[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
109th Congress Printed for the use of the
1st Session Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
.
RUSSIA: HUMAN RIGHTS AND
POLITICAL PROSPECTS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
June 23, 2005
Briefing of the
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Washington: 2015
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
234 Ford House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-1901
[email protected]
http://www.csce.gov
Legislative Branch Commissioners
SENATE HOUSE
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey,
Chairman Co-Chairman
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JOSEPH PITTS, Pennsylvania
TOM UDALL, New Mexico ROBERT ADERHOLT, Alabama
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut MICHAEL BURGESS, Texas
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi ALCEE HASTINGS, Florida
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER,
New York
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
(ii)
* * * * *
ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE
The Helsinki process, formally titled the Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe, traces its origin to the signing of the Helsinki
Final Act in Finland on August 1, 1975, by the leaders of 33 European
countries, the United States and Canada. As of January 1, 1995, the
Helsinki process was renamed the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The membership of the OSCE has expanded
to 56 participating States, reflecting the breakup of the Soviet Union,
Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia.
The OSCE Secretariat is in Vienna, Austria, where weekly meetings of
the participating States' permanent representatives are held. In
addition, specialized seminars and meetings are convened in various
locations. Periodic consultations are held among Senior Officials,
Ministers and Heads of State or Government.
Although the OSCE continues to engage in standard setting in the fields
of military security, economic and environmental cooperation, and human
rights and humanitarian concerns, the Organization is primarily focused
on initiatives designed to prevent, manage and resolve conflict within
and among the participating States. The Organization deploys numerous
missions and field activities located in Southeastern and Eastern
Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. The website of the OSCE is:
.
* * * * *
ABOUT THE COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE
The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the
Helsinki Commission, is a U.S. Government agency created in 1976 to
monitor and encourage compliance by the participating States with their
OSCE commitments, with a particular emphasis on human rights.
The Commission consists of nine members from the United States Senate,
nine members from the House of Representatives, and one member each
from the Departments of State, Defense and Commerce. The positions of
Chair and Co-Chair rotate between the Senate and House every two years,
when a new Congress convenes. A professional staff assists the
Commissioners in their work.
In fulfilling its mandate, the Commission gathers and disseminates
relevant information to the U.S. Congress and the public by convening
hearings, issuing reports that reflect the views of Members of the
Commission and/or its staff, and providing details about the activities
of the Helsinki process and developments in OSCE participating States.
The Commission also contributes to the formulation and execution of
U.S. policy regarding the OSCE, including through Member and staff
participation on U.S. Delegations to OSCE meetings. Members of the
Commission have regular contact with parliamentarians, government
officials, representatives of non-governmental organizations, and
private individuals from participating States. The website of the
Commission is: .
(iii)
RUSSIA: HUMAN RIGHTS AND POLITICAL PROSPECTS
------------
June 23, 2005
COMMISSIONERS
Page
Hon. Mike McIntyre, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe...
1
Hon. Alcee Hastings, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe..
2
WITNESS
Valentin Gefter, General Director, Human Rights Institute in Moscow....
2
PARTICIPANTS
Jon Finerty, Policy Advisor, Commission on Security and Cooperation in
Europe.................................................................
5
Ron McNamara, Policy Advisor, Commission on Security and Cooperation in
Europe.................................................................
6
(iv)
RUSSIA: HUMAN RIGHTS AND POLITICAL PROSPECTS
------------
June 23, 2005
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Washington, DC
The briefing was held at 2:00 p.m. EST in 2360 Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington D.C., Congressman Mike McIntyre, presiding.
Mr. McIntyre. OK, we'll bring this meeting of the Helsinki
Commission to order, and the hearing today.
I'm Congressman Mike McIntyre, a commissioner on the U.S. Helsinki
Commission, and we welcome all of you today who have joined us.
We know that several members are in and out because there will be
votes this afternoon, and there's some other committee hearings going
on currently but, nevertheless, we wanted to start this meeting on
time. We hope that we'll be joined by other commission members during
the course of the time today.
We'd especially like to welcome during the summer months the
college students who are here, and the Helsinki Commission is blessed
with having Kyle Clark. Kyle, stand up, from the University of North
Carolina. Beside him: My son, Joshua, and my new daughter-in-law,
Caroline, who also graduated from UNC, who are here on Capitol Hill,
and Caroline is with the U.S. Commission on International Religious
Freedom.
