Who is al sacharov

The Washington hearing was well, though not entirely transparently, funded. The Smith Richardson Foundation, however, did not want its support disclosed. The problem was not new, and it proved to be a recurrent one for the Sakharov Hearings. The committee held its first meeting in October The driving force was Thorne, who was the only one working full-time preparing the hearing. The hearing was to have three themes. However, getting European trade unions to participate proved challenging.

Thanks to Brown, two Italian trade unions, the Unione Italiana del Lavoro and the Confederazione Italiana Sindacati Lavoratori, pledged to send one representative each, and Thorne asked the Danes to convince other European trade unions to support and participate in the Washington hearing.

In the end, however, no prominent European trade unionist showed up. Nielsen also wrote to Shanker, flatly refusing any participation unless the ICFTU was involved in the preparation of the hearing, something Thorne ruled out. A basic problem seems to have been a perception among some West European trade unions that the Washington hearing was primarily an ideological anti-Communist operation. Just as in Denmark, the organizers believed that a parliamentary venue would heighten the hearing's visibility, send a positive signal to those in the Soviet Union longing for Western support, and possibly have some kind of political impact.

Moynihan and Howard Baker to act as sponsors and allow for the meeting to take place in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. While this was important, it was less unusual and therefore also less publicity-generating than was holding the first Sakharov Hearing at Christiansborg.

Moreover, the Carter administration denied the hearing official U. The Washington hearing was nevertheless an important human rights event. As in Rome, messages were sent from Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn, the latter read by the writer's wife, Natalia Solzhenitsyn.

Chalidze delivered an opening speech. Moreover, the event provided an important meeting place for numerous prominent Soviet-bloc exiles. Moreover, by some degree of weariness may have kicked in.

Human rights violations in the Soviet bloc were no longer big news four years after the Helsinki Final Act and three years after President Jimmy Carter had pledged to put human rights at the center of U. Nevertheless, Freedom House seems to have judged the event a success. A few months after the Washington hearing, on 22 January , Sakharov was deported to the closed city of Gorky, where he, at least in principle, could no longer communicate with the outside world. In reaction to this, Karatnycky and others involved in the Sakharov Hearings launched the Andrei Sakharov Defense campaign, which, among other efforts, tried to enlist Democratic and Republican support during the run-up to the U.

The goal was to launch a worldwide campaign for Sakharov's release. The Lisbon hearing, held amid resurgent Cold War tensions, took place in a country in which the Communist Party and the Portuguese Socialist Party PSP had recently engaged in a major ideological battle. This dual context no doubt contributed to the strong politicization of the hearing. Initially, the fourth hearing was supposed to take place in Amsterdam in September Wiesenthal had suggested, and Yankelevich had accepted, that Ivo Samkalden, former Social Democratic PvdA mayor of Amsterdam, would be in charge of its organization, with Wiesenthal in a key supportive role.

Sakharov had been consulted, and he had requested that education be one of the hearing's themes. Nevertheless, after several further delays, the hearing eventually materialized in Lisbon on 12—14 October , at the Ritz Hotel. Why was Lisbon chosen for the fourth hearing? The answer is not obvious.

The presence of a relatively potent Stalinist Communist Party and a strong anti-Communism energized by the experience of the Carnation Revolution and its aftermath in — created a favorable context. The organizer, Pereira, was a lawyer, a human rights expert, and a politician. Though he had no prior significant involvement in Soviet-bloc matters, he had numerous international, especially U.

Shestack, who participated in both the Washington and the Lisbon hearings. The two lawyers were friends and members of two of the hearing's sponsors: the International Commission of Jurists ICJ; Pereira was the founder and president of the Portuguese section and the International League of Human Rights Shestack was the long-serving president, Pereira a board member.

Both men were also politically active. A Democrat, Shestack had been the U. Corti, Lyubarsky, and Dewhirst had all been involved in at least one Sakharov Hearing, and they all had extensive knowledge of the dissident milieu Dewhirst had smuggled texts for the NTS in the early s and later cooperated with Radio Liberty.

Decisions were made during meetings in Geneva or discussed via correspondence. As usual, funding was a challenge. Corti tried to convince Berlusconi to contribute again, and Pereira was in touch with various U. The latter, however, had to cancel his participation because of a schedule conflict.

