July 20, 2000

Briefing of the

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

WASHINGTON : 2001

106th CONGRESS Printed for the use of the

2nd Session Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

Briefing with Alexandr Nikitin
COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE

234 Ford House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515-6460

(202) 225-1901

csce@mail.house.gov

http://www.csce.gov

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS

ii

EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS

HAROLD HONGJU KOH, Department of State

EDWARD L. WARNER III, Department of Defense

PATRICK A. MULLOY, Department of Commerce

COMMISSION STAFF

DOROTHY DOUGLAS TAFT, Chief of Staff

RONALD J. MCNAMARA, Deputy Chief of Staff

BEN ANDERSON, Communications Director

OREST DEYCHAKIWSKY, Staff Advisor

JOHN F. FINERTY, Staff Advisor

CHADWICK R. GORE, Staff Advisor

ROBERT HAND, Staff Advisor

JANICE HELWIG, Staff Advisor

MARLENE KAUFMANN, Counsel

KAREN S. LORD, Counsel for Freedom of Religion

MICHELE MADASZ, Staff Assistant/Systems Administrator

MICHAEL J. OCHS, Staff Advisor

ERIKA B. SCHLAGER, Counsel for International Law

MAUREEN T. WALSH, General Counsel

HOUSE

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

Chairman

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia

MATT SALMON, Arizona

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

STENY H. HOYER, Maryland

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland

LOUISE MCINTOSH SLAUGHTER, New York

MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York

SENATE

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

Co-Chairman

SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION (OSCE)

The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki

process, traces its origin to the signing of the Helsinki Final Act in Finland on August 1,

1975, by the leaders of 33 European countries, the United States and Canada. Since then, its

membership has expanded to 55, reflecting the breakup of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. (The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro, has been

suspended since 1992, leaving the number of countries fully participating at 54.) As of January 1, 1995, the formal name of the Helsinki process was changed to the Organization for

Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

The OSCE is engaged in standard setting in fields including military security, economic

and environmental cooperation, and human rights and humanitarian concerns. In addition,

it undertakes a variety of preventive diplomacy initiatives designed to prevent, manage and

resolve conflict within and among the participating States.

The OSCE has its main office in Vienna, Austria, where weekly meetings of permanent

representatives are held. In addition, specialized seminars and meetings are convened in

various locations and periodic consultations among Senior Officials, Ministers and Heads of

State or Government are held.

ABOUT THE COMMISSION (CSCE)

The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), also known as the

Helsinki Commission, is a U.S. Government agency created in 1976 to monitor and encourage compliance with the agreements of the OSCE.

The Commission consists of nine members from the U.S. House of Representatives,

nine members from the U.S. Senate, and one member each from the Departments of State,

Defense and Commerce. The positions of Chair and Co-Chair are shared by the House and

Senate and rotate every two years, when a new Congress convenes. A professional staff

assists the Commissioners in their work.

To fulfill its mandate, the Commission gathers and disseminates information on Helsinki-related topics both to the U.S. Congress and the public by convening hearings, issuing

reports reflecting the views of the Commission and/or its staff, and providing information

about the activities of the Helsinki process and events in OSCE participating States.

At the same time, the Commission contributes its views to the general formulation of

U.S. policy on the OSCE and takes part in its execution, including through Member and

staff participation on U.S. Delegations to OSCE meetings as well as on certain OSCE bodies.

Members of the Commission have regular contact with parliamentarians, government officials, representatives of non-governmental organizations, and private individuals from OSCE

participating States.

iii
ALEXANDR NIKITIN

JULY 20, 2000

PARTICIPANTS

Page

Dorothy Douglas Taft, Chief of Staff, Commission on Security

and Cooperation in Europe ................................................................................................... 1

Alexandr Nikitin, Director, Environmental Rights Center of St. Petersburg ...................... 2

Frederick Hauge, Chairman, Bellona Foundation .................................................................. 4

APPENDICES

Prepared Statement of Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell ....................................................... 13

Prepared Submission of Alexandr Nikitin ............................................................................. 14

iv
1

BRIEFING WITH ALEXANDR NIKITIN

THURSDAY, JULY 20, 2000

COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE,

WASHINGTON, DC

The briefing was held at 10:22 a.m., in Room 2255, Rayburn House Office Building,

Dorothy Douglas Taft, chief of staff for the Commission, presiding.

Ms. TAFT. I apologize for our late beginning this morning. Chairman Smith was on his

way here, got detained in a mark-up, and then needed to stay.

My name is Dorothy Taft. Im Chief of Staff for the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. It is my pleasure to welcome all of you to this briefing this morning on

behalf of Chairman, Congressman Christopher Smith and Co-Chairman, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell.

We welcome to Capitol Hill today a hero of modern day Russia and a courageous defender of the worlds environment, Mr. Alexandr Nikitin. Former Russian Naval Captain

Alexandr Nikitin, had been accused of obtaining and divulging state secrets during his work

with the Bellona Foundation, a Norwegian environmental organization, exposing irresponsible nuclear waste disposal practices by the Soviet and Russian navies in the White Sea

region.

Arrested in January of 1996, he was held in pretrial detention for 10 months and then

released under the condition that he not leave St. Petersburg. In fact, last year during the

meeting of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in St. Petersburg, Chairman Smith and other

members of the Helsinki Commission had the honor and privilege of meeting with Mr. Nikitin in St. Petersburg, and in his statement hes going to provide the details of his legal case

and the situation that he is in right now.

