Rodchenkov Act Passes Senate, Goes to President for SignatureTuesday, November 17, 2020
WASHINGTON—Yesterday, the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act (H.R. 835) passed the U.S. Senate, completing its course through both chambers of Congress. The bill now goes to President Donald Trump for signature. Passage of the bipartisan legislation has been spearheaded by Helsinki Commission Co-Chairman Sen. Roger Wicker (MS) and Commissioner Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) in the Senate and former Commissioners Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18) and Rep. Michael Burgess (TX-26) in the House of Representatives. The bill passed the House of Representatives in October 2019. “This legislation is a great bipartisan accomplishment for the rights of athletes, the protection of whistleblowers, and our common goal of keeping criminals out of international sports,” said Sen. Wicker. “The world’s top athletes should not have a life achievement ripped away from them through fraud—and no whistleblower should live in fear of retaliation for exposing that fraud, as Dr. Rodchenkov has been forced to do.” “Russia’s malicious, corrupt behavior on the international stage demands a strong rejoinder,” said Sen. Whitehouse. “The World Anti-Doping Agency and the International Olympic Committee have failed to hold Russia accountable for its brazen cheating program in Sochi. Ahead of the next Olympics, the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act will create stiff penalties for doping and send a message to Russia and the world that state-sponsored fraud will not be tolerated.” The bill advanced through the legislative process entirely on consensus-based procedures, demonstrating the wide bipartisan support for the measure. The legislation also has received overwhelming support from amateur and professional sport organizations, including the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC), the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee Athletes’ Advisory Council, the U.S. Olympians and Paralympians Association, Major League Baseball (MLB), the National Football League (NFL), the National Hockey League (NHL), and PGA TOUR. The Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act will: Establish criminal penalties for participating in a scheme in commerce to influence a major international sport competition through prohibited substances or methods. This section applies to all major international sport competitions in which U.S. athletes participate, and where organizing entities receive sponsorship from companies doing business in the United States or are compensated for the right to broadcast their competition there, so that international fraud against Americans will not go unpunished. Penalties will include fines of up to $1,000,000, or imprisonment of up to 10 years, depending on the offense. Provide restitution to victims of such conspiracies. Athletes and other persons who are victims of major international doping fraud conspiracies shall be entitled to mandatory restitution for losses inflicted upon them by fraudsters and conspirators. Protect whistleblowers from retaliation. By criminalizing participation in a major international doping fraud conspiracy, whistleblowers will be included under existing witness and informant protection laws. Establish coordination and sharing of information with the United States Anti-Doping Agency. Federal agencies involved in the fight against doping shall coordinate and share information with USADA, whose mission is to preserve the integrity of competition, inspire true sport, and protect the rights of athletes, to enhance their collective efforts to curb doping fraud. In 2016, Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov exposed the Russian state-sponsored doping scandal that took place during the 2014 Sochi Olympics. By deceiving international anti-doping authorities and swapping athletes’ samples, Russian officials cheated U.S. athletes out of Olympic glory and U.S. corporations out of honest sponsorships. These corrupt officials used bribes and illicit payments, sometimes through U.S. financial institutions, to commit this fraud. Unfortunately, the masterminds behind the Russian doping operation escaped punishment for their actions because there was no U.S. legal mechanism to bring them to justice. In February 2018, the Helsinki Commission held a briefing featuring Dr. Rodchenkov’s attorney, Jim Walden, on combating fraud in sports and the role of whistleblowers in safeguarding the integrity of international competitions. In March, Commissioners Sen. Ben Cardin (MD) and Sen. Cory Gardner (CO) and Rep. Jackson Lee met with Dr. Rodchenkov to discuss the threat posed by Russia to the United States, corruption in international sports bodies, and how the United States can contribute to the international effort to counter doping fraud. In July, the Helsinki Commission held a hearing that explored the interplay between doping fraud and globalized corruption and U.S. policy responses, including the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act. In October 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted seven individuals for involvement in a Russian-operated military intelligence program in which GRU officers are alleged to have conducted sophisticated hacking of U.S. and international anti-doping agencies who investigated and publicly condemned Russia’s state-sponsored doping program. The hacking victims also included 230 athletes from approximately 30 countries. The operation was part of a disinformation campaign in which victims’ personal email communications and individual medical and drug testing information, sometimes modified from its original form, was used to promote media coverage to further a narrative favorable to the Russian government. In October 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted a further six individuals for involvement in a Russian-operated military intelligence program in which GRU officers are alleged to have conducted sophisticated hacking of entities and organizations involved with the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic Games.
OSCE ELECTION OBSERVERS RELEASE 2020 PRELIMINARY FINDINGS ON THE UNITED STATES GENERAL ELECTIONSFriday, November 13, 2020
By Emma Derr, Max Kampelman Fellow and Robert Hand, Senior Policy Advisor The U.S. election system has passed the “extreme stress test,” according to the head of the 2020 general election observation mission organized by the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe. International observers representing 39 OSCE participating States presented their preliminary conclusions at a press conference on November 4, 2020 in Washington D.C. The observation mission is a joint effort between the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (PA). Ambassador Urszula Gacek of Poland, who led the ODIHR observers, said the U.S. electoral system had been subjected to an “extreme stress test” this year due to COVID-19 and the polarized political climate. While announcing the mission’s findings, she concluded, “The American electoral process appears to have passed that test.” Observers deliver the post-election statement in Washington D.C. Photo courtesy of the OSCE PA. In 1990, all OSCE participating States pledged to hold free and fair elections and to invite international observers. To meet this OSCE commitment, in March 2020 the U.S. Department of State invited the OSCE to observe the November 3 elections. As part of the OSCE election observation process, the observers focus their reporting on issues such as legal framework, election administration, new voting technologies, campaign environment and finance, and coverage of elections by media. Recommendations are then issued to improve the electoral processes to benefit citizens. “The United States is leading by example, showing that election observation is a way to promote democracy both at home and abroad,” said OSCE Parliamentary Assembly member Michael Georg Link, who served as Special Coordinator and leader of the short-term observer mission. This is the ninth election the OSCE has observed in the U.S. since 2002. The OSCE began its work during the summer of 2020 by conducting a comprehensive review of the electoral process. A Needs Assessment Report was published in July, which recommended observation. Once the core team of the observation mission was deployed, an Interim Report was released in October. Head of OSCE PA election observation mission Kari Henriksen in Ann Arbor, Michigan in October. Photo courtesy of the OSCE PA. The Needs Assessment Report noted “the conduct of these elections will be the most challenging in recent decades” and that “in a highly polarized environment, there is an increased need for external and independent overview of the electoral process, including of the election day proceedings.” ODIHR sent a limited election observation mission (LEOM) to the United States on September 29, which included observing early voting. The core team was comprised of eleven experts from ten participating States, led by Gacek. On election day, 50 observers were deployed by ODIHR, alongside 65 observers that included parliamentarians and support staff from the OSCE PA, to 30 states and the District of Columbia. Michael Georg Link and Andreas Nothelle speak with a poll worker at a polling station in Washington D.C. on Election Day. Photo courtesy of the OSCE PA. Despite the challenges, the OSCE team was confident it produced a thorough, impartial, fact-based assessment. As Link noted, the OSCE’s role is not to draw a “thumbs up, thumbs down” political conclusion or compare results to other countries or even to previous elections in the same country. The mission hopes to foster post-election dialogue about its recommendations, and a final report is expected in January 2021. All OSCE election observation reports are accessible on the OSCE website. Findings Overall Assessment The OSCE’s Preliminary Report concluded that the November 3, 2020 general elections were free and fair, as well as “competitive and well managed despite legal uncertainties and logistical challenges.” It also noted that the pluralistic and diverse media provided comprehensive coverage of the campaign. Freedom of expression was respected, and a wide range of available election-related information enabled voters to make an informed choice. Early and postal voting was significantly expanded, allowing for higher voter participation amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The work of election administration under difficult circumstances “enjoyed general confidence.” The elections were “extensively observed” by both partisan and non-partisan citizen observers, which increased the transparency of the election process. The preliminary report stated, “Election day was orderly and took place in a peaceful atmosphere without unrest or intimidation. Mitigating measures against the pandemic were generally in place and followed.” Any interruptions at polling places due to problems with voting equipment were quickly addressed. Political Polarization The 2020 presidential campaign was characterized by deep political polarization. During the year, controversy arose regarding the conduct of elections amid the COVID-19 pandemic which took hold in February and March. The death of George Floyd in Minneapolis in late May elevated calls for racial justice, leading to peaceful protests as well as confrontation and instances of violence. The OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission 2016 Final Report said that the last presidential campaign was characterized by harsh personal attacks and intolerant rhetoric by one candidate, a trend that continued in 2020. This year’s preliminary findings highlighted the incumbent president’s “discriminative and pejorative statements” and also noted that “the two leading presidential candidates accused each other of corruption, fraud, working for foreign interests, an inability to lead, and support for extremist groups.” Overall, the international election observers concluded that this rhetoric shifted the focus away from policies and party platforms and toward negative campaigning. Legitimacy of Elections The 2020 Interim Report noted that many ODIHR election observers expressed concerns about the “the incumbent President’s repeated allegations of a fraudulent election process and postal vote in particular.” This led to concern over public trust in the process and outcome as well as the potential for political violence in the aftermath of elections. At the November 4 press conference, Link stated that “baseless allegations of systematic deficiencies, notably by the incumbent President, including on election night, harm public trust in democratic institutions.” Link and Gacek both said that the OSCE’s observations will be ongoing as the votes continued to be counted. “Nobody – no politician, no elected official – should limit the people’s right to vote. Coming after such a highly dynamic campaign, making sure that every vote is counted is a fundamental obligation for all branches of government,” said Link. Alternative Voting The preliminary findings indicate “an unprecedented volume of litigation over voting processes in the months before the elections, with over 400 lawsuits filed in 44 states.” The report states that such litigation, focusing on minimizing the COVID-19 health risks of in-person voting, created uncertainty and placed undue burden on voters and election officials. Despite these obstacles, opportunities to vote early were expanded due to the pandemic. The interim report said that even though there was concern over the level of preparedness of election officials with minimal exposure to postal votes, many states allowed absentee ballots to be processed before election day and allowed voters to correct mistakes that may have otherwise led to ballot rejection. According to the preliminary report, “Early voting was conducted in-person in 39 states and the District of Columbia, with voting periods ranging from 45 to 3 days. Long queues were reported in a number of states. All states provided voters with the option to cast a postal ballot…By election day, more than 100 million voters had already cast their votes.” The OSCE observed the processing and handling of postal ballots and reported no indication of systemic problems or issues. Secrecy of the vote is not guaranteed by all states for postal and out-of-country electronic voting, which the report—in line with several previous EOM reports—notes does not align with OSCE commitments. Election Observation On election day, the OSCE observed the election process and visited a limited number of polling stations. According to the preliminary report, “Election day was observed by numerous partisan and non-partisan citizen observers across the country, with rights and responsibilities ranging from observing signature and ballot verification to challenging the eligibility of a voter or of individual ballots.” Gacek lauded the enormous effort made by election workers and citizens working the polls, as well as a record voter turnout amidst pandemic challenges and legal uncertainty. “We were received very favorably -- made to feel very welcomed,” said Gacek. Five states and the District of Columbia permit observation by international observers by law, and eighteen states restrict observation. During the press conference, Link noted that there are a number of states where international election observers are not allowed inside polling premises. The OSCE has noted these restrictions since its 2004 report. Link said that he hoped state laws would be amended to allow for international observer access, as the current restrictions are not in line with OSCE commitments. However, Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution devolves the responsibility to conduct elections to the states. As a part of this power, each state has different laws about election observers. Some do not allow international election observers into polling places. Other states do, but most are silent on the matter, leaving it to the discretion of election officials. Disenfranchisement Disenfranchisement has been an issue raised by OSCE election observation missions since 2008. For example, the OSCE noted that U.S. residents of the District of Columbia and overseas territories do not have voting representation in Congress. Also, an estimated 5.2 million citizens are not permitted to vote due to criminal convictions, even after serving their sentence. The OSCE notes that this restriction disproportionately affects African Americans and violates the principles of universal suffrage. Voter Registration and Identification As stated in previous reports of OSCE election observation missions to the United States, 2020 observers concluded in the “Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions” that voter registration and identification requirements can be unduly restrictive for certain groups of citizens, such as Native Americans and low-income citizens. Identification documents are required in 34 states. Campaign Finance Since 2008, OSCE reports on U.S. elections noted a high level of campaign spending; this year, the mission estimated that campaign expenditures were expected to reach $14 billion. OSCE concerns include campaign finance laws that facilitate a lack of donor transparency and unlimited spending of Super PACs.
