Hillary Clinton’s Remarks Upon the Release of the 2009 Human Rights Report
A quick post, I’ll update with more info. later but I just wanted to put this video up. I want to look at the actual report when it’s available later today because I am interested in the State Department’s take on human rights in China, Honduras and Gaza, among others.Hope everyone is having a good day. More later…
SECRETARY CLINTON: Every year, the Secretary of State hosts a briefing like this one. And while in that sense it may seem routine, this event is extraordinary because of its connection to who we are as a country and to the universal aspirations we seek to make real through our foreign policy.
The idea of human rights begins with a fundamental commitment to the dignity that is the birthright of every man, woman and child. Progress in advancing human rights begins with the facts. And for the last 34 years, the United States has produced the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, providing the most comprehensive record available of the condition of human rights around the world.
These reports are an essential tool – for activists who courageously struggle to protect rights in communities around the world; for journalists and scholars who document rights violations and who report on the work of those who champion the vulnerable; and for governments, including our own, as they work to craft strategies to encourage protection of human rights of more individuals in more places.
The principle that each person possesses equal moral value is a simple, self-evident truth, but securing a world in which all can exercise the rights that are naturally theirs is an immense practical challenge. To craft effective human rights policy, we need good assessments of the situation on the ground in the places we want to make a difference. We need a sophisticated, strategic understanding of how democratic governance and economic development can each contribute to creating an environment in which human rights are secured. We need to recognize that rights-protecting democracy and rights-respecting development reinforce each other. And we need the right tools and the right partners to implement the right policies.
Human rights may be timeless, but our efforts to protect them must be grounded in the here and now. We find ourselves in a moment when an increasing number of governments are imposing new and crippling restrictions on the nongovernmental organizations working to protect rights and enhance accountability.
New technologies have proven useful both to oppressors and to those who struggle to expose the failures and the cowardice of the oppressors. And global challenges of our time – like food security and climate change; pandemic disease; economic crises; and violent extremism – impact the enjoyment of human rights today, and shape the global political context in which we must advance human rights over the long term.
Human rights are universal, but their experience is local. This is why we are committed to holding everyone to the same standard, including ourselves. This year, the United States is participating in the Universal Periodic Review process in conjunction with our participation in the UN Human Rights Council. In the fall, we will present a report, based on the input of citizens and NGOs, gathered online and in face-to-face meetings across the country attended by senior government officials. Assessing opportunities for progress and soliciting citizen engagement is one way that we demonstrate our commitment in word and deed to the basic principles that guide us toward a more perfect union and a more peaceful world.
As we work to protect human rights at home and abroad, we remember that human rights begin, as Eleanor Roosevelt said, “in small places close to home.” So when we work to secure human rights, we are working to protect the experiences that make life meaningful, to preserve each person’s ability to fulfill his or her God-given potential – the potential within every person to learn, discover and embrace the world around them; the potential to join freely with others to shape their communities and their societies so that every person can find fulfillment and self-sufficiency; the potential to share life’s beauties and tragedies, laughter and tears with the people they love.
The reports released today are a record of where we are. They provide a fact base that will inform the United States’ diplomatic, economic and strategic policies toward other countries in the coming year. These reports are not intended to prescribe such policies, but they provide essential data points for everyone in the United States Government working on them. I view the these reports not as ends in themselves, but as an important tool in the development of practical and effective human rights strategies by the United States Government. That is a process to which I am deeply committed.
The timeless principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are a North Star guiding us toward the world we want to inhabit – a just world where, as President Obama has put it, peace rests on the “inherent rights and dignity of every individual.” With the facts in hand and the goals clear in our heads and our hearts, we recommit ourselves to continue the hard work of making human rights a human reality.
It’s now my pleasure to invite Mike Posner, Assistant Secretary of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor to the podium.
To view this animated banner you need to have Flash Player 9 or newer installed and JavaScript enabled. This 
I kind of went ouch on China.
I was a bit disappointed and I hate to say that but her statement didn’t have much substance.
I’m not really sure this administration has been able to connect words with action when it comes to human rights and we seem all to willing to overlook the human rights violations of our allies when it suits us. Assistant Secretary Posner danced and weaved around questions about the horrific situation in Gaza and while we say China’s doing bad things Secretary Clinton then makes sure we know that being “pragmatic” means not publicly criticizing certain countries. However, if her claim is that putting public pressure on countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. doesn’t work then why call Iran or anyone else out publicly other than to score political points?
I don’t think Obama has a human rights policy at all.
I concur completely. Her statement rings hollow.
Steve, you know where I stand on this and you and I pretty much feel the same way on these issues.