A couple of things that I think Mr. Nikitins case points out, as far as the critical issues

that are facing Russia today, are these, and the first is an obvious one focusing on the environment. The report issued by the Bellona Foundation, written in collaboration with Mr.

Nikitin, revealed hazardous practices by the Soviet and Russian navies in dealing with nuclear

wastes, in the threat the wastes posed to the surrounding population.

Indeed, throughout the Soviet Union the governments lackadaisical attitude toward

the environment left a horrible legacy for future post-Soviet generations.

Meanwhile, President Putin has abolished his countrys Environmental Protection Committee, which had been created as a cabinet ministry in 1991, then downgraded to a state

committee in 1996, and now folded into the Natural Resources Agency, supposedly, as a

cost-cutting measure, perhaps. But, as we know from our own experience some cost-cutting

measures can turn out to be very costly, especially in terms of healthpublic health issues

and human lives.

Well be interested to hear today from Mr. Nikitin on how he sees the prospects for a

sensible environmental policy in Russia.

Furthermore, the Russian Security Services seem determined to intimidate scientists

who are working with colleagues from abroad in the environmental field. President Putin
2

himself has alleged that environmental groups provide cover for foreign intelligence in Russia. In her testimony before the Helsinki Commission on May 23 of this year, Professor Sarah

Mendelson of Tufts University noted that, The harassment of environmental organizations

has grown over the years increasingly systematic and extreme. Russian groups that have

received Western assistance or have links to Western groups, as most of the best organized

do, have come under the close watch of the state and this activity has gotten particularly bad

since March of this year.

We will be interested to hear from Mr. Nikitin, who is currently Director of the Environmental Rights Center in St. Petersburg, what it is like to be an environmental activist in

Russia today.

In conclusion, I would be remiss not to mention some of Mr. Nikitins friends and supports outside Russia, who were most active in campaigning for justice in his case. There

were, of course, his colleagues from the Bellona Foundation. We have with us today Frederick

Hauge, the Chairman of the Bellona Foundation. Other friends included Amnesty International, the Union of Councils for Soviet Jews, the Sierra Club and surely many other persons

who lent their voice to the defense of this brave individual.

Mr. Nikitin, we are pleased to have you share your thoughts with us today, and following your presentation we will open up the floor for follow-up questions. So, welcome to the

Commission.

Mr. NIKITIN (through an interpreter unless otherwise noted). I would like to thank you

for the possibility to speak here. I would like to thank Congressman Smith, who visited my

office in St. Petersburg. I would like to thank American NGOs who have been very supportive during my case, and I would like to thank ordinary people who sent me lots of letters

while I was in prison, and today I want to focus on three issues.

I will just read my statement.

I would like to thank Chairman Christopher Smith, Co-Chairman Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Representative Steny Hoyer, and all the members and staff of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe for their long-standing and active support in my case. I am

grateful to the CSCE for your visit to my office in Russia, and I am glad that your help allows

me to be in the United States today.

I also would like to thank the environmental and human rights coalition that has sustained me all these years, including Amnesty International USA, Sierra Club, Bellona USA,

and the Union of Councils for Soviet Jews.

Today Id like to discuss three issues: First, the surprising and disturbing update on my

personal case. Second, the productive activities in the environmental and human rights movement, despite continued and even increasing FSB secret service harassment of human rights

and environmental defenders.

Third, I will cover the efforts by a coalition of ecological and human rights organizations

in Russia to initiate a referendum on the proposal to import international nuclear waste into

the Russian Federation.

First, my case has taken a turn for the worse. Yesterday I learned from my lawyer that

the Procurator Generals office (the equivalent of the Attorney General) has filed a new appeal after my acquittal by the Supreme Court this spring. A three-judge panel at the Supreme Court previously tried my case and this is an appeal to the entire Presidium, an

11-judge chamber. A new hearing of the case is scheduled for August 2 in Moscow at the

Presidium of the Supreme Court.

The new appeal contains absolutely no new information and asserts a desire to send my
3

case back to the prosecutor to collect more evidence. The appeal is dated May 30 and the

letter to my lawyer from the Supreme Court is dated July 11. After 41

/2 years, the prosecutor

should already have had sufficient time to collect evidence if there is any backing for the

charges against me. After losing in court four times, the prosecutor still is requesting more

evidence. As far as my lawyer knows, this is the first time in post-Soviet history that a

Supreme Court decision by a panel has been appealed to the entire Supreme Court Presidium.

Unfortunately my case is not the only example of the governments harassment of

grassroots advocates in Russia. The FSBs persecution of environmental defenders, human

rights activists, and scientists continues. I hope you will use your good offices to continue to

support environmental defenders and the related rights of freedom of speech and associationthe fundamental tenets of civil society and democracy.

I want to use the more than 4 years of experience gathered in my case to assist others in

the same situationor better still, help them avoid getting into a situation as seemingly

inextricable as mine. Despite the harassment, I very much want to continue my work in

Russia, as the work is close to my heart.

I continue to work for the Bellona Foundation, a Norwegian environmental non-governmental organization. We also founded the Environmental Rights Center in St. Petersburg to

address issues at the intersection of environment and human rights. Additionally, we wanted

to broaden our network of support, so we established an umbrella organization, the Coalition

for Environment and Human Rights, which unites and supports about 40 grassroots NGOs

in Russia.

The coalition is led by the environmental activists Grigory Pasko, Lev Fyodorov and me.

The activities of this coalition include (1) monitoring and collecting environmental and human rights information; (2) supporting environmental defenders; and (3) utilizing the experience of previous legal cases.