So we welcome them with us today as well.
We especially want to welcome all of you who have taken the time to
come here on this important subject involving Russia and human rights
and political prospects.
Today's special speaker, Valentin Gefter, is general director of
the Human Rights Institute in Moscow, and he is also a fellow at the
Kennan Institute in Washington, D.C., where he's working on a project
on post-Soviet political persecution in countries of the CIS.
His field study is human rights in transitional society. Born in
1944, Mr. Gefter is a 1967 graduate of the mechanics and mathematics
department of Moscow State University.
After many years of work in research institutions at the Academy of
Sciences, he became involved in 1995 in the work of the Memorial Human
Rights Center, where he continues to head the program on political
persecution in the CIS.
Between 1996 and 2003 he also participated in the activity of state
and Moscow city Duma committees, in working groups concerned with human
rights, and served as an assistant to several members of these
legislative institutions. He's co-editor of the Russian Human Rights
Bulletin and editor of the ``Russian Messenger'' of Amnesty
International.
He's married and has one daughter, 25 years old. I know we all are
proud of our children today, that we care so much about.
I want to also recognize Congressman Alcee Hastings, of whom we are
very proud, not only because he served so well in Congress and is a
colleague of mine, that I enjoy knowing personally, but he also, of
course, is our esteemed president, on the international level, of the
Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe.
So before we have our guest speaker come, I want to call on Mr.
Hastings.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Congressman McIntyre.
I'll add that this is one of many significant hearings that the
Helsinki Commission is holding, and thank you for hosting it.
I want to thank our presenter, Mr. Gefter, and welcome him here.
I'm sure that he will edify us better as we progress, and if time
permits, perhaps I might have a question or two, if permitted, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you.
Mr. Gefter, welcome, and we'll let you proceed.
Mr. Gefter. Excuse me, please, for my primitive English--and maybe,
I hope, nonprimitive thinking about my topic.
I will try to read my preliminary text, but after, you can give me
questions, of course.
Dear commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I am honored to speak
here today on the human rights situation in Russia.
Russia is becoming a normal country--slowly, and controversially;
but as regards human rights, it has very little in common now with the
so-called ``outcast'' countries.
However, recently by now there black spot, so to say, on this
surface which is not exactly shining, by the way.
But first a couple of general words, especially starting with what
is connected with Chechnya and how the authorities react to this awful
terrorism all over Russia.
As you know, authoritarian trends are increasing in Russia now, and
one distinction of this trend should be criminal prosecution of the
people who are socially. This should be clear identified as political
immunity to persecution.
What are the driving forces behind it? The most immediate one is
the increasing role of the so-called power institutions, or, as we call
them, power structures, sularikee and the security institutions too.
This development is the result of many factors. Chechnya, who has
often goes far beyond any understandable limits.
Another factor is, next, people being unhappy and expressing their
protest against the social and economic policies and against violation
of their rights by individual officials.
I believe the third is to what may be called preventive action--
from the side of state, of course.
All the more often people are persecuted who are not happy with
some individual official's actions or with some individual government
body's actions while the authorities claim that this individual's
action should be considered as representing the state and should be
protected by the state.
We don't mean that any such protests are illegal, and should be
approved. What I am saying is the methods and the scope of state
persecution, be it by legal or administrative or criminal persecution
are not fair, obversely selective, and is directed against those who
are not liked by the authorities or just by individual officials.
My key conclusion may be preliminary. The first: There have been no
mass criminal prosecutions now, recently in and used to be during,
after and/or years of the Soviet Union. That is in the Soviet Union: A,
based on ideology; B, declaring a large social group dangerous for
state; or C, persecuting people for public criticism--as happened in
the late Soviet times.
The second position, point: There have been principal changes of
the social, political and legal situation in the post-Soviet states,
and in my native Russia, of course, too, but law enforcement borders
have not changed that much. Their methods, are pretty much the same.
Very often, political, corporate, and even personal reasons prevail
over the rule of law.
Besides that, the authorities should feel responsible for the whole
political atmosphere in our country, which cannot be influenced with
legal system.
In conclusion--the last, but not the least, by my opinion--I would
like to return to the most dangerous manifestations of the whole
atmosphere, which I mentioned at the beginning.
