67th Anniversary of Ukraine Famine and 25th Anniversary of Ukraine Helsinki Group

67th Anniversary of Ukraine Famine and 25th Anniversary of Ukraine Helsinki Group

Hon.
Christopher H. Smith
United States
House of Representatives
107th Congress Congress
First Session Session
Wednesday, November 14, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the memory of innocent victims of an abominable act perpetrated against the people of Ukraine in 1932-33. Seven million innocent men, women and children were murdered so that one man, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, could consolidate control over Ukraine. The Ukrainian people resisted the Soviet policy of forced collectivization. The innocent died a horrific death at the hands of a tyrannical dictatorship which had crushed their freedom. In an attempt to break the spirit of an independent-minded and nationally-conscious Ukrainian peasantry, and ultimately to secure collectivization, Stalin ordered the expropriation of all foodstuffs in the hands of the rural population. The grain was shipped to other areas of the Soviet Union or sold on the international market. Peasants who refused to turn over grain to the state were deported or executed. Without food or grain, mass starvation ensued. This manmade famine was the consequence of deliberate policies which aimed to destroy the political, cultural and human rights of the Ukrainian people. In short, food was used as a weapon in what can only be described as an organized act of terrorism designed to suppress a people's love of their land and the basic liberty to live as they choose.

This month also marks an important milestone in more recent Ukrainian history. Twenty-five years ago, on November 9, 1976, 10 courageous men and women formed the Ukrainian Public Group to Promote the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords. The work of the Ukrainian Helsinki Group focused on monitoring human rights violations and on the Ukrainian national question as an integral component of human rights issues. The Ukrainian Helsinki Group eventually became the largest of its kind among similar groups in the Soviet Union, but also the most repressed by the Soviet regime. Of the 37 Ukrainians who eventually joined the Group, virtually all were subjected to lengthy terms in labor camps and internal exile. Three--Oleksiy Tykhy, Yuri Lytvyn and Vasyl Stus--died in the mid-1980s while serving camp terms under extremely harsh conditions. Their courageous, active commitment to human rights and freedom for the people of Ukraine laid the foundation for the historic achievement of Ukrainian independence in 1991. As we honor the memory of the millions of innocent victims of the Ukrainian Famine, let us also not forget to honor the work and, in some instances, the martyrdom, of the valiant members of the Ukrainian Helsinki Group. While similar atrocities are highly unlikely, Ukraine has yet to realize its full democratic potential. Despite the real progress made in the decade since independence, the unsolved murders of Georgiy Gongadze and other journalists and political figures, the assaults on media freedoms, the pervasive corruption, and the lack of respect for the rule of law demonstrate a democratic deficit that must be overcome. An independent, sovereign, democratic Ukraine--in which respect for the dignity of human beings is the cornerstone--is the best guarantee that the horrors of the last century become truly inconceivable.

Relevant countries: 
Leadership: 
  • Related content
  • Related content
Filter Topics Open Close
  • S. Res. 202, Expressing the Sense of the Senate Regarding the Genocidal Ukraine Famine of 1932-33

    Mr. Campbell submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:   S. RES. 202   Whereas 2003 marks the 70th anniversary of the Ukraine Famine, a manmade disaster that resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent Ukrainian men, women, and children and annihilated an estimated 25 percent of the rural population of that country;   Whereas it has been documented that large numbers of inhabitants of Ukraine and the then largely ethnically Ukrainian North Caucasus Territory starved to death in the famine of 1932-33, which was caused by forced collectivization and grain seizures by the Soviet regime;   Whereas the United States Government's Commission on the Ukraine Famine concluded that former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and his associates committed genocide against Ukrainians in 1932-33, using food as a political weapon to achieve the aim of suppressing any Ukrainian expression of political and cultural identity and self-determination;   Whereas, as a result, millions of rural Ukrainians starved amid some of the world's most fertile farmland, while Soviet authorities prevented them from traveling to areas where food was more available;   Whereas requisition brigades, acting on Stalin's orders to fulfill the impossibly high grain quotas, seized the 1932 crop, often taking away the last scraps of food from starving families and children and killing those who resisted;   Whereas Stalin, knowing of the resulting starvation, intensified the extraction from Ukraine of agricultural produce, worsening the situation and deepening the loss of life;   Whereas, during the Ukraine Famine, the Soviet Government exported grain to western countries and rejected international offers to assist the starving population;   Whereas the Ukraine Famine was not a result of natural causes, but was instead the consequence of calculated, ruthless policies that were designed to destroy the political, cultural, and human rights of the Ukrainian people;   Whereas the Soviet Union engaged in a massive cover-up of the Ukraine Famine, and journalists, including some foreign correspondents, cooperated with the campaign of denial and deception; and   Whereas, 70 years later, much of the world is still unaware of the genocidal Ukraine Famine: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that–   (1) the millions of innocent victims of the Soviet-engineered Ukraine Famine of 1932-33 should be solemnly remembered and honored on the 70th anniversary of the famine;   (2) the 70th anniversary of the Ukraine Famine should serve as a stark reminder of the brutality of the totalitarian, imperialistic Soviet regime under which respect for human rights was a mockery and the rule of law a sham;   (3) the Senate condemns the callous disregard for human life, human rights, and manifestations of national identity that characterized the Stalinist policies that caused the Ukrainian Famine;   (4) the manmade Ukraine famine of 1932-33 was an act of genocide as defined by the United Nations Genocide Convention;   (5) the Senate supports the efforts of the Government of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian parliament) to publicly acknowledge and call greater international attention to the Ukraine Famine; and   (6) an independent, democratic Ukraine, in which respect for the dignity of human beings is the cornerstone, offers the best guarantee that atrocities such as the Ukraine Famine never beset the Ukrainian people again.   HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL OF COLORADO   Mr. President, I rise to submit a Senate Resolution regarding the genocidal Ukraine Famine of 1932-33. The resolution commemorates the millions of innocent victims of this Soviet-engineered famine and supports the efforts of the Ukrainian Government and Parliament to publicly acknowledge and call greater international attention to one of the 20th century's most appalling atrocities.   This year marks the 70th anniversary of Stalin's man-made famine, one of the most heinous crimes in a century notable for events that demonstrated the cruelty of totalitarian regimes. Seventy years ago, a famine in Soviet-dominated Ukraine, and bordering ethnically-Ukrainian territory in Russia, resulted in the deaths of millions of Ukrainians––estimates range from between four and ten million. In his seminal book on the Ukraine Famine, Harvest of Sorrow, British historian Robert Conquest writes, “A quarter of the rural population, men, women, and children, lay dead or dying, the rest in various stages of debilitation with no strength to bury their families or neighbors.” Conquest and many others, including eyewitnesses and recently opened archives, chronicle the devastating human suffering of this man-made famine.   The Ukraine Famine was not the result of drought or some other natural calamity, but of Soviet dictator Stalin's utterly inhumane, coldly calculated policy to suppress the Ukrainian people and destroy their human, cultural, and political rights. It was the result of purposeful starvation. Communist requisition brigades, acting on Stalin's orders to fulfill impossibly high grain quotas, took away the last scraps of food from starving families, including children, often killing those who resisted. Millions of rural Ukrainians slowing starved amid some of the world's most fertile farmland, while stockpiles of expropriated grain rotted by the tons. Meanwhile, the Soviet Government was exporting grain to the West, rejecting international offers to assist the starving population, and preventing starving Ukrainians from leaving the affected areas in search of food elsewhere. The Stalinist regime––and, for that matter subsequent Soviet leaders––engaged in a massive cover-up of denying the Ukraine Famine. Regrettably, they were aided and abetted in this campaign of denial and deception by some Western journalists, including Americans.   The final report of the Congressionally-created Commission on the Ukraine Famine concluded in 1988 that “Joseph Stalin and those around him committed genocide against Ukrainians in 1932-33.” James Mace, who was staff director of the Commission, recently wrote: “For Stalin to have completely centralized power in his hands, he found it necessary to physically destroy the second largest Soviet republic, meaning the annihilation of the Ukrainian peasantry, Ukrainian intelligentsia, Ukrainian language, and history as understood by the people; to do away with Ukraine and things Ukrainian as such. The calculation was very simple, very primitive: no people, therefore, no separate country, and thus no problem. Such a policy is genocide in the classic sense of the word.”   It is vital that the world not forget the Ukraine Famine, honor its victims, and reiterate our support for Ukraine's independence and democratic development as the best assurance that atrocities such as the famine become truly unimaginable. I urge colleagues to join me in commemorating this genocide perpetrated against the Ukrainian people.

  • Helsinki Commissioners Press Belgrade to Apprehend Indicted War Criminals, Cooperate with Hague Tribunal

    By Bob Hand CSCE Staff Advisor On June 16, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell certified that Serbia and Montenegro met U.S. criteria set forth in section 578 of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution. These criteria include Serbia and Montenegro’s level of cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Without certification, certain bilateral assistance to Serbia would have been withheld. Leading Members of the United States Helsinki Commission have long been concerned with the level of cooperation by the Government of Serbia and Montenegro with ICTY and have consistently urged the authorities in Belgrade to do more. Concerned Commissioners have sought to increase attention paid to developments in Serbia in the aftermath of the March assassination of reformist Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic. There is a general sense among Commission leaders that while Belgrade’s cooperation with the Tribunal has been improving, it still remains insufficient. In the lead up to the June 15th certification deadline, Helsinki Commission Chairman Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) and Ranking Member Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) participated in a Commission public briefing featuring Carla Del Ponte, Chief Prosecutor of the Tribunal. As of the May 15th briefing, Del Ponte characterized cooperation from Belgrade as uncertain, underscoring that movement comes only when it is seen as politically beneficial for the Serbian Government. She noted some cooperation in accessing documents; however, for more than a year, the prosecution has pushed for the transfer of 155 Serbian documents in connection with the Milosevic trial without success. Del Ponte expressed concern over the failure to detain wanted fugitives – particularly Veselin Sljivancanin, indicted for the 1991 Vukovar massacre in Croatia, and Ratko Mladic and five others wanted in connection with the 1995 Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia-Herzegovina. “Mladic is a great mystery because we know where Mladic is,” she asserted. “We passed this information to the Serbian Government in Belgrade, and nothing happened.” Del Ponte stressed that if law and order is to prevail criminal justice must be credible. Failure to bring together all those accused to trial frustrates the progress of the Tribunal and forces the witnesses to present repeatedly their own horrific accounts each time a separate case is brought to trial. She also assessed cooperation with Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Kosovo during the course of the briefing. In a letter dated May 23, five Members of the Helsinki Commission urged Secretary of State Colin Powell to utilize the time prior to the certification deadline to press authorities in Belgrade to take the steps necessary to meet the certification requirements. The Commissioners recognized the significant strides Serbia has made in cooperation with the Tribunal, but underscored that “a failure to apprehend Mladic and other notorious war criminals soon would be a serious setback to the cause of reform and recovery at home and further delay Serbia’s integration in Europe.” The letter was signed by Co-Chairmen Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) and Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO), and Commissioners Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD), Senator Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT) and Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD). The United States Helsinki Commission held a second briefing on June 4, detailing Serbia and Montenegro’s cooperation with the Tribunal, and the prospects for human rights and democratic development in Serbia since the lifting of the state of emergency imposed after Djindjic’s assassination. Helsinki Commission Senior Advisor Donald Kursch opened the briefing, welcoming the tough measures authorities in Belgrade have taken in the wake of Mr. Djindjic’s murder to crack down on criminal elements. Nina Bang-Jensen, Executive Director and General Counsel for the Coalition for International Justice, described Serbia’s actual cooperation with the Court as “very limited, begrudging, and only under pressure.” After last year’s certification, Serbia’s government promised a consistent pattern of cooperation, but only three surrenders and one arrest have followed. Bang-Jensen cited the failure to apprehend nineteen Bosnian Serb and Serbian indicted suspects, either living within Serbia or frequently crossing into Serbia, as an indication that the current government is inclined to protect the old regime. Elizabeth Andersen, Executive Director of the Europe and Central Asia Division of Human Rights Watch, recommended that the United States look not only at Serbia’s cooperation with the ICTY, but to its overall level of commitment to rule of law. Following Djindjic’s assassination in March, the Serbian Government imposed a state of emergency to crack down on organized crime. It is estimated that more than 10,000 people were held incommunicado for up to two months under this guise. International monitors were denied access to detainees until recently, and Andersen noted that released detainees reported widespread abuse. Despite increasing pressure from the international community on Serbia’s domestic courts to shoulder greater responsibility for holding war criminals accountable, only four domestic trials were held this year. There is also no indication of upcoming trials or of a permanent commitment to such a process. Trials that have proceeded suffered from a lack of witness protection, poor case preparation by prosecutors, and problems facilitating witnesses traveling from other areas of the former Yugoslavia. James Fisfis, Resident Program Officer for Serbia at the International Republican Institute, remained optimistic. Fisfis presented the results of an IRI survey suggesting that 56 percent of Serbian citizens believe the country is now on the right track, up from 38 percent before the assassination. Sixty-four percent of Serbian respondents currently support cooperation with The Hague, seeing it as a necessary measure toward gaining international acceptance. The data suggest a window of opportunity exists for pressure to reform to have an impact. Ivan Vujacic, Ambassador of Serbia and Montenegro to the United States, acknowledged that “more can be done and more will be done” in cooperation with the Tribunal, but focused on the progress made over the last two and half years, which he described as “remarkable.” In particular, he pointed to the recent arrests of three “pillars of Milosevic’s rule”: Miroslav Radic, Franko Simatovic, and Jovica Stanisic. Ambassador Vujacic said that the Serbian Government was highly committed to protecting human rights. He stated that during the war “the ultimate human right, the right to life was taken from the victims in atrocities defined as war crimes and crimes against humanity.” Vujacic promised that all indictees in the territory of Serbia and Montenegro will be arrested and transferred to The Hague. A second Helsinki Commission letter to Secretary of State Powell dated June 12th, declared that certification could not be justified at the time. The letter concluded: “To certify would be detrimental to U.S. foreign policy goals supporting international justice and successful and complete democratic change in Serbia.” The letter reiterated that the Serbian authorities had yet to arrest and transfer Mladic and other indictees who are most likely in Serbia, and even this did not define the full cooperation with the Tribunal desired. Commission Members warned that if certification occurred while the required conditions remained unmet, the United States’ ability to affect change in Serbia would be diminished, making it more difficult for Serbia’s political leadership to undertake necessary reforms. Some Commission Members view the June 13 arrest of the indicted war crimes suspect Veselin Sljivancanin by the Belgrade authorities as an important positive step toward increased cooperation with the ICTY. However, continued failure to apprehend Mladic and other leading indictees remains a serious cause of concern that places barriers to Serbia and Montenegro’s full re-integration into the international community. In a press release announcing certification, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher asserted that the Secretary’s decision to certify does not indicate that Serbia has fulfilled its commitment. “We have made clear ... that the United States expects further actions to be taken in order to meet those obligations,” Boucher said, “including by arresting and transferring Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic.” The United States Helsinki Commission, an independent federal agency, by law monitors and encourages progress in implementing provisions of the Helsinki Accords. The Commission, created in 1976, is composed of nine Senators, nine Representatives and one official each from the Departments of State, Defense and Commerce. United States Helsinki Commission Intern Kristin Poore contributed to this article.

