US human rights report invites scorn

 


Author:     CHIDANAND RAJGHATTA - TIMES NEWS NETWORK [ TUESDAY, MARCH 05, 2002 1:21:47 PM ]

  WASHINGTON: Unprecedented scepticism and scorn accompanied the 
release by the United States on Monday of its annual human 
rights report amid charges of hypocrisy and double standards 
arising from the ongoing war on terrorism.

  Washington's kid glove treatment of its so-called allies such as 
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan came up for withering scrutiny at a 
briefing to release the 2001 Country Reports on Human Rights 
Practices, an annual administrative exercise mandated by the 
Congress that many feel has increasingly become a meaningless 
ritual.

  Amid widespread domestic criticism over curtailment of civil 
liberties, US officials laboured to convince a disbelieving 
press corps that the exercise was evenhanded. The report does 
not look at the state of human rights in the US itself because, 
in the words of one official, "that wouldn't be fair."

  The individual country reports is a compendium of alleged human 
rights violations culled from various sources, mostly the local 
media. The report on India, for instance, is more than 100 pages 
long and painstakingly lists incidents of rights violation 
across the country both by the government and terrorist, 
militant, and subversive groups.

  The human rights report exercise was originally linked to US 
foreign assistance, but increasingly many countries are taking 
it less seriously in the face of Washington glossing over the 
record of its so-called allies. While secular and democratic 
countries such as India merit a litany, a country like Saudi 
Arabia, one of the least free countries in the world, was turned 
over in 32 pages. The US has shown no inclination to punish 
allies it bankrolls such as Egypt and Turkey while berating 
countries less relevant to it.

  Critics in the media sharply questioned such duplicity at 
Monday's briefing as Lorne Cramer, US Assistant Secretary for 
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour, struggled to defend 
American policy. Excerpts from the briefing:

  Question: Just give us a couple examples what you're doing in 
Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Egypt.

  Assistant Secretary Craner: I'll throw out a few examples. In 
Uzbekistan, we're undertaking a programme to help a variety of 
civil society groups around the country come together to 
formulate future plans. In Kyrgyzstan, we talk about the press 
in Kyrgyzstan, and we're going to help fund an independent 
printing press there. Those are just two examples that are 
coming out of my office.

  
Q: What about Saudi Arabia?

  
Craner: We're getting there.

  Q: Lorne, I want to follow up on Saudi Arabia. I'm a little bit 
surprised by your glib answer. With the demise of the Taliban, 
there is arguably no government in the world that has as bad a 
human rights record as Saudi Arabia does. What is the United 
States doing to actively promote democracy and human rights with 
Saudi Arabia?

  Craner: Well, I would say two things. Number one, I disagree 
that it's the worst violator.

  
Q: Who is the worst violator?

  Craner: I would place Iraq and North Korea and Libya and a 
couple of other countries into that category.

  Q: You didn't answer my question. What is it that we are doing 
in Saudi Arabia to promote that greater voice and greater 
democratic participation?

  Craner: We are talking to the Saudi government about how to do 
that, and we are going to encourage others in the Muslim world, 
in the Arab world, who are trying to make their societies more 
democratic.

  Q: At what levels are we talking? I mean, there's nothing that's 
visible at all to us in the outside world.

  Craner: Okay. I would look at the last paragraph, the last 
couple paragraphs, of the President's State of the Union 
Address.

  Q: But I heard this before. I'm asking specifically about one 
country.

  
Craner: Yes. What are you asking?

  
Q: I'm asking what it is the United States is doing.

  Craner: And I think I've outlined that. We're talking to them at 
many levels about these issues in their country. We're talking 
to a lot of people across the Arab and Muslim world about these 
issues in their countries and about how they can serve as 
examples to others.

  Q: Can I go back to Robin's question on Saudi Arabia? Can you 
point to any kind of tangible things? And when you say we're 
talking to the Government of Saudi Arabia, are we talking to 
them about starting such programs up, or are we just simply 
mentioning that they have a human rights problem?

  Craner: Can I talk about tangible advances in particular 
countries? There are things I would point to. Pakistan's 
decision to eliminate the requirement that religious minorities 
be elected separately from the mainstream electoral system.

  
Q: Is that something we've talked to the Saudis about?

  
Craner: They don't have elections.

  Q: (Inaudible) before -- that previous administrations have done 
before on Saudi Arabia. We've been talking for years with the 
Saudis. What's different?

  
Craner: How do you know that?

  Q: Because other administrations told us that they've talked to 
the Saudis about human rights and democracy issues, 
participation in women's rights and all of it.

  Craner: Well, yeah, I understand. Other administrations have 
talked about these issues. I hope you're gong to see more of an 
effect from this administration.

  
Q: But what is it -- that doesn't answer the question.

  
Craner: What is different currently?

  Q: What's different from what this administration is saying to 
them than previous administrations have said to them?

  Craner: You'll have to judge by the outcome. You'll have to see 
how we do it differently.

  Q: Why can't you give us some indication? What's the big secret? 
You talk about what we're doing tangibly in every other country 
but Saudi Arabia.

  
Craner: Because I don't yet know the effect in Saudi Arabia.



Copyright @ 2001 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. |