Title

Title

Speeches

Read what our chair, co-chair, and Commissioners have had to say at OSCE events, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, and more.

  • Related content
  • Related content
Filter Topics Open Close
  • The Helsinki Process as a Model for East Asian Collective Security and Crisis Resolution

    Distinguished dignitaries and guests, good afternoon and welcome. Thank you all for joining us today. Thank you in particular to our South Korean hosts and to the Sejong Institute for putting this conference together. I am here representing the U.S. Helsinki Commission, an independent Commission of the U.S. Congress. The Commission monitors compliance with commitments made by Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) participating states, which number fifty-seven countries throughout the Atlantic-Eurasian region. The commitments are comprehensive in nature and range from military security to anticorruption to human rights. By and large, the Northeast Asian region has seen over the last twenty years an unprecedented period of security and stability. This peace has brought great economic prosperity to the Northeast Asian region as well as one of the most intense periods of growth in human history. However, this peace and prosperity has come under grave threat. Today, the livelihoods of citizens in the region are put in jeopardy by environmental challenges and transnational threats such as terrorism, organized crime, and money laundering that know no borders. The region also has experienced a significant arms buildup and an increase in the tendency towards escalation during crises. For example, what were once diplomatic disputes over uninhabited islands in the Pacific have today become flashpoints eliciting the deployment of military forces. Finally, amidst all these worrying trends in the region, there continues the reckless provocation of the rogue regime in Pyongyang, whose nuclear ambitions threaten the lives of millions of citizens within the region. Indeed, the main concern today is North Korea. Obviously, the military threat of the country is most pressing, but the human rights and economic situation within North Korea are also dismal. The people are some of the most oppressed in the world. Their economic situation is near the bottom of the world as well, with many being literally starved to death. Gulags house countless prisoners who undergo enormous suffering. We can be sure that the challenges that face this region will continue to mount in the near-term. Still, the nations of this region do not need to sit idly by in the face of this rising tide of uncertainty. In the Atlantic-Eurasian region, nations have faced similar challenges, and responded by establishing institutions through the Helsinki process to serve as a platform for dialogue and consensus, while offering mechanisms of de-escalation during times of crisis. The Helsinki process can serve as a model, or at the very least a useful example, for the nations of East Asia to move purposefully towards peace and collective security. I have had the privilege of serving as Chief of Staff of the U.S. Helsinki Commission and have seen firsthand the tremendous progress that can be made through engagement. The original language in the documents that served as the foundation for the discussions in the 1970s was quite modest, and, frankly, at the time, not considered groundbreaking. The Helsinki Final Act was a document deeply rooted in its own time and space, and the world in 1975 looked radically different than our globalized one does today. But the Helsinki process created an opportunity to change things; it committed historical adversaries to engage; it established norms based on consensus; and it gave countless people hope for the future. Over its 42-year history, the Helsinki process has evolved, addressed new challenges, established new norms, and welcomed new members. As a result, the Helsinki process has made a tangible difference in the maintenance of peace and collective security from Vancouver to Vladivostok. Given the recent series of North Korean provocations, the need to address the crisis that this has created may mean that now is not the appropriate time to implement this vision. Nevertheless, the groundwork can be laid so as to be prepared when a policy window opens. This approach could begin with a modest agenda agreed to by consensus. Consensus decision-making is an important piece of the puzzle because it helps to build trust. If actors do not trust one another’s intentions, as would clearly be the case for any Helsinki-inspired Northeast Asian security process, then consensus decision-making is the only way to go. You cannot get anything accomplished other than by consensus. Another important takeaway from the Helsinki process is that any such process in any region of the world be based on universal principles. In the Helsinki case, this expressed itself most clearly in what we call the “Helsinki Decalogue,” which includes: Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty Refraining from the threat or use of force Inviolability of frontiers Territorial integrity of States Peaceful settlement of disputes Non-intervention in internal affairs Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief Equal rights and self-determination of peoples Co-operation among States Fulfillment in good faith of obligations under international law Finally, the more diverse the membership, the more buy-in can be expected. One of the unique things about the Helsinki process was its wide membership, which, at its founding at the height of the Cold War, included not only the United States and the Soviet Union, but thirty-three other European states in addition to Mediterranean observer countries. Wide membership enables any process to avoid the impression of favoring larger states over smaller ones. Hopefully, we can today build upon this broad outline of what this type of engagement would look like in Northeast Asia; that is engagement that is principled, structured, and based on the mutual understanding that conflict resolution is in the interest of all nations in the region. Again, these nations do not have to remain passive spectators as global trends erode two decades worth of peace and prosperity; rather they should be proactive and look to ensure their collective peace and prosperity. Particularly given the long history of sophistication and interaction between the nations of this region, there is no reason why a Helsinki-inspired process could not take form here.

  • Statement by Commissioner Representative Mike McIntyre at the OSCE PA Fall Meeting

    OSCE PA Autumn Meeting Session 1: Political and Military Dimension Debate on the Crisis in Ukraine  This Parliamentary Assembly spoke clearly on this matter in the Declaration adopted at the annual session in Baku.  Starting with vicious propaganda and intimidation of journalists, Moscow created this conflict by stoking irrational fears and then reinforcing violence in Ukraine with men and materiel from the Russian Federation. Russia has flagrantly violated international norms and commitments, including all ten core principles of the Helsinki Final Act. This is an attempt to deny a neighboring country and fellow OSCE member of the ability to make its own decisions regarding its own future. Russia has worked actively to suppress Ukraine’s aspirations towards freedom, democracy, and human dignity.  The United States underscores the critical role of the OSCE throughout this tragic conflict which began with the attempted illegal annexation of Crimea. As the largest regional organization in the world, the OSCE has a prominent role in trying to end this war. We have been encouraged by all of the efforts of the OSCE in Ukraine to monitor and work to reduce tensions and foster peace, security, and stability. The OSCE can become a stabilizing presence as to what is, in-fact, happening.  We are increasingly concerned by continued reports of Russian and separatist violations of the ceasefire. We have seen little progress by the Russian Federation or the Russia-backed separatists since these agreements were adopted last month. Russia-backed separatist forces continue to attack Ukrainian positions, including several positions within the agreed exclusion zone area!  Our frank criticism is not, as some might assert, an effort to create a new Cold War environment, but an effort to prevent one. That has been, and will always be, the purpose of our candid debates in the OSCE. Let us fulfill our mission as the OSCE!  We again call on the Russian Federation to implement its part of the agreements fully by immediately withdrawing all Russian military forces and equipment from inside Ukraine and returning control of the international border to Kyiv. That is the bottom line! Russia must respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity by ending both its unlawful activities in eastern Ukraine and its occupation of Crimea.  Why do we have an OSCE if nations will not respect one another’s sovereignty and dignity? The time is now. This is the test! May God grant us wisdom in this decision.

  • Importance of Good Governance to Comprehensive Security

    Remarks to the 2014 OSCE Japan Conference on Sharing Experiences and Lessons Learned between the OSCE and Asian Partners for Cooperation in Order to Create a Safer, More Interconnected and Fairer World in the Face of Emerging Challenges Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for your kind introduction. It’s a pleasure to be here today. I’d also like to thank our Japanese hosts for their very gracious arrangements for this important conference. I am here on behalf of U.S. Senator Ben Cardin, the Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the U.S. Helsinki Commission. The Helsinki Commission is unique in that the U.S. is the only OSCE participating State to create a distinct governmental agency to monitor member state compliance with OSCE commitments. One of the key priorities for our Commission is promoting good governance and combatting corruption, and we were pleased to see the tremendous progress achieved in this area in 2012 with the adoption of the Declaration on Strengthening Good Governance and Combatting Corruption, Money-Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism at the Dublin Ministerial. The Good Governance Declaration is comprehensive, laying out a strategy for the OSCE to combat corruption, strengthen civil society development and enforce accountability measures in the public and private sectors.  The declaration has given some new tools to the Economic and Environmental Coordinator’s office, which plays a critical role in strengthening stability and security in the OSCE region. And last year, the OSCE worked to promote sustainable energy solutions, advocate transparency and accountability, and to build capacity at all levels of society – government, private sector, and its citizens.  These achievements represent a foundation for further enhancing the 2nd Dimension. The U.S. and the EU have recently enacted laws that address the problem of transparency and accountability in the resource sector. In the United States, these laws were authored by the Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, Senator Ben Cardin. The laws require companies to publicly report payments they make to governments for oil, gas and mining extraction. The concept is that by injecting transparency into a traditionally opaque business environment, the ability of citizens to better understand the money flows allows them to then hold their governments accountable. The laws are meant to innovate the way business is done in this extremely important sector by breaking the cycle of instability and poverty in countries suffering from what is often called the “resource curse”. This innovation can help ensure that energy supplies are not disrupted, it gives citizens a tool to fight corruption, and it levels the playing field for companies. Now that the U.S. and the European Union are implementing these transparency rules, other markets with large resource extraction companies such as Australia and Canada are exploring similar requirements. And we expect that as these rules come online we will see other stock exchanges around the world follow suit. Corruption and lack of transparency in the extractive industries can fuel instability and even conflict, so it’s not hard to see why this type of transparency is catching on. The news is full of headlines on instability created by resource competition or corruption. And resource rich countries are consistently rated as some of the most difficult places to do business. In almost every case you can trace the root cause to the intractable corruption in that country. These transparency laws are the game changers that will help tilt the balance of power away from corrupt leaders. Transparency and accountability are going to make the job of extractive companies easier. They will work on a level playing field, they will work with more stable governments, and they will operate in more stable communities. And the OSCE has a role to play here as well. With the acknowledgment of the importance of combatting corruption in the Good Governance Declaration, the OSCE’s Economic and Environmental Dimension can serve as a valuable platform for increasing stability and security on energy related issues and, in particular, highlighting the link between security, energy, and the environment. As we look toward the Basel Ministerial and the Helsinki+40 process, we must build upon this work and examine how the 2nd Dimension can be further strengthened to advance solutions that build good governance. One of the ways that we can do this is to more actively engage civil society in the 2nd Dimension. We need to welcome multi-stakeholder groups, business groups and civil society leaders to the Economic and Environmental Forum and the Economic and Environmental Implementation meeting in order to generate greater awareness of good governance initiatives, develop new projects, and assess the effectiveness of participating States in implementing these commitments.    Let me close with a comment on Ukraine. I was there two weeks ago to observe the election. Despite the daily reports of violence, what we saw in the conduct of the election makes me hopeful that the newly elected government will be able to move the country forward. But what is painfully clear is that the corruption surrounding Ukraine’s energy sector was a key factor in fueling the protests that eventually led to the downfall of the government. Ukraine is not a big oil and gas producer itself, but it plays a major role as a transit country between Russia and Western Europe. Ukraine has started work on its candidacy for EITI but still has a long way to go so we are encouraging the new government to place a priority on getting that in place. The broader lesson from Ukraine is that secret deals lead to corruption. Corruption leads to economic stagnation.  Economic stagnation leads to political instability.  Political instability leads to violence and human rights abuses, and even opportunistic violations of sovereignty and territorial integrity. This is why we need to innovate the way we do business. This is why we need to focus on transparency and good governance. And this is why we need to empower civil society and media to hold their governments accountable. These are all areas where the OSCE has expertise and where the Asian Partners can provide assistance and experience. Thank you.

  • Good Governance

    Economic and Environmental Dimension Implementation Meeting Session 3: Good Governance Before I begin, I’d like to thank the panelists today for their excellent and informative presentations. The United States has viewed with keen interest the evolving discussions in recent years on what the OSCE’s priorities should be in the Economic and Environmental Dimension. As our friend and colleague Mr. Svilanovic pointed out during last year’s Vienna Review Conference, we appear to have come to an appreciation that good governance is the key linking theme across the entire second dimension. The Maastricht Strategy is very clear on this point: “Good public and corporate governance and strong institutions are essential foundations for a sound economy, which can attract investments, and thereby enable States to reduce poverty and inequality, to increase social integration and opportunities for all, and to protect the environment. Good governance at all levels contributes to prosperity, stability and security.” As we consider the implementation of our second dimension commitments, however, we should keep in mind why it is important to implement those commitments. The global economic downturn continues to put extreme pressure on people and governments across the OSCE region. To be sure, some countries have weathered the storm better than others. Still, no country can be forever immune to market forces, and even within those that have done well, there are always citizens left behind. This is certainly the case in the United States, and for this reason President Obama is focused intently on how best to put those Americans without a job back to work. We all know that trade and investment are critical drivers of economic growth. Indeed, recognizing this important reality, the Obama Administration has launched the National Export Initiative, which seeks to deepen our strategic trade relationships around the world, recognizing that 85 percent of world GDP growth will occur outside the United States in the coming few years. As we encourage more American businesses – large and small – to embrace international trade, seek opportunities in new markets, and make strategic investments that will lead to increased global trade flows, we are keenly aware of the challenges and costs posed by official corruption, weak institutions, and lack of respect for property rights, including intellectual property. Weak governance and lack of transparency constitute non-tariff barriers to trade, which we have committed ourselves to eliminating. Furthermore, the same issues that deter trade and investment also work against comprehensive security: a lack of transparency in governance leads to diminished confidence that problems and disputes will be addressed in a fair and impartial manner. Without trust and confidence in public institutions, there is little incentive for investors and companies to pursue trade deals or direct investment in those economies. The effect is stagnating economic performance, which, as we have seen in the past several months and years, can lead to political upheaval. The United States Government is deeply committed to fostering good governance and transparency in its political and economic institutions. President Obama has made the global fight against corruption a top priority. As he has noted, “In too many places, the culture of the bribe is a brake on development and prosperity. It discourages entrepreneurship, destroys public trust, and undermines the rule of law while stifling economic growth.” The real world costs of corruption and weak institutions should not be underestimated. The World Bank estimates that more than one trillion dollars in bribes are paid each year out of a global economy of approximately 30 trillion dollars. That's an incredible three percent of the world’s economy. In 2009, companies lost nearly $25 billion to companies willing to pay bribes in deals for which the outcome is known. And bribery is especially costly for small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs): a separate study has shown that up to 25 percent of SME operating capital in companies operating internationally is diverted to corruption. That is a staggering figure that illustrates how corruption diverts scarce resources to thoroughly unproductive ends. Corruption is a global problem that knows no borders. And that’s why corruption demands a truly global response – one that knows no limits on collaboration. The Obama Administration is doing its part to implement its obligations under the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention by enforcing the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) strictly and fairly. We are determined to ensure that U.S. businesses do not contribute to corruption in foreign markets. At the same time, we are determined to do what we can to assist them in the fight against foreign corruption, and against the high risk and significant costs of corruption in such markets. Regrettably, at this stage, the lack of enforcement of domestic bribery laws, and of foreign bribery laws by many nations that are Parties to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention is extremely troubling and raises concerns about a lack of political will. Governments can and should prosecute both those who give bribes and those who receive them, both at home and abroad. And the OSCE should continue to encourage participating States to adopt and enforce rigorous anti-bribery regimes. Of course, the fight against corruption is not simply a law enforcement matter; rather it can also be a significant – if not the most significant – non-tariff barrier all companies face. Accordingly, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the International Trade Administration (or ITA) are committed to working with our trading partners to level the playing field and to promote transparent and corruption-free markets globally. Our work to promote clean and ethical business environments occurs at both the multilateral and bilateral level. At the multilateral level, the ITA is pressing its counterparts to lead by example and to implement comprehensive anti-corruption measures. In addition to our work through the OECD, the United States has been working diligently to persuade the G20 countries to adopt a comprehensive anti-corruption action plan, which includes a commitment focused on adoption and robust enforcement of anti-bribery laws, implementation of the UN Convention Against Corruption, greater engagement with the private sector, and support for transparency mechanisms, to name a few. Many of these commitments require our G20 partners to enact and implement new laws and preventive measures. The United States, at ITA’s initiative, in particular, took the lead on proposals relating to the private sector and also on whistleblower protection, within the G20. In the United States, whistleblowers play a crucial role in helping to enforce anti-corruption law. This principle is also embodied in international conventions. Articles 12 and 13 of the UN Convention require States Parties to prevent corruption in the private sector and promote the fight against corruption with the business community and civil society. Unless governments can protect whistleblowers, it is unlikely that they can identify or address systemic causes of corruption. The United States believes robust whistleblower protection should be an essential part of any good governance initiative in the OSCE, and I was encouraged to hear Ambassador O’Leary indicate that this will be an area of focus under the Irish Chairmanship. The U.S. Department of Commerce has also been committed to fostering strong private sector integrity as an integral part of promoting good governance in markets worldwide. Companies are global corporate citizens, and as such, can work collectively and with governments to foster trust, and promote transparency. I hope that some our work may provide a useful model for the OSCE to consider as it looks to embrace good governance and anti-corruption as a priority for the second dimension, a goal we fully support, and which I am personally committed to supporting. For example, the ITA has championed business ethics and corporate governance reform since the early 1990s, following the fall of the Berlin Wall. Our Business Ethics Manual has been translated into Chinese, Spanish and Russian and is still one of the most widely used resources on this important topic. We have partnered with business associations and chambers of commerce to develop collective action and business ethics program in many markets. Our work on business ethics has grown. This past year, the ITA has focused on trying to heighten awareness of good governance, transparency and business ethics in sectors of vital importance to many economies – by taking a “sectoral” approach to combating corruption and promoting good business practice, the challenge of dealing with corruption becomes less daunting. The ethical issues specific to different industries vary greatly – and there is no one-size-fits-all approach to the problem. Within the G20, for example, the United States, at the initiative of the U.S. Department of Commerce, has taken the lead in calling for the G20 to endorse additional sectoral approaches to fighting corruption, beyond the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). We have asked G20 governments, for example, to consider supporting the Construction Sector Transparency Initiative (COST) – a new multistakeholder initiative, developed by the World Bank. COST uses similar approaches to EITI to promote greater transparency in public infrastructure projects and government procurement. I hope that the OSCE might similarly consider COST and other multistakeholder approaches to promoting transparency under the Irish chairmanship. Within APEC, the ITA has focused on developing new ethical principles for key sectors within the APEC region. I am pleased to report that under the APEC SME working group, we have coordinated a project with APEC countries and businesses to develop principles of business ethics in the construction, medical devices and biopharmaceutical sectors. These voluntary principles are meant to be used by businesses and trade associations – large andwithin the OSCE framework and the EEDIM, we might also consider focusing on business ethics in specific sectors of interest to all of our economies. I want to close by suggesting some activities to take the theme of good governance and transparency forward. In addition to encouraging the OSCE to formally endorse the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative—a move that would send an important signal about this body’s commitment to the principles of good governance and transparency—the U.S. encourages us to explore whether there are additional sectoral initiatives that merit support from the OSCE, including the Construction Sector Transparency Initiative. The United States Government also strongly supports the Irish Chair’s goal to develop a Statement or Declaration of Transparency Principles to help guide our governments in their future activities. I want to encourage us to consider new models of bilateral cooperation to promote good governance such as the model Mr. Murray just discussed, leading to a public-private initiative in the Russian power generation sector. We at the U.S. Department of Commerce are working closely with the Center for Black Sea/Caspian Studies at American University to potentially convene a conference in May of next year that would seek to address the challenge of developing mechanisms to ensure good governance and transparency, while also balancing the goals of protecting national security and accelerating economic development faced by the countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia, as they seek to assert their role as a gateway between Europe and Asia. In addition, the conference will also focus on specific market access challenges to regional integration and economic development in the Caucasus and Central Asia such as transparency in Government procurement and privatization, and trade facilitation challenges, including customs and lack of regional harmonization. It is our hope that the OSCE will join us for this event – focused on critical areas such as transport and infrastructure – to work on tangible ideas for projects and collaborations in the OSCE region. We look forward with great interest to the 20th Economic and Environmental Forum, where we will delve deeper into all the facets of good governance. We also thank the Lithuanian Chairman-in-Office for  ensuring that their draft Ministerial Council decision on Energy Security incorporates transparency in the energy sector – in our view, considering the vital role that energy plays in modern economic life, there can be no confidence, and thus no security, without energy transparency. In the year ahead, we envision an even broader focus on transparency principles across the entire spectrum of economic and environmental activities, and will work with all of our colleagues in the OSCE to make that vision a reality. Thank you, Mr. Moderator.  

  • Commissioner Camuñez's Remarks on Good Governance

    Economic and Environmental Dimension Implementation Meeting Session 3: Good Governance Before I begin, I’d like to thank the panelists today for their excellent and informative presentations. The United States has viewed with keen interest the evolving discussions in recent years on what the OSCE’s priorities should be in the Economic and Environmental Dimension.  As our friend and colleague Mr. Svilanovic pointed out during last year’s Vienna Review Conference, we appear to have come to an appreciation that good governance is the key linking theme across the entire second dimension.  The Maastricht Strategy is very clear on this point: “Good public and corporate governance and strong institutions are essential foundations for a sound economy, which can attract investments, and thereby enable States to reduce poverty and inequality, to increase social integration and opportunities for all, and to protect the environment.  Good governance at all levels contributes to prosperity, stability and security.”  As we consider the implementation of our second dimension commitments, however, we should keep in mind why it is important to implement those commitments. The global economic downturn continues to put extreme pressure on people and governments across the OSCE region.  To be sure, some countries have weathered the storm better than others.  Still, no country can be forever immune to market forces, and even within those that have done well, there are always citizens left behind.  This is certainly the case in the United States, and for this reason President Obama is focused intently on how best to put those Americans without a job back to work.  We all know that trade and investment are critical drivers of economic growth.  Indeed, recognizing this important reality, the Obama Administration has launched the National Export Initiative, which seeks to deepen our strategic trade relationships around the world, recognizing that 85 percent of world GDP growth will occur outside the United States in the coming few years.  As we encourage more American businesses – large and small – to embrace international trade, seek opportunities in new markets, and make strategic investments that will lead to increased global trade flows, we are keenly aware of the challenges and costs posed by official corruption, weak institutions, and lack of respect for property rights, including intellectual property. Weak governance and lack of transparency constitute non-tariff barriers to trade, which we have committed ourselves to eliminating.  Furthermore, the same issues that deter trade and investment also work against comprehensive security: a lack of transparency in governance leads to diminished confidence that problems and disputes will be addressed in a fair and impartial manner.  Without trust and confidence in public institutions, there is little incentive for investors and companies to pursue trade deals or direct investment in those economies.  The effect is stagnating economic performance, which, as we have seen in the past several months and years, can lead to political upheaval.    The United States Government is deeply committed to fostering good governance and transparency in its political and economic institutions.  President Obama has made the global fight against corruption a top priority.  As he has noted, “In too many places, the culture of the bribe is a brake on development and prosperity.  It discourages entrepreneurship, destroys public trust, and undermines the rule of law while stifling economic growth.”    The real world costs of corruption and weak institutions should not be underestimated.  The World Bank estimates that more than one trillion dollars in bribes are paid each year out of a global economy of approximately 30 trillion dollars.  That's an incredible three percent of the world’s economy.   In 2009, companies lost nearly $25 billion to companies willing to pay bribes in deals for which the outcome is known.  And bribery is especially costly for small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs): a separate study has shown that up to 25 percent of SME operating capital in companies operating internationally is diverted to corruption.  That is a staggering figure that illustrates how corruption diverts scarce resources to thoroughly unproductive ends. Corruption is a global problem that knows no borders.  And that’s why corruption demands a truly global response – one that knows no limits on collaboration.  The Obama Administration is doing its part to implement its obligations under the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention by enforcing the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) strictly and fairly.  We are determined to ensure that U.S. businesses do not contribute to corruption in foreign markets.  At the same time, we are determined to do what we can to assist them in the fight against foreign corruption, and against the high risk and significant costs of corruption in such markets.   Regrettably, at this stage, the lack of enforcement of domestic bribery laws, and of foreign bribery laws by many nations that are Parties to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention is extremely troubling and raises concerns about a lack of political will.  Governments can and should prosecute both those who give bribes and those who receive them, both at home and abroad.  And the OSCE should continue to encourage participating States to adopt and enforce rigorous anti-bribery regimes. Of course, the fight against corruption is not simply a law enforcement matter; rather it can also be a significant – if not the most significant – non-tariff barrier all companies face.  Accordingly, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the International Trade Administration (or ITA) are committed to working with our trading partners to level the playing field and to promote transparent and corruption-free markets globally.  Our work to promote clean and ethical business environments occurs at both the multilateral and bilateral level.  At the multilateral level, the ITA is pressing its counterparts to lead by example and to implement comprehensive anti-corruption measures.   In addition to our work through the OECD, the United States has been working diligently to persuade the G20 countries to adopt a comprehensive anti-corruption action plan, which includes a commitment focused on adoption and robust enforcement of anti-bribery laws, implementation of the UN Convention Against Corruption, greater engagement with the private sector, and support for transparency mechanisms, to name a few.  Many of these commitments require our G20 partners to enact and implement new laws and preventive measures.   The United States, at ITA’s initiative, in particular, took the lead on proposals relating to the private sector and also on whistleblower protection, within the G20.  In the United States, whistleblowers play a crucial role in helping to enforce anti-corruption law.  This principle is also embodied in international conventions.  Articles 12 and 13 of the UN Convention require States Parties to prevent corruption in the private sector and promote the fight against corruption with the business community and civil society.  Unless governments can protect whistleblowers, it is unlikely that they can identify or address systemic causes of corruption.  The United States believes robust whistleblower protection should be an essential part of any good governance initiative in the OSCE, and I was encouraged to hear Ambassador O’Leary indicate that this will be an area of focus under the Irish Chairmanship.   The U.S. Department of Commerce has also been committed to fostering strong private sector integrity as an integral part of promoting good governance in markets worldwide.  Companies are global corporate citizens, and as such, can work collectively and with governments to foster trust, and promote transparency.  I hope that some our work may provide a useful model for the OSCE to consider as it looks to embrace good governance and anti-corruption as a priority for the second dimension, a goal we fully support, and which I am personally committed to supporting. For example, the ITA has championed business ethics and corporate governance reform since the early 1990s, following the fall of the Berlin Wall.  Our Business Ethics Manual has been translated into Chinese, Spanish and Russian and is still one of the most widely used resources on this important topic.  We have partnered with business associations and chambers of commerce to develop collective action and business ethics program in many markets.   Our work on business ethics has grown.  This past year, the ITA has focused on trying to heighten awareness of good governance, transparency and business ethics in sectors of vital importance to many economies – by taking a “sectoral” approach to combating corruption and promoting good business practice, the challenge of dealing with corruption becomes less daunting.  The ethical issues specific to different industries vary greatly – and there is no one-size-fits-all approach to the problem.  Within the G20, for example, the United States, at the initiative of the U.S. Department of Commerce, has taken the lead in calling for the G20 to endorse additional sectoral approaches to fighting corruption, beyond the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI).  We have asked G20 governments, for example, to consider supporting the Construction Sector Transparency Initiative (COST) – a new multistakeholder initiative, developed by the World Bank.  COST uses similar approaches to EITI to promote greater transparency in public infrastructure projects and government procurement.  I hope that the OSCE might similarly consider COST and other multistakeholder approaches to promoting transparency under the Irish chairmanship.     Within APEC, the ITA has focused on developing new ethical principles for key sectors within the APEC region.  I am pleased to report that under the APEC SME working group, we have coordinated a project with APEC countries and businesses to develop principles of business ethics in the construction, medical devices and biopharmaceutical sectors.  These voluntary principles are meant to be used by businesses and trade associations – large and small – to guide their ethical interactions with public officials and institutions.   I hope that within the OSCE framework and the EEDIM, we might also consider focusing on business ethics in specific sectors of interest to all of our economies.  I want to close by suggesting some activities to take the theme of good governance and transparency forward.  In addition to encouraging the OSCE to formally endorse the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative—a move that would send an important signal about this body’s commitment to the principles of good governance and transparency—the U.S. encourages us to explore whether there are additional sectoral initiatives that merit support from the OSCE, including the Construction Sector Transparency Initiative.  The United States Government also strongly supports the Irish Chair’s goal to develop a Statement or Declaration of Transparency Principles to help guide our governments in their future activities. I want to encourage us to consider new models of bilateral cooperation to promote good governance such as the model Mr. Murray just discussed, leading to a public-private initiative in the Russian power generation sector.   We at the U.S. Department of Commerce are working closely with the Center for Black Sea/Caspian Studies at American University to potentially convene a conference in May of next year that would seek to address the challenge of developing mechanisms to ensure good governance and transparency, while also balancing the goals of protecting national security and accelerating economic development faced by the countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia, as they seek to assert their role as a gateway between Europe and Asia.  In addition, the conference will also focus on specific market access challenges to regional integration and economic development in the Caucasus and Central Asia such as transparency in Government procurement and privatization, and trade facilitation challenges, including customs and lack of regional harmonization.  It is our hope that the OSCE will join us for this event – focused on critical areas such as transport and infrastructure – to work on tangible ideas for projects and collaborations in the OSCE region. We look forward with great interest to the 20th Economic and Environmental Forum, where we will delve deeper into all the facets of good governance.  We also thank the Lithuanian Chairman-in-Office for ensuring that their draft Ministerial Council decision on Energy Security incorporates transparency in the energy sector – in our view, considering the vital role that energy plays in modern economic life, there can be no confidence, and thus no security, without energy transparency.  In the year ahead, we envision an even broader focus on transparency principles across the entire spectrum of economic and environmental activities, and will work with all of our colleagues in the OSCE to make that vision a reality. Thank you, Mr. Moderator.

