OSCE Unbound

The Ghosts of Copenhagen

I have to say as I contemplate the meeting for the 20th anniversary of the OSCE Copenhagan conference in 1990 coming up on June 20, that the image I see before me is one of the Cowardly Lion in the Wizard of Oz, standing in the Haunted Forest, holding his big tail, eyes squeezed shut, saying over and over again:

"I do believe in spooks, I do believe in spooks, I do I do I do believe in spooks."

That's because when he said he didn't believe in them, something had swooped down on him.

It seems a marvel now that in 1990, before the defeat of the August coup, before the fall of the Soviet Union, the participating states got this good of a document.

Standards about democracy and the rule of law and minority rights that have eroded terribly since that time, and are in grave danger of attempts to renegotiate them which would only go below those achievements once attained.

That's why I imagine the U.S. government hopes to get through this exercise with as little jostling as possible -- so that nothing worse happens to this particular set of standards, already under terrible stress.

Yet given that we're already in the Haunted Forest, shutting our eyes in fear and not boldly pressing forward is just going to make more evil creatures swoop down on us.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has struck a low blow to Copenhagen by calling for the registration of NGOs that wish to monitor human rights in OSCE countries and claiming that OSCE is "too easy" on NGOs. Of course, in his own country and others, they already have to do that. I shudder to think that a group's registration and right to monitor human rights -- "to know and act upon one's rights" so central to the notion of Helsinki -- would have to be subjected to the vagaries of 56 states, and turn into something like the dreaded NGO Committee (of states) in the UN, which passes judgement on whether NGOs get to keep their accreditation passes or not, and with anti-human rights states on it, can bar groups like Freedom House if they are critical of a state's poor record.

By contrast, the OSCE has been liberal in recognizing the right of association of citizens, and challenged governments to show cause for their claims that groups are engaging in terrorism -- something that Turkmenistan, for example, has casually -- and outrageously -- claimed about domestic critics who haven't used or advocated violence whatsoever.

Lavrov also took the opportunity to sink very low on finding fake moral equivalency on the Zhovtis case -- claiming that cases involving a car accident death by a U.S. diplomat in Russia and the crippling of a Russian in the U.S., as well as a German responsible for the deaths of two Russian pedestrians  -- all terrible things, to be sure -- are somehow on par with Kazakhstan opportunistically jailing their chief human rights advocate on the eve of their chairmanship. Car accidents are terrible things. People found guilty of causing them with due process under the rule of law in a democratic country should expect that they would go to jail only if their negligence or intent was proven, and that they did not take measures to prevent such an accident. The failure to gain adequate compensation in an accident -- the dispute in the case referenced by Lavrov -- is hardly on par with taking away a man's freedom and sending him to a remote location when there is no evidence that he is at fault for this tragic loss of life. Going to jail for 3 years for a car accident isn't the norm, even in Kazakhstan.

What really seems to be chafing Lavrov is the fear of "orange revolutions" for which he's cooked up his registration remedy, even streamlined:

They can "just notify the OSCE secretariat that Country X is opening in Country Y a center for training journalists to cover orange revolutions — and this needs not even a reply from the secretariat," he told deputies, Interfax reported.

Er, no thanks. The OSCE secretariat can't be in the business of policing the traffic of bilateral relations among the states and it's worth reminding everyone that freedom of association doesn't require registration -- and states don't have to register with other states, opening up a training center -- they already have registered diplomatic missions.

The Belarusian mission to the UN once sent over an angry diplomat to the International League for Human Rights to protest our granting of a Belarusian organization, Charter 97, affiliate status to attend the UN human rights meetings with our NGO delegation. They said this group was "violating international and domestic law,"and had to "register as a foreign agent in the United States". Sigh. These guys don't get it. They're the foreign agents; we aren't.

There's no question that we're at a low point in the rights of freedom association -- and as I can't say enough, that's a right that does not need registration to enjoy. That fact often gets lost among the welter of workshops and drafting exercises that get done by various international consultants often having to serve either an authoritarian government's mandate, to get their bid accepted, or the watered-down mish-mosh that can result in an ODIHR compilation exercise of this nature.

