances of killing and cleansing of Chechnyans by the Russian military as well as the assassination of Russian officials by Chechnyan 

forces. However, the report gives the impression that Russian repression is simply the by-product of partisan warfare. There is a 

large body of evidence to suggest that Russian brutality is the result of deliberate and systematic policies that broadly and indiscriminately target the Chechen population for intimidation and reprisals. 

I have singled out this particular report because Russia is a U.S. 

ally in the war on terrorism. To maintain its credibility as a leader 

of the antiterror coalition, it is essential that the U.S. be as tough 

and candid in its assessment of its allies as it is toward its adversaries. 

The impact of the war on terrorism on democracy, human rights, 

and individual freedom is at the core of research conducted by 

Freedom House. Each year Freedom House publishes an annual 

survey of ‘‘Freedom in the World,’’ which is the only barometer of 

the state of world freedom that provides a comparative assessment 

of the world’s 192 countries and ranks them in the categories of 

free, partly free, and not free. We looked at this question with particular care in our most recent survey since it measures the state 

27

of freedom for the year 2002, the first full year since 9/11. Our survey data point to several conclusions, some positive, others more 

worrisome. 

First, our data indicates that when assessed on a global basis, 

freedom has not suffered any major measurable setbacks since

9/11. In fact, the survey shows that in 2002 freedom advanced in 

more countries than it declined. The survey reflected real-life improvements in 28 countries. By contrast, freedom registered a decline in 11 countries. The general trend in the last year was a modest gain for freedom and human rights, gains observable in almost 

every region of the world. By the end of 2002, the number of free 

countries increased to the highest in the history of the survey to 

total 89 countries which represented 2.7 billion people. 

These trends toward greater freedom were registered amidst 

fears that the prosecution of a global war on terrorism would lead 

to a reversal of global progress toward respect for human rights; 

however, it is important to note that freedom has gained principally in countries in which the impact of ideological terrorism has 

been marginal or absent. For example, significant improvements 

were seen in both Brazil and Mexico; and in Africa, Kenya underwent a series of legal and constitutional reforms which culminated 

in the freest election ever conducted in that country. And important progress was also noted in Senegal and Lesotho. 

Even in the Middle East, which is the only region which has consistently resisted the move toward freedom that has taken root in 

every other part of the world in the last 30 years there has been 

some, if limited, progress. Perhaps the most important gain occurred in Turkey where a party with Islamic roots prevailed in the 

latest election, was able to form a government, and has subsequently adopted several reforms with important implications for 

the country’s democratic future. Gains were also seen in Bahrain 

which held contested elections for a Parliament with limited powers. 

In addition, many of the countries which are confronting 

transnational terrorism are established democracies with a strong 

rule of law, and have to date successfully preserved a wide array 

of personal, political, and civil freedoms. Some counterterrorism 

measures, however, have raised civil liberties concerns that bear 

continued close monitoring. In the global battle against the tyranny 

of terror, it is all the more important that democratic governments 

be vigilant in sustaining freedom for their own citizens. 

Of course, the news is not all good. Despite the gains, over 2 billion people still live in 48 countries that are rated not free, in 

which a broad range of freedoms are widely and systematically denied. Of those, nine countries are considered to be the worst of the 

worst because of their deplorable record in respecting political 

rights and civil liberties. They include Burma, Cuba, Iraq, Libya, 

North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and Turkmenistan. 

Moreover, a number of countries have utilized the war on terrorism to justify their ongoing or increased suppression of basic 

freedoms. In the Middle East, for example, we have seen troubling 

trends in countries including Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan. In the 

case of Egypt, which is a major U.S. ally, the increased freedoms 

of expression and association and the frequent use of torture are 

28

rightly condemned in the current State Department report. We also 

commend the U.S. Government for weighing in with the Egyptian 

Government on behalf of Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a nonviolent democracy advocate, who until recently was held in prison under patently 

false charges. But we urge the U.S. to raise concerns as forcefully 

about the countless others in Egypt who continue to languish in 

prison for their peaceful political beliefs, and to more energetically 

push the Egyptian Government to respect universally accepted 

freedoms. 

Freedom House is also concerned about the political stagnation, 

failures of reform, and general backsliding that are the dominant 

trends in a number of recent relatively new electoral democracies. 

This group includes Russia, Ukraine, as well as Georgia, Guatemala, and Paraguay. 

Overall, we have detected a clear trend toward more government 

restrictions on freedom of the press that transcends both regions 

and cultures. This rise in media restrictions along with the scourge 

of officially tolerated corruption poses serious obstacles to a deepening of freedom and democracy around the world. They also pose 

a critical challenge that American policymakers must address. 

While Freedom House commends the State Department for its 

honest and hard-hitting report on human rights, we urge the U.S. 

to go beyond assessments, to take concrete action based on those 

findings. We welcome the steps that the U.S. has already taken to 

incorporate the promotion of democracy and human rights and its 

decisionmaking on foreign policy and its allocation of development 

assistance. But the U.S. needs to do even more to make the promise of global freedom a reality. Thank you. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Ms. Windsor. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Windsor follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JENNIFER L. WINDSOR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FREEDOM

HOUSE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. Freedom House welcomes the release of the State Department’s latest annual report on the state of global human rights. 

The U.S. government has released this report at a critical moment. In recent 

weeks, several of the world’s most repressive regimes have initiated or accelerated 

campaigns of oppression against members of the political opposition, civic associations, and independent journalists. Perhaps the most shameful examples are Cuba 

and Zimbabwe. It is not necessary here to go into the details of the Castro regime’s 

persecution of democracy advocates, or of Mugabe’s brutal offensive against his political opponents. But it is worth noting that Castro, Mugabe, and other dictators—

and here I would mention Lukashenka of Belarus—have moved decisively to smother freedom of thought and brutalize their nonviolent opposition while the world’s attention has been turned towards the war in Iraq. 

Freedom House applauds the release of this report, and we urge the U.S. government to utilize its findings when setting policy priorities, especially with regard to 

countries that murder and torture their own citizens and deny them the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

The State Department report does a credible, and in many cases superlative, job 

of reporting and assessing internal conditions in the world’s dictatorships and tyrannies. The country evaluations are generally forceful and comprehensive. 

There are, of course, aspects with which we take issue. The Russia country report 

is one such example. The report is notable for its thorough listing of the instances 

of killing and ‘‘cleansing’’ of Chechens by the Russian military. It also accurately 

chronicles the instances of assassinations of Russian officials and Chechen ‘‘collaborators’’ by Chechen forces. 

However, the report ultimately falls short in its analysis. It gives the impression 

that the nature and scope of Russian repression is simply the by-product of partisan 

29

warfare, when in fact there is a large body of evidence to suggest that Russian brutality is the result of deliberate and systematic policies that broadly and indiscriminately target the Chechen population for intimidations and reprisals. At the very 

least, the report should have presented this assessment as one of several plausible 

interpretations of events in Chechnya. 

I have singled out this particular report because Russia is an ally of the United 

States in the war on terrorism. To maintain its credibility as the leader of the antiterror coalition, it is essential that the United States be as tough and candid in its 

assessment of its allies as it is towards countries the United States regards as adversaries. If it does not, the effectiveness of global U.S. efforts to support democracy 

and human rights will be greatly diminished. 

The impact of the war on terrorism on democracy, human rights, and individual 

freedom is at the core of the research conducted by Freedom House in the period 

since September 11, 2001. We looked at this question with particular care in our 

most recent Freedom in the World survey, since it measures the state of freedom 

for the year 2002, the first full year after 9/11. Freedom House has been publishing 

this survey annually for the past thirty years; it is the only barometer of the state 

of world freedom that provides a comparative assessment of the world’s 192 countries and ranks them in the categories, Free, Partly Free, and Not Free. 

Our survey data point to several conclusions, some positive, others more worrisome. 

First, our data indicate that, when assessed on a global basis, freedom has suffered no measurable setback since 9/11. In fact, the survey shows that in 2002, freedom advanced in more countries than it declined. The survey reflected real-life improvements in 28 countries; by contrast, freedom registered a decline in 11 countries. For the most part, the improvements were not dramatic; nor, for that matter, 

were the declines. But if there were an observable trend for the year 2002, it would 

be a modest gain for freedom and human rights-gains observable in almost every 

region of the world. 

Thus at the end of 2002, the state of world freedom looked like this:

• There were 89 Free countries in which there is open political competition, a 

climate of respect for civil liberties, significant independent civic life, and 

independent media. The number of Free countries increased by four in the 

last year, meaning that both the number of Free countries and their proportion are the highest in the history of the survey. This represents almost 2.7 

billion people and approximately 44 percent of the global population.

• There were 55 Partly Free countries in which there is limited respect for political rights and civil liberties, a decrease of four. These states also suffer 

from an environment of corruption, weak rule of law, ethnic and religious 

strife, and often a setting in which a single political party enjoys dominance 

despite the fac ̧ade of limited pluralism. Approximately 21 percent of the 

world’s population, or 1.2 billion people, lived in such Partly Free societies.

• Over 2 billion people (and 35 percent of the global population) still live in 48 

Not Free countries, where basic political rights are absent and basic civil liberties were widely and systematically denied, the same as the previous year.

The year’s trends toward greater freedom were registered amidst the prosecution 

of a global war on terrorism and signs of a marked increase in the number of coordinated terrorist acts carried out by extremist political movements. Some experts suggested that widespread transnational terrorism carried out by international networks and the anti-terrorism measures adopted in response would result in significant erosion of freedoms, but our latest survey results do not in fact indicate a 

worldwide reversal of freedom. 

It is important to note that freedom has gained principally in countries in which 

the impact of ideological terrorism has been marginal or absent. 

In Latin America, I would like to point to gains in both Brazil and Mexico, two 

of the most important countries in a part of the world that has experienced considerable economic instability, ethnic tensions, and a worrisome rise in political demagoguery. Latin America is a region that was once noted for military juntas, repeated 

coups, death squads, disappearances, political extremism of the right and left, and, 

in the case of Mexico, the longest ruling one-party state in history. Both Mexico and 

Brazil are now governed by democratically elected presidents who are not drawn 

from the usual circle of political elites. These new governments have shown a commitment to the rights of ordinary people and the reform of corrupt institutions, and 

their election is one of the most important developments of the past few years. 

Africa also registered some important gains for freedom. The most significant 

positive movement was in Kenya, where a series of legal and constitutional reforms 

30

culminated in the freest election ever conducted in the country. As a result, Kenya 

was elevated from the Not Free category to the ranks of Partly Free countries. Important progress was also noted in Senegal and Lesotho, both of which achieved the 

status of Free. 

Second, the 2002 results showed encouraging gains for freedom in the Middle 

East. Again, I don’t want to exaggerate the improvements. The Middle East remains, unfortunately, the one region that has resisted the move towards freedom 

that has taken root in every other region of the world in the last thirty years. There 

are, nevertheless, some promising signs to report. Perhaps the most important gain 

occurred in Turkey, where a party with Islamic roots prevailed in the latest election, 

was able to form a government, and has subsequently adopted several reforms with 

important implications for the country’s democratic future. Gains were also seen in 

Bahrain, which held contested elections for a parliament with limited powers. 

Many of the countries confronting transnational terrorism are established democracies with a strong rule of law, and have successfully preserved a wide array of 

personal, political, and civil freedoms. Some counter-terrorism measures, however, 

have raised civil liberties concerns that bear continued close monitoring. In the global battle against the tyranny of terror, it is all the more important that democratic 

governments be vigilant in sustaining freedom for their own citizens. 

Of course, the news is not all good, and some trends, whose eventual impact is 

as yet unclear, are especially troubling. 

The war on terrorism does seem to have had some impact on respect for human 

rights in a number of key countries in the Middle East, including Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. Particularly disappointing is the case of Egypt, a major U.S. ally, 

where the continued persecution of dissidents, the incarceration of the political opposition and the frequent use of torture are rightly condemned in the current State 

Department report. Freedom House has spoken out against the persecution of Dr. 

Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a scholar, nonviolent democracy advocate, and defender of the 

rights of ethnic and religious minorities who, until quite recently, was held in prison 

under patently false charges. We are pleased that, after a worldwide protest campaign, the government of Egypt decided to release Dr. Ibrahim from prison and 

abandon the legal campaign against him. We also commend the U.S. government 

for weighing in forthrightly on Dr. Ibrahim’s behalf, and urge them to raise concerns 

about the countless others who continue to languish in prison for their peaceful political beliefs. 

Freedom House is also concerned about the political stagnation, failures of reform, 

and general backsliding that are the dominant trends in a number of relatively new 

electoral democracies. This group includes Russia and Ukraine, as well as Georgia, 

Guatemala, Moldova, Mozambique, and Paraguay. 

Indeed, we have detected a clear trend towards more government restrictions on 

freedom of the press that transcends regions and cultures. Our annual survey of 

global press freedom, the findings of which will be made public shortly, showed a 

noticeable decline for media freedoms in 2002. 

How do we explain this seemingly contradictory trend, in which more countries 

are embracing elections and other attributes of democratic governance while at the 

same time adopting policies to restrict or harass the press, and in some cases imprison, torture, and even murder journalists? Part of the answer lies in the fact that 

many of the countries where press freedom has suffered setbacks are new and fragile democracies. These are countries where free elections are conducted according to 

schedule and a variety of political parties are allowed to compete for power. But in 

many of these countries, progress in political rights has not been matched by advances in civil liberties. In countries like Russia and Ukraine, elected governments 

have resorted to a variety of methods to silence or intimidate press critics: physical 

harassment, tax audits, selective enforcement of media regulations, state takeovers 

of independent media outlets, charging journalists with criminal offenses, even state 

censorship. 

The rise in media restriction, along with the scourge of officially tolerated corruption, poses serious obstacles to a deepening of freedom and democracy around the 

world. They also pose a critical challenge to American policy makers if they are 

truly committed to the further expansion and strengthening of democracy and 

human rights around the world. 

Freedom House would like to commend the State Department for its honest and 

hard-hitting report on human rights. The challenge now is for the U.S. government 

to go beyond assessments to take concrete action based on their own findings. We 

welcome the steps that the U.S. has already taken to incorporate the promotion of 

democracy and human rights in its decision-making on foreign policy and allocation 

of development assistance. But we urge the U.S. to do more to make the promise 

of global freedom a reality.

31

Mr. GALLEGLY. Our next guest I am pleased to introduce is Mr. 

Rahman Aljebouri. Is that close enough? Aljebouri. 

Mr. Aljebouri. That is close enough. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay. Mr. Aljebouri endured the full spectrum of 

the Iraqi citizen experience. Mr. Aljebouri was arrested, imprisoned, and tortured by the Hussein regime, then was conscripted 

into the military. Later he participated in the 1991 uprising 

against Saddam Hussein’s army, eventually fleeing to a refugee 

camp in Saudi Arabia, where he served as a supervisor and interpreter for the U.N. High Commission on Refugees, and later he resettled in the United States. He now works with the Free Iraq 

Foundation, where he develops advocacy campaigns on behalf of 

the Iraqi community-based organizations. 

What we will hear today are not only his personal experiences, 

but also those stories of relatives he had to leave behind. 

We are pleased to have him before us today. And I look forward 

to your testimony. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF RAHMAN ALJEBOURI 

Mr. ALJEBOURI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is a great honor to be here. I came here basically to shed some 

light on the misery of human rights abuses in my former country. 

I will tell three stories. 

First, my own story, and the second story after that what happened in 1991 after the uprising, and the third story is one of a 

woman in my hometown. 

When I was student in college of art in Baghdad University, I 

read a story. An Iraqi shepard who played flute was drafted into 

the Army, and he lost his arm. Losing his arm changed his life. His 

life never been the same. 

I just read that story in youth club in college. This story changed 

my life similar to the same shepherd. My life never been the same. 

Basically I spent 4 years of my life for that story. I still carry a 

lot of scars on my body for that story. My family life never be the 

same. I have not seen my family for the last 13 years. I have nephews and nieces who grow up. I have just the image, pictures of 

them. I never have the personality of them. I never seen my 

mom—it is normal things—for 13 years. My whole family suffered. 

They lost their government jobs. My oldest brother is a judge, but 

after my activities, after my imprisonment in Iraq, my brother has 

been working as a taxi driver for the last 13 years. It is just a short 

story. I never been a political candidate in Iraq, and I never 

worked with a political party in Iraq. I was 19 years old and all 

what I know, I wrote this story. 

In 1991, my second story, I was part of the uprising in the south. 

You know, we fought that for 21 days. We controlled most of the 

south. We lost the battle. After the Republican Guard get inside my 

town, they collected basically a lot of youth who just joined the uprising at that time. They had a party for them in the soccer field. 

They executed about 200 people in my small town in the soccer 

field in the front of everybody. They are kids, their wives, mother, 

parents. My memory of my country, all the countries in the world 

mostly building up. In my former country, we did down for political 

prisoners. 

32

My third story is a woman. Her name is Makarim, and that 

woman, they own a house close to one of Saddam houses in my 

home State. One day, her husband decided to sell the house basically under the market value. And when he was asked why you 

selling your house under the market value, he said well, I cannot 

keep my eyes open all the time guarding or watching for my famous neighbor. It is just simple, like that. Her husband and five 

sons disappeared, and nobody knows about them until this moment. The woman Makarim went crazy. With time she just throw 

herself in her work. That is the tragedy of the human rights in 

Iraq. And it is well-documented, right now, and we can see on the 

TV what is going. 

And I see the light is red, and I am done. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aljebouri follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RAHMAN ALJEBOURI

Dear Congress members, 

It is a great honor for me to be here, and tell my story, one that is a typical situation in my homeland. It is the story of the nineteen-year-old college student that 

I was that sits in front of you today. 

The purpose of this testimony is to speak of a typical situation in Iraq where 

there is no freedom of speech, where arrests are arbitrary and where the repercussions extend far beyond the accused but also to his or her family members. In 1982, 

I was nineteen years old and active in my town and on the college campus. I was 

a member of the Youth Literature Club and one day I proudly read a short story 

I had written about a young Iraqi Shepard, a flute player, who had been drafted 

to fight during the Iraqi-Iranian war. During the war, he lost his arm and could 

no longer play the flute. Life as he knew it was never the same. Because of my simple reading of a story, I was jailed from 1982–1986 during my second year as a student at Baghdad University. 

Two days later, I was arrested. I was accused of preaching for an underground 

Iraqi political movement of which I was not a member. I had never been part of 

any political party but for a story of a naive young man, I was tortured with cigarette butts, beaten and hung from my arms for four years. But I had nothing to 

tell them. Despite my repeated assertions of my innocence, I was beaten at least 

twice a week. To this day I carry the scars of the cigarette burns, stitches from cuts 

and the psychological horror of being wrongly detained and tortured. 

At one point, I was moved to Al Kadhimai Intelligence Detention Center. The officer in charge there had a reputation as one of the worse torturers for Saddam Hussein. One particular memory still haunts me of when, after reading my file, he 

asked a member of his staff to grille, as in a sheesh kabob, the hand that I wrote 

with. Despite my pleas of innocence, they would continue to ‘‘grille’’ and ask such 

questions as: whom are you working with? How many of you are there? How do you 

get in contact with them and what was the password? They would also take me to 

a torture room to watch other people who were being tortured before they began 

the questioning me. 

I believe that they finally realized that I had nothing to tell them but refused to 

release me because they wanted me to participate in the torture parties they would 

hold when they were drunk. Finally, I signed a pledge stating that I would never 

work in opposition to the government or the presidency of Saddam Hussein. 

When Saddam later invaded Kuwait in 1990, I was a drafted man in the army 

but I refused to go to Kuwait. Later, I joined the 1991 uprising and because of the 

subsequent repression, was forced to leave my country. I spent four years in the 

desert of Saudi Arabia as a political refugee. In 1994, I came to the United States 

as a refugee. 

My actions, first as a young student and second as a conscientious soldier who 

did not agree with the military policies of his government, have cost my family dearly. My siblings have been blacklisted; they have lost their government jobs or prevented from holding them. For example, my oldest brother, a judge, was dismissed 

from his position. The message was clear; they would be punished for my actions 

as a young, nineteen year old and later for leaving. My punishment continues; I 

have not seen my family in twelve years nor know my own nieces and nephews. 

I left the country after the uprising of 1991(the defeat of the rebels). Saddam attacked the cities in the south where thousands of people were murdered/executed. 

33

Saddam’s security guards held people from my hometown (Al hashimaih) on soccer 

field for collective killing, they were executed them in front of their parents, wives, 

children, two hundred people were killed in matter of minutes. The bodies were 

taken by helicopter and thrown from air in other cities to horrify the residents and 

prevent any other uprisings. 

The evils of Saddam continued during the nineties. Each time I called home my 

family or people who were fleeing the country told stories of people who had ’disappeared’. 

The story of Um Akram, who lost her husband, five sons, is well known for the 

people of Hilla city, which happened in 1996. The family lived next to one of 

Saddam’s houses. As the story goes, her husband sold his house under market 

value, and when asked why, he said ‘‘he could not keep his eyes open to protect his 

famous neighbor’’. Later, the house was confiscated, the husband and his five boys 

disappeared one night, and no one knows what happen to them. Um Akram went 

crazy because she could not handle not knowing what happened to her husband and 

sons, she threw herself in the Hilla River and drowned. 

Saddam Hussein’s reputation for torture and brutality are well known. My story 

today is not atypical nor is it the worse; unfortunately it was the common reality 

for too many people in Iraq.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much. 

Now, I am pleased to have Mrs. Soon Ok Lee. Mrs. Lee is a courageous North Korean woman who faced unimaginable horrors in 

the Kaechon Prison Camp. She is the author of Bright Eyes and 

Tailess Beasts, which chronicles her experience during the 5 years 

she was held prisoner. 

We look forward to hearing your compelling testimony, Mrs. Lee 

STATEMENT OF SOON OK LEE 

Mrs. LEE. Mr. Chairman, my name is Soon Ok Lee, and I defected from North Korea in February 1994 with my son, and arrived in Seoul in December 1995. From 1987 through 1992, I was 

in the political prisoners camp in Kaechon. 

Human rights are universal criterion to measure and evaluate 

the political and social development of mankind. Today human 

rights are most violated and least tolerated in North Korea, a blind 

spot of the world. Worst of all, the crimes against humanity that 

have been perpetrating in North Korea for decades have destroyed 

the humanity and personalities of all North Koreans. 

The personality cult of the leaders, the father and son, was the 

norm that came to replace respect for humanity. To achieve this 

purpose, the North Korean leadership operates secret concentration 

camps and prisons for political prisoners in at least 12 locations. 

Their goal is to eliminate all forms of opposition. Over 200,000 innocent victims, including women and children, are detained there 

for life without any judicial process. The secret concentration 

camps, and all other prisons in North Korea, are the sites of the 

worst crimes against humanity in the 21st century, in my view. 

There were some 6,000 prisoners in the Kaechon Prison, where 

I spent 7 years. All the prisoners were deprived of any modicum 

of human dignity. From the moment of imprisonment, prisoners 

were treated as being lower than beasts. I experienced a living hell 

during the 7 years that I spent there. The ordeal at that time was 

to such an extent that even today, I am not sure whether I am 

alive or merely dreaming. 

Kaechon Prison was one of the first prisons constructed by the 

North Korean regime for political offenders. As the economic situation rapidly deteriorated and food shortage became widespread in 

34

the 1980s, even petty commercial offenses, such as buying or selling food in the black market were treated as political crimes. 

Consequently, large numbers of innocent citizens were sent to 

prisons. Kaechon Prison was only for men up until 1982. But after 

that year, the increase in the number of women arrested for trying 

to find daily provisions in the black market or merely travelling 

without an official pass to find food made it necessary for the prison authorities to accommodate women prisoners as well. 

Some 2,000 housewives were serving terms in Kaechon Prison 

when I was there. The women were typical victims of the North 

Korean political system. They were arrested while trying to find 

food when the government discontinued food rations. The women’s 

appeals were considered as an expression of a political discontent, 

and they were accepted as political prisoners. Many of them did not 

even know what the charges were against them or what their prison sentences were. In prison, they only found out for the first time 

that they had been sentenced to serve 10 or 15 years. At Kaechon 

Prison, the inmates were forced to work 16 to 18 hours daily without a moment of rest. They were only allowed to use the toilet 

three times a day, at fixed times. One hundred grams of a poor 

quality corn per meal was the standard ration, and often even this 

was further reduced to 80 or 30 grams for any poor job performance or if a prisoner failed to meet her daily work quota. As a result of these small and inadequate meals, long and hard work, and 

lack of exposure to the sun, all the prisoners suffered from malnutrition and all kinds of diseases. We were allowed to sleep for 

only 3 to 4 hours a day, and our cells were about 6 by 5 meters 

and contained as many as 80 to 90 inmates. Cells were so crowded 

that the prisoners slept with the feet of other prisoner right under 

their noses. There is only one window in each cell, and it was like 

being in a steam bath in the summer days. And in winter, the cell 

was not heated, and it was so cold with icy winds coming through 

the cracks of the floor and the window. 

The prisoners were not allowed to talk to each other or sing, and 

they were ordered strictly by the guards to answer their questions 

only when asked. Punishment is very severe for violating this and 

any other prison rules. The punishment cell is most dreaded by the 

prisoners because it is only 0.6 by 0.7 meters and 1 meter high, literally like a pigeon hole. Prisoners are stripped to the skin in the 

punishment cell and that is why the prisoners called it the death 

chamber. 

Pregnant women were unconditionally forced to abort because 

the unborn baby was also considered a criminal by law. Women in 

their 8th or 9th month of a pregnancy had salt solutions injected 

into their wombs to induce abortion. In spite of these brutal efforts, 

some babies were born alive, in which case, the prison guards mercilessly killed the infants by squeezing their necks in front of their 

mothers. The dead babies were taken away for biological tests. If 

a mother pleaded for saving the life of her baby, she was publicly 

executed under the charge of ‘‘impure ideology.’’

Human biological testing took place once or twice a year. I witnessed such tests. Some women prisoners were so hungry that they 

ate dirt and many died from it. In the labor factories, when there 

was a power outage, the women prisoners were forced to manually 

35

pull their motor belts of their sewing machines because the daily 

quota had to be met no matter what. Prisoners had to—by North 

Korean theory—had to cleanse their crimes by working hard. But 

the goal of the prisons is to work the prisoners slowly to their 

death through extremely hard work and inhumane prison conditions. 

In Kaechon Prison, there were many Christian prisoners. In 

North Korea, Kim Il Sung and his son Kim Jong-Il are to be worshipped as living gods. Christians had to suffer all kinds of harsh 

punishment and degrading treatment in Kaechon Prison for no 

other crimes other than their belief in God. 

I am asking the international community, including the United 

States to intervene in this situation as a matter of international responsibility by asking the North Korean regime as a first step to 

respect human rights and to close down their political prisoner 

camps. I believe international intervention can help this situation 

by demanding that North Korean regime respect the human rights 

and dignity of its own people. 

I have submitted additional written testimony documenting the 

horrible treatment of innocent people in North Korea and others 

who are suffering pain and torment in other North Korean political 

prisoner camps. I am also submitting a written memo about the 

current situation in North Korea, and I would like to thank you for 

giving me the opportunity to testify before you. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection, the entire written text will be 

made a part of the record of the hearing, and I thank you for your 

testimony. We went a little over on it, but understanding the significance, I think that was the appropriate thing to do, and I appreciate your testimony, Mrs. Lee. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Lee follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SOON OK LEE

My name is Lee Soon Ok and I defected from North Korea in February, 1994, 

with my son and I arrived in Seoul in December 1995. From 1987 through 1992 I 

was in the political prisoner camp of Kaechon. In addition to this statement, I would 

like to formally request that my additional written testimony be submitted into the 

record of this hearing. 

