U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
OFFICE OF THE SPOKESMAN
ANNUAL HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1, 1995

[EXCERPTS FROM DAILY PRESS BRIEFING OF FEBRUARY 1, 1995, ON
1994 HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES ]


                      PRESS BRIEFING BY
      UNDER SECRETARY FOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS TIMOTHY WIRTH
                             AND
  ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR
                        JOHN SHATTUCK
                  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
                 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1995


     MS. SHELLY:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  As
you know, last night we sent to Congress the State
Department's annual report, the "Country Reports on Human
Rights Practices for l994."  We have two special briefers
today who will make opening remarks and answer your
questions:  Under Secretary for Global Affairs Timothy Wirth
and Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and
Labor John Shattuck are our guests today.

     At the conclusion of their presentation, we will have
our regular briefing.

     Q     Christine, before you get started, I think the
Press Office deserves some thanks for the way they got this
report out.  It was a tremendous undertaking, and those of
us who were here at 9 o'clock really appreciate what they
did.

     MS. SHELLY:  Thank you, Barry.  I appreciate that very
much and certainly will make sure that the Press Office gets
that thanks passed on.  Thanks.

     Under Secretary Wirth.

     MS. SHELLY:  It's rare.  We appreciate it.

     UNDER SECRETARY WIRTH:  I will pass on to the Secretary
those compliments.

     Q     And ask him who leaked the copy to The New York
Times.

     UNDER SECRETARY WIRTH:  And who leaked the copy to The
New York Times?

     Q     But we have our own suspicions already, so don't
worry about it too much.  Don't worry about asking
(inaudible) --

     UNDER SECRETARY WIRTH: I don't have to remind you all
today we are releasing the Country Reports, a process
required by the Congress.  This is the l7th year in which
it's been done, and I think we can proudly say these become
better, more thorough, and comprehensive each year --
certainly, the definitive worldwide report, country-by-
country, on the condition of human rights around the globe.

     Foreign policy in the 2lst Century is going to become
increasingly complex beyond our traditional political
relationships to economics, the environment, population,
refugees, international crime, narcotics, and human rights,
beyond our political relationships traditionally, and beyond
our traditional structures, beyond government-to-government
relationships to an increasing dependence on the
international community and international organizations, and
an increasing dependency and cooperation with non-
governmental organizations.

     And it's within this change -- beyond political
relationships and beyond political structures -- that we
find this very important commitment to human rights.

     The Clinton Administration has recognized the deep
importance of these new issues, the new non-traditional
issues.  And some of the signature events of this
Administration certainly include trade treaties, the
Population Conference, the new crime initiative, our
ambitious coral reef initiative, the common agenda with
Japan, the Gore-Chernomyrdin approach with Russia, and this
sharpened and strengthened Human Rights Report, and the
administration of the Human Rights Program.

     Initially, the Human Rights Reports focused
predominantly on rogue governments, on oppressive-repressive
central governments as the primary focus.  The texture now
has become more subtle -- that is, broadened beyond a focus
on governments alone to recognize as well these new cross-
cutting pressures that are of enormous importance to the
condition of individuals and human rights overall in various
countries -- for example, the pressures of population in
Rwanda, which have made it increasingly easy and an
increasingly ripe ground for abuses, and we saw those in a
horrible way in Rwanda; or narcotics in Colombia, where we
see the perversion and purchase of governments not only in
the drug area but increasingly around the world; another
cross-cutting pressure in the abuse of women, a new and
major focus of the Human Rights Report last year and of even
stronger emphasis this year.

     And I would like, just very briefly, to introduce
Gracia Hillman, who has joined the Office of the Secretary
as the International Human Rights Coordinator for Women's
Issues.

     The focus on women is also a testimony to our deep
commitment and engagement with non-governmental
organizations.  Absolutely, we could not do what we do
without the deep involvement with and dependence on non-
governmental organizations.

     Secretary Christopher has been, as all of you know,
engaged in this since his time as Deputy Secretary in the
Department in the l970s and is very pleased and proud of the
progress that has been made.  He put out a very strong
statement, which I believe all of you have; and he shares
with me our great pride and support of the efforts of John
Shattuck, the Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human
Rights and Labor, who will go into more specifics on the
Human Rights Report.

     John?

     ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHATTUCK:  Thank you very much.