From the very beginning of this administration I got the distinct sense that “pragmatism” was a code word for putting human rights on the back burner when politics or economic concerns prevailed. While I can certainly understand that any human rights policy has to be informed by a pragmatic analysis of what can be done in any given situation, the likelihood of changing behavior and any negative consequences that may result, our policy looks absolutely hypocritical and schizophrenic. We come down hard on nations who we don’t “need” for political or economic reasons (Cuba, Iran, etc.) and turn a blind eye or merely state our “concerns” with human rights violations in China, Gaza & the Occupied Territories, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Honduras, among others. The problem is that sends the wrong message and the countries who ARE harshly criticized are quick to point out our hypocrisy. When Secretary Clinton went on her very first overseas trip and announced prior to landing in China that human rights wouldn’t get in the way of other more important issues like the global economy and nuclear proliferation I almost fell out of my chair. I couldn’t believe it. Unfortunately, it seems that she was in fact correct- we really haven’t let human rights get in the way of other more “important” concerns. I have always argued that human rights as an issue doesn’t exist in a vacuum- you can’t separate human rights from economics, the environment or anything else. Look at China- their use of slave labor, their lack of any real environmental, labor or consumer safety regulations means they have a distinct advantage in the world economy- they can create products (some of which are absolutely unsafe) very, very, cheaply without any real environmental constraints, which is of course is why so many American jobs have been lost as they have gone off shore to take advantage of this. That simple illustratation is an example of the intersection of economics, labor, the environment and human rights.
And look at Sudan- we are working with a government whose leader has an active warrant for war crimes and the situation there ahead of elections is deteriorating. The US said there would be a carrot and sticks approach in these situations but the policy has been criticized for being a carrots and carrots approach.
I do give the State Dept. credit for being willing to acknowledge the U.S.’ own problems with human rights violations via the War on Terror, but once again, the administration has done little to a) hold anyone accountable for gross violations of law (torture, extraordinary rendition, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention etc.). So given that, it all rings pretty hollow. Obama has continued many of the Bush admin. most odious terrorism policies.
It’s frustrating.
Alas. Obama’s reign hasn’t changed this country from pretending to be the moral reference when it leads some of the major human’s rights abuses, directly or indirectly by supporting dictatorships.
This is a sad joke as usual.
I also think this is a bad idea (see link below). Hillary Clinton is the nations top diplomat, not a political figure now. So she’s going to be the main speaker at a notoriously political lobbying group which tries to influence members of Congress and the WH towards adopting Middle East policies which often run contrary to stated U.S. goals. As a Jew, I find AIPAC to be a brutish, overly-hawkish lobbying group which feeds into the fears of anti-semites that we Jews control Washington (and everything else). That said, the weight (and $$) that AIPAC throws around on behalf of a FOREIGN COUNTRY (Israel) makes it hard to argue that our foreign policy isnt beholden to right wing Israeli interests. And I’ll say that right up front because I know some non-Jews are afraid to for fear of being called “anti-Israel” or “anti-semitic” (which is total BS, btw).
By speaking at AIPAC, the State Dept. furthers the impression that it is incapable of holding Israel accountable for its efforts to undermine the peace process and that it is far too biased to serve as an even somewhat objective arbiter in Middle East peace.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/11/exclusive_hillary_to_headline_aipac_conference
Biden spoke last year, which is appropriate because he is an overtly political figure as VP. Of course, after basically being told to go f*ck himself while in Israel this week, I doubt he really wants to speak this year. I just think since AIPAC is a political/foreign policy lobbying group it looks really bad for Hillary to be the key note speaker and the timing is HORRIBLE given everything that is going on. And if Hillary is going to speak at AIPAC then she should have spoken at J-Street (the more moderate Jewish/Israel advocacy group).
Well-said Steve. It’s a contentious issue but AIPAC’s tendency to characterize everybody that disagrees with it’s right-wing foreign policy goals re: Israel, as anti-Israel or anti-Jewish, is patently offensive.
I don’t agree with AIPAC or Netanyahu’s Likud government but I am not anti-Israel and one of the things I refuse to do is fall into the tendency to use negative semantics- for example, the MSM and even advocacy groups tend to use the “pro-Israel” label in a way that would seem to imply that anyone who disagrees with Israel in ANY way is “anti-Israel.” For example, I refuse to refer to right-leaning groups like AIPAC or PNAC as “pro-Israel” simply because they claim to be morally superior to everyone else on this issue and because they refuse to ever question the Israeli govt. In other words, by calling only certain groups pro-Israel we are feeding into the notion that there is some sort of conservative litmus test for who is and isn’t a supporter of Israel and its security. AIPAC and the govt of Bibi Netanyahu had the audacity to refer to J-Street as anti-Israel simply because J-Street is more moderate in it’s views about what is necessary to bring about mideast peace and it has *at times* dared (*gasp*) to disagree publicly with the right-wing Likud government. It’s similar to when in the run-up to the Iraq War, those of us who disagreed with US policy were labeled traiters, pro-terrorism and unamerican.
It is a political strategy that is dishonest, lazy and damaging to political discourse.
