19 April 2000
Transcript: Assistant Secretary Koh Remarks on China Rights Vote
(Discusses China no-action motion at U.N. rights commission) (970) Many countries are seeing the "anomaly" between China's desire to become a member of mechanisms where it will be required to play by global rules and its "special exemption" status before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, says Harold Hongju Koh, assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and labor. The fact that this year the no-action motion regarding a U.S.-sponsored resolution focusing on China's deteriorating human rights record passed by the smallest of margins "pokes a hole in the aura of immunity that only China has enjoyed," Koh said during an April 18 press briefing. He said the vote "conveys a sense that all nations have to look to the Commission before they confront their own people." Koh made his comments to the press at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva following the voting on the China no-action motion and the adoption of the resolutions on Cuba and Yugoslavia. Following is a transcript of Koh's remarks: (begin transcript) Harold Hongju Koh Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Comments to the Press April 18, 2000 Geneva, Switzerland Human Rights Commissions are defined by themes, and I expressed two of them at the first press conference I gave here. The first is trying to promote human rights by promoting democracy, and the second is using global mechanisms to get member nations to play by global rules. I think the results today suggest that the Commission is on its way to vindicating both of those two principles. There are two matters that remain outstanding. The two outstanding matters are the right to democracy resolution number two -- we are calling it "R2D2." (Laughter) We expect that will be passed by a large margin on Thursday. One thing we have focused on in this administration is that very often human rights violations are the result of the absence of Democracy, but also, and frequently, the absence of democracy is addressed tangentially rather than directly. And in the 21st Century, there is no U.N. democracy commission, even though one of the best structural ways to promote human rights is by directly promoting democracy and supporting democratic dissent. The right to democracy resolution, which was passed by 51 to In fact, what we are saying is that democracies may not fight with each other, that's one of the lessons of the last ten years, but they also have tremendous capacity to cooperate with each other to promote democracy in other parts of the world. We see this in the China resolution, where the no-action motion this year passed by the smallest margins since 1995 - a shift of two votes would have changed the resolution. I think what it does it is pokes a hole in the aura of immunity that only China has enjoyed and it conveys a sense that all nations have to look to the Commission before they confront their own people. Whether the Cuba resolution, on which I think the Czechs and the Poles did a really heroic job in sponsoring the resolution, demonstrates that two countries that have experienced democratic transition with the help of international scrutiny can then play that role in another part of the world and speak up for democratic defenders. And the margin was bigger this year than last, suggesting that even though Cuba has regularly tried to divert the attention to other issues, the Commission itself by a majority recognized that it is the regime itself that has been the source of the human rights problem. In the Yugoslavia resolution, which was our other sponsored resolution this year, I think the fact that we were able to get a 44 to 1 to 8 margin on the resolution that recognized situations as disparate as Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Croatia, shows that the Human Rights Commission can keep a number of transitional situations under supervision. Even the close result in the Iran resolution, which was closer this year than last year, reflects the changes in Iran, both the democratic changes and the fact that there are still human rights problems to be addressed. I think the situations of very serious human rights abuses in Iraq, Burma, Sudan, Sierra Leone, that were strong, overwhelming statements by the Commission on those subjects. The other theme which I mentioned last night was using global mechanisms to play by global rules. And I think what is happening is a chipping away of the no-action motion on China. I think the bottom line is that a lot of countries that have themselves come before the Commission, faced its scrutiny, and changed for the better, think that that process should apply to everybody. And I think they are seeing the anomaly between China aspiring to be member of other global mechanisms where it will be required to play by those rules, and nevertheless having some sort of special exemption before the human rights commission. (end transcript) (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
