September 9, 2025 • 44 mins
The State Department’s Human Rights Reports were mandated by Congress in 1974 to ensure funding did not go toward torture, involuntary detention, and suppression of fundamental freedoms. The reports collect information on human rights abuses around the world. But this year’s human rights reports were created under completely rewritten instructions, featuring a huge reduction in information on human rights abuses. Amanda Klasing, National Director of Government Relations and Advocacy at Amnesty International USA, sits down to talk with us about these devastatingly slashed human rights reports.
The reports provide a human rights overview for any given country for the year, and they require human rights desk officers in embassies to engage with human rights defenders within the country and document any abuses. This allows Congress to make fact-based decisions and protect asylum seekers. This year’s human rights reports featured a complete rewrite of the instructions for dramatically reduced sections related to fundamental freedoms for particular populations (including women, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, and more). The reports are 1/3rd shorter than they were before.
For more information, check out Pantsuit Politics: https://www.pantsuitpoliticsshow.com/s/podcast
Follow Us on Social:
Twitter: @rePROsFightBack
Instagram: @reprosfb
Facebook: rePROs Fight Back
Bluesky: @reprosfightback.bsky.social
Buy rePROs Merch: Bonfire store
Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.com
Rate and Review on Apple Podcast
Thanks for listening & keep fighting back!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Jennie (00:03):
Welcome to rePROs Fight Back, a podcast on all things
related to sexual andreproductive health, rights, and
justice.
Hey rePROs, how's everybodydoing?
I'm your host, Jennie Wetter,and these are my pronouns,
she/her.
So y'all, it is September.
I'm having a really hard timewrapping my head around that.
Like, it feels like it was,honestly, it feels like it was
(00:27):
just the beginning of the year.
I'm not really sure where thisyear has gone.
This summer, like, disappearedin a blank and I know I feel
like I say that all the time andit just it feels especially
true this year, like, I can'tbelieve the cruise I took with
my mom that was in April and itfeels like it was a years ago.
(00:48):
Like, it feels so far away.
Yeah, I just having a littlehard time believing that it's
September which means this yearwill be over before I know it
and it just it's all gone sofast.
That's okay, I am holding on tomy very chill vibes after
having five days off for thelong holiday weekend.
I took a very long holidayweekend.
(01:10):
It was so nice.
I didn't really do anythingsuper exciting.
Just enjoyed this likeunseasonably gorgeous weather in
DC.
Like, it is very not normalweather.
It's usually so hot and humidright now, but it is not.
I have my windows open and,like, going outside is kind of
delightful.
It's just been really nice andI hope it sticks around.
(01:33):
Like, I hope we're done withthe gross weather.
I really love what we've hadfor the last couple weeks.
It's been so, so nice.
Let's see.
I'm trying to think.
I didn't really do anythingsuper exciting.
Like I said, I spent a littletime outside.
I've had my windows open, didsome reading, hung out with the
kitties.
I didn't really feel likebaking this weekend, so I didn't
(01:54):
do any baking.
Oh, the big thing I did, I hada big project.
I felt like I needed a bookcasethat would go behind my desk
where I could put one, my onebookcase I have was like
overflowing with books.
So I needed another bookcase.
But I was also thinking if Ihad one behind my desk, I could
highlight the awards for thepodcast on it.
(02:17):
So, they would be behind me onmy background.
And then two, I have like ashelf where I could have all of
my reproductive justice booksall in one place that are right
there.
So I ordered a bookcase and Ihad to obviously had to put it
together.
(02:37):
So, that was my Monday project.
And y'all, it took so muchlonger than I thought.
Like, projects like this alwaysdo.
It ended up taking me likethree hours to put it together
and then like get it alldecorated and stuff.
But, but I did it all bymyself.
I did it all in one go.
(02:57):
Like there was no, oh shit, Imessed this up.
I have to take this apart andredo it and do it correctly.
I didn't have any of that.
So that was really delightful.
Like I always feel like whenyou have those kinds of
projects, there's always atleast one part where you're
like, oops, that's backwards orthat shouldn't be there.
But I didn't have that.
And so it's gorgeous.
(03:17):
I love my new bookshelf.
Maybe I'll have Elena share apicture on social so you can see
my cute new bookshelf orbookcase.
I keep calling it a bookshelf,but it's a bookcase that I put
together.
I really love it.
The kitties already, like,inspected it as soon as they
were done.
I was their entertainment onMonday while I was putting it
together they both were likewatching trying to help the
(03:40):
whole three hours which wassuper helpful probably part of
why it took three hours to putit together and then Cinder was
in it before, like, as soon asit was, like, placed on against
the wall where I was going tohave it.
Like, two seconds later, shewas like, oh great this is a new
place where I can sit and hangout but now that there's books
in it she doesn't quite fitanymore, so she hasn't been
(04:01):
doing that.
But it meant that some stuffgot relocated, like, reorganized
a little bit so there's a chairright next to it where I keep
my backpack that I take to workand that she has decided that is
like a great bed.
So, as long as they're happywhatever but I love my new
bookcase.
I'm so proud of myself forputting it all together all by
myself without any, like, I messthis up and have to redo it.
(04:24):
So, that was my holidayweekend.
It was pretty delightful andI'm trying to hold on to that
vibe as all the chaos around usis continuing.
I don't really want to focus onany of that because, like I
said, I'm trying to hold on tomy like chill vibes right now.
That said we are going to talkabout not chill things during
(04:44):
the interview but it's a reallygreat conversation so I'm very
excited for y'all to hear it.
I had previously had talkedabout on the podcast that the
State Department released thenew human rights reports and how
they had changed them so Ithought we should have somebody
who knows so much more about itthan I do and come on and talk
(05:04):
about what happened and why thehuman rights reports are
important to begin with.
And I couldn't think of abetter person to have come on
than Amanda Klasing with AmnestyInternational US to talk about
the new State Department HumanRights Reports.
So let's go to my interviewwith Amanda.
Hi Amanda, thank you so muchfor being here.
Amanda (05:24):
Hi, I'm so excited to be here.
Jennie (05:26):
I am too.
I feel like it has beenforever, so I am really excited.
Before we get started, do youwant to take a second and
introduce yourself?
Amanda (05:34):
Yeah, absolutely.
My name is Amanda Klasing.
I am the National Director ofGovernment Relations and
Advocacy at AmnestyInternational USA.
Jennie (05:44):
So, there has been a lot going on.
The State Department releasedtheir new human rights reports.
There's a lot of things goingon in them, but I feel like
before we get to what happened,I bet a lot of our audience
doesn't know what the HumanRights Reports are or why
they're important.
So maybe we should back up andstart there.
What are the Human RightsReports?
Amanda (06:05):
Yeah, it's a great question.
So we don't always think aboutthem that much because they're
sort of like the air we breathe.
Why?
Because they have been mandatedby Congress since 1974.
There were some kind of changesto it.
But in 1976, under the Carteradministration, all of a sudden
the United States startedreporting on human rights around
the world.
(06:25):
They did so because Congresswanted to make sure that they
had the information they neededto make funding decisions.
They wanted to know what thehuman rights context was in any
given country, and they wantedto ensure that taxpayer money
wasn't going to an abusiveregime.
They wanted to make sure thatif we were going to send
hard-earned funds somewhere,that they weren't going to lead
(06:49):
to torture or involuntarydetention or suppression of
fundamental freedoms.
And these reports grew overtime to include a number of
really important issues forcommunities that maybe weren't
represented in them in theoriginal conversion.
(07:09):
The reports themselves areimportant because they provide a
overview of the human rightscontext in any given country
around the world for a snapshotof a year.
And that feels important, butthe process behind them is
(07:32):
really what makes them apowerhouse within the human
rights movement.
So every year around July,there are human rights desk
officers and embassies, and theyreceive instructions from
headquarters in DC aboutstarting to gather information
about the Human Rights Reports.
This starts a process whereembassies should be engaging
(07:57):
with human rights defenders,civil society, and others within
a given country to find outwhat has happened in the last
year.
What should be the concern forthe US policymakers tracking
human rights?
What needs to be included?
That engagement with civilsociety is really key.
It's also an opportunity forcivil society around the world
(08:20):
to dock in with theirdocumentation of human rights
abuses.
