Title

Helsinki Commission Briefing to Explore Non-Asylum Protections in United States And Europe

Friday, June 07, 2019

WASHINGTON—The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki Commission, today announced the following briefing:

PARTIALLY PROTECTED?
Non-Asylum Protection in the United States and the European Union

Friday, June 14, 2019
2:00 p.m.
Rayburn House Office Building
Room 2237

Live Webcast: www.facebook.com/HelsinkiCommission

The United States and the European Union give legal protection to some people who flee armed conflict or natural disaster, but do not qualify as refugees.

In the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security designates countries of origin for “Temporary Protected Status” (TPS), enabling their nationals to legally remain in the United States and work until and unless the Secretary terminates the designation. Approximately 417,000 individuals from 10 countries currently have TPS, living in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. commonwealths and territories. In 2018, more than 100,300 people were granted similar non-asylum protection, on an individual basis, across the 28 countries of the European Union.

Since 2017, the United States has extended TPS for Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, and announced terminations for El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, and Sudan. Lawsuits have challenged the terminations. To date, Members of Congress have introduced at least 10 TPS-focused bills in the 116th Congress.

This briefing will explore the background and implementation of non-asylum protection in the United States and Europe—including whether some European Union Member States are according this protection even when asylum claims are credible—legislative and legal responses, and implications for policy, law, and protection.

The following panelists are scheduled to participate:

  • Marleine Bastien, Executive Director, Family Action Network Movement
  • Sui Chung, Attorney at Law, Immigration Law and Litigation Group, and Chair, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Committee, American Immigration Lawyers Association
  • Jill H. Wilson, Analyst in Immigration Policy, Congressional Research Service
  • Catherine Woollard, Secretary General, European Council on Refugees and Exiles

Additional panelists may be added.

Media contact: 
Name: 
Stacy Hope
Email: 
csce[dot]press[at]mail[dot]house[dot]gov
Phone: 
202.225.1901
  • Related content
  • Related content
Filter Topics Open Close
  • Escalating anti-Semitic Violence in Europe

    While the anti-Semitism scourge lurks in the United States, the sharp escalation of violence against Jews in the OSCE region deserves attention. The most brutal incidents in recent months have occurred in France, Belgium and Germany. Violence has also been directed toward the Jewish community in the United Kingdom, Greece and Ukraine. OSCE participating States have pledged to unequivocally condemn anti-Semitism and take effective measures to protect individuals from anti-Semitic violence. Despite that commitment, attacks against Jews continue. Two Yeshiva students from New Jersey were assaulted in Germany. A mob attacked Jewish worshipers in a Ukraine synagogue. A gang attacked Jewish high school soccer players in France. Vandals vandalized several synagogues in Russia. A Marseille synagogue burned to the ground and synagogues elsewhere in the OSCE region have suffered firebomb attacks. Coupled with a resurgence of aggressive nationalism and an increase in neo-Nazi “skin head” activity, participating States throughout the OSCE region face the urgent challenge of stemming the tide of escalating anti-Semitic violence.

  • Joseph Limprecht, U.S. Ambassador to Albania

    Mr. Speaker, we have received the news that United States Ambassador to Albania, Joseph Limprecht, died suddenly of a heart attack on Sunday, May 19, 2002, while hiking with his wife and colleagues in northern Albania.   Although I did not have the opportunity to meet Ambassador Limprecht, I did correspond with him on an issue of mutual concern--the trafficking of Albanian women and children into sexual slavery in Europe.   With porous borders and more than its share of criminals, Albania is used by traffickers as a key transit point to Italy. As a source country, young Albanian women are lured into the hands of traffickers and even kidnaped from their home towns or villages. The Ambassador was well aware of this tragedy and pressed for greater law enforcement to stop trafficking networks as well as greater assistance to the victims. Indeed, in keeping with the point of my correspondence with him, the Ambassador made sure U.S. assistance would go to a shelter for repatriated Albanian trafficking victims similar to one created for women found in Albania and waiting to be repatriated to their country of origin.   Beyond that, the Ambassador worked hard in the three years he spent in Albania in helping the country recover from its many ills, in particular the civil strife which tore the country apart in 1997. Given Albania's vulnerability to militant Islamic infiltration, I am sure that the war on terrorism was in the forefront of his duties in recent months.   Ambassador Limprecht was a member of the Senior Foreign Service, having served with the U.S. Foreign Service since 1975, with postings in Germany, Pakistan and Uzbekistan as well as in Washington. In the 1980s, he served in the office which handled what was then the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and now the OSCE, and worked with the staff of the Helsinki Commission which I had just joined and now serve as Co-Chairman.   My deepest condolences go to the Ambassador's wife, Nancy, their daughters Alma and Eleanor, friends and colleagues.

