[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HUMAN RIGHTS AT HOME: IMPLICATIONS.
FOR U.S. LEADERSHIP
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 2, 2020
__________
Printed for the use of the
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
[CSCE 116-2-6]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via www.csce.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-782 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS
HOUSE
SENATE
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi,
Chairman Co-Chairman
JOE WILSON, North Carolina BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
EMANUEL CLEAVER II, Missouri CORY GARDNER, Colorado
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MARCO RUBIO, Florida
BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARC VEASEY, Texas SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS
Department of State, to be appointed
Department of Commerce, to be appointed
Department of Defense, to be appointed
[ii]
HUMAN RIGHTS AT HOME: IMPLICATIONS
FOR U.S. LEADERSHIP
----------
July 2, 2020
COMMISSIONERS
Page
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver II, Commissioner, Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe.......................................... 1
Hon. Gwen Moore, Commissioner, Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe.......................................... 10
Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse, Commissioner, Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe.......................................... 11
OTHER MEMBER PRESENT
Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee, Member of Congress...................... 12
COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT
Alex T. Johnson, Chief of Staff, Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe.......................................... 1
WITNESSES
Nkechi Taifa, Founding Principal & CEO, The Taifa Group, LLC..... 3
Malcolm Momodou Jallow, Member of Parliament (Sweden)............ 5
Ambassador (ret.) Ian Kelly, Former U.S. Permanent Representative
to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE)......................................................... 8
APPENDIX
Prepared statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin.................... 20
Prepared statement of Nkechi Taifa............................... 21
Prepared statement of Malcolm Momodou Jallow..................... 33
Prepared statement of Ambassador Ian Kelly....................... 36
HUMAN RIGHTS AT HOME: IMPLICATIONS
FOR U.S. LEADERSHIP
----------
July 2, 2020
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Washington, DC
The hearing was held at 11:08 a.m. via videoconference,
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver II, Commissioner, Commission on Security
and Cooperation in Europe, presiding.
Commissioners present: Hon. Emanuel Cleaver II,
Commissioner, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe;
Hon. Gwen Moore, Commissioner, Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe; and Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse,
Commissioner, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Other Member present: Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee, Member of
Congress.
Witnesses present: Nkechi Taifa, Founding Principal & CEO,
The Taifa Group, LLC; Malcolm Momodou Jallow, Member of
Parliament (Sweden); and Ambassador (ret.) Ian Kelly, Former
U.S. Permanent Representative to the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
HON. EMANUEL CLEAVER II, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION ON SECURITY
AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE
Mr. Cleaver. [In progress]----Alex Johnson to share the
modalities of this hearing.
ALEX JOHNSON, CHIEF OF STAFF, COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND
COOPERATION IN EUROPE
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for joining
us for today's first-ever remote hearing of the Commission on
Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as thE U.S.
Helsinki Commission. This hearing is being conducted in
compliance with House Resolution 965, which provides for
official remote proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic. We
have decided to hold this hearing remotely to protect the
health and ensure the safety of our witnesses, members, staff,
and the public. This hearing is being broadcast live on our
website at www.CSCE.gov, and on our YouTube channel at
www.YouTube.com/HelsinkiCommission.
Before we begin, I would like to review a few housekeeping
items for our members and witnesses. Members and witnesses are
asked to keep themselves muted when not actively engaging in
the discussion to limit background noise, keep themselves muted
for the purposes of limited echoes or other disruptions.
Members and witnesses are responsible for unmuting themselves
when they seek recognition or when they are recognized by the
chair.
Please remember that there is often a short delay in muting
or unmuting your microphone. Members and witnesses should allow
sufficient time before speaking to ensure their microphones
have been successfully unmuted and the last speaker has
finished completely. Members and witnesses must keep their
cameras on at all times during the hearing. If you need to step
away for any reason please make sure you leave your camera on.
Finally, the chair may declare a recess at any time to address
technical difficulties with these remote proceedings. If you
personally encounter technical difficulties, please contact our
tech support channels provided prior to the hearing. Our staff
will resolve any issues for you.
The hearing chair will now proceed with his opening
statement, to be followed by opening statements by all
witnesses. Commissioners and guest members may then offer
statements or ask questions in the following general discussion
with the witnesses. I yield back to the chair.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you. I recognize myself for an opening
statement.
When the United States signed the Helsinki Final Act, this
country, along with 34 other nations, explicitly recognized
respect for human rights as an essential factor for the
attainment of peace, justice, and cooperation among nations.
Moreover, the Helsinki Commission, which was created 1 year
after the Helsinki Final Act was adopted, was mandated by law
to monitor the acts of the signatories which reflect compliance
with or violation of the articles of the Helsinki Final Act,
with particular regard to the provisions relating to human
rights and cooperation in humanitarian fields.
The United States has long been a champion of human rights
and democracy in our foreign policy. Many of the OSCE's
groundbreaking commitments were actually spearheaded by the
United States, including those relating to anti-Semitism,
freedom of religion, free elections, and the rule of law, to
name only a few. Most of the time, the Helsinki Commission
focuses on those issues in countries where there may be
particular concerns. Sometimes we engage with countries where
circumstances create windows of opportunity or historic
inflection points. Our goal is always to encourage positive
change and better implementation of Helsinki commitments. Today
we look inward as we examine the Black Lives Matter protests
and related domestic compliance issues in the context of our
OSCE human dimensions commitments and implications for U.S.
foreign policy.
The death of George Floyd was a tragedy, and the video of
his fatal encounter with police was sickening to witnesses.
Thus, the American people, and later the entire world,
responded. The freedom with which Americans were able to
respond to this tragedy is at the root of this hearing. If
there is no respect for the rights of Americans to address
wounds left open by centuries-old systemic racism we cannot
achieve necessary healing, nor will we have the standing to
advocate for fundamental freedoms abroad. We must practice what
we preach.
I'm working with my colleagues in the House of
Representatives on legislative measures to meaningfully address
systematic racism and policing, curb police brutality and
racial profiling, and ultimately save lives. These policies to
achieve these objectives are the jurisdiction of other
committees; however, we have an opportunity through the
Helsinki Commission to reflect on the nexus of our
international commitments in terms of our standing in the
world.
Clearly the U.S. record has been on full display around the
globe in recent weeks, beginning with the 8 minutes and 46
seconds of George Floyd's death on May 25th, and the protests
which followed. In fact, thanks to the unprecedented reach of
modern technology, the world has been able to watch in real
time.
I will keep the record of this hearing open for 48 hours,
and any additional information, statements will be accepted.
Now I would like to introduce our witnesses for today's
hearing. First, we will hear from Nkechi Taifa, who is the
founding principal and CEO of Taifa Group, LLC, and will also
be testifying on behalf of the Justice Roundtable and the
Center for Justice at Columbia University. Ms. Taifa will
provide a scene-setting overview of the underlying human rights
and democracy issues that have been fueling ongoing protests in
the United States.
After Ms. Taifa, we will hear from Mr. Momodou Malcolm
Jallow. Mr. Jallow is a member of the Swedish Parliament and
also serves as the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
General Rapporteur on Racism and Intolerance. Mr. Jallow will
help us understand how the issues in the United States are
resonating in Europe, and the shared challenges we face
combating racism and intolerance in the transatlantic
community.
Finally, we will hear from Ambassador Ian Kelly. Ambassador
Kelly served as the head of the U.S. Mission to the OSCE from
2010 to 2013--excuse me, and as a spokesperson for the
Department of State before that. Ambassador Kelly, you're well-
versed in matters related to the OSCE, the way in which human
rights and democracy issues are raised in that forum, how U.S.
compliance with OSCE commitments may be raised in the OSCE, and
how those issues impact U.S. foreign policy leadership.
I'd like to thank all of you for agreeing to participate
with us today. I give the floor now to Ms. Taifa.
MS. NKECHI TAIFA, FOUNDING PRINCIPAL & CEO, THE TAFIA GROUP,
LLC
Ms. Taifa. Thank you so very much, Chairman Cleaver, for
convening this critical Helsinki Commission hearing on ``Human
Rights at Home: Implications for U.S. Global Leadership.''
And thank you for this opportunity to testify this morning
on behalf of my company, The Taifa Group, as well as the
Justice Roundtable, which I convene, and the Center for Justice
at Columbia University, where I serve as senior fellow. In
addition to the above, I'm also a commissioner on the National
African American Reparations Commission, convened by the
Institute of the Black World 21st Century, and am a founding
member of N'COBRA, the National Coalition of Blacks for
Reparations in America.
So one of the best explanations for the coast-to-coast
protests in the wake of the police killings of George Floyd,
Breonna Taylor, and others can be encapsulated by a poem by
Langston Hughes. ``What happens to a dream deferred?/ Does it
dry up like a raisin in the sun/ Or fester like a sore, and
then run/ Does it stink like rotten meat/ Or crust and sugar
over, like a syrupy sweet?/ Maybe it just sags like a heavy
load/ Or does it explode?''
This poem literally suggests that unrealized dreams can
wreak havoc and lead to anger, resentment, and despair. When we
see young people in the United States taking to the streets in
protest, we are seeing the overflow of dreams deferred--dreams
of freedom, equality, and justice. Dreams that have been
tarnished, if not obliterated, by the reality of structural
racism, bolstered by White supremacy.
We have just passed the mid-mark of the International
Decade for People of African Descent. And for centuries, people
of African descent in the United States have not only dreamed
of justice but have demanded it. We have urged the country to
provide not even grandiose opportunities, but just basic human
rights that protect our life and liberty. The response?
Systemic racism, through which we suffer through decreased life
expectancy rates, health disparities, economic inequality, mass
incarceration and more.
Anti-slavery abolitionist Frederick Douglass once said,
``Power concedes nothing without a demand.'' And when we see
young people in the streets, we are not only seeing protest, we
are seeing demand. We are seeing the outpouring of decades of
deferred dreams.
