Transforming Partnerships Across Asia and the Pacific To Combat Corruption and Ensure Ethical Conduct: Open Government, Clean Trade, and Integrity in Markets and Supply Chains
I am honored to have been invited to New Delhi to attend the 16th Steering Committee Meeting of the ADB/OECD Anticorruption Initiative for Asia and the Pacific and to present this morning the work program in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum on combating corruption, especially in my capacity as the 2011 Chair of the APEC Anticorruption and Transparency (ACT) Experts’ Working Group.
I would like to thank the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the Government of India for their invitation and warm hospitality, and I hope that together we can chart a vibrant partnership between APEC and your initiative – and among our respective membership – to promote greater integrity and to prevent, investigate, and prosecute corruption and bribery across Asia and the Pacific.
Before outlining the work of the United States as host of APEC in 2011 and our ACT anti-corruption initiatives and capacity-building programs – including priorities that we are advancing this year as we march towards the APEC Leaders Week and Summit in Honolulu, Hawaii, November 8-13, 2011 – I want to say what a privilege it is for me personally to return as a participant in your Steering Committee meetings. I recall fondly being part of the Advisory Group at the first meeting in Japan in 2001 and the meeting in Malaysia in 2003.
Over the years, I have met many good friends and am excited to meet new friends here this week and to explore continued synergies and collaborations that strengthen regional cooperation via collective action to combat corruption. It is also good to see some of my APEC ACT colleagues here at these meetings, including past and future ACT chairs: Korea (2005), Vietnam (2006), Australia (2007), Singapore (2009), Japan (2010), and Indonesia (2013). I would also like to give a special thanks to the Government of Thailand and my very good friend Professor Pakdee Pothisiri, Commissioner of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). It was because of Thailand’s leadership in 2003 that the APEC Leaders agreed to make the fight against corruption a priority, a commitment that led to the creation of the ACT and the Santiago Commitment in 2004.
APEC 2011: Economic Growth, Expansion of Trade and Investment, and Clean Markets
APEC is the premier Asia-Pacific economic forum through which 21 economies have united to build a dynamic and harmonious Asia-Pacific community by championing free and open trade and investment, promoting and accelerating regional economic integration, encouraging economic and technical cooperation, enhancing human security, and facilitating a favorable and sustainable business environment.
The 21 APEC economies are as follows: Australia; Brunei Darussalam; Canada; Chile; People’s Republic of China; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Japan; Republic of Korea; Malaysia; Mexico; New Zealand; Papua New Guinea; Peru; The Republic of the Philippines; The Russian Federation; Singapore; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; United States of America; and Viet Nam. Twelve of our APEC members are also active in your initiative.
APEC’s 21 member economies today account for 55 percent of global GDP, 43 percent of world trade, and comprise a market of 2.7 billion consumers.
For the United States, APEC accounts for 58 percent of U.S. goods/exports, and seven of our top trade partners are in APEC. Last year alone, U.S. exports to APEC economies grew much faster than exports to the rest of the world. Due to the dynamism of APEC markets, a 5 percent increase in exports to APEC economies would add hundreds of thousands of jobs to the U.S. economy.
So as we embark on our collaboration with the ADB/OECD anticorruption initiative and other international partners to achieve shared prosperity and economic regional partnerships, we must ensure that we similarly develop a shared framework based on not only reasonable, rules-based approaches but also on open, free, transparent, and fair principles. We believe that such a regional architecture would benefit developed and developing economies alike by transforming and expanding markets, encouraging innovation, and ensuring cleaner forms of public and private governance for markets across the Asia Pacific region.
As the host of APEC in 2011, the United States is focusing on three priority themes for this year, reflecting many of the challenges and opportunities facing public and private sectors across the Asia Pacific region:
Strengthening regional economic integration and expanding trade;
Promoting inclusive, sustainable, green growth; and
Advancing regulatory convergence and cooperation.
With these priorities in mind, I would like to raise three questions for consideration: First, why are transparency and effective anti-corruption measures critical to our future? Second, why are they indispensable tools for long-term, sustainable growth and regional prosperity? And finally how can we partner to advance our mutually-shared agenda? I hope that today’s discussion will help us leverage our energies and harness our talents and capacities to achieve cleaner trade and more open governments.
Ensuring Greater Integrity in APEC Economies, Markets, and Supply Chains
Let me start with a well-known truism: Governments are most effective in promoting economic competitiveness, growth, and investment when their communities and its people have confidence in the stability and soundness of its institutions. Governments can faithfully and judiciously invest the public’s trust by adopting effective anticorruption policies that put accountability front and center, demonstrating to their people that they are working for their communities with the highest levels of integrity.
At the United Nations General Assembly meetings last week, the United States and other members of the Open Government Partnership acknowledged “that people all around the world are demanding more openness in government . . . and are calling for greater civic participation in public affairs, and seeking ways to make their governments more transparent, responsive, accountable, and effective.” Participating governments also agreed to accept responsibility for seizing this moment in time “to strengthen [their] commitments to promote transparency, fight corruption, empower citizens, and harness the power of new technologies to make government more effective and accountable.”
Through the Open Government Dialogue, India and the United States are working together to create “Data.gov-in-a-Box,” a joint, open source, e-governance application. It will be available for implementation by countries globally, encouraging governments around the world to develop open-data sites that promote transparency, improve citizen engagement, and engage application developers in continuously improving these efforts.
As ACT Chair, I can report to you that President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton are working together with our APEC partners, and globally, to make anticorruption a priority. In remarks made at the OECD Session on Development and Gender this past May, Secretary Clinton observed that corruption, lack of transparency, and poorly functioning governance systems “not only deprive government of revenues; they inflict a quieter and in some ways an even more dangerous cost as well, because they corrode citizens’ trust in each other and in their government. And when those bonds of trust crumble, it becomes much more difficult for communities and countries to make progress.”
In APEC, we are addressing corruption by sharing our good governance practices and experiences with each other, including by exchanging information on our respective laws, what we do to publicize our enforcement efforts, and what our respective business communities are doing to ensure that they have effective compliance programs to prevent and detect corruption and bribery. Moreover, we are also investing in a broad array of capacity-building programs that help sharpen the capabilities of the APEC anti-corruption agencies and law enforcement communities to prevent, investigate, and prosecute corruption.