  • Commissioner Camuñez's Opening Statement at the Economic and Environmental Dimension Implementation Meeting

    Economic and Environmental Dimension Implementation Meeting Opening Remarks On behalf of the United States, I would like to thank the Lithuanian Chairman-in-Office, Secretary General Zannier, Coordinator for Economic and Environmental Activities Svilanović, and of course our Austrian hosts for convening this inaugural Economic and Environmental Dimension Implementation Meeting and for providing a warm welcome to Vienna. It is an honor to be here today as head of the U.S. delegation to the OSCE, representing the U.S. Government in my capacity as an Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Market Access and Compliance (MAC) within the International Trade Administration, and as a Commissioner to the U.S. Helsinki Commission. As a Commerce Department Assistant Secretary for Market Access and Compliance, I am responsible for helping lead the effort to open new markets for U.S. companies, identifying and eliminating market access challenges such as non-tariff barriers to trade, and helping to monitor and enforce U.S. trade agreements and commitments. The work of the Environmental and Economic Dimension, especially that which focuses on transparency of markets and good governance, is closely aligned with the work we undertake in the International Trade Administration. I am here today to deliver the message that the U.S. Government is highly committed to making the second dimension even more effective and dynamic, and that we will do our part in ensuring that our economic and environmental commitments receive the same level of attention and scrutiny that those in the political-military and human dimensions currently enjoy. I will try to keep my remarks brief, but I think it is critical that we take a close look at the economic and environmental commitments as they were spelled out in the 2003 Maastricht Strategy. We still see Maastricht as the key blueprint for moving forward on all the  commitments that have come before, and in particular, note a number of areas where we could pursue significant, substantive action over the next few years to achieve measurable progress. Our commitments on economic cooperation have at their core the idea of connectedness to regional and global markets, to trade and investment networks, and to energy and transportation infrastructure, as a way to address emerging economic challenges and threats. In light of the global economic downturn, it is vital that we recommit ourselves to increasing cooperation through a variety of measures, including improving corporate governance and public management, eliminating unnecessary and discriminatory barriers to trade, continuing  to harmonize our regulations and standards where appropriate, taking further steps to combat financial crimes like bribery and money laundering, and increasing confidence through the incorporation of transparency principles in all of our public and private ventures. At the same time, in view of our progress made this year worldwide on  empowering women in the economy, first at the Invest for the Future Conference in Istanbul in January and most recently at the APEC Summit in San Francisco, we believe it is important to recognize the critical connection between women and strong economies, and to remove all barriers that prevent women from full and equal participation in the economy. I would like to focus my comments this morning on the subject of good governance, however. We have committed ourselves time and again to “good governance,” and while progress has been made, much work remains to be done. As stated in the 2003 Maastricht Strategy, achieving good governance will require a comprehensive, long-term strategic approach. In the view of the U.S. Government, good governance is the core theme within the economic and environmental dimension, and we are pleased that next year’s Forum will address the topic in a broad and detailed way. When we speak of good governance, we speak about governments having both the propensity and the competence to manage complex political and economic systems in a fair, fully inclusive, and transparent way. Anti-corruption is part of it, but not the whole picture. It’s about having transparent, clear and predictable legislative and regulatory frameworks that foster efficient and low-cost business formation and development, and most importantly allow and even encourage robust participation in the political and economic spheres by civil society. Let me say a few words about my agency’s past and current work in this area, reserving greater details and the highlights of a new proposal for Session III tomorrow. From 1998-2008, the U.S. Department of Commerce launched a Good Governance Program, focused on partnering with the public and private sectors in the countries of the former Soviet Union and Central-Eastern Europe. This work, focused on promoting sound corporate governance and business ethics, culminated in the publication of a Business Ethics Manual, a Commercial Dispute Resolution Handbook, and a Corporate Governance Manual translated into several languages and disseminated widely throughout the OSCE region. Today, we continue to work on numerous initiatives around the world, within multilateral fora such as APEC and the G20, which involve OSCE members, promoting consensus based principles focused on anticorruption. We have taken our business ethics work and branched out into new regions including Asia and Latin America. Despite a clear understanding of its importance, the lack of good governance and systemic corruption remain some of the single most important market access challenges for companies engaged in trade around the world. This is especially true for small and medium sized enterprises, which are the engine of economic growth and innovation throughout the world. The United States believes that addressing these issues can only lead to greater investment, economic prosperity and security. Over the next three days, we will discuss OSCE support for the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). I am pleased to report that the U.S. Department of Commerce played an important role in supporting the creation of the EITI in its initial phase. The OSCE now has a chance to follow in the steps of the G8 and G20, by endorsing the EITI, and I applaud the governments that have preceded the United States as implementers. The EITI is a great example of how shared commitments towards good governance and transparency in a vital sector to many countries can work and build sustained momentum and engagement between the private sector, governments and civil society. Tomorrow I will share more concrete information about the work that the U.S. Government and my Department have undertaken to promote good governance and to combat corruption. I am pleased to have an expert on business ethics and anti-corruption in the energy sector, as part of the U.S. delegation. Mr. Matthew Murray runs the Center for Business Ethics and Corporate Governance in St. Petersburg, Russia, and he’ll speak to you later about a good governance initiative involving public and private stakeholders in the power generation sector in Russia, which may serve as a model for similar programs in other OSCE countries. I am also pleased to have Kate Watters of Crude Accountability joining the U.S. delegation, who will provide some examples of how transparency is a critical component of enhancing security in the environmental sphere. A month ago, the Economic and Environmental Forum discussed the concept of sustainability and where efforts to promote sustainable practices stand in our region. Those discussions remind us that our commitments on sustainable development encompass a broad spectrum of activities related to efficiency, sound resource management, and the full involvement of all stakeholders in decision-making. Just to cite an example from the Prague Forum, we recognize that in order to further develop economies and markets in such varied areas as the Black Sea region and Central Asia we will need to address several problems: improving the efficiency of border crossings and building construction, tilting the energy mix towards cleaner fuels, harmonizing standards and practices across the region, and, just as critically, ensuring broad involvement of civil society in the decision-making on project proposal, design, and implementation. One thing that sets the OSCE apart from many other organizations addressing the environment is recognition of the clear connection between the environment and security. We recognize that many environmental disasters cannot be predicted or prevented. At the same time, greater transparency – through information sharing and civil society engagement – about possible security risks stemming from the environment will make it possible to prevent or mitigate more disasters, both natural and man-made. We also must recognize that failure to protect the environment is itself a security risk, putting increased pressure on populations facing dwindling resources of clean air and water, arable farmland, and adequate energy. Colleagues, The next three days provide a critical juncture and platform for finding consensus on measures that will improve our implementation of the OSCE commitments in the economic and environmental dimension. The Vilnius Ministerial is only a month and a half away; now is the time to summon the political will to find a way forward. We look forward to building consensus on decisions on energy security, to include good governance and transparency, and we welcome constructive dialogue on additional measures proposed on confidence-building initiatives and sustainable transport. We view these elements, along with sustainable development and protecting the environment, as the cornerstones of the Maastricht Strategy, and will be speaking about these over the next several days. Just a month ago, we found some convergence of opinion on discrete aspects of the second dimension. Let us expand that convergence to the entire dimension as we review our economic and environmental commitments over the next few days, with a view toward substantive deliverables for Vilnius. Thank you, Mr. Moderator.

  • Senators Cardin and McCain Engage in a Colloquy on the Magnitsky Act

    Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Arizona is recognized. Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, in a few minutes my colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin, will be introducing a bill which I am a cosponsor of, along with a large bipartisan group of our colleagues. I wish to emphasize at the outset that some may characterize this legislation as anti-Russian. In fact, I believe it is pro-Russian. It is pro the people of Russia. It is pro the people who stand up for human rights and democracy in that country which, unfortunately, seems to be sadly deprived of. This legislation, as my colleague and friend Senator Cardin will describe, requires the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, to publish a list of each person whom our government has reason to believe was responsible for the detention, abuse, or death of Sergei Magnitsky ; participated in efforts to conceal the legal liability for these crimes; committed those acts of fraud that Magnitsky uncovered; is responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross violations of human rights committed against individuals seeking to expose illegal activities in Russia or exercise other universally recognized human rights. Second, the individuals on that list would become the target of an array of penalties, among them, ineligibility to receive a visa to travel. They would have their current visas revoked, their assets would be frozen that are under U.S. jurisdiction, and U.S. financial institutions would be required to audit themselves to ensure that none of these individuals are able to bank excess funds and move money in the U.S. financial system. I guess the first question many people will be asking is who was Sergei Magnitsky ? Who was this individual who has aroused such outrage and anger throughout the world? He was a tax attorney. He was a tax attorney working for an international company called Hermitage Capital that had invested in Russia. He didn't spend his life as a human rights activist or an outspoken critic of the Russian Government. He was an ordinary man. But he became an extraordinary champion of justice, fairness, and the rule of law in Russia where those principles, frankly, have lost meaning. What Sergei Magnitsky did was he uncovered a collection of Russian Government officials and criminals who were associated with the Russian Government officials who colluded to defraud the Russian state of $230 million. The Russian Government in turn blamed the crime on Heritage Capital and threw Magnitsky in prison in 2008. Magnitsky was detained for 11 months without trial. Russian officials, especially from the Interior Ministry, pressured Magnitsky to deny what he had uncovered--to lie and to recant. He refused. He was sickened by what his government had done and he refused to surrender principle to brute power. As a result, he was transferred to increasingly more severe and more horrific prison conditions. He was forced to eat unclean food and water. He was denied basic medical care as his health worsened. In fact, he was placed in even worse conditions until, on November 16, 2009, having served 358 days in prison, Sergei Magnitsky died. He was 37 years old. Sergei Magnitsky's torture and murder--let's call it what it really was--is an extreme example of a problem that is unfortunately all too common and widespread in Russia today: the flagrant violations of the rule of law and basic human rights committed by the Russian Government itself, along with its allies. I note the presence of my colleague and lead sponsor of this important legislation. I hope in his remarks perhaps my friend from Maryland would mention the latest in the last few days which was the affirmation of the incredible sentence on Mr. Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his associate which is, in many ways, tantamount to a death sentence; again, one of these blatant abuses of justice and an example of the corruption that exists at the highest level of government. I wish to say again I appreciate the advocacy of my colleague from Maryland and his steadfast efforts on behalf of human rights in Russia, Belarus, and other countries. It has been a great honor to work with him and for him in bringing this important resolution to the floor of the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that at the appropriate time, the Senator from Maryland and I be allowed to engage in a colloquy. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Maryland. Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me thank Senator McCain, not just for taking time for this colloquy concerning Mr. Magnitsky but for his longstanding commitment to justice issues, human rights issues, and the values the United States represents internationally. We have had a long, proud, bipartisan, and, most importantly, successful record of promoting basic American values such as democratic governance and the rule of law around the world. Engaging the countries of the Eastern Bloc in matters such as respect for human rights was critical to winning the cold war. We will never know how many lives were improved and even saved due to instruments such as the Helsinki Final Act and the Jackson-Vanik amendment. These measures defined an era of human rights activism that ultimately pried open the Iron Curtain and brought down the Wall. Thankfully, the cold war is over and we have a stronger relationship, both at the governmental and societal levels, with countries in Eastern Europe. But, sadly, internationally recognized rights and freedoms continue to be trampled and, in many cases, with absolute impunity. With the possibility of Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization, and the Presidents of the United States and Russia meeting in France, ours is a timely discussion. Last week, I joined my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Arizona, and 14 other Senators from both parties to introduce the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act--a broad bill to address what the respected watchdog Transparency International dubbed a ``systematically corrupted country'' and to create consequences for those who are currently getting away with murder. Actions always speak louder than words. The diplomatic manner of dealing with human rights abuses has frequently been to condemn the abusers, often publicly, with the hope that these statements will be all they need to do. They say oh, yes, we are against these human rights violations. We are for the rule of law. We are for people being able to come forward and tell us about problems and be able to correct things. They condemn the abusers, but they take no action. They think their words will be enough. Well, we know differently. We know what is happening today in Russia. We know the tragedy of Sergei Magnitsky was not an isolated episode. This is not the only time this has happened. My colleague from Arizona mentioned the Mikhail Khodorkovsky case. Mr. Khodorkovsky is today in prison with even a longer sentence. Why? Because he had the courage to stand up and oppose the corrupt system in Russia and something should be done about it. That is why he is in prison, and that is wrong. So it is time we do something about this and that we make it clear that action is needed. For too long, the leaders in Russia have said we are going to investigate what happened to Sergei Magnitsky . We think it is terrible he died in prison without getting adequate medical care. As Senator McCain pointed out, here is a person whose only crime was to bring to the proper attention of officials public corruption within Russia. As a result of his whistleblowing, he was arrested and thrown in jail and died in jail. He was tortured. That cannot be allowed, to just say, Oh, that is terrible. We know the people who were responsible. In some cases they have been promoted in their public positions. Well, it is time for us to take action. That is why we have introduced this legislation. While this bill goes far beyond the tragic experiences of Sergei Magnitsky , it does bear his name, so let me refresh everyone's recollection with some of the circumstances concerning his death. I mention this because some might say, why are we talking about one person? But as the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin said, ``One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.'' I rarely agree with Dictator Stalin, but we have to put a human face on the issue. People have to understand that these are real people and real lives that have been ruined forever as a result of the abuses within Russia. Sergei was a skilled tax lawyer who was well known in Moscow among many Western companies, large and small. In fact, he even did some accounting for the National Conference on Soviet Jewry. Working at the American law firm of Firestone Duncan, Sergei uncovered the largest known tax fraud in modern Russian history and blew the whistle on the swindling of his fellow citizens by corrupt officials. For that he was promptly arrested by the subordinates of those he implicated in the crime. He was held under torturous conditions in detention for nearly a year without trial or visits from family. He developed severe medical complications which went deliberately untreated, and he died on November 16, 2009, alone in an isolation cell while prison doctors waited outside his door. Sergei was 37 years old. He left behind a wife, two sons, a dependent mother, and so many friends. Shortly after his death, Philip Pan of the Washington Post wrote: Magnitsky's complaints, made public by his attorneys as he composed them, went unanswered while he lived. But in a nation where millions perished in the Soviet gulag, the words of the 37-year-old tax lawyer struck a nerve after he died ..... his descriptions of the squalid conditions he endured have been splashed on the front pages of newspapers and discussed on radio and television across the country, part of an outcry even his supporters never expected. I think Senator McCain and I would agree, there is a thirst for democracy around the world. People in Russia want more. They want freedom. They want accountability. They want honest government officials. They are outraged by what happened to Sergei Magnitsky . I would point out just last week I met with a leader of the Russian business community who came here and traveled at some risk, I might say. Just visiting me was a risk. We have people from Russia who are being questioned because they come and talk to us. But he said to me that what happened here needs to be answered by the Russian authorities. He understands why we are introducing this legislation. A year after his death, and with no one held accountable, and some of those implicated even promoted and decorated, The Economist noted: At the time, few people outside the small world of Russian investors and a few human-rights activists had heard of Mr. Magnitsky . A year later, his death has become a symbol of the mind-boggling corruption and injustice perpetrated by the Russian system, and the inability of the Kremlin to change it. Regrettably, we know Sergei's case, egregious as it is, is not isolated. Human rights abuses continue unpunished and often unknown across Russia today. To make this point more clear, let's look at another example far outside the financial districts of Moscow and St. Petersburg in the North Caucasus in southern Russia where Chechen leader, Ramzan Kadyrov, condones and oversees massive violations of human rights, including violations of religious freedom and the rights of women. His militia also violates international humanitarian laws. As of this April, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled against Russia in 186 cases concerning Chechnya, most involving civilians. So Sergei Magnitsky's case is not an isolated case of abuse by the Russian authorities. There has been a systematic effort made to deny people their basic human rights, including one individual, Natalia Estemirova, who personally visited my office at the Helsinki Commission. She was a courageous human rights defender who was brutally assassinated. So it is time for Russia to take action. But we cannot wait; we need to take action. Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. CARDIN. I yield back to my colleague. Mr. McCAIN. First, I thank my colleague from Maryland for a very eloquent and, I think, very strong statement, to which I can add very little. But isn't it true, I ask my friend, that this Magnitsky case and the Khodorkovsky case, which I would like for us to talk a little bit more about, are not isolated incidents? In other words, this is the face of the problem in Russia today. As the Senator mentioned, in its annual index of perceptions of corruption, Transparency International ranked Russia 154th out of 178 countries--perceived as more corrupt than Pakistan, Yemen, and Zimbabwe. The World Bank considers 122 countries to be better places to do business than Russia. One of those countries is Georgia, which the World Bank ranks as the 12th best country to do business. In other words, isn't it true in the Magnitsky case, it is what has been taking place all across Russia, including this incredible story of Khodorkovsky, who was one of the wealthiest men in Russia, one of the wealthiest oligarchs who rebelled against this corruption because he saw the long-term consequences of this kind of corruption and was brought to trial, convicted, and then, when his sentence was completed, they charged him again? Talk about a corrupt system, isn't it true that Vladimir Putin said he should ``sit in jail,'' and we now know that the whole trial was rigged, as revealed by people who were part of the whole trial? In other words, isn't it true, I would ask my friend from Maryland, that what we are talking about is one human tragedy, but it is a tragedy that is unfolding throughout Russia that we do not really have any knowledge of? And if we allow this kind of abuse to go on unresponded to, then, obviously, we are abrogating our responsibilities to the world; isn't that true? Mr. CARDIN. I say to Senator McCain, you are absolutely right. This is not isolated. Magnitsky is not an isolated case of a lawyer doing his job on behalf of a client and being abused by the authorities. We have a lot of examples of lawyers trying to do their jobs and being intimidated and their rights violated. But in Mr. Khodorkovsy's case, we have a business leader who was treated the same way just because he was a successful business leader. Even worse, he happened to be an opponent of the powers in the Kremlin. So we are now seeing, in Russia, where they want to quell opposition by arresting people who are just speaking their minds, doing their business legally, putting them in prison, trying them, and in the Khodorkovsky case actually increasing their sentences the more they speak out against the regime. That is how authoritarian they want to be and how oppressive they are to human rights. But I could go further. If one is a journalist in Russia, and they try to do any form of independent journalism, they are in danger of being beaten, being imprisoned, being murdered. It is very intimidating. The list goes on and on. Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask my colleague, what implications, if any, does the Senator from Maryland believe this should have on the Russian entry into the World Trade Organization? Mr. CARDIN. Well, it is very interesting, I say to Senator McCain. I just came from a Senate Finance Committee hearing, and we were talking about a free-trade agreement. I am for free-trade agreements. I think it makes sense. It is funny, when a country wants to do trade with the United States, they all of a sudden understand they have to look at their human rights issues. I think all of us would like to see Russia part of the international trade community. I would like to see Russia, which is already a member of a lot of international organizations, live up to the commitments they have made in joining these international organizations. But it is clear to me that Russia needs to reform. If we are going to have business leaders traveling to Russia in order to do business, I want to make sure they are safe in Russia. I want to make sure they are going to get the protection of the rule of law in Russia. I want to make sure there are basic rights that the businesspeople in Russia and the United States can depend upon. So, yes, I understand that Russia would like to get into the WTO. We have, of course, the Jackson-Vanik amendment that still applies. I understand the origin of that law, and I understand what needs to change in order for Russia to be able to join the World Trade Organization. But I will tell you this: The best thing that Russia can do in order to be able to enter the international trade regime is to clean up its abuses in its own country, to make clear it respects the rule of law; that businesspeople will be protected under the rule of law and certainly not imprisoned and tortured, as in the cases of Mr. Khodorkovsky and Mr. Magnitsky . We do not want to see that type of conduct. If Russia would do that, if they would reform their systems, then I think we would be a long way toward that type of integration and trade. Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague from Maryland for an eloquent statement about the situation as regards Russia. I thank him, and I can assure my colleague from Maryland that, as we speak, this will provide--and this legislation which he has introduced, will provide--some encouragement to people who in Russia now, in some cases, have lost almost all hope because of the corruption of the judicial system, as well as other aspects of the Russian nation. We all know that no democracy can function without the rule of law; and if there are ever two examples of the corruption of the rule of law, it is the tragedy of Sergei Magnitsky and, of course, Mr. Khodorkovsky, who still languishes in prison; who, in his words, believes he--by the extension of his prison sentence--may have been given a death sentence. So I thank my colleague from Maryland. Mr. CARDIN. Will my colleague yield for just one final comment? I think the Senator is right on target as to what he has said. I appreciate the Senator bringing this to the attention of our colleagues in the Senate. I will respond to one other point because I am sure my colleague heard this. Some Russian officials say: Why are we concerned with the internal affairs of another country? I just want to remind these Russian officials, I want to remind my colleagues here, that Russia has signed on to the Helsinki Final Act. They did that in 1975, and they have agreed to the consensus document that was issued in Moscow in 1991 and reaffirmed just last year with the heads of state meeting in Astana, Kazakhstan, just this past December. I am going to quote from that document: The participating States-- Which Russia is a 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 declared that the commitments undertaken in the field of the human dimension are matters of direct and legitimate concern to all participating States-- The United States is a participating state-- and do not belong exclusively to the internal affairs of the State concerned. Mr. McCAIN. That was a statement by the Government of Russia? Mr. CARDIN. That was a statement made by the 56 states of the OSCE at a meeting of the Heads of State, which happens about every 10 years. It just happened to have happened last year. Russia participated in drafting this statement. Russia was there, signed on to it, and said: We agree on this. It is a reaffirmation as to what they agreed to in 1991 in Moscow where we acknowledged that it is of international interest, and we have an obligation and right to question when a member state violates those basic human dimension commitments. Russia clearly has done that. We have not only the right but the obligation to raise that, and I just wanted to underscore that to my colleagues. I say to Senator McCain, your comments on the Senate floor are so much on point. I think people understand it. They understand the basic human aspect to this. But sometimes they ask: Well, why should America be concerned? Do we have a legitimate right to question this? Russia signed the document that acknowledges our right to challenge this and raise these issues. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague from Maryland, and I hope we would get, very rapidly, another 98 cosponsors. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.  

