[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 5110-5115]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES REPORT ON THE RISE OF 
                         ANTISEMITISM IN EUROPE

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. HOWARD L. BERMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, March 4, 2003

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the Lawyers Committee for 
Human Rights for producing the report entitled ``Fire and Broken Glass: 
The Rise of Antisemitism in Europe,'' which underscores the commitment 
of the Lawyers Committee to speak up against human rights abuses 
wherever they occur, and whatever form they take.
  In the report, the Lawyers Committee states forthrightly that 
``antisemitism is racism. Antisemitic acts need to be confronted more 
forcefully and treated as serious violations of international human 
rights.'' The Lawyers Committee observes that the responsibility of 
reporting and confronting antisemitism should not be shouldered by 
Jewish organizations alone; ``their involvement does not relieve 
governments, the United Nations . . . or private human rights groups of 
their obligations to address antisemitism as an integral part of their 
work.''
  In pointed remarks concerning the failure of European governments to 
address the problem, executive director Michael Posner writes, ``Too 
often European leaders have down-
played antisemitic acts as inevitable side-effects of the current 
crisis in the Middle East. We reject this reasoning as an abdication of 
responsibility. Criticism of Israeli policies and practices is not 
inherently antisemitic. But when such criticisms and related actions 
take the form of broadside attacks against `Jews' or the `Jewish 
State,' they become racist.''

[[Page 5111]]

  The report cites recent instances of antisemitism in Europe, laments 
the failure of European governments to accurately report and engage in 
action to combat these hate crimes, and makes a series of 
recommendations for steps the European governments should take. The 
text of the report follows.

                                Foreword

       A year ago the United Nations convened the third World 
     Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and 
     Related Intolerance, in Durban, South Africa. The conference 
     was intended to highlight particularly serious patterns of 
     racism and racial discrimination around the world and to 
     shape appropriate global responses. The meeting succeeded in 
     raising public attention with respect to some particularly 
     egregious situations--not least the plight of 250 million 
     victims of caste discrimination (among them the Dalits of 
     India--the so-called ``broken people,'' or ``untouchables'').
       Further, the conference provided a long overdue 
     acknowledgment of the criminal nature of slavery (``that 
     slavery and the slave trade are a crime against humanity and 
     should always have been'') and recommendations for the repair 
     of its lasting consequences for people of African descent 
     around the globe.
       The conference also made clear that racism and racial 
     discrimination need to be placed more squarely on the 
     international human rights agenda. But what was positive in 
     the conference process was seriously undermined when the 
     World Conference itself became the setting for a series of 
     antisemtic attacks. Directed primarily against 
     representatives of Jewish groups, these attacks were fueled 
     by the heated debates at the meeting concerning Israeli 
     practices in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But the racist 
     anti-Jewish animus displayed represented considerably more 
     than criticism of Israeli policies and practices.
       Most of the offensive behavior occurred during meetings of 
     nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and individual 
     participants in a forum that paralleled the intergovernmental 
     conference. Throughout the five-day NGO forum, antisemitic 
     cartoons and materials were distributed widely and on 
     display, tolerated by the forums's nongovernmental 
     organizers. Representatives from Jewish organizations were 
     denied access to some meetings--either physically excluded or 
     shouted down and attacked when they were present and tried to 
     speak. Efforts to put antisemitism on the nongovernmental 
     agenda were roundly defeated by an assembly of 
     representatives and individual participants in procedures 
     that were neither democratic nor principled.
       Rather than serving as a forum for correcting racial and 
     religious intolerance and hate, the public meetings and 
     exhibition halls of the Durban conference became a place 
     where pernicious racism was practiced and tolerated. 
     Important recommendations adopted by the conference despite 
     this environment, with a real potential to advance the fight 
     against antisemitism--and other forms of racism--have as a 
     consequence received inadequate attention. Some of these 
     recommendations, concerning government monitoring and 
     reporting on racist violence, are discussed here.
       The outbursts at Durban reflect a growing trend toward 
     antisemitic expression and violence in many parts of the 
     world. As this report makes clear, there is an alarming rise 
     in antisemitic violence in Europe: but it is on the rise in 
     other parts of the world as well. Unfortunately, with the 
     notable exception of Jewish organizations and a number of 
     other human rights and antiracist groups and institutions, 
     the world communiuty--governments, intergovernmental 
     organizations, and nongovernmental organizations alike--has 
     not responded adequately to this growing problem. 
     Antisemitism is racism. Antisemitic acts need to be 
     confronted more forcefully and treated as serious violations 
     of international human rights.
       This report highlights the inadequacy of efforts by 
     European governments to systematically monitor and report on 
     antisemitic threats and violence--and to develop effective 
     measures to stop it. We define antisemitism as hatred or 
     hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a 
     religious, ethnic or racial group. Governments and 
     intergovernmental organizations need to routinely incorporate 
     facts about anti-
     semitic assaults. arson, vandalism, desecration of 
     cemeteries, and the proliferation of antisemitic materials on 
     the internet into a wide range of existing human rights 
     reporting mechanisms. Though some Jewish organizations, like 
     the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee, 
     are doing excellent reporting on these issues, their 
     involvement does not relieve governments, the United Nations 
     and its regional organizations, or private human rights 
     groups of their obligations to address antisemitism as an 
     integral part of their work.
       In the pages that follow, we outline the scope of 
     antisemitism, in Europe and examine some of the efforts by 
     European governments and institutions to monitor and confront 
     the problem. In our view these efforts are insufficient. Too 
     often European leaders have downplayed antisemitic acts as 
     inevitable side-effects of the current crisis in the Middle 
     East. We reject this reasoning as an abdication of 
     responsibility. Criticism of Israeli policies and practices 
     is not inherently antisemitic. But when such criticisms and 
     related actions take the form of broadside attacks against 
     ``Jews'' or the ``Jewish State,'' they become racist.
       In this report we make a series of recommendations as to 
     how these abuses can better be investigated and reported in 
     the future. These recommendations are intended as a starting 
     point for a much larger discussion about how anti-semitism 
     and other forms of racism can better be addressed as a more 
     central element of the global human rights debate. At the end 
     of last year's Durban meeting, we wrote that ``[t]he subjects 
     of this conference are the human rights issues of the 21st 
     century. Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and 
     intolerance affect each of us in our own communities. All of 
     us--governments, the UN, NGOs--must find constructive way to 
     discuss and combat these problems.''
       Events of the last year only underscore the continuing 
     importance of meeting that challenge, and, with regards to 
     antisemitism, history emphasizes the urgency of doing so with 
     force and with vigor. Michael Posner, Executive Director, 
     August 2002.
                                  ____


