STATE DEPARTMENT BRIEFING ON COUNTRY REPORTS OF HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES 2012

FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks on the Release of the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2012

Special Briefing
Uzra Zeya
Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
Washington, DC
April 19, 2013

MS. ZEYA: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I’d like to say a few words about how we use the Annual Human Rights Reports to inform our diplomacy around the world and give you a quick overview of some of the major developments they describe over the past year, then I’d be happy to take your questions.

As the Secretary said, human rights are central to America’s global diplomatic engagement, and these reports are the factual foundation upon which we build and shape our policies. Human rights are on the agenda in all our bilateral relations, such as during the recent U.S.-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue where we urged the release of all political prisoners including Le Quoc Quan, Dr. Vu and others. We advocate on behalf of those imprisoned for their activism or beliefs, including Chinese Nobel Laureate Liu Xiaobo and human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng and Pastor Saeed Abedini in Iran, among many others all over the world.

The individual reports stand alone and they speak for themselves, so I commend them to you for detailed information on specific countries or regions. At the same time, I’d like to highlight some key developments from 2012.

First, as the Secretary noted, we continue to see a shrinking space for civil society in a growing number of countries – China, Egypt, and Russia, to name just a few. 2012 saw new laws impeding or preventing the exercise of freedoms of expression, assembly, association, and religion; heightened restrictions on organizations receiving funding from abroad; and the harassment, arrest, and killing of political human rights and labor activists.

Regardless of the means, the result is the same: When government stifles civil society, their countries are deprived of ideas, energy, and the ingenuity of their people that are needed for long-term stability and success in the 21st century.

We also saw freedom of the media under increasing threat in 2012. Record numbers of journalists were killed in the line of duty or as a consequence of their reporting. A number of governments took steps to stifle the press through the use of overly broad counterterrorism laws, burdensome regulatory requirements, and harassment or imprisonment of journalists. In Ethiopia, Eskinder Nega remains behind bars, and Calixto Ramon Martinez Arias spent six months in a Cuban prison for writing about a cholera outbreak. Some governments specifically targeted freedom of expression on the internet through new restrictive legislation, denial of service attacks, and the harassment of online bloggers, journalists, and activists. In Egypt, for example, blogger Alaa Abdel Fattah has been repeatedly arrested and harassed by the government.

Throughout the Middle East in 2012, men and women continue to organize and advocate for dignity, economic opportunity, and a stake in their political future. There were historic elections in Egypt and Libya but also troubling setbacks, including the erosion of protections for civil society, sexual violence against women, and violence and repression towards religious minorities across the region. Bashar al-Assad escalated unrelenting attacks against his own people in Syria; inter-communal tensions and political violence continued in Iraq, Bahrain, and Yemen; and governments throughout the Gulf took steps to restrict freedom of expression both online and off.

These struggles are not confined to the Middle East, especially the issue of violence against the most marginalized groups in society. The 2012 reports document discrimination against and persecution of members of religious and ethnic minorities, including Jews, Roma, Coptic Christians, Ahmadis, Baha’is, Uighurs, and Tibetans; as well as against other vulnerable populations such as persons with disabilities and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in every region of the globe.

Women and girls continue to be at risk around the world, facing abuses ranging from sexual violence to harmful traditional practices. From Afghanistan to the Democratic Republic of Congo, women and girls were the targets of repression while trying to live their daily lives, change their societies for the better, and exercise the fundamental freedoms that are the birthright of all human beings.

Thankfully, not all news from 2012 was discouraging. As the Secretary said, we’re encouraging – we’re encouraged by what’s happening in Burma. The Burmese government has released more than 700 political prisoners since 2011, many of whom have been in prison for more than a decade. Aung San Suu Kyi and 42 members of the National League for Democracy were elected to parliament in largely transparent and inclusive bi-elections. The government is relaxing some press censorship and allowing trade unions to form and register. However, many elements of the country’s authoritarian structure remain intact. And as the Secretary noted, we’re also very concerned by the conflict in Kachin state and communal violence in Rhakine state in central Burma.

In addition to the elections that I mentioned in the Middle East and Burma, Georgia held parliamentary elections that resulted in the first peaceful democratic transfer of power in that country since independence in 1992. And throughout the world every day, courageous men and women took selfless risk to stand up for universal human rights and better the lives of others.

Finally, I’d like to echo the Secretary’s thanks to our colleagues overseas and throughout the Department, including our senior editor Steve Eisenbraun, who have all worked tirelessly to put these reports together. This is truly a massive undertaking, and every year we strive to do better. This year, as the Secretary mentioned, we’ve included more comprehensive information on prison conditions, corruption within governments, workers’ rights, and the rights of women and girls.

We hope that the reports will shed light on human rights conditions around the world, and we’re committed to working with governments and civil society to stop abuses and support universal rights for all.

So I’ll stop there on that note, and I’m happy to take your questions.

MS. PSAKI: I’m just going to call on folks. We have time for a few questions.

Brad.

QUESTION: Yes. You and the Secretary both mentioned that you bring up human rights issues during all your visits, these hard truths, as you call them. Yet, recently when Secretary Kerry went to China we barely heard a word about human rights. So could you tell us the hard truths that would have been pushed during that visit?

MS. ZEYA: Sure. I’d just like to reiterate that promoting human rights is absolutely part of our bilateral agenda with China. We repeatedly raise specific human rights cases with the Chinese government in bilateral dialogues and in high-level discussions. And during the Secretary’s visit, as he made clear, he raised specific cases with the Chinese government to include the case of Chen Kegui, who is the nephew of Mr. Chen Guangcheng. He raised the allegations of abuse during his imprisonment and the harassment of his family.

Some of the other cases that we raise regularly I mentioned in my remarks, but that would include Mr. Gao Zhisheng, Liu Xiaobo, and, as I mentioned, Chen Kegui. But that is just a few of the many political prisoners in China. I’d refer you to our reports, which have much more detail on this issue.

QUESTION: And did you make any progress regarding their conditions?

MS. ZEYA: I think it’s part of our ongoing dialogue.

MS. PSAKI: Said.

QUESTION: Thank you, ma’am. My name’s Said Arikat from Al Quds Daily newspaper. I wanted to ask you about the Palestinian prisoners.

MS. ZEYA: Sure.

QUESTION: There are 4,500 of them in prison. There are about 280 between the ages of 12 and 15, and I wonder, in your current, sort of, increased activities trying to kick-off the new talks, that if you bring that issue to bear with the Israeli government.

MS. ZEYA: Right. I’d just like to reiterate that the United States raises human rights issues at the highest levels with the Israeli government. I’d commend to you our report this year on the occupied territories. Some of the major human rights problems that we identify are arbitrary arrest and associated torture and abuse, often with impunity, by multiple actors; restrictions on civil liberties; and the inability of residents to hold their government accountable. And this is taking place in areas under Hamas, PA, and Israeli control.

MS. PSAKI: In the back. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Well, this year’s report on Turkey seems to be a bit harsher than last year. Has the Secretary raised any of these issues with the Turkish officials? He’s been in regular contact with them. He’ll see them this weekend. Which issues has he been underlining?

MS. ZEYA: Sure. Sure. With respect to Turkey, Turkey is a vital NATO ally and an American strategic partner, and human rights are a part of our broader engagement on a range of areas. Some of the issues of concern noted in the report are freedom of expression, the status of minorities and vulnerable populations, and legal reform. And what we think is Turkey’s constitutional reform process presents an opportunity to improve the protection of minorities, women and children, as well as expand freedom of expression.

QUESTION: But has the Secretary raised any of these issues with the Turkish officials so far? This will be his third time in Turkey this year.

MS. ZEYA: I mean, it’s part of our regular bilateral engagement, but for further detail I’d have to refer back to the spokesman.

MS. PSAKI: In front.

QUESTION: Hi. I wondered if you could tell us how concerned you are about the situation in Russia. Don’t you think the civil society bit has shrunk space, as you call it – has shrunk even more since you – I mean, this report covers last year.

MS. ZEYA: Right. Right.

QUESTION: And if you would just talk generally about how you see it.

MS. ZEYA: Sure. Sure.

QUESTION: Yeah, because they’re implementing the law that you complained was passed last year. Now they’re actually implementing it, yeah.

MS. ZEYA: Right. Right. No, you’re correct. The reports only cover through December 31st, 2012, but certainly the pattern that we’ve seen emerge in Russia is deeply troubling with respect to the emergence of an increasingly restrictive environment for the exercise of civil liberties. This includes the measures with respect to registration of NGOs as foreign agents, but also restrictions on press and internet freedom. So we’ve made clear our commitment to dialogue on human rights with the Russian government, but we also remain absolutely committed to open dialogue with civil society and supporting their efforts.

QUESTION: Could I do a follow-up on that?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: I just wondered. I mean, in the past, I think the U.S. government has talked a lot about concern about human rights abuses in Chechnya, and I just wondered if you think the events in Boston are going to change in any way the government would see human rights in Chechnya?

MS. ZEYA: Right. With respect to the ongoing investigation in Boston, I just have to reiterate the Secretary’s comment that it would be highly inappropriate to make further comment on this time.

With respect to the situation in the Northern Caucasus, I can tell you this has been part of our human rights reporting on Russia in our country report since 1995. You’ll find quite a bit of information in this year’s report. And they note serious human rights abuses taking place and acts of human rights violations reportedly committed by both authorities and militants.

MS. PSAKI: This is going to be the last question.

QUESTION: Yes. You mentioned prisons. The State Department, I wonder if it’s concerned about Guantanamo prisoners; 56 out of 86 Guantanamo prisoners cleared for release are Yemeni nationals. Would you agree that the U.S. is engaged in collective punishment based on nationality?

MS. ZEYA: I would say on this we hold ourselves to the same standards by which we assess others. On the issue of Guantanamo, the President has made clear his commitment to closing Guantanamo, but this has to be done in accordance with U.S. law and in consultation with the Congress. So I’d have to refer you back to further statements by the White House and the spokesman on that.

MS. PSAKI: Just to reiterate for folks, Uzra will be at the – the Acting Assistant Secretary will be at the Foreign Press Center later this afternoon. What time will that be?

PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible.)

