Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Human Rights’ Category

The goal is 50,000 signatures.  I think we can do even better than that!

Still4Hill–

We almost couldn’t believe it.  Today, at a House Oversight Committee hearing, House Republicans convened a panel on denying access to birth control converge with five men and no women.  As my colleague Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney asked, where are the women?

Join me in our call to Speaker Boehner, Eric Cantor, Chairman Issa and all House Republicans to demand that women be brought to the table when discussing women’s health issues. Help us gather 50,000 signatures before Congress heads home tomorrow.

Sign the petition >>

Thank you for standing up for what’s right and joining our fight.

Best,
Nancy Pelosi

After you sign you can share on Facebook, Tweet, and you get an email that you can send to your contacts. Let’s share this! Let’s get 100,000! They can’t DO this!  We can STOP them!

Read Full Post »

There is an exquisite and terrible irony that Secretary Clinton delivered these words on this day when Representative Issa, Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, refused a single female panelist at today’s committee hearing on contraception.

Women, here is the panel Issa believes should decide your access to healthcare.

Here are the words of the Secretary of State.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

FGMC, posted with vodpod

Remarks at the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation

Remarks

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Benjamin Franklin Room
Washington, DC
February 16, 2012

Well, good afternoon, everyone. I am so pleased to see all of you here. There are a number of familiar faces who have been working on this and other related issues for a number of years, and a lot of new and young faces, which is especially welcome. I think that the fact that you are gathered here with us to mark the first ever event at the State Department concerning the International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation is a great step forward to raise visibility, to create a great movement that will support the brave women and men who understand the need for this practice to stop.

And it’s especially gratifying for me to be on this stage with Ambassador Melanne Verveer, our first ever ambassador on behalf of our country standing up for the rights of women and girls around the world – (applause) – and Joe Crowley, who, as you might gather, is a good friend of mine, has been for many years. He and his wife and his family are very close to me and my family, and I’m very proud that he is here on behalf of his legislation. I think it is also very important that Representative Dent is here as well. And this is the kind of a united front on behalf of an issue that we are extremely proud to see.

When I think about what we are doing, I know it is not the work of this day or this year, but of a generation. But the good news is progress is being made. And through education, through outreach, through advocacy, we see that progress taking place. You will hear in just a few minutes from some of the real leaders in this movement who understand the issues, who have been working in the science, research, health fields, who have been working in the grassroots, in the villages, in the legislatures of countries. And it is, for me, a great honor to have all of our panelists with us. There are a number of people, as Melanne just said, watching us through the miracle of technology far beyond the Ben Franklin Room, and they will have a chance to participate in the discussion later.

I think that the importance of this event is really proven by the quality of the panelists, by the representatives of ambassadors and leaders in so many fields. I am especially pleased to see from UNICEF Geeta Rao Gupta, because UNICEF has a very big role to play in the work to end this very terrible practice that has gone on for too long. I’ve also, though, seen for myself how progress can be made. You’ll hear in a minute from Molly Melching. Molly is a real hero of mine, a friend of mine. She will be talking about the excellent community-based work that the international organization Tostan that she began in Senegal is doing.

I first got to see this work in 1997 when I was in Senegal, and Molly took me to a village where the village elders had really been thinking deeply about what the implications were of FGM on their daughters and their granddaughters. And they were reaching the conclusion by asking a lot of hard questions about what does this do to a girl’s health, what does this do to her future ability to be a mother, what does this do to the quality of life of her family. And what they were learning was leading them to conclude that this practice really had to end, even though it had gone on for as long as anyone could remember.

And what was so striking about my visit with Molly that day in that village was that Tostan and Molly were putting this very impressive discussion into the context of democracy, and there was a wonderful skit that was being performed about what democracy meant and who got to have a voice and what kinds of concerns should be brought to the village. I know Molly reported that one woman said, “What do we do with this democracy,” and what the women decided with the support of the men in the village was to change the custom of cutting their girls. So they organized their arguments and they went to the male leaders and they talked from personal experience about the pain of the procedure, about the lasting psychological damage it causes, about the health complications during childbirth, including the risk of death.

They asked their local mullah to participate, and he then began to study and look to the Qu’ran and to talk with others, concluding there was no religious basis for the practice in Islam. And eventually, the village voted to outlaw it. Then they took to the road and the male leaders went from village to village, starting a discussion about the harm from female cutting, talking to neighbors who, just like them, had accepted it because their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents had accepted it.

And by the time I returned to Senegal a little over a year later, several villages had renounced the practice through this wonderful conversation that was started. It wasn’t somebody coming from the outside pointing fingers, saying how terrible they were. It was people from both outside and inside asking questions about why do we do this, and is it something we should continue to do, and is there another way perhaps to think about giving our girls what they need, like education, to be good mothers when their time comes.

Then they decided to petition Senegal’s president to ask for national legislation outlawing FGM. I remember being so impressed by this grassroots democratic movement that had taken to the road and gotten all the way to the capital of Dakar. And I invited the very first villagers from that village I had visited to come to a meeting, to sit at the same table with powerful officials and representatives of NGOs, and I was so proud to introduce them because they really had walked the walk. They were living the hard work of human rights activism.

All these years later, I am still very proud of the work that I saw and that is being done in so many places. Let’s be clear – this is a deeply entrenched practice in many places. So we have to be both unrelenting in our efforts to end it and understanding about what works and what doesn’t work. And I think you’ll hear that firsthand from the panelists. We enter into this with a lot of humility because we have to empower those people in those villages to make the decisions.

Now we cannot excuse this as a cultural tradition. There are many cultural traditions that used to exist in many parts of the world that are no longer acceptable. We cannot excuse it as a private matter because it has very broad public implications. It has no medical benefits. It is, plain and simply, a human rights violation. And as we think about the rights of young girls to be free from both physical and mental violence, we can understand why this is such an important issue that deserves attention from the United States Congress and from leaders across the globe.

I think that for me, the honest and direct conversation that we are having, especially hearing from those with firsthand experience, is what makes this different. Our partners from the UN will be leading efforts to raise international awareness. We will be looking at laws and resolutions. We will be looking at what can be done in families and villages. We will be making the case, this is not a women’s problem, this is not a women’s issue. This affects the human family, and therefore, we all have a stake in it. When a mother dies in childbirth due to complications caused by FGM, everyone in the family suffers. When women are sick from infections or girls miss out on their education, communities also suffer. And what we have seen in Senegal and elsewhere is that when men understand the trauma that FGC causes, they are among the most effective activists for ending it.