Human rights are a universal criterion to measure and evaluate the political and 

social development of mankind. Today, human rights are most violated and least 

tolerated in North Korea, a blind spot of the world. Worst of all, the crimes against 

humanity that have been perpetuating in North Korea for decades have destroyed 

the humanity and personalities of all North Koreans. The personality cult of the 

leaders, the father and son, was the norm that came to replace respect for humanity. To achieve this purpose, the North Korean leadership operates secret concentration camps and prisons for political prisoners in at least 12 locations. Their goal is 

to eliminate all forms of opposition. Over 200,000 innocent victims, including women 

and children, are detained there for life without a judicial process. The secret concentration camps and all forms of prisons in North Korea are the sites of the worst 

crimes against humanity in the 21st century. 

Some 6,000 prisoners were in the Kaechon Prison when I was imprisoned there 

for 7 years. All the prisoners were deprived of all forms of human dignity. From the 

moment of imprisonment, prisoners are treated as being lower than beasts. I experienced a living hell there during the seven years that I was there. The ordeal at that 

time was to such an extent that even today I am not sure whether I am alive or 

merely dreaming. 

Kaechon Prison was one of the first prisons constructed by the North Korean regime for political offenders. As the economic situation rapidly deteriorated and food 

shortage became widespread in the 1980s, even petty commercial offences, such as 

buying or selling food in the black market, were treated as political crimes. Consequently, large numbers of innocent citizens were sent to prisons as political prisVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:32 Jul 23, 2003 Jkt 086775 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\ITHR\043003\86775 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
36

oners. Kaechon Prison was only for men until 1982. After 1982, the increase in the 

number of women arrested for trying to find daily provisions in the black market, 

or for traveling without an official ‘‘pass’’ to find food, made it necessary for the prison authorities to accommodate women prisoners in Kaechon Prison. 

Some 2,000 housewives were serving prison terms in Kaechon Prison when I was 

there. The women were typical victims of the North Korean political system. They 

were arrested while trying to find food when the government discontinued food rations. The women’s appeals were considered an expression of political discontent and 

they were sentenced as political prisoners. Many of them did not have knowledge 

of the charges against them or what their sentences were. In prison, they found out 

for the first time that they had been given sentences of 10 or 15 year terms. 

At Kaechon Prison, the prisoners were forced to work 16 to 18 hours daily without 

a moment of rest. They were only allowed to use the toilet 3 times a day at fixed 

times. 100 grams of poor quality corn per meal was the standard meal and often 

this was even further reduced to 80 or 30 grams per meal for any poor job performance or if a prisoner failed to meet the daily labor quota. As a result of these small 

and inadequate meals, long and hard work and lack of exposure to the sun, all the 

prisoners suffered from malnutrition and all kinds of diseases. We were allowed to 

sleep for only 3 to 4 hours daily. Our cells were about 6 by 5 meters and contained 

80 to 90 prisoners per cell. The cells were so crowded that the prisoners slept with 

the feet of the next prisoner right under their noses. There is only one window in 

each cell and it was like being in a steam bath in the summer days. In the winter, 

the cell was not heated so it was very cold with icy winds coming through the cracks 

of the floor and the window. 

The prisoners are not allowed to talk to one another or to sing and were ordered 

by the guards to answer their questions only. The punishment is very severe for violating any prison rule. The punishment cell is most dreaded by prisoners. It is 0.6 

by 0.7 meters and 1 meter high; literally a pigeon hole. Prisoners are stripped to 

the skin in the punishment cell. This is why the prisoners called the punishment 

cell ‘‘the killing chamber’’. 

Pregnant women were unconditionally forced to abort because the unborn baby 

was also considered a criminal by law. Women in their 8th or 9th month of pregnancy had salt solutions injected into their wombs to induce abortion. In spite of 

these brutal efforts, some babies were born alive, in which case the prison guards 

mercilessly killed the infants by squeezing their necks in front of their mothers. The 

dead babies were taken away for biological tests. If a mother pleaded for the life 

of her baby, she was publicly executed under the charge of ‘‘impure ideology’’. 

Human biological testing took place once or twice a year. I witnessed such tests. 

Some women prisoners were so hungry that they ate dirt and many died from this. 

In the labor factories, when there was a power outage, the women prisoners were 

forced to manually pull the motor belts of their sewing machines because the daily 

quota had to be met no matter what. Prisoners had to cleanse their crimes by working hard. The goal of the prisons is to work the prisoners slowly to their death 

through extremely hard work and inhumane prison conditions. 

In Kaechon Prison there were many Christian prisoners. In North Korea, the 

North Korean leaders, Kim Il Sung and his son Kim Jong-Il, are to be worshipped 

as living gods. Christians had to suffer all kinds of harsh and degrading treatment 

in Kaechon Prison for their belief. 

I am asking the international community including the United States to please 

intervene in this situation as a matter of international responsibility, by asking the 

North Korean authorities, as a first step, to respect human rights and to close down 

their political prisoner camps. I believe that international intervention can help this 

situation by demanding that the North Korean regime respect the human rights and 

dignity of the North Korean people. 

I have submitted additional written testimony documenting the horrible treatment of innocent people in the North Korean political prisoner camps, and I am also 

submitting a written memo about current information about North Korea to this 

Committee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify, and I would be glad 

to answer any questions that you have.

Mr. GALLEGLY. I have a question for Mrs. Lee. Yesterday in the 

news reports, we understand that there are some that have been 

escaping into China from North Korea that are talking about famine that is—that exists in North Korea that may be costing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives. I wonder if Mrs. Lee 

could respond to that and give us her assessment of what she unVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:32 Jul 23, 2003 Jkt 086775 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\ITHR\043003\86775 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
37

derstands to be the state of affairs as it relates to the famine or 

the reports of famine. 

Mrs. LEE. In North Korea, except the City of P’yongyang, I know 

the ration has completely ceased for other parts of the country. And 

that happened since the summer when government stopped the 

distribution of food to people in other parts of the country. 

I believe without foreign aid or food aid to North Korea, there 

will be more people who will suffer and starve to death. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mrs. Lee. Gentleman from California—what we are going to do because the bells have gone off, 

I would like to give Mr. Sherman an opportunity and also Mr. Pitts 

an opportunity to ask a quick question. And then because of the 

interest of time, we are going to have to go to the written format. 

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit these questions for the record. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection, we do have a unanimous consent authorization that all questions will be submitted and answered—questions and answers will be made a formal part of the 

hearing. Mr. Sherman? Thank you, Mr. Sherman. Mr. Delahunt is 

not a Member of the Subcommittee, but I would certainly welcome 

any questions that he would like to submit that will be answered 

and be made part of the record of the hearing. With that, Mr. Pitts. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I too would like to submit 

my opening statement, my questions for the panelist and a statement from another witness in writing. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection. 

Mr. PITTS. I would like to extend a special welcome to Mrs. Lee. 

She is a woman that I admire for her courage and strength, and 

I will ask you to submit, in writing, recommendations that you 

might have for the U.S. policy toward North Korea. 

I want to ask just one question of Freedom House. I would like 

to commend Freedom House, Ms. Windsor for your recent report 

which examined human rights violations suffered by the people of 

Western Sahara at the hands of Morocco. Would you explain what 

steps you believe the U.S. and international community need to 

take to ensure that there is a vote for self-determination for the Sahara people. 

Ms. WINDSOR. Do you want me to answer for the record? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Answer for the record now. I would appreciate 

that. 

Ms. WINDSOR. We are quite concerned about the situation in 

Western Sahara. And I would like to reflect on your question and 

provide you an answer in writing in order to be able to give it justice, since it is a complex situation. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I want to thank all of the witnesses today and 

particularly for your patience with the goings on with going back 

and forth to vote on the Floor. I personally have several other questions that I would like to address specifically to Ms. Arriaga and 

Ms. Windsor, but also to our other two witnesses, and hope that 

I would receive a written response, so that we can make them a 

formal part of the record of this hearing. The gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. MORAN. I am not going to ask a question, but I do want to 

make a point and underscoring yours, Mr. Chairman. Amnesty’s reVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:32 Jul 23, 2003 Jkt 086775 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\ITHR\043003\86775 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
38

port is extraordinarily comprehensive, professional and terribly important for every Member of Congress and the Administration to 

read. Freedom House, thank you for your testimony and for your 

ongoing work as well. 

Mr. Aljebouri, we listened here somewhat impassively, but that 

was a heartbreaking evocative statement, courageous. And I have 

to tell you that it is difficult to understand what you and your 

peers and friends from Iraq have gone through, but I thank you for 

sharing that with us. 

And Mrs. Lee the inhuman treatment is hard to believe that it 

occurs, but because you are here we have to realize that it does. 

So again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this hearing. I wish 

more Members could have heard it, and I appreciate you letting me 

do so. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thanks to all of you, and I look forward to working with you in the future on this Committee. There are many 

challenges for us, and you provided a vital resource. 

I thank you again and with that, the Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(39)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DONALD M. PAYNE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Thank you, Assistant Secretary Crane, for joining us today to discuss human 

rights. 

The United States, as we are all aware, has a tradition of being concerned about 

human rights worldwide. 

This concern extends to a broad range of areas—from prison conditions to freedom 

of religious expression to trafficking in persons. 

In pursuing these key humanitarian objectives, we underscore America’s commitment to reducing injustice and discrimination in all forms worldwide. 

This not only reminds us of our bedrock values, but it also reflects our interest 

in creating improved living conditions for all of humanity. 

In doing so, we support equality and fairness in how our fellow human beings are 

treated, in of itself a means of improving our collective security. 

I appreciate the devotion and hard work that goes into the preparation of these 

credible, often-cited documents. 

The reports serve an important role in educating and informing the public about 

human rights conditions and trends around the world. 

The reports also remind us that respect for human rights is an ongoing process 

everywhere. 

Today is International Labor Day. 

I am pleased to note the Human Rights Report’s emphasis on the need to eliminate child labor. 

Addressing the worst forms of child labor should certainly remain a priority as 

we analyze and report on conditions overseas, and subsequently respond to in our 

foreign assistance programming. 

I would like to encourage the Department of State to ensure that resources—staff 

and programming—are allocated to remedy human rights shortcomings in a manner 

commensurate with their seriousness. 

Let me close by posing a few questions regarding human rights: 

—In Africa and the Caribbean in particular, HIV/AIDS continue to take a heavy 

toll as the pandemic rages. 

I encourage the Department of State to regard this plague as a human rights-related issue, with access to affordable medications to treat it increasingly regarded 

as a basic human right. 

Along these lines, how does the Department of State consider health care in terms 

of human rights? 

—In Northern Ireland, the Assembly and Executive were suspended last October, 

with direct rule being imposed rather than a continued devolution of power. 

I encourage the Department of State to work to ensure that the Good Friday 

Agreement is honored and that decision-making returns to the local level as soon 

as possible to permit the exercise of political rights by the citizens of Northern Ireland. 

How does the Department of State view this ongoing human rights situation? 

—Along the lines of freedom of political expression, I note with interest that Cyprus has voted to join the European Union. 

Complicating this process, however, is the fact that the nation remains physically 

divided. 

What process does the Department of State seek to implement to settle this 

human rights-related issue once and for all? 

40

Thank you for your attention to these important matters. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing to review the annual 

State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. This annual Report

serves the very important purpose of publicizing the terrible human rights abuses 

occurring around the world. I commend the State Department for the continued improvements to this Report over the years and for the tremendous amount of work 

poured into its compilation. Thank you to all of the officials who assisted in the 

drafting and compilation of this year’s Report. And, thank you to today’s witnesses 

for being here to share your insight, expertise, and personal experience. I would like 

to extend a special welcome to Mrs. Soon Ok Lee, a very courageous woman who 

survived and escaped from the very brutal and horrific prison camps in North 

Korea, and to Mr. Rahman Aljebouri, an Iraqi torture survivor. 

The importance of the State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices cannot be understated. The issues addressed in the Report, or the issues omitted from the Report, directly impact the lives of individuals. In light of this fact, 

I would encourage the authors of this Report to ensure that all relevant material 

is covered thoroughly and as extensively as needed in these Reports. 

As our nation, in alliance with other countries, pursues the war against terrorism, 

it is vital that human rights issues remain at the forefront of policy discussions and 

diplomatic interaction with other nations. There is an intricate relationship between 

human rights abuses and terrorist activities. In numerous countries around the 

world, local villagers, attacked by officials or terrorist-type organizations, have cried 

out to the international community for help. Unfortunately, these cries have often 

fallen on deaf ears. If the international community had paid more immediate attention to these human rights violations, perhaps it might have helped prevent the 

spread of terrorism. There is nothing we can do about the past, however, our nation 

and the international community CAN be more responsive in the future. The State 

Department Human Rights Reports are a valuable tool in documenting patterns of 

human rights abuses and the underlying issues behind those abuses. 

BURMA

In January of this year, I traveled to Thailand, the Thai/Burma border, Laos and 

Vietnam. During the trip, I visited with individuals in a refugee camp from Burma, 

Christians, Buddhists and Muslims, and heard heart-wrenching stories of the horrific treatment of the people of Burma at the hands of the ironically-named State 

Peace and Development Council (SPDC). As mentioned in this year’s Report, the 

ruling military junta engages in a scorched earth policy to destroy entire villages 

along with food storage and production sources, systematic rape, uses humans, including women and children, as landmine sweepers, conscripts ethnic minorities for 

forced labor, also known as slavery, and refuses to allow the duly elected leader of 

the country to take office. These abuses and many other human rights violations 

have turned the country of Burma into one large concentration camp. The regime 

appears to be engaged in a deliberate policy to eliminate the ethnic minorities. 

The stories from refugees and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) were heartwrenching. I visited an orphanage and met with a number of young children. One 

group of four children, the oldest was 12, had lost their father; their mother could 

not take care of them so she brought them to the orphanage. An eight-year-old boy, 

who could not smile, had lost both parents, was then trafficked across the border 

to Thailand, somehow escaped from his ‘‘owners,’’ and reached the safety of the refugee camps. The international community, including the U.S., must help bring an 

end to the abuses committed against the people of Burma. 

NORTH KOREA

In North Korea, as our witness Mrs. Soon Ok Lee will share, the government actively starves and physically persecutes its people. The people of North Korea have 

faced mass starvation, torture, Nazi-style prison camps, forced labor camps, and 

other horrors at the hands of their leaders. Human Rights Without Frontiers reports 

from testimonies of prisoners that in the prison camps ‘‘pregnant women were forced 

to abort. If a baby was born alive, it was killed. During my detention here, three 

young women were detected to be pregnant and were sent to the police outside the 

camp for abortion.’’ Even further details from another source reveal that ‘‘When a 

baby was born, it was abandoned to die on the floor or suffocated with a wet plastic 

41

sheet put on its face. Seven or eight babies were delivered and killed in a month 

at the camp. Their bodies were thrown away. Security officers kicked the bellies of 

pregnant women whose gestation was less than five months. As the pregnant 

women were screaming out of pain, the officers ordered them to run around the 

campground to induce quick abortion.’’

Recently, I was privileged to meet with the Association of the Families of Victims 

Kidnapped by North Korea. The families of Japanese victims who had been kidnapped by North Korean agents told deeply moving stories. They also shared that 

Japanese citizens were not the only ones kidnapped by North Korea, but that citizens of other nations from East Asia and the Middle East had been kidnapped. 

Dr. Vollertson, a German doctor I met who lived and worked in North Korea for 

18 months, made a strong statement that should spur the international community 

to action. Dr. Vollertson compared the North Korean prison camps to Nazi concentration camps and said, ‘‘ No journalists, nobody wanted to believe that Hitler 

is so cruel, that the German government is so cruel. . . . I think it’s my duty as 

a German to learn from history, to not make the same mistake twice.’’ It is the duty 

of the international community not to make the same mistake again and ignore the 

plight of thousands of people in North Korea who are starving or who are in terrible 

prison camps where they are beaten and tortured in horrific ways. 

EGYPT

I would like to commend President Mubarak of Egypt for his decision to mark the 

Coptic Orthodox Christmas as a national holiday for all Egyptians, regardless of 

their religion. The President’s statement that ‘‘we should not deal with each other 

as Muslims and Christians, but as Egyptians, as religion is a personal belief that 

we all deal with as citizens living on the same soil’’ is an important step in addressing the issues facing religious minorities in Egypt. 

There continue to be problems, however, for the Christian community, including 

Coptic Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant believers. The ancient Ottoman decree of 

1865, the Hamayouni Law, mandates that non-Muslim communities get presidential 

permission to build a place of worship. The Islamic community is not required to 

obtain presidential permission to build places of worship. If the Egyptian government, as it claims, treats all citizens equally, it seems strange that only certain communities need presidential permission to build a place of worship. The Hamayouni 

law is one of the only, if not the only, decrees remaining from the Ottoman Empire. 

Despite government claims that the President approves all applications he receives, 

other sources reveal that government ministries, particularly the Interior Ministry, 

delay or do not even submit applications to Egypt’s President. Reports from the 

Christian community reveal that security officials have stopped them from using 

issued permits and have blocked permits for church repairs. 

Recently, reports reveal that on April 5, 2003, the Patmos Center, a Coptic home 

for handicapped children was attacked by Egyptian authorities using armored vehicles, tear gas bombs and a bulldozer. Workers at the center bravely confronted the 

soldiers trying to protect the Center and the children. However, employees of the 

Center who protested attacks by government officials in 1996, 1997, 2001, and 2002 

have been threatened and beaten. 

In addition, the fact that the Egyptian people have been under Emergency Law 

for the past few decades leaves myriad opportunities for abuse by Egyptian officials. 

Egyptians can be detained without charge. Torture by authorities abounds in the 

prison system, particularly at the hands of Egypt’s notorious SSI. 

Further, the government has imposed laws and regulations to maintain excessive 

control of NGOs operating in the country. The arrest and imprisonment of Dr. Saad 

Eddin Ibrahim and his associates at the Ibn Khaldoun Center is a prime example 

of the government’s desire to control speech and the dissemination of ideas. I am 

delighted at the release from prison of Dr. Ibrahim, however, it is tragic that he 

was arrested in the first place. Democracy and freedom cannot flourish in Egypt 

until the issues of arbitrary detention and imprisonment, among other issues, are 

addressed. 

VIETNAM

In Vietnam, the case of Father Thadeus Nguyen Van Ly exemplifies the persecution facing religious believers throughout the country. Father Van Ly has spoken 

out in support of religious freedom in Vietnam for over 25 years. Two arrests, ten 

years of imprisonment, and government media campaigns against him have not 

stopped him from urging the government of Vietnam to uphold and protect one of 

the most basic rights of freedom of conscience for the Vietnamese people. He was 

first detained in 1977 after distributing copies of a bishop’s letter criticizing reliVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:32 Jul 23, 2003 Jkt 086775 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\ITHR\043003\86775 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
42

gious intolerance and the arrests of Buddhist monks in Vietnam. In 1982, while 

serving as a parish priest, Father Van Ly led Catholics on a pilgrimage to a site 

considered holy by Vietnamese Catholics. He was arrested when refused to stop the 

pilgrimage. He was sentenced to ten years in prison but released after serving nine 

years of that sentence. 

Most recently, in February 2001, Father Van Ly submitted written testimony to 

the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The testimony criticized 

Vietnamese officials because they had ‘‘stripped all churches of their independence 

and freedom.’’ The Vietnamese official media responded with a strong campaign 

against him stating that Father Van Ly had ‘‘not shown any signs of remorse’’ for 

his ‘‘rabid and challenging attitude.’’ On May 17, 2001, as he prepared to celebrate 

Mass, hundreds of police officers appeared at his church and arrested him. Officials 

brought Father Van Ly to trial in October 2001 and charged him with defying a 

state order of confinement and ‘‘undermining the state policy of great unity.’’ The 

half-day trial, at which Father Van Ly reportedly had no legal representation, concluded with conviction and a sentence of 15 years in prison. 

Time does not allow further focus on the terrible human rights violations in India, 

Nepal, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Morocco, China and other countries. 

However, the importance of the State Department’s Annual Country Reports on 

Human Rights Practices cannot be overstated. Our government must pour more resources into this Report and into the Department of Democracy, Human Rights, and 

Labor so that a spotlight continues to brightly shine on human rights violations 

around the world. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO THE HONORABLE LORNE W. CRANER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS’ SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION AND

HUMAN RIGHTS, AND MR. CRANER’S RESPONSES

Question: 

The U.N. Commission on Human Rights membership is an outrage. Libya’s chairmanship of the Commission is a travesty. What steps are being taken by the Administration to rectify this situation to ensure that the most egregious human rights abusers cannot influence the Commission? Please comment on how the Country Reports 

on Human Rights Practices might be used by the Administration to facilitate reform. 

Response: 

We agree that the current membership of the Commission on Human Rights 

(CHR) is problematic. For many years the Commission went downhill. The Session 

this year had mixed results. The Commission was designed to be a place for countries that believe in democracy to gather and to discuss human rights issues and 

decide what to do about them. This has become very difficult because countries with 

poor human rights records have packed the Commission. 

Still, the CHR is a unique body, one that we want to see succeed. We are actively 

working to convince democratic countries that uphold human rights principles to become members of the CHR. As a beginning, in January 2003 the United States 

called for an unprecedented vote and opposed Libya’s election as Chair of the Commission to signal to the world that this was an unacceptable choice. In taking this 

action we left no doubts about our opposition to participation in the CHR of countries that do not respect human rights. 

In the coming year, we will continue to take a more proactive approach to improve 

the membership of this Commission and to ensure better results. We want the Commission to be comprised of states with good human rights records. This is a consistent goal and theme in our discussions with the High Commissioner. It is a key 

pillar of our efforts to reform the Commission as a whole. Over the last year, we 

have actively encouraged democracies and countries with good human rights records 

to run for election to the Commission on Human Rights, particularly countries in 

the Africa and Asia regional groups. We will continue to do so and we have pressed 

the European Union and others to do the same. We have asked all U.N. members 

to support democratic candidates for the Commission from their regional groups. We 

have also begun to discuss with other governments the idea of forming a democracy 

caucus at the CHR. While a number of countries with strong democratic records did 

not run for CHR membership this year, a net of three more democracies were elected in April. This was an encouraging start. Unfortunately, a number of human 

rights violators continue to be elected, including Cuba, resulting in a net balance 

43

or ‘‘wash’’ in terms of membership. We look forward to continuing in a positive direction. 

The Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices provide a comprehensive, 

permanent and accurate assessment of how well each country respects human 

rights. The Administration formulates policy options on the basis of its contents, 

and we will take the Report’s conclusions into account when deciding which candidates to support for the Commission. We will also encourage other governments 

to consider the Report’s conclusions in forming their own nomination and voting positions as well. 

Question: 

In the recent past, observers and critics have generally lauded the improvements 

in the quality and coverage of the County Reports on Human Rights Practices. Improvements continue under your tenure as Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Please comment on your vision for the future 

of the Country Reports. What specific areas would you target for further improvement? 

Response: 

Every year we strive to improve the consistency across all 196 country reports. 

We strive to create a comprehensive, permanent, accurate, and credible record of 

human rights conditions. Our goal is to make the Country Reports serve as an even more effective instrument of U.S. Foreign Policy. My staff has continued the policy 

of cross-references within individual country reports to assure easy access to information that cuts across more than one issue. In addition, embassies have been instructed to keep their draft reports, except for in the most high-profile cases, to a 

3-year statute of limitations to highlight those events that took place in the calendar 

year, while noting important cases from previous years. Finally, we began using 

hyperlinks in a selected number of reports last year and intend to expand this practice this year in order to make the reports easier to navigate. I believe these measures will help to further improve the readability of the Country Reports. I would be 

happy to take suggestions for further improving this process and increasing the usefulness of the Country Reports. 

Question: 

You stated in your testimony that the State Department has doubled its resources 

to advance human rights and democracy in the Kyrgyz Republic and Turkmenistan 

and nearly quadrupled its resources going to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Has this 

concentration of resources yielded appreciable advances in the human rights situation in these countries? Please comment on specific improvements as well as programs currently in place to advance human rights and democracy in these countries. 

Response: 

To complement the hard-hitting diplomacy of the U.S. Government, including the 

continuous interventions of various U.S. officials in the region, the U.S. Government 

is funding numerous programs designed to promote democracy and human rights 

in the region. In addition to the many programs administered by USAID and by the 

State Department, DRL is using the Human Rights and Democracy Fund (HRDF) 

to support some innovative programs in the region. These programs focus on four 

main areas: support for strengthening rule of law, human rights NGOs, independent 

media, and political party development. 

For example, in Uzbekistan we are funding the establishment of resource centers 

for human rights NGOs which provide not only the physical infrastructure for 

human rights defenders to meet, disseminate information via computers and access 

to the Internet, but also the training they need to more effectively monitor and report on human rights abuses in Uzbekistan. The popularity of these centers has 

been overwhelming and human rights activists are claiming that for the first time 

ever they are beginning to feel safe in coming together to discuss and advocate for 

the protection of human rights. We have also funded the first human rights clinic 

in all of Central Asia. Housed at the Tashkent Law School, law students are taking 

special courses in international human rights and then providing legal counseling 

to Uzbek citizens to help them acquire their civil rights. 

In Kyrgyzstan, we are funding the formation of Information Centers for Democracy (ICDs), spread across the entire country. Citizens who are too poor to afford 

newspapers now have access to most of the independent newspapers published in 

the country; moreover, the trained staff at these centers host weekly political discussions on current events, educating citizens on how they can advocate for greater 

government accountability. Also in Kyrgyzstan, we are funding the creation of the 

country’s first independent printing press. For the first time, independent newsVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:32 Jul 23, 2003 Jkt 086775 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\ITHR\043003\86775 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
44

papers will no longer be subject to the unfair treatment of state-run printing presses; they needn’t fear their papers won’t be printed because they criticize the government. 

In Kazakstan, we are providing funding support for a political party development 

program, which includes support for political movements seeking change in 

Kazakhstan. Despite a new Political Parties Law designed to exclude many previously registered opposition parties, Ak Zhol, a moderate opposition party, has registered. We are also funding a regional media development program in which 

Kazakh journalists receive training and direct assistance to improve and increase 

human rights reporting. 

In a final example, we are also funding a unique program to support the creation 

of a network of human rights advocates who work together across the three countries of the Fergana Valley—Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. This is a very 

troubled spot in Central Asia and the program has helped citizens not only to become advocates for their rights with their respective governments, but also to develop collaborative campaigns across borders, helping to alleviate ethnic tensions in 

the region. 

The programs of DRL and other U.S. agencies are designed to nurture the nascent 

forces of democracy in Central Asia. While the task is not easy and will take many 

years to complete, the programs are bearing fruit and we invite you and your colleagues to visit the region to see the programs for yourselves. 

Question: 

Under the category of Freedom of Speech and Press, the Reports include the availability and accessibility of the Internet. Please comment, giving specific examples, on 

the impact of Internet accessibility and the promotion of human rights and democracy. 

Response: 

The State Department reports on this important topic in the annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. 

The Internet has had a profound impact on the promotion of human rights and 

democracy. It has revolutionized the way people communicate and do business. The 

Internet offers people an opportunity to express their views and gain access to information. 

It has become a galvanizing tool for the human rights and democracy community. 

Non-governmental organizations and human rights and democracy advocates use 

the Internet to organize campaigns, network, and transmit and share information 

within individual countries across international borders. E-mail lists and websites 

used by many groups are fast and effective. The global campaign against landmines 

began on the Internet. 

Finally, it has altered the balance of power between governments and those who 

produce information. The Internet threatens traditional government controls over 

freedom of expression, like press censorship. Citizens now frequently have access to 

alternate sources of information to those offered by state-controlled media. 

The Internet’s potential to promote democracy and human rights, however, is limited. Authoritarian governments increasingly have sought to control the Internet. 