  • Developments in the Chechen Conflict

    Since renewal of the Chechen war in late 1999, the conflict has been characterized by brutality and violations of human rights on both sides, especially on the part of the Russian military with its greater firepower. Hundreds of Chechens, especially males of military age, have been killed or have disappeared as a result of Russian military “sweeps.” An estimated 150,000 – 200,000 civilians have been forced to relocate to neighboring refugee camps. Moscow contends that the war in Chechnya is an integral part of the war against international terrorism, and the U.S. Government has confirmed links between some insurgents in Chechnya and “various terrorist organizations and mujahidin.” The U.S. Government has called upon Chechnya’s leadership to “immediately and unconditionally cut all contacts with international terrorist groups,” while calling for “accountability for human rights violations on all sides” and a political solution to the conflict.

  • International Cooperation In The War On Terrorism

    Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Rep. Chris Smith, and witnesses discussed the OSCE’s efforts to coordinate counter-terrorism activities among its 55 member states, along with the level that these states are fulfilling their commitments to comply in the fight against terrorist activities and organizations. More specifically, the hearing focused on the financial and diplomatic dimensions of the war on terrorism, along with the European Union’s role in its efforts to fight terrorism in the OSCE region and the world over. This hearing took place with the recent U.S.-EU counter terrorism cooperation summit in mind.

  • Cyprus Talks Focus of Commission Briefing

    By Chadwick R. Gore CSCE Staff Advisor The Helsinki Commission held a briefing on March 26 regarding possible outcomes of ongoing direct talks between Republic of Cyprus President Glafcos Clerides and Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash. The two leaders have been central figures in developments on the divided island nation for over a quarter century. Panelist Ian Lesser said the time is ripe for the two sides to settle this conflict. Lesser, a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, attributed the resumption of talks last December to the force of European Union membership. “The issue about European membership for Cyprus, but also in the broader sense European prospects for Turkey and the Europeanization of Greek policy over the last decade…has proved a key context for this [round of talks] to move forward,” Lesser stated. Panelist Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow at the CATO Institute, agreed with Lesser and laid out another catalyst for the talks. “I think what spurs the [talks] today certainly is the issue of the EU and whether or not Cyprus goes in; and in many ways, the Turkish threat, which they haven’t repeated recently but nevertheless hangs over the proceedings, of whether or not to annex the section of the island which the troops occupy,” Bandow said. Central issues which Clerides and Denktash will have to resolve during these talks come from both sides of the Green Line, the dividing line agreed to under the terms of the current United Nations-monitored cease fire. Turkish Cypriots are concerned for their safety on an island that is overwhelmingly Greek. The status of Turkish immigrants under a new form of government is an issue in which both sides take interest. According to Bandow, the citizens of the Republic of Cyprus, mainly of Greek ethnicity, are primarily concerned with “reimbursement for lost property, the right to travel throughout the island, the ability to go back to historic homelands, the notion of having a unified island again; where, in fact, Cyprus exists as a nation in which people are free within that island.” If indeed an agreement is reached between the two parties, the positive outcomes would extend beyond the island’s borders. Colonel Stephen R. Norton (U.S. Army, Ret.), a senior Policy Advisor at the Western Policy Center, expounded on the benefits of a solution. “First, it reduces the potential for conflict in the region. It strengthens NATO’s southern flank at a time when the alliance is deeply engaged in Balkan peacekeeping and the war on terrorism. It improves bilateral relations between NATO allies, Greece and Turkey. It enhances Turkey’s reputation with the European community and helps with its EU accession process – a very important item. It decreases long standing anti-Americanism in Greece. And, finally, it serves as an example where you have Christian and Muslim populations working out their problems together.” Asked how the United States, specifically, can deter another conflict on Cyprus, panelist Philip H. Gordon of the Brookings Institute and the Center on the United States and France, answered, “…every single party involved in this – Turkish Cypriots, Greek Cypriots, Greece, Turkey, EU and us – are worse off if this is not resolved by December and there’s a crisis.” If the solution is to be long lasting, the Cypriots must reach it themselves, Bandow concluded. Despite positive remarks about the situation, none of the four panelists were overly optimistic about the outcome of the current round of talks. Hesitant to set a deadline for an agreement, Gordon editorialized his thoughts, saying, “I think we need to be absolutely prepared for breakdowns in the talks, continued haggling between the two sides, literally up to the last minute, which is probably the EU’s Copenhagen Summit in December.” The Helsinki Commission also held a briefing on Tuesday, December 4, 2001 to explore the renewal of talks on Cyprus between Cypriot President Glafcos Clerides and Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash. The briefing featured United States Special Coordinator for Cyprus Ambassador Thomas G. Weston.

  • Romani Human Rights: Old Problems, New Possibilities

    This hearing discussed the mistreatment of the Romani, in particular the discrimination they face in Central and Eastern Europe. Witnesses commented on the exclusion of Romani from public facilities in several countries, which the governments justify as legal and legitimate public order measures. Witnesses also brought up articles in several European newspapers that explicitly described Roma children as less intelligent and more suited for “special” schools with limited academic resources. The hearing also discussed the use of a successful anti-discrimination program in Viden, Bulgaria as a model for other communities.