This is a space where youelevate and ensure that if we
write a report, we assume acountry might see it.
We try to get it in the handsof policymakers there.
But if the United Statesamplifies that in its human
rights report, we know that it'sgoing to get paid attention to.
(08:45):
So, these reports and theprocess behind them aren't the
only way that human rights arereported around the world, but
they're a really fundamentalpart of how civil society is
able to elevate and amplifywhat's happening in their
country.
And then that gives Congressthe information they need to
(09:07):
make policy decisions and theirfunding.
These reports are also reallyimportant for asylum cases, and
not just in the United States.
Asylum judges around the world,we know shore in Canada and the
UK and Australia rely on thesereports and making
determinations about whether aperson might have a credible
(09:29):
fear of being returned to aparticular country.
And they certainly areimportant in the United States
as well in that context.
Jennie (09:37):
I also feel like they're really important outside of the
U.S.
government.
Do you want to talk a littlebit about how they are used not
just by the U.S.
government, but by peoplearound the world?
Amanda (09:48):
Yeah, absolutely.
So, just taking it from thecontext of an individual
advocate in a particularcountry, and I'm going to focus
on advocates, for example, ongender justice, because that is
something we'll learn, was cutfrom the recent report.
So, if you work for anorganization that's advocating
(10:12):
for the rights of survivors ofgender-based violence, and you
are able to engage with the U.S.
government and say, these areall the different ways that my
government has failed to addressthe crisis of gender-based
violence in my country.
And here's what we'vedocumented.
These are the cases that we'rehaving difficulty with.
(10:32):
And then that informationactually is reported in the
annual report.
You have an opportunity to goback to your own government and
say, like, it's not just us, notjust us, small civil society,
singular voice telling you thatyou have a problem and you have
an obligation to fix it.
The United States government issaying this.
(10:53):
And it also allows those groupsto work with advocates like
advocates in the United Statesto seek funding sources, to
actually design programs tosupport support legal reform or
services for survivors.
There's many different waysthat once that information is
(11:15):
adopted within a report, itgives advocates and also
organizations that implementprograms additional leverage
point to both get attention andaction on their issue.
Jennie (11:28):
Okay. So, that's why they're important and why we
should care.
So, let's talk about the newHuman Rights Reports just came
out and they're different thisyear.
What happened?
Amanda (11:41):
Oh, are they different.
Okay.
So-
Jennie (11:45):
I know, I feel like it's like a bucket list, right?
It's like, where do you start?
Amanda (11:49):
Where do you even start?
All right.
So I'll start with what we wereexpecting.
So, Human Rights Reports, as Isaid, the process starts
sometime I'm in July.
Instructions go out.
So these take a long time towrite, and they're huge.
It's massive amounts of work.
There's lots of clearanceprocesses that occur, but at the
embassy level, and then here inWashington, D.C., at the State
(12:13):
Department, it's not just likeone person reviews, it goes out.
There's just levels and levelsand levels of review, and you're
updating it throughout theentire year, so it's a full
snapshot of the year.
So typically, the instructionsgo out under one administration,
and even if an administrationchanges, the reports are written
under that instruction andreleased accordingly.
(12:34):
Congress mandates that they'rereleased at the end of February.
It almost never happens.
But that's the process.
And it may be that the incomingadministration doesn't love how
the instructions were written.
It may be that they need to adda small instruction so that you
have a little bit more.
But we've never seen a completerewrite of the instructions.
(12:58):
Even in the first Trumpadministration, Secretary
Tillerson came in and launchedmore or less the reports that
were written prior.
So this year, we started tohear that the process had been
paused.
Not only had it been paused,but new instructions had been
(13:18):
issued out.
And those new instructionsweren't just to add a few things
that were consistent with thisadministration's policy.
It was to dramatically reducesections related to fundamental
freedoms, as it's termed in theState Department, to particular
populations, including women,children, LGBT people, ethnic
(13:43):
minorities, religiousminorities, Indigenous peoples,
racial minorities.
It was an overall rehaul ofwhat was deemed important human
rights and important peoplewhose rights should be
protected.
So, we were concerned aboutthat.
Now the argument was this wasgoing to be a reduction back to
(14:04):
what is the statutory minimums.
What is it that Congress hassaid we have to report on?
We're just going to report onthat.
And we're going to increaseefficiencies because of that.
But embedded in thisinstruction was something else
that was interesting.
And there were 20 chapters thatwere identified for additional
review by a political appointee.
(14:26):
And that was, I think we allread these instructions as being
political in nature, but thatin particular identified that
something was going to bedifferent about these reports.
They were going to be craftedand edited according to a
particular worldview that may ormay not reflect the
internationally recognized humanrights under which these
(14:48):
reports are typically developed.
And then there was silence.
I just weren't sure what washappening.
And again, these reports werealready written.
Many, many people hours hadgone into it.
And now all of these additionalpeople hours were put in to
stripping out work that hadalready been done.
And when I say stripping outwork, I'm talking about
(15:10):
stripping out abuses, people'sactual cases, the documentation
of maybe the worst thing that'sever happened in somebody's life
and they were able to ensurethat the US government saw it
and reported it in these draftreports and that was being left
on the editing floor.
And this was happening over thecourse of months— we were like,
(15:30):
where are these reports?
What is happening with thereports?
And dribs and drabs ofinformation was coming out of
the State Department.
Well, they're stuck in thisreview.
Well, they're stuck in thatreview.
It turns out not just those 20countries, but all of the
reports were reviewed at thehighest level from a policy
(15:52):
consideration.
Now, what are some of thesecountries?
Well, some of these countriesthat are going to be reviewed
are countries where, forexample, the administration
wants to send people to bedeported.
These are countries that the UShas either particular, that
this administration hasparticular affinity for, or for
(16:12):
whatever reason wants toembarrass for, you know, we'll
talk a little bit about forhuman rights challenges that
previously had not beenidentified as a human rights
abuse.
And so, that's what we were allhearing.
And then we actually got thereports on August 8th.
(16:35):
And they, in many ways, aredevastating.
Some of the chapters you'rereading, you're like, oh, well,
that's more or less what wewould have said about this
country.
It actually doesn't read so...
so inaccurate, but what youdon't realize is all the things
that had been edited out.
(16:56):
So, they're about a thirdshorter than they were before.
And like you and I are writers,we write things, we understand
how editing works, and everybodywants something easier to read,
something that flows well, andthat is partially what the
argument was.
These were behemoth reports,and they just weren't easy to
(17:18):
read or accessible.
These reports were not likebeach reading, like these
reports.
That is not the purpose ofthese reports.
These reports are not joyfuland like, you know, lovely
things to unwind with at the endof the day with a cup of tea.
These reports were written in aparticular way and people used
the sections that they needed.
(17:38):
And it was never intended to bea editorial.
Jennie (17:44):
You didn't sit down and read the whole thing.
Like this wasn't...
Amanda (17:48):
Yeah.
So, you know, the argument thatsometimes less is more, and
that is precisely what the StateDepartment spokesperson said
the day that the reports werereleased, is just not the case.
In this case, like, less isless.
Less means that an abuseagainst an LGBT person in a
particular country is gone.
Less is that, you know, anillegal land grab that led to
(18:14):
abuses against Indigenouspeoples is gone.
It means that child abusewithin the context of non-state
actor, and I'm thinking inparticular of Haiti, is gone.
So, you have a chapter inHaiti that doesn't mention
anything about violence againstchildren when we know that
children have been heavilytargeted by the violence that is
(18:35):
happening in Haiti.
So, less is just less.
And on top of that, some of thechapters are just political
fictions.
El Salvador says that there areno significant reports of human
rights abuses.
Yeah, no, sure, sure, sure.
(18:55):
When we know that there's...
there's torture, extrajudicialkillings, and unlawful
detentions, right?
The Israel, Gaza, andPalestine, or Gaza and West Bank
chapters are shockingmisrepresentations of the
current context in Gaza, butmore generally about the human
(19:18):
rights context there.
Germany and other WesternEuropean countries are being
called out for their curtailmentof freedom of expression, and
as significant significant humanrights concerns.
And so now we're left grapplingwith what do these reports
mean?
And what does it mean for thecivil society groups that
(19:41):
engaged with the process andhave been eliminated from the
outcome of their work?
