Title

Pre-Election Briefing on Russia

Wednesday, November 29, 1995
2:08pm
628 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
United States
Moderator(s): 
Name: 
Dorothy Taft
Title Text: 
Chief of Staff
Body: 
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Witnesses: 
Name: 
Robert Dahl
Title: 
Elections Specialist
Body: 
International Foundation for Electoral Systems
Name: 
Dr. Leon Aron
Title: 
Resident Scholar; Adjunct Professor
Body: 
American Enterprise Institute; Georgetown University
Name: 
Dr. Peter Stavrakis
Title: 
Acting Director; Associate Professor
Body: 
Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies of the Woodrow Wilson Institute for Scholars; University of Vermont
Name: 
Paul Goble
Title: 
Senior Fellow
Body: 
Potomac Foundation

Dorothy Taft, Chief of staff for the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, on behalf of Representative Christopher H. Smith and Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato, the Chairman and Co-Chairman of the commission, presided the pre-election briefing on Russia.

This briefing discussed the Duma and the Presidential elections in Russia, that would determinated the direction that the State will take as to European security and cooperation.

Ms. Taft was joined by four recognized specialists in Russian affairs and electoral processes that shared with the Commission their insight on the Duma elections and beyond: Mr. Robert Dahl, an elections specialist with the International Foundation for Electoral System; Dr. Leon Aron, professor of post-Communist transition in Russia; Dr. Peter Stavrakis, Director at the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies; and Mr. Paul Goble, special advisor for Soviet Nationality Problems and Baltic Affairs at the State Department.

 

Relevant issues: 
Relevant countries: 
  • Related content
  • Related content
Filter Topics Open Close
  • Commission Holds Hearing on Human Rights in Kyrgyzstan

    By Michael Ochs, CSCE Staff Advisor The Helsinki Commission, in its most recent of a series of hearings on Central Asia, examined the state of human rights and democracy in Kyrgyzstan. Commission Co-Chairman Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ), who chaired the hearing, voiced concern about the regression in democratic reforms, as well as disturbing trends involving election rigging, high-level corruption, and the crackdown on the opposition and independent media. Commission members Reps. Joseph R. Pitts (R-PA), Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) and Robert B. Aderholt (R-AL) also participated in the hearing on December 12. “In the last few years, almost all of the opposition and independent newspapers have been forced to close after losing lawsuits when officials accused of corruption launched slander cases against media outlets,” Smith said. Considering that Kyrgyzstan was once viewed as the most democratic state in Central Asia, the turnaround was particularly disheartening; in fact, Co-Chairman Smith observed, “I think it would be fair to say that Kyrgyzstan, under the leadership of Askar Akaev, is the most disappointing country in the former USSR.” Commissioner Pitts noted his disappointment with the tempo of democratization in Kyrgyzstan but called for continued engagement with the government to encourage reforms. “If we are to be an honest partner with Kyrgyzstan, we must not miss opportunities to encourage the good that has been done,” Pitts said. “We must look at Kyrgyzstan and other countries with promise in the region not only from OSCE standards, but also as a potential leader in building regional cooperation.” In prepared remarks, Chairman Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) expressed particular concern over corruption: “The former Soviet republics, as is widely known, are notorious for corruption. Kyrgyzstan is no exception. On August 11, the Kyrgyz Prime Minister – not an opposition politician but the head of government – described efforts by law-enforcement bodies to counter corruption, smuggling and economic crime as ‘total disaster.’ He attributed that failure to the fact that most criminal groups have protectors within the law-enforcement bodies and estimated financial losses from smuggling to be in the millions of dollars annually.” Ranking Commission Member Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) similarly observed, “There is good reason to be concerned about terrorism. But Central Asian leaders have, up to now, contributed significantly to their own security problems by stifling political discourse, by rigging elections, and by not permitting the development of open societies that could provide an outlet for discontent and freedom of expression. It seems to me that if Washington lets these leaders shift the focus of relations primarily towards security issues, they will deflect attention from their determination to remain in power indefinitely, which is one of the greatest threats to democratization and stability in the region.” Hearing witnesses were Lynn Pascoe, Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs; His Excellency Baktibek Abdrisaev, Kyrgyzstan’s Ambassador to the United States; Dr. Martha Olcott, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; and Natalia Ablova, Director of the Kyrgyz-American Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law in Bishkek. Co-Chairman Smith focused specific attention on the plight of opposition figure Felix Kulov, leader of the Ar-Namys Party, who has been in jail since January 2001. As the leading rival of Kyrgyz President Askar Akaev, Kulov has suffered the consequences of attempting to engage in normal electoral politics in an increasingly authoritarian environment. Amnesty International and other human rights organizations consider Felix Kulov a political prisoner. Kyrgyz authorities barred Kulov’s party from participating in the February 2000 parliamentary election. Kulov ran as an independent and made it into the second round but, according to official results, lost the runoff. The OSCE’s election report documented rampant vote fraud designed to keep Kulov from winning and, in an unusual move, openly questioned the results in his district. After the election, Kulov – a former vice-president, minister, governor and mayor – was arrested in March 2000. Remarkably, a military court acquitted him in August. Kulov then sought to run in the October 2000 presidential election, but he withdrew from the race rather than take a Kyrgyz-language test that many observers believed had been mandated specifically to complicate his campaign. Subsequently, prosecutors who had appealed his acquittal indicted him again, and this time secured a conviction. On January 22, 2001, a closed military court sentenced Kulov to a seven-year jail term. Kyrgyz authorities have pursued him further, opening yet another criminal case against him, in an obvious effort to remove Kulov from the political arena by any means necessary. Some of Kulov’s relatives now live in New York, and they came to Washington to attend the hearing. Co-Chairman Smith invited his wife, Nailya Kulova, to take the floor and make a brief intervention on human rights problems in Kyrgyzstan and the persecution of her husband. A consistent theme in Rep. Smith’s remarks was the hope that the U.S. war on terrorism, which has led Washington to deepen its ties with Central Asian governments, will not overshadow human rights concerns. Speaking for the State Department, Lynn Pascoe said that since September 11, the U.S. has received “an unprecedented level of support and cooperation from Kyrgyzstan and our other Central Asian partners.” But he pledged that Washington will not cease pressing Bishkek to address human rights concerns and promote democratic reform. Pascoe said that human rights, fair elections, religious freedom, open markets, and foreign investment were indispensable to long-term stability for Kyrgyzstan and Central Asia. He added that Secretary of State Colin Powell had planned to raise the case of Felix Kulov with President Akaev during a scheduled trip to Bishkek in December that had to be canceled due to blizzard conditions. For his part, Ambassador Abdrisaev acknowledged there were human rights problems in his country and that reforms may not be proceeding fast enough. But he maintained that Kyrgyzstan was nevertheless making progress and that expectations for a country in a very complex neighborhood after only a decade of independence should not be too high. “The road to building a democracy is a rocky one, and we have been on that road for a mere 10 years. We have from the beginning, however, been dedicated to the ideals of democracy and human rights. We respect and appreciate constructive criticism issuing from human rights and non-governmental organizations,” Abdrisaev concluded. Dr. Olcott took a regional-comparative approach in assessing Kyrgyzstan’s level of democracy. “To say that the situation in Kyrgyzstan is better than that in neighboring countries is damning with faint praise and no solace for those whose lives are currently being trampled on. But, in fact, it remains true,” Olcott said. She concluded that “it is not too late to influence developments...Kyrgyzstan must open up again politically and work toward greater economic transparency, both through the creation of a more independent judiciary and through a more directed and far-reaching campaign against corruption.” In this latter respect, Dr. Olcott urged Kyrgyzstan’s first family to withdraw from commercial activities and “quietly sell off” all their current assets. Discussing the slowness of democratic change, Ms. Ablova bemoaned the call for patience: “We are frequently told by our political elite that in our part of the world people are not ready for democracy.... The process takes time. Therefore, all criticisms, grounded or ungrounded, should be toned down to better times of democratic maturity.” In fact, she maintained, “Fifteen years of my experience in public activism prove that it is not the people, but the political leadership of the country that always waits for better times to implement basic rights and civil liberties.” Ending the hearing, Co-Chairman Smith promised that the Helsinki Commission would continue to keep a close eye on developments in Kyrgyzstan. The Commission’s series on hearings on Central Asia, which began in 1999, will conclude in 2002 with a hearing on Tajikistan.

  • Criminal Defamation and “Insult” Laws: A Summary of Free Speech Developments in the Czech Republic