Reducing Illicit Arbitrage Opportunities for Cleaner Markets and Supply Chains
In November 2010, in Yokohama, Japan, APEC Leaders and Ministers agreed to leverage collective action to combat corruption and illicit trade by promoting clean government, strengthening relevant judicial, regulatory, and law enforcement systems, and enhancing regular reporting of our efforts to implement anticorruption commitments to build communities of integrity.
â€ªWe can appreciate why Leaders remain focused on good governance and transparency.
Corruption and bribery are not only barriers to economic growth, trade and investment, and market integrity, but also weaken the entrepreneurial spirit that nurtures innovation, openness, and competiveness.
Corrupt practices also corrode the pillars of free and accountable societies, especially at a time when our citizens are demanding more of our governments and expect to be governed with the highest levels of integrity.
By leading by example, APEC is demonstrating that ethical behavior among public officials can anchor the trust and confidence of the public and markets alike.
As Secretary Clinton emphasized at the 2011 APEC SOM I meetings in Washington, DC, as our communities demand greater accountability, transparency and participatory governance, we must deliver.
And we are. I have just returned from San Francisco where the APEC ACT discussed a robust plan of action for combating corruption in APEC economies as part of our 5-year strategy and discussed ways to advance our 2011 work program under the following three guiding principles: 1) combat corruption and illicit enrichment for more clean and open governments; 2) combat bribery through public-private partnerships that anchor market integrity; and 3) combat corruption and illicit trade to ensure greater supply chain integrity.
On the first guiding principle, through collective action, we are contributing to influence positively APEC’s open and transparent framework, including through the Santiago Commitment and Course of Action to Fight Corruption and Ensure Transparency, the APEC Code of Conduct for Business, the Conduct Principles for Public Officials, and the Complementary Anti-Corruption Principles for the Public and Private Sectors, as well as the development this year of principles to strengthen financial/asset disclosure systems that encourage officials to perform their duties in accordance with public interest, as opposed to self-interest. These principles, we hope, will also help investigators and prosecutors identify and corroborate illicit enrichment, providing greater accountability and building public trust.
Consistent with the APEC Santiago Commitment, in APEC, we are committing ourselves to implementing the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) and undertaking a full review on a wide range of measures, including criminalization, preventive measures, and the recovery of stolen assets.
The ACT also continues to work on denying safe haven to kleptocrats around the world, to bar their illicitly-acquired assets, and to give notice that continued theft from our economies will not be tolerated. Following the money must be an integral part of our strategies to deny criminals and their networks access to entities and mechanisms used to hide and launder illicit criminal proceeds. Working with Peru and China in APEC, for example, we launched a very aggressive initiative to strengthen capacities to combat kleptocracy. In 2006, in Shanghai, the United States and China led APEC efforts to take strong enforcement actions to deny safe haven to corrupt individuals and prevent them from enjoying the proceeds of their illicit activities. The ACT commends Thailand and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), and others, for leading ACT capacity-building efforts in recent years to combat money laundering and help track the criminal proceeds of kleptocrats and illicit networks alike. Similarly, we applaud Indonesia for being co-Chair of the G20 Anticorruption Working Group, and for serving next year as a Vice Chair in the ACT (and host of APEC in 2013).
Depriving illicit networks of their profits and funding is one of the most effective ways to deter them. This requires a holistic, comprehensive anti-money laundering regime with the ability to trace, freeze, and seize assets related to illicit financial flows, while addressing both formal and informal financial networks.
Second, in the ACT, we are also taking a comprehensive and holistic approach to combat corruption and illicit trade to ensure integrity in global markets and supply chains and to sustain our shared prosperity. We must confront criminal entrepreneurs and illicit market actors that navigate between licit and illicit worlds, tainting supply chains and compromising the integrity of our markets and institutions. Moreover, tainted supply chains, compromised markets, and the corruption that accompanies illicit trade also hurt our legitimate businesses; diminish brand identities, reputations, and returns on research and innovation; and increase operating costs and investment risks to all market investors.
Working together in APEC, we are ramping up efforts to investigate and prosecute the illicit actors who produce and sell harmful counterfeits such as counterfeit medicines, and we are simultaneously strengthening the integrity of our supply chains, as well as our global financial system.
At the APEC September 2011 SOM 3 meetings in San Francisco, investigators, prosecutors, and regulators, from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) including Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) , the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and others, coordinated with their APEC counterparts by organizing an APEC workshop on Investigating and Prosecuting Corruption and Illicit Trade: Stemming the Flows of Counterfeits and Dismantling Illicit Networks to impart best practices, law enforcement techniques, share case studies, and explore possible tools that can equip APEC economies to mitigate vulnerabilities, dismantle transnational illicit networks, and strengthen integrity in supply chains.
In the next month, we will submit to APEC Senior Officials the ACT’s recommendations to launch across APEC a public-private partnership to dismantle illicit networks at every link in tainted supply chains and prosecute criminal entrepreneurs who arbitrage weak and corrupt law enforcement systems and exploit internal border controls for illicit gain and enrichment.
Breaking the corruptive power of transnational illicit networks globally is a key objective for the United States. On July 25, 2011, the White House released the Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime. We will work with international partners to attack the financial underpinnings of transnational criminal organizations; strip them of their illicit wealth; and sever their access to the financial system. In targeting illicit entrepreneurs and illicit networks that pose grave threats to our citizens’ safety—including those that sell and distribute substandard, tainted, and harmful counterfeits—we will also expose criminal activities hidden behind legitimate fronts and protect strategic markets, as well as the integrity of the global financial system. The United States will also work with other committed partners to disrupt crime-terror networks all around the world including in South Asia.
Combating Bribery and Forging Public-Private Partnerships on Market Integrity
Finally, when both public and private sectors work together, we can create a culture of integrity that has a lasting impact. The private sector can lead in ensuring that corruption does not corrode the foundations of an efficient and transparent market system, which is fundamental to economic security, sustainability, and prosperity for all economies. We can create a better future by uniting in our support of accountability and good governance and against corruption. Such action has been evidenced in recent years in India, where the Global Corporate Governance Forum has worked in partnership with the regulator, the National Institute for Securities Markets, and one of the country’s leading business associations, the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), to raise understanding and awareness of the importance and modalities of good corporate governance. The regulator brings to this exercise the imprimatur of the government, while CII lends the weight of prominent Indian industrial concerns, creating a formidable alliance.