How does change happen? There is usually a triggering
event, representing the tip of an iceberg that, in the context
of Black people in the United States, has been building for
centuries. And then, a cataclysmic event that explodes. And
tragic as it was, the explosion resulting from George Floyd's
death represented only the tip of Black people's demands for
justice.
The deferred dream exploded with Emmett Till, whose brutal
1955 murder shocked the nation. It exploded with the senseless
slayings of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, Eric Garner and
Philando Castile, Tamir Rice, Rekia Boyd, Freddie Gray and
Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Rayshard Brooks. The list
seemingly grows daily. With each death of a Black person by
police or racist Whites, with each affront to voting rights,
with each health disparity, with each trip down the school-to-
prison pipeline, with each widening of the Black/White wealth
gap, with each house pilfered by redlining, with each
intergenerationally transmitted traumatic injury, there was and
is a demand for justice.
The U.S. Government has failed to protect Black people from
systemic racism and police violence. Advancing societies that
are safe, inclusive, and equitable is central to the work of
the Helsinki Commission. The international community must bear
witness. The United States must not be above scrutiny. It must
meet its commitments, review its own record, and be open to
criticism. It is incumbent that this country engage in candid
self-assessment, if it wishes to legitimately demand a similar
level of reflection from other OSCE participating States.
Similarly, the United States must fully embrace human
rights conventions that it is a party to and eliminate
limitations to [their] use in U.S. courts. These include the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination, the Convention Against Torture, the Convention
on Political and Human Rights, the Office of the High
Commissioner's Basic Principles on the Use of Firearms by Law
Enforcement Officials, and the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Black people in the United States have dissented many times
in the past. And, once, again, they are visible in the streets,
showing that Black lives do indeed matter. Policies that once
seemed radical now appear more palatable. Where we once spoke
of reform, we now demand transformation. The blueprint is still
being formulated, and no one will leave this moment without
having been changed. What we are witnessing today is the
unprecedented possibility for change, and the unprecedented
possibility for the dream to expand, and not explode.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify. I have
submitted my full testimony for the record, which relies
heavily upon previous works I have authored relative to the use
of international human rights treaties applied to the United
States.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Ms. Taifa, for your testimony.
I now recognize Mr. Jallow for 5 minutes. Mr. Jallow you
are recognized now for 5 minutes.
MR. MALCOLM MOMODOU JALLOW, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT (SWEDEN)
Mr. Jallow. Can you hear me, sir?
Mr. Cleaver. Yes. Please.
Mr. Jallow. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very
much, Chairman Cleaver, for giving me this opportunity to speak
at this very important hearing on the topic--on this very
important topic, ``Human Rights at Home: Implications for U.S.
Leadership.''
I'm going to be speaking in my capacity as a member of the
Council of Europe and the rapporteur responsible for combating
racism and intolerance. In this assembly that I'm sitting at, I
have the opportunity to exchange regularly with
parliamentarians from 47 European countries, in which the
United States also has an observatory status.
The political developments in the U.S., United States,
today have a significant socioeconomic and political impact on
the rest of the world, especially among member States of the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. There is very
good reason for concern about the unfolding grave human rights
crisis in the United States, partly as a result of the systemic
brutal police killings of Black people, but also the use of
state-sanctioned excessive force and suppression of peaceful
protesters. These are clear violations of United States
obligations under international law.
The current government and administration has, within a
short period of time, completely eroded the authority of the
United States as a standard bearer, and thereby undermined the
legitimacy of the so-called United States global leadership.
One cannot exercise effective soft power without legitimacy.
The isolationist foreign policy direction, the nationalist
rhetoric, and the blatant noncompliance to the international
human rights standards only accelerate the decline in
confidence from the rest of the world in the United States.
We have had a series of evidence of structural and
institutional racism and racist policing fueled by historical
abuses and negative stereotyping, leading to the exclusion and
dehumanization of Black people in the United States. However,
this particular murder of George Floyd has become a clear
manifestation and a tipping point for what many, including many
Europeans, perceive as state-
sanctioned racism and blatant violation of the civil and human
rights of Black people.
What we have seen in the U.S. does not only illustrate the
deep rooted and historical systemic injustice against Black
people, it also clearly manifests the extent to which White
supremacy ideologies are normalized. What we are seeing is a
manifestation of a democracy in crisis. And if this were
happening in any other part of the world, the United States and
other Western countries would be demanding a regime change.
It is remarkable, however, how much time it took and how
much pressure from the Black community that was required for
the global leadership to react. When leaders sow the seeds of
hatred and stoke the flames of racist violence, we legitimize
intolerance and bigotry. We create division rather than unite
people. And most importantly, we undermine the fundamental
values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
In fact, we as politicians and leaders, we have both a
political obligation and a moral responsibility to refrain from
using hate speech and stigmatizing language, and to condemn
promptly its use by others. Our silence may be interpreted as
approval or support. The enhanced protection of freedom of
expression that we, politicians, and leaders enjoy also
strengthens our responsibility in this area.
Structural, and institutional, and systemic racism--
including racist violence--is not confined only to the
boundaries of the United States. It is also very much present
in Europe. Over the last decade, we have seen an increase both
in gravity and number in the manifestation of racism in all its
forms in Europe. The effects of governments' failure to devise
and implement adequate policies on social cohesion, diversity,
migration, and social inclusion have triggered this upsurge,
which has been amplified by the increasing use of internet and
social media.
The dimension, gravity, and frequency of their
manifestation are of great concern and urgency. The urgency
becomes even more acute considering these phenomena have
repercussions that go well beyond the single individuals that
are directly targeted. They affect entire communities and they
create divides in society, affecting human rights and social
cohesion. And they erode even further the trust in public
authority, the rule of law and ultimately democracy.
In addition, issues of race relations deeply affect the
conduct of our foreign policy relations. The European project
has an antidiscrimination, antiracist dimension to it, with a
fundamental commitment to ensuring that we learn the lessons of
the Holocaust and past European divisions through pursuit of
human rights for all. However, this project appears to be
failing with regard to Black Europeans. The pain and
denigration of Black people has a historical context that we
must remember. Hence, the U.N. Decade on People of African
Descent and its three focus areas: Recognition, Justice, and
Development.
The images of the brutal and tragic death of George Floyd
triggered a protest movement not only in the United States, but
around the world. The scale and intensity of the protests
illustrates a deep sense of frustration and pain that Europe,
for the longest time, had shown no regard for. The usual
silence and exceptional entitlements from European leaders are
no more working, as this is not a moment. It is a movement, a
movement that is deeply and permanently committed to justice,
human rights, and the rule of law. Not in words, but also in
action.
So we must act quickly, firmly, and collectively, because
when we choose to be silent in the face of hatred, bigotry, and
racism, we choose to be complacent, thereby undermining the
fundamental values of human rights, democracy, and the rule of
law. As the United States enjoyed status of observer in the
Council of Europe and member State of the United Nations, I
would like to emphasize the recommendations and language in
United Nations Resolution HRC/43, in establishing an
Independent International Commission of Inquiry.
And this Commission of Inquiry will establish the facts and
circumstances relating to the systemic racism and violation of
the international human rights law. And this is against
Africans and people of African descent in the United States. It
will also examine Federal, and state, and local government
responses to peaceful protest, including the alleged use of
excessive force against protesters, bystanders, and
journalists. I would also--as you know, racism does not spare
any level of society. And no institutions are perhaps immune to
it.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, of
which I am a member, is particularly concerned about racial
profiling and racist behavior, and practices within the police
against visible minorities have a negative impact on public
opinion and can increase stereotyping and prejudice. So to
acknowledge the existence of this problem is the first step. We
need to do that. There can be no impunity for manifestation of
racism within or by the police. And police officers must be
held accountable individually for that behavior. And to do
this, we also have to establish independent police complaint
mechanisms where they do not exist yet, allocate appropriate
means for their functioning, and ensure that sanctions are
imposed on police officers following a racist incident.
And last, we know intolerance, racism, and xenophobia are
fed by stereotypes and prejudices which must be prevented and
eradicated at every level. So the Council of Europe
Parliamentary Assembly urges political leaders not to use fear
to fuel their electoral campaigns, but to continually reaffirm
the democratic values of our societies, of respect for human
rights and human dignity at all times.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Jallow.
And finally, we will hear from Ambassador Ian Kelly.
Ambassador Kelly, you're now recognized for 5 minutes.
AMBASSADOR (RET.) IAN KELLY, FORMER U.S. PERMANENT
REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY AND COOPERATION
IN EUROPE (OSCE)
Amb. Kelly. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to
concentrate on the impact of recent events on U.S. global
leadership, particularly within the OSCE.
And among the many contributions of the Helsinki process to
international peace, perhaps the greatest was the consensus
that security among states depends on respect for human rights
within states. We support the OSCE because we know that a world
where fundamental freedoms are upheld is a safer world. We
support the OSCE because we know that a world--as I say, where
freedoms are upheld is a safer world. As OSCE leaders agreed in
the Charter of Paris in 1990, observance and full exercise of
human rights are the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace.
At the OSCE, to advance that cause, the U.S. has worked
together with our allies in Europe and Canada to support human
rights. In my time at the OSCE, the greatest challenges to the
cause were the political use of judiciary and law enforcement,
government intimidation of critical media and civil society,
and the lack of checks and balances against the power of the
executive. Recent events have shown that America as a model for
fighting against the first two tendencies has been greatly
tarnished. But I think we can still be a beacon for promoting
separation of powers to ensure transparency and accountability.
The recent beatings of protestors in the U.S. served as an
uncomfortable reminder, for me, of events in Minsk in 2010,
when police used violence to break up rallies against the
government. It caused us and our allies at the OSCE to invoke
something called the Moscow Mechanism, where a group of OSCE
countries can appoint a special representative to investigate
abuse against those exercising their basic freedoms. We knew
that Russia and others would veto the recommendations of the
report. We invoked the Moscow Mechanism because we wanted to
send a strong signal, that we found the use of violence to
quell dissent unacceptable.
