Introduction of Resolution on Anti-Semitism and Related Violence

Introduction of Resolution on Anti-Semitism and Related Violence

Hon.
Ben N. Campbell
United States
Senate
108th Congress
First Session
Thursday, February 13, 2003

Mr. President, I am pleased to sponsor Senate Concurrent Resolution 7, expressing the sense and concern of the Congress regarding the recent spike in anti-Semitic violence that occurred in many participating States of the 55-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). It is incumbent upon us to send a clear message that these malicious acts are a serious concern to the United States Senate and American people and that we will not be silent in the face of this disturbing trend.

The anti-Semitic violence we witnessed in 2002, which stretched the width and breadth of the OSCE region, is a wake-up call that this old evil still lives today. Coupled with a resurgence of aggressive nationalism and an increase in neo-Nazi “skin head” activity, myself, and other Commissioners on the Helsinki Commission, have diligently urged the leaders of OSCE participating States to confront and combat the evil of anti-Semitism. Attacks on members of the Jewish community and their institutions have ranged from shootings, fire bombings, and physical assaults in places as different as London, Paris, Berlin and Kiev. Vandals have struck in Brussels, Marseille, Bratislava, and Athens. Anti-Semitic propaganda has been spread in Moscow, Minsk and elsewhere as hatemongers have tapped into technology, including the internet, to spread their venom. Yet while we witnessed a significant rise in violence last year in Europe, acts of vandalism have also occurred in the United States, so with encouraging our colleagues in other parliaments to act, we must be mindful that no country is immune.

As OSCE participating States, all member nations, including the United States, have pledged to unequivocally condemn anti-Semitism and take effective measures to protect individuals from anti-Semitic violence. Through the OSCE, which was the first multilateral institution to speak out against anti-Semitism, all of today’s member states share in that heritage. Thankfully, many OSCE states that I mentioned have responded appropriately, vigorously investigating the perpetrators and pursuing criminal prosecution. In short, manifestations of anti-Semitism must not be tolerated, period, regardless of the source.

Mr. President, as Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I can report that the OSCE Proto Ministerial Council, through the persistent efforts of the United States, addresses the phenomenon of anti-Semitism and called for the convening of a meeting specifically focused on this timely issue. I introduce this resolution to put the United States Senate on record and send an unequivocal message that anti-Semitism must be confronted, and it must be confronted now. If anti-Semitism is ignored and allowed to grow, our societies and our civilizations will suffer. As the resolution sets forth, elected and appointed leaders should meet the challenge of anti-Semitic violence through public condemnation, making clear their societies have no room for such attacks against members of the Jewish community or their institutions.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the resolution be included in the Record following my remarks.

Thank you, Mr. President.

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 7--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 (OSCE) IS OF PROFOUND CONCERN AND EFFORTS SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN TO PREVENT FUTURE OCCURRENCES

Mr. Campbell (for himself, Mr. Smith, and Mrs. Clinton) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

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.

Relevant countries: 
  • Related content
  • Related content
Filter Topics Open Close
  • Advancing U.S. Interests through the OSCE

    The OSCE has been a pioneer in defining an integrated approach to security, one in which human rights and economic well-being are as key to a nation’s stability as are traditional military forces.  It remains not only the largest trans-Atlantic organization, but the one with the broadest definition of security.  The OSCE has also created the most innovative habits of dialogue and collective action of any multilateral organization in the world.  The focus of the hearing will be how the OSCE can be used most effectively to highlight and advance the interests of the United States.  Among the subjects to be covered will be objectives for the December (2004) meeting of Foreign Ministers in Sofia; recent high-impact security initiatives; expectations for the upcoming Human Dimension Implementation Meeting in Warsaw; and refining and strengthening the OSCE.

  • Background: OSCE Election Observation

    The United States has provided important leadership within the 55-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in advancing democracy and human rights. In 1990, the U.S. and all OSCE participating States agreed by consensus to the Copenhagen Document, reaffirming principles to strengthen respect for fundamental freedoms, and inviting observers from other participating States to observe national elections. That same year, a U.S.-sponsored initiative led to the creation of the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODllR) as the OSCE's focal point for all election-related matters, including election observation, technical assistance, and the review of electoral legislation. Thus OSCE commitments require participating States, including the United States, to invite other participating States to observe their elections. Consistent with this commitment, the U.S. formally invited ODllR to send observers to elections in 1996, 1998 2000 and 2002. In 2002, ODllR deployed a team of 10 international observers to Florida and produced a largely positive report saying "measures adopted in Florida can serve as an example of good practice to the rest of the U.S. and other OSCE participating States." In 2003 ,two ODIHR observers came to observe the California gubernatorial recall election. Each year, the ODllR deploys thousands of observers to monitor elections throughout the OSCE region in order to assess participating States ' compliance with OSCE election-related commitments. At the parliamentary level, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly has developed a particularly active program for monitoring elections. The United States has fielded thousands of American election observers in OSCE countries since the early 1990s as part of these missions. ODllR missions are funded from the core budget of the OSCE to which the U.S. contributes 9% annually. These funds cover expenses for ODllR experts and basic support of the mission and are not used to finance the participation of individual observers. Thus, election observation has become an integral part of U.S. efforts to advance democracy throughout the OSCE region. Consistent with its OSCE commitments and in keeping with customary practice, the United States Government - through the U. S. Mission to the OSCE in Vienna - extended an invitation for the ODllR to observe the U.S. elections in November. An ODllR assessment team was in Washington September 7- 10 and visited the Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission the Republican and Democratic National Committees, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and relevant non-governmental organizations. An assessment report will be prepared with recommendations concerning whether or not to observe, if so where, and how many observers following their return to Warsaw, Poland. While most ODIHR election observation missions have been deployed to the countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, elections in established democracies have also been observed. The latter have included France (2002 presidential), the United Kingdom (2003 devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), and Spain (2004 parliamentary). In an unprecedented development, ODllR was invited to observe the 2004 elections to European Parliament in 25 OSCE participating States: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France Germany, Greece Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania Luxembourg, Malta The Netherlands Poland, Portgal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The only OSCE participating State to outright refuse to invite an election observation mission was Yugoslavia in 2000 under then-President Slobodan Milosevic. Prepared by the staff of the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

  • Religious Freedom in the Caucasus

    Helsinki Commission Chairman Hon. Chris Smith and Commission Staff Advisors Elizabeth Pryor and Knox Thames evaluated issues regarding religious freedom in the Caucasus states. In Azerbaijan, unregistered religious communities experienced harassment from authorities; in Armenia, government policy regarding registration restriction for religious groups conflicted with the government’s commitment to human rights; and Georgian authorities needed to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of violent assaults against religious minorities. Witnesses testifying at the hearing – including Eric Rassbach, Counsel for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Andre Carbonneau, Attorney for Jehovah’s Witnesses; and Dr. Paul Crego, Senior Cataloging Specialist for the Library of Congress – focused on the violations of religious freedom perpetrated by the governments of each of these three states and emphasized the potential role of the international community, and specifically the United States government, in resolving these violations.

