U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

64–263 PDF 2011

THE ROLE OF OSCE INSTITUTIONS IN ADVANCING 

HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND 

COOPERATION IN EUROPE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 

Printed for the use of the 

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe 

[CSCE 110–2–22] 

( 

Available via http://www.csce.gov 

COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS 

HOUSE SENATE 

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida, 

Chairman 

LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER, 

New York 

MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, 

Co-Chairman 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS 

David J. Kramer, Department of State 

Mary Beth Long, Department of Defense 

David Bohigian, Department of Commerce 

(II) 

THE ROLE OF OSCE INSTITUTIONS IN 

ADVANCING HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 

COMMISSIONERS 

Page 

Hon. Alcee L. Hastings, Chairman, Commission on Security 

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

Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, Co-Chairman, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe .......................................... 12 

Hon. Christopher H. Smith, Ranking Member, Commission 

on Security and Cooperation in Europe ................................. 18 

Hon. Hilda L. Solis, Commissioner, Commission on Security 

and Cooperation in Europe ..................................................... 16 

WITNESSES 

H.E. Janez Lenarc ̆ic ̆, Director, Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights ......................................................... 2 

R. Spencer Oliver, Secretary General, OSCE Parliamentary 

Assembly .................................................................................. 5 

APPENDICES 

Prepared statement of Hon. Alcee L. Hastings ........................ 24 

Prepared statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin .................... 26 

Prepared statement of H.E. Janez Lenarc ̆ic ̆ ............................. 27 

Prepared statement of R. Spencer Oliver .................................. 34 

(III) 

(1) 

THE ROLE OF OSCE INSTITUTIONS IN ADVANCING HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY 

September 17, 2008 

COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE

WASHINGTON, DC 

The hearing was held at 3 p.m. in room 2325 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, Hon. Alcee L. Hastings, Chairman, 

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, presiding. 

Commissioners present: Hon. Alcee L. Hastings, Chairman, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe; Hon. Benjamin L. 

Cardin, Co-Chairman, Commission on Security and Cooperation in 

Europe; Hon. Christopher H. Smith, Ranking Member, Commission 

on Security and Cooperation in Europe; and Hon. Hilda L. Solis, 

Commissioner, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. 

Witnesses present: H.E. Janez Lenarc ̆ic ̆, Director, Office for 

Democratic Institutions and Human Rights; and R. Spencer Oliver, 

Secretary General, OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. 

HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS, CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON 

SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE 

Mr. HASTINGS. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Jeanie in a hearing. 

And so, I want to take special note of the fact that Jeanie is Spencer’s wife and long-standing friend of mine. I’m delighted that 

you’re here with us. 

Today we are having a hearing on the role of OSCE institutions 

in advancing human rights and democracy. So as I call this hearing 

to order, being mindful of the extraordinary constraints of time and 

the likelihood of a vote being called at some point. I’m going to 

allow my remarks to be put into the record and cut straight to my 

two friends that are here to testify and welcome both of them. 

Ambassador Lenarc ̆ic ̆—chaired the OSCE’s Permanent Council in 

Vienna during Slovenia’s chairmanship of the Vienna-based organization in 2005, coinciding with my service as President of the 

OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. He was appointed Director of the 

Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights effective as of 

July 1 of this year. 

And my long-standing friend that got me into all this inter-parliamentary activity to begin with, Spencer Oliver, joins us in his capacity as Secretary General of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, 

a position he’s held since 1992. And his lengthy service on Capitol 

Hill included 8 years as this Commission’s Chief of Staff. 

And, Spencer, I don’t know whether you recognize this, but this 

is the OSCE tie from Washington, DC when the we were here for 

2 

the Assembly’s Annual Session in 2005. I don’t know how I found 

it this morning. I really was not looking for it. But, you know, welcome again and I’m pleased that you are here with us. The full resumes of both our witnesses can be found at the table outside of 

this room. An unofficial transcript of today’s hearing will be placed 

on the Commission’s Web site within 24 hours, and I encourage 

you to look at that for added information. The address is 

www.csce.gov. 

So let’s begin with Mr. Lenarc ̆ic ̆. And, sir, you have the floor. 

H.E. JANEZ LENARC ̆ IC ̆ , DIRECTOR, OFFICE FOR DEMOCRATIC 

INSTITUTIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

Amb. LENARC ̆ IC ̆. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It’s indeed a great pleasure to be here. It’s also a great honor to be invited to testify before this Commission so early in my tenure. I 

would like to say at the very beginning that I am very much grateful for the support of this Commission, to the work of the OSCE 

in general, and to my office, Office for Democratic Institutions and 

Human Rights. In particular, I’m looking forward to our continuous 

cooperation. 

Let me just try to make a couple of remarks in my introduction 

that would revolve around three main points. First is the place of 

the OSCE in the global architecture, global security architecture, 

especially in light of the recent developments. I would also like to 

share with you some of the examples of practical work that my office is working on and contributing to the Helsinki spirit, which 

was the spirit underlying the establishment of this very Commission. And finally, I will, with your permission, expand a little bit 

on democracy promotion in the OSCE area. 

So we all recall that in Paris almost two decades ago the participating States declared that the era of confrontation is over and the 

new era of democracy, peace and unity in Europe has begun. Today 

I think that if we look back at that statement, we may have an impression that that optimism was a little bit premature. 

Recently there appear to be new divisions occurring in the OSCE 

area. There is a new atmosphere of confrontation in the meeting 

rooms, in particular where OSCE borders meet. There is some mistrust. There is some suspicion around. And this has, of course, affected the work of the OSCE and also our office, ODIHR. 

Nevertheless, I wish to underline my firm conviction that OSCE 

continues to be relevant. It continues to be relevant in our efforts 

to achieve the goals that I mentioned were set in Paris [in 1990]. 

It has a number of unique features, this organization of ours. In 

particular, it is the organization in which all participating States 

are equal. It is also the organization which I think has kept the 

promise of democracy, peace and unity alive. 

That promise has contributed to the momentous changes that 

took place in the beginning of the 1990s in Europe. And that promise lives on, and the peoples of the OSCE throughout the region expect this promise to become a reality. 

In short, the world may be changing, but the commitments, the 

OSCE commitments included, remain. And they remain as relevant 

today as they were when they were adopted. 

3 

How does my office contribute to a realization of this commitment? I will, instead of talking about our mandate, try to offer a 

set of examples of what we do. Before doing so, let me just say that 

in my view, OSCE is not about one-way transfer of values. It’s 

about joint work, joint setting of standards and commitments. It’s 

about dialogue that more often than not makes progress only in incremental steps. But ultimately that is the way that so far has allowed OSCE to succeed. And I am confident that we can continue. 

Now, these are examples that I wish to share with you. Human 

rights defense—we see a lot of threats to human right defenders 

throughout the OSCE region. We will soon publish our second annual report on the situation of human rights defenders, which will 

contain good practices, and it will assess the situation. Let me recall that there is a very strong commitment by all participating 

States dating back to Budapest, in 1994, where we agreed that the 

human rights defenders need protection. 

Second example—Armenia. You will recall the tragic events in 

Yerevan following the elections [earlier this year]. And there was 

the issue of the amendment that was quite hurriedly made in their 

law on the freedom of assembly. I can say that our experts in 

ODIHR were able in the dialogue with Armenian authorities to 

convince them that they should bring these amendments back into 

line or more into line with international standards. And it has happened. 

Roma and Sinti—you will recall that this year there was a serious situation involving Roma and Sinti in Italy. We dispatched a 

field visit, but at the same time, our office had started to work on 

a status report on implementation by all participating States of the 

Roma and Sinti action plan, which, as you recall, was adopted almost 5 years ago in Maastricht. We believe that this is a very important area of our work. We know we are talking about a group 

which is a subject of discrimination and racism and where participating States so far have failed to live up to their commitments. 

Trafficking in human beings—this year our office has focused on 

an aspect of trafficking which so far, in our view, was overlooked 

somewhat. It is about access to justice for those that are victims 

of trafficking and exploitation. Earlier this year we published a 

study on compensation for trafficked and exploited persons in 

OSCE regions. And I can say here with satisfaction that also the 

United States contributed to this. And the study is already being 

put into use, including by the American Bar Association. 

Hate crimes—we have developed many tools to assist participating States and civil society in their efforts to deal with hate 

crimes, guidelines for legislators, training, seminars for law enforcement officials and so on. In particular, I would like to mention 

that we developed a set of teaching materials on combating antiSemitism that has proved very successful. We had developed this 

already for 10 states. There are new versions for other states. And 

we are also using this very positive experience for developing 

teaching materials for other areas of combating intolerance and 

discrimination. 

Finally, election observation—an area where our office is quite 

well-known, and an area where we have close cooperation with 

Parliamentary Assembly. I am very glad to see here Secretary GenVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:13 Feb 08, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\WORK\091708 HAROLD PsN: HAROLD
4 

eral Spencer Oliver. We have a mandate by the participating 

States to undertake election observation together as a common endeavor, my office and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and to do 

it in the spirit of partnership. And I can say that I am fully ready 

to further strengthen this cooperation and build this true spirit of 

partnership. 

This year in the past 12 months let me just say that our office 

has followed elections in the following countries: Armenia, Croatia, 

Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Italy, 

Montenegro, Poland, Serbia, Spain, Switzerland, and Uzbekistan. 

Currently we have long-term observers already deployed in Belarus 

for elections later this month and Azerbaijan for Presidential elections next month. And we plan also to deploy long-term observation 

mission for the U.S. elections in November. And we hope also there 

in particular for a good cooperation with Parliamentary Assembly. 

Finally, allow me to say a couple of words on democracy promotion, which has been one of the main tasks entrusted to our office and is also one of the main areas of activities for the Parliamentary Assembly. We all recall that the Helsinki Process set in 

motion a process that has recognized human rights, the rule of law 

and democracy as essential prerequisites for security and lasting 

peace. It is set in several of our documents that accountable and 

transparent democratic government is the only system of government for our countries. And moreover, that the protection of human 

rights is one of the basic purposes of the government. 

I believe that these standards today are as relevant as they were 

at the time of their adoption. However, we still refer to individual 

areas of the OSCE region as East and West. In my view, now almost 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, these references 

sound a little bit stale and obsolete. I think that we should drop 

these kinds of labels as we should also drop categorizing countries 

into longer established or mature democracies and others like transitional democracies. 

Why? Because I think that democracy does not necessarily improve by itself with the passage of time. There are reversals. There 

are setbacks. And labels like that only make our work more difficult and expose us to double standards. 

So democracy, in short, is not an end state. It has no finality. It’s 

a process. It’s a work in progress. And we should always try to 

work together to maintain it and to improve it. 

Here I would like to highlight the role of the United States. The 

United States has been much of the time was one of the leading 

force of democracy promotion and protection of human rights. However, we know that some recent events—and I would like to mention them here so as not to be accused of double standards, incidents like Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, rendition flights, detention 

centers. These all have damaged the standing of the United States 

in many quarters of the human rights world as the staunch defender, the leading force in democracy promotion and protection of 

human rights. 