Recently, President Putin abolished the State Committee to Protect the Environment,

the equivalent of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, leaving environmentalists with

even less official support than before. At the same time, the government has found other

ways to harass environmental and human rights defenders, through the tax police and overlybureaucratic registration procedures.

The military journalist Grigory Pasko, who also has been invited to Washington, is not

currently allowed to travel as the appeal of his acquittal is stalled in the system. Other cases

of harassed activists include Nikolai Shur, who collected nuclear contamination information

in the Chelyabinsk region, and the scientist Vladimir Soyfer of Vladivostok, who conducted

research on the environmental impact of nuclear issues. Protection for environmental defenders is closely tied to freedom of speech and the press.

The governments policy of rapid resource extraction for hard currency exports turns

defenders of Russias environment into opponents of official policy, which has set off a pattern of harassment of environmental defenders. Because this is an international trade issue,

the United States should be just as concerned as Russia.

Another issue close to my heart is the Ministry of Atomic Energys proposal to import

large amounts of foreign radioactive materials into the Russian Federation for cash. A coalition of environmental and human rights groups is working to initiate a referendum to give

the Russian people a voice to influence this dangerous new policy. We know from opinion

polls that the vast majority of ordinary Russians is opposed to this scheme, but the government presses on.
4

Most of the nuclear materials are of U.S. origin and U.S. permission is required to transfer them to Russia. I urge you to take a stand with the Administration in support of Russias

people against nuclear waste imports, or at least hold off any U.S. decision until the referendum indicates what the Russian people want.

I also urge United States officials to take every opportunity to raise these crucial environmental and human rights problems with Russian authorities. Thank you.

Ms. TAFT. Thank you very much, Mr. Nikitin.

Before we turn to some questions, let me turn to Mr. Hauge for comment.

Mr. HAUGE. Because of the new situation that occurred yesterday, we wanted to point

out whats now going on in this case and say the following. When glasnost and perestroika

started, the environmental movement was one of the few organized movements in Russia.

The harassment and the long case against Alexandr Nikitin have been based upon secret and retroactive laws. When this case is appealed to the Council of the Supreme Court in

Russia, its important to remember that this is still the fact and its very difficult to do business with a country that operates with secret and retroactive laws.

The charges against Alexandr Nikitin were made when he was in prison. The laws on

which these charges are based upon were passed when he was in prison, and it took us

several years before we learned what the laws were about.

I stress this because we know the huge attention in the West has not solved the problem

alone, but it has assured us that we have received a fair judge. The verdict both in the City

Court, heard on the 29th of December last year, and the verdict in the Supreme Court, on the

17 of April, was excellent legal work from the judges.

The attempt we see now from the FSB is scary because 2 years ago the Procurator

Generals office said that it was impossible for the FSB to bring to court such a case based on

secret or retroactive laws. But there has now been a change of personnel, and they are now

willing to file this petition and appeal this case to the Council of the Supreme Court. Thats

a very scary development. I think that those who want to reverse the process of democracy

and perestroika have chosen to attack the environmental movement because the environmental movement has been so important in creating steps toward democracy.

I just want to mention this because many things happened yesterday, after we prepared

Nikitins statement. I think it is important to give you the latest update on our situation.

The court hearing will take place in August, and we will now try to draw as much

attention as possible to this case.

Ms. TAFT. Thank you.

Ill turn now to John Finerty, who is my colleague from the Commission who is most

knowledgeable with the case

Mr. FINERTY. Thank you.

I just have a question of Mr. Nikitin. Of course, this case raises many questions, but

back in the 1960s and 1970s in the United States, the environmental issue became very

important here, and you saw our Congress working actively on this subject.

 I would like to ask Mr. Nikitin, specificallyespecially since members just came back

from the Parliamentary Assembly in Bucharest and had an opportunity to meet with members of the Russian Dumaare there parties, or Duma members, or factions of the official

legislatures that support the environmental situation? How much support does the environmental situation have within the national legislature?

Mr. NIKITIN. Regarding the Russian Duma, the State Duma Council of the Russian Parliament, just two factions are supporting environmental factions, the Yabloko faction and
5

the Union of the Rightist Forces faction, but they are not the majority of the Russian Duma.

So, that is why in most environmental cases we are losing rather than winning.

Ms. TAFT. Regarding the details of your case, why do you think there is such an effort on

behalf of the procuracy and the security services to convict you? What is their motivation for

what they are doing?

Mr. NIKITIN. Again, when the news was released yesterday, there was an attempt by the

Russian security police and the procuracy office to win the case that they lost in the Supreme

Court this year. This was an attempt to save face, and this is understandable because this is

the first case that the Russian security policethe firstcase the Russian security police

lost in the court system, and they are not used to losing such cases. That is why they are

trying to do whatever they case to reverse the outcome.

Ms. TAFT. Thank you.

Commission Chairman Congressman Christopher Smith has arrived. Ill turn it over to

you.

Mr. SMITH. Thanks, Dorothy.

First, I want to say very briefly how glad we are to have you here. The Helsinki Commission, as you know, repeatedly has fought for your release and an ending of the trumped up

charges by the Russians. When we were in St. Petersburg last year we were pleased to be

with you, but we made it clear to members of the Duma, including the Speaker of the Duma,

how important it was to have a just resolution of the unjust case. So, it is truly an honor to

have you at the Helsinki Commission.

I apologize for being late. We had a mark-up in the International Relations Committee,

and Im Vice Chairman of that committee. While we had many bills, luckily, we went through

them very quickly. I hope you understand. We are very proud to have you here and look

forward to hearing what you have to say.

