[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 9780-9782]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 PROMOTING HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE PURSUIT OF PEACE--ADDRESS OF ASSISTANT 
                     SECRETARY OF STATE HAROLD KOH

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LANTOS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                          Friday, May 14, 1999

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I participated in an 
extremely interesting and important symposium entitled ``Promoting 
Human Rights in the Pursuit of Peace: Assessing 20 Years of U.S. Human 
Rights Policy.'' This symposium was organized by the U.S. Institute of 
Peace to mark two decades since the creation of the Bureau of Human 
Rights at the Department of State. The conference focused on the 
implementation of human rights policies and ways in which the United 
States can improve its ability to promote the protection of human 
rights. This was just another example of the excellent work which the 
U.S. Institute of Peace under the outstanding leadership of Dick 
Solomon has done.
  Mr. Speaker, the keynote address at this symposium was given by 
Harold Hongju Koh, the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, 
Human Rights, and Labor. His remarks were insightful and provocative in 
discussing the problems we face in the fight for human rights in the 
international context of the post-Cold War World and the information 
age. Assistant Secretary Koh provided an excellent summary of the 
Administration's goals and objectives as well as the means it is using 
to pursue them.
  Among the participants at the conference were two other of our 
colleagues in the Congress: my fellow Californian, Congresswoman Nancy 
Pelosi, and my fellow co-chair of the Congressional Human Rights 
Caucus, Congressman John Porter of Illinois. Others who participated in 
the symposium were the Hon. Morton Halperin of the Department of State, 
the Hon. Charles H. Fairbanks, Jr., of the Central Asia-Caucus 
Institute, and the Hon. James Bishop of the American Council for 
Voluntary International Action.
  I ask, Mr. Speaker, that key excerpts of Assistant Secretary Koh's 
remarks be placed in the Congressional Record, and I invite my 
colleagues to give thoughtful attention to his excellent statement.

 Promoting Human Rights in the Pursuit of Peace: Assessing 20 Years of 
U.S. Human Rights Policy

                           *   *   *   *   *


       * * * Human rights and democracy remain fundamental 
     principles around which our world is now organized. Although 
     much has changed in the 50 years since the Universal 
     Declaration on Human Rights proclaimed that all human beings 
     are ``free and equal in dignity and rights,'' the fundamental 
     fact is that the world today is more free than at any time in 
     history. Ten years after the Cold War, we have seen not the 
     end of history, but the beginning of a whole new set of 
     challenges for human rights. From Bosnia to Burma, from 
     Kosovo to Kigali, we are now witnessing the need for human 
     rights policy, with national, intergovernmental, and 
     transnational actors moving to adapt to changing developments 
     and to try to stay one step ahead of the horror.
       To understand the challenges that are now facing us, * * * 
     let us speak in two parts: first about what I would call the 
     human rights paradigm has evolved in the past 50 years and 
     then * * * the evolution of this human fights paradigm. I 
     will refer temporarily from bureaucrat to pedant. And then, 
     second, I would indicate how our government ought to respond 
     to the current paradigm as I see it now in this, the turn of 
     the century, how we address what you could call the human 
     rights Y2K problem.
       In the early years of this half century, in the wake of 
     World War II, the paradigmatic violation was genocide. To 
     prevent future genocides, global human rights policy focused 
     centrally on three key themes: first, accountability--as we 
     saw at the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals; second, standard-
     setting, through legal texts like the Universal Declaration 
     and human rights covenants like the International Covenant on 
     Civil and Political Rights; and third, institution-building, 
     with the development of a network of intergovernmental 
     organizations to deal with global and regional human rights 
     problems.
       In the second phase, the paradigm shifted, and the focal 
     point of global human rights concern became political 
     dissidents and prisoners of conscience. We can think about 
     this as the Amnesty-Sharansky period, where response 
     mechanisms began to focus more insistently upon mechanisms of 
     monitoring and advocacy, coalition-building to achieve 
     effective advocacy, and focused on the dramatic growth of 
     nongovernmental organizations. * * *
       In the third phase, which began roughly with the end of the 
     Cold War, the focal point shifted again, to issues of group 
     conflict and group dilemmas: ethnic struggles, massive 
     refugee outflows, and a horrific renewal of genocide in 
     Bosnia and Rwanda. The search for solutions began to turn 
     toward questions of preventive diplomacy, and diplomacy 
     backed by force, issues of humanitarian intervention, and 
     development of transnational networks of national 
     governments, intergovernmental organizations, nongovernmental 
     actors, and what I have called in my academic work, 
     transnational norm entrepreneurs: form Jimmy Carter to Vaclav 
     Havel to Aung San Suu Kyi to Nelson Mandela, to Tom Lantos 
     and John Porter to Mary Robinson, who have used their stature 
     and governmental position, their international stature, to 
     bring the message of human rights into the exercise of 
     capacity-building with goal of creating a human rights 
     response.
       Now in the current phase of modern human rights policy, 
     what I would call the fourth phase, we now have a very 
     complex picture in which all of the elements that I 
     have described are now present. We live in a world where, 
     unfortunately, the threat of genocide has not been 
     dispelled, in which prisoners of conscience remain 
     imprisoned, in which ethnic and group conflict continues 
     to rage and expand, but in which we now have a complex and 
     somewhat unwieldy response mechanism