  • Helsinki Commission Members Press Belgrade to Apprend Indicted War Criminals, Cooperate with Hague Tribunal

    By Bob Hand CSCE Staff Advisor   On June 16, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell certified that Serbia and Montenegro met U.S. criteria set forth in section 578 of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution. These criteria include Serbia and Montenegro’s level of cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Without certification, certain bilateral assistance to Serbia would have been withheld. Leading Members of the United States Helsinki Commission have long been concerned with the level of cooperation by the Government of Serbia and Montenegro with ICTY and have consistently urged the authorities in Belgrade to do more. Concerned Commissioners have sought to increase attention paid to developments in Serbia in the aftermath of the March assassination of reformist Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic. There is a general sense among Commission leaders that while Belgrade’s cooperation with the Tribunal has been improving, it still remains insufficient. In the lead up to the June 15th certification deadline, Helsinki Commission Chairman Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) and Ranking Member Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) participated in a Commission public briefing featuring Carla Del Ponte, Chief Prosecutor of the Tribunal. As of the May 15th briefing, Del Ponte characterized cooperation from Belgrade as uncertain, underscoring that movement comes only when it is seen as politically beneficial for the Serbian Government. She noted some cooperation in accessing documents; however, for more than a year, the prosecution has pushed for the transfer of 155 Serbian documents in connection with the Milosevic trial without success. Del Ponte expressed concern over the failure to detain wanted fugitives – particularly Veselin Sljivancanin, indicted for the 1991 Vukovar massacre in Croatia, and Ratko Mladic and five others wanted in connection with the 1995 Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia-Herzegovina. “Mladic is a great mystery because we know where Mladic is,” she asserted. “We passed this information to the Serbian Government in Belgrade, and nothing happened.” Del Ponte stressed that if law and order is to prevail criminal justice must be credible. Failure to bring together all those accused to trial frustrates the progress of the Tribunal and forces the witnesses to present repeatedly their own horrific accounts each time a separate case is brought to trial. She also assessed cooperation with Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Kosovo during the course of the briefing. In a letter dated May 23, five Members of the Helsinki Commission urged Secretary of State Colin Powell to utilize the time prior to the certification deadline to press authorities in Belgrade to take the steps necessary to meet the certification requirements. The Commissioners recognized the significant strides Serbia has made in cooperation with the Tribunal, but underscored that “a failure to apprehend Mladic and other notorious war criminals soon would be a serious setback to the cause of reform and recovery at home and further delay Serbia’s integration in Europe.” The letter was signed by Co-Chairmen Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) and Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO), and Commissioners Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD), Senator Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT) and Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD). The United States Helsinki Commission held a second briefing on June 4, detailing Serbia and Montenegro’s cooperation with the Tribunal, and the prospects for human rights and democratic development in Serbia since the lifting of the state of emergency imposed after Djindjic’s assassination. Helsinki Commission Senior Advisor Donald Kursch opened the briefing, welcoming the tough measures authorities in Belgrade have taken in the wake of Mr. Djindjic’s murder to crack down on criminal elements. Nina Bang-Jensen, Executive Director and General Counsel for the Coalition for International Justice, described Serbia’s actual cooperation with the Court as “very limited, begrudging, and only under pressure.” After last year’s certification, Serbia’s government promised a consistent pattern of cooperation, but only three surrenders and one arrest have followed. Bang-Jensen cited the failure to apprehend nineteen Bosnian Serb and Serbian indicted suspects, either living within Serbia or frequently crossing into Serbia, as an indication that the current government is inclined to protect the old regime. Elizabeth Andersen, Executive Director of the Europe and Central Asia Division of Human Rights Watch, recommended that the United States look not only at Serbia’s cooperation with the ICTY, but to its overall level of commitment to rule of law. Following Djindjic’s assassination in March, the Serbian Government imposed a state of emergency to crack down on organized crime. It is estimated that more than 10,000 people were held incommunicado for up to two months under this guise. International monitors were denied access to detainees until recently, and Andersen noted that released detainees reported widespread abuse. Despite increasing pressure from the international community on Serbia’s domestic courts to shoulder greater responsibility for holding war criminals accountable, only four domestic trials were held this year. There is also no indication of upcoming trials or of a permanent commitment to such a process. Trials that have proceeded suffered from a lack of witness protection, poor case preparation by prosecutors, and problems facilitating witnesses traveling from other areas of the former Yugoslavia. James Fisfis, Resident Program Officer for Serbia at the International Republican Institute, remained optimistic. Fisfis presented the results of an IRI survey suggesting that 56 percent of Serbian citizens believe the country is now on the right track, up from 38 percent before the assassination. Sixty-four percent of Serbian respondents currently support cooperation with The Hague, seeing it as a necessary measure toward gaining international acceptance. The data suggest a window of opportunity exists for pressure to reform to have an impact. Ivan Vujacic, Ambassador of Serbia and Montenegro to the United States, acknowledged that “more can be done and more will be done” in cooperation with the Tribunal, but focused on the progress made over the last two and half years, which he described as “remarkable.” In particular, he pointed to the recent arrests of three “pillars of Milosevic’s rule”: Miroslav Radic, Franko Simatovic, and Jovica Stanisic. Ambassador Vujacic said that the Serbian Government was highly committed to protecting human rights. He stated that during the war “the ultimate human right, the right to life was taken from the victims in atrocities defined as war crimes and crimes against humanity.” Vujacic promised that all indictees in the territory of Serbia and Montenegro will be arrested and transferred to The Hague. A second Helsinki Commission letter to Secretary of State Powell dated June 12th, declared that certification could not be justified at the time. The letter concluded: “To certify would be detrimental to U.S. foreign policy goals supporting international justice and successful and complete democratic change in Serbia.” The letter reiterated that the Serbian authorities had yet to arrest and transfer Mladic and other indictees who are most likely in Serbia, and even this did not define the full cooperation with the Tribunal desired. Commission Members warned that if certification occurred while the required conditions remained unmet, the United States’ ability to affect change in Serbia would be diminished, making it more difficult for Serbia’s political leadership to undertake necessary reforms. Some Commission Members view the June 13 arrest of the indicted war crimes suspect Veselin Sljivancanin by the Belgrade authorities as an important positive step toward increased cooperation with the ICTY. However, continued failure to apprehend Mladic and other leading indictees remains a serious cause of concern that places barriers to Serbia and Montenegro’s full re-integration into the international community. In a press release announcing certification, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher asserted that the Secretary’s decision to certify does not indicate that Serbia has fulfilled its commitment. “We have made clear ... that the United States expects further actions to be taken in order to meet those obligations,” Boucher said, “including by arresting and transferring Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic.” The United States Helsinki Commission, an independent federal agency, by law monitors and encourages progress in implementing provisions of the Helsinki Accords. The Commission, created in 1976, is composed of nine Senators, nine Representatives and one official each from the Departments of State, Defense and Commerce.