     In my overview published at the beginning of this
year's Human Rights Report, I have characterized, and the
State Department and the Administration characterized, l994
as a year of crisis and progress -- a year that witnessed
genocide in Rwanda and the return of an elected government
to Haiti; a year in which democratic development took hold
in new parts of Africa, Latin America, and Europe; and yet a
year that ended with the assault on the human rights of
thousands of civilians in Chechnya; and with the Pale Serbs
pursuing their policy of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia.

     There is no more powerful and poignant an example of
the contrasts of l994 than the fact that the most uplifting
event of the year -- the inauguration of Nelson Mandela --
as President of South Africa, took place in the same month
as the year's greatest horror -- the mass murders of over
500,000 Tutsis in Rwanda.

     There are five major themes that stand out in the l994
Human Rights Reports.

     First, the flagrant and systematic abuses of basic
human rights continued at the hands of authoritarian regimes
such as China, Iraq, Iran, Burma, North Korea, and Cuba.  In
these countries, denial of basic freedoms of expression,
association and religion; persecution of minorities; and the
suppression of civil society remained the norm.

     The flagrant abuses were not limited to authoritarian
governments.  Torture, arbitrary detention, or the
repression of free speech and dissent, persisted in other
countries with a wide variety of governments such as
Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Egypt, India, Guatemala,
and Turkey.

     A second theme of l994 is that armed conflicts had a
serious impact on human rights and democracy in a growing
number of countries.  In Rwanda, Bosnia, Chechnya, Angola,
Afghanistan, Sudan, Algeria, and elsewhere, mortars and
machetes were wielded, killing many innocent civilians and
leaving societies with bitter memories to pass on to future
generations.  Far too often, cynical political leaders in
these places fanned the flames of ethnic and religious
tension and encouraged extremists.

     These flagrant human rights abuses point to the third
theme of l994:  steps that have been taken by the United
States and others to build new institutions of human rights
accountability.  When countries have suffered from massive
human rights violations, institutions of accountability can
help them reconcile.

     If, on the other hand, responsibility is covered up or
ignored, there can be no peace, no justice, no deterrent to
future abuses.

     In countries that are torn apart by genocide and ethnic
conflict, the international community has established a new
institution of justice.  Under the leadership of the U.S.,
the U.N. has established War Crimes Tribunals for Rwanda and
Yugoslavia, appointed outstanding prosecutors, and has begun
to issue indictments.  This is a major ground-breaking
development for human rights and the rule of law throughout
the world.

     In countries such as South Africa, El Salvador, Haiti,
and Nicaragua, government and opposition leaders grappled
over the last year -- in some cases, in recent months --
with ways to examine what happened in the past, hold human
rights abusers responsible, and move forward with national
reconciliation.

     The U.S. has also encouraged the growth of national
Human Rights Commissions in many countries and channeled
democracy assistance to promoting independent judiciaries.

     A fourth theme of l994 was the role of free markets in
the promotion of human rights and democracy.  The growth of
market economies, increasing trade, and social mobility were
powerful forces in many countries last year.  And while
these forces have not always produced short-term human
rights improvements, they're creating internal pressures for
more openness, individual freedom, and the rule of law.

     But there is also resistance to these pressures from
authoritarian governments in countries like China.  This
resistance could be seen last year not only in crackdowns on
political speech and dissent but also in the suppression of
workers seeking to exercise their basic freedoms of
association.

     A fifth and final theme of l994, which our Reports
reflect, was the steady gains that occurred for human rights
and democracy in a wide variety of countries in all parts of
the world, despite the terrible catastrophes that also
marked the year.  These gains reflect the long-term success
of our human rights policy and the constant effort that
produces results but often cannot be measured in the short
term.

     In South Africa, as in Haiti, in Northern Ireland, in
the Middle East, in Mozambique, in El Salvador, and in Sri
Lanka, dramatic progress occurred toward resolving human
rights crises that had long seemed insoluble, although this
progress was sometimes interrupted by renewed violence.

     In Uruguay, Chile, Brazil, Malawi, and Nepal,
successful elections consolidated democratic progress, as
they did in several countries of the former Soviet Union and
Eastern Europe.

     In the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in
Albania, and elsewhere, governments confronting ethnic
tensions sought the mediation of the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe in an effort to avoid the
violence that has ripped through Bosnia and Croatia.