But -- let's stick to the basics. "Know and act upon your rights". In Central Asia in particular, groups are not permitted any legal status, or very limited status under great pressure and constraints, and are particularly religious and political discussion or protest groups can be seen as terrible threats to the state. Even so, freedom of association - the right of Helsinki groups to do the watching - is the touchstone of all the other rights in this context. That's because these rather formal agreements had no life and no effect until Yuri Orlov and others in the Helsink groups in the Soviet Union began to take the issue of Pravda published August 1, 1975 seriously, and demand implementation of the human rights basket.

OK, Time to Stop Snickering at the Tolerance Conference

Although you'll have to do a lot of clicking around to find this, here's the news: the OSCE conference titled a "high-level conference" on "Tolerance and Non-Discrimination" will take place in Astana, Kazakhstan on June 29-30. It will be preceded by "a round-table for civil society to discuss and finalize their recommendations".

Time for everybody to stop snickering at this tolerance conference and perceiving it as merely a "Jewish project" and take it seriously.

I've been appalled, frankly. I've been in any number of official, semi-official and unofficial meetings and conversations over the past year or so on OSCE issues, the controversial Kazakh chair-in-office, and this topic.

Always and everywhere, it is greeted with a little knowing smile or smirk; an outright expression of indignation about irrelevance; or even a blatant claim that it is the "American Zionists" again -- not to mention, of course, Kazakh cunning in exploiting said "American Zionism" to distract from its own human rights sins.

In fact, I'd have to say that all those little smirks and sneers and actually awful comments about the Jews are *in fact* the sort of intolerance and even antisemitism that this conference is in fact mandated to address.

We all get it that Kazakhstan a) does not suffer from any grotesque forms of antisemitism and b) is not above exploiting this issue for its own ends. Duh.

I have to tell you that antisemitism does remain a problem in Europe and Eurasia, however. As in "the OSCE countries". Perhaps, in the scheme of things in the former Soviet states, where hate crimes tend to be directed more at Caucasians and Central Asians, attacks on Jews seem diminished. They still exist.It all has to be tackled, and not selectively.

For example, I'll just pull the top headlines from the Magenta Foundation ICARE publication, that reports on all forms of racism and discrimination in Europe:

ANTI-SEMITIC DISPLAY AT POLISH SOCCER MATCH MUST NOT GO UNPUNISHED (press release ADL)

GERMAN SYNAGOGUE ATTACKED BY ARSONISTS

JEWISH GRAVES DESECRATED IN SHREVEPORT CEMETERY (USA)

TRIAL BY FIRE FOR AN ASPIRING NEO-NAZI (Germany)

POLISH POLICE DETAIN 5 FOOTBALL FANS FOR UNFURLING LARGE ANTI-SEMITIC BANNER AT MATCH

And so on. BTW, to get this very useful publication on all forms of racism and discrimination particularly in the OSCE counties write [email protected]

And it seems that one can never report on antisemitism these days without balancing the saddlebags and reporting on this, too -- as if protection of the Jews might depend on whether they get the "politically correctt" position on Israel's policies:

JEWISH LUMINARIES PETITION EU PARLIAMENT OVER SETTLEMENTS

The Union of Councils of Post-Soviet Jewry does nearly daily reports on racism in the post-Soviet states. There are plenty of reports of antisemitism, like this one:

DEATH THREATS PAINTED ON JEWISH SCHOOL IN KYIV

COMMUNIST STATE DUMA MAKES ANTISEMITIC STATEMENT

Of course, this organization, like Magenta, is very careful to point out this:

KYIV MURDER PROBABLY NOT ANTISEMITIC

And we all get that racist comments -- some of which can be prosecuted in Europe and Eurasia, and can't be in the United States -- and attacks on property -- aren't as grave a violence as murder on the basis of one's ethnicity:

HORRIFYING STATISTICS RELEASED OF TAJIKS KILLED IN RUSSIA

Those working in the field of human rights know that all these phenomena are interconnected -- it's not only the "broken windows" school of policing that says you have to address vandalism successfully to create a climate of law and order for larger crime prevention tasks, it's that the forces that can break windows or who are emboldened by an MP's nasty statement are capable of worse. There is no need to diminish or ridicule or make a little smirk about any form of racism because all of it has to be tackled.

