美國為什麽退出人權理事會——————－國務卿和大使的發言。
SECRETARY POMPEO: Good afternoon. The Trump administration is committed to protecting and promoting the God-given dignity and freedom of every human being. Every individual has rights that are inherent and inviolable. They are given by God, and not by government. Because of that, no government must take them away.
國務卿彭佩奧：下午好。特朗普政府致力於保護和促進每一個人上帝所賦予的尊嚴和自由。這個權利是每一個人與生俱來的和不可侵犯的。他們是上帝賜予的, 而不是政府施舍的。正因為如此, 任何政府都無權把它剝奪。
For decades, the United States has led global efforts to promote human rights, often through multilateral institutions. While we have seen improvements in certain human rights situations, for far too long we have waited while that progress comes too slowly or in some cases never comes. Too many commitments have gone unfulfilled.
幾十年來, 美國一直努力通過多邊機構促進全球的人權狀況。雖然我們看到某些人權情況的改善, 長期以來我們也一直在等待, 然而整體上，進展實在太慢, 在很多方麵，甚至就從來都沒有改變。太多的承諾根本就沒有兌現。
President Trump wants to move the ball forward. From day one, he has called out institutions or countries who say one thing and do another. And that’s precisely the problem at the Human Rights Council. As President Trump said at the UN General Assembly: “It is a massive source of embarrassment to the United Nations that some governments with egregious human rights records sit on the Human Rights Council.”
特朗普總統想改變目前這個停滯的現狀，把事情向前推進。從他上任的第一天起, 他就指出了一些機構或國家, 他們嘴上說一套, 但實際上做另一套。這恰恰就是目前這個人權理事會的症結所在。正如特朗普總統在聯合國大會上所說的: “聯合國的一個讓人感到羞恥或者尷尬的地方就是： 一些人權記錄上聲名狼藉的政府偏偏坐在人權理事會上。”
We have no doubt that there was once a noble vision for this council. But today, we need to be honest – the Human Rights Council is a poor defender of human rights.
我們從不懷疑，這個理事會曾經有著一個崇高的理念與視野。但今天, 我們不得不誠實地麵對現實——－這個所謂的人權理事會實際上已經淪落成了世界人權的一個糟糕的捍衛者。
Worse than that, the Human Rights Council has become an exercise in shameless hypocrisy – with many of the world’s worst human rights abuses going ignored, and some of the world’s most serious offenders sitting on the council itself.
更糟糕的是, 人權理事會甚至已經墮落成了一個無恥的虛偽的助紂為虐者————現狀是世界上許多最嚴重的侵犯人權的行為被忽視, 反而一些世界上最嚴重的臭名昭著的人權罪犯就坐在理事會裏。
The only thing worse than a council that does almost nothing to protect human rights is a council that covers for human rights abuses and is therefore an obstacle to progress and an impediment to change. The Human Rights Council enables abuses by absolving wrongdoers through silence and falsely condemning those who have committed no offense. A mere look around the world today demonstrates that the council has failed in its stated objectives.
甚至比該理事會無所作為更糟糕的是他們不僅僅無所作為，這個理事會已經墮落成了侵犯人權行為的掩護與幫凶，因此它已經成為了人權狀況進步的障礙, 也是我們長期以來尋求的變革的阻礙。這個目前的人權理事會通過對施虐者的沉默縱容或者對沒有過錯一方的錯誤譴責，使侵犯人權的行為大行其道。今天, 僅僅瞟一眼目前的世界人權現狀就可以明白該理事會在其既定目標上的一敗塗地。
Its membership includes authoritarian governments with unambiguous and abhorrent human rights records, such as China, Cuba, and Venezuela.
該理事會的成員包括具有明確的令人憎惡的人權記錄的專製威權政府, 如中國、古巴和委內瑞拉。
There is no fair or competitive election process, and countries have colluded with one another to undermine the current method of selecting members.
沒有公平或競爭性的選舉進程可言, 各成員國之間相互勾結, 破壞目前選擇成員的方法。
And the council’s continued and well-documented bias against Israel is . Since its creation, the council has adopted more resolutions condemning Israel than against the rest of the world combined.