So we’re elevating this issue, but it’s part of our overall elevation of the role of women and girls in our foreign policy economically, strategically, politically. Every aspect of our policy is intending to highlight and promote the role of women. And we are funding community-based programs that involve women and men in public awareness campaigns about the dangers of FGC. We’re working in refugee camps and other humanitarian settings. Through USAID, the United States cofounded the international Donors Working Group on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting, which needs continued high-level international support, and we will redouble our efforts.

I’m very proud to announce today that we will join with the University of Nairobi to fund a pan-African Center of Excellence in Kenya, which will advance African research and strategies to address FGC. This center will focus on developing local solutions to end the practice and offer medical training on how to support the women who have been hurt and damaged by it. I hope others in the business and international communities will join the United States in supporting this very important new initiative based in Africa, where we think it needs to be.

Now, Kenya has just passed an outright national ban on FGC, becoming the 18th African country to do so. Last year, the African Union called on the UN General Assembly to adopt a resolution banning it, and we will certainly work in any way we can to support the African Union in that. There is more to be done. We need more advocacy, more interaction between policy makers and those in the field. We need to empower men and women, and especially girls, to speak up for themselves. We need to ultimately overcome the deeply-rooted gender inequalities that, either tacitly or actively, permit and promote such practices.

So this is a very important day here at the State Department, and I’m especially delighted that we can have people here speaking about this, as well as others throughout Africa by means of the internet, so that we can become stronger in numbers and understanding and effectiveness. It is my hope that we can certainly see the abolition of this practice even sooner than within a generation, but no later than within a generation, and that we also do everything we can to create conditions for every child, girl and boy, to have the chance to live up to his or her God-given potential. Thank you all very much. (Applause.)

Read Full Post »

International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting

Press Statement

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
February 6, 2012

 


Today, we mark the ninth annual International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C). It is estimated that 100 to 140 million women around the world have undergone this brutal procedure and three million girls are at risk every year. We must continue to act to end this affront to women’s equality and the rights and dignity of women and girls.

No religion mandates this procedure, though it occurs across cultures, religions, and continents. It is performed on girls in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Even in the United States we are fighting this practice. FGM/C became a federal crime in the United States in 1997, but the procedure persists in some communities. The U.S. Government is working with practitioners in the health and legal community to educate groups about the negative consequences of FGM/C.

Over the years, community advocates have found that when men come to understand the physical and psychological trauma FGM/C causes, they often become effective activists for eradication, including fathers who refuse to allow their daughters to be subject to the procedure. Communities must act collectively to abandon the practice, so that girls and their families who opt out do not become social outcasts. This approach has led around 6,000 communities across Africa to abandon the practice, usually through a public declaration. Communities working together can ensure stronger, healthier futures for girls and young women.

Every government has an obligation to protect its citizens from such abuse. As we commemorate International Day of Zero Tolerance and remember those who have been harmed, we reaffirm our commitment to overturning deeply entrenched social norms and abolishing this practice. All women and girls, no matter where they are born or what culture they are raised in, deserve the opportunity to realize their potential.

Read Full Post »

International Holocaust Remembrance Day

Press Statement

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
January 30, 2012

 


Last week, the United States joined countries throughout the world in marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day. We paused to honor the memory of the six million Jews and millions of others who were murdered at the hands of the Nazis. As President Obama said, we recommitted ourselves to “keeping their memories alive not only in our thoughts, but through our actions.” This is a time to reflect on the meaning and lessons of “Never Forget, Never Again.”

This past year, we have seen Holocaust denial increasing throughout Europe, Asia, South America, and the Middle East. There has been an upsurge in anti-Semitic acts, including hateful graffiti, cemetery desecrations, verbal and physical assaults on Jews, incitement to anti-Semitic violence, and cartoons demonizing Jews.

Denying the truth of the Holocaust is an insult to history. We urge governments, civil society leaders, clerics, human rights groups, and all people of conscience in all nations to speak out against this kind of hatred. The United States will work with all of those who are committed to a world free of anti-Semitism and all other forms of ethnic or religious intolerance.

Read Full Post »

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Remarks at the Istanbul Process for Combating Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief

Remarks

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
December 14, 2011

Well, good afternoon, everyone, and I want to thank you all for participating in this conference where we are working together to protect two fundamental freedoms – the right to practice one’s religion freely and the right to express one’s opinion without fear.I’m delighted to see so many members of the diplomatic corps. I welcome all of you here to the State Department. I especially wish to acknowledge Ambassador Suzan Johnson Cook, who has been leading our efforts, and also Ambassador Eileen Donahoe, the U.S. Ambassador to the Human Rights Council, who has also been tireless in pursuit of America’s fundamental and the world’s universal values.

Now this year, the international community in the Human Rights Council made an important commitment. And it was really historic, because before then, we had seen the international community pit against one another freedom of religion and freedom of expression. And there were those in the international community who vigorously and passionately defended one but not the other. And our goal in the work that so many nations represented here have been doing, with the adoption of Resolution 1618 and then again last month in the General Assembly’s Third Committee, was to say we all can do better. And this resolution marks a step forward in creating a safe global environment for practicing and expressing one’s beliefs. In it, we pledge to protect the freedom of religion for all while also protecting freedom of expression. And we enshrined our commitment to tolerance and inclusivity by agreeing to certain concrete steps to combat violence and discrimination based on religion or belief. These steps, we hope, will help foster a climate that respects the human rights of all.

Now, the United States is hosting this conference because religious freedom and freedom of expression are among our highest values. They are enshrined in our Constitution. For people everywhere, faith and religious practice is a central source of our identity. It provides our lives with meaning and context. It is fundamental to who we are. And as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes clear, each of us is born free to practice any religion, to change our religion, or to have none at all. No state may grant these freedoms as a privilege or take them away as a punishment if you believe, as I do and as our country does, that they are not rights bestowed by any government. They are rights endowed by our Creator within each of us. And therefore, we have a special obligation to protect these God-given rights.

