Although the law clearly links human rights to AGOA benefits, the U.S. government has not used human rights criteria effectively to improve human rights performance in the beneficiary countries. The U.S. Trade Representative's (USTR) report, the 2001 Comprehensive Report of the President of the United States on U.S. Trade and Investment Policy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa and Implementation of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, lists numerous abusive practices by recipient countries. But it gives no indication of how the U.S. intends to monitor progress in addressing these abuses in order to determine AGOA eligibility. In some sections, the report simply fails to acknowledge human rights problems that are documented in the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. These shortcomings in the AGOA review process risk undermining the importance and integrity of the human rights criteria.
To cite a few examples:
· In the chapters on Cameroon and on Guinea, the USTR's report acknowledges serious human rights abuses and links AGOA eligibility to progress in these areas. The USTR's chapter on Cameroon notes "serious concerns regarding human rights," and "credible reports" that security forces were responsible for numerous extrajudicial killings. It goes on to state that Cameroon was considered eligible for AGOA "based on assurances from the government that it would undertake an investigation of these abuses and punish those responsible." Similarly, the chapter on Guinea reports that the "security forces frequently committed human rights abuses and the justice system was perceived as providing inadequate guarantees of fairness and safety to prisoners," and then notes that the government "agreed to initiate reforms in the justice and penal systems." Is there any evidence that these countries have fulfilled their assurances? If so, what have the State Department and USTR done to verify their claims? If not, how will the administration preserve the credibility of this process?
· The USTR's evaluation of Eritrea makes no mention of the serious concerns laid out in the State Department's Country Reports, which classified the government's human rights record as "poor" and noted concerns regarding the independence of the judiciary, torture by police, restrictions of press freedom and religious freedom, violence and discrimination against women, and restrictions on worker rights. In recent weeks, the Eritrean government intensified a major crackdown on its opponents.
· The USTR report on Kenya notes that corruption is "widespread," and that human rights protections are "not consistently respected in practice." In fact, constitutional reform remains critical to solving Kenya's political crisis and promises to grow in urgency with the approach of the 2002 national election. Yet the government of President Daniel arap Moi continues to undermine efforts to allow a genuinely democratic process. Similarly, the government has made little or no progress in addressing corruption so extensive that it has resulted in suspension of funding by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
· The report acknowledges serious abuses committed by neighboring states in the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo, but fails to make progress in addressing such serious abuses a condition for AGOA. For example the USTR notes "reports" that Rwandan security forces were responsible for extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrest and detention and beatings of detainees in Rwanda, and "credible reports" that the Rwandan military has committed massacres and other abuses in eastern Congo. On Uganda, the report states that "abuse of civilians continued in DRC areas under Ugandan control." Yet neither Rwandan nor Uganda is required to end these abuses or bring perpetrators to justice in order to qualify for privileges under AGOA.
In listing these examples, we are not taking a position on whether these states should or should not be eligible for benefits under AGOA. Rather, we are using these cases to illustrate how the U.S. government could use AGOA to press for an end to abuses and for the improvement of human rights in recipient countries. To fail to do so betrays the intentions of those who established AGOA and risks squandering a potentially useful tool in the promotion of human rights in Africa.
Thank you for your attention to these important matters.
Sincerely,
/s/
Janet Fleischman
Washington Director for Africa |
Tom Malinowski
U.S. Advocacy Director |
|
Cc: Amb. Robert B. Zoellick, United States Trade Representative