Yet many approaching this issue feel that it's more than fine to indulge in that smirk. They believe that the Kazakh tolerance conference is a boondoggle, that it is a "special" engineered by a lobby -- and even *gasp* a "Zionist lobby* at that, and that the Kazakhs are merely placating this lobby for their own nefarious ends.

To be sure, among Kazakhstan's many problems, ethnic hatred, intolerance, discrimination don't seem to loom large on the screen. Torture in confinement, suppression of press freedom, violent attacks on opposition members -- these all seem like more compelling issues. Of course, I'd like to hear about this from an expert, and one problem is that a long-time expert on this subject is unjustly behind bars now -- Evgeny Zhovtis.

It's regrettable that this conference is about the more "lightweight" issues of "tolerance" and "antidiscrimination" -- topics that can guide the conversation to worthy educational programs and boring legal discussions -- and not *hate crimes*. This is partly a definitional problem, I imagine, as there isn't such a well-developed definition of "hate" among the countries, and some of them, like Russia, tend to misuse the anti-hate crime statutes to punish any form of dissent whatsoever, including human rights work that exposes the state's complicity in racism.

There also isn't a standardized police documentation system, although some countries have them. For example, in the U.S., the Federal Bureau of Investigation has exhaustive data on hate crimes and their victims.

Here's some information that might wipe the smirk of some people's faces:

Of the 1,732 victims of anti-religious hate crimes in 2008 (the last year for which the data is compiled):

• 66.1 percent were targeted because of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
• 7.5 percent were victims because of an anti-Islamic bias.
• 5.1 percent were victims because of an anti-Catholic bias.
• 3.6 percent were victims because of an anti-Protestant bias.
• 0.8 percent were targeted because of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
• 12.8 percent were victims because of a bias against other religions (anti-other religion).
• 4.0 percent were victims because of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group). (Based on Table 1.)

That goes completely against the received wisdom, as everywhere in the world, there is a sense that racial and religious profiling of Muslims since 9/11 ares by far the worse crimes, especially in the United States, more common than the old-fashioned antisemitic attacks of all types. They aren't.

There are various reasons for this. The population of Jews is greater than the population of Muslims; the visibility of the Jewish community might be greater in some areas than newer immigrant populations of some Muslim groups; Muslim organizations may not report attacks or may not be able to get action on them. All this needs to be looked at. But this table does tell a story -- a story that lets us know smirks are not in order.

And more than half of these hate crimes were attacks against blacks on the basis of their race -- this, in a country which now has a black president. So it's not as if there isn't anything to discuss at the tolerance meeting.

I hope NGOs will get to work -- there isn't much time left if you've just been smirking and not thinking of what really to do with this meeting -- on making a more sturdy agenda for this meeting.

The first thing I'd do if I could go to Astana (I can't) would be to emphatically get on the agenda:

o the relationship between levels of tolerance and levels of impunity for hate crimes. They are intimately connected.

o the systems of various police and other law-enforcement agencies for recording and reporting hate crimes -- can they be made uniform in the OSCE countries? What would be the process for this exercise? (Get this topic out of the more sequestered sessions of police training and put it into this topic area)

o the impact of the three tolerance mandates in the OSCE -- are they functioning? Do they report? do they have access? Should they be institutionalized rather than appointed by the chair-in-office?

o antidiscrimnation laws -- are they working? Are they enforced? Are they taught in training?

And note to the Obama people: for God's sake, if you are going to go lurching around complaining about the Arizona immigration law, and that's fine if you do, put the word "and" into your sentences and *also* talk about the outrageous numbers of Tajiks and other Central Asian labor migrants *murdered* in Russia. Talk about the unacceptable official statements of antisemitism coming from the Russian parliament and the unacceptable climate of incitement of violence still in Kyiv.

And that brings me to another reason for the sort of indignation that occurs around this topic if the smirk doesn't occur.

And that indignation comes from some of the reforming post-Soviet states that feel they have done an awful lot on this topic -- and they have -- and that they shouldn't continue to hear criticism.

I found this in particular with discussing the few antisemitic outbursts and anti-Jewish attacks that occurred around the Kyrgyz Revolution. Some journalists noted this, and reported it. Loyalists to the fragile new interrim government denounced them for exaggerating or being Jewish themselves and tooting their own horn. I think some people don't get why you report on antisemitism when you hear it, and don't muffle it in the interests of protecting fragile new interrim governments. And that's because it is a marker, a signifier for antiliberal movements that can turn violent, and because of the history of the mass murder of the Jews in Europe and Eurasia.