MS. ZEYA: 4:00 p.m. Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: So for people who didn’t have their questions answered, we encourage you to go over there. Thank you.

MS. ZEYA: Thanks.

STATE DEPARTMENT REMARKS ON 'TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS REPORT'

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Release of the 2012 Trafficking in Persons Report
Remarks
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Maria Otero
Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights
Luis CdeBaca
Ambassador-at-Large, Office To Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons
Vincent Paraiso
Benjamin Franklin Room
Washington, DC
June 19, 2012
　

UNDER SECRETARY OTERO: Good afternoon, everyone. And welcome to the Department of State. It’s wonderful to have you all here. I want to especially welcome Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith for being here with us. Thank you for being here. (Applause.)

Every year, this event brings together committed leaders and activists from across the anti-trafficking movement, and the enthusiasm that’s surrounding this rollout shows us the momentum that we have built in the struggle against modern slavery.

I am Maria Otero. I am the Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights. My office oversees the bureaus that help countries and governments create just societies, societies that are grounded in democratic principles that guarantee respect for human rights and that apply the rule of law. Whether we’re helping strengthen judicial systems or we’re denouncing human rights abuses or helping build strong law enforcement capacities or combating trafficking in persons, we’re aiming to help countries protect the individual citizens in their countries.

Trafficking challenges are one of the problems that we have. And it is also the one area that deals with one of our most fundamental values. That is the basic freedom and dignity of every individual. Trafficking also tears at the very fabric of society. It rips families apart. It devastates communities. It holds people back from becoming full participants in their own political processes in their own economies. And it challenges the ability of countries to build strong justice systems and transparent governments. That’s why fighting modern slavery is a priority for the United States. In that fight, we partner with governments around the world to improve and increase the prosecution of this crime, to prevent the crime from spreading, and to protect those individuals who are victimized by it.

While governments bear this responsibility of protecting their individual citizens, this fight depends on a broader partnership as well. Without the efforts of civil society, the faith community, the private sector, we would not be able to advance and we would not be able to see the advances that the report highlights. The report that we are issuing today guides our work. It represents the very best knowledge and information on the state of modern slavery in the world today. It shows the fruit of partnerships around the world. It shows the strides that we’ve made in protecting individuals, and it shows how far we yet still have to go to assure the basic human rights.

I want to thank everyone who has worked this last year to compile these reports, from the NGOs that submit this information to the governments that provide us with data, from the diplomats in our overseas missions, to the staff of the Office of Monitor and Combating Trafficking in Persons who are here today. And today really is the culmination of tireless work over many months that they have taken on. And for that reason, it is really my pleasure and my privilege to be able to introduce my colleague who runs that office and who has shepherded and given leadership to this process, our Ambassador-at-Large to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons Luis CdeBaca. (Applause.)

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: Thank you, Madam Under Secretary, for the introduction and for your leadership here at the State Department. Bringing so many different issues together under this label of civilian security over the last year has allowed room here in the State Department and across the U.S. Government for constructive collaborations, whether we’re dealing with human rights, migration, criminal justice, war crimes, counterterrorism, or, as today, human trafficking. Because building democracy, growing economies, unleashing the full potential of the individual, these things don’t just happen. They start with people.

Around the world in the last year, we’ve heard those people, their voices calling, calling out for democracy, for greater opportunity. We recognize that sound. It’s the sound of hope. And traffickers ensnare their victims by exploiting that hope, especially the hope of the vulnerable. "Come with me, I’ll help you start a modeling career. Pay me $10,000, I’ll get you that job. I love you. I’ll take care of you. Just do this for us." As long as the Trafficking in Persons Report is needed, we will find in its pages account after account of traffickers peddling false hope.

But that’s not all that we find in the pages of this report because every year that passes, those false hopes are overtaken more and more by real hope; the real hope that the modern abolitionist movement provides. And just as trafficking takes many forms, the way that we fight slavery today, the way that we provide hope for those who have been exploited, is growing. It is growing more diverse and more innovative, and so are the people who are stepping up.

We see it in the private sector, where corporate leaders are using their business skills. They’re hearing from consumers who don’t want to buy things tainted by modern slavery. Leaders like CEO Tom Mazzetta. When he read a report about forced labor in the fishing industry, he wasn’t just shocked. He acted. He wrote two letters. The first was to the company he used, until that day, to source calamari. The second was an open letter to all of his customers telling them that his brand was his family, his family name, and he would not taint it or his customers with slavery in his supply chain. We’re inspired by his principled stand.

We see it among activists like Jada Pinkett Smith and her family, who have a unique platform from which to act. When her daughter Willow began asking about these types of subjects, she didn’t just explain it away as something that happens over there. She got to work. She’s launching a new website to serve as a resource for victims and survivors and is an information hub for those who seek to learn more about this crime. Jada, we thank you for your advocacy.

We see it in people’s day to day lives, like when Aram Kovach was watching CNN one day. He saw the story of a young boy castrated because he refused to take part in a begging ring. He wasn’t just horrified by the reality of modern slavery. Aram did something. He got in touch with the boy’s family and he paid for him to come to the United States for surgery. Mr. Kovach we’re moved by your compassion.

And if I can take a moment of personal privilege, we see it in the men and women who contribute to this report: our colleagues at embassies around the world, in our regional bureaus here in Washington, and especially the reports in political affairs team of the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. We thank you all for your rigor, your commitment, and the zeal with which you attack this problem.

And we see it ultimately in the victims, the survivors, whether they choose to become activists or whether they choose to lead a life of quiet anonymity. When you log on to slaveryfootprint.org – and I hope you do – and it asks you how many slaves work for you, remember that those victims are not statistics. It’ll give you a number, but these people are not numbers. They are people with hopes, with dreams, with courage, and with names. Remember their names, names like Amina, Maria Elena, Joel, Ashley. It’s their courage that challenge us to deliver on this promise, this promise of freedom.

And it’s my pleasure to introduce someone who has never turned away from that challenge. From the start of this effort, when most people didn’t want to talk about modern slavery, to this day, when we recommit ourselves to the vision of a world without slavery, ladies and gentlemen, the Secretary of State. (Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. Thank you all very much. And I am delighted to see a standing room only crowd here in the Benjamin Franklin Room for this very important annual event. I welcome all of you here to the State Department. And I want to begin by thanking Ambassador CdeBaca and his team for all the hard work that goes into this report, and the passion that they bring to the fight against modern slavery. I would like, Lou, for you and your team to either stand or wave your hand if you’re already standing. Could we have everyone from – (applause) – thank you. I so appreciate what you do every day, not just when we roll out the report, and I’m very proud to be your colleague.

I also want to welcome our 10 TIP heroes, whose work is making a real difference. You will hear more about each one individually when we recognize them, but I want, personally, to thank them because they do remind us that one person’s commitment and passion, one person’s experience and the courage to share that experience with the world, can have a huge impact. And I am delighted to welcome all of our TIP heroes here today. Thank you. (Applause.)

And I will join Lou in thanking Jada Pinkett Smith and Will for being here, and through you, your daughter. Because, as Lou said, it was their daughter who brought this issue to Jada’s attention, and I am so pleased that she has taken on this cause. And we look forward to working with you.

In the United States today, we are celebrating what’s called Juneteenth. That’s freedom day, the date in 1865 when a Union officer stood on a balcony in Galveston, Texas and read General Order Number 3, which declared, "All slaves are free." It was one of many moments in history when a courageous leader tipped the balance and made the world more free and more just. But the end of legal slavery in the United States and in other countries around the world has not, unfortunately, meant the end of slavery.

Today, it is estimated as many as 27 million people around the world are victims of modern slavery, what we sometimes call trafficking in persons. As Lou said, I’ve worked on this issue now for more than a dozen years. And when we started, we called it trafficking. And we were particularly concerned about what we saw as an explosion of the exploitation of people, most especially women, who were being quote, "trafficked" into the sex trade and other forms of servitude. But I think labeling this for what it is, slavery, has brought it to another dimension.

I mean, trafficking, when I first used to talk about it all those years ago, I think for a while people wondered whether I was talking about road safety – (laughter) – what we needed to do to improve transportation systems. But slavery, there is no mistaking what it is, what it means, what it does. And these victims of modern slavery are women and men, girls and boys. And their stories remind us of what kind of inhumane treatment we are still capable of as human beings. Some, yes, are lured to another country with false promises of a good job or opportunities for their families. Others can be exploited right where they grew up, where they now live. Whatever their background, they are living, breathing reminders that the work to eradicate slavery remains unfinished. The fact of slavery may have changed, but our commitment to ending it has not and the deeply unjust treatment that it provides has not either.

Now the United States is not alone in this fight. Many governments have rallied around what we call the three P’s of fighting modern slavery: prevention, prosecution, and protection. And this report, which is being issued today, gives a clear and honest assessment of where all of us are making progress on our commitments and where we are either standing still or even sliding backwards. It takes a hard look at every government in the world, including our own. Because when I became Secretary of State, I said, "When we are going to be issuing reports on human trafficking, on human rights that talk about other countries, we’re also going to be examining what we’re doing," because I think it’s important that we hold ourselves to the same standard as everyone else.

Now, this year’s report tells us that we are making a lot of progress. Twenty-nine countries were upgraded from a lower tier to a higher one, which means that their governments are taking the right steps. This could mean enacting strong laws, stepping up their investigations and prosecutions, or simply laying out a roadmap of steps they will take to respond.

But this issue and the progress we’ve made are about much more than statistics on prosecutions and vulnerable populations. It’s about what is happening in the lives of the girls and women I recently met in Kolkata. I visited a few months ago and was able to meet with some extraordinary women and girls who were getting their lives back after suffering unspeakable abuses. One young girl, full of life, came up and asked me if I wanted to see her perform some karate moves. And I said, "Of course." And the way she stood up so straight and confident, the pride and accomplishment in her eyes, was so inspiring. This was a child who’d been born in a brothel to a young mother who had been forced and sold into prostitution. But when her mother finally escaped and took her daughter with her, they were out of harm’s way and finally able to make choices for themselves.

Now I don’t know what’s going to happen to that young girl, whose image I see in my mind’s eye, in the years and decades ahead. But I do know that with a little help, her life can be so much better than her mother’s. And that’s what we need to be focused on, and it’s what we need to try to do for all victims and survivors.