     Amidst the horror of l994 then, there is also hope,
stoked by the brave activists who dedicate their lives to
reform.  In publishing these Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices, we say to those heroes:  "You are not alone.  The
United States is committed to helping societies move toward
freedom and openness -- the factors essential to economic
progress in a peaceful world -- and just, humane societies.
The United States will be an advocate for human rights and
democracy for the sake of those who are struggling to
improve the climate of freedom in their own countries and
for the security and prosperity of all Americans."

     I'd be happy to answer your questions.

     Q     This was also the year that the President of the
United States decided to abandon using pressure on China on
human rights by denying them trade benefits; you've given
that up.

     Can you give us any specific examples, or your best --
I'm sure you can -- but can you give us your best specific
examples where U.S. concern for human rights drives American
foreign policy and influences what the U.S. does in its
relations with other countries, particularly big countries
where maybe your geopolitical interests seem to predominate
over your heart and soul?

     ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHATTUCK:  Let me take the two big
countries.  Let's start with China.  I think there, as you
know, the conclusion of our report was that there was no
improvement in many aspects of the human rights situation in
1994.  There was a crackdown on dissent which has been going
on for more than year; in fact, occurred both when there was
MFN linkage as well as when there wasn't MFN linkage.

     It was clear in our report last year and in our candid
assessment of the situation at the time that the President
extended MFN that issues of human rights remain very
problematic in China in the short run.

     The U.S. policy, in response, has been to be very firm.
We are committed to pursuing a resolution in the U.N. Human
Rights Commission with respect to China.  We are committed
to continuing to spotlight the problems and abuses of human
rights in China. We are committed to a continuation of the
sanctions that were imposed at the time of Tiananmen Square.
We have sent a clear signal to China at the highest levels,
and also the Secretary of State, that improvement in the
relations depends on improvement in human rights.

     On the other hand, we are very clear in our policy that
isolating China is not an answer to the human rights
problems that I've outlined.

     At the same time, I want to make clear that the
situation is far more complicated than a simple one-line
assessment can make it, with respect to human rights in
China.

     Over the course of the last year, both during the time
that there was MFN linkage and afterwards, there were some
developments that were positive.  There were prisoner
releases; particularly, the releases of the leaders of the
Tiananmen Square democracy movement.  Passports to
dissidents who have had them blocked were granted.  There
was limited information provided about the status of
hundreds of prisoners on lists; and talks with the
International Committee for the Red Cross initiated for the
very first time over the course of the last year.

     At the same time, there are longer-term currents in
China, I think, that can be encouraged by the trade and
market economics that occurring -- currents for more
openness in the rule of law, and in some respects those are
having an effect in some of the developments with respect to
new legislation in China.  Particularly, a new law that
allows individuals to sue the government.

     But I don't want to make anything but the clearest
assessment that is contained in our report with respect to
the last year.  There has been a significant crackdown on
dissent, but there are also more complicated trends at work
in China.  The U.S. is engaged on human rights issues across
the board with respect to China and at all levels.

     Q     You were going to do Russia, too, you began by
saying.

     ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHATTUCK:  Okay, I will do Russia.

     Q     How Russia -- and you talk about arbitrary
decrees by Yeltsin; what they've done in Chechnya --
terrible jail conditions, prisoners not getting fed.  And
you're up on the Hill asking for increased foreign aid to
Russia.  What role does human rights have in formulating
your Russia policy?

     ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHATTUCK:  A very clear role, and a
clear role in the statements that have been made by the
Administration, both by the President and by the Secretary,
to the Russians, to the Russian Foreign Minister, with
respect to our increasing concern about the human rights
violations that have occurred in Chechnya, including
possible violations of international obligations of the
Russians.

     We have conveyed these concerns.  We have made public
these concerns.  We are also in the process of working with
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
which we have helped to lead with respect to a delegation
that is seeking to bring about a negotiated end to the
conflict and to deliver humanitarian aid.

     We're also reviewing our assistance programs to see if
some can be redirected to assist refugees.  These are all
major aspects of our human rights and humanitarian policy
toward Russia.

     Q     To follow on China.  What was the reply of the
PRC officials that you talked to when you brought your human
rights concerns?  And I would ask specifically with regard
to religious persecutions?

     ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHATTUCK:  We have provided over
the course of the time that the Clinton Administration has
been in office a number of cases, a large number of cases of
individuals who have been in prison for the exercise of
freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of
association.  As I said, in some instance individuals have
been released.  I think there is now, finally, a more
routine way of providing these lists, and they are received
rather than simply being rejected which they had been out of
hand in the past.

     I think the strong advocacy that the President and the
Secretary of State have engaged in, in raising specific
prisoner cases in their discussions with President Jiang
Zemin as well as Foreign Minister, Qian Qichen, speak very
clearly to that point.

     Steve.

     Q     The report quotes Russia's Human Rights
Commissioner, Sergei Kovalev, saying that there were human
rights violations on a massive scale in Chechnya.  Does the
United States Government agree with that assessment?

     ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHATTUCK:  We have cited that
assessment precisely because we have a very high regard for
Mr. Kovalev which whom I have incidentally met very
frequently.  We have human rights dialogues with Russia.
Sergei Kovalev is one of my regular interlocutors.  I might
also mention the very moving fact that Sergei Kovalev and
his colleague, Slava Bakhmin, were both former prisoners of
conscience in the Soviet Union in Siberia.  I think the fact
of their appointment is a very significant statement of the
interest in human rights in Russia.

     We have cited the Kovalev assessment precisely because
we have a very high regard for Kovalev, and we have no
reason to believe that his serious concerns are not correct.

     Q     In your overview, in relation to Rwanda and
Bosnia, you talk about genocide and war crimes.  This
Administration has not named names in Bosnia of those Serb
nationalists they think should appear before the U.N. War
Crimes Tribunal.  Are you now prepared to name names?

     ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHATTUCK:  This Administration has
provided nine reports to the U.N. Human Rights Commission
and to the new War Crimes Tribunal which contain a great
deal of information about human rights abuses and abusers
and which do name names.  Consistent with the investigative
process, we are not going to publicize those reports until
the War Crimes Tribunal itself decides to do so.

     Q     I notice in your report overview you mentioned
that sanctions are just one element in promoting human
rights and that other broader means need to be used as well.

     So my question is, in the case of Mexico, which is
cited in here for torture, pretrial problems, lack of
freedom of speech, repression in Chechnya, extrajudicial
killings there, we have a very close and friendly and non-
sanctions, open and trade and relationship with Mexico, what
will be the broader means of promoting human rights there?
Will it be elevated to a higher level?  How do you propose
to use -- what methods do you --

     ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHATTUCK:  In fact, I think Mexico
is an excellent example of the very across-the-board
engagement with a country and the result is an improvement,
indeed, in democracy and human rights.

     Mexico had the freest and fairest election by most
accounts in its history last August.  The response of Mexico
to the uprising in Chiapas, while initially raising very
serious human rights problems, very quickly was changed to a
cease-fire and negotiations with the Chiapas insurgents.
Indeed, this is precisely the way that a democracy committed
to the rule of law and reconciliation should be addressing
these issues.

     The problem of impunity, of course, does continue, as
our report very clearly points out.  But if you look at the
process that is underway in Mexico, I think there has been
improvement.  In fact, it is this very kind of engagement
that we're talking about.

     Q     May I ask a question of Secretary Wirth.

     ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHATTUCK:  Please.

     Q     The Administration had said that Most Favored
Nations status would lead to improvements and that this was
necessary and desirable despite the President's position on
this subject when he was running for election.

     Now that it has not led to improvements -- the
situation has worsen -- what course can the Administration
take?  What will you do to stop Congress from trying to
reverse the policy?

     UNDER SECRETARY WIRTH:  We're going to continue trying,
Andrea.  We're going to continue the dialogue in every way.
John was recently there in January; I was there in December.
We continue to raise the issues of human rights.  We
continue to work with various members of the Congress on
China's, in many places very repressive population policy.
We're very concerned about the engagement of UNPFA --
continued engagement in China.

     There are a number of avenues, Andrea, that we are
attempting to pursue.  I think it's our obligation to try to
explain to the Congress why we're doing that, what we want
to do; that China is an extraordinarily important player in
the world.  There are very significant environmental
problems in China that they would like us to engage in with
them, and we are saying that we would like to see greater
progress on their side.  They're certainly aware of this.
So I think probably the best answer is to say, we'll keep
trying.

     Q     But wasn't delinking MFN from human rights, in
retrospect, a mistake, because it removed a lot of pressure
from the Chinese?