The Carnegie Endowment recently published an analysis of government efforts in 

a publication entitled ‘‘Open Networks, Closed Regimes: The Impact of the Internet 

on Authoritarian Rule,’’ which includes coverage of China and Cuba’s as well as 

other countries’ efforts to control the Internet. In order to overcome this significant 

obstacle, democratic governments and civil society must work together to maintain 

the Internet as an ‘‘open’’ democratic medium. For example, the State Department’s 

Bureau of Public Affairs and International Information Programs Office maintains 

two Internet sites designed to provide information on the Department’s mission and 

work to the public and civil society. 

Question: 

Reports from Afghanistan indicate that serious human rights abuses are being 

committed by militias directed by local warlords. Reports indicate that these militias 

sometimes post as security forces and rob, kidnap, and rape local citizens. Personal 

security is an overwhelming concern of the Afghan people. What steps are the U.S. 

and international community taking to ensure general security and ensure that basic 

human rights are respected in Afghanistan? In your opinion, what additional immediate actions could be taken to address this situation? 

45

Response: 

The United States and the international community remain committed to working 

with President Karzai and his team as they build greater security and ensure that 

basic human rights are respected in every region of Afghanistan. 

We know that achieving lasting stability and security in Afghanistan will depend 

on a number of factors, including effective means of addressing past and present 

human rights abuses. A key priority of the United States Government is to support 

the creation of a national army, a national police force, and a national judicial system. My office has also committed money to strengthen the Afghan Independent 

Human Rights Commission (AIHRC). We continue to look for ways to build the capacity of the AIHRC to investigate past and present abuses. 

Question: 

A preliminary draft of Afghanistan’s proposed Constitution is complete and late 

last week the Constitution Review Commission convened to conduct public consultations with citizens throughout Afghanistan. To your knowledge, has any in the State 

Department seen a copy of the proposed Constitution? What measures have been 

taken to ensure that individual freedoms, as specified in the Universal Declaration 

of Human Rights, are protected in law and in fact? What is the U.S. doing to implement the human rights and religious freedom provision of the Afghanistan Freedom 

Support Act? 

Response: 

We have discussed with President Karzai our concerns regarding the proposed 

constitution for Afghanistan, which is still in its draft form. We continue to reiterate 

the importance of language (and actions) that support the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the human rights and religious freedom elements of the Afghan Freedom Support Act. The final product will, or course, 

be a product of negotiations among the Afghan people—and they will ‘‘own’’ the final 

document in the same way we ‘‘own’’ our constitution. We have, however, provided 

support and technical assistance to the Constitutional, Judicial, and Human Rights 

Commissions. 

Question: 

The China report notes that, ‘‘During the year thousands of North Koreans were 

seized, detained, and forcibly returned to their homeland, where many faced persecution.’’ What is the United States government doing to pressure China to fulfill its obligations as a signatory of the 1951 U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and its 1967 Protocol and allow the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees 

(UNHCR) to operate on the northeastern border of North Korea, rather than return 

these refugees to certain persecution, and perhaps death in their homeland? 

Response: 

The United States is deeply concerned about the forced repatriation of North Koreans in China, who have migrated to China to escape famine or repression. As we 

have reported in the Department’s annual Country Report on Human Rights Practices, many of those forcibly returned to the DPRK face punishment, and, in some 

cases, death. In our current effort, we consistently and at high levels urge China 

to adhere to its international obligations as a signatory of the U.N. 1951 Convention 

and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees by allowing UNHCR access 

to North Koreans who have crossed the border into China. We have also pressed 

the PRC to stop the repatriation of North Koreans, who face possible persecution 

upon return to the DPRK. Since many of those crossing the border are seeking food 

because of near-famine conditions in North Korea, we also have continued U.S. donations of food aid through the World Food Program. 

Question: 

In your testimony, you stated that some structural reforms in the areas of rule of 

law and democracy took place in China. In addition, you note reports of increased 

pressure inside of China for political reform. What specific structural reforms in the 

areas of rule of law and democracy were observed and to what do you attribute these 

reforms? Regarding increased internal pressure for political reforms, what is the nature of the pressure? Has this pressure resulted in any change in the political system 

and specifically what type of political reforms are being raised? 

Response: 

The introduction of direct elections at the grassroots level, public legislative hearings, expanded boundaries for media reporting, and judicial reform are among the 

reforms currently under way. Judicial reform has led to new professional standards 

46

for judges and lawyers, as well as revisions to some of China’s trial procedures. Reformers are considering extending local elections to the township level. The media 

is becoming more aggressive in its coverage of sensitive topics. For the first time, 

real civil society organizations are also growing and taking on advocacy roles both 

within the legal system and in the public sector. There is growing debate both in 

official and unofficial circles about expanding or refining reform in all of these areas, 

which, over the long term, will create a foundation for democratization in China. 

There are indications that the Chinese government increasingly recognizes that 

lack of transparency and limited political participation erodes its legitimacy. We believe that the Chinese leadership has allowed many of these reforms as a ‘‘safety 

valve’’ in an attempt to prevent instability. Regardless of the reason for the changes, 

and despite the fact that China remains a tightly controlled state, many of the reforms introduced by the government have heightened Chinese citizen’s awareness 

of their rights and official channels of redress, creating more pressure for reform 

and democratization. 

While these limited institutional reforms have come about with the acquiescence 

of the government, it is the Chinese people who are pushing the boundaries of reform. Growing legalism and rights awareness have prompted increasing numbers of 

aggrieved parties to seek redress in the courts. Associations and civil society organizations, while still closely monitored, are spreading throughout the country and 

many are tackling difficult human rights questions such as worker rights and women’s rights. Even in the area of elections, anecdotes of independent candidates campaigning for local legislative positions are being carried by the Chinese press. 

The State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) 

is supporting these internal pressures for greater democracy and respect for human 

rights in China with an appropriation from Congress. DRL programs are focused on 

promoting legal protection of rights, greater popular participation in government, 

and the expansion of civil society. At the same time, we are helping dissidents outside China. In FY 2002, DRL programmed $5 million and will increase its China 

program to almost $9 million in FY 2003. 

Question: 

In the Country Reports, it was noted that the Chinese government took steps to 

address international concerns about its human rights conditions, by highlighting 

the releases of a number of prominent dissidents and extending invitations to the 

U.N. Special Rapporteurs on Torture and Religious Intolerance and the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. However, as also noted, the overall picture remains bleak. Are there any indications that these incremental steps by the Chinese 

government are having an effect on the daily life of the repressed people of China? 

Are there any indications that the government is truly heeding international concerns 

or do you perceive these steps as attempts to merely pacify the international community? 

Response: 

As detailed in the recent Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, China’s 

human rights record remains poor, and the Government continues to commit numerous, serious human rights abuses. Since I traveled to Beijing in July 2001 and 

announced the resumption of the human rights dialogue on human rights, we have 

raised our strong concerns over abuses at every opportunity and at every level. In 

2002 we saw some incremental but unprecedented progress, including: the release 

of a significant number of individual prisoners such as China Democracy Party cofounder Xu Wenli and Tibetan nun Ngawang Sangdrol; China’s commitment to invite the Special Rapporteurs on Torture and Religious Freedom and the Working 

Group on Arbitrary Detention to China without conditions; a commitment to reach 

an agreement with the ICRC on an office in Beijing; an invitation to the Dalai 

Lama’s representatives to visit Beijing and Lhasa; and the first prison visit since 

1999 under the terms of our MOU on prison labor. 

However, since the beginning of the year, we have been disappointed by backsliding on human rights, including the arrests of labor activists and those seeking 

to express their political views on the Internet. Recent Chinese involvement with 

the involuntary return of Tibetans in Nepal was also a setback. In response, we 

have delivered a series of clear messages to the Chinese authorities that we expect 

them to take immediate steps to get cooperation on human rights back on track. 

The promotion of human rights, democracy and rule of law in China is a longterm proposition. Despite recent negative developments, we will continue to press 

for human rights progress, including: more prisoner releases; China’s promised cooperation with U.N. human rights mechanisms and the ICRC; an easing of the requirements for religious organizations to register with the government; talks with 

47

the Vatican leading to a resolution of outstanding issues; and end to torture and 

arbitrary detention; and steps toward dialogue with the Dalai Lama. 

We will also continue to encourage and support change in China by funding 

projects to advance democracy, human rights, the rule of law inside of China. These 

programs complement our bilateral human rights efforts, by fostering the development of the legal and democratic institutions that will, we hope, eventually replace 

international pressure as the dominant means to check human rights abuses in 

China. 

Question: 

In light of Cuba’s severe human rights crackdown this year, press reports indicate 

that the Administration is considering a range of policy options, such as cutting off 

cash remittances and direct flights to Cuba. In your view, what policy options should 

the Administration consider with regard to the human rights crackdown? 

Other than the UN resolution condemning Cuba, what other measures will the 

U.S. suggest that the UN and other multilateral organizations take to apply pressure 

on the Castro government to reverse its course of action? 

Response: 

Beginning on March 18, seventy-eight men and women were arrested on spurious 

charges of subversion and treason. Twenty had supported the Varela Project, a 

peaceful and constitutional call for a national referendum on political and economic 

reforms. In only four days of secretive and summary trials, the Cuban regime tried 

and convicted seventy-five defendants to lengthy prison terms. The average sentence 

was for more than 19 years in prison. 

As Secretary Powell said on April 28, we are reviewing all of our policies and our 

approach to Cuba in light of the deteriorating human rights situation. This review 

will cover all the policy tools at our disposal, and we will look for those alternatives 

that best serve our continuing interest in supporting democracy and respect for 

human rights in Cuba. Any policy changes will focus on further encouraging international indignation created by the Cuban government crackdown and not on measures that would inflict further pain on the Cuban people, such as cutting off cash 

remittances and direct flights to Cuba. 

We do not stand alone in our shock and abhorrence of this attack on fundamental 

human rights. On May 19, 2003, seventeen members of the Organization of American States (OAS) signed a statement expressing deep concern about the human 

rights situation in Cuba during a meeting of the OAS Permanent Council. 

We have discussed the situation with the UN High Commissioner for Human 

Rights, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and have urged him to remain engaged on this issue. 

UN Special Rapporteurs, such as the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary 

and Arbitrary Executions, have also expressed interest in the situation in Cuba. We 

will encourage them to include Cuba in their assessments and reports to UN members. 

I appreciate the question, which spotlights the problems related to the crackdown 

in Cuba. The Administration hopes to continue to work with Members of Congress 

to encourage democracy and freedom for the people of Cuba. 

Question: 

What assistance is the United States providing to Colombia to stop attacks by terrorist groups against Colombia’s civilian population? 

Response: 

USAID and the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) have programmed, since 2000, a total of $71.5 million for immediate relief and longer-term assistance for civilians displaced from their homes by the internal conflict. This assistance has benefited over 774,000 internally displaced persons. 

Colombia suffers from more kidnappings than any place on earth, with over 3,000 

a year. Terrorist organizations and criminal gangs dominate the kidnapping ‘‘trade.’’ 

The psychological effects on Colombian society are profound. To assist Colombian security forces in their efforts to improve anti-kidnapping capabilities, the USG used 

funds provided in the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act to develop a comprehensive program of training and equipment for Colombia’s special anti-kidnapping (GAULA) units. This program has contributed to improving the GOC’s ability 

to protect Colombia’s civilian population from kidnapping by terrorist groups and 

criminal gangs. 

In FY 03 our anti-kidnapping efforts in Colombia are focused on enhancing tactical skills learned from earlier programs and developing those capabilities for 

GAULA units nation-wide. For FY 04, in-country training will continue, but will be 

48

expanded to develop a cadre of Colombian instructors able to sustain and impart 

these skills to future units. 

Impunity remains at the core of Colombia’s human rights problems. In order to 

combat institutional weaknesses, which have allowed terrorist groups to target civilian populations with relative impunity, the USG is assisting the GOC to strengthen 

the rule of law and protect human rights. USAID supports 31 Casas de Justicia y 

Paz (1.6 million cases handled to date); is helping with Colombia’s transition from 

an inquisitorial to an adversarial justice system; and has established 21 oral-trial 

courtrooms. 

The DOJ is working with the Prosecutor General’s Office (‘‘Fiscalia’’) to set up satellite human rights units throughout the country, enhancing its capability to identify, investigate and prosecute human rights violations. USAID and the Colombian 

National Ombudsman’s Office have developed an Early Warning System (EWS) to 

alert the Colombian military, national police and other state institutions when situations develop that could lead to massacres or forced displacements. Working with 

the Ministry of Interior, we have provided protection to 2,731 human rights defenders, labor activists, journalists and mayors since May 2001. 

Question: 

This year’s Report on Iran states that the government’s human rights record, already ‘‘poor,’’ deteriorated substantially during the year. Please comment on this situation and indicate if there were specific events that led to the further deterioration. 

Response: 

During the past year, the Iranian government has increased its repression of both 

the media and political dissidents. Many newspapers and magazines were shut 

down, and journalists, publishers, and editors were detained, jailed and fined, or 

otherwise prevented from publishing their views. A university professor who criticized clerical rule in Iran in a speech was sentenced to death. The sentence provoked such outrage that the government was forced to grant him a retrial. The government has also permanently dissolved the Freedom Movement, the country’s oldest opposition party, and has sentenced numerous members to jail terms, and prohibited others from participating in political activity. 

Question: 

As the military conflict with Iraq winds down and focus shifts to reconstruction 

and humanitarian efforts, what impact and influence do you foresee Islamic religious 

leaders in Iran exerting in the post-conflict with Iraq? 

Response: 

We recognize that Iran has an interest in Shia participation in the emerging Iraqi 

government, and we intend that government to be fully representative of all of 

Iraq’s people, including the Shia. However, Iran has been interfering in Iraq in an 

attempt to preempt the emerging political process. The United States has publicly 

called on Iran to cease its interference and will ensure that Iranian activities do not 

disrupt the establishment of a representative government in a free, united Iraq. 

Question: 

As the Iraq Country Report stated, the regime of Saddam Hussein engaged in the 

oppression, torture and killing of its own people. Can you provide us with a status 

report of the efforts to identify the worst perpetrators of human rights abuses and 

bring these people to justice? 

Response: 

Saddam Hussein terrorized his people for decades and impoverished the nation. 

Since the beginning of the war, the U.S. has sought to apprehend the worst perpetrators of war crimes, atrocities and human rights abuses. The identities of the 

top 55, and our progress in detaining them, are well known to the American public. 

Among them, two have been confirmed as killed in action and 29 are enemy prisoners of war. Of the latter, nine are war crimes suspects or a material witness. 

The Coalition Provisional Authority, consistent with UN Security Counsel Resolution 1483, is utilizing sources such as mass grave sites, interrogations of prisoners 

of war and recovered documents to gather evidence against those currently in U.S. 

custody, and those at large. In addition, Amb. L. Paul Bremer III, the top civilian 

administrator in Iraq, has issued a DeBa’athification policy requiring that senior 

Ba’ath party personnel and Iraqi officials in positions in the top three echelons of 

the former government be disqualified from future public service. This accompanies 

a broader practice that is being implemented to vet all Iraqi applicants for positions 

49

as police officers, and within the interim administration for evidence of past Ba’ath 

party involvement. 

The U.S. has been a leader in pursuing justice for serious violations of the laws 

of war and other atrocities. Iraq will be no different. There must be credible accountability. The U.S. will prosecute crimes committed against U.S. personnel. For 

the regime’s crimes committed against other counties’ nationals, both in the present 

and in the past, the governments of those nationals may also have a sovereign interest in seeking justice. For the regime’s crimes committed against Iraqi citizens, we 

believe that those responsible should be held accountable before an Iraqi-led process, possibly ranging from tribunals to truth and reconciliation commissions. The 

international community must help the Iraqi people move towards democracy, the 

rule of law and legitimate judicial institutions. The United States intends to help 

ensure that a strong and credible process is created. 

Question: 

The United States faces a certain challenge in seeking to build democracy in Iraq, 

where Shi’ites Muslim factions [sic], most of whom are pro-Iranian, comprise over 

60 % of the population, and could play a dominant political role in Iraq when elections take place. What steps can US officials take to reconcile its goals of developing 

democracy in Iraq while guarding against possible channels for the expansion of Iranian influence or the establishment of a non-democratic religious government in 

Iraq? 

Response: 

The Coalition Provisional Authority is currently responsible for providing for the 

effective administration of Iraq, in accordance with UNSCR 1483 and the laws and 

usages of war. As part of this effort, we will support the efforts by the people to 

Iraq to form a representative government based on the rule of law that affords equal 

rights and justice to all Iraqi citizens without regard to ethnicity, religion, or gender. The vast majority of Iraqis, inside and outside Iraq, have told us of their desire 

for such a government. 

While comprising a majority of the population, Iraq’s Shi’ia are not a monolithic 

voting bloc. They hold a wide range of views. Moreover, while Shi’ism is common 

to Iran and Iraq, Iranian and Iraqi Shi’ia differ in their connections to Persian and 

Arab culture, respectively. 

The Coalition Provisional Authority is engaged in intensive efforts on the ground 

to identify both Sunni and Shi’ite Iraqis and other minorities who share our commitment to a pluralistic and secular Iraq. We are using diplomacy, and enlisting the 

support of allies, to dissuade Iran from interfering in Iraqis’ efforts to establish a 

new, representative government. Other steps to promote Iraqi sovereignty and deter 

extremism will include providing technical assistance to strengthen secular institutions and promote democratic values in Iraqi ministries, offices and schools, including in civic education programs, textbooks and teacher training. In addition, we will 

ensure that the legal framework and institutional checks and balances exist after 

we are gone to safeguard pluralism and basic human rights and freedoms. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO THE HONORABLE LORNE W. CRANER, AS- SISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A REPRESENT- ATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, AND MR. CRANER’S RESPONSES

Mr. Smith’s Question: 

A comparative review of the 2001 and 2002 Country Reports on Human Rights 

Practices for 25 countries revealed that of the six Countries of Particular Concern 

and six countries recommended for CPC status, ten of them experienced a reduction 

in coverage on religious freedom, while no similar trend emerged for the other topical 

sections reviewed in these same reports. There was also a reduction in many reports 

of the number of specific religion-based cases cited in the 2002 country reports. CPC 

and CPC-candidate countries like Burma, Sudan, Iran and Vietnam all experienced 

a decrease in coverage allocated to religious freedom and in the number of religionrelated cases mentioned. 

Next year, will individual human rights cases receive additional attention in all 

sections? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

We appreciate your concern for the State Department’s reporting on religious freedom issues in the annual State Department Human Rights Report. We strive to 

50

present a comprehensive overview of the human rights situation in each country 

while at the same time maintaining a report that is focused and readable. In our 

effort to produce a better and more usable report, we have concentrated on providing illustrative examples of human rights abuses rather than providing an exhaustive list of cases. We plan to follow this approach in next year’s report. We are 

particularly concerned with providing a full and comprehensive overview of religious 

freedom in the CPC countries and those recommended for CPC status. 

Mr. Smith’s Question: 

Please explain the relationship between the Country Reports and the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom. Will reporting on religious freedom in next 

year’s Country Reports cover the full 12-month reporting period, on par with all 

other topical sections, making sure not merely to summarize the 6-month period of 

overlap with the previous year’s Annual Report on International Religious Freedom

mandated by PL 105–292? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

The Country Reports seek to provide a comprehensive overview of many human 

rights areas in the 196 countries it covers. The Annual Report on International Religious Freedom (IRF) provides more detailed information regarding the practice of 

religion and religious freedom in each country. As part of our effort to make the 

Country Reports more usable, we have focused its information on the period from 

July 1 to December 31 to complement the detailed information released in the Annual Report, which covers the first half of the year, but key issues are covered in 

the Country Reports regardless of what time of year they occurred. Furthermore, in 

our version of the Country Reports on the Internet, we provided an electronic 

hyperlink to the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom to allow easy 

access to the information contained in the Annual Report. We strive to provide information in both the Country Reports and the Annual Report that presents an accurate picture of religious freedom in each country. 

Mr. Smith’s Question: 

As your bureau is responsible for the production of both the Country Reports and 

the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom, what role does the IRF Office play in the production of the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

The International Religious Freedom Office provides substantive information for 

the production of the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom and clears 

each country report. 

Mr. Smith’s Question: 

Do you not believe that rulers all over the former USSR have concluded, after a 

decade of experience, that there are simply no consequences for rigging elections and 

that they can continue to do so without fear? What will it take to break this pattern? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

We share your concerns about rigged elections in many of the former Soviet 

states. Notable exceptions are Russia and Moldova, whose recent national elections 

have met OSCE standards, although there have been some problems. The United 

States hopes to help break this pattern and is taking a consistent public approach 

to each flawed election. For example, following Armenia’s extremely poor presidential election this spring, the State Department issued a frank press statement 

that concluded that the government had failed to hold a credible election, and withheld a congratulatory message to President Kocharian. We are intensely involved, 

through our assistance and via diplomatic engagement to work toward presidential 

elections in Azerbaijan in October and parliamentary elections in Georgia in November that meet OSCE standards. 

In general, the people of these countries have little experience of democratic 

standards or belief that they can truly influence their governments. For this reason, 

under the radar screen, over the long term our assistance programs are committed 

to building the kind of civil society that empowers citizens. Even when national 

leaders recognize the problems they have with elections they will have to summon 

the political will to rein in—and, when necessary, prosecute the political bosses who 

flout international standards. 

Clearly, much remains to be done in this area, and we would welcome the opportunity to work together with Congress. 

51

Mr. Smith’s Question: 

The ad hoc tribunal in The Hague is hearing a case against Slobodan Milosevic 

for horrific crimes committed in Kosovo, Bosnia and Croatia. Key to the successful 

prosecution of such a case is the testimony in open court of former U.S. officials like 

Wesley Clark and Richard Holbrooke who can reveal much based on their dealings 

with Milosevic. Apparently, these two former U.S. officials are willing to testify openly, as have military and civilian officials from other NATO countries, and the Tribunal understands and can accommodate the need occasionally to protect sensitive 

or classified information at an otherwise open proceeding. 

Does the Administration have any objections to former U.S. officials like Clark, 

Holbrooke, or others, testifying in an open court in The Hague to help in the case 

against Milosevic? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

As has been the case since the Tribunal’s inception, the United States Government is engaged in close cooperation with the Office of the Prosecutor, at a level 

that is unsurpassed by any other government. We have made available to the Prosecutor an unprecedented amount and variety of information, including witnesses. 

Much of this information has been provided on a confidential basis to assist the 

Prosecutor in her investigations and at trial. We have also provided information for 

public use. Our support to the Prosecutor in the Milosevic trial has been quite significant. Whether to provide witnesses, and under what conditions, is always a matter for case-by-case consideration within our Government and extensive discussion 

with the Prosecutor. These decisions implicate highly sensitive foreign policy and 

national security issues including the handling of the most sensitive U.S. Government information. This is particularly true regarding former officials who held positions as senior as Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and General Wesley Clark. We 

are engaged in ongoing discussions with the ICTY Prosecutor’s office on these matters; but do not, as a matter of policy, comment publicly on them. We would be 

happy to brief you privately on our discussions. 

Mr. Smith’s Question: 

The reports paint a pretty bleak picture of the human rights situation in Central 

Asia. Since September 11, U.S. Government spokesmen have argued that stepped up 

U.S. cooperation with the countries of the region allows us to raise democratization 

and human rights issues that could not be raised before, and the U.S. goal in such 

discussions is to persuade Central Asian leaders that democratization is in their own 

interest. 

There’s precious little evidence that the strategy is working. Is the Department rethinking or recalibrating its approach to this problem? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

The recent cases of two prisoners who were tortured to death by police in 

Uzbekistan highlights the gravity of human rights abuses in Central Asia, as well 

as the challenges for U.S. foreign policy to both fight terrorism and promote democracy in a region where there are vital U.S. national security interests. Yet, over 

time, we can see forward progress. 

During my first trip to Uzbekistan in January 2002, my goals were modest—I 

pushed the Government to fulfill its prior promise to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to have unimpeded access to all prisoners. I also 

emphasized the importance of allowing human rights groups to register. Shortly 

after that trip, the Government of Uzbekistan did register one human rights group 

and resolved its outstanding issues with the ICRC. 

On that same trip, I met with a roomful of family members of political prisoners 

and prisoners of conscience who described how their sons, husbands and brothers 

had been imprisoned and tortured for peacefully pursuing their religious and political beliefs. Yet in my meetings with Uzbek officials, they refused to acknowledge 

that torture was a problem. 

During my second trip in June of last year, I pushed the Uzbek’s to invite the 

U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, to allow more space for political parties to operate, to allow greater freedom of press, to release political prisoners and stop the 

on-going harassment of human rights activists. 

By my third visit in November, the Government of Uzbekistan had not only finalized its invitation to the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, but had also abolished 

formal censorship of media and state control of the Internet. Human rights activists 

were meeting and speaking freely at the newly opened Human Rights Resource 

Center and I met with nearly forty independent journalists who said they were for 

the first time publishing articles critical of the government. The Government of 

52

Uzbekistan also agreed to an amnesty which allowed the release of hundreds of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience. Since my visit last year, the Government of Uzbekistan continues to move incrementally forward: it has not only accepted the U.N. Rapporteur’s conclusion that torture is systemic in Uzbekistan, more 

importantly, Uzbek officials have agreed to address the report’s far-reaching recommendations. Recently a second human rights group was registered and an unregistered political party has been able to hold a national meeting with premise of 

seeking registration. Without sustained engagement, leveraged with our strategic 

cooperation to fight terrorism, we would not have seen these results. 

We have a long way to go before we can claim that the people of Central Asia 

are free to change their governments by peaceful means, have access to independent 

information and can live in peace without fearing government repression. But we 

are moving ahead in most countries, albeit slowly and not without setbacks. 

While the challenges may seem overwhelming, I am confident that we at the 

State Department have developed a viable strategy to promote democracy and 

human rights that has already shown signs of success. Our strategy rests on the 

twin pillars of hard-hitting diplomacy through intense engagement combined with 

innovative programs to bolster nascent democratic forces. Our diplomatic strategy 

is based on expanded dialogue with governments in the region, and strengthening 

those outside of government dedicated to bringing freedom to their countries. 

Across the U.S. Government, we have delivered a consistent message that continued and broadened cooperation with the United States is possible only if there is 

progress in promoting democracy and human rights. 

I do not wish to overstate our successes in the region, but I do feel that without 

our expanded engagement, most of this progress would not have been possible. 

Steps forward include the progress in ending torture in Uzbekistan as mentioned 

above. 

In Kazakhstan, the Government’s poor human rights record worsened in 2002, 

and it continued to commit abuses. After much hard work and strong pressure, the 

Government released one of the two imprisoned opposition leaders. The Government 

also cooperated in allowing U.S. and international officials to monitor the trial of 

an independent journalist. We were also able to affirm and document serious procedural violations. However, U.S. officials were refused access to his subsequent appeal, which did not address the violations of the first trial, so we continue to push 

the Government of Kazahkstan to address those violations. 

In Kyrgyzstan, we were able to get the Government to not only drop a presidential decree restricting the rights of the independent media, but also to agree to 

our program to establish an independent printing press. While the February constitutional referendum was admittedly flawed, the Government of Kyrgyzstan has 

expressed their willingness to work with us and the Council of Europe to bring 

Kyrgyz legislation in line with international standards. The Government has also 

improved their prosecution of cases of trafficking in persons. 

In Turkmenistan, the human rights situation remains bleak. Despite their support for U.S. efforts throughout the War on Terror, we consponsored a resolution 

against them in the UNCHR. 

Mr. Smith’s Question: 

The recent election in Armenia was judged not to have corresponded to OSCE election standards. The prospects for the May 25 parliamentary election, as well as upcoming presidential elections in Azerbaijan and the parliamentary elections in Georgia in November, are not very encouraging. 