  • The OSCE as a Model for the Middle East

    For video of this speech, please click here. Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, we have all watched in awe during the past weeks as the unquenchable desire for liberty and human dignity has inspired the people of the Middle East to lift themselves from oppression and move their country toward a new dawn. Sadly, we now also watch in horror the brutality of Colonel Qadhafi, who murders his own people as he clings to power. I join President Obama in calling for Colonel Qadhafi to leave Libya immediately and support our efforts, in concert with the international community, to help the Libyan people. What happens next? No one knows. I certainly do not have the answer. I pray that peace and stability come quickly to Libya and hope the people of Egypt and Tunisia make swift and concrete progress in establishing democratic institutions and the rule of law. While each country in the region must find its own path in this journey, I would suggest the international community currently has a process in place that can serve as a way forward for the countries in the Middle East and North Africa in establishing a more democratic process, that guarantees free elections and free speech. I am referring to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe , the OSCE. The OSCE traces its origins to the signing of the Helsinki Accords in 1975, and for more than 35 years has helped bridge the chasm between Eastern and Western Europe and Central Asia, by ensuring both military security for member countries and the inalienable human rights of its citizens. There are three baskets in OSCE. One basket deals with human rights because it is critically important that the countries respect the rights of their citizens. Another basket deals with security because you cannot have human rights unless you have a secured country that protects the security of its people. The third basket deals with economics and environment because you cannot have a secure country and you cannot have human rights unless there is economic opportunity for your citizens and you respect the environment in which we live. The three baskets are brought together. In the United States, the Congress created the U.S. Helsinki Commission that monitors and encourages compliance by the member states in the OSCE. I am privileged to serve as the Senate chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, and I represent our Commission on most of these issues. Today Egypt and Tunisia, along with Algeria, Israel, Jordan, and Morocco, are active Mediterranean partners within the OSCE and have made a commitment to work toward the principles of the organization. In 1975, the Helsinki Final Act recognized that security in Europe is closely linked with security in the Mediterranean and created this special partnership between the signatory states and the countries in the Mediterranean as a way to improve relations and work toward peace in the region. Libya was an original partner in this endeavor but, regrettably--and , in my view, to its detriment--ultimately, turned its back on the organization. More recently, the U.S. Helsinki Commission has made the Mediterranean partnership a priority on our agenda. Parliamentary assembly meetings have taken place in which all of the member states were present, including our partners, and we have had sidebar events to encourage the strengthening of the relationship between our Mediterranean partners for more cooperation to deal with human rights issues, to deal with free and fair elections, to deal with their economic and environmental needs, including trade among the Mediterranean partners and , yes, to deal with security issues to make sure the countries and the people who live there are safe. A Helsinki-like process for the Middle East could provide a pathway for establishing human rights, peace, and stability in Egypt, Tunisia, and other countries in the region. As a member of the Helsinki Commission since 1993, I have discussed the possibility of a Helsinki-like process for the region with Middle Eastern leaders, a process that could result in a more open, democratic society with a free press and fair elections. The Helsinki process, now embodied in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe , bases relations between countries on the core principles of security , cooperation , and respect for human rights. These principles are implemented by procedures that establish equality among all the member states through a consensus-based decisionmaking process, open dialog, regular review of commitments, and engagement with civil society. We have seen the Helsinki process work before in a region that has gone through generations without personal freedom or human rights. Countries that had been repressed under the totalitarian regime of the Soviet Union are now global leaders in democracy, human rights, and freedom. One need only look as far as the thriving Baltic countries to see what the Middle East could aspire to. Lithuania now chairs both the OSCE and the Community of Democracies. Estonia has just joined the Unified European common currency, and Latvia has shown a commitment to shared values as a strong new member of the NATO alliance. Enshrined among the Helskini Accord's 10 guiding principles is a commitment to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including free speech and peaceful assembly. The Helsinki process is committed to the full participation of civil society. These aspects of the Helsinki process--political dialog and public participation--are critical in the Middle East, and we have watched these principles in action today in Egypt and Tunisia. The principles contained in the Helsinki Accords have proven their worth over three decades. These principles take on increasing importance as the people of the Middle East demand accountability from their leaders. Whether the countries of the region choose to create their own conference for security and cooperation or, as some have suggested, the current OSCE Mediterranean partners and their neighbors seek full membership in the OSCE, I believe such an endeavor could offer a path for governments in the region to establish human rights, establish a free press, and institute fair elections. Finally, as the citizens of both Tunisia and Egypt demand more freedom, I urge both countries to permit domestic and international observers to participate in any electoral process. The OSCE and its parliamentary assembly have extensive experience in assessing and monitoring elections and could serve as an impartial observer as both countries work to meet the demands of openness and freedom of their citizens. The election monitoring which takes place within the OSCE states is a common occurrence. During our midterm elections, there were OSCE observers in the United States. So they are present in most of the OSCE states because we find this a helpful way to make sure we are doing everything we can to have an open and fair election system. Free and fair elections are critical, but they must be built upon by the strengthening of democratic institutions and the rule of law. I believe the principles contained in the Helsinki Accords have a proven track record and could help guide this process. With that, I yield the floor.

  • A Decade Later: Major Challenges Remain in Fight Against Human Trafficking

    This year marks important milestones in the fight against human trafficking—the tenth anniversary of : • the Palermo Protocol to prevent, suppress, and punish trafficking in persons especially woman and children; and • the enactment of the U.S. Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TPVA), which I authored in 2000. • And according to Dr. Maria Grazia Giammarinaro, over the past ten years, “52 of the 56 OSCE participating states have integrated anti-trafficking legislation into their national legal framework… .” The twenty articles of the Palermo Protocol, which supplemented the UN Convention against transnational organized crime, provided nations a blueprint for comprehensive and effective action against human trafficking. The Protocol’s definitions of what constitutes trafficking and prescribed actions for state parties has helped ensure uniformity of response to modern day slavery. The Protocol remains one of the UN’s finest and most enduring accomplishments. When I first introduced the Trafficking Victims Protection Act in 1998, the legislation was met with a wall of skepticism and opposition. Many people both inside of government and out thought our bold new strategy that included asylum, sheltering and other protections for the victims, long jail sentences for the traffickers as well as confiscation of their assets and tough sanctions for governments that failed to meet minimum standards were merely solutions in search of a problem. Oh, how they were wrong. Similarly, when I sponsored the first supplementary item on human trafficking a year later in 1999 at the Parliamentary Assembly in St. Petersburg, Russia, some lawmakers told me that they thought the resolution unnecessary and a waste of time. For most people at that time, the term trafficking usually applied to illicit drugs. For others it meant weapons—or both. Reports of growing numbers of vulnerable persons—especially women and children—being reduced to commodities for sale was often met with surprise, incredulity or indifference. At home, it took two years to overcome the opponents and skeptics and muster the votes for passage in the U.S. House and Senate. The TPVA became law on October 28, 2000—ten years ago this month. One TPVA provision requires the US Government to do a detailed assessment of every nation including the United States—the annual TIP Report. In order to measure progress or the lack thereof, serious objective criteria—minimum standards—were established. The TPVA established three tier rankings, and a watch list. • Tier 1: governments that fully comply with the minimum anti-trafficking standards; • Tier 2: countries that do not fully comply with the minimum standards but are making significant efforts to do so; and • Tier 3: countries that do not fully comply with minimum standards and are not making significant efforts to do so. Bosnia is perhaps the best example of progress: a Tier 3 country in 2001, today Bosnia in now Tier 1. Georgia also moved from Tier 3 to Tier 1. There are many OSCE countries on the Watch List, however, including Azerbaijan, Moldova, Malta, Russia, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. I would note that Malta has recently taken the step of naming a “Czar” to fight trafficking in persons. In the past decade, we have seen progress in combating human trafficking on a number of fronts, especially in victim identification. In 2008, over 8,900 victims were identified in the OSCE region excluding the United States and Canada. In 2009, over 14,650 victims were identified plus an additional 1,700 in the US. Clearly, we are all getting better at finding and assisting victims. Albania and Montenegro are to be especially congratulated for their progress in victim identification—much of that progress is due to education and awareness. On another important front, however, I am concerned that prosecutions in the OSCE region have declined from a high of 3,270 in 2005 to 2,208 in 2009. Which begs the question: why the drop? Could it be that we are winning and the tide is turning? Or have the traffickers become savvier at eluding law enforcement or gone deeper underground? Or have prosecutors simply begun to de-prioritize human trafficking cases? I believe that In each of our countries, we need to be ramping up prosecutions, with the aim of not just mitigating but ending modern day slavery. Notwithstanding the fact that many of our countries have enacted tougher penalties for the crime of trafficking, convictions of traffickers—around 1,700-1,900 a year—have not increased over the last five years. We need to ask why? As lawmakers with oversight responsibilities, we need to make serious inquiries as to why the numbers of human trafficking prosecutions are diminishing. And why convictions have ebbed? Each of us must ensure that our countries devote sufficient priority—the highest priority—and the requisite financial resources and legal talent to aggressively prosecute traffickers. And we must also ensure that the various government and civil sectors dealing with trafficking are communicating with each other. U.S. funding for anti-trafficking efforts abroad have brought together labor inspectors, police, prosecutors, NGOs and faith-based organizations. Yet, the top ranking trafficking official in the United States has told me that, in some countries, people from these sectors have never even met. As Special Representative on Human Trafficking for the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, I offered a supplemental resolution in Oslo entitled “Combating Demand for Human Trafficking and Electronic Forms of Exploitation,” to build on recent accomplishments. The resolution focused in part on best practices designed to root out misuse of the Internet for human trafficking and child pornography. Some of these best practices include: • Digital tagging of adult sections of websites; • community flagging of website postings reasonably believed to be advertising a trafficking or child pornography victim; • use of manual and regularly updated electronic screening for criminal postings; • telephone and credit card verification on all posts, which enables the website to block from use a person who has previously posted a trafficking or child pornography victim; • Trafficking and child pornography reporting hotlines; and an ongoing dialogue with law enforcement. Tragically, the internet has opened a whole new front in the war with human traffickers—enabling and encouraging demand with few obstacles. We must develop appropriate safeguards to ensure that freedom of speech does not become freedom to exploit and abuse. And we must demand that corporations act responsibly and cease all facilitation of trafficking. I am happy to report that, as of September 3, Craigslist—a free advertising website—is no longer operating its “adult services” page in the United States. Public outrage, investigative reports in the media, requests from law enforcement, and damning testimony from young girls who had been trafficked on Craigslist—all had an impact. Sex tourism is an escalating threat to the children of every country. The supplemental resolution adopted in Oslo underscores the importance of enhanced international cooperation to monitor the travel of convicted sex offenders. In the U.S. Congress, I have sponsored a new bill—the International Megan’s Law—that has passed the House and is pending in the Senate. The bill provides notification to a government when a convicted U.S. sex offender, who poses a real danger to children, is planning to visit that country. Similarly, the legislation encourages other governments to establish a domestic registry of dangerous child sex offenders and to notify the U.S. when a convicted child sex offender plans to travel to the United States. Another best practice that can be implemented immediately includes training airline flight attendants and others in the tourist industry to spot potential trafficking victims. This past summer, I hosted a congressional briefing with The Airline Ambassadors International’s Child Trafficking Initiative—spearheaded by American Airlines—and an NGO called Innocents at Risk. The briefing focused on the critical role flight attendants can play in indentifying trafficking victims on airplanes. With a modest amount of training and situational awareness, flight crews are already helping law enforcement rescue trafficking victims and arrest their predators. This past week, a follow-up meeting was held in Washington for embassy officials from several countries including OSCE nations—Portugal, Greece, Macedonia, Italy, Malta, Belgium, Ukraine, Bosnia Herzegovina, and Kazakhstan sent representatives. The flight attendants shared numerous stories of their own experience—highlighting how awareness of the signs of human trafficking and a phone call to police, in advance of landing, can literally save someone’s life. Air France is to be commended for running public service announcements on trafficking and encouraging passengers to keep an eye out for potential victims. We must encourage every airline in our respective countries to implement—without delay or excuse—The Airline Ambassadors Child Trafficking Initiative. In sum, a decade later, much has been accomplished—acts of human trafficking have been prevented, victims rescued and protected, and traffickers prosecuted and thrown into jail. Major challenges, however, remain. It falls to us—and like-minded people everywhere—to meet those challenges head on and wage an unceasing campaign to eradicate human trafficking from the face of the earth.

  • Statement to the Plenary Session of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly

    Mr. President, the record shows that most OSCE states have made progress—some very significant progress—in combating the scourge of human trafficking. Prosecution and conviction of traffickers has increased as has victim identification. Still, we need to do more to rescue and more tangibly assist victims—especially women and children. Part of my supplemental item, approved by the General Committee on Democracy, Human Rights and Humanitarian Questions, calls on States to encourage airlines—including and especially flight attendants—to be trained to detect trafficking victims in-flight and inform law enforcement prior to landing. This best practice is taking off-- the “Airline Partners Against Human Trafficking” program by Airline Ambassadors is being adopted by major U.S. airlines and will rescue many women and children. This must be replicated in all of our participating States. Second, maternal mortality can and must be reduced by expanding emergency obstetrical care with an emphasis on skilled birth attendants to perform cesarean sections and equipped with medicines to stop hemorrhaging as well as safe blood and antibiotics to save women’s lives. Mr. President, maternal care and prenatal care are closely linked and we must care and show compassion for both mother and unborn child. I am greatly encouraged that the Committee adopted my amendment calling on States to recognize and support the enormous opportunities available today to diagnose and treat an ever-growing number of diseases and disabilities in unborn children—diseases and disabilities that can be cured or mitigated by timely intervention. When sick, the unborn child, like every other child, is a medical patient, in need of a blood transfusion, medicines that cure and even microsurgery. Wellness begins in the womb. The healthier the unborn child, the healthier the 1, 2, 5 and 10 year old. Thank you.  

  • United Nations Forum on Minority Issues - Geneva, Switzerland

    Good afternoon. I am Congressman Alcee Hastings from the United States. I am honored to be here today with a number of my colleagues from the US Congress, including the Chair of this Forum - Congresswoman Barbara Lee. I am pleased that this week’s event offers the opportunity for us to work together in the international arena on an issue of great importance - minority political participation. I am pleased that the Independent Expert on Minority Issues, Gay McDougall invited me to present on a minority political participation effort I recently initiated that I believe will be useful for today’s discussion in developing recommendations for this forum’s final document. As the Chair and co-Chair the US Helsinki Commission over the past few years, I have been tasked with the responsibility of monitoring and supporting 56 European and North American countries’ efforts to uphold the Helsinki Accords and related commitments, including fostering equal rights and combating intolerance and discrimination. A series of hearings we held in the US Congress on these issues including existing inequalities and discrimination faced by Black Europeans and other visible minorities throughout the OSCE, led to a call for action. Instrumental to those hearings were the testimonies of UN representatives Gay McDougall and Joe Frans that assisted in identifying patterns of concern in the OSCE region. Following those hearings, I introduced the first US bill calling for transatlantic government partnerships to combat racism and discrimination and partnered with UN Working Group of People of African descent head Joe Frans and current and former EU Parliamentarians Harlem Desir, Claude Moraes, and Glyn Ford to begin an initiative that would support the needed involvement of minorities in the policymaking arenas to effectively address these issues. I’m happy to see a number of my colleagues here today. The resulting event was the “Black European Summit: Transatlantic Dialogue on Political Participation.” The Summit took place over two days in April (15-16) at the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium. For the first time a small group of political and intellectual minority leaders from more than ten countries exchanged information on barriers to political participation and the roles of minority policymakers in representing minority interests, including promoting equal rights in the United States and Europe. Following the event, participants adopted the Brussels Declaration which addressed the importance of and strategies for increasing racial and ethnic minority political participation. Materials on each of these initiatives have been made available today. What did we learn? Whether a Parliamentarian, Mayor, or City Counselor, we had much in common. First, the majority of our political and legal systems do not accurately reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of our societies. Second, we have often not been sufficiently included in the development and/or implementation of government policies, even when the stated goal was to combat racism and discrimination. Third, institutionalized processes are often at fault, yet, despite stated commitments to democracy, there continues to be a lack of political will from government, political parties and other actors to include us. Fourth, the lack of political knowledge of our communities often made it difficult to garner the necessary support to effectively address these issues. We noted that often times, political participation was defined as whether minorities had the right to vote or be elected. While this is one aspect of participation, there are many others. Policymaking via obtaining positions in the government and/or with political parties, grassroots advocacy, and an understanding of the political process such as how laws are drafted are also of great importance. We discussed simple solutions governments, political parties, and non-governmental organizations can employ such as advertising employment opportunities in minority communities, requiring that at least a percentage of persons interviewed for a position are minorities, and providing minority fellowships and internships for teenagers and college students in Parliament, government agencies, and other organizations are initial steps. Financing degrees for minorities in relevant fields such as law, international relations, political science, or even economics is another. Tapping minorities in the private sector for public-private policy initiatives such as the development of energy and trade policies are also necessary. We determined that government agencies, parliamentarians, and other government officials can also foster strong relationships with minority communities through educational information sessions on political rights and even regular face to face meetings that allow minorities to be in on the decision-making of policies that impact them. This could be small regular monthly meetings or even town hall sessions. The need for increased support for minorities currently in political careers was deemed essential. Mentorship opportunities for current elected officials and those seeking elections, establishing support networks such as our Congressional Black Caucus, and having procedures in place to address workplace discrimination were noted. In discussing the realm of possible solutions, we agreed to make the initial Summit an annual event and to continue the dialogue. Moving forward we plan to address the following issues, which are also detailed in the final Brussels Declaration: 1. Political education for minority communities, including advocacy, 2. The development of physical and electronic support networks for minority elected officials, 3. Youth and community outreach, including the development of targeted professional development and hiring strategies in the political arena, and 4. Opportunities for self-organization and other empowerment initiatives. Importantly, we believe these efforts must be applied to all levels of national, regional, and local government to ensure that our societies are fully participatory. In the interest of time, I will conclude here. I would urge that many of the concrete steps I detailed be included in the Final Document of this forum. I look forward to answering any questions regarding the Summit, US initiatives, and other thoughts on concrete strategies regarding minority political participation during the discussion. Thank you.

  • Senator Brownback Remarks at "Where the Walls Still Stand," 20th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall

    Distinguished ambassadors, fellow members of the Commission, and honored guests, thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. This solemn and uplifting anniversary gives us all a chance to reflect on one of the clearest examples in human history of the triumph of freedom over tyranny. Since for many people, personal recollection can be the most meaningful part of reflection, allow me to share my story with all of you. … But as much as this event commemorates a single moment in time, its lesson still echoes throughout the world. In the darkest corners of the world, where our fellow brothers and sisters in humanity face new walls and new challenges, the oppressed can take comfort in today’s ceremony. For today we see honor what President Reagan called “the one great and inescapable conclusion: that freedom leads to prosperity. That freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. And that freedom is the victor.” However, remembrance alone cannot serve as the limit of our obligations today. As we celebrate twenty years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, we must also rededicate ourselves to tearing down those walls that remain standing and the new walls being erected in the 21st Century. Of those that still stand, held over from the days of the Soviet Union and spread beyond its borders, no wall does greater damage to the spirit of the individual than the oppressive wall against faith—a wall that, unfortunately, is rampant throughout many authoritarian states. In China, North Korea, Iran, Vietnam, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and beyond, authoritarian governments still fear religion as a challenge to their grip on power. It matters not that some of these governments have implemented economic reforms, built sky-scrapers, or paved new roads. As long as citizens are denied the freedom to believe and to worship as they see fit, they will still be imprisoned in their own minds and held back from their full potential. We must pledge to eradicate this tyranny wherever we find it. We must free all prisoners of conscience, not only for the sake of the oppressed, but for ours as well. Faith is one front on which we must engage; truth is the other. We must confront the growing assault on truth by authoritarian regimes. Looking at the newest wall against liberty—the cyber-wall used to censor and punish voices of truth and information—we face a formidable challenge. For while no regime anywhere can stifle the human spirit, regimes can try to blot out pieces of history from the minds of its next generation. For example, there is no inherent ability of a human being to know about the brave democratic uprising at Tiananmen Square unless he or she learns about it. The Chinese government has gone to great lengths to wipe this event from the record. But as individual information exchanges become effortless through fiber and wireless communication, the Chinese government, indeed all authoritarian regimes, must devote ever more resources to maintain their electronic wall. In Iran this past summer, the real battle took place—and is still taking place—on blogs, Facebook, and Twitter as Iranians struggle to tell their story while the regime desperately tries to block access to the Internet. The same was true for the Burmese opposition in 2007, where the junta struggled to contain the fallout from its bloody crackdown. Before that, text messaging played a crucial role in the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. One thing is clear: while physical brutality will always be a tool of oppressors, the tyranny of today and tomorrow will be measured by the extent to which tyrants censor and suppress access to electronic information. As the next generation inherits a globally and instantly connected planet, the struggle for liberty will be waged with fiber optics as much as with firepower. By resolving to help citizens combat censorship, we will ensure that the more the oppressed see and understand the real nature of their regime, and the more they share with the outside world, the more power they will have to determine their own future. As we commemorate this twentieth anniversary of the breaking of the Berlin Wall, we must gather our strength and commit ourselves to finding ways to tear down all the walls of the 21st Century. Our duty is to scale these walls wherever we find them. Our mission is to make freedom of conscience and free access to information universal. Our work did not end twenty years ago, and it does not end today. Today we dedicate ourselves to a new and hopeful beginning, to see a more peaceful and prosperous future.  

  • Co-Chairman Hastings Remarks at "Where Walls Still Stand," 20th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall

    Thank you, Chairman Cardin. And thank you all for being here. Standing here today with this concrete icon before us, the images and lessons of history are inescapable. From the guard tower where officers had shoot-to-kill orders for anybody trying to escape the East -- to the stark contrast in coloring on either side of this barrier, the fall of the Berlin Wall is truly one of the finest chapters in freedom’s story. A few inches of concrete formed the line between a world of free expression and one of repression. And now, 20 years later, it stands as a bold testament to the fact that a people empowered to express themselves cannot be contained, the march of freedom cannot be stopped. Seeing the liberation that took place in November 1989 resonated with me personally. In my lifetime I’ve faced my share of walls – the walls of a segregated South, the walls of lingering racism and discrimination. But I overcame Jim Crow’s walls to be Florida’s first African-American federal judge and then its first African-American in Congress since the post-Civil War era. And I stand here today, in this same building amid the ballot box that brought democracy to a land of apartheid; bombed out signs from sniper alley where journalists covered Europe’s worst massacre since World War II; and here by the largest piece of the Berlin Wall outside of Germany – to remind us of how far we have come, and the work that remains to uphold the dignity of all, regardless of their background. I am happy to see that as of last month we have a new assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor in Michael Posner. But I’m disappointed that this position was filled at the slowest pace in 28 years, and this administration has still not yet nominated an ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. For a president who so strongly supports international engagement and reinvigorating multilateral institutions, I expected better. I know it is early and the agenda is long, but I hope we will have an ambassador nominated by year’s end. The events of 1989 showed the power of civil society to spur change through the exercise of fundamental freedoms of expression, assembly, association and movement. And because of the collapse of the Berlin Wall, we now live in a very different and better world. And while personal and political freedoms have greatly expanded throughout the OSCE region over the last two decades, some countries continue to limit these basic rights. In particular, I am concerned about backsliding of a free press and places where political and ethnic minorities are blocked from participating in civic life. Across Eastern Europe and Central Asia, press freedom is too often lacking. Discussing the region recently, the OSCE representative on freedom of the media Miklos Haraszti was direct: “The iron curtain is still there.” As long as journalists face unjust fines and penalties designed to literally halt the presses, the press is not free. And if journalists continue to see their colleagues kidnapped, beaten, or killed with no sincere pursuit of the criminals – the press is not free. Our politics can get nasty in this country, but you never see anybody thrown in jail just for running against an incumbent. Today, in too many places, we still see rampant political repression, perversions of the electoral process, and scare tactics used to marginalize those who simply seek to add a new voice to their country’s governing process. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, we’ve seen new walls erected. Right now, Russia is building a virtual wall in what is internationally recognized as Georgian territory, escalating its effective annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Elsewhere walls are isolating minorities, and -- even here –keeping out immigrants. I’ve never been convinced that fences make good neighbors, and for a world endeavoring to lift up its people, walls are hardly a sign of progress. The success of nationalistic parties, which campaigned on messages of hate in this year’s European Parliamentary elections, concerns me. The violence and systemic exclusion of Roma is nothing short of scandalous. Don’t get me wrong – historic progress has been made. But we are not done. And our country has much work to do as well. For our country to advance freedom around the globe, we know we must advance it here. This wall did not come down so that we could build new barriers. And those who fought for freedom in the East did not struggle so that their sons and daughters would have to take up their fight anew. We at the Helsinki Commission pride ourselves on giving voice to the voiceless, providing a forum for human rights defenders who often lack even the slightest megaphone for their cause. But like the activists and artists who painted this wall calling for the people to rise up so communism could fall -- we too know something about people power. We know a community galvanized for good, fighting for freedom cannot be stopped. And wherever such defenders of liberty rise up, we will stand up to join them. Through your words and through your work, I know you will be with them as well. Thank you.