該理事會對以色列的持續和記錄在案的偏見是不合良知也不合情理的。自成立以來, 該理事會通過了譴責以色列的決議, 超過了對世界所有其他國家的總和。
The United States has no opposition in principle to multilateral bodies working to protect human rights. We desire to work with our allies and partners on this critical objective that reflects America’s commitment to freedom.
美國原則上不反對致力於保護人權的多邊機構。我們希望與我們的盟友和合作夥伴就這一至關重要的目標進行合作, 這反映了美國對自由的承諾。
But when organizations undermine our national interests and our allies, we will not be complicit. When they seek to infringe on our national sovereignty, we will not be silent.
但是, 當組織或者機構破壞我們的國家利益和我們的盟友時, 我們拒絕沆瀣一氣。當他們企圖侵犯我們的國家主權時, 我們不會沉默。
The United States – which leads the world in humanitarian assistance, and whose service members have sacrificed life and limb to free millions from oppression and tyranny – will not take lectures form hypocritical bodies and institution as Americans selflessly give their blood and treasure to help the defenseless.
美國——－一直在人道主義援助中引領世界, 其服務成員犧牲生命和肢體, 使千百萬人免於壓迫和暴政——將不會和那些偽善的機構和組織同流合汙，尤其是當美國人民無私地給予他們的鮮血和財富來幫助手無寸鐵的人的時候。
Ambassador Haley has spent more than a year trying to reform the Human Rights Council.
海莉大使花了一年多的時間試圖改革人權理事會。
She is the right leader to drive our efforts in this regard at the United Nations. Her efforts in this regard have been tireless.
她是推動我們在聯合國這方麵努力的正確領導人。她在這方麵的努力是孜孜不倦的。
She has asserted American leadership on everything from the Assad regime’s chemical weapons use, to the pressure campaign against North Korea, and the Iran-backed provocations in the Middle East.
她一直維護著美國在一係列國際事務中的領導力, 堅定地施壓從阿薩德政權的化學武器使用, 對朝鮮, 以及伊朗支持下在中東的挑釁。
Ambassador Haley has been fearless and a consistent voice on behalf of our ally Israel. And she has a sincere passion to protect the security, dignity, and the freedom of human beings around the world – all while putting American interests first. She has been a fierce defender of human rights around the world.
海莉大使為我們的盟友以色列無所畏懼, 並保持一貫的聲音。她對保護世界各地的安全、尊嚴和自由有著真誠的熱情--所有這些都把美國的利益放在首位。她一直是世界各地人權的勇猛的，堅強不屈的捍衛者。
I will now turn it over to Ambassador Haley for her announcement on how the United States will move forward with respect to the UN Human Rights Council.
現在我將請出海莉大使, 讓她宣布美國在聯合國人權理事會方麵如何向前推進的舉措。
AMBASSADOR HALEY: Thank you. Good afternoon. I want to thank Secretary Pompeo for his friendship and his partnership and his leadership as we move forward on these issues.
海莉大使: 謝謝。各位下午好。我要感謝 Pompeo 國務卿，感謝他的友情，他的合作，已經他在我們推進該議題方麵的領導。
One year ago, I traveled to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. On that occasion, I outlined the U.S. priorities for advancing human rights and I declared our intent to remain a part of the Human Rights Council if essential reforms were achieved. These reforms were needed in order to make the council a serious advocate for human rights. For too long, the Human Rights Council has been a protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias.
一年前, 我前往日內瓦的聯合國人權理事會。在那次會議上, 我概述了美國促進人權的優先事項, 我宣布, 如果實現必要的改革, 我們打算繼續成為人權理事會的一部分。為了使理事會真正成為人權的嚴肅倡導者, 這些改革是必須的。長期以來, 人權理事會一直是一個侵犯人權者的保護傘和一個充斥著政治偏見的化糞池。
Regrettably, it is now clear that our call for reform was not heeded. Human rights abusers continue to serve on and be elected to the council. The world’s most inhumane regimes continue to escape scrutiny, and the council continues politicizing and scapegoating of countries with positive human rights records in an attempt to distract from the abusers in their ranks.