[[Page 9781]]

     that involves transnational networks but also new tools of 
     accountability, standard setting, monitoring, advocacy, 
     and preventive diplomacy. They work with differing degrees 
     of effectiveness. Witness, for example, the struggle that 
     we face now to deal with the preventive issues in Kosovo.
       Well, if this is where the human rights paradigm stands at 
     the end of this century, what are our challenges? Let me 
     suggest three that have increasingly commanded my attention 
     since I have assumed this position: what I call the challenge 
     of globalization, the challenge of non-state actors, and the 
     challenge of self-governance and democracy.
       It is commonplace, of course, to say that we stand in an 
     era of globalization and integration. Today, states are 
     engaging with each other in a growing range of activities 
     that transcend national borders. National economies are 
     becoming increasingly intertwined. Trade, the environment, 
     security, and population issues have become powerful forces 
     for integration. New technologies of communication and 
     transportation--fax machines, satellite and cell phones, 
     satellite TV, and the Internet--are bringing people of 
     different countries and cultures much closer together. Yet at 
     the same time that we are moving closer together, we also are 
     breaking down traditional vertical power structures. 
     Breathtaking changes in technology are creating a world where 
     information flows more and more freely. We are moving from a 
     hierarchical, bi-directional model of authority to a non-
     hierarchical, multi-directional network model.
       The result of this, as Congressman Lantos suggested, is the 
     erosion of the traditional power of governments over 
     information, which has had tremendous implications for the 
     relationship between individuals and authority. These trends, 
     in my view, can only benefit the movement toward greater 
     freedom. And here I think we need to emphasize both human 
     rights information and human rights standards, both of which 
     I think have become much more widely promulgated as a result 
     of globalization.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       At the same time that information has been expanding, this 
     increasing global contact has created a renewed emphasis on 
     universal human rights standards, particularly how the norms 
     of the Universal Declaration and the International Bill of 
     Rights can operate as a standard to guide conduct. It is 
     surprising how far we have gone in conquering the debate over 
     Asian values. As Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma has written, it is 
     precisely because countries are coming into increasing 
     contact that it is important for us to adhere to a common set 
     of basic human rights standards in our dealings with other 
     countries and in our own internal systems of government. Just 
     as global Internet standards allow us to communicate with one 
     another in the same language and computer code, the 
     promulgation of universal human rights standards through 
     global contacts allows us to communicate with one another in 
     the language of rights.
       One of the most striking things I have seen in my extensive 
     dealings with the Chinese is the extent to which there has 
     been progress in the sense that they now speak the language 
     of universal human rights. Of course, we differ dramatically 
     on its application. But in the sense of saying that they once 
     did not believe in these universal values, they now believe 
     in these values. And moreover, they make reference to these 
     linguistic terms. The question then becomes how to bring the 
     terms and standards to bear on conduct.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Now these developments I also think have dramatic 
     implications for our efforts at early warning and 
     preventative diplomacy. And we have seen this at the State 
     Department in regard to our efforts with regard to Kosovo. It 
     is for this reason that we at the State Department are 
     working with NGOs, intergovernmental entities, and national 
     governments to hold a large conference of both public and 
     private actors to begin developing a coordinated network on 
     atrocities prevention and response, which will have the goal 
     not just of collecting and sharing information, which is 
     something that we sought to do through an announcement by the 
     President on December 10 of the genocide early warning 
     network, but also to develop coordinated mechanisms whereby 
     this network can prevent and more effectively respond to 
     crises as they evolve.
       A second challenge is the role of non-state actors, for 
     even as nation-states proliferate, we are seeing more 
     dramatically the increasing importance of nongovernmental 
     actors as both human rights violators and human rights 
     defenders. Multinational corporations and financial 
     institutions, non-governmental organizations, labor unions, 
     indigenous and ethnic groups, and transnational moral 
     organizations such as organized religious groups, all now 
     represent critical nodes on a network of influence in human 
     rights that rivals and at times dwarfs the power of 
     individual states.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       With regard to non-state actors, I believe the central 
     challenge will be how to mobilize private incentives to 
     create a race to the top, not a race to the bottom, in the 
     development of these human rights standards
       The third and perhaps most critical challenge we face at 
     the millennium is the challenge of self-governance and 
     democracy. Around the world, we are witnessing popular 
     movements for independence and democracy. From Kosovo to East 
     Timor, groups are demanding the right to determine their own 
     future. But these developments are not necessarily coming at 
     the cost of integration. Witness Europe, where entities such 
     as Scotland and Catalonia have peacefully sought both greater 
     autonomy and full participation in European institutions. The 
     fundamental challenge facing policymakers is how to guide 
     such movements away from the temptations of violence, 
     separatism, and ethnic cleansing, and toward the promise of 
     greater autonomy within a framework of democracy and human 
     rights.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       I think we need to recognize that the right to democracy is 
     both a means and an end in the struggle for human rights. 
     Freedom of conscience, expression, religion, and association 
     are all bolstered in genuine democracies. In saying so, I 
     think we have to acknowledge that the government of the 
     people cannot be imposed from the outside. As Secretary 
     Albright recently said, ``[D]emocracy must emerge from the 
     desire of individuals to participate in the decisions that 
     shape their lives. *  *  * Unlike dictatorship, democracy is 
     never an imposition; it is always a choice.''
       As we have learned through bitter experience, democracy 
     also must be more than simply holding elections. The slow 
     development of democracy over the past several years has 
     demonstrated that our purpose is not just developing and 
     holding elections but respect for human rights in a robust 
     civil society characterized by the rule of law, healthy 
     political institutions, constitutionalism, an independent 
     judiciary with open and competitive economic structures, an 
     independent media capable of engaging in informed debate with 
     freedom of religion and belief, mechanism to safeguard 
     minorities, and full respect for women's and worker rights. 
     These principles--together with free and fair elections--form 
     the basis for a culture of democracy. As my predecessor, John 
     Shattuck, has said, building this culture is never easy, but 
     the rewards make this effort profoundly worthwhile.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Well, if these are our challenges--globalization, non-state 
     actors, and democracies--what should be our response? Here 
     let me just mention four principles that I believe must guide 
     our human rights policy into the next century. Those of you 
     who have heard me speak since I have become Assistant 
     Secretary have heard these principles before. I repeat them 
     just to show that after four months, I still believe that 
     they are the centerpieces of our policy. The first and most 
     important task, I think, is to tell the truth about human 
     rights conditions in our asylum profiles, in our 
     investigations, in our country reports, in our monitoring. * 
     * *