That’s why in this year’s report, we are especially focused on that third P, victim protection. And in these pages, you’ll find a lot of proven practices and innovative approaches to protecting victims. This is a useful and specific guide for governments looking to scale up their own efforts. What kind of psychological support might a victim need? How should immigration laws work to protect migrant victims? How can labor inspectors learn to recognize the warning signs of traffickers? And what can you and all of us do to try to help?

When I met with the people who were working with victims in Kolkata, I met several young women from the United States who had been inspired by reading about and watching and going online and learning about what was happening in the efforts to rescue and protect victims. And they were there in Kolkata, working with organizations, NGOs, and the faith community, to do their part. So this is a moment for people to ask themselves not just what government can do to end modern slavery, but what can I do, what can we do together.

Ultimately, this report reminds us of the human cost of this crime. Traffickers prey on the hopes and dreams of those seeking a better life. And our goal should be to put those hopes and dreams back within reach, whether it’s getting a good job to send money home to support a family, trying to get an education for oneself or one’s children, or simply pursuing new opportunities that might lead to a better life. We need to ensure that all survivors have that opportunity to move past what they endured and to make the most of their potential.

I’m very pleased that every year we have the chance to honor people who have made such a contribution in this modern struggle against modern slavery. And I’m also pleased that this is a high priority for President Obama and the Obama Administration. It’s something that is not just political and not just a policy, but very personal and very deep. You might have seen over the weekend a long story about Mrs. Obama’s roots going back to the time of our own period of slavery and the family that nurtured her, which has roots in the fields and the houses of a time when Americans owned slaves.

So as we recommit ourselves to end modern slavery, we should take a moment to reflect on how far we have come, here in our country and around the world, but how much farther we still have to go to find a way to free those 27 million victims and to ensure that there are no longer any victims in the future.

Thank you all very much. (Applause.)

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: We are joined today by 10 amazing individuals representative of thousands of more amazing individuals who work so hard to do their part in this fight. And I’d ask that the TIP heroes from this side of the stage come over and join us starting with –

SECRETARY CLINTON: Stand over here?

AMBASSADOR CDEBACA: I think we’re going to do it right over here. Starting with Marcelo Colombo. Marcelo Colombo from Argentina, in recognition of his profound influence on efforts to investigate and prosecute human trafficking cases and take a bold stance against corruption and official complicity. Marcelo Colombo. (Applause.)

In recognition of her extraordinary commitment to uncovering human trafficking cases, her innovative strategy to raise public awareness in spite of limited resources, and a proactive approach to providing protection services to victims in Aruba, Jeannette Richardson-Baars (Applause.)

In recognition of her ambitious efforts to strengthen legislative and criminal justice responses to trafficking in Southeast Asia and her substantial contribution to identify the core elements of a comprehensive anti-trafficking model from Australia, Anne Gallagher. (Applause.)

In recognition of his amazing courage to escape slavery and his remarkable activism to end human trafficking, raising awareness of labor exploitation in the fishing industry of Southeast Asia, Vannak Anan Prum. (Applause.)

In recognition of his unwavering efforts in the face of threats and acts of violence against him and his family to provide aid to trafficking victims in the Republic of the Congo, Raimi Vincent Paraiso. (Applause.)

In recognition of his dedication to victim protection and support and his tireless work to enlist new partners in anti-trafficking efforts in Greece, Phil Hyldgaard. (Applause.)

For her compassion and courage in bringing attention to the suffering of the human trafficking victims in the Sinai and her groundbreaking projects that identify these abuses, Sister Azezet Habtezghi Kidane. (Applause.)

For her ongoing and exemplary leadership to increase engagement and strengthen commitments to fight trafficking in the OSCE region, Judge Maria Grazia Giammarinaro. (Applause.)

In recognition of her courageous advocacy on behalf of vulnerable people and her pioneering work to outlaw slavery once and for all in Mauritania, a country in which she was the first woman lawyer, Fatimata M’Baye. (Applause.)

The founder of International Justice Mission, an internationally recognized human rights organization, for his work to preserve rule of law around the globe, Gary Haugen. (Applause.)

UNDER SECRETARY OTERO: If I could ask Vincent to please come to the podium and speak on behalf of the TIP heroes, please. (Applause.)

MR. PARAISO: Bonjour. (Via interpreter) Madam Secretary, honorable under secretaries, honorable ambassadors, heads of diplomatic missions, distinguished guests. On behalf of my organization, Alto-Afrique Enfants, and of all the heroes here that I have the honor to represent, I would like to thank the United States Government for honoring us with this award at this unforgettable moment.

The phenomenon of human trafficking has reached alarming proportions around the world. My country, the Republic of Congo, and many others represented at this meeting are unfortunately not spared from this crime. Therefore, the international community cannot remain silent against this evil and must continue to respond relentlessly. I would also like to thank the U.S. embassies in our respective countries for their advocacy and dialogue with host country governments in the fight against this phenomenon.

In my career as a medical doctor, the numerous traumatic injuries I have seen inflicted and cured on child victims of trafficking led me to stand as a pillar of support for hundreds of children. These child victims of trafficking have been identified, rescued, protected, and sometimes supported by our organization in the Republic of the Congo. This work has led to several kidnapping and assassination attempts against me by potential traffickers. But it has also filled me with joy and happiness when, for instance, I heard a Senegalese teenager who I rescued tell me, "You are my father."

I have the honor to represent Alto-Afrique Enfants, and we will continue the fight against traffickers with passion. As for its commitments to the fight and trafficking and forced labor, Alto will continue to work jointly with the government, UNICEF, and other international and national organizations. This is a problem that must be resolved through a joint effort. Human trafficking is a human rights violation.

An approach grounded in human rights in the prevention of and the fight against trafficking has several requirements in both law and practice. Most of all, victims’ rights must be fully respected and they must be clearly identified. Finally, these victims are entitled to justice, reparations, and should be treated with close attention, as they are vulnerable. Perseverance and collaboration will lead us to success, meaning the eradication of this phenomenon.

Madam Secretary, distinguished guests, ladies, and gentlemen, I would like to conclude by stating that I hope we can work together to build a better future for all children of the world. Thank you. (Applause.)

UNDER SECRETARY OTERO: Merci beaucoup, Vincent. C’est magnifique. C’est tres magnifique. (Laughter.) Your words are inspiring and your leadership in this struggle is also inspiring. You and all the TIP heroes are once again reminding us that the individual actions of each human being has tremendous impact and that we are all responsible for playing a role in eradicating this horrible crime that continues to persist in our societies.

I want to thank you all for joining this event today. The commitment, the passion, the responsibility that all of you take on and that is represented in this room, once again reminds us that we are not only moving in the right direction, but that we are going to make this goal be within our reach. So thank you very much for being here with us today. Thank you, Madam Secretary. (Applause.)

KEYNOTE REMARKS AT EUROPEAN UNION'S HUMAN RIGHTS DAY EVENT

Sun Rise From Space.  Credit:  ISS/NASA/Ron Garan.

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Under Secretary Otero's Keynote Remarks at the European Union's Human Rights Day Event
Remarks
Daniel Baer
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
EU Mission To The United States
Washington, DC
December 11, 2012

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for that kind introduction. It is a special honor to be with you the day after the European Union was awarded the 2012 Peace Prize. My warm congratulations to you.

And thank you also to the embassies that are cohosting today’s event—Cyprus, Finland, and Lithuania—as well as the embassies of the Czech Republic, Sweden and the UK which have supported this event as well.

I am very sorry that Maria Otero could not be here. As you’ve heard, there was a death in her family overnight, and certainly my thoughts are with her. Those of you who know her know that she brings wisdom, grace and warmth to all that she does, and so I am glad that she can be with her family, as I’m sure she is a comfort to them.

Maria and I have traveled together and worked on many issues together over the last three and a half years—so it’s an honor to be her understudy today, and I thank the mission for inviting me to deliver her remarks in her stead.

Today’s meeting fits well with the EU’s legacy of working for peace and justice. And I am pleased you have organized such a distinguished panel to address the issue of human rights, a key pillar of U.S. foreign policy.

Yesterday was International Human Rights Day, when we celebrate the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In adopting the Declaration, governments around the world recognized that human beings are, by virtue of their birth, endowed with certain inalienable rights. And these rights serve as "the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world."

Today, we continue to look to the Universal Declaration not just as a reminder of our values, but as a guide for action. As Secretary of State Clinton said last week in Dublin, "it is a time-tested blueprint for successful societies."

The theme of today’s event – "Supporting Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Association, and Political Participation" – is particularly appropriate. For we recognize that human rights are not just about freedom from violence, torture, unlawful detention, discrimination, and oppression. Human rights also include the fundamental freedoms to speak, associate, assemble, and follow one’s faith.

The European Union and the United States have been strong partners in promoting these basic rights that are so important to securing other rights. We are bound together by a common history and shared values, within which these fundamental freedoms play a key role.

Today, I’d like to highlight a few areas where the EU and the United States are working together to promote and strengthen human rights around the world.

First, we both work to ensure that the freedoms of expression, association, and political participation enhance citizen involvement in the democratic electoral process. As Secretary Clinton has said on numerous occasions, a vibrant civil society in which citizens and activists engage in vigorous public debate is one of the fundaments of free, democratic nations. Such public deliberation helps keep citizens informed, exposes them to a variety of opinions, values and interests, and induces them to refine their own views and defend them with good reasons.

And democratic elections, in turn, help to protect fundamental freedoms and to promote good governance, by enabling citizens to hold their leaders accountable. Thus, the mutually reinforcing feedback loop between civil society and democratic institutions creates a virtuous circle of vibrant democracy.

Second, we work together to protect freedom of expression, enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as a number of other international instruments. Of course, protecting the right of expression does not mean endorsing everything that people say. There are billions of people on earth; some of them will say terrible, hurtful things. They may offend our religious feelings or defame groups we belong to. Rather than banning such speech, the rest of us should use our own freedom of expression to challenge, condemn, and reject hateful or offensive speech.

