[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 53 (Thursday, April 22, 2004)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E615]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       THE CASE OF IGOR SUTYAGIN

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 22, 2004

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of my 
colleagues the plight of Russian scientist Dr. Igor Sutyagin. On April 
5th of this year, he was convicted of espionage by a closed court and 
sentenced to 15 years of labor camp. Sutyagin's attorneys have filed an 
appeal with the Russian Supreme Court.
  As part of project initiated in 1997, Dr. Sutyagin was commissioned 
by the Institute of USA and Canada Studies, a prominent think tank in 
Moscow, to conduct research on civilian-military relations in Russia 
and eleven other Eastern European countries. As described by its 
initiators, this project was designed to provide the new post-Soviet 
democracies with Western expertise in military reform and to help 
civilian governments gain oversight over their militaries. The research 
was conducted through interviews with military and civilian government 
officials and was supplemented by open sources such as newspaper 
articles. At no time were researchers privy to, or expected to use 
classified materials. Military officials of the countries participating 
in this project were informed prior to the beginning of the research.
  Despite the transparency of the research conducted, Dr. Sutyagin was 
arrested in October 1999 by the Russian Federal Security Office and 
charged with espionage, specifically passing information to a British 
organization allegedly associated with British intelligence. A thorough 
search conducted by the FSB in the home and office of Dr. Sutyagin 
produced no evidence of any classified documents. At the end of the 
day, the FSB concluded that the research conducted by Dr. Sutyagin did 
not use classified material, but that his conclusions were so accurate 
he must have used classified documents to reach them . . . a rather 
unique approach to scientific inquiry and national security.
  As Ludmilla Alexeyev, chairperson of the Moscow Helsinki Group, put 
it so succinctly, ``The FSB tends to make up spies.''
  Dr. Sutyagin spent the last four and a half years in jail under 
investigation. In March 2001, the case went to court, but the judge 
found insufficient grounds for conviction. However, as occurs 
frequently in these ``spy'' cases, the prosecution got another bite of 
the apple. The FSB was allowed to begin the investigation anew, and, 
with a reputedly more compliant judge presiding, the second trial 
opened on March 15 of this year.
  The Washington Post of November 12, 2001 compared this case to a bad 
parody of Kafka: ``The FSB wants Russians to know that it has the 
ability to jail anyone who somehow displeases the authorities, 
regardless of evidence or the law.''
  Mr. Speaker, it would be presumptuous of me, from the halls of 
Congress, to make a blanket judgment as to Dr. Sutyagin's innocence or 
guilt. However, I would point out that even the director of his 
institute, who was not sympathetic to Sutyagin's work with foreigners, 
confirmed that he did not have access to classified information. 
Sutyagin was paid for newspaper clippings, he told the press. Moreover, 
it is instructive that even Sutyagin's detractors in the security 
services, as quoted in the media after the trial, did not claim that he 
possessed or passed to foreign sources classified material. His only 
crime, in the words of the former U.S. Defense Attache in Russia, was 
that ``he had a passion for navies and he liked to talk to 
foreigners.''
  Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I have watched 
Russia move from an authoritarian police state under communist rule to 
a sovereign nation with democratically elected leadership and many of 
the civil liberties that we in our country take for granted. I have 
encouraged these positive trends and have been encouraged by them. But 
the Sutyagin case is a sobering reminder that the free flow of 
information, a principle encoded in many international agreements, 
remains vulnerable to the whims of the security apparatus in today's 
Russia.
  I hope the Russian Supreme Court will review this case with the 
utmost care.

                          ____________________