UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE
(HELSINKI
COMMISSION) HOLDS BRIEFING:
TOOLS FOR COMBATING ANTI-SEMITISM: POLICE TRAINING
AND HOLOCAUST EDUCATION
MAY 9, 2006
COMMISSIONERS:
U.S. SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK (R-KS)
CHAIRMAN
U.S. SENATOR GORDON H. SMITH (R-OR)
U.S. SENATOR
SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R-GA)
U.S. SENATOR RICHARD BURR (R-NC)
U.S. SENATOR DAVID VITTER (R-LA)
U.S. SENATOR CHRISTOPHER
J. DODD (D-CT)
U.S. SENATOR RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD (D-WI)
U.S. SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY)
VACANT
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH (R-NJ)
CO-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
MIKE PENCE (R-IN)
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)
KNOX THAMES, COUNSEL, CSCE
WITNESSES/PANELISTS:
PAUL GOLDENBERG,
SPECIAL ADVISOR,
OSCE OFFICE
FOR DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS AND
HUMAN RIGHTS
DR. KATHRIN MEYER,
ADVISER ON ANTI-SEMITISM ISSUES,
OSCE OFFICE FOR DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS AND
HUMAN RIGHTS
RABBI ANDREW BAKER,
DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL JEWISH
AFFAIRS,
AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE
STACY BURDETT,
ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AND NATIONAL AFFAIRS,
ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE
LIEBE GEFT,
DIRECTOR,
SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER'S MUSEUM OF TOLERANCE
The briefing was held at 2:30 a.m./p.m. in Room 628 Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C., Senator Sam
Brownback, Chairman,
Helsinki Commission, moderating.
[*]
THAMES: Good afternoon, and
welcome everyone to this Helsinki Commission briefing. We are very fortunate to
have Congressman
Chris Smith here, he is our co-chairman, to give an opening
statement. At this point, I will turn it over to Congressman Smith.
SMITH:
Thank you, Knox, and thank you all for coming out to this briefing of the
Commission on Security and Cooperation in
Europe. Just by way of
background, I have been on this commission now for 24 years of my 26 years as a
member of Congress. It is a
bipartisan commission, as I think you know,
completely committed to try to ensure that the Helsinki Final Act and all the
follow-on
agreements are adhered to, and done so in a way that really moves
us forward, particularly in the area of human rights, which is the
area we
have emphasized for many years.
Two weeks ago during the Holocaust
commemoration, "Days of Remembrance Week," students in my home state of New
Jersey held a
vigil at Rutgers University to honor Ilan Halimi. Ilan was a
French Jew who was kidnapped and gruesomely tortured to death earlier this
year because of his faith. His tragedy made brutally clear that Jews are still
attacked because they are Jews, and that our work to
eradicate all forms of
anti-Semitism in all its ugly forms and manifestations is far from done.
Other groups also suffer from violent acts of hatred throughout the OSCE region,
including right here in our own country.
Despite a slight decline, ADL's
annual audit of anti-Semitic incidents recently found that the number of
anti-Semitic incidents in the
Untied States remained at disturbing levels in
2005.
As co-chairman, I am likewise concerned with the recent wave of
violence against ethnic and religious minorities that has spiked
in Russia.
All too often, police there seem incapable or unwilling to vigorously protect
minorities, including Roma and persons with
dark skin.
I would note
parenthetically that some 10 years ago, on February 27, I held what was my first
comprehensive hearing on the
persecution of Jews. We had had a number of
smaller hearings before that, usually human rights hearings, and we entitled it
the
"Worldwide Persecution of Jews." I will never forget at that hearing
hearing how there was a rising tide of anti-Semitic activity
occurring
throughout the world, in Argentina and parts of Asia, certainly in the Middle
East and in many of the OSCE countries, the
United States and Canada.
We
then held a number of subsequent follow-up hearings, but probably the most
important hearing that we held was four years ago
this month when we held a
hearing on this rising tide, which was getting worse in many of the OSCE
countries. That hearing was
instrumental in elevating this issue and
related concerns at the OSCE itself, and at the Parliamentary Assembly. Strong
leadership by
the United States and others has led to greater engagement by
the OSCE and our assembly in efforts to combat anti-Semitism and other
forms
of hate, as well as increased focus on Holocaust education.
On the first
panel for today's Helsinki briefing, we will highlight that work through the
presentations of two internationally
renowned experts, Paul Goldenberg and
Dr. Kathrin Meyer. The second panel will add the insights of three very
distinguished NGOs: the
American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation
League, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center Museum of Tolerance.
Paul Goldenberg
is the former chief of the New Jersey bias crime unit and now serves as special
adviser to ODIHR on hate crimes
training. Paul has done a tremendous job in
bringing into reality the OSCE-ODIHR law enforcement officers hate crimes
training program.
The training program has created a flexible hate crimes
training curriculum designed to meet the needs of the law enforcement community
within any OSCE participating state or country.
The curriculum includes
the fundamentals of response, investigation and management of anti-Semitic
crimes and hate crimes in
tandem with community engagement and mutual
capacity building. Training law enforcement personnel in both Europe and North
America on
these methods will go far in winning the war against hatred and
anti-Semitism. I remember when we first talked about this, Paul made it
so
clear that the importance was that the trainers train the trainers, that they
are not likely to listen to politicians or diplomats,
but they will listen
to people who have worked in criminal law enforcement and they will listen to
cops who convey best practices to
them.
Paul has overseen the successful
implementation of the program in Spain, Hungary, Croatia, and Ukraine. I am
very pleased with
how the program is developing and salute him for his
extraordinary work.
Dr. Kathrin Meyer is the adviser on anti-Semitism issues
for OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights in
Warsaw,
Poland. This past January during the first commemoration of the international
day for Holocaust remembrance, ODIHR and Yad
Vashem released guidelines on
Holocaust commemoration, specifically designed for educators. Kathrin played a
key role in developing
these guidelines, which are a hands-on asset for
teachers as they work to ensure the lessons of the Holocaust are inculcated with
our
children. If we are to remember the Holocaust, our children must be
taught its lessons at an early age. I am pleased that ODIHR has
diligently
committed itself to this important issue.
Our second panel of three
organizations are no strangers to the Helsinki Commission, and have been
extraordinary leaders in
ensuring that this fight against global
anti-Semitism continues unabated. Rabbi Andrew Baker of the AJC will first
share his thoughts
on where the OSCE tolerance process is going and what
needs to be done. We will then hear from Stacy Burdett who will speak about
ADL's
programs to combat hate crimes and educate law enforcement officials;
and lastly, Liebe Geft, who is the director of the Simon
Wiesenthal Center
Museum of Tolerance, who will talk about how the museum works with police to
ensure they understand and appreciate the
importance of tolerance.
I
would just note parenthetically that my Holocaust education began when I was 14,
and I said this at the Berlin meeting when I
got to speak to the plenary
session, when my father introduced me to a Holocaust survivor. I will never
forget when he rolled up his
sleeve and there was this dark ink number that
designated that he was a concentration camp victim, one of the lucky ones, one
of the
survivors, but nevertheless a victim. I remember asking him a series
of questions over lunch, and that dialogue really continued for
years
because he was a regular at this luncheonette that I used to go to as well. And
that was the beginning of my Holocaust education,
and frankly when we began
this work, I remembered him, as I think so many of us do, and he had a profound
impact on my life.
So I would like to now turn it over to Paul for any
opening comments he might have, and then to Dr. Meyer.
GOLDENBERG: Thank
you.
It is really a wonderful opportunity for me to be here today. It is
interesting that I am going to present these notes to you
today. I had the
opportunity all morning. I was invited by a new, dear friend of mine, John
Minick (ph), to visit the Holocaust
Museum, and my son is turning 13, and
will be bar mitzvahed on Saturday, so on a personal note, he and I had the
opportunity for the
first time, for him it was the first time, for me I had
been there a couple of times, but have never seen it through the eyes of my son.
We visited the Holocaust Museum this morning. It is always a stark
reminder of if we do not do some of the things that we talk about
and really
provide tangibles to our communities in need, it is really a horrendous and
horrific outcome.
Again, even though I have been to that museum on many
occasions, and that museum is a treasure. It is a treasure for what it
teaches me every time, but to see it through the eyes of my own child made it
even that much more remarkable.
So I start out by thanking you, Chairman
Smith, committee members, ladies and gentlemen. It gives me great pleasure to
speak to
you today about issues of community safety and civil governance
from the perspective of police and community relations and the
advancement
of human rights across the 55 nations of the OSCE, for all these issues and many
more can be impacted by a single event, by
a single hate crime. Communities
within the OSCE region have turned from tranquil to chaotic in an instant, the
events that have led to
this pioneering program that I am going to speak to
you about this afternoon.
Hate crimes or bias crimes, as we have come to
know them across the United States, are criminal offenses committed against a
target, either a person or a place, because of their actual or perceived
connection with a group that may be defined by race, creed,
color,
nationality, orientation, religion, or other discriminatory grounds. The
heinous nature of a hate time is the fact that they
strike at our
communities, not just a single person, place or institution, but rather whole
sectors of our society can be isolated by a
virtual wall of fear by just a
single calculated act of violence, when the victim is a community icon or
perceived to be a community
icon.
It is because of this broad impact
that these types of crimes, these hate crimes, have such an appeal to those who
advance and
promote the causes of hatred. While the commission of these
crimes is reprehensible, the consequences are more far-reaching than other
types of crimes, for these are the events that can divide communities,
neighborhoods and states. These are the events that can create
tension
where none had existed, and breed dissent where once there was harmony, and
incite distrust where once there was collaboration.
In short, these are the
crimes that threaten democracy and democratic institutions. They are crimes
that impact upon
governments, as well as its people and communities. An
effective police response can be viewed as the inaction of a government that
doesn't care about the victim or the community. Such attitudes and beliefs can
be the catalyst for change or retribution, sometimes
through violence and
social upheaval. The modest costs associated with the delivery of the law
enforcement officer training program to
combat hate crimes pale in
comparison to the policing costs associated with just a single demonstration.
Although social turmoil may
start with a single event, it seldom ends that
way.
As we have recently seen in several countries across Western Europe,
social unrest in one European nation recently resulted in
$250 million in
damages and direct policing costs. Many real or perceived hate crimes across
the OSCE region, which includes the United
States and Canada, with much more
of Europe and parts of Asia, have been the flashpoints for recent as well as
historical community
unrest. Civil disturbances arising from such crimes,
injustices and inequality of treatment have resulted in clashes with police,
riots
and social uprisings that form violent challenges to legitimate,
democratically elected governments.
