Segment 2 Of 2     Previous Hearing Segment(1)

SPEAKERS       CONTENTS       INSERTS    

 Page 156       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2
BRIEFING: THE U.N. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS: PROTECTOR OR ACCOMPLICE?

TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 2005

House of Representatives,    
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights    
and International Operations,    
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:27 p.m. in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith, (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

    Mr. SMITH. The Subcommittee will come to order. We are very, very grateful to have Assistant Secretary-General Danilo Turk, a national of Slovenia, who has been Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs at the U.N. since February 2000.

    Prior to assuming his current position at the United Nations, Assistant Secretary-General Turk served as Ambassador and permanent representative of the Republic of Slovenia to the United Nations. In addition, he was a member of the U.N. Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities from 1984 to 1992, and later its Chairman. Assistant Secretary-General Turk's published work includes a book entitled The Principle of Non-Intervention in International Relations and in International Law.

    Again, we are very grateful to have you here. I just want to point out, as my colleagues know, we had a hearing on the Congo and then turned that into a briefing as well. We heard from Jane Hall Lute who did a tremendous job and has kept this Committee and the Congress very much informed about the ongoing progress that is being made with regards to the Secretary-General Annan's zero tolerance policy with regards to peacekeepers and trafficking, and I think this kind of exchange and this kind of transparency is very, very effective and helpful to us to know what you are doing, so you will know where we are coming from.
 Page 157       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    So again, Assistant Secretary-General, thank you for taking the time to come here, and please proceed however you would like.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DANILO TURK, ASSISTANT SECRETARY-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL AFFAIRS, UNITED NATIONS

    Mr. TURK. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I would like to start by saying how privileged I feel to have the opportunity to brief you on some of the current activities pursuant to the Secretary-Generals' far-reaching proposals on the reform of the United Nations.

    I would like to say right at the outset that I will be happy to answer your questions, but before that I would like to make a few brief remarks by way of introduction.

    As you are aware, the Secretary-General submitted his report entitled In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All on March 21 of this year. I do not have to dwell on all the aspects of that report but I should emphasize its basic premise: The report contains a comprehensive set of proposals to strengthen and, where necessary, to change the U.N. structure in the fields of development, security and human rights. These three areas of work are approached as a matter of urgency, and human rights feature prominently in this context.

    Another fundamental feature of the Secretary-General's proposals is that they should not come as a surprise. While they are innovative, most of them are not entirely new and many of them have matured in discussions held over a number of years.
 Page 158       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    The proposal for the creation of the Human Rights Council is one of them. Politically speaking, the major innovation here is the vision of three principal organs of the United Nations: The Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and the Human Rights Council. This vision, once carried out by the establishment of the Human Rights Council, would give human rights its rightful place in the U.N. structure. While the idea per se is not entirely new—it was discussed as you recall in the human rights community, notably at the time prior to the Vienna Conference on Human Rights in 1993—it has now found a very strong expression in the Secretary-General's package of reforms.

    An important question which might be asked is, How should this Human Rights Council function? The Secretary-General has explained some of the basic ideas in his recent address to the Human Rights Commission in Geneva, and I think it is quite important that he started those remarks with a critique. He referred to the Commission on Human Rights, and he said:

  ''. . . the Commission's ability to perform its tasks has been overtaken by new needs, and undermined by the politicization of its sessions and the selectivity of its work. We have reached a point at which the Commission's declining credibility has cast a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole, and where piecemeal reforms will not be enough.''

    I should like to say that this is very strong language for the Secretary-General who serves all the member states of the United Nations.

    Then from here on the Secretary-General continued with a specific proposal, which is very much focused on the implementation of human rights, and he said:
 Page 159       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

  ''I have proposed that the Council be a standing body, able to meet when necessary rather than for only 6 weeks each year as at present. It should have an explicitly defined function as a chamber of peer review. Its main task would be to evaluate the fulfillment by all states of all their human rights obligations. This would give concrete expression to the principle that human rights are universal and indivisible. Equal attention should be given to civil, political, economic, and social rights, as well as the right of development. And it should be equipped to give technical assistance to states, and policy advice to states and to U.N. bodies alike.''

    I think that his emphasis on technical assistance and policy advice both to states and U.N. bodies is an important one. This is something that is currently not happening, or is not happening enough.

