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

34–485PDF 2007

THE 2007 COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN

RIGHTS PRACTICES AND THE PROMOTION OF

HUMAN RIGHTS IN U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 29, 2007

Serial No. 110–56

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

TOM LANTOS, California, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

VACANT 

VACANT 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

THADDEUS G. MCCOTTER, Michigan 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico 

ROBERT R. KING, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

DAVID KILLION, Senior Professional Staff Member 

GENELL BROWN, Staff Associate 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Harold Hongju Koh, Dean, Yale Law School (Former Assistant 

Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor at the Department 

of State) ................................................................................................................. 6

The Honorable John Shattuck, Chief Executive Officer, The John F. Kennedy 

Library Foundation (Former Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human 

Rights and Labor at the Department of State) .................................................. 30

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Harold Hongju Koh: Prepared statement .................................... 11

The Honorable John Shattuck: Prepared statement ............................................ 34

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 57
(1)

THE 2007 COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN 

RIGHTS PRACTICES AND THE PROMOTION 

OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 

THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Lantos (chairman 

of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman LANTOS. The committee will come to order. 

We Americans take justifiable pride in our country’s legacy as 

the world’s leading promoter and defender of human rights. But 

the administration is neglecting this historic role, instead relegating human rights to the realm of mere rhetoric. 

At a time when we are trying to marshal the civilized world to 

stand up to violent extremism and terror, today we absurdly find 

ourselves on the defensive in our human rights policy. In the face 

of sustained criticism of our own failure to adhere to the universe 

of human rights standards in prosecuting the war against terror, 

the United States has gone nearly mute rather than speaking out 

as we used to do. In the meantime, human rights observance deteriorates around the globe. 

This year’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices issued by 

our Department of State, documents an alarming slide in adherence to human rights standards around the globe. The State Department has officially characterized 2006 as ‘‘the year of the 

pushback,’’ citing aggressive campaigns to suppress civil society in 

a disturbing number of countries. 

Some of the most salient examples of the pushback against 

human rights documented in the reports include new restrictive 

NGO laws and contract-style killings of pro-reform officials and 

prominent journalists in Russia, a systematic campaign to limit 

internet freedom in China, an increase in disappearances of activists and political opponents in Pakistan, expansion of Egypt’s emergency laws to suppress freedom of speech and expression and increased harassments of opponents and the press by the Chavez regime in Venezuela. 

Yet instead of standing up and sanctioning the world’s most evil 

and illegitimate regimes as they become ever more brazen in brutalizing their dissidents, we seem to pull our punches. The most 

conspicuous recent example of this defeatism in our human rights 
2

diplomacy is the decision of the administration for the second year 

in a row that it will not run for a seat on the United Nations 

Human Rights Council. 

America’s retreat from this body has enabled a cabal of military 

juntas, single party states and tin-pot dictators currently led by Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Cuba to outmaneuver our timid European 

allies and hijack the new council, turning it into a sham whose 

only purpose is to vilify Israel and castigate the United States. 

Sadly, the United States recoil from multilateral human rights 

advocacy also extends to our bilateral relationship with major 

human rights violators that we are in a position to influence. We 

are wasting the chance to chasten and challenge such oppressive 

states as Russia, China, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. 

It is long past time for the world’s indispensable nation to recover from this wobbly period of moral doubt and confusion. We 

must re-emerge as the world’s most vocal and uncompromising advocate of the universal values that are enshrined in our Constitution and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

Such a U.S. re-emergence will help to reverse the alarming deterioration we see in global adherence to human rights standards. It 

will also help us to win the war on terrorism by encouraging the 

growth of modern, pluralist forces in nation states that might otherwise threaten to veer dangerously between secular autocracy and 

medieval theocracy. 

We should be under no illusions. The United States has never 

been a perfect paragon of the principles we aspire to and champion. 

The history of our nation is one of a slow narrowing of the hypocrisy gap between what we aspire to and what we currently are. 

Certainly our transgressions in fighting the war against terrorism are startling reminders of just how imperfect we remain. 

But our current struggle to maintain our values in fighting this 

war and to hold our leaders accountable for human rights violations made in prosecuting it should never cause us to abandon 

those who are struggling and giving their lives to achieve human 

freedom. 

In reviewing this year’s catalog of human rights abuses and assessing our Government’s response to them, our committee is privileged to have before us today two extraordinary and very distinguished former Assistant Secretaries of State for Human Rights, 

Democracy and Labor, Ambassador John Shattuck, Chief Executive 

of the Kennedy Library Foundation, and Dean Harold Koh, Dean 

of the Yale Law School. 

I will briefly introduce them when it is their turn to speak, and 

I will very much look forward to their testimony, but first I want 

to turn to my dear friend and colleague from New Jersey, who has 

been a proud champion of human rights globally, Congressman 

Chris Smith of New Jersey. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I thank the very distinguished chairman for yielding, and I want to echo his concerns about human 

rights around the world, as well as thank him for his leadership. 

We have served together for almost three decades, and he has done 

a remarkable job on human rights. It has always been a privilege 

to be his partner and to work side by side with him. 
3

Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that over the past three decades 

we have seen a steady increase in the quality, candor and scope of 

the annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. In fighting 

the plague of human rights abuse, sunlight is often the best disinfectant. On the whole, the country reports shine brightly into 

some very dark corners. We owe a debt of gratitude to the men and 

women of the Department of State who work so hard to compile 

them. 

As we do not claim as the United States to be perfect and are 

ourselves subject to universal ideals that we espouse, the United 

States continues to be the world’s most prominent champion of fundamental human rights. This Congress I have reintroduced, as you 

know, the Global Online Freedom Act of 2007 which seeks to promote and defend human rights related to this increasingly influential communications media. 

I am pleased to note that the State Department has already implemented one of the action items of this proposed legislation by including important additional information in the country reports 

such as the domestic legal authority for internet restrictions and 

penalties imposed for the exercise of free speech via the internet. 

This information is critical to efforts to address internet repression in countries like Vietnam, China, Tunisia and Belarus and to 

convince governments that free speech restrictions are contrary to 

their national interests. 

It is worth noting that most of the major human rights efforts 

undertaken by the United States Government in recent decades, including the country reports themselves, have been the result of 

congressional mandates. The Jackson-Bannock Amendment, the 

International Religious Freedom Act, the Torture Victims Relief 

Act, the Lautenberg Amendment, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the North Korea Human Rights Act. These were congressional initiatives undertaken in the face of skepticism and sometimes outright opposition by the executive branch. 

For example, I recall when my friend, Assistant Secretary 

Shattuck, appeared before my subcommittee 10 years ago to oppose 

the International Religious Freedom Act. He argued that he was 

‘‘particularly concerned’’ that the bill would harm the very people 

it seeks to help because it would legislate a hierarchy of human 

rights into our laws that could severely damage ‘‘our effort to ensure that all aspects of basic civil and political rights are protected.’’

At the time I pointed out that IRFA was value added and, like 

sanctions against South Africa which I supported in the 1980s and 

the Jackson-Bannock Amendment which risked super power confrontation to assist Soviet Jews, the International Religious Freedom Act was in addition to, not in lieu of, any existing law. It 

would strengthen, not weaken, our laws. 

Not surprisingly, the doomsday prophecy did not come to pass, 

so it is my view that once such issues have been forced by legislation the executive branch eventually internalizes and often embraces those human rights priorities. 

For example, religious freedom and trafficking are now mainstream policy priorities that receive far more international attention and action than they did before the laws were on the books. 
4

Other mandates are embraced more slowly such as the refugee title 

of the North Korean Human Rights Act which has not yet been 

adequately implemented. 

I certainly do not wish to appear to downplay the serious human 

rights violations in many countries of the world, including 

Zimbabwe with its recent horrific crackdown on political opposition. 

Just this week the chairman offered a resolution which passed in 

the committee, H. Con. Res. 100, that significantly takes the 

Zimbabwe Government and Mugabe to task. 

I would like to point out that there is also recent horrific crackdown in North Korea, Eritrea, Belarus, Burma, Saudi Arabia, 

Cuba, Ethiopia and Iran. The report provides the serving details 

about how these countries in particular, though not exclusively, 

continue to thwart universal principles of respect for fundamental 

human rights. 

However, time limitations prevent me from examining each one 

so I will focus the spotlight on three human rights violators in particular: China, Sudan and Vietnam. This year’s report repeats the 

assessment of prior years that the Chinese Government’s human 

rights record remained poor. Even when many of us thought the 

situation could not get much worse, it adds that the Chinese record 

‘‘in certain cases deteriorated.’’

One of those areas often ignored or downplayed by the international community is the appalling lengths to which the Government of China will go to enforce its one-child-per-couple limit. The 

Chinese Government, as we all know, has had a long record of oppressing its people, especially its women, through its population 

control program. 

Beijing does not deny levying human fines against people who 

have children that the state deems to be illegal. In fact, at a hearing that I chaired several years ago, Secretary Dewey then of PRN 

testified that ‘‘couples who give birth to an unapproved child are 

likely to be assessed a social compensation fee which can range 

from one-half of the local average annual household income to as 

much as 10 times that level.’’

Indeed, this is a horrific government that decides which children 

are legal and which are not, and which children will be allowed to 

live and which will be put to death. These acts are truly a crime 

against humanity, sadly executed in conjunction with the U.N. Population Fund. UNFPA has funded, provided technical support and, 

most importantly, provided cover for massive crimes against humanity of forced abortion and involuntary sterilization. 

Tens of millions of children have been slaughtered; their mothers 

robbed of their children, by the state. This barbaric policy makes 

brothers and sisters illegal and makes women the pawns of the 

population control cadres. 

This barbaric policy has now given rise to a new problem in 

China. An article published in The Guardian several years ago 

stated that China could find itself dealing with as many as 40 million single men by the year 2020, and that is only a few years 

away, because of the one-child-per-couple policy. 

According to the article, Li Weixiong, a population advisor to the 

Chinese Government, said a cultural preference for boys was creating an artificial disparity between the number of boys and girls, 
5

representing a serious threat to building a well-off society. He then 

also said the lack of women in China will lead to a dramatic rise 

in prostitution and in the trafficking of women. This is by no 

means a sensational prediction, he said. 

On that point Mr. Li is right. In fact, the combined effort of the 

birth limitation policies and traditional preference for male children resulted in a disproportionate abortion of female unborn children at the rate of 116.9 to 100 overall and a shocking 162 to 100 

for second pregnancies. 

As a direct result of these ongoing crimes against humanity and 

especially against girls, China today is missing millions of girls, 

girls who were murdered in the womb simply because they are 

girls. 

A couple of years ago the State Department suggested that as 

many as 100 million girls of all ages are missing; that is to say 

they should be alive and well and are not, a direct consequence of 

the government’s one-child-per-couple policy. This gendercide constitutes one of humanities’ worst blights and a far greater peril to 

peace and security than is being credited at this time. 

This world is all too aware of the continuing genocide in Sudan, 

appropriately identified as such in the country reports. Current reports estimate that the conflicts in Darfur and southern Sudan 

have resulted in the deaths of about 2 million people in the south 

and upwards of 450,000 in the north and left over 4 million others, 

especially in the south, either displaced or as refugees, and many 

of those are in camps today of course in the north and Darfur. 

When confronted with such numbers, one must also take into account the attending human rights violations, including the abuse 

of children, extensive trafficking in persons and the acts of torture 

and violence against women. 

Just 2 weeks ago, I introduced a House resolution calling on the 

Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to immediately 

and unconditionally release several political prisoners and prisoners of conscience who have been recently arrested in a wave of 

government repression. 

One of those individuals specifically mentioned in the resolution, 

Father Ly, has already spent over 13 years in prison since 1983 for 

his advocacy of religious freedom and democracy in Vietnam. Tomorrow Father Ly will be given a kangaroo trial for exercising his 

fundamental human rights, and he faces up to 20 years in prison 

in the likely event that he is convicted. We know he will be convicted. 

This is a case worthy of particular attention as the Vietnamese 

Government audaciously resumed its past oppression of human 

rights after Congress agreed to Vietnam becoming an official member of the WTO in December. A focus of this hearing is the promotion of human rights in U.S. foreign policy, and it is important 

to keep in mind that those of us in Congress play an important role 

in our country’s foreign policy. 