The lesson I think is if we are to engage in real peer review and 

at the same time assume the leading role we believe we can have 

like the United States, we should take care of the things also at 

5 

home. That, I think, is the lesson. It’s what is often referred to as 

leading by example. 

And this leadership is necessary. It is essential. I think that if 

we would like to move forward in the world of human rights, we 

will need the leadership of countries like the United States. I 

would stop here and thank you for your attention. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much. We’ve been joined by my 

Co-Chairman and good friend, Senator Cardin. 

And, Senator, if you would just stay on hold. If the Senator has 

any contribution at this time—— 

Mr. CARDIN. I’ll withhold until after Spencer’s had a chance. 

Mr. HASTINGS. All right. 

Mr. Oliver, you have the floor. 

R. SPENCER OLIVER, SECRETARY GENERAL, OSCE 

PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY 

Mr. OLIVER. Thank you. 

Well, I’ve got Tina [Scho ̈n, Deputy Secretary General, OSCE Parliamentary Assembly] behind me, so I feel very strong and secure. 

Mr. Chairman, it is a great honor to be here. As you know, I 

spent a number of years working with this Commission. I was its 

first employee and began to hire the staff and help define the mission with the late Rep. Dante Fascell, who was our mutual friend. 

And I think the Commission, as Ambassador Lenarc ̆ic ̆ said, made 

an enormous contribution to the human rights aspects of the CSCE 

and OSCE process. 

In fact, I think had it not been for this Commission, many of the 

events that have occurred over the last 20 years would not have 

taken place. The visibility and the credibility that the U.S. Congress brings to this endeavor is unmatched in all the world. 

I know that in the early days of this Commission there were a 

number of people who were deeply concerned about whether or not 

the Commission was encroaching on the—in the field of diplomacy, 

which they would argue should be left to government and not to 

independent commissions centered in legislative bodies. And I can 

recall, Mr. Chairman, after leaving the Commission I became chief 

counsel of the Foreign Affairs Committee. 

And at the first Implementation Review Meeting in Belgrade in 

1977, we were somewhat outcast because the Commission—Congressman Fascell with the support of President Carter and with 

the courage of [head of delegation] Arthur Goldberg actually mentioned names in the review meeting, names like Sharansky and 

Sakharov and Charter ’77 and others, which was something that 

had never been done before. And this review of implementation in 

1977 of the promises that were made in 1975 was a new occurrence. 

And it was the first time that anyone focused on the failure of 

some countries to fulfill their commitments and the first time that 

anyone had in a diplomatic international conference actually raised 

the names of human rights defenders, Helsinki group founders and 

others. The United States was the only delegation at that meeting 

to mention names. And we mentioned six names. And you would 

have thought that we had started World War III, according to some 

of the traditional diplomatic practitioners. 

6 

But it was because of that meeting that the implementation and 

the accountability regarding implementation became one of the 

hallmarks of the CSCE process. And I think this Commission deserves a great deal of credit for ensuring that that policy was 

adopted, not only by the United States in Belgrade, but by all the 

subsequent meetings, such as those in Madrid, in Vienna and in 

other followup meetings. Unfortunately today it’s not—we do not 

have the visibility and the review process that we had at that time. 

You have asked me to comment on a number of issues, Mr. 

Chairman. And I have a prepared statement which has been distributed and which I would like to submit for the record, which primarily deals with election observation, which was one of the areas 

you asked me to comment upon. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Without objection. 

Mr. OLIVER. And so, I won’t belabor you with reading the details. 

But I would like to comment on some of the other aspects of the 

OSCE process that you have asked me to address. And one of those 

things is the implementation of the human rights provisions of the 

Helsinki Final Act. 

I think to a large extent, of course, the whole picture has 

changed because instead of 35 countries, there are now 56 participating States. And among the 56 are the successors of some of 

those countries who were the least successful in observing human 

rights and fundamental freedoms and other promises that were 

made, for example, relating to the free movement of people and 

ideas and information across national borders. 

One of the things that I think is unfortunate these days is that 

the OSCE has lost, except for the work of this Commission, any 

public accountability. Occasionally in a Ministerial Meeting there 

will be some foreign ministers who will make speeches in front of 

the press which will criticize another country or even occasionally 

even raise a name. 

But there is not the confrontational—and I say that word advisedly—the confrontational process of calling to account those 

countries and those governments who have failed to fulfill their 

comments and who have trampled on human rights and fundamental freedoms and have treated their own citizens in ways which 

run counter to the promise of Helsinki. And part of that is because 

we don’t have the review meetings the way that we used to have 

them. 

Now we have the Permanent Council. And we have the Office of 

Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. But when we have the 

Human Dimension Implementation Meeting in Warsaw or review 

meetings in Vienna, it doesn’t attract the attention that a highlevel ministerial conference would have. It’s almost as though they 

farmed out the human rights accountability to an institution in 

Warsaw, which although well-intentioned and professional and 

doing a great job, no one pays any attention to. 

If you go to an HDIM, you could throw a rock down a corridor 

and not hit a journalist. But when Arthur Goldberg or Max 

Kampelman or others of that level were at review meetings in Belgrade or in Madrid, there would be hundreds of journalists there 

every day covering what was going on, what was being said, the 

criticisms that were being directed at those who didn’t comply with 

7 

the Helsinki Final Act’s provisions relating to human rights and 

fundamental freedoms. And that doesn’t really happen anymore. 

It would seem to me that the Permanent Council, which was not 

created by the Charter of Paris, but was almost self-created, which 

meets behind closed doors without any record of what is being said 

or what is being considered has in a way buried this process so 

that there is no transparency and no accountability. 

And as you know, Mr. Chairman, as a past President, an activist 

in the Parliamentary Assembly, probably the most active member 

of the Parliamentary Assembly in the last decade, but as you know, 

there is no transparency or accountability in the OSCE outside of 

the Parliamentary Assembly itself. It’s the only place where we 

have all of our meetings are open to the press and to the media, 

where there’s a full dialogue and counter-dialogue. 

In Toronto later this week we will have a very, I think, thorough 

debate on the events in Georgia with the Georgian Foreign Minister participating and with the Russian Ambassador to the United 

Nations will be representing the Russian Government. And there 

will be quite an open and full discussion. That doesn’t take place 

anywhere else in the OSCE anymore. So there’s no pressure, you 

know, on people to be held accountable in the court of public opinion. 

The Helsinki Final Act and all of its successor documents are not 

legal documents. They’re not legally binding. So there is no court 

that you can take your grievances to, except for the court of public 

opinion, which is what we had in Belgrade and Madrid, where the 

United States and this Commission reached out to, the court of 

public opinion, to hold those accountable who didn’t keep their 

promises. And it’s these hearings which you’re holding, Mr. Chairman, in this Commission which is one of the only courts of public 

opinion where these matters are actually discussed on a regular 

basis. 

And it is to your credit that you continue to do this in a very 

public and open way. I think this is probably the only place where 

all of us, Ambassador Lenarc ̆ic ̆ and I, all of the other institutional 

leaders and representatives in the OSCE regularly come because 

it’s really the only public forum where you have an opportunity to 

say what you have to say and to talk about grievances. And that 

goes not only for OSCE officials, but also for human rights defenders and dissidents and human rights activists and the successors 

to the Helsinki monitoring groups, such as the Moscow Group, 

which gave birth to a whole broad array of human rights organizations. And this is something which needs to be done. 

In the early days when there were so many governments in Europe who were critical of what we were doing, saying that this was 

unprecedented to mention names and criticize governments and it’s 

just not done. There were demarches all over Washington from 

many embassies about Arthur Goldberg actually mentioning names 

and doing these things, very, very critical. Even the State Department deputy who is a career diplomat wrote an article in, I think 

it was, Foreign Affairs Quarterly after the Belgrade meeting saying 

it had been a total failure because we did this. 

But about 10 years later, Berndt von Staden, who had been Director-General in Germany’s Foreign Ministry—like their national 

8 

security adviser, called me one day when I was Chief Counsel at 

the Foreign Affairs Committee. He was at Georgetown University 

and had retired and was teaching there. 

He said my name is Berndt Von Staden. Do you know who I am? 

I said yes. He said I’d like to see you. So he came to see me and 

said I just wanted to tell you that I was wrong and all of us were 

wrong. Every country needs a Commission like this. And I said, 

Mr. Ambassador, I’m taking you upstairs to see the chairman. 

So we went up to see Congressman Fascell. And he told him that 

if it had not been for this Commission, if it had not been for the 

public and determined way in which this Commission pursued implementation of the human rights provisions of the Helsinki Final 

Act, that the OSCE, or the CSCE as it was known at the time, 

would have died in Belgrade. So I commend you for the work that 

you do. And I’m honored to have an opportunity to appear before 

this Commission. 

You also have asked me to comment on democratic development. 

And, of course, we work on election observation, which is an important element of OSCE. But one of the problems is that it doesn’t 

do any good to observe an election if there’s not any competition. 

And what’s happening in many states is that democracy is dying 

because they’re becoming one-party states because there’s no opposition. 

You see the elections in Belarus coming up here in another week 

or so. And there’s the Belarusian Government, whose last election 

was terrible, inviting everybody to come, with no restrictions. 

Everybody’s going to get to watch the vote. Everybody’s going to go 

wherever they want to go. 

But the problem is there’s no opposition that has any chance of 

getting more than a few representative seats in their parliament. 

And the same thing takes place in many other countries. 

Kazakhstan has a one-party parliament. Kyrgyzstan has a oneparty parliament. They have a pure list system that they employ 

which allows only the leadership to decide who’s going to be in the 

parliament. And that’s where the weakness is. That’s where something needs to be done. 

Somehow we need to find a way to build pluralism into these 

newly developing democracies and to find a way to establish political parties that can be competitive, that can be critical of governments and that can bring new ideas and fresh faces into their government, the way most Western democracies do. So I hope that 

there will be an opportunity at some point, Mr. Chairman, to discuss further ways and means in which that might be able to be 

done. 

So I will cease and desist at that point, Mr. Chairman, and be 

happy to take any of your questions. But thank you very much for 

the opportunity. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Oliver. 

If I could ask a couple of the Commission staffers to come up 

here and then maybe the young ladies can find some seats. Thank 

you. 

I very much appreciate both of you for your comments. And I 

think both of you alluded to how we in the Helsinki Commission 

9 

may be able to help your respective offices. But I’d like for you to 

elaborate a bit more. 

And I thought, Mr. Oliver, you pointed to it with great passion 

the fact that we are continuing the efforts that were set forth initially following the signing of the Helsinki Final Act. But I’d be curious, both of you travel the 56 countries in the OSCE. And both 

of you meet and make presentations in all of those countries or as 

many as your time will permit. And I know, Ambassador Lenarc ̆ic ̆

that you’re just getting started at ODIHR, but you’re not just getting started in this business of dealing with the OSCE. 

And as it pertains to just what we do here at the Commission, 

from your point of view, what do you think that we might be able 

to do that would better help what you do at ODIHR? 