As the OECD and World Bank Group – key APEC partners – have underscored as part of their global corporate governance forum, “encouraging high quality corporate governance practices as a linked element of anti-corruption measures, are the twin pillars of developing fair and efficient markets. Both are relevant to broader efforts to promote sustainable economic development and democracy. They depend upon implementation by the private sector, with the active support of civil society and stakeholders, within a framework of law and regulation provided for by government. Achieving effective measures therefore requires the active partnership of all sides” in a full practical engagement for reform, modernization, and good governance.
Through our continued cooperation with the private sector, we are leveling the playing field across APEC economies. Moreover, in working with the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC), and other partners, we are ushering in a new era of cooperation between the public and private sector that will help forge a more connected, innovative, and dynamic Asia Pacific region. Combating corruption, achieving sustainable development and dismantling illicit markets and networks also requires collective action and a shared responsibility among APEC partners, as well as close coordination with relevant regional and international organizations that have important expertise and capacities to help improve the overall governance climate in the Asia-Pacific region.
The ACT has a strong record of achievement of strengthening cooperation with other international and regional organizations. We have leveraged new and exciting collaborative platforms with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), OECD, ASEAN, G20, INTERPOL, and the International Anticorruption Academy (IACA), as well as with civil society groups such as Transparency International.
I have already mentioned the good work that many of our APEC ACT colleagues are doing in combating corruption including, for example, Australia, Chile, China, Korea, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. Next year, Russia will host APEC and we look forward to continue to advance our public-private partnerships to combat corruption and bribery especially tied closely to the expansion of our investment and trade agenda. In addition we would like to congratulate Russia for joining the OECD Working Group on Bribery; we look forward to its ratification of the anti-bribery convention itself. The rigorous peer review that is at the heart of the Working Group’s success will help Russia to intensify its efforts against foreign bribery. The fact that India, China and Indonesia all are participating in the OECD Working Group on Bribery as observers is another positive step and we hope that they will consider full membership in future.
The Way Forward: Greater Integrity in Economies, Markets, and Supply Chains â€ªAcross Asia and the Pacific
In closing, it is great to be meeting with you here in India, and I applaud the diversity of your ADB/OECD Steering Group membership.
Our institutions share many common goals. Similar to APEC’s approach, you are leveraging alliances with communities and civil society groups to mobilize public support to address corruption. I have also taken note of your recent efforts to promote more active judiciaries, parliamentarians, and your ideas on access to information tools and the promotion of social anticorruption and media campaigns that can help to support resiliency and stability and to build a culture of integrity. As we nurture the network of government and business leaders that support innovation in the vibrant sectors of tomorrow – such as computer and high technology, biomedical, energy and space – these issues become even more important to government officials and entrepreneurs to create the right governance conditions for new markets and investment frontiers to thrive across our regions.
India’s adoption of anticorruption commitments as part of the G20 and its ratification of UNCAC send an important signal to the public and to businesses that tackling corruption is a high priority. An even more important step is to implement those commitments, to put them into practice, whether they are about prevention or transparency or law enforcement. Our experience is that creating momentum for reform, for implementation of these kinds of commitments, requires government leadership as well as support and expertise and oversight from civil society and the private sector. A partnership between government and the public is essential. Partnerships among countries can also help by sharing experiences among peers. That is one hallmark of APEC ACT, and one important value added of the ADB/OECD initiative. The United States is pleased to partner with other economies through these frameworks and bilaterally.
Thank you for the opportunity to outline the APEC ACT’s work program. I hope we can develop pragmatic and collaborative joint workshops, from time to time, that will enhance our commitment to combat corruption and illicit trade and strengthen integrity across our respective economies.
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, we’re really pleased to have you here and honored to have you on our show, Al-Hayat Al-Youm, and it’s exciting times in Washington, it’s exciting times even in Cairo.
I’d like to ask you about your assessment – after nearly eight months after Egyptian revolution. How do you in Washington look at what’s happening in Cairo?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Amer, for having me on this show and giving me a chance to talk with you. And I want to say that from our perspective, we are very impressed and encouraged by what we see happening in Egypt. We know this is a difficult transition period and, in the great span of Egyptian history, one of the most important moments of your history. And I think it’s essential that all of us look at how much has been accomplished in the last eight months and the fact that elections are scheduled, that there is a path forward for this very vibrant, new democratic change is very encouraging and we think it’s on the right track.
QUESTION: You’re talking about the very positive things that’s been taking place, however there are so many among the Egyptian politicians and intellectuals, some fears or concerns about the extension of the military rule. How do you think SCAF is holding up and managing the transition period?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, they took on an enormous responsibility that they never expected they would have to shoulder. But the fact that they are moving toward elections, I think, is not only important, but essential. I expect them to fulfill the promises that they have made to the Egyptian people because you cannot have the democratic governance that you are seeking unless you have a fully free, fair, transparent set of elections that then empowers the people who have been elected. But this is what we expect to see happen, and of course, we will express concerns if we don’t see it happening. But there is a schedule we believe needs to be followed.
QUESTION: Speaking of elections, how do you (inaudible) the elections process especially that – as you – of course, you’ve been following – you have new players, the fundamental Islamic political movements. How do you (inaudible)?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I think it’s important that peoples’ voices be given an outlet to participate in the political system. But I also think that there must be a commitment to respecting human rights, to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, to the rights of women, and there has to be an agreed-upon understanding of what it will take for Egypt to go from where you are today to where I would like to see Egypt. I really believe that Egypt’s always been a leader of the Arab world – Egypt can become a world leader. There is a difference. Egypt could, with the right political and economic reforms, become one of the top 20 economies in the world, maybe even eventually one of the top 10.
There is so much that is in the potential, it can be so easily derailed. As you said, somehow not permitting the elections to go forward, military rule continuing, having one election one time that empowers people who have no interest in continuing to modernize the society, rejecting the rights of all Egyptians in favor of one particular point of view – that’s what the Egyptian people have to be careful about. You want an Egypt where people are free to be liberal, fundamentalists, conservative, progressive, whatever their particular views are, but showing respect for the state, for the institutions of the state, and the rights of the people. And that’s what I see you searching for and moving toward.
QUESTION: Will you be ready or prepared to sit in with a government with members of the Muslim Brotherhood as members or other Islamic (inaudible)?
SECRETARY CLINTON: We will be willing to and open to working with a government that has representatives who are committed to non-violence, who are committed to human rights, who are committed to the democracy that I think was hoped for in Tahrir Square, which means that Christians will be respected, women will be respected, people of different views within Islam will be respected. We have said we will work with those who have a real commitment to what an Egyptian democracy should look like.