Their aim was to highlight the gap between ideology and reality in the Communist countries, thus undermining the attractiveness of the Soviet model among left-wingers. The international roster—and Glucksmann's participation especially—contributed to securing broad coverage of the hearing in the Portuguese media. The Lisbon hearing was the most unapologetically political of the five Sakharov Hearings.

It was organized by a prominent member of the PSD and postponed several times because of local political developments. Blunt statements were made during the hearing.

Instead, the parliamentary majority voted in support of the hearing. The fifth hearing was held in the London Press Center on 10—11 April Yankelevich was heavily involved in the choice of London as venue.

In February , when he and Dewhirst discussed plans for a fifth hearing, they agreed that they should ask Allan Wynn to join them.

Wynn, an Australian physician who had moved to London in , was a veteran among Western supporters of Soviet-bloc dissidents. Inspired by Rosemary Winckley and Markham, he had, from onward, been increasingly involved in supporting Soviet-bloc dissidents such as Bukovsky, Ginzburg, and Piotr Grigorenko.

In , he succeed Reddaway as chairman of the Working Group on Internment of Dissenters in Mental Hospitals, and the following year he became a member of the board of Edward Lozansky's U. Wynn's focus was on human rights. He feared the potential political impact of the hearing. Thus, in part to prevent an undesirable outcome, Wynn accepted responsibility for the hearing. He asked Dewhirst to be in charge of the practical preparations, and an executive committee comprising Dewhirst, Reddaway, and Michael Scammell was established.

The London hearing thus assembled a group of exceptionally knowledgeable people, with Wynn and Dewhirst as the driving forces. What made the hearing possible at all was the early securing of substantial U. Helsinki Commission. Wiesenthal agreed to chair the hearing's panel.

Against Yankelevich's wishes, Wynn and Dewhirst opted for a shortened, two- rather than three-day conference. The organizers tried to elicit a statement of support from British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, but this effort was unsuccessful. The London hearing brought together many prominent figures: seasoned Sakharov Hearings participants, policymakers e. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe , and leaders of non-governmental organizations e.

Whereas ambitions to have a domestic impact may have been paramount in Copenhagen and possibly also in Lisbon, the fifth hearing, to a greater extent than any of the others, sought to affect the CSCE process.

The London hearing was scheduled for just before the beginning of the CSCE follow-up conference in Ottawa in order to maximize its chances of having an impact on the latter's proceedings. The idea was to evaluate the degree to which the Soviet Union had lived up to the commitments entered into in Human rights, both in general and always with some carefully chosen specific cases, are now automatically raised by UK representatives every time they meet with any Soviet officials.

Wynn and I feel that we have made, and will continue to make, a worthwhile input here. Each component of this characterization, however, must be qualified or at least explained.

No single secretariat was in charge of all the hearings, and it is difficult even now to determine who was really in charge of each individual hearing. One scholar, Arthur Blaser, has argued that participants in the Sakharov Hearings leaned to the right.

The first hearing was organized by rightwing anti-Communists whose primary concern was to wage a domestic political battle against the left.

For the remaining hearings, however, the story is more complicated. Russia Christiana had a rightwing reputation, reinforced by its links with Comunione e Liberazione. The organizers of the London hearing subscribed to the view that socioeconomic rights did not qualify as human rights, but they do not otherwise appear to have had a strongly party-political affiliation, though Wynn disapproved of what he saw as extremist right-wing views.

The only high-profile policymaker among the London speakers was Abrams, assistant secretary for human rights in the Reagan administration, and he was not particularly popular among human rights activists. From the outset, the organizers of Sakharov Hearings made an effort to obtain sponsors and participants from the non-Communist left and occasionally even from among Eurocommunists. The Copenhagen group was so satisfied with Social Democrat Ole Espersen's role during the first hearing that they ensured, despite their disagreements with him, that he was one of a few Danes to serve on the panel for the Rome hearing, with his trip and stay fully covered.

For both the second and the fourth hearings, a Social Democratic executive director was considered as an option Lie and Ivo Samkalden respectively , and a Socialist, Soares, was the Lisbon hearing's honorary president, final keynote speaker, and host of a dinner for the participants. These generally moderate left-of-center participants did not always limit themselves to just putting in an appearance. They sometimes intervened and helped shape the hearings. Even though the Copenhagen hearing was organized by right-wing anti-Communists with a domestic political agenda, many key subsequent organizers appear to have been primarily and genuinely preoccupied with human rights issues rather than with any kind of party politics.