  • U.S. Policy in Central Asia and Human Rights Concerns

    This briefing addressed U.S. policy in Central Asia and human rights concerns in the region in advance of the President of Uzbekistan’s visit to Washington, which had drawn attention to the deepening engagement of the United States in the region. Questions about Washington’s leverage presently and in the foreseeable future as well as the prospects for improving the dismal human rights situation in the region were discussed. Witnesses testifying at the briefing – including Lawrence Uzzell, Director of the Keston Institute; E. Wayne Merry, Senior Associate of the American Foreign Policy Council; and Nina Shea, Commissioner of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom – presented numerous examples of the human rights violations that occur in Central Asian countries like Uzbekistan and pointed to the inheritance of imperial policies of commodity exploitation, ecological damage, and extremely bad demographics as several of the motivating factors of these violations.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • U.S. Special Coordinator for Cyprus Briefs Commission as Talks Renew in Nicosia

    By Chadwick R. Gore, CSCE Staff Advisor U.S. Special Coordinator for Cyprus Ambassador Thomas G. Weston participated in a Commission public briefing in Washington on December 4 just hours after Greek Cypriot President Glafcos Clerides and Turkish Cypriot Leader Rauf Denktash resumed contacts in Nicosia, Cyprus. The briefing was moderated in the Cannon House Office Building by Commission Chief of Staff Ron McNamara who opened the discussion by noting that the Cyprus conflict predates the 1975 signing of the Helsinki Final Act, and that Cyprus was an original signatory. McNamara underscored the human dimension of the longstanding conflict. Weston reviewed the outcome of the talks that had transpired that morning between Clerides and Denktash at the residence of the U.N. Chief of Mission in the presence of Mr. Alvaro de Soto, the Special Advisor to the U.N. Secretary General on Cyprus. They agreed that the Secretary General, in the exercise of his mission of good offices, would invite the two leaders to direct talks to be held in Cyprus starting in mid-January 2002 on United Nations premises with no preconditions and with all issues on the table. They are to negotiate in good faith until a comprehensive settlement is achieved, and nothing will be agreed until everything is agreed. Ambassador Weston viewed this as a major step forward in the stagnant Cypriot peace process noting that Clerides would dine at the home of Denktash that evening, an unprecedented event. "Efforts to settle the Cyprus problem have been going on for a long, long time," Weston remarked, describing the process’ evolution since 1999 and its subsequent breakdown, concluding, “I think what you're seeing here is a culmination of a long effort rather than something which just came out of the blue.” “I should make very clear,” said the Ambassador, “that the suggestion for direct talks did come from the Turkish Cypriot leader [and] that needs to be acknowledged. …It's important to remember who actually suggested it and give credit where credit is due.” Weston made clear, “The efforts of all others who have been pushing in this direction, including Greece and Turkey, but all others, are also to be strongly commended. …The efforts of the U.N. Secretary General, his direct involvement in this process repeatedly over the last two-and-a-half years, and the excellent work done by his Special Advisor in getting us to this point—all are to be commended.” While the resumption of talks was of interest, what could be expected to be the outcome was the real focus of the briefing. “What can we expect to come from the process is obviously the key,” said Weston. “I think the fact that these two leaders have agreed to go to direct talks under these circumstances, with no preconditions, all issues on the table, and with a commitment to continue to negotiate in good faith until a comprehensive settlement is achieved, are very dramatic indications of a willingness on the part of both leaders to actually try and get a comprehensive settlement in the short period of time we have available before Cyprus secedes to the European Union. “I do not believe that this should be underestimated in any way in terms of what it indicates about the willingness of these two leaders to move forward.” Ambassador Weston was not prepared to predict whether these resumed contacts would lead to a comprehensive settlement in time to permit a unified Cyprus in the European Union at an early date. On the other hand, he was much more hopeful that that could be achieved. “It is incumbent on all of us interested in a just and durable settlement of the Cyprus problem to redouble our efforts in support of this effort to get a comprehensive settlement in a brief period of time,” Weston concluded. A career Foreign Service Officer since 1969, Weston has served as the special coordinator for Cyprus since August of 1999. Ambassador Weston has served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs responsible for multilateral diplomacy with Europe including the U.S. participation in NATO, the OSCE, and the OECD as well as U.S. relations with European Union and the Council of Europe. He has also served as Chargé and Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Mission to the European Communities. A Helsinki Commission delegation visited Cyprus in January of 1998 to assess developments in the security, economic and human dimensions. Members of the delegation held a series of meetings with officials, international peacekeepers, and private citizens.