Now, we don’t expect your democracy to mirror ours – every country is unique historically and culturally – but we do think, from long experience around the world, there are certain pillars to a democracy: free press, free speech, independent judiciary, protection of minority rights, protection of human rights. All that was in the air in Tahrir Square.
So we hope that anyone who runs for election, and certainly anyone who’s elected and joins the parliament, joins the government, will be committed to making Egypt work and be open to all Egyptians no matter who you might be.
QUESTION: You’re looking at things very positively and that’s the same, maybe, atmosphere back in Egypt, with some fears of course.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.
QUESTION: It’s the main feeling there. According to reports released a couple of weeks ago, the congress will be always waiting for your words in a report to assess the kind of U.S. aid that’s been given to Egypt. How do you (inaudible)? Is the U.S. aid, be it civilian or military, really jeopardized in the next – in the future?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I do not believe so. I very much support continuing aid. We have provided aid, both for civilian and military purposes, going back many decades now. And it’s been bipartisan; Republicans and Democrats have supported it. We believe in aid to your military without any conditions, no conditionality. I’ve made that very clear. I was with the foreign minister, Mr. Amr yesterday, and was very clear in saying that the Obama Administration and I personally am against that. I think it’s not appropriate. At the same time, we do have a long experience in understanding what works and what doesn’t work. And I’ll give you an example.
You were asking questions about what happens if certain people are in the government. Well, it’s really going to be up to the Egyptian people as to how they organize themselves for these elections. But I think it’s fair to point out that if there is an organized Islamic party and 40 other parties that divide up all of the votes, then I think one party will have a stronger position.
And I have been speaking with, when I was in Cairo some months ago and since then, young activists from Egypt. Our Embassy has certainly been reaching out. Because going from being demonstrators for freedom to being political actors – that’s not an easy –
SECRETARY CLINTON: — transition. And so we want to help people get themselves organized so that they are able to participate effectively, and again, with the conditions of nonviolence and all the others that I laid out, but no conditionality on our aid.
QUESTION: Yeah. When helping the others, this is something that might fuel some concerns in Egypt about funding NGOs. Why do you really fund NGOs in Egypt?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I think it’s a – it’s something that we have done for many years, and we have learned from long practice that when you have a transition, a democratic transition, many people want to be active in politics. They don’t know how to do it. They don’t know how to register voters, how to form political parties. It’s not part of the experience that has been the daily life of Egyptians.
So we have several organizations that have worked all over the world. We do not take positions. We’re not for or against any party or any individual. It’s more the nuts and bolts; how do you run an election? Because you’ve had elections, but they were not free or fair or transparent, and they didn’t build confidence in the Egyptian people. We want Egypt to have the best election it’s ever had, and so our experience, particularly coming out of the fall of the Berlin Wall, where countries in Eastern and Central Europe came to us and said, “Help us do this,” the democratic transition in – across Africa, where we were helpful – we don’t have any stake in who’s elected. We wait to see who the people choose. But we think our nongovernmental organizations have a lot to contribute. We are more than happy to follow the rules of Egypt, but –
QUESTION: I was just going to ask about that. Because it’s against the law, and there’s so many NGOs that working outside the law and certain regulations.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.
QUESTION: So how are you going to do that?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we would like our NGOs to be registered. We would like for them to be under Egyptian law. I will say it’s a little ironic, because President Mubarak didn’t want us to have NGOs that were working with people either, so we think that Egypt is strong enough and resilient enough that appropriate regulation can recognize who the NGOs are that are working for the betterment of Egypt. Because I said to the foreign minister yesterday, “You know we’re there. You know we are saying look, we want to help people know how to run elections. We know that there are groups and countries that are funneling money into Egypt and nobody knows about it. You know what we’re doing, and we’re going to be as transparent with the government as possible.” But I would ask that everybody in Egypt say, “Look, the Americans are here to help us decide who we want to elect. Some people are trying to determine who gets elected.” There’s a big difference.
QUESTION: Okay. I wanted to ask you, you’re speaking right now on – about your reflections in Tahrir Square. When did you really feel that Mubarak has no chance?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I was as surprised as everybody else in the world that this happened as it did. Because I knew something would happen someday, but I didn’t expect it so soon. I had given a speech in Doha just a few weeks before saying that the foundations of these authoritarian regimes in the region were sinking into the sand. And then we saw Tunisia, and we saw Egypt, and then Libya. And we see all of the aspirations of the people coming forth.
But I think we were trying very hard, and our military was communicating directly. I was communicating directly with officials in the Mubarak regime to urge no violence against demonstrators, to urge that people be treated respectfully, that they had a right to demonstrate peacefully. And when you think about it, for as large a country as Egypt, what happened was remarkable, the way that it transitioned so quickly. And I think that we all saw it happening before our eyes, and we were doing our best to try to make sure that there was limited or as little bloodshed as possible and some agreement on a way to go forward that would permit people’s feelings and opinions to finally be heard and then to have a democratic transition and now that’s what we’re seeing.
QUESTION: But what was the – was there a certain point? Because we all remember your first statement when you were thinking – and everybody was thinking at the same time the same thing – is that we do have a stable government (inaudible) in Egypt. And a few days ago, everything just changed.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.
QUESTION: When was that point for you?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I think for me it was when I concluded that there wasn’t any way that President Mubarak and the people closest to him could understand what was really happening, and there was no –
QUESTION: They were out of touch.
SECRETARY CLINTON: They were out of touch, and it was becoming clearer and clearer because of the responses. I mean, I had many conversations with many high-level officials, as did others in our government, urging, “You must, first of all, protect people. But secondly, you must change, and you’ve got to recognize that this has to – the new Egypt is being born.” It was just no way to communicate that. And we tried. We sent very direct messages.
QUESTION: I know you’re running on a very tight schedule. I have one more question to go. Everybody was looking to the Obama Administration when – I think you had a problem with high expectations. (Laughter.) How are you going to deal with the Palestinian application to the United Nations, especially that everybody’s maybe really think it will go through the General Assembly?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, let me reiterate that President Obama and I very much want to see a Palestinian state, and I have been publicly on record in favor of that since the 1990s. I was the first person associated with the United States Government to do that. And President Obama is also very committed. But we, I think, are realists that no matter what happens or doesn’t happen in the United Nations, unless we can get the Palestinians and the Israelis to negotiate over the boundaries of the state, the security provisions, what happens in Jerusalem, what happens with refugees, water, all of the issues we know so well have to be resolved, we’re going to raise expectations without being able to deliver.