Besides numerous victims of the military conflict in Chechnya, and
besides the convicted victims of campaign against ersatz terrorism, we
have political prisons, prisoners, in Russia now. They are given huge
prison sentences, as if murderers or criminals, and this was done in a
manner which has nothing to do with the principles of the rule of law
and habeas corpus.
The authorities call them enemies of the state, and we call them
victims of the regime.
It's fike, the first, it's fike spies, in fact scholars, really--
Valentin Danilov and Eva Sutaget, who got 14 and 15 years in prison,
correspondingly.
The second one, Egor Sentagium's fate is especially hairy because
he has already spent six years in prison for his open work and a
military politics analyst, presumably in the interest of U.S.,
according to the core centers.
The other two, the other persons, businessmen Vlasov Negediv and
Mikhail Khodorkovsky, were selectively sentenced for nine years and had
been singled out as scapegoats--one, to take responsibility for
everybody who took part in development capitalism in Russia; and for
their desire to get free from the bureaucratic dominance and to
influence Russian politics, within constitutional limits, of course.
Naturally, they are not the only names on the list of people who
reestablishing itself in bloodthirsty bureaucracy, Polis Everet, first
of all. Plus fighting for their liberation should be symbolic as
demonstration of responsibility for democracy in Malta, in my country.
In full correspondence with the law, their cases can and should be
reconsidered or the process of pardon should be applied.
Looking forward to the fast-coming G-8 meeting now, and considering
the Kremlin's plan on welcoming the next G-8 summit meeting to Russia,
the American Congress and the president of U.S.A. can say, ``We are
happy to be partners in life'' to Russian leadership--``and stand
together against numerous challenges,'' but we should begin with
correcting the unfineness in our own homes.
Each country should do its duty, recognize mitigating the suffering
of those four people, who have already spent years in jail. By
correcting these mistakes, reached, by my opinion, wars and crime you
manifest your respect towards Russian constitution, towards the law in
civil rights.
Most probably demonstrating such an attitude might result in more
involved than discussions about the changes in electoral processes or
choosing the legal governments and even jail called for this whole
process in Chechnya.
Making these people free, might become clear an easier way for the
authority to answer that question, where Russian politics are aimed at,
toward our programs of human rights and freedoms for all persons,
without exception, or towards state question and harassment without
regard to what you have done.
Thank you very much.
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Hastings, if you have any questions at this time?
Mr. Hastings. I'd like to ask Dr. Gefter, first, I have visited
Russia on four different occasions, and each time I felt that things
were changing and that you could see positive aspects in the society.
I make it a practice, when I go to places, to take the bus or the
train, and in St. Petersburg, I spent about three hours alone just
riding the bus system and underground. It was enjoyable for the reason
that I could feel the sense of the people. I just add that part to
demonstrate a little insight as to an American view of Russia.
I also was a participant in the December elections, as a monitor
for OSCE.
But I've found the people, again, to be very forthcoming at the
election sites, and I went to 11 in the south of Moscow.
But my question goes to the subjects that continue to come up about
human rights and ethnic minorities, and one thing I do not know or
clearly understand is the effect of the war in Chechnya on Russian
society as a whole.
We see on the television here when buildings are blown up, and it's
suspected that it's done by terrorists, so to speak. But how has that
affected Russian society?
Dr. Gefter, one other component of that is: Does anti-Semitism--how
do you assess the situation of the Jewish community in Russia or other
ethnic minorities? I would be interested in your comments.
That would be all, Mr. Chairman, that I would have at this time.
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you.
Mr. Gefter. Thank you for your question.
Some parts of my--delighted parts of my answer.
At all reactions of Chechnyan events are very different in
different parts of Russia. Maybe in neighboring area republics and
south Russia, that is more intensive, because as--depending not only
from war or even on the terrorist attacks, but the whole atmosphere is
connected with the level of violations from the state actors and other
social groups and social parties but in the main Russia, mostly persons
are not connected with Chechnya, their ordinary life is not related
directly from these events.
But the level of state violence--I mean state violence as the
violence on the part of police and military officials, from bottom to
top of this system--isn't growing, but in the last year we have, in
bits of Russia--not provincial, no provincial areas, no areas--some
attacks from the side of this policy main center, by contract, to serve
by contract in Chechnya and return to their places, native places,
attacks on these persons' businesses, without reason maybe, and there
is, not the widespread situation, of course, but it's very dangerous,
because in usual life not only connected with police working with
crime, not always, because they are working with their relations as
usual, too, is the first thing.