Working with youth from many European Union countries over the past few years, we have shown that it is possible to stop bigotry and promote respect across lines of culture, religion, tradition, class, disability, and gender. The 2012 Hours Against Hate campaign uses social media to invite youth throughout Europe and around the world to volunteer their time with someone who does not look like them, live like them, or pray like them. The success of the campaign is evident through the more than 20,000 volunteer hours pledged globally. People from faith groups, NGOs, international organizations, universities, businesses, governments, and other individuals in Europe and around the world have joined the campaign.

Third, we share the same objectives in the fight against anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim sentiment, and discrimination against religious and ethnic minorities, LGBT individuals, and persons with disabilities. The EU continues to play the leading role in combating all forms of discrimination across the European continent. We applaud the EU’s Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies as an important step in protecting the rights of the members of the Romani minority, and we encourage the EU to press forward in its commitments to promote the social and economic inclusion of members of all marginalized groups.

We also applaud the EU Council’s adoption in June of an "EU Strategic Framework on Human Rights and Democracy." And we look forward to continue working closely with newly appointed EU Special Representative Mr. Lambrinidis on the implementation of our human rights policy. (Incidentally we are already working together-- I was in Geneva last week for the first UN Forum on Business and Human Rights where Mr. Lambrinidis and Mike Posner both addressed the plenary session.)

Fourth, as Secretary of State Clinton noted in a recent speech in Washington, we will cooperate with the EU to promote democracy and human rights in those parts of Europe that are not yet where they need to be. The Secretary reiterated this message in Dublin last week when she met with embattled civil society organizations from across Europe on the sidelines of the OSCE ministerial meetings.

Beyond Europe, we applaud some of the newest members of the EU for using their recent experiences with democratization to support democratic aspirations in Eurasia, the Middle East, and North Africa.

And we look to our European allies to help improve security and build new relationships in Asia. As Secretary Clinton said, "our pivot to Asia is not a pivot away from Europe. On the contrary, we want Europe to engage more in Asia along with us, to see the region not only as a market, but as a focus of common strategic engagement."

And as a good example, European governments, including Germany, UK, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, and Poland, have joined the call for Chinese authorities to address the worsening human rights conditions in Tibetan areas.

The United States is deeply concerned and saddened by the continuing violence in Tibetan areas of China and the increasing frequency of self-immolations by Tibetans.

Chinese authorities have responded to these tragic incidents with measures that tighten already strict controls on the freedoms of religion, expression, assembly and association of Tibetans. Official rhetoric that denigrates the Tibetan language, the Dalai Lama, and those that have self-immolated has further exacerbated tensions.

The United States government has consistently urged the Chinese government to address policies in Tibetan areas that have created tensions. These policies include increasingly severe government controls on Tibetan Buddhist religious practice and monastic institutions; education practices that undermine the preservation of Tibetan language; intensive surveillance, arbitrary detentions and disappearances of Tibetans, including youth and Tibetan intellectual and cultural leaders; escalating restrictions on news, media and communications; and the use of force against Tibetans seeking peacefully to exercise their universal human rights.

Ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion, we celebrate Human Rights Day every December. But advancing freedom and human rights is our daily work, as the Secretary noted in Dublin, and we must continue the hard work of "making human rights a human reality." We continue to press for the fundamental rights and freedoms of all people, and we will stand with citizens, activists, and governments around the world that do the same, as we strive for a world in which each human being lives freely and with dignity. Thank you.

ANNIVERSARY OF BAHRAIN INDEPENDENT COMMISSION OF INQUIRY REPORT

Photo Credit:  CIA World Factbook/NASA/ISS   

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Anniversary of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry Report

Press Statement
Victoria Nuland
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
November 23, 2012
Today marks the one year anniversary of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) report. In the year since commissioning the landmark report, the Government of Bahrain has taken some important steps to implement the BICI recommendations, including allowing the International Red Cross to visit prison facilities, issuing new protocols on arrest authorities and a new Police Code of Conduct, reinstating some workers and students, beginning to rebuild religious sites, and other reforms that allow the Government to pursue additional BICI recommendations. However, there continue to be delays in fully implementing the report’s recommendations, particularly regarding accountability for official abuse, limits on freedom of expression and assembly, meaningful security sector reform, and a political environment that has become increasingly inhospitable to reconciliation.

Map:  Bahrain.  Credit:  CIA World Factbook

We are also concerned about rising violence in Bahrain. In the last month, police, protesters, and bystanders have been killed. We continue to urge all Bahrainis to pursue their political objectives peacefully and the Government of Bahrain to exercise restraint in responding to peaceful protests.

Since the unrest began last year, the United States has urged the Government of Bahrain to implement reforms and to address ongoing human rights concerns, including by fully implementing the BICI report recommendations. We will continue to encourage the Bahraini Government and all segments of Bahraini society to create an environment conducive to political dialogue and reconciliation. The Bahraini Government can only achieve the more prosperous, stable, and secure Bahrain it seeks through the continuation of the reform efforts it has initiated and must now fully implement. We look to leaders in Bahrain — government officials, political leaders, and civil society — to build on these initial steps and help realize the aspirations of all Bahrainis. Bahrain is a valued strategic partner and longtime friend of the United States, and we will continue to support these important efforts.

Locator Map:  Bahrain.  Credit:  CIA World Factbook

 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM CIA WORLD FACTBOOK

In 1783, the Sunni Al-Khalifa family captured Bahrain from the Persians. In order to secure these holdings, it entered into a series of treaties with the UK during the 19th century that made Bahrain a British protectorate. The archipelago attained its independence in 1971. Facing declining oil reserves, Bahrain has turned to petroleum processing and refining and has transformed itself into an international banking center. Bahrain's small size and central location among Persian Gulf countries require it to play a delicate balancing act in foreign affairs among its larger neighbors. In addition, the Sunni-led government has struggled to manage relations with its large Shia-majority population. During the mid-to-late 1990s, Shia activists mounted a low-intensity uprising to demand that the Sunni-led government stop systemic economic, social, and political discrimination against Shia Bahrainis. King HAMAD bin Isa Al-Khalifa, after succeeding his late father in 1999, pushed economic and political reforms in part to improve relations with the Shia community. After boycotting the country's first round of democratic elections under the newly-promulgated constitution in 2002, Shia political societies participated in 2006 and 2010 in legislative and municipal elections and Wifaq, the largest Shia political society, won the largest bloc of seats in the elected lower-house of the legislature both times. In early 2011, Bahrain's fractious opposition sought to ride a rising tide of popular Arab protests to petition for the redress of popular grievances. In mid-March 2011, with the backing of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) capitals, King HAMAD put an end to the mass public gatherings and increasingly disruptive civil disobedience by declaring a state of emergency. Manama also welcomed a contingent of mostly Saudi and Emirati forces as part of a GCC deployment intended to help Bahraini security forces maintain order. Since that time, intermittent efforts at political dialogue between the government and opposition have remained at a stalemate. The Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI), formed in June 2011 to investigate abuses during the unrest and state of emergency, released its final report in November 2011. The King fully endorsed the report, and since then Manama has begun to implement many of the BICI's recommendations, including improving policing procedures, reinstating fired workers, rebuilding some mosques, and establishing a compensation fund for those affected by the unrest and crackdown. Despite this progress, street protests have grown increasingly violent since the beginning of 2012.

RECOGNIZING THE RIGHTS OF ASSOCIATION AND ASSEMBLY

UN  Credit:  Wikimedia

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Adoption of Human Rights Council Resolution on Freedom of Association and of AssemblyPress Statement

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

October 1, 2012

On Thursday, the UN Human Rights Council recognized the critical importance of the freedom of peaceful assembly and association. This U.S. sponsored resolution reaffirms a basic truth: civil society plays a central role in promoting and protecting the enjoyment of human rights, but civil society can only serve the common good when the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association are protected.

Progress in the 21st century depends on the ability of individuals and organizations to come together around shared goals; harness the power of their convictions; and make societies more productive, transparent and accountable. Over the last 18 months, however, we have seen governments constrict civil society activism and increase their attacks against civic-minded organizations and individuals. These crackdowns mark a disturbing trend that requires global leadership.

The United States was proud to work with fellow Core Group members – the Czech Republic, Indonesia, Lithuania, the Maldives, Mexico, and Nigeria – to advance this important and timely resolution, and we thank them for their leadership and unflagging effort.

In New York last week, the United States was also proud to stand with 15 countries and two foundations that have joined us in supporting Lifeline, a rapid-response assistance mechanism for embattled NGOs that puts the principles endorsed by the resolution into action.

This resolution, and the Lifeline fund, shows that we have many partners around the world alarmed by these recent trends who are willing to support peaceful assembly and association. This is a critical moment to redouble our efforts to stand with civil society in the pursuit of democratic progress.

U.S. OFFICIAL'S REMARKS TO THE "FREEDOM ONLINE" CONFERENCE

Photo Credit:  CENTRAL INTELAGENCE AGENCY
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks to the "Freedom Online" Conference

Remarks
Michael H. Posner
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
Second Freedom Online Conference
Nairobi, Kenya
September 5, 2012
I am delighted to be back in Kenya, a country I know well and where I have many friends and have spent considerable time. I want to commend the Kenyan government for hosting this conference and for the leadership role you are playing on Internet and information technology issues. I had the privilege of meeting with Minister Poghisio last December at the launch of the Coalition, and I am honored to be speaking after him today.

Kenya now has well over 15 million Internet users, and leads East Africa in mobile penetration, with more than two-thirds of all Kenyans now connected. The fact that so many African countries are participating in this conference is a tribute to Kenya’s leadership and convening power.

Kenya is not alone in embracing mobile and digital technologies. In neighboring Tanzania, for example, more than half of its citizens are using mobile phones. In Ghana, mobile penetration is now over 90%. These are statistics that were unimaginable a decade ago, and are cause for reflection and celebration.

Across Africa today, there is a new kind of race – a race to connect as many citizens as quickly as possible. By doing so, we are changing the development paradigm in ways none of us yet fully understand.

But while our technologies change, our fundamental principles and our development challenges do not. And so today I would like to say a few words about the role of Internet freedom, and how the free flow of information has implications for human rights and development.