Remarks from Sen. Cardin Concerning Election Observation and Vienna Terrorist AttackThursday, November 12, 2020
Statement at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Meeting of the Standing Committee Mr. Secretary General on behalf of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, let me congratulate our president, our secretary general, and leadership of the OSCE parliamentary assembly. I know I am joined by Senator Roger Wicker, our vice president, and Congressman Richard Hudson the Chair of the First Committee in congratulating you on the manner of which you have adjusted to this pandemic, so that the Parliamentary Assembly can deal with the challenges of our time. Whether hot spots or dealing with the pandemic, I believe the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly has adjusted to this crisis and has been extremely relevant. So first, our congratulations to you for a job very well done. “A fundamental function of any democracy is ensuring that citizens are able to vote and know that their vote will be counted.” That was a quote from our former president Alcee Hastings. I send you greetings from Alcee, who is undergoing treatment and could not be on the call today. I know and I ask that we all keep him in our prayers, as he is dealing with his health concerns. I want to thank as the Secretary General has pointed out, those who have been involved in the election observation missions. It is not easy to cross the Atlantic and observe an election in the United States, and I thank you all for your participation in our election. I had the chance to address the parliamentarians through video when they were here, and we very much appreciate the fact that they really added to the importance of the observation role of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. So, congratulations to all who participated. We are very proud of our democracy in the United States. We recognize that no democracy is perfect. We all need to be on a path towards improvement, and as the Special Representative on Anti-Semitism, Racism, and Intolerance of the Parliamentary Assembly, I am particularly sensitive to the use of racial and religious tropes to try and influence votes or when some try to disenfranchise those who are eligible to vote. Areas in which we can use some improvement. So, we obviously are monitoring such issues very closely in all of our participating States, including in the United States. I have introduced legislation to deal with some of these issues on disenfranchisement and to deal with other issues on intimidation. But I think we can all acknowledge that the overwhelming participation of Americans of all backgrounds in our election demonstrates the continued vibrancy of our democracy. And again, I thank you all for your observations and I can assure you that we are going to continue to try and improve in America and help all the states within the OSCE in their free and fair elections. I do want to acknowledge the horrendous terrorist attack and offer our condolences for what happened in Vienna - the home of the OSCE – on the street outside the synagogue that survived Kristallnacht. It is a particular concern that we all recognize that the victims came from various faiths and ethnicities. And it just recalls Mr. President, that in 2016 at our annual meeting, the United States offered a supplemental item - a call for OSCE action to address violence and discrimination - so that we deal with the concerns of what we see in healing and guarding against prejudice and discrimination. As your Special Representative charged with this function, I want to suggest that we revisit that resolution, and I particularly want to thank you for your support of the mission of special representation on behalf of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly through your actions and statements in the forums that have been held during this pandemic because you recognize the pandemic does add pressure to these types of issues. Thank you very much for your support. I am proud to represent the Parliamentary Assembly in this area.
Coronavirus in the OSCE RegionFriday, October 30, 2020
By Emma Derr, Max Kampelman Fellow A novel coronavirus was first identified in Wuhan, China in December 2019. Termed COVID-19, the disease spread rapidly around the globe. As of October 2020, 1.18 million people have died from COVID-19, and over 227,000 of these deaths have occurred in the United States. COVID-19 is one of the most devastating public health crises since the Spanish Flu of 1918. From hospital beds to protective gear, governments across the world face significant challenges in combating its morbidity and death rates. In addition to the domestic coronavirus policies implemented at the national level, multilateral organizations such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) have taken their own steps to curb the vast negative impacts of the novel coronavirus. Examples of Coronavirus Policy Responses across the OSCE Region Countries in the OSCE region have developed a wide variety of policies to combat the significant public health, political, and economic challenges caused by the coronavirus. As the number of cases has surged or declined in various countries, coronavirus restrictions are changing on a weekly basis. In most countries, policies exist at a national level, and many countries have also imposed regional restrictions. In the United States, state and local authorities impose their own restrictions. The varying responses of the United States, Sweden, France, and Turkmenistan illustrate the many coronavirus policy differences that exist in the OSCE region. The scientific publication “Our World in Data,” in collaboration with the University of Oxford, created a “Government Response Stringency Index” using nine response indicators, including school closures and travel bans. With 100 as the strictest ranking, the index currently ranks the United State at 62.5, France at 46.76, and Sweden at 37.04. Turkmenistan is not on the index. Government Response Stringency Index as of October 28, 2020. Graphic courtesy of Our World in Data. United States In the United States, federal action largely has been confined to restrictions on international travel and immigration, with state governors enacting their own policies concerning closures and restrictions. State policies differ in scope and timeline but most center around issues such as face mask requirements, the number of people who can gather, health guidelines for business operations, social distancing measures, state travel restrictions and quarantine orders, restaurant and bar capacities, prohibitions on non-essential medical procedures, and in-person or online school decisions. Local officials, such as state health officers and mayors, have also imposed restrictions at the county or city level, sometimes in conflict with more or less stringent state-level guidance. State restrictions change rapidly, but the New York Times has created a map with up-to-date state data and policy actions. France The French government first locked down the country on March 17, requiring citizens to provide travel permits when leaving their homes. In May, France began to gradually reopen schools and public transport at the same time as other European countries, such as Belgium and Spain, eased restrictions. Masks are mandated on public transit and recommended when social distancing guidelines cannot be followed. According to France’s government website, as of October, local curfews were imposed in the Paris region, as well as eight other cities. These changes arrive amid a European “second wave,” which includes a spike in coronavirus cases in France. On October 29, another lockdown was announced and is expected to extend until December 1. All nonessential travel outside the home is strictly prohibited as it was with the first lockdown, but this time around, schools will remain open. Sweden In the spring of 2020, Sweden kept its borders open, and became one of the few OSCE participating States that did not go into lockdown. Instead, gatherings of over 50 people, sporting events, and visits to nursing homes were prohibited; bars, restaurants and schools remained open. The general advice issued by the Public Health Agency of Sweden reminds citizens to stay at home when experiencing symptoms, wash their hands regularly, and socially distance from one another. The agency does not recommend face masks in public spaces. Due to its high per capita death rate, Swedish health officials recently released national restrictions on nightclubs, as well as other regional measures. On October 26, new local guidelines were introduced in Uppsala and Malmo, where cases have been increasing. Residents were told to avoid public transport and to only socialize with people within their households. Turkmenistan Turkmenistan is the only OSCE participating State to deny that it has been affected by COVID-19. There is significant doubt both in the international community and among Turkmen NGOs that this is the case. There have been numerous deaths of high-level government officials and people in prisons reportedly due to “pneumonia.” Humanitarian concerns have been raised as patients with COVID-19 symptoms have been overwhelming hospitals. Although the World Health Organization visited the country and did not directly contradict the official narrative, following the visit, Turkmen authorities imposed “preventive” restrictions similar to those in other countries. The country has restricted travel and border crossings; closed restaurants, shopping malls, theaters, and parks; and mandated the use of masks and social distancing in public. OSCE Action The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is the world’s largest regional security organization with 57 participating States. Leaders of OSCE institutions and offices have stated their continuing commitments to OSCE principles and stress the importance of unity and solidarity as its nations fight to control the pandemic. “Now is the time for unity. The COVID-19 virus does not distinguish between peoples or countries; its threat is universal. This underscores that security is common, comprehensive and indivisible,” said the Chair of the OSCE Permanent Council Igli Hasani and his colleagues in a letter earlier this year. The OSCE seeks to provide leadership through guidelines and policy recommendations that address the challenges presented by the novel coronavirus. The organization has also been active in examining the economic, environmental, and security implications of the coronavirus across the OSCE region. “In today’s highly interconnected world, it is necessary to have strong solidarity and a cooperative approach at all levels: community, state, regional, and global,” stated Vuk Zugic, OSCE Coordinator of Economic and Environmental Activities. Minority Groups and Vulnerable Populations On the Helsinki on the Hill podcast “Communities at Risk,” Ambassador Lamberto Zannier, the former OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities and a current OSCE PA High-Level Expert, spoke about providing protection for the most vulnerable during this health crisis. “We felt that the issue of protecting the diversity of the society and ensuring that all social groups are included in the policies, and there is an equal treatment for all, was not at the forefront of the concerns of many governments,” he said. “We started to see problems of discrimination. We started to see problems with hate speech. We started seeing problems with access of some of the population to basic services.” In March, as OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, Zannier released recommendations for short-term responses to COVID-19 to support social cohesion in OSCE states, and in April, the HCNM released a full set of policy recommendations that call on countries to take into account diversity when implementing state emergency measures, such as providing public services and media communications in minority languages. Voting and Elections The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) is mandated to address issues related to democracy, human rights, and rule of law, including freedom of the press, freedom of movement, and democratic elections. ODIHR released a report in October outlining best alternative voting practices in the context of COVID-19, focusing on secrecy, equality, and universality. Human Trafficking ODIHR also conducted an empirical survey of survivors of human trafficking and issued a report in June that examined the impact of COVID-19 on human trafficking trends and recommended how OSCE states could respond. According to OSCE PA Special Representative on Trafficking in Persons and former Helsinki Commission Chair Rep. Chris Smith, “The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the vulnerability of children to becoming victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation. Today, with most schools closed, children are spending more of their time online where they are vulnerable to being groomed by sexual predators and lured into trafficking situations. One way we can fight this and protect our children now is by education to keep them safe online and by developing age-appropriate training tools for children, parents and educators.” Parliamentary Diplomacy The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA) has hosted several webinars focused on the effects of the coronavirus on human rights and democracy. The webinar titled “COVID’s impact on conflicts in the OSCE region” addressed obstacles to conflict resolution, humanitarian aid efforts, and implementation of the fundamental principles agreed to under the Helsinki Final Act. Helsinki Commissioner and Chair of the OSCE PA General Committee on Political Affairs and Security Rep. Richard Hudson attended the discussion and stated his concern over “the COVID-19 pandemic and its potential to further inflame existing conflicts in the OSCE area or potentially generate new ones.” He said it was important for the Parliamentary Assembly to stay informed on the OSCE’s role in the conflict cycle, specifically in Ukraine and Georgia. Other speakers emphasized his message and noted that people in conflict zones are on one of the most dangerous frontlines of the pandemic. In May, the OSCE PA hosted a webinar titled “Respecting Human Rights and Maintaining Democratic Control During States of Emergency.” In his comments, Helsinki Commission Chairman Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (FL-20) emphasized the importance of protecting fundamental freedoms. “I am sorry, but not surprised that some governments have taken the need for emergency measures as an opportunity for repressive measures,” he stated. “Hungary is the only OSCE participating State that does not have a sunset clause for the expiration of its emergency measures or requiring parliamentary approval for an extension. Parliamentary oversight is absolutely essential, especially when governments seek to exercise extraordinary powers.” During the webinar, Sen. Ben Cardin (MD), Helsinki Commission Ranking Member and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Special Representative on Anti-Semitism, Racism, and Intolerance, also addressed concerning aspects of COVID-19 emergency responses. “Emergency provisions which restrict freedom of speech or freedom of the media are especially concerning and may actually undermine our efforts to address this health emergency. We need to ensure that journalists, medical professionals, scientists and others can provide the public with information we need to battle COVID,” he said. OSCE Field Missions OSCE field missions have been actively adapting to support host countries’ needs during this pandemic. Since April, several missions have helped to provide medical supplies and equipment to their host countries. The OSCE Presence in Albania, a field operation that cooperates with Albania’s Border and Migration Police, donated medical supplies to Albania’s Border Police in May. The team also visited border crossing points to assess existing protocols. The OSCE Programme Office in Dushanbe provided protective gear and sanitizing supplies to its partners in Tajikistan, and the OSCE mission to Montenegro delivered food and hygiene products to support the country’s Red Cross. Handover of personal protective equipment to Regional Health Administration of Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Region on July 25, 2020. (Photo courtesy of OSCE/Umed Qurbonov) The OSCE has also facilitated online medical trainings for border officials in Turkmenistan and donated IT equipment to the Canton 10 Ministry of Education to support Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine has been impacted by the pandemic by restrictions on mission member movement, but the mission nevertheless continues to be a key international actor in the country, informing on developments in the conflict areas of Donetsk and Luhansk.