All of these have had monumental
significant costs, not only in money that is needed to equip the police and
support the
response to such actions, but also in the impact that they have
on the communities and the safety of those communities, on political
stability, on economic well being and productivity of a nation. Like an
unwanted wave, this economic impact of social upheaval can wash
over such
areas such as tourism, foreign investment, manufacturing, service industries.
It literally washes away the growth,
opportunity and advantages that may be
key components of a nation's economy.
The Office of Democratic Institutions
and Human Rights of the OSCE has commissioned the development of the law
enforcement
officer training program for combating hate crimes, which I have
been honored to lead for the past 18 months. It has been through the
vision
and commitment of the OSCE director, Ambassador Christian Strohal, and the
tireless, unwavering efforts of Ms. Jo-Anne Bishop,
head of the ODIHR's
tolerance and nondiscrimination program, that this program has received the
support and recognition that has allowed
it to be such an international
success.
The political will and efforts of such notables as Canadian Senator
Jerahmiel Grafstein have advanced this issue, while this
committee's
chairman, Representative Chris Smith, challenged all of us to turn concept into
reality, and to move beyond the rhetoric of
theory and to develop practices
and the creation of tangible outcomes that could be seen, that would have an
impact, and that would
finally make a difference.
All these supporters
recognized the positive role that police play in our communities, and the impact
that police have on
positive social change. Although some may consider that
law enforcement has contributed to this problem, the ODIHR and this commission
have viewed the men and women of law enforcement as an integral part of the
solution. They have also recognized both the need and the
value of
police-to-police professional training, the philosophy upon which this program
is based. Support for this fundamental concept
has been truly universal.
This law enforcement program is one that touches on many segments of the
community and the diverse components of the national
police service within
participating states. The program team is comprised of subject matter experts
in the field of hate crimes, drawn
from police services in the United
States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Hungary, Spain, and now Croatia and
Ukraine will be
joining our cadre.
This program has brought together
these outstanding police professionals who have joined together with some of the
world's most
talented and innovative human rights advocates. Together, we
have forged an unprecedented alliance which has led to the development of
this unique training initiative, a program that is customized for each region; a
program that gives a voice to minority communities
within each state; and a
program that grows and improves with each new state, with each new agency, and
each application.
This international implementation team has expertise in
other areas as well, that contribute to the program's success, such as
conflict resolution, community capacity building, partnership development, and
most important, community engagement and involvement.
This engagement began
with the consultation phase, where impacted communities and their
representatives in participating states were
brought together to provide
input on how they see police responding to crimes of hate, what they need to do,
and what they feel would be
an important component to the program.
The
international implementation team has been successful in reaching out to groups
that have been victims of hate crimes and
groups that see themselves on the
fringes of society. We have asked them how they would like to be engaged, how
they can help law
enforcement and society stem the tide of hatred and its
deteriorating effects on their people and their communities. We have been
successful in using this process to build strong partnerships between
governments and their people, using law enforcement as the vehicle
for
greater collaboration and problem-solving on issues that affect people where and
how they live in a free society.
The consultation phase of the hate crimes
program also engages the judiciary and the legislators to determine their needs
and to
solidify their participation as partners in the program. Finally, we
consult with the police services, including command officers,
specialized
unit commanders, and front-line officers. We seek input from all levels of the
police organization and integrate their
views, address their concerns, and
evaluate their recommendations for change. We believe that this has truly
contributed to the success
of the program and we envision continuing to
advance this level of consultation.
Beyond consultation, the program
includes a comprehensive training and capacity-building component for each
participating police
service. We believe that our training curriculum is
the most comprehensive and expansive training available on this topic in the
OSCE
region, and draws on the best practices of the participating states of
the OSCE. Program participants include senior police training
staff, who
receive direct hands-on training in recognizing and responding to hate crimes,
and in helping communities and individuals
recover from the effects hate
crimes have on victims and victimized targeted communities.
Participants
have received manuals, workbooks, training guides, films, sound files and
animated crime scenes that we have
developed for the program to help them
deliver that training and to train all others within their respective nations.
Most of you here have the speech. For the sake of time, I ask that you take
a look at it, that you review it. The program, we
are proud to say, will
soon be back on the ground in places like Serbia, which really has been an area
in a region of the country, the
Balkans, of concern to all of us. The
Serbian government has stated that they are most interested in becoming the
first nation to
develop a national office for the prevention and
investigation of hate crimes, which is an extremely important element,
particularly in
what has been happening in the Balkans.
The good news is
that the law enforcement communities are now very much a catalyst for social
change. They have come to the
realization that Europe is fast changing, and
without the respect from the community, and without engaging the community, we
will see
problems continue each and every day.
As important, what we do
forget is that when people across the 55 OSCE nations, including the United
States, we pour millions
and millions of dollars into military and into
police actions, which is something that on many occasions is extremely important
and is a
need. We need to also think about the first line of defense, the
police, the first responder, the police. And we have to think about
education, and educating those officers to better understand the communities
that they are responsible for policing.
So Congressman Smith, we are very
pleased to be here today to advise Congress on the program and, of course,
before I leave here
today, we hope that you will continue your support. We
need additional support to carry this throughout the rest of the OSCE nations,
and we look forward to working with you, sir, in the future.
Thank you.
SMITH: Thank you very much, Paul.
Before I go on to Dr. Meyer, I think as
you know, we have made a request to the appropriators to provide approximately
$200,000
for this, as an additional plus-up, going into fiscal year 2007.
GOLDENBERG: Excellent.
SMITH: So that is a pending request, and hopefully
we can take the information we glean from this hearing and use, including
your testimony, to give it a real shot in the arm. So thank you so much.
GOLDENBERG: Thank you, congressman.
SMITH: Dr. Meyer?
MEYER: Thank
you very much.
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you
for the opportunity to speak to you today about our activities in
the field
of Holocaust education and education to combat anti-Semitism on behalf of the
OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and
Human Rights.
It might not
be clear on the first sight why the OSCE as the world's largest regional
security organization is involved in the
field of Holocaust remembrance and
education. Just allow me to give you a brief background to that question before
I represent our
activities in the field of Holocaust education.
The 55
participating states of the OSCE from Europe, Central Asia and North America
reacted to the dramatic increase of racist,
xenophobic, and anti-Semitic
acts throughout the region with several high-level conferences and ministerial
decisions on tolerance and
nondiscrimination since 2002. In these
declarations, the participating states acknowledged the need for a specific
approach to improve
data-collection, legislation, training and education.
The ODIHR's manage in the field of Holocaust remembrance is based on the
declaration that came out of the Berlin conference on
anti-Semitism in
April, 2004. At this conference, the participating states recognized that
anti-Semitism has new forms and expressions,
and that anti-Semitism poses a
threat to democracy, the values of civilization, and to the overall security in
the OSCE region and
beyond. The same occurs to other forms of intolerance
and discrimination recognized in other OSCE declarations.
With the Berlin
declaration, the OSCE participating states committed themselves to promote
educational programs to combat
anti-Semitism, to promote the remembrance of
and education on the Holocaust, and to promote respect for all ethnic and
religious groups.
The ODIHR was tasked to disseminate best practices and to
assist the states to implement these commitments.
Recognizing that
anti-Semitism poses a threat to the overall security in the region compels us to
identify all different forms
of this phenomenon. While the Holocaust was
based on anti-Semitism, we can see today that Holocaust denial or the
diminishing of the
Holocaust is one form of anti-Semitism that occurs more
and more often and is used as a justification for anti-Semitic acts,
discrimination and hate crimes. That is why these two fields are strongly
connected for us and that is why my office is involved in the
field of
Holocaust education.
In order to fulfill our mandate, the ODIHR started the
work in this field with an evaluation. We developed the study,
"Education
on the Holocaust and on Anti-Semitism in the OSCE Region: An Overview and
Analysis of Educational Approaches" as our first
work. I apologize for not
bringing up too many hard copies, but it was pretty heavy to carry overseas, but
the study is available
online.
This study gives a general analytical
overview of ongoing activities in the OSCE region on Holocaust education and
provides a
country-by-country overview. IT also analyzes the need for
specific educational programs to address contemporary anti-Semitism. We are
currently developing a similar evaluation for the general field of tolerance
education within the OSCE region.
With the study, the ODIHR evaluated
existing initiatives in the OSCE states, we identified those that could be
developed
successfully elsewhere, and identified good practices to support
future efforts by OSCE states and civil society. But we also
identified
gaps and areas where teaching about Holocaust and anti-Semitism need to be
strengthened.
The analysis shows that the interest in the history of the
Holocaust is growing in the region, that the Holocaust is a topic of
history
lessons, but also in being taught in literature, languages, civic education,
ethics and theology, as well as in extracurricular
activities. So far, 33
out of the 55 participating states commemorate Holocaust memorial days in the
region.
But we also identified obstacles. There is a lack of official
directives specifically related to Holocaust education. There is
a lack of
appropriate teaching materials for Holocaust education, but especially to
address contemporary anti-Semitism. And there is a
lack of teacher training
in many OSCE countries.
The study provides therefore comprehensive
recommendations. Let me highlight today just a few of them. Holocaust
education
should be implemented in each participating state and needs to be
strengthened in many. Contemporary anti-Semitism cannot be
sufficiently
addressed by Holocaust education. It should be acknowledged as an issue of
itself. Teacher training should be implemented
in the OSCE states and
supported by the governments. Sufficient teaching materials should be
developed, and there should be cooperation
within the region between
educators and an exchange of experience.
In order to follow our own
recommendations, we established close cooperation with key international
organizations such as the
Task Force for International Cooperation on
Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research, the ITF, with the Yad Vashem in
Israel and
the Anne Frank House Amsterdam. With those partners, we
developed join assistance projects to support the implementation in
participating states.
To follow our mandate to assist the implementation and
to give very practical assistance to the states in the field of Holocaust
remembrance and combating anti-Semitism, but also in order to disseminate good
practices, the ODIHR started to develop teaching tools on
contemporary
anti-Semitism and on Holocaust memorial days.
In cooperation with the Anne
Frank House Amsterdam and experts from seven countries, those countries are The
Netherlands,
Croatia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine and Germany, and just
recently Denmark joined the project, teaching material on anti-Semitism in
seven special country adaptations have been developed, based on the historical
and social background of each country. I brought very
few, very bad
black-and-white copies of this. It is still under development, but it will
online very soon.