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The second basic principle is that I believe we ought to 
     stand up for principles, particularly in taking consistent 
     positions with regard to past, present, and future abuses. 
     With regard to past abuses, we try persistently to promote 
     the principles of accountability. To stop ongoing abuses, we 
     use an ``inside-outside'' approach that combines strategies 
     of internal persuasion with tools of external sanction. To 
     prevent further abuses, we promote the principles of early 
     warning and preventive diplomacy. The atrocities prevention 
     network I've just discussed is an example of how we try to 
     achieve that goal.
       That brings me to my third basic principle: How do we 
     continue to speak for fundamental freedoms? Let me mention 
     four, which are going to be a central focus of our work over 
     the next few years. The first, freedom of thought, conscience 
     and religion, is in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration. 
     Religious freedom is under attack around the world. We see it 
     every day in the newspapers papers--in Indonesia, in China, 
     in Sudan--against people of all faiths and beliefs. Yet here 
     in the United States, I think too many people continue to 
     view this as a partisan or ideological issue. I don't believe 
     that this is something in which we should be selective in our 
     advocacy. Having now met and talked to people of all faiths 
     in many parts of the world who are experiencing violations of 
     religious freedom, it is so core to the central notion of 
     freedom of thought and consciousness that we must address 
     these challenges, both with tools that we are given by the 
     legislature and through other means, with the goal of 
     combating all abuses of this fundamental freedom.
       A second arena in which we hope aggressively to contend is 
     worker rights. Our bureau's tile is the Bureau of Democracy, 
     Human Rights and Labor. And, of course, Article 23 of the 
     Declaration states that ``everyone has the right to work, to 
     free choice of employment, to just and favorable 
     conditions.'' Traditionally, U.S. policy has sought to 
     promote this goal by supporting free trade unions, but I 
     think what we now need to do is to focus on core labor 
     standards, freedom