    Numerous international documents, including those adopted by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), establish freedom of expression as a fundamental right. The right to free speech, however, is not absolute. Consistent with international law, certain kinds of speech, such as obscenity, may be prohibited or regulated. When governments restrict speech, however, those restrictions must be consistent with their international obligations and commitments; for example, the restrictions must be necessary in a democratic country and proscribed by law. Criminal defamation and “insult” laws are often defended as necessary to prevent alleged abuses of freedom of expression. They are not, however, consistent with OSCE norms and their use constitutes an infringement on the fundamental right to free speech. Criminal Defamation Laws All individuals, including public officials, have a legitimate right to protect their reputations if untruthful statements have been made about them. Untrue statements which damage a person’s reputation constitute defamation. Oral defamation is known as slander; defamation in writing or other permanent forms such as film is libel. In some instances, criminal codes make defamation of public officials, the nation, or government organs a discrete offense, as distinct from defamation of a person. Truthful statements – as well as unverifiable statements of opinion – are not legally actionable as defamation. Indeed, the European Court of Human Rights has held that public officials must tolerate a greater degree of criticism than private individuals: “The limits of acceptable criticism are accordingly wider as regards a politician as such than as regards a private individual. Unlike the latter, the former inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to close scrutiny of his every word and deed by both journalists and the public at large, and he must consequently display a greater degree of tolerance.” (Lingens v. Austria, Eur. Ct. H.R., 1986.) Criminal defamation laws are those which establish criminal sanctions for defamation. Those sanctions may include imprisonment, fines, and prohibitions on writing. Individuals convicted of defamation in a criminal proceeding and sentenced to suspended prison terms may be subjected to the threat of immediate imprisonment if, for example, they violate an order not to publish. The existence of a criminal record may also have other social and legal consequences. In a criminal defamation case, state law enforcement agents (police and prosecutors) act, using taxpayer money, to investigate the alleged defamation and to act on behalf of the alleged victim. It is sometimes argued that criminal defamation laws are necessary to achieve the legitimate goal of providing the victims of defamation with redress. But general laws against libel and slander, embodied in civil codes, provide private persons as well as public officials the opportunity to seek redress, including damages, for alleged defamation. In such cases, the plaintiff and defendant stand in court as equals. Accordingly, specific criminal laws prohibiting defamation are unnecessary. “Insult” Laws "Insult" laws make offending the "honor and dignity" of public officials (e.g., the President), government offices (e.g., the Constitutional Court), national institutions, and/or the “state” itself punishable. Unlike defamation laws, truth is not a defense to a charge of insult. Accordingly, insult laws are often used to punish the utterance of truthful statements, as well as opinions, satire, invective, and even humor. Although insult laws and criminal defamation laws both punish speech, significant differences exist between them. Defamation laws are intended to provide a remedy against false assertions of fact. Truthful statements, as well as opinion, are not actionable. The use of civil laws to punish defamation is permissible under international free speech norms. The use of criminal sanctions to punish defamation, however, chills free speech, is subject to abuse (through the use of state law enforcement agents), and is inconsistent with international norms. In contrast, recourse to any insult law, whether embodied in a civil or a criminal code, is inconsistent with international norms. Their Use Today At one time, almost all OSCE countries had criminal defamation and insult laws. Over time, these laws have been repealed, invalidated by courts, or fallen into disuse in many OSCE participating States. Unfortunately, many criminal codes contained multiple articles punishing defamation and insult. Thus, even when parliaments and courts have acted, they have sometimes failed to remove all legal prohibitions against insult or all criminal sanctions for defamation. In communist countries and other anti-democratic regimes, such laws are often used to target political opponents of the government. Today, when insult and criminal defamation laws are used, they are most often used to punish mere criticism of government policies or public officials, to stifle political discussion, and to squelch news and discussion that governments would rather avoid. It is relatively rare for a private individual (someone who is not a public official, elected representative, or person of means and influence) to persuade law enforcement representatives to use the tax money of the public to protect their reputations. In some OSCE countries, such laws are still used to systematically punish political opponents of the regime. Even in countries where these laws have fallen into a long period of disuse, it is not unheard of for an overzealous prosecutor to revive them for seemingly political purposes. The International Context Numerous non-governmental organizations have taken strong positions against criminal defamation and insult laws. These include Amnesty International; Article 19; the Committee to Protect Journalists; national Helsinki Committees such as the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, Croatian Helsinki Committee, Greek Helsinki Committee, Romanian Helsinki Committee and Slovak Helsinki Committee; the International Helsinki Federation; The World Press Freedom Committee; Norwegian Forum for Freedom of Expression; national chapters of PEN; and Reporters Sans Frontières. Moreover, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, and the Organization of American States Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression issued a joint statement in February 2000 which included the following conclusions, based on relevant international norms: “Expression should not be criminalized unless it poses a clear risk of serious harm. . . . Examples of this are laws prohibiting the publication of false news and sedition laws. . . . These laws should be repealed.” “Criminal defamation laws should be abolished.” “Civil defamation laws should respect the following principles: public bodies should not be able to bring defamation actions; truth should always be available as a defense; politicians and public officials should have to tolerate a greater degree of criticism. . . .” Finally, the United States Department of State regularly reports, in its annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, on cases where criminal defamation or insult laws have been used and, at OSCE meetings, regularly calls for the repeal of such laws. Recent Free Speech Cases in the Czech Republic Although the Czech Constitutional Court and the Parliament acted (in 1994 and 1997, respectively) to reduce the number of articles in the penal code under which one may be convicted for speech offenses, there has been no discernable decrease over the past decade in the volume of cases threatened or actually brought under the remaining provisions of law which permit criminal prosecution for one’s speech. The following summary, based on available reports, describes cases that were at some stage of investigation or legal proceeding during 2001: In December 2001, police asked that the parliamentary immunity of MP Ivan Langer be lifted in order to permit them to bring a charge against him of defaming businessman Peter Kovarcik. Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman threatened in October 2001 to have criminal defamation charges brought against Peter Holub, editor of the political weekly Respekt, in an explicit effort to bankrupt the paper and force its closure. Zeman’s threats followed the paper’s reporting on corruption in the Czech Republic. Holub, in turn, accused Zeman of incitement to hatred of a group of people. This case has generated broad international condemnation. On October 23, 2001, Frantisek Zamencnik, former editor-in-chief of Nove Bruntalsko, was sentenced to sixteen months in prison for criminal defamation in connection with his remarks regarding Bruntal Mayor Petr Krejci, Social Democrat Deputy Jaroslav Palas, and Ludmila Navarova, editor of a rival newspaper. Zamencnik had been convicted of criminal defamation twice before, but in those cases he was sentenced to suspended prison terms. The World Association of Newspapers has protested his most recent conviction and sentence. On September 27, 2000, police charged Vratislav Sima, formerly an advisor to Prime Minister Milos Zeman, with criminal defamation in connection with his alleged role in an effort to discredit Social Democrat Chairwoman Petra Buzkova. Subsequently, Jiri Kubik and Sabina Slonkova, two journalists from Mlada fronta dnes, were charged with abetting a crime, a violation of article 166 of the penal code. (The underlying “crime” in this instance was Sima’s alleged defamation of Buzkova, a charge that in and of itself violated international norms.) In October 2000, President Havel pardoned the two journalists, although the journalists subsequently called for the case to go to trial in order to establish a legal precedent regarding the right of journalists to protect their sources. The investigation of the journalists therefore continued until March 2001, at which time investigators concluded that Kubik and Slonkova had not committed any crime. The criminal investigation of Sima was not dropped until June 2001. In September 2001, Minister of Interior Stanslav Gross announced that he would seek to prosecute Jan Kopal for anti-American statements. Kopal, a far right-wing political figure, reportedly said on September 15, “[a] country like the United States – which committed so much evil in the past, which essentially has been supporting international terrorism and participated in missions like Yugoslavia where innocent civilians were being murdered – does not deserve anything else but such an attack.” Kopal was charged with violating article 165 of the penal code (approving a criminal offense), punishable by one year in prison. (Interestingly, Gross had previously made remarks associating Kopal’s party with neo-Nazis and fascists, prompting Kopal to seek to have criminal charges brought against Gross in December 2000 for 1) defamation, 2) spreading false alarm, and 3) defamation of a nation, its language or a race or a group of inhabitants in the Republic because of their political conviction, religion or lack of religious faith.) Journalist Tomas Pecina, while stating that he disapproved of Kopal’s remarks, then asserted that he had to associate himself with Kopal’s remarks for the sake of defending Kopal’s right to free speech. On December 6, Pecina was arrested and also charged with approving a criminal offense. (Ironically, an opinion poll conducted in September suggested that a majority of those questioned believe that U.S. foreign policy was one of the causes of the September 11 terrorist attacks.2) At present, the charges against Kopal have reportedly been dropped, but the status of the charges against Pecina is unclear. In September 2001, David Pecha, editor of the far left-wing paper Nove Bruntalsko, was indicted for criminal defamation (as well as supporting a movement aimed at suppressing human rights or which promotes national, racial, class or religious hatred, and spreading false alarm). In August 2001, Ministry of Justice Spokesperson Iva Chaloupkova reported that, during the first six months of 2001, seven people were convicted of criminal defamation. Three were given suspended sentences, three were fined, and one received no punishment. In July 2001, two reporters from state-owned Czech Television reportedly sought to have criminal defamation charges brought against Vladimir Zelezny, Director of private television NOVA, in connection with Zelezny’s critical remarks about alleged Czech Television practices. In May 2001, police reported that they were investigating the possible defamation of former Foreign Minister Josef Zielenic by current Foreign Minister Jan Kavan and Prime Minister Milos Zeman. In the same month, journalist Tomas Pecina was fined for failing to respond to police summonses for interrogation in connection with his articles criticizing police behavior. Miroslav Stejskal, Deputy Director of the Municipal Police force in Prague district 1, has reportedly begun an investigation of Pecina for the same writings. On May 20 and August 24, 2001, Vilem Barak was interrogated on suspicion of having committed the crime of incitement not to fulfill, en masse, an important duty imposed by law (in this case, not to participate in the national census), in violation of article 164 of the penal code. Barak had disseminated leaflets warning that personal information gathered by the 2001 census would be insufficiently safeguarded and urging a boycott of the census. In January 1998, police in Olomouc arrested and handcuffed television NOVA journalist Zdenek Zukal in connection with his 1997 reporting on alleged corruption in that locality. Zukal was originally charged with criminal defamation under article 206 of the penal code. One day before a presidential amnesty – which would have covered this offense – the charges were reclassified under article 174 and Zukal was charged with falsely accusing another person of a crime with the intent to bring about criminal prosecution of another, an offense that carries a maximum three-year prison sentence or eight years if the court determines the offender has caused substantial damage. No further prosecutorial action was taken until December 1999, when the case was revived. The case was still at trial as of June 2001 and, at the close of 2001, still appears to be before the courts. Amnesty International and the Committee to Protect Journalists have both protested this case. In the decade since the Velvet Revolution, official censorship has completely ceased and the Czech Republic has witnessed tremendous improvements with respect to freedom of expression. At the same time, some problem areas remain. Leading political figures, such as current Prime Minister Milos Zeman and Speaker of the Parliament Vaclav Klaus (a former Prime Minister) are often openly hostile toward the media. Some politicians resort to criminal defamation charges as a means of silencing their critics; at a minimum, cries of “libel!” and “slander!” are popular substitutes for policy debate. Finally, there are struggles in Czech society with the issue of “extremist” speech (emanating from both the far-right and the far-left) and the question of what are the acceptable parameters of public discourse. With respect to criminal defamation cases, President Vaclav Havel has pardoned many of those convicted. In other instances, those convicted have been given suspended jail sentences. Because such cases do not result in people actually going to prison for their words, they do not generate as much international scrutiny as, for example, the case of Zamencnik. Nevertheless, the threat of imprisonment, the cost associated with defending oneself in a criminal trial, and restrictions associated with a suspended sentence (e.g., having to report to a parole officer, the possibility of being prohibited to write or publish, the possibility of being sent to jail without a new trial in the event that conditions of the suspended sentence are not met) all serve to chill free speech and the public debate necessary for a vibrant democracy. Criminal defamation charges, however, are not the only laws used to restrict speech in the Czech Republic. There are also a number of laws that are not, per se, contrary to international norms but which may be used in ways that are inconsistent with the Czech Republic’s international commitments to free speech. One such law is the prohibition against spreading false alarm (article 199). Laws which prohibit “spreading false alarm” are justified as necessary to punish, for example, someone who falsely yells “fire” in a crowded theater or makes false bomb threats over the phone, acts which potentially or actually create a danger to the public and/or public panic. Such laws, however, are not intended to gag journalists, quash political debate, or silence those who question the safety of the Temelin nuclear power plant. (Article 199 was used as a basis to deport Greenpeace demonstrators in July 2000 and a German environmentalist in March 2001.) Other criminal laws subject to abuse are the prohibition of defamation of a nation, race or group of people (article 197), the prohibition of incitement to hatred of another nation or race (article 198) and the prohibition against supporting a movement aimed at suppressing human rights or promoting national, racial, class or religious hatred (article 260). Such laws are generally justified as necessary to protect the most vulnerable minorities, and those who support them often point to the Czech Republic’s unhappy experiences with fascism and communism. In addition, those who support such laws sometimes argue they are useful if not necessary tools to address the criticism that the Czech Republic has failed to do enough to combat racially motivated violence against Roma and others. In some cases, however, it appears that these laws are being used in ways that are not compatible with international free speech norms. In November 2001, a prosecutor in the Breclav region charged Roman Catholic Priest Vojtech Protivinsky with defamation of a nation, race, or group of people. In this case, the “group of people” were members of the unreconstructed, hardline Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia who were offended when Protivinsky actively called on people not to vote for them in upcoming elections. The case was cut short when President Havel pardoned Protivinsky. In September 2001, David Pecha (case noted above) was charged with supporting a movement aimed at suppressing human rights, defamation and spreading false alarm. In June 2000, Michal Zitko, now 29, was charged with supporting a movement aimed at suppressing the rights and freedoms of citizens. His Prague-based publishing house, Otakar II, had issued a Czech-language edition of Mein Kampf. (Zitko had previously published the U.S. Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution.) He was convicted later that year but, in February 2001, a higher court sent the case back to a district court for reconsideration in light of several errors identified by the higher court. In November 2001, Zitko’s conviction was upheld, and he was sentenced to three years in prison, suspended for five years, fined two million crowns, and ordered to report to a probation officer twice a year to prove that he is leading an orderly life. Zitko, who has portrayed himself as an easy scapegoat for the government’s failure to prevent embarrassments such as the erection of the ghetto wall in Usti nad Labem, is appealing the decision. Sources include: Amnesty International; Article 19; Britske listy; the Committee to Protect Journalists; Czech News Agency; East European Constitutional Review; Freedom in the World (reports published by Freedom House); Index on Censorship; Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; and U.S. State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices; World Press Freedom Committee. Relevant Czech Laws News reports about persons charged with criminal defamation or “insulting” public officials, government offices or national institutions often do not cite the specific legal basis for the charges. In Czech Republic, the laws which appear to give rise to such charges include the following: Article 49 (1) (a) of the Simple Offenses Act provides that anyone who offends another person by insulting or exposing him or her to ridicule may be punished by a fine. Article 154(2) of the Penal Code prohibits gross insults or defamation of an organ of state administration in the exercise of its function or in connection with its function, punishable by up to one year in prison. Article 206 of the Penal Code prohibits the dissemination of false and discrediting information about another person, punishable by up to two years in prison. If the defamation occurs in the broadcast or print media, the punishment may increase to five years. In addition, someone convicted under this article may be banned from working as a journalist. Other Laws of Concern The laws listed above are, on their face, inconsistent with international free speech norms. In contrast, the laws below are not, per se, in violation of international norms. Rather, they may be applied in a manner that unduly restricts free speech. Article 164 of the Penal Code prohibits incitement to commit a criminal act or not to fulfill, en masse, an important duty imposed by law, punishable by up to two years in prison. Article 165 of the Penal Code prohibits publicly approving of a crime or praising the perpetrator of a crime, punishable by up to one year in prison. Article 166 of the Penal Code prohibits assisting an offender with the intent of enabling the offender to escape prosecution or punishment, punishable by up to three years in prison. Article 174 of the Penal Code prohibits falsely accusing another person of a crime with the intent to bring about the criminal prosecution of that person. This crime is punishable by up to three years in prison or up to eight years of a court determines that the offender caused substantial damage. Article 197 of the Penal Code prohibits defamation of a nation, its language or a race or a group of inhabitants in the Republic because of their political conviction, religion or lack of religious faith, punishable by up to two years in prison or three years if committed with at least two other people. Article 198 of the Penal Code prohibits incitement to hatred of another nation or race or calls for the restriction of the rights and freedoms of other nationals or members of a particular race, punishable by up to two years in prison. Article 199 of the Penal Code prohibits intentionally causing the danger of serious agitation among a part of the population by spreading false, alarming information (sometimes translated as “scaremongering”), punishable by up to one year in prison. If the information is transmitted to the mass media, to the police or other state organ, the crime is punishable by up to three years in prison. Article 260 of the Penal Code prohibits supporting or propagating a movement aimed at suppressing human rights or which promotes national, racial, class or religious hatred, punishable by up to five years in prison. Punishment may be up to eight years in prison if the offender commits this act using the media, as a member of an organized group, or during a state defense emergency. Article 261 of the Penal Code prohibits publicly expressing support for a movement aimed at the suppressing human rights or which promotes national, racial, class or religious hatred, punishable by up to five years in prison. Article 261 (a) of the Penal Code prohibits publicly denying or approving or trying to justify Nazi genocide or other communist or Nazi crimes against humanity, punishable by up to three years in prison. Note: After the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia both inherited the former federation’s penal code. In the case of the Czech Republic, a new criminal law was adopted in 1993, retaining all the communist-era prohibitions on defamation. In 1994, the Czech Constitutional Court struck down those provisions of Article 102 which prohibited defamation of the parliament, the government, the constitutional court, and public officials. In 1997, Articles 102 (prohibiting defamation of the Republic) and 103 (prohibiting public defamation of the President) were repealed. (1) In addition to the cases outlined here, news reports describe many other cases where prominent individuals are either the alleged victim or perpetrator of defamation, but the reports do not make clear whether the legal action was based on the civil code or criminal code. (2) “Poll shows majority of Czechs blame US foreign policy for terror attacks,” Prague CT1 Television in Czech (September 22, 2001). Translation by Foreign Broadcast Information Service, September 23, 2001.