The material has been translated and is recently being
tested in schools in each of those countries. This material is a novelty
not only because of the international cooperation on it, but also because there
is almost no teaching material that deals with
anti-Semitism and is not
specifically focused on Holocaust education.
This ready-to-use material that
will give detailed information, graphics and assignments for the students will
come in three
parts for the students and one special teacher's guide. Part
one is on the history of anti-Semitism, part two on contemporary forms of
anti-Semitism, and part three puts anti-Semitism into perspective with other
forms of discrimination. The material in seven different
languages and
versions will be ready for the next school year as PDF documents on our Web
site.
This important educational program has been supported so far only by
very few states financially. And if we would get support
in the future, we
would be able to provide printed copies of that material to teachers and
students in countries where access to the
Internet and proper printers is
difficult for teachers, and that are willing to use the material.
Based on
the commitment to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust and the experience
that Holocaust denial becomes more and
more common in some regions, we
developed suggestions for educators on Holocaust memorial days. This document
is distributed today in a
proper version, actually, and I hope with enough
copies for all of you, in close cooperation between the ODIHR and Yad Vashem.
Funded only by Germany so far, the ODIHR brought together experts from 12
countries at Yad Vashem for an expert forum. Those
countries were Austria,
Sweden, the Netherlands, Croatia, Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, United Kingdom,
Russian Federation, Ukraine,
Germany and Israel.
The document that came
out of this cooperation has been circulated to you today for your information.
These suggestions have
been launched by the OSCE's Chair in Office, the
Belgian minister of foreign affairs during the celebration on January 27 in
Brussels.
The ODIHR provided an English and a Russian version. All these
versions are online. The Belgian government developed French and
Flemish
translations, and in Italy, Croatia and Hungary, the ministries of education
provided translation into their own languages and
made the guidelines
available on their Web sites. Just one week ago, the Polish government called
me that they are working on a
translation that will also go online at the
end of this month.
Our suggestions for educators highlight really amazing
initiatives of schools, educators and communities on Holocaust memorial
days
form 12 countries so far. They are being very well received. On the ODIHR's
and Yad Vashem's Web sites, there were 400 to 800
downloads of the document
in each language each month.
If we will receive more funding for this
project, we want this document eventually to be distributed in printed copies as
well
and it should come with a CD of good practices. It also would consist
of a second part, "Why and How to Address Contemporary
Anti-Semitism,"
according to our understanding that both fields are strongly connected, and that
teachers are hesitant to address
contemporary anti-Semitism if they do not
find the guidance on how to do that. Both the CD and the second part are under
development
right now.
This practical tool will help educators that have
not had the opportunity to attend teacher trainings and have not been involved
in Holocaust education, to understand how many different activities could be
undertaken by remembering those millions of men, women and
children who
perished during the Holocaust. I hope that these examples from our suggestions
for educators will not only serve as an
inspiration for activities on
Holocaust memorial days, but also as an encouragement to start remembrance of
the Holocaust where it is
not commemorated so far. I am convinced that the
remembrance of the victims of the Holocaust has an important influence on young
people
and what they learn from that experience will make a difference in
today's world.
We hope that all our practical teaching tools will help to
engage more governments to incorporate Holocaust education and
educational
tools to address contemporary forms of anti-Semitism, as well as other forms of
discrimination, into their national
curricula. We hope more governments
will not only send us initiatives from their countries, but also translate the
guidelines, and make
them accessible to educators in their countries, and to
fund the ODIHR's educational program. This will allow us to continue our work
and enable us to make the material that we developed so far available to
educators all over the OSCE region.
My office is happy to cooperate with
governments, and we are ready to give advice, share experience, and assist in
the
implementation of Holocaust remembrance activities and teaching
activities that aim to combat anti-Semitism today.
Thank you very much.
SMITH: Dr. Meyer, thank you so very much. I would just like to begin
questioning, if I could, Dr. Meyer.
In reading your book that has been
prepared by your office, you mention a number of things, including some of the
opinions of
educators, including teachers unions, can be a detriment to the
promotion of Holocaust education. One of the things that strikes me, I
remember when we were looking at some of the French schools that were unwilling
to take up the Holocaust, the teachers unions stuck out
like a sore thumb
among those who seemed unwilling to embrace it. Could you speak to those
efforts to try to get officials? It all
comes down to the teachers. If the
teacher is unwilling or unable, or is antagonistic, or is a Holocaust-denier
himself or herself, the
outcome is certainly going to be a disaster.
On Holocaust-fatigue, that reminds me of compassion-fatigue that we often see on
humanitarian efforts, you know, the truth
hurts. It seems to me that to
suggest as a defense for doing little or nothing, not you, but those who might
use that, well, we have
been there, we have talked about it, let's just move
on. Well, the lesson of history needs to be learned, it seems to me, if it is
not
to be repeated.
And then the issue of the number of hours. I noted
in your report that of those 23 states that did report on the number of
hours spent, the average was one to three hours, which would seem to me, and I
would appreciate your thoughts on it, to be wholly
inadequate to explain a
horrible, horrific phenomenon that claimed six million Jews.
And then we
will go any questions our audience might have.
MEYER: Yes, thank you very
much for your comments and your questions. You are exactly right. It all
depends on the educator.
It depends on the teachers themselves. We are in
contact. We are an intergovernmental organization so we are in contact with the
governments. We are in close cooperation with many governments, and we are
supported by many governments. But when it gets to the
concrete, those who
we have to reach are the teachers.
That is why we focus on producing
material that is easy to use, ready to use. They do not need to attend teacher
training.
They do not need even the agreement of the principals, usually,
when using this stuff. It is a different story with anti-Semitism
material,
but the Holocaust remembrance guidelines is just a service, a source of
inspiration for teachers.
We also work in close cooperation with those
organizations that provide teacher training, that have teachers over to the
Holocaust Memorial Museum, Yad Vashem, here in the United States definitely,
other organizations involved in that. We share our
material with them.
That is one of the reasons why it is so important to us that this material is
accessible.
When I say "accessible," not only online. Teachers in the U.S.
and France and Germany, they can easily download documents, but
when it
comes to Ukraine, Belarus, Russian Federation, these people do not have access
to the Internet. If we cannot provide printed
copies of our material, hand
it over to them, and they take to their schools and they hand it to their
students, we are just lost. They
will not use it. They can just not use
it. We try to be as practical as possible in order to provide the teachers with
assistance, and
on the political level we address the general issues of the
hesitation to teach about the Holocaust by the ministries of education.
SMITH: Just based on your country summaries, would you be willing to venture
what countries you found to be the rest and which
ones you found to be the
worst?
MEYER: I think it is difficult to say which countries are the best.
I think some countries are doing an amazing job. One of
the countries that
is really, I think it is deeply impressing how much they achieved in very little
time is, for example, Lithuania.
Lithuania build tolerance centers
everywhere. They do Holocaust education day. They send their teachers to
teaching seminars. Croatia
is one of those countries. Croatia was the only
country that sent experts from the ministry to our expert teams to develop this
teaching material on anti-Semitism. So they are strongly involved and will
hold a conference on educational issues.
Just to highlight those as very
good role models doesn't mean that other countries are not doing well. I mean,
countries such
as the United States or Germany or France actually are
already teaching about the Holocaust at a very high level. We talk about the
average of hours dedicated to the Holocaust, they teach it quite extensively.
So you can imagine that many other countries are below in
hours because it
is just an average number. So there are definitely many countries that do a
very, very good job.
And some countries, if you look at a country-by-country
overview, you will see for example a country such as Azerbaijan that has
nothing going on in this field, but it is a success actually already to get 54
out of 55 states responding officially to us, and if we
have an official
response from the ministry of education from Azerbaijan to tell us unfortunately
we do not have any Holocaust education
in our schools, that enables us to
contact the authorities and to ask them to help to implement. So even not
having anything, I think
this is a success, that they stated this very
openly and honestly.
SMITH: Mr. Goldenberg, you mentioned Serbia as being
enthusiastic about embracing. What other countries are next?
GOLDENBERG:
We have interest from several countries. We have Georgia, which is sending us a
letter shortly. There has been
interest from Switzerland. We right now,
you talked about the Halimi murder, but just weeks after that I was invited by
the ambassador
of France himself, from the OSCE, to visit Paris and to work
with the ministry there, to see if we could enhance any of their training
programs. So we are also working in Paris right now.
And just to note as
well that the French police are very much a part of our international cadre. We
have two lieutenant
colonels who are with us who are just a tremendous
asset. So those are the countries right now that are on the radar screen.
SMITH: Thank you.
Anybody else? Any questions?
QUESTION: I was
actually curious about the extent to which the Holocaust education in the
different OSCE countries may look at
it within a historical context or if it
isolates it? I just know from the research on Holocaust education that was done
in the 1980s,
the first research on Holocaust education, that that was one
of the major problems with actually getting it to have any impact, at least
U.S. research. I am just wondering to what extent what you have developed says
that?
I had another question, too, but I will let you answer that one first.
MEYER: In our evaluation, we looked at the basics. Having the background
from the U.S. and me personally from Germany, I think
we think Holocaust
education already is on a pretty high level. We looked mainly at the question:
Do they address the Holocaust at
all? Is the Holocaust ever being mentioned
in school? Is it explained to the students what took place? Do they get a
very, very
general overview of what happened? So going into the details, I
was asked also yesterday during meetings whether we do schoolbook
evaluation
and go in-depth with our analysis. We are far, far away from being able to go
too much into depth with what they actually
do.
Our point is really to
encourage that the Holocaust is mentioned at all, and that it is part of the
official curriculum. So we
want all the official curricula, that they
incorporate Holocaust education, whether they do it in language classes, and if
they will do
it in sports. It doesn't matter to us as long as the students
hear about it and have a first chance to learn about it. Because our
experience on this subject, and this is what we have heard from many educators,
once the topic is introduced, the students gain interest
in it. They want
to know more. They want to have projects. That is why also the guidelines are
focused on research projects, local
research students can do on the Jewish
community in their region before the Holocaust, and what was being developed
after the Holocaust,
stuff like that.
So I appreciate your question. It
is just that you are on a level that the average of the OSCE countries just
cannot meet at
all.
QUESTION: The second question was kind of for both
of you. You had mentioned, Mr. Goldenberg, the possibility of working in
Serbia. In the Balkan region right now, there are a lot of problems with just
tolerance in general towards the different religious and
ethnic communities.