While substantial criticism is likely to be leveled at the administration during the hearing for its shortcomings in promoting and 

defending human rights, those of us in Congress should also look 

in the mirror and ask what priority we give to human rights both 

individually and as an institution. 
6

Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and I thank you. 

Chairman LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

Since our witnesses will have to leave at a specified time, I ask 

my colleagues to withhold their statements because I would like to 

introduce our two witnesses at this point. 

We have an incredible embarrassment of intellectual riches sitting at the witness table. Dean Koh was educated at Harvard, Oxford and is a graduate of Harvard Law School. Secretary Shattuck 

received his undergraduate education at Yale, graduate work at 

Cambridge and is a graduate of Yale Law School. 

Both served with extraordinary distinction as Assistant Secretaries of Human Rights, and I urge all of my colleagues to read 

their curriculum vitae, which is a major undertaking. Their curriculum vitae remind me of Dean Koh’s eulogy of Father Drynan 

when Father Drynan was asked how he could have achieved all the 

things he did in a lifetime. His response was, ‘‘Celibacy.’’

That is not your excuse, and I merely want to state for the record 

and on behalf of full disclosure that both of our distinguished witnesses are dear personal friends, and I am grateful for their presence here. 

I would also like to state at the outset we invited the current Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights. A scheduling conflict 

prevented his appearance at this hearing, but we hope to have him 

at a later time. 

Dean Koh, we will begin with you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HAROLD HONGJU KOH, 

DEAN, YALE LAW SCHOOL (FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

FOR DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR AT THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE) 

Mr. KOH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the 

committee. It is a pleasure to appear again before this committee 

to testify regarding both the state of our Government’s human 

rights policies and the 2006 Country Reports on Human Rights 

Practices. 

In presenting those reports a few weeks ago, the current Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, 

Mr. Lowenkron, accurately called 2006 the year of the pushback, 

as the chairman noted, but what he did not analyze fully is precisely why that pushback is occurring. 

I would suggest that this global pushback can be traced in part 

to the world’s reaction to the current administration’s obsessive 

focus on the war on terror, which has taken an extraordinary toll 

on our global human rights policy. 

As the reports reveal, 6 years of defining our human rights policy 

through the lens of the war on terror has clouded our human rights 

reputation, it has given cover to abuses committed by our allies in 

that war, it has blunted our ability to criticize and deter gross violators elsewhere, and we have committed a number of unnecessary 

and self-inflicted wounds, particularly our counterproductive policies on Guantanamo, torture, denial of habeas corpus for suspected 

terrorists, military commissions, our unsigning of the International 

Criminal Court and, as the Chair noted, our disengagement with 

the U.N. Human Rights Council. 
7

All of these have diminished our standing as the world’s human 

rights leader and reveals again that our longstanding commitment 

to human rights is a major source of our soft power and so it is 

necessary for this administration and the next to return to a set 

of policies that are true to our enduring principles. 

I submitted a detailed statement, which I hope I can give to the 

record. 

Chairman LANTOS. Without objection. 

Mr. KOH. Thank you. 

It makes three simple points. First, it analyses the change 

worked in the last 6 years. At the beginning of this century there 

were four basic ideas that ran our foreign policy: Diplomacy backed 

by force, the idea that the human rights principle is an important 

element of our soft power, an approach to human rights enforcement that focuses on telling the truth and on a consistent approach 

to the past, present and future, and a recognition that we can’t do 

it alone. We need to use global cooperation among global democracies to solve global problems. 

The last 6 years have completely disrupted that strategy. As we 

have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have now shifted from diplomacy backed by force to force backed by diplomacy. We have 

sacrificed our soft power by our use of hard power. We now fail to 

tell the full truth about our human rights conduct or that of our 

allies. 

We have avoided application of universal standards, and we put 

our own human rights practices center stage by promoting double 

standards for our allies and ourselves, shifting the focus from the 

grotesque human rights practices of the terrorists to our own misconduct and leaving other pressing issues ignored or unaddressed. 

We have abandoned our consistent approach to the past, present 

and future by refusing to participate in the International Criminal 

Court. We have lost focus on accountability for the past, even 

though ironically the administration is now in a kind of benign coexistence in reality with these international criminal courts, and 

we have been ineffective in curbing ongoing abuse in a whole range 

of countries. 

We haven’t built our capacity for preventing future abuse. Our 

democracy building efforts have stalled, and we have weakened 

multilateral institutions that we need to work with. 

Now, I think these patterns are very clear if you do a detailed 

examination of the reports. I want to applaud my former colleagues 

at the State Department for this monumental effort. 

These reports are produced with great diligence, but through the 

reports you see decisions that were made not at the staff level, including, for example, troubling changes in terminology, the shift 

from the rubric of torture to torture and abuses, a broader label, 

and underreporting of human rights violation in a whole range of 

countries which I document in my testimony, particularly with regard to our rallies in the war on terror and even allies who have 

trade objectives in common with us. 

Most fundamentally, Mr. Chairman, I think the reports tell a 

story of failure of policy in five different areas. First, with regard 

to genocide in Darfur, one of the most glaring issues of our time. 

We called what is going on in Darfur genocide some time ago, and 
8

we have done little about it. Congress has worked on the issue, but 

I think the time to act is now. 

Secondly, our reduced efforts with regard to our allies, and particularly Pakistan and Saudi Arabia deserve special mention as I 

describe in the testimony. 

Next with regard to the so-called axis of evil countries, Iraq, 

Iran, North Korea plus Afghanistan, another country in which we 

have not just done aggressive rhetoric, but also military intervention. Over the years their human rights record, if anything, seems 

to be deteriorating, and that is especially disturbing, as Mr. Smith 

said, with regard to Iran and to North Korea. 

And then finally with regard to our traditional geopolitical allies, 

China, as you have noted. Here my fault is not with the reporting 

which is detailed, but with a human rights record which is declining, and what is clear is that China has exploited our performance 

to say that we have no standing to criticize their human rights performance. 

While the traditional litany of violations with regard to China 

continue, the ones mentioned by Mr. Smith, there are new ones: 

Limitations on internet freedom, which we find extremely disturbing, and the enlisting of private American companies as sensors of free expression within their own country. 

The Russia report shows that President Putin has quite shrewdly 

exploited our antiterrorist rhetoric to give him more sway and freedom to act with regard to Chechnya under the guise of 

antiterrorism. 

And then finally a country of great concern to everybody on this 

committee, Cuba, one of the most severe human rights violators. I 

have long been involved with activities regarding human rights in 

Cuba, along with your colleague, former Congressman Sam Gejdenson. 

I recently visited Havana, with all appropriate governmental licenses I need to add, to mark the fourth anniversary of Cuban 

Spring, March 1993 when Castro’s state security fanned out and 

arrested dozens of democracy activists. 

We visited, among others, the extraordinarily courageous 

Oswaldo Paya, who has been extraordinarily diligent and effective 

in trying to bring about a democratic transition even in the face of 

extraordinary repression. 

I asked one Cuban citizen what can the United States do to object to the continued detention of Cuban Spring activists, and he 

said when they raise that issue all the Castro government has to 

say is Guantanamo, and they are silenced. 

Mr. Chair, I think we all realize that the country we all love can 

do better. It must do better. It should do better, and that should 

be a bipartisan effort. Rebuilding and repairing the damage is a 

huge job, and we need to begin immediately. 

In my testimony I identify four steps that should be taken. First 

with regard to Darfur, the immediate enactment of legislation that 

targets sanctions, new sanctions on individuals, revenue flows from 

the blood oil sector, capital market sanctions, creating mechanisms 

for sharing information with the International Criminal Court, refugee protection and calling for the deployment of peacekeepers into 

Darfur. 
9

Secondly, working more to both tell and disseminate the truth. 

These country reports, for example, should not simply be published. 

They should be translated into the language of every country, and 

the people in those countries should be able to link to our State Department Web site to read what is going on in their own country. 

Third, a point you made, Mr. Chairman, reengaging with the 

multilateral human rights institutions, particularly the International Criminal Court and the Human Rights Council. We have 

to be seen as supporting the success of these institutions, not as 

enemies for them. 

With regard to the council, I support the recommendations of 

Human Rights Watch and Freedom House that a special envoy be 

appointed to the Human Rights Council to see how the U.S. can 

work with it. As you pointed out, the Human Rights Council has 

had a highly imperfect first year, but we cannot expect it to be a 

more credible institution without U.S. participation and leadership. 

If we do not engage, others will take it over as they are starting 

to do, and without engagement our self-defeating claim that the 

council doesn’t work and is hostile to our interests will become a 

self-fulfilling prophecy. 

With regard to the International Criminal Court, we have in fact 

moved from a policy of aggressive hostility to de facto engagement, 

and I think the need for the International Criminal Court is becoming manifest. We have consented to the referral of the Darfur matter, and let me point out that a recent survey from Chicago showed 

that 91 percent of the American people favored the use of international criminal prosecution with regard to Darfur genociders. 

I think it is time for Congress to move to demonstrate our 

changed attitude by repealing key provisions of the American Service Members Protection Act of 2002, which has wasted untold diplomatic capital with key allies who we need and has obstructed our 

ability to cooperate with the International Criminal Court. 

Finally, I think we need to support democratic oppositions and 

promote democratic transitions wherever they occur, and we should 

start with Cuba. As you know, Cuba has a window of opportunity 

for democracy. There are four possibilities: The status quo, violence 

and chaos, economic liberalization of a Chinese style, or what we 

all really want, a peaceful democratic transition promoted by nonviolent, pro-democracy leaders. Of those, the most prominent and 

distinguished is Oswaldo Paya. 

The Cuban people have to be in charge of their future. We need 

to stand in solidarity with them as we have historically done with 

democratic movements. We need to see that the transition is designed and led by Cubans themselves. A change is coming soon. We 

have to be ready for it and to support it by reference to the genuine 

will of the people. 

In closing, I will simply repeat a statement I made to the committee 4 years ago which remains now. In pursuit of the war 

against terror, the administration has allowed some human rights 

concerns to fall by the wayside and sacrificed others. Democracy 

and human rights cannot be pursued in a piecemeal fashion. September 11 reveals that the U.S. must work to achieve its objectives 

within a framework of international law, holding ourselves to the 

same standards to which we hold others. 
10

Mr. Chairman, we do have the tools to make the world safer and 

more democratic, but only if we use them fairly and wisely. 

Thank you. I am ready to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Koh follows:]
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Chairman LANTOS. Thank you, Dean Koh. 

We now go to Ambassador Shattuck. The hearing will continue 

uninterruptedly. I suggest members go and cast ballots whenever 

they feel like it, but we will continue the hearing. 

Ambassador Shattuck? 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN SHATTUCK, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE JOHN F. KENNEDY LIBRARY FOUNDATION (FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR DEMOCRACY, 

HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR AT THE DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE) 

Ambassador SHATTUCK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It 

is indeed a privilege to appear before you again and other members 

of this committee whom I know well and respect enormously, and 

you in particular, Mr. Chairman, for your enormous leadership 

over many years on human rights. 

I am grateful for the opportunity to describe and discuss an issue 

of huge importance to our country, to our national security and to 

the position of the United States in the world as a leader and that 

is the promotion of human rights in U.S. foreign policy. 

In addition to the prepared statement that I have submitted, Mr. 

Chairman, I have also submitted for the record a number of articles that I have recently written on this subject, and I ask your 

permission to have them included. 

Chairman LANTOS. Without objection. 

Ambassador SHATTUCK. In an age of genocide and terror, the promotion of human rights within the rule of law must be a central 

feature of any realistic strategy for addressing the major threats to 

international security today. These threats, of course, include failed 

states, political repression, racial/ethnic/sectarian discrimination 

and violence, religious fanaticism and the many other breeding 

grounds of instability in our contemporary world. 

To dismiss human rights or downplay them at a time like this 

is, frankly, to invite disaster in international relations and U.S. 

leadership in the world. Only through the effective promotion of 

human rights and foreign policy can we project our values as a nation and strengthen our leadership. 

