The first one is, as the President said "our goal is to patiently build a momentum of freedom. America by nature stands for freedom and we must always remember we benefit when it expands. So, we will stand by those nations moving to their freedom. We will stand up to those nations who deny freedom and threaten our neighbors or our vital interests. And we will assert emphatically that the future will belong to the free."

The President also said: "the basic principles of freedom and dignity are universal. People should be able to say what they think, worship as they wish, elect those who govern them. These ideals have proven their power in every continent. Some have tried to pose a choice between American ideals and American interests, between who we are and how we act. But the choice is false; America by decision and destiny promotes political freedom."

The Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has also reiterated the Bush administration’s commitment saying, "America’s emphasis on human rights in the world will not wane during this administration." President Bush will always be mindful of the sanctity of the individual as opposed to the state and the precious rights that keeps that sanctity intact.

So with that as the backdrop of the discussions at the Commission, I want to again thank you for being here, and of course we are available to answer your questions.

QUESTION: Mary Robinson when she gave a briefing in this room a couple of days ago said that she felt that many countries treat the Human Rights Commission as being a matter of foreign affairs and they maybe don’t look at the human rights problems in their own countries. I read your speech this morning and you don’t mention your own country apart from to say that the United States supports the free. How do you look at the criticisms that are put to your own country and what are you doing? Mary Robinson said every country has human rights problems. What are yours, are you doing about them?

AMBASSADOR TAHIR-KHELI: This is a very important issue … I will call on both Ambassador Moose as well as Secretary Parmly to add to the few comment that I want to make. I think that’s an argument that certainly I don’t believe needs to be made. In the community of nations, I think the positive examples that the United States sets by its behavior and by its beliefs are really rather exemplary. I don’t wish to get into more detail, others will add to it, but I do think that there is a difference between the United States and those whose violations of human rights are so enormous that it is, I think, quite obvious.

AMBASSADOR MOOSE: If I could just follow up, as Ambassador Tahir-Kheli said, the United States has been a participant in the creation of the mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights. Those mechanisms, the various rapporteurs, working groups etc., which were established to help monitor the effective implementation of the covenants and agreements and decisions of the Commission. In that respect, the United States has made it clear that it regards itself as being subject to the same scrutiny as every other nation in the world. And indeed, if you look at the record over the last several years, we have received more rapporteurs from the Commission, I think frankly, than any other nation. That is the demonstration that is the example that we have set, and that we hope others will follow as well.

We admit, and indeed if you go back and look at the Secretary of State’s testimony during his confirmation, the United States is not a perfect place. There are issues and concerns that rightly motivate, agitate, the people and the government of the United States, and issues on which we will continue to work. But I think that is not the point. The point is that there is a recognition in the United States that there are human rights issues which merit our continuing focus, concern, attention, and effort. The last thing I would say in this regard, perhaps bouncing the ball to Acting Assistant Secretary Parmly. One of the manifestations of our cooperation with the mechanisms of the Human Rights Commission will be the report that we have now presented to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Mr. Parmly will be coming back to Geneva in July to present and defend that report, which is the response of the United States to the concerns that have been expressed about the ways in which we go about dealing with these issues of racial discrimination.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY PARMLY: Thank you Ambassadors, you have both summed up very well. I would mention that have also testified before the Committee on Torture, and as Ambassador Moose has underlined, all the visits by special rapporteurs. If I can add just one other element, and we might even get into that with some of your questions. We do an annual Human Rights Report. That’s not part of this session. And there is one country that is absent in that report. It’s the United States itself. We have looked at that a number of times. We did not feel that our report on ourselves will be very credible, simply because the perspective would be different. But we welcome others doing reports on us. We saw that after we produced our human rights report this year, the next day, China produced a report. I am impressed by the speed with which they produced it. It takes us several months to produce ours. But we welcomed it. The European Union does a report on us. We welcome that kind of scrutiny. No country should be beyond the scope of scrutiny. Thanks.