  • Former Chairman Hoyer Remarks at "Where Walls Still Stand," 20th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall

    In late 1988, when I chaired the Helsinki Commission, I listened in a dining room in Moscow filled with American and Soviet officials, as a Russian dissident named Lev Timofeyev stood and proposed a toast. Not two years before, he was chopping lumber in a forced-labor camp in the Ural Mountains. Now he was home, and he raised his glass that night to the immediate freedom of “all those people whom we are accustomed to call political prisoners.” We Americans drank to that, but the Soviets refused to touch their glasses. An uncomfortable moment passed until the editor of the government paper rose to speak on their behalf. He said: “If we are talking about innocent people who were falsely convicted—well, I can support that.” And the Soviets drank, as well. I don’t want to overstate the gravity of that moment. The distance across that table lay between those who believed that every political prisoner is innocent, and those who believed that some words and some thoughts were worth prison. Neither side won over the other that night. But the editor of the state paper made an important concession: that some prisoners had been unjustly convicted; that there was such a thing as an innocent man in a labor camp; that innocence itself mattered. And from the regime behind the purges and the show trials and the Gulag—from the regime that gave terrifying meaning to the word “disappear”—those words truly carried weight. The fall of the Soviet empire—and the fall of this Wall—was to a great extent the result of such small concessions, piled up bit by bit, and of the brave men and women who elicited them and called the empire to account for them. When the Soviet regime signed the Helsinki Accords in 1975, its leaders believed that they had scored a great diplomatic coup, and that the provisions committing them to respect human rights and freedom of conscience would be an afterthought, easily ignored. But inside the Soviet bloc, they were not ignored. They became a rallying cry for those with the bravery to push their masters to live by what they had signed, from the Russian dissident movement, to Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia, to Solidarity in Poland, to heroic men and women like Andrei Sakharov, Elena Bonner, Natan Sharansky, and Vaclav Havel. As Havel said to a joint session of Congress: “We knew a great deal about the enormous number of growing problems that slumbered beneath the honeyed, unchanging mask of socialism. But I don’t think any of us knew how little it would take for these problems to manifest themselves in all their enormity, and for the longings of these nations to emerge in all their strength.” The Helsinki Accords were central to that awakening. The historian John Lewis Gaddis observed: the Helsinki Accords “meant that the people living under [communist] systems—at least the most courageous—could claim official permission to say what they thought.” And when that permission was denied, those men and women could point to the signatures of Leonid Brezhnev of the Soviet Union and Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania and Erich Honecker of East Germany, and all the heads of state of the Soviet Bloc, promising otherwise. In my work with the Helsinki Commission, it was my privilege to add my voice to that great calling to account: to press for a halt to ethnic oppression in Bulgaria, or to speak for the freedom of worship and of movement in Russia, or to plead for the freedom of Ambassador Bota from prison and execution in Ceausescu’s Romania. And it was my joy to watch with the world as this Wall eroded and then crumbled away. In this Wall—whose exuberant graffiti and blank concrete face sum up the terms of the struggle so well—we saw communism die as an ideal before its body died. Those who were forced to set up this Wall had promised so much—equality, plenty, brotherhood. But they delivered only what Orwell called the prospect of “a boot stamping on a human face, forever.” They called themselves revolutionaries, but they acted out one of the oldest human urges: the urge to dominate our fellow humans. In this Wall, we saw a system that could entrap, but not entice. When it stood, this Wall stood for the division of Europe; but in the battle of ideas, it was also the gray flag of surrender. Now it is in pieces, and I am proud to own a small one. But though the destruction of this Wall, by cranes and by young men and women with hammers and chisels, was one of the most joyous images of our time, let us remember the darker side of the picture. In the fragmentation of this Wall, let us remind ourselves of the oppression diffused across our world—no longer summed up in as potent a symbol, or as easy a target, but every bit as deadly. Part of this Wall is in Rangoon, where Aung San Suu Kyi sits under house arrest. Part of this Wall is in Pyongyang, where schoolchildren are forced to memorize songs in praise of the “Dear Leader.” Part of this Wall is in Beijing, where young students cannot use the Internet to discover what happened in Tiananmen Square on June 4th, 1989. Part of this Wall is in Afghanistan, where girls were attacked in the face with acid for the crime of wanting an education. Part of this Wall is in Saudi Arabia, where men were beheaded for the crime of being gay. Part of this Wall is in the hearts and minds of terrorists who imprison their own people behind vengeance and violence. Part of this Wall is in Darfur, where millions have been subjected to dispossession, rape, or genocide. Part of this Wall is in Tehran, where Neda Agha-Soltan was shot in the heart for daring to ask: “Where is My Vote?” And part of this Wall, as Dante observed, is in the reality of good men doing nothing in the face of evil. Part of this Wall is here in America, to remind us to keep faith with those shut behind each wall. On this anniversary, we pledge again to keep that faith—and to remember that each wall, no matter how tall or fearsome, is ultimately an act of surrender, an admission of bankrupt promises. Just as we did 20 years ago, we add our voices to the great calling to account, with faith that our voices will be heard; that those walls will shake and one day fall. We keep that faith because, in the words of Bobby Kennedy: “Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.” Let us renew our commitment to stand up for our ideals, to speak out against injustice, to improve the lot of others, and to sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.

  • The Trouble with the Recent Iranian Elections

    Mr. President, as Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, which has had decades of experience monitoring election and promoting democracy and human rights, I would like to take this moment to speak on a troubling matter that has filled headlines around the world in the last few days. We have all seen the images. Violence and mass protests are erupting across Iran following the hasty vote count of a deeply flawed presidential election process in that country. Yet another unfortunate chapter is unfolding before our eyes that reinforces Iran’s record as a police state and totalitarian regime more concerned with keeping its tight grip on power than yielding to the will of the people. I stand with President Obama calling for the government to exercise restraint and the violence to end. Regrettably, at least seven people have been killed and countless others injured. We may never know the true results of this election, given the lack of international monitoring. But what we do know is that in the last few days we have witnessed tens of thousands of Iranians raise their voice in protest to ensure that their vote meant something. On Friday, voters in Iran lined up in unprecedented numbers to choose their next president. I, like many others, was dismayed on Saturday to hear the ruling clerics rush to announce that Ahmadinejad had won re-election by a large margin. Regardless of the limited official scope of his duties, President Ahmadinejad’s consistent pattern of noxious remarks and his belligerent attitude inject understandable tension around the Middle East and beyond. He has used the presidential podium to instigate conflict with the international community, pursue acquisition of nuclear weapons, and spew hatred and intolerance toward Israel and the United States. I cannot say and will not say what could have been or should have been if any other candidate was elected, but there is no doubt whatsoever as to Ahmadinejad’s unfitness as a leader. Equally troubling were the almost immediate reports coming from Tehran and elsewhere around Iran that there were deep flaws in this election. Elections do not equal democracy, nor do they guarantee that the will of the people will be reflected in their government. But this was not a free and fair election from the start. In Iranian Presidential elections, only a select group of candidates approved by a 12-person Council of Guardians are eligible to run. The Iranian regime, headed by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei continues to severely restrict civil liberties including freedom of speech, expression, assembly, and association. Freedom to discuss ideas without threat of oppression is a fundamental human right that is essential to a government truly reflecting the will of its people. This freedom is absent in Iran. Typically, Iranian elections and public expressions are carefully monitored and manipulated by the ruling regime to prevent challenges to their authority. The last few days we have seen something different. The tens of thousands of people lining the streets of Tehran – in an incredible rebuttal to the ruling powers – want to know that the votes that they cast are counted properly. The deliberate lack of transparency in the vote tabulation and the blatant attempts to block mass communications among citizens, particularly the youth, are too glaring to ignore. Even the Supreme Leader has been forced to backtrack on his immediate approval of the results and has called for at least the appearance of a recount in some disputed areas. Americans know something about wanting to have their votes counted accurately. The difference between our two nations is when the results of a U.S. election were in dispute, the world spotlight shined bright on the process and the people involved resolved the conflict peacefully. Transparency and openness is not a hallmark of Iranian elections. Even before the presidential election took place, Iran’s totalitarian regime blocked personal communications like texting and access to the Internet. Media have been confined to Tehran, if they haven’t been asked to leave the country. The regime’s ongoing attempts to curtail communication and silence protests – often with brutal force – demonstrate the regime’s fear of losing a grip on power. Allegations of a fraudulent vote count are a symptom of a regime that has survived by mixing select elements of democracy into an authoritarian power structure that oppresses its people. On June 12, the people of Iran did not vote for the Supreme Leader of their country. Under the current system, Khamenei and his supporters will continue to dictate policy to the President of Iran, regardless of who that president is and whatever policy decisions the president is authorized to make. The people of Iran want their voices to be heard and they should be assured that the world is listening. I urge those in power in Iran also to listen and implement the reforms necessary to allow the will of the people to be expressed. I look forward to a future when the people of Iran have an opportunity for a free and fair election of leaders of their choosing. It is my sincere hope that one day this vision will be realized, and the voice of the Iranian people will truly be heard.

  • Remarks by Co-Chairman Cardin at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Meeting

    I’d like to start by welcoming my good friend, Senator Anne-Marie Lizin, who testified before the Helsinki Commission in Washington in June, along with the United States Legal Advisor, John Bellinger, and representatives of leading human rights groups. I thank her for presenting in Washington her report on Guantanamo, prepared for the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. Two weeks ago, officials of the United States, in testimony before Congress, admitted to having waterboarded three specific – and now identified – individuals who are currently at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. If I may speak to this issue for a moment, I’d like to make a few brief points. First, no matter what you may have heard or read to the contrary, waterboarding is torture. In December, I chaired a Helsinki Commission hearing on torture and received testimony from Malcolm Nance. Mr. Nance, a 20-year veteran of the military intelligence community, has performed waterboarding on American soldiers as part of their survival and resistance training, and as part of this training process, he has been waterboarded himself. As someone with firsthand experience with this technique, he was very clear: waterboarding is inhuman, it is degrading, and it is torture. Second, waterboarding – torture – violates the principles of the Helsinki Final Act. In the Helsinki process, all of our countries joined together to condemn torture. I want to quote one particular provision of our common commitments, because I believe it speaks with such singular clarity. In 1989, in the Vienna Concluding Document, the United States – along with all the other participating States – agreed to ensure that “all individuals in detention or incarceration will be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.” There are no exceptions or no loopholes, and this is the standard which the United States is obligated to uphold. As the Convention Against Torture states clearly, torture is prohibited at all times in all places, even during states of war or states of emergency. Moreover, waterboarding violates the doctrinal guidance our military personnel have followed for years. I am hopeful for several reasons that the United States is on the verge of changing its policy on the issue of torture. First, the majority of the Members of Congress reject the President’s views on this matter. Last week Congress enacted the Intelligence Authorization bill for 2008, which requires the intelligence agencies to adopt the Army Field Manual’s restrictions on “enhanced” interrogation techniques. The Army Field Manual complies with U.S. law and our obligations under the Geneva Conventions. The Manual prohibits “acts of violence or intimidation, including physical or mental torture, or exposure to inhumane treatment as a means of or aid to interrogation.” This legislation therefore creates one consistent interrogation policy across both the U.S. military and the Intelligence Community. President Bush has threatened to veto this legislation because of this provision, and Congress will attempt to override his veto. Second, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I can tell you that the issue of torture almost led the Senate to reject the confirmation of President Bush’s latest nomination to be Attorney General of the United States. I voted against the nomination of Michael Mukasey to be the Attorney General. I am disturbed that Judge Mukasey could not bring himself to say that waterboarding is torture. Let us recall that the United States has prosecuted Japanese soldiers for using waterboarding during World War II. During our final panel of witnesses at the confirmation hearing for Michael Mukasey, I asked Admiral John Hutson about this matter. Admiral Hutson is a distinguished and highly decorated military lawyer, and in his capacity as the former Navy Judge Advocate General was the senior uniformed legal advisor to the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations. Admiral Hutson testified, in sum, that the Attorney General as our chief law enforcement officer has to be absolutely unequivocal as to what is torture and what is not torture. We should not even be close to the line of what is torture. Admiral Hutson testified that waterboarding is one of the most iconic examples of torture, and it was devised during the Spanish Inquisition. Its use has been repudiated for centuries. And that is why I voted against confirming our Attorney General. Third, all three of the leading candidates for the office of President in the United States have categorically denounced torture. One way or another, come November, there will be a change, in policy and in practice. Finally, I am hopeful that the next Administration – in contrast to the current Administration – will work with the international community to heed the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that “the United States should engage its friends to develop a common coalition approach toward the detention and humane treatment of captured terrorists. New principles might draw upon Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions on the law of armed conflict. That article was specifically designed for those cases in which the usual laws of war did not apply. Its minimum standards are generally accepted throughout the world as customary international law.” The reality is that the fight against global terrorism is a battle we will be waging for a long time – and we have to get it right. We don’t make ourselves safer by torturing people. I know damage has been done to the moral leadership of the United States. I look forward to working with a new administration to undo that damage, and I will do everything I can to ensure that torture is prohibited in law and in practice, in word and in deed.

  • Rep. Hastings Remarks on "Post-Conflict Reconstruction: Engaging Civil Society in Reform"

    Today, Congressman Alcee L. Hastings (D-FL), Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (U.S. Helsinki Commission), made the following remarks at a conference hosted by the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) entitled Post-Conflict Reconstruction: Engaging Civil Society in Reform: Thank you, John, and thank you for the opportunity to be here with you all today. Helping a country stand on its own two feet after a debilitating conflict is a slow and difficult task. Not only must we tend to the physical reconstruction of buildings, homes and roads, but political institutions must often be re-constructed or created from scratch. The social fabric must also heal. President Kennedy said that, “Peace is a daily, a weekly, a monthly process, gradually changing opinions, slowly eroding old barriers, quietly building new structures.” This is particularly true in the countries that are the subject of this conference, where internal conflict has been the rule not the exception and maintaining peace and building a future is something that happens not state to state but neighbor to neighbor. I have just returned from a trip to Kosovo where I saw some fragile communities and met neighbors who are still living in suspicion and fear. It is clear that Kosovo cannot fully recover from the conflict until its political status is resolved. I support the Ahtisaari plan as the best hope for the minorities in Kosovo and I think the best chance for Kosovo’s future. I am convinced that stability in Kosovo is inextricably linked with the condition of Kosovo’s minorities. And clearly, more attention needs to be given to making conditions for minorities sustainable. These groups need to feel not only physically safe, but feel invested in their future in Kosovo. That includes the ability to make a living, have a home, and raise a family. Giving minorities the protections they need, will contribute to the long-term stability and development of Kosovo. One specific area I learned about on my trip was the need for Kosovar institutions to do more in terms of property restitution and the development of a property rights system. There is work that can be done now, and the resolution of Kosovo’s status will also help in this area. I want to particularly mention some great work that CIPE and its local partners are doing in Kosovo. One of their partners has focused on working with local municipalities in Kosovo, building their capacity for local economic development. By facilitating public-private partnerships on the local level, they are engaging the government and the business community in development of legislation to spur employment, investment, and locally-driven growth. Before I wrap up, let me just speak for a minute about Bosnia. I’ve been to Bosnia six times—both during and immediately after the war. When I traveled there the pictures that kept traveling through my mind were the beautiful scenes from the 1984 Sarajevo Olympics that I watched on television. And when I toured Bosnia it didn’t seem possible that this devastated landscape was once a vibrant international city, and that an Olympic stadium could be the site of a graveyard. In the last 10 years Bosnia has made tremendous progress in restoring its former charm. And I know that is due to the hard work of not just the international community but of the Bosnians themselves. Despite the odds, they put themselves on a path toward not only lasting peace but toward European integration and we all want to see a full commitment to practical reforms in Bosnia that keep them on this path. What I hope this conference today will help address is how Bosnia can maintain this momentum by using increased domestic resources to replace the reduced international financial support. I want to wish you well as you discuss Kosovo and Bosnia as well as Afghanistan and Iraq. The future peace of these regions is dependent not just on sufficient international aid, but in ensuring local civil society is active and invested in the future of their own country. I commend the groups represented here today who are on the front lines of this effort. Thank you for your work and I wish you a successful conference today. About CIPE: is a non-profit affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and one of the four core institutes of the National Endowment for Democracy. CIPE has supported more than 1,000 local initiatives in over 100 developing countries, involving the private sector in policy advocacy and institutional reform, improving governance, and building understanding of market-based democratic systems. www.cipe.org  

  • Remarks at the OSCE Conference on Combating Discrimination and Promoting Mutual Respect and Understanding

    Thank you and good afternoon. I have been on the road the past 2 weeks in Warsaw, Poland, Israel, Ramallah, and in a Roma camp in Kosovo. As many of you know, I am the immediate past President of the OSCE’s Parliamentary Assembly. In that capacity, and as a member of the United States House of Representatives, I have worked with my colleagues in the OSCE PA like Ambassador Strohal and Professor Gert Weisskirchen to help institute a focus on anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance within the OSCE. Today I will tell you a little about my history as an African-American living during the civil rights era and how the United States came to develop some of its tolerance laws. I hope we can all learn from my words how best to tackle the scourge of anti-Semitism, racism and other “-isms” that exists in each of our countries. It was only 40 years ago when “separate but, equal” was a law in the United States and Whites could legally discriminate against blacks and others by having separate facilities. Legally, I, nor any other black person, could sit next to a white person on a bus, eat at the same restaurant, or even use the same restrooms, or drink out of the same water fountains. While facilities were separate as the law required, they were definitely not equal. After years of struggle, I and many others of my generation, standing on our forbearers’ shoulders, created the climate that enabled Congress and then-President Lyndon Johnson to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That groundbreaking law ended legal discrimination in the United States and served as the foundation for other laws; such as the historic Voting Rights Act, which prohibited discriminatory voting practices, and the Fair Housing Act, which prohibited discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. However, the days of colonization and slavery, made it difficult for whites to accept laws now stating that blacks and others should be treated equally. To maintain the status quo, white supremacy groups attacked blacks and their supporters to instil widespread fear in the black community and anyone else calling for change. The Kennedys, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King, Jr. were assassinated. Black churches were burned. But the violence had the unintended effect of bringing Americans together to support civil rights legislation. Americans realized that extending Constitutional rights to some and not all would be the undoing of America. So, in the 80s and 90s, the brutal murders of racial and gender minorities and flames atop the rooftops of churches and synagogues again became a beacon for change. Congress reacted by passing hate crimes laws to collect statistics, impose longer prison sentences, and investigate arsons and rebuild churches and refurbish synagogues that had been decimated. Until the Civil Rights Act in 1964, race and class-based preferential access had been reserved for whites. For example, the U.S. government funded GI bill, predominantly provided free college education and housing assistance to white World War II veterans. And, so called ‘legacy rules’ guaranteed college admission to family members of white alumni. Affirmative action did help make up for the decades of missed opportunities by qualified blacks blocked from attending top universities and upper-level jobs irregardless of their intelligence and skills. Now, while my country may be seen somewhat as a model for tolerance and anti-discrimination laws, I sadly must admit that our work is not yet done. Just last year, the U.S. Congress reimplemented its historic Voting Rights act the right. Those of you watching our presidential elections in 2000 and 2004 may remember the irregularities that prevented thousands of predominantly poor and minority voters from having their votes counted as a result of discriminatory tactics. This was purposeful and has forever altered United States and world history. Our hopes are that in passing these new voting rights laws, Americans will no longer experience discrimination at the voting booth. We are all aware of the OSCE’s unmatched work in election observation that hinges upon the teaming of ODHIR bureaucrats with seasoned elected officials from the PA under the great leadership of my peer Ambassador Strohal. I urge you all to watch our elections, and when the invitation to monitor comes next year… Come. Monitor our elections and see if our laws are being upheld. And I encourage you all to do the same in other OSCE spheres. Just months ago, the U.S. House of Representatives expanded our hate crimes laws to include individuals targeted because of their gender, sexual orientation, or disability. Though controversial, Americans ultimately agreed that there is an obligation to protect not only those with whom we share common characteristics, ideas, or belief systems, but all Americans. Assuring the protection and rights of all has also been a concern in the wake of September 11th for Muslim Americans. Despite a recent survey showing that most Muslims came to America and here in Europe in search of a better way of life, desire to work hard, uphold democratic values, and reject religious extremism, they are now often treated as second class citizens. They question whether European or American dream is still achievable for them, or even truly exists. As an African-American who lived during the Civil Rights era, I, too, have loudly questioned whether the rights enshrined in our United States Constitution applied to me. However, I now understand that the beauty of my country is that it allows for the capacity and space to change our legal and legislative system as time and circumstance dictates. The difficulty is determining whether the time for change is now and what changes should be made. I hope that under the Chairman-in-office’s recommendation, the upcoming conference in Cordoba will raise further awareness about anti-Muslim sentiments and stereotypes throughout the OSCE region. This is a growing problem and anti-Semitism continues to be a problem both of which we must address, whether all of us in this room are willing to admit it or not. There are no overnight solutions. Sustained activity on issues of tolerance and civil rights by introducing new laws when necessary and ensuring implementation are a necessity if we are to keep history from revisiting itself here in the EU, United States, and elsewhere in the world. We cannot forget that only 40 years ago, civil rights legislation in my country was non-existent. And without it, it is safe to say, I would not be standing here today. Places where I was once challenged to vote, restaurants where I was unable to eat... Today’s children are clearly in need of the same and hopefully a better situation than mine. Be they in the United States or elsewhere in the OSCE region. When I see Paris burning, I see the Detroit and LA riots and wonder if affirmative action or other inclusionary laws will follow. Requirements for religious registration in some places in Europe cause me to wonder where continued anti-Semitism and the world’s fear of Islam may lead and if it will ultimately trample on our freedom of religion. Just this past Tuesday, I was in the northern Kosovo Roma camps. When I think of the abject poverty I saw there along with testaments of Roma being sent to different schools than their peers despite their intelligence, I can only think of my own experiences riding to 60 miles to school each day with hand me down books, no cafeteria, and no foreign languages taught. The OSCE with the support of the United States must continue its focus on the situation of the Roma and Sinti. When I addressed this conference yesterday, I pointed out the critical role that the OSCE PA played in establishing this conference. Indeed, it is fair to say that we have come a long way. Many of the countries sitting in this room today have written and passed anti-discrimination laws as a direct result of the OSCE’s work to combat anti-Semitism, xenophobia, racism, and other forms of discrimination. Now we must implement them! And I for one stand in support of the Special Envoy, Personal Representatives, and NGOs. All of us are necessary to achieve positive results. The reality remains that anti-Semitism – the initial reason why we called for a convening such as this – continues to run rampant in all of our streets, including my own. In fact, over 1500 incidents of anti-Semitic acts were recorded in the U.S. alone last year and the continued stereotypic misperceptions of Jews within the OSCE region are only increasing the propensity for violence. In my country, we are trying to stop these attacks. All of you in these countries with our help must do the same in yours. Member states need to collect such statistics, for anti-Semitic attacks and all hate crimes. It is in this way that we can best fully monitor and address these heinous actions. In the words of the African-American scholar WEB Dubois, “There can be no perfect democracy curtailed by color, race, or poverty. And I would add religion and gender. But with all, we accomplish all, even peace.” America’s history and its use of legislation to combat intolerances and discrimination can be a working blueprint for peace. I urge you to use this blue print and learn from our successes. I also urge you to learn from and not repeat our mistakes. It is time to implement our wonderful ideas from five years of these conferences. But, please – more action and less talk! Thank you very much.  