Hastings and Wicker Call for Free and Fair Elections, Anti-Corruption Action, and Protection of Human Rights in KyrgyzstanTuesday, October 27, 2020
WASHINGTON—In response to the tumultuous change of power in Kyrgyzstan, Helsinki Commission Chairman Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (FL-20) and Co-Chairman Sen. Roger Wicker (MS) issued the following statement: “Kyrgyzstan should ensure that changes to its electoral system adhere to the rule of law, are transparent, and allow for input from civil society. Its citizens, many of whom took to the streets in protest over allegations of vote buying and corruption during the annulled October 4 parliamentary election, should have confidence that the system is fair and that new elections are conducted properly and reflect the will of the people. “For the country to move forward, authorities should seriously address endemic corruption and protect private businesses and foreign investment. We are also disturbed by reports of pressure and harassment directed toward political opposition, human rights activists, and journalists. We urge Kyrgyzstan to ensure that human rights are protected during this difficult time, including the rights of persons belonging to ethnic minorities. “We believe that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe could play an instrumental role in assisting Kyrgyzstan with any electoral or constitutional changes, as well as preparations for and observation of new elections. It also could support the role of civil society and independent media. Kyrgyzstan should take full advantage of this possibility.” What started as a popular revolt by youth and opposition groups over fraudulent elections on October 4 and endemic corruption resulted in the resignation of President Jeenbekov and the installation of Sadyr Japarov as both Kyrgyzstan’s acting president and prime minister. OSCE election observers concluded that the October 4 parliamentary election “was competitive and candidates could, in general, conduct their activities freely” but “credible allegations of vote buying remain a serious concern” and “a number of controversial CEC decisions raised questions about its impartiality.” The country will hold both new parliamentary and new presidential elections. Presidential elections have been scheduled for January 10, but the timing for parliamentary elections remains unclear. Parliament has already made some changes to the electoral code and is discussing further reform. Japarov announced that he would step down as president in December to allow him to run for president and thereby get around a constitutional provision that bans the acting president from doing so.
in the news
A Transatlantic Plan for Racial Equity and JusticeThursday, October 22, 2020
From the United States to Germany, and Canada to Poland, the killing of George Floyd by a white Minnesota police officer has galvanized a transatlantic movement for human rights and social justice. Activists have managed to sustain their cumulative mobilization in honor of countless lives, most recently in outcries following the September grand jury acquittal of officers involved in the killing of Breonna Taylor, who had been sleeping when they broke down her door with a battering ram to execute a no-knock warrant. Most Western countries have not seen mobilization on this scale or of this scope in several decades, yet organizations, businesses, and institutions continue to debate how best to meaningfully respond. Demands for action have been innumerable, yet national responses have been limited and, in many cases, insufficient in scope to secure and stabilize communities. This is a moment for nations and alliances to consider their responsibilities in the underlying systems that have yielded inequitable outcomes and less security for the most marginalized than for their better-off peers. On Sept. 22, the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament convened a joint meeting and advanced toward a transatlantic response to systemic racism. The United States and other Western democracies are grappling with their shared inheritance of persistent practices that date back to when race-based discrimination was enshrined in laws—when Black people were legally and morally deemed to be no more than expendable property. The cumulative weight of generations of such treatment — in culture, in politics, and in the economic system — has led to radically unequal and inequitable societies and set the stage for international protests against racial inequality and injustice. The November 2020 elections in the United States will have a substantial impact on the ability of democratic countries to address their failure to ensure the same rights, protections, and opportunities for all their populations because of enduring institutional and systemic racism. If the discriminatory impacts of colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade endure in the systemic treatment of impacted populations, only meaningful multilateral and transatlantic engagement that empowers the descendants of the colonized and enslaved will meet the demands of demonstrators pouring into streets across the globe. The next U.S. presidential administration should seek national and international political commitments by its allies, alliances, and international organizations, coupled with investment commensurate with the insidious scope of the hate we seek to overcome. The Need for a Transatlantic Response World War II brought about global carnage that demanded sophisticated international cooperation towards economic recovery. The Economic Recovery Act of 1948, proposed by U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall and passed by the U.S. Congress, resulted in more than $13 billion invested in the reconstruction of Europe. This investment was critical in Europe’s recovery, in cementing ties between Western democracies, and in obstructing the westward spread of Communism. This moment again calls for a similarly substantial investment in the reconstruction of economies, but this time the economic objective is genuinely transatlantic and the scourge that must be confronted is one with deep historic roots. The COVID-19 pandemic may have accelerated the inevitability of such a policy. As the coronavirus lays waste to economies on both sides of the Atlantic, it exacerbates the inequities of systemic racism. Research has shown that socially disadvantaged communities, including those impacted by systemic racism, are more susceptible and vulnerable to the consequences of the pandemic. National responses to the pandemic have already outweighed the scale of the Marshall Plan, yet sufficient attention has not been given to how this moment can be seized to rebuild our societies and economies with inclusive policies that make our communities more resilient, even as they make them more equitable. Now is the time for the United States to forge transatlantic agreements with the United Kingdom and the European Union, to address racism at the scope and scale of the historic Marshall Plan. What Would a Transatlantic Plan to Address Racism Look Like? Over the last decade, the United States has established a range of bilateral agreements in the Western Hemisphere to advance social inclusion for racial and ethnic equality. Joint action plans and memoranda of understanding with Brazil, Colombia, and Uruguay have fostered everything from academic exchanges with Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) to public- and private-sector solutions for racial health disparities, access to education, and equal access to the justice system. Why don’t similar agreements exist to advance these objectives in a transatlantic context? Members of Congress and parliamentarians in Europe have advocated for just that since the 2009 Black European Summit at the European Parliament and in subsequent transatlantic exchanges. A joint declaration last month from members of the European Parliament and the U.S. Congress emphasized the role of the recently established European Union (EU) Commission Anti-Racism Coordinator to facilitate the adoption of national action plans for EU Member States and the United States. Such national action plans, due by 2022, would reinforce a much-needed EU-U.S. Joint Action Plan on Racial and Ethnic Equality and Inclusion that could be negotiated by the next U.S. presidential administration. Momentum is building for multilateral and bilateral agreements, to draw from and build on the global racial justice movement. Potential opportunities are already before us. A future U.S.-U.K. Free Trade Agreement following Brexit, for example, should include incentives for economic empowerment of British and American communities marginalized by systemic racism. The British Parliament and the U.S. Congress should be required, as part of any such agreement, to conduct regular equality impact assessments for populations affected by said agreement. Both legislative chambers could turn to relevant legislation. They could be guided by relevant U.K. legislation, such as the Equality Act 2010, in order to provide metrics against which any such agreement could be measured. In addition to annual metrics, however, both nations also should measure the realization of long-term goals to empower and uplift marginalized communities. In terms of opportunities within the EU, the European Commission’s Action Plan on Racism released at the end of September should incorporate multilateral considerations. The plan calls for a robust role for public-private partnerships of EU Institutions and member States with civil society in convening a summit against racism in Spring 2021. The summit would produce a commitment to develop joint action plans with the United States, the United Kingdom, and other nations implicated in the enduring legacy of colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade. Notably, the plan also calls for a consistent approach to collecting data on equality, which has long been a contentious issue among EU member States since World War II. Throughout much of the 20th century, many European nations argued against disaggregated ethnic data collection for fear it would be used by ethnic majorities to enact hateful policies. Marginalized groups, however, have advocated for such data collection for decades to inform policy and determine benefits that could rectify the legacy of colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade. Without such data, there are few means to disabuse electorates in Europe of false narratives and assumptions about the role and history of ethnic and racial minorities in Europe. The new plan must navigate this historical context and catalyze more investment in the impact of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). This should include any efforts to implement the related demands of the European Parliament. Any exploration of new trade negotiations between the United States and the European Union should include measures to empower minority and women-owned small and medium-sized enterprises and economic incentives intended to dismantle institutional racism. Inequities Highlighted by the Coronavirus Global protests for racial justice were no doubt intensified by the systemic inequities revealed and compounded by the coronavirus. At the same time, the pandemic has precipitated governmental reinvestment in national economies, demonstrating that governments can indeed execute large-scale strategies to improve and safeguard their democracies when the political will exists. It should be evident in our bilateral and multilateral agreements that anything less than full inclusion for all inhabitants of our nations results in vulnerabilities that leave us all less secure. Given the shared history of slavery, racism, institutional prejudice, and systemic inequity across the Atlantic, it follows that we should seize this moment to begin to conceive of transnational mechanisms to address the sordid legacy of grave social injustice, and deploy our economic resources and capacities to healing a wound that is now centuries old. (Editor’s note: Readers also might be interested in Just Security’s series Racing National Security.)
Chairman Hastings Commends Cyprus for Ending Golden Passport ProgramTuesday, October 13, 2020
WASHINGTON—Following the decision of Cyprus to cancel its so-called golden passport program, Helsinki Commission Chairman Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (FL-20) issued the following statement: “Golden passports are routinely abused by kleptocrats and crooks looking to hide their identity by using dirty money to purchase a second citizenship. I commend Cyprus for its decision to terminate this program and urge other EU countries to follow suit. Ending golden passports will help ensure that the EU provides no safe haven for those who would abuse its openness. Citizenship should not be for sale.” The Cyprus golden passport program has long faced criticism for its abuse by corrupt foreign officials. Both Transparency International and Global Witness have released reports highlighting the dangers of the Cyprus golden passport program, and the European Commission singled out Cyprus in its 2019 report on citizenship-by-investment in the EU. An Al Jazeera investigation entitled “The Cyprus Papers” found that more than 1,000 wealthy Russians received a Cypriot passport between 2017 and 2019, accounting for more than half of all applicants, and a recent undercover video allegedly showed senior Cypriot officials discussing how to enable a convicted criminal to purchase a golden passport.