    Now, the question of how the Human Rights Council should be selected is the next fundamental question.

    In essence, like its modus operandi, the selection of its members will ultimately depend on decisions of the U.N. member states. However, the Secretary-General proposed three procedural devices which should help:

    First, the council will be elected by two-thirds majority in the General Assembly. This means, and I think that is very important, that candidates nominated by one of the five regional groups—even if supported fully by the regional group or having a complete slate of candidates—will have to gain two-thirds of the votes of the General Assembly. This is an important guarantee that the elected will have credibility in the area of implementation of human rights.
 Page 160       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    I should add here that we have seen how the two-thirds majority worked on occasion in the elections of the Security Council members where it was possible that a proposal from a region did not pass the test of two-thirds majority in the plenary of the General Assembly.

    Second, the council should be smaller than the current commission, which is important because it would encourage better rotation among its members. One of the problems with the current commission, given its size of 53 members, is that many are there in a quasi-permanent status and rotation is not sufficiently dynamic.

    And third, the council members should undertake to abide by the highest human rights standards. This would lead to scrutiny and peer review prior to elections and should allow for more specific criteria for membership in the council to emerge over time. While at present it would be difficult to agree for member states on sufficiently precise criteria, the scrutiny of pledges, I believe, would lead to their gradual establishment.

    Obviously this approach does not preclude an abstract definition of criteria right from the outset. But the Secretary-General is aware that member states at this point in time are not yet prepared for a sufficiently-focused negotiations on this matter.

    And finally, Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize that the success of this proposal will depend on the support of member states. As always in the United Nations, the Secretary-General may propose but its member states will decide, and a decision will depend on the breadth of that support.

 Page 161       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2
    I would like to say in conclusion that the forthcoming Ministerial Conference of the Community of Democracies, which will meet in Santiago, Chile next week, will be an early opportunity to galvanize the necessary support.

    Now, these are the remarks, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make from the outset. Obviously, I could not describe the whole picture. I will be happy to take questions and try to answer them. And of course, if I am not able to answer all your questions in a satisfactory manner, I will be perfectly happy to continue this communication with the Subcommittee.

    Thank you very much.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Turk follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DANILO TURK, ASSISTANT SECRETARY-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL AFFAIRS, UNITED NATIONS

    Mr. Chairman,

    Distinguished members of the Sub-Committee,

    I feel privileged to have the opportunity to brief you on some of the current activities pursuant to the Secretary-General's far-reaching proposals on the reform of the United Nations.

    As you are aware, the Secretary-General submitted his report entitled ''In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All'' on 21 March 2005. I do not have to dwell on all the aspects of that report but should emphasize its basic premise: the report contains a comprehensive set of proposals to strengthen and—where necessary—to change the UN structure in the fields of development, security and human rights. All these three areas of work are approached as a matter of urgency and human rights feature prominently in this context.
 Page 162       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    Another fundamental feature of the Secretary-General's proposals is that they should not come as a surprise. While innovative, most of them are not entirely new and many have matured in discussions held over a number of years.

    The proposal for the creation of the Human Rights Council is one of them. Politically speaking, the major innovation here is the vision of three principal organs of the United Nations: the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and the Human Rights Council. This vision, once carried out by the establishment of the Human Rights Council, would give human rights its rightful place in the UN structure. While the idea per se is not entirely new—it was discussed in the human rights community, notably at the time prior to the Vienna Conference on Human Rights in 1993—it has now found a very strong expression in the Secretary-General's package of reforms.

    How should the Human Rights Council function? The Secretary-General has explained some of the basic ideas in his recent address at the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. He started with a critique of the current system, in particular, the Commission on Human Rights:

    ''. . . the Commission's ability to perform its tasks has been overtaken by new needs, and undermined by the politicization of its sessions and the selectivity of its work. We have reached a point at which the Commission's declining credibility has cast a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole, and where piecemeal reforms will not be enough.''

 Page 163       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2
    From here on the Secretary-General continued with his proposal:

    ''I have proposed that the Council be a standing body, able to meet when necessary rather than for only six weeks each year as at present. It should have an explicitly defined function as a chamber of peer review. Its main task would be to evaluate the fulfillment by all states of all their human rights obligations. This would give concrete expression to the principle that human rights are universal and indivisible. Equal attention will have to be given to civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, as well as the right to development. And it should be equipped to give technical assistance to states, and policy advice to states and UN bodies alike.''