  • Remarks of Rep. Chris Smith to OSCE Conference on Promoting Tolerance Closing Plenary Session, Bucharest, Romania

    On behalf of the United States delegation, I would like to thank our Romanian hosts and you, the ministers, ambassadors, NGOs and my fellow delegates for engaging in a discussion of how to combat anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance in the OSCE. Let me also commend the Romanian Foreign Minister, Mr. Adrian Cioroianu for proposing to host a regional anti-Semitism meeting. That is a magnificent gesture from Romania. On a more personal note, it is deeply gratifying for me, as a Congressman for 27 years who has focused on defending human rights, to see the representatives of so many OSCE States gathered here to reaffirm their commitment to combating intolerance. I was, to steal a phrase from former American Secretary of State Dean Acheson, “present at the creation” of this series of conferences. I remember when, at a hearing I chaired in 2002, in response to what appeared to be a sudden, frightening spike in anti-Semitism in some OSCE countries, including my own, we first proposed the idea for an OSCE conference on combating anti-Semitism. Dr. Samuels of the Wiesenthal Center in Paris testified at that hearing and said, “The Holocaust for 30 years after the war acted as a protective Teflon against blatant ant-Semitic expression. That Teflon has eroded, and what was considered distasteful and politically incorrect is becoming simply an opinion. But,” he quickly warned, “cocktail chatter at fine English dinners can end as Molotov cocktails against synagogues.” Convinced we had an escalating crisis on our hands, the U.S. teamed with several OSCE partners—especially Gert Weisskirchen from Germany—to push for action and reform. Those efforts led to Vienna, Berlin, Cordoba, and to Bucharest today. From the start, before any conference had even taken place, there were colleagues who thought the struggle against anti-Semitism should be folded into a more general effort against intolerance. Well-meaning as that might seem, it would have diluted our focus and resolve. Let’s be frank. Anti-semitism is a particularly insidious form of hate that has had horrific consequences, including genocide. In the span of human history, the Holocaust was yesterday. So I believe we did the wiser thing. We launched a new struggle against anti-Semitism, and a concurrent battle against other specific forms of intolerance such as discrimination against Muslims, Christians, members of other religions, and against racism, xenophobia, and other related forms of discrimination. We have moved ahead on all these issues. Those of us who helped birth the Vienna and Berlin conferences certainly never meant to restrict the OSCE’s field of concern. But we did believe that the OSCE should put and sustain a special emphasis on anti-Semitism. We believed that anti-Semitism is a unique evil, a distinct form of intolerance, the oldest form of religious bigotry, and a malignant disease of the heart that has very often led to murder. Next a brief word on implementation. In each of the conferences OSCE Participating States have made solemn, tangible commitments to put our words into action. Although in some countries progress has been made, anti-Semitic acts have not abated in others, and in some nations has actually gotten worse. So the United States welcomes the OSCE commitment to focus on individual problems and tailor responses to their specificity. This approach is reflected in the mandates of the three personal representatives and we call on more states to support and cooperate with their efforts to put increased muscle behind combating these problems. We welcome and encourage the continuation of ODIHR programs to develop curricula on teaching about the Holocaust, assisting States to enact hate crime legislation, to train prosecutors and police, especially peer-to-peer like the law enforcement officers program. And we should convene follow-up expert meetings and another implementation meeting in 2009. We can't allow human rights fatigue and indifference to set in. Finally, each of us knows we can and must do better. For our part, let me assure you that the members of the U.S. delegation will return home with fresh enthusiasm, commitment and resolve to eradicate the scourge of hate. We return home to insist that the purveyors of criminal acts of hate be vigorously pursued and prosecuted. Prosecutorial discretion is a wonderful concept in the administration of justice but our society is ill served when law enforcement looks the other way at anti-Semitic hate crimes. And we return with an urgent mission to expand Holocaust education and remembrance so that the words, “never again” finally have meaning, and to educate both young and old alike that human rights and tolerance are not fanciful words, but the only way a civilized, compassionate, and caring society can survive and prosper.

  • Remarks at the OSCE High-Level Conference on Combating Discrimination and Promoting Mutual Respect and Understanding

    I am privileged to address you today as the representative of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly to the Bucharest Conference, an outgrowth of the work begun by the Assembly in 2002 in response to an alarming spike in anti-Semitic incidents and related violence. Indeed, the Assembly’s timely initiative has led to a sustained focus, by parliamentarians and diplomats alike, on combating this and other forms of intolerance, including racism as well as discrimination against individuals because of their religion. The reality is that none of our societies is immune from the ignorance, indifference or outright hatred that fosters discrimination, intolerance, and ultimately destruction of every sort. Faced with such social afflictions, each of us has a choice whether to remain complacent, some might say complicit, or to take action. The choice is there for each of us to make. It would be foolhardy for any of us to suggest that he or she could single-handedly wipeout these virulent viruses that plague society. But the enormity of the challenge should not deter us from taking action within our own spheres of influence no matter how limited they might seem. From our home, school or workplace to the football stadium, town hall square or pages of our local newspaper, each of us can make a difference. As elected officials, we must recognize our unique responsibility – our obligation -- to combat intolerance and discrimination as well as to promote mutual respect and understanding. First we have a duty to use the public platform entrusted to us to speak out when manifestations of hate occur. As Elie Wiesel has rightly observed, “neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” Additionally, we can and must work to help our governments and people come to terms with the historical truths of our collective past. Perpetuating myth as history only serves to impede this vital and healthy process. Access to accurate information, including archival materials, is particularly relevant in this regard as well as the textbooks used to educate our young people. Education – whether at the dinning room table or the formal lecture hall – is a powerful instrument for overcoming the legacy of the past, promoting social justice in the present, and building a brighter future. As government officials we have a duty to ensure adequate resources for such programs, including Holocaust education. Government alone cannot accomplish all that needs to be done. To be successful, we must reach out in partnership to civil society. Finally, as legislators, parliamentarians are uniquely positioned to shape laws that help define the limits of conduct in society. At times a daunting task, we face the challenge of ensuring appropriate protection of the targets of hate while preserving fundamental freedoms and human rights. While we may differ on approaches, one thing that we can all agree on is that there can be no neutrality or silence when violence is used against an individual or group. I have traveled across the breadth of the OSCE region and beyond in connection with my work with the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. Having just been in the Middle East, I am mindful of the unique role the Mediterranean Partners could play in promoting mutual respect and understanding. During the course of my travels I have made it a point to be in contact with a wide spectrum of society, from the displaced Roma forced to live on the extreme margins and members of minority faith communities denied the right to freely profess and practice their faith to ethnic and racial minorities constantly living in fear for their safety. In each instance, they simply seek the dignity that should be accorded to every human being. Far too often there is a fixation on differences that blinds us to our common humanity. In closing, I would note that this year marks the bicentennial of the 1807 Abolition of the Slave Trade Act, which banned the slave trade in the British Empire. The words of a courageous abolitionist in the House of Commons, William Wilberforce, should serve as an inspiration to all of us that we must take a stand no matter the seemingly insurmountable odds against success. “So enormous, so dreadful, so irremediable did the [slave] trade’s wickedness appear that my own mind was completely made up for abolition. Let the consequences be what they would: I from this time determined that I would never rest until I had effected its abolition.” May we display such determination and dedication in our common efforts to combat anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance and discrimination and work energetically to promote mutual respect and understanding. You and I can make a difference, if we care to. Your presence here in Bucharest is a good starting point. Thank you.

  • Remarks by the Hon. L. Hastings at the World Russian Forum

    Thank you, Ed. It is indeed a pleasure to speak today before the World Russian Forum and these many distinguished guests, especially in this most notable year – the 200th anniversary of diplomatic ties between our two great nations. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission and as a past President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, I have had the pleasure of visiting Russia on numerous occasions and meeting with fellow parliamentarians from the Duma – some of whom, I understand, are with us today. As other speakers have noted, we meet at a time when relations between our two countries are, shall we say, strained. The “Era of Good Feeling” between the United States and Russia following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 has been replaced, in some respects, by a chilliness marked by mutual suspicion. I do not believe we are in or are headed for a cold war, as some commentators have suggested. But it does seem to me that we are living through a cold peace. How did things come to this? If you read the speeches of President Putin or Foreign Minister Lavrov, you will conclude that relations have soured because America is piqued at Russia’s resurgence. After a decade of economic upheaval and relative strategic irrelevance, Russia is back, and Washington, accustomed to ruling the world unilaterally, doesn’t care for it one bit. Perhaps there is some truth to this. There was in Washington an air of post-Cold War triumphalism following the Soviet collapse that many Russians found offensive. Though we loudly spoke of a “strategic partnership,” many policy-makers and commentators in Washington quietly believed Russia was too weakened and corrupt to play a significant role in world affairs. Well, times change, as they always do. Secretary Rice is in Moscow today, presumably trying to reassure Russian officials about plans to place anti-missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic. I hope she will be successful because I see missile defense as an inclusive policy priority. When President Reagan first thought of strategic defense, it was his hope that the United States and the USSR could work together on a program that benefited them both. That is all the more the case today, as access to weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems spread. I think cooperation on strategic defense should unite our countries, not divide them. Events of the last decade or so have undoubtedly left their mark on the present reality. But there are other reasons why Washington is concerned about developments in Russia. Ever since the tragic shelling of the Russian White House in the fall of 1993 and particularly over the last 7 years, the Kremlin has moved decisively to recentralize the power that had devolved from the center in 1991 and, as we see it from Washington, sought to limit civil liberties and freedom of expression. The goal seems to have been to effect exclusive control of policymaking and the political agenda, while eliminating any realistic choice from the political arena, thus removing the public from politics. Russian officials claim it was necessary to establish stability in Russia, and resurrect a nation battered by inflation, corruption, negative demographics, and greedy oligarchs. But I would ask this question: if one person’s departure could lead to nightmare scenarios – as we hear so frequently from Moscow – what kind of stability has been achieved by this curtailment of freedom of the media, diversity of opinion, and political pluralism? Let me turn now to foreign policy. As you all know, the comprehensive concept of security underlying the Helsinki process encompasses democracy, human rights, and the rule of law – key components of domestic policy – as well as principles governing relations with states, sovereign equality, and respect for territorial integrity. And in this regard, some see Russian behavior that is increasingly at variance with these principles. The United States is also a big and powerful country and we are often accused of throwing our weight around. Around a century ago, President Diaz of Mexico, said “Poor Mexico – so far from God, so close to the United States.” I don’t know where Russia’s neighbors are located in spiritual terms, but I am sure that some often lament their proximity to that country. Look, for example, at the ongoing confrontation between giant Russia and tiny Georgia. The tenor of the relationship is simple: if Moscow doesn’t like what Georgia is doing, the gas gets turned off or trade embargoes are imposed. This may seem like sensible policy in the Kremlin, but to others it looks like bullying. As someone who has traveled to all of the former Soviet states and talked with their leaders, I am struck by the sense of lost opportunity. Russia could have excellent relations with its neighbors, if it only wanted to. In sum, ladies and gentlemen, some fear we are seeing the emergence of a Russia repressive at home and aggressive abroad. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I am deeply and personally committed to the development and strengthening of economic and cultural ties – in the spirit of the Helsinki Final Act – between our two nations. I know that all of us here are. So I am concerned by the state of affairs, but not unduly so. This is not a cold war. Our missiles are not pointed at each other. Our troops are not lined up against each other. But clearly, things could be much better. So where do we go from here? It’s time to recognize that the 1990s are over, not just chronologically but geostrategically as well. We will have to get used to renewed competition between Russia and the United States. And that is not such a bad thing, if the competition inspires us both to greater achievement and does not blind us to areas where cooperation is not just mutually beneficial but essential. Obviously, Russia has recovered much of its strength. As long as oil and gas prices remain high, Russia will not want for money. It would be my hope that it uses those rubles to build the country’s infrastructure and to raise the standard of living for all of Russia’s citizens – not just its wealthiest stratum. And I hope that as Russia feels ever more confident, its leaders will see that the development of strong institutions outside the presidency is the only solid guarantee of long-term stability and that genuine choice for voters is a positive good, not a threat. In the international arena, I very much hope that Russia, in defending and pursuing its interests, will not choose to act simply out of spite towards the United States. Occasionally, I must tell you, that is how it seems to some of us. But in an era of ever-broadening access to terrible weapons, this would be not only self-defeating but truly dangerous. I specifically have in mind Iran, which gives every indication of seeking to develop nuclear weapons. It is somewhat reassuring that Moscow seems to have understood what is at stake and to have lost patience with Teheran. But it is quite worrying for me, especially as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, that it took Moscow so long to do so. Much of the time, we seem to be talking past each other. But in general, I am a proponent of more talk, not less. Even disagreements can be illuminating. Unfortunately, in the last several years, contact between the U.S. Congress and the Russian Duma has declined. I believe we must reinvigorate those contacts through more frequent and structured interaction and, for our part, I intend to suggest to Speaker Pelosi that we develop a program to do so. When all is said and done, it is unrealistic to expect that two great powers should see the world through the same eyes and act in lockstep. But while Russia and the United States may not have to love each other, they do need each other. For our own sakes and the sake of all humanity, they need to cooperate in the areas of counter-terrorism, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, anti-trafficking, space exploration, and medical research, to name just a few. And maybe we will yet find a way to work together on climate change, an issue that unites not just Russia and the United States but the entire human race. Preferably, we will do so while there’s still time.

  • Remarks by the Hon. Alcee L. Hastings at the Conference on 21st Century Threats to Media Freedom

    Ladies and Gentlemen, As Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I appreciate this opportunity to address threats to media freedom in the expansive OSCE region stretching from Vancouver to Vladivostok. While the now 56 signatories to the Helsinki Final Act have accepted a series of specific commitments on media and working conditions for journalists, the difficulty remains translating words on paper into deeds in practice. Before turning to concerns of the 21st century, let me recall Thomas Jefferson’s observation from 1787: “were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” In a subsequent elaboration, he explained why: “The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed.” You don’t have to be one of our own Founding Fathers to grasp the idea. Leaders the world over who are determined to remain in office by any means necessary understand perfectly the power of the press. That is precisely why they and their associates strive so vigorously to control the media. In Aleksandr Lukashenka's Belarus, for example, media freedoms are systematically stifled and have deteriorated over the past few years. Investigations of suspicious deaths of two journalists in 2004 and 2005 have gone nowhere. And just a month ago opposition activist Andrei Klimau was arrested under a vague article of the Criminal Code. Meanwhile, the Lukashenka regime maintains a virtual monopoly on television and radio broadcasting. Last November, Lukashenka himself unabashedly admitted to reporters that his government uses “serious pressure” to control the media and that he is in charge of this process. In another context, that acknowledgment might be described as admirable candor – and certainly more than could be had in Russia. I’m sure all of you have read the obituaries for the late Boris Yeltsin. Russia’s first freely elected president made many mistakes. But all commentators have stressed that throughout his two terms, he protected the media. You may recall a TV show in Russia called Kukly which satirized politicians with hand-puppets. The show’s writers savaged their targets, including the head of state, and this in a country where the Tsar or the General Secretary could never be criticized. Yet Boris Yeltsin, who must have been chagrined, did not order Kukly off the air. That was left to his successor, whose minions made sure that Kukly never again darkened the airwaves. In fact, contrast the era of Kukly to the situation in Russia today: According to a Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty report last year, 79 percent of the population gets its news from the three national TV networks, which are either directly or indirectly controlled by the government. And it shows. You have to look long and hard for criticism of President Putin. You all saw, I suspect, the press report that employees of Russia’s largest independent radio news network have been told that at least 50 percent of the reports about Russia must be “positive,” that opposition political leaders may not be mentioned on the air and that “the United States was to be portrayed as an enemy.” The first impulse is to laugh at this absurdity of such policies. But journalism in Russia is a very serious business. Even before the assassination of prominent investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya last October and the mysterious death of reporter Ivan Safronov earlier this year, the Committee to Protect Journalists cited Russia as the third-deadliest country in the world for journalists over the past 15 years, with 42 journalists killed since 1992. The vast majority of these crimes remain “unsolved.” Only last week we learned that a former Kremlin reporter has felt it necessary to seek political asylum in the United Kingdom. Russia tends to be a trendsetter for its neighbors. But there are various degrees of media freedom in the former USSR. In Ukraine, since the 2004 Orange Revolution, media freedom has opened up and the egregious government instructions to the media are a thing of the past. Yet even in Ukraine, anonymous threats and attacks against journalists, especially those in the regions who expose corruption, still occur too frequently, and the 2000 murder of prominent journalist Georgiy Gongadze remains “unresolved.” Elsewhere, freedom of the press is only a cherished dream of human rights activists. Soviet-era censorship survives in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, which, not coincidentally, ban all political opposition. The death of a Radio Free Europe journalist while in custody in Turkmenistan demonstrates starkly how dangerous the journalist’s profession can be. In Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, electronic media are tightly controlled. Print media enjoy more latitude but their grounds for maneuver are also limited. A reporter in Kazakhstan who wrote articles implicating local officials and businessmen in the recent clashes between Kazakhs and Chechens has been missing for about a month. Kyrgyzstan is more difficult to characterize, because the state has been weaker than elsewhere in Central Asia and less capable of asserting its control of the media. But since the Tulip Revolution, restrictions on the free flow of information have loosened and I would say that free media have developed farther in Kyrgyzstan than anywhere else in Central Asia. Still, it is very disturbing that Kyrgyz authorities raided publishing houses last week, as the confrontation between the government and protesters heated up. In Armenia and Azerbaijan, according to reports by the State Department and OSCE’s Representative on the Media, the government seeks to control free media, especially television. In Armenia, for example, independent TV station A1+ has never been allowed back on the air since it was closed down. As for Azerbaijan, just last week, the State Department criticized Baku for the jailing of a journalist on libel charges and expressed concern about the deteriorating media situation. The use of criminal defamation and insult laws has long been used against those who criticize the government or officials, and I commend the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media for his consistent, principled focus on this area of abuse. Georgia is a particularly interesting case. Throughout the 1990s, leaders of most former Soviet states reined in the media that had blossomed under glasnost. A historic turning point came in fall 2003, when the Rose Revolution was gathering force in Georgia. Opposition leaders who refused to accept another rigged election led throngs of protesters against Eduard Shevardnadze’s government. You will recall that at a crucial moment, the Rustavi-2 TV station aligned itself with the opposition Troika and played a critical role in galvanizing the public to reject the official election results. In short order, this resistance movement mushroomed into peaceful regime change that sparked similar events in Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. The lesson was not lost on leaders of other post-Soviet states. Shevardnadze’s counterparts in other CIS capitals were determined to avoid his fate and they resolved that no analogue to Rustavi-2 would arise on their turf. For the most part, I must say, they have pulled it off: outside Ukraine and to some degree Kyrgyzstan, nothing of the sort is permitted. In Georgia today, opposition figures maintain that Rustavi-2 has become a pro-government station. But other TV stations air broadcasts critical of President Saakashvili. Today, Russian and Uzbek media excoriate the United States for allegedly plotting more “color revolutions.” To stem the tide, a broad panoply of tactics has been deployed. Prominent among them have been the expulsion of democracy-promoting NGOs, including many U.S.-based organizations, and the throttling of media outlets. What lessons should we draw from this state of affairs? The first is that most governments of the post-Soviet states understand Thomas Jefferson quite well. They see freedom of the media as a threat which they are determined to neutralize. Second, they have been rather too successful in this endeavor. Even outside the extreme cases of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, certain topics remain taboo in most countries, specifically criticism of the head of state or revelations about high-level corruption. This is particularly true of electronic media, and first and foremost TV. However, there is some reason for hope. I believe that pressure exerted by outside forces, including foreign capitals and international organizations, including the OSCE, can have an impact. For example, last week, Kazakhstan’s Culture and Information Minister announced that in response to OSCE criticism, the government has withdrawn a bill that would have imposed licensing requirements on publishing houses. Proposed legislation to regulate the Internet has been withdrawn and he said the authorities are ready to introduce a moratorium for “distorting the truth,” to free journalists from criminal persecution. At least under certain circumstances, then, and over the longer term, outside pressure and suasion can have a positive impact – even if gradually. But this also strengthens my conviction that now is not the time cut back on U.S. broadcasting to the post-Soviet republics. Freedom of the media is in real danger there, and those seeking alternative sources of information need our help. I am determined to make sure they get it. Let me conclude by quoting a heroic Russian journalist who understood the real meaning of Thomas Jefferson’s words over two centuries ago: Anna Politkovskaya. “My job is simple: to look around and write what I see.” That is how she described her task in accepting the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly 2003 Prize for Journalism and Democracy for her investigative reporting on developments in war-torn Chechnya. Last October, an assassin’s bullet brought her brilliant career and life to a sudden end. Anna knew the risks, given the death threats against her, but this courageous professional would not be deterred. Her murder is a reminder of the tremendous risks journalists take for daring to look and report on events that others prefer remain hidden.

  • Confronting Global Anti-Semitism: a Transatlantic Partnership

    Anti-Defamation League National Leadership Council Thank you for that kind introduction, and for inviting me here tonight. It is a true honor to sit on this panel with three proven leaders in the global fight against anti-Semitism. The ADL is a one of the premier human and civil rights organizations in the world. I do not need to tell you what you have in Abe Foxman. He is a dear friend of mine and to countless others worldwide. When he speaks, I listen. I also want to welcome the more than 20 activists from South Florida with us tonight. Make sure to thank them for bringing the warm weather. I have been asked to keep my remarks brief. So please forgive me if I am a bit cryptic, and do not hesitate to ask me questions later. Elected officials have a unique platform from which to address anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance. In fact, we have a moral obligation to do so. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission and the immediate past President of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly, I been working to improve trans-Atlantic relations to combat anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance for years. Both organizations have provided an invaluable political impetus for this issue to receive the attention which it deserves by all 56 OSCE countries. The reality is that we are seeing a resurgence not only of anti-Semitism, but all forms of intolerance, throughout the entire world. The need for us to combat these evils is growing every day. In Romania, for example, the courts are attempting to rehabilitate the reputation of General Ion Antonescu, an individual responsible for the killing of between 280,000 and 380,000 Jews during the Holocaust. In Hungary, the U.S Holocaust Museum is being denied access to Holocaust archives. And, in Bad Arolson, Germany, one of the largest Holocaust-era archives in the world remains closed to the public because four countries – Italy, Greece, France, and Belgium – have not yet ratified certain amendments to the Bonn Accords. Realize, had it not been for the actions of the Helsinki Commission and others, including the ADL, the situation in Bad Arolson would be worse today than it already is. The Commission first acted on the issue last year with a public briefing. And just last week, the House of Representatives unanimously approved a resolution I authored calling on European countries to expedite the opening of these archives. Indeed, we will not be successful in this and other endeavors unless we work together. Almost every day, I meet with various senior officials, ambassadors, parliamentarians and other dignitaries. Hardly a meeting passes without me engaging my colleagues on common concerns of justice and fairness. Essential aspects of such dialogue are an acknowledgement that we don’t have all the answers, and when it comes to anti-Semitism, no country is immune. It is, therefore, critical that we partner with those who share our awareness, concern, and passion to confront and combat these evils. But let me not sugar coat the issue. Time and time again, I am met with resistance from certain quarters of the international community to these efforts. Some want to talk about the problem and its manifestation, while others refuse that a problem even exists. Institutions built to combat anti-Semitism and protect human rights are key to refuting the deniers. As such, countries would be wise to create their own Helsinki Commissions to serve as a mechanism under which these issues can be addressed. Further, I can not stress enough the importance of face-to-face dialogue. In early June, I will travel first to Warsaw to keynote a conference on the U.S.-Polish-Israeli relationship, then to Israel with the current President of the OSCE PA. My journey will end in Bucharest, Romania at the next OSCE conference on anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance and discrimination – a conference which I and other legislators helped create almost five years ago. High-level government officials will be there with NGO’s, including the ADL, and it is my sincere hope that Secretary Rice will be among them. Her presence would send a very powerful message. Friends, we can no longer live in a world which encourages and fosters the manifestation of racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and all other forms of bigotry. Our shared dream for justice and fair treatment of all citizens alike is attainable with continued commitment to working together and a willingness to confront anything that comes our way. Thank you.