  • Human Rights in Central Asia

    Mr. Speaker, on Friday, December 21, Kazakhstan's President Nursultan Nazarbaev will be meeting with President Bush. Sometime in January, Uzbekistan's President Islam Karimov is likely to arrive for his visit. The invitations to these Heads of State obviously reflect the overriding U.S. priority of fighting international terrorism and the corresponding emphasis on the strategic importance of Central Asia, which until September 11 had been known largely as a resource-rich, repressive backwater.   As Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I have chaired a series of hearings in recent years focused on human rights and democratization in the Central Asian region.   Clearly, we need the cooperation of many countries, including Afghanistan's Central Asian neighbors, in this undertaking. But we should not forget, as we conduct our multidimensional campaigns, two vitally important points: first, Central Asian leaders need the support of the West at least as much as we need them.   Unfortunately, Central Asian presidents seem to have concluded that they are indispensable and that we owe them for allowing us to use their territory and bases in this fight against the terrorists and those who harbor them. I hope Washington does not share this misapprehension. By striking against the radical Islamic threat to their respective security and that of the entire region, we have performed a huge service for Central Asian leaders.   Second, one of the main lessons of September 11 and its aftermath is that repression of political opposition and alternative viewpoints is a key cause of terrorism. Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice have declared that the war on terrorism will not keep the United States from supporting human rights. I am hopeful the administration means what they have said. But given the sudden warming of relations between Washington and Central Asian leaders, I share the concerns voiced in many editorials and op-eds that the United States will downplay human rights in favor of cultivating ties with those in power. More broadly, I fear we will fall into an old pattern of backing repressive regimes and then being linked with them in the minds and hearts of their long-suffering peoples.   In that connection, Mr. Speaker, on the eve of President Nazarbaev's meeting with President Bush and in anticipation of the expected visit by President Karimov, as well as possible visits by other Central Asian leaders, I want to highlight some of the most glaring human rights problems in these countries.   To begin with, corruption is rampant throughout the region, and we should keep this in mind as the administration requests more money for assistance to Central Asian regimes. Kazakhstan's President Nazarbaev and some of his closest associates are under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for massive corruption. Not surprisingly, to keep any information about high-level misdeeds from the public, most of which lives in dire poverty, the Nazarbaev regime has cracked down hard on the media. Family or business associates of President Nazarbaev control most media outlets in the country, including printing houses which often refuse to print opposition or independent newspapers. Newspapers or broadcasters that try to cover taboo subjects are harassed by the government and editorial offices have had their premises raided. The government also controls the two main Internet service providers and regularly blocks the web site of the Information Analytical Center Eurasia, which is sponsored by Kazakhstan's main opposition party.   In addition, libel remains a criminal offense in Kazakhstan. Despite a growing international consensus that people should not be jailed for what they say or write, President Nazarbaev on May 3 ratified an amendment to the Media Law that increases the legal liability of editors and publishers. Furthermore, a new draft religion law was presented to the Kazakh parliament at the end of November without public consultation. If passed, it would seriously curtail the ability of individuals and groups to practice their religious faith freely.   Uzbekistan is a wholesale violator of human rights. President Karimov allows no opposition parties, permits no independent media, and has refused even to register independent human rights monitoring groups. Elections in Uzbekistan have been a farce and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) rightly refused to observe the last presidential “contest,” in which Karimov's “rival” proclaimed that he was planning to vote for the incumbent.   In one respect, however, Karimov is not lacking, brazen gall. Last week, on the eve of Secretary Powell's arrival in Tashkent, Uzbek authorities announced plans to hold a referendum next month on extending Karimov's tenure in office from five years to seven. Some members of the tightly controlled parliament urged that he be made “president for life.” The timing of the announcement could have had only one purpose: to embarrass our Secretary of State and to show the United States that Islam Karimov will not be cowed by OSCE commitments on democracy and the need to hold free and fair elections.   I am also greatly alarmed by the Uzbek Government's imprisonment of thousands of Muslims, allegedly for participating in extremist Islamic groups, but who are probably “guilty” of the “crime” of attending non-government approved mosques. The number of people jailed on such dubious grounds is estimated to be between 5,000 and 10,000, according to Uzbek and international human rights organizations. While I do not dismiss Uzbek government claims about the seriousness of the religion-based insurgency, I cannot condone imprisonment of people based on mere suspicion of religious piety. As U.S. Government officials have been arguing for years, this policy of the Uzbek Government also seems counterproductive to its stated goal of eliminating terrorists. Casting the net too broadly and jailing innocent people will only inflame individuals never affiliated with any terrorist cell.   In addition, Uzbekistan has not only violated individual rights, but has also implemented policies that affect religious groups. For example, the Uzbek Government has consistently used its religion law to frustrate the ability of religious groups to register, placing them in a “Catch-22". By inhibiting registration, the Uzbek Government can harass and imprison individuals for attending unregistered religious meetings, as well as deny property purchases and formal education opportunities. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, Uzbekistan's record on human rights, democratization and religious freedom is unacceptable.   I am not aware that Kyrgyzstan's President Askar Akaev has been invited to Washington, but I would not be too surprised to learn of an impending visit. Once the most democratic state in Central Asia, Kyrgyzstan has gone the way of its neighbors, with rigged elections, media crackdowns and repression of opposition parties. At a Helsinki Commission hearing I chaired last week on democratization and human rights in Kyrgyzstan, we heard from the wife of Felix Kulov, Kyrgyzstan's leading opposition figure, who has been behind bars since January 2001. Amnesty International and many other human rights groups consider him a political prisoner, jailed because he dared to try to run against President Akaev. Almost all opposition and independent newspapers which have sought to expose high-level corruption have been sued into bankruptcy.   With respect to the proposed religion law the Kyrgyz Parliament is drafting, which would repeal the current law, significant concerns exist. If the draft law were enacted in its current emanation, it would categorize and prohibit groups based on beliefs alone, as well as allow arbitrary decisions in registering religious groups due to the vague provisions of the draft law. I encourage President Akaev to support a law with strong protections for religious freedom. Implementing the modification suggested by the OSCE Advisory Panel of Experts on Religious Freedom would ensure that the draft religion law meets Kyrgyzstan's OSCE commitments.   Mr. Speaker, this morning I had a meeting with Ambassador Meret Orazov of Turkmenistan and personally raised a number of specific human rights cases. Turkmenistan, the most repressive state in the OSCE space, resembles North Korea: while the people go hungry, megalomaniac President Saparmurat Niyazov builds himself palaces and monuments, and is the object of a Stalin-style cult of personality. No opposition of any kind is allowed, and anyone who dares to express a view counter to Niyazov is arrested. Turkmenistan is the only country in the OSCE region where places of worship have been destroyed on government orders; in November 1999 the authorities bulldozed a Seventh-Day Adventist Church. Since then, Niyazov has implemented his plans to provide a virtual bible for his benighted countrymen; apparently, he intends to become their spiritual as well as secular guide and president for life.   Turkmenistan has the worst record on religious freedom in the entire 55-nation OSCE. The systematic abuses that occur almost weekly are an abomination to the internationally recognized values which undergird the OSCE. Recent actions by Turkmen security agents against religious groups, including harassment, torture and detention, represent a catastrophic failure by Turkmenistan to uphold its human rights commitments as a participating OSCE State. In addition, last January, Mukhamed Aimuradov, who has been in prison since 1995, and Baptist pastor Shageldy Atakov, imprisoned since 1999, were not included in an amnesty which freed many prisoners. I hope that the Government of Turkmenistan will immediately and unconditionally release them, as well as all other prisoners of conscience.   Rounding out the Central Asian countries, Tajikistan also presents human rights concerns. A report has recently emerged concerning the government's religious affairs agency in the southern Khatlon region, which borders Afghanistan. According to reliable sources, a memorandum from the religious affairs agency expressed concern about “increased activity” by Christian churches in the region, calling for them to be placed under “the most stringent control.” Tajik Christians fear that this statement of intolerance could be a precursor to persecution. Keston News Service reported that law enforcement officials have already begun visiting registered churches and are trying to find formal grounds to close them down. Additionally, city authorities in the capital Dushanbe have cracked down on unregistered mosques.   Mr. Speaker, as the world focuses on Central Asia states with unprecedented energy, I wanted to bring these serious deficiencies in their commitment to human rights and democracy to the attention of my colleagues. All these countries joined the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe soon after their independence from the Soviet Union a decade ago. By becoming OSCE participating States, they agreed without reservation to comply with the Helsinki Final Act and all subsequent agreements. These documents cover a wide range of human dimension issues, including clear language on the human right of religious freedom and the right of the individual to profess and practice religion or belief. Unfortunately, as I have highlighted, these countries are failing in their commitment to promote and support human rights, and overall trends in the region are very disturbing.   The goals of fighting terrorism and steadfastly supporting human rights are not dichotomous. It is my hope that the U.S. Government will make issues of human rights and religious freedom paramount in bilateral discussions and public statements concerning the ongoing efforts against terrorism. In this context, the considerable body of OSCE commitments on democracy, human rights and the rule of law should serve as our common standard for our relations with these countries.