A decade later, of course, we've seen in our country the
excessive use of force against protestors who are peaceably
assembling. Perhaps the most prominent example was in Lafayette
Square. There, authorities put a higher priority on clearing
peaceful protestors for a photo op than on allowing them to
exercise their basic rights. I don't want to compare our
response to protest to that of the Lukashenko regime, but until
the highest levels of our government condemn what happened in
Lafayette Square and elsewhere, we've lost much of our moral
authority to call other countries to account.
In my last post, as Ambassador to Georgia, I experienced in
dramatic fashion how attacks on critical media in the U.S. have
eroded our power to persuade other countries to protect free
speech. A few months before I retired in early 2018, a Georgian
court was close to ruling on replacing the managing editor of
the leading opposition television station with someone more
amenable to the government. I met with a senior official to try
to convince that individual to speak out in favor of
maintaining critical voices in the media. To support my
argument, I drew upon many of the OSCE principles, such as the
importance of free speech to ensuring strong, accountable
government.
I then deployed what I thought was my strongest argument,
that Tbilisi needed Washington's support, and that Washington
would have a hard time understanding why the Georgian
Government wouldn't keep--wouldn't support keeping its critics
on the air. The response was both illuminating and deflating.
The official looked at me, smiled, and said, ``Really, Ian? You
really think Washington's going to have a problem with fake
news going off the air?'' A few months after I left, the court
did order new management at the station, and Georgia lost a
critical platform for keeping government accountable.
Given what is happening here in the U.S., I can imagine how
difficult it is for my former colleagues in the field now to
promote human rights. With the recent gross abuse of police
powers, characterization of journalists as enemies of the
people over the last few years, diplomats' powers of persuasion
have been greatly eroded. But they should still have hope in
the power of American institutions.
When I tell my students about my distress at my own
government's abuses over the years--such as the CIA black sites
and the torture at Abu Ghraib--they ask me how I was able to
continue to work for such an administration. I tell them it's
because of my deep belief in the system's ability to
investigate abuse, correct itself, and ultimately do the right
thing.
While we look to right our own country's wrongs, we cannot
avert our eyes from assaults on Helsinki principles elsewhere
in the OSCE space. We should be particularly concerned about
increasing centralization, and personalization, of political
power. Just yesterday, Russia concluded a plebiscite on an
amendment that could allow Putin to stay in power until 2036.
And then there's the pandemic. It attacked at a time when
democracy was already in retreat. Even before COVID-19, Freedom
House noted that since 2006 democracy has been in decline in 25
of 41 established democracies. The challenge of curbing the
pandemic has emboldened authoritarian rulers. It has given them
another excuse to curb fundamental rights, to remove
institutional checks on their power, and silence those who
dissent.
As Dr. King wrote, ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to
justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of
mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever
affects one directly, affects all indirectly.''
So when we redress wrongs, we make our country stronger. We
restore our position of leadership in a world where democracy
needs champions. And by so doing, we make the world safer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to participate in
this hearing today.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you very much, Ambassador.
We will now have participation from the members. We'll
begin with the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, Ms. Gwen Moore.
HON. GWEN MOORE, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND
COOPERATION IN EUROPE
Ms. Moore. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And thank all
of our witnesses for bearing witness to this international
phenomenon. I just want to say to Ms. Taifa, I bring you
greetings from Janette Herrera, who lives here in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, an N'COBRA member. And she--I spoke with her early
this morning to make sure I send you her peace and blessings.
And she told me you were dynamic, but I just was not prepared
for all that.
And of course, my good friend, the parliamentarian from
Sweden, we have met many times before. It is really great to
see you. Can't wait until we can get back and forth across the
pond. I'm not proud of the fact that Europe says keep all you
nasty--all you nasty people stay home, because you haven't
really observed the best practices with regard to COVID-19. But
it's really good to be here.
I guess I want--and of course, Ambassador Kelly, the Moscow
Mechanism, that we always have to respect our Russian
counterparts. But we got to always have a check. And we
appreciate your service and your observations with the OSCE
engagement.
I just want to commend the European Union, the United
Nations, all of these international agencies who are joining in
in creating the international, global attention to the abuses
in the United States and, indeed, joining a global family of
these same phenomenon.
And of course, it was a very big--the EU report was very
comprehensive, and all of the Helsinki commissioners from the
United States--Mr. Hastings, of course, our leader, our chair
today Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Veasey and I all are writing a letter to
the European Union asking that they give us a path forward, do
a resolution in terms of adopting--not only adopting this, but
putting an action plan in place to make this happen.
And here in the United States not only do we have our
commissioners signing onto that, but there is a letter that we
are having Members of Congress who are signing on. I'm looking
for it right now. Signing onto it, including Senator Booker,
and Karen Bass, who is the subcommittee chair on Africa,
Representative Greg Meeks, who is on the Foreign Affairs
committee as well. And we have Ted Deutch, who's the Foreign
Affairs Subcommittee on International Terrorism, Eleanor Holmes
Norton, Bobby Rush, of course Sheila Jackson Lee, Barbara Lee,
Donald Payne, Frederica Wilson, Terri Sewell, Yvette Clarke,
Congresswoman Watson Coleman, and, of course, all of the
commissioners. So we are delighted our international partners
are weighing in on this.
So I don't want the chairman to gavel me, so let me get to
some questions. The U.N. declared 2015 to 2025 a declaration of
Decade of Persons of African Descent, with the intent of
strengthening national actions to ensure equal respect for the
rights of people of African descent. And of course, the OSCE is
a regional organization under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter.
Now we're just, like, halfway through the decade. Some of us
were kind of getting worried that nothing was happening.
And so, you know, Momodou, you suggested that this was an
inflection point. And there's a debate about whether or not
this is just a moment or a movement. So I guess I would ask
both you and Ms. Taifa, do you--what do you think it will take
to make this a sustainable movement, as opposed to just a
moment?
Ms. Taifa. So it definitely needs to be a sustainable
movement and not just a moment. And I think that this moment
that we're in, people should take the opportunity to really
look at things, such as the International Decade for People of
African Descent, when in this country it has not been as
visible as around the world. [Laughs.] I hope that people take
this moment to look at the movement for reparations that is
sweeping the world, actually, and really make some program
changes.
Mr. Cleaver. I'm going to--Mr. Jallow, if you could
answer--if you will answer briefly, so I can move onto the next
speaker. I apologize for not being firm on the time when we
first started, but if you would excuse me and everyone just
give a short--the shortest answers you could possibly give at
this point.
Thank you.
Mr. Jallow. Yes, now. Yes, thank you very much. Honestly, I
agree 100 percent that the International Decade for People of
African Descent has been ignored greatly by most member states
of the United Nations. And from the EU point of view, what we--
what has happened now, last week, was there was a resolution.
And it is one of its kind, because in this resolution for the
first time the EU was talking about reparations. They're
talking about the transatlantic slave trade as the worst crime
against humanity. They're talking about the decade and the
national action plans that need to be in place.
So this resolution should be the roadmap in trying to
really find a way to recognize the decade and do something
about it. So what we're doing now is we're trying to use this
document, this resolution, both the one from the United Nations
but also from the European Union, to move on from words to
action. And that is going to take--is going to take a lot
because that's what we've been lacking. There is no political
will to recognize this decade. And we have to work from both
sides of the Atlantic to push for it. And I, for one, am going
to push for it. And all these meetings that we've been having
these past weeks, that has been the point of this conversation.
Thank you.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you. I will now recognize Senator
Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island.
Senator.
HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION ON SECURITY
AND COOPERATION
Mr. Whitehouse. Thank you so much, Chairman. It's great to
be with you all. I'd like to ask anybody on the panel who'd
care to answer this, that there was a news story a day or two
ago about the United Nations getting ready to do an
investigation within the United States, and the Trump
administration using all of its diplomatic leverage to prevent
that from happening. If anybody has any insight into that
episode, I'd be delighted to hear what you have to say.
Again, Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you.
Ambassador.
Amb. Kelly. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Senator. I don't
know that I have any special insight into the motivations of
the State Department for trying to block that particular
investigation. I would say that that would be a mistake. That
we have invoked a number of mechanisms to look into abuses of
human rights in individual countries. And I think that it would
be just a huge, huge mistake to try and make the argument that
we're above such an investigation. I think that there is
probably a lot of room for making it a more universal
investigation into systemic racism, not only in the United
States but also in other countries. But I don't think we look
very good when we try to stomp on a legitimate concern of the
international community.
Mr. Cleaver. Any other response from any of the other
witnesses?
Mr. Jallow. Just quickly, as I mentioned in my initial
statement, that is one of the recommendations. That is
something that we included in the resolution--in the United
Nations Resolution HRC/43, establishing this Independent
International Commission of Inquiry. And I think just like the
Ambassador mentioned, it's extremely important that the United
States fully cooperates with this inquiry to make sure that
they'll be able to fulfill its mandate promptly and efficiently
because that's the only way we'll be able to know the truth.
And that's the only way we'll be able to move on from the
situation as it is, but also find durable political solutions
when it comes to the situation in the United States now.
Thank you.
Mr. Cleaver. All right. Thank you. We also have with us
today Representative Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, who is a
guest of our commission today. Welcome, Representative Lee. You
are now recognized for 5 minutes.
HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION ON SECURITY
AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
thank you to all of the witnesses, as well as all of the
members, for their intent. And, of course, Chairman Hastings
for his leadership.
It is sad to be able to give a list of widespread human
rights abuses from a nation that actually was using the gold
standard--or was viewed as the gold standard for human rights,
and whose voice could always be lifted very quickly. In
addition to what we have been speaking about this morning,
holding children in cages, a court decision to release mothers
and children from immigrant detention facilities, barring
people from coming into the country and holding them in
devastating conditions on the southern border, blocking
immigrants--in particular immigrants of African heritage--and,
of course, what we have seen over the last years. Three years,
in fact. Four years, in fact. As whole countries and just a
whole litany of non-disputable acts of heinous behavior, and is
not befitting of our values, our Constitution, and who we are.
