Washington, DC — Earlier this April, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor of the United States Department of State released its annual report on U.S. support for human rights and democracy worldwide, Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record 2005-2006. The report covers U.S. efforts to promote basic freedoms in 95 countries deemed to have most serious human rights violations by the U.S. State Department.
AllAfrica's Tali Trigg spoke with Deputy Assistant Secretary Jeffrey Krilla about the report, which covers the same African countries as last year.
What is the purpose of the report and what does it seek to achieve?
The first report, the Human Rights Report, which came out about 30 days ago, is the State Department's documenting of all the human rights conditions in all countries throughout the world. This document is what the U.S. government is doing to improve those conditions.
How does the U.S. support democratic and human rights reforms? What are the specifics?
I'll talk generally and then I'll give you some specifics because the Supporting Human Rights document, which we are talking about, and which was released this week, basically answers the question of -- after people read the Human Rights Report -- 'Wow, this is a problem, what is the U.S. doing about it?' This report answers that question.
This talks about, in terms of development dollars, what the U.S. is supporting, both financially as well as diplomatically, as well as challenges that democratic activists face in these countries and what we're doing to keep the pressure on these countries themselves. Sticks as well as carrots, I'll say.
The U.S.'s Millennium Challenge Account and AGOA (African Growth and Opportunity Act) are mentioned in the report. How are they used and what are the conditions for countries to participate?
That's a good question that you ask because it is important that people recognize that economic support mechanisms, as well as economic sanctions are effective diplomatic tools as much as the more classic diplomatic pressures or influence that the U.S. government and other allies can bring to bear. These two are very good examples that you raise.
The Millennium Challenge Corporation is an economic incentive that gives substantial assistance to countries that are moving in the right direction, countries that are ruling justly, investing in people [and] economic freedom. This is an integral part of the president's freedom agenda, his message for Africa: that if you are doing the right thing, you should be given an extra leg up.
The U.S. has committed $4.2 billion from 2004-2006, so this is a significant program. Right now sub-Saharan African countries benefit. There are 17 countries that qualify for the MCC, for either compact or threshold eligibility program.
So countries that seek eligibility for aid through the Millennium Challenge Corporation must first be selected as candidates and then for the threshold program?
There are several steps that the country has to take to get full eligibility. The threshold program has been an excellent way for countries to know that they're very close to making it, but that they themselves might need a little bit of support. Often threshold programs come with financial support as well.
Last year, I was actually at the signing of the threshold agreement with Malawi and I believe they got some $20 million to be able to move them forward and hopefully they will qualify for compact status.
How do you gather information on the human rights situation in each country? How do you determine the credibility of your sources?
This is a team effort, it's very much a team effort. We have embassies in all these countries abroad, or just about every country abroad. There are political officers that every day are following the situation on the ground, but for our bureau it's very much also a partnership with NGOs, both international and most importantly, the domestic NGOs in these countries that are not only following the human rights situation on the ground but are actively engaged in increasing the democratic space there.
Some countries, such as Sudan and Zimbabwe, get a lot of attention in the press for human rights violations. What about countries such as Eritrea and the Gambia, where we hear little but there are serious abuses?
If you've read the Human Rights Report, which is a daunting document, it's hundreds of pages. There are widespread human rights violations in a number of countries, that, as you said, are not on the front pages of the papers and many Americans may have trouble finding these countries on a map. However, that doesn't mean they're of any less importance to us here at the State Department, and certainly not to us in this report.
The United State has put a significant amount of resources together, as you said, in the high-profile countries, but also in the smaller countries. I myself have been working in Africa for 15 years and believe that Africa is a great place where you get a lot of bang for your buck, in terms of development dollars spent.
When you talk about places like the Gambia, Burundi, [or] Eritrea, these are countries that have significant human rights challenges but a little bit of development dollars spent on them could reap a lot of benefits. We're seeing that in some of the small countries like Burundi, where the U.S. has put together programs to increase media freedom, freedom of speech issues, to work on the conduct of elections, and [where] this funding has really led to an opening up of democratic space.