  • Commission Hearing Surveys Human Rights in Putin's Russia

    By John Finerty Staff Advisor The United States Helsinki Commission held a hearing on May 20, 2004 to review governance practices and human rights in the Russian Federation under President Vladimir Putin.  Witnesses focused on media independence, religious freedom, judicial procedures, xenophobia and anti-Semitism, and the war in Chechnya. Opening the hearing, Helsinki Commission Chairman Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) expressed apprehension that President Putin was leading Russia in an authoritarian direction, increasingly reliant on Russia’s security apparatus and intelligence agencies to govern the country.  Commission Ranking Member Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) also voiced his concerns, focusing on corruption in the Russian Government and abuses in the war in Chechnya. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Steven Pifer stated that Russians enjoy freedom of travel and emigration, and an independent print media that engages in robust political debates; religious association and expression is generally free, and Russians have incorporated voting into their political practices. However, Pifer voiced concern with the Putin administration’s undue influence on judicial proceedings, state control or sway over the broadcast media, the pressuring of non-governmental organizations, anti-Semitism, abuses in the war in Chechnya, and the lack of a level electoral playing field for the political opposition. Ambassador Pifer cited the U.S. record of advocating democratization and human rights to the Russian leadership, while pursuing cooperation on mutual security interests such as the war on terrorism, arms control, counter-proliferation, and the resolution of regional conflicts. Gary Kasparov, former world chess champion and chairman of Committee 2008: Free Choice, presented a critical view of the Putin administration, lamenting the slide of the Russian Government into authoritarianism.  He described a variety of policies undertaken by the Putin administration that he viewed as backtracking from the democratic progress of the 1990s, including the curtailment of civil liberties and the flagrant abuse of human rights. Specifically, Kasparov described government influence over the broadcast media and manipulation of elections. The war in Chechnya had been sidelined as a topic of news discussion, he asserted, thus facilitating the concealment of wartime human rights abuses.  He also faulted the media for disregarding the ineptness of government responses to terrorist attacks. On elections, Kasparov characterized the December 2003 parliamentary polls as unfair, and predicted that President Putin would use parliamentary maneuvers to change the constitution and extend his term, perhaps indefinitely. Mr. Kasparov condemned Russian activities in the Chechen war and described how “hundreds of Chechens, if not thousands, are being interrogated, tortured and killed” by Russian soldiers. He called for the deployment of independent observers to monitor Russian behavior and promote observance of human rights.  As a final critique, Kasparov charged that Putin had stripped the judicial system of its independence and was using it to silence political opponents and critics, such as Mikhail Khordorkovsky and Igor Sutyagin. As for solutions, Kasparov highlighted his efforts to expose the corruption of the December 2003 elections through a lawsuit and public advocacy. He also urged the United States to use diplomatic means to leverage the Russian Government into democratic and civil liberties concessions. Edward Lozansky, president of Russia House and the American University in Moscow, offered a contrasting opinion, pointing to the successes of the Putin administration in taming the “oligarchs” and encouraging economic growth. He viewed state control of the broadcast media as less of a crisis, contending that free alternatives, such as print, electronic, and foreign media, provide the people with a variety of viewpoints. Ultimately, Dr. Lozansky argued, “President Putin enjoys overwhelming support of the Russian people” and that the Russian people “can freely express their opinions.” In closing, Lozansky suggested the United States should not undermine its relationship with Russia through unnecessary criticism, since bilateral cooperation between the nations remains essential in the war on terrorism, space exploration, energy, and the environment.  Engagement and dialogue, rather than condemnation, is paramount, he suggested. Reverend Igor Nikitin, president of the Association of Christian Churches in Russia, offered a mixed assessment of the status of religious liberty in Russia.  In northwest Russia and St. Petersburg particularly, religious tolerance is the norm.  In other regions, however, Protestant churches and other non-Orthodox denominations have experienced discrimination and bureaucratic malfeasance.  For instance, an unconstitutional requirement for churches to register their members – as opposed to merely the institution – is frequently enforced by local authorities, and a Moscow court has ordered the “liquidation” of the city’s community of Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Nikitin urged measures to educate Russian officials on the importance of religious freedom as a civil liberty. Nickolai Butkevich, Research and Advocacy Director of the Union of Councils for Jews in the Former Soviet Union, discussed the situation regarding xenophobia and the treatment of minorities in Russia. Mr. Butkevich noted that President Putin has made efforts at the national level to combat xenophobia, but that implementation of relevant directives is uneven at the local level. Some regions and cities have combated xenophobia and anti-Semitism, while other authorities have actively encouraged it. Mr. Butkevich described cases in Vladivostok, Voronezh, and other cities where individuals had been subject to abuse and local authorities reacted uncaringly or in collusion with perpetrators. In answer to a question posed by Chairman Smith on the disparity between the Russian Government’s public and international pronouncements that it will combat anti-Semitism and its failed implementation of such policies domestically, Butkevich blamed the disparity on a lack of prioritization by the central government.  Mr. Kasparov contended though that President Putin has done nothing to address anti-Semitism or quell xenophobia. Answering other questions on the attitudes of the United States and the West toward the Chechen situation, governmental corruption, and the judiciary, Dr. Lozansky replied that Russia is stabilizing under the pragmatic policies of President Putin and that the international community must engage the country on matters of mutual interest. The witnesses responded with divergent views as to whether Russia was moving toward autocracy.  While Kasparov made his case strongly that Russia was, Lozansky again insisted that it was not.  Mr. Butkevich suggested that Russia was “backsliding toward authoritarianism,” but that President Putin certainly retains popular support. Reverend Nikitin stressed that the next few years will determine whether Russia evolves toward civil and religious liberty or tsarist, oppressive governance reemerges. The United States Helsinki Commission, an independent agency, by law monitors and encourages progress in implementing provisions of the Helsinki Accords. The Commission created in 1976, is composed of nine Senators, nine Representatives, and one official from the Departments of State, Defense, and Commerce. United States Helsinki Commission Intern Colby Daughtry contributed to this article.

  • OSCE Meeting Examines Hate Crimes and Racist, Xenophobic, and Anti-Semitic Internet Propaganda