       Fire and Broken Glass--The Rise of Antisemitism in Europe

       On July 12, the online wire of the Associated Press 
     included a story out of the Welsh city of Swansea, where a 
     synagogue had been vandalized the night before. According to 
     the story, which was not picked up by any major American 
     newspaper, a group of youths broke into the synagogue, 
     destroyed one of the temple's Torah scrolls, drew a swastika 
     on the wall, and attempted to burn the building down before 
     fleeing.
       The Swansea break-in, the second such vandalism of a 
     British synagogue in three months, is being investigated by 
     local authorities as a hate crime--a crime driven by anti-
     Jewish animus. This desecration of synagogues occurred within 
     a broader pattern of anti-Jewish attacks in Britain and 
     across Europe. In April 2002 alone the Jewish community in 
     Britain reported fifty-one incidents nationwide, most of them 
     assaults on individuals.
       Elsewhere in Europe firebombs and gunfire were directed at 
     Jewish targets. At around midnight on March 31, two firebombs 
     were thrown into a synagogue in the Anderlecht district of 
     Brussels, Belgium's capital and the seat of the European 
     Union. The interior of the synagogue was badly damaged. In 
     the previous month, a rash of graffiti had appeared on Jewish 
     owned shops in Brussels declaring ``Death to the Jews.'' On 
     April 22, up to eighteen gunshots were fired at another 
     synagogue, this one in Charleroi.
       As gasoline bombs were thrown in Brussels late on Sunday 
     night, March 31, fires still smoldered from a series of 
     attacks across France that weekend. In Strasbourg, the seat 
     of the Council of Europe, the doors to a synagogue were set 
     alight that Saturday; while in Lyon, an estimated fifteen 
     attackers wearing hoods crashed two cars through the main 
     gate of a synagogue earlier the same day and set fires there.
       On March 31 alone, a pregnant Jewish woman and her husband 
     were attacked in a Lyon suburb, requiring her 
     hospitalization; a Jewish school in a Paris suburb was badly 
     damaged by vandals; and in Toulouse, shots were fired into a 
     kosher butcher shop. That night, a synagogue in Nice was 
     attacked with a firebomb, and in Marseille attackers set 
     alight and burned to the ground the Or Aviv synagogue. 
     Despite the deployment of police to centers of the Jewish 
     community, the violence in Marseille continued. A week after 
     the synagogue attack, the Gan-Pardess school was set on fire, 
     its windows broken with stones, and its walls daubed with 
     anti-Jewish graffiti.
       Anti-Jewish attacks have continued at a high level in 
     France since late 2000, when attacks were reported on forty-
     three synagogues and three Jewish cemeteries in the last 
     three months of the year alone. A synagogue in the Paris 
     suburb Trappes was burned to the ground, while synagogues 
     were damaged by fire in Villepinte, Clichy, Creil, Les Lilas, 
     and the synagogue in Les Ulis was attacked on three 
     occasions. Then, as now, officials downplayed the racist, 
     antisemitic nature of the attacks, suggesting they were an 
     inevitable side-effect of the crisis in the Middle East, 
     where protests and violence had broken out in what became 
     known as the second intifada.
       A surge of anti-Jewish violence in Russia was also a part 
     of the mosaic of racist violence across Europe in 2002. In 
     the incident most widely reported in Western news media, 
     Tatyana Sapunova was badly injured on May 27 by a rigged 
     explosive charge, when attempting to take down a roadside 
     sign near Moscow that declared ``Death to Jews.'' Other 
     booby-trapped signs bearing similar messages were reported 
     elsewhere in the country. In a welcome and unprecedented 
     gesture, Russian president Vladimir Putin honored Tatyana 
     Sapunova for her civic courage in a July 11 ceremony, and 
     condemned racial and religious intolerance.
       The incidents in Swansea, Brussels, Strasbourg, Marseille, 
     Moscow, and other European towns and cities earlier this year 
     occurred as a number of organizations worldwide--most 
     prominently the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in the United 
     States--

[[Page 5112]]

     have drawn increasing attention, both here and abroad, to the 
     rise of antisemitism in Europe, a problem that appears to be 
     intensifying.


