Human Rights in Putin's Russia

UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE
(HELSINKI COMMISSION) HOLDS HEARING:
HUMAN RIGHTS IN PUTIN'S RUSSIA

SOURCE

MAY 20, 2004

COMMISSIONERS:

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH (R-NJ)
CHAIRMAN
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FRANK R. WOLF (R-VA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH R. PITTS (R-PA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT B. ADERHOLT (R-AL)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ANNE M. NORTHUP (R-KY)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BENJAMIN L. CARDIN (D-MD)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE LOUISE MCINTOSH SLAUGHTER (D-NY)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ALCEE L. HASTINGS (D-FL)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE MCINTYRE (D-NC)

U.S. SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL (R-CO)
CO-CHAIRMAN
U.S. SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK (R-KS)
U.S. SENATOR GORDON H. SMITH (R-OR)
U.S. SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON (R-TX)
U.S. SENATOR SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R-GA)
U.S. SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD (D-CT)
U.S. SENATOR BOB GRAHAM (D-FL)
U.S. SENATOR RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD (D-WI)
U.S. SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY)

ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS:

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CURT WELDON (R-PA)

WITNESSES:

AMBASSADOR STEVEN PIFER
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE
BUREAU OF EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS

GARRY KASPAROV
FORMER WORLD CHESS CHAMPION AND CHAIRMAN
COMMITTEE 2008: FREE CHOICE

EDWARD LOZANSKY
PRESIDENT
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY IN MOSCOW AND RUSSIA HOUSE

REVEREND IGOR NIKITIN
CHAIRMAN
ASSOCIATION OF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES IN RUSSIA

NICHOLAI BUTKEVICH
RESEARCH AND ADVOCACY DIRECTOR
UNION OF COUNCILS FOR JEWS IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION

[*]
SMITH: Welcome to this Helsinki Commission hearing on "Human
Rights in Putin's Russia," the latest in a series of hearings and
briefings on developments in the Russian Federation. We have timed
today's hearing in anticipation of President Putin's upcoming visit to
the United States for the G-8 Summit hosted by President Bush in
Georgia.

Russia has made huge strides in democratic progress, human
rights, civil liberties and press freedoms since the collapse of the
Soviet Union. Yet, President Putin's ascent to power, influential
elements in his government appear determined to reverse Russia's
direction and institute authoritarian policy.
Some close to Putin have euphemistically described the situation
as "managed democracy." As former head of Russian domestic security
service, the FSB, Mr. Putin is increasingly relying on the security
intelligence complex to run Russia. One academic specialist has
determined that the proportion of former intelligence, military police
or prosecutorial personnel in the Kremlin's power structure has
increased from about 5 percent under Mr. Gorbachev to nearly 60
percent under Putin.

One of the results has been what human rights activists are
calling "spy mania," whereby academics and environmentalists have been
accused of collaborating with Russian intelligence agencies on the
basis of questionable evidence and procedures.

This week I received a letter from several prominent Russian
human rights activists, including Elena Bonner, Kovalev and others in
which they state that the fabrication by the FSB of treason cases has
become a routine occurrence.

The text of the letter will be included in the record.

I would like to ask that my full statement be made a part of the
record. And I would like to yield to my friend and colleague, Mr.
Cardin for any opening comments he might have.

CARDIN: Well, let me thank Chairman Smith for conducting this
hearing. We very much appreciate the opportunity to talk about
Russia.

Ambassador Pifer, it's a pleasure to have you before our
committee. And the work that you've done over a long period of time
for our country, and we very much appreciate your public service.

Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate this hearing, because I
think it is our responsibility to look at specific countries. You and
I have talked about this, that the Helsinki Commission, the Helsinki
process, is a very valuable process, but it only works if we are
willing to be very specific about problems in specific countries.

CARDIN: And we have a good relationship with Russia. Russia has
made a lot of progress. Mr. Ivanchenko, a parliamentarian that I
worked with very closely in the parliamentary assembly from Russia on
the second committee that I have the honor of chairing on the economic
and environmental front, we've worked together and have talked
together about ways in which we can improve relationships towards the
Helsinki commitments in both of our countries.

But one of the key points in the committee that I serve on in the
OSCE parliamentary assembly deals with the problems of economic
progress. And we recognize that transparency and fighting corruption
is absolutely essential if we're going to be able to make the type of
progress that we need to in developing economies.

And I am very troubled by reports in Russia about the
governmental corruption. And that although Mr. Putin is working hard
to try to deal with that, we are concerned about the fact that there
is still government-sponsored corruption. It appears that the best
way to get arrested for corruption in Russia today is to be a
political threat to the powers to be. That's clearly unacceptable.

In this connection, I would note that I have sponsored a
bipartisan bill that would extend the normal trade relations with
Russia without changing the bar, without requiring Russia to comply
with different standards than we had in the Jackson-Vanik law. But we
do put in that legislation an expectation that Russia will comply with
its OSCE commitments. And I think we have a right to expect that we
would see greater compliance with those issues.

And finally, Mr. Chairman, let me mention Chechnya. I have
sponsored two resolutions before the parliamentary assembly on behalf
of the United States delegation expressing real concern by the way in
which the Russian Federation has handled the problems within Chechnya.

We understand that there are terrorists in Chechnya.

CARDIN: We understand it's a dangerous situation for both the
locals and for the Russians. But we expect the Russian Federation to
exercise respect for human rights and to exercise restraint in trying
to deal with that circumstance.

And, to date, we have not really seen the type of progress that
we would like to have seen in regards to resolving the problems in
Chechnya.

So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the testimony of our
witnesses today and to working with our friends in the Russian
Federation so that we all can improve our commitments toward the
Helsinki principles. And I would ask that my entire statement be put
into the record.

SMITH: Without objection, your statement will be made a part of
the record.

We're joined today by Mr. Curt Weldon. And I'd like to yield to
my good friend and colleague for any comments he might have.

WELDON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me than you and Ben for
outstanding leadership as it relates to the Helsinki Commission. I
have worked with you over the years, along with Steny Hoyer, who
proceeded Ben. And you've done simply fantastic work.

I'm proud to be a part of the human rights caucus in this
Congress. And I stand with you on this issue today in looking at the
human rights concerns that all of us have in Russia.

On Sunday, I'll be making my 37th trip to Russia where I'll be
interacting with the leadership, both of the government and with the
leaders of the Duma.

I'll be taking, again, a bipartisan delegation to that country.
And I'll be, again, raising issues, as I have, since I first went to
the Soviet Union back in the mid-'80s with the National Council On
Soviet Jewry to raise the issue of the plight of Jews throughout the
Soviet Union, my first involvement with that nation.

I come today to support the efforts of the commission. And you
have friends of mine testifying: Garry Kasparov is a long-time
friend, and so is Ed Lozansky. The do outstanding work in this
country in trying to help us understand what's happening in Russia.

But I come, Mr. Chairman, today, with some, unfortunately very
negative, statements, about our State Department.

And I know that that's not what you were expecting, but I think
for us to be able to hold accountable Russia for its human rights
violations, we have to hold also ourselves accountable.

Since 1998 there's been a case in Russia that now has appeared on
over 35 major Russian media outlets.

WELDON: I would ask for the record, Mr. Chairman, that you
include 21 specific instances in the Russian media. This is TV; this
is radio; this is newspapers.

The case involves an incident on October 27th of 1998 where the
highest ranking American diplomat in Vladivostok, while allegedly
driving under the influence of alcohol, rammed a vehicle containing a
young 20-year-old Russian by the name of Alexander Kashin. Kashin was
made a quadriplegic as a result of that accident.

The response by our State Department was to give diplomatic
immunity to the individual involved from State, his name was Douglas
Kent, remove him out of Russia on the grounds of diplomatic immunity.
When he came back to America, he was again provided support by the
State Department, even though he had changed names on a number of
occasions and refused to be served papers to be held accountable for
the actions against this young Russian individual.

In the course of this, a relative of Alexander Kashin's lives in
Philadelphia, right near our districts, Mr. Chairman. And this
individual went to a very prominent Russian lawyer in Philadelphia by
the name of John Gallagher who represents a lot of interests in Russia
and who is probably the largest lawyer, certainly in the East, on
Russian immigration cases.

John agreed to represent Alexander Kashin pro bono. John
Gallagher I know very well. Steny knew John, on many occasions we
met. And he came to me and gave me descriptions of this case and
asked the question, "Why wasn't America willing to live up to its
responsibility and acknowledge that an American representative had
caused the young Russian to become a quadriplegic who was confined to
a wheel chair?"

I took up the case, got involved. And over the past several
years have asked our State Department continuously about the response.
We have been lied to, and we have been deceived.

And so I come today in a human rights hearing about the
violations in Russia, and I ask the commission to also consider the
response of our State Department officially on the case of Alexander
Kashin.

WELDON: Now, furthermore, I will submit for the record material
that will be in the court proceedings in the fall of this year, where
two current State Department employees on the record in official
documents have testified, that when they worked with Douglas Kent in
the State Department, he was a known drinker. No one would drive with
him. And he had narcolepsy.

These two sworn affidavits are a part of the Kashin file.

When I raised these issues with the State Department in Moscow
and over here, I would get no response. And so finally, Mr. Chairman,
I had the deputy secretary of state in my office, about a year and a
half ago; you know Rich Armitage, he's a fine and decent leader. We
were talking about Russia, we were talking about the Middle East,
North Korea.

And at the end of the conversation, I said, "You know, Mr.
Secretary, please, resolve this issue with Alexander Kashin. This is
a young Russian citizen who's become a symbol of America throughout
Russia. And the fact that we haven't responded in a way that would
allow this young man to be able to live out a normal life -- all he
asks for is rehabilitation.

I've met Kashin twice.

The response by our deputy secretary of state was: Well,
Congressman Weldon, I probably shouldn't talk to you about this,
because I've been briefed by our State Department employees in Moscow
that John Gallagher is a relative of yours. And since he represents
Kashin, we shouldn't discuss it.

Mr. Chairman, I have no relation to John Gallagher, familial or
otherwise. It just so happens my wife's maiden name is Gallagher.
And someone in the Moscow office of our State Department briefed the
deputy secretary of state that the only interest Congressman Weldon
had must be that his wife is related to John Gallagher.

I raised this issue in front of Secretary Powell just one month
ago, when I got back from Libya on a bipartisan trip that I led with
Rich Armitage in the room. And Rich Armitage acknowledged, in front
of Secretary Powell, that that was exactly the case.

WELDON: Furthermore on one of our CODELS in Moscow, the protocol
officer at the embassy told my staff director on the Armed Services
Committee, who was a retired Air Force officer, Roche, in a meeting
held at the evening in the control room: "Well, you know, Congressman
Weldon has this conflict because John Gallagher is his relative."

So a protocol officer in our embassy in Moscow said the same
thing that was briefed to the deputy secretary of state. And my
assistant, Roche, went down his throat and said, "You're absolutely
outrageous as a protocol officer in stating that."

When I asked our ambassador the next day, Ambassador Vershbow,
about this, his response was, "Well, you know, Congressman, I can't
control all of my employees."