    How should the Human Rights Council be selected?

    In essence, like his modus operandi, the selection of members will ultimately depend on decisions of the UN Member States. However, the Secretary-General proposed three procedural devices which should help:

    First, the Council would be elected by two-thirds majority in the General Assembly. This means that candidates nominated by the five regional groups—even if supported fully by the regional group—will have to gain two-thirds of the votes in the General Assembly. This is an important guarantee that the elected will have credibility in the area of implementation of human rights.

    Second, the Council should be smaller than the current Commission, which would encourage better rotation among its members.
 Page 164       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    And third, the Council members should undertake to abide by the highest human rights standards. This would lead to scrutiny and peer review prior to elections and should allow for more specific criteria for membership in the Council to emerge over time. While at present it would be difficult to agree on sufficiently precise criteria, the scrutiny of the pledges would lead to their gradual establishment.

    Obviously this approach does not preclude an abstract definition of criteria right from the outset. But the Secretary-General is aware that Member States are not yet prepared for sufficiently focused negotiations at this stage.

    Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize that the success of this proposal will depend on the support of Member States. As always in the United Nations, the decision will depend on the breadth of support among States. The forthcoming Ministerial Conference of the Community of Democracies in Santiago, Chile, will be an early opportunity to galvanize the necessary support.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. SMITH. Secretary Turk, thank you so much for your briefing, and again for being here. If you would not mind answering a couple of questions.

    One of the problems with the current system that I have observed personally, and I think we all have been frustrated by it, including the NGOs and everyone who has been involved in it, is regional block voting, and the whole idea of no action motions. China routinely has used that as a way of deferring any scrutiny or light being brought to bear on their egregious violations of human rights.
 Page 165       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    How does the new proposal deal with those two items, no action and regional block motion?

    And on the issue of the annual report, again as I said to Dr. Lagon, those of us who follow human rights very closely find that a very, very useful tool every year, sometimes some of the other reports on human rights are updated as needed, there is an annual report and then an as-needed component to it.

    But is that something that will be included in the proposal, do you think? And who would compose that? Do you anticipate that there would be more field missions, that the call will go out for additional funding so that more eyes and ears, and hopefully voices, are deployed throughout the world, particularly troubled areas?

    Mr. TURK. Thank you for the questions.

    Now, let me briefly refer to the three issues; first on the regional block voting. Obviously this is not something that can be easily eliminated from the practice of intergovernmental bodies. Those bodies are by definition at least to some extent political, and therefore the regional friendship, regional alliances play a role in that domain.

    But I think that the way to reduce the importance of regional block voting goes through the election process, and the peer review which would not start after election, but really in the process leading to elections.

 Page 166       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2
    It is much easier to establish such a peer review if there is a two-thirds majority requirement because that means that automoticity in block elections from regions is not there, and therefore once there is no automoticity for election a healthy debate can start, and I think directly that would have an impact.

    On the no action motion, I must say the procedural device of no action motion has been used, unfortunately, by member states from a variety of groups. This is not a monopoly of a particular group and has been used, if one looks in the whole history, by the entire range of groups. And that, I think, would require a different culture which is not going to emerge quickly.

    But here I think the permanence of action of a Human Rights Council would be important because permanence of action would place greater emphasis on debate and greater opportunity to revisit issues on a continuous basis rather than to place the entire hope on a single vote for a resolution.

    Right now we have a session of the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva every year where much of the energy is focused on the vote, and there is a saying in the United Nations that nothing is less important than a resolution which has been adopted by the vote the day before.

    So I mean, this overemphasis of voted resolutions may be reduced if there is a continuous scrutiny and continuous opportunity to raise issues, even revisit issues which have been there in the past. Therefore, I think that the importance of resolutions and the consequent no action motions will be reduced over time.
 Page 167       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    And an annual report, I personally remember the discussions which we had in 1993, when the Office of the High Commissioner was negotiated. And I would like to say in passing that that office of negotiations was created in a rather weakened form. I mean, the original idea was to have a High Commissioner with stronger powers and better resources, but negotiations yielded it a rather limited result.