  • Floor Debate of H. Con. Res. 49 Condemning Anti-Semitism in Europe

    EXPRESSING SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT ESCALATION OF ANTI-SEMITIC VIOLENCE WITHIN PARTICIPATING STATES OF OSCE IS OF PROFOUND CONCERN AND EFFORTS SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN TO PREVENT FUTURE OCCURRENCES Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H . Con . Res . 49 ) expressing the sense of the Congress that the sharp escalation of anti-Semitic violence within many participating States of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is of profound concern and efforts should be undertaken to prevent future occurrences. The Clerk read as follows: H . Con . Res . 49 Whereas the expressions of anti-Semitism experienced throughout the region encompassing the participating States of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) have included physical assaults, with some instances involving weapons or stones, arson of synagogues, and desecration of Jewish cultural sites, such as cemeteries and statues; Whereas vicious propaganda and violence in many OSCE States against Jews, foreigners, and others portrayed as alien have reached alarming levels, in part due to the dangerous promotion of aggressive nationalism by political figures and others; Whereas violence and other manifestations of xenophobia and discrimination can never be justified by political issues or international developments; Whereas the Copenhagen Concluding Document adopted by the OSCE in 1990 was the first international agreement to condemn anti-Semitic acts, and the OSCE participating States pledged to “clearly and unequivocally condemn totalitarianism, racial and ethnic hatred, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and discrimination against anyone as well as persecution on religious and ideological grounds”; Whereas the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly at its meeting in Berlin in July 2002 unanimously adopted a resolution that, inter alia, called upon participating States to “ensure aggressive law enforcement by local and national authorities, including thorough investigation of anti-Semitic criminal acts, apprehension of perpetrators, initiation of appropriate criminal prosecutions and judicial proceedings”; Whereas Decision No. 6 adopted by the OSCE Ministerial Council at its Tenth Meeting in Porto, Portugal in December 2002 (the “Porto Ministerial Declaration”) condemned “the recent increase in anti-Semitic incidents in the OSCE area, recognizing the role that the existence of anti-Semitism has played throughout history as a major threat to freedom”; Whereas the Porto Ministerial Declaration also urged “the convening of separately designated human dimension events on issues addressed in this decision, including on the topics of anti-Semitism, discrimination and racism and xenophobia”; and Whereas on December 10, 2002, at the Washington Parliamentary Forum on Confronting and Combating anti-Semitism in the OSCE Region, representatives of the United States Congress and the German Parliament agreed to denounce all forms of anti-Semitism and agreed that “anti-Semitic bigotry must have no place in our democratic societies”: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that-- (1) officials of the executive branch and Members of Congress should raise the issue of anti-Semitism in their bilateral contacts with other countries and at multilateral fora, including meetings of the Permanent Council of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Twelfth Annual Session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly to be convened in July 2003; (2) participating States of the OSCE should unequivocally condemn anti-Semitism (including violence against Jews and Jewish cultural sites), racial and ethnic hatred, xenophobia, and discrimination, as well as persecution on religious grounds whenever it occurs; (3) participating States of the OSCE should ensure effective law enforcement by local and national authorities against criminal acts stemming from anti-Semitism, xenophobia, or racial or ethnic hatred, whether directed at individuals, communities, or property, including thorough investigation and prosecution of such acts; (4) participating States of the OSCE should promote the creation of educational efforts throughout the region encompassing the participating States of the OSCE to counter anti-Semitic stereotypes and attitudes among younger people, increase Holocaust awareness programs, and help identify the necessary resources to accomplish this goal; (5) legislators in all OSCE participating States should play a leading role in combating anti-Semitism and ensure that the resolution adopted at the 2002 meeting of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in Berlin is followed up by a series of concrete actions at the national level; and (6) the OSCE should organize a separately designated human dimension event on anti-Semitism as early as possible in 2003, consistent with the Porto Ministerial Declaration adopted by the OSCE at the Tenth Meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council in December 2002. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 20 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, anti-Semitism is a deadly disease of the heart that leads to violence, cruelty, and unspeakable acts of horror. The anti-Semite is, as Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel grimly wrote last week, an ideological fanatic and pathological racist: “An anti-Semite is someone who never met me, never heard of me, yet he hates me.” While we all are aware and deplore the hate crimes and cowardly acts that are committed routinely by Hamas and their like-minded murderers, what is new, Mr. Speaker, is the enormous surge in anti-Semitic acts and the resurgence of hatred for Jews in Europe, the United States, and in Canada. Just a brief look, Mr. Speaker, of some of the startling statistics makes the point. In France, for example, there was a 600 percent increase in anti-Semitic acts from the year 2001 to the year 2002. Thankfully, the French have moved with new legislation designed to not only chronicle and get a better handle on how often these hate crimes are occurring, but they are also trying to stop them. The Anti-Defamation League, Mr. Speaker, did a survey that also showed a spike in five other countries of Europe. They found that 21 percent of the people in those five countries had strongly anti-Semitic perspectives or views. The ADL also looked at the United States and found that 17 percent of our own people in the United States had strong anti-Semitic views. If you extrapolate that, Mr. Speaker, that is about 35 million Americans. That is up 5 percent from just 5 years ago. H . Con . Res . 49 recognizes this dangerous and alarming trend, condemns this ancient-modern scourge, and calls on each of the 55 countries that make up the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to take concrete steps to eradicate anti-Semitism. The resolution before us today is an unequivocal condemnation of violence against Jews and Jewish cultural sites, racial and ethnic hatred, xenophobia and discrimination, as well as persecution on religious grounds wherever it occurs. The resolution calls on all the states of the OSCE to ensure effective law enforcement and prosecution of individuals perpetrating anti-Semitic violence as well as urging the parliaments of all those states to take concrete legislative action at the national level. We are encouraging, Mr. Speaker, the creation of education efforts to counter these anti-Semitic stereotypes and the attitudes that we are seeing increasingly among younger people. We are calling for an increase in Holocaust awareness programs, and seeking to identify necessary resources to accomplish these goals. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I chaired a congressional hearing and three international summits on anti-Semitism within the last year alone. Joined by my good friend and colleague from the German Bundestag, Gert Weisskirchen, at the three special summits, and my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who I thank as well for his good work on this, these summits have focused on this rising tide of anti-Semitism. The summits, Mr. Speaker, were held in Berlin, in 2002; in Washington, in December of 2002; and in Vienna, earlier this year, in February. We heard from world renowned leaders, including Rabbi Israel Singer, President of the World Jewish Congress; Ambassador Alfred Moses, Abraham Foxman and Ken Jacobson of the Anti-Defamation League; Mark Levin from the NCSJ; Rabbi Andrew Baker of the American Jewish Committee; Dr. Shimon Samuels, director of the Weisenthal Center located in Paris; and many others, Amnesty International and other human rights’ organizations, all of whom made very powerful statements about this alarming rise of hate directed towards Jews. Let me just quote for my colleagues what Dr. Samuels said, very briefly: “The Holocaust, for 30 years, acted as a protective Teflon against blatant anti-Semitic expression. That Teflon has eroded, and what was considered distasteful and politically incorrect is becoming simply an opinion. But cocktail chatter at fine English dinners can end as Molotov cocktails against synagogues. Political correctness is also ending for others, as tolerance for multiculturalism gives way to populist voices in France, Italy, Austria, Denmark, Portugal, and the Netherlands. These countries’ Jewish communities can be caught between the rock of radical Islamic violence and the hard place of a revitalized Holocaust-denying extreme right. Common cause must be sought between the victimized minorities against extremism and against fanaticism.” Dr. Jacobson pointed out, and I quote, “Sadly, some European leaders have rationalized anti-Jewish attitudes and even more violent attacks against Jews as nothing more than a sign of popular frustration with events in the Middle East. Something to be expected, even understandable, they say.” Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing more and more about this idea of pretext; that there is a disagreement with the policies of the Israeli Government, that somehow that gives license and an ability and permission for some people to hate the Jews themselves. We can disagree, as we do on this House floor. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and I have been working on this for years, and of course the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). We disagree on some issues, but anti-Semitism? We do not hate. We do not use that as a pretext, as a front to promote hatred. That is exactly what is happening in Europe, in the United States, and in Canada. Let me point out too that, as a result of these summits, we have come up with an action plan. Mr. Weisskirchen and I have signed it, it has been agreed to by our commissions, and we are trying to promote it among all our States. Again, education, trying to get parliaments to step up to the plate, and trying to make a meaningful difference to mitigate and hopefully to end this terrible anti-Semitism. Last week, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and I joined Rudy Giuliani in Vienna for an OSCE assembly focused on anti-Semitism. We have been doing it in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, but now the OSCE itself has taken up this important cause. And it will be followed up with a meeting, most likely in Berlin next year, to focus on anti-Semitism so that we rally the troops all over the world, starting with Europe, the U.S., and Canada to say “never again.” Let me also point out to my colleagues, and I thought his statement said it all, when Abraham Foxman, who gave riveting testimony at our Berlin conference, pointed out just recently in the Jerusalem Post, just a couple of days ago, and I would like to close with his statement, he said “Anti-Semitism is surging in the world to the extent unprecedented since the end of World War II. Europe must take seriously the ideology of anti-Semitism coming out of the Arab and Islamic world. It must denounce the deliberate targeting of Jews by terrorist groups, whether it be al Qaeda or Hamas. It must denounce the vicious anti-Semitic material in the Arab press and educational systems and call on Arab leaders to do something about it. It must understand that the Holocaust happened not only because Germany was taken over by the Nazis, who developed a massive military power to conquer most of Europe, but also by the complicity--active and passive--of other Europeans. Today, the great threat comes from the combination of the ideology of hatred with Islamic extremists to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” And then he bottom lines it and says, “Let Europe never again be complicit in developments of this kind.” Mr. Speaker, this Congress needs to go on record in a bipartisan way, Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Moderates, and Liberals to say anti-Semitism, never again, and we need to do it strongly today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of the resolution. First, I want to commend my dear friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of our delegation to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, for his lifelong indefatigable and passionate advocacy of human rights, and his powerful opposition in all fora to anti-Semitism. We are all in his debt. I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), of the Committee on International Relations, for moving this legislation so expeditiously to the floor. And I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the ranking Democrat on our OSCE delegation, for his outstanding work on behalf of all of the causes that the human rights community is interested in. Mr. Speaker, as the only survivor of the Holocaust ever elected to Congress, I am acutely aware of the dangers of allowing anti-Semitism to go unchecked. The horrors of the Holocaust in World War II began with anti-Semitism. Growing up in Europe in the 1930s, I saw firsthand the horrendous results of anti-Semitic rhetoric, leading to the nightmare of anti-Semitic violence, and, ultimately, to the mass murder of 6 million innocent men, women and children. Mr. Speaker, today, anti-Semitism in Europe, as well as in a number of other places in this world, is approaching the appalling levels that I personally experienced in the 1930s. We cannot, we must not, and we will not sit idly by and ignore the sharp escalation of anti-Semitic rhetoric and anti-Semitic violence. Our resolution notes that expressions of anti-Semitism in some European countries range from vicious propaganda to physical assaults, from the burning of synagogues to the desecration of cemeteries. Since the 1990 Copenhagen Concluding Document, a number of resolutions have been adopted by OSCE condemning anti-Semitism. In that spirit, I welcome this effort. Our resolution urges officials of our executive branch and Members of Congress to raise the issue of anti-Semitism in their bilateral and multilateral meetings with all foreign government officials where appropriate and to condemn in the strongest possible terms not only anti-Semitism but racial and ethnic hatred, xenophobia, discrimination and religious persecution of all types. We urge all member countries of the OSCE to ensure effective law enforcement by local and national authorities against criminal actions stemming from anti-Semitism and other types of racial hatred. Most importantly, our resolution calls upon all States to promote educational efforts to counter anti-Semitic stereotypes and attitudes and to dramatically increase Holocaust awareness. Our best ammunition in this fight against anti-Semitism is education. Mr. Speaker, the battle against this age-old and horrendous mental sickness will not be easily won, but I believe the recognition of the problem and the call for actions to deal with it is the first critical step. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation which serves to eliminate the outrage of hate-filled anti-Semitism. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia. Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be in the company of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) in cosponsoring this resolution. I rise in support of its passage and ask my colleagues to vote in its favor as well. Mr. Speaker, one of the essential lessons of the Holocaust is that words lead to murder, that the teaching of contempt and acceptance of bigotry and anti-Semitism can lead to genocide. Today, over 50 years after the horrors of the Holocaust, anti-Semitism has again become a disease spreading throughout the world. In recent years I have witnessed its resurgence, particularly through my work relating to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and legislative efforts concerning religious freedom in Europe. At the commission, resolution after resolution, statement after statement are filled with the rhetoric of hatred, using the international fora to further promote and generate support for an anti-Semitic agenda, an agenda which condemns a freedom-loving people and a democratic nation, while many times legitimizing those regimes that torture, oppress, and subjugate their own people. As the previous chair of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and as the current chair of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, and as cochair along with my colleague and friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) of the Congressional Task Force on Anti-Semitism, I have pressed European officials to take concrete steps to monitor, investigate and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law crimes that are borne out of hatred for the Jewish people. In January of this year, for example, Jewish leaders in France came to me with concern and anxiety about the increasing example of vandalism and personal attacks against rabbis in that country. I immediately called on the French foreign ministry officials and French parliamentarians to address this grave matter. The situation in France, however, is only a microcosm of a growing problem that is sweeping throughout many OSCE states. While I will not delve into details because my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), have already done so, I will simply note, as has been said, we must learn the lessons and the mistakes of the past, or we are condemned to repeat them. This is why it is imperative that we take immediate action to prevent further escalation of anti-Semitism and related violence, to help ensure that the evil of the Holocaust will never again be allowed to exist. As Eli Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace laureate has said, “A destruction, an annihilation that only man can provoke, only man can prevent.” We can help prevent a repetition of history, and we can begin here today by voting in favor of this resolution. Let us adopt House Concurrent Resolution 49 and convey the commitment of the U.S. House of Representatives to work with our allies to confront and combat anti-Semitism and eradicate it from its roots. Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the distinguished ranking Democratic member of the Helsinki Commission, who has demonstrated a passionate commitment to human rights and on all of the issues that that commission works with. Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). There is no Member of this body who has done more in his lifetime to fight anti-Semitism than the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and I congratulate him for his effective leadership against anti-Semitism here and around the world. I also want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is the chairman of our OSCE delegation. I have the honor of being the ranking Democratic member. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), who will be speaking shortly, is one of the commissioners. We have made the fight against anti-Semitism a top priority of our delegation. We have been effective in making it a top priority within the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. We have done that because we have seen a rise of anti-Semitism, physical assaults on individuals solely because they are Jewish, desecration of Jewish cultural sites, propaganda in the media have all been on the rise. We must have a zero tolerance policy about anti-Semitism. The OSCE Helsinki Commission provides a unique opportunity for us to fight anti-Semitism. It not only has in its membership all of the countries of Europe, Canada and the United States, but it has the participation of our Mediterranean partners, which include Israel, Egypt and Jordan. The OSCE Helsinki Commission has had a history of effectively dealing with human rights issues, so that is why the United States leadership has been effective in bringing about the forums to deal with anti-Semitism. I know there was just a meeting in Vienna that the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) participated in. We adopted in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly last year a very strong resolution against anti-Semitism as a result of the U.S. leadership, and we have signed a letter of intent with Germany to spell out specific actions that we need to take in order to fight anti-Semitism. We can never justify anti-Semitic actions by international developments or political issues. We need to have an action plan to fight anti-Semitism. We need to have strong laws that are adopted by our member states and enforced. We need to speak out against anti-Semitism as parliamentarians. Silence is not an option. As all my colleagues have expressed, we need educational programs for our children. The resolution says we need to create educational efforts throughout the region encompassing the participating states of OSCE to counter anti-Semitic stereotypes and attitudes among younger people, increase Holocaust awareness programs, and help identify the necessary resources to accomplish this goal. Our children are our future. In many of these states, we are finding there are counterproductive programs promoting anti-Semitism. We need a proactive agenda. This resolution puts this body on record in strong support of our resolution within OSCE to continue our commitment to support action plans to stamp out anti-Semitism. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who has been a champion not only of the fight against anti-Semitism but on behalf of all human rights causes. Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for their extraordinary leadership on this important issue and so many others. We are experiencing the worst outbreak of anti-Semitism in Europe since the end of Holocaust in 1945. Just under 60 years have passed since the defeat of Hitler and now swastikas have reappeared in Europe. They can be found sprayed on Jewish schools, drawn on gravestones in a desecrated Jewish cemetery, painted on the wall of a synagogue, and stitched on the flags of anti-Israel demonstrators, and in the hearts and minds of the people who attack rabbinical students and Jewish athletes. When we allow intolerance and hatred to fester and flourish, we are faced with tragic consequences. Put simply, hatred, violence and prejudice must not be tolerated. Countries must speak out against anti-Semitic acts, but rhetoric is not enough. Words will not restore the hundreds of Jewish cultural and religious sites which have been burned, desecrated and destroyed throughout Europe, and words alone will not prevent these tragedies from happening again. Governments and institutions must condemn these acts as we do today, and they must ensure effective law enforcement against them. They must also promote tolerance education for their children. There is no question teaching children about the horror and tragedy of the Holocaust and other tragedies will create a generation of youth who are less likely to commit hate crimes and who are more likely to mature into adults who will envision and work towards peaceful world relations. When this body passes H . Con . Res . 