Mr. NIKITIN. Thank you very much.

Ms. TAFT. Ill turn over the microphone to the floor, if there are those that would like to

ask a question.

Yes, sir, please identify yourself.

QUESTIONER. Im Professor Richard Claude, and Im with the University of Maryland,

Government and Politics Department.

Those of us who are interested in science and public policy generally think of the main

actors in that field as government and scientific institutions. Its something new to learn

about the importance of NGOs in relationship to science and public policy, so Id be very

interested in any general comment about the role of human rights NGOs in relationship to

science and technology as you see that role emerging from your own case.

Mr. NIKITIN [SPEAKING THROUGH INTERPRETER]. Thank you very much.

Well, today I have to admit that NGOs in Russia are experiencing big difficulties created by the Russian state authorities.

Ten years ago, NGOs played quite an important role in Russia, and the fact that today

we have an independent country Russia is mostly due to the work of those NGOs.

The NGOs demanded that every states political and human rights be followed in this

country, in Russia, and the new Russian Constitution stipulates all those rights NGOs were

fighting for.

But today, the environmental NGOs are experiencing trouble with the Russian state. I

think the environmental NGOs are in a risky situation in todays Russia.

Those environmental NGOs working with water, forestry, oil, and gas exploration, are
6

experiencing pressure from industrial interests, from oligarches, so they call them in Russia.

At the same time, the NGOs, that are working with nuclear security, nuclear safety,

and biological and chemical weaponry, are experiencing troubles with the Russian security

police.

Now, I am quite sure that it is not possible to exercise democracy in a country without

NGOs, that is why NGOs today plan to unite to fight against the harassment from the state

borders.

Mr. SMITH. I would like to ask you a question. As you well know, Three Mile Island was

our wake-up call about the potential hazards of nuclear power plants. Chernobyl was the

worlds wake-up call because of the near meltdown of that power plant. The July 9 Washington Post had a story suggesting that the 29 on-line nuclear plants in Russia have been cited

for a large number of safety violations, and now the Minister of Energy, Atomic Energy,

wants to build another 23 nuclear plants.

What is your read on that? What can be done to put pressure, one, to clean up their act

with the plants that are already on line, and, apparently, at risk, and what can be done about

opening the 23 new power plants?

Mr. NIKITIN [SPEAKING THROUGH INTERPRETER]. After the Chernobyl accident, people in Russia, they distrust the ministry which was responsible for operation of nuclear power plants in

Russia.

Also, after the Chernobyl accident, people want to know what is happening to nuclear

power plants and what is the safety level at nuclear power plants. We say that nuclear

energy can develop further if people can be assured that it will operate safely. That is why we

are trying to get access to this information about the safety levels at the nuclear power

plants.

This is what we are trying to say to the Russian Government and the Ministry for Nuclear

Energy, which operates the nuclear power plants, but in response they have classified ever

more information. We are also trying to say that we want to take part in the environmental

input study when a nuclear power plant is being constructed. There are many experts today

in the United States and in Russia who can evaluate the safety level of nuclear power plants,

and give their opinion about a particular project. I believe that the government has to listen

to that opinion.

That is why when the Russian Minister for Atomic Energy wants to construct a nuclear

power reactor, which is similarly designed to the reactor in the Chernobyl nuclear power

plant, or trying to create a project to import spent nuclear fuel from other countries, we are

opposing these projects. We want our opinion to be taken into consideration, and this is the

right of each particular person.

Mr. SMITH. Just to follow up, does the IAEA have any input with the Russian Government, in terms of plants on line and those proposed, and do you have any kind of association

with them?

Mr. NIKITIN [SPEAKING THROUGH INTERPRETER]. The IAEA, the International Atomic Energy

Agency, is carrying out controls on some nuclear power plants in Russia, but when it comes

to new nuclear construction, where the new use of nuclear energy is concerned, then there is

no control from International Atomic Energy Agency.

Mr. SMITH. I must leave and Ill come back right after the vote again.

One question about chemical weapons. Do you or your association have concerns about

chemical weapons and/or biological, in terms of leakage? We know that at least with some of

their nuclear assets they have been very slipshod in the way they handle them. Theres been
7

concerns about transferring them to rogue nations, what about the other horrible capacity

that they own?

Mr. NIKITIN [SPEAKING THROUGH INTERPRETER]. The chemical and biological weapons are

quite dangerous issues, because if you remember in 1993, 1992, there was a case against two

chemists, Vil Mirsayanov and Lev Fyodorov. Vil Marsayanov was harassed by the state and

he had to leave the country, and I know he lives in the United States. Lev Fyodorov is still

working on this issue, and right now he joins the Coalition of Environmental and Human

Rights, which was created in Russia recently, and Im a member as well.

Lev Fyodorov is working, actually, on the decommissioning of chemical weapons, and

this issue, it is still pending, it is not resolved, and it is very expensive to resolve. Now the

issue is old dumping of chemical weapon components in various places. For example, they

have discovered recently such dump sites within the borders of Moscow city.

Mr. SMITH. Ill be right back.

Ms. TAFT. He needs to vote.

Do we have other questions from the floor? Mr. Merry?

Mr. MERRY. Wayne Merry, also affiliated with Amnesty International.

As you may know, the U.S. State Department and the White House have taken very

different positions on your case and on the case of Grigory Pasko, because Captain Pasko was

a serving military officer, and there was concern in the U.S. Government that giving support

to him might create a precedent for a problem with military discipline in the U.S. Armed

Forces as well.