So I come, Mr. Chairman, today, Mr. Ranking Member, asking to
have it put on the record the incident involving Douglas Kent, an
incident that embarrasses the country.

I included a letter sent to me on March 28, 2001, by Ambassador
Ushakov. And I say to my friends on the Helsinki Commission, "I'm
with you."

As a member of the Human Rights Caucus, I want to know what's
happening with Khodorkovsky. As a member of the Human Rights Caucus,
I want to continue to press the issue of religions prosecution. I
want to get at the heart of the problems and concerns that are being
raised by ethnic minorities throughout Russia.

But I want to know what our State Department's doing. Because if
we have a double standard, which we have, then how can we stand up,
Mr. Ambassador, and hold Russia accountable for human rights problems?

Now, I talked to the ambassador before this hearing began. And
the ambassador said he really wasn't versed on the case.

To me, Mr. Chairman, that's an outrage.

If we violate human rights of a young Russian and we hide a State
Department employee and lie about the status of that employee, and
this will al come out if this case is not resolved, in fact, I'll spur
it on the record for you commission, then how can we expect Russia and
Putin to be sincere and to be honest with us about human rights?

WELDON: It reminds me of a hearing that I co-chaired with my
friend Solomon Ortiz 10 years ago. A Navy official -- when Solomon
was chairman -- was criticizing the Russians because they weren't
giving us access to a sunken Russian nuclear submarine called the
Komsomolsk. The Navy official was criticizing the Russians and
saying, they're not giving us access; we don't know if it's
contaminating the environment. And therefore we need to criticize the
Soviet Union.

I agreed with him when he finished, and so did Solomon.

And then I asked the question of the Navy official: Would you
talk to me about the Thresher and the Scorpion? The Navy official
said, "Congressman, I can't talk about those two cases. They're both
classified."

And, by the way, if you're not on the Defense Committee of the
Congress, as I am, there are two nuclear ships that went down with our
crews on board, both involving nuclear capability.

So here was the American official, testifying as to Russia's lack
of transparency and accountability on the Komsomolsk, yet denying the
ability at a public hearing to tell the American people about the
Thresher and the Scorpion.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, my friends and colleagues, this
issue is about transparency and it's about consistency. If we're
going to support the efforts of people like Garry Kasparov and Ed
Lozansky and others, then we better be prepared to be transparent and
honest ourselves. And, in this case, we have not been.

So Mr. Chairman, I ask you to use your good influence to have
your staff investigate. I will make anyone available, including the
two current State Department employees who have issued sworn
affidavits about the status of Douglas Kent and about the problems
he's had during his career as a State Department employee.

And I thank you.

SMITH: Mr. Weldon, thank you very much for your testimony or
your statement.

Ambassador Pifer, if you wanted to responded to that during your
testimony, I would invite that. We certainly would like a written
response. I think Mr. Weldon raises a number of very, very important
issues here, and I'd like to follow up on it personally, myself.
So I do thank you, Mr. Weldon.

I'd like to now recognize Mr. Aderholt for an opening --
Aderholt, but he left. OK.

Mr. McIntyre, please?

CARDIN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I just would like to welcome Mr.
McIntyre to our commission. He was recently appointed as a new
commissioner on the Helsinki Commission and it's wonderful to have you
on the commission.

MCINTYRE: Thank you so much, Mr. Cardin.

And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity. And thank Mr.
Weldon, with whom I serve on the Armed Services Committee, for joining
us.

I will be brief, because I know we want to hear the testimony.
But I'm happy to be on this commission. I am very grateful for the
opportunity and the support of both parties in my being able to obtain
this appointment through the speaker.

Also, I had a brief visit to Russia en route to Afghanistan a
little over a year ago, so I've always been intrigued by the events
going on in Russia.

Both of my boys are in college, but one of them spent a month in
Russian last summer and studied there at MGIMO, the Moscow State
University for International Relations, former diplomats' school for
the Soviet Union. And he had quite an interesting experience. So we
kind of lived Russia there for the bulk of last summer.

So I'm very happy to be here today, particularly with those of
you that will be testifying. And I'm very happy in a broader sense to
have this chance to serve on the Helsinki Commission.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SMITH: Thank you, Mr. McIntyre. We do welcome you to the
commission. I know that you have a great wealth of talent and look
forward to your joining us when we go to Scotland for the
parliamentary assembly. And I'm so glad you're on the commission.

MCINTYRE: I'm very excited about that. Thank you very much.

SMITH: I'd like to yield to Mr. Aderholt and any opening
comments he might have.

ADERHOLT: Let me just say, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had my
first opportunity to travel to Russia this past summer. I was there
during this past August, spent a couple days in Moscow and St.
Petersburg and then a quick trip up to Murmansk for just a few hours.

But anyway, it was a great trip. I learned a lot about the
country, even though I think most Americans know a lot about Russia,
just because we've had such a close relationship with Russia over the
years, one way or the other.

But it is certainly a beautiful country, and there are certain
issues that -- the human rights issues are something that's been a
concern of mine for many, many years. And, of course, I know that's a
lot different now than it used to be under the Communist regime.

But anyway, I may have some questions as we go on, but just thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing, and glad to be here.

SMITH: Mr. Aderholt, thank you very much. And I'd now like to
welcome Ambassador Steven Pifer, a career senior foreign service
officer, has served as deputy assistant secretary of state in the
Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs since July of 2001.

SMITH: He served from January of 1998 to October of 2000 as U.S.
ambassador to Ukraine.

In addition to Ukraine, Ambassador Pifer has served in American
embassies in Warsaw, Moscow and London. His assignments in the State
Department include the Office of European Political and Security
Affairs, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the Office of the
Coordinator for the New Independent States.

He was also detailed to the National Security Council as director
and then special assistant to the president and senior director for
Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia.

Ambassador Pifer, thank you for being here. And please proceed
as you would like.

PIFER: Well, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, thank you
for the opportunity to appear today and talk about the human rights
situation in Russia and U.S. policy. I'd also like to thank the
commission more broadly for its efforts in general to promote
democracy and human rights throughout the OSCE region.

With your permission, I'd like to submit a written statement and
then just offer some informal opening remarks.

SMITH: Without objection, your full statement will be made a
part of the record.

PIFER: Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman, Russia's political system and civil society have
come a long way since the Soviet era. But the democratic
transformation in Russia is neither an easy nor a straightforward
process.

In the last several years we have seen some setbacks and we have
seen some backsliding as President Putin has focused his attention on
introducing a greater degree of stability into Russian society and to
strengthening the state. Against this backdrop, the U.S. government
is seeking to build a broad relationship with Russia, a relationship
characterized by greater cooperation, transparency and partnership.

We have had some success in the last several years. With the
Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaties, we are dramatically reducing
nuclear arsenals on both sides. We find that we have converging
interests with Russia in countering the war on terrorism and
countering proliferation trends. And we see increasing cooperation on
geopolitical questions such as promoting peace in the Middle East an
on Iraq. Although it does not yet reflect the economic potential of
the two countries, our trade and business ties are growing.

This does not mean that there are no problems on the agenda.
Indeed, important differences remain. For example, we have not yet
come to closure with Russia on how to cope with the problem of Iran's
nuclear program, although the differences between the two sides,
between Washington and Moscow, are less than they were two years ago.

Likewise, although we have pursued complementary policies with
regards to Georgia over the past six months, we have not yet achieved
the cooperation we desire in resolving other problems such as the
Transnistria conflict.

Democracy and human rights are an important part of the U.S.-
Russia agenda. And our stake here is that we believe there needs to
be a certain convergence in core values if we are going to build the
robust, enduring partnership that both Presidents Bush and Putin have
defined as their goal.

Absent a convergence on these human rights questions, we believe
that there will be serious limitations as to how far the relationship
can develop.

I'd like to go through a very brief survey of democratic and
human rights issues in Russia. It's a very complex picture, and I
would just like to touch on some main points.

First, on elections: The good news is that Russian citizens now
accept that voting is a normal part of political life. But the recent
elections, while allowing Russian citizens to vote freely, have not
been fair in the sense that the playing field has not been level for
all parties or all candidates. And international observers and
domestic observers have noted particular problems with regards to the
use of administrative resources and questions of media access.

That said, while there were flaws in the election campaign
leading up to the March 14 presidential election, there is no question
that the election of President Putin reflected the will of Russian
voters.

Second, on judicial reform. This is an area that has been a
priority for President Putin. In 2002, he pushed through new
legislation that promotes jury trials and increased judicial oversight
of the procurator general. But the Sutyagin, Khodorkovsky and
Trepashkin cases do show that there are still concerns about the
security services and the Kremlin rendering undue influence on the
judicial system.

Third, on media freedom: This is a mixed picture. When one
looks at newspapers and magazines in Russia, one sees a vibrant,
robust media that reflects the full range of editorial opinion and
reflects considerable criticism of government policies. However, the
main broadcast media, particularly the national television networks,
which is where most Russians receive their news, are either controlled
by the state or under the Kremlin's influence.

PIFER: Four, civil society: Nongovernmental organizations are
more established than they were in the past. And this includes a
network of NGOs that are focused on human rights issues.

But there is concern among NGOs that they may come under state
pressure. And there is concern about whether they can sustain funding
from private sector sources.

Five, on travel: The Russian government generally respects the
freedom of travel and immigration. The good immigration record in
Russia over the past decade has been a reason that the administration
supports Russia's graduation from the Jackson-Vanik amendment of the
1974 Trade Act.

On religion questions, Russia generally contributes to free
practice of religion. Though there has been some effort to exert
control over religious affairs, there are concerns about the ability
of a minority faiths to practice their faiths. And there have been
problems with visas for religious workers coming into Russia.

In this regard, there are some concerns about the role that the
security service has played.

Also, I would note, anti-Semitism continues to be a problem in
Russia, though Russian government acknowledged the problem and
acknowledges the need to do more to counter it.

Finally, on Chechnya, this represents the greatest threat to
human rights in Russia to date. We continue to see human rights
abuses committed by all sides: by Russian federal forces in Chechnya,
by Chechnyan security forces and by Chechnyan separatists. These make
achievement of a political settlement to that conflict much harder to
attain.

Ten days ago, we saw the assassination of Chechnyan President
Kadyrov. The administration condemned that in unequivocal terms.

Terrorist acts do not contribute to the search to a settlement.
And we remain convinced that there needs to be application of
political means to resolve the conflict.

It is in the American interest to support democracy and respect
for human rights in Russia. We do this primarily by two ways: First,
assistance programs, which are designed to increase capacity of
individuals and groups to promote bottom-up reform; and, second,
diplomatic advocacy efforts, both private and public.
In terms of assistance, this has always been a large portion of
our Freedom Support Act program with Russia.

In fiscal year 2004, we will devote $33 million to democracy
programs, not including exchanges. That's about 34 percent of the
overall Freedom Support Act budget for Russia.

These programs go to political party development with a view to
the next round of federal elections in 2007 and 2008. The programs go
to support independent TV, radio and press outlets in Russia's
regions.