And if a government does try to deny them or take them away, it amounts to a rejection of that universal right. And it also amounts to a repudiation of that fundamental conviction that we are all created equal before God. Therefore, restricting the practice of anyone’s faith is a threat to the human rights of all individuals. Communities of faith are not confined by geopolitical borders. Wherever you are in the world, there will certainly be people whose religious beliefs differ from your own, maybe by just a little bit or maybe by a lot. And my ability to practice my religious faith freely does not, and indeed cannot, diminish yours.

Religion can be such a powerful bond, but we also recognize that it can be misused to create conflict. There are those who, for reasons actually having little to do with religion, seek to instill fear or contempt for those of another creed. So we believe that it is the duty of every government to ensure that individuals are not subject to violence, discrimination, or intimidation because of their faith or their lack of faith. That is the commitment that the world made to religious freedom more than 60 years ago when we adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

At the same time, as we strive to protect individuals from violence and discrimination because of their religion or their beliefs, we must also express the freedom of expression. Now, in the United States, we take that especially seriously because many of those who came to our country came for religious reasons. They came because they were being discriminated against or their religion was being outlawed. They started coming in the 17th century, and they still come all the way through the 21st century.

Well, how would one know that you were being discriminated against if you didn’t have the right to freedom of expression? Your neighbor knows, well, that person is different from me because he or she believes differently. So the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression are absolutely bound up together.

Now, there are those who have always seen a tension between these two freedoms, especially when one person’s speech seems to question someone else’s religious beliefs, or maybe even offends that person’s beliefs. But the truth we have learned, through a lot of trial and error over more than 235 years in our country, is that we defend our beliefs best by defending free expression for everyone, and it lowers the temperature. It creates an environment in which you are free to exercise and to speak about your religion, whether your neighbor or someone across the town agrees with you or not. In fact, the appropriate answer to speech that offends is more speech.

Now, in the United States, we continue to combat intolerance because it is – unfortunately, seems to be part of human nature. It is hurtful when bigotry pollutes the public sphere, but the state does not silence ideas, no matter how disagreeable they might be, because we believe that in the end, the best way to treat offensive speech is by people either ignoring it or combating it with good arguments and good speech that overwhelms it.

So we do speak out and condemn hateful speech. In fact, we think it is our duty to do so, but we don’t ban it or criminalize it. And over the centuries, what we have found is that the rough edges get rubbed off, and people are free to believe and speak, even though they may hold diametrically opposing views.

Now, with Resolution 1618, we have clarified these dual objectives. We embrace the role that free expression plays in bolstering religious tolerance. We have agreed to build a culture of understanding and acceptance through concrete measures to combat discrimination and violence, such as education and outreach, and we are working together to achieve those objectives.

Now, I know that in the world today, intolerance is not confined to any part of the world or any group of people. We all continue to deal with different forms of religious intolerance. That’s true here, that’s true in Europe, that’s true among countries in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, everywhere in the world. It’s true where people, if they are discriminating or intimidating, they’re doing it against Muslims or Jews or Christians or Buddhists or Baha’is or you name it. There has been discrimination of every kind against every religion known to man.

And yet at the same time, it’s one thing if people are just disagreeing. That is fair game. That’s free speech. But if it results in sectarian clashes, if it results in the destruction or the defacement or the vandalization of religious sites, if it even results in imprisonment or death, then government must held those – hold those who are responsible accountable. Government must stand up for the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression. And it’s a situation which is troubling to us, because a recent study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 70 percent of the world’s population lives in countries with a high number of restrictions on religious freedom.

In America, we are proud of our long and distinctive record of championing both freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and we have worked to share our best practices. But I have to say we have one difficulty in understanding all of the problems that we see around the world, and that is that because religion is so personal and because it is something that we highly value in ourselves, it strikes us as troubling that people are not confident in their religious beliefs to the point where they do not fear speech that raises questions about religion.

I mean, every one of us who is a religious person knows that there are some who may not support or approve of our religion. But is our religion so weak that statements of disapproval will cause us to lose our faiths? That would be most unfortunate. In fact, what we have found, in study after study, is that the United States is one of the most religious countries in the world. And yet anybody can believe anything and go anywhere. And so there is no contradiction between having strong religious beliefs and having the freedom to exercise them and to speak about them and to even have good debates with others.

And so the United States has made a commitment to support the 1618 implementation efforts, but we also would hope that we can take practical steps to engage with members of religious minority groups. We know that antidiscrimination laws are no good if they’re not enforced, and if they’re not enforced equally, we know that governments which fear religion can be quite oppressive, but we know that societies which think there’s only one religion can be equally oppressive.

Now, the fact is that no matter how strongly each of us believes, none of us has the benefit of knowing all the truth that God holds in his hands. And therefore, we are doing the best we can here on earth to reflect and to give honor to our creator in a way that is manifest in our religious values. Because truly, at the root of every major religion, is a connection with the divinity, is an acceptance, and is a recognition that we all are walking a path together.

Now I know that some in my country and elsewhere have criticized this meeting and our work with all of you. But I want to make clear that I am proud of this work, and I am proud to be working with every one of you. And I believe that this work is an affirmation of America’s values, but equally important an affirmation of universal values. Because we nor – no country individually has a monopoly on the truth, and we will do better when we live in peace with each other, when we live with respect and humility, and listen to each other. And it is important that we recognize what we accomplished when this resolution ended 10 years of divisive debate where people were not listening to each other anymore.

Now we are. We’re talking. We have to get past the idea that we can suppress religious minorities, that we can restrict speech, that we are smart enough that we can substitute our judgment for God’s and determine who is or is not blaspheming. And by bringing countries from around the world here, we are affirming our common humanity and our common commitment to defend and promote fundamental rights.

Now these will not be easy conversations. When I was growing up, my parents said, “You should never talk about religion, because you will always spark a fight.” And that was even amongst people of the same faith. We have – there’s lots of funny stories about different kinds of Christians that won’t talk to other kinds of Christians, because another kind of Christian is not as good as the first kind of Christian. Well, we know that those kind of divisions exist in every major religion, where people claim that your particular version of religion is the only one that can be followed.

But people of all faiths have so much to gain by working together. And I was so moved by the images that we saw coming out of Tahrir Square back in February – January and February, where you saw Coptic Egyptians joining hands to form a protective circle around their Muslim brothers and sisters so they could pray safely in the midst of these huge crowds. And then you saw Muslims doing the same for their Christian brothers and sisters. That is, to me, the highest expression of religious tolerance and free expression that one could possibly find. Those were defining moments in 2011 and those are images that inspire me as we move into 2012.