QUESTION: Following the visit of Secretary Powell to the Middle East, what has changed in the American position concerning sanctions on Iraq. And what is the position on the security of the Gulf and Kuwait and continuing human rights violations in Iraq?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY PARMLY: The Secretary’s recent trip to the region shows his concern and the United States’ concern for the human right situation and I would focus on two aspects. First of all, in the Middle East peace process where he was very active. He met with all of the key players in Israel and the occupied territories as well as Jordan, Egypt, and he continues those contacts in the interest of restoring stability to the region. He addressed that in his speech on Monday, and I would refer you all to that speech on Monday.

Regarding Iraq. I would expect, as you know the Commission will take up a resolution on Iraq. It is not an American resolution, it’s the European Union that produces the resolution, but it focuses on the continuing human rights problems in Iraq. I’m not sure I would tie sanctions to that for two reasons. First of all, in our view, there is a source of the human rights problems in Iraq and that is the regime of Saddam Hussein. Many people have said, yes, but the sanctions cause difficulties to the Iraqi people. And I would refer those of you who are experts and have access to examine carefully the oil-for-food program and the various programs that have been set in place to get food and care to the Iraqi people. The amount of money in escrow accounts that is not being used by the Iraqi regime to take care of the needs of its people really is something that merits a lot of attention. So that is what we and the international community are doing to see if we can take care of the human rights needs of the Iraqi people.

QUESTION: The U.S. government made it clear that you would be putting a resolution on human rights situation in China. Are you seeking for co-sponsors to the resolution. So far how many do you have if you have any? It would be the tenth time that you would have this resolution, it has always been defeated even at the no action motion. What is the significance of the resolution in your view?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY PARMLY: Thank you for that question. Yes we will be introducing a resolution. We are consulting with a number of members of the Commission in the search for co-sponsors because we feel that what we want to state is the consensus of the international community, not simply an American view. I can’t tell you what the count is on co-sponsors. We are seeking co-sponsors on every continent and with every group. So don’t think that we are only focusing on some. It is true. That resolution has not passed in the past and, with the exception of 1 year, did not even make it past the no-action motion. When I said that every country must be subject to international scrutiny, that is one of the things I had in the back of my mind, to say, well, you can’t take any action on our human rights record. I thought Secretary Castaneda, the Mexican Foreign Minister, in his statement yesterday, addressed that issue, more eloquently could ever attempt to, in stating that countries cannot remove themselves for any reason from scrutiny of the international community.

Did we have a secret vote count that indicated that we were going to win? No. We feel that it is important, and here I do go back to our annual human rights report that some of you may have seen us roll out weeks ago. This was an issue that was discussed very seriously by the new administration, which had an opportunity to look at these issues anew, and they examined it very carefully. And I think that one of the factors that fed in to the decision to do a human rights resolution in the Commission was the annual report on the human rights in China which I’d like to recommend to your reading. It is a very balanced report, we spent enough time on it, as I said we didn’t produce it overnight. It outlines, including some areas where we do see an improvement in the situation in China, but that the global record was strongly negative: deterioration in human rights. It is important that we, the members of the Commission, speak out on that record. That is why we introduced the resolution, not because we want to score an easy victory.

QUESTION: Russia has ignored the Commission’s call to set up a national inquiry into human rights abuses in Chechnya. It has also not let UN investigators in. Do you support any new EU move for censure again at this year’s Commission? Do you think that the way forward is an international inquiry into what is going on in Chechnya, and are you disappointed by the Russian response so far?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY PARMLY: Thank you for that question. Chechnya is an important issue. I believe there will be resolution on Chechnya this year. The important thing is to see progress on the ground. We were disappointed I think all of us who voted for that resolution last year to have not seen that kind of progress that we were looking for when we passed the resolution on the situation on the ground. In recent days and weeks the Russians have shown themselves interested in a bit more of a dialogue. I will confess to you that it is primarily the European Union that is leading that effort. But we will look for some measure of accountability, judgement, such as was in the resolution last year. And I realize that Russia didn’t fulfill what that resolution stipulated. We will go back at it this year again with the European Union in the lead. And we will see what is necessary to improve the situation on the ground. I keep saying the situation on the ground. That is really where the human rights situation should be focused, and if we can have mechanisms, if it requires new mechanisms we’ll see. We would like the Russian authorities -- and perhaps the indications we have seen in recent days would indicate a greater willingness to deal on these issues --but we would like the Russian authorities to take responsibility for that in accordance with international norms.