I want to say that the killing of George Floyd on the
streets of America exacerbated and accelerated the
understanding that we needed to change the order of policing to
a guardian. And of course, the work of the George Floyd Justice
and Policing Act has done that. But in the other end of it,
there's systemic racism. And I would appreciate the response
from the ambassador and all of the witnesses about seeing
permeated through these issues that reflect on human rights
that question.
And to Ms. Taifa, and thank you for your work, thank you
for N'COBRA, we have introduced--been leading on H.R. 40, which
is a commission to study and develop proposals for reparations.
It is the first elevation of discussion of race and systemic
racism that this nation will ever confront. It is a result of
decades of agitation. My colleague, the late John Conyers,
started this decades ago. So let me just yield to you and ask
how that would impact the thoughts of the needs of correcting
human rights abuses that are too long to chronicle as it
related to African Americans?
Ms. Taifa.
Ms. Taifa. Yes. Thank you, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson
Lee. And thank you for your longstanding leadership on many
issues in general, and particularly--on H.R. 40 in particular.
This is a bill, the Commission to Study and Develop Reparations
Proposals for African Americans, that's been languishing in the
Congress for 30 years. And actually, it really is 155 years
late, after the passage of the 13th Amendment. But it is
timely.
We talked earlier about moments and movements. This is a
moment that is turning into a movement. And on the
international front the U.N. human rights chief, Michelle
Bachelet, she stressed the need to made amends for centuries of
violence and discrimination, including through formal
apologies, and truth-telling processes, and reparations in
various forms.
So if not now--this is the time. People on the streets
demanding justice, demanding redress, demanding amends. And
H.R. 40 is one way in which to accomplish that.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Ambassador Kelly, it's important for
people to understand--thank you so very much--that what this
commission does is to deal with the state-sanctioned structure
of racism. It is not to go against an individual American. It
is a commission selected by the heads of the House, and the
Senate, and the President of the United States to deal with the
constitutional fraction of not being a whole person, and for
all of the state-sanctioned issues of racism, Jim Crow and
others.
What is your thought about getting once and for all, and
how the world would respond to that--passing that legislation
and beginning that process with people who had been slaves in
this country?
Amb. Kelly. Yes, thank you very much for that question. I
think for the OSCE--I think the OSCE has done a good job at
shining a light on the problems of intolerance. But these
problems of intolerance are basically really focused on sort of
religious--religion-based intolerance. And I think that comes
out of the experience of Europe during World War II. What it
hasn't done such a good job of doing is exposing the abuses
against people of color in the OSCE states.
And I think that that is probably a lack that really needs
to be addressed by the participating states of the OSCE, to
look at how the experience of colonialism in European
countries, slavery in the United States, has--how that legacy
has continued to perpetuate the myth of White supremacy in the
United States, but also I think the myth of ethnic-based
supremacy in Europe.
So I would hope that the OSCE would take advantage of this
moment to expand its mandate for looking at race-based
intolerance and systemic racism against people of color,
against migrants, against people of African descent, against
the Roma in Europe. And I would hope that the OSCE would rise
to that occasion.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, would you allow the
parliamentarian to make a quick answer to that? I don't have
any other questions.
Mr. Cleaver. Sure, absolutely. Go ahead.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. It's good to see you. Yes.
Mr. Jallow. Thank you very much.
Thank you, I do agree with the ambassador. I think this is
a milestone. It's a tipping point that we need to really act
because, as I said, it's not a moment, it's a movement. And I
think this movement is permanently ready to see change. If we
do not act, the movement will continue to react to some of--the
lack of political will to create change.
I mean, Europe, we've seen, as I mentioned--the past decade
we've seen an upsurge of racism and White supremacy. And
normalization has reached even higher heights. When you look at
the European Parliament, the number of right-wing--extreme
right-wing political parties that are represented there have
increased significantly.
So it is important, especially for the Council of Europe,
where I'm a member of, we are the guardians of human rights and
the rule of law. We cannot be the guardians of human rights and
rule of law and continue to ignore or to deny the realities of
15 million Black people living in Europe. We need to really
make sure that we take into account the realities of Black
people, we take into account the impact of colonialism, we take
into account all system and structural racism that takes place.
And to be able to do that, this commission that is--that is
suggested, I think, will be able to investigate, map out the
situation, and based on that data, those facts, will be able to
come up with solutions that are long-standing solutions that
will be able to provide a conductive environment, a Europe
without racism. And I think that's the ambition. And I am
personally writing a report--I have been given the mandate to
write a report. And this is going to be my main focus, to try
to come up with a resolution that would focus on solutions
forward. That is what my objective is. And the situation right
now is actually extremely important in the report that I'm
writing right now.
Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just will end
on this sentence to all of you. Malcolm, I'm going to call you
appropriately parliamentarian. If the United States starts a
commission like this, I believe it will be a shot in the arm to
the world, dealing with the descendants of Africans and, in
particular in the United States, descendants of enslaved
Africans, to be able to once and for all place race in a place
that gets the data, that gets the understanding, that develops
the construct of how you deal with it. And it will reflect on
Europe because Europe was part of the transatlantic slave
trade.
And we have never addressed this question, nor have we ever
addressed the complete loss of wealth [of] all peoples of
African descent. And I want people to know that this is not
taking a check away from my neighbor. It is talking about the
governments of our respective countries, who dealt with these
issues and dealt with it in a way that continued to put us in a
disparate and unequal way.
Thank you.
Mr. Cleaver. Yes, thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
leadership.
Mr. Cleaver. Absolutely. Let me, as we prepare to close
out, let me, first of all, thank all three of you. I might need
1 minute out of each of you as we close.
I know that our government, at least at the higher
echelons, [is] embarrassed that we will be unable to spank the
hand of President Xi for the crackdown in Hong Kong. We're
losing our credibility. And Russia's move in Crimea, and any
other gangster-like international actions might reflect poorly
on us, because I can see leaders around the world spanking us.
I was on an Alex Witt MSNBC show 2 weeks ago. And as she
was interviewing me, she actually interrupted me to tell me
that she had a friend who now lived in Eastern Europe who was
expressing pity for the United States. She actually said: I
feel really sorry for those of you in the United States for
what you're going through.
In 1 minute from each of you, do you think that we have
lost our place as the leading voice of democracy and human
rights around the world, with what we've been doing? Not only
in police conflict, but even more so with some of the other
actions we've been taking diplomatically around the world?
We'll start with the ambassador.
Amb. Kelly. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman. And
thank you, again, for allowing me to participate in this very,
very necessary discussion.
I would say that the hundreds of American foreign service
officers who are overseas are still working very hard to
promote American values, to promote basic human rights. The
difficult--the difficulty has been, as you made reference to,
is that the highest reaches of our government are constantly
undercutting the message that we're still sending out there,
that respect for human rights within countries are important to
our mutual security. And until we get a voice at the top of our
government who will stand up and support important principles
like the importance of keeping critical voices on the media, of
allowing citizens to peaceably assemble and redress abuses
against human rights, it will be difficult for my colleagues to
continue to promote those values. And I assure you, they all
believe very strongly in the idea of the United States as a
city on the hill, as a standard bearer of human rights.
Thank you.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Ambassador.
Ms. Taifa, 1 minute, please. And then Mr. Jallow.
Ms. Taifa. Yes. So, Chairman, so you asked, have we lost
our place? I would say from the vantage point of people of
African descent in the United States, the question more so is
were we ever in place--[laughs]--in terms of the United States?
I concluded my written testimony with a statement that the
cumulative impact of destructive treatment against Black people
in the criminal punishment system in general, and policing in
particular, combined with the destructive conditions of life
negatively impacting generations, are violations of
international law, specifically the international convention on
prevention and elimination of all forms of racial
discrimination, and the international convention on the
prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. I concluded
by saying that these and all other international instruments
must be used so that we might abate what I deemed the human
rights crisis facing Black people in the 21st century, which is
genocide.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you.
Mr. Jallow.
Mr. Jallow. Thank you very much. First of all, let me just
thank the chairman for inviting me to take part. And also,
Congressman Hastings for his leadership. Let me just say the
words of Nelson Mandela. He says, ``To deny people their human
rights is to challenge their very humanity.'' And that is what
we've seen when it comes to Black people, is denying our
humanity. And that does not only happen in the United States,
it happens worldwide globally. This is something that I have
been historically--a historical fact for many, if not all,
Black people.
Now the standing of the United States as the right-bearer,
of course, has been shaken.
What we've seen is a manifestation of a democracy in
crisis. And we've seen that in so many other locations. So what
we need to do is that we must act quickly, firmly, and
collectively, because when we choose to be silent, when we
choose not to act in conformity with the rule of law and human
rights, then we'll be failing a lot of people.
And that's what the United States needs not to do right
now. I hope they will open up, they will show accountability,
they will show leadership, and follow the values of human
rights, democracy, and the rule of law.
That is what needs to be done in order to be able to go
back to this leadership, to get this global leadership, and as
standard bearers when it comes to human rights that the United
States has been before. But for now, we need to see change now.
Not tomorrow, not next week. We need it now.
Thank you.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you.
Ambassador Kelly, Mr. Jallow, Ms. Taifa, thank you very
much for being with us. Your insights have been significant.
And we appreciate your contributions to this country, even
beyond what you're doing now.
I want to thank our staff, the Executive Director Alex
Johnson. And I want to just say that we are in a tight spot in
the United States. And somehow we're going to have to get out
of it. Having the Helsinki Commission dealing with this issue
is something new, but I think it's something that's necessary
because we've got to have a very serious and thoughtful
discussion in this country about where we are.
If there are no other comments from our staff, this meeting
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the hearing ended.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
=======================================================================
Prepared Statements
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin
I commend Chairman Hastings for convening this hearing on
``Human Rights at Home: Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy.''
We cannot stay silent about George Floyd's brutal and
unnecessary death. Our country is grieving over the loss of
this father, son, and brother. His life mattered. Black lives
matter. He did not need to die. Both State and Federal law
enforcement officers are moving quickly to bring police
officers in this case to justice and hold them accountable for
their actions.