So thank you. And I think interfaith dialogue, reaching out to those with whom you disagree, even agreeing to disagree, so to speak, is a part of the work we are struggling to do. And we can make progress where we have a new attitude in our world where we can believe strongly what we believe. We can think others are wrong, but we don’t feel so insecure and so fearful of their wrong views that we try to suppress them, imprison them, or even kill them. Instead, we trust that over time, if they are wrong, they will come to see the error of their ways. But we continue the conversation as fellow human beings and as people of faith.

So I thank you very much for being with us, and I wish you well as you continue this absolutely important work. I think if we do our work right, in years to come, people will look back and say this was a great step forward on behalf of both freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and our common humanity. Thank you all very much. (Applause.)

Read Full Post »

First lady Michelle Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton present the 2010 International Women of Courage Award to Sonia Pierre of the Dominican Republic, Wednesday, March 10, 2010, at the State Department in Washington. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

The Death of Human Rights Activist Sonia Pierre

Press Statement

Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
December 6, 2011

We are deeply saddened by the death of Sonia Pierre. She was a courageous human rights defender who dedicated her life to fighting anti-Haitian injustice in the Dominican Republic as well as the broader issue of statelessness. Secretary Clinton awarded Ms. Pierre, founder of Movement of Dominican-Haitian Women (MUDHA), the State Department’s 2010 International Women of Courage Award in March 2010. The award honored Ms. Pierre “for advancing the cause of social justice, confronting exploitation and discrimination, defending the dignity of persons of Haitian descent in the Dominican Republic, and helping marginalized communities develop their own voices for their own future.”

We offer our sincere condolences to her family and to all the communities she touched in her lifelong fight against injustice in the Dominican Republic.

Through her brave actions, the world bears witness to the plight of those who remain stateless. The U.S. government will continue its efforts to address this problem which endangers the human rights of as many as 12 million people worldwide and deprives them access to crucial services such as healthcare, education, and safe housing and working conditions.

This hits very close to my heart. In my ten years in Haiti, one of my closest friends, my professor and dissertation advisor,  was the daughter of a Haitian father and a Dominican mother. Like many Haitians, her father had gone to DR in the thirties, during the world-wide Great Depression, to harvest sugar cane.  Haitians have gone there regularly over the years for that reason,  and they have not received the nicest treatment.

Certainly the Dominican Republic deserves great credit for the invaluable and swift aid they provided in the wake of the earthquake and the ensuing storms and cholera epidemic. Many displaced Haitians were accepted and sheltered there. Work by people like Ms. Pierre assuredly was part of that effort. She will be missed by many.

Read Full Post »

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Meeting with LGBT Activists and Supporters from the Diplomatic Corps

Remarks

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Palais des Nations
Geneva, Switzerland
December 6, 2011

Well, I just wanted to stop by and very briefly express my appreciation to all of you for what you do every single day. I understand that you have traveled from 13 countries on four continents to be here, which I think speaks volumes about how important you believe these efforts are. And I want to thank Eileen and her team, who have been just stalwart in supporting our leadership and advocacy on behalf of the LGBT community. I want to thank Esther Brimmer, our Assistant Secretary for International Organizations back at the State Department. And is Ambassador Minty here? Is Ambassador Minty – where’s Ambassador Minty? Ambassador Minty, thank you, and I will publicly thank South Africa in my remarks, in my formal speech.

I want to thank – taking sort of personal privilege and national pride – some individual representatives here from both the American and the international NGO community – Ambassador Mike Guest, Mark Bromley, and Julie Dorf from the Council for Global Equality, our great partners and help coordinate a lot of other NGO voices. Mike, as you know, is a retired ambassador from our Foreign Service, and yet is still working in the service of public – the public interest. I want to thank John Fisher and all who worked with him here in Geneva to support the resolution in June.

And I want to thank each and every one of you here in Geneva for the great work that was done on the resolution, and also those of you who are out every single day making the case for dignity and human rights for all people. I know it is challenging and dangerous in many instances. But first and foremost, we want you to know that you are not alone, that you have a growing chorus of people who recognize this as a human rights issue for the 21st century.

So without further ado, I will see you in the chamber, where I hope that the United States will continue to make the case, not just for those who are already convinced, but most importantly for the many leaders and our fellow citizens around the world who are not, and who we have to recognize their issues and concerns in order to keep evolving the consensus on behalf of LGBT rights for all.

Thank you. (Applause.)

My two cents here: MSNBC is saying she delivered her remarks “under orders from President Obama.”  HRC has never required “orders” to make human rights statements. She was the first in the administration to provide benefits to domestic partners of employees. She held a town hall at DOS early in her tenure and was asked by GLIFAA if she would do this. She promised she would look innto it, she did, and in June of 2009 announced  the new policy.  Obama did not do that until after she did.

Read Full Post »

 

Remarks in Recognition of International Human Rights Day

Remarks

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Palais des Nations
Geneva, Switzerland
December 6, 2011

Good evening, and let me express my deep honor and pleasure at being here. I want to thank Director General Tokayev and Ms. Wyden along with other ministers, ambassadors, excellencies, and UN partners. This weekend, we will celebrate Human Rights Day, the anniversary of one of the great accomplishments of the last century.Beginning in 1947, delegates from six continents devoted themselves to drafting a declaration that would enshrine the fundamental rights and freedoms of people everywhere. In the aftermath of World War II, many nations pressed for a statement of this kind to help ensure that we would prevent future atrocities and protect the inherent humanity and dignity of all people. And so the delegates went to work. They discussed, they wrote, they revisited, revised, rewrote, for thousands of hours. And they incorporated suggestions and revisions from governments, organizations, and individuals around the world.

At three o’clock in the morning on December 10th, 1948, after nearly two years of drafting and one last long night of debate, the president of the UN General Assembly called for a vote on the final text. Forty-eight nations voted in favor; eight abstained; none dissented. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted. It proclaims a simple, powerful idea: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. And with the declaration, it was made clear that rights are not conferred by government; they are the birthright of all people. It does not matter what country we live in, who our leaders are, or even who we are. Because we are human, we therefore have rights. And because we have rights, governments are bound to protect them.

In the 63 years since the declaration was adopted, many nations have made great progress in making human rights a human reality. Step by step, barriers that once prevented people from enjoying the full measure of liberty, the full experience of dignity, and the full benefits of humanity have fallen away. In many places, racist laws have been repealed, legal and social practices that relegated women to second-class status have been abolished, the ability of religious minorities to practice their faith freely has been secured.