And they go to support and strengthen nongovernmental
organizations, as many as 2,000 in Russia today.

Above and beyond that $33 million, we also devote considerable
resources to exchange programs. And this year, looking back over the
last decade, we will have brought almost 60,000 Russian citizens to
the United States.

In terms of diplomatic advocacy, we regularly raise democracy and
human rights issues with the Russians. This starts with President
Bush. It includes Secretary Powell, National Security Adviser Rice,
Ambassador Vershbow and his team in Moscow.

And we raise these issues on the importance for Russia and for
U.S.-Russian relations.

I would note that when Secretary Powell was in Moscow in January
when he met with President Putin, he raised Chehnya, media freedom
issues and respect for rule of law.

And he addressed these, not only in private conversations, but in
an Op-ed piece that appeared in Izvestiya, and was very well-read
within Russia.

Mr. Chairman, I would just close by noting that ultimately it's
going to be up to the Russians themselves to determine what kind of
political system in which they live.

On May 7, in his inauguration speech, President Putin said that
only free people in a free country can be genuinely successful. We
fully agree with that sentiment. We hope Russia will move down the
path to strengthening democracy and strengthening respect for human
rights. And we will continue to work to fully support that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to address questions.
And if you would like, I could start by addressing Congressman
Weldon's question.

I very much, Congressman Weldon, I have heard your concerns. I
was aware of the case, but I am not aware of the a particular in a way
that I would feel comfortable just addressing the specifics at this
point.

But I do agree that we owe you an answer. I will take this back.
And we will get you an answer shortly.

WELDON: Mr. Secretary, you don't owe me and answer, Mr.
Ambassador. You owe Alexander Kashin and the Russian people an answer
-- one of our employees, a young 20-year-old, who is confined to a
wheelchair today.

We raise individual issues with Russians.

WELDON: You raise Khodorkovsky, who I have met many times. This
is an individual case, and as I've given the committee, has been
highlighted on 35 major news outlets in Russia. This is not something
we walk away from. It drives Russian opinion.

Now, when we talk about human rights, the Russians say, "Oh,
yeah, what about poor Alexander Kashin."

All I'm saying, Mr. Secretary is, it needs to be responded to,
and it needs to be responded to now.

Thank you.

PIFER: Yes, sir, I understand that. There are varying
perspectives on this case, but we'll get back with a full answer to
you.

SMITH: Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador. Let me ask you a
couples of questions. With the approaching G-8 Summit, will
individual cases like Sutyagin, will it be brought up with Putin?
Because, you know, it seems to me he is one of those that got a 15-
year sentence. Amnesty International calls him a political prisoner.
And they have, as you know, very rigid criteria for giving that
designation. And from what we can see, he deserves it.

And let me ask you two other questions and then yield to an
answer. On anti-Semitism, as you know, we've in this commission have
led the way for a number of years on trying to get to OSCE, both the
parliamentarians and at the ministerial level, to take seriously our
obligations under every covenant, including the OSCE accords and some
of the follow-up documents that anti-Semitism is absolutely
unconscionable, cannot be tolerated and that there are strategies at
work to mitigate and hopefully end this egregious form of racism.

What is your view on Russia's performance with regard to anti-
Semitism?

I held a hearing way back in the mid-1990s, and one of our
witnesses talked about how anti-Semitic acts had become more
privatized in Russia, that there was a sense of indifference on the
part of some, looking the other way.

And now we're talking about several years later, the Berlin
conference, the Vienna conference and all of the other efforts that
have been made. And I would appreciate your thoughts to that.
And finally, in the area of human trafficking, as you know, I
literally wrote, with a great deal of support from a number of people,
the human trafficking legislation for the U.S., which has a key
component of prosecuting the traffickers, but equally important is
that we treat the women, mostly women that are trafficked, as victims.

That part of the legislation that the Duma had under
consideration, to the best of my knowledge, remains elusive.

What's your sense on when they will put that part of their new
law in trafficking into effect?

PIFER: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin
with the Sutyagin case, which we have followed very closely in Russia.
And you know, we have raised concerns about what this means for rule
of law. Our understanding being similar to yours, that in his work he
did not have access at any time to classified information.

It's hard for me to predict exactly what will come up when the
presidents meet at Sea Island. We do anticipate that there will be a
bilateral between President Bush and President Putin. My own
suspicion is because of the press of the schedule, that there will be
a fairly limited amount of time.

Certainly, we will provide materials and the NSC will provide
materials that will address democracy and human rights questions. But
I'm a little bit hesitant to predict whether this particular case
would come up.

I will certainly, though, convey your specific concern to my
colleagues at the National Security Council staff.

On the question of anti-Semitism in Russia, we believe that
President Putin and the Russian government to understand this problem.
And particularly during his first term, President Putin made very
strong statements condemning anti-Semitism. There was one particular
case about a year to a year and a half ago where a young Russian woman
was injured removing an anti-Semitic sign. And this was a rather
horrific case where these signs had been placed in Moscow that had
small booby traps placed. And when she was moving the take down this
anti-Semitic sign, she was injured in a small explosion.

President Putin personally presented her with an award for this
to mark what she had done. And I think signals like this are
important in showing that the Russian government does not accept and
condemns anti-Semitic actions.

PIFER: That said, the problem continues to exist. The thing
that we can hope is that the Russian government will be even more
vigorous, and that law enforcement authorities will be more vigorous
in pursuing individual acts so that the message is out that this is
simply not acceptable, particularly in a Russia that is trying to
observe full human rights questions.

On the issue of trafficking, we've seen some specific progress in
the last six months with regards to Russian trafficking laws.

First of all, in December, they did pass the changes in the
criminal code which specifically criminalize human trafficking for the
first time. So that gives prosecutors new tools, and it also had
measures that would provide fairly stiff penalties for trafficking
connected with prostitution.

Now, behind that, there are efforts, discussions in the Duma on
the question of protection for witnesses and victims in trafficking
cases, although this is part of a broader law that addresses serious
crimes in general. My understanding is that has passed the Duma at
the first reading. It now continues to be discussed. We don't know
exactly when that would be passed in the second or third readings.

And then finally, there is the question of programs to assist
victims. We do understand that there are conversations within the
Duma on a bill that would provide assistance to victims of trafficking
programs, but we don't yet have a good gauge as to what the time table
in the Duma for moving forward on this legislation is.

SMITH: Thank you.

Mr. Cardin?

CARDIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, let me point out, Mr. Ambassador, that the Russian
Federation was very helpful to us at the Berlin conference, in having
a successful conclusion on our strategies against anti-Semitism. So I
do want to express our appreciation to the Russian Federation. I
think they took that conference very seriously. Their intervention
was well thought out and very much appreciated in bringing us to a
consensus within the OSCE.

I want to concentrate on the issue that you thought was the most
difficult, and that's Chechnya, for one moment. At the Maastricht
documents, the Maastricht meetings, ministerial meetings, they decided
that they would use the U.N. guiding principles on internal
displacement as a guide to trying to deal with the problems in the
OSCE region.

My question is: Can we use that in Chechnya? Is it applicable
to to deal with one of the most significant problems, the displacement
of people within the Chechnya region, and whether the Russian
Federation might be amenable to some moderation of their policies
here?

PIFER: Well, thank you.

On the specific question of displaced persons, we do regularly
press the Russian government on its obligation to treat displaced
persons in accordance with various commitments that Russia has made.
And these include, first and foremost, that displaced persons as in
refugees will be returned only on a voluntary basis. We estimate that
now in Chechnya, there are still tens of thousands of displaced
persons within Chechnya.

In Ingushetia, there are approximately 55,000 to 60,000 displaced
persons and refugees. That number has come down by perhaps 20,000
over the last eight or nine months, which reflects, we believe in some
cases voluntary decisions to return, because there is a sense that the
conditions in Chechnya, there has been some normalization. Life is a
little bit better over the last seven or eight months.

But we are also concerned that not all of these returns are
voluntary. And we do look for opportunities to remind the Russian
government that they do have an obligation to allow people to make the
free choice. And in some cases, we believe there is extra pressure to
encourage refugees to go back as part of an effort to indicate that
the normalization process in Chechnya is succeeding.

CARDIN: Our concern is the depopulation of these refugee camps
is not voluntary. And I would hope that we could get some independent
information on this and not rely upon third-party accounts, so to the
extent that we can find out or we can encourage international
organizations.

And one of my concerns is NGOs. You mentioned it very quickly.
I know we're running out of time. But there seems to be intimidation
by Russian Federation on NGOs. The justice minister it was reported
intimidated one of the NGOs by questioning some of its legalities.
The funding issues, the independence issues -- and it seems to me
here's a perfect example, the NGOs is who we rely on principally for
these types of clarifications. And unless we can get a healthier
climate for NGOs to function in the Russian Federation, it's going to
make it much more difficult for us to carry out our responsibilities.

PIFER: Congressman, if I could just speak briefly on the
Chechnya point. We do try to talk to a wide variety of observers so
that we understand what's going on with the refugee and the displaced
person situation.

And, again, our assessment at this point is that some of the
returns have been voluntary, although we do remain concerned that
other returns...

CARDIN: Do you have a percentage?

PIFER: I'd be guessing at this point, sir. I couldn't offer a
specific number in that case.

CARDIN: Do you think the majority has been voluntary?

PIFER: I'm sorry, sir. I'd be reluctant to do that because I
would just be giving you a number that I would be pulling out of thin
air.

On the question of NGOs, we do very much agree with your
concerns, is that we see that non-governmental organizations and their
ability to mobilize people and press specific political or social or
environmental issues, that's a very important part of a modern state.
And we do closely monitor what's going on with NGOs in Russia.

And we would be concerned and we do try to follow when there are
reports of intimidation of NGOs. Because we think that if Russia is
trying to move down the path to a modern democracy, that includes a
large place -- or should include a large place for a robust NGO
sector. And that means NGOs should be free to operate without fear of
government intimidation.

CARDIN: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SMITH: Thank you very much, Mr. Cardin.

And I apologize, Mr. Ambassador, and to all of our witnesses.
There are five votes that are on the floor now. One of the messy
things about democracy is we have to vote and we have to physically be
present on the floor. So I apologize to you that we have additional
questions which we will now submit for the record and ask you if you
could respond in a timely fashion.
And we will have to be in recess for about 40 minutes. So I
would say to our next witnesses, again, I deeply apologize for the
delay. But we will come back and, you know, this is a very important
hearing. We want to hear what you got to say. So thank you.

And thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

PIFER: Thank you, sir.

(RECESS)

SMITH: We are going to resume this hearing. And I want to offer
my profound apologies to our very distinguished witnesses for this
long delay.

SMITH: We did have a series of votes that just never seemed to
end. And several of my colleagues will be joining us, but I can
assure you your full statements and comments will be very widely
disseminated. We will get it to the members of the commission, House
and Senate. And so I would hope that you would understand. And I do
apologize.

Our first panelist today will be Garry Kasparov who was the
youngest chess player to represent the Soviet Union in international
competition, at the age of 13. And he held the title of world
champion from 1985 to 2000. He has since remained an active
tournament player, both in his human competition as well as against
supercomputers.