                  hate crimes--the information deficit

       The emphasis of this report is on the proliferation of 
     violence against persons and property in Europe that is 
     driven by anti-Jewish animus--and the failure of governments 
     to accurately report and effectively engage in concerted 
     action to combat this racist violence. In both east and west, 
     European governments have done too little to monitor, report, 
     and act on the many levels required. The failure of some 
     governments in Western Europe to do even basic reporting on 
     hate crimes targeting the Jewish community (and other 
     minorities) is a principal focus of this report. Yet timely, 
     accurate, and public information on racist violence is 
     essential for effective action to suppress such violence.
       By addressing only the information deficit that clouds the 
     real scope and nature of antisemitic violence in Europe, the 
     Lawyers Committee for Human Rights does not want to 
     understate the broader issues arising in the fight against 
     antisemitism and other racist intolerance. Yet the 
     educational and other programs required to address 
     antisemitism in the long term can be effective only if 
     accompanied by immediate action to acknowledge and to combat 
     violent criminal acts motivated by anti-Jewish hatred.
       Similarly, while this report is about anti-Jewish violence 
     in Europe, its recommendations apply to the broader plague of 
     racist violence that affects many of Europe's minority 
     communities. Racist violence against minorities such as the 
     Roma, and in particular against Europeans and immigrants of 
     North African, Middle Eastern, and South Asian origin, also 
     requires urgent attention by European governments, 
     nongovernmental organizations, and the international 
     community. Accessible disaggregated data is required in order 
     to report accurately on racist violence, to identify 
     particularly vulnerable groups, and to generate effective 
     antiracism measures. The fight against racism should not 
     itself be balkanized, as if in a competition between 
     advocates for each of the groups bloodied by racism. Nor 
     should particularly egregious forms of racism be overlooked.
       Europe's extreme nationalist groups show a frightening 
     fervor and consistency--and a disturbing unity--in their 
     promotion of violent antisemitism. The same racist extremists 
     who attack synagogues may also attack Turkish immigrants in 
     Berlin, French citizens of North African origin in Paris, or 
     South Asians in Britain's towns and cities. A similar unity 
     is required of the antiracist effort in Europe to combat 
     this. The rise in violence against Jewish communities across 
     Europe is part of a broader pattern of racist violence--but 
     the severity, pan-European scope, and historical roots of 
     this violence requires particularly urgent attention as a 
     part of this larger effort to combat racism. In view of the 
     calamitous record of antisemitism in Europe, every effort 
     must be made to ensure that this scourge is not permitted to 
     gather momentum again.
       The increasing incidence of racially-motivated attacks 
     against Jews and Jewish institutions across Europe has been 
     well-documented by nongovernmental bodies, most notably the 
     ADL, along with the American Jewish Committee (AJC), the 
     Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC), and the Stephen Roth Institute 
     for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism at Tel 
     Aviv University. Similarly, the U.S. government has taken 
     notice, with the Helsinki Commission--the American 
     government's liaison agency with the Organization for 
     Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)--holding a high-
     profile hearing on May 22 to address the issue, and with both 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate subsequently 
     passing unanimous resolutions echoing the Commission's 
     concerns.
       Yet, whereas nongovernmental organizations have released a 
     considerable amount of material on the increasing incidence 
     of attacks, many European governments have been less 
     forthcoming in documenting the upsurge in antisemitic 
     violence. The French government, which, for much of early 
     2002, made few public statements about the rising tide of 
     anti-Jewish violence, has yet to release official statistics 
     on such incidents in 2002. In a June 2002 statement, a French 
     spokesman acknowledged that ``A series of inexcusable 
     assaults--physical, material and symbolic--has been committed 
     in France against Jews over the past 20 months,'' while 
     suggesting this was simply a spill-over of the Middle East 
     conflict into Europe (most of the incidents were laid to 
     ``poorly integrated youths of Muslim origin who would like to 
     bring the Mideast conflict to France''). The involvement of 
     extremist nationalist groups in anti-Jewish violence, a 
     longstanding source of antisemitism in France and elsewhere 
     in Europe, has found little reflection in these public 
     statements.
       Similarly, the governments of Belgium, Germany, the United 
     Kingdom, and Russia, where a majority of the other attacks 
     have been concentrated, have made public statements 
     condemning the upsurge in violence. But these governments 
     have released little detailed documentation of anti-Jewish 
     violence, and have, according to nongovernmental observers, 
     done too little to abate the rising tide.
       Systems for collection, analysis, and reporting information 
     from European capitals differ widely. While most governments 
     release limited information on antisemitic acts, what 
     statistical data is available generally allows only the 
     identification of broad trends. Statistics on registered 
     incidents appear to vastly underestimate the extent of the 
     problem--with some exceptions.
       The criteria applied in data collection and statistical 
     analysis and reporting by NGOs also vary widely. In some 
     cases, reporting on antisemitism--and other manifestations of 
     racism--blur criminal acts of violence with incidents of hate 
     speech, a tendency that is echoed in the news media. This 
     notwithstanding human rights organizations and the 
     independent media in Western Europe often report on violent 
     anti-Jewish incidents. Their reporting points clearly to a 
     severe and pernicious rise in this violence that cannot be 
     attributed to any one factor.
       Governments, despite periodically adhering to multilateral 
     pledges to combat racism and antisemitism, and acknowledging 
     treaty obligations to do so, find little tangible pressure to 
     undertake close monitoring and reporting. The reality is that 
     public information is required in order to generate the 
     political will to address the problem and to inform decisions 
     on how best to do so.