    Now, in that negotiation it was already envisaged that the Office of the High Commissioner should better use the wealth of information which already exists, which is perfectly legitimate and accepted by member states. I mean, all these reports that exist, reports of treaty bodies, special rapporteurs and others are there to be used.

    One way in which it is not used currently is a systematic analytical report which I think would create much better understanding of human rights situations and the issues to be dealt with, policies which need to be used to address the most difficult issues. If there is a systematic global report, which I think in a council might be more possible than previous bodies, because, again, the advantage of a continuous debate provides a better framework for such an output.

    Mr. SMITH. I just wanted to note that I was very impressed with Secretary Annan's comments, and one of his phrases that ''. . . the world must move from an era of legislation to implementation.'' I think many of us have been concerned that we make very good statements, but where is the follow up? So I want to say how grateful this Committee is that he has made that statement, and many of the others that are contained in his recommendations.
 Page 168       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    The responsibility to protect in his priority areas: What can be done with regard to issues like genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity?

    I mean, we choke on the word ''genocide'' for the longest period of time, unwilling perhaps all of us to say the word when the killing fields were going on in Rwanda, and then even in Sudan and in Darfur.

    Hopefully, a direct result of this streamlining and this reform will be the willingness to call a genocide a genocide, and you might want to comment on that.

    And I do have some other questions, but then I will yield to my friend, Mr. Payne.

    Mr. TURK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Now, on the responsibility to protect, I would like to mention that the Secretary-General's report, In Larger Freedom, contains specific recommendations on how that concept should be used and how it should be woven into the practice of various U.N. bodies, including in particular the Security Council, which has special responsibilities.

    But the Human Rights Council can be an extremely important forum in this context as well because it will be much more adequate for early discussions on issues before they come to a point at which the question of effects of particular type of human rights violations on international peace and security could be raised.
 Page 169       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    I should have no difficulty in explaining here that the Secretary-General has been concerned over the issue of Darfur for a very long time, and he has used many of his informal contacts with the Security Council members much before it was possible to raise this issue formally with the Security Council, trying to build an understanding, trying to motivate the council members for an early action.

    But in the Security Council, which is a purely political body with responsibilities in the field of peace and security, things are by definition slow. So to have a permanent process which allows discussion early on, that I think would help a great deal and would also provide an input which may start in the Human Rights Council, but of course, if issues are sufficiently serious can be then transferred to the Security Council.

    As far as the questions of ethnic cleansing and genocide more specifically, our concern there is, I think, deficit in the implementation of one of the conventions which has been very widely ratified; namely, the Convention of Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

    I should like to recall that that convention contains a clause which allows for any member state to bring to the attention of the appropriate body of the United Nations a genocide.

    Perhaps on a slightly more personal note, I should say that when I was Ambassador of Slovenia in early 1990s, I participated in a group of states who were contemplating raising the operation in Iraq as a case of genocide before the International Court of Justice, which was perfectly possible under the legal regime of the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime—of Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
 Page 170       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    Unfortunately, the political will did not exist then and it does not exist now, and I think that here we have to mobilize the moral force for more effective use of instruments we already have. We should not believe that we are totally without instruments, and that is the point I would like to make today on this particular issue. Thank you.

    Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. I appreciate your coming to this hearing.

    Just getting back to the proposed reforms of the Human Rights Commission, in your opinion, how do you think the prospects for this happening are? And do you believe that there could somehow be a criteria for—I do not know how you would do it, but limit countries or have some governance, you know, barometer so that countries with decent human rights records would be those eligible?

    I do not know, it sounds naively optimistic, but is there some thought to attempting to do that, or do you think it is something that is feasible?

    Mr. TURK. Thank you. First, on the prospect of this happening, we shall have an early test next week. I would like to once again mention the forthcoming Ministerial Conference of Community of Democracies, which will have an opportunity to discuss this particular issue of creation of the Human Rights Council as one of specific ideas around which the Community of Democracies in the United Nations could actually be formed.

    At present, we do not know yet whether that is realistically possible, and whether it is going to happen. Democracies are not only democratic, they also have national interests and often these national interests diverge. The test to see how strong convergence is and what is the areas of divergence will be next week.
 Page 171       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    Now, the Secretary-General obviously is aware that he has proposed something ambitious, and this is the time for him to be ambitious. He has to propose a vision. He cannot limit himself only to the kind of proposals which he knows in advance will be passed without difficulty, so he has to come with difficult proposals because the organization has to face difficult problems.