QUESTION: Could I just have a follow-up. Does that mean that you may co-sponsor any EU resolution on Chechnya?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY PARMLY: It always depends on what the resolution itself says, but I think you could say that if it comes to a resolution, as last year we would be interested in co-sponsoring.

QUESTION: There is an issue at this moment in the Commission concerning the demand for compensation for slavery, a demand by African countries in preparing the conference in Dakar. Could you give a statement responding to this demand?

AMBASSADOR MOOSE: First and foremost the United States has participated very actively and constructively in the preparations for what we believe is a major conference in the World Conference Against Racism. And we believe that conference is an opportunity for all of us to focus on the problems that exist within our own societies, and the ways in which we can cooperate internationally in order to eliminate those problems. That for us has been the compelling motivation for this conference. In that context, I think we all recognize that there is a long and dark history of events all around the world which are the manifestation of what can happen when racial discrimination and xenophobia are allowed to go unchecked. And I think we all understand that as part of the effort to move ahead, we need to consider, to discuss that history. The issues that have been raised by some of compensation, we believe, pose some enormously difficult problems, not only for the United States but for many others as well. And it is precisely because the history itself is so complex. So while we understand the sentiment, we hope very much that as we move towards the conference in August-September that we will all of us find a way to focus on what brings us together. The experiences that we can share that will enable us in the future to say that we are dealing effectively with the manifestations of racism and xenophobia in our own societies and internationally.

QUESTION: I see there in the speech of Ambassador Tahir-Kheli that she says, at the bottom of page 2, "we will not strive for some arbitrary measure of evenhandedness when responsibility is not evenly shared." How can even-handedness be arbitrary in the first place, and you must have had some specific situation in mind in putting this rather abstract sentence down. Could you share those specifics with us please?

AMBASSADOR TAHIR-KHELI: Thank you for the query. It is a statement that in our view is a very considered statement that reflects the reality. So I don’t know that I can point to incident A, B or C. But it reflects our view of the report, and the subsequent actions and the reactions to it. So I would leave it at that.

QUESTION: I had a question about the death penalty. In the past this has been a topic that has come before the Commission and over the years it has gotten more and more attention. Do you anticipate that it will come up again this year and do you have anything new to offer on the topic?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY PARMLY: I don’t know whether the EU will introduce as they have in years past a resolution on the death penalty. I would not be surprised if they did. In my dialogues, and I am sure all of us in our dialogues, we know the depth of feeling in Europe on the death penalty issue. I was speaking with an NGO this morning on the phone, a friend of the family, and sure enough, she brought up the death penalty.

It is an important issue in the United States. And one of the things I fear is that it is being trivialized or caricaturized. The first thing that needs to be stated is that the death penalty, if applied in a rational way, is not in violation of international norms. And that is important. Because it is the first line of defense when you get criticized in the Human Rights Commission. Well what norm are you standing it up against? You are standing it up against international norms. It is not in violation if carried out in a fair and balanced way with due process. I realize the debate goes beyond that though, and that when people raise it in the Human Rights Commission, they would like to see some response. We try to respond. In most cases we recommend that when European governments protest to us, and I think all of us who have worked in embassies have received appeals and pictures and delegations and things like that, that we receive them. That we hear these views expressed. And there I get the debate underway in the United States. And my fear that a caricature of the death penalty in the United States really does a deep injustice to Americans considering their own views on the death penalty as a result of the evolution in DNA technology, as a result of greater growing of consciousness And yes, the majority of Americans, polls consistently show, are in favor of the death penalty. We are a democracy. But we also believe in fairness, and that is one of the reasons that this issue is as much the subject of discussion in the United States. We like to hear views from outside. That enriches our dialogue among ourselves. But I hope that people don’t caricaturize it.