Credit:  U.S. CIA World factbook

I believe it’s futile in the long run to try to separate one kind of freedom from another, to attempt to distinguish online freedoms from freedoms we enjoy in the physical world, or to try to keep the Internet open for business in a given country but closed for free expression. Because, as Secretary Clinton said at the first Freedom Online conference in The Hague in December, "There isn’t an economic Internet and a social Internet and a political Internet: there’s just the Internet."

Yet we continue to see attempts by countries to harness the economic power of the Internet while controlling political and cultural content. Some countries are devoting great resources to attempting to purge their online space or, like Iran, attempting to isolate their people inside what amounts to a national intra-net – a digital bubble. Such attempts may succeed for a limited time in some places; but at a cost to a nation’s education system, its political stability, its social mobility, and its economic potential.

These are costs that no nation can afford. Whether developed or developing, the economies of the 21st century must compete to attract capital, to spark innovation, to nurture the entrepreneurial spirit of our people and provide the climate in which they develop enterprises that can provide jobs and sustainable growth.

Around the world, some groups tend to focus more on erasing the digital divide, extending Internet access that last difficult mile, and putting into the hands of the next two billion users a mobile device that also provides access to banking and education, medical and agricultural advice and so much more. Meanwhile, other groups tend to focus more on Internet freedom, ensuring that the evolving information and communication technologies remain the foundation of an open, global platform for exchange, where people can exercise their rights, and not a tool used to spy on or silence citizens.

Today, the world has not one but two digital divides – the divide between the two billion of us who have some form of Internet access and the five billion who have yet to get it, and also a divide between those who enjoy the free use of their connectivity, and those whose experience of the Internet is restricted by censorship of the information they can receive and fear of retaliation for the information they transmit. The access divide is narrowing, thanks to the efforts of people around the world and the hard work of people in this room. But the second divide, the freedom divide, is widening.

We must continue to work together to erase both divides, and these interests must be pursued in tandem.

This is a world in which citizens of democratic nations can have uncensored Internet access and thus membership in a global community that exchanges news, information, ideas, products, innovations and services. At the same time it’s a world where citizens of some other countries remain trapped and isolated behind firewalls that stunt not just their political freedom but ultimately their economic opportunities. We must do everything possible to oppose what amounts to information curtain created by national governments that do not want their own people to have full and free access to the Internet.

There are no magic bullets that will erase this divide overnight, but the United States is committed to helping expand the benefits of information and communications technologies to other nations as an integral part of both our human rights and our development policies.

As President Obama wrote last week – in response to a question put to him during an Internet chat — "We will fight hard to make sure that the Internet remains the open forum for everybody — from those who are expressing an idea to those [who] want to start a business."

The United States takes a holistic approach to these issues. We recognize the linkages between broad-based access to 21st century communications and inclusive economic growth, and in turn between inclusive economic development and human rights. We know that human rights do not begin after breakfast. People need both. Without breakfast, few people have the energy to make full use of their rights. And after breakfast, they need both political and economic freedom to build profitable businesses and peaceful societies.

What does that mean in practice? It means the U.S. government is involved in a wide range of Information & Communication Technology development efforts from a variety of different agencies, from USAID to the National Science Foundation.

As a first step, companies, governments and civil society groups are starting to come together to work on this crucial issue. The goal is to find ways to achieve the UN target of providing entry-level broadband service for less than 5% of average monthly income. We recognize that governments have a role to play in creating the right incentives, ensuring healthy market competition, and supporting investment and continued infrastructure development that brings the Internet and mobile technology to more people in more places.

On the openness side, we have expanded our funding for Internet freedom advocacy and programming, for which the US Congress has allocated $100 million since 2008 to projects that provide technologies and knowledge to millions of people whose freedoms online are repressed. We are thrilled to be launching at this conference the Digital Defenders partnership, an unprecedented collaboration among governments to provide support for digital activists under threat.

But just as we support individuals who are targeted every day for exercising their rights online, we are conscious of a broader threat to the future of Internet openness. Right now, in various international forums, some countries are working to change how the Internet is governed. They want to replace the current multi-stakeholder approach, which supports the free flow of information in a global network, and includes governments, the private sector, and citizens. In its place, they aim to impose a system that expands control over Internet resources, institutions, and content, and centralizes that control in the hands of governments. These debates will play out in forums over the next few months and years.

The United States supports preserving and deepening the current multi-stakeholder approach because it brings together the best of governments, the private sector and civil society to manage the network, and it works. The multi-stakeholder system has kept the Internet up and running for years, all over the world. We want the next generation of Internet users — whether small business owners or independent journalists – to be involved in shaping the future of the platform.

That next generation of users will not just be in the United States. Many of them will be here in Africa. That is why we need to ensure that stakeholders in Africa and the rest of the developing world are able to participate in the various multi-stakeholder forums where Internet governance issues are decided. And that is why we value our partnership with the governments of the Coalition and welcome Kenya’s leadership, which leads by example in demonstrating that the right way to foster both access and openness – to harness the potential of these new technologies — is through inclusion and collaboration with everyone in this room.

STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL'S REMARKS ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Implementation Workshop on the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
Remarks Maria Otero
Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights George C. Marshall Auditorium
Washington, DC
April 30, 2012
hank you, Mike. I want to take a moment to recognize your leadership particularly in the area of Business and Human Rights. Not only have you created a team that focuses exclusively on the intersection between business and human rights, but your leadership has helped create the space to develop and maintain tools which encourage corporations to respect human rights while ensuring economic prosperity.
We are grateful to have Professor John Ruggie with us today. As you all know, John was the Secretary General’s Special Representative on Business and Human Rights. There is no better person to discuss implementation of the Guiding Principles than the author himself.

Our strategy for promoting respect for human rights through our foreign policy must reflect the world as it is, not as it used to be. Private companies are some of the world’s largest economic actors. Clearly, building bridges between government and business is not only smart, it’s necessary.

At the heart of this collaboration is the unique role business plays in bolstering innovation. Indeed, innovation is the core of what businesses do. From technology, to energy, to manufacturing, to health, business investments -- both domestic and international -- impact peoples’ lives. We must leverage this innovation and investment to help solve global challenges and improve the welfare of people. But in order to achieve our shared goals we must be sure such innovation is rooted in a respect for human rights. That is of course why we are all here today.

We must establish clear guidelines and reliable processes so that business can do their part in respecting human rights. The U.S. government uses our foreign policy to help strengthen the rule of law and human rights, which in turn improves the environment for prosperous business. It also ensures investment and innovation don’t violate standards of stable and democratic society.

But this is something neither government nor the private sector can accomplish alone. By working together across sectors, in partnership, with mutual respect, we can leverage our collective strengths to support business respect for human rights. We will be far more successful in achieving our shared goals if draw our solutions from all realms -- governments, private companies, multilaterals, universities, and nonprofits. What I know from my career -- and I suspect many of you know the same -- is that innovation occurs at the intersection of worlds that are newly connected. When you bring people together, tapping new expertise and resources from every corner, and think outside of your respective box, perspectives shift and challenges break down.

For example, Barrick Goldand BP, as well as Marathon, Newmont, Shell and Rio Tinto; are working to develop a set of key performance indicators for the Voluntary Principles (or VPs) on Security and Human Rights. The VPs provide guidance to extractive companies on maintaining the safety and security of their operations while also respecting human rights.

Another partnership with great potential is the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers. Work is now underway to translate the code’s principles into clear standards, and to establish a governance and oversight mechanism. Over 300 members of industry have already signed, and we encourage your participation. Why? Because again and again, we see that when we work together, our capacity for innovation is nearly limitless.

The UN Guiding Principles provides an important framework through which we engage in these areas.

The United States is seeking to institutionalize and broaden support for the Guiding Principles in multilateral fora. For example, we have encouraged the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to incorporate language from the GPS into their human rights chapter of the newly revised (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. We are looking at other regional and global multilateral organizations to incorporate the principles in similar ways, furthering the GPs as the authoritative standard framework on business and human rights.

We also working with the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights as it disseminates the Guiding Principles. We are exploring ways to support the work of the UN Working Group through targeted high impact projects, and intend to launch a $500,000 program to promote awareness and implementation of the UN Guiding Principles.

I know you have a robust agenda today, and I look forward to hearing about your exchanges. Your contribution will help inform our policies, and how we move forward the GPs. In so doing, we not only positively influence the respect for human rights but also enhance the success of businesses.

Thank you, and it’s my pleasure to introduce to you our next speaker, Assistant Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs, my friend Jose Fernandez.

THE WORKSHOP ON HUMAN RIGHTS

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights Workshop
Media Note Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC
April 30, 2012
On Monday, April 30, 2012 at the State Department, representatives of major multinational corporations from a wide range of industry sectors attended a workshop on implementing the United Nations (UN) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The workshop focused on best practices and key challenges in respecting human rights in business operations. This is an important step toward collaboration to find joint solutions to human rights challenges in the face of an ever more complex global economy. The U.S. State Department will convene similar consultations with civil society later this year.
The workshop was co-hosted by Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Michael Posner, and Assistant Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs Jose Fernandez. In an opening address, Under Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Maria Otero laid out the Department’s approach to working with businesses to contribute to global prosperity, while ensuring they operate in a manner that protects against human rights abuses.

 The approach emphasizes:
Maximizing the contributions of private sector innovation to meet global challenges and improve human welfare.
Exploring new ways for government and business to work together to further shared goals and address challenges in complex environments.
Establishing clear guidelines and reliable processes so that businesses can do their part in respecting human rights.

Former UN Special Representative on Business and Human Rights John Ruggie and the Shift Project facilitated the workshop, which furthered public-private efforts to strengthen businesses' human rights policies and practices.