I am wondering to what extent the ODIHR might be expanding education on
religious tolerance per se into that region
and in general to the whole
region, if that is maybe the next step after the anti-Semitism-Holocaust unit.
GOLDENBERG: One of the things that the ODIHR is doing right now, and I think
that is very effective, is they are engaged in
capacity building between
NGOs and law enforcement, which is extremely important. There are NGOs that
have really had absolutely no
contact with police ever, or they have tried
and they have not been successful. Unlike here in the United States, for years
we have
been engaged, the NGOs have been engaged with police.
When I
headed up a statewide policing agency, my main focal points were working and
engaging with the minority communities and
NGOs. So that is good news
because really the police now are really being compelled to work closer with the
minority communities, the
religious communities. Also, we are finding that
we now have diversity officers that are being trained. Serbia is creating
diversity
officers. In almost every province or region within Serbia, I
could tell you probably within about three months there will be diversity
officers.
Kent Police in the UK have done a terrific job and they are
working with us now at the ODIHR and at the OSCE. We are
collaborating with
them, and we are working with their agencies. These officers are receiving
education in sensitivities to dealing
with different religious faiths and
backgrounds.
So I can speak only as far as the law enforcement training. I
really can't address the Holocaust side.
MEYER: As I mentioned briefly, my
colleague who is working on anti-racist topics, she develops an evaluation on
general
tolerance education that is being undertaken in the region. My
other colleague, Thomas Kampf, who is our adviser on freedom of
religion, I
believe, is currently developing an educational program on the topic or issue,
if you will, of religious freedom and the
freedom of religion and belief.
And we have a close, close eye on what is going on in Serbia at this point,
especially with the law
that just came out.
So there are things under
development. It is important to keep in mind that my program started
functioning, to officially work,
only one year ago, so it is a pretty new
program and most of the staff started much later. So we are just in the
beginning of starting
our activities in this field, but it is being
undertaken.
QUESTION: Thank you very much, Congressman Smith, Dr.
Goldenberg, and Dr. Meyer.
I am aware of your effort. It is a significant
effort, and in that respect I would like to know, what do you actually consider
to be your most significant obstacle in terms of both expert and political
levels in what you are doing? And how do you believe you
should be
supported by the 55 participating states most? Where is it that you need to be
helped and what is the most difficult obstacle
that you have?
Thank you.
GOLDENBERG: The ODIHR, the OSCE, working very closely with many NGOs and
many, many governments, we have really put together a
remarkable group, an
international group representing states across Europe, of experts,
practitioners, people that have taken it from
theory and are now
practitioners.
Unfortunately, when we talk about support, and there isn't
anyone in this building that hasn't heard the same thing, it comes
down to
financial support. We need financial support. One of the statements that I
made, and I was very clear in what I was saying,
although I tiptoed around
it, that we spend hundreds of millions of dollars, and again rightfully so, on
things that help us enforce the
law. Well, we really need to work on
education that helps us prevent us to getting to that point.
Again, I go
back to that same word, and that is what brings Dr. Meyer and I together, is
education. She is talking about
educating our young and our old to help
them really re-think what hatred and bigotry and do, and we are talking about
educating the
first responder in any government. If it is Bulgaria or the
United States, the common denominators between our law enforcement
communities are very, very, very similar.
For the most part, they want to
uphold the law and do the right thing by their communities. The populations see
the police as
the first line of defense from their government. So I guess
what I am saying is we really need to spend some time thinking about how we
can support efforts that impact our police and impact our educational systems.
So it is financial.
MEYER: I would add that it definitely is financial.
Just to give you an impression, the guidelines for educators, how to
commemorate Holocaust memorial days, including the second part on how and why to
address contemporary anti-Semitism, I had 10,000 euros
for that. So I
developed with 10,000 euros these guidelines, in I don't know how many
languages, and for educators. And now I don't
have the money to produce
copies. So we are not even talking big money here.
The money issue is
related to the political support. I mentioned Croatia. Croatia did not put any
money into this project, and
some countries just can't put money into these
projects. But what they can do, and what some countries do, is they send
experts for one
or two days to these meetings, and they have put this stuff
on their Web site. They step up and they get up in meetings and say, we
implement this in our country.
So if another country pays for the Croatian
version or the Lithuanian version, they do that, and they are a good role model
with
that. So it is not only the financial question. It is also the
question of the political willingness and to be outspoken to implement
the
commitment, and not just to have the commitment on the paper and then we have to
be the watch dog and we are the bad guys who have
been to name and shame and
give a list of the five worst countries. That is not what we want to do.
So
if we have countries, national delegations, institutions that just get up and
say this is good material, this is a good
program we want to implement,
usually then the financial part will follow. So it goes hand in hand. It is a
political willingness to
implement and to make that public. Those countries
who do that should make it public and should get up and say this is good, and we
do
that.
QUESTION: One issue we have discussed in the past is the use
of the Internet and the role of the Internet. I believe we have
had some
special conferences on that. Could you talk about some of the challenges you
have in terms of the Internet in combating
anti-Semitic racism and
xenophobia? And also, are there any best practices or any positive uses you
have seen in countries, again
because of the negative impact we are seeing
of the Internet in spreading this material? And anything you could share with
the panel?
Thank you.
MEYER: Paul Goldenberg mentioned our civil
society capacity unit. These colleagues of mine reach out to the civil society
and
within the civil society in several countries we have NGOs monitoring
the Internet, writing reports, addressing this on the
international and
national levels constantly. What we did is we put a training together once for
NGOs from countries that do not these
monitoring NGOs, to train them on how
to monitor the Internet, how to report it, to whom to report to.
So what
we do not only in the field of the Internet, but also in general, we support to
increase the capacity of NGOs to monitor
any form of hate crime wherever it
occurs or hate speech on the Internet. We will go online in July with our
databases. One is with
reports. It is kind of an online library with tons
of material from intergovernmental organizations, everything all the different
participating states put out there, and a special search engine that allows
you to search the NGO Web sites through our Web site on
specific topics in
all different languages. That is one thing.
The other database is a good
practice database, a practical initiative database. In this database, we
highlight those
initiatives being undertaken wherever it is by NGOs or by
other organizations, that do monitoring searches, and whoever searches this
can make contact, can look at what they are doing. So we try to do this through
our augmented disseminated good practices.
GOLDENBERG: I would like to add
just one thing, a personal statement, that I think is something probably more
threatening than
the Internet, is the hate music. I am baffled at how
little we know about the impact of this music. Now, of course in the United
States, there is the First Amendment, and rightfully so, but in many countries
across Europe we have this music being distributed to
young people,
disenfranchised, disengaged young people. The message of that music is
absolutely unbelievable.
If anyone really takes a close look, it is not
just music. This is not music-bashing. Believe me when I tell you, 13 years
ago
when I was in charge of the hate crimes unit, I had the privilege of
working with the German government. We actually assisted with
closing down
Rock-a-rama Records. If anybody wants to Google Rock-a-rama Records, when they
raided it in Brule (ph), West Germany, they
not only got out CDs, but they
took out weapons and machine guns and all kinds of firearms.
The organized
hate industry has really captured this medium. It is amazing. It is amazing on
how the message spread. You
remember when the wall came down in Germany,
people could not understand how quickly the young on the West were communicating
with the
young on the East, way before anybody else was. It wasn't just
Germany. It was Poland. And I can go on and on and on.
So the music is
really something that we focus on not only from a standpoint of using parts or
lyrics that wind up as part of a
criminal crime scene. I can share dozens
and dozens of incidences not only here in the United States from 15 or 20 years
ago, but now,
where the lyrics wind up as parts of crime scenes. So anybody
that says this is just a bunch of young hooligans, I don't think so. I
think we have some savvy people out there that have turned it into a
multi-million dollar industry that are taking that money and really
going
into the stream and buying firearms as well.
So I just wanted to mention
that. Thank you.
SMITH: Just a very brief question. Dr. Meyer, the
guidelines for the anti-Semitism education, when can we expect those? And
will this book be updated periodically, especially the country summaries, so we
get an ongoing look at how well or poorly each country
is doing?
MEYER:
We didn't plan an update. It just came out a week ago, so yes, we will have to
update it at one point. If more
countries establish programs, we have to
mention that, of course. The guidelines on Holocaust memorial days are already
online, so they
are online available. Just the second part that deals with
how and why we address contemporary anti-Semitism will be added at one
point. Particular material on anti-Semitism, that will come in seven different
countries, and will be ready to use for the next school
year. So we will
present this at the OSCE conference on educational questions in Croatia in the
fall. We hope that more countries than
the first seven will step up for
country adaptations, and this will be ready and on the Internet in the late
summer.
QUESTION: For eight years, I ran the speakers bureau at the
Holocaust Museum, and for the last two years I have been detailed
to another
federal agency. I have attended literally hundreds of Holocaust memorial
presentations in schools and to teachers' workshops
and to the police, to
Indian reservations out in Utah, in front of the military.
One thing I hope
is included in this, and I am sure it is, is the emphasis on including Holocaust
survivors' first-hand
testimony in the education when possible, for as long
as possible. I think my friends at the Holocaust Museum would probably say that
when the questionnaires about the effectiveness of the program or what is
the most important highlight, almost universally it is what
the Holocaust
survivors said. I have seen several Holocaust survivors literally turn around
anti-Semitism initiatives at a school,
confronting people.
I really
don't have a question, other than I feel obligated, because they are not here,
to say that for itself. Thank you.
MEYER: I appreciate your comment very
much. I think you are absolutely right. The opportunity for students to meet
Holocaust
survivors is unique and that really changes most students' lives,
definitely. If I would say why I am ending up in this job, whenever I
meet
Holocaust survivors, this is when I feel, not only know, but I feel why I do
this job and why I am in this field. So this is
something that is important
to us.
We are just currently thinking about to put special emphasis on those
educational activities that do not only have Holocaust
survivors speaking to
students or with students, but also those initiatives that have been undertaken
lately to preserve the
testimonies. There are initiatives in schools where
each student takes over or adopts one story of one survivor to make it his
family's
testimony and to bear witness over generations and generations. I
mean, everything that is related to the testimonies and to the
experience of
the survivors is really important, and we try to put emphasis on that as much as
possible.
Thank you.
QUESTION: For Mr. Goldenberg, obviously a natural
development from your work with law enforcement is transmitting the valuable
information that they can collect in terms of the occurrence of incidents of an
anti-Semitic or other nature. I wonder how that factor
enters into your
work or cooperation with participating states that have voluntarily come forward
to participate in the program?