令人遺憾的是, 非常明顯，我們對與這一改革的呼籲根本沒有得到傾聽。侵犯人權者繼續任職並被選入世界人權理事會。世界上最不人道的政權繼續逃避審查, 理事會繼續政治化，有著積極人權記錄的國家繼續成為替罪羊, 所有這些企圖無非是欲蓋彌彰地分散著世界對這些名聲狼藉的施虐者的注意力。
Therefore, as we said we would do a year ago if we did not see any progress, the United States is officially withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council. In doing so, I want to make it crystal clear that this step is not a retreat from human rights commitments; on the contrary, we take this step because our commitment does not allow us to remain a part of a hypocritical and self-serving organization that makes a mockery of human rights.
因此, 正如我們在一年前所說的那樣, 如果我們沒有看到任何進展, 美國將宣布正式退出聯合國人權理事會。在這樣做的時候, 我想清楚地表明, 這一步驟不是從維護人權的承諾中退卻; 相反, 我們采取這一步驟是因為我們的承諾不允許我們繼續成為一個虛偽和自私的組織的一部分, 同他們同流合汙沆瀣一氣是對當今世界人權的嘲弄。
We did not make this decision lightly. When this administration began 17 months ago, we were well aware of the enormous flaws in the Human Rights Council. We could have withdrawn immediately. We did not do that.
這不是我們的輕率舉動。當這一屆政府17月前開始執政時, 我們清楚地認識到人權理事會的巨大缺陷。我們原本可以立即宣布退出。但我們沒有這樣做。
Instead, we made a good-faith effort to resolve the problems. We met with ambassadors of over a dozen countries in Geneva. Last September, in President Trump’s speech before the UN General Assembly, he called for member-states to support Human Rights Council reform. During High-Level Week last year, we led a session on Human Rights Council reform cohosted by the British and Dutch foreign ministers and more than 40 other countries.
相反, 我們作出了善意的努力來解決這些問題。我們在日內瓦會見了十多個國家的大使。去年 9月, 特朗普總統在聯合國大會上的講話中, 他呼籲會員國支持人權理事會的改革。在去年的高級別的會議周, 我們領導了由英國和荷蘭外交部長和40多個其他國家共同主辦 的人權理事會改革會議。
Our efforts continued all through this year in New York, where my team met with more than 125 member-states and circulated draft texts. Almost every country we met with agrees with us in principle and behind closed doors that the Human Rights Council needs major, dramatic, systemic changes, yet no other country has had the courage to join our fight.
今年以來，我們一如既往地努力。 在紐約 我們會見了125多個會員國, 並分發了案文草稿。在閉門會議中，我們遇到的幾乎每個國家原則上都同意我們的意見, 人權理事會需要重大的，深層次的和係統性的變革, 但沒有國家有勇氣（公開地）加入我們的戰鬥。
Meanwhile, the situation on the council has gotten worse, not better. One of our central goals was to prevent the world’s worst human rights abusers from gaining Human Rights Council membership. What happened? In the past year, the Democratic Republic of Congo was elected as a member. The DRC is widely known to have one of the worst human rights records in the world. Even as it was being elected to membership in the Human Rights Council, mass graves continued to be discovered in the Congo.
與此同時, 理事會的情況變得更糟, 而不是更好。我們的主要目標之一是防止世界上最嚴重的惡名昭彰的人權施虐者獲得人權理事會成員資格。而現實怎麽樣了？去年, 剛果民主共和國當選為理事會成員。眾所周知, 剛果民主共和國是世界上人權記錄最糟糕的國家之一。甚至就在它被選為人權理事會成員的時候， 在剛果，大量的叢葬墳墓持續不停地被發現，被曝光。
Another of our goals was to stop the council from protecting the world’s worst human rights abusers. What happened? The council would not even have a meeting on the human rights conditions in Venezuela. Why? Because Venezuela is a member of the Human Rights Council, as is Cuba, as is China.
我們的另一個目標是阻止理事會保護世界上最嚴重的人權濫用者。發生了什麽事？理事會甚至連一個關於委內瑞拉人權狀況的會議都不能召開。為什麽？因為委內瑞拉是人權理事會的成員, 古巴是，中國也是。
Similarly, the council failed to respond in December and January when the Iranian regime killed and arrested hundreds of citizens simply for expressing their views.