                 a pattern of intimidation and violence

       The Swansea incident and others in many parts of Europe are 
     part of a prolonged surge of violent threats and attacks on 
     individuals and community institutions solely because they 
     are Jewish. This racist violence has included physical 
     assaults on individuals--and fire-bombings, gunfire, window 
     smashing, and vandalism of Jewish homes, schools, synagogues 
     and other community institutions. Vandals have desecrated 
     scores of Jewish cemeteries across the region, daubing anti-
     Jewish slogans, threats, and Nazi symbols on walls and 
     monuments, while toppling and shattering tombstones.
       Jews and people presumed to be Jewish have been assaulted 
     in and around centers of the Jewish community, in attacks on 
     Jewish homes, and in more random street violence. Attackers 
     shouting racist slogans have thrown stones at children 
     leaving Hebrew-language schools and worshippers leaving 
     religious services. In street violence attackers shouting 
     racist slogans have severely injured people solely because 
     they were thought to have a Jewish appearance.
       How are anti-Jewish, antisemitic acts distinguished from 
     random violence in a violent world? Sometimes the nature of 
     the target alone is sufficient reason to conclude that an 
     arson attack, stone throwing, or other violence is motivated 
     by discriminatory animus (a synagogue or a kosher shop, for 
     example, is set alight; a Jewish cemetery is desecrated). In 
     many cases, even when the target of an attack is less clearly 
     singled out because of a real or imputed Jewish identity, the 
     self-identification of the attackers with neo-Nazi extremist 
     groups, assailants' statements at the time of an attack, 
     expressly anti-Jewish graffiti, or other elements give reason 
     to believe them antisemitic. Such acts are manifestations of 
     both racist violence and religious intolerance, directed at 
     the Jewish people as a whole.
       Hate speech--spoken, broadcast and published--provides a 
     motor and a backdrop to anti-Jewish violence. In Europe, this 
     is particularly chilling, as hate speech often involves 
     immediate incitement to racist violence while openly harking 
     back to the racist terror of the Holocaust. Extremist 
     political groups openly endorse the past horrors of the 
     Holocaust or implicitly do so by denying its reality, even 
     where European law makes such statements punishable as 
     crimes.
       Threatening racist speech often also provides the immediate 
     context of physical acts of violence. Racist speech may 
     provide evidence of motivation by which some acts of 
     vandalism or related violence can be distinguished from 
     random acts. Thugs who both break windows and daub swastikas 
     on walls make their anti-Jewish animus explicit. Public 
     officials and senior political leaders have themselves made 
     racist anti-Jewish statements, disparaging the Jewish 
     religion and members of this faith as a people. Other public 
     officials remain silent concerning attacks on Jews and 
     symbols of the Jewish community, or attribute racist violence 
     and threats to common crime or political protest.
       The resulting environment, particularly where anti-Jewish 
     attacks occur with relative impunity, is a climate of fear 
     and encouragement for further hatred and violence.
       Even where public security agencies act promptly to halt 
     and punish anti-Jewish violence--and other violent racist 
     attacks on minorities--they may address this violence as just 
     one aspect of a larger pattern of racist violence and 
     xenophobia. Shamefully, anti-Jewish attacks are too often 
     left largely to the Jewish community itself to document and 
     protest.


                     THE REGIONAL MONITORING BODIES

       Most European governments publish little official 
     information on anti-Jewish and other racist violence, while 
     monitoring and reporting norms vary significantly from

[[Page 5113]]