  • Do Registration Requirements Thwart Religious Freedom?

    Mr. Speaker, the “Helsinki” Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe recently convened a briefing which examined the policies of various governments which require registration of religious groups and the effect of such policies on the freedom of religious belief and practice. There was evidence that such requirements can be, and often are, a threat to religious freedom among countries in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). As Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, mandated to monitor and encourage compliance with the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE commitments, I have become alarmed over the past decade by the creation of new laws and regulations in some OSCE countries that serve as a roadblock to the free exercise of religious belief. These actions have not been limited to emerging democracies, but include Western European countries such as Austria. Many of these laws are crafted with the intent to repress religious communities deemed nefarious and dangerous to public safety. One cannot deny that certain groups have hidden behind the veil of religion in perpetrating monstrous and perfidious acts. The September 11th tragedies have been a grim reminder of that. Yet, while history does hold examples of religion employed as a tool for evil, these are exceptions and not the rule. In our own country, during the Civil Rights Movement, religious communities were the driving force in the effort to overturn the immoral “separate but equal” laws and provide legal protections. If strict religious registration laws had existed in this country, government officials could have clamped down on this just movement, possibly delaying long overdue reform. While OSCE commitments do not forbid basic registration of religious groups, governments often use the pretext of “state security” to quell groups espousing views contrary to the ruling powers’ party line. Registration laws are often designed on the premise that minority faiths are inimical to governmental goals. Proponents of more strenuous provisions cite crimes committed by individuals in justifying stringent registration requirements against religious groups, ignoring the fact that criminal laws should be adequate to combat criminal activity. In other situations, some governments have crafted special church-state agreements, or concordats, which exclusively give one religious group powers and rights not available to other communities. By creating tiers or hierarchies, governments run the risk of dispersing privileges and authority in an inequitable fashion, ensuring that other religious groups will never exist on a level playing field, if at all. In a worst case scenario, by officially recognizing “traditional” or “historic” communities, governments can reflect an ambivalence towards minority religious groups. Such ambivalence can, in turn, create an atmosphere in which hostility or violence is perpetrated with impunity. The persistent brutality against Jehovah’s Witnesses and evangelical groups in Georgia is an example of State authorities’ failure to bring to justice the perpetrators of such violence. Mr. Speaker, religious registration laws do not operate in a vacuum; other rights, such as freedom of association or freedom of speech, are often enveloped by these provisions. Clamping down on a group’s ability to exist not only contravenes numerous, long-standing OSCE commitments, but can effectively remove from society forces that operate for the general welfare. The recent liquidation of the Salvation Army in Moscow is a lucent example. Who will suffer most? The poor and hungry, who now benefit from the Salvation Army’s ministries of mercy. Each OSCE participating State has committed to full compliance with the provisions enumerated in the various Helsinki documents. The Bush Administration’s commitment to religious freedom has been clearly articulated. In a March 9, 2001 letter, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor, wrote: “President Bush is deeply committed to promoting the right of individuals around the world to practice freely their religious beliefs.” She also expressed her concern about religious discrimination. In a separate letter on March 30th of this year, Vice President Dick Cheney echoed this commitment when he referred to the promotion of religious freedom as “a defining element of the American character.” He went on to declare the Bush Administration’s commitment “to advancing the protection of individual religious freedom as an integral part of our foreign policy agenda.” Since the war on terrorism was declared, the President has made clear the distinction between acts of terrorism and religious practice. In his address to the country, Mr. Bush stated: “The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends....... Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them.” He further stated, “The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself.” Accordingly, I believe this administration will not stray from supporting religious freedom during this challenging time. Out of concern about recent developments and trends in the OSCE region, the Helsinki Commission conducted this briefing to discuss registration roadblocks affecting religious freedom. I was pleased by the panel of experts and practitioners assembled who were kind enough to travel from Europe to share their thoughts and insights, including Dr. Sophie van Bijsterveld, a professor of law in The Netherlands and current Co-Chair of the OSCE Advisory Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Dr. Gerhard Robbers, a member of the OSCE Advisory Panel of Experts and professor of law in Germany; Mr. Vassilios Tsirbas, interim executive director and senior legal counsel for the European Centre for Law and Justice in Strasbourg; and Col. Kenneth Baillie, commanding officer for the Salvation Army in Eastern Europe. Dr. van Bijsterveld made the point that “the assessment of registration from the point of view of religious liberty depends entirely on the function that registration fulfills in the legal system, and the consequences that are attached to registration.” She continued: “A requirement of registration of religious groups as a pre-condition for the lawful exercise of religious freedom is worrisome in the light of international human rights standards. [Needing the government’s] permission for a person to exercise his religion in community with others is, indeed, problematic in the light of internationally acknowledged religious liberty standards. Religious liberty should not be made dependent on a prior government clearance. This touches the very essence of religious liberty.” Dr. Robbers noted that registration of religious communities is often a requirement but “it need not be a roadblock to religious freedom. In fact, it can free the way to more positive religious freedom if correctly performed.” If utilized, “registration and registration procedures must meet certain standards. Registration must be based on equal treatment of all religious communities....... [and] the process of registration must follow due process of law.” He further noted that “religious activity in and as community, must be possible even without being registered as religious community.” He made clear that the minimum number of members required for registration need not be too many and there should be no minimum period of existence before registration is allowed. The third panelist, Mr. Tsirbas, opined, “Within this proliferation of the field of human rights, the Helsinki Final Act is a more than promising note. The commitment to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion, basically summarizes the ..... protection of international and domestic legal documents. Religious liberty stands out as one of those sine qua non conditions for an atmosphere of respect for the rights of individuals or whole communities.” Mr. Tsirbas also stated, “If the protection of the individual is considered the cornerstone of our modern legal system, religious freedom should be considered the cornerstone of all other rights. The right itself is one of the most recent to be recognized and protected, yet it embraces and reflects the inevitable outworking through the course of time of the fundamental truths of belief in the worth of a person.” Lastly, Col. Kenneth Baillie, spokesman for the Salvation Army in Eastern Europe, outlined the experience of registering his organization in Moscow. “In Russia, as of February this year, we are registered nationwide as a centralized religious organization, [however] the city of Moscow is another story. We have been registered as a religious group in Moscow since 1992. In response to the 1997 law, like everyone else, we applied for re-registration , thinking that it would be merely pro forma. Our application documents were submitted, and a staff person in the city Ministry of Justice said everything was in order, we would have our signed and stamped registration in two days. “Two days later,” Col. Baillie continued, “the same staffer called to say, in a sheepish voice, ‘There’s a problem.’ Well, it is now three years later, and there is still a problem. Someone took an ideological decision to deny us, that is absolutely clear to me, and three years of meetings and documents and media statements and legal briefs are all window-dressing. Behind it all is an arbitrary, discriminatory, and secret decision, and to this day I do not know who made the decision, or why.” Based on the difficult experience of trying to register in Moscow and the Salvation Army’s subsequent “liquidation” by a Moscow court, Col. Baillie offered some observations. He noted how “the law’s ambiguity gives public officials the power to invent arbitrary constructions of the law.” Col. Baillie concluded by stating, “We will not give up,” but added he is “understandably skeptical about religious registration law, and particularly the will to uphold what the law says in regard to religious freedom.” Mr. Speaker, this Helsinki Commission briefing offered a clear picture of how the law and practice affecting, registration of religious groups have become critical aspects in the defense of the right to freedom of conscience, religion or belief. No doubt registration requirements can serve as a roadblock which is detrimental to religious freedom. The Commission will continue to monitor this trend among the region’s governments which are instituting more stringent registration requirements and will encourage full compliance with the Helsinki commitments to ensure the protection of this fundamental right.