    Now, I believe that in that spirit the Secretary-General offered two options. He offered the option of the revision of the Charter which obviously becomes an easier subject if the revision of the Charter becomes necessary for the enlargement of the Security Council. Then obviously the Charter, the revision is on the agenda, and it is easier to deal with the Human Rights Council in that context.

    If, however, that does not happen, then the Charter revision might be a more difficult avenue, and for that situation he proposed establishment of the council based on the General Assembly resolution. That would not make it a principal organ of the United Nations, but would still make it a different body which would retain the main features; namely, election by the General Assembly by two-thirds majority, continuous permanent action, and everything else that I tried to sketch as the features of the council.

    Finally, as far as the criteria are concerned, I would like to tell you that in our contacts with delegations in New York at present, there is a very strong opposition to the idea of starting to formulate specifically abstract criteria for selection of council members, and that opposition does not come only from the countries where one would expect that to come, but also from the countries which are proven supporters, champions of human rights. They are not sure whether an attempt of this kind would be politically productive at this point.
 Page 172       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    So a more indirect approach like the one that I tried to outline based on the Secretary-General's proposal seems to be more realistic at this moment.

    But as I said before, I think that the criteria will emerge as a result of practice should that body be established, and again, the model which one has to look to is not so much which is elected differently, but the Security Council where the threshold is higher, and I think that for the Human Rights Council a higher threshold is what is needed.

    Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. With the passing of the old OAU and the new Africa Union, the NAPAD concept seems on paper to be a positive thing. However, we are finding that within the Africa Union there is difficulty in moving forward proposals seemingly on Darfur. Originally we had opposition from Security Council member, I think Angola was voting against, and Russia and Algeria and China even on the abstention to the International Criminal Court. Brazil voted abstention with China, and the United States, of course.

    But do you find that other kinds of politics, Algeria being opposed perhaps because it is a Islamic country, China because it is pumping oil in Sudan, Russia maybe not wanting embargo on oil because of past problems in Chetzenia, and if it a move in the U.N. to punish bad behavior by countries on oil embargo, then that—although I think Chetzenia really did a big disservice for their cause in the atrocities at the school, and at the theater. But do you find these other relationships come into play more so or less than we have seen, for example, in this Sudan situation, in your opinion?

    Mr. TURK. Well, this question raises a complex set of issues, but let me say what I think is critical from a tactical point of view, and which I think is something that the U.N. is not doing enough, and that is, I think empowerment of the African Union. African Union is a great new hope, and a great new promise on the African continent. Of course, one has to appreciate the problem of shortage of resources and the need to supplement the goodwill, strong will that exists within the African Union with the necessary resources in a timely fashion.
 Page 173       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    I think this is probably the most important test which the U.N. was not able to fulfill adequately in the case of Sudan because one understands that the agreement on issues such as sanctions is always difficult. But I mean, at the same time there was a proposal to help the African Union forces to come to the necessary strength and to get the necessary equipment so that logistically they would be able to patrol the areas, and that has not happened.

    I mean, there were serious problems of planning in the African Union, but there were also problems of assistance in those countries where such assistance could be provided on a more efficient—in a more efficient way.

    So I think one of the lessons, one of the fundamental lessons is to help African Union quickly. Give African Union resources and assets necessary so that it can play a role and it can demonstrate and make a difference in a practical sense. This, I think, is one of the main lessons which has not been sufficiently emphasized in the open discussions that we had. The story is obviously not yet over because of deployment of peacekeepers in the Sudan is continuing. Things could be remedied.

    But there is a lesson to learn for future situations. Help assist African Union with assets and resources at the earliest possible occasion, and make sure that the ownership of the solution of the problem is as much as possible in the hands of African Union.

    Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. I could not agree more, and a letter was sent to President Obasanjo just several days ago signed by close to 100 members, 75 Members of Congress, suggesting that the AU's mandate be altered to protect civilians, not even asking for chapter 7 type robust, which I think should be there. However, we thought we would do one step at a time rather than simply to assist the monitors, that there be a—that the mandate be changed to protect civilians, and we think that that would be extremely important.
 Page 174       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    Also, as I agreed, there ought to be more support logistically and financially for the AU. On two occasions in the last 6 or 7 months, I have traveled to Addis to meet with Chairman Kanari and attempted to end—the whole team, and I have to admit the Vice Chairman from Rwanda, all very outstanding individuals in diplomacy and so forth, but I could not agree more that there has to be more support, and I think this fledgling newly-created organization could possibly come up with some of the solutions, African solutions, African problems with support for the U.N. and the EU and U.S. and the rest of the G–8 countries.

    I think that most of the questions that I had you covered in your remarks, so I will yield back the balance of my time.

    Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much.

    Let me just conclude, Secretary Turk, with a couple of final questions.

    Ambassador Williamson, who led our delegation, the United States delegation to Geneva last year, and I watched him, he did a tremendous job in trying to get resolutions, especially on Darfur, and was incensed of the lack of cooperation among many of the member states, and also by—and he says this in his testimony—that some of our European friends think that we are just trying to name and shame, and that it might be psychologically satisfying, but they do not bring human rights improvements.

    He goes on to say how he disagrees, and points to lessons from many of the Eastern European countries, and those who suffered during the Cold War.
 Page 175       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    I wonder if you might want to give some comment on that. You know, I remember when Lin Xianzhi, the democracy activist, sat right where you are sitting at a hearing after being expelled from China, after spending a large number of years in that country's Laogai, and had suffered tremendous tortures just like Harry Wu, who is in our audience today. He made the point that when you are silent or less than robust in your articulating human rights concerns in our country, they beat us more; that torture, and the torturers are enabled by a silence.

    I would note also that in Mr. Laconte's testimony today he points out that 2 years ago a newspaper headline in Kartun, Sudan declared that the regimes' ''human rights file was closed forever because the special monitoring had ceased.''

    Perhaps you could speak to the issue. First of all, I think it is important that if not at the U.N. Human Rights Council or Commission, and I hope the council will be much more clear on speaking truth to power, particularly dictatorship power. I think we underestimate how important it is sometimes that there be a very meaningful statement made by assembled countries or in the case of the council.

    I would be interested in your take on that, because again, Ambassador Williamson was beside himself. I saw it. I felt the same way. We are arguing over language. Some of our European friends wanted a weaker set of findings and language that did not convey the horror that we felt with regards to Darfur, which I know you feel personally, and certainly Secretary-General Kofi Annan feels it as well.

    But is there really an understanding that when a statement is made, when a country is held to task or taken to task, that it does help those who are being tortured, those who are being held, and their families, and the very people we want to to see empowered? You know, the people who will be the Vaclav Havels of the future.
 Page 176       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    Mr. TURK. Well, let me first refer to the specific situation in Darfur and the fact that several weeks ago the Security Council actually was able to make a major breakthrough by adopting several resolutions, including one which establishes the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

    We understand—''we'' meaning the United Nations officials—understand that a battle for establishment of a jurisdiction and for an effective course of justice is not won by a single resolution. We know that, for example, from the times of the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia when the tribunal was established as an ad hoc tribunal. Many people believed that it will never be effective. It will never bring major suspects to the court for trial.

    But now we see that this court not only brought major figures for trial but also transformed the political landscape in the Balkans.

    So that is an important lesson that should not be forgotten in the case of Darfur, and therefore the decision of the Security Council has to be supplemented by pronouncements of other relevant bodies of the United Nations that give meaning and create a constant pressure for effectiveness of that decision by the Security Council.

    In other words, the opposition which exists in the Sudan to transfer the suspects will only grow if that pressure is lessened. So I think that all bodies of this Human Rights Commission in the first place should be vocal and should not lessen the pressure. That is, I think, a lesson which was learned 10 years ago and which is no different today.
 Page 177       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    Mr. Chairman, you asked a larger question also, the question which, of course, is large and old; namely, it is true that silence always breeds oppression, and that there has to be speaking out.

    What I would like to say is more an experience of somebody who is coming from East Europe who has been a human rights activist as a young man and who has come to the Commission on Human Rights for the first time in the winter of 1975. I will never forget that in that winter the Commission was able to agree on a procedure which eventually established the rapporteur for Chile.

    Now, next week I will be traveling to Santiago in Chile for the Conference of Community of Democracies, and the main issue, one of the main issues will be how that community led by countries like Chile will strengthen human rights globally.