But the second question from you, connected with ethnic
discrimination: By my opinion, personally, the discrimination of Jews
is maybe on a very lower level from Soviet and maybe pre-Soviet times,
but mostly there are no official collegiates in this field.
Two conditions here, to defend them from--defending the persons
from not each kind of ethnic discrimination, and you understand me that
in connection with Chechnya, the maximum of ethnic discrimination
concerns to the persons who leave or arrive from Moscow, especially
Chechnyans, native Chechnyans--beimach.
It's a serious problem. She is--not constantly grows, maybe,
dangerous, of this problem, but sometimes, especially after terroristic
attacks or another even train line or surface, we are watch the very
significant influence of this discrimination.
But these kind of discriminations is provided not only officials,
usually of the middle level, by the police officer, by the usual man of
the market, on the street, and maybe on the schools, where. It's an
illness watch those on the association to hold social organism inside
Russia. Sometimes you will want to see by your own eyes, as you--when
you arrived to bus station, train station, but is a serious problem.
Thank you.
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you. Can you tell us, in your opinion, why you
believe President Putin has decided to limit civil liberties and human
rights in order to, quote, ``manage democracy,'' and your analysis of
why he's doing that and whether or not you think that will be
effective.
Mr. Gefter. By my opinion, managed democracy is a stage term, of
course, but it's not a constant trend of Russia top politics, because
at the beginning of Putin's term, maybe some official ideologies
promote this idea as anti-anarchist in times for instance, ruling, et
cetera, but maybe they saw that ruling is not the center from Kremlin
only, maybe there's more not onboard.
But in our side, in this middle of the second term of Putin ruling,
the more usual term ``limited democracy.'' By my opinion, the powers
extending--being against their ideas, forced them to rule what they
constructed.
Mr. Finerty. ``The authorities themselves have kind of run
themselves up against the wall to save themselves,'' as he put it.
Mr. Gefter. Yes.
Mr. McIntyre. OK.
Mr. Gefter. Because ideas of more liberal members of Putin's
administration, maybe, liberal economists and senators, consist from
simple ideas.
Our country needs consolidation, consolidation attempts, to provide
socially unpopular reforms, unpopular social reforms, in different
branches of life, and for this the other members, maybe, of Putin's
administration gave attempts to rule on the parliament's activity of
organization, et cetera, for--combine and don't attempt to, until
special discussions, long-time promotion of reform, et cetera, et
cetera.
But at this moment, they have the opposite situation. The minimum
attempts of providing this report stops by the absence of feedback from
society.
Mr. McIntyre. So do you think Putin's plan to do that is going to
work? Would you say yes or no or maybe?
Mr. Gefter. I mean that this clearly is a question with concern to
the hope that Putin--President Putin have hopes on the results of his
policies. I mean that not because he has not time for it in this term.
Because, as I was saying, the previous attempts are stopped in the very
positive time, the oil price, the international situation, et cetera,
et cetera.
But now his government and his relatives have no time for long and
unpopular reforming or in various branches of social life.
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you, sir.
Mr. McNamara, who works with the staff, I'm going to let him
continue chairing the meeting since I have to go to an Armed Services
meeting with the secretary of defense.
I want to thank you very much.
Mr. McNamara. Great. Thank you very much, Congressman.
My name is Ron McNamara. I'm currently serving as the international
policy director for the Helsinki Commission.
I should indicate that there will be a transcription of today's
proceedings available on the commission's Web site within 24 hours. Our
Web site is www.csce.gov.
As part of our normal format for briefings we will open up to
questions from the audience. We'd ask that you use the microphone when
we do open it up to your questions, and please indicate your name, any
affiliation that you might have, and try to succinctly pose your
question to our expert this afternoon.
There were a couple of points that I'd like to see if I could pick
up on.
One is that despite his lip service, talking about the important
role of civil society in the Russian Federation, his administration is
not always particularly friendly to nongovernmental organizations, and
certainly an important element of civil society is the media, and media
outlets have and continue to come under pressure even as quasi-state
enterprises snatch up their ownership--most recently Izvestia. ``So
goes the news,'' I guess I might say.