What is the U.S. Government’s view of this pattern and what are we doing to 

counter the negative trend? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

The U.S. Government is deeply concerned by the pattern of flawed elections that 

has emerged over several years in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. In response 

to this negative trend, we are taking both diplomatic and programmatic action. 

Specifically, earlier this year, we began work on a Caucasus-wide election strategy. Tailored to the particular circumstances of each country, the evolving strategy 

includes high-level meetings and letters urging the leaders of these countries to take 

specific steps needed for elections that meet OSCE standards; assistance programs 

to empower civil society, political parties, and independent media to demand free 

and fair elections as well as technical support to governments where they demonstrate willingness to make needed reforms; coordination with others in the international community as well as with domestic NGOs in each country, and frank public statements after the elections assessing the extent to which they met OSCE 

standards for democratic elections. For example, Deputy Assistant Secretary for EuVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:32 Jul 23, 2003 Jkt 086775 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\ITHR\043003\86775 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
53

ropean Affairs Lynn Pascoe recently returned from a trip to Georgia, where he 

stressed the importance of elections that meet OSCE standards in meetings with 

President Shevardnadze and other senior officials. Our Ambassadors in all three 

countries have been extremely active on this issue for many months, including 

through ongoing dialogues with senior government officials. Ultimately, however, as 

the recent elections in Armenia demonstrated, the most critical element is political 

will of the governments to reform electoral policies and practices. 

Congress can play an important role in promoting elections that meet OSCE 

standards. We would welcome the opportunity to work together closely to advance 

our shared goal of democratic elections in all three of these countries, and in 

crafting targeted consequences when an election fails to meet OSCE standards. 

Mr. Smith’s Question: 

In the report on human rights in Tibet, there is a lengthy discussion on the largely 

negative impact that the Chinese government’s Western Development Project is having on the traditional way of life. It has been brought to my attention that the Chinese rulers are in the process of constructing a new railway that will connect 

Golmud, in Qinghai Province, with Lhasa. Human rights monitoring groups claim 

that this railroad has the potential to permanently and severely alter the social and 

ethnographic landscape in Tibet. In particular, I understand that the railroad has 

the potential to greatly accelerate the population transfers mentioned in the current 

report, and further marginalize the Tibet population in their traditional homelands. 

Can you share with the Committee the Department’s views on the construction of 

this railway, from a human rights perspective? Can you also tell the Committee what 

the State Department is doing to ensure that U.S. corporations do not support the 

harmful aspects of the Western Development Project, including such harmful projects 

as this railroad? I would be especially interested to hear how or whether the Department is utilizing the tools made available to it through the Tibetan Policy Act, passed 

by the Congress last year, to address the harmful consequences of inappropriate economic development policies in Tibet. 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

We are concerned about the social and environmental impact of the Western Development Initiative (WDI) in Tibet. We are closely monitoring the construction of 

the railway as it could accelerate the movement of Han Chinese into Tibet. As noted 

in the State Department’s Human Rights report, we are concerned about the effect 

that the increase in the non-Tibetan population in Tibet is having on Tibetan culture and that the non-Tibetan population disproportionately benefits from development projects in Tibet. 

We consistently urge the Chinese government to abide by its commitments to protect and preserve the unique cultural, religious and linguistic heritage of ethnic Tibetans. During the December 2002 Human Rights Dialogue, Assistant Secretary for 

Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Lorne W. Craner discussed our concerns regarding the situation in Tibet in detail with Chinese officials. 

We encourage U.S. companies with a presence in China and elsewhere to be socially responsible and take the needs of the local populations into consideration. We 

regularly meet with U.S. companies and business groups with a presence in China 

to discuss their corporate social responsibility efforts. 

Mr. Smith’s Question: 

With respect to Burma, as you know, the United Nations special envoy to Burma, 

Razali Ismail, has not gone back to Burma for several months and the talks in the 

country have completely broken down. Do you have any idea when he may be going 

back? Why do you think the regime refuses to talk to Aung San Suu Kyi and the 

legitimate leaders of Burma? Is the Administration planning to increase pressure on 

the regime and if so how? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

The United States is deeply concerned about the situation in Burma. The May 30 

violent attack on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her traveling party was a premeditated ambush. The debris remaining at the scene suggests a major clash, which 

could easily have resulted in serious injuries to large numbers of people. Currently, 

the Burmese leadership is holding Aung San Suu Kyi, and many other National 

League of Democracy (NLD) leaders are under house arrest. The SPDC has 

padlocked the doors of NLD headquarters across the country, and delayed the opening of universities. 

These actions are unacceptable. We have called on the Burmese government to 

release immediately all those detained or arrested in this action and to provide all 

necessary medical attention to those who have been injured, including assistance 

54

from international specialists. The offices of the NLD must be reopened without 

delay, and its activities no longer proscribed. We also have called for a full accounting of the dead, injured and missing, and are working energetically with the international community to coordinate a multilateral response to this vicious crackdown. 

Special Envoy Razali traveled to Burma on June 6. He has made clear his intentions to visit Aung San Suu Kyi and meet with senior leaders of the SPDC. The 

United States fully supports his efforts. He must be allowed to see Aung San Suu 

Kyi. At the time of this submission, it is unclear if his request will be honored by 

the SPDC. 

The United States has already imposed numerous sanctions on Burma, including 

a ban on new U.S. investment, an arms embargo, a ban on direct multilateral assistance, and a visa ban on senior Burmese officials. We also have maintained our 

downgraded diplomatic representation at the charge ́ d’affaires level since 1990. 

The Administration is also considering new sanctions on Burma, including a ban 

on travel by United States citizens to Burma with scope for permitted activities 

such as humanitarian assistance or official travel, an expanded visa ban to include 

all officials of the USDA and state-owned companies and their families, an asset 

freeze for senior Burmese officials, and a ban on remittances from the United States 

to Burma. We also are working with Congress on additional measures including an 

import ban. 

Mr. Smith’s Question: 

As you know, legislation I recently introduced, H.R. 1587, ‘‘Vietnam Human Rights 

Act’’ contains a detailed list of political prisoners. I was wondering if the State Department could provide us an updated report on the status of the following victims 

of persecution:

1. Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, a leading human rights activist who was arrested on 

March 17, 2003, and has already served two lengthy prison sentences;

2. Dr. Nguyen Thanh Giang;

3. Most Venerable Thich Huyen Quang;

4. Most Venerable Thich Quang Do

5. Linguist Tran Khue;

6. Businessman Nguyen Khac Toan;

7. Journalist Nguyen Vu Binh;

8. Publicist Le Chi Quang;

9. Writer Hoang Tien;

10. Military historian Pham Que Duong;

11. Hoang Minh Chinh;

12. Tran Dung Tien;

13. Hoang Trong Dung;

14. Nguyen Vu Viet;

15. Nguyen Truc Cuong;

16. Nguyen Thi Hoa;

17. Vu Cao Quan;

18. Nguyen The Dam;

19. Nguyen Thi Thanh Xuan;

20. Father Chan Tin;

21. Author Duong Thu Huong;

22. Poet Bui Minh Quoc;

23. Dr. Nguyen Xuan Tu (Ha Si Phu);

24. Dr. Pham Hong Son;

25. Mai Thai Linh;

26. Most Venerable Thich Huyen Quang;

27. Most Venerable Thich Quang Do;

28. Father Nguyen Van Ly;

29. Pastor Nguyen Lap Ma;

30. Father Phan Van Loi. 

55

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

The Administration is deeply concerned about the plight of political prisoners and 

other victims of persecution in Vietnam, and welcomes questions on these cases. We 

monitor these cases with great diligence, and if you have additional information we 

would welcome it. We are providing below the most detailed, current information 

that the Department has regarding the individuals in question. This list includes 

persons who are currently in prison serving sentences, detained awaiting trials, 

under some form of house arrest, and under surveillance but with varying degrees 

of freedom of movement. Some of the latter were prisoners in the past, but others 

on the list have never been imprisoned to the best of our knowledge.

1. Dr. Nguyen Dan Que: Under investigative detention in HCMC. His spouse 

has been able to deliver medicine and money to purchase supplemental food 

and other medicine to his jail every other week. We cannot confirm if he 

has received these items. Police claim that he is housed in a well-ventilated, 

private cell. Consulate General officers were in periodic contact with him 

before his detention and are now in contact with his wife.

2. Dr. Nguyen Thanh Giang: Not currently under formal restrictions and living at home. He is under surveillance and reports that he is the subject of 

propaganda efforts by the security apparatus. Embassy officers are in periodic contact with him.

3. Most Venerable Thich Huyen Quang: His current legal status is uncertain, 

although he is not under known formal restrictions. He appears to be relatively free to travel and meet, however he has told us that he does not 

have regular identity documents. He has met Consulate General, Embassy, 

and third country diplomats at least six times since March and met Thich 

Quang Do in early May.

4. Most Venerable Thich Quang Do: Currently under detention in his pagoda 

in Ho Chi Minh City. This is set to expire in early June. GVN officials have 

indicated that measures against Thich Quang Do will not be renewed when 

the current punishment order expires.

5. Tran Khue: Detained on December 29, 2002 and currently under investigative detention, probably in Ho Chi Minh City.

6. Nguyen Khac Toan: Currently serving a twelve-year sentence for ‘‘espionage.’’ The Hanoi People’s Court refused Embassy’s request to attend his 

trial.

7. Nguyen Vu Binh: Under investigative detention since July 2002.

8. Le Chi Quang: Serving a four-year sentence for spreading propaganda 

against the GVN. Embassy has raised concerns about his health and conditions of imprisonment. The GVN has offered assurances that he is receiving 

regular medication and health care and that his prison conditions are adequate.

9. Hoang Tien: His situation is similar to Dr. Nguyen Thanh Giang’s. Embassy officers sometimes meet him.

10. Senior Colonel Pham Que Duong: Detained on December 28, 2002 in Ho 

Chi Minh City and transferred to Hanoi. He is under investigative detention, possibly for ‘‘espionage.’’ He was visiting HCMC with his wife and had 

met Tran Khue while there. Embassy officers had been meeting with him 

regularly prior to his detention.

11. Hoang Minh Chinh: His situation is similar to Dr. Nguyen Thanh Giang’s, 

although surveillance and propaganda against him may be less intense.

12. Tran Dung Tien: Under investigative detention since late January 2003. He 

had recently written and distributed strong critiques of SRV leaders.

13. Hoang Trong Dung: Current status unknown.

14. Nguyen Vu Viet: Nephew of Father Nguyen Van Ly. Reported to be tried 

for ‘‘espionage’’ on May 30, but trial was postponed. GVN had told Embassy 

that he was charged with destroying public property.

15. Nguyen Truc Cuong: Please see Nguyen Vu Viet, #14.

16. Nguyen Thi Hoa: Niece of Father Nguyen Van Ly. Please see #14.

17. Vu Cao Quan: Haiphong resident. Current status uncertain. Has been 

called in for questioning several times by police in recent months.

18. Nguyen The Dam: Current status unknown.

56

19. Nguyen Thi Thanh Xuan: Assuming the question is about HCMC reform activist Nguyen Thi Thanh Xuan is said by other activists to be under some 

surveillance.

20. Father Chan Tin: Is under no obvious systematic restrictions, but probably 

is under surveillance and has faced some harassment. He is said to be unable to obtain a passport, but is not known to have tested this for several 

years. He communicates and meets frequently with foreigners including 

Ambassador and CG officers.

21. Duong Thu Huong: Under some surveillance, subject to some propaganda, 

and has not been able to publish in Vietnam for several years. She does receive royalties on her works published overseas and she has been able to 

meet with foreigners, including U.S. and other Western diplomats.

22. Bui Minh Quoc: Under a two-year Administrative Probation order—house 

arrest without due process—related to investigation and criticism of the 

Vietnam-China land border agreement.

23. Dr. Nguyen Xuan Tu (Ha Si Phu): Recently completed a two-year Administrative Probation term. Not currently under any formal restrictions according to other activists.

24. Dr. Pham Hong Son: Detained since March 27, 2002, his trail was held on 

June 18 and he received a 13-year prison sentence for ‘‘espionage.’’ The 

charges stemmed from his posting of essays related to democracy on the 

Internet.

25. Mai Thai Linh: Administrative Probation order has expired. Current status 

unknown.

26. Most Venerable Thich Huyen Quang: Please see #3, Thich Huyen Quang.

27. Most Venerable Thich Quang Do: Please see #4, Thich Quang Do.

28. Father Nguyen Van Ly: Serving a cumulative fifteen-year prison sentence. 

GVN has refused or not responded to Embassy requests to visit Father Ly.

29. Pastor Nguyen Lap Ma: Residence is restricted to an isolated area of Dong 

Thap province. He has met with CG officers during his periodic visits to 

HCMC for medical check-ups. He has reported that his family faces employment and education discrimination.

30. Father Phan Van Loi: A Hue-area priest under conditions resembling house 

arrest, although there are no known penalties imposed against him. He has 

reportedly been unable to meet with foreigners and at least some Vietnamese for at least two years. 

Mr. Smith’s Question: 

Although the refugee process is not handled directly by your bureau, there is a 

strong correlation between the human rights and our nation’s refugee resettlement 

programs. Could you tell us how many victims of persecution have been admitted to 

the U.S. under the Priority One Refugee Program over the past 3 years since the BTA 

agreement with Vietnam was signed as well as how many Amerasian cases from 

Vietnam have been processed during this time? I know that several individuals cited 

in the Vietnam Human Rights Act have applied for refugee status. I was wondering 

if you could comment on the status of their cases, as well as efforts by the State Department to inform Vietnamese of this in-country refugee program and problems 

Montagnards and other persecuted groups might have in gaining access to this program. 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

My bureau remains deeply concerned about the human rights of refugees; however, as you say, the purview for handling refugee issues falls clearly under the Bureau for Population, Refugees, and Migration, which provided the following information. 

The guidelines (copy attached) for the Priority One (P1) program were developed 

in the fall of 1999 in consultation with Congressional staff and the program was implemented in Vietnam in April 2000. Consideration under the Vietnam P1 program 

is available for any Vietnamese, including Montagnards, who is referred by the Embassy or Consulate General or whose situation is brought to the attention of the 

Embassy or Consulate General by international or human rights organizations, 

other non-governmental organizations known to the Embassy or Consulate General, 

or Members of Congress. Individuals may not apply directly for consideration. To 

date the U.S. Mission in Vietnam has referred one individual for processing approval and is considering another individual for referral. Regarding the individual 

referred for processing approval, DOS and BCIS (formerly INS) officials in WashVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:32 Jul 23, 2003 Jkt 086775 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\ITHR\043003\86775 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
57

ington authorized processing of the case. The individual, however, chose instead to 

enter the U.S. under the auspices of the immigrant visa program. For privacy and 

confidentiality reasons, we cannot provide specific information about individuals 

who may or may not be seeking admission to the U.S. as a refugee. 

When the P1 program was implemented and periodically since then, Department 

and Mission personnel, including staff of the Refugee Resettlement Section at the 

Consulate General in Ho Chi Minh City, have provided information to interested 

parties, including Members of Congress and refugee advocates, about the program 

and the procedures for submitting referrals. Since implementation of the program, 

we have not received any referrals from outside parties. 

Regarding the Amerasian program, from October 1, 2000 through April 30, 2003, 

776 Amerasians and their eligible family members have immigrated to the United 

States under the Amerasian program. Currently the Department is reviewing the 

program and developing expanded processing guidelines that will maintain the program’s humanitarian nature, while ensuring compliance with homeland security 

concerns and strengthening fraud-prevention measures. 

Mr. Smith’s Question: 

Finally, I would be interested to know how many Vietnamese nationals, including 

leading human rights activists and religious leaders that are considered dissidents 

by the government have been invited by the State Department or have participated 

in U.S. exchange programs with Vietnam? Several years ago, I submitted a list of 

individuals to be invited and was wondering how many have actually participated. 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

We are deeply concerned with human rights violations perpetrated against Vietnamese dissidents and welcome opportunities for them to participate in U.S. exchange programs. Vietnamese nationals with widely varying backgrounds are invited to take part in U.S. exchange programs in order to advance U.S.-Vietnam bilateral relations, including those aspects tied to reform in the Vietnamese legal, economic, and political systems. The annual total of program participants is approximately 100, but varies depending upon the category of programs being carried out 

in any one year. An approximate average of Vietnamese nationals sent on Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) U.S.G. Exchange Programs annually is provided 

below:

1. International Visitors—25

2. Fulbright—31

3. Humphrey—1

4. Seminar on East Asian Security (SEAS)—1

5. DTW—7

6. College and University Affiliations Program—15

7. American Council of Young Political Leaders (ACYPL)—6

8. Fulbright Summer Institutes—3

9. Citizens Exchanges—10

Among eleven names suggested for the ‘‘Writer’s Perspective on Contemporary 

Issues Project’’ none have gone on U.S. Exchange Programs. One attended a Foreign 

Service Institute course in 2002 and now works in the U.S. Consulate General in 

Ho Chi Minh City, but is ineligible for reasons of employment with the U.S. Government. One is privately in the U.S. on a training program. Two had incomplete/incorrect contact information. Five were ineligible because of age, and one of them was 

already in poor health and passed away in 2002. Two of the remaining 4 were of 

professions inappropriate for the Writers Program. One of those ineligible due to 

their professions for the Writers Program later competed successfully for a Fulbright 

scholarship, but the GVN did not allow him to participate. 

Writer’s Perspective on Contemporary Social Issues: Status of the eleven recommended candidates (Updated June 5, 2003)

1) Bui Minh Quoc 

Contact Info: Add.: 3 Nguyen Thuong Hien St, Da Lat, Lam Dong Province. Tel: 063–821675

Mr. Quoc is 54 years old and thus not eligible for this exchange program. 

He was placed under a two-year Administrative Probation order (house arrest) in January 2002. He was also under Administrative Probation for two 

years from April 1998.

2) Hoang Minh Chinh: 

58

Contact Info: Add.: 26 Ly Thuong Kiet St., Hanoi; Tel: 8249252

Mr. Chinh is now 81 years old and thus not eligible for our exchange program. He is also under police surveillance and would likely encounter difficulty obtaining a passport.

3) Nguyen Thanh Giang 

Contact Info: Add.: A13, P9, Tap the Phong khong Hoa Muc, Phuong 

Trung Hoa, Cau Giay, HN. Tel: 8586012

Dr. Giang is now 67 years and thus too old to be eligible for exchange programs. He is under police surveillance and would probably have difficulty 

obtaining a passport.

4) Vu Hong Anh 

Contact Info: Add.: 111/25 Dinh Tien Hoang St., Phuong Da Kao, Dist. 

1, HCMC. Tel: 08–8205004. 

In 2001, Ms. Anh had been working as a music program producer and 

presenter at HCMC Television for 14 years. She expressed interest in music 

training and was thus not suitable for this exchange program.

5) Nguyen Van Noi 

Contact Info: Address: 1) Residence: 218 Le Thanh Ton, Phuong Ben 

Thanh, Dist. 1, HCMC. 2) Mailing: 30/9Bis Cach Mang Thang Tam Rd, P 

15, Dist. Tan Binh, HCMC. Tel: 08–8102233

Mr. Noi is a retired businessman and is currently involved in social work. 

He is 60 years old and thus not eligible for this program. He spent five 

months in the U.S. in 2001 as a private tourist, traveling to 10 different 

states.)

6) Y Nguyen Mloduondu 

Contact Info: Address: Dai hoc Tay Nguyen, Quoc lo 14, Buon Me Thuot. 

Tel: 050–860165 (O); 050–853504 (H) 

Y Nguyen Mloduondu is a university administrator, not a writer, and 

would be possible candidate for an exchange program focusing on higher 

education.

7) Nguyen Kham 

Contact Info: Address: Nha tho Duc Ba, 1 Cong Xa Paris St., Dist. 1, 

HCMC. Tel: 08–8221285

Father Kham is a Catholic priest, assigned to Virgin Mary Church in 

HCMC. He has been in the U.S. participating in a long-term training program.

8) Ta Ngoc Phach (a.k.a. General Tran Do) 

Address: 97 Tran Hung Dao St., HN. Tel: 8264673

General Tran Do was in poor health and died in August 2002.

9) Chan Tin 

Contact Info: Add.: Dong Chua Cuu The Catholic Church, Ky Dong St., 

Dist. 3, HCMC. Tel: 08–8439540 or 08–8740261 (at weekend retreat in Can 

Gio). 

Father Tin is now in his 70’s. When contacted by PAS in 1999, he said 

he was not interested in leaving Vietnam for fear he would not be allowed 

back in.

10) Pham Thanh Nhan now works for the U.S. Consulate General in HCMC. 

Mr. Nhan has attended three courses at the Foreign Service Institute in 

Arlington, VA. He wishes to be removed from this list. Mission recommends 

that his wish be honored.

11) Cao Duc Tuong: 

Mission has not been able to contact Mr. Tuong. The only suggested point 

of contact was a person who we learned died several years ago. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO THE HONORABLE LORNE W. CRANER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE BY THE HONORABLE JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND MR. CRANER’S RESPONSES

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

Why does this year’s Report not address the entire year for the section on religious 

freedom? The language and topics addressed in the Country Reports directly affect 

individuals’ lives. By limiting coverage of particular areas, it could jeopardize various cases and situations around the world. Please address this issue. 

59

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

We appreciate your concern regarding possible limits on reporting on religious 

freedom in the 2002 human rights reports. We assure you that this is not the case. 

The Country Reports seek to provide a comprehensive overview of many human 

rights areas in the 196 countries it covers. In our effort to make the reports more 

usable, we have focused our information on the period from July 1 to December 31 

to complement the detailed information released in the Annual Report, which covers 

the first half of the year. However, key issues are covered in the Country Reports

regardless of the time of year they occurred. Furthermore, in our version of the 

Country Reports on the Internet, we embedded an electronic hyperlink to the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom to provide easy access to the information contained in the Annual Report. We strive to provide information in both 

the Country Reports and the Annual Report that presents an accurate picture of religious freedom in each country. 

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

Mr. Secretary, what actions is the State Department taking to address issues of religious persecution and torture of political prisoners in Tibet? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

President Bush has repeatedly raised the issue of religious freedom and human 

rights in Tibet with the highest levels of the Chinese Government. In addition, State 

Department officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, Special Coordinator 

for Tibetan Issues Paula Dobriansky, Assistant Secretaries Lorne W. Craner and 

James A. Kelly, and U.S. Ambassador to China Clark T. Randt regularly and vigorously press the Chinese Government to grant more religious freedom to Tibetan 

Buddhists and to improve respect for human rights. The human rights situation in 

Tibet and the lack of religious freedom there were key agenda items at the December 2002 U.S.-China human rights dialogue. 

The practice of Tibetan Buddhism is central to the identity of the Tibetan people, 

and the Chinese Government’s repression of this faith is particularly disturbing. We 

regularly and at high levels raise individual cases of those imprisoned for the expression of religious views. During 2002, we welcomed the release of seven detained 

Tibetans, including Tibetan Buddhist nun Ngawang Sangdrol, who was first imprisoned in 1992 at the age of 13. However, others detained for their religious or political views, such as Tibetan Buddhist nun Phuntsok Nyidrol, remain in detention. 

We continue to seek their release. In addition, we are concerned about the continuing plight of Gendhun Choekyi Nyima, the boy identified by the Dalai Lama as 

the reincarnation of the Panchen Lama. We urge that international observers be 

given access to the boy to verify his well-being. 

We are also concerned about the plight of Tibetan refugees and support Tibetan 

refugee populations in Nepal and India. We were outraged by the May 31 forced 

repatriation in of 18 Tibetan refugees, including minors, from Nepal to China. This 

action violates international norms and practices regarding the humane treatment 

of asylum seekers and has been condemned by the UNHCR and the international 

community. Senior United States officials met repeatedly with Nepalese and Chinese officials in Washington and Kathmandu and Beijing first to try to prevent the 

repatriation and later to condemn the behavior of Nepalese officials and Chinese 

diplomats in Nepal for their role in forcibly returning the refugees to China. We 

have called on Nepal to return to its previous practice of allowing Tibetans to seek 

protection in Nepal for onward resettlement to India. 

Senior officials of the Department of State also continue to press the Chinese on 

more systemic issues, such as China’s repressive control of Tibetan Buddhist educational institutions and places of worship, restrictions on the use of Tibetan language in schools, poor prison conditions, and the abuse or torture of detainees. 

We maintain regular contact with Tibetan Buddhist leaders and activists in exile. 

We have been encouraged that Lodi Gyari, the Dalai Lama’s Special Envoy, was 

able to travel to China in September 2002 and again in May 2003 for discussions 

with Chinese authorities. At every opportunity, we will press the Chinese Government to resume dialogue with the Dalai Lama to resolve long-standing issues of concern. 

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

What is the status of the invitation to the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture to 

visit China? I understand that the Chinese government told you in December that 

the Rapporteur was welcome to visit China, but, up to now, no visits have been 

scheduled. 

60

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

During the December 2002 Human Rights Dialogue, China committed to inviting 

the Special Rapporteur on Torture to China ‘‘without conditions.’’ In January, Li 

Baodong, Director-General of the Department of International Organizations and 

Conferences at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, sent a letter of invitation to Mr. 

Theo Van Boven, the Special Rapporteur. We understand that Mr. Van Boven has 

responded and proposed terms for the visit to China’s Permanent Representative in 

Geneva and is awaiting China’s reply. 

We have made it clear to the Chinese repeatedly and at high levels that we expect 

China to honor its commitment to invite the Special Rapporteur without conditions 

and on terms in accordance with established U.N. protocols for such visits. We have 

also urged that the dates for such a visit be set in the immediate future. Failure 

to do so would call into serious question the efficacy of our Human Rights Dialogue 

with Beijing. 

At the 2002 Human Rights Dialogue, the Chinese also agreed to invite the U.N. 

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on Religious 

Freedom. We recently asked for a status report on these invitations but have not 

yet received a response from the Chinese. 

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

The international definition of genocide is as follows: 

In Article 2 of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the 

Crime of Genocide, genocide is defined as ‘‘any of the following acts committed with 

intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, 

as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm 

to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing 

measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.’’

What is the definition the State Department uses to measure whether or not a particular situation qualifies as genocide? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

The United States has ratified the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment 

of the Crime of Genocide with reservations, understandings, and a declaration. Accordingly, the Department of State, as an agency of the government of the United 

States, uses the definition of the Convention as ratified by the United States. 

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

Would the current situation in Burma and the widespread rape and murder of ethnic minorities fit into the State Department’s definition of genocide? Please explain 

why or why not. 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

In June 2002, the Shan Human Rights Foundation (SHRF) accused the Burma 

Army of using rape systematically as ‘‘a weapon of war’’ in ethnic minority areas 

along the Thai border. The State Department quickly sent officials to the ThaiBurma border in response to the alarming reports of serious human rights abuses 

by the Burmese military on Burmese ethnic minority citizens. We posted the results 

of our investigation on the Department’s website. 

The regime denied those charges and has not agreed with U.N. Special 

Rapporteur Pinheiro on the ways and means for an effective, impartial international 

investigation of these allegations. 

To show genocide, as that term is defined in international law, there must be evidence of an ‘‘intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.’’ At this time, we do not have the sufficient hard evidence to conclude 

that these human rights abuses, reprehensible as they are, constitute ‘‘genocide’’ as 

defined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. That said, we are very distressed by these reports and will do what we can 

to end these serious abuses. To begin with, we have supported and continue to support U.N. Special Rapporteur Paulo Pinheiro’s efforts to organize an international 

investigation of human rights abuses in the ethnic-majority regions of Burma. We 

also made sure that these issues received special emphasis in both the U.N. General 

Assembly and the U.N. Commission on Human Rights resolutions on Burma. Finally, we will continue to report honestly and frankly on the crimes of the SPDC 

in our annual reports on human rights, trafficking in persons and international religious freedom. We are deeply concerned about allegations of genocide and will continue to monitor the situation as best we can, given the closed nature of the Burmese regime. 