The reason why I ask that is I remember
looking at some data a few years ago from a very large participating state of
the OSCE
where they, according to their information, claimed that there were
only something ludicrous like three incidents in their very, very
expansive
country. So I wondered how much your work with them also involves accurate
collection of data, as well as the dissemination,
hopefully transparent
dissemination of that information?
And then I had one quick question for Dr.
Meyer. Obviously your work is focused on OSCE-participating states, but there
has
been a traditional linkage to a group of littoral Mediterranean
countries in the OSCE and partners in the Asian region as well. One of
the
things that we find is that a very troubling development is that some of those
countries through state television actually are
active disseminators of
anti-Semitic propaganda and other forms of hatred.
So I wondered if some
thought has been given to expanding your work beyond the participating states,
but also capturing, if you
will, cooperation from those Mediterranean and
other partner countries that might be very key, as many of them have large
populations of
their compatriots who are now living in the European part of
the OSCE.
GOLDENBERG: To answer the question, and I am hoping I am going to
get this right, but basically right now many of the OSCE
states do not
collect any data on hate crimes. It is really hit or miss. What our program
has in fact done is we have developed a
model hate crime definition that has
been pretty widely accepted by many of the states out there. This definition is
now put forth as a
model definition, not only for the investigation of hate
crimes, but also as a model for legislation to take a look at and say, here we
go, this sounds pretty good, we don't have to reinvent the wheel.
Of
course, each nation has its own culture. Each state has its own culture, but
this is a pretty high-level definition that can
really be tweaked to meet
the needs of the respective state.
We also developed a model hate crime data
collection format. We actually worked with someone. Who is it, Mike Lieberman
(ph)?
You asked me about a member of our team, Dr. James Nolan (ph), who is
the former chief of the FBI unit that responsible for developing
these
forms, working way back when in the days with the Anti-Defamation League. I am
going back 18, maybe 20 years, that we worked
together on that, 20 years, on
the data collection form.
So we have put together a real good group. Now,
we have the form and it is a model, and we have put it out there. However,
there are many challenges state-to-state because the collection of data, how
data is collected. The confidentiality issues are an
unbelievable challenge
state by state. Where you may collect data on something in one country, you
cannot collect it in another. So we
have really had to go state-specific on
that, but OSCE ODIHR is working very aggressively in working with these
countries to give them
advice and counsel on how to do just that. So it is
not a quick fix, but we have some really good models out there, and some of the
countries are most interested.
I will tell you, Ukraine told us that they
would in fact use the process. Again, whether it comes to fruition or not, I am
not
questioning whether Ukraine will or won't, but that is how interested
they were. They looked at it and said this looks good, and we
will in fact
go ahead and do it. So that is one example where if you put it out there and if
it meets the need of the state, it may
have a good shot.
MEYER: Thank
you for mentioning the partner states. You are absolutely right. It is
important to get more involved and to get
more of them involved. But with
the partner states, it is the same as it is with the participating states, even
more difficult. If
there is no support from their side or interest on their
side, it is difficult for us. It is not up to us to go to them and say, OK, I
mean, we invite them to meetings. We try to incorporate institutions from
these states into our expert meetings, NGO meetings. We
definitely always
try to have them with us at the table. If there is interest, we are more than
happy to deal with that.
I think when it comes to the tensions between
different forms of discrimination, which is sometimes an issue and has been an
issue lately, this is one of the situations when everybody says, well, let's
also talk to the partner states. So we try to do that, we
definitely try to
do that, and we are aware about the trends ongoing in some of those countries
and the influence it has on the OSCE
participating states, not only the
partner states. But it is a sensitive question because it is not up to us to
tell them what to do.
But if they want to cooperate with us, we are more
than happy to do that, and definitely we aim to do so.
SMITH: I want to
thank our first panel so much for your testimony and for providing us some
additional insights that the
commission and those who are concerned here can
carry forth from here. I look forward to reading the book. Thank you for
presenting us
with copies of it today.
MEYER: Thank you.
SMITH: I
would like to now ask our second panel if they wouldn't mind coming to the
table. We have Rabbi Andrew Baker, Stacy
Burdett, and Liebe Geft.
Rabbi
Baker, if you could begin?
BAKER: Sure.
At the outset, congressman, I
really want to thank you personally. I am struck by the fact we are here
talking about how the
OSCE can address the problem of anti-Semitism, and
only a few years ago what that meant was can we insert the word "anti-Semitism"
in
some document. We took a certain sense of achievement if that had
happened.
So there is no question, looking back now on these last few years,
that there has been a remarkable set of achievements in
getting the OSCE to
address this issue and to address it seriously and substantively. I think that
we know full well that that effort
really began here. It began with your
work, the work of the commission, the staff of the commission, to in the first
instance get the
U.S. government to press in this complicated 55-member
consensus organization, really to do something tangible.
So when we look
back, we have seen the first conference on anti-Semitism in Vienna in 2003,
followed by the conference in Berlin
a year later, and the Berlin
declaration, which really was an expression of specific commitments that
governments would undertake and
that the OSCE itself would undertake in
addressing the problem of anti-Semitism.
We heard in this first panel the
work of Dr. Kathrin Meyer in the area now that there is a unit established for
the issues of
tolerance and nondiscrimination, and tangible programs in the
area of combating anti-Semitism, collecting data and the like. I think
those of us, too, who were at Berlin, and at Vienna in fact, remember Mayor Rudy
Giuliani talking about the importance of collecting
data, of using that
information in training and securing a police involvement in this. We heard
from Paul Goldenberg in terms of what
this work now is as part of the
official program of the OSCE and of ODIHR.
When one considers the frayed
relationship between the United States and many of our allies in Europe,
sometimes we look back
and what was viewed as a kind of American intrusion
in pressing our European allies to deal with these issues, I think we can look
at
this particular program with a certain sense of pride and achievement.
It is something that the European governments want from us. It
is really a
contribution, the American experience in dealing with hate crimes, in training
police to deal with them, that they now these
days welcome.
The OSCE
also appointed a special representative, a personal representative of the chair,
specifically with a focus on the issue
of combating anti-Semitism. Again,
another initiative that really began here, and that has succeeded. The idea of
the personal
representative is to be able to hold up governments to account,
to prod those that need some prodding, and also I think to see that the
work
inside the OSCE goes as expected.
These achievements we recognize now
looking back are things to which we should take a certain extent, a certain
degree of pride
in accomplishment. We can remember when we spoke to
European leaders about the problem of anti-Semitism, often it was not seen, it
was
not recognized, we were told. The EUMC, which is the official body of
the European Union to conduct data collection and monitoring,
when it issued
its own report on anti-Semitism in Europe, the then-15 countries of the EU,
admitted that over half of them had no
definition for anti-Semitism. Those
that did, no two countries had the same definition.
And so there was a
circular pattern. If you didn't define it, the monitors didn't record it. If
it wasn't recorded, it didn't
occur. And if you spoke to these leaders,
there wasn't a problem. So these days in a way I think have passed. We really
have seen
significant developments.
I think right now we are in really
critical point, a point where we may be in danger of losing these gains. We
have heard
already that if this police training program is going to
continue, it needs support. It needs financial support. Perhaps Paul
Goldenberg himself would not say it, but other countries have seconded
professionals to work in this area. Perhaps this is now a
possibility for
the United States to help undergird the support and the work of Paul himself. I
think that is something that we need to
consider and certainly take the lead
as we prod other countries to contribute funds necessary to support the police
training program.
I think we have seen as well that there is a historical
memory of the battles in the political arena. We see changes in our own
State Department. So as people come in with responsibility for the OSCE, they
are not really familiar with what has gone on. In fact,
that is all the
more reason why there is a special appreciation for this commission and for its
staff, who have been in the trenches for
so long in dealing with this issue.
So we need to see that this kind of commitment, that the political pressure
on the OSCE continues, to recognize, too, that ODIHR
had its own set of
commitments placed upon it at that Berlin conference and through that Berlin
declaration, to collect data and also to
try, we hope, to analyze and report
as to what that data means, where things are going.
The U.S. government at
the ministerial meeting in Ljubljana in December last year endorsed the holding
of another high-level
conference on this issue that would ideally it was
proposed by hosted by Romania in 2007. I think we need to work to see that the
permanent council of the OSCE adopts this in a formal way, so work on that
conference can begin. It also spoke about holding several
expert-level
implementation meetings. I think here, too, we need to see these meetings are
still in planning stages, but that the area
of anti-Semitism represents a
significant component of them.
We do know that the personal representative,
Gert Weisskirchen, wants to convene in Berlin in November an expert meeting with
those involved specifically in the area of anti-Semitism. The Berlin
government, the German foreign ministry intends to provide
logistical
support in this. I think we need to be present to assist in ways we can. I
think within the OSCE, as you well know, Germany
has been a great ally, the
French ambassador is another, in supporting these efforts and marshaling it
through that 55-nation consensus
process.
In closing, I would say that
perhaps those who thought, and many of us as well, that we would not see a
re-emergence of the
problem of anti-Semitism in the 21st century. It would
be, we had hoped, more an issue of historical interest and concern than one of
the present day. Sadly, that has not proven to be the case, and I think we
have seen as well that it was not simply a brief chapter,
but that this
re-emergence of anti-Semitism as a problem here in the 21st century is going to
be with us for a long time.
So therefore I think we need to ensure that
efforts that have been undertaken within the OSCE are not viewed as themselves a
passing chapter, while the governments look to other issues and other
places. We need now, really, to consolidate those commitments, to
put down
roots within the instruments of the OSCE so that this struggle can continue. I
know those of us who have been working on it in
Jewish organizations and
other NGOs really salute you for what you have done and what you do here today
in fact in making sure that this
issue stays front and center.
Thank
you.
SMITH: Thank you very much, Rabbi Baker. And thank you for your
leadership. I remember doing one critical moment after
another, one week
after another. When text was being negotiated, I remember the conversation we
had at the Holocaust Museum about what
language should be in the Berlin
declaration. You provided an amazing amount of insight and suggestions that
were very well accepted by
our side. So I want to thank you for that
leadership. It was extraordinary.
BAKER: Thanks so much.
SMITH: Ms.
Burdett?
BURDETT: Thank you. I want to echo the thanks of everyone here
who has noted the work of the Helsinki Commission, not just in
having
briefings like this and for all your work on the issue, but really in being the
institutional memory of this movement that has
really originated in
Congress. So thanks very much.