     UNDER SECRETARY WIRTH:  I think John explained that in
his good opening statement.  It was our belief that trying
to open up a series of economic relationships and trying to
have a broader and freer and open society would lead to the
right results.  We still hope that that's going to be the
case.

     We know that the Chinese Government is in a period of
very significant transition and probably this is going to
take some time from their perspective as well.

     Q     Could I follow that up, please, on China,
broadening it.  Some human rights organizations accused this
Administration of following a mercantilist human rights
policy in which commerce becomes more important than the
abuse of human rights.

     (1) Do you think that there is any justice -- is there
a conflict within the Administration about increasing
commerce with countries which may not have very good human
rights policies?  Is there a conflict of motives within this
Administration on those points?

     UNDER SECRETARY WIRTH:  Of course, there is.  I mean,
there are conflicts at all times and many, many different
kinds of policies.  It's no mystery.  There is not a single
policy that governs what we are doing, but there are a
number of things we're attempting to do.

     I mean, one can in the words of a famous American
President walk and chew gum at the same time.  We would like
to attempt to pursue aggressive open trade policies and
human rights policies.  I'll give you another example of
where the complexity of the problem comes in.

     We have had a very strong policy focused on Burma which
-- at the core of that has been human rights.  We are now
increasingly concerned that coming out of Burma is a vast
amount of heroin.  There is a new heroin epidemic beginning
to show in the United States, and much of that heroin comes
from Burma.  About 60 percent of it, we think, comes from
Burma, and we are right now trying to calibrate a policy
which will not only maintain our pressure for human rights
but also open up the efforts that we must make, cooperating
with the Chinese and with the Thais and with the authorities
in Taiwan and others, on this increasing problem there.

     That's another example of the fact that you have a set
of policies that are interrelated and have to be.  We have
to pursue a number of goals at the same time.

     Q     (Inaudible).

     ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHATTUCK:  I'd add to that.  It's a
very important question if you allow me just to put a couple
words in here.  I think the issue of trade and human rights
is vastly overblown, in terms of an apparent conflict.  As
we said in the overview to the Human Rights Reports, there
are a wide variety of instruments, both carrots and sticks,
that can be and should be used and are being used by the
United States with respect to efforts to improve human
rights.

     One important carrot is trade.  On the other hand, if
you use it as a stick that is much too big, it may not have
the effect that you're seeking to have.  I think if you look
at the way in which the United States is pursuing its human
rights and democracy objectives around the world, you'll see
a wide variety of tools that are being used, and the
delinkage of MFN as one instrument in China from human
rights is by no means a signal that trade is not an
appropriate vehicle under some other circumstances,
including in China itself where you're going to use lesser
kinds of tools.

     With respect to Burma, I still want to make very clear
that the Human Rights Report shows two very disturbing
developments in recent days.  One is the continued detention
of Aung San Suu Kyi for the second time.  The military
regime in Burma has decided not to release the principal
figure of democracy in that country; and, second, an
invasion by the military of Burma of refugee camps in the
northern area.

     The United States has said that it wants very much to
improve its overall cooperation and relationship with Burma,
but, on the other hand, it will only continue to be very
isolationist in its view to the extent that Burma does not
seek to improve the situation in human rights in that
country.

     Q     (Inaudible) the issue of genocide.  It is a term
that's used both for Rwanda and Bosnia in this report.
There are legal implications to using that term under the
Genocide Convention, because it does require that once you
establish that that was the case, that the governments must
to do everything they can to prevent it or to stop it.

     Would you say - has the United States fulfilled the
mandate under the Genocide Convention to stop these
genocides as they were occurring?  And, if not, why not?

     UNDER SECRETARY WIRTH:  I think the commitment of the
United States to establish the first international mechanism
of justice to address war crimes -- crimes against humanity
and genocide in those two countries -- is a major commitment
with respect to all of our international obligations, not
just those of the United States, to address genocide when it
occurs.

     Obviously, there are many other ways in which we need
to address it, including humanitarian assistance where
enormous amounts of assistance have gone to the victims of
these human rights abuses in both Bosnia and in Rwanda.  The
United States is the leading country in committing
humanitarian assistance to those efforts.

     Q     Neither action would stop the genocide;
certainly, humanitarian aid and a tribunal which is going to
try people when acts are still being committed.  I mean, has
the United States fulfilled its obligations under the
Convention to stop the genocides now that you've determined
these were genocides?