And the same question to you, Mr. Oliver, with reference to what 

we do here at the Helsinki Commission. And the attendant question to that is: do you receive the same kind of consideration in the 

respective countries that you visit? 

And I’ll be curious, especially, Ambassador Lenarc ̆ic ̆, since you 

just were in Russia recently, just what your observations were and 

are regarding any potential new approaches or any indications of 

approaches by the Russians that are different with specifics having 

to do with your resources since they’ve addressed ODIHR so frequently on the subject of resources. And then I’ll turn to Senator 

Cardin and Ms. Solis. 

We’ve been joined by my colleague, chair of the Assembly’s General Committee on Democracy, Human Rights and Humanitarian 

Questions and California Congresswoman. And we aren’t going to 

permit her to make an opening statement since she was late coming. She’ll get a chance a little bit later on, I’m sure. 

But if you all would respond to those points. 

Mr. OLIVER. Go ahead, Janez. 

Amb. LENARC ̆ IC ̆. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this 

question. And for me it’s a pleasure to see Senator Cardin and Representative Solis. When I started I said that I was honored to be 

here, and I would like to repeat now that I’m honored to be here 

and honored in your presence. 

How is it in other countries? Well, it’s not like this. There is no 

other Helsinki Commission. The Helsinki Commission is a very 

unique thing. It does not exist elsewhere. [Inaudible], which is both 

houses of parliament and also the executive. Its methods of work, 

public meetings like this you don’t find that elsewhere. 

I would assume that in my future travels I would be able to address a parliamentary committee. But this is not exactly the same 

thing. So I think this part of your question, how is it elsewhere, 

well, I may expect to be given the opportunity to address a parliamentary committee, given participating States, but there is nothing like the U.S. Helsinki Commission elsewhere. 

And I think that one particular feature of this Commission is 

nurturing the Helsinki spirit, which I think is very important because, as I said in my presentation, it remains relevant in today’s 

world. What the Helsinki Commission can do—there are practical 

things, and there are some other things. 

On the practical aspect, first for what is what you are doing with 

it. You are helping us enormously by holding public hearings like 

10 

this one, by drawing the attention of the public to issues relevant 

for OSCE and our office, human dimension in general and human 

rights, democracy and rule of law in elections in particular. 

Also I am confident that your voice, in practical terms, like financing carries great weight. It is with regret that I noted when 

I studied papers upon my assumption of office last July that the 

U.S. extra budgetary contributions to our office have steadily declined recently and almost does not exist anymore. 

I would like to underline that extra budgetary contributions remain an important source for our activities. And I would hope that 

you would add your voice to those who favor or advocate contributions to our office. 

Even more importantly is the budget, the unified budget of the 

OSCE and the part that is appropriated for my office. There also 

there is a tendency to reduce the financing of OSCE in general, including our office. Here I have to say that with less money we can 

only do less from election observation to every other field of activity. So again, I would appeal to you to lend your voice in favor of 

increasing the funding through unified budgets of the OSCE for our 

office. 

And a final point on what the Helsinki Commission can do in 

general within the OSCE, I believe in parliamentary diplomacy. I 

believe that it is a very useful and precious complement to intergovernmental diplomacy, classic diplomacy. Diplomats and officials 

of international organizations, including myself, are officials. We 

are not free to say everything we think or believe at every occasion. 

We are in the service, in my case, of the 56 governments. Parliamentarians answer to their constituencies. You enjoy greater freedom of what you can say. And you can always say what you believe 

and what your constituencies ask you to say. And in that sense, I 

think this is an extremely useful and important complement to 

classic intergovernmental diplomacy. Your freedom and ability to 

say things that we, civil servants, international civil servants, officials are not always able to. Thank you. 

Mr. OLIVER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would certainly say first of 

all that what you can do is to keep doing what you’re doing. The 

Helsinki Commission has certainly been, I think, the strongest parliamentary institution in this field, practically the only parliamentary institution in this field which exists. And you can participate 

more actively and bring your parliamentarians to participate in the 

OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, which you do. 

I mean, all of you are officers of the Parliamentary Assembly. All 

of you come to the meetings. All of you are here today. And you 

bring many others along. 

I will never forget in the 1999 Annual Session in St. Petersburg 

as we wound down in the final hour of after 41⁄2 days looking out 

from the podium and seeing the room almost half-empty. But all 

17 members of the U.S. delegation, including Congressmen and 

Senators, were in their seats actively to the very last gavel. 

And I think it’s very important for parliamentarians from other 

countries, particularly those farther to the east, to have an opportunity to interact with American Members of Congress. Some of 

them never get to meet American Members of Congress. And to 

have an opportunity to engage with them in dialogue and discusVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:13 Feb 08, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\WORK\091708 HAROLD PsN: HAROLD
11 

sion, not only in the formal debates and committees, but also in the 

corridors and in the coffee shops is an extremely valuable commodity and one that I hope you will expand and continue to do. 

One of the other things that you can do is to continue to push 

the government to do what the Commission has done for so many 

years. And that is to help improve the OSCE, to reform the OSCE, 

to make it more open and more transparent, to make it more democratic. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Parliamentary Assembly passes 

resolutions by majority vote. As Ambassador Lenarc ̆ic ̆ has pointed 

out, there is an opportunity for them to speak out and speak up. 

And they have done on many occasions. 

One of your predecessors and your friend, the Majority Leader, 

Steny Hoyer, chaired a colloquium, or participated in a colloquium. 

He chaired the Assembly’s Committee on Transparency and Accountability. And you chaired the Washington colloquium, which I 

think had some very sound recommendations to improve the 

OSCE, particularly its transparency and accountability. 

And not a single one of those recommendations has been adopted 

and the U.S. delegation to the OSCE in Vienna has never even 

mentioned it, never even pushed it in any way, shape or fashion. 

So it would be, I think, very useful—and I say this with some trepidation—but I think to push the government a little harder to take 

into account what this Commission is recommending and saying 

and doing about OSCE. Because there are more—this Commission 

has a history of involvement in the OSCE that goes much farther 

back than most of the diplomats and bureaucrats who are dealing 

with the OSCE in the capitals or in the various foreign ministries. 

I also think that the hearings and reports that you do are extremely valuable. You have a very competent, professional staff 

that probably knows more about the OSCE, they’re the repository 

of more knowledge about the Helsinki Process than you’ll find anywhere else in the world. And to continue to grind out those reports 

and continue to hold these hearings and to do this research and to 

spread your knowledge and your participation throughout the 

OSCE, I think, would be extremely valuable, knowing, of course, 

the constraints on the time that you have, it’s amazing to me how 

many of you have participated so often and so vigorously in the 

OSCE Parliamentary Assembly sessions. 

So doing more of that would be important. And as Ambassador 

Lenarc ̆ic ̆ said, I think trying to ensure that the OSCE contributions 

and budgetary considerations are given high priority in the U.S. 

Government would be very helpful, not only to the ODIHR, but 

also to us and to other OSCE activities, particularly the field missions. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Right. I’m reminded that our bipartisan leadership at the Commission has written to Secretary Rice on these 

funding issues. And many of us feel that the rhetoric must be 

matched by resources. And I for one, along with my colleagues 

here, I believe, will continue to push in that regard. 

Senator Cardin? 

12 

HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, CO-CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON 

SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE 

Mr. CARDIN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Ambassador, it’s a pleasure to have you before our Commission. We thank you very much for your continued service. And we 

look forward to your leadership at ODIHR and working with you. 

It is our highest priority. So we welcome you. 

And, Spencer, welcome back to Washington. It’s a pleasure to 

have both of you before us today. 

I agree with your assessment of the importance of the Helsinki 

Commission here in the United States. I’m very proud of the role 

that it’s played over its many years, initiating a lot of the agenda 

items that became priorities for OSCE. I think that the Commission has played a very, very important role. 

But I want to agree with you, Mr. Ambassador, that the U.S. influence has been damaged because of the issues that you raised on 

the handling of detainees, the manner in which we dealt with 

bringing people to our country or to Guantanamo Bay, the failure 

to grant rights to those who were detained, the use, techniques, interrogation techniques that do not stand up to international scrutiny and I might say don’t stand up to U.S. law. And I appreciate 

you mentioning that because we very much believe that it’s appropriate to raise those issues. 

And we obviously are going to continue in this Commission to 

raise those issues as we have during these past 2 years. And I 

think you’ll see opportunities for new leadership in the United 

States. And I think we will get back on track in that regard. 

I also want to just give you some of my own personal observations. I’ve been now involved with the Helsinki Process for about 

22 years. And I remember when I first started how much respect 

and how much attention the OSCE received in European countries. 

And it wasn’t well-known in the United States. And I would still 

say today most Americans probably don’t know about the OSCE. 

But it didn’t get a lot of attention in our country from the point 

of view of our political establishment. 

I think in the last 10 years that’s changed. The United States 

has put more confidence in OSCE I think mainly because it’s made 

significant progress in achieving its goals. Its main goal is to hold 

the member states to their commitments, their human rights commitments and the economic and environmental front and on security issues. Of course OSCE is best known for its human rights, 

which is your portfolio here at the Helsinki Commission. 

We saw that the OSCE was very effective in dealing with the 

problems in the Soviet Union. And it’s interesting, the Soviet 

Union was very much instrumental in creating OSCE. Now we see 

that Russia is trying to dismantle the OSCE, at least some of us 

think they are. They certainly are making it more difficult for the 

OSCE to be effective. 

My own observations is that it’s become more relevant in the 

United States and a little bit less relevant in Europe in that the 

other international organizations have expanded their memberships and there are other opportunities for countries that did not 

have that opportunity 30 years ago in which OSCE provided an avenue. So I want to make an observation. I agree with you that we 

13 

need to support OSCE. We need to stand up to our budgetary commitments. 

But I agree with the assessment that Mr. Oliver made about reform. Now, he’s talking about transparency and some of the other 

issues and what’s happening in Vienna, which a lot of us find to 

be a bureaucratic nightmare without accountability. 

But I think you might find a reluctancy by the next administration and the next Congress to do everything you want us to do if 

we believe that the OSCE is not reforming where it should reform. 

And I have concerns. I really believe that the OSCE is a very valuable institution. I’ve spent a lot of my own energy on it. 

But I am troubled that we are really looking at such modest reforms. Transparency to me is a modest reform considering the principles of the OSCE. 

We need to have a mechanism that can work. And I am concerned as to whether the Permanent Council and the Parliamentary Assembly and the use of special conferences to try to focus on 

different issues rather than dealing with it at Ministerial Meetings. 

The whole bureaucracy of OSCE I’m wondering whether we need 

to even be bolder in looking at making the OSCE contemporary to 

the challenges we face in Europe and in North America. I welcome 

your thoughts on that. 