Jennie (19:49):
I think the other thing I think about as well is we
talked about how important theywere and that this was a trusted
document that people counted onand were used in so many ways.
Businesses used it when theywere trying to decide whether to
work with a country.
Asylum courts used it when theywere trying to decide whether
(20:10):
to grant somebody asylum.
But now people are maybe havingtheir trust shaken in this
document that has been aroundfor so long.
What does that mean goingforward?
It's hard to rebuild that kindof trust that this is a factual
document that you can use todetermine whether you work in a
(20:32):
country or not when now there'spolitical interference in it.
Amanda (20:37):
Yeah, I know.
I mean, I think we're alltrying to figure out what does
it mean when governmentinformation is untrustworthy,
whether it's, you know, jobsdata or human rights report.
You know, and I want to beclear, the human rights record
of the United States, regardlessof the administration has been
checkered, right?
And so I think there's this, ifyou're not terribly familiar
(21:00):
with the reports and the contentof the reports and the process
of the reports, but you arefamiliar with human rights
policy of many differentadministrations of the United
States, you're like, why wouldthese be so trusted by civil
society?
And if you go into the reports,the reports don't always
reflect the policy, the overallpolicy of the US government when
it comes to an individualcountry.
(21:21):
So the US has a deeprelationship with India, but the
human rights reports have inthe past been very critical of
the Modi government anddismantling of homes and the
anti-Muslim violence that hasoccurred.
And there's a tension point,and that tension point
oftentimes makes uncomfortablerelationships for ambassadors.
(21:44):
Ambassadors don't love thesereports.
These reports make them have tohave conversations that are
contrary to their overall goalswith a particular in the short
term.
And another thing that I wouldflag is the Israel, Gaza, and
West Bank chapters last yearcontained a lot of important
(22:05):
information that the overallU.S.
government was not comfortablereally advancing broadly in
their language and reporting.
And so they've never beenperfect, but they really are a
much...
better encapsulation of thehuman rights context, then you
(22:26):
would see maybe the outcome ofwhat is being said at the top in
the National Security Councilor the State Department.
So, moving into your questionabout the trust relationship
then.
So, there is a trustrelationship that was
established with these reports,even if there was disconnect in
the U.S.
(22:46):
government policy.
And where do we go from here?
Well, one thing to know is thatin asylum decisions within the
United States, not only wouldthere be these more robust
reports in the past, but asylumjudges could also take into
consideration other civilsociety reporting.
So two things have happened atthe same time.
(23:07):
We have drastically reducedreports and dictates from DHS
that asylum decisions should bebased only on the State
Department report.
So, there's no way tosupplement the information that
has come out.
And that's going to bedisastrous because one thing
that you could do is justsupplement with other reporting,
(23:27):
but that there's nowhere elseto supplement or you're not
permitted to supplement.
The other thing to note is, youknow, this is happening in the
context of a completedismantling of the human rights
ecosystem.
And so there are many differentways that documentation happens
and that the US becomes awareor the world, the global kind of
(23:49):
movement on human rightsbecomes aware of a human rights
context or abuse.
And part of that is civilsociety that is collapsing under
both the abrupt cuts from USforeign assistance and also the
ripple effects that that haseven on organizations that don't
receive US government funding.
And so not only is it going tobe harder to functionally kind
(24:15):
of supplement the human rightsfindings that are no longer in
those reports and kind of asylumclaims, or for businesses to go
and seek additionalinformation.
There's not like a clearpathway where this information
will all be gathered andcollated.
There's also just gonna be asupply-sec problem.
There's just fewer resources todocument human rights abuses.
(24:37):
And so what that means is as a,not just as a country, but
certainly as the US governmentand those of us that operate
within the civil societyecosystem here, but globally
too, we're gonna have, lessvisibility over, in particular,
(24:58):
the abuses against the mostmarginalized populations around
the world.
And I can talk more about that,but that's what keeps me up at
night.
This is just a harbinger ofwhat's to come.
And what's to come is thatafter years of building global
transparency around what humanrights abuses look like, not
(25:20):
just for high level political orlabor or journalists, kind of
activists in a particularcountry, but for everyday
people, we're going to losethat.
Jennie (25:29):
I also found it interesting NPR had a great
piece breaking down, like, whatexactly happened in the reports.
And so, you know, we talkedabout entire sections
disappearing, like gender andLGBTQ rights and so many others.
But also what was reported,they scaled back on examples
(25:52):
given.
And I think that's one of thosethings that people may not
understand.
Why shouldn't there just be oneexample?
Shorter is better, right?
Maybe you can talk a little bitabout that because I also find
that part really troublingbecause to me, then you lose
sense of scale.
But I'm sure you all have amuch better way to talk about
(26:13):
why it's so important.
Amanda (26:15):
Yes.
So, losing sense of scale isdefinitely a part of it, but
it's also more about what makesit a human rights abuse.
So, we've had this conversationwith the State Department in
the past.
The State Department, there isa kernel of truth that there is
a desire that has existed foryears to make these very
unwieldy reports something morecontained.
(26:37):
In the past, however, therehave been consultations with
civil society, and civil societymakes all the arguments as to
why scaling down to oneemblematic case creates a
challenge for civil society andcountry to make end roads on
advocacy or for the globalmovement.
And part of the importantreason is that when you have one
(27:00):
emblematic case but don'treally embed it into a broader
understanding of context, agovernment can say, oh yes,
we're aware of that case, it'sone bad apple.
And they can have, just if youhave an emblematic case, they
can have an emblematicprosecution or an emblematic
release from detention and say,see, we're good.
(27:21):
We've moved on.
Let's go ahead and sign ourcritical mineral deal or
whatever it is.
So, that's one reason whyhaving one emblematic case
creates a problem.
Another is for certain humanrights abuses, it is about a
pattern of government failure toto prevent, investigate,
(27:44):
prosecute, and punish aparticular type of human rights
abuse.
And gender-based violence is agreat example.
It actually took decades forgender justice advocates to help
the human rights movementunderstand that what previously
was understood as a privatecrime— so intimate partner
violence or even sexual violenceas happening between two
(28:08):
private individuals— is actuallya human abuse when taken into
context of a government that hasnot taken the steps to prevent
it or to respond to it.
And you have to understandpatterns and scale and breadth
of a problem in order to makethe argument that it has gone
from a private crime or a badapple to a systemic human rights
(28:34):
problem that requires thegovernment to address it.
And so, when you start toreinforce the idea that one
emblematic a case is all that isneeded to understand a human
rights context, you also arereinforcing the idea that by
just addressing that oneproblem, the country will have
resolved it.
It also doesn't give us a senseover time about progress.
(28:56):
And these reports aren'tintended to show evolution over
time, but you can.
You can see, well, okay, lastyear there were all of these
different cases, and it doesseem like we aren't seeing the
same sort of pattern this year.
We're only seeing seen you knowthere's still a few challenges
but there's been a shift andthat'll be gone.
Jennie (29:17):
Yeah, no, I think that is so important it was just one
of those things that reallystruck me as I was reading
through that NPR piece was like,oh this seems this seems like a
problem on top of all of theother problems.
Is there anything else that youhave been thinking about moving
forward or thinking about thiscurrent version of the Human
(29:40):
Rights Report?
Amanda (29:41):
You know, there's always things within the report, like
we want more, right?
Like, and I think there'salways the argument, like civil
society, we always want more.
We always want more.
And what I think that I havebeen proud of as a kind of
ecosystem is that over time, thehuman rights movement has
(30:01):
helped shift these reports sothat they are more inclusive of
the broadest scope of apopulation.
And, you know, when you onlyfocus on certain civil and
political rights, it's often thepeople that have been able to
leverage power to get into aposition where they actually
(30:21):
have political rights that arevisible to the US government.
And so, there has been thisreally important shift where how
these reports demonstrate aparticular human rights context
actually gives you a fullerpicture of what is happening in
that particular country.
And as I said before, I really,I worry about what it means to
(30:48):
go back to a context where onlya few people and only a few
types of violations matter andget visibility because that
hides a whole host of trulyatrocious and violent abuses
(31:12):
that undermine the dignity ofpeople.
And I think the the question inthe back of everybody's mind is
like yes, but what does itmatter to me if I'm an American
sitting in the United States?
That's not going to havebusiness interests in a
particular country.