49 , we will be spending a strong message to the world that anti-Semitism must be confronted and must be eradicated. I thank both leaders, particularly the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for his extraordinary life commitment to ending anti-Semitism and for world peace. Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), who has been throughout his congressional career and prior to that an indefatigable fighter for human rights. (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me this time, and before I go forward, I would be terribly remiss if I did not point out that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) has spent his lifetime in the struggle that some of us come to with equal passion, but not the clarity that he brings to the issue. I also am happy to support the resolution offered by the chairman of the Helsinki Commission and to compliment the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his continuing work in the area of human rights and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) as being a stalwart champion for human rights. As Chairman SMITH has already mentioned, last week he and I had the privilege to represent the United States at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s conference on anti-Semitism. A footnote right there. That conference came about because the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), myself and others on the Helsinki Commission along with colleagues in Europe brought it to the attention of the parliamentary assembly by way of resolution which we will introduce yet another resolution for follow-up purposes when we are in Rotterdam 1 week from now. But it was in this body that that conference’s seed was planted. The conference, which was the first of its kind, provided the OSCE’s 55 member states and NGOs with an opportunity to discuss ways in which governments can work to combat anti-Semitism within their borders and abroad. Today’s resolution is an important symbolic statement of the House that the United States will not stand idly by while many European governments neglect a rise in anti-Semitism. We must work with our allies and not hesitate to apply pressure when needed to ensure that governments properly address increases in anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination. A few years ago, there were hopes that anti-Semitism was gradually declining and restricted to fringe elements such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists and certain conspiracy theorists. However, recent developments throughout much of Europe and the Middle East suggest that there is a resurgent anti-Semitism with a much broader base and message that resonates at an alarming level. Many European leaders have formally recognized the resurgence of anti-Semitism in their countries and have begun to take the necessary steps to stop this spreading virus. But still, more must be done to ensure that what occurred to the Jewish and minority communities in Europe during World War II will never happen again. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the fight against bigotry and xenophobia is an ongoing struggle as many of us know from our own personal experience. Last week when the gentleman from New Jersey and I were in Vienna, we heard from a woman whose name is Rosalia Abella of the Ontario Court of Appeals. As she noted in one of the more poignant statements made at that conference, “Indifference is injustice’s incubator.” Indeed it is. Now is the time for the United States to be vocal and now is the time for the House to be active as it is today under the leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from California. Today is not a day for complacency. If we remain silent, then there will be no tomorrow. We cannot legislate morality, we cannot legislate love, but we can teach tolerance and we can lead by example. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Smith-Cardin-Lantos resolution. I am a cosponsor of this resolution because I am deeply concerned about the surge of anti-Semitism in Europe and throughout other parts of the world, but particularly in Europe. This is not a problem that simply can be monitored. It must be actively and aggressively dealt with, for we must never forget that just 60 years ago, Europe saw the worst scourge of systematic, government-ordained hatred, violence and murder in the history of mankind, in what was an unbelievable Holocaust. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has recognized and condemned anti-Semitic violence in its member states. At its parliamentary assembly in July 2002, the OSCE resolved to aggressively enforce laws and investigate anti-Semitic criminal acts. It is important that the United States openly support the OSCE’s resolution and actively encourage it to address hatred and prevent violence in Europe. Mr. Speaker, there are several topics on which the United States and Europe disagree. There must be no disagreement, however, on the absolute right of the Jewish people to practice their religion freely and to live in peace and prosperity. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe should not only investigate anti-Semitic crimes but also promote and facilitate discussions that address the root causes of xenophobic hatred. I encourage my colleagues and the administration to take advantage of bilateral meetings with our European counterparts to reaffirm our deep commitment to the prevention of violence in Europe. I again thank the gentleman from New Jersey for bringing this resolution to the floor and urge its adoption. Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations. Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my good friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support this resolution, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for sponsoring this crucial piece of legislation. I am very aware of the danger of being inactive about the threat of anti-Semitism. It was anti-Semitism that was responsible for the horrors of the Holocaust, the most horrible crime committed against the Jewish people ever. Sadly, I have to say here today that nearly 60 years after the end of World War II, anti-Semitism in Europe, in many of the OSCE member states, is on the rise again. Once again we witness evil propaganda, physical attacks against Jews, the burning of Jewish sites and the desecration of synagogues. We must not stand aside and ignore this grave escalation of anti-Semitic violence and hatred. This resolution addresses this threat. It particularly calls on administration officials and Members of Congress to focus on anti-Semitism in their bilateral and multilateral meetings. It calls upon OSCE member states to swiftly bring anti-Semitists to justice and to focus on educational endeavors to fight anti-Semitic stereotypes. I would also like to point out that this piece of legislation is similar to a resolution I introduced last year. House Resolution 393 also addresses the anti-Semitic threat in the OSCE region. It urges European governments to provide security and safety of the Jewish communities, to prosecute and punish perpetrators of anti-Semitic violence, and to cultivate a climate in which all forms of anti-Semitism are rejected. I was proud that my colleagues in Congress joined me in sending this message to the European Union, but we must go further. Anti-Semitism continues to fester throughout the OSCE region. This resolution is the right follow-up to my legislation that passed in the last Congress. Mr. Speaker, the threat of anti-Semitism is looming large and our fight against it is far from over, but I believe that recognizing this problem and taking action is critical. I therefore urge all of my colleagues to strongly support House Resolution 49 sponsored by the gentleman from New Jersey. I would ask them all to vote for this resolution unanimously. I want to thank the gentleman from California again for his work on this resolution and all my colleagues in bringing this to the House floor. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher). Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from California as I have over the years on many human rights issues, and this is a human rights issue. Racism, religious hatred, these are things that decent people must condemn and we must unite in our strong opposition wherever this type of vile behavior and vile thought patterns emerge. We must recognize that there are, however, people who exploit these type of negative feelings and this type of racial hatred. Anti-Semitism is perhaps the epitome of this ignorance and irrationality and mindless hatred and it is again raising its ugly head both in Europe and in the United States. Let us note that over 10 years ago, a major political figure in the United States referred to New York City as “Hymietown.” What is important is the fact that he was winked at and that for 10 years after that statement, he still remained a recognized leader. That did tremendous harm in America’s black community. It sent a horrible message to young blacks and we are paying some of the price of an increased anti-Semitism today in our black community by mistakes that we made 10 years ago by not condemning that and other types of horrible remarks that should never have been made or accepted in our political debate. In Europe today, we see that same kind of winking going on. Oh, yes, people are ignoring statements that are being made that are totally unacceptable to people who believe in civilized behavior and are opposed to this type of vile hatred, the vile hatred in relationship to their fellow man. This is an alarm bell today. I am very proud to stand here with the gentleman from California and the gentleman from New Jersey ringing the alarm bell. We are not going to sit idly by and wink at an increase in this level of hatred towards our Jewish friends nor towards any other minority in the Western democracies. The Western democracies, our friends in Europe, just like we in the United States, have to remain vigilant and it is up to us as leaders of this society and the democratic leaders in Europe to call to task those who would wink and would not condemn this type of vicious trend in their society. We can cut it short now. Let us stand together united against anti-Semitism and all such hatred. Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in terms that we do not usually use on this floor but in terms that may be familiar to our friends in Europe, in the American context, I am a man of the left. I voted against the war in Iraq. I will vote for the resolution later about Israel’s right to respond to terrorism, but I will put into the Congressional Record Tom Friedman’s article urging them to think about prudence and restraint. I think the settlements are by and large a mistake. And I speak today in defense of this resolution, specifically to others on the left in Europe, many of whom have in my judgment been morally deficient in the obligation we have to speak out against prejudice and injustice across the board. Those who hold to liberal values have no moral right to put an ideological screen between victims and those values, and those on the left who use an excuse of a disagreement with the policy of the Sharon government or the Bush government or anybody else as a reason to be soft on anti-Semitism betray liberalism and betray its values. By the way, with regard to the government of Israel, let me speak to the people on the left. I disagree with some aspects of its policy, but I staunchly defend its right to exist. But even more important, by every value that I as a liberal hold dear, the government and society of Israel is quite morally superior to any of its neighbors, and to focus only on those aspects of disagreement and to ignore its longstanding commitment to civil rights and civil liberties, in fact I think our society, the United States, has a good deal to learn from the society of Israel about how you deal with external threats and still show a respect for civil liberties. I thank the gentleman from California and the gentleman from New Jersey for bringing this forward and the gentleman from Illinois for his support. I want to reiterate as a man on the left who shares a great deal of both general values and specific policy prescriptions with many on the left in Europe, I am appalled at those who fail to carry out our liberal principles fully and across the board. A vigorous and ongoing condemnation of anti-Semitism is a requisite part of that commitment. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. At the most recent conference that was held in Vienna, I just want to again thank the great work that Ambassador Minikes did, our Ambassador to the OSCE. He has worked very, very hard to help put together that anti-Semitism conference. He did an outstanding job. Ambassador Cliff Sobel, our Ambassador to the Netherlands, also worked very hard on it as well, as did many others in the State Department. It was a joint effort. Again I want to thank Rudy Giuliani for the good work he did in leading that. Let me just also say that, Mr. Speaker, next week in Rotterdam we will have an OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and I plan on offering another resolution on anti-Semitism at that and hopefully we continue not only this dialogue but this outrage that we are expressing about intolerance. The more we raise our voices, the more we have mutually reinforcing policies, including good law, good law enforcement and hopefully a chronicling of these misdeeds so that law enforcement knows that they do indeed have a problem. This has been a particular problem in Europe, where hate crimes are committed and they are not attributed to the hate crimes that they represent. The more we chronicle, the more we will see that there is an explosion of anti-Semitism in Europe. This is a good resolution. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and I thank the gentleman and chairman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for moving this bill expeditiously through the committee and for his strong support for it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations and a fighter for human rights. Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for putting this before our body. I grew up hearing about anti-Semitism from my grandparents and my parents, things that I could not believe could have ever happened; but the anti-Semitism acts that they spoke of seemed like historic oddities to me, something from a distant time and a distant place. I never dreamed, never dreamed that anti-Semitism could ever rear its ugly head again during my lifetime or the lifetime of my children. Especially after World War II, I thought Europe and the rest of the world had learned a very important and valuable lesson. I ran for Congress so that I could speak out against issues that I thought were horrific; and anti-Semitism, and its continued existence on this planet, is certainly something that I wish to speak out against. I am glad that we are condemning anti-Semitism in no uncertain terms and putting the United States Congress on record and speaking out forcefully against this horrible scourge and plague. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time for purposes of yielding the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? There was no objection. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 1 minute. Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Helsinki Commission for yielding me this time. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this very important resolution. This is about anti-Semitism. But more broadly than that, it is about hate. It is about the human inclination from time to time to hate others who are different, to discriminate against others who are different, who have a different color of skin, who have a different religion, who have a different national origin. More human violence perhaps has been perpetrated in the name of those distinctions and prejudices and hate than any other. It is important that we regularly and strongly and without equivocation speak out against those who would perpetrate and spread hate in our world, in our country, in our communities. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, and I thank my good friend, the gentleman from California, for their leadership on this issue. It is an appropriate statement for us to make as the representatives of a free and tolerant people. Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Alabama asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I do not want this debate to end without adding my voice in support of the resolution. Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished fighter for human rights. Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, many people thought that the Holocaust cleansed the Western world of anti-Semitism, that the catastrophe, the mass murder, and the genocide in the Holocaust caused the civilized world or at least the Western part of the civilized world to recoil in such horror that anti-Semitism would not be a major problem again. We now know that maybe it did that for a generation or two, but that the scourge of anti-Semitism is returning in great and terrible force in its ancient homeland of Europe and other places. Today we have two major problems of anti-Semitism: in Europe and in the Muslim world. It is very appropriate that we adopt this resolution today to ask the governments of Europe through the OSCE and individually to crack down on anti-Semitism, to speak out against it, to act against it because many of the governments of Europe, many of the parts of the political left in Europe and elsewhere as well as the right have not done so. They ought to do so. And this resolution is fitting and appropriate to adopt today for that purpose. [Begin Insert] Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H . Con . Res . 49 , expressing the sense of Congress that the sharp escalation of anti-Semitic violence within many participating States of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is of profound concern and efforts should be undertaken to prevent future occurrences. I begin by praising the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe for their conference this past weekend devoted to the issues of anti-Semitism and how to combat it. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is the largest regional security organization in the world with 55 participating countries from Europe, Central Asia, and North America. The OSCE has a comprehensive and cooperative approach to security, stressing preventative diplomacy and human rights. The conference last weekend was the first high level OSCE conference devoted specifically to the issue of anti-Semitism. Over 400 government and nongovernment officials attended. The conference took place at Vienna’s Hofburg Palace. This same location is where Hitler stood, 65 years ago, proclaiming Austria’s annexation to a cheering crowd of thousands. Sixty-five years later, what can we say about tolerance and diversity in Europe? What can we say about Human Rights worldwide? Specifically, 65 years after the beginning of the worst genocide in our time, what can we say we have learned about anti-Semitism and the horrors of racial hatred? Much has changed since then. Yet today there are both overt and subtle versions of anti-Semitism, in the United States and abroad. Physical assaults, arson at synagogues and desecration of Jewish cultural sites are occurring. Unfortunately, government officials are not speaking harshly enough against them. The conference on anti-Semitism opened a day after the Romanian Government retracted an earlier claim that “there was no Holocaust” on Romanian soil. In Greece, a recent newspaper cartoon had one Israeli soldier telling the other, “we were not in Dachau concentration camp to survive, but to learn.” France has experienced a six-fold increase in anti-Semitic incidents in the space of a year. In Poland, the word “Jewish” is used as a term of abuse for Polish soccer fans. In other parts of Europe, claims are made that Jews had forewarning of the September 11th attacks at the Pentagon and World Trade Towers. The existence of anti-Semitism has played throughout history as a major threat to freedom. Participating states of the OSCE should unequivocally condemn anti-Semitism, racial and ethnic hatred and xenophobia, and they need to be loud and clear in their message. We cannot allow future generations to be taught a distorted view of history. Prejudice must be rooted out of textbooks, governments must speak out against these wrongdoings, and anti-Semitic actions must be classified as hate crimes. We also need to ensure effective law enforcement. Finally, we must promote the creation of educational efforts and we must increase Holocaust awareness. I abhor and stand against all forms of hatred. If action had been taken in the 1930s, many lives could have been saved. There are so many lessons of history that need to be learned, lest they not be repeated. For that reason I support H . Con . Res . 49 . Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker: I will reluctantly vote in favor of this legislation, partly because it is simply a sense of Congress resolution. But I am concerned about this bill and the others like it we face with regularity on the floor of Congress. We all condemn violence against innocents, whether it is motivated by hatred, prejudice, greed, jealousy, or whatever else. But that is not what this legislation is really about. It is about the Congress of the United States presuming to know--and to legislate on--the affairs of European countries. First, this is the United States Congress. We have no Constitutional authority to pass legislation affecting foreign countries. Second, when we get involved in matters such as this we usually get it wrong. H. Con. Res. 45 is an example of us getting it wrong on both fronts. This legislation refers to the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe as if it is a purely homegrown phenomenon, as if native residents of European countries are suddenly committing violent crimes against Jews. But I think we are only getting part of the story here. What is absent from the legislation is mention of the well-reported fact that much of the anti-Jewish violence in Europe is perpetrated by recent immigrants from Muslim countries of the Middle East and Africa. Reporting on a firebombing of a Synagogue in Marseille, France, for example, the New York Times quotes the longtime president of that region’s Jewish Council, Charles Haddad, as saying, “This is not anti-Semitic violence; it’s the Middle East conflict that’s playing out here.” Therefore, part of the problem in many European countries is the massive immigration from predominantly Muslim countries, where new residents bring their hatreds and prejudices with them. Those European politicians who recognize this growing problem--there are now 600,000 Jews in France and five million Muslims--are denounced as racist and worse. While I do not oppose immigration, it must be admitted that massive immigration from vastly different cultures brings a myriad of potential problems and conflicts. These are complicated issues for we in Congress to deal with here in the United States. Yes, prejudice and hatred are evil and must be opposed, but it is absurd for us to try to solve these problems in countries overseas. [End Insert] The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H . Con . Res . 49 . The question was taken. The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of those present have voted in the affirmative. Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the Chair’s prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.  

