Troubling Trends: Human Rights in Russia

  “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire By Erika Schlager CSCE Counsel on International Law On June 16 and 17, 2004, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s participating States met in Paris for a meeting on “the Relationship between Racist, Xenophobic and Anti-Semitic Propaganda on the Internet and Hate Crimes.”  The meeting was part of an OSCE focus this year on racism, xenophobia, discrimination, and anti-Semitism and, like two other special human dimension meetings scheduled for this year, was mandated by the OSCE Ministerial Meeting held Maastricht last December. Conferences on anti-Semitism (held in Berlin, April 28-29) and racism, discrimination and xenophobia (to be held in Brussels, September 13-14) are intended to build on high-level meetings already held last year in Vienna on those same subjects. The Paris meeting focused on a specific issue – the Internet - related to the overall topic.   The convocation of a special meeting on the relationship between racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda on the Internet and hate crimes was the product of advocacy by non-governmental organizations such as IN@CH, the International Network Against Cyber Hate, and the leadership of the Government of France.  IN@CH had previously raised awareness of the problem of hate mongering on the Internet at the OSCE’s annual Human Dimension Implementation Meeting in 2002 and, at the 2003 Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, hosted a side-event on the subject.  Historically, the OSCE has been most effective when governments gain a sense of ownership of an issue and exercise leadership in moving it forward.  Non-governmental organizations typically play a critical role in identifying concrete human rights problems and bringing them to the attention of governments. The U.S. Delegation to the Paris meeting was jointly led by Ambassador Stephan M. Minikes, head of the U.S. Mission to the OSCE; R. Alexander Acosta, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights; and Dan Bryant, Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy.  Markham Erickson, General Counsel from Net Coalition; Brian Marcus, Director of Internet Monitoring; Anti-Defamation League, and Ronald Rychlak, Professor of Law and Associate Dean, University of Mississippi Law School, joined the delegation as Public Members.  Other members of the delegation came from the Department of State, the Department of Justice, and the Helsinki Commission.  The United States Delegation engaged fully in the 2-day meeting, making presentations in all formal sessions and side events, holding bilateral meetings, and conducting consultations with non-governmental organizations.  Assistant Attorney General Dan Bryant was a keynote speaker. Although the meeting was mandated to examine the relationship between hate propaganda on the Internet and hate crimes, few participants actually discussed the nexus between these two phenomena.  For many participants, the existence of a cause-and-effect relationship was simply an article of faith or intuition, and did not lead to an exploration of the nature of that relationship.  As a consequence, the meeting made only a marginal contribution to an understanding of which populations might be most vulnerable to the influence of hate propaganda, whether hate propaganda on the Internet fosters some particular kinds of hate crimes more than others, or whether the effect of hate propaganda on the Internet plays a different role in fostering violent crimes than, for example, weak law enforcement or public officials who make or refuse to condemn racist, anti-Semitic or xenophobic remarks.  It is not clear whether web-based hate propaganda is related to spikes in hate crimes that have occurred in some countries in recent years, or why, as seems to be the case, some places with unfettered Internet access have relatively lower levels of hate crimes than other places with similarly unfettered Internet access. Nevertheless, participants did address a broad range of subjects related to hate propaganda, hate crimes and the Internet over the course of the two days.  Formal sessions focused on “Legislative Framework, Including Domestic and International Legislation Regarding Propaganda on the Internet and Hate Crimes,” “The Nature and Extent of the Relationship between Racist, Xenophobic and anti-Semitic Propaganda on the Internet and Hate Crimes,” “Public and Private Partnerships in the Fight Against Racism, Xenophobia and Anti-Semitism on the Internet – Best Practices,” and “Promoting Tolerance on and through the Internet – Best Practices to Educate Users and Heighten Public Awareness.”   