     UNDER SECRETARY WIRTH:  As I say, all countries, I
think in this case led in many respects by the United
States, are mobilizing to address the terrible human rights
abuses, some of which amounted to genocide in these
countries; and also the serious efforts that are being put
into the resolution of conflicts before they reach this
terrible stage, particularly through the OSCE, the deep
involvement of the United States throughout the Balkan
region, the work that's been done in Macedonia and Albania
which I mentioned in my opening statements -- these are
significant commitments that the United States is making to
address this crisis.

     Q     In what context of this year's Indonesia report -
it seems to be worse than in fact last year.  You say here
the Government continues to commit serious human rights
abuses and now with another element which is a clamp down on
freedom of expression.  The only real positive aspect that I
can detect here on this report on Indonesia is actually
their action for free-market initiatives which they pursue
with extreme vigor.

     On East Timor, you say you have -- no progress was made
in accounting for missing people since 1991 -- killed in a
massacre in 1991.  The question is the same that everybody
has been making here, how can you coincide a policy with
these people?  And I have one observation:  In public
statements whenever there are Indonesian rulers present here
in the State Department or elsewhere, they do appear
projected as partners in finding a solution for the
situation there, more than actually culprits for what is
going on there, while you identify them here very clearly as
culprits.

     ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHATTUCK:  I think the situation in
Indonesia, as it is in some other countries that are highly
authoritarian and where there are significant human rights
abuses, we tell the story honestly, candidly.  It is the
purpose of these reports to show that there are long-term
challenges that we and the rest of the world and the
governments in question all face in addressing these
questions of human rights abuse.

     With respect to Indonesia specifically, we have engaged
with them at the level of the President and the Secretary on
many of these questions.  We believe that the forces that
are being unleashed are in fact over time going to have
significant impact on the climate of openness and the
prospect of change and more freedom.

     There also are, I think, in Indonesia some aspects of
openness.  The operations of non-governmental organizations,
of course, are very important in that country.  But these
are not problems that get resolved over time.

     Q     You're saying the reports are being --

     ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHATTUCK:  There are potential
efforts to restrict those non-governmental organizations,
and, of course, we've made very clear that that's wrong and
inappropriate.

     Q     Can I just have a quick follow-up?

     ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHATTUCK:  I think I've given you
two, so let me go to somebody else.

     Q     How far is the State Department --

     ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHATTUCK:  I'm sorry.  I want to
get someone who hasn't had a question yet.  Excuse me.

     Q     Would it be proper to hear from Ms. Hillman on
one question?  Could we?

     UNDER SECRETARY WIRTH:  She's relatively new to the
business, but give it a shot.

     MS. HILLMAN:  Don't go too fast.

     Q     Could you just give us your assessment of how the
condition of women in the world -- the human rights
condition of women in the world fared in '94?  Did it
improve?  Did it deteriorate?  And what do you see as the
biggest challenge for '95, and what impact can U.S. policy
have on that?

     MS. HILLMAN:  Three questions?  (Laughter)  I think it
would be fair to say that there has been improvement, if for
no other reason than the fact that the issues are now being
discussed and highlighted, not only in conversations that
the United States is having with other countries, but in
those countries themselves.

     As you may be aware, we are preparing for the fourth
World conference on Women, and as the regional meetings have
been held around the world, a number of these issues have
been discussed and will be included in the draft platform
for action.

     Then following the conference, it will be the work and
the challenge of the women around the world to get their
governments to address the issues, whether you're talking
issues of violence -- domestic violence or the consequences
of religious extremism with respect to violence against
women or economic issues in parliament that women might use
their micro-enterprise skills to help the economy of their
countries.  There are a number of issues that will be
addressed in that platform.

     In addition, the successful outcome of the discussions
and debates at the Conference that was held in Cairo on
Population and Sustainable Development, and the enthusiasm
and what women have felt the progress that they're making in
getting their countries to deal with their efforts, and the
challenge we have here in the United States, of course, is
to make certain that those issues are incorporated into
overall discussion about women human rights and U.S. foreign
policy.

     Q     John, while there's no specific legislative link
anymore to trade and human rights in China, there's been a
lot of talk on Capitol Hill about linking foreign aid to
Russia to is performance in promoting democracy.