I wonder if you could elaborate a little bit in terms of this whole
approach of the Kremlin vis-a-vis the media outlets in the country--
because on a certain level there's sort of a vibrant press, some,
certainly, of the electronic media, especially, and now we see, with
the takeover of Izvestia, that there's quite a concerted effort to try
to have some control over some of the media outlets.
Mr. Gefter. Maybe the freedom and the status of media is not in the
range of my interest and my activity, but I personally wrote in
Izvestia during my working in an institution for three months. I had
two small notes in Izvestia concern to very sharp moment of our public
life. If you're not, of course, as one example, not the general
picture.
But by my opinion, the problem is not connected with freedom.
Maybe, more exactly, to say: about independence. Because frequently the
media are not depended from different ideas, different representations
of different government.
The journalists, the persons who are working in media, frequently
state the goal to give his own representative or their own views on
life, not give the wide spectrum of opinions, is the first.
The second, frequently in Russian media, and in Estonia paper too,
not dividing the opinions and the news. It's a very strange mixture.
Maybe for Americans it's not understandable----
Mr. McNamara. We understand it to some extent, too.
Mr. Gefter [continuing]. But it's very strange for us--what is the
view, what is the fact, what is your opinion, but I don't have interest
in your opinion as a private person. This picture is misunderstanding
of not only for reason of depending with ruling on the Kremlin or on
Gastrom, oftenly is not.
Maybe own censorship is more--as a censorship dependent not on
limits of and borders of representations, it's own mentality its own
censorship is prevailed on the state censorship, who, of course, take
place in the state, in the state media, the official as second channel.
But for me, as a usual citizen, Russian citizen, as inspector of
most media is enough to know the use it's enough. But maybe for some
members of opposite parties, members of very strong opposition
movements, are not of the situation, because they don't have the
possibility of speaking as a--in this TV or radio station.
Sorry for my primitive----
Mr. McNamara. No, not at all. You're doing great.
If you have any questions--from the audience--again, please
approach the microphone here at the podium, and please give your name
and your affiliation.
Mr. Jonas. My name is Sam Jonas. I'm here on behalf of Benjamin
Cardin's office.
Mr. McNamara. Mr. Cardin is our ranking member from the House side.
Mr. Jonas. My question has to do with the OSC parliamentary
assembly starting next week.
In your estimation, what effect, if any, will this event have on
the human rights situation in Russia and Russian-American relations?
Mr. Gefter. I don't represent the influence of this event, of
course, but if you understand my primitive proposal to push on Russian
officials, maybe some small point, small point, related with maybe some
personal.
My idea that pushing, pressing, on Russian policy in human rights
field maybe begin not from general attacks on the political system in
Russia, maybe the Americans and some parliamentarians from this
assembly could begin from--decide more concrete problem with political
persecutions, with other, very important, but limit it in volume.
Mr. McNamara. Being specific, and if there are specific cases as
opposed to systemic questions.
Mr. Gefter. Yes. Because the systemic is very long and very
sophisticated in discussing the problem. It's important, of course.
But this problem, especially what is connected with the fate of
people with sentences, with long imprisonment, et cetera, it's very
important and a very practical approach, by my opinion.
Mr. Jonas. Thank you for your answer.
Ms. Mullen. My name is Mary Mullen, and I'm from the advisory and
support committee.
I saw on BBC--which I watch each evening--a small showing of
Chechnya and of Russian soldiers going into Chechnyan homes and taking
out boys about 10 or 11 years old, and the family was screaming and the
boys were begging, ``Don't take me,'' and I'm wondering: What do they
do with these boys and do you know about this and is this part of the
human rights complaints or--if you could discuss it, I would appreciate
it.
Mr. Gefter. It's a very serious problem, of course, but I don't
know about concrete conditions. By my representation of modern--of
current situation at Chechnya, there are not often attacks on small
children or women or ageds, et cetera.
Now, there are very controversial situation in some areas inside
Chechnya, because the actors, military actors, not only officials,
actors are federal war institutions, are Chechnyan institutions, are
separatist forces, et cetera. But there are some--and especially
military--officials, authorities, by my representation, of course,
transition are not strong control and strong ruling of activities of
each soldier, each officer, especially who arrived from other regions
from Russia by contract.
It's my condemnation to my government, my criticism of my
government, connected more with unrolling of this process, on the
excellence of attempts to judge, to punish, the persons who have--their
human rights violation of the people, et cetera, more than direct
ruling of this kind.