  • Certification of Assistance to Serbia

    Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Department of State last week made its determination to certify compliance by the Government of Serbia and Montenegro with the terms of section 578 of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 108-7). This section conditions certain bilateral assistance to Serbia on progress in three areas, although by far the most critical being cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.   I agree with the Department’s assessment that progress has been made, especially since March. In particular, I welcomed action earlier this month by the Serbian authorities to apprehend Veselin Svjilancanin, indicted by the Tribunal for the 1991 massacre near Vukovar in Croatia. Although there was resistance, this action was a success and signaled what is perhaps a new determination by Belgrade to transfer all remaining indictees. Having been in Vukovar, along with my good friend and colleague Mr. Wolf, just before the city fell to Serb forces, I am glad to see all three indicted by the Tribunal for this crime will be tried in The Hague.   Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the Department’s determination was the wrong one to make. While progress has been made, it remains insufficient. Still at large and believed to have been in Serbia are several other persons, including Ratko Mladic and others, Ljubisa Beara, Vujadin Popovic, Ljubomir Borovcanin, Vinko Pandurevic and Drago Nikolic, indicted by the Tribunal for their connection to the1995 Srebrenica massacre in which thousands of innocent people were executed.   I am concerned, deeply concerned, that these individuals will continue to evade justice while officials in Belgrade may get the impression they have done enough. Clearly, they have not. Mr. Speaker, I would urge Serbian authorities to take the action necessary to remove "cooperation with the Tribunal" as an outstanding issue in our bilateral relationship. In doing so, they will also continue to help Serbia emerge from Slobodan Milosevic’s legacy of nationalist hatred.   In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I also urge the State Department to use remaining levers to encourage not just better, but full, cooperation with the Tribunal, which Secretary Powell had assured Mr. Cardin and myself in correspondence was a position we all shared. The crimes which occurred were too severe and too horrendous to allow those responsible to escape justice.

  • Arming Rogue Regimes: The Role of OSCE Participating States

    The hearing will consider the efforts to curb the spread of deadly weapons and related militarily significant technology and equipment to dangerous regimes around the world. Rather than focus on the efforts by these regimes to acquire the material, we want to examine the capacity and willingness of participating States in the OSCE to be their source. The end of the Cold War left some states, especially those of the former Warsaw Pact, with huge stockpiles of military hardware, while economic downturns made their military industries and research institutes desperate for funds. The United States has encouraged these countries to maintain tight control over surplus equipment and convert the factories into industrial production. Still, several countries remain vulnerable to the lure of responding to the demand, even from rogue states and regimes, for weapons of mass destruction, delivery system, and small arms or light weapons.

  • Internally Displaced Persons In The Caucasus Region And Southeastern Anatolia

    Rep. Chris Smith (NJ-04), other legislators, and witnesses discussed Internally Displaced Persons (or IDPs) in the north Caucasus region of the Russian Federation, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey. At the time of this hearing, this set of countries represented the greatest concentration of IDPs fleeing conflicts anywhere in the OSCE, which then consisted of 55 states. IDPs are not granted the same protections as refugees as stipulated under the U.N. Refugee Convention, although IDPs face similar problems, due to the fact that IDPs do not cross international borders.

  • Human Rights in Chechnya Focus of Helsinki Commission Briefing

    By John Finerty, CSCE Staff Advisor The United States Helsinki Commission held a briefing April 24, 2003 on the critical human rights and humanitarian situation in war-torn Chechnya, Russian Federation. The panelists of the briefing were Eliza Moussaeva, Director of the Ingushetia office of the Memorial Human Rights Center, and Bela Tsugaeva, Information Manager of World Vision, Ingushetia. The Commission guests were accompanied by Maureen Greenwood, Advocacy Director for Europe and Eurasia, Amnesty International, USA. Helsinki Commission Deputy Chief of Staff Ron McNamara opened the briefing. “Despite concerted efforts by the Russian leadership to portray the situation in Chechnya as approaching normal, the pattern of clear, gross and uncorrected violations of OSCE commitments by Russian forces continues,” McNamara said. “From reports of credible and courageous human rights activists such as our panelists, it is clear that the most egregious violations of international humanitarian law anywhere in the OSCE region are occurring in Chechnya today.” Ms. Moussaeva said that, as of late, Russian forces no longer conduct sweep operations (“zachistki”) in search of rebels, but now rely on night raids by masked personnel. In the three months from January to March, there were 119 abductions by federal forces engaged in such operations, according to Moussaeva, who added that during the same period last year, there were 82 abductions marking an increase in such activity by Federation forces. This shift in tactics has made it more difficult for families to trace their abducted relatives, whereas previously relatives generally knew which units had conducted the sweeps. Now, units and identities of the raiders are unknown, as well as the location of detainees. Officially, 2,800 persons are missing. Memorial believes the actual number to be significantly higher. Mass graves are a common find. In January, one mass grave was found in which the exact number of corpses could not be ascertained, because the bodies had been blown up by grenades to hide traces of torture and abuse. Authorities claim these individuals were abducted by Chechen rebel forces; yet some family members, who were able to identify their relatives by the clothing on the bodies, say that these individuals were actually taken by federal forces. According to Moussaeva, Moscow’s highly-touted March 23rd constitutional referendum has not marked an improvement in Chechen life on the ground. On one single day after the referendum, Memorial received reports of several cases of individuals abducted by federal forces. On the same day, a bus exploded, killing nine. Ms. Moussaeva asked, “So we have the question, why did we need that referendum if it didn’t change the situation for the better, if it didn’t bring us stability?” Regarding an OSCE presence in Chechnya, Moussaeva said, “We hope that they would have the opportunity to open in Chechnya again, and it will be a great help for us. The OSCE had a very positive experience and a good image after the first war.” Ms. Tsugaeva spoke about the situation for internally displaced persons (IDPs). According to information compiled by the Danish Refugee Council, there are some 92,000 IDPs in the neighboring republic of Ingushetia, which has a population of only 350,000. Fifteen thousand of the IDPs live in five large tent camps, 27,000 in other structures such as industrial plants or farms, and 50,000 in private accommodations, for which most have to pay rent. Most individuals lack basic necessities and have been asked by Ingushetia to leave, yet they have nowhere to go. Refugees in this region have also been subjected to efforts by federal officials to drive them away. Seventy percent of aid comes mainly from international NGOs, and the remainder from the UN. Bread distribution to these people is vital but irregular. Most international NGOs have been unable to open offices in Chechnya due to the security situation, meaning only the most needy, such as children and the elderly, can be provided for. Many land mines scattered throughout parts of the country formerly occupied by military forces are an additional cause for concern. According to official statistics, there were over 5,000 victims of landmine explosions in 2002. Despite the work of international NGOs such as the Handicap International Organization, most of these victims do not have access to adequate medical care and are in one way or another incapacitated for life. Ms. Moussaeva stated that an office established by the Putin government to monitor the human rights situation in Chechnya was ineffectual and merely for show. Of more than 29,000 complaints of harassment by federal forces filed by individuals, only 550 had been investigated. Ms. Greenwood commended the Helsinki Commission for its letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell urging the U.S. delegation at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva to push for a strong resolution to the conflict in Geneva. The recently concluded 58th Meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights failed by a vote of 15-21 to adopt a U.S.-supported resolution expressing “deep concern” about reported human rights violations in Chechnya. “Amnesty would like to thank co-signers Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Representative Christopher Smith, Senator Gordon Smith, Representative Steny Hoyer, Representative Robert Aderholt and Representative Ben Cardin,” Greenwood said. Furthermore, Greenwood expressed Amnesty International’s concern regarding the targeting of civilians on both sides of the conflict. Chechen rebel forces have engaged in abductions, hostage taking, and assassinations. Russians have used tactics such as extra-judicial executions, rape, and torture. Amnesty International profiles a few prominent cases, but these represent hundreds of other cases of human rights abuses. Ms. Greenwood presented Amnesty International’s recommendations for the United States Government, including: pressuring the Russian Government not to close tent camps for IDPs; encouraging the US Government to maintain funding levels of the Freedom Support Act for pro-human rights and democracy NGOs in the Russian Federation; demanding access to Chechnya for international journalists and observers; and, supporting the establishment of a human rights tribunal in the Council of Europe. Amnesty International’s recommendations for the Russian Government included providing accountability for previous abuses and ending violations of human rights law. Finally, Amnesty International called upon Chechen rebels to abide by international law, and stop the kidnaping and killings. The United States Helsinki Commission, an independent federal agency, by law monitors and encourages progress in implementing provisions of the Helsinki Accords. The Commission, created in 1976, is composed of nine Senators, nine Representatives and one official each from the Departments of State, Defense and Commerce. United States Helsinki Commission intern Sean Callagy contributed to this article.