  • Ambassador Stephan H. Minikes

    Mr. President, as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I take this opportunity to welcome the recent swearing-in of Stephan M. Minikes to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE. Prior to that ceremony, I met with Steve to discuss priority issues on the Commission's agenda, including the promotion of democracy, human rights and economic liberty as well as such pressing concerns as international crime and corruption and their links to terrorism. The Commission remains keenly interested in the OSCE as a tool for promoting human rights and democratic development and advancing United States interests in the expansive 55-nation OSCE region. The terrorist attacks of September 11 represented an assault on the principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law: core principles at the heart of the OSCE. It is crucial that we redouble our efforts to advance these fundamental principles throughout the OSCE region even as we pursue practical cooperation aimed at rooting out terrorism. The OSCE provides an important framework for advancing these vital and complementary objectives. I am confident that Steve will draw on his extensive and varied experiences as he assumes his duties as U.S. Ambassador to the OSCE and I look forward to working with him and his team in Vienna. I ask unanimous consent that Secretary of State Powell's eloquent prepared remarks delivered at Ambassador Minikes' swearing-in ceremony be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Remarks of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell at the Swearing-in of Stephan M. Minikes Ambassador Ducaru: Distinguished Guests, welcome to The Department of State. It is my honor and pleasure today to swear-in a distinguished civic leader as our next Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe: Steve Minikes. As a boy in Nazi Germany, Steve knew what it is like to live under oppression. His relatives died in concentration camps. He saw hate consume a country, ravage a continent, and cause a world war. Later, he saw a devastated Europe divided by force and a hot war replaced by a cold one. And since the age of eleven, when he found his new home in America, Steve Minikes has never for a minute taken freedom for granted, not his or anyone else's. And so, when President Bush selected Steve to be his personal envoy to the OSCE, he knew that he was choosing a person who would be deeply committed to the fundamental principles of the Helsinki process. The President knew that Steve needed no convincing that human rights, the rule of law and democracy are inextricably linked to prosperity, stability and security. And the President knew that in Steve he was choosing someone who would work hard and well to realize, in all its fullness, the dream of a Europe whole and free. And so, Ladies and Gentlemen, Steve Minikes will bring to his new position a deep commitment to serve the country that gave him a new life, and a strong determination to help the continent of his birth attain its highest hopes. And Steve will bring a lot more to the table besides. He will bring expertise in and out of government that spans the law, management, banking, trade, energy and defense. He will bring a reputation for excellence and dedication that extends from the corporate world to Capitol Hill, from the Pentagon to the White House, as the presence here of friends from Congress and from a wide range of federal agencies attests. Steve also brings his experience as a Director of the Washington Opera, which will serve him very well at OSCE. Think about it. Conducting multilateral diplomacy with 54 other sovereign countries: countries as big as Russia, Germany and the United States on the one hand, and as small as Liechtenstein, San Marino and Malta on the other. And each of them with a veto. That's a lot like staging the elephant scene from Aida, only easier. The American people are truly fortunate that they can count on a citizen as accomplished and admired as Steve to represent them at so important a forum as the OSCE. I know that Steve would be the first to agree with me, however, when I say that we would not have been able to contribute so much to his community and his country, had it not been for the love and support of his family. I want to especially welcome his partner in life, Dede and their daughter Alexandra and her husband Julian. A warm greeting as well to Dede's sister Jackie and brother Peter and their families. I think they all deserve a round of applause. Ladies and Gentlemen: Twenty-six years ago when President Ford signed the Final Act in Helsinki, he said that the Helsinki process would be judged not by the promises made but by the promises kept. Thanks in incalculable measure to the men and women who braved totalitarian repression to ensure that the promises made in Helsinki would be kept, all 55 members of the OSCE are truly independent nations today, able to chart their own course for a new century. The promises made in Helsinki during the Cold War and reaffirmed during the post-Cold War period, are still fundamental to European security and cooperation in this post-, post-Cold War world. And, like all his predecessors from Gerald Ford to William Clinton, President Bush is strongly committed to fulfilling the promise of Helsinki. The President and I are counting on you, Steve, to work with our fellow member states, with the various OSCE institutions that have been established, and, of course, with the Members of the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to that noble end. Human rights and fundamental freedoms remain the heart and soul of OSCE. Keep them in the spotlight. Democracy and the rule of law are key to fighting hatred, extremism and terrorism. Work with our OSCE partners, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and the Representative for Free Media to consolidate democratic processes and promote freedom of expression. Help OSCE foster ethnic tolerance. Help it protect human dignity by strengthening efforts against trafficking in persons. We also look to you, Steve, with your private sector experience, to explore ways to develop OSCE's economic and environmental dimensions. OSCE has done some good work on corruption and good governance. Portugal, the incoming Chairman-in-Office, has some interesting ideas on transboundary water issues. Help us think about what else we might do. The President and I also depend on you to utilize and strengthen OSCE's unique capacities for conflict prevention and crisis management. To work with OSCE's High Commissioner on National Minorities in addressing the root causes of ethnic conflict. We will also look to you to support OSCE's field missions which are contributing to stability from Tajikistan to Kosovo. In the security dimension of OSCE, good progress has been made in meeting conventional force reduction commitments. We will count on you, Steve, to help resolve the remaining issues. The Voluntary Fund for Moldova is a valuable tool for getting rid of weapons and ammunition. Keep using it. OSCE's action plan will be valuable in fighting terrorism. Implementation is critical. Keep the momentum going. Institutionally speaking, OSCE's strengths remain its flexibility, the high degree of political will that is reflected in its consensus decisions, and the politically binding nature of its commitments. As OSCE considers how it might best adapt to changing needs, do not compromise these strengths. Build upon them. Ladies and Gentlemen, next week, Steve and I will travel to Bucharest for a meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council. There, the Chairmanship-in-Office will pass from the capable hands of Romania into the able hands of Portugal. And I will just as confidently witness the passing of the baton from Ambassador Johnson to Ambassador Minikes. There is a great deal of important work ahead for the OSCE. There are still many promises to keep. And Steve, the President and I know that you will help us keep them. You and Dede have President Bush's and my best wishes as you embark upon your new mission for our country. And now it is my pleasure to administer the oath of office.

  • Helsinki Commission Hearing Examines Situation in Moldova

    By John Finerty CSCE Staff Advisor The United States Helsinki Commission held a hearing on September 25, 2001 to examine the situation in Moldova, with a specific focus on developments in the Transdniestria region and the withdrawal of Russian military forces as well as armaments and ammunition from Moldova. After years of delay and uncertainty, the Russian Government has made considerable progress in removing its armed forces and military equipment from Moldova in accordance with the 1999 Istanbul Declaration of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE). By mid-November 2001, the Treaty Limited Equipment (heavy weaponry) under the CFE were removed or destroyed. Russian armed forces are to be withdrawn by the end of 2002. Implementation of the agreements has been assisted by a voluntary fund established under the auspices of the OSCE. Russia’s continued military presence in the sovereign nation of Moldova has been an unresolved and contentious issue since the breakup of the Soviet Union, when units of the Soviet 14th Army (now known as the Operative Group of Russian Forces) remained stationed in the Transdniestria region of Moldova. Some elements of the 14th Army assisted the pro-Moscow leadership of Transdniestria to secede from Moldova in 1991-2 and establish an unrecognized political entity known as the Dniestr Moldovan Republic (DMR). The current leadership of the DMR has strenuously protested the recent destruction of tanks and armored combat vehicles, seeking to secure some of the hardware for itself. Testifying at the hearing were Ambassador Steven Pifer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs; Ambassador Ceslav Ciobanu, Ambassador of the Republic of Moldova to the United States; Dr. Kimmo Kiljunen, Member of the Parliament of Finland and Chairman of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly's Working Group on Moldova; Ambassador William Hill, Head of the OSCE Mission to Moldova; and Dr. Charles King, Assistant Professor, School of Foreign Service and Department of Government at Georgetown University. Commission Co-Chairman Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) chaired the hearing with Commissioners Rep. Joseph R. Pitts (R-PA), Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN), Rep. Robert B. Aderholt (R-AL) and Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (D-FL) participating. In response to a question by Co-Chairman Smith regarding the logistical and political problems facing troop withdrawal and weapons destruction, Ambassador Pifer replied that the main challenge is political, not logistical. Ambassador Hill added that the Russian Government appears prepared to leave; however, there is much resistance on the part of the Transdniestrian regime, since Tiraspol has relied on Russian troops as a “de facto shield” against attack, whether it would come from Moldova or elsewhere. Ambassador Pifer said the Russian Government is “on a schedule that will bring them down to zero tanks, armored combat vehicles and artillery by the end of the year,” which proved to be the case. He added that the difficult logistical challenges arise in the disposition of ammunition and small arms. According to Ambassador Pifer, the United States and Russia “want to make sure that these are eliminated and do not fall into the wrong hands.” Ambassador Pifer reported that the United States has already contributed $300,000 to the voluntary fund for destruction of equipment, as well as $69 million in financial assistance to Moldova from the Agency for International Development and other agencies. Responding to a question from Commissioner Hastings regarding U.S. assistance, “in the furtherance of Moldova’s involvement in the Stability Pact and in their overall re-development,” Ambassador Pifer pointed to U.S. assistance in helping Moldova integrate into European institutions. He continued that it is important that a “total commitment come from the United States and the European Union together.” Commissioner Pitts raised the possibility that perhaps Moscow is using the withdrawal tactic to gain concessions from the Moldovan Government in terms of the status of Transdniestra. Ambassador Hill described Russia as “deeply divided on this issue.” Most Russians realize that it is important to leave, but others see Transdniestra as part of Russia and thus desire the continued separation from Moldova. Commissioner Aderholt raised the question of the Moldovan Government’s efforts in resolving the Transdniestrian issue. Ambassador Ciobanu testified that the new Moldovan leadership, under President Vladimir Voronin has “resumed the dialogue with the separatist leaders” and “proposed a whole package of measures with a view of granting Transdniestria the status of a broad, regional self-government but preserving the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova.” Ambassador Ciobanu expressed dismay that Transdniestrian officials have not responded positively, but rather Transdniestria’s separatist position “became even tougher.” As a result, Ciobanu added, “We have reached the critical limits of possible concessions from our part.” Future concessions must come from Transdniestra and the international community should, according to the Moldovan Ambassador, commit to exerting pressure on the Transdniestrian regime. Dr. Kiljunen described the efforts made by the Working Group on Moldova to facilitate a dialogue between Chisinau and Tiraspol. The current Communist-led government enjoys a stable majority in the parliament and, according to Dr. Kiljunen, has “contributed [to] the solution of this Transdniestrian issue.” Dr. Kiljunen added that Russia should continue to be involved in Transdniestra as part of its “international commitments” to create stability in the region. With a more pessimistic view of the Transdniestrian conundrum, Dr. King suggested the current approach of the OSCE and the international community may have run its course. For the past ten years, he noted, “the people of Transdniestria have gone about, with the support of the Russian Federation, building something like a functioning state.” In fact, the last ten years have “strengthened Transdniestrian statehood,” instead of working towards reunification with Moldova. Today it is increasingly difficult to reintegrate these two societies because “they are fundamentally separate now.” The so-called Dniestr Moldovan Republic has solidified its position, and it may be too late for the type of resolution typically envisioned by the international community. Commissioner Wamp asked if the Moldovan Government provided for basic freedoms, including movement, religion, and elections. Dr. King responded that Moldova has made remarkable progress in “implementing freedoms across the board.” Freedom of movement, in particular, is relatively easy for average Moldovans; however, the Transdniestrian authorities have frequently obstructed freedom of movement across the border for Moldovan officials. Ambassador Hill suggested one problem in Moldova is not freedom of religion, but rather politicalization of the Orthodox Church. The European Court in Strasbourg is currently examining a suit against the Moldovan Government for not registering the Bessarabian Orthodox Church which sees itself as the legal successor to the pre-war Romanian Orthodox Church in Moldova. With respect to elections in Moldova, Dr. Kiljunen stated they have been free and fair. However, not all adults in the Transdniestra region were able to vote. “It was only a token, a small token...who really voted.” In addition, there have been parliamentary elections in Transdniestra itself. Because these elections were not observed, it is not known how fair and democratic they have been. Co-Chairman Smith noted Moldova’s status as a major source of trafficked women to Europe and inquired about the Moldovan Government’s response. Ambassador Pifer noted that the Moldovan Government has become more aware of the problem, and has begun to change some of its domestic legislation to include harsher penalties for trafficking. To help the women, Moldova has established a women’s crisis hotline center. Pifer said Moldova is attempting to recognize trafficked women as victims, not as prostitutes. Ambassador Ciobanu elaborated that Moldova has established a special governmental commission to deal with this issue. More importantly, Ciobanu added that Moldova is initiating economic and social programs in order to provide “some engagement, some jobs, [and] some prospectives for these young women in Moldova.”   Helsinki Commission intern Lauren Friend contributed to this article.