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

  • Helsinki Commission Briefing Sheds Light on Russia's Human Rights Situation

    By John Finerty CSCE Staff Advisor On June 7, 2004, the United States Helsinki Commission held a briefing with four prominent Russian human rights activists to examine the state of human rights and civil liberties in the Russian Federation.  Entitled “Russia: Are Rights in Retreat?,” the briefing covered such topics as elections, Chechnya, religious liberty, media freedom and the overall functioning of the legislative and judicial branches. The briefing was a follow up to the Commission’s May 20th hearing on “Human Rights in Putin’s Russia.” The briefing panel included Ludmilla Alexeeva, Chairwoman of the Moscow Helsinki Group and President of the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights.  Other participants were Arseni Roginsky, Chairman of the International Memorial Society; Alexei Simonov, Head of the Glasnost Defense Fund; and Mara Polyakova, Director of the Independent Council for Legal Expertise. Commission Deputy Chief of Staff Ronald J. McNamara began the briefing with a moment of silence to honor the passing of President Ronald Reagan, a “stalwart supporter of freedom and human rights.” McNamara noted the timeliness of the briefing given Russian President Vladimir Putin’s U.S. visit to Sea Island, Georgia, for the G-8 Summit.  He stated that despite Putin’s claim that “nothing will stop Russia” in its quest for economic and democratic freedom, some of Putin’s comments in his State of the Federation address had raised concerns over the Kremlin’s commitment to promote civil society in Russia.  Putin’s accusations of NGOs seeking outside funding and not addressing serious issues were particularly troubling insofar as they may signal the beginning of a crackdown against NGOs in Russia.  Mr. McNamara also referenced the growing problem of “spy mania,” with potentially chilling implications for Russia’s academics and scientific community. Arseni Roginsky began his remarks by stating that the trend in Russia over the past few years has been marked by “the efforts of the powers-that-be to destroy the isolated islands of independence and democracy that still continue to exist in Russia.”  Specifically, Roginsky pointed to the new Russian law limiting public demonstrations and a new law on referenda.  In sentiments echoed by other panelists, he decried the emergence of “made-to-order” elections controlled almost exclusively by the Putin administration and moneyed interests. Ms. Alexeeva later reiterated the concern about the changes on referenda, noting that even if the requisite two million signatures can be garnered, under the new law she believes mid-level Russian bureaucrats will be able to stop indefinitely the progress of a referendum. While the Putin administration has been quick to point to the Russian Constitution and its promise of free speech, Roginsky and panelist Alexei Simonov both claimed that this de jure right does not exist in reality.  According to Simonov, while Russians may be legally entitled to say or print controversial statements, these sentiments are ignored by the powers-that-be. He contended that “[freedom of speech] means not only to shout out but to be heard.”  According to Simonov, there are only four independent-minded Russian magazines with a combined circulation of around 500,000. Smaller such newspapers exist as well, but the costs of protecting against defamation suits, which number more than 50 per month according to Simonov, make it increasingly hard for them to stay in business.  He also stated that most editorials in newspapers are written by what amount to essentially local bureaucrats; most newspapers rely on government or private funding, making them hardly free and independent.  Simonov estimates that only 10 to 15 percent of newspapers are self-sustaining. “Most of them take money from somewhere, and each has this special somewhere, but nobody wants to speak of these ‘somewheres,’” he concluded. Related to this issue is more direct government control over radio and television broadcasts which are the main source of information for most Russians. Ms. Alexeeva and other panelists asserted that “government-controlled media reported those campaigns [in 2003/2004] in an utterly biased way,” denying access to opposition candidates and giving the United Russia Party extensive coverage. Another common theme throughout the briefing was the lack of judicial independence or reform. Mr. Roginsky prefaced the topic by noting that “…the court system is under great influence of the nationalistic, patriotic ideology that is flourishing in Russia at this time.” He specifically spoke of a recent case involving four Russian soldiers who admitted to killing six Chechen civilians by mistake and then attempting to cover it up.  In Mr. Roginsky’s words, “The jury and the courts did state that indeed the murder had taken place; the people were killed. The people who were being tried were those who perpetrated the killing; however, they were not [found] guilty.” Mara Polyakova spoke extensively about judicial reform.  She admitted that new democratic laws are being passed which reflect democratic principles, but the mechanisms needed to implement these principles are often lacking or are thwarted.  She also stated that prisoners in Russia are tortured and that court records are still falsified.  “The judges are still dependent in spite of the fact that their independence was loudly proclaimed in the constitution and other laws, because the real power remains in the hands of the chairmen of the courts who are part of or prone to influence by the executive,” Polyakova said. Speaking specifically on the war in Chechnya, Roginsky described the large number of Chechen civilians abducted or kidnapped monthly, and the one-sided propaganda about the conflict emanating from the state-controlled media. However, Mr. Roginsky denied that the term “genocide” applies to the current Chechen situation (as opposed to the 1944 deportations), calling it instead state-sponsored terror.  In response to a question regarding cutbacks in U.S. assistance for democracy programs in Russia, Simonov said, “Americans do not quite correctly understand what is happening in Russia.  They seem to like the democratic record of the current Russian Government, and they seem to be taking this rhetoric as the truth.”  On a similar note, he later recommended that U.S. officials and international organizations should “never take at face value anything said by officials in Russia.” Mr. McNamara raised the religious freedom issue, specifically the labeling of non-Russian Orthodox groups as “non-traditional religions” and the court-ordered “liquidation” of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization in Moscow, despite federal recognition.  Ms. Alexeeva responded by saying that it would appear the Russian Orthodox Church is striving to become a state religion as it once was.  The panelists were pessimistic about the chances of a successful appeal of the recent Moscow court decision against the Jehovah’s Witnesses, although Simonov suggested that any pressure from President Bush during the G-8 Summit might have an impact. Despite the comments of the panelists painting a fairly bleak picture of the state of civil and human rights in Russia, Ms. Alexeeva did caution that “if you look from the outside in, everything seems to be more frightening than when you are on the inside of that state. I don’t think the fascist system is being created in our country, and even less that it has already been created.” In closing the briefing, Mr. McNamara sought to put events in perspective by recalling that in November 1986 there were 700 known Soviet political prisoners and prisoners of conscience as well as tens of thousands of divided families in the U.S.S.R.  He noted that all of those prisoners had been released and many of those emigration cases resolved by January 19, 1989, President Reagan’s final day in office. 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 Nicholas Adams contributed to this article.

  • Uzbekistan: Stifled Democracy, Human Rights in Decline

    The hearing will examine democratization and human rights in Uzbekistan in light of the impending decision by the Department of State whether to certify Uzbekistan to continue receiving U.S. assistance. Uzbekistan, an OSCE participating State since 1992, has been closely cooperating with the United States in the campaign against international terrorism.  There is a U.S. military base in Uzbekistan and Washington has stepped up assistance significantly since 2001.  The agreement on Strategic Partnership and Cooperation was signed by President Bush and President Karimov in March 2002. However, Uzbekistan’s human rights record has remained poor, impeding the further development of U.S.-Uzbek relations.  Late last year, the State Department decertified Uzbekistan for aid under the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program because it had not made progress toward ending police torture and other abuses.

  • Government Actions to combat anti-Semitism in the OSCE Region

    The Berlin Declaration, issued at the conference, highlights commitments made by the 55 OSCE States and declares that “international developments or political issues, including those in Israel or elsewhere in the Middle East, never justify anti-Semitism.”  The action-oriented declaration also highlighted the commitment to monitor anti-Semitic crimes and hate crimes, including through collection and maintenance of statistics about such incidents. Helsinki Commission Members have spearheaded efforts to draw attention to anti-Semitism and related violence.  These efforts helped create the momentum that moved the OSCE to convene this historic and high-level conference on anti-Semitism, attended by Secretary of State Colin Powell.

  • How Government Can Combat Anti-Semitism Focus of Helsinki Commission Hearing

    The Helsinki Commission will hold a public hearing to assess the results of the historic April 2003 Berlin Conference on Anti-Semitism, organized by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and consider appropriate concrete steps to follow up to the conference. “Government Actions to Combat Anti-Semitism in the OSCE Region” Wednesday, June 16, 2004 10:00 AM 334 Cannon House Office Building Testifying before the Commission: Panel I: Rep. Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee Panel II: His Excellency Natan Sharansky, Israeli Minister for Diaspora Affairs and Head of the Israeli Delegation to the Berlin OSCE Conference on Anti Semitism Panel III: Betty Ehrenberg, Director, Institute for Public Affairs, Orthodox Union of Jewish Congregations Paul Goldenberg, National Security Consultant, American Jewish Committee Jay Lefkowitz, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP Fred Zeidman, Chairman, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council Panel IV: Stacy Burdett, Associate Director, Government & National Affairs, Anti-Defamation League Shai A. Franklin, Director of Governmental Relations, NCSJ: Advocates on Behalf of Jews in Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic States, & Eurasia Dan Mariaschin, Executive Vice President, B’nai B’rith International Israel Singer, Chairman, World Jewish Congress James S. Tisch, Chairman, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations Mark Weitzman, Director, Task Force Against Hate, Simon Wiesenthal Center The Berlin Declaration, issued at the conference, highlights commitments made by the 55 OSCE States and declares that “international developments or political issues, including those in Israel or elsewhere in the Middle East, never justify anti-Semitism.”  The action-oriented declaration also highlighted the commitment to monitor anti-Semitic crimes and hate crimes, including through collection and maintenance of statistics about such incidents. Helsinki Commission Members have spearheaded efforts to draw attention to anti-Semitism and related violence.  These efforts helped create the momentum that moved the OSCE to convene this historic and high-level conference on anti-Semitism, attended by Secretary of State Colin Powell. Commission leaders recently introduced resolutions in the House and Senate encouraging the “ongoing work of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)” in combating anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance, urging the 55 OSCE countries to do more. An un-official transcript will be available on the Helsinki Commission’s Internet web site at www.csce.gov within 24 hours of the hearing. 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.