You noted in your opening comments that in
the number of anti-Semitic incidents, we did see a decline in incidents, a small
3
percent decline, and that has been the case in a lot of countries in
places like the UK, Canada, France. There has been a decline in
incidents,
but the common denominator is that in all of those countries and many others,
the year 2004 was really a record high in terms
of incidents.
So any
decline is always encouraging, but the reflexes, the trends that are so
worrisome are really still there. You mentioned
Russia, where hate crimes
in general are really reaching an epidemic proportion. It is a place of
concern. Congress has been focused
also on problems in Ukraine, where there
is a university that is espousing virulent anti-Semitism. The government is
making positive
statements, but we haven't really seen follow-up on those
statements.
There was an example of what we have seen in some other
places. In January, the Swedish chancellor of justice stopped an
investigation into Stockholm's Grand Mosque, where tapes of anti-Semitic sermons
were on film. He acknowledged that the sermons were
calling Jews brothers
of apes and pigs, and urging wannabe jihadis to kill them. But he chose not to
use Sweden's anti-incitement law
because he said the calls, those sermons
should be judged differently and be considered allowed because they are used by
one side in a
continuing profound conflict, where battle cries and invective
are part of everyday occurrences in the rhetoric that surrounds the
Middle
East conflicts. So the reflex, the things that bothered us even two or three
years ago, those trends are still active. So the
need to sustain the kind
of political momentum that Rabbi Baker talked about is very urgent.
I want
to move on and talk a little bit about some programmatic responses in the focus
of today's hearings. One of the
strengths of the ministerial decisions in
OSCE and the declarations and the conferences has been they have always
highlighted that the
primary responsibility for implementing commitments for
addressing acts of intolerance rests with participating states, and focusing on
areas like education and law enforcement.
Putting those commitments into
action has been a challenge, and certainly the ODIHR surveys and work of NGOs
has shown a pretty
startling lack of implementation. But again, the
strength of these programs has been, and hearings like this, has been the
ability to
showcase the kinds of initiatives that are available to
governments. What is lacking, not just funding, is really political will.
States really have at their disposal, and it will be evident when ODIHR has
their database of best practices in the region, they really
have at their
disposal some impressive resources and some excellent programs, a couple of
which were talked about in the first panel.
I want to talk about just a
few initiatives, just to show the range of resources that are out there, not
just for my own
organization, but there are other fabulous resources out
there. The U.S. government has the models that members of the Helsinki
Commission, members of Congress, people in the U.S. delegations to these
meetings have really put forward through programs like Paul
Goldenberg's.
He talked about the model hate crime definition. The FBI has circulated
excellent training materials on how to identify
and report and respond to
hate crimes. The Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights published, in
association with the National
Association of Attorneys General, an excellent
program for schools. It is a guide called "Protecting Students from Harassment
and Hate
Crimes."
And even without an excellent hate crimes law and a
model definition, states can train law enforcement, issue guidelines, and
help officers respond to hate crimes. There are a number of good resources, and
when you go to the Helsinki Commission Web site and
look at these
statements, you will see links to some of the resources put out by groups like
the International Association of Chiefs of
Police, the Organization for
Chinese Americans, and others.
Our own ADL law enforcement training has a
couple of different focuses and target audiences. We do a hate crimes training
program like the one you heard about earlier. We also do anti-bias training.
For example, in Austria, ADL works with a team of about
50 civilian and law
enforcement trainers to conduct training for every professional and new recruit
in the country. In only a few
years, we have reached about 10 percent of
the law enforcement force with this program. So you can really have an impact.
Another kind of program that could be replicated, the Anti-Defamation League
has a Web site for law enforcement. It is called
the "Law Enforcement
Agency Resource Network," and there are all kinds of tools there that law
enforcement can use, a hate symbols
database. Imagine a police officer
arriving at the scene of a hate crime and seeing a marking or a tattoo, and
imagine a police officer
who can connect that symbol to an ideology, to a
conspiracy theory, to a hate movement. So the value of these programs is really
impossible to measure in how it can impact on individual crimes and
individual victims.
Because the role of law enforcement is so unique in
their place in the community, their own ability to have good cross-cultural
understanding and skills is very important. So a similar anti-bias training
program to the one we use in schools we also do for law
enforcement. One
area that is becoming very important is the area of extremism training. I
mentioned the hate symbols database. We
conduct an advanced training school
to help police officers learn more about extremist groups; things like hate
group recruitment in Web
chat rooms, and in prisons and other areas.
In
schools, I will just mention one new innovation. I know Congressman Smith has
talked in the past about ADL's education
programs, our "World of Difference"
anti-bias training programs for teachers. We have just previewed an online
training institute so
that that program can now reach anyone with a computer
capability and not just someone who is able to be part of a school that has a
training program. So that is a very exciting development.
I think one
thing that you will find when you read the ODIHR study online and look at its
recommendations, and something we
found in our own experience, is that
changing political atmosphere, changing dynamics, really forced teachers to
refine their tools for
different situations. I know we have talked a great
deal in these kinds of foras about how the Middle East conflict has crept into
the
classroom. Our programs for teachers provide tools, but the content is
something that is updated. After 9-11, in this country when
issues of
anti-Muslim bias and bias against people who look Middle Eastern was a big
problem, we were able to take the tools that we had
and put changing content
in them.
You heard also before that there is such a lack of Holocaust
education, but we really need almost a new generation of Holocaust
education
tools. We have developed some of those, and again they would be very adaptable.
We had a new curriculum called "Echoes and
Reflections" that uses videos of
survivor testimony. One member of the audience mentioned how that is important
to try to capture on
DVD the survivor testimony so students can have a more
personal connection to their lessons.
The Holocaust is also a good tool to
use for law enforcement. Working together with the Holocaust Museum, our
program called
"Law Enforcement and Society" uses the Holocaust to help law
enforcement explore their own role as protectors of individual rights, and
to really ask tough questions about faith in law enforcement, the questions that
faced them 60 years ago and questions that still face
them today. That is
the kind of program that is linked to a site, the Holocaust Museum, and in so
many places in the OSCE region there
are Holocaust memorial sites that could
be used in this way.
I just want to say that we talk about issues of
funding, but so many of these programs are available at minimal cost and
sometimes for free. You can look all through the region at wonderful NGOs that
are doing programs that don't require significant
funding. I think all we
really need to do is sustain the political momentum to get ministries to open
their doors and let the experts
they have at their disposal come in and help
them.
So we look forward to working with members of the commission to keep
that momentum going, and let the good experts you heard
from today come in
and do their jobs.
Thank you.
SMITH: Stacy, thank you so very much.
Now, I would like to ask Liebe Geft?
GEFT: Thank you very much. Good
afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, and ladies and gentlemen.
I, too, would like to echo the sentiments of my colleagues here in expressing
thanks for this platform and the essential
opportunity to bring together the
areas of expertise and resources to address this question. I am certainly very
appreciative of the
invitation to participate this afternoon.
My report,
I believe, will reinforce many of the compelling and critical issues that have
been addressed by previous panelists,
and perhaps add some additional
resources. As an accredited NGO at the UN, UNESCO, the OSCE, the Council of
Europe, the Simon
Wiesenthal Center is vitally concerned with the challenges
of Holocaust education and police training in the context of globally
resurgent anti-Semitism.
Last year when American officials joined European
leaders at Auschwitz-Birkenau to bow their heads in tribute to Hitler's
victims at the 60th anniversary commemorations of the end of World War II, their
concern extended to the growing threat to democratic
societies posed by
today's hate movements, including those that target Jewish individuals and
institutions from one end of the continent
to the other.
For Simon
Wiesenthal, the namesake of our organization who died last September at the age
of 96, the past was always portent, if
not prelude. He was gravely
concerned with the current rise of ferocious anti-Semitism in Europe and warned
again and again that the
most important abettor of future injustices and
hate-motivated criminality is the silence of the apathetic and the intimidated
majority.
Last June, the founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal
Center, Rabbi Marvin Hier, was one of the U.S. delegates to the Cordoba
convention, the conference on anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance.
There, Rabbi Hier called for members states of the OSCE to
establish
museums, resource centers, educational centers as focal points of education that
can also support law enforcement professional
development and best
practices. We are deeply committed to the efforts of the OSCE and eager to
share our experience and knowledge in
this area. Indeed, we have already
begun to do so, both in the training of delegates from numerous European
countries, and by working
with OSCE-ODIHR to map out future areas of
cooperation, including sharing the resources and expertise.
My colleague,
Mark Weitzman, the director of the Wiesenthal Center's Task Force Against Hate,
sits on ODIHR's advisory panel of
experts on freedom of religion or belief,
and has been a member of the U.S. delegation to the International Task Force,
the ITF, since
its earliest stages. The Wiesenthal Center commends the
energetic leadership of Ambassador Christian Strohal and particularly the
efforts of Dr. Kathrin Meyer and Paul Goldenberg, whose earlier testimony
reflects their commitment and achievements, often under
difficult
circumstances.
We are also pleased to take this opportunity to recognize the
efforts of the International Task Force on Holocaust Education,
Remembrance
and Research, ITF, now comprising 24 member countries. This unique enterprise
brings together government and NGO
participants in a cooperative effort to
encourage Holocaust education, including open access to World War II archives.
It has become
one of the most important initiatives in Holocaust education
today.
The commitment of democratic governments to the cause of Holocaust
education underscores its importance. Here we would
especially like to
acknowledge the support of the State Department, particularly the Office of
Holocaust Issues headed by Ambassador
Edward O'Donnell and his staff, who
have tirelessly pursued every opportunity to strengthen and support these
efforts.
It must also be said, however, that important areas still need to
be strengthened. Membership in the ITF must be viewed as a
beginning, not
an end, and a commitment to further intensify ongoing efforts. Anything short
of that will only strengthen those who
actively try to destroy Holocaust
education, whether they come from the ranks of Islamist extremists or from the
corps of extreme
right-wing nationalists.
We are particularly concerned
with how justifiable complaints over anti-Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice have
been perverted and
exploited to undermine support for educating new
generations about Hitler's crimes. We believe that teaching about prejudice and
punishing hate crimes are not zero-sum activities that benefit some
minorities at the expense of others. Instead, our basic assumption
is that
learning about Europe's historic persecution, culminating in the Holocaust of
its archetypal minority, the Jews, can educate
other minorities, including
today's Muslim immigrant communities in Europe, about the dynamics of prejudice
and discrimination against
which they seek to empower themselves.