From our role, Mr. Chairman, as liberators in World War II, as 

you are so personally aware, to our role as freedom fighters in the 

civil rights movement, the United States has been a world leader, 

an indispensable nation in the global struggle for human rights. 

What does it mean to be effective in the promotion of human 

rights. This is very difficult, and I don’t propose to give you the 

perfect solution, but I believe there are three basic building blocks 

that we have to bear in mind as we set out to build a human rights 

policy and as we have done over the years. 

Above all, we should practice what we preach. We lose our credibility as a nation when we charge others with committing human 

rights violations that we ourselves commit. We undermine our ability to lead when we act without the support of other nations or 

without international authority. 

We should adhere to the rule of law. International human rights 

are defined, as we all know, in conventions and treaties that have 

been ratified and incorporated into domestic law. We must abide by 
31

these legal obligations if we are to protect the U.S. and project it 

as a champion of human rights around the world. 

We should participate in the major international institutions for 

promoting human rights. The U.S. should lead the way in reshaping existing institutions and creating new ones. That has been our 

role for more than 50 years, and we should not abandon it. We 

should not attack these institutions or act unilaterally or stand 

aside when we disagree with what they do, but we should shape 

them and form them to the way in which they should be. 

With these basic rules in mind, Mr. Chairman, let me attempt 

to answer the questions the committee has put before us. First, it 

is my conclusion that the 2007 Country Reports on Human Rights 

Practices lack credibility because the U.S. Government unfortunately in recent years has engaged in some of the very practices 

it condemns in the reports. 

Each country report, as we know, covers such practices as ‘‘torture and other cruel and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’’—I am quoting from the reports—and we are all familiar 

with the statutory obligations that they comply with. ‘‘Detention 

without charge,’’ ‘‘denial of fair and prompt public trial,’’ ‘‘arbitrary 

interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence.’’

Sadly, it is now well documented that in recent years the U.S. 

itself has engaged in some of these practices. For example, detainees in United States custody were abused at Abu Ghraib and other 

prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hundreds of prisoners have been 

held indefinitely without charges and without access to court review in Guantanamo. 

The executive branch has asserted authority to arrest U.S. citizens without charges and deny them legal counsel on the assertion 

that they are enemy combatants, and a vast, warrantless electronic 

surveillance program has been conducted in apparent violation of 

a Federal statute. 

In light of these actions, readers of the country reports are likely 

to conclude, wrongly in my view over a long period of time, but 

today perhaps correctly, that the U.S. does not practice what it 

preaches. 

For example, the report on Egypt criticizes the fact that ‘‘Security forces detained hundreds of individuals without charge,’’ and 

I quote, ‘‘Abuse of prisoners and detainees by police, security personnel and prison guards was persistent,’’ and, I quote, ‘‘Egyptian 

emergency law empowers the government to place wiretaps without a judicial warrant.’’ Unfortunately, these same criticisms could 

also be directed today at the U.S. 

Second, although the recent U.S. record on human rights undermines the overall credibility of the reports, the reports do provide 

a candid assessment of several major human rights violators in my 

view. 

It is refreshing to know that the reports do not shy away from 

criticizing countries where the U.S. might be expected to downplay 

human rights abuses. At the top of that list, although I agree with 

Dean Koh that there are some shortcomings in these reports, are 

Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. 

Despite the deep involvement of the U.S. with the governments 

of these countries, the reports do offer a number of tough criticisms 
32

of each of them. Similarly, the assessment of the human rights situation in Sudan is particularly condemning, and the report does 

not hesitate to label the crisis in Darfur as genocide, despite efforts 

by the United States to secure cooperation by the Government of 

Sudan on counterterrorism issues. 

I join, Mr. Chairman, with others human rights observers who 

have been quoted in the press in welcoming the candor of these reports in many respects, and I certainly salute my former colleagues 

in the Department of State and the Bureau of Democracy, Human 

Rights and Labor who put these reports together. 

I was impressed by the statement of Assistant Secretary 

Lowenkron earlier this month candidly stating that we are issuing 

these reports at a time when our record and actions have been 

questioned, and we will continue to respond to the concerns of others. I only wish, Mr. Chairman, that Secretary Lowenkron had the 

authority to match the candor of his words by actions of the government which he serves. 

Third, the current efforts of the U.S. Government to promote 

human rights are often ineffective because they are conducted outside the framework of international human rights law. As we all 

know, over the last half century the U.S. has scored major bipartisan victories for human rights under five presidencies, three Republican and two Democratic, by creating and working within a 

framework of international law. 

President Gerald Ford, as we know, drafted the Helsinki Accords, 

or it was done in his administration, that brought the Soviet Union 

and its satellite countries within the reach of human rights diplomacy, enormously important international law. 

Jimmy Carter mobilized democratic governments under international human rights law to press for the release of political prisoners held by repressive regimes. Ronald Reagan invoked the Helsinki Accords to champion the cause of dissidents in the Soviet 

Union. 

George Bush, Sr. joined with Western European governments in 

the organization for security and cooperation in Europe to provide 

assistance to the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe 

within a framework of international law, and Bill Clinton worked 

with NATO and the U.N. to implement the Genocide Convention, 

bringing an end to the human rights catastrophe in Bosnia and 

preventing genocide in Kosovo. 

In recent years, Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Government has shown 

a disregard for these basic elements of international human rights 

law. These include the Geneva Conventions, the Convention 

against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, among others. 

The result, in my view, has been the creation of a law-free zone 

in which foreign detainees in U.S. custody overseas have sometimes been brutally abused, thousands of foreign citizens have been 

held as unlawful combatants indefinitely without being accorded 

the status of prisoners of war, and repressive regimes around the 

world have claimed they have a green light to crack down on political dissidents and religious and ethnic minorities in the name of 

fighting terrorism. 
33

This has contributed to an increase in the number of people 

around the world who are convinced that America is their enemy 

and stepped up recruiting by terrorist groups throughout the Muslim world and beyond. 

The breach of the framework of human rights law I think is exemplified by a 2002 memorandum prepared by then White House 

counsel Alberto Gonzales. The memorandum stated that terrorism 

renders obsolete the Geneva Conventions’ strict limitations on the 

questioning of prisoners. 

Until recently, no administration had ever questioned the basic 

rules of international humanitarian law in times of war, and this 

included Presidents Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson during the 

Vietnam War and George Bush, Sr. during the first Gulf War. 

I think the reasons are clear. They were spelled out in 2002 by 

former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who warned that the White 

House interpretation of the Geneva Conventions would, and I 

quote, ‘‘reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice, undermine the protections of the law for our troops and provoke negative 

international reaction with immediate adverse consequences for the 

conduct of our foreign policy.’’

Finally, Mr. Chairman, fourth, the U.S. decision to disengage 

from the U.N. human rights institutions undermines its position as 

a human rights leader. For more than 60 years the U.S. has been 

a world leader in building international institutions to promote 

human rights. 

Today, unfortunately we seem to have renounced that leadership 

by withdrawing from the new U.N. Human Rights Council and by 

refusing to participate in efforts to shape the new International 

Criminal Court. In both cases, the U.S. now has no influence over 

the future of these two flawed institutions, at least for the moment. 

In the case of the Human Rights Council, we have abandoned 

our support because we were unable to limit the council’s membership to countries with good human rights records, and in the absence of U.S. leadership going forward the council has now slid 

back to the abysmal level of the dysfunctional Human Rights Commission which it replaced. 

In the case of the International Criminal Court, many structural 

changes certainly need to be made in order for the U.S. to become 

a full participant. Nevertheless, in recent years we have lost all leverage over the court’s development by withdrawing our signature 

from the treaty establishing it. 

In addition, an active U.S. campaign to put pressure on governments not to join the court has engendered international ill-will 

and further undermined the capacity of the U.S. to exercise human 

rights leadership. 

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion let me say that yesterday I was 

privileged to speak to our nation’s civil rights memorial in Birmingham, Alabama. This is one of the major battlegrounds of the 

long struggle for racial justice and equality in our own country and 

around the world. In many ways it was the birthplace of the modern human rights movement. I was deeply moved as an American 

and deeply proud of my country’s legacy of leadership both at the 

grassroots and at the top that is exemplified in that memorial. 
34

On June 11, 1963, in response to the crisis in Birmingham, 

President Kennedy addressed the nation about America’s commitment to solve our own human rights problems and be a beacon of 

freedom and justice in the world. I would just like to conclude with 

a very brief quote from President Kennedy’s speech to the nation 

on June 11, 1963. He said:

‘‘We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old 

as the scriptures and as clear as the American Constitution. 

One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not 

fully free. They are not yet free from the bonds of injustice, 

and this nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be 

fully free until its citizens are free. 

‘‘We preach freedom around the world and we mean it, and 

we cherish our freedom here at home, but we are here to say 

to the world, and much more importantly, that we have work 

to do at home.’’

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be very pleased to answer 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Shattuck follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN SHATTUCK, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE JOHN F. KENNEDY LIBRARY FOUNDATION (FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY

FOR DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR AT THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE) 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m grateful for this opportunity to appear before you 

on an issue of enormous importance to our country, our national security, and the 

position of the United States in the world—the promotion of human rights in U.S. 

foreign policy. In addition to my prepared statement, I ask permission of the Committee to include for the record the attached articles I have recently written on this 

subject. 

International ‘‘realists’’ from Bismarck to Rumsfeld have downplayed human 

rights in their choice of means by which to pursue their ‘‘realist’’ objectives. They 

are fundamentally wrong. In an age of genocide and terror, the promotion of human 

rights within the rule of law must be a central feature of any realist’s strategy for 

addressing the major threats to international security today. These include failed 

states, political repression, racial, ethnic, sectarian discrimination and violence, religious fanaticism, and the many other breeding grounds of instability in our contemporary world. To dismiss human rights at a time like this is to invite disaster in 

international relations. Only through the effective promotion of human rights in foreign policy can the United States project its values as a nation and strengthen its 

leadership around the world. 

What does it mean to be effective in the promotion of human rights? There are 

three basic building blocks for an effective human rights policy. 

First, we should practice what we preach. We lose our credibility as a nation when 

we charge others with committing human rights violations that we are committing 

ourselves. We undermine our ability to lead when we act precipitously without the 

support of other nations, or without international authority. 

Second, we should adhere to the rule of law. International human rights are defined in conventions and treaties that have been ratified and incorporated into our 

domestic law. We must abide by these legal obligations if we are to project the U.S. 

as a champion of human rights around the world. 

Third, we should participate in the major international institutions for promoting 

human rights. The U.S. should lead the way in reshaping existing institutions and 

creating new ones, not attacking them, acting unilaterally, or standing aside when 

we disagree with what they do. 

With these basic rules in mind, I will attempt to answer the questions the Committee has asked me to address. 
35

1. The 2007 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices lack credibility because the 

U.S. government in recent years has engaged in some of the very practices that 

it condemns in its reports. 

Each country report covers practices such as ‘‘torture and other cruel, inhuman 

or degrading treatment or punishment,’’ ‘‘detention without charge,’’ ‘‘denial of fair 

and prompt public trial,’’ and ‘‘arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home, or 

correspondence.’’ It is now well documented that in recent years the U.S. itself has 

engaged in some of these practices. For example, detainees in U.S. custody were 

brutally abused at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds 

of prisoners have been held indefinitely without charges and without access to court 

review in Guantanamo, the executive branch has asserted authority to arrest U.S. 

citizens without charges and deny them legal counsel on the assertion that they are 

enemy combatants, and a vast warrantless electronic surveillance program has been 

conducted in apparent violation of a federal statute. In light of these actions, readers of the Country Reports are likely to conclude that the U.S. does not practice 

what it preaches. For example, the report on Egypt criticizes the fact that ‘‘security 

forces detained hundreds of individuals without charge,’’ that ‘‘abuse of prisoners 

and detainees by police, security personnel and prison guards was persistent,’’ and 

that ‘‘the [Egyptian] Emergency Law empowers the government to place wiretaps 

without a judicial warrant.’’ Unfortunately, the same criticisms could also be directed at the U.S. 