That's not going to be seekingasylum.
Like, why does this matter?
And not to instrumentalize itbut when you ignore a whole host
(31:37):
of a population and rightsviolations against them, it may
mean that you still are able toadvance American interests in
the short term, but people donot suffer lack of human dignity
for the long term without therebeing repercussions.
(31:57):
And those repercussions canbring great instability in the
world.
And in the past, again, the UShas a checkered history with
human rights, but in the past,in many contexts, there were
people around the world thatbelieved that the US cared about
human rights, about their humanrights, and had drew hope from
(32:22):
that and also looked to the USas a champion for human rights.
And that's why the pushbackwhen the US fails to uphold
human rights is so strong isbecause there's a disconnect
from what people believe or seethe US trying to promote itself
as and the reality of it.
(32:43):
And I think this kind of stripsaway the final shred of belief
that the global community hadthe U.S.
actually cares about humanrights.
Jennie (32:55):
Yeah, it also takes me back to the first Trump
administration and theCommission on Unalienable
Rights, and that there is a"hierarchy" of human rights, and
not all of these are actuallyhuman rights, and it's putting
me back in that space, and thisis a clear example of
(33:17):
instrumentalizing that.
Amanda (33:19):
Yeah, and you are right to be back in that space,
because not only has all of thishappened to the Human Rights
Reports, but it's happened undera state reorganization process
that Rubio implemented thatreduced the Human Rights Bureau
within the State Department by90%.
And the policy office of thatBureau is now named the Office
(33:42):
of Natural Rights.
And the policy office went fromhaving 100 people to having
eight people.
And when you ask what arenatural rights, because human
rights are internationallyagreed upon framework so that
all rights holders and allgovernments understand what
standard they're being held to,and the US was instructed in the
(34:04):
negotiations and development ofthat framework.
And this office is brushingthat aside for an idea of
natural rights.
Now, they're trying to say,that's just the philosophical
underpinning.
We still believe in humanrights.
But a philosophicalunderpinning is not universal.
It's very relative.
(34:25):
And so how you ensure, and thisis, I always think about rights
holders, and I think whenpeople talk about cultural
relativism, like, well, humanrights don't need to mean like
the same thing everywhere.
Like this is just theimposition of Western values on
countries around the world.
And I kind of think about it inthe context of girls that I've
(34:46):
interviewed around the worldabout child marriage.
And I guarantee you thatuniversality is important to
those girls.
That cultural relativism,having a different set of human
rights based on where you live,is not A, at the heart of what
(35:12):
human rights are supposed to beabout, and B, is not going to
lead to a safer, stronger, andmore prosperous world or United
States.
And so, yes, you're right tohearken back to that prior
enterprise of commission ofinalienable because we're seeing
that 2.0 and this idea of"natural rights." And I think
(35:34):
we're going to see more of thislanguage coming out in President
Trump's address at the UNGeneral Assembly in September.
I think we're going to start tosee a United States that
understands human rights as onlyinstrumentalized and only
something that governmentsbestow upon their population
(35:57):
within the confines of what theybelieve is culturally
acceptable.
And so I had somebody explainit to me this way.
It's the you do you, humanrights.
You do you, we do we, and let'snot get up in each other's
business when we're detainingpeople, mass carrying people,
(36:20):
marrying children off,preventing people from living
their lives withoutdiscrimination because that is
culturally acceptable there andculturally acceptable here.
So that's upcoming, folks.
Jennie (36:34):
Yeah, and I know this goes without saying, but just to
make it clear, since this is asexual reproductive health,
rights, and justice podcast,that obviously LGBTQ rights and
reproductive rights under thisframework are not actually seen
on that same level.
They are seen as lesser rightsback from the Commission on
Unalienable Rights and NaturalRights.
Amanda (36:56):
I would push back on that even more and say they are
not seen as rights.
They are seen, and I believethe terminology was like
political questions for societyto determine.
And so again, this goes to, youknow, we're in a world where
people's basic right todetermine things about their
(37:17):
body, about their lives and whothey love are not even seen as
inherent to their dignity.
So I'm sure as we learn moreabout what natural rights mean,
you'll have other conversationswith folks, but just a reminder
that not only it, was theCommission on Inalienable Rights
(37:39):
kind of proposing a certainhierarchy of rights.
It was also proposing a totallydifferent understanding of when
rights attach.
And so in particular, the rightto life attaching at conception
and rather than at birth andwhat flows from that as far as
not just restrictions onpeople's reproductive choices,
(38:03):
but affirmative obligations ofthe state protect the right to
life from very, very earlyintervention into a pregnancy.
Jennie (38:14):
Okay, that is all terrible.
So, I always try to end with,if not hopeful, but
action-oriented.
So, what can the audience do?
How can they get involvedeither in this conversation or
this fight or whatever?
What can they do about this?
Amanda (38:35):
Yeah.
Well, so I think there was ahuman rights constituency that
was built over a period of timeout of this belief of the
Universal Declaration of HumanRights, the building of a human
rights infrastructure, the needfor this sort of international
(38:55):
cooperation to increase thedignity of all around the world.
And that had a lot of traction,I think, in communities around
the United States.
And it was nonpartisan andbipartisan in many ways.
Now, of course, abusivepolicies were also bipartisan in
(39:15):
a lot of ways, but there wassomething there where people
agreed upon fundamental humanrights.
And so much so that I think weforgot that we had to reaffirm
our commitment to these rights.
And so one thing that I wouldjust suggest is, really go and
(39:37):
read the Universal Declarationof Human Rights and encourage
other people to do so.
Familiarize yourself with theidea that in 1948, countries
around the world, and it was acomplicated time in colonial
history, but it was also adiverse set of countries that
were negotiating, a diverse setof actors negotiating these
terms.
(39:58):
And so, understand that theserights are not going to be
protected just like theConstitution is not going to be
protected if we don't actuallyknow what's contained in it.
So, that's just one thing.
Just know that these rightsmatter and that they exist and
you should know what they are.
And they cannot be taken awayby a government, even if they
(40:18):
try to.
They're inherent to us aspeople.
And then, that's my spiel, thatthese are not partisan.
They shouldn't be, they weren'tbefore, let's move forward with
that.
That said, there is somelegislation that has been
introduced, at least currently,maybe by the time this airs,
it'll be introduced in the Housebut there is some legislation
that has been introduced to tryto reintroduce the different
(40:43):
sections that have been strippedfrom the report.
And that is a bill by SenatorShaheen on reintroducing the
integrity of human rights intothe process.
And I would encourage everyoneto ask their senator to approve
that, or to co-sponsor it, andthen if it were ever to get to
the floor to approve it.
(41:03):
The other is just to continueto look for other sources.
I think a lot of peopleactually use, like students and
others, actually use the humanrights reports as a reference or
for a variety of startingpoints to understand the context
of a country.
And so go to other civilsociety documentation
(41:23):
organizations, including Amnestyand Human Rights Watch and
Human Rights First and Committeeto Protect Journalists and
Freedom House.
There's so many.
Really understand that thestory is not completely told by
these reports anymore.
And then be on the lookout forhow this could get worse.
We've been told that these arejust re-edits and re-writes this
(41:46):
year, but the next year'sreports are going to be worse.
And members of Congress need tohear from them that they won't
tolerate it.
This is mandated by Congress sothat we ensure that our
taxpayer money is not going tocontribute to human rights
abuses.
And if your member of Congressis getting bad information from
(42:09):
a political report, they need tounderstand that Americans are
listening and are not going tosit back and let this kind of
false narrative about humanrights be perpetuated.
Jennie (42:22):
Thank you so much.
Those are all really greatthings to think about and
actions people can take.
Amanda, thank you so much forbeing here.
It was so great to talk to you.
Amanda (42:31):
It was wonderful to be here.
I wish it was about somethingmore uplifting, but I am an
eternal optimist.
All human rights people need tobe.
And so, I do think this is amoment for us to reaffirm and
really recommit to theuniversality and importance of
human rights and ensure that weare pushing back and building
(42:52):
forward.
Thank you.
Jennie (42:54):
Okay, y'all.
I hope you enjoyed myconversation with Amanda.
It was so great to get to talkto her.
It had been a while.
We used to sit in coalition andsee each other a lot more.