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

    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 discreet 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 dollars 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 on cases where criminal defamation or insult laws have been used in its annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and, at OSCE meetings, has frequently called for the repeal of such laws in recent years. Illustrative Slovak Cases Since the establishment of an independent Slovak state on January 1, 1993, there have been a steady trickle of people who have been charged with “insulting” or defaming public officials. At present, for example, journalist Ales Kratky is facing charges of criminal defamation in connection with his May 2001 criticism of a speech delivered by President Rudolf Schuster. If found guilty, Kratky faces a possible two-year prison term. In March 2000, journalist Vladimir Mohorita was sentenced to four months in prison for criticizing the government’s decision to allow NATO aircraft to use Slovak airspace during the Kosovo crisis. In a substantially larger number of instances, individuals (most often journalists and politicians) have been threatened with charges of defamation or insult. Indeed, it is a time-honored tradition in Slovakia to accuse one’s political enemies of defamation. In addition to free speech concerns presented by recourse to criminal defamation and insult laws, developments in Slovakia have raised other free speech concerns. For example, the charge of defamation of race, creed or nationality has become increasingly popular in recent years. Deputy Jan Slota, widely known for his inflammatory anti-Hungarian and anti-Roma rhetoric, survived an effort to strip him of his parliamentary immunity in 1999 as a prelude to charging him with defamation of race, creed or nationality. More recently, Romani activist Alexander Patkolo has been threatened with the charge of spreading alarming information and human rights lawyer Columbus Igboanusi has been threatened with charges of spreading alarming information and defaming the Republic of Slovakia. Sources include: Amnesty International (AI); Article XIX; the Committee to Protect Journalists; East European Constitutional Review; “Freedom in the World” reports (published by Freedom House); Index on Censorship; Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; U.S. State Department annual Country Reports on Human Rights; the World Press Freedom Committee. Relevant Slovak 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 Slovakia, 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 him or exposing him to ridicule may be punished by a fine. Article 102 of the Penal Code prohibits defamation of the Republic, National Council of the Slovak Republic, Government or the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, punishable by up to two years in prison. Article 103 of the Penal Code prohibits defamation of the President of the Republic for the execution of his powers or for his activities in the political life, punishable by up to two years in prison. 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.

  • The Situation in Cyprus

    This briefing explored the renewal of talks on Cyprus between Cypriot President Glafcos Clerides and Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash. President Clerides and Turkish Cypriot leader Denktash had agreed to meet in Nicosia on Tuesday, December 4, 2001 with talks reportedly aimed toward resolution of the longstanding conflict on the island. United States Special Coordinator for Cyprus Ambassador Thomas G. Weston discussed the developing talks between the two leaders; the current status of the United Nations sponsored talks; implications of European Union expansion; and the leadership on both sides of the Cyprus issue and where the respective leaders stand on the issues.