  • Confronting Anti-Semitism in the OSCE Region

    Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution supporting the ongoing important work of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in combating anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia, discrimination, intolerance and related violence. As Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I remain concerned over manifestations of anti-Semitism that prompted me to introduce S. Con. Res. 7, a bipartisan initiative that unanimously passed the Senate last May. That measure provided impetus to efforts to confront and combat anti-Semitic violence in the OSCE region, the subject of a May 2002 Helsinki Commission hearing.   The resolution I submit today is aimed at building upon these efforts. The OSCE and its participating States have done much to confront and combat the disease of anti-Semitism and intolerance, and I urge our government and all other OSCE countries to continue their efforts with vigor and determination. Much of what has been accomplished can be attributed to U.S. leadership, especially to the work of U.S. Ambassador to the OSCE, Stephan M. Minikes, and his team in Vienna.   Last month the OSCE convened an historic conference in Berlin focused on anti-Semitism and violence against Jews and Jewish institutions and tools to combat this age old problem. The U.S. delegation was represented at the highest level with the participation of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. The conference brought together elected officials and NGOs from around the globe in common support of efforts to fight anti-Semitism.   The resolution I am submitting today follows up on several of the initiatives from Berlin. The conference was punctuated with the ``Berlin Declaration,'' a statement given by the Bulgarian Chairman-in-Office, Foreign Minister Solomon Passy, during the closing plenary session. In addition to declaring that ``international developments or political issues, including those in Israel or elsewhere in the Middle East, never justify anti-Semitism,'' the Declaration advanced efforts to monitor anti-Semitic crimes and hate crimes, as all OSCE participating States committed to ``collect and maintain'' statistics about these incidents and to forward that information to the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) for compilation. The resolution urges all participating States to ensure these promises are fulfilled, and calls upon the Bulgarian Chairman-in-Office to designate a ``personal envoy'' to monitor compliance with these commitments.   The resolution also speaks to the importance of confronting instances of racism, discrimination and xenophobia wherever it occurs. It is important to note that in September, the OSCE will convene a meeting on these matters, the Brussels Conference on Tolerance and the Fight against Racism, Xenophobia and Discrimination. This meeting is very important, as no OSCE participating State is immune from these evils.   As Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I have been impressed by the efforts of the OSCE and its participating States to address issues of anti-Semitism and intolerance. However, the time for words has passed, and I urge all OSCE countries, including the United States, to take real action. This resolution highlights several areas where steps can and should be taken. I urge bipartisan support and speedy passage of this measure.   S. Con. Res. 110   Whereas anti-Semitism is a unique evil and an affront to human rights that must be unequivocally condemned, and a phenomenon that, when left unchecked, has led to violence against members of the Jewish community and Jewish institutions;   Whereas racism, xenophobia, and discrimination are also pernicious ills that erode the dignity of the individual and such intolerance undermines the achievement and preservation of stable democratic societies;   Whereas to be effective in combating these phenomena, governments must respond to related violence while seeking to address the underlying sources of anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia, discrimination, intolerance, and related violence through public denouncements by elected leaders, vigorous law enforcement, and education;   Whereas all Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) participating states must confront acts of anti-Semitism and intolerance, and must deal effectively with acts of violence against Jews and Jewish cultural sites, as well as against ethnic and religious minority groups, in keeping with their OSCE commitments;   Whereas education is critical in overcoming intolerance and it is essential that those responsible for formulating education policy recognize the importance of teaching about the Holocaust and intolerance as a tool to fight anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia, and discrimination among young people;   Whereas ensuring proper training of law enforcement officers and military forces is vital in keeping alive the memory of the Holocaust and to the importance of understanding and responding to incidents of anti-Semitism and intolerance;   Whereas OSCE participating states have repeatedly committed to condemn anti-Semitism and intolerance, foremost in the historic 1990 Copenhagen Concluding Document that, for the first time, declared ``participating [s]tates clearly and unequivocally condemn totalitarianism, racial and ethnic hatred, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and discrimination against anyone,'' and stated their intent to ``take effective measures . . . to provide protection against any acts that constitute incitement to violence against persons or groups based on national, racial, ethnic or religious discrimination, hostility or hatred, including anti-Semitism'';   Whereas the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly has demonstrated leadership by unanimously passing resolutions at its annual sessions in 2002 and 2003 that condemn anti-Semitism, racial and ethnic hatred, xenophobia, and discrimination and call upon participating states to speak out against these acts and to ensure aggressive law enforcement by local and national authorities;   Whereas the 2002 Porto OSCE Ministerial Council Decision committed participating states to ``take strong public positions against . . . manifestations of aggressive nationalism, racism, chauvinism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and violent extremism,'' specifically 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,'' and urged for 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'';   Whereas the 2003 OSCE Vienna conferences on anti-Semitism and racism, xenophobia, and discrimination were groundbreaking, as the OSCE and its participating states met to discuss ways to combat these destructive forces;   Whereas the 2003 Maastricht Ministerial Council approved follow-up OSCE conferences on anti-Semitism and on racism, xenophobia and discrimination, and encouraged ``all participating [s ]tates to collect and keep records on reliable information and statistics on hate crimes, including on forms of violent manifestations of racism, xenophobia, discrimination, and anti-Semitism,'' as well as to inform the OSCE Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) ``about existing legislation regarding crimes fueled by intolerance and discrimination'';   Whereas at the 2004 OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism, hosted in the German capital, the Bulgarian Chairman-in-Office issued the ``Berlin Declaration'' which stated unambiguously that ``international developments or political issues, including those in Israel or elsewhere in the Middle East, never justify anti-Semitism'';   Whereas the Berlin Declaration advances the process of monitoring of anti-Semitic crimes and hate crimes, as all OSCE participating states committed to ``collect and maintain'' statistics about these incidents and to forward that information to the ODIHR for compilation;   Whereas during the closing conference plenary, the German Foreign Minister and others highlighted the need to ensure all participating states follow through with their commitments and initiate efforts to track anti-Semitic crimes and hate crimes; and   Whereas the Government of Spain offered to hold a follow-up meeting in Cordoba in 2005 to review whether OSCE participating states are making every effort to fulfill their OSCE commitments regarding data collection on anti-Semitic crimes and hate crimes: Now, therefore, be it   Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--   (1) the United States Government and Congress should unequivocally condemn acts of anti-Semitism and intolerance whenever and wherever they occur;   (2) officials and elected leaders of all Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) participating states, including all OSCE Mediterranean Partner for Cooperation countries, should also unequivocally condemn acts of anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia, and discrimination whenever and wherever they occur;   (3) the participating states of the OSCE should be commended for supporting the Berlin Declaration and for working to bring increased attention to incidents of anti-Semitism and intolerance in the OSCE region;   (4) the United States Government, including Members of Congress, recognizing that the fundamental job of combating anti-Semitism and intolerance falls to governments, should work with other OSCE participating states and their parliaments to encourage the full compliance with OSCE commitments and, if necessary, urge the creation of legal mechanisms to combat and track acts of anti-Semitism and intolerance;   (5) all participating states, including the United States, should forward their respective laws and data on incidents of anti-Semitism and other hate crimes to the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) for compilation and provide adequate resources for the completion of its duties;   (6) the United States should encourage the Bulgarian Chairman-in-Office, in consultation with the incoming Slovenian Chairman-in-Office, to consider appointing a high level ``personal envoy'' to ensure sustained attention with respect to fulfilling OSCE commitments on the reporting of anti-Semitic crimes;   (7) the United States should urge OSCE participating states that have not already done so to join the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance, and Research; and   (8) all OSCE participating states should renew and revitalize efforts to implement their existing commitments to fight anti-Semitism and intolerance, and keep sharp focus on these issues as part of the usual work of the OSCE Permanent Council, the Human Dimension Implementation Review Meeting, the Ministerial Council and summits.

  • Religious Freedom in Turkmenistan

    Deputy Chief of Staff of the Helsinki Commission Ronald J. McNamara, in cooperation with the U.S. Commission on International Religious freedom, assessed the prospects for religious freedom in Turkmenistan in light of a strong critique of the repressive practices of Saparmurat Niyazov’s regime in the State Department’s Annual Report on International Religious Freedom. Witnesses testifying at the hearing – including Joseph R. Crapa, Executive Director of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom; Najia Badykova, Research Associate for the George Washington University Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies; Lawrence Uzzell, President of the International Religious Freedom Watch; and Felix Corley, Editor of Forum 18 News Service – presented testimonies regarding the implementation of “legislative improvements” that only further restricted freedom of religion. These testimonies provided a basis on which to assess developments in Turkmenistan as the State Department considered designating Turkmenistan as a “Country of Particular Concern” for its ongoing, systematic violations of religious freedom.

  • OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism: Introductory Remarks For Session I

    OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism Introductory Remarks, Session I As prepared for delivery Thank you, Madame Moderator. Excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, friends, It is my great honor and privilege to address this distinguished body of individuals. Today, here in Berlin, once the epicenter of an obscene policy to eliminate European Jewry, we have gathered together to confront and, to the best of our abilities, vanquish a highly disturbing resurgence of anti-Semitism. I want to thank our German hosts for offering this historic opportunity. We gather against the backdrop of a spike of anti-Semitic violence that has swept through much of the OSCE region, particularly in Western Europe. Unparalleled since the dark days of the Second World War, Jewish communities throughout Europe and North America again are facing violent attacks against synagogues, Jewish cultural sites, cemeteries and individuals. It is an ugly reality that won’t go away by ignoring or by wishing it away. It must be defeated. Even in the eastern portions of the OSCE region, anti-Semitic acts occur in places long devoid of a Jewish presence. This increase in violence is a chilling reminder that our societies still harbor a dangerous collection of bigots and racists who hate Jews. Because of this grim reality, we gather to enlighten and motivate with particular emphasis on what practical steps we must take not just to mitigate this centuries-old obsession, but to crush this pernicious form of hate. At the recent UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva, the representative of the Holy See said anti-Semitism is a “distinct form of intolerance with religious and racial characteristics” and is the “oldest and most continuous form of religious intolerance ever known.” George Washington’s 1790 letter to Touro Synagogue stated clearly that America was to be a place of tolerance for all, and said America “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.” One year later, France became the first European country to emancipate its Jewish population and offer equal citizenship. More recently, during the horrors of World War II, Chairman-in-Office Passy’s Bulgaria chose not to abandon its Jewish citizens. In the OSCE context, the 1990 Copenhagen Concluding document represented the first time an international body spoke specifically to the crime of anti-Semitism. We hope the results of this Conference will serve as a blueprint for serious and hopefully bold action. Our words here in Berlin, however, must be repeated at home, with frequency, passion and tenacity and matched – and even exceeded – by deeds. If our fight is to succeed, we need government officials at all levels to denounce, without hesitation or delay, anti-Semitic acts wherever and whenever they occur. No exceptions. The purveyors of hate never take a holiday or grow weary, nor should we. Holocaust remembrance and tolerance education must dramatically expand, and we need to ensure that our respective laws punish those who hate and incite violence against Jews. The 18th century British statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke prophetically said “the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.” When national leaders fail to denounce anti-Semitic violence and slurs, the void is not only demoralizing to the victims but silence actually enables the wrongdoing. Silence by elected officials in particular conveys approval – or at least acquiescence - and can contribute to a climate of fear and a sense of vulnerability. For the last two years, President Bush and Members of Congress from both parties have spoken out repeatedly and forcefully. We have tried to do our “due diligence” to know the truth and to decipher trends. At one of our hearings in 2002, for example, the Simon Wiesenthal Center offered compelling evidence that showed that anti-Semitic incidents were increasing significantly in Western Europe, and the Anti-Defamation League reported that more than 1,500 anti-Semitic incidents occurred in the United States in both 2002 and 2003. We decided that more needed to be done. Last summer I, along with my friend and colleague Ben Cardin, sponsored a bipartisan congressional resolution denouncing anti-Semitism. The measure passed (412-0). When I return to Washington later this week, we will introduce another resolution to highlight what we are attempting to do here in Berlin. Furthermore, we partnered with Gert Weisskirchen and members of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly to address the unprecedented rise of anti-Semitic violence at our Annual Session in 2002. Together, our delegations have organized forums – in Berlin, Washington and Vienna – on anti-Semitism. In both 2002 and 2003, the OSCE PA unanimously approved resolutions condemning anti-Semitism. So, clearly, our words this week are extremely important. I respectfully submit that they must be matched with deeds. Paper promises must be followed with concrete actions. To that end, there is no excuse for not putting in place an aggressive, sustainable monitoring program. Last year’s Maastricht Ministerial Council decision and last week’s Permanent Council decision committed all participating States to collect and keep records on reliable information and statistics on hate crimes, including anti-Semitism. According to a report on “Official Indifference” written by Human Rights First, of fourteen OSCE countries reviewed, nine had no systematic monitoring. A surgeon can’t remove a cancer or prescribe a course of treatment, without documenting the nature, scope, and extent of the disease. We must find out what’s going on! For its part, the United States has been collecting hate crime information for almost 15 years. Many of the 50 states in the U.S. have enacted their own laws addressing hate crimes. Congress passed the federal Hate Crimes Statistics Act in 1990, which requires the Attorney General to collect data each year about crimes that “manifest evidence of prejudice.” The most recent report available, the 2002 Hate Crimes Statistics Report, documented that religious bias motivated 19.1% of all hate crime incidents in the U.S. Of this total, a whopping 65.3% were anti-Semitic in nature. One positive by-product of reporting is the impact it has on police. When solid reporting is coupled with police training fewer acts of anti-Semitic violence are likely to occur. The public sharing of this information at home and with the OSCE enhances accountability and allows interested communities and NGOs to craft and implement strategies. I therefore urge each of us to enhance our monitoring mechanisms and to promptly forward these findings to ODIHR. A top to bottom review of laws, the enforcement of existing laws, and the enactment of new laws will help enormously. When France experienced a particularly high rate of anti-Semitic attacks in 2002, the French enacted a new statute. Mr. Pierre Lellouche, with us here today, was the champion behind these vital reforms. It is hoped that in each of our countries penalties that are commensurate with crimes motivated by anti-Semitic bias will have a chilling effect on those contemplating acts of hate, and surety of punishment for those who do. Finally, if we are to protect our children from the dark evil of anti-Semitism, we must reeducate ourselves and systematically educate our children. While that starts in our homes, the classroom must be the incubator of tolerance. It seems to me that only the most hardened racist can remain unmoved by Holocaust education and remembrance. Only the most crass, evil, and prejudiced among us can study the horrors of the Holocaust and not cry out: Never again! I urge you to consider making your nation a member of the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance, and Research. Of the 16 current Task Force members, fourteen are OSCE participating States. Open to all countries willing to meet certain criteria, applicant countries must commit to open all public and private archives, establish some form of Holocaust remembrance, usually a national day of remembrance, and create or improve Holocaust education curricula. In 1991, my home state of New Jersey established the Commission on Holocaust Education to promote Holocaust and genocide education standards throughout my state. The Commission is unique, and perhaps a model for others, as it regularly surveys the status of Holocaust education and the design of curricula to ensure that all schools are teaching about the Holocaust and genocide. The Commission has developed more than 2,000 pages of material to aid New Jersey educators in teaching children about this painful, but important, topic. The New Jersey Commission is an innovative model for other OSCE participating States and local governments to emulate. The Anti-Defamation League’s “A World of Difference” Institute has delivered programs to more than 450,000 American teachers about the Holocaust and intolerance. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI, partners with the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Anti-Defamation League teach new FBI trainees about law enforcement’s role in the 1930s and 40s in abetting the Holocaust. Conducted at the Holocaust Museum, these sessions leave an indelible impression and lead to greater sensitivity and understanding. Abraham Lincoln once said concerning slavery: “To sin by silence when they should protest, makes cowards of men.” Silence my friends is not an option. Nor is inaction. Thank you. 

  • OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism: Intervention for Session 1

    OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism Intervention: Session 1 As prepared for delivery Having just come from Auschwitz, I understand the importance of this Conference and the opportunity today that I have to speak about the urgency of ensuring proper responses by national leaders and government officials to anti-Semitism. Seeing the remains of that factory of intolerance, hate and death, I believe we cannot be reminded enough of the real consequences of not protecting universal human rights in the OSCE region. We must tirelessly work to build understanding between different communities to prevent future acts of prejudice and injustice. I believe the first responsibility in this regard rests with governments and officials, as they can greatly influence the domestic climate for tolerance and respect. This can occur through a variety of ways, foremost when elected and governmental leaders visibly speak out against acts of intolerance. Leaders must make it clear that anti-Semitism is a threat to democracy. Elected leaders like myself are naturally attuned to the will of their constituents. We like to get re-elected. Yet there is a danger of being too differential to populist concerns, what can, in worst-case scenarios, lead to harassment, intimidation and even physical violence. We must therefore provide leadership on issues like anti-Semitism and intolerance and clearly state our beliefs that these sentiments are unacceptable. Collectively, we must raise our expectations for our leaders to be involved. It is a risk worth taking. If we lead with resolve, we can impact the overall health of our societies. In short, we must act courageously and speak out boldly. I am reminded of the actions of Turkish leaders after the horrible Istanbul bombings last November. Not only did Prime Minister Erdogan publicly denounce the two synagogue bombings, but he also met with Jewish leaders, reportedly a first in the history of the Republic. Seeing pictures from the funeral on that rain-drenched day, the caskets were draped with the Turkish flag, an honor normally reserved for soldiers or civilians who paid the ultimate price for their country. The message was unmistakable: despite being a predominantly Muslim country, Turkish leaders made clear this was not an attack on Jews, but rather an attack on Turks who happened to be Jewish, who were victimized because of their religion. Turkey has set an example for us all, and with its bold moves for EU accession and continued to progress toward the improving the treatment of its religious and ethnic minorities, it is working to create government policies that promote tolerance and non-discrimination. I salute the Turkish Government for unequivocally condemning the hateful acts perpetrated against the Jewish community in that country. National and local community leaders clearly have a role to play in speaking out. In the United States, after 9/11, President Bush visited a mosque in Washington, DC, and made clear that those evil acts did not represent Islam. Locally, I similarly met with Muslim leaders in my district in Baltimore, Maryland, after September 11th to show my support for their community. In addition to speaking out against incidents when they occur, we must all ensure our domestic laws can properly deal with these criminal acts. We must ensure law enforcement is doing everything possible to prosecute the perpetrators of these hateful acts. In the OSCE context, many participating States responded to the spike of anti-Semitic violence, recognizing the unacceptability of the trend. The French National Assembly passed laws enhancing penalties for crimes motivated by anti-Semitism. The new laws doubled prison sentences for crimes of a “racist, anti-Semitic, or xenophobic” nature, as well as created special training programs for judges. France backed up its statements with funding, which demonstrates its real commitment, and budgeted serious amounts to improve the security of Jewish community establishments. Other countries are acting as well. The German Bundestag recently issued a resolution denouncing anti-Semitic violence, and in Canada a similar resolution has been introduced. The U.S. Congress has recently funded an ethics center at the U.S. Naval Academy, which is in the district I represent. In another U.S. military initiative, a new generation of military leaders will now visit concentration camps, like Auschwitz, and be inspired to never again allow injustices of this magnitude to occur. Yet even under the most favourable conditions, instances of bigotry can manifest themselves. The question is how can we measure levels of intolerance in our societies? Opinion polls and community surveys can discern inclinations and prejudices, but when dislike transforms into actions of hate and crosses the threshold of criminal acts, we must have mechanisms in place to track these occurrences. I am proud to say that the United States has been monitoring hate crimes and compiling the information into a yearly report since 1990. This enables policymakers to track trends and then develop strategies to address these findings. Without a monitoring mechanism, how can officials intelligently move forward? Without the capability to recognize when communities are being targeted, how can governments provide a credible level of protection for likely victims? I am proud to note that in the OSCE region efforts are underway to increase the tracking of manifestations of anti-Semitism and intolerance in all participating States, and to forward these statistics to ODIHR for compilation and publication. The OSCE Permanent Council just last week came to a consensus decision that all participating States will gather information on crimes related to anti-Semitism or intolerance. I urge all countries to genuinely fulfil this commitment, while also working with NGOs, so that the most complete picture can be obtained. Let us not forget that the burden to monitor and track incidents of anti-Semitism and intolerance rests first with participating States. I therefore trust ODIHR will receive robust support from all OSCE countries, so it can fully execute this task while not sacrificing its good programming in other areas. We should also support collectively strengthening OSCE’s capacity to gather information from each of our participating States, share best practices, and offer help to States in developing effective strategies to fight anti-Semitism. Participating States should strive to implement these commitments as soon as possible, so we can begin to understand the nature of the problem and craft practical solutions. However, collecting data is only a starting point, creating the basis for future action. We must not confuse our efforts here today to be the victory against anti-Semitism. Today’s meeting is historic and a tremendous statement of our resolve to fight this evil, but we will be judged by how we follow up on these discussions and debates. Each of our States must be committed to develop an action strategy to combat anti-Semitism. That strategy should be open to review with regular oversight by parliament. The NGO community must be a resource used by each State. The OSCE’s capacity to assist States in this effort needs to be focused and strengthened. In closing, Mr. Moderator, the first way to promote tolerance is to fight intolerance. By speaking-out forcefully when instances of bigotry and hate arise at home, we can make certain that acts of intolerance will not be entertained or sanctioned. Remembering the horrors of Auschwitz and other grotesque examples of hatred, I genuinely hope States will leave today fully committed to combat intolerance and discrimination. Thank you.

  • OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism: The Role of Government in Combating anti-Semitism in the Media a

    OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism The Role of Government in Combating anti-Semitism in the Media As prepared for delivery As a Vice President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, I know firsthand that the OSCE plays a unique leadership role in promoting tolerance and respect towards Jews, as it was the first international organization to publicly condemn anti-Semitism. This year’s Conference further reflects the OSCE’s commitment to confronting and combating the seemingly never-ending cycle of hate, violence, and ignorance toward Jews throughout the world. The same ignorance that is passed along from generation to generation in families is running rampant in everyday media today. Whether appearing in a government owned or regulated market, or privately funded media, anti-Semitic comments, cartoons, and articles continue to flourish despite mainstream society’s rejection of anti-Semitism. In embarking on the critical task of curbing anti-Semitism, we must establish realistic and specific goals with real timetables and tools of measurement. Most importantly, we must also be frank with ourselves. Jews and other minorities in Europe and in the Middle East are facing multiple threats coming from various flanks. Old attitudes toward Jews last seen during the Holocaust-era are meshing with a much broader coalition of hate made up of a new breed of persons. Realistically, a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not on the immediate horizon. Likewise, there are no current plans for the U.S. and allied forces to disengage from Iraq, and pressure will rightly continue to mount on Middle Eastern countries such as Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, to crack down on terrorism and radicalism within their own borders. If we are to accept that these international predicaments serve as systemic catalysts to increased anti-Semitism, then our solutions should be critical of those governments and societies which allow such hate mongers to manifest themselves through the media and mainstream society. Governments can legislate all they want. We can meet as much as we want. But until it becomes unfashionable in mainstream and specific societies to preach anti-Semitism and other forms of prejudicial discrimination, we will find ourselves in a never-ending cycle of intolerance. As citizens of the world we have come to this place to teach and learn. The challenges are obvious and many. And we have a responsibility to meet them all. I heard here the word “hate” very often. I did not hear the word “love” once. I am not naive enough to believe that we can combat anti-Semitism with love alone. But, talking about and practicing loving our fellow human beings may help us to understand each other.

  • Helsinki Commissioners Active at Parliamentary Assembly Winter Meeting

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

  • Remarks by Chairman Christopher Smith, OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism

    Thank you, Madame Moderator. Excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, friends, It is my great honor and privilege to address this distinguished body of individuals. Today, here in Berlin, once the epicenter of an obscene policy to eliminate European Jewry, we have gathered together to confront and, to the best of our abilities, vanquish a highly disturbing resurgence of anti-Semitism. I want to thank our German hosts for offering this historic opportunity. We gather against the backdrop of a spike of anti-Semitic violence that has swept through much of the OSCE region, particularly in Western Europe. Unparalleled since the dark days of the Second World War, Jewish communities throughout Europe and North America again are facing violent attacks against synagogues, Jewish cultural sites, cemeteries and individuals. It is an ugly reality that won’t go away by ignoring or by wishing it away. It must be defeated. Even in the eastern portions of the OSCE region, anti-Semitic acts occur in places long devoid of a Jewish presence. This increase in violence is a chilling reminder that our societies still harbor a dangerous collection of bigots and racists who hate Jews. Because of this grim reality, we gather to enlighten and motivate with particular emphasis on what practical steps we must take not just to mitigate this centuries-old obsession, but to crush this pernicious form of hate. At the recent UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva, the representative of the Holy See said anti-Semitism is a “distinct form of intolerance with religious and racial characteristics” and is the “oldest and most continuous form of religious intolerance ever known.” George Washington’s 1790 letter to Touro Synagogue stated clearly that America was to be a place of tolerance for all, and said America “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.” One year later, France became the first European country to emancipate its Jewish population and offer equal citizenship. More recently, during the horrors of World War II, Chairman-in-Office Passy’s Bulgaria chose not to abandon its Jewish citizens. In the OSCE context, the 1990 Copenhagen Concluding document represented the first time an international body spoke specifically to the crime of anti-Semitism. We hope the results of this Conference will serve as a blueprint for serious and hopefully bold action. Our words here in Berlin, however, must be repeated at home, with frequency, passion and tenacity and matched – and even exceeded – by deeds. If our fight is to succeed, we need government officials at all levels to denounce, without hesitation or delay, anti-Semitic acts wherever and whenever they occur. No exceptions. The purveyors of hate never take a holiday or grow weary, nor should we. Holocaust remembrance and tolerance education must dramatically expand, and we need to ensure that our respective laws punish those who hate and incite violence against Jews. The 18th century British statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke prophetically said “the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.” When national leaders fail to denounce anti-Semitic violence and slurs, the void is not only demoralizing to the victims but silence actually enables the wrongdoing. Silence by elected officials in particular conveys approval – or at least acquiescence – and can contribute to aclimate of fear and a sense of vulnerability. For the last two years, President Bush and Members of Congress from both parties have spoken out repeatedly and forcefully. We have tried to do our “due diligence” to know the truth and to decipher trends. At one of our hearings in 2002, for example, the Simon Wiesenthal Center offered compelling evidence that showed that anti-Semitic incidents were increasing significantly in Western Europe, and the Anti-Defamation League reported that more than 1,500 anti-Semitic incidents occurred in the United States in both 2002 and 2003. We decided that more needed to be done. Last summer I, along with my friend and colleague Ben Cardin, sponsored a bipartisan congressional resolution denouncing anti-Semitism. The measure passed (412-0). When I return to Washington later this week, we will introduce another resolution to highlight what we are attempting to do here in Berlin. Furthermore, we partnered with Gert Weisskirchen and members of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly to address the unprecedented rise of anti-Semitic violence at our Annual Session in 2002. Together, our delegations have organized forums – in Berlin, Washington and Vienna – on anti-Semitism. In both 2002 and 2003, the OSCE PA unanimously approved resolutions condemning anti-Semitism. So, clearly, our words this week are extremely important. I respectfully submit that they must be matched with deeds. Paper promises must be followed with concrete actions. To that end, there is no excuse for not putting in place an aggressive, sustainable monitoring program. Last year’s Maastricht Ministerial Council decision and last week’s Permanent Council decision committed all participating States to collect and keep records on reliable information and statistics on hate crimes, including anti-Semitism. According to a report on “Official Indifference” written by Human Rights First, of fourteen OSCE countries reviewed, nine had no systematic monitoring. A surgeon can’t remove a cancer or prescribe a course of treatment,without documenting the nature, scope, and extent of the disease. We must find out what’s going on! For its part, the United States has been collecting hate crime information for almost 15 years. Many of the 50 states in the U.S. have enacted their own laws addressing hate crimes. Congress passed the federal Hate Crimes Statistics Act in 1990, which requires the Attorney General to collect data each year about crimes that “manifest evidence of prejudice.” The most recent report available, the 2002 Hate Crimes Statistics Report, documented that religious bias motivated 19.1% of all hate crime incidents in the U.S. Of this total, a whopping 65.3% were anti-Semitic in nature. One positive by-product of reporting is the impact it has on police. When solid reporting is coupled with police training fewer acts of anti-Semitic violence are likely to occur. The public sharing of this information at home and with the OSCE enhances accountability and allows interested communities and NGOs to craft and implement strategies. I therefore urge each of us to enhance our monitoring mechanisms and to promptly forward these findings to ODIHR. A top to bottom review of laws, the enforcement of existing laws, and the enactment of new laws will help enormously. When France experienced a particularly high rate of anti-Semitic attacks in 2002, the French enacted a new statute. Mr. Pierre Lellouche, with us here today, was the champion behind these vital reforms. It is hoped that in each of our countries penalties that are commensurate with crimes motivated by anti-Semitic bias will have a chilling effect on those contemplating acts of hate, and surety of punishment for those who do. Finally, if we are to protect our children from the dark evil of anti-Semitism, we must reeducate ourselves and systematically educate our children. While that starts in our homes, the classroom must be the incubator of tolerance. It seems to me that only the most hardened racist can remain unmoved by Holocaust education and remembrance. Only the most crass, evil, and prejudiced among us can study the horrors of the Holocaust and not cry out: Never again! I urge you to consider making your nation a member of the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance, and Research. Of the 16 current Task Force members, fourteen are OSCE participating States. Open to all countries willing to meet certain criteria, applicant countries must commit to open all public and private archives, establish some form of Holocaust remembrance, usually a national day of remembrance, and create or improve Holocaust education curricula. In 1991, my home state of New Jersey established the Commission on Holocaust Education to promote Holocaust and genocide education standards throughout my state. The Commission is unique, and perhaps a model for others, as it regularly surveys the status of Holocaust education and the design of curricula to ensure that all schools are teaching about the Holocaust and genocide. The Commission has developed more than 2,000 pages of material to aid New Jersey educators in teaching children about this painful, but important, topic. The New Jersey Commission is an innovative model for other OSCE participating States and local governments to emulate. The Anti-Defamation League’s “A World of Difference” Institute has delivered programs to more than 450,000 American teachers about the Holocaust and intolerance. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI, partners with the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Anti-Defamation League teach new FBI trainees about law enforcement’s role in the 1930s and 40s in abetting the Holocaust. Conducted at the Holocaust Museum, these sessions leave anindelible impression and lead to greater sensitivity and understanding. Abraham Lincoln once said concerning slavery: “To sin by silence when they should protest, makes cowards of men.” Silence, my friends, is not an option. Nor is inaction. Thank you.

  • Statement at the OSCE's Berlin Anti-Semitism Conference

    Having just come from Auschwitz, I understand the importance of this Conference and the opportunity today that I have to speak about the urgency of ensuring proper responses by national leaders and government officials to anti-Semitism.  Seeing the remains of that factory of intolerance, hate and death, I believe we cannot be reminded enough of the real consequences of not protecting universal human rights in the OSCE region.  We must tirelessly work to build understanding between different communities to prevent future acts of prejudice and injustice.  I believe the first responsibility in this regard rests with governments and officials, as they can greatly influence the domestic climate for tolerance and respect.  This can occur through a variety of ways, foremost when elected and governmental leaders visibly speak out against acts of intolerance.  Leaders must make it clear that anti-Semitism is a threat to democracy.  Elected leaders like myself are naturally attuned to the will of their constituents. We like to get re-elected.  Yet there is a danger of being too differential to populist concerns, what can, in worst-case scenarios, lead to harassment, intimidation and even physical violence.  We must therefore provide leadership on issues like anti-Semitism and intolerance and clearly state our beliefs that these sentiments are unacceptable.  Collectively, we must raise our expectations for our leaders to be involved.  It is a risk worth taking.  If we lead with resolve, we can impact the overall health of our societies.  In short, we must act courageously and speak out boldly.  I am reminded of the actions of Turkish leaders after the horrible Istanbul bombings last November.  Not only did Prime Minister Erdogan publicly denounce the two synagogue bombings, but he also met with Jewish leaders, reportedly a first in the history of the Republic.  Seeing pictures from the funeral on that rain-drenched day, the caskets were draped with the Turkish flag, an honor normally reserved for soldiers or civilians who paid the ultimate price for their country.  The message was unmistakable: despite being a predominantly Muslim country, Turkish leaders made clear this was not an attack on Jews, but rather an attack on Turks who happened to be Jewish, who were victimized because of their religion.  Turkey has set an example for us all, and with its bold moves for EU accession and continued to progress toward the improving the treatment of its religious and ethnic minorities, it is working to create government policies that promote tolerance and non-discrimination.  I salute the Turkish Government for unequivocally condemning the hateful acts perpetrated against the Jewish community in that country.  National and local community leaders clearly have a role to play in speaking out.  In the United States, after 9/11, President Bush visited a mosque in Washington, DC, and made clear that those evil acts did not represent Islam.  Locally, I similarly met with Muslim leaders in my district in Baltimore, Maryland, after September 11th to show my support for their community. In addition to speaking out against incidents when they occur, we must all ensure our domestic laws can properly deal with these criminal acts.  We must ensure law enforcement is doing everything possible to prosecute the perpetrators of these hateful acts.   In the OSCE context, many participating States responded to the spike of anti-Semitic violence, recognizing the unacceptability of the trend.  The French National Assembly passed laws enhancing penalties for crimes motivated by anti-Semitism. The new laws doubled prison sentences for crimes of a “racist, anti-Semitic, or xenophobic” nature, as well as created special training programs for judges.  France backed up its statements with funding, which demonstrates its real commitment, and budgeted serious amounts to improve the security of Jewish community establishments.    Other countries are acting as well.  The German Bundestag recently issued a resolution denouncing anti-Semitic violence, and in Canada a similar resolution has been introduced.  The U.S. Congress has recently funded an ethics center at the U.S. Naval Academy, which is in the district I represent.  In another U.S. military initiative, a new generation of military leaders will now visit concentration camps, like Auschwitz, and be inspired to never again allow injustices of this magnitude to occur.  Yet even under the most favourable conditions, instances of bigotry can manifest themselves.  The question is how can we measure levels of intolerance in our societies?  Opinion polls and community surveys can discern inclinations and prejudices, but when dislike transforms into actions of hate and crosses the threshold of criminal acts, we must have mechanisms in place to track these occurrences.    I am proud to say that the United States has been monitoring hate crimes and compiling the information into a yearly report since 1990.  This enables policymakers to track trends and then develop strategies to address these findings.  Without a monitoring mechanism, how can officials intelligently move forward?  Without the capability to recognize when communities are being targeted, how can governments provide a credible level of protection for likely victims?  I am proud to note that in the OSCE region efforts are underway to increase the tracking of manifestations of anti-Semitism and intolerance in all participating States, and to forward these statistics to ODIHR for compilation and publication. The OSCE Permanent Council just last week came to a consensus decision that all participating States will gather information on crimes related to anti-Semitism or intolerance.  I urge all countries to genuinely fulfil this commitment, while also working with NGOs, so that the most complete picture can be obtained.   Let us not forget that the burden to monitor and track incidents of anti-Semitism and intolerance rests first with participating States.  I therefore trust ODIHR will receive robust support from all OSCE countries, so it can fully execute this task while not sacrificing its good programming in other areas.  We should also support collectively strengthening OSCE’s capacity to gather information from each of our participating States, share best practices, and offer help to States in developing effective strategies to fight anti-Semitism.  Participating States should strive to implement these commitments as soon as possible, so we can begin to understand the nature of the problem and craft practical solutions. However, collecting data is only a starting point, creating the basis for future action.  We must not confuse our efforts here today to be the victory against anti-Semitism.  Today’s meeting is historic and a tremendous statement of our resolve to fight this evil, but we will be judged by how we follow up on these discussions and debates.  Each of our States must be committed to develop an action strategy to combat anti-Semitism.  That strategy should be open to review with regular oversight by parliament.  The NGO community must be a resource used by each State.  The OSCE’s capacity to assist States in this effort needs to be focused and strengthened.  In closing, Mr. Moderator, the first way to promote tolerance is to fight intolerance.  By speaking-out forcefully when instances of bigotry and hate arise at home, we can make certain that acts of intolerance will not be entertained or sanctioned.  Remembering the horrors of Auschwitz and other grotesque examples of hatred, I genuinely hope States will leave today fully committed to combat intolerance and discrimination.  Thank you.

  • Statement at the OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism

    As a Vice President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, I know firsthand that the OSCE plays a unique leadership role in promoting tolerance and respect towards Jews, as it was the first international organization to publicly condemn anti-Semitism. This year’s Conference further reflects the OSCE’s commitment to confronting and combating the seemingly never-ending cycle of hate, violence, and ignorance toward Jews throughout the world. The same ignorance that is passed along from generation to generation in families is running rampant in everyday media today. Whether appearing in a government owned or regulated market, or privately funded media, anti-Semitic comments, cartoons, and articles continue to flourish despite mainstream society’s rejection of anti-Semitism. In embarking on the critical task of curbing anti-Semitism, we must establish realistic and specific goals with real timetables and tools of measurement. Most importantly, we must also be frank with ourselves. Jews and other minorities in Europe and in the Middle East are facing multiple threats coming from various flanks. Old attitudes toward Jews last seen during the Holocaust-era are meshing with a much broader coalition of hate made up of a new breed of persons. Realistically, a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not on the immediate horizon. Likewise, there are no current plans for the U.S. and allied forces to disengage from Iraq, and pressure will rightly continue to mount on Middle Eastern countries such as Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, to crack down on terrorism and radicalism within their own borders. If we are to accept that these international predicaments serve as systemic catalysts to increased anti-Semitism, then our solutions should be critical of those governments and societies which allow such hate mongers to manifest themselves through the media and mainstream society. Governments can legislate all they want. We can meet as much as we want. But until it becomes unfashionable in mainstream and specific societies to preach anti-Semitism and other forms of prejudicial discrimination, we will find ourselves in a never-ending cycle of intolerance. As citizens of the world we have come to this place to teach and learn. The challenges are obvious and many. And we have a responsibility to meet them all. I heard here the word “hate” very often. I did not hear the word “love” once. I am not naive enough to believe that we can combat anti-Semitism with love alone. But, talking about and practicing loving our fellow human beings may help us to understand each other.

  • Helsinki Commission Hearing Reviews Bulgaria’s Leadership of the OSCE

    His Excellency Solomon Passy, Foreign Minister of Bulgaria and Chair-in-Office of the OSCE testified in front of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, chaired by the Honorable Christopher Smith (NJ-04).  Passy’s testimony regarded the OSCE’s program for 2004 under Bulgaria’s leadership. Passy stated that implementations of OSCE commitments would top the agenda for Bulgaria’s Chairmanship of the OSCE. The hearing covered the conflict in Chechnya; OSCE efforts to resolve the Transdniestrian conflict and “frozen conflicts” in the Caucasus; OSCE efforts to combat anti-Semitism and human trafficking; the situation in Central Asia; and promoting respect for human rights and democratic values throughout the OSCE region.  Passy also spoke about Bulgaria’s experience with its own transition to democracy and its ongoing human rights efforts.

  • The Bulgarian Leadership of the OSCE

    This hearing, which Representative Christopher H. Smith presided over, focused on the Bulgarian Chairmanship of the OSCE, which had begun in for January 2004 and would continue for a year. The hearing specifically reviewed the OSCE’s program for 2004 under Bulgaria’s leadership. Solomon Passy, witness at the hearing, said that implementation of OSCE commitments would top the agenda for Bulgaria’s OSCE Chairmanship. Specific issues that attendees discussed included the Chechnyan conflict, OSCE efforts to revoke the Transdniestrian conflict, work to resolve the “frozen conflicts” in the Caucasus, efforts to combat anti-Semitism and human trafficking, the situation in Central Asia, and promoting respect for human rights and democratic values throughout the OSCE region.

Pages