  • Prevention of Anti-Semitic Violence

    Mr. President, I appreciate the broad bipartisan support given to Senate Concurrent Resolution 7, and the prompt action by the Committee on Foreign Relations, allowing for timely consideration of this resolution by the full Senate. Anti-Semitism is an evil that has bedeviled previous generations, formed a black spot on human history, and remains a problem to this day. As Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I have been particularly concerned over the disturbing rise in anti-Semitism and related violence in many participating States of the 55-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, including the United States.   The anti-Semitic violence we witnessed in 2002, which stretched the breadth of the OSCE region, is a wake-up call that this evil still lives today, often coupled with a resurgence of aggressive nationalism and an increase in neo-Nazi “skin head” activity. Together with colleagues on the Helsinki Commission, we have diligently urged the leaders of OSCE participating States to confront and combat the plague of anti-Semitism. Through concerted efforts by the State Department and the U.S. Mission to the OSCE, a conference focused on anti-Semitism--called for in the pending resolution--will be convened in Vienna, Austria, June 19-20.   Meanwhile, the Helsinki Commission has undertaken a number of initiatives aimed at further elevating the attention given to rising anti-Semitism. In the year since the Commission's hearing on this issue, Commissioners have pursued it within the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly as well as in contacts with officials from countries of particular concern. I would point to France as a country that has recognized the problem and acted to confront anti-Semitism and related violence with tougher laws and more vigorous law enforcement. I urge French officials to remain vigilant, while recognizing that none of our countries is immune.   A recent opinion survey of adults in five European countries conducted by the Anti-Defamation League, ADL, found that 21 percent harbor “strong anti-Semitic views.” At the same time, the survey revealed that 61 percent of the individuals polled stated they are “very concerned” or “fairly concerned” about violence directed against European Jews. An ADL national poll of 1000 American adults found that 17 percent of Americans holds views about Jews that are “unquestionably anti-Semitic,” an increase of 5 percent from the previous survey conducted four years earlier. According to ADL there were 1,559 reported anti-Semitic incidents in the U.S. in 2002, with attacks on campuses rising by 24 percent over the previous year.   Mr. President, if anti-Semitism is ignored and allowed to fester and grow, our societies and civilization will suffer. A particularly disturbing element we have observed is the growth of anti-Semitic acts and attitudes among young people ranging from a rise in incidents on U.S. college campuses to violent attacks perpetrated on Jews by young members of immigrant communities in Western Europe. Education is essential to reversing the rise in anti-Semitism. Our young people must be taught about the Holocaust and other acts of genocide. Institutions such as the Holocaust Memorial Museum are making valuable contributions to promote the sharing of this experience at home and abroad. Such activity should have our strong support as a vital tool in confronting and combating anti-Semitism.   Mr. President, passage of the Senate Concurrent Resolution 7 will put the United States Senate on record and send an unequivocal message that anti-Semitism must be confronted, and it must be confronted now.   Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.   The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 7) was agreed to.   The preamble was agreed to.   The concurrent resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:   S. CON. RES. 7   Whereas the expressions of anti-Semitism experienced throughout the region encompassing the participating States of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) have included physical assaults, with some instances involving weapons or stones, arson of synagogues, and desecration of Jewish cultural sites, such as cemeteries and statues;   Whereas vicious propaganda and violence in many OSCE States against Jews, foreigners, and others portrayed as alien have reached alarming levels, in part due to the dangerous promotion of aggressive nationalism by political figures and others;   Whereas violence and other manifestations of xenophobia and discrimination can never be justified by political issues or international developments;   Whereas the Copenhagen Concluding Document adopted by the OSCE in 1990 was the first international agreement to condemn anti-Semitic acts, and the OSCE participating States pledged to “clearly and unequivocally condemn totalitarianism, racial and ethnic hatred, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, and discrimination against anyone as well as persecution on religious and ideological grounds”;   Whereas the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly at its meeting in Berlin in July 2002, unanimously adopted a resolution that, among other things, called upon participating States to ensure aggressive law enforcement by local and national authorities, including thorough investigation of anti-Semitic criminal acts, apprehension of perpetrators, initiation of appropriate criminal prosecutions, and judicial proceedings;   Whereas Decision No. 6 adopted by the OSCE Ministerial Council at its Tenth Meeting held in Porto, Portugal in December 2002 (the “Porto Ministerial Declaration”) condemned “the recent increase in anti-Semitic incidents in the OSCE area, recognizing the role that the existence of anti-Semitism has played throughout history as a major threat to freedom”;   Whereas the Porto Ministerial Declaration also urged “the convening of separately designated human dimension events on issues addressed in this decision, including on the topics of anti-Semitism, discrimination and racism, and xenophobia”; and   Whereas on December 10, 2002, at the Washington Parliamentary Forum on Confronting and Combating anti-Semitism in the OSCE Region, representatives of the United States Congress and the German Parliament agreed to denounce all forms of anti-Semitism and agreed that “anti-Semitic bigotry must have no place in our democratic societies”: Now, therefore, be it   Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--   (1) officials of the executive branch and Members of Congress should raise the issue of anti-Semitism in their bilateral contacts with other countries and at multilateral fora, including meetings of the Permanent Council of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Twelfth Annual Session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly to be convened in July 2003;   (2) participating States of the OSCE should unequivocally condemn anti-Semitism (including violence against Jews and Jewish cultural sites), racial and ethnic hatred, xenophobia, and discrimination, as well as persecution on religious grounds whenever it occurs;   (3) participating States of the OSCE should ensure effective law enforcement by local and national authorities to prevent and counter criminal acts stemming from anti-Semitism, xenophobia, or racial or ethnic hatred, whether directed at individuals, communities, or property, including maintaining mechanisms for the thorough investigation and prosecution of such acts;   (4) participating States of the OSCE should promote the creation of educational efforts throughout the region encompassing the participating States of the OSCE to counter anti-Semitic stereotypes and attitudes among younger people, increase Holocaust awareness programs, and help identify the necessary resources to accomplish this goal;   (5) legislators in all OSCE participating States should play a leading role in combating anti-Semitism and ensure that the resolution adopted at the 2002 meeting of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in Berlin is followed up by a series of concrete actions at the national level; and   (6) the OSCE should organize a separately designated human dimension event on anti-Semitism as early as possible in 2003, consistent with the Porto Ministerial Declaration adopted by the OSCE at the Tenth Meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council in December 2002.

  • Bringing Justice to Southeastern Europe

    Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey spoke on behalf of the Commission on the Yugoslav conflicts and its tumultuous impact on the development of post-Cold War Europe, as it exposed flaws in the United Nations and the European Union, whilst simultaneously inspiring the OSCE and NATO to act. The briefing addressed the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the understanding that justice must be part of a post-conflict recovery. The speaker – Honorable Carla del Ponte, Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia since 1999 – was responsible for ensuring that those individuals responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in contemporary Southeast Europe were held accountable. She spoke of the limitations and successes of the Tribunal, referring to two decades of experience as a prosecutor.

  • Human Rights in Belarus and Russia

    Mr. Speaker, as Co-Chairman of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I have followed with particular concern both the deadly climate in Chechnya and the deterioration of human rights in Belarus. Such violations of basic human rights deserve focused criticism, and it is appropriate that the agenda of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights included resolutions on each situation.   On April 17, the U.N. Commission voted 23-14 with 16 abstentions to approve a U.S.-cosponsored resolution urging the Belarusian authorities to investigate "fully and impartially" credible reports that senior government officials were involved in the disappearances in 1999 and 2000 of leading opposition figures and a journalist. I have followed these cases closely and have become increasingly frustrated at the Belarusian regime's intransigence in meaningfully investigating these disappearances. Here in Washington and at OSCE Parliamentary Assembly meetings in Paris and Berlin, I have had occasion to meet with the wives of the disappeared. These meetings have been heart-wrenching. The cases of their husbands--who disappeared in 1999 and 2000 and are presumed to have been murdered--offer a chilling glimpse into the nature of the regime of Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenka, a regime that has the worst human rights record in Europe today. In February, I introduced H.R. 854, the Belarus Democracy Act, designed to bolster democratic development in that beleaguered country, and I am pleased that the State Department authorization bill approved yesterday by the House International Relations Committee includes key provisions of the Belarus Democracy Act. This bill encourages sanctions against the Belarusian regime until certain conditions are met, including a full accounting of these tragic disappearances.   The Belarusian people deserve to live in a society where democratic principles and human rights are respected and the rule of law is paramount, and I believe that the passage of the U.N. Human Rights Commission resolution is an important step towards that end.   Mr. Speaker, I wish I could report that the U.N. Commission on Human Rights had acted with equal conscience on the issue of Chechnya. We all know the desperate human rights situation in that war-torn region of the Russian Federation. Since the Chechen war reignited in 1999, international and domestic Russian human rights organizations have documented the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force by elements of the Russian military, as well as extrajudicial killings, abuse of prisoners, kidnaping, rape, and extortion of civilians. According to official statistics, 2,800 persons are missing in Chechnya; mutilated bodies of young Chechen males turn up almost daily. A representative of the respected human rights organization Memorial reported at a recent Helsinki Commission briefing that "one of the recent tendencies is to explode the corpses" in order to prevent identification. Needless to say, all of this is in clear violation of the Geneva Convention and the OSCE Code of Conduct during internal conflicts.   What's left of the Chechen capital of Grozny after Russian artillery shelling has been compared to the ruins of Stalingrad in 1943. According to the U.N., there are 92,000 internally displaced persons forced to flee from the fighting, with around 17,000 living in tent camps in neighboring Ingushetia.   Chechen forces are not entirely blameless. There are credible reports of their executing prisoners and using non-combatants as human shields. They have also assassinated pro-Moscow Chechen officials. The U.S. Government has placed three militant groups involved in the Chechen resistance on its list of terrorist groups.   Still, is this an excuse for Russia's savage war against the civilian population?   Despite all the documentation and eyewitness testimony on egregious human rights violations committed in Chechnya, the Commission on Human Rights rejected by a vote of 15-21 an even-handed European Union resolution expressing deep concern at the reported ongoing violations of international law in Chechnya. I note that the U.S. delegation did not cosponsor the resolution, though it did support it when the measure came to a vote. We should not be surprised that China, Sudan and Zimbabwe voted against the resolution. I do find it disconcerting, though, that the delegations of Armenia and Ukraine are in that less than distinguished company.   Ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick, Head of the U.S. Delegation to the U.N. Commission noted: "The United States believes it important that the Commission address the serious human rights abuses that have occurred in Chechnya. We recognize Russia's right to defend its territorial integrity and itself against terrorism. The broader conflict in Chechnya cannot be resolved militarily and requires a political solution. Human rights violations by Russian forces in Chechnya need to be curtailed, and abusers held accountable."   So the people of Chechnya continue to suffer, and the U.N. Commission on Human Rights looks the other way.

  • The Troubled Media Environment in Ukraine

    Mr. President, later this week individuals around the world will mark World Press Freedom Day. The functioning of free and independent media is tied closely to the exercise of many other fundamental freedoms as well as to the future of any democratic society. The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which I co-chair, is responsible for monitoring press freedom in the 55 participating States of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE. Recently, I reported to the Senate on the deplorable conditions for independent media in the Republic of Belarus. Today, I will address the situation of journalists and media outlets in Ukraine.   Several discouraging reports have come out recently concerning the medic environment in Ukraine. These reports merit attention, especially within the context of critical presidential elections scheduled to take place in Ukraine next year. The State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in Ukraine for 2002 summarizes media freedoms as follows: "Authorities interfered with the news media by intimidating journalists, issuing written and oral instructions about events to cover and not to cover, and pressuring them into applying self-censorship. Nevertheless a wide range of opinion was available in newspapers, periodicals, and Internet news sources."   Current negative trends and restrictive practices with respect to media freedom in Ukraine are sources of concern, especially given that country's leadership claims concerning integration into the Euro-Atlantic community. Lack of compliance with international human rights standards, including OSCE commitments, on freedom of expression undermines that process. Moreover, an independent media free from governmental pressure is an essential factor in ensuring a level playing field in the upcoming 2004 presidential elections in Ukraine.   In her April 18, 2003 annual report to the Ukrainian parliament, Ombudsman Nina Karpachova asserted that journalism remains among the most dangerous professions in Ukraine, with 36 media employees having been killed over the past ten years, while beatings, intimidation of media employees, freezing of bank accounts of media outlets, and confiscation of entire print runs of newspapers and other publications have become commonplace in Ukraine.   The murder of prominent journalist Heorhiy Gongadze--who disappeared in September 2000--remains unsolved. 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. Not surprisingly, lack of transparency illustrated by the Gongadze case has fueled the debilitating problem of widespread corruption reaching the highest levels of the Government of Ukraine.   Audio recordings exist that contain conversations between Kuchma and other senior government officials discussing the desirability of Gongadze's elimination. Some of these have been passed to the U.S. Department of Justice as part of a larger set of recordings of Kuchma's conversations implicating him and his cronies in numerous scandals. Together with Commission Co-Chairman Rep. Chris Smith, I recently wrote to the Department of Justice requesting technical assistance to determine whether the recordings in which the Gongadze matter is discussed are genuine. 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.   The case of Ihor Alexandrov, a director of a regional television station, who was beaten in July 2001 and subsequently died also remains unsolved. Serious questions remain about the way in which that case was handled by the authorities.   A Human Rights Watch report, “Negotiating the News: Informal State Censorship of Ukrainian Television,” issued in March, details the use of explicit directives or temnyky, lists of topics, which have been sent to editors from Kuchma's Presidential Administration on what subjects to cover and in what manner. The report correctly notes that these temnyky have eroded freedom of expression in Ukraine, as "editors and journalists feel obligated to comply with temnyky instructions due to economic and political pressures and fear repercussions for non-cooperation." To their credit, the independent media are struggling to counter attempts by the central authorities to control their reporting and coverage of issues and events.   Another troubling feature of the media environment has been the control exerted by various oligarchs with close links to the government who own major media outlets. There is growing evidence that backers of the current Prime Minister and other political figures have been buying out previously independent news sources, including websites, and either firing reporters or telling them to cease criticism of the government of find new jobs.   Last December, Ukraine's parliament held hearings on "Society, Mass Media, Authority: Freedom of Speech and Censorship in Ukraine." Journalists' testimony confirmed the existence of censorship, including temnyky, as well as various instruments of harassment and intimidation. Tax inspections, various legal actions or license withdrawals have all been used as mechanisms by the authorities to pressure media outlets that have not towed the line or have supported opposition parties.   As a result of these hearings, the parliament, on April 3rd, voted 252 to one to approve a law defining and banning state censorship in the Ukrainian media. This is a welcome step. However, given the power of the presidential administration, the law's implementation remains an open question at best, particularly in the lead up to the 2004 elections in Ukraine.   I urge our Ukrainian parliamentary colleagues to continue to actively press their government to comply with Ukraine's commitments to fundamental freedoms freely agreed to as a signatory to the Helsinki Final Act. I also urge the Ukrainian authorities, including the constitutional "guarantor", to end their campaign to stifle independent reporting and viewpoints in the media. Good news from Ukraine will come not from the spin doctors of the presidential administration, but when independent media and journalists can pursue their responsibilities free of harassment, intimidation, and fear.