So, it was nice to get to talkto her after a long time not
being able to catch up.
So, that was so much fun.
I hope you enjoyed ourconversation and I will see
everybody next week.
If you have any questions,comments, or topics you would
(43:15):
like us to cover, always feelfree to shoot me an email.
You can reach me at jennie@reprosfightback.com or you can
find us on social media.
We're at rePROs Fight Back onFacebook and Twitter or
@ReprosFB on Instagram.
If you love our podcast andwant to make sure more people
find it, take the time to rateand review us on your favorite
(43:37):
podcast platform.
Or if you want to make sure tosupport the podcast, you can
also donate on our website atReprosFightBack.com.
Thanks all.
Welcome to rePROs Fight Back, a podcast on all things
related to sexual andreproductive health, rights, and
justice.
Hey rePROs, how's everybodydoing?
I'm your host, Jennie Wetter,and these are my pronouns,
she/her.
So y'all, it is September.
I'm having a really hard timewrapping my head around that.
Like, it feels like it was,honestly, it feels like it was
(00:27):
just the beginning of the year.
I'm not really sure where thisyear has gone.
This summer, like, disappearedin a blank and I know I feel
like I say that all the time andit just it feels especially
true this year, like, I can'tbelieve the cruise I took with
my mom that was in April and itfeels like it was a years ago.
(00:48):
Like, it feels so far away.
Yeah, I just having a littlehard time believing that it's
September which means this yearwill be over before I know it
and it just it's all gone sofast.
That's okay, I am holding on tomy very chill vibes after
having five days off for thelong holiday weekend.
I took a very long holidayweekend.
(01:10):
It was so nice.
I didn't really do anythingsuper exciting.
Just enjoyed this likeunseasonably gorgeous weather in
DC.
Like, it is very not normalweather.
It's usually so hot and humidright now, but it is not.
I have my windows open and,like, going outside is kind of
delightful.
It's just been really nice andI hope it sticks around.
(01:33):
Like, I hope we're done withthe gross weather.
I really love what we've hadfor the last couple weeks.
It's been so, so nice.
Let's see.
I'm trying to think.
I didn't really do anythingsuper exciting.
Like I said, I spent a littletime outside.
I've had my windows open, didsome reading, hung out with the
kitties.
I didn't really feel likebaking this weekend, so I didn't
(01:54):
do any baking.
Oh, the big thing I did, I hada big project.
I felt like I needed a bookcasethat would go behind my desk
where I could put one, my onebookcase I have was like
overflowing with books.
So I needed another bookcase.
But I was also thinking if Ihad one behind my desk, I could
highlight the awards for thepodcast on it.
(02:17):
So, they would be behind me onmy background.
And then two, I have like ashelf where I could have all of
my reproductive justice booksall in one place that are right
there.
So I ordered a bookcase and Ihad to obviously had to put it
together.
(02:37):
So, that was my Monday project.
And y'all, it took so muchlonger than I thought.
Like, projects like this alwaysdo.
It ended up taking me likethree hours to put it together
and then like get it alldecorated and stuff.
But, but I did it all bymyself.
I did it all in one go.
(02:57):
Like there was no, oh shit, Imessed this up.
I have to take this apart andredo it and do it correctly.
I didn't have any of that.
So that was really delightful.
Like I always feel like whenyou have those kinds of
projects, there's always atleast one part where you're
like, oops, that's backwards orthat shouldn't be there.
But I didn't have that.
And so it's gorgeous.
(03:17):
I love my new bookshelf.
Maybe I'll have Elena share apicture on social so you can see
my cute new bookshelf orbookcase.
I keep calling it a bookshelf,but it's a bookcase that I put
together.
I really love it.
The kitties already, like,inspected it as soon as they
were done.
I was their entertainment onMonday while I was putting it
together they both were likewatching trying to help the
(03:40):
whole three hours which wassuper helpful probably part of
why it took three hours to putit together and then Cinder was
in it before, like, as soon asit was, like, placed on against
the wall where I was going tohave it.
Like, two seconds later, shewas like, oh great this is a new
place where I can sit and hangout but now that there's books
in it she doesn't quite fitanymore, so she hasn't been
(04:01):
doing that.
But it meant that some stuffgot relocated, like, reorganized
a little bit so there's a chairright next to it where I keep
my backpack that I take to workand that she has decided that is
like a great bed.
So, as long as they're happywhatever but I love my new
bookcase.
I'm so proud of myself forputting it all together all by
myself without any, like, I messthis up and have to redo it.
(04:24):
So, that was my holidayweekend.
It was pretty delightful andI'm trying to hold on to that
vibe as all the chaos around usis continuing.
I don't really want to focus onany of that because, like I
said, I'm trying to hold on tomy like chill vibes right now.
That said we are going to talkabout not chill things during
(04:44):
the interview but it's a reallygreat conversation so I'm very
excited for y'all to hear it.
I had previously had talkedabout on the podcast that the
State Department released thenew human rights reports and how
they had changed them so Ithought we should have somebody
who knows so much more about itthan I do and come on and talk
(05:04):
about what happened and why thehuman rights reports are
important to begin with.
And I couldn't think of abetter person to have come on
than Amanda Klasing with AmnestyInternational US to talk about
the new State Department HumanRights Reports.
So let's go to my interviewwith Amanda.
Hi Amanda, thank you so muchfor being here.
Amanda (05:24):
Hi, I'm so excited to be here.
Jennie (05:26):
I am too.
I feel like it has beenforever, so I am really excited.
Before we get started, do youwant to take a second and
introduce yourself?
Amanda (05:34):
Yeah, absolutely.
My name is Amanda Klasing.
I am the National Director ofGovernment Relations and
Advocacy at AmnestyInternational USA.
Jennie (05:44):
So, there has been a lot going on.
The State Department releasedtheir new human rights reports.
There's a lot of things goingon in them, but I feel like
before we get to what happened,I bet a lot of our audience
doesn't know what the HumanRights Reports are or why
they're important.
So maybe we should back up andstart there.
What are the Human RightsReports?
Amanda (06:05):
Yeah, it's a great question.
So we don't always think aboutthem that much because they're
sort of like the air we breathe.
Why?
Because they have been mandatedby Congress since 1974.
There were some kind of changesto it.
But in 1976, under the Carteradministration, all of a sudden
the United States startedreporting on human rights around
the world.
(06:25):
They did so because Congresswanted to make sure that they
had the information they neededto make funding decisions.
They wanted to know what thehuman rights context was in any
given country, and they wantedto ensure that taxpayer money
wasn't going to an abusiveregime.
They wanted to make sure thatif we were going to send
hard-earned funds somewhere,that they weren't going to lead
(06:49):
to torture or involuntarydetention or suppression of
fundamental freedoms.
And these reports grew overtime to include a number of
really important issues forcommunities that maybe weren't
represented in them in theoriginal conversion.
(07:09):
The reports themselves areimportant because they provide a
overview of the human rightscontext in any given country
around the world for a snapshotof a year.
And that feels important, butthe process behind them is
(07:32):
really what makes them apowerhouse within the human
rights movement.
So every year around July,there are human rights desk
officers and embassies, and theyreceive instructions from
headquarters in DC aboutstarting to gather information
about the Human Rights Reports.
This starts a process whereembassies should be engaging
(07:57):
with human rights defenders,civil society, and others within
a given country to find outwhat has happened in the last
year.
What should be the concern forthe US policymakers tracking
human rights?
What needs to be included?
That engagement with civilsociety is really key.
It's also an opportunity forcivil society around the world
(08:20):
to dock in with theirdocumentation of human rights
abuses.
This is a space where youelevate and ensure that if we
write a report, we assume acountry might see it.
We try to get it in the handsof policymakers there.
But if the United Statesamplifies that in its human
rights report, we know that it'sgoing to get paid attention to.
(08:45):
So, these reports and theprocess behind them aren't the
only way that human rights arereported around the world, but
they're a really fundamentalpart of how civil society is
able to elevate and amplifywhat's happening in their
country.
And then that gives Congressthe information they need to
(09:07):
make policy decisions and theirfunding.
These reports are also reallyimportant for asylum cases, and
not just in the United States.
Asylum judges around the world,we know shore in Canada and the
UK and Australia rely on thesereports and making
determinations about whether aperson might have a credible
(09:29):
fear of being returned to aparticular country.