Amb. LENARC ̆ IC ̆. Thank you. With pleasure, Senator. But first on 

your saying that the United States will get back on track, yes, I’m 

confident. The United States has always gotten back on track. And 

that’s one of the greatest features of American democracy. And also 

I’m pleased that you welcome the comment that I made. That is 

also one of the features of the same democracy, as is the fact, by 

the way, that the United States invited international observers to 

observe Presidential and congressional elections in November without any restrictions as to the size and the type of their presence 

here. And I think that with this United States confirmed its commitment to the OSCE obligations. 

You mentioned, Senator, that 22 years ago you started your involvement in the CSCE. Well, 22 years ago my country was not a 

democratic one. And I remember that time very well. I also know 

that it was CSCE that contributed decisively to the change that 

happened in Europe. 

Mr. CARDIN. And though I did not visit your country at that 

time, I visited many countries of the now OSCE that did not have 

democratic institutions. And the meetings that we initiated received widespread attention and I think contributed greatly to the 

change that took place. So I’m proud of what we’ve been able to 

achieve. And I think there’s a lot more we can achieve. 

So I’m very much in support of the continued mission. I think it’s 

needed very much today. But I tell you I am frustrated by the bureaucratic structure that has been created. And when you ask parliamentarians—and Spencer made a very good point. I’m not trying 

to—we’re all busy. Everybody’s busy. 

But there are a lot of problems we have that a parliamentarian 

needs to deal with. And parliamentarians are not going to spend 

a lot of time in an organization that they don’t believe is working 

very well. And we’ve had active participation in OSCE. And I believe it’s going to continue. 

14 

But the bureaucratic problems within the organization cannot be 

allowed to continue the way they have over the past 5 to 10 years. 

If those trends continue, I think you’re going to find parliamentarians and governments backing off their active participation within 

OSCE. I think it’s that serious. 

Amb. LENARC ̆ IC ̆. I was coming to that, Senator. 

Mr. CARDIN. Right. 

Amb. LENARC ̆ IC ̆. First of all on bureaucracy, I have to underline 

the fact that there is no organization like OSCE when you measure 

the size of bureaucracy. By far, the OSCE bureaucracy is the smallest you would find anywhere. 

Second point, OSCE is not a career organization. So bureaucracy 

doesn’t even have much chance to develop. Seven years is absolute 

maximum in all OSCE contracted positions for the same post with 

10 years being the absolute maximum for a term of anybody’s contract in the OSCE. That’s what we have in our institution. That’s 

what they have in Vienna and elsewhere. 

So OSCE has tried to manage. But I think you were aiming at 

the effectiveness. The effectiveness of the OSCE, I think, does not 

have to do so much with bureaucracy, which is the smallest you 

can find in the world, I guess, an organization of this size and with 

constant change of people. There is no bloated bureaucracy that is 

there around for decades or longer. But it has more to do with the 

methods of work of the OSCE. 

Primarily, I think it has to do with the consensus. Consensus has 

been a subject of discussion in the OSCE since the beginning. Here 

is one of the great advantages of the Parliamentary Assembly, as 

was underlined before by Secretary General Oliver. It can take decisions by majority vote. 

The governmental part of the OSCE cannot. It can only take decision by consensus. Everyone has to agree, every single one. And 

that sometimes results in protracted decisionmaking. 

Just look at the current situation when the Finnish chairmanship is trying so hard to reach consensus on the deployment of the 

additional monitors in the zone of recent conflict in Georgia. And 

the consensus continues to elude them. 

So I think that is the point. But on the other hand, when we 

have consensus, it carries the greatest weight possible. And we 

have a lot of consensus. We have a lot of commitments. We have 

a lot of documents that create the solid ground for our work, for 

the work of our office. And we could do more of that work with 

more funding. That was my point. But your remarks are absolutely, of course, valid, Senator. 

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you. 

I had one more question, Mr. Chairman. 

If you could answer briefly, I would appreciate it. You know, the 

U.S. Helsinki Commission was very actively involved in the conferences on anti-Semitism, racism, and xenophobia. And we very 

much supported the creation of the special representatives. And if 

you could give us an update as to how you are working with the 

special representatives in furthering the objectives of those efforts, 

I would appreciate it. 

Amb. LENARC ̆ IC ̆. Thank you for the question. Very quickly, the 

personal representatives in the area of tolerance and non-discrimiVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:13 Feb 08, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\WORK\091708 HAROLD PsN: HAROLD
15 

nation are chairmanships’ personal representatives. So it’s the 

chairmanship that coordinates the work and consults with them on 

what they do. 

What we do is we support their activities. And I can say that we 

have established very close relationships with all three of them, 

that we provide support for them, that they work with our people. 

We intend to continue to provide this support. It is primarily substantive support for their work. And I think that our office and 

their activities complement each other very well. 

I mentioned in my introduction the teaching materials that we 

have developed for anti-Semitism or combating anti-Semitism. I 

can only say that the activities of the personal representative on 

combating anti-Semitism, the German parliamentarian [inaudible] 

complements and fortifies, strengthens what we do because he has 

access, he has range. He travels, and he can contribute a lot to promotion of what we do. 

So it’s not only one way that we support the work. Also their activities magnify the impact of what we do. So it’s a useful, good relationship, and I’m sure that it will continue. We are so far satisfied with it. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Then if I could just follow up on that, and not so 

much for an immediate response. I’ll talk with both of you more. 

But I would be interested in the current efforts to address racism 

and discrimination against other communities such as Black Europeans and Muslims. 

As you know, Senator Cardin and I were actively involved in initiating, with the assistance of both your good offices, anti-Semitism 

conferences that took place and also the 2007 Cordoba Conference 

on Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims. We did something particularly unique here. There had never been any hearing 

at all having to do with the diaspora of American Blacks who live 

in Europe. And we, as a result of that, have determined that it 

would be helpful for the Helsinki Commission to hold a meeting in 

Europe so that we can reach the sources greater. 

There’s an immense amount of discrimination that takes place in 

Europe against a significant number of populations. And I’m just 

going to leave the Roma and the Sinti on the side and not get to 

that, but that’s a part of ODIHR’s portfolio that I’d be interested 

in. And you and I can follow up. 

Mr. Oliver, you were going to comment, but I know a vote is coming real soon. So I’d ask you to be brief so that I could get to Ms. 

Solis and the Ranking Member, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. OLIVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Inaudible] Although there is no permanent bureaucracy, there’s 

the ever-growing bureaucracy. At first the positions were 2 years 

with, I think, with a possible extension to 3 and then 3 with an 

extension to 4 and then 5 with an extension to 7 and now 7 with 

an extension to 10. And then they become consultants. 

So the bureaucracy is semi-permanent. And it is a situation in 

which one of your predecessors, Mr. Chairman, a President of the 

Assembly told the Permanent Council directly. He said now, the 

way that you operate here behind closed doors in complete secrecy 

with no transparency, no accountability, no public auditing is not 

only undemocratic, it’s anti-democratic. 

16 

So to have the OSCE pushing democracy and openness and 

transparency and democratic development throughout the OSCE 

and then function in the way they do is just—it is hypocritical and 

in the extreme. I think we have tried on a number of occasions not 

to go from consensus to majority. But consensus less one even, just 

on matters of personnel, for instance, or budget. But you find in Vienna that a lot of times even Ministerial Councils get held up over 

which country is going to get which position and which field mission. 

And so, if they’re trading jobs behind closed doors with no accountability and so on, the bureaucracy really is ineffective. And as 

Senator Cardin has pointed out, in many countries now you find 

that the OSCE is not dealt with at the highest levels of their government or even their foreign ministries, that it is dealt with at a 

lower and lower level, not only because—not just because they’re 

not interested, but because all they know is what their Ambassadors tell them from Vienna. 

So they write back cables that say, you know, everything was 

great this week. We worked really hard, and we had a lot of good 

discussions, and so on, and I did a great job. But there’s no transcript. There’s no openness. There’s no accountability. The only 

thing they know is what their own Ambassador tells them. 

So no one is really following what’s going on. And that’s why you 

need enormous reform in the OSCE in order to save it. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Well, I appreciate my predecessor bringing that to 

their attention. I can’t talk about the number of them, at least 

count the number of them, that I said pretty much the same thing 

personally. But the one thing that I did as President of Parliamentary Assembly that didn’t please them too much was I told them 

when I was before them that their work, notwithstanding the fact 

that it’s not transparent and it is anti-democratic, is also very boring. 

Ms. Solis? 

HON. HILDA L. SOLIS, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION ON 

SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE 

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for coming in 

late. And I’m one of the newer members, I guess, to the OSCE and 

have accompanied my colleagues here to participate in different 

conferences and forums. And now I have the privilege of serving as 

Chair of the Assembly’s Third Committee. And I’m very, very taken 

with respect to human rights, human trafficking and the way that 

we as a world community deal with other nations and the treatment of families, women, and children. 

And I also happen to be the Assembly’s Special Representative 

on Migration. And it’s a very interesting topic because it’s very different. The experience we see in Europe with different ethnic 

groups, Roma would be one, and just different types of discrepancies that exist there, is a very different experience from what we 

see here in the United States. 

In fact, we held one of our Commission hearings, a field hearing 

out in Los Angeles, in my district earlier this year. And we made 

it a point to talk about migration issues with respect to one of the 

largest populations in our country, which is the Hispanic commuVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:13 Feb 08, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\WORK\091708 HAROLD PsN: HAROLD
17 

nity. And, of course, you probably read much about what that ongoing immigration discussion is about. 

It’s very complicated, but not that much different from what we 

think people can learn from our experience in the European Union 

and obviously members of OSCE. We had an opportunity to hear 

testimony from witnesses that are speaking up for people who are 

being discriminated because they are migrants. We had an opportunity to talk to people who organize the community, the migrant 

community to help better educate them and assimilate them into 

the community. 

We also talked to a group of Asian representatives, Pacific Islander, Asian/Chinese community, which is one of the second largest communities in my own district, one that is increasingly growing. And there are a lot of complicated issues there. And we tried 

to glean information and how we could share that in a report and 

take back to the OSCE. It’s a very sensitive issue, as we last saw 

in the last conference we were at. 

It was hard to get consensus, even on a report that I gave. There 

was much controversy with respect to how Italy and different countries deal with immigration or migration issues. Very sensitive, one 

that I hope that as the OSCE we can try to come up with good action plans that will build more than just consensus, but really help 

to provide for incentives and really amplify those good things that 

are working in Europe that we also as parliamentarians here in 

the United States could learn from. 

I’m always fascinated when I go visit any one country on any of 

these missions and to hear, not only from other parliaments about 

what they’re having to go through, but to share also my perspective 

because we have also been blamed for faults that I don’t want to 

take any credit for, to be honest. I come from a very different perspective, very progressive, by the way. And sometimes that creates 

problems for people in our own delegation. 

But I believe that it’s because we are—this is a democratic institution we ought to be able to share those ideas. And so, even as 

a minority in some cases, it’s still important for other people to 

hear our perspectives from the United States, which are very diametrically different from what may have been happening in the 

last 8 years. 

And I, like you, have much hope that we are going to see a 

change, not only in the administration, but that we will see that 

there is more funding so that more Members will be able to participate. I can’t tell you the last mission we went to I think we had 

such a good turnout of U.S. House of Representatives. And I’m not 

just talking about Representatives from one part of the country. 