The roots of systemic racism in law enforcement were
planted centuries ago and can be unraveled with targeted and
conscious action. I have introduced legislation to reform
police departments in America and rebuild trust between police
officers and the communities they are sworn to protect and
serve. There are many other areas of long-standing systemic
racism and inequality that must also be addressed, including
restoring voting rights to those who have served their time and
been released from incarceration. I have also joined
legislation requiring the Pentagon to remove all names,
symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that honor or
commemorate the Confederate States of America from all military
bases and other assets of the Department of Defense.
I welcome this hearing as an opportunity to consider these
issues in the context of the United States' Helsinki
commitments and the resolutions previously adopted by the OSCE
Parliamentary Assembly on racism and xenophobia affecting
persons of African descent. I hope the OSCE participating
States will build on its engagement with diverse civil society
across the OSCE region.
Principle VII of the Helsinki Final Act is probably the
most quoted text from that document, because the participating
States committed to ``respect human rights and fundamental
freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience,
religion or belief.'' Not always quoted, but essential for
fulfilling our promises, is the commitment to do so ``for all,
without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.''
As the OSCE Special Representative on combatting anti-
Semitism, racism, and intolerance, I know our country is not
alone in confronting these issues. We have friends and allies
who face similar challenges. We also face malign actors who
seek to sow divisions in our country whenever and where ever
they can. But in holding this hearing today, our principal
motivation should not be fear of other countries, but the
aspiration for justice in our own.
Prepared Statement of Nkechi Taifa
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Thank you Chairman Alcee Hastings for convening this
critical Helsinki Commission hearing on Human Rights at Home:
Implications for U.S. Global Leadership. And thank you for this
opportunity to testify this morning on behalf of my company--
The Taifa Group--as well as the Justice Roundtable coalition I
convene, and the Center for Justice at Columbia University
where I serve as Senior Fellow.
My name is Nkechi Taifa. In addition to the above, I also
serve as a Commissioner on the National African American
Reparations Commission, convened by the Institute of the Black
World 21st Century, and am a founding member of N'COBRA--the
National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America.
One of the best explanations for the coast-to-coast
protests in the wake of the police killings of George Floyd,
Breanna Taylor, and others can be encapsulated by a poem by
Langston Hughes.
What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun
Or fester like a sore, and then run
Does it stink like rotten meat
Or crust and sugar over, like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags like a heavy load
Or does it explode?
This poem literally suggests that unrealized dreams can
wreak havoc and lead to anger, resentment and despair. When we
see young people in the U.S. taking to the streets in protest,
we are seeing the overflow of dreams deferred. Dreams of
freedom, equality and justice. Dreams that have been tarnished,
if not obliterated, by the reality of structural racism,
bolstered by white supremacy.
We are just past the mid-mark of the International Decade
for People of African Descent. For centuries People of African
Descent in the U.S. have not only dreamed of justice, but
demanded it. We have urged the country to provide not even
grandiose opportunities, but just basic human rights that
protect our life and liberty. The response--inequality, mass
incarceration and more.
Anti-slavery abolitionist Frederick Douglass once said
``Power concedes nothing without a demand.'' When we see young
people in the streets, we are not only seeing protest, we are
seeing demand. We are seeing the outpouring of decades of
deferred dreams.
How does change happen? There is usually a triggering
event, representing the tip of an iceberg that, in the context
of Black people in the U.S., has been building for centuries.
And then, a cataclysmic event that explodes. Tragic as it was,
the explosion resulting from George Floyd's death represented
only the tip of Black people's demands for justice. The
deferred dream exploded with Emmett Till, whose brutal 1955
murder shocked the nation. It exploded with the senseless
slayings of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, Eric Garner and
Philando Castile, Tamir Rice and Rekia Boyd, Freddie Gray and
Breanna Taylor, Ahmaud Arvery and Rayshard Brooks, and the list
seemingly grows daily.
With each death of a Black person by police or racist
Whites, with each affront to voting rights, with each health
disparity, with each trip down the school to prison pipeline,
with each widening of the Black/White wealth gap, with each
house pilfered by redlining, and with each intergenerationally-
transmitted traumatic injury--there was and is a demand for
justice.
The U.S. government has failed to protect Black people from
systemic racism and police violence. Advancing societies that
are safe, inclusive and equitable is central to the work of the
Helsinki Commission, of which the U.S. is signatory. The
international community must bear witness. The U.S. must not be
above scrutiny. It must meet its commitments, review its own
record, and be open to criticism. It is incumbent that this
country engage in candid self assessment, if it wishes to
legitimately demand a similar level of reflection from other
OSCE participating states.
Similarly, the U.S must fully embrace human rights
conventions it is a party to and eliminate limitations to their
use in U.S. courts. These include the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the
Convention Against Torture, the Convention on Political and
Human Rights, the Office of the High Commissioner's Basic
Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement
Officials and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide..
Black people in the U.S. have dissented many times in the
past and, once, again, they are visible in the streets showing
that Black lives do indeed matter. Policies that once seemed
radical now appear more palatable. Where we once spoke of
reform, we now demand transformation. The blueprint is still
being formulated and no one will leave this moment without
having been changed.
What we are witnessing today is the unprecedented
possibility for change, and the unprecedented possibility for
the dream to expand, not explode.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I have submitted
my full testimony for the record, which relies heavily upon
previous works I have authored relative to the use of
international human rights treaties applied to the U.S.
BLACKS HAVE HISTORICALLY APPEALED TO INTERNATIONAL BODIES FOR
VINDICATION OF BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS
In the absence of genuine opportunities for redress within
the U.S. body politic, Black people in the U.S. have made
constant appeals to international bodies for vindication of
their basic human rights. We have made conscious attempts to
internationalize our plight, as we struggle to affect changes
in the country's priorities, policies and practices.
In 1829 David Walker published his distinguished ``Appeal
to the Coloured Citizens of the World.'' This document not only
was a clarion call to Africans held as slaves in North America
to struggle for liberation, but was also a plea to the
international community to support the struggle for basic human
rights and an end to the system of chattel slavery in the U.S.
In 1841 the U.S. Supreme Court drew on international law
principles in addressing the issue of the rights of Africans
who had, on shipboard, freed themselves from kidnapping and
enslavement. The Court held that such freed persons are clothed
with inalienable human rights, and these rights are a shield
against unilateral, definitive actions of other political
communities. The Court found that the Africans who achieved
their freedom were subject to neither the law of Spain nor to
U.S. law, but to ``the general law of nations,'' and they were
subsequently allowed to return to Africa.
In 1920 the Honorable Marcus Mosiah Garvey presented to the
League of Nations twelve complaints and a fifty-four point
document entitled ``Declaration of Rights of the Negro Peoples
of the World.'' This document was ratified by the first
Universal Negro Improvement Association Delegate Convention of
25,000 participants representing 25 countries. Blacks took
great interest in the proceedings and pressed for the inclusion
of human rights concerns in the United Nation's Charter,
resulting in the provision declaring that the United Nations
should promote universal respect for, and observance of,
``human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without
distinction to race, sex, language or religion.''
In 1951 W.E.B. DuBois, Paul Robeson, William L. Patterson,
Mary Church Terrell and others presented the United Nations
General Assembly in Paris and the United Nations Secretary
General's office in New York with the renowned petition ``We
Charge Genocide,'' which chronicled the terroristic sufferings,
murder, mental assault, and crimes against humanity inflicted
against Black people.
In 1971 a letter was addressed to the Member Nations of the
U.N. General Assembly, directly following a pre-dawn unprovoked
attack by U.S. governmental and state police forces upon the
residence and office of the Republic of New Afrika, requesting
that international observers be sent to Mississippi and ``act
immediately to avoid loss of life and a conflagration and in
the interests of world peace.''
A petition was filed with the United Nations in 1979 by
Attorney Lennox Hinds on behalf of three petitioning
organizations, the National Conference of Black Lawyers, the
National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression and
the United Church of Christ, Commission for Racial Justice.
This same petition was filed with the U.N. Human Rights
Commission and its sub-commission on Prevention of
Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. Here the
petitioners alleged a pattern of gross violations of human
rights and fundamental freedoms of political prisoners and
prisoners of war wrongfully held on account of their race,
economic status and political beliefs and inhumanely treated in
U.S. prisons.
In 1996 an array of Black nationalist groups in the U.S.
petitioned the United Nations Special Committee of 24 on
Decolonization, seeking international support for the right to
self determination. Inspired by the genocide petition submitted
to the U.N. 46 years earlier, the National Black United Front
in 1997 delivered a petition containing 157,000 names of people
who again formally charged the U.S. government with genocide
against its Black population. This petition was launched
following allegations of CIA collusion in the funneling of
crack cocaine into predominately Black inner city communities
in America.
On March 3, 2006, the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights accepted the Justice Roundtable's request and held a
thematic hearing on the 100:1 quantity disparity between crack
and powder cocaine as the most egregious example of mandatory
minimum sentencing in the U.S. criminal justice system. The
petition argued that de facto discrimination against African
Americans that is a result of harsh mandatory minimum sentences
for crack cocaine cases is a violation of the American
Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man--specifically the
right to equal protection under the law, the right to a fair
trial, and the right to judicial protection against violations
of fundamental rights. Professor Charles Ogletree delivered the
Roundtable's testimony, joined by the First U.N. Independent
Expert on Minority Issues Gay McDougall; directly impacted
person Kemba Smith; and the Honorable Patricia Wald. Wald, a
former judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia, who testified on behalf of the American Bar
Association, poignantly testified:
Unduly long and punitive sentences are counter-
productive, and candidly, many of our mandatory
minimums approach the cruel and unusual level as
compared to other countries--as well as to our own past
practices. On a personal note, let me say that on the
Yugoslavia War Crimes Tribunal, I was saddened to see
that the sentences imposed on war crimes perpetrators
responsible for the deaths and suffering of hundreds of
innocent civilians often did not come near those
imposed in my own country for dealing in a few bags of
illegal drugs. These are genuine human rights concerns
that I believe merit your interest and attention.
