VZCZCXYZ8774
RR RUEHWEB

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

UNCLAS TIRANA 000172 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EUR/SCE, DRL 
 
E.O. 12958:N/A 
TAGS: PHUM PGOV PREL
SUBJECT: IMPROVING THE ANNUAL HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT PROCESS 
 
¶1.  (SBU) SUMMARY: At the conclusion of the department's annual 
process of updating and editing the Human Rights Report, embassies 
Tirana and Chisnau would like to make the following observations 
regarding the substance of the reports, the process of updating them 
from the field, and the process of editing information in 
partnership with the Office of Democracy, Labor and Human Rights 
(DRL).  In discussions among several posts, it is clear that many in 
the field are dissatisfied with a process that can be unnecessarily 
burdensome, as well as with the end result, and have serious 
concerns that the negative trends discussed below are being 
entrenched rather than reversed.  As a result, the report, which has 
in the past been a forceful statement of USG policy and leadership 
on human rights, may undercut U.S. policy by obscuring major trends 
with minutiae, giving undue weight to the opinions of non-U.S. 
actors, and failing to reflect the best judgment of embassy 
officials on the ground.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Since its inception, the annual Human Rights Country 
Report has been a key Department priority and a valuable instrument 
of U.S. foreign policy.  The status of human rights worldwide has 
important ramifications for U.S. policy, asylum requests, foreign 
funding requests, and most importantly the issues and obstacles 
faced by the millions around the world who are denied basic rights 
and freedoms.  For these reasons, the accuracy, readability, and 
brevity of the report are imperative. 
 
¶3. (SBU) At the same time, officers in the field face competing 
priorities and limited resources.  The volume of work required to 
update the report each year increases because of expanding guidance 
and changing regulations. Posts are happy to undertake all extra 
efforts which are commensurate with the importance of the document, 
and which lead to improvements commensurate with those efforts. 
However, in recent years, managers at posts and desks have observed 
a substantial increase in frequently unproductive work for human 
rights officers in the field during the editing process.  Posts note 
several examples of this trend: editors have expanded their role 
beyond editing to include the cross-examination of substantive 
contributions from posts; editors conduct substantial research on 
their own to include additional cases, examples, and general 
information not suggested by posts and often impossible to verify at 
post; editors request and make substantive changes in reporting to 
include a level of detail that is not set out in annual guidance; 
editors make changes in vocabulary and syntax which make no 
difference to the meaning of the text, but must be responded to by 
posts.  To combat these issues, and produce a report that is 
streamlined, easily digestible and relevant, posts put forward the 
following suggestions for the editing process. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Establish tight time limits for turnaround:  Posts provide 
their first draft of an updated report in late September or early 
October each year.  However, it is routinely eight to twelve weeks 
before posts receive feedback and comments from the Department. 
Posts then face a deadline of two weeks or so to respond to detailed 
requests for information as well as contradictions of facts reported 
by posts from the field.  This constricted editing time places 
difficult restrictions on posts' time and resources, particularly 
occurring each year during the holiday season when host government 
and NGO interlocutors are away from their offices.  The timeframe 
also fails to allow for clearance time at post, which can be two to 
four days.  Placing a time limit of four to six weeks on the 
beginning of the process would be a significant benefit, both for 
drafters at post as well as the Department's editors, who would have 
time to excel in the editorial work in which they have expertise. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Restrict editors' work to editing: This will improve 
turnaround time while making the document more concise and easy to 
read.  Beyond correcting errors of grammar and spelling, editors 
should ensure that examples are correctly placed in each section, 
prune superfluous material and impermissible language, question 
apparent contradictions, request clarification of vague language, 
and change non-standardized language.  In addition, posts should be 
able to identify clearly which editor made changes to facilitate 
direct communication with that party on clarifications.  User 
information identifying each editor should be a part of any tracked 
changes. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Resist the temptation to add uncorroborated and unconfirmed 
information: By refraining from adding to the substance of post 
reporting beyond the cases originally cited, editors can streamline 
the editing and clearing processes while producing a document that 
presents cogent, persuasive facts from authoritative sources.  The 
information posts provide each year is based on research and 
reporting in the field.  It can be important to include information 
from other sources such as respected NGOs, which posts routinely 
consult to provide context and clarity.  However, overall, the 
report should reflect local experts' best judgment each year on the 
updated human rights situation on the ground.  Basic facts of this 
assessment need not be supplemented with unsubstantiated sources 
from internet searches, academic papers or often-dated NGO reports 
written by other than local experts. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) As is commonly known, many internet sources can be 
outdated, speculative, or poorly sourced and therefore unsuitable 
for contribution to the HRR.  When included, such information cannot 
be easily removed, and requests for subsequent annual updates become 
problematic when original sourcing is unconfirmed by post.  Random 
examples from internet searches often lack nuance and context and 
can contradict the report's overall themes and message.  Finally, 
NGOs, even the most well-respected ones, represent a different 
perspective and agenda from the USG's on many human rights issues. 
The responsibility for the accuracy of the substance of the HRR 
ultimately lies with the Department of State rather than with 
outside organizations or governments, and this is best ensured by 
using our own information and sources known, vetted, and trusted by 
embassies. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Restrict the report to the scope of the guidance:  Among an 
editor's primary responsibilities should be to ensure the report 
provides what is necessary according to annually updated accepted 
guidance - no more and no less than required.  The inclusion from 
editors of additional examples and information not called for by 
guidance further extends an already unwieldy document rather than 
making it more succinct.  Despite 2007's welcome guidance that the 
HRR should be pruned five to 20 percent, posts found that editors' 
comments and inclusions often did not respect this in practice. 
This level of detail, outside of the guidance, both detracts from 
the substance of the document and creates an increasingly 
time-consuming process in which the quantity of time invested does 
not yield higher quality. 
 
¶9. (SBU) Overall, posts believe that the current process produces a 
document which undercuts U.S. leadership on human rights by 
outsourcing foreign policy through the championing of NGO 
information above posts', focusing on a level of detail that 
detracts from the overall message rather than supporting its themes, 
and diminishing posts' reporting capabilities for an extended period 
of time while officers and FSNs conduct further research, seek to 
confirm additional data and examples through contacts, and defend 
their own work on the HRR to their colleagues.  In close partnership 
with DRL, posts want to produce an annual Human Rights Report that 
is accurate, nuanced, and succinct while fully meeting its 
Congressional mandate.  We look forward to working on new ways to 
meet this goal. 
 
¶10.  (SBU) COMMENT: As a congressionally mandated report, the HRR 
necessarily responds to the concerns of a domestic constituency. 
However, its wider audience is the foreign public, particularly 
those with the ability or influence to confront cited human rights 
abuses and make changes for the better.  Outdated, one-sided or 
unconfirmed information undermines the credibility of the report 
itself, gives governments the opportunity to dismiss its content as 
an inaccurate reflection of their society, and prevents human rights 
advocates from utilizing one of our most effective tools.  Tirana 
and Chisnau put forward this assessment with a constructive spirit 
aimed at restoring the HRR to its original strength.  We welcome the 
comments of the Department and other posts. 
WITHERS