  • Russia and Central Asia: the Growing Policy Challenges for the International Community

    Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies Distinguished Speakers and Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to thank Freedom House for inviting me to speak at this important event. Freedom House has well earned its reputation as one of the foremost democracy-promoting organizations in the world. Moreover, Nations in Transit – whose 2007 edition this conference is launching – has become an indispensable source of information, measuring the advance of democratization around the globe. Thanks also to SAIS for co-hosting and my congratulations to you on the success of your Russia and Eurasian Studies Program. As Paula said, I Chair the Helsinki Commission, which Congress created in 1976 to monitor and promote implementation of the Helsinki Final Act in all the participating States. Moreover, I have recently completed two years as president of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly – the only American to ever hold that post. In that capacity, I visited 31 OSCE states, including Russia and all the Central Asian countries. In my travels and in Washington, I have met with presidents and foreign ministers, with parliamentarians, opposition leaders and dissenters, and with journalists and human rights activists. In these remarks, I would like to give you my assessment of where I see democratic governance and human rights trending in the region, more than 15 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But first, I want to state that we need to take back the moral high-ground that we once stood on. This starts by holding ourselves accountable when human rights issues arise here at home. Not that we have anything to be afraid of. But we must take away the credibility of those who would accuse us of double standards. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, this will be one of my priorities. Let me now talk about Russia. You are all surely familiar with President Putin’s speech in Munich last month, and how pundits have characterized U.S.-Russian relations these days. It’s a bad sign when our Secretary of Defense has to note that “one Cold War was enough.” Actually, one Cold War was more than enough. Now, I understand that Russians remember the 1990s very differently than we do. Despite what many viewed from abroad as a “springtime” of freedom for Russia and the territory of the former Soviet Union, many citizens of Russia remember the nineties as a period of tremendous economic dislocation, rampant crime, chaos at home, and humiliation abroad. The relative order and, at least, superficial international respect that President Vladimir Putin brought to Russia has been welcomed by a majority of the Russian population and seems to be strongly supported by the younger generation. From our point of view, this runs somewhat counter to the assumption that the post-communist generation would yearn for still greater freedom and be less pugnacious. It is necessary that we find a way to come to grips with these divergent views of the recent past as we look to the future. So it’s understandable that today, Russians proudly proclaim that “Russia is back.” This is certainly true, and in no small measure due to high energy prices. Nor is it surprising that a great country with vast human and material resources should rebound from even the disruptions of the last 20 years. What troubles me and many others is what kind of Russia has returned to a leading role on the world stage. Russian officials maintain that their democracy is developing in its own way and in accordance with its own traditions. They accuse the United States of unilateralism in foreign affairs and of seeking to impose the American form of democratic governance on Russia and the rest of the world and hypocritically meddling in the affairs of others. To be sure, our attempts to spread the undeniable benefits of the American experience have not always been distinguished by cultural sensitivity. But I get nervous when I hear the phrase “according to our own traditions and national mentality.” No rational person expects Ivan Ivanov to be a carbon copy of John Johnson. However, there are certain basic shared assumptions about what democratic governance entails: freedom of religion; freedom of speech; freedom of assembly; rule of law; a reasonable distribution of power between the branches of government; an independent judiciary; etc. I would also note that reference to one’s “traditions” as a method of denying rights to others is not solely a Russian phenomenon. There’s little doubt that under President Putin – who is undeniably popular – some people have begun to live better materially. Many Russians are proud of their president, of his sober, disciplined approach to government and his determination to restore Russia’s greatness. But in Russia – and Central Asia – we have witnessed the emergence of super-presidencies, which have overwhelmed the legislative and the judicial branches. For instance, in successfully recentralizing power in the Kremlin, President Putin has turned the Duma into a virtual rubber stamp. True, the Duma was quite complicit in this. And I am aware that American history has also produced “honeymoons” between popular chief executives and a congressional majority representing the same political party. We’ve just finished a six year version right here in Washington. But I hope my colleagues in the Russian Duma would agree that a vital element of representative government is a legislature that acts as a check on executive power. As for judicial independence – a critical component of checks and balances – when was the last time a court in Russia ruled contrary to government wishes in a politically sensitive case in which the Kremlin or the security forces – some would say they are synonymous – have an interest? Especially alarming is the contraction of freedom of the media. The Kremlin now controls all major TV stations, which parrot the official perspective. As for newspapers, though less popular as a source of information, journalism has become a very dangerous profession. In fact, according to the International News Safety Institute, Russia is the second most dangerous country for journalists in the world – the first is Iraq. Just last week, yet another investigative journalist died under suspicious circumstances. There is a long list of such crimes, which have largely gone unsolved. Obviously, the Fourth Estate is being told to shut its mouth, if it wants to keep its head. Furthermore, I am troubled by the government’s attempts to rein in civil society, at least those elements that the Kremlin views as threatening. Many of you may have read about the judge who recently fined members of a local human rights group for meeting in a school with foreign visitors without notifying the authorities – a mentality that smacks frighteningly of the Soviet era. Russian officials often get irritated when they hear the terms “managed democracy” or “sham democracy.” But I see in Russia a system that attempts to carefully control politics, in which the public has been removed from the political process while the state’s well-connected individuals have taken charge of the country’s most profitable giant companies. And it is hard for me to see how or when this system will open up again. One way the system could open up is through legitimate presidential elections in 2008, when President Putin is expected to retire. But to judge by the current difficulties reported by “outsiders” testing the waters in Russia, there is no reason to expect that opposition candidates can count on an equal playing field. The rise of “illiberal democracy” at home is also reflected in Russia’s behavior abroad. For example, Moscow’s unrelenting pressure on Georgia and Moldova has tarnished Russia’s reputation as a conscientious upholder of international law. Especially worrying for Europe are possible interruptions in oil and gas supplies, as has happened during Russia’s disputes with its neighbors. Not surprisingly, Washington and other capitals – even Minsk – are wondering whether Russia can be a reliable supplier of the energy on which our economies depend. Of course, Russia should be able to enjoy the benefits of its energy resources, which account for fully one-quarter of its GDP. But what will benefit Russia, as well as transit and consumer countries, would be more transparency and predictability in energy supply. Think of Russia moving toward a Canadian or Norwegian model instead of an OPEC model. This would entail the promotion of free-market policies in the energy sector. It would mean the protection of property rights, which ensure fair competition, backed up by a commitment to the rule of law that give these rights some meaning. Such transparency and predictability will help ensure that Russia can rationally exploit its resources and that consuming countries can sleep easy – and warm – at night. And Russia’s leaders must understand that other states have become hypersensitive to the possibility that the Kremlin will exploit its control of hydrocarbons for political gain and draw the appropriate conclusions. Yet I often wonder if they do. Sometimes it seems that oil has simply gone to people’s heads in Moscow. As a senior member of the Intelligence Committee, I am well aware of the gravity of the terrorist threat facing this country as well as Russia. I understand the need for us to work together to confront this danger to the whole world. But the legitimate struggle against terrorism cannot be an excuse for gross violations of international humanitarian law and norms – Chechnya comes to mind in this context. Before moving on to Central Asia, I would just emphasize my sincere belief that we best advance our interests with Russia in an atmosphere of mutual respect and not of mutual recrimination. Knee-jerk Russia bashing may be emotionally satisfying for some and may help bolster budgets for others, but it does little to promote our goals and, in fact, closes many doors for dialogue and understanding. On the other hand, being best friends should not be the measure of successful bilateral relations. We need to focus our efforts more on bolstering Russia’s nascent democratic institutions rather than on the rapidly changing faces of the Russian elite. I would also add that I support granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations to Russia. Russia has complied with our law. We spend millions of dollars promoting rule of law abroad, but we seem unable or too preoccupied to comply with our own legislation and retire this Cold War relic. Let me now turn to Central Asia. Over the last 15 years, we have seen the rise of the familiar “super-president,” the controlled parliament, the supine judiciary and the media under pressure, while the families and cronies of rulers prosper. In Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, no political opposition has been permitted. Turkmenistan – which is still a one-party state today – has been one of the most repressive countries in the world, virtually a post-Soviet North Korea, with a similar cult of personality. In Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, opposition is tolerated but tightly controlled; there is very little opposition representation in their parliaments. Only Kyrgyzstan has bucked the Central Asian trend to some degree. Former President Akaev did not control the political arena as his counterparts did and civil society was much stronger than elsewhere in the region. So it was not surprising that if an opposition-led protest movement in the region had any chance of toppling a government, it would be in Kyrgyzstan. All this was true even before the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia. But that historic event, followed by Ukraine’s Orange Revolution and the March 2005 Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, upset the rulers of most former Soviet states. Central Asian leaders, especially Uzbekistan’s President Karimov, have moved to preempt similar uprisings in their countries by undercutting opposition activists, NGOs – including foreign ones, like Freedom House and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty – and human rights groups. In this campaign they have received backing from Moscow, which has warned of sinister U.S. plots of regime change. Indeed, Moscow unfortunately seems to see democratization as a key weapon in a zero-sum competition for influence with the United States. Russia viewed the revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan not only as unwelcome achievements of democracy but as a new, historic Western “incursion” into its own sphere of influence. Its apparent strategy is to build alliances with repressive rulers, while dismissing Western disapproval of their authoritarianism as geo-politically motivated. In fact, an anti-revolutionary alliance of states has emerged, embracing most post-Soviet republics and China as well. And these efforts have borne fruit – since Kyrgyzstan, the wave has receded, at least for now. This situation puts U.S. policymakers in a tough spot. Even before September 11, Washington had struggled to find ways to move Central Asian rulers towards more political openness. But they had already concluded that even if relations with the Americans were not very close, the U.S. interest in security, energy and providing a strategic alternative to Russia meant that Washington might criticize flawed elections or human rights problems but would not level serious sanctions or cut off ties. After September 11, the countries of Central Asia saw the opportunity for closer relations with the United States, which was happy to accommodate them in the name of fighting terrorism. An agreement on strategic cooperation was struck with Uzbekistan. We opened military bases there and in Kyrgyzstan. The Tajiks and even Turkmenistan cooperated in overflights and assistance corridors to Afghanistan. Today, economic concerns have come to equal security priorities: with the price of a barrel of oil down to about $60 from a high in the mid-70s and Kazakhstan’s oil and Turkmenistan’s gas beckoning, how do we influence Central Asia’s leaders to liberalize their political systems? It doesn’t look like they want to and they seem to think they don’t have to. There are no easy answers to this question. Obviously, we cannot compel them to democratize or observe their human rights commitments. We have 150,000 troops in Iraq but we can’t ensure basic order, much less build a democratic state there at this time. Even in the 1990s, when Russia was much weaker and poorer than it is today, our leverage was limited. Today, I have the sense that our criticism has the opposite effect on Russian officials. The countries of Central Asia don’t have issues of superpower rivalry with the United States, and they do want to have good relations with us, which facilitates dialogue with them about democratization and human rights. Still, those in power want to remain there – it is their highest priority and they will resist systemic reforms that could threaten their position. You might infer from this overview that I am a pessimist. Not at all. No black man who grew up during the halcyon days of the segregated south and became a judge and then a Congressman while a black woman from the segregated south is Secretary of State can be a pessimist. But I have become more realistic and pragmatic. Let me share with you some conclusions I have drawn. First, democratic transformations take much longer than we would like. The experience of the former Soviet Union proves that the collapse of communism is necessary but not sufficient. We should understand we are in this for the long haul. Second, repressive leaders often maintain that their people are not ready for democracy. I think, however, that publics are much more ready than governments. People in Russia and Central Asia, who have experienced or witnessed enough disruption for several lifetimes, understandably value stability and predictability. But that does not mean they do not want the basic gifts of democracy and human rights. Everyone wants a say in his or her own government and to be treated with respect. When circumstances permit, those desires, I believe, will come to the fore. Third, we in the West saw the so-called color revolutions as a glorious exercise in popular sovereignty, as people peacefully went to the streets to oust corrupt, unresponsive regimes. But we sometimes forget that revolutions are evidence of failed politics. They reflect a crisis in the relations between state and society when people have no satisfactory methods of influencing policy or seeking redress of grievances, such as recourse to the courts for the impartial administration of justice. So while I welcome the Rose, Orange, and Tulip revolutions, I regret their necessity. Slow, steady progress towards democratic governance would be better for all concerned. It is this goal we should work for, through the building of institutions that promote the rule of law and civil society. Fourth, in the absence of established institutions, the ruler’s character remains critical in such highly personalized political systems. It was clear, for example, that while President Niyazov lived, there was no chance of reform in Turkmenistan. The notion may not be popular among some scholars today, but his long reign clearly demonstrates the power of individuals to shape history, certainly for ill and I hope, for good. Fifth, succession can spark unexpected events and accelerate or slow down institution-building. I suspect the death of President Niyazov in December has got the other Central Asian leaders thinking. They are not young men and they have some serious inheritance issues to consider. Nowhere has there been established any tested method for peacefully transferring power at the top. In Kyrgyzstan, a head of state has been removed, but presidential succession has come to be associated with street politics as much as constitutional requirements. In the other countries…well, we will have to see. But barring dramatic headlines, the first important such decision will come in Uzbekistan. President Karimov’s term runs out this year. He will have to decide whether to step down or resort to some ploy to remain in office. I believe that if he chooses the latter course, he will damage his reputation still further and make instability more likely. Whatever happens, however, I strongly believe that all of Central Asia will be watching how President Putin handles his own succession problem. If he steps down, some may be more inclined to follow his example. Sixth, we must not turn our backs on the region and its people. I know Uzbekistan is a repressive state and I share the widespread revulsion at the slaughter in Andijon, but does it help us not to be engaged with President Karimov? Have we gained anything by these frozen relations – quite apart from the loss of our base at K-2, has democracy advanced in Uzbekistan while we criticize him from afar? At the same time, Tashkent must understand we cannot turn a blind eye to atrocities. I have supported the European Union’s serious effort to restore ties with Uzbekistan based on human rights progress, but I would welcome a good faith gesture from Tashkent. For example, Umida Niyazova, a human rights activist who used to work for Freedom House and Human Rights Watch, is in jail. I call on President Karimov to release her immediately. As for Turkmenistan, President Niyazov’s death offers no guarantees of liberalization. But at least there is reason now to hope for a more rational leadership that will focus on the public good, not the president’s ego. I see mixed messages coming out of Ashgabat. On the one hand, the new president has pledged to broaden internet access and has restored the tenth grade and physical education to the school curriculum. That doesn’t sound like much but when you start from such a low base, it can seem like a huge improvement. I expect that gradually, the more bizarre aspects of President Niyazov’s misrule will disappear. But I hope to see much more – the release of people jailed on political grounds and the beginnings of political pluralism. I expect to travel to Ashgabat to discuss with the new Turkmen leaders the prospects for systemic democratization. We need to engage with them in a process of consultation and give and take. Let me conclude by mentioning a few things we should not do, starting with not shooting ourselves in the foot. I have in mind the Voice of America. As many of you probably know, the American Administration has called for major cuts in VOA broadcasting, including closing down the Uzbek and Georgian Services and ending radio programs while retaining television transmission in Russian and Ukrainian. This, ladies and gentlemen, seems to me to be the height of folly. As I have argued here, the democratic transition in the former Soviet Union is far from secure. VOA broadcasts are one of the most effective, biggest-bang-for-the-buck tools in our arsenal to propagate democratic ideals. And in this connection, I want to associate myself with remarks made on Thursday by my good friend Tom Lantos, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a hearing on U.S. assistance. Like him, I simply cannot comprehend why we should now cut our funding for democracy promotion – especially to the tune of 40 percent. He called for more aid to NGOs that try, under ever worsening conditions, to promote freedom in Russia. I am in full solidarity with him and together with likeminded Members of Congress, we hope to roll back the VOA cuts and increase assistance for democracy promotion. The same applies to funding for the OSCE, which the budgeters also want to slash. Please be assured that I will fight this. Paula, I’ve gone on for quite some time. I hope I haven’t overstayed my welcome. Thank you once again for inviting me. Let me end here and I look forward to hearing from the other speakers.

  • Remarks by Ambassador Clifford G. Bond at the International Forum Bosnia

    It is good to be back in Sarajevo again and I feel very much at home in this city and this country. When Dr. Mahmutcehajic invited me to speak at today’s conference on “American Policy in the Western Balkans,” I suggested that it might be best if I provided a perspective on the on-going work of the Helsinki Commission, which is where I am currently serving, and its impact on U.S. policy in the Balkans. The Commission is a unique institution made up of members of the U.S. Congress. It is not an easy task to generalize about the views of Commission members since each representative and senator is independent. Those who serve on the Commission do so because they share a commitment to human rights and democracy, and want to have an impact on U.S. engagement on these issues especially in the OSCE area, but beyond as well. Congress’ role in foreign policy, as in other areas, is to ensure that policy reflects the democratically expressed will of the American people. It balances the expertise of diplomats at the State Department and other Executive Branch agencies with a consideration of what the public will support. This is one reason why U.S. foreign policy has taken a more comprehensive view of security that includes democratic development and human rights, as opposed to a more “realpolik” view of the world. This was evident in the Balkans throughout the 1990s. In response to conflict in Bosnia, for example, many in Congress pressed the Bush and later Clinton Administration for a more activist and a more interventionist response. Members of Congress, including members of the Commission at that time, were among the first in government to advocate not only for efforts to contain the conflict but for decisive action, including the use of force if necessary, to stop it. Whenever I addressed an audience in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) in the past, the question invariably arose of whether the Balkans remained a priority for the U.S. Obviously the region receives much less attention today than it did 10 years ago. But it would be incorrect to say that the Balkans is ignored and developments on the ground are not being followed on Capitol Hill. There remains an understanding within Congress that the work of the international community is incomplete in this region and that the states of the western Balkans deserve to be integrated into Europe and Euro-Atlantic institutions. This has sustained Congressional support for NATO enlargement and the process of EU integration of the western Balkans, a view that runs even deeper among members of the Helsinki Commission. Moreover, at the initiative of representatives of the more than 300,000 members of the Bosnian-American diaspora, a new bipartisan Bosnian Caucus is being set up within Congress to focus on and support issues of importance to Bosnia and Herzegovina and the region. The Helsinki Process and the Commission Now let me say a few words about the work of the Helsinki Commission. As I said, it is an independent agency created by Congress in 1976 to advance human rights and encourage compliance with the principles of the Helsinki Final Act, particularly its human rights commitments. The Commission is composed of members of both houses of the U.S. Congress. Successive agreements within the Vienna-based Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) have expanded these common Helsinki standards into a whole framework of human and humanitarian rights. These have come to be termed the “human dimension” of the OSCE’s work. These agreements are not treaties, but political commitments which all participating states, including Bosnia and its neighbors, have adopted on the basis of consensus. Significantly, however, these same states have agreed that these are issues of direct and legitimate concern to all participating states of the OSCE and do not belong exclusively to the internal affairs of the state concerned. Democracy and human rights are thus matters of international concern. This has created a Helsinki process of bilateral and multilateral dialogue that includes the active participation of NGOs as well as governments in assessing the level of compliance with these common commitments. One element of that process is an annual review of implementation which takes place in Warsaw. I participated in the 2006 session and can assure you that it provided a forum for frank and open exchange of how our countries are or are not living up to our OSCE commitments. My own government faced serious criticism in terms of some aspects of its conduct of the fight against terrorism. Since 1989, Europe has undergone an historic transformation and the OSCE has played a vital role in this process of transition to democracy, particularly in the post conflict situation in the western Balkans. Much of this work has been driven on the ground by its field missions, such as the one headed here in Sarajevo by Ambassador Davidson. The Commission believes strongly that this work remains critical to the states of the western Balkans in helping them to overcome a legacy of communism and war. A permanent democratic transformation in the western Balkans will require a rethinking of the overall conditions of society with an aim of protecting rights and instituting peaceful change. Public debate needs to be expanded beyond a discussion of group rights to the rights of the individual and improving the overall quality and dignity of life, which is the essence of the OSCE’s human dimension. This process has not advanced nearly as far as it must to build modern societies in the region. Integration through Consolidating Democracy and Rule of Law Let me now review some of the areas of particular interest to the Commission and its members and where it will be pushing to influence U.S. policy in future. These are areas where I think more public debate and more active local NGO engagement with governments in the region will be essential. As I said, the Commission has been a strong advocate for the integration of the region into Euro-Atlantic institutions. This remains the best long term strategy for securing both peace and prosperity. The key to that integration is consolidating democracy, rule of law and good governance. There has been tremendous progress in this regard, but complacency must be avoided. Political leaders in Bosnia have come to realize that reforming their Dayton-era constitution in ways that make the government more functional and compatible with EU requirements is a necessary step. The U.S. Senate adopted a resolution (S. Res 400, 109th Congress) last year voicing support for this constitutional reform process. It did not advocate for specific changes, which must be decided by the people of Bosnia, not the international community. From the perspective of the Helsinki Commission, however, we think it critical that reforms, in addition to changes in the structure of government, guarantee the human and civic rights of all the citizens of BiH. As you know, the current constitutional provisions restrict Serbs living in the Federation, Bosniaks and Croats living in the RS, and non-constituent peoples, no matter in what part of the country they reside, from running for the post of BiH presidency. This is a violation of both the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document. This inability of all citizens to fully participate in BiH’s political life should be corrected. If we look at elections as another benchmark of progress in consolidating democracy, we can see that virtually all countries in the western Balkans are approaching the international standards for free and fair elections. Last October’s elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina were judged by the OSCE to be in line with international standards. Similarly the general elections held recently in Serbia were judged by OSCE as being conducted in a free and fair manner. Going beyond the technical conduct of these elections, however, the results and the tenor of the elections in the region are a matter of concern. In Bosnia nationalistic campaign rhetoric approached pre-war levels and polarized the electorate along ethnic lines. In Serbia the strong showing of the Serbian Radical Party and statements by other politicians indicated a lack of willingness among a large part of the population to come to terms with the crimes committed during the Milosevic era. Hopefully, over time, democratic forces in the region will prevail and a true reconciliation can be achieved. Without a meaningful break with the past and a full recognition in Serbia and the Republika Srpska (RS) of the crimes that were committed during the Milosevic era, however, this task will be immensely more difficult to accomplish. The decision of the International Court of Justice on February 26 does not change the need for this recognition or absolve Serbia or the Republika Srpska of responsibility in this regard. The ICJ confirmed an act of genocide was committed and that Serbia was in a unique position to prevent it. By failing to do so, Serbia violated the Genocide Convention and continues to violate it by not bringing the perpetrators of that genocide to justice. The court’s decision also makes clear that the full responsibility for conducting that genocide lies with the leadership and members of the military in the RS at that time. Unfinished Business It was to bring war criminals to justice and to determine the objective truth of what occurred in the Balkans that the Helsinki Commission was an early proponent of the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. It has pressed all countries in the region to fully cooperate with the Tribunal. The Commission has welcomed the establishment of the War Crimes Chamber within the BiH State Court, and the decision to transfer more cases from The Hague to the region for local prosecution. Despite building this indigenous capacity to conduct trials, there is a strongly felt sense within the Commission that the work of the International Tribunal should not be concluded until Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic are brought to justice. The real message that Belgrade should take from the ICJ’s verdict on February 26 and convey to these indicted war criminals is that: “your time is up.” Other consequences of the war are still being dealt with. More than ten years after Dayton, additional mass graves continue to be uncovered. The Helsinki Commission recently organized a briefing on Capitol Hill at which Amor Masovic reported on the work of the State Missing Persons Commission. We believe that international support for determining the identification of these missing persons must continue. The right of refugees and displaced persons from the Balkan conflicts to return home has not been fully guaranteed. The 2005 Sarajevo Declaration on Refugee Return and Integration was a notable achievement in this regard, but implementation of this trilateral arrangement has been too slow. The Commission has urged Bosnia and Croatia and Serbia in particular to intensify efforts to ensure durable solutions for resettlement are found and displaced persons and refugees given access to all rights, including the right to property and citizenship. The legal issues involved are complicated, but with political will these can be managed and refugees re-integrated into society. In the midst of war in the 1990’s the region was confronted with a new and dangerous form of organized crime – human trafficking. Considerable progress has been made in the region in combating this modern day form of slavery, but even greater efforts are required. Trafficking also needs to be looked upon as not just as one field of criminal activity, but as part of a wider issue of corruption in the region. While criminals organize this activity, it is corruption that allows them to get away with it or go unpunished when caught. Preventing Future Conflict A fundamental principle behind the Helsinki Final Act is that there can be no true security without a commitment to democracy and human rights. Addressing the root causes of intolerance and discrimination are therefore essential to preventing future conflict in the region. The OSCE has done pioneering work in this area and is developing programs to prevent hate crimes and discrimination by confronting the sources of intolerance and by strengthening respect for ethnic and religious diversity. In a series of high level conferences the OSCE has sought to encourage states to collect hate crimes statistics, share information and strengthen education to combat intolerance as well as increase training of law enforcement officials. This is clearly a subject of importance to the entire region and governments should be cooperating in this work. We want to encourage regional participation at the next high level meeting on tolerance to be held in June in Bucharest. The Romanian government is now putting together an agenda which will cover racism, anti-Semitism and intolerance against Muslims and Christians as well as relevant programs to combat this discrimination. We want the conference to consider ways that our societies can move beyond tolerance to acceptance and recognition of diversity. I hope we can count on broad government and NGO representation from the region, but particularly from Bosnia, at the conference. Bosnia can and should be a leader in promoting dialogue among religious groups. We would very much like to see Bosnia host an OSCE event on this theme in future. At the Warsaw human dimension’s meeting last year there was only one Bosnian NGO represented. This was the National Council of Roma, but its participation was very significant for us. The plight of the Roma has been a special concern of the Helsinki Commission. No group within the former Yugoslavia has faced discrimination and exclusion so broadly as the Roma have. They continue to be deprived of housing and property rights, face difficulties in accessing personal documents and establishing citizenship. Many have no access to healthcare or education. In view of this widespread discrimination, not just within the Balkans but throughout Europe, the OSCE has sought to address the specific problems of the Roma. Your local Bosnian Helsinki Committee has also recently translated a human rights manual into Romani and I hope this will assist this marginalized community to assert and defend its rights. Eight governments of central and southeastern Europe have taken their own political initiative, titled the “Decade of Roma Inclusion,” to close the gap in welfare and living conditions between the Roma and non-Roma in their societies. Their aim is to break the cycle of poverty and exclusion by 2015. Several of the western Balkan states are active in this initiative. My understanding is that Bosnia is not yet a participant. It should be. One way to judge a society is by how well it protects the rights of those least able to realize them on their own. Any sincere effort to create modern, rights-based societies in the Balkans cannot overlook the plight and abuse of the civil, political, economic and social rights of the Roma. Among fundamental freedoms is the right to religious expression and belief. This is an issue of deep concern to Commission members. The right to practice your faith is no more secure than your readiness to acknowledge the right of others to practice theirs. Since the fall of communism various laws have been adopted in the region to provide for religious freedom, but these have unfortunately had the effect in some respects of restricting this fundamental right. They set numerical thresholds for the registration of religious groups, discriminate in favor traditional faiths, and place limits on free speech and proselytizing. These restrictions are particularly burdensome to new religious denominations and can lead to harassment against and stigmatization of their members. Albania, in contrast, has adopted a progressive law which provides for a neutral registration system that is applied universally. This is a model others in the region should consider adopting. Meanwhile, there is a need to step up efforts to respect the sanctity and ensure the safety of places of worship that have been targets of ethnically based violence in Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo. Governments need to adopt a “zero-tolerance” approach in responding to such provocations. Finally let me address the situation of Kosovo. The pending decision on the final status of Kosovo has given rise to much anxiety and apprehension in the region. Much of the debate on Kosovo has focused on the larger issues of sovereignty, territorial integrity and self-determination. Within Congress and even within the Helsinki Commission reaching a consensus on the right outcome in Kosovo is difficult, but two things are clear. First, there is no connection between Kosovo’s future and the recognized sovereignty and the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Second, whatever form a Kosovo settlement takes, the fundamental issue in the Commission’s view is whether or not it improves the respect for human rights, especially the rights of those people belonging to the Serb, Roma and other minority communities. Those rights include the protection of property and the right of return for displaced persons. Any settlement should also encourage a process of integration and inclusion of these minority communities within a broader Kosovo society. From this perspective the proposed plan of UN Special Envoy Ahtissari can serves as a solid basis for compromise. Even if Belgrade and Pristina cannot agree on the issue of status, they should be engaged in serious negotiations to protect the rights of these minority communities. But whatever becomes of Kosovo, the OSCE and other international human rights standards must apply there and the OSCE must be fully involved in monitoring implementation of any settlement to assure these rights are respected. Conclusion My remarks have focused on some areas of concern, but let me say in conclusion that the region of the western Balkans has come a long way since the 1990’s. The international community has made a substantial investment in the peace, stability and reconstruction in the region, and we welcome this progress. Slovenia is a full-fledged member of NATO and the EU. Croatia is well on the road to membership in both, and Macedonia and Albania are making progress in the right direction. In a welcome development at the end of last year, Bosnia, Serbia and newly independent Montenegro were invited to join NATO’s Partnership for Peace. The regional trajectory is positive. More importantly, the EU and NATO have made a political commitment to include all of the western Balkan states into Euro-Atlantic institutions, and recognized that Europe will be incomplete without your countries. That does not relieve you of the responsibility to meet the conditions of membership in these institutions, but it does offer a bright future for the region. The issues your societies now face are perhaps less dramatic than achieving peace was a decade and more ago. These are issues of complying with human rights norms and improving the quality of life and the relationship between the individual and his or her government. These issues should be a matter of open, public debate in local and regional fora like this one. For too long nationalism and an “us versus them” mentality have dominated public discussion and driven politics in the region. It is time politicians on all sides put down the megaphones and drop the rhetoric that they have been using to polarize the situation. A new dialogue based on an open discussion of these human issues needs to replace it. This is essential to preventing future conflict, promoting economic and social development and sustaining peace. Only political will on the part of governments and party leaders and the full engagement of NGOs and citizens in this Helsinki process of dialogue can get this job done and complete the transition of the western Balkan states into permanent and stable democracies.  