61

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

A month ago reports revealed that the SPDC regime had ‘‘bugged’’ allegedly confidential meetings between United Nations officials and political prisoners in Burma. 

More recently (Monday, April 28), reports stated that one of Burma’s most prominent 

political prisoners, Dr. Salai Tun Than, began a hunger strike in protest of the 

SPDC regime interrogating political prisoners after their conversations with United 

Nations and Red Cross investigators. These conversations are supposed to be confidential, to ensure safety of the prisoners. What can the U.S. Government do to find 

further evidence that the regime is pursuing this policy on a concerted and systematic 

basis? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

The United States is concerned with the safety of political prisoners and has 

urged the military regime on many occasions to release all political prisoners immediately and unconditionally. We also urge the regime to uphold international standards on the treatment of prisoners, and to adhere to their agreements with international investigators. 

We were disturbed by the incident with U.N. Special Rapporteur Pinheiro in 

which he discovered a listening device in the room where he was conducting confidential interviews with political prisoners. We applauded his gesture in immediately terminating his trip. We had pressed the regime for Dr. Salai Tun Than’s 

release and welcomed his release in early May. Dr. Salai Tun Than has long been 

involved in calls for reform in Burma. 

We have sought prison releases and almost 400 political prisoners have been released over the past two years. We had hoped that Dr. Salai Tun Than’s release 

would lead to the unconditional release of all remaining political prisoners and substantive dialogue between the regime and the National League for Democracy on 

national reconciliation. However, the recent crackdown in Burma has turned back 

the clock on progress. Aung San Suu Kyi is being held in an undisclosed location, 

hundreds of other political prisoners remain in prison or under house arrest, and 

substantive improvements in prison conditions have yet to be realized. We continue 

to press the regime to live up to international standards on prison conditions and 

the welfare of prisoners. We continue to support the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross on improvements in prison conditions in Burma. We do not 

believe that investigation is needed to conclude that the regime has failed in its 

international obligations regarding political prisoners. 

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

A few weeks ago, approximately 35,000 people gathered, despite harassment by 

government authorities, to watch a speech by Aung San Suu Kyi—clear evidence of 

how much the people of Burma want democracy and freedom. What other signs are 

there that the people of Burma continue to struggle every day to bring about a change 

in government? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

The United States strongly supports national reconciliation and a transition to democracy in Burma. We call on the military regime to release all political prisoners 

immediately and unconditionally and to engage in a real dialogue with the National 

League for Democracy (NLD). We are appalled by the regime’s recent arrest of Aung 

San Suu Kyi and top NLD leaders and we call for their immediate release and the 

reopening of the NLD offices across the country. 

The Department of State, in its work with the Burmese in Burma and Burmese 

refugees, sees much evidence that the people of Burma continue to struggle every 

day to bring about a change in government. The large crowds of people that come 

out to support Aung San Suu Kyi on her travels around Burma are the most visible 

sign. However, the people of Burma are not free to express their political beliefs, 

nor do they enjoy other basic freedoms, such as the freedom of assembly, freedom 

of speech, or a free press; thus, it is difficult to make thorough assessments of political attitudes among the people. 

We will continue to work hard to bring about democratic change in Burma. 

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

Production of methamphetamines in Burma continues to skyrocket. The regime appears to believe that methamphetamine production is much cheaper than that of heroin. What effect do you believe that drastic increase in production of methamphetamines is having on human rights in Burma or neighboring countries? 

62

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

Burma’s reported success in reducing the production of opium and heroin has 

been offset by increasing production of amphetamine-type stimulants, particularly 

in outlying regions governed by former insurgents that are not under the effective 

control of the Rangoon government. The government has argued that the problem 

is regional and requires regional cooperation to deal with shipments of precursors 

from India, Thailand, and China, and shipments of final products for sale in China, 

Thailand, and other countries of Southeast and East Asia. 

The United States has no reliable evidence of direct high-level government involvement in the drug trade. There are reliable reports that individual Burmese officials in outlying areas are involved in narcotics production or trafficking or offering 

protection for these activities. In recent years, Burma has sharply improved its cooperation with neighboring states, particularly China. In 2001, Burma signed 

memoranda of understanding on narcotics control with both China and Thailand. 

Burma is part of every major multilateral narcotics control program in the region. 

The United States judged earlier this year that Burma had ‘‘failed demonstrably’’ 

to make substantial efforts to cooperate on narcotics matters. At the same time, the 

U.S.G. has sustained a successful program of cooperation between police authorities 

in Burma and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. 

In general drug trafficking is commonly associated with crime, violence, corruption and social upheaval, and that is true in the case of Burma as well. In Burma, 

where the regime’s human rights record is extremely poor, security forces commit 

extensive human rights abuses in ethnic minority areas, where most of Burma’s 

drug production takes place. 

In Thailand, the primary market for Burmese-produced narcotics, addressing the 

increased supply of methamphetamines has become a high priority for the Royal 

Thai Government. However, the Royal Thai Government’s ‘‘war on drugs’’ crackdown earlier this year has reportedly involved a large number of extrajudicial 

killings by police. This is of grave concern to us, and we have urged the RTG mount 

credible investigations of these incidents. The RTG has advised us that it is investigating these killings. 

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

Last fall, the State Department sent a human rights investigator to the ThaiBurma border to investigate claims of mass rapes by the ruling military regime. 

What actions has the U.S. Government taken to follow-up on the reports of widespread rape? Is the United Nations taking any action to address the use of systematic 

rape? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

In response to reports of widespread rape of women by Burmese soldiers in 2002, 

the State Department immediately conducted a field investigation into these human 

rights abuses and is currently pressing the United Nations to conduct a similar 

independent investigation. When the Burmese government categorically denied that 

its soldiers had been involved in any of the rapes detailed in a report entitled ‘‘License to Rape,’’ the U.S. Embassy in Rangoon called the government to account at 

a public press conference and continued to press for an investigation of the charges 

by an independent international team. These combined U.S. efforts resulted in continued international attention to the case including specific mention in the U.N. resolutions on Burma in the U.N. General Assembly and the Commission on Human 

Rights that the U.S. co-sponsored, and a government invitation to U.N. Special 

Rapporteur Pinheiro to investigate the case. 

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

The United Nations special envoy to Burma, Razali Ismail, has not gone back to 

Burma for several months and the talks in the country have completely broken down. 

When do you believe he might return to Burma? What do you believe to be the reasons the regime refuses to talk to Aung San Suu Kyi and the legitimate leaders of 

Burma? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

The United States is deeply concerned about the situation in Burma. The May 30 

violent attack on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her traveling party was a premeditated ambush on the motorcade. The debris remaining at the scene suggests a major 

clash, which could easily have resulted in serious injuries to large numbers of people. Currently, the Burmese leadership is holding Aung San Suu Kyi in an undisclosed location, and many other National League of Democracy (NLD) leaders are 

under house arrest. The SPDC has padlocked the doors of NLD headquarters across 

the country, and delayed the opening of universities. 

63

These actions are unacceptable. We have called on the Burmese government to 

release immediately all those detained or arrested in this action and to provide all 

necessary medical attention to those who have been injured, including assistance 

from international specialists. The offices of the NLD must be reopened without 

delay, and its activities no longer proscribed. We also have called for a full accounting of the dead, injured and missing, and are working energetically with the international community to coordinate a multilateral response to this vicious crackdown. 

Special Envoy Razali will be visiting Burma on June 6. He has made clear his 

intentions to visit Aung San Suu Kyi and meet with senior leaders of the SPDC. 

The United States fully supports his efforts. He must be allowed to see Aung San 

Suu Kyi. 

The United States has already imposed numerous sanctions on Burma, including 

a ban on new U.S. investment, an arms embargo, a ban on direct multilateral assistance, and a visa ban on senior Burmese officials. We also have maintained our 

downgraded diplomatic representation at the charge ́ d’affaires level since 1990. 

The Administration is also considering new sanctions on Burma, including a ban 

on travel by United States citizens to Burma with scope for permitted activities 

such as humanitarian assistance or official travel, an expanded visa ban to include 

all officials of the USDA and state-owned companies and their families, an asset 

freeze for senior Burmese officials, and a ban on remittances from the United States 

to Burma. We also are working with Congress on additional measures including an 

import ban. 

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

In February, Mr. Secretary (Craner), you stated that if there is no progress in 

Burma, the United States would consider imposing new economic sanctions against 

the regime. What particular sanctions could be imposed on the government of 

Burma? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

The Administration has considered a full range of measures—carrots and sticks—

to encourage the military regime in Burma to take appropriate steps toward dialogue and national reconciliation. We already have in place an array of sanctions, 

including an arms embargo, a ban on all new U.S. investment in Burma, the suspension of all bilateral aid, the withdrawal of GSP privileges, the denial of OPIC 

and EXIMBANK programs, visa restrictions on Burma’s senior leaders, and a vote 

against any loan or other utilization of funds to or for Burma by international financial institutions in which the United States has a major interest. We have also 

maintained our downgraded diplomatic representation at the Charge ́ d’Affaires level 

since 1990. 

Following the attack on Aung San Suu Kyi and her party on May 30, the Administration is considering a host of new sanctions on Burma, including a ban on travel 

by United States citizens to Burma with exception for humanitarian assistance or 

official travel, an expanded visa ban to include officials of the Union Solidarity and 

Development Association (USDA) and state-owned companies and their families, an 

asset freeze for senior Burmese officials, and a ban on remittances from the United 

States to Burma. We are considering additional sanctions. 

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

Secretary Craner, I understand that during a speech at the American Enterprise 

Institute on December 2, 2002, you stated that you would be raising the Administration’s concerns about North Korean refugees in China with your counterparts the following week with the bi-lateral meeting on human rights in Beijing. Were these 

issues raised? If not, why not? If so, what was the outcome? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

The U.S. Government is concerned about reports regarding the treatment of 

North Koreans in China, especially reports of forced repatriation. We have expressed our concern regarding the treatment of North Koreans in China to Chinese 

officials both here and in Beijing. 

During the 2002 U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue in Beijing, I raised our concerns regarding North Koreans in China as promised, and have continued to raise 

these concerns in subsequent meetings. We continue to receive reports that China 

continues to forcibly repatriate North Koreans in China back to North Korea. China 

considers all North Koreans who cross the border to be illegal economic migrants, 

not refugees. We believe there are bona fide refugees among this population, and 

have repeatedly pressed the PRC to live up to its commitments as a signatory to 

the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees and allow the United Nations 

High Commissioner on Refugees access to North Koreans in China in order to deterVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:32 Jul 23, 2003 Jkt 086775 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\ITHR\043003\86775 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
64

mine who among this population may qualify as a refugee. We will continue to raise 

these concerns with the Chinese at every opportunity, and investigate opportunities 

to correct this situation. 

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

It has been reported by Medicines Sans Frontiers that starting on December 5, 

2002, China initiated a campaign to cleanse the border regions of North Korean refugees. Based on these reports, what can we assume about the United States’ dialogue 

with China with respect to China’s behavior with refugees? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

We can assume that, so far, it has been unsuccessful in this respect. We are 

aware of reports that the Chinese government initiated a crackdown on North Koreans in China beginning in December 2002. We continue to press the Chinese to improve their human rights record and abide by their international obligations, including the treatment of North Koreans in China. 

The U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue, which was resumed in 2001, is one way 

to register our human rights concerns. Though progress in some areas is still slow, 

we have made it clear to the Chinese government that we expect the dialogue to 

produce further tangible signs of progress. The dialogue has led to some positive results, including prisoner releases, information on human rights cases of concern, 

and unprecedented visits and contacts. The treatment of North Koreans in China 

will continue to be raised during our discussions on human rights with the Chinese 

government. 

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

The House of Representatives and the Senate have both passed resolutions urging 

China to honor its obligations under the Refugee Convention and to protect North 

Korean refugees. Is our Government at the point now where we should be urging the 

UNHCR to invoke binding arbitration against China on behalf of the refugees? Why 

or why not? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

We have made clear to China our concern over the treatment of North Koreans 

in China. We have urged and will continue to urge China to live up to its international obligations under the 19?? Protocol on Refugees and cease the forced repatriation of North Koreans and work with the United Nations High Commissioner 

on Refugees to create a mechanism for determining who among this population may 

qualify as a refugee. Add reference to obligations under refugee protocol here? 

The Chinese government has not given the UNHCR access to this vulnerable population and we have received reports of forced repatriation. The are credible reports 

that some of those returned have faced persecution and/or detention. Some have 

been executed. The Chinese government maintains that North Koreans who cross 

over economic migrants not refugees. Although the Chinese carry out periodic 

sweeps of North Koreans, the Chinese government has for many years turned a 

blind eye to the temporary border crossing of North Koreans, many of whom cross 

into China to find work or food and then return to North Korea. 

Under a December 1995 agreement between China and the UNHCR, either party 

may invoke binding resolution to resolve any dispute involving the failure of the 

Chinese government to give UNHCR personnel unimpeded access to refugees in 

China. We will continue to press China to work with the UNHCR to develop a 

mechanism to determine who among this population qualifies as a refugee. 

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

In light of what occurred in India last year in Gujurat with what evidence shows 

were orchestrated riots against the Muslims and the slaughter of innocent men, 

women and children in Gujurat, what public actions has the U.S. Government taken 

in relation to the Government of India? What actions has the U.S. Government taken 

to raise concern about the religion bill being considered in Gujurat and to raise concern regarding the current discussions of drafting national legislation that would 

limit religious freedom in India? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

We forcefully condemned the violence in Gujurat, both in public statements and 

in the 2002 International Religious Freedom Report. We will continue to press the 

Government of India to protect against such violence and to bring justice to those 

who perpetrate violence. 

In addition, we just sent the South Asia Desk Officer of the International Religious Freedom Office to Gujurat, Tamil Nadu, and Delhi to discuss anti-conversion 

65

legislation with religious leaders, government officials, human rights advocates, lawyers challenging the constitutionality of the laws, and police commissioners who 

may be responsible for imposing the laws. 

To date, no one has been charged under either the Tamil Nadu or Gujurat anticonversion legislation. Religious leaders in particular expressed great apprehension 

that these new laws could be used to shut down medical, educational, and other social services under the assumption that such activities constitute ‘‘allurements’’ for 

conversion. 

The International Religious Freedom Officer received conflicting reports from 

party members, at both the state and federal levels, as to the likelihood of a national-level anti-conversion bill. 

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

What type of dialogue is the State Department engaged in with Indonesian officials 

with regards to the newly proposed education bill that demands that all schools, public and private, must provide religious education for all students? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

We are concerned, as are many Indonesians, that the current draft of the education bill may impinge on the freedom of religion. Religious schools should not be 

forced to teach another religion instead of their religion. We will continue to engage 

in discussions with the Government of Indonesia on the proposed education bill. 

Given our commitment to promote values of democracy, good governance and 

human rights, the United States provides a variety of grants to encourage the development and strengthening of civil society in Indonesia, with a particular focus on 

Muslim civil society, to improve Indonesian education, and to assist the legislature 

in drafting laws that meet international standards. These grants aim to build tolerance and understanding. 

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

What do you believe to be the trend in Indonesia regarding international terrorist 

activities in Poso, the Malukus, and other areas of Indonesia where human rights 

abuses are rampant? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

The promotion of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law is a priority of 

this administration, and is fundamental to creating a society in which terrorism will 

not flourish. As the Secretary has said, ‘‘Freedom fights terrorism, instability and 

conflict. Time and again, experience has shown that countries which demonstrate 

high degrees of respect for human rights also are the most secure and the most successful.’’ We believe Indonesia needs a modern and responsible law enforcement system to deal with terrorism, one that incorporates the protection of civil and human 

rights. We regularly and consistently encourage the Government of Indonesia toward increased commitment to human rights and the rule of law. 

We also welcome Indonesia’s increased commitment in the war against terror—

cooperation that has taken on greater urgency since the tragedy in Bali. There are 

various groups, including al Qaeda, Laskar Jihad, and Jemaah Islamiah, which continue to pose a threat. 

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

What type of discussion has the State Department engaged in with Indonesian officials regarding the unjust imprisonment of Reverend Rinaldy Damanik, a co-signer 

of the Malino Peace Accords? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

On June 16, 2003, Reverend Rinaldy Damanik, coordinator of the Central 

Sulawesi Crisis Center and Secretary of the Central Sulawesi Church Association, 

was sentenced to three years in prison for weapons possession in violation of an 

emergency law under the Malino Peace Accords that prohibits owning or controlling 

weapons or ammunition without permission. 

Police stated that Reverend Damanik was in one of a group of cars stopped in 

a village that contained a variety of weapons. Damanik and his supporters denied 

the charges. 

Prosecutors asked for a five-year sentence. We monitored the trial closely, and 

urged the Indonesian Government to ensure that his trial rose to international 

standards of credibility. 

The Department of State supports the Malino Peace Accords, and regards them 

as a step forward in the Indonesian Government’s ability to deal with sectarian violence through political means. 

66

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

In Egypt, individuals who convert from Islam to another religion fear government 

action against them if they officially register their change in religious status. Often 

these individuals have altered their government identification cards and other official documents themselves to reflect their new religious affiliation since the Egyptian 

government will not recognize any change in religion or change the religious status 

on a person’s identity card (unless a person coverts to Islam). Why does the State 

Department’s Report on Egypt use the word ‘‘harassment’’ instead of persecution to 

describe the fact that converts have been arrested, imprisoned, and interrogated by 

government officials in addition to receiving threats from Islamic extremists. 

This year’s Report on Egypt says that, ‘‘The practice of Christianity or Judaism 

does not conflict with Shari’a (Islamic Law).’’ However, it appears that Shari’a law 

is not codified and there are a number of different versions of this type of law. Many 

of these versions restrict religious freedom by, for instance, denying one’s right to 

change or propagate one’s religion, demanding that Christians pay a jizya tax, preventing the repair or construction of churches, and a number of other punitive measures against non-Muslims. The reality of what happens to non-Muslims appears to 

directly contradict the statement that the practice of Christianity and Judaism do 

not conflict with Shari’a law. Please address this issue. 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

There are certainly religious freedom problems in Egypt that are of great concern 

to the U.S. Government. We take these problems seriously and monitor them closely. We use the term persecution to refer to either physical harm or the systematic 

exclusion of groups or individuals from the pursuit of livelihood, such as in education, employment, etc., that is directly due to religious affiliation. The United 

States is aware of instances in which individual converts from Islam have been subject to harassment, but do not consider this to be widespread or systematic. 

Under Sharia, Christians and Jews are recognized as ‘‘people of the book,’’ with 

both religions legally permitted under the Constitution. With some exceptions, there 

has been a continued trend toward improvement in the Government’s respect for 

and protection of religious freedom. The United States has welcomed President 

Mubarak’s personal attention to the question of the repair and construction of 

churches, and we look forward to seeing measurable progress. We welcome the GOE 

efforts to foster inter-faith dialogue and note the Egyptian Government’s consultations with Pope Shenouda. 

The Christian community is a stable one in Egypt, representing a large and vital 

part of society. Instances of discrimination and harassment take place, and we regularly press for an end to such behavior. Please let us know if cases of concern in 

Egypt are brought to your attention. The subject of religious freedom remains an 

important and active part of the bilateral dialog between the United States and 

Egyptian Governments. 

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

What is the State Department’s position on self-determination, in general, and for 

the people of Western Sahara, in particular? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

The State Department’s position on resolving the Western Sahara dispute is to 

fully support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary General’s Personal Envoy, 

James Baker, to bring about a peaceful resolution of this long-standing dispute. 

The United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution on July 30, 

2002, that strongly supported Mr. Baker’s efforts and expressed the willingness of 

the Council to consider any approach the Secretary-General and Mr. Baker might 

propose that provided for self-determination. 

Mr. Baker has submitted a new proposal to the Security Council, which provides 

for a self-determination referendum. The Secretary-General has asked the Security 

Council to endorse Mr. Baker’s proposal and work with the U.N. to implement it. 

At the recommendation of the Secretary-General, the Security Council has extended 

the mandate of the U.N. mission in Western Sahara, MINURSO, until July 31 in 

order to give sufficient time to consider this matter. The U.S. Government continues 

to urge the parties to the Western Sahara dispute to work to ensure that Mr. 

Baker’s efforts produce a just and lasting solution. 

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

What type of action has the State Department taken with regards to the Government of Morocco and the reported 1,000 Sahrawis who remain disappeared? 

67

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

As our annual Country Report on Human Rights Practices notes in the section on 

Western Sahara, international human rights organizations have estimated that disappearances of Sahrawis in the Western Sahara could number between 1,000 and 

1,500, although conditions in the territory have prevented confirmation of this figure. We are unaware of any new cases of disappearance in that part of the Western 

Sahara under Moroccan administration in recent years. The United States continues 

to call on the parties to the Western Sahara dispute to release or account for all 

those missing or held prisoner since the start of the conflict. 

The U.S. is also in regular contact with the International Committee of the Red 

Cross in light of their efforts to locate missing persons and press for prisoner releases. 

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

What was the U.S. Government’s reaction to the recent Moroccan government action to detain and confiscate the passports of Sahrawis who attempted to travel to 

the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva to report on Sahrawi 

issues? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

We are aware of the reports of Sahrawis who were prevented from traveling to 

Geneva. While the Moroccan Constitution provides for freedom of movement, the 

Ministry of Interior does in fact restrict freedom to travel outside the country in certain circumstances. These practices have applied to those from the areas of the 

Western Sahara under Moroccan administration, such as the Sahrawis in question. 

Freedom of movement is an essential element in guaranteeing human rights and 

continuing Morocco’s democratic progress. The U.S. continues to monitor the situation closely and raises issues of concern regarding human rights during regular discussions. 

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

Mr. Secretary, your statement mentions that open elections were held in Morocco 

last September. What is the State Department’s analysis of reports that the King of 

Morocco appointed the Prime Minister and all the cabinet ministers and, as a result, 

there are not officials from the majority-elected party in positions of power? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

My statement noted that we have seen ‘‘important progress over the past year in 

a number of countries.’’

The September 27 parliamentary elections In Morocco were, according to most foreign and domestic observers, generally open and transparent, the first such elections 

in Morocco’s history. 

Under the Moroccan constitution the King, as head of state, has the authority to 

appoint the Prime Minister, who is the titular head of government. 

Constitutional changes in 1992, retained in the Constitution of 1996, authorize 

the Prime Minister to nominate all government ministers, but the King may nominate ministers himself and has the power to replace any minister at will. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO THE HONORABLE LORNE W. CRANER, AS- SISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE BY THE HONORABLE DONALD M. PAYNE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND MR. CRANER’S RESPONSES

Mr. Payne’s Question: 

In Africa and the Caribbean in particular, HIV/AIDS continue to take a heavy toll 

as the pandemic rages. 

I encourage the Department of State to regard this plague as a human rights-related issue, with access to affordable medications to treat it increasingly regarded as 

a basic human right. 

Along these lines, how does the Department of State consider health care in terms 

of human rights? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

We appreciate your concern regarding HIV/AIDS and access to health care. In 

Section 5 of the Country Reports, we discuss discrimination against women, children, persons with disabilities, and if applicable, indigenous people and national/racial/ethnic minorities. In this section, we include discrimination with regard to access to health care, such as a person being denied medical care due to their ethVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:32 Jul 23, 2003 Jkt 086775 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\ITHR\043003\86775 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
68

nicity or membership in a social group. We also specifically address the issue of 

medical care for children and whether boys and girls are provided equal access. 

Stigma and discrimination against persons infected with or affected by HIV/AIDS 

is a major obstacle in the fight against this deadly disease. Such discrimination 

often leads people at risk for infection to not get tested because they fear the societal repercussions of learing they are HIV positive. Such discrimination may include 

restrictions that limit an individual’s access to employment, housing or education. 

In recognition of this issue, we are looking at ways to expand coverage of official 

or societal discrimination against persons living with HIV/AIDS in the Country Reports, which would also be discussed in Section 5 of the reports. 

Mr. Payne’s Question: 

Along the lines of freedom of political expression, I note with interest that Cyprus 

has voted to join the European Union. 

Complicating this process, however, is the fact that the nation remains physically 

divided. 

What process does the Department of State seek to implement to settle this human 

rights related issue once and for all? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

The United States has long supported the efforts of United Nations Secretary 

General Annan and the UN Good Offices Mission for Cyprus to find a comprehensive, just and durable settlement to the division of the island. For this reason, we 

were disappointed that the Secretary General’s meetings with the Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders in The Hague in March did not result in an agreement. Nonetheless, we remain firmly committed to seeking a Cyprus settlement. We believe the 

way to a settlement is for the two sides to fully support the UN Good Offices Mission, reach agreement on the basis of the Secretary General’s fair and balanced 

peace plan, and put that agreement to a decision by the people of Cyprus. 

Recent confidence-building measures announced by the two sides, including the 

opening of the ‘‘Green Line,’’ are positive and very encouraging. We welcome mutually acceptable measures that foster bicommunal contact, increase understanding 

between the two communities, and improve the atmosphere to achieve a settlement. 

We strongly support the principle of freedom of movement and we encourage both 

sides to take all possible steps to ensure that the ongoing ‘‘Green Line’’ crossings 

take place in the most smooth and non-discriminatory manner possible. 

At the same time, even genuine confidence-building activity is no substitute for 

a comprehensive, just and durable settlement, and for this reason we remain strongly committed to the resumption of talks under the UN Good Offices mission and on 

the basis of the Secretary-General’s plan, as called for in UN Security Council resolution 1475 of April 14. 

Mr. Payne’s Question: 

In Northern Ireland, the Assembly and Executive were suspended last October, 

with direct rule being imposed rather than a continued devolution of power. I encourage the Department of State to work to ensure that the Good Friday Agreement is 

honored and that decision-making returns to the local level as soon as possible to 

permit the exercise of political rights by the citizens of Northern Ireland. How does 

the Department of State view this ongoing human rights situation? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

The United States is concerned with human rights conditions in Northern Ireland 

and believes strongly that full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement is a 

responsibility not only of governments, but for all the people and parties in Northern Ireland. The U.S. Department of State strongly supports the efforts of the U.K., 

in conjunction with the Government of Ireland, to fully implement the Good Friday 

Agreement. We consult regularly with key U.K. and Irish officials, as well as political leaders and community activists, on the peace process and issues relating to 

human rights and other areas that are key to a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. 

Ambassador Richard Haass, the Administration’s point person on Northern Ireland, 

recently returned from his eleventh trip to the region. We support the implementation of as many elements as possible of the Anglo-Irish Joint Declaration and support the holding of elections this fall. Representative government, and elections that 

are its hallmark, rest on full and total commitment to exclusively democratic and 

peaceful politics. We will continue to encourage all parties to take the necessary 

steps to secure Northern Ireland’s peaceful and prosperous future. 

69

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO THE HONORABLE LORNE W. CRANER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE BY THE HONORABLE DIANE E. WATSON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND MR. CRANER’S RESPONSES

Ms. Watson’s Question: 

I am pleased that the Department is now monitoring the activities of the countries 

involved in the trafficking of humans. What still concerns me is that the U.S. remains an end-point destination for many of these exploited men, women and children. 

What is the Department doing to enhance cooperation, communication and coordination of activities between domestic law enforcement agencies and the State Department? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

The Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (G/TIP) 

is responsible for helping to coordinate the Administration’s anti-trafficking programs both here and abroad. The G/TIP Office meets regularly with several domestic agencies to review and coordinate our policies and programs. The primary law 

enforcement agencies G/TIP works with are the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security. Homeland Security has assumed the law enforcement responsibilities 

of the U.S. Coast Guard, the Immigration Service and the U.S. Customs Service. 

G/TIP directly participates in the training of assistant U.S. attorneys and local police officers and in the design of the Immigration Service’s new anti-trafficking 

training program. 