In most cases, this progress was not easily won. People fought and organized and campaigned in public squares and private spaces to change not only laws, but hearts and minds. And thanks to that work of generations, for millions of individuals whose lives were once narrowed by injustice, they are now able to live more freely and to participate more fully in the political, economic, and social lives of their communities.

Now, there is still, as you all know, much more to be done to secure that commitment, that reality, and progress for all people. Today, I want to talk about the work we have left to do to protect one group of people whose human rights are still denied in too many parts of the world today. In many ways, they are an invisible minority. They are arrested, beaten, terrorized, even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way or, too often, even join in the abuse. They are denied opportunities to work and learn, driven from their homes and countries, and forced to suppress or deny who they are to protect themselves from harm.

I am talking about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, human beings born free and given bestowed equality and dignity, who have a right to claim that, which is now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time. I speak about this subject knowing that my own country’s record on human rights for gay people is far from perfect. Until 2003, it was still a crime in parts of our country. Many LGBT Americans have endured violence and harassment in their own lives, and for some, including many young people, bullying and exclusion are daily experiences. So we, like all nations, have more work to do to protect human rights at home.

Now, raising this issue, I know, is sensitive for many people and that the obstacles standing in the way of protecting the human rights of LGBT people rest on deeply held personal, political, cultural, and religious beliefs. So I come here before you with respect, understanding, and humility. Even though progress on this front is not easy, we cannot delay acting. So in that spirit, I want to talk about the difficult and important issues we must address together to reach a global consensus that recognizes the human rights of LGBT citizens everywhere.

The first issue goes to the heart of the matter. Some have suggested that gay rights and human rights are separate and distinct; but, in fact, they are one and the same. Now, of course, 60 years ago, the governments that drafted and passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were not thinking about how it applied to the LGBT community. They also weren’t thinking about how it applied to indigenous people or children or people with disabilities or other marginalized groups. Yet in the past 60 years, we have come to recognize that members of these groups are entitled to the full measure of dignity and rights, because, like all people, they share a common humanity.

This recognition did not occur all at once. It evolved over time. And as it did, we understood that we were honoring rights that people always had, rather than creating new or special rights for them. Like being a woman, like being a racial, religious, tribal, or ethnic minority, being LGBT does not make you less human. And that is why gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.

It is violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave. It is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay, or allow those who harm gay people to go unpunished. It is a violation of human rights when lesbian or transgendered women are subjected to so-called corrective rape, or forcibly subjected to hormone treatments, or when people are murdered after public calls for violence toward gays, or when they are forced to flee their nations and seek asylum in other lands to save their lives. And it is a violation of human rights when life-saving care is withheld from people because they are gay, or equal access to justice is denied to people because they are gay, or public spaces are out of bounds to people because they are gay. No matter what we look like, where we come from, or who we are, we are all equally entitled to our human rights and dignity.

The second issue is a question of whether homosexuality arises from a particular part of the world. Some seem to believe it is a Western phenomenon, and therefore people outside the West have grounds to reject it. Well, in reality, gay people are born into and belong to every society in the world. They are all ages, all races, all faiths; they are doctors and teachers, farmers and bankers, soldiers and athletes; and whether we know it, or whether we acknowledge it, they are our family, our friends, and our neighbors.

Being gay is not a Western invention; it is a human reality. And protecting the human rights of all people, gay or straight, is not something that only Western governments do. South Africa’s constitution, written in the aftermath of Apartheid, protects the equality of all citizens, including gay people. In Colombia and Argentina, the rights of gays are also legally protected. In Nepal, the supreme court has ruled that equal rights apply to LGBT citizens. The Government of Mongolia has committed to pursue new legislation that will tackle anti-gay discrimination.

Now, some worry that protecting the human rights of the LGBT community is a luxury that only wealthy nations can afford. But in fact, in all countries, there are costs to not protecting these rights, in both gay and straight lives lost to disease and violence, and the silencing of voices and views that would strengthen communities, in ideas never pursued by entrepreneurs who happen to be gay. Costs are incurred whenever any group is treated as lesser or the other, whether they are women, racial, or religious minorities, or the LGBT. Former President Mogae of Botswana pointed out recently that for as long as LGBT people are kept in the shadows, there cannot be an effective public health program to tackle HIV and AIDS. Well, that holds true for other challenges as well.

The third, and perhaps most challenging, issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens. This is not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation. Some people still defend those practices as part of a cultural tradition. But violence toward women isn’t cultural; it’s criminal. Likewise with slavery, what was once justified as sanctioned by God is now properly reviled as an unconscionable violation of human rights.

In each of these cases, we came to learn that no practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us. And this holds true for inflicting violence on LGBT people, criminalizing their status or behavior, expelling them from their families and communities, or tacitly or explicitly accepting their killing.

Of course, it bears noting that rarely are cultural and religious traditions and teachings actually in conflict with the protection of human rights. Indeed, our religion and our culture are sources of compassion and inspiration toward our fellow human beings. It was not only those who’ve justified slavery who leaned on religion, it was also those who sought to abolish it. And let us keep in mind that our commitments to protect the freedom of religion and to defend the dignity of LGBT people emanate from a common source. For many of us, religious belief and practice is a vital source of meaning and identity, and fundamental to who we are as people. And likewise, for most of us, the bonds of love and family that we forge are also vital sources of meaning and identity. And caring for others is an expression of what it means to be fully human. It is because the human experience is universal that human rights are universal and cut across all religions and cultures.

The fourth issue is what history teaches us about how we make progress towards rights for all. Progress starts with honest discussion. Now, there are some who say and believe that all gay people are pedophiles, that homosexuality is a disease that can be caught or cured, or that gays recruit others to become gay. Well, these notions are simply not true. They are also unlikely to disappear if those who promote or accept them are dismissed out of hand rather than invited to share their fears and concerns. No one has ever abandoned a belief because he was forced to do so.

Universal human rights include freedom of expression and freedom of belief, even if our words or beliefs denigrate the humanity of others. Yet, while we are each free to believe whatever we choose, we cannot do whatever we choose, not in a world where we protect the human rights of all.