The hearings did not lend themselves to easy or simplistic political categorization. All the hearings had a dual nature. Each was steeped in a particular setting, had unique features reflecting its national, political, cultural, and temporal context, as well as more contingent or agency-related characteristics connected to the specific group of organizers. Organized by non-state actors, the hearings took place in five different capitals. Each hearing involved organizers, sponsors, multiple categories of participants e.

Moreover, the hearings were all part of a single transnational process. There was also a basic continuity between the hearings. They shared not just the name but also concepts and organization, the human rights theme, and several individuals, networks, and milieux.

The International Sakharov Committee the Copenhagen committee , Wiesenthal, and the Sakharov family were involved in all five hearings. The Sakharov family Bonner, Sakharov, and Yankelevich played key roles in deciding the location and giving the go-ahead to each of the gatherings. Several additional individuals played a role in most or all of the hearings: Corti, Thorne, Dewhirst, Bourdeaux, Gerstenmaier, Lyubarsky, and Reddaway.

Among the recurring networks and milieux were the Bible-smuggling community Keston College, the Danish Europe Mission, and other Scandinavian Bible-smuggling groups, Russia Cristiana, etc. One means of signaling continuity was for the organizers of previous hearings to be given the opportunity to address all the participants at the opening of the next hearing.

The many links between those involved in the Sakharov Hearings obeyed different and often overlapping logics. In some cases, the links were professional or expertise-based. Reddaway was a professor at the LSE, Dewhirst was a lecturer at Glasgow University, and both were experts on Soviet politics—as academics and as activists. Although Corti was not an academic scholar, he too became an expert on the Soviet Union.

The International Sakharov Hearings provided a transnational public sphere in which conflicts were waged. Human rights activists who preferred to focus on civil and political rights were at odds with those who believed that socioeconomic rights were also human rights and were therefore topics relevant for the Sakharov Hearings. But did the International Sakharov Hearings represent a transnational turn?

Transnationalism was not new. Yet, the hearings did represent a transnational turn insofar as they led to a deepening and broadening of international contacts before, during, and after each hearing.

Where did this turn lead? The tempting conclusion is … nowhere. In the five countries that hosted the Sakharov Hearings, hardly any visible legacy or memory of them remains.

Such a stark judgment, however, may give short shrift to their actual impact. The available evidence suggests that the International Sakharov Hearings did matter at the time they took place. Before concluding that the hearings had no long-term impact, more thorough studies will be needed on the effects of the hearings in the host countries. In principle, many kinds of impact are conceivable.

In Denmark the first hearing has been used in memory wars concerning the Cold War. In the United States the third hearing probably influenced the subsequent development of Freedom House and, especially, its focus on Afghanistan and the Soviet bloc. All of the hearings—especially the last two—involved a dialogue between non-state actors and policymakers, the impact of which we know too little about. These are some of the issues that deserve further investigation.

To what extent were the hearings not just about human rights in the Soviet bloc but about domestic politics in the countries where the hearings were held? Disentangling the instrumental from the genuine is often difficult, or even impossible.

Ostensibly, the hearings were about human rights violations in the Soviet bloc. The organizers often stressed that the sessions were not about anti-Communism, anti-Sovietism, or domestic politics. However, domestic politics played a significant role in Denmark and Portugal and was not absent in Italy. In the Danish case, regardless of the official human rights discourse, domestic anti-Communism still appeared to be a driving motive for the organizers. In Portugal, keynote speakers decried Communism as a totalitarian threat to democracy, and the hearing was hotly debated in the Portuguese parliament.

On the margins, the Washington hearing may have fueled polemics about the substance of the Carter administration's human rights policy, but domestic political instrumentalization of the hearing appears to have been insignificant.

That seems even more obvious for the London hearing. The hearings were instigated and organized by non-state actors and may be understood as a case of grassroots activism. Although some indications of possible U. Whether the United States acted as a facilitator of events that would otherwise not have materialized cannot be determined on the basis of currently available sources.