  • The Critical Human Rights and Humanitarian Situation in Chechnya

    This briefing followed a defeat, by a vote of 15-21 at the 59th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, of a U.S.–supported resolution expressing “deep concern” about reported human rights violation in Chechnya.  The developments in Chechnya since the outbreak of the war in 1994 were briefly surveyed, while the focus of discussion was largely on the human dimension of the situation and the dangers faced by average Chechen civilians. Witnesses testifying at the hearing – including Eliza Moussaeva, Director of the Ingushetia Office of the Memorial Human Rights Center; Bela Tsugaeva, Information Manager of World Vision; and Maureen Greenwood, Advocacy Director for the Europe and Eurasia division of Amnesty International – addressed the dismal state of human rights in Chechnya and the issue of international assistance, which was less effective than it could have been due to government accountability issues. The lack of infrastructure and security guarantees was additional topics of discussion.

  • The Referendum in Chechnya

    Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, while the world's eyes were focused on the momentous events taking place in Iraq, a constitutional referendum was held in the war-torn region of Chechnya. The referendum was held as part of the Russian Government's attempt to “normalize” the situation in that tortured part of Russia's North Caucasus.   For the last ten years, Chechnya has been the scene of a bloody war between armed Chechen rebels and Russian military forces. Hostilities were precipitated in late 1994 when, in the wake of Chechnya's attempt to secede from the Russian Federation, Russian military forces launched a full-scale assault on the Chechen capital of Grozny. There was a restive peace from 1996 until the summer of 1999, when the armed clashes erupted anew. The roots of this conflict go back to Tsarist conquests in the 19th century and Stalin's brutal deportation of the Chechen people to Central Asia during World War II. Unfortunately, certain radical Islamic militant elements linked to international terrorism have become involved on the Chechen side, though the State Department has stressed that not all Chechens are terrorists.   Despite Moscow's repeated claims that heavy-handed Russian tactics in Chechnya are part of the war against global terrorism, the situation is far more complex. Many Chechens have taken up arms against what they believe is a repressive colonial power and wish to see Chechnya as an independent state that will be able to make the critical choice regarding the future of its people. As is so frequently the case, the civilian population has suffered terribly from the war. While both sides are guilty of violations of international humanitarian law, the Russian military and special operations units have been responsible for numerous and well-documented instances of gratuitous, brutal and mass violence against the civilian population.   During my years in the leadership of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Commission has conducted eight hearings and briefings on Chechnya. Witnesses, including a nurse who was present in a Chechen town where some of the worst atrocities by Russian forces took place, have described the appalling fate of the civilian population.   According to the U.S. State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2001, “The indiscriminate use of force by government troops in the Chechen conflict resulted in widespread civilian casualties and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of persons, the majority of whom sought refuge in the neighboring republic of Ingushetia. Attempts by government forces to regain control over Chechnya were accompanied by the indiscriminate use of air power and artillery. There were numerous reports of attacks by government forces on civilian targets, including the bombing of schools and residential areas.” The report continues: “Command and control among military and special police units often appeared to be weak, and a climate of lawlessness, corruption, and impunity flourished, which fostered individual acts by government forces of violence and looting against civilians.” Among the examples of such lawlessness and impunity in the Country Reports were “...reports of mass graves and 'dumping grounds' for victims allegedly executed by Russian forces in Chechnya” and “cleansing” operations directed against guerrillas but resulting in deaths and the disappearance of non-combatants.   The State Department points out that Chechen forces also committed serious abuses: “According to unconfirmed reports, rebels killed civilians who would not assist them, used civilians as human shields, forced civilians to build fortifications, and prevented refugees from fleeing Chechnya. In several cases, elderly Russian civilians were killed for no apparent reason other than their ethnicity.”   Against this unsettling backdrop, with an estimated 100,000 internally displaced persons living in refugee camps in neighboring Ingushetia, and under the guns of approximately 80,000 Russian soldiers in Chechnya, the Chechen people have reportedly voted overwhelmingly for the proposed new constitution. Nevertheless, it is difficult to believe that a genuine assessment of the public will would have been determined under such circumstances. I would ask the same question I asked in a Helsinki Commission press release over a month ago: “Are we supposed to believe that this referendum will stabilize Chechnya while armed conflict between the Russian military and Chechen fighters continue to produce death and destruction?'”   The well-respected Russian human rights group, Memorial, has charged that Chechens were pressured to vote with the threat of losing their pensions or humanitarian aid. A joint assessment mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe stated that “no group has been able to campaign officially against the referendum in the mass media or distribute literature arguing against the referendum,” although some opposition opinions were voiced in the media. Incidentally, in the concluding communique of the 1999 Istanbul OSCE Summit, the Russian Government agreed that all sides should seek a political solution to the conflict, and avail themselves of the assistance of the OSCE. This commitment was seriously undermined when the Russian government evicted the OSCE Assistance Mission to Chechnya at the end of last year.   Mr. Speaker, the Bush Administration has stated that “...we hope [the referendum] can be the basis for a political solution to that tragic conflict.” I find that rather optimistic. The Russian Government might better instruct its military to stop terrorizing the civilian population, prosecute human rights violators and rebuild Chechnya. Then perhaps it would not have to hold referenda in Chechnya under armed guard.

  • Speech Regarding Normalized Trade Relations with Serbia Montenegro

    Mr. Speaker, a decade ago we began witnesses to genocide in Europe. By stirring up nationalism, harassing opposition and intimidating the population as a whole to go along with his plans, the regime of Slobodan Milosevic led Serbia into a war of aggression against its neighbors within the former Yugoslavia. Millions were displaced, hundreds of thousands killed and tens of thousands raped or tortured, particularly in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In response, largely at the urging of the U.S. Congress, sanctions were put into place and, ultimately, military intervention was employed to stop Milosevic.   In 2000, the voters of Serbia removed Milosevic from power. In place of his regime, an opposition consisting of genuine reformers and true democrats along with a fair share of Serbian nationalists took control of government. Since that time, the ruling opposition fell into polarized camps, making recovery and reform difficult. This situation also created a challenge in U.S. foreign policy. On the one hand, the United States wants to encourage Belgrade and facilitate reform. On the other, the United States must ensure that the legacy of Slobodan Milosevic has been fully shed, a prerequisite for recovery throughout southeastern Europe.   The Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, H.R. 1047, considered yesterday contains a provision granting the President the authority to restore normalized trade relations for Serbia and Montenegro. I support this provision; normalized trade relations should be restored. Whatever problems might remain, the fact is that there has been progress since Milosevic was removed from power, and Serbia and Montenegro should not be placed on the same list of states not granted normalized trade relations as Cuba, North Korea or Laos. Other countries with far worse records, including Belarus and the Central Asian states, at least receive the benefits of normalized trade relations on a conditional basis which Serbia and Montenegro is denied.   By fixing this, I hope Belgrade recognizes that we want reforms to succeed and recovery and reform take place. Belgrade also needs to know, Mr. Speaker, that restoring NTR does not mean satisfaction with Belgrade's performance to date. While there has been progress, that progress has been too slow, and some issues remain unresolved. Chief among these issues is Belgrade continued resistance to full cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, located in The Hague. It is especially outrageous that persons responsible for the crimes committed at Vukovar and Srebrenica continue to be at large and perhaps even protected by Yugoslav or Serbian authorities.   While trade relations may not be conditioned on further progress, U.S. bilateral assistance to Serbia is. If there is not a major improvement in Belgrade's cooperation with The Hague by June 15, assistance to Serbia will stop. The Administration must certify progress before assistance continues past that date, and the State Department has made clear that a precondition for certification is the apprehension and transfer of Ratko Mladic, indicted for the massacre of thousands at Srebrenica, and Veselin Sljivancanin and Miroslav Radic, indicted for their role in the massacre of about 200 individuals taken from a hospital in Vukovar, Croatia.   As co-chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I urge Belgrade not only to meet their international obligations relating to ICTY not just to the point of obtaining certification for another year. Cooperation should be full. Only then can the conditionality on assistance be removed for good.

  • Trade Relations with Serbia and Montenegro

    Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring attention to this body of one provision that is in this bill that deals with extending normal trade relations to Serbia and Montenegro. When this issue was before the Committee on Ways and Means, I offered an amendment that was adopted by the committee that placed conditionality on the normal trade relations based upon cooperation by Serbia and Montenegro with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.   Mr. Speaker, it is important to move forward in our relations with Serbia, but it is also important to remember the past. There were war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia where individuals were murdered, mass murders, dislocation of people, solely because of their ethnic background. There are individuals who is have been indicted by the war crimes tribunal that have not been turned over to the Hague. General Mladic and Karadzic were involved in mass murders of innocent people, they were lined up and murdered, and yet they still remain free, even though they are indicted. We need full cooperation with the tribunal, including the turning over of documents and the availability of witnesses.   Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we were able to reach an understanding where the conditionality on this legislation could be removed by additional commitments made by the government of Serbia-Montenegro.   I will make part of the record a letter that I have received. I would like to quote very quickly part of that letter, where the Foreign Minister says, “I would like to assure you that there is a strong and clear political will of the authorities in Serbia and Montenegro to cooperate with International Criminal Tribunal. Obviously, the most pressing concern is the issue of the arrest and transfer to The Hague of the indicted individuals, in particular General Mladic and those indicted for the crimes at Vukovar. You may rest assure that the resolution of this issue figures high on the agenda of all office holders in Serbia and Montenegro. Furthermore, the institutions of the state union of Serbia and Montenegro, which will be formed in the coming days, will have the opportunity to further contribute to perfecting the cooperation of the ICTY in this regard.”   Mr. Speaker, I would also bring to your attention a letter I received from Secretary of State Powell, where he points out that the FY 2003 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act once again conditions U.S. assistance to the Republic of Serbia. These conditions have been useful in maintaining pressure on Belgrade to comply with its obligations to the ICTU. I can assure you that the Department of State will continue to use every available tool to achieve cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal by the governments of Serbia and Montenegro.   Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) of the Helsinki Commission, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who has been extremely helpful in this issue, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) from the Committee on Appropriations, the staff at the Helsinki committee, the Coalition for International Justice, and Ambassador Prosper, who is our Ambassador at Large for War Crimes, for their cooperation in order to be able to work out further cooperation with the tribunal.   I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for their patience. I know that we have been working on this for a long time, and I appreciate very much giving us the opportunity to work this out.   Congress has played a critical role on advancing human rights, whether it was Jackson-Vanik or the conditionality of foreign aid to governments to make sure that they comply with human rights issues. We have played an active role. We need to continue to play that role. I am proud of the role that this body has played in advancing human rights issues, including compliance with the International Criminal Tribunal.   Mr. Speaker, I include for the record the letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Serbia and Montenegro.   Serbia and Monetenegro Minister for Foriegn Affairs   Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin  House of Representatives, Washington, DC.   Dear M. Cardin: I appreciate very much your continuing interest in the issues related to Serbia and Montenegro and its relations with the United States. I still remember fondly our last telephone conversation in which we had the opportunity to discuss these matters.   At the moment, one of the most pressing issues in this regard remains extending Normal Trade Relations Treatment (NTR) to Serbia and Montenegro, which is part of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act 2003. Extending NTR treatment would provide substantial support to continuing economic reforms in my country which, in turn, would help the consolidation of our democracy.   I am fully aware of your genuine and well-intentioned concerns with regard to the cooperation of Serbia and Montenegro with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). I would like to assure you that there is strong and clear political will of the authorities in Serbia and Montenegro to cooperate with the ICTY.   Obviously, the most pressing concern is the issue of arrest and transfer to The Hague of the indicted individuals, in particular Gen. Mladic and those indicted for the crimes in Vukovar. You may rest assured that the resolution of this issue figures high on the agenda of all office holders in Serbia and Montenegro. Furthermore, the institutions of the state union of Serbia and Montenegro, which will be formed in the coming days, will have the opportunity to further contribute to perfecting the cooperation with the ICTY in this regard.   At the same time, it should be noted that there has been a substantial progress in other aspects of our cooperation with the ICTY, i.e., in providing documents and access to witnesses. Serbia and Montenegro has provided effective assistance to the ICTY in relation to locating, interviewing and testimony of witnesses. In this respect, we have so far fully responded to almost 90% of the requests for assistance. In particular, we have provided waivers for more than 100 officials of the former government to testify about classified matters before the ICTY. These include top officials such as two former presidents of the FRY, heads of military and police security services, as well as many high-ranking military and police officers.   As regards the documents requested by the ICTY, we have presented thousands of pages of documentation, including confidential records of the Supreme Defense Council, which is the commander-in-chief of the Yugoslav Army. I would like to assure you that we are determined to cooperate even more effectively with the ICTY in relation to documents and witnesses, and most notably, with regard to the transfer of indictees. Further promotion of democracy and economic prosperity of my country would only create a more favorable climate for such cooperation. In this regard, extending NTR treatment would be a welcome signal that Serbia and Montenegro have the support of the United States and would bring tangible benefits to our economy and people.   I am confident that you will take this information into account while assessing the level of cooperation with the ICTY, and as a result support the initiative to extend NTR treatment to Serbia and Montenegro.   Sincerely,   GORAN SVILANOVIC.   NON-PAPER   Serbia and Montenegro believes that all individuals responsible for international crimes should be brought to justice, either before international courts, such as the ICTY, or before national courts. In particular, as a UN Member, Serbia and Montenegro recognizes its obligation to cooperate with the JCTY. Consequently, the FRY has adopted the Law on Co-operation with the ICTY on 11 April 2002, which regulates the legal framework for cooperation.   Fifteen indictees who were on the territory of the FRY were brought into the custody of the ICTY. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia arrested and surrended 6 indictees, including Slobodan Milosevic, former president of the FRY and Serbia. The others are Milomir Stakic, former Chief of the Crisis Staff of Prijedor Municipality, Republika Sprska (RS), and four combatants of the RS Army: Drazen Erdemovic, Predrag Banovic, Nenad Benovic i Ranko Cesic.   At the same time, 10 indictees have been encouraged to voluntarily surrender to the ICTY and they eventually did so. These are:   1. Dragoljub Ojdanic, General, former Chief of the General Staff of the Yugoslav Army and former Federal Minister of Defence.   2. Nikola Sainovic, former Deputy-Prime Minister of the FRY.   3. Mile Mrksjc, Major-General, Yugoslav Army.   4. Pavle Strugar, Lieutenant-General, Yugoslav Army.   5. Miodrag Jokic, Vice-Admiral, Yugoslav Army.   6. Milan Martic, former Serb leader in Croatia.   7. Blagoie Simic, Head of the Bosanski Samac, RS, Crisis Staff.   8. Momcilo Gruban, Deputy Commander of the Omarska camp, RS.   9. Milan Milutinovic, former President of the Republic of Serbia.   10. Vojislav Seselj, leader of the Serbian Radical Party.   National courts have issued arrest warrants for additional 17 accused whose arrest has been sought by the ICTY. One indictee (Vlajko Stojiljkovic, former Minister of Internal Affairs of Serbia committed suicide.   Serbia and Montenegro has provided effective assistance to the Prosecutor and the ICTY with relation to locating, interviewing and testifying of suspects and witnesses. In that respect, Serbia and Montenegro has, so far, answered to 76 different requests and provided information for as many as 150 suspects and witnesses. Out of 126 witnesses for whom the waivers were requested, Serbia and Montenegro has granted 108 (86%), while others are in procedure.   In the Milosevic case, the FRY and Serbia government decided to allow more than 87 of the former and current state officials and employees to testify with relation to the Kosovo indictment, even about the matters that constitute military and state secrets.   Zoran Lilic, the former President of the FRY, has been given waiver to testify in the Milosevic case on the matters defined after consultations between the Prosecutor and the FRY and related to the events covered by the Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo indictments.   Dobrica Cosic, former President of the FRY, as well as Nebojsa Pavkovic, former Chief of the General staff of the Yugoslav Army have also been given waiver to testify in the Milosevic case and related to the events covered by the Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo indictments.   Regarding documents that have been sought by the ICTY Prosecutor (127), the FRY has answered, so far, to 65 requests, to 9 partially and 53 are currently processed. The documents transmitted to the Prosecution include:   Confidential military documents of the Supreme Defense Council, the Commander-in-chief of the Yugoslav Army;   Certain confidential regulations of the Yugoslav Army;   All available official records related to the Racak massacre, in relation to the Kosovo indictment against Milosevic;   All available personal information about Ratko Mladic, the former Commander of the Army;   Of Republika Srpska;   Information on all investigations and judicial proceedings initiated against members of the Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs for crimes committed in Kosovo and Metohija;   Official records of the Yugoslav National Bank relating to a company allegedly involved in trading arms during the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina;   The authorities of Serbia and Montenegro have continued to investigate mass graves near Batajnica. This is done in the presence of the ICTY investigators on site, and the evidence obtained is regularly transferred to the ICTY Prosecutor.   There have been investigations and judicial proceedings before Yugoslav courts for violations of international humanitarian law:   There is a number of criminal proceedings before military courts against individuals indicted for crimes in Kosovo and Metohija in 1999. The judicial proceeding against Sasa Cvjetan and Dejan Demirovit, members of the special corps “Scorpions,” have also been initiated before the Court in Belgrade, for the crimes committed in Kosovo. In the District court in Prokuplje, Serbia, Ivan Nikolic, a reserve soldier with the Yugoslav Army, was sentenced to 8 years of imprisonment for the killing of two Kosovo-Albanian civilians.   Criminal proceeding before the Belgrade District Court are currently under way for the abduction of Bosniacs from the village of Sjeverin in 1992 (Case of Dragoljub Dragicevic and others).   In another case, Nebojsa Ranisavljevic was convicted to 15 years of imprisonment for his role in the notorious case of abduction of Muslim passengers from the train in Supci station in 1993.  