同樣, 在去年12月和今年1月份，在伊朗，數以百計的公民僅僅因為表達他們的不同政見就遭當局逮捕和殺害，人權理事會沒有作出任何反應。
When a so-called Human Rights Council cannot bring itself to address the massive abuses in Venezuela and Iran, and it welcomes the Democratic Republic of Congo as a new member, the council ceases to be worthy of its name. Such a council, in fact, damages the cause of human rights.
當一個所謂的人權理事會不能為委內瑞拉和伊朗這樣的大規模侵權行為發聲, 它還歡迎剛果民主共和國成為新成員, 這個理事會就名不符實了。事實上, 這樣一個理事會反而會損害人權事業。
And then, of course, there is the matter of the chronic bias against Israel. Last year, the United States made it clear that we would not accept the continued existence of agenda item seven, which singles out Israel in a way that no other country is singled out. Earlier this year, as it has in previous years, the Human Rights Council passed five resolutions against Israel – more than the number passed against North Korea, Iran, and Syria combined. This disproportionate focus and unending hostility towards Israel is clear proof that the council is motivated by political bias, not by human rights.
當然, 這裏還有一個該理事會對以色列的長期偏見的問題。去年, 美國明確表示, 我們不接受繼續存在的議程 “項目7”, 它以一種沒有其他國家被單獨挑選的方式單獨把以色列列出。今年早些時候, 正如前幾年一樣, 人權理事會通過了五項反對以色列的決議——超過了對朝鮮、伊朗和敘利亞的決議的總和。這種不成比例的關注和對以色列無休止的敵視, 清楚地證明理事會是出於政治偏見, 而不是人權。
For all these reasons, the United States spent the past year engaged in a sincere effort to reform the Human Rights Council. It is worth examining why our efforts didn’t succeed. At its core, there are two reasons. First, there are many unfree countries that simply do not want the council to be effective. A credible human rights council poses a real threat to them, so they opposed the steps that would create it.
由於所有這些原因, 去年美國花了一年的時間進行了一次真誠的努力, 改革人權理事會。我們的努力沒有成功, 失敗的原因是很值得審視的。其核心有兩個原因。首先, 有許多 不自由民主的國家根本不希望人權理事會有效運轉。一個可靠的的人權理事會對他們構成了真正的威脅, 因此他們反對一切改革的努力。
Look at the council membership and you see an appalling disrespect for the most basic human rights. These countries strongly resist any effort to expose their abusive practices. In fact, that’s why many of them run for a seat on the Human Rights Council in the first place: to protect themselves from scrutiny. When we made it clear we would strongly pursue council reform, these countries came out of the woodwork to oppose it. Russia, China, Cuba, and Egypt all attempted to undermine our reform efforts this past year.
看看這個人權理事會的成員, 你會看到對最基本人權的悍然不尊重。這些國家拚死抵製揭露其虐待行為的任何努力。事實上, 這就是為什麽他們中的許多人首先競選人權理事會的席位: 保護自己不受審查。當我們明確表示我們將大力推行該理事會的改革時, 這些國家紛紛跳出來反對它。在過去的一年裏， 俄羅斯、中國、古巴和埃及一直都在破壞我們的改革努力。
The second reason our reforms didn’t succeed is in some ways even more frustrating. There are several countries on the Human Rights Council who do share our values. Many of them strongly urged us to remain engaged in the council. They are embarrassed by the obsessive mistreatment of Israel. They share our alarm with the hypocrisy of countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Democratic Republic of Congo, and others serving on the council.
我們的改革沒有成功的第二個原因是在某些方麵更加令人沮喪。人權理事會中有幾個國家和我們擁有共同的價值觀。其中許多人強烈敦促我們繼續參與理事會。他們因對以色列的過分虐待而感到尷尬。他們對古巴、委內瑞拉、剛果民主共和國等國家的虛偽和在理事會任職的其他人一樣, 充滿了警惕。
Ultimately, however, many of these likeminded countries were unwilling to seriously challenge the status quo. We gave them opportunity after opportunity and many months of consultations, and yet they would not take a stand unless it was behind closed doors. Some even admittedly were fine with the blatant flaws of the council as long as they could pursue their own narrow agenda within the current structure.