But I’m talking about the diversity of this entire continent, if you 

will. 

And that to me is very important because I as a Member of the 

House of Representatives—of course, when you look at me, you 

don’t see the typical House Member. And that’s what the world and 

what those in the OSCE need to understand as well. So we both 

have a lot, I think, to learn and share, but also go beyond just trying to come up with things that we think we can agree on but then 

no one’s held to account. There is a lot of work that some of us put 

into these sessions. 

18 

And I know my colleagues here have been doing that for many 

years. I’m a recent arrival. But if I am going to make my energy 

available and my effort, because I can do so many other things 

here in the House, then I would like to see some credible assistance 

also in issues that we care about. 

So one would be, yes, human trafficking, human rights, looking 

at revisiting these issues on migration, energy security, environmental and global climate change, which I think are very important. Some people might think we’re not interested in those issues. 

We are very much fixated on those issues because they also pose 

security issues for us in the United States and our relations with 

other countries. 

So I am excited about the possibility of what’s going to come. But 

I also know that if I am asked to fight to see an increase in budgets, I want to make sure that the money is going appropriately to 

places where it’s going to be most effective and transparent, not for 

the sake of continuing something that doesn’t work, but making 

sure that we really do have a hand and can see that and that everyone that is helping us in this effort can have that ability to have 

that transparency. 

And when there are questions asked, that they be answered. 

That’s what positions are made available for. There should be accountability. And I hope that happens. That’s how we will be able 

then to get more of our Members in the House to be a part of this 

and take this seriously as well. 

Because I am surprised that this, to me, in some instances, has 

been a well-kept secret. And I’m just coming of age into this process here, but it’s such a great organization. The principles, the 

goals are so relevant to everything we do every single day here in 

the House. 

And, of course, we need to do more of our own introspective review of our own policies. We understand that. But it’s going to take 

time. But we also need to work with our partners. 

So it’s more of a comment that I’m making. But I certainly would 

like to see more opportunities for some of our folks here in the 

United States to be able to serve in Vienna, to be able to partake 

in some of the wonderful things that are happening in OSCE and 

ODIHR and the Parliamentary Assembly because I think it’s a 

good experience to expose, have more U.S. citizens partake in what 

is happening in issues abroad. 

So I leave it with that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Ms. Solis. 

I turn now the Ranking Member, who has had a substantial 

amount of involvement in all these issues. So, Mr. Smith, you have 

the floor. 

HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, RANKING MEMBER, 

COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank both 

the Chairmen for convening this hearing—and to welcome our very 

good friend and long-time associate, Spencer Oliver, and a seasoned 

veteran of elections past who has done so much on so many issues, 

but especially on election observation and rule of law issues. 

19 

So it’s so good to see you. 

And, Ambassador Lenarc ̆ic ̆, thank you for—I’m sorry I missed 

your statement, but I did read it. But I missed all your ad libs, so 

I will have to go back and read the record for that. But thank you 

for your presence. We’re honored by your being here. 

Just a couple of questions. I know that you had mentioned on 

your most recent trip that there are no double standards. And 

maybe this has been touched by some of my colleagues, but we 

know Moscow has in the Duma and officials of the Russian government some very different views when it comes to election monitoring, when it comes to press freedoms, religious freedom, across 

the board really. And I’m wondering if you already did, you know, 

maybe in a very short way you could just tell us what your impressions were. Because there needs to be consensus in the OSCE. 

You know, we find this in a lot of places. I remember there was 

a big push in some of the Asian countries to change the definition 

of human rights. We know the Russians historically have always 

talked about more of a group thing. I remember when they tried 

to exploit the homelessness issue way back in the 1980s. We have 

to be concerned about homelessness, but not to the detriment of 

paramount individual human rights, freedom of speech, assembly 

and the rest. 

And I would ask you, Mr. Oliver, if you could. Yesterday we 

heard some very incisive testimony about what appears to be 

Lukashenka’s attempt to game the system of observers in Belarus, 

take the observers’ presence and judo them for his benefit by talking, welcoming them seemingly to be hook, line, and sinker on the 

same page while denying the media to opposition candidates, using 

the executive electoral process to exclude opposition representation. 

And it seems to be a very sophisticated strategy. 

And we know that the OSCE is on the ground there obviously 

with people who have been there since mid-August. I hope, you 

know, he’s not able to obscure what I think will be a very damning 

report when it finally comes out. 

But we know from ones to date since they’ve been there that this 

has been his game plan. You might want to speak to that. 

And finally, Ambassador Lenarc ̆ic ̆, I was in Georgia for 5 days 

21⁄2 weeks ago and met with the OSCE Mission there and was very 

impressed with their competence, their can-do attitude. Both the 

Ambassador and the head of the military mission gave us a very 

comprehensive briefing as to what they were attempting to do. And 

it was all good. 

But there are concerns about how quickly the upwards of 100 

monitors will be able to get deployed, whether or not they are adequately paid for. You know, are you happy with the 20 and then 

the 80 that will follow? Are you able to muster the kind of talent 

that will be needed to at least try to mitigate what could become 

a new powder keg built on the old? 

Amb. LENARC ̆ IC ̆. Thank you very much first for the comments 

made by Representative Solis. I think there was an underlying 

issue between your comments and the questions by Chairman Hastings on discrimination. Discrimination is something that the 

OSCE has been fighting now for quite some time. I already answered the question by Senator Cardin on how we work with the 

20 

Chairman-in-Office’s three personal representatives on tolerance 

and non-discrimination. 

To this I would add the information system that we have developed at our office—it’s called TANDIS, tolerance and non-discrimination information system. It compiles all the relevant information 

about the OSCE and other international conduct concerning tolerance and non-discrimination. It compiles all the documents that are 

there. It’s, in my view, compiled in a very user-friendly form. And 

I would really invite you to check it. 

It’s something that we are proud of. A lot of work has been invested in that. And the feedback that we receive is positive. And 

there are a lot of hits on that part of our Web site. So it’s something that I would certainly recommend and we will continue to expand on it. 

Also, as far as discrimination is concerned, you mentioned Europe. Yes, it’s an important issue in Europe, no doubt about that, 

and in other parts of OSCE regions. It is an important message 

that we try to address in our annual hate crimes report because 

discrimination is something that contributes decisively to the occurrence of the hate crimes. 

And in this report we try annually to assess the situation on all 

areas of hate crimes, all areas. So crimes motivated by hatred for 

whatever reason, hatred of somebody who is different for whatever 

reason. This year’s annual report is in the final stage of preparation. And I think that we will be able to promote it. I think it’s an 

important report. A lot of effort was invested into collection of information and into drafting this report. And this is also one of our 

contributions, in addition to the numerous cases of our activities in 

the field in very many participating States. 

I would like to thank you for the question of homelessness by 

Congressman Smith. Unfortunately, Chairman Hastings had to 

leave because he also asked a question about Russia. And I’m 

grateful for your reminding us of that part. 

My recent visit to Russia, to Moscow had one motivation primarily, to man (ph) census. Russia is an essential part of the 

OSCE. It was said earlier that the Soviet Union was one of the 

founding members, not only founding members, but one of the instrumental countries in bringing the CSCE closer to existence. 

I think that the Russian Federation today continues to care 

about the OSCE. It does. What I got there, the impression that I 

got there was that there is willingness to open a new chapter with 

my office to work on the commitment. But there is this burden of 

suspicion and mistrust. 

I cannot say where exactly it comes from, but there are accusations of double standards, which I tried to, how will I say, deal 

with stating clearly that for us there is only one standard, and 

these are the OSCE commitments, which are equally applicable 

throughout the OSCE regions to each and every participating 

State. The remedy, the action that we take when there is a discrepancy between the commitment and reality, of course, differs because it depends on the discrepancy. However, the standard is one. 

I think that we have to engage in more discussions with our Russian colleagues. As I said, I get the impression that they were 

ready to start a new chapter. I got the impression that they were 

21 

willing to engage in discussions. And I also got the impression that 

they do take seriously their commitment. The problem, as I said, 

seems to be this suspicion, as far as ODIHR is concerned, our office, suspicion that seems to be based on some perceived threat. 

There appear to be people that believe that ODIHR is an agent 

of the West to stimulate changes in the East, which, of course, I 

think is not the case. We don’t take orders from anyone, except 56 

participating States as a whole. What they say is what we do. 

What they say is what we obey, all of them, not individual ones. 

Just one sentence about the monitors in Georgia. We believe 

strongly that monitors that are to be deployed—and we hope they 

will be deployed sooner rather than later. But that is subject to 

consensus that we hope will emerge in Vienna. 

These monitors should be deployed immediately, and they should 

also monitor human rights situations. That’s what we believe, and 

we would like to see that happen. And we are ready to assist in 

training them and working with them so that the human dimension of the situation there on the ground is covered. Thank you. 

Mr. CARDIN. Well, let me thank both of our witnesses. 

Mr. OLIVER. I was just going to respond to that, if I may, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. CARDIN. Certainly, Mr. Oliver. Absolutely. 

Mr. OLIVER. Thank you for your kind words, Mr. Smith. I think 

you must be going on about your 32nd year on this Commission, 

as I remember. When I was a young staff director here, you were 

a freshman member of the Commission. And you’ve been a faithful 

participant ever since. I don’t think anybody knows more about the 

OSCE than you do in this Congress. I very much appreciate your 

support and your energy in pursuing implementation of the OSCE 

standards. 

What I said earlier regarding, not just Belarus, but many of the 

countries in what you might call the transitioning democracies or 

whatever you might wish, but those who are struggling to try to 

establish democracy, they are tending to eliminate the possibility 

for opposition to participate and to compete in elections. And you 

have now one-party parliaments in several Central Asian states 

and in Belarus where Mr. Hastings led the observation of the last 

parliamentary elections [in 2006]. And I was there also. 

A great difficulty came in the counting, but also the opposition, 

as you know, was harassed and intimidated. And the press was 

limited and restricted and shut down. I think that Ambassador 

Lenarc ̆ic ̆’s team on the ground there are reporting that this is a 

very quiet election. You would hardly know it was going on. 

And I think the problem there is there’s no opposition. There is 

no real competition. There is still some competition. There are 

human rights defenders and activists who want us to be there, who 

want us to observe these elections. There’ll be about 70 OSCE parliamentarians being deployed there next week, a number of our 

people are already on the ground. I think in the next couple of 

days—and we’ve followed it rather closely. 

But the great danger in these places is that, not that they don’t 

know how to hold an election because I think that the election in 

Belarus—that if you look at the election law and the election commissioners and the voting on election day and the vote counting, 

22 

you won’t find hardly any problems at all, I mean, maybe a few, 

little, minor things which really don’t matter. What really matters 

is there’s not a competitive atmosphere. 

And in a democracy you have to have a competitive atmosphere. 

You have to have a critical opposition or democracy won’t grow and 

thrive. That’s the problem in these areas. And that certainly appears to be one of the major developments, unfortunately, in 

Belarus. 