Reaching understanding of these issues takes more than speech. It does take a conversation. In fact, it takes a constellation of conversations in places big and small. And it takes a willingness to see stark differences in belief as a reason to begin the conversation, not to avoid it.

But progress comes from changes in laws. In many places, including my own country, legal protections have preceded, not followed, broader recognition of rights. Laws have a teaching effect. Laws that discriminate validate other kinds of discrimination. Laws that require equal protections reinforce the moral imperative of equality. And practically speaking, it is often the case that laws must change before fears about change dissipate.

Many in my country thought that President Truman was making a grave error when he ordered the racial desegregation of our military. They argued that it would undermine unit cohesion. And it wasn’t until he went ahead and did it that we saw how it strengthened our social fabric in ways even the supporters of the policy could not foresee. Likewise, some worried in my country that the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would have a negative effect on our armed forces. Now, the Marine Corps Commandant, who was one of the strongest voices against the repeal, says that his concerns were unfounded and that the Marines have embraced the change.

Finally, progress comes from being willing to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes. We need to ask ourselves, “How would it feel if it were a crime to love the person I love? How would it feel to be discriminated against for something about myself that I cannot change?” This challenge applies to all of us as we reflect upon deeply held beliefs, as we work to embrace tolerance and respect for the dignity of all persons, and as we engage humbly with those with whom we disagree in the hope of creating greater understanding.

A fifth and final question is how we do our part to bring the world to embrace human rights for all people including LGBT people. Yes, LGBT people must help lead this effort, as so many of you are. Their knowledge and experiences are invaluable and their courage inspirational. We know the names of brave LGBT activists who have literally given their lives for this cause, and there are many more whose names we will never know. But often those who are denied rights are least empowered to bring about the changes they seek. Acting alone, minorities can never achieve the majorities necessary for political change.

So when any part of humanity is sidelined, the rest of us cannot sit on the sidelines. Every time a barrier to progress has fallen, it has taken a cooperative effort from those on both sides of the barrier. In the fight for women’s rights, the support of men remains crucial. The fight for racial equality has relied on contributions from people of all races. Combating Islamaphobia or anti-Semitism is a task for people of all faiths. And the same is true with this struggle for equality.

Conversely, when we see denials and abuses of human rights and fail to act, that sends the message to those deniers and abusers that they won’t suffer any consequences for their actions, and so they carry on. But when we do act, we send a powerful moral message. Right here in Geneva, the international community acted this year to strengthen a global consensus around the human rights of LGBT people. At the Human Rights Council in March, 85 countries from all regions supported a statement calling for an end to criminalization and violence against people because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.

At the following session of the Council in June, South Africa took the lead on a resolution about violence against LGBT people. The delegation from South Africa spoke eloquently about their own experience and struggle for human equality and its indivisibility. When the measure passed, it became the first-ever UN resolution recognizing the human rights of gay people worldwide. In the Organization of American States this year, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights created a unit on the rights of LGBT people, a step toward what we hope will be the creation of a special rapporteur.

Now, we must go further and work here and in every region of the world to galvanize more support for the human rights of the LGBT community. To the leaders of those countries where people are jailed, beaten, or executed for being gay, I ask you to consider this: Leadership, by definition, means being out in front of your people when it is called for. It means standing up for the dignity of all your citizens and persuading your people to do the same. It also means ensuring that all citizens are treated as equals under your laws, because let me be clear – I am not saying that gay people can’t or don’t commit crimes. They can and they do, just like straight people. And when they do, they should be held accountable, but it should never be a crime to be gay.

And to people of all nations, I say supporting human rights is your responsibility too. The lives of gay people are shaped not only by laws, but by the treatment they receive every day from their families, from their neighbors. Eleanor Roosevelt, who did so much to advance human rights worldwide, said that these rights begin in the small places close to home – the streets where people live, the schools they attend, the factories, farms, and offices where they work. These places are your domain. The actions you take, the ideals that you advocate, can determine whether human rights flourish where you are.

And finally, to LGBT men and women worldwide, let me say this: Wherever you live and whatever the circumstances of your life, whether you are connected to a network of support or feel isolated and vulnerable, please know that you are not alone. People around the globe are working hard to support you and to bring an end to the injustices and dangers you face. That is certainly true for my country. And you have an ally in the United States of America and you have millions of friends among the American people.

The Obama Administration defends the human rights of LGBT people as part of our comprehensive human rights policy and as a priority of our foreign policy. In our embassies, our diplomats are raising concerns about specific cases and laws, and working with a range of partners to strengthen human rights protections for all. In Washington, we have created a task force at the State Department to support and coordinate this work. And in the coming months, we will provide every embassy with a toolkit to help improve their efforts. And we have created a program that offers emergency support to defenders of human rights for LGBT people.

This morning, back in Washington, President Obama put into place the first U.S. Government strategy dedicated to combating human rights abuses against LGBT persons abroad. Building on efforts already underway at the State Department and across the government, the President has directed all U.S. Government agencies engaged overseas to combat the criminalization of LGBT status and conduct, to enhance efforts to protect vulnerable LGBT refugees and asylum seekers, to ensure that our foreign assistance promotes the protection of LGBT rights, to enlist international organizations in the fight against discrimination, and to respond swiftly to abuses against LGBT persons.

I am also pleased to announce that we are launching a new Global Equality Fund that will support the work of civil society organizations working on these issues around the world. This fund will help them record facts so they can target their advocacy, learn how to use the law as a tool, manage their budgets, train their staffs, and forge partnerships with women’s organizations and other human rights groups. We have committed more than $3 million to start this fund, and we have hope that others will join us in supporting it.

The women and men who advocate for human rights for the LGBT community in hostile places, some of whom are here today with us, are brave and dedicated, and deserve all the help we can give them. We know the road ahead will not be easy. A great deal of work lies before us. But many of us have seen firsthand how quickly change can come. In our lifetimes, attitudes toward gay people in many places have been transformed. Many people, including myself, have experienced a deepening of our own convictions on this topic over the years, as we have devoted more thought to it, engaged in dialogues and debates, and established personal and professional relationships with people who are gay.

This evolution is evident in many places. To highlight one example, the Delhi High Court decriminalized homosexuality in India two years ago, writing, and I quote, “If there is one tenet that can be said to be an underlying theme of the Indian constitution, it is inclusiveness.” There is little doubt in my mind that support for LGBT human rights will continue to climb. Because for many young people, this is simple: All people deserve to be treated with dignity and have their human rights respected, no matter who they are or whom they love.