Besides his chess portfolio, he's chairman of the 2008 Free
Choice Committee, an organization of prominent Russian human rights
activists and journalists, who have declared their intention to work
for general, direct, free and fair presidential elections in the year
2008.

I welcome him. He is the author of four books and contributing
editor to the Wall Street Journal.

Our next speaker will be Dr. Edward Lozansky, who is the founder
and president of Russia House, a consulting company which facilitates
U.S.-Russian cooperation, as well as co-founder and president of the
American University in Moscow.

SMITH: A nuclear physicist by profession, Dr. Lozansky
immigrated to the United States from the Soviet Union in 1976 after
losing his teaching positions for publicly criticizing Soviet
policies. Dr. Lozansky has published eight books in areas of
mathematics, physics and social sciences and many articles in American
and Russian newspapers and magazines. His book, "For Tatiana", an
account of his successful six year struggle to secure permission his
wife to leave the Soviet Union, was subsequently made into a Discovery
Channel documentary called "The Thawing of the Cold War Warrior."

We will next hear from Reverend Igor Nikitin of St. Petersburg,
Russia, who is chairman of the Association of Christian Churches of
Russia, an association of over 300 evangelical Christian churches and
missions throughout Russia working together in Russia for social work,
prison ministry and legal assistance. Member churches of the
association are located in the Commonwealth of Independent States,
Germany, Israel, Canada and the United States.

Reverend Nikitin is a graduate of ministry studies at Remna
University in Tulsa, Oklahoma and holds a master of divinity from the
Russian Christian Institute of Humanity in St. Petersburg.

And finally, Nicholai Butkevich, who is research and advocacy
director at the Union of Councils for Jews in the Former Soviet Union,
he holds an MA from Georgetown University and is author of several
published articles on ethnic and religious persecution, anti-Semitism
and other human rights abuses in the former Soviet Union.

Mr. Butkevich has lectured on many topics at Columbia University,
Stetson University, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, Voice of
America, and has been quoted as an expert on these issues in several
media outlets.

Mr. Kasparov, please proceed.

KASPAROV: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the
commission for inviting me to testify. But I have to admit that there
was a point in Russian history when I thought that Russia and the
Russian record of human rights would never be part of such hearings at
all.

KASPAROV: In the beautiful days of 1991, when the triumphant
Moscovites filled Moscow streets celebrating the end of Communism and
the statue of KGB founder Feliz Dzerzhinsky was thrown out of Lubyanka
Square one could have hardly imagined that nine years later a KGB
colonel, proud of his past, would take over again.

And today, Russia is falling apart. Human rights conditions are
deteriorating. And we have to find a way to stop this negative trend.

There are a number of issues that we have to look at, and
obviously one of them is the freedom of press. While enjoying all
freedom at Yeltsin's time, when Russian press had no restrictions in
criticizing state officials, including President Yeltsin himself,
today Russian press is totally submissive to and is waiting for
Kremlin instructions and, with minor exceptions, provides no
information on the key issues of Russian domestic politics.

For instance, the word "Chechnya" that I heard so openly here, is
virtually erased from Russian news reports. And due to all of these
facts and the problem that we experienced at the latest elections, the
Committee 2008 was formed on January of this year and made in the top
of its agenda the preservation of the remaining democratic
institutions in my country.

When the committee was formed, I was invited to the Russian
television to channel four and I soon could exercise my celebrity
status. But before I went on the news, the anchorman begged me not to
say "Chechnya" or "Khodorkovsy" because he said that would be the
precautions of the program.

But those days were good days.

KASPAROV: Five months ago, you could go on television, being
asked not to talk on Chechnya or Khodorkovsky. Today, you are not
even asked to go on television. And channel one and two, the main
channels in Russia, they present no news about any opposition
activities for any problems that could irritate Mr. Putin.

As I said, Chechnya has virtually disappeared from Russian news
programs. And even private news agencies, Interfax, recently, after
the murder of Chechnyan president, Ahmed Kadyrov, refused to carry the
statement of Boris Nemtsov, one of the leading political figures in
Russia, an ex-leader of Union of Rightwing Forces, who made a very
strong statement regarding Chechnya.

It's the first time -- and I just want to emphasize this -- the
private news agency that makes its living out of receiving
subscription fees refused to carry the statement, i.e., restricting
the access of the independent customers to the information.

A few days ago, three days ago, Committee 2008 ran a press
conference in that news agency. In over one hour of questioning,
there was no single question about Chechnya asked by journalists.
Moreover, there was no word Chechnya spoken by the journalists with
any context of any question being asked during this press conference.

I found it really depressing. And Chechnya in fact detonated so
many problems in Russian society. And since Mr. Putin was the person
who initiated the second Chechen war and he doesn't want to reverse
the course of events and doesn't want to recognize any wrongdoings,
any mistakes, we are facing all the consequences.

One of them is its inability to force public debate about
Chechnya. While here in this country, 9/11 is still being debated and
even the president is being interrogated by the independent
commission, there was no -- and I would like, Mr. Chairman, to bring
up and mention a fact -- there was no single public hearings on any
terrorist attacks in Russia, since 1999. We never had public debates
on the explosions in Moscow in 1999.

We never had any public debate in 2002 after this terrible
hostage crisis at Dubrovka, in the theater, where 129 innocent
civilians were killed by poison gas used by KGB. And all the
terrorists were shot to death, leaving no one behind to testify and to
tell us the truth.

A while after this tragedy, Russian parliament publicly announced
that it would not want any investigation because it didn't want to
interfere with KGB affairs.

So I think that it just gives you quite a clear picture about the
course of events in Russia, where our Russian parliament are denying
its utmost responsibility to investigate executive branch and security
forces.

There are no investigations about criminal activities of Russian
troops in Chechnya. There are still reports in a few remaining media
outlets that are talking about Chechnya. There are very, few of them
left in Russia and no electronic media at all.

About the brutalities and about the tortures, (inaudible) , it's
a concentration camp where hundreds of Chechens, if not thousands, are
being interrogated, tortured and killed. It is known in the West, but
it is not mentioned in Russia. And I wish that if the committee had
any influence just to make sure there are independent observers, there
are people who could go over there and ask all the important questions
about activities of Russian troops there.

And then you should look also and examine the results of
parliamentary elections. European Union observers made it very clear
that elections in the December 2003 parliamentary election were
unfair. And I think it was an understatement.

In fact now, Committee 2008 is working in close cooperation with
Yabloko, Mr. Yavlinsky's party, preparing the case for the Supreme
Court in Russia, which we would hope to submit within the next two
months, challenging the result of these elections.

Although we have no illusions about the outcome of this case, we
would like to shed some light on the corrupt practices of Russian
officials, especially on the television that gave no access to the
opposition parties and promoted Mr. Putin and his party, United
Russia, all over the place.

There is enough evidence which could force the Russian Supreme
Court to give us some sort of justice and to put extra pressure on the
newly elected Duma where Mr. Putin commands two-thirds majority, i.e.
constitutional majority and he is capable of changing and amending the
constitution.

KASPAROV: And that is one of the utmost concerns of Committee
2008. We have no doubt that Mr. Putin will use all tricks in the book
to keep himself in power after 2008 when his second term in the office
comes to an end. And this constitutional majority in the parliament
gives him an opportunity at any given moment to change the rules and
create an environment where he could stay in office for extra terms or
for even for life, as proposed by one of his most devoted supporters.

Just to give you an idea about the activities of this parliament,
I want to bring your attention to one of the latest proposals of one
of Putin's front supporters in the parliament. Three days ago, there
was a new provision for the bill regarding the journalist activities
in Russia which was stipulating the total ban on any information about
terrorist activities in Russia.

I would like to repeat, the provision was stipulating that all
information regarding terrorist activities in Russia will be banned
and released only by the state's permission.

Also, the same law is talking about restricting journalist's
rights even further. And it should be right for the state officials
to open the sources of the information of the journalist without court
order.

So it's a negative trend. And we could see that the situation in
Russia is deteriorating every month, every week, every day. And while
Mr. Putin is giving certain concessions to the free world and to the
United States on foreign politics, he takes this as his bargain to do
whatever he pleases in the domestic policy.

In my view, the freedom of press is one of the key concerns
because having access to no viable information, Russian people are not
capable of making choices. And Mr. Putin, although he was technically
two times were elected president of Russia, never was a part of public
debate. Putin and his party refused to participate in public debate;
not wasting time, because according to them, any collision with
opposition force could jeopardize their image in the eyes of Russian
people.

So I am submitting my written testimony. And I would like to pay
attention to all these facts. And I would like also the commission to
put in the record that in my view, shared by many of my compatriots,
United States and the West at large is heavily underestimating its
influence in Russia. And there is much more that can be done if
certain pressure is applied to Mr. Putin and his acts being vigilantly
analyzed by Western political leaders.
Just let's not forget that the ruling Russian political elite,
unlike Soviet elite, keeps its money outside, keeps its money in this
country or in Western Europe. And it has ties with the Western world
that they cannot break. And that's the leverage that, in my view, the
United States and the West using in full.

So I could go on and on and on because it's quite a sad and dark
time in Russia, especially after those glorious dates in '90s where we
believed that Russia would be joining civilized world and with no
restrictions will be allowed into the family of civilized nations.

So the final remarks are about the legal system in Russia.

I heard the name Khodorkovsky spoken here. We heard names of
Sutyagin of Trepashkin. There are many, many cases and an endless
saga. But there is a few elements, a few episodes that could tell an
American, an impartial American witness what's going on in Russia.

KASPAROV: It was probably not properly publicized here the fact
that one of the Khodorkovsky's lawyers, a female lawyer, was searched
after -- physically searched -- after she left her client and had a
long discussion with him.

And she was searched because the video camera that records there
their meeting, showed that she was exchanging some papers with
Khodorkovsky. So she was recorded, she was physically searched. And
then minister of justice interfered. He interfered by asking the
Moscow bar association to revoke her license because she was breaking
Russian law.

Now, fortunately, Moscow bar association is not another branch of
Kremlin and refused to grant this request. But this episode shows the
general atmosphere, the atmosphere of fear, distrust and lack of
justice that is dominating in the Russian legal system now.

I would be willing to answer the questions because, frankly
speaking, I have great difficulty selecting these facts, great
difficult of selecting items from our agenda that is being added every
day thanks to Mr. Putin's tireless activities in jeopardizing
democratic institutions in Russia.

Thank you very much.

SMITH: Mr. Kasparov, thank you very much for that very eloquent
testimony. Your full statement will remain a part of the record and
the submissions you mentioned earlier.

KASPAROV: Thank you.

SMITH: And the conclusion of all the testimonies, what we'll be
proposing some questions.

KASPAROV: Thank you.

SMITH: Dr. Lozansky?

LOZANSKY: Thank you.

I would also like to present my written testimony and four
exhibits which I will leave with the staff.

I'd like to present a little bit different view and suggest a
more cosmetic view of U.S. policy toward Russia.
Although I don't live in Russia, but I go there quite often, I
made about 100 trips for the last 12 years and established, as you
mentioned, the American University in Moscow. So I interact with the
young people in Russia and many layers of Russian society, so I happen
to have a little bit different view.