Sometimes their endeavors in this regard were successful, as in and, possibly and more significantly if true , in the case of the London hearing. He gave the green light to hold the hearings and occasionally provided more substantial input suggesting some themes, advising against others. Until he was deported to Gorky in January , he sent a message to each hearing. He was, moreover, involved through his wife, Bonner, who tried to co-organize the first hearing and, with much more success, helped shape the second hearing.

He also acted through Yankelevich, his representative in the West from onward, who had a say in major decisions, particularly the choice of host country. All subsequent hearings concluded with initiatives aimed at easing Sakharov's situation. That the hearings achieved such longevity and managed to involve so many prominent exiles and Western dissident-supporters likely had much to do with the chosen name, which provided both a good cause and a prestigious patronage.

The hearings did not make Sakharov famous—he already was. But they helped to enhance international interest in him and the wider dissident community and to keep pressure on the Soviet regime, particularly in the s, when Sakharov became a major bone of contention in the West's relationship with Moscow. However, Sakharov's name was not uncontroversial. Communists campaigned against him.

In particular, they used his letter to Augusto Pinochet in an attempt to discredit him as an admirer of the Chilean dictator. What is striking is how coveted his name was. Many human rights groups took up his cause, especially after January Some made Sakharov a major focus of their activities and signaled this by naming themselves after him.

Other actors purported to defend Sakharov too. In most cases this was unproblematic because they did not pretend to speak in his name. However, some uses of Sakharov's name, then and later, caused tensions. The hearings all referred to the Helsinki Final Act and largely focused on documenting the failure of the Soviet Union to live up to the commitments laid out in that document.

Although the hearings were not part of the official monitoring process initiated with the Helsinki Final Act, the organizers saw them as a non-state contribution to that process. The first hearing set out to investigate whether the Soviet Union was living up to its commitments and concluded that this seemed doubtful. At the second hearing such doubt was cast away in favor of an unambiguously negative assessment.

The fifth meeting asked whether it made sense to pursue the process further. While some within this milieux leaned rightward, others seem to have been political moderates or just not that easy to label politically.

Despite the murky Danish origins and chaotic beginning of the hearings, they managed to broaden their political appeal and to gain respectability, legitimacy, and even access to influential political actors at both state and non-state levels. These achievements were attributable mainly to a small number of fiery souls, but they could not have succeeded without a permissive environment, several preexisting networks anti-Communists, Bible smugglers, human rights activists, Soviet-bloc exiles , the support of some less-visible actors, and Sakharov's sponsorship.

The hearings seem to have had an impact at many levels. They are among numerous endeavors during the later stages of the Cold War that sought to put a spotlight on human rights violations in the Soviet bloc.

However, the Sakharov Hearings stand out for their persistence, diversity, and, occasionally, the weight of their actors and contributors; their dogged and sometimes successful attempts to join forces with politically influential actors; and their contribution to putting Sakharov and other persecuted dissidents high on the East-West political agenda.

Beyond their possible impact on overall East-West relations, they seem to have had an impact in several host countries, notably on Freedom House in the United States and on memory politics in Denmark. The International Sakharov Hearings thus illustrate how a transnational process can unfold as a set of extremely diverse events, depending, among other things, on the national context.

The International Sakharov Hearings have been undeservedly overlooked in the scholarly literature, and they ought to be taken into consideration when discussing the Helsinki process. Carli University, Rome, 25—26 May , where it benefited from comments by the discussant, Federico Romero. Many of the Kline Papers used for this article were donated to Kline by Dewhirst. The organizational set-up and denominations executive committee, organizing committee, panel, executive director, chairman, president, honorary committee, advisory board, etc.

Andrei Sakharov et al. Knopf, , p. See for example: Valentine Lomellini, L'appuntamento mancato: La sinistra italiana e il dissenso nei regimi communisti — Milan: Mondadori, , p. In Italy, the Sakharov hearings have belatedly found a posthumous political use. Erik Dissing's papers have vanished except for his agendas for — and Agendas for the two years relevant to the Copenhagen hearing, and , are missing.

Initially, there were perhaps ten; by there were six. Feldsted Andresen had been close to the prominent Social Democrat Urban Hansen since , the very year Hansen founded the social democratic Arbejdernes Informationscentral, an anti-Communist propaganda and intelligence center. Among Feldsted Andresen's international contacts in the s was the French former Socialist turned far-right anti-Communist activist Suzanne Labin, with whom Feldsted Andresen worked closely.