OSCE representatives, community leaders share urgent proposals to combat discriminatory police violenceMonday, October 12, 2020
On October 6, 2020, the OSCE Office of the High Commissioner on National Minorities, in cooperation with the Helsinki Commission, convened “Policing in Diverse Societies: Principles and Good Practices.” The webinar, which provided an opportunity to exchange knowledge, challenges and best practices, attracted over 100 attendees including practitioners, parliamentarians, and other representatives of the OSCE participating States. Christophe Kamp, officer-in-charge of the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, opened the online event, one of several taking place ahead of next year’s 15th anniversary of the 2006 Recommendations on Policing in Multi-Ethnic Societies. Participants assessed the continued relevance and operational applicability of these guiding principles, as well as how best to further their scope. Senator Ben Cardin, Helsinki Commission Ranking Member and OSCE PA Special Representative on Anti-Semitism, Racism, and Intolerance, highlighted relevant legislation that has been introduced in the U.S. and focused on law enforcement reform as a way forward following protests over discriminatory, aggressive policing. “From Russia to Canada, our country is not alone in confronting issues of discriminatory policing and racial justice in the region,” he noted. “Working together with the High Commissioner’s office and other OSCE institutions, we can strengthen efforts to ensure that racial justice and the protection of human rights for all as enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act.” Ambassador Lamberto Zannier, a high-level expert for the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and former OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, underscored the role of police violence in interethnic conflict and instability in societies. He discussed protests that erupted across the OSCE region following the tragic death of George Floyd and how aspects of the OSCE, such as its Police Matters and Tolerance and Non-discrimination units, could be instrumental in reducing conflict in the region. Other speakers included Hilary O. Shelton of the NAACP, who emphasized the urgent need to implement cultural sensitivity and awareness training for police forces. He said this training could decrease discrimination, combat stereotypes, and foster relationships between law enforcement and communities. Anina Ciuciu, community organizer of Collective #EcolePourTous, highlighted the need for structural changes in France to address police violence and brutality and noted continuing incidents between police and Romani communities. She shared that on average, minorities are “20 times more likely to be checked by police, and three times more likely to be brutalized by police.” Nick Glynn, senior program officer with Open Society Foundation and a former UK police officer, called for increased diversity in law enforcement, an expansion of community policing and demilitarization of police to address the multifaceted problem. Ronald Davis of the Black National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives cited the need for systematic changes in law enforcement, including changes in police culture. Alex Johnson, U.S. Helsinki Commission Chief of Staff, moderated the discussion and detailed the history of law enforcement in the U.S. “The policing system from a perspective of personnel and practice should reflect the diversity of their societies, be it linguistic, ethnic, racial, religious, or any other identity,” he concluded.
in the news
What’s Washington’s role in Belarus?Tuesday, October 06, 2020
The United States should lift up Belarusian civil society, according to experts, and slap tougher sanctions on mid-level government officials abusing protestors. The Trump administration should widen sanctions against human-rights abusers in Belarus and ramp up support for civil-society groups monitoring president Alexander Lukashenko’s crackdown, according to former State and Treasury department officials. Lukashenko purged his political opponents from the ballot in mid-August and unleashed security forces against civilians protesting the election. The crackdown has not cowed Lukashenko’s opponents, who have called for his ouster every weekend for the past two months. Over 100,000 people protested in Minsk on Sunday. The United States penalized senior members of Lukashenko’s inner-circle last week in an effort to push the embattled leader to negotiate. The State Department announced in September that the United States no longer recognizes Lukashenko’s government, and coordinated the sanctions with wider penalties from Europe. Both the Trump administration and European Union officials could be doing more to support the protestors, experts told National Journal. “I think both the U.S. and the EU need to go much further than they have so far, in terms of the number of people that they sanction,” said Michael Carpenter, director at the Penn Biden Center, who called for sanctions against “mid-level” Belarusian officials directly responsible for the human-rights abuses. Belarus-specific sanctions date to the Belarus Democracy Act of 2004, and a Bush-era executive order that sets out guidelines for penalizing officials responsible for undermining democracy. Lawmakers added further penalties in 2011. The Trump administration targeted eight people Friday, including the head of Belarus’s elections and the chief of Belarus’s security forces, and the European Union sanctioned 40 people. The United Kingdom and Canada also announced sanctions over the weekend, including against Lukashenko himself. The sanctions are only one part of Belarus policy, experts stressed, which is ultimately supposed to push Lukashenko to negotiate. Exiled opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya asked German Chancellor Angela Merkel to mediate the negotiations on Tuesday. Judy Dempsey, a nonresident senior fellow at Carnegie Europe, predicted that Merkel would take up the challenge—but would have to act quickly. Russian President Vladimir Putin might accuse the EU of meddling in Belarus’ government should the talks drag, Dempsey told National Journal. “If Merkel does take on this mediating role, it’s got to be incredibly sophisticated and it’s got to be very fast,” said Dempsey. The United States may not play a direct role in mediating the talks, but the Trump administration might put more pressure on Lukashenko by targeting mid-level officials inside his government. Former State Department sanctions coordinator Daniel Fried told National Journal that the State Department and OFAC could craft an executive order to authorize “status-based” penalties: those which authorize Treasury to target specific people based on their employment. Officials could then work with Belarusian civil society to identify targets, like “the plainclothes cops roughing up dissidents.” “Putting this into legislation is hard as hell, and then it’s not as flexible,” said Fried. “It’s far better to let OFAC do it, in coordination with the State Department.” Lawmakers have remained largely hands-off on Belarus, besides offering statements in support of those protesting against Lukashenko. In July, the Senate passed a resolution condemning the arrest of opposition candidates and political protesters. The chair and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee separately called out Lukashenko’s handling of the election in early August, and later in the month issued a joint statement calling for sanctions against those responsible for human-rights abuses. The upper chamber might support Belarus policy by advancing Trump’s ambassadorial nominee to Belarus, several former officials and experts told National Journal. The United States and Belarus haven’t exchanged ambassadors since 2008. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee advanced career State Department official Julie Fisher favorably out of committee in late September. Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy voted against the nomination, and argued that sending the ambassador to Belarus during the crackdown would reward Lukashenko. Some experts disagreed, and said having an ambassador in Minsk could help the United States coordinate policy with civil-society groups and would send an important signal to domestic opposition. Sen. James Risch told Murphy that the State Department believed having an ambassador to Minsk was “the best way to help the Belarusian people.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office did not respond to emailed questions about Fisher’s nomination; Senate Foreign Relations Committee spokesperson Suzanne Wrasse told National Journal that McConnell has “a number of priorities,” and that ambassadorial nominations were “on the list.” While former officials agreed that ramping up support for civil society groups and sanctioning mid-level Belarusian officials could be effective at prodding Lukashenko to negotiate, they disagreed over whether also to target large state-owned firms that form the backbone of the Belarusian economy. Carpenter, Fried, and other former Obama administration officials suggested that penalizing the companies could end up hurting protestors, many of whom work on the factory floors. The Lukashenko government has close ties with heavy industry, however, and a few lawmakers told National Journal they support lifting waivers granting them access to the U.S. market. Rep. Alcee Hastings asked Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin in mid-August to cancel sanctions waivers for several Belarusian companies. Hastings led the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe election-monitoring mission for Belarus’s 2006 presidential election, and now heads the Helsinki Commission, a congressionally-created agency that coordinates OSCE policy on Capitol Hill. The Treasury Department has not responded to Hastings’ letter. “Providing support to the Lukashenko regime by allowing its state-owned companies access to our financial system is unacceptable, and the sanctions announced on individuals last week by the Treasury Department are a step in the right direction,” said Hastings in a statement to National Journal. “However, Lukashenko himself has long been a prime candidate for Global Magnitsky sanctions, and failing to include him among the sanctioned individuals is a severe oversight.” Last fall, the state-owned Belarusian oil company Belneftekhim retained lobbyist David Gencarelli to push for the continuation of a licensing exemption allowing the company to purchase “crude oil with delivery to the refineries in the Republic of Belarus.” The Treasury Department extended relief to Belneftekhim and other heavy-industry players, giving them continued access to the American market until April 2021. “What we’ve seen over the years with Lukashenko is he’s a very skillful player juggling between the U.S. and Europe, which is a natural market for Belarus, and Russia,” said Sofya Orlosky, senior program manager for Europe and Eurasia at Freedom House. The EU has similarly sought to keep Lukashenko from sliding into Putin’s orbit, periodically lifting and reimposing sanctions on his government for human-rights abuses. The bloc suspended financial penalties in 2016 after Lukashenko granted “amnesty” to a number of political prisoners, which Orlosky said normalized Lukashenko’s undemocratic behavior. “There’s been, as it were, a limit to the severity of sanctions in the past, because the argument was made at least implicitly that we don’t want to alienate Belarus too much or throw them into Russia’s arms,” said Nigel Gould-Davies, a former British ambassador to Belarus. The Trump administration has pursued normalization with Minsk for the past several years, prior to Lukashenko’s crackdown. The State Department’s top political official, David Hale, met with Lukashenko in Minsk in September 2019, and stated afterward that the U.S. was ready to exchange ambassadors “as the next step in normalizing our relationship.” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited Minsk in February for the same purpose. The difference now, according to Gould-Davies: The legitimacy of Lukashenko’s regime “is basically broken.” Very few people support the government, aside from people working directly for the state, which undercuts calls for moderation in the West. “He enjoys no significant support outside of those who actually work for the state,” said Gould-Davies.
Statement at the OSCE Event "Policing in Diverse Societies: Principles and Good Practices"Tuesday, October 06, 2020
In the past months, we have seen a rise in anti-racism protests and movements across the globe. However, there is nothing recent about the roots of systemic racism that were planted in our societies centuries ago. Through targeted and conscious action in the United States and throughout the OSCE region, this racism can be removed, root and branch. Addressing racism has long been a focus of my work as Special Representative on Anti-Semitism, Racism, and Intolerance for the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and as a U.S. Senator in the leadership of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, simply because when we advance racial justice and civil rights, we strengthen the foundations upon which our democracies were established. It is for this reason, that the U.S. Helsinki Commission has joined forces with the High Commissioner on National Minorities’ Office to hold today’s event following several hearings and other initiatives the Commission has advanced on international racial justice and human rights at home following the tragic death of George Floyd. I am pleased that Hilary Shelton of the NAACP is also with us today to discuss the work of civil society in addressing this problem. In the past I have said, “before they first put on a badge, a police officer takes an oath to uphold the law. Most do so with the best intentions and carry out their duties with a willingness to help communities. But in far too many communities around the country, the system in which they work has been failing. People are dying at the hands of police, predominantly people of color. Accountability has been tied to public videos rather than doing the right thing.” Black lives matter and we must do better to protect the civil rights, human rights, and lives of men, women, and children of our country and throughout the OSCE region. My state of Maryland has had numerous protests in response to the tragic police killing of George Floyd, Freddie Gray, Breonna Taylor, and other African-American members of our community. In response, I have called for a federal civil rights investigation into the killing of George Floyd, and some years ago introduced the End Racial and Religious Profiling Act (ERRPA) and the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act (LETIA). I co-sponsored the Justice in Policing Act in the Senate, which would combat police misconduct, excessive force, and racial bias in policing. The Justice in Policing Act legislation included my ERRPA and LETIA legislation, which has passed the House but has stalled in the Senate. I have been proud to work with my House and Senate colleagues on this and other legislation that requires enhanced profiling data collection for our Justice Department; conditions State and local law enforcement funds on combating profiling, and requires performance-based standards to ensure that instances of misconduct will be minimized through training and oversight. Other important provisions included in the Justice in Policing Act will save lives. The bill bans choke holds by federal authorities and conditions federal law enforcement funds for State and local governments on the adoption of choke hold bans. It also bans no-knock warrants in federal drug cases to address the tragic circumstances that led to the death of Breonna Taylor and others. Importantly, this legislation also calls for steps critical to demilitarizing our police forces. I have repeatedly said we are a civilian society; not a military state--and we must encourage more professionalism, consistent with changing our police officers' mentality from a warrior mindset into a guardian mindset. This means limiting the transfer of military-grade equipment to State and local law enforcement and requiring Federal uniformed police officers to wear body cameras. Finally, the legislation holds police accountable in courts and gives better tools to the Department of Justice and State attorneys general to investigate and prosecute police misconduct. In 2016, the Department of Justice concluded that the Baltimore Police Department had targeted African-American residents for disproportionate and disparate treatment and that this widespread pattern and practice was illegal and unconstitutional. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland is now overseeing a complete overhaul of the Baltimore Police Department, which began in 2017. We have made progress since the tragic death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore in 2015, but recent events indicate we have so much more work to do. These are examples of legislative and legal aims that could serve as a guide across the globe. I welcome today’s event as an opportunity to consider these and other practices that can improve law enforcement and its relations with our communities. I have seen the extraordinary difference it can make when public leaders acknowledge past injustices, work to heal and repair the past, and build safe and inclusive societies. I have seen how empowering communities to reimagine public safety in an equitable and just way can transform our societies. Mark Duggan in the UK, Adama Traore in France, Oury Jalloh in Germany are just some of the Black and minority European lives that have been lost to police killings over the past two decades whose names have been recalled in recent protests. While Roma populations continue to be the victims of unwarranted police raids and excessive use of force sometimes resulting in death. From Russia to Canada, our country is not alone in confronting issues of discriminatory policing and racial injustice in the region. Working together with the High Commissioner’s office and other OSCE institutions, we can strengthen efforts to ensure racial justice and the protection of human rights for all as enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act.