But the last--not the least--problem connected with some criminal
sources against military officers, who has crimes against--this whole
operation in Chechnya, some Jews in Rostov and in other cities,
regions, of Russia are not given the convictions coming in, no
convictions. In real cases, when military kills some persons, it's not
questions about it. Maybe with the order of above, but the juries,
usual Russian citizens, don't wish record life. This is a crime.
It's a very, very dangerous situation from the special bottom, not
only from top of the power.
Mr. Mullen. Because of the terrorist attacks on the Chechnyans,
they feel perhaps that.
I wanted to know if you knew what happened to the boys, though. Why
were they taking those boys? Do they use them in their army? What do
they use the boys for?
Mr. Gefter. Yes. I don't understand this concrete fact. Assure that
that's not constructed by nature, because sometimes ``military person''
means that teenagers, not 10-year-olds--maybe 15-year-olds, maybe 16-
year-olds--belong to separatistic military or to rebels.
But it's not constant and widespread situation--by my opinion so--I
don't work in Chechnya in this war, only in the first war times.
Ms. Homer. My name is Lauren Homer, and I'm with International Law
Group, a private law firm. My area of expertise is religious freedom in
Russia.
But I have a more general question, it follows on the last one,
which is: To what extent do you think that the human rights violations
that we're seeing all over Russia and in the religious freedom area--
where churches are being knocked down or closed, and just all sorts of
lawless activities going on--is due to the overall breakdown of the
Russian governmental system and to what extent do you think it's part
of a deliberate state policy of picking on weaker groups because
they're easy to pick on, no one's standing up for them, and then it
gives some of the anger and darker forces in society an outlet?
Mr. Gefter. I mean, it's not a common uniform picture. There are
some cases, of course. I don't mean that there exists official politics
in this, as it exists it's not, but in some regions, or in some
situations in some regions, the influence of Russian Orthodox Church or
other influential--not necessarily official--group is very great.
The bureaucrats or the, maybe, middle level--not Moscow, Kremlin,
et cetera have the tradition. Who is the main in my area? At Soviet
times it's Reichholm and the KJB, et cetera. Now who is it? Maybe a
governor, maybe a great businessman, or a criminal, and sometimes this
Russian Orthodox Church and other conventional persons.
By my opinion, usually this case is connected with, by Russian
terms, ``syecht'' it's more easily object for attack. Oftenly they are
working in the gray zone between traditional religious forms and trends
and for powers, for national sort of so it's more easy to push public
opinion, very often--newspapers or other mass media--against these
small groups. But sometimes the official politics against ego with,
instance, some special groups too, and they laugh.
By my opinion, what's very dangerous now is widespread opinion and
the attempts to attack Muslim groups, especially Muslim groups who
became--belonged to radical Islam. Not military radical, of course.
It's: radical by opinion, by representation of world, et cetera. Cheev
Butach Reev groups, for example, et cetera.
It is very dangerous, because this attack is organized by radical
things, from Supreme Court of Russian Federation, who gave the special
decision in this Muslim organizations, and up to police, up to, say,
local officials, by my opinion, is more dangerous than others.
Mr. Vasilevf. My name is Pasha Vasilevf. I am from the Center of
Strategic and International Studies.
My question is related to an institution that I think is quite
famous related to hazing in the military, where it's been the same in
the Soviet times, and it seems to continue and to even become worse
recently. I wanted to know your opinion about what is going on and if
the Russian government is trying to or doing something about that
situation.
Mr. Gefter. I'm afraid that not, but now, I know, our ombudsman
suggested to discuss--to organize role police, special-role police,
what did not--belongs to Defense Ministry and towards--one of the roles
of this special institution must be directed against citizenship,
maybe.
By my opinion, there are not palliative decisions. By the opinion
of march of NGO's activities is the main step to stop this, even is
regulating from compulsory military service.
By my opinion and by opinion of much of us, of them, the
alternative here is not the decision in our condition, as we hope, as
we go. Maybe after some years. In real conditions, Chechnyan war, of
counterterroristic and other--even since the wars in Russia, it's not
possible in the role as a society.
Mr. Vasilevf. Thank you.
Mr. McNamara. I wanted to pick up on a point that you sort of
alluded to a little bit, and that is in sort of the area of democracy
in Russia.
We have to ask ourselves: What are the checks in place against the
executive power in your country?