Mr. CARDIN. I would also add it helps when you have a free 

media and you have access to—opposition has access to be heard 

in addition to the opportunity to run. There is also a problem, I 

think, in Belarus with their commissions having adequate representation from minority parties. 

But I think your point is well-taken on the election issues. It’s 

not just what happens on election day. It’s what happens leading 

up to the elections and the ability of opposition to challenge the 

government. And that’s not true in Belarus. And it’s not true in too 

many of the OSCE States. 

I want to thank both of our witnesses, not just for being here, 

but for their long-standing service on these international issues. I 

can assure you that the United States Helsinki Commission will 

continue to be actively involved. We very much believe in the importance of the mission. 

We will be looking at every opportunity we can to accomplish the 

type of reforms within OSCE that we think are important. We will 

be very supportive of ODIHR and your mission and look for ways 

in which your budgets become stabilized to carry out the missions 

you need to. And we will look for opportunities to advance additional issues that we believe are important for human rights. 

We’re proud, again, of our records dealing with discrimination 

and intolerance, dealing with trafficking, which our Commission 

took a lead on and on advancing the cause of the Roma population, 

which we still believe needs a lot more work in ODIHR and OSCE. 

So we’ll continue to look for ways in which we can highlight what 

we believe are the challenges in the human rights basket of OSCE 

and work very closely with you, Mr. Ambassador, on strategies 

where we have adequate resources to advance those issues, always 

working in the spirit of OSCE with the participating States trying 

to get the best practices in each of our OSCE countries. 

We always welcome your suggestions on how we can improve. 

But I do hope that we find a way in which the parliamentarians 

working with our governments can try to bring about the type of 

reform so that we have a better process for advancing the agenda. 

I think we all are just frustrated by way decisions are made. And 

I agree with what Spencer said. And maybe I’ll just underscore this 

point. 

In too many cases I don’t believe the government really knows 

what’s happening in OSCE, that what’s happening in Vienna is insulating the governments from having to make a decision they 

choose not to. And as a result, we’re stymied because of the consensus requirement. And that could be a minor issue concerning an 

appointment of an individual, or it could be some major issue. So 

I think we can do better, and I’ll look for ways in which we can 

figure out strategies in order to accomplish that. 

23 

And with that, the Commission will stand adjourned. Thank you 

all very much. 

[Whereupon, at 4:24 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

24 

A P P E N D I C E S 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS, CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE 

I am pleased to convene this hearing of the Helsinki Commission 

focused on two important OSCE institutions which share a common 

mission of advancing human rights and democracy through the 

OSCE region, now encompassing 56 countries. For those Americans 

familiar with the Helsinki Accords, perhaps the image that comes 

first to mind is of the Soviet Gulag and the persecution of courageous individuals like Andrei Sakharov or the plight of refuseniks 

denied their right to emigrate. Indeed, the human dimension, as it 

is called, is the human face of the Helsinki Process for many. 

There is no question that the power of the ideas enshrined in the 

Helsinki Final Act shook an empire and helped topple dictatorships, ushering in new opportunities for hundreds of millions of 

people throughout Eurasia to enjoy freedoms long denied them. At 

the same time, the process of overcoming the legacy of the past has 

not been without its own costs. 

It would have been unimaginable back in 1975, the year that historic document was signed, to think that a mere fifteen years later 

the leaders of the participating States would commit ‘‘to build, consolidate and strengthen democracy as the only system of government of our nations.’’ The challenge for each of our countries is to 

translate such lofty pronouncements into practical action. 

Agreement was reached back in 1990 to create specialized institutions to assist the participating States in this process. Based on 

a U.S. proposal, the then Office of Free Elections was established 

in Warsaw and later expanded to encompass human rights under 

the title, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, 

as it is known today. Similarly, the United States urged that creation of a parliamentary dimension for the Helsinki Process in recognition of the unique contribution that elected parliamentarians 

could play in advancing the aims of Helsinki. I would point out 

that one of my predecessors, the late Congressman Dante Facsell, 

and another chair of the Commission, Steny Hoyer, played an active role in the negotiations that led to the establishment of the 

OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, based in Copenhagen. I had the 

privilege of serving as President of the Assembly from 2004 to 

2006. 

While distinct, these two OSCE institutions do share an overlapping mission to advance human rights and democracy. Indeed, in 

many ways their roles are complementary and their efforts 

strengthened to the extent that they work cooperatively. This point 

is particularly critical in the current environment in which some 

participating States, notably Russia, appear intent on undermining 

the OSCE’s human rights and democracy promoting work. 

Events in recent weeks in Georgia should serve as a stark reminder that there is much work that needs to be done if we are 

truly to overcome the legacy of the past. These and other challenges will require strong U.S. leadership from the incoming adVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:13 Feb 08, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\WORK\091708 HAROLD PsN: HAROLD
25 

ministration, if the OSCE and its institutions, including those represented here today, are to fulfill their mission of advancing human 

rights and democracy. 

26 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, COCHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION 

IN EUROPE 

I welcome this opportunity to examine the ongoing work of the 

Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and the 

OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, two institutions at the forefront of 

efforts to further respect for human rights and contribute to the 

building and consolidation of democracy in the participating States. 

My own involvement in this work dates back to the dark days of 

the Soviet era when tens of thousands of Jews in the U.S.S.R. were 

denied the possibility of emigrating to Israel or elsewhere. Anatoly 

Scharansky, one of the founding members of the Moscow Helsinki 

Group, helped draw attention to their plight and paid a great personal price for his advocacy on behalf of Soviet Jewry. 

The historic events of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s culminating in the fall of the Berlin Wall and ultimately in the collapse 

of the Soviet Union opened the door for individuals and nations to 

chart their own futures. These developments were seen as triumphs, not of one alliance over another, but of ideas and the 

human spirit. 

I have stood at the foot of the Brandenburg Gate, once the symbol of a divided city, country and continent, and witnessed firsthand the positive impact of those events. More recently, I have 

walked along Independence Square in the center of Kyiv and seen 

the transformation of that country following the Orange Revolution. 

Despite these and other advances, the reality is that many challenges remain if the promises of Helsinki are to be enjoyed by all. 

Recent Commission hearings on developments in Kazakhstan, 

Georgia, and Belarus as well as the rise of racism, anti-Semitism, 

and other forms of intolerance are reminders of some of our unfinished work. 

The OSCE’s comprehensive framework—encompassing the security, economic and human dimensions—makes it uniquely suited to 

help meet these challenges. Engagement and dialogue can be important vehicles for bringing about change and greater adherence 

to the common commitments agreed to by all participating States 

on the basis of consensus. The Office of Democratic Institutions 

and Human Rights and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, in 

which I serve as a Vice President, can and should serve as catalysts for advancing human rights and democracy throughout the 

OSCE region. 

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses this afternoon 

and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing. 

27 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR JANEZ LENARC ̆ IC ̆ , 

DIRECTOR OF THE OSCE OFFICE FOR DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (ODIHR), WARSAW 

Mess. Co-Chairmen, 

Distinguished Commissioners, 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

It is a true honour to be invited to participate in this hearing so 

early in my tenure as the Director of the ODIHR, and in a year 

in which we celebrate the 60th anniversary of a document which 

was truly standard-setting with respect to upholding human rights 

on a global scale, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Let 

me also say at the outset that the support of your unique Commission and that of the U.S. government has been, and remains, essential to our work. 

Prior to our discussion, I would like to make a few remarks 

about what I believe to be the place of the OSCE in the global security architecture and more specifically the position of our Office, 

the ODIHR, in it. Second, I would like to give you a few examples 

how our Office contributes to strengthening the Helsinki spirit 

upon which this Commission was founded. And in a third step, I 

would also like to expand upon the notion of democracy promotion 

within the OSCE context, some of its successes, and some of the 

challenges it faces. 

* * * 

At the 1990 Summit in Paris, heads of state and government 

from across the CSCE region declared that ‘‘the era of confrontation and division of Europe has ended’’, and heralded a ‘‘new era 

of democracy, peace and unity in Europe.’’ Today, less than two 

decades later, it turns out that the optimism shown in Paris may 

have been premature. The enthusiasm of the early 1990s has given 

way in the capitals of the region to a more sober view of Europe’s 

post-Cold War realities. New divisions seem to have appeared in 

recent years. Confrontation appears to have made a comeback in 

the meeting rooms where the debates about Europe’s security challenges take place. 

Not surprisingly, the OSCE, as the only platform where all states 

of this vast region discuss security issues on an equal footing, has 

become one of the main stages where these new divisions are being 

played out. As a result, a certain measure of mistrust and suspicion has characterized relations within the OSCE in recent years. 

This has also affected the work of our office, the ODIHR. 

I want to be very clear: I am convinced that the OSCE can continue to play a crucial role in achieving the goals we have set ourselves in Paris and at other OSCE summits and meetings over the 

past two decades. The OSCE has a number of unique features that 

should make it our organization of choice for tackling some of the 

key security challenges of our time. The OSCE remains the only regional security organization that brings together all states on the 

basis of equality and, if activated by its members, can react flexibly 

to new threats and challenges, including those that we have seen 

in the very recent past. No-where is this more significant than in 

the current discussions around the future activities of an enlarged 

28 

group of monitors in Georgia and the role of the organisation in a 

peaceful settlement concerning Abkhazia and South Ossetia. 

It is also clear that the promise of democracy, peace and unity 

enshrined in the Paris Charter remains very much alive among the 

peoples of our region. We experience this every day in our work in 

the field, in countries across the entire region. It is this promise, 

and the expectations of the people of this region, that must guide 

us as we—individually and collectively within the OSCE framework—design our responses to the challenges we face. 

It is therefore my unwavering conviction that if we want this Organization to prosper and develop in the 21st century, and if we 

want the ODIHR to continue to fulfil its mandate in an effective 

manner, we need to rebuild trust and overcome suspicion. One way 

of doing this is to start dropping the labels and adjust our idioms. 

It is disappointing that we still refer to ‘‘East’’ and ‘‘West’’, or, as 

is practice in the OSCE, ‘‘east of Vienna’’ and ‘‘west of Vienna’’. 

While such language of division was at the heart of the Cold War 

confrontation, it has lost its function in today’s reality. We should 

have, once and for all, overcome the decades of ideological confrontation and these designations should have become devoid of 

meaning. Invoking a line dividing the ‘‘East’’ from the ‘‘West’’ of Vienna two decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall sounds strangely 

stale and wooden. Perhaps it is also time to adjust our idioms and 

to re-think, within the OSCE framework, our references to ‘‘longer 

established democracies’’ and what we have come to call ‘‘new’’ or 

‘‘transitional democracies’’. 

* * * 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

The OSCE’s approach to promoting democracy has never been a 

one-way street. The OSCE is not about one-direction value transfer 

or imposition. The Helsinki process, we will recall, was inspired by 

what a former West-German Minister, Egon Bahr, coined Wandel 

durch Anna ̈herung—‘‘change through rapprochement’’. Striving for 

a convergence of positions through dialogue and exchange, sometimes in incremental steps but nevertheless in an ongoing process, 

has always been the approach chosen by this organization. 