The
Simon Wiesenthal Center's new documentary film entitled, ironically, "Ever
Again," warns about extremists exploiting current
European turmoil,
particularly in Europe's growing Muslim community, that is experiencing a
veritable war for hearts and minds between
the moderates and the hate
merchants who unfortunately have the largest megaphones.
To make matters
worse, and this has already been raised, their pernicious influence is projected
into cyberspace by a
metastasizing network of thousands of Holocaust-denying
Web sites and chat rooms. The challenge of the Internet is a special focus of
the Simon Wiesenthal Center Task Force Against Hate Initiatives, that has just
released its eighth annual CD-ROM on digital terrorism
and hate. I have a
handful here, which I am happy to distribute. They are available, translated
this time in several different
languages, and cover the gamut of hate on the
Internet, including the spread of hate music which Paul Goldenberg addressed
very
powerfully earlier.
Anti-Semitism is the primary manifestation of
the hater's diabolical purpose and must continue to be tracked with specific
focus, not lost in an amorphous holistic category with all forms of intolerance,
as some OSCE members have suggested. The monitoring of
hate is the
responsibility of both government and law enforcement.
The Simon
Wiesenthal Center has extensive experience in law enforcement training through
its educational arm, the Museum of
Tolerance. The museum's Tools for
Tolerance for law enforcement and criminal justice programs have served well
over 75,000 U.S.
officers and law enforcement personnel since the inception
of the program in 1996, constituting perhaps the largest training program of
its kind in the nation. The success and recognition of this program prompted
the creation of the New York Tolerance Center in
Manhattan, thereby creating
bicoastal, powerful learning environments for these innovative programs to
bridge personal, local and global
issues, and to challenge participants to
redefine their professional roles in an increasingly complex and changing world.
The Tools for Tolerance law enforcement program now offers 10 distinct
courses, broadening its reach in New York to the National
Guard, corrections
and many others. This expands a national audience already established through
the National Institute Against Hate
Crimes and Terrorism, an intense
four-day program that has thus far brought together multi-disciplinary teams
from law enforcement and
criminal justice from 199 jurisdictions in 37
states across the United States, to focus on critically analyzing the unique
elements that
differentiate hate crimes and terrorist threats from other
acts of violence, and provide a structure for the creation of effective
strategies for prevention and intervention.
I would mention but one other
program, and that is that Tools for Tolerance is the official trainer in
California, the trainer
of trainers for the controversial topic of racial
profiling. Our staff and faculty also train trainers around the country. More
than
12,000 officers have completed a one-day core program called
Perspectives on Profiling, which utilizes this cutting-edge training tool,
a
unique interactive device that allows officers to confront a number of conflicts
issues surrounding the debate on racial profiling.
This is available to all
agencies.
Tools for Tolerance has welcomed and customized training programs
for delegations from numerous countries. The German military
has been
visiting the Museum of Tolerance since 1999. We hold a special program, Crimes
of Racism and Hate, sharing experiences,
sharing knowledge at the Museum of
Tolerance. In March of 2003, with the French national police, and they have
given us great feedback
as a result of that conference. Last year, we
welcomed 16 heads of police and anti-terrorism from Stavropol in Russia, as part
of the
Climate of Trust program. We look forward to more this year.
Recently, delegations from Manchester, England have met with us to explore the
possibility of promoting these programs to Europe
and the UK under their
auspices. This month, we have a number of command staff programs and law
enforcement delegations visiting us
from Canada. And the New York Tolerance
Center is also reaching an international community through the United Nations,
which is our
neighbor in Manhattan, and hosts visitors from the U.S.
Department of State, including most recently a delegation of Muslim imams and
Russian Orthodox priests from the Urals.
In the experience of the Simon
Wiesenthal Center, Holocaust education, rather than being discarded or
marginalized, can and must
be integrated into the corps of necessary new
educational paradigms. We welcome the opportunity to continue to work together
with
European law enforcement, lawmakers, and educators, to ensure that
Holocaust education continues to contribute to the field and to the
future
of human rights.
The ultimate positive goal of Holocaust education should be
for all nations of Europe and the world to embrace the 1998
declaration of
the Stockholm International Forum of the Holocaust, and join the Task Force of
International Cooperation on Holocaust
Education, Remembrance and Research.
Prevention trumps punishment, and Holocaust education is a preventive to 21st
century evils that
we cannot afford to forego.
SMITH: Thank you so much
for that testimony and for your many years of great service. When we had our
hearing four years ago,
five years ago, I remember the Wiesenthal Center was
one of those that provided us with very useful insights. We took that and
worked
at our own State Department of develop, first, our own Parliamentary
Assembly, what we called side presentations at our PA in Vienna and
in
Berlin. We had one here in the United States, and then of course, as we all
know, at Vienna and Berlin and then Cordoba that
followed it. So thank you
again.
Let me just ask a couple of questions, and then go to anybody who
would like to ask a question. Last year, Senator Voinovich
and I, I was the
House sponsor and Senator Voinovich the Senate sponsor, Tom Lantos was our
principal cosponsor, drafted legislation
that was signed into law by
President Bush called the "Global Anti-Semitism Review Act." That legislation
established an office, and
Ambassador O'Donnell was already mentioned
earlier, who heads it. A report was issued and I was wondering if you thought
that report
was adequate. Rabbi Baker, you might want to speak to that.
As part of the international religious freedom reporting, which is annual, and
the country reports on human rights practices, we
standardized and asked for
enhanced focus on the anti-Semitic records of countries around the world, not
just the OSCE, although that is
important, but other countries like
Argentina, Malaysia, elsewhere, all were to be looked at. I wondered if you
have had a chance to
look at it, and what your sense is as to the accuracy;
whether or not we got it right; and whether or not we need to go back to State
and say, you need to do more.
BAKER: By the way, the act also called for
the appointment of a special envoy in the State Department and that position is
still vacant. I think that is a troubling situation.
I think the report
that was issued, and it was issued with a deadline and sort of limited staff,
was successful for two reasons.
One is it did as good a job as one could
under the circumstances in collecting information on the problem in as many
countries as
possible, drawing on resources through our embassies, through
the NGO network and so on.
But what was I think remarkable about it, and
important to recognize, is because it was issued by the U.S. government, it
received attention that that same information coming out of an NGO, say, coming
from maybe an office in the Israeli government or
perhaps an
intergovernmental body in Europe, simply didn't have. It brought the attention.
I think a number of us know of quite
specific situations where the U.S.
ambassador was called in by respective foreign ministers or others, trying to
respond to this, maybe
asking more about it. But clearly, it got attention.
I would hope that recognizing that, we can say that this should not be a
one-time event. I think that we now know that our
embassies have officers
that are tasked with the job of following human rights issues and questions of
religious freedom. Anti-Semitism
is recognized too as part of that. But
when it comes in the form of a very large document that finds its way, a
paragraph here or a
paragraph there, I think the issue is not so much is
this accurate, but does it have the kind of impact that that stand-alone report
had. I don't think it does. So consider perhaps doing this again.
SMITH: So it is diluted?
BAKER: Yes.
SMITH: Thank you.
Stacy?
BURDETT: I would just add, the most important thing about that report was the
executive summary that really set out markers for
what constitutes
anti-Semitism. It said in the introduction that it is not a definition, but it
certainly laid down some markers. If
it does nothing else than help human
rights officers in U.S. embassies know what they are looking for, even in the
context of the
country reports on human rights and religious freedoms, it
will have moved the ball forward.
SMITH: Rabbi Baker, you mentioned I think
an anonymous statement in your testimony that right now at this very moment, we
are
in danger of losing these gains. I think what we use this
hearing-briefing for is to redouble our efforts as a commission, especially
with the Romanian conference in the offing and those special conferences. I
think have a good road map here that is the beginning, and
I hope it will
become periodic, if not annual. I think countries, just like individuals, need
to be held to task on a very, very
ongoing basis, or else we all fall off.
And we don't want to get that fatigue that was talked about earlier, whether it
be Holocaust or
combating anti-Semitism fatigue.
One of the things, as
we all know, that we are up against early on, and I think we are up against it
again now, is the idea of
folding the whole effort, rather than a breakout
on anti-Semitism because of its uniqueness in Europe, into one big racism,
xenophobia,
just almost like the human rights report, excellent report, but
you are right, Rabbi Baker, it does get lost. It does get diluted
because
it is paragraphs here or paragraphs there, and it loses its potency on things.
So you might want to just briefly elaborate on this danger of losing these
gains. Not only are you suggesting we won't go
forward, but we might lose
the modest gains we have had thus far.
BAKER: Yes, I think we can speak of
it in a couple of areas. I think you have just identified almost on a
philosophical level,
the idea that we should look. The Belgians have spoken
of the holistic approach to problems. We have heard these criticisms of
hierarchy of oppressions, almost to suggest that if you say the subject of
anti-Semitism needs to be addressed as the unique phenomenon
it is, you are
putting yourself outside where some of these countries want you to be.
We
have been successful in seeing that there have been separate conferences on
anti-Semitism. As you recall, for many there was
probably the sense,
reluctantly some governments agreed to a conference in Vienna thinking it would
be one time and that was it. It
followed with Berlin with the active
efforts of the German government in offering to host it. In Cordoba, which
itself was, as has been
noted, a conference on anti-Semitism and other forms
of intolerance, but recognized that there comes a time and place to look at the
subject by itself if you are really going to understand its problem and come
up with solutions, even while we know that some of those
solutions are
broadly directed to other forms of intolerance and hatred as well. Police
training is one obvious example.
So I think we need to be always present,
because within this OSCE and particularly within the EU members of the OSCE, I
think we
find continued efforts to say no, no, no, fold them together again.
I do hope that enough has been achieved until now that even some of
these
critics recognize that it is a phenomenon that is very hard to categorize, at
least as a subset of some overall generic heading,
as we have seen it morph
in different ways from different places.
The second point in terms of
recognizing this then goes to some of the institutional programs that have been
established. You
heard from Kathrin Meyer and this unit on tolerance and
nondiscrimination. Her position is a seconded position. If that ends, if the
German government decides it cannot continue, if other resources are not
available in a year or two years, it could disappear. And by
the way, not
only her position, but I think the position of the other experts there. It is
by no means yet recognized that this has to
remain.
So I think that is
the other part of this. We need to see that those resources are part of a
permanent budget that these
positions are there. I have to say it is
embarrassing to hear of what are good programs, and then there is no money even
to publish a
text. You can say, well, it is available on the Internet. It
is so silly, really, to go through all this work and not have those
additional resources.