Side events were held on “Guaranteeing Media Freedom on the Internet,” “‘The IN@CH Network’ - Dealing with Cyber Hate on a Daily Basis,” “Identifying Examples of Hate Speech: A BBC Monitoring Project,” “Filtering: Princip, the Solution that goes beyond Key Words,” “Satellite Television and Anti-Semitism: How to Combat the Dissemination in Europe of Racist and Anti-Semitic Propaganda through Satellite Television?” and “Promoting Awareness of Anti-Semitism in the European Classroom: Teacher Training, Curricula, and the Internet.” A number of speakers, including U.S. Government representatives, discussed the legal mechanisms for action that might be taken when hate propaganda rises to the level of a crime in and of itself, such as when the hate propaganda constitutes a threat or incitement to a criminal action.  Many speakers discussed the role of non-governmental organizations in monitoring and facilitating the removal of hate sites from the web when they violate the terms of agreements with their Internet service providers (ISPs).  Some participants described ways in which the pernicious effects of hate speech can be mitigated or countered.  For example, a Canadian non-governmental organization, Media Awareness Network, made a presentation on programs in Canadian schools designed to teach children to distinguish between hate propaganda sites and legitimate information sources.  Vividly illustrating the challenges and risks for those organizations which monitor and report on the activities of extremist hate groups, the offices of People Against Racism, a Slovak non-governmental organization that participated in Paris meeting, were burned out only weeks before the meeting opened. Although there was broad agreement on the goal of combating hate propaganda, some participants flagged concerns about the methods that might be used to that end.  For example, industry representatives provided some insight regarding difficulties faced due to the technological challenges of tracking, filtering, or blocking hate propaganda transmitted through the Internet, emails, or text messaging.  Some concepts of regulation, they argued, could not be effectively implemented given the state of current technology.  Asking ISPs to be responsible for screening all content on the web is not feasible, anymore than making telephone companies responsible for everything that gets said over the telephone. A few participants drew attention to factors other than hate propaganda on the Internet that may contribute to hate crimes.  A Russian non-governmental representative, for example, remarked that there was more anti-Semitism in the Russian State Duma than on Russian-language web sites.  And, illustrating the complexities of deciding exactly what constitutes hate propaganda, one non-governmental representative argued that evangelical Christian sites that reach out to Jews should be considered anti-Semitic.  Similarly, the Russian delegation identified the web sites of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Hare Krishnas as “promoting hate doctrines.” Other concerns were voiced as well.  Some non-governmental groups suggested that ISPs were ill-suited to determine whether web sites constituted hate propaganda or not.  One described an ISP that removed an innocuous site devoted to English philosopher John Stuart Mill after that non-governmental organization – testing the bases upon which ISPs would act – urged the ISP to take down the allegedly racist site. Regulation of hate propaganda by ISPs, they concluded, lacked transparency and accountability. Some speakers warned that combating hate propaganda could be used as a pretense for sanctioning views disfavored by the regime.  The International League for Human Rights suggested that states with “weak democratic institutions and traditions” should not be entrusted with additional powers of control beyond those that already exist.  Indeed, some speakers argued there have already been instances where laws against incitement to racial hatred (or similar laws) have been misapplied for political or other purposes.  The ongoing fight against terrorism, they suggested, increases that danger.  In fact, only days after the Paris meeting concluded [June 22], the Paris-based watchdog Reporters without Borders released a report entitled “Internet Under Surveillance,” documenting repression of the Internet around the globe.  One of the U.S. recommendations made during the meeting was that the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media should examine whether hate speech laws are being enforced in a discriminatory or selective manner or misused to suppress political dissent.  The full texts of statements circulated at the Paris meeting by the United States and other participants are available through the OSCE’s Internet web site at http://www.osce.org/events/conferences/anti-racism. One of the sub-texts of the meeting was the putative “Atlantic Divide.” In the context of discussions of “cyber hate” and hate crimes, this phrase was used to describe the perceived gulf between the United States’ and Europe’s approaches to hate propaganda.  