The Consensus RuleMonday, October 05, 2020
The OSCE operates using a consensus decision-making process. Consensus fosters ownership of decisions by all OSCE participating States, enables them to protect key national priorities, and creates an important incentive for countries to participate in the OSCE. It also strengthens the politically binding nature of OSCE commitments; participating States cannot claim that they did not agree to or are not bound by decisions to which they have given explicit consent. However, consensus can be difficult to achieve, and the rule allows a single state to block decisions on OSCE activities, new commitments, appointments, and budgets. Over the years, there have been calls to reform the consensus decision-making process. Although the consensus rule can only be changed by consensus, it could be improved by establishing greater transparency in the decision-making process. Download the full report to learn more. Contributor: Erika Schlager, Counsel for International Law
WHY SOCIAL INCLUSION IN FOREIGN POLICY MATTERSMonday, October 05, 2020
By Nida Ansari, 2019 State Department Detailee / Policy Advisor The U.S. National Security Strategy articulates “a strong and free Europe to advance American prosperity and security; the promotion of universal values, democracy, and human rights where they are threatened; and opposition to Russian aggression and disinformation” as a key U.S. foreign policy goal for Europe. However, the transatlantic partnership between the United States and Europe, grounded in the U.S.-led post-World War II order based on alliances with like-minded democratic countries and a shared commitment to free markets and an open international trading system, recently has been tested, in part due to a declining faith in democratic institutions. According to a 2020 Pew Research study, in 11 of the 57 countries that make up the region of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), approximately half of those surveyed are dissatisfied with the way democracy in their countries is functioning, regardless of whether the economies are advanced or emerging. Italy, Greece, and the United States report some of the highest levels of dissatisfaction. In Europe, such dissatisfaction—particularly in nations that have traditionally been U.S. allies—can be attributed in part to internal domestic challenges including economic decline, the rise of antiestablishment political parties, the weakening of the rule of law, increased migration, and heightened security concerns. To renew confidence in the shared values that underpin the transatlantic partnership, the United States needs to bolster initiatives that restore faith in democratic institutions. Efforts should focus on the future generation of emerging leaders to foster sustainable western democracies and preserve the transatlantic partnership. Social inclusion initiatives can play a key role in sustaining western democracies and the transatlantic partnership in the face of growing domestic and international challenges. Why Integrate Social Inclusion into U.S. Foreign Policy toward Europe? According to the most recent Eurostat data, 22.4 percent of the EU population—including women, young people, people with disabilities, and migrants—are at risk of social exclusion, defined as the lack of fundamental resources, as well as the inability to fully participate in one’s own society. Social exclusion has historically particularly inhibited young people from being better equipped with the capacity, tools, and innovative solutions to effectively participate in democratic life, and have equal access to resources to take part in social and civic engagement. To take action to directly address historic inequities impacting youth, emerging leaders were called upon during the sixth cycle of the European Union (EU) Youth Dialogue to lay out a path for inclusive policymaking. Following a Council of the European Union Resolution in November 2018, the EU Youth Strategy 2019-2027 introduced eleven European Youth Goals, among them quality employment for all, inclusive societies, and space and participation for all. The Eurostat data indicates the critical need to empower young and diverse populations with the knowledge, tools, opportunity, and access to fully participate in democracies. Additionally, amid signs of weakening democratic institutions and rapid demographic change, emerging leaders from diverse backgrounds are uniquely positioned to address underlying societal tensions and develop strategies for understanding and addressing causes of exclusion. When youth and diverse populations are unable to fully participate in economic, social, political, cultural and civic life, disparities in labor market participation, employment opportunities and uneven political and civic participation increase. However, given the capacity to organize, express their views, and play a constructive and meaningful role in decision making processes, emerging leaders are more likely to demand and defend democracy institutions. Engaging young and diverse leaders therefore is essential to secure the future of transatlantic relations and can only help inform the U.S. strategy on confronting deeper trends effectively. Inclusive leadership has never been more relevant. The notion of what leadership looks like has changed and grown more complex and diverse in the 21st century. In order to uphold core democratic values and transatlantic relations, there needs to be a redesign and rethinking of transatlantic engagements with this complexity in mind in the domain of foreign policy and diplomacy. As U.S. and European democracies move towards more inclusive societies, both sides need to capture the pulse of young and diverse populations who have been socially and economically underrepresented and bring their voices to the table. Operationalizing Social Inclusion within U.S. Diplomacy To deepen diplomatic engagements with regional counterparts, the State Department would benefit from adding a new resource to the diplomatic toolkit: institutionalizing a sustainable, ongoing social inclusion unit for Europe, similar to the Race, Ethnicity, and Social Inclusion Unit that currently exists in the State Department’s Western Hemisphere Bureau, to increase the level of participation of populations who have historically been excluded from participating in the democratic process. The unit would incubate social inclusion initiatives and assist various regional and functional bureaus to meet these efforts. European youth leaders have expressed interest in increasing their mobilizing efforts; however, they often have insufficient access to inclusive networks and need guidance on implementation. Therefore, this unit would convene youth leaders to collaborate on community-based initiatives and ideas being pursued around the world, share best practices with U.S. practitioners on inclusive measures and strategies to address regional imbalances on both sides of the Atlantic. Programs that the State Department has conducted with the Helsinki Commission, such as the Transatlantic Inclusion Leaders Network administered by the German Marshall Fund of the United States and the recently launched On the Road to Inclusion, have shown enormous promise in identifying young and diverse political and civil society leaders committed to strengthening their democracies, including through civic education and social inclusion initiatives. Such programs have enjoyed bipartisan support in the U.S. and Europe and should be strengthened as part of an overall initiative to instill strategic U.S. policies and programming that ensure the spread and sustainability of democratic principles on both sides of the Atlantic.
in the news
U.S., EU Sanction Belarus in Coordinated Western ActionFriday, October 02, 2020
Lukashenko government lashes out, saying no ‘self-respecting’ state would agree to demands posed by the West. The U.S. and European Union imposed sanctions against Belarus officials on Friday, part of a coordinated effort by Western allies to censure the authoritarian regime over accusations of political repression and rigging elections. The EU reached an early morning deal to advance a sanctions package against more than three dozen Belarusian individuals deemed responsible for suppressing protests and for election fraud. Hours later, the U.S. Treasury Department blacklisted eight senior figures in longtime President Alexander Lukashenko’s government or associated with his rule. Among those blacklisted were Interior Minister Yuriy Khadzymuratavich Kareau and top election commission officials. The EU’s action against Belarus, together with a joint statement reprimanding Turkey for drilling in waters claimed by Cyprus and Greece, was meant as a broader message of mounting concern that Europe’s eastern periphery, a region that once held hopes for a spread of democracy, is increasingly turning back to its authoritarian past. Divisions within the EU stymied an attempt to sanction Turkey during a summit this week, but officials said the bloc could approve punitive actions in the future. The EU was able to move forward with its Belarus sanctions package, originally promised in August, after Greece and Cyprus secured the statement calling for Turkey to halt its drilling. While the U.S. sanctioned Mr. Lukashenko in 2006, the EU declined for now to include the Belarussian leader himself in their action. Officials said the president, who previously was the subject of EU sanctions that were lifted in 2016, still could be targeted again later. The EU sanctions came into effect Friday afternoon. Mr Lukashenko’s interior minister was also one of the highest-profile names on the EU sanctions list. The Belarus foreign ministry condemned the sanctions and said the government also enacted its own sanctions list, which won’t be made public. It said it may also reconsider its participation in joint programs with the EU and could cut diplomatic ties if further EU sanctions are levied. “The sanctions were introduced as a punitive measure…for the fact that Belarus did not comply with a set of ultimatum requirements that no self-respecting sovereign state would satisfy,” the foreign ministry said in a statement. The statement didn’t address the specific allegations of election-rigging and violent political repression. The U.S. and EU sanctions follow the imposition of sanctions on Mr. Lukashenko and seven senior figures in his government by the U.K. and Canada on Tuesday, a sign of widening discontent in the West over ongoing repression of peaceful protests against his purported victory in a disputed election. Western officials have accused Mr. Lukashenko and his allies of multiple human rights violations in detaining and allegedly torturing protesters following the Aug. 9 vote, which Mr. Lukashenko’s opponents and Western governments say was rigged in his favor to extend his more than a quarter-century in power. The EU has called for a rerun of the presidential elections with international supervision. It has warned it could add additional sanctions if Mr. Lukashenko refuses to enter dialogue with the opposition. The U.S. sanctions targeted officials the Treasury Department said run government offices responsible for the political repression, human rights abuses and election fixing. Besides the top two Interior Ministry officials, the Treasury also blacklisted the two leaders of Interior’s Internal Troops, Yuriy Henadzievich Nazaranka and Khazalbek Bakhtsibekavich Atabekau. “The Belarusian people’s democratic aspirations to choose their own leaders and peacefully exercise their rights have been met with violence and oppression from Belarusian officials,” said Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. The Trump administration declined for now to revoke a special license giving the nine largest state-owned companies in Belarus access to the U.S. financial system, as urged by the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, a government body that advises administrations on sanctions. While the EU’s Belarus sanctions had broad support, the bloc has been deeply split over how to respond to Turkey’s increasingly frequent flexing of military muscle in the region, including its unilateral moves to explore and drill for energy resources in the eastern Mediterranean. Turkey says it has the right to seek energy resources in the region. With respect to Turkey, the EU leaders settled on diplomacy for now, issuing the joint statement but threatening sanctions if Ankara didn’t show willingness to improve ties. Western diplomats said tensions between Ankara and Athens this summer rose to levels not seen since the 1970s, when Turkey and Greece came close to a direct military conflict over Cyprus. Greece and Turkey are North Atlantic Treaty Organization members. However, Turkey has for now suspended its energy activities in waters claimed by Greece but not by Cyprus. Separately, Turkey and Greece reached an agreement Thursday, mediated by NATO, to take measures to avoid an air or naval clash in the eastern Mediterranean, including a hotline between the two countries. European diplomats have also grown alarmed by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s decision to send troops into Libya and Syria, its unconditional support for Azerbaijan in renewed fighting with Armenia and its acquisition of advanced weaponry from Russia. On Thursday, French President Emmanuel Macron said France had clear evidence that jihadist fighters were leaving Syria to go to fight in Nagorno-Karabakh via Turkey. Mr. Macron had earlier criticized Ankara for what he called its bellicose comments against Armenia over its conflict with Azerbaijan. —Ann Simmons in Moscow contributed to this article.