And they certainly areimportant in the United States
as well in that context.
Jennie (09:37):
I also feel like they're really important outside of the
U.S.
government.
Do you want to talk a littlebit about how they are used not
just by the U.S.
government, but by peoplearound the world?
Amanda (09:48):
Yeah, absolutely.
So, just taking it from thecontext of an individual
advocate in a particularcountry, and I'm going to focus
on advocates, for example, ongender justice, because that is
something we'll learn, was cutfrom the recent report.
So, if you work for anorganization that's advocating
(10:12):
for the rights of survivors ofgender-based violence, and you
are able to engage with the U.S.
government and say, these areall the different ways that my
government has failed to addressthe crisis of gender-based
violence in my country.
And here's what we'vedocumented.
These are the cases that we'rehaving difficulty with.
(10:32):
And then that informationactually is reported in the
annual report.
You have an opportunity to goback to your own government and
say, like, it's not just us, notjust us, small civil society,
singular voice telling you thatyou have a problem and you have
an obligation to fix it.
The United States government issaying this.
(10:53):
And it also allows those groupsto work with advocates like
advocates in the United Statesto seek funding sources, to
actually design programs tosupport support legal reform or
services for survivors.
There's many different waysthat once that information is
(11:15):
adopted within a report, itgives advocates and also
organizations that implementprograms additional leverage
point to both get attention andaction on their issue.
Jennie (11:28):
Okay. So, that's why they're important and why we
should care.
So, let's talk about the newHuman Rights Reports just came
out and they're different thisyear.
What happened?
Amanda (11:41):
Oh, are they different.
Okay.
So-
Jennie (11:45):
I know, I feel like it's like a bucket list, right?
It's like, where do you start?
Amanda (11:49):
Where do you even start?
All right.
So I'll start with what we wereexpecting.
So, Human Rights Reports, as Isaid, the process starts
sometime I'm in July.
Instructions go out.
So these take a long time towrite, and they're huge.
It's massive amounts of work.
There's lots of clearanceprocesses that occur, but at the
embassy level, and then here inWashington, D.C., at the State
(12:13):
Department, it's not just likeone person reviews, it goes out.
There's just levels and levelsand levels of review, and you're
updating it throughout theentire year, so it's a full
snapshot of the year.
So typically, the instructionsgo out under one administration,
and even if an administrationchanges, the reports are written
under that instruction andreleased accordingly.
(12:34):
Congress mandates that they'rereleased at the end of February.
It almost never happens.
But that's the process.
And it may be that the incomingadministration doesn't love how
the instructions were written.
It may be that they need to adda small instruction so that you
have a little bit more.
But we've never seen a completerewrite of the instructions.
(12:58):
Even in the first Trumpadministration, Secretary
Tillerson came in and launchedmore or less the reports that
were written prior.
So this year, we started tohear that the process had been
paused.
Not only had it been paused,but new instructions had been
(13:18):
issued out.
And those new instructionsweren't just to add a few things
that were consistent with thisadministration's policy.
It was to dramatically reducesections related to fundamental
freedoms, as it's termed in theState Department, to particular
populations, including women,children, LGBT people, ethnic
(13:43):
minorities, religiousminorities, Indigenous peoples,
racial minorities.
It was an overall rehaul ofwhat was deemed important human
rights and important peoplewhose rights should be
protected.
So, we were concerned aboutthat.
Now the argument was this wasgoing to be a reduction back to
(14:04):
what is the statutory minimums.
What is it that Congress hassaid we have to report on?
We're just going to report onthat.
And we're going to increaseefficiencies because of that.
But embedded in thisinstruction was something else
that was interesting.
And there were 20 chapters thatwere identified for additional
review by a political appointee.
(14:26):
And that was, I think we allread these instructions as being
political in nature, but thatin particular identified that
something was going to bedifferent about these reports.
They were going to be craftedand edited according to a
particular worldview that may ormay not reflect the
internationally recognized humanrights under which these
(14:48):
reports are typically developed.
And then there was silence.
I just weren't sure what washappening.
And again, these reports werealready written.
Many, many people hours hadgone into it.
And now all of these additionalpeople hours were put in to
stripping out work that hadalready been done.
And when I say stripping outwork, I'm talking about
(15:10):
stripping out abuses, people'sactual cases, the documentation
of maybe the worst thing that'sever happened in somebody's life
and they were able to ensurethat the US government saw it
and reported it in these draftreports and that was being left
on the editing floor.
And this was happening over thecourse of months— we were like,
(15:30):
where are these reports?
What is happening with thereports?
And dribs and drabs ofinformation was coming out of
the State Department.
Well, they're stuck in thisreview.
Well, they're stuck in thatreview.
It turns out not just those 20countries, but all of the
reports were reviewed at thehighest level from a policy
(15:52):
consideration.
Now, what are some of thesecountries?
Well, some of these countriesthat are going to be reviewed
are countries where, forexample, the administration
wants to send people to bedeported.
These are countries that the UShas either particular, that
this administration hasparticular affinity for, or for
(16:12):
whatever reason wants toembarrass for, you know, we'll
talk a little bit about forhuman rights challenges that
previously had not beenidentified as a human rights
abuse.
And so, that's what we were allhearing.
And then we actually got thereports on August 8th.
(16:35):
And they, in many ways, aredevastating.
Some of the chapters you'rereading, you're like, oh, well,
that's more or less what wewould have said about this
country.
It actually doesn't read so...
so inaccurate, but what youdon't realize is all the things
that had been edited out.
(16:56):
So, they're about a thirdshorter than they were before.
And like you and I are writers,we write things, we understand
how editing works, and everybodywants something easier to read,
something that flows well, andthat is partially what the
argument was.
These were behemoth reports,and they just weren't easy to
(17:18):
read or accessible.
These reports were not likebeach reading, like these
reports.
That is not the purpose ofthese reports.
These reports are not joyfuland like, you know, lovely
things to unwind with at the endof the day with a cup of tea.
These reports were written in aparticular way and people used
the sections that they needed.
(17:38):
And it was never intended to bea editorial.
Jennie (17:44):
You didn't sit down and read the whole thing.
Like this wasn't...
Amanda (17:48):
Yeah.
So, you know, the argument thatsometimes less is more, and
that is precisely what the StateDepartment spokesperson said
the day that the reports werereleased, is just not the case.
In this case, like, less isless.
Less means that an abuseagainst an LGBT person in a
particular country is gone.
Less is that, you know, anillegal land grab that led to
(18:14):
abuses against Indigenouspeoples is gone.
It means that child abusewithin the context of non-state
actor, and I'm thinking inparticular of Haiti, is gone.
So, you have a chapter inHaiti that doesn't mention
anything about violence againstchildren when we know that
children have been heavilytargeted by the violence that is
(18:35):
happening in Haiti.
So, less is just less.
And on top of that, some of thechapters are just political
fictions.
El Salvador says that there areno significant reports of human
rights abuses.
Yeah, no, sure, sure, sure.
(18:55):
When we know that there's...
there's torture, extrajudicialkillings, and unlawful
detentions, right?
The Israel, Gaza, andPalestine, or Gaza and West Bank
chapters are shockingmisrepresentations of the
current context in Gaza, butmore generally about the human
(19:18):
rights context there.
Germany and other WesternEuropean countries are being
called out for their curtailmentof freedom of expression, and
as significant significant humanrights concerns.
And so now we're left grapplingwith what do these reports
mean?
And what does it mean for thecivil society groups that
(19:41):
engaged with the process andhave been eliminated from the
outcome of their work?
Jennie (19:49):
I think the other thing I think about as well is we
talked about how important theywere and that this was a trusted
document that people counted onand were used in so many ways.
Businesses used it when theywere trying to decide whether to
work with a country.
Asylum courts used it when theywere trying to decide whether
(20:10):
to grant somebody asylum.
But now people are maybe havingtheir trust shaken in this
document that has been aroundfor so long.
What does that mean goingforward?
It's hard to rebuild that kindof trust that this is a factual
document that you can use todetermine whether you work in a
(20:32):
country or not when now there'spolitical interference in it.
Amanda (20:37):
Yeah, I know.
I mean, I think we're alltrying to figure out what does
it mean when governmentinformation is untrustworthy,
whether it's, you know, jobsdata or human rights report.