As a result, the U.S. Government was willing to make representations through diplomatic and political channels to the Russian Government on your behalf, but was much less

willing to do so on behalf of Captain Pasko.

Im wondering if you would comment on this difference in the U.S. official position between the two cases.

Mr. NIKITIN [SPEAKING THROUGH INTERPRETER]. Thats right, Grigory Pasko was in the military service when he was arrested and charged with a crime, but we have to look at the

merits of the case because Pasko was a journalist writing in the naval newspaper.

He was writing about environmental issues, such as the disposal of radioactive waste in

the Navy in the Pacific Fleet, the dumping of old ammunition into the sea, and things like

that.

I would like to stress that when a person is charged with something, the prosecution has

to follow the laws, and the laws were not followed in the Pasko case, and it was the same

situation as in my case, and in such situations I think the officials of the West have to make

sure that the laws are followed.

If a person is persecuted in the normal way, then it doesnt much matter where he has

his service.

Ms. TAFT. Thank you very much.

Mr. Finerty?

Mr. FINERTY. Thank you.

Mr. Nikitin, its our understanding that the officialI believe the deputy prosecutor

who filed the recent appeal on your case with the Supreme Court justified his request, partially at least, on the fact that the prosecutors case was based on secret decrees, and that,

therefore, your defense counsel could not adequately defend you.

We look at this, we think of Alice in Wonderland. Is this really the case? Is this your

understanding of it?
8

Mr. NIKITIN. Well, if we read the appeal filed by the general attorneys office, then at the

end of that theres a couple of sentences, background for that view, and there it says that

unfortunately during this 41/2 years my rights have been violated, and to restore my rights

they have to send the case back to the security police for additional investigation.

During this 41/2 years of investigation, we kept saying to the prosecutor who was supervising the case that the security police investigators had been violating my basic rights and

the rules of the investigation process. But, the prosecutors office and the prosecutor who was

supervising the case ignored all our complaints claiming all the time that none of the rights

had been violated.

To date, the general attorneys office is filing this appeal, while they refer to the fact that

my rights have been violated during the process, so they are trying to reverse what they

denied before.

So, I dont have any comments on such a situation, its ridiculous.

Ms. TAFT. As a follow-up to that, have you seen any evidence of the security forces putting any pressure on the judicial process?

Mr. NIKITIN. Well, its a good question. We are feeling that the judge who was to hear my

case would be under pressures of the Russian security police, because it used to be in the

Soviet Union when the court judicial system was controlled by the security police, but the

judge who was judging my case in St. Petersburg, and then the judges of the Supreme Court

is Moscow, they showed independence and followed the law when they made the verdict in

my case.

And, right after the official verdict was announced in the city court of St. Petersburg, the

prosecutor in the case rushed into the office of the judge and asked the judge why wasnt he,

the prosecutor, informed about the outcome of the case. The judge replied that he didnt

inform the[unclear]

During the presidency of Boris Yeltsin of Russia, the judges in Russia started to developsituation to the prosecutors office and wouldnt be under the pressure. Nevertheless,

I am not sure what happens during the presidency of Putin.

Ms. TAFT. Did you have a comment?

Mr. HAUGE. Just a little comment to this, because I think its very fair to say that the

judges in this case when they come up to the city courts have been fair. I also, again, emphasize the verdict is excellent legal work. It kills the work of FSB completely.

Nevertheless, what we have seen then when our lawyers have assisted the Russian

lawyers is that theres very little equality of arms, its violating of the precepts of contradictions, just how we are seeing the cases to the Council of the Supreme Court this has happened with the state prosecutor sending this to the Supreme Court 13th of May, they dont

send any copies to the lawyers, and then you have to meet up in the Supreme Court to settle

the debate, and then they send the message to us through the post. That is not very quick.

We have then 13 days for preparing, even if the decision was made months ago.

So, a lot of this same stuff has to be done within the Russian legal system, it has to draw

attention from the West. We have also seen that theres a huge need for assisting lawyers,

legal people, and teaching law students and so on, and how things should work in a democracy.

This is one reason that they have, with other people, created the Law Center, because

we want to use the experience of the excellent legal team, and transfer this experience to

young law students in school, and also because additional experience, it has been extremely

important to translate verdicts from the Strasbourg court, decisions in international courts,
9

in other countrys courts, to explain how a legal system should work in a democracy.

Ms. TAFT. Mr. McNamara.

Mr. MCNAMARA. Ron McNamara, with the Helsinki Commission.

I understand that you had a series of meetings at the State Department and at the

White House with various officials, and I know that President Clinton departed this morning

for the G8 summit meeting in Okinawa, and wondered if theres been any commitment by

the Administration that your case would be raised in Okinawa, and do you believe that a

representation at that level might be helpful in trying to, at long last, bring this saga to an

end?

Mr. NIKITIN. We discussed this issue with various officials in the State Department and

Congress at length, and they asked us what do they have to do to help us out in this situation,

and we gave them our opinion.

I believe that they will at least bring up this issue, mention it in Okinawa and express

their surprise, because in April, after the decision of the Supreme Court, everybody thought

that the case was over and now it looks like it starts all over again. So, this was a surprise.

Ms. TAFT. Are there other questions? Yes.

Ms. SHAPIRO. Hi, my name is Amy Shapiro, and earlier you discussed environmental

NGOs and the difficulties they were experiencing now in your country. I was wondering if

you could touch a little bit more upon human rights NGOs and their experiencing difficulties

and an update in status on them.