It is this approach that has allowed us over the past decade to 

bring human rights to the field and to deliver concrete results. By 

way of example, let me elaborate on a sample of six activities our 

Office has been undertaking this year: 

1. Our Office cares about the fate of human rights defenders. It 

monitors and reports on the situation of those who derive their 

mission from the Helsinki movements of the late 1970s and 80s. 

Over the past years, we have seen serious violations of the rights 

of human rights defenders—ranging from the subtlest of means to 

the most violent of methods. Our Office will publish the second report on the situation of defenders by the end of this year, which 

will not fail to point out challenges and obstacles, but will also contain a number of good practices detailing how to respect, protect, 

engage with and facilitate the work of defenders, in line with the 

commitments States made in Budapest 1994. 

2. After the tragic events in Yerevan in March this year, the 

ODIHR, together with the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission, 

29 

engaged in discussions with the Armenian authorities on the 

amendments that were hurriedly made to the Law on Meetings 

and Demonstrations. The ODIHR was able to convince the Armenian authorities that these amendments were not in line with 

international standards and encouraged changes that would provide for a more enabling environment for holding rallies and assemblies. The Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly that 

the ODIHR developed over the past two years were a very useful 

tool for conducting discussions in Yerevan. They provided examples 

on how to ensure the respect for the right to peaceful assembly 

while accounting for the need to maintain public order. After these 

discussions the Armenian Parliament brought the law closer in line 

with international standards. The ODIHR is currently conducting 

follow-up training of human rights defenders in Yerevan as we 

speak. 

3. We are in the process of finalising an overall assessment of the 

implementation of the OSCE Action Plan on Roma and Sinti, which 

will offer concrete recommendations as to how discrimination 

against these groups can be eradicated. We are fortunate this year 

as the Finnish OSCE Chairmanship has prioritized this issue and 

has paid particular attention to areas in which Roma face particular challenges: education, housing and employment. I may add 

that the urgency of these issues has been highlighted in Italy this 

year where we have undertaken a field visit to collect first hand 

data and highlighted the positive measures for the long-term integration of Roma that should be taken without delay. 

4. Let me also mention our assistance in the fight against trafficking in human beings—the heinous practice of modern-day slavery—which has been a priority for our office since 1999. Since then, 

we have worked hard to raise awareness that preventive and protective action is needed also in destination countries, where trafficked persons are exploited. In fact, we have continuously drawn 

attention to the need for comprehensive rights-based responses in 

reaching out to, and protecting, the rights of marginalized groups 

often exposed or vulnerable to exploitation. This includes migrants, 

regular and irregular, among them often women and minorities. 

Both nationals and foreigners must be in a position to access assistance and justice. They must not be re-victimized or criminalized 

because of their legal status or their work. 

In this context, our Office has focused this year on an issue that 

is often being overlooked: access to justice for those trafficked and 

exploited. In May this year, we published a study on compensation 

for trafficked and exploited persons in the OSCE region which 

analyses the right to compensation in international law as well as 

in eight OSCE participating States, including the U.S. The study 

is already being used, both by governments and civil society, as a 

resource and guidance in their practical and policy work. The 

American Bar Association, for instance, is organizing a two-day 

training for civil attorneys on civil remedies for trafficked persons 

in early October in Washington. The Special Day on Trafficking in 

Human Beings during this year’s HDIM, on 8 October, will be an 

excellent opportunity to share good practices and identify key challenges, also related to victims’ access to justice and compensation. 

30 

5. Our office has developed a wide array of tools to support 

States and civil society across the OSCE region in their efforts to 

prevent and combat hate crimes and other forms of intolerance. 

These include guidelines for legislators, training seminars for law 

enforcement and civil society as well as resource guides on specific 

communities. I will mention in particular the teaching materials on 

anti-Semitism which we have developed for 10 States, each version 

tailored to their specific histories and on contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism. We have now started the implementation 

phase in Germany, Lithuania, and Ukraine, where training sessions for teachers are currently being held. The successful work in 

the area of combating anti-Semitism has allowed us to use the experience and plan for similar approaches to other areas of tolerance 

and non-discrimination. 

6. Last but not least, as I would like to elaborate on some of the 

concrete assistance projects our Office is undertaking this year, let 

me remark on what has become the signature activity of our Office 

for more than a decade: election observation. Within the past 12 

months, the ODIHR has followed elections in Armenia, Croatia, 

Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 

Italy, Montenegro, Poland, Serbia, Spain, Switzerland and Uzbekistan. We have currently deployed Election Observation Missions to 

Belarus and Azerbaijan, and will soon—in three weeks, in fact— 

send our 50 or so observers to follow the U.S. presidential and congressional elections. 

It has been said many times that all 56 OSCE States are bound 

by the same commitments. We have, over the past years, and 

under the stewardship of my predecessor, Ambassador Strohal, 

broadened the geographic scope of our activities to follow electoral 

developments in a wider range of States. Let me at this point 

thank you, the Helsinki Commission, and in particular Chairman 

Hastings, for the support we have received over the years - not 

only for the activities we undertake in Europe and Asia, but also 

here in the U.S. I have been reassured by your Government and 

many other participating States that attempts to reinterpret OSCE 

election commitments, or the mandate of the ODIHR, and efforts 

to curb the scope of observation, or the number of observers that 

we send to a particular country, will not succeed. 

Likewise, if we were to abandon our neutral judgment on election-related issues, both before, on, or after election day, we could 

as well stop our work. By inviting our observers to follow the upcoming elections in this country without imposing any restrictions, 

the United States is again demonstrating that it stands firmly behind the commitments it has made almost two decades ago. We 

look forward to a good cooperation as we prepare for the deployment of our observation mission. 

I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the valuable contribution of parliamentarians to election observation, and 

in particular our cooperation with the OSCE PA. As I have emphasized before, this cooperation must be based on a genuine partnership, as prescribed by the participating States. We are bound to 

work in this spirit of cooperation and partnership, on the basis of 

an agreement signed in 1997. 

31 

* * * 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

At the roots of the Helsinki Process was a realisation that democracy and empowerment need to be home-grown and need to develop 

at their own pace. And indeed, the Helsinki Final Act, including its 

reference to the principle of territorial integrity of States, remains 

a fundamental cornerstone not only for the wider security framework of Europe and of the OSCE. It also serves, in its spirit and 

its letter, as a guiding beacon for our Institution. In essence, it set 

in motion a process that has recognized human rights, the rule of 

law, and democracy as essential prerequisites of security and lasting peace. Since then, of course, the OSCE has deepened and developed its commitments on human rights and democracy, and the 

commitments undertaken later in Copenhagen, Paris, and Moscow 

have set the standards for an accountable and transparent democratic system as the only system of government, and have confirmed that the protection of human rights is the first responsibility of government. 

But as we pay tribute to the standard-setting role of these documents, we will have to recognize that democracies develop at different speeds, and from different starting points. While the OSCE 

acquis has set out the perhaps most developed international standards of democracy in the world, it has not laid down in parallel a 

precise timeframe, or clear trajectory along which democratic development must occur. This would have been counter-intuitive to the 

framers of the CSCE process. 

Indeed, we have come to realize that democracy is not a prize or 

trophy that once won is passed on from one generation to another. 

Democracy has no finality; it is a process, everywhere. And the 

level of trust in this process must be constantly maintained and renewed. If we acknowledge that this is the case, and move away 

from the stereotypes of the past, we obtain a clearer and more honest view of the specific challenges individual States face, no matter 

where they are located on the map. 

The concerns we are preoccupied with have anyway long ago 

stopped to neatly follow the old dividing lines. This is also true for 

the human dimension of security, the area our Office is mandated 

to promote. Ensuring that the fight against terrorism does not unduly infringe on the protection of human rights, combating the 

global trade in human beings, promoting the integration of Roma 

and Sinti, fighting hate crime and other forms of intolerance— 

these are enormous challenges that pose a threat to many societies 

across the whole region, and not just in one particular part of it. 

* * * 

Distinguished Commissioners, 

As someone who has been brought up and lived half of his life 

in a country devoid of democratic checks and balances, in which the 

party gave and took from the people at its own behest, I personally 

experienced the difference between democracy and autocracy, between freedom and oppression. 

It is one of the particularities of our organization, contrary to the 

European Union or the WTO, for instance, that it does not reward, 

32 

nor punish the lack of, compliance with its acquis. It does not hand 

out carrots and cannot wield sticks. The OSCE, and in particular 

our Institution, is not in the business of ‘‘grading’’ democratic development. We don’t grade, we don’t reprimand. We assist. And our 

assistance goes wherever States may fall short of their human dimension commitments, and invite us to be of use. In short, we cannot do our work without their cooperation. 

It is therefore appropriate to argue that we need to re-create a 

Helsinki momentum. I advocate that we regularly return to our 

basic texts, and to an understanding in which we use the OSCE 

as a political forum for peer review, in which its members hold 

each other accountable on the basis of equality and avail themselves of the assistance and advice of missions and institutions 

such as the ODIHR, which were set up precisely for this purpose. 

In this process, civil society actors must play a vital role. The vision of OSCE commitments is not one where action taken by States 

alone is sufficient to achieve democratic government under the rule 

of law. The commitments recognize as matters of international concern precisely those that civil society actors should engage in to influence government policy and protect democracy: full respect for 

human rights, including the freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of expression and, of course, a free media. Where 

States fall short in upholding these and other rights, our Office has 

not failed, and will not fail, to alert political leaders, and will continue to be specific and concrete in identifying both challenges and 

possible solutions. 

* * * 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

My elaborations so far have underscored that democracy promotion may have become more difficult over the years, and the decade of quick-fix solutions to problems of transition has yielded 

mixed results. I do, however, remain convinced that effective 

multilateralism can contribute to the growth of democracy. The 

OSCE remains a political community based on commitments 

which—though they do not carry the full force of international 

legal obligations—have enormous political weight. They were freely 

entered into by all States, in consensus. I therefore predict that 

States will continue to seek our advice and counsel in fields where 

relevant international practice or standards exist. The way forward 

therefore is to instil confidence and trust in the OSCE, and particularly our Institution, so that the notion of pluralist democracy is 

not seen in some quarters as a threat. 

I hold the view that democracy and institution-building are unfinished business everywhere. Distinguishing between ‘young’, 

‘new’, ‘longer-standing’ and ‘old’ democracies does not serve any 

useful purpose. Let me give you a quote by a former prime minister, who pronounced himself on the future of democracy: ‘‘We are 

now entering upon a new era’’, he declared in 1933, 

‘‘Parliamentarianism, with its political parties, belongs to the past’’. 

With these words, the late Austrian Chancellor Dollfuβ sealed the 

fate of a democratic experiment that had lasted for over a decade 

and was endowed with the model constitution of its time. My point 

is: democracy, unlike good bourbon, does not necessarily improve 

33 

by itself, with age. There are reversals and setbacks. We should 

therefore shed those labels. They only make our work more difficult. We should focus more on genuine dialogue founded on mutual respect and cooperation. 