Ranking Member Sen. Cardin to Join OSCE Event on Policing in Diverse SocietiesThursday, October 01, 2020
WASHINGTON—On October 6, 2020, Helsinki Commission Ranking Member Sen. Ben Cardin (MD) will join the office of the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities for an online event to discuss the principles of policing in diverse societies, as well as challenges and best practices among OSCE participating States. POLICING IN DIVERSE SOCIETIES Principles and Good Practices Tuesday, October 6, 2020 9:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. EDT / 3:30 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. CEST Watch Live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3mDc6TDQo8 Sen. Cardin, who also serves as the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Special Representative on Anti-Semitism, Racism, and Intolerance, will offer opening remarks at the event. Other speakers include: Christophe Kamp, OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, Officer in Charge Hilary Shelton, Director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Washington Bureau, Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy The event follows more than a decade of racial justice efforts by the U.S. Helsinki Commission, including a bicameral letter sent to the President of the European Commission in July 2020 led by Helsinki Commission Chairman Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (FL-20) and Helsinki Commissioner Rep. Gwen Moore (WI-04). The letter, which also was signed by Sen. Cardin; Helsinki Commissioners Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05), and Rep. Marc Veasey (TX-33); and 35 other Members of Congress, called for a sweeping plan of action following the European Parliament’s Juneteenth Day resolution.
Helsinki Commission Leaders Mourn Death of Moscow Helsinki Monitoring Group Founder Yuri OrlovWednesday, September 30, 2020
WASHINGTON—Helsinki Commission Chairman Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (FL-20) and Co-Chairman Sen. Roger Wicker (MS) today expressed sorrow over the death on September 27 of physicist Yuri Orlov, the founder of the Moscow Helsinki Group. “Yuri Orlov truly stood out among the great 20th century human rights activists,” said Chairman Hastings. “While many questioned the value of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, he was quick to see its comprehensive definition of security as an opportunity to advance the cause of human rights in the Soviet Union. He founded the Moscow Helsinki Group with other courageous individuals, and paid the price of nearly a decade of imprisonment, hard labor, and internal exile. Throughout his ordeal, he never questioned his decision nor gave up on his dream. His hope gave us hope and made him a true hero.” “Without Yuri Orlov, we might not have the OSCE as we know it today,” said Co-Chairman Wicker. “He understood that the Helsinki Accords were unique in addressing relations between states, as well as between governments and citizens. He helped embolden millions of ordinary people to stand up for their rights against repressive regimes. He also helped convince the world that the human rights violations documented by the Moscow Helsinki Group were legitimate and rightful concerns for all. The international human rights movement owes much to his brilliance and fortitude.” Born in Moscow in 1924, Yuri Orlov was a physicist whose scientific career in the Soviet Union was first limited and then cut short by his support for human rights and democratic change, beginning in the 1950s. In 1973, he became a founding member of the Soviet chapter of Amnesty International. In May 1976, he founded the Moscow Helsinki Group and helped to establish similar groups elsewhere in the country. This was the start of an international human-rights monitoring movement based on the principles and provisions of the Helsinki Final Act that continues to this day. In February 1977, Orlov was arrested, imprisoned for one year, and after a short show trial, sentenced to seven years' strict- regime labor camp and five years in exile for "anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda." Persecution of its members led the Moscow Helsinki Group to stop its work from 1982 to 1989. While in Siberian exile in 1986, Orlov was stripped of his Soviet citizenship and deported as part of a deal in which U.S. journalist Nicholas Daniloff was traded for a Soviet spy. After arriving in the United States, Orlov immediately resumed his human rights advocacy, and then his scientific work as a senior scientist at Cornell University. Continuing his advocacy of human rights in Russia and around the world, in 2005 he was the first recipient of the Andrei Sakharov Prize awarded by the American Physical Society to honor scientists for exceptional work in promoting human rights. In “Dangerous Thoughts: Memoirs of a Russian Life,” published in 1991 in the United States, Orlov tells the story of his life as a dissident in the Soviet Union.
Hastings, Wicker, and Hudson Call For De-Escalation of Nagorno-Karabakh FightingTuesday, September 29, 2020
WASHINGTON—After a major outbreak of violence between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces Sunday in Nagorno-Karabakh, Helsinki Commission leaders Chairman Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (FL-20), Co-Chairman Sen. Roger Wicker (MS), and Commissioner Rep. Richard Hudson (NC-08) deplored the loss of life on both sides and called for the immediate cessation of violence and resumption of negotiations. “I am deeply concerned about the resumption in fighting between the sides, and the needless suffering it is once again inflicting on civilians,” said Chairman Hastings. “The sides must immediately cease hostilities and return to the positions held prior to Sunday’s events, in order to de-escalate the situation.” “This renewed outbreak of hostilities is a serious threat to regional stability. I hope it will not spark a broader confrontation,” said Co-Chairman Wicker. “Outside parties should not exacerbate the situation by intervening in the violence.” “The sides must use the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group to find a solution to this conflict,” said Rep. Hudson, who also chairs the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Committee on Political Affairs and Security. “There is no alternative to a peaceful negotiated solution of the conflict. We in the United States intend to maintain our efforts to work with the sides to settle the conflict peacefully and sustainably.” Heavy fighting broke out Sunday between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces along the line of contact separating the sides in the conflict over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region. The exchange of air strikes, rocket attacks, and artillery fire killed dozens of soldiers and civilians and injured more than a hundred, marking the worst fighting since 2016. Armenian forces occupy most of Nagorno-Karabakh and all or part of seven surrounding Azerbaijani provinces, all within Azerbaijan’s internationally recognized boundaries. The sides fought a war in the early 1990s over the fate of the historically Armenian-majority enclave following the collapse of the Soviet Union, ending in a 1994 ceasefire that governs the conflict today. Since the late 1990s, the United States, France, and Russia have co-chaired the OSCE Minsk Group process, the international format dedicated to facilitating a negotiated resolution to the conflict.
ONGOING TRANSATLANTIC ENGAGEMENT THROUGH THE OSCE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLYThursday, September 24, 2020
Mr. HUDSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to highlight my recent efforts to engage with our allies across Europe to address the current political turmoil in Belarus and seek a way forward. On September 23, I joined a video call of the leadership of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE PA), where I serve as Chairman the Committee on Political Affairs and Security. Joining us for the discussion were the Head of the Belarusian delegation to the OSCE PA, Mr. Andrei Savinykh, and the leader of the Belarusian opposition and former presidential candidate, Ms. Svetlana Tikhanovskaya. Ms. Tikhanovskaya shared with us the long struggle of the people of Belarus for their rights under President Alexander Lukashenko's 26-year authoritarian rule. The fraudulent presidential election on August 9, in which Lukashenko claimed he ``won'' with over 80 percent of the vote, led thousands of Belarusians across the country to come out into the streets. They risk physical harm and imprisonment to demand free and fair elections and the release of political prisoners. Unfortunately, these individuals have been met with brute force from the authoritarian regime. They continue to injure and detain protestors, journalists, and even bystanders on a massive scale. Instances of torture in detention have been reported, and some have been killed. Lukashenko is clearly afraid for his political future. In another desperate move, he recently held an illegal, early "inauguration'' in an attempt to consolidate his illegitimate power. I strongly condemned Lukashenko's violent repression of Belarusians and express solidarity for their desire to choose their own leadership in a democratic and transparent manner and to exercise their fundamental freedoms without fear of violent repercussions or harassment. During our meeting, I noted two particular cases that we in the United States are watching closely. U.S. citizen Vitali Shkliarov, who was in Belarus visiting family, was unjustly detained in July and languishes in a Belarusian prison since the end of July. We are concerned for his welfare and I called for his release. I also mentioned that the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Minsk-Mogilev, Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz, has been denied re-entry to Belarus after a visit abroad, even though he is a citizen. He has openly criticized the government's use of violence against peaceful people, including the detention of priests and clergy, and we fear that this too is a political act on the part of Lukashenko and an infringement on religious freedom. The future of Belarus belongs to its people, and, as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has emphasized, this path should be ``free from external intervention.'' Indeed, my colleagues in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly understand that it is not our place to choose the leadership of Belarus, but to use the unique role of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly as a representative body to foster authentic dialogue, prevent and resolve conflict, and hold each other accountable. As an OSCE participating State, Belarus has an obligation to abide by the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act, including those on human rights and fundamental freedoms. I am pleased that 17 participating States of the OSCE, including the United States, have invoked the Moscow Mechanism, which will establish a mission of independent experts to look into the particularly serious threats to the fulfillment of human rights commitments in Belarus. The report that the mission issues will hopefully offer us greater insight into the situation in Belarus and recommendations for future actions. It is a privilege, through the U.S. Helsinki Commission, to represent the United States Congress in the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE. The Parliamentary Assembly provides Members of Congress with a unique, bipartisan opportunity to work with our friends and allies to help resolve pressing global issues while promoting our shared values. Because the Parliamentary Assembly includes representatives of Belarus and our European allies, it is uniquely suited to address the human rights and security implications of the moment in Belarus. Madam Speaker, please join me today in calling for an end to violence and mass detentions in Belarus and recognizing the importance of continued Congressional engagement with the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE.
Helsinki Commissioners, Other Members of Congress Join European Parliament for Transatlantic Discussion on Racism and DiscriminationMonday, September 21, 2020
WASHINGTON—On September 22, 2020, Helsinki Commission Chairman Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (FL-20), other Helsinki Commissioners, and select members of Congress will join members of the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee and Subcommittee on Human Rights to discuss combating racism and systemic discrimination on both sides of the Atlantic. RACIAL EQUITY, EQUALITY, AND JUSTICE Reinforcing U.S.-EU Parliamentary Coordination to Combat Racism and Systemic Discrimination Tuesday, September 22, 2020 10:45 a.m. – 12:45 p.m. EDT / 4:45 p.m. – 6:45 p.m. CEST Watch Live: https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/en/droi-libe-joint-meeting_20200922-1645-COMMITTEE-DROI-LIBE_vd During the meeting, European Commissioner for Equality Helena Dalli will present the new EU Anti-Racism Action Plan. Other invited speakers include: Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, Chair, U.S. Helsinki Commission Rep. Steny Hoyer, House Majority Leader Rep. Gwen Moore, U.S. Helsinki Commission Rep. Karen Bass, Chair, Congressional Black Caucus Rep. Joe Wilson, Co-Chair, Congressional European Union Caucus and Ranking Member, U.S. Helsinki Commission Rep. Gregory Meeks, Co-Chair, Congressional European Union Caucus Rep. William Keating, Chair, Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, Energy and the Environment Rep. Adam Kinzinger, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, Energy and the Environment Rep. Jim Costa, Chair, U.S. Delegation, Transatlantic Legislators Dialogue Pap Ndiaye, French historian Hilary Shelton, Director, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s (NAACP) Washington Bureau Following the meeting, participants expect to issue a joint declaration on transatlantic collaboration to address racism and systemic discrimination, including the establishment of a forum for a regular exchange of views between elected representatives and stakeholders on both sides of the Atlantic. The joint meeting follows more than a decade of racial justice efforts by the U.S. Helsinki Commission, including a bicameral letter sent to the President of the European Commission in July 2020 led by Chairman Hastings and Helsinki Commissioner Rep. Gwen Moore (WI-04). The letter, which also was signed by Helsinki Commission Ranking Member Sen. Ben Cardin (MD), who serves as the OSCE PA Special Representative on Anti-Semitism, Racism, and Intolerance; Helsinki Commissioners Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05), and Rep. Marc Veasey (TX-33); and 35 other Members of Congress, called for a sweeping plan of action following the European Parliament’s Juneteenth Day resolution.
