It has not been a promising start for the Obama administration in the area of human rights. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the most damage with comments during her recent trip to Asia that could not have been more demoralizing to human rights defenders in China and around the world. Following her trip, Clinton missed an opportunity during the State Department's rollout of the annual Human Rights Report to restore the administration's credibility on the freedom and human rights agenda. And the administration's determination to engage in multilateral fora in contrast to the Bush administration keeps it from making a clear, final decision to boycott the April UN Conference Against Racism, known as Durban II.
Even before Clinton's trip to Asia, human rights activists were struck by how rarely leading Obama administration officials spoke about democracy and human rights. In the "careful-what-you-wish-for" category, Clinton opined on the issue on her way to Beijing, to the serious disappointment of the human rights community.
"We pretty much know what they [the Chinese government] are going to say" on human rights issues such as greater freedoms for Tibet, Clinton dismissively told reporters. "We have to continue to press them. But our pressing on those issues can't interfere" with other crucial topics.
Chinese leaders must have been smiling from ear to ear, for those were their talking points, too. Repressive regimes elsewhere will undoubtedly ask for the same treatment of human rights problems in their countries that Clinton gave the Chinese.
Amnesty International criticized Clinton in a statement released February 20, saying it was "shocked and extremely disappointed by U.S. Secretary Clinton's comments that human rights will not be a priority in her diplomatic engagement with China." They urged her to "repair the damage caused by her statement" and "publicly declare that human rights are central to U.S.-China relations." Alas, she didn't. Human Rights Watch, in its own statement, headlined its concerns saying that Clinton's remarks "undermine rights reform" in China.
Yet her comments on China were not the only ones that raised eyebrows. Earlier on her trip, she also discussed Burma, where the human rights situation is appalling and more than 2,100 political prisoners remain in jail. She questioned the effectiveness of sanctions against the military junta (and also wondered about neighboring states' policy of engaging with the regime). The problem indeed is that neighboring states such as India, Thailand, and China undermine the impact of sanctions by giving the junta a lifeline through trade and arms sales. Here, too, Clinton's comments caused confusion about the new administration's commitment to deal aggressively with repressive regimes.
After returning from Asia, Clinton introduced the Department's annual Country Reports on Human Rights on February 25. In light of the controversy over her comments on the trip, one might have expected Clinton to go out of her way to reaffirm her and the Obama administration's commitment to human rights as a core tenet of U.S. foreign policy. Instead, she spent a mere four minutes in the briefing room and refused to take questions, turning the podium over to the Acting Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, who did a very credible job answering reporters' questions. And the first question, not surprisingly, was how to square Clinton's comments in Asia with the importance of the rollout of the Human Rights Report. It's a shame Clinton wasn't there to answer it herself.
Even when presented with what should be an obvious decision to boycott the Durban Conference Against Racism, the administration can't seem to pull the trigger completely. The views on whether to attend Durban are mixed in the human rights community, and the United Nations is urging the Administration to participate actively and attend the conference, but few would argue that the text being worked on as the basis for this year's conference is appalling in many respects -- and not going to get better.
In a statement issued late on Friday, February 27, the State Department acknowledged that the " document being negotiated has gone from bad to worse, (emphasis added) and the current text of the draft outcome document is not salvageable. As a result, the United States will not engage in further negotiations on this text, nor will we participate in a conference based on this text. A conference based on this text would be a missed opportunity to speak clearly about the persistent problem of racism."
Unfortunately, instead of slamming the door shut on attending the conference, the statement goes on to offer the vain hope that the United States could "re-engage" if the text improved. This after a decision to participate in conference consultations three weeks ago where the U.S. delegation met with over 30 delegations--and still the document got worse.
The administration need not have sent a delegation to Geneva to discover that, with Libya chairing the Preparatory Committee and Iran playing an active role as a vice-chair (along with Cuba and Pakistan), this year's draft text singles out Israel again as the only country to be named for its alleged racist policies, accuses Israel of "apartheid", and questions the veracity of Holocaust statistics. The text also raises freedom of speech concerns by pushing to outlaw religious defamation and includes calls for reparations for slavery and colonialism.