[[Page 9782]]

     of association, the right to organize and bargain 
     collectively, freedom from forced or compulsory labor, 
     freedom from abusive child labor, and non-discrimination in 
     employment. The President in his State of the Union address 
     and again in his speech in San Francisco identified ILO 
     standards and the child labor struggle as one which he 
     intends to devote a high degree of personal energy in the 
     balance of his term. We at DRL are committed to trying to 
     develop new approaches to replace what has become an 
     unnecessarily adversarial relationship between labor, 
     business, and human rights groups and to try to move toward a 
     more cooperative model. And there are many of you who were 
     involved in the discussions over the apparel industry 
     partnership, who took a step in the right direction and one 
     that we hope to build on with the goal of developing even 
     stronger partnerships, private partnerships of non-state 
     actors around core labor standards.
       Third, we must continue to promote the equal treatment of, 
     and prevention of discrimination and violence against, women. 
     Traditionally, we have sought to do this through a variety of 
     means ranging from domestic legislation to international 
     campaigns against trafficking, female genital mutilation, and 
     to recognize that the women's rights issue cannot be 
     ghettoized as a women's issue that is not of concern to the 
     general human rights community. And our need here is again to 
     heal gender divisions. And we are going to press as hard as 
     we can in the next few years of this administration to bring 
     about the long, delayed ratification of the UN Convention on 
     the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
       Fourth and finally, another area in which I believe we must 
     move forward is the area of economic, social, and cultural 
     rights, and to recognize, as we said in Vienna, that these 
     rights are ``universal, indivisible, interdependent, and 
     interrelated.'' Martin Luther King, I think, understood this 
     idea well when he said ``What good is it to have the right to 
     sit at a lunch counter when you don't have enough money to 
     buy anything to eat?'' He also said ``We must be `cognizant 
     of the interrelatedness of all [things]. * * * Injustice 
     anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in 
     an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment 
     of destiny.' '' We need to take freedom from poverty, for 
     example, and treat it not just as an economic right, but as 
     something connected deeply to political repression. We need 
     to understand that the right to organize means little without 
     the right to food.
       This brings me to my final principle, that no government 
     working to promote human rights can work alone. We need to 
     think of ourselves as members of a global human rights 
     community that now extends beyond public and private lines, 
     that now crosses national lines, that moves beyond 
     institutional lines. Judges, executive branch officials, 
     legislatures, intergovernmental organizations, and NGOs are 
     all parts of this community, of which I think all of us here 
     are part. It is vital that we recognize and embrace its 
     common commitment to truth, justice, freedom, and democratic 
     partnership. If that sounds suspiciously like a commitment to 
     truth, justice, and the American way, I plead guilty because 
     I do believe that in the next century, the real divide among 
     nations will not be ideological divides, or between North and 
     South or East and West, but rather between those nations that 
     respect human rights and those that do not.
       These are our challenges. These are the principles that 
     ought to guide our response. These tasks are daunting, but I 
     think that they are in slow, exacting measure attainable. I 
     don't know how many of us thought that we could get as far as 
     we have, even in the one lifetime that the human rights 
     movement has lived.
       When I was in Belgrade in December, I gave an interview to 
     B92, which, as many of you know, is an independent radio 
     station. They were somewhat demoralized, as they should be, 
     by the repression of the media in Yugoslavia. And they said 
     to me, ``What can you say to us on the eve of Christmas that 
     can give us some hope?'' There was a moment of silence, and 
     then I said: Madeleine Albright was born in Czechoslovakia. 
     And she was exiled. Now she is Secretary of State. My family 
     became political exiles from Korea. Now I am the Assistant 
     Secretary of State for Human Rights. Now, both of our 
     countries are free. A lot can change in one lifetime.
       In 20 years of human rights policy, we have made progress. 
     Although we have a long way to go, for myself, for my 
     Secretary, for my family, I can think of no higher honor than 
     to carry the banner of democracy, human rights, and labor 
     into the next century. Thank you.

     

                          ____________________