Washington File: U.S. Human Rights Reports Called "Guide to Ending Abuses" [Excerpt]

01 April 2003

(State Department's Craner speaks on release of annual report) (3750) Lorne Craner, assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, says the State Department's 2002 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices serve as a guide to U.S. efforts to end abuses worldwide.

Speaking at a news briefing March 31 after the congressionally mandated annual human rights report was released, Craner gave several examples:

[...] -- In China, there are serious human rights abuses of both political and religious freedom and jailings of dissidents. But there is also increased pressure inside of China for political reform, and for the first time, the Bush administration is supporting individuals there who are trying to advance such reform, in addition to supporting dissidents outside of China.

Craner added that encouraging democracy and human rights is not the exclusive purview of the United States, and he pointed to the Community of Democracies meeting in Seoul last November, which affirmed that democracy is the best weapon to fight terrorism. The 2002 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices can be found at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002

Following is a transcript of Craner's briefing, released by the State Department: (begin transcript)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
March 31, 2003
ON-THE-RECORD BRIEFING
Assistant Secretary Lorne W. Craner on the Release of the State Department's 2002 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices March 31, 2003
Washington, D.C.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I am very pleased to be here today to release the State Department's 27th Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

Before I discuss the contents of the report, I hope you'll give me a moment to thank all of those who have worked to produce them. This report on almost 200 different countries, millions of words in all, requires an enormous amount of research and information gathering by diplomats both here and overseas.

[...]

Our report details, as was noted, China's serious human rights abuses, from systematic abuses of political and religious freedom to the jailing of dissidents. On an individual level, we have condemned recent political arrests, the slippage that Secretary Powell referred to, the execution of Tibetan Lobsang Dhondup and the continued detentions of Rebiya Kadeer, Jiang Weiping, and others. We are pleased by this weekend's release of Ngawang Sangdrol.

But the reports also notice increased pressure inside of China for political reform. This year, the Bush Administration, for the first time ever, is not only supporting dissidents outside China, we are supporting those Chinese inside China who are trying to advance structural reforms. Again, we will not see change overnight, but over the long term, these processes offer, perhaps, the best hope for a democratic China.

[...]

QUESTION: I'd like to ask you something about China. If, as you and the Secretary, and pretty much everyone else has said, there has been this slippage with the Chinese, why is it that you guys haven't yet made up your mind about a resolution in Geneva?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: I detailed some of the abuses there. You do see numerous, serious abuses, quickness to suppress human rights there. It is a country of particular concern and we have obvious great concerns about Xinjiang.

We did two things last year. We decided that the dialogue that we had with them was going to have to be results-based or it could not continue. And the second I referred to in my statement, where we started programs to try and aid internal development inside of China. The question is: What is the future of our human rights relationship with China? Is it what happened in 2002, or is it what has happened over the past couple of months -- the slippage that the Secretary referred to? In 2002, we saw more individuals released than ever before. There were four rapporteurs, UN special rapporteurs, the human rights mechanisms invited.

[...]

Over the past couple of months, as the Secretary said, we've seen a lot of slippage. And I referred to that in my statement. So the question we have not yet figured out is: What is the future? Is 2002 the future or is the last couple of months the future?

QUESTION: Well, then, is it fair to say that as of, say, December 31st, or, you know, early January of this year, you had -- the prevailing feeling was that you would not look to sponsor such a resolution in Geneva, but then as it got closer and you saw this slippage, you are now moving away from the idea that you're not --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: No. We hadn't -- we didn't really go -- hadn't really gone through the arguments at that time, so I can't tell you what people thought. We went through the arguments as we got closer to the time after we had seen the slippage. And this is where we are right now, that we have not yet decided.

QUESTION: And have you gotten -- is there -- have you gotten indications from the Chinese that if you go ahead with this, what progress that you saw last year -- I'm sorry. If you do go ahead with the resolution, that the progress and the resumption of the human rights dialogue from last year would stop, and that the slippage, in your -- from your point view -- I don't think the Chinese would say that -- but from your point of view, the slippage would get worse? Have they given signs like that?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: They haven't stated that. I think it's a fair assumption that if we did the resolution -- the question about resolutions is: What's the purpose of a resolution? It's not just to put a resolution on the table, it's to elicit progress in a country whether we do it about Turkmenistan, which we're also involved in, Belarus, whatever.

The question in China is: Is that going to elicit more progress or not? And the second question, as I said to you is: What is the future? And that's what we're wrestling with right now. Yeah. In the red.

[...]

QUESTION: I have two questions. The first is regarding the information freedom. Do we think that should be included also in the Human Rights Report? Because, for example, China is still does not allow the World Health Organization to send investigation team to Guangdong Province where the SARS began. That's the first question.

And second is we know that a U.S. citizen who practiced Falun Gong was recently sentenced to three years, and according to Chinese reports from Chinese Government, it seems that his case is related to efforts to breaking this information blockade. And do we have any comments on this case?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CRANER: Yeah. Number one, we've tried throughout the Human Rights Reports to get at this issue of information freedom, particularly where there is, as there is in some countries, blockage of the Internet, for example. And certainly, on press freedom we address that in all of the reports.

On the case you're referring to, Charles Lee, we obviously condemn that. We're very upset about it, and I and others have addressed that with the Chinese Government. We believe he should be released. Thank you.

(end transcript) (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

http://usinfo.state.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/latest&f=03040102.dlt&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml