Return to Transcripts main page

DIPLOMATIC LICENSE

Current Events at the United Nations

Aired December 9, 2005 - 21:00:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, U.S. SECY. OF STATE: Just because you're a democracy, that doesn't mean that you're perfect.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A lot of people say it's too complicated to get involved. We think there are lots of things that people can do simply to have their own governments pay attention to human rights issues as a matter of priority.

JOHN BOLTON, U.S. AMB. TO U.N.: I think as another example of why we need reform at the United Nations, why this case took a year and whether the full facts have come out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LIZ NEISLOSS, CNN ANCHOR: If a suspect might have information that could stop a terrorist attack, could the use of torture ever be justified?

Hello and welcome to DIPLOMATIC LICENSE. I'm Liz Neisloss, sitting in for Richard Roth.

Terrorism and torture took center stage this week as Condoleezza Rice toured Europe. Rice tried to calm some of the uproar in the weeks since reports broke about secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICE: The United States does not engage in torture, doesn't condone it, doesn't expect its employees to engage in it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEISLOSS: This weekend, the United Nations marks human rights day with a focus on the subject of torture. The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour told reporters the war on terror was eroding agreements against torture and called secret detention a form of torture. Immediately after her press conference, United States Ambassador John Bolton came to the microphones.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOLTON: I think it is inappropriate and illegitimate for an international civil servant to second guess the conduct that we're engaged in in the war on terror with nothing more as evidence than what she reads in newspapers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEISLOSS: Arbor says she's hoping for a meeting with Condoleezza Rice in the weeks ahead. She defended her own comments.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LOUISE ARBOUR, U.N. HIGH CMSR. FOR HUMAN RIGHTS: I made a statement today expressing concern about the fate of the convention against torture, the erosion of some international standards. Not surprisingly in the context of that press conference, I was asked questions about different practices by different countries, in particular by the United States, and I made comments that in my view were totally appropriate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEISLOSS: U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan also came to the defense of Arbour. His spokesman said he's confident she'll carryout her work without being intimidated. Annan also plans to take up the issue with Ambassador Bolton.

I spoke with Louise Arbour and asked her thoughts on the comments this week by U.S. Secretary of State Rice.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARBOUR: I'm very happy that she spoke with this kind of clarity to the fact that the United States does not practice torture. Her discourse, I think, was very much inline with the international standards that certainly I'm advocating.

NEISLOSS: But Rice's comments really were rather general in some ways. She didn't speak about specific practices and she certainly left room for what foreign interrogators might do.

ARBOUR: True, she spoke about -- the clarity, that I certainly welcome in her statements, is about the practice, the practices, by U.S. agents outside the territory. This was an area in which there were concerns about any possible ambiguity as to whether this framework of legislation applied only to activities in U.S. territories.

So this is, I think, a welcome development. Now, of course, there is, as you say, a level of complexity as to what is captured by the expressions torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. And I think it's critical that we engage in fact in very probing debate as to the realm of what's acceptable. Some things are clearly unacceptable and known as such.

NEISLOSS: Well, are you willing to say nations certainly don't agree on human rights standards and clearly now we're seeing they don't agree on what constitutes torture, so how do you define torture?

ARBOUR: No, I don't think that it's a question of saying we don't agree. It's like any other international or frankly national standards. We use, for instance in the law constantly the standard of reasonableness. What's a reasonable search and seizure? Do we have reasonable grounds to believe something has happened?

Reasonableness is a very well known legal standard but, of course, it's not capable of a universal definition. It's very contextual and I think it's the same thing with, for instance, sleep deprivation. Well, how much deprivation and where do we cross a line and enter into abusive -- coercive, abusive, degrading, dehumanizing techniques.

NEISLOSS: But the whole fight against terrorism seems to have forced the ground to shift in many cases where there was perhaps some uniformity, some agreement.

ARBOUR: Let me very clear that I don't underestimate for a minute the responsibility and the challenge for governments to adopt intelligent, robust practices to combat vicious forms of terrorism and very sophisticated and very dangerous terrorist activities.

Having said that, I don't think that the world has changed so profoundly that we should be called to abandon the entire rule of law framework that has served us very well, particularly in advanced democracies, to protect both our security and our liberty. I don't think the world has changed to an extent that we should be expected to surrender large parts of our liberty on the pretext that there's something so new and so different. There is something very scary out there, but I think we have every expectation that governments that act under our authority, in democracies, use their power within the rule of law and within a legal framework that we're comfortable with.

NEISLOSS: Do you believe the United States when they say that they don't use torture? What do they need to do to make that clear?

ARBOUR: Well, the main thing that I think certainly American citizens, I suppose, would expect is that when the United States acts, it act with its entire machinery, including the full engagement of its judicial system. And to me, this was maybe the most troublesome aspect of the original Guantanamo Bay framework, that it seemed to have been designed or it seemed to have the affect of excluding the checks and balances that come from judicial review of executive action.

The United States courts, I think, have asserted their supervisory authority there. I take great comfort, you will not be surprised to think I am a very big fan of the American judiciary. So I think the primary form of engagement in every country is a sophisticated multi-faceted government mechanism, and certainly that includes judicial supervision.