There is a phrase that people in the United States invoke when urging others to support human rights: “Be on the right side of history.” The story of the United States is the story of a nation that has repeatedly grappled with intolerance and inequality. We fought a brutal civil war over slavery. People from coast to coast joined in campaigns to recognize the rights of women, indigenous peoples, racial minorities, children, people with disabilities, immigrants, workers, and on and on. And the march toward equality and justice has continued. Those who advocate for expanding the circle of human rights were and are on the right side of history, and history honors them. Those who tried to constrict human rights were wrong, and history reflects that as well.

I know that the thoughts I’ve shared today involve questions on which opinions are still evolving. As it has happened so many times before, opinion will converge once again with the truth, the immutable truth, that all persons are created free and equal in dignity and rights. We are called once more to make real the words of the Universal Declaration. Let us answer that call. Let us be on the right side of history, for our people, our nations, and future generations, whose lives will be shaped by the work we do today. I come before you with great hope and confidence that no matter how long the road ahead, we will travel it successfully together. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Read Full Post »

Remarks at the OSCE First Plenary Session

Remarks

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
LitExpo Conference Center
Vilnius, Lithuania
December 6, 2011

Thank you and the president of the Republic of Lithuania and the government and people of your country for hosting this year’s for hosting this year’s OSCE Ministerial and for your steadfast global leadership in support and defense of human dignity and democracy.

I appreciated your reference to the continuing importance of human rights – not simply as a moral imperative, but as an essential component of international security and stability. That is especially important and timely in a year in which ordinary citizens – across the Middle East and beyond – have shown that dignity, freedom, and opportunity are aspirations for all people.

Their power to change the course of history demonstrates, once again, the rightness of the comprehensive security concept that is at the heart of the OSCE: lasting peace and stability depend just as much on meeting our citizens’ legitimate aspirations as they do on military security.

As we reaffirmed last year at the Astana Summit, our commitment to this human dimension of security is—and should be—at the core of everything we do together. And when we put commitment into practice, more people will live in dignity, prosperity, and security, from Vancouver to Vladivostok, Minsk to Tashkent, Cairo to Kabul.

Today, across our region, we are witnessing a wide range of serious human rights concerns that go to the heart of our OSCE commitments. There are growing restrictions on the exercise of fundamental rights through the OSCE region.

In Belarus, less than 40 kilometers away from here, human rights defenders face unremitting persecution: people like Ales Bialiatski – sentenced to four and a half years in prison for tax evasion, but whose real crime, in the eyes of the state, was helping victims of state repression; former presidential candidates from the democratic opposition, Andrei Sannikau and Mikalai Statkevich, still in prison a year after the government crackdown, along with other political prisoners.

The OSCE region has seen independent journalists attacked and even killed with impunity. And we applaud Lithuania’s leadership on the safety of journalists and media pluralism.

We also see growing intolerance, xenophobia, and hate crimes against religious and ethnic minorities and other vulnerable groups, such as LGBT individuals. Violence against women knows no geographic boundaries, and human trafficking remains an urgent problem in the OSCE region.

We see setbacks for democratic institutions, the rule of law, and electoral processes. We witness prosecutions, such as that of Yulia Tymoshenko in Ukraine, which raises serious questions about political motivations. And when authorities fail to prosecute those who attack people for exercising their rights or exposing abuses, they subvert justice and undermine the people’s confidence in their governments.

And as we have seen in many places, and most recently in the Duma elections in Russia, elections that are neither free nor fair have the same effect. We have serious concerns about the conduct of those elections. Independent political parties, such as PARNAS, were denied the right to register. And the preliminary report by the OSCE cites election day attempts to stuff ballot boxes, manipulate voter lists, and other troubling practices.

We’re also concerned by reports that independent Russian election observers, including the nationwide Golos network, were harassed and had cyber attacks on their websites, which is completely contrary to what should be the protected rights of people to observe elections, participate in them, and disseminate information.

We commend those Russian citizens who participated constructively in the electoral process. And Russian voters deserve a full investigation of electoral fraud and manipulation. And we recognize the Russian Government’s willingness to allow the OSCE to observe these elections, we now hope and urge them to take action on the recommendations that will be forthcoming from the OSCE electoral observer mission.

The Russian people, like people everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted. And that means they deserve fair, free, transparent elections and leaders who are accountable to them.

As we work to address human rights and other challenges, we also must recognize that rights exercised in cyber space deserve as much protection as those exercised in real space. Fundamental freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, association, and religion apply as much to a Twitter conversation and a gathering organized by NGOs on Facebook as they do to a demonstration in a public square. And today’s activists hold the Helsinki Accords in one hand and a smart phone in the other.

That is why we and 27 co-sponsors of the draft Declaration on Fundamental Freedoms in the Digital Age believe it is important for the OSCE to reaffirm that our earliest commitments made in the Helsinki process apply on the internet. Or as we might put it in 21st century language: enduring freedoms, new apps.

We urge all participating States to join us and our co-sponsors in adopting the declaration. In keeping with OSCE’s comprehensive concept, we seek a substantive ministerial outcome, not just in the human, economic and military security dimensions but on issues that cut across all three, and in the outreach to states in the Middle East and North Africa as they undergo democratic transitions.

Now, in Egypt, new actors will be seated in the parliament, including representatives of Islamist parties. Transitions require fair and inclusive elections, but they also demand that those who are elected embrace democratic norms and rules. We therefore expect all democratic actors and elected officials to uphold universal human rights, including women’s rights, to allow free religious practice, to promote tolerance and good relations among communities of different faiths, and to support peaceful relations with their neighbors. Democracies are guided by the rules of the game, including the inevitable transfers of power from one party to another. And the Egyptian people deserve a democracy that is enduring.

We urge the Egyptian authorities to ensure that free and fair voting continues through the next election rounds and to adhere to their commitments to move toward a new civilian government. Over the next few months, the Egyptian Government must protect peaceful protestors and hold accountable those responsible for previous incidents of violence.

Many participating OSCE states, which have made the transition from authoritarianism to democracy, have expertise that is uniquely relevant for the work ahead in our Mediterranean partner states. And we hope this ministerial will open new channels of engagement between the OSCE and those partners – in both directions.