Editorial Independence Critical for U.S. International BroadcastingFriday, September 18, 2020
By Jordan Warlick, Policy Advisor Access to accurate, unbiased information is imperative for a functioning democracy. Citizens need access to credible news in order to make informed decisions about the future of their nation. According to the most recent U.S. National Security Strategy, “an informed and engaged citizenry is the fundamental requirement for a free and resilient nation. For generations, [U.S.] society has protected free press, free speech, and free thought.” As part of its commitment to press freedom worldwide, the United States supports the development of local independent media in countries where government-controlled media dominates the information landscape. It also brings independent media to these information-starved spots through specific services—like Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and others—under the aegis of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM). The mission of USAGM, which oversees the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Middle East Broadcasting Networks, and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, is vital to the U.S. national interest: “to inform, engage and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy.” USAGM networks reach more than 350 million people across the globe, many of whom otherwise would not have access to independent, unbiased news. Because providing access to credible media is a more effective tool of diplomacy than attempting to push U.S. propaganda overseas, USAGM and the media organizations it oversees are deliberately, legally structured against acting like a propaganda mouthpiece for the U.S. government. The credibility and reliability of Voice of America and other USAGM networks hinge on a statutory firewall that protects them from political interference and has been in place since President Gerald Ford signed Voice of America’s charter in 1976. More than 40 years of bipartisan support for USAGM has been critical to its success. In 1994 President Bill Clinton signed the International Broadcasting Act, which established the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG)—now USAGM—to oversee Voice of America and its sister networks. The legislation specifically mandated that broadcasting overseen by the BBG must “be conducted in accordance with the highest professional standards of broadcast journalism.” It also required that the Director of BBG to “respect the professional independence and integrity” of the U.S. international broadcasting services it oversees. When the BBG became the U.S. Agency for Global Media in 2017, USAGM retained the same statutory commitments to protecting the independence of its networks, including that the Chief Executive Officer of USAGM must “respect the independence and integrity” of the broadcasting services. Voice of America’s mission today—“producing accurate, balanced and comprehensive reporting, programming, online and social media content for a global audience, particularly to those who are denied access to open and free media”—would not be possible without this political firewall. Like any other privately owned media outlet, these networks must remain free to produce independent reporting, including that which is critical of U.S. government policies. Unlike many other state-controlled international media outlets, including Russia’s RT and Sputnik or China’s CCTV, USAGM networks have a storied history of bringing credible, reliable news to audiences behind the Iron Curtain, the Great Firewall of China, and beyond. It would be particularly damaging if the United States was perceived to be attempting to tear down the legal firewall protecting Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and the other international broadcasters from political interference.
The OSCE’s 2008 Human Dimension Implementation Meeting offered an opportunity to review compliance on a full range of human rights and humanitarian commitments of the organization’s participating States. Tolerance issues featured prominently in the discussions, which included calls for sustained efforts to combat anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination. A U.S. proposal for a high-level conference on tolerance issues in 2009, however, met with only tepid support. Core human rights issues, including freedom of speech and freedom of religion, continued to draw large numbers of speakers.
Throughout the discussions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) expressed concern about Kazakhstan’s failure to implement promised reforms and questioned its readiness to serve as OSCE Chair-in-Office in 2010. Greece, slated to assume the chairmanship in January, came under criticism for its treatment of ethnic minorities. As in the past, the United State faced criticism for retaining the death penalty and for its conduct in counter-terrorism operations. Belarusian elections, held on the eve of the HDIM, came in for a round of criticism, while Russia continued to advocate proposals on election observation that would significantly limit the OSCE’s independence in such activities. Finally, discussion of the Russia-Georgia conflict was conspicuous by its near absence, though related human rights and humanitarian concerns will likely receive more prominence in the lead up to and during the December OSCE Ministerial in Helsinki.
From September 29 to October 10, 2008, the OSCE participating States met in Warsaw, Poland, for the annual(1) Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM). The HDIM is Europe’s largest human rights gathering, convened to discuss compliance by the participating States with the full range of human dimension commitments they have all adopted by consensus. The meeting was organized by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), according to an agenda approved by consensus of all 56 participating States. The HDIM is the only multinational human rights meeting in Europe where representatives of NGOs and government representatives have equal access to the speakers list. Indeed, over half of the statements delivered at this year’s HDIM were made by NGO representatives.
Such implementation review meetings are intended to serve as the participating States’ principal venue for public diplomacy and are important vehicles for identifying continued areas of poor human rights performance. Although the HDIM is not tasked with decision-making responsibilities, the meetings can provide impetus for further focus on particular human dimension concerns and help shape priorities for subsequent action. Coming in advance of ministerial meetings that are usually held in December, the HDIMs provide an additional opportunity for consultations among the participating States on human dimension issues that may be addressed by Ministers. (This year, for example, there were discussions on the margins regarding a possible Ministerial resolution on equal access to education for Roma and advancing work in the field of tolerance and non-discrimination, including the possibility of convening a related high-level meeting in 2009.)
OSCE rules, adopted by consensus, allow NGOs to have access to human dimension meetings. However, this general rule does not apply to “persons and organizations which resort to the use of violence or publicly condone terrorism or the use of violence.”(2) There are no other grounds for exclusion. The decision as to whether or not a particular individual or NGO runs afoul of this rule is made by the Chairman-in-Office.
In recent years, some governments have tried to limit or restrict NGO access at OSCE meetings in an effort to avoid scrutiny and criticism of their records. This year, in the run up to the HDIM, Turkmenistan held the draft agenda for the meeting hostage, refusing to give consensus as part of an effort to block the registration of Turkmenistan NGOs which have previously attended the implementation meetings and criticized Ashgabat. Turkmenistan officials finally relented and allowed the adoption of the HDIM agenda in late July, but did not participate in the Warsaw meeting. Along these lines, the Russian delegation walked out in protest when the NGO “Russian-Chechen Friendship Society” took the floor to speak during a session on freedom of the media.
At the 2008 HDIM, senior Department of State participants included Ambassador W. Robert Pearson, Head of Delegation; Ambassador Julie Finley, Head of the U.S. Mission to the OSCE; Ambassador Karen Stewart, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor; and Mr. Bruce Turner, Acting Director, Office for European Security and Political Affairs. Mr. Will Inboden, advisor on religious freedom issues, and Mr. Nathan Mick, advisor on Roma issues, served as Public Members. Ms. Felice Gaer, Chair of the U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom, and Mr. Michael Cromartie, Vice Chair, also served as members of the delegation.
Helsinki Commission Chief of Staff Fred L. Turner and Senior State Department Advisor Ambassador Clifford Bond also served as members of the U.S. Delegation, along with Helsinki Commission staff members Alex T. Johnson, Ronald J. McNamara, Winsome Packer, Erika B. Schlager, and Dr. Mischa E. Thompson.
In comparison with previous HDIMs, the 2008 meeting was relatively subdued – perhaps surprisingly so given that, roughly eight weeks before its opening, Russian tanks had rolled onto Georgian territory. While the full scope of human rights abuses were not known by the time the meeting opened, human rights defenders had already documented serious rights violations, including the targeting of villages in South Ossetia inhabited by ethnic Georgians. Nevertheless, discussion of the Russian-Georgian conflict was largely conspicuous by its near absence.
The annual HDIM agenda provides a soup-to-nuts review of the implementation of core human rights and fundamental freedoms (e.g., freedoms of speech, assembly and association; prevention of torture; right to a fair trial), as well as rule of law, free elections and democracy-building issues. National minorities, Roma, tolerance and non-discrimination are also on the agenda. The United States continued its longstanding practice of naming specific countries and cases of concern.
In accordance with OSCE procedures, the agenda included three specially selected topics, each of which was given a full day of review. This year, those subjects were: 1) education and awareness-raising in the promotion of human rights; 2) freedom of religion or belief; and 3) focus on identification, assistance and access to justice for the victims of trafficking. Of the three, the sessions on religious liberty attracted the most speakers with over 50 statements.
A large number of side events were also part of the HDIM, organized by non-governmental organizations, OSCE institutions or offices, other international organizations, or participating States. These side events augment implementation review sessions by providing an opportunity to examine specific subjects or countries in greater depth and often with a more lively exchange than in the formal sessions.
Along with active participation at these side events, the United States held extensive bilateral meetings with government representatives, as well as with OSCE officials and NGO representatives. At the end of the second week of the HDIM, Human Rights Directors from capitals also held a working meeting to discuss issues of mutual concern, with a special focus on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, on women, peace and security. This year, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom also hosted a reception to honor the OSCE Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief, as well as the tenth anniversary of the U.S. International Religious Freedom Act and the 60th anniversary of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
Greece, scheduled to assume the chairmanship of the OSCE starting in January 2009, came under particular criticism for its treatment of minorities. Unlike the highly emotional reactions of senior Greek diplomats in Warsaw two years ago, the delegation this year responded to critics by circulating position papers elaborating the Greek government’s views. Greece also responded to U.S. criticism regarding the application of Sharia law to Muslim women in Thrace by stating that Greece is prepared to abolish the application of the Sharia law to members of the Muslim minority in Thrace when this is requested by the interested parties whom it affects directly. Issues relating to the treatment of ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities in the OSCE region are likely to remain an important OSCE focus in the coming period, especially in light of developments in the Caucasus, and it remains to be seen how the Greek chairmanship will address these concerns in light of its own rigid approach to minorities in its domestic policies.
Throughout the HDIM, many NGOs continued to express concern about the fitness of Kazakhstan to serve as OSCE Chair-in-Office in 2010 given serious short comings in that country’s human rights record. In particular, Kazakhstan was sharply criticized for a draft religion law (passed by parliament, but not yet adopted into law). One NGO argued that a Kazakhstan chairmanship, with this law in place, would undermine the integrity of the OSCE, and urged participating States to reconsider Kazakhstan for the 2010 leadership position if the law is enacted. Juxtaposing Kazakhstan’s future chairmanship with the possible final passage of a retrograde law on religion, the Almaty Helsinki Committee asked the assembled representatives, “Are human rights still a priority – or not?” (Meanwhile, on October 5, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Kazakhstan.)
On the eve of the HDIM, Belarus held elections. Those elections received considerable critical attention during the HDIM’s focus on democratic elections, with the United States and numerous others expressing disappointment that the elections did not meet OSCE commitments, despite promises by senior Belarusian officials that improvements would be forthcoming. Norway and several other speakers voiced particular concern over pressures being placed on ODIHR to circumscribe its election observation activities. Illustrating those pressures, the Russian Federation reiterated elements of a proposal it drafted on election observation that would significantly limit the independence of ODIHR in its election observation work. The Head of the U.S. Delegation noted that an invitation for the OSCE to observe the November elections in the United States was issued early and without conditions as to the size or scope of the observation. (Russia and others have attempted to impose numerical and other limitations on election observation missions undertaken by the ODIHR and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.)
Tolerance issues featured prominently during discussions this year, as they have at other recent HDIMs. Forty-three interventions were made, forcing the moderator to close the speakers list and requiring presenters to truncate their remarks. Muslim, migrant, and other groups representing visible minorities focused on discrimination in immigration policies, employment, housing, and other sectors, including racial profiling and hate crimes, amidst calls for OSCE countries to improve implementation of existing anti-discrimination laws. Jewish and other NGOs called for sustained efforts to combat anti-Semitism. Representatives of religious communities expressed concern about the confusion made by ODIHR in its Annual Hate Crimes Report between religious liberty issues and intolerance towards members of religious groups. This year, some governments and NGOs elevated their concerns relating to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons, increasingly placing these concerns in the context of the OSCE’s focus on hate crimes. A civil society tolerance pre-HDIM meeting and numerous side events were held on a broad range of tolerance-related topics.
The United States and several U.S.-based NGOS called for a high-level conference on tolerance issues to be held in 2009. Unlike in prior years, however, no other State echoed this proposal or stepped forward with an offer to host such a high-level conference.