  • Remarks on Energy Security at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Winter Meeting in Vienna, Austria

    Good morning, I am Hilda Solis and I represent the 32nd Congressional District of California in the U.S. House of Representatives. The 32nd District is located in Los Angeles County, California. As a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and a member of the U.S. delegation, I am delighted to be here today and to present the U.S. delegation’s remarks on energy security. To enhance our energy security, we ultimately must consume less and pollute less. The United States acknowledges its leading role in energy consumption and the strain it has put on our world’s energy security. Unfortunately, the policies enacted by President Bush and the Republican-led Congress have exacerbated our energy problems and ignored the very real challenges to our energy security. However, the United States is taking steps to achieve its energy security goals. Under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, the first woman Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Congress passed legislation last month to increase funding for clean technologies and energy efficiency. In Congress we are holding hearings to understand how we can best address climate change, while ensuring that industries which employ workers and maintain stability are able to transition into a clean energy future and maintain economic security. We are working to make federal buildings more energy efficient and incorporate this message and effort throughout our entire federal government. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced that she will establish a Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. She understands that we must address our energy security issues sooner rather than later because as the leading consumer of energy and polluter, the U.S. must lead the way. Because our federal government has failed to adequately address our energy challenges, our states and cities have been taking action on their own. The state of California, which I represent, is the tenth largest emitter of carbon dioxide pollution in the world. I am proud that we are taking action to change that through mandated reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources, such as cars and light-duty trucks, and a recently implemented statewide cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Other states are doing the same. Today, I want the debate on energy security to not only be about oil rigs and pipelines, but about the atmosphere and ice caps. As parliamentarians, we should address issues of energy security and climate change together. Working with our partners in the OSCE, we need to promote sound energy policies, improve energy security and foster economic growth and development. Energy insecurity can be caused by supply chain disruptions—such as when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused major damage to oil refineries in 2005. It can also be caused by political unrest or political power plays. To truly achieve energy security, we need to focus on two key points: 1. We need increased transparency and predictability in energy supply; and 2. We need aggressive action to cut energy use and reduce emissions. We can all agree that the world energy markets are inherently global. Every country is dependent on the energy market. Varying locations of energy supplies and demands will continue to expand trade across the globe, and differences in resource ownership, and access to capital and technology will require increasing cooperation among many parties. Consuming, transit and producing countries share a mutual interest in the expansion of cooperation and in avoiding volatility. One key facet of energy security is securing supply. Securing our energy supply includes the promotion of free-market policies in oil-producing countries. It also includes the protection of property rights, which ensure fair competition, transparency, and good governance. The protection of property rights inevitably enhances access to natural resources and prevents expropriation. We should also promote the privatization of national oil and gas companies and economic liberalization to develop an effective energy security policy. We must also promote political accountability. Many oil-producing countries lack the political will or social framework for good governance in the energy sector. As parliamentarians, we should work together to encourage the development of transparent parliamentary controls over oil and gas revenue and expenditure, and transparent national oil funds to absorb excess oil revenues and prevent the crowding out of non-oil sectors. We should also work to ensure an effective rule of law, democratic political control, and corporate transparency principles in handling oil revenue by government oil companies and energy/oil ministries. We can also promote diversification through the entire energy supply chain. This includes diversification of supply routes (multiple pipelines), diversification of sources of supply (multiple suppliers), and diversification of markets and access to them. Through use of a two pronged approach of renewable energy and energy efficiency we can decrease demand for non-renewable sources of energy. This requires us to work together to increase affordability of renewable energy and reward those who adopt energy efficient measures. I urge the OSCE to follow-up on the consensus parliamentarians built in Brussels as well as the resolution of the Ministers in Maastricht in 2003 where they called for “a predictable, reliable, commercially acceptable, economically sound and environmentally-friendly energy supply.” As uncertainties surrounding global energy supply and demand persist, we must unite to secure our energy supplies, our environment, and our economic future. Together we can promote a global approach that not only promotes energy security, but environmental security as well. Being in Vienna today I can’t help but finish with a quote from the most famous Austrian in America, who is now the governor of California. Arnold Schwarzenegger said: “We know the science, we see the threat, and we know the time for action is now.” The U.S. delegation looks forward to working with you all to take that action within the OSCE and in our home countries. Thank you.

  • Statement on Religious Freedom in Central Asia at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly

    Central Asia remains a region with one of the worst record on religious freedom, and Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are the two most repressive regimes in the entire OSCE region. I therefore want to thank Christian Solidarity Worldwide and the Open Society Institute for holding this event to shine a light on these two countries. I also want to say it’s a pleasure to be here today with Kimmo Kiljunen, my colleague from the Finish delegation. The U.S. Helsinki Commission, of which I am a part, has actively engaged all five “Stans,” and especially these two. With Uzbekistan, despite accepting OSCE commitments to the contrary, the Karimov regime continues its policies of prohibiting unregistered religious activities, jailing thousands of Muslims, and prohibiting the ability of individuals to share their beliefs. Since the Andijon killings last May, the regime has clamped down even harder on all freedoms, but especially religious liberties. Reports indicate that twelve churches have since been stripped of registration, thus making any religious activity “illegal” and subject to significant penalties. There is even concern that a pastor in Andijon may be sentenced to up to 10-20 years in jail for his church work, forcing him to flee the country. The suppression of independent Muslim activity continues unabated, with Forum 18 now reporting that authorities are attempting to stop Muslim schoolchildren from attending mosques. The United States has always recognized that Uzbekistan faces real threats from extremists operating behind the guise of religion and our efforts to urge moderation should never be construed as supporting their ideology or activities. While the tragic events in Andijon were not specifically related to religious freedoms, the spark that ignited the protests was the over zealous prosecution of an Islamic sect. I will therefore continue to urge Uzbekistan to bring its policies into conformity with its OSCE commitments on religious liberties and allow the free practice of religion for all. However, due to the deteriorating conditions for religious freedom, I also believe that sanctions under the International Religious Freedom Act, passed by the Congress in 1998, should also be considered by the State Department. In neighboring Turkmenistan, the Niyazov regime continues to limit the abilities of its citizens to fully enjoy their religious liberties. The recent arrest of local human rights defenders and their relatives on the eve of a European Parliament delegation visit graphically demonstrates the repressive and paranoid nature of the Niyazov regime. Despite some modifications in their laws regulating religious practice, Turkmenistan continues to prohibit unregistered religious activities and to harass both registered and unregistered communities. Independent Muslim and evangelical groups, the Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church all continue to experience problems in obtaining registration and operating freely. The former grand mufti also remains jailed. I will continue to raise with Turkmen officials the need to end the ban on unregistered religious activity, to register all groups so desiring, and to end the harassment of all communities. Although there have been some modest reforms in the past, if Turkmenistan doesn’t restart the reform process, I also believe that sanctions under the International Religious Freedom Act may be warranted. Although this event focuses on religious freedom in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, I do want to comment on a current development in Kazakhstan regarding media freedoms. Kazakhstan does have a better record on religious freedom than these two other countries. However, I was very disappointed that President Nazarbaev signed into law yesterday a very problematic bill that could severely limit freedom of expression. Some of the troubling aspects of the new law include that it reportedly doubles the number of grounds on which authorities may deny a media outlet registration; creates unduly restrictive registration procedures for new media outlets and re-registration procedures for existing media companies; and provides authorities with further opportunities to censor critical media. Considering the criticism the bill received from international and domestic media groups, and considering that Kazakhstan wishes to chair the OSCE in 2009, I am distressed that the President would sign this flawed law into force. I therefore urge the Government of Kazakhstan to revise the new law to ensure that OSCE norms on media freedom are fully respected. In closing, I want to thank CSW and OSI for convening this event and I look forward to working with you all in the future. By working together, we can hopefully motivate Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan to moderate their oppressive policies towards religious freedom.

  • Statement on Human Rights in Central Asia at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

    First, let me thank the organizers of this conference for inviting me to speak.  I applaud the co-sponsors for putting together this timely and sober gathering to mark the one-year anniversary of the Andijon events. I won’t bother talking to this audience about the human rights situation in Central Asia.  The State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices routinely characterize the human rights observance in each country as “poor.”   Some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) here today probably consider that too lenient, and I agree with them.   It’s not surprising that countries which emerged from 70 years of communism should have difficulties creating rule of law states.  But after 15 years of independence we should be seeing some separation of powers and a strong civil society.  Instead, we see “super-presidents,” who have overwhelmed legislatures and judicial systems.  Several have been in power for about 20 years, after rigged or canceled elections.  “Royal families” control the most lucrative sectors of the economy and the media. Of course, newspapers in Kazakhstan have more leeway than in Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan.  But even in Kazakhstan, reports on presidential misdeeds are taboo.    Only in Kyrgyzstan do we see a freer media and hope of more in the future.  And only in Kyrgyzstan is the president’s relationship with the other branches of power not yet set in a pattern of executive branch dominance.  Yet a Tulip Revolution was necessary last year to bring about change in Kyrgyzstan, which raises serious questions about prospects for evolutionary development toward democracy in Central Asia.   This brings us to Uzbekistan.  No Central Asian country worked harder during the last 15 years to develop good strategic relations with Washington and to counterbalance residual Russian influence. But the country’s terrible human rights record complicated the development of a closer relationship.  President Islam Karimov allows no opposition, torture is pervasive, for years human rights groups were unregistered, and Tashkent has waged war against Muslims who wanted to practice their faith outside state-approved channels.    Now, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan is a terrorist group affiliated with al-Qaeda, and Hizb-ut-Tahrir is virulently anti-Western and anti-Semitic.  But Karimov’s exclusive reliance on repression only exacerbates matters and has probably supplied cadres for radical and terrorist organizations.   After September 11, 2001, we needed Uzbekistan’s cooperation and Karimov was delighted to help.  Uzbekistan gave us a military base and the March 2002 agreement on strategic cooperation was signed in Washington.  We agreed to support Uzbekistan, and Uzbekistan pledged to move towards democracy. But Karimov only implemented the democratization commitments just enough for Tashkent and Washington to point to “progress.” Gradually, frustration grew on both sides.  It was just a matter of time before the arrangement collapsed.   People often date the breakdown of U.S.-Uzbek relations to the events that happened in Andijon on May 12 and 13, 2005. We did not condone the violent takeover of government buildings in that city.  But we condemned the indiscriminate shootings in the square that followed and when we called for an independent, international investigation, Karimov balked.    As we all know, he began to move against U.S. NGOs.  Few remain in Uzbekistan today.  Then we were unceremoniously booted out of the K-2 base.  But ties had actually soured long before, because Karimov saw the Stars and Stripes behind the Georgian, Ukrainian and Kyrgyz revolutions. Most alarming for Tashkent was the Tulip Revolution which proved that “people power” was possible in Central Asia.    Like President Putin, Central Asian leaders insist that a sinister hand, based in Washington but using American NGOs working in the region, plotted the downfall of Eduard Shevardnadze, Leonid Kuchma and Askar Akaev -- and is now gunning for them.  So a split has developed in Central Asia.  Kyrgyzstan, though plagued by criminality and sometimes seemingly chaotic, is better off than with the previous corrupt regime and well disposed towards the U.S.    Uzbekistan’s Karimov sees us as his greatest strategic danger; he has cracked down even harder and state-run media accuse us of trying to enslave Uzbekistan. Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan are suspicious of our allegedly revolutionary goals but still want to maintain good ties – as long as they are not threatened by civil society.  And Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan surely assume that we want their oil and gas too much to stir the pot. What can we do about this?  How can we try to make things better, especially keeping in mind that U.S. influence is limited?   This week I will be re-introducing my Central Asia bill, to help ensure that the United States is doing everything possible to encourage these governments to respect human rights and democratization.  The act will also bring greater consistency to U.S. policy, creating a framework to guide our bilateral relations in Central Asia.   The Central Asia Democracy and Human Rights Promotion Act supports the President’s freedom agenda by providing $118 million in assistance for human rights and democracy training and $15 million for increased Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America broadcasting.    The new Act will also establish a certification mechanism for the distribution of assistance to each government. The Secretary of State will determine whether each has made “significant improvements in the protection of human rights.”  This system will have a national security waiver and is modeled on the current system in Foreign Ops appropriations for Kazakhstan and expanded for all five countries.   In addition, considering the forced return of Uzbek refugees from Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, the new Act will require the Secretary of State to report on whether any government is “forcibly returning Uzbeks or other refugees who have fled violence and political persecution.” This is modeled on language regarding Kyrgyzstan in Foreign Ops appropriations and expanded for all five countries.    Notably, my new legislation will create a sanctions section for Uzbekistan.  First, the bill concretizes into law the limitations already in place in Foreign Ops appropriations. The limitation prevents funding to the Uzbek Government unless the Secretary of State determines the government is “making substantial and continuing progress” towards respect for human rights and that the Uzbek Government begins a “credible international investigation” of Andijon.   In addition, the new Act mirrors European Union sanctions by establishing a visa ban and an export ban on munitions.  The sanctions section also establishes an asset freeze for Uzbek officials, their family members, and their associates implicated in the Andijon massacre or involved in other gross violations of human rights.   Ladies and gentlemen, it is hard to promote democratization in strategically important countries whose leaders want to keep all real power in their own hands. Our task is especially complicated by the fact that Russia – which has re-emerged as a major international player, thanks to sky-high oil prices – is working hard to undermine our efforts.  But I think the measures which I’ve outlined here in brief offer a good chance of achieving our goals.   Thank you for your attention.  I look forward to hearing the other participants’ views and your comments.   

  • Congratulating the Children of Chornobyl Relief and Development Fund

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I congratulate the Children of Chornobyl Relief and Development Fund on the launch of the Chornobyl 20 Commemorative airlift.  This feat builds upon the Fund’s impressive record of having sent 31 airlifts and 16 sea shipments to Ukraine, delivering humanitarian aid valued at over $53 million.  The airlifts are just one aspect of CCRDF’s vital and far-reaching work over the last 15 years in helping the most vulnerable in Ukraine – her children.  And, as a Congressman from New Jersey, I’m proud of the work of CCRDF and its supporters in the Cherry Hill-Marlton, Trenton area.   Ten years ago, I chaired a Helsinki Commission hearing on the 10th anniversary of Chornobyl, at which CCRDF Executive Director Alex Kuzma and other witnesses, including then Ukrainian Ambassador Yuri Shcherbak offered compelling testimony addressing the health and demographic consequences of the word’s worst nuclear disaster.  I’m pleased that Ambassador Shamshur has accepted the Helsinki Commission’s invitation to testify at our Chornobyl 20th anniversary hearing which will be held on April 25th.   As a strong advocate of the health of all children, including the unborn, Chornobyl is of special concern.  In Ukraine and Belarus, there is growing evidence of a steep increase in birth defects, especially an alarming 4-fold increase in spina bifida that has been documented by the Ukrainian-American Association for the Prevention of Birth Defects.  Many other forms of birth defects have doubled since Chornobyl, including cataracts, deformed limbs and fingers and cleft palates.  Recent Israeli-Ukrainian studies have shown that children born to Chornobyl liquidators have a seven-fold increase in chromosome damage as compared to their siblings born prior to the Chornobyl disaster.   Last year, I authored language that was included in the State Department Authorization Act authorizing funding for assistance to improve maternal and prenatal care, especially for the purpose of helping prevent birth defects and pregnancy complications.  The monies would be for individuals in Belarus and Ukraine involved in the cleanup of the region affected by the Chornobyl disaster.  We need to make sure that Chornobyl health studies and efforts to prevent birth defects through the distribution of folic acid and better prenatal care receive sufficient funding.  These are funding priorities that I will continue to pursue.   The public health research community was caught off guard by the massive 80-fold increase in thyroid cancer among Chornobyl children in Belarus in 1993, and the world community needs to remain vigilant for other forms of cancer that may begin to emerge now that the 20-year latency period has ended.   We need to remember that the half-life of radioactive cesium is 30 years.  Thousands of children are still being exposed to dangerously high levels of radionuclides in contaminated areas of southern Belarus and northern Ukraine, as well as far-flung areas in Scandinavia and Central and Eastern Europe that also suffered from radioactive fallout.  There is still much that remains to be done to overcome the devastating effects of Chornobyl, and it is important for the international community – both governments and non-governmental organizations – to remember that Chornobyl is not just a Ukrainian, Belarusian or Russian problem.  The fallout will require continued international attention and commitment.   We also need ongoing support for organizations like CCRDF that have worked for 16 years to provide state-of-the-art medical technology, physician training and humanitarian aid to give Ukrainian children a fighting chance to overcome cancer and leukemia. Clearly, there is much work that remains to be done.  Again, I commend the devoted leadership, staff, volunteers and supporters of CCRDF for your tireless work and deep commitment to a most noble cause.   

  • Debate on "Present World Crisis Regarding Freedom of Expression and Respect for Religious Beliefs"

    In the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the people’s right to freedom of speech, including freedom of the press, and the people’s right to peacefully assemble to protest both, are guaranteed. As political leaders, we have a special responsibility—words have consequences.  When words can lead to anti-Muslim or anti-Semitic or anti-Christian actions—we have a responsibility to speak out against such expression.   The recent political cartoons published in the European press which mock the Prophet Mohammed and equate Islam and practicing Muslims with terrorism are not only offensive but also irresponsible because they foster anti-Muslim sentiment. We should protect the right of the press, but we should condemn such expressions as wrong.   If we do not act, we risk leaving a terrible legacy to our children.    Such a legacy would condone hate speech and racial and religious incitement.  Such a legacy would lead to more tragic and unjustifiable violence, more discrimination against Muslims and more attempts by government to improperly control the media.   We should act effectively and peacefully.    Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the most profound civil rights leader in the United States in the 20th Century, cautioned all of us that the legacy of hate and violence must not be hate and violence.  The violent response to the cartoons must be condemned, but our response to the cartoons must be decisive.   The OSCE has acted against anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia and all forms of religious discrimination.  We have an action plan reinforced by ODIHR and our special representatives.   We need to reinforce our efforts to educate respect and understanding among all religions.  We need to strengthen training on the right and responsibility of a free media.  We need to promote specific and appropriate activities in each of our States to facilitate these goals.    As leaders, let our legacy be for each of our States—freedom of the press and greater understanding and respect for religious diversity.

  • Excerpts of Remarks by Rep. Chris Smith

    Polish Solidarity Trade Union - 25th Anniversary Today we continue celebrating the 25th Anniversary of Solidarity and in particular, the bravery, tenacity and innate goodness of Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Lech Walesa. It is especially timely to host the former President owing to yesterday’s stunning election results that have ushered Solidarity’s ideological soulmates back into power.  Projections suggest that the Law and Justice Party got almost 28% of the vote and the Civil Platform gained 24%. Some time ago, I read Lech Walesa’s powerful and riveting autobiography, “A Way of Hope.”  Filled with insight and brutally honest, the book walks the reader through a series of volatile events—personal and public—that have literally transformed the world. In the book, we get a glimpse into Lech Walesa’s deep faith—and the role his beloved mother, and her Catholic beliefs had on him; “Neighbors came to our house to say the rosary.” he tells us in the book.  The book is filled with remembrances of family—and his love for his wife. On leadership he tells us: I’ve never wished or prepared for a leadership role: paradoxically, it’s because I never really wanted it, absorbed as I was by quite different concerns, different problems which needed solving, that I found myself out in front, leading the others—“leading the flock,” I call it with a smile. He tells us of the strike of 1970 “All we wanted was to free our fellow workers, we wanted no violence.” And that his worst fears were realized: “Poles had fired against Poles.” In the chapter “The Strike and the August Agreement” he tells us how the movement had matured: Until then I had been talking, bluffing, playing “on credit.” Although we pretended to be holding all the high cards, our opponents knew our game inside out, they’d been playing against us for years! But what they didn’t know was the nature of our very last card: the determination that had been maturing for ten years now, since the death of three of our colleagues right in front of the second entrance to the shipyard.  When His Holiness Pope John Paul II made his historic trip to his homeland in 1979, he counseled his flock and his country men and women, “Be Not Afraid.”  But Lech Walesa gave us additional insight into how Solidarity and Pope John Paul II were “inextricably bound together” and how it almost ended in 1981.   It was in Japan that we heard of the dramatic attempt on the Pope’s life. The news broke in the middle of the night May 13-14, 1981. We were in my hotel room in Nagasaki, discussing the events of the day, and our visit the next day to the museum set up in memory of the victims of the atomic bomb. The first news flash was terrifying: the Pope was dead! The next news flash retracted it: no, the Pope was still alive, he was fighting for his life. I was overcome by a feeling of immense loneliness; the whole world seemed to have turned upside down; with our lodestar gone, some of us were wandering in a wilderness with out hope. The tragedy of the Polish Pope was also the tragedy of Poland and of Solidarity: they were inextricably bound together; this was just the beginning.  Then the news changed, became less alarming; there was still hope. In his chapter “Martial Law,” Lech Walesa tells us how they decided that if the militia invaded the shipyard during the night, they decided on passive resistance: “Our greatest strength is precisely our weakness—our living bodies and empty hands confronting tanks and nightsticks.” His wife Danuta writes in the book how she was discouraged when he was locked up during marital law but “he seemed rather pleasant, …we had to be dignified about it all, because even in a place like this, we still had the upper hand; we, not they, were making history.” By 1989, Solidarity leaders sat across the table from Wojtech Jaruzelski, the same General who had imposed martial law in 1981.  And they negotiated what had seemed to most of the world impossible:  the peaceful transition from communism to free and fair elections.  In August of 1989, less than a decade after the Gdansk shipyard strikes that gave birth to Solidarity, Poland would elect its first non-communist Prime Minister since the communist takeover. Finally, Lech Walesa tells us in the book that in his school years “history was my weak point.”  But, I am here to say to you, Mr. Walesa, studying history does not matter when you are the one who makes history by bringing freedom, respect for human rights, and enduring democracy not only to your own country, but the entire region as well.