  • Report on Azerbaijan's Parlimentary Elections

    On November 5, 2000, Azerbaijan held its second parliamentary election since gaining independence. The Central Election Commission [CEC] reported that turnout was 68.8 percent. In the proportional voting for 25 of the parliament’s 125 seats, President Heydar Aliev'’s party— Yeni [New] Azerbaijan— [YAP] came in first, with 62.5 percent. Only three other parties passed the sixpercent threshold: the Azerbaijan Popular Front “Reformers,” (10.8 percent); the Civic Solidarity Party (6.3 percent); and the Communist Party (6.28 percent). Yeni Azerbaijan, along with nominally independent, pro-presidential candidates, also took most of the 100 seats decided in single-mandate districts, giving Aliev’s party about 90 percent control of parliament. The victory of Yeni Azerbaijan was a foregone conclusion. During the registration period, the CEC excluded two opposition parties, Musavat and the Azerbaijan Democratic Party [ADP], for allegedly not having 50,000 valid signatures. International observation missions judged that Azerbaijan’s elections in 1995 (parliamentary), 1998 (presidential) and 1999 (local) all failed to meet international norms. All Azerbaijani opposition parties have denounced the election as rigged. Most opposition parties, however, refused to take part in the January 7 repeat elections. After negative judgements by international observers of four elections since 1995, it is fair to say that Azerbaijan has made no real progress in conducting elections that allow voters to determine who governs them. Despite some improvements on January 7, the election’s outcome was decided in November through massive falsification, which  left government-opposition relations at a low point. At the same time, the opposition is more fractured than ever. Its leaders were unable or unwilling before the November 5 first round to present President Aliev and Yeni Azerbaijan with a united front and party list.  

  • Religious Registration in the OSCE Region

    This briefing discussed religiuos registration policies throughout the 55-country OSCE region. Chairman Christopher Smith noted that registration laws limiting religious freedom were not only being passed in former Soviet states, but in Western European states such as Austria. Dr. Bijsterveld outlined the OSCE's position that an international response would be required to limit the spread of policies restricting religious freedom. Mr. Thames provided a detailed analysis of one such policy, a Greek law that effectively banned non-Orthodox broadcasting.  Finally, Col. Baillie gave a firsthand account of how the issue of religious registration in Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Romania, and Russia had impacted the operations of the Salvation Army in those countries. These impediments ranged from bureaucrtic obstacles in Ukraine to a flat-out denial to operate in Moscow.  

  • Roadblock to Religious Liberty: Religious Registration

    The United States Helsinki Commission conducted a public briefing to explore the issue of religious registration, one of many roadblocks to religious liberties around the world, focusing on religious registration among the 55 nations of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The troubling trend followed by several OSCE participating states toward restricting the right to freedom of religion by using registration schemes, making it virtually impossible for citizens to practice their faith was addressed. Panelists at the event – including Dr. Sophie van Bijsterveld, Co-Chair of the OSCE/ODIHR Advisory Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief; Dr. Gerhard Robbers, Member of the OSCE/ODIHR Advisory Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief; Vassilios Tsirbas, Senior Counsel for the European Centre for Law and Justice; and Col. Kenneth Baillie, Commanding Officer of the Salvation Army-Moscow – discussed the various ways governments are chipping away at religious liberty. New legislation concerning religious registration policies that could potentially stymie religious freedom within the OSCE region was also addressed.

  • Moldova: Are the Russian Troops Really Leaving?

    This hearing, presided over by Co-Chairman Christopher H. Smith (NJ-04), focused on the Republic of Moldova, specifically its relationship to the Russian Federation.  Moldova has been facing a secession movement in Transdniestria, a small territory on its border with Ukraine, since its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991.   The Russian army reportedly helped the pro-Soviet leadership of the Transdniestria succession movement solidify its position during a bloody confrontation with Moldovan forces in the summer of 1992. Within the OSCE, the withdrawal of Russian forces from Moldova and the Transdniestria conflict have been concerns since 1993.   Witnesses testified that  in the past three-and-a-half months, the Russians have been withdrawing troops and equipment, in line with their commitment made in Istanbul. While the Transdniestria authorities oppose this, the Russians seem to be on track to fully withdraw by 2002. 

  • Missed Opportunity in Belarus

    By Orest S. Deychakiwsky, Staff Advisor and Ron McNamara, Chief of Staff Commission staff observed the September 9 presidential election in Belarus, in which Belarusian strongman Aleksandr Lukashenka prevailed in a fundamentally unfair election marred by harassment of the opposition and independent media. Unprecedented obstacles erected by the authorities impeded normal long-term observation of the election while Lukashenka lashed out with vitriolic threats against OSCE mission head Ambassador Hans-Georg Wieck and U.S. Ambassador Mike Kozak in the closing days of the campaign. Hopes that the election would bring an end to the country’s self-imposed isolation were dashed by wide-scale rights violations by the regime in the weeks leading up to election day and serious irregularities in the balloting. The International Limited Election Observation Mission, which consisted of the OSCE’s Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and the Parliamentary Troika composed of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE/PA), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the European Parliament, concluded that there were fundamental flaws in the election process and that the elections failed to meet OSCE standards for democratic elections. Commission staff participated in the OSCE/PA delegation, on election day observing the vote in Miensk and in towns and villages in the Miensk,Vitsyebsk and Mahilyow regions, including in the village in which Lukashenka was born. The problematic pre-election campaign period determined the election’s outcome. The election took place against a backdrop of recent credible revelations of involvement by close associates of Lukashenka in the disappearances and presumed murders of leading opposition members. Criteria established by the OSCE in 2000 as benchmarks for democratic elections – transparency of the elections process, access of opponents to the state-run media, and a climate free of fear – were not met. There was a profound lack of a level playing field for the candidates. The weeks leading up to the presidential contest were characterized by harassment of the opposition, raids on non-governmental organizations and independent newspapers, with the confiscation of campaign materials, newspapers, printing presses and computer equipment. The dominant state-owned media outlets were overwhelmingly biased in favor of Lukashenka. The Belarusian authorities did everything they could to thwart the opposition, including ruling by decree, failing to guarantee the independence of the election administration, and allowing abuses in “early voting.” The authorities’ treatment of the OSCE observation mission, including delays in issuing an invitation which forced the mission to limit its observation to a mere three weeks before the election and denials of visas, was described by one OSCE election official as “unprecedented” -- worse than in any other of the more than two dozen countries in which the OSCE has observed elections. The regime maintained firm control over virtually every aspect of the election process, from the makeup of the election commissions with their visible lack of representatives of the opposition, to keeping independent observers from scrutinizing the vote tabulation. One of the few positive outcomes of the Belarusian presidential race was the development of the democratic opposition and civil society, despite the intense pressures it faced from the Lukashenka regime. Regrettably, Lukashenka and his inner circle squandered the opportunity presented by the election to restore some degree of normalcy to relations between Belarus and most OSCE participating States, including the United States. Desperate for a modicum of international recognition, members of Belarus’ “National Assembly” were out in force making overtures to OSCE Parliamentary Assembly observers in hopes of ending their isolation following last year’s flawed parliamentary elections.