I mean, if the United Nations passes a resolution which says we want to see Palestinians become a state and maybe we upgrade their status or maybe we recognize them, the next day nothing changes in Ramallah, and I want things to change. I want the Palestinians to have their own state; I want them to govern themselves; I want them to continue developing economically to be a real example, to work with Egypt for the betterment of people in the region, and we know that won’t happen.
So what we have said is very straightforward. We want to see both sides back at the table, and we criticize and make absolutely clear we don’t want to see provocative actions. We’ve said that about the recent announcements from the Israeli Government, but we also know that the Palestinians have to be willing to negotiate. And it’s hard for them because they feel like they’ve been at this for a while and nothing has happened. Both sides have their case to be made. Make it at the negotiating table. And that’s what we’re pushing for.
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, we thank you very much for being with us today, for the time you’ve given us. We hope to see you soon in Cairo and have the same chance again.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. I would look forward to that.
QUESTION: Thank you very much.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much. I appreciate it.
The eighteenth session of the Human Rights Council came to an end in Geneva on September 30, 2011. This was the seventh regular session since the United States joined in September 2009. Though much work remains, in particular ending the Council’s disproportionate focus on Israel, U.S. engagement thus far has resulted in significant improvements to the Human Rights Council as a multilateral forum for promoting and protecting human rights. Accomplishments include groundbreaking resolutions on freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, preventing discrimination against women, LGBT human rights, religious tolerance, and the creation of monitoring mechanisms for Cote d’Ivoire, Libya, Iran, and Syria. Key accomplishments at this session include:
Sudan: The United States worked with the Africa Group on a consensus resolution that renews the mandate of the independent expert on the situation of human rights in the Sudan for one year, expresses international concern at the humanitarian situations in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, and calls upon all parties to immediately end violence and halt clashes. The United States underlined our core message regularly during the session: we are deeply concerned about ongoing reports of human rights violations and abuses, including unlawful killing and other violence with impunity, arbitrary arrests and detention of journalists, and restrictions on freedom of assembly. In Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, where there are credible allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the United States will continue to support an independent and credible investigation to hold those responsible to account.
South Sudan: The United States joined South Sudan and the Africa Group on a consensus resolution that welcomes South Sudan as a new State and member of the United Nations and also welcomes the government’s commitment to strengthen national human rights mechanisms. The resolution calls upon the government to strengthen ongoing cooperation with the UN Mission in South Sudan on human rights issues, and also invites the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to assist the new government.
Libya: The United States worked closely with Morocco, Libya, and others on a consensus resolution that recommends the UN General Assembly lift Libya’s suspension from the Human Rights Council. The resolution also welcomes the commitments made by the new Libyan government to uphold its obligations under international human rights law and to cooperate with international human rights mechanisms, including the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the international Commission of Inquiry established by the Human Rights Council at the February 2011 Special Session on Libya.
Yemen: The United States worked with delegations from Yemen and the Netherlands, as well as others on a consensus resolution that calls for a rapid political transition and transfer of power, as outlined in the plan drawn up by the Gulf Cooperation Council, and condemns ongoing violations of human rights in Yemen. The resolution notes the Yemeni government’s announcement to launch transparent and independent investigations, which will adhere to their international obligations. The resolution also calls upon the Government of Yemen and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to develop a framework for dialogue and cooperation in the field of human rights.
Syria: At an interactive dialogue on Syria, the United States welcomed the prompt formation of the Commission of Inquiry mandated at the August 2011 Special Session on Syria. The U.S. government called on the Syrian authorities to allow the Commission of Inquiry, international humanitarian agencies, and international media unrestricted access to report on the abhorrent conditions inside Syria. The United States called on the Asad regime to step aside, and to stop killing and torturing the Syrian people immediately.
Israeli/Palestinian Issues: The United States continues to believe the disproportionate focus on Israel diminishes the credibility and effectiveness of the Council. The United States continues to strongly oppose the permanent agenda item devoted to Israel-related issues, which is the only agenda item devoted to a specific country. There were no resolutions under the Israel-specific agenda item at this session.
Fighting Racism: The United States worked with Brazil to co-sponsor a consensus resolution that urged States to fight against racism and strengthen democracy. The United States is committed to working with our global partners, both bilaterally and multilaterally, in the fight against racism and racial discrimination. The United States also recognized the importance of tolerance and reconciliation, citing the powerful example of Nelson Mandela, as tools in the effort to foster more just, tolerant, and equal societies.
Thank you for your leadership of this Committee over the past year. And thank you, Mr. High Commissioner, for your remarks this morning. And Mr. High Commissioner, thank you for your extraordinary personal leadership over this past year. You have been a tireless advocate on behalf of the world’s most vulnerable people and have been a strong and persuasive voice for reform and enhancement of the international system. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, 2011 has witnessed new crises and new opportunities. The promise of democracy throughout the Arab world is encouraging – and UNHCR’s assistance to those seeking protection from the civil unrest throughout the region is to be commended.
It is the human tragedy in Somalia and throughout the Horn of Africa, however, which I will use today as a lens for my remarks – and for five basic observations.
First, protection must be the fundamental goal of the international community – and UNHCR’s leadership has never been more essential. Whether the threat is forced return of refugees, improper denial of asylum, gender-based violence, blockages of humanitarian access or restrictions on freedom of movement, UNHCR must be ready to act. Organizational pressures must never be allowed to outweigh or slow-down the response to protection concerns.
Second, no one government or agency can do it alone. Nurturing and valuing long-standing partnerships while developing new ones must be the operational foundation of UNHCR’s work. These partnerships are essential to UNHCR’s role in the UN cluster system, to implementation of its urban refugee policy and Transitional Solutions Initiative, to responding effectively in emergencies when UNHCR’s capacity is stretched across major and sometimes multiple crises at once, and to meeting so many more humanitarian assistance and protection needs. Organizational mandate must never stand in the way of timely and adequate assistance.
Third, UNHCR’s response to emergencies is the most visible element of its work. It is the one that makes the headlines. Scaling up quickly to new crises must be the operating norm, not simply a plan on paper. Organizational capacity must be strengthened by a human resources policy that delivers good performance in emergency situations.
Fourth, results-based management and the ability to measure performance is no longer a new concept. It has been a major part of UNHCR’s vocabulary for nearly a decade. However, the report of the Board of Auditors for 2010 is troubling in its examination of progress. Organizational inertia must not be allowed to stand in the way of a structured and digestible analysis of progress and impact that can steer senior leadership towards priorities for intervention.