  • Commission Surveys Bush Administration's Policy Toward the OSCE

    By Orest Deychakiwsky & Janice Helwig CSCE Staff Advisors The United States Helsinki Commission held a hearing October 10, 2002 to examine U.S. policy toward the 55-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The hearing reviewed the United States’ goals and longstanding human rights concerns in the OSCE region and how the Vienna-based organization can serve as a forum to advance those goals and address human rights violations. In his opening statement, Commission Chairman Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) affirmed the importance of the relationship between the Helsinki Commission and the Department of State. He also declared the Commission’s ongoing interest in how the Administration uses the OSCE to effectively promote U.S. interests in the OSCE region. Chairman Campbell stressed that to be effective in our policy goals, “the various components of the U.S. foreign policy apparatus – the State Department, U.S. embassies in the field and the U.S. Mission to the OSCE – must be mutually reinforcing.” Chairman Campbell addressed corruption and organized crime as major impediments to democratization efforts in the OSCE region and cited specific recent developments in Georgia, Belarus and Ukraine as warranting monitoring by the United States. Commission Co-Chairman Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) began his opening statement by arguing that “without a doubt the events of this past year have only underscored the importance of protecting human rights, and developing democratic institutions and the rule of law.” He spoke out against those leaders, particularly in Central Asia, that use the fight against terrorism to crack down on political opposition, religious groups, and others accused of being extremist. Rather, allowing citizens to express their religious, political or ethnic views helps prevent the rise of dissent and disillusionment that terrorists can use to garner support. “The United States must demonstrate in word and deed that this country has not abandoned human rights for the sake of the fight against global terrorism,” Smith concluded. “We need to reassure the world that it is just the opposite: human rights are more important than ever.” Smith drew particular attention to the issue of human trafficking as an increasing problem in “virtually all OSCE states.” Commissioner Ranking Member Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), in his opening statement, argued that the OSCE has been an effective body for working on human rights issues. He cited the Central Asian countries as some of the most egregious human rights violators in the OSCE region and noted that raising human rights issues in these countries may be more difficult now as they are needed allies in the global struggle against terrorism. Hoyer pointed out that the U.S. must also uphold its own domestic commitments under the OSCE commitments and concluded by saying that in the future he hopes the OSCE will continue to hold participating States accountable for failures to meet their commitments under the Helsinki Final Act. Commissioner Senator George V. Voinovich (R-OH), in his opening remarks, spoke of the alarming rise of anti-Semitism in the OSCE region and raised possible steps to combat this trend. He commended the role of OSCE monitoring missions in promoting fair elections in Kosovo and Macedonia, while also calling for continued vigilance in addressing the problems of “organized crime, corruption and trafficking in human beings, arms and drugs.” A. Elizabeth Jones, Assistant Secretary of State of European and Eurasian Affairs, enumerated the ways in which the U.S. is using the OSCE as an instrument in the global struggle against terrorism. In her testimony, Jones said, “To ensure continuing OSCE attention to combating terrorism, we have proposed establishing an annual security review conference to assess progress and to review OSCE activities in the security dimension.” She noted that the OSCE’s monitoring missions play a valuable role in bringing security and stability to the OSCE region. Changing focus, Jones maintained that the core of U.S. policy toward the OSCE would continue to be in the field of human rights. She highlighted the important role of the various OSCE monitoring missions in publicizing human rights abuses and bringing the issues to the attention of the international community. Jones continued, “unless respect for fundamental rights and freedoms strengthens in Central Asian states, we can look forward to a bleak future.” Assistant Secretary Jones singled out Belarus as a particular area of concern due to its recent “policy of gutting the OSCE mission there by refusing to renew visas” while also noting that “the Lukashenka regime has continued to perpetrate massive human rights abuses.” Jones also outlined the State Department’s efforts to determine the details of President Kuchma’s authorization of the sale of advanced radar equipment to Iraq and outlined possible actions against the Ukrainian president. Lorne W. Craner, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor and the Helsinki Commission’s Executive Branch Commissioner testified that the State Department had allocated “a substantial portion of the Human Rights and Democracy Fund...for hard-hitting democracy and human rights programs in numerous OSCE countries.” Craner noted that the countries of the former Soviet Union have posed the greatest challenges to the OSCE. He specifically cited Russia and its continued justification of aggression in Chechnya as part of the war on terrorism. Craner concluded by noting the progress in some of the Central Asian countries in meeting international norms on human rights, fundamental freedoms and elections. However, he also delineated several instances of corruption, repression and intimidation throughout the various Central Asian states, instances that have hindered the full realization of these norms. The second panel of witnesses began with a statement by Catherine A. Fitzpatrick, CIS Program Director, International League for Human Rights, who discussed her views on OSCE shortcomings and what can be done to address them. She argued that without binding treaties, without troops, without clout and capital, there are still two very great levers that the OSCE has.” Fitzpatrick specifically cited the OSCE’s validation of human rights victims’ concerns through “publicity of human rights reporting” and “withholding legitimacy and approval through its response to elections.” She continued with several proposals for using these levers coupled with “nuts and bolts human rights monitoring.” Among her specific recommendations were: requiring the OSCE to publicize its reports; suggesting that the OSCE’s missions advocate more forcefully on human rights at the ground level; beginning a very concerted campaign against torture; and decreasing funding for election training and observation. Elizabeth Anderson, Executive Director (DC) of the Europe and Central Asia Division of Human Rights Watch suggested two ways to strengthen the OSCE. First, she advocated the bolstering of human dimension activities by increasing the public reporting of the OSCE missions and improving the “implementation of recommendations” made to the OSCE by their missions and monitoring teams. Second, Anderson said the “integration of the human dimension with the other aspects of the organization’s work also needs to be strengthened.” She also noted the importance of coordination between the OSCE and other multilateral bodies, particularly international financial institutions. The final witness, Robert Templar, Asia Program Director of the International Crisis Group, noted with regard to Central Asia, the OSCE has struggled to do meaningful human rights work in countries which have “little interest in opening up their political and economic systems.” He also cited low staffing, low budgeting and lack of long-term strategy as hindering the OSCE’s work in the region. He suggested that the OSCE increase activities in the economic and security dimension, such as police and border service training, to show Central Asian states that the OSCE is not simply a human rights and democracy promoting organization that has little interest in their respective countries’ security or economic success. Templar advocated the creation of OSCE projects to tackle cross-dimensional issues and to work in conjunction with present undertakings in human rights and democracy. Finally, he advocated more comprehensive training for OSCE mission staff, not just in Central Asia, but rather in all OSCE missions. The United States Helsinki Commission, an independent federal agency, by law monitors and encourages progress in implementing provisions of the Helsinki Accords. The Commission, created in 1976, is composed of nine Senators, nine Representatives and one official each from the Departments of State, Defense and Commerce. United States Helsinki Commission intern David P. Vandenberg contributed to this article.

  • U.S. Policy Toward the OSCE - 2003

    The purpose of this hearing was to examine U.S. policy toward the 55-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The Commission hearing focused on how the Administration has been using the OSCE to promote U.S. interests in the expansive OSCE region, particularly as a tool for advancing democracy. In addition the hearing touched on the anticipated OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Review. In light of the September 11th terrorist attacks, the hearing discussed the link between state repression and violence and the role of building democracy  in U.S. national security interest. The witnesses and Commissioners discussed how the Helsinki Accords is based on mutual monitoring, not mutual evasion of difficult problems and how this concept can be effective tool for the U.S. foreign policy apparatus. In particular, the hearing covered situations in Central Asia and in authoritarian countries within the OSCE that are not putting forth meaningful reform.

  • Democracy and Human Rights Trends in Eurasia and East Europe: A Decade of Membership in the Organization

    The ten-year anniversary of the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), an original signatory to the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, fell in 2001. The following year marked another milestone, perhaps less widely noticed: the passage of a decade since the entry of the Eurasian and East European States into the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)*, which embraces all of Europe, the former Soviet Union, the United States and Canada. Membership in the now 55-nation organization is predicated on the acceptance of certain bedrock principles of democracy, a wide array of human rights commitments and modern norms of statecraft, including respect for the rule of law and promotion of civil society. Each of the OSCE participating States, including those examined in this report, has committed to “build, consolidate and strengthen democracy as the only system of government of our nations.” Similarly, the participating States have declared that “human rights and fundamental freedoms are the birthright of all human beings, are inalienable and are guaranteed by law. Their protection and promotion is the first responsibility of government. Respect for them is an essential safeguard against an over-mighty State.” In a step designed to preserve the unity of the Helsinki process, each new participating State submitted a letter accepting in their entirety all commitments and responsibilities contained in the Helsinki Final Act, and all subsequent documents adopted prior to their membership (see Appendix I). To underscore this continuity, the leaders of each of the countries signed the actual original Final Act document (see Appendix II).

  • Democracy and Human Rights Trends in Eurasia and East Europe: A Decade of Membership in the Organization

    The ten-year anniversary of the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), an original signatory to the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, fell in 2001. The following year marked another milestone, perhaps less widely noted: the passage of a decade since the entry of the Eurasian and East European States into the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which embraces all of Europe, the former Soviet Union, the United States and Canada. Membership in the organization is predicated on the acceptance of certain bedrock principles of democracy, a wide array of human rights commitments and modern norms of statecraft, including respect for the rule of law and promotion of civil society. This report conducts a review of Eastern European and Eurasian countries' records on these commitments over the course of the decade following the Soviet Union's collapse.

Pages