NEISLOSS: But one thing that doesn't have judicial supervision is this area of diplomatic assurances, where the United States seems to be going around the process by perhaps transferring a prisoner to a country and then saying to that country we are taking your assurance that this person will not be tortured.

ARBOUR: To my great chagrin, this is not a uniquely American initiative. The Committee Against Torture has ruled on a case quite recently in fact, some months ago, a case where Sweden had deported a person to Egypt on the strength of diplomatic assurances, and the Committee Against Torture repudiated this practice on the assertion that this was not a appropriate safeguard against this absolutely prohibition of exposing someone to the risk of torture.

NEISLOSS: And why is this not appropriate? Why isn't it enough?

ARBOUR: Well, in simple terms, it seems to -- the legal prohibition is you should not deport, render, surrender, transfer anybody where there is a risk of torture. Now, if there is no risk, well, why do you need diplomatic assurances that torture will not be applied? So it seems to me when diplomatic assurances are sought, it's because there has been a prior assessment that there is a risk. Then you have to ask yourself what level of confidence should you have in a non-legally binding handshake, basically, with a torturer state that in this particular case, to please you, they will not have recourse to torture. And what monitoring mechanism do you have?

If a country seeks diplomatic assurances, say, that the death penalty will not be applied, that's relatively easy to monitor. We could monitor whether an execution has taken place, but torture is extremely difficult, especially invidious methods of torture that may not leave apparent traces and so on. What do you do? You go visit someone in prison, an individual singled out, and then you leave and you leave that person in the custody of his torturers. What are the chances that you'll have credible evidence that torture has or has not been applied?

And furthermore, I think it's worse than that, because why create a special comfort zone for one person rather than put all their efforts in trying to attack the systematic practice of torture in that state? So I think diplomatic assurances are an erosion of the international standards, totally inefficient, and I think they're just a way of avoiding this absolutely ban of exposing someone to torture.

NEISLOSS: In the post-September 11 word in the United States, do you see changes that when you go to other countries, when you argue cases about other human rights violators, other countries, that it's really had an impact on your work?

ARBOUR: Well, there is certainly, I think, a perception that the United States has become more tolerant of some practices that erode civil rights and it's used, there is no question, by many as an excuse or an opportunity also for them to hijack the concept of the war on terror and claim that they also should be allowed to use extraordinary measures. That's certainly very much the perception, whether it's accurate or not.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NEISLOSS: Arbour says the human rights crises she worries most about are those just below the media radar screen, but concerns over the United States and torture were the focus of a panel at the United Nations. Michael Rattner (ph) of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

MICHAEL RATTNER (ph), CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: I find it incredibly shocking that the country that stood at least in part as the paradigm of the prohibition against torture, as the prohibition against cruel and inhuman and degrading treatment, is now really the country that is carrying it out.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Imagine a man losing his humanity, seeing his young daughters, his old mother and his wife being raped in front of him. What is happening in my country can only be described as terrorism.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEISLOSS: His country is Sudan and he is Dr. Mudawi Ibrahim Adam, the head of an organization monitoring human rights abuses in Darfur.

The Sudanese government has not wanted Dr. Mudawi to talk. He's been jailed several times, but he continues his work and came to New York recently to be honored along with another defender of human rights by the organization Human Rights First.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHAEL POSNER, HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST.: Ludmilla Alexeeva is someone I have known for 25 years. She is one of the founders of the Russian human rights movement in the '70s that took on the old Soviet state, and she hasn't stopped fighting for human rights in 30 years. Now again she and her colleagues are under threat because they're raising concerns about the government's response to Chechnya. There is less and less space for human rights advocates to speak truth. And so again, in her case, we're trying to amplify her voice and protect her when she goes back.

GEORGE SOROS, PHILANTROPHIST: She is one of the grad old ladies who fought for freedom all her life and she's still going strong. And I think she deserves it very much.

LUDMILLA ALEXEEVA, HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST: Dissidence in the Soviet Union developed an ironic set of rules for themselves. Don't think. If you think, don't speak. If you speak, don't write. If you write, don't sign. If you think, speak, right and sign, don't be surprised.

Even in today Russia, it's very difficult to be a human rights activist because we constantly are under attack.

POSNER: Dr. Mudawi is one of the leading human rights activists in the Sudan because of his advocacy for refugees, displaced people. Three times the government has come after him and arrested him. He really is in a very precarious position and he is telling the truth. He's trying to tell the world that there is a crisis going on in Darfur. The world out to be paying attention and the government doesn't want that message getting out.

MUDAWI IBRAHIM ADAM, HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST: We need to tell the people that there are crimes being committed on a daily basis against people and there are crimes -- savage crimes -- against the population.

If I am arrested again, which in Sudan today is always a real possibility, this award can help protect me from being harmed in prison.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NEISLOSS: Dr. Mudawi could use the protection. Human Rights First says there are still charges against him, including espionage, which carries a possible death sentence.

I had the opportunity while he was in New York to talk to him about his work.