Ms. Watson’s Question: 

The State Department’s Annual Human Rights Report makes reference to the abusive treatment by the Indonesian military of the indigenous people of Papua in some 

detail. At the moment, a brutal military campaign has been launched in the central 

highland of Papua. Amnesty International and other NGO and media sources report 

that the military is burning houses, torturing detainees and that many local people 

have been forced to flee their villages. The spark for this campaign was an attack 

on a military arsenal in which the military acknowledges that its own personnel were 

involved. 

What is the State Department doing to end this brutal campaign in which human 

rights abuses are broadly reported? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

We are disturbed by reports of torture, displacement, and destruction of property 

in Papua. We are closely monitoring the situation in the Central Highlands. Embassy personnel have traveled to Papua to investigate reports of abuses connected 

with this campaign and have been able to verify some of the reports. We will continue to impress upon the Indonesian Government the importance of protecting 

human rights and holding violators fully accountable. 

On April 4, 2003, an Indonesian military arsenal was robbed by unidentified gunmen. During the raid, 29 firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition were stolen, and two soldiers and one of the civilian attackers were shot dead. 

The Indonesian army blames the raid on separatist rebels of the Free Papua 

Movement (OPM) and responded by launching a major operation in the Central 

Highlands of Papua, ostensibly to recover the stolen weapons and apprehend perpetrators of the raid. However, the TNI also notes that some of the soldiers stationed at the facility apparently assisted the gunmen. The Indonesian Government 

has arrested nine soldiers and at least eight civilians in connection with the raid 

and recovered 21 of the 29 weapons. 

While we fully support Indonesia’s territorial integrity, we continue to believe that 

the Indonesian Government should move forward to implement Special Autonomy 

provisions for Papua. This is the best way to resolve the problems in that province. 

Ms. Watson’s Question: 

As you know, the procedure through which Papua was incorporated into Indonesia 

in 1969, the so-called ‘‘Act of Free Choice,’’ has been attacked even by the UN office 

who was lead monitor of the process as ‘‘fraudulent.’’ Rather than a free vote, Indonesian officials rounded up 1026 Papuans who voted unanimously for incorporation. 

A similar process occurred in East Timor when it was incorporated into Indonesia. 

Has the State Department reviewed the U.S. role in this matter to determine 

whether its conduct was appropriate in terms of protecting the civil and political 

rights of the people of Papua at that time? 

70

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

In 1962, the United States strongly urged Indonesia to commit to holding a people’s consultation in what was then West New Guinea. Indonesia agreed to do so 

in its August 15, 1962 New York Agreement with the Netherlands. In 1969, Indonesian authorities, with assistance from the United Nations, conducted the Act of 

Free Choice under which slightly over 1,000 Papuans were convened in eight councils. Under intense pressure from the Indonesian authorities to adopt a decision favoring the territory’s incorporation into the Republic of Indonesia, they came to a 

unanimous decision in support of integration. Though U.N. representatives at the 

Act of Free Choice later stated that the process was deeply flawed, this decision was 

confirmed in a resolution of the UN General Assembly on November 19, 1969. 

Ms. Watson’s Question: 

The State Department’s annual human rights report notes several court proceedings as ongoing. In recent days and weeks since the report was published the results of these trials are in. The Indonesian military personnel who carried out the 

torture and murder of Papuan civic leader Theys Eluay were sentenced to three and 

one half years for the senior officer and three years each for the three lower ranking 

personnel who carried out the murder. 

Does the State Department regard this sentence as appropriate? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

We continue to urge the Government of Indonesia in the strongest terms to pursue accountability for all human rights abuses. 

We supported all efforts to bring to justice those responsible for the death of 

Theys Eluay in Indonesia’s Papua Province, and we welcome the convictions of four 

soldiers. The accused received sentences of between 2 and 3.5 years, which we understand is lighter than the law allows. We note that prosecutors had asked only 

for 2–3 year sentences, but still, we believe this is a short sentence. 

Ms. Watson’s Question: 

In September 2002, it is my understanding that an American citizen was detained 

on a visa violation in Aceh by the Indonesian military. She was denied her right to 

communicate with the U.S. Embassy and beaten when she tried to stop the detaining 

military officials from sexually molesting her female companion, a U.K. national who 

was also denied the right to communicate with the Embassy. 

Has the U.S. Government protested this abuse of an American citizen? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

Thank you for raising this question. We take very seriously the treatment of 

American citizens overseas. 

American citizen Joy Lee Sadler was detained by Indonesian soldiers for a visa 

violation in a remote region of Aceh, Indonesia on September 11, 2002. Due to the 

remoteness of the location as well as the uncooperativeness of the local military, a 

consular official was unable to establish contact with her until September 17, 2002 

when she had been transferred to the capital city of the province, Banda Aceh. 

Embassy officers visited Ms. Sadler dozens of times, and protested the lack of 

timely consular access. We took very seriously the allegations of abuses against her 

and investigated them. As soon as we became aware of her situation, Embassy officials also met with numerous Indonesian officials to expedite her case and improve 

the conditions of her detention, remained in constant telephone communication once 

she reached Banda Aceh, and provided toiletries, medicines and magazines. In the 

United States, our officials briefed her family, seven Congressional offices, and state 

and local officials in Iowa. 

Ms. Watson’s Question: 

International human rights organizations have been very critical of the failure of 

the Indonesian Special Tribunal set up to investigate and prosecute those Indonesian 

military and civilian officials responsible for the killings and destruction unleashed 

against East Timor after the people there voted for independence in a 1999 referendum. So far, sentences have been handed down only against two military officials, and human rights observers contend that their sentences fell far short of the 

minimum sentence required by law for the crimes they committed. 

Does the United States Government plan to take any action in light of the failure 

of the Indonesian justice system to produce justice in this matter? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

We are concerned by the ineffective prosecutions of war crimes in the ad hoc tribunal in Jakarta. The military has grudgingly gone along with trials for a small 

71

number of officers for crimes against humanity and genocide. Out of 18 trials, prosecutors have obtained only five convictions, with one defendant awaiting a verdict. 

The conviction on March 12, 2003 of an Army General officer represents a tangible 

step on the path to accountability, though the five-year sentence did not meet the 

minimum 10 years required by law. 

The U.S. consistently has urged the Indonesian Government to mount effective 

prosecutions in this tribunal that meet international standards of justice and fully 

utilize the wealth of available evidence. We have also supported the efforts of the 

Serious Crimes Unit in East Timor. As the close of the Jakarta tribunal nears, we 

are consulting with multilateral partners on options to achieve truth and accountability for all of the crimes against humanity that were committed in East Timor 

during the period in question. 

We are reserving the right to determine what actions we will take until the conclusion of this tribunal. 

Ms. Watson’s Question: 

In August 2002, two American citizens were murdered and eight others were 

wounded in the area of Timika (in West Papua). Respected NGO groups have alleged 

direct Indonesian military involvement in the incident. To date, there have been no 

arrests and the Indonesian military, which is in charge of the case, has not given 

full cooperation to the FBI team sent to Indonesia to review this incident. 

What is the State Department doing to ensure a just result regarding this attack 

on U.S. citizens? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

The U.S. Government views the attack on and murder of American citizens in 

Papua in August 2002 as an extremely serious matter. We also regard the investigation and punishment of those responsible as a top priority. We have closely monitored the Indonesian investigation of this crime, and we have repeatedly informed 

the Indonesian Government of our expectation that it would act to identify and punish all those responsible, including those who may have planned or given orders to 

commit this crime. We have made clear to the Indonesian Government that the entire bilateral relationship will be affected by the Indonesian response to this crime. 

FBI agents spent several weeks in Papua earlier this year to assist the Indonesian Government in its ongoing investigation of the attack. While there, they 

interviewed police, military, and civilian personnel, and they reviewed documents 

made available by Indonesian police and military authorities. 

Since this visit, we have discussed with the Indonesian Government several issues 

regarding Indonesian cooperation with the FBI agents. The Indonesian Government 

has responded positively to requests we made regarding fuller cooperation, and we 

expect that these issues will not arise during future visits by FBI agents. 

We will continue to press for results until this matter is resolved satisfactorily. 

We share Congressional concern about this very important matter. 

Ms. Watson’s Question: 

The situation in Zimbabwe continues to deteriorate. Half the population is facing 

famine. 80% of adults are unemployed. The roots of this catastrophe lie squarely at 

the feet of President Mugabe. What more will the U.S. do to encourage the sub-region 

to speak out against government abuses in Zimbabwe? What additional actions does 

the U.S. government plan to take against Zimbabwe to protest Mr. Mugabe’s human 

rights abuses? 

What can the U.S. Government do to encourage the deployment of World Food Program food monitors to ensure the food we donate gets to its intended recipients? 

Mr. Craner’s Response: 

The U.S. has urged the region to act more proactively on Zimbabwe. The Secretary made explicit reference to Zimbabwe in public comments about the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NePAD), a pledge by African leaders to eradicate 

poverty, on how ignoring the linkage between good policies and human development 

will only bring about greater decline. The U.S. encouraged and supported the recent 

initiative taken by Presidents Mbeki of South Africa, Obasanjo of Nigeria and 

Muluzi of Malawi to establish dialogue between the Government of Zimbabwe and 

the political opposition. We will continue to conduct high-level dialogue with other 

governments; coordinate U.S. policy on these issues with key allies; and raise our 

concern through diplomatic channels. 

The U.S. will continue to spotlight human rights abuses, political repression and 

economic hardship as my Bureau did in March with the release of a 16-page pamphlet entitled, ‘‘Zimbabwe’s Man-Made Crisis.’’ We continue to maintain travel sanctions, a ban on the sale of defense items, and suspension of non-humanitarian govVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:32 Jul 23, 2003 Jkt 086775 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\ITHR\043003\86775 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
72

ernment-to-government assistance. Earlier this year the U.S. initiated an assets 

freeze against 77 senior members of the government and senior ZANU–PF officials. 

The U.S. supports Zimbabwe’s suspension from the Commonwealth, the travel ban 

and assets freeze imposed by the EU, and steps taken by regional governments to 

underline concern with the situation in Zimbabwe. In April, the United States, 

along with the EU, co-sponsored a resolution at the Commission for Human Rights 

(CHR) that called on the Government of Zimbabwe to comply fully with its international human rights obligations. The resolution was defeated as the commission 

adopted a no-action motion by a vote of 28 in favor, 24 against and 1 abstention. 

All 15 countries on the UNCHR this year voted to support a ‘‘no-action’’ motion on 

Zimbabwe. The United States continues to provide Development Assistance and regional Economic Support Funds (ESF) to support civil society, human rights organizations and democratic pluralism. 

The United States is the largest donor of food assistance to Zimbabwe, having 

given $111 million in food aid in 2002. Although this year’s harvest will be better 

than last year’s, the need remains for donor assistance through the 2003–4 growing 

season. The United States and other donors have established, with European Union 

funding, a monitoring mechanism to help ensure that donor assistance reaches its 

intended recipients. We are working with the donor community to make this process 

more robust. The Government of Zimbabwe has not, except for two well-publicized 

exceptions last fall, hindered distribution of donor food to date. It does, however, 

continue to manipulate availability of commercial maize and wheat due to political 

considerations as well as patronage and profiteering. 

Maize and wheat are the country’s staple foods but their importation and domestic marketing is under the monopoly of the state-run Grain Marketing Board 

(GMB). Price controls by the GMB have distorted the market with commodities 

being re-directed into a more expensive parallel (i.e. black) market. In response, an 

initiative by the USAID-supported Consortium for the Southern Africa Food Emergency (C–SAFE), is proposing a three-month pilot program in Zimbabwe’s second 

largest city of Bulawayo to sell 15,000 mt of USAID supplied sorghum through 

small-scale traders which will ensure that families receive food without going 

through the government GMB. Sorghum is more freely marketed than maize or 

wheat. Bulawayo was selected as a pilot city for the project because of consumer 

familiarity with sorghum, the milling capacity and the acuteness of food shortage 

in the region. At the rate of 10 kilos per person per month, the importation of 

15,000 mt of sorghum for Bulawayo would feed 500,000 people for three months. If 

successful, the program will be replicated throughout the country. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO JENNIFER L. WINDSOR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FREEDOM HOUSE, BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS’ SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION

AND HUMAN RIGHTS, AND MS. WINDSOR’S RESPONSES

Question: 

What specific recommendations would you offer to improve the content, utility, and 

impact of the human rights reports? 

Response: 

As currently produced, the State Department report is a highly useful instrument 

for those interested in human rights and democracy. Our suggestions for strengthening the report are minor in nature. But we would stress the importance of ensuring that those responsible for the report take extra care in the drafting of assessments for countries that maintain security alliances with the United States. The 

credibility of the report will be judged on whether these particular assessments are 

candid, thorough, and avoid error by omission. 

Otherwise, we would suggest that sharpening the focus of the introductory overview section for each country could strengthen the report. The reports are primarily 

notable for the extensively detailed and lengthy sections on various human rights 

and democracy problems. As currently written, the overview sections are meant to 

provide some direction for the reader as to which problems are the most serious, 

where improvements have been made and where decline has occurred. Even so, the 

overviews could be tailored to further guide the reader as to which of the many 

issues dealt with in the report narrative are the most important in determining the 

overall human rights performance of the particular country. 

73

Question: 

In your opinion, are there categories of information that should be included in the 

Country Reports, but are not? Conversely, are there categories that are currently included that, in your opinion, could be removed? Please give examples. 

Response: 

Freedom House believe that while the reports are perhaps overly long, the problem lies principally in the excessive detail within the various categories. In fact, 

those responsible for the report have chosen a list of categories that quite effectively 

covers the broad range of issues relevant to human rights and democracy. 

Question: 

You stated that the trend for 2002 indicated modest gains of freedom and expansion of human rights in every region of the globe. To what do you attribute these 

gains? What recommendations would you suggest to the Administration and Congress to facilitate further gains in these areas? 

Response: 

There are a number of factors involved in the gains for freedom registered over 

the past few years. One, certainly, is the negative model of dictatorship, which in 

every guise—Marxist, military-led, or nationalist oriented—has failed to produce 

freedom or prosperity. More important has been the growing commitment of the established, stable democracies to incorporate democracy promotion in their foreign 

policy process. Crucial here have been the policies of the United States, a number 

of European countries, and several of the most important transnational alliances: 

the European Union, the Commonwealth, and the Organization of American States. 

The incorporation of certain good governance and democracy criteria in the policies 

of the World Bank is a further promising development. 

As far as future policies are concerned, we would urge the United States to deepen its commitment to democracy promotion. We believe that this is a critical need 

in the wake of the events of 9/11. It has become increasingly clear that the absence 

of freedom in the Middle East is a major factor in the rise of fanatical anti-American 

and anti-democratic movements that are willing to use terrorism to achieve their 

goals. The American government has given some indication of recognizing the relationship between political repression and terrorism, but shows a reticence to switch 

from a policy that tolerates the anti-democratic status quo in the Middle East to 

one that encourages democratic change. In this regard, we see the Millennium Challenge Account as an important step in the right direction. We hope that it is adequately funded and retains the good governance and democracy criteria that were 

part of its original concept. 

Question: 

According to your statement, there have been real-life freedom improvements in 28 

countries and declines in 11 countries. Would you characterize these fluctuations as 

having more to do with a change in climate for political rights or civil liberties? 

What political rights specifically have increased and decreased? Likewise, what civil 

liberties specifically have increased and decreased? 

Response: 

When looked at over the period of the past decade or so, the most striking gains 

have been in the political rights category, and especially in the number of countries 

that have conducted elections for head of state and parliament that the international community judged as reasonably free and fair. To give a sense of the degree of change, Freedom House has found that the number of electoral democracies 

increased from 91 in 1992 to 121 for 2002. Also encouraging is the fact that once 

free and fair elections have been held, few countries have returned to their previous 

anti-democratic methods of selecting political leadership. On the negative side, there 

has been an increase in political corruption in a number of new democratic states, 

a phenomenon that has given rise to a substantial level of popular cynicism and 

eroded the public’s faith in democracy. 

On the civil liberties side, clearly there has been a continuing increase in the 

number of people around the world who enjoy the rights of free speech, thought, assembly, political organization, and personal autonomy. Again, the most problematic 

area is rule of law. In a number of new and fragile democracies, corruption has 

grown in both the public and private sectors, and violence and corruption are on 

the rise among the police and security forces. 

74

Question: 

You stated that Freedom House’s latest survey results do not indicate a worldwide 

reversal of freedom as a result of widespread transnational terrorism. However, you 

also stated, ‘‘It is important to note that freedom has gained principally in countries 

in which the impact of ideological terrorism has been marginal or absent.’’ Discounting nations that have had marginal or no impact from terrorism, has freedom 

increased, decreased, or stayed the same for nations that do have to contend with 

terrorism? 

Response: 

Freedom House regards terrorism as the single greatest threat to freedom in the 

world today. That the rise of terrorism has not had a more substantial impact on 

the level of world freedom is a heartening sign of freedom’s resiliency. But we are 

under no illusions on this issue. A further escalation of deadly terrorist acts, especially if perpetrated by terrorist cells with transnational reach, would pose a real 

threat to the important progress that has been made in recent years. 

Terrorism’s most serious impact has come in those countries that have been mired 

in internal conflicts marked by acts of terrorism by insurgents and, at times, by security forces or paramilitaries loosely aligned with the government. Two obvious examples are Colombia and Nepal. Although conditions have improved, terrorism has 

also been a serious negative factor in Algeria, and the violent response of the authorities has cost thousands their lives. More broadly, we believe that governments 

in a number of countries in the Middle East and Central Asia have used terrorism 

as justification for failing to take measures to advance democratic change. In 

Uzbekistan, where a violent Islamic movement did once pose a threat to the government, the authorities have exploited popular fears by accusing regime critics en 

masse of adherence to extremist sects. 

In general, countries that have stable democratic governments and civilian controlled security forces that enjoy a high level of professionalism do a better job of 

balancing the fight against terrorism and the maintenance of civil liberties. The 

United States and the larger countries of the EU have been victimized by terrorist 

acts or have had to deal with terror movements that have taken root on their soil. 

While these stable democracies have adopted anti-terrorism measures that we believe have a negative impact on civil liberties, these countries have managed to cope 

with the terrorist problem without the imposition of serious restrictions on individual freedom. We also think it is notable that several relatively new democracies, 

such as Indonesia and the Philippines, have managed to cope with active terror 

movements without experiencing an erosion of civil liberties. 

QUESTION FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO JENNIFER L. WINDSOR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FREEDOM HOUSE, BY THE HONORABLE JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND MR. CRANER’S RESPONSE

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

Would you explain the steps you believe the U.S. and the international community 

need to take to ensure that a vote for self-determination is finally held for the 

Sahrawi people? 

Ms. Windor’s Response: 

The next few months are critical for the US and the international community to 

cultivate political will for the Secretary General’s proposed peace plan which was 

presented by his personal envoy James Baker in January 2003. The proposed new 

compromise peace plan, outlining a four-to-five year period of transition dividing responsibilities of the parties and leading to a referendum for self-determination, 

seems in a precarious position and is as yet formally unsupported by the government of Morocco. 

The US is in a unique position to take a lead role in persuading all of the parties 

to accept the current plan. In particular, the U.S. should provide a clear message 

to the governments of Morocco and Algeria as well as the Polisario that they must 

accept the current plan if they want to gain further international legitimacy and 

partial gains. 

Increased confidence building measures are critical on the part of parties which 

also impact fundamental liberties. In particular, the immediate release of both 

Sahrawi and Moroccan political prisoners and prisoners of war would be a critical 

step that would not only improve the human rights situation within the territory, 

but would serve to increase the trust and good faith among parties. The US and 

75

the international community should publicly call upon governments to take measures to improve freedom of speech, assembly and association, which are necessary 

conditions for an informed and democratic process in the transition period leading 

up to a referendum. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO ALEXANDRA ARRIAGA, DIRECTOR OF GOV- ERNMENT RELATIONS, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS’ SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM, 

NONPROLIFERATION, AND HUMAN RIGHTS, AND MS. ARRIAGA’S RESPONSES

Question: 

What specific recommendations would you offer to improve the content, utility and 

impact of the Human Rights Reports? 

Response: 

The reports are generally good, accurate accounts of human rights events in each 

country. The quality and credibility of the reports are generally very good. 

Some have suggested that shortening the reports or streamlining the information 

would make the information more ‘‘reader friendly.’’ Although this appears well intentioned, the process could inadvertently make the reports more difficult to use and 

less hard-hitting. By making the reports available by computer CD and on the 

website, readers are able to find information easily through a computer word search. 

Most readers turn directly to the section of the report that addresses their area of 

concern and review that section exclusively. Thus, the suggestion of streamlining 

the reports by only listing information once and referring readers back to the first 

reference would complicate the use of the reports by causing the reader to search 

outside of their section of interest. This form of streamlining would make the reports less rather than more ‘‘reader friendly.’’

The reports could be improved by ensuring that each section includes an overview 

paragraph describing the major areas of concern and objective description of the 

trends. At times the reports provide a litany of individual examples of incidents of 

abuse and violations of human rights, without providing a summary of the findings 

and perspective on the record. This leaves the reader to go through many individual 

cases without the benefit of an overview or summary statement by the US Government. Some reports omit cases from prior years that are attributed to the current 

government. In some instances, these cases have not been prosecuted and those responsible held accountable for their acts. 

The reports could be stronger in some cases if the information included were presented as findings and facts, rather than qualified by attributing the accounts to 

nongovernmental organization reports. For example, the reports offered unqualified 

information on incidents of torture and other mistreatment by the Palestinian Authority, but qualified equally disturbing accounts by Israel’s State security officers 

as information reported by human rights organizations. In addition, abuses against 

members of the lesbian and gay community were generally attributed to documentation provided by human rights organizations. Attribution of abuse accounts to nongovernmental organizations should occur only when the US Government lacks information on the topic, but not as a substitute for confronting a country directly on 

its record. The accounts of abuse have added weight when they are reports by the 

US Government. 

The reports should be distributed broadly and integrated into the work and information of other US Government offices and agencies. For example, the reports 

should be integrated as part of the information that appears on the State Department websites for country-specific information, information on commercial relations 

and opportunities, travel advisories, the websites of US embassies abroad, as well 

as websites of other agencies, such as Commerce, Labor, and Treasury. Congress 

should be encouraged to provide web links to these reports, as should State government and universities. 

The report should be formally integrated into decision-making processes that incorporate respect for human rights as a criterion. The reports are currently used 

in making political asylum determinations and in processing refugee cases. The reports are listed as a factor in determining licenses for US exports of police and 

crime control equipment and in decisions about transfers of foreign military equipment and training. However, their consideration is frequently overcome by commercial and other considerations. 

For example, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act explicitly refers to respect 

for human rights in is criteria for county eligibility. However, the treatment of 

human right concerns and reference to the DOS Human Rights Reports is 

76

downplayed and often ignored in the annual review for country eligibility for AGOA 

benefits. The reports could be a guide for evaluating eligibility for the Millennium 

Challenge Account, used as an indicator for progress on human rights. The Administration and Congress should use the reports in preparation for visits from foreign 

governments and raise the human rights issue with leaders during these visits. 

The impact of the reports could be greater if they also included information about 

actions the US Government took to address abuses documented in the report. For 

example, the State Department’s Annual Report on International Religious Freedom 

provides information on US actions, initiatives, and responses to address violations 

of religious freedom. This information has served to highlight trends, assisted in 

evaluating effectiveness of US policies, provided information on how known patterns 

of violations have impacted US policy, and even spurred embassies to remain active 

on issues of religious freedom in order to ensure adequate accounting of work on 

religious freedom issues in the report. 

This year’s instruction cable to drafting embassies included an apparently new 

guideline that is disturbing and can affect the report’s content, quality and credibility. Specifically, US embassies were instructed, that: ‘‘Actions by governments 

taken at the request of the United States or with the expressed support of the 

United States should not be included in the report.’’ This revised instruction could 

threaten the previously largely apolitical nature of the reports. Already this year, 

the reports appears to have been affected by the Administration’s political concerns 

in the ‘‘war on terror’’ as evidenced by the recasting or complete omission of events 

and actions that were otherwise characterized as human rights abuses occurring in 

2002. For example, the treatment of military courts in Egypt was recast to eliminate 

the criticisms of previous years. 

Question: 

In your opinion are there categories of information that should be included in the 

Country Reports, but are not? Conversely, are there categories that are currently included that, in your opinion, could be removed? Please give examples. 

Response: 

Amnesty International recognizes that the Country Reports continue to be an effective tool in holding governments accountable for their human rights record. The 

quality and utility of the reports have generally continued to improve over the last 

decade, with expanded coverage of human rights violations affecting women, disabled persons, children, labor activists, religious leaders and groups, indigenous populations, refugees and internally displaced persons, and persons discriminated 

against because of their sexual orientation. Amnesty International recommends that 

the reports continue to be comprehensive in nature, that efforts be made to continue 

to improve the quality and content of the information provided on existing human 

rights topics, and that the human rights topics of focus be expanded to include information such as:

• Analysis of a country’s efforts to meet its international human rights obligations under treaties it has ratified and any persistent pattern of objections to 

recognizing certain human rights at the international level. For example, 

mention of a country’s role at international forums such as the UN Commission on Human Rights, and whether the country regularly objects to the right 

to freedom of religion, the rights of women, freedom of association, or another 

area of rights.

• Adequate coverage of abuses by non-state actors acting within the territory 

of the state, such as traffickers in humans, drugs, and natural resources 

where these actions result in or fuel human rights abuses.

• Violations of economic, social and cultural rights, such as denial to food, 

water, housing, education and work. Violations of these rights could be analyzed from the perspective of discrimination against particular groups, such 

as denial of education to girls and women in Afghanistan, the denial of housing and displacement of Chechen refugees, and the withholding of food and 

water from civilian populations in conflict zones.

• Inclusion of government programs to provide human rights education, whether this be information to inform vulnerable groups of their rights, or efforts 

to mainstream such information in the school system.

• Human rights abuses related to actions and policies related to environmental 

degradation and illicit mining of natural resources, such as attacks against 

environmental activists and the displacement of and abuse against indigenous 

populations. The reports should cite the role of corporations, rebel groups, and 

States actors in illicit activities to control revenues of natural resources that 

77

fuel abuse against indigenous populations, such as in Sierra Leone and 

Burma, for example.

• Expanded coverage of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The 

information on discrimination and abuse against this community is generally 

attributed to documentation provided by human rights groups, and should be 

included in the information tracked directly by the US embassies. 

Question: 

You stated that the United States is not exercising proper safeguards in monitoring 

how countries cooperating in the war against terrorism use security-related assistance. To your knowledge, have there been specific incidences where security assistance was used to further human rights abuses? Please elaborate. 

Response: 

Amnesty International is concerned about the transfer of US security assistance 

to countries in which the security forces have a well-documented record of committing human rights violations. Without proper monitoring of such transfers, US security assistance may contribute to or facilitate violations by host country forces, by 

signaling US support for abusive security forces and tacitly endorsing impunity and 

by serving as the source of weaponry and skills that are used to commit abuse. Lack 

of effective monitoring and reporting on the end-use of US security assistance transfers make it difficult to pinpoint where they contribute to abuses. 

Amnesty International has reported on security forces that have benefited from 

US equipment and have gone on to commit human rights abuse. Recipients of US 

security assistance include Nigeria’s military forces, which include units responsible 

for massacres in Odi and Benue; Ethiopia’s military, which includes soldiers responsible for killings in Oromia and at Addis Ababa University; and Uganda’s military, 

which has conducted operations in the eastern region of the Democratic Republic of 

the Congo that have included mass killings and abuse and in Operation Iron Fist 

in northern Uganda against the Lords Resistance Army. 

Among the largest recipients of US security assistance worldwide is Colombia. 