And first of all, I would like to start, first of all, for
thanking you for inviting me. And also I give my personal gratitude
to this commission because this commission helped me to reunite my
family which were separated for six years. And it was the tireless
work of the members of this commission that made successful end of the
story.

Nevertheless, what I think that presently the United States and
the whole civilized world, we are now facing a new and unprecedented
challenge from the Russian Federation. Therefore, we must build,
maintain and expand the current coalition of nations to address this
challenge and to use our joint efforts to defeat the enemy.

And the same time, America needs to curtail the spread weapons of
mass destruction, seek out new sources of energy, solve the ecological
problems, expand space exploration. And nowhere is this more
important than in the nexus of bilateral relations between the United
States and the Russian Federation.

Therefore, I believe that we should develop and communicate
messages and strategies that can encourage Russian political
leadership -- and I would add this specific emphasis, the Russian
people -- to embrace Western values.

We must be mindful, however, that without increased sensitivity
to how our messages and policies are interpreted, our best efforts
can, and I regret to say, have been somewhat counterproductive.

Let me remind how far Russia has come toward the West in a
relatively short period of time.

I present here magazine Kontinent, and this is exhibit one. This
is founded by my good friend and Russian writer, Vladimir Maximov.
And he is one of the leading voices of Russian underground, of Soviet
and East European dissidents and human rights activists.

It was published in Paris and smuggled to the Soviet Union. In
addition to literary and philosophical work, we also had meetings in
Washington, New York, Paris, London and other national capitals. And
those meetings usually produced a list of demands to the Soviet
government and to Western nations, an appeal to support these demands.

These are very simple. The items on the short list were as
follows: freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of travel and
emigration, multi-party system and eventual liberation of enslaved, or
in America they are called captive nations.

LOZANSKY: Needless to say, not only did the Communist Party and
KGB considered us to be CIA agents at worst or mentally unstable at
best, but even many in the West thought that all these ideas were not
realistic.

We all know that all this happened. And with all the
shortcomings of the Russian democracy, all the things that I mentioned
are now taking place, although not in perfect ways that we would like.

We all know that Russian transition to freedom and democracy has
not been smooth and perfect. The Yeltsin administration was fractured
and failed on many accounts, sometimes, arguably, with the cooperation
of the United States government.

I have exhibit two with me called "Russian Road to Corruption",
prepared by a group of American members of Congress, experts. And it
shows how the American administration helped to build and how it
failed Russian people and how it created so many problems that the
Russian state still facing now.

So this document, "Russian Road to Corruption" was prepared by
Speakers Advisory Group and portrays many tragic mistakes and failures
made by the United States during this time period, if you want to make
sure that the lessons are learned and our future policies are more
helpful and productive.

President Vladimir Putin's first-term achievements are pretty
impressive. And with all due respect and what Garry Kasparov
mentions, we have to remember that Russia was recovering from
political and economic chaos, large-scale corruption and the financial
crisis of August 1998. Now Russia, after four years of Putin, has
since posted four years of solid economic growth, one-third drop in
poverty, a dramatic reversal in capital flight and huge budget and
trade surpluses.

The oligarchs, who are often overcome and endorsed with their
feet were called to order. And the country has made great strides
toward improving the quality of life for ordinary people. Russia has
become more consolidated and respected by all its citizens,
strengthened its influence in the world and, as stated many times by
highest level U.S. officials, White House and State Department, is
seen today as a serious and reliable partner on the international
arena.

Despite government control of the main TV networks, numerous
cable and international channels, as well as Internet, are filled with
totally uncensored and often bitterly anti-government commentaries.

I am especially privileged and delighted to say that our own
magazine, Kontinent, which could land you in jail for many years under
the Soviet regime, is now published and freely distributed in Russia,
along with many other formerly underground publications.

Moreover, even exiled or jailed oligarchs still control a
substantial portion of the Russian print media. But what is even more
important for United States is the undisputable fact that President
Putin enjoys overwhelming support of the Russian people. And this has
to be taken into account by American policy-makers.

And you often hear public criticism from Washington about
shortcomings of Russian democracy. And they exist, no doubt about it.
But only in the last month, the Committee on International Relations
of the House of Representatives, this particular body, voted on and
passed Resolution H.R. 336 urging President Bush to expel Russia from
G-8 group and look to seek the abolition of the Jackson-Vanik
amendment.

I believe that this resolution is wrong. And moreover, it's
harmful to the United States interests.

We keep saying that modern Russia is our friend and partner. So
isn't it true that Russia should therefore be treated differently than
USSR? The public criticism of Soviet Union was a legitimate part of
our ideological confrontation with the Soviet Union.

U.S. government, Congress, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe,
numerous human rights organizations did great job on behalf of people
who at the time had no voice. As one of the Cold War warriors and
strong proponents of interference in the internal affairs of Soviet
Union, I think I have the moral right to say that at the present time,
the Russian people can freely express their opinions, form political
parties, publish newspapers and books, travel abroad and enjoy many
other basic freedoms, they do not need such an interference.

I want to assure you that intellectual potential of people and
their educational level makes them perfectly capable of sorting things
out for themselves. Therefore, I believe that we should concentrate
instead on mutually beneficial cooperation with Russia, such as the
war on terrorism, energy, the ecology, space, science, educational and
cultural exchanges and many other areas which are beneficial to both
countries.

LOZANSKY: Congressman Curt Weldon, who spoke here, put together
a group of 50 experts -- and I am very proud to be one of them -- to
develop comprehensive program for such cooperation in the areas from
agriculture to defense to space, science, education and culture. This
exhibit 3 -- I have for the commission, exhibit 3.

This document was signed by 142 members of Congress, but
unfortunately it didn't go too far. So far the White House has paid
very little attention to it.

In the early days following the collapse of Communism, when the
first public opinion polls were allowed to be taken, America was the
indisputable number one choice as potential ally of Russia.

It is with great regret that we now observe the opposite
attitude. Many Russians believe America is now busy taking advantage
of Russia and is trying to squeeze Russia out of its sphere of
influence, even within CIS.

There ought to be a statement from the White House and State
Department that America is interested in strong, prosperous and
democratic Russia, an integral part of the Western civilization.

However, I have to admit that such statements are usually met
with high skepticism, even by the most pro-Western circles of Russian
society. In addition to bad policies, I believe this is also a result
of poor public relations work by the U.S. government. You have many
good things which are happening between the two countries, but they
remain largely unknown to the American or Russian public due to lack
of good publicity.

At the same time we are witnessing a strong and well-funded PR
campaign which dismisses any positive achievements, but emphasizes and
often exaggerates certain aspects of Russia's transitional
shortcomings.

Full-page ads attacking Putin are placed in the leading American
newspapers, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street
Journal. Members of Congress are lobbied. Millions of dollars are
spent to undercut the U.S.-Russian cooperation. And you do not have
to be Sherlock Holmes to understand who pays for this.

At the recent annual World Russian Forum in the United States
Senate, we heard several dozen speakers from two countries develop
many successful joint U.S.-Russian ventures, in business, science,
education. Had the American and Russian publics knew about these
developments, the results of opinion polls could be quite different.

I would like now in conclusion to present several proposals which
I believe will have an immediate and lasting positive impact on
bilateral relations between the United States and Russia.

First of all, establish a joint task force of American-Russian
experts, to further develop a comprehensive program for U.S.-Russian
strategic cooperation, to follow up on Curt Weldon's document.

I am delighted to say the Russian Academy of Sciences has agreed
at its meeting to do this work and the American University in Moscow
is funding it with a grant of $100,000 to develop this work.

Second, create a wide network of personal and Internet-based
contacts between American and Russian entities, school to school,
college to college, hospital to hospital, NGO to NGO. You have to
take into account, it's very difficult now for Russian citizens to get
visas to the United States. Internet technology should be utilized.

Take into account, this is very important thing, the limited
amount of funds available for Russia, as deemed by U.S. Congress, we
have to evaluate the quality of previously funded programs,
discontinue public funding of bad programs, but continue to support
those that prove to be very effective.

For example, among exhibit 4, program BISNIS in the Department of
Commerce; it's a tremendously successful program. With an annual
budget of $1.3 million, it created $3.1 billion in sales and profits
for American companies dealing with Russia.

We have to also implement and formulate a public relations
campaign to present these success stories and show the mutual benefits
resulting from U.S.-Russian cooperation.

Organize public forums regularly in both countries for the open
and frank discussions of ideas leading to U.S.-Russian alliance,
similar to what the American University and Kontinent USA Media Group
have been doing since 1991, but on much larger scale.

We have to take all necessary steps to immediately graduate
Russia from Jackson-Vanik amendment provisions, as a country which no
longer has any essential of free emigration as stipulated in this
amendment.

And finally, you have to look at the ways to upgrade the
strategic operation of Russia through G-8. Here we have a case of
Russia joining a major institution which holds the nations together
from Pacific to Atlantic.

LOZANSKY: It's an opportunity for us. Let's look at ways of
using it instead of throwing it away.

In conclusion, I would like to say once again that integration of
Russia with the West is of vital interest to both sides. Many people
who say that this is an impossible task are probably from the same
school who considered those of us who demanded freedom and democracy
in Russia 20 years ago to be naive dreamers at best.

No one can dispute that with all of the shortcomings of Russian
democracy, we are much better off today than before. The West needs
Russia as a strategic security ally and valuable trading partner. And
no effort should be spared to achieve this noble goal.

Thank you.

SMITH: Dr. Lozansky, thank you very much for your testimony. We
appreciate it.

Reverend Nikitin, if you could proceed.

NIKITIN: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, ladies and
gentlemen, Modern Russia is going now through the difficult process of
democracy and civil liberty establishment.

Taking into account the inevitable influence of Russia on all of
the world today, we are sharing our common desire to support this
process.

As we all know, freedom of consciousness and religion is one of
the most important indicators of democratic level in the country.
Tolerance is a fundamental concept of the civil society.

And I have to note that there are positive tendencies in this
area in Russia today. For instance, Protestant bishop Sergei
Ryakhovsky is now member of President's Council of Russia. And I'm
glad to report that tolerance is quite stable in St. Petersburg and
northwest region of Russia.

The administration of the city is very supportive to endeavors of
churches. That was especially evident in 2003 when St. Petersburg
celebrated its 300th anniversary.

Today I would like to give a special thanks to the Helsinki
Committee and personally to Mr. Christopher Smith and Congress members
for their contribution to the process of democratization in Russia.
During the persecution of small church in a little-known Penza
city, their letters to government of Russia and governor of Penza,
helped the church assert their rights of the believers to enjoy their
religious freedom.

Most recently I have been in Penza and met with those who are
taking the place instead of persecutors. And one of the persons by
the name of Gorbunov, I can affirm that he honestly works for the
cause of agreement and peace in his region taking place.

Today, instead of the persecution of Christians, you can see the
flag fluttering over the mayor's office building, and it's quite
fascinating for me when I saw this flag. And as you see, instead of
persecution, the mayor's office with the different flag, they sent it
to present to you as a testimony.