2. Although the recent U.S. record on human rights undermines the overall credibility of the Country Reports, the reports provide candid assessments of several 

major human rights violators. 

It is refreshing to note that the reports do not shy away from criticizing countries 

where the U.S. might be expected to downplay human rights abuses. At the top of 

that list are Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Despite the deep involvement of the 

U.S. with the governments of these countries, the reports offer tough criticisms of 

each of them. Similarly, the assessment of the human rights situation in Sudan is 

particularly condemning, and the report does not hesitate to label the crisis in 

Darfur as genocide, despite efforts by the U.S. to secure cooperation by the government of Sudan on counterterrorism issues. 

I join with other human rights observers in welcoming the candor of these reports. 

I was especially impressed by the statement of Assistant Secretary Barry 

Lowenkron earlier this month that ‘‘we are issuing these reports at a time when 

our record and actions have been questioned, and we will continue to respond to the 

concerns of others.’’ I only wish Secretary Lowenkron had the authority to match 

the candor of the reports and his own words with actions by the government in 

which he serves. 

3. The current efforts of the U.S. government to promote human rights are often ineffective because they are conducted outside the framework of international human 

rights law. 

Over the last half century, the United States has scored major bipartisan victories 

for human rights under five presidencies—three Republican and two Democratic—

by creating and working within a framework of international law. 

President Gerald Ford drafted the Helsinki Accords that brought the Soviet Union 

and its satellite countries within the reach of human rights diplomacy. Jimmy 

Carter mobilized democratic governments under international human rights law to 

press for the release of political prisoners held by repressive regimes. Ronald 

Reagan invoked the Helsinki Accords to champion the cause of dissidents in the Soviet Union. George Bush Senior joined with western European governments in the 

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to provide assistance to the 

new democracies of central and eastern Europe. And Bill Clinton worked with 

NATO and the U.N. to implement the Genocide Convention, bringing an end to the 

human rights catastrophe in Bosnia, and preventing genocide in Kosovo. 

In recent years the U.S. government has shown a disregard for several basic elements of international human rights law. These include the Geneva Conventions, 

the Convention Against Torture, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, among others. The result has been the creation of a ‘‘law-free zone’’ in 

which foreign detainees in U.S. custody overseas have been brutally abused, thousands of foreign citizens have been held as ‘‘unlawful combatants’’ indefinitely without being accorded the status of prisoners of war, and repressive regimes around 

the world have claimed they have a green light to crack down on political dissidents 

and religious and ethnic minorities in the name of fighting terrorism. This has contributed to an increase in the number of people around the world who are convinced 
36

that America is their enemy, and stepped-up recruiting by terrorist groups throughout the Muslim world and beyond. 

This breach of the framework of human rights law is exemplified by a 2002 

memorandum prepared by then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales. The memorandum stated that ‘‘terrorism renders obsolete [the Geneva Conventions’] strict 

limitations on the questioning of prisoners.’’ Until recently, no administration had 

ever questioned the basic rules of international humanitarian law in times of war. 

This included Presidents Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam 

War, and George Bush Senior during the first Gulf War. The reasons are clear. 

They were spelled out in 2002 by former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who 

warned that the White House interpretation of the Geneva Conventions would ‘‘reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice, undermine the protections of the 

law for our troops, and provoke negative international reaction, with immediate adverse consequences for the conduct of our foreign policy.’’

4. The U.S. decision to disengage from U.N. human rights institutions undermines 

its position as a human rights leader. 

For more than sixty years the U.S. has been a world leader in building international institutions to promote human rights. Today, unfortunately, we seem to 

have renounced that leadership by withdrawing from the new U.N. Human Rights 

Council and by refusing to participate in efforts to shape the new International 

Criminal Court. In both cases the U.S. now has no influence over the future of these 

two flawed institutions. In the case of the Human Rights Council, the U.S. abandoned its support when it was unable to limit the Council’s membership to countries 

with good human rights records, despite the fact that the Council membership requirements adopted in the recent U.N. reforms are an improvement over those of 

the dysfunctional Human Rights Commission which it replaced. In the case of the 

International Criminal Court, many structural changes need to be made in order 

for the U.S. to become a full participant. Nevertheless, in recent years the U.S. has 

lost all leverage over the Court’s development by withdrawing its signature from the 

treaty establishing it. In addition, an active U.S. campaign to put pressure on governments not to join the Court has engendered international ill will and further undermined the capacity of the U.S. to exercise human rights leadership. 

People engaged in the struggle for freedom around the world depend on the 

United States not only for our military and economic power, but above all for our 

commitment to human rights. Their message is simple: the U.S. must practice what 

it preaches by supporting the struggle for human rights and civil society as the alternative to repression and terror. Theirs is a message of hope, but it is also a warning: if we continue to allow the sacrifice of human rights in the name of fighting 

terror, in the long run we will only have more terror. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning.

Mr. BERMAN [presiding]. Well, thank both of you. By the way, it 

is a pleasure to be at a hearing where both of you are testifying. 

You of course, having done this a number of times before, are familiar with the problem of a vote coming. We have sort of rotated. 

My colleagues will be back, but the chairman asked me to start off 

since I voted early on this particular vote. 

The issue of the pushback. First, go from the human rights issue 

to the democracy promotion issue and what extent you view those 

as separate and discrete issues or sort of one particular issue. 

We are in a funny situation here. Dean Koh, you have made essentially a compelling, but scathing, attack on the fact that everything we want on a bipartisan, executive and congressional basis 

to focus on in the human rights area is undermined by the existence of conduct by the United States that allows people very easily 

and with great public support to simply say who are you to talk. 

Another issue has also come up in the context particularly in the 

Middle East of trying to deal with very complicated issues, visions 

that this President expressed very strongly with respect to part of 

why we got into the mess we are now in in the Middle East and 

the need for democratic participation. 
37

That has also changed recently, and I don’t know to what extent 

you consider that part of the human rights agenda, but I think of 

Egypt in particular, and I don’t mean to select them out as the 

worst abuser or anything, but the focus even a couple of years ago 

on elections, on freedom of candidates and opposition candidates to 

participate in the political process, on the arrest of political opponents to the present. That was high on this administration’s agenda, and all of a sudden that has disappeared. 

I would love either of you to talk for a moment on the human 

rights issue and the democracy issue to the extent to which they 

are the same or discrete. Can one focus on human rights without 

also focusing on the promotion of democratic institutions? 

Mr. KOH. Thank you, Congressman Berman. I think you are absolutely right. I use a medical analogy. My brother is a cancer specialist. At a certain point he told me he was tired of simply treating 

diseases. He wanted to create healthy bodies because if you have 

a healthy body it is less likely to exhibit signs of disease. 

In my own field I began to realize the same thing. We can have 

a defensive agenda, which is fighting against symptoms of dictatorship and authoritarianism such as torture, absence of fair elections, 

absence of free trial, or we can try to get to the root cause through 

building of democracy. 

Now, I would point out that the democracy agenda has been a 

bipartisan agenda in this body for years. It was in 1982 that President Reagan called for at the Houses of Parliament a democracy 

agenda, the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy, 

the National Democratic Institute, the International Republic Institute. In fact, the recent inaugural address, the second inaugural, 

of President Bush speaks to this agenda. 

I think it is very clear that if we relax our democracy promotion 

efforts we cannot achieve the long-time success in human rights 

that we want, but I think the Egypt case which you bring forward 

is a profoundly important one about my point about the pushback. 

It cannot be that we criticize antidemocratic behavior by countries that we oppose like China, North Korea, Cuba, but then when 

our allies engage in the exact same antidemocratic behavior we 

stand silent. 

Egypt is a grotesque example. Yesterday what happened, as you 

may know, is that President Mubarak pushed for the extension of 

the emergency law. Those changes and amendments are now elevated to a constitutional level. The New York Times reports that 

those changes were done through vote rigging. 

They claim that there was a 27 percent turnout in which 76 percent of the people voted in favor. This is essentially to entrench 

permanently into the constitution power in the President to deal 

with everyone under the control of the emergency law. 

So what was the response of the administration? That it was disappointing. It is more than disappointing. It is an affront to the democracy agenda, as Mr. Shattuck said, of the last six administrations. We should push back against the pushback. 

Now, if they push and try to do these antidemocratic things and 

we remain silent then the net result will be that we will be tolerating in certain countries a set of behaviors that are the same as 
38

in countries we oppose, and if we can’t then criticize our allies, how 

can we criticize those who are gross violators? 

Mr. BERMAN. Your point in your testimony about the country report on Iran and the country report on Saudi Arabia is similar. 

Mr. KOH. Exactly. 

Mr. BERMAN. And Syria’s problems, very different treatment. 

Ambassador Shattuck? 

Ambassador SHATTUCK. Well, as Dean Koh has said, there is no 

question that there is an integral relationship between our own 

history of promoting human rights and promoting democracy. This 

goes back over a number of administrations, but I think it was particularly strong in the administration that both of us served. 

The reason is that civil society and the institutions for the promotion of democracy that are the essential building blocks for any 

society that is going to have the ability to protect human rights; 

those are the predicates for ultimately having a human rights capacity. 

This is particularly true today I think when we look at the breeding grounds for difficulties in societies where there is a repression 

of the civil society. This is true in Egypt, the case that you cite, 

Mr. Berman. Where we are silent on the subject of that repression 

we become in essence a partner in the repressive activity. 

Now, I am enough of a realist to know that there is a range of 

different kinds of responses that we can make to the kind of repressive action that has occurred to push back civil society in a 

country like Egypt, but the bedrock principle is that our human 

rights reports and our ability to publicly announce when there is 

something that is pushing back must always remain as true and 

direct as they possibly can be. 

This does not mean necessarily that we are going to take specific 

further diplomatic actions, be it sanctions or other kinds of efforts 

to confront a country with which we are seeking to achieve other 

objectives in the Middle East in particular, but the human rights 

reports are and should be the gold standard for honesty, truth and 

directness about democracy, civil society, as well as the specific 

human rights practices that we look at in those reports. 

Chairman LANTOS [presiding]. Thank you very much. 

Sometime back I know both of you were familiar with an earlier 

version of the Advanced Democracy Act. We just acted on it in this 

body, and I wonder if either of you have any comments about the 

appropriateness of moving such legislation in the current climate. 

Dean Koh? 

Mr. KOH. We applaud you for doing it, Congressman. It has been 

something that we have been urging for a long time. I think a 

number of the former Assistant Secretaries of Democracies, Human 

Rights and Labor on a bipartisan basis have sent letters urging 

that this act be supported, and we are glad that this session of the 

committee is taking action and moving it to the Floor. 

Chairman LANTOS. Thank you very much. 

Ambassador Shattuck? 

Ambassador SHATTUCK. Yes. I would agree with that, Mr. Chairman. Beyond that, I think as both of us point out in our testimony, 

working with democratic allies in the promotion of human rights 
39

and democracy worldwide is what should be at the core of our 

strategy. 

I think this act really advances that cause to bring the U.S. into 

a position where it more formally engages with its democratic allies 

in the promotion of democracy and human rights. 

Chairman LANTOS. May I just raise one other issue with both of 

you? 

As you know, I have visited North Korea on a number of occasions, and the continuing persecution of refugees by China from 

North Korea is an appalling spectacle. North Korean refugees who 

reach China are automatically granted South Korean citizenship. 

All China would have to do would be to allow them to proceed 

to Seoul where this wealthy and prosperous and successful democracy would be able to absorb these very courageous people who 

leave behind North Korea. 

The Chinese are, as all of you know, arresting them, returning 

them to North Korea where they face severe punishment, occasionally death. Heroic individuals who facilitate their escape from 

North Korea are imprisoned and persecuted by the Chinese authorities. 

In view of the upcoming Olympics, is there any suggestions you 

would have for those of us who care about North Korean refugees 

to give them pragmatic help once they reach China? 

Dean Koh? 

Mr. KOH. Yes. As you know, I am a South Korean immigrant, 

and I visited North Korea with Secretary Albright in the fall of 

2000. 

I think you signal a need to work the human rights issue both 

into our dialogue with China and into our emerging dialogue with 

North Korea, which up until now has been at some points broken 

off and at some points limited to security or nuclear issues. 

