Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08TIRANA172
2008-03-04 11:15:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Embassy Tirana
Cable title:  

IMPROVING THE ANNUAL HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT PROCESS

Tags:  PHUM PGOV PREL 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ8774
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTI #0172/01 0641115
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 041115Z MAR 08
FM AMEMBASSY TIRANA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 6780
INFO RUEHCH/AMEMBASSY CHISINAU 0157
RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
UNCLAS TIRANA 000172 

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR EUR/SCE, DRL

E.O. 12958:N/A
TAGS: PHUM PGOV PREL
SUBJECT: IMPROVING THE ANNUAL HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT PROCESS

UNCLAS TIRANA 000172

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR EUR/SCE, DRL

E.O. 12958:N/A
TAGS: PHUM PGOV PREL
SUBJECT: IMPROVING THE ANNUAL HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT PROCESS


1. (SBU) SUMMARY: At the conclusion of the department's annual
process of updating and editing the Human Rights Report, embassies
Tirana and Chisnau would like to make the following observations
regarding the substance of the reports, the process of updating them
from the field, and the process of editing information in
partnership with the Office of Democracy, Labor and Human Rights
(DRL). In discussions among several posts, it is clear that many in
the field are dissatisfied with a process that can be unnecessarily
burdensome, as well as with the end result, and have serious
concerns that the negative trends discussed below are being
entrenched rather than reversed. As a result, the report, which has
in the past been a forceful statement of USG policy and leadership
on human rights, may undercut U.S. policy by obscuring major trends
with minutiae, giving undue weight to the opinions of non-U.S.
actors, and failing to reflect the best judgment of embassy
officials on the ground. END SUMMARY.


2. (SBU) Since its inception, the annual Human Rights Country
Report has been a key Department priority and a valuable instrument
of U.S. foreign policy. The status of human rights worldwide has
important ramifications for U.S. policy, asylum requests, foreign
funding requests, and most importantly the issues and obstacles
faced by the millions around the world who are denied basic rights
and freedoms. For these reasons, the accuracy, readability, and
brevity of the report are imperative.


3. (SBU) At the same time, officers in the field face competing
priorities and limited resources. The volume of work required to
update the report each year increases because of expanding guidance
and changing regulations. Posts are happy to undertake all extra
efforts which are commensurate with the importance of the document,
and which lead to improvements commensurate with those efforts.
However, in recent years, managers at posts and desks have observed
a substantial increase in frequently unproductive work for human
rights officers in the field during the editing process. Posts note
several examples of this trend: editors have expanded their role
beyond editing to include the cross-examination of substantive
contributions from posts; editors conduct substantial research on

their own to include additional cases, examples, and general
information not suggested by posts and often impossible to verify at
post; editors request and make substantive changes in reporting to
include a level of detail that is not set out in annual guidance;
editors make changes in vocabulary and syntax which make no
difference to the meaning of the text, but must be responded to by
posts. To combat these issues, and produce a report that is
streamlined, easily digestible and relevant, posts put forward the
following suggestions for the editing process.


4. (SBU) Establish tight time limits for turnaround: Posts provide
their first draft of an updated report in late September or early
October each year. However, it is routinely eight to twelve weeks
before posts receive feedback and comments from the Department.
Posts then face a deadline of two weeks or so to respond to detailed
requests for information as well as contradictions of facts reported
by posts from the field. This constricted editing time places
difficult restrictions on posts' time and resources, particularly
occurring each year during the holiday season when host government
and NGO interlocutors are away from their offices. The timeframe
also fails to allow for clearance time at post, which can be two to
four days. Placing a time limit of four to six weeks on the
beginning of the process would be a significant benefit, both for
drafters at post as well as the Department's editors, who would have
time to excel in the editorial work in which they have expertise.


5. (SBU) Restrict editors' work to editing: This will improve
turnaround time while making the document more concise and easy to
read. Beyond correcting errors of grammar and spelling, editors
should ensure that examples are correctly placed in each section,
prune superfluous material and impermissible language, question
apparent contradictions, request clarification of vague language,
and change non-standardized language. In addition, posts should be
able to identify clearly which editor made changes to facilitate
direct communication with that party on clarifications. User
information identifying each editor should be a part of any tracked
changes.


6. (SBU) Resist the temptation to add uncorroborated and unconfirmed
information: By refraining from adding to the substance of post
reporting beyond the cases originally cited, editors can streamline
the editing and clearing processes while producing a document that
presents cogent, persuasive facts from authoritative sources. The
information posts provide each year is based on research and
reporting in the field. It can be important to include information
from other sources such as respected NGOs, which posts routinely
consult to provide context and clarity. However, overall, the
report should reflect local experts' best judgment each year on the
updated human rights situation on the ground. Basic facts of this
assessment need not be supplemented with unsubstantiated sources
from internet searches, academic papers or often-dated NGO reports
written by other than local experts.


7. (SBU) As is commonly known, many internet sources can be
outdated, speculative, or poorly sourced and therefore unsuitable
for contribution to the HRR. When included, such information cannot
be easily removed, and requests for subsequent annual updates become
problematic when original sourcing is unconfirmed by post. Random
examples from internet searches often lack nuance and context and
can contradict the report's overall themes and message. Finally,
NGOs, even the most well-respected ones, represent a different
perspective and agenda from the USG's on many human rights issues.
The responsibility for the accuracy of the substance of the HRR
ultimately lies with the Department of State rather than with
outside organizations or governments, and this is best ensured by
using our own information and sources known, vetted, and trusted by
embassies.


8. (SBU) Restrict the report to the scope of the guidance: Among an
editor's primary responsibilities should be to ensure the report
provides what is necessary according to annually updated accepted
guidance - no more and no less than required. The inclusion from
editors of additional examples and information not called for by
guidance further extends an already unwieldy document rather than
making it more succinct. Despite 2007's welcome guidance that the
HRR should be pruned five to 20 percent, posts found that editors'
comments and inclusions often did not respect this in practice.
This level of detail, outside of the guidance, both detracts from
the substance of the document and creates an increasingly
time-consuming process in which the quantity of time invested does
not yield higher quality.


9. (SBU) Overall, posts believe that the current process produces a
document which undercuts U.S. leadership on human rights by
outsourcing foreign policy through the championing of NGO
information above posts', focusing on a level of detail that
detracts from the overall message rather than supporting its themes,
and diminishing posts' reporting capabilities for an extended period
of time while officers and FSNs conduct further research, seek to
confirm additional data and examples through contacts, and defend
their own work on the HRR to their colleagues. In close partnership
with DRL, posts want to produce an annual Human Rights Report that
is accurate, nuanced, and succinct while fully meeting its
Congressional mandate. We look forward to working on new ways to
meet this goal.


10. (SBU) COMMENT: As a congressionally mandated report, the HRR
necessarily responds to the concerns of a domestic constituency.
However, its wider audience is the foreign public, particularly
those with the ability or influence to confront cited human rights
abuses and make changes for the better. Outdated, one-sided or
unconfirmed information undermines the credibility of the report
itself, gives governments the opportunity to dismiss its content as
an inaccurate reflection of their society, and prevents human rights
advocates from utilizing one of our most effective tools. Tirana
and Chisnau put forward this assessment with a constructive spirit
aimed at restoring the HRR to its original strength. We welcome the
comments of the Department and other posts.
WITHERS