     country to country. Across the region, there is a paucity of 
     official information concerning individual attacks on the 
     Jewish minority and there is little meaningful statistical 
     data. With some exceptions, detailed statistical information 
     is either not compiled or is compiled without differentiating 
     between attacks on distinct minorities.
       In some cases, monitoring and reporting blurs racist 
     violence and offensive speech into a single category. This 
     practice is not limited to European institutions: the 
     Department of State's annual Country Reports on Human Rights 
     Practices often does the same in reporting on antisemitic and 
     other racist ``incidents.'' Considerably more is published by 
     official bodies in the E.U. on racist and intolerant speech, 
     in turn, than on the detail of antisemitic attacks on persons 
     and property.
       Concern for improved data collection has frequently been 
     expressed as a necessary step toward the identification of 
     discrimination in public policy, in particular as concerns 
     criminal justice and the equitable provision of public 
     services. Such data is also required to identify government 
     failings to fulfill obligations to protect minority groups 
     against discriminatory action, and in particular violence, by 
     private citizens. The posture of the state toward racist 
     violence against a particular group can be put in the 
     spotlight by disaggregated data on the full spectrum of 
     violent crime--showing in some situations that police condone 
     or encourage private violence against minorities. Impunity 
     for attacks on certain minorities, in turn, can be a factor 
     in the generation of further such violence. Data accurately 
     reflecting the reality of racist violence, by public 
     officials or others, provide crucial benchmarks by which to 
     independently assess the need for remedial action.
       Several European intergovernmental institutions were 
     created expressly to monitor and combat racism, and are 
     available to assist governments in the region in the 
     implementation of legislative, criminal justice, educational, 
     and other antiracism measures.
       The Council of Europe's European Commission on Racial 
     Intolerance, ECRI, provides a range of ambitious programs 
     intended to make European anti-discrimination norms a 
     reality, including express measures to monitor and combat 
     antisemitic speech and violence. ECRI has one member 
     appointed by each member state, serving in an individual 
     capacity. Its stated aim is ``to combat racism, xenophobia, 
     antisemitism and intolerance at a pan-European level and from 
     the angle of the protection of human rights,'' and it is an 
     effective voice to this end. But it cannot alone compensate 
     for the failings of its member governments.
       In its annual report covering the calendar year 2001, ECRI 
     identified racial discrimination--including antisemitism--as 
     a blight on Europe. Of particular concern was ``the problem 
     of racist violence which has erupted on several occasions in 
     a number of countries''--a considerable understatement. ECRI 
     stressed ``[a] rise in the spread of antisemitic ideas,'' 
     while deploring a trend in which ``[a]cts of violence and 
     intimidation against the members and institutions of the 
     Jewish communities and the dissemination of antisemitic 
     material are increasing in a number of countries.'' ECRI has 
     not, however, issued a general recommendation on 
     antisemitism.
       ECRI's country by country reporting is based on a procedure 
     in which draft reports are submitted on a confidential basis 
     to member governments for discussion and reviewed in the 
     light of this dialogue. The statistical reflection of racist 
     incidents in the country reports is limited by the systems 
     for data collection and dissemination of each of the member 
     governments--even when generally critical conclusions may be 
     drawn. In its March 2000 report on Belgium, for example, ECRI 
     highlighted the absence of official reporting on incidents 
     and complaints of discrimination, while giving little 
     alternative information on the extent of antisemitism--and 
     other forms of racism--resulting in acts of violence in the 
     country:
       ``The scarce use made of antiracist laws and civil remedies 
     in cases of racial discrimination [is] reflected in the 
     current lack of detailed information on complaints of racist 
     and xenophobic acts, the number of complaints of racial 
     discrimination filed with the courts, the results of the 
     proceedings instituted in these cases and the compensation 
     granted, where appropriate, to the victims of discrimination. 
     ECRI expresses its concern at this situation, since accurate 
     and comprehensive statistics constitute indispensable tools 
     to plan policies and strategies in the fields of combating 
     racism and intolerance and to monitor their effectiveness. It 
     therefore encourages the authorities to develop an adequate 
     system of statistical data to cover the above mentioned 
     areas.''
       Notwithstanding the noncompliance by Belgian authorities 
     with ECRI's recom-
     mendations, unofficial sources reported some 2,000 
     antisemitic incidents in Belgium in the nine months since the 
     September 11 attacks on the United States (the reports did 
     not distinguish violent crimes from other incidents). As a 
     corollary, there was no reference whatsoever to antisemitism 
     in the Department of State's report on Belgium.
       In addition to the failure of governments to report on 
     antisemitic and other racist violence, ECRI has identified 
     the absence of common criteria with which to monitor and 
     report attacks against members of particular minorities as an 
     obstacle to its antiracism work in many parts of the region.
       In 1997 the European Union created a new institution, the 
     European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), 
     to combat racism, xenophobia and antisemitism in Europe. 
     EUMC, like the Council of Europe's ECRI, has pressed for 
     better data collection, transparency, and analysis of 
     incidents of racist violence by European governments. EUMC 
     has also published comparative surveys of anti-discrimination 
     legislation in member states, prepared by independent 
     experts. In its 1999 annual report, echoing ECRI, it called 
     for special action in the area of information collection, 
     analysis, and dissemination:
       ``The various reports in Europe on racism in 1999, whether 
     the subject of the national media, the official authorities 
     or NGOs, reveals that no country of the European Union is 
     immune from it. To gain an accurate and comprehensive 
     picture, however, requires a certain degree of uniformity 
     and/or common definition among the Member States on the 
     subject of racial/ethnic minorities and the methods of data 
     collection. At present this does not exist. The EUMC is still 
     therefore lacking a complete set of tools to monitor racism 
     effectively.
       ``Another important area hampering reporting is that 
     criteria used to draw up statistics differ in the EU Member 
     States.''
       In its 1999 recommendations, EUMC also stressed the 
     importance of ``collecting and publishing accurate data on 
     the number and nature of racist and xenophobic incidents or 
     offences, the number of cases prosecuted or the reasons for 
     not prosecuting, and the outcome of prosecutions.'' In 
     gathering data at the European level, EUMC encouraged 
     governments to draw upon both their own resources and those 
     of nongovernmental organizations, research bodies, and 
     international organizations. ``Statistical, documentary or 
     technical information,'' in turn, was to be collated in a 
     form facilitating effective courses of action.
       In its most recent annual report, published on December 18, 
     2001, EUMC expressed concern at the continuing crisis of 
     racism in Europe and found that little progress had been made 
     toward systems of consistent and comprehensive monitoring and 
     reporting. Systems of recording racially motivated crimes in 
     police statistics still varied widely between member 
     countries, and under-reporting of violence appeared to be the 
     norm.
       In commenting on trends in 2000, EUMC's 2002 report 
     observed that ``extensive increases in racial violence,'' 
     including antisemitic attacks, were reported in France, 
     Germany, Spain, Sweden and the UK. In contrast, ``racist 
     crimes'' were simply not identified separately in crime 
     statistics from Belgium, Greece, Ireland and Portugal. 
     Statistics reported, in turn, were ``challenged by human 
     rights organizations'' in some countries, notably in Italy, 
     Spain, and Germany, where police records ``are minimal in 
     comparison with statistics collected by NGOs'':
       ``Italian NGOs recorded 259 racist murders between 1995 and 
     2000, whereas the Italian police authorities recorded not a 
     single case. For statistics on racist attacks, the Italian 
     NGO records show more than ten times as many crimes as the 
     official figures. In Germany the NGOs recorded five times as 
     many racist murders as the police. Racist propaganda or 
     `incitement to hatred towards ethnic minorities' is well 
     documented by the police authorities in some of the Member 
     States.''
       As a step to meet the information challenge, EUMC acted to 
     create its own network of monitoring and reporting in member 
     states, with the acronym RAXEN--Reseau europeen d'information 
     sur le racisme et la xenophobie (European information network 
     on racism and xenophobia), which began its work in 2000. 
     RAXEN was tasked with defining common criteria for data 
     collection, to be proposed to member governments. But its 
     efforts to this end, and to improve collection, are still at 
     an early stage.
       Both ECRI and EUMC, the preeminent European agencies 
     combating racism, have addressed the rise of antisemitism 
     intensively since the year 2000, and addressed some of the 
     difficulties of monitoring and combating these and other 
     racist trends in the region. The sister agencies have made 
     extraordinary efforts toward public education to counter 
     racism and to promote effective measures to criminalize and 
     punish racist acts through the justice system. Harmonization 
     of data collection and dissemination concerning racist acts 
     has been central to the recommendations of both 
     organizations.
       The reports published by ECRI and EUMC on racism in member 
     states illustrate the disparities of national reporting on 
     racism in general and on antisemitic expression and violent 
     crime in particular countries. Reporting by the United States 
     government on human rights practices and on religious 
     intolerance around the world, in turn, echoes these failings, 
     often repeating almost verbatim European reports limited 
     largely to generalities, and tending to emphasize often 
     illusory improvement.