Fifth, and finally, humanitarian diplomats and humanitarian implementers must work hand-in-hand. No longer is just physical and legal assistance enough. Solutions to long-standing refugee situations require sustained and strengthened involvement in policy advocacy. We must be relentless, formidable, and effective advocates for victims of persecution, violence, and human rights abuses. We must be emboldened by a very broad conception of our humanitarian and protection responsibilities. Organizational working methods must be supported by skillful and aggressive humanitarian diplomacy at every level, as the High Commissioner so eloquently demonstrated.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the United States remains a committed partner with UNHCR and the beneficiaries it serves. We are providing more than $680 million dollars this year to the organization to assist its work across all four pillars defining its populations of concern – refugee assistance, refugee returns and reintegration, the internally displaced, and stateless persons. We know the work is not always easy – nor the solutions fast enough. We continue to salute UNHCR’s staff for what they do in often very difficult and dangerous environments. And we are resolved to continue our work as a member of the international community represented in this room today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
(As prepared for delivery at the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, Session 9)
Democratic elections are not just about how polling is conducted on Election Day. It is possible for the process to be technically smooth on Election Day, but for the election not to be free or fair because the overall conditions for participation, competition, transparency, and accountability are not present. In other words, what happens in the run-up to the election and what happens after Election Day are often as important, if not more so, in determining whether or not an election meets OSCE standards as the balloting alone.
The pre-election environment, including respect for the freedoms of association, peaceful assembly, and expression, is a critical component of any election. The legal framework is also crucial, including the composition of the election administration, the registration process for candidates and political parties, voter registration and broader citizen participation, as well as media access. In the OSCE region we’ve seen too many elections—especially in countries without a democratic tradition—in which electoral commissions at all levels are stacked in favor of the authorities, access by opposition candidates to the media is grossly limited or non-existent, opposition candidates or parties are harassed, intimidated, or worse, and citizen participation is subverted by disenfranchisement, inaccurate voter registries and/or barriers to observing electoral processes. In some countries, genuine opposition parties or candidates simply do not exist. This fundamentally undermines the purpose of an election, notwithstanding how smooth voting day might go.
The post-election environment is equally important. An independent and impartial adjudication system, including a judiciary, must exist and function properly in order to address complaints or appeals. Competing candidates—and voters most of all—must have sufficient confidence in the system to respect the results, even if they are not happy about who won. Among other things, this requires that the precepts of open government be applied through electoral transparency that allows citizen monitoring of electoral processes and the presence of international observers.
No election process is ever one hundred percent perfect, and imperfections will be magnified in particularly close races. What is important is that there is a legitimate and accepted process to address these challenges in a fair and transparent way.
In Kazakhstan, constitutional changes in 2007 exempted the current president from term limits. The constitution was changed again hastily last January in order to allow the presidential election to be held early and quickly, giving any potential rivals little time to prepare. Party registration remains a problem in Kazakhstan; for example, the Alga Party has tried unsuccessfully to register for years. Restrictions on freedom of assembly also hinder chances for free and fair elections. These shortcomings, detailed in ODIHR’s final report on the April 3 presidential election, need to be addressed before parliamentary elections next year.
Turkmenistan remains the only OSCE participating State that officially has a one-party system. Over the past couple of years, President Berdimukhamedov has said repeatedly that a second party might be registered; more recently he said that independent candidates may be allowed to participate in the presidential election early next year. While we would welcome any opening of political space in Turkmenistan, it is vital that parties and political movements should be allowed to develop freely, and not be created or managed by the existing regime.
Looking ahead at elections that will come up within the next year, we see some areas in which an ounce of prevention may be worth a pound of cure. In Ukraine, the draft election law has raised some questions about shortcomings in the electoral law process. It is my delegation’s hope that the Ministry of Justice’s Electoral Working Group includes voices from across the political spectrum and that, as the law is about to go to parliament, passage only take place after consultation with interested political parties and civil society through an open, participatory and inclusive process; in short, we hope for greater inclusiveness during the electoral reform process. This is especially important against the backdrop of Ukraine’s October 31, 2010, local elections, which compared unfavorably to the five democratic elections held since the flawed November 2004 presidential elections which sparked the Orange Revolution.
The refusal of Russian authorities to register the People’s Freedom Party in June caused us concern. The right to hold free, fair and competitive elections is a universal principle that the Russian Government has repeatedly endorsed, and this includes endorsement of the principle of allowing genuine political competition with fair ballot access rules that are applied impartially. It is hard to understand how the Parnas decision is consistent with Russia’s international commitments or statements by its leaders. My delegation hopes that the registration will be reconsidered, and we urge the Government of Russian Federation to recommit itself to democratic principles, including equal access to media and freedom of citizens to seek, receive and impart information about elections through activities of citizen election monitoring organizations. Otherwise citizens are denied their rightful participation in shaping the future of their own country. In addition, citizens must be permitted to exercise their right to freedom of assembly in support of all candidates and issues.
As part of assisting participating States in implementing their commitments to hold free and fair elections, the OSCE has developed a strong election monitoring capability. Moreover, OSCE expertise goes well beyond simply monitoring the election process, it also offers assistance through the recommendations it submits to a country following elections, as well as legislative analysis and technical training. In fact, the OSCE’s methodology has become the guiding example for international election observation. The ODIHR’s well-deserved reputation of election observation is directly attributable to its objective criteria. The OSCE ODIHR/Parliamentary Assembly partnership gives the Organization unique capabilities which can provide OSCE participating States with a perspective on elections available through no other mechanism.
The United States strongly supports OSCE election observation. We welcome OSCE observation of our own elections. We are prepared to welcome observers from the OSCE and any appropriate private institutions and organizations, as provided in the Copenhagen Document, in numbers they desire and with only such restrictions that promote effective observation, in keeping with the spirit of paragraph 24 of the Copenhagen Document. We also believe that follow-up to the recommendations made by the observer mission is very important. After all, the OSCE can assist us by monitoring our elections, but the ultimate responsibility for holding free and fair elections belongs to the participating States. The United States continues to work to address issues raised by the OSCE with us, including discussing with our state election authorities how to provide better access to OSCE observers for the polling process. We plan to continue to discuss such issues, and have invited the OSCE to come to Washington for a follow-up discussion of the final report and recommendations on our elections last year. We urge all other OSCE States to do the same.