    I think that much progress has been made, and we should not overlook that fact. East Europe is a very different place now than it was 30 years ago. Latin America is a very different place than it was 30 years ago. Some progress has been made, but of course reverses are always possible, and therefore pressure has to be kept, and such fundamental principles as not accepting silence are fundamental, and they will remain powerful. And that is, I think, one of the inspirations why the Secretary-General is making all these proposals. This is as much as I can say, Mr. Chairman, on this subject.

    Mr. SMITH. Thank you. I just would conclude. Ambassador Williamson makes a point in his testimony in pointing this out, and I have seen it myself for years. One question that we all would have is that this new council—and I do hope it is constituted and realizes the dream and the hope that we have for it—does not become a mini of the macro that we have had with the U.N. Human Rights Commission; just a different place and a similar focus.
 Page 178       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    I always found it to be bizarre how much time was spent on Israel, which like the United States, and like every other country, has problems. None of us are perfect. But for Israel to get its own section, I would hate to see a human rights report globally being disproportionate, focusing on Israel, when places like China with its egregious violations gets less scrutiny and focus. That is more of just a comment, but I would hope that that would not be the case.

    Johannesburg, I think, was appalling. The intolerance that was shown toward the nation of Israel. Again, which like every other country, does have problems.

    I also would hope, and I say this with complete sincerity, if you could take back the concerns that I, and I think many other Members of Congress—not all certainly—have with regards to the life issue of the unborn child. To me that is a fundamental human right that everyone be included. Human rights are nothing if they are not all about inclusion, not exclusion, and certainly kids before birth have needs of protection.

    So I do thank you so much, Mr. Secretary, for—let me go to my friend, Mr. Payne.

    Mr. PAYNE. Right. I just too want to express my appreciation for the work that diplomats like yourself provide for the world. I shudder to think of a world without the United Nations in spite of all of its supposed problems. I think of a—it is almost like a city without a police department, you know. A lot of times police departments in our country fail or you get bad policemen. However, just think if there were none.
 Page 179       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    So I have been one to really be supportive. When I read about the old League of Nations, lack of participation probably was one of the reasons why it failed. Poor President Wilson proposed it, but was never ratified by this country, and I would hope that we can continue to appreciate the tremendous achievements by the health organizations and the nations—smallpox, almost getting polio out of the way. I mean, we can go on and on.

    So I think that all of us agree that the strength certainly strongly outweighs the problems. However, we certainly have to, as in our country, we say in our Constitution we are moving toward a more perfect union, and we are still moving in that direction. We are not there yet, but that is what the U.N. hopefully will move towards, a more perfect U.N. Of course, I hope it will not take as long as it has taken us, but we support, and I appreciate the Chairman calling this very important meeting today, hearing today.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Payne.

    If I could, Mr. Turk, just ask one final question. Perhaps either for the record or you could come back with an answer——

    Mr. TURK. Sure.

    Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Or now. But would you ask the Secretary-General if he would, because I think it is important, it is one thing to have country-specific resolutions, and I think they are extremely important, holding countries specifically to task or taking them to task for human rights abuses, and that may include the U.S. I think we—you know, we have our problems and we need to rectify them. But section or agenda item nine, when you have a whole, a wholly-inclusive section dedicated to Israel seems out of proportion, and I think wrong.
 Page 180       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2

    I think again, not to continue, I think his testimony is outstanding, but as Ambassador Williamson says, ''The excessive invective rhetoric assaulting Israel is numbing,'' and I saw it personally myself at the United Nations Commission in Geneva. We do not want that now transferred to any new council because, you know, it is a small country. I think Israel getting so much disproportion attention is bizarre.

    Mr. TURK. Yes. Mr. Chairman, just let me say I think that a new council will be an opportunity to establish a new comprehensive and balanced agenda which, unfortunately, eluded the Commission on Human Rights for many years. I myself, I was chairing a working group of the Third Committee, which has been dealing with human rights in the General Assembly for 3 or 4 years, and unfortunately we could not move things in that context.

    So a fresh start is an opportunity, would be an opportunity for a comprehensive yet balanced approach, which I think is needed.

    Mr. SMITH. Thank you again so much, and we look forward to working with you going forward.

    Mr. TURK. Thank you.

    [Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]