You know, and I want to beclear, the human rights record
of the United States, regardlessof the administration has been
checkered, right?
And so I think there's this, ifyou're not terribly familiar
(21:00):
with the reports and the contentof the reports and the process
of the reports, but you arefamiliar with human rights
policy of many differentadministrations of the United
States, you're like, why wouldthese be so trusted by civil
society?
And if you go into the reports,the reports don't always
reflect the policy, the overallpolicy of the US government when
it comes to an individualcountry.
(21:21):
So the US has a deeprelationship with India, but the
human rights reports have inthe past been very critical of
the Modi government anddismantling of homes and the
anti-Muslim violence that hasoccurred.
And there's a tension point,and that tension point
oftentimes makes uncomfortablerelationships for ambassadors.
(21:44):
Ambassadors don't love thesereports.
These reports make them have tohave conversations that are
contrary to their overall goalswith a particular in the short
term.
And another thing that I wouldflag is the Israel, Gaza, and
West Bank chapters last yearcontained a lot of important
(22:05):
information that the overallU.S.
government was not comfortablereally advancing broadly in
their language and reporting.
And so they've never beenperfect, but they really are a
much...
better encapsulation of thehuman rights context, then you
(22:26):
would see maybe the outcome ofwhat is being said at the top in
the National Security Councilor the State Department.
So, moving into your questionabout the trust relationship
then.
So, there is a trustrelationship that was
established with these reports,even if there was disconnect in
the U.S.
(22:46):
government policy.
And where do we go from here?
Well, one thing to know is thatin asylum decisions within the
United States, not only wouldthere be these more robust
reports in the past, but asylumjudges could also take into
consideration other civilsociety reporting.
So two things have happened atthe same time.
(23:07):
We have drastically reducedreports and dictates from DHS
that asylum decisions should bebased only on the State
Department report.
So, there's no way tosupplement the information that
has come out.
And that's going to bedisastrous because one thing
that you could do is justsupplement with other reporting,
(23:27):
but that there's nowhere elseto supplement or you're not
permitted to supplement.
The other thing to note is, youknow, this is happening in the
context of a completedismantling of the human rights
ecosystem.
And so there are many differentways that documentation happens
and that the US becomes awareor the world, the global kind of
(23:49):
movement on human rightsbecomes aware of a human rights
context or abuse.
And part of that is civilsociety that is collapsing under
both the abrupt cuts from USforeign assistance and also the
ripple effects that that haseven on organizations that don't
receive US government funding.
And so not only is it going tobe harder to functionally kind
(24:15):
of supplement the human rightsfindings that are no longer in
those reports and kind of asylumclaims, or for businesses to go
and seek additionalinformation.
There's not like a clearpathway where this information
will all be gathered andcollated.
There's also just gonna be asupply-sec problem.
There's just fewer resources todocument human rights abuses.
(24:37):
And so what that means is as a,not just as a country, but
certainly as the US governmentand those of us that operate
within the civil societyecosystem here, but globally
too, we're gonna have, lessvisibility over, in particular,
(24:58):
the abuses against the mostmarginalized populations around
the world.
And I can talk more about that,but that's what keeps me up at
night.
This is just a harbinger ofwhat's to come.
And what's to come is thatafter years of building global
transparency around what humanrights abuses look like, not
(25:20):
just for high level political orlabor or journalists, kind of
activists in a particularcountry, but for everyday
people, we're going to losethat.
Jennie (25:29):
I also found it interesting NPR had a great
piece breaking down, like, whatexactly happened in the reports.
And so, you know, we talkedabout entire sections
disappearing, like gender andLGBTQ rights and so many others.
But also what was reported,they scaled back on examples
(25:52):
given.
And I think that's one of thosethings that people may not
understand.
Why shouldn't there just be oneexample?
Shorter is better, right?
Maybe you can talk a little bitabout that because I also find
that part really troublingbecause to me, then you lose
sense of scale.
But I'm sure you all have amuch better way to talk about
(26:13):
why it's so important.
Amanda (26:15):
Yes.
So, losing sense of scale isdefinitely a part of it, but
it's also more about what makesit a human rights abuse.
So, we've had this conversationwith the State Department in
the past.
The State Department, there isa kernel of truth that there is
a desire that has existed foryears to make these very
unwieldy reports something morecontained.
(26:37):
In the past, however, therehave been consultations with
civil society, and civil societymakes all the arguments as to
why scaling down to oneemblematic case creates a
challenge for civil society andcountry to make end roads on
advocacy or for the globalmovement.
And part of the importantreason is that when you have one
(27:00):
emblematic case but don'treally embed it into a broader
understanding of context, agovernment can say, oh yes,
we're aware of that case, it'sone bad apple.
And they can have, just if youhave an emblematic case, they
can have an emblematicprosecution or an emblematic
release from detention and say,see, we're good.
(27:21):
We've moved on.
Let's go ahead and sign ourcritical mineral deal or
whatever it is.
So, that's one reason whyhaving one emblematic case
creates a problem.
Another is for certain humanrights abuses, it is about a
pattern of government failure toto prevent, investigate,
(27:44):
prosecute, and punish aparticular type of human rights
abuse.
And gender-based violence is agreat example.
It actually took decades forgender justice advocates to help
the human rights movementunderstand that what previously
was understood as a privatecrime— so intimate partner
violence or even sexual violenceas happening between two
(28:08):
private individuals— is actuallya human abuse when taken into
context of a government that hasnot taken the steps to prevent
it or to respond to it.
And you have to understandpatterns and scale and breadth
of a problem in order to makethe argument that it has gone
from a private crime or a badapple to a systemic human rights
(28:34):
problem that requires thegovernment to address it.
And so, when you start toreinforce the idea that one
emblematic a case is all that isneeded to understand a human
rights context, you also arereinforcing the idea that by
just addressing that oneproblem, the country will have
resolved it.
It also doesn't give us a senseover time about progress.
(28:56):
And these reports aren'tintended to show evolution over
time, but you can.
You can see, well, okay, lastyear there were all of these
different cases, and it doesseem like we aren't seeing the
same sort of pattern this year.
We're only seeing seen you knowthere's still a few challenges
but there's been a shift andthat'll be gone.
Jennie (29:17):
Yeah, no, I think that is so important it was just one
of those things that reallystruck me as I was reading
through that NPR piece was like,oh this seems this seems like a
problem on top of all of theother problems.
Is there anything else that youhave been thinking about moving
forward or thinking about thiscurrent version of the Human
(29:40):
Rights Report?
Amanda (29:41):
You know, there's always things within the report, like
we want more, right?
Like, and I think there'salways the argument, like civil
society, we always want more.
We always want more.
And what I think that I havebeen proud of as a kind of
ecosystem is that over time, thehuman rights movement has
(30:01):
helped shift these reports sothat they are more inclusive of
the broadest scope of apopulation.
And, you know, when you onlyfocus on certain civil and
political rights, it's often thepeople that have been able to
leverage power to get into aposition where they actually
(30:21):
have political rights that arevisible to the US government.
And so, there has been thisreally important shift where how
these reports demonstrate aparticular human rights context
actually gives you a fullerpicture of what is happening in
that particular country.
And as I said before, I really,I worry about what it means to
(30:48):
go back to a context where onlya few people and only a few
types of violations matter andget visibility because that
hides a whole host of trulyatrocious and violent abuses
(31:12):
that undermine the dignity ofpeople.
And I think the the question inthe back of everybody's mind is
like yes, but what does itmatter to me if I'm an American
sitting in the United States?
That's not going to havebusiness interests in a
particular country.
That's not going to be seekingasylum.
Like, why does this matter?
And not to instrumentalize itbut when you ignore a whole host
(31:37):
of a population and rightsviolations against them, it may
mean that you still are able toadvance American interests in
the short term, but people donot suffer lack of human dignity
for the long term without therebeing repercussions.
(31:57):
And those repercussions canbring great instability in the
world.
And in the past, again, the UShas a checkered history with
human rights, but in the past,in many contexts, there were
people around the world thatbelieved that the US cared about
human rights, about their humanrights, and had drew hope from
(32:22):
that and also looked to the USas a champion for human rights.