( As prepared for delivery at the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, Session 8 )
It has been often stated that elections in and of themselves do not a democracy make. However, free and fair elections are a necessary part of a healthy democracy. A country where elections fall short of being free and fair and where the voice of the people is not permitted to be heard simply cannot be considered a democracy. Moreover, technically well-run polling does not mean that the election process is democratic; a genuine electoral process also requires an open pre-election environment in which citizens can participate fully, political parties can operate freely, independent media can flourish, and an independent judicial system operates effectively.
All OSCE participating States have committed themselves to holding genuinely free and fair elections. As set forth in the 1990 Copenhagen Document, and reaffirmed at the Astana Summit, this includes: universal and equal suffrage; secret ballots; and non-discriminatory access for parties to the media. Free, transparent and credible elections have become a global norm, and domestic and foreign observers are critical parts of an electoral process.
Despite the substantial progress that has been made in democratic election practice in many OSCE countries, too many elections in participating States have serious shortcomings. Some participating States have flagrantly ignored their commitments, and serious manipulation of the election process has taken place over the past year.
The December 19th, 2010, Belarusian presidential elections were the latest in a long line of fundamentally flawed and fraudulent elections in that country. OSCE observers concluded that “Belarus still has a considerable way to go in meeting its OSCE commitments.” While the voting process itself was judged as good or very good in the majority of polling stations observed, the critical vote count was judged as “bad” or “very bad” by nearly half of the precincts observed, and was especially notable for its lack of transparency. While the run-up to the election showed some procedural improvements and an easing of restrictions on normal political activity, the electoral machinery at every level remained firmly under the authorities’ control. The dominant state-controlled media disproportionally favored the incumbent and opposition representation on precinct and territorial election commissions was virtually non-existent. In addition, the aftermath of the election was marred by repression of peaceful political and civil society opposition to the government.
Given the lack of independence or impartiality of the Central Election Committee, the restrictive and uneven playing field for media, the lack of transparency at key stages of the electoral process—and the unprecedentedly brutal election-night crack down—the United States does not recognize this election as legitimate.
The April 2011 presidential election in Kazakhstan was also not fair and free. According to the OSCE, the “needed reforms for holding genuine democratic elections still have to materialize as this election revealed shortcomings similar to those in previous elections.” Among the OSCE findings were that “the legal framework has key shortcomings inconsistent with OSCE commitments, including restrictions on freedom of assembly and freedom of expression,” and on election day “international observers noted serious irregularities, including numerous instances of seemingly identical signatures on voter lists and cases of ballot box stuffing. The vote count and tabulation of results lacked transparency, and procedures were often not followed. International observers were sometimes restricted in their observation.” Local authorities intervened in the election process in order to increase turnout. In addition, no detailed election results have been published, which seriously diminishes the transparency of the electoral process as a whole.
In Azerbaijan, according to the Final Report of the OSCE’s election monitoring mission, the November 2010 parliamentary elections were marred by a deficient candidate registration process, limits on freedom of assembly and expression, a restrictive political environment, skewed media coverage of candidates and falsified vote counts. These matters undermine the authenticity of elections and require a demonstration of will to end the pattern of deficient elections. We urge the government to take definitive steps to ensure the free and full exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms in connection with electoral processes.
In Armenia, we welcome the release of individuals jailed in connection with the disputed 2008 Presidential election and its aftermath, as well as the relaxation of restrictions on free assembly. However, we note that to date no one has been held accountable for the ten deaths related to the post-election protests. We urge the government to promote a political atmosphere that is truly conducive to democratic electoral processes in which lawful political activity and expression are unhindered, well in advance of the upcoming national elections. We also urge Armenia’s authorities to improve the administration of elections, including the conduct of the vote and the vote-counting processes, and to ensure fair, effective procedures for complaints and appeals, so that Armenia’s upcoming elections are free and fair and the public can have faith in the electoral process.
Such a political environment also is crucial in Georgia, which between 2012 and 2013 has the potential to undergo the country’s first fully democratic transfer of power. Ensuring free, fair, and transparent electoral processes should be Georgia’s top priority and would be an important step toward achieving its European and Euro-Atlantic goals. We urge that efforts to revise the electoral code be done through an open, participatory and inclusive process, which would establish confidence and could be seen as an immediate step toward achieving those goals.
The OSCE region did see some smoothly conducted elections with minimal problems, or demonstrating an overall good-faith effort to conduct free and fair elections. Among examples of well-conducted elections were early parliamentary elections in Macedonia held this past June, and in Moldova, held last November, which were competitive, transparent, and well-administered, and met most OSCE commitments.
In Kyrgyzstan last October, OSCE observers declared that the parliamentary elections “constituted a further consolidation of the democratic process.” They were characterized by “political pluralism, a vibrant campaign, and confidence in the Central Commission for Elections and Referenda,” and “fundamental freedoms, including the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association, were generally respected.” The parliamentary elections and a credible constitutional referendum were held against a history of poor elections in the country, which demonstrates that electoral credibility is principally a matter of exercising principled political will. We hope that the upcoming presidential election in Kyrgyzstan will show further progress in electoral reform, and we particularly hope that the government will ensure a climate conducive to political participation by ethnic Uzbeks and other minorities or marginalized individuals, such as persons with disabilities.
The October 3, 2010, elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina were generally conducted in line with OSCE commitments and international standards, although some aspects of the process could benefit from further improvements. Since the elections, the political parties have been unable to reach agreement on the formation of a new governing coalition at the state level. The United States calls on all political parties in the country to find this agreement now, and to begin undertaking the practical reforms necessary for European integration.
In Ukraine, local elections on October 31, 2010, did not meet standards for openness and fairness set by the country’s presidential elections earlier in the year. Domestic and international election observers reported numerous procedural violations on Election Day. They also cited a newly-passed local election law, which created complicated registration and voting procedures, and blocked participation of new parties. The government recognized the problems and has acknowledged the need to bring electoral legislation into line with international standards. Again, we urge in Ukraine, as in Georgia or any nation, that electoral reform be conducted through an open, participatory and inclusive process thereby building public confidence and avoiding the suspicions and deficiencies that accompany laws drafted to serve narrow interests and behind closed doors.
The United States welcomes the progress that did occur in the conduct of the May 8 local elections in Albania, and the resolution of the closely contested mayoral race in Tirana. However, we note that the United States, along with our OSCE and European partners, expressed our concern at the time to the Government of Albania that the legal basis for a controversial decision to count “miscast ballots” was unclear and appeared politically-motivated.