Mr. NIKITIN. I mentioned already that there was a re-registration process carried out by

the Russian Ministry of Justice last year, and 50 percent of the NGOs that tried to re-register

themselves didnt get their registration paperwork. But, since they tried to work there under

constant pressure from industrial groups and from the state, so what they are trying to do is

just struggle for their survival.

Ms. TAFT. Maureen?

Ms. GREENWOOD. Maureen Greenwood, the Advocacy Director for Europe, Amnesty International.

I just wanted to, again, thank Chairman Smith and the CSCE for the amazing help

youve done in Alexandr Nikitins case.

We actually expected this to be a victory tour. We were hoping to just be able to take him

around town and thank everyone, and then give him a couple weeks of vacation, give him a

tour of the United States, and unfortunately now hes going to be forced to go right back to

Russia to face another judicial proceeding.

We certainly are hoping that President Clinton will raise the issue in his 4:00 meeting

tomorrow with President Putin, and weve talked to several of his advisors about this. Representative Gejdenson is also working on a congressional letter to President Putin about the

case, and I also would like to remind Congress that theres a Duma delegation from the

International Relations Committee, from the securities committee, that is coming on Saturday, so this is also a very good opportunity to raise Mr. Nikitins case at the parliament.

Thank you.

Ms. TAFT. Thank you.

Yes, Joe?

QUESTIONER. Hi, Im Joe Dresen with the Kennan Institute at the Wilson Center.

I wanted to ask what kind of support and coverage are cases receiving in the Russian

media and among the Russian population? Is there a grassroots campaign to help out your

case, or is it being ignored? What is the situation there?
10

Ms. TAFT. Can you repeat your question?

QUESTIONER. Im sorry, I just wanted to know what kind of coverage your case has been

receiving in the Russian press, and whether theres some ground swell of support in your

favor, or is this being ignored, or whats the picture?

Mr. NIKITIN. Well, there is coverage in the Russian media, but it is presented from different angles. For example, when the environmental commission was abolished, official channels kept saying that it was necessary to do so because it would allow them to save some

financial resources and it was a waste of money to keep that commission and things like that.

The company and newspapers which are part of the Gusinsky major company, like NTV

and other channels, are accepting the arguments of the NGOs on their movement, and they

are trying to present NGOs views for the Russian public.

But, generally speaking, to come to a newspaper with some information is quite difficult

in Russia.

Mr. HAUGE. I want to comment on that. I have been working with media for a long time

in the West, and working with the Russian media is a completely different situation. What

has been going on in the Russian media has, in fact, been very bad. There has not been a lack

of attention to Nikitins case or to these issues, but it has been interesting that, for example,

the wife of Victor Cherkesov, head of the FSB, is the editor of a newspaper. They have managed to paint this situation quite awfully. Everything--and also the local television station

owned by the city government in St. Petersburghas been bad, i.e., Alexandr Nikitin being

responsible for the Kosovo war because he revealed the bad condition of the Russian fleet

so NATO knew they could attack without fear of Russian reprisal. Its really been bad.

Not everything in the newspapers is political interference, but there is a lack of experience among young journalists, who split between comments and facts. As I earlier mentioned, there is a huge need to teach young law students. I really hope that also we can come

into the business of teaching young journalists in elementary principles of the trade, and

how these things should be worked out. Nevertheless, it has been very bad.

Thats not only from the journalists. Its also, for example, the Minister of Atomic Energy Department has been giving very bad comments. Luckily, Alexandr has sued him and

just won the case against Minister Adamov, and he was then sentenced to pay Alexandr

10,000 rubles, which is not much, but thats not the point. The point is that he could not say

what he was saying.

Ms. TAFT. Mr. Naftalin.

QUESTIONER. Micah Naftalin, Union of Councils for Soviet Jews.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to piggyback on points made by Ron McNamara and Maureen Greenwood, first to say thank you for this briefing. I think everybody recognizes you

have provided, and the Helsinki Commission for years has provided, the most hospitable

venue in Washington for hearing the concerns of these kinds of issues. These issues would

not have the currency or the strength without the work that you and your staff does here.

As you know, weve been before you many times over the last year or two talking about

the Yeltsin Administration as well, talking about a series of disconcerting developments, the

rise of anti-Semitism, the attacks on the religious minorities, especially the evangelical Christians.

More recently added to that are the pressures as described by Mr. Nikitin on the human

rights NGOs, on the environmental NGOs. Just a few days after President Clinton spoke

during the summit on questions of freedom of speech, this Administration took a major step

forward in intimidating the press by the arrest of Mr. Gusinsky, and it took international
11

pressure to get him released from jail at the end of that week.

Now, 2 days before the G8, or is it G7 plus one, 2 days before they have gone after

Gusinsky again, I guess youve seen in the paper that they have confiscated everything he

owns from his media empire to the tea cups in his kitchen, and they have, on the same day,

reinstituted, as a political device, reinstituted the attack on Captain Nikitin.

It is true that we have made representations yesterday to the Administration urging

that Mr. Clinton raise this issue with President Putin, but that meeting is at 4:00 tomorrow,

the President was at Camp David, the Secretary of State was at Camp David, the top security NSC staff was at Camp David, the President was getting ready to get on an airplane, we

dont know the extent to which he understands the importance of raising this issue. We

would hope he would raise it first before he gets into missile and defense issues, just to

remind them how important this issue is.