In 2014 after the horrific police killing of Michael Brown
in Ferguson, Missouri, Attorney Justin Hansford led the
``Ferguson to Geneva'' delegation, accompanying Ferguson
protestors and Michael Brown's parents to testify before the
United Nations Committee Against Torture. ``We need the world
to know what's going on in Ferguson and we need justice,'' said
Leslie McSpadden, the mother of Brown as she testified in
Geneva, Switzerland.
Over the course of several decades over 110 African
American and Latino men and women were subjected to torture
that was racially motivated and included electric shocks, mock
executions, suffocation and beatings by John Burge, a Chicago
police commander and his subordinates. Scores of Chicago police
torture survivors suffered from the psychological effects of
the torture they endured and, with no legal recourse for
redress, appealed to the international arena. A shadow report
on the Burge torture cases was submitted to the UN Committee
Against Torture. In May 2006 and November 2014, the UN
Committee condemned the U.S. Government and the City of Chicago
for failing to fulfill its obligations under the Convention
Against Torture with respect to the Burge torture cases. The UN
Committee also cited its concerns about police militarization,
racial profiling and reports of police brutality. The
international body's intervention was pivotal to the May 2015
passage by the Chicago City Council of an Ordinance providing
compensation, restitution and rehabilitation to survivors of
the racially motivated police torture. The Ordinance contained
a formal apology to the survivors, a Commission to administer
financial compensation, free enrollment in city colleges to the
survivors; the requirement that the city's public schools teach
about the torture, and the funding of city memorials about the
torture.
On November 12-14, 2014, We Charge Genocide (WCG), a
Chicago based grassroots inter-generational organization whose
name was inspired by the historic 1951 petition to the United
Nations, sent a delegation of eight youth to the 53rd Session
of the Committee Against Torture in Geneva to present evidence
of police violence at the 53rd session of the United Nations
Committee Against Torture. The delegation was following up on
the submission of the shadow report, Police Violence Against
Youth of Color, published by WCG. The goal of addressing the
U.N. was to increase the visibility of police violence in
Chicago and call out the continued impunity of police officers
who abuse, harass, and kill youth of color in Chicago every
year.
On September 24, 2019 the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights convened a thematic hearing on reparations as a
remedy for human rights violation against Afro-descendants in
the U.S. during the 173rd Period of Sessions, spurred by the
Thurgood Marshall Civil Rights Center at Howard University
School of Law, along with 29 co-sponsoring organizations. The
hearing highlighted the need for reparations for the systematic
pattern of human rights violations against Afro-descendants
attributable to the U.S. government including the crimes of
slavery, Jim Crow laws, excessive and violent policing
practices, mass incarceration and other forms of structural
racial discrimination.
On June 17, 2020 an Urgent Debate in the United Nations
Human Rights Council in Geneva was convened, focused on
systemic racism and policing in the U.S. The session followed
demands for international action issued by human rights groups
and experts from dozens of countries who cited the repeated
deaths in the U.S. of unarmed Black people, brutal police
tactics against protestors and police assaults on journalists
covering them. A letter filed by the U.S. Human Rights Network
and endorsed by family members of George Floyd, Breanna Taylor,
Michael Brown and Philando Castile, called on the Council to
pass a Resolution that would have established an independent
international commission of inquiry related to the systemic
racism, human rights violations and other abuses against People
of African Descent in the United States and around the world.
The Resolution was not adopted but a weaker version passed
which fails to mandate the establishment of such a commission.
Rather, it calls for a report from the High Commissioner to be
presented to the Human Rights Council, followed by an
interactive Dialogue.
As part of the June 17, 2020 Urgent Debate on racism and
police brutality at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the
UN's Human Rights Chief Michelle Bachelet called on countries
to examine their pasts and to strive to better understand the
scope of continuing ``systemic discrimination.'' She pointed to
the ``gratuitous brutality'' on display in the killing of
George Floyd who died in Minneapolis on May 25 after a white
police officer--since charged with murder--kneeled on his neck
for nearly nine minutes. She also stressed the need to ``make
amends for centuries of violence an discrimination, including
through formal apologies, truthtelling processes and
reparations in various forms.''
In sum, there has been a continuous evolution of appeal by
people of African descent in the U.S. to the international
sphere for recognition and redress, and the above recitations
merely scratch the surface. The evidence and documentation
presented to these international bodies clearly reveal patterns
and practices of gross violations of human rights and
fundamental freedoms in the U.S. This trend is contrary to the
tenets of international law and universal norms.
THE U.S. MUST ADHERE TO THE CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS
OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
The International Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has been described as
``the most comprehensive and unambiguous codification in treaty
form of the idea of the equality of the races.'' CERD prohibits
racial discrimination, which it defines as ``any distinction,
exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour,
descent, or national or ethnic origin'' having the purpose of
``nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or
exercise, on an equal footing of human rights and fundamental
freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any
other field of public life.'' Parties to the Convention are
legally obligated to eliminate racial discrimination within
their borders and are required to enact whatever laws are
necessary to ensure the exercise and enjoyment of fundamental
human rights free from discrimination.
The CERD provision relating to criminal justice concerns is
subsumed within Article 5: In compliance with the fundamental
obligations laid down in article 2 of this Convention, States
Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial
discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of
everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national
or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the
enjoyment of the following rights:
(a) The right to equal treatment before the tribunals
and all other organs administering justice;
(b) The right to security of person and protection by
the State against violence or bodily harm, whether
inflicted by government officials or by any individual,
group or institution;
(c) Political rights, in particular to the rights to
participate in elections-to vote and to stand for
election--on the basis of universal and equal suffrage
to take part in the Government, as well as in the
conduct of public affairs at any level and to have
equal access to public service.
Enumerating a string of ``other civil rights'' encompassing
the civil, politics, economic, social and cultural spheres, the
Convention goes on to iterate the following:
States Parties shall assure to everyone within their
jurisdiction effective protection and remedies against
any acts of racial discrimination which violate human
rights and fundamental freedoms contrary to this
Convention, as well as the right to seek from such
tribunals just and adequate reparation or satisfaction
for any damage suffered as a result of such
discrimination.
The United States has promulgated numerous treaties
proscribing various human rights violations, including
genocide, civil and political rights, economic, social and
cultural rights, and torture. However, it appears politically
expedient for the U.S. to ratify human rights treaties with
limiting reservations, understandings and declarations (RUDS).
This practice not only nullifies these treaties' impact in the
U.S., but nullifies their effect. It is readily apparent that
when the U.S. ratifies a human rights treaty today, it not only
attempts to ensure that it has not assumed any international
human rights obligations not already guaranteed by U.S. law,
but, by making the treaty non-self-executing, it effectively
precludes individuals from relying on any of the treaty's
provisions in U.S. courts.
THE INFLICTION OF POLICE BRTUALITY AGAINST BLACKS MUST END
Many issues of racism in the U.S. violate the International
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial
Discrimination, specifically the clause that condemns laws and
practices that have an invidious racially discriminatory
effect, regardless of intent. The selective infliction of
police brutality is an example of a gross inequality that could
be alleviated by CERD in its unadulterated form.
The international race convention promotes the right to
security of person and protection by the State against violence
or bodily harm, whether inflicted by government officials or by
any individual, group or institution.
Statistics reveal that Blacks are far more likely to be
physically abused and/or murdered by police officers charged to
protect them. Indeed, by the admission of some police officers,
race is used as a determinative factor in deciding who to
follow, detain, search and arrest. The lengthy history of
police brutality against Black people is legion, and is still
very prevalent today. Statistics also reveal there are
disproportionately high rates of the use of excessive and
deadly force by police against Blacks. Research has shown that
a variety of factors contribute to the problem--including
racism and prejudice, unfettered police discretion, the
infamous police code of silence, inadequate disciplinary
measures by police departments and administrators, and the
ineffectiveness of current remedies.
It is incumbent that the U.S. demonstrate a seriousness of
purpose in eradicating racial discrimination in its criminal
punishment system. I submit that the enforcement of
international norms domestically, specifically the provisions
of CERD, would eliminate the barriers presented by current law
and practice with respect to racism, at least in the criminal
justice system. Even if legislation is not implemented to
enforce the treaty in U.S. law, if international law were used
to assist in interpreting our constitutional rights ``the right
attains greater credence as one that has universal
recognition.''
The judicial system should interpret the U.S.
Constitution's 14th amendments equal protection analysis in
light of CERD's clause abrogating laws with an invidious
discriminatory effect irrespective of intent, enabling the
higher standard of strict scrutiny to apply.
With respect to abating the racial infliction of police
brutality and misconduct, there must be a new federal response
toward police misfeasance. The U.S. is required, pursuant to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the
Convention Against Torture, and CERD to file comprehensive
reports with the United Nations on its domestic human rights
compliance.
In its first report to the United Nations Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination, three groups--Human
Rights Watch, the International Human Rights Law Group and the
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund emphasized that the
U.S. CERD Report and subsequent submissions include reference
to U.S. law and practice relating to racial discrimination and
a discussion of whether these laws are sufficient to eliminate
discrimination in fact, or whether additional steps by the
federal government are necessary. These organizations stressed
that because the non-self-executing clause effectively denies
Americans the enjoyment of international law protections in
domestic courts, it is all the more incumbent upon the
government to bring all aspects of U.S. law and practice into
conformity with the international standards contained in CERD.
The Race Convention embodies the world community's
expression that a universal, international standard against
race discrimination is necessary if racial and ethnic bias are
to be eliminated. The U.S. has been challenged to take
appropriate measures to ensure that its laws are in conformity
with the dictates of CERD. It is a sad commentary on this
country that with respect to the ratification of human rights
treaties in general and CERD in particular, the U.S. is not
leading the way, but instead is pulling up the rear.
Indeed, the 94 petitioners who signed the 1951 Genocide
complaint against the U.S. to the United Nations stated, ``we
believe that . . . the manner in which a government treats its
own nationals is not to be found in the lofty platitudes that
pervade so many treaties or constitutions. The essence lies not
in the form, but rather, in the substance.''