The Guiding Principles are the first global set of guidelines on business and human rights endorsed by the UN, and provide an important framework and focal point for corporations, states, civil society and other actors as they work to strengthen their respective approaches to business and human rights.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY BRIEFING APRIL 24, 2012

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 24, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
12:59 p.m. EDT
MS. NULAND: All right. Happy Tuesday, everybody. Further to our Free the Press daily highlight as we walk up to World Press Freedom Day, today’s highlighted journalist is Dilmurod Sayid, an independent Uzbek journalist. He wrote for opposition websites including The Voice of Freedom and was a member of the Ezgulik Human Rights Society. He was a particularly staunch critic of corruption in Uzbekistan, and he was convicted in a closed trial that did not meet international standards. So we take this opportunity to again call on the Government of Uzbekistan to release him, and we call your attention to his case on HUMANRIGHTS.GOV.
Let’s go to what’s on your minds.
QUESTION: Can I just ask one thing about this, the human rights?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: Was there a call that was sent out to embassies to kind of come up with people that you’re going to highlight, or how do these – how were these people chosen?
MS. NULAND: Our Human Rights Bureau, working with embassies and working with our Annual Human Rights Report, came up with the list of journalists that we’re particularly highlighting. Do you have somebody in particular you want to add to the list?
QUESTION: Well, I was going to add me. (Laughter.) No --
MS. NULAND: We all have concerns about your human rights – (laughter) – and about our human rights at your hand. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: I’m sure that’s the case. No, I was just curious as to – I mean, how many are there going to be total?
MS. NULAND: We started this about a week ago and we’re doing it up through May 3rd, which is International Press Freedom Day.
QUESTION: Have you seen any kind of – has there been any response to this that you’re aware of yet?
MS. NULAND: Well, we’re seeing quite a bit of coverage in the various regions that these individuals are from.
QUESTION: But any actual action from the governments who are involved?
MS. NULAND: I’m going to take that one. I don’t think that we’ve had any formal responses to these, but sometimes these things take time. And sometimes when we shout out these cases, it emboldens folks in the region or in the host country to do more on their behalf.
QUESTION: Okay. Moving on to the issue of the day, or at least one of them, the situation in Sudan seems to be really deteriorating, even though there was a hopeful – possibly hopeful sign earlier in the week. It’s gotten worse. I’m wondering what your take on that is. What have the contacts been with both North and South? Where is Princeton Lyman now? Is he back? Is he still out there?
QUESTION: He was in the cafeteria about 20 minutes ago.
QUESTION: Thank you. Well, then I don’t need to – you don’t have to answer the last one.
MS. NULAND: Excellent. Well, as we said yesterday, we had the good news of South Sudan withdrawing from Heglig; but rather than responding in kind, we’ve had Sudan increase its aerial bombardment over the last 24 hours. And so these reprehensible bombings are targeting civilians. They are causing casualties all over the place. And they are obviously gross violations of international law, and we continue to call for an immediate cessation.
As the Secretary has been saying over the last week in particular, these countries have to work together if they are each going to succeed. They have got to come back to the table and settle these issues. So I think the concern that we had was, after the trip that Princeton Lyman made where he was in both Juba and Khartoum, where he worked with the parties, where the – we – working with the AU and others, we convinced the South to pull out of Heglig. Rather than that pulling both sides back to the table, the Sudanese seem to have taken negative advantage of it. So it’s very, very concerning. You saw the President’s statement of a week ago.
Ambassador Lyman is here, but he remains in contact with the parties and he remains in contact with a variety of international partners on a daily basis.
QUESTION: And what is the Administration doing, if anything, at the moment, directly with the two sides? Is there – other than Ambassador Lyman’s, I guess now, phone calls, is there anything else?
MS. NULAND: Well, in addition to the presidential statement of the weekend and his direct appeal to the sides, we’re also working with the AU on a package of increased pressure if we can’t get these --
QUESTION: And the UN?
MS. NULAND: And the UN, of course. Yeah.
QUESTION: Can we go to Israel?
QUESTION: And the West Bank?
QUESTION: Please.
QUESTION: Sure.
QUESTION: Hold on. Sudan, just for a second?
MS. NULAND: Why don’t we stay with Shaun and then come to you.
QUESTION: Sure. Just President Kiir was in Beijing.
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: I just wanted to see if you had an assessment of China’s role. China traditionally has been quite close to Khartoum, has received some criticism for that. How do you perceive China’s role in this?
MS. NULAND: Well, China has played a role in both Sudan and South Sudan. We actually have been in very close touch with the Chinese. The Secretary has raised the issue of Sudan with Foreign Minister Yang. Princeton Lyman has been in contact with Ambassador Zhang here. He’s traveled to Beijing. So our hope is that Beijing will play a constructive role. They have in the past in trying to encourage the sides to come back to the negotiating table. China has investments throughout the area and also benefits from stability, so we have been working to enlist Beijing and to work together on a common message.
QUESTION: Victoria, just a quick follow-up. Would you say that the withdrawal of the Southern forces is a direct result of the involvement of Ambassador Lyman? And if so, what did he get in return from the North? I mean, he went to both Juba and Khartoum.
MS. NULAND: Well, again, this is a process of trying to work with both sides and get them back to the table. He works, as you know, in extremely close partnership with the African Union, with the UN peacekeeping forces on the ground. But his own personal relationships and his own diplomacy have been very important to this process.
So I think this is the issue of concern, that Sudan wanted to see the withdrawals from Heglig. Those happened. And the response was – instead of being a response in kind, was a violent response. So that’s extremely concerning.
QUESTION: But the rhetoric today from al-Bashir, the president, is quite belligerent. Is anyone in contact with him from this Administration at the present time?
MS. NULAND: No, of course. And Ambassador Lyman is in regular contact with him, but so are others. And we will continue to be.
QUESTION: Hold on a second. Really? With President Bashir himself? I thought there was a kind of de facto ban on direct contacts between U.S. officials and President Bashir because of his status with the ICC.
MS. NULAND: I think that Princeton has been in contact with him directly. But if that’s not the case, I’ll get back to you.[1]
Yeah. Please.
QUESTION: Change of topic?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just one more on that?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Jill.
QUESTION: This is the immediate problem, the fighting.
MS. NULAND: Right.
QUESTION: But there are underlying issues that are fueling this, such as borders. Is there any attempt at this point to even begin to sort that out?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, as part of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that created the two states that led to the velvet divorce creating South Sudan, there were unresolved issues of borders and resources and other things that had to be settled. There is a process that is internationally managed that the AU supervises for their negotiators to come to the table and work on these things. But every time we have serious flare-ups of violence, those talks break down, stall, get off the rail. So this is the problem, that they can’t move past the immediate difficulties to get to the underlying settlement of the remaining underlying issues.
And as the Secretary has said again and again, as the President said over the weekend, unless they can settle these issues, neither one of them is going to benefit from the potential to be reintegrated with the international community, to benefit from the resources, and to really invest in their people who are so long-suffering.
QUESTION: Is there a feeling that the AU is not putting enough pressure on either side, or specifically Sudan?
MS. NULAND: I think we’re all looking once again, as we have so many times in this process, at what pressure we can bring to bear – economic pressure, political pressure – but frankly, the AU has done a superb job speaking for the region on these issues. And we continue to work very closely with them on a daily basis.
QUESTION: Just one more on this. And I have to admit that I am not a Sudan expert, but – and this phrase “velvet divorce” is new to me. Is this – but given this – the incidents or the developments, is this --
MS. NULAND: No, of course, of course. I mean there was so much violence.
QUESTION: -- doesn’t really seem to be so much velvet --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- left to it.
MS. NULAND: Well, suffice to say that it was the result of a negotiated settlement, so it was not – the violence, obviously, was the backdrop, but ultimately they came to the table and decided how they were going to divide themselves. So --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Sorry.
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: Yeah, please, please, please.
QUESTION: Are you coordinating with the Arab League on the issue of Sudan?
MS. NULAND: We are.
QUESTION: I know you have coordinated on Syria, but are you --
MS. NULAND: We are, and we have Arab League meeting, I think, later this week, where we expect that Sudan will be on the agenda as well.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: So there are reports out of Israel that the Israeli Government has legalized three so-called settlement outposts. I think it’s the U.S. Government position that such outposts are illegal, but what is your – A, what is your view on Israel’s decision to, quote, “legalize these three outposts,” close quote? And B, how does that affect your efforts to bring the parties back into a direct negotiation?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think you’re talking about the reports that there has been a request for a stay of court decisions with regard to the settlements. Is that what you’re referring to?
QUESTION: I – and I’m sorry I don’t have – although I tried to email it to myself --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- I don’t have it in front of me.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: My understanding was that it was not just a request for a stay, but rather a determination that had been made. But maybe I misunderstood.
MS. NULAND: No, I think it’s a request for a court decision. We are, obviously, concerned by the reports that we’ve seen. We have raised this with the Israeli Government and we are seeking clarification. You know where we are on settlements. We don’t think this is helpful to the process and we don’t accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity.
QUESTION: And when you say we have raised this, you’ve raised this with them since these reports emerged? In other words --
MS. NULAND: My understanding is we raised it in Tel Aviv today. That’s my understanding.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up, three settlements – Bruchin, Rechelim, and Sansana, and they are on privately owned Palestinian land, they have for 15 years or 16 years – have been declared illegal. And a lot of people are interpreting it as a response to Abbas’s letter. Do you see it that way?
MS. NULAND: Again, we’re seeking clarification from the Israeli Government as to their intentions and making our own views very clear about this.
QUESTION: Yeah, but the office of the prime minister issued a statement that they are legal, that they have been deemed from this point on forward as legal settlements.
MS. NULAND: Well, again, you know where we stand on this. And as I said, we are raising it.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, I know where you stand, but what measures are you willing to take in case that the Israeli Government goes forward with this?
MS. NULAND: Again, Said, you know where we are on these things. We make this case every time we have an incident like this that it is not helpful to the process; it doesn’t get us where we need to go. We will continue to raise it, as we have.
QUESTION: Well, beside raising the issue with the Israeli Government, what measures is the United States Government willing to take?
MS. NULAND: Well --
QUESTION: You have constantly taken measures when similar activities are taken by other governments. What measures are you willing to take in this particular case?
MS. NULAND: Again, my understanding is that we have a government statement with regard to its intentions. We are seeking to clarify that. So I’m not going to predict what further response there might be on our side.
QUESTION: Do you know --
QUESTION: Do you feel that the government of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is trying to sabotage efforts by David Hale?
MS. NULAND: David Hale has been in the region all week trying to work on the issues involved here and bring the parties back to the table. I don’t think that we would characterize that at all – the situation at all the way you just have.
QUESTION: And finally, do you see this as boding really ill to Palestinian landowners whose land is shrinking from underneath them?
MS. NULAND: I missed the beginning of your sentence, Said.
QUESTION: I mean, this new decision by the Israeli Government bodes very ill for Israeli landowners, how – for Palestinian landowners, however, that land is shrinking, so to speak.
MS. NULAND: Well, again, this is the backdrop for the statements that we always make about this kind of activity, but we want to get some more clarification from the Israelis.
QUESTION: So in this case, why wouldn’t the United States Government support an initiative by the United Nations to term the settlements, or these at least illegal outposts, as illegal?
MS. NULAND: Said, you know where we are on these things, and we are going to continue to talk to the Israelis about these issues.
Jill.
QUESTION: Can you just update – you mentioned David Hale. Can you update us on some of his --
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Yeah. So he was in Jerusalem yesterday. He met with his Israeli counterpart, the Israeli negotiator Mr. Molho. Today he met with Palestinian negotiator Erekat and with Jordanian Foreign Minister Judeh. He also now plans to go on to Qatar and Egypt. And thereafter, his travel plans are up in the air.
QUESTION: Did he meet them separately, with Erekat and Foreign Minister Judeh?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Yeah. I think he went to Amman to see Foreign Minister Judeh.
QUESTION: And so do you know if – was this an issue? Had it happened yet by the – had this government announcement happened by the time he had had his meetings? Do you know if he raised it, or when you say it was raised in Tel Aviv, was it raised by someone else?
MS. NULAND: He was in Jerusalem yesterday. He was with the Palestinians today. So my understanding is this announcement was sometime today, was this morning. So my – what I had was that the Embassy had raised it with the Israelis. If that is not --
QUESTION: Do you know if it was the ambassador or someone else?
MS. NULAND: I don’t have that.
QUESTION: And hadn’t he originally planned to go to Saudi, too? Is that now off the itinerary?
MS. NULAND: I think – no, he was in Riyadh at the beginning of the – oh, sorry. I’ve got it here at the very beginning. Yeah, he’s also in Riyadh today, currently in Riyadh for meetings with the senior Saudi officials. Jerusalem yesterday. Something’s not right here. Riyadh’s on this agenda; I don’t know when, though, because I also have that he is today with the Jordanians and with the Palestinians, but Riyadh is still on the agenda.
QUESTION: Okay. And his – and post – his post-Gulf – you had mentioned earlier that after the Gulf, he was probably going to go back to Israel and the PA. Is that – you said that’s now up in the air. It is because – is that because of this announcement?
MS. NULAND: No, I don’t think it has anything to do with that. I think he just wants to see where he is and whether there’s a need for him to come back to Washington and report first.
Please, Goyal.
QUESTION: Another subject?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: India.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: A number of education ministers from different Indian states were or are in the U.S. studying the U.S. community colleges system and the U.S. education system, and planning to open maybe hundreds of community colleges in India with the U.S. education system help, which Prime Minister Singh and President Obama and knowledge initiative was signed between the two leaders. What role do you think State Department playing in this role?
MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, we support this initiative. We have been working with the Indian side to flesh out the initiative that was agreed between the President and the prime minister through our Education Bureau here. And obviously, we are responsible for the visa issuance for the various folks studying in the United States.
QUESTION: And as far as Indian students now, over 125,000, I believe, in the U.S. What will be their status when these community college will be open in India? Because right now, when they graduate from an Indian university or colleges and their degrees are not really accepted or agreed to here in the U.S.
MS. NULAND: I guess I don’t understand the question, Goyal. You’re asking if they had graduate from Indian college, are those degrees accepted in the United States?
QUESTION: Right.
MS. NULAND: I think it’s a case-by-case issue depending upon where they graduate from and where they’re looking to get accredited from, and et cetera. So obviously, if there’s a sister university relationship, sometimes those accreditations can be recognized, but it just depends on what they want to do. I don’t think there’s a blanket way of looking at that.
QUESTION: And finally --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: I’m sorry. As far as the U.S. visa for the Indian students coming to higher study in the U.S., is there a change now? Because some feel that the requirements are more or higher than after this incident took place at the various (inaudible) universities, so-called, in the California area.