然而, 最終, 許多這些意趣相投的國家不願意對現狀提出嚴重挑戰。我們一次一次地給他們機會，還有好幾個月的磋商, 但他們不願意公開明確立場, 除非是在閉門之後。有些國家成員甚至寧願和理事會的公然缺陷同流合汙, 隻要他們能夠在目前的框架中塞入自己的狹隘議題。
We didn’t agree with such a moral compromise when the previous UN Human Rights Commission was disbanded in 2006, and we don’t agree with it now. Many of these countries argued that the United States should stay on the Human Rights Council because American participation is the last shred of credibility that the council has. But that is precisely why we must leave. If the Human Rights Council is going to attack countries that uphold human rights and shield countries that abuse human rights, then America should not provide it with any credibility. Instead, we will continue to lead on human rights outside the misnamed Human Rights Council.
2006年，在前聯合國人權委員會被解散的時候, 我們曾經不同意這樣的道德妥協, 現在我們仍然秉持相同的理念。其中許多國家辯稱, 美國應該留在人權理事會, 因為美國的參與是理事會所擁有的最後一絲可信度。但這恰巧正是我們必須離開的原因。如果人權理事會要攻擊維護人權的國家, 保護濫用人權的國家, 那麽美國就不應該為它提供任何信譽。相反, 我們將繼續在名不副實人權理事會之外領導人權。
Last year, during the United States presidency of the Security Council, we initiated the first ever Security Council session dedicated to the connection between human rights and peace and security. Despite protests and prohibitions, we did organize an event on Venezuela outside the Human Rights Council chambers in Geneva. And this past January, we did have a Security Council session on Iranian human rights in New York.
去年, 在美國擔任安全理事會主席期間, 我們發起了安全理事會有史以來第一屆會議, 專門討論人權，和平與安全之間的關係。盡管有抗議和禁止, 我們還是在日內瓦人權理事會各分庭以外組織了一次關於委內瑞拉的活動。在過去的 1月, 我們確實在紐約舉行了安全理事會關於伊朗人權的會議。
I have traveled to the – to UN refugee and internally displaced persons camps in Ethiopia, Congo, Turkey, and Jordan, and met with the victims of atrocities in those troubled regions. We have used America’s voice and vote to defend human rights at the UN every day, and we will continue to do so. Even as we end our membership in the Human Rights Council, we will keep trying to strengthen the entire framework of the UN engagement on human rights issues, and we will continue to strongly advocate for reform of the Human Rights Council. Should it become reformed, we would be happy to rejoin it.
我曾經前往埃塞俄比亞、剛果、土耳其和約旦的聯合國難民以及其國內流離失所者的營地, 並會見了這些動蕩地區暴行的受害者。每一天， 在聯合國，我們用美國的聲音和投票來捍衛人權。我們將繼續這樣做。即使我們終止了我們在人權理事會的成員資格, 我們仍將繼續努力加強聯合國參與人權問題的整個框架, 我們將繼續大力倡導人權理事會的改革。一旦改革成為可能, 我們很樂意重新加入。
America has a proud legacy as a champion of human rights, a proud legacy as the world’s largest provider of humanitarian aid, and a proud legacy of liberating oppressed people and defeating tyranny throughout the world. While we do not seek to impose the American system on anyone else, we do support the rights of all people to have freedoms bestowed on them by their creator. That is why we are withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council, an organization that is not worthy of its name.
美國擁有驕傲的遺產，作為捍衛人權的擁護者, 作為世界上最大的人道主義援助的提供者，在全世界解放被壓迫人民和挫敗暴政方麵，這些都是令人自豪的遺產。雖然我們不試圖將美國製度強加給任何人, 但我們確實支持所有人民享有其造物主賦予他們自由的權利。這就是為什麽我們要退出聯合國人權理事會, 這個組織配不上它的名字。
Thank you.
謝謝大家！
QUESTION: Ambassador, is the timing related to the criticism of the border policy?
提問之一: 大使, 退出人權理事會的這個時間點的選擇與對邊境政策的批評有關嗎？
QUESTION: Do you believe that the criticism is justified?
提問之二: 你認為你上述的批評都合理嗎？
|