[[Page 5114]]

       Reporting on antisemitism and other forms of racism 
     prepared by nongovernmental organizations often provides 
     detailed information on specific acts of violence and 
     instances of racist expression which serve as a check on 
     government failings. This information, however, is often 
     difficult to interpret on a comparative basis, as the 
     criteria applied to reporting on incidents of different kinds 
     are not always clear or consistent.
       The annual reports of EUMC since 1999 have included capsule 
     descriptions of racism and xenophobia in member countries, 
     while stressing the inadequacy of the government reporting on 
     which the system depends. In the 1999 report, detailed 
     references to anti-Jewish violence were uneven, closely 
     reflecting the strengths and weaknesses of member 
     governments' reporting regimes. A section on the United 
     Kingdom, for example, made no reference to antisemitism. In 
     coverage of Germany, in contrast, EUMC reported the 
     desecration of forty-seven Jewish cemeteries in 1999--while 
     stressing that this was an improvement, a decline from the 
     toll a year before. No other reference to expressly 
     antisemitic acts in Germany appeared--as victimized groups 
     were not distinguished clearly in the statistics provided on 
     racist violence.
       In its 2002 report, on the year 2000, EUMC provided further 
     detail on antisemitic acts in Germany, noting that the system 
     of data collection there ``is broader and more detailed than 
     in many other EU Member States.'' Police reports on violent 
     crimes ``with right-wing extremist motives'' totaled 939, 
     ``out of which 874 were assaults, 48 arson or bomb attacks, 2 
     were cases of murder and 15 attempted murders'' Twenty-nine 
     violent antisemitic crimes were recorded, including an arson 
     attack on a synagogue in Efurt, and the desecration of fifty-
     six graves in Jewish cemeteries.
       ECRI addressed antisemitism in the United Kingdom only 
     briefly in its second country report, providing no detail 
     apart from an expression of concern at ``the occurrence of 
     antisemitic incidents and the circulation of antisemitic 
     literature. . . .'' The Department of State's 2002 country 
     report on the United Kingdom, in turn, cited no official 
     sources on antisemitism there. It said only that, the Board 
     of Deputies of British Jews, a nongovernmental organization, 
     had reported 310 ``anti-Semitic incidents in 2001, in 
     contrast to 405 in 2000,'' while stressing that public 
     expressions of antisemitism ``are confined largely to the 
     political or religious fringes.'' No further detail was 
     provided. (The country report was equally vague about attacks 
     on Muslims in the wake of September 11, referring to 
     ``isolated attacks . . . throughout the country.'')
       France has been the object of particular criticism for its 
     response to antisemitism. Some observers have protested that 
     the government responded slowly to the rise of attacks in 
     late 2000, initially advising the Jewish community ``to 
     remain quiet and inconspicuous.'' As noted, antisemitic 
     attacks increased dramatically there, particularly in Paris 
     and its suburbs, with a high level of violence sustained 
     throughout 2001 and into 2002.
       Although France was last the object of an ECRI country 
     report in June 2000, ECRI's findings on monitoring and 
     reporting there reflect continuing obstacles to effective 
     antiracism action to counter anti-Jewish attacks. The ECRI 
     report, produced in consultation with the French government, 
     at that time placed antisemitism firmly within a larger 
     millieu of racist intolerance propagated by far right 
     political groups, while stressing that reports of antisemitic 
     violence and harassment had decreased. Citing the findings of 
     the official human rights commission, however, it found that 
     almost half of the total number of acts of intimidation 
     recorded were of an antisemitic character.
       The ECRI report did not refer expressly to acts of violence 
     in its breakdown of acts of intimidation. But ECRI 
     highlighted the difficulties posed for monitors in France, 
     where government agencies by law do not distinguish between 
     ethnic or racial groups in their records:
       ``As noted in ECRI's first report, due to the French 
     Republican egalitarian approach, there is officially no 
     categorization of ethnic or racial groups in statistics. The 
     main categories used are therefore ``foreigners'' and 
     ``citizens'', while ethnic monitoring is contrary to the 
     Constitution and expressly prohibited by the Criminal Code. 
     ECRI emphasizes that, given the consequent difficulties to 
     the collection of accurate data on the incidence of racial 
     discrimination as well as on social indicators concerning 
     parts of the French population, a reconsideration of this 
     approach would be beneficial.''
       EUMC's 1999 reporting on France, in turn, cited only broad 
     statistics from the report of the official National 
     Consultative Commission on Human Rights (Commission Nationale 
     Consultative des Droits de l'Homme, CNCDH), on a rise of 
     ``racist and anti-Semitic violence,'' from 27 incidents in 
     1998 to 36 in 1999. It said four people were ``injured as a 
     result of anti-Semitism.'' In its annual report for 2000, the 
     EUMC continued to highlight the inadequacies of government 
     reporting. The CNCDH's annual report for 2001 provided 
     statistics as well as detail on some individual cases of 
     antisemitic violence. The commission noted that its 
     statistical findings are based on Ministry of Interior 
     information, which distinguishes ``antisemitism from other 
     forms of racism,'' and that particular attention has been 
     given to antisemitism in particular since the dramatic rise 
     in incidents in late 2000. The statistics, however, are 
     clearly based on only a small set of the most extreme cases 
     of violence during the year.
       In the most recent annual report of the CNDCH, released in 
     March 2002 and covering 2001, the commission stressed the 
     gravity of antisemitic violence in France, while apparently 
     reflecting the weakness of the Ministry of Interior's data 
     collection. The report documents just twenty-nine such 
     incidents--all high profile cases, and most involving 
     dramatics attacks on Jewish schools and synagogues. These 
     included fifteen assaults on synagogues and other places of 
     prayer--most involving firebombs--and arson attacks on four 
     Jewish schools. Three incidents of stone throwing at 
     worshippers leaving synagogues were also registered in the 
     chronology included in the report. Just two incidents cited 
     involved physical assaults on individuals. In contrast, 
     nongovernmental organizations reported hundreds of incidents.
       Recent actions of the French government, particularly the 
     new interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, give some cause for 
     hope. Minister Sarkozy, who met in mid-July with Rabbi 
     Abraham Cooper and Dr. Shimon Samuels of the Simon Wiesenthal 
     Center, vowed that he would do everything necessary to stop 
     criminal attacks against the Jewish community in France, 
     adding that these antisemitic attacks have all been hate 
     crimes. Sarkozy has also vowed to change the culture of the 
     police and has instructed them to deal with these attacks as 
     hate crimes. As part of these measures, his office has 
     reportedly promised to release monthly statistics on all 
     criminal acts in France.