The nature of Feldsted Andresen's political activities prior to remains unclear. Feldsted Andresen allegedly maintained a friendly relationship with the Chilean embassy after Bernard Gilland, interview, Copenhagen, 6 August Dissing was one of the Conservative Youth's two full-time employees. He was excluded because he was deemed too extreme. Thesis, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, , pp. Milinkievitch il Presidente gli risponde che i problemi cui si fa riferimento sono legati alle manifestazioni del personale ausiliario del Parlamento.

From Alexeyeva , an organisation promoting fundamental rights in the States of the former Soviet Union. The first series of activities relating to key legislative debates were organised 35 in. It is therefore also ridiculous that the Cuban regime should still not be allowing some of. This Parliament puts its commitment to human rights. Il Parlamento mette in pratica il proprio impegno per i diritti. As we have all seen today, with the. Come abbiamo tutti visto oggi, con il nuovo.

Oggi, di fronte alla fiducia dell'Unione europea, i cui. The President also highlighted the unacceptable intimidation of human rights activists, journalists and bloggers in Egypt one. Il Presidente sottolinea inoltre le inaccettabili intimidazioni cui sono esposti i militanti per i diritti umani, giornalisti e blogger in Egitto un anno dopo.

Among all the organised. Tra tutti gli eventi organizzati. Does the Council share the view that, particularly following the. UN takes an initiative to enable the Jewish people, who had to emigrate from Europe because they were threatened with annihilation, to live in peace and to enable the Palestinian people, who have the right to a State, to live in peace.

Current searches: semplificando , visitors , engineering , mock , frittata , pique , carismatiche , semi , bruchi , fix by , cavi , beaker , fibrosa , dry glass , mucosa.