  • Fighting the Scourge of Trafficking in Women and Children

    Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to highlight our nation's efforts to fight, and hopefully end, the scourge of trafficking in women and children. Earlier today, International Relations Committee held an important hearing on the implementation of anti-trafficking legislation I authored, and which was signed into law last Congress.   As the Prime Sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, H.R. 3244, I was pleased that our legislation attracted unanimous bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress, and was signed into law just over one year ago. We succeeded not only because this legislation is pro-woman, pro-child, pro-human rights, pro-family values, and anti-crime, but also because it addresses a horrendous problem that cries out for a comprehensive solution.   Each year as many as two million innocent victims, of whom the overwhelming majority are women and children, are brought by force and/or fraud into the international commercial sex industry and other forms of modern-day slavery. The Act was necessary because previous efforts by the United States government, international organizations, and others to stop this brutal practice had proved unsuccessful. Indeed, all the evidence suggests that the most severe forms of trafficking in persons are far more widespread than they were just a few years ago.   My legislation was designed to give our government the tools we believed it needed to eliminate slavery, and particularly sex slavery. The central principle behind the Trafficking Victims Protection Act is that criminals who knowingly operate enterprises that profit from sex acts involving persons who have been brought across international boundaries for such purposes by force or fraud, or who force human beings into slavery, should receive punishment commensurate with the penalties for kidnapping and forcible rape. This would be not only a just punishment, but also a powerful deterrent. And the logical corollary of this principle is that we need to treat victims of these terrible crimes as victims, who desperately need our help, compassion, and protection.   As the implementation of this important legislation moves forward, success will depend, in large part, on the development of a large coalition of citizen organizations that are out there on the streets helping these victims day in and day out. The problem is simply too big for any one, or even several, governments to tackle alone.   That is why I am so pleased to learn that outside advocacy and relief organizations are continuing to join the fight against human trafficking. Father Stan DeBoe, with the Conference of Major Superiors of Men, CMSM, is one such civic leader who deserves special recognition of his efforts, and the efforts of the CMSM. The CMSM, for those who are unfamiliar with their work, serves as the leadership of the Catholic orders and congregation of the 20,000 vowed religious priests and brothers of the United States. The CMSM is the voice of these Catholic priests and brothers in the U.S., and also collaborates with the U.S. bishops and other Catholic organizations which serve the Church, and our society. I have included, as part of the Record, a recent resolution jointly adopted by the CMSM and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, LCWR, on August 26 during a conference in Baltimore, Maryland.   Like all laws, however, this law is only as good as its implementation. And, frankly, I have been deeply concerned at the slow pace of implamentation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. A year after enactment of this legislation, the State Department office, which is designed to be the nerve center of our diplomatic efforts to engage foreign governments in the war against trafficking, has only recently begun to get up and running. No regulations have yet been issued which will allow victims to apply for the visas provided by the Act. And many other important tasks remain undone.   I do not say this to complain or criticize. I know that many things move too slowly in the first year of a new Administration, and that since September 11 our attention and resources have been diverted elsewhere, but to emphasize that from now on, we do not have a minute to spare.   I should also say that I am profoundly encouraged by the fact that the Administration has been able to recruit Dr. Laura Lederer to bring her expertise and commitment to the State Department's anti-trafficking effort. Dr. Lederer is generally regarded as the world's leading expert on the pathology of human trafficking, and the Protection Project which she headed has provided the factual and analytical basis for most of the work that has been done so far to combat human trafficking. Throughout the long process of consideration and enactment of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, Laura was our mentor and our comrade-in-arms. I commend Under Secretary Dobriansky, for this important choice.   Finally, I want to emphasize the principles behind the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. I take second place to none in my commitment to workers' rights, but this is not a labor law and it is not an immigration law, it is a comprehensive attack on human slavery, and especially sex slavery. It emphatically rejects the principle that commercial sex should be regarded as legitimate form of “work.”   I know that a number of officials in the previous Administration disagreed with the approach we took in this bill, and that many of these officials are career employees who still work in the government, but the Trafficking Victims Protection Act is the law of the land, and we now have a President who has made clear that he agrees with us on this fundamental question. So I hope and trust that in implementing the law, in making grants, in staffing offices and working groups, in seeking partners and advisors in this important effort, this Administration will rely on people who fully support the law they are implementing, rather than on those who never liked it and who may seek to evade or ignore some of its most important provisions.   What we need to make this law work are “true believers” who will spare no effort to mobilize the resources and the prestige of the United States government to implement this important Act and shut down this terrible industry, which routinely and grossly violates the most fundamental human rights of the world's most vulnerable people.   Resolution Opposing Trafficking in Women and Children: STATEMENT OF RESOLUTION LCWR and CMSM stand in support of human rights by opposing trafficking of women and children for purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor, and will educate others regarding the magnitude, causes, and consequences of this abuse.   RATIONALE 1. At their May 2001 plenary session in Rome, the International Union of Superiors General, leaders of more than 780 congregations of women religious having a total membership of one million, endorsed a resolution opposing the abuse of women and children, with particular sensitivity to the trafficking and sexual exploitation of women. UISG resolved that this issue be addressed from a contemplative stance as an expression of a fully incarnated feminine spirituality in solidarity with women all over the world.   2. An LCWR goal is to work for a just world order by using our corporate voice and influence in solidarity with people who experience poverty, racism, powerlessness or any other form of violence or oppression. A CMSM goal is to provide a corporate influence in church and society.   3. The Platform for Action of the UN Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing, 1995, included the strategic objective to eliminate trafficking in women and assist victims of violence due to prostitution and trafficking.   4. Each year between 700,000 and 2 million women and children are trafficked across international borders, with more than 50,000 women trafficked into the U.S. (UISG papers) CALL FOR SPECIFIC ACTION   1. Deepen our understanding of the realities of trafficking and its integral relationship with poverty, male dominance, and the globalization of trade.   2. Join with UISG as they call for specific days of international prayer, contemplation, and fasting to unite religious in prayer throughout the world.   3. Encourage education about trafficking, prostitution, and workplace slavery in sponsored schools, colleges, and universities and in adult educational ministries.   4. If feasible, collaborate in applying for federal funds from the Department of Health and Human Services in implementation of HR 3244 to provide services to victims of trafficking.   The Conference of Major Superiors of Men (CMSM) serves the leadership of the Catholic orders and congregations of the 20,000 vowed religious priests and brothers of the United States, ten percent of whom are foreign missionaries. CMSM provides a voice for these communities in the U.S. church and society. CMSM also collaborates with the U.S. bishops and other key groups and organizations that serve church and society.   The Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) has approximately 1,000 members who are the elected leaders of their religious orders, representing 81,000 Catholic sisters in the United States. The Conference develops leadership, promotes collaboration within church and society, and serves as a voice for systemic change.