The report lists broad U.S. support for the Democratic Republic of the Congo's registration exercise for the upcoming election, as well as for the new constitution. What are the challenges of promoting democracy and human rights in a country that is practically in a state of war, at least in the eastern part, and what the U.S. is doing to stop the fighting?
The U.S. has been very involved with the DRC, as you noted. In our Supporting Human Rights document we have been very active in helping the country prepare for their upcoming elections. It's no small feat to register voters, especially in a country of this size. Registering 25 million voters was a very daunting task for the government there and for the electoral commission. The fact that we were able to support them both financially and with technical advisors is a big step forward.
True, there have been challenges in terms of peacekeeping in the country. The U.S. has been engaged in diplomatic as well as work on promoting peace with different rebel factions throughout the country, but the primary focus for us has been moving towards an election that will hopefully galvanize the peaceful forces, lead folks to choose the ballot over the bullet in terms of addressing their concerns, and see the presidential elections coming up in June as a key date to bring peace and stability to the country.
Egypt recently held elections but they were fraught with reports of serious human rights and press freedom violations. How does the U.S. support reform in a country that is a very close ally and a huge recipient of U.S. aid?
I'll talk to you in terms of our report because one of the things that we don't do is pick winners and losers according who are considered to be allies of the United State.
If you'll read our human rights report, you'll see it's a very even-handed, level report that is critical of countries. I'd like to say that we're like an umpire in baseball, we call it like we see it, and often that leads to hard feelings from countries that are considered U.S. allies and those that may be less so. But at the same time this is a document that is taken very seriously because it is so unbiased in terms of U.S. allies. You'll see yourself that the report is critical of a number of countries that some folks may consider to be very close allies of the United States.
This Supporting Human Rights document is similarly unbiased in terms of allies while at the same time noting that the U.S. is very engaged in some of these countries.
The situation in Ethiopia also comes to mind where the general human rights situation appears to have deteriorated, but there have been no U.S. sanctions or aid cuts. Why no action on Ethiopia?
I can tell you that the U.S. has been very engaged with Ethiopia. I think everyone was very cautiously optimistic in the lead up to the elections [since] there was unprecedented openness in the conduct of the elections up until the actual date itself.
There were some setbacks: U.S.-funded, U.S.-based international NGOs were sent out of the country several weeks before the elections, especially since these were ones that were dealing with preparations for the elections. These are the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, and IFES, and that was certainly a setback.
But up until the election itself, the trends were good. The EU had issued a report on the election day, noting cases of fraud, cases of irregularities, but did note as well the progress that was seen in terms of the election.
It was the post-election period that was most discouraging: the violence associated with the protests, the opposition, the government response, the jailing of opposition leaders, political prisoners, and the crackdown on media freedoms.
The lack of a truly free media is something that the U.S. has not only noted but has stepped up our diplomatic pressures and continues to support groups that are active in civil society. Our Deputy Assistant Secretary was just in Ethiopia, Donald Yamamoto, meeting very high levels of the Ethiopian government, continuing to put pressure on the government.
When Donald Yamamoto testified before the House International Relations Committee, he said, ''Some interested groups, both within and beyond Ethiopian borders, seek to undermine what is best for the nation of Ethiopia, in favor of what they perceive to be the best for themselves.'' That seems to give the impression that the U.S. is engaging several groups to support reforms, but you talk mostly about dealing with the government on a diplomatic level?
There is no white knight in Ethiopia. Let's just say this: a number of people need to come to the table to work on solutions for Ethiopia. The government and the opposition parties need to work together. I think it's a good sign that a number of opposition members of parliament, a majority of them, almost all of them, have retaken their seats in parliament.
I think the government will admit that they were surprised by the strong showing of the opposition in the election and I think a vibrant, robust opposition is a sign of a very healthy democracy. The opposition, while still claiming that they have won the election, have accepted their seats in parliament, and has been working with the government through this current situation which has been very tense.
I think that the diplomatic levers of the U.S. and other governments have been brought to bear, but I think that at the end of the day, it's up to the Ethiopians themselves to step up and solve this democratic impasse, and I think you're starting to see that now as we get beyond the election day.
You mention diplomatic efforts in Ethiopia, but in Zimbabwe there seems to be more of a focus on sanctions. Have you found that the sanctions have been effective in Zimbabwe?