               international standards and implementation

       The building blocks of international human rights law were 
     shaped in the wreckage of World War II and the searing 
     reality of Europe's death camps and racist ideologies. 
     ``[D]isregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in 
     barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of 
     mankind,'' declaims the preamble of the Universal Declaration 
     of Human Rights (1948), in introducing its common 
     understanding of the rights and freedoms to be enjoyed by all 
     people. The Universal Declaration has as its bedrock 
     principle the equality of all human beings--and the 
     entitlement of all to fundamental rights and freedoms without 
     discrimination of any kind.
       From these foundations the international community crafted 
     tools through which to put into practice the principles of 
     equality and non-discrimination, notably the treaties by 
     which governments accept binding obligations. The 
     International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ICCPR 
     (1966) transformed the anti-discrimination principles of the 
     Universal Declaration into treaty law. Article 2 of the ICCPR 
     requires each state party:
       ``To respect and to ensure to all individuals within its 
     territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights 
     recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of 
     any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, 
     political or other opinion, national or social origin, 
     property, birth or other status.''
       The treaty, to which 148 states are now party, requires 
     governments to report on the measures adopted to give effect 
     to the rights recognized, and established the Human Rights 
     Committee to review these reports. The committee, known as 
     treaty body, issues comments and recommendations on 
     government reports and also issues general comments 
     interpreting the provisions of the covenant. The first 
     Optional Protocol to the ICCPR (with 102 states party) 
     recognizes the competence of the committee to receive and 
     consider individual complaints of violations of rights 
     protected by the covenant by states party to the protocol.
       A companion treaty to the ICCPR addresses racial 
     discrimination alone. The International Convention on the 
     Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, CERD 
     (1996), defines racial discrimination broadly--in consonance 
     with modern questioning of the very concept of race. Racial 
     discrimination:
       ``Shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or 
     preference based on race, colour, descent, or national origin 
     which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing 
     the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on a equally footing, 
     of human rights and fundamental freedom in the political, 
     economic, social, cultural or any other field of public 
     life.''
       The convention, to which 162 states are party, obliges 
     governments ``to nullify any law or practice which has the 
     effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination.'' 
     To this end, it obliges governments to condemn and eliminate 
     racial discrimination by both public officials and private 
     individuals, and to oppose discriminatory practices even in 
     the absence of discriminatory intent.
       The interpretation and implementation of the convention lie 
     with the Committee on the Elimination of Racial 
     Discrimination,

[[Page 5115]]