The good news is that in Israel that have much more tolerance for opposing viewpoints regarding Mideast peace than we do in this country. I read Haaretz and the JPost daily and the US media could learn a thing or two about journalism from them, irrespective of where one stands on the issues.
A good piece from Daniel Levy over at FP:
http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/11/biden_netanyahu_and_papering_over_the_grand_canyon
And today Israel has sealed off the West Bank, making matters worse:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hEbukPLkYJ69o7tT2laQiuU9PhGA
It’s almost like Netanyahu is spoiling for a fight. Maybe he wants a second Operation Cast Lead?
This will be remembered the next time our top diplomat tries to negotiate with the Palestinians. Steve, you’re entirely correct about how bad the timing of this is.
As to Secretary Clinton not being a political figure, eh, I don’t know about that. I understand that she isn’t, but while she isn’t politically active in the administration, who in the world hears the name “Hillary Rodham Clinton” and doesn’t immediately think of her as a political figure? That political/ideological star-power of hers is a draw and that doesn’t have to be a bad thing, but in this case, I really think it is. I guess we’ll have to wait and hear what she has to say before we condemn it. Who knows, she could decide to do in AIPAC what she did in Beijing in 1995 – I highly doubt she will, but she could.
I know HRC is ultimately a politician and has spent most of her life in politics but in her current role she is the top diplomat and she is charged with helping to negotiate peace in the Middle East. I also understand that the State Dept. and the job of SOS obviously has a political component to it, but I just question the wisdom of her speaking at this event at this point in time. I would feel the same way if it were Condi Rice or Madeline Albright, etc.
AIPAC is a political lobbying group which promotes certain mideast policies and tries to influence politicians (as all lobbying groups do) in a way that may give the perception that the SOS is overly-biased towards one of the parties. Also, its no secret that AIPAC has largely disapproved of the Obama admins mid-east policy and it tends to be more pro-settler. I am not “condemning” her speech but rather questioning the appropriateness of having the SOS, as opposed to a more political figure in the administration, be the key note speaker.
Hillary has a lot of support within AIPAC and she has been supportive of them (which perhaps is part of the problem with this?). I don’t think she would do anything to undermine that relationship.
Unfortunately, in politics perception is very important and I can’t help but wonder how her headlining this event will be perceived in the Arab world, particularly given the events of the last week. I fear it simply reinforces the notion that the State Dept. is too biased to be a good faith negotiator in this process.
Or, I could be totally wrong. I’m open to that possibility too
.
There is also the fact that the tensions between the Israelis and Palestinians is really out of our hands. I was watching BBC this morning and they mentions a minor incident between the Palestinians and Israelis having to do with the Israelis trying to make it difficult for them to attend Friday services at Al Aqsa mosque. It didn’t sound like a big deal and people did get to go to the mosque and pray, but if things like this keep happening between now and Secretary Clinton’s speech, it just makes it all look worse when she walks up to that podium and thanks them for inviting her and how happy she is to be there. I know that bit is just good manners but it is all about public perception, as you mentioned, Stacy.
This is the real reason why it’s totally inappropriate for ANYONE in this administration to headline AIPAC:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-fbi-files-alleging-aipac-theft-of-government-property-and-israeli-espionage-released-87230727.html
AIPAC has churned out more spies AGAINST the U.S. FOR Israel. Israel HIRES these americans to commit treason against the US. Do you really think this would be tolerated by any other lobbying group in the U.S.? The fact is that AIPAC represents a foreign country and even American members put the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of this country.
And don’t forget this- while this article doesn’t mention the AIPAC connection Larry Franklin worked through AIPAC :
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/25/the_former_mossad_analyst_clinton_couldnt_avoid
Bibi was really rude to Secretary Clinton on that occasion I give her tremendous credit for being as patient with him as she had been. Bibi also totally f*cked over Bill Clinton when he was trying to get a mideast peace plan together, even mocking him for the Lewinsky scandal while he was in the US visiting members of Congress!
As I said above, as someone who is Jewish I find the tactics of AIPAC and the right wing government of Netanyahu (and Avigdor Lieberman) to have a really bad effect on people’s perception of Israel. The way Netanyahu struts around acting like he owns US members of Congress just feeds into the whole “Jews run the government” paranoia on the part of ACTUAL antisemites (not to be confused with people who have a legitimate basis for criticizing Israel’s policies).
I taught University in Israel for 3 years in the late 1990′s and I when I went back to visit friends in 2008 I couldn’t believe how much the situation there had deteriorated. It’s become a military state- the IDF runs around doing almost anything it wants with zero accountability- ask any moderate Israeli and they will tell you that. Not even the politicians and government can keep them in check. That’s what made the allegations in the Goldstone Report so disturbing to me because when a military isn’t held accountable it can quickly devolve into an organization which shows no respect for human rights.