Antisemitism isn't only about the Jews, as many have often discovered in researching the topic. The Jews could have long since fled, but there will still be nutters muttering about "Zionist conspiracies". Adam Michnik said during the days of Solidarity, "a threat to the Jews is a threat to democracy and a threat to democracy is a threat to the Jews". So it's more than fine to track and worry about antisemitism in this part of the world, and it doesn't detract from the murders of other ethnic or religious groups to do so.

I'm sure there are lots more ideas for this conference that might help turn it into something more than an annoying exercise. As usual, that really will depend on NGOs to inject some life and seriousness into the equation. Below is the letter from the OSCE secretariat on the relevant information and a contact to send your proposals and papers:

Kazakh Chair Censors OSCE Parliament on Visit to Jailed Human Rights Activist

The Kazakh Chair-in-Office has censored the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly's statement on their visit to imprisoned human rights advocate Evgeny Zhovtis, the OSCE PA reported in their bulletin today.

"Unfortunately, the Kazakh Chairmanship instructed the OSCE press office in Vienna not to publish the OSCE PA press release about Mr. Mecacci’s visit on the OSCE website," says today's issue of News From Copenhagen, the newsletter of OSCE PA, in a description of a the MPs' trip to Ust-Kamenogorsk -- which is as far away as it sounds.

Of course, nothing is censored on the Internet for long really; here it is: Download News from Copenhagen 346.

No, it's more about "mindshare".

Likely more people visit the web pages of osce.org than they visit the subset of OSCE PA pages or get the parliamentary bulletin via email.

Actually, when you *do* visit oscepa.org you start to see more of the problem here. Yes, there's a story about the OSCE PA visiting Zhovtis with a dateline of May 13. But there's nothing on the osce.pa website telling us in turn that the Kazakh chair tried to block their story from the OSCE website. And of course, there should be, if OSCE PA is to have any credibility -- and if this story is to get in Google, where it can't get if it is trapped in a PDF emailed bulletin.

Instead, OSCE PA sends around a newsletter to its distribution list, in which they note the "unfortunate" instruction from the Kazakh Chair-in-Office.

The visit of the OSCE PA to the top human rights activist in the country of the Chair-in-Office, is, of course big news, and normal news judgement would put it in the main feed of stories about all things OSCE at the OSCE Press Centre. Obviously the Kazakh chair wanted to keep it out of that more visible news feed.

Of course, relations between OSCE PA and central command can be testy -- news from OSCE PA isn't always news at the Centre, or comes with a fat disclaimer, like this one calling for a "constructive political process" in Kyrgyzstan.

"The following is a press release issued by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. The views expressed in this press release do not necessarily reflect those of the OSCE Chairmanship, nor of all OSCE participating States.

So, given that practice of fronting releases from OSCE PA with disclaimers at the OSCE Press Centre, why not let the Zhovtis piece run?

One could ask questions about this forever in the halls of power at OSCE, dispersed as they are, but there's a bigger question to be asked here:

Hey, if the Kazakh chair could block a story like the one about Zhovtis, what other stories is he blocking? Anyone?

Indeed, it seems peculiar that the May 17 OSCE PA release on Kyrgyzstan following a visit to Bishkek had to be run with a disclaimer, when all it said was innocuous stuff like this:

"The quick action by the provisional government to remedy errors of the past through creating a new constitution is important. Now it is up to all of the people of Kyrgyzstan to maintain a constructive dialogue among political forces and civil society as this process moves forward. While maintaining Kyrgyzstan's respect for political pluralism, I hope that all forces can unite and move forward in restoring stability and democracy," said OSCE Parliamentary Assembly President Joao Soares, who leads the delegation."

My problem with this statement is that it isn't clear if OSCE PA means to include Bakiyev as one of the forces one must "reconcile" with -- a notion that could easily creep in, given that OSCE PA contains bad actors like fake Belarusian parliamentarians and not-really-freely-elected Russian MPs. Even so, a statement as mild as one calling for "constructive dialogue," an OSCE staple, shouldn't have to get a disclaimer like that.