It is clear that the CERD prohibition against violence by
government officials or others is violated by the wanton
infliction of brutality against Blacks by police. Over 100
years ago W.E.B. DuBois accurately predicted that the problem
of the 20th century would be the problem of the color line. And
now, into the 21st century, the problem of race in society is
just as pernicious. Domestic law has proven inadequate in
providing relief. The application of international human rights
law to the U.S. could be the pivotal strategy which eradicates
racism and its deleterious effects. To paraphrase the words of
Human Rights Watch, the International Human Rights Law Group,
and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund:
``CERD needs to be promoted as the law of the land and
U.S. law and practice must be brought into conformity
with it. American must show a respect for the
Convention and a seriousness of purpose in eliminating
racial discrimination.''
THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE
CRIME OF GENOCIDE SHOULD BE USED IN U.S. COURTS
In today's environment, we think about systemic racism, but
what we should be discussing is the possible extermination of a
people. This is because, I submit, the United States has moved
beyond both overt Jim Crow and beyond unconscious bias in its
criminal punishment system, to what I call, ``institutionalized
genocide.'' The coinage of this phrase represents a scientific
framework through which to analyze what is happening to people
of African descent in the 21st century. Although this testimony
scrutinizes the concept through the lens of police killings on
the Black community, the impact of the broader criminal
punishment system and other systems with a disproportionate
negative impact on Black people such as education, health care,
and the economic system could and should likewise be so
examined.
While genocide appears to many to singularly denote
killings through massacre and annihilation, its international
definition also includes the creation of ``conditions of life''
calculated to bring about the destruction of a people, in whole
or in part. Unfortunately, seldom do people examine the
internationally adopted parameters of the term genocide and
then compare them with the treatment of Black people in the
U.S. If one were to do so, state-sponsored genocide against
Black people, particularly as it relates to police killings, is
at least plausible, if not undeniable.
In 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted
the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide. ``This Convention confirmed that
genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war
is a crime under international law which must be undertaken to
prevent and punish.'' Genocide, the Convention declares, is the
committing of certain acts with intent to destroy--in whole or
in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
such:
- killing members of the group
- causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
- deliberately inflicting upon the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or
in part
- imposing measures to prevent births within the group
- forcibly transferring children of one group to another group
Those acts, the international Convention states, constitute
genocide. Pursuant to the Convention, however, genocide is not
the only punishable act. Related acts are equally punishable:
(a) conspiracy to commit genocide
(b) direct and public incitement to commit genocide
(c) attempt to commit genocide
(d) complicity in its commission
The international definition concludes by reminding the
parties that those who commit genocide or any other of the
related acts ``shall be punished, whether they are
constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials, or
private individuals.''
It took the U.S. 38 long years to ratify the Convention.
One fear was that Blacks in America would use the treaty to
their advantage. Segregationists felt that American
ratification would subject the United States to charges based
on the treatment of Native American and Black people, and Ohio
representative Senator John Bricker in particular was alarmed
at the thought that literally thousands of discriminatory
Federal and State laws could automatically be invalidated by
application of international human rights law in U.S. courts.
Largely as the result of that, it has been said that the
Genocide Convention set a record as ``the most scrutinized and
analyzed non-military treaty ever to be considered by the
Senate.'' Thirteen days of public hearings were held by the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, generating testimony
from over 200 witnesses representing divergent views,
culminating in a hearing transcript of over 2,000 pages.
After nearly four decades, however, and feeling comfortable
that enactment of antisegregation laws mooted concern over
attacks against U.S. racial practices of the 1950's and 1960's,
and inserting language to limit the scope of the Convention
within U.S. law, the U.S. Senate, nearly 40 years after its
adoption by the United Nations, and after scores of other
nations had already ratified it, finally gave its advice and
consent to ratification in 1988.
What is so significant about the Genocide Convention to
activists, advocates, and lawyers, is that it is the only
international human rights treaty adopted by the United States
that is fully actionable in U.S. law.
Later international human rights treaties such as CERD, the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the
Convention Against Torture, while symbolic, are not self
executing, meaning they have no enforceability in U.S. courts
because there is no U.S. legislation to implement their
provisions. Ratification of the Genocide Convention, however,
required the adoption of implementing legislation, to ensure
that the ratification not be a symbolic gesture, but have the
full force of law and the authority to enact penalties.
On April 4, 1988, then President Ronald Reagan completed
the final step to the ratification process by signing the
treaty, ``The Genocide Convention Implementation Act.'' This
Act codified the international Genocide Convention in U.S. law,
although making various changes in an attempt to limit its
applicability, such as adding the term ``specific'' before
intent.
It is important to recall the full title of the Genocide
Act. The International Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. There are necessary
reforms that can prevent genocide and lead to systemic
transformation, such as the use of force only as a necessary
last resort; that all sorts of chokeholds be banned; that
racial profiling be prohibited; that transfer of military
equipment to law enforcement be ceased; that no-knock warrants
be abolished; that there be a recklessness standard in the law
so that killer cops can be held accountable; that a national
public database be developed so that problematic police cannot
easily move from one police agency to another; and that the
doctrine of qualified immunity be ended, which shields police
from being held legally accountable when they break the law.
In concert with such laws that could prevent the genocide
from continuing, advocates and lawyers must also be in the
courts, using provisions from the Genocide Convention, to
punish those with the intent to destroy in whole or in
significant part, a national, racial, ethnic or religious
group.
I acknowledge that the specific intent prong as inserted by
the U.S. ratification is the fundamental hurdle to use of this
treaty in United States law. It is a difficult hurdle, given
the restrictive manner in which U.S. courts continue to
construe the intent requirement in general equal protection
analysis involving criminal legal issues. It is clear that few
public officials, private individuals or constitutionally
responsible officials, much less police officers, will
affirmatively state, `I have the specific intent to destroy, in
whole or in substantial part, your racial, ethnic or religious
group,' yet that level of honesty appears to be what the U.S.
codification requires.
In reality, however, many of the disparities arise from
institutional and structural racism where bias is codified
within the structural fabric of social institutions and
manifests routinely without the need for a discrete actor to
overtly perpetuate a discriminatory act.
There is a broader social context which underlies the
criminal punishment system in the U.S. It is a social context
permeated by the poverty, rampant unemployment, poor housing
and homelessness, inadequate education, harmful health
outcomes, and diminished life opportunities and it is these
unmet social needs which provide the fuel for the cycle of
incarceration and the police as its first responders. These
damaging conditions of life often result in the destruction of
not only individuals, but entire families and generations. Are
these conscious acts intended to cause destruction? Are they
the unconscious effects of structural racism in the system? Or
do they constitute institutionalized genocide?
There is a solution. The International Race Convention
allows intent to be gleaned through actions and impact,
regardless of specific intent, reaching both conscious and
unconscious forms of racism. Thus, if the intent standard of
the Genocide Convention as ratified by the United States were
to be interpreted in accordance with the intent standard in the
international Race Convention--then a claim of genocide against
a substantial portion of the Black populace in the United
States resulting from institutionalized or structural racism in
the criminal punishment system in general, and police killings
under color of law could, in fact, be actionable.
It is clear that the horror of racism--overt as well as
institutional--has not been repugnant enough for the fashioning
of structural solutions to abate the problem. Perhaps the
application of the intensified nomenclature of genocide will
shock the conscience of the public to intensify actions to
remedy the problem. Perhaps the stark correlation between the
internationally-accepted definition of genocide and the
juxtaposition of that definition against the impact of racism
in the U.S. punishment system will spark needed revolutionary
change in policies and practices, and move the system away from
genocide, and toward transformative justice.
The Democratic majority House of Representatives recently
passed the Justice in Policing Act, which contains some
remedies that could begin the process of abating the genocide,
but it has to have the agreement of the Republican majority
Senate. However, the bill drafted by the Senate to most
activists is a total non-
starter--doing nothing that will stop the killing, causing
serious bodily or mental harm, or inflicting on the group
conditions of life that lead to the destruction of Black
people.
It is incumbent that those most affected by racism, as well
as those who truly believe that Black Lives do, in fact,
matter, have the audacity to advance creative theories.
The term, ``institutionalized genocide'' is a formulation
illuminating the severity inherent in the international
nomenclature, while acknowledging that there are complications
with the U.S. interpretation of intent.
Is the impact of the actions of killer cops and the ensuing
racism in the criminal punishment system genocidal against a
substantial portion of the Black populace? I submit yes. As
long as the lives of the people in Black communities are being
destroyed; as long as genocidal treatment is embedded in police
departments, prosecutor's offices, and courtrooms, and the
perception of unequal justice is perpetuated throughout the
system; and as long as legislatures continue laws and practices
that had a damaging effect, there will be genocidal
consequences for Black people.
CONCLUSION
The racially selective manner in which justice is
administered in the United States violates not only elemental
principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution but basic human
rights and fundamental freedoms outline in a myriad of
international instruments as well. The dialogue and
implications for U.S. global leadership with respect to the
applicability of human rights norms to the U.S. must be
amplified, and I am thrilled that Chairman Hastings has
convened this timely hearing.
My testimony today has presented the case that the
cumulative impact of destructive treatment against Black people
in the criminal punishment system in general and policing in
particular, combined with the destructive conditions of life
negatively impacting generations, are violations of
international law, specifically the International Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the
International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide. These and all other international
instruments must be used so that we may abate the human rights
crisis facing Black people in the 21st Century--genocide.
This testimony relies on works previously published by Nkechi
Taifa: ``Codification or Castration: The Applicability of the
international Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Racial
Discrimination to the U.S. Criminal Justice System,'' Howard
Law Journal, Vol. 40, Issue 3, Spring 1997; ``Racism in the
U.S. Criminal Justice System: Institutionalized Genocide?''
American Constitution Society Issue Brief, October 2016.
Prepared Statement of Malcolm Momodou Jallow
A few words to introduce myself--I am a member of the
Swedish parliament and of the Swedish delegation to the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. the main human
rights organisation of this continent. In this capacity, I have
the opportunity to exchange regularly with parliamentarians
from 47 European countries.