MS. NULAND: I don’t think we’ve changed our policy with regard to the way we interview applicants. I think what we are doing is making sure that the sponsoring organizations truly are what they say they are in the United States; that if they say that they are bringing students over to educate them, that they intend to educate them, not put them to work, et cetera, so – yeah.
QUESTION: New topic?
MS. NULAND: Yeah, please, Ros.
QUESTION: In the WikiLeaks case, the judge in the Bradley Manning case this morning ordered the State Department, among other agencies, to turn over some of their documents to the defense in order to help the Manning team better prepare its case. Is the State Department going to turn over those documents? And my follow-up is: Does the U.S. still see a negative impact on its relations with other countries in diplomacy because of what happened in the alleged leaking of these documents?
MS. NULAND: Let me take the last part first. I think our view of the entire WikiLeaks incident has not changed at all in terms of the negative effects. With regard to what the court has ordered, Ros, I haven’t seen it, so let me take it and see what we know about what’s been requested of us and what our response is.
Jill.
QUESTION: Russia?
MS. NULAND: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: The Russian ambassador here in Washington is concerned about legislation that is moving forward, the Magnitsky legislation. And he’s saying essentially that this is just a way of – if you get rid of Jackson-Vanik, this is just another way of punishing Russia. He’s quite concerned about it. I know the State Department has been talking with Congress. Do we know what the status of Magnitsky is? Is the State Department encouraging, discouraging this legislation? What’s the view?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, we do support the goals of the legislation. We have programs already in place to ensure that we are sanctioning those who are responsible for human rights abuses, and we are continuing our dialogue with the Congress about how we can appropriately make the views of the Congress and the American people known; at the same time, that we strongly favor the repeal of the Jackson-Vanik legislation, as really being a relic of the past that doesn’t apply to today’s situation. So this is an ongoing conversation that we’re having with the Hill.
QUESTION: Why is Magnitsky needed if the State Department really does have the ability right now legally to refuse visas to people who have been involved in crime, or at least, I guess, maybe alleged – I’m not quite sure how we can define that. But don’t you have the tools already to exclude people and not give them a visa?
MS. NULAND: We do have many of the tools in this legislation. I think it’s a matter of – from the Congress’s point of view, obviously, I would refer you to them. But our understanding in the conversations that we’ve had is that there’s a desire and an interest to make this a matter of law; and particularly, if we are going to make the point with members of Congress that the days are over for the kinds of sanctions that we had under Jackson-Vanik, but that we still have other human rights concerns that need to be taken into account.
So I think there are – there’s a feeling on the Hill that putting this in legislation will create a systemic, routine way of dealing with it and a clear set of guidelines that the Congress and the Administration agree to and understand and that are clear on the Russian side. So let’s see where this legislation goes as it goes through the Congress.
Please.
QUESTION: Thank you. On North Korea, they reported that North Korea is almost ready for the nuclear test. And so I would like to know, what’s the assessment from the U.S. Government?
MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t think our position on any of this has changed: No launching, no testing, no nothing if you want to have a better relationship with the international community. All of these are provocations, all of them take the DPRK in the wrong direction, so our message on all of this hasn’t changed.
QUESTION: But they say if the U.S. agree in a peace treaty with them, they may abandon the nuclear test. What’s your reaction to that?
MS. NULAND: Starting with the Leap Day deal that the North Koreans have abrogated, we were beginning a conversation again about a step-by-step process that could convince the Six Parties, could convince the international community that this new North Korean leadership was interested in coming back into compliance with its international obligations. Those – was a small first step, and unfortunately now we’re going backwards. So it’s really up to the DPRK to demonstrate that it wants a better relationship with all of us and that it wants to put its energy into peace and stability and taking care of its people rather than expensive weapons.
QUESTION: And last question --
QUESTION: Haven’t they already done that? Haven’t they demonstrated their interest already?
MS. NULAND: Demonstrated their interest?
QUESTION: Or lack of interest?
MS. NULAND: Unfortunately, they are demonstrating a lack of interest, yes.
QUESTION: Okay. And then can you just (inaudible), you said no launching, no testing no nothing. I mean, what is that – no nothing? They can’t do anything? (Laughter.) I mean, what if they decide they’re going to free all political prisoners and have democratic elections tomorrow? I mean, is that – that’s bad, too?
MS. NULAND: What they can and should do is take care of their people, open their country, begin to reform the system, and demonstrate to the international community that they’re prepared to meet their international obligations. And they haven’t done any of those things. So what I meant by “no nothing” was no provocative nuclear actions of any kind.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up.
MS. NULAND: Keeping me on my toes.
QUESTION: On this – at the coming U.S.-China S and ED, what’s the U.S. expectation from China on North Korea issue, specifically?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think we said very clearly that we have encouraged China to continue to use all of its influence with the DPRK and particularly with the new young leader to encourage a positive course and to discourage the negative course. So I’m sure that we will be exchanging views on North Korea and getting a better sense of how the Chinese side analyzes the situation, what messages they’ve been willing to send, able to send, and what pressure they think they can bring to bear, because it’s absolutely essential we all work together here.
Please, Michel.
QUESTION: On Iran? Iran has warned today that the new U.S. sanctions targeting its access to surveillance technology were negative and could affect its crucial talks next month with the P-5+1 in Baghdad. Do you have any reaction to that?
MS. NULAND: Well, let me start by saying that the sanctions that the President announced yesterday were designed to address a different set of concerns that we have with regard to Iran’s behavior, and that’s Iran’s behavior with regard to their own citizens, with regard to the dignity, human rights, standard of living for their own citizens. So frankly, putting sanctions on companies that help Iran spy on their own citizens and having complaints about that begs the question as to why the Government of Iran thinks it needs to spy on its own citizens and block their access to the internet in the first place. So these – this is a set of sanctions that are designed to support the humans rights, freedoms, dignity of the Iranian people.
QUESTION: But do you expect these sanctions to affect the upcoming negotiations in Baghdad – or talks?
MS. NULAND: Well, our hope is that we will have a productive round in Baghdad. We discussed very clearly in Istanbul what it’s going to take to continue to move forward. So it’s really up to Iran. But frankly, what we have done with the President – the sanctions that the President announced yesterday, don’t even have anything to do with the nuclear file. They have to do with our separate concerns about the human rights situation.
QUESTION: Can I just ask a question on these sanctions? The net effect – I mean, one could argue about the effect of these sanctions, whether they actual do anything, whether these companies or institutions actually have any assets that can be blocked, or whether any Americans were doing business in the first place, but that’s not – well, my question is: With the exception of one, the internet provider in Iran, all of these entities and the one individual in Iran and Syria were already under numerous layers of other sanctions that did exactly the same thing. So I’m just wondering, there was no net effect on the IRGC, on the intelligence ministries, on the head of the Syrian intelligence directorate, was there?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think --
QUESTION: I mean, it didn’t do anything new to them. They were already under sanctions that did exactly what these sanctions do.
MS. NULAND: Frankly, I’m not sure that your premise is right, Matt, that there was no – nothing new, that this was an additional layer and all of these same folks and entities had already been sanctioned. I think the larger point here, though, is to express our concern about the circumvention, the importing of foreign technology to be used against your own citizens to deny them access to the internet, to deny them the ability communicate freely.
So regardless of whether it’s an additional layer on top of the same people and entities, the political point here is to express our concern about what these governments, whether they’re Syrian – the Syrian Government or the Iranian Government, are doing to block access to the internet, to block the ability of their people to communicate, to chill the environment for civil discourse and for civil society.
QUESTION: Doesn’t that happen in quite a few countries? In Equatorial Guinea, in Zimbabwe, in --
MS. NULAND: It happens in a number of countries and the Secretary --
QUESTION: Saudi Arabia.
MS. NULAND: -- there are number of countries that as we – as the Secretary has spoken out on many, many times, that seek to limit the right of their citizens to free speech, to free association, to the internet, and we will continue to speak out. But there are particular governments who are now in the business of acquiring the most sophisticated Western technology they can find and targeting it back on their own citizens and squeezing them, in human rights terms, with it. So this is an area of increasing concern.
QUESTION: So that would be the standard then for which countries would in the future those sanctions would apply to, whether they’re acquiring (inaudible)?
MS. NULAND: Again, I think we’re going to take this on a case-by-case basis. But in this case, the President was making the point, and we were making the point more broadly that these two governments are particularly egregious in this area as, if you will, state-sponsors of censorship.
QUESTION: Victoria, could you explain something regarding the board – the atrocity prevention board that the President announced on the sanctions?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Now, is it -- how is the State Department involved? I mean, since we know that Samantha Power is going to lead that effort. Who’s from the State Department? Who will sit on that board?
MS. NULAND: The State Department representative on the board is Under Secretary of State Maria Otero.
QUESTION: Maria Otero. Okay.
MS. NULAND: And the first meeting of the board was yesterday.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. NULAND: And the board is designed to get together this group of very experienced people to look at how we can, as a government, do more to support accountability and to stop atrocities.
QUESTION: Okay. And one related issue: Last week it was announced – the Open Government Initiative?
MS. NULAND: Right.
QUESTION: Is that in any way connected to this – there’s going to be a center of – a connection with this board?
MS. NULAND: Well, some of the people who work on the Open Government Partnership are the same people who work on this atrocities board – as you said, Samantha Power, Under Secretary Otero. But the initiatives are not linked.
What I would say is that when we announced at the Friends of the Syrian People meeting in Istanbul that we were standing up this atrocities clearinghouse for Syria, that’s an example of the kind of initiative that this group of people on the atrocities board brought to bear. They were the sort of idea factory for that idea, and it’s the kind of thing that, assuming that it works well in a Syrian context, we can replicate in other contexts.
Yeah.
QUESTION: New topic?
MS. NULAND: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: Do you have – does the State Department have any additional information on the two Cuban actors who were granted temporary visas and have since disappeared?
MS. NULAND: To my knowledge – and frankly, this is yesterday information and I didn’t have an update from today, so if it’s not right, we’ll get back to you – but neither we nor the film festival has any further information about where the two actors are.
QUESTION: So that hasn’t changed, then, --
MS. NULAND: I do not believe that has changed since yesterday. Okay.
QUESTION: Another subject?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Pakistan. As far as Secretary Grossman’s visit to Pakistan is concerned, and also last week Secretary Panetta told the Pentagon press that the Haqqani Network is the most dangerous, and is also now going back and forth from Pakistan to Afghanistan, Afghanistan to Pakistan. Is that going to be a topic? Because this is the main concern or main issue between the two countries and the security in Afghanistan is concerned.
MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t have any travel to announce today, Goyal, but I think you know that we’ve been pretty clear. Secretary was clear, Secretary Panetta was clear last week, that we have concerns about the Haqqani Network in – with regard to the most recent incident in Afghanistan. And as the Secretary said in Brussels, we will continue to try to work with Pakistan because this is a threat to both of us.
QUESTION: And finally, are you planning to include Haqqani Network in the Reward for Justice or any other sanctions against this network?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, we have sanctions on individual members of the Haqqani Network, and we’re continuing to look at what more we can do there.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: A follow-up on Pakistan?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Yesterday, State Department announced Grossman – Marc Grossman visit to three different countries, but Pakistan is not included. And there are some media reports in Pakistan that Pakistani official are getting ready to meet with him, and talk about all issues, including reopening of a NATO supply line. And they also talk about the trilateral core group meeting, including Afghanistan. So do you have any update of his visit? Is he going to Islamabad? Do you confirm that?
MS. NULAND: I think I just said that I don’t have any travel to announce today, but as you know, both Afghanistan and Pakistan fall within his purview. But I don’t have anything to announce today.
Okay?
QUESTION: No. I just want --
MS. NULAND: Sorry.
QUESTION: -- to go back to the WikiLeaks question. When you said that your position had not changed as to whether this – whether the release of these documents have done damage to the national security, what – can you be more – what does that mean? You say that it did damage?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: Can you be more explicit about how it did damage?
MS. NULAND: I think we were quite explicit at the time, and I’m not going to come back to it today.
QUESTION: Well, no, at – well, at the time, you said that it had the potential – well, not you personally; it was your predecessor – but had the potential to do damage and that there was the concern in the – in this building in particular that ambassadors or embassies would be less than forthcoming about what they wrote in cables coming back, knowing that they had been – that it had been compromised.
Has there been any evidence? Is this building concerned or is there evidence that shows that this building is not getting full accounting, full reporting, honest, candid reporting from its embassies abroad in the wake of WikiLeaks?
MS. NULAND: Our embassies abroad continue to do a superb job of working with governments and societies where they are accredited and giving us a good, strong picture of what’s going on. That doesn’t change the fact that there was enormous turbulence in many of our bilateral relationships when this happened, and that there have been impacts on individuals. As you know, we’ve talked about that at the time.
QUESTION: Right. But when you say enormous turbulence in bilateral relationships, has – what has – what can you – what is there that --
MS. NULAND: I don’t think I’m going to go any further than we went at the time. We had concerns from many of our interlocutors.
QUESTION: Well, I know you had concerns --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- but that – but concern is – that does not that mean that there’s – that something has been damaged?
MS. NULAND: I think we’ve got an ongoing lawsuit, and I’m not going to go any further right now.
QUESTION: Well, I’m just curious, though. If the – do you see – has the U.S. ability to conduct its foreign relations been compromised or damaged because of WikiLeaks? Can you point to one or two examples of how that – of how this has done harm to the U.S. national security or U.S. --
MS. NULAND: Matt --
QUESTION: -- ability to conduct diplomacy?
MS. NULAND: -- given the fact that we have an ongoing legal case, I don’t think I’m going to comment any further on this set of issues today.
QUESTION: Well, fair enough, but --
MS. NULAND: Michel, did you have something else?
QUESTION: -- you do understand this is exactly what you’re being asked to produce in court.
MS. NULAND: I understand. And --
QUESTION: And if you’re saying that, “Yes, it did damage, but I’m sorry, I can’t tell you what the damage is because it’s a secret,” that’s what – is that what you’re saying?
MS. NULAND: What I’m saying is there’s ongoing legal work now, and if there are legal responsibilities of this building, we’ll do it in a court of law, not here.
QUESTION: Well, but in terms of the one thing that you did answer, you – there isn’t any evidence that this has affected embassies’ ability or – to report back honestly and accurately about what’s going on in their host countries. Is that correct?
MS. NULAND: I’m not going to give a grade to our embassies. We expressed our concern at the time. Those concerns were very clearly stated. I’m not going to get into evaluating, from this podium, what’s come back, what hasn’t come back. We’ve got an ongoing legal case.
Michel.