So undoubtedly Russia is on its way to build up the civil society
that that acknowledges the freedom of conscience as an important
component.

However, this journey is full of problems and examples of
violations of believers' rights. Below I will give you some
illustrations to such cases, but first let me note that most all of
them are bureaucratic by nature rather that ideological.

Major problems, first of all, we have of the Protestant churches
today is the requirement of authorities that give registrations to the
church submit -- the biggest problem is submitting the list of the
church members to government officials. It contradicts the
constitution and the laws in Russian Federation. And we can see it
happen throughout the whole nation.

First the most striking examples. And I have a stack of papers
here to prove every word.

NIKITIN: Yaroslavl City, the God's Church; and Sayanogorsk City
and Hakassia Church of Praise, Serov City and (inaudible) in addition
to a list of church members has been required to submit the written
permission of parents for their kids to attend Sunday school. These
things did not even happen in the Communist time.

The second really shocking situation which took place just
recently in Tumen (ph) when the Easter celebration had been broken up.
This year, all Christians in the nation celebrated Easter on one day
and had become very important day for uniting all the Christians, the
Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants.

The Protestant churches of Tumen (ph) rented a sports stadium for
corporate celebration of this sacred for all believers day. Thousands
of the citizens were invited to join the celebration. But two days
before the celebration an official notification from the head of the
police department was received.

Here is the quotation, "Administration of police department in
Tumen (ph) hereby notify you that due to the threat of possible acts
of terrorism during the Easter celebration event in the sports
stadium, a recommendation to postpone Easter celebration to later
days."

It would be considered irony to postpone the Easter celebration
to later days, but it's really insulting for the believers.

As a result, to the great distress of the Christians, the Easter
celebration were broken up. And we found out what kind of terrorist
threat was in there, it's just some of the leaders of Chechen Republic
mentioned that it's going the terrorist attacks in this time.

And police also wrote in the same letter they are not going to
provide security just because there is possibility of possible threats
of terrorist attacks. And in the same token, there were many other
celebrations, public celebrations in the same time.

So in the same time, in the Easter days, the Protestant churches
were exposed to the checkup by the department of justice and office of
public prosecutor exactly the same time, so it's not just accident.

Since 1997, the law of freedom of consciousness and religious
organizations has been in effect in Russia. Today a commission in the
government of Russian Federation operated under the leadership of Mr.
Andrei Sebentsov has been prepared significant amendments for this --
to this law. And Mr. Andrei Sebentsov himself is known for the
democratic attitude and positive influence on the process of securing
freedom of consciousness.

However, the practice of the law implementations is often
encountered by extremely narrow, non-professional approach of the
officials and especially for those who given their registrations to
the churches. When encountered by the problem most recently when
according to the law we want to insert in our statutes of association
original representatives, it was suggested to us to change entire
statute, including the name of the association from Christian to
something else. It's robbed our association church members of their
rights of exercise the freedom of association.

However, Mr. Chairman, there are one troubling case that does not
appear to have an ideological nuances. And it is -- it needs to be
watched very carefully.

NIKITIN: In Moscow, after a five-year court battle, city
authorities have succeeded in securing the decision to liquidate the
local Jehovah's Witnesses organization.

Let me emphasize, not just deregistered the local congregation,
but to make it illegal for Jehovah's Witnesses to practice in Moscow.

The court ruled that the group's practices would break up
families, encourage suicide, threaten members' health by allegedly not
allowing them to use blood transfusions.

Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize that I do not share the theology
of the Jehovah's Witnesses, but here we remember Paster Niemoller's
warning: If we do not stand up for others who are being persecuted,
there will be no one left to defend us when our turn comes.

If someone violates civil laws, he or she must accept
consequences, but that is not the issue here.

Moscow Jehovah's Witnesses, as a group, has been persecuted on
the base of their beliefs. The Moscow court decision sets a very bad
precedent for Jehovah's Witnesses throughout Russia and has no place
in a democratic Russia.

It's expected that the case will be going to the European court
in Strasbourg.

Our biggest concern at this moment is a draft law in Duma that
would create different tiers of religious groups. And I hope the
Congress will watch this closely.

And so, as I mentioned in my statement to the OSCE in the October
meeting in Warsaw in 2003, the problems of violation of religious
freedom in Russia are mainly caused by the following reasons:

Incompetence of many officials on the issue of constitution and
legal interactions with religious organizations and unawareness about
agreements signed by our country with framework of OSCE and United
Nations.

Secondly, freedom of consciousness and belief are new and almost
unknown concepts for the most of the Russian media. Television shows
of one person, Mr. Dworkin, have created great tension between
religious groups and persecution from local authorities.

Thirdly, the problems are related to ignorance of religious
organizations about their legal rights.

We believe today Russia is in desperate need for education in the
area of freedom of conscience and issues of tolerance and ethics of
the relationship between government and the church.

It is especially true for the officials of registering services
in the departments for relations with religious organizations.

They world community, with its rich experience in the area, can
help Russia in this work.

The Association of Christian Churches, what I'm representing, is
ready to cooperate with world community in the matter of securing
freedom of conscience in Russia. It can significantly support the
efforts of the president of Russia and government to build up civil
society.

Thank you so much.

SMITH: Mr. Nikitin, thank you very much for your testimony.

I'd like to invite Nicholai Butkevich to proceed.

BUTKEVICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the invitation to speak
to the commission. It's a real honor for me.

I'd like to request that the written version of my testimony be
included...

SMITH: Without objection, your full statement will be made a
part of the record.

BUTKEVICH: Thank you.

I'd like to talk today in general about the problems of
xenophobia in Russia and specifically about the problem of neo-Nazi
violence against ethnic minorities in that country.

This problem is clearly getting worse.

BUTKEVICH: This is not just my opinion; it's the consensus
opinion in the mainstream media in Russia and among many human rights
organizations. It comes against the backdrop of the use of xenophobia
in politics, especially in the December 2003 Duma elections.

In the party list votes in those elections, one out of three of
the voters supported explicitly anti-Semitic parties. And those three
parties are the Communist Party, the LDPR of Vladimir Zhirinovsky,
which doubled the number of its seats, and the new party created by
the Kremlin, the Motherland bloc. And one of the exhibits that I'm
submitting is a report that we wrote specifically about the Duma
elections.

I'd like to start my talk by giving some positive examples,
however, because there definitely have been positive steps by the
Russian government that they deserve credit for. First of all,
President Putin has made several uncompromising statements condemning
anti-Semitism and racism. And I think even though this is symbolic,
it's very important symbolism.

In addition, the new head of the ministry of internal affairs
earlier this year acknowledged a neo-fascist groups in Russia. This
is the first time that somebody in that position has actually spoken
so frankly about the problem. And he called for serious action
against it.

Unfortunately, the next day, his deputy made a statement
contradicting him, so it seems there was not total agreement in the
high levels of the MVD. Nevertheless, it was an important statement.

And finally, moving from rhetoric to action, we've seen in Moscow
since 2002 much better police work when it comes to skinhead violence,
an increase in the number of arrests of skinheads and certainly in St.
Petersburg, after the murder there in February of the nine-year-old
Tajik girl, Hurshida Sultanova, by skinheads, there has been a serious
crackdown on the Nazi groups there.

Nevertheless, even in these two cities, where we see progress,
problems still remains. There were court cases in each of those
cities against skinheads in earlier acts of violence, one was a murder
which they videotaped in 2002 in St. Petersburg. And in both cases,
the trial ended in farcically light verdicts. I have details of that
in my written testimony.

Outside of Moscow and St. Petersburg, there is sort of a
patchwork quality to the government's declared struggle against
extremism. In some cities, neo-Nazi groups are taken very seriously
by the police and prosecutors. In others, there is a malignant
neglect of this problem. And in a few cities, especially a few
regions like Krasnodar Kray, the regional authorities actively incite
xenophobia.

I'd like to give two examples of recent hate crimes that have
taken place in Russia and the way that the law enforcement agencies
have reacted to them, because I think they're instructive of this
problem I'm trying to describe.

On April 16th in the Pacific port city of Vladivistok,
approximately 60 skinheads armed with baseball stormed a dormitory
housing predominantly Chinese and Korean students, beating any of
these students that they could find. Two of them were so severely
injured that they later required hospitalization.

Two security guards in a neighboring dorm saw what was happening
and they called the police. They allegedly were told by the police
dispatcher to handle the problem themselves, which they actually with
a great deal of courage and integrity did. Even though it was not the
dorm that they were supposed to be guarding, they grabbed their
weapons -- they had pistols -- and went to the dormitory and actually
stopped the rampage, probably saving some lives in the process of the
foreign students. They even detained many of the skinheads, and again
called the police and asked them to come and pick up and arrest these
skinheads.

They waited over two hours according to local press reports
before the police even bothered to show up. In the meantime, a large
mob of foreign students had gathered, very much in a vigilante mood to
take care of the skinheads themselves and the task of these two
security guards shifted from detaining the skinheads to actually
protecting them from the crowd.

When the police did come, they reportedly took the nine skinheads
to the police station and shortly afterwards let them go. I'm not
aware of any charges that have stemmed from this act of neo-Nazi
thuggery.

Secondly, in the city of Voronezh, February 21st of this year, an
African student was stabbed to death in broad daylight on one of the
city's main streets. The police initially denied that this was a
racist crime, which is not a surprise, since the city, even though it
has been the scene of several dozen recent attacks on foreign students
by neo-Nazi groups, the head of the FSB and the head of the regional
MVD, respectively, in 2002 and 2003, made statements in which they
denied that skinheads even exist in their city.

These are clearly bold-faced lies.

But because of what happened, two weeks after the murder of the
nine-year-old Tajik girl which I mentioned earlier, the press and the
NGO community kind of whipped them both, and there was enormous
pressure from the media for the police and the prosecutors to do
something about it.

BUTKEVICH: And there may have even been pressure from the
Kremlin. It's hard to tell really for sure. And so they kind of went
to the next stage in trying to deal with it by spreading rumors about
the African students, about why he was allegedly killed, saying that
he had used the services of a local prostitute and refused to pay and
was therefore killed by gangsters or allegedly spreading rumors to the
effect that he was involved in drug trafficking and got what was
coming to him.

The police, to their credit, did arrest three suspects. They
turned out to be skinheads. Two of them have a record. The last year
-- they were convicted, but given suspended sentences in an attack on
a different African student.

And when they were given a preliminary hearing in the London
district court of Voronezh city, they blew all of these theories that
the police had out of the water. Well, one of them was asked why
they killed the African student. He said, quote, "We were bored and
decided to Meir Street where there are many foreign students dorms and
kill a black," unquote.

At this point, it was undeniable that this was a racist crime.
And the Voronezh authorities actually took a very positive -- in my
mind -- step. They charged these three skinheads under a very rarely
used article of the criminal code.

And I'd like to take a minute to digress and explain Russian
legislation when it comes to hate crimes. There is no legal
definition of a hate crime in legislation. That phrase doesn't exist
in Russian legislation. And actually, the practice has been,
unfortunately, to cover up hate crimes by treating them as regular
acts of hooliganism or regular murders.