     which receives periodic reports from governments on their 
     implementation of the treaty. General recommendations issued 
     by the committee concerning articles of the convention have 
     provided essential guidance for measures to combat 
     discrimination. Government action as well as inaction can 
     violate obligations under the convention--there is no excuse 
     for complacency or indifference by a government toward either 
     public or private discrimination, particularly when this 
     involves violence.
       The provisions of international treaty law barring racial 
     discrimination are further buttressed in Europe by regional 
     human rights instruments, notably the European Convention on 
     Human Rights (1953), and strong European institutions for the 
     protection and promotion of human rights. European commitment 
     to combating discrimination was further reinforced by the 
     adoption of Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on 
     Human Rights, which was opened for signature on November 4, 
     2000. There is no lack of a legal foundation for strong 
     governmental measures to halt and deter anti-Jewish violence 
     and violence against Europe's other minorities. European 
     governments and intergovernmental bodies have acknowledged, 
     however, that further national and regional initiatives are 
     required to impel stronger protections in practice.
       European nations made a strong commitment to the 
     improvement of national and international efforts to document 
     and respond to patterns of racist violence and expression in 
     the regional conference held in Strasbourg in October 2000 in 
     preparation for the World Conference Against Racism, 
     Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance. The commitments made in 
     the European Conference against Racism highlighted the link 
     between effective measures to combat antisemitism--and other 
     forms of racism--and comprehensive monitoring and reporting 
     of racist incidents.
       The European Conference, for example, recommended the 
     collection and publication of data on the number and nature 
     of racist, xenophobic, or related incidents or offenses or 
     suspected ``bias crimes'' as a building block of measures to 
     combat racism. It further called for data to be collected and 
     published on the number of cases prosecuted, and the 
     outcome--or the reasons for not prosecuting. The Strasbourg 
     forum also stressed the need for data to be broken down to 
     include information on the race, ethnicity, or descent (and 
     gender) of the persons reported harmed. The information 
     required, in turn, was to be collected in accordance with 
     human rights principles, and protected against abuse through 
     data protection and privacy guarantees.
       The European Conference also highlighted the scourge to 
     antisemitism as meriting particular attention, stating in its 
     conclusions:
       ``The European Conference, convinced that combating 
     antisemitism is integral and intrinsic to opposing all forms 
     of racism, stresses the necessity of effective measures to 
     address the issue of antisemitism in Europe today in order to 
     counter all manifestations of this phenomenon.''
       The Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights, 
     Alvaro Gil-Robles, also declared solemnly in the General 
     Report of the European Conference that ``racism, xenophobia, 
     antisemitism, and intolerance pose a mortal danger to human 
     rights,'' and singled out the advocates of discrimination as 
     a particular concern. The statement observed that the ``very 
     dangerous game'' of ``seeking out and pinpointing 
     scapegoats,'' and fueling the ``hatred of difference'' finds 
     particular expression in antisemitism:
       ``[T]here are those who use antisemitic prejudice, whether 
     implicitly or openly, to further their political interests. 
     We are all aware of the destructive effects of anti-Semitism 
     on democracy. We cannot divorce the fight against anti-
     Semitism from the fight against all forms of racism, for it 
     is one and the same struggle.''
       Many of the Strasbourg meeting's recommendations were 
     ratified and elaborated upon in the program of action agreed 
     upon at the World Conference in Durban--a slate of useful 
     recommendations that emerged despite the acrimony of the 
     final stage of the conference process. Recommendations for 
     action at the national level to combat racist violence, for 
     example, included: ``Enhancing data collection regarding 
     violence motivated by racism, racial discrimination, 
     xenophobia and related intolerance.'' The means to this end 
     were elaborated at length in a section on ``data collection 
     and disaggregation, research and study,'' in which the 
     conference urged governments:
       ``To collect, compile, analyse, disseminate and publish 
     reliable statistical data at the national and local levels 
     and undertake all other related measures which are necessary 
     to assess regularly the situation of individuals and groups 
     of individuals who are victims of racism, racial 
     discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;''
       The full text of this section of the World Conference 
     program of action is included as an appendix to this report.
       The Durban action document also reminded governments of 
     their reporting requirements at the international level--as 
     parties to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of 
     Racial Discrimination. This included both periodic reporting 
     to the committee, and reporting on progress made to respond 
     to the recommendations of the committee. To this end, 
     governments were encouraged ``to consider setting up 
     appropriate national monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to 
     ensure that all appropriate steps are taken to follow up on 
     [the commission's] observations and recommendations.''
       The impact of the practical recommendations made in 
     Strasbourg and in the final documents of the World Conference 
     itself has been severely undermined by the backwash of post-
     Durban recriminations. To a large extent they remain unread 
     outside small circles of relevant technical staff in United 
     Nations and regional antiracism programs. Yet their relevance 
     in the fight against antisemitism and other forms of racism 
     may ultimately be shown at the national level, as important 
     contributions to public policy development.


                   addressing the information deficit

       The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights has identified 
     several important steps to improve the recognition and 
     reporting of anti-Jewish violence, and recommends that 
     governments:
       Acknowledge at the highest level the extraordinary dangers 
     posed by antisemitic violence in the European context;
       Establish clear criteria for registering and reporting 
     crimes motivated by racial animus, sometimes described as 
     bias crimes or hate crimes;
       Make public reports of racially motivated crimes through 
     regular and accessible reports;
       Distinguish clearly in reporting between acts of violence, 
     threatening behavior, and offensive speech;
       Make transparent government norms and procedures for 
     registering and acting upon racially motivated crimes and 
     offenses;
       Cooperate fully with Europe's regional inter-governmental 
     organizations charged with combating racism, xenophobia, and 
     antisemitism, and with the human rights mechanisms of the 
     United Nations; Cooperate fully with nongovernmental 
     organizations concerned with monitoring and taking action 
     against racist violence and intimidation.
       The Lawyers Committee believes there is an important role 
     for the United States to play in encouraging its European 
     allies of the Council of Europe, the European Union, and the 
     member countries of the Organization for Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe to improve their monitoring and public 
     reporting of antisemitic acts and other forms of racist 
     violence.
       In pursuing this goal, the United States should also 
     improve its own reporting and action on racist violence 
     world-wide. To this end, the standards of the Department of 
     State's annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, and 
     in particular the Annual Report on Religious Freedom should 
     be raised in order to report more accurately and 
     comprehensively on antisemitism in Europe and on government 
     actions and omissions in addressing this scourge. These 
     reports should not simply accept that a lack of official 
     government information on antisemitic violence is the whole 
     story; nor should they reflect clearly misleading reporting 
     from official sources without balancing this with reports 
     from nongovernmental organizations. Particular care should be 
     taken not to emphasize only vague improvement when the basis 
     for such an analysis can not be quantified.
       To this end, Congress should insist that staffing and 
     resources be reinforced in the Department of State's Bureau 
     of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, and that the Bureau's 
     guidelines for preparing these reports require an accurate 
     reflection of the nature and patterns of racist violence and 
     of government actions to combat them.