I do think that it is very clear that the conduct of the Chinese 

Government is a flat-out violation of the 1951 Refugee Convention 

which says no contracting state shall expel or return people to conditions of persecution to which they are fleeing. That is the principle of non-refoulement, and that is being violated. 

Now, on whether this ought to be raised explicitly with regard 

to the upcoming Olympic games I think it should not just by our 

Government, but also by the major U.S. companies who will be participating in that effort. 

I would point you to an op-ed piece that appeared yesterday in 

the Wall Street Journal by one of our students, Ronan Farrell, discussing this issue with regard not just to China’s activities and 

human rights violations elsewhere, but particularly with regard to 

Sudan. 

I think that you could, Mr. Chairman, encourage these corporations to create a kind of code of conduct analogous to the Sullivan 

Principles which they used in South Africa and also similar to the 

principles they used in Ireland, Northern Ireland, as a way of essentially stating to the Chinese Government certain conditions for 

letting their names be associated with the Chinese practices. 

This also goes to the internet freedom issue. The Chinese Government has used clever strategies of enlisting private companies 

in their human rights abuses and making them partners, and I 
40

think that Congress should make clear that that is inconsistent 

with our human rights principles, it is in violation of international 

law and should put as much moral suasion and pressure on these 

companies to adopt a different strategy to bring the pressure to 

bear on China itself. 

Chairman LANTOS. As you know, some of my colleagues and I 

have been advocating precisely that. 

Ambassador Shattuck? 

Ambassador SHATTUCK. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have the wonderful resources of Dean Koh, including a student who only yesterday 

had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, but I do associate myself 

very much with what he has said. 

Let me just add one brief comment regarding the upcoming 

Olympics and China. Mr. Smith will remember, Mr. Chairman, and 

you will certainly remember, the ways in which the issue of whether China would get the Olympics two rounds ago was very much 

on the human rights agenda of this committee and of my bureau 

in the State Department, and the efforts to try to use the leverage 

of China’s interest in the Olympics as a way of finding new avenues of communication with China about human rights. 

I do think that this upcoming set of Olympics presents that very 

much as well, and the two issues that I believe should be focused 

on, in addition perhaps to the internet issue, which was cited by 

Dean Koh, are the issue of Darfur and the issue of North Korea 

and the China refugees and China’s treatment of the refugees. 

The refugee issue is certainly one that implicates international 

humanitarian law and the principles of non-refoulement that Dean 

Koh has mentioned. The issue of Darfur is certainly more complicated, but in many respects equally urgent because I think all 

the analysis that is being brought to bear now on what can be done 

to try to address the ongoing genocide in Darfur points in many respects to China and China’s interests, particularly oil interests and 

economic interests that are huge in Sudan and that part of Africa 

in general. 

There is no easy solution, but again in some ways it gets back 

to the question of these human rights reports, and candidly getting 

into a discussion with China about its role on the world stage as 

it emerges as a great power, which I think it certainly aspires to 

be and we would agree it is becoming. 

This is a moment where I think China with the spotlight on the 

Olympics, the world attention that it is going to receive and the opportunities that that presents to raise human rights issues and 

China’s leverage to try to end this horrific set of abuses amounting 

to a genocide in Darfur, I think all of that really is something that 

ought to be urged on our Government as one of its principal human 

rights areas of focus right now. 

Chairman LANTOS. Thank you very much. It is all the more disappointing that recently a many member cabinet level delegation 

went to China and never touched any of these issues and came 

back as if the human rights agenda would be nonexistent for the 

United States. 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
41

Let me just say it is great to see my old friends. We worked together on a number of human rights issues. As a matter of fact, 

I remember Dean Koh sat on the Helsinki Commission and often 

took his place on this side of the dais in order to ask questions and 

to make commentary at our commission hearings, so it is great to 

see you, Harold, and you, John, as well. 

Let me just ask a couple of questions. First, I think it is important for clarity’s sake and accuracy’s sake to remind members that 

there has been a legacy particularly as it relates to China that 

when Bush I was in the White House I thought he fumbled the ball 

badly when it came to human rights. 

Clinton was correct to accuse him of coddling dictators, and in 

the first year of the Clinton administration I and many others—I 

remember David Bonior and Dick Gephardt and others—held press 

conferences applauding the administration’s efforts vis-a-vis the 

PRC and human rights. 

That all came to a halt, a screaming halt, when the administration ripped up its executive order with regard to MFN and the linkage to human rights and then for the next 7 years embarked on 

a different policy. 

Call it whatever you might, but, unfortunately, I believe and I 

believe it passionately because I made several trips there, that enabled human rights abuse because they took the measure of the 

United States, came to the conclusion that when it came to human 

rights they were not only subordinate; they were an asterisk, that 

profits and money trumped all else. 

Regrettably, that baton was passed to Bush II, and that policy 

has continued notwithstanding statements made by Bush I, Clinton 

and President George W. Bush about their concerns for human 

rights. So I believe there has been a seamlessness when it has 

come to human rights. Frankly, I don’t give a whit who is in the 

White House. When abuses are being committed, we need to speak 

out. 

I know that Mr. Lantos and I were very critical of the Clinton 

administration and Bush I and are now critical of the current Bush 

administration because we do unfortunately have this naive belief 

that if we just trade, trade, trade somehow they will matriculate 

into a human rights country. 

We have learned, I think sadly, that nothing could be further 

from the truth. They have deteriorated and done so significantly. 

I would hope that for the purpose of the press and everyone else, 

there has been a seamlessness there. 

The same goes with Russia. I remember so well. I chaired three 

hearings on Chechnya. We had Elena Bonner sit right where you 

are sitting taking the previous administration to task, and I raised 

it in all of my bilaterals with the Russians. Unfortunately, that has 

dropped off of the map as well. I remember Al Gore—it was with 

Chernomyrdin in Moscow—compared Chechnya, the first war, to a 

civil war not unlike the United States Civil War in the 1860s. 

On Darfur, and I would appreciate some thoughts on this, we 

have passed several pieces of legislation. The Sudan Peace Act 

went through my committee when I was chairman of the Human 

Rights Committee, and we wanted capital market sanctions. The 
42

Clinton administration opposed those, namely the Treasury Department. 

In like manner in this past Congress, many of us wanted it 

again. We were opposed, however, by the current administration. 

Again, there has been a seamlessness when it comes to an economic sanction that would have affected PetroChina and Talisman 

and many others that we all could have made a better effort for. 

Having said that, let me ask you on Darfur, especially Dean Koh. 

We have passed a number of bills that have become law. The 

Darfur Peace and Accountability Act signed into law last year does 

exactly what you have asked us to do, and that is to hold accountable those individuals responsible for crimes. 

I have visited Darfur. I have been in the camps, Cama Camp, 

Mukjar. I have met face-to-face with Bashir. The man is a tyrant. 

We know that. He is responsible for untold death in the south. 

Again for the sake of clarity, it was the Special Envoy, Senator 

Danforth, who I think made all the difference in the world in bringing together disparate factions and effectuating a peace for Southern Sudan, and in like manner I believe Andrew Natsios is a man 

very capable and up to the job of trying to forge a peace where one 

does not exist in Darfur. 

The Soviets in the 1980s always threw back at us that we had 

a homeless problem, that we had human rights problems. They all 

harkened back to the civil rights issues and the fact that we had 

a very checkered—beyond checkered; a very poor record when it 

came to blacks in this country, so we know that they will always 

throw something back in our face. The Chinese do it as well. 

Again, for the sake of clarify, there have been mistakes made 

throughout these many years. You two gentlemen walk point. I 

considered you friends all of those years even when we had a difference like we did, Ambassador Shattuck, on the International Religious Freedom Act, but eventually I think we came to a very good 

final conclusion. 

All of us need to push harder on human rights. I think that is 

why the bipartisanship we have here is so essential. There are a 

whole group out there on the Democrat and the Republican side, 

regardless of who is in the White House or who occupies the House 

and the Senate, who just want to trade and look askance when it 

comes to human rights. 

That is why I said about us looking in the mirror. You know, the 

fault lies here as well. I don’t mean you, Chairman Lantos, but I 

mean among our current members, so if you want to respond to 

any of that. 

One final point on Vietnam. If you could maybe make some comment or mention on this very rapid deterioration that we have seen 

in Vietnam? I met with 60 dissidents on a trip about 18 months 

ago in Hue, Ho Chi Minh City and in Hanoi. Every one of them 

was looking over his/her shoulder waiting for that knock on the 

door from the Secret Police. I say move trade, but make sure it 

stays linked to human rights. They now have WTO. They are reverting right back to form, predictably, but sadly. 

I met with a man by the name of Dai in Hanoi who is a human 

rights lawyer, a great, heroic man. He now has been arrested 
43

awaiting his kangaroo trial just like Father Ly tomorrow, so some 

comments on that if you would. 

Mr. KOH. On the three points, I will say we agree that human 

rights ought to be a bipartisan agenda and that it has to be inserted into every dialogue because there are many for whom the 

absence of human rights is a critical focal point of their concern. 

One reason that the Russians and the Chinese have benefitted 

so much from the last period is that not only have we been otherwise occupied and not focused on human rights, but in fact our own 

human rights misconduct has become an Achilles’ heel, and therefore we don’t want to lead with that Achilles’ heel. 

I think that Congressman Lantos was exactly right that if we 

shifted to a strategy of inside/outside engagement on human rights 

with China. The core idea is that they should play by global rules 

if they want to be part of the global system. Those rules include 

not just the global trade rules, but the global human rights rules. 

We should not let the Chinese or the Russians pick and choose 

the rules they want to follow and pick and choose the rules that 

they want to ignore. 

Now, I think that with regard to Darfur I think Congress has 

been the leading voice here. I yield to no one in my admiration of 

Ambassador Senator Danforth, who I will point out is a graduate 

of Yale Law School, because blood is thicker, of course, than water. 

I think though the integrated strategy that is emerging or needs 

to emerge is clear. An excellent report was recently issued by the 

International Crisis Group which calls it the four Ps: A real peace 

process, real peacekeepers, real focus on punishing perpetrators, 

both through international criminal prosecution and targeted sanctions against those who are benefiting, and protecting innocent people, refugee protection and protection for the internally displaced. 

I think that the various bills that you have been behind, Congressman Smith, have recognize that those pieces of the puzzle all 

need to be addressed, not just picking and choosing from one or the 

other. 

Finally, on Vietnam I think that I couldn’t agree more that the 

human rights dialogue which I participated in succeeding Secretary 

Shattuck is a key forum in which we conduct inside/outside engagement with them, by which I mean pushing from the outside, but 

pressing human rights through direct contact, demanding the status of particular political prisoners and that there has to be a need 

to couple the economic relationship with Vietnam with greater attention to these human rights concerns. 

I notice that the designation of Vietnam as a country of particular concern on the religious freedom side has been debated. It 

certainly is of concern to me, and that is another avenue that Congress can press on to make sure that the human rights concerns 

of Vietnam are taken into account. 

Ambassador SHATTUCK. Mr. Smith, I do treasure our relationship 

over the years, and it has been one where I think I would hope we 

would say that we exchange not just freely and frankly, but honestly, and actually I think there was a lot that was accomplished 

over those years, particularly on the religious freedom front, and 

I salute you for your leadership as well as that of the chairman. 
44

Incidentally, I will submit for the record an article that I recently 

published in the Harvard Human Rights Law Review about the 

International Religious Freedom Act and what I believe was ultimately a good piece of legislation because after its introduction 

through the kind of dialogue that we had there were some changes 

that were made that I believe made it a stronger bill and made it 

less likely to be making religious issues a kind of hierarchical aspect of the human rights world. 

In any event, if I could submit that for the record I would appreciate it. 

Chairman LANTOS. Without objection. 

Ambassador SHATTUCK. Thank you. 

There are a couple of comments, one on China and one on 

Darfur. 

China and the promotion of human rights, as you rightly say, 

has been one of the most complicated topics that all the administrations from Bush, Sr. to today have had to address. 