Indeed, the sad experience of the past century has shown us that 

democracy is not an end-state, but one which ebbs and flows in accordance with the determination and the resolve of those committed to upholding it and protecting it from those who seek to arrogate power to themselves. It is our collective duty to ensure that 

the democratic tide does not recede, and the duty of our Office to 

assist both States and civil society actors to ensure a positive trend 

is set or continued, in the interest of the security of all States. 

This is especially valid as new challenges have appeared—those, 

for instance, that relate to the fight against international terrorism 

and the careful balance states should strike in order to meet both 

their obligations under international human rights law, and equally important, the political commitments undertaken in the framework of the OSCE. 

While throughout the 20th century, the United States was one 

of the driving forces in the promotion of human rights, the rule of 

law and democracy, some recent developments have led some to 

cast doubts over the sustainability of this role. For many in the 

international human rights movement, documented instances of 

abuse at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib have been a great disappointment. The establishment of secret places of detention and 

rendition flights have dented, in the eyes of some, the credibility 

of the United States as promoter of freedom and effective human 

rights. And yet, the international human rights and democracy 

movement will hardly succeed without the determined and credible 

leadership of the United States. The approach taken by the presidential candidates on this issue has been received with a degree of 

relief across many parts of our region, and it instils hope that 

America will once again find the way back to its traditional role as 

a leader and example for others. 

In order to show true leadership on human rights one must start 

at home. There can be no double standards. The norms against 

which each State’s actions are measured are the same for all OSCE 

countries. It is in this context that the work of the Helsinki Commission is important in that it has, over the years, been a forceful 

voice for America to live up to its commitments. 

Credibility is a crucial factor for human rights policies; it begins 

with honouring commitments made by governments to protect 

human rights effectively and to respect the rule of law. It is on the 

basis of our own country’s performance within what we call the 

OSCE ‘human dimension’ that we should be developing our stance 

vis-a ́-vis our international partners. The OSCE remains a unique 

framework for realizing the fundamental objectives that have been 

so forcefully put forward in the Paris Charter. 

In closing, I would like to thank you most warmly for your invitation to address you and I look forward to cooperating with you 

throughout the term of my Office. 

34 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF R. SPENCER OLIVER, SECRETARY 

GENERAL, OSCE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY 

Election observation is in many ways the OSCE’s most important 

task, and what is today often forgotten is that it all started with 

the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly at the Russian Duma elections 

in December 1993. 

Since then, parliamentarians have played—and are playing—a 

leading role in election observation throughout the world deploying 

a total of over two thousand seven hundred elected politicians to 

over 90 national elections. 

This year marks the 15th anniversary of our Annual Session in 

Helsinki, at which the Chairman-in-Office tasked the OSCE parliamentarians to take the lead in OSCE election observation. OSCE 

parliamentarians responded positively and enthusiastically to the 

Swedish Foreign Minister’s request, recognizing that their unique 

experience and expertise as elected public officials is an invaluable 

asset for OSCE election observation activities. 

The Parliamentary Assembly is proud of this role. There are no 

better judges of elections than those who actually seek and win 

public office through the electoral process. 

Elections are the very foundation for democratic governance. The 

participating States of the OSCE declared in the Copenhagen Document of 1990, ‘‘that the will of the people, freely and fairly expressed through periodic and genuine elections, is the basis of the 

authority and legitimacy of all government.’’ 

The Copenhagen Document provides the basis and the mandate 

for election observation within the OSCE, and it is upon the standards called for in this document that OSCE parliamentarians 

evaluate, assess and judge the elections that they choose to observe. It is through the Copenhagen document that the participating States are required to invite observers to their national election proceedings. 

Therefore, it is only on the basis of the provisions of this document that OSCE observers should assess elections in the OSCE. 

In practice, the OSCE works with other international parliamentary assemblies, international organizations, and appropriate private institutions in this field. These other entities, however may 

also have other criteria, such as those promulgated by the Venice 

Commission for the Council of Europe, by which they make their 

own assessment of various electoral proceedings. 

Such parallel criteria are usually not in conflict with the Copenhagen Commitments, but in some cases, they may differ in substance or detail and may go further in their requirements than the 

Copenhagen document. The divergence in these requirements 

among various participating observer groups sometimes causes difficulty, or even disagreement, in the various reports and press 

statements issued after each election. 

Within the OSCE there have sometimes been disagreements between the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and the OSCE Office of 

Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. In 1997, the OSCE 

Chairman-in-Office and the President of the OSCE Parliamentary 

Assembly signed a Co-operation Agreement which provided the 

guidelines and division of labour between these two OSCE institutions. 

35 

This Agreement worked well for a number of years during which 

the OSCE was established as the leading election observation 

mechanism in the OSCE area. In recent years, however some wellknown difficulties have arisen, causing the OSCE Ministerial 

Council in 2006 to call on the ODIHR to continue to work with the 

Parliamentary Assembly on election observation on the basis of the 

1997 Agreement. 

Although problems have continued since that time, I am pleased 

to note that Ambassador Lenarc ̆ic ̆, the new Director of the OSCE 

Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, shortly after 

taking office met with me and the President of the Parliamentary 

Assembly in Copenhagen in July this year to address these difficulties. We have agreed that the 1997 Co-operation Agreement will be 

fully observed and that we will work closely together to ensure our 

successful cooperation. 

This is a welcome step in the right direction. We continue to believe that the Co-operation Agreement is an important document 

which—if followed in both the letter and the spirit will enhance the 

credibility and visibility of the OSCE in the important work of election observation. 

We have often worked closely with other inter-parliamentary institutions, but I am pleased to note that our Assembly has deployed 

more than twice as many observers as all the other inter-parliamentary institutions combined. 

Elected Members of Parliament provide unequalled credibility 

and visibility to election observation projects because of who they 

are and what they do. As elected officials, full practitioners in the 

process and dependent upon elections themselves, they are rightly 

presumed to know more about elections than anybody else. 

The fact that they have succeeded in being elected and hold public office gives them a certain standing to speak about elections, 

which obviously provides unequalled credibility in this field. 

In addition, these elected officials provide unparalleled visibility 

to OSCE election assessments through the attention that the media 

pays to what they have to say. There is no identifiable OSCE 

media, no OSCE television station, no OSCE newspaper or wire 

service. Media attention in the OSCE comes from the national 

press, radio, and television of each participating State. Obviously, 

when reporting on an election in a foreign country, a reporter for 

a national television station or a national newspaper will seek out 

the opinion of an elected politician from their own country for a 

comment. That parliamentarian is a recognizable public figure and 

can speak to their national media representatives in their own language. 

And, of course, the editors of national newspapers or the evening 

television news in any participating country are much more likely 

to run a story about an election observation mission if they have 

a quote or assessment from someone who is a recognized figure in 

their own country. 

Along with the credibility and visibility that I have mentioned, 

I should also note that parliamentarians clearly provide an element 

of transparency and accountability that should be required of each 

international election observer. As parliamentarians, they live in 

the public eye. They are well known, having been scrutinized by 

36 

their electors, by the press, and by their political opponents. Virtually everything about them is a matter of public record. 

They are also publicly accountable for virtually everything they 

say and do. When they assess elections in a foreign country, they 

have to be prepared to defend their position, to explain it, and to 

be responsible for it. To the extent possible, this should be the case 

for every observer. 

One of the main problems that the Parliamentary Assembly election mission teams have encountered with regard to the ODIHR 

election observation missions in recent years is that unlike the 

elected politicians leading the Parliamentary Assembly election observation teams, the ODIHR usually hires former diplomats who, 

prior to their retirement had no actual experience with politics or 

elections, a practice which leads to very different perceptions of the 

quality of the particular election under observation. This lack of political experience on the part of the heads of ODIHR election observation missions, as well as with their core team staff and consultants has many times caused serious disagreement and acrimonious 

debates within the election observation mission when trying to 

agree on a statement or press release the day after the election. As 

a former President of the Assembly, Mr. Chairman, and as the 

leader of several observation missions, I am sure you are quite familiar with the problems that have occurred in the field. 

In a recent OSCE election-related seminar in Vienna, a former 

disgruntled leader of the Parliamentary Assembly who has not participated in a Parliamentary Assembly election observation mission 

in several years distributed a scurrilous paper attacking the Parliamentary Assembly’s election observation methodology and the 

judgment of its leaders. During the debate in Vienna, both our representative to the Permanent Council, Ambassador Andreas 

Nothelle and I attacked and refuted this paper as being unfair and 

inaccurate in its content and that it contained various lies and distortions. Unfortunately the official representative of the British 

Government later chose to distribute this scurrilous document to 

all 56 governmental delegations in Vienna. 

I should point out that the largest number of retired diplomats 

and consultants employed by the ODIHR are British. One can understand that protecting the post-retirement income of former colleagues is high on their agenda, but the distribution of this paper 

by the British delegation in Vienna was inexcusable. The Parliamentary Assembly representative in Vienna was forced to distribute a strong response to all delegations. We have renounced 

and regret this incident and hope that it will not occur in the future. 

A government or a parliament whose elections are being observed should be entitled to know who the observers are and what 

qualifies them to do such a job. They should also know to whom 

they are responsible, before, during and after the time they are observers and, most importantly, the sources of their funding should 

be open and transparent to all. 

The Parliamentary Assembly has frequently called for more 

transparency and accountability not only in election observation 

but also in the OSCE itself. The Assembly has also spoken out 

against the use of double standards in election observation. 

37 

In the 55 OSCE participating States that hold elections, there 

are no two systems that are identical. They are sometimes very 

similar, but other times remarkably different. Election observation 

missions must therefore be very careful not to criticize provisions 

of election laws in one participating State, when the same provisions are accepted in the election laws in other participating 

States. 

In addition, the election observation methodology of any organization or institution must have the flexibility to be applied equally 

to the elections in all OSCE participating States. 

If the methodology of an institution limits or restricts their ability or resources available to observe elections in some participating 

States but not in others, then that methodology should either be 

changed or abandoned. 

I am pleased to say that I believe that the Parliamentary Assembly has consistently lived up to the standards that I have mentioned throughout the 15 years in which we have engaged in this 

work. We are proud of this record and we look forward to leading 

election observation missions in the OSCE in the years ahead. 

Thank you very much. 

Æ 

This is an official publication of the 

Commission on Security and 

Cooperation in Europe. 

★ ★ ★ 

This publication is intended to document 

developments and trends in participating 

States of the Organization for Security 

and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). 

★ ★ ★ 

All Commission publications may be freely 

reproduced, in any form, with appropriate 

credit. The Commission encourages 

the widest possible dissemination 

of its publications. 

★ ★ ★ 

http://www.csce.gov 

The Commission’s Web site provides 

access to the latest press releases 

and reports, as well as hearings and 

briefings. Using the Commission’s electronic 

subscription service, readers are able 

to receive press releases, articles, 

and other materials by topic or countries 

of particular interest. 

Please subscribe today.