According to the adherents of the “Atlantic divide” theory, the United States is a free-speech Wild West, where speech has no limitations or legal consequences.  “Europe,” in contrast, is portrayed as a unified region speaking with one voice, populated by those who have wisely learned from the horrors of World War II that dangerous speech can and must be sanctioned and that governments are easily capable of performing this task and do so as a matter of course.  The “Atlantic Divide” perception was fostered by Robert Badinter, former French Minister of Justice and current president of the OSCE Court of Arbitration and Conciliation, who, in a keynote address, dramatically appealed to the United States to “stop hiding behind the first amendment.” Others, however, implicitly or explicitly rejected this overly simplistic image.  In the United States, a long chain of legal authority recognizes that the right to free speech and freedom of expression is not absolute.  As U.S. Public Member Robert Rychlak noted, “When speech crosses the line and becomes more than speech – when it presents a clear and present danger – the authorities must be prepared to step in and take legal action.  At that time, the speech may constitute an actual threat, true harassment, or be an incitement to imminent lawlessness.”  Department of Justice officials separately gave examples of numerous recent cases where individuals were prosecuted for sending email messages that rose to the level racially motivated threats.  While it is important not to over-read these or related cases – criminal sanctions based purely on one’s opinion remain prohibited – they should dispel the misimpression that there are no limitations whatsoever on speech or the consequences of speech in the United States. Conversely, the context of the meeting also provided an opportunity to reflect on the image of Europe as a continent uniformly bound in a single regulatory approach to hate speech.  In reality, the national laws relating to hate speech of individual European countries vary considerably; what constitutes prohibited speech in one country may be permitted in the next.  Moreover, both national courts and the European Court of Human Rights apply balancing tests to speech restrictions that, while not identical to balancing tests applied by U.S. courts, are not entirely dissimilar.  The Hungarian Constitutional Court, for example, in May 2004 held that a proposed hate speech law would violate the free speech provisions of the Hungarian Constitution.  Just before the opening of the Paris meeting, on June 13, the French Constitutional Council struck down parts of a new law governing communication over the Internet (adopted to implement a June 8, 2000, European Union directive on electronic commerce). The United States Helsinki Commission, an independent federal agency, by law monitors and encourages progress in implementing provisions of the Helsinki Accords.  The Commission, created in 1976, is composed of nine Senators, nine Representatives and one official each from the Departments of State, Defense, and Commerce.

Approximately 250 parliamentarians from 50 OSCE participating States met February 19-20 in Vienna for the third annual Winter Meeting of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.  The United States delegation was headed by Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ), Chairman of the United States Helsinki Commission.  Also participating were Ranking House Member Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) and Commissioner Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (D-FL).  Former Commission Chairman Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) also attended. At the Vienna Meeting, OSCE PA President Bruce George appointed Chairman Smith as his Special Representative on Human Trafficking Issues.  Smith will serve as the Assembly’s point person for collecting information on human trafficking in the OSCE region; promoting dialogue within the OSCE on how to combat human trafficking; and, advising the Assembly on the development of new anti-trafficking policies.  Over the past five years, Chairman Smith has provided considerable leadership in raising human trafficking concerns within the Assembly.  In Congress, Smith sponsored the “Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act,” which enables the U.S. Government to prosecute offenders and provides resources to help victims of trafficking rebuild their lives. Ranking House Member Benjamin L. Cardin, who chairs the Assembly’s Committee on Economic Affairs, Science, Technology and Environment, led a panel discussion on economic challenges and opportunities in the Republic of Georgia following the historic “Revolution of the Roses.”  