  • Twenty-Five Years of the Helsinki Commission

    Mr. Speaker, twenty-five years ago this month, on June 3, 1976, a law was enacted creating the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. We know it as “the Helsinki Commission.” One of the smallest and most unique bodies in the U.S. Government, it perhaps ranks among the most effective for its size. I have been proud to be a member of the Commission for the past 16 years. When President Gerald Ford signed, in Helsinki in 1975, the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, he said that “history will judge this Conference not by what we say here today, but by what we do tomorrow--not only by the promises we make, but by the promises we keep.” That piece of rhetoric has not only been repeated in various forms by every United States President since; it has continually served as a basis for U.S. policy toward Europe. Credit for this fact, and for the Commission's establishment, first goes to our late colleague here in the House, Millicent Fenwick, and the late-Senator Clifford Case, both of New Jersey. Observing the foundation of human rights groups in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to monitor and, it was hoped, to encourage their governments to keep the promises made in Helsinki, she and other Members of Congress felt it would be good to give them some signs of support.   Keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, that this was in the midst of detente with Moscow, a polite dance of otherwise antagonistic great powers. It was a time when the nuclear warhead was thought to be more powerful than the human spirit, and the pursuit of human rights in the communist world was not considered sufficiently realistic, except perhaps as a propaganda tool with which to woo a divided European continent and polarized world. The philosophy of the Commission was otherwise. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is, as the Helsinki Final Act indicates, a prerequisite for true peace and true security. As such, it is also a principle guiding relations between states, a legitimate matter for discussion among them. This philosophy, broadened today to include democratic norms such as free and fair elections and respect for the rule of law, remains the basis for the Commission's work.   Of course, the Commission was not meant to be a place for mere debate on approaches to foreign policy; it had actually to insert itself into the policy-making process. The Commission Chairman for the first decade, the late Dante Fascell of Florida, fought hard to do just that. It was, I would say, a bipartisan fight, with several different Congresses taking on several different Administrations. Moreover, it was not just a fight for influence in policy-making; it was a much tougher fight for better policies. The Commission staff, led during those early years by R. Spencer Oliver, was superb in this respect. It knew the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. It worked with non-governmental organizations to increase public diplomacy and, subsequently, public support for In 15 years at the East-West divide, the Commission also championed policies, like the Jackson-Vanik amendment, linking human rights to trade and other aspects of U.S. bilateral relationships. The concept of linkage has often been chastised by the foreign policy establishment, but it comes from the passion of our own country's democratic heritage and nature. With persistence and care, it ultimately proved successful for the United States and the countries concerned.   The Helsinki Commission also became the champion of engagement. Commission members did not simply speak out on human rights abuses; they also traveled to the Soviet Union and the communist countries of East-Central Europe, meeting dissidents and ``refuseniks'' and seeking to gain access to those in the prisons and prison camps. At first, the Commission was viewed as such a threat to the communist system that its existence would not be officially acknowledged, but Commissioners went anyway, in other congressional capacities until such time that barriers to the Commission were broken down. The Commission focus was on helping those who had first inspired the Commission's creation, namely the Helsinki and human rights monitors, who had soon been severely persecuted for assuming in the mid-1970s that they could act upon their rights. Ethnic rights, religious rights, movement, association and expression rights, all were under attack, and the Commission refused to give up its dedication to their defense. Eventually, the hard work paid off, and the beginning of my tenure with the Commission coincided with the first signs under Gorbachev that East-West divisions were finally coming to an end. Sharing the chairmanship with my Senate counterparts--first Alfonse D'Amato of New York and then Dennis DeConcini of Arizona--the Commission argued against easing the pressure at the time it was beginning to produce results.   We argued for the human rights counterpart of President Reagan's “zero option'' for arms control, in which not only the thousands of dissenters and prospective emigrants saw benefits. They were joined by millions of everyday people--workers, farmers, students--suddenly feeling more openness, real freedom, and an opportunity with democracy. Dissidents on whose behalf the Commission fought--while so many others were labeling them insignificant fringe elements in society--were now being released and becoming government leaders, people like Polish Foreign Minister Bronislaw Geremek and Czech President Vaclav Havel. The independence of the Baltic States, whose forced incorporation into the USSR was never officially recognized by the United States, was actually reestablished, followed by others wishing to act upon the Helsinki right to self-determination.   Of course, Mr. Speaker, those of us on the Commission knew that the fall of communism would give rise to new problems, namely the extreme nationalism which communism swept under the rug of repression rather than neutralized with democratic antiseptic. Still, none of us fully anticipated what was to come in the 1990s. It was a decade of democratic achievement, but it nevertheless witnessed the worst violations of Helsinki principles and provisions, including genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina and brutal conflicts elsewhere in the Balkans as well as in Chechnya, the Caucuses and Central Asia, with hundreds of thousands innocent civilians killed and millions displaced. Again, it was the Commission which helped keep these tragedies on the U.S. foreign policy agenda, holding hearings, visiting war zones and advocating an appropriately active and decisive U.S. response. In the face of such serious matters, too many sought to blame history and even democracy, equated victim with aggressor and fecklessly abandoned the principles upon which Helsinki was based. Again the Commission, on a bipartisan basis in dialogue with different Administrations, took strong issue with such an approach. Moreover, with our distinguished colleague, Christopher Smith of New Jersey, taking his turn as Chairman during these tragic times, the Commission took on a new emphasis in seeking justice for victims, providing much needed humanitarian relief and supporting democratic movements in places like Serbia for the sake of long-term stability and the future of the people living there.   In this new decade, Mr. Speaker, the Commission has remained actively engaged on the issues of the time. Corruption and organized crime, trafficking of women and children into sexual slavery, new attacks on religious liberty and discrimination in society, particularly against Romani populations in Europe, present new challenges. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, the latest Commission Chairman, has kept the Commission current and relevant. In addition, there continue to be serious problem areas or widespread or systemic violations of OSCE standards in countries of the Balkans, Central Asia and the Caucuses, or reversals of the democratization process as in Belarus. The Commission was born in the Cold War, but its true mission--the struggle for human rights, democratic government and the rule of law--remains as important now as it was then. It remains an essential element for true security and stability in the world, as well as, to paraphrase Helsinki, for the free and full development of the individual person, from whose inherent dignity human rights ultimately derive.   To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I wish to erase any illusion I have given in my praise for the Helsinki Commission on its first quarter of a century that it had single-handedly vanquished the Soviet empire or stopped the genocidal policies of Slobodan Milosevic. No, this did not occur, and our own efforts pale in comparison to the courage and risk-taking of human rights activists in the countries concerned. But I would assert, Mr. Speaker, that the wheels of progress turn through the interaction of numerous cogs, and the Commission has been one of those cogs, maybe with some extra grease. The Commission certainly was the vehicle through which the United States Government was able to bring the will of the American people for morality and human rights into European diplomacy. To those who were in the Soviet gulag, or in Ceausescu's Romania as a recent acquaintance there relayed to me with much emotion, the fact that some Americans and others were out there, speaking on their behalf, gave them the will to survive those dark days, and to continue the struggle for freedom. Many of those voices were emanating in the non-governmental community, groups like Amnesty International, Freedom House and Human Rights Watch. Through the Helsinki Commission, the voice of the United States Congress was heard as well, and I know that all of my colleagues who have been on the Commission or worked with it are enormously proud of that fact.

  • Troubling Trends: Human Rights in Russia

    The purpose of this hearing was to highlight the improvements in human rights in Russia since and to focus on the areas in which reform is still needed. The politicized imprisonments, restrictive legislation that muzzles Internet publications, defamation lawsuits has made independent media outlets struggle to survive and impunity in violent attacks against journalists. These attacks against the media were focused on well-known cases and extraordinary circumstances in Russia. From burdensome registration requirements and visits by the tax police to the confiscation of entire print runs and imposition of crippling fines, from criminal charges for defamation of individuals, institutions or the state, free media faces myriad threats and challenges today.

  • Eightieth Anniversary of the Birthday of Dr. Andrei Sakharov

    Mr. Speaker, today I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues the 80th anniversary of the birth of the late Dr. Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov, one of the truly great figures in the struggle for human rights in the 20th century. On May 21 of this year, Dr. Sakharov would have celebrated his 80th birthday. A brilliant physicist, Dr. Andrei Sakharov enjoyed the respect of his colleagues and the material privileges provided by Soviet officialdom for his work in helping to develop the Soviet atomic bomb. He could easily have continued to enjoy his elevated status in Soviet society, but his conscience would not permit it. He became deeply convinced that the arms race was pointless and a threat to mankind. When he protested privately to Soviet authorities, he was ignored. In 1968, Dr. Sakharov circulated his groundbreaking essay entitled, “Thoughts on Progress, Peaceful Co-Existence and Intellectual Freedom,” in which he drew the connection between human rights and international security. For this challenge to the system, he was barred from military research, and when he continued to protest, he was fired from his work.   In 1975, Dr. Sakharov was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but Soviet authorities would not allow him to travel to Oslo to receive the award. In January 1980, without any legal procedure, let alone a trial, Dr. Sakharov was picked up on the streets of Moscow by KGB agents and spirited off to exile in the city of Gorky. At the same time, the Kremlin, under the leadership of former KGB chairman Yuri Andropov, launched a crackdown on Soviet dissidents. In 1984, Dr. Sakharov's wife, Dr. Elena Bonner, was convicted of “defaming the Soviet political and social system” and sentenced to join him in exile. Even in these dark hours, Dr. Sakharov, continued to speak out against the war being carried out by Soviet forces in Afghanistan, to defend persecuted human rights activists in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and to address vital issues of disarmament and peace. On three occasions, Dr. Sakharov went on a hunger strike to protest the mistreatment of his friends and colleagues in the human rights movement. During his confinement, his notes and his manuscripts were stolen from him by KGB thugs. President Reagan declared his sixtieth birthday, May 21, 1980, “Andrei Sakharov Day.” In December 1986, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev lifted Dr. Sakharov's exile and “invited” him to return to Moscow. In 1989, Dr. Sakharov was elected to the Congress of People Deputies, an organization that had previously been the rubber stamp legislature for the Soviet Union. In the short time that he served, Dr. Sakharov joined a handful of other elected leaders to press for real reforms in the Soviet Union.   On December 14, 1989, the world was saddened to learn of this great man's death. In its coverage of ``the 100 Most Important People of the 20th Century,'' Time magazine noted that, “By the time of his death in 1989, this humble physicist had influenced the spread of democratic ideals throughout the communist world. His moral challenge to tyranny, his faith in the individual and the power of reason, his courage in the face of denunciation and, finally, house arrest--made him a hero to ordinary citizens everywhere.'' Although Andrei Sakharov has passed on and the Soviet Union is no more, the issues that he and his colleagues confronted still challenge us today. “Small wars,” like the bloody conflict in Chechnya, have replaced the big Cold War. Human rights continue to be violated. Arms control and security issues are high on the agenda. Several years ago, Dr. Bonner bequeathed Dr. Sakharov's papers to an American university bearing the name of one of our country's greatest jurists--Justice Louis Brandeis. This is a priceless gift not only to Brandeis, but to our entire nation. A generation of young people who have grown up since the fall of the Soviet Union, will be able to study Dr. Sakharov's writings on civic responsibility, non-violence, ethnic and religious intolerance, and other aspects of human rights and what we now call the human dimension. Mr. Speaker, on this, the eightieth anniversary of the birth of Andrei Sakharov, I urge Americans young and old to acquaint themselves with Dr. Sakharov's struggle for peace and human dignity, and to support educational efforts such as the Sakharov archive at Brandeis to preserve the legacy of an intellectual and humanitarian giant of the 20th century.