The Nikitin case stands for all these problems. It may be that the representation from

you and from thisfrom the Helsinki Commission, together with other efforts being done in

Congress today, might elevate this issue and get it before the President now that maybe in

the last few hours before his meeting hell have a chance to think about the problem. We hope

so.

Mr. SMITH. Your point is very well taken. I think when you add up the letter thats going

over and other channels into the White House, hopefully, the President will take this seriously, especially with the newest development of the Procurator Generals office bringing

or appealing this to the high court.

QUESTIONER. I think the bottom line isas you know, weve been saying for a year or two;

we even had a whole hearing on itthe question of who governs. This was last year, with

Yeltsin: who really governsis it the forces of democracy or is it the forces of the security

forces of Russia?

I think that the burden of proof has shifted in the other direction, its almost impossible

to ask that question any longer, really, because the forces of democracy seem to have disappeared, so it seems to be the burden is on Mr. Putin now to convince anybody that the forces

of democracy have a chance or civil society has a chance in Russia.

Mr. SMITH. I think its worth noting for the record that at the OSCE Parliamentary

Assembly in Bucharest 2 weeks ago, we had a resolution that called for the protection of

defense attorneys and human rights advocates, and there were only two speakers against it.

There were a number of examples cited, Northern Ireland was one of them, and Rosemary Nelson and Patrick Finucane, but also Uzbekistan and other countries where there are

problems. There were two speakers against it, a Member of Parliament from the U.K., and

Vladimir Zhirinovsky, and he spoke probably the most harshly against it. However, the overwhelming sentiment in the room at the assembly, when the cards went up for voting, favored

protecting it.

That goes not only for Captain Nikitin, but also for his defense attorney team and others

who are also subjected to harassment.

Ms. TAFT. Weve been joined by Commissioner Pitts. Do you have a question?

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, yes. Id like to ask the Captain, besides the situation with hazardous nuclear waste disposal, what are the other major ecological challenges for Russia today?

Mr. NIKITIN. We in Bellona we are mostly engaged in relation to nuclear safety issues,

but I am in contact with leaders of other environmental NGOs in Russia, and I am aware

that there are issues of the commission of chemical weapons, the creating of the biggestin

Russia, and creation at the sites where they extract oil, and a couple of years ago there was
12

a major oil spillin Russia in the Komi Republic, in a place called Irsinsk, and Bellona was

there as well making surveillance and making research there.

So, although Im mostly engaged in nuclear safety issues, I could say that there are

other issues of major importance as well.

Mr. PITTS. Has the publicity around your case had any effect on the Russian security

services, to your knowledge?

Mr. NIKITIN. Well, it is hard to say what that has been, but it looks like they consider,

looking through my case as the major defeat for themselves. This defeat now, it has two

sides, negative and positive. The positive side is that we have experienced how to fight and

how to win cases like this within the Russian legal system. On the negative side, the FSB

itself has learned how to conduct cases properly, and they could apply this experience in

other cases against other people.

Mr. PITTS. One other question. Last year Mr. Putin asserted that the Russian environmental groups are used as a cover by foreign intelligence services. Do you think he really

believes that, or is this a reflection of the old Soviet attitude toward revealing any information about negative manifestations in society?

Mr. NIKITIN. Well, this is an official position of the Russian security police and they have

stated on numerous occasions that they believe that the NGOs in Russia act as a cover up for

Western intelligence services, and since the Russian president is coming from that system, it

is logical to believe that he shares these views.

Mr. SMITH. I understand you have to make your way over to the State Department, but

I just want to say again it is a total honor and distinct privilege to have you here, and I hope

the Russians will take note that we view this as a persecution, not a prosecution. This is a

total abuse of power. I think the high-level focus this will continue to attract will suggest that

things are improving or deteriorating in Russia, and there will be implications either way, in

terms of how this country will treat the Russians.

So, I do wish you well and our prayers are with you. Well do everything possible to back

you up, because this is a persecution of a man who ought to be rewarded for what he has

done. The Russian people who have avoided a disaster of nuclear material because of your

work should be grateful. You should be rewarded for it, not prosecuted and persecuted.

Thank you very much.

Mr. NIKITIN. Thank you very much.

(Whereupon, the briefing was concluded at 11:34 a.m.)
13

APPENDICES

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL,

CO-CHAIRMAN

As Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I welcome

todays public briefing featuring Alexandr Nikitin. Mr. Nikitins saga began nearly 5 years

ago when he co-authored a report exposing the environmental hazards of Russias deteriorating nuclear fleet. Having endured nearly a year in solitary confinement, Nikitin stood accused of high treason and espionage in a case doggedly pursued for more than 4 years by the

Russian Federal Security. His plight received considerable attention last year when the OSCE

Parliamentary Assembly met in St. Petersburg, where Mr. Nikitin resides. I supported the

resolution adopted by the Assembly that highlighted the unjust nature of the proceedings

against him which violated several provisions in the Russian Constitution as well as the

European Convention on Human Rights.

Following years of harassment by the authorities, last December, Mr. Nikitin was formally acquitted by the St. Petersburg City Court of any wrongdoing. His acquittal was upheld by the Moscow-based Supreme Court in April of this year. While it appeared that Mr.