OSCE PA Vice-President and Speaker of the Georgian Parliament, Nino Burjanadze, described her experience as Acting President of the country after the resignation of former President Eduard Shevardnadze following flawed elections in late 2003.  Speaker Burjanadze stated emphatically that the revolution was unavoidable and inevitable because corruption had been so overwhelming that it was a threat to Georgia’s national security.  She reviewed the steps the new government is taking to combat corruption and strengthen democratic institutions and the rule of law.  Joining Burjanadze was Ambassador Roy Reeve, Head of the OSCE Mission in Georgia.  The Committee was also addressed by the OSCE Coordinator for Economic and Environmental Activities, Dr. Marcin Swiecicki, and Committee Rapporteur Dr. Leonid Ivanchenko. Commissioner Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, who serves as one of nine Assembly Vice Presidents, held a series of meetings with delegations in Vienna in his bid for the presidency of the OSCE PA that will be decided in elections to take place in early July at the Edinburgh Annual Session.  Hastings also met with the leadership of the various political groups -- the Conservatives, Greens, Liberals, and Socialists.  He discussed his plans for future development of the Assembly and its relationship with the governmental side of the OSCE.  Rep. Hoyer chaired the Assembly’s Ad Hoc Committee on Transparency and Accountability, which discussed ways to further improve relations between the parliamentary and governmental parts of the OSCE, including regular access for Ambassador Andreas Nothelle, Permanent OSCE PA Representative in Vienna, to all OSCE meetings.  Discussion also focused on streamlining Assembly declarations of the annual sessions as a means of enhancing the OSCE PA’s influence on the work of the Permanent Council in Vienna.  The committee concluded that a limited number of recommendations should be included in forthcoming declarations sent to the PC each year, coupled with a significant reduction in preamble language.  Members of the U.S. delegation were also briefed by U.S. Ambassador to the OSCE Stephan M. Minikes and Ambassador Andreas Nothelle on issues of concern in Vienna.  A bilateral meeting was held with Head of the French delegation Mr. Michel Voisin and French Ambassador to the OSCE Yves Doutriaux to discuss the recent French ban on wearing headscarves, yarmulkes, crucifixes and other obvious religious symbols in public schools.  ODIHR Director Ambassador Christian Strohal discussed human dimension issues, including the future of election observations and budget issues, as well as programs dealing with human trafficking and anti-Semitism. Bulgarian Ambassador and Chairman-in-Office Representative Ambassador Ivo Petrov outlined the CiO’s plan for 2004 and issues around the anti-Semitism program and anti-trafficking initiatives.  The delegation was also briefed by Helen Santiago Fink of the OSCE Economic Coordinator’s Office, who addressed the economic dimension of trafficking in persons.  Dr. Andreas Khol, President of the Austrian Nationalrat, welcomed the opening of the Winter Meeting for its ability to encourage “intensified dialogue and co-operation between the governmental and parliamentary dimensions of the OSCE.” OSCE Chairman-in-Office Dr. Solomon Passy who is Bulgaria’s Foreign Minister gave his overview of the priorities of the Bulgarian Chairmanship for 2004. Other OSCE officials made presentations, including Chair of the Permanent Council and Representative of the Chairman-in-Office Bulgarian Ambassador Ivo Petrov; Chair of the Forum for Security Cooperation, Coordinator for OSCE Economic and Environmental Activities Ambassador Marcin Swiecicki; OSCE High Commissioner for National Minorities Ambassador Rolf Ekééus; a representative from the office of the OSCE Representative for Freedom of the Media; Director of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Ambassador Christian Strohal; and OSCE Secretary General Ambassador Jan Kubis. All presentations were followed by question and answer sessions. Each of the rapporteurs of the three General Committees discussed their draft reports for the forthcoming OSCE PA Annual Session this July in Edinburgh, Scotland.  All have focused their reports on the theme for the annual session, “Co-operation and Partnership: Coping with New Security Threats.” The ninth OSCE Prize for Journalism and Democracy was presented to the New York-based NGO Committee to Protect Journalists, represented by Executive Director Ann Cooper.   The United States Helsinki Commission, an independent agency, by law monitors and encourages progress in implementing provisions of the Helsinki Accords. The Commission created in 1976, is composed of nine Senators, nine Representatives, and one official from the Departments of State, Defense, and Commerce.