Mr. Gefter. ``Checks''----
Mr. McNamara. In other words, sort of checks and balances. Here in
the United States context you have the Congress and so forth, and
understandably there's a parliamentary system in Russia, but even
there, there doesn't have to be sort of unanimity of opinion between
the legislative and executive branch.
Is the state Duma a check against the Putin administration? The
courts? Or the people? Because frankly I found it quite interesting--
the manifestation after the proposed reforms of the social net, that
that seemed to get the attention of the authorities.
But in the normal course of the governance, what controls are
there, really, on executive power in Russia today?
Mr. Gefter. Yes. Maybe, by my sophist opinion, in order to give a
view on this problem, as I say, the main point of--there are not
institutional opponents to Kremlin, to top power in the country, but I
hope--and maybe my colleagues hope--that there are some limits of power
inside the power, not between the branches--in usual democracy of a
country--but between some groups inside refuge of power.
My personal hope maybe connected with well-known institutions, warn
about the power, as the power is a lone European actor in Russia.
It's not real now, of course, after 200 years, after Pushkin times,
but maybe the representative views on top leaders of our country is not
simply Soviet once, 20 and 30 years ago, because it's who not go away.
He represents the--modern Russia is--strongly rules the country, but
the Western side of the country. Maybe authoritarian country, not with
the corpus (ph), the warrants of rights, not the totalitarian regime.
Long term I hope only on activity of usual, still activity of
persons who, by my opinion, the volume of these persons, the quantity
of these persons, slowly grow--in business, in NGO, in other branches
of life. But it's very long time, you understand.
Mr. McNamara. Well, I was interested, because in President Putin's
most recent state of the federation address, after bemoaning the demise
of the Soviet Union he then went on to boldly declare that ``The ideals
of freedom, human rights, justice and democracy have for many centuries
been our society's determining values'' and then concluded that ``Ours
is a free nation.'' That was his take.
I don't know if you have any reaction. I know my colleague, John
Finerty, has something.
Mr. Finerty. I just wondered, Valentin, if I could follow up.
You said that you rely on the average citizen--you think that the
hope of Russia is the average Russian citizen.
You and I are about the same age. You might be a little older than
I am. But for a while it was common, in the United States, in the West,
that the younger generation of Russians would sort of be the ones that
would lead forward and the older generation were the ones with the
older ideas.
Do you think that's the case, by and large, in Russia today?
Mr. Gefter. Maybe I am not belonging to understand innovation.
By my opinion, some part of them are not politically and socially
involved, in modern terms, at all. In general, Russian society is very
automatizated, very integrated, more than--easily more than Soviet
times, by my opinion, and maybe, in the same view, more than too,
because our tradition of social collective life is fascinated,
fasciticated, by Soviet way of life, and now much of young persons talk
about his career, his money, his racing, et cetera, et cetera, not
about--as last time.
We see some parts of politically-orientated young persons, with a
lot of them directed in the official, ideological direction role of
state as the main actor and similar ones. The official source of
support--of course, support by money, by other things--support these
attempts to organize.
But, by my opinion, it's not a crucial part of society. For me,
more important is the social public activity. Then their absence of
interest.
Mr. McNamara. Are there any further questions?
Well, thank you very much for coming.
I'd just note that the upcoming G-8 summit meeting--that you
referred to--in Scotland in early July provides another opportunity for
President Bush to meet with his Russian counterpart and to discuss
bilateral relations, and our commission is circulating amongst our
members a letter to President Bush, urging him to raise some of the
human rights issues, some of which were raised during our briefing here
this afternoon.
Again, I welcome the fact that you've come this afternoon to join
us.
A transcript will be available, as well as other materials, on our
Web site: www.csce.gov.
Thank you very much.
Whereupon the briefing ended at 3:06 p.m.
This is an official publication of the
Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe.
< < <
This publication is intended to document
developments and trends in participating
States of the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
< < <
All Commission publications may be freely
reproduced, in any form, with appropriate
credit. The Commission encourages
the widest possible dissemination
of its publications.
< < <
http://www.csce.gov @HelsinkiComm
The Commission's Web site provides
access to the latest press releases
and reports, as well as hearings and
briefings. Using the Commission's electronic
subscription service, readers are able
to receive press releases, articles,
and other materials by topic or countries
of particular interest.
Please subscribe today.