Canada and Israel have already withdrawn from Durban; other Western countries have been considering similar announcements but have been awaiting a decision from the new team in Washington. The United States walked out of the proceedings at the first World Conference Against Racism in Durban in 2001, because of the conference's relentless anti-Israel bias. Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell offered this explanation for the U.S. decision: "I know that you do not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations containing hateful language, some of which is a throwback to the days of 'Zionism equals racism;' or supports the idea that we have made too much of the Holocaust; or suggests that apartheid exists in Israel; or that singles out only one country in the world -- Israel -- for censure and abuse." Clinton should dust off Powell's statement from 2001 and state clearly that the U.S. will not attend, period.
The administration's determination to "re-engage" also extends to the UN Human Rights Council (HRC). The Bush administration last spring decided to disengage the United States from involvement in HRC proceedings, a decision that drew strong criticism from America's closest allies in Europe and the Western hemisphere; it is better to work from within to improve the HRC, they argued, than to walk away entirely.
While acknowledging the HRC needs "fundamental change to do more to promote and protect the human rights of people around the world, and that it should end its repeated and unbalanced criticisms of Israel," the Obama administration has decided to participate in Council sessions as an observer to "use the opportunity to strengthen old partnerships and forge new ones." According to the State Department, U.S. participation as an observer is "a sign of the commitment of the Administration to advancing the cause of human rights in the multilateral arena. We look forward to the help and cooperation of our friends and allies to ensure the Human Rights Council focuses on the pressing human rights concerns of our time."
Do those friends and allies include China, Russia, Egypt, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia? They are, after all, members of the HRC. It's hard to have press seriously on human rights when some of the worst offenders are sitting at the table making a mockery of the organization. Like the Durban racism conference, the HRC has an unhealthy obsession with bashing Israel; the vast majority of country-specific resolutions and special sessions have been devoted to condemning Israel. Meanwhile, other governments engaged in serious human rights abuses have gone virtually unnoticed. While some of the HRC's special rapporteurs (e.g., on human rights defenders and on Sudan) do good work, the Obama administration's decision to re-engage in the HRC will score points with allies (its apparent goal) but not likely lead to a better, more effective Council.
The administration's bad start on human rights overall is rather odd, given Clinton's own track record on human rights in the past. She often points to a speech she gave as First Lady in Beijing in 1995, in which she stressed the importance of women's rights, a speech that made Chinese authorities then very uncomfortable. And given that speech and her record, many expected that human rights would be front and center on her agenda in Beijing. Democratic administrations are often known for their commitment to human rights, and the expectations of the Obama administration were no different. What happened?
First, it's early. One can only hope that the Administration is at the beginning of a learning curve (though Clinton is no rookie to the world stage).
Second, the Obama team is probably wrestling with how to differentiate itself from the Bush administration; it has done so on a number of fronts, but the freedom and human rights agenda poses a particular challenge.
The Bush administration is associated very much with the freedom agenda, but some in the new Administration and among the human rights community believe that the Bush White House actually discredited the notions of democracy promotion and human rights, that it applied these principles poorly and unevenly, or forced them on other countries. The Obama administration may have its own version of Bush's 2001 ABC approach -- "anything but Clinton" -- but it would be most unfortunate if ABB -- "anything but Bush" -- extended to democracy promotion and human rights.
In carving out its own identity on this issue, the Obama team needs to correct the impression that human rights, democracy, and freedom are lower on its priority list. Clinton's Asia comments already made a bad first impression on this score. She and President Obama can get back on track, however, if they quickly send clear, unmistakable messages to two very important audiences: to repressive governments around the globe that they will not get a pass on human rights, and to human rights defenders the world over that they will not be forgotten.
David J. Kramer was most recently Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor in the George W. Bush Administration.