This is, I believe, a conscious practice on the part of
prosecutors in many parts of the country in order to kind of preserve
the reputation of their city, or indeed of the country as a country
were, such crimes don't really happen that often.

When there's a conscientious prosecutor, who actually wants to
make a statement about hate crimes or in the this case in Voronezh
where there's public pressure to do something, occasionally what's
used is an article of the criminal code, Article 282, which prohibits
the actions aimed at the incitement of ethnic or religious hatred.
The practice then is to let's say charge a culprit with an act of
hooliganism and then tack on a 282 charge, which could add an
additional three to five years in prison.
Unfortunately, most of these cases fall apart. And I've studied,
in my years at this organization, several dozen of these cases. And
the vast majority have fallen apart. And one of the reasons is that
this law was designed to prevent hate speech, not what we would call
hate crimes.

In other words, as it says in the law, "incitement of hatred,"
not hate crimes.

What puzzles me and what concerns me is that there are two other
articles of the criminal code which seem to be much more appropriate
for the struggle or prosecution of violent acts based on -- motivated
by ethnic hatred.

There are two small subsections or Article 105, which is the
broad catchall article covering murder, and Article 111, which is a
broad catchall article covering aggravated assault, which prohibit
murder aggravated assault motivated by ethnic or religious hatred.

Nevertheless in all of the cases that I've studied of
prosecutions of skinheads -- and, of course, I don't know of all of
them, because this is probably in their realm of 100 or 200 that I've
studied or read about -- I only know of three cases in which either of
those two articles are ever used; twice unsuccessfully and one
successfully in a trial in Moscow, which recently ended.

And so I suppose there's a somewhat cynical view that I have that
this, at the very least, shows that many prosecutors in Russia are not
taking this very seriously.

To get back to the example of Voronezh very quickly, it was this
section of Article 105 that I mentioned which the three skinheads were
charged under. And we are cautiously optimistic that this will
provide an example of sorts for prosecutors in other parts of the
country. And if there is a conviction on this article, we'll
certainly hold that up as an example.

I would like to now speak about my most recent trip to Russia. I
just came back about 48 hours ago from a conference in the Volga
region -- capital of the Volga federal district, Neshenogrud. This is
a conference that was organized by my organization in conjunction with
the Moscow Helsinki group and our independent affiliate in Moscow, the
Moscow Bureau on Human Rights.

Our three organizations received a $1.4 million euro grant from
the European Commission recently. It's a three-year project to combat
xenophobia in Russia. And among many other activities, this project
envisions the holding of conferences in all seven of Russia's federal
districts, for a total of 21 conferences over the course of the three-
year project. This is the third one that we held.

Going into this conference, I read about several incidents that
happened in Nizhnynovgorod and in the Volga district city of
Ulyanovsk. And I'd like to briefly describe those.

There was an attempt in early April -- an apparent attempt; it's
not really clear -- but an apparent attempt to burn down the synagogue
in the city.

BUTKEVICH: A petroleum-based tar-like substance was put into
bottles and Molotov cocktails and thrown against the wall of the
synagogue. It was not lit and so fortunately there was no fire.

Nevertheless, when I went, the day after the conference ended, to
the synagogue, I could still see very clear traces of this black
substance against the wall. I could also see in the building
adjoining the synagogue that somebody had carved words like, "Beat the
Jews," and neo-Nazi slogans. I'm not sure when that happened. It
could have been a while ago; it could have been recent.

In addition, in Ulyanovsk on April 22nd of this year, eight
extremist youths burst into the Jewish cultural center in that city,
tearing down Israeli flags and then Jewish symbols, screaming anti-
Semitic abuse. They luckily did not injure anybody who was there.
Police came very late to -- 40 minutes, actually, after they were
called to respond to this incident. To their credit, the police did
arrest a member of the National Bolshevik Party, an extremist
nationalist group, in connection with this incident and the
investigation is continuing.

Finally, in Nizhnynovgorod on April 20th, which was the 115th
anniversary of the birth of Adolph Hitler, a time which in Russia and
in some other countries there is always an increase in hate crimes,
the local mosque was attacked. Unidentified people threw bricks threw
the window. Earlier in the month, Muslim worshipers near the mosque
were beaten.

And I heard at the conference later that police are not taking
those incidents seriously at all.

Actually, within the first couple hours of my arrival in
Nizhnynovgorod, I had an encounter of sorts with a form of xenophobia.
I was walking down one of the main streets and I saw the statue to
Lenin that they still have there. It's quite gigantic. It's easily
the height of this building, in the great tradition of Soviet
architecture. And you see -- I could see on there three pieces of
graffiti. One, the words, "Death to the Jews", another a swastika,
another the slogan of the neo-Nazi group Russian National Unity,
"Glory to Russia."

As shocking as the vandalism of one of the city's main symbols
was to me, I was even more shocked by the indifferent attitude of
passersby, and indeed the indifferent attitude of city officials who
apparently had not bothered to clean this up.
I was even more surprised in offense by the reaction of my
colleagues in Nizhnynovgorod who I asked about this incident. They
basically were surprised that I even brought it up. It seems like a
very minor thing to them. They're more worried about assaults and
even murders that have taken place in their city.

And we've come to the situation in Russia where such a brazen act
of vandalism is not only routine, but is ignored even by people who
are human rights activists. It's not even considered a big deal
anymore.

Indeed, I heard about many recent hate crimes in the city of
Nizhnynovgorod. And I'd like to make clear that I'm not specifically
picking on this city. I don't think it's actually the worst or the
best city. I think it's, kind of, an average city when it comes to
this problem.

There's a Catholic priest there named Father Mario, originally
from Argentina, who ministers to Catholic parishioners in that city.
Most of his parishioners are foreign students from developing
countries studying in Nizhnynovgorod: Africa, Asia, Latin America.
And he said that during his daytime services, they're quite well
attended. But the nighttime services are almost empty because foreign
students don't go out at night there because they're very likely to
get beaten up. And indeed, just the day before our conference, an
Indian medical student was severely beaten not too far from the
Catholic church in Nizhnynovgorod.

Father Mario and many other people who made presentations at our
conference all, kind of, said the same thing. When it came to foreign
students, three years ago there were very few problems. All of a
sudden this just started happening. 2001, early 2002 and even the
first few months of this year, there is a noticeable worsening in the
climate as compared to last year.

I'd like to conclude by sharing with you, Mr. Chairman, the
scariest things I heard at this conference in Nizhnynovgorod, and that
is in relation to attacks on people from the Caucasus, primarily the
Armenian and the Azeri population in the city of Nizhnynovgorod.

They suffer, just like the foreign students, from regular
skinhead attacks, from police indifference in general to these
attacks. And yet what's different is that some of them, at least, are
openly talking about violent reprisals against the skinheads and even
against the families of the skinheads in reprisal for attacks on them
and their own loved ones.

And this is, kind of, the first hint of the nightmare scenario
for Russia, not now, but five or 10 years from now. You can see that
the ground's being laid, possibly -- I don't want to be an alarmist --
for some sort of an ethnic conflict because there are millions of
people from the Caucasus in Central Asia who live in Russia.

BUTKEVICH: No one knows how many, because many are there
illegally.

They're, as I said, regularly attacked, and not just in Nizhny
but in other cities. And the police are doing very little about it.
And in some cases, they have formed, especially in (inaudible), self-
defense groups. There have been cases where they have actually
attacked ethnic Russians, some of whom were not guilty of anything.
And this is the kind of scenario where if innocent -- especially
innocent ethnic Russians get hurt or, God forbid, killed in reprisal
for this neo-Nazi violence, there could be a counter-reaction. It
could just get worse and worse. And I'm sure that you can follow up
the logic.

So I think that this problem of xenophobia is still in the stage
where it can be controlled, but if present trends continue, if the
government continues to, kind of, take it half seriously and to apply
countermeasures in a spotty fashion, as they've been doing, this is
something that could have serious repercussions for the security of
the country and indeed for the security of our own country.

So that's why I'm particularly grateful for this opportunity to
speak with you, Mr. Chairman, to speak to the commission. I think
this is a very important hearing. And I thank you very much.

SMITH: Mr. Butkevich, thank you very much for your expert
testimony and all of you for your very fine testimony. Again, we will
be widely disseminating your comments to members of the commission and
to members of Congress, House and Senate.

I do have a couple of questions, Mr. Butkevich. You mentioned
Mr. Putin in your testimony as speaking out on a number of occasions.
But during that spate of hate crimes in April, he seemed to be pretty
silent. And I'm wondering if -- you know, you mentioned one out of
every three people voted for political parties that were anti-Semitic,
which is a very large minority of the Russian people to be voting that
way, and you indicated it was getting worse, in terms of the
xenophobia and the racism -- noticeably worse, I think was the words
you used; that they're not necessarily taking it seriously within the
government and the prosecutors.

But the foreign ministry and certainly members of their
parliamentary assembly that join us at these meetings that we have,
including the most recently concluded meeting in Berlin, say all the
right things, seemingly are on board in combating anti-Semitism
wherever it rears its ugly head.
And I'm wondering how much, in your assessment, of this is for
public consumption and for foreign audiences, but when it comes to the
hometown crew a lot of winks and nods go on.

And, you know, it was Micah Naftalin that made that comment years
ago when he testified before our committee, back in the mid-1990s,
about this privatizing.

And we've been arguing with all of the governments who make up
the OSCE that indifference is tantamount to commission; that you can't
look the other way and that makes you complicit in these crimes.

And I'm just wondering if you might want to respond to that.

And the trend line that you talk about, frankly, is contrary to
what the Russians would have us believe when we go to these
conferences. And, like I said, are clapping enthusiastically when
people like Nathan Sharansky and others speak out, as he did so well.

And secondly, just let me ask you the question about reporting.
One of the things that we have found in the OSCE recently, there's
been a noticeable lack of reporting in any systematized way. The U.S.
does it. A few other countries do it. Most do not.

And as again, Nathan Sharansky said so well at that conference in
Berlin, the key to ensuring that human rights are adhered to is
chronicling where the abuses occur. We do it with the religious
freedom report that we issue every year. We do it with the country
reports on human rights practices and others.

If you don't have a report, if you don't have transparent, and
hopefully very accurate, information about what's going on, how do you
respond to it?

So do they report in Russia? Is there any kind of systematized
effort to collect data on anti-Semitic acts?

BUTKEVICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to answer your
last question first.

My organization and our affiliate in Moscow has for many years
tried to get the MVD and the justice ministry to share with us
statistics on 282 cases, for instance. But they claim that they don't
collect such things. And so I think that they're a very long way from
what we have here, where we record hate crimes in a very serious
fashion.

And, of course, it's a kind of a ridiculous situation, where you
see the U.S. statistics being held up by some Russian officials, you
know, several thousand hate crimes committed in our country every
year. And they say, "Well, look how terrible you are. How can you,
you know, say that we're racists or we're anti-Semites?"

Well, it's because they cook the books. And that's the
unfortunate truth about that.