My delegation would like to express its desire and hope that, with the elections process now complete, all the parties will focus sharply on developing and enacting a stronger Electoral Code in line with reforms prescribed in the 2009 and 2011 OSCE/ODHIR election final reports. The Electoral Code developed in 2008 is inherently weak and left open the door for the sort of irregularities that occurred in the vote counting process this year. The law needs to be reformed prior to the 2013 parliamentary elections through an open, participatory and inclusive process that takes into account OSCE/ODIHR recommendations and those of concerned citizens and other credible sources. We are glad to see that the parties have begun to put forward representatives to begin these negotiations. We trust that Albanian opinion leaders—be they in Government or opposition—will be open to further work with the OSCE presence and the Venice Commission, among other providers of democratic assistance, to help ensure this. As Albania celebrates its 100th anniversary of statehood next year, its citizens—at home and abroad—deserve a government that they can trust and leaders who put the needs of the people first.
(As prepared for delivery at the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, Session 7)
Freedom of movement, broadly speaking, is grounded in a number of specific international commitments. Before saying a few words about what freedom of movement is, I would like to say a few words about what it is not.
Freedom of movement does not mean the right to enter or remain in any and all foreign countries. Accordingly, for a variety of reasons the United States continues to exercise its authority to exclude non-nationals seeking entry to the United States. In particular, those who commit serious violations of human rights should not expect an open door to the United States. It is a simple proposition, and one that we urge other participating States to follow.
While getting a visa to enter a foreign country remains a privilege, the ability to leave your own country and to return to it is a right recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments.
The extension of visa-free travel within the European Union to a number of non-member states is one of the more positive developments in recent years that directly benefit the citizens of Western Balkan countries. However, we are concerned that persons from Romani and other minority groups may have been prevented from exercising the right to leave their country on the presumption that they will seek asylum once they reach their destination country. We urge that European Union officials discourage this practice and, instead, find more transparent ways of handling the increase in asylum cases resulting from visa-free travel. Moreover, negative comments about Roma made by officials from some European Union countries may have fostered such discriminatory practices.
We are also concerned that some persons from Romani or other minority groups in the Balkans lack citizenship documentation, which limits their freedom of movement, property rights, and access to basic services. The United States has supported the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to provide legal aid to persons in need of citizenship documentation in the Balkans.
The freedom of movement inherently includes the right to decide for ourselves whether to move or not. The United States is troubled by the large numbers of Roma—conservatively estimated in the tens of thousands, and possibly in the hundreds of thousands—who have found themselves displaced from long-term permanent housing, employment or family and social ties over the past two decades. True freedom of movement implicitly includes the freedom not to move. Moreover, the conditions – including non-discrimination in access to housing, education and employment – must also exist so that movement is sustainable. Freedom of movement includes the ability to move from town to town within one’s own country. Ultimately, it is up to national authorities to ensure that people are neither punished by local authorities for exercising that right, nor prohibited by physical barriers.
A few years ago, there was a scandal in Michalovce, in eastern Slovakia, when it was discovered that a community of Roma was siphoning water from the town’s water supply. For this particular Romani neighborhood, it was the only way to get water for drinking, bathing and washing. As the Mayor at that time explained to the press, there would be no way to legally supply the neighborhood with water because “officially, they don’t exist.” Since the individuals living in the community were considered “unregistered”—they had no way to demonstrate to their own government that, in fact, they do exist.
This phenomenon is replicated all over the OSCE region. Most recently, the Mayor of Baia Mare, Romania, said that hundreds of Romani residents would have to leave, because they were not originally from that town. Mr./Madam Moderator, forcing people to move from town to town by refusing to register or recognize them is a clear indication of the depth of discrimination that Roma face. Such forcible internal relocation is just as much a violation of universal principles as forcing them to move from country to country.
(As prepared for delivery at the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, Session 6)
Under the Helsinki Final Act and the 1990 Copenhagen Document participating States commit “to fully respect the right of everyone to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State, and to leave any country, including his [or her] own, and to return to his [or her] own.” Unfortunately, some participating States still require their citizens to obtain permission from the authorities, as we have heard—usually in the form of exit visas—in order to travel abroad. It is striking that those countries with the poorest record of implementing OSCE human dimension commitments appear to be the same ones that still place such restrictions on freedom of movement.
Freedom of movement does not mean states cannot determine whether citizens of other countries require entry visas. The operative principle is that states cannot bar their own citizens from traveling, if they so wish. There is no commitment by participating States to admit citizens of other countries.
The Government of Turkmenistan denies it maintains a list of persons not permitted to leave the country, however it has barred certain citizens from departing. Amnesty International reports that a decree explicitly bars thousands of individuals from leaving the country and forbids entry to representatives of international human rights organizations. Turkmenistan law also continues to require internal passports and residency permits. A border permit requirement remains in effect for all foreigners. Turkmen citizens who also have citizenship in another country have reportedly been pressured to give up the latter before they are permitted to leave the country or faced obstacles in obtaining passports. The education law allows the government to impose limitations on citizens who wish to obtain education in specific professions and specialties, and the law has been applied to prevent students from travelling abroad to study.
All citizens of Uzbekistan must have an exit permit to leave the country. These restrictions also apply to foreign citizens residing permanently in Uzbekistan for business. As part of the exit visa process, and ostensibly in an effort to combat trafficking-in-persons, Uzbekistan introduced regulations that require women aged 18-35 or their male relatives to submit a statement pledging that the women would not engage in illegal behavior, including prostitution, while abroad, as we have heard. In addition, Uzbekistan passed legislation last year hampering Uzbeki national doctors’ travel abroad, including by reportedly requiring these doctors to submit presentations and speeches abroad for government approval beforehand.
We are pleased to learn that Tajikistan now permits students to travel abroad to attend religious schools and look forward to learning about how that policy is being implemented.
Since 2006, the Azerbaijan government has prevented the foreign travel of Popular Front Party chairman Ali Kerimli by refusing to renew his passport, citing an outstanding civil complaint against him from 1994. The government had renewed Kerimli’s passport on several occasions in the intervening years without objection.
Freedom of movement has been an issue for discussion between Belgrade and Pristina in their Dialogue under EU auspices. The United States strongly supports this effort to tackle practical but important issues of documentation, vehicle registration, and insurance that make it possible for people to move freely between Kosovo and Serbia. I would like to use today’s session to call on all parties, whether represented here or not, to implement agreed procedures in the most positive spirit, which will give people greater confidence to take advantage of the opportunities being offered.