QUESTION: If I could follow up on the China resolution issue. Number one, when do you actually plan to submit the resolution. Number two, what are the main concerns with respect to China’s human rights that you have at the moment, and Three, do you plan to meet with Falun Gong members during you stay in Geneva.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY PARMLY: If I can take the last question first, unfortunately I have to go back to Washington tomorrow, so I can’t address the question of whether I will meet with Falun Gong members, but I have met with Falun Gong members in the past and would hope to do so in the future. I meet with all sorts of people who come and present their problems and their concerns.

The main concerns in the resolution, the main concerns are those that are outlined in the human rights report, but not just in the human rights report. There have been a number of studies and reports by some of the major human rights organizations, one that is drawing particular attention is the article in the Columbia Law Review by Robin Monroe on the use of psychiatric hospitals, something when I was doing human rights work back in the 1980s, in what we then called the Soviet Bloc, was so abhorrent, these psychiatric hospitals. And with the fall of the Berlin wall I thought that maybe that was a practice that would go with the Berlin wall and I regret to say that at least if you study Robin Monroe’s report, there is ample evidence that that is out there. There are a number of areas that concern us about the human rights area in China. I think as many of those as possible will be highlighted. The area of political freedoms, religious freedoms, rights of minorities, the Tibet issue… I would expect that all of those would figure. But as we look for co-sponsors we also look for ideas. The United States doesn’t have a monopoly on the truth, we look for ideas. And that would enrich the resolution. To take your first question last, I believe the deadline for introduction of Item 9 resolutions would be around April 12, the second week of April, but I don’t have a specific date on that. Cheryl, maybe you do. Cheryl Sim is our Deputy Head of Delegation.

DEPUTY HEAD OF DELEGATION CHERYL SIM: April 12 to 15…

QUESTION: I fail to grasp your allusion to international norms when you are speaking with regard to the death penalty, because a major reason that the United States is the object of so much criticism is that its executions are in flagrant violation of international norms. For example the execution of children, the execution of women, or people who were children when they committed the crimes for which they are being executed. The execution of non-American citizens who have not had access to consular advice when they were arrested and then tried. What exactly do you mean by alluding to international norms? Is this a cynical remark or is this a way of saying that now the United States is going to adhere to international norms. And if I may, where do you find the perfect people to run your death penalty system so that there are no errors?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY PARMLY: Well, there were certainly a number of questions there. I thank you for all of your comments. They enrich the dialogue. Any time international bodies have examined this question, it has been clear that the United States application of the death penalty, if applied in conformity with standards and norms, is not in violation. I can’t cite you chapter and verse of when those have been examined, but I know they have been examined. That is the first point. As to the second point, I am not sure there is a standard. We all seek to improve the standard of application of the death penalty. I think that as much as anything else is what the debate in the United States and the attention in the United States are all about, more than on the principle of the death penalty itself. Were the trials fair? Did they have access to responsible legal defense? Were there norms that were being violated? It is not in violation, the application of the death penalty in the states is a matter for the states, the individual states. This is a federal issue in the United States. And each state has different norms. In the 38 states where the death penalty is applied, it is in conformity with those norms. I think that the attention that the issue is getting in the United States is precisely because of the phenomenon such as people who were under the age of 18 when they committed the crimes for which they were convicted. But these are personal observations. I haven’t gone around to each of the 50 states, and I certainly haven’t polled every American who is asking him or herself questions about the death penalty.

QUESTION: I would like to talk about the situation on Cuba. Apparently this year the European Union wants to introduce in the resolution on the situation on Cuba a paragraph about the problems caused by the economic embargo. So what do you think about that? Could you accept a resolution in this sense?