BUTKEVICH: And so we -- part of the project envisions seminars
which will be held actually I believe within a month in Moscow with
the MVD to try to teach them about to respond better to hate crimes.
And we're hopeful -- of course, there are, you know, some officials
within the Russian government who are friendly to our cause and who
are just as concerned as we are. And we're hopeful that this project
will not just create critical information, though that's also very
important, but also create and strengthen partnerships that we have
with friendly Russian officials.

I think when you said earlier that crimes of omission, or
ignoring this problem are just as bad -- almost as bad as promoting
it, you hit the nail right on the head. Of course, we no longer have
the terrible situation in the Soviet Union where the state actively
promoted anti-Semitism. And I think that there is a lot of goodwill
on the part of the president, President Putin, and some other top
officials when it comes to combating this problem.

Unfortunately, I think the central government is still rather
weak and dysfunctional. And even though President Putin has done a
lot to correct some of the worst, I guess, falling-apart that took
place under the Yeltsin administration, the government's word in many
cases -- the writ of the government doesn't go very far in some cases,
especially if they don't make a priority of it.

And so I think the central government can do a lot more to combat
this problem of anti-Semitism and especially the problem of racism.
But it has, unfortunately, I believe other priorities. I think when
you mentioned these conferences in Berlin and other conferences, it is
to some degree a cynical P.R. exercise.

But as I said, at the same time, there's goodwill but a lot of
dysfunctionality as well. People who are ethic Russians suffer a lot
at the hands of dysfunctional law enforcement agencies. Most of them
don't trust the police.

There was a poll taken there recently that said -- the question
was asked, "Whom do you fear?" And police were rated higher than
ordinary criminals.

So this is a problem that affects a lot of people. It's more of
a problem for people from certain ethnic and minority groups, of
course, but there's a lot of dysfunctionality that has to be combated
as well.

SMITH: Would you like to respond to that, to the question?
Oh, you weren't here when I posed the question? OK.

It was regarding the situation of anti-Semitic acts, whether or
not there was reporting or other acts of racism or xenophobia. And
the fact that to international audiences, the Russian government,
especially their foreign ministry, are very adept at conferences, like
the Berlin conference, of sounding as if they're absolutely on the
team and doing everything humanly possible to mitigate these abuses,
whereas there seems to be a difference, a lack of or spotty
enforcement of crimes that are committed that are clearly racist
crimes and so on and so forth.

So if you could...

KASPAROV: Yes, I heard that Berlin conference was mentioned. I
would like to mention another conference, which had very little
publicity in the Western press; in fact, probably more publicity in
Russia.

It was groups from Islamic (ph) conference in Malaysia sometime
ago. And Mr. Putin was invited as the guest of honor or whatever to
attend this conference on the premise that Russia has very significant
Muslim population and could also be, sort of, an observer.

And this conference was infamous for one of the most vicious
remarks -- anti-Semitic remarks ever heard in this world since Adolph
Hitler, made by the Malaysian prime minister, Mahathir.

There was quite a short-sighted publicity of this unfortunate
event in the Western press. But I think that most of the Western
media outlets failed to report that at least Putin was in the audience
and, in fact, he was making closing remarks and he failed to address
this issue.

So speaking after the Malaysian prime minister and hearing these
outrageous remarks, Mr. Putin didn't make any effort to confront him.

As for xenophobia in Russia, we should simply look and read
Russian papers. And during the last five years -- last four and a
half years with Mr. Putin in the office, we could see the mounting
attacks on the United States of America and U.S.-interests in Russian
press, which has resulted by the raising of xenophobia and anti-
Americanism in Russian society.

KASPAROV: Those are quite simple facts. You can simply read
even so-called liberal papers. Liberal papers, where in one of the
papers Bush could be compared as moral equivalent of Osama bin Laden
or like. And those state-run papers are under civilian control of the
government, and undoubtedly this policy is not alien to those who are
calling the shots in today's Russia.

To demonstrate the effect of this xenophobic propaganda, I would
also like to bring the attention of this commission to the case that I
mentioned in my testimony. It's a trial of Russian security forces
that took place in the city of Rostov in the beginning of May, just
less than 20 days ago. There were four security officers who killed
six innocent Chechens, including two women.

They made no attempt to justify their act, talking about these
Chechens being armed or attacking them. It was a mistake. They
killed them. It was in the operation of so-called clothing (ph)
corporation in that region. They killed the driver, they killed five
other civilians in the car, they burn down their bodies to ashes, and
they blew up the car trying to cover up the crime.

They were caught because at that time there was still some report
in Novaya Gazeta, one of the very few remaining independent outlets in
Russia -- and I would be happy to hear the long list that Mr. Lozansky
mentioned here because the list is very short and shrinking every day.
Novaya Gazeta reported on this crime, and these people were detained.

They were tried by the jury, and on May 2 jury made a verdict
that should scare any normal person: acquitted. Not find any reason
to soften the punishment, it was a full-scale acquittal. And the
court showed no interest in finding out who was giving these orders
because the only excuse of these four officers was that they were
given orders from a higher command.

The name of the major who was giving an order was established.
The court made no efforts to invite him as a witness and, of course,
didn't look into the records to find out who was authorizing these
brutal attacks on Chechen population. The reason is very simple:
Because we all understand that the genocidal war in Chechnya is run on
the direct order of President Putin, and he covers up all the
brutalities of Russian forces there.

But what is most frightening, seven out of 12 jurors gave
standing ovation to these four security officers, and now those four
security officers are applying their case, insisting on being
compensated for two years they spent in jail during the investigation
process. I have very little doubt that Russian state will accommodate
such a request, while there were no requests of the victims of
mistaken attacks of Russian troops in Chechnya being compensated.

Just recently by a mistake, Russian plane bombed house where
alleged terrorist could be hiding. The result: a woman killed with
five of her children. No apology. These officers were not even
detained for further investigation.

And I think, you know, the Chechen war has its terrible effect on
the psychology of Russian people, and now even in Moscow -- I'm not
talking about Russian regions -- we could sense this national hatred.
And, of course, as Mr. Butkevich bluntly explained in his testimony,
Russian police and Russian officials normally make no efforts in
prosecuting those who are committing these crimes.

So I will have very pessimistic outcome about future
international relations in Russia because this government shows
interest in pacifying these relations and, in fact, trying to play
with this explosive material.

SMITH: Let me just ask you, if I could, since you've brought up
Chechnya a few times. We held hearings when the first Chechen war
began and had Elena Bonner and many others testify, and felt very
discouraged at the U.S. government's response at the time.

I remember Al Gore was in Moscow as the hostilities were being
initiated, and actually made the very troubling, and I think very
misguided, statement that the Chechen war, which was emerging then,
was analogous to the U.S. Civil War, as if to give it a certain, "We
will take no action politically and diplomatically to isolate and to
criticize."

It was so bad that -- and our witnesses at the time couldn't have
been more blunt in saying that we gave the green light, wittingly or
unwittingly, to the Russians to do what they were doing; not that a
negative would have stopped it, but it might have mitigated some of
the brutality. And, you know, that attitude seems to have pervaded
for years.

Then when the second Chechen war begin, it seems to me the
response was muted, both in our Western press and by our own
government -- the U.S. government.

Now my question to you is: Right now, as we look at Chechnya --
and, again, we've had hearings, IDPs. We've heard how the forced
return in Ingushetia has put so many people at risk. With regards to
those policies, how would you assess the U.S. government, the European
Union?

Any of you who'd want to touch on this, please do.

The European Union at the recent Human Rights Convention in
Geneva at least attempted with a resolution to condemn the ongoing
brutality in Chechnya, and I was there three days, and I think they
were working it pretty hard. Obviously, it went nowhere at that body.
So my question is: Have we been feckless and ineffective and
inadequate and maybe an enabler with regards to Chechnya? I don't see
much in our own press. Occasionally, there will be a New York Times
or some other report about it -- about the killing, but it's very
sporadic. What's your sense?

Anyone else who would like to touch on it?

KASPAROV: Mr. Chairman, you just mentioned your Civil War and
compared Chechen situation to the situation in this country in 1861.
I would say Chechnya could not be compared exclusively to one single
event in American history. It has some resemblance with Civil War,
but more it has resemblances of Vietnam.

Could you imagine Vietnam happening somewhere in the middle of
Kansas? And that's what's happening in Russia.

Chechnya is going to produce, sort of, Vietnam syndrome. There
are about million Russian soldiers that came through this Chechen war,
involved million soldiers, and you understand the effect that this
kind of war, this kind of tragedy will have on the national psychology
for generations to come.

We're talking about young people. We're talking about people who
supposedly will be building future Russia, and many of them will have
their moral (ph) system and their priorities in life completely broken
by the tragedy in Chechnya.

The sooner we stop this carnage, better for Russia.

And it's very important that Russian people themselves send a
message to the government. The problem is that Putin's
administration, as I explained already, put all sorts of obstacles for
information to spread.

I think one of the things that Western governments, the human
rights organizations, U.S. Congress and European Union could
accomplish is just to force the Chechen issue back in the main press.
It's not Mr. Putin's privilege to decide what should be excluded or
included in the public debate. The events have cost Russians -- and
Chechens are also Russians -- already hundreds of thousand lives and
many, many more refugees, and talk of the ruined infrastructure of the
region and the rise of terrorism in Russia, this event can be cured
only through the very sophisticated and elaborated public debate.

While world attention is caught to certain events in Iraq and the
Western press is full about the reports from Iraqi jails, there is no
attempt to look at the situation in Chechnya or Ingushetia, which is
hundred, thousand times much worse than in Iraq, but this event,
unfortunately, is completely sidelined due to the decisions of Western
leaders that Chechnya is purely domestic affair.

So bringing attention of the world to Chechnya, not waiting for
Al Arabiya or Al Jazeera to report about it, I think that will be an
utmost duty of Western human rights organizations and Western
governments.

SMITH: Dr. Lozansky, you had said that the U.S. shouldn't drive
Russia out of the G-8 and made note of the legislation offered by
Congressman Tom Lantos that passed in the I.R. Committee very
recently, sent to the Congress, but it does send a message of -- it
was worth noting that Congressman Lantos, the ranking Democrat on that
committee, was the one who was just a few years ago talking about that
the time had come to get rid of MFN, the annual review pursuant to
Jackson-Vanik and Russia, because they had so turned the corner with
regards to human rights and democracy. So coming from the same man
that was proposing this a few years ago makes, at least some of us,
take a good look at what he's suggesting here.

Isn't the issue -- you might want to comment on that -- but isn't
the issue of corruption, of a lack of rule, of law in Russia the most
troubling issues of all? I mean so many of the people, perhaps that
were in the KGB or in some other part of the government, now are in
organized crime. One of the things -- and one that we might want to
touch on -- is that whole issue of human trafficking.

We have tried to get the Russian Duma, our Congress to do more on
that. They have, obviously, their own self-interest in doing it. For
a while there, there was a total lack of responsiveness that they
didn't even have a problem, even though so many Russian girls were
ending up in New Jersey and New York and everywhere else in the world
being abused. And m