     What kind of implications does your report,
particularly the section on the invasion of Chechnya have
for foreign aid to Russia?  Is it a warning signal?

     ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHATTUCK:  Lee, we've said that the
human rights performance in Russia has been uneven.
Obviously, as I've said before, the massive impact of the
Chechnya invasion or Chechnya effort has had on civilians is
the most severe problem, but there are others as well.

     On the other hand, there is an extraordinary amount of
freedom of speech and general freedom of the press which I
think has persisted and continued throughout some very great
strains in Russia.

     There are problems, to be sure, in the detention and
arrest -- arbitrary arrest in some instances, but they don't
seem to be centrally directed.  There are many challenges in
Russia, and the biggest challenge of all, of course, is the
continued progress of democracy and human rights.

     But it is progress that against the backdrop of an
enormously repressive and totalitarian society is real, even
with significant setbacks, and it's for that reason that we
have characterized the performance over the course of this
year as uneven.

     Q     Year after year the State Department comes out
with a pretty damning report on the human rights violations
in India and at the same time recognizes the freedom of the
press, etc.  Is there a policy at all on human rights
violations in India?  Does the Administration have any kind
of a proper policy on it?  Recently, Amnesty just a few days
ago released a report which the government has virtually
denied a lot of it.  So what is the policy?  Could you
explain it?

     ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHATTUCK:  The United States has
raised human rights issues in India very recently, and I
think a very important point to be made about the linkage
between our economic and our human rights issues in some of
the very strong statements, public and private, that were
made by Secretary Brown in his most recent visit to India;
and the United States, I think, has found a wide variety of
ways of raising human rights issues in India with respect to
not only the direct involvement of the State Department but
other agencies as well.

     India is a very large democracy and a very important
democracy, and of course we are deeply committed to the
process of democratic development and the growth of market
economies.  We believe that there is a way of involving
those two instruments in the promotion of human rights, and
it is in that context that many of these issues have been
raised in India.  But we do not shy away from pointing out
all of the problems, as we have in the report this year.

     Q     Sir, when looking for the -- your human rights
report, I mean the Turkish part, and we realize that the
U.S. is fair, giving more pages than Communist China and
some totalitarian regimes, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia.  Even
the Bosnian Serbs deserved less pages than the Turkish
Government.  And we realize that, even Turkey has military
rule, your human rights report is almost 10 or 11 pages.

     Now, it became a more open and more democratic society,
and 39 pages.  What is your criteria for preparing this
report?

     ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHATTUCK:  Over the course of the
last year, we have seen a worsening significantly of the
human rights situation in Turkey and that indeed is the
reason why the report carries that information.  These
reports carry, I think, broad integrity and honesty, and
they appear regularly through many years.  The human rights
situation in Turkey was covered very extensively for the
reason that there were some significant changes in that
respect.  I'd be happy to talk to you further about them,
but I have a feeling --

     Q     When you compare these, even Turkey is worse than
the Serbian -- the Serbs or Iranian or Iraqi -- Saddam --

     ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHATTUCK:  These are not
comparative efforts, nor has any statement been made that
they are to be compared with those other regimes.  I think
the situation in Turkey has involved the excessive use of
force, a significant amount of torture, also a considerable
amount of terrorist use of violence against civilians.  And
of course, we cover not only -- as Under Secretary Wirth
pointed out -- not only incursions on human rights carried
out by governments but by others as well; restrictions on
freedom of expression, the prosecution of parliamentarians
for free expression.  These are all issues that are properly
contained.

     We are very strong allies of Turkey and see Turkey as a
very significant and crucial democracy in the Middle East,
and it's for that reason that we're particularly concerned
about these human rights abuses.

     MS. SHELLY:  Last question.

     Q     Sir, you have been talking with the Chinese on
human rights.  Judging from your meetings with them, have
they become more susceptible to your human rights concerns,
or do they still reject them as interference in their
internal affairs?

     ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHATTUCK:  There are many
differences between our two countries on the issue of human
rights, needless to say.  And yet over the course of seven
dialogues in 15, 16 months -- which is perhaps the most
intensive amount of discussion that's been taking place
anywhere -- I think there have been deeper discussions and
more effort to address longer-term systemic issues,
including discussions with the Chinese Ministry of Justice
that were particularly useful in the last meetings that I
had there.

     Q     Thank you.

     UNDER SECRETARY WIRTH:  Thanks very much.

(###)