ADAM: I think the pressure should be exerted on the government and the pressure should be asserted on the rebels to organize themselves and to make one coherent body so that people can come together, and we need to talk to the militias. We need to talk to these tribal militias, because there are representatives from tribes and if they are feeling that they are not included in the talks, then they are going to continue fighting. They will see that -- they will feel that their demands are not met and nobody is looking at them.

NEISLOSS: So then has the United Nations done enough? Certainly we can talk about the member states but the United Nations, and I mean Kofi Annan, he is supposed to be the voice of moral authority. He has an envoy who has ben going back and forth, Jan Pronk. Is the United Nations doing what it needs to do?

ADAM: I think the United Nations is crippled by some of the countries which have interest in so that they are blocking any kind of very strong move in the United Nations, like China, Russia, these countries. They are actually blocking any kind of -- it's a very strong movement of the United Nations.

NEISLOSS: But that's the member states. Do you think -- you speak out, you risk your life to state your position. Do you think someone like Kofi Annan should be speaking out against those who are blocking, that the moral authority should be used to push more forcefully?

ADAM: I think so. I think there should be more force, especially on China, because China is just benefiting out of exploiting the oil in Sudan, and they are just happy doing that. In reality, they are protecting the regime, they are blocking any kind of positive actions to get in there, because they want to continue (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

I think the international community has to say something. I think the United States, the other countries, they have to talk and they have to have very positive complete actions against China.

NEISLOSS: What can people do? Not the government, the member sates, but what can the ordinary person do?

ADAM: I think the older people, they don't know exactly the extent of the violence and the killings in Darfur, and then you, actually, to be aware, they have to move to make a kind of -- kind of public position that the people have to force it to move to stopping the killings and (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

NEISLOSS: Does that amaze you at all, that people are not aware that this could be happening in a part of the globe that has seen this kind of thing before and has sworn that this will never happen again, whether it's the holocaust or whether it's Rwanda. Does it amaze you someone that it is still possible, humanly possible?

ADAM: I think the problem is politics on the one side, because this has been going on for the last three or four years and we have been trying to push that there is -- you know, there are crimes committed in Darfur, but at that time, the political will was not there because they were so involved in trying to bring peace between south and north, the war between the SB11 and the government. And they didn't wanted to, you know, to accept the fact that there is something going on in other areas.

I think people -- they have to understand that there are so many crimes being committed (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in these areas and the need to have, the need to move us to force to go along with this, to find a solution for this.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NEISLOSS: Dr. Mudawi is now back at work in Darfur. Another African nation in crisis, Zimbabwe. Jan Egeland, the U.N. Emergency Relief coordinator, recently returned from a trip there and says the United Nations may have to feed up to 400 million before Zimbabwe is harvested in April. He said he had reached basic agreement with President Mugabe to cut obstacles and speed up the flow of aid.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Zimbabwe is in deep crisis. There are millions of AIDS victims, millions of people that are now with their back against the wall, trying to feed themselves, and then to take away from 700,000 people the modest shelter and informal livelihood that they had is the worst possible thing at the worst possible moment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOLTON: Our perspective has been for something that has gone on this long, one has to ask why today.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEISLOSS: U.S. Ambassador John Bolton reacting to the firing of the head of the United Nations election division. Many other diplomats I spoke to this week were puzzled by the timing of the decision to fire Karina Perelli.

Back in April, the United Nations began to investigate allegations about her management style and announced their decision just days before the election she had been setting up.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): She was a rising star at the United Nations. Karina Perelli led the U.N. agency that successfully setup elections in war- scarred nations, like Afghanistan. Even President Bush singled her out for praise.

GEORGE W. BUSH, U.S. PRESIDENT: The United Nations Elections Assistance team headed by Karina Perelli is in Iraq developing plans for next January's election.

NEISLOSS: Tuesday, under a different spotlight, Perelli was escorted out of the United Nations by a security guard. Fired, the United Nations says, for sexual harassment and abuse of authority.

STEPHANE DUJARRIC, U.N. SPOKESMAN: Her service with the United Nations ends effective today. She is no longer permitted to come into the building unless she makes an appointment.

NEISLOSS: Perelli denies the charges.

KARINA PERELLI, FMR. U.N. EMPLOYEE: The charges are false, because there has been no due process in its full exercise.

NEISLOSS: Under Perelli's watch, the United Nations has been organizing voting in Haiti and upcoming Palestinian elections. But perhaps none so critical as those in Iraq.

PERELLI: I hope it has no impact. In elections, you know, you always wish for the best but plan for the worst, so I have a very competent team over there -- sorry, the United Nations has a very competent team out there.

NEISLOSS: In late October, the United Nations put a senior elections official in Iraq to take over for Perelli, but the United States is worried about a disruption.

BOLTON: One has to ask why, after a year of inquiry, a decision had to be made nine days before a critical election in Iraq that the office here at the United Nations is very much involved in.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NEISLOSS: Perelli says she hasn't been provided with the specifics of the charges against her and plans to appeal.

Earlier this year she had been nominated as a U.N. Manager of the Year but didn't win.

And that's it for this week's DIPLOMATIC LICENSE. I'm Liz Neisloss. Thanks for watching.

END

TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE THE SECURE ONLINE ORDER FROM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com