  • Helsinki Commission Examines U.S. Policy toward the OSCE

    By Erika B. Schlager, CSCE Counsel for International Law On October 3, the Helsinki Commission held a hearing on "U.S. Policy toward the OSCE." Originally scheduled for September 12, the hearing was postponed after the September 11 terrorist attacks. This hearing was convened to examine U.S. priorities and human rights concerns in the OSCE region; how the OSCE can serve to advance those goals and address human rights violations; the pros and cons of the institutionalization and bureaucratization of the OSCE and field activities; and the openness and transparency of the Helsinki process. Helsinki Commission Chairman Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO), Commissioners Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD), and Rep. Robert B. Aderholt (R-AL) heard from four witnesses: A. Elizabeth Jones, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs; Lorne W. Craner, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (who has since been formally appointed by the President as one of the three executive-branch Commissioners); Ambassador Robert Barry, former Head of OSCE Mission to Bosnia-Herzegovina; and P. Terrence Hopmann, professor of political science at Brown University and research director of the Program on Global Security at the Thomas J. Watson Jr. Institute for International Studies. Catherine Fitzpatrick, Executive Director of the International League for Human Rights, had agreed to participate in the hearing as originally scheduled for September 12, but was unable to attend on October 3. In her prepared statement, Assistant Secretary Jones described the OSCE as an important tool for advancing U.S. national interests “by promoting democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, arms control and confidence building measures, economic progress, and responsible or sustainable environmental policies.” While portraying the OSCE as “the primary instrument for early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management, and post-conflict rehabilitation in [the] region,” she also argued that “it is not the forum for discussion or decision regarding all security issues” – a role implicitly reserved for NATO. Jones alluded to a possible role for the OSCE in combating terrorism, an issue that will be taken up at the OSCE Ministerial, scheduled for December 3 and 4 in Bucharest. In this connection, Chairman Campbell urged the State Department to pursue an OSCE meeting of Ministers of Justice and Interior as a step toward promoting practical cooperation in fighting corruption and organized crimes, major sources of financing for terrorist groups. Assistant Secretary Craner tackled an issue of key concern to human rights groups: would the war against terrorism erode efforts to promote democracy and human rights, particularly with respect to Central Asian countries that are now key U.S. allies in that war? Craner observed that “[s]ome people have expressed concern that, as a result of the September 11 attack on America, the Administration will abandon human rights. I welcome this hearing today to say boldly and firmly that this is not the case. Human rights and democracy are central to this Administration’s efforts, and are even more essential today than they were before September 11th. They remain in our national interest in promoting a stable and democratic world. We cannot win a war against terrorism by stopping our work on the universal observance of human rights. To do so would be merely to set the stage for a resurgence of terrorism in another generation.” The testimony of the two expert witnesses, Professor Hopmann and Ambassador Barry, examined the operational side of the OSCE, with particular focus on the field work of the institution. Hopmann, one of a small number of analysts in the United States who has written in depth about the work of the OSCE and who served as a public member on the U.S. Delegation to the OSCE Review Conference in Istanbul in 1999, offered several specific recommendations: 1) enhance the professional qualifications and training of its mission and support staff; 2) strengthen its capacity to mediate serious conflicts that appear to be on the brink of violence or that have become frozen in the aftermath of violence, including making better use of ‘eminent persons’ to assist these efforts; and 3) attract more active support from its major participating States, especially from the United States, to strengthen the OSCE's capacity to intervene early in potentially violent conflicts when diplomacy still has a chance to win out over force. Ambassador Barry drew on his experience as head of one of the OSCE’s largest missions to address the complex issue of the OSCE’s relations with other international organizations. Barry asserted that OSCE has, at times, “bitten off more than it can chew” and the United States needs to exercise discretion in assigning tasks to the OSCE. When asked specifically to describe the relationship between the OSCE and the Council of Europe, he characterized it as “permanent struggle.” He suggested that the two organizations should not compete with other, but play to their relative strengths: the OSCE, for example, should be dominant in field missions, while the Council of Europe should be given the lead in providing expert advice on legislative drafting. One area where the OSCE is underutilized is in the area of policing – the focus of a Commission hearing held on September 5, 2001. Barry remarked, “Last month several witnesses testified before the Commission concerning the OSCE role in police training and executive policing. With its requirement of universality, the [United Nations] must call upon police who are unable or unwilling to deal with terrorism or human rights violations at home. We cannot expect them to be much help, for example, in dealing with mujahedin fighters in Bosnia or Macedonia. Therefore I believe the OSCE ought to be the instrument of choice for both police training and executive policing. In order to fill the latter role the OSCE should change its policy on arming executive police. Unarmed international police have no leverage in societies where every taxi driver packs a gun.” Barry also argued that the United States needs to involve the Russian Federation more closely with OSCE. “Too often in the past,” he said, “we have marginalized Russia by making decisions in NATO and then asking OSCE to implement the decisions. Macedonia is only the most recent example.” Many of the questions raised by Commissioners focused on institutional issues such as the transparency of the weekly Permanent Council meetings in Vienna, the respective roles of the Chair-in-Office and Secretary General and pressure to enlarge the OSCE’s bureaucracy by establishing new high-level positions to address whatever is, at the moment, topical. State Department witnesses were asked several questions relating to specific countries where human rights issues are of particular concern, including Turkmenistan, a country whose human rights performance is so poor that some have suggested it should be suspended from the OSCE, and Azerbaijan, a country engaged in a significant crackdown against the media. Assistant Secretary Jones argued that, when faced with an absence of political will to implement OSCE human dimension commitments, it is necessary to “persevere” and to hold OSCE participating States accountable for their actions. Noting that the death penalty is the human rights issue most frequently raised with the United States, Commissioner Cardin asked Assistant Secretary Craner how the United States responds to this criticism and whether the use of capital punishment in the United States impacts our effectiveness. Craner noted that the death penalty in the United States is supported by the majority of Americans, in a democratic system, and that the quality of the U.S. judicial system ensures its fairness. He also argued that it does not affect the credibility of the United States on human rights issues. Professor Hopmann, however, disagreed with this assertion. Based on extensive contacts with European delegates to the OSCE in Vienna, Hopmann observed that Europeans find it difficult to reconcile the U.S. advocacy on human rights issues with a practice Europeans view as a human rights violation. Chairman Campbell recommended that similar hearings be convened on a periodic basis to update Congress and the American people on the ongoing work of the OSCE and how it advances U.S. interests across the spectrum of the security, economic, and human dimensions.