AMBASSADOR MOOSE: Thank you for your question. We believe, the United States believes, that the human rights situation in Cuba is deserving of the continued attention and discussion and consideration of the Commission. And that becomes even starker when one regards what has happened elsewhere in the Americas because Cuba remains and stands out as the one country that not only continues to systematically violate the fundamental human rights of its people, but moreover continues systematically to reject any outside scrutiny, criticism, observation or indeed cooperation with the international human rights mechanisms. And so for that reason we believe strongly that the situation in Cuba deserves the continued attention of this Commission. As you all know, for the last two years the Czech Republic and Poland have jointly co-sponsored a resolution, and we believe it is because it reflects their concerns about the human rights situation. Therefore we hope and trust that there will be a similar initiative this year. And that if there is such an initiative, that initiative will focus where it ought to focus, namely on the human rights situation in Cuba. I think, again to cite, the Mexican Foreign Minister, I think he made as compelling a statement as one can make in his remarks yesterday that no state can use as a pretext external factors as an excuse for their failure to respect or protect the rights of their citizens. And that indeed is the principle on which this Commission has operated. And that is the issue that we would like to see addressed in the context of this 57^th Commission.

QUESTION: To come back to the death penalty. Do you fear that if there is some form of formal criticism of the application of the death penalty in the United States that it would have a counter-productive effect on opinion in the United States, i.e. that there might be a kind of backlash effect?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY PARMLY: Public opinion in the United States like public opinion almost everywhere is a pretty complex thing, pretty difficult to predict. It would be awfully hard for me to say. My question is, does it contribute to the debate? A lot of the approaches that we get contribute to the debate. Some others do not.

QUESTION: My question is about China’s human rights. If China’s human rights situation is as bad as you have described, why was the U.S. motion defeated in the past and what will be your prediction for this time and how long will this go on. It is the first time for me to cover the meeting. The question is, will I come here next year for this issue?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY PARMLY: Well, I’m not in the business of predictions. If I was in the business of predictions, I’d been in the stock market…no I guess that is not the image I want to use these days! I wouldn’t want to predict. The important thing is that the record be examined and that is what the United States is looking for. And that is for the work of this Commission. Obviously, the desire would be to see an improvement on the ground. I know I sound like a broken record, always using that phrase, but that is where people need the help, is on the ground. It is not in these hallowed halls. It’s on the ground. And the fact that some have said well you shouldn’t introduce the resolution because it is not going to win any more than it has won in past years simply isn’t a valid argument from our perspective. It is important that the record be examined. That is what we are asking for, and that is what we would like to see in this Commission.

QUESTION: Could I come back to the question of Cuba. There were at least two special rapporteur reports last year which made reference to the U.S. embargo, not only the U.S. embargo…we understand that Cuba has its own problems, but they made reference to the U.S. embargo, and suggested that the embargo was actively effecting the human rights situation of people in Cuba, that it was effecting women, that it was effecting children? Are you suggesting that no country can ever effect the human rights situation of another country. Why don’t you want your own part in this to be looked at along with the Cuban government’s part?

AMBASSADOR MOOSE: Well, again I would argue that the premise is fundamentally flawed. The U.S. " embargo" is a national decision by the United States that it will not trade with Cuba. It is not as though we were obliging Cuba or isolating it in its relations with other countries. But more to the point, I don’t think any serious examination would demonstrate that it is because of any external factor that the Cuban government continues to arrest its own citizens and put them in jail, that it denies the rights of freedom of speech, that it restricts freedom of movement, that it impinges on freedom of religion. There is simply no objective basis for saying that an external factor is what obliges the Cuban government to violate the fundamental human rights of its own citizens and this is what we believe the Commission should focus on. Those actions of the Cuban government that are in contradiction to its obligations under international human rights norms to protect and promote the rights of its own citizens. And I think that if the Commission confuses those two things then we are in trouble on a whole range of fundamental human rights issues. If countries can excuse their own behavior by pointing to one external factor or another then the whole underpinning of the human rights system is in jeopardy.

GENEVA PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNSELOR JOHN D. HAMILL: Thank you for coming today. The delegation has another appointment to keep. I am sure that we will be in touch again.

[End.]