Nikitins legal ordeal had come to a close, in a disturbing development we learned yesterday

that the Russian Prosecutor Generals office has apparently decided to appeal the decision of

the three-judge Supreme Court panel to the entire court. The Commission will closely monitor these developments and we certainly will continue to press to see that justice ultimately

will prevail in this case. I urge all participating States to fully respect the right of individuals, such as Mr. Nikitin, concerned with environmental issues to express freely their views,

to associate with others, and to obtain, publish and distribute information on these issues as

called for in the Sofia OSCE Document on the Protection of the Environment.
14

PREPARED SUBMISSION OF ALEXANDR NIKITIN

DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS CENTER OF ST. PETERSBURG

I would like to thank Chairman Christopher Smith, Co-Chairman Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Representative Steny Hoyer and all the members and staff of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) for their long-standing and active support in my

case. I am grateful to the CSCE for your visit to my office in Russia and I am glad that your

help allows me to be in the United States today. I also would like to thank the environmental

and human rights coalition that has sustained me all these years, including Amnesty International USA, Sierra Club, Bellona USA, and the Union of Councils for Soviet Jews.

Today Id like to discuss three issues: First, the surprising and disturbing update on my

personal case. Second, the productive activities in the environmental and human rights movement, despite continued and even increasing FSB secret service harassment of human rights

and environmental defenders. Third, I will cover the efforts by a coalition of ecological and

human rights organizations in Russia to initiate a referendum on the proposal to import

international nuclear waste into the Russian Federation.

First, my case has taken a turn for the worse. Yesterday I learned from my lawyer that

the Procurator Generals office (the equivalent of the Attorney General) has filed a new appeal after my acquittal by the Supreme Court this spring. A three-judge panel at the Supreme Court previously tried my case and this is an appeal to the entire Presidium, an

11-judge chamber. A new hearing of the case is scheduled for August 2 in Moscow at the

Presidium of the Supreme Court. The new appeal contains absolutely no new information

and asserts a desire to send my case back to the prosecutor to collect more evidence. The

appeal is dated May 30 and the letter to my lawyer from the Supreme Court is dated July 11.

After 41

/

2

 years, the prosecutor should already have had sufficient time to collect evidence if

there is any backing for the charges against me. After losing in court four times, the prosecutor still is requesting more evidence. As far as my lawyer knows, this is the first time in

post-Soviet history that a Supreme Court decision by a panel has been appealed to the entire

Supreme Court Presidium.

Unfortunately my case is not the only example of the governments harassment of

grassroots advocates in Russia. The FSBs persecution of environmental defenders, human

rights activists, and scientists continues. I hope you will use your good offices to continue to

support environmental defenders and the related rights of freedom of speech and association the fundamental tenets of civil society and democracy.

I want to use the more than 4 years of experience gathered in my case to assist others in

the same situationor better still, help them avoid getting into a situation as seemingly

inextricable as mine. Despite the harassment, I very much want to continue my work in

Russia, as the work is close to my heart. I continue to work for the Bellona Foundation, a

Norwegian environmental non-governmental organization. We also founded the Environmental Rights Center in St. Petersburg to address issues at the intersection of environment

and human rights. Additionally, we wanted to broaden our network of support, so we established an umbrella organization, the Coalition for Environment and Human Rights, which

unites and supports about 40 grassroots NGOs. The coalition is led by the environmental

activists Grigory Pasko, Lev Fyodorov and me. The activities of this coalition include (1)

monitoring and collecting environmental and human rights information; (2) supporting environmental defenders; and (3) utilizing the experience of previous legal cases.

Recently, President Putin abolished the State Committee to Protect the Environment,

the equivalent of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, leaving environmentalists with
15

even less official support than before. At the same time, the government has found other

ways to harass environmental and human rights defenders, through the tax police and overly

bureaucratic registration procedures.

The military journalist Grigory Pasko, who also has been invited to Washington, is not

currently allowed to travel as the appeal of his acquittal is stalled in the system. Other cases

of harassed activists include Nikolai Shur, who collected nuclear contamination information

in the Chelyabinsk region, and the scientist Vladimir Soyfer of Vladivostok, who did research on the environmental impact of nuclear issues. Protection for environmental defenders is closely tied to freedom of speech and the press.

The governments policy of rapid resource extraction for hard currency exports turns

defenders of Russias environment into opponents of official policy, which has set off a pattern of harassment of environmental defenders. Because this is an international trade issue,

the United States should be just as concerned as Russia.

Another issue close to my heart is the atomic ministrys proposal to import large amounts

of foreign radioactive materials into the Russian Federation for cash. A coalition of environmental and human rights groups is working to initiate a referendum to give the Russian

people a voice to influence this dangerous new policy. We know from opinion polls that the

vast majority of ordinary Russians is opposed to this scheme, but the government presses on.

Most of the nuclear materials are of U.S. origin and U.S. permission is required to transfer them to Russia. I urge you to take a stand with the Administration in support of Russias

people against nuclear waste imports, or at least hold off any U.S. decision until the referendum indicates what the Russian people want.

I also urge United States officials to take every opportunity to raise these crucial environmental and human rights problems with Russian authorities. Thank you.
This is a U.S. Government publication produced by

the Commission on Security and Cooperation

in Europe (CSCE).

«««

This publication is intended to inform interested

individuals and organizations about developments

within and among the participating States of the

Organization for Security and Cooperation in

Europe (OSCE).

«««

 All CSCE publications may be freely reproduced,

with appropriate credit, in any form. The CSCE

encourages the widest possible dissemination of its

publications.

«««

Visit our site on the World Wide Web at

http://www.csce.gov

The Commissions web site provides instant access to

the agencys latest press releases and reports

on recent hearings and briefings in addition

to an electronic subscription service. Using the

Commissions subscription page, readers with

e-mail may choose to receive press releases, notices,

reports, and other documents on issues in

which they are most interested.

Please subscribe today.