  • Roadblock to Religious Liberty: Religious Registration Policies in the OSCE Region

    By Knox Thames, CSCE Staff Advisor On Thursday, October 11, 2001, the United States Helsinki Commission conducted a public briefing to explore the issue of religious registration, one of many roadblocks to religious freedom around the world. Expert panelists focused on religious registration among the 55 nations of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Several OSCE participating States are following a troubling trend toward restricting the right to freedom of religion by using registration schemes, making it virtually impossible for citizens to practice their faith. Registration laws exist for a myriad of reasons. Some are vestiges of the communist era, while others purposefully limit the ability of new groups to function in a country. Yet this trend toward onerous registration ordinances and statutes has gradually emerged across the OSCE region. Furthermore, restrictive practices could be exacerbated in the aftermath of recent terrorist attacks that could be used as a pretext to further restrict or ban individuals and religious communities from practicing their faiths or beliefs. As Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ), Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission noted in a prepared statement, “Over the past decade I have observed a troubling drift away from a robust and vibrant protection of religious freedom in a growing number of OSCE States. I have become alarmed with how some OSCE countries have developed new laws and regulations that serve as a roadblock to the free exercise of religious belief. These actions have not been limited to emerging democracies, but also include Western European countries, with the definitive example being Austria.” The briefing panel featured academic experts, lawyers and practitioners to discuss the various ways governments are chipping away at religious freedom. Dr. Sophie van Bijsterveld, Co-Chair of the OSCE/ODIHR Advisory Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief and Law Professor at Catholic University–Brabant, Netherlands, was the first panelist to present remarks. She called the imposition of registration requirements “worrisome.” She continued that the need for government permission to allow “a person to adhere to a religion and 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, and this touches the very essence of religious liberty.” Dr. Gerhard Robbers, also a member of the OSCE/ODIHR Advisory Panel and Law Professor at the Trier University, Germany commented, “Registration of religious communities is known to most, probably to all legal systems in the world in one form or another as centralized or decentralized registration. It need not be a roadblock to religious freedom. In fact, it can free the way to more, positive religious freedom, if correctly performed.” The next panelist was Vassilios Tsirbas, interim Executive Director and Senior Counsel for the European Centre for Law and Justice, based in Strasbourg, France. Mr. Tsirbas declared, “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.” He also said, “Within this proliferation of the field of human rights, the Helsinki Final Act is a more than promising note. . . . [and] 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.” Lastly, Col. Kenneth Baillie of the Salvation Army-Moscow, Russia, told of efforts by Moscow city authorities to “liquidate” that branch of the church, allegedly due to a minor technicality in its application for registration. Col. Baillie stated, “The [registration] law’s ambiguity gives public officials the power to invent arbitrary constructions of the law.” He added that the Salvation Army appears to be in the middle of a power struggle between Federal and State authorities. Col. Baillie said that the Salvation Army “will not give up.” But Baillie was “understandably skeptical about the religious registration law, and particularly the will to uphold what the law says in regard of religious freedom.” In Commissioner Sen. Gordon H. Smith's (R-OR) submission to the briefing record, he addressed the 1997 Russian registration law. He stated, "The Russian law, among other things, limits the activities of foreign missionaries and grants unregistered 'religious groups' fewer rights than accredited Russian religious organizations such as the Russian Orthodox Church, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism. This law, if poorly implemented, could also sharply restrict the activities of foreign missionaries in Russia." Senator Smith added, "The conventional wisdom regarding implementation of that law is that persecution occurs abroad - the farther away from Moscow and the centralized government, the greater the risk is for religious intolerance. But even in Moscow there is a requirement of vigilance. And I am happy to report that [the Senate] has been vigilant on this issue - especially regarding the old problem of anti-Semitism in Russia." Commissioner Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) also submitted a statement for the briefing record, in which he highlighted Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan and their efforts in regards to registration laws. While Mr. Wamp did note specific problems, he also wanted to “highlight and praise both countries for seeking assistance from the OSCE Advisory Panel on Freedom of Religion or Belief.” He continued, “The choice to seek assistance and working to ensure the new legislation is in line with human rights norms are marks of wise governance. Even more, I want to encourage these governments to continue their close cooperation with this body of experts, and to continue to strive to uphold OSCE commitments and international norms for religious freedom.” 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.