So I think to the extent to which the U.S. can push,
what you can do here in Congress, but also in the Parliamentary Assembly,
to
encourage other governments to come in, I think that is something that now is
the time to do. That is what I mean by the danger of
losing these gains.
SMITH: I appreciate that.
Yes?
GEFT: Congressman, if I may. There is
another area in which I think we may be sliding back and losing an edge that the
international community established at Nuremberg. That addresses the fear
that radicals are taking over and we don't have the mechanism
to contain or
to stop them. In Nuremberg, Julius Streicher was convicted and hanged not on
the basis of evidence of having murdered
people, but on the clear connection
between the incitement to do so and the results that he caused.
There are
in the world today religious and political leaders who are openly calling for
the murder and the destruction of Jews
and there is no mechanism in place
that can in any way restrict or isolate them. Thirty years after World War II,
the United States had
a travel watch, which was on the lookout for Nazi war
criminals and restricted their travel. We don't have a similar mechanism to in
any way signal these people, and more importantly the moderate folks in this
world who should not be influenced by them, but would be if
we don't
intervene.
The scourge of suicide bombing and the potential catastrophic
implications as technology improves, that is an area of concern
where we
should not lose our edge and our opportunity.
SMITH: Let me just ask one
final question. I would agree, Rabbi Baker, with all of what everyone is saying
here, but personnel
is policy. If we lose dedicate personnel, seconded
individuals, the programs will wither. They may still be there, but if they are
not
properly financed and staffed, that is a very good admonition to us to
be on the lookout for what we can do to enhance that.
Recently I was again
in Warsaw and met with the curator and some of the leaders of the new Jewish
Museum that is being created
there, which is tremendous as you know, and you
are supportive of it, but maybe you could speak to it. All of you, if you would
like.
What I was struck by, and some of the people who briefed me on it
just kept saying how it is not just a focus on how Jews died,
and certainly
the Holocaust will be well represented there, because it is a despicable part of
history, but the past is prologue also in
the positive, to show how at times
Jews were fully integrated into society. One thing that was brought out that I
was not fully aware
of was that at least half of all Jews lived in Poland.
Although the boundaries were a bit different, that is I think a fact that is not
largely recognized.
We are, as you probably know, as you indicated
earlier, aware of and supporting, I introduced a piece of legislation that would
authorize $5 million from the U.S. government, because we have not, to the
best of my knowledge, provided any seed capital to that
operation. It is
over a $60 million enterprise, and it seems to me that we should be out there
providing some tangible assistance. I
know individual Jews and Jewish
organizations and people who care about this issue have been donors, but it is
time we did this as well.
One-thousand years of history needs to be brought
to the fore, and that might have some mitigating impact on the anti-Semites
that are out there, especially as young people, college and high school
students, trek through it and learn. It could enhance the
educational
efforts as well and become an additional resource for education.
Your
thoughts?
BAKER: Again, I really commend you for introducing this. I hope
it is successful. Teaching about history, by the way, is also
teaching
about history. We may hope it will combat anti-Semitism or intolerance, but
people I think have an interest and an obligation
in knowing their past. I
can recall that at one of the human dimension meetings in Warsaw in the Victoria
Hotel, walking into the gift
shop and you could find for sale in the gift
shop the kind of folk item you find sometimes on the streets of Poland. It is a
carved
image of a Jew, in this case with very pronounced, sort of
stereotypical features, and stuffed in his pockets and in his hands are
coins. So this really horrible stereotypical image is part of, dare I say, the
Polish folk tradition. There I was, as people are
gathered for this human
dimension meeting of the OSCE, sitting a few feet away on a gift shop's shelf.
I think starting first with Poland today, there has come about a recognition
that Polish history is also Jewish history; that
the most significant period
in the history of the Jewish community from really medieval until the early part
of the 20th century was
largely lived out in Poland. As we know, tragically
over three million Jews died in the Holocaust.
So the museum of the
history of the Jews of Poland that your measure would support is in the first
instance completing the story
of the history of Poland. I think for those
in the Jewish world who were supportive of this from the beginning, one of the
key
questions was to what extent the Polish government would embrace this.
It is not just that the majority of American Jews trace their
own ancestry
to Poland. It is not just that we know that this is the root for many of us, of
our culture, of our traditions, of our
customs, of the food we eat, the
music that is part of our religious liturgy and the like, but it was an integral
part of what was the
history of Poland.
I think it was only recently,
only in the last couple of years, that the Polish government, the then-mayor of
Warsaw and now the
new president of Poland, Lech Kaczynski, embraced this
saying this is something we need to teach our own Polish kids about, and provide
not just space to build a museum, but clear and significant financial
support to make it a reality.
As you said, it is going to describe the life
of Polish Jewry. There are, tragically, too many places on the territory of
Poland where Jews in enormous number were murdered by the Germans in death camps
and concentration camps, that have museums that tell
the story of that era.
This really will present I think not only of course in the first instance to
Poles, to Polish students, but to
the many people that increasingly are
visiting Warsaw as it is an attractive new capital in Europe. It will provide
them with a special
picture of this.
As you in your introduction to the
bill indicate, it is also a reflection on the history that many Americans hold
as part of
their own cultural past.
SMITH: I do have one final
question. Reference was made earlier in one of the questions about the
Internet. I recently held a
hearing on legislation I have introduced called
the "Global Online Freedom Act of 2006." It would set up an office that would
look at
Internet-restricting countries like China, like Belarus, Uzbekistan,
Ethiopia. There are a number of them.
In preparing for that hearing, I
immersed myself in a lot of things. I read a book called "IBM and the
Holocaust." In
painstaking detail, the author lays out with a lot of heavy
footnotes how IBM Germany and IBM US really helped and enabled the Gestapo
to find Jews whenever they wanted to find Jews, which was virtually everywhere.
As he points out even in the opening, did you ever
wonder why the SS man
always had a list? Where did the list come from? It was a very disturbing
read. But then when we heard from
Cisco, Google, Microsoft, and well there
was another one, all of the representatives were pretty much saying, well, we
are in China and
we are doing this or doing that, not realizing that they
are enabling dictatorships, the secret police, find individuals, but they are
also amplifying the propaganda on the part of, for instance, if you go to
Google.CN, the Chinese search engine, you get sent to the
disinformation
sites of the government. You don't get information that is credible or reliable
or free.
My question is since that technology does exist to screen our
virulent hatred or screen out democracy messages, as the Chinese
government
does, why are we so unsuccessful? I know the First Amendment here is powerful,
but it is not absolute. Incitement to hatred
and to violence certainly is
not protected speech. Obscenity is not protected speech. I wonder why we have
not been more effective
here, and why Europe has not been more effective in
taking what Cisco and the others can provide and using it for good to weed out
the
hate-mongers among us? They have it.
I was amazed myself just
going through how capable these companies really are, and it seems to me using
it for good would be,
you know, we have to be careful about freedom, but it
seems to me that there is a line and I think we are nowhere near it right now,
certainly not here in the United States.
BURDETT: I would just say, you
know, obviously we as Americans would never want to regulate speech over the
Internet or
anywhere else, but we have had positive experiences.
Technology, the same way, you know, using an IBM computer to gather names and
addresses of Jews and put them on a file challenged someone to make a moral
decision, who made the wrong decision. The Internet
challenges us and
challenges kids to get the right information.
We have had good experiences
in working with providers. I am sure you have as well, and getting them to put
either in their
terms of service agreements and take responsibility for
warning people about how their products are meant to be used, whether it is hate
video games or extremists using their Web sites. We work with an
international coalition of NGOs called the International Network
Against
Cyber-Hate. It is NGOs in Poland and France and the Netherlands who are here
working together as a global community because
that is what the Internet is.
I think the bottom line, and we have all kinds of guides for families,
parents, go on the Internet with your kids, there is no
better filter than
the educated knowledge of a child who has sat in front of a computer with their
mom and dad. So it is just an
ongoing education effort, and working with
providers to help them do the right thing.
GEFT: Many of the countries of
Europe actually do have laws that do not allow this, and so these hate groups
are posting their
sites on U.S. service, and First Amendment issues allow
that.
I agree that our task is really to amplify voices of hope and use the
Internet for its better uses, at least as masterfully as
the haters are
using it and manipulating it to their own purpose. Part of the purpose of our
products every year is to unmask and
expose the pernicious nature of the
sites, which one would never guess very often are so dangerous because they are
presented with the
appearance of authentic scholarship and very, very
convincing material, to bring in young children with all kinds of games, to
attract
other people.
It is not only in the area of Holocaust-denial or
anti-Semitism, but they will take historical sites like MLK.org and present
sites which every child might innocently go to for a history project, only to
discover two or three pages in that it is a vicious attack
on the Reverend
Martin Luther King.
I believe that much more does need to be done in this,
but regulating speech is not attractive to anyone in the United States.
BAKER: You know, I think you do it in a very challenging way. It is an obvious
dilemma, but clearly a problem. If you visit
the Holocaust Museum, you see
one of those early card-sorting IBM machines, and now the new Memorial de la
Shoah in Paris in the first
room you see this orderly set of shelves with
the card files that were used to gather all of the Jews in Paris which led to
the
deportation and death of over 70,000 of them. So we do see how
technology was used.
I think when you contrast what you see in China for
example, where these search engine companies are able to design their
product so effectively, politically challenging sites do not appear, as we heard
and read about, in order to be able to secure the
support of the government
and enter the Chinese market. As you say, they know very well how to filter out
things that are undesirable,
while directing users to other places.
As
my colleagues have said, in Europe there is precisely that interest, but one
would say for the purpose of filtering out the
hate-mongers on the Internet
and directing people to what they had initially intended to seek, particularly
where there would be
surreptitious ways to move them about. But in both
cases, I think you can see how the purveyors of the Internet are able to work.
It
isn't necessarily always a matter of what laws prohibit in doing this,
but it is how they can adapt.
So I think you need to use, and perhaps
through the legislation it will do this, the authority here to try to direct
these
companies to work in that way, that advances clearly an openness and
freedom, particularly in those countries that don't have this,
while at the
same time be mindful of how they can be challenged to control the kinds of
things on the Internet that we have heard
described here.
SMITH: Thank
you.
Anybody else?
Thank you so much. I look forward to working with
you going forward.
[Whereupon the briefing ended at 4:44 p.m.]
END
|