I am frankly particularly proud of the fact that during the time 

that I was Assistant Secretary and even in the shift of policy that 

the Clinton administration made two things worth noting. 

First, we did an honest assessment of China’s human rights 

record, and it was that very honest assessment that led us up to 

the brink of having to contemplate actually withdrawing China’s 

MFN status. 

Of course, that battle was fought within the administration and 

those who were opposed to the withdrawal of the MFN status for 

a whole variety of reasons prevailed, but it was because the assessment was so honest that we actually had to contemplate that possible sanction. 

I do believe personally, and I write about this in a book that I 

published a couple of years ago, that MFN is a far too blunt instrument ultimately to use to link human rights and trade in the ultimate sense of does a country receive MFN or not with respect to 

its human rights record. 

I think there are other less drastic means that can be used because once you use that means you are pitting all of the various 

interests that we have against each other, and that is what happened inside the U.S. Government, and obviously the economic interests prevailed, as you rightly have observed. 

I think that there remained an honest and hard hitting assessment on human rights throughout that period, whatever one may 

believe in terms of the use of a particular sanction with respect to 

China. 

Second, on Darfur let me say that I am perhaps in the minority 

on this among human rights leaders or observers, but I still believe 

that the principal issue is the use of international force. That is not 

to say that I am in favor of a Chapter 7 forcible entry by an international force. Not at all, because I think that could probably create even more damage inside the country. 

However, I think that unless we look at a strategy for getting a 

much larger U.N.—not African Union, but U.N.—peacekeeping 

force into the country the security situation is going to continue to 

be as horrific as it has been, and obviously that all stems from the 
45

way in which the government in Khartoum is operating through 

various paramilitary and other forces. 

To make a further point on China and Darfur, as we were saying 

earlier, I think it is important that China play a key role at this 

moment on Darfur, and that is why the Olympics spotlight is so 

helpful. 

Several years ago I was an observer of a peacekeeping mission 

in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and I wrote a report for 

the Ford Foundation on that mission. The surprise to me was the 

participation of China in that peacekeeping mission. 

There were 2,000 Chinese troops who were stationed in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo, and they played a 

very important role during a very difficult period where there were 

major attacks that were being unleashed in the period long before 

the elections that have recently taken place in that country. 

So there is a precedent for China playing a peacekeeping role 

within the United Nations framework, and we should now be pushing the administration to work with China to get it to recognize 

that peacekeeping in Darfur is in its own interest, as well as the 

world interest, and so I would recommend that strategy in particular. 

Chairman LANTOS. Before turning to Mr. Sires of New Jersey, 

Mr. Smith has a follow-up question. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador Shattuck, just on the issue of the blunt instrument, 

that is where there was a major disagreement. Sure, the reporting 

was good, and even Dean Koh says happily the China report continues to be frank and detailed. 

I mean, it is good to chronicle the abuse, but the problem was 

we had in hand an executive order that made it very clear that if 

significant progress was not achieved there would be an end to 

MFN. 

I traveled, as you know, because you also traveled over as well, 

as did our Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, to make the 

point to the Chinese that we mean business. They went in the opposite direction. There was significant deterioration on virtually 

every front according to all the human rights organizations. We 

had several meetings with them during the course of that. 

The bottom line again was they got worse. In my opinion, that 

is where the Chinese leadership said human rights don’t matter to 

the United States, and I say that with deep regret. We haven’t gotten it back yet. 

Chairman LANTOS. Mr. Sires of New Jersey? 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again a great hearing. 

Thank you for being here. Thank you very much. 

I want to get back a little bit to the Western Hemisphere. I am 

always very curious. We have situations in Chile with Pinochet, 

brutal, missing people. Then we have a situation in Cuba with Castro, brutal, missing people over so many years. 

I guess my question would be why does it seem to me anyway 

that there is less compassion for what the people in Cuba are going 

through than what the people in Chile or Pinochet went through 

when he was such a brutal dictator? 
46

I guess I am trying to just pick your brains and see. It just seems 

like the dictator of Cuba is lumped upon us, you know, a man with 

a beard who liberated Cuba, but yet over the years human rights 

have been so trumped, and now it is getting worse. 

I mean, you can’t even speak now without gangs of people 

around beating up the dissidents. Dissidents will be put in jail. 

There is a crackdown. Ever since the war in Iraq, the crackdown 

is even worse. 

Can you comment on that? 

Mr. KOH. Well, Congressman, I not only represented Cuban refugees from 1994 to 1995, but only 6 weeks ago I was in Havana with 

former Congressman Gejdenson to visit with democracy activist 

Oswaldo Paya. I know Congressman Delahunt had been there just 

earlier, and my former deputy at the State Department, Michael 

Parmly, is now the head of the Interest Section. 

I think we would all share your view of the outrageous human 

rights situation there and more so for the fact that it has been in 

place for 10 different presidencies. I think that different groups 

care about Cuba more than others, but I do think everyone would 

agree that the human rights situation there is appalling. 

What I think is important now though is that A) the Cuba policy 

not distort our entire Latin American policy, and, B) that we actually start to prepare for a transition which is upon us. Castro may 

have nine lives, but at the end of the day we are in a post Castro 

planning period. 

As I said in my testimony, there are four options, and only one 

of them is one we want. One is that Raul Castro continues the status quo; a second is that there is unrest, violence and possibly military intervention of some kind; a third is that Raul Castro attempts to liberalize economically, but not politically; and finally, 

and the one that we really should be working with, is supporting 

a democratic transition by supporting the legitimate democratic opposition who have been trying to change through the system. 

That is where Oswaldo Paya, the Varela Project, has come in. 

Thousands of people really want change, so they would like the 

United States to stand with them in letting the Cubans make their 

own transition. I think it is incredibly important that the United 

States be seen as a positive voice and not as a country which is 

perpetrating its own human rights violations on another part of the 

Cuban island. 

Mr. SIRES. These groups are part of growing up, the 50 years of 

Castro in Cuba, so they basically are a product of the regime, all 

their schooling, and yet they still want human rights. They still 

want democracy. 

Mr. KOH. Well, most of them are part of a Christian liberation 

movement that certainly has not been controlled by the Communist 

government. 

I think the remarkable thing that I felt when I was in Havana 

talking to ordinary people is they recognize that the Castro administration has failed. The young people recognize it the most clearly. 

They know that there are things that American youth have that 

they do not have and that whatever accomplishments Castro may 

be able to tout in terms of health care or education, the fact of the 
47

matter is his government, the dictatorship, has not delivered to 

them. 

They would like democracy because they think democracy can deliver, and I think that our view has to be we support the democracy, but that democracy has to be generated by the indigenous Cubans because although many have fled, many have stayed behind. 

There is a palpable desire. 

What Oswaldo Paya convened, a program for all Cubans, involved dialogue among many different Cuban people, including 

party members, et cetera. This to me has a very strong resonance 

to what went on in Eastern Europe during the time of the Helsinki 

process. We supported that on a bipartisan basis and it made a big 

difference, and we should do the same here. 

Chairman LANTOS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me 

note that my first year in Congress I got to know Tom Lantos, and 

he gave me a picture of Raoul Wallenberg to remind me that if we 

are true to our principles as individuals we can accomplish wonderful things in this world and together those of us who hold those 

values should be able to change this world in a better way, so it 

is my honor to work with him now on those human rights issues 

that we have been talking about and have worked so hard on for 

so long. 

A couple things. Let me join in with the chorus saying that the 

Olympics in China offer a tremendous opportunity for us to promote democratic and pro freedom ideals in China, and let us hope 

that the people of China who are struggling for democracy, and 

they are our greatest ally for peace in the world today I believe, 

are the people of China who live under this repressive government. 

We have to reach out to them and let them know that we are 

their friends. Unfortunately, the business community is after a fast 

buck, and they are leaving the impression that Americans only care 

about making money and don’t really care about freedom of religion 

and freedom of press or freedom of speech at all, so let us reassure 

the people of China that as we move forward to these Olympics 

that we are with the people of China, and let us use this opportunity to try to bring about a change in China in a positive direction. 

One thing that has concerned me is the return by China of North 

Korean refugees which was touched upon. How many of these refugees are there, and how many are being returned to North Korea? 

Mr. KOH. We know a number, several thousand. Those are only 

those who have been counted by the U.N. High Commissioner for 

Refugees. 

Obviously since the first line is where they come across, the Chinese obviously have a better count. Depending on at what point 

they turn them back, it could be a much larger number, but we 

know it is several thousand a year. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. The South Korean Government, I visited there about a year ago. Is this the case the South Korean Government is not willing to take a significant number of these North 

Korea refugees back into South Korea? 
48

Mr. KOH. I have relatives who live in South Korea who I know 

would have enormous compassion for this group of people. Many of 

them still consider North Korea to have been part of the same 

country. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Mr. KOH. Many of them had homes there which they fled. I do 

think that where the South Korean Government has been playing 

this consistently with its broader geopolitical goals toward China, 

I think there is a strong humanitarian sentiment within South 

Korea itself which ought to be picked up on. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But the government itself is not opening its 

doors to all of those North Koreans who escaped to China, are 

they? There are some actually being returned who could find refuge 

in South Korea if the South Korean Government would open its 

doors. 

Mr. KOH. I do think the South Korean Government should be 

more flexible on this. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Let me just for the record state that 

it is outrageous that the South Korean Government would let fellow Koreans be deported back to North Korea and live under tyranny and perhaps suffer the consequences of actually trying to 

leave that horrible regime. 

It is outrageous that the South Koreans are not willing just to 

open their door to all Koreans, and it is a slap in the face to—my 

father fought in Korea. He risked his life. Many Americans—50,000 

Americans—died to help Korea remain democratic. It is a slap in 

their face, Americans who sacrificed so much, that the South Koreans aren’t willing to even open their door to these refugees who 

have escaped. 

I know that some of those North Korean refugees, for example, 

are being sold. The women are being sold into sexual slavery, being 

kidnapped once they try to cross the border. This is a horrible 

human rights abuse that deserves our attention, but deserves especially a higher level of commitment from the South Korean Government itself. 

Ethiopia. I have been very concerned—I have friends in California who are Ethiopian—that Ethiopia has been devolving into 

dictatorship again. Is that your assessment as well? 

Mr. KOH. I think the entire situation there since the extended 

war has been troubling on both sides of the aisle, Eritrea and Ethiopia. There has been an extensive human rights process in place, 

but I do think there are great concerns about the human rights 

conditions, the political freedom in Ethiopia. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. One last question, Mr. Chairman, or one last 

statement, and that is for the record I would like to make sure that 

the people—I will be visiting the Balkans over the break. I will be 

visiting Belgrade and Kosovo. I appreciate the support that I have 

had from the chairman on my request to go there to talk about the 

issue. 

I am very concerned, and Mr. Lantos has also of course weighed 

in on this, that there are 14 Albanian Montenegrans who are in 

prison there. I think two of them are American citizens. 

The Government of Montenegro should understand that we are 

watching this situation, and we would expect them to let these po-
49

litical prisoners go and to cease the repression of the Albanian minority in Montenegro. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LANTOS. Thank you very much. 

I know, Dean Koh, you will have to leave, but I know my colleague from Massachusetts is anxious to raise a point with you, so 

I will call on Mr. Delahunt. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. It is good to see you, Professor Koh. 

Mr. KOH. Good to see you. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Ambassador Shattuck. 

Let me just share and echo the sentiments that have been expressed by others regarding other countries, whether it be Cuba, 

whether it be China, Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Saudi Arabia, 

Egypt. The list goes on and on. 

I think the most salient part of both of your testimonies, I think 

you referred to it, Professor Koh, as double standards, and you, 

Ambassador Shattuck, talked about practice what you preach. 

I would submit that the effectiveness and the credibility of the 

reports are minimal until we restore our credibility and we develop 

some sort of a mechanism. I would look to you for some advice and 

counsel. 

I currently chair the subcommittee that has jurisdiction on the 

subject of human rights, and I will reach out to both of you for 

ideas. I will make every effort to utilize you as a resource. Maybe 

that young student that drafted that op-ed piece in the Wall Street 

Journal can help us in this endeavor. 

Mr. KOH. I have two more sitting behind me who will help you 

also. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. This is good. They are on board now. 