  • France's Law Affects Freedom of Worship

    Mr. Speaker, today I take this opportunity to salute France's historic leadership in the defense of human rights. After the events of September 11th, as freedom-loving people wrestle with the scourge of terrorism, they will look to countries like France to see whether the torch of human rights is being held high. Therefore, mindful of France's historic work and current commitments to defend human rights, it was with remorse and surprise that I observed this summer the National Assembly's approval of the law for the “Prevention and Repression of Cultic Movements.” As participating States of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), France and the United States share the commitment and responsibility to observe and uphold religious freedom, including the right of the individual to profess and practice religion or belief. Through my work as Co-Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, I am alarmed by recent developments in Europe that impinge on this fundamental freedom. Recently, it would appear that certain OSCE friends and allies have forgotten that religious movements can play a positive role in society, providing impetus for important social change. For instance, the role of the Catholic Church in Poland during the cold war or the activism of some churches and religious leaders in the Southern United States during the Civil Rights Movement offered vital moral and ethical guidance and support. Mr. Speaker, particularly in Western Europe, we have observed an increase in laws calibrated specifically to target religious groups. The United States shares with Western Europe core values regarding human dignity and rights, and we gratefully acknowledge Western Europe's traditional openness toward religious minorities. However, the development of “anti-cult” laws threatens this tradition. At the same time, I understand and appreciate the dangers of criminal activity operating under the guise of religion. However, I strongly believe that any religious movement violating the rule of law should be prosecuted using mainstream law enforcement tools, as opposed to special laws or extra-judicial investigations not in harmony with the core values enshrined in the OSCE's Helsinki Final Act and other international documents regarding human dignity and rights. In sum, I am concerned about vaguely crafted government regulations against religious organizations and adherents that serve to foster intolerance against individuals because of their beliefs. In France, such a law entered into effect this summer. Provisions of the law, Mr. Speaker, provide governmental entities and private citizens the ability to apply civil and criminal sanctions against any so-called “cult” or its de facto leader. Other extensive powers include the removal of basic civic freedoms if an individual is found guilty of using “techniques likely to alter judgment.” Despite the law's obvious bent against minority faiths, its broad powers, combined with the vague wording, could permit arbitrary application and abuse. Overall, I find the creation of such a law, especially in a mature democracy like France, alarming and incongruent with the nation's long history of supporting human rights. I had the opportunity this past summer to meet with the President of the National Assembly, Mr. Raymond Forni, as well as one of the key authors of the bill, Mme. Catherine Picard, and shared with them these concerns. Considering France's position as a world leader, this domestic action will cause repercussions elsewhere, such as in emerging democracies which will have and look to French leadership on these matters. Often, the U.S. Government and Congress are criticized for “meddling” in the internal affairs of another sovereign nation. I feel certain detractors in France will level the same argument. However, the OSCE Moscow Concluding Document (1991) speaks directly to this issue, declaring “The participating State emphasize that issues relating to human rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy and the rule of law are of international concern, as respect for these rights and freedoms constitutes one of the foundations of international order. They categorically and irrevocably declare that the commitments undertaken in the field of the human dimension… are matters of direct and legitimate concern to all participating States and do not belong exclusively to the internal affairs of the State concerned.” Mr. Speaker, religious believers in France have already offered concerns about the effects of the new French law on their right to profess and practice their faith in their own country. Statutes of this nature, which target individuals with unpopular belief systems, are antithetical to democracies in the twenty first century. Accordingly, I join them in urging French authorities to fully respect France's commitments as an OSCE participating State when implementing the new law.

  • Romania’s Chairmanship of the OSCE

    This hearing discussed Romania’s chairmanship of the OSCE, which began in January 2001. The hearing reviewed the OSCE’s work in strengthening security, preventing conflict and managing crises in the OSCE region, as well as promoting respect for human rights and democratic values in the OSCE participating states under Romania’s chairmanship.

  • 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.

  • U.S. Policy Toward the OSCE

    This hearing examined U.S. policy toward the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The Commission remains keenly interested in the OSCE as a tool for promoting human rights and democratic development and advancing U.S. interests in the expansive OSCE region. The distinguished witnesses and Commissioners discussed ways in which to take advantage of the wide membership of the OSCE to put in place quite a number of improvements on the counterterrorism agenda, including getting more countries to sign the relevant Conventions on Antiterrorism and to increase particularly police involvement in the OSCE member states to counter terrorism.

Pages