  • Democracy Under Siege in Belarus

    Mr. President, I wish to update my Senate colleagues on developments in Belarus in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Commission. The Commission continues to pay close attention to events in Belarus especially as they impact democracy, human rights and the rule of law.   May 7 marked the second anniversary of the disappearance of Yuri Zakharenka, the former Belarusian Minister of Internal Affairs. In 1999, General Zakharenka, who had been critical of Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenka and had attempted to form a union of officers to support democracy, was put in a car by unidentified men and taken away. He has not been heard from since. His fate is probably similar to other prominent Belarusian opposition figures who have disappeared over the last few years, notably Victor Hanchar, Antaloy Krasovsky and Dmitry Zavadsky. The Belarusian authorities have had no success in investigating these disappearances; indeed, there are indications that the regime of Alexander Lukashenka may have been involved. Opinion polls in Belarus have shown that a clear majority of those who are aware of the disappearances believe that they are the work of the Lukashenka regime.   These disappearances embody the climate of disregard for human rights and democracy that has persisted since the election of Mr. Lukashenka in 1994. That disregard has intensified following his unconstitutional power grab in November 1996.   Presidential elections are planned for later this year. Unfortunately, recent developments in Belarus do not inspire confidence that these elections will meet OSCE standards for free and democratic elections. Despite commitments made to the OSCE, Belarusian authorities continue to unlawfully restrict freedom of assembly and to beat and detain participants in peaceful demonstrations, as illustrated by the April 21 protest by youth activists. On April 27, Valery Shchukin, deputy of the disbanded Belarusian parliament, received a three month sentence for the dubious charge of ``malicious hooliganism.'' And on May 7, police arrested opposition activists who marked the anniversary of Yuri Zakharenka's disappearance. The activists held placards reading: ``Where is Zakharanka?''; ``Who's Next?''; and ``Where are the Disappeared People--Zakharanka, Hanchar, Krasousky, Zavadsky?''   Lukashenka continues his harsh assault on OSCE's efforts to develop democracy, characterizing domestic elections observers supported by the OSCE Advisory and Monitoring Group (AMG) as ``an army of bandits and collaborationists.'' This is only the last in a series of incredible accusations against the international community, including far-fetched allegations that $500 million had been earmarked in support of the opposition candidates. On April 25, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Friemut Duve canceled his visit to Belarus to protest the denial of a visa to his senior advisor, a U.S. diplomat Diana Moxhay who had earlier served at the U.S. Embassy in Miensk. The visit was to have examined the difficult media environment in Belarus, especially in light of the forthcoming presidential elections.   I continue to have grave concerns that Presidential Directive No. 8, which imposes restrictions on assistance from abroad offered to NGOs for democracy building and human rights including election monitoring, could be used to block NGO activities and important OSCE AMGroup projects in Belarus.   These and numerous other recent occurrences call into question the Belarusian government's willingness to comply with freely undertaken OSCE commitments and raise doubts as to whether the Lukashenka regime intends to conduct the upcoming elections in a manner consistent with international standards.   As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I call upon the Belarusian authorities to conduct a real and public investigation of the disappearances. Furthermore, I urge the Belarusian Government to take the steps necessary in order for the presidential elections to be recognized as free and democratic as outlined by the March 7 Final Statement of the Parliamentary Troika. These are: transparency and democracy in the preparation and implementation of the elections, in particular the process of registration of the candidates, the composition of electoral commissions and counting of votes; equal access for all candidates to the mass media; refraining from harassment of candidates, their families and supporters; and freedom in carrying out their work for all those engaged in domestic election observation.

  • Resolution on Kalmyk Settlement in America

    Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution congratulating the Kalmyk people in the United States on the fiftieth anniversary of their settlement in this country. The resolution also encourages continuing scholarly and educational exchanges between the Russian Federation and the United States to encourage better understanding and appreciation of the Kalmyk people and their contributions to the history and culture of both countries. The Kalmyks were originally an ethnic Mongolian nomadic people who have inhabited the Russian steppes for around 400 years. The present Kalmyk Republic of the Russian Federation is located north of the Caspian Sea in southern Russia. During World War II, the Kalmyk people were one of the seven “punished peoples'' exiled en masse by Stalin to “special settlements'' in Siberia and Central Asia for allegedly collaborating with the Nazis. There were about 170,000 deportees. After World War II, several hundred Kalmyks who managed to escape the Soviet Union were held in Displaced Persons camps in Germany. For several years, they were not allowed to emigrate to the United States because of prejudice against their Mongolian ethnicity. However, on July 28, 1951, the Attorney General of the United States issued a ruling which cleared the way for the Kalmyk people in the Displaced Persons camps in Germany to enter the United States. In the fifty years since their arrival, the Kalmyk emigres and their descendants have survived and prospered. Moreover, they are the first community of Tibetan Buddhists to settle in the United States. While adapting to much of America's diverse and modern culture, the Kalmyk have also sought to preserve their own unique traditions. Many continue to practice the Tibetan Buddhist religion. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Kalmyk community of the United States has been able to re-establish contact with the Kalmyk people in the Russian Federation. For the past ten years, a wide exchange has been developed between relatives, students and professionals. Mr. Speaker, our country is so much richer for the presence of our Kalmyk-American citizens. I urge my colleagues to join me and my colleagues Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Wamp, and Mr. Hastings, in congratulating the Kalmyk-American community on the fiftieth anniversary of their settlement in the United States by cosponsoring and supporting this resolution.

  • Serbia after Milosevic: A Progress Report

    This Helsinki Commission briefing assessed the progress made in the five months since democratic forces came to power in Serbia following the December 2000 elections. The briefing evaluated conditions for bolstering democratic development, enhancing economic recovery, and maintaining long-term stability in Serbia and southeastern Europe as a whole. Witnesses testifying at the briefing – including Daniel Serwer, Director of the Balkans Initiative at the U.S. Institute of Peace; Sonja Biserko, Chair of the Serbian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights; Nina Bang-Jensen, Executive Director of the Coalition for International Justice; James M. Lyon, Political and Economic Analyst for the International Crisis Group; and Milan Protic, Yugoslav Ambassador to the United States  – focused in particular on Yugoslav cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague, Belgrade’s evolving stance toward Bosnia and other neighbors, and the effect of internal reform measures in correcting Milosevic abuses, including the continued imprisonment of hundreds of Kosovar Albanians in Serbia.

  • Ukraine at the Crossroads: Ten Years After Independence

    This hearing discussed Ukraine’s future, given its pervasive, high-level corruption, the controversial conduct of authorities in the Gongadze investigation, and ongoing human rights problems. Commissioners and witnesses mentioned how these issues discouraged foreign investment and expressed a desire on behalf of the U.S. Congress for the country to succeed as an independent, democratic, stable, and economically successful state.  Commissioners and witnesses discussed how the United States could best help Ukraine achieve this.

  • Ukraine at the Crossroads: Ten Years After Independence

    The rationale of this hearing, which Sen. Benjamin Nighthorse Campbell presided over, was increasing concern as to Ukraine’s trajectory. More specifically, pervasive, high-level corruption, the controversial conduct of authorities in the Gongadze investigation, and ongoing human rights problems had raised legitimate questions concerning the directions that Ukraine had appeared to be headed. Needless to say, the relationship between the CSCE and Ukraine has been an important one. It was against this backdrop of rampant corruption, which Campbell said discouraged foreign investment, a desire on behalf of the U.S. Congress for the country to succeed as an independent, democratic, stable, and economically successful state, and the recent anniversary of the Chornobyl disaster that the Commission examined how the U.S. could best help Ukraine in the development of democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights, and a market economy.

  • Atmosphere of Trust Missing in Belarus

    Mr. Speaker, this fall, the Belarusian Government is planning to hold their second presidential elections since independence.  Judging by the continuing actions of the repressive regime of Aleksandr Lukashenka, free, fair, and transparent elections--consistent with Belarus' freely undertaken OSCE commitments--will be very difficult to achieve. Democratic elections require an all-encompassing atmosphere of trust and a respect for basic human rights. Unfortunately, recent actions in Belarus do nothing to encourage such trust. Most recently, on March 25, Belarusian authorities cracked down on participants of the Independence Day march, arresting and beating several protestors, subsequently fining and jailing some, including Belarusian Popular Front Chairman Vintsuk Vyachorka, who received a 15-day sentence on March 29, Ales Byaletsky, head of the human rights center "Viasna", who received a 10-day sentence, and Yuri Belenky, acting chairman of the Conservative Christian Party, who also received a 10-day sentence. Also detained and beaten was 17-year-old Dmitri Yegorov, a photojournalist for a Grodno-based, non-state newspaper. On the day of the march, Belarusian state television accused the opposition of “seeking to draw Belarus into some bloody turmoil", reflecting its increasingly shrill tone of late. Earlier this year, for instance, Belarusian television claimed the CIA was intensifying "subversive activity" as the presidential election draws nearer. On March 24, Belarus' KGB chief pledged on Belarusian television to intensify surveillance of foreigners in order to prevent them from interfering in the country's domestic matters. On March 12, Lukashenka signed Decree #8, which essentially imposes restrictions from abroad offered to NGOs for democracy building and human rights, including election monitoring. Moreover, the Belarusian Government has claimed that the OSCE Advisory and Monitoring Group's (AMG) domestic election observation project does not conform with the Belarusian Constitution and Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned about recent assaults on religious communities. Last month, the Council of Ministers restricted visits by foreign clergy for “non-religious" purposes--including contact with religious and other organizations, participation in conferences and other events, or charitable activities. Government officials are also refusing to register some Reform Jewish communities because they do not have “legal'' addresses. In February, state-controlled Belarusian television aired a documentary alleging Catholicism as a threat to the very existence of the Belarusian nation. And in January, leaders of Belarus' Protestant community alleged that state newspapers carried biased articles that present Pentecostals as “wild fanatics." Religious freedom is not the only liberty in peril. Freedom of the press and of self-expression are also in jeopardy. Editors of a variety of newspapers are being fined on fictitious and trumped-up charges for violating the Law on Press and Other Mass Media. Various periodicals are being confiscated and destroyed, and distributors of independent newspapers have been arrested. Youth organizations have been accused of engaging in activities that weaken the Belarusian statehood and undermining socioeconomic stability. Teenagers have been arrested for picketing and protesting, and others have been detained for distributing newspapers or pasting stickers advocating reform and calling on the authorities to solve the cases of political disappearances. Belarusian Television and Radio (BTR) has also canceled scheduled addresses to be made by potential presidential candidates or opposition leaders. The Deputy Minister of Education has ordered heads of the educational community to ban seminars conducted by the People's University. Lukashenka has also undertaken repressive acts against the potential presidential candidates and their families in an attempt to thwart their campaign progress. Family members of former Prime Minister Mikhail Chigir have become the target of persecution. Chigir's wife has been accused of interfering with the work of the police, and his son, Alexander, has been charged with large scale larceny. Chigir is not the only potential candidate whose actions have been thwarted by Lukashenka. Semyon Domash's meeting with potential voters at the Tourist Hotel was canceled on orders from the Mogilev authorities and a director of the clubhouse of the Brest Association of Hearing-Impaired People lost her job after hosting a February 3 voters' meeting with Domash. Vladimir Goncharik, a labor leader, has had to deal with newly state-created "unions" trying to muscle out unions supporting him. Two officials of a manufacturing plant were reprimanded by a Borisov city court for hosting a meeting between Chigir and employees at the plant. When one looks at these and other recent actions of the Lukashenka regime, the inescapable conclusion is that the regime has created an unhealthy environment in advance of the elections. Mr. Speaker, the regime's behavior is obviously not conducive to the promotion of free and fair elections. A few weeks ago, President Lukashenka stressed the need to establish an atmosphere of trust in bilateral Belarusian-U.S. relations. I strongly encourage Mr. Lukashenka to translate his words into concrete deeds that will encourage this trust and lead to the emergence of Belarus from its self-imposed isolation from the Euro-Atlantic community of democracies.

Pages