In many of the formal implementation review sessions this year, NGOs made reference to specific decisions of the European Court on Human Rights, urging governments to implement judgments handed down in recent cases. During the discussion of issues relating to Roma, NGOs continued to place a strong focus on the situation in Italy, where Roma (and immigrants) have been the target of hate crimes and mob violence. NGOs reminded Italy that, at the OSCE Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting in July, they had urged Italy to come to the HDIM with concrete information regarding the prosecution of individuals for violent attacks against Roma. Regrettably, the Italian delegation was unable to provide any information on prosecutions, fostering the impression that a climate of impunity persists in Italy.
As at other OSCE fora, the United States was criticized for retaining the death penalty, contrary to the abolitionist trend among the OSCE participating States. Of the 56 OSCE participating States, 54 have abolished, suspended or imposed a moratorium on the death penalty and only two – the United States and Belarus – continue to impose capital punishment as a criminal sanction.
Two side events held during the HDIM also put a spotlight on the United States. The first event was organized by Freedom House and entitled, “Today’s American: How Free?” At this event, Freedom House released a book by the same title which examined “the state of freedom and justice in post-9/11 America.”
The second event was a panel discussion on “War on Terror or War on Human Rights?” organized by the American Civil Liberties Union. Speakers from the ACLU, Amnesty International and the Polish Human Rights Foundation largely focused on issues relating to the United States, including the military commission trials at Guantanamo, and official Polish investigations into allegations that Poland (working with the United States) was involved in providing secret prisons for the detention and torture of “high-value” detainees.(3)
In a somewhat novel development, Russian Government views were echoed by several like-minded NGOs which raised issues ranging from claims of “genocide” by Georgia in South Ossetia to grievances by ethnic Russians in Latvia and Estonia. Ironically, the Russian delegation, in its closing statement, asserted that this year’s HDIM had an “improved atmosphere” due (it was asserted) to the efforts by both governments and NGOs to find solutions to problems rather than casting blame.
As at past HDIMs, some sessions generated such strong interest that the time allotted was insufficient to accommodate all those who wished to contribute to the discussion. For example, the session on freedom of the media was severely constrained, with more than 20 individuals unable to take the floor in the time allotted, and several countries unable to exercise rights of reply. Conversely, some sessions – for example, the session on equal opportunity for men and women, and the session on human dimension activities and projects – had, in terms of unused time available, an embarrassment of riches.
Following a general pattern, Turkmenistan was again not present at the HDIM sessions this year.(4) In all, 53 participating States were represented at the meeting.
At the closing session, the United States raised issues of particular concern relating to Turkmenistan under the “any other business” agenda item. (This is the sixth year in a row that the United States has made a special statement about the situation in Turkmenistan, a country that some view as having the worst human rights record in the OSCE.) For the past two years, there has been a new government in Turkmenistan. The U.S. statement this year noted some positive changes, but urged the new government to continue the momentum on reform by fully implementing steps it already has begun. In addition, the United States called for information on and access to Turkmenistan’s former representative to the OSCE, Batyr Berdiev. Berdiev, once Turkmenistan’s ambassador to the OSCE, was reportedly among the large number of people arrested following an attack on then-President Niyazov’s motorcade in 2002. His fate and whereabouts remain unknown.
OSCE PA President João Soares addressed the closing plenary, the most senior Assembly official to participate in an HDIM meeting.
The Russian-Georgian Conflict
With the outbreak of armed violence between Russia and Georgia occurring only two months earlier, the war in South Ossetia would have seemed a natural subject for discussion during the HDIM. As a human rights forum, the meeting was unlikely to serve as a venue to debate the origins of the conflict, but there were expectations that participants would engage in a meaningful discussion of the human dimension of the tragedy and efforts to stem ongoing rights violations. As it turned out, this view was not widely shared by many of the governments and NGOs participating in the meeting.
The opening plenary session foreshadowed the approach to this subject followed through most of the meeting. Among the senior OSCE officials, only High Commissioner on National Minorities Knut Vollebaek squarely addressed the situation in the south Caucasus. Vollebaek condemned the19th century-style politicization of national minority issues in the region and the violation of international borders. At the time of the crisis, he had cautioned against the practice of “conferring citizenship en masse to residents of other States” (a reference to Russian actions in South Ossetia) and warned that “the presence of one's citizens or ‘ethnic kin’ abroad must not be used as a justification for undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other States.” Sadly, that sound advice went unobserved in Georgia, but it is still applicable elsewhere in the OSCE region.(5) The statement delivered by France on behalf of the countries of the European Union failed to address the conflict.
During the plenary, only Norway and Switzerland joined the United States in raising humanitarian concerns stemming from the conflict. In reply, the head of the Russian delegation delivered a tough statement which sidestepped humanitarian concerns, declaring that discussion of Georgia’s territorial integrity was now “irrelevant.” He called on participating States to adopt a pragmatic approach and urged acknowledgment of the creation of the new sovereign states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, terming their independence “irreversible” and “irrevocable.” Perhaps more surprising than this Russian bluster was the failure of any major NGO, including those who had been active in the conflict zone collecting information and working on humanitarian relief, to take advantage of the opportunity to raise the issue of South Ossetia during the opening plenary.
As the HDIM moved into its working sessions, which cover the principal OSCE human dimension commitments, coverage of the conflict fared better. The Representative on Freedom of the Media remarked, in opening the session on free speech and freedom of the media that, for the first time in some years, two OSCE participating States were at war. During that session, he and other speakers called on the Russian Federation to permit independent media access to occupied areas to investigate the charges and counter-charges of genocide and ethnic cleansing. The tolerance discussion included calls by several delegations for Russia to cooperate and respond favorably to the HCNM’s request for access to South Ossetia to investigate the human rights situation in that part of Georgia. Disappointingly, during the session devoted to humanitarian commitments, several statements, including those of the ODHIR moderator and EU spokesperson, focused narrowly on labor conditions and migration, and failed to raise concerns regarding refugees and displaced persons, normally a major focus of this agenda item and obviously relevant to the Georgia crisis.
Nevertheless, the session developed into one of the more animated at the HDIM. The Georgian delegation, which had been silent up to that point, spoke out against Russian aggression and alleged numerous human rights abuses. It expressed gratitude to the European Union for sending monitors to the conflict zone and urged the EU to pressure Russia to fully implement the Six-Point Ceasefire agreement negotiated by French President Sarkozy. The United States joined several delegations and NGOs calling on all parties to the conflict to observe their international obligations to protect refugees and create conditions for their security and safe voluntary return. In a pattern observed throughout the meeting, the Russian delegation did not respond to Georgian charges. It left it to an NGO, “Ossetia Accuses,” to make Russia’s case that Georgia had committed genocide against the people of South Ossetia. A common theme among many interventions was a call for an independent investigation of the causes of the conflict and a better monitoring of the plight of refugees, but to date Russian and South Ossetian authorities have denied both peacekeeping monitors and international journalists access to the region from elsewhere in Georgia. A joint assessment mission of experts from ODIHR and the HCNM, undertaken in mid-October, were initially denied access to South Ossetia, with limited access to Abkhazia granted to some team members. Eventually, several experts did gain access to the conflict zone in South Ossetia, though to accomplish this they had to travel from the north via the Russian Federation.
One can only speculate why Georgia received such limited treatment at this HDIM. The crisis in the south Caucasus had dominated OSCE discussions at the Permanent Council in Vienna for weeks preceding the HDIM. Some participants may have feared that addressing it in Warsaw might have crowded out the broader human rights agenda. Others may have felt that, in the absence of a clear picture of the circumstances surrounding the conflict and with so many unanswered questions, it was best not to be too critical or too accusatory of either party. The EU (and particularly the French) were, at the time of the HDIM, in the process of negotiating the deployment of European observers to the conflict zone, and may have feared that criticism of Russia at this forum would have only complicated the task.
In fact, the EU’s only oblique reference to Georgia was made at HDIM’s penultimate working session (a discussion which focused on human dimension “project activity”) in connection with the work of High Commissioner for National Minorities. (One observer of this session remarked that there seemed to be a greater stomach for dinging the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights for shortcomings in its work than for criticizing Russia for invading a neighboring OSCE participating State.) Finally, other participants, particularly NGOs, seemed more inclined to view human rights narrowly in terms of how governments treat their own citizens and not in terms of how the failure to respect key principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity are invariably accompanied by gross violations of human rights and can produce humanitarian disasters.
Amid simmering tensions between Russia and Georgia which could erupt into renewed fighting, and completion of a report requested by the Finnish Chairmanship in time for the OSCE’s Ministerial in Helsinki in early December, Ministers will have to grapple with the impact of the south Caucasus conflict and what role the OSCE will have.
The relative quiet of the HDIM notwithstanding, French President M. Nicolas Sarkozy put a spotlight on OSCE issues during the course of the meeting. Speaking at a conference in Evian, France, on October 8, he responded to a call by Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, issued in June during meetings with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, for a new “European Security Treaty” to revise Europe’s security architecture – a move seen by many as an attempt to rein in existing regional security organizations, including NATO and the OSCE. President Sarkozy indicated a willingness to discuss Medvedev’s ideas, but argued they should be addressed in the context of a special OSCE summit, which Sarkozy suggested could be held in 2009.
The escalating global economic crisis was also very much on the minds of participants at the HDIM as daily reports of faltering financial institutions, plummeting markets, and capital flight promoted concerns over implications for the human dimension. Several delegations voiced particular concern over the possible adverse impact on foreign workers and those depending on remittances to make ends meet.
The human rights and humanitarian concerns stemming from the war in South Ossetia will likely come into sharper focus in the lead up to the December OSCE Ministerial in Helsinki as talks on the conflict resume in Geneva, and OSCE and other experts attempt to document the circumstances surrounding the outbreak of fighting and current conditions. The coming weeks can also be expected to bring renewed calls for an overhaul of the human dimension and the ODIHR by those seeking to curb attention paid to human rights and subordinate election monitoring activities. It remains to be seen whether Kazakhstan will fulfill the commitments it made a year ago in Madrid to undertake meaningful reforms by the end of this year. There is also the risk that a deepening economic crisis will divert attention elsewhere, even as the resulting fallout in the human dimension begins to manifest itself. It is unclear what priorities the Greek chairmanship will be set for 2009, a year that portends peril and promise.
(1) OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meetings are held every year, unless there is a Summit. Summits of Heads of State or Government are preceded by Review Conferences, which are mandated to review implementation of all OSCE commitments in all areas (military-security, economic and environmental cooperation, and the human dimension).
(2) Helsinki Document 1992, The Challenges of Change, IV (16).
(3) Interestingly, at the session on human rights and counterterrorism, moderator Zbigniew Lasocik, member of the United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, noted that Poland’s Constitutional Court had, the previous day, struck down a 2004 law that purported to allow the military to shoot down hijacked commercial aircraft – even if they were being used as weapons like the planes that killed thousands of people on 9/11. The Court reportedly reasoned that shooting down an aircraft being used as bomb would infringe on the constitutional protection of human life and dignity of the passengers.
(4) Turkmenistan sent a representative to the HDIM in 2005 for the first time in several years. While responding to criticism delivered in the sessions, the representative appeared to focus more on monitoring the activities of Turkmen NGOs participating in the meeting. Turkmenistan subsequently complained that certain individuals who had been charged with crimes against the State should not be allowed to participate in OSCE meetings. Turkmenistan officials did not participate in the 2006 or 2007 HDIMs. Participation in the 2008 meeting would have been a welcome signal regarding current political developments.
(5) The HCNM had previously expressed concern regarding Hungary’s overreach vis-a-vis ethnic Hungarian minorities in neighboring countries. In 2004, Hungary held a referendum on extending Hungarian citizenship to ethnic Hungarians abroad – an idea that still holds political currency in some quarters of Hungary – but the referendum failed due to low voter turnout.