By Bob Hand CSCE Staff Advisor The United States Helsinki Commission held a briefing February 11, 2004 to review the work of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Forum for Security Cooperation, particularly during the period in late 2003 when the United States chaired the FSC. The purpose of the briefing was to gauge how the OSCE is responding to the latest changes in the security environment, such as the war on terrorism, weapons proliferation, and regional conflicts involving OSCE states.  The briefing featured James Cox, the Chief Arms Control Delegate of the United States to the OSCE in Vienna. Helsinki Commission Senior Advisor Elizabeth B. Pryor opened the briefing, noting the OSCE’s well-known contribution to security through the promotion of human rights and democratic change.  She stressed, however, that the military dimension of the OSCE should not be overlooked. “Measures such as advance notification of troop maneuvers and observation of military exercises have become such a part of our way of interacting that we too frequently take such transparency for granted,” Ms. Pryor stated.  Capitalizing on the dramatic changes in Europe in the 1990s, the OSCE “expanded the degree of military openness, then encouraged further reductions in force levels and equipment, and placed military institutions under democratic civilian control.” Mr. Cox began by describing the FSC’s creation in 1992 to respond to military questions in the post-Cold War era, such as the change in force levels and the significant shift in the security environment.  Among other things, the Forum has been tasked to establish a web of arms control agreements and confidence- and security-building measures.  The FSC also pursues the implementation of these agreements, develops a security dialogue, and considers norms and standards on such politico-military features of security as civilian control of armed forces and adherence to international humanitarian law. The OSCE made crucial steps toward addressing new threats to security and stability in the 21st century when the United States held the FSC chairmanship from September to December of 2003.  These steps were taken with the realization that the FSC now must expand beyond the limits of arms control and confidence- and security-building measures.   Mr. Cox stressed that the FSC needs to broaden its focus not only to address interstate relations between armed forces of OSCE participating States, but also non-OSCE States.  New security threats to the OSCE region include non-state actors, terrorism, proliferation, and organized crime. Under the United States’ chairmanship, the FSC highlighted the proliferation of arms, the control of man-portable air defense systems, and civil-military emergency preparedness.  With regard to non-proliferation, the United States hosted a number of speakers to suggest ways to curb the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Effective and comprehensive controls for MANPADS were discussed, highlighting the threat posed by these weapons to civil aviation.  The FSC encouraged the participating States to prevent illicit transfers of MANPADS by destroying excess devices.  In addition, the EU, NATO, and UN speakers, and others were invited to the FSC to discuss their disaster response procedures. The OSCE’s Document on Small Arms and Light Weapons, or SALW, contains provisions for the destruction of excess MANPADS.  The provisions also allows states to request assistance on the security and management of stockpiles, encourage the establishment of border controls in order to reduce the transfer of small arms, and provide for the disposal of light arms.  Mr. Cox also discussed initiatives addressing management and destruction of excess stockpiles of ammunition and explosive material, both through better management and destruction.  In closing his presentation, Cox asserted that progress has been made in all spheres of European security, but he did not want to leave “too rosy a picture.”  The FSC is a consensus body which, by its nature, limits what any one country can achieve and has no enforcement capability. Nevertheless, he stressed that the FSC is useful to the 55 participating OSCE countries because it has norm and standard setting capabilities and provides a forum to discuss issues of national interest. During a question-and-answer period, a question was asked about the stance of FSC participants that may be hiding their weapons and stockpiles.  Mr. Cox reiterated that although the FSC has no enforcement capability, its politically binding decisions are to be taken very seriously.  Positive developments have occurred with recent requests for clean-up disarmament assistance, including by Belarus. Another issue raised was the failure of Russia to implement commitments adopted at the 1999 Istanbul OSCE Summit with respect to Moldova and Georgia.  The Istanbul commitments require Russia to remove troops and arsenals from Moldova and close military bases in the Republic of Georgia.  To this day, Russian troops and weapons remain in Moldova and Georgia.  Mr. Cox affirmed that these issues are raised in Vienna.  A related issue is OSCE peacekeeping.  As Cox explained, the notion of OSCE peacekeeping would be difficult to undertake, as the organization lacks the necessary infrastructure to conduct such operations.  Compared to NATO forces and European Union efforts to take on these operations, peacekeeping is on the low end of FSC considerations, and there has been no agreement to go beyond the original OSCE language on the matter developed in 1992. In response to a question regarding Russian military conduct in Chechnya, Cox noted that this is usually discussed as a human rights issue at the Permanent Council.  He did note, however, initiatives within the military dimension, including a Swedish request to observe a Russian military exercise in Dagestan, neighboring Chechnya, which Moscow denied on security grounds, are addressed in the FSC. Finally, Cox was asked about the focus of the 2004 Annual Security Review Conference.   He predicted this second meeting will center on the implementation of counterterrorism measures, including commitments agreed at the Maastricht Ministerial, and further enhancing border security.  The first ASRC was held in 2003 to review select issues such as organized crime, arms trafficking, and terrorism.  It also encouraged the adoption of biometric standards for travel documents as a means to improve border security. The United States Helsinki Commission, an independent federal agency, by law monitors and encourages progress in implementing provisions of the Helsinki Accords.  The Commission, created in 1976, is composed of nine Senators, nine Representatives and one official each from the Departments of State, Defense and Commerce. United States Helsinki Commission Interns Colby Daughtry and Erin Carden contributed to this article.