Most frequent English dictionary requests: , -1k , -2k , -3k , -4k , -5k , -7k , k , k , k , k , k , k , k Most frequent Italian dictionary requests: , -1k , -2k , -3k , -4k , -5k , -7k , k , k , k , k , k , k , k. Please click on the reason for your vote: This is not a good example for the translation above. The wrong words are highlighted. It does not match my search. Anopheles machardyi Edwards, Anopheles maculatus Theobald, Anopheles maculipalpis Giles, Anopheles maculipennis Meigen, Anopheles maculipes Theobald, Anopheles manalangi Mendoza, Anopheles mangyanus Banks, Anopheles marshallii Theobald, Anopheles martinius Shingarev, Anopheles mascarensis De Meillon, Anopheles maverlius Reinert, Anopheles medialis Harbach, Anopheles mediopunctatus Lutz, Anopheles melanoon Hackett, Anopheles melas Theobald, Anopheles menglangensis Ma, Anopheles meraukensis Venhuis, Anopheles messeae Falleroni, Anopheles millecampsi Lips, Anopheles minimus Theobald, Anopheles minor da Costa Lima, Anopheles moghulensis Christophers, Anopheles mortiauxi Edwards, Anopheles moucheti Evans, Anopheles multicinctus Edwards, Anopheles multicolor Cambouliu, Anopheles namibiensis Coetzee, Anopheles nataliae Belkin, Anopheles neomaculipalpus Curry, Anopheles nigerrimus Giles, Anopheles nigritarsis Chagas, Anopheles nilgiricus Christophers, Anopheles nili Theobald, Anopheles nimbus Theobald, Anopheles nivipes Theobald, Anopheles njombiensis Peters, Anopheles noniae Reid, Anopheles notleyi van Someren, Anopheles novaguinensis Venhuis, Anopheles oiketorakras Osorno-Mesa, Anopheles omorii Sakakibara, Anopheles pallidus Theobald, Anopheles palmatus Rodenwaldt, Anopheles paludis Theobald, Anopheles papuensis Dobrotworsky, Anopheles parangensis Ludlow, Anopheles parapunctipennis Martini, Anopheles parensis Gillies, Anopheles parvus Chagas, Anopheles pattoni Christophers, Anopheles pauliani Grjebine, Anopheles peditaeniatus Leicester, Anopheles perplexens Ludlow, Anopheles petragnani Del Vecchio, Anopheles pharoensis Theobald, Anopheles philippinensis Ludlow, Anopheles pholidotus Zavortink, Anopheles pictipennis Philippi, Anopheles pinjaurensis Barraud, Anopheles pleccau Koidzumi, Anopheles plumbeus Stephens, Anopheles pollicaris Reid, Anopheles powderi Zavortink, Anopheles powelli Lee, Anopheles pretoriensis Theobald, Anopheles pseudobarbirostris Ludlow, Anopheles pseudomaculipes Chagas, Anopheles pseudopictus Grassi, Anopheles pseudopunctipennis Theobald, Anopheles pseudosinensis Baisas, Anopheles pseudostigmaticus Dobrotworsky, Anopheles pseudowillmori Theobald, Anopheles pujutensis Colless, Anopheles pulcherrimus Theobald, Anopheles pullus Yamada, Anopheles punctipennis Say, Anopheles pursati Laveran, Anopheles quadriannulatus Theobald, Anopheles quadrimaculatus Say, Anopheles radama De Meillon, Anopheles ranci Grjebine, Anopheles reidi Harrison, Anopheles rhodesiensis Theobald, Anopheles rivulorum Leeson, Anopheles roperi Reid, Anopheles roubaudi Grjebine, Anopheles ruarinus Edwards, Anopheles rufipes Gough, Anopheles samarensis Rozeboom, Anopheles saungi Colless, Anopheles schueffneri Stanton, Anopheles schwetzi Evans, Anopheles separatus Leicester, Anopheles sergentii Theobald, Anopheles seydeli Edwards, Anopheles shannoni Davis, Anopheles sinensis Wiedemann, Anopheles sineroides Yamada, Anopheles sintoni Puri, Anopheles sintonoides Ho, Anopheles smaragdinus Reinert, Anopheles smithii Theobald, Anopheles splendidus Koidzumi, Anopheles squamifemur Antunes, Anopheles squamosus Theobald, Anopheles stephensi Liston, Anopheles stigmaticus Skuse, Anopheles stookesi Colless, Anopheles stricklandi Reid, Anopheles strodei Root, Anopheles subpictus Grassi, Anopheles sulawesi Waktoedi Koesoemawinangoen, Anopheles sundaicus Rodenwaldt, Anopheles superpictus Grassi, Anopheles swahilicus Gillies, Anopheles symesi Edwards, Anopheles takasagoensis Morishita, Anopheles tasmaniensis Dobrotworsky, Anopheles tessellatus Theobald, Anopheles theileri Edwards, Anopheles theobaldi Giles, Anopheles thomasi Shannon, Anopheles tibiamaculatus Neiva, Anopheles torresiensis Schmidt, Anopheles trinkae Faran, Anopheles turkhudi Liston, Anopheles umbrosus Theobald, Anopheles vanus Walker, Anopheles varuna Iyengar, Anopheles veruslanei Vargas, Anopheles vinckei De Meillon, Anopheles walkeri Theobald, Anopheles walravensi Edwards, Anopheles watsonii Leicester, Anopheles wellcomei Theobald, Anopheles wellingtonianus Alcock, Anopheles whartoni Reid, Anopheles willmori James, Anopheles wilsoni Evans, Armigeres subalbatus Coquillett, Bironella confusa Bonne-Wepster, Bironella gracilis Theobald, Bironella hollandi Taylor, Bironella obscura Tenorio, Bironella simmondsi Tenerio, Bironella travestita Brug, Chagasia ablusa Harbach, Chagasia bathana Dyar, Chagasia bonneae Root, Chagasia fajardi Lutz, Coquillettidia perturbans Walker, Culex accelerans Root, Culex amazonensis Lutz, Culex annulirostris Skuse, Culex antennatus Becker, Culex axillicola Steffan, Culex bitaeniorhynchus Giles, Culex bougainvillensis Steffan, Culex browni Komp, Culex damascenoi Duret, Culex fuscocephala Theobald, Culex gelidus Theobald, Culex guyanensis Clastrier, Culex lineatus Theobald, Culex luteopleurus Theobald, Culex modestus Ficalbi, Culex nigripalpus Theobald, Culex obscurus Leicester, Culex pallidiceps Theobald, Culex perexiguus Theobald, Culex pipiens Linnaeus, Culex poicilipes Theobald, Culex pruina Theobald,