Political developments in the U.S. have a significant
socio-economic and political impact on the rest of the world.
There is reason for great concern about the unfolding grave
human rights crisis in the United States: partly as a result of
the systemic brutal police killings of black people, but also
the use of state sanctioned excessive force and suppression of
peaceful protesters. These are clear violations of United
States obligations under international law.
The Trump administration has within this short period of
time completely eroded the authority of the US as a standard
bearer and thereby undermined the legitimacy of the so-called
U.S. GLOBAL LEADERSHIP. One cannot exercise effective soft
power without legitimacy. The isolationist foreign policy
direction, the nationalist rhetoric and the blatant non-
compliance to the international human rights standards and
rules-based orders only accelerate the decline in confidence
from the rest of the world.
We have had a series of evidence of structural and
institutional racism and racist policing fuelled by historical
abuses and negative stereotyping, leading to the exclusion and
dehumanisation of black people in the U.S. However, this
particular murder of George Floyd has become a clear
manifestation and a tipping point for what many, including many
Europeans, perceive as state sanctioned racism and blatant
violation of the civil and human rights of black people.
What we have seen in the U.S. does not only illustrate the
deep rooted and historical systemic injustice against black
people. It also clearly manifests the extent to which white
supremacy ideologies are normalised.
What we are seeing is a manifestation of a democracy in
crisis.
If this were happening in any other part of the world, the
U.S. and other western countries would be demanding a regime
change.
It is remarkable, however, how much time it took and how
much pressure from the black community that was required for
the global leadership to react.
When leaders sow the seeds of hatred and stoke the flames
of racist violence, we legitimize intolerance and bigotry.
We create division rather than unite the people.
And most importantly, we undermine the fundamental values
of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
Structural, institutional and systemic racism, including
racist violence, is not confined only to the boundaries of the
U.S. It is also very much present in Europe. We have, and
continue to experience, our share of structural and
institutional racism and police brutality. With impunity.
Over the last decade, we have seen an increase, both in
gravity and number, in the manifestations of racism in all its
forms.
I woke up yesterday morning reading on my time Line an
article from New York Times with the title:
``A young Black man (Phillip Mbuji Johansen, 28 years old)
was tortured and killed on a remote island in Denmark by two
white men with known far-right affiliations, one of them with a
swastika tattoo on his leg, but the authorities are refusing to
call it a hate crime.''
Mr. Johansen's mutilated body was found at a camp site.
According to the preliminary indictment, his skull was broken
after he was beaten several times with a wooden beam; he was
stabbed multiple times; a knife was driven through his throat
and a knee had been planted in his neck. He died sometime early
Tuesday, according to a forensic report.
The prosecutor, Benthe Pedersen Lund, told a local
newspaper that the killing had nothing to do with ``skin
color'' but with ``a personal relationship that has gone
wrong.''
Woury Jallow in Germany, Adama Traore, in France, Steven
Laurence UK and now Phillip Mbuju are just a few amongst a long
list of victims of racist violence that lead to the loss of
their lives. All of these cases were systematically met with
blatant denial of the root causes that lead to the tragic
consequences for these victims.
The effects of governments' failure to devise and implement
adequate policies on social cohesion, diversity, migration and
social inclusion have triggered this upsurge, which has been
amplified by the increasing use of Internet and social media.
The dimension, gravity and frequency of their manifestations
are of great concern and urgency.
The urgency becomes even more acute, considering that these
phenomena have repercussions that go well beyond the single
individuals that are directly targeted.
They affect entire communities and they create divides in
society, affecting human rights and social cohesion; and they
erode even further the trust in public authorities, the rule of
law and ultimately democracy.
In addition, issues of race relations deeply affect the
conduct of our foreign policy relations
The European project has anti-discrimination at its heart,
with a fundamental commitment to ensuring that we learn the
lessons of the Holocaust and past European divisions through
pursuit of human rights for all. This project, however, appears
to be failing with regard to Black Europeans. The pain and
denigration of Black people has a historical context that we
must remember., Hence, the UN Decade on People of African
Descent and its three focus areas Recognition, Justice and
Development.
The images of the brutal and tragic death of George Floyd
triggered a protest movement not only in the U.S. but around
the world. The scale and intensity of the protests illustrates
a deep sense of frustration and pain that Europe, for the
longest of time, had shown no regard for.
The usual silence and exceptional entitlements from
European leaders are no more working, as this is not a moment,
but a movement. A movement that is deeply and permanently
committed to justice, human rights and the rule of law. Not in
words, but in action!
``I want people across the world and the leaders in the
United Nations to see the video of my brother George Floyd, to
listen to his cry for help, and I want them to answer his
cry,'' said Philonise Floyd, brother of George Floyd. ``I
appeal to the United Nations to help him. Help me. Help us.
Help Black men and women in America.''
There is a George Floyd in every part of Europe, and just
like George Floyd, we can't breathe. It is time for the
European leadership, as well as the U.S. leadership, to
recognise their blind spots and listen to our demands for
justice, equality and human rights.
You got a chance and a you got choice, so we demand to see
changes. We must act quickly, firmly and collectively, because
when we choose to be silent in the face of hatred, bigotry and
racism, we choose to be complacent there by undermining the
fundamental values of human rights, democracy and the rule of
law.
Prepared Statement of Ambassador Ian Kelly
Among the many contributions of the Helsinki process to
international peace, perhaps the greatest was the consensus
that security among states depends in part on respect for human
rights within states. We support the OSCE because we know that
a world where fundamental freedoms are upheld is a safer world.
As OSCE leaders agreed in the Charter of Paris in 1990,
``observance and full exercise (of human rights) are the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace.''
At the OSCE, to advance that cause, the U.S. has worked
together with our democratic allies in Europe and Canada to
support human rights. In my time at the OSCE, the greatest
challenges to the cause were the political use of the judiciary
and law enforcement, government intimidation of critical media
and civil society, and the lack of checks and balances against
the power of the executive.
Recent events have shown that America as a model for
fighting against the first two tendencies has been greatly
tarnished. But we can still be a beacon for promoting
separation of powers to ensure transparency and accountability.
The recent beatings of protestors in the U.S. served as an
uncomfortable reminder of events in Minsk in December 2010,
when police used violence to break up rallies against the
government. It caused us and our allies at the OSCE to invoke
something called the Moscow Mechanism, where a group of OSCE
countries can appoint a special representative to investigate
abuse against those exercising their basic freedoms.
We knew that Russia and others would veto the
recommendations of the report. We invoked the Moscow Mechanism
because we wanted to send a strong signal: that we found the
use of violence to quell dissent unacceptable.
A decade later, we've seen in our country the excessive use
of force against protestors who are peaceably assembling.
Perhaps the most prominent example was in Lafayette Square.
There, authorities put a higher priority on clearing peaceful
protestors for a photo op, than on allowing them to exercise
their basic rights. I don't want to compare our response to
protest to that of the Lukashenko regime. But until the highest
levels of our government condemn what happened in Lafayette
Square and elsewhere, we've lost much of our moral authority to
call other countries to account.
In my last post, as Ambassador to Georgia, I experienced in
dramatic fashion how attacks on critical media in the U.S. have
eroded our power to persuade other countries to protect free
speech. A few months before I retired in early 2018, a Georgian
court was close to ruling on replacing the managing editor of
the country's leading opposition television station with
someone more amenable to the government.
I met with a senior official to try to convince that
individual to speak out in favor of maintaining critical voices
in the media. To support my argument, I drew upon many of the
OSCE principles, such as the importance of free speech to
ensuring strong, accountable government. I then deployed what I
thought was my strongest argument--that Tbilisi needed
Washington's support, and that Washington would have a hard
time understanding why the Georgian government wouldn't support
keeping its critics on the air.
The response was both illuminating and deflating. The
official looked at me, smiled, and said: ``Really, Ian? You
really think Washington will have a problem with fake news
going off the air?''
A few months after I left, the court did order new
management at the station, and Georgia lost a critical platform
for holding government accountable.
Given what is happening here in the U.S., I can imagine how
difficult it is for my former colleagues in the field now to
promote human rights. With the recent abuse of police powers,
and the characterization of journalists as ``enemies of the
people'' over the last few years, diplomats' powers of
persuasion have been greatly eroded.
But they should still have hope in the power of American
institutions.
When I tell my students about my distress at my own
government's abuses over the years, such as the CIA ``Black
Sites'' and the torture at Abu Graib, they ask me how I was
able to continue to work for such an administration. I tell
them it's because of my deep belief in the system's ability to
investigate abuse, correct itself, and ultimately do the right
thing.
While we look to right our own country's wrongs, we cannot
avert our eyes from assaults on Helsinki principles elsewhere
in the OSCE space. We should be particularly concerned about
increasing centralization --and personalization--of political
power. Just yesterday, Russia concluded a plebiscite on an
amendment that could allow Putin to stay in power until 2036.
And then there is the pandemic. It attacked at a time when
democracy was already in retreat. Even before COVID-19, Freedom
House noted that since 2006, democracy has been in decline in
25 of 41 established democracies. The challenge of curbing the
pandemic has emboldened authoritarian rulers. It has given them
another excuse to curb fundamental rights, to remove
institutional checks on their power, and silence those who
dissent.
As Dr. King wrote, ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to
justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of
mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever
affects one directly, affects all indirectly.'' When we redress
wrongs, we make our country stronger. We restore our position
of leadership in a world where democracy needs champions. And
by so doing, we make the world safer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing today.
This is an official publication of the
Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe.
< < <
This publication is intended to document
developments and trends in participating
States of the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
< < <
All Commission publications may be freely
reproduced, in any form, with appropriate
credit. The Commission encourages
the widest possible dissemination
of its publications.
< < <
http://www.csce.gov @HelsinkiComm
The Commission's Web site provides
access to the latest press releases
and reports, as well as hearings and
briefings. Using the Commission's electronic
subscription service, readers are able
to receive press releases, articles,
and other materials by topic or countries
of particular interest.
Please subscribe today.