  • Sen. Brownback's Address to the Preparatory NGO Forum Cordoba OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism and Other Forms of Intolerance

    Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests and friends. It’s an honor to join my voice with yours today, as you gather together in the fight against anti-Semitism, discrimination and racism. Last month, the world paused to mark Holocaust Remembrance Day and the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II. We remembered the men, women, and children who suffered and were murdered in Nazi death camps across Europe, as well as those who fought against Hitler’s tyranny of hatred, death and destruction. The testimonies of those who survived Auschwitz and other death camps attest to the capacity of evil. At the same time, the lives of the survivors underscore the resilience of the human spirit and the fact that good can and must prevail over evil. We can learn much from their courage and determination. We must. For the flames of hatred, death, and destruction did not die out in a bunker in Berlin, nor were they consigned to the last century. At the start of a new century, we need not look far to see how quickly embers can be ignited even today. As we all know, roughly three years ago Jewish communities across Europe and North America were beset by a surge of anti-Semitism and related violence. Tragically, members of the Jewish community and Jewish institutions and symbols continue to be targeted by the purveyors of hate. In addition, racist bigots continue to assail individuals because of the color of their skin. Roma and persons of African or Arab decent, for example, are regularly targeted. Persons are assaulted everyday because of their religious faith or beliefs. The OSCE, including the three Personal Representatives of the Chair-in-Office, are important vehicles for increasing awareness of the scope of anti-Semitism and other forms of racism as well as assisting participating States in developing concrete measures to confront these evils. At the same time, we must never lose sight of the fact that the responsibility for actions rests first and foremost with governments. Unfortunately, for too many countries we’ve only seen lip service to the commitments undertaken to forward information to the OSCE. Political will is essential. In this regard, the Cordoba Conference provides an opportunity for governments to report on the specific measures they have undertaken to implement relevant OSCE commitments on combating anti-Semitism and other forms of racism. Regrettably, implementation has been uneven. As Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I will continue to work with other governments and parliamentarians to encourage them to be proactive and vigilant in this battle. In addition to ensuring that police and prosecutors vigorously combat these manifestations, government leaders have a responsibility to speak out against acts of violence whenever they occur. Silence, I fear, will be interpreted as sanction, inaction as endorsement. While I and many others are committed to confronting and combating manifestations of anti-Semitism, racism, and related violence, we must partner with you, the non-government community. You are on the ground, ministering to those who hurt, listening to your communities. We will rely on you as an early warning system, so we can head off problems before they proliferate, as well as to critique government action or inaction. Sadly, while the world professed shock at the scope of the atrocities and cruelty of the Holocaust, it has not prevented genocides elsewhere – Bosnia, Rwanda, and now Darfur. Therefore, while law enforcement and public denunciations are critical, we must inoculate our children through education, if we are to secure a lasting victory over the diseases of anti-Semitism and racism. Both at home and at school, teachers should be encouraged to incorporate lessons from our history, drawing on the lessons from the Holocaust and contemporary examples of genocide. We can best teach our children about the dangers of these evils by giving real meaning to the phrase “never again.” In closing, I hope this NGO day will prove fruitful, and that alliances can be formed and bridges built in this common struggle. I applaud your efforts and assure you of our continued support in Congress and through the ongoing work of the Helsinki Commission. I want to thank our hosts in Seville, the Tres Culturas Foundation, as well as Spain for hosting the Cordoba Conference. I know there are many faiths represented here today. I believe that by working together, speaking out in unison, and with God’s help, we will defeat these evils.

  • Gender Equality: The Problem of Prostitution and Human Trafficking

    Madame Chairperson, I would like to thank the OSCE's Special Representative on the Gender Issue, Ms. Tingsgård, for proposing this topic for discussion in our Committee meeting today. I welcome the opportunity to discuss human trafficking issues in the context of ensuring equality between women and men as well as, specifically, the nexus between prostitution and human trafficking.  The United States Government currently estimates that 600,000 to 800,000 people become victims of international human trafficking each year, and potentially millions more are trafficked within countries. Eighty percent of victims are female; nearly 70% of all victims are trafficked for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation. These statistics clearly indicate that there is a correlation between trafficking and the status of women, on the one hand, and between trafficking and prostitution, on the other. I will address first the interrelationship between trafficking and prostitution. While prostitution and human trafficking are not identical forms of exploitation, they are nevertheless related. Prostitution fuels the market for human trafficking. Aggressive efforts to reduce the demand for prostitution, therefore, are one means of fighting the underlying demand that fuels trafficking. I would like to highlight several demand reduction measures that we, as parliamentarians, can support through legislation or oversight of government activities. First, anti-prostitution laws and child sexual exploitation laws should be vigorously enforced against the purchasers of sexual services. As the Swedish Government has found, trafficking in human beings could not flourish but for the existence of local prostitution markets where men are willing and able to buy and sell women and children for sexual exploitation. Since 1999, Sweden has aggressively prosecuted men who purchase commercial sex acts. According to the Swedish Government, since the Act Prohibiting the Purchase of Sexual Services came into force there has been a dramatic drop in the number of women in street prostitution, in the number of men who buy sexual services, and in the recruitment of women into prostitution. Moreover, traffickers have been deterred from operating in Sweden--traffickers have had problems finding men to buy sex from the trafficked women and, as a result, their profits have been smaller than they expected. The traffickers seemingly have moved on to more lucrative markets. A second demand reduction measure is to prevent sex tourism. It is a sad fact that some men purchase sex acts when they travel for business purposes. Others purposefully go abroad to purchase sex acts under the assumption that they will less likely be caught and arrested. In an effort to curb such "sex tourism," which often involves the sexual abuse of children, thirty-two countries now have laws allowing for the prosecution of their citizens for crimes committed abroad. Since April 2003, U.S. law has allowed for the prosecution, in United States courts, of Americans who travel abroad and sexually abuse children. The penalty is up to thirty years in prison. Since the law's enactment, ten men have been arrested for engaging or attempting to engage in child sex tourism. Another demand reduction measure is to support education programs for men who are arrested for soliciting commercial sex acts. Such programs, known as John Schools, are being run successfully in the United States and Canada. This approach is complementary to enforcement of anti-solicitation laws against purchasers because it moves the men into programs designed for intervention and rehabilitation. The programs educate men, often in very graphic terms, about the harm their behavior causes to women, children, families, and communities. The first time a man is arrested for soliciting, he is offered the opportunity to attend such a program in lieu of being criminally charged. Men who attend the program pay an administrative fee that is funneled by the government back into programs to help women get out of prostitution. The John School run in San Francisco reports a recidivism (re-arrest) rate of less than one percent for the men who attend the school. One approach that does not work to reduce human trafficking is legalizing or regulating the prostitution industry. Legalization enables traffickers and creates multiple venues for exploitation. In recent years, several European countries have legalized brothels in the name of fighting human trafficking. There have been, and currently are, legislative proposals in other OSCE countries to do the same. I urge you to consider the evidence very carefully before making such a choice. Legalization of prostitution expands the market for commercial sex, thereby opening markets for criminal enterprises and creating a legal façade behind which criminals who traffic people for prostitution can easily hide. Despite the existence of legal regulations on prostitution, organized crime groups will not register with the government, will not pay taxes, and will not protect the women and children they buy, sell and exploit. Legalization of the sex industry simply makes it easier for the criminal elements to blend in and makes it more difficult for law enforcement authorities to identify and punish the traffickers. In the United States, federal prosecutors have told us that traffickers already hide their trafficking activities under cover of the legal strip club industry in the United States and that the situation would only be worse if the prostitution industry were legalized. Another reason to oppose legalized prostitution is that such an approach fails to address the core problem with prostitution: the abuse, violence, and degradation of those caught in its web. Few activities are as damaging to a person's physical, mental and spiritual health as prostitution. Research conducted in nine countries, including Canada, Germany, Turkey and the United States indicates that 89% of women in prostitution want to leave prostitution. Another study in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand found that 96% of the women want to leave. The nine country study also concluded that 60-75% of women in prostitution suffered rape, 70-95% suffered physical assaults, and 68% suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. A study in Minnesota found that 46% of the women in prostitution had attempted suicide; another found that 65% of prostituted women had attempted suicide, and 38% had done so more than once. In addition, individuals in prostitution are at tremendous risk of contracting sexually transmitted and other serious communicable and often life-threatening diseases. No amount of state licensing requirements, regulated medical check-ups, or condom use will ever eliminate these threats to women and children being exploited in prostitution. But I would argue that the primary reason to be opposed to legalized prostitution is that women and girls deserve better. As I stated in the beginning, eighty percent of trafficking victims are female--adults and children. These statistics highlight that there is a dimension to the problem of human trafficking that has nothing to do with organized crime or even prostitution. The status of women and girls is central to this entire battle against trafficking. Women who are tricked, defrauded, or coerced into prostitution via trafficking certainly do not deserve to be abandoned in a legalized sex industry. But equally so, women who on their own became engaged in prostitution, whether they are trafficked as a part of that experience or not, more often than not made this choice out of economic desperation and often as a result of having been earlier victimized through physical and sexual abuse in their homes. Women deserve real responses to these problems. A State that responds to such women by saying that they can work legally in the sex industry has provided a response that leads only to further exploitation and abuse. Legalization is abandonment of the vulnerable. As we continue our efforts to combat human trafficking, I urge a greater focus on the human rights violations that make women economically vulnerable, more likely to engage in prostitution, more likely to consider migration, and thus more likely to be preyed upon by traffickers. Specifically, I am referring to physical and sexual violence against women and children which is all too often ignored by legal systems and downplayed by law enforcement authorities. I am also referring to unchallenged discrimination in educational systems and the economic marketplace that contributes to women's missed opportunities and economic distress. These and other violations of the human rights of women can result in more women being victimized through trafficking. The solutions lie in reforms like equal access to the classroom, micro-credit loans, equal pay for equal work, enforceable laws against sex, race and age discrimination, and more robust governmental responses to violence against women. These solutions can begin with actions at the legislative level and are badly needed in many OSCE states. Thank you, Madame Chairperson, for allowing us this time to discuss these important issues.

  • Helsinki Commission Chairman Delivers Remarks on Belarus, Ukraine Elections

    * Conference on the Implications of the East European Elections: Ukraine and Belarus The Heritage Foundation Thank you for inviting me to participate in your important and timely session. Both Ukraine and Belarus face important elections in the coming month.  Both are societies burdened by the Soviet communist legacy of the past.  Both were “Captive Nations” and both, albeit to varying degrees,  are vulnerable to Russia’s political and economic influence, especially  as all too many among the Russian political elite have not yet reconciled themselves to the loss of empire.  Both now border on NATO and the EU.   Both face serious challenges to democracy and Euro-Atlantic integration. There are many other similarities.  There are also important distinctions. Belarus is ruled by a dictator who controls the levers of power and increasingly all facets ofBelarusian society.  Given the level of control and repression, there are few counterweights to Lukashenka’s rule.  The parliament, the National Assembly lacks real powers and Members have little power to be independent of Lukashenka’s strong-arm tactics.  Civil society, including NGOs and independent media, is under a tight lid.  Fundamentally flawed elections have left that country lacking a legitimate president and legislature. Ukraine, for all of the backsliding, scandals, and problems with respect to human rights, democracy and the rule of law, has institutions that act at least somewhat as a check on the powers-that-be, despite the ruling regime’s attempts to control and, in some instances, stifle genuine democratic development and civil society.  Civil society is tolerated to a greater extent than in Belarus, and independent media, while under severe pressure, is more widespread.  There are competing centers of power and many diverse economic, political and social interests in Ukraine.  In the case of Ukraine, despite the progress in many areas since independence, there have been significant problems with respect to implementation of OSCE human dimension commitments, including in the areas of media freedoms, freedom of association and assembly, corruption, the rule of law and elections.  The largest faction in the Rada is that of democratic opposition and presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine.  The pro-presidential parliamentary majority has disintegrated, with the defection earlier this month of the party led by Rada Speaker Lytvyn.  Genuine political competition exists, and, of course, there is competition among the oligarchs.  In Belarus, there is only one oligarch.  Although the Kuchma regime might be tempted, thus far, they have not been able to act with the same degree of impunity that Lukashenka exhibits. International attention is rightly now focused on ensuring free, fair, open and transparent presidential elections on October 31 with a second round likely in late November.  These elections are critically important to the future of Ukraine, yet we see on a daily basis an election campaign that calls into question Ukraine’s commitment to OSCE principles.  Without exaggeration, Ukraine is facing a critical presidential election – a choice not only between Euro-Atlantic integration versus reintegration into the former Soviet Eurasian space, but a choice between further development toward a European-style democracy, such as in Poland or Hungary,  versus the increasingly authoritarian system that prevails in Russia today. Many analysts and organizations, including the Helsinki Commission, have chronicled the numerous election campaign violations taking place inUkraine.  We continue to maintain our strong interest and concern.  Along with Chairman Henry Hyde, I joined him in introducing H.Con.Res. 415, calling on the Government of Ukraine to ensure a democratic, transparent, and fair election process for the presidential campaign.  We make clear the expectation that Ukrainian authorities should – consistent with their own laws and international agreements – ensure an election process that enables all of the candidates to compete on a level playing field.   We urge the Ukrainian Government to guarantee freedom of association and assembly, ensure full transparency of the election process, free access for Ukrainian and international election observers, and unimpeded access by all candidates to the media on a non-discriminatory basis. Unfortunately, the pre-election environment in Ukraine gives great cause for concern.  Ukrainian voters clearly are not receiving balanced and objective information about all the candidates in the race, independent media providing Ukrainians with objective information about the campaign – including channel 5 – is being shut down in the regions, and journalists who don’t follow the infamous secret instructions from the presidential administration, or temnyky, are harassed and even fired.  Ukraine’s state-owned television channels are blatantly anti-Yushchenko.  Given the stakes in these elections, we should not be surprised that the ruling regime has launched an all-out campaign against the free media and against the opposition, the most recent of numerous examples being the highly suspicious poisoning of Victor Yushchenko.  To its credit, the Rada last week overwhelmingly approved a resolution creating a special commission to investigate this alleged assassination attempt.  We will be eager to see if the investigation will get underway.  Four years have passed since the killing of independent journalist Georgi Gongadze, and the case remains unresolved.  As you know, Gongadze was bravely exposing high-level corruption in Ukraine. The Rada has also created an ad-hoc committee to monitor the upcoming election.  Prime Minister Yanukovych, the presidential candidate of the ruling regime, instead of welcoming this move, called the Rada move “disloyal”.  This speaks volumes.   The independence exhibited by the Rada in Ukraine would be unthinkable in Belarus.  There, serious and persistent violations have been committed in most human dimension areas, including freedom of speech, association and assembly, media freedoms, religious liberties, elections and the rule of law.  Thanks to Lukashenka’s iron rule, Belarus has the worst human rights record in Europe today, although Russia under the increasingly authoritarian rule of President Putin appears to be catching up, and, perhaps, even emulating Mr. Lukashenka.  Regrettably, the Belarusian authorities have disregarded the four democratic benchmarks established by the OSCE in 2000 – ending repressions and the climate of fear, permitting a functioning independent media, ensuring transparency of the elections process, and strengthening the functions of parliament. Lukashenka has flaunted shamelessly his 1999 Istanbul OSCE Summit declaration commitments for a political dialogue, with OSCE participation which stressed the necessity of removing "all remaining obstacles in Belarus to this dialogue by respecting the principles of the rule of law and the freedom of the media.” Lukashenka has pointedly ignored this commitment and the situation with respect to the rule of law and media freedoms has only continued its steady deterioration.  At the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Bucharest in 2000, I offered language to continue to deny the seating of the illegitimate Lukashenka parliament.  We won.  I continued to fight this battle until 2003, when the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly abandoned this position and seated the Members of the National Assembly.  Since that time, I’ve continued to be an outspoken critic of the dismal human rights record of the Lukashenka regime. Parliamentary elections are scheduled in Belarus for October 17, and they now have an added dimension, with Lukashenka’s September 7 announcement of a referendum that would pave the way to extend his rule beyond 2006, when his ten-year tenure is due to expire, to potentially join the ranks of “presidents for life,” like President Niyazov in Turkmenistan and others in Central Asia.   The fact that, according to the Belarusian electoral code, a referendum cannot contain any questions related to presidential elections will certainly not deter him.  Interestingly, opinion polls suggest that most Belarusians are against extending Lukashenka’s rule, and the threshold for passage of the referendum is high, as at least 50 percent of all eligible voters – and not merely those casting ballots – have to vote “yes” for the referendum to pass.  We will see how they manipulate that one. Nevertheless, to say that the deck is stacked in favor of Lukashenka is an understatement.   The Belarusian Government has almost total control over the electoral process and considerable experience in conducting elections that, to put it mildly, do not meet international democratic standards.  For example, opposition parties have been allocated a mere two percent of seats on the district election commissions, and an appalling 0.2 percent of the 7,000 precinct commissions.  One-third of the candidates proposed by Belarusian opposition parties were reportedly denied registration. Ladies and gentlemen, to their credit, Belarus’ repressed and embattled opposition and NGOs have not yet given up.  We need to continue to support these brave men and women and all those struggling for democracy and human rights in Belarus.  I am the sponsor of the BelarusDemocracy Act, which is waiting for consideration by the full House.  The BDA is intended to promote democracy, human rights and rule of law inBelarus, including assistance for democracy building activities such as support for NGOs, independent media, international exchanges and international broadcasting.  We want to stand firmly on the side of those who long for freedom.  As President Bush noted at Madison Square Garden earlier this month [on September 2], “The story of America is the story of expanding liberty:  an ever-widening circle, constantly growing to reach further and include more. Our nation’s founding commitment is still our deepest commitment:  In our world, and here at home, we will extend the frontiers of freedom.” We are eager to have governments and parliaments in both countries with whom we can join forces to combat the scourges of our day, such as human trafficking, HIV/AIDS which has reportedly infected one percent of Ukraine’s population, or corruption and cooperation on movement towards common security and Euro-Atlantic integration.  We know that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Belarusian women and children have been trafficked mostly to Europe and the Middle East over the course of the last decade.  The problem is especially acute in Ukraine – one of the largest source countries in Europe.  Ukraine is also a major transit country.  Both Ukraine and Belarus have been designated in the most recent State Department report as Tier II countries (there are three tiers), meaning that these governments do not yet fully comply with minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking, but is making significant efforts to do so.  As the lead author of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and its reauthorization which became law in 2003, I am pleased that our government, the OSCE and other international organizations and NGOs are devoting resources to combat this modern day slavery, but much more remains to be done. For both Ukraine and Belarus, the best guarantee for their survival as independent countries is the full establishment of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, including, very importantly, democratic elections.  In short, the best guarantee is their implementation of commitments both nations freely undertook when they joined the OSCE.  Standing in solidarity with the courageous pro-democracy in both countries and with the people of Belarusand Ukraine, we must continue to encourage compliance with these commitments. END REMARKS

  • Ukraine's Quest for Mature Statehood: Ukraine's Transition to a Stable Democracy

    Thank you for inviting me to participate in this conference on Ukraine 's Transition to a Stable Democracy. Media freedom is an especially important topic with the upcoming presidential elections in Ukraine , in what will be a defining year with respect to Ukraine 's democratic transition. Given the stakes, we should not be surprised by the fact that the powers-that-be have launched an all-out campaign to pressure the media.  Freedom of expression - and its corollary, freedom of the media - is one of the most basic human rights. It is vital to the development of civil society. Numerous OSCE agreements include various commitments on freedom of the media. These are agreements that Ukraine has voluntarily and freely committed to abide by as one of the 55 participating States of the OSCE.  The Helsinki Commission, whose mandate is to monitor and encourage compliance by the OSCE States with their OSCE agreements, has also maintained a strong interest in freedom of media in general and recognizes its importance in democratic development. As many of you know, the Commission has also maintained a strong interest in Ukraine and has, over the last several decades, been steadfast in encouraging Ukraine's independence. We are eager to have as an ally a democratic country where human rights are respected and the rule of law prevails.  We continue to maintain our strong interest and concern, especially with the critically important October 31 presidential elections. I am the original cosponsor of a House resolution, H.Con.Res. 415, introduced by Rep. Henry Hyde, the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, calling on the Government of Ukraine to ensure a democratic, transparent, and fair election process for the presidential election. (This resolution, which was introduced by Commission Co-Chairman Sen. Campbell, has recently passed the Senate and will soon be taken up by the House.) The resolution outlines measures Ukrainian authorities need to take - consistent with their own laws and international agreements - to ensure an election process that enables all of the candidates to compete on a level playing field. The resolution specifically identifies violations to free media and urges unimpeded access by all parties and candidates to print, radio, television, and Internet media on a non-discriminatory basis.  Unfortunately, the situation with respect to the media in Ukraine in the run-up to the elections is discouraging. The election - apparently because of the clear-cut choice between current Prime Minister Yanukovich, and leader of the Our Ukraine democratic bloc Victor Yuschenko - seems to have frightened those who are now in power. It seems the ruling regime has decided to interfere in media election coverage at an unprecedented scale, presumably with the expectation that the interference will ensure their victory at the polls.  The OSCE recently assessed the media situation in the election campaign. They noted that overall, media pluralism is present in Ukraine - different views are represented and politicians of all ranks are regularly criticized - and in general the legal framework is satisfactory. On the other hand, according to OSCE and many other observers, "the one view dominating the airwaves is that of the government", due to an ownership structure closely connected to, or influenced by the current government. It is also due to the infamous so-called "temniki" or "secret instructions" to media from the presidential administration about what or what not to cover and how to cover it. The institutional framework of frequency allocation and licensing also allows for favoritism in the electronic media.  In short, the electronic media is heavily dominated by government and oligarchs, and the media tilts heavily towards Yanukovich, while casting Yuschenko in a negative light. The media is under attack:  * Since the beginning of this year, Ukrainian authorities have harassed, closed and filed lawsuits against numerous electronic and print media.  * Radio Liberty , an important source of objective information, and other radio stations such as Radio Kontynent have been either partially or totally taken off the air. Months of promises to various U.S. officials that Radio Liberty would be put back on the air have come to naught.  * Print runs have been permanently or temporarily stopped for several newspapers. Just a few days ago, authorities in the Kharkiv region temporarily confiscated 42,000 copies of the newspaper Without Censorship. Other media face politically motivated law suits.  * Volia cable, the leading cable television operator in Ukraine , (which carries the only channel which reports objectively on the democratic opposition - Channel 5) is experiencing severe pressure from the Prosecutor-General's office. Almost all cable companies that carry Channel 5 received a variety of threats and tax inspections, and some reportedly had cables "accidentally" cut.  * Reporters face harassment and censorship daily for their objective reporting.  Ladies and Gentlemen, equal access to media must be provided during the remainder of the presidential campaign and will be key in determining whether or not the presidential elections will be judged as free and fair by the OSCE and the international community. The elections will be a watershed for the future direction of that country. Ukraine has tremendous potential. Ukrainian authorities need to radically improve the election environment, including the media environment, if there is to be hope for these elections to meet OSCE standards.  In just two days, on September 16, we will mark the fourth anniversary of the killing of independent journalist Georgi Gongadze, who was exposing high-level corruption in Ukraine. His murder has been subject to numerous international protests, including statements, intercessions, and queries, by me and other Helsinki Commission members. Ladies and gentlemen, it is a case of a massive cover-up by high-level officials.  This is the fifth time that your conference is being held. The first took place four years ago just two days after Gongadze's disappearance. It was at that first conference that representatives of the Helsinki Commission and State Department first called for the Ukrainian government to investigate his disappearance. Four years later, the case remains unresolved. Ukrainian President Kuchma and a number of high-ranking officials have been implicated in his disappearance and the circumstances leading to his murder. The Ukrainian authorities' handling, or more accurately mishandling of this case, has been characterized by obfuscation and stonewalling, destruction of evidence, and the persecution and even death, in one instance, of those who tried to tell the truth about the case.  Tragically for Ukraine, the handling of this case has made a mockery of the rule of law. Not surprisingly, lack of transparency illustrated by the Gongadze case has fueled the debilitating problem of widespread corruption reaching the highest levels in Ukraine. A credible and transparent investigation of this case by Ukrainian authorities is long overdue and the perpetrators - no matter who they may be - need to be brought to justice. I hope that well before the sixth of your conferences, this case is resolved, as well as the cases of at least 18 other journalists in Ukraine who, according to Western media watchdog organizations, have died because of their work.  These journalists, including Mr. Gongadze, were exposing the massive problem of corruption and crime in Ukraine. One important issue intimately linked with corruption and crime worldwide - a global scourge to which Ukraine is by no means immune - is the trafficking of women and children. Each year, an estimated 600,000 to 800,000 girls, boys, women and men, including tens of thousands of Ukrainians, are bought and sold like chattel across international borders, many of them for brutal exploitation in the commercial sex industry. The plight of these individuals has touched many hearts and has led to a global movement to eradicate this form of modern-day slavery known as trafficking in human beings.  In November 2000, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which I authored, was enacted with broad, bi-partisan support. The Act provides a framework for combating trafficking through law enforcement, prevention programs, and assistance to those victimized. The Act mandated major changes in U.S. law, including severe penalties of up to life in prison for those who traffic in humans and treatment of the victims - mostly women and children - as victims of crime rather than criminals themselves. This past December, President Bush signed a reauthorization of the Act, which I also wrote, to expand and strengthen the U.S. response to this scourge.  Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian women and children have been trafficked mostly to Europe and the Middle East over the course of the last decade, making it one of the largest source countries in Europe . It is also a major transit country. Ukraine has been designated in the most recent State Department report as a Tier II country (there are three tiers), meaning that the Ukrainian Government does not yet fully comply with minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking, but is making significant efforts to do so. I am pleased that our government, the OSCE and other international organizations and NGOs are devoting resources to combat this modern day slavery, but much more remains to be done. I encourage the Ukrainian Government to make further progress, and implement its Comprehensive Program to Combat Trafficking in Persons, better coordinate with law enforcement officials of destination countries, and fight government corruption.  By conducting free and fair elections, respecting media freedoms, including resolving the Gongadze case, and effectively tackling the scourge of trafficking, the Ukrainian authorities will go a long way in restoring the trust of the citizens of Ukraine and strengthening Ukraine's independence, democracy, sending a powerful signal of its readiness to join the Euro-Atlantic community of nations. I stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian people as they strive to achieve these important goals.

Pages