Zimbabwe has been very discouraging for the international community. The sanctions that have been carried out on Zimbabwe are mostly on individuals.
The crackdown that we saw last year, that is well documented in our Human Rights Report, Operation Clean Up the Trash or Restore Order, depending on the translation, was a huge, huge crisis in Zimbabwe that only accelerated the economic decline of the country. The sanctions that the U.S., the EU and others leveled on individuals that were participating in, that were responsible for directing this and other unfortunate governmental policies, are very effective tools in the sense that these individuals have been shut out from countries they'd be very interested in visiting.
I thought there were also sanctions against institutions.
You're correct. There are businesses that there are sanctions on, businesses whose leaders are those that are responsible for these sorts of violations. So you're correct, it's institutions as well as individuals but institutions that are linked to those individuals.
Has your Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor seen any improvements in Zimbabwe's human rights situation this past year? What is the next step for Zimbabwe?
Having worked in Africa for as long as I have, I think the fact that there still is a civil society in Zimbabwe, that there are still those that continue to fight to create democratic space, that there are those who are interested in a truly free and democratic Zimbabwe, even in the current climate, the fact that people are continuing to fight, is not only a testament to the strength of the Zimbabwean people, and to their commitment to freedom, but also to the international community's support to them.
Moving to Nigeria, what is the U.S.'s official position on a potential third term for the president and state governors, given its potential implications for human rights and democracy?
That's not something that we address through the Human Rights Report, but I can certainly talk to you about it at a separate time. I love talking about Nigeria, so I'd love to talk to you about it, but in terms of the Human Rights Report, this is something we talk more about the specific human rights conditions on the ground in Nigeria in the civil society, which in Nigeria is very robust.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
How does the U.S. balance support for civil society and support for the government? In Nigeria's case, how do you give support in the Niger Delta where the U.S. has oil interests, but there are also communities deeply unhappy with pollution and the federal government's management of those oil profits?
I would say support for the government of Nigeria is support for the government on all levels, not just federal, but state and local levels as well. Part of the problem in places like the Niger Delta, has been the extent, or in this case, the lack of extent to which funding has trickled to these regions. The people themselves who live in the areas where the oil is drilled are not seeing the results of this huge natural resource largesse that the country enjoys.
Part of [the effort] has been supporting President Obasanjo's government which has had a very large initiative to crack down on corruption and to a large extent, a successful initiative, so the U.S. supporting initiatives like that hopefully will go to the root of the problem we're seeing in the Delta.
Speaking of balancing interests, since Sudan is a U.S. ally in the ''War on Terror,'' how do you maintain that intelligence relationship while promoting human rights?
Sudan has certainly shown some progress in terms of this comprehensive peace agreement (CPA). The U.S. in this administration has put a great deal of effort into this 22 years of civil war and we can't lose sight of the fact that this CPA, and continued implementation thereof, is a critical part of solving the problems that exist in Sudan and guaranteeing religious freedom for all Sudanese.
What does concern me is the situation in Darfur. This bureau was instrumental in compiling the information and data that was needed for Secretary Powell to determine that genocide was being committed in the country and continues to press the government of Sudan and while supporting the government of national unity, continue to press Khartoum, and as well as the rebel forces, to end the continuing violence in Darfur. It is absolutely a critical country for this administration, especially for our bureau here.
Finally, African leaders and people are very aware of America's own human rights challenges in, for example, Guantanamo Bay. How can African readers take this report seriously?
The United States has been a leading proponent of human rights throughout the world since our inception. And the United States certainly is not without its own challenges. The idea with fighting a war on terror while still maintaining the critically important human rights conditions in our country, in our foreign policy has been a challenge as we fight the war on terror. I think the idea of enemy combatants, and dealing with enemy combatants, has been a challenge for our system.
The situation in Guantanamo Bay has certainly been misunderstood and frequently misrepresented in a lot of international circles and certainly in the international rumor mill. I think that if a lot of these leaders, as they learn more about the situation, certainly more about that particular situation, and generally, I'd say their understanding of the U.S. still leads them to see the U.S. as the premier human rights advocate in the world.