The United States continues to provide assistance to the Colombian Armed Forces 

(CAF) despite well-documented evidence that the CAF has committed gross violations against the civilian population, and that the CAF has failed to sever ties to 

paramilitary forces responsible for abuses against civilians. In 2002, over 4,000 civilians were killed as a result of the conflict, the vast majority of these attributable 

to the military and their paramilitary allies, with far fewer but equally egregious 

abuses committed by the FARC and ELN guerrilla forces. Furthermore, Colombia’s 

Attorney General has failed to prosecute a number of high-ranking former and active military officers accused of violations. Amnesty International continues to receive credible reports of apparent joint military-paramilitary actions against the civilian population. Amnesty International has elaborated on these human rights concerns and provided evidence of the lack of progress by the CAF to the Department 

of State in the annual consultation for certification of security assistance to Colombia. 

As part of the Bush Administration’s ‘‘war on terror,’’ the United States has increased US military assistance to the Philippines to crackdown on suspected ‘‘terrorists.’’ The Philippine’s military forces are utilizing paramilitary forces and hiring civilians to undertake the fighting. These groups have then been integrated into the 

Civilian Armed Forces Geographic Units (CAFGU), which were involved in, among 

other incidences, a massacre at a ‘‘rebel’’ wedding. There are estimates that US security assistance will help provide as many as 34,000 arms to new recruits that receive only six weeks of training. 

Question: 

You stated that countries as diverse as China, Cuba, Great Britain, India, Jordan, 

and others have enacted restrictive policies in the name of anti-terrorism efforts. 

What are some of the most common restrictive policies that these countries have taken 

up? 

Response: 

Amnesty International is concerned that many countries are following the lead of 

the United States on anti-terrorism efforts, by adopting or expanding anti-terrorism 

legislation that facilitates repressive policies and utilizing the ‘‘war on terrorism’’ to 

legitimize crackdowns on peaceful dissent. Many countries, including China, Cuba, 

Colombia, Great Britain, Guyana, India, Jordan, Pakistan, Tanzania, and 

Uzbekistan have enacted or expanded restrictive policies in the name of anti-terrorism efforts. Others, such as Malaysia and Singapore have intensified the use of 

existing security laws to repress dissent. The Country Reports fail to make clear the 

78

intensified use of new or expanded anti-terrorism legislation or policies, which emulate those proposed by this Administration in the Patriot Act and subsequent initiatives. 

Amnesty International has reported around the world on repressive policies that 

various countries have utilized under the guise of fighting a ‘‘war on terrorism.’’ 

Abusive practices used by State officials, include: torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; administrative and/or incommunicado detention, in which political prisoners are held without trial for long periods of time; denial of a fair judicial 

process; crackdowns on dissenters, peaceful demonstrators, and on non-violent opposition groups, particularly Islamists and marginalized sectors of society; heightened 

restrictions on or attacks against journalists and opposition media. Although these 

practices in many cases predate the U.S. ‘‘war on terrorism,’’ the current climate 

has appeared to excuse and even legitimize human rights violations that were heretofore viewed as completely unacceptable. 

In Uganda, the government passed a law referred to as the Anti-Terrorism Act, 

which limits civil liberties and broadly defines terrorism as the ‘‘use of violence or 

threat of violence with intent to promote or achieve political, religious, economic and 

cultural or social ends in an unlawful manner.’’ This new law carries a mandatory 

death sentence for those found to be terrorists. Many are concerned that the law 

threatens the legitimate work of journalists and peaceful political activists. In October 2002, the government of Uganda shut down the country’s independent newspaper, The Monitor, justifying the move on the basis of the new anti-terrorism law. 

The Anti-Terrorism Act, also authorizes certain law enforcement officials to intercept communication in order to detect and prevent terrorist activities. Police are reported to have used this law arbitrarily to interfere with privacy, home, family and 

correspondence. 

In Cuba, the National Assembly approved the Ley Cubana contra Actos de 

Terrorismo (Cuban Law against Acts of Terrorism) in December 2001, which authorizes the use of the death penalty against those found to be terrorists. Many are concerned that the law will be against dissidents. On April 11, 2003, three would-be 

hijackers intent on leaving Cuba were executed under this ant-terrorism legislation, 

despite the fact that the law does not provide for the death penalty in cases in 

which there are no injuries. Their appeals to the Supreme Court and the Council 

of State were summarily dismissed, and the three were executed by firing squad 

less than a week after their trial began. 

In late 2001, the government of China amended its Criminal Law allegedly to accommodate terrorist threats. Although the Criminal Law included provisions punishing some ’’terrorist’’ crimes in a section of the law dealing with ’’Crimes of Endangering Public Security,’’ the amendments provide the government with expanded 

powers. The law does not define the term ‘‘terrorist organization’’ and can be interpreted to refer to a variety of organizations. The amendments increase the variety 

of punishments for people who organize or lead a terrorist organization, and for 

those who ‘‘fund terrorist organizations or individuals engaging in terrorist activities.’’ The new amendments also expand the use of the death penalty to encompass 

individuals who fund or are members of a terrorist organization. Many are concerned that the Criminal Law is so vague that it can be gravely misused and that 

the lack of precision creates renewed uncertainty regarding what actions are prohibited. It also may criminalize peaceful activities and infringe upon the rights of freedom of speech, expression, religion, and association. 

The government of India enacted the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) in 2002, 

which broadly defines terrorism to include anyone who intends to threaten the national unity, integrity, security or sovereignty. The law provides an equally vague 

and broad definition of ‘‘terrorist activity’’ and criminalizes the failure to provide authorities with ‘‘information relating to any terrorist activity.’’ The law expands the 

State’s investigative and procedural powers. Suspects can be detained for up to 

three months without charge, and up to three months more with the permission of 

a special judge, thus effectively subverting the principle of presumption of innocence. It provides little discretion to judges regarding the severity of sentences. Amnesty International is concerned that the law is highly susceptible to misuse and 

may facilitate repressive policies that can be used to silence and intimidate peaceful 

political opposition, dissidents, and minorities. Amnesty International has documented cases in which the law has been used against opposition party members for 

their remarks, and against Muslims, but not Hindus, involved in violent riots that 

took place in Gujarat. 

The government of Jordan adopted, by royal decree, new laws expanding the scope 

and definition of ‘‘terrorism.’’ The new definition of terrorism is extremely vague and 

could be read to include minor damage caused by peaceful demonstrations. The laws 

place additional restrictions on freedom of expression and the press, and on the 

79

right of assembly and the right to legal counsel for political opponents, and pose a 

threat to freedom of association. Amnesty International has called on the government of Jordan to end the practice of incommunicado detention, torture and illtreatment, and has expressed grave concerns about the treatment of individuals the 

United States has ‘‘rendered’’ to Jordan for interrogation and detention. 

In the Philippines, human rights conditions have deteriorated. Increasingly, the 

government has accused individuals of ‘‘terrorist’’ activities as a means to silence 

political dissidents, opposition and social activists. Police and soldiers have used the 

law to crackdown on suspected Abu Sayyaf (ASG) members, arresting many without 

warrants, reportedly subjecting detainees to torture and seeking to force confessions, 

and eventually releasing detainees without charges. Amnesty International documented the cases of twenty-seven Muslims and an estimated 130 civilians subjected 

in such treatment in two separate incidents that occurred respectively in March and 

July 2002. 

The government of the United Kingdom enacted the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and 

Security Act 2001 (ATCSA). Amnesty International has expressed concerns about 

the use of this law to detain non-UK nationals for unspecified and potentially unlimited duration, without charge or trial. Amnesty International is also concerned that 

the law’s provisions deny the opportunity to challenge, under fair procedures, any 

decision taken under the ATCSA and that it can negatively affect the status and 

rights of individuals who are recognized as refugees or asylum-seekers. 

These examples are among many that Amnesty International has documented 

throughout the year. They provide evidence that the ‘‘war on terror’’ is being used 

and can be manipulated by governments to impose and expand restrictive policies 

against civilians. The United States has a special responsibility as a world superpower to set an example for upholding international standards of human rights. The 

United States must also ensure that US policies, laws and regulations intended to 

address the new threat of terrorism do not deny individual’s their rights to be protected against human rights abuse. The United States must also redouble its efforts 

to confront governments that have repressive records, especially those that are 

using the ‘‘war on terror’’ to legitimize human rights abuse. 

QUESTION FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO RAHMAN ALJEBOURI BY MEMBERS OF THE

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS’ SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL

TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND HUMAN RIGHTS, AND MR. ALJEBOURI’S RESPONSE

Question: 

There are reportedly 400,000 Iraqi refugees in the Middle East, Europe, and the 

United States, and there is speculation that ‘‘thousands’’ might wish to return home. 

What is your perception of this situation? What would be the humanitarian and political implications of a massive return of Iraqi refugees? 

Response: 

The return of Iraqi refugees to their home from their countries of exile could play 

a great role in promoting democracy. We need to do the following to encourage refugees to go back:

1. In our case here in the United States, most of the Iraqi refugees who started 

to arrive in the US after 1992 are permanent residents (Green Card holders) 

most of them don’t have Iraqi passports. Applying to the Department of 

Homeland Security in order to get a refugee travel document takes more 

than a year. What I suggest is expediting the process so that it is easier for 

Iraqi refugees to get them.

2. Encourage American companies to hire Iraqi refugees as part of their staff 

in Iraq.

3. Give them some financial support like other counties (Saudi Arabia, Britain, 

Norway and others) 

80

QUESTION FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO RAHMAN ALJEBOURI BY THE HONORABLE

JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND MR. ALJEBOURI’S RESPONSE

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

What precautionary measures did your family and friends have to take in order 

to keep up the appearance of loyalty to the Saddam Hussein regime so as to avoid 

being arrested and perhaps tortured? 

Mr. Aljebouri’s Response: 

After I left Iraq my family survived by doing the following:

1. Dishonoring my blood by signing a pledge to the security forces saying because of my act of opposing the government, I will be no longer be their son 

nor their blood.

2. Supporting activities of the Baath Party such as going to demonstrations to 

show their loyalty.

3. Paying bribes to the Party members.

4. Reporting my activities to the authorities. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SOON OK LEE BY MEMBERS OF THE

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS’ SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL

TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS, AND MRS. LEE’S RESPONSES

Question: 

You have testified previously that during your incarceration in the late 1980s and 

early 1990s, the North Korean government used prison labor to manufacture items 

for export. Are you aware of any evidence that North Korea continues these practices? 

If so, what items and to which countries? 

Response: 

Yes. I heard from a defector who had been imprisoned in KaeChon prison camp 

in 1995 that North Korean government continued to produce the brassiere for export to Russia after I release from KaeChon prison camp in 1992. 

Question: 

You have documented how in 1995, officials at the South Korean embassy in Beijing turned you and your son out on the street after you requested asylum. Over the 

past year, however, South Korean diplomatic offices in China reportedly have granted asylum quietly to scores of North Koreans who successfully entered their compounds. Would you agree with this assessment? What more could South Korea and 

the United States do to convince China to allow more North Koreans in China to 

defect? 

Response: 

I think that South Korea and the United States should continue to urge China 

to grant the refugee status to North Korean in China and should set up the refugee 

camps in Mongolia or third country. 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO SOON OK LEE BY THE HONORABLE JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND MRS. LEE’S RESPONSES

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

What recommendations do you have regarding the U.S. policy towards North 

Korea? 

Mrs. Lee’s Response: 

I think the U.S. should not negotiate the issue of the nuclear weapons program 

for economic aid with North Korea. I think the U.S. should set up the refugee camps 

in Mongolia or third country. 

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

What are your views regarding the current policy stance by the Bush Administration with respect to North Korea? 

81

Mrs. Lee’s Response: 

I support the strong policy stance of the Bush Administration with respect to 

North Korea. 

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

What role should human rights play in U.S. policy towards North Korea? 

Mrs. Lee’s Response: 

No response was received. 

Mr. Pitts’ Question: 

We know that the North Korean government treats political and other prisoners 

terribly. Would you please comment on the way the North Korean government treats 

religious believers? 

Mrs. Lee’s Response: 

The North Korean government imprison a whole life of religious believers in political prison camps or prison camps until they abandon their believes. The North Korean government treats religious believers more terribly than other prisoners. 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD BY SOON OK LEE

WATER TORTURE

One day in early March 1997, I was taken into a torture chamber that I had 

never been in before. I saw a big kettle on a small table and a low wooden table 

with straps, about 20 centimeters high. By surprise, one of the two interrogators 

tripped me with his leg. They strapped me on to the table and forced the kettle 

spout into my mouth. The spout was made so that it forced my throat wide open 

and I could not control the water running into my body. Close to suffocation, I had 

to breathe through my nose. My mouth was full of water and it overflowed from 

my nose. As I began to faint from the pain and suffocation, I could not see anything 

but felt sort of afloat in the air. I had been through all kinds of torture, such as 

whippings, beatings with rubber bands or hard sticks, or hand twisting with wooden 

sticks between my ten fingers, but this was worse. 

I do not remember how long it lasted but when I woke up I felt two interrogators 

jumping on a board which was laid on my swollen stomach to force water back out 

of my body. I suddenly vomited and kept vomiting with terrible pain. 

I had no idea how much water ran into my body but I felt like the cells in my 

body were full of water and water was running out of my body through my mouth, 

nose, anus and vagina. 

I faintly heard somebody saying, ‘‘Why doesn’t this bitch wake up. Did she die?’’ 

I could not get up so I was dragged to my cell that day. From that day on, I suffered 

from high fever and often fainted. My whole body was so swollen that I could not 

open my eyes. I could only urinate a few drops of milk-like liquid with blood and 

felt a severe pain in my bladder. I was able to get up and walk again in about two 

week’s time. 

I can not explain how I could have survived such an ordeal. I would have died 

if that had happened to me in my ordinary life. I must have developed a mysterious 

super power to sustain myself under an emergency situation. 


86775a.eps
82

PRISONERS BEATEN CRUELLY

One common form of torture was to tie a prisoner against iron bars, spread-eagle 

by hands and legs and beat him all over the body with a rubber or cow skin whip. 

Just the pain from hanging by your body weight makes the ordeal unbearable. From 

the beatings, the skin becomes torn all over, blood splashes and the prisoners begin 

to feel that their skin isn’t human any more. When a prisoner is released from the 

iron bar, his whole body is so swollen that he cannot bend his back or knees. The 

prisoner must evacuate and urinate standing. 

In the Nongpo Police Detention Center, there were three torture chambers and 

all kinds of torture were routinely practiced on inmates. I was 39 years old at that 

time. They subjected me to all kinds of torture there. 

Once I resisted when they tried to undress me. One of the torturers punched me 

in my face so hard that I fainted to the floor. Sometime later, I woke up to find 

my mouth full of something. They were my broken teeth. Obviously, I bled terribly 

because the floor was full of my blood. My face was so badly swollen that I could 

hardly open my eyes. I spit out the broken teeth only after holding up my lips with 

my fingers. Four teeth from the upper jaw were gone. I began to feel terrible pain 

in my other teeth. Usually, I was taken to the torture chamber at five o’clock in 

the morning and remained there until midnight. 

FREEZING TORTURE

One winter night in 1987 when I was under investigation at the Chongjin Police 

Station, the interrogator yelled, ‘‘Bitch! You’ve been spoiled by the warmth in the 

interrogation room. I’m gonna teach you a lesson!’’ He made me sit outside wearing 

my underclothes only. It was freezing cold outside. I was showered with a bucket 

of cold water and left on my knees for an hour. It was here where I saw other prisoners for the first time. There were some ten prisoners on their knees before me 

on the ground looking like grotesque boulders. The freezing torture was repeated 

every night throughout the winter. Six prisoners died from this torture. 

There were some ten prisoners on their knees before me on the ground. I was told 

to sit in the front. I walked through the other prisoners to the front. It was so cold 

that the guard went right back into the office. I heard a low voice, ‘‘Hey, Comrade 

Soon-ok, it’s me here!’’ It was Younghwan Choi, the Supply Manager of Hweryung 

District! Soon, I was able to recognize the familiar faces of five former colleagues. 

They had all been arrested under the same false charges that I was. They all realized that if they died from the torture, they would be perishing under false charges. 

So they all displayed strong will power to overcome the torture and survive. 

However, I witnessed a total of 6 prisoners die from this freezing torture during 

the winter. The cold was very painful on my hands, legs and ears for the first 20 

to 30 minutes. But after that, I felt nothing at all. When we were told after one 

hour to get up, we were literally frozen and could not stand up. We all fell several 

times before we somehow managed to rise and stumble back into our cold cells. 

Soon, I had large swollen ears. My feet were so swollen that I could not put on 

my shoes. Water was running from the sores in my swollen legs. When I finally left 

the interrogation center and arrived at the prison, a prison official told me to apply 

pine resin from the shoe-making factory. The resin melted all my flesh and I could 

see some of the bones in my feet. However, because of the resin, fresh flesh began 

to cover the bones and, after six months, I had normal feet again. I cannot remember when my swollen ears recovered. 


86775b.eps
83

A NORTH KOREAN MINER’S WIFE

Jong-ok Kim, about 45, wife of a minor, Hweryong district, was arrested for stealing some 20 liters of corn from a nearby cooperative farm when her children were 

starving at home in the spring of 1987. During the trial, the judge scolded her for 

stealing. There was a microphone in front of her but she did not know what it was. 

She murmured in a very low voice, ‘‘Of course, I know stealing is bad. Why would 

I steal if food ration had continued? How awful this country is.’’ Her complaint 

reached the judge through the microphone. He was furious and committed her to 

15year hard labor in prison for ‘‘criticizing the party policy.’’ She died in the autumn 

of 1992 of undernourishment and diarrhea, after five years in prison. 

She was detained at the cell next to me during the police investigation but we 

did not see each other at that time because the movement of prisoners was always 

so strictly controlled that prisoners do not meet each other. The guards in the jails, 

however, always felt bored when on duty for hours and they would normally ask 

inmates for all kinds of questions, ‘‘Hey you! What’s your name? Where are you 

from? What’s the Charge? etc.’’ I overheard their conversations with other inmates 

and knew about them and, in the same way, the other inmates knew about me even 

though we did not meet. 

One day in prison in 1988, I was carrying work instructions as usual when a prisoner suddenly stopped me by pulling my clothes and whispered to me, ‘‘Aren’t you 

the Supply Manager from Onsong District?’’ Speaking each other was against the 

prison regulation. I was scared and I moved off without a word. The next day, when 

there was no prison guard around, I asked her, ‘‘How did you know about me?’’ This 

is how we met in the prison. 

She worked at the leather factory in prison. She had been in prison for about 5 

years when, one day in the autumn of 1992, she became too weak to meet her work 

quota. She received reduced meal for punishment and began to be weaker with less 

food. She also had serious loose bowels and felt so thirsty but there was no water 

for prisoners. She was so desperate that she drank the dirty water from the bucket 

where floor mops had been washed several times. The next day, she dropped to the 

floor while trying to make a leather bag. She did not move when prison guards 

kicked her hard. She was dead. They had her dead body wrapped in a straw mat 

and carried away. 

One day in 1994, while I was hiding in China waiting for an opportunity to come 

to Seoul, I was listening to a mid-night radio broadcast from Seoul which announced 

arrival in Seoul of two young brothers from North Korea. Their names rang my 

ears. When I was undergoing intelligence clearance in South Korea, I was able to 

confirm that the two brothers were indeed the sons of Sung-Ok Choi. 

When I was preparing to meet her sons in Seoul, the intelligence officers advised 

me not to tell them about their mother’s death because the boys are in a very fragile 

condition emotionally. So, I did not tell them about their mother’s death when I first 

met them. One day in April, 1998, they visited me and told me that they had heard 

from their relatives in China that their mother had died, so I had to confirm the 

information. They are in South Korea now and visit me regularly. 

TEARING OFF THE EARS OF A PRISONER

The Comptroller of the Seamen’s Club of Chongjin City was an old man, 60 years 

old. He could no longer withstand the tortures that continued daily. When the investigators tore off one of his ears and began tearing off the other, he decided to please 

the investigators by claiming to be a big thief—the bigger the better. So, he told 


86775c.eps 86775d.eps
84

them that he stole a locomotive from the city railway station. He acquired the nickname, ‘‘locomotive head’’ from the police investigators and officers. 

PRISONERS USED FOR MARTIAL ART PRACTICE

A prisoner in the police jails becomes a different person, skin and bone, from starvation and torture. Male prisoners appear to become undernourished and confused 

sooner than female prisoners. The jail guards commonly use inmates as martial arts 

target. They punch and kick prisoners during martial arts practice. The prisoners 

fall bleeding at the first blow and remain motionless for a while on the cement floor 

until they are kicked back into the cells. 

The guards often bring fish and grill it on their stove, sending a wonderful aroma 

to the prisoners. This is as painful as any form of torture could be for the starving 

inmates. 

NORTH KOREAN KANGAROO COURT

The preliminary trial was for 10:00 am at my former office, where I worked for 

17 years as a loyal party member. I asked for my husband before entering the court. 

‘‘Your husband is not here. Don’t ever try to meet anybody else, understand?’’ was 

the reply. Don’t I even get to see my husband on the day of my trial? 

I met my lawyer for the first time in the courtroom. The court consisted of a 

judge, prosecutor, lawyer and a two-member ‘‘jury.’’ My interrogator was there also. 

The judge made a few remarks about the charges against me and asked me if I accepted the charge. 

I had promised the interrogators earlier that I would accept the charge, but I simply could not control myself at that moment. ‘‘Your Honor, I have neither embezzled 

government property nor violated any of the party policy. Never, never! I am innocent. Please allow me a fair investigation.’’ The two guards at my sides shouted, 

‘‘You must be crazy!’’ and started to kick me in the knees. At that moment, the 

judge declared the preliminary trial closed. The trial lasted less than 15 minutes! 

It was very cold on November 9, 1987, my trial day. In the morning, the interrogators repeated their warning, ‘‘You better be careful what you say in court or your 

husband and son will be in serious trouble. Remember that!’’ (I did not know that 

my husband, in fact, had already been exiled internally!) However, I was firmly determined to do what I could to prove my innocence to the party officials and my 

husband. I was still so naive and excited by the idea of meeting my husband and 

telling him loudly, in the court room, all about my sufferings. 

After the preliminary trial which lasted less than 15 minutes, I was detained at 

the police cell for the formal trial until five o’clock in the afternoon. I was given no 

water and food. The interrogators persistently harassed me with the same threat, 

‘‘What about your husband and son? If you accept the charge in court, they will be 

safe. Otherwise, you know what’s going to happen to them.’’

At court in the afternoon, I had to say yes when the judge asked me, ‘‘Do you 

accept the charges against you?’’ There was no evidence produced nor any witnesses 

against me. The judge made no reference to the absence of evidence and witnesses 

and committed me to a 13-year imprisonment in violation of the government comVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:32 Jul 23, 2003 Jkt 086775 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\ITHR\043003\86775 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

86775e.eps 86775f.eps
85

mercial policy and state property embezzlement. The lawyer remained silent 

throughout the entire court proceeding. The mere formality to send me to prison 

was thus over under the pretext of a trial. 

A BIRD’S EYE VIEW OF KAECHON WOMEN’S PRISON

TYPICAL SCENE OF PRISONERS AT WORK

Officially, the purpose of the prison is to reform the ideology of the prisoners. In 

reality, however, the purpose of the prison is to exploit slave labor. The prisoners 

work 16–18 hours every day without wages. Cow leather whips are always ready 

on the walls and women are whipped, kicked, or punched daily for no reason. The 

prisoners are not allowed to talk, laugh or take a rest. In addition, the prisoners 

must always keep their heads down and only repeat the same motion for work. As 

a result, more than half of the women have lumps on their heads or shoulders, are 

hunchbacks, or are crippled. The camp officers and guards always wear masks because they cannot tolerate the prisoners’ stench! The prisoners often urinate or defecate while working because they cannot wait. 

The prisoners are allowed to take showers only twice a year. Therefore, all the 

prisoners naturally stink. The entire prison is full of the awful smell of sweat and 

the stench of the prisoners enters your lungs the moment you are inside the prison. 

The prison officials and guards are there by life appointment. North Korean authorities never transfer them to other posts for fear that their crimes may leak to 

the outside world. 


86775g.eps 86775h.eps
86

SO MUCH PUNISHMENT AND LOSS OF LIFE TO MEET EXPORT DEADLINE

To meet the deadlines for export, the prisoners often worked until one o’clock in 

the morning or, for many months, the prisoners slept two to four hours at the work 

site. They ate, worked and slept in the same place. The standard export items all 

year around were clothing and different kinds of brushes. They were for markets 

in Europe, Japan and Hong Kong. 

On an ad hoc basis, prisoners produced rose decorations of various colors, each 

prisoner producing 60 pieces an hour or 1,000 pieces a day, for export to France 

(September 1990 to February, 1991). They produced some 900,000 pieces of brassieres for export to Russia for $2 a piece (May to November 1988), and countless 

pieces of sweaters to Japan (February to August, 1991). 

There were big water pans for the prisoners to wash their hands clean frequently. 

Each prisoner was given a piece of white cloth to cover their dirty laps and keep 

the products clean. The finished products were beautifully packed and shipped for 

export. 

Prisoners often fall asleep while working and wake up when their fingers are injured by the sewing machine. They apply sewing machine oil on the wound and continue to work. They have to hide their bleeding fingers for fear of punishment for 

sleeping. So much punishment and loss of life for the sake of meeting the export 

deadline! I was informed that the foreign exchange earned was spent to supply imported television sets and refrigerators for the security and police officers. 

HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT THE HUMAN MOTOR?

The power supply in North Korea was erratic and almost every other day prisoners worked without electricity during the daytime. However, the prison rule was 

that the daily quota had to be met whether there was electric power or not. So, female prisoners were whipped to keep the motor running manually for the power se 

wing machines. 

There were about 100 sewing machines in the sewing factory, operated by one 

electric motor. The women were forced, ten in each team, to pull the belt on their 

shoulders and operate 100 sewing machines, for one hour each. The hardship of the 

prisoners was beyond description. The production officers mercilessly whipped the 

prisoners to maintain their productivity. 

Female prisoners have to meet their work quota to get the standard meal of 100 

grams. Each shoe manufactured requires a countless number of small nails to be 

hammered and so each prisoner has to hammer so many nails every day. 

Their fingers are all bent and deformed with hard skin. Three hundred prisoners 

produce 1,000 pairs of boots daily, working 1618 hours daily to meet the work quota. 

Often they are forced to work until morning to meet the quota, under collective punishment for the failure of other prisoners to meet the quota. 

Myong-suk Kim was a very competent and skillful worker and produced the best 

quality boots for senior officers. The machines were German, but they were imVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:32 Jul 23, 2003 Jkt 086775 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\ITHR\043003\86775 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

86775i.eps 86775j.eps
87

ported in the sixties and started to give problems as they aged. One day, she could 

not meet the quota due to equipment failure. The guards kicked her and shouted, 

‘‘You swine, you better fix your machine quickly.’’

When it became clear one day that she could not meet the quota, she drank hydrochloric acid that was kept there for repairing the machine and killed herself. 

That was in January, 1992. 

The prison authorities conducted ideology classes for all prisoners, everyday, to 

prevent this ‘‘ideological corruption’’ from recurring. It was very tiring to stop work 

for one hour everyday and stand listening to a nonsense speech before going to bed 

an hour late. 

PRISONERS SHOT FOR STEALING CORN

All prisoners are mobilized once a year for harvest work in the prison farm. Some 

400 guards watch while the prisoners work outside the prison. In September 1990, 

five male prisoners could not resist the temptation of eating raw corn during work 

and so they stole some ears and hurried to eat them. I was delivering a work order 

to a unit nearby at that time. The five prisoners were shot instantly by the guards 

without warning. In the prison, few trials or investigations were ever held for punishing or killing prisoners. Punishing and killing prisoners without trial or investigation were within the power of the prison superintendent. 

FEMALE PRISONERS AT A RUBBER FACTORY

The prison rubber factory was one of the most dangerous and difficult places for 

women to work. They had to mix used rubber scraps with granular rubber, carry 

the resulting rubber substance, mix it with rubber glue that came from a big tank 

which produced poisonous fumes, and knead it in a big round tank. I remember one 

female prisoner whose head got covered by the rubber glue while she was cleaning 

the tall rubber glue tank. She suffocated. 

Because air creates foam in the rubber, the whole factory is tightly sealed all year 

round. In addition, the factory is always full of hot steam for molding shoe soles. 

Therefore, it’s always stuffy and suffocating! The sticky mixture in the tank often 

overflows and women must push it back into the tank. This was very difficult work 

for hungry and weak women, and so the sticky mixtures often dragged women into 

the tank and killed them. So many female prisoners were killed and injured that 

the prison authorities finally ordered the factory to be operated only by male prisoners in 1989, two years after my arrival at the prison. 


86775k.eps 86775l.eps
88

MEALS FOR PRISONERS

MALE PRISONERS SHOT TO DEATH FOR ATTEMPTING TO GET ‘‘EDIBLE CLAY’’ FROM

WOMEN PRISONERS

At the end of February 1990, we were carrying edible clay in bags. Some male 

prisoners on the other side of the river must have seen us eating the clay. They 

looked like skeletons with skulls and bright eyes. They gestured to us begging for 

some clay. None of us responded for fear of punishment. Desperately, three of them 

came to our side of the river to get some clay. 

Suddenly, we heard shooting. It was a horrible scene when the shooting ended. 

We were all so scared. The intestines of one of the male prisoners were protruding. 

But he was still alive because we heard his feeble voice whispering, ‘‘Help!’’ The second prisoner had his leg broken and bleeding. The third prisoner was dead instantly. Soon a truck arrived and an officer said, ‘‘Put them all onto the truck, dead 

or alive.’’ We were told to resume our work. That night, some twenty women complained of pain and died as a result of having eaten too much clay. 

At the end of February 1990, we were bringing fresh soil from a nearby mountain 

to the prison farm. It was very tiring to climb up the mountain to bring fresh soil 

all the way down to the farm. Because it was February and still cold, we could not 

find any plants to eat in the mountain, no matter how desperately we looked. It was 

too early in the season. 

One day, I saw some prisoners eating clay. As always, we were exhausted, hungry 

and thirsty. One of them said to me, ‘‘Accountant, you want some? This is good and 

tasty. Try it.’’ I wasted no time and ate it. It was clay and, indeed, starchy and tasted good. I ate half the size of my fist that day and I felt somewhat full and even 

felt some strength, too. Our unit moved our burrow to a riverside location when the 

killing of three male prisoners took place. 


86775m.eps 86775n.eps
89

PRISONERS CAN USE COMMUNAL TOILETS ONLY TWICE A DAY

EVENING ROLL CALL

The prisoners are divided into units and teams and must always act collectively 

by group under the slogan, ‘‘All Actions by Unit and Team!’’ Prisoners get up, line 

up for roll call, proceed to work, take meals, go to the toilet, finish work and go 

to bed collectively and at the mercy of the prison authorities. 

At the end of the day’s grueling work, the prisoners are so tired and exhausted 

that many of them experience physical problems returning to the prison chamber 

promptly. This means that the other prisoners in the same unit have to wait and 

sleep less. Every night, it is a hellish experience that lasts for an hour or even 

longer: the calling of prisoners for others, or repeated roll calls, and prisoners desperate to go to sleep as soon as possible. 

The Kaechon Women’s Prison comprises the following eleven work units: miscellaneous factory, export factory, shoe-making factory, leather/rubber factory, clothing 

factory, fabric-cutting factory, work preparation unit, maintenance unit, drop-out 

punishment unit, farm unit and kitchen unit. 

The prisoners must always keep their heads down at work and avoid other movement unnecessary for work. More than half of the female prisoners have lumps on 

their head or shoulders and are hunchbacks or crippled. Most female prisoners 

working in the shoe factory are baldheaded. 

The entire unit is responsible for the mistakes of any one prisoner in the team. 

As a result, newcomers are not welcome because the entire unit will have to work 

more and go to bed later because of the newcomer’s failure to move and work fast 

enough. 

PRISONERS’ SLEEPING CONDITIONS

Some eighty to ninety prisoners sleep in a flea-infested chamber about six meters 

long by five meters wide (about 19 feet by 16 feet). Some eighty percent of the prisVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:32 Jul 23, 2003 Jkt 086775 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\ITHR\043003\86775 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL

86775o.eps 86775p.eps 86775q.eps
90

oners are housewives. The prison chamber is so congested that sleeping there is 

itself a torture. Prisoners sleep on the floor, squeezed together, head and feet alternating. So, prisoners sleep with the stinking feet of other prisoners right under their 

nose. They roll up their clothes for pillows. 

During the winter, prisoners share body heat against the cold wind coming under 

the floor. However, during the summer, it is so stuffy with the sweat and stink of 

the prisoners that they prefer sleeping at the work site even though it means more 

work. 

Two prisoners must stand on night duty for one-hour shifts. The following morning, prisoners on night duty must report to the prison authorities all the details of 

their duty including the sleep talking of other prisoners. They get their duty hour 

extended if caught sleeping. 

PRISONERS KILLED FOR EATING PIG SLOPS

There is no wasted food in the prison kitchen. The kitchen prisoners always give 

the leftover food from outside to the pigs. So, the pigs are always well-fed and fat 

for the security officers. The prisoners envy the pigs for the good food and leisure. 

The dung carrying team is also responsible for cleaning the pigsty. The prisoners 

carrying dung are always so hungry that many of them risk their lives to steal the 

pig slops as they pass by. When caught eating the pigs’ feed, they are shot and 

killed. 

The prisoners on the dung-carrying team look forward to cleaning the pigsty because they can eat the leftovers from the slops with their hands still filthy with 

dung. The prisoners on the pig-raising team supply pig slops when the prisoners 

come to clean the pigsties so that the cleaning prisoners can enjoy the chance to 

have a ‘‘good meal’’ with the pigs. 

Kum-bok Kim was from Kanggye town, Jagang Province. She was pretty and a 

very kind-hearted woman. Once, she was caught giving the pigs their feed when 

other prisoners were around cleaning. She was badly beaten by a prison official and 

kicked until she fainted. She was forced to confess her crime in writing and was 

sent for further investigation. She died under torture during the investigation. 

PATIENTS LEFT TO DIE UNDER QUARANTINE

I was sequestered in a patient room and left there to die twice, in 1989 and 1992. 

Paratyphoid spread among the prisoners in May 1989. Many prisoners complained 

of pain in the abdomen and high fever before fainting. The prison doctor ordered 

them quarantined in a small room. Some fifty patients were put into a tiny room, 

so small that patients were placed on top of one another. Those who were conscious 


86775r.eps 86775s.eps
91

reached out their hands for help; those who were unconscious simply remained underneath and died. 

Yong-hi, a 19 year-old girl, was brought to the prison with her mother. She called 

her mom in a feeble voice for an apple and a little water before she died under the 

other patients. Her mother was working at the miscellaneous factory and did not 

know that her daughter perished there. 

One day, I woke up to hear the voice of Shin-ok Kim, the prisoner/nurse. ‘‘How 

is it that you are still alive? Everybody else died. Get out from there.’’ I was among 

the few lucky patients who survived the ordeal. When I somehow recovered from 

the disease, I was sent to report to the medical room. On this occasion, I witnessed 

the killing of babies in the medical room. 

BABIES BORN AND KILLED

When I miraculously survived paratyphoid in 1989, I was sent to the medical 

room to report. When I arrived at the medical room, I noticed six pregnant women 

awaiting delivery. I was told to wait for my supervisor to come and take me over. 

While I was there, three women delivered babies on the cement floor without any 

blankets. It was horrible to watch the prison doctor kicking the pregnant women 

with his boots. When a baby was born, the doctor shouted, ‘‘Kill it quickly. How can 

a criminal in the prison expect to have a baby? Kill it.’’ The women covered their 

faces with their hands and wept. Even though the deliveries were forced by injection, the babies were still alive when born. The prisoner/nurses, with trembling 

hands, squeezed the babies’ necks to kill them. The babies, when killed, were 

wrapped in a dirty cloth, put into a bucket and taken outside through a backdoor. 

I was so shocked with that scene that I still see the mothers weeping for their babies in my nightmares. I saw the baby-killing twice while I was in the prison. 

When I went back to the medical room for routine duty a few days later, ShinOk Kim and Mi-Ok Cho, the prisoner/nurses working in the medical room, were sobbing and one of them told me, ‘‘Accountant, we are devils worse than beasts. They 

say that the dead babies are used to make new medicine for experiments.’’ I was 

so afraid that I closed her mouth with my finger and said, ‘‘I never heard you say 

this.’’ I hurried to leave from their presence. 

I was sent to the same medical room once again when I recovered from pleurisy 

in 1992. This time, there were some ten pregnant women in the small medical room. 

They were all injected to induce forced delivery and suffering from pain for many 

hours. A woman, so undernourished and weak, could not endure the delivery and 

died during labor. The prisoner/nurse there whispered to me that it is more difficult 

to deliver a dead baby than a living baby. 

The other pregnant women looked so pale from the pain, and they had sweat on 

their faces. If they groanned from the pain, the doctor mercilessly kicked their belly 

hard and shouted, ‘‘Shut up! Don’t feign pain!’’ I was waiting for my supervisor to 

take charge of me from the doctor at the corridor outside. I heard the crying voice 

of Byung-Ok Kim, 32 years old, and peeped into the room through the half-open 

door. She had just delivered a baby and cried, ‘‘Sir, please save the baby. My parents-in-law are anxiously waiting for the baby. Please, please save the baby.’’ She 

was out of her mind with sorrow. All the other women remained quiet and she was 

the only woman crying and begging loudly. The doctor was taken momentarily by 

surprise. But soon, he regained himself and shouted, ‘‘You want to die, eh? Kill the 

baby!’’ He kicked her hard. 

Then, the Chief Medical Officer came in and said, ‘‘Who was it yelling like that? 

Put her in the punishment cell!’’ The Chief Medical Officer kicked her hard several 

times and had her dragged to the punishment cell because she could not hold herself up. This is one of the scenes that I will never forget. She died shortly after she 

was released from the cell. 


86775t.eps
92

PRISONERS SHOT TO DEATH FOR FALLING ON A STEEP SLOPE

In February, 1988, while carrying a 20 kilogram bag of top soil from a mountain 

to the prison farm, an exhausted female prisoner slipped and fell on the slope, causing two other prisoners also to fall from the path. Although they could have been 

helped up to rejoin the line, they were immediately shot and killed. The prison 

guards shouted at the rest of the women, ‘‘Did you see what happened? This will 

happen to you if you fall!’’

Every February, all the prisoners are mobilized to carry top-soil from Kaechon 

Mountain to the prison farm. The mountain is outside the prison, 600 meters high, 

very rugged and slippery when climbing up and down the steep slope. 

Each female prisoner must carry a 20-kg bag of topsoil on her back all the way 

down to the farmland. Prisoners are kicked and beaten for any bag that weighs less 

than 20 kilograms. 300 prison guards and 350 policemen line up on the path with 

rifles pointing at the prisoners. The prisoners are ordered to make three trips in 

the morning and three more trips in the afternoon. Climbing up and down a 600-

meter mountain six times a day is like torture. The prisoners were warned that if 

they strayed from the path by even a step they would be shot to death instantly. 

GUARDS KILLING PRISONERS FOR FUN

A couple of times, I saw guards stop a group of male prisoners for fun. ‘‘Hey, you 

and you, come here. If you cross the barbed wire, I will let you go home.’’ With these 

words, the prison guards tempted prisoners to cross the electrified barbed wire. The 

prisoners were so desperate and confused that, without hesitation, they jumped to 

their death with the faint hope of going home. This shows how prisoners are considered disposable and easily replaced. This is not an isolated incident. I have heard 

about it several times and have myself seen it happen twice during the five years 

I was in prison. 


86775u.eps 86775v.eps
93

PUBLIC EXECUTION IN PRISON

Public executions are standard practice in and outside prisons in North Korea. In 

1988, seven men and one woman were publicly executed in the Kaechon prison 

without trial. At each public execution, all the prisoners, some six thousand (1,800–

2,000 women and 4,000 men), are crammed into the prison square to watch. 

The victims are always gagged so they cannot protest. They are tied to a pole in 

three parts; chest, sides and knees. Six guards fire three bullets each into the chest 

for a total of 18 bullets. With the top ropes having been cut by the bullets, the upper 

part of the body hangs down bleeding, like a rotten log broken in half, still tied to 

the pole by the lower ropes. Then, all the prisoners are forced to march around the 

dead body and look at it. 

PRISONERS GO INSANE FROM WATCHING PUBLIC EXECUTIONS

Execution victims included those who pleaded for death during torture, stole food, 

or simply wept over the fate of two small children left home alone. The charge was 

lack of confidence in the mother party. Also included are those who are branded as 

‘‘anti-party elements’’ or ‘‘reactionaries.’’

The public execution ground is so crammed with prisoners that the women in the 

front watch the killing from a distance of only a meter or so and often get blood 

splashed on them. Some women prisoners are so shocked that they vomit, faint, or 

develop mental illness (e.g., sudden singing or laughing hysterically). They are sent 

to punishment cells for being ‘‘weak in ideology’’ and ‘‘showing sympathy to the people’s enemy.’’ Those who become completely insane simply disappear and nobody 

knows what happens to them. 

Hi-suk Choi and Young-ok Choi, housewives from Kimchaek City, were punished 

for singing at the site and later died of shock during electric torture. The Kaechon 

Prison has twenty punishment cells that are always full of ‘‘ideologically weak’’ prisoners on the days of public executions. 


86775w.eps 86775x.eps
94

DEAD PRISONERS BURIED UNDER FRUIT TREES

Many prisoners died from hard work, poor treatment, and beatings. The dead bodies were often buried under the fruit trees in the prison orchard. The fruits (apples, 

pears, peaches, and plums) from the Kaechon orchard have earned a reputation for 

their large size and sweet taste. They are reserved for senior party and police officials. 

On one occasion, 150 corpses were rolled up in straw mats and buried under the 

fruit trees. The families were never informed and the bodies can no longer be identified. 

I remember some of the victims who disappeared under the trees. Kwang-ok Cho, 

a 62-year old housewife from Shinuiju city, who was arrested for trying to obtain 

a blanket in the black market for her daughter’s wedding gift; In-suk Kim, a middleaged housewife whose husband died in a mine accident and who often cried out in 

her dreams the names of her three children left behind at home; Dok-sun Kim, a 

middle-aged housewife from Chongjin city who was terribly worried about her old 

parents; Sa-won Kim, a housewife from Kosong-kun, whose handicapped husband 

badly needed her; Jong-shim Lee, a 19 year-old girl. Once, a group of dead prisoners 

were buried collectively at a location near the chestnut forest outside the prison. 

PRISONERS KILLED IN TEMPERATURE-REGULATED COMPRESSION CHAMBER

There are executioners in the Interrogation Department of the Provincial Security 

Headquarters. Here, they execute the prisoners that they are embarrassed to execute publicly. They always execute prisoners at midnight without trial and bury the 

corpses in a nearby valley. 

There is also a temperature-regulated compression chamber used for torturing or 

killing. The chamber is 60 square centimeters and the height is adjustable according 

to the prisoner’s height. A prisoner is pushed into a rice straw bag first, and then 

into the chamber with his head pushed down between his knees. These acts usually 

occur between one and two o’clock in the morning. Freezing temperatures are used 

in the winter and hot temperatures in the summer. 

A 17 year-old boy, the son of a welder in Kimchaek Steel Factory, was brought 

here sometime in October 1987. He was arrested for organizing gang fighting in 

school. Gang fighting is considered a very serious crime leading to subversion in 

North Korea. He was killed in the chamber by freezing in the midnight. I heard 

this from Yong-ho, a guard, who proudly told us, ‘‘You bitches better obey unless 

you want to be killed like the boy, frozen and compressed.’’ In fact, other guards 

repeated similar threats. 

A young man became lunatic as a result of continuing torture. He complained one 

day, ‘‘Great Leader? What has he done for me?’’ He was frozen to death in the chamber that night. 


86775y.eps 86775z.eps
95

The chamber was next to my cell at the end of the corridor. The cries of a prisoner 

resisting and angry voices of guards trying to push him into a rice straw bag and 

into the chamber always woke me up. I always found executioners in uniform and 

with a star on their shoulders on such occasions. During the 14 months I was there, 

I remember five or six killings in the chamber. 

PUNISHMENT CELLS, CHAMBERS OF DEATH

The punishment cell is one of the most dreaded punishments for all prisoners. 

The cells are usually 60 cm wide and 110 cm high. Therefore, the prisoners have 

no room to stand up, stretch their legs or lie down. They cannot even lean against 

the walls because they are too jagged. There are twenty such cells for female prisoners and 58 cells for male prisoners. They are usually detained for seven to ten 

days as punishment for certain offenses, such as leaving an oily mark on clothes, 

failing to memorize the president’s New Year message or repeated failure to meet 

work quotas. 

When the prisoners are released from the cells, their legs are badly bent, with 

frostbite in the winter, and so they can hardly walk. Many victims are permanently 

crippled from the lack of adequate exercise and eventually died as a result of the 

work resumed immediately after the release. The prisoners call the punishment cell 

‘‘Chilsong Chamber,’’ meaning a black angel’s chamber of death. 

In November 1989, I was detained in the punishment cell for a week for attempting to cover-up a faulty piece of shirt made by a 20 yearold girl. The young girl was 

sent to the torture chamber and never seen again. Among other things, the freezing 

cold wind from the toilet hole made the experience extremely painful. During the 

summer, the prisoners struggle to brush thousands of maggots back into the toilet 

hole. 

After being released, I had problems walking for 15 days but I was able to recover 

because my job gave me the needed opportunity to walk to all corners of the prison 

with work instructions. 

They say it is a day of great fortune if a prisoner finds a rat creeping up from 

the bottom of the toilet hole. The prisoners catch it with their bare hands and devour it raw, as rats are the only source of meat in the prison. They say the wonderful taste of a raw rat is unforgettable. If they are caught eating a rat, however, the 

punishment is extended. So they have to be very careful when catching and eating 

a rat. 

PRISONERS KILLED DURING THE TESTING OF A NEW CHEMICAL POISON

One day in February, 1990, I was doing routine paper work at the staff operation 

office at around 10:00 o’clock in the morning when, to my surprise, the prison superintendent, vice-superintendent, intelligence chief and three other unidentified officials walked into the room. One of them pointed to something outside my window. 

I was very terrified at their unusual appearance. Then, I overheard them saying, 

‘‘Look! How powerful. What a great scientist Dr. Sung-ki Lee is, indeed! Well, from 

now on, its chemical warfare.’’ Shortly afterwards, as I was walking to the other 

side of the room to deliver some papers to my guard, I saw them seriously watching 

something outside the window. On my way back to my desk, I took a quick glance 


86775aa.eps 86775ab.eps
96

outside. I saw many prisoners lying on the slope of a hill, bleeding from their 

mouths and motionless, enveloped by strange fumes and surrounded by scores of 

guards in the gas masks I delivered to the Chief Guard earlier in the morning. 

In February, 1990, I was asked by the Chief Guard to follow him to an administration warehouse at 05:30 in the morning. He ordered me to check out six bundles 

(five pairs in each bundle) of gas masks with rubber gowns, which looked like a sea 

diver’s kit. When I returned to my prison chamber, a total of 150 prisoners, several 

from each unit, were selected and separated from the other prisoners. The selected 

prisoners were mostly crippled and weak women who had less labor value. 

I had to issue instructions for lunch with the same usual number for the male 

prisoners but 150 meals less for women. The prisoners started to exchange nervous 

looks with each other when the 150 prisoners did not return to work. An air of unusual tension and fear spread among the prisoners. 

Normally, when a prisoner is sent to a punishment cell, an announcement is always made about why the prisoner is being punished to warn others. But that 

night, so many prisoners were sent to punishment cells for whispering, looking 

around nervously and exchanging signs of tension without the usual announcement. 

That night, the punishment cells were all full with a long list of prisoners awaiting 

the punishment. Obviously, the prison authorities attempted to cover up the 

killings. 

Around October, 1990, an engineer supervisor was sent here from the defense 

chemistry factory in Hamhung. He was responsible for an explosion in the factory 

there and was secretly executed at an underground cell in about a month. At that 

time, I was told to reduce the number of meals by one in the kitchen. Later, I was 

confidentially informed about the killing by a prisoner/nurse who was involved in 

getting rid of the corpse. 

At that time, 500 female prisoners were sent from here to the Hwachon area for 

some kind of expansion work of a chemical factory. The prisoners returned in about 

a month’s time. One of the prisoners told me that there was a special chemical research institute in Hwsachon. 

PRISONERS KILLED DURING A BIOLOGICAL TEST

One day in May 1988, I had been in the prison for only six months and I was 

still trying to get accustomed to the prison conditions. I was working on the second 

floor of the export factory moving half-finished products from one table to another 

for assembly. Dung lunch time, I saw a pile of fresh cabbages at the kitchen entrance through the windows. This was the only time I saw cabbages in such good 

shape at the prison. I was so hungry that I began to wonder who would be the lucky 

people to eat them. 

A little later when I came back to the same spot, I saw some fifty women prisoners eating the cabbage from a bowl with their fingers. The cabbages appeared 

somehow steamed. Soon, I saw the prisoners vomiting, bleeding from their mouths 

and moaning on the ground. I could not stay to watch more. 

However, when I came back to the same spot again after a little while, I saw 

camp guards loading the dead prisoners onto a truck. 

There were several strangers in white gowns around the dying prisoners. This 

was very strange because the political prison was under such strict control that no 

strangers were allowed inside. Then, I remembered that some fifty women had been 

told to come outside earlier, a few from each work unit. 

Later, it was announced that they died from food poisoning. The prisoners knew 

what happened and they started to inform each other through their eyes. The prison 

officials were very nervous trying to keep the prisoners quiet. Why were the prison 

officials so nervous over the food poisoning when its mention was not a subject for 

punishment on other occasions? Unusually, many prisoners were sent to punishment cells that night for whispering or looking nervous. 


86775ac.eps
97

CHRISTIANS KILLED FOR REFUSING TO CONVERT

The cast-iron factory was considered the most difficult place to work in the entire 

prison. Christians were usually sent there to work. One Christian working at the 

cast-iron factory was killed by hanging in a public execution in December 1988 for 

hiding a friend at his house before he was arrested. 

In the spring of 1990, I was carrying a work order to the cast-iron factory in the 

male prison. Five or six elderly Christians were lined up and forced to deny their 

Christianity and accept the Juche Ideology of the State. The selected prisoners all 

remained silent at the repeated command for conversion. The security officers became furious by this and killed them by pouring molten iron on them one by one. 

UNDERGROUND EMERGENCY EXECUTION CHAMBER

Near the prison gate, there is a huge iron gate that leads to the underground tunnels. Guards often remind the prisoners that their lives are considered disposable 

and that they can be collectively annihilated at any time in the underground tunnels. The tunnels, of course, can be blasted at any time, leaving no traces of massacre. It is said that the underground space is so large that it can accommodate several thousand prisoners at one time. The male prisoners’ sector has a huge underground factory for the production of ammunition and weapons. I have never been 

to the underground weapon factory myself but I have frequently heard prison officials talking about it. I do not know whether the underground tunnels in the women’s sector are connected to the men’s underground factory. 

I often saw fumes coming from a distant chimney atop a nearby hill. I was told 

that the chimney is one of the ventilators of the underground tunnels. 


86775ad.eps 86775ae.eps
98

WOMEN PRISONERS CARRYING DUNG

Prisoners who are old, slow at work or caught looking at their reflections in a window glass are sent to the ‘‘drop-out team’’ for 3 months, 6 months or one year for 

punishment. Their main job is to collect dung from the prison toilet tanks and dump 

it into a large dung pool everyday for supply to the farming teams working at the 

prison farm outside the wall. Teams of five prisoners must pull a metal tank weighing 800 kilograms. 

Two women wade knee-deep at the bottom of the toilet arid fill a 20-liter rubber 

bucket with dung using their bare hands. Three other women pull up the rubber 

bucket from above and then pour the contents into a transport tank. 

Sometimes, the prisoners pulling up the bucket are so weak, they fall into the toilet tank because of the weight of the bucket. When the heavy tank is full, they haul 

it up to a very large and deep dung pool on the hill. 

One rainy day in 1991, a housewife from Pyongyang name Ok-tan Lee had been 

carrying dung all day long and was ready to transfer the dung to the huge pool. 

However, the lid of the tank on the wheel somehow got stuck and would not open. 

When she climbed on the tank to push the door open, she slipped from the rainwet surface and plunged into the ground dung pool. It was so deep that she disappeared into the dung. A guard some distance away (they always keep their distance because of the stink from the prisoners) shouted, ‘‘Stop it! Let her die there 

unless you want to die the same way yourself!’’ She was left to drown there in the 

dung. 

PRISONERS DIE AFTER SPENDING TIME IN PUNISHMENT CELL

Hun-sik Kim was the principal of Pyongyang Light Engineering College. She was 

sentenced to a 5-year imprisonment for suggesting to the City Education Board that 

her students’ labor responsibility be reduced so that they could spend more time 

studying. 

In prison, she was assigned the work of measuring fabric to produce jackets, 

which were to be given as gifts to workers outside by the President on his birthday. 

One time, she miscalculated the imported nylon fabric but immediately corrected 

the error and no fabric was wasted. However, she was detained in the punishment 

cell for ten days for ‘‘attempting sabotage.’’ She was crippled and partly paralyzed 

when she was released from the punishment cell. On a very hot summer day in August, the camp doctors burned her bottom with heated stones to see if she could feel 

pain. Just before she died a few weeks later, she whispered to me, with a twittered 


86775af.eps 86775ag.eps
99

tongue and tears in her eyes, ‘‘I want to see the blue sky. You know my children 

are waiting for me.’’

When she was released from the punishment cell, she needed two prisoners to 

help her walk to the work site and back. The camp officials claimed that she was 

feigning injury, and yelled, 

‘‘You bitch! Who do you think you are fooling?’’

She was kicked around like a soccer ball by the guards but withstood the insults 

and beatings for about a month. She suffered injuries all over her body while pulling 

herself up. The sores began to badly suppurate from the infections. She often fainted. She was sent to the sick room but she had to continue her work in the sick 

room. I was in the same room because I was a paratyphoid patient. One day in August, the camp doctors burned her with heated stones to see if she could feel pain. 

I could smell flesh burning, and felt like vomiting and fainting. I remembered what 

the camp official told me when I first arrived at the camp, ‘‘You must give up all 

your rights as a human!’’ She never felt any pain when her flesh was burning. 

From that day on, she could not control urination and evacuation. I was suffering 

from a high fever myself but tried my best to caress her burnt wounds with the 

dirty cloth the doctors gave me. She said to me, with a twittered tongue and tears 

in her eyes, 

‘‘I want to see the blue sky. You know my children are waiting for me.’’

The next few days, I felt very sick and was unconscious myself, so nobody looked 

after her as she kept moaning. 

A few days later, I came to myself, crawled to her and removed the cloth from 

her wound. I was shocked to see the wound full of maggots! She died that night. 

I shouted to a guard through the small door hole, 

‘‘Sir, somebody died here.’’

The reply was, 

‘‘So what? You bitch! Don’t panic. Wait until morning!’’

I found the floor full of maggots the following morning. I had to brush the floor 

with my bare hands and pick up the maggots into a vinyl bag. I told myself, ‘‘You 

must not die like this. You must survive and tell the whole world about it.’’

Æ