Yesterday in Bonn, we welcomed the commitments that Afghanistan’s regional partners had made at the Istanbul conference. And I encourage the OSCE to find more ways to support the Istanbul process and the Bonn outcomes as Afghanistan pursues peace and reconciliation, transitions to responsibility for its security, and prepares for elections in 2013 and 2014.

Even as the United States seeks cooperation with governments in the Central Asian region on Afghanistan, trade, energy and other matters, we will continue to encourage our Central Asian partners, both governments and civil society, to pursue democratic reforms and better respect for fundamental human rights.

With regard to the security dimension, we support France’s efforts to promote transparency measures regarding military activities across the OSCE region, and we believe this should be Topic A at next year’s Forum for Security Cooperation.

And with regard to Russia and the CFE Treaty, we are ready to find a way forward on conventional arms control that is consistent with core principles important to all OSCE members. While not all OSCE members are CFE signatories, all are affected by its fate.

We remain committed to efforts to strengthen OSCE capabilities in the conflict cycle, so we can respond quickly and decisively to emerging crises.

Concerning the protracted conflict in Georgia, we applaud the good work taking place in Geneva and via the Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism toward a peaceful settlement. We remain committed to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia. And we encourage progress in Geneva to resolve the conflict through direct dialogue between Georgia and Russia, greater transparency regarding Russian militarization of the separatist regions, and establishing an international monitoring presence.

On the conflict in Moldova, we welcome the resumption of formal 5+2 talks. We believe the 5+2 should meet early next year, in order to make progress toward a comprehensive settlement.

And we and our Minsk Group co-chair colleagues and the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan have reconfirmed our shared commitment to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. As Presidents Obama, Medvedev and Sarkozy said in Deauville, only a negotiated settlement can lead to peace, stability, and reconciliation.

So, Mr. Chairman, we must never lose sight of the truth at the core of our comprehensive security concept: Respect for human rights and human security is essential to the progress and security of all countries, here in the OSCE region and across the globe. That is why, after I leave the plenary hall today, I will meet with civil society representatives from Belarus and with civil society leaders from across the region who took part in the Parallel Conference. And they have called attention to these human rights challenges and are discussing ways they can be addressed. I look forward to reviewing their recommendations. And I welcome the announcement that 35 leading civil society groups from more than 20 countries throughout the OSCE are creating a Civic Solidarity Platform that will combine in-person human rights advocacy with a cutting-edge online presence.

Mr. Chairman, while governments alone bear the responsibility of meeting their commitments, governments alone cannot tackle the complex challenges we face in the 21st century. That requires engaged citizens, freely exercising their God-given rights and empowered by the latest technologies. They can and must be our partners in finding solutions to the great issues of our time.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Just want to point out that all emphasis here is mine. I have seen articles accusing Mme. Secretary of “supporting” the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. She (and we) do not “support” political parties in elections held in other countries. That is not our foreign policy. We do support freedom of communication and assembly as well as fair elections. As Mme. Secretary always says, democracy is more than elections. It may begin with an election but it is far more a matter of day-to-day inclusion of citizens in the operation of their society, transparent government, and equitable treatment of all citizens. She and we expect no less of any members of the Muslim Brotherhood elected in Egypt. As long as they comply, we should have no problem working in partnership with them.

Read Full Post »

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, centre back, meets with Belarus Civil Society representatives following an international conference of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2011, in Vilnius, Lithuania. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, Pool)

Remarks at the Belarus Civil Society Roundtable

Remarks

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Tolerance Center
Vilnius, Lithuania
December 6, 2011

SECRETARY CLINTON: Let me begin by saying what an honor it is for me and my colleagues to be meeting here with you today. There is probably no more difficult and no more important job than the one you are doing, which is to try to build democracy. I want to make just three short points, and then we want to hear from all of you.

First, we recognize that this has been a brutally difficult year for the people of Belarus. We know that every day there is a new arrest or a new restrictive law or further harassment against civil society and the media.

We continue to demand the unconditional release of all political prisoners. By our count, there are more than 50 individuals still in prison or under restrictive release, and I want to assure you that the United States will continue working for their freedom.

Second, we will continue, along with our partners in the European Union and other democracies, to take actions against the Lukashenko regime, including sanctions and travel bans. Until the government takes concrete steps to improve human rights and the conditions for democracy, they will not have improved relations with the United States.

And finally, although we cannot see Belarus 40 kilometers away from here, I want you to know that we have great confidence in your being on the right side of history. And your commitment is not only important to your country, but it is an inspiration to people fighting for their rights and for democracy around the world. In fact, I think your efforts are becoming quite well known. Groups, including Viasna 96, the Belarusian Helsinki Committee, the Belarusian Association of Journalists, and the Belarusian Assembly of Pro-Democratic NGOs, are serving as beacons of courage far beyond your country.

So again, I am honored to be with you, and now I look forward to hearing from all of you.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Belarus CS Roundtable, posted with vodpod

 

Just an idle thought here: I wonder if high officials from other countries attend events like this.  Did other foreign ministers meet with the Afghan civil society and women leaders yesterday, or are these signature events requested by and arranged for HRC?  I believe the latter is the case and explains why almost nothing comes as a surprise to her.  In fact, it explains why she sometimes knows more about what is going on beneath the surface in a country than the leaders themselves do.  Her Doha speech last January at Forum For The Future stands as archetypal.  She knew of the frustration and unrest below the surface in Arab societies from panels and roundtables like this one, and she warned the elders that without reform they might be facing turmoil.  Tunisia’s government,  protested since December 18 the month before, fell the following day.

Every time she visits a country or attends a conference, Mme. Secretary takes the trouble to have meetings like this one, like a pretty nurse visiting the wards and checking vital signs.  It provides her with inside knowledge that informs the kind of relationship we have and aid we provide to given countries.  “Soft power” consists of a broad range of facilities at hand.  “Smart Power”  lies in applying these facilities wisely.

I saw a joke someone offered somewhere:  There won’t be any Nativity scenes in D.C. because they can’t find a virgin or three wise men.  Well, maybe not, but there is a wise woman.  This wise woman is worth at least three wise men!

(Breaking:  Just in from the White House ~ in conjunction with Mme. Secretary’s upcoming speech in Geneva this Human Rights Day,  the White House announces that a factor in deciding aid to foreign countries will be treatment of the LGBT community.  Now where do you suppose Mme. Secretary might hear about that?  You bet!  In these civil society meetings.)

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: