[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ADVANCING U.S. INTERESTS
THROUGH THE OSCE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 15, 2004
__________
Printed for the use of the
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
[CSCE 108-2-9]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via http://www.csce.gov
COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS
HOUSE
SENATE
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
Chairman Co-Chairman
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER, BOB GRAHAM, Florida
New York RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS
LORNE W. CRANER, Department of State
VACANT, Department of Commerce
WILLIAM HENRY LASH III, Department of Commerce
(ii)
ADVANCING U.S. INTERESTS
THROUGH THE OSCE
----------
September 15, 2004
COMMISSIONERS
Page
Hon. Christopher H. Smith, Chairman, Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe.......................................... 1
Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, Ranking Member, Commission on Security
and Cooperation in Europe...................................... 5
Hon. Mike McIntyre, Commissioner, Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe.......................................... 7
Hon. Alcee L. Hastings, Commissioner, Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe.......................................... 7
Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, Commissioner, Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe.......................................... 28
WITNESSES
Hon. Jerry Grafstein, Member, Senate of Canada, and Treasurer,
OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.................................... 2
A. Elizabeth Jones, Assistant Secretary of State for European and
Eurasian Affairs............................................... 9
Stephen G. Rademaker, Assistant Secretary of State for Arms
Control........................................................ 12
Michael G. Kozak, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor............................. 14
(iii)
APPENDICES
Prepared statement of Hon. Christopher H. Smith.................. 42
Prepared statement of Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell............... 44
Prepared statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin.................... 46
Prepared statement of Hon. Joseph R. Pitts....................... 47
Prepared statement of A. Elizabeth Jones......................... 48
Prepared statement of Stephen G. Rademaker....................... 56
Prepared statement of Michael G. Kozak........................... 61
ADVANCING U.S. INTERESTS
THROUGH THE OSCE
----------
September 15, 2004
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Washington, DC
The hearing was held at 10 a.m. in room 334, Cannon House
Office Building, Washington, DC, Hon. Christopher H. Smith,
Chairman, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe,
presiding.
Commissioners present: Hon. Christopher H. Smith, Chairman,
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe; Hon. Benjamin
L. Cardin, Ranking Member, Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe; Hon. Mike McIntyre, Commissioner,
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe; Hon. Alcee L.
Hastings, Commissioner, Commission on Security and Cooperation
in Europe; and Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, Commissioner, Commission
on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Witnesses present: Hon. Jerry Grafstein, Member, Senate of
Canada, and Treasurer, OSCE Parliamentary Assembly; A.
Elizabeth Jones, Assistant Secretary of State for European and
Eurasian Affairs; Stephen G. Rademaker, Assistant Secretary of
State for Arms Control; and Michael G. Kozak, Acting Assistant
Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.
HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND
COOPERATION IN EUROPE
Mr. Smith. The hearing will come to order. And before we
begin our proceedings, I would like to extend a very warm
welcome to Jerry Grafstein, a member of the Senate in Canada, a
good friend. We have worked very closely together on a number
of OSCE issues, particularly in the Parliamentary Assembly.
He's served as our treasurer, which has kept us in the black
for quite a long time, but has been doing a great job on a
number of issues. We've worked very closely on issues such as
anti-Semitism, trafficking and all of the important human
rights issues. And I'd like to yield to Jerry just if he'd like
to say anything.
But you are more than welcome.
He has been here before when we had our summit on
trafficking. About a year ago, Jerry was a very able and very
important participant. And he was one of the co-leaders of the
effort to bring human trafficking--to bring anti-Semitism, I
should say, forward in the OSCE countries and was very active
in the Berlin conference, the Vienna conference and, of course,
our parliamentary assemblies.
So I yield to my good friend, Jerry Grafstein.
HON. JERRY GRAFSTEIN, MEMBER, SENATE OF CANADA, AND TREASURER,
OSCE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY
Mr. Grafstein. Thank you very much. I'm delighted to be
here. I wasn't planning to come and attend, but I was at a
Canada-U.S. interparliamentary meeting the last couple of days
here in Washington. I'm Co-Chairman of the Canada-U.S.
Interparliamentary Group, and I'm also the number two officer
at the OSCE and have been active there for 10 years and have
been on our parliamentary committee for that length of time.
I discovered at the OSCE that it is the most important
institution in the world, international institution, after the
United Nations. And I think we do quiet and effective work. Our
problem is that our profile and the knowledge of both our
publics, both here in Canada and in the United States, is not
very well known.
And I guess that's the deficit, Chris, that you and I
share. We haven't done as good a job of publicizing the OSCE. I
thought maybe one of the things we could do is change the
acronyms. We could just call it great and just leave it at
that.
But I want to commend the Helsinki Commission, all the
members, Chris and others in the United States. Because over
and over again from my observation--and it's been an important
issue of human rights, whether it's human trafficking or anti-
Semitism or the issues that I'm interested in, which is
economic development in the Middle East--I turn to my American
colleagues for leadership and for comfort. And so, I just want
to commend everybody on the Commission and particularly your
staff who have done such a fabulous job.
If I have some problems in terms of giving out some
information or a factum, I just call Chris or the staff here at
the Commission. And they've done a superb job. So I'm proud,
really proud to be a member of the OSCE. But I'm even prouder
of my American colleagues who time and time again have shown
leadership where there was no leadership at the OSCE. So I want
to commend them. And I'm here to listen with great interest to
what your officials have to say and hopefully participate.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Senator Grafstein. And
again, thank you for joining us today
I would like to say before I begin my opening statement
just how grateful we are to the department for designating
countries that absolutely ought to be on the countries of
particular concern list, including Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and
Eritrea. I think the additions of those countries to the list
of egregious violators when it comes to religious freedom and
the important determination has been made by the determination
is to be heralded and to be commended because the facts are
overwhelming.
We recently had the Human Rights In Vietnam Act up on the
floor of the House. I was a prime sponsor of it. And doing the
research and the work on it--and it's been passed before only
to die over on the Senate side, which may happen again this
year--but what was very clear is that there has been a
demonstrable decline in religious freedom in Vietnam. There has
been a ratcheting up, particularly against the Montagnard,
against evangelicals, against the Buddhist church and anyone
who is not aligned with the government.
The most recent enactment of legislation in Vietnam which
will further tighten and circumscribe the ability of people to
exercise their faith goes into effect in just a couple of
months. And that will make it even worse. So I want to commend
the department and President Bush for those designations. They
are well received by the human rights community, I can assure
you.
And I thank you, Beth. And I thank all of you for that.
I am very happy to welcome you to this Helsinki Commission
hearing on advancing U.S. interests through the OSCE. I'm very
pleased to have several distinguished panelists present today
and look forward to hearing their testimonies.
The title of this hearing is no accident. Since its
inception nearly 30 years ago, the OSCE has been one of the
staunchest allies of the beliefs and goals of the United States
and our friends like Canada and the United Kingdom. It has
multiplied the avenues through which we can promote the rule of
law and human rights. It pioneered the broad definition of
security that recognizes true stability does not depend on
stockpiles of arms or standing armies, but on democratic
principles, respect for fundamental human rights and good
neighborly conduct.
It legitimized the idea that a nation's domestic policies
are the rightful concern of other OSCE states. As it reinforced
these critical standards, the organization also evolved into a
strong and flexible body with arguably more tools for
addressing regional problems than any other international
institution And I think Jerry made a very good point about this
being such an important and yet under-heralded organization.
The broad membership, the clearly articulated principles,
the well-designed political structure make the OSCE an
especially appropriate partner of the United States. Today we
have the opportunity to hear the State Department's vision on
how this organization can be most effectively utilized and how
these key policy makers intend to initiate activities and
support policies through the OSCE that will advance U.S.
objectives.
Let me say at the outset how appreciative I am of the
diligence and dogged persistence of the U.S. ambassador to the
OSCE, Ambassador Steven Minikes. He has done a tremendous job
and deserves much credit and recognition for his leadership in
Vienna. I note parenthetically that when we hold our
parliamentary assemblies and our winter conferences, Steve is
there right next to us advising, providing very useful counsel
and insights. And we deeply appreciate that.
This year we had an excellent example of how the initiative
can be seized to make impressive contributions to the well-
being of the entire region while focusing on issues of
particular concern to the U.S. The arms control bureau of the
State Department deserves praise for seeing the opportunities
afforded at the OSCE to contribute to hard security issues.
They presided over a strong U.S. chairman of the Forum for
Security Cooperation, helping to revitalize that part of the
organization. They used it to pass agreements on management and
destruction of excess ammunition, export controls on manned
portable air defense systems and the transfer of light arms.
The work of the FSC complimented that undertaking of the
organization as a whole to conform travel documents, to address
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and to discuss
better cooperation on border security and the control of
shipping containers.
Every one of these key concerns to the United States and
everyone is a transnational issue requiring that we address it
multi-
laterally. This is the kind of robust use of the OSCE that is
in our interest and that we would like to see supported
throughout the U.S. Government.
Over the past 30 years, there has also been great growth
and development in the human dimension, an area of keen
interest to this commission. Next month, the OSCE will hold the
annual Human Dimension Implementation Meeting in Warsaw. This
meeting is a regular opportunity for the participating States
to review each other's compliance with our mutual Helsinki
commitments, to encourage better implementation, and publicly
question activities that are not consistent with the strong
standards of the OSCE.
We look forward to a strong presence and participation at
this conference and to hearing the Department's priorities for
that meeting. We hope that the same sense of priority and
urgency that characterized human rights advocacy during the
Cold War will not lag now at a time when we see examples of the
starkest disregard of human dignity, and our nation and regions
suffer acts so brutal that they were unthinkable only a few
years ago.
Understanding that upholding human rights is not only the
policy that is ethically consistent with our ideals, but is
fundamentally linked to our national and regional security, has
never been more important than now. If a nation disregards
public opinion and the oppression of its own citizens, it will
also ignore violations to the security of its neighbors. As we
came to see in the Balkans, we ignore the warning signs of
abusive acts at our own peril.
We have a great deal of work to do in this field. The lives
of many are still on the line in the countries of Central Asia
and periodically elsewhere in the OSCE, especially if one is a
democratic activist, outspoken journalist or religious
proponent. The creeping shadow of a rising anti-Semitism
continues to threaten Europe. And the blight of trafficking in
human beings is increasing.
Addressing economic development and environmental
challenges is also important. These are linked to fundamental
matters of opportunity and trust in government and to
stabilizing societies through the confident forum of economic
well being.
My good friend and colleague Ben Cardin, who has a special
role in this area, will elaborate more on this topic. But just
let me mention that it has never been more timely, and the less
developed areas of the OSCE need consistent attention if we are
not going to see political will undermined by the impatience
that comes from economic necessity.
We also hope to hear what the administration's focus is for
the forthcoming Sofia Ministerial Meeting in December. The
issue that probably will have the greatest impact on the
evolution of the organization and on our ability to further
U.S. interests through it is the selection of the next
Secretary General. Members of this commission are actively
interested in seeing a strong leader in this office.
As you know, we have written to Secretary Powell on the
matter and will be following up in the near future. The world
has changed in recent years for all of us. As the OSCE takes on
daunting challenges, it will benefit from a potent public face
and a strong managing hand to compliment the political role of
the rotating chairmanship.
Other important issues that should be considered in Sofia
include addressing expanded election commitments such as
electronic voting and voting rights of internally displaced
persons, enhancing the capability to fight human trafficking,
continuing efforts on anti-Semitism, the appropriate role of
the Mediterranean partners, and addressing the concerns in the
statement of July 8th by the nine CIS members.
Regarding the current discussions concerning refining and
strengthening the OSCE, I look forward to the administration's
views on the various comments by the Chair-in-Office,
Bulgaria's foreign minister, Solomon Passy. He has expressed
support for a, quote, ``better thematic as well as geographical
balance within the OSCE,'' as also called for by nine CIS
countries.
Ambassador Passy has also proposed relocating meetings of
the economic forum to Central Asia from Vienna and the HDIM to
South Caucasus. Structurally, he has also advocated stronger
political leadership for the Secretary General and the Chair-
in-Office and deeper inclusion of the Parliamentary Assembly of
the OSCE.
Again, we have a very fine set of panelists.
And I'd like to recognize my good friend and ranking member
of the Commission, Ben Cardin, for any opening comments he
might have.
HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, RANKING MEMBER, COMMISSION ON SECURITY
AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE
Mr. Cardin. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Smith. And
I thank you very much for convening this hearing to give us an
opportunity to meet with our representatives to review the role
that the United States should be playing in the OSCE and to
look at ways that we can improve the effectiveness of the U.S.
participation.
And as you know, the Commission on Security and Cooperation
in Europe is unique in that it is an independent commission.
And we're very pleased to have representatives from the
executive department as well as the legislative department
serving together as commissioners to carry out the mission of
the United States in the OSCE.
I also want to welcome Senator Grafstein to our Commission
here today. The United States has no greater friend in the OSCE
than Senator Grafstein. He's been a constant supporter and
we've worked together on strategies to set priorities within
the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly to advance the interests of
both of our countries. So it's a pleasure once again.
But he's a frequent guest here, so we can't give him too
good of an introduction every time because our hearings will
get longer and longer. But it's a pleasure to have Senator
Grafstein with us today.
Mr. Chairman, let me just very briefly comment as to where
I think we've been and where we need to review.
The OSCE was very helpful in the Cold War, bringing an end
to the Cold War. It's the largest regional organization. It
gives us the ability to communicate with all of Europe and now
Central Asia and to advance U.S. interests.
We now need to look at what should the current role be. And
we have seen it being very helpful to us as we've dealt with
issues such as trafficking of human beings, anti-Semitism, in
dealing with a whole range of issues, including building
democratic institutions in countries that need that type of
attention, which is certainly in the U.S. interest.
So the OSCE is perhaps even more important today than it
was before the fall of the Soviet Union. I'm very honored to
chair the Committee of the Second Committee which deals with
economics and the environment in the OSCE Parliamentary
Assembly. And I appreciate the support I've received from
Ambassador Minikes and Assistant Secretary Bill Lash from
Commerce, who is a member of our Commission, as we have
developed strategies understanding the relationship between
economic development, human rights and security issues, that
they're all tied together. We need to make advancements in all
of those issues.
The Maastricht document on economics was, of course, the
first major document in over a decade which really spells out,
I think, the priorities of our country and where we need to be
in leadership, particularly in fighting corruption and
developing strategies to fight corruption.
In Edinburgh we reinforced that in the OSCE Parliamentary
Assembly and reinforced the calling of a meeting of the
Ministers of Justice and Interior to develop an anti-corruption
strategy. And I hope that we will find the support to get that
moving in all of the, including state, to make sure we get that
moving. I think it's extremely important that we advance the
anti-corruption agendas and the building of the economies,
particularly in the emerging democracies of Europe and Central
Asia. It's an important priority, and I hope that we can
develop a common strategy.
I want to mention one other point, if I might, Mr.
Chairman. And I think there's clearly need for improvement in
the relationship between the executive branch and the
congressional members of the Commission as it relates to
charges that are brought against the United States. In the last
several years, we have received international interest in the
way that we treat unlawful combatants, particularly in
Guantanamo Bay and now in Iraq. And we've had a relationship
with the executive branch in visiting Guantanamo Bay and
getting information.
But quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that
relationship has been as strong as it should be. And the trust
has not been there so that we have the information we need in
order to represent the interests of this country in our
international meetings. And I would hope there would be more
confidence expressed by the executive branch. After all, we're
in the Commission together--and that we open up more to the
types of charges that are brought internationally so that we
can represent this nation as strongly as we possibly can.
So I think there's room for improvement. I hope that this
hearing will help us establish that close relationship that has
existed traditionally between the executive branch, the
legislative branch in the OSCE work. And I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Commissioner Cardin.
Commissioner McIntyre.
HON. MIKE McINTYRE, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND
COOPERATION IN EUROPE
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you very much. As the newest member of
the Commission, I particularly was proud of the work that our
United States delegation did over in Edinburgh, Scotland and
proud of our colleague, Alcee Hastings', election and the unity
and bipartisan effort of our work together. And I look forward
to today's hearing and in the interest of time will defer any
further comments until a later statement. But thank you all for
letting us join with you today.
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. I'd like to recognize the president of the OSCE
Parliamentary Assembly, Alcee Hastings, for any comment he
might have.
HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION ON SECURITY
AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE
Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I echo
Mike's sentiments about time and Ben's sentiment about Jerry
Grafstein. Thank you for holding this hearing. And, Jerry, I'll
extend to you an invitation, if we can catch up, to have an
opportunity to talk with you personally at some point today. I
look forward to hearing from our witnesses, particularly Ms.
Jones, who I'm hopeful I'll be able to stay long enough to ask
a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Hastings.
Now, I'd like to introduce our very distinguished panel.
But before doing that, just note that the new Foreign Minister
of Montenegro is here, Vlahovic. Mr. Vlahovic, if you wouldn't
mind just acknowledging. Thank you for being here. And we just
wish you well, and we look forward to working with you. I would
note parenthetically we're very pleased working with Montenegro
and Serbia, that there has been real movement in the area of
human trafficking. And I know that's of high interest to you.
As you know, you used to be on that tier three, egregious
violator, which you took some very, very profound actions to
crack down on trafficking. And I know you're working on
prosecution. So we deeply appreciate that. Everyone who cares
about human rights are grateful for what you're doing.
Let me now introduce Assistant Secretary Elizabeth Jones
who was sworn in as Assistant Secretary for European/Eurasian
Affairs on May 31st of 2001. She joined the foreign service in
1970. Her overseas assignments concentrated in the Middle East,
South Asia and Germany include Kabul, Islamabad, New Delhi,
Baghdad, Cairo, Beirut, Tunis, West Berlin, Bonn.
She has served as ambassador to the Republic of Kazakhstan
in Washington. She was the Lebanon desk officer, Deputy
Director for Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Iraq, Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary in the Near East bureau. She has also
served as Executive Assistant Secretary to Warren Christopher
and directed the office of the Caspian base in energy
diplomacy.
Beth Jones was born in Germany while her parents were
assigned there with the U.S. foreign service. She attended high
schools in Moscow and West Berlin while her parents were on
diplomatic assignments there. She graduated from Swarthmore
College and earned a Masters Degree from Boston University.
Ambassador Jones speaks Russian, German and Arabic. She is
married and has two children. We hope she'll speak English
today.
Assistant Secretary Stephen Rademaker--as Jerry Grafstein
mentioned a moment ago, how important staff is. I know because
I serve on the International Relations Committee. Steve was the
general counsel for the House International Relations Committee
and wrote, literally penned much of the legislation that came
out of that committee, particularly under Mr. Gilman who served
as chairman, was extraordinarily gifted.
And some of his background includes that he was the chief
counsel as well to the House Select Committee on Homeland
Security. He held positions, as I mentioned, on the House
Committee of International Relations, including deputy staff
director, chief counsel and minority chief. From 1992 to 1993,
Mr. Rademaker served as general counsel of the Peace Corps. He
has held a joint appointment as Associate Counsel to the
President in the Office of Counsel to the President and as
Deputy Legal Adviser to the National Security Council, served
as Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State for
Inter-American Affairs, and Counsel to the Vice Chairman of the
U.S. International Trade Commission.
In 1986, he was a law clerk for the Honorable James L.
Buckley of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia. From 1984 to 1986, he was associate at the
Washington, D.C. law firm of Covington and Burling. Mr.
Rademaker has received from the University of Virginia a B.A.
with highest distinction, a J.D. and M.A. in foreign affairs.
Acting Assistant Secretary Michael Kozak will be our next
witness. He is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. He assumed his position in
September of 2003. He has served as ambassador to Belarus,
chief of the U.S. intersections in Cuba, Principal Deputy Legal
Adviser of the Department of State and Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American affairs.
Ambassador Kozak was assistant to U.S. negotiator for
Panama for the canal treaties under President Nixon, Ford and
Carter and participated in the multilateral efforts to mediate
an end to the Nicaraguan civil war in 1978 to 1979. He was a
member of the U.S. mediation team that implemented the Egypt/
Israel peace treaty and sought a solution to the conflict in
Lebanon.
Ambassador Kozak served as a special presidential envoy
while dealing with the crisis in Panama provoked by General
Noriega's attempt to overthrow the constitutional government.
As a special negotiator for Haiti, Mr. Kozak helped coordinate
the U.S. policy to restore democratically elected government.
In 1996, he was named as Chief of the U.S. diplomatic mission
in Cuba. In 2000, Michael Kozak was named to serve as U.S.
Ambassador, like I said, to Belarus.
Secretary Jones, if you could make your presentation.
A. ELIZABETH JONES, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EUROPEAN
AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS
Sec. Jones. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I very much
appreciate the opportunity as do my colleagues to appear before
the Commission again this year. We want very much to focus on
how we would like to work with the Commission and work in the
OSCE to advance U.S. policy objectives. We believe that the
OSCE has made major contributions toward democracy, peace and
stability across Europe throughout its tenure, but especially
through the past year.
At the same time, I would like to say that the OSCE's
success is really not possible without the strong congressional
support that you represent. We want to thank especially the
Helsinki Commission and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. And at
this juncture, I'd like especially to congratulate Congressman
Hastings for his election as the President of the Parliamentary
Assembly. We look forward very much to working with you to
support the assembly's meeting next year.
We share very much the enthusiasm of the Commission for the
OSCE. At the same time, we feel very strongly that strong U.S.
leadership is key to the OSCE's contribution to the U.S. goal
of a Europe whole, free and at peace. Virtually everything we
do with the Commission and in the OSCE is focused on that goal.
To that end, the OSCE agenda is our agenda. We believe that our
participation advances U.S. interests in promoting democracy,
human rights, good governance and arms control. And we believe
the OSCE has a very important and rich role in helping to fight
the global war on terror.
The OSCE is unique in its capabilities in the way that they
add value for the United States. We think that the OSCE is a
model of effective multi-lateralism in the way that President
Bush spoke of it last winter. Two particular examples I'd like
to cite. One is in burden sharing.
The OSCE allows the U.S. to share cost, to coordinate and
avoid duplication in our policy efforts. The OSCE can bring the
weight of 55 nations to bear on problems that no one country
can solve alone. The other great strength of the OSCE is its
field missions and ODIHR. There are 17 field missions from
Albania to Uzbekistan that work every day for democracy and the
other baskets in which the OSCE focuses. The ODIHR is the most
respected election observer organization in Europe and Eurasia.
We also believe the OSCE is a relative bargain for the
United States. We pay about 10 percent, just over 10 percent of
the costs. And we reap tremendous benefits, possibly up to 100
percent.
I'd like to highlight two big successes of the OSCE to
demonstrate what it can do. These have occurred in the past 12
months. And it demonstrates the force multiplier that the OSCE
provides. In Georgia, the OSCE election monitoring was a voice
of the international community on the flawed elections that
took place there last November. It was the OSCE that helped
leverage over $7 million in European aid for new elections that
took place earlier this year in Georgia. OSCE monitoring was
key to establishing the new government's legitimacy.
Another big success was the Berlin anti-Semitism
conference. It was a landmark event in raising European
awareness of the problem. It set the stage for follow-up on law
enforcement, on legislation and education in this important
area.
I would like especially to applaud you, Mr. Chairman,
Congressmen Cardin and Hastings for joining the Secretary in
making the conference a success. There are many other unsung
OSCE successes from Kosovo police training to progress toward
all 55 OSCE members acceding to the U.N. terrorism related
conventions.
At the same time, OSCE is adapting a new agenda. U.S.
leadership has helped form that agenda and is focusing on
practical outcomes for these particular goals. On trafficking
in persons, which you have each mentioned, we should take
credit for creation of a special representative on trafficking.
This was a U.S. initiative. The U.S. is now helping to shape
the OSCE work plan on trafficking. The OSCE's new code of
conduct for its missions is really a model for other
international organizations.
Tolerance is also an area in which we should take
considerable credit. The high profile racism, anti-Semitism
conferences were U.S. initiatives. We're now pushing for more
expert level followup from trafficking and hate crimes to
increasing training for police.
Counterterrorism is another area where we've taken a
leadership role, particularly in the adoption of tougher travel
document security measures and stricter controls on MANPADS. At
the same time, the OSCE is working hard on the traditional core
mission of democracy and human rights with election observation
where ODIHR provides impartial monitoring of elections in
Macedonia, Serbia and Russia and is again setting the
international standard for those elections.
I already mentioned the field missions. The largest OSCE
field mission is in Kosovo to help and implement the U.N.
Security Council enforce standards. Smaller missions are in
Minsk and Ashkabad that are reaching out to the next generation
of civil society. And I can't applaud those initiatives enough.
Looking ahead, the OSCE has an ambitious agenda which is at
the same time key to U.S. policy objectives in election
monitoring. We're sending our first election assistance team
outside of Europe and Eurasia to Afghanistan to provide support
for the historic presidential elections there next month. The
OSCE will monitor important contests this fall in Ukraine and
many other places.
On our tolerance agenda, the OSCE is pioneering in its work
on fighting intolerance, which continues with the racism
conference that took place in Brussels yesterday and the day
before. The U.S. leadership is very evident in the fact that
HUD Secretary Jackson led the delegation.
Sofia is our next ministerial of the OSCE. We are very much
working with the Chairman-in-Office, Solomon Passy, to assure
practical outcomes for that ministerial in December. We hope to
reach agreement on establishing a Special Representative for
anti-Semitism at this ministerial to further combat and to take
further steps to combat racism.
We will also push again for Russia to fulfill its Istanbul
commitment. And we expect the ministerial to endorse OSCE work
on shipping container security and destruction of excess
stockpiles of ammunition and weapons. There are three
challenges that we need to resolve this fall to keep the OSCE
healthy and productive. You've mentioned each of these, and we
look forward to having a discussion on how best to move forward
on each of them. The budget is a particular concern of ours. We
need responsible approaches to resolve differences before the
Sofia revision of the OSCE's two scales of assessment.
Russia and others seek radical reduction in contributions.
We back adjustments based on previously agreed upon parameters,
which include ceilings and floors based on capacity to pay.
You mentioned the importance of selecting the next
secretary general. We completely agree that this is important.
Chairman in office Passy has made some suggestions, and others
have made suggestions to change the way the secretary general
is--the secretary general's role, change the level of the
secretary general, which we believe needs careful consideration
because it has very important implications.
Changing the balance between the Secretary General and the
Chairman-in-Office could change the OSCE. That needs careful
thought. At the same time, we believe it's essential to keep
the OSCE's flexibility by minimized and central control within
the organization.
The C.S. has called for change in the OSCE. Russia and
others have been critical of some of the field operations and
of ODHIR. We believe that the OSCE core mission remains
fostering democratic change as the only way to defeat
underlying causes of instability. The U.S. has been flexible.
We've supported Russia's effort to strengthen the OSCE's
economic and security work. But we will not agree to reforms
that weaken the OSCE's human dimension work.
The bottom line for us, Mr. Chairman, is that we believe
the OSCE's record of achievement over the past year is very
impressive. Thank you very much for your mentioning of
Ambassador Minikes and the very strong leadership role he has
played in ensuring this. We certainly agree with that. And we
work with him on a daily basis. I, in fact, was on the phone
with him this morning to be sure we were in concert on the
kinds of things that we would be discussing today.
We think that the OSCE's agenda for this year is ambitious.
We are leading that agenda. The OSCE deserves continued U.S.
support because of its contributions to U.S. objectives. Those
contributions are substantial. The OSCE does face challenges
ahead. We want to make sure that the OSCE remains a creative,
flexible organization able to advance U.S. interests and the
interests of all members of the organization.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Ambassador Jones. And
appreciate your testimony. Secretary Rademaker.
STEPHEN G. RADEMAKER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ARMS
CONTROL
Sec. Rademaker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to
be back here with the commission. It's my first appearance
before the Commission, but I'm certainly no stranger to the
Commission and its work having worked with you and your former
ranking member, Mr. Hoyer, for many years as well as some of
the outstanding members of your staff. So it is a great
pleasure for me to be back here in a slightly different
capacity today.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the regional structure--well,
first of all, let me say I do have a prepared statement, which
I'm submitting for the record. But I will not sit here and read
it to you. I'll touch on some of the key points in my oral
presentation.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, there is a regional structure of
conventional arms control and CSBMs in place in Europe that
goes far beyond what we see in any other part of the world. And
in large measure, this is a legacy of the Helsinki Final Act,
which in its basket three provided a starting point for the
evolution that's occurred over the last 30 years. And from
basket three, we moved on to things like the conventional armed
forces in Europe agreement, the open skies agreement and most
recently, the Vienna document of 1999, all of which have
enhanced and broadened the range of arms control and CSBMs in
place in Europe.
The OSCE is deeply involved in all of these matters. And on
a day-to-day basis, the OSCE manages the arms control and CSBM
issues through what is known as the Forum for Security
Cooperation, which within the State Department is managed by
the Bureau of Arms Control.
The FSC has weekly meetings in Vienna. And the second item
on the agenda of every meeting is something called security
dialogue, which is an opportunity for any member of the OSCE to
raise any security issue of concern to them. And many countries
take advantage of this, and it's a very useful opportunity to
draw attention to emerging problems and to get countries
thinking about possible solutions to such problems.
Another very important thing that the FSC does is that
every year in March it has an implementation assessment meeting
which systematically reviews the implementation of and
compliance with all of the various commitments that countries
within the OSCE have made to each other with respect to arms
control and transparency. The principle focus is on the
implementation of the Vienna doctrine of 1999, which is, as you
know, a transparency document providing for information
exchanges and a system of inspection and evaluation visits of
respected militaries within Europe.
The annual assessment meeting also looks at implementation
of the various documents that have been adopted through the
Forum for Security Cooperation: the 1994 code of conduct on the
political and military aspects of security, which is about the
relationship of a military to the rest of society in a
democracy; the 2000 document on small arms and light weapons;
the 2003 document on stockpiles of conventional arms. Under
these last two, there's a prospect of assistance to countries
that need assistance in getting rid of small arms and dealing
with excess stocks of ammunition. And the OSCE has received a
number of requests for assistance in this area, which it's
currently working on.
As you noted, Mr. Chairman, the United States chaired the
FSC in the fall of 2003. And the philosophy of our chairmanship
was exactly what you suggested. I like the term you used:
robust use of the OSCE. That is the way we approached our
chairmanship. And we believe we were very successful.
During our chairmanship, we were able to bring about the
adoption of the document on stockpiles, which I referred to a
moment ago. We also had a three-part agenda that we promoted
during our chairmanship: first, non-proliferation; second,
addressing the problem of MANPADS; and third, dealing with
civil military emergency preparedness.
The way we addressed these three things was by taking
advantage of the security dialogue portion of the FSC agenda in
a systematic way during our chairmanship provide presentations
on these various issues and get the other countries thinking
about each of these three areas.
We were especially successful when it came to MANPADS
because what we did was lay the groundwork for adoption by the
OSCE of the Wassenaar Arrangement Export Control regime with
regard to MANPADS. This was something that had the effect of
doubling the number of countries around the world that adhere
to the Wassenaar Arrangement Export Control standards for
MANPADS. And so, we do believe that made a material
contribution to controlling this threat, which, of course, is
one of our great concerns when it comes to potential terrorist
attacks on civilians.
I did want to mention the adapted CFE treaty, that is, the
revised Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. As you
probably know, this is one of our biggest frustrations when it
comes to arms control in Europe. The adapted CFE treaty was
signed in November of 1999. And almost five years have gone by.
We have not yet ratified the adapted CFE treaty and it has not
come into effect because all of us within NATO agreed that we
did not want to proceed to ratification until Russia had
implemented its Istanbul commitments with respect to
withdrawing its forces from Moldova and setting a deadline for
closing bases in Georgia.
Five years have gone by and Russia still has not
implemented these commitments. And, as I said, it is a source
of great frustration. The OSCE is working very hard on this
problem. This is a priority for Ambassador Minikes. He devotes
a lot of effort to this.
The OSCE has established a voluntary fund to try and deal
with the financial aspect of bringing about implementation of
the Istanbul commitments. But notwithstanding these efforts, we
haven't seen much progress. And this is of concern to us.
You may have noticed the defense minister of Russia gave a
speech last February in which he hinted that if the adapted
treaty was not soon brought into effect, Russia might
reconsider its adherence to the existing CFE treaty, which, of
course, would be of great concern to us. But this should not be
misunderstood as a lack of Russian interest in the adapted CFE
treaty because just this year, the Russian Government
proceeding in the direction of ratification of the adapted
treaty.
The state duma, the federation council approved a law which
was signed by President Putin in July to provide for
ratification of the adapted CFE treaty. So Russia remains
interested in this, they just haven't taken the steps that need
to be taken to make it possible for the rest of us to ratify
the adapted treaty. And we will continue to send the message to
Russia that there is no shortcut to entry into force of this
very important treaty that does not involve full implementation
by them of the Istanbul commitments.
One final point that I wanted to make that I know is of
interest to some members of the Commission is the degree to
which the OSCE and this web of arms control and CSBMs that is
in place in Europe can serve as a model for other regions in
the world. And we believe that it can serve as a model.
Interestingly, the region of the world that has gone furthest
in trying to adopt some of the measures that are currently in
place in Europe is the Western Hemisphere. Through the OAS in
2003, there was a declaration of security in the Americas which
drew heavily from the Vienna document of 1999. There is not an
institutionalized relationship between the OSCE and the OAS.
And I think the explanation for that is that we don't really
need one. Two of the most important OSCE members, the United
States and Canada, are also members of the OAS. There are
nearly a dozen other OSCE members who are observers at the OAS.
And so, there is a lot of day-to-day interaction between the
two organizations. And I think that's been very helpful in
enabling the OAS to adopt some of the measures that the OSCE
pioneered.
Asia also has a strong interest in some of the
accomplishments that have been realized within Europe. There is
a more formalized dialogue between the OSCE and some of its
Asian partners. There have been two workshops held in South
Korea in 2000 and 2001 to look at possible application of
Vienna document concepts in Asia. And then in Tokyo in March of
this year, the Japanese Government hosted a conference with the
OSCE to look at the same question.
In the Middle East, there is an annual meeting between the
OSCE and the Mediterranean partners. But I guess I would say
candidly that we're not as far advanced in working with Middle
Eastern countries as we are in the Western Hemisphere and in
Asia in exploring the applicability of OSCE models to other
regions. But we do have an office within the arms control
bureau that is in the business of promoting CSBMs all over the
world. And I can assure you that they work closely with our
experts on the OSCE to continue pursuing this question of what
we can learn from the European experience.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman
Mr. Smith. Secretary Rademaker, thank you very much for
your testimony and your leadership. Ambassador Kozak.
MICHAEL G. KOZAK, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR
Sec. Kozak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I particularly
wanted to thank you and your colleagues for your long-standing
commitment to the hard work of human rights and democracy. I'm
also pleased to be joining some old compatriots in that same
struggle, Beth Jones and Steve Rademaker at this important
hearing.
As with Secretary Rademaker, this is my first appearance as
a witness before this Commission. But it's not the first time
I've had the pleasure of working with you and with your
excellent staff. I see Dorothy and Ron and Orest, too. We spent
many long times together when I was working on Belarus.
And I think for me that was one of the greatest
demonstrations of the value of the OSCE. That tiny OSCE mission
in Belarus and Minsk was really the beacon of hope for human
rights activists and democracy activists in that country. And
it really shows what a small commitment of OSCE resources can
do.
Next year will mark the 30th anniversary of the Helsinki
Final Act. And I remember former Secretary Schultz saying that
at the time it was signed, no one really realized the potential
impact of the human rights provisions of that document. In
fact, he said that in his opinion, it was one of the crucial
turning points of the Cold War when at Helsinki we made it OK
to talk to the Soviets about human rights. Before that, they
would brush aside references to human rights and democracy as
an intervention in internal affairs.
The fact that the democratically elected Government of
Bulgaria is now serving as the OSCE Chair-in-Office, something
unimaginable in 1975, shows just how far we have come. If other
countries have mature democratic processes, life becomes
relatively easy for the United States because the people in
those countries will use those processes for correcting any
errors of policy or management before they become big problems
for the international community. So I think there's a very good
practical side to why we want to be promoting democracy through
organizations such as the OSCE.
Unfortunately, despite the huge advances in Eastern Europe,
democracy--and until recently in Russia itself--a democracy
deficit continues to plague many countries of the OSCE. Since
the Commission's last hearing, we've seen seriously flawed
elections or worse in a number of countries. But we have seen
progress, too.
The reaction of the Georgian people to the blatant fraud
committed in Georgia's parliamentary elections shows the
governments that engage in efforts to manipulate electoral
process do so at their own peril. ODHIR involvement in
assisting Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to revise their
electoral laws in the past year have been remarkably
successful. While none of their respective laws are fully
compliant with OSCE commitments, they have all been brought far
closer to meeting international standards. Rule of law based on
democratic principles and commitments is another lynch pin of
democratic society. Here the OSCE is helping by analyzing
participating states' legislation and recommending amendments
to meet OSCE standards.
The OSCE can also bolster participating states' capacity to
enforce the law consistently and impartially. ODHIR has had
several notable success stories in Central Asia, especially in
Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, where governments have transferred
authority for prison administration to the Ministries of
Justice. There can be no democracy without media freedom. And
unfortunately the situation for journalists and some OSCE
participating States has worsened since the last hearing.
Ukraine and Belarus have intensified their assault on the
independent media in the runup to the October elections in
those countries by harassing, intimidating, fighting, and at
times imprisoning independent journalists, and by closing down
independent media outlets.
Turkmenistan recently took steps to clamp down further, if
that's possible, creating a national press service to supervise
print media. Actions in Russia over the past few years also
raise serious questions about its commitment to media freedom.
Miklos Haraszti, the new representative for media freedom
of OSCE, has made it one of his first major initiatives to urge
governments to decriminalize the libel laws. Having watched the
Belarusian Government use such laws to criminalize policy
differences, I can only wish Mr. Haraszti the greatest success
in this endeavor. The U.S. has made an extra budgetary
contribution to this project.
Active civil society is one of the most important
components in a thriving democracy. NGOs continue their
courageous work despite harassment in several countries. In
fiscal year 2004, the U.S. provided over $400 million to
support democratic development in the OSCE region. Our
assistance is described in some length in the book,
``Supporting Human Rights and Democracy,'' a report that we do
annually to the Congress. I think there are copies available
here at the hearing room.
Religious freedom is fundamental to democratic development.
As we speak, Secretary Powell and Ambassador Hanford are
presenting the CPC designations, announcing them publicly that
you mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman. And I think those speak
for themselves. That countries like Saudi Arabia are on that
list shows that the President's statement that the Middle East
was no longer immune to discussion of human rights is proving
out in practice.
They also are presenting as we speak the International
Religious Freedom Report, which is, again, another report
required by law and which we all worked very hard on. So I
think that will be the news on the religious freedom front
today rather than anything I say, is what they have to say and
what we have had to do on religious freedom. And I think as you
look at that report, you can see quite a bit of detail on the
state of religious freedom within the OSCE region as well as
the rest of the world.
All OSCE States must continue to root out extremism and
terrorism. We all have a responsibility to assure that human
rights are protected even as we combat terrorism. And in this
respect, the deplorable treatment of Iraqi detainees at the
hands of U.S. military personnel in Iraq was a stain on the
honor of our Nation. When President Bush expressed his deep
disgust and regret about the events at Abu Ghraib, it wasn't
just his personal reaction as a matter of principle. It was
also his reaction as the head of state of a country that holds
itself to the same high standard to which we hold others.
As President Bush said, one of the key differences between
democracies and dictatorships is that free countries confront
such abuses openly and directly. We expose the truth, hold all
who bear responsibility fully accountable, and bring them to
justice and then take action to be sure that abuses don't
recur. We take our OSCE commitment seriously, and we will keep
the OSCE appraised as investigations proceed. We're also
organizing a site event at the upcoming human dimension
conference in Warsaw where we will address the issue of
prisoner abuse and U.S. measures to bring about accountability.
U.S. supports OSCE's effort to eliminate all forms of
torture. As that word is defined in the convention against
torture, in President Bush's statement on torture victims' day
and by common sense. We will continue to press individual OSCE
participating States to end torture as a matter of policy and
to hold human rights abusers accountable.
A crucial component in the fight against terrorism is
promotion of tolerance. As Secretary Jones just elaborated in
her testimony, we applaud the OSCE's efforts to fight racism,
anti-Semitism, religious intolerance and other forms of
xenophobia and discrimination. Much remains to be done,
however, and we look forward to the naming of special
representatives to further our collective efforts in this
regard.
One lesson I learned during my time in Belarus is that the
OSCE is only as strong as its participating States. When the
Chair-in-Office and members give field missions their full
backing, they are able effectively to challenge repressive
regimes and to bring about hope and progress. When the Chair-
in-Office and other member states try to appease a repressive
regime, more repression and more illegitimate demands are the
inevitable result
This means that member States must use the full range of
incentives, both positive and negative, available to them to
encourage democratic progress and to deter abuses of OSCE
personnel as the responsibility of all of us. In this regard,
some seem to have accepted the charge of double standards that
have been made against ODHIR. This is a red herring. There's
only one standard for democratic elections based on the
criteria set out in the OSCE commitments stipulated in the 1990
Copenhagen document and the 1991 Moscow document and reaffirmed
in the charter for European security adopted at the Istanbul
summit. The fact that one member can always claim that someone
else is worse than they are, if accepted, would be a race for
the anti-democratic bottom.
To me, one of perhaps the most disturbing developments in
the past year was the July declaration signed by nine members
of the Commonwealth of Independent States. It seems to call
into question the right of OSCE to raise human rights issues.
And in rhetoric reminiscent of not only the Soviet Union, but
other dictatorships such as Pinochet's Chile and the generals
in Argentina, deems discussion of human rights to be a breach
of principles of non-
interference in the internal affairs and respect for
sovereignty of states.
This reversion to pre-Helsinki Final Act paths cannot be
allowed to stand. In 1991, OSCE participating States agreed in
the document on Moscow meeting that the participating States
emphasized that issues relating to human rights, fundamental
freedoms, democracy and the rule of law are of international
concern as respect for these rights and freedom constitutes one
and the same foundations of the international order.
We had it right then. We must not allow a return to a pre-
Helsinki version of the world now in which self-determination
and non-
intervention were perverted into a shield behind which
dictators at the right and the left had the freedom to deprive
their own peoples of freedom without fear of criticism from the
rest of the world. In his memoirs, former Secretary of State
Schultz said, ``We had insisted that we would not settle simply
for words on human rights. We insisted on deeds.'' On its 30th
anniversary, we must insist that the promises of human rights
for all citizens embodied in the Helsinki Final Act and
subsequent commitments of the OSCE are echoed in deed
throughout the OSCE region.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Ambassador, thank you very much for your
testimony.
And just to lead with your last point, one of your last
points, first, I'm very grateful for your strong statement on
the statement made by the nine presidents. And I would just
point out that we did a response to that as well.
I mean, we've heard that of not being criticized for human
rights abuses. That's the same old, tired out, worn out line
that we've heard from PRC, Vietnam, North Korea, South Africa
during apartheid years and, of course, the Soviet Union. So
we've made a very strong, and use the word again, robust
response to the nine presidents. It does raise some very
serious problems.
Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, the
Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan all
signed it. And we know that the Kazakhstan wants to be the
Chair-in-Office for the year 2009.
And perhaps Ambassador Jones or you might want to respond.
Because I thought that was where would they take the OSCE. And
that decision, as you know, needs to be made in the year 2006.
So if that's the direction, we need to put a tourniquet on that
kind of thinking because I think it's very, very injurious to
any human rights discussion.
I would also want to raise the issue of trafficking. And I
want to publicly and very strongly commend the President for
his leadership on human trafficking. As you know, I was the
prime sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000
and the reauthorization of 2003 signed by President Bush, the
other signed by President Clinton. And Steve Rademaker will
remember that we had unbelievable pushback on the naming of
names, the non-
humanitarian aid sanctions.
Humanitarian aid obviously should flow in an unfettered way
to any country because we care about those who are distressed
and disenfranchised and hurting. But certainly military aid and
other kinds of aids ought to be used as sticks for countries
that refuse to respect their own people, especially the women
who are being trafficked.
And I would point out that the naming of names has worked,
I think, has proven that smart sanctions work. When you get
good friends like Turkey, Greece, Russia, Israel, South Korea,
all being designated as tier three countries and then getting
off the list because of their actions to crack down. Serbia and
Montenegro are on that as well, and raided brothels, closed
them, began prosecuting the traffickers and protecting the
victims. It proves that when we put our money where our mouth
is, we can get real results.
I would point out that Bangladesh even now is doing--has
avoided sanctions, unlike Venezuela and Cuba and others who are
on tier three, because they stepped up to the plate and began a
very serious and hopefully sustained effort to stop trafficking
within their environs. So I want to thank the President for
doing so.
I raise this especially because, as Steve Rademaker
mentioned a moment ago, we used our chairmanship very
effectively when it came to arms control and security issues.
We will be chairing the Security Council at the U.N.--and
Secretary Jones, you might want to speak to this--in just a
couple of months. My hope is, especially given the President's
very strong statements last year at the U.N. on trafficking,
that we will use that chairmanship to really take the human
trafficking issue and put that center stage again as we chair
that to show that we mean business.
We're doing it, you're doing it. I would also point out and
I would hope that all the countries of the world would take
note, we're attacking it within our own country as well. The
rescue and restore efforts being rolled out by the Justice
Department, Health and Human Services, the State Department,
everyone working with the local government, state and local law
enforcement is working very well.
The Tampa speech as well as that meeting--I was at the
Newark, New Jersey rollout, and I just have nothing but
accolades and praise for the very serious and often under-
heralded efforts by the president with regards to trafficking.
Please use that security council chairmanship to take that
issue and just get it right smack dab in front of everybody
again and say, ``We mean business.''
On anti-Semitism, if I could, the thoughts about Cordoba,
whether or not we are pushing for a followup there to the
Berlin conference. And also, if you would, the idea that has
been pushed, that I think is a good idea, of having a more
regularized mechanism for the Chair-in-Office, a special envoy
or some other office to monitor anti-
Semitism.
And then finally--and then I will go to my colleagues, but
I have a number of questions. The 9/11 Commission and the some
30-odd hearings that were held--I chaired two of them myself
for the International Relations Committee and for the Veterans
Affairs--it became very clear. One issue that you might want to
speak to.
The 9/11 Commission said that travel documents are like
weapons for the terrorists. A very good and I think profound
statement made by that commission. In looking over the
conventions of the U.N., it's very clear that there are some 12
conventions that deal with terrorism, the money laundering and
then the financing one of 1999, I think, being the most recent.
None of them speak to travel documents.
And I know that the department is working on biometrics and
a lot of other very important initiatives. But it seems to me
U.N. Security Council resolutions don't have the weight that a
convention might have. And it's something we might think about.
You might want to touch on it.
And again, one thing that all of us are concerned about,
and that is the whole issue of--and the commission, the 9/11
Commission, spoke to this--a more robust work within the Middle
East in terms of public diplomacy. The OSCE might offer the
model. We have Mediterranean partners. Six members of the
Middle East are a part of that, including Israel, Jordan,
Egypt. What could be done, in your view, to expand OSCE
principles? Don't rewrite them. Take those and say, ``Here's
something we need to invite you to become more of a part of.''
All of us, Alcee, all of us that are on the Commission
care--and Ben Cardin--deeply about this. We even had a hearing
with Sharansky and many others, as you know, on June 15th to
explore this as a way of trying to get them to be--you know,
get the good infection [ph] about democracy and human rights
observance.
Sec. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me go first to
your first question about Kazakhstan and its desire to--its
proposal that it be accepted as the Chair-in-Office and what
that means in terms of their having signed this CIS statement.
As Secretary Mike Kozak said, we have serious problems with the
CIS statement. There is no double standard in the OSCE. There
is no double standard in ODHIR.
Each of the countries who signed this document signed up to
adhere to the principles of the OSCE when they first joined the
organization. And Mike read out what that means. We have since
then, not least because of the very strong statements and
communications from the commission itself to each of these
governments, but we have separately on a bilateral basis had
conversations with each of these governments about what does
this mean.
I look forward to pursuing these questions with colleagues
of those countries when I meet with them, several of us, meet
with them next week in New York where we'll have a lot of
meetings on the margins of the General Assembly during leaders
week.
In terms of Kazakhstan's desire to be selected for Chair-
in-Office in 2009, we've been very forthright in telling
President Nazarbayev and his colleagues that one of the
principle criteria is adhering to all of the OSCE principles.
As Mike said, Kazakhstan has done a very good job of getting
back on track in assuring that it does adhere to these
principles in some of the actions that it's taken over the past
year, getting very close to OSCE principles and OSCE
requirements.
There's still a bit to go. And, as I say, we look forward
to those kinds of conversations next week to push forward on
exactly the kinds of things that we think are necessary. We
have a very, very robust conversation with the Kazakhstanis,
both bilaterally in terms of Washington, but also our embassy
in Almaty is very active on the subject, as is Ambassador
Minikes.
On trafficking in persons, the OSCE itself, thanks to the
leadership of the Dutch Chairmanship-in-Office last year, put
forward a proposal that the OSCE itself have a trafficking in
persons mandate. They have done that. There is a person now
assigned, appointed to lead this effort within the OSCE. It's
an extremely good way to press and encourage OSCE member States
to assure that they have the right kind of legislation, that
they have their programs, that we share best practices and how
to address each of the areas that are so important to us in
pursuing trafficking in persons.
In terms of your recommendation of using our security
council chairmanship to pursue trafficking, I will certainly
discuss this with my colleagues in the international
organizations bureau and with, of course, Ambassador Danforth
as well as Secretary Powell to see how that might best be done.
I addressed in my statement, as you will see in my formal
written statement, the issue of U.S. support for the Cordoba
conference that Spain has proposed. We look forward to using
that as an expert level discussion to assure followup to the
extremely good recommendations that have been made and
proposals that have been put forward by the anti-Semitism
conference.
We do support naming a special representative, provided
this is resources neutral. We think a special representative
can be very aggressive without a lot of administrative
underpinning, shall we say, in making sure that governments
understand what it is that they've agreed to, understand what's
been put forward and to provide the kind of support that's
necessary to make sure that legislation, training, education on
these issues is pursued in the way that it should.
On travel documents and the security of travel documents,
this is a very strong element in the OSCE's efforts in the FSC.
It's also an issue that's under very detailed, very detailed
conversation between the United States and the European Union,
for example, through home and justice affairs. There are
conversations underway right now between us and Russia on a
bilateral basis on how to assure greater security of travel
documents, airline security, those kinds of issues.
The biometrics issue was one that is of significant
importance to Secretary Ridge, that he is pursuing personally
in a very aggressive way. And I'm very grateful for your
mentioning of it in this context. It gives us a greater oomph
to push this forward because it is something that we would like
to make sure that all member states of the OSCE take as
seriously as the rest of us do.
On the OSCE and how it can be used in the Middle East, you
mentioned very rightly that there are conversations with the
Mediterranean dialogue [ph] their way to expand these
principles. That's actually exactly the theory, the principles
behind the President's recommendation to his G-8 colleagues,
the kinds of proposals that we've made in the U.S./E.U.
context, the kinds of proposals we've made to NATO. That's why
in the three summits that we had this year in June the G-8
adopted the broader Middle East and North Africa initiative.
Those are the principles that we have borrowed or used from the
OSCE to put forward as suggestions to the broader Middle East
and North Africa countries as ideas that they can use to
develop a stronger civil society, they can use to work with in
democratic reforms and human rights reforms. That's exactly the
idea without expanding the organization itself.
There is a considerable discussion underway now as to how
to operationalize it, if I can put it that way, the kinds of--
these principles. There will be a planning meeting of the forum
for the future at the general assembly that Secretary Powell
will participate in with his colleagues. There's a lot of work
underway to try to use these kinds of principles to pursue
democracy, human rights, civil society in the broader Middle
East and North Africa.
So I thank you for your appreciation of the importance of
this issue. Thank you.
Mr. Cardin. Let me yield first to Mr. Hastings. I think he
has a time problem.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you. I have a meeting with the vice
president of the foreign affairs committee of Austria and need
to rush away. I'm sorry I'm not going to get to get with you,
Jerry. Thanks so much.
Mr. Chairman, I'm appreciative of all of the testimony that
the witnesses have presented to us here this morning in very
concise fashion. And I'll try to be likewise. And I appreciate
you holding this meeting.
I also just will take a personal liberty in a friend of
mine and a friend of this organization who used to be a high
staffer in the Parliamentary Assembly's staff in Copenhagen,
has now moved to America. And I see his interest continues. But
Eric Rudenshiold, who is a resource for us, has an extensive
amount of understanding of the OSCE process. And I just take
note of the fact that he's in the audience.
Ms. Secretary, thank you so very much for all of your
assertions. I agree with the chairman in all of his assessments
and your responses to them. I'm deeply appreciative. I
certainly am very, very mindful of the need for transformation
of the OSCE. Last Wednesday, I had a very good meeting with
Secretary Powell in discussing a lot of the issues. And please
convey to him my strong appreciation for the statement
regarding the Gulf War. We talked about that briefly unrelated
to OSCE activities.
Also, the shaping up of the election observer mission of
OSCE--we had very brief discussions regarding that. And I
explained to the secretary my view as the President of the
Parliamentary Assembly. First, I wanted to make him fully aware
of the fact that as the president and as a political
functionary in my other responsibility that I have requested
Chairman Passy to designate another person whom he has
designated to lead the Parliamentary Assembly's observer
mission. And that's Barbara Haering from Switzerland.
And at my request, Chairman Passy did make that
appointment. I say all of that because we come to today and
appreciating very much our state having fulfilled the U.S.
obligation to invite election observers from the OSCE. I do
need to have some assurances that the State Department is going
to follow its practices regarding visa fees and visas and grant
them in an expeditious manner for OSCE parliamentarians and
their staffs. I think in all other election observations by the
OSCE, that has been the case. And I don't need a response from
you, but I do need to put it on your radar screen because it's
something that's critical.
Right now, I need, for example, for Ms. Haering to be
expedited to get here to do the assessment for the
Parliamentary Assembly. Which brings me to my next observation.
With my colleagues, the chairman of this Commission and my
colleagues, the treasurer of the Parliamentary Assembly from
Canada here and chairman of the important committee of the OSCE
which I now am privileged to be president of, Mr. Cardin, I'm
sure they all will take note of my parochial interest, not me
as a congressperson, but as a Parliamentary Assembly member, in
asserting very strongly the role that the Parliamentary
Assembly plays in election observation.
When I read your printed remarks, I note the absence and
the highlighting of ODHIR's responsibility, which I do not
minimize by any stretch of the imagination. I consider it
extremely important. But as one, along with Jerry, for example,
we were in Russia and we observed the Russian election. ODHIR
was there. But the Parliamentary Assembly was there in a rather
substantial kind and led by then-President Bruce George. We,
too, had exacting responsibilities.
Well, when it comes to America and the shaping of the kind
of observer mission, if you take the political tensions off the
table, it seems to me only fairness or fairness dictates to us
that this is an opportunity--and this is what I said to
Secretary Powell--take Hastings out of the picture.
This is an opportunity, number one, for an extraordinary
bipartisan effort to assure and ensure that those observers see
the full panoply, not one person's side or the other person's
side or ideologically, but that they do what they can do best.
That's important, in my judgment. And I will be speaking with
Speaker Hastert specifically to make sure that we do everything
for any briefers, either by ODHIR or the P.A. or combined that
they are totally bipartisan without any hesitancy whatsoever.
Now, I'm just back from Belgium yesterday where I attended
the racism and xenophobia conference, which I think went
extremely well. I had the good fortune of meeting Ben's friend
Cardinal Keeler and countless others that were there from
America. Secretary Jackson, who led the delegation at the
insistence of President Bush, and I had a number of meetings.
But more important to the issue at hand, I met with Chairman
Passy. I met with Jan Kubis, the Secretary General, there in
Vienna. I met with Ambassador Minikes. And all of us in full
agreement that the observer mission should be robust.
I also met with Christian Strohal from ODHIR. I gather from
mine and Christian's meetings and the manner in which the run-
up to whatever election observation is going to take place that
Christian has a different view. I hope that you can help me and
Secretary Powell can help me in having him dispel the notion
that observing an election in America is any different than
observing an election in Russia.
I think America's credibility stands to be enhanced
immensely. I think the OSCE's credibility in election
observation will be enhanced immensely. In addition to
appointing Barbara Haering, Chairman Passy also appointed Igor
Oshtash from the Ukraine, interestingly, on my behalf, to
observe the elections in Kazakhstan that are impending and
others as well for Belarus. And we know that these things are
taking place.
This country's elections are important. Every person, every
foreign minister, all the functionaries that I talked to in
Belgium over the last four days were interested in the American
elections. Contrary to some, not for the purpose of coming here
to run any election--Jerry and I didn't run any election in
Russia. We didn't receive interference or cause interference.
The speaker at that time of the duma briefed us as well as
other functionaries. And I, quite frankly, am at a loss to
understand why existing political tensions, which are natural
in an election year, would cause us to minimize the kind of
observation.
Now, I know that Secretary Powell doesn't control that, nor
do you, nor do I. But the fact of the matter is that where our
good offices can be influential in allowing for America's
credibility to be enhanced, I see that as my responsibility.
And I'm very protective of the role that we play in the
Parliamentary Assembly. And I would assert to you that in
election observation, ODHIR has a lot to learn from what we do.
And what I said to Strohal was, ``Tell me what election you got
elected to.'' And he understood me very well.
Parliamentarians are accustomed to being elected. And
whether they are from Kazakhstan or other places, fairness only
dictates that we balance our observation. And I would like your
reaction to my much too lengthy statement.
Sec. Jones. Thank you very much for raising this question.
Let me just address right away we will do our very best on the
visa question to work to make sure that people get their visas
at the appropriate moment. We'll want to work with you to make
sure we know who they are in enough advance so that we can do
that.
In terms of ODHIR and the importance of their Parliamentary
Assembly being election observers, let me first say that I am
very apologetic that I did not include that in my formal
statement. I should have. We certainly recognize the importance
of the members of the Parliamentary Assembly being observers,
because, just as you say, you have personal experience with how
this is meant to work.
I might also say that the issue of the United States
inviting ODHIR, inviting the OSCE to provide observers in U.S.
elections is an invitation that we have extended through
several American elections now for the past four, five times.
It's something that we believe is part of our membership
obligations in the OSCE. We certainly signed up to this. This
is something that we expect each and every other member to
offer. And we are very, in fact, very proud to show election
observers from wherever they may come how it is that we do
assure a free, fair, transparent election in the United States
of America.
In addition, there are technological improvements that
we've made that are of great interest to other countries who
are looking at doing the same kinds of things and they would
like to learn from the experience of the United States and
various other states as to what the lessons learned are from
technological advancements. And we will be very interested in
showing the election observers that will be coming how this
works. But I completely agree with you, Congressman Hastings.
This is something that we are proud of. It enhances the
credibility of the United States. It enhances the credibility
of the OSCE for us to participate as forthrightly and as
proudly as we should.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Kozak, I want to follow up on your comments about
the concerns about how we have treated, allegations made of how
we have treated unlawful combatants, the problems in Iraq,
which we have acknowledged. I very much appreciate your
comments about the importance at the human dimension meeting in
Warsaw to have a side event initiated by the United States. I
think that's an excellent strategy, and I commend you for that.
And I also thank you for your commitment to keep us
appraised as investigations continue. I assume that includes
the Commission, when you mention the OSCE, that you'll keep our
Commission advised as to how the investigations are going and
what they discover.
I want to raise Guantanamo Bay for a moment, if I might. We
were charged at a meeting of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly by
our colleagues challenging the manner in which we were treating
the detainees in Guantanamo Bay. As a result of that, Chairman
Smith and myself visited Guantanamo Bay, had a chance to see
firsthand the manner in which we were treating the detainees
there. We issued a report to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.
And we emphasized the point that it's U.S. policy that we will
not use torture. And it was verified by the State Department
and by the administration that torture was not used.
Just recently, there was a press account--and I want to
stress a press account--by three British subjects who were at
Guantanamo Bay that they, in fact, were tortured and pretty
specific as to the type of conduct that they were subjected to
at Guantanamo Bay. And they also indicated in their report that
other detainees were subject to similar types of methods that
would be considered torture.
My question to you is whether we've heard from the British
Government concerning these concerns. And secondly, regardless
of whether we've heard from the British Government or not, has
there been any followup to investigate these charges to see
whether there was any truth in the allegations that were made
by these subjects.
Sec. Kozak. Well, first let me hit the last part of your
question, Mr. Cardin. Let me qualify this by saying I don't
think any of us are involved with the detention policy, and so,
our knowledge is very limited. I get at more from the side that
we--the same way you do. Other governments are asking us about
it and comparing what we're asking them to do with what we ask
for ourselves.
I do not know whether the British government has raised
this with us. We will check and get you an answer on that
point. I do know that the British government as well as the
governments, I think, of every other nationality of persons
detained at Guantanamo have had access to their nationals there
as well, of course, as the Red Cross has.
And obviously there are a lot of motives for making
allegations and so on. But the statement about torture, I
think, clearly is policy. We went through some effort in the
statement that was made on victim torture day that the
President put out. And I think the effort there was to be as
crystal clear as anyone can be that we do know what torture
means. There isn't some new definition of it and that that's
what's prohibited.
Now, obviously you get into fine points of, you know, if
somebody has to stand for an hour in the sun in the line is
that a torture or not.
Mr. Cardin. You're absolutely correct. I agree with your
answer. And the nuances here are going to be difficult for us
to evaluate. The charges made by the press account was very
direct torture well beyond just deprivation of sleep. Although
deprivation of sleep was one of the allegations. It went to
physical abuse. It went to other types of torture. And I guess
my concern is I hope that we take these allegations seriously
and find out whether, in fact, there's any truth to these. The
way that we handled the problems in Iraq by confronting them
directly, to me, is the only way that we can handle these types
of allegations.
Sec. Kozak. I absolutely agree with you on that, sir. And
one of the things I've been rather proud of, we had a similar
spate of things coming out of the U.N. Commission on Human
Rights, a little bit apart from this committee's jurisdiction,
but still, the substance of it is exactly the same. And they
did a report on Iraq that was--they had the High Commissioner
for Human Rights or the Acting High Commissioner charge this.
And we got a ton of questions, requests for information. Then
we got a draft report and were asked to give comments on it in
24 hours.
An interesting process in that what I saw, even people who
have worked in this area for years pushing other people to be
forthcoming. And we're saying, ``How can they say that? This
isn't true. That's not true.'' And I said, ``Look, the issue is
not whether it's true or not. The issue is how we react to is.
And if we just go back and say you can't ask me this because
it's not true, that's exactly the kind of response we don't
want to get from other people.''
What we want to do here is set an example. And I think we
did. We went back on each case in that report where there were
allegations of abuse beyond the ones we knew about already and
said, ``Please give us specifics so that we can look at this.
It's not enough to tell us that somebody alleges that American
soldiers shot up a car full of innocent people at a checkpoint.
Where did this happen, when did it happen so that we can go
follow it up?''
It turned out in all but one case that they mentioned they
didn't have that kind of information. And in the other case, we
are following it up and trying to investigate and get more
information where there was enough to identify a particular
individual and particular time and place of the alleged abuse.
So it's a process, as you mentioned.
But I think our goal in this--first, our policy on torture
is absolutely clear. And certainly physical torture is
prohibited. If somebody's doing it, we want to know about it.
We want to investigate it. We want to follow up. If someone
wants to ask us about it, we're going to go back and ask for
the particulars that allow us to take action on it. And I think
that's the only way we can be and maintain our credibility.
Mr. Cardin. I appreciate that. And I support that policy.
And I hope that you will check to make sure that we followed up
in regards to these allegations in regards to Guantanamo Bay.
Sec. Kozak. I will.
Mr. Cardin. Let me follow-up on the chairman's point about
the 9/11 Commission report, which I thought is right on target.
I believe we've had a lot of discussion here, a lot of hearings
taking place. And I expect Congress will take some action
before we adjourn this year to implement some of the
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report, particularly as
it relates to the national intelligence director.
But a significant part of this report deals with we need to
win not only the act of war against terrorists and we have to
be strong militarily in that regard, we also have to win the
war of ideas. And that was perhaps the strongest weapon we had
during the Cold War. Our values won out. And the people of East
Berlin saw what was happening in West Berlin, and the Iron
Curtain literally fell down, the Berlin Wall collapsed. We won
the war of ideas.
And we need to do the same thing in the Middle East. And
that is why all of us are so passionate about this process that
started in 1975 that no one really expected to be how it is
today. But it sort of developed into a very important,
effective tool for the battle of ideas. So I would just
encourage the State Department to be more aggressive in trying
to get more players, in the Middle East particularly, to be
engaged in the Helsinki process, whether within OSCE or similar
types of organizations. I think it's probably best within OSCE,
because to try to reinvent it would probably take too long, but
to expand it.
As you know, we have the initiative--and Senator
Grafstein's been one of the leaders on it--to expand the OSCE
with our Mediterranean partners and to have higher expectations
and greater participation. And I think the rewards could be
great, including listening to the 9/11 Commission report and
its recommendations. And I know the administration is doing
this. And I just want you to know that this is one of our
highest priorities. And anything that we can do on the
Commission to assist in this effort and within the
Parliamentary Assembly we will do.
The last issue I want to raise deals with the economic
issues, if I might. And that is, I mentioned in my opening
statement that there's been in the last 12 months a lot of the
tension spent within OSCE on the economic dimension starting in
Maastricht, including the work of the Parliamentary Assembly.
And probably the highest priority is to try to deal with
corruption. Corruption, like your observations--at least it's
our observations--that it's still widespread, particularly in
the emerging states, and that it's a real impediment to the
development of all three areas of our concern.
So that the Maastricht document talked about developing
strategies to fight corruption. We specifically in Edinburgh
passed a resolution calling for the high-level meeting to
develop a strategy to fight corruption. And I would just like
your observations as to whether you believe this is a very high
priority or just maybe not as high a priority. And if it is a
high priority, what steps are we taking to develop a strategy
or a position? And do we support a high-level meeting of
ministers in order to advance this issue?
Sec. Jones. The issue of fighting corruption is a very big
issue for the United States. It's one where, including
especially in the countries of the OSCE, which I know the most
about, we believe it's really a key to success. You can't have
prosperity, you can't have democracy, you can't have a rule of
law if corruption is a big issue in any of these countries.
It's something that I know the E.U. was particularly
concerned about and really focused on as it worked with the 10
new members of the European Union to get them ready for
European Union membership. And it's an area in which the E.U.
keeps working on with the countries that are coming down the
pike in getting ready for close association with the European
Union.
It's also an issue that is worked on in detail by the OECD.
The reason I mention that is that we want to be sure that what
the OSCE does is complimentary to the work that's already going
on with the E.U. and with the OECD on counter corruption, anti-
corruption measures.
That said, we have some very good programs, bilaterally and
through the OSCE, to try to address the particular issues that
are related to corruption. And what we're working on with the
OSCE is, again, to develop the institutions that are strong
enough to counter corruption and sort of close down the
loopholes, close down the opportunities for corrupt officials
to be able to take advantage of institutions, to develop
legislation that makes it harder for corrupt officials or
corrupt people to work in countries and take advantage of
situations, to make sure that the legal systems will support a
transparent free market economy, which is, after all, the goal
of the countries of the OSCE and of the United States itself. I
can't speak to the question of whether a high-level meeting
will happen. It's something that's under discussion. And I
would like to offer to get back to you on how that conversation
is developing within the OSCE, if I might.
Mr. Cardin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Commissioner Pitts.
HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND
COOPERATION IN EUROPE
Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
holding this important and timely hearing. As our nation
engages in the war against terror, it is vital that we build
and strengthen relationships we have with friends and allies
around the world I would like to submit my opening statement
for the record.
Mr. Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Pitts. And I have three questions for the panel. And
any of you can respond. It often seems that the OSCE takes a
back seat to NATO when U.S. policy toward Europe is considered
while, for their part, E.U. countries concentrate their own
attention mainly on the countries preparing to join the E.U.
The first question is what can be done to empower and
reinvigorate the OSCE. How much might the E.U. be prepared to
help us do that? And do you see Russia as a potential partner
or obstacle in that endeavor.
Secondly, I'd like to ask about the work of the Coordinator
on Economic Environmental Activities, the High Commissioner on
National Minorities, the Representative on Freedom of the
Media. Their activities are usually conducted in a quiet and
behind-the-scenes manner. My question is how do you keep track
of their activities? Are you satisfied that these positions
have justified their existence through particular
accomplishments? And if not, how would you reform them so that
they would be improved? Or should they be eliminated
altogether?
My third question has to do with terrorist financing. The
OECD's financial action task force, the OSCE's Bucharest Action
Plan and Action Against Terrorism Unit have provided technical
assistance to assist law enforcement and regulatory authorities
in terrorist financing investigations. How effective are these
multilateral efforts, including the UNSCR and the U.N.
Counterterrorism Committee to develop common standards and
jointly free financial assets of terrorists? How can they be
made more effective, for instance, in addressing key
outstanding issues such as how they raise money, from whom, and
how they spend the money?
So if we can start with the OSCE and NATO question, I'd
appreciate it
Sec. Jones. I would put it this way, the OSCE and NATO are
very different organizations. NATO certainly is an organization
of like-minded countries, but it has a military operational
focus. The OSCE, because it has the three dimensions, has a
broader focus. And we find it an organization that is very
flexible. It's very easy to move quickly with the OSCE.
I use Macedonia as a very good example three years ago when
we suddenly needed to have observers to make sure that the
agreements that were reached at Ohrid could be implemented
properly. It was the OSCE that was able to put forward those
observers within days. And it was something that really helped
the security situation in Macedonia.
The European Union in addition, of course, has focused on
the programs, legislation development, et cetera, that was
necessary to make it possible for these 10 new countries to
join, to be invited to join the European Union as happened
earlier this year. But I would argue there are very many of the
developments, very many of the improvements that the E.U.
pressed on these countries that are very much in line with the
improvements that all of us wanted. In fact, we take great
credit, we're very proud of the collaboration that we undertook
with the E.U. in very many of these areas to make sure that we
were all focused in the same direction on fighting corruption,
on border security, on rule of law issues, on developing
democracy, on making sure that there could be vetting for
security officials and that kind of thing.
The European Union, now that it has enlarged, is even more
interested in its new borders, in the countries around its new
borders, so is taking an even more active role in the OSCE as
an organization--of course, the member states do in any case--
in working with the OSCE, with us in the OSCE to address some
of the pros and conflicts to the instability kinds of issues
that we think are very, very important to address.
Whether it be Moldova, Transnistria where we have--I'd like
to really commend the leadership of the head of mission there,
Ambassador Bill Hill, for really pushing the initiatives,
coming up with ideas for how to address the outstanding issues
related to the frozen conflict there between Transnistria and
Moldova. The same thing I would like to commend in terms of
greater E.U. participation, interest, activism in looking at
how to assure a resolution of the issues in Georgia involving
both South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Nagorno-Karabakh we already
have a very good participation by a European Union member
State, by France, as a co-chair with the United States and
Russia in trying to push for improvements there.
I really look at these three organizations as being very
complimentary to each other. There is a way that each of them
can work together. There's a niche for each of them. And we
constantly are looking for ways to increase the ability of all
of us to do the work that we think is necessary by taking
advantage of the best parts of each of these organizations to
achieve U.S. goals and the goals that we have set together with
the European Union, with NATO, with OECD and, frankly, also
with the Council of Europe.
On the national minorities question that you asked and the
free media, we really appreciate the very hard work that the
representatives for each of these special focuses undertake. We
stay in very close touch with them. They come regularly to
Washington to talk with us. They are constantly in conversation
with Ambassador Minikes in Vienna.
They report back to the perm representatives. And they stay
in touch with our embassies, with the U.S. embassies, as they
travel in each of the countries where they have particular
issues that they're working on to pursue. So I use every
opportunity myself to stay in touch with them and to see them
at the margins of the general assembly or at OSCE meetings when
they come to Washington. So I really have a great respect for
the ability of these extremely capable people to do the kind of
work that they are meant to do and to do it in a way that
achieves the objective and gets the changes and behavior that
we're looking for.
On terrorist financing, we think that the FDS [ph] is a
very productive organization. The work in the U.N. Security
Council in the U.N. to pursue terrorist financing are all ways
that we work to look at ways and to designate organizations, to
designate people whom the international community should assure
can no longer provide financing to terrorists. There are people
who know a lot more about exactly how they all work than I do,
but those are mechanisms that we use very, very regularly and
that the member states use very, very regularly.
Countries from all over the world, governments from all
over the world are constantly bringing forward names of people,
names of organizations that they'd have considered by the U.N.,
by us on a bilateral basis to assure that terrorist financing
cannot continue and that the international community takes as
tough a measure as they possibly can to make sure that these
organizations, that these people cannot continue to use
international banking services to support terrorist
organizations or terrorist events.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you. Anyone else have anything to add?
Secretary Kozak.
Sec. Kozak. I'd just say on the media freedom
representative and the way they work, I had a chance to watch
this firsthand in Belarus. And it's true that when they have a
government that's being cooperative that they tend to do it
behind the scenes and low key for obvious reasons. They get to
hear our suggestions on your media law. The government goes and
takes the measures, and then the government takes credit itself
for doing the right thing.
But in places like Belarus where they got nothing but grief
from the regime in power for a long time with the predecessor
represented in Mr. Duve, the government said he could visit but
he couldn't bring his assistant who was an American who
observed previously at our embassy there. Now I see with Mr.
Hardy [ph] they've changed the pretext, but the result is the
same.
But in those cases, as Beth was saying, they got
information from us, they got information from other member
state embassies and then they published reports and denounced
what was going on in a very public way. So they are able to
play it both, sort of, the behind the scenes, private
incremental improvement track or if that's not working, public
pressure. And I think they made a pretty good job of it.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much. Senator Grafstein. Senator
Grafstein?
Mr. Grafstein. Well, I'm really privileged to ask our
friendly neighbor, the United States, and their key people at
the State Department some questions about an interest of mine
which I share with all of the parliamentarians on this side,
the goals and the objectives and the processes of the Helsinki
Accord. And we agree with everything you've said, certainly I
do, with respect to its importance and its growing importance.
I only give you just one current example.
Because of leadership of Representative Smith and Cardin
and Alcee Hastings and others, anti-Semitism became an issue
and was really, in effect, by the Parliamentary Assembly. And I
was delighted when Secretary General Kofi Annan, when there was
tremendous infighting about having a conference, focused purely
on anti-Semitism took our resolution, which we worked so hard
on, and used that. And he gave us credit for that. So sometimes
a junior organization like the OSCE can impact the major
organization.
I just want to make two comments and bring your attention
to some activities that I think we're doing that help you in
your work. From my observation--and I've noted it again in the
questions this morning--the work of the parliamentary
dimension, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, is sometimes
neglected by our various ministries. The two examples that you
give, the Georgian election monitoring example, that was led by
Bruce George, the president of the OSCE. And I was the deputy
on both of those missions.
And quite frankly, I think we led those missions. The ODHIR
was there. They were very supportive. They were excellent. But
quite frankly, I think that parliamentarians have a lot more
experience in connection with elections and what's important
and what's not important in order to instigate the
parliamentary process.
And again, when you mentioned Ambassador Hill, he's done a
fabulous job. But I'm also--and Kiljunen of Finland--leads the
parliamentary side of the Moldova Transnistria problem. And I
happen to be on that as well, so I can speak from firsthand
experience that there the leadership of Mr. Kiljunen has been
outstanding. And I would just hope that when you take a look at
the information you garner from your minister, from your
diplomats, you would take into account the fact that the OSCE
has two dimensions.
There's the ministerial side, and there's also the
parliamentary side. And we've been working very hard, as Chris
will tell you and as Ben will tell you, to make sure that the
two institutions, one in Vienna and ours at Copenhagen, work
together. We now, in effect, have an ambassador there. We now
have a full-time ambassador and officer, Ambassador Nothelle,
precisely to make sure that the two arms of the OSCE work in
harmony together. We have the same objectives. Our processes
are different. That's a comment.
Secondly, on corruption, again, parliamentarians have taken
a huge lead in examining and focusing on parliamentary
corruption, which is a huge part of the overall problem. And I
must say that progress has been made, remarkable progress has
been made with the organization called GOPAC. It was started in
Ottawa several years ago, the chairmen of it, worldwide. It's
the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption.
The head of that is John Williams, M.P., from Canada. The vice
chairman is Roy Cullen. And we are trying to integrate that
process into the OSCE as well so that we compliment each other.
So I just bring that to your attention. It's remarkable work,
and it works at the parliamentary level.
My final comment and question--I only have really one
question--is the Middle East. Again, we have been engaged in
trying to move forward a Middle East agenda. And I think we've
concluded, many parliamentarians have concluded, that the
political track is stuck. It's very hard to move it for all of
the things that we know. But the economic track, which is the
second basket of the OSCE, is open.
And hence, we've been focused, Representative Cardin and
myself have been focused, on the economic dimension of the
Middle East. And I'm pleased to say that I've just returned
from a conference in England where I talked about the OSCE as
an instigator of economic reform in the Middle East, Arab
Middle East. And it was very well received. And that paper,
I'll send it along to you.
So my question is that has the department, has the
Secretary of State looked at the question of the economic
reforms necessary in the Arab Middle East in order to instigate
civil society and democracy. Now, I've read with great care the
G-8, the last G-8, declaration, which I think is good. I think
the President's leadership on economic assistance and
democratic development in that part of the world, the $150
million, is excellent. I think it's too little. But I would
wonder whether or not you've got a coherent strategy for
following up on the economic dimension as it applies to the
Middle East.
And I conclude with this one fact: The region in the world
that suffered the most as a result of September 11th--and I
call this the auto-da-fe of September 11th--was the Arab Middle
East. Their economies are suffering. And we're sitting on a
time bomb there unless we really address the economic problems
in that region of the world. So it's a question for you. And we
intend to follow this up.
Ben and I fostered a resolution at the OSCE, was
unanimously approved at the Parliamentary Assembly in
Edinburgh. I've given a paper on that, and we intend to follow
that up in Rhodes at the end of this month. So that's my
question. Are you in sync with us on that? And how can we help
each other to foster that priority?
Sec. Jones. Senator, thank you very much for your comments.
I very much appreciate the participation of the Parliamentary
Assembly in the work of the OSCE. And I should have
acknowledged that with greater clarity. But it is something
that we do recognize and very, very much appreciate. Because,
just as you said and some of your other colleagues in the
commission said, there's nothing that substitutes for personal
experience and knowing what is right, what makes sense, what is
important and what is somewhat less important in an election.
Mr. Grafstein. Just a comment on that, I was here [ph]
making that speech here because I intend to make it in Ottawa
next week to my own government. So you're not alone.
Sec. Jones. I'll just make a brief comment on the economic
track for the Middle East reform. As my colleagues in the
Middle East bureau began working to develop some of the ideas
on reform in the Middle East, thinking about all the baskets
that made the most sense, we took a look, of course, at a U.N.
report that really focused on political reform, economic reform
and education reform. So those were the three areas that we
also adopted as the areas that we should concentrate on in
working with reformers in the Middle East.
My colleagues in the Middle East bureau have done that,
have been doing that. And the results of some of those
conversations is what informed the G-8 in putting forward the
proposals that came out of the G-8 summit, which, thank you
very much for your attention to those.
I can't tell you right at this very moment how those will
be developed. My colleagues in the Middle East bureau are a
little bit more focused on some of the details of that. But as
I said earlier, the next step in pursuing some of these issues,
as with the forum for the future event, sort of, pioneering
event that will take place in New York--and then there'll be
hopefully a followup conference that we'll still be working on.
But our Middle East colleagues completely recognize that it
takes all three areas in order to make progress, including the
economic one.
And my colleague, Assistant Secretary Rademaker, would like
to also offer some comments on how in another area we are using
OSCE mechanisms to work with the Middle East.
Sec. Rademaker. Thank you. A number of you have raised this
question of the applicability of the OSCE and its experiences
to the Middle East. And I just wanted to volunteer the comment
that the core of the OSCE's approach to security is an
integrated one where human rights and democracy are integrated
with increasing economic freedom and security and confidence-
building measures. And this approach was extraordinarily
successful over the last 30 years in bringing about the end of
the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union, the advent of
freedom in Central and Eastern Europe.
The effort that's now underway through the G-8 with regard
to the Middle East has at its core the same basic idea. And so,
it simply has to be the case that there are lessons that can be
learned from the OSCE that are of application in the Middle
East. And I think those of you who have raised this issue are
correctly focused on that possibility. And you are asking very
good questions. You're asking the right questions.
We've seen from our experience in the Western Hemisphere
that when the political environment is ripe for it, there is a
desire to look--there can be a desire to look to the OSCE and
its experiences and draw from it. And that's precisely what's
happened in the security area in the Western Hemisphere over
the last few years.
We have within the arms control bureau an office that's
devoted to promoting these kinds of confidence and security
building measures around the world. They were very much
involved in the efforts that have taken place over the last few
years here in the Western Hemisphere. They are also active in
Asia and in the Middle East.
And they will continue pursuing this. I think your comments
will inspire us to redouble our efforts to see what we can draw
from--Senator, your comments about the economic dimension I
think are very well taken. And we'll take a second look at
whether we can draw anything from that. But we do have people
that are focused on this, and we will be glad to report back to
you at some point in the future on how we're coming.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Senator Grafstein.
I just have a few followup questions and final questions.
Secretary Rademaker--and to all of you--one of the great
leadership initiatives that the Bush administration has
undertaken is the attempt to have a zero tolerance policy. As a
matter of fact, President Bush issued a zero tolerance policy,
vis-a-vis, trafficking in our military. The Trafficking in
Victims Protection Act of 2003 actually empowers the Department
of State and all of the agencies of government to not only do
whatever it can to go after those who are complicit in
trafficking, but to take away contracts from contractors,
vendors with whom we buy their goods and services if they are
complicit in trafficking.
But does zero tolerance policy which has now been adopted
by NATO at U.S. leadership--Nicholas Burns has done a marvelous
job. Elizabeth Pryor, who used to work there at that shop, has
been working, as well as Maureen Walsh and many on our staff to
try to--you know, the peacemakers or peacekeepers certainly
when they are deployed become a ripe target for the traffickers
to bring in women who are then exploited. And it seems to me
that the next step is the U.N., to make sure that their
deployments hopefully have a zero tolerance policy.
My question to you, Mr. Rademaker, is the forum for
security and cooperation in Vienna perhaps another venue that
ought to be utilized to take this message, that I don't want to
hear this ``boys will be boys'' garbage. These are women who
are being exploited. They're being raped. And again, the
administration has a sterling record in saying we will not
allow this to happen.
We have a joint hearing with the Armed Services Committee
on September 21st at which we will look at what the Department
of Defense, the Wolfowitz memo, how it's being implemented.
General LaPorte, our former Supreme Allied Commander for South
Korea, has done a magnificent job, as has his staff, in
implementing a zero tolerance policy. Joseph Schmitz, the I.G.,
has done some very groundbreaking work for the Department of
Defense in terms of both Bosnia and South Korea.
And my point is--every avenue or venue that can be
utilized--and certainly I think you probably have already
thought of this. But that might be an area, you know, the
security cooperation forum in Vienna for doing this as well.
Because obviously there are some countries like the Ukraine,
not part of NATO. They've sent peacekeepers to trouble there is
that could be brought into this.
If you could.
Sec. Rademaker. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me begin by stating
the obvious, which is that you provided outstanding leadership
on this question of trafficking. You know and I know that the
Congress passes lots of bills and lots of resolutions year in
and year out. And many of them don't make a big difference in
the real world.
But the work that you and some of your colleagues did in
the area of trafficking leading up to the enactment of the
Trafficking in Victims Protection Act was an example where the
action of Congress really has made a difference. You have
changed U.S. foreign policy. And as a result, I think life is
slowly being made better for a lot of victims of trafficking
around the world.
With regard to your specific idea of using the Forum for
Security Cooperation to raise awareness and begin talking about
ways to address some of the problems that we've seen with
peacekeepers in places like Bosnia, this is not something that
we have talked about. But I do think it's a very creative
suggestion. And so, what I would like to do is take it back,
and I will give it very favorable consideration.
Because, as I noted in my remarks, the forum for security
cooperation is a valuable tool because it is so flexible. And I
think that very flexibility would enable it to accommodate this
issue, which is something that should be a priority. And we can
help make it a priority.
Mr. Smith. I appreciate that very much, Mr. Secretary.
Sec. Jones. Could I just add?
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Sec. Jones. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I actually brought
with me the decision that was taken at the NATO summit by the
leaders on exactly this trafficking question just to
demonstrate the importance that all of NATO attaches to this.
And thank you for recognizing the leadership role that
Ambassador Nick Burns played in this.
I also wanted--I just did a quick look again--there are two
things that you mentioned that are specifically addressed in
this. Number one, this applies to partners as well. So Ukraine
would have to adhere to the principles that are enunciated in
this document. And it also applies to contractors. This is
something in which NATO--there is a specific sub-paragraph that
speaks to NATO contractors and asks them to participate and
pursue the anti-
trafficking policy that NATO has adopted.
In terms of Bosnia itself, if I could just say that the
former ambassador to Moldova played a very aggressive role,
Ambassador Pamela Smith, in talking with NATO about this in the
first instance and specifically about how this plays out and
what kinds of policies might be, at best, most appropriately be
taken in Bosnia to assure adherence to these principles. So let
me just assure you that this is something that's very much on
the agenda at NATO. And we're ramping up at the OSCE as well
with a new representative who's been named to pursue this
specifically.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Ms. Ambassador. Let me ask
you on the issue of Kosovo. You know, many of us were concerned
about the spike of violence. As a matter of fact, Archbishop
Artemdja had visited with many of us and said not only are very
important Orthodox Christian sites being destroyed, people are
being killed. And then there was that flareup of violence. What
is being done to ensure that the minority rights and the return
processes are being respected?
And just let me ask you a couple of other questions.
Yesterday I was part of a forum on the upcoming Ukrainian
elections. And I know a number of people, Richard Armitage and
others, have made their way to the Ukraine to raise concerns
about the lack of free media, that especially the broadcast
media has been very severely censored or biased, I should say.
And, you know, a free and fair election isn't just, as we all
know, on the day of the election. It's everything that leads up
to it.
And the same goes for Belarus.
And, Mr. Ambassador, you might want to speak to this as
well, where we've got the parliamentary elections coming up and
Lukashenko looking to extend his ability to stay in office,
become another one of those presidents for life. We're trying
still to get the Belarus Democracy Act up on the floor. It has
been blocked. I don't know why. We passed it out of committee
several weeks ago. And that would only be of some minor,
certainly of no impact, on the immediate term. But on the
intermediate term, it might, in terms of empowering civil
society and the like.
But my question is if these elections are adjudicated to be
unfair and far less than OSCE standards and international
standards, will there be any penalty. The concern is that, you
know, we issue reports, we make comments. But at the end of the
day, people like Lukashenko just fold their arms and say, ``Go
ahead, hit me. You haven't even laid a glove on me.''
And I'm concerned, especially again, with the Ukraine, a
country, you know, rich in people and culture and political and
geopolitical importance. This election is probably in the
process of being hijacked. And corruption obviously remains a
very real concern there.
So if you could touch on those issues, I would appreciate
it.
Sec. Jones. On Kosovo, all of us share your deep concern
about what happened on March 17th. That was a terrible turn of
events. We are now, however, very encouraged by the activism,
the initiatives that have been undertaken by the new senior
representative for Kosovo that has been appointed by Secretary
General Kofi Annan, Mr. Jessen-Petersen. He will be joined very
shortly by, I believe, an extremely good American deputy,
Ambassador Larry Rossin.
We have had the international members of groups that work,
particularly, to support the UNMIC efforts to pursue standards
and to pursue implementation of standards in Kosovo, are very
encouraged by the great activism of the new UNMIC secretary
general, senior representative, especially in connection with
how much they're pushing, as have we, the rebuilding of the
churches and schools and buildings, houses, et cetera, that
were damaged so severely in the March 17th disturbances.
There will be a series of meetings next week in New York
among the countries that are most concerned about Kosovo, most
concerned about pushing for progress in Kosovo. So we look
forward to really grinding down through some of these issues.
The most important part of this is to demonstrate to the
Kosovars of whatever religion that it is up to them to take
responsibility, that that is the essence of the standards that
we're pushing to try to turn over as much responsibility to
them as possible so that they can take charge of this
territory.
On the Ukrainian elections, I can only tell you how much--
you know we've worked very hard to make clear to every possible
element of Ukrainian leadership, Ukrainian civil society, free
media, et cetera, that the future of the Ukraine, the future of
Ukraine's integration into trans-Atlantic and European
institutions depends on a free and fair election. And just as
you very rightly said, this is exactly the point that we've
been pressing.
Free and fair elections don't just happen on election day.
They happen in all of the processes related to elections that
take place months, if not years, before. We have been, frankly,
working with the Ukrainian government on Ukrainian elections
for three years on the upcoming Ukrainian. And, you know, to
the point that at times they said, ``It's too early. It's too
early.'' I said, ``No, it's not.'' It's not too early to make
sure that the institutions are in place, that it is clear to
everybody in the presidential administration throughout the
country that they may not misuse presidential administration
apparatus to promote one candidate over another, that there
must be equal access by the candidates to the media. The
exercise of free media, permission to allow media to operate is
an element of assuring a free and fair election.
Mr. Armitage was there in March pursuing this. I had the
opportunity to address this question with a delegation of
senior Ukrainians who came just this week, the former foreign
ministers Linko [ph] and a member of the presidential
administration, Mr. Fiealko [ph] to make exactly those points.
Most importantly, virtually every single leader at the NATO
Ukraine meeting at the summit in Istanbul made exactly those
same points, exactly those points. So it's abundantly clear to
the Ukrainian leadership what it is that we're talking about,
what it is that's necessary to assure a free and fair election
and how critical this is to Ukraine's stated desires to be
further integrated into Europe and the trans-Atlantic
community.
Mr. Smith. Ambassador, would you want to take on Belarus?
Sec. Kozak. Well, you're quite right, Mr. Chairman, that,
you know, there's a crucial election coming up in Belarus at
the middle of this coming month that now includes this
referendum on amending the constitution to get rid of the term
limits and allowing President Lukashenko run for yet another
term. I think some of the conditions for the election are
terrible. We've all seen them. Media has been heavily
repressed, fines, criminal libels. Political leaders have been
put in jail as a way of intimidating them. The control of the
election machinery remains in the hands of the government.
But there have been some positive developments in Belarus
as well. Over the last several years, working through our party
institutes, NDI and IRI and with the Europeans and with the
OSCE, with the field mission there, a lot of training has gone
on of pro-democratic type forces. And even before Lukashenko
announced this referendum, the polling that we were seeing was
showing the opposition, generic opposition candidates being
within four points of pro-Lukashenko candidates in the
parliamentary election despite all of these disadvantages. In
part, that's because they've been forced to go out and do it
the old fashioned way of knocking on doors and talking to
people, which, as you know, has its effect.
He's got a big challenge on this referendum. The
Belarussian constitution requires that a majority of registered
voters vote in favor of a referendum for it to pass. So if you
figure he's got 70 percent turnout, which is about normal
there--even if he got 70 percent of the vote, he'd still fail
on the referendum in an honest count.
In the last year, I don't think his numbers have been above
30 percent in terms of people saying they either favor strongly
or might possibly favor his being allowed to run again.
Consistently over 50 percent have said they're against it. So
it's going to take some powerful and obvious fraud. It's not,
you know, shifting numbers by 5 percent or something here. It's
going to take some major stuff and I think bears watching.
I think the key--you asked the question what's the penalty.
There's not much way to penalize the country more than he's
already penalized it himself through self-isolation from not
only the Western world, but from even what's going on in the
immediate region. But there may be ways--and this is something
we need to look at more generally--of how do we hold people
accountable, people who participate in election fraud, people
who should be ensuring genuine elections and fair conditions
and so on but instead use their authority the other way. And
you had mentioned earlier the value of targeted sanctions.
There may be some percentage to working it there.
I have watched in this particular case, I would say if the
people in the bureaucracy in Belarus had their choice, there
would have been a different president a long time ago. But
they're afraid. They're afraid of losing their jobs. They're
afraid of what happens to their families. And maybe if they had
to worry about concerns in the other direction of not carrying
out fraud, they might be more inclined to do their job
honestly.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador. I just have
two final short questions. And we, the Commission, deeply
appreciate your patience. But these issues are very important
to our Commission and I know to you.
One of the recommendations that came out of the Berlin
conference, though, in the implementation area had to do with
hate crimes and the whole issue of law enforcement. We're
working with Ambassador Ed O'Donnell on a provision or an idea
that Paul Goldenberg from the American Jewish Committee is
working up, and our Commission, that would establish a
``trainers of the trainers,'' so that police and law
enforcement personnel would be trained by those who know it
intimately, but it would be peer-to-peer type of training.
It will take some money, and it's not yet to the point of
final completion. But I would just strongly encourage you,
Madam Secretary, Madam Ambassador, to look very favorably on
this. Because I think, you know, the more we have this kind of
training, you know, a well trained policeman knowing--and this
is part of the problem. Very often acts of anti-Semitic crime
are just thought of as mere vandalism when it's very clear that
it's something that goes far beyond that. And this would apply
to all hate crimes. So I would ask you to take a good look at
that recommendation.
And secondly, and again, this is my final question and then
I'll go to Mr. Ben Cardin for anything, and Joe Pitts. Joe's
not here. With regards to Kazakhstan, again, I find it
extremely disconcerting that they want to be the chairing
office for 2009. And again, that has to be done in calendar
year 2006. Especially since Nazaviev [ph] actually signed--I
think it was before you were ambassador in 1992. And he signed
the Helsinki Final Act and all those documents and follow-on
agreements that followed, including the Moscow statement in
1991.
Would we be willing to withhold consensus unless they
either repudiated that internal affairs and some of those other
egregious statements that the group of nine have signed onto?
Because that would radically alter the OSCE. If internal
affairs can be put forward as a hedge when human rights
discussions occur, we would be hindered in our ability to
promote human rights.
Sec. Jones. Thank you for your support for police training
on hate crimes. That is something that makes a great deal of
sense. I don't have it in my head exactly where the process
stands on getting that going. But it's certainly an area which
France, for example, has been very forthright and very much
wants to pursue and is pursuing.
On Kazakhstan and on their desire to be Chairman-in-Office,
we've made very clear that Kazakhstan accepts that our support,
frankly, support for not just from the United States, but from
many, many other member States depends on their adherence to
all of the principles of the OSCE. That's certainly a watchword
that we have been using for, lo, these many years as a way to
discuss with them why it is our business to talk with
Kazakhstan or with any other country about democracy issues,
human rights issues, economic reform issues, whatever it may
be. Because they have taken upon themselves their own free will
to sign up for each of the principles, to adhere to each of the
principles of the document when they first joined the
organization.
I can't tell you that we would withhold because of this
reason or that reason. We'll take it all together when we get
to that point. But certainly a pledge to adhere to everything,
one of the principles, and demonstration of adherence to the
principles is what's important.
Mr. Cardin. Well, let me thank all three of you for your
testimonies here today. I wanted to follow up just very quickly
on Senator Grafstein's point about the anti-Semitism followup
in using the model for the United Nations and what we can
expect in the United Nations in regards to following up against
anti-Semitism. It's been a rough road there, and I'm just
curious as to whether we have a strategy or expectations as to
how the United Nations may play a role in the attention that we
have brought within the OSCE region to the rise of anti-
Semitism.
Sec. Kozak. Well, Mr. Cardin, we've actually been working
in the U.N. for the last few years as well as in OSCE. I'd have
to say I think you've made more stellar progress perhaps. But
there have been some----
Mr. Cardin. You actually may have made more progress in the
United Nations, considering where they were. I mean, it's----
Sec. Kozak. Yes, at least it's not Zionism as racism any
more. And in fact, we were pleased in this last U.N. Commission
of Human Rights session in Geneva this spring. We managed to
get good, strong references, condemnations of anti-Semitism
into three separate resolutions: a resolution on religious
intolerance, a resolution on democracy and racism and another
one on the follow-up to the Durban conference, which we don't
like the conference, but we do like the reference to anti-
Semitism in that document.
We were successful last year in the UNGA in getting two of
those resolutions with anti-Semitism references in them. And
we're going to go for all three of them this fall as well, and
I think with reasonably good prospects. So at least the U.N.
organs are making appropriate references and acknowledging the
problem as a serious problem. Doing something about it is a
different issue. But at least we've got [inaudible].
Mr. Cardin. We wish you the best in your efforts there. I
do think Senator Grafstein's point is correct, though. As OSCE
has raised the bar, it makes it a little bit more difficult for
the United Nations to continue its path in this regard. So
perhaps there's hope.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Cardin.
I want to thank our three very distinguished witnesses for
your excellent testimony and your great work on behalf of our
country. This Commission appreciates it as well as the give and
take of, you know, we make recommendations, you make them back.
It's the best, I think, in the interest of the executive branch
and legislative. So we do thank you for that.
We do have some additional questions that we'd like to
submit. We've run out of time. If you could get back to us for
the record, we'd appreciate it.
Sec. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We very much
appreciate the interest of the Commission, we truly do.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Sec. Jones. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Appreciate it. The hearing's adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:19 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
=======================================================================
Prepared Statements
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Christopher H. Smith, Chairman, Commission
on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Ladies and Gentlemen, I want to welcome you to this U.S. Helsinki
Commission hearing on ``Advancing U.S. Interests through the OSCE.'' I
am very pleased to have several distinguished panelists present today
and look forward to hearing their testimonies.
The title of this hearing is no accident. Since its inception
nearly thirty years ago, the OSCE has been one of the staunchest allies
of the beliefs and goals of the United States. It has multiplied the
avenues through which we can promote the rule of law and human rights.
It pioneered the broad definition of security that recognizes true
stability does not depend on stockpiles of arms or large standing
armies, but on democratic principles, respect for human rights and good
neighborly conduct. It legitimized the idea that a nation's domestic
policies are the rightful concern of other OSCE States. As it
reinforced these critical standards, the organization also evolved into
a strong and flexible body with arguably more tools for addressing
regional problems than any other international institution. The broad
membership, the clearly articulated principles and the well-designed
political structure make the OSCE an especially appropriate partner of
the United States.
Today we have the opportunity to hear the State Department's vision
of how this organization can be most effectively utilized, and how
these key policymakers intend to initiate activities and support
policies through the OSCE that will advance U.S. objectives. Let me say
at the outset how appreciative I am of the diligence and dogged
persistence of the US Ambassador to the OSCE, Ambassador Stephan
Minikes. He has done a tremendous job and deserves much credit and
recognition for his leadership in Vienna.
This year we had an excellent example of how the initiative can be
seized to make impressive contributions to the well-being of the entire
region, while focusing on issues of particular concern to the U.S. The
Arms Control Bureau of the State Department deserves praise for seeing
the opportunities afforded at the OSCE to contribute to hard security
issues. They presided over a strong U.S. chairmanship of the Forum for
Security Cooperation, helping to revitalize that part of the
organization, then used it to pass agreements on management and
destruction of excess ammunition, export controls on man-portable air
defense systems and the transfer of light arms. The work in the FSC
complimented that undertaken by the organization as a whole to conform
travel documents, to address proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, and to discuss better cooperation on border security and
the control of shipping containers.
Every one of these is of key concern to the U.S. and every one is a
transnational issue, requiring that we address it multilaterally. This
is the kind of robust use of the OSCE that is in our interest and that
we would like to see supported throughout the U.S. Government.
Over the past thirty years there has also been great growth and
development in the human dimension, an area of keen interest to this
Commission. Next month the OSCE will hold the annual Human Dimension
Implementation Meeting in Warsaw. This meeting is a regular opportunity
for the participating States to review each other's compliance with our
mutual Helsinki commitments, to encourage better implementation and
publicly question activities that are not consistent with the strong
standards of the OSCE. We look forward to a strong presence and
participation at this conference and to hearing the Department's
priorities for the meeting.
We hope that the sense of priority and urgency that characterized
human rights advocacy during the Cold War will not lag now, at a time
when we see examples of the starkest disregard of human dignity, and
our nation and region suffer acts so brutal they were unthinkable only
a few years ago. Understanding that upholding human rights is not only
the policy that is ethically consistent with our ideals, but is
fundamentally linked to our national and regional security, has never
been more important. If a nation disregards public opinion in the
oppression of its own citizens, it will also ignore violations to the
security of its neighbors. As we came to see in the Balkans, we ignore
the warning signs of abusive acts at our own peril.
We have a great deal of work to do in this field. The lives of many
are still on the line in the countries of Central Asia, and
periodically elsewhere in the OSCE, especially if one is a democratic
activist, outspoken journalist, or religious proponent. The creeping
shadow of a rising anti-Semitism continues to threaten Europe. And the
blight of trafficking in human beings is increasing.
Addressing economic development and environmental challenges is
also important. These are linked to fundamental matters of opportunity
and trust in government and to stabilizing societies through the
confidence born of economic well-being. My colleague Ben Cardin, who
has a special role in this area, will elaborate more on the topic. Let
me just mention that it has never been more timely, and the less
developed areas of the OSCE need consistent attention if we are not
going to see political will undermined by the impatience that comes
from economic necessity.
We also hope to hear what the administration's focus is for the
forthcoming Sofia Ministerial Meeting in December. The issue that
probably will have the greatest impact on the evolution of the
organization and on our ability to further U.S. interests through it,
is the selection of the next Secretary General. Members of this
Commission are actively interested in seeing a strong leader in this
office. As you know, we have written to Secretary Powell on the matter
and will be following up in the near future. The world has changed in
recent years for all of us. As the OSCE takes on daunting challenges,
it will benefit from a potent public face and a strong managing hand to
compliment the political role of the rotating Chairmanship.
Other important issues that should be considered in Sofia include:
addressing expanded election commitments, such as electronic voting and
voting rights of internally displaced persons; enhancing the capability
to fight human trafficking; continuing efforts on anti-Semitism; the
appropriate role of the Mediterranean Partners; and, addressing the
concerns evinced in the statement of July 8 by nine CIS members.
Regarding the current discussions concerning refining and
strengthening the OSCE, I look forward to the administration's views on
the various comments by the Chairman-in-Office, Bulgaria's Foreign
Minister Ambassador Solomon Passy. He has expressed support for a
``better thematic as well as geographical balance within the OSCE'' as
also called for by nine CIS countries. Ambassador Passy has also
proposed relocating meetings of the Economic Forum to Central Asia from
Vienna, and the HDIM to South Caucasus. Structurally, he has also
advocated stronger political leadership for the Secretary General and
the Chairman-in-Office, and deeper inclusion of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the OSCE.
We have a strong panel to discuss these issues today.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Co-Chairman,
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Mr. Chairman, as President Bush has declared, ``By promoting
liberty abroad, we will build a safer world. By encouraging liberty at
home, we will build a more hopeful America.'' For nearly three decades,
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has provided a
unique framework for advancing democracy, human rights and the rule of
law in the expansive OSCE region. Today, comprising 55 countries, the
OSCE has proven its ability to adapt to new challenges, even while
remaining faithful to the core principles reflected in the Helsinki
Final Act and the Charter of Paris. As such, the OSCE is a vital tool
for advancing U.S. interests in a region critical to our country.
The mission of the OSCE goes to the heart of the aims laid out in
the National Security Strategy, although the organization is not
mentioned by name. As the President stated in the introduction of that
paper, ``In the twenty-first century, only nations that share a
commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political
and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their
people and assure their future prosperity.''
Notwithstanding the obvious overlap between U.S. interests and the
OSCE, the organization is underutilized by policymakers here in
Washington. Operating on the basis of consensus, the OSCE has built up
an extensive array of commitments ranging from the rights of
individuals to profess and practice their faith to the conduct of
democratic elections and the treatment of Roma. Recent events have
underscored the fact that no country is beyond reproach when it comes
to human rights and fundamental freedoms, none.
The OSCE provides a framework within which the United States can
and should reinforce points of concern with other participating States.
From addressing ongoing repression in Belarus and the critical
elections this Fall in Ukraine to concerns over anti-Semitism and
related violence throughout the OSCE region, the OSCE is doing
important work that other organizations to which the U.S. belongs
simply can't. Setting up a zero-sum dynamic between the OSCE and these
other institutions makes that much sense, zero.
The comprehensive scope of the OSCE should make it a first thought
not an afterthought for U.S. policymakers. Recent moves by Moscow,
Minsk and several other capitals to emasculate the OSCE under the guise
of so-called reforms, reveal the policymakers there at least recognize
the success and potential of the organization. Protestations that the
OSCE is somehow imbalanced--paying too much attention to human rights--
should be seen as the diversionary tactics that they are. Such
pronouncements are further undermined by the fact that some of the most
significant advances of late in the OSCE have come in the security
dimension, most notably areas such as promoting the use of biometric
travel documents, stemming the proliferation of man portable air
defense systems (MANPADS), more effective border management and
security, and enhancing international container and cargo security.
Setting up a zero-sum dynamic between the security, economic and
human dimensions of the OSCE makes that much sense, zero. A more
reasoned approach would recognize that many of the challenges the
participating States face today are indeed multidimensional in nature.
Efforts to build upon these initiatives in the security dimension
should be encouraged. Similarly, creative thinking should also be
employed to make better use of the economic dimension. I have
repeatedly cited the nexus between international crime and terrorist
financing as an area ripe for OSCE engagement, an excellent example of
the kind of multidimensional challenges faced by participating States
throughout the OSCE region. The Charter of Paris envisioned the
possibility of convening meetings of ministers other than foreign
ministers. The U.S. should propose that an OSCE ministerial be convened
to address the links between terrorism and international crime.
The area of conflict prevention in another example where the OSCE
can and should play an important role. In recent weeks disturbing
developments in parts of the Republic of Georgia and the Transdniestria
region of Moldova have threatened to erupt into open conflict.
Ironically, as Russian-backed separatists in these regions threaten the
territorial integrity of those countries, the war in Chechnya enters
its fifth year with death and destruction with the most egregious
violations of international humanitarian law anywhere in the OSCE
region. The OSCE has proven that it can play a useful role in such
conflicts if there is political will to enlist its assistance. Nearly
five years after the Istanbul OSCE summit, the Russian Federation has
yet to fully implement the commitments it agreed to with respect to its
forces in Georgia and Moldova.
Mr. Chairman, in the National Security Strategy President Bush
acknowledged that ``Our own history is a long struggle to live up to
our ideals.'' Given my own background I can attest to the truth in that
statement. This struggle is far from finished and if we are to lead in
the promotion of liberty, we must be honest when we have fallen short.
I am convinced that by so doing we will contribute to a stronger
America at home and abroad.
Earlier this year America lost a true champion of liberty and
freedom, President Ronald Reagan. President Reagan effectively used the
framework of the OSCE to win the release of hundreds of political
prisoners and prisoners of conscience, facilitate the reunification of
thousands of divided families, and overcome repression for millions.
Mr. Chairman, the utility of the OSCE as an instrument for change
did not collapse under the rubble of the Berlin Wall, rather it has
gained access to new avenues to advance democracy and human rights,
enhance security, and secure a more prosperous future. As our nation
faces new challenges, the task is to use the OSCE more effectively and
creatively.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, Ranking Member,
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Mr. Chairman, let me take this moment to thank you for convening
this hearing on this subject at such an important and opportune time.
U.S. involvement in the OSCE has always been important to the
Organization and to our interests, from the earliest days of the
Helsinki process to the most recent meetings in Vienna and elsewhere.
U.S. participation in the OSCE was critical to the successful end of
the Cold War. Today, however, as the OSCE addresses issues such as
anti-Semitism, ending the slavery known as human trafficking, fighting
corruption and assisting the developing democracies of Afghanistan and
Iraq, our role and the need for U.S. participation has never been more
important. This hearing should provide a welcome vehicle for the State
Department to lay out its intended objectives for the United States on
these and other issues.
During the Annual Session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly held
in Edinburgh, Scotland, last July, I was re-elected as Chair of the
Committee on Economic Affairs, Science, Technology and Environment. I
will continue to work with my colleagues in the Assembly to develop
strategies that we, as parliamentarians, can pursue both in the
Assembly and in our own national parliaments to enhance economic
progress and environmental protection in the OSCE region. Clearly, our
work should also complement and support that of the OSCE and its
institutions, and I have consulted with Ambassador Stephan Minikes, the
U.S. Ambassador to the OSCE in Vienna, in this regard. I have also
consulted with our Commerce Department Helsinki Commissioner, Assistant
Secretary Bill Lash, regarding his views on economic challenges in the
region.
In Maastricht last December the participating States adopted the
OSCE Strategy Document for the Economic and Environmental Dimension. As
you know, this is the first major OSCE economic document since the
historic 1990 Bonn Document on Economic Cooperation and it calls, inter
alia, for combating money laundering, criminalizing the financing of
terrorism, strengthening the rule of law and enhancing transparency and
the adoption of a long-term strategy to combat corruption. July's
Edinburgh Declaration of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly calls on the
participating States to convene a meeting of Ministers of Justice and
the Interior to initiate the development of a comprehensive and long-
term anti-corruption strategy as stated in the Maastricht document.
Such a strategy must also include effective means to combat organized
crime, money laundering and the financing of terrorists--all
interconnected in the operation of transnational criminal
organizations.
It is my hope that the United States will work for the organization
of an inaugural meeting of OSCE Ministers of Justice, Interior and
Finance as well to initiate the development of such a strategy during
the upcoming Ministerial Meeting in Sofia, Bulgaria. I look forward to
hearing the views of our distinguished panel of witnesses in this
regard.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, Commissioner, Commission on
Security and Cooperation in Europe
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important and timely
hearing on U.S. Policy Towards the OSCE. As our nation engages in the
war against terror, it is vital that we use all avenues at our disposal
to address the very real threat facing our nation, the nations of
Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In addition, it is vital that
our nation builds and strengthens the relationships we have with
friends and allies around the world.
In order to focus on terrorism, and other important concerns facing
our world today, such as trafficking in persons and religious and
ethnic discrimination and persecution, the U.S. government needs to be
deeply involved in the various fora of which we are a party.
Unfortunately, the US government has not been as involved or present as
it could be--in the end that damages our relationships with other
nations. Over the last several decades, the Organization on Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has played an important role in
providing stability in volatile situations as well as additional
opportunities for diplomacy and the exploration of creative resolutions
to pressing issues. I have attended the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly the
past several years and have been impressed with the level of
participation from OSCE participating nations--however, the US presence
tends to be less than it could be--it has only been as strong as it has
due to the leadership of Chairman Chris Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman
for your very able, and strong leadership at the various OSCE meetings.
I would like to take this opportunity to urge the Administration to
engage even more fully in the OSCE and with OSCE participating states
and partners. Yesterday's Washington Post article and other media
outlets' reports reflect President Putin's new plans to deprive the
Russian people of their freedoms. The U.S. and other nations need to
engage with the Russians NOW. As they tragically did in Russia last
week, extremists are attempting to disrupt and dominate politics
throughout the world. While our response must be firm, it must also be
just. We cannot afford to compromise human rights for the sake of
security, or we play into the hands of the terrorist. OSCE nations must
not let the extremists and terrorists win.
Unfortunately, as governments crack down on terrorism, there are
many peaceful religious believers and citizens who are arrested by
officials. Now, more than ever, we must work to ensure that fundamental
human rights are protected. Now is the time to help national lawyers,
journalists, religious leaders, and others who seek to promote
democracy and freedom in their nations. We must support courageous
leaders who stand for freedom in the midst of fierce opposition from
secret security forces and official government pressure. Now is the
time for us to strengthen and build relationships with other nations,
to work together to bring safety, security and peace to our world.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from our
distinguished witnesses.
Prepared Statement of Secretary A. Elizabeth Jones
Senators, Congressmen: I am pleased to be here to discuss the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and its role
in furthering U.S. foreign policy objectives. Since we met last
September, the OSCE has made a major contribution toward promoting
democracy, peace and stability across Europe and Eurasia. The OSCE's
successes would not be possible without support from Members of
Congress. I want to thank you for your work through the Helsinki
Commission and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. They have been key to
building a consensus for our shared agenda among the legislatures and
publics of the OSCE's 55 participating states. Allow me to congratulate
Congressman Hastings on his election as President of the OSCE
Parliamentary Assembly. We greatly value his continued activism on OSCE
issues and the involvement of the parliamentary assembly in election
monitoring and other important work.
I share your enthusiasm for the OSCE and its work. The OSCE's
support for Georgia's democratic transition over the past year
demonstrates how the OSCE and its field missions contribute to creating
a democratic and stable Europe, a key U.S. foreign policy objective.
Strong U.S. leadership within the organization has advanced fundamental
objectives set forth in the President's National Security Strategy of
2002: to promote security through the development of democratic and
market-oriented societies, respect for human rights, and tolerance of
religious, national, ethnic and racial diversity.
The OSCE is crafting an ambitious agenda for the future, an agenda
the United States supports. With U.S. leadership, the OSCE is doing
more to promote human rights and democracy, to expand efforts to combat
anti-Semitism and intolerance, and to combat trafficking in persons.
This month, the OSCE will send its first election assistance team
outside Europe and Eurasia to Afghanistan for that country's historic
presidential elections.
Today, I would like to address in detail the OSCE's value to the
United States, the OSCE's recent accomplishments and plans for the
future, and calls to refocus and restructure the OSCE.
Value of the OSCE for the United States
U.S. participation in the OSCE advances U.S. interests in promoting
democracy, strengthening respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms, and advancing arms control, economic prosperity and
sustainable environmental policies. The OSCE also has a role to play in
helping to win the global war against terrorism, and it is a vehicle
for the kind of ``effective multilateralism'' of which President Bush
spoke last November in London. Promoting these interests collectively
through the OSCE allows the United States to share both costs and
political responsibility with other states and, at the same time, to
coordinate actions to avoid duplication and maximize success.
The United States continues to make effective use of the OSCE's
flexible and comprehensive approach to security, which recognizes human
rights, as well as economic and environmental issues as integral
factors in fostering security and stability. Common principles agreed
by consensus give the United States and other OSCE participating states
shared values and commitments on which to act. The OSCE can bring the
weight of 55 nations acting together to bear on problems that no one
nation can solve alone. Over the past year, the U.S. has again led the
way in proposing practical new issues for the OSCE agenda.
The OSCE has made a significant contribution in the post-Communist
era toward achieving America's goal of a free, whole, and peaceful
Europe, though much still needs to be done. The OSCE is adapting to new
challenges and providing models for addressing tough issues such as
intolerance, border management and destruction of Small Arms and Light
Weapons, models from which the United Nations and other international
organizations draw. At the same time, OSCE resources are modest. Any
new initiatives must represent the top priorities of the United States
and other participating states.
Assessment of Recent and Future OSCE Activities
The Chairman-in-Office plays a crucial role to the OSCE's success,
providing political direction while maintaining the organization's
flexibility. In 2003, The Netherlands set a commendable standard for
the conduct of the OSCE Chairmanship. This year, the United States is
working closely with the Bulgarian Chairman-in-Office. The Bulgarian
Chair has worked to implement decisions taken at the Maastricht
Ministerial and has been receptive to new ideas--many proposed by the
United States. We are looking forward to seeing these initiatives come
to fruition during the Sofia Ministerial in December and to working
with the Slovenian Chairmanship in 2005.
Among the OSCE's most important assets are its 17 field missions on
the front lines of democracy and human rights from the Balkans to
Central Asia. The U.S. strongly supports OSCE field work and believes
that the day-to-day efforts of OSCE missions are critical to promoting
OSCE commitments, especially democratic values and international human
right standards. Field missions work with host governments, non-
governmental organizations and the public to promote pluralism,
prosperity and peace. Their work is varied and complements the efforts
of U.S. and like-minded European embassies. In some countries, OSCE
field missions work with authorities to help them build the capacity to
govern more effectively (by training new generations of officials),
efficiently (by helping plan and implement administrative reforms) and
democratically (by helping to develop legislation, conduct elections
and encouraging civic participation in the political process). In other
countries, OSCE field missions are the linchpins for international
efforts at conflict prevention and post-conflict rehabilitation.
Fight Against Intolerance
OSCE's pioneering work in fighting racism, anti-Semitism and other
forms of intolerance has become the standard by which other
organizations' efforts--including those of the United Nations--are
measured. The OSCE's work on confronting the roots of intolerance,
strengthening respect for freedom of religion and speech, and providing
an environment free from fear of persecution or prejudice, are top
priorities for the U.S.
The Anti-Semitism Conference in Berlin in April was a spectacular
success. The political will harnessed by the Berlin Conference should
energize trans-Atlantic cooperation in tackling anti-Semitism and lead
to fruitful follow-up for years to come. We are indebted to the German
Government for hosting the Conference and to the Bulgarian Chairmanship
for its strong support. We are equally thankful to those Americans--the
NGO community and Chairman Chris Smith, Congressman Ben Cardin and
other Members of Congress--who, along with Secretary Powell and the
U.S. delegation led by Ed Koch, took part in the proceedings. The
Berlin Declaration, which stated that international developments or
political issues, including those in Israel or elsewhere in the Middle
East, never justify anti-Semitism, has become a blueprint for future
OSCE efforts to combat anti-Semitism. We look forward to the
Declaration and the action plan outlined in the April 22 Permanent
Council Decision on Combating Anti-Semitism being endorsed by Foreign
Ministers in Sofia.
The Conference on Racism, Xenophobia and Discrimination, which has
just concluded in Brussels, was equally successful in galvanizing
political will within the 55 OSCE participating states to step up
efforts to strengthen religious freedom and to combat intolerance. A
top notch U.S. delegation, led by Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development Alphonso Jackson, demonstrated the importance that the
United States attaches to this issue. The OSCE demonstrated its
commitment to further action by adopting a series of measures that, we
hope, will be endorsed at the Sofia Ministerial.
The Paris Meeting on the Relationship between Hate Speech on the
Internet and Hate Crime in June offered experts a chance to share views
on hate speech. The U.S. delegation, under the leadership of two
Assistant Attorneys General, advocated the need to continue to protect
freedom of expression and information and, simultaneously, to confront
and denounce the ideas of bigots in the marketplace of free ideas.
While some delegations differed on government regulation, there were
also broad areas of consensus about strengthening education on
combating bias-motivated speech and increasing training for
investigators and police to address bias-motivated crimes on the
Internet.
Next Steps in Combating Intolerance
The Berlin and Brussels conferences and the Paris meeting have laid
the foundation for an ambitious, long-term OSCE effort for dealing with
the roots of intolerance. At the two conferences, fifty-five nations
committed to collect hate crime statistics, share that information with
the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR),
strengthen education to combat intolerance and, consider increasing
training for law enforcement and judicial officials on hate crimes
legislation. ODIHR has been tasked to track incidents of intolerance
and anti-Semitism, report on its findings, and to disseminate best
practices for combating acts of intolerance. At the Paris meeting, the
U.S. put forward a ``Ten-Point Action Plan'' that could serve as a
basis for combating hate speech on the Internet while protecting
freedom of expression and information. We strongly support each of
these initiatives and will work to see that they are endorsed at the
Sofia Ministerial.
The success of these tolerance initiatives, of course, will depend
on their full implementation. There is much to be done: many OSCE
participating states do not have hate crime legislation or systems for
tracking hate crime, and ODIHR has had to start almost from scratch in
developing its new tolerance program. The U.S. believes that ODIHR is
the right institution within the OSCE for promoting tolerance. To
ensure that anti-Semitism receives the attention that it merits, we
support naming a Special Representative for Anti-Semitism provided this
position is resource neutral. This would be a senior person with a
mandate to travel and make recommendations. Our view is that such a
Special Representative should be modeled on the OSCE's Special
Representative for Central Asia with neither dedicated staff nor
salary.
Anti-Trafficking Efforts
As President Bush said before the United Nations General Assembly
last September, ``There is a special evil in the abuse and exploitation
of the most innocent, the most vulnerable of our fellow human beings..
And governments that tolerate this trade are tolerating a form of
slavery.'' I am pleased to report that, in response to the sustained
efforts of the Administration and the Helsinki Commission, the OSCE has
expanded its efforts in the fight against trafficking in human beings.
At last December's Maastricht Ministerial, ministers approved an Action
Plan on Trafficking and the creation of a Special Representative of the
Chairman-in-Office on Trafficking.
The criminal practice of trafficking is transnational, requiring
engagement with foreign governments and NGOs. The responsibility to
combat human trafficking lies first and foremost with individual
governments. But, no nation can fight this problem alone. The OSCE's
pan-European membership and broad range of tools can help build
practical transnational cooperation in the fight against trafficking.
The Maastricht Action Plan on combating trafficking in human beings
envisions police training, legislative advice, and other assistance,
which are already being provided by ODIHR and by the OSCE's 17 field
missions. As the new Special Representative for Trafficking and her
support unit advance their efforts, we expect they will provide the
framework and coordination to expand our combined efforts.
The OSCE has taken the lead in the international community in
establishing a strong code of conduct for its mission members to ensure
that they do not contribute to trafficking. We are pleased that NATO
and other international organizations are looking at OSCE policies as a
model to address this as well.
The OSCE has also crafted an economic component to its anti-
trafficking action plan. It is directed toward at-risk individuals in
source countries and at businesses that might be abused by traffickers
(hotels and tour operators exploiting the sex trade). The aim is to
reduce demand in destination countries by raising awareness about
trafficked laborers and sex industry workers.
Election Observations
This electoral year is a challenging one, even for an organization
with as much experience and capability as ODIHR. We commend ODIHR for
its excellent and impartial conduct of election observation missions in
Georgia, the Russian Federation, Macedonia, and Serbia and Montenegro.
I want to single out ODIHR's Herculean efforts in mobilizing resources
and personnel on short notice for two seminal national elections in
Georgia. ODIHR assisted with programs to organize presidential and
parliamentary elections and to provide robust election observation
missions that documented notable progress over previous elections.
ODIHR's election observation methodology, based on sound,
standardized criteria applied in an objective fashion, enjoys world
respect. Upcoming elections in Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus will be
key tests of those countries' commitment to democracy. The degree to
which these elections are judged to be free and fair will be a critical
element for the international community. The ODIHR monitoring missions
will play an important role in determining their fairness and we call
on all countries in the region to fully support all of ODIHR's election
observation and other democracy promoting activities.
Afghanistan is an OSCE Partner for Cooperation and has scheduled
its historic first presidential elections for October. The U.S. and
other OSCE participating states, three of which share a border with
Afghanistan, have a direct interest in seeing democracy, peace and
stability take root there. We have strongly supported an OSCE
observation role in the upcoming Afghan elections to respond to
requests from the Afghan authorities and the UN. The U.S. will
contribute to the election support team efforts, and hope others will
match our financial support for ODIHR election activities.
To set an example of transparency, we have again invited ODIHR to
send an election observation mission to the U.S. for the November
elections. U.S. invitations to ODIHR to observe our elections are part
of a longstanding policy. In 1990, the CSCE, the OSCE's predecessor,
held a landmark conference to promote human rights. The U.S. and the
participating states agreed at that conference to the Copenhagen
Document, which included a commitment to invite observers from other
participating states to observe national elections. The U.S. was a
major advocate of that commitment, since the Berlin Wall had just
fallen and many nations were about to hold their first real elections
in decades. OSCE participating states reaffirmed this commitment at the
OSCE's 1999 Istanbul Summit.
In accordance with this commitment, the U.S. has set an example by
inviting ODIHR to observe several past U.S. elections. We believe that
election observers from emerging democracies, like the former Communist
states of Eastern Europe, who participate in observation missions in
the U.S. and other longstanding democracies become more powerful
advocates of better election practices in their own countries. ODIHR
has monitored two U.S. elections and other established democracies,
including the United Kingdom and France, have also hosted ODIHR
election missions. We expect each member country to adhere to these
principles.
Conflict Prevention/Resolution and Turkmenistan and Belarus
The OSCE also plays a critical role in the so-called frozen
conflicts, as well as in a few states of concern.
Moldova and Transnistria
The OSCE, and in particular the OSCE Mission in Moldova, are
working to find long-term solutions to the situation in the breakaway
region of Transnistria. The U.S. strongly supports the work of the OSCE
in Moldova, which forms part of our own strategy--as well as that of
the EU--for finding a peaceful resolution which respects the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of Moldova. The situation in
Transnistria has deteriorated significantly. The Tiraspol authorities
have prolonged their forcible closure and harassment of Latin-script-
language schools. They denied the OSCE Mission freedom of movement and
refused to allow the OSCE and UNICEF to deliver supplies to an
orphanage.
Through the OSCE, we have strongly condemned these actions, and
reiterated our demand that the Transnistrians reopen the schools
immediately and restore the normal movement of people and goods. The
U.S. and the EU have added more Transnistrian officials directly
involved with the Latin-script-language school crisis to our visa bans.
Russia's engagement is also critical. We have urged the Russian
Government to make more of an effort to use its influence with the
Transnistrian leadership.
The United States has urged all sides to work transparently with
the OSCE to make concrete progress toward a political settlement. We
support proposals for international monitoring of the Transnistrian
segment of the Moldova-Ukraine border and for an international
conference on the Transnistrian conflict. We have also urged the
Russian Federation to resume, in cooperation with the OSCE, its
withdrawal of arms and ammunition from the region. None of these steps,
and certainly no bilateral efforts by individual nations, can
substitute for a genuine commitment by all the mediators and the
parties to work within the framework of the five-sided talks
facilitated by the OSCE. Only through the close cooperation of the
international community, including the OSCE, will we reach such a
resolution. Transparency in this process is in everyone's interests.
Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia
The OSCE Mission to Georgia is another example of how the OSCE is
contributing to the President's vision for a Europe whole, free and at
peace. We welcome the constructive roles played by the OSCE and its
field mission there. The United States supports a peaceful resolution
of the South Ossetian conflict that respects the territorial integrity
of Georgia. Tensions in South Ossetia escalated in August, but ended
with a ceasefire and withdrawal of excess Georgian troops. We have
called on all sides to respect all existing agreements and to refrain
from carrying out any further military activities in or near the zone
of conflict. Recent tensions underscore the need for the sides to move
forward with OSCE participation toward demilitarization and a political
settlement.
Progress toward a political settlement of the Abkhaz conflict is
stalled, with the Abkhaz side withdrawing from the negotiating process
in July. As we urge the parties to resume progress toward a settlement,
we need to use the OSCE mission in Georgia to further assist the
government and the people to concentrate on democratic institution
building and economic reform. We believe that the OSCE Border
Monitoring Operation should continue beyond the expiration of its
mandate in December.
Adapted CFE and Fulfillment of Istanbul Commitments
Regarding the Adapted Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, we
welcomed the Russian Duma's ratification as an indication that Russia
shares with the United States and NATO Allies a commitment to CFE.
However, the most important step Russia could take to move the Adapted
CFE Treaty closer to entry into force is fulfillment of its Istanbul
commitments on withdrawal of forces from Georgia and Moldova. Almost
five years after the OSCE's Istanbul Summit in 1999, Moscow still has
not met those commitments. Russia should complete withdrawal of its
military forces from Moldova as soon as possible. Russia needs to reach
agreement with the Georgian Government on the withdrawal timetable for
its remaining forces on Georgian territory. Only when Russia fulfills
its Istanbul commitments will the U.S. and its NATO Allies will be
prepared to move forward with ratification of the Adapted CFE Treaty.
Kosovo
The March events in Kosovo remind us that the work of the OSCE's
largest field mission remains critical to developing the foundation for
the democratic, multi-cultural civil society in Kosovo that the United
States wants to see. The OSCE is helping Kosovo implement the UN
Security Council-endorsed Standards for Kosovo, which are strongly
supported by the U.S., and prepare for the mid-2005 Review Date by
helping to build democratic institutions and promote human rights. The
U.S. has made the conduct of free and fair Kosovo elections this Fall a
priority, sending some of our best people to staff OSCE election work
there. Participation by all the people of Kosovo--ethnic Albanians,
Serbs and all other minorities--will be vital to Kosovo's future. We
also continue to support the excellent work of the Kosovo Police
Service School. In light of the ongoing security concerns in Kosovo, we
envision a further role for the OSCE in police training.
Turkmenistan
In Turkmenistan, the expulsion of OSCE Head of Mission Ambassador
Badescu was a grave disappointment. Ambassador Badescu and her staff
have labored under difficult circumstances to try to keep a line to the
outside world open for the people of that country and to engage
constructively with Turkmen authorities. The OSCE is the only
organization in which Turkmenistan is a full member that is present on
the ground in Ashgabat offering the government and people opportunities
for concrete cooperation to build a democratic future.
Belarus
In Belarus, we are gravely concerned by the government's
intensified campaign that restricts citizens from exercising basic
human rights freely, such as the right to assemble, speak and study
independently of government control. We welcomed the invitation from
Belarusian authorities to observe parliamentary elections this fall,
but have made it clear that ODIHR must be given full access in order to
render an objective evaluation of any election. Furthermore, given the
government of Belarus' persistent violations of human rights and
democracy, President Lukashenko's recent decree calling for a
referendum to eliminate institutional term limits for the presidency
and allow him to run again for president in 2006 raises grave doubts
whether the results will freely and fairly reflect the views of the
Belarusian people. We reiterate our call upon the Government of Belarus
to ensure that the Belarusian people are able to debate, vote and have
their votes counted according to international democratic standards on
October 17 and thereafter by taking immediate steps to uphold Belarus'
international democracy and human rights commitments. We will view any
election and referendum that does not meet international democratic
standards as another attempt to manipulate democratic procedures and
the Belarusian Constitution in contravention of democratic principles.
The U.S. strongly supports the OSCE Office in Minsk in its attempts
to help Belarusian authorities meet broader OSCE commitments and non-
governmental groups to work for the benefit of the country. While the
attitude of authorities toward the OSCE has been disappointing, the
OSCE Mission is reaching out to the next generation, helping prepare it
to play a responsible role in the future.
OSCE Adaptation to New Economic and Security Challenges
At last December's Maastricht Ministerial, the OSCE adopted a
strategy to address threats to security and stability in the 21st
century and an economic strategy to define concrete action in the
``Post-Post Cold War era.'' These strategies are examples of the OSCE
responding to new economic and political-military security challenges.
At the same time, the OSCE has promoted practical cooperation to assist
participating states in combating terrorism, improving police and
border management, controlling the availability of small arms and light
weapons, and coping with the task of securing or destroying excess
stockpiles of weapons and ammunition, as well as MANPADs.
Energizing the Economic Dimension
The Economic Strategy Document adopted in Maastricht focuses on
steps to improve good governance and transparency to maximize the
benefits of economic integration and globalization. This should advance
our overall strategy for integration of all European and Eurasian
states into the global economy. With the Strategy Document as a tool,
OSCE field missions and the Secretariat are developing activities and
are working with participating states to continue with anti-money
laundering and anti-terrorist financing work.
On the environment, the OSCE has worked with partner organizations
to map environmental hot spots and to work regionally to address
environmental problems that could cause friction between states. One of
the most successful programs took place in Georgia, Armenia and
Azerbaijan where, despite political tensions, scientists and others
worked productively together. This is an excellent example of the
OSCE's ability to bring states together to work on issues of mutual
concern, where the exercise itself serves as a confidence building
measure.
Counter-terrorism
The United States has worked to have OSCE fill niches in the
international community's response to terrorism. The OSCE Action
against Terrorism Unit has worked to bring all 55 participating states
towards compliance with UN counter-terrorism commitments. There has
been major progress by all participating states to ratify and accede to
the 12 UN terrorism-related Conventions, as well as on a U.S.
initiative to bring ``the 55'' into compliance with recommendations of
the OECD Financial Action Task Force to combat money-laundering and
terrorist financing.
The Maastricht Decision on Travel Document Security launched a
major OSCE effort that helps U.S. and international efforts to close
doors to terrorists. The OSCE's seminar on Travel Document Security was
a success in increasing awareness on assistance available to help
participating states meet the deadlines for implementing stricter
issuance procedures for travel documents and for converting to machine-
readable passports.
We were pleased with the Second Annual Security Review Conference.
This year's conference both reviewed the implementation of security
commitments and considered new ideas. Department of Homeland Security
Deputy Secretary Admiral Loy's address to the session laid the
groundwork for a series of measures that participating states will, we
hope, endorse in the coming months. Admiral Loy urged the OSCE to join
the U.S. in making a commitment to share information on lost and stolen
passports through Interpol's database, a natural complement to the OSCE
Travel Document Security decision adopted in Maastricht. He also
proposed that OSCE members take steps to tighten security on container
shipments.
Border Management and Security
The work that the OSCE has launched to follow-up to last year's
Ohrid Balkan Border Conference, including training for border officials
from Balkan countries, is an impressive start to facilitate secure and
free flows of people and goods--a key objective of the U.S. Homeland
Security Strategy. The United States has strongly encouraged the OSCE
to increase its cooperation with other international organizations
where it can best provide value-added training and expertise--a central
part of the development of an OSCE border management and security
concept. In order to promote coordination, the U.S. took the lead in
proposing and defining the parameters for the UN Office on Drugs and
Crime-OSCE Border Conference, which took place in Vienna September 7-8.
The OSCE does not coordinate assistance, but it can bring together
donors to avoid duplication and help to build political support to
address border issues among participating states.
Under U.S. leadership, the Forum for Security Cooperation (FSC) has
played a positive role as an instrument of the Political-Military
Dimension of the OSCE. The FSC made a significant step forward in
combating terrorism when it adopted stricter export controls on Man
Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS) in May. There is much more to be
gained as participating states share their experience and best
practices on effective implementation of stricter MANPADS controls. The
FSC also established principles governing End-Use Certification of
small arms and light weapons. Now that work is completed, the FSC is
turning to another important initiative--to establishing principles to
govern the brokering of small arms and light weapons, an idea that came
out of an Economic Dimension seminar on trafficking in arms,
demonstrating the value of OSCE's cross-dimensional work. The OSCE's
work in this area includes on-the-ground assistance to Belarus under
the provisions of the OSCE Document on Small Arms and Light Weapons.
The Cold War left a legacy of excess conventional munitions and
weapons, particularly in the countries of the former Soviet Union. The
U.S. supports OSCE efforts to destroy these excess stockpiles. The OSCE
has already received requests from three participating states for
assistance in dealing with excess munitions: Belarus, Ukraine and
Russia. The development and execution of these projects represent a
major task ahead for the OSCE.
Policing
Police training is another area of increased OSCE activity,
particularly in Central Asia. The OSCE's objective, which the U.S.
supports, is to help individual states put in place training and
oversight programs that protect citizens while safeguarding their
rights and freedoms. Building on the success of training in the
Balkans, the OSCE's Special Police Matters Unit has stepped up its
efforts with assessment missions to Central Asia and a proposal on
conducting OSCE police training in the Georgian conflict areas of
Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The Special Police Matters Unit has been
active in Kyrgyzstan, where the U.S. has supported the establishment of
a police academy. The U.S. supports the work of the Special Police
Matters Unit, and we look forward to greater transparency and tighter
financial oversight of its fieldwork.
Outreach
The U.S. supports demand-driven, practical OSCE outreach activities
to deepen security cooperation with its partners, whom we encourage to
commit voluntarily to implementing OSCE principles and commitments. A
first step would be to add substance to the relationship with the OSCE
Mediterranean Partners for Cooperation (Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan,
Morocco and Tunisia), perhaps through ad hoc seminars on human rights
and democracy. The OSCE's Action Against Terrorism Unit is also working
to organize briefings for the Mediterranean Partners, to encourage them
to come into compliance voluntarily with OSCE counter-terrorism
commitments. The U.S. does not favor creation of an OSCE-like structure
in the Middle East. We do support indigenous reform efforts in the
broader Middle East through the G-8 and bilaterally, in concert with
the EU.
Sofia Ministerial
The Sofia Ministerial will take place in December, and the U.S. is
working for a practical agenda focused on our top policy priorities. We
hope to reach agreement within the OSCE on further steps to combat
anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia and discrimination, agreement on the
role the OSCE can play on gender issues, and additional measures in the
fight against terrorism. At Sofia, the U.S. will again strongly urge
Russia to fulfill its Istanbul commitments. We expect to adopt an OSCE
border concept, and to endorse OSCE work on shipping container
security, small arms and light weapons, MANPADS, and the destruction of
excess stockpiles of ammunition and weapons.
There is one major problem that we hope to resolve by the time of
the Sofia ministerial, namely how the OSCE funds itself. A debate has
begun about revision of the OSCE's two scales of assessment. Russia,
supported by some countries, is seeking a dramatic reduction in its
contributions to the OSCE. In our view, proposals to reduce
contributions radically cannot be the basis for the kind of serious
discussions that are needed among OSCE participating states. The U.S.
stands behind the criteria for adjustment of the scales adopted in 2001
and 2002--ceilings and floors on contributions based on capacity to
pay. All participating states benefit from the OSCE and all use the
organization to advance their national interests. The OSCE achieves
results at a comparatively modest cost. We hope that other
participating states will adopt responsible approaches and negotiate
constructively on this issue in order to avert a budget crisis. We note
that the OSCE budget process has improved markedly over the past
several years. Systems have been put in place to track budget
allocations and expenditures more efficiently, providing more
transparency and accountability.
The Sofia Ministerial will also consider the appointment of a new
Secretary General to succeed Jan Kubis, who has served ably since 1999.
The Secretary General plays a critical role in managing the OSCE, and
the U.S. is committed to ensuring that his replacement is the best
possible candidate. We welcome your suggestions for potential
candidates.
Strengthening OSCE to Deal with Challenges Ahead
Bulgarian Chairman-in-Office Passy and others have suggested
initiatives to strengthen the OSCE to meet the challenges ahead. Some
of these initiatives, such as Foreign Minister Passy's idea to move the
annual human rights and economic dimension meetings, are good ideas
that the United States supports.
Proposals that the OSCE Secretary General should be changed to give
the position more of a political role, however, need careful
consideration. The Secretary General manages OSCE operations. Political
leadership is vested in the rotating Chairman-in-Office, an arrangement
that the U.S. supports. We are concerned that changing the balance
between the Secretary General and the Chairman-in-Office could change
the fundamental nature of the organization. It is essential to preserve
the strengths that have set the OSCE apart from other international
organizations. Specifically, the OSCE's flexibility, which the
Chairman-in-Office system has done much to enhance by minimizing
central control and streamlining bureaucracy, has allowed the
organization to respond to problems creatively and effectively.
Russia and the other Commonwealth of Independent States also have
called for changes at the OSCE, most notably in a July statement that
was highly critical of the OSCE's field operations and ODIHR. We note
that the U.S. has supported efforts by Russia and others to strengthen
work in the OSCE's economic/environmental and political-security
dimensions. For example, the U.S. has worked closely with Russia on
crafting the OSCE Strategy to Address Security to Stability in the 21st
Century, adopted by ministers at the Maastricht Ministerial. The
Economic Strategy adopted at the Maastricht was also a Russian
initiative supported by the U.S.
The U.S., however, remains steadfast that the OSCE's core mission
is helping to foster democratic change, and that two of the OSCE's
greatest strengths are its field missions and ODIHR. By helping
strengthen democratic institutions and civil societies, OSCE field
presences help to defeat the underlying causes of instability.
The July CIS statement's claim is factually inaccurate that
political dialogue on democracy and human rights are internal affairs
of the concerned states. The CSCE Moscow Document of 1991 states: ``The
participating states emphasize that issues relating to human rights,
fundamental freedoms, democracy and the rule of law are of
international concern, as respect for these rights and freedoms
constitutes one of the foundations of the international order. They
categorically and irrevocably declare that the commitments undertaken
in the field of the human dimension of the CSCE are matters of direct
and legitimate concern to all participating states and do not belong
exclusively to the internal affairs of the State concerned.''
Conclusions
The bottom line remains that the OSCE has been a successful vehicle
for managing security challenges over the past three decades. Its
record of achievements over the past year is impressive, from Georgia
election monitoring to the Berlin anti-Semitism conference; from
tougher travel document security commitments to a new Special
Representative on Trafficking. The year ahead promises to be just as
challenging and diverse, from Afghanistan election monitoring to
tougher measures to combat intolerance.
The value of the OSCE to achieving U.S. foreign policy objectives
is clear. In promoting democratic development and respect for human
rights, the OSCE is second to none. On economic development, the OSCE
promotes good governance and helps countries put systems in place to
fight corruption. On political-military issues such as the fight
against terrorism, border security, small arms and light weapons, and
excess stockpiles, the OSCE fills crucial niche gaps. It has proven to
be an effective diplomatic tool that complements our bilateral
diplomatic and assistance efforts throughout Europe and Eurasia.
The OSCE does face new challenges ahead, both in its missions and
in its ability to adapt to changing circumstances. The U.S. will
continue to work with its partners within the OSCE to advance the
shared objectives of the trans-Atlantic community. Thank you.
Prepared Statement of Secretary Stephen G. Rademaker
Mister Chairman, distinguished members of the Helsinki Commission,
I would like to build on the information just presented by my
colleague, Assistant Secretary Beth Jones, by addressing, in a bit more
detail, some of the security issues facing the OSCE today. I will focus
on some of the work being done in the OSCE's Forum for Security
Cooperation, or FSC, highlighting the role played by the U.S.
Chairmanship of the FSC in late 2003.
Let me mention a few of the security issues we are looking at. Arms
control, disarmament and confidence- and security-building measures, or
CSBMs; security dialog; Code of Conduct; non-proliferation; terrorism;
small arms and light weapons; ammunition stockpiles; MANPADS. Some of
these are very familiar to Commission members, as they were addressed
by the Helsinki Final Act. Others reflect new concerns in the 21st
century. But all are part of the FSC agenda.
Since the FSC was established by the 1992 Helsinki Summit to
strengthen security and stability within the OSCE community of states
it has done just that. Its work program and the fundamental tasks
outlined therein reflect the FSC's commitment to transparency and
stability in the traditional political-military sphere of security,
where conventional armed forces are involved or affected. The challenge
for the political-military dimension in recent years has been to
broaden the scope of work to be able to address the range of threats
and security issues facing us in the 21st century while, at the same
time, complementing the work of the OSCE's Permanent Council in these
areas. Let me describe how the FSC is facing both of these aspects
under its responsibility.
One enduring legacy of the political-military dimension of the OSCE
is the range of CSBMs in place in Europe and Eurasia today. The first
such measures date back to Basket One of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act,
and the most recent are set forth in the Vienna Document 1999.
Implementation of arms control agreements and CSBMs is not a single
event frozen in time; it requires constant nurturing and attention.
OSCE is a forum designed to provide that enduring attention.
Delegations are encouraged to raise implementation issues during FSC
meetings, which take place weekly. In addition, the FSC holds annually
in March an Implementation Assessment Meeting to review the record of
implementation of the Vienna Document and other OSCE security
commitments.
The record of implementation and discussions during these annual
meetings shows that the Vienna Document 1999 is functioning well and is
effectively fulfilling its intended purpose of providing a useful
mechanism to enhance transparency and build confidence among the
participating states. You are aware that the range of measures in the
Vienna Document allows OSCE states to share information about the size
of their military forces and defense budgets, and also provides an
opportunity to show how some of those forces operate. The underlying
premise of these CSBMs, of course, is that transparency about another
state's military forces and activities will allow states to avoid
possible misinterpretations regarding those forces. We see the success
of these measures in their continued, and increased, implementation
each year. More states are now conducting Vienna Document inspections
and evaluation visits--and not just those countries we think of as
traditional arms control states. Just last week, for instance, Albania
conducted an inspection in Sweden. The continued importance of
maintaining a level of transparency about military forces is reflected
in the institution of a number of regional and bilateral arrangements
within the OSCE region that complement the Vienna Document by providing
for more extensive exchanges of information and additional verification
opportunities.
The Vienna Document 1999 and other OSCE documents and commitments
deal with the whole OSCE area and all OSCE states. However, some
documents of key importance for military security in Europe were
adopted by--and apply only to--some of the OSCE participating States.
This is the case with the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in
Europe, or CFE, and the Treaty on Open Skies. While implementation of
these two Treaties is discussed in fora outside of the OSCE, OSCE
states have long recognized that vigorous implementation of this type
of security agreement can have a positive impact on overall security
and stability in Europe, not just the security of those states that are
parties to these agreements. Accordingly, OSCE member States regularly
address the importance of these two treaties in Ministerial and Summit
declarations.
Let me focus briefly on CFE. You will recall that the CFE Treaty,
signed in November 1990, established parity in major conventional
forces and armaments between East and West--that is, between NATO and
the Warsaw Pact--from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountains. In
November 1999, the 30 CFE States Parties signed the Agreement on
Adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe at the
OSCE Istanbul Summit. A/CFE, as we refer to the Adaptation Agreement,
would supercede the CFE Treaty to take account of the evolving European
geo-strategic environment and the end of the Cold War. Following entry
into force of the Agreement on Adaptation, other OSCE participating
States with territory in the geographic area between the Atlantic Ocean
and the Ural Mountains will be able to apply for accession to the
Treaty.
At the time A/CFE was signed, Russia made certain commitments to
withdraw military forces and equipment from Georgia and Moldova.
Specifically, Russia promised at Istanbul to withdraw its CFE treaty-
limited equipment, or TLE, from Moldova by the end of 2001 and its
forces from Moldova by the end of 2002. With regard to Georgia, Russia
promised to withdraw or destroy CFE TLE in Georgia in excess of agreed
levels by the end of 2000, to withdraw from and disband two military
bases (Vaziani and Gudauta) by July 2001, and to negotiate with Georgia
the duration and modalities of other Russian military bases (Batumi and
Akhalkalaki) and facilities.
The United States and our NATO Allies, as well as a number of other
Treaty partners, have agreed that we will not move to ratify A/CFE
until Russia fulfills its Istanbul Summit commitments regarding
withdrawal of its forces from Georgia and Moldova. Recognizing the
magnitude of this undertaking, the OSCE agreed to establishment of a
voluntary fund in order to help with the costs associated with the
Russian military withdrawal. As I'm sure you are aware, the Unite
States has contributed significantly to this fund.
Unfortunately, after nearly five years and despite this assistance
from the international community, Russia has not yet met its Istanbul
commitments. Russia needs to complete withdrawal of its military forces
from Moldova as soon as possible and to reach agreement with the
Georgian Government on the withdrawal of its remaining forces on
Georgian territory. Russia remains eager to bring the A/CFE agreement
into force, as evidenced by the Russian State Duma's approval in June
of a bill ratifying A/CFE--which was signed into law by President Putin
on July 19th. We anticipate that Russia will formally deposit its
instrument of ratification of A/CFE in the near future, and then
reinvigorate efforts to persuade other CFE states parties to do
likewise. Our position is clear, however: there is no shortcut to entry
into force of the A/CFE agreement that does not involve full
implementation by Russia of the Istanbul commitments. We will continue
to urge NATO states to remain firm in pressing for Russian fulfillment
of its obligations and to withdraw its forces from both Georgia and
Moldova, and we will continue working with the OSCE and other partners
to facilitate such withdrawal.
In addition to reviewing implementation of the Vienna Document 1999
and relevant security agreements, the FSC has played a role in
developing norms and standards with respect to the political-military
dimension. The most significant of these is the Code of Conduct on
Politico-Military Aspects of Security adopted by the 1994 Budapest
Summit. The Code describes the proper role of the armed forces in a
democracy, including civilian control, the necessity for transparency
and public access to information related to the armed forces, and the
importance of adherence to international humanitarian law. Each year at
the FSC, OSCE states provide information on their implementation of the
Code of Conduct. This FSC work on the Code of Conduct is augmented by
seminars and other events conducted by the OSCE Secretariat and
individual states--typically in southeast Europe, Central Asia and the
Caucasus--to promote adherence to the principles contained in the Code
of Conduct.
The FSC continues to execute effectively its tasks related to
conventional armed forces. A significant level of transparency already
has been achieved, but this does not mean we no longer need these
tools. In fact, the continued successful implementation of these
measures provides a fundamental support for the existing stability
among OSCE states. The biggest challenge for the FSC in recent years
has been to find a way to address new threats and issues while still
addressing these ``traditional'' responsibilities. It was against this
backdrop that the U.S. took its turn as Chairman of the FSC from
September through December 2003.
A major focus of work in the OSCE last fall was development of the
OSCE's Strategy to Address Threats to Security and Stability in the
Twenty-First Century, approved at the Maastricht Ministerial last
December. In considering the political-military dimension for
development of that Strategy, we emphasized the need to broaden the
FSC's focus to incorporate new threats and challenges into its already
established arms control and CSBM portfolio. The reasons why are
simple. Traditional arms control and CSBM measures address inter-state
relations and the lawfully constituted armed forces of those states.
However, the new threats to security and stability we face in the OSCE
region tend to be of an entirely different character: threats posed by
non-state actors, threats emerging outside the OSCE region and exported
into it, and threats which are generally not of a conventional military
nature, but rather threats of terrorism, proliferation, or organized
crime. One could say that we have entered a period in the OSCE when the
threats on our borders have diminished, but increasingly we have no
borders on our threats.
Building on the work of the OSCE to frame its new Strategy
document, the U.S. wanted to enhance the security dialog task of the
FSC to broaden the Forum's focus during our chairmanship. The advantage
of the security dialog function is that it allows the FSC to thoroughly
explore and discuss a topic with no predetermined expectation of
follow-up action, such as agreement on new measures. As a result, the
FSC can frame the dialog, as appropriate, for any particular topic. The
U.S. Mission, working closely with Washington agencies, used our
Chairmanship to reinvigorate the security dialog and make it a more
useful tool for the OSCE. We focused on three areas that would address
U.S. security concerns and help OSCE participating states as well: non-
proliferation, the man-portable air defense systems--or MANPADS--
threat, and Civil-Military Emergency Preparedness.
First, non-proliferation. During our Chairmanship, and working with
subsequent FSC Chairman, the U.S. arranged for a number of sessions
that allowed OSCE states to be made aware of the risks, challenges and
on-going efforts to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. Representatives from the International Atomic Energy
Agency, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and the OSCE
Actions against Terrorism Unit were among those providing insights into
the non-proliferation activities of other international organizations.
The FSC does not want to impede these ongoing efforts in any way, but
remains seized of the issue in order to determine whether and how it
can contribute to non-proliferation activities already undertaken by
others.
Second, MANPADS. The FSC has led OSCE efforts to address the threat
from MANPADS. In 2003, the OSCE took action in response to the G-8
decision at its meeting at Evian, France, regarding effective and
comprehensive controls for MANPADS. The FSC called upon participating
states to use existing mechanisms under the OSCE Document on Small Arms
and Light Weapons--or SALW--to destroy excess MANPADS and to ensure
their security and avoid illicit transfers. In 2004, the FSC continued
its search for a meaningful contribution to address the MANPADS threat.
The result of these efforts was adoption by the OSCE of the Wassenaar
Arrangement's Elements for Export Controls of MANPADS. This action by
the OSCE almost doubled the number of countries that had agreed to
apply these stringent controls on MANPADS. The membership of the OSCE
permits it to make a unique contribution to global security
initiatives. Sometimes, as was the case with export controls for
MANPADS, the OSCE can build on work done by smaller or specialized
organizations, resulting in a wider application of valuable agreements.
At other times, the OSCE can build on global initiatives, adding
European/Eurasian specificity and setting an example for other regions.
As with non-proliferation, the FSC will keep MANPADS on its agenda and
continue to search for further contributions.
Third is the issue of Civil-Military Emergency Preparedness. Under
U.S. Chairmanship, the FSC hosted a day-long discussion on this topic
which is increasingly important in today's world. Under Secretary Brown
of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security provided the keynote
presentation. A rich array of speakers from the UN, NATO, the EU and a
number of countries elaborated on their programs and suggested ways in
which the OSCE might play a non-duplicative role. The goal of this
particular dialog session was to share information and expose OSCE
delegations to the range of issues associated with emergency
preparedness--in other words, to provide transparency. Delegations
welcomed the straightforward approach of the participants and did not
worry about trying to devise new OSCE standards. It is possible that
related discussions may occur at a later time in the FSC, but nothing
is currently on the agenda. Bringing this topic to the security dialog
demonstrated a key aspect of the FSC's security dialog: knowledgeable
experts may engage in substantive discussion in a setting that may or
may not lead to follow-on activity.
Before concluding, let me turn to yet another aspect of the work of
the FSC with the potential for tangible results.
You may recall that in November 2000, the FSC adopted the OSCE
Document on Small Arms and Light Weapons. As with several other FSC
documents, this one establishes norms and standards for the OSCE
states, as well as transparency measures related to exchanges of
information. In 2003, the FSC endorsed voluntary contributions by a
number of participating States to produce eight ``best practice
guides'' to elaborate on specific aspects of the Small Arms Document.
For ease of use, these guides were published as a single reference
document, the OSCE Handbook of Best Practices on Small Arms and Light
Weapons, which is available in all six OSCE languages.
At present, the FSC continues work to enhance the standards set by
the Small Arms Document, with the immediate focus on establishing
common standards for end-user certificates when exporting small arms
and light weapons. This will greatly improve the ability of OSCE states
to verify the end-use and end-user of any exported small arms.
Initiated by the U.S., the actual proposal before the FSC was co-
sponsored by Russia, Turkey, Hungary and Finland (representing the
European Union), demonstrating the widespread interest among OSCE
states in building on the standards set by the Small Arms Document. A
related task on the FSC agenda is to establish principles to govern the
brokering of small arms and light weapons. Illicit brokering is
recognised as among the main factors facilitating the illegal trade in
small arms and light weapons around the world. Only some 20 countries
worldwide have national legislation in place in this field. Development
of this set of principles by the FSC will enhance existing initiatives
and efforts at the national, regional and global levels and allow for
increased international cooperation in preventing, combating and
eradicating illicit brokering in small arms and light weapons.
Another key element of the OSCE Small Arms Document is that it
provides a basis for the OSCE, through the Permanent Council and the
FSC, to respond to requests for assistance on a range of small arms
issues, such as security and management of stockpiles, disposal of
small arms, and border controls to reduce illicit trafficking in small
arms. The FSC developed a plan of action for responding to such
requests that was subsequently endorsed by the Permanent Council. With
this procedure in place, OSCE states have begun to request OSCE
assistance in destroying and controlling excess small arms. A request
from Belarus in 2003 resulted in the visit of an OSCE assessment team
to Minsk to determine the viability of an OSCE small arms project
there. Despite Belarus' lamentable human rights record, the U.S.
decided to participate in this assessment visit and use it as an
opportunity to advance efforts to control (and destroy excess) MANPADS.
A project team is being organized to begin work on a specific project
plan for Belarus, and we are making every effort to ensure that its
mandate includes destruction of MANPADS. In the meantime, the OSCE will
begin to examine the latest request for small arms assistance--received
from Tajikistan in July of this year.
A major accomplishment of the U.S. Chairmanship of the FSC in 2003
was completion of its work on the OSCE Document on Stockpiles of
Conventional Ammunition. As you know, there are huge quantities of
excess munitions remaining from the end of the Cold War, mainly in the
countries of the former Soviet Union. Following on its work with small
arms, the FSC was the obvious body to address the security risk arising
from stockpiles of conventional ammunition, explosive material and
detonating devices in surplus and/or awaiting destruction in the OSCE
area. The OSCE Stockpiles Document, as it is more commonly known,
establishes a mechanism that allows participating States to request
international assistance to either destroy or better manage and secure
these stockpiles. The Stockpiles Document is the newest tool in our box
and emphasizes the FSC's interest in finding concrete and practical
solutions to ongoing security issues in the OSCE region. The OSCE has
already received requests for assistance under the Stockpiles Document
from four states: Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and Tajikistan. A special
experts meeting will be held in Vienna later this month to gain more
insights into the precise assistance being requested and to examine
options of coordinating with other international organizations to
provide assistance.
I'd like to come back once again to the CSBMs contained in the
Vienna Document 1999. Time and time again we hear from other parts of
the global community about the importance of establishing and
maintaining a secure environment based on trust, especially with regard
to military forces and activities. Often, the Vienna Document 1999 is
specifically cited for its comprehensive system of transparency
measures. Two of the OSCE's Partners for Cooperation, Korea and Japan,
have demonstrated their belief that Asia has something to learn from
the OSCE. They have both held seminars on security issues that provided
a focused review of Vienna Document 1999 CSBMs and their possible
applicability to Asia, the most recent of which took place last March
in Tokyo.
We in the State Department recognize the value our OSCE experience
brings to questions related to regional security. Until earlier this
year, the Political-Military Affairs Bureau was charged with promoting
CSBMs and regional security issues for other parts of the world. We
have now brought that function to the Arms Control Bureau. Close
coordination within the Bureau allows us to capitalize on the
experience of our OSCE experts as we pursue CSBMs elsewhere in the
world.
Mister Chairman, the Forum for Security Cooperation, like all other
bodies in the OSCE, is a consensus body. This naturally limits what any
one country can accomplish, especially when we consider the range of
views held in an organization of 55 members. The OSCE--and, by
extension, the FSC--is fundamentally about politically binding norms
and standards. It has no enforcement capability.
But, the FSC remains a useful forum for the United States. In
addition to the norms, standards and measures the FSC has established,
it offers a venue for its 55 members to discuss--in open forum or in
smaller groups--issues of national interest. That, in and of itself, is
a valuable confidence- and security-building measure. I hope I have
been able to show you that as a result of the U.S. Chairmanship in the
autumn of 2003, the work of the FSC has been broadened to encompass
some key U.S. security interests. I have every expectation that we can
continue to address U.S. security interests in the FSC, as it is clear
that these topics are also vitally important to the other members of
the OSCE.
Prepared Statement of Secretary Michael G. Kozak
Chairman Smith and Members of the Commission, thank you for holding
this timely hearing --- in the period before the Warsaw Human Dimension
Implementation Meeting and the Sofia Ministerial --- to focus on the
important work of the OSCE. The Congressional calendar is extremely
full this late in the session, so your time and focus is very much
appreciated. I commend Commission Members for your long-standing
commitment to human rights and democracy work. I am also pleased to be
joining Assistant Secretaries Jones and Rademacher at this important
hearing.
This is my first appearance before the Helsinki Commission, but I
have had the pleasure of working with you and your excellent staff over
the years. Before coming to the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and
Labor (DRL), I spent three years as Ambassador to Belarus where I saw
the impact that the OSCE had on promoting human rights and democratic
change. The OSCE Mission put a spotlight on the abuses of the
Lukashenko regime, and was a beacon of hope for courageous human rights
activists.
Next year will mark the 30th Anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act.
Many challenges remain, but the fact that the Government of Bulgaria is
now serving as the OSCE Chair-in-Office--something unimaginable in
1975--demonstrates how far we have come. OSCE has been a vital partner
in the pursuit of democracy and human rights in Europe and Eurasia, a
goal that is more important than ever given the ongoing fight against
terrorism. As Secretary Powell has stated, ``A world in which human
rights and fundamental freedoms are respected and defended is a world
of peace in which tyrants and terrorists cannot thrive.''
In my testimony, I will discuss the democracy deficit that
continues to plague some parts of the region. Next I will cover the
continuing need to establish and improve key democratic institutions
such as elections, media freedom, the rule of law, and tolerance.
Finally, I will address some of the recent challenges facing the OSCE,
and conclude by proposing strategies for refining and strengthening the
Organization and promoting enhanced respect for OSCE commitments.
Elections that meet international standards remain a hallmark of
democratic society. Yet for elections to be truly democratic, citizens
need to enjoy all of their human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Unfortunately, a democracy deficit continues to plague many countries
of the OSCE, as is evident in the flawed elections some countries
continue to hold. We therefore support the crucial work of ODIHR, not
only in monitoring and reporting on elections, but also in assisting
participating States in developing and implementing laws and
legislation that ensures the rule of law and essential rights such as
freedom of speech and assembly.
Collectively these efforts have helped foster important reforms.
Recent OSCE involvement in the Balkans and Georgia has resulted in
marked improvement, with progress made towards elections that meet OSCE
standards. With U.S. and OSCE assistance, Albania in 2003 held what was
deemed to be the fairest and most transparent elections in the
country's history despite some administrative issues and isolated
incidents of violence.
In other cases, we have seen less success. Examples of flawed
elections since the Commission's last hearing on the OSCE include
Azerbaijan's October 2003 presidential election, Russia's December 2003
parliamentary elections and March presidential election, and the August
presidential election in Chechnya. There has been little or no
accountability for the poor conduct of these elections, and in the case
of Azerbaijan, there also has not been an investigation into or
accountability for reports of torture by security forces following
post-election violence. Georgia's parliamentary elections involved
serious irregularities which led to peaceful protests and the
resignation of President Shevardnadze--showing that governments that
engage in efforts to manipulate the electoral process do so at their
own peril.
ODIHR involvement in assisting Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and
Tajikistan to revise their electoral laws this past year has been
remarkably successful. While none of their respective laws are fully
compliant with OSCE commitments, they have all been brought closer to
international standards. We urge these governments to continue their
close work with ODIHR to bring their laws into full compliance with
OSCE commitments and we remain hopeful that on the basis of this
improved electoral legislation, the conduct of upcoming elections in
their countries will be a step forward. All depends on the political
will and good faith efforts of these governments to impartially
implement their legislation.
Domestic and international observers can enhance the electoral
process and public confidence. We welcomed provisions in the recently
revised electoral codes in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan that provide
explicit guarantees for domestic election monitoring. Unfortunately,
Tajikistan's and Azerbaijan's legislation falls short in that important
area. We encourage them to work with ODIHR to revise their laws to
fully guarantee that right.
We regret that Uzbekistan, despite assurances to ODIHR, did not
enact any changes to its election legislation, as recommended by an
ODIHR assessment. Due to that refusal, and the denial of registration
to four independent opposition parties, we regretfully note that the
electoral process for the December parliamentary elections is already
flawed and will likely not be democratic unless serious steps are taken
to reverse course. We are urging the government to allow citizen
initiative groups to field independent candidates--something permitted
under current law.
Rule of law based on democratic principles and commitments is a
lynchpin of democratic society, and an independent judiciary is
integral to the rule of law. Without rule of law, no fundamental
freedoms and rights guaranteed to citizens of the OSCE region are safe.
Instituting the rule of law requires two basic steps: that countries
enact laws that meet international standards, and then enforce them
impartially and consistently. The OSCE can and has played an invaluable
role with both these steps.
Regarding the first step, the OSCE can analyze participating
States' legislation and recommend amendments to meet OSCE standards. In
Kyrgyzstan, ODIHR advisers provided a praiseworthy service when they
analyzed the 2003 constitutional amendments and proposed changes to
bring them into compliance with international standards. We urge
Kyrgyzstan to enact those recommendations.
Concerning the second step, the OSCE can bolster participating
States' capacity to enforce the law consistently and impartially. ODIHR
has several notable success stories in Central Asia, especially
Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, where the governments have transferred
authority for prison administration to the Ministries of Justice.
Comprehensive penal reform programs are bringing prison administration
close to international standards.
These commendable efforts need to be reinforced in all
participating States where corruption and abuse of authority continues
to weaken the rule of law, and thus democracy. We see that in the case
of Albania. As I noted earlier, last year Albania had the fairest
election in its history. However, organized crime and corruption
continues to threaten the stability of Albania. Corruption remains one
of the greatest obstacles to improving human rights in many countries
in the region. Continued efforts to promote good governance are
essential to help countries fulfill their OSCE commitments.
There can be no democracy without media freedom. Free press ensures
that people have information needed to make informed choices.
Unfortunately, the situation for journalists in some OSCE participating
States has worsened since the last OSCE hearing.
Actions in Russia over the past few years raise serious questions
about its commitment to media freedom, which had been a hallmark of
post-Soviet Russia. NTV's recent cancellation of two programs
effectively has left Russian national television without independent
political programming. Ukraine and Belarus intensified their assault on
independent media in the run-up to October elections by harassing,
intimidating, fining, and at times imprisoning independent journalists,
and by closing down independent media outlets. Moldova is still
grappling with transforming TeleRadio Moldova into a truly independent
broadcaster, while Turkmenistan recently took steps to clamp down
further, creating a National Press Service to supervise print media.
We are pleased with the selection of Miklos Haraszti, the new
Representative for Freedom of Media. We wish him success and are
pleased that one of his first major initiatives is to urge governments
to decriminalize libel laws. The U.S. made an extra budgetary
contribution to the project to develop a database matrix on libel
legislation in the OSCE region. Only when libel is decriminalized, can
there be a vibrant market place of ideas.
An active civil society is one of the most important components for
a thriving democracy. Last year we reported a growing number of vibrant
civil society groups advocating for peaceful change and greater
accountability in a majority of OSCE states. This past year, NGOs
continued their courageous work; however, we remain concerned by
harassment and/or restrictions placed on NGOs in several countries.
In FY04 the U.S. provided over $400 million to support democratic
development in the OSCE region. My Bureau uses the Human Rights and
Democracy Fund (HRDF) to support freedom of the press, political party
development, and human rights advocacy, primarily in Central Asia. In
FY04, DRL funded over $7 million in HRDF projects in Europe and
Eurasia. These projects, as implemented by our partners in the NGO
community, show U.S. commitment to developing civil society in the OSCE
target region and are described in detail in the State Department
publication, ``Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: the U.S. Record
2003-2004.'' U.S. democracy funding also includes approximately $6.5
million in voluntary contributions to the OSCE for human and economic
dimension projects, including the participation of NGO representatives
at the annual OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meetings (HDIM) in
Warsaw, giving human rights activists from Europe and Eurasia the
invaluable opportunity to openly report on the human rights abuses in
their countries.
Unfortunately many countries have failed to understand the benefit
of U.S. democracy assistance. Recent developments in Russia have called
into question for the first time in their post-Soviet history whether
the Government respects freedom of association. In his May State of the
Union speech, President Putin questioned the loyalty of NGOs that
receive foreign assistance. Recent pressure on NDI and its Russian
partner The VOICE Association for Voters' Rights are troubling. In
Belarus, over 20 human rights organizations have been closed along with
several independent trade unions, and the Belarusian Party of Labor was
shut down. Ukraine's vibrant civil society is at times weakened by
governmental harassment that has intensified, and at times turned
violent, with the upcoming elections. There has been violence against
members of civil society NGOs or their relatives in several OSCE
countries, including Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Armenia and Azerbaijan, with
little or no accountability.
In Central Asia, Uzbekistani legislation enacted over the past nine
months has severely restricted the rights and ability of domestic and
international NGOs to engage in democracy-building work. In both
Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, U.S. implementing partners have been
publicly accused of engaging in illegal activities. Turkmenistan's
civil society is seriously hindered by its November 2003 draconian law
on public associations.
Overcoming the persistent democratic deficit in the OSCE region
will improve the lives of citizens by giving them a stake in the
system, enabling them to enjoy fundamental freedoms and shape their own
destiny. It will also help eliminate an overarching threat to democracy
and human rights: extremism and terrorism. All OSCE States must
continue to root out extremism and terrorism. We all have the
responsibility to ensure that human rights are protected even as we
combat terrorism. Sadly, no country is immune from such abuses, but in
a democracy, those who abuse power are brought to justice.
The deplorable treatment of some Iraqi detainees at the hands of
some U.S. military personnel was a shock to our nation. When President
Bush expressed his deep disgust and regret about events at Abu Ghraib,
it wasn't just his personal reaction as a man of principle. It was also
his reaction as the head of state of a country that holds itself to a
higher standard, both at home and in our conduct in the world. As
President Bush said, one of the key differences between democracies and
dictatorships ``is that free countries confront such abuses openly and
directly.'' We expose the truth, hold all who bear responsibility fully
accountable and bring them to justice, and then take action to ensure
that abuses do not reoccur.
The U.S. is committed to promoting and protecting human rights
within its territory and around the world. We take our OSCE commitments
seriously and we will continue to keep the OSCE apprised as
investigations proceed. We are also organizing a side event for the
upcoming HDIM in Warsaw where we will proactively address the issue of
prisoner abuse and U.S. efforts at accountability. We will continue to
press other governments whose forces commit abuses to follow the same
approach.
The U.S. supports OSCE's effort to eliminate all forms of torture,
and to press individual OSCE participating States to end torture and
hold human rights abusers accountable. The U.S. continues to have
serious concerns about torture in Uzbekistan. While the Government
there took the highly commendable step to invite the U.N. Special
Rapporteur on Torture in late 2002, Uzbek authorities remain slow in
implementing the Rapporteur's recommendations. We remain very
disappointed that, despite promises to do so during the Spring session
of parliament this year, the Government has not introduced habeas
corpus legislation into its criminal code. We are encouraged by recent
efforts to work with domestic human rights NGOs on monitoring prison
conditions and we urge swift implementation of the Rapporteur's
recommendations.
A crucial component in the fight against terrorism is the support
and promotion of tolerance of all ethnic, racial and religious
minorities. By protecting the rights of all minorities, we can work to
ensure that that the roots of terrorism are not fertilized by feelings
of societal marginalization and fear. We applaud the OSCE's commitments
to fighting racism, anti-Semitism, religious intolerance and other
forms of xenophobia or discrimination. The U.S. and the OSCE share a
common goal of fostering racial, ethnic and religious tolerance.
The Anti-Semitism Conference in Berlin in April resulted in a
comprehensive OSCE plan to fight anti-Semitism, while the June Paris
Meeting on the Relationship between Hate Speech on the Internet and
Hate Crime addressed new forms of propagating hate speech and bigotry
while still strongly supporting freedom of expression and ideas. At The
Brussels Conference on Racism, Xenophobia and Discrimination, which
just concluded, all 55 OSCE participating states joined together to
reaffirm and strengthen the OSCE's commitment to combat intolerance in
all forms.
But despite these commitments, serious problems remain for racial,
ethnic and religious minorities throughout the OSCE region, and much
remains to be done by both OSCE institutions and participating States
to combat intolerance. As Kosovo struggles to move from the devastation
of war to becoming a more stable, democratic society, non-Albanian
minorities, particularly Serbs, suffer from widespread social
discrimination in employment, education and health services among
others. The recent outbreak of inter-ethnic violence resulting in the
destruction of homes and churches is a reminder of the crucial
relationship between tolerance and the sustainability of democracy and
the rule of law.
A good way to address many of the issues is to strengthen the OSCE,
but the OSCE can only be as strong as its participating States. This
requires the leaders of each OSCE country to honor commitments in word
and deed. We must expect more from each other. OSCE provides important
tools for promoting democracy and human rights, but ultimately each
participating State is responsible for using these mechanisms
effectively to hold all OSCE countries to their commitments.
This year, the ability of the OSCE to act as a unified and
effective body has been challenged by several developments. The July
Declaration signed by nine member States of the Commonwealth of
Independent States is puzzling. The Declaration refers to ``such
fundamental Helsinki principles as non-interference in internal affairs
and respect for the sovereignty of States.'' Yet in 1991, OSCE
participating states agreed in the Document of the Moscow Meeting of
the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE that:
``The participating States emphasize that issues relating to human
rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy and the rule of law are of
international concern, as respect for these rights and freedoms
constitutes one of the foundations of the international order. They
categorically and irrevocably declare that the commitments undertaken
in the field of the human dimension of the CSCE are matters of direct
and legitimate concern to all participating States and do not belong
exclusively to the internal affairs of the State concerned.''
In response to the charge of double standards by ODIHR, we
underscore that there is only one standard for democratic elections. We
see ODIHR's election monitoring efforts as objective and based upon
standards set out in the OSCE commitments stipulated in the 1990
Copenhagen Document and the 1991 Moscow Document and reaffirmed in the
Charter for European Security adopted at the Istanbul Summit. That is
why the U.S. has invited ODIHR to observe our own Presidential and
Congressional elections in November as we have consistently since those
commitments were undertaken.
Moreover, in the case of those participating States that have not
yet had democratic elections, we view ODIHR monitoring teams not as
``interference'' but rather as an international resource that is
available to those countries that seek to improve public confidence in
elections and to uphold their OSCE commitments.
We urge participating States to further refine and strengthen the
organization by making key strategic decisions and then backing them
with political will. One important strategic decision is striking the
appropriate balance among diverse OSCE activities. While each effort
helps to further OSCE objectives, a finite budget demands that
participating states regularly assess the value added of each
component. Administrative expenses are obviously essential. Support for
ODHIR is crucial. Visits by high-level OSCE officials and special
representatives and international conferences are important to focus
attention on problem areas and promote reform. However, sufficient
resources should be allocated so that those on the ground who are
rolling up their sleeves to effect change--whether in field missions or
ODHIR teams--have adequate means to do so.
Another key strategic decision involves the development and use of
a series of positive and negative incentives that will entice
participating States to uphold their OSCE commitments. Public
statements and private meetings draw important attention to states that
fail to meet their OSCE commitments. However, it is clear that some
participating States need more encouragement and support. When the
Government of Belarus closed down the OSCE mission in 2002, a joint
U.S.-EU visa ban on high-level Belarusian authorities prompted the
Government of Belarus to allow the OSCE Mission to be re-established.
The Mission in Minsk is still there today. This example demonstrates
that unified political will coupled with the right incentives is
effective.
The upcoming elections in Belarus and Ukraine are cogent examples
of times when targeted incentives backed by unified political will
could make a difference. Despite varying degrees of repression,
democratic candidates are gaining popular support in both countries. A
voting process that meets OSCE standards could significantly advance
democracy in these two nations. We commend the OSCE's efforts to date
to mount effective observer missions in Belarus and Ukraine and we will
continue to urge participating States to contribute as much as they can
to these efforts. Yet these two participating States clearly need extra
incentives to do the right thing.
Strong, effective leadership strengthens the OSCE. Participating
States must select Chairs in Office and Heads of Missions who are
willing to put OSCE concerns first and foremost. These leaders must
actively promote a unified strategy among participating States who care
about democracy and human rights, using revamped incentives as well
supporting field missions.
We attach great importance to the chairmanship and consider very
carefully the readiness of any state wishing to assume that heavy
responsibility. Chairmanship must be held by a nation that has
demonstrated leadership in implementing all the commitments undertaken
by participating States. The U.S. welcomes Kazakhstan's bid to become
Chairman-in-Office in 2009 and we would be pleased to see them become a
viable candidate. We very much hope that they will be able to
demonstrate the leadership required of a chair well before December
2006, when the chairmanship will be approved.
Field missions need adequate resources and staunch political
backing from OSCE leaders and participating States. When participating
States fail to fully back field missions, the organization and the host
country's citizens suffer. Field missions provide vital support to
civil societies and governments alike in the promotion of democracy and
human rights. They are there to help countries meet their commitments.
For this reason, we hope that the OSCE can move quickly to fill
vacancies for Heads of Mission in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.
When field missions receive strong support from the Chairman in
Office host government, and each member of the Permanent Council, the
missions can achieve significant changes even in the most troubled
environments. However, when the OSCE allows host governments to
obstruct the work of field missions, it is embarking on a slippery
slope of dangerous precedent that will undermine the organization.
Decisions affecting the operations of field presences should not be
taken without full consultations and serious consideration of the
implications for the OSCE.
This past July, Turkmenistan refused to renew the contract of the
OSCE Head of Mission in Ashgabat, Ambassador Badescu, for activities
that fell well within her mandate. The U.S. adamantly opposed this
action and we will work with our OSCE colleagues to find another
excellent head of mission. A unified OSCE voice from leaders and
participating states against such action coupled with calibrated
incentives, as were eventually used when Belarus closed down its OSCE
Mission, could have kept Ambassador Badescu in Ashgabat, helped promote
reform in Turkmenistan, and strengthened the OSCE.
In his memoirs, former Secretary of State George Schultz recalls
traveling to Vienna in 1989 to sign the CSCE Treaty that resulted in a
Human Rights Conference in Moscow. Recounting the strong efforts of the
U.S. that resulted in expanding room for independent media in Russia
and the release of political prisoners, he said, ``We had insisted.that
we would not settle simply for words on human rights. We insisted on
deeds by the Soviets and their Satellite states.'' Today, we can only
echo Secretary Schultz' sentiment that we must insist that promises of
human rights for citizens are fulfilled in deed throughout the OSCE
region.
[all]
This is an official publication of the
Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe.
< < <
This publication is intended to document
developments and trends in participating
States of the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
< < <
All Commission publications may be freely
reproduced, in any form, with appropriate
credit. The Commission encourages
the widest possible dissemination
of its publications.
< < <
http://www.csce.gov @HelsinkiComm
The Commission's Web site provides
access to the latest press releases
and reports, as well as hearings and
briefings. Using the Commission's electronic
subscription service, readers are able
to receive press releases, articles,
and other materials by topic or countries
of particular interest.
Please subscribe today.