QUESTION: One clarification still on this, please.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: I thought the concern was less that embassies would not report stuff back in cables but that their interlocutors would not tell them stuff in the first place because they no longer had faith that the U.S. Government could keep their conversations or communications private, given the vast leak of cables. So I think the question might be better posed as: Has the State Department discerned a diminution in the candor of its foreign interlocutors as a result of this gross breach of confidentiality?

MS. NULAND: Again, we said what we wanted to say at the time on this case. We now have this case in the courts, and I just don’t think it’s appropriate for me to be commenting any further.
Michael, did you have something else? Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah. Any new assessment about the UN observers’ work in Syria?

MS. NULAND: As I said yesterday, we’re continuing to watch this day by day. I think the concern remains that we only have a small number of monitors in, which means that they can stay in some of these towns for only a short time. They were in Zabadani; they were in parts of Hama and Homs in the last couple of days, but we don’t have enough yet to be able to leave them there. And there are concerns that no sooner do they leave when violence restarts. So this is something we’re just going to have to watch going forward.
Please.

QUESTION: There was a bomb that exploded today in Marjeh, which is a densely populated area within Damascus. Do you have any comment on that?

MS. NULAND: Well, we were just getting reporting on this as I was coming down. Obviously, any acts of violence of that kind are reprehensible.
Please.

QUESTION: Does the State Department have any comment on Egypt’s decision not to register, I think it’s eight NGOs, pro-democracy NGOs, including the Carter Foundation?

MS. NULAND: I have to say that we are – we don’t have a full picture of what has happened and what hasn’t happened with regard to these NGOs. So we are in the process of trying to figure it out, and we’re seeking clarification from the Egyptian side.
QUESTION: Okay.

MS. NULAND: Okay. Thanks, everybody.