And that's why the pushbackwhen the US fails to uphold
human rights is so strong isbecause there's a disconnect
from what people believe or seethe US trying to promote itself
as and the reality of it.
(32:43):
And I think this kind of stripsaway the final shred of belief
that the global community hadthe U.S.
actually cares about humanrights.
Jennie (32:55):
Yeah, it also takes me back to the first Trump
administration and theCommission on Unalienable
Rights, and that there is a"hierarchy" of human rights, and
not all of these are actuallyhuman rights, and it's putting
me back in that space, and thisis a clear example of
(33:17):
instrumentalizing that.
Amanda (33:19):
Yeah, and you are right to be back in that space,
because not only has all of thishappened to the Human Rights
Reports, but it's happened undera state reorganization process
that Rubio implemented thatreduced the Human Rights Bureau
within the State Department by90%.
And the policy office of thatBureau is now named the Office
(33:42):
of Natural Rights.
And the policy office went fromhaving 100 people to having
eight people.
And when you ask what arenatural rights, because human
rights are internationallyagreed upon framework so that
all rights holders and allgovernments understand what
standard they're being held to,and the US was instructed in the
(34:04):
negotiations and development ofthat framework.
And this office is brushingthat aside for an idea of
natural rights.
Now, they're trying to say,that's just the philosophical
underpinning.
We still believe in humanrights.
But a philosophicalunderpinning is not universal.
It's very relative.
(34:25):
And so how you ensure, and thisis, I always think about rights
holders, and I think whenpeople talk about cultural
relativism, like, well, humanrights don't need to mean like
the same thing everywhere.
Like this is just theimposition of Western values on
countries around the world.
And I kind of think about it inthe context of girls that I've
(34:46):
interviewed around the worldabout child marriage.
And I guarantee you thatuniversality is important to
those girls.
That cultural relativism,having a different set of human
rights based on where you live,is not A, at the heart of what
(35:12):
human rights are supposed to beabout, and B, is not going to
lead to a safer, stronger, andmore prosperous world or United
States.
And so, yes, you're right tohearken back to that prior
enterprise of commission ofinalienable because we're seeing
that 2.0 and this idea of"natural rights." And I think
(35:34):
we're going to see more of thislanguage coming out in President
Trump's address at the UNGeneral Assembly in September.
I think we're going to start tosee a United States that
understands human rights as onlyinstrumentalized and only
something that governmentsbestow upon their population
(35:57):
within the confines of what theybelieve is culturally
acceptable.
And so I had somebody explainit to me this way.
It's the you do you, humanrights.
You do you, we do we, and let'snot get up in each other's
business when we're detainingpeople, mass carrying people,
(36:20):
marrying children off,preventing people from living
their lives withoutdiscrimination because that is
culturally acceptable there andculturally acceptable here.
So that's upcoming, folks.
Jennie (36:34):
Yeah, and I know this goes without saying, but just to
make it clear, since this is asexual reproductive health,
rights, and justice podcast,that obviously LGBTQ rights and
reproductive rights under thisframework are not actually seen
on that same level.
They are seen as lesser rightsback from the Commission on
Unalienable Rights and NaturalRights.
Amanda (36:56):
I would push back on that even more and say they are
not seen as rights.
They are seen, and I believethe terminology was like
political questions for societyto determine.
And so again, this goes to, youknow, we're in a world where
people's basic right todetermine things about their
(37:17):
body, about their lives and whothey love are not even seen as
inherent to their dignity.
So I'm sure as we learn moreabout what natural rights mean,
you'll have other conversationswith folks, but just a reminder
that not only it, was theCommission on Inalienable Rights
(37:39):
kind of proposing a certainhierarchy of rights.
It was also proposing a totallydifferent understanding of when
rights attach.
And so in particular, the rightto life attaching at conception
and rather than at birth andwhat flows from that as far as
not just restrictions onpeople's reproductive choices,
(38:03):
but affirmative obligations ofthe state protect the right to
life from very, very earlyintervention into a pregnancy.
Jennie (38:14):
Okay, that is all terrible.
So, I always try to end with,if not hopeful, but
action-oriented.
So, what can the audience do?
How can they get involvedeither in this conversation or
this fight or whatever?
What can they do about this?
Amanda (38:35):
Yeah.
Well, so I think there was ahuman rights constituency that
was built over a period of timeout of this belief of the
Universal Declaration of HumanRights, the building of a human
rights infrastructure, the needfor this sort of international
(38:55):
cooperation to increase thedignity of all around the world.
And that had a lot of traction,I think, in communities around
the United States.
And it was nonpartisan andbipartisan in many ways.
Now, of course, abusivepolicies were also bipartisan in
(39:15):
a lot of ways, but there wassomething there where people
agreed upon fundamental humanrights.
And so much so that I think weforgot that we had to reaffirm
our commitment to these rights.
And so one thing that I wouldjust suggest is, really go and
(39:37):
read the Universal Declarationof Human Rights and encourage
other people to do so.
Familiarize yourself with theidea that in 1948, countries
around the world, and it was acomplicated time in colonial
history, but it was also adiverse set of countries that
were negotiating, a diverse setof actors negotiating these
terms.
(39:58):
And so, understand that theserights are not going to be
protected just like theConstitution is not going to be
protected if we don't actuallyknow what's contained in it.
So, that's just one thing.
Just know that these rightsmatter and that they exist and
you should know what they are.
And they cannot be taken awayby a government, even if they
(40:18):
try to.
They're inherent to us aspeople.
And then, that's my spiel, thatthese are not partisan.
They shouldn't be, they weren'tbefore, let's move forward with
that.
That said, there is somelegislation that has been
introduced, at least currently,maybe by the time this airs,
it'll be introduced in the Housebut there is some legislation
that has been introduced to tryto reintroduce the different
(40:43):
sections that have been strippedfrom the report.
And that is a bill by SenatorShaheen on reintroducing the
integrity of human rights intothe process.
And I would encourage everyoneto ask their senator to approve
that, or to co-sponsor it, andthen if it were ever to get to
the floor to approve it.
(41:03):
The other is just to continueto look for other sources.
I think a lot of peopleactually use, like students and
others, actually use the humanrights reports as a reference or
for a variety of startingpoints to understand the context
of a country.
And so go to other civilsociety documentation
(41:23):
organizations, including Amnestyand Human Rights Watch and
Human Rights First and Committeeto Protect Journalists and
Freedom House.
There's so many.
Really understand that thestory is not completely told by
these reports anymore.
And then be on the lookout forhow this could get worse.
We've been told that these arejust re-edits and re-writes this
(41:46):
year, but the next year'sreports are going to be worse.
And members of Congress need tohear from them that they won't
tolerate it.
This is mandated by Congress sothat we ensure that our
taxpayer money is not going tocontribute to human rights
abuses.
And if your member of Congressis getting bad information from
(42:09):
a political report, they need tounderstand that Americans are
listening and are not going tosit back and let this kind of
false narrative about humanrights be perpetuated.
Jennie (42:22):
Thank you so much.
Those are all really greatthings to think about and
actions people can take.
Amanda, thank you so much forbeing here.
It was so great to talk to you.
Amanda (42:31):
It was wonderful to be here.
I wish it was about somethingmore uplifting, but I am an
eternal optimist.
All human rights people need tobe.
And so, I do think this is amoment for us to reaffirm and
really recommit to theuniversality and importance of
human rights and ensure that weare pushing back and building
(42:52):
forward.
Thank you.
Jennie (42:54):
Okay, y'all.
I hope you enjoyed myconversation with Amanda.
It was so great to get to talkto her.
It had been a while.
We used to sit in coalition andsee each other a lot more.
So, it was nice to get to talkto her after a long time not
being able to catch up.
So, that was so much fun.
I hope you enjoyed ourconversation and I will see
everybody next week.
If you have any questions,comments, or topics you would
(43:15):
like us to cover, always feelfree to shoot me an email.
You can reach me at jennie@reprosfightback.com or you can
find us on social media.
We're at rePROs Fight Back onFacebook and Twitter or
@ReprosFB on Instagram.
If you love our podcast andwant to make sure more people
find it, take the time to rateand review us on your favorite
(43:37):
podcast platform.
Or if you want to make sure tosupport the podcast, you can
also donate on our website atReprosFightBack.com.
Thanks all.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.