Ambassador SHATTUCK. We never had support like that in the 

State Department, I can tell you. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I understand that, John. 

I forget which one of you said China, you have no standing. We 

have a long list of violations, which we don’t want to talk about. 

We don’t talk about them in this Congress. We try to avoid them. 

Guantanamo, secret renditions, Abu Ghraib. 

We just refuse to look at them, presumably because it is embarrassing. I suggest we have to look at them so that we breathe 

credibility into these reports and do not become the object of derision by others. 

Again, the other point you make, I think both of you make it, is 

we tend to have selective emphasis, if you will, on criticism. We 

can criticize Egypt and we can criticize Saudi Arabia, but it just 

sits there. We never heard about it. We don’t have any hearings 

on those issues, but we will have hearings on Cuba. 

And that is correct; we should have hearings on Cuba, but it is 

time that this committee and that this Congress for consistency 

purposes so we can reject the accusations of hypocrisy begins to examine our allies, as well as our adversaries. 

The ranking member on the committee is Mr. Rohrabacher. We 

have been conducting a series of hearings on the foreign opinion of 

the United States. We are at an all-time low, and it is dangerous 

to our national interest. Put aside altruism and human rights concerns, but it is affecting our commercial interests. It is impacting 
50

our efforts against terrorism. It is impacting our military operations. 

Until we have a more balanced approach, these reports are just 

going to sit there. They are going to be the subject of a conversation here in this particular chamber. The chairman consistently 

has talked about Egypt, $2 billion to Egypt, his amendment. We 

pass it out of here. 

I had an amendment a year and a half ago on the Floor of the 

House that would have denied some millions of dollars of military 

assistance to Uzbekistan. We secured 89 votes. Eighty-nine votes. 

Isaam Kareem ranks up there with anybody on the planet in terms 

of tyranny and despotism. 

In terms of a question, how can we develop a mechanism that 

would say to the world we can look at ourselves objectively? We 

don’t need the Chinese to issue a report about human rights abuses 

in the United States. 

How can we do it in a way and in a fashion that has credibility? 

We can come here and pick on those that we don’t like and stop 

being quiet about those whom meet our current needs, but whom 

later on, after a thorough review, we are embarrassed by. 

I can think, and I was listening to my friend from New Jersey. 

He is correct about Pinochet and Castro, but what about that genocide that occurred in Guatemala where 200,000 indigenous people 

were slaughtered? President Clinton, and I give him credit for this, 

went to Guatemala City and apologized on behalf of the American 

people for that atrocity. 

If we don’t become more balanced, these reports can sit there and 

we can pass all the laws that we want, and we hurt ourselves. 

Mr. KOH. Well, I agree strongly with you sentiments, Congressman Delahunt, and I do have a proposal for you. 

The United States does report on human rights practices thanks 

to our ratification of two treaties, the International Covenant on 

Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture. As 

a result, the U.S. Government presents to Geneva, a group of experts in Geneva, our record in those areas. 

I think it would be easy for this body to simply call them up and 

have them defend those statements that they are making to the 

outside world to Congress because I do think that there are three 

major black eyes here: Guantanamo torture and now the stripping 

of habeas corpus, which you as a prosecutor are well aware of. 

Those will be flagged very highly in those reports. 

I understand the Armed Services Committee today is having a 

hearing on Guantanamo, and obviously that had been deemed a 

clear failure. Secretary Gates, as was reported in the press, has 

pushed for the closing of Guantanamo. 

I would urge this committee to revisit the Military Commissions 

Act, particularly the provisions on torture and habeas stripping, 

which have been a major black eye. I think it was a misreading of 

the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hamdan case. 

The United States should not be known as a country that tolerates torture, and the United States should not be known as a country that does not permit detainees access to the courts because if 

they deserve to be detained they will not succeed on habeas. 
51

Ambassador SHATTUCK. Mr. Delahunt, I am very much in agreement with what Harold has said and the thrust of your questions. 

Let me add a few points. 

As I said when a number of members, including the chairman, 

had to vote when I was making my opening statement, yesterday 

I was at the civil rights memorial in Birmingham where I was giving a speech. It was a very moving occasion where I suddenly was 

confronted, as we all are when we think about the history of our 

country in the area of civil rights, but I was really confronted with 

the power of the grassroots leadership for civil rights that came out 

of the movement. 

I was also reminded of the leadership of our country at the highest level. In this case it was President Kennedy and then of course 

President Johnson following on that in addressing the human 

rights crisis in America. 

One of the most compelling aspects of the exhibit that I saw and 

the discussions that I had was the foreign relations aspect of what 

was going on in 1962–1963 where the spotlight of the world was 

on those police dogs unleashed by Bull Connor and other horrific 

abuses that were being committed in this case in Birmingham, but 

of course the crisis was really throughout our country. 

President Kennedy, on June 11, 1963, went on national television 

and addressed the nation as this crisis unfolded, and he said we 

are in the midst of a moral crisis. He used those very words. It is 

a moral crisis. 

We project our values. In fact, if you would allow me I quoted 

President Kennedy earlier. I will just very quickly quote him again:

‘‘We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old 

as the scriptures and as clear as the American Constitution. 

We preach freedom around the world and we mean it, and we 

cherish our freedom here at home, but we are here to say and 

to the world that there is much more work to be done at 

home.’’

I think there is a real opportunity at this moment to take this 

kind of approach and address the moral crisis and the human 

rights crisis that we are in today. I agree with the specific proposal 

that Harold has suggested. 

When I was Assistant Secretary of State I presented, and I believe he also did the same, the report of the United States on its 

compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political 

Rights to the United Nations. Frankly and in all honesty, I did not 

feel as much support from within my own government as I would 

have liked to have felt. 

For example, I did not feel particularly supported by the Congress because the issue of the United States in essence going to the 

United Nations and indicating that there were some flaws in its 

human rights record was not something that some Members of 

Congress were particularly enthusiastic about, and I heard from a 

number of them; not members of this committee to be sure. 

I think we have a Helsinki Commission. Why not have a human 

rights law commission which would be a commission comparable to 

the bipartisan, bicameral commission that we have for the Helsinki 

process that looks at United States’ compliance with basic issues 
52

of international human rights law that we have ratified and adopted as part of our own law, not those issues that remain controversial. 

I think a lot could be done with that, and I would be very pleased 

to offer my own support for doing anything along those lines. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is a very interesting concept. I thank the 

gentleman. 

Chairman LANTOS. I want to thank both of our witnesses because 

we are running over time. 

Mr. Payne of New Jersey? 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. 

This issue of course is extremely important, and I couldn’t agree 

more with what has been said. I do think that we ought to use our 

leverage. For example, we asked Mubarek to speak to Bashir of 

Sudan 2 days ago. He said he would not, but yet still we send him 

$2 billion every year. These are things that we need to take a look 

at. 

We need to look at proliferation, the treaties that we won’t agree 

to. We won’t agree to the proliferation of small arms. We won’t 

even go to the convention. That is wrong. Twenty billion dollars’ 

worth of small arms are sent around that fuel conflicts in Africa 

and other Third World countries, and we will not even participate 

in the discussion. We boycotted it and said no one should tell us 

about proliferation of small weapons. That is wrong. 

We won’t ratify the children soldiers saying that people under 18 

should not be in combat. The Defense Department says no. We say 

that there should be a treaty on land mines. Our Government says 

no. How can we be the moral authority when we won’t agree to 

simple, basic plans? 

Kyotoists threw it in the basket. At least the Clinton people said 

well, let us look at it. Maybe we could tweak it. The Bush administration says we don’t even want to look at it, and now we are in 

a situation that is continuing to worsen on global warming. 

I think that we have to do more. We have to actually behave better when we are trying to tell other countries. Also, we need to stop 

looking the other way. We see Eritrea that gets written up more 

than Ethiopia, and Ethiopia has more people in prison than Eritrea. 

I mean, the elections in Addis, the mayor elect was just put in 

prison and all the rest of them. Professor Messman is an 80-yearold professor. He has been in prison for 6 years. When I went to 

visit him 3 or 4 months ago in prison he can hardly walk now. He 

is going to die. But we give Ethiopia all of the rights that they need 

to go into so-called keeping the horn safe. We can’t continually 

have these dual standards. It is wrong. 

China with the Olympics. I am going to try to boycott products 

that are supporting the Olympics. We ought to do something to let 

China know they can’t continue to support in Sudan what is happening, the genocide, and let our top TV stations have their products advertised for the Olympics. Let us boycott the products, and 

maybe China will get the message. Is China worth more than their 

whole image in the world of where they are going in the future? 

These are some decisions that we are going to have to have people 

to make. 
53

I have a lot of questions, but time is running out. I appreciate 

what you all do though. Ambassador Shattuck, it is always a pleasure to meet you. This is the first opportunity I have had to meet 

you, Dean, but I look forward to hearing more from you. Thank you 

very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Payne. 

Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this hearing, 

and thank you for your indulgence. Let me try to build on I think 

the eloquent statement made by my colleagues and subcommittee 

chairman Payne. 

Let me welcome both of the witnesses. We are not only on the 

Floor debating a budget, but we are in a markup, I am in another 

committee, so I thank you for your indulgence. 

This is the conflictedness that really strikes at all of us, and 

maybe I can get an answer, what is a vigorous human rights policy 

on behalf of the United States, because the tension is let us stay 

in line with our allies after 9/11, and those allies include many who 

many of us advocate for from Egypt to Pakistan to Ethiopia to 

sometimes places beyond South Asia such as China. 

Many of us both befriend but chastise, and I think there is a 

need for taking up the moral cry frankly. What is the value of the 

continuing genocide and violence in Sudan and the loss of the lives 

of children, which I think are probably one of the more abused populations as it relates to human rights around the world? As much 

as we accomplish we lose, if you will. 

One of the unfortunate experiences that I had was participating 

in the U.N. convention, if you will, the International Convention of 

Children, and having to be a country that did not sign the convention. I almost felt like a pariah only because my label was America. 

My question is how do we overcome those deficiencies in our foreign policy? What vigorously should Congress be doing in challenging the administration on the value of human rights and being 

consistent? 

Mr. KOH. You make a large point and a specific point. The large 

question is what is a vigorous human rights policy? 

In my testimony I tried to suggest it has five elements. First, 

telling the truth; second, following universal standards, not double 

standards; third, pressing to stop ongoing abuses; fourth, accountability for past abuses; and, fifth, doing steps for prevention of future abuses by democracy building or others. 

The reports only go to the question of whether we tell the truth 

and, as I said, while they have done I think a credible job, there 

are oversights and alterations that ought to be repaired. 

I think that both Congressman Delahunt, Congressman Payne 

and you point to the second issue, universal standards. What I 

think is a great tragedy is there are a number of areas where we 

actually are not just obeying standards. We have among the best 

practices. 

But, for example, as I point in my testimony we did not go to the 

Convention on Disabilities this year. We didn’t sign the Convention 

on Disappearances, and on children, Congressmen, as you well 
54

known except for Somalia we are the only country in the world that 

hasn’t ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 

Their excuse is they have no organized government. Unfortunately, we don’t have that excuse. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. That is an outrage. I am sorry for the outburst, but it is an outrage. 

Mr. KOH. That is an outrage. Not only that, but it is extremely 

shortsighted when in those areas we are not actually pursuing a 

different standard. We are actually pursuing in some respects a 

higher standard of treatment of children than other countries, but 

we are unwilling to bind ourselves as a matter of law to do what 

we think we have to do anyway. I think that that has been a great 

tragedy. 

Ambassador SHATTUCK. Let me repeat, Congresswoman, a brief 

set of points that I made before you were able to be at the hearing 

regarding the effectiveness of human rights policy. It is a hard one, 

but I think there are very basic principles, and they are very similar or the same that Dean Koh has suggested. 

First, we need to practice what we preach. I mean, that is so 

basic in my view. That is as basic as telling the truth. We need to 

certainly tell the truth, but we can’t go lecturing another country 

for a practice that we might be engaged in ourselves. 

Second, we need to operate within our own framework of law; 

that is, the laws that we have ratified internationally or laws that 

we have passed domestically or our own Constitution to be sure. 

All of our human rights advocacy has to be done within that framework. 

And then third, we need to participate in the new international 

institutions of human rights that are being developed and have 

been developed with our leadership for many years. 

I would just repeat what both of us were saying moments ago 

with respect to the United States’ record recently, which has been 

outside in many respects of the framework of law that we should 

be committed to. 

I think we need a congressional initiative to address this issue 

comparable to the Helsinki Commission. It should be bipartisan 

and bicameral. This is not a partisan issue. This has to do with 

whether the United States is operating within the framework of 

law as it addresses the most basic values of human rights around 

the world. 

Chairman LANTOS. Dean Koh? 

Mr. KOH. Congressman, I did want to give a specific answer to 

Congressman Jackson Lee, which is what can Congress do. 

The fact of the matter is that the framers in their wisdom did 

not give the House a role in the ratification of treaties. However, 

as you know, Congress does have the power to define and punish 

offenses against the law of nations, and Congress does have the 

power to embed these universal standards into our own legislation 

and internalize them into our own practices. 

There is nothing that prevents the House from putting into legislation compliance with these international treaty standards as part 

of U.S. domestic law and say that we have to obey these standards 

as American law. If we do that as a matter of American law, what 
55

could be the possible danger to us and then later ratifying the treaty? 

So in some way I think that Members of the House often wait 

for the Senate to ratify, which of course takes two-thirds. If Congress drives the action by embedding those standards into legislation then the Senate can follow in due course as it did with the 

Genocide Act and other things. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Chairman LANTOS. I think I speak for all of my colleagues and 

indeed for the whole of the Congress in expressing our deep gratitude to Dean Koh and Ambassador Shattuck for extraordinarily 

valuable testimony. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(57)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman, over the past three decades, we have seen a steady increase in 

the quality, candor, and scope of the annual Country Reports on Human Rights 

Practices. In fighting the plague of human rights abuse, sunlight is often the best 

disinfectant. On the whole, the Country Reports shine brightly into some very dark 

corners. We owe a debt of gratitude to the men and women of the Department of 

State who work so hard to compile them. 

Although we do not claim to be perfect and are ourselves subject to the universal 

ideals we espouse, the United States continues to be the world’s most prominent 

champion of fundamental human rights. 

This Congress, I have re-introduced the Global Online Freedom Act of 2007 which 

seeks to promote and defend human rights related to this increasingly influential 

communication medium. I am pleased to note that the State Department has already implemented one of the action items of this proposed legislation by including 

important additional information in the Country Reports, such as the domestic legal 

authority for internet restrictions and penalties imposed for the exercise of free 

speech via the internet. This information is critical to efforts to address internet repression in countries like Vietnam, China, Tunisia and Belarus, and to convince 

governments that free speech restrictions are contrary to their national interests. 

It is worth noting that most of the major human rights efforts undertaken by the 

United States Government in recent decades—including the Country Reports themselves—have been the result of Congressional mandates: The Jackson-Vanik 

Amendment; The International Religious Freedom Act; the Torture Victims Relief 

Act; the Lautenberg Amendment; the Trafficking Victims Protection Act; the North 

Korean Human Rights Act. These were Congressional initiatives undertaken in the 

face of skepticism—and sometimes outright opposition—by the Executive branch. 

For example, I recall when Assistant Secretary Shattuck appeared before my subcommittee ten years ago to oppose the International Religious Freedom Act. He argued that he was ‘‘particularly concerned’’ that the bill would ‘‘harm the very people 

it seeks to help’’ because it would ‘‘legislate a hierarchy of human rights into our 

laws’’ that could ‘‘severely damage our efforts to ensure that all aspects of basic civil 

and political rights . . . are protected.’’ Not surprisingly, this doomsday prophecy 

did not come to pass. 

To the contrary, once such issues have been forced by legislation, the Executive 

branch eventually internalizes, and sometimes embraces, those human rights priorities. For example, religious freedom and trafficking are now mainstream policy priorities that receive far more international attention and action than they did before 

the laws were on the books. Other mandates are embraced more slowly, such as the 

refugee title of the North Korean Human Rights Act, which has not yet been adequately implemented. 

I certainly do not wish to appear to downplay the seriousness of human rights 

violations in many countries of the world, including Zimbabwe with its recent horrific crackdown on the political opposition, North Korea, Eritrea, Belarus, Burma, 

Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Ethiopia and Iran. The Report provides disturbing details 

about how these countries in particular—though not exclusively—continue to thwart 

universal principles of respect for fundamental human rights. However, time limitations prevent me from examining each one, so I will focus the spotlight on three 

human rights violators in particular—China, Sudan and Vietnam. 

This year’s report repeats the assessment of prior years that the Chinese Government’s human rights record ‘‘remained poor,’’ but even when many of us thought 
58

the situation could not get much worse, it adds that the Chinese record ‘‘in certain 

areas deteriorated.’’ One of those areas often ignored or downplayed by the international community is the appalling lengths to which the government will go to enforce its one-child per couple limit. 

The Chinese government has a long record of oppressing its people, especially 

women, through its population control program. Beijing does not deny levying huge 

fines against people who have children the State deems illegal. In fact, at a hearing 

that I chaired several years ago, Secretary Dewey testified that ‘‘couples who give 

birth to an unapproved child are likely to be assessed a social compensation fee, 

which can range from one-half the local average annual household income to as 

much as ten times that level.’’ Indeed this is a horrific government that decides 

which children are legal and which are illegal—that is, which children will be allowed to live and which will not. 

These acts are truly a crime against humanity executed in conjunction with the 

UNFPA. The UNFPA has funded, provided crucial technical support and, most importantly, provided cover for massive crimes against humanity of forced abortion 

and involuntary sterilization. Tens of millions of children have been slaughtered—

their mothers robbed of their children by the State. This barbaric policy makes 

brothers and sisters illegal, and makes women the pawns of the population control 

cadres. 

This barbaric policy has now given rise to a new problem for China. An article 

published in the Guardian several years ago, stated that China could find itself 

dealing with as many as 40 million single men by the year 2020 because of the one 

child policy. According to the article Li Weixiong, a population advisor to the Chinese government, said a cultural preference for boys was creating an artificial disparity between the number of boys and girls representing ‘‘a serious threat to building a well-off society.’’ He also said that the lack of women in China will lead to 

a dramatic rise in prostitution and the trafficking of women. ‘‘This is by no means 

a sensational prediction,’’ he stated. 

On that point Mr. Li is right. In fact, the combined effect of the birth limitation 

policies and the traditional preference for male children resulted in the disproportionate abortion of female unborn children at a rate of 116.9 to 100 overall, and a 

shocking 151.9 to 100 for second pregnancies. As a direct result of these ongoing 

crimes against humanity, China today is missing millions of girls—girls who were 

murdered in the womb simply because they are girls. A couple of years ago, the 

State Department suggested that as many as 100 million girls of all ages are missing—that is to say, they should be alive and well and are not, a direct consequence 

of the government’s one-child policy. This gendercide constitutes one of humanity’s 

worst blights, and a far greater peril to peace and security than is being credited 

at this time. 

The world is all too aware of the continuing genocide in Sudan, appropriately 

identified as such in the Country Reports. Current reports estimate that the conflicts in Darfur and in Southern Sudan have resulted in the deaths of close to 2.4 

million people and left over 4 million others either internally displaced or as refugees. When confronted with such numbers, one must also take into account the attending human rights violations, including the abuse of children, extensive trafficking in persons, and the acts of torture and violence against women. 

Just two weeks ago, on March 14th, I introduced a House resolution calling on 

the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally release several political prisoners and prisoners of conscience who have 

been arrested in a recent wave of government oppression. One of those individuals 

specifically mentioned in the resolution is Father Nguyen Van Ly, who has already 

spent over 13 years in prison since 1983 for his advocacy of religious freedom and 

democracy in Vietnam. Tomorrow, Fr. Ly will be given a kangaroo trial for exercising his fundamental human rights, and he faces 20 years in prison in the likely 

event that he is convicted. 

This is a case worthy of our particular attention as the Vietnamese Government 

audaciously resumed its past oppression of human rights after Congress agreed to 

Vietnam becoming an official member of the World Trade Organization in December 

2006. A focus of this hearing is the promotion of human rights in U.S. foreign policy, 

and it is important to keep in mind that those of us in Congress play an important 

role in our country’s foreign policy. While substantial criticism is likely to be leveled 

at the Administration during this hearing for its shortcomings in promoting and defending human rights, those of us in Congress should also look in the mirror and 

ask what priority we give to human rights, both individually and as an institution. 

I yield back to you and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
59

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DIANE E. WATSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am eager to hear the witnesses’ testimony. But I 

would just like to make a brief point. I think we all want to see more people around 

the world living in democracies. We want to see more people enjoying the type of 

freedom and prosperity we have here in the U.S. But unfortunately, we have spent 

the last few years telling people that if they will just hold elections, freedom and 

prosperity will magically follow. 

Obviously, any Iraqi can tell you that approach has some serious flaws. But that 

is why I think its so important to highlight one of our most influential but underappreciated foreign policy tools—the State Department Human Rights reports. 

These well-researched, objective reports allow our diplomats to play a stronger hand 

when pressing for greater freedoms around the globe. 

Mr. Chairman, people in other countries will not choose democracy because we 

tell them how well it works for us. They will choose democracy once they understand how well it works for THEM. And these reports highlight what should be patently obvious—that elections do not deliver democracy if they do not deliver a job 

that feeds your family, or protect you from getting your skull cracked by the police 

simply for expressing your opinions. 

Elections are an important element of democracy; but they are not sufficient. And 

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will change our approach to ensure that respect for 

human rights receives at least as much prominence in our dialogue with other countries as elections do. Thank you. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DIANE E. WATSON, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO THE HONORABLE HAROLD HONGJU KOH AND THE HONORABLE JOHN SHATTUCK

Question: 

Mr. Chairman, I have here a recent report by the Peace Education Fund, which 

compares the State Department’s annual human rights reports with the President’s 

FY 2008 budget request for military aid through the Foreign Military Financing 

(FMF) program. I ask unanimous consent to place this report into the record. 

According to this report, twenty-one of the candidates for 2008 FMF funding are 

on the State Department’s list of the world’s worst human rights abusers. The most 

surprising finding is the request to send FMF funds to the Sudanese military, despite 

its involvement in the ongoing genocide in Darfur. 

This is not IMET money, which goes towards training and it could be argued 

could improve human rights. This is FMF money-money to purchase weapons and 

equipment. 

So I would like to ask our witnesses: What is your opinion of such a contradiction? 

Doesn’t this undermine our efforts to promote respect for human rights? And also, 

what does this say about the interagency decision-making process in the Bush Administration that we can be contradicting our own policy aims like this? 

Response: 

There was no response received from either witness prior to printing. 

Question: 

Much of the dialogue about communal violence in Iraq focuses on the problems between Sunni and Shi’a. But this focus often neglects the fact that other Iraqis, such 

as Assyrians, Turkmen, Yezidis, and others, are often victims of violence. What do 

you feel are the implications of this seeming inability of the current Iraqi regime to 

protect it own citizens from ethnic and religious cleansing? Would you agree that this 

fact is in its own way as frightening as the continuing violence between Sunni and 

Shi’a? What more can and should the United States be doing to stop the violence 

against these less-numerous Iraq groups like the Assyrians? 

Response: 

There was no response received from either witness prior to printing. 
60

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE JOHN SHATTUCK, CHIEF

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE JOHN F. KENNEDY LIBRARY FOUNDATION (FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR AT THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE)
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73

[NOTE: The chapter entitled ‘‘Diplomacy with a Cause: Human Rights in U.S. Foreign Policy’’ by John Shattuck is not reprinted here but is available in committee 

records.] 

[NOTE: The report submitted for the record by the Honorable Diane E. Watson, a 

Representative in Congress from the State of California, entitled ‘‘U.S. Weapons 

Sales to Human Rights Abusing Governments’’ is not reprinted here but is available 

in committee records. Or go to: http://www.peaceeducationfund.org (March 29, 

2007).]

Æ